=====================================================================
DATE:&#9;8TH JUNE 2000
=====================================================================
 DATE:&#9;&#9; 8TH JUNE 2000

NAME:&#9;&#9; NICHOLAAS JOHANNES VERMEULEN

APPLICATION NO: AM4358/96

DAY:&#9;&#9;&#9; 22

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

CHAIRPERSON: Morning everybody. Who's next?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair. Cornelius on behalf of Vermeulen, I intend to call him, with your permission.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, does your client speak Afrikaans?

MR CORNELIUS: He's Afrikaans-speaking, Mr Chair.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

NICHOLAAS JOHANNES VERMEULEN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

&#9;Mr Vermeulen, you are an applicant and in terms of Section 18 of Act 34/95, you have prepared a proper application and submitted it as such.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You were in service of the South African Police, as defined in Section 20(2)(b) and 20(2)(f) of this Act, is that correct? I'm terribly sorry, Judge, it's on page 124 of bundle 1, that is the merits part, the initial part and the political motivation is on page 109, Judge.

&#9;You submitted the application punctually and you gave your support to the Investigative team of the TRC, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Is it also correct that you were deployed to the section which was known as C1, under the command of Col Eugene de Kock?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: During the incidents of this incident of Lesotho, what was your rank?

MR VERMEULEN: I was a Warrant Officer.

MR CORNELIUS: And it is also common knowledge before the Committee, as per previous evidence, that at all times you executed the orders given by Eugene de Kock and acted on a need-to-know basis.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you confirm that the political objectives of that time are as they are set out in your current application.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: I take you back to the 19th of December 1985, did you receive orders from Eugene de Kock to participate in this operation?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And it is common cause that you travelled down to Ladybrand, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Could you tell the Tribunal briefly what your participation was from the moment that you travelled down to the river.

MR VERMEULEN: At the river, Mr Coetser and I placed all the equipment in the rubber dinghies.

MR CORNELIUS: What equipment was this?

MR VERMEULEN: It was our weapons.

MR CORNELIUS: And what did you do with the weapons?

MR VERMEULEN: They were packed into the dinghies and taken across the river, on the other side the people received the weapons and we moved out to the house ...(intervention)

MR CORNELIUS: Just a moment. So you moved over the river to the target house.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: In your application you state that you crossed the border at the border post with vehicles and false passports, did you use vehicles to cross the border?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Therefore you request an amendment of your application.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: I understand that in consultation with me you mentioned that you moved into Lesotho every two to three months.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you move through the border post every time?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you use false passports on these occasions?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you confuse the crossing at the border post with the crossing at the river?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, with respect, if my learned friend could not lead the witness so much, there's just yes and no to all the questions that my learned friend is putting at the moment.

MR CORNELIUS: I will do so.

&#9;The inflatable boats, when you crossed the river what happened?

MR VERMEULEN: One sank ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR VERMEULEN: One of the dinghies sank and took water in, we had to transfer the equipment to the other boat.

MR CORNELIUS: Where did you go after you had crossed the river?

MR VERMEULEN: Once we had crossed the river we gathered together where the people took their equipment and we moved up towards the house.

MR CORNELIUS: At what time of the night was this?

MR VERMEULEN: It is difficult to say but I estimate that it must have been approximately 10 o'clock to 11 o'clock at night, if I recall correctly.

MR CORNELIUS: What were your orders?

MR VERMEULEN: My order was to take up position at the side of the house and to ensure that people did not exit the house and also to see that any of the Lesotho Defence Force members did not come to the house.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. And did you have any orders to shoot any of the targets?

MR VERMEULEN: If they departed from the house yes, I would have shot them.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Did you then move to your position?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?

MR VERMEULEN: I took up my position. I heard shots in the house. Nothing exited from the windows or the entrances where I was positioned. At a certain stage there was a man who peered over from the neighbouring house, I told him to go away. He remained there. I tried to shoot him but the weapon was still on safety and when I set it to fire, the person was gone. I didn't see him again.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. What happened then?

MR VERMEULEN: After the shooting we all returned to the river, where I had a television. I don't know where I obtained this, but I carried a television and a case across the river.

MR CORNELIUS: Whose television was this?

MR VERMEULEN: Mr McCaskill's.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive an order to take this TV, or what was the objective?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Who gave you the order?

MR VERMEULEN: Col de Kock.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened to the vehicles that you used?

MR VERMEULEN: The vehicles were set alight on the bank of the river. We walked and swam through to the other side.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you do then?

MR VERMEULEN: There was a vehicle waiting for us. All of us climbed into the vehicle and we returned to Ladybrand.

MR CORNELIUS: And after that you returned to Vlakplaas?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: With the exception of your regular salary, did you receive any bonus or extra financial remuneration for your participation?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any honour or award?

MR VERMEULEN: Only the medal.

MR VERMEULEN: Which medal?

MR VERMEULEN: I think it was the Silver Cross for Bravery.

MR CORNELIUS: Who presented this to you?

MR VERMEULEN: I'm not certain, but I think it was Gen Basie Smit.

MR CORNELIUS: Was this indicative or not that the operation had been approved?

MR VERMEULEN: I assumed as such.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have any feelings of personal hatred or vengeance towards the victims?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR CORNELIUS: And in as far as you can remember, this is a long time ago, you have given a full disclosure of the relevant facts.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You request that this Amnesty Committee would grant you amnesty for the conspiracy and murder of a number of persons who were situated in the target house.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You also request amnesty for the illegal crossing of State borders and intentional damage to property.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And by nature of the matter, all other delicts which may emanate on a civil basis from these proceedings.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, are we empowered to decide on whether your client is guilty of malicious injury to property in Lesotho?

MR CORNELIUS: Strictly not, I would say Mr Chair, I think that is covered by ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's different from a plan to murder and carrying out the plan to murder in South Africa and carrying it out elsewhere.

MR CORNELIUS: You are quite correct, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: The carrying of all those - the possession of all those weapons, I would assume it could be argued that if they were issued by the South African Police or whatever, but they were really being carried for illegal purposes, would the possession of those firearms be illegal?

MR CORNELIUS: In terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act, there are so many offences that we would have committed, I think to cover that we would say all offences that arise out of the Arms and Ammunitions Act, I think that would cover most of the incidents. The transportation thereof, the ammunition ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) it's a fine line and I'm asking for your assistance here. They were policemen and these firearms were in fact issued by the authorities of the Police, but they were issued for an illegal purpose, does that make the possession of those firearms illegal?

MR CORNELIUS: I think the possession would be legal, according to my interpretation. I think the possession would be legal, they were properly issued. The fact that it was used for illegal purposes ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) 

MR CORNELIUS: For various purposes, Mr Chair, from illegal to legal purposes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what was legal about anything that they did ...(indistinct)

MR CORNELIUS: You see Mr Chair, I think what confuses the issue is that a lot of these weapons were brought back from Ovamboland, so we'll have to typify each weapon and find out if it was weapons which were ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm talking generally, I'm talking about a general picture. They embarked on an illegal escapade, in order to succeed in that escapade they were issued with firearms for the purpose of carrying out illegal activities. That's the way I read it.

MR CORNELIUS: It's a very technical line, Mr Chair, I would say if you view it in that line we would then ask for the illegal possession of firearms then as well, to be safe. There's a further issue, the passports, the false passports, I mean that is forging and uttering of passports and also carrying a false passport, so we can really go into detail as far as offences are concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: But I'm really in your hands for what your client is applying for, I mean, I'm just asking about the prospects of this.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, I would rather play it safe and ask for amnesty for the illegal possession of firearms because we don't have the specific identity of the firearms, Mr Chair. And for the fact that it was used for unlawful purposes.

ADV BOSMAN: And what about the travel documents and the crossing of the border, are you asking for amnesty?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Advocate Bosman, I've asked for the illegal crossing of the border, but I would obviously also ask for the carrying of a false passport, forgery and uttering ...

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Where did they get these illegal passports?

MR CORNELIUS: According to my mandate it was issued at Police Headquarters, it was a passport with the photograph of my client on, with false names and ID numbers, obviously. It was standard, it was issued ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know how standard it was, if it was illegal, but surely it must have been issued with the connivance of the Department of Internal Affairs or Homelands.

MR CORNELIUS: My instructions are yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe you can do us a favour, can you ask your client does he know whether that option's still open and operative.

MR CORNELIUS: He has no knowledge, he doesn't know, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Hattingh.

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

&#9;Mr Vermeulen, upon various other occasions before Committees you have given evidence and I note that in your application on page 126, you make mention of the fact that you suffer from the so-called post-traumatic stress disorder, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that the condition that you suffer from, has affected your memory.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I also note that with your application as in the past with other applications, there is also a report from a psychologist by the name of Russel Matthews, which has been attached to your application, in which he states on page 130:

&#9;&#9;"Mr N J Vermeulen suffers from a serious chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, which renders him one hundred percent unsuitable to be used in the labour market in any way."

Is that correct, that you were diagnosed as such?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is it also correct as he states on page 129:

&#9;&#9;"Since 1992 the patient has been undergoing psychiatric treatment. During May 1997, he was once again psychiatrically evaluated by Prof J H Robertse, whose report is attached and marked Annexure A."

This is unfortunately not available with these documents, but was it also that psychiatrist's opinion that you suffer from this disorder?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Vermeulen, you testified today that you crossed the border and that you then moved towards the house, did you go directly to the house from the border or did you first go elsewhere?

MR VERMEULEN: We went directly from the river to the house.

MR HATTINGH: Did you travel in two vehicles?

MR VERMEULEN: It is difficult for me to recall that portion, but as far as I can recall we travelled for some distance in vehicles, at which point we disembarked and then travelled further afoot.

MR HATTINGH: But from the border onwards did you travel in vehicles?

MR VERMEULEN: From Ladybrand to the border?

MR HATTINGH: No, from the point where you crossed the border to the house. When you crossed the river and landed on the other side, did you travel to the house with vehicles or did you travel by foot?

MR VERMEULEN: If I recall correctly we climbed into vehicles at that point, drove some distance towards the house, at which point we disembarked and travelled further afoot to the house.

MR HATTINGH: Is your recollection about this somewhat unclear?

MR VERMEULEN: I'm not entirely clear, that is what I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: And can you recall whether or not you stopped in the near vicinity of the post office in Maseru?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Would you dispute this?

MR VERMEULEN: I would not dispute it.

MR HATTINGH: Did you enter the house where the attack was launched after the attack?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And can you recall who of you were involved in the attack on the house where you stood guard?

MR VERMEULEN: What I can recall is that Col de Kock, Willie Nortje and myself were there.

MR HATTINGH: Were any other members with you on the operation as far as you can recall?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What happened to the other members when you took up position there at the house ?

MR VERMEULEN: At that stage I didn't know what had happened to the rest, because all I knew is that Steve Bosch was the driver of one of the vehicles.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore you didn't hear the order which was given to Messrs Adamson and Coetser, to go to another house?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know that some of the members, or at least one of the members that you aimed to kill at the house was no longer at the house, that he had departed from that place?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson, Visser on record.

&#9;Mr Vermeulen, the question regarding the award of the medals, you stated that you think that it was Basie Smit and you also refer to this in terms of Brig Schoon, if I were to put it to you that Brig Schoon did not have any direct share in the awarding of these medals and was also not present during such a ceremony, would you dispute it?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson, I would not.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MR VISSER: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER; The speaker's microphone is still not on.

MR VISSER: I will begin again. Regarding Basie Smit, he was a Colonel at that stage and the evidence of Gen van der Merwe here, was that he cannot recall it all that well but he thinks that it could have been him who awarded the medals, do you have any problem with that?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

&#9;Mr Vermeulen, regarding the final aspect it is my instruction from Mr Nortje that it was indeed Gen van der Merwe who awarded the medals and not Gen Basie Smit. That is Mr Nortje's recollection.

MR VERMEULEN: I do not have a problem with that, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Then just one other aspect, can you recall any aspect, or may I put it as follows, were you present at any stage when members of Special Forces were encountered at the Thaba'Nchu Sun?

MR VERMEULEN: I am not certain, Chairperson, there were people because we were there one evening, but I cannot recall specifically whether or not we encountered some of those people there.

MR LAMEY: Very well. I have nothing further, thank you Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Joubert on behalf of McCaskill.

&#9;Mr Vermeulen, apart from the fact that you were aware that the TV belonged to Mr McCaskill, are you aware of any other involvement or actions by Mr McCaskill?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson, I did not deal with him until after the time.

MR JOUBERT: And you also mentioned a case that you took across the river, you cannot say to whom this case belonged?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Chair, nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.

&#9;Mr Vermeulen, when were you born?

MR VERMEULEN: I beg your pardon, Sir?

MR BERGER: When were you born?

MR VERMEULEN: 1946.

MR BERGER: Where?

MR VERMEULEN: Port Elizabeth.

MR BERGER: Where did you go to school?

MR VERMEULEN: In Pretoria.

MR BERGER: High School?

MR VERMEULEN: Also Pretoria, Mr Chair.

MR BERGER: And after that, what did you do?

MR VERMEULEN: I joined the Police Force, Mr Chair.

MR BERGER: When was that?

MR VERMEULEN: 1965, Mr Chair.

MR BERGER: Where were you based?

MR VERMEULEN: Pretoria Headquarters, Mr Chair.

MR BERGER: All the time?

MR VERMEULEN: Most of the time ja, till 1971, when I went to Groblersdal for a - the Coin training facility there. I stayed there till 1975, I think. Then I joined the Special Task Force and in '85 I went over to C-Section.

MR BERGER: So from 1975 to 1985, what were you doing?

MR VERMEULEN: I was based at - just say again, sorry.

MR BERGER: If you want to speak in Afrikaans, it's fine.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, I just didn't get the dates properly.

MR BERGER: You said from 1975 to 1985 you were where?

MR VERMEULEN: The Special Task Force.

MR BERGER: Doing what?

MR VERMEULEN: I was an operative there and later I became an Instructor.

MR BERGER: And where were you based?

MR VERMEULEN: In Pretoria.

MR BERGER: And then when did you join C-Section?

MR VERMEULEN: In 1985.

MR BERGER: When?

MR VERMEULEN: October.

MR BERGER: Do you remember the day?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Sir.

MR BERGER: And then you went to Vlakplaas.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Sir.

MR BERGER: Until when?

MR VERMEULEN: I think in 1992 or 1993 I went off medically unfit, Mr Chair.

MR BERGER: So from 1985 until 1992, you participated fully as a member of Vlakplaas.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: You had no difficulty carrying out orders, you had no difficulty remembering your orders?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chair.

MR BERGER: You've got no difficulty remembering the neighbour who put his head out and nearly had it shot off by you because you were standing guard outside the house?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I've got no problem with that.

MR BERGER: You have no difficulty remembering that you helped Mr McCaskill carry a TV set across the river?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: But you've forgotten everything else.

MR VERMEULEN: I won't say I've forgotten everything else, but the rest of it was not important to me. I didn't partake in most of the other activities, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: You see your psychologist doesn't say anything about your having lost your memory.

MR VERMEULEN: That's not my problem, you can ask him, Sir.

MR BERGER: Well it's just your say-so that you lost your memory, or you have difficulty with your memory.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Has any doctor, psychologist, psychiatrist, medical doctor, made a diagnosis that you have a problem with your memory?

MR VERMEULEN: As far as I know Mr Matthews made that diagnosis.

MR BERGER: Well as I read his report he doesn't say that anywhere.

MR VERMEULEN: Mr Chair, I'm not a psychiatrist, I think he will be better able to answer that question.

MR BERGER: Well I put it to you that if he had made such a diagnosis, it would be in his report.

