--------------------------------------------------------------------------JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Chairperson, I call the following applicant who is Mr Schalk Jan Visser.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, what language would you prefer to speak?

MR VISSER: Preferably Afrikaans please, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you have any objection to taking the oath?

SCHALK JAN VISSER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, your application can be found in the bundle before the Committee. The formal application is from page 98 to 100, and the incident for which you request amnesty, appears from page 101 to 102.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the political motivation is from page 103 to 110.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, you have heard the evidence given by Messrs Deetlefs and Pienaar, could you tell the Honourable Committee, at that stage what was your rank and where were you stationed?

MR VISSER: I was a Brigadier in the South African Police and I served as the Divisional Commander of Division Eastern Transvaal.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your base?

MR VISSER: My base was Middelburg.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. And you then also confirm the evidence of Mr Deetlefs with regard to the manner in which he contacted you from Swaziland.

MR VISSER: Yes, I confirm this.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to Mr Deetlefs you then extended permission that Mr Sedibe be abducted, is that correct?

MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your motivation for this?

MR VISSER: I was aware that the person who had been arrested by the Swazi Police could possibly be deported to Zambia and that he could have provided valuable information regarding landmine explosions that we had experienced in that area during that period. Furthermore, I also found that he had fulfilled a senior role within the ANC structure, particularly pertaining the Transvaal machinery.

MS VAN DER WALT: There is something that I would like for you to explain to the Honourable Committee. Mr Deetleffs in terms of a question which was put by the Honourable Chairperson, provided a response and the question was -

... and his response was that in terms of Section 29, he could have been detained for six months in order to attempt to obtain his cooperation, but it appears that Mr Sedibe was indeed placed under Section 29 detention.

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Deetlefs stated that he provided his cooperation after the abduction, what was the reason then for his detention in terms of Section 29?

MR VISSER: This particular person was a trained MK member and the detention was for the purposes of the safeguarding of person who were suspected of transgressions against the State, and we enjoyed the authority to put them under such detention.

MS VAN DER WALT: But if he had given his cooperation, why was it necessary?

MR VISSER: I don't think that any person in their right mind would have considered the immediate movement of a person who had been involved in such activities for so many years, without placing some form of restriction in the form of detention on this person.

CHAIRPERSON: For what purpose?

MR VISSER: Safeguarding. So that he would remain available, so that he would not escape again or disappear once more and rejoin the ranks of the ANC - in order to remove him from the process.

CHAIRPERSON: Why wasn't it possible to detain him under regular law?

MR VISSER: Section 29 is a specific security legislation which enabled me to detain such a person and to interrogate such a person.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the objective?

MR VISSER: Yes, that was the objective.

MS VAN DER WALT: If I have understood Mr Pienaar's evidence correctly, he stated that although Mr Sedibe cooperated, it was necessary to test the circumstances and his attitude.

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because it was also a fact that Mr Sedibe was a well-trained MK cadre who had enjoyed training in Eastern Germany and in Russia.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, among all these persons who may have been involved in the abduction, whether they were in Swaziland or here, where did you fit into the hierarchy?

MR VISSER: I was the commander of the particular region in which their activities with regard to Intelligence collection resided.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: ... who was in command of that group of persons?

MR VISSER: The group within Swaziland?

CHAIRPERSON: No, those who were also involved in the entire operation.

MR VISSER: I was the senior member and in Swaziland, Col de Kock would be the following senior and after that, Col Deetlefs.

CHAIRPERSON: Regardless of what they did there, they had to report to you?

MR VISSER: Yes, they had to liaise to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: And just with regard to that point, you decided yourself to give the order for the abduction, you did not contact head office prior to the abduction taking place?

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And if I understand it correctly, it was a matter or urgency.

MR VISSER: Yes, it was a matter of urgency, I did not know until when this man would be available.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was the Security Head Office of the police informed of his abduction after it took place?

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: This abduction, you have just stated what your motivation was, could you explain to the Honourable Committee whether it was of national interest for him to be abducted?

MR VISSER: I was convinced that it was of national interest in order to combat terrorism as well as the landmine and bomb explosions and then so doing, save the lives of people.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it more correct to say that it was in the interests of the government of that time instead of the interests of the nation?

MR VISSER: It was the government that I served at that stage and I believed that it was of national interest for the inhabitants of our country, who would be the persons who would be injured or affected by landmine explosions.

MS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, this was during 1986, there were many landmine explosions in the Eastern Transvaal.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the orders or at least the instructions for these landmine explosions, came from the Transvaal machinery, from Swaziland.

MR VISSER: Yes, they were the final issuers of the orders.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I assume that you had many opportunities to work with these landmine explosions and to arrest the persons who had brought in these devices, isn't that so?

MR VISSER: In the past I had arrested persons who had been involved with landmine incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you a position to tell us why they were planting bombs?

MR VISSER: I believe that it was part of the policy of the organisation, the African National Congress, which waged a military struggle against the former dispensation in order to achieve some form of a takeover.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree that it was a struggle against apartheid?

MR VISSER: I would say that it was a struggle against the dispensation of that time, which followed the policy of apartheid, but it was a legal government at that stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, did you see Mr Sedibe directly after he was brought over the border?

MR VISSER: I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any discussion with him?

MR VISSER: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what was his reaction towards you?

MR VISSER: He was quite pleasant and I found him rather interesting. We didn't have a lengthy discussion, but he appeared to be relaxed.

MS VAN DER WALT: During his Section 29 detention, was he detained at one specific place only or was he taken to different places where various people interrogated him?

MR VISSER: He was taken to various places where members from other branches would also interrogate him with regard to information that he could give or had given.

MS VAN DER WALT: That would be the Security Branches?

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you didn't have any knowledge regarding an assault on Mr Sedibe in Swaziland?

MR VISSER: No, I did not know about it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was Mr Sedibe ever assaulted in your presence?

MR VISSER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see that he had sustained injuries?

MR VISSER: I cannot imagine that I saw any serious injuries on his person.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not referring to serious injuries.

MR VISSER: Well I cannot imagine any specific injury.

CHAIRPERSON: There has been evidence that he was injured.

MR VISSER: Yes, I've heard the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you dispute the evidence?

MR VISSER: I cannot dispute it.

CHAIRPERSON: Is a question of you having forgotten about it or didn't you see it?

MR VISSER: I didn't really pay attention to it or notice it.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let us accept that these injuries were there, that any person may have been able to notice injuries on Mr Sedibe, why wouldn't you have asked how these injuries came to be?

MR VISSER: That is why I said I cannot imagine that I saw any serious injuries or injuries of any such nature on his person and that is why I would not have asked any such questions pertaining to the injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: Even though they were not serious injuries, you were the head of the group and you had to take decisions and you took decisions without contacting head office because it was a matter of urgency, why didn't you ask why the man was injured and what was going on?

MR VISSER: As I've already stated, I did notice any specific injuries, I cannot recall that I saw any specific injuries. When I spoke to him he was reasonably relaxed and he did not complain of having been assaulted, to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you ever heard anybody who had been arrested in the Security Police, complain about anything?

MNR VISSER: "Wel ek weet baie mense kla, Voorsitter."

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Visser, you are applying for amnesty for the abduction of Mr Sedibe from Swaziland to the Republic, is that correct?

MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And any other offence which emanate therefrom, as well as any delict?

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, what is your objective with the other charges?

MS VAN DER WALT: Is that the assaults and the ...?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MS VAN DER WALT: I did not personally take up the argument, this was done by Mr Visser. I cannot exactly recall, I think it was before Judge Wilson where the argument was held that the Attorney-General who possibly, if a dossier was placed before him, there may be other charges which might emanate from the abduction of which we are not aware of at this stage and that is why it has to be put. We were of the opinion that the Honourable Committee should make such a decision that the act which was committed, for example murder or abduction and any other charges which might emanate from that incident and any delictual responsibility.

ADV BOSMAN: Ms van der Walt, we are not dealing with argument here at the moment, but it has been expressly put by the applicant that he did not participate or approve of any assaults and if we should grant such a request that there is amnesty for any other which might emanate from it, then we will be granting amnesty for something that was specifically denied here. But maybe it might be something you might address us on in argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me assist you.

Mr Visser, you gave instructions that this person be abducted, you must have heard that the possibility exists, is that not so? You knew that violence would be used.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you agreed with that?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So if there were any assaults, then you are just as guilty and that has to be included in your amnesty application, is that not so?

MR VISSER: I believe in the greater picture it would be so.

CHAIRPERSON: So do you then make such an application in this regard?

MR VISSER: I do so yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You were not inside Swaziland?

MR VISSER: No, I was not.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo?

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

Brigadier, with regard to procedures which were applicable with regard to control and command, is it correct that when - let us be specific, when the Vlakplaas contingency moved down to your area they resorted under your command and control.

MR VISSER: Overhead under my command, yes.

MR HUGO: And what happened in effect in this regard is that you received information from Deetlefs, you weighed up the information and evaluated it and on the strength thereof you took a decision, an informed decision that an operation be launched and the men would be sent through.

MR VISSER: That's correct.

MR HUGO: And you then conveyed this instruction and heard that Mr de Kock was there and then you gave instruction that he become part of the operation.

MR VISSER: That's correct.

MR HUGO: And you did not expect of him to oppose the instruction or question it?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

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

Mr Visser, did you yourself inform head office after the decision?

MR VISSER: Yes, I did.

MR LAMEY: Can we make a reasonable assumption that head office and its different branches, its different C branches, C2 and so forth, would have had information of this abduction?

MR VISSER: Yes, they would have and above all they would have had the motivation for the Section 29 detention.

MR LAMEY: We can make the assumption that C2 which dealt with the identification of - detention or the questioning of detainees and the identification of other possible MK members in the country by means of the photo album, would have been interested from that point to gleam information from him.

MNR VISSER: "Dis korrek, Voorsitter".

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

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

Mr Visser, after Mr Sedibe was brought to South Africa, at Piet Retief, after how long did you visit him on his arrival?

MR VISSER: That last time I saw him was not very long after he entered South Africa. He was at the safehouse that was used in Piet Retief when I visited him and had discussions with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you may use Afrikaans, it will be interpreted. I did not get your answer.

MR VISSER: It was not after he was brought into the country that I visited him at the house in Piet Retief that was used as a safehouse, where I held discussions with him.

CHAIRPERSON: How long did you speak to him?

MR VISSER: I did not remain there for too long, it was only a few minutes that I was on the premises where he was present.

CHAIRPERSON: What concerns me, you made a decision without head office and I do understand why. A man was abducted from another country, that in itself is an issue. You then took the decision that here was a person who, according to your evidence, would have important information and you also had the objective of turning him in order for him to cooperate with you, you also wanted to make him into an askari. As the person who would have taken the final decision about this, why did you yourself not hold all those interviews with him?

MR VISSER: I appraised myself that the man was indeed in the RSA, that he had indeed arrived and I had confidence in the branch commander at Piet Retief and at Ermelo, to undertake the necessary questioning of the man.

CHAIRPERSON: That is one thing. I don't know how common this was, but I would say it was uncommon, here was a person who was a candidate for becoming an askari, were you not interested therein? - because of the fact that you were the person who had taken the decision about this?

MR VISSER: I was indeed interested, Chairperson, but I had confidence that the information that he had available to him would come to my knowledge eventually.

CHAIRPERSON: I do understand that, but I speak your satisfaction that this was indeed a good candidate to become an askari.

MR VISSER: The aspect of turning him into an askari was not in my mind at that stage, Chairperson, it is a possibility that came about later.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I was given the impression - I hope I am correct, that this was the actual objective of the abduction. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR VISSER: No, I wanted to question the man and gain information from him in order to effectively combat terrorism within the country.

CHAIRPERSON: So the story that he would become an askari, when did this come about for the first time?

MR VISSER: It was decided by head office that he should be taken and be applied as a possible askari.

CHAIRPERSON: Deetlefs contacted you from Swaziland.

MR VISSER: I was his immediate commander.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he contact you?

MR VISSER: Yes, he did.

CHAIRPERSON: And he informed you that this man was arrested in Swaziland.

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: What did he tell you?

MR VISSER: That according to our intelligence reports this man had much available with regard to the activities of the ANC within the RSA.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it never mentioned to you that he would be a good candidate for becoming an askari?

MR VISSER: At that stage I did not consider it.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not ask what you consider, I ask what was put to you.

MR VISSER: It was a possibility that had existed, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Deetlefs tell you that this person could possibly become an askari?

MR VISSER: He did not specifically tell me that this man was going to become an askari.

CHAIRPERSON: May I ask you as follows. What do you say of the statement that he makes that when he had the idea of abducting this man, it was primarily to gain his cooperation, that he would work for the South African Police? Are you surprised?

MR VISSER: That was the objective, to convince him to supply information and work along with the South African Police, that was the primary task.

CHAIRPERSON: When?

MR VISSER: During the abduction.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are saying that the aspect that he would become an askari came about during the course of time, not when he was abducted, that's what you've just said.

MR VISSER: That is what I say. I still say that the askari issue came about later, he could have been used otherwise, not only as an askari.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if my Afrikaans is so bad that you

do not understand me, but Deetlefs told us that when he arrived there he was informed that this man had been arrested and at that stage he formulated the idea in his own mind that this person who had been arrested, would be a good candidate for becoming an askari, he knew the workings of the ANC and he had much information. That is what he testified.

MR VISSER: I did not hear that, Chairperson. He said that he would be a candidate for becoming an askari and because of his command amongst the MK members in Swaziland who were infiltrating into the country, he had much information.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand your evidence correctly then, when you received the call from Deetlefs while he was still in Swaziland and before the abduction, you were of the impression that this person would be abducted just to give information, at that stage, and later the idea of him becoming an askari came about?

MR VISSER: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that your evidence?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Visser, do I therefore understand your evidence pointedly to mean that there is a distinction between a person who would ordinarily provide information and a person who would provide information and further be turned as an askari?

MR VISSER: Unfortunately I cannot hear you.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Are you properly tuned, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: I can hear you, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I wanted to know if I would be correct in comprehending your evidence briefly as saying you draw a distinction between a person who would be abducted with a view of providing invaluable information for purposes of you resisting the struggle against the ANC, and a person who would provide such information and later on be turned as an askari?

MR VISSER: Both persons would have to be turned, Chairperson. The one who would be applied under cover to work within the intelligence community and the other one who would openly work with, let us say Vlakplaas persons, as an askari, but both would have to turned and be convinced to cooperate with us.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So there would still be that important ingredient of cooperation that you will have to solicit from the person who is not defined as an askari, but who nevertheless is formally an MK activist but is now working in cooperation with the police.

MR VISSER: I could not follow you there, would you please repeat that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I'm trying to find out your definition of a person who is an askari and a person who is enjoying the cooperation - whom you are enjoying his cooperation, but who is not an askari.

MR VISSER: A person who is an askari moves around freely with, for example, Vlakplaas' people, they had control of the askaris and the other person who would for example say at Middelburg Branch, could be convinced to cooperate and would then gain information under cover and would be of assistance to me. That is the difference that I see, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And at the time when you spoke to Mr Deetlefs, your primary objective was to get invaluable information from Mr Sedibe.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And you say the notion of turning him into an askari had not yet entered your mind.

MR VISSER: Not at that specific stage, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So the cooperation that Mr Deetleffs has referred to, in your understanding would be the cooperation that merely sought to get information that is invaluable, from Mr Sedibe.

MR VISSER: Yes, correct, Chairperson, with the later possibility of further application or other applications, as just the supplying of information.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Visser, what is nor entirely clear to me is, when would you decide, on what basis would you decide that this person has to be turned into an askari or he would just work under cover at the branch for you? What was the basis for such a decision?

MR VISSER: It would depend on the orientation and the motivation and the convincing of the person. That would make one decide where he would be applied and what his potential was for application, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: In other words, did an askari have a broader application as a person who worked under cover?

MR VISSER: He had a broader spectrum, he could work right throughout the country.

ADV BOSMAN: So what qualities did he have to have? What qualities did Mr Sedibe had that could make an askari of him?

MR VISSER: He was an intelligent person, he was well-trained, he had the knowledge surrounding the activities of the ANC, the banned ANC at that stage.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman.

Coming back to my question once again, roughly can you estimate how long did you visit him after he arrived in South Africa? The days, was it after four days, was it the same day?

MR VISSER: It was the same day when he arrived in the RSA that I saw him, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Is it not the same night, Mr Visser? Was it not the same night as opposed to the same day?

MR VISSER: I saw him during the day, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: Did he indicate to cooperate at that stage, according to your opinion?

MR VISSER: He did not specifically give me an indication, but he appeared relaxed and while I spoke to him I did not notice any antagonism on his part.

MR LEOPENG: When you saw him at that house, where he was housed, did you notice him being handcuffed?

MR VISSER: I cannot recall at that stage. He was in a room, I cannot recall whether he was cuffed at that stage.

MR LEOPENG: But there's evidence to the effect that he was handcuffed, what do you say about it? And you saw him, isn't it?

MR VISSER: Will you please repeat the question, I could not hear exactly what you were saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I think you should keep that thing on.

MR LEOPENG: I'm saying there was evidence before this Committee that he was handcuffed when he arrived at the house where he was housed.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I did not see him when he arrived at the house, when I spoke to him he was in the room, he was standing up and as far as I can imagine he was not cuffed at that stage.

MR LEOPENG: There was evidence further that during his abduction there was a cut on his nose which was visible, did you notice that cut on his nose?

MR VISSER: It is possible that there was a cut, Chairperson, although I cannot imagine that I did observe it.

MR LEOPENG: So you can't dispute that there was a cut on his nose?

