DATE: 23RD JULY 2000



DAY: 7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: I am Judge Pillay, I am going to ask my colleagues and the various representatives to announce themselves for the purposes of the record.

MR MALAN: Wynand Malan.

ADV SIGODI: Adv Sigodi.

ADV STEENKAMP: André Steenkamp, thank you Chairperson.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed, Mr Steenkamp, I notice in the application, there are, there is mention made of a implicated person as well as a victim? What is the position as regards notices?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, the one person, Brig Schoon, is being represented by Mr Wagener, Mr Wagener was informed about this, he indicated to me that (indistinct), because he is an implicated party, he is not appearing for implicated parties anymore, he is aware of the application. Official notice was also sent to Mr Wagener.

Regarding the person mentioned as Mr Mndam, we have asked the Police, SA Police to find out what has happened to Mr Mndam. As far as our information goes, Mr Mndam has died during 1993/1994, although I am not placed in possession of an official death notice. The Police could not give me any further particulars regarding Mr Mndam or his family.

Regarding Mr Mashinini, the arrangement is as was done in the past, where ANC members or ANC people were involved in, the ANC office was informed and asked for further particulars on the 7th of July already, and again on the 15th of July. Sorry Mr Chairman, no further particulars could be given to us about Mr Mashinini. I can maybe just also say that according to the application, the applicant seems to be not totally sure, whether or not it actually was Mr Mashinini, but notices were then sent to the ANC office and a notice was also sent to the ANC legal representative, asking for further particulars in this matter, and no information could be supplied or was supplied to us.

In the circumstances, Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit that all the necessary steps were taken to inform or to get any further information about people involved in this application. Thank you Mr Chairman.


MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call Mr de Kock, the applicant in this matter.


CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr de Kock, you are the applicant in this matter?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the incident ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, we have heard the history of this applicant many times, I know it almost as well as he does. You can go directly to the incident.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. The incident is described from page 6 to page 9 of the written application? Can we just have the facts of the matter in brief? You decided that certain so-called askaris should be trained in the use of knives and Eastern-Bloc pistols?


MR HATTINGH: What is the reason why this decision was made?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in the discussion with Brig Schoon and other people, whom I cannot remember, the general idea was expressed to see whether we could not establish the first line of resistance in Swaziland, in other words it would not be in South Africa but in Swaziland itself, and this is one of the ideas that was raised to be tested.

MR HATTINGH: Was the idea then that knives and pistols would be used to eliminate so-called activists?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Specifically Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And was training given to certain askaris in the use of knives and pistols?

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

MR HATTINGH: Were you yourself involved?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And were there members of the South African Task Team that were asked to be of assistance?

MR DE KOCK: There was just one of the Task Team members, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And the persons who were trained in this way, were they sent to Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, they were.

CHAIRPERSON: After they had been trained?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson. They weren't given false documentation, they travelled under false names, but the documents were given by the Department, so one could say false passports.

MR HATTINGH: We have given evidence about this before.


MR HATTINGH: Because these aliases were the people in Swaziland with the idea to go and eliminate and identify certain activists?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You yourself were not present?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did go to Swaziland on occasion to liaise not only with the askaris, but also with the white members. The white members rotated, because as a white you stood out much more in Swaziland, and if you didn't have a fixed job, you were identified more quickly. Therefore I cannot really give a list of white members, I can say myself yes, but I cannot say it was specifically that and that white member.

MR HATTINGH: Did you receive feedback with regard to action against activists by these who underwent the training?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. In two cases, there were only two cases, and in both of these cases I did get feedback.

MR HATTINGH: You therefore just have hearsay knowledge about the incidents themselves?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Let's deal with the first one. The information received about a person who was stabbed with a knife?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson. This was a person who was identified by a former ANC member, the initials were W.Z. Mndam. He was a former member of the ANC and he recognised the person in Manzini in the street, as one who had been trained with him in one of the camps in Angola, and he stabbed him in a side street with a knife.

It was between four and five o'clock in the afternoon and Mr Mndam then fled and later we, it was mentioned in the police report, that a person had been stabbed and there were also hand drawn maps of the RSA side, which indicated this, but with no details. This was also found on the person, and that is according to the police statement, the Swaziland police. Yes, he was killed.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know who these people were?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot remember the names, but he was an activist, he was identified by Mndam as someone who had been trained.

MR HATTINGH: At that time, did you know who he was, you have just forgotten who he is?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot remember Chairperson, I was involved in too many incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: This person that Mndam told you that he had stabbed, did it fit in with the report in the newspaper?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it did, because the time, the day, the date, everything was in agreement.

CHAIRPERSON: I am talking about the name?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, the name Chairperson. If I am not mistaken, one of my members from C2 went to look at Mndam's identification, I am speaking under correction, but this person was on his identification list.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you satisfied that what was said, what you have said, was also in the newspaper?

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

CHAIRPERSON: And it was the same person, it wasn't a hearsay thing, but it did really seem to have happened?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it wasn't a robbery or just a murder. Well, naturally it was murder, but it wasn't a question that a robbery took place ...

CHAIRPERSON: What I just want to exclude as we had the other day, you got reports from the people who operated under you, we did not know if he told you the truth, but in this case, except for the report that was given to you, there were also identification newspaper reports?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And it did fit in with what was told to you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and I did have people in Swaziland.

MR HATTINGH: The incident, after the incident, did you report it to Brig Schoon?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I did report it.

MR HATTINGH: The askari by the name of Mndam, can you give more information about the question whether he is still alive or not?

MR DE KOCK: In 1993, when the rest of Vlakplaas was disbanded, he also received a package. He found himself in a suburb between Oudtshoorn and George, where his parents lived. At that time he was handled by Sgt Douw Willemse who was stationed at Oudtshoorn and between three and six months after he received the package, he died. He had AIDS. In 1985, he had already been identified with AIDS and he died between three and six months later.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see him shortly before his death?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I saw him at Vlakplaas when he received his package, and I received mine. If he had not spoken, I would not have recognised him. His physical appearance had really deteriorated.

MR HATTINGH: Right, that is then the one case. Then there is also a case where someone was shot. In this case, did you also receive feedback from one of the askaris, or one or more of the askaris?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, there were two askaris involved in this incident.

MR HATTINGH: Can you remember who they were?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, the one was Jeff Bosigo, he was already a very old member of Vlakplaas, in Dirk Coetzee's time, he was already at Vlakplaas, a former member of the ANC.

The other was Jimmy Mbane. He was involved in the Guguletu 7.

MR HATTINGH: When your application was compiled, did you remember the names then?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, later as I went through the names and then lists, I remember these names, otherwise I would not have mentioned it.

MR HATTINGH: I am just trying to ascertain why you did not mention their names in the written application?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I was careful in all cases, in all my applications, not to implicate people. I was implicated in incidents that I don't even remember happening, and I decided I am not going to implicate people, I'd rather wait and see that I am sure before I implicate someone.

MR HATTINGH: Are you now sure about these two people?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I am Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What is the report that you received from them?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, Mr Bosigo reported that he and Mbane both recognised Mr Mashinini at the Kentucky Fried Chicken, they recognised him in a Kentucky Fried Chicken shop in Manzini because they themselves went to buy chicken there. They waited for him to leave with his vehicle, they followed him with their own vehicle, and he drove in the direction of Namahaash Gate, in other words in a eastern direction from Manzini and at a circle, just before you leave Manzini, they fired on this MK member with Tokarev's. They rolled the vehicle and they couldn't go closer to look for documentation and to see whether he had been killed, because there were vehicles approaching.

They therefore left, they reported immediately to their handlers, we knew that Mashinini was in Swaziland, he was a known person.

MR HATTINGH: Was he a known member of the ANC?


MR HATTINGH: Was he a member of MK?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. In fact he was flown to London for treatment by the ANC, for treatment on his shoulder. It was a very serious shoulder wound, and he was treated in London. He is also of the family of Titsi Mashinini, which is more known for his active role 1976/1977.

MR HATTINGH: How do you know that he was flown out by the ANC for treatment?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, this is information that we received from ANC sources.

MR HATTINGH: In this case, were there also reports in the press?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot remember about the press, but what I can remember is that the Directorate of Covert Operations confirmed to me immediately that the man had been shot and that he had been flown out to London.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to this incident, did you also report to Brig Schoon?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I did.

MR HATTINGH: I think that is also clear from what you have said so far, but can you quickly sum up what your political objectives are with these actions?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, it was to actively act against the ANC and any member of the ANC, in order to prevent terrorism, as it was called at that time, and to prevent infiltration in the RSA and to establish a first line of resistance, an active unit or a fighting unit against the ANC.

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


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.


MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairperson, Mr de Kock is applying for amnesty for conspiracy to commit murder, the illegal possession of firearms as well as ammunition, as well as for possible transgression of laws concerning access to countries and again to the Republic.

CHAIRPERSON: That person who was stabbed to death ...

MR HATTINGH: Yes Chairperson, for that too, in case it is decided later on.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the chain in the sense that he saw that these people had been trained, he saw that they had left for Swaziland, with the aim of identifying and killing the activists, this was done. It was reported to him and it was confirmed by a newspaper report. I think he was involved in that murder.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, there is no doubt that Mr de Kock is guilty of murder, and I accept that your approach still is that you can give him amnesty for murder, even if it was committed in a foreign country. What he can do about that, is a different case, therefore we are also asking for amnesty for murder, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: My attitude and I am going to discuss it with Members of the Panel, but the preparation for that murder was done in South Africa, it was aimed at South African and I cannot think in the criminal law, if this planning had been done, and just in case a man was in London and he was killed there, I cannot think that a murderer here cannot appear before the Courts?

MR HATTINGH: Yes Chairperson. With respect to Judge Hartzenberg, I expressed doubts about the justice of the decision, with respect, is incorrect, because the law speaks about inside and outside the country, and for me this does not concern amnesty, it is whether he can be charged in this country. That is what it was about in that case.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I say with respect that I don't agree, because the Act says that as far as amnesty is concerned, it can be granted whether the murder was committed inside or outside the country as long as it was in the interest, the political interest of the people who were involved in that murder. In any event, it is our duty and we just have to comply with that duty.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. Just finally ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR HATTINGH: Yes also for the attempt to murder Mr Mashinini and Mr de Kock has just told me, although he hadn't testified about it, that he also testified before the Harms Commission and that would of course also amount to obstructing the ends of justice and perjury.

He tells me he didn't specifically talk about this incident before Justice Harmse, but they generally speaking, denied that they were involved in attacks on people outside the borders of the country, and that would include this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I would like to ask Mr de Kock something please.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, when you were testifying before the Harms Commission, was a plan made beforehand between yourselves and the Defence Force, to mislead Justice Harms and the entire Commission?


CHAIRPERSON: Was there a formal decision that this is our tactic, we are going to mislead him, and not going to tell the truth.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chair. I was very pertinently questioned by Mr McNally as to whether we did any cross-border attacks, and I denied that. Yes, that was part of our tactics, it was part of the covering up action, because we also didn't say anything about Lesotho.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I understand that. That was to protect the people in the Security Branch. Did that also involve people in Parliament, were people in Parliament aware of that decision?

MR DE KOCK: Gen Engelbrecht, he was the Chief Investigator, he knew.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I mean members of Parliament at that stage, were they aware of this?

MR DE KOCK: I didn't have any access to those people, but I will accept as it came right from the top, from the State President.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Chair, that is all, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will give our judgment at a later stage, thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Is that our roll?

ADV STEENKAMP: Unfortunately yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that for the entire week?

ADV STEENKAMP: Unfortunately yes, Mr Chairman.