MR VERMEULEN: That can be, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What diagnosis did he make, Mr Berger? As I read this report, it was a clinical assessment to establish whether he's fit for work on the labour market, in which he says:

&#9;&#9;"Hundred percent unfit."

I'm not going to comment on that, but wasn't the intention of this report to establish his ability to find work? I'm suggesting, it looks like it.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, probably the intention of the report was whether or not Mr Vermeulen was entitled to be placed on pension.

CHAIRPERSON: I have my suspicions, but the nature of the report indicates that it was an assessment for whatever reason, to establish whether he was capable of being employed in the open labour market. ...(indistinct - no microphone) Sorry. ... rather than giving a clinical assessment on his ability to remember or whatever other psychiatric ailment he may have laboured under.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, with respect, if one looks at the report, page 128, it's a clinical psychological report, it doesn't say what the purpose of the report is, it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Precisely. I'm reading from the contents of it. I did preface my comments to you and said I'm not going to try and comment on the purpose for which this report was made and what I think of the report itself, it's just from the contents one gets the irresistible feeling that it was designed to indicate his capabilities of finding a job on the open labour market.

MR BERGER: Indeed, Chairperson, and 4.1 says that Mr Vermeulen suffers serious - this is at page 130, chronic post-traumatic stress, which makes him one hundred percent unable to find work in the market. Now that doesn't mean and it doesn't say that he has problems with his memory, it may be that every time someone ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I know that, Mr Berger, I'm just pointing out that by the nature of the report one doesn't expect that kind of comment, that he's lost his memory or whatever. The lack of detail of this report does impact on the quality of the report, I concede, but to put it to the witness that the doctor didn't put it into his report and therefore we must question his allegation that he's lost his memory, I'm not saying you can't question that, but to base it on what the doctor has said or omitted to say, is another matter.

MR CORNELIUS: Let me be of assistance, Mr Chair, it will assist Mr Berger as well, the report was drawn for a claim against the Compensation Commission, to assess his ability in the open labour market, that was the report. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There are a lot of policemen who even could work did that at some time during the 1990s, some of them are running their own businesses.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the reason I point out that there's no finding in the report of a loss of memory, is that at page 122, Mr Vermeulen says the following, he says - this is the second paragraph, in the middle of that paragraph. He says:

&#9;&#9;"Currently I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, as it appears from reports in the possession of my psychologists, which results that my memory has been affected by it. I attach to this a copy of the report by Dr R E Matthews."

My point is simply that the only evidence we have of Mr Vermeulen's loss of memory, is his say-so, nothing more.

CHAIRPERSON: And that you're quite entitled to question. I'm saying that the nature of the report on which - one of the aspects you question is allegation of loss of memory, it's that it's not mentioned in the report. All I'm saying is, take cognisance of the quality of the report and perhaps the reasons why the report was drafted in the first place.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the point simply is that Mr Vermeulen relies on the report.

CHAIRPERSON: To prove his loss of memory?

MR BERGER: To substantiate his loss of memory, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And he has also repeated that reliance when Mr Hattingh put it to him during his cross-examination.

MR BERGER: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: You say on 122, page 122?

MR BERGER: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It says:

&#9;&#9;"Currently I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, as it appears from reports in possession of my psychologists."

I suppose it can be read both ways.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chair, you will note if you look at page 129, paragraph 3, "Clinical Finding", there's an obvious omission of one full page, because it jumps from Clinical Finding to 4.1, so obviously the complete report is not before you. That is quite apparent.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You prepared his application, Mr Cornelius, you should be the one to give us more guidance about whether it's complete or not.

MR CORNELIUS: You're quite right, Judge, but I've noticed it now, it's been drawn to my attention.

CHAIRPERSON: Well is it complete or not?

MR CORNELIUS: It's not complete, paragraph 3 is omitted.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got the missing section?

MR CORNELIUS: I will have to obtain it from the psychiatrist, from the clinical psychologist.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Annexure A appears to be not part of this report that has been referred to at 2.4 on page 129.

MR CORNELIUS: You're quite correct, Judge, so I'll have to obtain the report from Robertse, the full - it was fully submitted at the initial application but there's been so many photostats and at one stage a part of his whole amnesty application was lost by the TRC in Cape Town, we had to photostat the whole lot and send it down to Cape Town again.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but Mr Berger, all I'm saying is, bear in mind what the possible purpose of this report was, that the doctor, whatever his qualifications may be, omitted to say certain things, is neither here nor there. I am prepared to allow the questions that you ask on the basis you ask, but I want to point out on page 122, that second paragraph is capable of two interpretations, one of which is your interpretation.

MR BERGER: Well Chairperson, I accept what you say but one can't say that the doctor left out certain findings if there's a whole page of his report missing.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what we've got in front of us, that's why I'm saying bear that in mind.

MR BERGER: Mr Vermeulen, let's go on. You say that you harboured no hate or malice towards the people that you set out to kill, is that right?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR BERGER: You also say at page 118 of your amnesty application, that you were indoctrinated by your political masters. Do you remember that?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Weren't you indoctrinated to hate your enemy?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: You say you were indoctrinated and ordered to consider political opponents, which had to be deterred, disrupted and eliminated in their political struggle.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: What was your attitude towards your enemy in this indoctrinated state of yours?

MR VERMEULEN: It was just a job that I had to do, that's all.

MR BERGER: What was the extent of your indoctrination?

MR VERMEULEN: Mostly the political side.

MR BERGER: Which was what?

MR VERMEULEN: That they didn't believe in all the indoctrinations that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Vermeulen, you say you were indoctrinated and all the advocate is asking is, how were you indoctrinated? It's not a question of it must have been political, I mean you tell us.

MR VERMEULEN: They gave us lectures, we received many lectures ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, the question is, how were you indoctrinated? You say that you were indoctrinated, how did this happen? Is that the question, Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chair, yes it was.

MR VERMEULEN: As I understand it, Chairperson, we received many lectures regarding communism and the political parties against which we fought in the past. That is as far as I can take it. 

CHAIRPERSON: How do you feel about communism today?

MR VERMEULEN: I still believe that it is wrong. Some of their ideas are right, some of them are wrong, but I am not more politically oriented that what I was before, I actually want nothing to do with it right now.

MR BERGER: Were you indoctrinated to regard the ANC as your enemy?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: And are you still so indoctrinated or not?

MR VERMEULEN: In some ways, yes Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: You still regard the ANC as your enemy?

MR VERMEULEN: Not all of them, some of them.

MR BERGER: Which of them?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Ordinary members?

MR VERMEULEN: I beg your pardon, Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Members of the African National Congress you regard as enemies, is that what you mean?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes. Persons, ja.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR VERMEULEN: Ag I don't know at the moment, Mr Chairman, as I've said I'm not really interested in politics, I don't want anything to do with it, I want to put this whole mess behind me, because it is something that we have to overcome. Politically I am no longer oriented, I'm not even interested in it, I don't even listen to it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vermeulen, I don't know where we are leading but Mr Berger asked you whether or not you still think that the ANC is the enemy and your answer was no, not all of them, but some of them are still your enemy, that was your response.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And all that Mr Berger then asked is who are these persons or members of the ANC who you still regard as your enemy. That's all.

MR VERMEULEN: I cannot recall all the names, Chairperson, but there are many things which are not right. I don't know, I'm just not interested in it, I don't want to know about it. I don't know what the names of these persons are.

MR BERGER: Have you forgotten that as well?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I haven't forgotten it, but I don't want to think about it anymore, it's past, it's gone.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Vermeulen, you are here before an Amnesty Committee, where you must be able to remember because you will be examined about it. Once you leave her you can forget about it, but you cannot evade a question by saying that you don't want to think about it. And I'm saying this for your own best interests. 

MR VERMEULEN: I understand that, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: You see Mr Vermeulen, you gave evidence this morning about your political motivation, you were asked questions, you confirmed what is in your amnesty application, now I' testing what's in your amnesty application, I'm testing your political motivation. You said that you acted the way you acted - correct me if I'm wrong, you acted the way you acted because you were indoctrinated, am I right?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR BERGER: I asked, how were you indoctrinated?

MR VERMEULEN: I said we had a lot of lectures, we received lectures about the communism, the ANC and all that. There was a lot of literature that was past on to us that we had to read.

MR BERGER: And you were indoctrinated to believe that the ANC and the Communist Party were your enemies.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR BERGER: Now if you say that you were indoctrinated, you must understand now, seeing it from a distance, that there was a process of indoctrination taking place. Is that right?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't understand that question.

MR BERGER: Well if you can allege that you were indoctrinated, it must follow that today you believe or you don't see things the way you saw things then.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, that's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: But then I asked you whether you still regarded the ANC as your enemy and you said "Yes, some of them."

MR VERMEULEN: Persons.

MR BERGER: Yes. And then my question is, who do you still regard as your enemy and now you say you don't know.

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, Mr Chair, because we're still operatives from the old regime. I don't think people have forgotten what happened, there might be revenges, I don't know.

MR BERGER: So is it that you do know but you just don't want to name names?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I don't know any names.

CHAIRPERSON: How were you able to tell us that some of them still are your enemies? If you don't know whether these people exist, you don't know who they are, how can they be your enemies then?

MR VERMEULEN: Chairperson, if I may put it as follows, we were operatives from the former Vlakplaas, in the new dispensation I believe that people aren't very fond of us and we are not really on a very high pedestal and I believe that there are still persons who have feelings of vengeance towards us.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that you are their enemies, but the question is, who is your enemy?

MR VERMEULEN: I wouldn't be able to name a specific person or organisation as such. If one looks at the right-wingers, there is the AWB and whoever, I believe that in the new dispensation there must also be such persons who would go out and see whether or not they could find any of our people and eliminate us as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I'm going to give you another opportunity to answer the question. I can understand your thought process, we just want to know which persons you would regard as your enemies, who do you view as the enemy?

MR VERMEULEN: It is difficult for me to explain, Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Vermeulen, maybe to assist you, if you don't remember or you can't say who amongst the ANC members are your enemies today, are you in a position to say who amongst those members were previously your enemies are no longer your enemies within the ANC?

MR VERMEULEN: Mr Chairman, in the previous time it was the MKs, they would have fought us, and I still think there is still MKs today that would like sought things out with us, but I can't name a specific person or a specific cell or whatever, but I do think there will be some of that people that will still be out looking for us. I'm quite sure about that.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Vermeulen, may I put it to you as follows. You think that there are persons who want to sort things out with you.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Now the question is, are there any persons with whom you need to sort things out still?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I don't have a problem with anyone, I just want to be alone and at peace at this stage. That is all that I want.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Why did you then in your response to Mr Berger's question, state that you still regarded some of the ANC members as your enemy?

MR VERMEULEN: Because, Mr Chairman, they must still have grudges from the old time.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you personally don't regard any person within the ANC, as your enemy?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Okay Mr Vermeulen, let's move on. You say at the bottom of page 116 of your amnesty application that your further motives and objectives were to act as an anti-terrorism unit, to track all infiltrating units of the exiled political parties, to carry out arrests where possible and in general to act as a counter-terrorism unit, to exercise all possible measures to prohibit the total onslaught of the members of the exiled parties in the political struggle against the former State. Do you confirm that?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: And then you say, although this is written in the third person, it's on your behalf, you say that your objectives were furthermore to eliminate and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Do you confirm that?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: In that order?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR BERGER: Do you understand what I've just asked you?

MR VERMEULEN: In the order it can be - you can change the other ones around yourself, it doesn't matter.

MR BERGER: You mean to bring the perpetrators to justice and then to eliminate them?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja.

MR BERGER: What were - let's go to the specific event, when were you called down to Ladybrand?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't remember, Mr Chairman. We worked there for a long time, so I can't remember now on what specific date. I think it might be the 19th.

MR BERGER: No, Mr Vermeulen, you can't just say you don't remember because you told the Committee a little while ago that you joined C-Section in 1985.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR BERGER: The attack took place at the end of 1985.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR BERGER: So let's just work backwards. How long had you been with C-Section before the attack took place?

MR VERMEULEN: It couldn't have been long, about three months, two months.

MR BERGER: Alright, so then that means that you joined C-Section in about September/October 1985.

MR VERMEULEN: No, October, sometime in October.

MR BERGER: Alright. October 1985 you joined C-Section. You would have been at Vlakplaas, am I correct?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know where, I could have been any place.

MR BERGER: When you joined C-Section, where did you report?

MR VERMEULEN: Headquarters.

MR BERGER: Pretoria?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR BERGER: And from there where were you sent?

MR VERMEULEN: Vlakplaas.

MR BERGER: And from there where were you sent?

MR VERMEULEN: All over the country, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Before December 1985?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Well where did you go to first?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, Mr Chairman, it's along time ago, sometimes we'd go to Soweto, sometimes we'd go to Durban, Cape Town, wherever, so I can't remember exactly where I was at that time.

MR BERGER: Alright. So then for a while, we'll establish how long that was, when you were based at Vlakplaas you used to go all over the country, Soweto, Durban, other places.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR BERGER: This was all before you were sent to Ladybrand?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, it could be, ja.

MR BERGER: How long before the attack were you sent to Ladybrand?

MR VERMEULEN: I'm not sure, I think we worked there for two weeks, it can be even a month, I'm not sure Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Between two weeks and a month. And what work were you doing in Ladybrand?

MR VERMEULEN: What we would have been doing, we would send out our people to gather information, general work.

MR BERGER: Who was there? Who was with you in Ladybrand? I'm talking about people from Vlakplaas.

MR VERMEULEN: I think Adamson was there, I'm not sure.

MR BERGER: And who else?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know any more white people, and then we would have had a lot of blacks working with us, I can't remember who they were.

MR BERGER: And I suppose you can't remember any of their names.

MR VERMEULEN: No, it's difficult to put a specific person in the specific time sequence wherever it must be.

MR BERGER: Was Almond Nofomela there?

MR VERMEULEN: I'm not sure, I don't think so.

MR BERGER: And Mr Nortje, when did he arrive in Ladybrand?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, Sir.

MR BERGER: And Mr Coetser, when did he arrive in Ladybrand?

MR VERMEULEN: Also I don't know.

MR BERGER: And Mr Bosch, when did he arrive in Ladybrand?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, Sir.

MR BERGER: But what you do know is that you were in Ladybrand with Mr Adamson for some time before Coetser, Bosch and Nortje arrived, would that be correct?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, that can be correct.

MR BERGER: And your work was just a general intelligence gathering exercise.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Intelligence about whom?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, Sir, I can't remember that Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: You have no idea what work you were doing in Ladybrand?

MR VERMEULEN: This is 15 years ago that we did that work, you don't go out and put that in a little computer, I can't remember what we did specific at that time, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: When you went to Lesotho you knew why you were going there.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely you must have been part of the planning of that escapade or operation.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That planning took place over at least three weeks.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you there from the beginning of the planning?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know what happened with the planning, that was Mr de Kock's story. We are all trained people, he doesn't have to tell us what we must do before the time, it just come on ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: My question was, were you part of the planning?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you become part of the operation?

MR VERMEULEN: The night that we went in, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I see it's 11 o'clock, perhaps we should take the adjournment now.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

NICHOLAAS JOHANNES VERMEULEN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, I understand you're now in possession of those reports and pages that were omitted.

MR BERGER: Yes, Chairperson, we have now page 3 of the report that we were reading and in paragraph 3.9 of that report it says that, well I'll read the Afrikaans:

&#9;&#9;"His memory is poor and he has to write down everything that he has to do."

Unfortunately it doesn't indicate whether that's long-term memory or short-term memory and it would seem from the context that it's short-term memory, but one can't really take that further.

&#9;Mr Vermeulen, are you still receiving a disability grant?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't understand what you're saying.