MR VISSER: No, I cannot dispute it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, how many times was a similar operation conducted under your control?

MR VISSER: Similar or arrests?

CHAIRPERSON: Operations during which persons were abducted.

MR VISSER: Abductions would amount to one or two occasions.

VOORSITTER: "So dit is nie 'n ding wat gewoonlik gebeur het nie"?

MR VISSER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there a case that you may be confusing with this case?

MR VISSER: No, I recall this particular incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Because every time that any questions are aimed at the question of injuries, it would appear to me that you do not recall.

MR VISSER: My recollection does not permit me to tell this Committee specifically that I did indeed see injuries. It is possible, I concede that he may have been injured, but I cannot imagine this. I cannot recall that I saw these injuries specifically.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any particular reason for that?

MR VISSER: The incident took place a long time ago, Chairperson, and there was an abduction, possibly I accepted that the man may have incurred bumps and bruises should he have resisted during the abduction, but I didn't notice any specific injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, was it the policy of the Security Police to apply violence in order to obtain information from subjects?

MR VISSER: Not with regard to me.

CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I ask is that if it was so, it would have been a custom for injuries to be observable, but you didn't pay any attention to it because it was a custom. But here we have a case of a prisoner and a policeman and it would be obvious that this should be something that the policeman should be concerned about.

MR VISSER: If I had noticed anything I would said something. I concede that there may have been injuries, but I cannot recall these injuries and that if he did have injuries I would not be able to say exactly where these injuries were situated. That is the problem, my recollection does not permit me to recall.

CHAIRPERSON: It was probably minor if it existed.

MR VISSER: Yes, if there were injuries they could not have been very serious, his face would have had to be completely cut up for me to notice this.

MR LEOPENG: Did you ask the team which abducted him from Swaziland how was his reaction when he was abducted, whether he fought with them, whether he resisted abduction?

MR VISSER: It was mentioned to me by the way that the had resisted and that he was taken from Swaziland by means of violence.

MR LEOPENG: Was he assaulted when he was taken by force?

MR VISSER: I don't know if one would be able to describe this as assault, but violence was applied to abduct him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, if the abduction was illegal, then everything that occurred thereafter would be illegal, because the abduction per se is illegal.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: Were you told that he was assaulted on his way from Swaziland to the border, in the vehicle?

MR VISSER: Nobody told me this specifically.

MR LEOPENG: May you turn to page 102 of the bundle, paragraph 4 thereof -

Why do you say that?

MR VISSER: The mere fact ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get the question.

MR LEOPENG: May I rephrase the question. According to this paragraph, the first sentence you said -

Is that correct?

MR VISSER: All that I meant there is that the man was taken and brought to the RSA, where he was in detention, or placed in detention.

MR LEOPENG: I don't understand. When you say he was brought into South Africa safely, what did you mean?

MR VISSER: He was alive. He was brought to the RSA alive and I had discussions with him, he wasn't killed under way to South Africa, he was not murdered, he was safe and alive and brought to South Africa in that condition in order to be applied according to the initial plan.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore, if he had been injured, would he still have been safe?

MR VISSER: Yes, I believe so.

MR LEOPENG: You said you took part in interrogating him, is that correct?

MR VISSER: I did not participate in an intense interrogation, I merely had a discussion with him and drew the inference that he was completely relaxed, or at least he appeared to be completely relaxed.

MR LEOPENG: Did he at some stage go through an intensive interrogation as you said?

MR VISSER: Yes, he was interrogated, among others by Mr Pienaar and I also believe that Col Deetlefs interrogated him. Along with other branches from head office, C2 would also have interrogated him and wanted him to conduct identifications.

MR LEOPENG: And if I understand you correctly, there's a division between a discussion and intensive interrogation. You had a discussion with him whereas Mr Pienaar had an intensive interrogation with him, is that correct?

MR VISSER: I assume it is as Mr Pienaar testified, that he took him from his cells that morning and took him to the office and interrogated him with regard to information pertaining to the ANC and any further plans, which could be expected.

MR LEOPENG: How is an interrogation conducted, is there any force which is used? - to induce him to divulge the information or is it just a normal discussion between man and man?

MR VISSER: As far as I know it is a man-to-man discussion in an office, there is a discussion between the interviewer and the subject.

CHAIRPERSON: You had very little to do with this person, is that correct?

MR VISSER: That is correct, I had very little to do with this person.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, ultimately I understand that he became an askari.

MR VISSER: Yes, I saw him after he became an askari, he was at my office.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us whether any force or coercion was applied to render him an askari?

MR VISSER: Not as far as I know.

MR LEOPENG: Are you in any position to give evidence or to testify to that?

MR VISSER: I don't have any personal knowledge thereof, but as far as I know no force or coercion was used.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what you have said but we know today that many lies were told by the police collectively, but you personally cannot tell us whether or not any coercion was applied in order to make that man turn into an askari.

MR VISSER: No, I cannot.

MR LEOPENG: There will be evidence to the effect that Mr Sedibe was tortured during the interrogation, so that he can divulge information. What do you say about it?

MR VISSER: I do not know about that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose, Mr Leopeng.

After Mr Sedibe had been brought to the RSA, did you give any specific instructions that during his interrogation by the many members of the various sections, he was not to be assaulted?

MR VISSER: That was standing policy, that persons should not be assaulted while they were being interrogated.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Are you sure, Mr Visser? We have heard countless evidence before this Committee, of people being abducted and interrogated by using force.

MR VISSER: But I did not issue any specific instructions in this regard and as far as I could determine later, especially with regard to the relationship between the man and Mr Pienaar, no violence was ever used against him.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did you ever make any attempt to find out from Mr Pienaar for instance, who seemed to have conducted quite an intensive interrogation of Mr Sedibe, whether any violence had been used by him on the subject he was interrogating?

MR VISSER: I did not specifically, but I believe that I would have been informed if it had been necessary to use violence against the man.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: When you gave an approval for Mr Sedibe's abduction in Swaziland, did you specifically give an order that force was not to be used during his abduction?

MR VISSER: I may have mentioned by the way that the man had to be oriented, that he had to be approached in such a fashion that would make it possible to obtain the information from him, but I do not recall that I issued any specific instructions in regard to this. I basically sent the message that we should try to win him over so that he could be of assistance in providing us with the information regarding the ANC, its structures and its activities.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you, Mr Leopeng.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman.

Lastly, Mr Pienaar testified that he personally observed some bruises on the body of Mr Sedibe, what do you say about it?

MR VISSER: It is possible, Chairperson, I did not notice anything like that specifically. He was clothed when I was there, in either event.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose, Mr Leopeng.

Mr Visser, what I find quite disturbing is that you have been able to observe Mr Sedibe to an extent of concluding that he was in a relaxed fashion, but during your observation you have not been able to see a bruise which we have heard from the evidence of Mr Deetlefs, that is was quite an apparent bruise on his nose. Your observation must have entailed you looking at his face for quite some time to have come to such a conclusion that he was in a relaxed fashion. Is it conceivable that you cannot recall an obvious bruise which was on his noise, as we have heard previously in the evidence of Mr Deetlefs?

MR VISSER: All that I'm trying to say, Chairperson, is that my memory permits me to state specifically whether there was an injury or if there was such an injury, where it would have been, how it would have been. There may have been such an injury, but I cannot recall this. If the others who worked with him say that there were injuries, I would accept that, I would not dispute it, but my recollection does not permit me to say pertinently whether or not there were injuries and if so, where these injuries were situated.

CHAIRPERSON: What would you have done if you had noticed any injuries?

MR VISSER: I would have asked what had happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Who would you have asked?

MR VISSER: The persons who had conducted the abduction and then they would possibly have given me a reasonable explanation.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you trying to tell us that you may have asked, but that you cannot recall?

MR VISSER: I cannot recall that I asked about the injuries.

ADV BOSMAN: You have used the phrase "I cannot imagine" quite often, are you trying to say that you don't really have a very clear picture of what took place there? Do I understand you correctly?

MR VISSER: Yes, because the incident took place several years ago and my memory does not allow me to recall such fine details of the incident.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR LEOPENG: Chairman, just a last question.

Before the abduction of Mr Sedibe, did you have any form of abduction of an MK, high-ranking official of the MK? - before the abduction of Mr Sedibe.

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: Did you have interrogations of MK cadres before the interrogation of Mr Sedibe?

MR VISSER: I had conducted interrogations, yes, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: Did they just cooperate without force being used on them? Did they just - members of the MK, did they just cooperate voluntarily?

MR VISSER: As far as I know the MK members were trained that should they be arrested they would cooperate and provide satisfactory information or as much information as what they could afford. But that was part of their training, to not resist but to offer apparent cooperation.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How are you able to know that information, Mr Visser? That if an MK cadre is arrested he has to offer his cooperation and not to resist.

MR VISSER: Many interrogations have been conducted in the process, I spent 25 years with the Security Police and some of the person who had arrested cadres managed to uncover these facts.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So in your experience not much force was used when interrogating arrested MK operatives? And Sedibe is also a case in point.

MR VISSER: That is correct.

MR LEOPENG: No further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Visser, we've heard evidence that initially the abduction was supposed to made to look as if the ANC had conducted the abduction, or had been involved in the release of Mr Sedibe from the Swaziland Police Station. Do you bear any knowledge of this?

MR VISSER: I was not involved in the planning of the abduction and the discussions that had taken place about it and from that viewpoint, it could have been planned, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Okay. And then also, you are no doubt aware that the Nerston incident in which other activists were allegedly killed, took place during the same time, a day or two after or before, not so?

MR VISSER: I am aware of it, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: We've heard evidence here that a story had gone out that Mr Sedibe was in fact the one responsible for handing over those persons who were killed, to the Security Police. Do you bear any knowledge of that?

MR VISSER: I do not know of any such story, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Okay. Regarding the weapon that was taken from the Swaziland Police, the G3 rifle, we've heard - I believe it was Mr Pienaar who said that the weapon was eventually returned to the police, the Swazi Police, do you bear any knowledge of that?

MR VISSER: I don't know whether the firearm was given back, Chairperson. I doubt whether it would have been done.

MS PATEL: Why do you say that?

MR VISSER: The mere fact that it be handed over would be an admission that the South African Police was involved in illegal actions in Swaziland. And it is possible that there could be some confusion with regard to this.

MS PATEL: You say that you didn't spend too long in the room with Mr Sedibe when you had this discussion as opposed to an interrogation with him. Can you give us an indication as to more-or-less how long, was it an hour, two hours, three hours that you were in the room with him?

MR VISSER: It was minutes, Chairperson, because I had other duties and other responsibilities within that division and I could not spend much time there. I just had to confirm for myself that the operation had been conducted and that he had arrived in the RSA safely and then I left the questioning and further action to the branch members.

MS PATEL: Who else was in the room at the time that you were there, besides Mr Sedibe obviously?

MR VISSER: I assume - I think Mr Pienaar could have been there and possibly one of the Vlakplaas members. There were not many people in that room.

MS PATEL: Sorry, I didn't get the last bit, you said Mr Pienaar and who else?

MR VISSER: Some of the Vlakplaas contingent. But there were not many people in that room, it was not full.

MS PATEL: Are you absolutely certain that you only spent a few minutes there?

MR VISSER: Correct, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: The reason I ask you this is because when I asked Mr Pienaar yesterday who would be in charge of the interrogation, or of Mr Sedibe during the time that he was at Piet Retief, was it him or Mr Deetlefs or who would be the senior person and if I remember correctly, his response to me was that well, when you were there you would be in charge because you were the senior person. The inference I draw from that was that you would then have been there for longer than just a few minutes. What is your comment on that?

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just convey my view of the evidence, it was that Mr Pienaar testified and said that he was in command, but as soon as a person with a senior rank was there, then that person would be in command. For example, Mr Visser. I don't think he specifically testified that Mr Visser conducted the interrogation, I think he explained how the rank structure worked. But if I understood his evidence correctly, he was in command of Mr Sedibe.

CHAIRPERSON: If the answer was that Mr X was in command or in control of the interrogation, what does it mean?

MR VISSER: It is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, the question is to the Advocate.

MS VAN DER WALT: With respect, Chairperson, he said that he was in command, Sedibe was placed under his command for purposes of the interrogation, but he said that if a senior person arrived who could conduct interrogations, there were people from C1 and C2, and if that person was a senior that person would be in command. There was no direct evidence that Brig Visser was in command of the interrogation, it was an explanation of the rank structure.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, is it your case or your question that during any period that Mr Visser would have been present at the interrogation, that he would have been in command of the interrogation?

MS PATEL: Yes, that is correct, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I'm not too sure there's anything different.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So if I understand what you are saying, Ms Patel, and what Mrs van der Walt is saying, during the ten minutes that he allegedly spoke to Mr Sedibe, or he interrogated Mr Sedibe, whatever word you would choose to use in relation to that discussion, he then would have been in command of that situation. Which is not much different from the evidence as correctly pointed out by Mrs van der Walt, of Mr Pienaar.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, perhaps we are splitting hairs here. My understanding however of Mr Pienaar's evidence yesterday was that just in terms of -I believe the way I phrased the question and the way in which he responded, I got the distinct impression that Mr Visser would at least have been there for longer than just a few minutes, because it was a question of who would generally have been in control of Mr Sedibe at the time. I take it no further than that.

CHAIRPERSON: Any more questions, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: I'm almost through, Honourable Chairperson. Thank you.

Can you recall, Mr Visser, if Mr Nofomela was present at the place in Piet Retief where Mr Sedibe was being held?

MR VISSER: I cannot recall, I do not know all the Vlakplaas members personally, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Alright. Do you recall whether there were any black members present there when you went?

MR VISSER: There were some black members there, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Did you say some?

MR VISSER: Yes, there was.

MS PATEL: Alright. You say he wasn't bound to the bed when you got there ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, he wasn't cuffed.

MR VISSER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: And according to your recollection his eye wasn't swollen shut either.

MR VISSER: I cannot imagine that I observed it, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Alright. Honourable Chairperson, if you would just grant me a moment please. Sorry, just one final thing.

Did Mr Deetlefs report back to you before he went to Swaziland, after the incident? After Sedibe was abducted an brought to Piet Retief, did he then report back to you?

MR VISSER: I saw him as well. After I saw Sedibe there at Piet Retief, he was also in the vicinity there, on the premises there.

MS PATEL: No, my question is, did he make a report to you about the incident, about what had happened?

MR VISSER: Yes, he reported that - he reported what the action was.

MS PATEL: Is he the one - sorry, I speak under correction here, but you were not aware of the assault that had taken place in Swaziland?

MR VISSER: It was not specifically mentioned to me in detail.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But wasn't it your evidence that you were told that he had been taken by force?

MR VISSER: Yes, that's correct Chairperson, but nobody specifically mentioned it to me. It was only mentioned that they had to use force to get him away. As the Honourable Chairperson said, if force is used then it is assault and I accept it as such.

MS PATEL: And did he at any stage report to you that Mr Sedibe was giving his full cooperation almost immediately?

MR VISSER: Not at that stage, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: And at any other stage?

MR VISSER: Later with the interrogation and through the course of time it became clear that Mr Sedibe was indeed cooperating.

MS PATEL: Can you recall how long after his abduction it was told to you that he was cooperating?

MR VISSER: It could have been weeks thereafter, it could have been a few days thereafter when I liaised with the persons and they said that the man was positive and progress was good.

MS PATEL: But it doesn't help to speculate, so I'll take it no further. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson, just a singular aspect.

You several times upon questions from the Honourable Committee you said that your memory does not allow you to recall it, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you in later years after the

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you in later years after the incident have a brain operation?

MS VAN DER WALT: And was a tumour removed?

MR VISSER: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you have problems after the operation with your memory?

MR VISSER: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And even today?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Visser, just something that troubles me. It is not clear to me if you are trying to tell us that violence did not play a role in the questioning of the Security Police in general. What are you trying to tell us, are you trying to tell us that violence did not play a role in the interrogation or are you trying to say that violence did not play a role where you were present in general, or are you trying to say that you cannot recall whether violence was used in this specific incident? Would you just clear that up for us.

MR VISSER: I am trying to tell you that in this particular matter violence was not used in the questioning of Sedibe. That violence was used by the Security Police in interrogations on activists is a well-known fact, but in this particular issue violence was not used.

ADV BOSMAN: Let me take it further, then no violence was used in as far as you can recall, or are you trying to tell us unequivocally that violence was not used?

MR VISSER: As far as I know violence was not used.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I have no questions.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Just one more question, Chairman.

...(indistinct - no microphone) whether Mr Sedibe when Mr Visser visited him, he had the indication of cooperation?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) question before.

MR LEOPENG: ...(indistinct - no microphone) arose during the questioning by my learned colleague.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) that's an aspect that I would have expected to have arose during consultation, but I'm going to allow you that limited question. You can ask that question.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman.

Mr Visser, you said in your evidence that when you visited Mr Sedibe he was pleasant, interesting and relaxed, is that correct?

MR VISSER: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: Will I be correct to say that you gathered the impression that he was then cooperating with the police?

MR VISSER: I would have accepted or thought that the potential or possibility existed that he would cooperate with the police in the future.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, at this stage I don't know how important the aspect of assault is, but it would appear to me that this is the question on everyone's lips and that perhaps towards the end of these proceedings or this hearing it may become significant and this is why I would like to put one or two questions regarding this aspect to you. Do you have any knowledge that policemen, particularly in the Security Police at that time, made use of violence in order to at least obtain information?

MR VISSER: I do know about it, I've already stated when your colleague asked me, that during the past violence was applied in order to obtain information.

CHAIRPERSON: What was so special or so exceptional about the person who was abducted that he had to be brought here to the RSA?

MR VISSER: He was in a position of command within Swaziland, he was relatively highly placed in the ranks of the ANC, he was in command of the Transvaal machinery which was responsible for channelling and infiltrating people into the RSA in order to set landmines and bombs and by nature of these circumstances he would have possessed much knowledge about the ANC activities and that is why he was important to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it a consideration at that point to abduct other highly placed ANC members?

MR VISSER: I did not consider it, but it is possible that this may have been considered.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you consider it?

MR VISSER: The opportunity had not yet presented itself.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I have asked you what was so exceptional about this person.

MR VISSER: His knowledge regarding activities, primarily activities within the Eastern Transvaal, the landmine and bomb explosions, along with the fact that he would be the one to give the final order with regard to infiltrations.

CHAIRPERSON: Why wasn't there any attempt to abduct Mr Hani because he would have been one of the best candidates, he knew about everything?

MR VISSER: I do believe that there was an attempt to abduct Mr Hani, if my memory does not fail me.

CHAIRPERSON: So abduction was part of the modus operandi?

MR VISSER: Yes, in terms of combatting terrorism.

CHAIRPERSON: Now subsequent to everything - if we could just abandon the political road from '94 onwards, how do you feel about this incident?

MR VISSER: I don't really understand the question - how do I feel about the events?

CHAIRPERSON: No, how do you feel.

MR VISSER: I feel completely satisfied. I know that I jeopardised my own life many a time in order to achieve certain goals, but I'm satisfied and I feel pleased about the changes that have taken place since 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You are excused. We will now take the tea adjournment. Thank you, we are adjourned.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The next applicant is Mr E A de Kock.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, I assume you wish to speak Afrikaans.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, please.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, you are the applicant in this matter which is known as the abduction of Glory Sedibe, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And you therefore apply for amnesty for amongst others the following offences: abduction, unlawful arrest and detention, assaults, perjury or defeating the ends of justice, illegal possession of firearms, the illegal crossing of an international border, forging of identity documents and so forth, possible theft of an R3 firearm, the illegal pointing of a firearm and any other offence and delict which might be covered by your evidence, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Your application appears in bundle 1 from page 1 to 13, and there is a further supplementary bundle in which amongst others, there is a supplementary statement of yours with regard to your background and there is a statement with regard to Vlakplaas and you request that these statements be read in conjunction with your application.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And in bundle 2 there is a reference, it is the record of the Nerston incident and you ask that that also be incorporated into your evidence.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Mr de Kock, I think we have to divide the incident into phases. Firstly, I wish you to tell the Honourable Committee how it came about that you were present in Piet Retief at that stage and exactly what happened during the planning phase before you went into Swaziland.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if my memory serves me correctly in this instance, it was one of Vlakplaas' normal situations where we were deployed for a month, which was between two or three weeks at a time and we found ourselves there at Piet Retief during that time.

On a day I was approached - I am not certain of the name, I see in the statements it is W/O Pienaar, that we would have to execute an operation in Swaziland. I do have a memory that Brig Schalk Visser and Chris Deetlefs informed us and briefed us and I also add that Brig Schoon was there. This is a mistake on my side because there was a second incident that is very similar to this one and not very long before or after this one.

MR HUGO: Very well then. You were then contacted and you amongst others held a discussion with Mr Pienaar, what did Mr Pienaar tell you, what was the purpose of the operation and at who was it aimed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he said that a senior member of the ANC was detained in Swaziland and that we would be further informed by Mr Deetlefs who had gone through to Swaziland and that we would obtain further information because Swaziland was an operational area of Vlakplaas and my unit continually had arms with them as well as their passports for crossing of the border.

MR HUGO: May I just ask you, at this stage were you specifically told at whom this operation was aimed at? In other words, who would be affected by this.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was told to me that it was the chief of the intelligence of the ANC in Swaziland, it was one Gory Sedibe, with the MK name September.

MR HUGO: And were you also told that he was actively involved in the so-called struggle against the former government?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was active and he was also a committed member.

MR HUGO: And besides what Mr Pienaar told you did you have independent knowledge of Mr Sedibe's activities and his profile in the freedom struggle?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, there were continual reports concerning Mr Sedibe's activities, not only from the Transvaal side but also from the Northern Natal side. There were many sources that were activated in the Swazi vicinity and I also had my sources in Swaziland.

MR HUGO: Evidence was given in other amnesty applications and hearings, but from time to time these reports were coordinated and you had insight and access to all these reports.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: What type of planning was done after you liaised with Mr Pienaar, before you went into Swaziland? For example, which men did you task to accompany you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't have an entire recollection of whom I took, but I know I took three of the black members with me, amongst others, Mr Koole, there was Aubrey Mngade and there was Nofomela and as far as I know there was no other black member along whom I can recall at this stage. Mr van Dyk was along, Mr Pienaar and I may have taken one or two others of my members, but I do not have any other independent recollection of who else was there.

MR HUGO: May I just ask you what arrangement were made with regard to taking along firearms?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we had a variety of weapons and in this instance we took along close combat knives. There were three or four amongst us, they were short knives that we used for close combat, and there were also four or five hand firearms of various calibers but with silences. There were 9mm firearms with silencers, there were two Makarovs of Russian origin, also with silencers and I had a Baretta 9mm.

MR HUGO: And these arms, these were clandestinely issued to security members, they were not licensed.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, and the silencers were manufactured by the technical division of the police.

MR HUGO: What were the arrangements with regard to passports and what was the idea with regard to access control to Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, all my people had passports. The passports were legal and valid in this regard, it was printed by the State and it was issued by Internal Affairs, but the numbers and the - the identity numbers and the names were false. In other words it could not be traced back to a member of the police.

MR HUGO: Very well then. I accept that you took along a number of vehicles through the border after you used these false passports.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I recall two vehicles which were used by my people, the one was a Safari cruiser and the other one a Toyota cruiser.

MR HUGO: And did you then meet with Mr Deetlefs in Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but I do have a problem as to I cannot recall where I met him, but we met somewhere where we discussed the matter further.

MR HUGO: Mr Deetlefs testified that you met at a hotel, is that true?

MR DE KOCK: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: When you met him there, what discussion did you have and what further planning did you undertake?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he informed me that Mr Sedibe was detained at a smallish police station and that only member of the Swazi Police would be there. He also informed me that these persons would not be armed, upon my enquiry, and that the police station at night was open for use to the public, in other words, we could just walk in. So we did not foresee any violence or the use of firearms and that we would detain the man in the police station, take the keys and then release Mr Sedibe.

MR HUGO: That was the prearranged plan and the discussion took place in Swaziland and you went to the police station. How far from the police station did you stop?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we must have stopped approximately 80 or 90 metres from there. There was high ground on the Western side of the police station, we parked the vehicles there. From there myself, Mr Koole, Mr Nofomela and I think, Mngade, followed me and we moved down to the police station. The rear guard was brought up by Mr van Dyk and some of the other white members and thereafter it was Mr Pienaar and Mr Deetlefs.

MR HUGO: What happened then?

MR DE KOCK: When we wanted to enter the charge office, we found that the door was locked. There was a light burning, not in the charge office itself but down the corridor, which reflected a dim light. We looked through the window, there was an office where the one window - and I think it is because of the building work that the window could not seal properly, I then took the close combat knife, it had a very thin blade, and I wedged it into that space and I lifted the catch, I opened it. Behind me was Almond Nofomela. I am not certain who followed him, but when I walked into the corridor, I bumped into a man, a young police officer who had a G3 assault rifle and he pointed it to me and the barrel of the rifle was about a metre from me and I aimed the pistol with the silencer at him. I was ready to shoot and I think at that stage he was also ready to shoot.

I started speaking to him and asked him to put down the weapon and approximately two or three minutes later he put the weapon down. I believe his action brought about that both of us survived that situation there. I took the G3 and secured it. I saw that there was a round in the chamber and I think his firearm was on safety, I think that is what saved us both.

I walked down the corridor. I had the young police officer in front of me. I had his firearm and I shouted "September" and a voice answered from a cell. The senior member, the older member we found in the charge office and I asked him for the keys, took the keys from him and opened the cell and inside the cell there was a person. I asked him if he was September, he said yes. He also appeared similar to the physical description that we had, he was well-built, just over six feet, he was about my length. The other two persons who were in the cell with him, I asked the other one what they were doing there, they said they were there for stock theft and I chased both of them out and said "Go".

I did not want to put the two policemen who we were to lock up in the cell with these other two detainees because I did not know what would happen. We cut the telephone line in two or three places so that they could not connect it easily. There was a button on the telephone if you wanted to call the central telephone exchange ... so that they could not use it.

I fired a shot through the button and outside, Mr Glory Sedibe started fighting with the other police officers and it was quite a fight there and Mr Sedibe tried to run away but he did not succeed. One of the members who had a scarf had it around his neck and that is the only thing which forced him onto the ground. It was the scarf strangling him ...(intervention)

MR HUGO: Would you just pause here. Who were the members physically involved in the attempt in getting him under control and who had to use force?

MR DE KOCK: I can recall Joe Koole because he was the guy or the person who was the target of Mr Sedibe's attempt to escape. I believe if it was not for Joe Koole, he would have escaped because Joe Koole was a large and strong man. I'm not certain who the other members were. I do know that Mngade was there. I am not certain whether Mr van Dyk or Mr Mngade also participated, I do not have an independent recollection thereof.

MR HUGO: Did any of the members attempt to strangle him with the scarf at that stage before he was loaded into the vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: Not to put him out of actions, but to ensure that he did not escape. In other words, it was not the idea to strangle him until he was unconscious, that was the only thing they had to hold onto at that stage.

MR HUGO: Was he struck with fists or kicked?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he was struck because Mr Sedibe did fight there, so we held nothing back.

MR HUGO: Could you see whether there was any blood flowing?

MR DE KOCK: Not at that stage but when we forced him into the vehicle, because we had to force him in into the back of the land-cruiser. There were three of us because we wanted to tie him up with restraining straps, plastic straps which were generally used during that time, and in that attempt he tried to get away again and he was hit and Mr Sedibe only became controlled when Mr Mngade struck him with the butt of the firearm across the nose, I think on the left side of his nose, which left a wound there and it bled profusely. He also had laceration marks on his arms and face as he was fighting, but afterwards he realised that we had the upperhand and then we tied his hands and legs.

MR HUGO: May I just ask you with regard to the bleeding, you said he was bleeding profusely, did any of the blood get onto his clothes?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and some of the blood was on me as well. His face was bloody and his clothing on the collar, this also had blood on it.

MR HUGO: You then moved back to the South African border. Did he during the trip back to South Africa, still bleed or did the bleeding stop? Or did anyone try to stop the bleeding?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know whether anyone tried to stop the bleeding, but the bleeding did stop somewhere along the line. Mr van Dyk was the driver because he knew the area and we drove at a high speed towards the South African border.

MR HUGO: May I then ask you, when you moved across the border, can you recall whether there was swelling to his face which was observable?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, his face was swollen, specifically his nose where he was cut and one side of his cheek. He had laceration marks on his face. It was like he had a carpet burn on his face. His hands were also injured and there was also blood to his hands. And I will tell you later why I can recall that. He did not have any other external observable injuries, no broken bones or any bullet holes ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask you Mr de Kock, you say that Mr van Dyk was the driver, who was in front with Mr van Dyk?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall. But why I say that is that when we drove away after we had brought him under control there, Mr van Dyk drove over something or threw something and my neck hit the top of the roof and I felt like I lost my left arm, and that is why I asked him to drive a little bit slower.

ADV BOSMAN: I asked the question because I wanted to know who knew of the assault and who took part in the assault. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Hugo.

MR HUGO: With regard to the condition of his clothing, can you recall whether any of his clothing was torn during this assault?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall whether it was torn, but it was dirty and there was blood and he had a type of - I don't what colour it was, but it was a wind-breaker.

CHAIRPERSON: What colour was the wind-breaker.

MR DE KOCK: I said now I cannot recall what colour it was, but it was a neutral colour, it was not yellow or red.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what I want to arrive at. It was a colour upon which one could see the blood clearly.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So it must have been a light colour.

MR DE KOCK: As I have said, it's a neutral colour, it was not bright yellow or bright red or black.

CHAIRPERSON: So you could easily see the blood.

MR DE KOCK: Well my perception of a neutral colour is it had to white or beige or ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Upon which blood could easily been seen?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: By the way, was there a lot of blood?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because my experience in Ovamboland and Angola is that facial wounds, even if it is a small wound, especially caused by RPG7 shrapnel, that it would appear that this person would have a serious wound. In the face there are many more capillaries close to the skin.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand. And when you brought him to the RSA and handed him over, was he still clothed in those clothes - was he still wearing those clothes?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. As I proceed I will inform you later how some of these worked, but he arrived in those clothes. At the border we met Brig Visser and confirmed that we had him, that no Swazis had died and he still attacked me - I don't wish to prejudice him here, but he attacked me on the fact that I had shot the telephone to pieces, but ...(intervention)

MR HUGO: Before we get to further aspects, can you tell us whether or not you crossed the border lawfully or whether you climbed over the border fence.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, approximately 80 to 100 metres away from the border post there is a place where you could just pull out the droppers and flatten the fence and drive over, it wasn't an official border post.

MR HUGO: I think what I'm actually interested in is the action and the attitude of Mr Sedibe at that stage, because initially he resisted quite vehemently and there was an altercation. Was any discussion held with him from the point that he was released from the prison cell to when you reached the RSA? Were any questions put to him?

MR DE KOCK: No, we just wanted to get out of Swaziland as soon as possible. That was also the description of our task. He was not assaulted after he was bound and after he lay back because I sat with him personally.

CHAIRPERSON: You were contacted and told that there was an operation which had to be executed in Swaziland, regarding you and your actions there with your colleagues, what was your instruction, was it simply to conduct the abduction or anything else?

MR DE KOCK: It was only to execute the abduction. I did not receive any other task description.

CHAIRPERSON: And after you had handed over the abductee your work would be finished.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, but I also addressed other issues such as his medical condition, his clothing and so forth. But I had no other tasks.

CHAIRPERSON: You definitely did not participate in the interview?

MR DE KOCK: No, and I never interrogated him, but other aspects will come to light eventually.

MR HUGO: Can you give us an indication, at which stage chronologically, did you cross the border?

MR DE KOCK: We didn't watch the time because we were constantly looking to see whether or not we were being followed. It was early morning, I would say that it was between twelve and one when we crossed the border and encountered Mr Visser. I may be mistaken in that regard, but that is the first thought that comes to mind. Mr Visser did indeed confirm that it was Mr Sedibe and briefly wanted to know from us how things had proceeded and that is when the whole matter of the telephone came out.

The G3 we gave to him in the Eastern Transvaal. I would say that it was given to Mr Visser, but I don't want to make a definite statement about that. Mr Sedibe at that stage was suffering from severe shock, his lips were parched and we didn't have any water with us. Our own lips were also quite parched, we were all quite stressed. He had the look of shock in his eyes, the same symptoms that I observed with my own people after a combat situation. These were also the same symptoms that I observed with SWAPO members after they had been in combat with us and we had captured them, disorientation, shock, fear, fright, fear for the future, pain and so forth.

MR HUGO: You then moved over the border post, you spoke to Brig Visser and what was the following step which was taken?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, from that point onwards my group and I, as well as the members from Piet Retief, went to Piet Retief to a safehouse which was approximately five kilometres from Piet Retief, on the Ermelo road.

On those premises, with the exception of the house, approximately 30 metres away there was some form of a pumphouse and on top of this pumphouse was the tank which provided water for the house among others and this pumphouse also served as some form of a cell. It had a steel door which could be locked from outside and in that pumphouse a steel bed had been placed, army issue style steel bed which had been carried out from the house along with a sponge mattress. I always had an extra army sleeping bag in my car with me in case I had to overnight somewhere and that this was unplanned. This I also gave to Sedibe.

Afterwards I went to fetch my medical case, the sort that doctors in the field would use and also the sort that we used with Koevoet in the field, which was fully equipped with intravenous equipment and so forth. I then attended to his injuries, I cleaned his facial wounds and also cleaned the abrasions. I would have liked to administer stitches to his nose, but I was not qualified to do so and I did not want to injure him any further, but I did treat those wounds.

After that we had him remove his shirt and his trousers. We observed bruise marks on his upper body, his arms and his legs, which we also treated ...(intervention)

MR HUGO: Pardon me for interrupting you. Would you say it was at this time that you saw the blood on his hands?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. We treated all the abrasions and injuries, and I can also recall that his pulse rate was something like 140, it was too fast to count. I took his pulse by means of taking it for ten seconds and multiplying that with six. I gave him four of my tablets which I used for panic attacks or if I felt that I was going to have a panic attack. The tablets went by the name of Lexotan(?). They were very strong tablets. I gave him four because I was afraid that he was going to have a heart attack. He was extremely tense, he was still suffering from shock and I would venture to say that he was wild.

We then obtained leg-irons - I don't know if these leg-irons came from Piet Retief, we attached the one leg-iron to his ankle and the other to the frame of the bed at the bottom.

MR HUGO: Very well. And I assume that this was also during the early morning hours of the following day.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that is correct. Some of us went to bed. I had more members from C1 there, they did not have access to Mr Sedibe. If he were to call they had to call me. I had the keys to the lock and it wasn't possible for him to get out of that room through the steel door, being attached to the bed with the leg-irons.

MR HUGO: And as the early morning hours went by, how did you attend to Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: We fed him, I asked him how he was, he said that he was still in quite a lot of pain, that he had been hurt quite severely. I gave him painkillers and asked him whether or not he wanted any of the other tablets that I had given him the previous evening. He answered in the negative.

I went to Piet Retief that day because there was a source from Swaziland who had come there regarding a discussion of an attack on persons who would pass through via Amsterdam with weapons which they intended to use for acts of terrorism in the Transvaal section there.

MR HUGO: Yes, I think let us just attempt to abbreviate that. That then led to the attack which took place on that night which has formed part of one of the amnesty applications, the Amsterdam/Nerston matter, where ANC freedom fighters were killed during an ambush which was set for them by, among others, members of Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct. But when I went to town I also went to buy him some clothes, from Pep Stores I still recall, and I also bought toiletries for Mr Sedibe and I later gave all these items to him.

MR HUGO: What was your perception of Mr Sedibe's attitude at that stage, was it cooperative by nature, neutral or antagonistic?

MR DE KOCK: He was afraid, he did not speak freely. I was under the impression that he was still investigating every possibility of escape, which was his job by nature of the situation. That is why I kept the leg-irons on unless he went for a shower. We would take him for a shower in the house but then I would accompany him and there would also be four or five members of my unit there as well. He considered his options and his first option was without a doubt to escape.

MR HUGO: Very well. And on that evening you participated in the Amsterdam/Nerston incident, and how often thereafter did you have anything to do with Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, for approximately two more days we stayed there where I liaised with Mr Sedibe and also took care of him and after that my members and I departed and he was left over to the Piet Retief Security Branch and all other members who had to deal with him thereafter.

MR HUGO: What was your perception of his attitude at that stage, that would be two days after his abduction? Did it come to your attention that he was being cooperative or was there still a state of neutrality?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he answered a question was put to him, but how we were to determine what the truth of it was, would only be possible later by means by controlling this information with other sources. I was under the impression that he was only answering the questions which were put to him and that he wasn't elaborating on anything else.

MR HUGO: Very well. And during these two days that you were still at the scene, or at least that you arrived there from time to time, was there any further mention of any assault on Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: No, during the time that I was there there was no further assault on Mr Sedibe, very definitely not.

MR HUGO: Just to return to the Amsterdam/Nerston matter, it is so - and I am giving a small piece of evidence, but it has been rendered in previous amnesty applications, rumours were sent out indicating that Mr Sedibe was responsible for the information which led to the death of the ANC freedom fighters during the Amsterdam/Nerston incident. Those are the rumours which abounded.

MR DE KOCK: I have absolutely no doubt that this was all part of a Stratcom operation to discredit Glory Sedibe, so that he would not be able to return to the ANC. For example, some of the newspapers stated that he had provided the information, that he was the cause of the shooting at Amsterdam, but he did not provide that information.

Now that my memory has been peaked, on the contrary, on the night of the shooting, after we had returned, the bakkie with the bodies was also taken to the safehouse and Mr Sedibe was taking out of his holding cell that night to go and view the bodies and to see whether or not he could identify any of these deceased persons and he identified two.

MR HUGO: The fact of the matter remains that these rumours placed Mr Sedibe in a very unfavourable light.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and furthermore there were also rumours in the press, both the English and the Afrikaans press, that he was operating in Swaziland with the Security Police, that he had been seen there. Then much was also made of his testimony in the Ebrahim matter and that he was the deciding factor when it came to Ebrahim's sentence.

MR HUGO: When did you re-establish contact with Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: Upon many occasions, or at least upon all the occasions that I visited Piet Retief and we had a permanent presence there. I went to visit Mr Sedibe, I would speak to him, sometimes I went to the cells where he was being detained, sometimes I found him in the office, but the discussions were not about intelligence or interrogation, they were about he himself. What I noticed initially when I saw him for the first time, approximately two or three weeks later, was his longing for his wife and his child and one could actually see that he was wasting away under those circumstances but that he was longing for them.

CHAIRPERSON: Could we return to the shooting during which you say that it was definitely not Sedibe who had identified them before the shooting. That incident, is there an aim or some form of identification indicating the name of the operation, that you can refer to? I would like to know the names of the persons who were killed.

MR DE KOCK: The persons who were killed? I would have to consult the previous application, but there were two well-known MK members, but they in turn ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I would imagine that one of the previous witnesses stated that this man cooperated so effectively that he led the police to homes or to people that they were looking for, is this one of those?

MR DE KOCK: No, I will explain to you later because you see, Sedibe and I went to Vienna ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to know because the previous witness refers to an incident where it may well have occurred that Sedibe led the police there, or is he referring to the same incident where you say no, that didn't happen?

MR DE KOCK: When we abducted Sedibe that night, the shooting took place the following night at Amsterdam, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Sedibe. I have also testified to that and other witnesses have confirmed this with regard to the Amsterdam/Nerston incident. Sedibe had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know anything about an incident known as the Ntuli matter, or something like that?

MR DE KOCK: No. Perhaps you could link it to something for me, then I would able to remember better.

VOORSITTER: "Nee ek dra geen verdere kennis nie".

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I'd be willing to stake my life on the fact that he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, please continue.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Chairperson.

You stated that he was filled with longing and that he was missing his wife and child tremendously and that he was deteriorating as a result. Did you have a discussion with Mr Pienaar - we have heard about this in his evidence, and that during this discussion you discussed the possibility of bringing his wife and child out to him?

MR DE KOCK: Towards the fourth or the fifth month this took place, because Sedibe was held quite strictly under Section 29 legislation, and I asked Sedibe whether or not this would provide a reasonable solution to bring his wife and child out to South Africa and obtain permanent residence for them. He agreed and afterwards I allowed him to use the telephone. He called Maputo, he spoke to his wife and during the next week to two weeks arrangements were made that on her last day of work at her place of employment she would move to Swaziland and from Swaziland she would go to Oshoek border post and from there she would come through and then Sedibe and I would receive her at Oshoek border post.

Those arrangements worked out as such, Sedibe and I went through to the border post. I think that Bellingan may have been with us. We found the wife and the daughter at the border post and the family was reunited at that point.

ADV BOSMAN: Why were you so conciliatory towards Mr Sedibe? Did you want to recruit him as an askari, what was your motivation for being so accommodating?

MR DE KOCK: The approach of the interrogators and the investigators was to maintain his services, but he was also my contemporary. Mr Sedibe was not the sort of person who could be classified under the normal term of askari, he wasn't like those persons who had been made an offer instead of having to serve out a prison sentence and so forth. Mr Sedibe was a blue-blooded ANC member, he was a blue-blooded member of MK, he was a blue-blooded son of Africa and he was my equal on the other side. And from my sources on ground level there was no talk of defection in Mr Sedibe's mind. He would also not come to South Africa.

With regard to his drinking habits, everybody drank, the ANC drank, the South African Police drank, this had absolutely nothing to do with his thoughts of defecting.

ADV BOSMAN: There was evidence here, I think it was Mr Pienaar or Mr Deetlefs that stated that they wanted to retain Mr Sedibe in the Ermelo/Piet Retief area, but that head office wanted him, are you aware thereof?

MR DE KOCK: It is possible, but head office had the final say over where people would go such as members of the ANC and PAC.

ADV BOSMAN: Didn't you play a role in that?

MR DE KOCK: No, the recruitment was usually undertaken by Section C2, who would undertake the interviews and I had absolutely no say over that.

ADV BOSMAN: But you didn't take a role, you didn't report to head office and tell them that you had a good relationship with the man, that you could use him as an askari and so forth?

MR DE KOCK: No, that entire aspect would come from the divisional commander because he would have to decide whether or not they would charge the man, whether or not Section 29 would be applied. They would have to decide what they wanted to do with him.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you saying that this would have been Mr Visser?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because I was under head office, I wouldn't have had a say in whether or not I wanted to take him or not, because we often received askaris that I didn't want.

ADV BOSMAN: You're misunderstanding me, I want to know whether or not you would have told head office "But I have a good relationship with Sedibe, I'm going to get his wife and child out here, we communicate very easily, I think that he should go to head office and I might be able to use him"? Did you do so?

MR DE KOCK: No, I think the thing about the wife and the child came from my side ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: Was this a humane consideration?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was because I thought it right.

MR HUGO: I would just like to return to the arrangement for the documentation. Did you arrange legal documentation or did you use forged documents? This was for the wife of Mr Sedibe and his child.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I arranged it through Brig Schoon. If I recall correctly he signed the documents because there was legislature as to how long a person could stay in the country and I think I also arranged passports.

MR HUGO: But did this take place legally?

MR DE KOCK: Legally in the sense that head office approved it and Foreign Affairs approved, but it would not have fulfilled the requirements of the law.

MNR HUGO: "Ons het dit nou dat mnr Sedibe uiteindelik of Vlakplaas beland het, en hoe is hy toe aangewend"?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not send him out with the askaris, he was not treated as an askari because he was not an askari as far as I was concerned. He did not ever supply any information that led to the apprehension of any MK members or of any attacks to the neighbouring States. He did testify in a case and that was unfortunate.

MR HUGO: And upon a question from one of the Committee Members you mentioned a visit to Zurich with him, will you tell us what happened there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the Directorate of Covert Collections, which has been well traversed in these proceedings, they were recruiting an ANC member who was in Germany - they told me he was in Germany, it might not be true, Sedibe and I were part of this operation because Sedibe knew this member quite well and would be able to convince him to work for Military Intelligence Services.

The person recruited was - to him it was only about money, it was not about moral values. We went to Germany and from there we went to Vienna where we booked into a luxurious hotel where and I shared a room. This is Sedibe and I. They wanted to keep us together because we had to keep each other awake, as they could call us at any time and we had to be ready.

And then for approximately five to eight hours we were allowed to move around freely. We had to man the telephones up to the time when the DCC member would arrive in Vienna with this ANC member and where he would be able to speak with Mr Sedibe.

And during that time, Mr Sedibe and I learnt to know each other. We spent fourteen days in each other's company and because our positions were similar in rank on either side, we were quite open towards each other. On a day I asked Mr Sedibe as to how much information he really gave, he said he approximately gave 10% of the information. When I asked him why so little, he said that was enough to for them to keep him alive.

He also mentioned that the Security Branch already had much of the information, he only had to confirm it. And in my mind he never turned out to be an impimpie. He was an intelligent man, he gave them just enough to satisfy them and to keep them happy, but it was about his survival.

CHAIRPERSON: Please tell us, if that was the case he had the opportunity to run away.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, I shall arrive there shortly. Part of this Stratcom operation prevented him from going back because of the time that had elapsed - and this is one of the things that I asked him, because of the time that had elapsed, because of the time he was detained under Section 29, there was no way he could go back. He also said so, and I realised that, that he could go back and that the ANC would never believe that we had just released him because there was no evidence. And this was confirmed later by that senior member of the ANC who we recruited after he spoke to Sedibe.

MR HUGO: May I just ask you, wasn't it practice in the Security Police that when such a person was arrested and he was to be turned, they only way to contaminate him was to get him to testify in one of the cases or to send rumours into the world that he was an agent and that he would be in a precarious position? That was often the case.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it could have caused his death. I would just like to mention that this was confirmed later when I spoke to this senior ANC member in Vienna and we were in the hotel room, when we almost drank ourselves into a coma because the liquor was free. There was a group by the name of Umbekodo(?), they were from the Department of Intelligence and Security, who told me how they worked with Tami Zulu who was also known as Bonnyface, and they thought that he was a traitor. So there was no way that Sedibe could ever have returned.

And then amongst others, he never lost his feeling towards the ANC, he did not change his political viewpoints and when I asked him "What do you think of the armed struggle?", he said "If we cannot vote we have to keep on fighting". When he asked me the question, what I would have done if I was black, then I told him "Well I would have been on the other side as well, then I would have also been with the ANC". So we had a very open relationship, it was not - I believe that he was a hostage of circumstances and he did not have a choice.

MR HUGO: Eventually we have it now that Mr Sedibe left Vlakplaas and he went to Military Intelligence, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he went to them and there he also rendered service, but I still liaised with him and on opportunities I still me with him and we remained friends right until the end.

MR HUGO: And later you heard he was deceased and that you have certain reservations about the manner in which he had died.

MR DE KOCK: I still have those reservations, I cannot support it, but 25 years of police service and of all those 25 years except for short periods in the uniform service, I had to deal with counter-insurgence and counter-terrorism and one develops an intuition in the more dark areas of our work and I say today still that Glory Sedibe did not die of natural causes. And if I ever walk out of here I will prove it, I am convinced of it.

MR HUGO: When you became involved in this operation, were you drive by any feelings of malice or hatred ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, Mr Hugo.

What is the official version of his death?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I heard that somebody said that his liver failed, but there was never any post-mortem inquest held.

MNR HUGO: Mnr de Kock, toe u betrokke geraak het - ek praat nou by die aanvang van hierdie operasie", were you driven by any feelings of revenge or hatred, personal hatred towards Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And did you receive any payment or remuneration for your part in the operation?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And then in conclusion, your political motive, the reason why you became involved in this operation, what was that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was the combatting of terrorism, the neutralising of an extremely effective leader, an effective operative, and this would have led to minimising attacks in the country and this would have led to confusion amongst ANC ranks in Swaziland and Mozambique and it would have led to the usurping of their lines of smuggling weapons into the country.

MR HUGO: That's the evidence, thank you Chairperson.

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

Mr de Kock, there are just singular aspects which I would like to take up with you. The term "askari", what do you understand by it?

MR DE KOCK: The translation of askari? As I understand it, it was here a person who decided or a person from one of the liberation movements who decided to go over to the police. In other words, one could call him a traitor.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, although in the case of Mr Sedibe there was no prize, he never ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That is why you describe him as not being an askari?

MR DE KOCK: There were only three of them who fulfilled that category, the other two I will not mention.

MR LAMEY: But at Vlakplaas there were also people who were considered as askaris who were abducted and later worked with the police.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, but for them it was only about money, it was never because of moral principles.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, may I ask you - excuse me, Mr Lamey, is this a subjective thing as to who is a "true blue" askari and who is not? Let us not debate about things are quite broad.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that was my viewpoint of these people because I had to use these people, I had to send these people somewhere and I could trust this person to identify some of his friends.

ADV BOSMAN: May I tell you why I ask this question. If Mr Pienaar or Mr Deetlefs said that they regarded him as an askari, is it possible that they bona fide saw him as an askari or are you trying to say that if they say he is an askari, then he is not. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: No, I think this was a general term which was taken up, that this was a person of a previous liberation movement, who worked at Vlakplaas.

ADV BOSMAN: I think you have made it clear now.

MR DE KOCK: But the Oxford dictionary says - "It is white led black troops". The ANC today say it is black led white troops, but we have no problem with that.

ADV BOSMAN: So what you are telling us, in general it was a person who was a liberation fighter and worked on the other side, but in general was regarded as an askari? But it wasn't your view. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: No, no.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you,

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

I think the point addresses one of the points of departure of one of my applicants, Mr Koole, in his application says he saw Sedibe as a person who came to Vlakplaas and worked as an askari along with the other askaris, but I would also in the same breath like to say that Mr Koole agrees with you that Mr Sedibe was - we'll call it "askari", he was in another category, that you liked him very much and gave him much more freedom than the other askaris. He was a man who I would have wanted at my side if there was a fight.

MR LAMEY: Very well then, I will depart from that point. I am not clear with regard to the evidence. During the breaking out of Mr Sedibe there in Swaziland, what is your recollection, who strangled him with the scarf to bring him under control?

MR DE KOCK: As far as I can recall it was Koole, because I think Koole went down at that stage and in that specific moment that was the only thing that held Sedibe, this was the scarf around his neck. It was not tied around his neck, it was just put around him in order to hold onto him.

MR LAMEY: Might your memory be mistaken as to the person who did this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would concede that because it was quite rough there and there was confusion.

MR LAMEY: Mr Koole says that he was one of the persons who was involved in bringing Mr Sedibe under control specifically, along with Mr van Dyk. And Mr Sedibe as you have said, was big and strong and it took a lot to bring him under control and you will see that Mr van Dyk is quite a large man himself and quite strong and it took quite a bit to bring him under control.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And in that process, Mr Koole assaulted him, he will not deny that, but Mr Koole's version is that it was Mr van Dyk who - in Mr Koole's recollection, then strangled him with a tie. His statement says a tie or a scarf.

MR DE KOCK: I will not dispute that.

MR LAMEY: And then the other aspect is that he was the person who went behind you through the window when you bumped into the police officer in the station.

MR DE KOCK: It could have been who was with, but when I looked around right behind me I saw Almond Nofomela behind me, because he also had a firearm and I wanted to know who was to support me at that stage. I am not saying that he was not in the office.

MR LAMEY: The issues of the firearms, is it your clear recollection that everyone had firearms?

MR DE KOCK: No, not everyone had firearms, we had about five or six pistols fitted with silencers with us.

MR LAMEY: The weapons that you had with you, was it a firearm that was officially issued to you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, these were firearms which were taken from firearms which were found at Silverton where they stored the firearms which had to be destroyed. We then took some firearms from there, we took them to technical and they manufactured silencers.

MR LAMEY: How did you get through the border post without anybody being suspicious at the border post?

MR DE KOCK: With the exception of a vehicle here and there, all our vehicles had secret compartments. For example, there was one vehicle that could hide 16 AK47s.

MR LAMEY: But you did not expect any resistance in the police station?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, we knew that there would only be one member and there would be no resistance.

MR LAMEY: But you say there were firearms which were hidden in compartments of the vehicles.

MR DE KOCK: Those were our weapons, yes.

