DATE: 21ST AUGUST 2000

NAME: EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK

APPLICATION NO: AM0066/96

MATTER: ESTABLISHING OF DLB AND

ELIMINATION OF MR ADRIANO

BAMBO

DAY: 5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Before we commence the hearings of the three applicants which I will come to later, I would request everybody present that we rise and observe a minute of silence in memory of our Chairperson, Judge Hassan Mall, who passed away on Friday.

A MINUTE'S SILENCE AS A MARK OF RESPECT FOR THE LATE JUDGE MALL

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, I am Motata, I would be chairing the hearings for this week. Today is the 21st of August 2000. On my right I have Adv Bosman and on my left I have Adv Sandi. We would be hearing the applications of Messrs Eugene Alexander de Kock, amnesty number 0066/96, Dawid Jakobus Brits, amnesty number 3745/96 and Daniel Lionel Snyman, amnesty number 3766/96. I would in the same vein, request the legal representatives who would be participating in this hearing, to place themselves on record.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I am P A Hattingh, and I appear on behalf of Mr de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. Wim Cornelius, I appear on behalf of the second applicant, Dawid Jakobus Brits and the third applicant, Daniel Lionel Snyman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius.

MR WAGENER: Chairman, Jan Wagener, I appear on behalf of three witnesses, subpoenaed to be here and give evidence, they are Izak Johannes Engelbrecht, Willem Helm (and he's got a third name that I've just forgotten), Coetzee - Johannes, sorry, Willem Helm Johannes Coetzee, and the third person is Anton Pretorius. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, Eric van den Berg, attorneys Bell Dewar and Hall, on behalf of Johannes Petrus Koekemoer, who has been subpoenaed to testify at these hearings.

MR HURWITZ: Mr Chairperson, it's Julian Hurwitz on behalf of Manuel Antonio Olifant, subpoenaed witness.

MR JONKER: Mr Chairperson, Dolf Jonker, on behalf of the family of the deceased, Mr Adriano Bambo.

CHAIRPERSON: Adrian?

MR JONKER: Adriano Bambo. Mr Bambo.

MS PATEL: Ramula Patel, Leader of Evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. I take it Mr Hattingh, if I'm correct, in terms of the bundles you'd be having the first bite?

MR HATTINGH: Yes indeed, thank you Mr Chairman. May I call Mr de Kock?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, you may come forward.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is properly sworn in, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr de Kock, you may be seated. Mr Hattingh?

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, you are an applicant in this matter and your application appears in bundle 1, from page 1 to page 8, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you just in short tell the Committee what your version was concerning this incident?

MR DE KOCK: In Gen Engelbrecht's office at the Security Headquarters, he requested me to instruct one of my members of Vlakplaas to accompany the Murder and Robbery unit of the East Rand, to eliminate a former informer of Capt Coetzee, also known as Timul Coetzee.

My instructions were that this informer involved himself in an armed robbery and that he was on the point to disclose very sensitive information. Afterwards I instructed W/O Brits to accompany this member of this unit, who was stationed at Benoni. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: Did you know who the member was?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I did not.

MR HATTINGH: Can I just also ask you, did you know who the person was who had to be eliminated?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, only that he was a source of the Intelligence Service, he was under the command of this Capt Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: You did not know his name?

MR DE KOCK: No, I also did not know him personally.

MR HATTINGH: Was his name ever mentioned to you?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, continue.

MR DE KOCK: W/O Snyman of C1, then created a false weapon stash point, there were landmines that were placed in this storage point.

MR HATTINGH: Were you sure that Mr Snyman assisted with the creation of this weapons cache pile?

MR DE KOCK: It was initially my recollection yes, but there can be some confusion, but I want to qualify it by saying, Mr Snyman on instruction of the Security Branch in Pretoria, had to create other weapons cache piles close to Bapsfontein, for the purposes of the Pretoria Security Branch, and at another opportunity, close to the highway in the direction of Bronkhorstspruit, I cannot exactly recall the name of the place, but I could have confused it with that incident.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Please continue.

MR DE KOCK: It was then arranged that the former source will then identify this stock pile and will in the process be eliminated, because he would then have tried to escape.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the knowledge that you yourself personally gained, or was this told to you?

MR DE KOCK: The information that was conveyed to me by W/O Brits, because he was involved in the arrangement and planning of this. I did not participate in the planning of this operation, except in the sense that I provided Mr Brits and I provided the equipment.

MR HATTINGH: Do you have today a recollection if Mr Brits accompanied the people to create this weapons cache pile?

MR DE KOCK: No, otherwise I would have mentioned it here. I did not know, or I could not recall that he accompanied them. I have to mention though that because of the volume of my applications, I couldn't really recall everything in such detail, but certain aspects I was very clear about though.

MR HATTINGH: Did you receive a report after the operation?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, at a later stage I heard from W/O Brits that the source was killed in this way as it was planned, and that W/O Brits reported to Gen Engelbrecht that the source is dead. The reason for this is that I did not have the facts of the process between the East Rand and Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Did you give instructions to Mr Brits to report back, or did he do it by himself?

MR DE KOCK: No, I gave him the instructions to do it, because I did not have the details.

MR HATTINGH: Is that the knowledge that you have concerning this incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can I just ask you a few questions concerning a few other matters. Gen Engelbrecht at a later stage became the Commander of C1, 2 and 3, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Before he says in his affidavit that he was part of the Detective Branch and he was not part of the Security Branch.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Before he was appointed as the Commander of C1, under which Vlakplaas fell, did you have any dealings with him in your official capacity?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Before he took over as Commander of C1, did he ever visit Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he assist in the Harms Commission?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And when he assisted in the Harms Commission, was he then already the Commander of C1?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have any discussions with him concerning incidents that were investigated by the Harms Commission?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, on a daily basis.

MR HATTINGH: And did you disclose any information that pointed to your guilt concerning some of the incidents that was investigated by the Harms Commission?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, there were incidents or cases where you did not reveal all the information, but in order to manipulate the investigation in such a way that he will be able to cover facts and evidence, one had to make certain disclosures.

MR HATTINGH: In his capacity as Commander of C1, did he give you instructions?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was this concerning legal or illegal actions?

MR DE KOCK: They were illegal actions, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, because of the finding of your colleague, I am not going into the particulars of this incident, I'll lead it in general. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did it happen on one or more occasions?

MR DE KOCK: No, various occasions, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: At various opportunities you testified that your actions concerning incidents for which you applied for amnesty, was covered up with post-mortem inquests in the Harms Commission and so forth.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, for example the Maponya case is one of the more prominent examples.

MR HATTINGH: Was Gen Engelbrecht aware of this cover-up?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he was part of this cover-up operation.

MR HATTINGH: You also have knowledge that in his affidavit he denies the version that you have just testified about.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but I understand it, because it was his work to ensure that the Security Police get out of all these accusations. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, during your criminal trial you gave evidence in mitigation, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And during the course of your evidence you made a revelation of many unlawful incidents in which you were involved. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You also testified about Chappies Klopper and Willie Nortje, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were they the two people who made the first disclosure concerning Vlakplaas activities, before the Goldstone Commission?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I know Dirk Coetzee was the first person who already in '98, made certain disclosures.

MR HATTINGH: But in front of the Goldstone Commission they were the first who made these disclosures.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Klopper have knowledge of this specific incident that we are dealing with now?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Nortje?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did they testify concerning this incident, either before the Goldstone Commission or in the criminal trial?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall if you testified about this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, in front of the Goldstone Commission, I ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: I'm talking about the criminal trial now.

MR DE KOCK: In this case, Mr Chairperson, no, not as far as I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: This matter came up when Mr Koekemoer testified in the criminal trial, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Mr Chairperson. I would just like to qualify here, what I heard later, and that is during my criminal trial, but that was information that was generated, that W/O Brits told the investigative teams and they mentioned this incident, amongst others.

MR HATTINGH: What was your political consideration, why did you participate in this operation?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, if this person was not on my side, then he was against me. We were in the epicentre of the Harms Commission and the earthquakes that followed. And to inform you, we also eliminated Brian Ngqulunga, an askari from Vlakplaas, because it seemed as if he wanted to walk over to the ANC's side. And in this case it was about the protection of the members to whom the deceased wanted to make certain statements. It was for the protection of the Security Branch and for the force in general.

MR HATTINGH: This morning I received a quite bulky affidavit of Manuel Olifant, did you know him?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: From this statement it seems that the deceased in this matter was involved in various operations, amongst others, with Mr Coetzee and Pretorius.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And if this information that is contained in this affidavit is correct, and if that was disclosed at that stage, what influence would that have had on the Security Police at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Dirk Coetzee became a white askari and his allegations concerning Vlakplaas, it would support his allegations first of all and it would have decentralised Vlakplaas and it would have pulled in all the Security Branch members in actions that were geared against the enemy.

MR HATTINGH: I may have put it in the wrong way, but the deceased was involved in various operations. I may have to qualify that and say that he was involved in some operations, in the reading of it.

MR DE KOCK: I did not carry any knowledge of these operations.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo - Mr Hattingh, sorry, I confused you with your attorney, he was occupying that seat for the entire week. Please pardon me for that. Mr Cornelius?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Col de Kock, these incidents took place a few years ago.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And because of that, one can become confused with names and dates, taking into consideration the amount of operations you were involved in.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: I put it you, if we look at the application of the applicant Snyman, it is that he provided the East-bloc weapons but that did not go with to Nelspruit to plant the weapons.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I will concede that.

MR CORNELIUS: And that he also did not accompany Brits, but that Brits was accompanied by somebody from Murder and Robbery.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes, I will accept it as such.

MR CORNELIUS: The instructions came from Gen Engelbrecht, and I assume that you accepted that he already made the political decision concerning further actions that had to follow.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And it was also custom that Security Branch will request, make certain requests to Vlakplaas to launch certain operations.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was our task at that stage, as in the past.

MR CORNELIUS: So I will accept that Security contacted Engelbrecht, who then gave you the instructions.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I do not know who approached Engelbrecht, I did not know how that whole liaison between the East Rand and Engelbrecht worked, or if another Intelligence department contacted him. I was not part of the whole planning.

MR CORNELIUS: But there would have been no doubt in your mind that this victim was a danger for the institution in the information that he would have disclosed?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson. I did know that Mr Coetzee them were involved in covert operations and I accept then that there were very sensitive situations.

MR CORNELIUS: The instructions that you gave for these footsoldiers, if I can put it this way, Snyman and Brits, also occurred on a need-to-know basis, you did not give them the details of this operation?

MR DE KOCK: No, I could only give them what I knew.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. You never took disciplinary actions against Snyman and Brits for their actions?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR CORNELIUS: And there were no disciplinary actions against you from Head Office, because of actions in this specific matter?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So the Head Office of Security gave authorisation for this whole operation.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You also did have knowledge of the fact that a person will be killed and you also then apply for conspiracy to murder and murder.

MR DE KOCK: That's one of the charges.

MR CORNELIUS: One last aspect that gives problems, and that is, according to Mr Britsí recollection is that he couldn't remember that he ever reported to Gen Engelbrecht, because he did not receive instructions in this specific matter from Gen Engelbrecht.

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I do have a recollection and it is very vague, I did not participate in the planning but how this whole task would be approached, because I was not part of it and Mr Brits requested landmines and explosives and it was then provided. In other words, I did not sit in in any way and make that decision, his request was for landmines and explosives. I then gave W/O Snyman permission to issue that or to take it.

MR CORNELIUS: These weapons and ammunition, this was kept in a store at Vlakplaas, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And it was most East-bloc weapons and ammunition that was kept for actions.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you will not dispute the fact that three landmines could have been issued, or handgrenades could have been issued?

MR DE KOCK: What they needed, I would have given.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I don't have any questions for this witness, or this applicant.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hurwitz?

MR HURWITZ: Thank you. May I just take instructions from my client on a piece of evidence given by the applicant?

CHAIRPERSON: Would you want us to stand down?

MR HURWITZ: I'll just be a few minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, you'll tell us, we'll be outside.

MR HURWITZ: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll adjourn for a few minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hurwitz?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, if I might come in, there seems to be a bit of confusion about the fact that I didn't put any questions to Mr de Kock, and just for the sake of whatever confusion there may be, I would ask consent to put a number of questions to Mr de Kock, relating primarily to my client's version in respect of this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: You may do so. Mr Hurwitz, we would delay yours in that respect.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr de Kock, if I understand your evidence correctly, during this what you call an operation, you did not know of the name or the identity of the police officer who was involved at Murder and Robbery ...(intervention)

MR DE KOCK: Just one moment please, can we just shift that light, I can't ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

MR DE KOCK: If they can just move the light, I also had an operation on the left eye and it really irritates it extremely.

