DAY: 4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody, we apologise for starting late. We had yesterday indicated that we would start at nine thirty, I see it's almost ten. The reason therefore was that we had an, I'm told, administrative and logistical problems, I hope that has been sorted out. Has it been, Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: It has, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The Panel is as appears on the record. Today we'll hear the incident of the Manuscript Bomb, and we have, according to our documentation, three applicants, Mr Eugene Alexander de Kock, amnesty number 0066/96, Mr Jakob Francois Kok, amnesty number 3812/96 and Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit, amnesty number 5184/96. I would not wish to assume that it's still the legal representatives, but for clarity of our record, could the legal representatives place themselves on record.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman, my name is S W Hugo, I'm appearing on behalf of Mr E A de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Francois van der Merwe, I'm appearing on behalf of Jakob Francois Kok and Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Just for clarity, Ms Patel, I see we have implicated persons firstly, Jan Anton Niewoudt and Brig W F Schoon. What's the position?

MR SWART: They have received notices, Honourable Chairperson. And for the record may I also state that I received a letter just before we were due to commence today, from the attorney, Mr Albert Lamey on behalf of his client, Mr Bosch, I beg leave to hand it in at this point. You are already placed in possession of a copy, as has all my learned colleagues here today.

CHAIRPERSON: Should we give it a number straight away?

MS PATEL: Yes, thank you Honourable Chairperson, perhaps Exhibit A.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And before I now come to the others, would you place yourself on record.

MS PATEL: Yes, I'm sorry, I omitted to do that. It's Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I see we do have a deceased victim.

MS PATEL: We were unable to identify the victim, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Not even the death register can identify the victim?

ADV BOSMAN: The victim was not killed as far as I recall, he was injured.

CHAIRPERSON: So it wouldn't be strictly correct to say deceased.

MS PATEL: Yes, that's correct, Honourable Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Chair, it appears to be a pro-forma form and it was not - there are no details there.

CHAIRPERSON: At Nel, interested party?

MS PATEL: The notice was served, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And no indication whether he would attend or not?


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hugo, are we ready to start?

MR HUGO: Yes Mr Chairman, we are ready to start.



ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. You may be seated Mr de Kock. Mr Hugo?

EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, you are the applicant in this matter which is known as the Manuscript Bomb and your application appears in the first section of the bundle and the particulars on pages 7 and 8, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And you confirm the content of your affidavit as it appears on pages 7 and 8, as true and correct and the true version of the facts.


MR HUGO: Subject to the further details that you will provide during your oral evidence.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HUGO: And just for the sake of completion, you also request that the supplementary submission regarding your background and political convictions and motivations, as well as your supplementary affidavit regarding Vlakplaas, be regarded as incorporated with your current application.

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

MR HUGO: You have had the opportunity to re-examine your affidavit and you state that when you attempt to fix a time to this incident, you would say that it was during the late '80s, but in retrospect, would you be more specific about exactly when the incident took place?

MR DE KOCK: No, I still cannot place this incident at a specific date, I think Mr Niewoudt would be able to assist us, but I unfortunately I cannot.

MR HUGO: You have already referred to Mr Niewoudt, how did it come to be that you became involved with the incident?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, just for introductory purposes, there was a co-operative document which was undersigned by Brig Schoon and DCI, the Directorate for Covert Collections, or DCC, and their second-in-command who was Col At Nel, and in this document authorisation was extended for the Commanders of C1, and then for Commandant Niewoudt who was the senior Staff Officer, SSO1, of Military Intelligence in DCC, for us to cooperate and to have liaison on that level with one another. Naturally, with the proviso that certain actions had to be cleared first. And as a result of that co-operative agreement and based upon that, Commandant Anton Niewoudt approached me on a certain day ...(intervention)

MR HUGO: I beg your pardon, before we get to that aspect, what was DCC's task description?

MR DE KOCK: Their task description was the collection of information, not only internally but also externally, throughout Africa and Europe as well, and they also had various desks, ANC, PAC and then also the desks for the other organisations and countries, such as central Africa, East Africa, West Africa and so forth.

MR HUGO: Which organisations were they working on?

MR DE KOCK: The ANC, the PAC and then also various other organisations such as the End Conscription Campaign and so forth.

MR HUGO: And what was their objective with the information that they obtained?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, they had to react to the information and the reaction there was not that they had to perform the tasks themselves but among others, they sent it through to the CCB, to Special Forces for tasks and in certain cases they also made use of C1.

MR HUGO: To act against the liberation movements, such as the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson. For example, for the sake of information I can tell you that the information that led to the explosion of Mr Albie Sachs, came directly from DCC. They had the file with all the particulars and they sent that through to the CCB and the CCB took it from that point forward and performed the action.

MR HUGO: I have interrupted you, you were telling us that Mr Niewoudt approached you with a request, what took place then?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the request was for us to build an explosive device into a manuscript for them. They manuscript would be typed in the Republic. This manuscript was sent in hand-written form from Swaziland to a facility here in the Republic. I can no longer recall precisely, but I suspect it must have been typed at the South African Council of Churches office in Johannesburg. And after the manuscript was typed it was intercepted by Commandant Niewoudt and he brought it to me, with the request for us to prepare an explosive device for them and I said that we would be able to do so.

MR HUGO: Did Commandant Anton Niewoudt come to see you personally?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, the whole affair was on a one to one basis.

MR HUGO: Where did he come to see you?

MR DE KOCK: If I recall correctly, he telephoned me and I saw him at Vlakplaas. They had access to that facility.

