--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: For the purposes of the record, my name is Judge Pillay. I'm going to ask my colleagues to identify themselves for the purposes of the record as well, and so too with the different representatives.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I'm Judge Khampepe.

ADV BOSMAN: I'm Advocate Bosman.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is S W Hugo, I'm acting on behalf of applicant EA de Kock.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Wim Cornelius, I have received instructions to act on behalf of Daniel Lionel Snyman, the second applicant.

MR CLAASEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Dawie Claasen, I'm an attorney from Pretoria. I'm acting on behalf of the family of the deceased in this incident.

MS PATEL: Ramula Patel.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, before we proceed, can you just tell us why we started so late?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, unfortunately the victims arrived late, my understanding is that they came from Heidelberg. I'm not sure exactly why they are as late as they are, perhaps my learned colleague, Mr Claasen, can address you on that.

MR CLAASEN: As the Chair pleases. Mr Chairman, yes, the mother of the deceased comes from Estcourt in Natal, I believe she only came through last night and I haven't quite been able to ascertain why they were quite so late, but it just appears that they got away from Heidelberg a bit behind schedule.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claasen, I understand that you are unable to give us a proper explanation now, but hopefully we will finish this hearing by late this afternoon, in which case no damage would have been done, but insofar as we may continue this hearing tomorrow morning, then I would appreciate a proper explanation.

MR CLAASEN: As the Chair pleases, I will furnish the Committee with a proper explanation should the need arise. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the need does arise, the opportunity may not.

MR CLAASEN: Thank you, Mr Chair, I will do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, are you going to start?

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman, yes. I call applicant EA de Kock, he's going to be the first applicant in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume you would like to speak Afrikaans.

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 defeating the ends of justice in the death of the IFP member at Heidelberg in 1992, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Your application for amnesty appears in bundle 2 of the documents, from page 3 to page 9, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HUGO: Very well. As with the other hearings you made supplementary affidavits and submitted documents. The first one is the general background, an introduction, and then you also made a further affidavit, a supplementary affidavit which is more about Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MNR HUGO: "En u vra dan die Agbare Komitee om die inhoud van hierdie verklarings, soos vervat in hierdie aanvullende eedverklarings, te sien as synde deel van u amnestie aansoek."

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Can you just in short explain to us in your own words why you became involved in this incident.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as a result of a visit from Mr Andreiowitch and Willie Odendaal from the Springs Security Branch in 1992, at a covert house in Waterkloof ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, will you please go slower. You say a visit from?

MR DE KOCK: From Mr Andreiowitch and Mr Willie Odendaal of the Security Branch in Springs. It was at a covert house from which my group and myself worked from or operated from. That was in 1992. It was also known as the "grasdak huis", referring to the appearance of the house. I was requested by Mr Andreiowitch to assist them to get rid of a body. The corpse was of a person, when alive, was a member or organiser of the IFP in the Springs/Heidelberg area, and that this person during interrogation had died in one of the kombis or busses as a result of the interrogation.

ADV BOSMAN: At that stage did you know what the name of the person was?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I did not know who this person was, I only knew that he was a member of the IFP and I did not know him at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you correctly if you say that he died because of the interrogation?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. As far as I can remember or understand, he was interrogated while he was in the kombi and it was moving at that stage. The interrogation was done with - coincided with assault. I do not know the nature of it, I cannot give evidence of that because I cannot remember that.

MR HUGO: Can I just ask you then, the interrogation that resulted in the death of this persons, did you understand from Mr Andreiowitch that he took part in this interrogation and also the resulting death?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I can just mention here - certain aspects that could refresh one's memory, during this conversation and a question to me "Who was there at that stage?", Mr Andreiowitch mentioned that they were seven or eight people and that two of them were black members who were part of the Investigative Unit of the Heidelberg Police. I'm not quite sure however, from what unit they were or what group they were.

CHAIRPERSON: What police?

MR DE KOCK: It was from the Heidelberg Police, they were stationed there.

MR HUGO: Very well. What was the request from Mr Andreiowitch?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, his request was that I must assist them, that is the group that was involved in the interrogation and the death of this person, to get rid of the corpse. And I mentioned to him that I do not want to get involved, I'm not going to get involved in getting rid of this corpse or any physical action in that regard.

I did say that I would provide them with equipment and it then arose from the discussion that they would use limpet mines. That is a mine that has got a detonating system. It is from an eastern block or Russian origin.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell me why didn't you want to get involved in this?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this incident happened late in 1992, and I then had done so many things and I'd taken responsibility for so many things and I started to feel that I was withdrawing. I could have been involved but I just didn't want to do it.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not know if I'm correct in this, but as far as I can remember it was in a document - I don't know if it was yours or somebody else's, where it was written that you were a member of the IFP, or something in that regard.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I was a card-carrying member.

CHAIRPERSON: You are now asked to assist in getting rid of the body of a member of the IFP.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was something I did not like, but there was another reason that was more serious and that was that Mr Andreiowitch was a former member of Vlakplaas, and that he was involved in cross-border operations in Botswana during the Harms Commission, and I felt responsible that I help him in this. With the Harms Commission we succeeded with the Judge and with the community in misleading them in that we said we were not involved in cross-border operations and we did not have AK47s, detonators and other equipment, and I realised that if Mr Andreiowitch will be accused and found guilty, then everything will start all over again. The ANC at that stage complained about a third force and we denied it, and everything would have been in disarray. That is in terms of what we did at that stage to protect the National Party and the Security Police. I was not very happy with that set-up.

I then later had a discussion with Mr van Heerden, a former member of Vlakplaas, to with our connections in Ulundi, prevent the IFP march in Transvaal to the Heidelberg Police Station ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry to interrupt. Ms Patel, Andreiowitch and Odendaal, were they given notice?

MS PATEL: Unfortunately Honourable Chairperson, Andreiowitch we were not able to locate. Rumour has it that he's out of the country. Odendaal was in fact notified, he tendered a - Mr Wagener was here this morning, he tendered an affidavit on his - oh no, sorry, not Mr Wagener, but an affidavit by Mr Odendaal was faxed through to our offices yesterday. It is in fact before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Good, carry on.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Has that been given to Mr Hugo?

MS PATEL: It has, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Continue.

MR HUGO: Very well. You said that you had a conversation with Mr van Heerden, but I'd just like to -I want you to tell us when you liaised with Mr van Heerden, what happened then?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, because of that liaison he then made contact with Minister Mtetwa, who was then the Minister of Justice and the police at that stage, to put pressure on Themba Khoza who was the youth leader of the IFP in Transvaal, not to continue with this march to the Heidelberg police station to force the police to bring this person to the front.

At that stage there were reports in the newspapers that this person disappeared or that he was killed, there were certain rumours, and they wanted - five or ten thousand IFP members wanted to go to the police station then. And because of the liaison with Mr Mtetwa, a small group went, I think it was ten or fifteen under the leadership of Mr Themba Khoza, and a report or a petition was submitted at the Heidelberg police station and no further political pressure came from the IFP concerning Mr Khanyile.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr De Kock, did you try to ascertain why Mr Khanyile was attacked and as a result died, because that is not clear.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I did not ask for details, I did not ask if he was strangled, if he was suffocated or a machine was used ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: No, you're misunderstanding my question, I don't want to know how he died, but it happened that they assaulted him and what resulted in his death. It is now an IFP member and there was sympathy from the Security Police to the IFP members and why would they then do this to an IFP member?

MR DE KOCK: The Springs Security Branch did do investigations, it was now irrespective of if it was IFP or ANC, but in this instance, this member of the IFP was involved in the organisation of the IFP's, let me say it was the forces, but as far as I understood it he had weapons with him and if I can remember correctly he was involved in an attack on an ANC member, where this person was shot in the chest - this was according to Mr Andreiowitch, and as far as I understand it he was arrested at his workplace and not in the hostel or the place where he stayed. And after he was taken from there, it was while they were in the vehicle, they then started with the assault and he then died as a result of it.

ADV BOSMAN: So are you trying to tell us that the Security Police in Springs did not have any sentiments concerning the IFP?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot say that, but I cannot confirm it either. I cannot say that their sentiments were the same as mine or the other people who supported the IFP.

ADV BOSMAN: Did they know that you supported the IFP?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, there were a few members. I cannot say that all the Vlakplaas members knew, but we did not act against the IFP.

ADV BOSMAN: Let's be more specific, did Andreiowitch and Odendaal know that you supported the IFP?

MR DE KOCK: I won't be able to say, I cannot make that conclusion, no. I didn't ever use either one of the two of them with anything regarding the IFP, such as the supply of ammunition and arms.

ADV BOSMAN: But wasn't it generally known that you were favourably inclined towards the IFP, especially among the ranks of the Vlakplaas members?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it may have been well known, I just would not be able to confirm this.

ADV BOSMAN: No, I understand that, but you must have had some kind of idea whether the Vlakplaas members in general knew that you were favourably inclined towards the IFP. Is it your idea that it was common knowledge that you were favourably inclined towards the IFP, especially among the members of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: I'm sure that that might have been the inclination that was sent out and that people might have drawn that conclusion.

ADV BOSMAN: Because what I find strange Mr de Kock, is why if they had probably known this, would they have come to you to ask for assistance in getting rid of the body, didn't they have the necessary knowledge and so forth in order for them to be able to do so themselves?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, they probably could have been able to do so themselves, as in all cases one would want a distance between them, and when I refer to distance what I mean is that they could always have said that they were somewhere else when the body was disposed of. In this case I wouldn't be able to determine what their motivation would have been, with the exception that Mr Andreiowitch had the space to come to me, he knew that Vlakplaas was involved in this sort of work and that we possessed the necessary equipment. I don't know whether or not they possessed the equipment at that stage.

ADV BOSMAN: I do not wish to entrap you in any way, I just want some clarity in my own mind. I just find it somewhat strange that you didn't tell them that here is a reasonably senior IFP member in that environment, why did you assault him so grievously that it led to his death? Didn't you enquire about that, couldn't you clarify that for me please.