CHAIRPERSON: Could we have that light not reflecting on Mr de Kock, because of his eye operation please.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me if you are okay, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you, yes, it is okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr van den Berg. May you restate or rephrase your question.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr de Kock, as I understand your evidence, during what you call this operation, you did not know the name or the identity of the person at Murder and Robbery unit on the East Rand, who was involved here, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson, I did not know.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you only attached his name to what you think is this incident during your criminal trial when Mr Koekemoer gave evidence.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Koekemoer denies that he at any time accompanied any of your members and in particular Mr Brits was involved in the creation of a weapons cache point. I just put that to you.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can only mention that I did supply the weapons or the landmines and Mr Brits did indeed give feedback afterwards, but I was not there at the scene. I did not accompany them to the scene, so I cannot give evidence to that part.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then furthermore, there was no discussion between him and Mr Brits with regard to the fact that the deceased, Mr Bambo, had to be killed and this was flowing from an instruction which you gave to Brits or any other person.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I did not liaise with Mr Koekemoer myself so I cannot give evidence about that aspect.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Koekemoer made an affidavit in the post-mortem inquest in Nelspruit, it's page 98 of volume 2 of the bundle of documents, and just to say I do not wish to take you to each aspect that is written here, but just to state that he will stay with this affidavit.

MR DE KOCK: I won't dispute that, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: In other words, that this person had to be killed in a type of self-defence situation, as it was found in the post-mortem inquest.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot dispute that, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Hurwitz, I suppose your instructions can enable you to ask a few questions. You may proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HURWITZ: That is correct.

Col de Kock, there seems to have been a bit of a misunderstanding, my client, Sgt Olifant, says he knows you well, he has known you since 1980, you served on missions together in Namibia whilst you were a Commander of Koevoet, can you perhaps stand up and would you perhaps recognise him better?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he looks familiar, but it's not a person who worked with me.

MR HURWITZ: Did you not perhaps know him as Manuel, the Portuguese?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I had three members of Renamo who worked with me, one went back to the Republic within two months and the other two were thrown over the border by Mr Craig Williamson, so that they could be murdered, in order to establish a certain Mr de Costa's bona fides, and if I'm correct he was the Chief of the Security Police in Mozambique and he lost those three persons.

MR HURWITZ: So do I understand you correctly by saying that you don't know him by his name, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: And was there an occasion in 1990, at Vlakplaas, where you bought him and Oscar Moni a beer, you shared a beer together?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot recall such an incident, but that does not mean it did not happen, but I cannot recall that.

MR HURWITZ: Now Mr Olifant's evidence will be that contrary to page 12 of bundle 2, paragraph 9 - if I could read it into the record. Is that necessary, Mr Chairperson? Must I read it in?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, read it into the record.

MR HURWITZ:

"Capt Pretorius contacted me and said that we had problems because Strongman had been apprehended and had escaped and that I had to trace him and kill him because he would cause trouble for everyone if he would talk about the operations of which he was part."

CHAIRPERSON: Just for the record, Mr Hurwitz, that would be paragraph 9?

MR HURWITZ: Yes, that was a statement which was recorded at Braamfontein, Johannesburg, on the 1st of July 1996, by Sgt Andre Louis Groenewald.

Now Col de Kock, did you know Mr Olifant's position in the Security Police, who his direct superiors were?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, as I have said, I cannot recall him and I would not have denied it if I did know him.

MR HURWITZ: So could you comment, Mr - my instructions are that Mr Olifant never received an instruction to track down Strongman, which is Bambo, and to kill him. Can you comment on his ...?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, because I did not liaise with him.

MR HURWITZ: Furthermore, there is further statements which I handed in this morning, these were statements taken by Capt Liesk, perhaps these could be handed in as exhibits.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be the first exhibit, Ms Patel, wouldn't it be?

MS PATEL: That's correct, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's mark it A, Exhibit A.

MR HURWITZ: These were statements taken by ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: Your microphone is not on, Mr Hurwitz.

MR HURWITZ: These were statements recorded by Capt Andrew Gordon Liesk of the Attorney-General's Investigation Team. It's undated. It's a statement comprising of approximately 34 pages, in English.

CHAIRPERSON: And Afrikaans.

MR HURWITZ: No, it's the - yes, it's English and Afrikaans. Page 6 thereof is somewhat different to the previous statement which has been read into the record, if I could read it into the record. The paragraph is unnumbered, it's the second-last paragraph:

"I was approached by Pretorius and requested to keep and ear out for him.

This is referring to Bambo.

"I was to pass the information on to them. Pretorius told me that if he was caught, he would have to be killed, as he would talk like others were busy doing. I later read that Adriano was arrested and taken to Modderbee. At a stage he was allegedly taken to Nelspruit where he was killed. After Adriano was arrested, the others involved were released, charges were withdrawn."

Now this statement is unsigned. My client's instructions are, the discussion which took place with Coetzee and Pretorius, there was no instruction to Olifant himself to arrange to have him killed, the fear was - first of all, Coetzee's request was that they should try and encourage Bambo to rejoin the ranks and they would train him and get him back to work. Can you comment on that?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think he can.

MR DE KOCK: No, I cannot.

MR HURWITZ: Yes, I just have to put the version.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR HURWITZ: Okay. The second version, or Pretorius told him that he was worried the police might kill him, and that's perhaps how it crept into the statements that there was an instruction to Olifant to have him killed, can you comment on that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Thank you, I have no further questions for the witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HURWITZ

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hurwitz. Mr Jonker?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONKER: Thank you, Sir.

Mr de Kock, you started your evidence by saying that you were at Gen Engelbrecht's office, where you received these instructions, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, on occasion when you received these instructions, how would you have received these instructions, per telephone or at the General's office or where would you have received them?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the methods varied according to circumstances, and on this occasion it was in his office.

MR JONKER: The instruction you received was just to supply arms?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, I did not receive an instruction to supply arms, I had to devolve a member to go and see Gen Engelbrecht.

MR JONKER: If I understand you correctly, you went to the General in his office, you had to go back to Vlakplaas, find someone to go back to the General, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And you found Brits to do this?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because he was someone I could trust.

MR JONKER: This Capt Koekemoer, have you met him previously?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Did you know him well?

MR DE KOCK: I knew him reasonably well, yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Did he visit Vlakplaas regularly?

MR DE KOCK: I wouldn't say regularly, Chairperson, but as an outsider of the Vlakplaas unit, I would regard it as regular, yes.

MR JONKER: Was this general practice at Vlakplaas, this canteen, that actions were discussed there in the canteen?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes. I would just like to qualify by saying that some of the Botswana attacks were planned there and an attack in Swaziland was planned there, the Khanya House, Khotso House, Cosatu House, all those incidents were planned there, because it was an operational centre, the canteen was just a facility for the members.

MR JONKER: The reason why you sent Brits was because you could trust him specifically?

MR DE KOCK: I trusted my other members as well, Chairperson, but Brits came from the East Rand, he came from the Gold and Diamond Branch in the East Rand, and he was a person I could trust, yes.

MR JONKER: Because I note according to the statements, I think it is Mr Snyman's statement, he mentions that he heard about this incident in the canteen, so it would appear that everybody knew about this incident where weapons had to be supplied and somebody had to be taken out, everyone knew.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, there were occasions where not only on the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit, but also of the other units, selected members were invited to Vlakplaas, but this incident was not discussed in the canteen.

MR JONKER: Bundle 1, I have a statement of Mr Snyman, he says that:

"From a discussion in the canteen I inferred that the black person had to be shot. I also understood that the incident had to take place in Eastern Transvaal and that Dawid would help with this. I read somewhere about this and that is how I attached it to the incident."

So this was general information that this person had to be killed?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't know, because I did not have that information available to me.

MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, Gen Engelbrecht, how often did he visit Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, during, or before the Harms Commission he arrived there with a W/O Mostert, who was attached to the Security Branch of John Vorster Square, that's the first time I met him and that was about the blowing up of Khotso House. Gen Engelbrecht was still a Colonel then, he was a full Colonel then. He wanted the list of names from me of who had been involved in the explosion and I told him that I was not aware of who was involved there or who did it, and eventually so much so that I went and telephoned Brig Schoon and told him there was this person here at Vlakplaas, and Brig Schoon then told me that I could freely speak to him, and I then accepted his presence there, but I only gave him my name and I did not supply any other members' names.

MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, for purposes of the record, the Harms Commission, when did this take place?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, before Judge Harms it was Mr McNally and there was a Gen Conradie involved and later somebody else took over from Gen Conradie. I think it was in 1990, in that vicinity, I'm not sure. I cannot recall all these dates.

MR JONKER: You cannot recall more-or-less when Gen Engelbrecht arrived there at Vlakplaas, as a Colonel?

MR DE KOCK: It was between the explosion at Khotso House and a week.

MR JONKER: You do not recall which year it was?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall that, Chairperson, I've been involved in too many operations.

MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, tell me, Capt Koekemoer and Gen Engelbrecht, did they meet each other there at Vlakplaas, or do you not know?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, on occasion they were there. I believe that they could have met there. I know of one occasion when Col Koekemoer was there and some other members were also there, because what I recalled, and I'm not saying this in trying to be funny, but this is something that I do recall, and it is that Gen Engelbrecht drinks his whisky with coke, which I regard as a definite no-no, one does not mix coke with whisky. But I'm not trying to say this to make a fool of him, it's just something that I noted that day.

MR JONKER: So he did enjoy some drinks with some other people there?

MR DE KOCK: I have to admit that he was not a drinker, he would just consume two glasses and then that was it.

MR JONKER: Col de Kock, while you were there in the Police, you, as time had elapsed, with the different units there would be close co-operation between the different units, the people of Murder and Robbery would work with Security and the other specialised units, because at the end of the day - I do not want to give evidence here, but it is so that the robber at that stage committed robberies and bought weapons and ammunition with that robbed money, so they knew each other, the various branches of the Police, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, with specialist units, we knew of each other, but from Vlakplaas' circumstances and what was attached to Vlakplaas and because of our own consciousness of illegal activities, only selected members of a unit could be allowed there. I'll give you an example. Let's say we invite Brixton Murder and Robbery, then whoever made the arrangements, he would bring along the person who he thought was okay, and I use the word, people who are "alright", and then one would get three or four persons but not a whole unit.

MR JONKER: These persons who came to the canteen there at your place, these were persons who you could trust to go and execute a specific task for you and would not talk about it?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, one can put it as such, but we did not go out with the outside units and execute our tasks.

MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, Capt Koekemoer, would you say that he was one of those persons whom you could give a task, who would perform it and not talk about it?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And he may have performed a task for you which was not entirely politically correct, if we could express it as such, or which may have bordered on a semi-criminal nature, but he would have done it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, whether it's politically correct or not, it was still a criminal act and I believe that if he had the necessary motivation and instruction from somebody higher up than he, then he would have executed it. He would not have taken an instruction to murder someone from me.

MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, for argument's sake, Capt Koekemoer comes there, or any other person and you know this person, you met him there at your canteen where everything happened, and this person tells you that Gen Engelbrecht said that a specific person had to be killed or a weapons cache point had to be set up, would you clear this with the General first, or would you accept the person's word for it?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, as you put it now, it had to be cleared with the General first, but in this regard it came from the General to me and not from Mr Koekemoer.

MR JONKER: Is there any specific reason, Mr de Kock, why the General would deny these allegations of yours?

MR DE KOCK: It's about self-preservation, Chairperson, and this is not uncommon, it would be something new if we get police officers who were involved in something illegal and then they confess to it.

MR JONKER: Sir, is it not so that your experience in the Police Force, you were at a selective unit, but is it not so that many police officers, as soon as they are caught, they talk, they do not want to take the blame, he actually wants to pass on the blame to the next person and the next person? Did you not experience this many times?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, in my own criminal trial I discovered this when a myriad of white askaris stood up and it looked like an asparagus garden as they jumped up. Yes, we found that, and everything was placed on my shoulders. But in my case and before the TRC, every time I have taken the responsibility for myself and the members under my command, whatever had happened. And there are incidents where I gave instructions myself and I take responsibility for that, without implicating anybody higher up. And where I gave instructions myself, I would have said so. So I never hesitated to accept responsibility or to apply for amnesty where I felt that it would be right to do so.

MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, earlier in your evidence-in-chief you said that persons were either with you or against you, do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, Capt Dirk Coetzee, or Col Dirk Coetzee, he was against you was he not?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think he was against the whole system. I never met him, I did not know him, but eventually he found my name somewhere and developed it into some or other sort of fantasy, some sort of obsession.

MR JONKER: Chairperson, I would like to put two more questions to the witness which might be out of line, if it is indeed so, then please stop me.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll make a ruling if it is so.

MR JONKER: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr de Kock, persons who were not with you were killed, or some of them, may I put it as that, there were some of these persons, in your evidence you said that there were persons who were not with you, when they were not with you, you got rid of them, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, one could say it's a general principle in intelligence services, as British Intelligence officer said to me, "We take care of our own sick". I here refer to the Goodwill Sikhakane matter in Natal, where the person who exposed Operation Vula, who was an askari, was killed and Vlakplaas was co-opted for this. I refer to Brian Ngqulunga.

MR JONKER: Mr de Kock, for what reason did you not make a plan with Mr Coetzee?

MR DE KOCK: But we did, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You were just not successful?

MR DE KOCK: No, we were not successful.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JONKER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jonker. Mr Wagener, you might just tell us how whisky and coke tastes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairman.

