MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman just before my learned friend starts, I've been contacted by several of my clients about a news report that apparently, I didn't see it myself, that apparently appeared on the national TV news last night and what has been reported to me, it's certainly an incorrect reporting whereby it was in fact stated that in the application of a certain number of policemen, the presiding judge reprimanded them for not disclosing the full truth. Now I've certainly got no recollection of you reprimanding anybody for not telling the full truth in this hearing and so that is a report that I think reflects on the proceedings as a whole.

CHAIRPERSON: I may have said something yesterday about feeling that there hadn't been a full disclosure about who would have done the writing on the packets.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. No, that you certainly said.

JAKOBUS KOK: (s.u.o.)


Mr Kok, I would just like to put to you, the people who were at the scene concerning the package, this was now after it exploded, let us just discuss that point. In front of me I have got the statement of the investigative officers, at that stage W/O Brockway, he was, with Kritzinger, involved in the investigation and he was also at the scene. He mentions the following.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can you help me with this, you know about it, I don't, we don't. I gathered that the package was opened in his office. The packaging was left there and that the explosion took place elsewhere.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. May I just put that forward and then I'll ask the question. Mr Kok, apparently what happened is that the paper in which this package was wrapped, or the wrapping as we refer to it, he took it off in his office and that was left in his office. With him he took the cardboard box containing the device. After the explosion took place, the following exhibits were handed over to the investigative officer Brockway at the scene. He said it was one tape recorder with earphones and the extension cord. Secondly a cardboard box or container with polystyrene packaging as well as the manufactured container. The third, two tapes, one was marked Hit Squads and the other one Neil Diamond. The one tape was Neil Diamond and the other one was unmarked. A postal label addressed to D Coetzee, the address was in Lusaka, Zambia. It was yellow and then there's mentioned, or something about the Swiss was mentioned.

I do not want to go further with this, but I would just like to put this to you and the following and this is the statement of Kritzinger where he says the following in his statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before we go on, do I understand you as saying there were two tapes, one Neil Diamond and the other one's unmarked?

MR RAUTENBACH: That is according to the statement, that is what it says.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was not marked, nothing was written on it?

MR RAUTENBACH: No, "Evidence - Hit Squad", according to this one was on the cassette holder, that's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the box in which the cassette was?

MR RAUTENBACH: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I just put that in.

MR RAUTENBACH: Concerning what Kritzinger said, Kritzinger said, concerning the wrapping and carton container, because this was retrieved from the office at a later stage, he said that Mr Benade of the SAP, the expert on the paper analysis said that the texture, weight and the origin of the wrapping and carton box were to be ascertained, it was ascertained that the box was formed, that can be folded by itself in the shape of a box, it's not something that was stuck together with, for example, cellotape. It was something that can be shaped into a box or container. The reason why I'm putting this to you is because it seems and am I right, Mr Kok that concerning your evidence that when you delivered the package, it was solely the plastic covering, I think it was a see-through, that was the manufacturing covering of the device, where he talks about the manufacturers and I put to you the manufacturer's container, but concerning the carton container, concerning the polystyrene packaging, you do not know anything about that?

MR J KOK: No, I do not, I only put it back in the manufacturer's packaging or wrapping.

MR RAUTENBACH: What is also interesting is and that was ascertained concerning the carton container, is that it was compared with a carton that was manufactured in South Africa and once again it was something that was not manufactured in South Africa, or distributed in South Africa.

MR J KOK: I do not know anything about this.

MR RAUTENBACH: What your evidence is actually saying, Mr Kok, if we accept your version, that that material in which it was packaged, as well as the computer print-out, whether it was laser printing, it had to be done at Vlakplaas.

MR J KOK: I cannot say that, Mr Chairperson, but what I am saying is the container, as it left me, had nothing on it, it was only wrapped in paper and where the address came from, I do not know.

MR RAUTENBACH: But we can assume that it was done at Vlakplaas and that it came from Vlakplaas?

MR J KOK: I am personally of the opinion, there are many role players in this process who are not necessarily known to some of the operators and I cannot say that it was done at Vlakplaas, it is likely though.

MR RAUTENBACH: I do accept that, that you do not know anything beyond when you handed over this parcel, but to put it in a different way, what your evidence is actually saying to us, concerning the packaging and the laser print-out and the packaging, concerning that aspect it was not done by the technical department.

MR J KOK: That specific package, the one that you described, I do not know anything about that.

MR RAUTENBACH: But at the technical department there was nothing like that?


MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Kok, can I just ask you, I'm not talking about the sealing of it, but when you covered your device, what did you use?

MR J KOK: I'm talking about - I'm not talking about cellotape, no, you have to take water, moisten it, for example if you cover a book you take brown paper...

MR RAUTENBACH: In other words you covered it in that way, it was nothing special.


MR RAUTENBACH: Then it seems also that concerning the package there was string tied around it, you do not know anything about the string that was used?

MR J KOK: No, I do not know anything about the sealing or the string that was used, from the evidence that was led I heard that that is what the package looked like at the post office.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now, I would just like to ask you, when you wrapped the parcel, did you put a tape in the cassette player?

MR J KOK: No, not at all. It was empty in the way that I prepared it.

MR RAUTENBACH: And the two tapes?

MR J KOK: If I remember correctly, they were sealed in their original containers and that was also added into the packaging of the original device.

MR RAUTENBACH: It seems to me, if I listen to your evidence that what you are saying is that you built this device, here are the tapes that they bought. "I put the device in the packaging, I put the tapes in it, there's nothing special, I give it to them and it's up to them now, they have to now take it further, what tape they're going to use, how they're going to use it."

MR J KOK: It was all outside of my duties, yes it was outside of the functions that I had to, or of my duties.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you talked to Bosch, when he came to see you, I understand that it became urgent and he just told you to continue.

MR J KOK: At the stage when Bosch came to me, he asked me how far the package was. I realised that something had to be prepared, but I did not know any of the finer details. We went to du Toit and we discussed this with him and the fact that my brother was gone for a few weeks, I asked if I had to continue with the package and he said yes, then Bosch and myself discussed some of the details and we exchanged ideas about the package because we wanted to put the explosive in the tape recorder itself, but then we came up with the idea of the ear phones.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was it you and your brother?

MR J KOK: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: But apart from the fact that you and your brother came up with that idea, the discussion between you and Bosch, can you tell us what that contained?

MR J KOK: It was basically, as I said, it was an operation that came from de Kock. It had authorisation from the top. Dirk Coetzee was the target. The package must be prepared, there's already surveillance going on. I heard about this in the hallways, it was not official and that this package must be manufactured as soon as possible.

MR RAUTENBACH: And that it will be sent?

MR J KOK: Yes, we may have discussed that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you at any time discuss it with him, how this would be done?

MR J KOK: No, it did not work that way. I was informed about what was necessary, but if I had to manufacture a letter bomb, and if the target himself had to open it, then it would be very clear, then I would have put the address on this envelope, otherwise not.

MR RAUTENBACH: But it seems to me, Mr Kok, if we look at what really happened, there was a tape marked with the words: "Evidence - Hit Squad", that would be the actual bait for the target and at that stage of the planning, you were not involved?

MR J KOK: No, not at all, I assume that it was part of the planning, but I was not part of it myself.

MR RAUTENBACH: I would put it to you, something that one of the other witnesses mentioned, at one stage there was reference made to the list of people and I would just like to place this on record, that on the morning after the death of Mr Mlangeni, a list of 33 people was made available to the Investigative Unit of people that had to be investigated. This list contains the following names: Eugene de Kock, Wal du Toit, Simon Radebe, Serg Nortje, Steve Bosch, Lieut Chappie Klopper and apart from the fact that that list was handed over the morning to the police and said, "You have to investigate this", the first visit to Vlakplaas occurred only three months after this list was handed in.

MR J KOK: Mr Chairperson, I do not know anything about this.

MR RAUTENBACH: I said I will put it to you, but I should have put it to somebody else. Just for clarity sake, did you at any stage deal with Kritzinger.

MR J KOK: Well, I met him once at a service that I did in the Brooklyn area, but I never really met him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Just another aspect. If Kritzinger, for example, we understand that he came to the offices at the Technical Department.

MR J KOK: Yes, I saw him with the post-mortem inquest.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did he try and seize any of the materials?

MR J KOK: I did not accompany him at any stage, but I do know that he went through there, he went through our safe, through the explosives equipment that we had, we had specific equipment, but if Kritzinger went through and he did see certain items, you are talking about the wiring etc., if it was investigated, it would come out that most of these items were not available in South Africa. We did have imported items, but that specific wiring you wouldn't have found, it was an obsolete part of the equipment, something that was old, that was not used anymore, that we took apart, so he wouldn't have found it. It was something that was thrown away and I took some of the wiring out of it.

MR RAUTENBACH: I've no further questions, Mr Chairman.


MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, for the record could we mark this Exhibit E, the document that was handed in?