MR HUGO: And was he in possession of the manuscript when he came to visit you at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he was in possession of the manuscript as well as an envelope. As far as I can recall, the envelope had not yet had an address on it, he himself would inscribe the address on it, because it would be sent to an address which was used by the ANC in Manzini in Swaziland. We just had to prepare the device for him in this manuscript and he left the entire manuscript and the envelope with me.

I read the manuscript and it was a biography of an MK member who told of how he eventually, or least, what gave rise to the fact that he left the country, the way that he suffered, his unemployment and all the other social and economic and political problems, his process of leaving the country, his journey to Swaziland and his ultimate destination being in one of the African countries where he received training, his subsequent return to Swaziland and his sentiments regarding this, and his struggle against the South African Government. It was some form of a self-descriptive document chronicling his social, economical and political struggle.

MR HUGO: Can you recall whether any reference was made in the manuscript to what he was busy with at that point?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he referred to the struggle, if I recall correctly. I cannot be more specific than that, but he spoke of his struggle against the South African Government. There my have been more details and possibly Mr Niewoudt may still have a copy of it today.

MR HUGO: Very well. That will probably come to light later, but could you just tell us now, the size of the manuscript, do you recall how big it was?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would place it between an A4 and an A6 size. That is my recollection.

MR HUGO: I beg your pardon, you will have to ignorance, is an A4 size smaller than the volume from which we are working now?

MR DE KOCK: Well A4 is the size of a folio sheet, if I'm correct, but A5 would be somewhat smaller and then A6 a fraction smaller than that.

MR HUGO: And can you recall the thickness of the manuscript?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I would say that it was the thickness of one-and-a-half Time magazines. I cannot really compare it to anything else.

MR HUGO: And the information which was embodied in the manuscript with regard to the struggle and the training and so forth, in your experience as an operational Commander of Vlakplaas, did it appear to be bona fide information coming from a person who indeed found himself among the ranks of the ANC?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would put it as such, one couldn't have written about it if one wasn't involved with it oneself. It couldn't simply be a story that someone told you and then you would embellish your own story from that.

MR HUGO: So the manuscript was left with you, with the request that an explosive device be built into it, what did you do then?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I approached Brig Schoon and I cleared it with him and then I contacted Col WAL du Toit, who had the necessary expertise or capacity due to his division, and I requested him to build such a device into the manuscript, with a specific envelope which Anton Niewoudt gave to us. I didn't want us to use any other envelope, it had to be that specific envelope.

MR HUGO: Perhaps you could tell us at this stage, in your own mind, why did you concur with the request which Mr Niewoudt put to you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was an action aimed against the ANC and then also against a member of MK who was busy with an armed struggle against the Republic, in his right, and the members of the Police and the Defence Force were on the other side combating the activities and the affects of the struggle.

MR HUGO: And when you approached Brig Schoon, what was his attitude?

MR DE KOCK: His attitude was for me to proceed with it. I just want to tell you that on the scale something like this wasn't a major situation or an operation, it wasn't very overwhelming, his attitude was simply to go ahead with it.

MR HUGO: Did you then approach Mr WAL du Toit?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I co-opted them and they executed the request upon my request and they were merely instrumental in the entire situation.

MR HUGO: Did you liaise with WAL du Toit on a personal level or did you also liaise with any of the others during this period?

MR DE KOCK: If anybody else was involved, I cannot recall it, I can only recall WAL du Toit.

MR HUGO: Can you recall what you said to WAL du Toit, which would have provided the reason or the purpose for which the device would have been applied?

MR DE KOCK: I would have informed him because he wouldn't simply have done something without knowing against whom it was aimed. So that he would be able to know whether or not one would be using such a device for private purposes.

MR HUGO: And after the device was manufactured, what happened then?

MR DE KOCK: As far as I can recall, the manuscript and the envelope were left there. I must just state that as far as I can recall the envelope had a logo on it. I cannot recall precisely what the logo was, it was either in the middle or on the left-hand side, but there was definitely a logo of an organisation or some institution.

MR HUGO: And can you recall the name of the organisation or institution?

MR DE KOCK: No, unfortunately not, but Commandant Anton Niewoudt insisted that this particular envelope only be used. My only deduction was that the person who would be receiving this envelope would have accepted this sort of envelope with that logo on it when it arrived there.

MR HUGO: And after the device was manufactured, what happened then?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall whether I myself fetched it, I believe that I would have because we restricted these matters to a one on one basis. I didn't want any inter-liaison and I believe that I returned the envelope and the manuscript to Commandant Niewoudt. If anybody had gone to fetch it, it would have been me. That is my recollection.

MR HUGO: And if you are correct in your suspicion that you yourself gave it to him, what happened afterwards?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know how he sent it off or what his actions were afterwards, what I did hear of later, through Anton Niewoudt, was that the courier who fetched the ANC post in Manzini, opened the envelope and his hand was seriously injured. His hand and his arm.

MR HUGO: I just want to ask you, from the documentation which was made available to you, was there any indication that the documents had to be sent back to Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: No, the envelope was completely clean, he would have brought the details of the address onto the envelope.

MR HUGO: Then what led you to believe that the document had to go back to Swaziland?

MR DE KOCK: Because this MK member was in Swaziland and it was his property. This manuscript was his property.

MR HUGO: And with regard to the rank structure, what was your rank at this stage, when you received the request from Commandant Niewoudt?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think I was at that stage a Major, because I estimate that it was between '86 and '89, and that was my rank during that period.

MR HUGO: And a Commandant in the Military structure, how does that compare to a Major in the South African Police?

MR DE KOCK: It's one rank higher, but as it was among the departments at that stage, a Colonel in the Defence Force could not for example, give an order to a Major in the Police and then expect it to be carried out, there wasn't that sort of overlapping, it was more a question of ethics and etiquette, that one would observe the orders of such a figure.

MR HUGO: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr van der Merwe, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair, just one or two questions.

Mr de Kock, Mr Kok tells me that while you just testified it occurred to him that at a certain point you told him that this parcel would not be sent through the regular postal system, that the parcel would be delivered personally to the post box, that it wouldn't follow the regular channels of postage, do you have any recollection of that?

MR DE KOCK: It is probably so, because I would have tried to convey as much as possible information to the person who had to manufacture the device, because the person who was manufacturing it had to bring other factors into consideration which would emanate from the postage or handling of the item. So it is most probably so.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And then the last aspect. Mr Kok will testify that his recollection is that he gave the parcel to Mr Bosch after he manufactured it and that he does not recall specifically that he gave it to you, the fact is that it went back to Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: I would not dispute that.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chair, nothing further.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Ms Patel?

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

Mr de Kock, when Mr Niewoudt approached you did he give you specific instructions as to the strength of the bomb, how strong it had to be, what the purpose of it was? Did he want to damage the surroundings or just injure the person who was opening it, or what? What was his instructions to you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, when one compiles such a parcel usually, as it was in the struggle of the past, our objective was to kill someone, we didn't go out to injure people, at least not we who worked at Vlakplaas and certainly not the Commandant. What I do know is that the person who was supposed to prepare it, and I foresaw the problem, apart from my own knowledge which wasn't really that extensive, I saw that the thickness of the manuscript and the size of it would cause problems in building a very powerful bomb, so we had to make do with what we had. But it would not have been intended only to injure, the intention would be to kill the person who was going to open the parcel.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Just bear with me, Honourable Chairperson, perhaps my colleague, Adv Sandi, can go first. There was something I wanted to ask but it's just slipped my mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, take your time. Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair, I don't have a question to ask.


ADV BOSMAN: Yes, I do recall now.


ADV BOSMAN: Mr de Kock, the person who wrote the manuscript, could you infer at all what danger he posed as a person?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he was definitely an operational member of MK, he was a trained MK member or solider, he wasn't a remington raider, he wasn't someone who sat in the offices, I could see that quite clearly from the manuscript, but he was also not a high profile person, in other words he didn't occupy a high level combat position. I would say that he was a more junior level person. That was a clear inference from the document.

ADV BOSMAN: The reason why I have asked you this is because people usually write an autobiography once they have retired or once they have completed the great struggle. Could you make any inference in that regard?

MR DE KOCK: I personally regarded it as a person - if one examines the psychological background, although I'm not an expert, one could see this as a person who was seeking self-recognition and acknowledgement. That was my inference. But when it came to the knowledge that the person possessed regarding how to be an operative, there was definitely no doubt. One could only have spoken of these things if one had been involved in these things oneself.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman.

Mr de Kock, because my understanding, I may incorrect, that when you have these cadres like there would for instance be in Swaziland, they wouldn't be living alone, there would be a number, say perhaps two/three, wouldn't that be so?

MR DE KOCK: I beg your pardon, I didn't hear you properly.

CHAIRPERSON: I say these MK operatives who had come back to the adjacent country, that is Swaziland, they wouldn't be living alone wherever they are, wouldn't that be so?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, one can accept they were not alone, but one could not really set a norm there. Some of them lived in apartments, the others in houses, it fluctuated. It's difficult to say, but I would accept that there may have been other persons there as well, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When a bomb of this nature would be manufactured and like you said, the purpose was to kill the person, the recipient of the parcel, wouldn't there be precision that it would be directed only to that person?

MR DE KOCK: It would only have been the person who would open that letter or envelope, Chairperson. I must just state that the device, as far as I know, could not be restricted by metal, because there would be the manuscript and then the envelope. In other words, only the person opening the parcel would have been the person who would be injured or killed, the rest would have been light blows. In other words, something like a very loud cracker going off. I will prevail upon Mr Kok for further technical details regarding that, but bystanders would not have been injured because there wouldn't have been any shrapnel affect.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's suppose one is accompanied by somebody and has interest and in this instance, in the manuscript, if I'm next to the person and he opens it, I take it that there wouldn't be shrapnel, wouldn't that still injure the person next to the opener?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I would foresee that it could, because an explosion is a release of high energy, so one could probably find that the person would have burn wounds, light to medium type burn injuries and perhaps also a burst eardrum. All of this depending upon how they were seated. There may be secondary injuries but it would be of a very minor nature.

CHAIRPERSON: And in this instance, if my reading has been correct, is that a courier was injured.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Was provision made that it would be the person addressed to and not any other person? I'll tell you why I'm asking you this, is that we're not saying in every instance it would be the operative or a certain operative who is a courier, but anybody else because they are in another country for safety, not to be detected by the enemy which would be you, that you would send a neutral person.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, here I would have to prevail upon the Commandant who dealt with that entire aspect. We simply prepared the device and I couldn't find any fault with his bona fide regarding his way of reaching his enemy, who was also my enemy at that stage. With regard to the addressing and the establishment of contact with the person itself, I would have to prevail upon the Commandant. And I believe that if we could bring him here, I do have his telephone number, we could get the name of the MK member as well, I have no doubt about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what did Anton Niewoudt say to you how he intercepted it, to whom was it directed to firstly?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, if I think back the inference that I drew at that point was that he had an informer at this place where the manuscript was typed and I think that it was at the South African Council of Churches in Johannesburg, that must have been where he had his source.

CHAIRPERSON: And it had to go back to him? That is the author of the manuscript.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson, because as I've stated there was a log on the envelope but there was no address on it and Niewoudt in all regards, insisted only upon that envelope and no other envelope.

CHAIRPERSON: Since you did not personally address it too, did it have to go back to Anton Niewoudt?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, definitely.

CHAIRPERSON: And we would assume here he knew the address of the author.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he mention that to you or you gave just instructions to get this manuscript ...(indistinct) with bombs only?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the name of the author was in the typed manuscript, as I believe, I simply cannot recall it because I dealt with so many names in a day and under so many circumstances, but I can assure you that I have no doubt in my mind today that Mr Niewoudt would be able to tell us who the author was, and I also have no doubt whatsoever that he would be able to tell us who the courier was who was injured.

CHAIRPERSON: Since at Vlakplaas, my understanding is that you were not only a courier but has some technical knowledge, would I be correct to say I understood you so whilst testifying over several days?

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I myself had limited technical knowledge, but I am no expert in the technical aspects so to speak.

CHAIRPERSON: And you would probably give instructions, let's say in this instance, to Mr WAL du Toit, how much of power should be contained in such a manuscript bomb in this instance?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that it would be sufficient to kill the person, but then we would be bound to the manuscript and the packaging of it. Let me just put the comparison to you. It wouldn't help if I sent a six-page letter which weighted two kilograms, one would be restricted to the device that one was manufacturing because it had to be authentic. Let's suppose I take a Reader's Digest, the person receiving it shouldn't think this looks like a Reader's Digest, it's as big as a Reader's Digest, but it weighs five kilograms. Everything had to be proportionate. And then one would look at the different types of explosives which one could use, because some had a higher speed and crumbling affect or a higher temperature. But my knowledge about that is very rusty.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hugo, any re-exam?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr de Kock, you are excused.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Any further evidence in respect of Mr de Kock?

MR HUGO: No further evidence, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The next applicant will be WAL du Toit.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------WYBRAND ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Thank you, Mr du Toit, you may be seated. Thank you, you may go ahead, Mr van der Merwe.


Mr du Toit, your application appears in the bundle in front of the Committee, from page 25 up and to page 66, is that correct?


MR VAN DER MERWE: It is once again a complete application with the background of the Technical department, as it appeared in yesterday's application, is that correct?


MR VAN DER MERWE: Your application for this specific incident is also a duplication of yesterday's application, because you also dealt with the pen incident and the manuscript incident at the same time. Do you also then confirm concerning the details of this incident, that it is on page 68 of the record?


MR VAN DER MERWE: You've heard the evidence of Mr de Kock, where he testified that he contacted you with a request to assist in the building of this bomb, can you confirm that?


MR VAN DER MERWE: Can you also confirm if he told you whether it was cleared with Brig Schoon?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, he did, he told me that it was an authorised, approved operation from Head Office.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr du Toit, in circumstances as these, Mr de Kock will give you a framework in which you must operate, what he expects from you and what the target of this bomb would be.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And today you cannot recall all the details, but as Mr de Kock testified, can you confirm that it is more-or-less the information that he conveyed to you?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I will agree with that.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Do you have any recollection concerning the way in which this package or parcel has been sent?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson, I've got no recollection.

MR VAN DER MERWE: After you had received this instruction from Mr de Kock, you once again tasked Japie Kok to deal with this situation and you were not involved with this any further, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You also then confirm that as far as your knowledge goes you were under the impression that this was a political authorised operation of the identified enemy of the government at that stage, and your role in this incident was that you lent support to the field workers, as you also mentioned in your introduction and the background section.

MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Is there anything else that you would like to add?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Mr Hugo, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr du Toit, can you recall how powerful, or in the request that was directed to you, was there any indication or instructions concerning the power of the explosion or the bomb?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, I do not have a very clear memory concerning the restrictions, what I know is that there were certain restrictions because of the size of this manuscript. I think Mr Kok will be able to elaborate more on that. We definitely had to scale down in terms of the power of the bomb, we had to in order for us to package it. The purpose was however to kill the target.

MR HUGO: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Ms Patel, any questions?

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

Mr du Toit, were you approached by, or had any dealings with Mr Bosch in this incident, in terms of either him being possibly with Mr de Kock when you were instructed or handing the manufactured device back to Mr de Kock or a member of Vlakplaas?

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, no, the initial discussion took place between myself and Mr de Kock. The documentation was brought to my office, we discussed it. I do not have a clear recollection, I cannot say that he was not there or that he was there, but I believe with the initial discussion he was not necessarily there. I think it was just myself and Mr de Kock and from then on I delegated this instruction to Mr Japie Kok.

MS PATEL: And did Mr Kok then hand the - or was there a report to you as to how the document then, or the manuscript bomb then find its way back to Vlakplaas?

MR DU TOIT: I have no recollection concerning this.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr du Toit, the question is more out of personal interest, was this bomb less powerful than the Parker pen one?

MR DU TOIT: I would say it was more-or-less the same or maybe it was a little bit stronger.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson, that will be all.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I don't have a question, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Toit, when you are given instructions like in this instance, that you are advised that the purpose of the manufacture or the lacing of this manuscript with a fatal device, would you have a discretion how much you should put into the device? For instance, how much should you put in? Like they say for instance, this manuscript has got to go back to the person who is the author and the purpose is to kill him, would the discretion of how much you put in be entirely in your knowledge as a technical person?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, yes, I think I have mentioned that you are restricted in terms of the given, for example the size of the document, it mustn't be too heavy. As Mr de Kock testified, you are restricted with what is presented to you and you have to work within that framework and you have to then create this device, create something that will not look suspicious, something that will be effective and relatively safe.

CHAIRPERSON: Yesterday you testified about the Parker pen, what would the difference be between that kind of device, where you use a Parker pen holder, and a manuscript that had to be put into an envelope? Would there be a big difference between the two?

MR DU TOIT: Not necessarily in terms of the power of it or the explosives in it, but in terms of the detonator and the material with which you are working, you are once again restricted to a certain action or material used. For example, in the case of the manuscript there was not plastic or very hard material used, we had to make certain adjustments to add a sheet that would prevent it from bending, otherwise it would make it more dangerous, where in the case of the pen case you had to work with more firm material and we used a different type of detonator.

CHAIRPERSON: Just returning to the discretion again, that they say to you, we need this kind of device and again this person has got to be killed when he opens, that's the intention basically, would you have a discretion to say whoever is a bystander or whoever is next to the person who would be opening this manuscript, would you take that into consideration that it is only aimed at the person who opens, in this instance, the envelope?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, I would just like to confirm the following, with explosives there are no guarantees, it's always a very unsafe or dangerous set-up, but depending on the explosives and the way in which it is opened, one can have a relatively clear anticipation of what could happen. If you would have asked me if I could give guarantees if a bystander can be injured, I would say no, there's no guarantees. In terms of the manuscript bomb, it has been testified by Mr de Kock that there was no shrapnel and that makes this device safer in terms of bystanders or people who stood close to this person when this person opened the parcel.

CHAIRPERSON: Why I'm asking you this, it does not per se mean that if I receive a letter, I would necessarily go home to open that letter, it depends also on my curiosity in the contents of what I'm receiving, so I may just open it anywhere. Now I'm asking you is that, say my curiosity is so high and in this instance of the manuscript, that it is well typed, I might open it in the post office and those are not the enemy, are precautions taken in those instances, because we cannot assume? Because I understand that your duties entailed technical duties to manufacture whatever devices you've been requested to, but if this has to be sent off, do we bear in mind that other people might just be hurt when it's opened in public, like in the post office?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, I do think that somebody, or one has some control over it. If you would have handled it in a different way and if you sent a parcel as big as a shoe box, you would have been able to kill half the people in the post office, but this was very selective, it was restricted to the person opening the parcel. But once again there's danger that somebody else can open it, we do not have control over that. We do not even have control from our side, from our technical point of view to who this parcel is sent, but our instructions were and it was always our objective as well, to do with as little as possible explosives and cause as much damage to the target as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you, in that instance, ask before doing that, "For whom is this intended??

MR DU TOIT: If they have given me a name it wouldn't have meant anything to me, they will tell me though that it is a target that's creating problems and their decision has already been made that this target had to be addressed, so I never really had insight or input in terms of the justification of a target, and I've mentioned that in my application as well. A decision had already been made by a planning group, concerning the merits of this target, but when this request comes to us, that process has already been completed and we supported the operation that had to be executed.

CHAIRPERSON: I do appreciate that your recollection may not be that good or that you may have recollection in respect of this manuscript, but what I want to find out from you, in the instances of a manuscript of this nature, what time delay mechanisms, so that no other people are injured you know, like yesterday I think you testified that we should have regard when we spoke of the Parker pen, the situation within a post office, the manoeuvres and all that, you recall that, that in a manuscript of this nature, how would we have those delay mechanisms to cater for probably delays in collection.

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, if my recollection is correct, no battery was used, it was a mechanical detonator, so once again this parcel could for years remain in a passive state without it detonating. The explosives used in it were military explosives that would remain stable over a long period of time, so it held no danger for anybody if it's not opened, but the person who opens it will be affected by it.

CHAIRPERSON: The indeterminate time I recall, I can't recall the person, but a letter was sent, I think to Dirk Coetzee, he did not take delivery and it was sent back to sender which killed sender, would it be something of that nature?

MR DU TOIT: Except that in this case there was a mechanical action, but if it's two years later and it's sent back to the sender and he opens it, it will detonate. In the case of a battery you are restricted to the shelf life of a battery and it can be that if the battery is flat, the mechanism will not detonate or ignite.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Toit. Oh, Advocate Sandi wants to ask you something.

ADV SANDI: Yes, sorry about that, Mr Chairman, I said I don't have any question, but I now realise that I do in fact have a question.

I hear you say "in my recollection", if you say "if my recollection is correct", that is in response to one of the questions that were asked by the Chair, you say no battery was used, do you have any ideas to perhaps when you had this discussion with Mr de Kock?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, it's very vague, I've got no idea, it was in the late '80s, but I cannot really connect it to anything else that will assist me in getting to a date.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thanks, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Toit. Any re-examination, Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chair.


CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling any other evidence in support of Mr du Toit?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No, Mr Chair, that will be Mr du Toit's application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr du Toit, you are excused.


MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair, the next applicant and which is the last one in this matter, is Mr J F Kok.

CHAIRPERSON: They got it right this time.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------ADV BOSMAN: Just for the record, your full names are Jakob Francois Kok?

JAKOB FRANCOIS KOK: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Mr van der Merwe.


Mr Kok, your application appears in the bundle in front of this Committee, from page 14 up and to page 25, can you confirm that?

MR J F KOK: Yes, I do confirm it.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And then you deal specifically with this action on page 20 of the document, 20 and 21, is that correct?

MR J F KOK: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You've already heard the evidence of Mr de Kock, as well as Mr du Toit, do you in general agree with their evidence?

MR J F KOK: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: If we can then continue to highlight a few aspects. First of all, you confirm that you received your instruction from Mr du Toit, to assist in the preparation of this bomb.

MR J F KOK: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I think in order to ask more questions concerning this, could you just explain the detonating device that was used and how powerful it was.

MR J F KOK: If I can just begin, the request was that it was initially the request with the manuscript, or we moved away from the manuscript idea. We had to adapt it in order for it to work, because it was too thin for a mechanism to fit in. We then moved to a little book that was more-or-less the same size, but it had a harder cover in order to accommodate the mechanism. At the end of the day we would use sheet explosives. We used a detonator that had a spring in that will then lead to the ignition or detonation, but you need a book for that.

The power of the bomb was restricted to the size of the parcel that we had to prepare. You cannot go bigger than that, because Mr de Kock and WAL du Toit already explained what the restrictions are. But if you look, or if I had to work out what you can use, it was approximately 20 to 30 grams of explosives. The result of it would be - because it's Military explosives, there's a lot of heat and flames. There's not shrapnel involved, but the explosion and the heat will cause damage. With the testing of the device you do at the end of the day, get a flame of approximately half a metre.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you. This detonating device, just for us who do not quite understand it, does that mean then that even if you open the parcel this device will not explode, you physically had to open the book or page through it and then it will detonate?

MR J F KOK: Yes, you had to open the book and then it had to be opened at least 40 millimetres wide, then it will be activated.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You are satisfied that this device that you built was safe, in terms of people handling this parcel without opening it?

MR J F KOK: Yes, we did everything we could to ensure this, but with the evidence that was led, it was a parcel that had to be prepared, the person would place it in the post box, it will not go through the normal postal system. It also was a consideration when we designed this device. It would not have gone off if the parcel was just lying there or somebody carried the parcel.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Then another aspect, the power of the bomb and the bystanders, you told us that it was approximately a flame of half a metre wide, that means that unless somebody looks over your shoulder, you would not expect that somebody who was standing close-by would be injured, if somebody opened this book?

MR J F KOK: It's very difficult to say, I cannot see that - the bystanders, they had to be very close to the parcel if they were injured. If they were in the area nothing would have really happened, there wouldn't have been serious injuries to them.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Then a last aspect that I'd like to deal with is that your recollection is that you tested this device at Vlakplaas, in the presence of Steve Bosch, is that correct?

MR J F KOK: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And as you mentioned on page 21 of your application, you also handed this device over to Sgt Bosch, in order for it to go to Mr de Kock for further dealings.

MR J F KOK: That is correct, we would have handed it over because we had to then explain how the detonating device worked. There was a wire that they had to pull out before they close the envelope and put it in the post box.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You also confirm that as far as your recollection is, you acted in an operation that was authorised by members of Head Office and according to instructions that you received from Mr du Toit, is that correct?

MR J F KOK: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And at that stage you were also aware, as your application mentions, that this bomb would be sent to a person who was a member of the ANC's military wing in Swaziland.

MR J F KOK: Yes, that was conveyed to me.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You then in conclusion confirm that members of the Technical department were not involved in the addressing of this parcel, but only in the preparation of it.

MR J F KOK: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kok. I realise it's eleven, we'll adjourn for tea for fifteen minutes.




MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, I indicated before we broke for tea, that I was finished, maybe there's one further aspect which I would just like for clarity's sake, just to take up with Mr Kok. With your permission.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, certainly.


Mr Kok, if you were to compare this explosive device that you had manufactured to a limpet mine or a mini-limpet mine, what is the sort of comparison that you would be able to draw regarding the explosive power and the ability to control who the victim would be?

MR J F KOK: There isn't a comparison that can be drawn, with a limpet mine it functions according to a time mechanism which would be operated, one wouldn't know exactly when it would go off. There is a factor regarding temperature which would influence the detonation time. This a mechanism, with the parcel bomb it is a mechanism which is activated when the person opens the parcel. In terms of power it is difficult to draw a comparison, but a limpet mine would be much more powerful than the parcel-type bomb.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And the fact that a limpet mine would have a shrapnel affect which could also not be controlled, therefore persons in the vicinity would be exposed to serious injury and/or death.

MR J F KOK: Yes, there is a limited shrapnel affect with a limpet mine which could have an affect, but it would definitely injure or kill people in the vicinity were it to go off.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Mr Hugo?

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



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

Mr Kok, you stated that you didn't actually use the manuscript papers that were handed to you, in order to build the explosive, that you had actually used a different book because you needed a harder folio, what type of book did you use, can you recall?

MR J F KOK: Yes, it is a type of pocket book which one would use. I would say that it is about this size, it is a readily bound pocket book which we fitted in for the mechanism.

MS PATEL: So whoever opened the book, it wouldn't have been a book that is addressed to a specific person, it's a general, you can't say from the book that you had used that it would peak the curiosity specifically of the target that was intended? Meaning the MK, that it's a general book as opposed to a letter that is addressed to a specific person where you can see from the contents or the top of it, that this is meant for me.

MR J F KOK: Chairperson, if I understand correctly, if he sees the book, on top of the book there wouldn't be a person's name or address which was addressed to the person, but it is a general outer cover which doesn't have anything on it, so he would have to open the book in order to see the contents.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Bosman?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair, I don't have a question to ask, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Probably just one, Mr Kok. I think it's on page 21 if I'm not mistaken, or 20, where you said it had to be tested by the personnel of C1, do you recall that?

MR J F KOK: Yes, it would not only have been the personnel from C1 who would test it, Steve Bosch would have gone with me and together we would have tested the mechanism.

CHAIRPERSON: This testing - probably let me start here, that we have this manuscript which you say you converted into a pocket book, what would you test, the mechanism in that pocket book or something else?

MR J F KOK: We would test the mechanism and then the quantity of explosives to go with it, the quantity that could be placed in it and then the testing of the mechanism would be primarily to determine that the detonator which would be linked, because it is a composition that essentially builds itself we wanted to see whether the detonator would indeed detonate the explosives at the end of the day, because Military explosives are very stable and they have a necessity for a certain type or grade of detonator in order to activate the device.

CHAIRPERSON: Now this pocket book would be placed in an envelope, as we heard from Mr de Kock, how would the device be placed that when you open it should be activated? For instance, I would use something to open an envelope and you normally an envelope from where it's closed, but I don't say that is a rule in opening, Mr Hugo might use another method of opening, so where would this device be placed in that respect, that would activate?

MR J F KOK: The mechanism was placed inside the book, so the book would have to be entirely removed from the envelope and then opened before it would detonate. So one could have opened the envelope in any way, that would not have had any affect.

CHAIRPERSON: I notice that you acquired a diploma - if you could bare with me, page 15, you say in 1979 you began with after hours studies and you therefore qualified in 1983, and then required this Mechanical Engineering diploma, what does this course entail?

MR J F KOK: Chairperson, it is a regular Mechanical Engineering diploma which is presented by the Pretoria Technikon. It is a standard qualification which engineering students at the technikon would take a course for. There are various areas of study in which to specialise, such as Mechanical Design and Machine Technology, such as Machine Mechanics and Mathematics, so there are a variety of subjects to follow.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you have for this kind of covert operation probably acquired more knowledge or do some practicals in that, where would you do that?

MR J F KOK: The practical work was done at the Technical unit of the Police and then I also followed further courses in the Police, and as I've stated in my introduction, I followed courses in general with the Police, and then also at National Intelligence, which was external to the Police. I also followed pertinent explosive courses which we had to take.

CHAIRPERSON: This unit, if I may call it that, that is the Technical unit, how big was it, where you and probably, Mr du Toit were working from?

MR J F KOK: Chairperson, we were one section within the unit, we were the mechanical section within the unit. I cannot recall what the total was, but we worked on a Head Office basis on a national level, and then there were branches in the regions as well, with smaller units.

CHAIRPERSON: And after acquisition, or let me put it, before you would probably, like you studied from the Pretoria Technikon, were you to first engage yourself in Police Services before you undertake such studies?

MR J F KOK: I was a member of the Police, who obtained regular Police training before I began at the Technical unit and from that point onwards I followed my studies. It wasn't compulsory, it was a choice, to promote oneself further by means of further study.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were taken by the Police first and you wanted promotion and engaged yourself in studies, would you be, for instance, told that you would be transferred to some technical unit?

MR J F KOK: Chairperson, no, it didn't function that way at that stage, members of the Police requested to be placed with the Technical unit and then once again one's qualifications would be up to one's own choice. If one wanted to obtain further qualifications, further study was available.

CHAIRPERSON: Now after acquiring this, because you were an ...(indistinct) of the Police, when you were transferred into this Technical unit, were you told for instance, where your skills would be utilised?

MR J F KOK: Chairperson, no, we had a very broad background or field that we had to cover and one wasn't precisely informed what would be expected of one, but it developed in time as needs developed, so attention would also be paid to such needs.

CHAIRPERSON: We all know now that the struggle or the fight, or in the terminology of the Police, that terrorists were intensifying their fight against the Republic of South Africa, was this brought to your knowledge that your expertise would be required to combat this intense onslaught?

MR J F KOK: I cannot recall that it was pertinently stated that our expertise would be specifically required, but as I've stated, we developed a level of expertise which enabled us to design devices and to provide support in the field and as the onslaught worsened and we were more exposed, the need developed for us to work in it as such.

CHAIRPERSON: And when the various requests were made to you, did you reconcile yourself that you would now be working in combating this onslaught?

MR J F KOK: I associated myself with it entirely, with the fact that we were involved in a struggle and that by means of our contribution we could disrupt the struggle. So that the onslaught or the terrorist organisations involved in the onslaught would lose faith or confidence in their own abilities and their own equipment.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say that the terrorists would lose confidence in their own mechanisms, were you provided with mechanisms utilised by the terrorists?

MR J F KOK: Yes, in previous applications we have already dealt with the fact that we modified numerous items of their arms and ammunition that they used.

CHAIRPERSON: Would I be correct then to surmise that as time went on, you were now geared into combating this onslaught?

MR J F KOK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kok. Mr van der Merwe, anything arising from what I asked?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No, thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further re-examination and I do not have any further evidence to present to the Committee.


CHAIRPERSON: I don't see anybody next to you, but I shouldn't be assuming things. Have you any evidence to present, Mr Patel?

MS PATEL: In this case your assumption would have been right, Honourable Chairperson, I do not have any evidence to be led, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kok, you are excused.


CHAIRPERSON: Are the trains of our thought geared towards submissions?

MR HUGO: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo.

MR HUGO IN ARGUMENT: Mr Chairman, first of all I just want to deal with the "co-operation agreement" between C1 and the Directorate of Covert Information. It's somewhat important, Mr Chairman, in that it shows that this particular government agency, I'm referring to "DKE", as Mr de Kock said, was also dealing with the struggle against the ANC and some other freedom organisations, it obviously is important that when Mr de Kock was approached with this particular request, that it wasn't done by some other government agency that wasn't dealing with the fight against the ANC and the PAC. And having taken cognisance of what Mr de Kock said as to what "DKE" was busying themselves with, he could have assumed that this particular request was aimed at resisting the struggle.

He, for instance, told you that they were responsible for information that led to the unfortunate injury to Mr Justice Albie Sachs, as an example as to what happened in the past and what must have had an influence on him when he decided to assist them. Mr Chairman, that is the question as to why he was prepared to assist Niewoudt.

He also obtained permission from Brig Schoon, which is also important to our minds, with due respect, and in our opinion. Coupled with that is the fact that Mr Niewoudt was the senior officer as well when he levelled this request at Mr de Kock. Brig Schoon obviously gave, as Mr de Kock has said, his permission that this particular operation be launched. And Mr de Kock in his own mind was convinced of it that he was acting within his implied authority and that he was, by partaking in this operation, resisting the struggle.

Mr Chairman, I think the vexed question, if I may call it that, in this particular instance is really whether there was certainty that this particular device was sent to a political opponent, and obviously the counter-weight is as to whether there was a callous disregard for the possibility that innocent bystanders could be killed.

Now Mr Chairman, you've heard that with explosives there's always a possibility that innocent bystanders can be killed and injured and maimed, but the question that this Committee has to decide upon, is really whether this was done on the basis that the possibility of injuries to innocent bystanders was limited and whether precautions were taken to try and avoid the unfortunate injury and damage to innocent bystanders. We submit Mr Chairman, that everything possible had been done to try and restrict that as far as it was humanly possible. One of the aspects obviously is that the device was manufactured in such a format that it was virtually impossible to put a very strong explosive in this manuscript. That in itself restricted the strength of the explosive device.

Another aspect that is to our mind, with all due respect, important, is the fact that the particular device was of such a nature that there was no danger of shrapnel fall-out, once again indicating that all precautionary measures had been taken to try and avoid injury to innocent bystanders.

Mr Chairman, and then obviously the Legislature had this particular problem in mind, when he was trying to compile the Act. And there's a very simple answer to, as far as we're concerned, in the Act when this particular question has to be decided upon, and in this regard Section, I think it's 20(3)(d) - I'll just read it to you if I may.


MR HUGO: Where it says:

"Whether a particular act is an act associated with a political objective, shall be decided with reference to the following criteria"

and then they obviously mention a number of criteria. And then (d) is with all due respect, the provision that we should look at, Mr Chairman. There it says:

"The object or the objective of the act, omission or offence, and in particular whether the act was primarily directed at a political opponent ..."

We say that it's very clear from this particular situation that this act was primarily aimed at the recipient or the would-be recipient of this particular parcel.

Mr Chairman, as to whether Mr de Kock had knowledge of the activities of the would-be recipient, he's told you what his knowledge was, how he obtained the knowledge and that he was convinced of it that he was a trained MK cadre. I have also taken cognisance of Advocate Bosman's question as to whether the writing of a manuscript of a biography was, in the normal course of events it gets done by somebody who was about to retire, we say even if that was so, he was a legitimate target, although Mr de Kock has testified that what he gleaned from the manuscript, that it was somewhat different in the sense that he got the impression that this particular person was still an active member of MK.

Mr Chairman, I'm not sure whether there are any other aspects that you want me to address you on, except that as far as the offences are concerned, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's what I was worried about, what you have addressed me on. You hit the nail on the head.

MR HUGO: The offences, the first one is conspiracy to murder an unknown person, obviously attempted murder coupled or added to that, defeating the ends of justice, Mr Chairman, also offences in terms of the Explosives Act and then any other offences and delicts that have been committed and covered by the evidence and the facts of this matter. Those are really the submissions that we want to make in respect of this particular application, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Mr van der Merwe.

MR VAN DER MERWE IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chair. I must also thank Mr Hugo, he's done most of my work.

I will concur with Mr Hugo's submissions regarding the political motive in this matter. I do not wish to add to that. I however will just refer specifically to the two applicants I represent.

It is my submission to this Committee that they acted on instructions as requested by Col de Kock at that stage, and were told that it was cleared with Brig Schoon. So clearly they acted in that manner. They had the necessary political motive and acted in full knowledge of the intended purpose of this parcel. There is no evidence of any malice or ill-will on the side of the applicants. They did not act for monetary gain.

I would also submit that full disclosure was made. There is the matter of Exhibit A, the letter which was forwarded by Mr Lamey on behalf of Mr Bosch. Mr Chairman, my submission simply is, I do not think it is necessary for this Committee to decide on this matter because of the fact that I think it is something on the side, it is possible that after so many years people could have forgotten, Mr Bosch could have forgotten that he was actually involved in this. However, as it might be, it is clear that the parcel went back to Vlakplaas and from there was redistributed to the personnel of Mr Niewoudt or Mr Niewoudt himself, who then acted with this parcel.

That basically is my address to this Committee. I would also concur that the crimes to be applied for would be conspiracy to murder and attempted murder, any crimes under the Explosives Act, possibly defeating the ends of justice and then all delicts also covered by the evidence before this Committee. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: I have no address, thank you Honourable Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Obviously no response?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Amazement, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: This brings us to the end of the applications in the incident of the Manuscript Bomb. I must thank you all, legal representatives for your assistance herein, that not only your address would assist, but the manner in which even the evidence was led, it's of great assistance to us. Thank you very much. We reserve our decision as required by the Act, and we hope that there won't be an unduly long wait for us to deliver the same. We would endeavour to stick to the spirit of the Act and do that as soon as humanly possible and the parties will be advised accordingly. It would appear we have come to the end of our roll for this week.

MS PATEL: Yes, we have, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We had become accustomed to your face, Mr Hugo, I suppose one day won't make a big difference.

MR HUGO: Well Mr Chairman, you will no doubt be relieved to hear that I won't be here next week but Adv Hattingh will be dealing with this, so that should be a bit of a relief to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. This would conclude the hearings for this week. Our Interpreters, I know I have pushed you, it was not deliberate, I wanted to give you a day off tomorrow, hence I pushed and I've made it even simpler by giving you one-and-a-half, please take it with both hands. Everybody who showed interest in these hearings, we thank you, your appearances give us courage that we should go on with this work which we have undertaken for a long time and we are now scared to go back to our normal duties, but that's what life is all about. Thank you and have a nice weekend.