CHAIRPERSON: A grant.

MR VERMEULEN: I get a normal pension, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Is it a disability pension?

MR VERMEULEN: No, an normal pension, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Is this a pension from the South African Police?

MR VERMEULEN: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: And the reason that you had to leave the South African Police was for medical reasons.

MR VERMEULEN: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: And that's why this clinical or this psychological report was commissioned.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Do you know a person called Lionel Snyman?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: You work with him, don't you?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: In Josini.

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Where do you work?

MR VERMEULEN: Mbazwana(?)

MR BERGER: Sorry?

MR VERMEULEN: Mbazwana.

MR BERGER: Where's that, Northern Natal?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: And what work are you presently employed to do?

MR VERMEULEN: At the moment I'm just looking after a camp.

MR BERGER: You fly around in helicopters, isn't that so?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman. What helicopters? There's no helicopters in Mbazwana as far as I know, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of work is it?

MR VERMEULEN: I'm camp manager at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Camp manager.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of camp?

MR VERMEULEN: A tent camp and the caravans.

MR BERGER: So is this not a private security company that you work for?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Is it a tourism company?

MR VERMEULEN: Basically yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: So you draw a pension and a salary.

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you get a salary?

MR VERMEULEN: For the camp? No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Do you work for free?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, at the moment, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Were you in Madagascar in 1994?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: How have you managed to get to this hearing?

MR VERMEULEN: I came by car, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: You drove from KwaZulu Natal here.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: In your Land Rover.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Mr Chairman - not Land Rover, Isuzu.

MR BERGER: Isuzu four-wheel drive.

MR VERMEULEN: Two-wheel drive.

MR BERGER: Let's got back to Ladybrand. 

CHAIRPERSON: I hope it's not in the two-wheel drive.

MR BERGER: The first that you knew of this operation to attack targets in Maseru, was the night that you left, is that your evidence?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, I'll say the night of the 19th, Mr Chairman. That's what I can remember.

MR BERGER: The 19th of December 1985?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: So earlier that day you were just hanging around the offices in Ladybrand and you had no idea that that night you were going to be leaving for Maseru.

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, I'm not sure, but I don't think I was hanging around the offices because that was not our style, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Well what you do know is that it was during the night that you were first informed about this attack and it was that night that you left on the attack.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: What were you told immediately before you left, or from the time that you were made aware that you're now leaving or there's a plan to leave, what were you told about the attack?

MR VERMEULEN: As far as I can remember I was told that we're going to attack an ANC house in Maseru, that's all, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Who told you that?

MR VERMEULEN: Mr de Kock, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Was this one-on-one or did he call you all together into a room and brief you?

MR VERMEULEN: I can't remember, but all that I do know is that I was told I must go join the group and I must go to Maseru and we're going to attack a house with the ANC people in it.

MR BERGER: Did you know who was in this group?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Sir.

MR BERGER: No names?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR BERGER: What they had done or what they were planning to do, were you told that?

MR VERMEULEN: No. Not that I can remember, but I will stick to "no".

MR BERGER: You'll stick to "no"?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja.

MR BERGER: Okay. So you were told there's an ANC house, in other words a house with ANC people inside "that we are going to attack, you must come along"?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR BERGER: So you knew nothing about the boats or vehicles or weapons or anything before that?

MR VERMEULEN: The boats were bought by Adamson before, that's what I heard after the time. I wasn't involved in that. The boats came there and that's the time when we went onto the river, we put the stuff into the boats and we went over the river. I was not involved in getting the boats and getting weapons and everything.

MR BERGER: Who told you after the time that Adamson had bought the boats?

MR VERMEULEN: I can't remember, it can be in a general conversation.

MR BERGER: Where, back in Ladybrand?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, Sir.

MR BERGER: Well when you left - I take it you left from the Ladybrand offices, or did you leave from your house in Ladybrand?

MR VERMEULEN: I think we left from the house on a farm in Ladybrand.

MR BERGER: Alright. When you left from the house you were not given any instructions about what was going to happen along the way, whether you were going to go through the border posts, whether you were going to go over a river?

MR VERMEULEN: Could have told me that but I can't recall any of that instructions.

MR BERGER: And what was your instruction as to what you were going to do when you got to this ANC house, was it that you were going to kill everyone inside, was it that you were going to arrest them?

MR VERMEULEN: As far as I can remember we were going to kill them, were going to shoot them.

MR BERGER: Now would you turn to page 124 please, bundle 1, page 123 over to 124, that there are a number of incidents that you speak about, for which you're applying for amnesty.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR BERGER: And you can remember a little bit about each of them, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Then you come to Lesotho, 19 December 1985, at the bottom of page 124, you say:

&#9;&#9;"We drove with a vehicle to Ladybrand and amongst others, there was a Land Cruiser and two Jettas. We stayed there in a caravan park."

Now what if any of that, is correct?

MR VERMEULEN: The caravan park is not right, because we were there before the time as well, we were in Ladybrand and we stayed in the caravan park but after refreshing my memory, the caravan park is not right, it was on a previous occasion.

MR BERGER: Who refreshed your memory for you?

MR VERMEULEN: I think Mr Nortje, I spoke to him.

MR BERGER: And the Land Cruiser?

MR VERMEULEN: The Land Cruiser was Col de Kock's. That Land Cruiser could have come there the day that we wen to the border, because as far as I know the Land Cruiser picked us up when we came back from the operation.

MR BERGER: And the two Jettas?

MR VERMEULEN: They were on the other side already.

MR BERGER: You see because then you say:

&#9;&#9;"Willie (that's Willie Nortje), de Kock, Joe Coetser and I, amongst others, drove with the vehicles through the border post and I used a false passport.

MR VERMEULEN: Well there I think I a little bit confused there, but we went through with the boats. On previous occasions we crossed the border yes, and I think here I became confused.

MR BERGER: Aren't you applying for amnesty for using a false passport?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Sir.

MR BERGER: Well did you show your passport when you crossed the river?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: What offence did you commit, possession of a false passport?

MR VERMEULEN: It can be yes, Mr Chair, because I used the passport on previous occasions that we crossed the border, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The application that we're busy with relates to the attack on a house in Lesotho on the 19th/20th December 1985, we're not busy with any offences that you may have committed on other occasions.

MR VERMEULEN: Well this is not right, Mr Chair, it's just me and Coetser that went over the river by boat. I did not go by car.

CHAIRPERSON: Which means on other occasions you crossed the border in the company of Willie, de Kock and Joe Coetser also.

MR VERMEULEN: On different occasions it can be yes, Sir, and with people of the Security Branch of Ladybrand.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you see what I'm trying to establish is that if your memory is questionable and you're making a mistake about a previous occasion, then you must have had the same company on the previous occasion.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, I won't deny that, Sir, but Coetser and Nortje, it's not necessary that they were both with me at a certain time, we could have been, rotated different people, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Mr Vermeulen, would it be correct to say that you, Mr Nortje, Mr de Kock and Mr Coetser had during the time you were working in Ladybrand, gone into and out of Lesotho on a number of occasions?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Using Mr de Kock's Land Cruiser?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Using the two Jettas?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Well then why do you say "met die voertuie deur die grenspos".

MR VERMEULEN: On the previous occasions it was with, mostly we crossed the border with a security car from Ladybrand, we didn't use these vehicles.

MR BERGER: And what did you do when you got into Lesotho? On the previous occasions.

MR VERMEULEN: We mostly had discussions at the Lesotho Sun, or Maseru Sun, whatever that hotel is called.

MR BERGER: With who?

MR VERMEULEN: I can't remember, Sir.

MR BERGER: Mr McCaskill?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR BERGER: When was the first time you met Mr McCaskill?

MR VERMEULEN: I think it was the night when we came back, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: The night of the operation?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Look at page 125, in the middle of the last relevant paragraph, you say:

&#9;&#9;"We took a source along with us. I think his name was Frik."

Who was that?

MR VERMEULEN: That is Mr McCaskill, that's the name that I knew him by, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chair.

&#9;Who crossed the river, it was just you and Mr Nortje, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: No, me and Mr Coetser.

MR BERGER: Sorry, Mr Coetser. Just the two of you?

MR VERMEULEN: As far as I can remember, yes Sir.

MR BERGER: You each took a boat.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja.

MR BERGER: Didn't one of the boats sink?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR BERGER: Whose boat?

MR VERMEULEN: I'm not sure. We just had the two boats and we pushed them together, so I can't say this boat was mine and that one was Joe's, we just pushed the little boats, the two little small boats that we pushed over. I can't remember whatever one, there wasn't said "This boat, this number one, that's yours and that's boat number two, that's yours".

MR BERGER: Oh did you walk through the river pushing the boats in front of you?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR BERGER: And everyone else drove through the border post.

MR VERMEULEN: As far as I know, as I can remember, yes Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were able to walk through the river, what was the purpose of the boats?

MR VERMEULEN: The equipment was heavy and the river was in flood, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Mr Vermeulen, what I can't understand is, if you can remember that you didn't got through the border post, that you didn't use the vehicles as you've written here, that in fact you and Mr Coetser went by boat or walked with the boats, if you can remember all of that and if you can remember now as you described it, putting the boats together and crossing the river, how is it that all of a sudden when you get to the other side, your memory deserts you? How is it that you don't remember anything that happened at the post office?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know that - as far as I can recall, I wasn't at the post office. I don't recall at all going to the post office.

MR BERGER: Well according to Mr de Kock, you were all at the post office waiting, you waited for some time, the informer, Frik, came to you.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, that is not my recollection of Mr de Kock's evidence, they were in two cars, he never said that both cars were at the post office.

MR BERGER: My error then.

&#9;Well if you were not at the post office, where were you?

MR VERMEULEN: We were on our way - when we crossed the river, gave out the weapons and then we walked up to - or we drived and stopped and then we got out of the cars and we walked up to the house. That is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, I don't know if you're quite correct to concede that, as I remember the evidence it's that at the post office, de Kock was informed by McCaskill that the main target that had left that ...(indistinct), he then gave an order to Coetser and Adamson to do what he told them to do, and the rest left with that car from the post office to whether the targets were. And this witness, Vermeulen, was part of that group that went to the main house where the party was, so it follows that it was at the post office. That was the rendezvous place, isn't it?

MR BERGER: Well Chairperson, I thought so, but ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's how I understand ...(indistinct - no microphone). Carry on. If you need another minute ...

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, perhaps I omitted to lead Mr de Kock on this, but he could have given relevant evidence and according to what he tells me now, the only people who were at the post office waiting for Mr McCaskill, was Mr de Kock himself and Mr Nortje, from there they went and picked up the others and then travelled to the house. That evidence was not led but if necessary Mr de Kock can be recalled to give that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, will you concede that that's the impression that could have been ...

MR HATTINGH: Indeed, on the evidence that was led, that is a valid impression, yes Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, if that evidence is going to be placed before the Committee, the it will have to be led through Mr de Kock, because there are further questions one would want to ask.

CHAIRPERSON: On that basis?

MR BERGER: On that small aspect ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, now we're in the situation - I'm going to assume that Mr Hattingh is then going to, or I'll call Mr de Kock back and allow Mr Hattingh to lead that bit of evidence, even if it's going to take a few seconds, then you can proceed on the basis that that evidence will be led.

MR BERGER: I'll do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I've just informed Mr Berger ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: I heard what you said, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you comfortable with that?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that is quite in order with me, yes Mr Chairman. I understood you to say you want to do it now, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I said we find ourselves in the situation, I will call Mr de Kock back and ask you to lead him on this bit of evidence, even if it's going to take a few seconds, so Mr Berger can proceed with the present situation as if that evidence is on record already.

&#9;Are you comfortable with that, Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: Yes, Chairperson, I am.

&#9;Mr Vermeulen, let's get accuracy on this. The only people who crossed the river by boat were you and Mr ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Not by boat, they walked over, pushing a boat. It sounds strange, but ...

MR BERGER: Yes, Chairperson.

&#9;The only two people who crossed the river were you and Mr Coetser.

MR VERMEULEN: I will say that's correct, Mr Chairman, as far as I can remember.

MR BERGER: Mr Adamson, Mr Bosch, Mr de Kock, Mr Nortje, they went through the border post.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I will say so, ja.

MR BERGER: You had been told "We're going to attack an ANC house in Maseru".

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: You were not given any further instructions.

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: When you got to the other side of the river, you and Mr Coetser proceeded to the house.

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Oh, that was the way I understood your evidence and that is the way you're written it at page 125. You say:

&#9;&#9;"After we had crossed the border we stopped and moved by foot towards a house."

What have I left out?

MR VERMEULEN: I'm not sure, I think we - at that place where we crossed the river, the weapons were distributed and as far as I can remember, I think we went with the car for a while and then we stopped and then we walked from there to the house. I didn't know where the house was, I didn't have the faintest idea, so I just followed.

CHAIRPERSON: Coetser should have known where that house was.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, he would have known, Chairperson, because he had been through more times.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I just want to get clarity here. I do not know what Mr de Kock will come and say, but do I understand correctly that the two of you, Coetser and yourself walked across the river, left the boat or whatever it was there and went directly to the house that was to be attacked?

MR VERMEULEN: I recall, or I'm almost certain that there were vehicles that came to pick us up, I think it was the two Jettas and we drove with them up to a certain point and there we climbed out and walked on foot to the house.

CHAIRPERSON: So you never went to any hotel or anything similar, or post office building?

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

ADV BOSMAN: But where were the weapons distributed?

MR VERMEULEN: I have told you, Chairperson, when we went through the river the guys came down and we distributed the firearms there, because the vehicles did not go through the border post with weapons.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.

&#9;What weapons did you bring across?

MR VERMEULEN: As far as I can remember it was mostly Uzzis.

MR BERGER: How many?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, Sir, I can't recall.

MR BERGER: Well how many in your party, in your attack party?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, Sir.

MR BERGER: Well let's count, there's Mr de Kock, Mr Nortje, Mr Adamson, Mr Bosch, Mr Coetser and you, that makes six people.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja.

MR BERGER: Have I left out anybody?

MR VERMEULEN: Not as far as I know, no.

MR BERGER: Was there anyone else present?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR BERGER: Any black members present?

MR VERMEULEN: No. It can only be the weapons that was in that boat was for the operatives that went to the other side.

MR BERGER: Well then why do you say you don't know how many people were in your party?

MR VERMEULEN: Some guy can put in a pistol extra, we didn't look.

MR BERGER: No, no, I said how come you don't know how many members there were in your party, in your attack party?

MR VERMEULEN: I didn't recall that, you just asked me how many weapons were in the boat, as far as I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Well answer that question.

MR VERMEULEN: What I can recall now, Mr Chairperson, it would have been myself, Coetser, Nortje, Adamson, Bosch and Mr de Kock.

MR BERGER: So you would have had, at most, six Uzzis.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR BERGER: Any other arms?

MR VERMEULEN: Usually the guys would have put in their side arms, I'm not sure.

MR BERGER: When you got the other side of the river, were you met by any other members of your group?

MR VERMEULEN: I can't recall, I think we were there first with the boats and they came on later, a couple of minutes.

MR BERGER: All four of them?

MR VERMEULEN: I'm not sure, Sir, I can't remember exactly what happened there.

MR BERGER: And then you loaded the arms into the Jettas.

MR VERMEULEN: No, I just think everybody took his own weapon, I don't think they loaded in the back ...(intervention)

MR BERGER: And everybody got into the vehicles.

MR VERMEULEN: That's it.

MR BERGER: And then you were driven for a distance.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja.

MR BERGER: And then you and Mr Coetser got out.

MR VERMEULEN: All of us got out I think, Mr Nortje and de Kock and myself. I can't remember from there what happened to Coetser and the others.

MR BERGER: You, Mr Nortje, Mr de Kock and Mr Bosch ...(intervention)

MR VERMEULEN: Ja I think Bosch, ja, he was also in the car, that's it.

MR BERGER: The four of you got out of the car.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja. No, Bosch stayed in, just the three of us.

MR BERGER: You, de Kock and Nortje.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja.

MR BERGER: You got out and then you went to the house.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Didn't you say to the Chairperson a little while ago that you and Coetser went to the house?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I'm not sure I said that.

MR BERGER: So who knew the way to the house?

MR VERMEULEN: It was Mr de Kock and I think Mr Nortje. I didn't know where it was.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vermeulen, did I not ask you earlier if you did not know the route to the house then it had to have been Coetser and then you testified that what happened was, the vehicles came to fetch you at the river and you drove up to a point.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you walked from there.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR BERGER: And the impression that I gained was that you and Coetser walked from that point to that house.

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who walked?

MR VERMEULEN: It was myself, Nortje and Col de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Only the three of you?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yourself, Nortje and Col de Kock, where was Bosch?

MR VERMEULEN: I think he remained behind in the car, he did not get out.

CHAIRPERSON: And who else was there?

MR VERMEULEN: It was only us.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was Adamson?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: And Coetser?

MR VERMEULEN: I do not know where he was.

MR BERGER: So only three people attacked the house?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: The other three people just disappeared.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, I don't know where they were, I didn't ask.

MR BERGER: And when did you see them again?

MR VERMEULEN: I think I saw them when we were back on the other side again.

MR BERGER: How did you get back onto the other side?

MR VERMEULEN: We went through the river again.

MR BERGER: Who?

MR VERMEULEN: All of us, as far as I remember.

MR BERGER: All three of you, you, Mr de Kock, Mr Nortje.

MR VERMEULEN: And Bosch.

MR BERGER: Oh where did he appear from?

MR VERMEULEN: He "mos" stayed in the car. We left from the river in the car and we went to a point, we got out and walked further to the house. Bosch stayed in the car.

MR BERGER: And then after the attack you got back into the car with Bosch?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Sir.

MR BERGER: The three of you plus him?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: And then you saw - you only met Adamson and Coetser on the other side of the border.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman, that's what I can recall.

MR BERGER: And so when did you meet Frik for the first time, on the other side of the border?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I think I met him there when we got to the river, that's where I took the, I think the TV or whatever, I'm not sure, where I got possession of the TV. It could have been at the house before we left or it might be down at the river. I'm not sure where I took hold of the TV and that suitcase.

MR BERGER: So the informer was at the house where the attack took place, where you were present?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, I didn't see Frik at all, Mr McCaskill.

MR BERGER: You just met him at the river?

MR VERMEULEN: That's when I - ja, it could have been from the river up back to the house, I'm not sure where I met him.

MR BERGER: And why did you have to carry this TV set and suitcase across?

MR VERMEULEN: That was, I think it was his possessions and he couldn't swim properly and the river was getting strong, that's why I took it over because I can swim.

MR BERGER: But that's absurd, what, did he think there were no television sets in South Africa? Why did he have ... (intervention)

MR VERMEULEN: Ask him, Sir, I don't know why he wanted the television set.

MR BERGER: Who asked you to take the television set?

MR VERMEULEN: I go the instruction from Col de Kock, I think - ja, but I know the television set was his, because he told me when I took possession of it, it was his.

MR BERGER: And his suitcase?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know if it was his suitcase but it was a suitcase.

MR BERGER: You were carrying a television set and a suitcase as you crossed this river that's in flood?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Sir.

MR BERGER: And your weapon?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR BERGER: And no boats?

MR VERMEULEN: No boats. I'm not sure if they took one back because the other one was completely broken. I think that went down the river, I'm not sure.

MR BERGER: And where were the cars burnt?

MR VERMEULEN: On the river edge.

MR BERGER: Who burnt them?

MR VERMEULEN: Col de Kock. I'm not sure which people were involved in the burning, but they were burnt there.

MR BERGER: You weren't involved?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't think I participated in that.

MR BERGER: Why were they burnt?

MR VERMEULEN: 'Cause we didn't want to go back with them over the border.

MR BERGER: You can remember that you took up a position outside the house.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR BERGER: You can remember that you never participated in the attack.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR BERGER: You can still remember seeing that man, that neighbour put his head out to see what was happening.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: You can remember taking aim at him.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: And firing.

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: No, but it didn't go off.

MR VERMEULEN: Ja, it didn't go off.

MR BERGER: But you tried to fire.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would you want to kill him? That wasn't part of your instruction.

MR VERMEULEN: No, but he could have been a witness to the fact that we were there, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, but was that your instruction?

MR VERMEULEN: It was not my instruction, my instruction was to secure the people who were in the house shooting the people in the house.

CHAIRPERSON: So the reason why you wanted to shoot him was to avoid him recognising you?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Do you remember the person outside the house, who was getting something from a car?

MR VERMEULEN: At which stage, Mr Chairman?

MR BERGER: As you attacked ...(intervention)

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Getting something from a car or getting into a car, Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: He was busy getting into the car, he was in the vicinity of the car.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall whether someone came out of the house who would be attacked? And he was close to a car.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson, when we walked up to the house a person came out of the house, he wanted to climb into the car and Col de Kock shot him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he see you?

MR VERMEULEN: I would not know whether he saw us.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was he shot?

MR VERMEULEN: Because he came out of the house and I would assume that he was part of the people at the party.

CHAIRPERSON: How far were you from that person when he or she was shot?

MR VERMEULEN: I would guesstimate, it's difficult, it was at night, but I was say between 10 and 20 metres.

CHAIRPERSON: You say this was at night.

MR VERMEULEN: It was not entirely dark but the lights in the vicinity gave some light there.

CHAIRPERSON: That's why I ask, why do you have trouble in judging how far you were?

MR VERMEULEN: Because it's difficult in the dark ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Could you see who it was?

MR VERMEULEN: We could not see the face but we could see it was a person and he came out of the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was McCaskill then?

MR VERMEULEN: At that stage I did not see him yet, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: no-one would have known whether that person was a member of the ANC, whether he was a member of the group who threatened South Africa?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson, the only thing we saw is this guy coming out of the house, the house that we had to attack.

MR BERGER: Mr Vermeulen, how did you know that there was a party at that house?

MR VERMEULEN: I didn't know there was a party.

MR BERGER: No? You just said now he was one of the people coming from the party.

MR VERMEULEN: I've been listening the whole week, I've been sitting here and everybody's been speaking about a party, so it's a party, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: So you had not been told that a party has been arranged for certain people who were about to attack South Africa.

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman, the nitty-gritty, I did not know, I'm an operative, I just get my instructions and that's what I do, I don't want to know who and what and where. He just tells me I must go there and that is my job and that I do. That's how we're trained and that's how I accept it. If they want to tell me anything more they will tell it themselves.

MR BERGER: I see your psychiatrist says that you're still fit to be a soldier.

MR VERMEULEN: Still?

MR BERGER: You're still fit to be a soldier.

MR VERMEULEN: I think I can, ja.

MR BERGER: And in order to be a soldier you must still be able to carry out instructions.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, I think so I can, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: Try and recall the man who came out of the house and who was getting into that car, was he shot in the car?

MR VERMEULEN: I think he was shot while he was getting into the car.

MR BERGER: You can still remember that?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR BERGER: And then you can't remember seeing Mr McCaskill at any time before you got to the river.

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR BERGER: And you can't remember seeing Mr Adamson or Mr Coetser at any time until you got back into South Africa.

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR BERGER: Did you at any time go into the house?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR BERGER: You can remember that clearly, you never went into the house?

MR VERMEULEN: I didn't go into the house.

MR VERMEULEN: That was not my instructions.

MR BERGER: You never fired your weapon at all through this whole operation?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BERGER: When you got back onto the South African side, did you go back to the farmhouse?

MR VERMEULEN: As far as I can recall, yes Sir.

MR BERGER: And was there a debriefing?

MR VERMEULEN: No, not that I can remember.

MR BERGER: You were never told what Mr Adamson and Mr Coetser did?

MR VERMEULEN: I think they could have told us later on but I don't think I actually asked. It could have come out when everybody was speaking, I don't know, I can't remember.

MR BERGER: Why do you say in your amnesty application that Brig Schoon and Basie Smit were present when you received your medal for bravery?

MR VERMEULEN: 'Cause I think they were the people that were at that time in charge of the Security Police.

MR BERGER: Are you confusing this with another occasion when you got another medal for bravery?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I haven't got - didn't get any more medals for bravery.

MR BERGER: Is this the only medal you got?

MR VERMEULEN: Ja.

MR BERGER: Are you proud of your medal?

MR VERMEULEN: For what?

MR BERGER: For bravery.

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR BERGER: Do you still have it with you?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR BERGER: I have no further questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

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

&#9;Mr Vermeulen, there's just one aspect that I would like to deal with with you and I must say at the outset that it's not an aspect that flows out of your amnesty application or the merits of the matter, it is an aspect that deals with the integrity of this process and it related to an incident that occurred yesterday. It was reported to me that you referred to this process as a circus, is that correct, Mr Vermeulen?

MR VERMEULEN: No, it's not correct, Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: Then what exactly did you say?

MR VERMEULEN: I was in a private telephone conversation with a friend of mine and what I called a circus was not the process, I've got a lot of respect for the process, but what I haven't got - what's like a circus to me was the time up and down and all that, that I described as a circus. I've got no problem with the authority and the process that's going on, but there's a lot of things that is bothering me, especially going up and down and coming here and all that, that doesn't make sense to me. Sometimes I've been sitting here for a month that I didn't give any evidence and all that, that was all. I haven't got any problem with the whole process.

MS PATEL: Inasmuch as it was a conversation on the telephone, it was a conversation that you held in earshot of the victims who are present, of some of the victims who are present here, it was in the earshot of some of the media who was present here, do you deny that?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, I didn't even see them. I didn't do that on purpose.

MS PATEL: It's not really the point, whether you did it on purpose or not, Mr Vermeulen, the point is you attack the integrity of this process.

MR VERMEULEN: I did not do that.

MS PATEL: And I must say to you that as an official of this Commission, I take grave exception to what you have said and your views on this process, it puts into question your motivation for participating in this process to start off with and it also - I must remind you that one of the primary objectives of this process is to try to foster reconciliation between parties and with an attitude as you have expressed inasmuch as I have heard you explanation, which I must say I don't accept, inasmuch as I've heard your explanation you make it very difficult for that to ever occur in this country and I must say to you that not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of colleagues of mine who are present at the hearing, we must say that we find your attitude unacceptable and unconscionable. Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL&#9;&#9;&#9; 

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius.

MR CORNELIUS ADDRESSES: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'd like to reply to what Ms Patel said now. I would just like to say my client tendered his apology personally to her yesterday afternoon, which she did not want to accept and place it formally on record, so I'm placing it formally on record that he did apologise, he had no ...(indistinct) at all and didn't want to publicise anything.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone)

MS PATEL: Your microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: If his explanation is to be accepted, that he did not refer to the process as a circus, then why did he apologise?

MR CORNELIUS: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, I'm not with you.

CHAIRPERSON: It's a simple question, Mr Cornelius. If I have to accept what he said in respect of the allegation, that he did not refer to the process as a circus, then why did he find it necessary to apologise to Ms Patel?

MR CORNELIUS: I found it necessary because I was present with the argument that resulted in the restaurant next-door, so we felt it was necessary to apologise. For what it's worth, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any re-examination?

MR CORNELIUS: I've got no re-examination, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, before my learned friend ... there's just one aspect that came out here during the cross-examination, which I just want to quickly put to Mr Vermeulen.

&#9;Mr Vermeulen, I just want to put it to you that Mr Nortje was with you when you waded through the river, when you went into Lesotho. You testified that your recollection indicated that he went through in a vehicle, but I put it to you that he will testify that he went through the river with you.

MR VERMEULEN: I would accept that I could have made a mistake there, I'm not certain.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, is that also for Coetser?

MR LAMEY: Nortje, Vermeulen and Coetser went through together.

&#9;Then upon the return after the attack was launched, my instructions are ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before you continue, Mr Lamey, was that up to the incident or after their return?

MR LAMEY: This is the crossing from South Africa to Lesotho, this is while they were under way, not during their return.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR LAMEY: Then upon returning it is my instruction that a dinghy was found beside the river, which had gone flat and then all the members, including Mr McCaskill, waded through the river back to the RSA. In other words, you did not encounter the other members on the RSA side of the river again, you found them on the Lesotho side and all of you crossed the river back to the RSA again.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that one dinghy was still usable and that the television was placed in the dinghy when you went back over.

MR VERMEULEN: It may be so, but I'm under the impression that we carried it. 

MR LAMEY: It is a minor aspect, but insofar as it is relevant. Thank you, Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

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

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Vermeulen, I note that your written application contains many factual errors, as you were able to concede during Mr Berger's cross-examination of you, and I got the impression that you had discussions with Mr Nortje and Mr Coetzee(sic) who were able to refresh your memory and you were able to recollect better after you had had this consultation. Is my impression correct?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did you make Mr Cornelius aware of these corrections prior to you giving testimony to this Panel this morning?

MR VERMEULEN: Not this morning, no, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But you at an earlier occasion, make him aware of these corrections?

MR VERMEULEN: I spoke to him yesterday, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And still this morning these corrections were not corrected when your evidence-in-chief was led. That's an issue to take up with Mr Cornelius, not with you. It's just that I think it perturbs us when such a situation occurs, because it reflects very badly on an applicant whilst he is legally represented.

MR LAMEY: Judge, with due respect, you would recall I did make the corrections in his evidence-in-chief, it was specifically led, that was when Mr Berger made the remark "Stop leading the witness", that is when I corrected it.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I don't think so, Mr Cornelius, you didn't make the factual corrections that came out during Mr Berger's cross-examination and I don't think you should belabour the matter any further. Otherwise I have no questions for Mr Vermeulen.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vermeulen, when did you decide to make this application?

MR VERMEULEN: I beg your pardon, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: When did you decide to make this application?

MR VERMEULEN: The amnesty application?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VERMEULEN: I cannot recall, Chairperson, it was a long time ago.

CHAIRPERSON: How did it come to be that you decided to apply?

MR VERMEULEN: I was a witness for the investigating team from the Attorney-General's office, I provided information for them and from there they advised me to apply for amnesty and I then went to Mr Cornelius and he became my legal representative.

CHAIRPERSON: You attached all the relevant documentation such as reports and psychological reports and evaluations to your application.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And this was sent through to the TRC office by Mr Cornelius.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever have the opportunity or did you indeed ever discuss this matter with fellow applicants before you applied for amnesty?

MR VERMEULEN: Before I submitted my original application? Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there a meeting during which you decided that you were going to make these applications?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: At which stage did you meet?

MR VERMEULEN: We met on various occasions at the A-G's office.

CHAIRPERSON: To discuss whether or not you were going to make applications?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm speaking of you in your capacity as applicants.

MR VERMEULEN: No, there wasn't such an occasion.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you perhaps discuss what actually happened there, perhaps because you had forgotten a number of facts regarding this particular incident?

MR VERMEULEN: Regarding this specific incident or do you mean incidents in general?

CHAIRPERSON: Incidents in general and this specific incident.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, we did because there were many incidents that we had forgotten about, which we couldn't always recall.

CHAIRPERSON: And with regard to this incident?

MR VERMEULEN: This specific incident. I think I may have refreshed my memory with Mr Nortje on a few occasions.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us attempt to recall the events in Lesotho. As I have understood your evidence you were very low on the rank list and you just did your job as you said.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You followed your orders and that was all.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you ever during any one of those journeys, ask why you were supposed to go and kill people because it is wrong?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson, it never occurred to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR VERMEULEN: I don't know, Chairperson. If you received an order, you received an order and there was no way to question that order.

CHAIRPERSON: Even though you were a policeman or a soldier, when you kill someone illegally then you should be concerned, then you should ask why. One wouldn't commit murder without knowing why.

MR VERMEULEN: I wasn't concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Not at all?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR VERMEULEN: Because it was necessary to be concerned, I had the authorisation.

CHAIRPERSON: But I cannot blame you because after all you do not know the Act, but an order to commit murder isn't going to assist you, didn't you know this at that time?

MR VERMEULEN: It never occurred to me, I simply received the order and we moved out.

CHAIRPERSON: When you joined Vlakplaas, did you know that you would doing all sorts of things like this, such as murder?

MR VERMEULEN: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't know?

MR VERMEULEN: I wouldn't say that I didn't know, but I didn't think that that was Vlakplaas' work. That we would be involved in shooting incidents, yes I was aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you think Vlakplaas was?

MR VERMEULEN: An investigating team, people who conducted investigations and who traced suspects and arrested them and if they were not arrested and a shooting took place, you would have a licence to shoot.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh. When you joined Vlakplaas, were you not informed that it was a secret place and that whatever happened there should remain a secret?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, I signed the official Secrecy Act, so I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew then that nobody was supposed to know about this place and what you were doing there, isn't that so?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't a regular police station.

MR VERMEULEN: No it wasn't.

CHAIRPERSON: And at police stations, regular police station, regular policemen would also take the oath.

MR VERMEULEN: Not as far as I know.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you not recall?

MR VERMEULEN: I do not know, because when I worked at a regular police station I didn't sign the Oath of Secrecy.

CHAIRPERSON: What rank did you have at that stage?

MR VERMEULEN: Warrant Officer.

CHAIRPERSON: And these firearms that you carried there, did you know that they were illegal?

MR VERMEULEN: To me they were legal because they were State issue.

CHAIRPERSON: And what did you think you were going to do there is Lesotho? Did you think that you were going to kill people?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes. 

CHAIRPERSON: Commit murder?

MR VERMEULEN: I didn't view it as murder.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you think it was?

MR VERMEULEN: I thought that it was the prevention of murder here in South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: So you did not have the intention to kill?

MR VERMEULEN: No, I did not harbour any malice towards these persons.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to the question because it's important. Do you understand intent?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, intent indicates that you want to kill someone.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you went there did you go there with the intent to kill someone?

MR VERMEULEN: At that stage my life was not in jeopardy, so no, but if something had happened or occurred, then I would have shot the person, I would have shot to kill.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew what your colleagues were going to do.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you agree with that?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR VERMEULEN: Because all of us were members of the same team.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

MR VERMEULEN: We were all in one team.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you agree with what your colleagues were going to do?

MR VERMEULEN: I could just as well have been the man in Mr Nortje's shoes, Mr Nortje could have stood on the side and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not referring to Mr Nortje, I'm speaking of you. I want to know whether or not you agreed with what Mr de Kock and the others were going to do in that house, before the incident.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR VERMEULEN: Because that was the order, that is why we went from South Africa to Lesotho, to penetrate the house and to kill the persons inside that house.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is murder, isn't it?

MR VERMEULEN: To me it wasn't murder.

CHAIRPERSON: What was it then?

MR VERMEULEN: I prevented further bloodshed and acts of terror in South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: Was your attitude towards this incident an attitude of believing that you were acting in defence of South Africa?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes. I would actually say more the people of South Africa, the South African public.

CHAIRPERSON: One final aspect. When you acted there in going along with them to go and kill these people, you say that you acted in the defence of the people of South Africa, did you think that people would be killed?

MR VERMEULEN: When we went to Lesotho?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Who told you this?

MR VERMEULEN: In my mind I knew that we were not going there for nothing, we weren't going there to arrest people and I think that if I'm not mistaken, Mr de Kock told us we are going to strike this house and eliminate the people inside. 

CHAIRPERSON: There was no other reason except the defence of the people of South Africa?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

&#9;Mr Cornelius, your client states that these documents were in your possession when the application was sent through to Cape Town, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: That is correct, Mr Chair. ...(inaudible - no microphone) ... and the other report was omitted.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, that was annexed to the total application which is a very voluminous application and I've never, as you would see in evidence-in-chief, I did not rely on the report either, I didn't lead it.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR CORNELIUS: My learned friend, Mr Hattingh, I think referred to the report. I omitted to see that page 3 wasn't there, we obtained it through the TRC, which faxed it from Cape Town.

CHAIRPERSON: I know that, what I want to know is why you didn't pick it up, we've been sitting here so long in this hearing, and see to it before your client testified, that that documentation was forthcoming.

MR CORNELIUS: That was my omission, I admit that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, your client is excused.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Sir.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we take the lunch break instead of breaking up the next witness? We'll adjourn till 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: I was informed that one of the applicants have taken ill and I spoke to Mr Lamey and the representatives of the family about that, in order to establish time limits for how we're going to proceed in this application in future. That's why I didn't call any of the other representatives. 

&#9;Mr Hattingh, can we get to the small bit of evidence that must be led?

MR HATTINGH: Certainly, Mr Chairman.

NAME: EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK - RECALL

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

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

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

&#9;Mr de Kock, you have heard what it was about.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I have, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You have testified that you met Mr McCaskill at the post office.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: On how many occasions?

MR DE KOCK: On two occasions, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And whom of you and your team were present during this meeting?

MR DE KOCK: It was Nortje, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was it only the two of you?

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say two, two occasions, or are we speaking of the first one?

MR HATTINGH: At both, Chairperson. I will lead it.

&#9;Is it correct that on both occasions that you were at the post office there were only two persons there, it was yourself and Mr Nortje?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You said it was Mr Nortje, how certain are you of that?

MR DE KOCK: That is my recollection, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Upon the first occasion - let us just deal briefly with the first occasion, Mr McCaskill arrived there and according to the evidence that has been led here, he told you that you could not continue with the attack because some of his family members were in the house.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then you said you threatened him and you told him you could not turn back now.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you send him back and arrange to meet him there again?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do after he left there?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, from there we moved in general and we waited for the time to arrive to see the source, McCaskill again.

MR HATTINGH: Where were the other members when you met with Mr McCaskill at the post office the first time?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I don't have an independent recollection, but they would have been in the vicinity in a safe place.

MR HATTINGH: Why did they not accompany you to the rendezvous point?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it would have drawn too much attention, that part of the road was the one that ran to the border post and it was criss-crossed by the Defence Force and a number of white men together would have drawn too much attention.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And can you recall, after you sent Mr McCaskill, can you recall whether he went to where the other men were, or can you not recall?

MR DE KOCK: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then go back to the post office upon the time that you had agreed upon with Mr McCaskill?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I met him there again.

MR HATTINGH: And did he tell you then that there were only ANC persons in the house?

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: What happened then?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my recollection is that Nortje and I went to the other members. I do not have an independent recollection whether Mr McCaskill drove with us and where I met the members. We divided the group that McCaskill would go along with Adamson and Coetser because the situation had changed at the house, because Joe Meyer had left. 

MR HATTINGH: Where were they when you met the other members?

MR DE KOCK: They were in the vicinity at a safe point, Chairperson, but I am unable to tell you where they would have been exactly. It would have been a safe place, it would have been close-by, but not so that it would draw attention.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall how Mr McCaskill arrived at the post office? Did he come by car or on foot?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I believe he arrived there with a vehicle but I do not remember, but I shall accept it.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall when you departed from there, did he leave in the same vehicle with you or did he drive with his own vehicle?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot recall, I do not have an independent recollection thereof.

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived at the other people and you divided the group, was Mr McCaskill present there?

MR DE KOCK: As far as I can recall yes, Chairperson, because he had to go and accompany Adamson and Coetser.

MR HATTINGH: So he must have gone with you or he must have followed you in his own vehicle.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And from there you went to the house where you launched the attack and they left for where they had to go and attack Mr Meyer.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: May I just refer you briefly, you have read the documents of Mr McCaskill.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I refer to Volume 2, page 71, paragraph 19 thereof and I shall read it to you. He says in paragraph 19:

&#9;&#9;"I left the party at about 23H00, to meet de Kock and his men. I told them who was at the party. They told me to take my car to my work. They accompanied me to take my car to my work. We went to fetch another car next to a garage. We went to my place where the party was held."

So according to that version of his it would appear that you left there in a convoy to his work where you left his vehicle and then you went to another vehicle. Do you recall that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson. I cannot dispute it but I do not recall it.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson. As I understood the arrangement it was with regard to this that you needed further evidence.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Let me go around. Is there anybody that wants to ask questions of Mr de Kock?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: &#9;Chairperson, I've just got something to put to Mr de Kock.

&#9;Mr de Kock, what you have testified about now with regard to Mr Nortje's presence at the post office, you say that "this is my recollection thereof", is there room in that qualification of "that is my recollection thereof", that it could have been otherwise? Because I shall put it to you that Mr Nortje's recollection is that after he and the other members had crossed the river, he and Bosch were in one car and you told them that they had to wait at a specific point, they then went and waited, this is now he and Nortje, and if he recalls correctly it was Vermeulen, they were all in one car, they waited at a predetermined point, Coetser, Adamson and yourself at that stage were elsewhere and while they were waiting there you arrived there in a vehicle and told them that they had to come along and then they went to a place close to the post office and he, Bosch and Vermeulen were still in one car and then there you met with McCaskill, at the place close to the post office and then you had a discussion there.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my recollection is that Nortje was with me, but I am absolutely adamant that we had one vehicle and two persons in the vehicle. I was not the driver, I was the passenger and my memory tells me that it was Mr Nortje who was the driver.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Nortje's recollection is that you divided the group up there and then you climbed in with him and Bosch and Vermeulen in the vehicle and from there you went to the house where the attack was launched, that you and he carried out.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, there was indeed a division because of the circumstances that had changed.

MR LAMEY: I just want to put it to you as Mr Nortje's recollection is of the events.

MR DE KOCK: Very well, Chairperson.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Honourable Chairman.

&#9;Mr de Kock, just a few aspects with regard to the paragraph which you have referred to, Volume 2, paragraph 17, page 71, the version that Mr McCaskill will give in his evidence is that he met you upon more than two occasions. He cannot recall how many but it was definitely more than twice that he met you at the post office, can you dispute that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I can only recall the two occasions, the rest was telephonic contact that we had.

MR JOUBERT: And furthermore he will also say that upon the last occasion that he met with you just before you divided, it was only one vehicle that was there of the Police, in which you were and he can recall there was another person but he says there may have been more persons.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is how I remember it.

MR JOUBERT: And he confirms that you were a passenger in the vehicle.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: And he will also testify further and we shall give an elaboration there that you left from there, he drove behind you in his vehicle to where the other vehicle of the Police was and that the division had taken place there and it was said that certain persons had to go along with him and the others would go to the house.

MR DE KOCK: That is probable, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And then he will also say that from there you left with your guys to the house that you would penetrate and he left with his vehicle, Adamson and Coetser in the other vehicle went to a premises where he left his vehicle. You cannot dispute or testify to that effect?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I cannot testify or dispute that.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Honourable Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.

&#9;Mr de Kock, have a look please at page 79 of bundle 2, this is the evidence you gave at your criminal trial. You'll see there in the middle of the page your counsel said:

&#9;&#9;"Please continue."

and you're describing what happened, you said:

&#9;&#9;"And we had a tremendous struggle you know, to get the equipment together, I would for example, have needed two rubber dinghies because the Caledon at that stage was in flood, it rained regularly and every time it rains the river runs stronger."

I'm just reading this to you to put you in context of what you were saying at the time.

&#9;&#9;"Eventually we had to acquire three of these toy boats that the children used in a dam or in a swimming pool, that we could use to take our equipment through and then two vehicles with two members each went through the border post at Maseru bridge."

Now who were the four people who came through in the vehicles?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I can recall it was myself, Nortje, Adamson and Bosch.

MR BERGER: So then it would be only Coetser and Vermeulen who crossed the river.

MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: And then you go on:

&#9;&#9;"And we once again reconnoitred the house that evening upon several occasions. We made contact with the source again."

Who are you referring to there who went on those numerous occasions to go and check the house?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I know it was myself and Sgt Nortje.

MR BERGER: Just the two of you?

MR DE KOCK: Well Chairperson, it was not a difficult situation because the house was right next to the freeway, so to pass it would not be a problem and to do the reconnaissance.

MR BERGER: So let me just understand this. You cross the border, am I correct, when it was still light?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it may have been later, it could have been after the last light, I cannot tell you whether it was light or dark.

MR BERGER: Would you say it was in the late afternoon?

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

MR BERGER: Mr de Kock, your memory is suddenly fading and I'm trying to be specific. When you started giving evidence this week you were far more accurate in your description of events and I'm trying to get you back to being accurate again.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, may I just find out, I specifically asked you whether Mr de Kock was called back with regard to the aspect as to where the meeting was and how many vehicles there were and from where they departed, my learned friend is now asking questions about other aspects for which Mr de Kock was not re-called. At least one would expect him to ask your permission to do so.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I am cross-examining on the evidence that Mr de Kock has just given and in order for me to do so I'm testing his evidence about when he came in, with whom he came in, how he met up with them at the river and so on. That would all work around ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR BERGER: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you arguing that will fall within the confines of what he's testified now?

MR BERGER: Definitely, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed ...(inaudible)

MR BERGER: Mr de Kock, the four of you came through that afternoon, am I correct?

MR DE KOCK: I do not recall whether it was in the afternoon, it may have been when it was dark already.

MR BERGER: And the other two, Coetser and Vermeulen crossed the river, would it have been late at night?

MR DE KOCK: That would have been in the dark, yes.

MR BERGER: And while you were waiting for them, you went to book into a hotel in Maseru?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, we rented two rooms there.

MR BERGER: Was it at that time that you did your surveillance of the house, you and Mr Nortje?

MR DE KOCK: I can concede that Chairperson, but I cannot recall it specifically.

MR BERGER: You don't have a specific recollection of that?

MR DE KOCK: Well we did pass the house, we observed the house, I cannot tell you how many times we drove up and down.

MR BERGER: And Mr Bosch and Adamson, you left them in the hotel room?

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

MR BERGER: And when you met Mr McCaskill at the post office for the first time, had Mr Coetser and Vermeulen already crossed over the river?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Was it still light when you saw McCaskill the first time?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, it was dark already.

MR BERGER: I thought you said just now in your evidence that when Mr McCaskill came for the first time to the post office, the other members were waiting nearby in the vicinity, now were you referring to two other members or four other members?

MR DE KOCK: I'm not certain, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Well do you have a recollection of after meeting McCaskill, and remember now he comes to the post office, he says to you "There are uninvited guests at the house, we have to call off the operation", you say to him "This isn't a time to pull out", you send him away, he comes back, what is it, half an hour, and hour later?

MR DE KOCK: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot give you a specific time there, the events were intertwined, the one followed upon the other. I cannot be more specific.

MR BERGER: Well yesterday you said half an hour.

MR DE KOCK: It was half an hour before the attack, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: That he came for the first time or the second time?

MR DE KOCK: The second time, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Between the first visit when you told him to go back and get the uninvited guests out, and the second visit, do you have a recollection of going down to the river to pick up Vermeulen and Coetser?

MR DE KOCK: I don't have a specific recollection, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: Well what is your memory of what you did between the first time you met McCaskill at the post office and the second?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I'm not certain, we must have been moving around.

MR BERGER: Mr de Kock, is it you just don't want to give any more evidence?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, if I recall it then I can answer it, but if Mr Berger wants me to tell him what he wants to hear, he can just write it out and then I'll read it to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, at what time did this thing take place? Approximately 11 o'clock or so?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was late at night, but I think ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You said that the border closed at ten.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you could not drive through because by the time the incident was over, the border post was closed.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Then consequently I will only say that this thing happened very quickly, the incident, and when it was over you could not go through the border post.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson, we could not.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why we can touch upon between ten and eleven.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it can be half an hour before 12 o'clock or half an hour after 12 o'clock. I cannot be more specific. I would like to give you details, but I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: We're trying to work it out. At which stage did you meet the men at the river?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that bit is vague, this is intertwined our coming through and when they came through and the events there on ground level and the handling of Mr McCaskill, the contact with Mr McCaskill, all these things are intertwined and these are not independent events.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us just take it step by step because it's important. I do not know about Lesotho, I have never attended a party there but I would have thought that the people attending the party would have arrived there at approximately 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock and thereafter McCaskill came to you and told you "Listen, there are people there who do not belong there" and you told them "Go and remove those people who do not belong there", and he returns and half an hour later the incident occurred. Now before you met McCaskill when he said there were people at that party that did not belong there, did you have your firearms that the other persons had brought over the river? I think you must have had them because otherwise you would not have been prepared for the attack.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is obvious, but I cannot tell you yes, it was at that exact time, but the probabilities are true.

CHAIRPERSON: When McCaskill came to you did you not know he was going to tell you that "Listen here, there are people there who do not belong there"? At that stage, as I understand your evidence in its entirety, at that stage there you were already ready to launch your attack.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, we were combat ready, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And from that I infer that you must have had the firearms that you needed to launch this attack, you must have already had the firearms in your hands.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, however I cannot give the times as Mr Berger wants them.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I say let us work it out as close as possible to the time it occurred. As it would appear, when McCaskill met you the first time at the post office you were already ready for the attack, therefore you must have had those weapons and therefore you must have found the guys who went through the river.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because the second time I threatened him.

CHAIRPERSON: You also testified that when Mr McCaskill came to speak to you the other men were there in the vicinity, that indicates that you were ready for the attack.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You were prepared.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not know at what time the sun goes down at that part of the world, but they must have crossed the river when the sun had gone down.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, they would have crossed while it was dark.

CHAIRPERSON: They would not have dared cross otherwise while it was still light.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, they would have been seen.

CHAIRPERSON: Therefore we know that they went over the river and you were prepared to have those weapons in your hands by the time that McCaskill met you the first time at the post office.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you agree?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if that helps Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Thank you, Chairperson.

&#9;You see Mr de Kock, what I find strange is yesterday you will recall Judge Khampepe asked you a question about how you had moved, how long it had taken you to get from the post office to the house and you described how you drove through some suburbs, do you remember that?

MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: You never indicated then that your group had dispersed, in fact I understood from your evidence that you were travelling as a group, the six of you with McCaskill.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my memory is vague with regard to the river part, whether persons were waiting but I made it very clear that myself and another person were at the post office, that there was not a group of persons at the post office.

MR BERGER: Have a look if you would, at page 80 of your amnesty - of the evidence that you gave in the criminal trial, Volume 2. At the top of the page you describe how you met McCaskill at the Maseru post office and you said to him that - well I'll read it, you said:

&#9;&#9;"I told him that when he turned around he must accept that there would be trouble for him."

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: And then you describe the situation in Lesotho, but if you look at line 14 on that page you say the following:

&#9;&#9;"And although the entire group of us who were there, there were six of us in total, we would have done the attack at one house because all these ANC members were centralised there. Upon our arrival at the scene two persons had already departed. Amongst others it was the Coloured man Joe and then his wife and then I had to send two persons with the source to that house so that they could launch an attack there to kill Joe."

My understanding of this evidence is that you were all gathered together at the post office ...(intervention)

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: No, just let me finish. That you all left from the post office to the house. And then you say:

&#9;&#9;"With our arrival at the scene ..."

which I understood to be the scene of the murders, it was then that you determined that Leon Meyer and Jackie Quinn had left and that was when you sent Adamson, Coetser and McCaskill to their house.

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I would not have gone in the middle of that highway with two cars, six men and firearms, I would not have stopped there. The evidence that I gave here was brief with no elaborations and this was a large volume of evidence. There was no way that one could stop in the middle of Leboa Jonathan highway and distribute firearms and tell people where to go, that does not make sense.

MR BERGER: Well if you were ready for the attack when McCaskill came to the post office the first time and then the attack had to be postponed or delayed, so that he could go and get rid of those people who shouldn't have been there, you must have had some communication with the other members of your attack group.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we had radios, we had three or four two-way radios that we found when we were working in Maseru, we found that these were entirely useless because of the mountainous area and the circumstances in Maseru itself, so we did not have any good radio communication.

MR BERGER: So what did the other members do whilst you and Nortje were waiting at the post office?

MR DE KOCK: They were waiting at a safe place, Chairperson.

MR BERGER: And how did you indicate to them that it was time to launch the attack?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we went to them.

MR BERGER: You went to them?

MR DE KOCK: That was after we met with McCaskill the second time that we went to them.

MR BERGER: With McCaskill.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I've already said that.

MR BERGER: And it was then that you divided the group.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because we were not standing in the highway and taking out people and have people walk with their firearms to another vehicle.

MR BERGER: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, just arising from the cross-examination of Mr de Kock, when my learned friend cross-examined him on these two persons that went with him to do their reconnaissance, I just want to put to Mr de Kock that my instructions are that Mr Nortje did not do reconnaissance work with you with regard to the house after you left the river.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I testify according to my memory, I don't have any other proof and I apologise for that.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, thank you.

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

&#9;On this last aspect, is it possible that it could have been anybody else besides Mr Nortje who went with you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it is probable, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then briefly, upon various occasions you have given evidence before Committees, the evidence - or may I put it as follows, you were not charged for any offence which followed from the Lesotho incident.

MR DE KOCK: No, I was not.

MR HATTINGH: And the evidence that you offered was with regard to mitigation.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Were you asked to go into the facts of the events or was it about another aspect?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, it was with regard to mitigation and this was to explain the nature of Vlakplaas' activities to the Court.

MR HATTINGH: And while you accepted that murder upon instruction was not a defence, what were you advised with regard to the question whether that could have an influence on your sentence?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that it may have an influence or it may not. To me it was an issue of I was speaking the truth and I was not trying to mislead the Court.

MR HATTINGH: The fact that you executed this operation under instruction and that it was your impression that the instruction came from above, were you advised whether that would be relevant with regard to your sentence?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I apologise I cannot recall everything there.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. The time that you had to prepare your amnesty application, we sit here with a single incident, but the application entails about five or six volumes that would have been 10 inches high or so.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that that had to be prepared while you were in jail.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Were you under pressure?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, tremendously, not only from the amnesty situation but also from Correctional Services, and the Intelligence Services also approached me with regard to further information and there were further investigations with regard to Inkatha. There was no time for any ...

MR HATTINGH: And how long before the closing date was your application handed in?

MR DE KOCK: I think it was five minutes before the time.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have the time or the opportunity to check it and to see that everything was correct according to your recollection?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, if I may, it's just one aspect that has arisen out of the re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: No, that's fine, I didn't have any questions before this, but now I do.

&#9;Mr de Kock, is it correct your counsel has just led you on the fact that your amnesty application was tendered five minutes before the closing time, but we've heard evidence before and in fact your instructing attorney, Mr Hugo, has conceded this at another hearing, that the amnesty application was in fact prepared long before the closing time and ... May I finish please? Thank you. ... that it was in fact conceded at a previous hearing here that the application was deliberately tendered at the last, or at the eleventh hour?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I just come in here. It is not correct that the application was complete long before the time and for the rest of the answer I will leave it to Mr de Kock to deal with it.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, one of the aspects that I discussed with Mr Hugo was that I shall hand up my application as late as possible because of the fact that there were many people waiting for me to hand up my application so that they could sit back and work out their defences and get their lies together and commit perjury to my disadvantage, but despite that, the volumes were so many that I still had to make statements of a supplementary nature over other incidents. So these two issues were related. We had to get a few gentlemen from Correctional Services, approximately half past eleven in the evening to come and take statements. But on the other side it was upon my request that we did not hand up my application long before the time. Unfortunately it is true that it did leak at the TRC and I want to say, and I apologise if people will be angry with me, but that was not the idea, but we are dealing with reality, if it were not for those medals then only I and Nortje and three other people would be sitting here today and there would have been a statement here that said that we do not oppose the application, this is just an example of how de Kock is lying. I am not saying this to the detriment or to jeopardise anybody, I stand here on my own and independently. So yes, on the one side you are correct and on the other side you are not correct.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

MR HATTINGH: I would just like to emphasise, Mr Chairman, there was no evidence to the effect that the application was completed for ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, to be quite honest, if there was a closing date and a closing time, unless it's really important, I'm not going to infer anything from an eleventh hour application.

&#9;Thank you, Mr de Kock.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you on next?

MR LAMEY: Indeed, Chairperson.

NAME:&#9;&#9;&#9;WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE

APPLICATION NO:&#9;AM3764/96

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

CHAIRPERSON: What language would you prefer to use?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Afrikaans, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

MR NORTJE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, during these proceedings before the Amnesty Committee, we deal with your amnesty application for your involvement in an attack in Lesotho during December 1985, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Application?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, the initial application from Mr Nortje can be found from page 11 onwards in Volume 1 and it spans up to page 19, where we deal with this specific incident and then from page 21 and further up to page 40 of the bundle is a supplementary application and then the particulars from page 37 onwards.

&#9;Mr Nortje, is it correct that you applied also for other incidents in which you were involved as a member of Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And some of these incidents have already been heard.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now is it correct that there is an initial application which was submitted in which you yourself completed the form and signed it as it can be found on page 13?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct that at that stage you had not yet obtained the services of a legal representative or an attorney?

MR NORTJE: No, I had not.

MR LAMEY: Is it also correct that the particulars which are attached as an annexure to that original or initial application of yours, contained sections of statements which you made before the former Goldstone Commission?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore, you gave evidence before the Goldstone Commission and you testified as a State witness during the de Kock criminal trial.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The Lesotho incident was not one of the subjects on the charge sheet.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Regarding the other aspects for which you testified you received indemnity in terms of Section 104.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But you also applied for amnesty for those incidents for which you had been indemnified.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then after you had obtained legal representation a supplementary application was prepared, which can be found from page 21 onwards.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And it has been signed by you. This is on page 26.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then there is also an annexure to the application form, which commences on page 27 and deals with a review regarding your background and training. That starts at paragraph 2.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then in the bundle which has been placed before the Committee, there is also the Lesotho operation during 1985, which commences on page 36. If we could just begin, if you can tell us what your rank was during December 1985.

MR NORTJE: I was a Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: Could you tell us briefly about the period preceding the operation. Let us begin with Ladybrand. Could you begin to relate the background to us from there, how you arrived there, what you were doing there in Ladybrand.

MR NORTJE: Chairperson, as I recall it and as it took place, we were working in the area, in the Ladybrand vicinity with a team - I know that Bosch and I were working there together at a certain stage, as well as Vermeulen and I. At a certain point Adamson was the group leader. We were working in the area and ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, to which stage are you referring?

MR NORTJE: Let me say that it was the latter half of 1985, in that vicinity.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall that you worked there upon more than one occasion?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we did. We performed our regular duties with the askaris and at a stage there was an extensive presence of ANC members in Lesotho, we knew that. Our normal duties were to return to Pretoria on about the 25th of the month and then we would remain in Pretoria until the end of the month and usually we would be re-deployed during the first week of the next month. All this information came from Head Office and information that we had picked up on ground. We co-operated quite closely with the Security Branch in Ladybrand, and they had this source and I knew that there were these developments. They had spoken to de Kock at a certain point.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself have any direct liaison with this source or any source?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: Therefore you came to hear in a roundabout way about this information?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Can you say who the Commander of the Ladybrand Security Branch was at that stage?

MR NORTJE: I would say that it was Capt Fouche, but I know the there was a Lieutenant who was also in control there. I don't know whether or not he was there at that stage. I know that he left the place at one point, but the person that we dealt with was Flip Fouche. I don't know if it was Flip or Frik.

MR LAMEY: The source that you have referred to, whose source was this? Was this a source from Ladybrand?

MR NORTJE: Some at the branch dealt with him. I don't know how things were interwoven or how the operation exactly was planned, but I know that we had already had names such as Leon Meyer and Mary Mini, because they were in the photo album. I cannot say that we already had the information at that stage from McCaskill, but I know that it was in the reports. And in co-operation with Ladybrand, I think de Kock arranged for this information to be sent through to Head Office and ultimately it was decided to launch an operation. But it was a very early stage, so the details regarding that were still sketchy, we didn't know exactly what was going to happen. That is how I recall the initiation of this thing.&#9;

&#9;Then at a certain stage we moved down to Ladybrand, with the objective that there would be an operation which would be launched.

MR LAMEY: Did you know at that stage precisely what sort of operation it would be?

MR NORTJE: No, we didn't know but we foresaw that because there had already been talk of a possible attack, whatever the case may be. However in my mind I thought that we would have to do with a safe house of sorts ultimately. That is what was going through my mind.

&#9;We then went down with - I'm referring to preparations that we made, I think the preparations were that we had initial plans and discussed these plans and all the equipment that we had to take with us, although at that stage we were not very well equipped, our weapons were not very sophisticated, but for example, I took the M79 grenade launcher with, along with a number of rounds, probably 20 round. Mr de Kock instructed me to take it with. We took all sorts of things such as this along, in the event of us going in.

MR LAMEY: Do you mean in the event of an operation?

MR NORTJE: Yes, in the event of us having to go in.

MR LAMEY: But not that you knew at that stage definitely what sort of operation it would be.

MR NORTJE: Yes, because Mr de Kock was the type of person who always made provision for any kind of contingency, therefore we had to be ready to tackle any sort of event.

MR LAMEY: Please continue. What happened further?

MR NORTJE: We then moved down, I would say 10 days and I would like to abide by that, if it had to be changed it would probably be to seven days, but it wasn't shorter than a week that we had already been there and the reason why I say this is because we had to make certain preparations, we had to undertake reconnaissance on the border. I know that we initially would have crossed the border at another point, but the finer details were developed during that week.

MR LAMEY: Let us just take it somewhat slower, Mr Nortje. When you refer to that week, to which week do you refer?

MR NORTJE: The week preceding the attack, before the 19th.

MR LAMEY: In the week of the attack?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Did you then undertake reconnaissance?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: What sort of reconnaissance?

MR NORTJE: We drove along the river on the southern side of the border, as well as the northern side, in order to locate spots where it would be easy to cross the border. 

&#9;I know that we went to the river one night to see what it would look like at night. I would recall that we entered Lesotho, specifically Maseru on one occasion and patrolled the area in order to familiarise ourselves with our surroundings, the road to the river. These were the regular preparations that we would undertake before an operation. But as I've said, at that stage we had not yet worked out the definite precise detail of how this operation was going to take place, because Mr de Kock was in daily with the source and the office at Ladybrand and he would give us feedback regarding possibilities. But it didn't come to a head until the night we executed the operation.

MR LAMEY: And what developed with regard to the source? You say that you didn't have direct liaison with the source, what happened?

MR NORTJE: It became clear that the source was in close contact with Leon Meyer specifically as well as the rest of his group. I know that he mentioned more names but this is simply something that I remember. We couldn't have identified everybody in the photo album.

MR LAMEY: Was there a photo album?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there was a photo album and I think that at one point we showed him the photo album and we tried to identify the persons.

MR LAMEY: Who can you recall?

MR NORTJE: The Morris person. I can recall that, it is a name that rang a bell, but I have read that he was the District Commander. There were other names which were mentioned by McCaskill, but I cannot recall that we identified them specifically in the photo album.

MR LAMEY: But which names did you recall, or can you recall?

MR NORTJE: Leon Meyer and Mary Mini.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was this?

MR NORTJE: Chairperson, it was definitely during that week that we were there that these developments took place, that these situations occurred.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this in Lesotho?

MR NORTJE: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: In Lesotho?

MR NORTJE: There in Ladybrand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is why I'm asking.

MR NORTJE: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So he came from Lesotho to Ladybrand?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I understood it. Upon other occasions they went in and saw him there, but I do know that he came out from Lesotho as well.

MR LAMEY: Very well. What happened further, what were the further developments regarding planning, that you are aware of?

MR NORTJE: The two vehicles that we used ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Just a moment, before you get to that. Was there any talk of how - or at which stage before the operation took place, did it come to your knowledge that this operation which you eventually launched, would take place?

MR NORTJE: According to me it was during that week preceding the attack. It may have been three days or four days, because I know that we prepared the vehicles. And certain things happened which resulted that there was already talk about this function or meeting that had to be arranged for them.

MR LAMEY: When you refer to that, what do you mean?

MR NORTJE: The party.

MR LAMEY: Did you hear that a party would be arranged?

MR NORTJE: Yes, and that this would take place at his home which he was renting, Mr McCaskill's home.

MR LAMEY: What was the purpose behind the party?

MR NORTJE: In order to bring the entire group together, this group which was planning to infiltrate with Leon Meyer. That was the primary objective.

CHAIRPERSON: In this photo album, you state that you were looking for photographs of members of the Leon Meyer group and that McCaskill had come through a few days before the time and had identified persons, did he identify the entire group?

MR NORTJE: No, Chairperson, I cannot tell you because I did not work with him directly. The information that I have is fragmented. The branch at Ladybrand also had a photo album and they would have shown it to him as well and he may also have identified persons for them at that stage as well, but I cannot recall specific persons at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON: So you cannot say whether or not he identified the entire group?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: Did it come to your knowledge at any point in time, when the infiltration was to take place?

MR NORTJE: I must say that there was information indicating that McCaskill had been approached to transport the group through and I think it would have been on the Saturday, that's why we went in on the Friday, because he would have brought the people through on the Saturday. Perhaps I could just add that the fact that we couldn't wait for them was based upon a certainty that if we had allowed him to travel with them, with Meyer and the others, they could have said at the eleventh hour that they wanted to take on another direction or go to another place and that is why it was decided to attack them on the inside.

MR LAMEY: At one place where they would all be together.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Who were the members who would be part of the team to execute the operation?

MR NORTJE: It was Mr de Kock, me, Vermeulen, Coetser, Adamson and Bosch.

MR LAMEY: Very well. In your statements you mention Douw Willemse, what is your position regarding that?

MR NORTJE: It was a mistake to mention his name. The fact that he was not present with the medal parade led me to believe that he was not present. At a certain stage I worked with Douw Willemse in that area or he worked with me, and that is why I mentioned his name initially.

MR LAMEY: In your statement you also mentioned the presence of members of Special Forces, can you inform the Committee about this.

MR NORTJE: There is just something that I must add regarding the vehicles. We prepared the vehicles because there was a fault with the car doors and that was also something that we did in that seven to ten day period. Bosch and I had to go to a certain place to have the car doors fixed to ensure that they would open and close properly. There were two Jettas and they were the vehicles which we used specifically for this operation. Apart from this we also had our own vehicles there.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Just to return to the aspect regarding which I wanted to examine you, could you just explain, the evening of the operation or the day of the operation - I beg your pardon, I just have to interrupt myself here, in your statement you mention members from Special Forces, could you elaborate on that?

MR NORTJE: One evening during this time that we were there, the day when the rubber dinghies were purchased, we went to Bloemfontein ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: That was in the week preceding the attack?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, because we realised after our reconnaissance that we had conducted alongside the river, that the river was flowing very strongly and that we needed some form of a boat or raft to assist us. We went through to Bloemfontein that day. I recall that all of us went there, the entire group, and I would recall that we stopped at the Thaba'Nchu Sun on the evening of our return and that is where we encountered members from Special Forces. 

&#9;I must just say that Mr de Kock was quite concerned at their presence there, he wanted to know what they were doing there. I don't believe that they would have told him what they were doing there, they might just have said that they were working in the area or whatever the case may be, but Mr de Kock was quite paranoid about the situation and immediately on the following day, he had an argument with Flip Fouche and accused him that he wanted to use the source McCaskill for the Defence Force and that there was something behind this whole story that he wasn't aware of.

&#9;I wasn't present during the argument, but he returned and he was quite upset about it. Ultimately this didn't take place, but there was a possibility that they might have wanted to become involved in the operation and de Kock stated that he saw Sakkie van Zyl later and that Sakkie van Zyl had said that they wanted to be involved in the operation. I believe that I'm right in what I'm saying and that what I heard was indeed correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. The source, Mr McCaskill to whom you have referred, indeed succeeded in arranging a party.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that took place eventually.

MR LAMEY: Could you just explain to the Committee, on the day of the operation how it took place, how did you leave Ladybrand and how did you enter Lesotho and elaborate from that point onwards.

MR NORTJE: During this time, de Kock and Adamson were actually the persons who liaised with him when they entered Lesotho.

MR LAMEY: Did Lieut Adamson work in that area regularly?

MR NORTJE: Yes, but because he was a Lieutenant, Mr de Kock kept him with him and they arranged the planning and so on together. 

&#9;On that afternoon we received our orders, we assembled the weapons, tested the dinghies, inflated the dinghies, we dealt with the equipment and the weapons, the magazines, this was all part of the preparation. I kept Mr de Kock's weapon with me, he asked me to bring it over for him. The weapon with the magazines. 

MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock stated that it was a Pache.

MR NORTJE: That's correct, yes.

&#9;I myself had the Uzzi, which I used during the Maponya incident. I still had that Uzzi. 

MR LAMEY: That is another incident for which you have applied for amnesty.

MR NORTJE: Yes. It was fitted with a silencer. We also had pistols and I had the M79 with approximately 20 rounds, which I also carried on me. The plan was that we would cross the river at 10 o'clock that night and that afternoon at 5 o'clock they went over.

MR LAMEY: When you say that they went over ...

MR NORTJE: I will come to that in a minute. Mr de Kock went over. I would recall that Mr Bosch was with him. Adamson was definitely with him. It was the three of them. The other three of us would cross the river and there would have been a team of black persons who would have assisted us, who lived on that side of the river. They were askaris. Nofomela was there. There were more members, there were approximately ten members consisting of blacks, who went with but stayed on this side. That afternoon they went through ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Do you know how they went through?

MR NORTJE: Through the border post with the two Jettas. We drove with the cruiser. If I recall correctly I drove the cruiser. We drove to a spot near the river and unloaded the vehicle. We put everything in the dinghies and pushed them over and once we got to the other side we realised that there was a fault with the one dinghy.

MR LAMEY: Who was present during this?

MR NORTJE: It was me and definitely Vermeulen. I'm still confused regarding Bosch and Coetser, however - I am not certain regarding the two of them, but there was definitely one more of them because we were three in total.

MR LAMEY: Three of you?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: But it definitely wasn't Adamson and de Kock?

MR NORTJE: No, Definitely not. On the other side we exited, we put on our clothes again and we prepared everything. Now I am not certain whether they were waiting for us there already or whether they were driving in the direction of coming there. I gave Mr de Kock his weapon. I know we also had balaclavas. We drove from there. I cannot recall what the arrangement was. Mr de Kock and Mr Adamson were the people who spoke to Mr McCaskill.

MR LAMEY: My I just interrupt you there. You say that you had balaclavas on, were you covering your faces with the balaclavas?

MR NORTJE: I put mine on my head, I didn't have it rolled down, it was too warm. This was my precaution against identification.

MR LAMEY: Very well, continue. Your face was open ...

MR NORTJE: At that stage.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

MR NORTJE: Then we drove and at some point we stopped and Mr de Kock said that we had to wait there. This was myself, Bosch and Vermeulen who were driving in the one Jetta.

MR LAMEY: Did you see the house at that stage?

MR NORTJE: I'm not certain, but I cannot recall whether I went to have a look where it was. I had an idea where it was because they said that it was not far from the border post and right next to the highway. At some stage I may have seen the house because you can see it from the side of the road.

MR LAMEY: Earlier?

MR NORTJE: Yes, earlier. But I would not have known how to get there at night because I was in a place where I did not know exactly what it looked like because in the dark it looks quite different.

MR LAMEY: So you had to wait at a point.

MR NORTJE: Yes, we had to wait at a point.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall with whom you went?

MR NORTJE: I was in the car with Vermeulen and Bosch. I this specifically because at some stage a patrol vehicle of the Police passed us and lucky for us they did not stop. It felt to me like we sat there for a whole hour but it couldn't have been that long. 

&#9;After a while he returned and he fetched us. We went to the place where - they say the post office, I cannot recall what the building looked like, but I do accept that it was at the post office and there Mr de Kock - there they found McCaskill there and they spoke to him. I did not climb out of the car. Not one of us - because I was wearing all this clothing and I had the firearms with me I did not get out of the car, I remained in the car.

&#9;Mr de Kock, I recall he walked across the road and he had his weapon in his hand and this was after the three of them had left.

MR LAMEY: Which three?

MR NORTJE: McCaskill, Adamson and Coetser.

MR LAMEY: They left?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he returned and he said "Joe has left the party."

MR LAMEY: Who is Joe?

MR NORTJE: Leon Meyer. And then we realised that it was getting late. It was difficult to keep persons in one place if you didn't have a specific reason. That was one of our fears, that persons would start leaving the party. He then said that Leon Meyer - I'm not certain whether he said his wife was with him, but he said that Leon had already gone home. And the other remark he made was that McCaskill's sister or cousin or something to that effect, may still have been in the house. But he said it for a moment and left it there, we didn't discuss it again. 

&#9;So I had this in the back of my head that there was someone at the house. At that stage I still believed that we would go there and kill everyone in the house, that was the purpose.

MR LAMEY: Who would did you expect to be in the house?

MR NORTJE: I expected - after all the talk that it would be ANC and it would specifically MK members, I thought that there may be people who may be armed and I assumed that those members would at least have had pistols with them, even if they were going to a party. Because if I was in that vicinity that is what I would have done. But no mention of weapons was made. I do not recall whether Mr de Kock asked him whether there were weapons or not and by myself I thought that there may be weapons, but we expected MK people. I did not have detail as to who was there, no-one told me that there was going to be women in the house, that there would be innocent persons in the house, I just recall McCaskill said that his cousin or someone was still in the house but she would be taken out.

MR LAMEY: Do you know of any arrangement that McCaskill had to secure his family?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I don't know whether I heard this before or after the time, but there was something to that effect, that he would remove his people who were in the house.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Let us return to the point that Coetser, Adamson and McCaskill left there, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: After Mr de Kock told you that Leon Meyer had left from the party.

MR NORTJE: Had left the party, yes.

MR LAMEY: What happened then?

MR NORTJE: We then drove to the house because Mr de Kock knew exactly where the house was. We came up on the bottom side of the house and the house, as I can recall, on that block there were three houses next to each other before one could get to the following street. We stopped on the corner away from the corner where the house was and there we told Mr Bosch to drive around a little, or that he had to meet us there again. I'm not certain whether he drove off or whether he waited there but anyway, Mr de Kock and I walked up the street.

MR LAMEY: What was Bosch's role?

MR NORTJE: He only had to drive the car.

MR LAMEY: Did he have to pick you up afterwards?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And you climbed out, who else?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock, Vermeulen and I. We walked in the direction of that block and while we were walking I saw, because the back door of the house, I could see it as we came walking, or shall I say I saw someone exiting the back door - no, he had already exited the house, he was almost at the car when I saw him walking and he would get into the car and I told Mr de Kock "That guy just came from the house and he's going to drive off now." We walked together and then he shot him through the left-hand side window of the car, or through the windscreen. 

MR LAMEY: Where was the person when he was shot?

MR NORTJE: He was already sitting in the car as I recall. At that stage things did not go as we had planned it, we thought that we would meet the people in the house.

MR LAMEY: So you had a complication here.

MR NORTJE: Yes. I thought that the people would hear the shots in the house although it was a silent weapon. I then ran in by the back door and when I came in I hesitated for a moment because I saw a woman standing behind the stove.

MR LAMEY: You say you saw a woman standing behind the stove?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: So why did you hesitate?

MR NORTJE: Because at that stage it was fractions of a second that I hesitated. Possibly the idea - whether Mr de Kock indicated that his family would still be in the house, that was the moment it took me. I think that is why I hesitated, or that is what I was thinking about.

MR NORTJE: What did the person look like to you?

MR NORTJE: She was a large woman. She was not very tall, she was shorter than I am but she was plumper. And then I rushed passed her, she then ran and she grabbed me and she told me "Don't shoot them, don't shoot them", but at that stage I could not stop, circumstances did not lend themselves to it. I went there to shoot those people and I could not turn around anymore. I continued. 

&#9;There was a woman sitting in front of me and I started shooting and I turned the weapon but the firearm got stuck on automatic and I fired between 20 and 25 rounds, because that weapon had a quick mechanism and when I ceased firing, then there was a person that had hidden in the bathroom but my firearm was empty. He had then already shot the person who had grabbed me and I then told him that there was someone in the bathroom. We then kicked open the door and then there was a person close to the ceiling. He shot him.

MR LAMEY: Who shot him?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock shot him. It was a male person. We then had a quick look through the house. We went outside, or Mr de Kock went outside and I came after him and he asked me how many people were there. I then went back, I went into the one room, I took the mattress and I threw the mattress off the bed, but I did not find anyone there. Everyone that I saw there was dead. I then only counted the three women that I had shot and the man who was in the bathroom and then the woman in the kitchen.

MR LAMEY: How many people did you count, according to your recollection?

MR NORTJE: I counted five in the house and then the one that was outside, that was the sixth one.

MR LAMEY: After the events in that house, what happened further?

MR NORTJE: I recall the issue of the television, one of us grabbed the television, it was McCaskill's television.

MR LAMEY: Before we get to that aspect, the person who was shot in the kitchen, did you and Mr de Kock have a discussion about that?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I would want to recall that when we came outside he asked me, "Why did you not shoot the woman?" So I told him I was not certain. I think that is what he asked be because he wanted to know why I did not shoot her and then I told him I was not certain. I don't know whether I told him whether I thought it was family of his, but I assume that was the discussion.

MR LAMEY: But you said you're not certain.

MR NORTJE: Yes. And then we immediately withdrew because we were afraid that the neighbours might have heard something and I think Vermeulen, later he spoke about someone he saw looking out a window. We then withdrew and the rendezvous point was once again at the river.

&#9;We all drove down to the river, we went straight to the river and at the river Mr de Kock told us to set alight the vehicles because we would not be able to get out with them, it was too late. We set alight the vehicles and we placed the equipment in the rubber dinghy and some of the other stuff we carried because the other rubber dinghy was broken, and we went back into the river.

MR LAMEY: Did Adamson and Coetser join you?

MR NORTJE: While we were waiting there, when we went back after a while, they came there and McCaskill was with them. We all crossed the river then, after we had set alight the vehicles. The other members met us on the other side. I think - I know Mr de Kock went to make a call at some stage and he said that he called the Lesotho Police and we all went back to the farmhouse.

MR LAMEY: Did you at some stage find out who the person was who was shot in the kitchen?

MR NORTJE: It was Mary Mini, but I think on the photo she was much younger and that is why I did not recognise her.

MR LAMEY: But how did you find this out eventually? Or how do we know that it was her, or how do you know it was her?

MR NORTJE: The description was a factor and then we also received feedback from the Ladybrand Security Branch and we once again had a look at the photo and we realised that the face that I saw there was basically the same form, so I assumed it was her.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Did Mr Coetser and Mr Adamson make any report that you heard of, as to what the incidents were where they were?

MR NORTJE: The information that I received or that I heard, and this had to be during some discussion or at the debriefing, but it went along the lines that McCaskill knocked on the door, Leon's wife opened the door, she grabbed the weapon, she grabbed Coetser's weapon and what they were telling here, as Mr de Kock was telling it makes sense to me, as I heard the story.

MR LAMEY: So if it is so that two persons were shot in that house, then according to the numbers that you would have in the back of your mind it must have been approximately eight persons.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: In your initial statement you refer to seven, is that incorrect?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I have thought about this afterwards and as I counted it, it was eight. 

MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock's recollection is more, nine, nine to ten. I think he said nine or ten, I'm not sure.

MR NORTJE: That was in the initial reports I think.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Nortje, then I would just like to ask you, in bundle 2 before the Committee, pages 63 to 65, there is a document which purports to be a statement of yours in 1996. There's a date 1996, not the rest of the date, have you any knowledge of this statement?

MR NORTJE: Chairperson, I don't know anything about this statement. I have read it. There are things that - you have heard what I said now and those things are the same as it appears in the document, I may have just omitted the attack later at the border post. That happened ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Were you present there?

MR NORTJE: No, I was not. And then the other issue of the R30 000, I think that is a bit too much because at that stage sources would not receive so much money, that couldn't have been.

MR LAMEY: But do you recall how much money the source received?

MR NORTJE: I am not entirely certain but I thought about it afterwards and the number that I had in my mind was about

R25 000.

MR LAMEY: But you were not involved in any payments?

MR NORTJE: No, I was never involved in any claims or any payments or anything to that effect.

MR LAMEY: But you do not know where this document comes from?

MR NORTJE: I have no idea.

MR LAMEY: Do you recall whether any enquiries were made with the Evidence Leader of the Committee, to find out where it was received from?

MR NORTJE: I don't know.

MR LAMEY: Then I would just like to ask you with regard to singular aspects. I assume that Mr McCaskill's legal representative will make certain statements to you, but I would just like to ask you with regard to certain aspects, with regard to the statement of Mr McCaskill. In paragraph 7 of page 69, Volume 2, he mentions a meeting that was arranged with Leon Meyer in a bar and then he speaks of:

&#9;&#9;"I had previously arranged with Eugene de Kock for he and his men to sit next to us."

Were you present on such an occasion at the hotel where Leon Meyer visited and met you there?

MR NORTJE: Not that I know of.

MR LAMEY: Don't you have any knowledge of this?

MR NORTJE: No, I don't.

MR LAMEY: And then in the following paragraph mention is made of a braai that had taken place at Ladybrand and then Mr McCaskill mentions your name there along with Blackie Swart. First of all, if my recollection is correct, then Mr McCaskill made the concession that it could not be Blackie Swart but in as far as he refers to you still, I would like to ask you if you were present at a braai in Ladybrand where Mr McCaskill was also present.

MR NORTJE: I heard when they referred to it but I cannot recall it. I cannot recall that I was at such an occasion. As I have said, much has happened but I cannot recall that pertinently.

MR LAMEY: And what he says further about the discussion that had taken place there, do you recall anything about it?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, I know there's another aspect that I need to touch upon. And then in paragraph 13 on page 70, he refers to another party which would have been held at George Kapedi's place and he says:

&#9;&#9;"I only spent forty five minutes at the party and then left to meet de Kock at the post office in Maseru. They, de Kock, Nortje, Vermeulen and Joe Snortjie(?) came to meet me there. I took them to the venue. We then left to the Victoria Hotel. They asked me to go back to the party. After the party I went home and nothing happened."

What is your comment on this?

MR NORTJE: I don't know about this.

MR LAMEY: Was there another party at any other stage? A place which was arranged and a party which was aborted?

MR NORTJE: Not that I can recall. Mr de Kock was working with him in that area, but I cannot recall that there was any planning with regard to this. I cannot place that.

MR LAMEY: Did you only go into Lesotho once for the reason of an operation where a party was arranged?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, you request amnesty for murder, conspiracy to murder, accessory to murder, attempted murder or any other offence which might flow from the facts, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Did you - on that particular day were you also in possession of a false passport?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I was.

MR LAMEY: But you did not use it at any border post?

MR NORTJE: I used it many times but not on that day.

MR LAMEY: With regard to this operation?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: And then the firearm that you had, do you know whether this was a legally issued firearm?

MR NORTJE: I received the firearm at Vlakplaas, I don't know where it came from. I assume that it was an issued weapon, although not to me.

MR LAMEY: So would you then also request amnesty for - it's more than what stands here, namely the illegal crossing of the border and transgressions which are related to that, the possession of a false passport?

MR NORTJE: I don't know, the passport was officially issued to me.

MR LAMEY: But it was not a legitimate passport.

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: And then the other aspect, any offence which might be related to the Weapons and Ammunitions Act.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I don't know whether it would be in order to perhaps deal with this in more detail during argument, perhaps be more specific then.

&#9;Mr Nortje, a final aspect. Would you like to use the opportunity here and now to tell the family and the victims something?

MR NORTJE: I want to, Chairperson. The people look at me every day and they look at me badly. I do not know what to tell you. I can only say that I am sorry. I do not know you, I do not even know the people I killed and I do not expect of you to forgive me, but I do ask for forgiveness. That is all that I can say.

MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, a final aspect. The political objective as it is set out on page 39 or 40, do you confirm what is written there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I do.

MR LAMEY: May I ask you as follows, do you have any reason to differ with the political motivation of the operation as it was explained by Gen van der Merwe? You have heard here that he gave that instruction, you did not know it.

MR NORTJE: No, I did not.

MR LAMEY: Were you yourself aware of a threat from Lesotho at that stage?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And did it come to your knowledge that there was information with regard to a specific group who were on the verge of infiltrating the country?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You also received a medal.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you receive any other remuneration except for your normal salary, for this operation?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: And then with regard to instruction and approval, you received your order from Mr de Kock.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And you understood that your presence in Ladybrand and the operation there had the knowledge of Brig Schoon.

MR NORTJE: Yes, as I have said here.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, that would be the evidence. As it pleases you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, do you have any questions?

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

&#9;Mr Nortje, ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MR HATTINGH: I would like to commence with the two statements of yours which appear in Volume 2, the first of which appears on page 65. You have already been questioned about this and you say that you do not know where this statement comes from, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: When the Goldstone Commission brought out its report with regard to Vlakplaas activities which eventually led to Mr de Kock's trial, you were one of the persons who testified before the Goldstone Commission.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And briefly after you testified you then for your own safety were taken to Denmark.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And there in Denmark you were questioned by members of the Special Investigative team which had then been appointed to investigate these allegations in the report and it was generally known as the D'Oliveira Investigation Team.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And there you made various statements. I say various but it was more than one, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Ultimately it was only the one statement, the chief statement. There were many questions but ultimately there was only one statement.

MR HATTINGH: And in which language did you make that statement?

MR NORTJE: In Afrikaans.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever afterwards upon any occasion, make any statement in English?

MR NORTJE: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Now this statement which starts from page 63, the copies in our bundles are not signed.

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever sign such a statement?

MR NORTJE: I did not make this statement.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know where this statement comes from?

MR NORTJE: I have no idea, truly.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just deal with the facts therein. I am on page 63, there you say, more-or-less in the middle of the page:

&#9;&#9;"Elvis was friends with some ANC members. Many Mini of the ANC was also a friend of his."

Did you ever have this knowledge that a person by the name of Mary was a friend of this person called Elvis?

MR NORTJE: I can say that he must have known her because I think that is where we received the name, the person's name we received from him.

MR HATTINGH: But that she was a friend of his?

MR NORTJE: I cannot say that.

MR HATTINGH: The following sentence:

&#9;&#9;"This Elvis guy set up the whole thing. He was a source for Capt Fouche of the Security Branch."

Is that correct? Did you know a Capt Fouche there?

MR NORTJE: That had to be Frik or Flip Fouche.

MR HATTINGH: But was he a Captain there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he was.

MR HATTINGH: And was Elvis his source?

MR NORTJE: Not directly his, but it was one of his people's sources.

MR HATTINGH: And then lower down the page you say:

&#9;&#9;"He, Elvis, had to report every night to us."

Is that correct as such, that he reported to you every night?

MR NORTJE: No, I think the last few days before the attack, he must have contacted Mr de Kock on a daily basis but I cannot say that he was there every nigh, it doesn't right.

MR HATTINGH: But Mr Nortje, you are once again using an expression which may possibly indicate that you do not have personal knowledge. Do you know from your own personal knowledge that Elvis reported to you every night, even until briefly before the attack?

MR NORTJE: I did not see him.

MR HATTINGH: So you could not have said something like this from your own knowledge, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And then the statement continues:

&#9;&#9;"The party had been planned but it kept on getting postponed as the guests could not attend."

In your evidence-in-chief you have already said that you do not have any knowledge of any other party that was arranged during which the attack would take place and which was then aborted, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: No, the party as I have it, was the party which would have been arranged at his house.

MR HATTINGH: And that's the only party which you have personal knowledge of?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You did not know that there was a party as it says here, planned, but it had been postponed regularly because the guests who had been invited could not attend. You do not have any such knowledge?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: So you could not have supplied this information in this statement?

MR NORTJE: No, not as it is stated there.

MR HATTINGH: And then the third-last paragraph reads:

&#9;&#9;"Leon Meyer and Jackie Quinn had already left the party and gone home by the time we got there, but Elvis knew where they stayed."

As I understand it, it means that when you arrived at the party, Leon Meyer had already left the party, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: No, that is not correct.

MR HATTINGH: You did not say anything like this to anyone?

MR NORTJE: No, because I would not have said this, I knew that is not how it happened.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Did you ever, whether you were in Denmark or thereafter, did you ever make a statement with regard to this Lesotho attack?

MR NORTJE: Not that I know of, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So the information here could not have been received from statements which you had earlier given to the investigative team?

MR NORTJE: I do not know where this thing comes from, I have no idea.

MR HATTINGH: I think you have already been asked by your legal representative with regard to the allegation on page 65:

&#9;&#9;"Elvis was paid about R30 000 to R40 000 cash for this information."

You say you did not supply that information.

MR NORTJE: The amounts are a bit too high. As I have said, the sources could not have received so much money. They did not receive R5 000 per head, so 5 X 6 is 30 and that's the closest I could get it, but as Mr de Kock said, R2 000 sounds just about right. And the amount of R25 000 was more.

MR HATTINGH: But you also said here today, Mr Nortje, that you were not present when he was paid.

MR NORTJE: No, I was not.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore you did not have any knowledge as to what the amount was?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: So you could not have supplied this information.

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall that I said this.

MR HATTINGH: But could you have, did you have such information?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: So it's not an issue that you could not recall it, you could not forget it because you did not have the information in the first place.

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. But then also with regard to, as it was known during your application, the Chand family in Botswana, with regard to that incident you also applied for amnesty, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And on page 66 we find a statement which is apparently a statement of yourself with regard to that incident.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's the same incident as the first one.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know about that incident and do you know where that come from?

MR NORTJE: I did not make this, but once again the information is not entirely incorrect.

MR HATTINGH: But you did not make any such statement in English, with regard to the Khan or the Chand family, as they were known?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And that application has already been heard, you have already received amnesty with regard to that incident, is that not so?

MR NORTJE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And during the proceedings of that application was a copy of this statement submitted?

MR NORTJE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So once again you do not know where this comes from?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And it was also not signed by you.

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. With regard to this attack, your evidence with regard to this attack, you testified that it was ten days but you said it could be seven days before the time, is it possible that your earlier information and the information that you had gathered in that regard and the realisation that this could lead to action, could you be confusing this with the preparation for this attack, or the commencement of the operation for this attack?

MR NORTJE: Do you mean that before the seven days I had to know?

MR HATTINGH: Let me make it clearer. You were already working in that area for quite some time, is that not so?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And during that time you had obtained information with regard to ANC activities in Lesotho, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not realise then that at some or other time some action may be taken against these persons in Lesotho?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we must have discussed it, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and information with regard to such intention of action could have been obtained?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is it not that you may have foreseen that attack and you're confusing that with the real preparation that had taken place for this specific attack? In other words, that the preparation for this attack, I think Mr de Kock said, three to five days before the attack had started.

MR NORTJE: The detail with regard to - I agree, the initial planning we did not have that detail, it was something that we had discussed but the detail with regard to this and the thing with McCaskill, was definitely a few days, not ten days, maybe less, but we had already known then that something like this would happen, but the finer detail only came when we started buying the rubber dinghies and that must have been five days before the time.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Nortje, you have heard Mr de Kock's evidence with regard to this.

MR NORTJE: Yes, I have.

MR HATTINGH: And his evidence is that on some day he was asked at Head Office to make a submission which he then did and that afterwards, a question of two or three hours later, he received instruction to continue with the planning for the operation and the logistics thereof. In other words, the buying of equipment and whatever. That was the first time that they realised that there would be an attack. Can you dispute that?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot dispute that they had discussed it and that at that level those preparations had been made, but ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: I shall put it even briefer. You cannot dispute that the instruction to continue with this operation was given three to five days before the operation actually took place.

MR NORTJE: No, the final decision may have been received then but I was not there.

MR HATTINGH: And before that there may have been speculation with regard to the possibility of such an attack at some point in time, is that not so?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: My learned colleague has just drawn my attention to something that I did not deal with, with regard to the previous statement, will you just return to page 67 of bundle 2. Do you know - Wouter Mentz was also a member of Vlakplaas, is that so?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: He also applied for amnesty with regard to the Chand incident, not so?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: But his application for this incident was not heard along with yours, his was heard before yours, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And indeed, when your amnesty application with regard to the Chand family was served before the Committee, Mr Mentz already had judgment passed with regard to his application, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And is it correct that Mr Mentz received amnesty for all the persons who were killed in that house except for two children?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And is it correct that when your application served before another Committee, it was surmised or determined for the first time that there were two children in the house, but not in the sense that they were minors, they were adult children somewhere in their early 20s?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And upon the fact that the previous Committee had thought that the children were minors, Mr Mentz did not receive amnesty for that.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now I would like to refer you to page 67, at the top of the page:

&#9;&#9;"The children, two of them, were in bed with their heads under the blankets. I shot one and Tait shot the other one. I picked up the blanket and saw one. He was about 14 to 15 years old. I heard later that they were paralysed, which explained why there was no reaction from them."

Did you ever say that the children you saw were 14 or 15 years old? Or may I ask you as follows, was there light in the house?

MR NORTJE: No, it was very dark and I cannot recall that I even looked.

MR HATTINGH: Can I refresh your memory, Mr Nortje? Mr de Kock's evidence with regard this, if I recall correctly, was that only later you determined that children were shot and you in regard felt very bad about that.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you cannot even recall that you had a look?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Would you have said that those children, that it was children and that one of them was approximately 14 or 15 years old?

MR NORTJE: No, that is why I do not know about this statement. In any case it's not my manner of speaking, as you would realise.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I notice that it's 4 o'clock, I'll be a little while with this witness still.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll adjourn till half past nine tomorrow.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

