CHAIRPERSON: Morning everybody.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, we have four more matters on the roll. The next amnesty applicant is Mr Hayes.

JURIE BERNARDUS HAYES: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms van der Walt?

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Hayes, your amnesty application is in embodied in volume 1, from page 58 to 65. That would be the official application form. Then the incidents for which you apply for amnesty are in Annexure A, from page 65 to 69 and the political motivation, Annexure B, from page 70 to 77, is that correct?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you confirm the contents of the application?

MR HAYES: I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Hayes, during 1988, June, where were you stationed?

MR HAYES: I was stationed at Piet Retief Security Branch.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your Commander was Mr Freek Pienaar.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your rank?

MR HAYES: I'm not sure during the incident whether I was a Sergeant or a Warrant Officer. I was promoted in that time period, or notified thereof.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard the evidence of Mr de Kock, Mr Pienaar and Mr Deetlefs and the other persons, do you confirm their evidence where it has relevance to you?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: The first incident, the one which took place in June 1988, where the Toyota Corolla was involved, were you involved with the arrangements of this incident?

MR HAYES: I was just informed by Mr Pienaar and Mr de Kock as to what we would do.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you just received instructions?

MR HAYES: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when you received the instruction, the instruction was to go and kill these people?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know that the people would be lured into an ambush?

MR HAYES: Yes, I knew.

MS VAN DER WALT: During this incident, did you also fire shots?

MR HAYES: I did not shoot, I carried the light.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you know that four persons were killed, although your application does not mention it?

MR HAYES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the 2nd incident of the 12th of June, were you involved with the arrangements of that incident?

MR HAYES: It was once again under the same circumstances, Mr de Kock just gave me instructions what to do.

MS VAN DER WALT: Although you cannot recall whether you were a Sergeant or a Warrant Officer, what was your position at the Security Branch, were you a senior member or a junior member?

MR HAYES: At that stage I was the most junior member at the branch and if I recall correctly, I started about two months after Mr Barnard and at that stage I had just more than four years service in the Police Force.

MS VAN DER WALT: With the second incident, what were your duties?

MR HAYES: I was part of the group that would lay the ambush and I would fire shots at the vehicle with the other people, to kill the people.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you fire shots?

MR HAYES: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: And with the first incident, were you aware that a firearm and handgrenades were planted on the persons?

MR HAYES: If I recall correctly, Mr Pienaar informed me later that they had planted weapons and that we would present it as such.

MS VAN DER WALT: And with the second incident, do you know whether the persons were in possession of firearms which were in the minibus?

MR HAYES: All four the persons were armed with AK47 rifles, and if I recall correctly there were some extra magazines as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Hayes, you also made statements with regard to the post-mortem inquest, is that correct?

MR HAYES: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: If I may refer you to volume 5, Chairperson, from page 57 to page 59.

Is that the statement that you made?

MR HAYES: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: This was to Brigadier van Wyk?

MR HAYES: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And this statement has relevance to the second incident where the minibus was involved. In paragraph 2 on page 57, you mention that you received certain instructions from Maj Deetlefs. Is that the correct version?

MR HAYES: I received my instructions from Col de Kock.

MS VAN DER WALT: So in this statement you omitted Col de Kock's name, is that correct?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As it would also seem on page 58, paragraph 10, where you also say that Maj Deetlefs gave the cease fire instruction.

MR HAYES: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: That has to be Mr de Kock, is that correct?

MR HAYES: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then volume 3A, Chairperson, from page 7 to 9.

Is that also your statement?

MR HAYES: Yes, it is.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Hayes, I see on page 9 that the statement was only taken on the 10th of September 1990. Who took the statement from you?

MR HAYES: Brig Krappies Engelbrecht took the statement.

MS VAN DER WALT: That was after there were problems with the first inquest.

MR HAYES: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: In this statement, if you look at page 7, paragraph 4, you mention a police vehicle that stood next to the road, that is wrong is it not?

MR HAYES: No, there was no vehicle.

MS VAN DER WALT: And also in paragraph 5 you mention a blue police flashlight.

MR HAYES: That is correct, because there was no vehicle, then there would be no light.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in paragraph 6, where you say that Mr Pienaar had a flashlight in his hand to indicate to the people to stop. That is also wrong.

MR HAYES: Yes, that is incorrect.

MS VAN DER WALT: On page 8, paragraph 8, you have a version that on this particular that you fell to the ground and that you did not fire shots, is that correct?

MR HAYES: I did not fall down there. As has been said previously by Mr de Kock I think, I carried the searchlight which was connected to the battery, during the incident.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why then did you state this untruth here that you had fallen and you not mention that you had manned this searchlight?

MR HAYES: As far as I recall, Brig Engelbrecht came to me and told me Col de Kock had given evidence in the post-mortem inquest that there was no light and I was placed at the scene by everybody and along with Brig Krappies, we thought up this story that I had fallen, to concur with the evidence of Col de Kock and the rest of the people.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then in paragraph 11 on page 8, you mention that you had later heard that a Makarov pistol, shells and handgrenades were found with the deceased. That is also not correct?

MR HAYES: That's correct, Chairperson, that is also not true.

ADV GCABASHE: I'm sorry, Ms van der Walt, I just missed one little bit here. You said who told you that Mr de Kock had given slightly difference evidence previously?

MR HAYES: Brig Engelbrecht, if I recall.

ADV GCABASHE: Brig Engelbrecht said that to you. And he then said that your evidence should concur with what Mr de Kock had already stated?

MR HAYES: Along with the other evidence.

ADV GCABASHE: So he knew it was a falsehood, it wasn't true?

MR HAYES: I assume so, yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Hayes, you apply for amnesty in respect of the murder of the persons in both instances, is that correct?

MR HAYES: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as any other delict which might flow from there?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You also apply for amnesty for perjury and defeating the ends of justice?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: As well as any other unlawful deed which might emanate from there?

MR HAYES: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Hayes, why did you participate in these two events?

MR HAYES: During my time, in that short time that I was at Piet Retief at that stage, it was known to me and we did everything in our power to stop infiltrations of ANC members to the RSA, and at that moment I felt that the ANC was winning this war against the Security Forces and I saw it as part of my duties to stop them in any possible way.

And the conventional methods which were prescribed by law was no longer successful and it was very difficult and I thought that we were approaching a war situation which was just about the same as it was in South West.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also acted under instructions, is that correct?

MR HAYES: That's correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you receive any personal reward from these two events?

MR HAYES: Not at all.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Hayes, your period of service in the police, before you arrived at Security Branch, did you know that this country was embroiled in a struggle against the ANC, who wanted to take the country over by violence?

MR HAYES: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were aware that politicians and several other high-placed officials had regularly at functions and where meetings were held, propagated that the ANC be stopped at all costs, wherever you might find them.

MR HAYES: That is correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And where you were stationed, you were a handful of people in Piet Retief, as it has been put by a previous witness, and that there was a high intensity of infiltrations and the onslaught on the country from out of Swaziland to Piet Retief and surroundings?

MR HAYES: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you had to combat that onslaught?

MR HAYES: That is correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, just a couple.

Mr Hayes, your statement in bundle 5, the death inquest of the second incident, I note that according to the statement it's the 22nd of June, the statement was made on the 22nd of June. Where were you stationed at that stage?

MR HAYES: I was on an officer's course during the taken of that statement.

MR LAMEY: In Pretoria?

MR HAYES: That's correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Do you have a recollection how it happened that the statement was taken specifically? Was it typed already when you signed it or how did it work?

MR HAYES: While I was there, Brig van Wyk spoke to me one evening and he had been to Piet Retief already after the investigation had handed over - I did not know that the investigation had been handed over, and he brought the statement to me and I signed it.

MR LAMEY: Was it already typed?

MR HAYES: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: When you signed it?

MR HAYES: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: I see that Mr Flores and Mr Nortje and your statements were signed on the same day. Do you know whether they were there?

MR HAYES: I don't know. They weren't with me, so I don't know where they were.

MR LAMEY: Another aspect. In your statement you mention that the person - or that the left-hand front door had opened and a person with an AK47 had jumped out and started firing. What do you mean by "he jumped out"?

MR HAYES: When I ran closer - because my instruction was to be on the far right wing of the vehicle to cover that area, in other words at the end of the day I ended up on the other lane on the other side, on the right-hand side, but because the vehicle was parked at a slant it took me longer to get to the vehicle and during that time the person, as I saw it, the door had opened and he had jumped out and shots were fired and I assume that he was firing on us from the kombi.

MR LAMEY: So it a deduction you had made?

MR HAYES: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Did you see him jump out and land with his feet on the ground or do you not know specifically?

MR HAYES: I think so, yes.

MR LAMEY: Are you not certain?

MR HAYES: I'm not certain.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Moerane, do you have any questions you'd like to ask? Sorry, we're just arranging an earphone. Yes, Mr Moerane, when you're ready.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you, Chairman.

Mr Hayes, what you are telling this Honourable Committee is that you committed a murder on the 8th of June 1988.

MR HAYES: I was part of a group who committed murder. Although I did not fire shots, I associated myself with the act.

MR MOERANE: Yes, the intention was to murder these people.

MR HAYES: To kill them, yes.

MR MOERANE: And immediately after they had been shot, you realised that they had not been armed.

MR HAYES: That's correct, yes.

MR MOERANE: And there was a discussion on the scene, in your presence, as to what steps should be taken now that these people were not armed.

MR HAYES: If I recall correctly, Mr Pienaar and Mr de Kock had discussions. I did not physically hear what they said, but there was a discussion with regard to the absence of weapons.

MR MOERANE: Yes. And you knew that a plan was going to made with regard to that matter.

MR HAYES: That's correct, yes.

MR MOERANE: And the plan obviously was to plant weapons, that's firearms or a firearm and explosives, on these people.

MR HAYES: That is what happened ultimately.

MR MOERANE: And you were aware of that that very night.

MR HAYES: I did not see the physical plan because at a stage I withdrew with the light. However, it was said to me that they had planted the weapons.

MR MOERANE: Yes. Then four days later you took part in a similar ambush.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Which intention was to murder the people who would come.

MR HAYES: Once again we went out to kill them.

MR MOERANE: And you did murder them.

MR HAYES: Yes, they were shot dead.

MR MOERANE: Not only shot dead, but murdered. In other words, unlawfully killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Unlawfully and intentionally killed.

MR MOERANE: That is so. Is that correct?

MR HAYES: We acted against the laws of the country on that day.

MR MOERANE: Yes, at that time and even now. Then you took part in a massive cover-up, not so?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Which involved making false statements.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And this was done in conjunction and with the co-operation of the investigating officers.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Those being W/O Pienaar, to begin with, Brig van Wyk and Brig Engelbrecht, Krappies Engelbrecht.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And the next step was to commit a fraud on the judicial process, by giving this perjured and false evidence before firstly, the first inquest.

MR HAYES: That's correct, I gave evidence during the first inquest.

MR MOERANE: And notwithstanding all the attempts by the legal representatives of the deceased to get you to tell the truth, you all stuck to your lies.

MR HAYES: That's correct. If we had not done that, as I regard it the ANC would have won, with regard to the incident. We had to do that, it was part of the struggle.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but you see you were a member of the Police Force at that time, not so?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And your duty and your function was to uphold the law.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And to protect human beings and their property.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And as part of upholding the law, your duty was to investigate crime.

MR HAYES: That's correct, but the Security Branch had a special wing of crime investigation, we had to focus on the maintenance of internal security. Therefore, we didn't focus on regular crime.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but your duty was to investigate those special crimes with which you were involved. In other words, terrorism, sabotage, activities of the then unlawful organisations.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And bring the perpetrators of those crimes to book.

MR HAYES: Yes, we did bring some of those people to book.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and that's what you should have done.

MR HAYES: With regard to this incident, as I have already explained, I did know that there were certain actions which we would have to launch. We were not within the parameters of the law because we were in a state of warfare and we were trying to combat an armed force with laws which weren't working. We had to go into a warfare situation where we entered into combat with each other.

MR MOERANE: Who told you that?

MR HAYES: That was my own perception which I formulated from the discussions which I had with persons such as Mr de Kock and many senior security officials. Also it was due to the propaganda which the government presented.

MR MOERANE: Well, from the propaganda that the politicians sent out, did they say that you should do unlawful things, illegal things?

MR HAYES: It was never put to us pertinently.

MR MOERANE: In fact, throughout this period your political bosses always praised the Police Force for acting properly, not so?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And people who had been involved in activities such as those you have described, were rewarded by being decorated, given medals, being promoted, not so?

MR HAYES: People such as Vlakplaas members were regarded as heroes by me and the Security Branch and I assumed that from time to time they were involved in such similar operations and this indicated to me that it was indeed acceptable for the country at that stage.

MR MOERANE: When did you start being involved in these illegal activities in your fight against the ANC?

MR HAYES: This was my first incident.

MR MOERANE: June 1988?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: But if I understand your evidence correctly, by then you had already formed the idea and held the beliefs that it was proper to use illegal and unlawful methods in fighting the ANC?

MR HAYES: I foresaw that at a stage we would have to enter into a situation of war.

MR MOERANE: And those immediately above you, your immediate superiors, did they tell you that you could use unlawful methods in this fight?

MR HAYES: With the exception of this incident, I never received a direct order. I collected information and fed it back and if an operation was planned, it would usually be done in conjunction with Mr Pienaar or other senior officials, as was the case in this matter.

MR MOERANE: Well before this incident, did anyone of them, Mr Pienaar or any of your superiors, tell you that it was proper to use unlawful methods in the fight against the ANC?

MR HAYES: It is possible that we may have had a regular discussion or conversation about that, but before this incident that I was involved in I never received a direct order that we were going to engage in such an operation.

MR MOERANE: Did anyone tell you that it was proper and acceptable to kill unarmed persons?

MR HAYES: At the time of the planning of this action, or these two actions, I was thoroughly convinced that they would be armed. That was the perception that I had of persons who were crossing the border and the limited level of experience that I had about ANC infiltrators is that they would enter the country with arms, and I reconciled myself with that because according to that little knowledge that I have, I felt that this was the safest method.

MR MOERANE: Did anyone tell you that it was proper and acceptable to murder unarmed persons? That was the question.

MR HAYES: No.

MR MOERANE: At the time, did you think it was proper and acceptable?

MR HAYES: No.

MR MOERANE: But then after the first incident, after you had realised that people with whom you associated yourself, had murdered unarmed people, you were prepared to go ahead and be part of the second incident, not so?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Now seeing that the first group was unarmed, you appreciated the possibility that the second group might also be unarmed.

MR HAYES: As with the first incident the chances were still very great that they could be armed. And I regarded the first incident as one of those unfortunate incidents. We assumed that they were going to be armed and the fact that they were unarmed was no guarantee that the next group would also not be armed. Thus, we had to foresee the possibility of armed groups crossing the border again, as was the usual trend at that stage.

MR MOERANE: Isn't the truth of the matter, Mr Hayes, that it really didn't matter whether they were armed not? These were ANC people, they had to be eliminated.

MR HAYES: I did not go out to shoot unarmed people dead, I went out to fight against an armed soldier.

MR MOERANE: No, no, you went out to kill your enemy, the ANC. The ANC, according to you, was at that stage winning the war, not so?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: So you went out to battle, to defeat your enemy.

MR HAYES: That is correct, we went out to destroy them because we believed that they would be armed.

MR MOERANE: Well I'm putting it to you that it really did not matter whether or not they were armed. Your plan was to catch them in a trap, in an ambush, and kill them, not so?

MR HAYES: That is how it was explained to me, because the persons would be armed, that was the safest method that we could apply to stop those people.

MR MOERANE: Let's have a look at the statements you made with regard to these events. The first statement is the one in bundle 3A. You have already been referred to this one.

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 7.

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

You've already pointed out the lies in this statement. What I'd like to find out from you is, the problems which you say were experienced at Piet Retief, when the inquest into this matter was being held, what were those problems?

MR HAYES: As far as I could determine, in terms of what Brig Engelbrecht explained to me with the making of the statement, was that I was at the scene and evidence was given that I did nothing at the scene, while I held a light.

MR MOERANE: Well, are you aware of any other problems with the first inquest?

CHAIRPERSON: Are these problems concerning himself, or generally?

MR MOERANE: Well I really don't know because when he was being led reference was made to after there were problems with the first inquest.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well perhaps you can explain what you meant by that.

MR HAYES: All that I meant was that Brig Krappies Engelbrecht came to me and said "You were at the scene, what did you do there?". Everybody knew that I carried the light, and people gave evidence that I had carried a light, but I didn't fire a shot at any stage. And due to the fact that Mr de Kock and some of the witnesses gave evidence that I was at the scene, but also gave evidence that there was no light, Brig Krappies helped me to write the statement as such. And that is what we did, that is all.

MR MOERANE: Yes. Let's leave that, let's go to the second incident and your evidence which in bundle 5, page 57. Now you have pointed out certain matters which you say were not true, in particular those relating to the person who was in charge, Deetlefs being substituted for Col de Kock.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Now I see in paragraph 3 you say:

etceteras. At this moment I'm concerned with the identity of the vehicle. Was that the vehicle a white Hi-Ace kombi?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You see I'm a bit confused because other police officers describe that vehicle as an E20, a Nissan E20 and some of you like W/O Pienaar, say it was a Toyota Hi-Ace.

MR HAYES: As far as I can recall, it was a Toyota Hi-Ace. It may have been an E20, but I didn't determine exactly what sort of vehicle it was. The vehicle however appeared to me to be a Hi-Ace kombi, but I did not go out to determine exactly what sort of vehicle it was.

MR MOERANE: Ja, well Maj Deetlefs, in the same bundle, page 23, describes the vehicle as a Hi-Ace and so does Manzini and so does W/O Pienaar, but Mr Rorich and Vermeulen and Theron and Lombaard and Flores describe it as an E20. So half of you describe it as a Toyota Hi-Ace, half of you describe it as an E20. Is it possible that that is part of the fabrication in preparation for the second inquest, the identity was changed, or don't you know about that?

MR HAYES: Not at all. As I have explained to you already, according to what I knew it was a Hi-Ace. For me a Hi-Ace and an E20 are one and the same thing basically. I didn't specifically investigate what sort of vehicle it was, and if you had not pointed this out to me now I wouldn't have known about it.

MR MOERANE: In any event you did not attend the reconstruction where the kombi was involved, or did you?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: What is correct?

MR HAYES: That I did not attend the reconstruction.

MR MOERANE: That's right. Now let's come to your statements regarding the two incidents. Your statement was deposed to in Pietermaritzburg on the 13th of December 1996 ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: These are the statements contained - that were submitted with the application volume 1, page 65 and onwards?

MR MOERANE: Page 58 and onwards.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and particularly at 65, I think.

MR MOERANE: Yes, the body of the statements are found from page 65 onwards. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Now these are typed on the, let's call it the Delmas computer, not so?

MR HAYES: I would assume that.

MR MOERANE: And these are the statements which have the same mistakes in them. For instance, in paragraph 6, page 66, you mention three occupants of the vehicle.

MR HAYES: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: You always knew there were four.

MR HAYES: There were four, yes.

MR MOERANE: Yes, and you have always known that.

MR HAYES: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: Would I be correct in saying that this part of your statement was presented to you to sign and you signed without reading?

MR HAYES: I did read it. At that stage I was in Pietermaritzburg and the statement was faxed through to me on that day. I read it quickly, signed it and sent it back because it had to be submitted. It went through with the courier to Delmas.

MR MOERANE: And you noticed that they talked about three occupants?

MR HAYES: I didn't even notice that.

MR MOERANE: And there's mention of a person called Rajbansi, I suppose a reference to Rajbansi. Did you know anything about that?

MR HAYES: Mr Pienaar told me this after the investigation into the death of these persons. I was involved in the identification of these persons and it came to our attention that they were involved in acts of terrorism with Mr Rajbansi in Durban.

MR MOERANE: And this what you were told by W/O Pienaar? You were not involved in that investigation, into Rajbansi or whatever. It was something that you were told by W/O Pienaar, is that so?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And it was really not necessary to include in this application for amnesty?

MR HAYES: I found it necessary because I remembered that one of the terrorist had been involved in an act of terrorism in Natal and that is why I mentioned it.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying, Mr Hayes, that when you were consulted at some time prior to making this - sorry, were you consulted some time prior to making this statement? By your legal representatives?

MR HAYES: That is correct

MR MOERANE: Sorry, just from your last answer, are you saying that you yourself raised the name Mr Rajbansi, during those consultations? I mean, was it at your initiative that Mr Rajbansi’s name appeared in your statement?

MR HAYES: During the consultation I went to Delmas before the other persons and I simply mentioned that I recall that one of those persons had been involved in an incident. I can't recall whether I mentioned the name Rajbansi as such.

MR MOERANE: Coming to the second incident, you heard the evidence of Col de Kock, relating to this kombi, what happened to it when it came to a stop, that he ran ahead of you and he was one or two metres away from the person that alighted from the kombi.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Are you able to confirm that evidence or don't you know?

MR HAYES: Until today I am convinced that shots were fired at us, and it is possible that there may be differences according to the observation of Mr de Kock and other members, but this is the experience which I had at the scene and I'm convinced to this very day that shots were fired at us.

MR MOERANE: Well you have run ahead of me, I hadn't come there. I was still asking you about Col de Kock approaching this vehicle and him being the first there, whether or not you confirm that as a fact.

MR HAYES: It is correct, I misunderstood the question.

MR MOERANE: So he was in the best position to see what this person was doing or not doing?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: You actually did not see this person firing, it's something that, as you've already conceded, you assumed or inferred?

MR HAYES: That is what I experienced. As I have given evidence, that shots were fired at us.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, you didn't actually see that person who got out of the, or opened the left front door, whether he fired or not? With your own eyes.

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Then why did you put this in your statement, application for amnesty:

MR HAYES: As I've already given evidence, I am convinced to this very day that either he or one of the other persons fired shots at us. I assumed that it was this person.

MR MOERANE: Once more I put it to you that this was just a statement which was made up for you to sign. What's your comment?

MR HAYES: I have already give evidence that I consulted with my legal representatives and that they faxed the statement through for me, that I studied it quickly, signed it and sent it back. According to me as I studied it, it was correct.

MR MOERANE: You see you were trying to reconcile it with the statement you made and the rest of you made in respect of the second inquest. Page 58 of bundle 5, paragraph 9, where you say:

That's what you say in that statement.

MR HAYES: That is correct, that was my experience with both incident and that is why I have stayed with my story, that shots were fired. My conviction is that shots were fired at me and the other members, either by that person or by one of the other persons who were close to him.

MR MOERANE: Well I put it to you that you are still involved in the same modus operandi in which you were involved with regard to the first incident and the second incident, and that being coming to this Honourable Committee with a prepared version to which seven of you Delmas deponents - I'll say Delmas deponents although you didn't sign your statement at Delmas, but these identical statements, have come to present to this Committee. What is your comment?

MR HAYES: The fact that these statements are almost word for word the same is something that I have only learnt during these proceedings, I have never seen any of the other statements. The statement that was sent to me was in accordance with the version that I gave to my legal representatives and I undersigned. The fact that some aspects may be similar, or the fact that it may have been typed word for word the same on the computer, is something that I cannot comment on. I have come here to tell the story as it happened on that day, according to my experience.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct that you knew that amongst others, Col de Kock had already disclosed what had happened in both incidents? In other words, before you made your statement.

MR HAYES: I cannot really recall. I didn't always follow all the hearings of the Truth Commission. I saw some of his evidence, but I cannot recall specifically that I knew that he had given evidence surrounding this particular matter.

MR MOERANE: Well you knew that he had been prosecuted in a criminal Court.

MR HAYES: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could Mr Moerane please just assist the witness so that he can know whether he was prosecuted for this matter.

MR MOERANE: Well all of us in these hearings know that Col De Kock was not prosecuted, we all know that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Well I think you should just put it to the applicant, I don't know if he knows.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct, Mr Hayes, that you are aware that Col de Kock had spilled the beans with regard to the Piet Retief murders?

MR HAYES: I know that he would have been here, because after I made my application for amnesty, I made the inference when the applications were grouped together at the beginning of this year, I saw and I assumed that he would have applied for amnesty for this matter, but I had no specific knowledge as such that he had applied for amnesty for this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, at the time that you signed your application, during December 1996, were you aware that at that stage Col de Kock had spoken about and revealed his version of what had occurred at these two Piet Retief incidents that are the subject of this hearing. Is that the question, Mr Moerane? At that stage, were you aware that Mr de Kock had spoken about these two incidents?

MR MOERANE: Yes, that is the question, Mr Chairman.

MR HAYES: I think I must have known at that stage, yes.

MR MOERANE: Yes. And I put it to you that the version that you and the others presented here is another gigantic attempt at damage control.

MR HAYES: Not at all, it is the truth as I experienced it and that is what I have given evidence about.

MR MOERANE: Yes. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Hayes, I just want to - did you have any dealings with the source as well?

MR HAYES: Not at all.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you have any files on any of these victims? Were you part of the gathering of information on people, MKs or anything of that kind?

MR HAYES: I did investigate ANC activities, but not in Swaziland. So I did not deal physically with these files, I was involved with other matters, also connected to the ANC, but not specifically with the ANC in Swaziland.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to be more specific. Of any of the victims, did your office in Piet Retief had any files on them, prior to these incidents?

MR HAYES: I wouldn't be able to say, I don't know.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Lockhat. Ms van der Walt, do you have any re-examination?

MS VAN DER WALT: No re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: No, thanks Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I just want to know, you say you received your orders from de Kock, were you not a part of the attempt, most probably on the Friday between the incidents, when Manzini arrived at the ambush point without somebody being there, the abortive attempt?

MR HAYES: I cannot recall such an incident. I don't know whether such an incident took place, because I wasn't always present. I know that I was present during the two incidents, but I cannot recall about the incident which did not take place.

MR MALAN: Thus you cannot recall being present at an incident which did not work?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And if I understood you correctly, you also stated that Pienaar asked you to participate, so he informed you about what was going to be done, but you say that you received the instructions from de Kock. What do you mean by that?

MR HAYES: I specifically stated that I received orders from W/O Pienaar and Col de Kock jointly, I said from both of them.

MR MALAN: Yes, but all instructions over the entire stage from both of them.

MR HAYES: They were together and what I meant by that is that either the one or the other dealt with specific areas of the operation, but Col de Kock was basically the overall commander because he was the most senior and therefore the instructions were basically from him.

MR MALAN: Who approached you first?

MR HAYES: To participate?

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR HAYES: W/O Pienaar.

MR MALAN: And at which stage did you receive instructions from de Kock? What was the first occasion?

MR HAYES: The first occasion was just before we went out, all of us were called together and we received the instructions indicating that it would an ambush. That is when I received the instructions. There were discussions before I arrived there, because in both instances I had to rush to get there because I was busy with other work.

MR MALAN: And in both cases you knew from the beginning that de Kock would be involved?

MR HAYES: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Right from the very first time that Mr Pienaar approached you?

MR HAYES: Yes. When I arrived there he was there and he was a member of the planning. So when Pienaar called me in I didn't know that he would be there, but when I arrived at the scene and the planning was conveyed to us, I saw Mr de Kock there.

MR MALAN: You see, during cross-examination by Mr Moerane, I heard you say that Vlakplaas was a hero, or a group of heroes to you.

MR HAYES: Yes.

MR MALAN: You and the rest of the Security Branch in general, and the fact that they were participating indicated to you that it was acceptable to the entire, or for the entire country.

MR HAYES: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: But you were involved by Pienaar before you knew that Vlakplaas would be participating.

MR HAYES: I think you may have misunderstood me. We were often called and told that there would be an infiltration and then I would rush from where I was, get my firearm and see to it that I had enough clothing and such and arrived at the offices and when I arrived at the offices we would usually be briefed regarding what we were going to do, and what sort of infiltration it would be, where it would be and what we would do. When I arrived there, Mr de Kock was already there and that is when I was informed for the first time.

When I was called out, I was called out for a possible infiltration, I didn't know where it was going to be or what the circumstances surrounding it would be. When I arrived at the offices the people were already there.

MR MALAN: From where were you called out, where were you when you were called?

MR HAYES: I think with the second incident I was somewhere in Ermelo for some or other operation, that I was following up information about, but I cannot recall specifically where I was with the first incident. But with both incidents I know that I had to rush to get there.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising? Thank you, Mr Hayes, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down now.

MS VAN DER WALT: And that completes all my applications.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt.

MS LOCKHAT: The next amnesty applicant is Mr Leon Flores.

MR MALAN: Your full names are Leon William John.

LEON WILLIAM JOHN FLORES: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Flores, you have completed the proper application form in terms of the Act and handed it in and at all times you have given your full co-operation to the investigative officials of the TRC, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You were also in the service of the South African Police, as it was defined by Section 20(2)(a) and Section 20(2)(f) of the TRC Act of 1995, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You were attached to the Section C1, which was known as Vlakplaas. And the workings of the unit is set out in the supplementary bundle by Eugene de Kock, which was handed up during the Johannes Mabotha/Penge Mine incident, and this forms a basis of the workings of Vlakplaas for future amnesty hearings.

MR FLORES: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You are also aware that Vlakplaas was established as a covert counter-insurgency unit and it was the operational arm of the Security Police in the combat against terrorism.

MR FLORES: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: At the time of these two incident, and you are involved in the incident of 8 June as well as the one of 12 June 1988, you were a Sergeant, in the service of Vlakplaas, with Col Eugene de Kock, one of the applicants, as your Commander.

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You confirm the content of your amnesty application and your general background, training in the Police Service and the merits of the incident, as it is handed up to this Committee.

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you confirm that your political objectives were aimed against the ANC and the communist movements within South Africa and outside South Africa, and the political insurgents through the borders into the Republic of South Africa.

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: At all times you followed the instructions of Eugene de Kock to the letter. And do you confirm that you also worked on the need-to-know basis?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Is it correct that this need-to-know basis entailed that you execute your instructions and ask no questions?

MR FLORES: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you always acted within the scope of your duties as you were employed by the service?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: If we study your application, you were involved in an incident on the 8th of June 1988, during which you received instructions to be present at an ambush outside Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You were involved in the incident and you also fired at the vehicle.

MR FLORES: I was involved, but I did not fire shots at the vehicle during the first incident.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you briefly tell us, you arrived at the scene and took up position, and what happened then?

MR FLORES: Because the vehicle was a little delayed and arrived late, I received instructions by Eugene de Kock to accompany Botha to see where the vehicle was.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and then?

MR FLORES: After we departed from the ambush scene, I would say approximately three kilometres further on the particular vehicle passed us. We waited some time until it passed and then we turned around and drove back slowly to the point where the rest of the members were waiting.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. You stopped?

MR FLORES: And with our arrival there we saw, because our headlights were on, that the vehicle had already gone into the ambush and that members had fired on the vehicle. We waited until the shooting had ceased and then we climbed out of the vehicle and went closer.

MR CORNELIUS: And you found that there were three deceased women as well as an Indian man and they were not armed?

MR FLORES: Yes, those were my observations.

MR CORNELIUS: And it is common cause that weapons were planted afterwards to make it seem that they were already armed?

MR FLORES: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: The second incident, you were indeed involved in the ambush?

MR FLORES: Yes, I was, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you also fired shots on the vehicle, as you mention in your statement?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And it is also common cause that four men had died. Were they armed?

MR FLORES: Yes, they were armed.

MR CORNELIUS: Is it correct that it was practice between C-Section and Security that Security would obtain information with regard to the target and then call in the operational arm to follow up on the information?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any reason to doubt the instructions and information of Deetlefs and de Kock and Pienaar?

MR FLORES: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You were a so-called foot-soldier in this incident?

MR FLORES: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you believe that the armed MK members would be a danger to the country and the general public?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you believe that you acted in the interest of the country against the enemy of the then Republic and to stop the infiltration of these armed persons?

MR FLORES: Yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: In terms of Section 20(3)(f), except for your salary, did you receive any rewards for your actions?

MR FLORES: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you act out of malice or revenge against the deceased?

MR FLORES: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts?

MR FLORES: Yes, I have.

MR CORNELIUS: And you request amnesty in terms of Section 20 of the Act, for a total of eight, what would be eight charges of murder, perjury and defeating the ends of justice by means of the statements which you made during the inquest, and any other statutory delicts which might emanate from there. Is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Is there anything else you would like to add?

MR FLORES: No, thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Ms van der Walt, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Flores, during this incident, is it correct that there was a high intensity of insurgency and attacks, specifically in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You heard that a question was put by Mr Moerane to the previous applicant, that at that stage the ANC was winning the battle. Did you see it as such?

MR FLORES: Yes, basically he is correct to say that, to put it as such, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: So it was not a normal conventional combat, but all methods had to be used to stop these infiltrations and the attacks of the ANC on the country by means of violence. Did you experience it as such?

MR FLORES: If you put it as such I can agree with you.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just one.

Mr Flores, page 46 of the paginated documents, at the top paragraph you say the following, and I quote:

Is that your recollection?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson. I had heard at one stage that Col de Kock mentioned, seeing that there was a problem, that no weapons had been found on the deceased and that this was now a problem, I am certain the name of Roelf Venter was mentioned because they would have only travelled at midnight from Pretoria to Island Rock.

MR JANSEN: Yes, you have heard Mr Ras' evidence in this regard.

MR FLORES: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: Would you like to comment?

MR FLORES: I would just have to rectify it, that I was mistaken here and I misplaced Mr Venter in this incident.

MR JANSEN: In other words, the name of Mr Venter was mentioned and the fact that you place him at the scene is the reconstruction, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Lamey, any questions?

MR LAMEY: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I have a problem with that version of yours, Mr Flores. You see you made this statement ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think it was also December, December 1996.

MR MOERANE: No, on the 13th, yes the 13th of December 1996, in Pretoria. I assume that before you made this statement you refreshed your memory with regard to the events that had occurred there, is that correct?

MR FLORES: Chairperson, I don't know what he means by refreshing my memory at that stage.

MR MOERANE: Well the events took place in 1988 and you made the statement in 1996, so you had to look back eight years.

MR FLORES: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And you had to make certain that what you had and what you included in your amnesty application was the truth and the whole truth, not so?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Now you see, what you are saying here on page 46, fourth line, after you say that:

Then you say:

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE:

MR FLORES: That is how I put it here, that's correct.

MR MOERANE: Now did that occur?

MR FLORES: No, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Why did you put it in?

MR FLORES: Chairperson, at that stage, as I have answered previously, I placed Mr Venter there because some of the people had to drive from the farm, that would be Vlakplaas, Chairperson, on their way to Island Rock for the team-building effort, as was mentioned before and as Mr Martinus Ras had said, he had firearms and made it available for the planting thereof. I did not even know that. That Mr Venter was at the scene, he was definitely not at the scene. If I recall correctly, and I believe somebody might assist me with this, at approximately 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock late morning, after 12 midnight, Mr Venter and other members arrived or stopped at the Piet Retief Security Branch - I did not mention this in my application, on route to Island Rock. And it might be because I saw him there and that might have sketched the picture that he might have brought the things there.

MR MOERANE: But you see you say:

In other words, I assume you mean placed near the victims. Is that what you are trying to say by that?

MR FLORES: I am trying to say, Chairperson, that I heard "Roelf Venter", three hours later I saw him, as I have said, I saw him at Piet Retief, things were planted, so I assumed that he had brought the material to be planted. For example the pistol as the previous witness had said. That was my impression.

MR MOERANE: But isn't that how you recalled the incident?

MR FLORES: That's how - at that stage when I made my statement, that is how I saw it.

MR MOERANE: I have a problem also with the second page of your amnesty application, page 47. You see when you describe the incident you say:

In other words, you ran ahead after this kombi had stopped.

I suppose by Haynes you mean Hayes, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That's correct.

MR MOERANE:

Then you say:

That is what I have a problem with. No shot rang out from the vehicle. What's your comment?

MR FLORES: Chairperson yes, as I have stated it here - as we have heard previously, the vehicle moved past and did not stop at the place where it was supposed to stop and as I recall, Col de Kock, myself and Mr Vermeulen and Mr Nortje were the first ones who arrived at the vehicle. We were also the first persons who started shooting at that stage. I don't know who carried the light because the Eastern Transvaal people arrived there after we did. Yes, I did hear a shot fired from that side of the vehicle.

I mention here that it came from the vehicle. I am not an expert in arms, it may be so that Col de Kock had fired first, it may have been that these were his shots. When I ran to the vehicle I heard shots fired and I shot afterwards. I cannot say whether, after I had heard Col de Kock's evidence, that it did come from the vehicle. That is correct so.

MR MOERANE: So do you accept that Col de Kock fired the first shot, that killed the occupant of the kombi?

MR FLORES: I would accept it as such, yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And do you accept that the version that you gave in a statement in preparation for the second inquest, which is found in bundle 5, page 60, is false? Have a look at that.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: That's a statement which was taken from you - well let me not say it was taken from you, that's a statement which you signed on the 22nd of December 1989 in Pretoria, which was attested by Brig van Wyk.

MR FLORES: That's correct, Chairperson, I did not make this statement, I assume that it was drawn up and I only signed it.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Moerane, 22nd of June.

MR MOERANE: What did I say?

MR CORNELIUS: December.

MR MOERANE: Oh I'm sorry, I meant the 22nd of June 1989. That's right, yes.

So you say this was just placed before you and you signed it?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: But you accept that the basic content is false, the gist of it is false?

MR FLORES: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: You see on page 61, first paragraph, third line, it says:

You actually didn't see that occur?

MR FLORES: No, I did not see that at all, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: But that was the version that was supposed to be placed before the inquest. In fact that was actually placed before the inquest magistrate.

MR FLORES: That is how I heard it now, yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Yes. And it's on the basis of this statement and the others, where he came to the conclusions that this was a legitimate attempt to arrest these people at a moving, moving as he calls it, moving roadblock and that the police acted properly under the circumstances?

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson, all these things that were mentioned there are false.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Moerane, if I could just ask surrounding this statement.

Mr Flores, Big van Wyk, did he have a consultation with you before he prepared this statement and before it was presented to you for signing, or was it just presented to you as a fait accompli which you had to sign? Because there's certain information like:

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, small things like the rounds that's just been mentioned are true because that came from when they did the reconstruction. We had to point out where we stood etc., etc, but the fabrications like the blue light that I've just been questioned about, that is all false. The statement - I can't recall being, because at that stage what I can specifically remember is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So it wasn't a question of you sitting down with Brig van Wyk and then him in his longhand writing out the statement which he sent to the typing pool for typing and it came back later and you knew what was in it before you actually signed it?

MR FLORES: Not at all, this was delivered by my house, I was on leave at that stage. I just signed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Moerane?

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

In fact a shooting incident report had already been compiled much much earlier, the previous year, by I think it was Colonel or Lt Human, wherein the number of shots that each of the people fired was included.

MR FLORES: Excuse me, can you just repeat please.

MR MOERANE: Is it correct that to your knowledge, after any shooting incident "'n skiet voorval" report is completed by an officer?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes. And what I'm saying is that with regard to both incidents, such reports were compile. In the first incident it was Lt Combrink who did that and in the second incident it was a Lt Human who did that. It's amongst the many documents here before us.

MR FLORES: If you state it as such I would agree with you, that's correct.

MR MOERANE: Yes. And in these reports the people who were involved in the shooting are mentioned, the type of firearms that they had are mentioned, the number of bullets or ammunition that they had is mentioned and the number that they fired is also mentioned, but of course in both incidents the reports were false.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And it's possible that Brig van Wyk obtained the information about the number of shots you had fired, from that shooting incident report.

MR FLORES: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Mr Flores, were you at the reconstruction?

MR FLORES: On the second incident, yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Just on that, were there other members from C1 present at that reconstruction?

MR FLORES: If I can recall I think everyone that was part of this incident was there, they could just help me when they testify, but I'm sure they were there.

CHAIRPERSON: Even Mr de Kock?

MR FLORES: I can't recall if only a group was sent down, I speak under correction there. It could be that he was there, but I can't directly place Col de Kock there.

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Another problem that I have is the identity of the kombi. I see in your statement you say it was a white E20 kombi, which is a Nissan. Do you recall the make of the kombi?

MR FLORES: Chairperson, I said E20. I was under the impression that a Hi-Ace and an E20 was the same thing.

MR MOERANE: Well the one is a Nissan, the other is a Toyota.

MR FLORES: I did not know that, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're just referring to it almost as a generic name, like a kombi is a minibus?

MR FLORES: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: You say you were a junior member of C1 at the time.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And you say you've carried out instructions, you asked no questions.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Did anyone tell you that yours was to carry out instructions and ask no questions?

MR FLORES: Not directly told to me, but from the policy we accepted it as such and assumed it.

MR MOERANE: You say C1 was a covert counter-insurgency unit.

MR FLORES: That is correct, I mentioned it as such.

MR MOERANE: Was it that?

MR FLORES: That is how I experienced it, that's correct.

MR MOERANE: Was it meant to be that?

MR FLORES: I believe so, yes, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And for how long were you with C1? I think you have mentioned it in your statement.

MR FLORES: I believe two years, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And what were the years?

MR FLORES: '87 to the beginning 1990, the end of 1989.

MR MOERANE: And then you joined what you referred to as a Directorate of Covert Operation of Military Intelligence.

MR FLORES: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: That's not the correct name of that, is it?

MR FLORES: No, no.

MR MOERANE: I think it's Directorate of ...(intervention)

MR FLORES: Directorate of Covert Collection.

MR MOERANE: ... Covert Collection, yes. Have you applied for amnesty with regard to your escapade to the United Kingdom, with Bamala Durandt?

MR FLORES: I have, Mr Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: I see. I won't ask you about that. Who actually told you in effect, that you could shoot at people rather than arrest them, even if there is an opportunity to arrest them?

MR FLORES: Nobody put it to me as such, Chairperson. During that time, as the people know today, C1 was an operational unit and if you rendered service there it was accepted that that is how one acts operationally with regard to the ANC and the PAC.

MR MOERANE: Is your evidence that whilst you were a member of C1 you engaged in a series of unlawful actions, such as murdering people?

MR FLORES: During that time we did not believe that we acted illegally or that our actions were illegal. If we look back in hindsight, then you can put it as such, that it was illegal.

CHAIRPERSON: But then it - just arising out of that, Mr Flores, if you did not believe you were acting illegally, then what's the point in covering up?

MR FLORES: Sorry, I don't understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I say if the feeling was that you were not acting illegally, if that was what the members were of the view, why then have cover-up operations, why make false statements, why put weapons in people's hands when they weren't there, that sort of thing? If you were of the view that it was legal, there would surely be no point to cover up an operation.

MR FLORES: Sorry, I think - let me rephrase it, Mr Chairperson. Yes, we did do illegal things, that's why we covered it up and we thought we're doing the right thing at that stage, although it was illegal we knew it. I don't know if I'm expressing it the right way.

MR MOERANE: I can appreciate your difficulty because you must have known that it was illegal to kill a defenceless person.

MR FLORES: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And you must have known that it was illegal to set up an ambush whose intention and whose idea and whose purpose and objective, was to kill rather than arrest them.

MR FLORES: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And of course you knew that it was illegal to commit perjury, common-law perjury and statutory perjury.

MR FLORES: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: If you'll bear with me. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.

Tell me what time - the incident on the 8th of June, what time did that incident take place, what time of the night or day?

MR FLORES: Chairperson, I mentioned a time between nine and ten, but it was late at night, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: You said - in cross-examination by Adv Moerane, you said that you said that you saw Mr Venter three hours later in Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR FLORES: That is how I mentioned it, yes.

MS LOCKHAT: So would that be about 1 o'clock the evening, 12 o'clock ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, he said in his evidence he came about between ...(break in tape) in the early morning.

MS LOCKHAT: Was that a usual time to meet someone at Piet Retief, that time in the morning?

CHAIRPERSON: He said he was on his way to Island Rock from Pretoria and he stopped there.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to check something. Was he - where did you meet him exactly?

MR FLORES: As I have said, it was at the Security Branch. The whole C-Section travelled at midnight from the farm to Island Rock and they had to come past Piet Retief to arrive there, it is on the route.

MS LOCKHAT: So was he basically coming there to go with you to Island Rock?

MR FLORES: When we saw him, Chairperson, they stopped there as I recall and had placed him there and they departed from there because they all went to Island Rock together. Col de Kock, myself and Mr Ras only joined them the following day at Island Rock.

MS LOCKHAT: So basically, on page 46 in bundle 1, because there you basically emphatically state that he was there at the incident, it seemed unequivocal by you.

MR FLORES: As I have mentioned previously, Chairperson, I heard the name Roelf Venter and then there was the problem that no weapons were found on the persons and I drew the inference that he was asked to bring the weapons to the scene because they were on their way to Island Rock. He was definitely not at the scene. I did not place him at the scene as such, but I am certain that I saw him later that evening at the Security Branch.

MS LOCKHAT: That evening at the Security Branch, did you discuss this incident with him?

MR FLORES: I did not speak to him at all.

MS LOCKHAT: And when you got to Island Rock, can you tell us all the members that were present there?

CHAIRPERSON: We've heard that it was the whole of C1, do we need to know all the names?

MS LOCKHAT: Brig Schoon, relating to - did you discuss this incident with Brig Schoon as well?

MR FLORES: I would never have discussed any operation with a senior, that would have been dealt with by Mr de Kock.

MS LOCKHAT: And did Mr de Kock discuss it with Brig Schoon?

MR FLORES: I don't know, he may have.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV GCABASHE: Just as a follow-up on one of the aspects Ms Lockhat dealt with. Again page 46:

Just explain that to me. You met him at Piet Retief, the bodies had already been brought to Piet Retief to the mortuary, now the placing of the weapons by the victims, what were you trying to say there?

MR FLORES: I think I expressed myself incorrectly in this sentence, as to how I placed Roelf Venter. We all know that the weapons were planted ...(intervention)

ADV GCABASHE: You know the reason I ask you is because I immediately conjured up scenes of the victims - I beg your pardon, of the weapons being placed with the victims, photographs being taken or something along those lines. That's not what happened? It's not as if weapons were placed there so that photographs could be taken of people with these particular weapons? That's not what happened?

MR FLORES: Sorry, just repeat Ma'am, please.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Adv Gcabashe is asking you was, were weapons placed in the hands of the victims and photographs taken of the victims with weapons lying next to them?

MR FLORES: Mr Chairperson, I can't remember, I wasn't present once, after the scene when they did the photography and all that. We would normally leave directly after an operation.

ADV GCABASHE: So that last bit of the sentence is just - I should delete it?

MR FLORES: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Just delete it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, do you have any re-examination?

MR CORNELIUS: No thank ...(intervention)

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Before Mr Cornelius re-examines. With regard to this very issue, you see what is confusing about all this, Mr Flores, is that your last sentence, after you have described what Adv Gcabashe was talking about, you say only then the incident was reported and the procedure followed. In other words, what you are suggesting is that you all waited until these arms and explosives could be obtained and placed near the victims and then and only then was the incident reported. That's what you are saying, not so?

MR FLORES: That is how I stated it here, Chairperson. As I have said, after the incident most of our C1 people would depart for the branch. I heard for the first that Mr Ras said that he took the weapon out to put there. They would have delayed time until they obtained stuff to place there, as was mentioned, before calling the duty officer as such.

MS MOERANE: Yes, in fact there are three versions about this, there's your version, Col de Kock's version and Mr Ras' version. The one being that Roelf Venter placed those things after ...(indistinct) and arrived after three hours, Col de Kock's version, that he obtained these from the office, Piet Retief, from W/O Pienaar and Mr Ras says that he had it. Do you know which version is the truth here?

MR FLORES: I cannot answer to that, Chairperson.

MS MOERANE: In any event, do you recall whether or not photographs were taken of the victims with the firearms? That would have been normal procedure. Do you recall whether that happened?

MR FLORES: As I've mentioned, I was not there, but that would be the procedure that they would follow.

MS MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination?

MR CORNELIUS: I don't have any re-examination, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: No, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, any questions?

MR MALAN: No, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Flores, that then concludes your evidence and you may stand down now. I see that it's just about 11 o'clock and this will therefore be a convenient time to take the short tea adjournment.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next applicant is Nicholas Vermeulen.

NICHOLAS JOHANNES VERMEULEN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Cornelius?

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Vermeulen, you have submitted an amnesty application on the prescribed form, in terms of Section 18 of the law and you have given your full co-operation to the investigating officer.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You were an employee of the SAP, as defined in Section 20(2)(a) and 20(2)(f) of Act 34/95.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You were deployed to Section C1, known as Vlakplaas. The operations of the unit have been set out in documentation which has already been submitted to this Committee.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And do you concur that Vlakplaas was a covert counter-insurgency unit and was the operational wing of all the Security Branches in the Republic of South Africa?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: At the time of these incidents you were involved only in the second incident having taken place on the 12th of June 1988. At that time you were a Warrant Officer.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And Col de Kock was your commander.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You confirm the content of your amnesty application, the general background, your personal history as well as the general merits thereof.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you agree that the political objective an action was aimed against the ANC and the communist movements within the Republic, as well as the political insurgency of institutions from abroad.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: At all times you carried out the actions or order of Mr de Kock, strictly and you acted on a need-to-know basis.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And at all times you acted within the scope of your duties at Vlakplaas.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Now with the second incident at Piet Retief, you were also deployed to the ambush?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What were you armed with?

MR VERMEULEN: An R1 gun.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Can you briefly tell us when the vehicle moved in, what happened?

MR VERMEULEN: We moved in, the vehicle stopped, the driver climbed out and ran around the front of the vehicle into the bushes on the side of the ambush. Because he had moved some distance past the pre-established point, Col de Kock gave the order to move ahead. We left our positions and ran in the direction of the vehicle.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened next?

MR VERMEULEN: Shots were fired and after Col de Kock had given the order to cease fire, I took up position next to the bus and waited there.

MR CORNELIUS: Four persons were killed?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, four persons were killed.

MR CORNELIUS: Had they been armed?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, all of them had been armed.

MR CORNELIUS: You were aware of the practice among the members of C-Section, that they would identify targets and then C1 would be called in to perform the action?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you have any reason to doubt the information and orders which were conveyed by de Kock and Pienaar?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: You were a foot-soldier, as is the general description?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And these armed MK members, did they present any danger towards the Republic, according to your mind?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, they did.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you believe that you were acting in the interests of your country at all times?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Against the then enemy of the Republic?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And that you had to combat the insurgency of terrorists?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: With the exception of the salary that you received, in terms of Section 20(3)(f) of the Act of 1995, did you obtain any personal or financial reward for your participation in this action?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you harbour any feelings of personal malice or vengeance towards the victims?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: And according to your knowledge, have you made a full disclosure of the relevant facts for the Committee, in terms of Section 20(1)(c) of the relevant Act?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: You request thus that you be granted amnesty in terms of Section 20 of the Act?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: For four charges of murder emanating from the incident taking place on the 12th of June 1988?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: For your participation in perjury and defeating the ends of justice in the subsequent investigation?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And then you are also applying for statutory and common-law delicts or any other delicts of offences which may emanate from your participation in the incident.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Ms van der Walt do you have any questions?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

NO QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Vermeulen, you made two statements relating to this incident. The first statement being the one that you made in preparation for the inquest which was to be held at Piet Retief.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: And the second statement being the one that you have made in respect of your amnesty application.

MR VERMEULEN: Sorry, just say again, Sir.

MR MOERANE: The second one being the one in respect of which you are testifying.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Yes. And I assume you are telling this Honourable Committee that the one in bundle 1, page 334 to 335, is the correct one.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: And all that you had said in the Piet Retief statement, the one in preparation for the inquest was false?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Yes. Now I just want to take you through your second statement. You say in the third sentence, that is now with regard to Manzini:

That is correct?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR MOERANE: That is actually what was arranged and what was agreed?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, that's what was agreed when I received my orders from Mr de Kock.

MR MOERANE: That's right. And when the rest of you also received instructions from Mr de Kock?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR MOERANE: You were all present at the same place and same time, when you were given these instructions and these briefings?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, I would say so, but it could be that Mr de Kock gave some order to somebody else at some different time, I'm not sure, I can't say. But when I received my orders, this was roughly what I can remember.

MR MOERANE: Well, certainly the people from C1 would have received the same orders, in other words yourself and Mr Flores certainly?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR MOERANE: And you further say that bus actually went past the prearranged spot, it didn't stop where it was supposed to stop.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: And Col de Kock then gave the order that the bus or the kombi should be attacked?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Sir.

MR MOERANE: And you all got up and ran towards the kombi.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: With the intention of shooting.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: Is his evidence also correct, that he ran ahead of you? In other words, he was in front.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: And that he was about a metre or two from the left front door of the kombi when he started firing.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: And would I be correct in saying that, as you say in your statement, that you didn't see any shooting from the kombi?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: If anybody had fired from the kombi in your direction, you would have seen that?

MR VERMEULEN: I think so, yes.

MR MOERANE: Yes, because you would have been the target.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And it was dark there, you would have seen the flash.

MR VERMEULEN: The flash, yes.

MR MOERANE: That's right. And you didn't see any of that?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Sir.

MR MOERANE: You say, page 335:

Is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: And you say some uncomplimentary things about the state of that weaponry:

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: You recall that?

MR VERMEULEN: I received an order from Mr de Kock, because he inspected the weapons and they were not in a satisfactory condition.

MR MOERANE: Yes. In other words, the weapons that you used on that occasion were not weapons which were issued at Vlakplaas, but they were weapons which were issued in Piet Retief?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that for the whole - to all the Vlakplaas members, they received Piet Retief weapons?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, most of the people, I think so, Sir.

MR MOERANE: And would I be correct in saying that there was no proper accounting for the weapons and the ammunition, in the sense of signing for the weapons and the ammunition?

MR VERMEULEN: I won't say that, I would say in the instance the weapons by number weren't booked out to each individual, but each individual received a weapon plus, I think 20 rounds of ammunition, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: Do you remember that? Is it possible that you might have received more ammunition, like 50 rounds rather than 20 rounds?

MR VERMEULEN: An R1 magazine takes 20 rounds of ammunition and to carry a lot of loose ammunition wouldn't be advisable because it could be lost. And in an ambush situation I don't think we would have used much more than 20.

MR MOERANE: I seem to recall that some of the people who were there might have used more than that.

MR VERMEULEN: I won't dispute that, Sir.

MR MOERANE: Would I be correct in assuming that you spent a couple of days before the second incident, at a place called Island Rock?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Sir.

MR MOERANE: And the purpose of that gathering has been said to be one of team-building, "spanbou".

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: What does that involved, what actually happened there?

MR VERMEULEN: "Spanbou" is usually just where the guys come together and they relax. That was the purpose of that special, that specific "spanbou".

MR MOERANE: Yes, but how did you relax, what were you doing?

MR VERMEULEN: We were playing touch rugby, we were having a couple of beers, fishing, doing just what everybody wanted to do, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: And were the any sessions where you'd be addressed by Brig Schoon?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Sir, not that I can remember of, Mr Chair. We did mix with up casually, but not a specific time or whatever.

MR MOERANE: Was this a holiday or sorts?

MR VERMEULEN: You can put it like that, Sir.

MR MOERANE: And you called team-building?

MR VERMEULEN: That is team-building, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: And this went on for four days?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: Well amongst the people who attended that holiday, or were present, were people who had been involved in a shooting incident on the 8th of June.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: Was that mentioned?

MR VERMEULEN: I can't recall that, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Well it must have been mentioned, Mr Vermeulen.

MR VERMEULEN: Mr Chair, as already said, we do work on this must-know basis and if I go on a "spanbou" I don't want to know anything about any other words, except relaxing. So I don't interfere with anybody else's official work, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: No, no, I'm not suggesting that you might have been interfering, but just as part of "spanbou", one of those or two of those who had been involved telling the others that well, we are doing okay, we have actually killed four of them.

MR VERMEULEN: That's could have happened, but it wasn't in my presence at any stage at that "spanbou", Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: In your activities as part of the C1 unit, you must have engaged in a lot of illegal activities.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Which as we know included murder.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: It included abduction of people.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: It included destruction of property, buildings and motor vehicles.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: It involved covering up those activities.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: By means of lies and other means.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: And the murders also involved silencing people so that they couldn't speak.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Were you in any way congratulated for the killings of the 12th of June? Did anyone say "Well done"?

MR VERMEULEN: Not that I can think of, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: You know that Mr Adriaan Vlok issued a statement after the second incident, wherein he said nine people had been killed.

MR VERMEULEN: I just heard about that statement, I didn't read it myself, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Have you received any commendation for the work you did for Vlakplaas?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: From?

MR VERMEULEN: From the Commissioner of Police, and then we received various certificates, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: What certificates?

MR VERMEULEN: There was a certificate for recommendation for work that was done satisfactorily, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: I see. In other words, commendation for work well done?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: And who is that Commissioner who commended?

MR VERMEULEN: I'm not sure, I think it was Commissioner van der Merwe. I'm not sure about that, Sir.

MR MOERANE: Do you know whether or not at Island Rock, the members of C1 who had taken part in the first incident, were congratulated, commended?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, Sir.

MR MOERANE: Mr Vermeulen, who told you that you could engage in illegal activities against the ANC in particular?

MR VERMEULEN: All the instances where I was involved, I had the instructions, specific instructions, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Yes, yes, but you see this must have started somewhere. You know that as a policeman you were not obliged to follow illegal instructions, not so?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Well who told you that you could, that you could not disobey, if anyone, such instructions?

MR VERMEULEN: Our orders that we received from our commanders we just did it properly as was expected from us, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: No-one told you that you could refuse to carry out an illegal, a patently illegal order?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: So would it be correct to say that it was the culture at C1, that illegal acts against the ANC were acceptable?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, we can put it that way, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Were there any limits placed to the illegality?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, I think for every action that we would have done or executed, we first had to consult with Mr de Kock and we wouldn't have done anything without his consent, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but as an individual, did you know of any limits beyond which you couldn't go?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, I was never instructed about any limits, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: You know that in a war situation there are certain limits, which have been codified in various protocols, like the Geneva Convention and the various protocols to that? Treatment of prisoners of war and the rules of engagement in war, you know that?

MR VERMEULEN: I know that, Mr Chairman.

MR MOERANE: Well did you observe any such codes in your conduct?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chair.

MR MOERANE: No. In fact you were actually a law unto yourselves so to speak.

MR VERMEULEN: We can put it that way, Sir.

MR MOERANE: I see. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions?

MS LOCKHAT: No questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, do you have any re-examination?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no re-examination, thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe, have you any questions you'd like to ask?

ADV GCABASHE: Yes, thank you, Chair.

Mr Vermeulen, the second incident, after the shooting you say you were told to stand by the bus.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, you can put it that way, Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you have anything to do with checking the weapons that the four deceased had on them?

MR VERMEULEN: I can't remember. I would have looked at it, but I don't think I handled it at any stage.

ADV GCABASHE: What I'm interested in is in finding out if any one of them had fired a shot at all, just by checking the magazines to see if they were still fully loaded or not.

MR VERMEULEN: I didn't check the magazines, but I'm quite sure no shots were fired from out the bus.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Just on that, Mr Vermeulen, were you regarded as an expert when it got to firearms and weapons?

MR VERMEULEN: I would say so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you did say you were the one who was ordered to oil the firearms and get them into a reasonable condition.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And in your - yes, thank you. Sorry, Mr Malan, do you have any questions?

MR MALAN: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are there any questions arising out of questions put? Thank you, Mr Vermeulen, that concludes your evidence, you may stand down.

MR VERMEULEN: Thank you, Sir.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the final amnesty applicant is Mr Willem Nortje.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I'm almost ready.

Mr Nortje, you apply for amnesty for your participation in the shooting incident of the 12th of June 1988, in these proceedings, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You have initially completed an application form by yourself, which is found on page 283 up to page 290, an extract from that application, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: What was incorporated in that original application, is it correct that the Piet Retief shooting incident is incorporated therein from a previous statement which you made to the Goldstone Commission? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And after you obtained legal representation a supplementary application was filed, which we find on page 291 to page 311, with the extract on the Piet Retief shooting incident which you were involved in, which we find on page 306 to page 311, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You confirm the particulars as it is embodied in the application and as it was supplemented and as will be elaborated on in your oral evidence, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: There is also an overview with regard to your training and background, which we find from page 297 to page 305 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: There, amongst others you mention, and I will refer to it briefly, that beforehand you were a member of Koevoet. Would you please tell us, was Koevoet an army unit or was it a police unit?

MR NORTJE: It was a Security Branch operation.

MR LAMEY: And Koevoet, is it correct to say that it was actually a military operational unit of the police in the then South West Africa?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: After your involvement with Koevoet you were transferred to Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I wish to refer you briefly to - Chairman, bundle 1D, the supplementary statement of Mr de Kock, which deals with the general background of Vlakplaas. On page 26 to 27, reference is made to evidence of Gen Johan van der Merwe, who was then the Security Chief of the Security Police and where he mentions - and I read it briefly:

MR LAMEY: An the emphasis here is where he says that you were the only operational wing of, meaning the Security Police here, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Was that also your experience?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock has referred in his supplementary submission that Vlakplaas was a covert establishment. Did you experience it as such?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I did.

MR LAMEY: You - covert, does that mean illegal operations?

MR NORTJE: That's how I understood it, yes.

MR LAMEY: Vlakplaas also did legal work, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And just to return to the incident itself. In the supplementary statement you say the date was 1987, beginning of 1988, but now we know that it was on the 12th of June 1988, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You're now referring to the last paragraph on page 306?

MR LAMEY: Yes, Chairperson.

So that has to be correct, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: At that stage, or before you received instruction to be part of the group that was eventually involved with the shooting incident, you were with unit C2, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: C2 was also a branch of C-Section?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAMEY: How long were you with C2?

MR NORTJE: About 10 months.

MR LAMEY: And before that you were with C1?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And during the team-building function which was held at Island Rock, you were transferred back to C1 under instruction of Brig Schoon.

MR NORTJE: Yes, I asked him to go back to C1, under the command of Mr de Kock.

MR LAMEY: During your participation at the team-building at Island Rock, did you hear of the previous shooting incident where members of Vlakplaas were involved?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, that was on a Friday when the members arrived there and I received bits and pieces of information, but it was clear that there was a shooting incident at Piet Retief, but I did not have the full particulars as to what happened there.

MR LAMEY: You did not know what the exact circumstances were with regard to that?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not.

MR LAMEY: Did it ever come to your knowledge that the people were unarmed during the first shooting incident?

MR NORTJE: Only much later.

MR LAMEY: No, I want to know, during the, at Island Rock?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: When later did it come to your knowledge?

MR NORTJE: It could have been the following week or during the following week, but I cannot specifically recall that they then told me.

MR LAMEY: But did it come to your knowledge before you were involved with the second incident, that unarmed people were shot?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: And furthermore, you say that you departed from Island Rock and the function would be concluded at a hotel in Piet Retief. Can you recall where this place was?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it was at the Moolman Hotel, approximately 25 kilometres from Piet Retief where we met.

MR LAMEY: And you say your recollection was that Mr Pienaar joined you there at some stage?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I have an idea that he had arrived there and had discussions with Mr de Kock. I know later we went to the Security Branch itself.

MR LAMEY: Was Brig Schoon also at the hotel?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he was also there.

MR LAMEY: At the hotel already, did you become aware that an operation was being planned?

MR NORTJE: As I recall everything became clear there, that there would be an operation that evening and it is there where I received my instructions from Mr de Kock, that I should remain with him and the other members and not long afterwards we departed to the Security Branch, where we made preparations.

MR LAMEY: And the further detailed instructions were given to you at the Security Branch in Piet Retief?

MR NORTJE: As far as I can recall, yes.

MR LAMEY: In your statement you mention in paragraph 3 that four ANC MK members would infiltrate the country, did you know that a police minibus would be used?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it was all discussed there. I think we expected that there would be five. That is my recollection, but I think I said four there because I know the four were shot afterwards.

MR LAMEY: Did you know where the information came from about the infiltration?

MR NORTJE: It came from a source which Freek Pienaar handled, as I understood it.

MR LAMEY: What did you understand, would it only be MK members who would infiltrate or did you understand more with regard to how they would come in and what they would have with them?

MR NORTJE: There was already talk of the ANC/MK members who would infiltrate. We had already started making arrangements, because as I recall it was already decided there that an ambush would be set up and that they would be shot dead.

MR LAMEY: Did you understand that they would also be armed?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And were you also present where the person who would send the minibus, where he had to stop?

MR NORTJE: I would recall that we drove together when we went to the place earlier that afternoon, when Manzini, the place was pointed out to him, because I know it was during the day when I arrived there the first time.

And the planning which ensued, I was not present all the time, but bit by bit I got the pieces together and Mr de Kock told me what would happen.

MR LAMEY: You also knew of a group which would depart from the Swaziland border, which would let the other MK members infiltrate and that there was a plan with regard to them, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, there was a group appointed by Mr de Kock and they would have waited for the people who assisted the MK members, assisted them in infiltrating and they also had to be eliminated.

MR LAMEY: And what did you understand, was there a reason why those people had to be eliminated?

MR NORTJE: The purpose thereof as I understood it, was to protect the source and they assumed that they would also be MK members.

MR LAMEY: It is common cause that you then set up an ambush on the particular road between Houtkop border post and Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct. After dark, as I recall, we moved in to the place and took up our positions.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall where your position was specifically in relation to the other people?

MR NORTJE: I was lying next to Mr de Kock.

MR LAMEY: Was there a person who had a portable light?

MR NORTJE: The person who had to handle the light was on the other side of Mr de Kock and then the members, I think Vermeulen was next to me and then Flores and then the members from the Eastern Transvaal.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Can you just tell us briefly what happened there.

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall how long we lay waiting there, it was quite a while. The vehicle arrived, the lights I recall, there was a sign that it was indeed our vehicle. I did not mention it, but I recall the indicator was definitely switched on, which would indicate that the people would be armed and which would confirm that they would be armed. And then the minibus passed the place. It actually stopped very quickly, or shall I say it did not stop immediately, it passed, but it stopped very quickly.

MR LAMEY: Past the point where it was supposed to stop?

MR NORTJE: Yes, past the ambush point. And Mr de Kock shouted "Come" and he said whatever he said and we ran. I was just behind him. When he got to the bus, the door opened slightly, he immediately started firing.

MR LAMEY: Could you see anything, could you see a person at the door that was opening?

MR NORTJE: He was busy climbing out with a weapon. That is how I recall what happened. He definitely had a weapon, I saw the weapon. It was from here to about the speaker there, that's how far it was from him when Mr de Kock started firing.

CHAIRPERSON: The witness indicates a point which is about four maybe five paces away from him. Do you agree with that? That's to the speakers in the middle to where you're sitting, about four paces.

MR NORTJE: Everybody started firing, I started firing ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: May I just take you through this slowly. You say you saw the person climbing out of the left-hand door and you saw the weapon in his hand.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: What happened at that moment?

MR NORTJE: Well he was basically still sitting, he was just starting to get out with the weapon and then Mr de Kock started firing, he did not have a chance. I think he was surprised because of Manzini that had jumped out so quickly and I don't know if he knew what was going on. Then Mr de Kock started firing and then we all started firing.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether the light was switched on at this stage and when?

MR NORTJE: The light was switched on at some stage. It happened very quickly. I cannot say that it was switched on immediately when the shooting started, I imagine that the light went on a few seconds after the shooting started, but we had already started moving away because there was this heavy firing at the bus and we moved away from the bus. As we were moving away we were still firing.

MR LAMEY: So what are you saying, while you were firing you moved backwards?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And did you also fire shots at the minibus and the people on the minibus?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I fired single shots. I had an HMK sub-machine gun with me, which came from the Security Branch and I emptied the magazine and I recall that I had about 24 rounds in the magazine, because at that stage the magazine was not entirely full and I think it was a 24 round magazine, but I emptied the whole magazine.

MR LAMEY: Very well. When did the firing cease?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock shouted at some stage "Cease fire".

MR LAMEY: And afterwards, were you still at the scene and investigated and what did you find?

MR NORTJE: The person that Mr de Kock had shot then fell out of the door. There was somewhat of a hurly-burly there, we were all trying to realise what was going on and what was in the minibus, but I personally did not investigate or do any searching through the minibus, I left that to the Piet Retief people who had taken over the scene because I assumed that it was, that they would do the investigation or whatever the case may be.

MR LAMEY: Do you know what was found on the occupants of that minibus?

MR NORTJE: They were all armed, every person that was there because one was in front, the one that Mr de Kock shot, the one on the middle seat and one sat at the back and they all had weapons with them.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether those weapons were cocked?

MR NORTJE: I recall that the weapon that was in front left, I had a look at that weapon, it was. I was interested in it to see how close this guy was to shooting and I saw the weapon was cocked and it was off its safety. The other weapons I cannot exactly say that I went and had a look at them, but I know Mr Pienaar and them took the weapons and cocked them, but I did not have a look at them specifically.

MR LAMEY: But the weapon that you had a look at was definitely cocked?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether that weapon was set on automatic or whether it was sent on single shot?

MR NORTJE: I imagine that it was - or I recall that it was on automatic.

MR LAMEY: And then you also mentioned what you had heard later with regard to the group that the people at the border would eliminate. You mentioned here that they could not succeed in eliminating that person. You have heard that a person had then indeed been killed at that scene.

MR NORTJE: Yes, maybe I should just explain. During this operation it was said - I know somebody was shot there, but at some stage I had forgotten about it, I only know that the most important point was that the person who had got away. I know that Mr de Kock was very dissatisfied because the person had got away and this was something which had remained me. I had forgotten about the person who was shot there, not that I did not know, but I did not think about it afterwards because it remained with me that one person had got away.

MR LAMEY: You have also made a false statement, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: A statement of yours appears in bundle 5 on page 64 to 64, which appears to have been taken down in June 1989, by Brig van Wyk, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes. I just have to say that I did not write out the statement, the statement was just given to me to sign. And I am honest when I say that I cannot recall whether it was attested to before me, but I knew it was false information contained therein and I never read the statement, right up to this week when I had a look at it, because I knew it was false.

MR LAMEY: In your amnesty application you say the main reason with regard to the inquest, to give false statements in the inquest is firstly to omit Mr de Kock's participation and to construct the facts as such so that a proper roadblock was said to be there and that the persons had been killed in an attempt to arrest them.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: I will not go through everything, but the statement also portrays that you were fired at first and then you returned fire.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that is not the truth?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And there was a stopper vehicle with a blue light and the impression is that there was a roadblock and under those circumstances the people were shot after they had fired on you.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And that is not true?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Before you had made this statement, after the shooting incident in Piet Retief, at some stage did you realise that this version would be made in an inquest?

MR NORTJE: Yes, well at that stage it was logical that the true facts would not be given. As I have said, the statement was drawn up a long time thereafter, but the purpose was to cover the true facts.

MR NORTJE: And am I correct when I say I accept that the reason why this was done was because there was an ambush here and that there was no roadblock, and this would boil down to murder?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And it would seem as if Vlakplaas' participation had to be omitted from the incident and that was the reason for Mr de Kock's absence there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I understood that Mr de Kock would not have been involved in this incident, for whatever reason. I would assume he did not want to have his name once again in another shooting incident.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible because of the first incident?

MR NORTJE: I assume so, yes.

MR LAMEY: I see in this false statement that with regard to yourself it is just said that you are attached to Security Head Office. That is not wrong, Vlakplaas was a branch of Security Head Office?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: But it does not say specifically that you were a member of Vlakplaas or C1.

MR NORTJE: Yes, we did omit that purposefully.

MR LAMEY: What it done purposefully?

MR NORTJE: Yes, in all our statements. In this regard we did not pertinently state it as such.

MR LAMEY: In other instances as well?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Would it be correct to say it was to protect the covert activities of Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: That is correct. I also did not testify in the inquest which was held afterwards.

MR LAMEY: You did not give oral evidence?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Were you at the scene when the reconstruction was done?

MR NORTJE: No, I know I saw photos of the scene afterwards, but I cannot recall that I was at the scene.

MR LAMEY: The reason for omitting Vlakplaas' participation and to construct it as such that it would not indicate murder or an ambush, is it correct to make the assumption that with this, covert operations of the Security Police had to be protected and that it would be an embarrassment for the government if it was made known?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And with regard to the political objective, you have set this out on page 310 and 311, do you confirm that?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I do.

MR LAMEY: And did you also know that from your personal experience, that there were much problems with regard to infiltrations from Swaziland during that time?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And which led to acts of terror within the RSA?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: And you also state that Swaziland was a thoroughfare for infiltrations, specifically in the PWV area.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I think that's the evidence-in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Ms van der Walt, do you have any questions to ask?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

Briefly, Mr Nortje, at the time with these events there were many infiltrators ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, it would appear to me that you have not listened to his evidence-in-chief. I was waiting for you because that was led in evidence-in-chief, the question that you are about to put.

MR PRINSLOO: But I just want to put this point.

Mr Nortje, your evidence was that 36 persons were going to be infiltrating, did you know about that?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR PRINSLOO: But there were a great number of infiltrators, as you knew?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And on this particular evening of these events, according to your statement on page 308, the person climbed out of the vehicle when Mr de Kock shot him.

MR NORTJE: Yes, well at least he was busy climbing out, he hadn't put his feet on the ground yet.

MR PRINSLOO: But all that I really want clarity about, Mr Nortje, is that this incident took place very quickly.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Because it was an ambush, these were people who were trained, they were armed, they could shoot at any time and the one who shot first would come off all the better.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And a member of the Police Force had already jumped out and run past the vehicle.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Manzini?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you saw this at the same time?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it possible, Mr Nortje, that the impression may have been created that this person who was climbing out of the vehicle, who was opening the door to climb out, may have fired? That a person observing this from the outside may have observed this?

MR NORTJE: Well a person who wasn't immediately among us may have had that impression if he had been some distance behind us. It's very difficult to explain this, but there is a difference. Mr de Kock had an uzzi and this person had an AK, and if you have the experience, then you will able to distinguish between the noises. But it is possible at the back may have thought so, but this did not take place.

MR PRINSLOO: If I understand you correctly, your evidence was that you were under the impression that Mr Pienaar was at the Moolman Hotel.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is still my impression today.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have heard Mr Pienaar's evidence indicating that he was not there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I have heard his evidence.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Mr Hattingh, do you have any questions?

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

Mr Nortje, when you were led regarding Koevoet, which was a paramilitary, it peaked my memory regarding something which Mr de Kock had told us about quite some time ago, but which we have not placed on the record yet and perhaps you have knowledge of this. Are you aware that Mr de Kock also gave the order that members of Vlakplaas be trained in parabat jumping?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that these members were duly trained, or at least a great proportion of them?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And there was also a first group of black members of the Security Forces who were trained at parabats?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the reason for that was because they could be used as a sort of semi-military operational unit at short notice?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The permission was given, according to Mr de Kock. Was written permission given, do you know whether it was?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And this would have been necessary because it was a costly operation and aircraft had to be used?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it was expensive.

MR HATTINGH: And who provided the aircraft?

MR NORTJE: I know that we were at Phalaborwa, we stayed in the army camp, 5 Reconnaissance Commando. I'm not sure who the owner of the aircraft was, but it was paid ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: It had to be paid for.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And payment for it was obtained from the Secret Fund?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the parachutes, I understand that the task force didn't want to provide you with parachutes, that is why you consulted 5 Reconnaissance Commando?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And they provided you with these parachutes?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Just singular aspects. Mr de Kock, according to you - or before I get to that, apart from the parabat training, was regular training given to people at Vlakplaas, with regard to the use of weapons and weapon craft and explosives?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that would be to equip them for possible situations.

MR HATTINGH: So you were always ready on a contingency basis?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You say that Mr de Kock was upset about the man who had escaped and this reason was ambiguous because he said that this person had escaped with the identity of the informer, which he could make known.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And also that that person could have been involved in further infiltration of ANC members.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The evidence which according to you was evidence that Mr de Kock did not want his name involved with the incident, someone else may have decided that his name should not be implicated in that incident. Is it possible that you may have made a mistake, that this was not him who wanted it, but somebody else?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is the impression that I got from him, but it may be that the decision may have come from Gen Engelbrecht or somebody else, that his name be kept out of it. But this is just something that I recall him telling me, that his name had to be kept out of the matter, but the final decision, I don't know who took that decision.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, Mr Chairman, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: No questions, thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Nortje, you have already referred to the false statement that you made in anticipation of the inquest which was to be held at Piet Retief.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And this is on pages 55 and 56 of bundle 5.

MR LAMEY: No, it's 63 and 64.

MR MOERANE: I'm sorry, I'm looking at the previous one. Yes, that's right, 63 and 64.

This statement like the others, seems to have been made on the 26th of June 1989, in the sense that the attestation part of the statement is actually already typed in as the 22nd of June 1989, not so?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And your evidence is that you were just presented with the statement which had already been typed out for you to sign.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: You knew at the time that there was supposed to be an authorised version of the incident.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: And that it had to be consistent with what others were saying?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: And this was all organised by, amongst other people, Brig van Wyk?

MR NORTJE: Correct.

MR MOERANE: Are you able to throw light on the identity of the vehicle, whether it was a Nissan E20 or whether it was a Toyota Hi-Ace?

MR NORTJE: I would say it was a Nissan E20. It was a Nissan, yes.

MR MOERANE: Yes. If in fact the vehicle that was at the reconstruction was a Toyota Hi-Ace, would you be able to explain how that came about?

MR NORTJE: Perhaps they didn't have a Nissan, or think about that aspect.

MR MOERANE: So they would have shot up a Toyota Hi-Ace and put sticks through it ...(intervention)

MR NORTJE: I beg your pardon, I think that the same vehicle that we shot at was used at the scene. They would have used the same vehicle, because it stood at the Piet Retief Police Station for quite some time after the incident. And after the reconstruction, I think I saw the vehicle parked there at Piet Retief for quite some time.

MR MOERANE: And the vehicle that you saw at Piet Retief was an E20?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR MOERANE: I suppose you have no explanation why the Piet Retief people, such as W/O Pienaar describe that vehicle as a Toyota Hi-Ace?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot explain that.

MR MOERANE: In the last paragraph on page 63, the events are described in the following words:

Now you have told this Honourable Committee that that in fact is false.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: But I notice that that particular version has been persisted in by some of the people who are asking for amnesty.

MR NORTJE: Yes, I saw that.

MR MOERANE: Yes. If in fact that person had fired, you would have seen him.

MR NORTJE: Definitely.

MR MOERANE: Now on page 64 you say - let me not say you say this because you say you are actually not saying that, but it is recorded that you are saying:

Now this is actually not what you said.

MR NORTJE: No, that is not correct.

MR MOERANE: But this appears in a false shooting incident report "skietvoorval" report, which was compiled by the officer who compiled that in terms of police standing orders.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Am I correct from your evidence, Mr Nortje, that you played no role in the compilation of this statement, it was merely presented to you for signature and in fact you said you didn't even read it until this week?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had no input before that was drafted?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR MOERANE: Of course you know that the incident was actually covered up.

MR NORTJE: Yes, I know.

MR MOERANE: And that amongst the people that were involved in the cover-up was W/O Pienaar.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Brig van Wyk.

MR NORTJE: I don't that personally, but I see here that he must have known what the circumstances were. I don't have personal knowledge of it, but I assumed that he was part of the cover-up.

MR MOERANE: Well one way of covering up is preparing statements and getting people to sign them.

MR NORTJE: That's correct, that's why I know he did not attest to this before me.

MR MOERANE: Yes. You were present when Col de Kock confirmed that Brig van Wyk had actually conducted an incompetent investigation. You heard that.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: Now you confirm that it was not only incompetent, but that it was also a dishonest investigation.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: And of course the third person who was involved in the cover-up is a person who is now General Krappies Engelbrecht.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: Mr Nortje, for those are not very familiar with that unit, Koevoet as you've already testified, was a paramilitary police unit.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And you saw service in that unit?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And how many of the persons who were involved in the events of the 12th of June, had been Koevoet members? Apart from yourself and Col de Kock.

MR NORTJE: I think the only one who was involved there as well, was Vermeulen. I beg your pardon, Mr Tait was also there for quite some time as well as Ras. I beg your pardon, he was also there.

MR MOERANE: So Vermeulen, Mr Tait, Mr Ras were ex-Koevoet members?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Now would I be correct that although Koevoet in a sense was a police unit, it performed functions of pursuing Swapo fighters and killing them whenever it could?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: In fact, would I be correct in saying that a culture developed amongst Koevoet members, of obtaining as many scalps as possible?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I'm sure there were some people who viewed it as such, but that was not my opinion. I know that there were people who were head hunters, as you have put it, but to be honest, Mr de Kock and I did not share that perspective.

MR MOERANE: Actually I didn't mean it in a literal sense, I meant it in a figurative sense, that the number of killings was important, not necessarily that you went and actually collected heads. I know that some people did that ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, that wasn't his response, I think you misunderstood his Afrikaans. He simply said - he understood it in the figurative sense too and answered it in that way.

MR MOERANE: I see. Did you understand it in a figurative sense?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR MOERANE: Not in a literal sense?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR MOERANE: I see. Well just to put it beyond any doubt, wasn't it part of the culture of Koevoet to have a tally of the number of kills that a person had?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it was a factor under those circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: And to take no prisoners?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot say that, Chairperson, because we took many prisoners.

MR MOERANE: Didn't that prove troublesome, taking prisoners?

MR NORTJE: No, not at all, we would get them to work for us immediately, with the assistance of the other black members who were with us.

MR MOERANE: Well didn't that prove rather difficult and rather troublesome, trying to recruit and turn SWAPO fighters? In the end, didn't you find that the success rate was very, very limited?

MR NORTJE: No, I wouldn't say that. It wasn't a considerable factor with regard to dangerous situations or the possibility of information leaking out. If circumstances allowed, we would catch certain people and those prisoners that we captured would eventually become part of the team and work for us. There was no danger of information leaking out because we didn't really work with information as such.

MR MOERANE: What I'm trying to suggest is that, isn't it general knowledge that many of these SWAPO fighters that you had captured defected and went back to SWAPO?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there were cases of that.

MR MOERANE: Did you bring your experiences from the Namibian war back to South Africa when you joined C1?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we did.

MR MOERANE: Now this modus operandi at Vlakplaas, of performing illegal acts in the fight against the ANC, is it something that you were actually told by someone in authority?

MR NORTJE: No, it was never stated specifically that we may commit illegal acts, but the circumstances dictated that we had to do this. We were protected. If we were not protected we would never have done these things. We did not act recklessly.

MR MOERANE: And who protected you?

MR NORTJE: The senior officials of the police and whoever else may have followed after that. But I assumed that our direct heads would protect us and that is why we continued with our actions. We were not hindered in any way. On the contrary, we were just given more instructions and the whole thing escalated.

MR MOERANE: Are you referring in particular to Brig Schoon?

MR NORTJE: He too, yes.

MR MOERANE: Did you receive instructions from anyone higher than Brig Schoon?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not liaise directly with those persons, I received my orders from Mr de Kock, who in turn received his orders from Brig Schoon as well as Engelbrecht and those people.

MR MOERANE: Well I'll ask you some of the questions that I asked Mr Vermeulen. With regard to rules, did you observe any rules such as how to treat captured persons?

MR NORTJE: No, we did not.

MR MOERANE: So you made you own rules, in effect?

MR NORTJE: It's difficult to say rules, we acted according to the circumstances. But the rules one always maintained the laws in the back of your mind during actions, but as I've said, sometimes circumstances created a situation where you would have to do illegal things or commit illegal acts, but there were no fixed established rules indicating what we were allowed to do and what we were not allowed to do. I don't think that there was anything like that. We were led by circumstances and the commanders who took the decisions were also an important factor.

MR MOERANE: Yes. What you have said to me boils down to what I put to you, that you actually made your own rules. In other words, you decided who was to live and who was not to live.

MR NORTJE: Sometimes that was the case, yes.

MR MOERANE: But you must have known that that was wrong because as the learned Chairperson of the Committee put to one of the previous witnesses, that - or was it Mr Malan, I don't know, that when you had committed crimes, in the reports that you made you covered up and you presented them in the light where they would be seen as legitimate police action.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Now that's where I have a bit of a difficulty because if you, the people took a decision to eliminate a person in circumstances which amount to murder and then you present that in your reports as self-defence, you're actually not carrying out orders of superior persons. Would that be correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: So in effect, your unit C1 was actually a law unto itself.

MR NORTJE: I wouldn't say that, we still acted under instructions, under command. That was my opinion of the situation. I cannot see that we acted without any rules or prescriptions.

MR MALAN: I think, Mr Nortje, they way I understand the question reference was not made to the individual, but to the unit, which could take its own decisions or which took its own decisions. In other words, with reference to the commander of the unit at the time. I think that is the interpretation of this question if one speaks of the unit. Would you be able to agree with that?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR MOERANE: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman, that is what I intended to convey.

Now who actually enforced any order or discipline?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock.

MR MOERANE: So if a person had done something that Mr de Kock thought was wrong or unacceptable, he would discipline him?

MR NORTJE: Yes, definitely.

MR MOERANE: Except, I take it, when these things were done by the askaris, which made it very difficult for them to be disciplined.

MR NORTJE: Yes, well he also disciplined them.

MR MOERANE: Are you aware of the situations where it was impossible to discipline them because disciplining them would have revealed their identity?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it's difficult to answer this question because I don't really understand what you want me to say.

CHAIRPERSON: I think probably distinguish between informal discipline and departmental discipline, in laying reports and getting in independent investigator etc., legal representation and all that sort of stuff. I think if you could perhaps distinguish between ...(intervention)

MR MOERANE: Yes, I'm talking about formal disciplining where a report would be submitted, a written report and it would go through ordinary and normal police channels dealing with discipline.

MR NORTJE: No, no such disciplinary steps were taken with regard to formal discipline, not that I know of. Not in the way that the police procedure would operate, that they would be charged of certain transgressions and then receive a fine or anything like that. There was no such practice.

MR MOERANE: Yes. In any event that was difficult and it might have led to the disclosure of the askaris and their identities and all that.

MR NORTJE: Yes, I don't even think that those ideas were considered, to discipline them in such a way, but as you have said, it would have led to other repercussions. It simply wouldn't have worked.

MR MOERANE: Now let's come to Mr Manzini. When did you see him for the first time with regard to the events of the 12th?

MR NORTJE: It was that afternoon at the Security Branch, after we had arrived there. I recall that I saw him there for the first time.

MR MOERANE: Yes. Did you go with him and others to the scene?

MR NORTJE: I would recall that we went to the scene with him, yes. It remains in my mind, so I assume that we must have done this because I know where the place is, I know that we visited this place during the daytime. So yes, I do recall it.

MR MOERANE: Yes. And the place where he was supposed to stop was pointed out to him?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.

MR MOERANE: And the place where the other members who were going to lie in ambush, was also indicated?

MR NORTJE: I don't believe that it was pointed out to him. As I recall, there was an electric pole or a telephone pole and I think the pole was the marker of where he was supposed to stop.

MR MOERANE: Yes. But you see there were other people there, weren't they at the same place and time shown where the persons who were going to commit the ambush would be lying in wait?

MR NORTJE: I beg your pardon, can you please explain to me what you have asked me, I don't understand you. Would he have known where we lay in wait, where the staff would have taken up position, the staff that was going to carry out the ambush?

MR MOERANE: Yes. What I want to find our from you is whether at the time and place when Manzini was shown where he was to stop, the other people were also shown where they were going to lie in wait?

MR NORTJE: No, I don't believe that that was discussed at that point, I think it was done when we arrived at the scene with all the members who would have taken up position in the ambush, because we knew that there was the pole and from there the persons were told where the ambush would be. I don't think that it was spelt out that clearly during the afternoon.

MR MOERANE: Do you recall what recall what was said to Manzini, as to what he should do?

MR NORTJE: I forgot about the indicator light, but I recall, as a result of the evidence which came to light, that he was given the instruction to switch on the indicator if there were weapons in the vehicle and that he would jump out and run. Vermeulen said something about urination, I think that he was supposed to use that as an excuse to stop. He would have to tell them "I need to urinate", and that would be the reason why he would stop. I'm not certain, but I think that those were the things that were said to him, those were the instructions that he received.

MR MOERANE: Well isn't one of the problems, Mr Nortje, that the truth in this matter has been mixed up with a lot of lies, difficult to remember?

MR NORTJE: Well I can simply tell you from my perspective, I'm trying to put it as clearly as possible. The versions from the other persons differ and I cannot explain that, this is simply the way that I remember it.

MR MOERANE: You see because in your statement in support of your application for amnesty, you do not mention the question of the flickering of lights.

MR NORTJE: I did not leave it out on purpose, I didn't think about that minute detail at that stage.

MR MOERANE: If you'll bear with me. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Moerane. Ms Lockhat, do you have any questions?

MS LOCKHAT: No questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, do you have any re-examination?

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I want to ask one question in re-examination, but I omitted just two short aspects to deal with that in-chief, which I ...

What was your rank at that time?

MR NORTJE: Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: And did you receive any remuneration above and beyond your usual salary for your participation in this incident?

MR NORTJE: No, not that I know of.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: And then in cross-examination a question was put to you with regard to instructions for illegal operations. I just want to put it to you, are you aware with regard to the command structure above Col de Kock, that there was an overall commander at head office?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And before this incident you were also involved in illegal operations such as for example, the Lesotho operation and the Cosatu House operation.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether those operations, which were also illegal, were approved from any level above Mr de Kock?

MR NORTJE: Definitely.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Adv Gcabashe, do you have any questions?

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Nortje, just one question. Do you know anything about an aborted or a failed attempt to collect ANC members between the 8th and the 12th of June?

MR NORTJE: No, the reason why I wouldn't know about that is because at that stage I was - I also didn't hear about it on the day of the operation or after the 12th, I was with C2, I was involved with something else, I didn't have access to that sort of information. They also wouldn't have told me about it because we were not working with the operational persons.

ADV GCABASHE: Then one other question. Mr Manzini, in his Section 29 hearing, appears to think that he was shown the place where he had to go to, the day before the incident itself. Would you know anything about the pointing out and the preparations taking two days instead of just one day?

MR NORTJE: No, I don't about it, I only know that on the day that we arrived there the point was indicated to him where we would be that night. It may have happened, but I don't know.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, do you have any questions?

MR MALAN: Mr Nortje, in bundle 6 we have the Section 29 transcription of the evidence of Manzini and we have the information that Ms Gcabashe refers to. Manzini refers very clearly to an abortive incident, he indicates that it may have taken place on the Friday initially and he alleges that Theron took him out to see the place and there is evidence that he went to pick up people, that there was nobody, that he stopped on the right side of the road at the point where the vehicle was to come to a standstill and that there was no-one. He was only shown once where the place was, which would indicate that this does not concur with your evidence that your recollection indicates that you were with him when the place was indicated to him. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR NORTJE: As I recall it we went to the scene that afternoon to see where we would set up the ambush, that is what I recall. I recall that Manzini accompanied us so that we could give him the final plans there. That is what I recall.

MR MALAN: And who accompanied you to the scene, was it you, de Kock?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock would have gone with ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, I'm not asking who would have gone with, I want to know if you can remember who went with.

MR NORTJE: I'm not certain, I cannot name any names. It would have been the people who were there with us.

MR MALAN: Well why do you remember Manzini if you don't remember any of the others? Could you be mistaken? Isn't it probable that you are mistaken, why would they show Manzini the place twice?

MR NORTJE: It is possible, but that is how I recall it.

MR MALAN: Very well.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just ask you on the same point, Mr Theron also said he went to show Mr Manzini the spot. Would you recall if he was there? Mr Theron. You can't place him either.

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall him specifically.

ADV GCABASHE: But in any event, Mr Manzini was the only black member who was involved with you at that time?

MR NORTJE: As far as I know yes, there were not any others.

ADV GCABASHE: And there is certainly a time, in respect of this incident, that you were in his company and showing him the spot that he needed to know about?

MR NORTJE: That is what I recall, yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nortje, you would have heard the evidence of some of the applicants, that there was or they were under the strong impression or convinced that a bullet hit the tar on the tar road between them and the vehicle towards which they were running. Could that have happened, from what you saw?

MR NORTJE: If you ask me, I think it was one of their own people who shot there in the road when they approached.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Are there any questions ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, Chair, I missed another aspect that I wanted to canvass.

Mr Nortje, you said that the person in the front on the left, you saw the door going open and that Mr de Kock fired a shot. You say that his feet had not reached the ground. In other words he had not yet climbed out, and Mr de Kock fired at him immediately, but your evidence is that he was found next to the vehicle, dead. How did that happen, wouldn't he have been killed in his seat and fallen to the inside instead of the outside?

MR NORTJE: After the shooting he lay outside the vehicle on the ground, so it must have happened during the shooting that he fell out. But when he shot him he didn't fire back, so he must have died instantly or have been seriously wounded, but that's when the shooting took place and when we stopped shooting he lay next to the vehicle.

MR MALAN: If such a great number of shots are fired at a person, wouldn't you expect him to fall over in the direction of the bullet, instead of falling in the converse direction?

MR NORTJE: Well maybe he had it in mind to get out of the vehicle, if he was not yet dead.

MR MALAN: To climb out in the direction of the man who was shooting him, who was about a metre to two metres away from him? That sounds improbable and that's why I'm putting it to you, because it doesn't really concur with the observations of the others, that he climbed out much further than what you recall.

MR NORTJE: No, he collapsed directly next to the wheel where he climbed out.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising? Thank you, Mr Nortje, that concludes your evidence, you may stand down.

CHAIRPERSON: I see it's now ten past one. This would be a convenient stage to take the lunch adjournment ...(intervention)

MS LOCKHAT: If I may just interrupt you, Chairperson, that concludes the roll in terms of the applicants, Chairperson. Adv Moerane does have a witness, who will be called tomorrow, Chairperson. So I suggest that we hold, that we postpone until tomorrow, that we adjourn until tomorrow, Chairperson, but I shall leave it in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: I wonder, we'll have to make some arrangements about tomorrow, as to when we'll be sitting. I

know certain people have to catch aeroplanes, etc. Could we just have a short adjournment now, I'd just like to speak to the legal representatives in the office and then we'll come back and make an announcement as to whether or not we're postponing now until tomorrow, or whether we'll carry on today.

MS LOCKHAT: Please stand.

CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon, I apologise for the delay that has occurred in this matter, but we've reached a stage in the hearing where we are awaiting the advices of a legal representative as to what the next step will be. The legal representative concerned has not had the opportunity yet I am told, to properly consult with his client.

We, since lunch have been waiting in the expectation that this would happen each next minute, but it hasn't and time has passed us now, it's almost 4 o'clock. So I think whatever happens now, we've arrived at that time of the day where we would have to in any event adjourn until tomorrow. The expected consultation I'm told, has not taken place yet. So in the circumstances, all that we can do is to postpone until 9 o'clock tomorrow.

I apologise for the inconvenience that has been caused and I hope we'll know at 9 o'clock what he position is, whether we will be proceeding with further evidence or whatever will occur tomorrow, I don't know, I can't say at this stage until I get further advised. So I apologise for the inconvenience and having us all waiting here in vain this afternoon, but unfortunately that is the situation. So we will then just have to adjourn until nine tomorrow morning at this venue. Thank you.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.