Mr de Kock, this morning you testified that you were involved in many operations and your elaborate amnesty application speaks of this, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And we know that many of these operations took place many years ago.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: This morning you gave evidence that during this process one becomes confused and one makes mistakes with facts and names.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that could happen, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: This particular incident, are you certain of your facts and names in this particular incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: So what's different about this incident from the others?

MR DE KOCK: Because I had to delegate a person and send him to Gen Engelbrecht, and I was not involved in the planning myself. In other words, the arrangements were made, either by Gen Engelbrecht or somebody whom he appoints. Usually with the other operations I was involved directly.

MR WAGENER: Do I then understand you correctly, I'm reading page 3 of bundle 1, it says at the top:

"Gen Engelbrecht requested me to delegate one of my members to accompany another member to go and kill a source of Capt Coetzee."

Is that what you are saying now?

MR DE KOCK: No, he asked me to delegate a person to him, I did not know who the member was of that unit there in Benoni. It was the Murder and Robbery unit, but I do not know who would have to go on this operation.

MR WAGENER: If you did not even know that, what did you have to tell your member, what did he have to do?

MR DE KOCK: That he had to go and see Gen Engelbrecht and Gen Engelbrecht will give him a task.

MR WAGENER: And was that member, Mr Brits?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: You saw this statement that we have received from Mr Brits this morning, it hasn't got an exhibit number yet, but I assume that you've seen it.

MR DE KOCK: No, I haven't.

MR WAGENER: Maybe I can just ask your legal representative to place this in front of you.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I do have it in front of me.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, this is an affidavit I received earlier this morning, it has not been referred to, maybe we should refer to this as Exhibit B.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if we've got it. Would this be the one? Ja, it looks like it. Could we mark it B, to obviate confusion in future?

MR WAGENER: Will you just look, Mr de Kock, at the second page under the heading "Merits", there Mr Brits deals with his version of the incident. It is a statement that he gave this morning.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I do have it in front of me.

MR WAGENER: What is your comment on the first paragraph, under the heading "Merits", where he differs from your version?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I can give you no explanation, I do know, and I have to say this, and it appears on another page in the bundle, I will refer you to it at a later stage, that Mr Brits did make other statements to the D'Oliviera Investigative team, and I stick to my version because I do know that that is the correct version.

MR WAGENER: What was Mr Brits' rank at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: He was a Warrant Officer.

MR WAGENER: Was it practice, Mr de Kock, to delegate a officer, a subordinate officer to your Commander, and where you then plan an incident without you being present?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, well if the Commander gave such an instruction it could have happened, because he arranges his operation himself, the General works on a need-to-know basis and I cannot overrule him.

MR WAGENER: Because I have listened or heard much evidence where you've testified about operations and my impression has always been that you were always, if I can call it the Operational Commander, even in cases where you were not physically present at the actual execution of an operation.

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, in this case I will have to say that Gen Engelbrecht was the Operational Commander.

MR WAGENER: I do not want to take you through a cross-examination that we've had at previous opportunities, but I would just like to make a few short comments. Firstly, you do repeat your evidence that Vlakplaas worked on a very strict need-to-know basis.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: That within this principle even other branches of the Security Police were excluded. You've already testified concerning this.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: It is also common cause that Gen Engelbrecht, during this incident, was a newcomer in the Security Branch, we know this.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: As he said and will testify here, he was not one of the inner circle people from the Security Branch, and more specifically from Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I will not say it is not so, but I would just like to mention that he enjoyed a lot of trust within the organisation and he was appointed to assist the Harms Commission and the case of the Security Police.

MR WAGENER: On this last point, Mr de Kock, I do not want to cross-examine on which you always refer to as the "cover-up" actions, only two statements. I heard again this morning when you testified, that Gen Engelbrecht covered up the facts of the Maponya case, apparently after you made certain disclosures to him.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: Can you recall that your evidence last year at the Maponya Amnesty Hearing, was exactly the opposite?

MR DE KOCK: Certain aspects were mentioned to him, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Well I will put it to you, Mr de Kock, that at that amnesty hearing, you at a later stage conceded that you misled Gen Engelbrecht, and that he never knew the true facts.

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, the necessary facts were given to him to ensure that the Security Branch and Vlakplaas especially, would emerge out of this situation unmarked. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR WAGENER: In other words, you now change your evidence?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson. Let me refer you to a different situation ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: I'm talking about the Maponya case. Let me tell you what you testified, page 341 of the record of the Maponya matter:

"So Mr de Kock, (this is me cross-examining you) did I hear you correctly, you misled Gen Engelbrecht?"

"Yes, Chairperson, the whole action was a misleading action."

MR DE KOCK: Let's then inform the Panel of two cases at Vlakplaas on the day when Gen Engelbrecht was there to investigate the Maponya incident. Firstly, Nofomela who was a deponent together with Dirk Coetzee, said that Mr Maponya was put in a Datsun Safari station wagon and I indicated to Gen Engelbrecht that it was not the Datsun Safari, but it was the Land Cruiser station wagon, and he then said that it's even better.

The second aspect was concerning a point that Mr Nofomela pointed out, where he said I killed Maponya with a pistol which had a silencer, and I assured Gen Engelbrecht that Maponya was not killed there with a firearm, but that he was killed at a different place. I did not take it any further. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR WAGENER: Very well. Just another quote from the Maponya case, on page 342 I put it to you:

"So your misleading of this experienced Detective (and this is now Gen Engelbrecht), was one hundred percent?"

Then you answer:

"Yes, that is the impression that is created."

Then I put it to you:

"Mr de Kock, you have even misled Gen Engelbrecht, just as - and at previous occasions we dealt with this, in your career you have lied to many Courts, Tribunals and Judges, successfully."

Then you answer:

"Chairman, yes."

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, yes, but let me qualify it for you. You can only do it and get away with it if you do have the power of the State behind you. There's no other way in which you can do it.

MR WAGENER: Well I will argue, Mr de Kock, that you already conceded there that you did not give Gen Engelbrecht the true facts and that your evidence today denies that.

MR DE KOCK: Well it is your right, Mr Chairperson, I cannot make decisions concerning that.

MR WAGENER: You testified that you knew Capt Koekemoer at that stage, this is now early in 1991.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: How did you know him?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, relatively well.

MR WAGENER: Was it because he was a friend of your brother?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, I did not trust all my brother's friends, I actually did not trust most of them. Capt Koekemoer had a good investigative record, he was one of the best Investigators in the country and he was a person you could trust and a person who knew the intrinsic aspects concerning the protection of the State.

MR WAGENER: What do you mean with that last statement?

MR DE KOCK: That if it was necessary, the State's interests will come first.

MR WAGENER: But what do you mean, "he knew how to protect the State's interests"? How and when would he have done this? What do you base it on?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, not on personal experience, but from his attitude, his actions, discussions that I had with him and with others. He was a person who you could trust with such a task.

MR WAGENER: I saw, Mr de Kock, that at least one of the charges on which you were found guilty, and that is fraud, where you planted weapons and which then were apparently found by fictional informers, who were then paid rewards, and that he was involved in this.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Did he know what it was about?

MR DE KOCK: In Capt Koekemoer's case, no. General Engelbrecht, yes.

MR WAGENER: No, we'll get to Gen Engelbrecht at a later stage, I'm talking about something completely different. I'm now talking about, if I can recall, charge 22 in the criminal trial, weapons that you planted in the East Rand were found and then rewards were received in a fraudulent way, you were found guilty of that.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR WAGENER: And in some of those instances, Capt Koekemoer was the person who found the weapons.

MR DE KOCK: I can see that in the statement, yes, I cannot recall who the person was who worked with that, but if you say it to me, yes, according to the statements, I will concede.

MR WAGENER: But my question is, did he know what the situation was, that it was actually fraud? That is my question.

MR DE KOCK: I believe so, Mr Chairperson, because if we give him weapons to plant, then it is very clear that it is not come from the enemy.

MR WAGENER: Is that the reason why he was involved in this specific operation? This specific operation about which this application is today?

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

Gen Engelbrecht was the person who knew who in the Murder and Robbery unit, were the people who you could trust with something like this, the tough ones.

MR WAGENER: So is it your evidence that Mr Brits heard from Gen Engelbrecht that he had to go and see Koekemoer at the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, yes, I would say so, because I did not tell Mr Brits to go to Mr Koekemoer, otherwise I would have had to make certain arrangements with Mr Koekemoer.

MR WAGENER: So in other words, you do not know, it's an inference that you are making now?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I would say it's a very healthy inference that can be drawn, because I made no arrangements concerning this operation, or with Mr Koekemoer himself.

MR WAGENER: But you also saw Mr Brits' version that he never spoke to Gen Engelbrecht, that he got the instructions from you.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is Mr Brits' version, I believe that it will be tested.

MR WAGENER: Did you know a Mr Human at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: I did not know him very well, but I had met him a few times.

MR WAGENER: Was he involved in any matter that you would consider being illegal?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Was he involved in this operation concerning the hearing of today?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot say, Mr Chairperson, because I did not liaise with him.

CHAIRPERSON: You only provided the equipment.

MR DE KOCK: I only supplied the equipment, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: You saw Mr Snyman's version of the bar talk at Vlakplaas, in which Mr Human was involved, do you carry any knowledge concerning this?

MR DE KOCK: As I said, Mr Chairperson, if there was talk, I do not know of it. My specific recollection is, and that's also why I'm applying for amnesty for this, is that this was discussed in the office of Gen Engelbrecht.

MR WAGENER: You are now referring to the discussion between yourself and Gen Engelbrecht. That's all that you know about.

MR DE KOCK: Yes. The bar talk - well they did come to the canteen, but I cannot recall any such discussions.

MR WAGENER: If I now refer to Coetzee, I'm not talking about Dirk Coetzee, I'm referring to Willem Coetzee, did you know Capt Coetzee at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Did you know him very well?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: I'm not quite sure, he could have been a Lieutenant or a Colonel, but did you know a Pretorius?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Did you know him very well?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Did you know in what they were involved?

MR DE KOCK: They were involved in intelligence work and they were also involved in covert operations.

MR WAGENER: Did you know that they were involved in certain illegal actions?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I can refer to the Pantso incident in Swaziland, where we killed three ANC members and it was actually Capt Coetzee's operation and we did participate in it.

MR WAGENER: That is correct, yes. And Pretorius and Coetzee also applied for amnesty for that, together with yourself and you've all already received amnesty for that.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Are you aware that both Coetzee and Pretorius made quite large amnesty applications?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I read in the newspapers that they do appear on occasions in front of the TRC, but I did not have any insight in their applications.

MR WAGENER: You will see that they also refer to it in their affidavits that form part of bundle 3, that they do apply for amnesty for various incidents.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot deny it, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: I can also put it to you that apart from the case to which you refer, the Pantso case, there are also various other instances where they apply for amnesty, where people were killed or murdered.

MR DE KOCK: I believe so, yes.

MR WAGENER: If they were involved in this incident of today, then I will put it to you that it would have been very easy for them to have applied for amnesty for that too, and they did not.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot comment on that, Mr Chairperson, people do what I think is in their best interest. I've got no doubt, I cannot really make a statement about why they applied or did not apply for amnesty for this.

MR WAGENER: Can you see that both Pretorius and Coetzee mention in their affidavits that the deceased, or they refer to him as Strongman, this is now Mr Adriano Bambo, that he did not really, he was not really that big a risk in terms of security. Did you see that?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, yes, I did see a list of incidents in which they were involved and I believe that it was quite serious, but I based my actions on what Gen Engelbrecht told me his office. I did not have interviews with Mr Coetzee or Mr Pretorius.

MR WAGENER: This same deceased, are you aware of the fact that at an early - I will give you the dates in a minute, it is in bundle 2, page 36, that even in '84/'85, he served a two-year sentence? Are you aware of that fact?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: I will put it to you and it will also be their evidence. You will see it is in the bundle. What is your comment on that, that this person had already served a sentence and that nobody tried to kill him there, that he apparently held no risk or was not a risk for Coetzee and Pretorius, if he wanted to talk he could have, he had enough time.

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, yes, I suppose so, it depended on whether they took care of him. I can enlighten it with a case where an askari was charged with murder in Durban, he had to serve a sentence of seven years. We gave him a false name, he received a full salary, we took care of him in prison, we ensured that he was safe, that he gets a job where he is protected, and we made it very comfortable for him and his family. Maybe it can be that it happened here, I don't know, there are possibilities of control in such cases. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR WAGENER: You have told us now how things worked, but both these people will testify that if Bambo was such a big risk, then he had enough opportunity to talk. He was in jail and he didn't talk.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot really comment on this, I cannot speculate.

MR WAGENER: Furthermore, Mr de Kock, both Mr Coetzee and Pretorius will testify that in the beginning of 1991, they did not know Gen Engelbrecht very well, he was a newcomer in the Security Branch and they did not have a lot of contact with him at that stage. Can you deny that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson, except that he did call them in one afternoon. They were present in his office, also concerning a problem with a worker of theirs, and at various opportunities he asked them if he was an informant or not and they denied it. I still do not know why it happened or what the nature of it was, but that was the only opportunity when I saw them at Gen Engelbrecht.

MR WAGENER: The fact is that I do not know what you are talking about, but your statement is clear, that they did not know Gen Engelbrecht very well.

MR DE KOCK: I do not know, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And then their evidence will also be that if they wanted to kill Bambo, they wouldn't have done it through mediation of an outsider and a stranger such as Gen Engelbrecht.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot comment on that.

MR WAGENER: They knew you well enough, they could have approached you directly if they wanted to kill this person.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, but I would in any event have had to go to Gen Engelbrecht.

MR WAGENER: Or they could have done it themselves.

MR DE KOCK: I believe so, but that did not happen in that way, it happened in the manner which we are now busy with.

MR WAGENER: Although you do not have firsthand knowledge of what they would have said to Gen Engelbrecht.

MR DE KOCK: They would have contacted me if they wanted to, and they didn't. I can only tell what I know.

MR WAGENER: Just a second, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR WAGENER: Mr de Kock, before his death, Mr Bambo was apparently detained for quite some time, that is now the day before Mr Koekemoer out of jail.

MR DE KOCK: I did not know that, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: I can give you the pages, but I mean that he had been detained for approximately two to three months.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Mr Chairperson, that was not the knowledge that I had then. I did not know that at all.

MR WAGENER: It was about a robbery and later an escape, together with the robbery, and that is why he was detained.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot deny it, I do not have any knowledge concerning this. What I do know is what Gen Engelbrecht told me.

MR WAGENER: Now we also know, Mr de Kock, that the investigative officer of this case was a Mr Grimbeek.

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

MR WAGENER: Grimbeek.

MR DE KOCK: I do not know such a person.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, there's a short statement of Mr Grimbeek, in bundle 2 on page 38. He was and apparently he still is attached to the East Rand Murder and Robbery. Now if Bambo wanted to disclose this sensitive information, to whom would he tell this? To whom would he disclose this?

MR DE KOCK: I do not know, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Is the apparent person not Mr Grimbeek, the one who questioned him?

MR DE KOCK: Not necessarily, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Is he not one of the obvious persons?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, if one could draw further inferences, then he could have called someone at Lawyers for Human Rights or the Human Rights Commission or at the Legal Aid System, and just like Dirk Coetzee on the same basis, wanted to make statements.

MR WAGENER: In any case it's been minuted here that your legal representatives acceded and accept that Bambo didn't even tell Grimbeek that he had a previous attachment with the Security Branch.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot dispute that, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And I shall argue that if he was such a great risk and if he was on the point of making disclosures and revelations, at least Grimbeek would have been one of the obvious persons to whom he would have made these revelations.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot comment on that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What about - you heard what Mr Hurwitz read from page 6, what Olifant said about Coetzee and Pretorius, what they told him, that Adriano Bambo would pass information which was of a serious nature and he would sing like a canary and people would be in trouble. Now if you question him on Grimbeek, he was merely in the Murder and Robbery unit and he might have concerned himself with robberies, not with anything of a political nature, wouldn't that be so? I'm saying the direction of your questions, Mr Wagener, you should bear in mind that Grimbeek was attached to the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit, but we have evidence that has been presented in cross-examination about what Olifant says about Adriano Bambo, that he was a security risk and he would sing like a canary. So I don't think that's a fair question to Mr de Kock, when we have this evidence before us and you just put it about Grimbeek only.

MR WAGENER: Chairman, I heard Mr Hurwitz wrong then, but I heard him to say that Olifant will not in fact testify as is stated in this paragraph. That's what I heard Mr Hurwitz to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Not as stated in the previous paragraphs, but what is said in the new Annexure A, page 6 thereof, the penultimate paragraph.

MR WAGENER: Yes Mr Chairman, that is what I referred to. I understood Mr Hurwitz to say that Mr Manuel Olifant would say he did not receive such instructions from Pretorius or Coetzee.

CHAIRPERSON: I have heard him wrongly, you may proceed.

MR WAGENER: Maybe he can assist here on this misunderstanding then.

MR HURWITZ: The instruction was on the talking, it was on the aspect of the murder or the killing. I didn't deal with that in detail.

CHAIRPERSON: Then it would appear I heard you correctly.

MR HURWITZ: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR WAGENER: Anyway, Mr Chairman, if it was an unfair question, I will retract, but I'm still not sure what the position is, but I think we should wait for Mr Olifant then to testify on this, maybe he can clarify whatever misunderstanding ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, what I was drawing your attention to, not to muzzle you, was that if you ask him a question only about Grimbeek, it would be unfair because of this evidence that is before us. That's all I was saying, not that I was muzzling you.

MR WAGENER: Yes, yes.

Mr de Kock, then I want to make it quite clear, I did not say that Grimbeek would be the only person, my question was, would Grimbeek not be one of the obvious persons to whom Bambo would make these revelations, I did not limit it to Grimbeek alone. That was my intention with the question. Can you comment?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can only say that I did not know what the relationship of trust was between Mr Grimbeek and Mr Bambo.

MR WAGENER: Then I would just like to put it to you Mr de Kock, that your spokesman, Mr Hattingh, put it to you that he had studied Exhibit A, it's quite a long statement from Olifant, 34 typed pages, and initially he put it to you that "the deceased in our case was involved in many unlawful actions along with Coetzee and Pretorius", and you agreed. I do not know whether you meant to do it, did you study the statement?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, shortly after we received it, I read through it quickly and certain aspects were pointed out to me, but I did not study it intensively.

MR WAGENER: Very well, but in fairness I would like to put it to you that according to Coetzee and Pretorius, the deceased was only involved in three incidents, three unlawful incidents for which they applied for amnesty.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I can only mention that during that time when Mr Bambo died, the amnesty process did not exist.

MR WAGENER: I heard what you're saying, but I would just like clarity about this. They will testify that the deceased was not involved in many unlawful incidents, they only referred to three.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot comment on that, Chairperson, I did not work with them.

MR WAGENER: And that some of these incidents had taken place before he was incarcerated for approximately two years. Some of these incidents took place in 1983, that was before he was detained.

MR DE KOCK: I would have to depend on that information, Chairperson, I don't know.

MR WAGENER: So I would like to repeat my point, if he wanted to disclose those operations, he could have done so during his previous term of incarceration, and he did not. And a final incident, Mr de Kock, it is still regarding Gen Engelbrecht, instructions which he would have given for unlawful operations. This morning you referred to two, if I recall correctly, the Maponya incident and the Sikhakane incident.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: I would just like to ask a few questions with regard to the Sikhakane incident. You were present during the amnesty application with regard to the death of Mr Sikhakane.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And you heard there that it was another General who applied for amnesty, because he said he gave the instruction. It's Gen Steyn.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but that General called Gen Engelbrecht and when I arrived in Gen Engelbrecht's office, Gen Engelbrecht asked me to call Gen Steyn, he said that I knew what it was about.

MR WAGENER: But you also heard the evidence of Gen Steyn that you are incorrect in that regard, that he gave the instruction solely and that Gen Engelbrecht was not involved.

MR DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I stand alone and independent in my amnesty application, I did not have the privilege of forming any coalitions outside, and I can only testify to what I know, I cannot add to that.

MR WAGENER: And what you can recall?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, and surprisingly that's a lot.

MR WAGENER: But you have on more than one occasion conceded that there are things you cannot recall.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, but when someone joggles my memory, facts are remembered. I am not infallible and I am open to making mistakes, but throughout the whole amnesty hearings it was only by exception that I made such concessions.

MR WAGENER: And then to summarise, Mr de Kock, Coetzee and Pretorius concede that the deceased worked for them, but they deny any part in his death.

MR DE KOCK: I cannot give evidence about that, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Gen Engelbrecht will testify that he did not know the deceased and that he was not involved in his death at all.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my evidence, I shall stick to my evidence. And I think this has to be decided upon by the Panel later.

MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener. Ms Patel?

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

Mr de Kock, just a few single aspects. Kindly refer to page 3 of bundle 1, that is your application, in the second paragraph you say that:

"My instructions was that this informer was involved in an armed robbery and that he was about to reveal certain sensitive information."

Where did you get that information from?

MR DE KOCK: This came directly from Gen Engelbrecht, from no other person.

MS PATEL: Okay. And the other information that you give to us in paragraph 3 on the same page, that there was then an arrangement made that this former source would point out the arms cache and would be then killed in the process, where did that information come from?

MR DE KOCK: That came from W/O Dawid Brits after he came from Gen Engelbrecht, because I delegated him and sent him to the General, and he came back and then told me about this. He came to ask for the specific logistical support.

MS PATEL: Alright. Can I ask you, to what extent did you discuss this matter with Snyman, before the execution of the operation?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, upon Mr Brits' request I told Mr Snyman to give to him what he needed. As I have already said, I had nothing to do with the arrangements, I did not plan anything with regard to the operation, I was just making provision with regard to logistics.

ADV SANDI: If I can just ask here, Mr de Kock is there any reason why in this particular incident, you did not play an active role as you have done in several of these things when they happened?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it's because Gen Engelbrecht arranged the operation himself, for some or other reason I was not needed. That is the only way I can explain it. To enlighten you, it would have been easier for me if I was involved, to make the person disappear myself, but that was not how this thing was planned.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just follow up on my colleague's question, Mr de Kock. In how many other incidents for which you have applied, did you play such a lesser role, can you give us an indication?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, for example, in the Goodwill Sikhakane incident I did not go to Durban myself, I sent members and in this regard, it was also W/O Brits with W/O Nortje and another person, because they were in that position of trust.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you participate in the planning here?

MR DE KOCK: No, in that regard I delegated the persons and the planning was done in Durban, by, if I recall correctly, Col Taylor, Mr Hanton. And Gen Steyn was informed, if I recall correctly. So with regard to that incident, I did not have any dealings at the scene or input at the scene myself.

ADV BOSMAN: Why in this regard, did you play such a lesser role?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, because it was expected of me. If Gen Engelbrecht told me, "take this person and make him disappear", I would have done so, but here I believe there must have been other reasons why I was not involved.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you refer to the Sikhakane incident?

MR DE KOCK: No, I refer to this Bambo, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: No, I want to know if you could indicate to us why in the Sikhakane incident you did not participate to a greater extent.

MR DE KOCK: Because the request was only for a few of my members and I sent those members down.

ADV BOSMAN: But were you up to date with the planning in the Sikhakane incident?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, only that Sikhakane had disclosed the Vula incident and that two ANC members had been killed, namely Charles Ndaba and another person.

ADV BOSMAN: And except for the Sikhakane incident, are there any other incidents where you played a lesser role?

MR DE KOCK: There may be, Chairperson, but I would have to research that and it will take some time.

ADV BOSMAN: The Sikhakane one is the one you can recall?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, out of hand.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Ms Patel, if I can just come back to Mr de Kock on this.

But were you personally anxious that this operation should be a success?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson yes, but I myself did not believe that it would not be a success, because we had a man who was actually tied up, he couldn't go anywhere, you don't have to go looking for him, and who was under control all of the time, and these are experienced police officers taking him away.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

If I can just refer you to Mr Snyman's application, page 31 of Volume 1, Honourable Chairperson. He states in paragraph 4 at the bottom, that he wouldn't have gotten involved in this incident had it not been for an instruction from you to assist, and you've already conceded that you've instructed him to assist Mr Brits in this matter. He then goes on further, to say that he accepted and in fact, believed that the person who was to be killed, and he says he believed this because he says specifically:

"I enquired about this specifically"

he says that the person that had to be killed, according to his information, was that he was an ANC terrorist, as stated in the application before us, that was involved in political activity and then was arrested subsequent to that. Can you comment on the source of this information?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MS PATEL: Alright. Sorry, Honourable Chairperson, if you would just grant me a moment. Alright, no fine, thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Then just finally, I suppose it's an aside, but to satisfy my curiosity if you can, this person was in lawful custody at the time that he was removed, he was then killed, obviously he never returned, how would that have been explained, or what processes would have had to be put into place in order to cover up what had in fact happened there? Just from your knowledge and experience generally, can you comment?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, no, I cannot, because I was not involved in any other planning. I cannot tell you how the lines would have run.

MS PATEL: Alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Any re-examination, Mr Hattingh?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Just a few matters, thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, if Gen Engelbrecht did not ask you to assist and if you did not send Brits to assist, would you have had knowledge of this person who was killed there in Nelspruit?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You were asked about other incidents where you played a less active role, can you recall the Sambo incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Briefly, very briefly, what was the role that you played there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the Security Branch at Komatipoort questioned a person with regard to weapons and he was killed during their questioning and I was called from Pretoria to assist with the disposal of the corpse and to go and hide the corpse somewhere. I then told them they must wait. I went to Gen Engelbrecht's house. I discussed it with him. He told me not to participate in it, to leave it, they should take the man to a mortuary. I then decided myself to assist the persons and I also took responsibility there. That was my evidence then, that I took the decision to assist and took the responsibility for it.

MR HATTINGH: Briefly, what did you do to oblige the request?

MR DE KOCK: I sent three or four of my members where they met with the members of Komatipoort, halfway, close to Middelburg, where the corpse was loaded over and the corpse was destroyed at an explosives range.

MR HATTINGH: You did not go yourself?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: And you were not involved in any other way in the execution of this act?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You've already answered the question which I wanted to ask you. In this regard, Gen Engelbrecht told you do not continue, and you decided to indeed become involved.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you did not come to the Amnesty Committee to say Gen Engelbrecht said that you should continue, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson, I told them that I took the decision in spite of the fact that he told me that I should not become involved, and I did become involved.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I see that I did not ask my Committee Members if they have any questions, the reason therefore was that I could hear the hungry voices in the boxes. We will adjourn for lunch and come back at quarter to two.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, I don't know if my Committee Members have questions to ask, but may I just remind you that you're still under oath.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)

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

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Yes, I do, thank you.

Mr de Kock, you mentioned something about Mr Brits coming back to you to give a report, where was this and when did he come back to you to give the report that the operation had been carried out?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I've got a very vague recollection, but I think he came to Vlakplaas and I then sent him to Head Office.

ADV SANDI: Would you recall who was in your company at the time he came back to you?

MR DE KOCK: Unfortunately not, Mr Chairperson, but if he had referred to something like that, he would have ensured that we were alone, because it was a very closed situation.

ADV SANDI: Exactly what did he say to you, to be precise? What did he report to you?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson, I cannot recall, but the way in which things usually were referred to, euphemisms were used and I cannot really specifically tell you what he said.

ADV SANDI: You also mentioned something about the same Mr Brits giving a report to Mr Engelbrecht, did I understand you correctly?

MR DE KOCK: Well he had to go and report about this situation, because I was not there myself.

ADV SANDI: Did you know personally if he did in fact give such a report to Mr Engelbrecht?

MR DE KOCK: Mr Chairperson yes, he wouldn't have, concerning this instruction, have refused to make a report.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but did you, you personally have any discussions with Mr Engelbrecht after the operation had been carried out? Did you subsequently have any discussion with him about the matter?

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Anything arising from that, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr de Kock, you're excused.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Before you call any other new evidence in respect of Mr de Kock, or evidence in support or a witness in support of Mr de Kock, I just want to make this announcement early, so that everybody knows the position. It's that you would have noticed that this morning we were delayed by the arrival of Mr de Kock. There were logistical problems at the Department of Correctional Services, and they want to correct that this afternoon and they requested that Mr de Kock be taken back at three thirty. My view is that we should adjourn at three thirty, because in all honesty and in the fair administration of this process, Mr de Kock must hear everybody speaking or questions asked. I would not want anything to be said in his absence, and I intimated that to Mr Hattingh, that it is my belief that whatever is said in these hearings where he is involved, he should hear himself. So we will adjourn at three thirty. Should I forget, please anybody, feel free to remind me at three thirty that we should adjourn. Thank you.

Mr Hattingh, are you calling any further evidence?

MR HATTINGH: Not as presently advised, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius, I think you are next.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I call Dawid Jakobus Brits, the second applicant.

NAME: DAWID JAKOBUS BRITS

APPLICATION NO: AM3745/96

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAWID JAKOBUS BRITS: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is properly sworn.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Brits, you may be seated. Mr Cornelius?

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Brits, your application appears in bundle 1 and starts on page 46 up until page 51, is that correct?

MR BRITS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: During the submitting of this application you did not have legal representation and you then signed a second statement attached, Annexure B, where you describe your career, your personal circumstances and your experiences as a police officer, and then also the merits of the case, is that correct?

MR BRITS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Insofar as it pertains to the political background it will fall under Annexure A.

MR BRITS: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You are an applicant in this matter and you've given your co-operation with the Attorney-General, as well as the Investigative team of the TRC.

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: You were a so-called footsoldier serving in C-Section, Vlakplaas, what was your rank?

MR BRITS: I was a Warrant Officer.

MR CORNELIUS: And your Commander was at all times, Col de Kock?

MR BRITS: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You received all your instructions from him?

MR BRITS: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: You have heard the evidence of Col de Kock, can you tell this Committee how it happened that you became involved in this case.

MR BRITS: As far as I can recall, Mr Chairperson, Col de Kock called me an gave me an instruction and told me that I must accompany a member of the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit, and go and create a DLB in the East Rand.

MR CORNELIUS: A DLB is a dead letter box?

MR BRITS: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Is it common practice that such requests were directed towards Vlakplaas?

MR BRITS: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you do after you received this information?

MR BRITS: I went to Lionel Snyman, that is ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Your co-applicant?

MR BRITS: That is correct. ... and he provided me with certain weaponry. As far as I can recall it was three landmines, two or three handgrenades.

MR CORNELIUS: And I see also in your application you talk about a Makarov pistol.

MR BRITS: Yes, I had that in my personal - I had that on my person at that stage. When we created this DLB, I placed the Makarov and the magazine with rounds, in this DLB.

MR CORNELIUS: These weapons were so-called East-bloc weapons, is that correct?

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: After you were issued these weapons from Mr Snyman, what did you do?

MR BRITS: I had an appointment with Mr Koekemoer and on the Sunday afternoon I drove to his house. That is the member of Murder and Robbery unit.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Koekemoer from East Rand Murder and Robbery?

MR BRITS: That's correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?

MR BRITS: We loaded it into his vehicle from my vehicle and we drove to Nelspruit in the vehicle. It was a Sunday, as far as I can recall. Outside of Nelspruit we went to go and look at a place where we then parked the vehicle. We took out a shovel, dug a hole and put the weaponry in the hole.

MR CORNELIUS: If you say outside of Nelspruit, where approximately is it?

MR BRITS: It was on the way to Komatipoort, on the left-hand side is the kaNyamazane turnoff, it's between the two turnoffs.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you then dig a hole?

MR BRITS: Yes, we did.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?

MR BRITS: We then buried the weapons.

MR CORNELIUS: If you say "we", is it just yourself and Koekemoer?

MR BRITS: No, we took turns in digging this hole while the other one guarded to see who's coming. I then placed the stuff in the hole and covered it.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you wrap them?

MR BRITS: Yes, we wrapped them in black bags.

MR CORNELIUS: Rubbish bags?

MR BRITS: Yes, rubbish bags.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?

MR BRITS: We then drove from there to Malelane, there we bought 12 beers and put R50 worth of petrol in Koekemoer's car. We then drove to Benoni, where I got my vehicle. The next day I arrived at Vlakplaas, I saw Col de Kock and I told him that the operation was successful.

MR CORNELIUS: You did not participate in the murder or the elimination of the victim?

MR BRITS: No.

MR CORNELIUS: But you understood that somebody could have been, or may be killed in this.

MR BRITS: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you later heard that it did occur?

MR BRITS: Yes, I saw in a newspaper article that Mr Koekemoer took a person out for identification outside of Nelspruit, and I then told my co-applicant, Lionel Snyman, I told him "it seems as if it is this DLB that we created."

MR CORNELIUS: And you heard somebody was killed?

MR BRITS: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: At a later stage were you taken to make certain identifications?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you have to do?

MR BRITS: I had to go and identify the place where we established the DLB.

MR CORNELIUS: Could you do it?

MR BRITS: I couldn't do it, no.

MR CORNELIUS: If I recall correctly, the reason - what was the reason why you couldn't do it?

MR BRITS: After we established that DLB, there was a lot of rain, the road washed away, it was broader than before, there was a lot of soil because of the mountain close-by and there was a lot of ...

MR CORNELIUS: Geographically the area changed.

MR BRITS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You worked on a need-to-know basis, is that correct?

MR BRITS: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: So you did not ask things that you did not need to know?

MR BRITS: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Apart from the salary that you received, did you receive any remuneration for this?

MR BRITS: No, not for this specific incident.

MR CORNELIUS: You did not know the victim, you worked on the information that you received from Security, is that correct?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You did not have any feelings of malice towards this person?

MR BRITS: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you liaise with Gen Engelbrecht during this operation?

MR BRITS: As far as I can recall, no, I didn't.

MR CORNELIUS: I see in your previous application that Col de Kock said that you reported back to Gen Engelbrecht in person, what is your comment?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson, not as far as I can recall.

MR CORNELIUS: Just another correction. In the application of Mr de Kock, it says that Lionel Snyman established the DLB.

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson, I did it.

MR CORNELIUS: Were you accompanied by Snyman?

MR BRITS: No, he only provided me with the weapons or ammunition.

MR CORNELIUS: You apply for amnesty for various offences that you committed under the Explosives Act, as well as under the Weapons and Ammunition Act, is that correct?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You also apply for amnesty for conspiracy to murder as well as being an accomplice, is that correct?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you never made known or disclosed this information and in a certain sense it was also defeating the ends of justice and you also apply for amnesty for that offence, is that correct?

MR BRITS: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you also apply for any other delicts that may flow from the actions concerning this incident, is that correct?

MR BRITS: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius.

When you say on page 47, (iv):

"The nature and details: Establish DLB with landmines, handgrenades and weapons at kaNyamazane. The members involved: Col de Kock, Capt Koekemoer and Snyman."

What are you talking about when you say that?

MR BRITS: Mr Chairperson, Col de Kock gave me the instruction, Koekemoer accompanied me, Snyman provided the landmines and the rest of the ammunition.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Brits, did you read through the documents, the statements of the other applicants in front of the Committee today?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But you probably heard that on behalf of Gen Engelbrecht it was put to Mr de Kock, that Gen Engelbrecht has no knowledge and gave no instructions concerning this incident.

MR BRITS: I heard that, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now I'd like to mention it to you that as far as I understand Mr Koekemoer's evidence and statement, it also seems as if he's going to deny that he accompanied you to Nelspruit to establish this weapon stockpile.

MR BRITS: That is possibly so.

MR HATTINGH: And that he will also deny that he approached de Kock or Engelbrecht to assist in the elimination of a person.

MR BRITS: It could be so, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Somewhere Mr de Kock had to receive information that Mr Koekemoer is going to have a hand in the elimination of the deceased.

MR BRITS: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now you say - if I can just look at your affidavit again, the affidavit that you filed - if I can just get the page reference, it appears in bundle 2 at page 79. Where did you make this affidavit?

MR BRITS: It was the investigative officer of the Attorney-General.

MR HATTINGH: And this was with the view of appearing as a possible witness to testify against Mr de Kock in his trial, not so? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BRITS: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: It was not just concerning this incident, but also various other incidents where you were involved and certain statements were taken from you.

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall who from the Investigative team took down this statement concerning this incident?

MR BRITS: It was a Capt Liesk.

MR HATTINGH: And this statement was made at their offices?

MR BRITS: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. In this statement you say, and this is now paragraph 3:

"During 1991, I cannot recall the date, Col de Kock phoned me and told me that I must pick things up from Lionel Snyman. At that stage I thought it had something to do with weapons."

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did he first tell you to go and pick things up at Lionel Snyman, before you got the instructions to assist Koekemoer?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson, if you look at paragraph 4:

"He also further informed me that I must contact Detective-Capt Koekemoer of the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit and together we must go to the Eastern Transvaal."

...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: How sure are you about the fact that he mentioned Koekemoer's name, because he said that he did not even know who the person at the East Rand was.

MR BRITS: I'm very sure about this, Mr Chairperson, because I said here Detective Koekemoer, but we call him "Koekies", and he said that I must go and assist "Koekies".

MR HATTINGH: And the further information appearing here, saying that you have to go to the Eastern Transvaal, did he also tell you that?

MR BRITS: Yes, Mr Chairperson. I said Eastern Transvaal here, but he actually said Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you what you have to do at Nelspruit?

MR BRITS: No, he just told me that I must contact Koekemoer and I must pick up things from Lionel Snyman and accompany Koekemoer to Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then go to Koekemoer's house as you testified?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You knew him well, not so?

MR BRITS: Yes, I knew him very well.

MR HATTINGH: You were also stationed at the East Rand, is that correct?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What section?

MR BRITS: The Diamond and Gold Branch.

MR HATTINGH: And you then got to know him from there?

MR BRITS: Not in the true sense of the word, although we did liaise at that stage with him, but I got to know him better when I started working at the Security Branch.

MR HATTINGH: Did you become good friends?

MR BRITS: Yes, very good friends.

MR HATTINGH: And is there any reason why you would incriminate him here by saying that you went with him to establish a weapons stockpile? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BRITS: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: And you do not carry any malice towards him.

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You say as far as you can recall you did not liaise with Gen Engelbrecht, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that you could have been in contact with him and you just forgot about it?

MR BRITS: It is possible but not likely, Mr Chairperson, because I'm a junior officer and it was not my position to make contact with somebody on that level.

MR HATTINGH: But if somebody gave you instructions to do it, then it wouldn't be strange, not so?

MR BRITS: No.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that you just could have forgotten about it?

MR BRITS: Yes, it is possible.

MR HATTINGH: You contacted Gen Engelbrecht often, not so?

MR BRITS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In connection with various incidents?

MR BRITS: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you also testified about this in the past?

MR BRITS: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So it is possible that you did contact him, but you just forgot about it.

MR BRITS: Yes, that is true.

MR HATTINGH: When you arrived at Mr Koekemoer's house and you drove away, did he tell you what you were going to do?

MR BRITS: I cannot recall. It is possible that he did tell me or mention it to me, but it was not really important. I had an instruction to create a DLB and that is what we did.

MR HATTINGH: But you were not curious about the whole purpose was of this DLB?