MR LAMEY: Which were hidden. You see why I ask this question is because, Mr Koole says he did not have a firearm and he cannot recall any other firearms and he cannot imagine seeing any weapons, but he will not argue that you in the dark, when you could have brought out a weapon and pointed it at the policeman to convince him to drop his weapon. He possibly could not have seen it.

MR DE KOCK: No, he would not have seen it because I stood right opposite the police officer, Nofomela was in the office just out of sight of the policeman and I took the G3 from the policeman, thanks to the young member who kept his head.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Koole also furthermore says that at some stage he was along in Ermelo to meet with Sedibe's wife and child. Do you recall that he received that instruction from you?

MR DE KOCK: I know that we brought them back from Oshoek border post and it was quite a struggle to find, to rent them some rooms at the Moolman hotel - she might be able to assist me, and I booked them in there for two or three days and it took quite a lot of trouble, the owner did not like this because they had to take their meals in their rooms.

I had some guards there. I stayed in the hotel myself and I had two guards outside. Thereafter, I cannot recall where they stayed up to the time where they came to Pretoria and then I arranged accommodation for them. I did channel some money to Mr Pienaar and to Mr Sedibe for their accommodation.

MR LAMEY: Would you dispute Mr Koole's version that you sent him and Mngade to meet with Sedibe's wife and they met in Ermelo?

MR DE KOCK: I will not dispute that, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to know whether we differ here. And then the other aspect is that he specifically after Sedibe was abducted and brought to this farm, he agrees with you that he was cuffed to the bed and he said that he had to guard him. He was in the room with him where he had to guard him.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it could be that at times the door of that pumphouse was open. By nature of the situation the man cannot sit in the dark for 24 hours, but there were specific instructions that this man was not to be touched and he was to be taken care of.

MR LAMEY: And then I would just like to ask you, can you recall that Mr Fourie worked in that area and he was eventually involved in the Nerston incident and at that stage he was a member of C2?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was. I co-opted him for the shooting at Amsterdam, but I cannot recall whether he was at the safehouse at that stage.

MR LAMEY: But what I mean is that Mr Fourie will testify that he undertook questioning after Mr Sedibe was abducted and by means of photo albums and that Mr Sedibe did indeed cooperate.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, all the askaris did that, that was a standard procedure that all detainees went through.

MR LAMEY: To make other identifications with the assistance of this album?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Bosch in his amnesty application says - I do not know what your recollection is about his, but Mr Bosch says that it is his recollection - and he places it into context after Sedibe's abduction, but he says it could be that he might mistake it with another incident, he says that his recollection is that after Sedibe was questioned, he disclosed information with regard to certain safehouses in Swaziland and this information was followed up and some of the Vlakplaas members went to Swaziland where houses were searched for documents and firearms. Do you know anything about that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, this is entirely another case which had taken place somewhere in 1985, when the houses of Paul Dikiledi and other persons were ransacked, but this was from information gleamed from sources and not from Sedibe. This was approximately two years before this.

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

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

Mr de Kock, the members, Mngade, Nofomela and Koole, they were all police officers, they were not askaris.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And these incidents there in Mankanyane, did this take place very quickly?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, the only pause was the police officer with the firearm.

MR PRINSLOO: And the transport of Mr Sedibe from the police station in the land-cruiser as you call it, was he in the back or was he behind the seats or was he on the seats?

MR DE KOCK: It was a station-wagon where one has the seats and then one has seats which we can put down and create a bigger space.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because I, Mngade and I think two other persons, I think Nofomela was also there because the man fought.

MR PRINSLOO: And there where you met with Brig Visser, was it dark?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was at the border post where we had crossed the border and then one drives in the direction of the border post and we found him where one arrives at the tarmac. It was well lit there, it had these halogen lights that were quite bright.

MR PRINSLOO: Was Mr Sedibe removed from the vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, as far as I can recall he was removed from the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: And then Mr de Kock, when you treated him medically, did you treat him alone or were there others present?

MR DE KOCK: There may have been others present, Chairperson, but I know that I treated him medically.

MR PRINSLOO: And after that he was clean? In other words, his wounds had been treated and his clothing had been replaced with new clothing?

MR DE KOCK: I went to buy new clothes for him the following day, but the wounds and the places that he showed to me as injured, were treated.

MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to Mr Pienaar, because you and Mr Pienaar worked together quite closely, especially with regard to Mr Sedibe's situation.

MR DE KOCK: I was interested in Mr Sedibe, but not necessarily in terms of the interrogation.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you ever have any indication that he was not very favourably treated by Mr Pienaar?

MR DE KOCK: He never gave me any complaints about Mr Pienaar, he just told me one day that he had a serious problem with Mr Nick Deetlefs from John Vorster Square and that he had problems with Mr Deetlefs. I don't know what happened there.

MR PRINSLOO: But I'm referring to Mr Pienaar, was this in Piet Retief?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was because Mr Deetlefs used to travel through Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: Was this while still in detention?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was.

MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to Mr Pienaar and Mr Chris Deetlefs, the other applicants, did he ever have any problems with them?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And in as far as it has to do with Mrs Sedibe and the transportation of Mrs Sedibe and their child to South Africa, did Mr Pienaar also agree with this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. Contrary to what others may say, he is a family man and he didn't have any problems with that idea.

MR PRINSLOO: And the treatment received by Mrs Sedibe and their child, you heard that Mr Pienaar even gave a tricycle to their child.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, they were very well cared for. I think Mr Pienaar would be able to give better details about this. I channelled funds from the Secret Fund through to Mr Sedibe and his family.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, nothing further.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr de Kock, the gun, the G3, I just want to put it to you that - you said that you could not recall, but I want to put it to you that you did not give this gun to Mr Visser. Would you dispute this? Because you yourself stated that you couldn't recall pertinently.

MR DE KOCK: No, I would not dispute it, but I know that it went to the Eastern Transvaal and the way I recall it, Mr Visser received the gun because by nature of the situation he was quite sensitive about the telephone which had been destroyed for example, and that is my last idea, but I will not dispute this matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: I just want to understand your evidence correctly with regard to Mr Sedibe who according to you was a full-blood ANC member. It is not your evidence that he did not cooperate with the police with regard to investigations, do I understand you correctly?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot say that he did not assist them, he did make statements and he testified in Courts.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you remember Miriam Williams?

MR DE KOCK: Miriam who?

MS VAN DER WALT: Miriam Williams.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I do not have a recollection of this person. If you could perhaps link the person to something, I might be able to refresh my memory.

MS VAN DER WALT: Miriam Pumla Williams. She was identified by Mr Sedibe at the Baragwanath Hospital where the nurses buses stopped and she was also charged later.

MR DE KOCK: I don't have any knowledge of this.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sedibe did not testify in that matter, but you know that he testified in the Ebrahim matter.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I am aware of it. The reason why I say that I am not aware of the person that he identified is that I would have been the one to fill out the claim and to instate the claim and there was no claim for that identification.

MS VAN DER WALT: I want to put it to you further that during the Ebrahim matter he spent seven weeks in the witness box. Do you recall him spending so much time in the witness box?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I knew that he was there for a long time.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it was for the first time that the structures of the ANC were testified about in any open Court and he was the one to give evidence about this.

MR DE KOCK: I will not dispute it. The other askaris also testified regarding structures, commanders and camps. In this regard they must have required a more expert person.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you recall that Tami Zulu during the time that the case was tried, was killed abroad?

MR DE KOCK: I understood that he was taken away from Swaziland and the reasons were provided to me by the member in Vienna and he later died.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you recall that it was - that there were documents which were taken from Lusaka, about which Glory Sedibe testified and that that was the reason why Tami Zulu was killed?

MR DE KOCK: No, that is not the case. The member who was recruited in Vienna, as well as other members of the ANC, wanted to shoot Mr Deetlefs, Mr Labuschagne and four other members dead at the Royal Swazi Hotel where they were playing golf. Tami Zulu was sent to fetch the weapons. When he returned he didn't have the weapons and he told the people that he couldn't find the weapons and this then, as per the explanation of the other person, is the reason why Tami Zulu was called back and later treated as a suspect, tortured and subsequently he died.

MS VAN DER WALT: These reports that you refer to pertaining to the Nerston incident, my instructions from Mr van Dyk are that it was much later that it appeared in the press, much later than the actual time of the incident.

MR DE KOCK: Could you repeat your question please.

MS VAN DER WALT: The newspaper reports appeared much longer after the incident had taken place, it was not immediately after the incident.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment please, Chairperson.

I would also like to put it to you that Mr van Dyk will testify that it was indeed him who strangled Mr Sedibe with the scarf in order to force him.

MR DE KOCK: I would not dispute this.

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

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

Mr de Kock, when you undertook to execute the abduction of Mr Sedibe, what objective did you seek to achieve?

MR DE KOCK: I think I will require a headpiece, Chairperson. Okay thank you, continue.

MR LEOPENG: May I rephrase my question?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You may repeat it.

MR LEOPENG: Mr de Kock, when you undertook to execute the abduction of Mr Sedibe, what objective did you seek to achieve?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was to take Mr Sedibe out of the cells and to return him to the RSA and that would be where my mandate would cease.

MR LEOPENG: What was the reason to take him in the country, what did you want to do with him whilst he now in the Republic of South Africa?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, by nature of his position he would be thoroughly interrogated, there would have been an attempt to obtain all information from him with regard to MK and all structures, the access routes and then most probably also persons who were already here in the country.

MR LEOPENG: Did you also intend to recruit him to work at Vlakplaas, or to work for the Security Police?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, at that stage my duties were completed, I didn't have any further say in whether or not they would charge him or whether they were going to leave him or recruit him, or whether he would disappear on some or other evening.

MR LEOPENG: Did you enquire from head office what was the intention to let him be brought in the country?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, at that stage I was under the command of Brig Visser because I was in his region and one of Vlakplaas' tasks was counter-terrorism and this fell within the mandate.

MR LEOPENG: Did you then ask Brig Visser what was their intention to bring Sedibe in the country?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, at that stage I wouldn't say that I was such an experienced security policeman, but I had been involved in many similar such incidents and by nature of the circumstances, I understood that now was the time for interrogation and that an attempt would be made to obtain all possible information from him.

MR LEOPENG: Had you succeeded supposed(sic) to enquire from him and he furnished that information to you, were you going to let him go free?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would not have been capable of making those decisions. I was also not involved in any interrogation of him.

MR LEOPENG: You said in your evidence-in-chief that you were befriended to Sedibe.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I became his friend later, we were mutual friends.

MR LEOPENG: And further you said he was still sticking to his ideology of the ANC, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: And you personally were opposed to the terrorism activities.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that was my primary task.

MR LEOPENG: How is it possible to be a friend to someone who is a terrorist and you are opposing the terrorist activities?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, at that stage Mr Sedibe was not planting any more bombs and he wasn't allowing any more bombs to be planted. There was a reciprocal respect between me and him by nature of our services upon previous occasions.

CHAIRPERSON: Actually it would appear to me as if you had developed a sense of respect for each other.

MR DE KOCK: Yes indeed, that was what it was about.

MR LEOPENG: May you please turn to page 76 of the bundle, paragraph 5 thereof. Mr Fourie in his affidavit indicated that Mr Sedibe was then taken to Vlakplaas, where he was an askari. What do you say about this?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, he did work there and he would then work under that general description as an askari.

MR LEOPENG: What is the scope of activities of an askari if he worked at Vlakplaas as an askari?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in his case I kept him at Vlakplaas primarily. The ANC desk at head office in Pretoria wanted to consult him on a regular basis and so also then Section C2, with regard to the identification of ANC members with whom they were experiencing problems.

MR LEOPENG: Will I be correct to say an askari also furnishes information to the police in respect of the activities of his former members?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it is so. However, I wish to explain what was Sedibe's dilemma in this case and it was also the dilemma that others shared. There were so many sources and so much available information already with regard to other members of the ANC, that Mr Sedibe was most probably just tested regarding information which was already available, and I believe that he was intelligent enough to pick that up.

MR LEOPENG: Will I then be correct to say that the ANC believed Mr Sedibe to be an askari because he provided you with some information?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, for them it would have been an assumption which they could readily have made, which was then substantiated by newspaper reports which branded him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, as I understand your evidence, it would appear to me that after a certain period Mr Sedibe would actually have been safer in the hands of the police than anywhere else, due to the impression that was created by the police.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. If he had returned to the ANC, he would probably have ended up in Quatro or one of the other camps. I had absolutely no doubt about that aspect and neither did he.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Leopeng, without interfering with your cross-examination, where is this line of cross-examination heading us to in relation to the activities of Mr Sedibe whilst he was an askari?

MR LEOPENG: Chairman, I'm coming to the interrogation part of it, that's why he turned as an askari.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I think it would be appreciated if you would hastily get to that point.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman.

Now Mr de Kock, let's come to the issue where you testified that you had the information that the police station where Mr Sedibe was kept won't be guarded.

MR DE KOCK: No, I didn't say that it wouldn't be guarded, the information indicated that there was only one person on duty and that it was a very small police station, so it was an easy target and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, is that in any way disputed? That Mr Sedibe was abducted from that police station?

MR LEOPENG: No, no.

CHAIRPERSON: So what is the issue as to whether Mr de Kock had information about how many policemen there were, how many weapons there were at their disposal got to do with it? The fact of the matter is that he was - they were successful in abducting him.

MR LEOPENG: Chairman, I put this question to the first application in relation to the information by that the Commissioner of Police and the head of the police at that time knew about the abduction and whether that police station will be guarded.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: In that case, Mr Leopeng, I think you must try and put your question pointedly in order to elicit that kind of response. Maybe you've got to rephrase your question.

MR LEOPENG: Thank you, I will.

Were you aware that the Commissioner of Police and the head of the police knew that the police station will not be guarded?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I wouldn't be able to say how they arranged their services or how they arranged the nature of their services. I was informed of the liaison between the senior members of the Swazi Police and our people. And furthermore - this can only lead to speculation, there is the question why such a senior member of the ANC was kept in such an easy soft target location and not a maximum security facility. But I will leave that over to you for speculation.

MR LEOPENG: Further in your evidence you said when you arrived at the border - subject to a correction here, you met Brig Visser, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR LEOPENG: Did Brig Visser have the opportunity to observe or to see Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was his operation and it was his man.

MR LEOPENG: Was it possible for Mr Visser to have noticed or observed the cut that Mr Sedibe had on his nose?

MR DE KOCK: One would not have been able to miss it because even to the day of his death, there was a deep dark scar over his nose.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he have been able to see the blood, or was he supposed to have seen the blood?

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Should Mr Visser have been able to see the blood, on the shirt for example?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and also on the face ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well let us speak about the blood on the clothing, would he have been able to see that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because it was clearly lighted with halogen lights.

MR LEOPENG: No further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MS PATEL: No, thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

MR HUGO: No re-examination, thank you, Chair.

ADV BOSMAN: Just one question, Mr de Kock. At this stage shortly after Mr Sedibe had arrived there at the safehouse, where was Mr Deetlefs all this time? Can you assist us?

MR DE KOCK: As far as I know he was with us, but I cannot place him specifically. I can place my own actions because I was an integral part of this man's life, but I cannot place Mr Deetlefs independently.

ADV BOSMAN: And with regard to the Section 29 detention, was it ever discussed between you and Mr Deetlefs?

MR DE KOCK: No, because at that stage there wasn't any talk of detaining him in terms of Section 29, we didn't know what was going to happen.

ADV BOSMAN: So we could accept Mr Deetlefs' evidence that for at least the first few days there was no question of a Section 29 detention?

MR DE KOCK: He is entirely correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR DE KOCK: With your permission I would just like to mention something. I accept responsibility for the actions of all my members from Vlakplaas who served below me and also for my own actions. That is all.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr de Kock, I just have one question on clarity with regard to your evidence-in-chief. You've already testified that two or three weeks after Mr Sedibe's abduction you had a discussion with him and that's when he addressed his longing for his family.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: Which you then conveyed to Mr Pienaar.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now at that stage, what impression did you form of Mr Sedibe, did you get the impression that his attitude had changed, that he was beginning or had already begun to cooperate with the police? Now this is two or three weeks after his abduction.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, what I noticed in him was loneliness, disorientation, he was afraid by nature of the situation, not only for his own life but for the life of his family. He had no friends. And this was all part of Section 29 and its effects. At that stage he was a completely lost person, a lost soul in that respect.

CHAIRPERSON: But Section 29 was aimed at making one feel this way.

MR DE KOCK: Yes. I have never been detained in terms of Section 29, but the circumstances are pretty much the same and I'm very much aware of that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So he still looked disorientated?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: We have already heard evidence that during his detention in terms of Section 29, he enjoyed all the latitude that a free man would, except that he was still held in incarceration. Did you get that impression?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I know that Mr Pienaar - there were usually two approaches to interrogation, the one was the velvet glove and the other was the iron fist and Mr Pienaar here used the velvet glove method. That may be so. Mr Pienaar is not the monster that people constantly make him out to be, although some things happened that were not good at all and I believe that he treated Mr Sedibe accordingly.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, you and your colleagues delivered Mr Sedibe near Piet Retief.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: However, Mr Visser saw Mr Sedibe at the border already.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he travel with you to deliver Mr Sedibe at Piet Retief?

MR DE KOCK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to Mr Visser during that time?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know. He departed and I didn't see him again.

CHAIRPERSON: To whom was Mr Sedibe delivered at the Piet Retief office?

MR DE KOCK: He fell under the control of Mr Pienaar.

CHAIRPERSON: And once you were done with that, were you involved in the operation?

MR DE KOCK: With the exception of his care and treatment I was still involved with him, but two to three days later we continued with our duties.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see him again?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, approximately two to three weeks later during another deployment.

CHAIRPERSON: Until he arrived at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, until he eventually arrived at Vlakplaas, which was approximately six months later, if not more.

CHAIRPERSON: And is that where you got to know him really well?

MR DE KOCK: No, we had already got to know each other at Piet Retief.

CHAIRPERSON: But that must have been the introduction of what was to come.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I found him interesting and he was someone who had dignity.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how do you feel regarding what you did at that stage pertaining to Mr Sedibe?

MR DE KOCK: It is not only today, even at that stage at Vlakplaas also I hoped that it wouldn't happen to me and it almost did although not quite. Mr Sedibe would today have been either the Head of the army or Head of the Defence Force or the Minister of Defence. So in a sense we not only destroyed his life, we also left his family with a handful of ashes. Regarding his brothers, sisters and parents, we left him in a situation where they didn't know whether or not he was a traitor or whether he could be trusted. By interfering in his fate we destroyed a person who could today have acted for us in the same stature as some of the greater military leaders that we have known. That is the man that I knew. We interfered with one of the best persons available to us in the country and this is one of the things which still affects me today.

CHAIRPERSON: Should the opportunity arise, would you be prepared - I don't know whether the family of Mr Sedibe would be prepared to do so, but would you at least be prepared to make peace with them?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would actually ask whether they would be prepared to make peace with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's actually what I meant. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for lunch.

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

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, there is one aspect which came about during cross-examination. If the Honourable Committee would allow me, I will not go on cross-examination, I would just like to make a certain statement to Mr de Kock before he is excused.

Mr de Kock, you during cross-examination said that you stopped below the large lights at the border post and you took Mr Sedibe from the car there and Brig Visser saw him there, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like to put it to you that this was not put to Brig Visser on your behalf when he gave evidence and I would just like to put it to you that Brig Visser denies that he was at the border post and that he saw Sedibe there.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is where we went through the border and that is where we met with Mr Visser. It was prearranged that we would meet with him there and he was there alone waiting for us. There were no other people with him, he was there alone. I can assure you that Mr Visser was there, it was his operation in that regard and that is the man that he wanted to have.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, on this aspect, when you returned to South Africa did you pass through the formal border post or how did you cross the border?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, approximately 80 to 100 metres from there, south from there along the border there was some level ground and we pulled up there to the fence and then one would remove the support poles there and press down the fence and then cross over and then you just put it back and then you'd drive back to the border post on some trail road.

CHAIRPERSON: Were there border post there?

MNR DE KOCK: "Ja, die grenspos is een van die aktiefste grensposte ...(tussenbeide)"

CHAIRPERSON: No, where you went through, was there a border post?

MR DE KOCK: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it just the field and the bush?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did the lights come from?

MR DE KOCK: The lights were at the border post, at the gate. The whole border post, the houses and the border post there are lit up with these halogen lights.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that where you met with Mr Visser?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you went through the fence when you crossed the border.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, and we drove back up to the border post from there and this was on the tarmac there, and there we spoke and there we reported back to Mr Visser and from there we left.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: We would just like to change the microphones, but the next witness will be Mr van Dyk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, which language would you prefer to use?

MR VAN DYK: Afrikaans, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

PAUL VAN DYK: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Dyk, your application appears in the bundle before the Honourable Committee, your formal application page 124 to page 126. The incident for which you apply for amnesty is on page 128 to 129 and the political motivation is from page 130 to 137, is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard the evidence of the previous applicants, you were also in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in Swaziland itself, what exactly did you do there when you arrived at the police station?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, when we arrived at the police station, as has already been testified, approximately 80 metres past the police station we stopped and we sent back some of the black members to see if everything was quiet at the police station. They returned and said it was quiet. We then took the vehicle, drove back. As I can recall it, on the one side there was a post office and on the other side was the police station and in-between the police station and - we went through in-between the police station and the post office and we stopped behind the police station.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you go into the police station?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, we all entered through the window that Col Eugene opened and I think some of the members, Freek and Deetlefs, went through the door.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you personally at the cell where Mr Sedibe was detained?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I was.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do there?

MR VAN DYK: I was with Col de Kock.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have a firearm?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: What type of firearm?

MR VAN DYK: It was a pistol with a silencer.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was this a legal firearm?

MR VAN DYK: No, it wasn't.

MS VAN DER WALT: And after Mr Sedibe was taken from his cell, what did you do then?

MNR VAN DYK: "Nadat Sedibe ontset is het ek en Joe Koole hom gevat en ons is daar na agtertoe na die stasiewa, die land-cruiser stasiewa. Hy't deure wat oopklap na die kante toe ...(tussenbeide)

MS VAN DER WALT: These are the rear doors?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, they ware the rear doors. ... and we wanted to load him in. At this stage it was only myself and Joe Koole. Sedibe held onto the back of the vehicle and he kicked back and all three of us landed on our backs on the ground. Joe Koole and I were also injured. My pants tore. It was quite a struggle to get the man back onto his legs. I then grabbed him from behind, around his chest and I lifted him up so he did not touch the ground and I told Joe Koole "Take one side and we'll hold onto him".

The scarf that I had wrapped around my head, I removed and I put it around his neck and lifted him up. I walked in front and Joe held him from behind, and in this manner we tried to get him into the van or the station-wagon.

The other members arrived there and that's how we managed to get him into the van. I climbed in in front and I pulled him and the other men pushed him from behind.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you place the scarf around his neck?

MR VAN DYK: Because he was struggling so much.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was this to get him under control?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I brought him - I pulled him down with the scarf around his neck so that he could not struggle so much.

MS VAN DER WALT: And is it so that as the evidence was before the Honourable Committee, that he was a big and strong man?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, he was quite strong.

MS VAN DER WALT: And after you placed him in the vehicle did you assault him any further?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, the assault that took place was because he was still trying to get out and we needed to get him under control.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you personally do to him?

MR VAN DYK: Where we were on the ground before we put him into the vehicle, there was some fighting, we struck him with the fists and kicked him. He almost got away. We did manage to get him back. But the primary matter was there was a big fight.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because this man was fighting for his life.

MR VAN DYK: I would not blame him, if it was happening to me I would have also fought back.

MS VAN DER WALT: And after everyone arrived at the vehicle, Mr de Kock testified that you drove the vehicle, is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where did you go then?

MR VAN DYK: From Mankanyane we went to the Nerston border post.

MS VAN DER WALT: How did you pass the border?

MR VAN DYK: We went over the border fence, south of Nerston.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you stop at the border post itself?

MR VAN DYK: I have heard what Col Gene has said, but I cannot recall because the route that I would usually follow from there - I regularly crossed the border, and it was one of the places where we usually went over the fence. And then two kilometres from Nerston we met up with a tar. I cannot recall that we drove back to the lights at Nerston.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Dyk, if a person is taken from a police cell illegally - you have abducted a person, is it possible that a person could take a person through a very busy border post where - would you take him out of the car where everyone could see him?

MR VAN DYK: It was late at night, there were not many people around but there were some guards around, but I would not have done it.

MS VAN DER WALT: You did not do it?

MR VAN DYK: Not as far as I can recall.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to Mr de Kock's evidence he tied him up inside the vehicle.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct. I cannot recall how he was tied up, but we did not remove him from the vehicle.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you see Brig Visser at the border post?

MR VAN DYK: I cannot recall that, I can recall that I saw Brig Visser at Piet Retief. If he was at the border post he would have driven along, but I saw him at Piet Retief.

MS VAN DER WALT: So what are you telling the Honourable Committee?

MR VAN DYK: I saw him at Piet Retief.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was that the following day?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, after we arrived at Piet Retief I did not stay, I went back to my base and I went to sleep.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you undertake any further questioning of Mr Sedibe from the time that he was abducted to the time that he was there in Piet Retief?

MR VAN DYK: No, I did not question him, but what would happen is if the persons questioning him felt that information needed to come to our knowledge, they would inform us.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you please tell the Honourable Committee - we have now heard the evidence of Mr de Kock, do you know from your own experience whether Mr Sedibe became a police official later?

MR VAN DYK: As far as I recall he was appointed as a fully-fledged police officer afterwards.

MS VAN DER WALT: With which documents - I beg your pardon, Chairperson.

When you went into Swaziland, did you go through the border post?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, we did.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you pass through with legal

documents?

MNR VAN DYK: Ja, van Vlakplaas het ons dokumente gehad wat nou nie - hy was wettig maar hy was op 'n ander naam, 'n vervalste naam".

MS VAN DER WALT: So it was a forged document.

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you did not negotiate any further with Mr Sedibe, except for when you had to exchange information?

MR VAN DYK: I saw him regularly, but I did not put any questions to him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you then request the Honourable Committee to grant you amnesty with regard to the abduction as well as the assaults?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: The illegal crossing of an international border ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get the second one.

MS VAN DER WALT: Assaults. I believe that would have been assault with intent because it was quite serious. And then the illegal crossing of an international border as well as forgery or fraud with the illegal documents, as well as the illegal, or the possession of an unlicensed firearm or any other offence which might emanate from your action while abducting Mr Sedibe, as well as any delictual accountability.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Mr van Dyk, you were familiar with Swaziland, you operated there for a long time and you lived there for quite some time.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: You will then know that the border post closed at 8 o'clock in the evening.

MR VAN DYK: Nerston border post closed at 4 o'clock, later they changed it to 6 o'clock and then again they changed it to 8 o'clock, so I am not sure at what time it closed.

MR HUGO: So we can freely accept that there would have been no traffic at that stage moving through the border post.

MR VAN DYK: No, as I have said it was later, there was no traffic, there were only the guards there guarding the border post.

MR HUGO: And the guards would have been on the South African side?

MR VAN DYK: On both sides, on the Swazi side and the South African side.

MR HUGO: I do not want to make much of this, but if I heard you correctly - and you must tell me if I'm being unreasonable because you say you cannot recall whether you did stop at the border post, but by implication you cannot deny the opposite.

MR VAN DYK: Definitely we did not stop at the border post. If we stopped there we might have stopped at the border post on the tarmac away from the border post, we would not have stopped under the lights. If we stopped there this would have cause suspicion because the guards would have wanted to know where this vehicle came from. If we used the trail next to the border fence and arrived at Nerston border post they would have been suspicious and wanted to know how did we get there.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr van Dyk, why did you not say initially that you did not stop there, why do you testify that ...(intervention)

MR VAN DYK: Initially I was certain that we did not stop there, but if it was so long ago then it's easy to be mistaken. If other people say that we did stop I cannot say that that man is a liar, but in my mind - I cannot say so.

CHAIRPERSON: But that was what was put to you.

MR VAN DYK: But I cannot recall that we stopped there.

CHAIRPERSON: So you cannot dispute it.

MR VAN DYK: No, I won't dispute it.

MR HUGO: I have no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: If I may just make a follow-up for the sake of completeness on this issue, so that we don't ...(indistinct) that when we examine you.

Your evidence is that you don't recall stopping at the border or after you had crossed the border to meet Brig Visser, and that you only met him in the house in Piet Retief.

MR VAN DYK: According to my - as far as I can recall we directly drove to Piet Retief and at Piet Retief I first went to sleep, I only saw him the following. That is as far as I can recall.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. If that's the gist of your evidence in relation to that point, what did you intend to convey by the words you used at paragraph 5 on page 129 of your application?

MR VAN DYK: I see that, that is how it is written there. It might be possible then, but as I sit here today I cannot recall it. I did not go through this statement again.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And this statement was written quite earlier on when the facts were still much fresher than they would be today.

MR VAN DYK: Correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So which version should we take as we sit here?

MR VAN DYK: Then I would say we would probably have to go along with this one, the one that is in writing.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Which accords with Mr de Kock's evidence.

MR VAN DYK: As I have said, I cannot dispute it if it is in writing here.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR VAN DYK: I think it was '96, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR VAN DYK: I did not read the statement again. I'm honest when I say that. I beg your pardon that I did not read it again.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not worried about whether you read the statement or not, but in three year's time you have forgotten certain aspects of what had happened there.

MR VAN DYK: It's possible.

CHAIRPERSON: You know why I ask this, a few minutes ago you described that you illegally came back into the RSA with a person whom you had abducted, it didn't make any sense that you would drive there in the light and you were wondering how these people would know where this vehicle came from this time of the night. What is going on now?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, this area close to Nerston is a forestry area and the vehicles - they have some lookout posts there and if they see vehicles there, they would ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So indeed you are asking us to accept your written version, then that is how it happened, then they had to report it, they must have seen you.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, they would have reported it, but the instance is if they reported it and it was quite a wide area, by the time these people came there looking for the vehicle we were gone.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, in my opinion you wanted to create the impression that there were reasons that you know of, which indicate that you would not have passed through the border as described by Mr de Kock, when you came back into South Africa. And furthermore, could you not think that Mr Visser had waited for you there under the lights? And when it was pointed out to you that it is stated here in your written version that he had indeed waited for you there, then I question your evidence earlier as to the reasons why you thought that you would not have gone through there.

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I shall put it as follows. If we had met Mr Visser there it would have been at the lights. I would not have stopped there under the lights at Nerston border post.

MS VAN DER WALT: With respect, Chairperson, when one reads the sentence -

... there is no indication that it was at the border post, it could have been anywhere. And if I can recall his evidence-in-chief he said that if it did happen, it would not have happened at the border post, it would have happened further on.

CHAIRPERSON: It's easy, Madam, to take one sentence and make a point, but read the previous sentence. They refer to a border post there.

MS VAN DER WALT: With respect, they refer to the border fence.

CHAIRPERSON:

MS VAN DER WALT: But once again as I have said, he indicates that it was over the border post. I have to point this out to you.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr van Dyk, where do you want us to believe that you met with Mr Visser, on the South African side of the border?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, as I have said, if we did meet him it must have been along the road.

CHAIRPERSON: What road?

MR VAN DYK: The Amsterdam/Nerston road probably. Yes, because there's a T-junction Lothar/Amsterdam.

CHAIRPERSON: Then it must be quite a way from any border post.

MR VAN DYK: The road that I refer to where we arrived at was approximately two kilometres from the border.

CHAIRPERSON: But away from the lights?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, away from the lights.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall that?

MR VAN DYK: No, that is the usual route that we would have followed.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I want to know if you can recall that you did meet him there.

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I wrote it here and then it must be as such, but as I have said I will not dispute it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, you did not write it as such, that is why I want to know. Can you now recall that you met Mr Visser two kilometres away from the border post or the lights?

MR VAN DYK: As I have said and as I have testified, I cannot recall it, but as it is written here it has to be as such because I will not go back on my word. But it is written as such and I cannot dispute it.

CHAIRPERSON: And if someone comes here and tells us it was at the border post, can you dispute that?

MR VAN DYK: No, that's why I say I cannot dispute it.

CHAIRPERSON: So can you dispute what Mr de Kock said?

MR VAN DYK: No, I do not.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well then.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr van Dyk, you have been present during these proceedings and you heard the evidence of Mr Deetlefs with regard to this pertinent issue.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And do you recall that Mr Deetlefs also stated that you met Brig Visser on the RSA side of the Nerston border? Did you hear him saying that in his evidence-in-chief?

MR VAN DYK: I cannot recall that he said that, but if he said it then it must be true. I cannot dispute this with him, I cannot deny what he has said.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Well my note says that.

MR VAN DYK: Then I would agree.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr van Dyk, I would like to refer you to a paragraph in Mr Bosch's statement. I don't know, or do you know, or is it true that Mr Bosch was with the Vlakplaas group in the Piet Retief vicinity at that stage, can you recall him?

MR VAN DYK: He worked with us quite often, but I cannot recall who specifically was there on that day. It is possible.

MR LAMEY: Very well. What I want to ask you is on page 48 paragraph 2, which basically boils down to the fact that Mr Bosch would recall that after Sedibe's abduction, you went into Swaziland where certain houses were searched for documents and weapons. What is your recollection of this?

MR VAN DYK: Once again I will have to say that after Sedibe's initial interrogation, approximately two to three days afterwards, one morning early we crossed the border at the Oshoek border post. That is as far as I can recall. I heard that Col de Kock said that it was upon another occasion, but I recall it being shortly after Sedibe. We searched the houses of Paul Dikiledi and Tami Zulu for documents and weapons. But I would not dispute it if it is said that it was with another instance or incident.

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

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chair.

Mr van Dyk, at the point where you crossed the border fence, was this in an area where there many trees?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, there was wattle bush - on the Swaziland side there was a soccer field and on our side, on the RSA side, there was wattle bush.

MR PRINSLOO: And once you enter that area with the trees, in which direction would you drive to find a road?

MR VAN DYK: You would drive in the direction of the border and then parallel on a tar road.

MR PRINSLOO: Would that be the Nerston/Amsterdam road? Is it a road through the bush, before you get to the tar road?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, one would move through the bush to get to the tar road.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chair.

Mr van Dyk, when you met Brig Visser, was it possible for him to have observed the braises or the open wound that Mr Sedibe had on his nose?

MR VAN DYK: I am not certain. As I've said, where we would have met him would have been in the dark and we would not have been able to observe injuries unless someone had cast light on Sedibe's face. At Piet Retief it would have been possible because that was during the day.

CHAIRPERSON: He must have seen, not so?

MR VAN DYK: Well I cannot speak for him, but I saw it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: All of us are people, we all experience life, if this man's clothing was stained with blood and you were standing in a room with him, then you must have been able to see the blood, not so?

MR VAN DYK: I saw what was wrong with him.

CHAIRPERSON: So if Mr Visser stood in the same room with him when he was still dressed in his bloodstained clothing, surely he must have seen it.

MR VAN DYK: It is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't have anything covering his eyes.

MR VAN DYK: It is possible, Chairperson, but I cannot speak for him.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's a bit stronger than possible, wouldn't you agree?

MR VAN DYK: I will abide by possible.

MR LEOPENG: No further questions, Chairman.

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

Just for the sake of completeness Mr van Dyk, in respect of the question of whether Mr Visser was met on the South African side of the border post, I must point out to you that Mr Pienaar in his application to us, at page 142, says the exact same thing that you say in your application in respect of meeting Mr Visser, as does Mr Deetlefs on page 115. I expect your answer would be the same, but just to point that out to you.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I will abide by what appears in the statement.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any questions?

MS VAN DER WALT: None thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, was Mr Sedibe badly beaten?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I would say that if one takes the injuries that he sustained during the abduction and the manner in which he was handled, I wouldn't say that it was that serious, but the following day I could see he was bruised ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment. Where on his body was he bruised?

MR VAN DYK: On his chest. We looked at that specifically. He was clothed, but when I looked at it I saw it specifically.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR VAN DYK: This is as a result of the altercation in the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: No, why did you deem it necessary to look?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I wasn't alone, I don't know who was with me, but we were a number of persons, we wanted to examine his injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: Why, was it that serious that you had to examine the nature of the injuries?

MR VAN DYK: He wasn't complaining about it to me, but we had to see what the nature of his injuries were.

CHAIRPERSON: But that's my point, why did you think that you had to observe his injuries?

MR VAN DYK: It was a precautionary measure because if he had been badly injured he would have required treatment.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you expect his injuries to be severe?

MR VAN DYK: Well one couldn't say in the dark because there were large stones where we had loaded him, they may have knocked against him. He hadn't complained about any injuries yet. I think it was Col de Kock who testified that there was a - a blow was administered to him with a butt of an object.

VOORSITTER: "Goed. Nou jy sê hy het blou kolle op sy bors gehad, ...(onduidelik) jy gewys.

CHAIRPERSON: There was the injury on his nose which I also recall, his one eye was also swollen on the side, but I wouldn't say that these were very serious injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: But he must have been quite sufficiently beaten in order to experience such a level of swelling in the face.

MR VAN DYK: Well we had also sustained a number of injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: But I am not occupied with the injuries that you may have incurred at points in your life, I'm talking about the injuries sustained by Mr Sedibe. Was he clothed?

MR VAN DYK: Do you mean when we visited him, when we examined his injuries? He opened his shirt and showed us.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the condition of his shirt when you examined his injuries?

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, I cannot recall the blood on the shirt as it has been testified to, but I also will not deny it. I did not notice anything like that. I know that we were looking specifically at the injuries on his body.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't this the reason why you went to look at these injuries?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, it's possible that we may have seen the blood and then decided to look at the injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you saw that there was a lot of blood and then you thought that it would be prudent to examine his injuries because it might be more serious than what you thought. Were you informed of the plan to abduct him prior to the execution of the operation?

MR VAN DYK: Mr Pienaar from Piet Retief informed Mr de Kock and I before the time. We went through to the hotel where we met Mr Deetlefs, we were further briefed about the situation and that is when we left.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this the first time that you became involved in an abduction?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, of this nature. Previously I had not been involved in such actions, this was the first time.

CHAIRPERSON: The first time?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How many more times did you become involved in such operations?

MR VAN DYK: About twice, but those were not of the same nature.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm referring to abduction.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, they were both abductions.

CHAIRPERSON: From the same place, Swaziland?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, one was from Swaziland, the other not.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, there is just another point that I wish to amend, I don't wish to differ with Mr de Kock on this point, but with regard to the G3 firearm there may be a misunderstanding. The firearm was taken and placed in my vehicle. On the following day I found it in the vehicle. The station-wagon had a very strange seat, if one put the seat up in the back there was an opening and that is where I placed the firearm and long after that I came upon the weapon again. So it had spent that whole period of time in my vehicle. I know at a certain stage we started looking for this firearm in the Transvaal and I think it was then that Mr Pienaar said - the firearm was taken to either Middelburg or Ermelo later on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you are excused.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is all from my applicant, thank you Chair.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I believe that is the turn of my applicants, I will just call Mr Koole. We will probably have to make the necessary changes for the microphones and obtain headsets as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR LAMEY: The applicant's home language is Tswana, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, I understand that you prefer to use the Tswana language.

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objections to the taking of the oath?

JOHANNES KOOLE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, just before I begin, in the bundle from page 14 onwards there is a supplementary bundle which is dated the 19th of December 1996, and this refers to a statement in the hands of the Attorney-General. I don't know if I should address the Committee very briefly regarding the background and how this came to be, whether it would be necessary to lead evidence on this and just move ahead to the supplementary affidavit which contains the necessary information which we can find from page 19 onwards and which was also then submitted before the prescribed cutoff date. I know that there has been evidence led about this aspect by this applicant previously, I don't know whether or not it is necessary, whether the Committee will deem it necessary for me to address the Committee very briefly on the particulars pertaining to this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, you can proceed, there's no need to argue.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Koole, I will begin on page 19. Is it correct that after you obtained legal representation initially an amnesty application was submitted where the Attorney-General's office assisted you and after that you obtained legal representation and a supplementary affidavit was submitted which can be found on page 19 of the bundle before the Committee, with reference then to this particular incident, the abduction of Glory Sedibe, up to page 31, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore, on page 24 and 26 there is a brief background pertaining to you, including the details of how you joined the South African Police, how you were transferred to the Vlakplaas unit and how you were applied within that context, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then to proceed immediately, you also request amnesty for your involvement in the abduction of September Sedibe from Swaziland, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And in paragraph 1 of the bundle you have stated that it was during approximately 1985/1986, are you prepared to accept, based upon the other evidence, that this was in 1986?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is it also correct that before the abduction of Sedibe, you were working with a group from Vlakplaas in the Piet Retief vicinity where you were fulfilling your regular duties?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Can we then proceed to how it came about that you became involved and went to Swaziland. Could you tell us briefly what the background to that would be?

INTERPRETER: May you please repeat the question, Sir.

MR LAMEY: I beg you pardon, do you want me to repeat the question? Mr Koole, would you briefly explain to the Committee how it came about that you went to Swaziland and from whom you received the instruction to go there.

MR KOOLE: I don't remember the date, but we were working around Piet Retief. I was called together with Nofomela and Mngade and then we were asked as to whether we have our passports.

MR LAMEY: When you refer to "they", who are these people that you refer to?

MR KOOLE: That is Mr de Kock who asked us as to whether we have our passports or not, then he told us to prepare ourselves because at that night we would be going to Swaziland to do a certain operation.

MR LAMEY: Did you then accompany a group to Swaziland?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall who accompanied you in that group?

MR KOOLE: I remember Mr Mngade, van Dyk and Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar, but I am not able to remember others who accompanied us. I did not recall that Mr Mngade was there, but I recalled later that he was present.

CHAIRPERSON: You heard Mr de Kock's evidence.

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything with which you would disagree?

MR KOOLE: There is nothing which I am in disagreement with in his statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you confirm that what he said as regards what happened there on that trip is correct?

MR KOOLE: There are other parts where I don't agree with him, but generally I do agree with what he has said.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe Mr Lamey, you can lead him on those parts that he doesn't agree with.

MR LAMEY: Could I then ask you immediately, Mr Koole, now that we have clarity, what are the aspects regarding which you disagree with Mr de Kock?

MR KOOLE: The first point is we were issued with guns, with firearms. I did not have a firearm on my person.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr de Kock maintains that not everybody had firearms, what you are saying is that you yourself did not have a weapon when you entered Swaziland.

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you notice any firearms with any of the other persons, for example at the police station when you went in there? - that you can recall.

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, from our group I did not see a firearm, except the firearm I saw in Swaziland. From our side ...(intervention)

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Lamey, shouldn't you probably just lead Mr Koole, you should be able to be aware of which aspects of Mr de Kock's evidence he is not in agreement with. For instance, how the instruction that he received from Mr de Kock to gain access into Mankanyane Police Station and what happened subsequently thereafter. Maybe if you actually lead him in respect of those aspects he does not agree with, with Mr de Kock's evidence.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

Mr Koole, I am going to lead you as the Honourable Committee Member has indicated. Just to come to the point before you went to the police station, is it correct that you were approached by Mr de Kock and requested to go and knock at the police station to determine whether or not there were guards inside the cells, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You state here - did you do this then? Or did you tell Mr de Kock something?

MR KOOLE: I did that, then thereafter I informed him that there was no person to where he instructed me to knock.

MR LAMEY: Did you first tell him that you were not very fluent in Zulu or Swazi and that he should select somebody else, but he informed you that it was your operation and that this was your task and that this was what you were supposed to do, and you went ahead and did it?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson, I told him like that, but thereafter he instructed me to go there. Then thereafter I gave him a report.

MR LAMEY: And you reported that you didn't see anybody, is that correct? Did you subsequently go with Mr de Kock back to the police station?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And is it also correct that you obtained access to the police station by means of a window?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then once inside the police station, can you tell us briefly what you recall of what occurred there.

MR KOOLE: In short, Chairperson, after we gained access in the police station, whilst we were at the passage I saw Mr de Kock using a torch. There was a certain person there who had a gun pointed at us.

MR LAMEY: And what did Mr de Kock then do?

MR KOOLE: Mr de Kock instructed him to drop the gun otherwise he'll kill him, then that person threw the firearm on the ground.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then if we could just proceed. Did the other members also enter the police station?

MR KOOLE: When I looked I saw other members whom we left behind inside the police station. I don't know how they gained access inside the police station, but I saw them inside.

MR LAMEY: Were the keys to the police station then obtained?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't recall as to whether the keys were found from whom, but I saw Mr de Kock having the keys with him.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You do agree with that aspect of Mr de Kock's evidence?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Lamey, let's proceed with those aspects that he does not agree with. Or if he does not agree also with the evidence given by Mr Pienaar.

MR LAMEY: Could you look at paragraph 5 of your statement, you state that you recall that Mr Pienaar peeped through the keyhole and saw one of the cells in which the prisoners were being detained and he said "That's him, I know him". Can you comment on that, is that correct? What do you recall?

MR KOOLE: That's what I recall, Chairperson, that when we stand next to the door of the cell where the detainees were, Mr Pienaar peeped through the keyhole, then stated that "He is there, I know him". That is why Mr de Kock opened that door.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And when the cell door was unlocked, what is your recollection immediately thereafter? What was said or what happened?

MR KOOLE: Myself and Mr van Dyk grabbed Mr Sedibe and then we went with him through the door which was locked when we entered, then we left the other members inside. Then other members were left inside and then we went outside.

MR LAMEY: Paragraph 6 of your statement where you say that-

Those words, was it said? Are you sure that it was said during that time, what is your recollection of it?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't remember as to whether those words were said when they joined us inside the police station or at the car, but those words were stated.

MR LAMEY: So you are not sure of the exact place, but you do recall it was said.

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Were you involved in the physical removal of Sedibe from the police cell to outside?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You have heard the evidence, I would just like to specifically lead your evidence as to what your role was. The evidence was that Mr Sedibe resisted, do you agree?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, he went with us when we left the door, but where it was dark or where we parked our van, that is where he started to struggle. So it's then that he was not prepared to go with us. That is how it was stated by other applicants.

MR LAMEY: What happened there, did you assault him there to bring him under control? What was your role therein?

MR KOOLE: It was a struggle. I'm not able to state what I did, but I took part in that struggle.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you assault him?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson, I assaulted him.

CHAIRPERSON: There was evidence about something that was pulled over his neck, what do you know about that?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you know about it?

MR KOOLE: It was myself and Mr van Dyk who were struggling with Mr Sedibe. I thought it was a tie, not a scarf, but it was put around his neck and then Mr van Dyk hit him on the lower part of the body, then after that we were able to control him and then we were joined by other members there.

MR LAMEY: Do you agree that the purpose of the scarf or the tie as you describe it, around his neck was not to strangle him to death but it was to bring him under control and to curb his resistance?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it was like that. As I've already stated that he was holding Mr van Dyk on his private part, therefore that scarf was used so that we'd be able to control him.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Koole, what was your particular role in his assault, did you punch him, did you use your feet to kick him, what exactly did you do?

MR KOOLE: When you are in such a struggle you'd use any form of force, you would kick, you would use your fists or your open hand, but I assaulted, then again I kicked him.

CHAIRPERSON: We're in the new South Africa now, the question is very clear, answer it like a new South African policeman would do, clearly please. What did you do in assaulting him?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, that is where I used my fists, that is where I used my legs in kicking.

MNR LAMEY: "Weet u of mnr Sedibe as gevolg van hierdie worsteling en strewing en die aanranding op hom, het hy beserings opgedoen wat u opgemerk het, op enige

stadium?"

TSWANA INTERPRETER: Please repeat your question because it was not translated from Afrikaans to English.

MR LAMEY: Did you at any stage where the struggle had taken place or later, did you see any injuries to Mr Sedibe which emanated from this assault?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson, there were some injuries, it was on his forehead, he had bruises on his forehead and then in-between the nose and the eyes he was bleeding, but on other sides it was just bruises.

MR LAMEY: I accept along - somehow you managed to get him into the car and from there you drove back with the vehicle to the RSA border, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether at any stage there was a struggle in the vehicle?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson, there was a struggle inside the car. When we left there, Mr Mngade said Mr Sedibe was trying to throw himself outside the car, then the struggle began.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you how did you return to the RSA, did you go through a border post or which method did you use to get back to the RSA?

MR KOOLE: We did not go through the border post but we crossed the fence.

MR LAMEY: There where you crossed the fence, do you know whether it was close to the border post?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to estimate the distance, but we were able to - the lights of the border post were a little bit further.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether after you arrived on the RSA side through the border, whether you saw any other police officer or met with a police officer?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to recall as to whether we met any member of the police force after we have crossed the border.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Why don't you become specific Mr Lamey, whether he did meet Mr Visser at all after having gone past the border.

MR LAMEY: You have had the opportunity to see Brig Visser here, here at these proceedings of the Amnesty Committee, can you independently recollect whether that evening after you went over the border post or border, whether you had seen him on the RSA side?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to recall, Chairperson, as to whether we met him or I saw his face.

MR LAMEY: What is your further recollection, where was Sedibe taken to?

MR KOOLE: As other applicants have testified, he was taken to a house, but I don't know the location of that house.

MR LAMEY: Was it on a farm?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Close to Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson, but I don't know that area, but I think it's nearer Piet Retief.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you to be quite quick here, I do not think this is in dispute, but is it correct that Mr Sedibe was held in a room on this farm and was cuffed to a bed?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson, there was a bed inside that room, then he was tied on that bed where he was sleeping.

MR LAMEY: Did you have to perform any function after he was tied to the bed? Did you have to guard him, what is your recollection?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson, after he was tied on the bed the white members talked with him, then after he was tied on the bed then they instructed me to stay with him there, they will be coming back. Then he slept on that bed, then I slept on a chair. He was tied - one hand was tied on the bed and the other hand was loose.

MR LAMEY: Then I would like to ask you, is it correct that Mr Sedibe afterwards came to work as an askari at Vlakplaas?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Are you able to say more-or-less how long after his abduction this had taken place?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to recall, Chairperson, but I think it's after a few months, but I'm not able to state exactly after how long.

MR LAMEY: And you have heard the evidence that Mr Sedibe's spouse and child were brought to the RSA, can you briefly ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, what has that to do with the price of eggs? I earlier thought of what value is that to this hearing.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. I will then depart from that point.

Very well then. Mr Koole, you furthermore confirm what is in paragraph 9, 10 and 11, this was about Sedibe and his wife went to stay at Letlabile, that Mr de Kock like him very much and you heard that Mr Sedibe was to go to Mozambique to visit some family and that approximately a week after he came back from Mozambique he became ill and died, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you get to know Mr Sedibe well while he was at Vlakplaas and you worked at Vlakplaas?

MR KOOLE: He was my best friend, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Mr Koole, is it correct that you apply for amnesty for your part in the abduction of Mr Sedibe, the assault on him and then any other offence or delict which might emanate from your participation in this incident?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I will during argument stage just perhaps be more specific, if it pleases you.

And then the political objective as you saw it, you say that you understood that he was an important person in the ANC and you understood that the purpose of the abduction was to gleam information from him about the activities of the ANC in Swaziland as well as the - specifically the infiltration of ANC cadres into South Africa, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself participate in any questioning of Mr Sedibe?

MR KOOLE: No, Chairperson, I did not interrogate him.

MR LAMEY: And your conduct emanates from instructions which you receive from Mr de Kock, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

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

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

Mr Koole, are you entirely certain of the fact that Mr de Kock initially requested you to go to the police station and knock on the front door?

MR KOOLE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Very well then, I will put it to you, I don't think there is much about this, Mr de Kock's version is that he right from the beginning went along with you and that you went to the window and opened the window. Is it not possible that that is the correct version?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, he requested me to go and to see as to whether is there any other person around there, then I informed him that I don't know Zulu or Swazi, the right person who would enquire there is Mr Mngade because he was well versed in Swazi and Zulu. Then he told me that it doesn't matter, I should go there because he's instructed me to go there. Then I went there.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just interpose here for a moment.

Mr Koole, what happened to Mr Mngade, do you know? Is he still around?

MR KOOLE: I don't know his whereabouts, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Mr Hugo.

MR HUGO: Mr Koole, Mr de Kock's recollection is quite clear that during the incident in the police station he called the name of September loudly and he then answered and that is how he was identified, is that not possible? And that you have an incorrect recollection of Mr Pienaar's conduct there.

MR KOOLE: I did not hear as to whether any person called the name September.

MR HUGO: I've got no further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo.

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

Mr Koole, the question that Mr Hugo just put to you and that is from the evidence of Mr Pienaar, he denies that he looked through the keyhole and identified Mr Sedibe in this manner. Any comment on that?

MR KOOLE: My comment is that he looked through the keyhole, then he informed us that he is able to see him, that is why the door was opened.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say that Mr Sedibe was a good friend of yours and he was at Vlakplaas along with you and that he was an askari, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Did Mr Sedibe during that time move around freely, he was not guarded by anyone, he moved around on his own?

MR KOOLE: He was able to walk freely or independently without any restrictions.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you gain the impression from him at any stage that he was dissatisfied working as an askari?

MR KOOLE: When I was with him he was happy that he has come home and that he was secured. He was happy to be home and that he was employed.

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

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Thank you, Chairman, just one question.

Mr Koole, is it your evidence that you did not - let me repeat my question. Is it your evidence that you did not see Brig Visser next to the border post or at the border post on your arrival in the Republic of South Africa, just at the border post or after you left the border post ?

MR KOOLE: I did not see him at all, I don't remember seeing him there.

MR LEOPENG: No further questions, Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, any questions?

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

Mr Koole, as part of your political motivation, in a sense you've stated your motivation appears to be what the other applicants have stated to us already, that the abduction was done with the view to obtaining information that could then be used against the ANC, what was your political motivation, or political affiliation at the time of this incident?

MR KOOLE: I was never affiliated to any political organisation, I was a policeman then.

MS PATEL: Did you believe that the ANC's aims and objectives, did you feel that those objectives were unacceptable to you?

MR KOOLE: That was what I was taught. I was told that the aims and the objectives of the ANC was to render the country ungovernable.

MS PATEL: And you believed that that wasn't right.

MR KOOLE: Yes, at that time I believed that was wrong because I was employed by that government.

MS PATEL: And as you were growing up as a young person what were your political affiliations then?

MR KOOLE: During my early days I was never involved in politics. I joined the police force in 1966 and never belonged to any political organisation before then.

CHAIRPERSON: But you belonged to the Security Police.

MR KOOLE: That's correct, Chairperson ..(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) a political leaning?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not sure about that, I was just doing the job that I was given by the then government. I did not know their political lenience at that time.

MS PATEL: So you really were following orders, you had no political motivation for participating in this, not so?

MR KOOLE: I was just following my instructions as I was given them.

MS PATEL: You were not an askari, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: I have never been an askari, that's correct.

MS PATEL: Alright. I have no further questions for you except merely to state to you, Sir, that it almost defies logic for me that you didn't have a political understanding at that time. Thank you.

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I did not belong to any political organisation, I was just working for that government.

MR LAMEY: I've got no further questions, thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Koole, do you remember whether Mr Sedibe was taken out of this vehicle at any time before he was delivered to the safehouse in Piet Retief?

MR KOOLE: Well I don't remember that happening.

ADV BOSMAN: Is it possible that he was taken out once before you delivered him to Piet Retief?

MR KOOLE: Well I don't remember that happening because I was always with him in the car. We were together in that car.

ADV BOSMAN: And tell me, did you at time before this hearing meet or get to know Mr Visser? Or was it the first time that you saw him?

MR KOOLE: It is the first time that I see him today.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Koole, just as a follow-up to what has been asked of you by my colleague. How long did you look after Mr Sedibe in this house in Piet Retief?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember well, but I think it could have been between 15 to 20 minutes, but I'm not certain about that, it's just an estimation.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You only looked after him for a day.

MR KOOLE: It is not even a day, it's just a few minutes like I've stated.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you still stand by the version you gave on page 29 at paragraph 8, where you state that the following day Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar came to collect Mr Sedibe and that was the last time you saw him? - immediately after his abduction.

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: You have also earlier on stated that Mr Sedibe put up some kind of resistance when he was inside the station-wagon, immediately after being removed from Mankanyane Police Station. Now my question to you is, how was he contained? And by that question I want you to give me details as to whether any force was used on him whilst he was inside the car and if such force was used, by whom it was so used.

MR KOOLE: While we were in the vehicle there was a struggle between ourselves and he was hit by Mr Mngade. I heard Mr Sedibe complaining that he's being killed, but I don't remember what happened thereafter.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How far were you seated in relation to where Mr Sedibe was seated?

MR KOOLE: It was dark inside, we were in the same room, but I don't remember what he used to hit him - we were together in the vehicle, but it was dark inside.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You were occupying the same seat with Mr Sedibe?

MR KOOLE: There were no seats, there were only seats in the front and in the middle and then at the back there were no seats, that's where we were seated.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Were you seated next to Mr Sedibe?

MR KOOLE: I was not seated next to him, but we were not far apart from each other.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Do you know if Mr de Kock was seated next to Mr Sedibe?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember. The only thing that I remember is that Mr de Kock was seated on the second seat from the front, if I'm not mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Koole, the Act demands that you make full disclosure of all the relevant factors pertaining to your application, your amnesia doesn't do your case very much good. I suggest you think carefully and answer that question properly.

MR LAMEY: Sorry Chairperson, may I just come in here. Is that the question relating to the seating of Mr de Kock?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, with respect, his answer was as far as he can recall Mr de Kock was seated on the second seat from the front.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: He wasn't specific. Maybe we should get Mr Koole to respond to the question again, maybe we didn't understand him.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I heard that translation that he says he's not sure, but he thinks he was on the second seat from the front. That's what I heard.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Is that so, Mr Koole?

MR KOOLE: If I'm not mistaken that is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And where was Mr Mngade seated in relation to Mr Sedibe?

MR KOOLE: He was in the middle if I recall well, but I'm not sure about my recollection.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: When you say "we had put him in the middle", are you referring to Mr Mngade or are you referring to Mr Sedibe? That's how I understand you to be ...(intervention)

MR KOOLE: I am referring to Mr Sedibe and Mr Mngade was on the other side, I was also on the other side. Mr Sedibe was in the middle.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So Mr Sedibe was actually sitting in the middle and you were on the one side and Mr Mngade was on the other side.

MR KOOLE: That's my recollection, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So how did Mr Mngade hit Mr Sedibe whilst you were inside the car?

MR KOOLE: Like I have already said, it was dark inside this vehicle, I don't know what he used to hit him, I only heard the scream from Mr Sedibe that he has been injured.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Notwithstanding the fact that you were in close proximity to both Mr Mngade and Mr Sedibe.

MR KOOLE: Well I wasn't aware and I wasn't expecting that to happen. He just hit him once or twice.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You don't recollect facts because you expected them to happen, you recollect facts because they happened, not because of your initial expectation, Mr Koole.

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm trying to explain. This happened a long time ago and we didn't think that one day we would be expected to recall what happened, that is why I'm saying that I don't have a clear recollection. I'm just trying to recollect what happened.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You have been able to recollect the usage of a scarf or a tie as you have alleged in your written application, by Mr van Dyk, have you not?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: So what would be the difference of the facts that you are being asked to recollect now from those that you've been able to recollect?

MR KOOLE: You will be able to remember certain facts, that you are able to remember, but other facts you won't be able to remember.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You are not trying to minimise your role in what happened inside that vehicle, are you not?

MR KOOLE: No, I'm trying to explain this before this Committee as it happened that day.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you had no role in the assault of Mr Sedibe once he was inside the vehicle?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson, I did not assault him inside the vehicle.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Even though you were seated just next to him and you state he was a heavy man and he was giving you a struggle? He was putting up the struggle as in your evidence you've stated as war, you did nothing and allowed only Mr Mngade to contain him.

MR KOOLE: The fight started when we were trying to put him inside the vehicle, but inside the vehicle there was no more fight, the fight had already stopped then.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I thought your earlier evidence was that he put up some kind of resistance whilst he was inside the car because he wanted to throw himself out of the car. That's what you earlier on stated.

CHAIRPERSON: And that he was beaten once or twice.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And as a result of that resistance he was then beaten up.

MR KOOLE: What I remember is that Mr Mngade indicated that Mr Sedibe wanted to throw himself out of the car. That is what I said.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But why should you hear from Mr Mngade when you were sitting next to Mr Sedibe yourself? Surely you would have been able to observe if he wanted to throw himself out of the car, you were seated next to him.

MR KOOLE: I did not see him trying to throw himself out of the vehicle.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions for Mr Koole.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. ...(indistinct - no microphone)

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: May I just ask a question in re-examination, follow this.

Mr Koole, are you saying that in the vehicle Mr Mngade explained that Mr Sedibe wanted to throw himself out the vehicle? Do I understand your evidence correctly?

MR KOOLE: Yes, that is what he said.

MR LAMEY: Was there then a scuffle which ensued on that moment, that you can recall?

MR KOOLE: That is the only thing we heard from Mr Mngade, that he wanted to throw himself out of the moving car.

MR LAMEY: But was there - what I want ...(intervention)

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: What your counsel wants to know is was there any struggle that ensued, either prior to Mr Mngade telling you that Mr Sedibe wanted to throw himself out of the vehicle, or immediately after you had been told by Mr Mngade.

MR LAMEY: Ja, a struggle or some sort of scuffling or movement. That is what I'm trying to ascertain.

MR KOOLE: After we have entered the vehicle there was a struggle inside the vehicle, but it was not the same as the previous fight outside the vehicle.

MR LAMEY: Were you aware of that scuffling?

MR KOOLE: Yes, I did, but I did not pay much attention to that.

MR LAMEY: What I want to ask you is, if you talk about the comparison of that inside the vehicle to what happened before he was taken into the vehicle, how did those two compare with each other? - in terms of the duration and so forth.

MR KOOLE: I would say it was continuous because after we have put him inside the vehicle the same struggle ensued and continued, but it was minimal compared to outside.

MR LAMEY: So if you compare it to outside it was much less than before?

MR KOOLE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, have you got a witness, or anybody got a witness that's shorter than this one, that's going to take less time?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, yes, I think Mr Bosch is going to be very short. We can start with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's carry on then.

MR LAMEY: I think Mr Bosch is inside, Chairperson, I don't know whether someone can just call him.

NAME: IZAK DANIEL BOSCH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bosch, what language would you prefer to use?

MR BOSCH: Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath.

IZAK DANIEL BOSCH: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Bosch, you are also an applicant in these proceedings with regard to the abduction of Glory September Sedibe, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that your application for amnesty commences on page 32 of the bundle before the Committee and therein your initial application appears which was completed in your own handwriting and then there is a typed version. And later when you acquired legal representation a more supplementary application is found from page 40 to 50.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Mr Bosch, is it correct that when Mr Sedibe was abducted you worked in the Piet Retief area with, amongst others, Mr Paul van Dyk?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What was your rank at that stage?

MR BOSCH: I was a Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that you went along into Swaziland when the abduction of Sedibe took place?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Upon whose instructions did you go there?

MR BOSCH: Upon Col de Kock's instruction.

MR LAMEY: And what was your role throughout? Did you go into the police station? What was your role? Did you go in with another vehicle other than the one that the abducted person went in?

MR BOSCH: I went in with another vehicle through Oshoek border post and I drove behind them at Nerston, but I did not go into the police station, I was quite a way from them. Someone was with me, but I cannot recall who it was.

MR LAMEY: Was your role supportive in nature?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Were you involved in any assault of Mr Sedibe?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR LAMEY: Did you know before you went into Swaziland that the abduction of Mr Sedibe would take place?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And any stage thereafter - may I just refer you to page 48 of your application, you mention members of the Ermelo Security Branch, Chris Deetlefs, Frans Labuschagne and Freek Pienaar. Mr Labuschagne has handed up a statement saying that he was not involved in the abduction, do you stand by that or is it possible that your reference to him is mistaken?

MR BOSCH: It may be mistaken that he was involved in the incident that would be heard tomorrow or the day after, but I know there were other people.

MR LAMEY: What I would like to ask you, the Nerston/Amsterdam incident, you were also involved there. I cannot recall, but this took place a day before or after Sedibe's abduction.

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: You applied for amnesty in that instance.

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Where Mr Labuschagne was also involved.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that Mr Labuschagne was in the area there but you mistakenly place him at this incident?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then on page 48, paragraph 2, you state that Sedibe after he was questioned and then he disclosed information about ANC safehouse and houses from which the ANC operated in Swaziland.

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Is your recollection clear about this, with regard to this specific questioning of Sedibe, or could it have been a long while after this? How do you recall it?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I recall we were at Piet Retief and Col de Kock was with us and we went in early the morning and at two houses, we searched two houses and we found some documents and those documents were brought back to the RSA.

MR LAMEY: But Mr de Kock's evidence is that it was not - it did not have anything to do with Sedibe's abduction, but there was something like that at a later stage.

MR BOSCH: That may be possible, Chairperson, I just recall that we searched some houses in Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: Were you yourself tasked with the questioning of Mr Sedibe?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then on page 49 you confirm your political objective.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

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

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

Mr Bosch, if I understand your evidence correctly you were in a vehicle that was in an almost convoy formation when you moved back across the border.

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR HUGO: And there may have been one or two other persons in your vehicle, of which the identities you cannot recall right now.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Can you recall - and please tell us if you cannot, where you stopped the first time when you crossed the border back to South Africa?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, if I recall correctly it was not at the border post, it was in-between the border post and Piet Retief, somewhere along the way we stopped.

MR HUGO: And can you recall what happened there exactly?

MR BOSCH: I think we passed them to tell the people in Piet Retief that they were on their way.

MR HUGO: And can you recall why they stopped and whom they met there?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall.

MR HUGO: I have no further questions, thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LEOPENG: Chairperson, just a few questions.

Mr Bosch, is it your evidence that you were not involved in the assault of Mr Sedibe?

MR BOSCH: Correct, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: Did you see assault of Sedibe by other members of the South African Police during his abduction?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I saw Mr Sedibe when they unloaded him in Piet Retief, I saw he had a cut over his nose and his eyes were swollen and that is all. But I was not in the vehicle where he was assaulted.

MR LEOPENG: So it could have been possible for everyone to have observed the braises on his face?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson, one could not miss it.

MR LEOPENG: No further questions, Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: No questions, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: No re-examination, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Bosch, did you at any stage see Mr Visser?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson, I saw him at Piet Retief.

ADV BOSMAN: Where in Piet Retief?

MR BOSCH: I think it was at the safehouse.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you recall when it was?

MR BOSCH: The same evening when we returned from Swaziland, Chairperson. - or the following day, I cannot recall, but it was quite confusing.

ADV BOSMAN: It would appear that you think it was in the dark.

MR BOSCH: I think so, I don't know why, but that is what my memory tells me.

ADV BOSMAN: You are really not assisting us, Mr Bosch. Thank you.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Bosch, you are obviously not correct with regard to the evidence you've stated in your written application on paragraph 47 of how you came to know of Mr Sedibe's whereabouts, when that is taken with the evidence already given by Mr Deetlefs, is that not so?

MR BOSCH: What I meant here, Chairperson, is that the Security Branch of Ermelo received information that Mr Sedibe was detained in Swaziland. That is how I recall it, I do not recall who gave this information.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Thank you. That is all, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you're excused.

MR BOSCH: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR LEOPENG: Chairperson, can I ask just one question.

CHAIRPERSON: What's it about?

MR LEOPENG: It's appearing on page 57, where he said that he was present when Mr Sedibe was interrogated and assaulted.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Page what?

MR LEOPENG: 57, 5-7.

ADV BOSMAN: But that's Mr Fourie's statement, Mr Leopeng.

MR LEOPENG: I beg your pardon.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: His affidavit ends on page 51.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you're excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got a similar short one?

MR LAMEY: My last applicant is Mr Fourie, Chairperson, I don't think that is going to be so short. I would suggest - I spoke to him a little while ago, he's a bit held up or so ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, if he's not going to be that short, then we can adjourn till tomorrow.

MR LAMEY: I would request an adjournment, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anybody else that's got a shorter witness? Is anybody appearing for Vermeulen?

MS PATEL: Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, I thought that I'd canvassed this with you in chambers, where Mr Wim Cornelius had indicated that they're withdrawing the application, that his client had in fact mistaken this incident for the Msibi incident and would have addressed us when it came to the Msibi incident. So that application is in fact withdrawn.

CHAIRPERSON: And Nofomela?

MS PATEL: Nofomela has already testified. The transcript of his testimony is in fact before you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And Fourie?

MS PATEL: That's the last applicant that is meant to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, how many witnesses, if any, have you got to call on the merits?

MR LEOPENG: Chairman, just one.

CHAIRPERSON: They're going to take on the merits? They will testify to the merits?

MR LEOPENG: Yes. ...(indistinct) the wife briefly - with the assistance of the Committee, the wife is going to say the information which has been provided to her by Mr Sedibe, so I'm not sure that it's going to be hearsay or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think you best look up the law before you lead her, just check the law about the veracity of that kind of evidence. Just check it out because I'm not too sure myself whether it's evidence that we can take. You say only one?

MR LEOPENG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Anybody on this side going to call any extra witnesses? So we've got two witnesses tomorrow. We'll adjourn till half past nine then tomorrow.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just enquire, is the Msibi matter going to start tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: Well we are going to have to decide tomorrow morning and see how quick or how short it's going to be. It may not start, we'll have to play it by ear tomorrow.

MR LAMEY: Shall we make arrangements to have the applicants ready in case we proceed tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: Well in any case even if we postpone it they'll have to be present.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.