MR RAUTENBACH: May I just put on record, as far as that document is concerned, there are some notes on it. This is not the original document, it's a typed document of the first document that was written out. You will notice next to the name of 24, Mr Simon Radebe, there's a note to the effect - dead. That note was made by my instructing attorney sitting next to me Mr Raditapole, but I may just point out at the inquest, the formal inquest, it was actually common cause that Simon Radebe was dead and there's in fact a press report that we have in our possession, where the State Prosecutor, Mr Broderyk is quoted as saying that five people on the list are dead. Now one of those five it was common cause, is Mr Simon Radebe that was dead, so let me just put that, make that clear for the record.

Yes, and that was also according to, not only the State Advocate, but according to Mr Kritzinger, who was the person who made the information available that these people were dead, five were dead and one of them was Simon Radebe. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, can we have it?



MR LAMEY: Chairperson, just as a matter of clarity I see that three people are mentioned to be dead on the list.

MR RAUTENBACH: The other two are no mentioned on the list itself, this list, but it was common cause that, I think there are on the list ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it's written on the list in handwriting, "All traced except five who have died".

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That seems to be very much the same handwriting as the one who wrote the word dead against three of them.

MR RAUTENBACH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Who are the other two? If my learned friend could just assist.

MR RAUTENBACH: I can just make that clear. On the list there are four, the four are the ones marked Madiba, Mpofu and Radebe, where you see the words dead in the same handwriting and then of course number 21, Brian Ngqulunga deceased, and then let me just point out the fifth one was number 18, although it wasn't marked at that stage on the list, number 18 on the list.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Kok, how long did this operation last?

MR J KOK: From when I started, approximately, it was a long time ago, I presume it was a week or a week and a half, concerning my part in this.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you request Bosch to bring the cassettes to you?

MR J KOK: No, Mr Chairperson, as I said, when I took over it was already available. This is as far as I can remember.

MS LOCKHAT: And do you know whether your brother requested it or Wal du Toit?

MR J KOK: I do not know at all, Mr Chairperson, I was not involved in it.

MR LOCKHAT: And the Hit Squad tape was not included there.

MR J KOK: As I said, no.

MS LOCKHAT: And you said you gave the whole package to Bellingan and Bosch?

MR J KOK: Yes, as far as I can remember it was Bellingan and Bosch.

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


CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MR LAX: Thank you Chair. When you did the test of this thing, the actual cassette player wasn't damaged in any way whatsoever?

MR J KOK: That is correct, Chair.

MR LAX: So why was it necessary to have two cassette players?

MR J KOK: Mr Chairperson, it was practice that you do all your investigations and changes on a prototype until you get to the final product and you make something that is similar to the one that will be used. After manufacturing, you try and test the product. It was a testing board.

MR LAX: And then you knew who the target in this matter was.

MR J KOK: Yes, it was told.

MR LAX: Had you ever had contact with Coetzee before?

MR J KOK: No, I do not know him at all.

MR LAX: Did you know about him?

MR J KOK: Yes, everybody knew about him, he was front-page news.

MR LAX: Did you take any special care in this matter because of the fact that you were sending this to Coetzee rather than to some average human being?

MR J KOK: In my opinion, he was an average person. We executed our work in a professional way and it did not matter who the target was. We took it very seriously and I did not take any extra care.

MR LAX: Maybe you're missing the thrust of my question and the implication of my question. Coetzee was a man who could probably smell a bomb quite easily. He could see it and in fact he did see it, he did notice that this was a suspicious package, he suspected it was a bomb and he sent it away. If you knew anything about Coetzee, you would have taken special care in the way you manufactured this thing, to make it less suspicious and I'm wondering whether you did that.

MR J KOK: Mr Chairperson, I do not know Coetzee, but if I want to summarise...

CHAIRPERSON: It was a parcel in a cardboard box, he never saw the device.

MR J KOK: I summarise Coetzee as someone who is arrogant, he had the reputation that he was best in the officers' course and such a person is very vulnerable, because he thinks he knows about certain facts.

MR LAX: That's it, Chairperson, I've no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I want certain technical information from you, if you can help me with this. I'm trying to understand. To start with, what has been called the tape recorder, how big was it?

MR J KOK: Mr Chairperson, it was as big as the palm of my hand. It was a walkman size.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don't know walkmans.

MR J KOK: A little bit bigger than the tape.

CHAIRPERSON: And could you see when the tape was in?

MR J KOK: Yes, certainly you can see if there's a tape in it.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you see what the tape is, or would you just see the edge of the tape.

MR J KOK: There's glass panel on the cover. I'm not quite sure but I'm sure you can see a section of this label on the cassette itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Now as I understand it, this device was never brought back to you after the explosion.

MR J KOK: I never saw it again Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know what tape was in it at the time?

MR J KOK: No, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the evidence and I speak subject to correction here, that there were two cassettes finally with the device, one was the Neil Diamond one, which would have had ...(indistinct) information on the cassette, so looking in it you would have seen: "This is Neil Diamond."

MR J KOK: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The other one was the cassette which had been in a case labelled "Evidence - Hit Squad".

MR J KOK: Mr Chairperson I did not know anything about that cassette. At that stage when we packaged it, it was BZN and Neil Diamond.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if that was the case, that would have been an ordinary plain cassette, so there would have been nothing indicative of what was in it, from looking through the glass top of the machine, it would have just been a cassette, the type one buys.

MR J KOK: As I understood from the evidence, it was not on the cassette itself, but it was on the container of the cassette, but I think you are right, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So if you wanted to interest someone in it, you would have to include the container, so when he received the package he saw there was a cassette in the machine and he saw he had an empty container saying "Evidence - Hit Squad" and would immediately conclude that that was the cassette that was in the machine, is that logical?

MR J KOK: Yes, that is logical.

CHAIRPERSON: Because if it had not been put in the machine, this is, I assume and I would like comment and perhaps argument or evidence on this, if there had merely been two tapes sent with the machine, one being Neil Diamond, one being Hit Squad, the recipient may have put the Hit Squad tape in his pocket and then given the machine and the other tape to a friend or a child to play with.

MR J KOK: I speculate, that is possibly so.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it seems, nobody has suggested to us, that there was any hit squad evidence on the tape of any importance. That this was just a device to distract attention which was would ensure that the machine wasn't handed over to someone else.

MR J KOK: It's possibly so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I gather the whole purpose of the exercise of making a machine, a device as you did with the explosives in the earphones, was to aim at one person and one person only and not injure people in the vicinity.

MR J KOK: That is correct, Chair, that is how we manufactured it.

CHAIRPERSON: And as I understand, I'll come back after my next question, as I understand it, when the explosion went off, it would go from the earphones, kill the person, or severely injure the person, but there was no damage to what has been called the tape recorder.

MR J KOK: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That would have been available for inspection, I gather from what we have been told it was tested for fingerprints, presumably the cassettes were tested and things of that nature.

MR J KOK: Yes, I do accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Right, comments?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, may I just point out that there was evidence to the effect and that evidence is still available, that it seems that in the tape itself, in the machine itself, the walkman itself was a Neil Diamond tape at the time of the explosion, that's the evidence. The "Evidence - Hit Squad" tape had been removed from the cassette holder for some or other reason at that stage, so almost the only assumption one could have made was that a person was basically taking out the "Evidence - Hit Squad" tape and also testing the walkman to see if the walkman works, that's the only assumption.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, was the other tape found?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, yes, it was found.

CHAIRPERSON: But it wasn't in the container.

MR RAUTENBACH: No, it wasn't in the container.

CHAIRPERSON: And it wasn't in the machine, it was lying loose.

MR RAUTENBACH: It wasn't in the machine. That's right. ...(indistinct) record.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh. So it clearly had not been listened to because if it had been, the explosion would have gone off.

One of my colleagues has just made the utterly confusing suggestion to me that the tape, the Hit Squad tape may have been in the machine when he tried it but that the batteries were no longer working, that he obtained new batteries and changed the tape to test it on the other tape. Well, it's pure speculation, isn't it?

MR RAUTENBACH: Well in fact we can take that a little bit further and that is that the batteries found inside the walkman were Phillips batteries and it was, from the wife of the deceased, he only used and he only bought Duracell batteries and that's why they thought that the batteries in the walkman came with the walkman.

CHAIRPERSON: Presumably if the supplier had been found and inquiries had been made, this could have been verified.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Yes, just one aspect Mr Chairman. Mr Kok, my learned colleague on the other side has asked you that if it wasn't your packaging, then the packaging must have been done at Vlakplaas, do you recall that?

MR J KOK: Yes, I recall that.

MR BOOYENS: And you said that you couldn't comment on this? You and those who understood postal interceptions were situated in the same building?

MR J KOK: No, we were not.

MR BOOYENS: Were they not also at Rebecca Street?

MR J KOK: No, they were not.

MR BOOYENS: Do you have any knowledge regarding postal interceptions which took place at that stage?

MR J KOK: Yes, but I wasn't involved in it, so I don't know much about it, but I was aware of postal interceptions.

MR BOOYENS: This doesn't go any further than a theory, but if post was sent from South Africa to abroad and addressed to a person such as Dirk Coetzee at that stage when Dirk Coetzee was in the news, do you think such an item would have been intercepted?

MR J KOK: I think it is the logical inference to accept that his post would be intercepted and that due to a WA10 operation that was approved, it was therefore approved that his post would be intercepted,

MR BOOYENS: Therefore this package or parcel would possibly have been posted by Bellingan in Johannesburg, been intercepted on the way by another section of the police, searched and then allowed to continue its journey, or repackaged, we don't really know.

MR J KOK: It's purely speculative, but it is a very viable theory that another unit may be involved that we don't know of and I think that that can be ascribed to the compartmentalisation which took place within the Security Forces.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it as logical to think that it may have been intercepted on the way back?

MR J KOK: Just as logical Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Somebody may have looked at the address of the sender and determined that it should get back there after they had found out what it was.

MR J KOK: Chairperson, my inference is also speculative, but I believe that the target may have been changed, however, I'm not certain that that is what really took place.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it if any further technical matters arise, we can recall the brothers?

MR BOOYENS: Yes, certainly, Mr Chairman, they both live in Pretoria and so that would be no problem.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just, before the next applicant is called, place on record that as I undertook to do, I went through my papers and I discovered, which I think, ...(mike turned off)

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we try again Mr Hattingh, they may have completed the wiring.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. As I undertook to do, I went through documents at home and I discovered some documents which I think, some of them at least, originally emanated from the offices of Cheadle, Thompson and Haysom, we were given these documents by the Prosecution at the time of Mr de Kock's trial. Amongst those documents, there was a photostat copy of a photograph of the complete brown packaging in which the walkman was sent.

Mr Chairman, to my embarrassment I discovered when I arrived here this morning, that I put this file in my briefcase instead of the correct file, so that one is unfortunately still at home. I will bring it next week. I also went through some of the evidence which was led at the inquest Mr Chairman, and I discovered the evidence of a Mrs Smith which appears in the bundle, I think it was, it appears in volume 12 of the record of the inquest proceedings. She was an employee at the post office at which the parcel was handed in and she identified her handwriting on one of the documents. Now I've been unable to identify the document to which she was referring, because she was referring to it as Exhibit A. I don't unfortunately have a copy of Exhibit Q, but I've discussed this matter with Mr Rautenbach, Mr Chairman, and she says on page 434 of the record, she's asked the following:

"Did you have a copy of this before you, with reference to Exhibit A?"

She answers: "Yes."

"Can you indicate to the court which section on that form was completed in your handwriting?"

And she replies:

"The middle section."

"Could you perhaps speak up please?"

And she says:

"Middle section of D J Coetzee."

"With the address?"

"That is correct."

The only document containing the name and address of Coetzee in manuscript, to my knowledge Mr Chairman, would be found in Exhibit...


MR HATTINGH: D1, what appears to be an insurance slip. The only name of Coetzee and address in manuscript appears on that document, so I assume that that is what she is referring to and I think that Mr Rautenbach agrees with me that that must be correct, but I can't be certain of that. I couldn't find any other documents which were handed in as exhibits, which contained the name and address of Mr Coetzee in manuscript.

CHAIRPERSON: And I understand these, the Attorney-General's Department and nobody has these exhibits anymore?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I'm not sure. I remember at some stage we had some documents and whilst they were investigating, we gave all our photo's and whatever we had over to them and they obviously had all the exhibits, but it is impossible for me to say what the position is right now.

CHAIRPERSON: Well is the record still available?

MR RAUTENBACH: The inquest record?


MR RAUTENBACH: There must be a inquest record still available.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that would surely have a part of the record and list of exhibits, the inquest record, and they could tell us with some certainty what Exhibit Q was and confirm what Mr Hattingh has said. It seems probable but if that record is available, that could be perhaps confirmed and, speaking for myself, if it is possible to get, if they still have them, a copy of this from the post office, so one could see what would have been filled in in the middle. As I understand it, all we have in the photograph is the very top of the form and then the envelope is covering the rest of it, it might be of interest to see if there is a middle section that would logically have been filled in by her and what it would have been and whether it was something that she had to have been told by the person depositing the parcel and matters of that nature. So if you could ask the post office if they still use - they are probably less likely to throw anything away than the Attorney-General is and they may still have filed away somewhere these old insurance forms.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Anything else you'd like to add?

MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairman, I did find another stamp on the document which I will bring with me next week, which was a post office stamp, the Joubert Park Post Office stamp and it had writing on the stamp, something about insurance, "Versekering", so that seems to be another stamp that was placed on it at the time when the package or the parcel was handed in. I also found, Mr Chairman, an affidavit by my learned friend, Mr Rautenbach's attorney and attached to it a hand-written list of the names of persons from whom attempts were made to obtain handwriting specimens and fingerprints and from what I recall from the affidavit, that list was written down by either Mr Raditapole himself, of somebody from his office, during a discussion with Mr Kritzinger when they asked him which people's handwriting specimens and fingerprints they managed to obtain. I thought that that was the list on which it was indicated that Mr Radebe was deceased but I found no such indication on that list, but I will bring that list with me as well next week, Mr Chairman.


MR LAMEY: Chairperson, the next applicant is Mr Kobus Klopper.



KOBUS KLOPPER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper is it correct that before you obtained legal representation in connection with the incidents for which you have applied for amnesty, there was an initial amnesty application which was completed by you which can be found within bundle 1 before the Committee, from pages 11 up to and including 22, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And the particulars thereof you have referred to quite briefly regarding various incidents which boiled down to offences in your initial application and some of these incidents were not later re-incorporated in your supplementary application, is that correct, because they did not qualify for amnesty?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The supplementary application can be found from page 23. The form has been signed on page 27, is that correct?


MR LAMEY: And then, from page 28 onwards we find a review of your background and your involvement with the Security Police, is that correct? Up to page 32.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then the specific extract from your application with regard to the death of Bheki Mlangeni can be found from page 33 to 37, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You state that the death was approximately during 1992 and that was when you heard that the bomb had indeed detonated?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then do you confirm the particulars as set out on page 33, 34 and 35, subject of course to any further explanation that you wish to give with regard to paragraph 10 pertaining to Kritzinger?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Briefly it boils down to the following. Can you tell the Committee what your rank was in 1990?

MR KLOPPER: I had just become an officer, so I would have been a Lieut for the first half of 1998.

MR LAMEY: Were you involved in the tapping of Dirk Coetzee?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I was.

MR LAMEY: And you also state in paragraph 5 that his wife was also surveiled.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then you also know that there were discussions which involved the elimination of Coetzee and you came to hear of these discussions at Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, it was a general topic of discussion.

MR LAMEY: And you also gave evidence about this matter during the de Kock trial?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And your affidavit also states on page 36 that reference can be made to your evidence in the de Kock trial. Extracts of your evidence are contained within bundle 2 before the Committee.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then with regard to paragraph 10, you personally did not perform any actions with regard to the parcel bomb itself?

MR KLOPPER: No, it was only after the fact that I became involved.

MR LAMEY: Did you know that anything like that was sent before you had heard that the bomb had detonated?

MR KLOPPER: Before the actual detonation I was not aware of it.

MR LAMEY: And then you state that at a certain stage there was a post-mortem inquest, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that Capt Kritzinger was involved in this post-mortem inquest?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The inquest into the death of Bheki Mlangeni.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Can you just inform us further whether a discussion took place with Kritzinger in which you were present initially?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, there was a discussion during which there was a request to search the farm.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall where the discussion took place?

MR KLOPPER: It was at Security Head Office.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall where the search at Vlakplaas would lead to?

MR KLOPPER: I can recall that the search would have been an attempt to determine whether or not the bomb had been manufactured at Vlakplaas, so samples would have been taken of all the ingredients which were used to compile this parcel.

MR LAMEY: Did you understand that this discussion between Kritzinger and yourself, or who else was present during this discussion?

MR KLOPPER: It was me, Kritzinger and de Kock.

MR LAMEY: Did you understand that this discussion with Kritzinger was a prior warning?

MR KLOPPER: It was clear. It was clearly made to me and the pertinent time for the search of the farm was stated to us so that we would be prepared for this event.

MR LAMEY: Did you become involved in any cleaning process, or clean-up which would eradicate any possible evidence which may be protected?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct. De Kock and I went and purchased certain items of stationery at CNA and I personally went to the office of Steve Bosch which was just outside the general offices at Vlakplaas. I cleaned the office. I had the carpets vacuumed and placed the new equipment there and later we had an appointment during Kritzinger and his partner visited the office and took samples.

MR LAMEY: And what you have requested amnesty for is stipulated on page 35, paragraph 9(a) (i) and in your opinion, with regard to the political objective, you have stated this on page 36 and 37, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then, actually it was mostly on page 36 with regard to the political objective and page 37 contains the order or approval.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: On page 37 you also state and I wish for you to explain this, you say that you know that this took place with the knowledge and approval of Gen Krappies Engelbrecht. That would be the attempt to destroy the evidence. Do you have direct evidence of this or what is the basis of you saying that?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I have no direct evidence about it, I did not discuss it directly with Engelbrecht but it was general knowledge among us that de Kock reported to him, so it was quite clear that Engelbrecht would have known about it.

MR LAMEY: And at that stage, as far as you know, what was his position?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson at that stage he was the Commander, or the overall Commander of the entire C group, which included the people from Vlakplaas.

MR LAMEY: Was this during the post-mortem inquest?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct, because as I recall we had to submit the handwriting samples upon the request of Engelbrecht, he was our Commander at that stage.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.


MR LAMEY: Chairperson I see it's now 11 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment now.



MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I've concluded the evidence in chief.


MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I proceed?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Klopper just a few aspects. In Mr Bosch's office at Vlakplaas, what technical equipment did you have there, as far as you can remember?

MR KLOPPER: Mr Chairperson, as far as I can remember, there were tape recorders that they used for tapping of phones and then similar equipment that they used for that purpose.

MR HATTINGH: There wasn't, for example, technical equipment for example the manufacturing of sophisticated bombs as this device that we mentioned here?

MR KLOPPER: No, not as far as I know.

MR HATTINGH: And as far as you remember, Mr Klopper, did you have access to documents or paper rather and carton that was not manufactured within the Republic but came from abroad?

MR KLOPPER: Mr Chairperson, as far as I know, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: When you got the warning that Mr Kritzinger is going to visit the farm, was there anything that you destroyed, e.g. paper, or carton, I'm talking specifically now about brown paper?

MR KLOPPER: I had to clean up all the evidence within the office, but I cannot specifically remember brown paper, but all the paper we destroyed within the office and all the new equipment I bought myself.

MR HATTINGH: Shortly after Mr Coetzee made his revelations concerning Vlakplaas and the activities there, these allegations made were widely published.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And there was not a day or week where something was not said about this in the media.

MR KLOPPER: A lot of people were implicated in his revelations.

MR HATTINGH: And I assume that Mr Coetzee was the subject of a lot of discussions.

MR KLOPPER: The discussions also were not very friendly.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that was my following question. It was probably not very friendly things that were said about him?

MR KLOPPER: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: In other words, in general in the police ranks, that was the subject of the conversations?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In 1985 already, surveillance was done through official channels, I think specifically more the police and that is now the tapping of the phones of Mr Coetzee.

MR KLOPPER: I can remember that I heard something like that but at that stage I was not aware of it.

MR HATTINGH: And that he asked for an investigation or he asked for a hearing concerning alleged tapping of his phone or surveillance.

MR KLOPPER: I cannot remember that but there was a lot of talk about his use of language, but I cannot remember that.

MR HATTINGH: I do not think that the content of it is really important but when I went through my documentation, I received lists of transcriptions of conversations where he used crude language especially against some of the members.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, mention was made about his language usage.

MR HATTINGH: And this fact was known amongst the police ranks and he was definitely not a very popular person?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

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


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Mr Klopper, if you cannot answer what I'm asking you now, you can just tell the Commission. You were stationed at SANAB.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: That is in Johannesburg.


MR BOOYENS: And a part of your function was the smuggling through the postal system, mostly air mail and that was mostly drugs.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, we used the Security Branch in these cases.

MR BOOYENS: So you do have knowledge of the WA10 system where you intercept post?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Let us look at the position of Mr Dirk Coetzee. We know that there was a WA10 on him. In other words post or mail that left the Republic and addressed to somebody on this VA list, it would have been intercepted by the police at a certain place.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, they used a movement control system, a certain name was put on it. In the case where a person would leave the country with his passport, that post or mail would then be taken out, looked at and we would put it back as well if nothing was found.

MR BOOYENS: We heard that Mr Bheki Mlangeni from my learned friend across from me, was a very prominent member of the freedom fighters at that stage.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have any knowledge of people who surveyed, some people would call it a paranoia concerning security, for example the post or the mail that went to Mlangeni.

MR KLOPPER: It would be logical that if it was known that if he was the liaison person with Coetzee, especially if it came from abroad. Definitely yes.

MR BOOYENS: And it seems to me that it is logical that the people, let us call them the clerks, who did the interception, they would not open the packages themselves, I'm now talking specifically in security situation of Bheki Mlangeni, they wouldn't have opened the mail themselves, they just would have intercepted it and it was placed in a system where it would be investigated.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes. The way I understood was that a certain person's name would be connected to a certain subject. Let us presume then A would then deal with Dirk Coetzee, the postal mail would be taken out of the system, Mr X would be contacted and then investigate what security interest there is, or documentation can be taken from that mail. It will then by put back into the system.

MR BOOYENS: Do you have an idea what section of the police dealt with this, that is now the investigation of the mail?

MR KLOPPER: It was usually done on a local branch level. The people from John Vorster square did this and then the mail from abroad would then go through Jan Smuts and they would then have their office at Jan Smuts where they would then intercept the mail.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.


MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Klopper, there are three aspects that I would like to deal with. The first one concerning the interception that we just talked about, did you know of a place in Johannesburg called as "The Hole" ?

MR KLOPPER: That was the place at John Vorster Square where the post or mail was dealt with.

MR RAUTENBACH: Very well, this is now where the Johannesburg mail was sorted. We know that in this case that at least what happened here was the modified walkman was sent to Coetzee, it was not placed in his hands, he does not accept the package, it comes back and Mr Mlangeni is killed. In this situation, I know that you say that you were not aware of what happened when the package was made up and the device was manufactured, but I do assume that with liaison, that in this section of investigation and the people who intercepted that mail, you could just basically say to them that if this package arrived there, they must just leave it.

MR KLOPPER: That is possible, that there was a compartmentalisation of this, but I assume that if post or a package would come there and this is my personal opinion, because Dirk Coetzee and Mlangeni were prominent people, it would be logical that the person who was in charge of the interception, they would contact him and say that the package will come through, because if they take the package out, let us assume that a security policeman took it out and the security policeman was killed, what would have been the result of that?

MR RAUTENBACH: So what you are saying, there would have been some sort of liaison between them.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that is my personal opinion.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then secondly, this meeting that occurred with Mr Kritzinger, did this happen at Head Quarters?


MR RAUTENBACH: Were you asked to go there or did you got with Mr de Kock or was it just coincidence?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I know, I was there by chance and Mr Kritzinger had an office, I think, one floor just below ours, but myself and Kritzinger, a few years ago we worked together so there was a trust between us before this discussion took place.

MR RAUTENBACH: And do you say that this meeting was a coincidence?

MR KLOPPER: I would not say it was coincidence, I cannot specifically remember but I do know that it was in the hallways of the security office where he mentioned to me that they are going to investigate the farm and search the farm and that's when I went to de Kock.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you both go to de Kock? Where was de Kock?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot specifically remember, but I think it was at the Security Headquarters and as far as I know, the whole discussion took place within the hallways.

MR RAUTENBACH: And Mr Klopper, if I understand your application correctly, it was not just a case of going to Vlakplaas, it was basically ensuring that you do remove these type of things?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct. Amongst the Security Branch members, it was not necessary to say to somebody specifically, "Clean up". Just through certain actions, you do know what is going about. You do not have to say this directly. The language used was of such a nature that you do know what is going on.

MR RAUTENBACH: If I look at your statement and application, can you tell me on what pages it appears?

MR KLOPPER: It's from page 35 onwards.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did he, Kritzinger, tell you and Mr de Kock that he is going to go to Vlakplaas on such and such a date?

MR KLOPPER: As far as I can remember, during the post-mortem inquest a lot of fingers were pointed at Gen van der Westhuizen, because they hadn't searched Vlakplaas at that stage yet. If I can remember correctly, in the media a lot of questions were raised concerning Klatzman, I cannot specifically remember his name, Klatzman was his name, why the farm was not searched, that would have been the first place which they had to search and then a date was made and an arrangement was made with myself and Mr de Kock for a specific time that they would come to the farm and take the samples or do the investigations that they should have done a long time ago.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Klopper, I'm talking now about the media. Didn't you become aware that Kritzinger received a lot of criticism because initially he denied to Klatzman that there was a Technical Department in Rebecca Street?

MR KLOPPER: I cannot remember that, no. No, I cannot remember that he denied that.

MR RAUTENBACH: And also that he denied that there was such a person as du Toit?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot remember that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Out of Mr de Kock's evidence, I understood that both of you, that this discussion with Kritzinger was very clear?

MR KLOPPER: There was no doubt about what was going on and what it all entailed.

MR RAUTENBACH: I would just like to ask you in short the following. Out of your evidence I quoted something from your evidence and I put it to Mr de Kock about a conversation that took place at the Centurion Hotel.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you in short just tell us what that conversation was about?

MR KLOPPER: Mr Chairperson, if I can remember correctly, or my recollection is, we visited there, it was the time when Leon Flores was arrested in England and my recollection is, it was put to me, there was fear that he is going to talk about certain information and the reason, according to me, was he was going to send people to eliminate Dirk Coetzee and that is how I can remember it.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did Mr de Kock say, was he worried?

MR KLOPPER: It came from de Kock as far as I can remember, that he was at the DCC and myself and Willie Nortje were there that night at the hotel.

MR RAUTENBACH: In other words, Mr Nortje was there as well?


MR RAUTENBACH: So, what you are saying is that what you understood from what Mr de Kock said, is that they were scared that he, Flores, would start talking and that the purpose was to get people to eliminate Coetzee. De Kock had the task then to execute this. No further questions, Mr Chairman.


MS LOCKHAT: I do have a few questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: How long were you at Vlakplaas?

MR KLOPPER: Mr Chairman, if I can remember correctly, it was for four years that I worked there.

MS LOCKHAT: From which year was that?

MR KLOPPER: Mr Chairperson, I started there in 1989, I cannot remember the exact date.

MS LOCKHAT: I want to go back to the time that Mrs Coetzee was under surveillance. Yourself, Bellingan, Marthinus Ras and Tait went, you surveyed her and you went to a certain restaurant. Is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: And I believe she met a certain gentleman, Kasselton, who also worked at Vlakplaas, can you just clarify that for me?

MR KLOPPER: At the time when I was part of the surveillance, Jacques Pauw was the person, or the journalist, who wrote the book, "The Heart of War". It was on the television as well. I didn't know that she met Kasselton.

MS LOCKHAT: Because I just want to refer you to page 26 of bundle 2 where you stated, the last paragraph, you state that she indeed had this meeting with Kasselton.

MR KLOPPER: If I can remember correctly, I just looked at this quickly, that was the cross-examination by Mr Hattingh and that was statement that was put to me where I then answered that it was not, in my case, the same. I think the fact that she had the meeting with Kasselton was a statement that was made by Mr Hattingh during the cross-examination of the hearing.

MS LOCKHAT: And then it was also further stated that he worked for Vlakplaas, that he was at Vlakplaas.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, Pieter Kasselton, I do not know if he worked there, but I did see him at the farm.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to get - Marthinus Ras and Mr Bellingan, did they work closely together?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, they did work very closely together.

MS LOCKHAT: So this operation of surveillance and so forth, they were more or less in charge of that, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: If I can remember correctly, it was more under Bellingan's authority or leadership. I assumed that him and Steve Bosch were the people, so we just helped them. They acted as the leaders in the operation against Coetzee and we were the helpers, the additional members.

MS LOCKHAT: And Mr Tait as well, he was also at Vlakplaas?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Do you know whether they carried on with this operation regarding the bomb and so forth?

MR KLOPPER: Mr Chairperson, I did not carry any knowledge of this bomb, but I did know that certain steps were executed against him, for example the tapping of his phone, surveillance etc, but I wasn't involved in that, but as far as I can remember, once or twice I listened to the tapes and I made certain notes.

MS LOCKHAT: So during that period you had no communication regarding this bomb?

MR KLOPPER: No not at all.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer you to your amnesty application on page 15 where the question regarding financial remuneration and so forth and you said: "Yes." And then you stated you got remuneration, extra financial informer's fees, can you just elaborate?

MR KLOPPER: Can I just explain. There was no remuneration, this was more, it was not about a specific incident and if there were incidents where money was received by members, but in this case not at all. It must be seen in that light. It was a general thing and it was not for a this specific case.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you receive these informer's fees on say a month to month basis, or just a regular type of income, I would say?

MR KLOPPER: No, Mr Chairperson, it happened when it was about fraud and also earlier on in the past when askaris, when an MK member was arrested, the money would then go to the informant and would be then shared amongst the members who were involved in it. I was never paid for such an operation.

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


MR SIBANYONI: And Mr Klopper you said that Mr Kritzinger informed you that there would be a search at Vlakplaas and that he will be taking some samples of ingredients, is this correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: And then there was a delay before he eventually came?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, we made a specific date if I can remember correctly. I think a day or two was given to me in which I could or had the time to clean the place up and then to prepare for the investigation that they would do there.

MR SIBANYONI: How long was the delay?

MR KLOPPER: As I said, Mr Chairperson, I think it was a day, maybe maximum two days time was given to me to maybe make preparation so that we can be ready.

MR SIBANYONI: Would you say he was really sympathetic to your cause or would you regard his as one of the people who have had the term a "sweeper"?

MR KLOPPER: It was general knowledge that he was a "sweeper", it was the same with Krappies Engelbrecht and all the cases that he dealt with before. It was general knowledge that this person was on our side. Sweepers made sure that no fingers can be pointed towards us.

MR SIBANYONI: Would you say, from your observation at the time, would you say the prosecution were also sympathetic to your cause, or you wouldn't express an opinion about that?

MR KLOPPER: I would just like to make sure, are you talking about the post-mortem inquest in the Mlangeni case, or are you talking about the de Kock Hearing?

MR SIBANYONI: Let's start with the post-mortem inquest.

MR KLOPPER: Mlangeni?


MR KLOPPER: Mr Chairperson, I had no part in that apart from cleaning the office and also to remove any fingerprints or to provide them with fingerprints and handwriting samples. I cannot comment on that.

MR SIBANYONI: And what about the de Kock trial?

MR KLOPPER: It is necessarily so that the prosecution was more on our side if they were against de Kock, that they were not on de Kock's side is very clear, or was very clear.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR LAMEY: No re-examination, Chairperson.



MR LAMEY: I call the next applicant, Willem Albertus Nortje.




MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje you were also a state witness during the de Kock trial during which you gave evidence regarding various subjects appearing on the charge sheet, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And in your own handwriting, you initially completed a form which can be found on page 46, 47 and 48, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And it was signed on the 19th of November 1996 and as an annexure to that and this was before you obtained a legal representative.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Was attached your version of what you know with regard to events and what you wish to apply for amnesty for, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then we find on page 25 to 23 of bundle 1, the particulars that you provide with regard to Bheki Mlangeni.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Later you obtained legal representation. You prepared a supplementary affidavit which we can find on page 54 to 55 and then on 59 you signed it and therein there are also particulars regarding your background and training.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry 54 to 55 you say a supplementary affidavit?

MR LAMEY: Yes, it is the supplementary ...

CHAIRPERSON: Application.

MR LAMEY: Application regarding the various incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's 54 to 59 in my bundle, is the second application.

MR LAMEY: Yes, indeed, I apologise Chairperson. And what you have signed before a Commissioner of Oaths.


MR LAMEY: And then on page 60 up to and including 68, we find a review of your background and training and how you ended up at Vlakplaas ultimately.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, the only thing that is lacking in this bundle and which has been submitted to the Committee is page 68(a) and 68(b) which is your statement in which you give the particulars that you already know which has being incorporated with your original amnesty application.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then do you also confirm that which was submitted as page 68(a) and (b)?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: If we can just return, you have also seen in the bundle which has been served before this Committee, that there is an extract of your evidence which you gave during the de Kock trial with regard to this matter, the evidence in chief and the cross-examination.


MR LAMEY: And your testimony during the de Kock trial, according to the best of your knowledge, is this also true and correct?


MR LAMEY: You also received indemnity in terms of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then I would just like to lead you regarding that which you have stated on pages 52 and 53. Were you also involved in the tapping of the movements of Dirk Coetzee?

MR NORTJE: I can just recall that on one day no other members were available so Mr de Kock asked me just to listen to the tapes. On this particular day there wasn't really much which was said on the tapes, but I think it was Dirk Coetzee's home telephone number that was being tapped at that stage. I can just recall that one specific day that I listened to the tapes.

MR LAMEY: Now did you become aware at a certain stage that discussions arose which were aimed at detecting a way to murder Mr Coetzee after his revelations which he made?

MR NORTJE: Yes, this came mostly from Mr de Kock's side to me. We all shared the sentiment, we all agreed on the nature of his revelations.

MR LAMEY: Did you then associate yourself with this?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I associated myself with this.

MR LAMEY: And did you become aware that a planning phase originated in preparation of a parcel bomb which was to be sent?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that came to my knowledge, by Mr de Kock.

MR LAMEY: And what you know of this you have already set out in writing on page 52?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Were you personally involved in any actions in the execution of this plan?

MR NORTJE: No, I was not involved in any such actions.

MR LAMEY: Can you tell us whether you were there that day on the farm when the test run was undertaken with regard to the device and that this test was carried out on a pig's head?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I know about it. I was present.

MR LAMEY: How did it come about that you were present there, can you recall?

MR NORTJE: I had close liaison with Mr Bosch and Mr de Kock and Steve Bosch told me that they were going to test the thing, perhaps a day before the time, I'm not certain, but he arrived at the farm on that day. I was also there and the people from the Technical Division also arrived there and he told me that he had the pig's head with him. We then went down to the river. I'm not completely certain, but I think I drove with him, I must have driven with him. As I've said, the pig's head was in his car. We went to the river along with the technical staff. Later it was clear who was all present there. Kobus was there and Bellingan or Bosch rather and me. I cannot specifically recall Bellingan being present. As I said some of the other members such as Wal du Toit and Japie Kok, I'm also not certain about them, but they could have been there, I would not dispute that.

The pig's head was placed down there. The head phones were attached to the pig's head and I think Kobus then detonated the device. Afterwards we saw that it had functions properly, we returned to the farm and I think M de Kock was already at the farm at this stage or at least he was at the homestead where the offices were situation and they had a discussion there, but I didn't listen to them or what they were saying any further after that. I'm assuming that he must have explained that the device had worked successfully.

At a certain stage, I don't know whether it was a day or two or three later, it must have been a number of days afterwards, I saw the parcel in Steve Bosch's office. I know that I said that something was written on it, but I became confused with the time when we gave the fingerprints, because then we saw pictures of the parcel and I've thought about this extensively. On the day that I saw the parcel there was nothing written on it. It was a brown cardboard box, I would say. I didn't come close to it. I didn't stand next to it to see specifically what was written on it. I didn't see that anything was written on it. As I have said, I've thought extensively about this matter.

Furthermore, I wasn't involved, all I know is that the parcel was sent, but what I do recall is that at a certain stage the address presented some problem, the address of the sender, that is why I would imagine that Mr Kok had asked Chris Magopa at one point, or he may have asked him, or he would have asked him, I cannot say that he did ask him, he wanted to ask him for an address, but I wasn't further involved with that. I wasn't anticipating that anything further would take place, I simply continued with other services and afterwards I heard that the parcel had been sent. At that stage, I didn't know that Bellingan and Radebe had sent the parcel. Bellingan disclosed this to me much much later and then at a certain stage during the inquest, they came to take the fingerprints from us and as far as I know Gen Engelbrecht was aware of everything. During the process of the taking of the fingerprints, I didn't really know who had written on the parcel because we had to make samples in our own handwriting of what appeared there and at a ...(end of tape 1B) ... to him and he was quite shaky and all he told me was that he hadn't written in the same style as what he usually wrote. Now Simon and I had a very good relationship of trust and I knew immediately what he meant. I cannot say that he wrote everything on the parcel, but he may have written some of the details on the parcel, that is why I have stated it as such.

May I proceed?


MR NORTJE: Subsequently the story of Kritzinger who would come to the farm emerged and according to me he issued a warning that they were coming. I was involved. I know that I was in the office of Steve at that stage. According to me, Charlie Tait had taken over the office and there was a lot of equipment such as cameras and other technical equipment. There were briefcases containing equipment and documents and so forth. We moved everything which could possibly indicate anything. I suppose that many items were unnecessarily destroyed as well, but we were acting preventatively, we cleaned the offices next door, burned documents and left the offices clean and tidy. The carpets were vacuumed. It was quite a clean-up operation.

MR LAMEY: May I then just ask you, Steve Bosch's office, was this also included in the clean-up?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is what I am referring to.

MR LAMEY: You also state that at a certain stage, when Kritzinger visited the farm, it would have been futile for any kind of investigation because everything had been removed.

MR NORTJE: Yes, although I didn't suspect that he would find anything, he still came there.

MR LAMEY: A list has been submitted, I'd just like to examine you briefly about this. It is a list of handwriting and fingerprint tests. You have heard that certain people were referred to as deceased at that stage and we know that Simon Radebe was not deceased at that stage. Can you recall whether any of the others who were reported as deceased, were indeed deceased at that stage?

MR NORTJE: The only one that I could think of who may have been deceased at that stage, was Mosse and Madiba, but Mpofu died later, but he was a worker. He was a policeman, but he dealt with the workers on the farm. He drove vehicles and so forth, so the mention of his name didn't really make any sense to begin with.

CHAIRPERSON: Who were the two who you say were dead?

MR NORTJE: Bobby Madiba and Mosse.

CHAIRPERSON: What number is that?

MR NORTJE: It's number 9 and number 18. I don't think that number 20 was deceased at that stage yet.

MR LAMEY: And then Brian Ngqulunga?

MR NORTJE: No, he was deceased.

MR LAMEY: He was already deceased?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct. I don't know who this Eric Salinda is.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Nortje, what would you say was the objective in killing Mr Coetzee?

MR NORTJE: Well it was clear that his revelations had caused extensive damage and it was more of a precautionary measure for the purposes of damage control. I know that Mr Coetzee had also recruited one of the farm workers who had gone after him at a certain stage, but I think that all the circumstances and the events which occurred and all the news coverage that we received and all the facts which were about to emerge, all contributed to the decision.

MR LAMEY: You also state specifically that it was to restrict any further damage, so damage had already been caused by the media coverage by that stage?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Your instructions to become involved in the clean-up process in the offices, who gave you this instruction?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock. Well, all of us were instructed to participate.

MR LAMEY: So basically everybody was instructed to assist and you also gave your share of assistance in this regard?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

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


CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before we go on, can I ask something about Exhibit E? The copy I have got, the photograph, has a star against Eric Salinda, that this witness has just referred to and a line leading down apparently to something that is written on the back of the page, that doesn't appear on my photograph.

MR RAUTENBACH: It seems what happened, what is written down there is Kritzinger doesn't know him, the point is just, it seems that the surname was spelled wrongly and it was probably referring to Eric Sefadi and that's why it's written in, Kritzinger doesn't know him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the same way this witness doesn't who him either.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, yes, the witness just said that he knows Eric Sefadi and that it's probably the wrong...

CHAIRPERSON: It's just a typing error.


CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, just singular aspects. Did Mr de Kock ever tell you that he was in the process of preparing a parcel bomb to be sent to Dirk Coetzee?

MR NORTJE: I can only tell you that I drove with him and he told me about these plans that he had. On that day we went to Mr Wal du Toit, specifically about this issue, but once again I was not present during the entire discussion, he left me to one side but he told me before and after what his plans were. I think he dealt with it according to the need-to-know principle, that is why I did not sit in on the discussion but I know what the discussions were about.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, can you tell us whether or not he ever told you that he had received an instruction from Head Office to do so?

MR NORTJE: Well, I cannot say that he stated it pertinently, because I cannot recall that but I assumed this from his discussions, the surveillance actions which were underway, due to these factors, Head Office must have known about it and when I refer to Head Office, I'm referring to Mr Engelbrecht and Mr van Rensburg, our direct Commanders and I knew that Gen Engelbrecht knew about it.

MR HATTINGH: Something which I have noticed in your evidence once again, I don't know where specifically it is, perhaps you could refresh my memory about this, is the following. Were any videos shown on Vlakplaas about Mr Coetzee?

MR NORTJE: Yes. I think that it was on TV and then someone recorded the bite and the following day we sat in the office and we watched the video recording.

MR HATTINGH: And did Mr de Kock tell you that you had an order from Head Office to listen to the tape or watch the tape and give any input with regard to the statements which were made on the video?

MR NORTJE: Yes, all of us were present, so I assume so.

MR HATTINGH: You have also stated that Mr de Kock displayed a remarkable sense of hatred or malice towards Mr Coetzee, but during your evidence in the trial of Mr de Kock, you also remarked that all the members of the police felt this way.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In fact on page 120 of bundle 2, at approximately the second paragraph from above, this would still be during evidence in chief, Mr Ackerman says to you:

"Now at that stage did you think he was serious when he said that he wanted to kill Dirk Coetzee?"

Your answer:

"Yes, he spoke quite extensively about it but I knew he was serious because that was everybody's sentiment at that stage."

Then you were asked:

"He wasn't alone in this feeling towards Dirk Coetzee?"

Your answer:


MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now with regard to the incident when Mr Flores was arrested, you stated you were present but you would also recall that during the criminal trial, you really couldn't remember what exactly was discussed there between Mr van der Westhuizen and Mr de Kock.

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall specifically but it was about Flores.

MR HATTINGH: Now at that stage, Mr Nortje, did Mr Flores also possess information regarding Vlakplaas activities which, if it were to come to light, would damage Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that Mr de Kock was concerned regarding the fact that he was arrested and could possibly disclose information which could place Vlakplaas in a detrimental position which brought you under the impression that he was concerned that Mr Flores would leak out information because - I'm sorry I've put the question quite clumsily, let me re-attempt. You state that upon that occasion Mr de Kock was concerned that Mr Flores would disclose that he, Flores, was sent to recruit persons to kill Mr Coetzee.


MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that your recollection about this is faulty and that Mr de Kock was concerned in general about any kind of information which Mr Flores could disclose which would place Vlakplaas at a disadvantage?

MR NORTJE: No, that was definitely one of his concerns, but I knew about this action before Flores was arrested and I'll tell you why - One evening I was at Flores' home when we met Simpson, and there it was not directly stated, I don't know what Flores and Simpson spoke about, but I came to know through Mr de Kock that he would launch an action to get to Mr Coetzee via the Irish Organisation, RUC or something like that.

MR HATTINGH: Or let us try to cut it even shorter. You have heard Mr de Kock's evidence in this regard?


MR HATTINGH: That this Mr Simpson had admitted that he would be capable of arranging such an action and that he requested quite a hefty amount for this?

MR NORTJE: Yes, apparently R100 000-00.

MR HATTINGH: Yes and you stated during the criminal trial that Mr de Kock gave Mr Flores R100 000-00, or that Mr Flores wanted R100 000-00 but he only gave him R10 000-00.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock says that the R10 000-00 was given because Mr Simpson had stated that they had already incurred expenses in monitoring Mr Coetzee's movements and determining what his whereabouts were.

MR NORTJE: As I understood Mr de Kock, it was a preliminary amount because there was too little time to obtain the R100 000-00, as I understood him. You must remember that Mr de Kock said many things sometimes in the heat of the moment and he may have been under the wrong impression, but this is what I believed to be going on.

MR HATTINGH: You would concede that there may have been a misunderstanding in this regard between you and Mr de Kock?

MR NORTJE: That is truly what I believed, what I have just told you. According to me it was not a misunderstanding, he may have meant something else, but this is the way that I interpreted it.

MR HATTINGH: You would concede that R10 000-00, especially if one is to exchange this into Irish Pounds, even if it was in 1990, was quite a low amount to be paying for the assassination of a person who enjoyed such prominence in international media circles?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it didn't make any sense to me, but I didn't question him specifically about it, I simply accepted.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood you to say it was only a payment on account, the R10 000-00.

MR NORTJE: Yes, as I understood it, it was a preliminary payment for any expenses that they may have incurred but if it had gone through, the rest of the money would have come through, but these are just assumptions that I'm making. If I say that the money would have come, he may have done so through other arrangements, these are just impressions that I have created.

MR HATTINGH: And then, with regard to the procurement of the address of Mr Coetzee, how clear is your recollection in this regard?

MR NORTJE: I must tell you that I did not participate in this regard, I did not know how the address was obtained.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear the name Chris Magopa?

MR NORTJE: Yes, with regard to the sender's address, that is the reference. The reference is not with regard to Dirk Coetzee as such. At a certain stage there was a problem at the very beginning, just after they had received the parcel, but the sender's address, or at least this is what I understood from Mr de Kock, he didn't have a sender's address, or at that stage he spoke of Chris, he said that Chris Magopa was in Zambia at a certain stage, that is why I deduced that he may have obtained that address.

MR HATTINGH: I have the statement, the police statement that you made in Denmark, I don't believe that it is necessary to hand it up because the evidence that you gave in the criminal trial in this regard is in agreement with this, page 72 of the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: That's volume 2? Bundle 2?

MR HATTINGH: Bundle 2. Sorry Mr Chairman, I think -

MR LAX: Mr Hattingh, if you look on page 52 of his application.

MR HATTINGH: Chairman, I'm looking at his application now and I'm looking at page 72, bundle 1. There you say that:

"The final product was then given to Steve who then packaged it on the farm and was posted then by Balletjies and Simon from either Joubert Park in Johannesburg or from Swaziland. As far as I can remember and I'm not sure, Chris Magopa helped to provide them with the address"

and that is the address of where the package had to be sent to in Zambia and now you said your recollection was that Chris helped you to give the name of the sender.

MR NORTJE: I was confused. Why I'm saying, as I said, Zambia because it had to be Dirk's address that he wanted. The sender's address I did not know, it was never mentioned but I know that the day when the parcel arrived there, the address of Dirk Coetzee was still a problem. In the morning at a certain stage, it could have been that afterwards, these things could have happened that he gave evidence about, that he went to Head Office to get the address.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, let us put this in short, is it not correct that Chris Magopa, before he became an askari, that he was a member of the PAC?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And are you aware of the fact that a bomb was set to explode in the PAC offices in Lusaka? I'm sorry, not in Lusaka, but in Dar Es Salaam, that Mr Magopa did not provide you the address with that sending of the bomb, that maybe you confused it with this incident?

MR NORTJE: At that stage when I was in Denmark, Chris's name came up and there was talk about an address and that's why I remember his name.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock just mentioned that Chris Magopa provided them with the address to send that bomb. I was busy looking at something else when you, in your evidence, mentioned something in the line of that you carry knowledge of Gen Engelbrecht. Knowing about everything, did you say something like that concerning this incident?

This was now during the post-mortem inquest.

MR NORTJE: Yes, he definitely knew about it.

MR HATTINGH: Why do you say that?

MR NORTJE: Well, through his actions and things that happened, he definitely knew about it.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have contact with him concerning the preparation for the post-mortem inquest?

MR NORTJE: No, not directly.

MR HATTINGH: Concerning Mr Radebe, you also heard his evidence, is that correct?


MR HATTINGH: That he did not write on that package his own handwriting. Can you deny that?

MR NORTJE: No, I can't.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, another thing which I omitted to inform you that I discovered last night when going through my documentation and the record of the inquest was that both my learned friend and I were wrong when we informed you that Col Hattingh did not give evidence at those proceedings. In fact he did give evidence.

And I would like to put to you that he testified that the handwriting of one person that was sent to him and that he later found out was Radebe's, that was during Mr de Kock's hearing that it was received, that that handwriting was Mr Radebe's. According to Col Hattingh, it was not the person who wrote on the package. Do you accept that?


MR HATTINGH: And another thing Mr Chairman, either you or Mr Lax asked whether he gave evidence about the possibility of detecting a person's attempt to disguise his handwriting, I forget who it was who asked that question. He did in fact give evidence and he did say that there are ways and means of ascertaining whether a person is trying to disguise his handwriting, so he was mindful of that possibility at the time, when he carried out his examination of the handwriting.

I now get to the political motive where you say that you, or that you included in your application, you mentioned the damage that Mr Coetzee could do, were you aware of the fact that I'm at this stage, I'm unfortunately not sure of the date but he later wrote a book about his actions as a member of C1 at Vlakplaas.


MR HATTINGH: And that it was a very thick book. I also saw this book again, or read it again. It was just as thick as Mr de Kock's book. It was however not in a book form, but was on folio pages.

MR NORTJE: I cannot say for sure.

MR HATTINGH: In detail he was cross-examined concerning incidents or allegations that he made at the hearing, are you aware of that? At the hearing of Mr de Kock.

MR NORTJE: Yes, I do know about that.

MR HATTINGH: And then I would like to put to you that that book, as far as I know, he wrote this with the assistance of Mr Jacques Pauw and he was actually the person who did the writing on behalf of Mr Coetzee.

MR NORTJE: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that that book contained far more detail concerning illegal actions as compared to his initial revelations made in the "Weekblad", so although he made certain things public in the "Vrye Weekblad" and that was detrimental to Vlakplaas.

MR NORTJE: I cannot deny that.

MR HATTINGH: As well as the government and the National Party.

MR NORTJE: I cannot deny that.

MR HATTINGH: And you heard Mr de Kock's evidence that concerning him, one of the main reasons why Mr Coetzee had to be eliminated, was the fact that they wanted to prevent that he testify in London in the Lothar Neethling Civil case.

MR NORTJE: That is so.

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


MR BOOYENS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.


MR RAUTENBACH: Just one aspect.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Would you agree with me that at the stage when the package was sent in May, that Coetzee approximately had six months to provide people with information.

MR NORTJE: That is correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And as far as you know, was this book ever published? Do you know if that book that was just talked about was ever published?

MR NORTJE: That must be the book that Jacques Pauw wrote.

MR RAUTENBACH: No, I'm talking now about the Dirk Coetzee book.

MR NORTJE: I assumed that was the book that Jacques Pauw wrote.

MR RAUTENBACH: We are now talking about that one that was in book form, that's all about Dirk Coetzee and his story.

MR NORTJE: No, I do not think I saw this book.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know of such a book?


MR RAUTENBACH: I've got no further questions Mr Chairman.


MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have just one question.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: You said that because Mr de Kock assigned everybody to do the tapping system and so forth, you assumed that it came from Head Office, the orders, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That's correct, Chair.

MS LOCKHAT: Would you think that Mr de Kock would do this, the sending of the bomb, through his own initiative?

MR NORTJE: You see, the reason why I'm saying it was his initiative, is it may have been his plan to send this specific package, or the preparation of it, there were other suggestions from other people, but at the end a decision was made and in my own opinion, I thought it was Mr de Kock's idea and this is now the specific idea of the walkman. It was unique, it hasn't been used before and that's the only reason.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer the Committee to bundle 2 and page 130 where, under cross examination at line 22 on that page, just in relation to Mr de Kock and his thought processes, you said:

"Everybody was upset and I do not know if someone had the courage to do something about it, but the accused..."

MR LAMEY: Sorry, could we just get clarity on the line, sorry, we can't find the line.

MS LOCKHAT: Line 22 from the top of the page. Shall I read it again?

MR LAMEY: Is it page 130?

MS LOCKHAT: 130. Bundle 2. I'll start again.

"Everybody was upset and I do not know if someone had the courage to do something about it, but the accused was willing to do something about it because most of the people just talk about what they want to do and do not do it."

Can you comment on that?

MR NORTJE: That was my personal opinion of the situation.

MS LOCKHAT: So would you say whether Mr de Kock had gotten the orders, or not? He basically felt that someone had to do the task of taking out Dirk Coetzee and that in his state of mind as to being the hero of the day at the end of the day, that he would have done it anyway?

MR NORTJE: It's possible, yes. There could have been other people who also wanted to make the plans. In previous cases it was so, but in this incident he took the initiative.

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


MR SIBANYONI: Mr Nortje I heard you saying Mr Coetzee had recruited some workers from the farm, you are referring to the askaris?

MR NORTJE: The person that he recruited, I think his name was Bruce, he was a former Zimbabwean and I know that he left because he had Spyker Tshikalanga there and Brian told him about where we moved the weapons from Vlakplaas to Daisy and that Bruce saw this and he also told it to Dirk, so he was busy getting information from the farm, or recruiting people from the farm to give him information.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Coetzee was the Commander at Vlakplaas at one stage. By the way what were the major problems that he left his position, or what were his problems with Vlakplaas people?

MR NORTJE: Well, I did not know him but what I heard was that he had problems with the senior officials, that he got involved in diamond smuggling but at one stage he was just removed from Vlakplaas, but that was long before I got there.

MR SIBANYONI: I also heard you saying you saw Simon Radebe shaking.


MR SIBANYONI: After he was asked about the handwriting.

MR NORTJE: Yes, after we provided them with the handwriting samples, he became very nervous. Maybe he was nervous because of something else, but the conclusion I made was that we trusted each other and I believed that the indication that he gave me was that he had something to do with that writing on the parcel. Maybe he was involved in something else that he was nervous about, I cannot say, but the fact that he was involved in the sending of the parcel, maybe he was scared about that.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it not a very cold day?


MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Just one small aspect on this question of Mr Flores. You said that you met with Simpson and Flores at Flores' house one evening.


MR LAX: And I didn't catch the full extent of your evidence in relation to that incident and I just wanted to re-canvass it with you please. What exactly did you pick up from Simpson on that night in relation to their discussion? What was his task?

MR NORTJE: You must just remember that we knew he was an MI6 agent. Mr de Kock handled him with care, he also did not trust him so he wouldn't have told him directly what we wanted, but after the discussion and after we left, there was talk about the fact that he had contacts with this group in Ireland who did this type of work and that is the assassination of a person, so that was still the beginning of the process, so far as I can remember, they just talked about it.

MR LAX: Let me just stop you there. Who spoke about this? Did Mr de Kock speak about this?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock talked about it. Flores was present, Simpson was present and myself but it was never said directly and this is my recollection, it was never said that we are going to kill Dirk, we talked about the possibility.

MR LAX: And then later at Centurion Park, when the issue came up again about Flores and his being arrested and so on, is that why you made that assumption that this is what de Kock was in fact anxious about?

MR NORTJE: Yes, because you must remember that in the meantime there was a lapse of time, a lot of things were talked about and that was my thought pattern and what I knew. This is the purpose, it was Flores' second agenda and that was Ireland.

MR LAX: Because Mr de Kock says in his evidence, that the reason Simpson was engaged was to get more information about Coetzee, not to kill him, does that seem reasonable to you, that you may have mislead yourself in the context?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we had information that the end result of that operation was the surveillance, that the end product was that somebody would go and eliminate him.

MR LAX: So you're saying that the whole purpose of the observation and the surveillance was to do a hit on him in due course?

MR NORTJE: That's how I understood it. That's the impression that Mr de Kock left with me. If he was just big talking, I don't know.

MR LAX: Well you said - if he was speaking big or so, was he the sort of person who did speak big?


MR LAX: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you've just been telling Mr Lax. You said that the four of you were together, Simpson, Flores, yourself and de Kock at Flores' house, as I understand and de Kock handled him with care, because he knew he was an MI6 agent.


CHAIRPERSON: He didn't tell him what he wanted, he never said directly that we are going to kill Dirk, but was there a general discussion about possible assassinations, or killings?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's how I remembered it, the possibilities were discussed of such a thing. As I said, I do not believe that we gave him the target directly, I cannot remember, but when we left, that was in my mind, that this is what is going to happen at a certain stage.

CHAIRPERSON: What I want to know, you say possibility, was it in general that people get killed, or was it somebody might have to take out Dirk Coetzee?

MR NORTJE: No, I think the possibilities, or we investigated the possibilities, or he investigated the possibilities, but I cannot say that Dirk or maybe Flores will be able to elaborate on this more, what he told Simpson, or the instructions that he gave Simpson to get to Dirk. I believe that it happened at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but I'm asking what you heard. Were there general discussions about the fact that somebody might take out Dirk Coetzee?

MR NORTJE: Yes, at a later stage, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: At that meeting?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot say at the meeting, but I later, in discussion this came up and I also heard that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Discussions with whom?

MR NORTJE: With Flores, Mr de Kock afterwards.



CHAIRPERSON: So with Simpson there were no discussions about killing Dirk Coetzee?

MR NORTJE: No, not at all. Not as far as I can remember, not at that specific night.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, were there other nights with ...(indistinct) and Simpson, when Simpson was there?

MR NORTJE: No, not where Simpson was present.

CHAIRPERSON: If Flores was present, you say there were general discussions, yourself, de Kock and Flores, about what could be done.


CHAIRPERSON: And was that when the money was mentioned?

MR NORTJE: I am not sure, no I think the money issue was discussed at a later stage, just before we left England, or when he heard that he had to go to England, I think it was in that time that we started with the actual process.

CHAIRPERSON: So the money question of R10 000 and R100 000 raised between you de Kock and Flores, not in Simpson's presence, Simpson never said anything about money.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination?

MR LAMEY: No re-examination, thank you Chairperson.


MR LAMEY: Sorry, there was one aspect that I just thought of that I omitted and that is:

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, just concerning the final preparation of the package, do I understand your evidence correctly that you only saw the package in Bosch's office at a stage?


MR LAMEY: Did you think it was him that wrapped it or prepared it because you saw it there,

MR NORTJE: No, well I assumed he did it, but I didn't know what the exact circumstances were. I didn't know what the next step would be because I wasn't involved in it.

MR LAX: Just one thing arising, that I had meant to pick up on earlier. That was - you said in your evidence in chief that this parcel was in a cardboard box, that was your evidence.

MR NORTJE That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: A brown cardboard box.

MR NORTJE: As far as I can remember it was the size of a cardboard box, it did not have sharp edges. As far as I can remember it had round edges but it was the size of a shoe box.

MR LAX: You see the - I hear you're probably explaining it, but you were very clear in your evidence in chief, what you saw there was a cardboard box.

MR NORTJE: Yes, let me put it this way. It was covered in brown paper but i compared it with a carton box, because it was the same size, I would say it was just wrapped in brown paper/

MR LAX: It wasn't the shape we've been given, for example, by Mr Kok. He talks about, which was in a bubble pack with two tapes on the top and then wrapped in brown paper.

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot remember that I saw that.

MR LAX; Roughly a bit bigger than palm size.

MR NORTJE: It was definitely bigger, the one I saw. It may been repacked later, I don't know.

MR LAX: So you saw something the size of an average shoe box?

MR NORTJE: Yes. That's what I can recall.

MR LAX: And that was when?

MR NORTJE: I am not sure if it was the day when the parcel arrived there, or the day after that, I cannot help you with that. As I said, I did not know when they fetched the package, I just walked on day into the office and saw the package.

MR LAX: Was it just on the table?

MR NORTJE: I may be mistaken, but I cannot remember a plastic bag.

MR LAX: Did it have any string on it at that stage?

MR NORTJE: Not as far as I can remember.

MR LAX: And no writing on it.

MR NORTJE: No, no.

MR LAX: Thanks. Sorry Chairperson, I had just forgotten that aspect.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, if I may just, through you, Mr Lax I think was under the wrong impression about the size of the parcel. That object that was palm-sized, that Mr Kok testified about was the size of the tape player.

MR LAX: Yes, fair enough, no, no you're quite correct on that.

CHAIRPERSON: But you did go on to say, as I understood it, that you had that, there was a plastic cover and on top of that were two cassettes and not anything else, no other packaging.

MR BOOYENS: It's just that the entire package wasn't as small as the palm.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that was the base and then it went up, but it was certainly very much smaller than a shoe box. Just on plain logic, it wouldn't have been much bigger either, if you think about it. Yes, but even so. There wouldn't be confusion between ... The size of a shoe box.

MR BOOYENS: ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously) shoe box. Thank you Mr Chairman.



MR LAMEY: I've got no further evidence Chairperson and that concludes the applicants that I represent.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, that concludes all the evidence of all the applicants.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, on behalf of the family, we do not intend calling any witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: So we now adjourn this matter till next Thursday for Gen van der Westhuizen and I trust you gentlemen can all make arrangements to be here. Very well, this matter is now adjourned till Thursday morning of next week at 9.30.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And what do we proceed with now?

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson that concludes the roll for today but tomorrow we'll commence with the Sweet Sambo incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Are any of you gentlemen concerned in the Sweet Sambo incident?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, from what - I've just had an opportunity to look briefly at the documents. It doesn't seem to be any much contentious about that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you appearing in it? And you are?

MS LOCKHAT: And Mr Vim Cornelius as well is appearing for one of the applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I have read the papers and I'm inclined to agree with Mr Lamey that from what I have seen in the papers, subject to anything you may have to say, there does not appear to be a great deal of conflict between the parties which is one version it appears. There may be a minor detail here or there where they differ, but otherwise they appear to agree far more than any of the others and it struck me that if you gentlemen could get together and perhaps talk to Mr Cornelius, it might be possible to very much shorten proceedings, in that matter, that it seems to be one where there is really an agreed version. I am not talking, and I want to make it quite clear if any one is appearing for the families, about what happened to the deceased at an earlier stage, there may be considerable dispute about what happened there, but we are not interested in that in the sense that the ...(end of tape 2B) ... they instruct me that if you gentlemen all got together, none of your applicants seem to differ, it might be possible to considerably shorten proceedings. Thank you.

Thank you all for your assistance in this matter. If you have any more bright ideas or if you see any walkman you want to bring along next week, do so.