MR DE KOCK: That was not the determining factor for me, the determining factor for me with regard to this situation was that Mr Andreiowitch approached me and he was one of the persons who indeed had knowledge and had actively participated in cross-border operations, and what would the situation be for me or Vlakplaas if Mr Andreiowitch were to be charged despite IFP membership and then during a criminal trial say, "But we did this sort of work, this was nothing out of the ordinary"? That was the greatest determining factor for me in that situation. Whether or not it was an IFP member was of secondary nature at that stage.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Mr Hugo, please proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Just tell me Mr de Kock, the treatment of the IFP by the police, was this policy or was it as a result of your membership?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the IFP was the traditional opponent of the ANC, so to speak, and that is why we began to liaise with each other ultimately.

CHAIRPERSON: No, this would be on a personal level, what I'm referring to was police policy. Was there such a policy?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, there was a policy of looking away, if I might put it as such.

CHAIRPERSON: And where did this policy originate?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this policy was generally something that originated from the higher echelons, and when I refer to these levels, I refer to Generals and so forth. I've completed claim forms amounting to R20 000 for the manufacturing of assegais, assistance that was given to the IFP in KwaZulu Natal. For example, six devices to the value of R6 000 each, which would be used for scrambling, which would be used on a telephone line. It was very sophisticated equipment that we provided to them.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words if this device was implemented, nobody could tap the telephone line?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct, because there would be about 330 000 different types of combinations which would be used. So in that light there was a question of evading detection or capture. I cannot say that it was like this on all levels, but that was the general attitude.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you see because if there was such a policy, why was this person interrogated and consequently killed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, unfortunately I cannot assist you with this matter. I don't believe that this person wanted to kill him. One doesn't always know what his physical condition was or how seriously they assaulted him.

CHAIRPERSON: Whatever the reason may have been, they assaulted him so seriously that they could not allow him to walk about freely again.

MR DE KOCK: That possibility also exists.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but we cannot determine that and you have said that you do not know, and I understand that. However, if it was the policy to turn a blind eye to what the IFP members were up to, it would appear to me as if it was the possession that if a similar incident were to take place, such as an incident during which a person was killed by the police, be it accident or not, it would then be expected that you or someone of your rank would speak to the big guns about it or at least report about it, in order to inform them of how this came to be.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did approach my head about this matter, on a very concentrated basis, whether or not he understood what I was telling him or whether I understood it correctly is always a question of debate because it was a one-on-one discussion. That is how things operated and we can see the effects of this today.

With regard to the Springs persons, I cannot say whether they came because he was an IFP member and that they were called in specifically regarding that. They had a body of a man who had died during interrogation and they needed to get rid of this body. As I have told you, my greatest determining factor was of course that Andreiowitch was the catalyst which led to my decision.

MR HUGO: I will return to Andreiowitch and his role and so forth somewhat later. Arrangements were made according to your evidence, with Themba Khoza and Mtetwa and then there was a march which was not of the scope which had been initially foreseen.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And you have referred to the report that you made and you state in your affidavit that you spoke to Gen Engelbrecht regarding this matter.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And you informed him briefly that there could be possible problems.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was already clear that this was under way.

MR HUGO: Very well. And which steps were taken subsequently?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I accepted that Gen Engelbrecht had indeed had a word with these persons, and I cannot mention their names directly now, I understand from later information which I gained, that a demolitions expert from Pretoria, a Mr or Capt Hammond or Col Hammond, led the investigation so that the Springs demolitions expert would not be involved. The dossier was led by Capt Koekemoer who was part of the East Rand Murder and Robbery Unit. My intention, and that was also my sentiment and my knowledge at that stage, was that these persons were well-informed to be able to detect certain things and not to detect other things, but I cannot really testify about this because one could say that this would be inference but in the past things did function this way ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It appeared as such.

MR DE KOCK: Yes. However, I can tell you, and I would base this furthermore on the following - by the time that the body of Mr Khanyile was found at the stockpile location for the limpets that we had provided, there was period of two to three days that had elapsed and I understood that the problem was that Mr Khanyile was taken away from his place of work and he was found two to three days later at this stockpile, in the same clothing that he wore when he was taken away. In other words, he didn't bathe or put on other clothes or have his clothes washed in-between. In other words, somewhere along the line it wouldn't have taken Sherlock Holmes to figure out that this man hadn't returned to his abode, that he hadn't changed his clothes. I wouldn't want to say anything further about this because this would be speculation, but that is the information that I had at my disposal.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: How did the police explain this?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, because ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Everybody knew that he had been taken away from his place of work.

MR DE KOCK: Yes. As far as I know according to the information which was conveyed to me on the day that the two members came to me at the thatch-roof house, the information was that he died after he was taken away from work. In other words on that very same day he was interrogated and assaulted.

MR HUGO: Mr de Kock, is it correct to say that Mr Andreiowitch left no doubt in your mind that he, Mr Andreiowitch, was in a very precarious position in the sense that he could be prosecuted and that other members could be found to be co-responsible for the incident?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Now before we continue with the political objective, with the indulgence of the Committee I would just like to refer to several aspects and I would like to know whether or not you concur with these aspects.

Mr Chairman, I'm referring to, I think it's bundle 2, that is the bundle - well it's the bundle 2 of the supplementary affidavits, it's the bundle dealing with Vlakplaas as a separate entity. I'm not sure what it's marked in your papers.

Mr de Kock, I just want to take you through this briefly, there are just a few aspects that I want to highlight. On page 18 of this bundle which deals with Vlakplaas, you have stipulated there that Vlakplaas actually operated as a neutralisation unit, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: To neutralise what?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that would be between recruiting a man as a source, the capture or recruitment or killing or prosecution of terrorists and the killing on a covert basis, whether cross-border or internal, of such persons. These were the euphemisms which were employed in order to give the top structure the opportunity to figure out their own definitions.

MR HUGO: Just to put it briefly and crudely, Vlakplaas was indeed the hit-squad of the former government?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, there can be no doubt about that.

MR HUGO: And did Mr Andreiowitch know this, did he have personal knowledge of this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he himself participated in operations.

MR HUGO: Very well. Then I would like you to turn to page 29 of the same document - I beg your pardon, before we get to that let us turn to page 23 instead. There you deal with cross-border operations in which Vlakplaas was involved and then specifically you deal with the Chand matter.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And then is it also correct - I don't wish to lead evidence on this, but it is correct that this application has already been heard, that there was an attack during which four persons were killed and this took place during the proceedings of the Harms Commission.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And was Mr Andreiowitch involved during this matter?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, directly.

MR HUGO: And he had personal and very detailed knowledge about this incident.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And at that stage when Mr Andreiowitch came to see you, nobody knew about Vlakplaas' involvement in this particular incident.

MR DE KOCK: No, save for the persons who were involved who had received orders to participate.

MR HUGO: Thank you. Then I want you to turn to page 29 and then very briefly there you also say that Vlakplaas was regularly applied by other units in order to cover up offences committed by the Security Police, and then to literally hide this under the bushel, if one were to put it as such.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And then on page 31 you state facts about the weapons which came from Ovamboland, and was the limpet mine that you provided among others, part of this weaponry?

MR DE KOCK: It was either part of this weaponry or part of confiscated ANC/PAC weaponry. Just for the sake of completion I could mention here that there was a written order which was sent to all divisions to send all their weapons of terror, such as ammunition, handgrenades, limpet mines and so forth to Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a question, Mr de Kock, your representative can deal with this in argument, I do not wish to place you in a position of not having testified about this and then at the end of the hearing we experience a problem in that you haven't had the opportunity to comment on this aspect. The Act requires that an applicant for amnesty must receive amnesty on the condition basically, that he has convinced the Panel that what he or she has done was done for political reasons. Furthermore, basically, that he or she has disclosed everything that he or she knows about a specific incident.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Now let us deal with this incident. We know now that there was some sort of relationship between the police and the government of the day and the IFP, at the very least to turn a blind eye to what the IFP members were doing unlawfully. And then some people come to you and say "Listen, we need to get rid of a body, it is the body of a member of the IFP", now to what extent would the death or the assault or the interrogation of an IFP member be in the interests of the government of the day? What was your frame of mind at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it would certainly not have been in the interests of the IFP, but with Mr Andreiowitch and the request made by Mr Odendaal ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not referring to that government, I'm referring to the South African government of that time.

MR DE KOCK: As I've said, my primary idea was that if Mr Andreiowitch were to be charged and ultimately as with Dirk Coetzee and Almond Nofomela's case, would have talked, this would have brought the existence of Vlakplaas to light with the Harms Commission, it would have led to further investigations and this would then effectively have placed the Security Police and the government in a prejudicial position. The negotiation phase was under way at that stage and this could also have damaged the process. That was my primary function, to prevent that the police or the National Party once again find themselves in a dilemma, be it ANC, IFP or PAC or origin.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I then understand you correctly, that it was not the interests of your colleagues that you had at heart, it was the protection of the government and all the other parties, it was to help them prepare for what had happened?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. And the National Party would have suffered, it might have brought the National Party to a complete fall before the completion of the process.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was your concern at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And would that constitute the political reason for your action at that time?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And in fact the damage which would have emanated if Mr Andreiowitch had talked, is not something that you have just invented. Would you tell us what happened when Mr Nofomela spoke for the first time as well as Mr Coetzee, and what the effect of this effect of this was on Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in 1989 the effect of that is what we are still testifying about here today, it is almost 11 years later, and it would and could have placed the government of the day to such a disadvantage that we would not have been able to come to a compromise or that the National Party would have fallen.

CHAIRPERSON: I also know about certain documents which I read pertaining to other matters, in which it appears that when the possibility of Codessa appeared in the newspapers there was a section of the South African population which did not accept this.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And there were many policemen who fell into that category at that stage.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Certain incidents took place and many things happened which could have ensured that the entire Codessa process go off the rail. What was your attitude towards Codessa at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: My personal attitude and the attitude of some of my members was that we would rather fight to the bitter end, that we would rather enter a war and run to the mountains before we reached any point of compromise.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how does that response gel with your previous response that you acted because you were aware of the possibility of Codessa? If you didn't care for what happened with Codessa, you would fight to the bitter end.