MR BRITS: No, I wasn't, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you can recall that while you were still my client, shortly after the Goldstone Commission released its report, you and other members of Vlakplaas, myself and my attorney drove down with you to the Lowveld to inspect and we inspected various places, is that correct?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And we inspected various places.

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall that when we drove back from Komatipoort, we drove past this place, and I'm not quite sure if it was you or one of the other members who indicated a hill with a large rock face, was it you or was it one of the other members?

MR BRITS: It was one of the other members.

MR HATTINGH: But is my description correct, that up against the mountain or hill there was a big rock cliff?

MR BRITS: The mountain was in the right side of Komatipoort, Chairperson, the rock was on the left side by the river. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: And when I noticed it and I said, "So, what about it?", and this person, I cannot recall who it was, told me, "Just remember this place, you will at a later stage hear about it."

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson, I think it was Lionel Snyman.

MR HATTINGH: Was the place where you created the DLB?

MR BRITS: Yes, it was in that area.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And that was after this incident to which was referred to at that stage, although it was not mentioned by name?

MR BRITS: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You could not at a later stage identify the place, but photographs were taken - Mr Chairperson, I was not present at the previous hearing, I only have copies of the photographs, I don't know if you have the original photographs.

CHAIRPERSON: It is the same with us, we don't have the actual photos. I don't know with the Evidence Leader.

MS PATEL: I have the originals, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you want the originals, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: If possible, yes please, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

Mr Brits, I will now show you photograph 1 which is the original photograph of the photocopy that appears on page 63 of bundle 2, and then the photographs that follow on that. This person standing with the checked shirt, with the weapon under the left arm, is that Mr Koekemoer?

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know who is standing in front of him?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I know it is quite difficult for you because the photograph does not cover a very wide area but just a specific small area, I would like you to go through photograph 1 and more specifically photograph 2. Look at the original, does that look like the area where you created the DLB?

MR BRITS: It is possible, Mr Chairperson, because there's a river in the background and the river was in the background.

MR HATTINGH: He also mentions in his affidavit during the de Kock hearing, that there was a cut down tree stump, it's very clear in photograph 2. Can you recall the stump?

MR BRITS: No.

MR HATTINGH: Now it appears in photograph 3 as if there is a hole that has been dug very close to this sawn down tree stump.

MR BRITS: It does look like it, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall if you dug this hole close to this tree stump?

MR BRITS: No, I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Let us look at photograph 5, there we see three - are they limpet mines, or are they just ordinary landmines? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BRITS: Ordinary landmines.

MR HATTINGH: Can you see any other weaponry on this photograph? I do not know if it's a handgrenade in the front of this photograph.

MR BRITS: Yes, there's a pistol.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not very clear in the photocopy.

MR HATTINGH: I will give you the original.

CHAIRPERSON: As soon as you are finished with your questioning.

MR HATTINGH: I notice there is another bundle of originals.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm indebted to you.

MR HATTINGH: It's Photograph 5 that we are dealing with now, in front of the two mines there's a black pistol with a brown handgrip, how does that pistol compare to the pistol that you left at the DLB?

MR BRITS: It could be the same pistol, it does like a Makarov.

MR HATTINGH: And the landmines, how does that compare with what you received from Mr Snyman and buried there?

MR BRITS: The landmines that I received from Mr Snyman were wrapped in black bags, so I cannot say if it is the same.

MR HATTINGH: But there were three of them?

MR BRITS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you can see three here?

MR BRITS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Then you can see there is still leftover black plastic bag shreds or pieces of bag in the background.

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: I think it's clearer on one of the previous photographs, photograph 4. Is that a black plastic bag behind the tree?

MR BRITS: It does seem like it.

MR HATTINGH: Or is it a person lying there? I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: It looks like a person, I see a hand.

MR HATTINGH: I also see a hand, yes.

Very well. Photograph 8 is a photograph of the pistol that was found there. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is that a Makarov pistol?

MR BRITS: Yes, as far as my knowledge goes, it is.

MR HATTINGH: And is it similar to the one that you left behind there?

MR BRITS: Yes, it's similar.

MR HATTINGH: Was the one that you left behind loaded?

MR BRITS: Yes, it was.

MR HATTINGH: And the magazine was full of rounds?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall if there was one in the chamber?

MR BRITS: No, I cannot.

MR HATTINGH: Here are photos indicating the road - I have not had an opportunity to study the key of the document, are you able to say whether this concurs with the facility where you set up the DLB?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson. As I've said, the mountain is on the right-hand side and the large rock would have been on the left.

MR HATTINGH: Is this how you study photo 1 now?

MR BRITS: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And on photo 2 one also sees the mountain in the background.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And with photo number 4 we see the rock on the other side.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is that more-or-less the area where you stopped then to establish this weapons cache point?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You drove past there many times, is that not so, Mr Brits?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you worked there for a long time, so the vicinity was familiar to you.

MR BRITS: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that Mr de Kock told you after you returned from Nelspruit, to report to Gen Engelbrecht that you had set up the cache point?

MR BRITS: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know the deceased?

MR BRITS: No, I did not, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You were never involved in any operation with him?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Were you ever involved in any operations along with Mr Coetzee or Pretorius?

MR BRITS: Not that I can recall, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Will you grant me a moment, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr van den Berg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

The instruction that you received from Mr de Kock was according to you, to assist Mr Koekemoer or to accompany Mr Koekemoer to the Eastern Transvaal to set up a DLB.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And do I understand correctly that there was no mention in that instruction or discussion of the fact that an informer would have to be killed?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson, there was not.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And do I understand you correctly that you visited Mr Koekemoer's house a few times?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And on one or two occasions you were there with your girlfriend, visiting Mr Koekemoer and his wife?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You allege that you went there on a Sunday, for purposes of the establishment of this DLB.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You drove to the Eastern Transvaal with Mr Koekemoer's vehicle, is that correct?

MR BRITS: Yes, his State vehicle.

MR VAN DEN BERG: His State vehicle, that's correct.

Do you recall what type of car it was?

MR BRITS: It was a white Sierra.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When this alleged incident took place, how long were you at Vlakplaas?

MR BRITS: Approximately five years, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if my memory does not fail me, Vlakplaas was not a place where one would keep records of where you would go, today you went to Nelspruit, tomorrow you go to Brits, you did not keep such records, you did not keep a pocket book?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson, I did not.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you did not use normal documents which an everyday policeman would use?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Would you agree that Mr Koekemoer had to keep records of where he had to drive to and for what purposes he was using this State vehicle?

MR BRITS: I would believe that he was supposed to do so, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Would it not have been strange or have caused uncomfortable questions if he drove his vehicle to Nelspruit, 3-400 kilometres away and back?

MR BRITS: Mr Koekemoer at that stage was one of the senior Investigators in his unit and I do not think that many questions would be put to him if he used the vehicle, because they were on stand-by many times and they had to drive quickly to go and do something or perform some task.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But would a report flow from that?

MR BRITS: I believe one would have flowed from that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Koekemoer denies that this incident took place, that he accompanied you to the Eastern Transvaal to establish this fictitious DLB.

MR BRITS: As I've already said, Chairperson, that is how it happened, so I cannot say anything on Mr Koekemoer's behalf.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You cannot recall what you discussed with him when you drove there?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson. As I've said, we knew each other quite well and in general we could have discussed anything, but we did not discuss this.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Hattingh asked you whether you were not curious about the establishment of this DLB.

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson. As I have said, I was not curious, it was my instruction and I did not ask any questions.

MR VAN DEN BERG: According to you, you were good friends, you trusted each other, why did you not ask him?

MR BRITS: This was an arrangement between Col de Kock and Capt Koekemoer and I did not need to know about it, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand your answer correctly, the arrangement was made between de Kock and Koekemoer, is that how you understood it?

MR BRITS: Yes, I received my instruction from Col de Kock.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you have heard that Col de Kock did not make these arrangements, that he did not even know the person's name at Murder and Robbery on the East Rand.

MR BRITS: As I have testified earlier, Chairperson, he did.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You refer to three landmines.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson. I am not sure whether it was two or three handgrenades and I placed my personal Makarov there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So the Makarov was from you personally?

MR BRITS: Yes, correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you say two or three handgrenades.

MR BRITS: Yes, I'm not certain whether it's two or three.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall what type of handgrenades they were?

MR BRITS: They were of Eastern origin. It's a rough type of handgrenade, it was not ...

CHAIRPERSON: Like a pineapple perhaps?

MR BRITS: Yes, like a pineapple.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There is a statement, let me just find it, of a Mr van Zyl, I think, P J van Zyl, on page 21 of volume 2 - perhaps before we arrive at that aspect, the handgrenades and the landmines and the Makarovs were all in the DLB in the black refuse bags.

MR BRITS: The pistol I placed on top.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the handgrenades, where were they?

MR BRITS: I cannot recall whether I placed the handgrenades with the landmines.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall whether they were in the bag?

MR BRITS: I do not recall, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Let us study van Zyl's affidavit, this is in the post-mortem inquest, he mentions a TM46 landmine, was this the type of landmine which was supplied?

MR BRITS: That is so, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Is it so, or is it possible?

MR BRITS: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then you pointed out the photo of the Makarov, and the handgrenades - well, there is no mention of handgrenades, except in paragraph 9 of this statement. And mention is made of steel balls, similar to that which is found in a M75 handgrenade, do you see that? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But there was no other handgrenade in the DLB.

MR BRITS: Not according to the statement, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then if we study Mr Koekemoer's statement, page 89 of volume 2, if we study page 92, paragraph 19 thereof, there no mention is made of handgrenades. It says:

"3 TM46 landmines, the Makarov and the rounds of ammunition."

MR BRITS: I see that, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if we have a look at Mr Koekemoer's version, one handgrenade exploded. You don't know about this because you were not there?

MR BRITS: That's correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But according to your evidence there were two or three handgrenades.

MR BRITS: That's how I recall it, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened to the other two or the other one?

MR BRITS: I do not know, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You say in your evidence-in-chief that you could not identify the place later.

MR BRITS: That's correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Because of certain circumstances that had changed.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then I just would like to put Mr Koekemoer's version to you. He denies that he was with you to establish this DLB, and you have already commented on that.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And he denies that the death of the deceased here was anything else but self-defence. Can you comment?

MR BRITS: I cannot comment.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And from your discussion with him and from your discussion with Col de Kock, no mention was made and there was no talk of murder of an informer or of a former informer.

MR BRITS: Not as far as I can recall, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, I'd like to take an instruction but I don't want to have the matter stand down or anything like that. Perhaps if Mr Hurwitz is ready with his cross-examination and if there's anything else, I might mention it after Mr Hurwitz has completed. If that would be in order.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we'll take it in that way, Mr Hurwitz would cross-examine and if you do come up with something, you'll do it after him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG STANDS OVER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hurwitz?

MR HURWITZ: Unfortunately, Mr Chairman, I don't have too many questions for this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't regret it, Mr Hurwitz.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HURWITZ: Mr Brits, do you know Manuel Olifant?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Are you aware of - so you're not aware of any officer/sub-officer relationship that would exist between Pretorius and Coetzee and Mr Olifant?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: So are you aware of any instructions which may or may not have been given by Pretorius or Coetzee to Olifant, concerning this matter?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HURWITZ

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hurwitz. Mr Jonker?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONKER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Brits, where did you receive this instruction from Mr de Kock to go to the East Rand?

MR BRITS: At Vlakplaas, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: If you study page 79, volume 2, your statement there in paragraph 3 states:

"During 1991, I cannot recall the date, Col de Kock called me and told me that I had to pick up some stuff from Lionel Snyman."

MR BRITS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Where were you when he told you?

MR BRITS: I was in the East Rand, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You see you just said now, Sir, that you received this instruction at Vlakplaas, and now you are saying that you were in the East Rand. Where did you receive this instruction?

MR BRITS: I received it at Vlakplaas, Chairperson. Things I said here was not stated in detail. Col de Kock called me and told me he wanted to see me and at Vlakplaas he gave me the instruction. So he called me and told me that I have to receive things from Lionel Snyman, but the instruction to go to Eastern Transvaal with Koekemoer, I received at Vlakplaas.

MR JONKER: So at Vlakplaas, what was the instruction you received?

MR BRITS: That I had to accompany Koekemoer after I picked up the things from Lionel Snyman. He told me, "pick up the things from Lionel Snyman", and I did not know what it was.

MR JONKER: You did not know what you had to go and do there with Koekemoer?

MR BRITS: No, he told that I have to go to Koekemoer on the East Rand and then we have to go to Nelspruit.

MR JONKER: To do what?

MR BRITS: To establish a DLB.

MR JONKER: You see, Sir, if you study paragraph 4 of your statement, there you say:

"He also informed me that I had to contact Capt Koekemoer of East Rand Murder and Robbery and accompany him to the Eastern Transvaal. At that stage I did not know what was going on."

But now you say that you were told to establish a DLB.

MR BRITS: It's possible that he could have said it, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Because at this stage you had time to think about this incident and at that stage you didn't know what you had to go and do in the East Rand, but in the meantime you have now gleamed what you were supposed to do in the Eastern Transvaal.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And you see further in your statement in paragraph 5, the last sentence there:

"At that stage I suspected that we will establish a weapons cache point."

Once again, you did not know what you were going to do there, but you suspect then, but now you're saying that de Kock told you that you must establish it.

MR BRITS: It's as I have testified, Chairperson, that is how I can recall it.

MR JONKER: And furthermore, you gave evidence that you were at Vlakplaas on a need-to-know basis.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You see your colleague, Mr Snyman's version is that he heard of this incident in the canteen. Now at which stage was this a need-to-know principle, if it was so secret but was talked about in the canteen? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BRITS: I only heard afterwards about this from Mr Snyman, Chairperson, and I read about the shooting in a newspaper article, approximately a month afterwards.

MR JONKER: What did you hear from Snyman?

MR BRITS: With the investigation of the Attorney-General, Snyman told me that Col Human and Mr Koekemoer had a conversation with Col de Kock in the canteen. That is what he told me, Mr Snyman, with the investigation of the Attorney-General.

MR JONKER: You see, Sir, because if we have regard for page 31 of bundle 1, the application of Mr Snyman, paragraph 3 he says:

"From discussions which had taken place in the canteen, I drew the inference that a black person had to be shot"

not that he was shot already, they will shoot him in future. This was such a secret operation but everybody knew that this man had to be killed in the future.

MR BRITS: I did not know about it, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, who went with you to the Eastern Transvaal?

MR BRITS: It was only myself and Mr Koekemoer.

MR JONKER: And the statement that you signed this morning, when did you depose to this statement?

MR BRITS: In last week, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: If we study the un-numbered pages of Exhibit B, that would be the fourth page, the third paragraph under merits, I'll read the sentence:

"Along with members of the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit, I drove to the Eastern Transvaal."

Which members? Which members are you referring to if you only went with Mr Koekemoer?

MR BRITS: That must be a typing fault, Chairperson, I did not read it in detail, but I only went with Mr Koekemoer.

MR JONKER: Sir, you gave evidence that Capt Koekemoer was a senior member there at the East Rand Murder and Robbery, and you will certainly agree with me it was not the most difficult of tasks to manoeuvre the travelling documents.

MR BRITS: Probably.

MR JONKER: So, Sir, what would the use be to manipulate travel documents and to fit in 800 kilometres and then fill petrol from your own pocket? It doesn't make sense, it's easier to use police money.

MR BRITS: That is indeed why I used money from my own pocket ... at the police station he would have had to have given his registration number and the kilometres on the odometer, that is why I used money from my own pocket.

MR JONKER: Sir, I want to tell you, in 1988 there was no registration numbers given, only SAP numbers were given.

MR BRITS: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: This was a clandestine operation that Koekemoer wanted. If I understand you correctly, it was between Koekemoer and de Kock, this clandestine operation. For what purpose did you have to use money from your own pocket for petrol? If it was so clandestine for Koekemoer, why did he not use money from his own pocket?

MR BRITS: Chairperson, we had access to the Secret Fund and we could use the money from there for such things, we only needed a receipt.

MR JONKER: There was a system in the South African Police Force, they called it the Business Expenditure Fund, and each unit had an amount of money available to it for any actions, so if this Captain was involved in these things, then he could have gone to his expense fund which was locked up in his Colonel's safe and received money from there, why would he take R50 from you?

MR BRITS: I don't know, Chairperson, it's possible that I had the R50 with me, because I also bought the beer.

MR JONKER: Now that you mention the beer, you drove 400 kilometres back from Nelspruit.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You consumed a few beers, you were now relaxed, would you agree?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And while you are relaxed, this incident is not discussed any further, you do not ask him, "Listen here old Koekies my mate, what were we doing in Nelspruit"?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson, I went to set up a DLB.

MR JONKER: You did not discuss this matter with each other?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson, not that I can recall.

MR JONKER: Not that you can recall. So you possibly must have discussed it, but you cannot recall?

MR BRITS: At this stage I cannot recall, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You see, Sir, earlier in your evidence-in-chief or under cross-examination from one of my colleagues, you testified that it was not discussed, but now you are saying you cannot recall whether you discussed it or not.

MR BRITS: That is so, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, the Monday morning, where did you report to Mr de Kock, at Vlakplaas or where was it?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And what did de Kock tell you then?

MR BRITS: I cannot recall, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: So you cannot deny that de Kock sent you to go to Gen Engelbrecht to go and report?

MR BRITS: No, I cannot deny that, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: So it's entirely possible that you did go to Gen Engelbrecht?

MR BRITS: That's possible, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, Capt Koekemoer, on what regular basis did he visit Vlakplaas?

MR BRITS: It was on a regular basis. There was close co-operation between the East Rand and us, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: What was this specific close co-operation with East Rand and Murder and Robbery?

MR BRITS: We used their sources, Chairperson, and they used our people.

MR JONKER: So, Sir, it is then possible that one of your informers or East Rand Murder and Robbery's sources was a problem for them?

MR BRITS: That's possible, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And this cache point had to be established to take out one of East Rand's sources?

MR BRITS: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: How often did Gen Engelbrecht visit Vlakplaas?

MR BRITS: In general, if we came back from deployment, so once a month, then we held a braai and he was there to talk to the people.

MR JONKER: Can you recall what he drank there?

MR BRITS: I do not recall, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And Capt Koekemoer or Lieut Koekemoer, as he was at that stage, did he visit Vlakplaas regularly while Gen Engelbrecht was there?

MR BRITS: I said not regularly, at the end of the month. Not every end of the month, when we had a meeting, then he might be there.

MR JONKER: Sir, did you receive any money for acts that have been committed while you were a member of the Police Force?

MR BRITS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: What did you have to do to receive this money?

MR BRITS: I didn't have to do anything, Chairperson, it was after the incident had taken place, then Col de Kock or one of the other senior members would give us a few rand.

MR JONKER: After what incident had taken place?

MR BRITS: Well one specific incident was with Tiso. We had to put in false claims for a period of three or six months and after a while this was stopped. That's the only money that I can recall receiving.

MR JONKER: Did you at any stage, Sir, establish these DLBs and claim informer's fees for it?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: The deceased, did you know him?

MR BRITS: Not as far as I can recall, Chairperson, I don't believe so. I had dealings with many people, but with regard to the name, I don't believe I knew him.

MR JONKER: Did you know the name Strongman?

MR BRITS: I did not, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, why would Capt Koekemoer come and deny that he was involved in the killing of this specific person?

MR BRITS: I would not know, Chairperson, maybe you should ask him.

MR JONKER: Did you not have a problem with him at some stage?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson, not yet.

MR JONKER: You were very good friends.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You were such good friends that you trusted each other with everything that you did, is that correct?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You trusted each other so much that on the way back from Nelspruit, after you had consumed a few beers and everybody in the canteen knew of this man that had to be killed, you still did not discuss the matter with each other?

MR BRITS: It was irrelevant to me, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: What was irrelevant to you, to establish a DLB?

MR BRITS: No, my instruction was to set up a DLB and further I had nothing to do with the rest of the operation. If there was an operation.

MR JONKER: But Sir, you received monies for certain things that were done, you must have been interested in knowing whether, if this successful, maybe you would received a few rand.

MR BRITS: I did not think about it at that stage, Chairperson, so I did not discuss it.

MR JONKER: So if I understand you correctly, if operations were successful, you would receive money?

MR BRITS: Not necessarily with each and every operation, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: But some of them you did.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And at this specific stage you did not need money, because that is why you were not interested in the incident.

MR BRITS: We did not do our work for money, Chairperson, we did our work because it was our work.

MR JONKER: As I understand you, Mr Snyman was only the supplier of the armoury, is that correct?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And Mr Snyman kept record of what happened here, he came to tell you "Listen, in the newspaper there was an article about this."

MR BRITS: No, you're wrong, I told him about the newspaper article.

MR JONKER: When you saw Koekemoer again, did you ask him what happened about that incident there in Komatipoort?

MR BRITS: No, it was not long thereafter when we were disbanded, so I didn't actually see him.

MR JONKER: Sir, you were such good social friends with Koekemoer, you visited his house along with your girlfriend.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Yes. And then you read this in the newspaper that the person had been killed, you were very good friends but you never asked him, "Listen, is this the DLB, the DLB there, is this where this person was shot?"

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: But why not?

MR BRITS: As I have said, I was not interested in it, it was not of any interest to me.

MR JONKER: But certainly you must have heard, or may I put it as follows. Did Karel Koekemoer never tell you that, "Listen, I shot somebody there, there at that DLB"?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: At no stage?

MR BRITS: Not that I can recall, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Did you hear that he had killed someone?

MR BRITS: I read it in the newspaper, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: But did you hear that Mr Koekemoer shot this person?

MR BRITS: I know Mr Koekemoer from the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit, and I read it in the newspaper.

MR JONKER: Sir, did the newspaper say Capt Koekemoer shot the person?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Yes. And you do not ask Koekemoer about this incident afterwards?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson, not that I can recall.

MR JONKER: But why not?

MR BRITS: Well it was his operation, Chairperson, it was not necessary for me to ask him what he did.

MR JONKER: But you were part of the operation.

MR BRITS: Only for the DLB, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Yes, Sir, just for the DLB is already a large part of the operation, because if you did not establish the DLB, then there was no operation. Or the deceased would have been killed elsewhere, so your part of the operation was half of the operation.

MR BRITS: It did not bother me at that stage, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Did Mr de Kock at any stage tell you that this action had been successful?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Did you not ask him what happened of it?

MR BRITS: No, Chairperson, when we were done with an operation we regarded it as concluded.

MR JONKER: But you and your social friends, or may I state it as follows. You and your friends sat there in the canteen and discussed operations.

MR BRITS: Sometimes, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Yes. On the contrary, Mr de Kock testified that the canteen was the operational room.

MR BRITS: Sometimes, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Yes. And it was discussed that this person would be killed in the canteen, but you never heard about it again.

MR BRITS: I was not present when it was discussed, Chairperson. Later I heard about this from Lionel Snyman.

MR JONKER: Did you later hear from Lionel Snyman that ...?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson. As I've already said, after the Attorney-General stared his investigation, Lionel Snyman reported it to me, or mentioned it to me.

MR JONKER: When did Lionel Snyman mention it to you, five or six years afterwards?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And during those five or six years time you never heard of this specific person that was killed. You work with these people every day, you drink beers with these people in the canteen and at no stage did you hear of it and all of a sudden, five years afterwards, now you hear about it.

MR BRITS: We were quite busy at that stage, Chairperson, many people were killed in many different areas.

MR JONKER: Yes, I am convinced of that, Sir. But you heard of other people who had been killed, you testified that there in the canteen you discussed things and some of your colleagues said that you were involved in this specific incident, and you were with that incident and you discussed it in the canteen. The police refer to it as "speak easy", this canteen. It would appear that this is where you planned everything, in the canteen. Was this thing never discussed in the canteen again?

MR BRITS: It could be, Chairperson, but not where I was present.

MR JONKER: Gen Engelbrecht, did he attend these operational planning sessions in the canteen?

MR BRITS: A few times that I can recall, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: How many are a few times, once, twice or a few? You cannot recall.

MR BRITS: We were not supposed to consume liquor before an operation or discuss the operation before, only afterwards, but I did not keep records as to when, who was there, so I do not know when Gen Engelbrecht was there.

MR JONKER: And Sir, after the operation had been concluded you enjoyed a few beers, if I understand you correctly.

MR BRITS: Yes, sometimes.

MR JONKER: And then you discussed the successes of the operation?

MR BRITS: Not necessarily always, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: But it is done.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: But nothing was said of this specific operation?

MR BRITS: It was a very small operation with regard to, very few persons were involved, it was not supposed to be general knowledge.

MR JONKER: But everybody knew about this in the canteen.

MR BRITS: I don't know.

MR JONKER: I put it to you, it was such a small operation, but Snyman heard about it in the canteen.

MR BRITS: I think if I recall correctly, Lionel Snyman told me that he was present in the canteen when Koekemoer, Human and Col de Kock had discussed it. I was not present, so I speak on hearsay, and I had said that is what Lionel told me.

MR JONKER: You testified that Engelbrecht was there when they planned certain actions, were you present in some of the meetings or during the planning where the General was involved?

MR BRITS: The General and the senior officers would plan the operation, afterwards Gen Engelbrecht would sit in while the planning was done.

MR JONKER: You are now talking about he may sit in with the planning, did he?

MR BRITS: Yes, I think once or twice, as far as I can recall.

MR JONKER: And when the operation was completed, was the General again involved or close by?

MR BRITS: Yes, maybe at a later stage he'd come and tell us, "Congratulations with the operation", etcetera.

MR JONKER: And if this Gen now sat in with the planning of some of the actions, who would usually report back to the General?

MR BRITS: It would be Col de Kock in his absence, Baker or Paul van Dyk, because they were the three senior officers.

MR JONKER: And did it sometimes happen that some of you were sent to Gen Engelbrecht's office?

MR BRITS: No, not that I can recall. It could be that Willie Nortje and some of the other members could have done it. But it is possible that Col de Kock could have sent me to go and report back to the General.

MR JONKER: You're an old hand, you're a Warrant Officer with a few years of service, you were one of the old men, and with the close co-operation in your unit it didn't really matter who was sent to the General?

MR BRITS: Yes, there was a big difference concerning who was going to go to the General.

MR JONKER: I'm not saying that you did not respect the ranks, but there was a more social atmosphere, if I can put it that way, maybe a better inter-personal relationship between the ranks. It was not quite the case where there's an officer sitting completely separate from the others, you worked together and you trusted each other.

MR BRITS: Yes, that is correct.

MR JONKER: So there was not that big a difference between a Warrant, or that a Warrant Officer would be too scared to talk to a General, because a General visits Vlakplaas regularly and you could have gone up to him and had a conversation with him.

MR BRITS: Yes, that is correct.

MR JONKER: So if you had a serious problem, you could certainly have gone to the General and tell him that, "Listen, I've a serious problem"?

MR BRITS: Yes, but I ...

MR JONKER: But you cannot recall how often you went to General Engelbrecht's office.

MR BRITS: No, I cannot.

MR JONKER: Is it possible that you've been there?

MR BRITS: Yes, it's possible.

MR JONKER: So if I understand Mr de Kock's evidence, is it possible that it's true?

MR BRITS: It is possible that he sent me, yes.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JONKER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van den Berg, from your brief encounter with client?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Just a single aspect, Mr Chairperson.

The handgrenade that you described, with the assistance of the Chairperson you described it as looking like a pineapple.

MR BRITS: Yes, as far as I can recall.

MR VAN DEN BERG: An F1?

MR BRITS: Yes, I do not know why they mention here M57, the M57 is a smooth surface handgrenade.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I've got no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Wagener?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairman.

Mr Brits, from when to when were you involved in Vlakplaas, or at Vlakplaas?

MR BRITS: From '86 to '92, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: On the 1st of February 1992, the Vlakplaas component divided, can you remember?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson, as far as I can recall.

MR WAGENER: Part of it remained at Vlakplaas under the command of, I think it was a Maj Dave Baker.

MR BRITS: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: And a part of it moved to a building in Meyer's Park, under Mr de Kock's command.

MR BRITS: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: And a few months later another section went to Midrand, under the command of Paul van Dyk.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: After this division, where did you resort?

MR BRITS: Under Col de Kock.

MR WAGENER: So after the 1st of February you were not at Vlakplaas anymore?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson, although we did meet there.

MR WAGENER: But your office from which you worked was not at Vlakplaas anymore?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: No? You agree with what I said?

MR BRITS: Yes, that is correct.

MR WAGENER: Gen Engelbrecht became the Commander for the C Group on the 1st of January 1991.

MR BRITS: I'm not sure about the date, but I'll accept it as such.

MR WAGENER: Yes, it is after Gen Nick van Rensburg was transferred to the Cape, but January '91 was the date that Gen Engelbrecht became the Commander of C Group.

MR BRITS: I'll accept it.

MR WAGENER: I see in the statement, Exhibit B, you say de Kock was the Commander of C-Section. It's technically not correct and I assume that you say that Gen Engelbrecht was the Commander of C-Section.

MR BRITS: I may have put it the wrong way, but Col de Kock was my Unit Commander.

MR WAGENER: For C10?

MR BRITS: Yes, that came later when they added the zero.

MR WAGENER: Were you involved with the Harms Commission?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: The Harms Commission proceedings was during 1990, from February of August of that year.

MR BRITS: That could have been so, yes.

MR WAGENER: On a question from Adv Hattingh, you said that at various opportunities you discussed matters with Gen Engelbrecht, can you mention these matters, when, where, how?

MR BRITS: I cannot recall, but we were very comfortable with each other and where we discussed operations afterwards and laughed, but in detail.

MR WAGENER: Can you mention on single incident, if you cannot recall the rest? Can you give us a date, a place and what you talked about?

MR BRITS: Let me just put it clearly, I did not talk to Gen Engelbrecht alone, it would have been in a group and I cannot recall the place or the date or the specific matter.

MR WAGENER: In other words, you say that you never spoke to him alone?

MR BRITS: No, not as far as I can recall.

MR WAGENER: In other words, on the question of Mr Hattingh, I understood or got the impression that it boils down to the fact that you personally discussed matters with Gen Engelbrecht.

MR BRITS: That is not correct, Mr Chairperson. I, for example, met Gen Engelbrecht at the tennis courts and discussed his tennis, not necessarily concerning work.

MR WAGENER: But the way in which the question was put by Adv Hattingh, and your answer, I got the impression and maybe I'm wrong, that you and Gen Engelbrecht had various discussions about work matters and I assumed it was on a one on one basis, is that correct?

MR BRITS: No.

MR WAGENER: If there was one such matter you would have recalled it?

MR BRITS: Yes, I believe so.

MR WAGENER: And you've already testified that you cannot recall if this specific matter was discussed with him?

MR BRITS: Yes, I did testify about that.

MR WAGENER: So it's then unlikely that such a discussion could have taken place.

MR BRITS: It's likely and unlikely, Mr Chairperson. It is possible that I could have discussed it with him.

MR WAGENER: No, I hear what you say about "possible", but I also heard now that you said you would have recalled it, now my question is, can I accept that it most probably didn't happen that you discussed it with him? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BRITS: Yes, it could have been so, it's possible.

MR WAGENER: When you went to the Eastern Transvaal with Mr Koekemoer, did you know what the whole operation entailed?

MR BRITS: I knew that I had to go and create a DLB.

MR WAGENER: Nothing else?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: You saw what you said in Exhibit B, the one that you signed this morning and confirmed under oath.

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: And you will still recall that I personally administered the oath.

MR BRITS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: If you look at that, the second-last page under the heading "Merits", there it says that you were aware that East Rand Murder and Robbery would launch an action against a person from the ANC.

MR BRITS: Yes, that is according to my statement.

MR WAGENER: Is it correct or not?

MR BRITS: This statement was signed by myself this morning and it was made with the assistance of my legal representative during this week. At the stage when I created the DLB, the first section is wrong.

MR WAGENER: So the fact that East Rand Murder and Robbery was going to act against a member of the ANC, where does that fit in?

MR BRITS: I only found that out at a later stage.

MR WAGENER: When was this?

MR BRITS: That was after the Attorney-General's investigations.

MR WAGENER: Where did you find this out?

MR BRITS: From Lionel Snyman.

MR WAGENER: Just for interest sake, is it not strange that the Murder and Robbery unit must act against a member of the ANC?

MR BRITS: At that stage Security and Murder and Robbery worked together.

MR WAGENER: Are you saying that during 1991, Murder and Robbery and Security acted against the ANC?

MR BRITS: If there was an ANC member that was killed and it was a Murder and Robbery person who was involved in the investigation of the murder, then the Murder and Robbery would have done it. That is why I'm saying, in that sense we co-operated.

MR WAGENER: I understand what you're saying, but after an action, if there's an investigation that followed and where somebody was killed, then Murder and Robbery would investigate it.

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: But is said here is wrong.

MR BRITS: We worked closely with Murder and Robbery. As I already testified, they made use of our people to go and look for suspects, so we did work closely together, yes. That is what I meant.

MR WAGENER: Your tasks and you, this is now the old Vlakplaas members, that is now in March 1991, what did this entail? This is now a year after the unbanning of the ANC.

MR BRITS: Then we were based more on organised crime.

MR WAGENER: So then my question would be, is it not strange that Murder and Robbery had to act against the ANC? What would that mean?

MR BRITS: I wouldn't know, I cannot answer.

MR WAGENER: You testified earlier on this afternoon that - or maybe I should ask this question first. In the sub-division of Vlakplaas, that's in 1990, so the year before this operation you were divided into sections or sub-components.

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: In which component did you fall?

MR BRITS: I was in Col de Kock's component.

MR WAGENER: Up and including January 1991, when Engelbrecht became the Commander of C-Group, did you have any personal contact with him? This is now Gen Engelbrecht?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson, I did know about him. It was well known that he was a very good investigator and everybody knew about him, but I did not have direct contact with him.

MR WAGENER: You heard what Mr de Kock testified about earlier today, that on a date, we're not quite sure about the date and we accept that it was shortly before the 5th of March 1991, and he sent you to Gen Engelbrecht to go and get certain instructions.

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: If such a thing would have happened, would you recall it?

MR BRITS: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Do you recall it?

MR BRITS: No, I don't.

MR WAGENER: And the same with the report-back - I think I've already asked this question, but for completion's sake, his evidence is that you would have reported back to Gen Engelbrecht concerning the operation, can you recall that?

MR BRITS: As I've already said, it's possible, but as far as I can recall I reported back to Col de Kock.

MR WAGENER: Then Mr Brits, we know that the deceased was killed on the 5th of March 1991, it was on a Tuesday.

MR BRITS: It's possible, yes.

MR WAGENER: And you said you and Mr Koekemoer went to the Lowveld on a Sunday.

MR BRITS: Yes, that is as far as I can recall.

MR WAGENER: Do you know if it was the Sunday immediately before the incident, or don't you know?

MR BRITS: No, I don't know.

MR WAGENER: What is your recollection?

MR BRITS: My recollection was that it was about a week or two weeks later. That is what I can recall. I'm not quite sure, but I cannot testify about the date.

MR WAGENER: So it doesn't help if we look at Mr Koekemoer's movements on Sunday the 3rd of March, or any specific Sunday?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson, I cannot assist.

MR WAGENER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener.

Was there a bar open on a Sunday, in Nelspruit?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson, I knew the people at Malelane who owned the hotel and we could buy beer from them.

CHAIRPERSON: A shebeen-like place?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: It helps to have contacts on the road, Chairperson.

Mr Brits, just generally, the information that Bambo was an ANC person, where did that come from?

MR BRITS: I do not know, I never knew about that.

MS PATEL: So what we see in your supplementary affidavit to us today, that is the information that you would have heard from Mr Snyman at the time that the A-G's office was investigating this matter?

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MS PATEL: Okay. And you never discussed the incident with Mr Snyman, except to get the weapons from him?

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes, and afterwards when I saw in the newspaper about the shooting, we just communicated about it. That was after I saw the newspaper. I called him and I told him somebody was shot in the Eastern Transvaal, but he didn't know what happened there.

MS PATEL: Right. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Brits, did you have contact after the incident with Mr Koekemoer?

MR BRITS: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: How often and how long afterwards?

MR BRITS: It's difficult to say, it was a very long time ago, but I did see him a few times afterwards, I also met him in Pretoria.

ADV BOSMAN: And you never discussed this whole incident again?

MR BRITS: No.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

Your association and friendship with Mr Koekemoer, you say that continued even after the Vlakplaas unit had been disbanded?

MR BRITS: Yes, if I went to the East Rand and he was at home, I would go and greet him, just to say hello.

ADV SANDI: I understood you to say that at that stage you continued trusting each other.

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

ADV SANDI: You still didn't ask him about this dead letter box he had to set up?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: I also understood you to say that you do not recall any particular report which you had to give to Mr Engelbrecht.

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Now I have a problem, I'll tell you where my problem is. To start with, you've told us about so many possibilities that I've stopped counting, I have stopped counting now how many possibilities you've testified to here. Now when you say it's possible that you did go to Mr Engelbrecht to give a report ....(intervention)

MR BRITS: That is possible.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but it you were not in the habit of communicating with people like Generals, because as you've said you were a footsoldier, you didn't easily go and talk to those people on a person to person basis.

MR BRITS: That's correct.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but wouldn't it be easy for you to recall discussing this particular incident with Mr Engelbrecht?

MR BRITS: No, Mr Chairperson, it was not a serious matter. Certain things were serious to me, but this wasn't. If I reported back to Col de Kock and he told me I had to report to Gen Engelbrecht, then I would have done it, but I wouldn't necessarily have remembered it. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

ADV SANDI: Do you still maintain that it's possible that you did go to Mr Engelbrecht to give a report to him?

MR BRITS: It's possible, yes.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Any re-examination, Mr Cornelius?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Mindful of the time, only two questions, thank you Mr Chair.

You did not act keeping in mind that you wanted a bonus or some money from it?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And medals were given and bonuses were given in the past, and people have testified about this.

MR BRITS: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And if I recall the testimony of Mr de Kock, there was this understanding that no alcohol was used before an operation, is that right?

MR BRITS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

ADV BOSMAN: Chairperson, may I be allowed just to put one more question to the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, Advocate Bosman.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

Did you ever in other matters, work professionally with Mr Koekemoer, except for this incident?

MR BRITS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, we worked closely together at scenes in the East Rand, where he was the investigative officer.

ADV BOSMAN: So you would say various incidents?

MR BRITS: I would not say, I cannot specifically say three or four or five, but we did work closely together.

ADV BOSMAN: Were these incidents all aboveboard incidents?

MR BRITS: No, it was only where he worked as an investigative officer and we assisted him.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: With your indulgence, Mr Chairman.

Mr Brits, is there any particular incident or operation which you've never discussed with Mr Engelbrecht?

MR BRITS: I cannot recall such a thing, no.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

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

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: I apologise to Correctional Services for just going through a minute or two after three-thirty. Could we come to an understanding that we commence at nine-thirty tomorrow? Is everybody comfortable with that? We'll adjourn until tomorrow, nine-thirty.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS