DATE: 12TH JUNE 2000




DAY: 1


CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon everybody. For the record, I'm Judge Pillay, I'm going to ask both my colleagues to identify themselves for the purposes of the record and so too the various representatives.

MR MALAN: Wynand Malan, Commissioner.

ADV BOSMAN: Francis Bosman, Amnesty Committee Member.

MR HATTINGH: P A Hattingh, Mr Chairman, I appear for Mr de Kock.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair. Adv C R Jansen, on the instructions of Julian Knight Attorneys, we appear for applicant Ras.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chairperson. Francois van der Merwe, I appear on behalf of the applicant, D Baker.

MS PATEL: Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed I just want to enquire from each of the representatives if anyone is able to assist us in identifying the victim in this matter. I'll put on record everything we've done so far, and we haven't been able to properly identify the victim. Is any one of the legal representatives in a position to indicate that?

MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: Unfortunately not, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Unfortunately not.

CHAIRPERSON: In this matter the applications relate to the death of a person hitherto not identified. It seems, we are told, that the office of the Amnesty Committee in Cape Town, made certain attempts to ascertain the identity through its Investigators and no positive result came from that exercise. This morning we contacted, or we made attempts to contact the office of the Attorney-General in Gauteng, that also produced no positive results. Similarly, the office of the Special Offences Unit was contacted, thereto there has been no positive results as to the identity of the victim in this application.

I am satisfied that we have done all we can up to this stage, to ascertain the identity of that person. I am not sure if there's much more we could do and therefore I am of the view we should proceed with this application. I'm comfortable with doing that, with the proviso that the Rehabilitation and Reparations Committee is directed to this matter and in their investigation, should they be fortunate enough to make a positive identification, they can either refer it back to me in chambers for me to declare any person a victim, or they can just proceed on that basis of dealing with that victim in the normal course of their business. Other than that, I think we should proceed then with the application.

Ms Patel, are you satisfied that we have done all we can thusfar?

MS PATEL: Yes, I am, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us proceed with the applications.

MS PATEL: Chairperson, before my colleague, Adv Hattingh proceeds, if I may through you place on record that Jan Wagener who appears for - well not appears, who represents both Willem Schoon and Phillip Crause, has submitted affidavits to me. He has indicated that he will not be present at the hearing. If I may formally place these affidavits before you and give them exhibit numbers.

CHAIRPERSON: Have they been informed as implicated people?

MS PATEL: They have, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it in that capacity that they reply?

MS PATEL: Yes, that is correct. And then also, to place on record that he also represents Loots, Brig Loots, who is also an implicated person, but unfortunately he's of extreme ill health and for that reason he hasn't submitted any papers on Loots's behalf.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's Loots, Schoon, and who?

MS PATEL: Crause, Honourable Chairperson. So if we mark Schoon's affidavit, Exhibit A and Crause's B.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, is Mr de Kock going to be first, or have you people made other arrangements?

MR HATTINGH: We have agreed to go first, yes, Mr Chairman.


MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, we're quite comfortable if you go straight to the nub of the application. We are aware of the history, we have seen it before and it's included in the bundles. We're quite acquainted with the facts pertaining to the history and the background.


Mr de Kock, you're the applicant in this matter, is that correct?


MR HATTINGH: Could you please very briefly in your own words tell us about the events to which this application applies.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, during the end of '89 and it was in October 1989, I accompanied Brig Schoon along with Capt Baker, or Maj Baker as he then was, I accompanied them to a function in the Western Transvaal, and this function was held at a holiday resort near Mafikeng. The Boputhatswana Internal Intelligence Unit and the Western Transvaal Security Police gave this function for Brig Schoon.

During this function, which was a farewell function, Schoon spoke to Loots and also to Crause and they later asked me if I could not help these people and I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Who asked you?

MR DE KOCK: It was Brig Schoon.

MR HATTINGH: He was your Commanding Officer, is that correct?


MR HATTINGH: You say Crause was present, have you seen his affidavit in which he alleges that he wasn't present at the function at all?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, but he definitely was there.

Chair, I then spoke to Brig Loots, he was the spokesperson with Mr Crause. I said that Capt Baker was with me, I may be wrong, it could also have been Mr Ras. During this discussion, Brig Loots asked me that we should take a man who was in Boputhatswana and who was an ANC member ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, I'm lost. You said that Crause was present, Loots and before you said who was present you were busy saying that Schoon asked you something.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he asked if we could help these people. That is a reference to Brig Loots and Mr Crause.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you tell us what Mr Crause's rank was?

INTERPRETER: The speaker is very indistinct.

MR DE KOCK: At that stage he had been seconded ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Sorry, Mr de Kock, the interpreter - she needs you to speak up.

ADV BOSMAN: I think my microphone may be causing problems here, I can't get it off.



MR HATTINGH: Brig Schoon asked you to help these people, referring to Crause and Loots, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: We haven't heard what rank Loots was.

MR DE KOCK: It was Brig Loots and it was Maj Crause.

At that stage Brig Schoon had already spoken to them, at the stage that he made this request to me and I and, well I thought it was Mr Baker, but I may be wrong, it could also have been Mr Ras, we spoke to them and I spoke to Brig Loots, he was the spokesperson. Brig Loots's request was that we should help them, that is Boputhatswana and the Western Transvaal Units, to get rid of this man. The man was creating a problem and had also already created a problem in that past. When I asked who this person was, they said that it was an ANC member and that they couldn't release this person again.

MR HATTINGH: Did they say why?

MR DE KOCK: I didn't go into the matter in any detail, but he said that this person had already created problems in the past for the Boputhatswana Intelligence Service and also started creating a problem for Western Transvaal and that this person possessed security and intelligence knowledge and information and that the person was a problem for them in that respect. In other words, he was a risk, he was a threat.

MR HATTINGH: Were you told whether this person was an askari, a so-called askari?

MR DE KOCK: No, I was only told that he was an ANC member and they that couldn't release him.

MR HATTINGH: Please continue.

MR DE KOCK: I told Brig Loots that I would help and we in fact later - at Vlakplaas I spoke to Baker and Ras and as far as I can recollect Baker and Ras left for Boputhatswana where they went to collect this person and whereafter he was killed and it was reported back to me. I don't know whether it was only Baker or Baker and Ras who reported back to me, but a report was made back to me.

I never knew this person's name, I don't know who he was, and I was satisfied that he was an ANC member. This was a personal and direct approach for termination of a person's life and we complied with that request.

MR HATTINGH: In the supplementary affidavit, which you've testified on on several occasions, page 29 which relates to Vlakplaas, you refer to the fact that Vlakplaas was often utilised in support of operations of other units and also to conceal the criminal activities by other members of the Security Police, is that correct?


MR HATTINGH: How did you feel about the fact that you were once again requested to act on behalf of another unit or section of the Security Police, and to make arrangements for somebody to be killed?

MR DE KOCK: I felt not very happy about this and I took the matter up with Brig Schoon on the journey back, because at that stage the revelation had already been made, as far as I can recall, revelations had been made by Dirk Coetzee and Almond Nofomela and it was in the press, especially in the Vryeweekblad, and Brig Schoon was busy actually leaving the Force and the McNally and Harms Commissions were busy picking up steam and we were busy planning our next murder, so it made me question this.

MR HATTINGH: What was his reaction as far as you can recall?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, his reaction was well let us discuss the matter later.

MR HATTINGH: Did he discuss it with you at a later stage?

MR DE KOCK: No. I did report back to him later that we had killed the person.

MR HATTINGH: Did you say it in so many words?

MR DE KOCK: No. We always used euphemisms such as "a man has said goodbye" or "we won't see him again" or "he doesn't exist anymore". The implication being that the man was killed. If I can give you an example, "the problem which had been discussed at the farewell party or in Mafikeng, had been solved." Something like that, that's how we would have referred to it.

MR HATTINGH: And he would then have understood what you meant?


MR HATTINGH: You already said that you didn't know this person at all, so you had no personal feelings towards this person.


MR HATTINGH: Did you receive any benefit from this operation?


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


MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair. I have no questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I only have a couple of aspects, and in all justification to Mr de Kock, I just want to put it to him.

Mr de Kock you say your memory fails you. Mr Baker said that he only arrived on the scene after he was given at Vlakplaas to assist Lieut Ras with this operation and that he did not take part in the discussion which you had with Loots and Crause and Schoon during the farewell function. Can you confirm that or not?

MR DE KOCK: That is possible.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chair, no further questions.


MR MALAN: May I just find out, are you certain that Baker was at the farewell function?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I'm very certain. I also mentioned this to my legal representative, as I can remember that I was a passenger sitting in the back of the car and Mr Baker was the driver.

MR MALAN: And who else was in the car?

MR DE KOCK: Brig Schoon was the other passenger who sat in front. The reason why I can remember this today is that I had read up about the history of the part where we were driving, Steelpoort, and it was an area where the old boers placed ambushes for the English, for the British troops.

MR MALAN: Was Ras at the farewell function?


MR MALAN: Was he also in the car with you?

MR DE KOCK: No. Mr Ras, as far as I can remember - well 10 kilometres outside Mafikeng you have grain silos at the side of the road and there's a turn-off, I don't know whether it leads to Lichtenburg or Koster, and he was supposed to meet us there because we didn't know where the place was, the place where the function was to be held.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

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

Mr de Kock, you have had sight of Brig Schoon's affidavit to us, I would imagine. You will note that he denies that his

instruction to you was that the deceased should in fact be killed. His understanding of the instruction to you was in fact that the deceased should be taken back to Vlakplaas and perhaps - I'm not sure whether he used the word disciplined, but in fact that he should be held at Vlakplaas and maybe he could be brought under control there. What is your comment on that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I'd just like to mention that the Boputhatswana Internal Intelligence Unit also had their own askari unit, just like we did, and this person could have gone to work there. And secondly, if I look at this statement I see that Brig Schoon says that he was at the point of missing the path, deviating from the path. So I don't know, I would definitely have told you if I made the decision, just out of my own to kill a person. I've never previously had any problems to take responsibility for my actions and in this case I wouldn't place the blame on anybody else. Brig Schoon either can't remember it, or he's concealing the truth.

MS PATEL: Okay. And you state that the decision or the request came from, is it Loots specifically?

MR DE KOCK: Loots was the senior person, as far as I can remember he was a Brigadier at the time and he was the Commanding Officer of the whole Western Transvaal Security Police.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, all three the other people did not apply for amnesty for whatever reason, in this particular case and I just want to clarify your position. When you were told that this man was a risk, a security risk, did you believe that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I did, I had no doubt.

CHAIRPERSON: You were told that he was a member of the ANC.


CHAIRPERSON: And that he had on a previous occasion or occasions caused problems.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you believed that.


CHAIRPERSON: It sounds to me as if, in this case, a case of you acting on that information and those orders.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I didn't know the person at all.

CHAIRPERSON: You were not part of the decision making process to kill him, you were just asked to carry it out.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct. The decision had already been taken when I was approached.

CHAIRPERSON: So, how could I put this, you were used, you were utilised to carry out this plan.

MR DE KOCK: Yes. We were carrying out an idea, an idea which was already in existence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the decision had already been taken.

MR DE KOCK: Yes. The question wasn't "Do you have the capacity to kill them man?"

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand that. You see, the question that arises in my mind at the moment is the following; was there or was there not a political reason or motive to kill him? Perhaps there wasn't, but you were put under that impression.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I definitely had that impression. This morning I sat and I wondered during our consultation, nobody can trace this person, nobody can say who this person was. I don't even know whether he was a South African.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's right, that's what worries me as well. The man was in custody.


CHAIRPERSON: And now suddenly nobody knows anything about this man, who he was.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, this morning I tried to remember, because somewhere somebody should have been able to say, either from the organisations, APLA, or whatever, would have been able to say who this man was, and I started wondering whether he perhaps wasn't a Zambian citizen or an agent.

CHAIRPERSON: Or an ordinary South African.


CHAIRPERSON: With whom perhaps some of those people had had some problem.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he obviously had to have been in possession of some kind of information which posed a risk or a threat to them.

CHAIRPERSON: And not necessarily a political threat.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we will have to actually investigate the probability. I had no doubt that ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not hear the speaker.

CHAIRPERSON: Please repeat, the interpreter did not hear you.

MR DE KOCK: I have no doubt or had no doubt that we were acting in a political set up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I understand that as far as you are concerned, but we agreed that it's very strange that nobody knows who this person was, whereas he had already been in custody. Surely there must have been some record of this man, especially if he had been a political activist.

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, there must have been a file, there must have been a photograph, some kind of background information.


MR DE KOCK: But we didn't receive any of that information.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I accept that.

MR DE KOCK: I'm just trying to give you a complete picture.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please continue.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Is it correct that the deceased was held by the Bop Intelligence Unit at the time and not the Security Branch of the Western Transvaal section at the time?

MR DE KOCK: As far as I know he was detained by the Boputhatswana Intelligence Service.

MS PATEL: Who was in charge of the Bop Intelligence Service at the time?

MR DE KOCK: At that stage Mr Dick Knowles(?) and I think his second-in-charge was Mr Esterhuizen. I'm not entirely sure about Mr Esterhuizen, but Knowles was definitely in charge. It was Knowles who - he was actually in charge of the celebration for Mr Schoon's departure, his farewell party.

MS PATEL: And from your information at the time, do you know whether the request to assist would have come from Knowles through Loots to Schoon to you? Or do you not know?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know. I know about Schoon and then the reference or the request whether we could help these people, and then the direct request from Loots.

MS PATEL: Do you have any idea who was in direct control of the deceased at the time, at the Bop Intelligence Unit?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, we would have to ask somebody like Mr Crause, he could perhaps tell us.

MS PATEL: Okay. And all the information that you gained about the deceased, came to you from Loots, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MS PATEL: Okay. And you say that - you've conceded that Baker may not have been present at the initial discussion at the party with Schoon and Loots.

MR DE KOCK: I conceded that.

MS PATEL: That Ras may have been present during that discussion, how sure are you that Ras would have been present? Or are you assuming?

MR DE KOCK: The probability is very high, because Ras was also ultimately the person who did the shooting and that's how I link it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, please tell me, I don't know if you can perhaps recall, you carried out this instruction or order and it was the murder of a person, in whose interests would that murder have been?

MR DE KOCK: It would have been in the interests of the Boputhatswana Intelligence Unit or their Security Police, and also the Western Transvaal Security Police, because Western Transvaal had a problem in that a part of Boputhatswana fell between Western Transvaal border the Boputhatswana and Western Transvaal therefore worked in that area quite a lot, to give support because the security services were somewhat weaker, so we bolstered it.

CHAIRPERSON: So it would have been in the interests of both parties, both parties would have gained benefit from that.

CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I'm asking this question is this, your evidence thusfar has been that he was a security risk or an intelligence risk for somebody, in any event, it seems to me as if it must have been for the Boputhatswana people.


CHAIRPERSON: And that was the reason why he was killed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he had already caused some problems there for them and had already caused problems for Western Transvaal and that's why I said they couldn't release the man.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's talk about that. He had caused problems for Western Transvaal?


CHAIRPERSON: But the order which you received, namely "Kill this person because he's an intelligence risk for Boputhatswana", that was the order which you got.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now my question is, was he a security and/or intelligence risk for Western Transvaal, or don't you know?

MR DE KOCK: I believe that the fact that he had been detained in Boputhatswana and the problem existed there in Boputhatswana, he was a problem for the Boputhatswana Intelligence people. I think he was 99% a problem for them.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, I'm comparing it with one of the other cases which I have heard. If a person, or if there had been a person who had been taken from some foreign country by the South African Security Police, and he's been taken to Jeffrey's Bay and there certain things were done to him and ultimately he cooperated and he said that he would operate as an informer, and as a result of that he came into possession of certain important information which made him a threat and a risk. The plan was to send him back to Botswana or wherever, where he could then start feeding information back to the South Africans, but at the last minute the police discovered a letter which he had written to the ANC, in which he had set out what the position was and he had betrayed the police, to put it like that, they then decided that he constituted a threat and they couldn't trust him, that he was a risk and he had to be killed. Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was then killed, I think it was on the banks of the Limpopo River. Now that I can understand. Now in this case about which you're testifying it becomes of importance to find out in whose interests that person had been killed, that's why I'm asking the question, and it's of extreme importance to determine that because our finding will have to be based on that, do you understand that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. Chairperson, I just want to mention that I'd thought a lot about this matter because one wants to know why and I thought about it again this morning, was this person - these are the questions I ask myself, wasn't he perhaps a source who was involved or had been involved in something where people had been kidnapped and killed or perhaps he'd been involved in operations in which people had been killed and that he was therefore a risk, he couldn't be trusted anymore. These are just ideas, but those are things which I have thought of. There must have been a very specific reason why they couldn't release him.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Thank you, Mr de Kock. You said that it's highly probable that Ras would have been present during the discussion with Brig Schoon at the party where this discussion about the instruction to you regarding the deceased took place, so whatever information was available to you was available to Ras as well, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: It was Brig Loots.

MS PATEL: Sorry, yes, yes.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, I believe to a reasonable extent, it depends on what one's recollection of that is.

MS PATEL: No, the question is, whatever information Ras had at his disposal would have been the same information that you had.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I accept that.

MS PATEL: Okay. Well Ras states in his application to us and supplementary papers, that the deceased was in fact a PAC member, whereas you state that he was an ANC member. Would you like to comment on that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is my recollection of the matter ...(intervention)

MR JANSEN: Mr Chair, with respect, that's slightly misleading and an unfair question, Ras specifically states that he was not sure, he says it was an ANC or a PAC member, he's not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: What page is that, Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Is that Volume 1?

MR JANSEN: ...(indistinct - no microphone) page 16.

MR MALAN: Mr Jansen, it's on page 13 where you said on behalf of your client, you answered and you said in paragraph 1.2:

"He was an ex-PAC member and not an ANC, as stated in ..."

MR JANSEN: I'm sorry, Mr Chair, I stand to be corrected, yes. That is true, that appears from the further particulars.

MS PATEL: Yes, Mr Jansen, so I wish ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You're only misleading your client by attributing the statement to him and not to his counsel.

CHAIRPERSON: That happens also, Mr Jansen.

MR JANSEN: Chair, it does indeed.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr de Kock. Would you like to comment on the difference between Mr Ras's information and yours?

MR DE KOCK: Chair, I can only ascribe that to the lapse of time and the volume of incidents in which Ras and I had been involved and also the other members, that there could perhaps have been a weaving together of all these aspects. I can't take the matter any further.

MS PATEL: Alright. Then just in terms of the order of command and who was entitled to make requests of the nature that was made, would the request definitely have had to come through Dick Knowles to the Security Branch Divisional Commander through to you, or what was the procedure? If there was one.

MR DE KOCK: These situations were dealt with on a very informal basis, as I said there were many euphemisms that were used, but in this case I can only speculate whether Mr Knowles knew. Maybe he did, but we won't even know because he would never admit it. What I do know is that Schoon asked me whether we could help these people and I went to speak to Loots and then it came from Loots's side. I'm not saying it's impossible that Knowles knew, but I can't testify about that, I can only talk about Loots and Crause and Schoon.

MS PATEL: Would he have had to know about the request though, given that he was in charge of the Intelligence Service at the time, or was it according to the way you all worked? Was it possible for a request to bypass him to you?

MR DE KOCK: I think it is possible, but what I do want to say is that mr Knowles must have known who this person was, because he was the Head of the Boputhatswana Intelligence Service, so there was no way in which he couldn't have known about this person and to know about his arrest.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but the question is, do you think that he would have known about the decision? There's no doubt that he must have known about the existence of this person because it was his department who had arrested the person.

MR DE KOCK: No, I can't testify about that, I can't give you firsthand information about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe it was correct if he worked for the Department of Foreign Affairs.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, they would have had a way of putting that to us.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

The reason I ask you this, Mr de Kock, is that Brig Schoon in his affidavit to us on page 3, at paragraph 2.6, states that - well I skip the first line, but he states that he never discussed the situation with Knowles, but he accepts that you in all probability would have done so. So it just seems that he should have - Knowles should have known about the request to you, from what Schoon says in any event.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we get there, Ms Patel, I haven't seen that document, but did Schoon deny knowledge of this whole event in the first place?

MS PATEL: He hasn't really denied knowledge of the event, he denies the interpretation that is put to the instruction, Honourable Chairperson. He says he recalls the incident, but as far as he's concerned, that as far as he recollects it, the instruction was for the deceased to be brought to Vlakplaas and not to be killed. And he goes further, at 2.9 he says when de Kock then later reported to him, he denies that de Kock had said that the person was in fact killed. He says it's possible that de Kock could have said to him that "Die probleem is uit die weg uit geruim", but his understanding of that is that what was meant by that is that the askari has now been handed over to Vlakplaas, to continue working there. That is what he says.

CHAIRPERSON: I must say, you know their language and their understanding at various times confuses me.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr de Kock. Do you want me to repeat the question to you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, if you could repeat it.

MS PATEL: My question, I was questioning you about Knowles's knowledge of the request and whether he should have known, or in fact did know, and I put to you that the reason that I put that to you was that Schoon in his affidavit to us, says that he didn't speak to Knowles, but he says that you in all probability, he accepts that you in all probability, did speak to Knowles.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in that respect I got my orders directly from Brig Schoon, directly to Brig Loots and I think - well I was a junior vis à vis Mr Knowles, who was the Head of the Intelligence Service of an independent State at that stage and I couldn't have gone to him and said "Look, can I go and kill this man?" It had already been discussed, we already knew that. And I can just mention too that Mr Knowles was an ex-member of the Rhodesian Intelligence Services, so this would not have been a new kind of activity or information, this sort of work.

MS PATEL: So in terms of the planning, who would you have liaised with at the Bop Intelligence?

MR DE KOCK: I spoke to Brig Loots on the scene and Maj Crause and he was there as a seconder, in other words, as a representative from the Boputhatswana side. I didn't liaise with anybody myself on the Boputhatswana side regarding this incident. As far as I know, Mr Ras and Mr Baker liaised with Crause, to be able to get this person. I didn't liaise with anybody myself during this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you then find this person who was later killed?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Ras will have to explain that to me because I wasn't present, I was in Pretoria, here. I was busy with trying to sort out the Harms and McNally Commission and things, whereas these two people were on their way to go and commit another murder.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MS PATEL: Alright. Are you saying that the planning for the operation was then left entirely in the hands of Ras and Baker and that they would have known who to consult with at the Bop Intelligence Unit?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, as far as I know, Crause was the contact person, because he was at this party, he was present, Brig Loots and himself, when this request was made and the man was detained in Bop and Brig Loots was Head of Western Transvaal Intelligence Unit. So the situation we had was basically the cooperation of two Intelligence Services who had the same purpose.

MR MALAN: Can I just sum it up, so that we can just get the stages right.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR MALAN: Schoon said to you "Speak to Loots", you spoke to Loots.


MR MALAN: Ras was present, Crause was present.


MR MALAN: You knew that Crause was in Bop.


MR MALAN: He'd been seconded by the SAP.


MR MALAN: And when you gave Ras or Baker the order to go and carry this thing out, he then said "Liaise with Crause, because he knows exactly everything that he needs to know."

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was the only contact person we could to.

MR MALAN: Yes, and he would have pointed out or delivered this person into their hands.


MS PATEL: Thank you, Chairperson.

Just to put to you in fairness, Crause states in his affidavit to us that he denies that he was present at the discussion with yourself and Loots.

MR DE KOCK: No, there is no doubt in my mind about that fact. I know him well, he's also one of those people you can hardly miss. He's quite an imposing presence and he's very well known to me, an ex-Security man.

MS PATEL: Okay. You've also stated in your application to us that it is in fact Crause who handed the deceased over to Baker and Ras.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, I didn't see him do that and I didn't go over the matter in detail after they reported back to me, but there was nobody else with whom they could have liaised, as far as I could see. There was nobody else present at this discussion of the murder.

MS PATEL: Okay, so your information in this regard is merely an assumption.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: So that doesn't affect Mr Ras's application or information in his application to us, where he states that it is in fact a person by the name of J P Corrier(?), who handed the deceased over to them.

MR DE KOCK: I can't deny that because he was also a member of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he on the contrary, was a member of the Boputhatswana Intelligence Service and he was a former member of the French Foreign Legion and an ex-Rhodesian and he was also the person who later shot dead the President of the Seychelles.

MS PATEL: That's interesting information, Mr de Kock, because we haven't ...(intervention)

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon, he was the President of the Comores that he shot dead. I think it's Guerriere, I think it's spelt differently here, it's G-u-e-r-r-i-e-r-e, something like that.

MS PATEL: Well that possibly explains why we can't trace him.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, you will find him in a prison in France with Bob Denard. That's as a result of the shooting in the Comores. He was a Lieutenant at that stage.

MS PATEL: Alright. The discussion that you had with Schoon on the way back from the party where you expressed your reluctance, in a sense, to be involved in this kind of operation and you say that Baker was present, he was the driver the vehicle, so he would have been privy to that conversation?

MR DE KOCK: I believe so, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: And the parting words - well, the gist of the parting words from Schoon at that stage, was that the matter needed to be discussed further, is that correct?


MS PATEL: And you stated that you didn't discuss the matter further with him.

MR DE KOCK: It was never raised again, he never raised the matter with me again and I believe he would have done so if he had any conscience problems.

MS PATEL: Would there not have been an obligation on you to approach him first before you had instructed Ras and Baker to carry out the operation, just to ensure that the instruction still stands as you perceived it?

MR DE KOCK: No, I don't think so, I already received my orders. In the first place we should not have committed the murder, but upon retrospect, that's I suppose, what we should have done but it's too late today.

MS PATEL: From the discussion between yourself and Schoon at the time, was it your impression that he had still wanted to proceed with the instruction as given you, or that he wanted to think the matter over? Why delay the discussion?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know, maybe it was just a way of putting me in my place. I don't know, I don't know what his reasons could have been.

MS PATEL: Alright. There's one curious aspect about this case that you know, perhaps you can clarify for me. You state that the instruction came to you from Loots, that Crause was present and that he represented Bop Intelligence at the time, it is conceded by you that the deceased was in fact handed over by - or it's possible that the deceased was handed over by Corrier. Now Esterhuizen was Corrier's senior at the time at the Bop Intelligence, do you accept that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, and above Esterhuizen was Knowles, if I understand the chain of command properly.

MS PATEL: Now Ras in his application to us, states that some time after the murder had taken place, Esterhuizen had asked him how the deceased was, now it appears from that that Esterhuizen's understanding, or my inference from that is that Esterhuizen's understanding was that the deceased was in fact to be taken to Vlakplaas to work there, as was Schoon's impression from his affidavit. What is your comment?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, "how he was - well he was dead."

MS PATEL: Why would he have asked that question if he was such a great security risk and that he needed to be killed? Why would the second-in-command of Bop Intelligence, labour under an incorrect impression?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know whether his impression was incorrect, perhaps he just wanted to make sure that the everything was clean and quiet. We don't know, I can only speculate.

MS PATEL: But surely then he wouldn't have asked how the deceased is, it would have been couched differently, he would have asked perhaps, "Has the problem been handled", or something to that effect.

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I think we can ask those questions further of Ras.

MS PATEL: Yes, thank you Honourable Chair. Sorry, if you would just grant me a moment.

You don't have any idea what specifically the deceased was detained for, or how long he was detained?


MS PATEL: Or whether any other options were considered by those who had made the request, in terms of dealing with the problem?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe that by the time they asked us to kill him, they probably had considered all other options.

MS PATEL: And then Mr de Kock, in your further particulars to us on page 9(C), at paragraph 6(g) you said that you - oh no, sorry, I've misread your response to us, my apologies. I withdraw what would have been my question.

What was the report back to you after the incident, what specifically was said to you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, only that the man had been killed, he was dead, and that he was safely buried. I can't however remember the specific details, I can't remember what was said to me verbatim.

MS PATEL: Okay. There was some weapons that were planted at the burial site, if I may put it that way, where would Mr Ras have gotten those weapons, would it have come from you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, when I saw his statement I didn't know where it could have come from and I'm still not sure, I still don't know. I can't tell you. Perhaps he can tell us then perhaps I can take the matter further, but I don't know where those weapons came from, or the magazines and the pistol.


MR DE KOCK: I just want to mention that the .22 pistol was a pistol which was one of four pistols supplied with silencers and which had been specially purchased from a special fund for covert operations and these four pistols were later handed back to Col Koekemoer after Vlakplaas was disbanded or closed. They were all Luger .22 pistols and they were handed back.

MS PATEL: No, but this doesn't relate to the weapons that Mr Ras used.

MR DE KOCK: No, but I - yes, one of those .22s used there was the .22 bought specially to kill this person, so I just wanted to paint you a full picture.

MS PATEL: Do you have any idea whether Ras would have questioned the deceased before he was killed ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's wait for Ras to come and tell us.

MS PATEL: As part of the report-back, Honourable Chairperson, Mr de Kock can surely testify as to whether further information was then brought back to him after the murder.

MR DE KOCK: No Chairperson, it wasn't expected of us to question him and there was no report-back about any interrogation.

MS PATEL: Okay. Regarding your political motivation you stated that the intention or the motivation behind the murder of the deceased was to prevent further acts of terror, what specifically did you base that on, and which acts of terror? Was there specific information that the deceased was in fact involved in ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You've already asked him that question, Ms Patel, and you've already asked him a question and he answered it, that he had no further information.

MS PATEL: Alright, thank you.

Can I just ask you, in terms of what Baker has said to us in his application and from what Ras has said in his application, that the first time that he was informed about the operation was from Ras and not through you, but you say that he was present in the vehicle, that he was in fact the driver and so he would have been privy to the discussion between yourself and Schoon, about this operation.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I can't say whether he had all the details. I can't give you a complete report. I'd like to do that, but I can't.

MS PATEL: Sorry Honourable Chairperson, I'm just checking my notes, I'm almost through. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.



Mr de Kock, you were questioned about Brig Schoon's affidavit, in his affidavit Exhibit A, paragraph 2.5 he says:

"At one stage Loots called me to one side and told me that Knowles had a problem with one of their askaris and he was at that stage very negative and he was on the point of losing the way."

And then he continues with the request that the askari be brought to Vlakplaas, so that he could make contact with some of his former comrades and if he saw that they were cooperating nicely with the Security Branch, that could bring him to a different way of thinking and "he could then cooperate with us." What is your comment on that?

MR DE KOCK: No, no, that is entirely not the way it was.

MR HATTINGH: Did it sometimes happen that askaris from other units were transferred to Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No, Vlakplaas, on the contrary, sent people to other units.

MR HATTINGH: Now when did that happen? When that happened was there a file opened for each askari?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, the askaris who were members of the police, they had a complete police file like any ordinary policeman and then the askaris, we also opened files for them because he had a HQ source number and his payment and his medical aid and everything was done in terms of that number and there was also a behavioural code of conduct and statements.

MR HATTINGH: Based on the hypothesis that you were asked to bring this askari to Vlakplaas so that he could be re-orientated, what would your expectation be, what would have happened?

MR DE KOCK: Well that file would have accompanied him and there would have been particulars as to what he was involved in, whether there were any charges pending against him, whether it had been withdrawn, how he had been recruited, there would have been an interrogation report, not only from the Security Branch, but also from Section C2 who did the identification of terrorists, and his suitcase, his clothes and all his other personal possessions.

MR HATTINGH: Did any of these items which you've just mentioned arrive at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: If you took in such an askari, who would have had to pay his salary?

MR DE KOCK: Vlakplaas would have paid it.

MR HATTINGH: And in what way would that have happened?

MR DE KOCK: It would have been a re-registration as a source, or whatever his status was. In other words, maybe it was a cancellation of either the Western Transvaal source and then he becomes a Headquarters source and then his salary would have to be paid accordingly.

MR HATTINGH: And would Brig Schoon then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Were you the Commandant of Vlakplaas at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I was the Commanding Officer.

CHAIRPERSON: So if that been the plan you would have been notified of that?


CHAIRPERSON: You would have been notified that you were to expect a newcomer and that you should make preparations for him, for the payment of his salary etcetera.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and it was more than that. If a person arrives at Vlakplaas for the first time, we would also have to make arrangements for his living quarters etcetera. He can't just walk in, we'd have to organise a residence for him and we would have to see where and how we could utilise the man, and that we could have done around the fire, we wouldn't have gone to one side to discuss that.

CHAIRPERSON: And there was no request for any of these things?

MR DE KOCK: No, because I would have had to, for instance, say whether I was going to appoint him on the same salary scale or not, or whatever the case may be.

MR MALAN: If you fetched such an askari to Vlakplaas, wouldn't he just have been brought, would you have sent out Ras and Baker, two senior men, to go and fetch him?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, and that's what so interesting, 99% of the askaris who came to us were brought by the local Security Police from wherever they'd been before, either after they'd testified or after being recruited they were brought to us and from there onwards we made arrangements.

MR MALAN: And then, were they brought to you before you agreed to take them or were they just dropped off at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: No, we would first receive a fax sent by the regional Headquarters of that particular area where the person came from, in which there would be mention of his photograph album number, his file number, his name, his MK name, and that would go to Brig Schoon, who would approve it and then it would come to me.

MR MALAN: Did you have any say in whether you would accept these askaris or not, or did you simply have to take them?

MR DE KOCK: No, I wasn't compelled to accept them.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chair.

And then lastly on this aspect, Mr de Kock, would Brig Schoon as overall Commander-in-Chief of C1 or C10, would he have been able to determine that there was such a new member or not amongst the askaris? Would he have been able to determine that such an askari was or was not there?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because I would have, in respect of his Headquarters approval, his HQ approval with the description of his salary and his medical condition and all that kind of information, I would have had to give that to him and each askari that arrived in Vlakplaas, we followed a standard procedure of a payment of I think R1 000 or R2 000, so that they could buy clothes, toiletries, a sleeping bag etcetera, so we could accommodate the person immediately.

MR HATTINGH: Then just another aspect from Brig Schoon's affidavit, on page 4 of his affidavit, paragraph 3.2 he says the following:

"During 1997 I became aware of the allegations as contained in de Kock's amnesty application and the fact that he was directly implicating me in the commission of a murder. If I am guilty of the commission of a delict or an offence, I could easily have applied for amnesty since the final cut-off date for the lodging of applications had not yet arrived at that stage."

Now last week you said before two of the same members of this Commission, you testified that your application for amnesty was lodged at the final moment of the cut-off date, correct, and by that you implied that your application was lodged about half an hour before the cut-off date finally elapsed, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: I think it was about five minutes before the cut-off time.

MR HATTINGH: So Brig Schoon would in other words, would not have had knowledge of your application for amnesty before the cut-off date had elapsed?

MR DE KOCK: That's quite correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you during your criminal trial regarding this incident, did you testify in mitigation?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position, is there a criminal case pending about this matter?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You were never charged in respect of this incident.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And nobody, according to your knowledge, was prosecuted in terms of this incident.

MR DE KOCK: That's quite correct.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Hattingh, when you say that half an hour or five minutes before the cut-off time, was that with the last extension?

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, I don't know what the date was, the date for the lodging of the applications, the very last date, perhaps Mr de Kock can inform us. I don't know whether it was the original date or the extended date.

MR MALAN: Yes, we can look at it ...

MR DE KOCK: It was the very last day of the extended cut-off date.

MR MALAN: There were three last dates which were extended.

MR DE KOCK: It was the very last one.

MR MALAN: Are you sure of that?


MR HATTINGH: As one of the reasons for that you said that you didn't want other applicants to know what was in your applications, so that which Schoon is alleging you wanted to prevent, you didn't want other applicants to know what exactly you were applying for so that they could then taylor their amnesty applications accordingly.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.


MS PATEL: Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, I think, I speak under correction, but I think that Mr de Kock's application came in at the end of the first cut-off date. It's not part of the papers and I unfortunately haven't brought his entire application, it's quite voluminous, but I can call the office to double check if you want me to.

MR MALAN: Why I'm asking this, Chair, is that the amnesty number of Mr de Kock is a '96 amnesty number, so that could not have been the last cut-off date. Maybe he put in additional applications, but that was certainly not the final cut-off date.

MR HATTINGH: Your comment Mr de Kock, please.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I know I made the cut-off day with five minutes to spare or something like that. I can't dispute that, but that is my recollection.

MR HATTINGH: However, Mr de Kock, what was your understanding of the modus operandi of the Amnesty Committee, did you think that the applicants who were applying for amnesty, that their applications would be made available freely so that other applicants could have a look at these applications before the matters were being heard?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, because in that case I could also just sit and wait for the other people's applications and react to their applications, but as far as I know there was a whole confidential aspect in respect of these applications and I did not want to reveal the information to anybody other than my legal representative and the Commission itself.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And then as regards the conversation in the car going back, was the entire operation discussed or did you just ask Brig Schoon why did you have to do other people's dirty work, or what was the discussion?

MR DE KOCK: It was just that aspect, the aspect of doing other people's dirty work.

MR HATTINGH: In your application itself, on page 4 of Volume 1, you say in the second paragraph:

"After this communication I spoke to Brig Schoon and told him that the problem which we had discussed that evening during the function had been solved, sorted out. I understand from Brig Loots that this person had been an ANC member and he had created a big problem, not only for Western Transvaal Security Police, but also for the Boputhatswana Security Police."

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was it your understanding that the Western Transvaal Security Police also had a problem with the person?


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


MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, if you turn to page 3 of your application, in the middle of the page there's a paragraph which reads ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The interpreter can't hear the speaker.


"Capt Baker and I then spoke to Col Loots and Maj Crause and they told me and Capt Baker that they had a person in the cells at Mmabatho, Mafikeng, whom they couldn't release."

Is Mafikeng not in the former South African territory?

MR DE KOCK: Mafikeng is about 10 kilometres, perhaps less from Mmabatho, it's actually one unit so we usually refer to it like that. You could refer to either, they were actually one and the same place.

ADV BOSMAN: What I then want to know is this, were they detained on the South African side, or rather, not they, this person?

MR DE KOCK: The deceased was held on the Boputhatswana side as far as I know.

ADV BOSMAN: Now if you say that "they said" that "they" had a person in the cells?

MR DE KOCK: That is Loots and Crause, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: But I understood that Loots was attached to Western Transvaal.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, but he was the speaker at this function or party and this request came from him. Maj Crause was with him, but as the representative of the Boputhatswana Intelligence Service, he's been seconded from Western Transvaal Security Police and he was stationed for those purposes, in Boputhatswana, Mafikeng.

ADV BOSMAN: Let me make it very simple. Are you saying that both Western Transvaal and Boputhatswana Security Branches had asked you to get rid of this man?


ADV BOSMAN: Then the issue as to the choice of Capt Baker.

MR DE KOCK: It is my recollection and I concede that I may have made a mistake, I linked it to the fact that ultimately it was Mr Ras who did the shooting, so I am accepting that ...(intervention)

ADV BOSMAN: No, I'm talking about the choice of Capt Baker, that it was Baker and Ras who had to go and collect this person.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, Mr Ras worked in the Western Transvaal area because that's where he originally came from, and Baker was second-in-charge at Vlakplaas and Western Transvaal was one of his areas of speciality or one of his working areas. I usually sent him to those areas. I took him to the Cape, Swaziland and also up to the Mozambican border. So that was his area to which he'd been seconded. And both these people were at the party, so we tried to keep it as small as possible, to try and keep it a close little circle so that not too many people knew about it.

ADV BOSMAN: So was it mainly because of the fact that they had attended the party that you chose them?

MR DE KOCK: Amongst other reasons, yes, and also because it was compact. Apart from the three of us and Brig Schoon, then there could be no security leakage. I didn't have to bring in a foreign person who wasn't at the party, both of these people were totally able to do this kind of work.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, I just want to finish my question, I want to make it broader. So as far as Baker and Ras are concerned, you asked them because they were present at the party?


ADV BOSMAN: Not because they were Western Transvaal Security Police.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can actually link up those two reasons because Ras and Baker were close friends with Crause and also with Crause and Knowles. They were all friends and they were well known to each other, so we weren't bringing in a new element.

MR MALAN: If I understand it you said that Ras and Baker were at the farewell party because they worked in that area, they were the two Vlakplaas men working in that area.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So it suited you that they would be there at the function.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You asked them because they were at the party and because they knew about it, but you would have asked them anyway because they were Western Transvaal people.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: That was the interface.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I wouldn't have asked a foreign person, somebody from the outside.

MR MALAN: And who was not familiar with the area.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Just one more question. Can you recall what the discussion was between yourself and Col Loots?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as I set it out here, that's how I recollect it, whether we could help them with this person, to eliminate him, get rid of him.

ADV BOSMAN: You see, my problem is this, it's not clear to me whether you saw the problem as a problem for Boputhatswana Intelligence or not, in other words whether Loots asked you to help the Boputhatswana Intelligence people.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was a problem to both parties.

ADV BOSMAN: Is that how Loots put it to you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. As I said, he had already caused problems for Boputhatswana and would cause problems for Western Transvaal, so neither of these two units or parties had any doubt about this person and the risk that he posed.

ADV BOSMAN: Is that not just your inference which you made relating to Western Transvaal?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, no, that's also why they were both there together, because Loots could have discussed it with me alone.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you're excused.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you.




MARTINUS D RAS: (sworn states)


Mr Ras, your application about this incident starts on page 10 and further supplemented by further particulars, which is contained in the last bundle, page 12, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: In the run-up to this application you re-read your application and your further particulars, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Do you confirm the contents of these documents?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR JANSEN: As with your other applications you also request the Commission to also incorporate the evidence relating to Vlakplaas in general and relating to all the de Kock clusters, that that be incorporated into your application.

MR RAS: Correct.

MR JANSEN: You've also listened to the evidence of Mr de Kock, relating to this incident and you are aware of certain differences relating to what exactly was said at the initial function for Brig Schoon's farewell and who exactly and at what stage the order was given thereafter.

MR RAS: Correct.

MR JANSEN: Just before we get to that, at that stage you were a Warrant Officer, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Mr Baker at that stage was a Captain.

MR RAS: Yes.

MR JANSEN: And he was second-in-command of Vlakplaas at that stage.

MR RAS: Yes.

MR JANSEN: So that which was said to you, wherever it was said, you regarded that as orders which you had to carry out in the interests of the security of the country.

MR RAS: Correct.

MR JANSEN: You received no other benefit or remuneration for this, apart from the normal.

MR RAS: No, I received no remuneration for this.

MR JANSEN: Then as far as the differences are concerned, let us start with this farewell party or function at Boputhatswana. Please tell the Committee to what extent - when your application was drafted, were you assisted by other applicants or other people who had knowledge of the incident?

MR RAS: No, I was the first person to make this statement.

MR JANSEN: As far as the later course of events is concerned, is your application as it is before the Committee, is that your best recollection of the events?

MR RAS: No, at a later stage, after I had spoken to Mr Baker, I remembered that it was a PAC member which we killed.

MR JANSEN: So after you'd had the benefit of speaking to Mr Baker and refreshing your memory, your recollection in that respect was also incorporated in your answer to the request for further particulars, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Is that not a misleading question you're putting to him?

MR JANSEN: Yes, I realise I'm in the dog box about this, I'll try my best. Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: That's the best decision. Mr Hattingh.


Mr Ras, if I understand your evidence correctly you are not really disputing any of the substantial facts reflected in Mr de Kock's statement, is that correct?

MR RAS: That's correct, in the respect that to the best of my recollection I was never part of, or present where Brig Loots had a discussion with him. What was the case was that Brig Schoon and Mr de Kock came to me and mentioned to me that a person was to be transferred to us and that they would discuss the matter later. What happened later that evening I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: Can I just get a bit of background from you, you did not testify against Mr de Kock in his criminal case as is distinct from many other previous members or ex-members of Vlakplaas.

MR RAS: Correct.

MR HATTINGH: But whilst his trial was under way, his criminal trial, you were also arraigned on charges of murder and that was in Port Elizabeth, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the case against you there was finalised as far as the evidence was concerned, except for argument the case was virtually finalised.

MR RAS: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: The State had closed its case, your case had been closed and argument was all that was left.

MR RAS: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then Mr de Kock was approached by, I think it was the Attorney-General, Mr Les Roberts, who prosecuted in your case, correct?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock was then persuaded to testify against you and your co-accused.

MR RAS: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it is therefore understandable that you were very bitter about the fact that he did that.

MR RAS: Yes, that was the reason why we were convicted.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and all the expectations were that you would be acquitted, that you would be found not guilty if it hadn't been for Mr de Kock's evidence.

MR RAS: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Am I correct in saying that, and once again I say I have full understanding for that, I say that you were very bitter towards him.

MR RAS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Am I correct in saying the following, if I look at the documents before us, that there's a statement included and which forms part of the criminal docket in the case of Mr de Kock, is that correct? It's a statement which you made in the case against him.

MR RAS: No, I didn't make a statement in the case against him. Afterwards I went to the special investigating team and said I would make a full disclosure but in his case I didn't testify.

MR HATTINGH: No, I beg your pardon, my mistake, I didn't formulate it properly, let me rephrase that. After the finalisation of your criminal case you went to the investigating team in his case and you made a statement.

MR RAS: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in that statement you gave your version of the events upon which this application relates.

MR RAS: Yes. At that stage when our other case was under way it wasn't possible for me to testify before the Truth Commission because the Truth Commission wasn't yet in place. We were convicted in the criminal case and I thought the opportunity was given to us to make a full disclosure, to make it before the Truth Commission and that's what I did at that stage. I was one of the first people who made a statement before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

MR HATTINGH: The point I'm trying to make Mr Ras, is the statement which you made to that investigating team, you made - well it was signed and attested to on the 10th of September 1996, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes, it was two months after my conviction.

MR HATTINGH: And your application for amnesty, when was that handed in?

MR RAS: It was directly afterwards.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying it was the same day?

MR RAS: It was all one ongoing process, a continuous process. There's a date here my legal representative shows me, it's 7.11.98. That is the date on which everything was typed, before that date I had already made handwritten statements and handed that in to the Truth Commission and then that was typed later.

MR HATTINGH: What is the date of the handwritten statement?

MR RAS: There's no date there.

MR HATTINGH: In that handwritten document which you have in front of you, you also refer to all the other matters for which you requested amnesty.

MR RAS: In what I have in front of me, yes, most of them but not all of them.

MR HATTINGH: You heard Mr de Kock testifying that as far as he was concerned it wasn't an askari who had to be brought to Vlakplaas for re-orientating purposes as Brig Schoon put it.

MR RAS: I never saw that it was a person to be transferred to Vlakplaas and I never got the impression that a person would come to Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Before that discussion at Vlakplaas, had you had that impression?

MR RAS: No, I'd no idea at that stage, all I was told was that a person would be given to me and that we would discuss the matter later. The first such occasion when we discussed it was when de Kock told me that a person would be handed over to me, I had to kill him, I had to make a plan with him. It wasn't strange to me because I had been present at discussions where Schoon and de Kock were present and as a result of the discussion which they had, I thought the matter had been cleared with them.

MR HATTINGH: What was the content of the discussion where you were present?

MR RAS: In the first discussion where I was present, what was said was - well, it was at this function, we were having a - it was a social affair and Brig Schoon and Mr de Kock called me to one side and said that a person would be handed over to me and that we would talk about the matter later. We didn't go into the matter at that stage any further, we didn't discuss the matter any further, it was after all a party.

MR HATTINGH: Did you form any impression of the purpose for which this person would be handed to you?

MR RAS: Not initially, no. I didn't ask any questions, it was a party. I worked in the Western Transvaal, Baker and I worked in the Western Transvaal area, at that stage I was in Boputhatswana and Mr Knowles was the Commanding Officer of the Intelligence Unit with Esterhuizen and J P Corrier who also worked there.

MR HATTINGH: There's just one question which I forgot to ask you, in your written statement which you handed in, did you refer to the incident of Moses Ntehlang, to whom you referred to as "die geeletjie", the person who had been killed in the canteen at Vlakplaas.

MR RAS: Chairperson, I think so and I can go and look it up just to verify that.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that was one of the charges against Mr de Kock.

MR RAS: That's correct, and I'm quite prepared to hand it in so that we can have a look at it. It wasn't as if I had any kind of feeling against Mr de Kock and I wasn't exaggerating in my evidence against him. I simply told the truth as far as possible, I just told everything that I could remember and I gave it to the Truth Commission.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Ras, you were involved in numerous operations as a member of Vlakplaas.

MR RAS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: These operations were sometimes legal and lawful and sometimes not lawful, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And these events took place a long time ago, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes, from '85 onwards.

MR HATTINGH: And it is a fact that a person's memory is fallible and it's possible that certain things which were done or said have not been recollected properly.

MR RAS: That's quite possible.

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


MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, no questions thank you.



You stated after you had a discussion with Mr Baker, that your memory was then refreshed and you were certain then that it was an ex-PAC member who was in fact killed, now what about the discussion led you then to reconsider your position on whether he was an ANC or a PAC person?

MR RAS: Because I hadn't been sure as from day one, whether it was ANC or PAC, I had doubt about it. When he said it was a PAC man, then it occurred to me yes, it's possible and I believed that was the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, are we in a agreement that the deceased was either an ANC person or a PAC person?

MS PATEL: I have no evidence before me to make such a concession, Honourable Chairperson. You know, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Then aren't we stuck with that they say?

MS PATEL: Except that Mr de Kock says it was an ANC as far as he recollects, so maybe in the discussion between Mr Ras and Mr Baker there was more information ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: At the end of the day this Committee, if necessary, is going to have to find that that deceased was either an ANC member or a PAC member. Whatever we find, does it matter then that the one disagrees from the other on that score?

MS PATEL: The only difference it makes, Honourable Chairperson, and I will concede that it's not really a material difference, but it's a question of what information was available to the parties present here at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that and maybe hone in on that then, rather than trying to jog a person's memory as to whether the person was a PAC or an ANC member, when in fact at the end of the day we can find that he belonged to a political party, just strengthens the political aspect.

MS PATEL: Certainly, Honourable Chairperson.

MR RAS: Chairperson, I'd just like to add something. If we can really find out whether the person was PAC or ANC, well I don't know whether we ever looked at whether a person was an askari at that stage and at Boputhatswana Intelligence Unit, and that people who could still be alive today could perhaps be approached and asked whether a member of theirs had been detained as an askari.

MS PATEL: Well unfortunately like I say, or like the Honourable Chairperson has stated at the commencement of the hearing, that we've tried to ascertain and we haven't been successful, so we're stuck with what we've got, unfortunately, Mr Ras.

You stated in your application - the information that you had about the deceased, as you've stated in your application on page 17, where did you get that information from?

MR RAS: That is what Mr de Kock gave to me on the farm before I went there, he said the person would be handed over to me, he wasn't going to come to the farm and the person had to be killed. It was he who had told me that the information at their disposal was that the person had turned against Boputhatswana. And I want to add that at that stage we cooperated with the Boputhatswana Intelligence directly, we worked with the people outside and we tried to identify jointly with them people who infiltrated the country, we were jointly involved in arrests in which they then took over the people and sometimes these people were later transferred to the RSA.

MS PATEL: Okay. You state specifically in paragraph 2 that de Kock had told you that the deceased had information with regard to safe houses and you also had specific information on certain members of the Bop Intelligence Service.

MR RAS: Chairperson, that's how I recollect it. The way I remember the person was an askari, he worked for Bop Intelligence, that he had done something and he'd been detained and then it was logical for me, that which de Kock told me, namely that the person had certain information and that he'd fed information back. I thought at that stage PAC/ANC.

MS PATEL: Did you have a discussion with Crause at the party regarding what Mr de Kock had told you?

MR RAS: I can't recall who was there, but I know Loots was there, Nick Knowles, JP. I can't specifically recall Mr Crause ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Ras, please listen to the question. The question is whether you had a discussion with Crause regarding this event, not whether he was there.


MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

So when you planned the operation, how did you know who to speak to at the Bop Intelligence Service?

MR RAS: We spoke to Mr Esterhuizen who was second-in-command of the Boputhatswana Intelligence.

CHAIRPERSON: But that's not the question, the question is how did you know who to speak to.

MR RAS: Chairperson, I worked on a permanent basis for the Boputhatswana Intelligence and Mr de Kock on this side sent me there and I spoke to Mr Esterhuizen who through J P Corrier handed the person to us that evening.

MS PATEL: Okay. But how did you know that Mr Esterhuizen was aware of your instructions? How did you decide that he was the person that you needed to liaise with?

MR RAS: As far as I can remember, Mr de Kock told me to speak to Mr Esterhuizen. I never spoke - that's how I can remember it. I fell just directly under Mr Esterhuizen, as far as Boputhatswana is concerned. I just want to rectify something. Mr Loots and Mr Crause did not work for Boputhatswana at that stage, they were at Zeerust. Crause was at Zeerust, Loots was at Potchefstroom and Esterhuizen and Knowles were stationed at Mafikeng, Mmabatho at Head Office, at Intelligence Services. And this person was detained and they had special cells at the Intelligence Service.

MS PATEL: Is it your evidence then that Crause would not have known about what was going on at the Bop Intelligence because he was based at Zeerust, or what are you trying to say in regard to his placement at Zeerust?

MR RAS: No, all I'm trying to say is that he was working at Zeerust and they worked very closely with Esterhuizen and I can't say what he knew and what he didn't know.

MR MALAN: Mr Ras, I just want to point out something to you, Exhibit B, Mr Crause's meeting, page 2, paragraph 2.2 in which he said from the start of '89 he'd been seconded to Boputhatswana and was in Mafikeng until '83. Which meant that he wasn't in Zeerust at that stage, he was in Mafikeng.

MR RAS: I must differ, that that '89 was the stage in which the person was killed, he was killed before that and it was a stage, Ntehlang was killed just after that, because I buried both these people in the same place. At that stage he was not yet in Mafikeng, and the reason why I remember that specifically is this, after Crause had been transferred to Mafikeng we, our relationship went a bit sour because he didn't want us to work in Boputhatswana any longer. While Mr Esterhuizen was there we had a free hand to work there.

MR MALAN: When this incident take place?

MR RAS: I'm not exactly sure, but what I do know is the Ntehlang's incident took place seven or eight months after this incident. Maybe we can just see when the Ntehlang incident took place, seven or eight months before that this incident took place.

MR MALAN: You see that could perhaps create the problem that Crause can say "I wasn't at the function, the party I '89", and then perhaps that wasn't the farewell function. If you say it was the end of '88, then it couldn't have been at the same time as Schoon's retirement party at the end of '89.

MR RAS: Chairperson, what I can recall is that - well I don't know whether it was only one or two cases, perhaps other cases, or whether there was another retirement party for him somewhere else, I know this incident, the retirement party at Molopo Oog and I don't know whether it was Schoon's retirement party. I just know that eight months - I don't want to bind myself to a time, but after Ntehlang was killed - eight months before he was killed this incident took place and this person was killed. When I pointed out where he was buried I said that I buried this person first, killed him and buried him first and then the "geeletjie" was killed and we went to the same place and I buried him just a little distance away from the other body.

MR MALAN: I think we must leave the matter there, but I think that can be the reason for the confusion as to why we can't ascertain the identity, because we're working with the end of '89, with Schoon's retirement and you say it's the end of '88. That's what you say in your application, end of '88.

MR RAS: Chairperson, I haven't looked at the date again now when Ntehlang was killed, perhaps if I can just look at that, then I can specify the date.

MR MALAN: Did each branch have an end of year function just before Xmas or something like that, that Mr de Kock is perhaps confusing this retirement party or farewell party with some other function?

MR RAS: I don't know, there were quite a few functions, frequent functions, and we often got together with Bop's people, but I think this incident took at Molopo Oog, Mr de Kock was there, Brig Schoon was there. Perhaps it wasn't the retirement or farewell function, maybe it was just an ordinary party and that the retirement came later. Perhaps that is the confusion. But I'm certain that at specific function all these people were at Molopo Oog and there was only the one function at the Molopo Oog.

MR MALAN: You see, you say the people who spoke to you were Loots and Crause.

MR RAS: No, no, Chairperson, ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, I said Schoon and Loots.

MR RAS: No, Chairperson, Mr de Kock and Schoon spoke to me.

MR MALAN: Very well. Thank you, Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chair.

Just to go back, you say that you liaised - just to refresh my memory, am I correct that you say you liaised with Esterhuizen and Corrier at the Bop Intelligence Service when you were planning this operation?

MR RAS: No, I didn't say I planned it with them, we just spoke about the person who was to be handed over to us, and that I discussed with Esterhuizen and it was arranged that Corrier took him to the safe house on the farm outside Mafikeng that night.

MS PATEL: And when you had made the arrangement with Esterhuizen for Corrier to hand the deceased over to you, was there a discussion between the two of you as to what was to happen with ...

MR RAS: No, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Okay. When Mr Esterhuizen at some time after the operation - I'm sorry, let me just check my notes, was it you or Baker who had had the - no, it was you, when Mr Esterhuizen approached you and asked you how the deceased was, why would he have done that?

MR RAS: I actually got a fright because I didn't know whether he knew or whether he didn't know, whether he was testing me. I didn't know what his reason was, whether he thought the person was still alive or whether he knew the person was dead, or what the reason was for his question. I don't know, maybe he was just trying to fish out about what had happened, and I just answered "No, everything's fine" and I didn't elaborate any further.

MS PATEL: Did you take this up with Mr de Kock afterwards, as to this conversation that you had with Mr Esterhuizen? Because clearly as you say, you were shocked by his question.

MR RAS: It may have happened that I've forgotten it, I can't specifically remember that I did that.

MS PATEL: Okay. When Corrier handed the deceased over to you, did you have a discussion with him, did he know what was happening?

MR RAS: No, I can't say whether he knew the person was handcuffed. I put the person in a room and Corrier left.

MS PATEL: Okay, and was the deceased taken from that room to the point where he was eventually murdered?

MR RAS: That's correct.

MS PATEL: Okay. You stated in your application that he was shot, how many times was he shot? You don't state in your application.

MR RAS: I don't know, I'm not sure, three, four or five times. It's something which I actually want to forget. It's probably the most unpleasant moment of my life.

MS PATEL: Okay. So you would concede the post-mortem report that refers to four bullet wounds in the head and one bullet wound in the heart region?

MR RAS: It's possible.

MS PATEL: Okay. Where did you get the weapons from that you planted?

MR RAS: I always carried weapons with me.

MS PATEL: No, the weapons that you planted, the extra weapons.

MR RAS: That's correct, I always carried a Makarov pistol or handgrenades.

MS PATEL: And what would the purpose of that be generally, for you to hold onto such weapons?

MR RAS: Sometimes it was necessary to, in respect of some of the askaris who were with me, to use it as an alibi if they wanted to infiltrate a place to try and prove the identity that they were ANC or PAC members. For that purpose it was used.

MS PATEL: Alright. You state in the last paragraph on page 18 of the bundle that you didn't know who the person was and you don't know if Schoon knows who he was and you state further that many persons were handed over to you over a period, for what purpose would those persons have been handed over?

MR RAS: Some of the people who were handed over were taken to Vlakplaas to go and work there. As far as I can remember some of the people came from there. For instance, Mfalapitsa, he was caught by Boputhatswana, transferred to the RSA and he came to work on the farm.

MS PATEL: So what would the procedure have been when somebody is handed over to you to work at Vlakplaas, as apposed to what had happened in this incident?

MR RAS: Chairperson, some people were transferred and then at a later stage they came to work with us or with me. They were not specifically handed to me, some of them were handed over on the farm. As I now mentioned, Mfalapitsa, it's not as if the people were handed to me and I took them back to the farm or to Pretoria. As I said, Boputhatswana had their own askari unit as well.

MS PATEL: Regarding informing Mr Baker about what was to be done on the operation, you did the planning and on the way to Bop you told him what was to be done in respect of the deceased, is that correct?

MR RAS: That's correct, that's how I remember it.

MS PATEL: Okay. And your impression at the time, was that the first time that Mr Baker had become aware of what was to be done, or did he have prior knowledge of -did he expect what was to happen?

MR RAS: If I remember correctly I had already explained and then he just continued. I don't know whether he knew anything about it or not. I didn't think he knew, that's why I told him what we were about to do, but it didn't seem that it was a surprise to him or something like that.

MS PATEL: Did you have any discussions with the deceased?

MR RAS: The minimum. It was difficult for me to go and kill him and I knew that the more I spoke to a person the more difficult it would become, so I tried not to talk to him.

MS PATEL: Okay. Honourable Chairperson, if you would just grant me a moment.

MR MALAN: Whilst Ms Patel is looking at her notes, if you thought that the person was going to come and work at Vlakplaas, just suppose that you were going to come and fetch him to go and work at Vlakplaas, would you have been surprised to find him in handcuffs?

MR RAS: No, he would not then have been in handcuffs.

MR MALAN: If it was just a transfer of an askari who was perhaps, you know, who had lost the way a bit, that re-orientation was to take place, would he have been handcuffed?

MR RAS: No, a person who was about to come and work for you has already declared his cooperation. And the person was handcuffed that night and I never was of the opinion that he was to come and work on the farm, I didn't give it any further thought.

MR MALAN: So it would have been logical that Corrier would also not have thought that he was going to be transferred to come and work on the farm.

MR RAS: I don't think so.

MR MALAN: Did Esterhuizen or any of the others see him there that night, as far as you know?

MR RAS: No, Chairperson, not as far as I know. The safe house where we stayed was quite far away from Mafikeng, it was on a farm, somebody must have booked him out. Mr Esterhuizen knew about all these people because it was - at the Intelligence Unit there were cells where these people were detained, so he must have known, he must have asked for instance "Where is this person, where has he gone?"

MR MALAN: And you said you received him at the safe house.

MR RAS: Yes, on the farm.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

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



MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, no re-examination.


ADV BOSMAN: Mr Ras, did you think at all that this person affected the interests of the Western Transvaal Security Police?

MR RAS: Yes, definitely, not only Western Transvaal, the whole country's and that's the reason why on a permanent basis, we worked in Mmabatho, Mafikeng, Boputhatswana area to try and prevent people from that area coming back to this side and committing acts of terror.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.



CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chair, we're going to use one microphone. Mr Baker.



D BAKER: (sworn states)


Mr Baker, you compiled your initial application for amnesty from page 44 of the bundle, bundle 1, up to page 50, which was the initial abbreviated version that you filed, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Then you also supplied the Truth Commission with a more comprehensive application which is contained in the bundle up to page 77, plus annexures which fill the rest of the bundle, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Do you confirm the correctness of these applications as they are before this Committee here today?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: The main part of your application can be found on pages 67 and further. To be brief I'm not going to lead you through all your evidence, you have heard the evidence here regarding the function that was held where I've already said that you were present, do you confirm that?

MR BAKER: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: At this function you went to, can you just tell the Committee who you travelled with to go there?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, I drove Brig Schoon and Col de Kock to the function.

MR VAN DER MERWE: At the function did you take part in any discussions regarding a problem askari or person in Boputhatswana? Do you have any knowledge of those discussions?

MR BAKER: No, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: When is the first time you were involved and asked to take part in any operation of this kind?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, the first time I heard mention of a problem was on the journey back, it was a discussion between Mr de Kock and Brig Schoon and Mr de Kock said words to the effect that why is it necessary for us to always have to sort out other people's problems. Brig Schoon's reply to that was simply that "It's the nature of our work, but we'll discuss it later", and the discussion did not continue on that vein.

CHAIRPERSON: At that stage you did not know that you are going to eventually participate.

MR BAKER: No, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Now at some later stage you were informed by Col de Kock that you had to join Ras on an operation, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You then received a full briefing from Ras regarding the operation that had to be carried out.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman. As far as I can remember, Ras was already in the Western Transvaal, Boputhatswana and that I went to join him there.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And you confirm then also as per your application on page 71, that you commenced with the elimination of the cadre who you had in your possession.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You never reported back to anyone in this regard, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You assumed that Ras - well, you were informed by Ras later that he completed the report-back to de Kock.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: At the time that you were involved in this operation, your political objective, you confirm that you were under the impression that you had to protect the State's intelligence gathering capacity, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And that you acted under the instructions of Col de Kock, your Commander at that stage.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Do you have anything else to add?

MR BAKER: No, Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair.



Mr Baker, is it correct that there was a very close cooperation between the Bop Intelligence Services and the Security Police of the Republic of South Africa at the time?


MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: You both considered the ANC and the PAC as your enemies.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And did the Bop Intelligence Services furnish you with information if it affected the security of the Republic of South Africa?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And you did likewise for them. You did the same for them.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Do you also confirm that when you received this person from the ...(intervention)

MR VAN DER MERWE: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, my client's struggling to hear, may we just get earpieces for him please.

MR HATTINGH: ...(inaudible) Is it also - do you confirm the version of Mr Ras that when you received this person whom you subsequently killed, that he was handcuffed?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And did that strike as strange or unusual?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, the fact that I'd already been informed by Mr Ras at that stage that he was to be eliminated, the fact that he was handcuffed went to prove that he wasn't coming for a visit.

MR HATTINGH: From whom did you receive this person?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, I've heard in evidence today, I was not sure who handed the person over, I've heard evidence that it was Mr Corrier, so I will concede ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What you're trying to say is you didn't know that person who handed him over.

MR BAKER: I couldn't remember who had handed him over to us.

MR HATTINGH: Can you perhaps assist us with the nature of the function that you attended that evening? Was it indeed a farewell party for Brig Schoon, or what is your recollection?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, my recollection of the function was that it was a normal function. Why I say that, we had - Western Transvaal gave Brig Schoon a farewell function at Nietverdiendt at a later stage and I considered the function as a, how should I say it, a cooperation-type function, people thanking each other for the cooperation they've given each other, type of thing.

MR HATTINGH: So your recollection is that the farewell party for Brig Schoon took place at a different venue, is that correct?

MR BAKER: At a different venue and at a later stage, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.



MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair. Jansen on record, I have no questions.


MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, no questions.


ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you're excused.

MR BAKER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other witnesses from the applicants' side?

MR HATTINGH: Not from our side, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: No, Chair.

MR VAN DER MERWE: No, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, any witnesses?

MS PATEL: No, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So is that the end of the evidence?

MS PATEL: It appears so.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, have you got any argument on this matter?

MS PATEL: No, Honourable Chairperson, I will leave it in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Fortunately it's not such a weighty thing to leave in my hands, so we don't need you people to argue.

I'll reserve the decision on this matter, it will be handed down in due course. Is that the roll for the week, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: It appears so, Honourable Chairperson, definitely.

CHAIRPERSON: If things weren't so bad I'd look forward to a cricket game now. Can't even do that.