MR DE KOCK: That was my personal attitude, Chairperson, that was my attitude as a person, but I was still a member of a group or a unit and by nature of the situation I was not dis-favourably inclined towards the National Party. And the whole aspect was that we had been through an incident where we denied everything, such as the Harms Commission, and we were going to stick to our stories and we were not going to create anymore problems. Mr Andreiowitch could however have derailed that entire process and that is what I based my actions on.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I on this point, Mr de Kock, make an enquiry. Now that I understand the reason that made you to ultimately accede to Mr Andreiowitch's request, in that he was in possession of, or privy to very sensitive information about Vlakplaas activities which you did not obviously, for obvious reasons you didn't want such information being revealed, if Mr Khanyile, that is the alleged IFP member, had not been politically involved, he was just an ordinary person who happened to have been killed by Mr Andreiowitch, would you still have acceded to his request in order to protect the secrecy of the information that he was in possession of about Vlakplaas' activities?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, definitely so, I've got no doubt about it.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. That to me is quite important.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

MR HUGO: We've already dealt with your submissions about Vlakplaas and the results, or what happened after the revelation of Nofomela and Coetzee. It also happened that Nofomela and Coetzee's evidence was not accepted by the Harms Commission.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR HUGO: But it did result in a lot of problems for the Security Police.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HUGO: And if Mr Andreiowitch would then be a third person to come forward, that would have been impossible then to distinguish all the fires.

MR DE KOCK: That is true.

MNR HUGO: "Dan net vinnig handel u met Vlakplaas as 'n koeverte eenheid en dat dit nie in die algemene handel en wandel bekend was dat die Suid Afrikaanse regering op daai stadium so 'n eenheid gehad het nie - dis op bladsy 50." Let me just ask you in short, if Mr Andreiowitch at that stage was found guilty and then started to talk about Vlakplaas, what would have been the result for the government?

MR DE KOCK: Well first of all the Security Police definitely, I can almost say it would have collapsed and I don't doubt that it would have completely weakened the National Party, or would have fallen apart. I don't have doubt of that.

MR HUGO: And is it not so that at that stage the ANC specifically made allegations that there was a third force that was still operating and that was still instigating violence?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is true.

MR HUGO: And what was your attitude that if Andreiowitch's position and his position in Vlakplaas and his cross-border operations were made known, what effect would it then have for the ANC and on the opposite then, for the Security Police and the government?

MR DE KOCK: Well the Security Police and the government could then have stopped negotiating and just handed it over. It would have been put them in a very bad light and there would have been no situation in which they stand, in which they could have said that it was no third force, "die hele Harms Kommissie sou van die tafel afgevee gewees het op daardie stadium" and what would have happened then is also speculation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, tell me, did the government know about Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, the Minister came for a braai, he had dinner there - I'm talking about Minister Vlok, we were congratulated about the blowing up of Cosatu House. We established the first black parachuting unit in the SAP, because nobody else wanted to do it, they said blacks did not have to jump with parachutes, but I foresaw that it was necessary and Mr Minister Vlok - I confirmed it just now, Minister Vlok at one stage handed over to eight of my black members, their wings after they completed the course. And at another opportunity, with a Xmas party, he spoke to the whole family and we had the official dinner with him as the head of this dinner. He did know about it. Gen Kat Liebenberg came to visit us, Joop Joubert of Special Forces came to visit. No, it was well-known.

CHAIRPERSON: And what about parliament?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the parliament members did not come or did not visit Vlakplaas, but let us say some of the askaris, the former ANC members, gave evidence in parliament in Cape Town before observers and groups - that is now fact finding groups in Cape Town, about the ANC as a terrorist group and their ties with communism. And at one stage I think eight or nine askaris flew down to Cape Town to give evidence in front of such a committee where there were people from Germany and the Netherlands.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you then saying that because they knew that you flew these people out from Vlakplaas they did know about the existence of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that such a group exists?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because these askaris had to have a place to stay, to come from. They were looked after, they were part of the force, they were part of Special Forces. I cannot say that they knew where Vlakplaas was, that is now according to a map, but Minister Vlok did know about it as well as various Generals. If I say various, there were a large number of them who knew about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR HUGO: Yes, Mr de Kock, that is one side the spectrum of the Security Forces and that is they knew about what Vlakplaas did.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, your normal uniform person did not know where Vlakplaas was.

MR HUGO: But in terms of the political opponents, the ANC and the PAC, did they know? Did they have solid knowledge of where Vlakplaas was and that it existed?

MR DE KOCK: No, they did make accusations, but they could prove nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I'm asking this, allegations were made about a third force and I know it was denied, but did parliament or the Ministers, except for Vlok, according to knowledge, did they try to find out if this exists before they deny anything?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, nothing was done about this, but if they did it they would have found the truth. I can for example refer to handgrenades that were traced back to us and that was done through details which were got at Sonkem in the Cape, and it was police handgrenades, but that was covered up.

MR HUGO: And what did you think would have happened if Andreiowitch for example made certain revelations of his participation in the Chand incident in Botswana, what would the effect have been for the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it would have been a substantiating fact for them, not just of their allegations but also that they were correct in the fact that what was denied at that stage was the truth.

MR HUGO: And would it then substance to the rumours that there was still a third force involved in the destabilisation of the country?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HUGO: Then lastly, the political motive. You deal with that on page 73, 72, and that is with Vlakplaas after the disbanning of certain political parties - I don't want to go through the whole thing, but in effect you say that Vlakplaas even after the disbanning of the ANC, still continued and operated and were involved in actions as they were before the disbanning of the ANC.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HUGO: And then just to come back to the aspect concerning what Judge Khampepe asked you, and that is about the person who was killed, you never had a political motive in terms of the victim?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Your motivation was to protect the government of the day.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, and then also to protect the Harms Commission and the Security Police as such.

MR HUGO: If it was suggested that you did it for in terms of the personal friendship that you had with Andreiowitch, did you have a personal relationship with him?

MR DE KOCK: No, he was a member when he was with us and he was just under my command.

MR HUGO: Did you get any financial benefit in this operation?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HUGO: I've got no further questions.

MR DE KOCK: Can I just mention that I take responsibility for my own actions and also then for a member that worked for me, and that is Mr Snyman. That is just for completion.

ADV BOSMAN: I just want to ask you, what were the circumstances under which this limpet mine was handed over to Mr Andreiowitch? Did you ask somebody to do it, or did you do it yourself?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I can remember I asked somebody and it would have been one of two people, Mr Snyman or Vermeulen, to provide me with this equipment. It was locked up at a premises near Walmansdal. And I asked them to bring it to me with two MEV2 detonators. That I can still remember.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you tell them what it's going to be used for?

MR DE KOCK: No, I cannot remember. I do not have any independent recollection concerning this.

ADV BOSMAN: What would have been your normal procedure in this, would you have explained to them why you needed it or would you have just requested it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it depended on the circumstances, I could have told the person "There's trouble in Springs or there are people with problems, get two", but I think in this case I would have kept it short, I would have dealt with it one-to-one.

ADV BOSMAN: It probably wouldn't have worked if you told all and sundry why you wanted to use this thing or why you needed it?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Mr de Kock, there are weapons and ammunition stored at Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you were in control of it.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And the explosives, as we've seen in several other amnesty hearings, was used amongst others, for training and certain operations.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Your instructions were given to the footsoldiers and they executed them to the point, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And in answer to Adv Bosman's question, you worked on a need-to-know basis.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: It wasn't expected from a footsoldier to ask the Commander "Well why must I provide you with two limpet mines"?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR CORNELIUS: The footsoldiers also had trust in your decisions and that you worked within the political milieux and that you did take a well-informed decision.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: In answer to Judge Pillay's question, is it true that some of these members were rewarded and that Minister Vlok attended these meetings?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And if you recall, in the hearing of Cosatu House and Khotso House, can you remember where these instructions came from?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it came from the highest ranks. Amongst others, in the Cosatu incident when I asked Gen Schoon "From how high does it come", he said to me "From the highest level." When I asked him "What is the highest level, is it the President?", he said yes. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and it is also made known in the finding of the Amnesty Committee which was given to us on the 10th December 1999. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

And do you know of the fact that - I'm talking about the incident of the London bomb, did this happen there too?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: So there can be no doubt that some of the actions did occur with the knowledge of the Minsters.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is true. I can also mention that in the incident of the London bomb we also flew somebody in from Oshikati to Pretoria and from Pretoria to London.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, why I asked that question is, I cannot understand why all these people made allegations of third forces and then the fact that the previous government may have been responsible for the bombing in London, but that if some of the Ministers did not know of Vlakplaas or the actions of Vlakplaas, they would have been able to find out. I cannot imagine that up today they still do not know or couldn't have known of Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would like to mention two aspects that would help you in this. You do not ask me for it but I'll just give it for clarity's sake. That is that in 1993 there was an attack in Umtata, this attack was executed by a military unit and at that stage ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is that that coup that you are talking about?

MNR DE KOCK: "Nee, Voorsitter, dis toe 'n huis aangeval was van ANC lede, van APLA lede, waar daar ook 'n tweeling doodgeskiet is, mense van 'n baie jeugdige ouderdom. Op daai stadium, as my geheue my reg bedien, was oud President, mnr de Klerk, besig om die Nobel prys vir vrede te kry, in Oslo. As hy die opdrag gegee het of sy adjunk-President, dan moes iemand tog seker geweet het dat daar is sulke eenhede want iemand moet dit gaan uitvoer, en niemand het daai eenheid ooit opgespoor of aangekla nie. En dan het ons 'n persoon wat dan 'n denkende persoon is, ook soos oud-President de Klerk, wat op 'n stadium die Minister van Onderwys was, een van die meer senior Ministers was - ek praat ook van Minister Pik Botha, al hierdie land se top vyande wat dan in die ANC en die PAC was val in al die buurstate om, soos in hulle word doodgeskiet. Die mense gaan nie aan verkoue dood nie, Voorsitter. Denkende mense sê "Maar hier was 'n aanval gewees" nou wie sal dit doen, dit kan nie van Mosambiek na Swaziland toe nie, dis hier van Suid Afrika na Swaziland toe gedoen. Sekerlik, sekerlik moet daar iewers in die begroting vir 'n voorsiening gemaak word. Niemand kan sê dat hierdie mense het net van self gegaan selfmoord pleeg nie, dit was behoorlike aanvalle gewees, dit is met 'n hoë mate gedoen van, in sekere opsigte, in kliniese omstandighede. Dit was sjirurgies in baie omstandighede van aard gewees. So hulle kan nie sê hulle't nie geweet nie, Voorsitter."

We have three of the best Intelligence Services in this country, we've got the military, the police and they can tell us now what somebody's eating in London, but they cannot tell us what happened in Pretoria, that is just not logic.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: For example Mr de Kock, if a bomb is planted in the middle of Johannesburg, no questions are asked?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we have a braai and the General is there and the Minister's there, but no questions are asked.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes and for your actions in London you received an SOE medal and all the people who were involved with you?

MR DE KOCK: Just to talk about this medal, that was given only to Generals and not to Lieutenants. It was only given to Generals in terms of that. According to rank, it's abnormal for a person under the rank of a General to get that type of decoration. MR CORNELIUS: I do not know what the Latin name is but it is a medal for exceptional service.

MR DE KOCK: They probably thought that we deserved it.

MR CORNELIUS: It is apparently the highest honour that you can receive.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CLAASSEN: Mr de Kock, just to return to the incident itself, on the day that you were visited by Mr Andreiowitch and Mr Odendaal, was Mr Andreiowitch no longer a member of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No, he wasn't.

MR CLAASSEN: For how long at that point was he no longer a member?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know. I cannot speculate, but he hadn't been gone for that long.

MR CLAASSEN: I want to put it to you Mr de Kock that in your amnesty application you stated that Andreiowitch had been stationed at Vlakplaas previously from approximately 1989 to the end of 1990. Would you say that that is correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that would be my means of estimation. I don't have any dates at my disposal.

MR CLAASSEN: So we are looking at approximately a year and a half that he had been away?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr de Kock, Mr Andreiowitch and Mr Odendaal were both demolitions experts?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: And you were aware of this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: When they came to see you on that particular day and asked you for your assistance, what was your initial reaction, when they explained to you what had happened?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my immediate reaction was that I didn't want to hear about it. This was one of the reasons why I decided not to become personally involved in this situation.

MR CLAASSEN: Very well, but that would be my specific question then. In your application you state that you told Andreiowitch that you were not prepared in the concealment or the desecration of the body.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Why is that so?

MR DE KOCK: As I have already stated, at that stage I had led a very long and difficult and bloody life, especially when it came to internal and cross-border operations, and I had had my fill. I was finished.

MR CLAASSEN: Despite the fact that you didn't want to get involved, you gave them the explosives and the limpet mines. Why did you do this?

MR DE KOCK: I realised that if Mr Andreiowitch were to be arrested and charged and convicted ultimately, it would expose everything that we had managed to bury about Vlakplaas. There would be investigations and it could place Vlakplaas and the Government in a very precarious position.

MR CLAASSEN: But Mr Andreiowitch was at that stage no longer involved with Vlakplaas. Why would it have been exposed in the event of his arrest?

MR DE KOCK: During the Harms Commission we denied that we had foreign weapons such as AK's. We denied that we possessed limpet mines. We denied that we had acted in neighbouring countries. We also denied that we had killed people in neighbouring countries, that we were acting on a cress-border basis, that we were launching attacks. On the contrary, with regard to the Chand incident, the attack on Botswana during which Mr Andreiowitch himself was involved and was also involved in the killing, I had injured my kneecap in that operation and I sat before the Harms Commission with my knee in plaster and stated that I'd injured it elsewhere. Mr Andreiowitch had it within his power to interfere with all that evidence.

MR CLAASSEN: What could he have said if you had refused to assist him?

MR DE KOCK: I relied on my deep and intrinsic knowledge of the movements of Nofomela and Coetzee and what that had resulted in for us and that ultimately with a guilty conviction, he would have spoken out about it, whether it be for mitigating circumstances or whatever his reason was.

MR CLAASSEN: But that is speculation. We are studying the abduction and murder of the deceased. You yourself are drawing the inference that he would simply have provided information regarding Vlakplaas, even though he was no longer a member of the unit.

MR DE KOCK: At that stage I had spent 13 years with covert operations. I had seen, not only here but in Ovamboland as well, what happened when people became alcoholics or began to feel guilty about what they had done and defected with regard to what they had done. I myself am a case in point.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: If I may interpose there, Mr Claassen. What I would be interested in knowing, Mr de Kock is, what character traits did Mr Andreiowitch possess that made you believe that he had this capacity to spill the beans about Vlakplaas's activities?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson it wouldn't only have been what he himself had been involved with, it would also have been what he came to hear of from other members. We worked in compartments. People talked, there was additional information. We denied possession of any Russian weapons while we had tons of such weapons. All of these things would once again have led to new information, new investigations, new commissions and then this was also contemporary, it is not something that happened 8 or 10 years ago, this was something which took place 6 months ago.

ADV BOSMAN: I don't think that you understood my colleague quite correctly. Perhaps I could assist here.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV BOSMAN: What character traits did Mr Andreiowitch possess that led you to believe that he would spill the beans if you didn't help him?

MR DE KOCK: The choice between a sentence of 12 to 15 years and mitigating circumstances would have brought him to more insightful ideas.

ADV BOSMAN: Well what sort of a person was Mr Andreiowitch?

MR DE KOCK: He was loyal. I don't know whether he was strong enough in the spiritual or psychological sense to be able to endure a lengthy prison sentence, especially under the harsh conditions of the prison system. I don't believe that he would have been able to endure that. That is my

belief.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But I'm still not in a position to be quite clear in my mind, what really moved you to accede to his request. Was he a person who had a weak character who, when approached under pressure, would break easily? I mean, you had worked with this person for quite some time. Something that would have led you to believe that if you did not accede to his request with regard to the explosives that he and Odendaal were seeking, he would rush to the person that you least wanted to hear about the activities of Vlakplaas? What is it that made you believe that he would be the person that would be like Nofomela? I mean, we know Nofomela was able to spill the beans because of his peculiar situation.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, I can only state that one of the aspects which I bore in mind was those who killed Mr Khanyile, could have buried him at any place. They could have tossed his body down a mine shaft, but then he came to me, he came to ask me and I responded with a no and they would be charged at some point and convicted and then I would be the person that, if I'd helped him it wouldn't have happened and then one would have looked for a reason as to why he would make his misfortune mine. I cannot offer any other explanation.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I can put this in a easier way. What led you to believe that if you did not assist him, it would be possible that he would go to the press or whoever and tell them the story?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this is something that I foresaw from an operational perspective, especially in light of the past, that such a situation could originate.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that fall in with the character of such a person?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I don't believe that he would have been able to endure the pressure that I endured. I doubt this very seriously.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: In that case Mr de Kock, you see we are talking about enduring the pressure and that pressure would presumably have come from being interrogated by the police. Is that the kind of pressure that you are referring to?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, one wouldn't know to what point it would have been necessary to pressurise him, what would have to be done in order to get him to talk. It could have been anything. I cannot speculate about that now, it's very difficult for me, but it could have been anything which would have persuaded him to talk, had he been under arrest.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Was he the type of person who would have, of his own volition, gone to the press if you did not accede to his request?

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, I wouldn't say that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, can I just put it to you somewhat differently because it is somewhat bothersome to me? Was it necessary for Mr Andreiowitch and his colleagues to come to you? Didn't they possess enough knowledge to be able to dispose of the body and to ensure their own safety?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is why I said, they could have buried the man themselves. They could simply have obtained dynamite from a mine and then set up a stockpile. I don't know why they deemed it necessary to come to me, but they were there and they were seeking assistance.

CHAIRPERSON: The deceased was taken away from his place of employment. The employers knew who took him away?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it have been more feasible not only to get rid of the body, but to destroy the body, so that nobody would be able to say who it was?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, certainly, Chairperson. I was not completely up to date with how the man was removed, whether they took him away from work secretively. I heard that he was picked up from work, but I was not completely informed as to how the entire scene unfolded and the subsequent alibi which had to be formulated, that is why I didn't become involved. How they decided they would manage the matter and who would be involved, is something that we will have to determine.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Claassen, we interposed whilst you were cross-examining Mr de Kock. You may proceed.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Madam. Mr de Kock, you have just remarked that you didn't want to get involved.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Isn't it correct that you did get involved ultimately?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, with regard to the supply of the limpet mines.

MR CLAASSEN: That was of your own free will, no one forced you into the situation?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR CLAASSEN: In your evidence-in-chief you stated that Mr Andreiowitch was like a soldier, he followed orders.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: At that stage you were no longer his Commander and it was not his responsibility to report to you?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR CLAASSEN: In your evidence-in-chief you also stated that you had the idea that they might not have meant to kill the person that they picked up?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Could it be that they made a mistake?

MR DE KOCK: It is possible.

MR CLAASSEN: Was that your impression?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: They did not act in their scope as policemen, they did something which was in essence criminal?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know. The arrest may have been lawful in terms of their status as policemen, but with regard to the consequent assault, that would have been unlawful.

MR CLAASSEN: And you were aware of that? They admitted this to you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, well the man died.

MR CLAASSEN: Were you under the impression that these people were in trouble?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: You had a choice not to get involved in the criminality of these persons, but you preferred to supply them with explosives?

MR DE KOCK: It wasn't a question of preference, Chairperson, I observed the possibilities and the possibilities were that if Mr Andreiowitch were ever to be charged, it could create problems for us.

MR CLAASSEN: But it was your free will?

MR DE KOCK: It wasn't that free, if one studies the possibilities. In that regard one had to think on an operational level and then one had to start thinking unlawfully as our cross-border and internal operations were.

MR CLAASSEN: But with regard to this specific incident, you have admitted that your political objective would have been to protect the Government of the day?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and the Security Police.

MR CLAASSEN: But through implying yourself as a member of Vlakplaas, didn't you create even greater potential problems for the Government, rather than had you stayed out of it?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, today, but not then.

MR CLAASSEN: Why do you say that?

MR DE KOCK: Because nothing leaked out afterwards, nothing about Mr Khanyile's death leaked out.

MR CLAASSEN: Which could very well have been the case if Andreiowitch and Odendaal had gotten rid of the body and you were not involved at all?

MR DE KOCK: If I hadn't known anything, the same would have happened.

MR CLAASSEN: My statement to you is once again, there was no necessity for your involvement.

MR DE KOCK: I could have turned around and walked away, I'm sure I could have done that, but I didn't.

MR CLAASSEN: Mr de Kock, just one further aspect. In your application, your written application you stated that Andreiowitch did not ask you to help them. Did you refer to him and Odendaal?

MR DE KOCK: No as far as I understood there were seven to eight persons in the mini bus, so it was a larger group.

MR CLAASSEN: But it was only Andreiowitch and Odendaal who saw you?

MR DE KOCK: I was approached by the two of them.

MR CLAASSEN: Alone?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, at that stage.

MR CLAASSEN: You say that they never gave the name of the person who they needed to get rid of to you?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR CLAASSEN: And you never became aware of the identity of the deceased until these proceedings?

MR DE KOCK: It may have been in the papers, but I don't have an independent recollection of this, it is possible that it may have been mentioned in the papers.

MR CLAASSEN: I have no further questions for this witness.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Mr de Kock, is it true to say that generally Vlakplaas was, during that time, viewed as an elite force?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, yes, some people said that.

MS PATEL: And a possible basis for that perception was that personnel of Vlakplaas more specifically at least those who were not askaris, were persons who had specialised skills, they weren't just ordinary members of the police force that had joined Vlakplaas, you needed to be a cut above the rest in order to join Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: In most instances yes, it was the case.

CHAIRPERSON: What were the requirements then for somebody to join Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, firstly I did not do selection of it, it happened in Pretoria, to find out if there were any left-wing connotations, but then you have to look at it realistically and it must be in line with the policy of the day. In most instances the people came from situations where they already underwent an explosives course. In my instance, all my members were members from the old koevoet unit. All of them had the means and ability to be fighters and they knew their explosives.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm trying to get to something else. That they received training concerning things, that I understand, but the people at Vlakplaas did very strange things.

MR DE KOCK: That is true, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then many people ask in terms of humanitarian things, how could they have done it and that is what I want to know now. Regarding that specifically, how were the people chosen?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, most of these people came, like I said, from an operational background. It was not a pre-requisite for a person to be able to kill but these people did have the ability to cross that border and to cross that barrier if necessary and that was not in service of himself, or for self-gratification, but in service of the State.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, in one of the hearings something came out or arose that a group of people, including Johan Coetzee, killed people and threw the bodies in a hole and burned them. At the same time they had a braai and were drinking beer, while the bodies were burning.

COUNSEL: Sorry, you know the press might be reporting on this and you said Johan Coetzee, which was the General, now he's going to be very aggrieved when he hears this.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry, it was Dirk Coetzee. I'm sorry. I just thought about this and I was thinking, how could a human being do something like this? Would they have received training to be able to do this?

MR DE KOCK: No Mr Chairperson, you will find that most of the people who were there, including Dirk Coetzee, and I would say that probably 90% of the members of my unit, all received or went through service in the former Rhodesia where, at that stage when we got there, things were already horrendous. I served in Rhodesia just when I turned 18 and in other cases or incidents apart from Rhodesia, they also underwent service in the North of Ovamboland where I also served and I can assure you, you become completely desensitised, your sense of values and of life, your own life, it starts to change. It doesn't matter if you yourself came out of this alive, or not and I think that is one of the aspects that can get that person to cross that barrier. It's not really different from the tyre murders, it does boil down to the same thing, if you burn that person with wood or burn with a tyre, it's the same thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. In light of what you have just told us, Mr de Kock, that Vlakplaas personnel, who generally had a specialised skill, that they were operationally trained, a lot of them came from koevoet, I want to put it to you that your allegation that Andreiowitch would not have been able to withstand a term in prison, is not only speculation but it is extremely far fetched.

MR DE KOCK: No Mr Chairperson, it's something that one foresees. I cannot say that it would have happened, but it is something that I did foresee.

MS PATEL: But given his experience it would have been unlikely that he would have cracked, not so?

MR DE KOCK: That is speculation then. I do not know, some of the members of my unit and from CCB who decided to come to this Commission and talk because the alternative is going to jail if they do not apply for amnesty and these people are harder, or top level soldiers and not one of them wants to go to jail. It's not because they're doing it for a moral reason, they are foreseeing a possible jail sentence.

MS PATEL: Alright. Did you attempt to refuse to assist Andreiowitch when he came to you with the request?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson no, I did not chase him away. As I said, I am not going to get involved in the situation.

MS PATEL: Alright. Your Counsellors led you on Andreiowitch's involvement in the Chand incident. I would just like to put the record straight in respect of that. You stated that if Andreiowitch had given information on his involvement with the Chand incident, it would have had an effect on the ANC. However we know that the political party that was involved in the Chand incident or the political opponent that was involved in the Chand incident, was in fact the PAC, not so?

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

MS PATEL: So your speculation about the effects on the ANC in respect, by relying on the Chand incident, are completely misplaced?

MR DE KOCK: No Mr Chairperson, it would have substantiated the ANC further and it is something that we have denied since 89.

MS PATEL: At that stage you stated in your evidence to us at the very beginning of the de Kock hearings, that you were somewhat disappointed with the National Party and that was the reason that you had become an IFP member at that time, not so?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MS PATEL: Alright. Now given that Mr Khanyile was an IFP member, an active member of the IFP, in fact he was also going to assist the Security Branch after he was detained as Mr Oosthuizen, sorry, Mr Odendaal has stated in his supplementary, or in his affidavit to us, I refer you to page 2 paragraph 4.2 of his affidavit to us, how do you reconcile your loyalties in terms of you wanting to protect the National Party Government at that stage and on the other hand, your involvement in covering up the murder of an active and what, by all counts, seems to be a very good IFP member?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, at that stage in 1992 I found myself within the gears, or the moving or the changes and I did not find myself in a very easy or comfortable position and it was not a question of disloyalty or a choice of loyalty, but I did what was the best for the National Party and for the Security Police. I was always a member of the Force and that was my priority.

MS PATEL: I want to put it to you Sir, because I will argue this later, that there is in fact a contradiction between your loyalties and your involvement in this matter.

MR DE KOCK: I will leave it then for argument.

MS PATEL: Then just finally, you've stated that your main concern in assisting Andreiowitch was that he then would not find himself in a position where he would at some stage have to choose between his possible prison sentence, if he was found guilty of the murder, and also in giving out information that he had gained whilst he was involved at Vlakplaas. What attempts did you make to ensure that he would not in fact be incriminated?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in the Lambethe report, I reported to Lambethe and I also kept myself out of it. I did what I could do, spoke to Gen Engelbrecht and from then on, kept myself neutral or took a neutral stance.

MS PATEL: I didn't get the name of the person you reported to. You said you spoke to Engelbrecht, and who did you report to?

MR DE KOCK: It was the same person.

MS PATEL: Well, we know from what happened subsequently, that not only was Mr Khanyile found in traces of the clothing that he had worn on the day that he was in fact taken from the workplace, but his I.D. card had been found on the scene.

MR DE KOCK: I do not know anything about that.

MS PATEL: Alright. And we also know that from the way in which the Inquest had gone, that nobody was found responsible for Mr Khanyile's murder.

MR DE KOCK: I understood that there was an investigation. It was a formal investigation and that no-one was charged with it and that is the information that I received, or had.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(not translated)

MR DE KOCK: I do not know Mr Chairperson. I kept myself neutral. I was in a neutral stance.

CHAIRPERSON: Did those two testify?

MS PATEL: Who are you referring to? Is it Odendaal?

CHAIRPERSON: Odendaal and ...

MS PATEL: He did.

CHAIRPERSON: And Andreiowitch?

MS PATEL: Andreiowitch, they did.

CHAIRPERSON: And how did they explain the arrest and what happened to the deceased thereafter?

MS PATEL: The version that was given was that Mr Khanyile was in fact released and that he was dropped off at the Ratanga, I think it's a taxi rank or bus station and if I recall correctly, there was an allegation also that Mr Khanyile, after they'd made inquiries, was in fact last seen in the Natal region. And then also to cover their tracks up, I believe one of the police officers went back to work looking for Mr Khanyile after he'd in fact been murdered. So that is how they in fact covered their tracks, Honourable Chairperson.

So I want to put it to you, in the light of all of that, Mr de Kock, that your alleged attempt to ensure that Andreiowitch was not placed in a position where, in a compromising position, let me put it that way, really made no difference because at the end of the day they covered their tracks anyway.

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I would like to refer to one of the instances where somebody in the Goldstone Commission was placed under pressure and that was Mr Nortje. The choice was, he will be charged, he will go to jail or he will be under a witness protection plan, you tell us everything and you will get a job afterwards. They could have put him into jail, killed him maybe fourteen days later. Mr Nortje was with me in Ovamboland, he was with me in every single attack or contact session. It did not work. Mr Andreiowitch was not a person that was at all - he wasn't a person who would be able to cope with such a circumstance.

MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman, just one aspect.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Mr de Kock, you just gave evidence or testified on a question of the Panel that your personal feeling was that you'd rather fight to the end?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HUGO: Logically speaking, it then follows that if you left Andreiowitch and not help he and he was then charged and then the circumstances that would then take place that you foresaw, it would have then led to the fact that you had to then fight to the end?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is true.

MR HUGO: Because then you testified that your perception was that ...(indistinct) negotiations would then fall apart.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Well what is it then that made you take this decision to still assist them?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, in this instance at Vlakplaas, myself as Commander of Vlakplaas, and the Government would then fall apart. There's no doubt about it.

MR HUGO: Can I then summarise it and then say that your loyalty to the Government then was above your own interests at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, just a question concerning your mention of the Harms Commission. It is maybe not quite relevant to your application. Did you see the Harms Commission as a smoke screen? Did you take it seriously?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, we took it seriously in the sense that every possible coverup and perjury we could, and that is to protect the Security Police and also the Government.

ADV BOSMAN: Were you organised, were you prepared to mislead the Harms Commission?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, by means of statements, burning of documents, some of the members went to go and get documents from other stations, it was handed over to the Generals and it was then destroyed. Our files were emptied. My personal file was emptied.

ADV BOSMAN: Who took this initiative in this operation to mislead the Harms Commission?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson in previous evidence, it was Liebenberg from the Detective Branch, they were transferred to the Security Police, General van Rensburg who at that stage was the Commander and then from there it went up to a high level. It was then controlled from there.

ADV BOSMAN: What do you mean when you say it was a high level?

MR DE KOCK: Well, Mr Chairperson, I did not liaise with the head of the Security Branch.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr de Kock, what I think in my mind is of cardinal importance, one of the issues which are of cardinal importance is why you saw a need to assist Mr Andreiowitch and Mr Odendaal and you have gone to quite an elaborate extent to respond to questions which have come both from the Panel and from the other legal representatives. What I want to know however is, you were always alive to the risk of information about Vlakplaas's operations or activities, having a potential of being revealed by either members of Vlakplaas or former members of Vlakplaas and that was a risk that you must have been alive to at all times. What steps, as a person who was directly in charge of Vlakplaas, did you take to try and prevent or discourage, or minimise such risk eventuating?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson we killed people. I'm now talking about a former member of the ANC, an askari, who then later became a policeman, Ngulunga, when it appeared from Gen van Rensburg that this person made contact with the ANC, he already made contact with them, then we killed him. We are talking about a person now, a man in Durban, who was involved in the arrest of the Pule Deal, he threatened to talk, I went to go and kill him. We were requested by Durban, we are talking about Dirk Coetzee and the bomb that we sent him in the earphones. That was the type of action that we took.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes and in the case of Mr Andreiowitch, did you first try to ascertain the risk that might have been there in him having to expose Valkplaas's operations?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, it's difficult to say. We are talking about an operational level or experience that you gained from operations, that you apply to the present, so it is difficult, so let us take the following instance. Let us say that Mr Andreiowitch decided two months later to make a statement. It worries him and then we get to know about this from Head Office, then it could have led to is death to prevent him from talking, but that is all speculation.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: The reason why I'm asking this question is as you have previously stated that Mr Andreiowitch was possessed of the necessary skill to have killed this person without having to ask for your assistance. You must obviously have been quite surprised when he came to you to ask for the explosives which you could have obtained from any other place, other than having to come to your unit or to come to you as a person. Did you feel that he was tempting you in many ways, I mean this was a person who could have committed the deed without having to ask for your intervention.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, I cannot or I do not know what his motives were. They did need assistance and maybe I was the easiest or closest person. They knew we had the equipment and we did have the means to help them.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did you believe that he was tempting you for any other reason?

MR DE KOCK: I do not think that he tempted me in any way and it's just a thought that just occurred to me and that is, I cannot see that Mr Andreiowitch would come to me for explosives or for assistance for a person who is already dead and then say that this person was recruited.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why is Mr de Kock applying for amnesty, or for what?

MR HUGO: Amnesty in respect of two offences, the one is the unlawful possession of explosives and the other one ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was that unlawful?

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, yes, it was unlawful and we deal with that in the Vlakplaas submission, saying exactly how they obtained those explosives and then the other offence that we're asking amnesty for is defeating the ends of justice and then obviously the third leg is any delicts that had been committed and that flow from the events and the facts of this particular ...

CHAIRPERSON: Or flow out of the commission of these two criminal deeds.

MR HUGO: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, is your client going to be long?

MR CORNELIUS: I in jest said to the Evidence Leader, I'm known for my brevity. It will be very short. I think there's very few matters in issue. I would be please if I could call him. Thank you Mr Chair. I call Mr Snyman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on. Mr Claassen, are you intending to call any witnesses?

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will speak to my clients. There was an indication that one family member would like to speak to the applicant, but if I could just perhaps get instructions in this matter, I'm sure that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll break for five minutes now. Find out also if they want to talk privately or did she want to get it on the tape or whatever because I can help facilitate a private meeting if the parties so desire.

MR CLAASSEN: As it pleases Chair. I will get instructions on this.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's break for five minutes.

MR CLAASSEN: I took what you said up with the family. Chairman, there's just a very short issue that Mrs Margaret Rahube, which is the cousin of the deceased, she says it doesn't pertain to any questions or to the merits at all, she'd just like to say something to the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: No, fine.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Chairperson.

DANIEL LIONEL SNYMAN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Snyman, you have heard the evidence of Mr de Kock.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I have also studied your documents. I am sorry to hear that you are suffering from certain illnesses but as I understand your application, all that you did during this incident was to observe an order to fetch a limpet mine and to give it to Mr de Kock.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?

MR SNYMAN: Yes that is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, for which charges is Mr Snyman requesting amnesty?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. It can only be for the supply of the explosives in terms of the Explosives Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Well unlawful possession thereof and supply.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, unlawful possession and supply. We're not asking for defeating the ends of justice obviously because we didn't know about it.

CHAIRPERSON: He wouldn't have known what the reason was, all he was asked by his superior was to go fetch this and hand it over.

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct Mr Chairperson, they worked strictly on a need-to-know basis and there were no questions asked.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Cornelius, flowing from the evidence of Mr de Kock and the affidavits submitted on behalf of Mr Snyman, is there any likelihood of Mr Snyman shedding more light during viva voce of whether he participated in this incident or not? I mean we are aware of the medical reports which accompany his application documents. My main concern is the fact that Mr de Kock has not been so specific in saying whether he gave Mr Snyman or the other person, I can no longer remember the other person's name, the order to issue explosives to Mr Andreiowitch.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I intensively and deeply consulted with Mr Snyman about this issue. He can shed no further light. How it came about is that the Attorney-General's investigating team approached, after they spoke to Andreiowitch, they approached my client and they said: "But do you know anything about this?" and he said: "Well, it might be I was in control of the explosives and if I was requested, I would supply it" and that is still his attitude today. As a matter of fact I did not draw this amnesty application and he indicated to me that the first three lines of the application are actually not correct. He said that he can't remember if he supplied it or not, but if he received such an order he would have done it. I could get no further detail. I think ...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, so it could have been him or the other person that worked in that department, because according to Mr de Kock's evidence there were two persons he could have given such an instruction to.

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. It was Snor Vermeulen, N J Vermeulen and my client and it could have been one of the two, so we'd love to take the matter further, but we really can't.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, you will have to persuade us that your client has in fact committed a crime.

MR CORNELIUS: That was the big problem I had prior to the sitting.

CHAIRPERSON: Well think about it. I don't know how you're going to get out of it. This is one of those anomalous legal principles that we're faced with and probably never thought we'd get faced with.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. Mr Chairperson, I refer to what my Learned Colleague said about how the explosives were obtained and the original nature. That's my only problem I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe you can think of the probabilities.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because we have not been saddled with a specific ...(indistinct) of onus and if it is probable that it was him, then maybe it will favour you, I don't know. Think about it and when we give an opportunity to argue,that's the single point that we want to hear you on.

MR CORNELIUS: I'll be prepared to address you. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, have you got any questions for this witness?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen?

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you, Mr Chair, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chair, just one for sake of clarity I think whilst we have Mr Snyman here. I don't believe we're going to have

another explosives expert to perhaps clear for me in my mind what I found very strange in this situation.

Mr Hammond who testified, he was the expert who had investigated the matter, was of the opinion that once he had viewed the scene and looked at the state of the body, you know that only his legs were found and parts of his hand and they were actually able to take fingerprints, his view was that the deceased could not have been in a sitting position, or he couldn't have been on the ground when the mine exploded, that he had to be in a standing position when the mine exploded. Are you in a position to comment on that?

MR SNYMAN: Is it possible just to explain slightly more? I didn't hear the beginning.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me try. You can use the headset. According to the expert, the post mortem inquest, due to the fact that the deceased lost his legs, he came to the conclusion that when the body was blown up the person must have been in a standing position and not on the ground, whether he was lying or seated. Do you have any comment on that?

MR SNYMAN: I did not read that report.

CHAIRPERSON: No I'm just telling you that this is what he says. What do you say?

MR SNYMAN: If they allege that this person was standing ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They say that he must have been standing due to the fact that his legs were blown away.

MR SNYMAN: I don't know. Were his legs blown off, or was his body blown away? Because what I heard was that his face and his hands were also blown away. Were his legs blown away, or was it only his legs that remained?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understood that his legs were blown away.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairperson, it was in fact his legs remained totally uninjured, it was cut off below the hips.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say about that?

MR SNYMAN: In other words his hands and his face remained unscathed?

CHAIRPERSON: No of his entire body which was blown up, only his legs remained as entire pieces.

MR SNYMAN: It is possible that if a person was holding explosives and if the explosives were to go off in one's hands, whether one was standing over these explosives or holding the explosives in one's hands, the most immediate body parts to the explosives would be blown away.

CHAIRPERSON: What would have been the case if he had lain on the ground and those who had blown him up placed the bomb on his chest, or wanted him to lie over the bomb device so that his back would have covered the bomb? Wouldn't that have produced the same results?

MR SNYMAN: Yes. It depends what the nearest point of contact is between the bomb and the body. Whether he was standing, sitting, whether he lay on the ground, it wouldn't really have made a difference to the injuries or cause of death, or let's rather refer to injuries which were incurred to the body.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, that is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all?

MS PATEL: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius I don't really believe that there is anything further that you could ask the witness.

MR CORNELIUS: Just one aspect which I think might provide clarity.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: According to the post mortem inquest, there was a square hole which was blown into the ground where the blast went off. Could that happen if a limpet mine was placed on the ground?

MR SNYMAN: Yes a limpet would blow a square hole which is ascribable to the fact that it is a square explosive.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. So if the limpet mine was placed on the ground and a body placed over this with the chest facing the device, it would mean that the torso would be blown away and that the legs would remain?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that is how I would imagine it.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have either you or Mr Hugo got any witnesses to call?

MR HUGO: I have no witnesses, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Claassen?

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Chairperson. I would like to call the cousin of the deceased, Welcome Khanyile, Mrs Margaret Rahube.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that please?

MR CLAASSEN: It's R-A-H-U-B-E. Chairperson the witness indicated that she's not, she doesn't want to testify under oath, she would just like to say something before the Commission.

MARGARET RAHUBE: (states)

EXAMINATION BY MR CLAASSEN: Mrs Rahube, you are the cousin of the deceased, Mr Welcome Khanyile, is that correct?

MRS RAHUBE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: At the time of your cousin's death, or let me just - you came to live in Wembezi in Escort?

MRS RAHUBE: That's correct.

MR CLAASSEN: You are living there with Mrs Janet, or in the same township as Mrs Janet Khanyile, who is also present today, which is the elderly mother of the deceased, Welcome Khanyile?

MRS RAHUBE: That's correct.

MR CLAASSEN: Since Mr Khanyile's death, you indicated that it's been financially difficult for you as well as the aged mother of the deceased. Why is this?

MRS RAHUBE: That is because there is no one to support the mother and the children.

MR CLAASSEN: And during Mr Khanyile's life, who ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

INTERPRETER: The witness said there was no one to support the mother and the children.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mrs Rahube ...

MRS RAHUBE: I am a cousin to the deceased. I am referring to the deceased's mother who is deaf.

CHAIRPERSON: How many children were there?

MRS RAHUBE: Two children.

CHAIRPERSON: What were their ages?

MRS RAHUBE: The eldest is male, the last born is female.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike. I can't hear you either.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get the last answer.

MR CLAASSEN: Mrs Rahube, could you just indicate to the Chairperson, how old - how many children? You say there's two and the ages of these children respectively?

MRS RAHUBE: The eldest is the boy and he is nine.

CHAIRPERSON: What is his name?

MRS RAHUBE: Rapelani Khanyile.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: ...not translated.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to confirm that q. I had written it down from his birth certificate.

CHAIRPERSON: Instead of R.

MR CLAASSEN: It's a q instead of r, the rest of the spelling is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And what's the surname?

MR RAHUBE: Khanyile.

CHAIRPERSON: K-H-A-?

MR CLAASSEN: N-Y-I-L-E.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the next child?

MRS RAHUBE: Nelisiwe. I've forgotten the English name.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter.

MRS RAHUBE: She is seven.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say she?

MRS RAHUBE: She. Yes, it's a female.

CHAIRPERSON: And what's her name?

MRS RAHUBE: Nelisiwe.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair. I have it that the name I have just is Gift.

CHAIRPERSON: Look, tell her I'm not interested in the English name, I prefer the customary name and I'd just like to know...

MRS RAHUBE: Nelisiwe.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that N-E-L-I-S-I-W-E?

MRS RAHUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Also using the surname Khanyile?

MRS RAHUBE: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR RAHUBE: One stays with the grandmother and myself, and the other one resides with his mother in Heidelberg.

CHAIRPERSON: So they are separated. Now can you give an address?

MRS RAHUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The boy?

MRS RAHUBE: The boy resides with us at Escort, that is myself and the grandmother.

CHAIRPERSON: And what address would we have to use to contact him?

MRS RAHUBE: I have given it to my attorney.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. The address that I have is Wembezi ...

CHAIRPERSON: Spell it please.

MR CLAASSEN: It's W-H-E-M-B-E-Z-I.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: It can't be. It has to be W-E-M-B-E-Z-I.

MR CLAASSEN: It might be Madam, unfortunately...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, I know that's how it's spelled.

CHAIRPERSON: Wem ...?

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Wembezi.

CHAIRPERSON: Further, is that the only part of the address or is there anything else?

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair, there is a postal address, it's Box 50856, Escort, Natal 3310.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and the other child?

MR CLAASSEN: I can, I believe the address where the other child is at the deceased's brother, which is Mr Simon Khanyile, he lives at P O Box 28, or it's his postal address.

CHAIRPERSON: The child is living with it's mother?

MR CLAASSEN: With it's mother in Heidelberg, but I believe Mr Chair, that the mother has contact with the brother, Mr Simon Khanyile who is also present and they prefer to use his address.

CHAIRPERSON: What's the mother's name?

MR CLAASSEN: Lillian Thambatha.

CHAIRPERSON: Care of, what's the brother's name?

MR CLAASSEN: Simon Khanyile.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR CLAASSEN: Box 28, Heidelberg 2400.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this witness accept any correspondence on behalf of Qapelani?

INTERPRETER: Please repeat that question.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this witness, Margaret Rahube, receive, is she prepared to receive any correspondence on behalf of Qapelani Khanyile?

MRS RAHUBE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chair. Mrs Rahube, you indicated that on behalf of the family present today, you would just like very briefly to make a statement to the applicant. Is that correct?

MRS RAHUBE: That's correct.

What I'd like to say is that I do hear what the applicants are saying but I would like to request them to support the deceased's mother and children. If he can do that, yes, he should then be granted amnesty.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mrs Rahube, is that all?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR CLAASSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR HUGO: Yes, Mr Chairman, do you want me to start arguing now? Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR HUGO IN ARGUMENT: We submit, with respect, that the applicant has complied with all the formal, the official requirements of the Act, in that it was submitted timeously etc, etc. I'm not going to waste any further time on that aspect.

Mr Chairman, as far as the question of full disclosure of the relevant facts is concerned, you don't need ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we've got a problem with that.

MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: By process of elimination, you're stuck with another.

MR HUGO: Thank you. Mr Chairman, obviously the next question in this particular matter is as to whether the act was directed against was directed against a publicly known political organisation or a Liberation Movement. Now let me, Mr Chairman, with all due respect start off by saying that and I think it's become clear from the evidence, that is not our argument that this particular deed or act was directed against an IFP member. Our argument, whether we're wrong or right, is whether he was an IFP member, whether he was an innocent bystander is, as far as Mr de Kock's application, irrelevant. The fact that had to be assessed was the effect of this particular deed and whether revelations about this particular deed would have adverse and serious negative consequences for the South African Police, the Government, the erstwhile Government and then obviously to a certain extent, for the applicant itself.

Now Mr Chairman, it is clear, if Mr de Kock had decided to assist here, just because Mr Andreiowitch was a personal friend of his, we could not have approached this Amnesty Committee, but we submit that there were compelling reasons for him getting involved in this particular matter. We say, Mr Chairman, that Mr Andreiowitch possessed very sensitive information about cross-border raids and we say that Mr Andreiowitch in the event of him having been prosecuted, would in all probability have revealed his participation in this particular operation.

Now, Mr Chairman, we can argue and say, but look this is mere speculation. We submit of the converse and we say it's not really speculation in that Mr de Kock testified and it's now common knowledge that two policemen actually revealed damaging evidence and facts about the Security Police. Mr de Kock's assessment of the situation, his ultimate decision to partake and to assist was to a large extent prompted by the events that flowed from, first of all Nofomela's revelations and then obviously also Dirk Coetzee's revelations.

Now it is also, I think, clear that, I think it could be argued in the sense that Mr Andreiowitch must have been a weakling to a certain extent and I say a weakling in abbreviated commas and that there was no evidence to say that he would have actually revealed his participation in, for instance, the Chand incident.

Mr Chairman, Nofomela's situation goes against that but what's even more revealing was the fact that when Mr de Kock was asked about the strong personalities and the endurance abilities of koevoet members and Vlakplaas members, that he said Willie Nortje for instance, whom he regarded as one of the toughest operators, when he was put in a situation where he was being pressurised, immediately started singing like a canary, so we submit, Mr Chairman, that there was a very likelihood of Mr Andreiowitch spilling the beans.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, tell me, apart from the likelihood and the probabilities, if I were to ask you if there existed a risk to that effect, you don't need to record the arguments ...(tape turned off)

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, we submit that our argument would be the same. What was actually more enlightening was when Mr de Kock said that if the problems with the protection of sensitive information, that they actually went so far as to kill people to protect those sensitive information and details that could come to the fore, so in the circumstances, we really submit for him to partake and assist here, where they had in the past actually killed people to protect Vlakplaas and the identity and what they were up to, is not far-fetched at all.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: In that case Mr Hugo, didn't the possibility also exist that Mr de Kock would, instead of supplying Mr Andreiowitch and Mr Odendaal with explosives, probably also take some pre-emptive action to stop him from ultimately revealing about Vlakplaas's operation?

MR HUGO: Yes, Mr Chairman, obviously he could have done that but what sort of pre-emptive steps do you take? I shudder to think. Most probably ...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You kill.

MR HUGO: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: As he had done in other instances.

MR HUGO: Absolutely, Mr Chairman and that would have been obvious, we submit, worse in this particular situation.

Mr Chairman, as far as the question of Mr de Kock being a member of the IFP of the time, you could I suppose argue that there was a division in loyalty, etc., etc., but I think he's addressed that particular situation and he said what his feelings were. As far as the other aspect that came to the fore, the fact that the Chand matter was really directed at the PAC and not the ANC, I readily concede that. Mr de Kock has said that he actually saw the PAC and the ANC as much of a muchness.

Mr Chairman, I'm not sure whether there are any other aspects. What I could say also, is that maybe the subtlety of the situation escaped Mr de Kock. My perception was the fact that Andreiowitch came to him specifically was to a certain extent putting Mr de Kock in a very invidious situation and maybe he was trying to tell Mr de Kock in a subtle way: "You better help me here because I know of various other things that we have been up to." That's speculation from my side.

We submit that had this information come to the fore, it would have had serious consequences for the Government of the day. It would have had very serious consequences for the Security Police and ...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Why do you say that's speculation from your side? Because if I understood Mr de Kock's evidence, he wasn't that precise, but the totality of his evidence was that he really felt that this person could have been able to carry out this deed on his own without having to come to him and that's what really made him a little bit scared and tempted him to accede to his request. This is how I understand the totality ...

MR HUGO: You're absolutely right, Mr Chairman and that's actually what Mr de Kock testified. So when I say it's been speculation, it's not really speculation, that was really the driving force behind Mr de Kock's decision to partake in this.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR HUGO: Absolutely. Mr Chairman, we have already given you an indication, maybe there's just another question that I should address and that is when it was said that you could not foretell with certainty as to whether Mr Andreiowitch would reveal information, then it was also very interesting when Mr de Kock said: "Well, look, there are various members of the CCB who were tough operators, that came to the fore and testified and they asked for amnesty" and it's abundantly clear they didn't come here because they like it, they came here because they were in fear for their lives and they didn't want to go to jail.

Mr Chairman, I don't know, these are the submission that we'd like to make, unless there are other matters that you'd like to address you on.

MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I've given it some thought. The explosives fell under the control of de Kock assisted by two men, Vermeulen and Snyman, so probabilities of any supply of explosives from the supply lot, would obviously come to my client's attention. Furthermore circumstantial evidence from the investigation by the Attorney-General's office, there must have been some type of evidence that pointed to my client because they approached my client and not Vermeulen and they said to him: "You know about the supply of Andreiowitch". So he says in his application:

and that is as far as I can take it. The possibility of him supplying it to Andreiowitch or to de Kock is probable, otherwise it would have come to his knowledge if it was drawn from the supply. Only Vermeulen and Snyman held the keys to the explosives lot and they were explosives experts stationed at Vlakplaas.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Were they of the same rank, that's Vermeulen and ...

MR CORNELIUS: They were of the same rank, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You argue that even if it was Vermeulen that handed over physically, that this applicant by the very nature of his job, would have come to know about it and therefore would be just as guilty?

MR CORNELIUS: He would be an accomplice in a certain way, in the supply of the goods. I had no, well I think my predecessor had no - he had to approach the Amnesty Committee with an application because there is some type of evidence pointing to my client and he wants to indicate to the Committee that he's making a full disclosure of any possible fact he might know of, although it might look doubtful in the light of the application, that he's not certain if he did, but he says: "It's probable I might have."

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate your problems. I don't know if there's very much more you can say about ...(indistinct - mike not on) but I must say we haven't made up our minds ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. I can only add one more thing Mr Chairperson, is that I've done many amnesty applications for my client where he did in fact supply limpet mines on previous occasions. I must keep that in mind that the probability that he would have supplied it, is very high.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR CORNELIUS: That is correct. That is quite so, especially with the desecration, disposal of bodies which was almost a usage at Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, it is so, but it's a further indication that the desecration of this present Khanyile wasn't done in the same expertise way it would have been done by Vlakplaas, if Vlakplaas had done it, with all due respect, because they carefully removed all clothing and everything and there would have been no trace, so I think that supports my Learned Colleague's ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They were selected for their expertise.

MR CORNELIUS: That is a fact, Mr Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask you? There is still the requirement of political objective. Just for the record, how would you argue the requirement of political objective?

MR CORNELIUS: My client was in support of the Nationalist Party of the day. He was in support of Vlakplaas. He was a policeman and he was an applicant in terms of section 20(ii)(b) and 20(ii)(f) of Act 34 of 1995. He was - had the Nationalist Party objective at that time which supported the fight against the ANC and PAC alliance.

ADV BOSMAN: The argument that all limpet mines which were handed from that arsenal, would have been for a political objective.

MR CORNELIUS: No, not necessarily, Mr Chairperson, some of the limpet mines were handed out for training as well. My client was an expert in training the police as well.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is that everything that flowed from Vlakplaas was accepted to be politically unlawful.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes and there was a political decision made by the Commander of Vlakplaas which the foot soldiers accepted, especially in the light of the decorations received by Vlakplaas and they were impressed by the decisions made by De Kock on previous occasions, they wouldn't have dealt with the decision at all, they would have accepted it as a political decision made and they would have accepted that fact.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR CORNELIUS: That is exactly so, they also trained certain of the askaris in the use of explosives, which we have also heard before this Committee.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: In any event ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR CORNELIUS: Very much so. He was acting within the ambit of his duty as well and he obviously didn't receive any remuneration bar his remuneration he received as part of his salary, there's no bonuses or anything like that. Thank you.

MR CLAASSEN IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will be very brief as far as the application of the second applicant is concerned, I'll have nothing to say to the Committee.

Mr Chair, as far as the application of Mr de Kock is concerned, the Committee has now listened to the argument of my Learned Colleague Mr Hugo as to what led Mr de Kock to aide Messrs Andreiowitch and Odendaal on that particular day that he decided to supply the explosives to them. Mr Chairman, I would like to take a bit of a different approach. In his testimony, the applicant said that he became involved voluntarily, he was under no pressure to do so. He was never threatened by anyone to do so. Mr Chair, it's my submission that what had happened that day is that the deceased was picked up by two policemen who grossly exceeded their powers as policemen and actually went as far as to kill the deceased and it is my submission that after doing this, they realised that they might be in trouble and they then decided to approach the applicant who at no stage, as I have said, was under any pressure to help them, he could have just said no.

Mr Chairman, this is the bit I find a bit funny in the sense that applicant says he was furthering the cause of the Government. It is clearly that the killing of the IFP member, doesn't constitute the political objective, but in helping the two people who came to him for help, he was trying to further the objectives of the Government of the day. With respect, Mr Chairman, it is my submission that this was an ex post facto argument. While assisting, while helping out the people that came to him, it is evidenced that they are, or evidence was given that they are both explosives experts, they were well able to dispose of the body themselves, without involving Vlakplaas. There was no need at that stage to protect Vlakplaas, since they weren't involved at all.

Mr Chairman in deciding whether applicant qualifies for amnesty, the Committee is clearly guided by the Act in this respect and just in closing I'd like to refer, as the Committee well knows, to Section 20 (ii) which clearly states, if I may:

which the Committee is well aware of,

It is my submission that this was not the case at all. There was no calling for the applicant to get involved. There was a crime that was committed by the two policemen. He, out of his own free will, decided to get involved and it is my submission that no political objective could be drawn, could be seen in what was done by the applicant.

In view of what I've said, I would leave it in the hands of the Committee to make a decision on amnesty.

MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I too will be brief. In respect of Mr Snyman, Honourable Chairperson, my respectful submission is that in as much as I have empathy for Mr Snyman's state of memory, my submission is that he hasn't qualified for amnesty, that he isn't certain whether he was involved in the matter, neither is Mr de Kock who has testified, so there can be no full disclosure in terms ...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Wouldn't he be eligible if we understand Mr Cornelius's argument that he was an accomplice?

MS PATEL: Even on that score, Honourable Chairperson, Vlakplaas operated on the basis of need to know. What are the probabilities that they would have shared such information and then still it's mere speculation. So that - ja, I can't take it much further than that except to say that he hasn't complied with the basic requirements.

ADV BOSMAN: But Ms Patel, if you say that neither Snyman or de Kock can say that he actually was involved in handing over the limpet mine, then shouldn't your argument be that there's no offence disclosed?

MS PATEL: Certainly, that is why I said he hasn't complied with the basic requirements.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, but that's different to full disclosure. I mean one can only disclose what one knows and what one can remember. Then there's - it is akin to the general amnesty for the ANC 37 then, isn't it? On your argument.

CHAIRPERSON: The application becomes defective because he himself can't say whether he committed a crime or not.

MS PATEL: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: And you can't get amnesty for something you didn't commit.

MS PATEL: Or omit to do, as the case may be. Yes.

In respect of Mr de Kock, my submission in that regard is that he hasn't complied with the requirement of having committed this act with a political objective. If one considers his motive in terms of Section 20(iii), he states that his motive was to ensure that Andreiowitch was not place in the position where he would then be forced to reveal the activities of Vlakplaas as had gone before with Nofomela and Dirk Coetzee. My response to that is that Mr de Kock at no stage - he goes purely on speculation in respect of Mr Andreiowitch himself. He stated without doubt that Mr Andreiowitch was a loyal member, that there was nothing about Mr Andreiowitch that led him to believe that he had the capacity at that stage to in fact disclose any of the information that he had had. He also stated that he didn't even attempt to refuse to assist Mr Andreiowitch which would have, at least in his mind then have clarified the position as to whether he felt Mr Andreiowitch was going to take further action, or not and I would at this stage for the record like to take issue, perhaps I misunderstood Mr de Kock's evidence that in response to a question from the Committee as to whether he felt Mr Andreiowitch was testing him, my understanding of his response, of Mr de Kock's response to that was no, he didn't think so. Perhaps he was just closest to him at the time and that he knew that Mr de Kock had kept explosives at hand and that is why he might have approached him. So my understanding of his response is quite different to that that was put to I think it was Mr Hugo in the argument, during the argument stage.

And then also a curious factor in Mr de Kock's application is that he himself was am IFP member at the time, not merely a supporter, but a member which is a lot stronger than just a supporter or somebody who aligns himself on the general level with the aims and objectives of the organisation and there's a clear contradiction between his affiliations or his allegiances in that regard and his allegiances to the State in as much as he would have us believe that his allegiances to the State was much stronger, my response to that is that it's purely convenient for him at this stage to say that his allegiances to the State were a lot stronger than to the IFP.

Also in - no if I could - if you would just grant me moment. Also just finally to state that my Learned Colleague Mr Hugo has argued that whether or not the deceased in this matter was an IFP is irrelevant, my submission respectfully in that regard is in fact that it is pertinent to the issues at hand. In fact, that it goes directly to the question of whether in fact Mr de Kock has complied with the criteria of political motivation objective in this matter.

Thank you Honourable Chairperson, unless you want to hear me on anything further, those are my submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We will take time in determining this decision and we'll adjourn for the next matter tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock.