DATE: 22ND AUGUST 2000

NAME: DANIEL LIONEL SNYMAN

APPLICATION NO: AM3766/96

DAY: 6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. Today is the 22nd of August 2000, a Tuesday if I'm not mistaken, and it's a continuation of the matter we started with yesterday and if my recollection is right, it's that we will hear Mr Daniel Snyman. Would I be right, Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Quite correct, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: In which language is he going to testify?

MR CORNELIUS: Afrikaans.

ADV BOSMAN: Can we just get your full names for the record please.

DANIEL LIONEL SNYMAN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. You may be seated, Mr Snyman. Mr Cornelius?

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Snyman, you are an applicant in this matter and your application appears on bundle 1, from page 9 to 19 and then an annexure from page 20, is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: If I can refer you to the second part of your application, you mention certain political objectives that you had during that time, do you confirm the contents of the application as far as the political objectives are concerned?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Then I'd like to focus the Committee's attention to the fact that your application from page 30, where it says:

"The provision of weapons to other persons"

Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Then I ask the Committee to look at the Nature and Particulars. There is a paragraph 1 that should be ruled out, because that is a matter of Andreavich, which is not applicable in this case, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: But the actual application then is on page 30, from paragraph 2, 3, 4, 5, up to and including page 33, is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. You were under C-Section at Vlakplaas.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And at previous opportunities, this Honourable Committee received a general bundle concerning the nature and workings and activities of Vlakplaas.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: During this incident, what rank did you have?

MR SNYMAN: I was a Warrant Officer.

MR CORNELIUS: You are also an explosives expert and you also provided training to members of Vlakplaas, in the handling of these explosives.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You provided your full co-operation after you submitted your application, as well as with the investigation team of the Attorney-General.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Just to get back to the merits of this case, at a certain stage you sat in a bar, can you tell us about the canteen at Vlakplaas, was this a public canteen, did the public have access to it?

MR SNYMAN: This canteen was actually just for the members of Vlakplaas, it was a very closed area, it was not a canteen or bar where people would go just to drink, it was sometimes also used as a meeting place.

MR CORNELIUS: If you say "meeting place", do you mean like a conference facility?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Why was this sometimes used?

MR SNYMAN: There were not enough offices at the farm and the canteen was actually the largest room in which everybody could gather together.

MR CORNELIUS: On this specific day that you sat there, what discussion did you hear and who was present?

MR SNYMAN: This discussion I cannot recall how it happened - the people were already there, amongst others, Mr Koekemoer and Mr Human were in the bar. I then asked who the other person was with Mr Koekemoer, and this was the first time that I met Brig Human. I was also told by Col de Kock to ....(intervention) ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR CORNELIUS: Very well, we'll get to that in a minute. This Brig Human, is it Brig Ivor Human that you are referring to? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, he was the Commander of the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. This discussion that you overheard, what inferences did you draw, what had to be done?

MR SNYMAN: Weaponry had to be provided to create a DLB, to hide the fact that there was sensitive information - or to prevent this person from disclosing sensitive information and to then eliminate this person.

MR CORNELIUS: That is the inference that you draw?

MR SNYMAN: That's it.

MR CORNELIUS: A DLB, is that a dead letter box?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: What inference did you make, what weapons had to be used?

MR SNYMAN: It had to be foreign weaponry, East-bloc weapons.

MR CORNELIUS: And at Vlakplaas there was a storeroom to accommodate these weapons?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Where did you receive these weapons from?

MR SNYMAN: Certain weapons that came from South West.

MR CORNELIUS: Were you approached by somebody to provide weapons?

MR SNYMAN: I cannot recall if it was Brits that asked me to help him pack these weapons, or Col de Kock that told me that I had to do it, but it wouldn't have been without his permission in any case.

MR CORNELIUS: You say it wouldn't have been without the permission of de Kock?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: You say "goods", what did you provide them with and what did you package?

MR SNYMAN: It was landmines and handgrenades.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you recall what type of landmines you used?

MR SNYMAN: I'm not quite sure, there was a variety, but most of the mines that were available there were used.

MR CORNELIUS: How did you package it?

MR SNYMAN: We packaged it in black rubbish bags. We packaged usually in these black rubbish bags.

MR CORNELIUS: And to whom did you give this?

MR SNYMAN: We handed this over to Brits.

MR CORNELIUS: After you handed it over what happened, did you report back to somebody?

MR SNYMAN: At a later stage Dawid showed me a newspaper report in which a black man was killed in the identification of a DLB in Nelspruit, and I think he then mentioned to me that that's most probably the things that we packaged and that he took to Nelspruit.

MR CORNELIUS: You are trying to testify as best as you can.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Explosives have been used at various times by Vlakplaas and to use it to cover up the death of a person.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: No disciplinary actions were taken against you in this legal act of yours in providing them with these explosives?

MR SNYMAN: No. It was an instruction.

MR CORNELIUS: You were present at various times when high officials from Head Office came to you and handed out medals and accolades for what you did and you took it that they approved of what you did.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And Head Office also knew that you had these weapons in storage.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any remuneration for these acts?

MR SNYMAN: No, I didn't receive anything for this. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR CORNELIUS: And you followed the instructions of Eugene de Kock?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I always followed his instructions.

MR CORNELIUS: You've got no feeling of malice towards this victim?

MR SNYMAN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: You are now applying for amnesty for the illegal possession of explosives under the Explosives Act.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: The providing of explosives to others and any other delict or offence that may come from that, and you also assisted in the committing of murder and you also agreed with it to a certain extent.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You then also apply for any possible delict which may flow out of your actions.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you also did not tell the police that you provided them with illegal explosives, in other words it was a form of defeating the ends of justice.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: When the Attorney-General approached you, did you give them a full report?

MR SNYMAN: I foresaw a problem in that instance, I went to go and see Adv Hattingh, at that stage he was still my legal representative, and I told him I foresee a problem because of this incident, that I had to go and talk at the Attorney-General and that I had to involve Brig Human from the investigative team and I did not know what problems I'd encounter with the Attorney-General's investigative team. Before I made certain statements, I informed Adv de Jager about a possible problem that I foresaw, I'm as a State witness and that I was going to be involved in the investigative team and that was a problem for me.

There was also another person present in the office and they told me that I must just not mention this case and that I'll never have to testify against Col de Kock, and at that stage I took the decision, I kept quiet, because of the possibility that I would disadvantaged in that I would involve the people from the investigative team.

MR CORNELIUS: But on legal advice, you then decided to expose this whole story.

MR SNYMAN: I did it like that.

MR CORNELIUS: It was on legal advice from Adv Hattingh?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: He's also a very good advocate and you followed this legal advice that he gave you?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, on the advice of de Jager I did not mention this case at that stage to the investigative officer to came to take statements.

MR CORNELIUS: But you did make a full disclosure of all the facts that you had?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Firstly, you said Dawid showed you a newspaper report, when you say "Dawid", you're referring to Mr Brits?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do, Mr Hattingh, could I just find out something from our Evidence Leader? The name of Human is cropping up for the second time, has he been notified, or what is the position as regards him?

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, my instructions or advices from the office was that they were unable to find him, he's no longer with the Attorney-General's office and I, yesterday morning once again also before we started, I placed another call through to the office and they once again confirmed to me that they couldn't locate him. So unfortunately he has not been notified.

CHAIRPERSON: Nor do they have a forwarding address or something like that?

MS PATEL: No, they do not, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I will take it up with you again during tea, we may proceed for the moment. Mr Hattingh, I'm sorry about that.

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

Mr Snyman, you on your own volition disclosed information, information between myself and you as client and legal representative, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you have any problem if I question you further about it, because the information which you gave me is privileged information and it is your privilege? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR SNYMAN: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you. Is it correct that during Mr de Kock's hearing various members of Vlakplaas who were all initially my clients, approached the State Advocates with the intention to get indemnity under Section 204, and then in the process testified against Mr de Kock?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that most of the people, and I think you are one of them, before they did it, approached Mr de Kock and asked him how he felt about this, the fact that you are all going to testify against him?

MR SNYMAN: Dawid Brits told me that he approached the Colonel, and the Colonel said that we have to continue. I did not have contact with the Colonel myself.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock's attitude was that you must not think of his interests, but you have to think of your own interests.

MR SNYMAN: It was the impression that was created, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Are you aware of the fact that he only made one request to the persons who approached him, and that was that the white members of Vlakplaas must not try and get indemnity for themselves only, but that they must also see to it that such an arrangement is made for the black members as well, such as Simon Radebe, Eric Sefade and the others? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR SNYMAN: Yes, there was talk about that amongst the people, I cannot exactly recall when this discussion took place.

MR HATTINGH: When you approached me for advice, I explained the legal procedure to you and also in a document that we sent to the then Dr D'Oliviera, that you are free to refuse to consult with them, that if you want to make use of the Section 204, you can make use of it, and you then decided to make use of that opportunity.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You then approached Adv de Jager, that was Antoinette de Jager.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: She was on the staff of the Attorney-General, especially charged with the matters that came from the Goldstone Commission's report concerning Vlakplaas activities.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You then told her about Brig Ivor Human's involvement in this incident, as you just testified about it today.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: He was, if not the head, but certainly one of the head investigative officers from the Attorney-General's team in the case of Mr de Kock.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, yes, that was when I became a State witness.

MR HATTINGH: And you said Antoinette de Jager then told you that you must not talk about this incident and you will then also not testify against Mr de Kock.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you called by the State to testify against Mr de Kock?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I had to go and testify against Mr de Kock at a later stage.

MR HATTINGH: Was it the State that did it, or the Prosecution?

MR SNYMAN: It was the Attorney-General's investigative team. I think it was also a DLB that was created in the Eastern Transvaal.

MR HATTINGH: I'm asking you this because I cannot recall, did you also later testify in mitigating circumstances for Mr de Kock?

MR SNYMAN: No, I never testified again.

MR HATTINGH: I may be confusing you with Mr Vermeulen. After Adv de Jager told you not to disclose any information concerning this, you in your statement from page 43 - can you just look at. Was that the statement that you made to Supt Swartz, who was part of the D'Oliviera investigative team?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that is correct, that is the morning before I went to go and testify. I told Adv de Jager and them that I foresee a problem and I will be questioned because of the fact that you have knowledge about all my involvement in the past and while I was still a client of you.

MR HATTINGH: And you knew at that stage that you hadn't made a written statement yet about this incident.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then in haste they quickly made a statement or took a statement from you.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is this the statement from page 43 onwards?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: That according to the date it was taken from you on the 12th of February 1996, at five to eight in the morning.

MR SNYMAN: That was just before I went to court.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just get to the details of this incident. Maybe I should interrupt myself. You did not testify about this incident and you were also not questioned about it.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: This discussion that you heard in the bar, you heard that Mr de Kock does not know about it, can you recall if he was present when you heard this discussion?

MR SNYMAN: I cannot say if he was present in the bar or not. I do not know if he phoned me or informed what my tasks would be.

MR HATTINGH: This Brig Human, was he present at various times in the bar at Vlakplaas?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I believe so.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Koekemoer?

MR SNYMAN: Mr Koekemoer was there a few times.

MR HATTINGH: Did you work with him in his capacity as a member of the Murder and Robbery unit in the East Rand?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you know him at this opportunity when you heard this discussion?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I knew him at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I've got 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.

Mr Snyman, you must have heard Mr Britsí evidence yesterday, is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And after he had made mention of the handgrenades that had apparently been in the DLB, did you hear that part of his evidence?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I did.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And with my follow-up questions to him he confirmed that it was an F1 handgrenade.

MR SNYMAN: I cannot recall exactly what handgrenade it was at this stage, but it would have been of Eastern-bloc origin. It could have been various types.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The landmines which you had supplied to Mr Brits, you would have certainly taken steps in order to ensure that the landmines were safe and that the detonators and so forth were that were in the landmines, that they would not explode.

MR SNYMAN: All the landmines we stored were stored without detonators. We did not have detonators for those landmines.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the safety pins as well, they were also present?

MR SNYMAN: Safety pins?

MR VAN DEN BERG: If we study Mr van Zyl's statement, this is in volume 2, page 22, if we study paragraph 7, there van Zyl says:

"I removed a second and third landmine from the cache point and the third landmine was attached with a MGM detonator, but the safety pin had been removed."

Do you see that?

MR SNYMAN: I see that, but that is unacceptable to me, I would not package something like that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If you drive with this in the back of your vehicle, would it have been safe?

MR SNYMAN: It would not detonate.

MR VAN DEN BERG: It would not detonate. Even if the safety pin was removed and it had a detonator?

MR SNYMAN: Let me put it as such, it shouldn't go off because someone has to detonate it by stepping on it, but it won't go off by itself.

MR VAN DEN BERG: It would safe to drive around with this landmine in the back of your vehicle?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I have done so once in Ovamboland.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Today, would you do the same?

MR SNYMAN: Depending on the circumstances, I would, but as I have said it would not detonate quite that easily.

MR VAN DEN BERG: To get back to your previous answers to my question, you say that the landmines would be supplied without the detonating mechanisms.

MR SNYMAN: I would not have placed a detonating mechanism in a landmine specifically and remove the safety pin and given it to him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And was this your common practice when you handed over landmines?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, if one could one would remove the detonator always. One would not want to handle a landmine with a detonator.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If we move over to the discussion in the canteen. If I understand your evidence correctly, you received the instructions from Mr de Kock shortly after that discussion.

MR SNYMAN: It could be shortly before or after, I cannot recall exactly.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But it was in that time-frame.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, it was.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr van den Berg.

I thought you said you are not sure if it was Mr Brits or Mr de Kock who got you involved into this. That's what you said in your evidence-in-chief.

MR SNYMAN: I'm not sure exactly who contacted me first, if it was Mr Brits that perhaps he told me that I must do this, that the Colonel gave the instruction, or that the Colonel gave me the instruction himself, or that I could receive the instruction from him perhaps in his office or somewhere else on the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: So between you and Mr Brits, who is more senior?

MR SNYMAN: I had a longer time in the Police, but I think that W/O Brits became Warrant Officer, perhaps before I became Warrant Officer, I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: So in terms of Vlakplaas, would you be senior to him or would he be senior to you? In terms of the hierarchy.

MR SNYMAN: He would be more senior to me, he was on the farm before I was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr van den Berg.

ADV BOSMAN: You were both of the same rank at that stage?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

If we study your statement on page 43 and the following pages, can we just elaborate on this discussion that you overheard. Am I correct, there were many people in the canteen and there were various discussions going on, people were conversing, there was no singular topic of discussion going on?

MR SNYMAN: No, certainly not, there wouldn't have been one discussion going on, but the canteen was not that full if I recall correctly.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if I can infer from this, you were not actually part of this discussion?

MR SNYMAN: No, I was not part of that discussion.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You heard parts of it?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I heard parts of it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And as we would say in English, you were "picking up stompies"?

MR SNYMAN: No, I would not say that. I sat there and listened, I do not smoke.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If we study paragraph 3 of your affidavit or your application, you said:

"I could not hear the whole conversation between the above-mentioned persons, but I just heard bits and pieces here and there."

MR SNYMAN: That's correct, that's how I said it there, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So you must have heard that I put it to Mr de Kock and to Mr Brits, that my client was not part of such a discussion and that there was no discussion with regard to the establishment of a DLB. What is your commentary to that?

MR SNYMAN: If you say so, then it is possibly so, but as I said I was told to collect these arms for the purpose of handing it over to Mr Brits.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you aware who Mr van den Berg's client is, Mr Snyman?

MR SNYMAN: Excuse me?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you aware who Mr van den Berg's client is? Do you know who he's referring to when he says "my client"?

MR SNYMAN: It must be Mr Koekemoer, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I just wanted to make certain.

MR SNYMAN: Thank you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

And furthermore my client denies that he had killed the deceased in this matter upon instruction, what is your comment to that?

MR SNYMAN: I had no further dealings with the execution of anything, except for the supply of the arms here.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you have already testified that the instruction to supply the arms, you cannot recall whether this had taken place before or after the discussion.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, but it was on that day or within that hour or more than that hour or at that stage.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When you received the instruction, was Mr Koekemoer still at the farm?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, he was.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Why did you not give the arms directly to him?

MR SNYMAN: Because I was told to hand it over to Mr Brits, and those are the instructions I received. I would not have given arms to persons who were not attached to the farm, except for when there was a direct instruction from the Colonel.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr van den Berg.

You say, Mr Brits - sorry, Mr Snyman:

"I was told to give the arms to Mr Brits"

Who is this person you are referring to, who told you to give the arms to Mr Brits?

MR SNYMAN: The command came from Col de Kock.

ADV SANDI: Are you now saying you are sure that the instruction came from Mr de Kock, because I understood you to say that you were not sure if it was Mr Brits or Mr de Kock who got you involved into this.

MR SNYMAN: If I could put it that way, it may have been Mr Brits that came to me and said the Colonel said that I must do this, and I would have accepted it if Mr Brits said the Colonel says I should do this, or if the Colonel said it himself to me, I'm not sure, but I would not have done it if it was not a command from the Colonel.

CHAIRPERSON: And you followed the instructions that they must be given to Mr Brits, irrespective of where the order came from?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, I gave the arms to Mr Brits.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The occasion when Mr Koekemoer and Mr Human were on the farm where this discussion had taken place according to you, can you supply us with more particulars, as it the party arranged for East Rand Murder and Robbery, was it a monthly gathering of the people of Vlakplaas, what was the occasion?

MR SNYMAN: If I recall correctly the canteen was reasonably empty that evening, there was no occasion.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HURWITZ: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

My instructions are that Mr Olifant is unknown to you, is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR HURWITZ: So you wouldn't have been privy to any conversation from his officers to him, Pretorius and Coetzee?

MR SNYMAN: I don't know him at all. I don't even know that side of the story, that ... was involved in this incident.

MR HURWITZ: Thank you. 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, Mr Chairman.

Mr Snyman, this operation, was it a secret operation?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, it would have been, or let me say it would have been a covert operation.

MR JONKER: When I refer to secret actions, would your actions only have been known to Mr Koekemoer, Mr Human and possibly yourself who was there in the canteen that specific day, or not?

CHAIRPERSON: It wouldn't be known to him, he was drawing inferences.

MR JONKER: Excuse me, Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: I say it wouldn't have been known to him what covert operation it was, he was drawing inferences from what was discussed. That's his evidence.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR JONKER: Sir, you say the canteen was reasonably empty, how many people were there? Can you give us an indication, four/five people?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, possibly four or five people.

MR JONKER: Sir, in the case of Vlakplaas, if there was a secret operation or a secret action, would everyone on the farm have known about it, or not?

MR SNYMAN: No, everybody would not have known about it.

MR JONKER: So a secret action would not have been discussed in the canteen, or if it was discussed in the canteen, it would have been specifically on the one or two persons it would have been applicable to.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, the people to whom it was applicable, and if there was anybody else who would have been involved, they would have also been present and persons who would have known about it may have been there, but as I have said, I give my version here as I can remember.

MR JONKER: The person that had to be killed, what did you know of this person?

MR SNYMAN: I knew that he was apparently a person who would supply information that would cause a problem for Murder and Robbery, whether it be from the ANC's side or give information with regard to some or other operations and that it is necessary to remove this person.

MR JONKER: At which stage was this told to you, that this person was a problem and had to be removed?

MR SNYMAN: This was part of the information which I obtained there when I heard that there were plans and why I had to supply the arms for the DLB.

MR JONKER: It was said that this person was a problem for Murder and Robbery, or would be a problem for Murder and Robbery.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct, yes, he would supply information about previous operations.

MR JONKER: But Sir, certainly if somebody was a problem for Murder and Robbery, then he would not have a political motive, he would have been a robber.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, and as has previously been testified, Murder and Robbery people used to work along with the Security persons and we shared our sources.

MR JONKER: You were informed on the farm what the purpose would be.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that is correct, because there was no other reason why I would have done this, I only at some stage asked whether it was a terrorist or an ANC or an MK, and that is why we used explosives of Eastern origin.

MR JONKER: So is that while you sat there in the canteen?

MR SNYMAN: I don't recall whether I asked this of Dawid, but that is the information I had when I collected all the arms for this DLB.

MR JONKER: Sir, in your statement on page 43 of bundle 1 and your second statement, paragraph 4, you mention that you drew an inference and now you are testifying that you heard that this was a person who was a problem, but as I understand, while you were there at the farm you drew the inference as to what would happen.

MR SNYMAN: I did not stand outside and draw the inference. If one draws the inference, it's information from the discussion that I heard and that is how I understood what the operation would entail.

MR JONKER: Because, Sir, you have just testified now that on the contrary, you determined, that it was told to you that it was a person who was a problem, and now you are saying you drew an inference, so what exactly happened here?

MR SNYMAN: When you are in the canteen and one would hear parts of the conversation and I asked if the person is a terrorist, I may have received an answer from either Dawid or the Colonel or from whoever, that a person told me yes, and that he had ANC attachments, and that is the reason why I had to collect arms of Eastern-bloc origin, and that is information that I gathered there. I cannot tell you exactly whether Mr Koekemoer or Mr Human or Mr Brits or the Colonel or some other person told me, I cannot recall exactly that somebody told me this.

MR JONKER: Sir, were you aware that this person had to be killed who had been detained?

MR SNYMAN: No, I did not know where he had been. I did not know whether he was detained at Murder and Robbery, or where he was. I did not know, I only heard later that he was in Modderbee.

MR JONKER: Mr Koekemoer, I believe he was a Lieutenant at that stage, how often did he visit Vlakplaas?

MR SNYMAN: I would not say often, but he did come there.

MR JONKER: Did you visit his house at any stage?

MR SNYMAN: I went to his house with Dawid Brits at some stage.

MR JONKER: And do you know whether he and Dawid Brits got along well?

MR SNYMAN: They visited each other at home and were social friends.

MR JONKER: Mr Human, did he attend the farm often?

MR SNYMAN: No, he did not.

MR JONKER: But before this discussion did you see him there before then?

MR SNYMAN: I actually saw him there that day for the first time and I asked someone who is this person.

MR JONKER: And Gen Engelbrecht, did you see him often at the farm?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, he visited the farm.

MR JONKER: Did he visit there often?

MR SNYMAN: I would not say often like in every week or every day, but he did make a turn there once in a while to find out how it was going.

MR JONKER: Sir, do you have any personal problems with Capt Koekemoer?

MR SNYMAN: No, none.

MR JONKER: Because I noted his legal representative said that he will deny any involvement in any DLB, why would he come to deny this?

MR SNYMAN: How would I know why he would deny this, I only supplied the arms, I had nothing to do with him.

MR JONKER: If I understand you correctly, you draw an inference that these arms were supplied for the DLB where the person was shot, but you do not recall whether it was at the same place.

MR SNYMAN: I was not involved any further, I only handed over the arms to Dawid Brits and that was it. On the contrary, I had forgotten about this whole incident, I was questioned by the A-G's investigative team about arms which I gave to other persons, and this particular matter my memory had to be refreshed and I directly thought of this incident after I was accused that I had given arms to Andreavich, and at that stage I could not recall any of that.

MR JONKER: The issue of Andreavich, who told you to give him arms?

MR SNYMAN: This came from Col de Kock.

MR JONKER: Did you give it to him directly there on the farm?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, in that case I didn't even know what it was for, it was just an instruction. That matter has been concluded.

MR JONKER: Can you recall what arms were supplied?

MR SNYMAN: To whom?

MR JONKER: To Brits.

MR SNYMAN: It was landmines and handgrenades.

MR JONKER: Can you recall how many?

MR SNYMAN: No, I cannot, one would have to go and look at the statements whether I said two or three landmines and/or handgrenades, I cannot recall whether it was four, three, one or two handgrenades. I said it was landmines and handgrenades that I packaged.

MR JONKER: What was the possibility if you gave the member three or four handgrenades and he may have kept one of these handgrenades for himself?

MR SNYMAN: If a person did this, he would pick up problems if he did anything wrong with it. As I said, instructions and arms that were given out there, the Colonel would have known about.

MR JONKER: Because you see, Sir, if I recall correctly there were two handgrenades supplied and Capt van Zyl who was at the scene, did not find a second handgrenade, he just understood that a handgrenade had exploded there and he searched around and he found small steel balls which came from an M75 handgrenade, and if I understand the documents correctly, two handgrenades were supplied, so somewhere between Vlakplaas and the DLB, a handgrenade disappeared.

MR SNYMAN: I would not say because I did not keep record of it, no record was kept specifically. If someone took one of the handgrenades from the time that I gave Dawid the handgrenades, then I would not know.

MR JONKER: You were an explosives expert, if a person had a handgrenade and he had a second handgrenade, but only the one handgrenade's pin is taken out and it explodes, that does not necessarily mean that the second handgrenade would also explode.

MR SNYMAN: Handgrenades will go off if two lie next to each other, they have to lie right next to each other, there has to be contact. There are instances where handgrenades were struck by shrapnel from other handgrenades that did not go off.

MR JONKER: So if a person has a handgrenade in his hand and it goes off in his hand and there's a handgrenade a few metres from him, the other one would not go off?

MR SNYMAN: No, it would not except for whether it hits the detonator directly, but the chances are very, very slim that it would go off if a piece of shrapnel hits it.

MR JONKER: When a handgrenade detonates and these landmines that were there, they were safe from an explosion of a handgrenade or not?

MR SNYMAN: Will you please repeat that question, Sir.

MR JONKER: The TM46 landmines that were there, they would have been safe if a handgrenade had gone off close to them.

MR SNYMAN: It depends how close.

MR JONKER: What distance would you say?

MR SNYMAN: It had to lie right against it.

MR JONKER: Two or three metres from it would not make a difference?

MR SNYMAN: I beg your pardon?

MR JONKER: Two, three metres from it?

MR SNYMAN: No, it would not go off.

MR JONKER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JONKER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jonker.

I hear you to say, Mr Snyman, that those landmines you had to trample on them to go off.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And what would the affect be if that handgrenade explodes and it's in proximity when you have just told us that you've got to step onto the landmine for it to go off? How would that mechanism work?

MR SNYMAN: The mechanism that is made for a landmine, specifically the TM46's, is a mechanism that is made for the weight of vehicles and it is not supposed to go off with the weight of a person walking over it, because those mines were specially developed for vehicles and not for personnel. That is why the mechanism is of such a type that it needs a weight of approximately 100kgs or more to go off.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Snyman.

ADV SANDI: You mentioned something about a newspaper report that was shown to you by Dawid Brits ...

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Did he tell you why he was showing you this report?

MR SNYMAN: He brought the newspaper to me and he showed me and he said this is most probably the - how could I say, the result or, that is from the weapons that we packed that he took to Eastern Transvaal.

ADV SANDI: Did you ask him any questions pertaining to the arms you had given to him?

MR SNYMAN: No, I did not ask any further questions about this case.

ADV SANDI: Were there any reasons why you didn't ask him questions? He was showing you a newspaper report and you had previously given him arms, why didn't you ask him?

MR SNYMAN: It really didn't matter to me, because I had nothing to do with the case, I ... As I said, I was supposed to supply the arms to him. He brought it to me and he said well, this must be the result of the weapons that he took to Eastern Transvaal, that we packed.

ADV SANDI: Did you subsequently get involved in a conversation with any one of the people who were there at the shebeen - I beg your pardon, at the canteen?

MR SNYMAN: No, not that I know of.

ADV SANDI: You never had any discussions after the incident?

MR SNYMAN: After that? No, I don't think there was any discussion after the showing of the newspaper.

ADV SANDI: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Snyman, I'm studying your amnesty application, page 30 to 32 of the bundle and it would appear from that that you only on two occasions had supplied arms unlawfully to persons.

MR SNYMAN: No, there were other instances where arms were supplied to members and those were probably in the instances which dealt with the false cache points which were set up in the Eastern Transvaal.

MR WAGENER: So are those instances for which you do not apply for amnesty?

MR SNYMAN: No, I have applied for amnesty and I think those cases have already been dealt with.

MR WAGENER: This event with which we are dealing now, you say on page 43 of the bundle:

"The incident must have taken place in 1989, or later."

MR SNYMAN: I cannot recall the date exactly when it happened, but it was more-or-less '88, '89, somewhere around there that I started working at the farm.

MR WAGENER: So the only reason why you say the incident took place in '89 or later, was because it had taken place after you started working at Vlakplaas?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Can you place a year on this discussion that you heard in the canteen?

MR SNYMAN: No, I cannot.

MR WAGENER: On how many occasions did you receive instructions from Mr de Kock to give arms to Brits to go and set up a DLB, or was this the only opportunity?

MR SNYMAN: If I think back there may have been other opportunities or occasions, specifically because of the fact that he worked on the East Rand, but then he also worked in the Eastern Transvaal, so I may have supplied him on more occasions.

MR WAGENER: And every time that you supplied arms to him, who gave the instruction to do this?

MR SNYMAN: As I have said, this would have come from Col de Kock.

MR WAGENER: Are you saying it would have come from him?

MR SNYMAN: It did come from him, because I would not have handed or supplied arms of any nature to anyone if the instruction did not come from him, not even if instructions came from the Commanders of the other branches. If Col Baker had given me an instruction I would not have done so.

MR WAGENER: So while you are mentioning this now, after the division of Vlakplaas on the 1st of February 1991, to which component were you sent?

MR SNYMAN: I was under Col de Kock.

MR WAGENER: So from February '91, your base was not Vlakplaas anymore, it was a office here in Pretoria?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, but we regularly went back to the farm because of the fact that we were dealing with training and so forth and our arms and training equipment were still at the farm.

MR WAGENER: Now we know that the deceased was killed on the 5th of March 1991, are you certain that this conversation that you overheard in the canteen, took place during that time?

MR SNYMAN: As I have said, I cannot place a year on it but as I have said also, we came to the farm because of the fact that my training equipment was stored at the farm and I had to go there sometimes.

MR WAGENER: These arms that you are saying that was stored on the farm, was just the so-called Eastern-bloc arms?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: That you got from where, where did this come from?

MR SNYMAN: Those arms came from South West.

MR WAGENER: Were those the trucks of arms that we have heard about in previous cases?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, those are the arms that came from Koevoet's bases.

MR WAGENER: Are those the same weapons?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that's correct.

MR WAGENER: Is it not so that the same arms were taken away from Vlakplaas?

MR SNYMAN: Yes that's difficult to recall, because those weapons were moved around regularly because of inquiries or investigations, so I cannot attach a specific date to the time.

MR WAGENER: Occasions when firearms or arms were given to Brits to go and set up DLBs, did you in each and every one of those cases find the arms at Vlakplaas itself?

MR SNYMAN: No, we had containers which we stored at other places.

MR WAGENER: So is it your evidence now that on occasion you went to other premises to acquire arms to give to Dawid Brits?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct. As I have said, we had a container which was stored on another premises and depending on what arms were used, certain things were stored in different places. I cannot recall what was stored where, but in this instance we did it on the farm itself.

MR WAGENER: So in this case of Mr Bambo, you fetched the arms from Vlakplaas?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I fetched it from Vlakplaas and I packaged it right there.

MR WAGENER: Are you certain thereof?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I am.

MR WAGENER: My instruction are that these weapons that came from the East-bloc from South West, is that it wasn't on Vlakplaas in March 1991.

MR SNYMAN: There were a few stores and some of the weapons were still stored there, but most of them, I think especially the firearms and so forth, were placed in other containers at other places.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, that's why I'm asking you this question, because in line with my instructions, if you had landmines on Vlakplaas and gave it to Brits, then it couldn't have been related to the death of Mr Bambo in March '91.

MR SNYMAN: I took it out there, I did not leave the farm that day to go and pick up weapons from another place.

MR WAGENER: But you do follow my questioning?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, there were other places where weapons were stored, but I would say the bulk of the weapons were stored at other places, but if I think back, I think some of the explosives we still kept on the farm because there was a proper safe for them to be kept in.

MR WAGENER: Landmines and handgrenades?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, because we would use in destroying DLBs, or for whatever reason.

MR WAGENER: I will just repeat it again, my instructions are that the landmines that came from South West weren't at Vlakplaas in March 1991.

MR SNYMAN: It's possible the person may allege it, but that day I packaged it on the farm on that day.

MR WAGENER: But you cannot recall what year it was?

MR SNYMAN: No. We can now go back and I can maybe find out what the year was, but from memory no, I cannot say.

MR WAGENER: Well this discussion that took place in the bar, you say there were approximately four to five people in the bar, it was yourself, Koekemoer, Human and then two or three others.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Do you know who they were?

MR SNYMAN: I cannot recall who they were. Brits - I do not know if there was somebody else.

MR WAGENER: The other people in the bar, apart from yourself, were they together, were they in a discussion and were you the only person outside of this discussion?

MR SNYMAN: I cannot exactly recall, I cannot recall if there were one or two discussions or if a group of them were separate and had their own discussion, I cannot say.

MR WAGENER: Did Human and Koekemoer sit alone and have this discussion?

MR SNYMAN: I would say - or I asked somebody else who is this person and they said it was Mr Ivor Human.

MR WAGENER: My question is, were they talking alone or were the talking to Vlakplaas people?

MR SNYMAN: I think they were talking to Vlakplaas people. I think they stood at the bar and that's when I asked who is this person.

CHAIRPERSON: But you have just said that there were not many people in the canteen, there were four to five people, so if they were for instance, talking to other people from Vlakplaas, then it may just say you were sitting alone. If you make a deduction of what you are saying.

MR SNYMAN: As I say, people were in the canteen, I think there were about four or five people in the canteen. I cannot remember the conversations exactly, who was involved in which conversation, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but sorry, can you explain - just give a mental picture, where were you sitting in relation to this group of people who were sitting and talking to each other?

MR SNYMAN: Sir, I was not sitting specifically in one place, I was moving around at that time, perhaps I went in and out of the canteen, or sitting with somebody else speaking with the other people. As I say, I'm not sure who the people were that were there, all I can remember is that Mr Koekemoer and Human were people from a different unit, they were not part of the farm's people, Vlakplaas people.

ADV SANDI: You were not sitting around the table with these people who were sitting and discussing? If they were sitting around a table, you were not there?

MR SNYMAN: I was not sitting at a table, it was not a discussion that was held specifically at a table, the people were moving around. The canteen is very small, so you move close to people in there.

ADV SANDI: Were they drinking and talking or were they just talking without any drinks involved?

MR SNYMAN: If I remember it was quite early in the afternoon, I don't think there - if the people were drinking, they may have had one or two beers, but it was not a party that was being held at that time.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thanks, Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: You say on page 31 of the bundle that you wouldn't have been involved in this incident unless it was on instructions from de Kock.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Did you ever take any operational instruction directly from Gen Engelbrecht?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, there was a matter, an incident where we were called to the office.

MR WAGENER: What was that?

MR SNYMAN: It was a case in Swaziland.

MR WAGENER: Did it have anything to do with this incident?

MR SNYMAN: No, it had nothing to do with this. This case in Swaziland, if I recall correctly, never took place in Swaziland in any event. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR WAGENER: This operation, can I call it an operation, this case for which you're applying for amnesty.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR WAGENER: Who was the operational Commander of this operation?

MR SNYMAN: I wouldn't know who arranged it. As I heard in the evidence in the last few days, the arrangements were made with East Rand Murder and Robbery unit and with Head Office. Furthermore, I just received my instructions and executed them and packaged the weapons.

MR WAGENER: These instructions came from Mr de Kock?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct. If it was directly from him or if it was Brits that told me that I must assist him, it comes from Col de Kock, but I wouldn't have done it if he didn't say it comes from Col de Kock.

MR WAGENER: Is it then not likely that Col de Kock was also present in the bar at that stage?

MR SNYMAN: I do not think so, that he had to be present there at that stage, maybe earlier or later the day he could have gone in there, but I cannot recall that he was in the bar at that stage. If he was there, he would have spoken to Mr Koekemoer and Mr Human directly because they were visitors there.

CHAIRPERSON: We were speaking of a specific incident here and you say in this canteen there were four to five people and that's where you overheard or drew inferences from the conversation that somebody had to be eliminated.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And at that juncture you had already received the instructions to package the DLB.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct. As I say, I don't know whether I overheard the conversation before I was told to pack it, or whether it was after that that I was told to pack it, but it was in the same time.

CHAIRPERSON: But since Mr Human or Brig Human, you didn't know very well at that stage, had Mr de Kock been present in the canteen, would you recall that, because there are four to five people in the canteen?

MR SNYMAN: I would have seen that he was speaking to them if he was in the canteen, I would have probably have known, but as I say I did not really take note exactly who was there, but the only reason why I actually saw these people is because they were not part of Vlakplaas personnel.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Wagener.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Wagener, if I can ask before you proceed.

This group of officers who were talking to each other, would you say there was some kind of a main speaker amongst them, you know, someone who was doing most of the talking?

MR SNYMAN: No, I cannot recall anything specific.

ADV SANDI: Now when you picked this thing that someone was to be killed, who was doing the talking at that particular state? Who was this coming from, in other words?

MR SNYMAN: As I say, I cannot remember exactly who said what, but the impression or the bit of information that I picked up at that time was the reason for me having to pack this, the ammunition.

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

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Wagener, can I just interpose?

Mr Snyman, can you recall why you were in the canteen that afternoon?

MR SNYMAN: I cannot recall why I was there, if I was told to go to Vlakplaas, or if I was just present and arrived there, I cannot specifically recall a reason why I was there, but I received the instructions there.

ADV BOSMAN: The reason why I'm asking this question is, you say that it was early in the afternoon, nothing really went on, there was not a party going on, and there are people whom you do not really know very well, and I just thought, can you speculate why you were there?

MR SNYMAN: As I said, some of our equipment was stored on the farm, myself and Vermeulen, we were the instructors, we stored our things there, we did preparations there, or maybe somebody told me specifically to go there, but I was there and if I was busy with other work and then received the instruction from the Colonel or Brits, I cannot specifically say. Some people want to say that I was sent from another building to Vlakplaas specifically for this, I cannot recall that, I just know that I was there.

ADV BOSMAN: I do not want to continue asking this question unnecessarily, but what did you usually go and do in the canteen?

MR SNYMAN: As I said, it was a gathering point, it wasn't just a place where people drank, but later the day we probably would. I wouldn't say that there's, I don't think there were a lot of days that went by that we didn't go in for beers after work.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR WAGENER: Mr Snyman, the last question, you testified about a close co-operation between the Murder and Robbery unit and the Security Branch.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Did this close co-operation not take place after 1 April 1991, when the old Detective Unit combined with the older, or the pervious department?

MR SNYMAN: No, Mr Chairperson, as far as I can recall, it's that the people from East Rand regularly worked with the people from the farm, and I'm talking about the people from Murder and Robbery. I never served in the East Rand, but I do know that there was a lot of contact with people.

MR WAGENER: But this close co-operation, my statement is simply, did this not take place after the 1st April 1990(sic)?

MR SNYMAN: I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say close co-operation, but I know that before that we did cooperate or work together.

MR WAGENER: What I'm meaning is, for example the informants who were used by both departments, wasn't this after '91?

MR SNYMAN: No, because I know Dawid Brits went to the East Rand on a regular basis and at a certain stage I already told him that the askaris must go and assist the people in the East Rand.

MR WAGENER: Then just to be reasonable to you, Mr Snyman, in the bundle you mention things, that you do suffer from post-traumatic stress.

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR WAGENER: And that that also had a reaction in terms of your memory.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, yes. If you accept so, yes. My evidence has so far been accepted in criminal trials and at the TRC, I am here to the best of my ability tell the truth and testify.

MR WAGENER: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I seek leave to put one or two further questions to the witness, arising out of matters that Mr Wagener dealt with in his cross-examination, which are really new matters, or at least one of them is a new matter?

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I'll allow you.

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

Mr Snyman, Mr de Kock informed me that in 1990, when it was announced that the Harms Commission will investigate Vlakplaas and after the disclosure or revelation was made by Nofomela, the weapons were removed from Vlakplaas, do you agree with that?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I do, some of them were placed in a container.

MR HATTINGH: But Mr de Kock says that afterwards a lot of media people came to visit Vlakplaas and they were shown the storerooms and they had access to any of the buildings on the farm, to ensure that they see that there's no foreign weapons on the farm.

MR SNYMAN: I'm aware of it.

MR HATTINGH: But then Mr de Kock tells me that after this visit from the media took place, weapons were brought back to Vlakplaas.

MR SNYMAN: As I mentioned earlier on, some of the weapons were moved back and forth. I can't recall precise dates and quantities or specific types. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: You still continued with your training on the farm.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And a lot of, or a big component of this training was to familiarise members with the East-bloc weapons.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, to familiarise with any of the weapons that we may come across.

MR HATTINGH: And did you have access to such weaponry even after it was removed from Vlakplaas?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, we always had access to foreign weapons.

MR HATTINGH: Then just the aspect, the division of Vlakplaas into different sections, Mr de Kock's recollection is that on the 1st of February when it was announced ... took place, but the actual division into these components took a while, they had to look for offices, they had to transfer, move and it could have taken months and until you physically moved into the new offices Vlakplaas remained the base.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, we went there regularly.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will at this juncture take the tea adjournment, we'll take it for fifteen minutes, could we come back after fifteen minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

DANIEL LIONEL SNYMAN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I don't believe ... Sorry, thank you.

Mr Snyman, just one aspect. Can you recall how long after you had handed the weapons over to Mr Brits, did he then come to you with the newspaper report to discuss the matter with you?

MR SNYMAN: It was quite a while, it was, let's put it, it was a week, months or so, I cannot recall exactly how long it was after that, it was quite a time.

MS PATEL: Okay, alright. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Snyman, when you in your evidence referred to instructions from Mr de Kock, I just want some clarity, do you not necessarily mean that Mr de Kock personally gave you instructions?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct, Chairperson. It is not that he necessarily specifically came to tell me, but it would be acceptable to me that the instruction came from him through someone else, that I had to perform some or other duty.

ADV BOSMAN: Did it happen often that Mr de Kock used a messenger to give you instructions?

MR SNYMAN: That is so, because we were not together all the time and that is so that he sent messages and said that his instructions were conveyed by somebody else.

ADV BOSMAN: And when that happens, was that according to rank?

MR SNYMAN: I would not say it was specifically according to rank, there was a strong trust and a bond between all of us and if someone comes to tell you that the Colonel said this, then one would accept it. There would be no-one who would misconstrue stories or work towards his own agenda.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. And then with regard to General Engelbrecht, can you assist us by telling us whether Gen Engelbrecht's role, according to you, had changed at a certain stage when he arrived at Vlakplaas, and how you saw it.

MR SNYMAN: I do not understand his role changed. He was the Commander at Head Office, the overhead Commander at Head Office.

ADV BOSMAN: From when was this?

MR SNYMAN: Unfortunately I cannot recall the specific date or year.

ADV BOSMAN: It would appear it was in 1990.

MR SNYMAN: As I've said, it's probably in the documents, but I cannot recall when he took over from Brig Schoon, I think, who retired.

ADV BOSMAN: But how did you see his role as a Commander? Was he actively involved?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, he was interested in the work that we performed, that is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: But was there a move in the activities of Vlakplaas, at the stage when he started there?

MR SNYMAN: I would not notice something like that, as I've said, our work - I don't understand now, what do you mean that it could change?

ADV BOSMAN: It is my impression from your evidence that Gen Engelbrecht became involved at the stage when the Harms Commission started its investigation.

MR SNYMAN: I had nothing to do with that part of the investigation, I was not involved there.

ADV BOSMAN: So you cannot assist us there?

MR SNYMAN: No, I cannot.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: Yes, thank you, maybe only one question from me, Mr Chairman.

Mr Snyman, when you subsequently learnt that a particular person had been killed, did you personally associate yourself with what had happened to this person?

MR SNYMAN: Did I?

ADV SANDI: Did you associate yourself with the killing that had occurred?

MR SNYMAN: I accepted that it would have to be done, because it would have been necessary for the security reasons which may have been exposed and that there was a reason for that, that it was not a, it would not be something for no reason at all that such an operation would be done. As previous hearings have also been, that there was reason for, if a person should be, put it the way, "taken out".

ADV SANDI: I thought you said when you overheard the conversation that was taking place at the canteen, you did not really know why this particular person had to be killed.

MR SNYMAN: No, I did not, it was not part of my work, I would not have asked specifically what was the reasons, what did this person do, or what was the information that was been giving out, it was for me to do my work, but I do believe that the plans or the command had been sorted out from higher command in the Security Force.

ADV SANDI: How would you describe the relationship between yourself and Mr Human, if you had any?

MR SNYMAN: I did not have any with him at all, I knew him - as I said, I found out then that he was in charge from East Rand, further I have no connections with him, I'm not friends with him, I have no toil with him at all.

ADV SANDI: After the discussion of which Mr Human was part at the canteen, did you frequently see him?

MR SNYMAN: No, I did not see him frequently, I saw him, perhaps once or twice after that, so that I actually then knew who he was.

ADV SANDI: Didn't he come to the canteen on a regular basis?

MR SNYMAN: No, he did not come there regularly.

ADV SANDI: Now when you said there was a close relationship between the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit and Vlakplaas, were you talking about a specific, were you talking about co-operation with specific individuals from the East Rand Murder and Robbery, or were talking generally about all the members from the East Rand?

MR SNYMAN: Generally in the Police, as we say, between the two units, whoever members. I wouldn't say it was between specific persons.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but can you explain that if for example, the Vlakplaas unit had information that there was a cadre somewhere in Soweto or wherever, would you take members of the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit along with you?

MR SNYMAN: I'd say - as I say, I'm talking now what I think, I did not work with those people myself, but it would have been so that if you go and work in a certain area you may take people that are permanently posted in a certain area. Say for instance on the East Rand, you would take somebody from the East Rand that knows the area where you want to go and work, or if in Soweto, you would contact somebody to help you to say, for instance, find the place or necessary arrangements ...

CHAIRPERSON: In this instance, wouldn't we say the C-Units, and let's take yours specifically, you were seized with matters of the political nature which was a threat to the country.

MR SNYMAN: We were specially usually assigned for operations where people would be a threat to the government or to the country.

CHAIRPERSON: And now if we look at Murder and Robbery unit, whichever, because there are several of them in several areas, or in big cities, if we may wish to call it that, that they were just seized with matters of a high criminal nature, like robberies, murders, wouldn't that be so?

MR SNYMAN: I think that should actually have been, if you could put it out that way, but due to the fact that many of the MK cadres involved themselves in crime and murder, that is why there was a link between Murder and Robbery and Security people.

CHAIRPERSON: At least we know that, for instance the Umkhonto weSizwe was here to overthrow the then government and if they came in with AK47s, they would commit murder. For instance, because the police, for instance, were targeted as the pillar that kept the then government going, that would be murder. If they came in and say somebody's shot, that would be murder, purely, at that stage.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Then how would you come in and have this co-operation with the Murder and Robbery units?

MR SNYMAN: I think it could be due to the informers that may have had contact with each other, our askaris and say for instance, informers of other areas where some of the information may have been that weapons that may be used in murders, or the weapons that the MKs brought in were used in robberies and so on. I believe that may have been where connections, or working together could have some influence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I'm sorry, Advocate Sandi, I just wanted to hear that point.

ADV SANDI: No, that is all I had to ask him, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you said to a question asked, that your response was that you did not know this person who was to be killed or killed, but you learnt later, do you recall answering that?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I did not at that time know exactly who the person was, it had nothing to do with me and I did go, as I said I did not question exactly who this person was or what he did.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you say you learnt later, was it after he was killed, who this person was?

MR SNYMAN: Actually even when he was killed I still did not even take note of the name, I think I only actually started coming in contact with the name in the investigations.

CHAIRPERSON: When you received - or let me say this and say, if we go back to the bundle, page 31 and 32, paragraph 4, the last sentence:

"I would however not have become involved here if it was not an instruction from de Kock, because any requests from any police branch in the country had to be cleared with de Kock first."

CHAIRPERSON: And 5:

"I accepted and believed, because I enquired about it specifically, that the person who according to the conversations had to be removed, was an MK member or an ANC terrorist who was involved in political activities and was arrested by the East Rand Murder and Robbery branch and was a danger to them."

When did you know this information?

MR SNYMAN: As I say, it was sometime during the conversation in the, at the time of having to pack the arms and the time of the conversations that I may have overheard in the canteen, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: You may or may not have read all the documentation that is before us, but the documentation we have revealed that this person was an arrested person, he was already in custody, did you know that?

MR SNYMAN: If I can think about that I should have probably accepted it like that, that this person was arrested, but whether he was being kept in jail or in the police cells, I did not know what was the situation there.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked again about these landmines by Mr Jonker, and the handgrenades, were you told how many you should pack?

MR SNYMAN: I cannot remember exactly the amount that I packed. As I say, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, that's what I say, you said you did not remember. I say, but would you under normal circumstances be told how many, if given instructions?

MR SNYMAN: I do think I would have probably been told, or say, give one or two or three or four, something in that regard. As I say, I cannot remember exactly what the instructions were here, the amount that should have been given, but it was probably as close as possible that was supplied.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you said to a question again, that you worked under trust, that I accept, and you were not always readily available at your posts, if I could put it that way that you said so, would you if you received for instance, and let's take this instance, an instruction that Mr de Kock said you should do X, Y, Z, would you confirm that with Mr de Kock?

MR SNYMAN: If it was a person that I could trust, as there was a communal trust between the people from Vlakplaas, it is not necessary that I would go back to Col de Kock and question him as to his commands that were sent to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius, any re-examination?

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

Mr Snyman, you are trying to recall the events to the best of your ability.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And it would have been easy for you to tell the Committee that, "I received instructions from Col de Kock", period.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you are trying to mention names, but you are not trying to implicate unnecessary persons here, is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct

MR CORNELIUS: You have no vengeful feelings to the effect that you want to involved Human and Koekemoer?

MR SNYMAN: No, I do not, I have nothing against any of the two of them.

MR CORNELIUS: But you are trying to recall the events in your memory.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: To make it clear, C1, later C10, that was the operational division of the Security Police, is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And they were used to commit the unlawful acts which the normal police could not do?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: So if in the instance of the Judge's question, if there was a case that Murder and Robbery was investigating and information came in and if it was necessary for them to launch some or other unlawful investigation, they would have used C1 for that.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And the practice was that the head would discuss it with the - the branch would discuss it with the head, your head, and then they would discuss it with Vlakplaas.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: So by the time you receive an instruction, you as a footsoldier, you accept that the political aspects of this has already been cleared up.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You received various instructions to, for example destroy corpses with the use of explosives.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I did.

MR CORNELIUS: And there were various activities at Penge Mine, where you had to supply explosives so that corpses could be destroyed.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And for all these instances you applied for amnesty.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And in various of these cases you have already given evidence.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And the Andreavich incident which Mr Wagener referred to, that was the Heidelberg incident.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you have already given comprehensive evidence about that.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Would you agree that all the operations that were executed by Vlakplaas were unlawful events, because otherwise the normal police could have executed those duties?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, most of them were irregular, but if I may say there were some lawful activities also.

MR CORNELIUS: And a question that Mr Wagener put to you with regard to the visit by Gen Engelbrecht, was this for lawful or unlawful operations?

MR SNYMAN: I think it would have been covert, for covert operations. So in other words, probably unlawful.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you recall the detail or not?

MR SNYMAN: I think it was the story of Swaziland that we had to establish a cache point there. I think it was Mr Vermeulen who was involved there.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

MR SNYMAN: I then went through, I then established a cache point and at a later stage I received instructions to bring the cache point back to South Africa.

MR CORNELIUS: And did you do that?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I did.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Thank you, Mr Snyman, you are excused.

MR SNYMAN: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling any further evidence, Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no further witness or any further evidence. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank concludes your case.

MR CORNELIUS: That concludes my case.

CHAIRPERSON: We have dealt with all the applicants. There are people who have been subpoenaed and the cross-examination was taken in more-or-less that kind or order, but I'm not going to hold you to ransom, whoever wants to. Those I'm referring to, legal representatives who are representing the persons subpoenaed, you may give me directions how you want to do it, or I should I take the order in which I brought it? And if I do, obviously Mr van den Berg, you would be the first in my queue.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, that's the arrangement we have been us as legal advisers and legal representatives, so we're happy to testify first.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready at the moment?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, we are, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think it's Mr Koekemoer. Before you do, Mr Koekemoer, let's just have the arrangement of the mikes so that it should be quite comfortable for you to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koekemoer, what are your full names, because I see the subpoena merely says "Capt J P Koekemoer"?

MR KOEKEMOER: Sir, it's Johannes Petrus Koekemoer.

ADV BOSMAN: Would you prefer to give your evidence in Afrikaans, Mr Koekemoer?

MR KOEKEMOER: In Afrikaans, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Would you take the oath or would you take an affirmation?

JOHANNES PETRUS KOEKEMOER: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The witness is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may be seated and be comfortable, Mr Koekemoer. Mr van den Berg?

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

Mr Koekemoer, you retired from the Police Service in January 1996, is that correct?

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

MR VAN DEN BERG: You joined the police on the 13th of February of 1978 and you went to the police college and later to the Durban uniform branch, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you were in various posts, specifically in Northern Natal, but during the years '83/'84 up until the time that you left the Police Force, you were on the East Rand, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And there you were attached to the Murder and Robbery unit.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was your rank when you retired from the Police Force?

MR KOEKEMOER: I was a Lieut-Colonel.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And during the incident which we're hearing evidence about now, what was your rank?

MR KOEKEMOER: I was a Lieutenant, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You have drawn up an affidavit during the post-mortem inquest of the death of Mr Bambo, and that appears in volume 2, on page 89 of the documents, have you gone through that affidavit again?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I confirm the contents thereof, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, I don't intend to take the witness through each and every paragraph, there are certain aspects which we want to highlight, I thought that it might be quicker to do it that way.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's the best avenue.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If we study your affidavit, Mr Koekemoer, I see in various paragraphs, for example paragraph 2 and 3, dates and times are mentioned, where did you receive that information from?

MR KOEKEMOER: This information I would have gained from my pocket book, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And was the statement drawn up with insights into your pocket book?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Is your pocket book available today?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Have you made any enquiries with regard to the booklet?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I have.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When was this?

MR KOEKEMOER: With Col de Kock's trial. And the book went missing at Murder and Robbery, East Rand.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if we have regard for your affidavit, paragraph 2, you mention that you received certain information with regard to a detainee, Adriano Bambo, where did you receive that information from?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was general practice that Correctional Services people who had an investigative team who were based at the prisons and as soon an a trial awaiting detainee directs any request to the police or wants to supply information, they would usually contact us through the channels.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And what was the extent of the information?

MR KOEKEMOER: The information that I received on the 1st, I saw the date(sic) was 09H30, that this was that this person wanted to go and point out arms and that he was suspected of being a member of a gun smuggling gang.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then in your affidavit you say what you did afterwards. What was your attitude towards the detainee, the deceased in this matter? Did you hold any opinion with regard to the value of the information that he supplied?

MR KOEKEMOER: Chairperson, such information which comes from the prisons, the persons always have ulterior motives, he probably wants to send some or other message to his family or it's an attempt to escape.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just before that, Mr van den Berg.

Can I ask you, Mr Koekemoer, who was conveying this information to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: It had to be one of the investigative officers from the prison.

ADV SANDI: Who was that, do you remember him?

MR KOEKEMOER: I cannot recall who this specific person was, but it had to be somebody from the investigative team or unit at Modderbee Prison.

ADV SANDI: Was this a telephonic communication?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was telephonically.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When you arrived in Nelspruit, was there anybody that accompanied you?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, it was W/O Grobler with the identification.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And what was the arrangements, or what arrangements did you make for your arrival at Nelspruit?

MR KOEKEMOER: Before we departed from the office, Capt Davel, the Commander of Nelspruit Murder and Robbery unit, I contacted him and requested him to arrange for a photographer to accompany us.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Would you then go directly to the scene or go and pick up the photographer first?

MR KOEKEMOER: I would first go and pick up the photographer before I can do the identification of the scene.

MR VAN DEN BERG: It did not happen in this way, why?

MR KOEKEMOER: The identifier, the person who was going to identify the place mentioned to me when we arrived in Nelspruit, that the scene was very close and that he first quickly wanted to go and show me the scene or the place and at that stage it seemed as if this person will not identify anything to me, and that is why I left the photographer and drove on, on his instructions.

MR VAN DEN BERG: More questions will be asked about the affidavit, but if we can first deal with some other aspects. You firstly say - or can you recall when was the first time when you went to Vlakplaas, and how come you went there?

MR KOEKEMOER: I cannot recall the date when I first went to Vlakplaas, but I assume it was during 1990, or during that time.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you go alone or were you there with other people?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Col de Kock's brother was in our unit and he accompanied me.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you tell us how many opportunities there were for you to visit Vlakplaas, or how many times you visited Vlakplaas?

MR KOEKEMOER: There were a few opportunities, I would not say it was on a regular basis.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was it work related?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, not once, all the times that I went there was because there was a party on the farm, or a social gathering on the farm.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You heard Mr Snyman's evidence this morning about the discussion that he heard in the canteen, what is your comment on that?

MR KOEKEMOER: I deny it strongly.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You heard Mr Britsí evidence yesterday concerning the establishment of a DLB, what is your comment on that?

MR KOEKEMOER: I also strongly deny it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The death of Mr Bambo, how would you describe it?

MR KOEKEMOER: I believe that Mr Bambo, the person who was going to identify the place, attempted to kill me and in this way then to try to escape.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you took the necessary steps to prevent it, is that what you are telling this Committee now?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The last aspect appears in the bundle of photographs. It's photo 3, Mr Chairperson, page 66. Can I show you this photograph and ask you to comment on it.

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, it is clear that there's green bushes over the hole, or have grown over the hole, and there was soil over this, the soil was already hard over these, that covered the black bags with the weapons in and it was clear that it was a very old weapons cache pile. The grass in the scene was also very long and if somebody had walked around there before, it would have been very clear.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The handgrenade that the deceased had in his hand, can you describe it?

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, it was a black plastic-like type of handgrenade.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you hear Mr Britsí evidence yesterday concerning the handgrenade that formed part of the DLB that himself and you established, what type of handgrenade did he describe?

MR KOEKEMOER: He described a green handgrenade which fits the description of an F1 handgrenade.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was there an F1 handgrenade in this DLB?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: I hear your counsel asking you about a handgrenade in the hand of the deceased, I do not recall you mentioning anything about a stage when the deceased had a handgrenade, how did this come about that the deceased happened to have ... Can you try and give us a chronology of the events, you took the deceased to the scene, and what happened?

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, in my affidavit I did mention it. After the person who identified the place where he hid the weapons, I told him to sit down on the side, after which he informed me that he will take out the weapons, I refused, I then told him to remain seated and because I needed a photographer for the identification, I sent my colleague, Grobler, back to Nelspruit in the vehicle, to go and pick up the photographer.

CHAIRPERSON: And where was the third person then? Other than the suspect.

MR KOEKEMOER: It was myself, Mr Chairperson, I then guarded.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed.

MR KOEKEMOER: Approximately three minutes after the Warrant Officer drove away, the identifier suddenly moved towards my direction. He was in a crouched position and on his left side moved towards me, and with his left side facing me, moved towards me. From my position I observed this black handgrenade in his hands and I could see that this man's determined to throw this handgrenade towards me. As I was facing the river - or no, my back was facing the river and I didn't really have a chance to get away, I immediately drew my weapon and fired a shot towards him.

I saw the identifier stumble and in an attempt to dive/fall towards my direction, if I can describe it in that way, I then did not have any other choice but to jump down the side of the embankment into the bushes. I do not know if I heard the explosion when I was at the bottom of the embankment, or during the time when I jumped. I then heard the explosion.

I then moved back up towards the place where I saw the identifier last. I noticed that he was seriously injured. I ran towards the road and the first vehicle that passed, I stopped. They were members from the Vehicle Theft Unit or branch at Witrivier, and I requested them to urgently call paramedics, as well as a service officer to come and investigate the scene.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was the position with the detainee or the deceased, what steps did you take before you drove to Nelspruit, to secure him?

MR KOEKEMOER: The detainee had leg irons on, his hands were also cuffed in front of him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You mention in your affidavit, page 93, paragraph 22, certain criminal activities of the deceased.

MR KOEKEMOER: The deceased was a sentenced prisoner, he was serving a sentence of 12 months for escaping and he was awaiting trial for two cases, a Kempton Park case, 697/9/90, it was an armed robbery, as well as Benoni case 147/2/91, attempt to escape. Then he was also associated with another case, MR9/7/98, murder and armed robbery.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Where did you receive this information from?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was from the East Rand Murder and Robbery branch. The investigative officer was at that stage Sgt Grimbeek.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you have any knowledge about the fact that this deceased was an informant for the police?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, not at all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When did you get this information?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was recently, now with this application that I found this out.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If you had knowledge about the fact that he was a police informer, would you have dealt with this in another way?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I wouldn't have.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

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

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

Mr Koekemoer, can we just deal with a few formal aspects. At a certain stage you were my client when you were asked by Dr Pretorius from the Attorney-General, to come to his office for questioning when he still presented evidence in front of the Goldstone Commission.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I accompanied you to his office.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Neither of us knew what the questioning was going to be about.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: During the questioning it came out that it was about train violence and that you were the investigative officer at that stage.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: As well as a few other aspects that had nothing to do with this incident.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So this matter did not appear, or was not dealt with between the two of us?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Afterwards you were also one of the people who were mentioned in Goldstone's report as a person who was part of illegal actions.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And because of that you also became my client in terms the investigation that sprouted from the Judge's investigation.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR HATTINGH: Can I just go back a bit, I'm not sure how long the microphone was off.

Could you recall if I consulted you concerning the incidents that were reported to Judge Goldstone?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was quite a while ago, Mr Chairperson, and there were various discussions.

MR HATTINGH: I cannot even recall myself, Mr Koekemoer, but can I tell you what our modus operandi was in those early stages of the investigation, that your name was mentioned in the Goldstone report as well as other people who were involved in Vlakplaas, or people who worked with Vlakplaas. We consulted just to make known that our services are available and to explain to them what their rates are, if they were to be approached by the Goldstone Commission, and also concerning their rights concerning the investigation that was done by D'Oliviera and his team. We did not go into specific incidents at that stage. Can you recall such a consultation?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I will accept it as such.

MR HATTINGH: You do not have to accept that, because I cannot recall if I had such a consultation with you. The only point that I would like to make, Mr Koekemoer, is that I did not go in with you concerning, in terms of the details of incidents in which you were involved in at that stage. Did you ever consult with me about specific incidents where you were named in the Goldstone report?

MR KOEKEMOER: I cannot recall that.

MR HATTINGH: Can you maybe just refresh my memory, in the Goldstone report, and I think, I may be wrong, is that you were only involved or implicated as a person who was involved in either activities dealing with violence on trains, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Concerning this incident I never consulted you about it.

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: Now Mr Koekemoer, you were part of the Murder and Robbery unit of the South African Police, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And in that capacity you were, or testified at various court cases.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you also testify at hearings where they discussed the disclosure of evidence, and you were also taken under cross-examination by certain legal representatives?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So this is not a strange experience for you, to testify and to then be cross-examined on it?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can I ask you what your relationship was with Mr de Kock, immediately before this incident took place.

MR KOEKEMOER: I would see Mr de Kock as any other colleague.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know him?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I did.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have dealings with him in the workplace before this?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In what sense, concerning what?

MR KOEKEMOER: Col de Kock, in the late '90s he came to the Murder and Robbery unit, at the time when I met him with his brother and they then started working on purely criminal activities ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: If you say "them", are you talking about the Vlakplaas unit?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes. ... and we provided them with names and photographs of all our suspects, for them to find.

MR HATTINGH: And they assisted or attempted to assist you in that?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, they attempted to assist us.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever have contact with him before this incident, did you ever meet him on a social level?

MR KOEKEMOER: Can you just repeat your question please.

MR HATTINGH: Before this Bambo incident, did you ever have dealings with him on a social level?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Where was this?

MR KOEKEMOER: It could have been at his brother's house, it could have been at the East Rand Murder and Robbery unit, we were stationed in Benoni, and it could have been in the canteen.

MR HATTINGH: As far as I know all police stations during that time had a canteen for members where they could come together and enjoy a few drinks.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it was not strange for members of such a unit to meet at such a canteen and enjoy a few drinks.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when members of other units came to you, it was also practice that you'd invite them to come with to the canteen.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever enjoy a few drinks at Vlakplaas with Mr de Kock?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Once again I ask you concerning the Bambo incident, was it before this incident?

MR KOEKEMOER: Before and after.

MR HATTINGH: Am I summarising the situation correctly now if I say that you had a very good relationship with Mr de Kock as a colleague?

MR KOEKEMOER: I think you can say that, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And also one that had further - or that it went further than just the workplace, but also interaction on a social level, at his brother's house for example.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Were you good friends with his brother, Vossie?

MR KOEKEMOER: He was a colleague at the East Rand.

MR HATTINGH: But he was also a friend of yours?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I went to go and visit him.

MR HATTINGH: And you also had a few drinks with him there.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: At no stage before the Bambo case was there any ill feelings between the two of you?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, at no stage.

MR HATTINGH: Can you think of any reason why he would like to involve you in such an incident if it's not true?

MR KOEKEMOER: I cannot think of anything.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just quickly deal with Mr Brits then. You also knew him, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you also worked with him.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you also met him on a social level.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you know him when he was still stationed at the East Rand branch?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: You also drank with him at Vlakplaas?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: There was also no ill feelings between you and Mr Brits.

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: And I assume you also cannot think of any reason why Mr Brits would say that you accompanied him to Nelspruit to go and identify a weapons cache pile? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: No.

MR HATTINGH: And your version, Mr Koekemoer, there was no crime committed concerning Mr Bambo, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And on Gen Engelbrecht's version he also does not have any knowledge, as I just read it out of his statement or affidavit, of any illegal action concerning Mr Bambo. You also saw and heard that, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But now Mr de Kock comes and incriminates himself with an illegal action, he makes himself and accomplice in this deed or offence, but you say it did not happen at all. Can you explain why he would act in such a way?

MR HATTINGH: I cannot explain it.

MR HATTINGH: And after he incriminated himself, now it sounds like Gen Engelbrecht is saying to make it political by connecting it to a, the disclosing of possible sensitive information of the Security Police. Does it make sense to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: It doesn't make sense to me either. Let us get to this incident, you were still in your capacity working for the Murder and Robbery unit, but you were seen by your colleagues as a very loyal and dutiful officer.

MR KOEKEMOER: It could be so, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And at a later stage in your career you were transferred or temporarily seconded to the Security Police.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: When did this happen?

MR KOEKEMOER: I think if I'm correct, it was at the end of 1993.

MR HATTINGH: And were you transferred to the Security Police, or was it only a temporary means?

MR KOEKEMOER: I was seconded to them.

MR HATTINGH: For how long?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was a joint investigation, I would say from the start of '93.

MR HATTINGH: And when were you appointed as a member of the Security Branch?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was at the end of 1993, I think, I'm not entirely certain.

MR HATTINGH: And you would agree with me that Security Police officers were subjected to stricter security measures, not just anyone was appointed in the Security Branch, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In fact, there's a type of an envy then between members of other units and the Security Police, because the Security Police were regarded as a so-called elite unit of the Police, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And for you to get in there was a clear indication that you fulfilled the requirements which were placed for membership of the Security Police, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: I would accept it as such.

MR HATTINGH: A person who can be trusted not to divulge confidential information, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: I shall accept that.

ADV SANDI: Mr Hattingh, are you proceeding to ask him a question on something else, because I just have one question.

Were you recommended by any person to be transferred to the Security Police?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson, initially I was drawn to this Special Investigative Unit, I don't believe this was on the insistence of anyone else.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, you may proceed.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Sandi.

It reminds me of another aspect which I must put to you, did you ever try to be transferred to Vlakplaas at any stage?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And when was that?

MR KOEKEMOER: This was during the '80s, somewhere.

MR HATTINGH: When Mr de Kock was the Commander there?

MR KOEKEMOER: This was in the vicinity of '87.

MR HATTINGH: And then Mr de Kock was already the Commander at Vlakplaas, not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: I do not recall.

MR HATTINGH: If I recall correctly, he took over in June 1985, of Unit C1, which was stationed at Vlakplaas, and thereafter you tried to become a member of Vlakplaas.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, but I decided against it.

MR HATTINGH: You yourself decided against it, you were not turned down?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I was not.

MR HATTINGH: To turn ourselves to this incident, Mr Koekemoer, you were now a Murder and Robbery Detective and you received information from a Correctional Services official to the extent that Mr Bambo had information that he wanted to convey, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: How did it come about that this official approached you, why you of all persons?

MR KOEKEMOER: At that stage at Murder and Robbery I was part of a field team.

MR HATTINGH: Where?

MR KOEKEMOER: At East Rand Murder and Robbery.

MR HATTINGH: You were part of a field team, what does that mean?

MR KOEKEMOER: These were persons who follow up information.

MR HATTINGH: In other words, you did not investigate specific crimes, you followed an enquired information which came to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So how did this official at the prison know that you were working in that capacity?

MR KOEKEMOER: I believe that if he called the office, they would have put him through to me, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know this person, this person from Correctional Services who spoke to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not.

MR HATTINGH: But if you knew him you would have remembered?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is so.

MR HATTINGH: So a stranger came to you on the telephone and told you what, Mr Koekemoer?

MR KOEKEMOER: That there was a prisoner who had information with regard to arms that he wanted to point out and that he was thought to be a member of a gun smuggling gang.

MR HATTINGH: And did he tell you that this was a detainee or a awaiting trial person?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, he said this person was a prisoner.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do then when you received this information?

MR KOEKEMOER: I wrote it down.

MR HATTINGH: Where?

MR KOEKEMOER: In my pocket book.

MR HATTINGH: The one that has gone missing now?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and then?

MR KOEKEMOER: And then I made arrangements so that I could requisition this man.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then officially requisition him?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And in order to do this one has to fill in certain documentation, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So what did you fill in?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was a form, it's in the bundle.

MR HATTINGH: Oh, it is in the bundle.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Will you refer me to it. Bundle 2, page 41. My thanks to my learned friend, Mr Cornelius.

Do you have that document?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I do.

MR HATTINGH: This is a Temporary Transfer of Awaiting Trial/Sentenced Prisoner, from Modderbee. The name was Adriano Bambo. The time and date was the 5th of March 1991 at 11H00, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the time needed was given as one day.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In whose handwriting was this form completed?

MR KOEKEMOER: I believe it was W/O Grobler's people, one of his people.

MR HATTINGH: But the signature is your signature?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I signed the form.

MR HATTINGH: Where were you when you signed this form, were you at the prison or at the police station?

MR KOEKEMOER: I was at the police station.

MR HATTINGH: This is the police station in Benoni?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the Modderbee Prison is how far from the police station in Benoni?

MR KOEKEMOER: Approximately 10 kilometres.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that is my estimation as well.

MR HATTINGH: And did you complete this form after you received the information from the prison's official?

MR KOEKEMOER: I received the information on the 1st ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Oh, I beg your pardon, you did say that. And you completed the form on the 5th?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, the morning.

MR HATTINGH: So why did it take you that long?

MR KOEKEMOER: The 1st was on a Friday and Mondays for an officer at Murder and Robbery is hectic, and only on a Tuesday could I arrive at this case.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell this official when he gave this information to you, that you would make arrangements to fetch him?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell him when you would fetch him?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, usually what I would say was that, "just keep the person ready for us", so that I could pick him up. I accept if it was the Friday, then I would have said that, "prepare him", so that I could fetch him the Monday or Tuesday.

MR HATTINGH: The entry next to "Ac, time and date needed", this 11H00, was this the time that you would fetch him at the prison, or was this the time that you filled in the form?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, this would be more-or-less the time that he was needed. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: That you would arrive at the prison to pick him up?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, when he was needed.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall if that was the time when you indeed went to pick him up?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, at ten that morning I already had an interview with him.

MR HATTINGH: At the prison?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, in my office.

MR HATTINGH: So who fetched him?

MR KOEKEMOER: The morning at seven thirty I gave W/O Detect. Grobler instructions to open an enquiry and to arrange to fetch this person.

MR HATTINGH: Which he then did?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when the person arrived at your office, did you have to make entries into any records to say that the prisoner was there in your office?

MR KOEKEMOER: What I would usually do is I would make an entry.

MR HATTINGH: Will you please assist me, you would say enquiries, is this a specific register in which the enquiries or registered or entered?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, enquiries are entered into a control register.

MR HATTINGH: And where is this kept?

MR KOEKEMOER: At Murder and Robbery on the East Rand.

MR HATTINGH: And you made the entry in there?

MR KOEKEMOER: In the enquiries, yes.

MR HATTINGH: What was the extent of the entry?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was just with regard to the questioning of the particular person.

MR HATTINGH: Would it just state that you had him there for questioning or would it say why you wanted to question him?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Why you wanted to question him?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And when would this entry be made, before or after the questioning?

MR KOEKEMOER: In this regard it was the morning, the enquiry was opened, I questioned the person, I made the entry and I would have made an entry into my pocket book.

MR HATTINGH: I would just like to get some clarity here, the entry into the register, if I understand you correctly, was made after you questioned him?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, with regard to the extent of what he had said.

MR HATTINGH: And would you in the entry give a short description of what you questioned him about and what information he supplied to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you do that?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether the register is still available?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: You did not try to enquire yourself?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: And how long did this questioning go on for?

MR KOEKEMOER: Approximately 15 minutes.

MR HATTINGH: What did he tell you during those 15 minutes?

MR KOEKEMOER: He informed me that he had hidden arms close to kaNyamazane.

MR HATTINGH: kaNyamazane is an area close to Nelspruit, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now I would assume you asked him immediately, "what weapons?"

MR KOEKEMOER: The inference I drew was that it was hand weapons.

MR HATTINGH: But I asked you did you ask him.

MR KOEKEMOER: I did.

MR HATTINGH: And what did he say?

MR KOEKEMOER: He said it was hand weapons.

MR HATTINGH: So why are you saying that the inference you drew was that it was hand weapons, if he had indeed told you that it was hand weapons?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was hand weapons.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you that?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, he told me.

MR HATTINGH: So it's not an inference that you drew.

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you it was only hand weapons?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ask him how did it come about that he had buried the arms there?

MR KOEKEMOER: He informed me that he brought the arms from Mozambique into the Republic.

MR HATTINGH: And did you ask him what his plans were with these arms?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And what did he tell you?

MR KOEKEMOER: He said that he wanted to sell it.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you why all of a sudden he had developed this need to go and point out these arms to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: He said that he wanted to be done with all these matters.

MR HATTINGH: And he knew that if he would point it out to you, then he would incriminate himself with regard to the illegal possession of firearms, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: Definitely.

MR HATTINGH: And did you warn him that he did not have to incriminate himself?

MR KOEKEMOER: I did warn him.

MR HATTINGH: And in spite of that he says he wants to point out to you where he planted firearms?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ask him how many firearms there were?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not go into the detail.

MR HATTINGH: And this information that you have told us now that he gave to you, was that entered into the register?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Namely, that he wanted to point out hand guns to you which he brought from Mozambique and had buried there, and that his intention was to sell these arms?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that information was in the register?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And after he had given this information to you, what did you do then?

MR KOEKEMOER: I then told my Commander, at that stage Col Human ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Is that now Ivor Human?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes. ... I told him that I want to travel to Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: And did you tell him why?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not have to submit a written motivation before you could travel so far outside your area to go and do investigations?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: Very well then. Did he give you authorisation to go to Nelspruit?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: I think I shall use it, but I think it was standing orders that when a police official attached to a unit enters the area of another unit, he has to inform the Commander of that unit that he would be doing work there, not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you are saying - I have forgotten his rank, Davel, what was his rank?

MR KOEKEMOER: Lieut Davel.

MR HATTINGH: Lieut Davel, was he the Commander of the Murder and Robbery unit there?

MR HATTINGH: That's correct. But did you not have to go higher? Were you not supposed to inform the District, or the Divisional Commander or ...?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, it was just necessary to inform ...

MR HATTINGH: A Commander of a specific unit?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, to inform my Commander and then that Commander of Murder and Robbery unit.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but the question I asked, was it sufficient to inform a Lieutenant who was the head of a Murder and Robbery unit, in contrast to the Commander of the area, the overhead Commander?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, it was sufficient.

MR HATTINGH: Did you make any other entries into registers in Benoni of the fact that you had the detainee there and that you would depart for Nelspruit to enable him to do these pointings out?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: Was it not necessary?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: What time did you leave for Nelspruit?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was approximately 11H30.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I see that it's just about 1 o'clock, and I'm going to be a while with this witness, would this be a convenient stage to take the adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly. We'll take the lunch adjournment and come back at quarter to two.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JOHANNES PETRUS KOEKEMOER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (Cont)

Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Koekemoer, before we continue with the events of that day, there are just one or two other general aspects which I want to clear up with you. Members of Murder and Robbery units of the South African Police, back then when you were attached to it, knew each other quite well, especially in the Witwatersrand area, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And they had to work with each other.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Gen Engelbrecht at a stage was the Commander of the Brixton Murder and Robbery unit?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And thereafter, before he took over C1, correct me if I am wrong, but as I have it he was the Commander of all Murder and Robbery units in the country at Head Office.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And Brig Human, what was his position?

MR KOEKEMOER: He was the Commander of East Rand Murder and Robbery unit.

MR HATTINGH: And I assume that he and Gen Engelbrecht knew each other quite well.

MR KOEKEMOER: They must have liaised, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then at a stage Messrs Coetzee and Pretorius, they were attached to the Security Branch in Soweto, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I heard so.

MR HATTINGH: Were they also not at some stage transferred to the East Rand?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, not that I am aware.

MR HATTINGH: You did not work with them there?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not.

MR HATTINGH: And then I would like to refer to page 41 once again, the Temporary Transfer of Awaiting Trial persons, did I understand you correctly when you said that you sent Grobler to fetch Mr Bambo?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I gave him instructions to have him transferred.

MR HATTINGH: Because I note the form was signed, I cannot make it out properly, it would appear to be Alfeus ...(indistinct), something to that effect, do you know?

MR KOEKEMOER: I speak under correction, Chairperson, it could have been one of his members.

MR HATTINGH: One of whose members?

MR KOEKEMOER: Some of the members who worked under W/O Grobler, Nchunu or something.

MR HATTINGH: Who signed for acceptance of Mr Bambo at the prison?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: When you look at the B part of the form, more in particular the small (b):

"I was informed that the prisoner was on 910305 needed and had to be returned timeously."

That means returned timeously to the prison?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So what time were you supposed to return him?

MR KOEKEMOER: That would have been approximately 17H00.

MR HATTINGH: Approximately 5 o'clock in the afternoon?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And (c) says:

"I was informed that the prisoner is regarded as a dangerous person"

Do you see that?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know that, that Mr Bambo was regarded as a dangerous person by Correctional Services officials?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And (d) says that:

"I noted that the prisoner had notions of escape"

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Before the adjournment you told us that at approximately 11H30, you departed from Benoni to Nelspruit, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know beforehand that that pointing out would take place in the vicinity of Nelspruit?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you know that it would be on the other side of Nelspruit?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did he not tell you where in the vicinity of Nelspruit he would do this pointing out?

MR KOEKEMOER: I accepted kaNyamazane/Nelspruit were in one area.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not then know where exactly kaNyamazane was?

MR KOEKEMOER: I knew it was behind Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: Past Nelspruit, when one comes from this side?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you knew that you had to drive further than Nelspruit?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: How long would one drive from Benoni to Nelspruit itself?

MR KOEKEMOER: Approximately three hours or so.

MR HATTINGH: Three hours?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then you would first have to go to Nelspruit, to the police in Nelspruit to get the photographer.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that would have also consumed some time.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you had to drive to the place where this person would point out the cache to you.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then you would expect to spend some time at the terrain there because photos had to be taken.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that would also consume some time.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So how did you think that you would be able to be back at Modderbee Prison at approximately 5 o'clock?

MR KOEKEMOER: Chairperson, we had made arrangements that we could detain the man one day longer in the cells.

MR HATTINGH: Was this done in this regard?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR KOEKEMOER: Because I believed that I would be back in time.

MR HATTINGH: But how could you believe that? If you leave at 11H30, it takes you three hours there and three hours back, that alone is six hours.

MR KOEKEMOER: I believed that it would not be a problem.

MR HATTINGH: Why could it not be a problem, given the time that it would take to get there and back?

MR KOEKEMOER: That I could make alternate arrangements if I got stuck.

MR HATTINGH: But you knew that if you got stuck and if you foresee the possibility that you would get stuck, that you would make those arrangements beforehand with the Correctional Services people, not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: Not in this regard.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR KOEKEMOER: I did not believe that it would be necessary at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: But now I'm asking you again, how could you have believed this, given the time it would have taken you to drive to Nelspruit and back and given the fact that you only departed at 11H30?

MR KOEKEMOER: I believed that I would be back in that given time, and if not, I would be able to make the necessary arrangements.

MR HATTINGH: Did you at some stage realise that you will not make it, that you would not be back in time?

MR KOEKEMOER: Not when I arrived in Nelspruit and he said that the scene was quite close, I believed that there would be no scene and that I could turn around and come back.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, I shall deal with that, but if it took you three hours to get to Nelspruit, then you would only arrive there at about two thirty or so, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And would it be realistic to accept that when one has to go to Nelspruit to pick up a photographer in Nelspruit at the police station, this would take another 15 to 20 minutes delay?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you did not know how far you had to drive from Nelspruit to the scene where this person would do the pointing out?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: I saw in the documents somewhere, I don't know where, but it was approximately thirty kilometres outside Nelspruit.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So that would also be at least another 15 minutes drive.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that gets us to about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, so you had two hours to get back to the prison, not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I want to put it to you, Mr Koekemoer, that you knew very well that you would not return with the detainee and that is why you did not make arrangements.

MR KOEKEMOER: I deny that.

MR HATTINGH: Very well then. You drove to Nelspruit and when you arrived there, Mr Bambo told you he first wants to point out the scene, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: You expected that he would point out arms to you.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if he did point out these arms to you, it would have been necessary for you to take pictures of it or to have pictures taken of it.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you knew if he took you to a scene and photos are taken, that you had to send someone back to go and collect the photographer.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So why work in such a roundabout manner just because the person tells you, "I first want to show you where the weapons are"? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR KOEKEMOER: The manner in which the man conveyed it to me, I believed that it would be one of the instances where there was no arms cache.

MR HATTINGH: So you became suspicious now?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you thought he was taking you on a wild goose chase?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And this should have made you aware that this person was just looking for an opportunity to escape.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Specifically in the light of the fact that you had been warned beforehand that he had notions of escaping.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So now you listen to him while you are thinking that he would not point out anything, so why did you drive further, why did you not tell him that, "listen it will just take us 15 minutes to get a photographer, why do we have to go there, go and have a look and come back and get a photographer"?

MR KOEKEMOER: My experience has taught me you drive just a small bit with a man and then he says on the road, no, he doesn't know where the place is.

MR HATTINGH: Did it happen in this case?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, in this case it did not happen.

MR HATTINGH: So you drove and he came to a certain place where he asked you to stop, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is that the place which is indicated on the photos that we dealt with yesterday, which appears on page 77, 78? Is that where you stopped? It starts before that, it starts on page 75 actually, 75 up to and including 78.

MR KOEKEMOER: Chairperson, are there no colour photos?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, there are and it is now being given to you.

MR KOEKEMOER: Chairperson, I do not recognise this scene. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: So are you trying to say that it was not there that you stopped?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, but I don't know this place at all.

MR HATTINGH: Were there no large rocks next to the road where Mr Bambo told you to stop?

MR KOEKEMOER: There was a large rock on the right-hand side.

MR HATTINGH: Similar to the one that appears in photo 5? On photo 5 there is a large rock visible, not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it is when you drive from Nelspruit, on the right-hand side of the road?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And why are you saying you do not recognise this scene?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Sir, this rock I do not know it, that is not where my scene was.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Bambo tell you to stop there?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: On photo 4, was there a place where one could with relative safety, park to the side of the road or quite a way from the tar road? Was it not such a place? Was there place where you parked to park away from the tar road?

MR KOEKEMOER: If I recall correctly, there were barriers in the road.

MR HATTINGH: On the side of the road?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that's correct, on the right-hand side.

MR HATTINGH: On the right-hand side of the road?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And on which side of the road did you stop?

MR KOEKEMOER: We stopped on the right-hand side.

MR HATTINGH: Did the barrier not stop you?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, there was a place to stop, but not like this.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just go back, when Mr Bambo was brought to you at the police station in Benoni, was he cuffed?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Handcuffs and leg irons?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it not the instructions of the police that when a person is taken to do pointings out, that he should be cuffed?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is not the instruction that his hands need to be cuffed behind his back?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, not when one is transporting him in a vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And when he climbs out of the vehicle, should his hands not be cuffed behind his back in order to prevent possible escape or attack?

MR KOEKEMOER: The thing is only that his hands have to be cuffed.

MR HATTINGH: Was his hands cuffed with normal cuffs?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Not like leg irons that had a piece of chain attached to it?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. So he had a little play in-between his hands that one would find with normal handcuffs?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And so you climbed out of the car and did you not climb up a steep slope?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: Was it even ground?

MR KOEKEMOER: The slope is down to the riverside.

MR HATTINGH: So you climbed down?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, we walked down, it's not such a tremendous slope.

MR HATTINGH: So you walked in the direction of the river?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, it was approximately 15 paces or so.

MR HATTINGH: From the roadside?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And is this where you arrived at the place that he pointed out?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So this place was not very far from the road.

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived there, what did he point out to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: Firstly he showed me the sawn off tree trunk and then informed me that the arms were hidden behind this trunk.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do then?

MR KOEKEMOER: I made him stand there and I went forwards and upon closer inspection I found there was a black bag and when I took away the branches I saw this black bag there.

MR HATTINGH: When you left, or before you left, or on your way there, did you ask him if the firearms that he showed to you were buried or not?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: You didn't ask him?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: He also did not tell you that it was on the ground as opposed to in the ground?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have a spade with you?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: What would you have done if you arrived at the scene and it appeared that the weapons had been buried?

MR KOEKEMOER: I did not believe that it would be such a type of arms cache.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR KOEKEMOER: Because I have never found any robber who would bury his arms.

MR HATTINGH: Never?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: So you just believed that he just left it on top of the ground or placed it under something?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that is why you thought it not necessary to take along a spade.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: He then pointed out a place to you, and then who looked for it there?

MR KOEKEMOER: I did it myself.

MR HATTINGH: And where was the deceased standing?

MR KOEKEMOER: He was behind me, to the road's side.

MR HATTINGH: Higher or lower than you were?

MR KOEKEMOER: Higher up.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Grobler, where was he?

MR KOEKEMOER: He then provided cover.

MR HATTINGH: And what do you mean when you say he provided cover? Was he somewhere with his weapon at the ready?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, he was standing in such a position that if he wanted to escape that he would be ready for it.

MR HATTINGH: So you foresaw the possibility that he might do it and you took precautions.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: How far was he from you? Mr Grobler.

MR KOEKEMOER: It was about a metre or two.

MR HATTINGH: And how far was Mr Bambo from you?

MR KOEKEMOER: Also approximately two metres.

MR HATTINGH: And you then went searching behind this sawn trunk?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: What did you find?

MR KOEKEMOER: I found the plastic bag which was covered with soil and the branches on top, and when I opened the bag I saw the green landmine on top.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Before you continue, you say the sack was covered with soil, was it just lying there and somebody threw some soil over it?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, the soil was over the plastic bag.

MR HATTINGH: So that it was entirely covered?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So indeed it was in a shallow hole, but indeed it was buried?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have to remove the soil?

MR KOEKEMOER: I could see the bag. I actually just opened the bag.

MR HATTINGH: So the sack was not entirely covered?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, one could see the sack.

MR HATTINGH: So it was just covered superficially with soil?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you could just lift out the bag then?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not lift out the bag, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You just opened it.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: The soil covering it, was this just loose soil lying there?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, it appeared to be that rainwater had washed most of it away.

MR HATTINGH: Washed it away?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, the sack had been washed by the rain.

MR HATTINGH: So do I then understand that there was actually almost no soil covering the bag?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, the largest part of the bag was covered.

MR HATTINGH: And the soil with which this was covered, was it loose soil?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, it was hard.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have to remove the soil to open the bag?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: How did you remove it?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was like a thin crust. When I pulled up the bag, it just peeled off.

MR HATTINGH: And was the opening of the bag to the top?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: What type of sack was it, Mr Koekemoer?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was a black refuse bag, these big black refuse bags.

MR HATTINGH: And I would assume that when would place these arms in this bag, it would not have filled, at least it would have filled only one-third of the bag.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's possible.

MR HATTINGH: And if that much, a third, not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. And would one not have expected that when one places arms in a black bag, that one would cover it in the bag that he would roll the bag up, why would he just place it up so that the open side of the bag pointed to the top?

MR KOEKEMOER: I think it depends on the person who placed it there.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. When you opened the bag you saw landmines in there.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do then?

MR KOEKEMOER: I then realised that this was explosives and I am not an explosives expert and that I had to obtain an explosives expert to take these things out.

MR HATTINGH: And did you do then after you realised that?

MR KOEKEMOER: I then - the identifier, I made him sit about three metres from the road, I then requested W/O Grobler to find me a photographer as well as an explosives expert.

MR HATTINGH: I am just reading my notes of your evidence-in-chief, my recollection is and my notes would appear to agree with my recollection that you said in your evidence-in-chief that you sent your colleague, Grobler with the vehicle back to Nelspruit to fetch a photographer, you did not mention anything about an explosives expert.

MR KOEKEMOER: Then I must have omitted that, but that is what I did.

MR HATTINGH: I would just like to have a look, in the statement which you deposed to for purposes of the post-mortem inquest, there you mention that you sent for an explosives expert. Very well. And now he left, this is now Grobler, correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then question Mr Bambo, "I thought you were going to point out hand guns to me and now I find landmines, are you trying to tell me you want to sell these landmines?"

MR KOEKEMOER: Chairperson, this man was not very talkative.

MR HATTINGH: But did you ask him?

MR KOEKEMOER: I did ask him, "And these mines?", and he just ignored me.

MR HATTINGH: So he informed you, and I speak here of you in general, the police, he wants to do some pointings out, he goes voluntarily, he points the arms out to you and all of a sudden he no longer co-operates with you. He said that he wanted to point out hand guns to you which he wanted to sell, now you are asking him about "the mines that you are showing me here now", and all of a sudden he clams up, does this rhyme with his previous behaviour?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: So can you explain to us why?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: So this must have made you much more suspicious then, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Because now he lied to you about he weapons. Do not nod your head, please answer.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So the two of you remained there.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The vehicle that you had did not have a police radio.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, it did.

MR HATTINGH: Could you not contact Nelspruit by radio?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson, the radios were only for the Johannesburg area, the Johannesburg area's network.

MR HATTINGH: Was it a hand radio or was it an installed radio?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was an installed radio.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not have a hand radio with you?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: And please describe to us, what did Mr Bambo do after Mr Grobler departed, was he standing or sitting?

MR KOEKEMOER: He was sitting on the grass.

MR HATTINGH: How far from the place where he pointed out the bag to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say approximately 3 metres.

MR HATTINGH: And you were watching him, because you were now very suspicious?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the person standing guard to make sure that he does not escape, was no longer there?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And may I just interrupt myself, I would just like to go back. When you opened the bag you saw the landmines.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the only things that you saw?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So where did the pistol come from?

MR KOEKEMOER: The pistol was later also removed from the bag.

MR HATTINGH: From within the bag?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You did not see this initially?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not.

MR HATTINGH: The place where Mr Bambo went to sit down, was this the place that you pointed him to, told him "go and stand there or sit there"?

MR KOEKEMOER: I pointed him in a general direction, "site there".

MR HATTINGH: And he went and sat down there.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the place that you showed to him, you just chose it at random, you had no reason as to why he had to go and sit down there?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: So you were still standing lower than him, am I correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you give us the gradient, how many centimetres lower or how many metres lower then him were you? I ask this question - I apologise for interrupting you, I'm asking this question because I get the impression when one studies the photos, photos 1 which appears on page 63, do you have that before you?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Do you have the original before you?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: According to the key to these photos, A indicates the position where you were standing before the incident and B, the position where the deceased, Adriano Bambo had allegedly been standing before the incident.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: It is you standing there at A?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you did the pointings out?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can we just deal with this, this key which points out where he was standing, shouldn't it be where he was sitting?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The impression that I have from the picture, and I know it can be misleading, is that there was a reasonable gradient between the place where you were and where he was.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I may be incorrect, but on the photo it would appear that the person standing higher up, his feet were on the same level as your head or shoulders.

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say at his calves.

MR HATTINGH: I'm sorry, I'm not following you.

MR KOEKEMOER: The person standing, B, his calves, that's what I would say, that is what the height was. In-between his calves and his feet.

MR HATTINGH: Let us leave it there, let's not get too technical about it. And what was the following that happened, he was sitting there, you were standing, you were watching him, what happened then?

MR KOEKEMOER: The next instant I saw that he had this black plastic handgrenade in his hand.

MR HATTINGH: Where would he have found this?

MR KOEKEMOER: I can just give my opinion here and that is that he found it there somewhere in the grass and that he hid it there.

MR HATTINGH: Well we've got a lot of coincidences now, when he hid the weapons he had to know that at a certain stage he's going to bring people to identify the place and then he will have the opportunity to escape and in anticipation of that, he then placed a handgrenade or hid it in the grass, coincidentally at the same place where you told to go and sit down. Is that what you're saying now?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: To use the saying, isn't that a bit unlikely?

MR KOEKEMOER: Well that's what happened.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see him looking around there in the grass?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not notice it.

MR HATTINGH: But you were looking at him?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the first thing that you noticed was that he had this black object in his hands.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, at the same time he stood up straight.

MR HATTINGH: Now he's standing above you with this object in his hands, could you see that he pulled out the pin?

MR KOEKEMOER: He moved to the left towards me.

MR HATTINGH: Why would you say he turned his left side towards you?

MR KOEKEMOER: I'm just making the inference that with the leg irons on it stabilised him to move towards me in order for him not to fall over.

MR HATTINGH: You are not saying that to explain how the bullet hit him through the left arm, through the chest and the right back out? In order to explain the direction the bullet went?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Mr Chairperson, but while he moved down to that position I fired a shot towards him.

MR HATTINGH: So if he stood up in a normal way and in a normal way moved towards you and you fired a shot at him, you would have hit him in the front and the bullet would have exited in the back?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: You knew exactly where the bullet him, After the post-mortem inquest you knew it went in on the left side and that it came out through the right shoulder.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I did see the post-mortem photographs.

MR HATTINGH: And as an experienced Murder and Robbery officer you knew you had to explain how the bullet went in in that way.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And now you come with this version that this person who was cuffed with leg irons and handcuffs, turned his left side towards you and was moving towards you.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's what happened.

MR HATTINGH: What do you think happened when he approached you with this handgrenade?

MR KOEKEMOER: I believed that he was going to throw this towards me.

MR HATTINGH: And that he did this in attempt to escape? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: But he's approximately two to three metres from you.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if the handgrenade exploded at that stage, then both you and him would have been killed, is that not true?

MR KOEKEMOER: It could have happened that way, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Well that does not stroke with a guy that's trying to escape.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is the inference that I made, yes.

MR HATTINGH: It seems more like somebody would do that who wants to commit suicide.

MR KOEKEMOER: It is possible, yes.

MR HATTINGH: I'm informed by Mr de Kock that that type of handgrenade that you described and which shrapnel was found at the scene - can you just give me a moment, that approximately 1 000 to a 1 200 metal balls, or that handgrenade contains that amount of metal balls, are you aware of that fact?

MR KOEKEMOER: It is possible, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the probability or the possibility that if somebody were to throw such a handgrenade at that stage, at that moment when you thought you'd do it, that various of these metal balls would have hit you and the deceased.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's possible, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can I just get more instructions please, Mr Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, just informed me that this type of handgrenade is a defensive type of handgrenade that is used to kill people, to kill people who are attacking, are you aware of this fact?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: And that it is deadly up until 20 to 30 metres and it could be up to 60 metres deadly for people in the vicinity, can you deny that?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: And that the explosion of such a handgrenade results in all the metal balls being spread out in all directions. Can you dispute that?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: This cut off tree trunk which the deceased pointed out to you, that we can see on page 66 and also on photograph 4 on page 67, were any signs found that this cut off tree trunk was hit by these metal balls that you can find in this handgrenade?

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, I'm talking under correction now, but I think some of the metal balls were found by the explosives expert in the tree trunk of that cut off tree.

MR HATTINGH: Did he dig it out there?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, you'll have to find that out from the explosives expert.

MR HATTINGH: I'm talking under correction, but I've got no recollection that something like that was found.

MR KOEKEMOER: The explosives part was left to the explosives expert.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, Mr Koekemoer. You now see this person approaching you, it seems as if he's going to throw this handgrenade towards you, you fire a shot, did you see what happened to him after you fired the shot?

MR KOEKEMOER: He stumbled and fell towards me, it was more-or-less a dive towards me. I then jumped towards the river.

MR HATTINGH: And you also testified in your evidence that you jumped into the bushes.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you fall?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I fell down into the bushes, the vegetation there.

MR HATTINGH: Did you roll down the slope or the embankment?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was more that I fell straight downwards in a, you can say it was more like a hammock

effect.

MR HATTINGH: Was this now the bushes in which you fell?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have any injuries?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, except that my clothes were dirty.

MR HATTINGH: Can you see it on the photograph where you're standing?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I do not think it was photographed.

MR HATTINGH: Your clothes seem to be very clean and neat and untouched, does it seem the same way to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, you can probably make that inference.

MR HATTINGH: No, we're not talking about inferences, we are talking about observations and I'm saying to you that this is my observation and now I'm asking you, does that seem to be the same case for you?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be on page 63 then?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairperson.

And no injuries, Mr Koekemoer?

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interrupt here please?

MR HATTINGH: Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: Look on page 56, it would be photograph 2 of the coloured photographs, can we find any trace of dirt or anything that your clothing could be dishevelled?

MR KOEKEMOER: Can you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: From the photograph I've just referred you to, that would be page 2 of the coloured photos, can we see any dirt on your clothing?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Koekemoer, do you still have the photograph to which the Chairperson referred you to in front of you?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you see the bushes in which you fell?

MR KOEKEMOER: It would be at the back, behind my back.

MR HATTINGH: Let us look at photograph 1, can you see it there? It shows you what is behind your back in the other photograph.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes. I would say directly from my side, on my left side, in that bush there or in that area, that opening there.

MR HATTINGH: To me it seems - or let me not put it, I cannot say that in all fairness. I've got a recollection and I would like you to assist me in this. Somewhere, whether it was in your statement or in the evidence during Mr de Kock's criminal trial, you mentioned - or let me just quickly look at it, page 91, paragraph 16 you said that:

"I realised that the identifier was going to blow both of us up."

So you did realise that.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is true, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then you continue:

"I jumped back and jumped down a slope of approximately 90 degrees. I came to stop against a tree approximately 40 metres from the slope."

Is that what happened?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So for approximately 40 metres you fell through the air, or were you rolling?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, it was in the vegetation that I was sliding down.

MR HATTINGH: Are you now talking about the tree where you stopped?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And to get there you slid down, were you rolling or were you flying through the air until you hit the tree?

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, with my weight I fell straight down.

MR HATTINGH: You fell through the air?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, with feet first I fell down.

MR HATTINGH: Approximately 40 metres far?

MR KOEKEMOER: Well that's an estimate.

MR HATTINGH: Well even if it's out with 50%, it's still 20 metres far and it's still very high and especially with somebody with your weight, one would expect that you would at least have had some bruising or scratches or that your clothes would be at least torn or dirty. Is that not true?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And are you saying in this statement in the same paragraph:

"While I was falling I heard a very loud bang and I realised that the handgrenade exploded."

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now you get up and you climb up again towards the deceased, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is.

MR HATTINGH: Did you still have the weapon in your hand?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You did not lose the weapon in the fall?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: And you also did not by mistake pull the trigger and fire a shot?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: You now saw the deceased, Mr Bambo, was he still alive?

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say that he was still alive.

MR HATTINGH: How would you say that?

MR KOEKEMOER: I felt his pulse.

MR HATTINGH: And there were still signs of life.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the only signs of life that you could observe?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, he was lying very quietly.

MR HATTINGH: What other injuries did you see?

MR KOEKEMOER: At that stage I saw that he had blood on his forehead. He was lying on his stomach.

MR HATTINGH: And you then immediately went down to the road to get assistance.

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say rather I went up to go and get assistance.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. The name of the person, or could you recall the name of the person who stopped and provided you with some assistance?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was Detective Matonsela and Gunther.

MR HATTINGH: Was it the person's statement that we can find on page 14, Christian Slater(sic) Gunther?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: I do not know if somebody specifically asked these questions, but he did not mention anything about injuries. In paragraph 4 he says that:

"Because I did not have radio communication, I had to drive a distance to give the message. The person whom I talked to had no injuries, he looked quite well, he did not look very shocked."

Would you say that that would be a correct description of the state in which he found you in?

MR KOEKEMOER: I wouldn't say that.

MR HATTINGH: So you would say that you were shocked?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you did not look very neat and composed?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But on the photograph I must say you look neat and that you also have conceded thusfar. In any case, so people from Nelspruit arrived, the photographer arrived and an explosives expert.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And now we read somewhere in the documents that a rope was tied to part of the deceased's body to drag him from the place where he was lying. Was it tied to his leg or arm?

MR KOEKEMOER: I did not look, the explosives expert took over the scene.

MR HATTINGH: Were you still at the scene?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, but I did not physically look at what was happening.

MR HATTINGH: What was the reason why they tied a rope around his body to drag him away?

MR KOEKEMOER: It is practice, as I understood it from the explosives expert.

MR HATTINGH: It is a precaution against what?

MR KOEKEMOER: Further mines that can be on the scene.

MR HATTINGH: So there was a possibility that maybe underneath this person's body there could have been another mine or handgrenade that could detonate as soon as the body is moved?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell him - did you say anything to him that made him think that?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: On your version of the events there's no talk of that.

MR KOEKEMOER: No, it was on his own initiative that he took over the scene ...

MR HATTINGH: And did this?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How far did they drag him?

MR KOEKEMOER: As I've already said, I did not really notice.

MR HATTINGH: Are we now talking about 10 metres, 20 metres, approximately? I'm not going to pinpoint or hold you to a specific distance.

MR KOEKEMOER: No, they just dragged him away from where he was, approximately 5 metres towards the road.

MR HATTINGH: And in that short distance he does have these lacerations that appears on the photographs of the post-mortem inquest and more specifically photograph number 5 on page 55 of the documents. Can you look at the originals, it may be a bit more clearer in that. Photograph 3, I'm sorry, and photograph 2. Photograph 2 could be the best one. That's on page 52, I think you've got the originals there. Can you see the lacerations on his body in photograph 2? Can you see it on the body of Mr Bambo?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: They are quite severe lacerations.

MR KOEKEMOER: It does seem like it, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And somewhere in the post-mortem inquest report there's a - they say it's because the body was dragged. Will you accept it as such?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Does that give us an indication about what the terrain looked like where the deceased was lying?

MR KOEKEMOER: It could be so.

MR HATTINGH: That is was such a rough terrain and over such a short distance it resulted in such serious lacerations?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, it could have been because of that.

MR HATTINGH: And that's the same terrain where you fell for approximately 40 metres, without any lacerations?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, that was on the opposite side.

MR HATTINGH: But he was pulled over a very short distance, Mr Koekemoer.

MR KOEKEMOER: I was on the river's side and he was on the side of the road.

MR HATTINGH: Isn't the terrain more-or-less the same in that area?

MR KOEKEMOER: The terrain towards the river had a very sharp decline and this one was more a slope towards the road, it did not really have a very sharp decline or ...

MR HATTINGH: Were there rocks in that area?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And where you fell?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Certain measurements were taken and a post-mortem inquest was held.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: When did you go back to Benoni?

MR KOEKEMOER: If I can recall correctly it was the next day that I went back.

MR HATTINGH: I think this statement that you made also mentions the next day, and I may be wrong, I just want to make sure. What I am sure about is that you went to Nelspruit. It was confirmed on the 6th, the next day, at Nelspruit.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you spent the night there?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Grobler as well?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the next day before you departure you made a statement.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: When you arrived back in Benoni, did you make certain, write certain documents at the police station, write certain letters or statements?

MR KOEKEMOER: The day immediately after the incident when we got back to the Nelspruit Police Station, I informed my Commander ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Is this now Brig Human?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was this telephonically?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes. ... and informed him about this incident and when I got back to the office the request was written up or the inquest was documented.

MR HATTINGH: What inquest was this?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was the enquiry after the questioning that took place.

MR HATTINGH: Was this now in the register that you are talking about?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But did you do that after the incident?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, the enquiry was registered before we went down.

MR HATTINGH: How do you register an enquiry?

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, it was an enquiry form that you open, then you have a case register at the office where you register the specific enquiry, it gets a number.

MR HATTINGH: What is written down there, the name of the person who did the identification?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, it's more about the specific information or the nature of the enquiry.

MR HATTINGH: Can you tell us what did you write down there?

MR KOEKEMOER: It would have been something like weapons smuggling investigation, weapons smuggling information.

MR HATTINGH: And when you returned, what did you write?

MR KOEKEMOER: Just that this person identified a place where the following weapons were found and was handed in at the Nelspruit Police Station.

MR HATTINGH: It would then be that three mines were found and that a handgrenade exploded?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, it would be physically the things that they removed from the scene.

MR HATTINGH: Can you tell us, when you returned to the scene or got back there where the deceased was lying, that's when you moved closer towards him, could you see where the handgrenade was when it exploded? Were there certain indications on the ground where it was when it exploded?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I can just make an inference.

MR HATTINGH: Let me hear it.

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say it would be on his left side or in front of him.

MR HATTINGH: Why do you make this inference?

MR KOEKEMOER: Where I looked at the ground I saw that the explosion probably took place there.

MR HATTINGH: So you did find certain signs about where the grenade exploded?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: How far was this from Mr Bambo?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was right next to him, close to him.

MR HATTINGH: It's relative, was it centimetres?

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say about 30 centimetres approximately.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know how many of these metal balls hit his body?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did the explosives expert also make the observation that you made, that that was the place where the handgrenade had exploded?

MR KOEKEMOER: I did not compare my observations with that of the explosives expert.

MR HATTINGH: Were you present when the bag was removed from the hole where it was lying?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, only later when the explosives expert had completed his task that I approached.

MR HATTINGH: Following on something that we have already discussed which I had omitted to mention to you, paragraph 9 of your statement on page 90, there you say at the end of that paragraph in the sentence which appears in brackets:

"I was under the impression that the identifier would point out hand guns with which robberies are usually committed."

It would sound to me that that was an inference you drew.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: But according to your evidence that you have given now during my cross-examination, he told you that it was hand guns that he had brought in and he wanted to sell them.

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So why did you not state it here?

MR KOEKEMOER: Most of these firearms I in any case used for robberies.

MR HATTINGH: But would it not be a better explanation, you say in the sentence:

"Because it was explosives I stopped the investigation"

and then you say:

"I was under the impression all the time that the identifier would point out hand guns with which robberies are committed

would it not be a better explanation if you had said that because it was explosives, 'I ceased my investigation because the identifier previously told me that he would identify the hand guns to me which he had brought in through Mozambique, for purposes of robberies'?

MR KOEKEMOER: Chairperson, I probably could have formulated the sentence otherwise.

MR HATTINGH: How much time had elapsed from the time that you arrived after the explosion at the deceased, up to the time that the explosives expert had arrived there?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was approximately - the people arrived 15 minutes afterwards, at 15H15.

MR HATTINGH: Approximately 15 minutes after the explosion?

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say approximately half an hour.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, because the man first had to drive 30 kilometres to Nelspruit to get the photographer, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then come back 30 kilometres again. It had to take longer than 15 minutes.

MR KOEKEMOER: No, we are talking about the paramedics.

MR HATTINGH: No, I apologise, maybe we are talking past each other here, I'm sorry if I'm misleading you now. You sent the man to go and fetch the photographer before the explosion had taken place, am I correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: But how long after the explosion had taken place did it take for the explosives expert to get there?

MR KOEKEMOER: They arrived there along with the paramedics, it was approximately fifteen minutes after three.

MR HATTINGH: And during that time you were alone at the scene.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if you wanted to change the scene there or wanted to remove something from there, nobody would have observed you, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was the post-mortem inquest concluded with the finding that no-one could be held criminally liable for the death of Mr Bambo?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: If you would grant me a moment, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Koekemoer, I have to put it to you that you had established this weapons cache point along with Mr Brits and this was done with the intention of taking Mr Bambo there in order to eliminate him.

MR KOEKEMOER: I deny that statement vehemently.

MR HATTINGH: Do you also deny that at some stage you along with Brig Human, were present in the canteen at Vlakplaas?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I do not deny it.

MR HATTINGH: So at some stage you were there?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So what was the purpose of that visit?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was a large social gathering that we had been invited to.

MR HATTINGH: I can understand that you were invited because you had worked with them previously and you had been there previously, but can you tell us why Mr Human was invited?

MR KOEKEMOER: He was the Commander of East Rand Murder and Robbery.

MR HATTINGH: But this was a Security Police function on Security Police premises.

MR KOEKEMOER: But there were a variety of private persons present as well.

MR HATTINGH: Do you deny Mr Snyman's evidence that you at some stage sat in the canteen with Mr Human and participated in a conversation about the establishment of a weapons cache point?

MR KOEKEMOER: I deny that vehemently, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Can I just ask something whilst you're trying to find out what next to ask?

Mr Koekemoer, was there ever a stage during the time you would visit the canteen at Vlakplaas, was there ever a time when Brits and Snyman would be around there during a drinking session?

MR KOEKEMOER: Correct, Chairperson, they may have been present.

ADV SANDI: Yes. These officers who were working, who were assigned to the Vlakplaas unit, did you ever overhear them discussing the various operations they were involved in, say during drinking, people just talking informally? Did you ever hear them talking about such things?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson, I was there exclusively to party, I never heard if anyone was talking shop there.

ADV SANDI: Wouldn't they talk informally to each other about things they were involved in, work-related matters?

MR KOEKEMOER: Chairperson, our people who came from outside, we were always seen as outsiders, we were never a group of Vlakplaas' people. Although we were invited tot he functions, we were always kept at a distance.

ADV SANDI: So, I don't understand you, can you please explain. What do you mean, do you mean to say that they would just keep quiet and not talk to you at all whilst you were there?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, that is not what I'm saying, we spoke about everything but work, they never discussed operations where they were involved with us, or that we heard of them talking about it.

ADV SANDI: What would you generally hear them talking about in their conversations?

MR KOEKEMOER: We spoke in general about things regarding police work and we were always crying that we did not have enough funds and vehicles.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but did you personally know what these Vlakplaas unit people were involved in? Did you know what they were doing?

MR KOEKEMOER: When I started going to Vlakplaas, they were purely busy with the investigation of the criminal aspects.

ADV SANDI: So you had no idea at all what they were generally involved in as a specialised unit known as Vlakplaas unit?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not know specifically what they did, but I knew that they were responsible for the tracing of terrorists and the investigation of acts of terror.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what interested you in wanting to join Vlakplaas?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, Chairperson, at some stage it did fascinate me.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Yes, just on that. When you expressed your desire to join Vlakplaas, what did you do, did you fill in a form, did you write a letter, what did you do?

MR KOEKEMOER: I directed an application but before I sent it through I cancelled it.

ADV SANDI: Who were you going to direct this request to?

MR KOEKEMOER: It would have been through my Murder and Robbery channels to Head Office in Pretoria.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

Any further questions?

MR HATTINGH: ... the Chairman, to complete his notes he was making. I do have one more question.

CHAIRPERSON: No, thank you, I've completed that now.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you.

Mr Koekemoer, Mr Bambo, when you fetched him from the prison, I think you said he was a sentenced prisoner, he was not an awaiting trial detainee.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And now we are referring to the year 1991, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know what he was convicted of?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was for escape.

MR HATTINGH: Just for escape?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know for how long he was sentenced?

MR KOEKEMOER: 12 months.

MR HATTINGH: 12 months. Do you know how many of those 12 months he had served already when this incident had taken place?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR HATTINGH: So you do not know how long he waited after he was sentenced when he decided that he wanted to get all these things off his shoulders?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Chair, if I can just ask him something on one of the questions he had asked.

Your idea of joining the Vlakplaas unit, why did you cancel that idea?

MR KOEKEMOER: I saw a better future for myself at Murder and Robbery than with a unit like Vlakplaas.

ADV SANDI: Did you confide to any people you knew in the Police Force, such as Mr de Kock, that you were intent on joining Vlakplaas?

MR KOEKEMOER: I discussed it with him, yes.

ADV SANDI: What was his view?

MR KOEKEMOER: That I must join Vlakplaas.

ADV SANDI: Would you say he was happy that you wanted to come and join the Vlakplaas?

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say so.

ADV SANDI: Did he appear to you as someone who had confidence in you? I'm talking about Mr de Kock.

MR KOEKEMOER: I can say so, yes.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Sandi. Mr Cornelius?

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

Mr Koekemoer, in order to enable this Committee to evaluate the evidence, I would like to put the probable and the improbable versions to you because my learned colleague Mr Hattingh has already done a comprehensive cross-examination of you. You had a very good collegial relationship with Mr Brits, can you think why would he want to unjustly incriminate you?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You understand that Brits applies for amnesty and that he had disclosed these facts in order to obtain amnesty and indemnity for certain offences.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: So why would he associate himself with something that had never happened? That does not make sense.

MR KOEKEMOER: I cannot offer an opinion.

MR CORNELIUS: You did not apply for amnesty for this offence, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Because you relied upon the result of the post-mortem inquest.

MR KOEKEMOER: I would not say that, I also had the opportunity to apply and if I felt that I had committed any political offences.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you feel that this was not a political offence?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR CORNELIUS: When you took the prisoner out or when you fetched him from the prison, when he said that he wanted to do these pointings out ...

MR KOEKEMOER: Can you repeat that question?

MR CORNELIUS: When you decided to draw the prisoner from Modderbee Prison, can you think of any reason why he suddenly decided to give this information or to disclose this information?

MR KOEKEMOER: As I have said, it was either to send a message through to his family or his co-workers or his co-accused or possibly for escape.

MR CORNELIUS: It was a senseless thing to do because according to you there was indeed weapons and if your evidence is correct, he would just be sentenced further for possession of these weapons, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, if he did not attempt to escape.

MR CORNELIUS: Well he could have taken you to any other scene and attempted to escape.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you coerce him in any manner when you consulted him in your office? Did you strike him or assault him or hit him or anything to that effect?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: When did you believe he was taking you, as Adv Hattingh had indicated, on a wild goose chase?

MR KOEKEMOER: This was when we arrived at Nelspruit and he said that the place was close-by.

MR CORNELIUS: Why were you thinking he was lying then?

MR KOEKEMOER: Because it had previously happened to me.

MR CORNELIUS: You say in your statement on page 89, paragraph 5, that you spoke to Nelspruit telephonically and arranged a photographer, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And at what time did you say you would need the photographer at Nelspruit?

MR KOEKEMOER: I did not advance any specific time to Lieut Davel.

MR CORNELIUS: So you knew that a photographer would be ready for you and he would wait for you?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And when you drove to kaNyamazane, I know the area, you drove through Nelspruit to get there, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: So why did you not stop at the police station to pick up the photographer, you were driving right past the police station?

MR KOEKEMOER: The impression I had from the identifier was that the place was right here.

MR CORNELIUS: But you come in from Pretoria's side, you pass Rob Ferreira Hospital on the right-hand side and then if you drive straight you drive right past the police station on your way to kaNyamazane.

MR KOEKEMOER: At that stage I felt that I did not want to waste any time, I can turn around immediately and go back.

MR CORNELIUS: But you were not wasting any time, you knew that you would go some distance out of Nelspruit, you could just pick up the photographer and carry on through to kaNyamazane, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: As I've already said, I felt that I would waste time if I pick up this person.

MR CORNELIUS: But when you were 10/15 kilometres outside Nelspruit on your way to Komatipoort, in that direction, did you not think that this man was wasting time? You have so little time to take him back to Modderbee, why would you just not get the photographer?

MR KOEKEMOER: At that stage I had already thought of turning around, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You see, the probabilities are, and I put it to you that you did not want to have a witness with you at the scene because you knew what you were going to do to Bambo, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: Chairperson, I deny that statement.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. And when you were 20/25 kilometres outside Nelspruit, did you not decide to turn around then?

MR KOEKEMOER: I wanted to turn around.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you - while you were driving, did you speak to Bambo?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I did, that's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you ask him if the hand weapons were in a container or whether they were buried? Did you not ask those questions?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson, my main aim was to find the place so that he could point out the place to me and so that I could get done with the pointing out.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. And when you arrived at the scene and you opened the plastic bag and you saw that there was a landmine there, did you see any handgrenade?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. When you told Bambo to move four metres away, he went to sit down, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you were watching him all of this time.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You did not divert your attention away from him?

MR KOEKEMOER: I tried not to do it.

MR CORNELIUS: Well I would assume that you would be watching him because it would have been unpleasant if he jumped you from behind and tried to strangle you with the handcuffs.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: So you would watch because he could pick up a stone or pick up a stick and assault you, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you draw your weapon at that stage?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR CORNELIUS: And when did he stand up?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was approximately three minutes after W/O Grobler left.

MR CORNELIUS: But did you see him fiddling around in the grass, did he lie on his back, was he rolling round, was he feeling around?

MR KOEKEMOER: He did not make any suspicious movements that I could see.

MR CORNELIUS: But now the Committee are asking questions and we would like to know how the handgrenade ended up in his hands. He must have scratched around, picked it up, he must have laid down, he must have done something. You were there, you please tell us. What happened, Mr Koekemoer?

MR KOEKEMOER: As I've already said, the following moment when I saw him he had this thing in his hand.

MR CORNELIUS: But now you know we want an explanation, where did this handgrenade come from? Did he go back to where the arms cache was, did he dig around in the ground in front of him or behind him?

MR KOEKEMOER: The only inference I can draw, Sir, is that the thing must have been close to him. It must have been in the area there.

MR CORNELIUS: So you want this Committee to believe the probabilities that the position where you placed him was exactly where the handgrenade was, is that so? Did you hear anything, did you hear any branches breaking or him scratching around?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not.

MR CORNELIUS: But you also did not see him standing up?

MR KOEKEMOER: I saw him standing up.

MR CORNELIUS: Please just fill this gap for us here, because we want to know where the handgrenade comes from.

MR KOEKEMOER: As I have already said, I did not see where he got this thing from.

ADV SANDI: Was there a stage when you were not looking at this man?

MR KOEKEMOER: It could be that at some moment I did not look at him.

ADV SANDI: Where were you looking at?

MR KOEKEMOER: I for a moment could have glanced at the weapons cache point, I could have just looked past him, but according to me I looked at him the whole time.

ADV SANDI: Yes, because I understood you to say that you were very suspicious of his intentions.

MR KOEKEMOER: Chairperson, it can be that my attention was drawn away for a few seconds and that is when he got the handgrenade into his hand.

ADV SANDI: Yes. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Just for completeness, Mr Cornelius.

When you took him out of Modderbee Prison and your eventual departure from Benoni, he had nothing on him, like for instance the handgrenade?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius, you may proceed.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr Koekemoer, you would agree that leg irons and handcuffs make a noise, when one moves they would make a noise?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you hear that?

MR KOEKEMOER: I heard it when he got up.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you see him moving to a place and fetching the handgrenade or ...?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, from the place where he was sitting he stood up.

MR CORNELIUS: You would agree that if he had previously placed this handgrenade there, it would have been easier to place a pistol there, because it would be easier to use than a handgrenade, would you agree?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is so, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And a Makarov pistol that is cocked is much easier to use than a handgrenade, and thereby endangering your life using the handgrenade?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: What vehicle were you driving with that day, what type of vehicle?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was a white Sierra.

MR CORNELIUS: And this white Sierra, Grobler took and drove to Nelspruit, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Were there any other vehicles that accompanied you?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, not at all.

MR CORNELIUS: And when you ran up to the road to stop Gunther, were there any other vehicles close-by?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, that was the vehicle that approached.

MR CORNELIUS: Only Gunther's vehicle?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: But there were no other vehicles, you would have noticed it?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: I didn't hear that.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Because you see, I want to refer you to page 15 of bundle 2, Mr Gunther says in his statement and I quote in the second line:

"I saw a vehicle standing next to the road, I think it was a white Sierra."

So how do you explain that? Or in fairness to you, but he says:

"I am not certain"

but he refers here to a vehicle.

MR KOEKEMOER: No, my Sierra could not have been standing there when he stopped there.

MR CORNELIUS: So why would Mr Gunther make such a mistake in his statement? Does it make sense to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Because you see we can accept that Mr Gunther had no reason to incriminate you, would you agree?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And what is a greater dilemma to me, if I refer you to page 14 of the same bundle and refer you specifically to paragraph 3 of that statement, there he says, it's just after you stopped him and he refers to you, he said that:

"He had brought people down for pointings out, they would have pointed out certain points to him where things were hidden and at that point they said that the man then said that he had to stop there and he had a firearm in his hands."

Now this bothers me, this was a witness who was on the scene and you reported to him first and you told him that he had a firearm, where according to your version, it was that you would almost shot dead with the handgrenade. That's quite contrary, don't you think so?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, that could not be right.

MR CORNELIUS: So are you saying that Mr Gunther is also mistaken there?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: But then I have an even greater problem, just read on further:

"He then shot"

Now we accept that you said that you shot Bambo, but now he says:

"Others got away and some of them went after them."

Now Mr Koekemoer, where does this story come from?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson, I do not know.

MR CORNELIUS: So this independent witness who was coincidentally a police officer who we can believe made a good observation, makes one big mistake here, is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: But now I have an even further problem with this version, because now you are saying or my learned colleague, Adv Hattingh, you told my learned colleague, Adv Hattingh, that you had wounded him and then you felt his pulse and then you ran up to the road, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: But Gunther says in the last two lines of paragraph 3 on page 14, he says:

"He directed a request to me to call in help to look"

so this is apparently to the persons who had run away.

"and to assist with the corpse"

Mr Koekemoer, you knew he was dead.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is not true, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: But now Mr Brits is telling lies, Mr de Kock is lying, Mr Snyman is telling lies, Mr Gunther is lying, you are the only person telling us the truth here. Do you see my problem, Mr Koekemoer? So why would you refer to a corpse there? Do you have an answer?

MR KOEKEMOER: I do not know where Mr Gunther gets this.

MR CORNELIUS: And I have further problems, you fell 40 metres down a 90 degree gradient and as you had explained to Adv Hattingh, but Mr Gunther in paragraph 4 says:

"Because I did not have radio communication there, I had to drive some way to give the message. The man I spoke to (and that was you) had no injuries, he looked quite neat"

and then he says:

"Although (you) were almost killed by a handgrenade and had fallen 40 metres into a tree, he did not appear shocked."

That does not rhyme, Mr Koekemoer. Do you agree?

MR KOEKEMOER: I would agree.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, it would appear that you came out there quite relaxed and you knew that you left a corpse there, you stopped a man and told him "call in help, other persons are running away", is that not so?

MR KOEKEMOER: I deny that, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You see because there are so many things that do not rhyme here, the post-mortem inquest on page 33, there are drawings of the injuries that Mr Bambo had and you tell my learned colleague, Adv Hattingh, that this handgrenade had exploded 30 centimetres away from Bambo and the only shrapnel that he has are two little cuts, 4 x 4 centimetres on the top of his head, and other than that there is no other shrapnel. Do you see that? If you study the full sketch marks, you would see there are laceration marks which are indicated on the stomach and on the knees and the entry wounds of your bullet, but only the top of his head, two bits of shrapnel. Do you not find that strange?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you have heard what Adv Hattingh had said about the defensive nature of this handgrenade, this is a serious handgrenade which sends out many projectiles. Do you not find that strange? And then furthermore, if we study the post-mortem inquest it is quite clear that the bullet you fired had killed Bambo, that is quite clear from the post-mortem inquest, would you agree?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, can I just come in Mr Cornelius?

When you fired a shot at the deceased, was it your intention to kill him? Were you shooting to kill?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson, I was trying to stop him as opposed to trying to kill him.

ADV SANDI: Did you aim the shot at any particular part of the body?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson, I just fired in his direction.

ADV SANDI: Did you shout at him before you opened fire?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: You just opened fire?

MR KOEKEMOER: I just fired and it happened very quickly.

ADV SANDI: How many times did you pull the trigger?

MR KOEKEMOER: I only pulled the trigger once.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: I'm not an explosives expert, but I will put it to you that if the handgrenade exploded 30 centimetres from the head of the deceased, there would have been serious injuries, but that is my opinion and you do not have to comment on that.

I will put it to you in conclusion that I have put the improbabilities to you that Snyman, Brits and de Kock's evidence can be accepted. Can you deny that?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Ms Patel, I see this statement which Mr Cornelius has just referred to, it's a typed version, do we have a written version? Gunther.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, I will double-check the documents that I have, but the typed versions that have gone into the bundles, where we have had written copies they were inserted in too, but I will just double-check again.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I would want you to double-check because it would appear this one is the 22nd of June 1996, but it's unsigned, it really ...

Whilst she's checking Mr Koekemoer, I want you to have regard to page 77 of the bundle, if you look at that, that would be paragraph 4 which you recognised whilst you were cross-examined by Mr Hattingh, you said at least that one you recognised but not photographs 6 and 7, you don't know the area, but at least 4 and 5 you recognised that big rock or rather, to be precise, photograph 5 if my recollection is okay. You recognise that rock?

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, it was a similar rock, I'm not saying it's the same one.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see. But in any event, why I'm asking you is that if you look at the key to the coloured photos and you look at where they say:

"photos 3, 4 and 5 would be the key to the photographs, shows a scene, or Brits indicates a scene towards the eastern side."

Do you follow what I'm saying?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that is all.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, I've just perused the docket again, I definitely don't have a hand-written copy, I've just got the typed version that is in the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Patel. Mr Hurwitz, I think we still have a few minutes.

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

Mr Koekemoer, do you know Manuel Olifant, is he known to you?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Mr Chairperson, not at all.

MR HURWITZ: Do you know that - would you know that Lieut Pretorius and Capt Coetzee were his superior officers in the Soweto Security Branch?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: No further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HURWITZ

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jonker?

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

Capt Koekemoer, you testified that after you received this telephonic request or information from the prison, you made a pocket book entry.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR JONKER: You as an officer of the South African Police Service, did you not make use of a diary or a journal?

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, because we did a lot of court work, a pocket book is a bit more practical than a diary, that is why we made use of a pocket book.

MR JONKER: Sir, on the 1st of March 1990, you received this information via the telephone, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: What was the reason why you did not on the 1st of March, open this enquiry file?

MR KOEKEMOER: If I look at the date, Mr Chairperson, it was on a Friday, then a person would like to finish everything that has not been finished for the week, that is why I did not write down this enquiry.

MR JONKER: Could you tell this Committee how long it takes to open an enquiry, is it five or ten minutes?

MR KOEKEMOER: It's approximately ten minutes.

MR JONKER: That was half-past nine in the morning, so it wouldn't have interfered with the braai that you had that afternoon, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: Why didn't you open this enquiry on the Monday?

MR KOEKEMOER: I made an entry in my pocket book and to open an enquiry is just a formality.

MR JONKER: Was this practice that when you receive information from the prison, to now go an a wild goose chase, as you mention it, drive through to the prison, you pick this person up and you leave? Wouldn't it have been easier if you had gone to the prison because of the fact that this person could have escaped or made contact with his colleagues in the outside world, to go and rather visit him at the prison? It would have cut out all the risks.

MR KOEKEMOER: I could have done it that way, yes, but in practice we were taught that it was better to take this person to your office, more for intimidation's sake, because if the other prisoners see him talking to the police, it would be for intimidation.

MR JONKER: There at the prison you do not talk to this prisoner, he's taken to an office and there you have certain discussions with him in the office, out of the way of other prisoners or the public, so what type of intimidation was there then?

MR KOEKEMOER: It has happened before.

MR JONKER: Sir, furthermore, you are attached to the Murder and Robbery unit, where is the most intimidation, to go and talk to a person in prison or to go to an office or to take him to an office at Murder and Robbery, where there's a big exclamation mark? Where would be the most intimidation?

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say at the prison.

MR JONKER: So Sir, the fact that a person is talking to Murder and Robbery is not intimidating?

MR KOEKEMOER: I wouldn't say that, no.

MR JONKER: You testified when Adv Hattingh cross-examined you and you testified in court about identifications and all the formalities, can you recall when you testified about that?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR JONKER: Now can you tell this Honourable Committee, what is the procedure that an officer has to follow when he takes somebody out for an identification.

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, I'm a bit rusted with the procedure, but you warn according to the law ...(intervention)

MR JONKER: Maybe I can assist you. There's a specific form that was created in the South African Police Services, that is taken, then you start with the form, 'I, Johannes Petrus Koekemoer, am a Captain in the South African Police. In front of me is Mr Johannes Andreas Bambo, it's a person dressed in green clothes. You are in your office with an Interpreter, whatever. Can you recall those forms?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: Yes, Sir, you do recall, I've just prompted your memory. What happened to this form that you completed during this investigation and identification?

MR KOEKEMOER: I did not make use of the form, I wrote it in my pocket book.

MR JONKER: Sir, let us just argue that this identification was successful, Mr Bambo was arrested for the illegal possession of explosives and a firearm and this had to be heard in a court, or the Attorney-General had to give instructions to charge this person for these offences, do you agree with me?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: Now Sir, in this specific hearing you have told or you have met Adv Hattingh, and he would have asked you, Sir, you now made use of information and where is the report, what would you have told the Court concerning this?

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, I would have trusted the information in my pocket book.

MR JONKER: Sir, is it an arrangement in the police that you make use of your pocket book, or would you make use of the identification form, to prevent any mistakes? That is the purpose of the form and the reason why this form was used. Can you agree with me?

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say that the form was there to provide guidelines to everyone about how to do identifications.

MR JONKER: And you used this pocket book method.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: Sir, furthermore, I do not know if you will agree with me, but you also - there were certain customs at certain offices and I think the Legal Board also mentioned something in this line, that a person from a specific unit in a specific investigation must take that person out for investigations or identifications, have you heard of this before?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: But you then just ignored this and decided to take this person out yourself.

MR KOEKEMOER: I believed that this case had no relevance to a case that we were investigating at the East Rand Murder Unit.

MR JONKER: Sir, furthermore, have you heard of the Firearm Unit that was established in the South African Police?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: Sir, you went with the specific purpose to go and look for weapons, not explosives, but weapons, and you went to somebody else's jurisdiction or area, the area in which they worked, to go and look for firearms, why didn't you contact the Firearm Unit from Nelspruit or the Eastern Transvaal Commander, because this whole matter is concerned with firearms?

MR KOEKEMOER: Mr Chairperson, at that stage Murder and Robbery found a lot of firearms themselves.

MR JONKER: You're not answering this question. You received information, this person allegedly told you about how he smuggled in weapons from Mozambique into South Africa with the purpose of selling them and the offence that was committed here is not robbery or murder, it is the smuggling of firearms and that was the purpose of the Firearm Unit at that stage. Why didn't you specifically contact them and tell them, Captain or Major or Lieutenant in Nelspruit, "I'm on my way with a person who is going to identify a place where there are weapons close to Nelspruit", why didn't you do this?

MR KOEKEMOER: I could have done it.

MR JONKER: But you didn't do it, why didn't you do it?

MR KOEKEMOER: Because I did it myself.

MR JONKER: Yes. So you phoned Lieut Davel, but you did not think of phoning the Firearm Unit.

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I didn't.

MR JONKER: Sir, let us just remain with this point, this form that you did not complete, you warned this person according to the law and you did you write all of this in your pocket book, what you warned him against?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: Who was present in the office with you?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was myself, the suspect and if I am right the Interpreter was Nchunu.

MR JONKER: Did you take the Interpreter with you to Nelspruit?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR JONKER: Why not? You have the Interpreter with you in the office, but you're not taking him with you.

MR KOEKEMOER: Sir, I can speak a black language.

MR JONKER: Are you?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: If you are able to speak a black language, what would be the purpose of the Interpreter then?

MR KOEKEMOER: He was present.

MR JONKER: And Sir, what language did you communicate in with Mr Bambo?

MR KOEKEMOER: I spoke Zulu to him.

MR JONKER: What was the discussion that you had with this person? For example, where did he get his information, that was in the standard form. Maybe I can just restructure this question. The form that was used for the guidelines, can you recall what it looks like?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: In this form there are a few questions that you have to ask, one of them specifically is, 'what advantage, what would this person get out of this identification', you asked him this?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR JONKER: So you did not follow the guidelines. Do you agree with the guidelines put down there, they were not for you, they were for somebody else?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not make use of that specific form.

MR JONKER: Well you did not have any form with you, so you did not ask the questions on the form. Sir, did you ask him if he was informed by another person that a certain promise was made when he went to go, or when he'd go and make this identification?

MR KOEKEMOER: I told him that he's not forced to do it, but that if he does it freely, he can do it.

MR JONKER: Sir, this form that I'm referring to, one of the points on it is specifically, "Was a certain promise made to you if you made this identification?" You can recall this form, this form that you did not use and the guidelines that you did not follow, did you ask this, "Sir, did somebody promise you something if you indicate where the weapons are"?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not ask him this.

MR JONKER: Did you ask him where he got the information concerning the scene that he must go and identify?

MR KOEKEMOER: He told me that he did it himself.

MR JONKER: Can you just tell us what exactly he told you, what did he do himself?

MR KOEKEMOER: He told me that he hid these weapons.

MR JONKER: And where would these weapons have come from?

MR KOEKEMOER: From Mozambique and that he wanted to sell these weapons.

MR JONKER: And you specified that he brought the weapons from Mozambique himself, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: Concerning the Mozambique issue, Mr Wagener's clients will testify that the deceased ran away from Frelimo and that he could not go to Mozambique himself, they were looking for him there. Mr Hurwitz's client will also come and confirm it, that the police were also looking for him there. So this person did not want to go to Mozambique, because of the dangers there. Can you maybe comment on that?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, that is not what he told me.

MR JONKER: You see Sir, what I find very strange is that somebody that knows that he cannot go into Mozambique and then tells you such a story, such a lie, that this person that you met for the first time in your life at 10 o'clock in the morning and then he tells you this made up story. Why would he have done this?

MR KOEKEMOER: I don't know.

MR JONKER: What did this person tell you in that office?

MR KOEKEMOER: He just made himself - said he was willing to go and identify the scene.

MR JONKER: And as you've mentioned, or in your experience this person could have escaped quite easily or could have made contact with people on the outside.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: Sir, if a person wants to escape or communicate, it's probably very easy, he could have taken you to Kagiso, Vosloorus, and we all know that in the 1990s, the situation in those areas, and he had a lot of friends and they could have helped him in his escape.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct.

MR JONKER: But now by coincident you go to Nelspruit and he dies there. Sir, the cuffs of the person, at what stage did you cuff his hands in front of him?

MR KOEKEMOER: That was when we loaded him into the vehicle.

MR JONKER: And at no stage you cuffed his hands behind his back?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: Would you say that any person sitting flat down on the ground with his hands cuffed and his legs cuffed in front of him, will find it difficult to look for a handgrenade without putting his hands on the ground to get up?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is possible, yes.

MR JONKER: You will also have been able to see if this person was attempting to get up.

MR KOEKEMOER: Well I saw when he got up.

MR JONKER: How did he jump up?

MR KOEKEMOER: His hands were in front of him and he was in a crouched position and that's how he got up.

MR JONKER: Was he squatting or was he sitting flat on the ground?

MR KOEKEMOER: He was sitting flat but more in a squatting position.

MR JONKER: Were his hands in front of him? Was it in front of his chest?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, he was sitting like this, if I can explain it like this.

MR JONKER: Yes, his hands were now in front of him, but where did this handgrenade come from that he suddenly had in his hands?

MR KOEKEMOER: ...(inaudible)

MR JONKER: Sir, please answer.

MR KOEKEMOER: Well the next instant I just he had the handgrenade in his hands.

MR JONKER: It seems as if he had to catch the handgrenade from somewhere, because according to your evidence his hands were in front of him, so he had to have caught the handgrenade from somewhere but his hands were not on the ground.

MR KOEKEMOER: His hands were in front of him.

MR JONKER: And my question is, how did this handgrenade end up in his hands?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, I don't want to object unnecessarily, this question has been asked several times by Mr Hattingh, several times by Mr Cornelius, we have a version before us. For Mr Jonker to ask the question several times, I'm not sure is going to take the process any further, with respect, Mr Chairperson.

MR JONKER: I'll leave it at that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR JONKER: Mr Koekemoer, let us look at the photographs. I'm not going to deal with the same points that Adv Hattingh dealt with, but in the same sense you did not have any torn clothes on. If you look at that specific photograph, if you can just look at the colour photograph, you see there, Sir, on photograph 1, if you look at yourself in that photograph you are now a person who stood the whole day in the sun, you fell 40 metres, but still your hair, if you forget about the bit of sweat on your forehead, even your hair seems to be neat and combed. Do you agree with me, Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Just for the record before he answers, that would be photograph ...(intervention)

MR JONKER: It's photo 1, page 64, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed.

MR JONKER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Captain, can you maybe explain how you fell 40 metres, there were bushes and the bushes that prevented you from falling, at some stage it had to sort of dishevel your hair?

MR KOEKEMOER: I wouldn't say my hair is combed there.

MR JONKER: But you will agree with me that it's not quite, it doesn't look like somebody who just fell 40 metres through the bushes?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: When you arrived there where the plastic bags were buried, you testified that there was some type of crust covering the bags, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: Sir, I do not know how often you do gardening, but if you dig a hole and the soil is wet, it does create a type of crust if you leave it for a day or two. Even if you use a watering hose and you water the garden and you leave it to dry, it still creates a type of crust.

MR KOEKEMOER: All I can say is that it was not fresh soil.

MR JONKER: You say that it was not fresh soil, but it could have happened two or three days ago, because two or three days ago is also not very fresh.

MR KOEKEMOER: I would say it was a bit longer.

MR JONKER: On what grounds do you say this?

MR KOEKEMOER: Well if you look at the plants or the vegetation in that area and you look at photograph 3, if you look at that green section, I think it would have been wilted or dead, this green growth that grew over this.

MR JONKER: There's no indication that any of the roots of these plants were cut off, we all know that it is quite humid in the Eastern Transvaal and that there's quite abundant growth in the area. And I can speculate as much as you speculate, but anything is possible here. It's possible that when the hole was dug it could have happened that way, but you are somebody with experience in the Murder and Robbery unit, do you think that if you would create a scene to look as if there's an arms cache, that you will now create something new, to dig a hole where everybody can see it. You must know how to reconstruct a scene. Am I correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: I do not agree with you.

MR JONKER: So you do not know what a scene looks like if it's a fresh or an old scene?

MR KOEKEMOER: I will be able to say if it's a fresh scene or an old scene.

MR JONKER: But Sir, do you agree with me that if you have to go and create a crime scene, you will surely, you as a Detective with 15 years experience, you will not create a scene that if the photographer arrives at the scene, will see that look, this scene was created yesterday? Will you agree with me?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: Give yourself some credit here. Mr Koekemoer, do you agree with me that if Mr de Kock, Snyman and Brits kept quiet, nobody would have known about this incident?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's not true.

MR JONKER: Why not? Who would have known? If I'm now talking about this incident, I'm talking about the creation of this scene. If it wasn't for the applicants, nobody would have known about this.

MR KOEKEMOER: The thing was immediately reported after the shooting.

MR JONKER: Maybe you do not understand my question very well. There was a post-mortem inquest that was dealt with in an informal way, the Magistrate gave his stamp of approval, but Mr de Kock, Snyman and Brits, if they did not make a statement and come to the Commission and said, "Sorry about what we did, we would like amnesty", then you, Mr Koekemoer, wouldn't have been here and you wouldn't have explained what happened there, then it would have been concluded a long time ago, do you agree with me?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: Do you not find it strange then that your old colleagues are now stabbing you in the back?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is true.

MR JONKER: I think we all find it strange.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they rather not bringing the conflict of the past to the fore, rather than stabbing in the back?

MR JONKER: Mr Chairman, I agree with what you say, but I think under the circumstances if I want to put ourselves in the position of Mr Koekemoer, I think if we look at Mr Koekemoer's position, Mr Koekemoer says that he didn't do anything. So he must feel that I've been stabbed in the back innocently by someone, I've been accused of something I've never done.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Jonker.

MR JONKER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Koekemoer, I will come back to the scene a bit later, but when you were transferred to Security in 1993, who was in charge of this unit when you were transferred?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was Col van Wyk.

MR JONKER: And who was the overhead Commander of the Headquarters of this unit?

MR KOEKEMOER: It would have been the Security Head in Pretoria, I'm not quite sure who that was at that stage.

MR JONKER: So you do not know what General was in charge there at that stage?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR JONKER: Sir, I'm going to cross-examine you in the same sequence as Adv Hattingh did, according to my notes, but I'm going to jump around a bit now. Sir, you testified and Adv Sandi also asked you why did you want to go to Vlakplaas, and your testimony was that you were fascinated with their activities and the way they did things.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: It was also put to you what exactly their activities were at that stage and your evidence was that they were looking for criminals, can you recall that? Something in that line. What were there activities when you went to go and visit them?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Sir, at that stage they were dealing with terrorists and acts of terror.

MR JONKER: Sir, at a certain stage you testified that, I think it was on a question from Adv Sandi, and you answered it and said that when you went to them you went there to go and arrest criminals, look for suspects. Can you recall that?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, I think that perhaps Mr Jonker has the sequence incorrect, in that the evidence which is now being referred to is the time at which the witness was in fact at Vlakplaas and the time at which the activities of Vlakplaas had changed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think if you could rephrase your question, he's quite correct. I wouldn't want you to respond to that. Mr van den Berg is correct.

MR JONKER: Indeed so, Mr Chairman, I'll leave it at that.

Mr Koekemoer, you testified that when you departed for Nelspruit, you contacted Col Human and informed him that you are going to Nelspruit, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: On a question from Adv Hattingh, he asked you if the authorisation was enough and you said yes, can you recall that?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: Sir, I'd like to put it to you that even in the '90s, when a persons wants to embark on such a journey, it had to be authorised with the Commander, or at that stage the District's Detective Officer, who would then give the necessary authorisation for that, can you recall that?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Mr Human could have given it.

MR JONKER: Was he in a position to do it?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: Sir, we are now going back to the scene. You were aware of the fact that there's a possibility that Mr Bambo could escape, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR JONKER: And in your experience in the Police force, or while you were a member of the Police force, did anybody escape while you were in charge of that person or persons?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, not as far as I can recall, no.

MR JONKER: You guarded them in such a way that they did not escape?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: You see Sir, in the past you had good supervision of people in your care but now we have the problem that this suspect, Mr Bambo, who you had to get rid of, had to identify a scene ... together with Mr Brits where by coincidence the weapons were provided by Mr Snyman on instructions from Mr de Kock, and at this specific scene for the first time in your career in the Police force, this person tries to escape, gets hold of a handgrenade and wants to kill you. Can you give us an indication why all of this is just so coincidental?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I cannot.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jonker, could we just interrupt here and just give a four minutes break?

MR JONKER: Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: I can hear the interpreters are tired, let them just regain their breath. We'll just adjourn for about four minutes.

MR JONKER: Certainly, Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JOHANNES PETRUS KOEKEMOER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jonker?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONKER: (Cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Koekemoer, at some stage you testified that when you were at the scene and the deceased was still alive, he was not very talkative, can you recall that?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And during this whole trip to Nelspruit, did you talk to this person?

MR KOEKEMOER: The basic discussion with him was that he would indicate the road.

MR JONKER: And he indicated to you all the way how to arrive in Nelspruit?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But is the road not straightforward?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, Chairperson, but he was he person doing the pointing out.

MR JONKER: Sir, at the stage when you left there, or may I just rephrase that question. When you climbed into the vehicle, you, Mr Grobler and Mr Bambo, did you take any notes?

MR KOEKEMOER: I once again just made an entry into my pocket book.

MR JONKER: But you must have written down the kilometre reading.

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: And who was he driver of the vehicle?

MR KOEKEMOER: It was W/O Grobler.

MR JONKER: I would assume that Mr Bambo was sitting in the back?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: Were his hands still cuffed in front of him?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: And for three hours you drove with him and the only thing he did was indicate the road, did he tell you every time, "carry on straight with this road"?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, it was only where the road turned or where he had to give an explanation left or right.

MR JONKER: So Sir, if I understand you correctly, on the road to Nelspruit from Benoni, if you climb on the freeway and you turned right there at, I think it's the N12, it was the R24 or R22 during those years, did he not speak much on the way to Nelspruit because the road is straight?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, it's basically a straight road to Nelspruit.

MR JONKER: Yes. And all this time he did not talk to you, this person who was so willing to talk to you was not talking to you at all?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, yes.

MR JONKER: Did you not say to him, "Mr Bambo, there at Murder and Robbery we are looking for good sources or informers", as you do in the Police force?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I did not try to make conversation with him.

MR JONKER: Would you agree Sir, that most of your successes come from information, at Murder and Robbery?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that's correct.

MR JONKER: And you did not try to discuss or talk to him to try and find out from him where the weapons are, who are the people committing the robberies, who are the people bringing the weapons in, you did not try to talk to him?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Sir.

MR JONKER: Any specific reason for that?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR JONKER: Sir, what languages did Mr Bambo speak?

MR KOEKEMOER: He spoke Zulu and probably Shangaan, a Shangaan dialect in his Zulu.

MR JONKER: Did he speak Afrikaans?

MR KOEKEMOER: He spoke a broken Afrikaans/English.

MR JONKER: And he probably spoke Portuguese as well?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, unfortunately I am not clued in Portuguese.

MR JONKER: Sir, without repeating cross-examination or giving evidence, this specific handgrenade that was used with the 1 000 or 1 200 round balls, this handgrenade if it explodes it would spread out a low level, at the height of the handgrenade it spreads out sideways, would you be able to dispute that?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, not at all.

MR JONKER: Did you at any stage, Sir, - we shall get back to this point, but did you at any stage receive training at the Police training college, what they refer to as Maleeuskop?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I did.

MR JONKER: They must have shown you how a handgrenade works and what it does.

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR JONKER: And they told you of these handgrenades which spread out, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And furthermore, what I cannot understand is that at a distance of 30 centimetres, that's approximately where my face is from this microphone in front of me, a handgrenade exploded from the deceased. That's according to your evidence. Is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that is correct.

MR JONKER: Do you know whether there were any burning marks on any parts of this deceased's body?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, not that I can recall.

MR JONKER: Sir, do you know whether there were any burn marks on the clothing of this deceased?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR JONKER: Do you not find it strange, Sir, that a handgrenade that explodes so close to someone, that there are no burning marks or more metal balls found on this person's body?

MR KOEKEMOER: Sir, I am not an expert in that field, so I cannot advance any opinion.

MR JONKER: Sir, you would agree with me, when one sets up a scene at Murder and Robbery, then the scene, I think they call it "swept", they make proper measurements and photos are taken and measurements with a measuring tape is done, proper notes are taken as to where what was found, do you agree?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, I agree, that's correct.

MR JONKER: What was different between this scene and a scene from Murder and Robbery unit? Why were no notes taken and proper measurements taken?

MR KOEKEMOER: The duty officer was Lieut Davel at the scene and the explosives expert was Mr van Zyl, and it was left in their hands.

MR JONKER: Sir, in 1991, 1991 was a difficult stage in the country, specifically for police officers and this was coming along for quite some time, where a police officer was involved in a shooting incident a question mark is always placed next to a policeman's conduct and as a rule police officers would make certain that the details are taken down at the scene, because if this person is criminally prosecuted, that the scene was done properly, would you agree with me?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And you were a Commander, you were a group leader there at Murder and Robbery unit, I assume, so you must have certainly known that the scene had to be noted properly, and no proper measurements were made, why not?

MR KOEKEMOER: As I have said, the officer at the scene was Lieut Davel, he was in charge of the scene.

MR JONKER: Sir, let us argue for a moment. If you were criminally prosecuted in this matter and you had to give evidence in this post-mortem inquest, would you agree that you would have experienced many problems in answering certain questions, because no proper measurements were taken at the scene? Would you agree with me or not?

MR KOEKEMOER: It could have been so, yes.

MR JONKER: Yes, and today you experience problems answering questions, for the specific reason that no proper measurements were taken, would you agree with me?

MR KOEKEMOER: That's correct, yes.

MR JONKER: So you as a person who, I would not want to say an accused, but you were almost a suspect, you had just shot someone, why did you not request the persons there and say, "Boys, listen here these photos are not sufficient, let's make a proper plan here. This is where the deceased was lying, let us see where the shrapnel is, let's see where the safety pin is"? Any reason why it was not done?

MR KOEKEMOER: Well I accepted that Lieut Davel would do his work properly.

MR JONKER: Sir, I would assume that you left the scene along with Lieut Davel.

MR KOEKEMOER: I cannot recall whether he and I left together.

MR JONKER: So it's possible that you left before him or after him.

MR KOEKEMOER: That could be.

MR JONKER: But you would agree with me that it is probable that you and he left at approximately the same time?

MR KOEKEMOER: Well I met him again the following morning.

MR JONKER: And the following morning, did you discuss this matter with Davel to ascertain whether he had properly recorded certain details?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I accepted that he had done everything at the scene, and the photographer was there.

MR JONKER: But according to van Zyl, there were a few balls under the body of the deceased but only two balls in his body, did you not find it strange?

MR KOEKEMOER: I cannot express myself with regard to that.

MR JONKER: Sir, if we study photo 4, page 67, you testified on a question from Adv Hattingh, that the area was quite rocky there across which the deceased had been dragged, do you recall that?

MR KOEKEMOER: I said that there were rocks there.

MR JONKER: If you study photo 4, at this stage it is not very clear to me to which side the deceased was dragged, but if we study 4 and photo 5, it would appear that there are not many stones where this deceased could have been injured according to the post-mortem inquest. I do not see any stones around there where this person could be injured. Can you shed some light on that?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, Chairperson, on the photo it would appear that there are no stones lying around.

MR JONKER: Sir, you went back to Benoni the following day, is that correct?

MR KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

MR JONKER: And when you arrived at the offices, or may I restructure that question. What time did you get to your offices, can you recall?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, I cannot.

MR JONKER: Did you go to the office that afternoon?

MR KOEKEMOER: I believe late the following day I was at the office, because I signed the statement at 13H00.

MR JONKER: So by approximately 4 o'clock you were back at the office?

MR KOEKEMOER: Yes, that is correct.

MR JONKER: Sir, this enquiry that you received from the office and which you wrote up, did you think about making a copy of this enquiry and to supply it to the investigating officer in Nelspruit?

MR KOEKEMOER: No.

MR JONKER: Did you file any documentation after the enquiry was concluded?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, it was just written down and then concluded.

MR JONKER: The firearm at the scene, the Makarov pistol, do you know what happened to this pistol?

MR KOEKEMOER: I accept that they would have handed it in at Nelspruit, the SAP13.

MR JONKER: But there was no note in your enquiry with regard to this Makarov pistol, or was there?

MR KOEKEMOER: No, only that it had been found at the scene.

MR JONKER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JONKER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

I think at this stage it would be appropriate to adjourn and not step on the toes of the Department of Correctional Services. I'm indebted to you for having given us this time. We adjourn until tomorrow, nine-thirty tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS