=====================================================================
ON RESUMPTION: 16TH NOVEMBER 1999 - DAY 2
=====================================================================
 ON RESUMPTION: 16TH NOVEMBER 1999 - DAY 2

IZAK DANIEL BOSCH: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: There are two matters I would like to mention before we start the further hearing this morning, or rather before we start hearing further evidence. The first is, I mentioned yesterday the affidavits we had which had been handed in in earlier proceedings by Brig Engelbrecht, we have had an opportunity of reading them and it appears to us, subject to anything any of you gentlemen may wish to say about it, that although there are certain conflicts, it is not something that we feel would be relevant to raise at this hearing, unless one of the parties wishes to do so. There's a difference between this affidavit which as I said, was handed in in the past and does not deal directly with the incidents before us at the present time, and that of van Rensburg, which specifically deals with these incidents. And accordingly, although it's open to any of the parties to refer to those affidavits and to raise anything, we do not consider it necessary to take them any further.

&#9;The second matter is, I don't know if we are going to be formally handed in these photographs.

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, Adv Hattingh has just given me another copy of another photograph, just before we started, so we're going to make copies of that, so I think the best time to hand it in is for Simon Radebe's application. We will ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We would indicate that from what we've seen so far, we would like to see very much more and not these photographs of extracts, but the packaging itself. Is there such available?

MS LOCKHAT: Not as yet, Chairperson, we're still working on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if you will, because what we have would appear to be, and I'm making no findings, merely labels that were stuck onto something.

MR HATTINGH: The latest that we've found appears to be of the packaging, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, good. Well done. Is that from you?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Right, shall we continue?

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, before we commence the cross-examination on Mr Bosch, there was just one aspect that I omitted yesterday in evidence-in-chief, may I be permitted just to deal with that?

&#9;Mr Bosch, can you remember when you left Vlakplaas?

MR BOSCH: It was in August 1990.

MR LAMEY: And where did you go when you left Vlakplaas?

MR BOSCH: I went to the DCC.

MR LAMEY: Yes, it was a section of the Defence Force.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAMEY: During the post-mortem inquest of Mr Mlangeni, were you at any stage involved in the cleaning of your former office at Vlakplaas? 

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that when you left your office you tidied it up as one normally does, but beyond that you did nothing to clean things up.

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

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

&#9;Mr Bosch, when I perused your evidence at the criminal trial, I found something there which reminded me that I forgot to lead Mr de Kock's evidence with regard to this evidence. He did inform me - if necessary, I will ask leave to recall him thereon, he informed me that some of the people who listened to the telephone conversations of Mrs Coetzee, which we tapped, made notes of information contained therein which possibly could have been of importance to head office, and that he handed it over to head office, this is Mr de Kock. Are you aware thereof? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BOSCH: This is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: In your evidence in volume 2, page 219, in your evidence-in-chief, Mr Ackerman, the Advocate, asked you the following question -

&#9;&#9;"What did you then do with these tapes?"

And you said -

&#9;&#9;"We listened to them. Any important information that was on these tapes we then wrote down on paper and we then handed this over to Col de Kock in the mornings and in the morning meetings ..."

It should probably read -

&#9;&#9;"... handed it in at the head office." Because it did happen that once Col de Kock was not there and that we ourselves handed it over to Brig Schoon."

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So at a certain stage you did hand it over?

MR BOSCH: Yes, if de Kock was not there, it was me or Bellingan's duty to give it to the commander.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Just to remind you, the Sanhedrin, I think there was a daily meeting involved by the commanders of the different branches of the Security Branch.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that was the head office commander.

MR HATTINGH: And from the head office commanders.

MR BOSCH: Yes, at different desks.

MR HATTINGH: And this information was handed to them.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So at least, or most of the members of the Generals in Staff were there and they knew that Coetzee's phone, or wife's phone was tapped and that they listened to the conversations?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct. I do not know who was there, I was not involved in these meetings because my rank was far to low to be able to go there, so I just handed over the information.

MR HATTINGH: You handed it over to Brig Schoon.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But Mr de Kock also made it clear that this is why he needed this information, he needed to give it to head office.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that samples were taken of your handwriting and fingerprints were also taken?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was it only for the court case?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I presume so. 

MR HATTINGH: I cannot remember who else's fingerprints were taken, but during the course of the de Kock case, fingerprints and especially handwriting samples were once again taken from certain members of Vlakplaas. Were there any taken of you again? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson. Booyens on record.

&#9;Mr Bosch, you upon an instruction from Mr de Kock, went to Technical where you had the discussion with Mr Japie Kok, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And his reaction immediately after you talked to him, he said that you have to go to the commander, Gen du Toit.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: As I understand from Mr de Kock's evidence and what Mr du Toit had told me, he at that stage when you and Japie arrived there, he already about this plan which - let us say, that the people were busy working, and this is sending a device or a bomb to Dirk Coetzee.

Let me put it this, I inferred that at that stage you did not know that he knew about it, but was he surprised when you told him or did he ask you where this idea comes from or were his actions so that he already knew?

MR BOSCH: He was not surprised. I presume or if I think with hindsight, I'm sure he knew about this.

MR BOOYENS: Is that the impression you got?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that's correct. I can also add that I worked with them a lot, he would not allow anybody to just come in and ask people to use us without his permission. 

MR BOOYENS: So his whole action was of someone who knew about this?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Concerning the discussion between you and Japie, Mr de Kock said that you arrived there and the idea that you conveyed to him was, as he understood it, that a detonating device, for example a tape recorder, they must try and use this, but the initial idea was according to him, that a detonating device was placed in the machine section of the tape recorder and the earphones idea was not mentioned at that stage.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So from Vlakplaas you came with a an idea from Col de Kock, that you have to use something that can play music and send this to Dirk Coetzee.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: But the later details of the earphones, that came from the Technical Department.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Then I would just like you to help us in the following. At one stage we know that you bought two cassettes, or gave these two cassettes to Mr de Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you go and buy them yourself?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I did. It was one Neil Diamond and one BZN cassette.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, they were pre-recorded tapes. Out of the evidence - and out of the exhibit be submitted later, it appears that there was also another tape that was an open or clean tape and on it was written "Evidence - Hit Squads".

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you know anything about this?

MR BOSCH: Well in the court case I heard about it and afterwards, but during the time that we closed the package, me and Kobus, we only put in the music. And I mentioned yesterday that I went to the canteen and I saw this BZN tape. I cannot say specifically that was one -that specific one could have been an identical one, but that's what I thought about.

MR BOOYENS: And in any event, the "Evidence - Hit Squad", do you know anything of that one?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: So that thing was not in that packet when you and Kobus Kok closed it?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. Did I also understand you correctly, that when you left with the packet from Kobus Kok, there was nothing written on it yet?

MR BOSCH: Yes, it was clean.

MR BOOYENS: It was clean.

MR BOSCH: Completely clean, there was nothing written on it.

MR BOOYENS: Just prevent confusion, initially Japie Kok would have helped you with this?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And than at a certain stage he left and Kobus Kok, his brother who also worked at the Technical Department and who worked with the detonating device, helped you.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Could you just help us with a few other details. The first time when you went to go and buy the walkman, was it only you?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I was alone.

MR BOOYENS: Did you buy one or two?

MR BOSCH: I bought two.

MR BOOYENS: Because Mr Kok, this is now Japie Kok, remembered that you initially bought one together and possible another one was bought later on. Can it be that there's some confusion there, that at the first opportunity you only bought one and that Japie was with you?

MR BOSCH: I cannot remember that at all. 

MR BOOYENS: It was a long time ago and it is not really important detail and I'm not going to argue with you about this. Riaan Bellingan remembers that he was at one stage present when walkmans were bought. Is it possible that he went with you?

MR BOSCH: It can be.

MR BOOYENS: Now if we get to the testing of this detonating device, there's just a few aspects that I would like to clear up with you. In the first place you said that Japie Kok was present, Kobus Kok said that he was present.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct. I made a mistake yesterday, but if you go and look at my evidence in the court case ...(intervention)

MR BOOYENS: I see you spoke of the "witkop".

MR BOSCH: ... you'll see I said it's Kobus. I must have got confused at a stage.

MR BOOYENS: And that Mr Kok and Mr du Toit can recall that they and you were present at that stage, but Mr Bellingan says that he was also there, and yesterday I heard that Mr Willie Nortje was also present. The other people say that once again they cannot be dogmatic about this. What is your recollection about this?

MR BOSCH: I remember Col Wal du Toit.

MR BOOYENS: Kobus Kok?

MR BOSCH: Kobus and then also Willie, I remember Willie was there.

MR BOOYENS: And Riaan?

MR BOSCH: Bellingan I cannot recall at all.

MR BOOYENS: You cannot recall him. But you are not in a position to say that he was not there definitely.

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: The other aspect. Yesterday you said that the earphones were detonated with detonating cable. Kobus Kok orchestrated the detonation.

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: He said that he wanted to test the whole device and what happened was when the pig's head had the earphones on he left the pig's head on one side of a log and he detonated it pressing "Play" on the walkman and that detonated the bomb.

MR BOSCH: Yes, I did use detonating cables, I cannot remember exactly, but I will not deny it.

MR BOOYENS: May I just receive some instruction, Chairperson? Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

MR LAX: If I could just request your indulgence for a moment.

&#9;There was a portion - there was some evidence about the packing just before you went onto the tapes and you were going quite quickly and I missed that, would you mind just canvassing that for me again please.

MR BOOYENS: Certainly, Mr Chairman. Stop me if I'm dealing with the wrong person, please Mr Chairman.

&#9;The package - you were present, and it was wrapped and the walkman and the two tapes were put into the package and it was done by Kobus Kok.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: But no names were written on the parcel at that stage.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was this?

MR BOSCH: At Rebecca Street in Pretoria West, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?

MR BOSCH: Rebecca Street, at Technical Department.

MR BOOYENS: Yesterday you said you cannot remember if you took the package immediately with you that day. Riaan Bellingan says that you left together with the package.

MR BOSCH: I cannot deny that.

MR BOOYENS: It was then left in your office.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And then at a later stage you saw that somebody wrote something on it with a koki pen.

MR BOSCH: Yes, I saw it in the bag and I saw the following - I do not know if I can put this in, I saw that written in koki pen on the parcel.

MR BOOYENS: That is the address of Cheadle Thompson and Haysom.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we were going to hand this in later, I think we now have to.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. 

MS LOCKHAT: Exhibit D.

CHAIRPERSON: This will be D.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman, and it's ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Or let's say this will be D1, and when we get the other we can make it D2.

MR BOOYENS: Fine, Mr Chairman. The witness actually referred also - perhaps we should hand that in also if that Cheadle Thompson and Haysom one can then be D1, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well no, the whole bundle is D1.

MR BOOYENS: Oh, D1, fine. 

CHAIRPERSON: Or shouldn't we just - sorry, my colleague says, let's call it bundle D, it will page D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and so we go on.

MR BOOYENS: Certainly, Mr Chairman. 

&#9;And you don't bear any knowledge of who wrote on that package and you do not know who that tape, that's written "Evidence - Hit Squads" - if it appeared on the package, you do not know how it appeared on it.

MR BOSCH: Yes, I also do not know who tied the package with rope, I also didn't do that, it was only a parcel that was covered or wrapped.

MR BOOYENS: And which was closed with masking tape.

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Can you remember at a certain stage you went back to your office and you heard from Mr Bellingan that he went to go and post the parcel. Can you help the Committee, how long was the parcel in your office before it disappeared or was posted by somebody?

MR BOSCH: I cannot remember, I do not know.

MR BOOYENS: But it was not a few hours?

MR BOSCH: No, no, it wasn't hours, it was a few days.

MR BOOYENS: A few days. Very well. Mr Chairman, through you, I don't know whether I've covered the part that Mr Lax was interested in. Thank you.

MR LAX: No, I'm indebted to you, thank you very much.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I try to clarify something.

&#9;You were there when the parcel was wrapped up.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What was it wrapped in?

MR BOSCH: Brown paper, ordinary brown paper.

CHAIRPERSON: Ordinary plain brown paper?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because looking at this photograph D2, not only has someone written on it with koki pen, there is printed the words "Name and Address of Sender/Naam en Adres van Sender" and there are a lot of dotted lines on which to write, and then in large type underneath "PACK PARCEL SECURELY AND PREVENT DAMAGE" and then numbers. 

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now all that was not on the package that you helped wrap up at the office in Rebecca Street.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson, I presume this might be a sticker which was pasted on and then these things were written on it.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was a sticker, it wasn't part of the brown paper.

MR LAX: This pre-printed stuff is what you would normally put on an international insured parcel.

MR BOSCH: I presume that, yes, Chairperson.

MR LAX: I don't intend to give evidence, but I have sent parcels overseas and it's identical to that.

MR BOSCH: I presume so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now we've been given D6.

MR LAX: Mr Bosch, you saw when this thing was still in your office and was obviously inside this white plastic packet that you spoke about, you saw this writing already on it.

MR BOSCH: This in the black koki pen I saw, Chairperson.

MR LAX: This sort - something like that anyway.

MR BOSCH: Yes, something like that, yes.

MR LAX: I mean it's a bit much to expect you to say this was the exact writing.

MR BOSCH: No, I just looked down into the packet, into the bag, I saw the black koki and I didn't touch the packet because of fingerprints, I just left it.

MR LAX: Yes. And did you see what contained on D6? These appear to be pre-typed or computer generated printing or ...

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I did not see this. I do not know on which side of the parcel it was pasted. It could be that this was on the top.

MR LAX: Because one would expect that unless somebody went to the post office to get these pre-printed forms and then stuck it on the thing ...(intervention)

MR BOSCH: That was my assumption, yes.

MR LAX: ... this is what would normally be filled in at the post office. When you went in to send the thing off they'd give you these things and say "Fill this out" etc.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, yes.

MR LAX: Do you know anything about the label or envelope or whatever it might be, on D1, which appears to be something quite different?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, I do not know what this is.

MR LAX: It seems to indicate that the parcel ended up at some central international depot before coming back to South Africa.

MR BOSCH: It is possible, but I do not know anything about it.

MR RAUTENBACH: May I interrupt at this stage of the proceedings. May I suggest that the parties be allowed to complete their cross-examination before the elaborate questioning from the Panel. I'm saying that with all respect, due to the fact that the parties having compiled information about this, may just be in a position to get to some of those issues a bit sooner than the elaborate process that happening with the Panel trying to make out what's basically depicted on the documents.

MR LAX: Very well.

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

&#9;Mr Bosch, I represent the family. I would just immediately like to say to you, one of the most important issues for the family during the hearings is that the whole truth must come out, or to be as close as possible to the true facts. There are a few things that are not quite clear at this stage for us and I would immediately like to begin in showing you D6. If you look at it you will see that on D6 there appears an address -

&#9;&#9;"From:"

And then there's -

&#9;&#9;"Bheki"

And then beneath that -

&#9;&#9;"Cheadle Thompson and Haysom (which of course is not spelt correctly) Geldenhuys Building, Denhill."

It is very interesting, and I'd like to indicate this to you, Geldenhuys Building was the building where at that stage they were and that Denhill was the building where they were before. So the address is not correct, two addresses appear. Then you will see that it says -

&#9;&#9;"Jorrison Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg"

And below we have -

&#9;&#9;"To: D J Coetzee, P O Box 34077, Lusaka. Zambia."

Now that was something - according to my recollection, the addresses that were found on the package. Would you agree with me that that was possibly a typewriter or a computer print-out that we can see?

MR BOSCH: Yes, it does seem like that. 

MR RAUTENBACH: Now what I would like to know from you, Mr Bosch, is that when you discussed this matter with Mr de Kock, you certainly would have discussed certain aspects such as how this operation will be executed, who will wrap the parcel, who will write the addresses on it.

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, it is not like that, my task was the facilitation between Vlakplaas and the Technical Department, in order to present the final product, and that is what I did. We worked on a need-to-know basis. The following person who had to deal with the sending of the parcel, he would have known about that. My task stopped the day when we wrapped it and completed it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well just look at - it seems in any event, if one looks at D6, and I'm sure there are photographs that could explain it more, that this specific sticker was stuck on the parcel and you said you did not see it.

MR BOSCH: No, I didn't.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you just tell me, Mr Bosch, does it make sense if I tell you that the reason why it was typed or a computer print-out was used of the address is that it was used in order not to use the handwriting of certain people? Does that make sense?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And can I take it further by saying that is that was the modus operandi to use typewriting and to put this on top of the parcel, if that was the purpose - and you say it makes sense that it was not handwriting, it would have been ridiculous to then write somewhere else on the package.

MR BOSCH: Yes, it does seem logical.

MR RAUTENBACH: If we look at the document D2, that is the black koki pen writing to which you refer, that in this case it possibly could have been a document that was filled in in the post office.

MR BOSCH: Or before, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Or before the time.

MR BOSCH: ...(indistinct) pasted on the package. It wouldn't have been at the post office if it was in the office with this black writing. I assume that they got the sticker from the post office, they took it somewhere, filled it in and stuck it on the parcel.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you will agree with me that it will not make sense that if you go to all the trouble of printing it out and then get a sticker from the post office and then write it in somebody's handwriting.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: If you also look at D2, it does not seem, or if you look at the photocopy it does not seem as if it was something that was stuck on the parcel.

MR BOSCH: I cannot say, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely it does look as if it was something that was stuck on? 

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't say looking at the photocopy, it doesn't look as if ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Maybe I should just qualify that.

&#9;That is was something that probably was put on the parcel at the stage when the parcel was sent from the post office. That is a possibility, do you concede?

MR BOSCH: It's a possibility, but I remember when I looked in the packet I saw black writing in koki pen. That I remember.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I would just like to refer you to this document on D5. As far as I can understand - and I would like to place this on record, it appears in the inquest proceedings records, even the sections that were relevant here, that what is spoken of here is a type of yellow paper, a yellow etiquette which is mainly used internationally. It is a yellow etiquette, it's a sort of international organisation which has to do with postal items and it is usually filled in internationally. And you will see if we look at the record, there were very strong indications that this document could have been filled in in Lusaka, because at that stage it was something that was not used in South Africa a lot, but was something that was used more internationally. It is a yellow form that gets filled in at post offices world-wide. Among other, in French there's also an indication - well, the language on the thing is in French. I don't know if you saw that. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BOSCH: I did see it, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you at no stage I presume, when you saw the package, saw a yellow label of this nature?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, I did not see it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well you will remember that we are talking about ordinary brown paper. I do not know if you saw the inquest's proceedings records, but there was a strong emphasis placed by both the representatives of the South African Police, as well as the Attorney-General's office, that both those parties emphasised that everything that they could get back after the bomb detonated - that is now the paper that it was wrapped in, the specific walkman that was used, the electrical wiring in it, anything that was found, both the State and the Attorney-General took the stand that all of this material came from an Eastern European origin. Did you hear that?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson. I know Filtron is in the East side of Pretoria, but it not in of Eastern ...(intervention) 

MR RAUTENBACH: I would just like to place this in context. The yellow label that was found, the theory was also that it came from outside of South Africa.

MR BOSCH: I cannot say, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well has anyone tried to check up on the number of the dispatching office? If you look at the label, under heading 10 on the label, it's -

&#9;&#9;"Dispatching Office of Exchange: IATA Code: S101."

Has that number got any meaning, has it been checked on?

MR RAUTENBACH: As far as I know - let me just see, where do you see the dispatching number?

CHAIRPERSON: 10.

MR LAX: It's in the third box on the left of that photostat.

MR RAUTENBACH: I will have to look at the record, but there was definitely - I think there was - the way I recall it, there was an attempt to establish, but at the end of the day the dispatching number led to nothing, it wasn't possible to connect that with any specific place. You will also know that it was changed. There was a lot of investigation around that point, but as far as memory serves me, it didn't actually lead to anything significant, the fact that it was changed. 

&#9;May I just ask you in this regard once again, this issue, and I just want you to understand what is meant by this, the issue is that there was an in-depth investigation which was conducted, in-depth, with regard to every piece of paper, the wrapping, the electrical wiring and its insulation, the thickness thereof and everything which was retrieved was examined and the conclusion, even the cardboard which was used for the package was examined and the ultimate conclusion was reached that this was a foreign item, it was not something which was manufactured in South Africa. Do you not know about this?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: Very well. Then I would like to ask you about the following. Do you say, or do you know whether any discussions took place between the Technical Division, particularly Mr Japie or Kobus Kok and Mr Eugene de Kock, with regard to how the package was supposed to be prepared?

MR BOSCH: No, I don't believe that he would have been involved with that, he received the order, he gave it to me, I went to them, and as I've said, I was the facilitator. So he might have visited the place one day and wanted to find out how far it was, but he would not have been in-depth involved with the whole process.

MR RAUTENBACH: You see what I don't understand is, when you say, and you have basically conceded, that the idea of the bomb was apparently taken further by the Technical Division, by saying well, a walkman bomb with the explosives in the headphones.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now when we arrive at that point, what we don't understand is you say "Here's the idea, go ahead, and the Technical Division - if I've listened to your evidence, then would have decided "Well, we will print out the addresses on a computer, we will make out the addresses and place them on the package, we will also manufacture the extra tape upon which we will bring about the words 'Extra Evidence - Hit Squads'". That just doesn't make any sense to me.

MR BOSCH: Well it doesn't make any sense to me either, I would also like clarity about it. Because you see, the original plan was to compile the package, even though they decided what would be manufacture, and the two music cassettes would be incorporated. I was present when there cassettes were incorporated. That was the original plan. I don't know who came after the time, opened the package and replaced certain items. I don't know how that took place.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well if we examine the evidence of Mr de Kock, his evidence in that regard makes much more sense to me, that being that it was the decision for two cassettes to be incorporated, that a Neil Diamond cassette would be sent because it would most probably set Coetzee at ease because it would appear to be someone who knew him quite well and who was aware of his musical tastes, but the cassettes with the "Hit Squad", was probably the most significant or the most persuasive item which could be sent to him which would indicate something that was for his purposes. You have no evidence about this Hit Squad tape?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you say that in your presence that package was sealed.

MR BOSCH: Yes, we wrapped the package with Kobus Kock, in Rebecca Street. He can give further evidence about this when he testifies.

MR RAUTENBACH: So what your evidence actually boils down to is that after the package was sealed, someone tampered with the package, it had to be opened ...(intervention)

MR BOSCH: That is my inference.

MR RAUTENBACH: ... and one tape must have been removed and replaced with another.

MR BOSCH: That is why I have stated in my affidavit that I saw the BZN cassette in the canteen. As I've stated I could not say that it was the tape that I purchased, but it was the same as the tape that I purchased.

MR RAUTENBACH: If I understand your evidence correctly, and you can tell me whether I am necessarily fair in making the following inference, according to your evidence - and I'm saying only according to your version, it boils down to the fact that the moment that the idea of the walkman, as qualified by the Technical Division of Demolition’s with regard to the explosives in the headphones, the moment when that decision was made, the rest was carried out by the Technical Division.

MR BOSCH: Yes, the work was completed by them, but it stopped at the addressing of the item. They would not have addressed and posted the item.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you said that you received it and you maintain that part ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: No, no, just a moment please ...(intervention)

MR BOSCH: We took the packet from Technical Division, there was nothing on the package, it was finished. There was nothing on the package and I took it to the farm and nothing had been written on it. We took it to my office and I saw it there on my desk in my office and I saw this black section on it. So somebody must have already addressed it and I don't know who that person it, I cannot tell you.

MR LAX: You're mike, Mr Rautenbach, sorry.

MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you.

&#9;So what you are actually saying is that while it was in the office, someone must have tampered with the package?

MR BOSCH: Correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you have said that those who had access to your office were you and Mr de Kock, because both of you had sets of keys.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: But someone must have conducted the business of bringing the address onto the object in your absence.

MR BOSCH: Yes, or he could have taken it out of my office and returned it to my office because I wasn't present in my office on the farm the whole day.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then there is just another aspect ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He said "other people". He said in his evidence, as I recall it, that "other people" had access to his office and from time to time he found things missing there, which he had to replace.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: As I understand your evidence, and perhaps I may have misunderstood it to some extent, because certain items disappeared, basically only you and Mr de Kock had sets of keys.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: So these were actually measures that you took due to the fact that things disappeared. 

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: It was in order to improve the security System.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now with regard to the further aspect which I wanted to examine you about, at Vlakplaas, during that time, as far as you experienced it, what was Mr de Kock's attitude towards Mr Coetzee?

MR BOSCH: I think he was severely disappointed, I think all of us were disappointed because we worked very hard in building up the farm to the point that it had reached and now it was just a question of a week in which it was completely de-constructed.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just quality the use of the word "disappointed" and perhaps replace it with "extremely angry"?

MR BOSCH: Yes, angry perhaps.

MR RAUTENBACH: What was your attitude, tell me yourself, when you heard that a package was being manufactured for Coetzee? How did you associate yourself with the idea, did you think it was a good idea, did you want to see it brought to execution successfully?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I wanted it to be successfully executed. 

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I also assume that at Vlakplaas, I would probably be correct in saying that the policemen of Vlakplaas in either event, would all have supported it.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you have the impression that what Coetzee had done was in effect an assault on Vlakplaas itself?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And as you stated, Vlakplaas was injured as a result of this.

MR BOSCH: Yes, Vlakplaas and the Security Branch and the police and ultimately the government, because the government would have to defend the allegations.

MR RAUTENBACH: At that stage, am I correct in saying that with regard to Vlakplaas, the Harms Commission - Coetzee testified before the Harms Commission, and all these allegations that appeared in the papers, as well as the allegations about Vlakplaas were made at the Harms Commission?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: So if I were to ask you as follows, was there anything further that Coetzee could get up to with regard to Vlakplaas, with the exception of what he had already stated, that you know about?

MR BOSCH: No, not that I know of.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

CHAIRPERSON: But we do know he had yet to testify about Neethling and his activities.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination? Oh, sorry.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: You are excused, Chairperson. 

&#9;I just want to check with you, how long was Dirk Coetzee and his family under observation?

MR BOSCH: We must have worked on them for about a month.

MS LOCKHAT: You said that at stages you reported to Schoon, regarding your observations and so forth and the tape recordings.

MR BOSCH: That is correct. Not various times, I do recall one specific time - I think Bellingan also went to him one specific time and conveyed these matters to him.

MS LOCKHAT: So why did you report to him instead?

MR BOSCH: Because my commander, Mr de Kock, may have been out of town so he would not have been to attend such a meeting, therefore I had to go directly to the Brigadier.

MS LOCKHAT: Was he above van Rensburg, or was van Rensburg ...?

MR BOSCH: Van Rensburg replaced Schoon after he went on pension.

MS LOCKHAT: And who was your direct commander?

MR BOSCH: Col de Kock.

MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, how long did this whole operation last, to prepare and to plan this package?

MR BOSCH: Three weeks to a month.

MS LOCKHAT: So the surveillance, did the surveillance last about a month and then the whole operation took another month to arrange?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, the observation had been undertaken, the cassettes had been listened to and the package was in the process of manufacturing.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to come to the issue of the orders. In the criminal trial you explicitly stated that the issue of surveillance and the tapping system, that that came directly from headquarters and de Kock had informed you of that.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Now I want to ask you another question relating to the orders the de Kock had given you in preparing the package. Did he explicitly tell you - because as far as I can read from the criminal trial, you didn't say that that specific order came from head office.

MR BOSCH: I think somewhere in one of my documents I stated that Mr de Kock told me that it came from head office.

MS LOCKHAT: I don't see any ...(intervention)

MR BOSCH: But I wouldn't have questioned him about it.

MS LOCKHAT: Just for the reference, page 217 of bundle 1 and 218 also of - bundle 2, sorry Chairperson, and then also on page 247 and 248, the applicant talks about the instructions and the orders and it specifically pertains only to that of the surveillance and the tapping and so forth. Just for the record, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 217?

MS LOCKHAT: Correct, Chairperson, just at the bottom of 217, the last paragraph, that's his evidence-in-chief. The last paragraph states -

&#9;&#9;"Were any steps taken with regard to Dirk Coetzee himself?"

And his response -

&#9;&#9;"Yes, Your Honour, we were supposed to find out where he was. So we did. His telephones were tapped and observation of undertaken of his house, his family were followed."

&#9;&#9;"Who gave the orders?"

&#9;&#9;"Col de Kock, but it came from head office."

And then just as well - then Adv Hattingh then also refers to that specific instruction, which is on page 247 of bundle 2, and just the last few lines there he says -

&#9;&#9;"He said this to you?"

&#9;&#9;"I know it for a fact, yes."

&#9;&#9;"How do you know this, Mr Bosch?"

&#9;&#9;"Because he said it to me."

And that all pertains to the evidence, just in relation to the observation surveillance and the tapping, and nowhere in the evidence does it relate to specific orders that came from head office. 

&#9;Just one other question I want to ask you, you also stated that the issue of the tapping system, those were orders that came from head office, that it was allowed and so you assumed that it came from head office.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Could Mr de Kock go to Rebecca Street himself and just ask one of his colleagues there to organise this tapping system? Did he have to go directly to head office or was it possible for him to just speak to the people involved in those types of things?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, I have a very limited knowledge about this tapping. What would happen is that one would have to compose a motivation, this would go to the post office and then the Commissioner would have to undersign this motivation and what would then happen is, say for example with Rebecca Street, there are two telephone plugs - let's say there are two plugs that you can plug telephones into, these lines are relayed from the post office directly to that place and that is where we would obtain the information. So it wasn't that the Technical Division at Rebecca Street would undertake this, the post office would be involved in organising it. It was the police department and the telephone department who would collaborate in achieving this.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to refer you to bundle 1. Chairperson, page 92, it the seventh line, page 92 of the bundle. You stated in your amnesty application form -

&#9;&#9;"The address of Dirk Coetzee was provided by Security Head Office."

Can you just explain to me as to who provided the address at Security, or do you have any knowledge of that?

MR BOSCH: No, I don't, I simply understood that the address was obtained from head office. I cannot say that this person or that person obtained the address.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just three lines further down you stated, on the same page, 92 -

&#9;&#9;"His address was used as the sender's address on the package, in order to obliterate any suspicion Coetzee ..."

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: 

&#9;&#9;"... regarding the package which was sent to him."

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Then just interesting enough, you further state -

&#9;&#9;"The cassette which was placed in the cassette player was marked 'Hit Squad - Evidence'."

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: I don't see in your application that you refer to these Neil Diamond cassettes, you just refer to these "Hit Squad - Evidence" tapes.

MR BOSCH: This was simply a summary of everything that I knew after the court case, all other matters or facts which came to my attention, and as I stated, this must be read with the evidence-in-chief and the evidence which was given in court.

MS LOCKHAT: But you knew in your amnesty application that you had to give the version that you yourself were involved in?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, involved in what?

MS LOCKHAT: His role in the activities and exactly what he knew, referring to the Neil Diamond cassettes and so forth. He was just very vague here and he refers just to the one cassette, which is the "Hit Squad - Evidence".

MR LAMEY: No, but he said it, in his application he also refers to his evidence in the de Kock ...(intervention)

MS LOCKHAT: I understand that, I'm just asking the applicant.

&#9;Is it possible that there were two packages? Is it possible that two packages were made up and sent?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, not at all. I don't believe that that would have happened.

MS LOCKHAT: You also said to us that you yourself initially thought that you were the only contact person with Rebecca Street.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that's correct, because I'd worked with them during the past.

MS LOCKHAT: But then later on you discovered that actually de Kock had, he'd actually gone there previously to when you had gone.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you find that strange?

MR BOSCH: No, not at all.

MS LOCKHAT: Then just the last point. Did you report back at any stage, to Schoon or van Rensburg, regarding this particular incident?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, not at all, only to Col de Kock.

MS LOCKHAT: Seeing that you had contact with Schoon for instance, you told him "We're monitoring this person and this is what we found", didn't you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say that, he said that on one occasion when de Kock was not available, he took the transcript or the note that had been prepared.

MS LOCKHAT: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Not that he told Schoon "We are monitoring this person".

MR BOSCH: No.

MS LOCKHAT: Was Schoon aware that you were monitoring the person?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, he requested information every day. He knew that Vlakplaas was working on this.

MS LOCKHAT: So just - the question is, was there any follow-up communication between yourselves and Schoon for instance, as to "Listen, we sent off this package", etc., etc?

MR BOSCH: No, not at all.

MS LOCKHAT: And just why not?

MR BOSCH: That wasn't my job, I was a Sergeant and Brig Schoon was a Brigadier. A Sergeant wouldn't walk up to a Brigadier and say "Listen, I've done this now and I've done that now", we had channels though which we had to work.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you know whether Mr de Kock reported back to van Rensburg or to Schoon or anybody in relation to this incident?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I believe he would have done so, he had to have done so.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

MR LAX: Sorry, can I just clarify one thing. I was struck by what you said, that this parcel was naked, you used another term to describe that, but in any event, did you actually see all the sides of the parcel before it was put in the white packet?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson, because we wrapped it. I was standing there wrapping the package and it had nothing on it and then it was placed in the bag. There was nothing on that package.

MR LAX: There weren't these typed or computer-generated labels, nothing at all?

MR BOSCH: Nothing, nothing, there was nothing on that thing.

MR LAX: Okay. And then what did you actually do with the parcel, you took it ...(intervention)

MR BOSCH: ... took it back to the farm for the next operator to start working with the parcel, because my duty was now done, it was no finished.

MR LAX: Yes, but the parcel was in your office.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: So who was the next operator that would work on it?

MR BOSCH: Bellingan.

MR LAX: Did you speak to Bellingan and say to him "Listen, the parcel's here", did you hand it over to him?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I suspect that I had given it to him.

MR LAX: So you must have given it to him.

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR LAX: Did he work on it in your office?

MR BOSCH: I cannot say, Chairperson, I really do not know.

MR LAX: And then you say your next recollection is that the parcel is back on your table.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, with the paper on.

MR LAX: And it has koki writing on it.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAX: And then when you looked at some of these pictures on Annexure D, you said the koki writing was similar to that on D2.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAX: Now what I'm interested in is, was the writing on the brown paper or was it on a label?

MR BOSCH: No, I cannot say that, I simply looked into the packet and I saw that there was handwriting, I couldn't see what it was written on.

MR LAX: But the label wasn't on yet at that stage and all there was, was some ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) the label was not on it?

MR LAX: Well it's quite possible that there may have been other koki writing just on the brown paper.

MR BOSCH: No, I cannot say. All that I know is that I saw black handwriting which was written with a koki pen, whether it was on a label or not, I cannot say.

MR LAX: Then you never saw any of the other faces so to speak, of this cube-like object? In other words, if you think that here is a parcel, it's rectangular in shape, but cubely rectangular, if you understand what I mean ...

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: ... there's six faces to it. You didn't see the other faces?

MR BOSCH: I never took it out of the packet.

MR LAX: Thanks, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it one of the reasons why, was that you didn't want your fingerprints anywhere there.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because as I understand your evidence, when you were wrapping up the parcel the two of you both wore rubber gloves.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Bosch, the choice of the pig's head, was it not motivated by the anger you people had with regard to Mr Dirk Coetzee?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, the pig's head had absolutely nothing to do with that. They asked me to buy a sheep's head and I had to purchase this with money from the Secret Fund, so one had to be frugal, and when I saw what a sheep's head cost, I thought that it was too expensive, I wasn't going to buy this just to destroy it ultimately and that's why I opted for the pig's head, which was a third of the price.

MR SIBANYONI: The fact that Dirk Coetzee had already spoken to the Vryeweekblad and had given evidence before the Harms Commission, the damage had already been done, was it not only to get to him just to revenge for what he has done, when the bomb was sent?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I cannot say that it was solely for revenge, there was an order from my commander,

we were told what to do and I did it.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't know of any other reason why he should be killed at that time?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Bosch, if we could re-examine the last question. I know that you yourself were not directly involved in all the motivations and you were simply carrying out orders, but the further ripple effect and further possible evidence which could emanate as a result of disclosures made by Coetzee, would you say that at that stage this was also a very clear and present danger, not only with regard to his evidence in court cases but also with regard to other persons who may or may not come forward, should he give further evidence?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: So did you regard this as a damage-control action, so to speak?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is possible.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, there's just one other thing.

&#9;Your primary task was to liaise with Technical in order to prepare the package.

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Once the package was made up, is it correct to say that it was wrapped in brown paper?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And in what was the walkman placed?

MR BOSCH: In a cardboard box.

MR LAMEY: And then you say that as far as you know, Mr Bellingan would have been involved in sending the package.

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, those are my only questions in re-examination, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, we can move on to the next amnesty applicant, which is Simon Radebe, after this applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we'll take the adjournment at this stage and we'll then continue.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Right. 

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I call Mr Radebe? He will testify in Sotho.

NAME:&#9;SIMON M RADEBE

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

MR SIBANYONI: Please stand and give us your full names.

SIMON MAKOPO RADEBE: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Sworn in, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

&#9;Mr Radebe, you are an applicant in this matter and your application appears on page 207 of bundle 1, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Before I deal with the facts of this particular incident, I would just like to lead you on certain other issues that you've given evidence about before. You are being treated by psychiatrists for post-traumatic stress syndrome, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You've mentioned their names, I think a Doctor Potgieter was one, Doctor Stella Verster was one and I think you said there was another one.

MR RADEBE: J P Verster as well.

MR HATTINGH: It doesn't matter, but for how long have you been treated by these people?

MR RADEBE: It's quite a long time now.

MR HATTINGH: And are you still being treated by them?

MR RADEBE: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now is it also correct that you suffer from a very severe degree of diabetes?

MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And does that affect your memory?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You've also undergone bypass heart surgery, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And I believe that you've been hospitalised recently for about a week again, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: 12 days, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: 12 days. And you had to go for tests again yesterday, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you were informed by your doctors that pending on the outcome of those tests, you may have to undergo surgery and if that becomes necessary, you will have to undergo surgery tomorrow, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now you were a policeman attached to Unit C1 at Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And your evidence about the Dirk Coetzee and Bheki Mlangeni matter is set out on pages 207 to 210, do you confirm the correctness of the allegations contained herein?

MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you briefly give us your version, what is your knowledge about the attempt on the life of Mr Coetzee and the killing of Mr Mlangeni.

MR RADEBE: I remember on that day when we went to the post office, I was together with W/O Bellingan and W/O John Tait.

MR HATTINGH: Did they request you to accompany them somewhere?

MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson, they informed me that - they asked me as to whether am I doing something at the farm, then I said no, then they requested me to accompany them.

MR HATTINGH: And where did you go to with them?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember as to whether we went to Braamfontein post office or which one.

MR HATTINGH: Was it a post office in Johannesburg?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson, it was in Johannesburg.

MR HATTINGH: And why did they want you to accompany them to that particular post office?

MR RADEBE: They informed me that the person who was sending messages to Dirk Coetzee, was a black person, so it would be otherwise if white members would deliver that parcel to him.

MR HATTINGH: So were you requested to hand in the parcel at the post office?

MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You've just said something about Dirk Coetzee, were you informed that that parcel was being sent to Mr Dirk Coetzee?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Did you then hand in the parcel?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: To your recollection, Mr Radebe, did you have to write anything on the parcel itself?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was everything that had to be written on it, already there when you received it?

MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: Just a minute, Chairperson, the applicant is on the wrong channel, he was supposed to be on Sotho, he's now on English.

MR LAX: What channel is Sotho, just for our assistance?

INTERPRETER: Channel 3.

MR LAX: Thank you. Channel 3.

INTERPRETER: We may continue, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You said, Mr Radebe, you said that it wasn't necessary for you to write anything on the parcel before you handed it in.

MR RADEBE: If I remember well that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you recall whether you had to fill out any forms or any slips whatsoever?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And do you recall whether you were handed anything by the official behind the counter?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember, Chairperson, if that is so, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: If you've been given anything, what would you have done with it?

MR RADEBE: I would deliver that to Balletjies, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but you say you have no recollection of having received anything and having handed it over to him.

MR RADEBE: I do recall, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Mr Radebe, do you recall that you were arrested by a Warrant Officer, or he may have been a Captain already at that time, Homes, for the attempt on the life of Mr Coetzee and the murder of Mr Bheki Mlangeni and for other offences as well, whilst the de Kock trial was in progress?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I remember, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And were you on that occasion, requested to furnish Mr Homes with specimens of your handwriting?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And as a matter of course, your fingerprints were also taken.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know what he did with the specimen of the handwriting that he obtained from you?

MR RADEBE: I do not know, Chairperson, but I learnt that he was happy that he found the right person.

MR HATTINGH: He thought at the time, that you were the person who had written the address of the sender on the package, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you write that name and address on the package?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I don't know whether Ms Lockhat is in possession of the affidavits which were obtained from a Colonel Hattingh, he was a handwriting expert employed by the South African Police.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR HATTINGH: He's no relation of mine, so I can't vouch for that, Mr Chairman. We are in possession of copies thereof and although it doesn't appear from the affidavit itself, that the person whose handwriting he compared with the writing on the document, is the handwriting of Mr Radebe. We have established that that is - during the course of the criminal trial, it was established that Col Hattingh made an affidavit, dated the 3rd of November 1994, in paragraph 3 thereof he says - 

&#9;&#9;"On the 27.10.1994, during the execution of my official duties I received the following exhibits by hand, in relation to Jabulani M R, from Detective W/O Barnard ..."

And then 3.1 -

&#9;&#9;".. one address sticker addressed to Cheadle Thompson and Haysom, one insured address sticker addressed to Mr D Coetzee, one etiquette of a sound cassette holder with the words 'Evidence - Hit Squads" and one postal document in an envelope marked B."

And then 3.2 -

&#9;&#9;"Handwriting sample of one person, in an envelope marked A."

...(transcriber's interpretation)

&#9;Now at the trial, Mr Chairman, it was established that that person whose handwriting was received in the enveloped marked A, was the handwriting of Mr Radebe, which Mr Homes obtained from him at the time of Mr Radebe's arrest. And then if I may just refer you to paragraph 5 of the affidavit -

&#9;&#9;"After an investigation and comparison, I found that the person who wrote sample writings was not responsible for the writing on any of the documents."

&#9;I don't personally thing it's necessary for this affidavit to be handed it, but if you feel that it should go in, I am prepared to make it available.

CHAIRPERSON: Does anybody dispute it?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it should go on record that nobody indicated that they disputed the contents of the affidavit.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

&#9;Now Mr Radebe, were you aware that the parcel which you handed in at the post office contained an explosive device?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson, I did not know.

MR HATTINGH: Subsequently, when Mr Mlangeni was killed, did you obtain any information about his death?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember who informed me that the package which we took to the police station - I don't know as to whether it was Balletjies who informed me, I don't want to lie about that one, then I was informed that that package has exploded. Then I did not report anywhere. Because during our time if you report this kind of a thing you know that that was the end of you, you'll meet your fate.

MR HATTINGH: Although you then realised that Vlakplaas was responsible for the death of Mr Bheki Mlangeni, you decided to say nothing and to do nothing about that information which you obtained.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

MR BOOYENS: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

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

&#9;Mr Radebe, when you took this parcel to the post office, can I just ask you, can remember which post office this was?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember as to whether it was Braamfontein, but I know that it was somewhere in Johannesburg. I don't remember.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Can you remember who you gave this parcel to at the post office?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember the person directly, but it was inside the post office. I don't remember as to whether it was a black person or a white person.

MR LAMEY: Was it a postal clerk?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, at the counter where they receive parcels.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Can you recall if you went alone into the post office or if somebody went with you?

MR RADEBE: I left Balletjies and John Tait inside the car, then I went to the post office alone.

MR LAMEY: What is your recollection, did the official of the post office just receive it and then deal with it, or were there forms that had to be filled in?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember about the forms, Chairperson, which they needed to be filled.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall if something was written on this parcel in a black pen?

MR RADEBE: Yes, there were some writings there as to where it was going and who is the person responsible for sending the parcel.

MR LAMEY: Do you know who this was?

MR RADEBE: If I remember well it was directed to Mr Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: Do you know who was responsible for the sending of the parcel, who wrote the address on it?

MR RADEBE: The sender, it seems it came from lawyers for human rights, if I remember well.

MR LAMEY: Mr Radebe, can you just look at Exhibit D2, if your legal representative could just hand it over to you. Did you see it before?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What is correct, that you saw it before?

MR RADEBE: I saw it in the car that who was the sender and who was the receiver of that parcel.

MR LAMEY: But that which appears on Exhibit D, is that what you are talking about, that which was written in a black pen and which you saw on the package? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR RADEBE: If I remember correctly, Chairperson, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: If you say that if you could recall, are you not sure or what is the position?

MR RADEBE: These things happened a long time ago, therefore I'm not able to recall or confirm, but the way Balletjies informed me, there was the name of a black person there, but I don't remember well.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that you were asked at the post office to complete forms and to write an address on the parcel and that you just forgot about that?

MR RADEBE: Chairperson, I would say yes, and again I would not say no, but I recollect well, I know nothing. If I remember well I wrote nothing.

MR LAMEY: Can you remember - I'm not talking about when samples were taking of your handwriting and fingerprints for the de Kock case, but while you were at Vlakplaas, that at one stage a Capt Kritzinger came and took samples of handwriting and fingerprints, can you remember that? That was for the court hearing.

MR RADEBE: It's not myself only, writing samples were taken from many people and I was party to that.

MR LAMEY: My instructions are that it was not at Vlakplaas, but at head office, can you remember that?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you also remember that you were requested to provide handwriting samples and fingerprints?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson, I was not alone. At the head office we were many who were requested to do the same.

MR LAMEY: Very well, I will not argue that, that there were other people who were also requested to do it, but you were one of them, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje's recollection about this was that at that opportunity you were very nervous and that you told him that you did not give the same sample of handwriting in the way that you usually write, can you remember that?

MR RADEBE: There is no such, I've never said such to Nortje.

MR LAMEY: Very well. That was my instructions and that is why I put it to you. He also says that for that reason he thought that you were the person who wrote the address on the parcel.

MR RADEBE: That is not true.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

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

&#9;Why do you think that the sender of the parcel was lawyers for human rights?

MR RADEBE: Balletjies told me that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you - if that is what he told you, what else did he tell you? Just give us a summary of what he told you then.

MR RADEBE: From the farm he told me why I was requested to be the one to enter the post office, because this parcel was being sent to Dirk Coetzee from the lawyers for human rights and it seemed to have sent by Bheki Mlangeni and therefore they shouldn't be surprise these people, they shouldn't question why I'm sending it because they would see that it's a black man sending it for a black man to Dirk Coetzee.

MR RAUTENBACH: Tell me, when you were asked to perform this task, you knew who Dirk Coetzee was didn't you?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.

MR RAUTENBACH: You also knew what Dirk Coetzee did subsequent to leaving South Africa, all his revelations about Vlakplaas and police atrocities.

MR RADEBE: At the time when I was in Vlakplaas, he was not working hand-in-hand with the police there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let me just repeat the question. You say you who know Dirk Coetzee, I'm just saying to you that if you know who Dirk Coetzee was, you probably knew that he was the man who made all the revelations about Vlakplaas and the Security Police more in particular.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: So what did you think was this parcel about? Lawyers for human rights - here's the Security Police, white Security Police, using you as a black man to post a parcel to Mr Coetzee in Lusaka, giving whoever the impression that this is from lawyers for human rights. What did you think was this all about?

MR RADEBE: I did not suspect that there might be explosives inside.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you think was it about?

MR RADEBE: I did not know what it was and at that time you wouldn't question anything or any instructions because you would know that should you ask any questions, you would be in line. You had to comply and not complain at all.

MR RAUTENBACH: Tell me, did you not think that whatever was contained in that parcel was something nasty?

MR RADEBE: Please rephrase your question.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let me rephrase it. Did you not think that whatever was contained in that parcel was something to the detriment of Mr Coetzee? Is that some thought that at least came up in your mind?

MR RADEBE: Not at all, Sir.

MR RAUTENBACH: I didn't hear the answer.

INTERPRETER: He responded, he said "Not at all".

MR RAUTENBACH: Not at all. May I just ask you, you said - and I was asked to rephrase my question, you were about to answer it and you said something to the effect of "What could I do", so can I just get clarity. Is your answer to it "What could I do", or is your answer "I had no thought at all, no idea about what it was"?

MR RADEBE: I do not understand you.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I was basically just informed that he started answering the question and from a proper translation, the answer was "What could I do". But I'll leave it at that, I'm not going to ask him about - it's not on record and he answered the question as he did. 

&#9;I just want to put it to you, Mr Radebe, that on our part, we find it incomprehensible that you did not at least suspect that something seriously detrimental was being posted to Mr Coetzee. What is your response?

MR RADEBE: I said I did not know whether there was anything that was detrimental or ugly that was being sent and I would not know what was this all about. I myself, I could not ask the person who was giving me the instruction to post that thing, I could not actually enquire as to what am I posting. As a Security policeman, you would just follow instructions.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you did not think at all.

MR RADEBE: Even if there was a thought that came to me it wouldn't help me, you could not question anyone, any instructions.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Radebe, I want you to look at D6. Now what you see on D6 are basically addresses from and to, that was affixed to the parcel, can you recall seeing these addresses on the packet that was given to you?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you refer to the addresses, I just want to ask you again, if you look at D2, did you see, according to your recollection, did you see D6, did you see D2, or did you see both of them or isn't it possible for you to say at all?

MR RADEBE: If I can recall clearly, it's the one written Bheki and Thompson. I think that is the one because I was told that it was being sent by a black person to Dirk Coetzee, but the other one does not indicate that, it's just mentioning the address at Jorisson Street and the name of the company, but the typed version seems to be the right one, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: As far as your memory is concerned - before I get to that, the parcel that you took inside the post office, was that a parcel that was in brown paper, and did you carry it like that or was it in a piece of plastic, or what was the situation?

MR RADEBE: It was not in a plastic when it was handed to me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was it covered in brown paper?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: You did not wear any gloves or anything? - not to leave fingerprints.

MR RADEBE: No, I did not have any gloves on.

CHAIRPERSON: Who handed it to you?

MR RADEBE: It was handed to me by Bellingan, Balletjies.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he have any gloves on?

MR RADEBE: I do not recall if he had gloves or not.

CHAIRPERSON: It would have been most unusual surely, if he had them.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now it was evident, Mr Radebe, from the package and from the evidence at the inquest, that the parcel was in fact sealed. Now according to your memory, was it sealed when you took it into the post office or was it sealed there at the post office?

MR RADEBE: It was sealed when I took it to the post office.

MR RAUTENBACH: Who sealed it?

MR RADEBE: Balletjies gave me the sealed parcel, I don't know who sealed it.

CHAIRPERSON: How was it sealed?

MR RADEBE: It was wrapped in a normal way with brown paper and there were, and then it was addressed and it was just sealed.

CHAIRPERSON: But how, how was it sealed? What do you mean by sealed?

MR RADEBE: I do not remember whether it was a twine or whether it was glued.

MR RAUTENBACH: Have you ever seen, Mr Radebe, these red seals that they basically burn it and then put it on the strings around the parcel and then put a seal on it, a red seal that the post office makes, have you seen those seals? Do you know what I'm talking about?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I know them, it's like they are candle-lit, or they are waxed.

MR RAUTENBACH: That is right. Now what I want to ask you is, when you got the parcel from Mr Bellingan, was it sealed or was it not? Was it ever sealed, had you ever seen it being sealed?

MR RADEBE: What I can recall is, I entered and I handed it over to the parcel counter.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, Mr Radebe, when you had it in your hands, did you see whether it was sealed at that stage, or wasn't it sealed?

MR RADEBE: If I can recall clearly it was sealed, but I was not sure, but it was sealed. I cannot explain exactly how was it sealed.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was it not sealed by someone from the post office in your presence, or can't you remember that?

MR RADEBE: I do not recall like that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well I want to put it to you that it seems that your memory in regard to the handling of the parcel, is in fact not good at all. There was evidence at the inquest of a post office clerk that actually looked at the seal and the remains of the wrapping and she commented on the fact that she herself must have effected the seal on the parcel. You can't recall that at all?

MR RADEBE: I do not recall that, Sir.

MR RAUTENBACH: She basically gave an explanation as to why the particular seal was effected by herself and how she can identify that as a seal that she had put on the parcel. Now not having been able to comment on that, can you recall at all whether anyone said to you "But this parcel should be insured"?

MR RADEBE: I do not recall that, Sir.

MR RAUTENBACH: If you have a look at D1, you'll see on the top there is a part of a piece of paper and the wording appears "Insured Parcel". Can you see that?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I see that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall ever having seen that or a document similar to that on the parcel, when the parcel was handed to you?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I recall that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Where did you see it?

MR RADEBE: I think they gave me a slip that I handed over to Balletjies.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that the post office?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.

MR RAUTENBACH: Who would have - so it seems to me they gave you slip. Do I understand your evidence correctly, that they gave you slip of insurance that you then had to give to Mr Bellingan, returning back to the car?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall that they required that the packet had to be insured?

MR RADEBE: If I can recall clearly, yes it is so.

MR RAUTENBACH: And Mr Radebe, if they had given you a slip saying "Insured Parcel", you had with the package the address to whom the parcel was supposed to go to, correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you could have basically just copied that address on this insured parcel's slip, it was as easy as that.

MR RADEBE: I do not remember writing at any stage. Chairperson, this parcel was complete when it was handed over to me. When I arrived at the post office no writing was required of me, if I can recollect clearly.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Radebe, you just told us that they gave you this insured parcel, a slip like this that you gave back to Mr Bellingan. The only question at this stage is whether it could have been yourself who wrote that address on that slip, or whether it was someone else. If you can't recall you may say so, but that's the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that is what he has just said "I don't recall writing anything", isn't it?

MR RAUTENBACH: I think he went further than that, and I think maybe we should just give him an opportunity, because I think he was basically reversing his evidence to say that the packet was complete.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Actually steering away from what the previous answer was.

CHAIRPERSON: "I don't remember writing at any stage. The parcel was complete when it was given to me. I don't recall writing anything". So he has told you twice there he doesn't recall writing anything.

MR RAUTENBACH: The insured parcel slip, if I understand your evidence there, that's the slip that you gave back to Mr Bellingan. You said the piece of paper that you gave back to Mr Bellingan, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Sir.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I would like to know, you say you in fact gave a handwriting specimen and a fingerprint to Mr Kritzinger, like other people did, can you recall that?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson, even when I was arrested they took my fingerprints and again my writing specimen.

MR RAUTENBACH: I want to get back, Mr Radebe, right back in the beginning when all the other people's handwriting specimens were obtained. At that stage ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: "If you don't remember who it was, I think you said it was at headquarters. You were all there, do you remember that".

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, at that stage, when you were at headquarters with all the other people, as far as I understand your evidence, both your fingerprints and your handwriting specimens were in fact obtained, correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know, Mr Radebe, that it was subsequently claimed - I'm just asking whether you've got the knowledge, do you know it was subsequently claimed by Mr Kritzinger, that you passed away and that your handwriting specimen couldn't be obtained?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember that I passed away.

MR RAUTENBACH: You don't have any information about that?

MR RADEBE: I do not have that information, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: May I just have a moment, Mr Chairman. I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

MS LOCKHAT: I have no questions, thank you, Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

MR LAX: Just while we're on this question of specimens. Yesterday it emerged in Mr de Kock's evidence, that you actually didn't give a specimen at all, that someone else gave one purporting to be yours and that you weren't there, they made sure you didn't go to headquarters and give a specimen. What do you say about that?

MR RADEBE: Chairperson, I don't think that is the way it happened, because they took my writing specimen and my fingerprints and then for the second time they took my specimen and my fingerprints at a certain building called Saambou.

MR LAX: The second time was much, much later though. The first time was for the purposes of the inquest, the second time was for the purposes of the trial.

MR RADEBE: Yes, I was arrested and then they took my handwriting specimen and my fingerprints, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Ja. Now if one looks at D6, the middle slip which has Joubert Park stamped on it and it appears to have other writing on it, very feint, you can hardly see it at all, but that's the sort of slip one would get having paid money for a parcel. They stick that sort of slip on and then they put the stamp on it, right?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Did you pay any money that day?

MR RADEBE: I don't recall, Chairperson. I would not say I did not pay or I paid, but I'm saying I don't recall.

MR LAX: Because somebody would have to pay for it, especially if it was insured, there's an additional charge for that. So Mr Bellingan must have given you some money to do that.

MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson, he did not give me money, he gave me only the parcel. 

MR LAX: He gave you?

MR RADEBE: He gave me the parcel only because it had already had stamps at that time.

MR LAX: So as far as you know, there were stamps on the parcel and you saw those.

MR RADEBE: It is so, Chairperson, because I handed over just the parcel to the counter attendant.

MR LAX: Yes. I'm not interested in your assumptions, did you actually see postage stamps on the parcel or didn't you?

MR RADEBE: I don't recollect, Chairperson.

MR LAX: But what you're sure of is you didn't get any money.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: And if you were required to pay money out of your own pocket you would surely have remembered that.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson, because I would claim thereafter for the money I paid.

MR LAX: Absolutely. Thanks, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Radebe, when you refer to lawyers for human rights, are you referring to an organisation known as lawyers for human rights, or are you referring to those lawyers who were handling political cases, cases of those people detained in terms of the State of Emergency and the like, which in the townships they refer to them as ...(Sotho)? What are you referring to when you talk about lawyers for human rights?

MR RADEBE: I'm speaking about lawyers who were helping the comrades who did not have money, to have legal representatives.

MR SIBANYONI: And Cheadle Thompson and Haysom would be one of such lawyers?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson, because Bheki was working there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well did you know Bheki and what he did?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well did you know that Bheki worked there?

MR RADEBE: That's correct, Chairperson, I was informed on the day when I posted the parcel.

CHAIRPERSON: You were told then that Bheki worked for Cheadle Thompson and Haysom?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that by Bellingan?

MR RADEBE: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you remember you were asked at the beginning of your evidence about your affidavit and you confirmed the accuracy and the truth thereof?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You see in your affidavit, at page 209, paragraph 22, you say the following -

&#9;&#9;"I did not look at what was on the parcel. I did not see who it was addressed to or from whom it apparently would have come."

MR RADEBE: Yes, I did not observe, but I was informed who is the sender and who is the recipient of the parcel.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were told by them not to read what was on the parcel.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should they tell you that if they then proceeded to tell you what was written on the parcel?

MR RADEBE: During the previous government, Chairperson, you would obey what you were told, you would not oppose of dispute what you were told because if you do that you would be regarded as a know-all and then you'll get your fate.

CHAIRPERSON: That may be, but I just find it difficult to understand that people who were asking you to help them, should tell you now you mustn't look, you mustn't read a word on the parcel and then tell you what was written there, what they had just told you not to read.

MR RADEBE: Yes, I obeyed the instructions which I received from them.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I do not have any re-examination. 

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH

MR HATTINGH: May I just inform you that I also have available, should anybody be interested therein, the first affidavit of Col Hattingh. All he states in there is that he received specimen handwritings from 31 persons, without specifying who they were. 

&#9;And then on paragraph 6 he says that after comparing the specimen handwritings with the disputed handwriting on the disputed document, he couldn't find that anyone of those 31 people were responsible for writing on the parcel. I've not been able to establish or ascertain as at this stage, Mr Chairman, whether Mr Radebe's handwriting was included amongst the 31 people. I've discussed the matter with Mr Rautenbach, I do recall reading through the whole record of the inquest at the time of Mr de Kock's trial, I haven't do so again, it's a voluminous document, Mr Chairman, but both he and I have a recollection of a document - whether it was handed in as an exhibit or whether it was just made available for us to look at it, containing a list of names, including the name of Mr Radebe, and either opposite his name or above his name there was something in writing to the effect "Deceased" or "Oorlede" or something to that effect. 

&#9;I shall look for that document, I may still have a copy of it, but if I do find it, then I will make it available, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: May I just ask a question, it's not in the sense of getting evidence per se, but we have also heard of this other handwriting expert, Mr Klatsow or a Doctor Klatsow or something of that order, was there any contradiction between the two experts?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, as far as I recall there was not a contradiction. I think if there was any dispute, the dispute would have been about who was available and who was a possible suspect, but I don't recall any contradiction in the experts.

MR HATTINGH: My recollection is, Mr Chairman, I'm not sure whether this was done for purposes of the inquest or whether it was done for purposes of Mr de Kock's trial, but they actually got together and agreed that there was nothing that they disagreed on.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm not asking either of you gentlemen to give evidence now, but was anything said by either of the experts about the difficulty of attempting to identify something, like this printed address on the label stuck on. It is not the ordinary handwriting, it is all printed. Did they say anything about problems that arose in such identifications?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, they were actually only concerning themselves, those two people, with the question surrounding fingerprints and disputed handwriting. As far as for instance, the addresses that look like a computer printout, that part of the evidence was basically done by an expert within the police, that would have taken typewriters that became available and so on.

CHAIRPERSON: I was thinking about D2, which is, the address has been, what I call printed, rather than written. And it seems to me that - I think I have heard evidence previously, there you're starting to look for things like the little tick-up at the bottom of the R of Braamfontein, as an identifying factor, rather than the shape of the handwriting. They didn't comment on that sort of thing?

MR RAUTENBACH: Well what I recall is that they did not, they basically came to the finding that from the specimens available to them, they could not link it up and that was it. I know there was - I may just point out, there was criticism in the beginning where at some stage - about the fact that the initial handwriting specimens that were taken, were basically "Evidence - Hit Squads", or whatever, which made it quite clear what it was about, and the criticism was that maybe you should have used another form of, another sentence type of thing to have a better testing process, but apart from that it didn't take the matter any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAX: Just one last thing, sorry, on all of this handwriting stuff. Was there any unanimity between them as to whether all the handwritings were the same? In other words, on the tape, on the labels etc.

MR RAUTENBACH: If my memory serves me correctly, I think that the "Evidence - Hit Squads" was - I'm not solely relying on my memory, my memory was that "Evidence - Hit Squads" was a different, probably, a different handwriting than for instance the handwriting appearing on D2.

MR HATTINGH: I must confess, Mr Chairman, that I do not even have a recollection as to whether either or both these witnesses were actually called to testify, I just have the affidavits here which they made.

MR RAUTENBACH: I recall that they were not called to testify, the process was done, we would then have come back to court and Mr Kritzinger, one of the investigating officers would report on what happened in the meeting and by agreement the parties would inform the court what the outcome was. This is how I recall it. But I have a recollection that the "Evidence - Hit Squads" was probably not done by the same person as the, as D2.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the S's look different. Right, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'm finished.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I take it you're now ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: May Mr Radebe be excused?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. Mr Radebe, we hope that all goes well for you ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR RADEBE: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR BOOYENS: The next witness to be called is Bellingan, Mr Chairman. The main part of the evidence appears from page 198 of the documents, first bundle.

NAME:&#9;WILHELM RIAAN BELLINGAN

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

MR LAX: Mr Bellingan, are you English or Afrikaans speaking?

MR BELLINGAN: Afrikaans.

MR LAX: Your full names for the purposes of the record please.

WILHELM RIAAN BELLINGAN: (sworn states)

MR LAX: You may be seated. Sworn in, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Please go to page 181 of the first bundle. Do you confirm the background and so forth as embodied in this amnesty application of yours?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: This goes to page 198.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: On page 198 there is Schedule 5, and there you deal with the murder and attempted murder respectively, of Mr Bheki Mlangeni and Mr Dirk Coetzee.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now you explain and you say that this was during 1990.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And at that stage you were stationed at Vlakplaas.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And practically from the very beginning you were stationed at Vlakplaas. 

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You also served under the command of Dirk Coetzee at Vlakplaas.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And upon occasion, I cannot mention the specific date, but Col de Kock, your then commander, discussed the possible elimination or the attempt to murder Dirk Coetzee, with you.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You then proceed and summarise everything that was stated during this discussion. This must have been speculation about what Dirk Coetzee could get up to, that he could recruit people for the left-wing, that he had intimate knowledge about the Security Police and so forth.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And that stage had Mr Coetzee aligned himself completely with the ANC?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And while the decision for the elimination of Mr Coetzee did not reside with you, were you satisfied that he had aligned himself with the enemy forces, as they were regarded at that stage by the Security Forces?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: There was a struggle at that time between the ANC and the Security Police - I think that is a question of record, and with you personally, was this an unacceptable idea, viewed against the background of the struggle, that someone such as Dirk Coetzee taking into account what he had done, would be eliminated? Or could you associate yourself with this?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I could associate myself with this.

MR BOOYENS: Were you also informed, as you have set out in the fourth paragraph on page 199, that there was no other way for you to eliminate him other than sending him a postal bomb?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Mr de Kock testified that during the discussion between the two of you, he among others asked you, due to the fact that you knew Dirk Coetzee better than anybody else at Vlakplaas, he asked you about his taste and his preferences and so forth and you told Mr de Kock that Mr Coetzee was quite a fan of a certain pop star by the name of Neil Diamond.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you agree with that evidence of Mr de Kock?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Sgt Steve Bosch, the witness who testified before you, was your technical man at Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And you state that upon occasion you were with Bosch when he went to purchase a set of headphones, can you tell us exactly what you purchased?

MR BELLINGAN: If I recall correctly we went to buy headphones and a cassette player at a technical place near head office, I think it was called Filtron.

MR BOOYENS: Did you buy one or two?

MR BELLINGAN: It may have been one, it may have been two, I cannot say with certainty, but I believe that it would have been two.

MR BOOYENS: And you knew that the Technical Division, that would be the section of Wal du Toit, would be working with this equipment.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: There was also evidence that Mr Coetzee, Mr Coetzee's wife's telephone and her telephonic discussions were tapped and that she was followed at certain points. Did you know about that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I knew about that completely, I participated in the tapping as well as the surveillance and the following of Mr Coetzee's spouse.

MR BOOYENS: So there was a clearly organised attempt to obtain information as to his movements.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now with regard to the instructions for the nature of the bomb and so forth, did you have anything to do with that?

MR BELLINGAN: No, not that I can recall. I wasn't told that it would have a certain appearance or anything like that.

MR BOOYENS: What I actually mean is, did you liaise with the Technical Division and tell them what the bomb should be like or was this left over to Mr Bosch?

MR BELLINGAN: No, it would have been left over to Mr Bosch or Mr de Kock.

MR BOOYENS: Did you go and fetch the package containing the bomb, at any stage from Technical?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Were you and Bosch together?

MR BELLINGAN: We may have been together, but my recollection is not extremely clear about this. I wouldn't dispute it if it came to light that we were together when the bomb was fetched.

MR BOOYENS: And what you received at that stage, can you recall how the package was packaged or wrapped?

MR BELLINGAN: If I recall it was wrapped in brown paper and placed in a plastic bag and I would have handed it over to Mr de Kock on the farm.

MR BOOYENS: Did you give it to Mr de Kock?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, as far as I can recall.

MR BOOYENS: And Mr Bellingan, as far as you know, did you receive any instructions to inscribe any address on the package or to paste any labels containing an address, on the package?

MR BELLINGAN: I cannot recall that I did anything like that. This is quite a long time ago, I simply cannot recall it. I would have admitted to this if I could recall it.

CHAIRPERSON: But it doesn't really make any difference to your accountability, whether you pasted the labels on of whether you simply participated.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: This package spent a while at Vlakplaas.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And afterwards you received further instructions regarding the package.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Namely that the package had to be posted in Johannesburg.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You knew that this was the package, one which was being sent to Dirk Coetzee.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And Mr Radebe, the previous witness, says that he was with you.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Was that upon your instruction or the instruction of Mr de Kock?

MR BELLINGAN: I believe that it would have been Col de Kock, but I could also have called him over and said "Simon come with me, we're going to post a package", but it would probably have come from Mr de Kock.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Radebe has just stated under cross-examination that although you told him not to read what was written on the item, you told him that this was something which was intended for Dirk Coetzee, which came from human rights lawyers. Is Mr Radebe's recollection of this conversation correct?

MR BELLINGAN: No, the regular practice would have been that I would have given him the plastic bag and some money to go and post the item with. I don't want to render him a liar in all of this, but I don't believe that we discussed this. There was reasonable compartmentalisation as well.

MR BOOYENS: And Mr Radebe wasn't a member of the conspiracy to kill Mr Coetzee at this stage, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: No, he wasn't.

MR BOOYENS: And would you have notified anybody else unless it would have been absolutely vital?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I wouldn't have.

MR BOOYENS: I see that you refer to a post office at the Johannesburg Sun. I don't know Johannesburg, is this the same as the one in Joubert Park?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I believe so, I have driven past it quite a number of times. I wouldn't dispute anything about this.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Bellingan, Mr de Kock has already stated this, but Bheki Mlangeni was never a target, not as far as you know.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you know that Bheki Mlangeni's name was indicated as the name of the sender?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I didn't know this. I had either heard of or seen the other name, Cheadle Thompson, but I did not see Bheki Mlangeni's name.

MR BOOYENS: Just to return. Upon occasion, do you know where the address of Mr Dirk Coetzee was obtained from?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct. One morning I was at head office, Mr de Kock asked me to accompany him to the offices of Gen Nick van Rensburg who was the commander at that stage, I went with him and when I went in I also greeted the Brigadier - I was a junior so I wasn't allowed to enter the office as such, but I stood outside, and the Colonel said "Fetch the address", he walked to a cabinet and he handed over the address and when Col de Kock and I walked down the passage again, he showed me the address, that this was Dirk Coetzee's address. So I assume that that is where he obtained the address from.

MR BOOYENS: Was there any discussion between him and Col de Kock at that stage?

MR BELLINGAN: No, not that I can recall. Not that I could have heard at least.

MR BOOYENS: How long as far as you can recall, was Mr de Kock in the office?

MR BELLINGAN: A few minutes, perhaps even seconds. It was a very brief time.

MR BOOYENS: And as far as you can recall, was Mr van Rensburg alone in his office?

MR BELLINGAN: As far as I know, yes.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Bellingan, do you confirm in terms of the rest of this matter, the content of your application?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I do.

MR BOOYENS: So to summarise in other words, the role that you played basically is that you were monitoring Dirk Coetzee's habits, you went to the Technical Division upon certain occasions to take certain items there, you went to fetch the bomb at Technical and after that you took the bomb to the post office. That is the extent of your role in this matter.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you then request amnesty for any offence which may emanate from your involvement in the bomb which as addressed to Dirk Coetzee, but eventually led to the death of Bheki Mlangeni?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Just by the way, just to be completely certain, if we could briefly consult Exhibit D1 There is handwriting on documented D2, do you recognise this handwriting?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I have seen it before.

MR BOOYENS: You have viewed this before?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: But do you know whose handwriting this is?

MR BELLINGAN: No. My handwriting samples, both left and right-handed, were taken by the A-G investigating team as well as the investigating team of Col Kritzinger.

MR BOOYENS: And then we have "Evidence - Hit Squads" here, which appears on D4, which is apparently from a cassette cover. Do you recognise this?

MR BELLINGAN: I have seen it before, but I don't know who wrote it.

MR BOOYENS: Therefore you don't recognise the handwriting.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You referred to the investigation led by Kritzinger and the others, and there has already been evidence that the office which was occupied by Steve Bosch, was cleared when they heard that Kritzinger was going to search the place. You were aware of this?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I believe that I would have known about it because I was a member of Vlakplaas. If anything had to be cleaned, I would have been involved in that as well. I would have remembered. There were so many things that happened, I wouldn't dispute it at all.

MR BOOYENS: Now this cleaning, can you recall the reason why everything was cleaned? What was disposed of, what were the people looking for? That would be Kritzinger and the others.

MR BELLINGAN: I believe that they would have been looking for pens and paper, anything that could possibly be connected with the packaging and the bomb.

MR BOOYENS: You yourself were not actively involved in the clearing?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I believe every person would have cleaned his office just in case something had been left there, such as paper or anything like that. I wasn't involved with Steve Bosch's office.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you help us, I should have asked him, but he told us in his evidence that he he'd already left Vlakplaas, can you remember who took over his office?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, I would venture to say that we were already busy breaking up into various groups, because when I returned from an officer's course, that was when Mr Bheki Mlangeni died. I was on an officer's course and when we returned, Steve was already gone and we were broken up into various wings. Col de Kock went to a safehouse, I remained on the farm, van Dyk went elsewhere, so it is possible that the office was standing empty and that Col de Kock may have been finishing off his administrative duties there, I would be able to say, but there was no new appointment.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

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

MR BOOYENS: Mr Bellingan, the surveillance of Mrs Coetzee's movements and the tapping of her telephone and other telephones, you say you were involved with this as well?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you aware from where the order came for you to be involved in these matters?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, if Mr de Kock told us it came from above, we did not question or dispute it. There was no way in which the Technical Division in Rebecca Street could undertake such tapping without an order from above. As it was said, there would be a report, it would have to be channelised and the post office would be responsible for laying the wires. I didn't doubt it at all because it was being done in the heard of the Technical Division and Mr du Toit could not manager something like this by himself.

MR HATTINGH: But did Mr de Kock tell you that the order came from above?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, he told us that it came from above.

MR HATTINGH: Now you have heard the evidence by Mr Bosch, that the persons who were tapping the discussions made notes of information which could possibly be valuable to head office with regard to Mr Coetzee's movements and so forth.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct, sometimes we would receive information indicating that he would be possibly on a farm near de Wild, then in the Bushveld, then it seemed that he was in Mauritius. So there were various messages or requests which were put through to his wife and we recorded all these matters because people at head office didn't have time to sit and listen to the tapes all day long.

MR HATTINGH: Well that's the point that I want to make. The notes were made in order to convey pertinent information which was on tape and to bring this information to the attention of head office.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did Mr de Kock hand over these notes that you had made on paper, to head office?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, he would have done so, or if he was out of town, one of us would have had to do it.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall that you ever delivered these notes

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Upon more than one occasion?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And to whom did you deliver these notes?

MR BELLINGAN: At some time to Brig Schoon, at others to Nick van Rensburg. We would just place the notes in an envelope and place these envelopes in their offices.

MR HATTINGH: And with regard to the handwriting samples which were taken, this was done for the purposes of the post-mortem inquest, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, and if I have it correctly you accompanied me and Mr Baker and Mr Hugo to a place where they wanted to arrest us, but you negotiated for us to have samples taken.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is when Mr Hugo and I represented you and Mr Baker.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the investigating team wanted to see you among others, about handwriting samples and to discuss some of these murder cases.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did they take any handwriting samples from you and Mr Baker?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you hear that the investigating officer expressed any opinion who in his mind was responsible for the handwriting on the documentation?

MR BELLINGAN: He was walking around there saying that he believed that he had the man, he would stand behind you while you were writing and say "We've got the man". That was just part of his tactic to bully you, but they never came back to me and said that it was my handwriting because I knew that I hadn't written anything on that document.

MR HATTINGH: Now with regard to the address of Mr Coetzee, you say that Mr van Rensburg gave this to Mr de Kock.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you recall that you went there specifically for that purpose.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes. If I can still recall correctly - one would have certain recollective visions in one's mind's eye, Mr de Kock was wearing a greenish suit.

MR HATTINGH: And from where did Mr van Rensburg produce the address?

MR BELLINGAN: From a steel cabinet.

MR HATTINGH: And can you recall that this is the address which was ultimately inscribed on the package, that you obtained in this manner?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I believe that this must have been the address. I didn't ...(indistinct) over these proceedings, but this would been the address. Where else would we have obtained it from?

MR HATTINGH: You've heard Mr de Kock's evidence yesterday, regarding how Mr van Rensburg obtained the address.

MR BELLINGAN: I wasn't present here yesterday, but I heard that it was obtained from National Intelligence or something like that.

MR HATTINGH: Are you aware of two policemen in Piet Retief, who had defected to the ANC?

MR BELLINGAN: No, not that I know of. I know about those in Nelspruit.

MR HATTINGH: And that Mr Coetzee had delivered a letter to one of them for delivery here in the Republic. You didn't hear that version?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I didn't.

MR HATTINGH: Would you bear with me a moment please, Mr Chairman.

&#9;Your political motivation which you have expressed in the documents on page 198 and over to 199, I assume that this is not the complete motivation. Can you recall that Mr de Kock also told you that the order was for Mr Coetzee to be prevented from giving evidence during the Lothar Neethling matter?

MR BELLINGAN: That is possible.

MR HATTINGH: But you just don't recall this very clearly?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

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

&#9;Mr Bellingan, you state in your affidavit - or before I ask you this, when you became aware of the idea to send a package bomb to Dirk Coetzee, what would your role have been in the whole process, which instructions did you receive from Mr de Kock?

MR BELLINGAN: To be honest, Chairperson, there were no instructions saying A is going to do this, B will do this and C will do that, if Mr de Kock walked past me and said "Riaan, please do this", I would have done it. I wasn't called in and told "Riaan, you are going to do this" or "Willie will do that" or "Someone else will do this". There were no clear instructions like that according to my knowledge. As Col de Kock would give things to people to do, they would do them.

MR LAMEY: Yes, I hear what you're saying, but it is correct that Mr Bosch was the liaison person for Technical.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct, but if I wanted to go to Technical and fetch something there I could have done so as well. There was no embargo on movements in and out when it came to other people.

MR LAMEY: But he was also the technical person who was supposed to liaise with Technical Division.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, when operations were executed he would liaise with the Technical Division.

MR LAMEY: You state that on a certain day you went to buy headphones. Mr Bosch has already conceded that it is possible that you accompanied him, but that he cannot recall it. Are you referring only to headphones or also the walkmans?

MR LAMEY: It could have been the headphones and the walkmans together or separately, but today after 10 years I really cannot recall it.

MR LAMEY: Can't you not recall it?

MR BELLINGAN: No, and I wouldn't dispute it either.

MR LAMEY: And you state that you clearly recall that you fetched the package bomb from the Technical Division.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, as far as I can recall I fetched it. Whether Steve was present or not, I don't know, but I remember that I went to fetch it.

MR LAMEY: And when you went to fetch it, were any addresses already inscribed on the package, the address of Mr Coetzee and a sender's address?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, I would be lying if I said whether or not there were addresses, I really cannot recall today. It was in a plastic bag. At a certain point I saw the address of Thompson and Haysom, but when exactly this took place is something that I cannot dispute.

MR LAMEY: And you state that you recall that you then delivered it to Mr de Kock.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I believe so. I simply wouldn't have given it to another junior officer on the farm because this was a very sensitive matter.

MR LAMEY: Do you know where the bomb was kept once it had been delivered to Mr de Kock?

MR BELLINGAN: I believe that it would have been definitely kept in Steve's office because it was relatively secure, there were no windows, it was guarded by quite a sturdy door, or it could have been in the safe, I cannot recall.

MR LAMEY: Steve's office was a security office?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, it was an old garage of which the front side had been closed with a steel door.

MR LAMEY: And subsequently you then received the order to take the package to Johannesburg and to post it there, and you say that between the delivery and the postage there was a lapse of time.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, there was. I may have been in Steve's office and I may have seen the package there. I wasn't involved with this operation all the time, so I would concede to these possibilities.

MR LAMEY: You state in your affidavit that you definitely never saw the address of the sender, is it correct?

MR BELLINGAN: I never knew of Bheki Mlangeni, the first time that I heard about him on the news in Paarl, was the first time that I heard about him. To me he wasn't an activist, we didn't have a thick file on him at head office, he was just another lawyer.

MR LAMEY: So Mr Radebe's evidence is not correct, that you told him about it?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I will not dispute anything with Mr Radebe, I do not wish to make him out to be a liar, I simply cannot remember anything like that.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that you will be more than three minutes?

MR RAUTENBACH: I think so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, you can start at 2 o'clock. We'll the adjournment now.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

WILHELM RIAAN MR BELLINGAN: (sworn states)

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

&#9;Mr Bellingan, can you tell us when you received the parcel from Kobus - I do not want to use the word "sealed", you get "sealed" and "a seal", what did it look like?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, I presume it was in brown paper, covered with brown paper and it was in a plastic bag. I cannot say if there was a string tied around it, if it was sealed, I cannot remember.

MR RAUTENBACH: Very well. You received it from Mr Kobus Kok and you gave it to Mr Eugene de Kock as you returned?

MR BELLINGAN: I wouldn't have given it to anybody else but Mr de Kock.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you recall if you had any discussion with Col de Kock when you handed it over to him?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I cannot.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then the time that you dealt with this package was when you were asked by Mr de Kock to go and post this parcel?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Chairperson, it might be that I was at the farm and that I walked in and out of Steve Bosch's office and maybe saw the package lying there. If somebody did something to it, I do not know. I remember the last time was when we went with Radebe to go and post the parcel.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you see any differences between the parcel from the first time you got it from Kobus Kok and the second time when you went to go and post it?

MR BELLINGAN: I would lie if I say that I knew, I could not say if it was wrapped in a different paper or something else was attached to it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I would like to ..(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I - carry on. Are you finished?

&#9;When you saw the parcel, from the time that you collected it and the time you took it to post it, was it always in the plastic bag?

MR BELLINGAN: I wouldn't say that it was the same plastic bag, it could have been a different one.

CHAIRPERSON: A plastic bag.

MR BELLINGAN: A plastic bag, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So am I correct, you never handled the parcel as such?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Chairperson, I wouldn't have handled it.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't tell us what it ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: No, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you took the parcel with you, with Radebe who was with you, was it you, Radebe, who else was with you?

MR BELLINGAN: I heard Mr Radebe said that Mr Tait was with us. I cannot remember that, but Radebe said that he was with us and I cannot argue with him concerning that.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you told him "Go and post this parcel", did you give him the plastic bag with the parcel?

MR BELLINGAN: I can remember that it was behind my seat where I left it, I think that it was just because I was trying to be careful with it, and then I told him "Just go and post this parcel". I probably gave him money to go and post it. There was a dispute about it earlier on, but I cannot remember if I gave him the money or if the stickers were stuck on it before or after. It would have been strange if it was insured before. I think that I did give him the money to do it. I believe that it would be the normal practice if one says "Here's R50,00" and such things.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just tell me, what do you mean by "normal practice"? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BELLINGAN: As you've just said, one would not just stick it on there and do everything that the post office would normally do, somewhere someone has to pay for that package if it gets insured. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR RAUTENBACH: But if you look at for example D2 and we compare it with D6, you will see that at D6 there is a description of who it is, who it is sent to. I would like to ask you if you agree with me that it seems as if the name and address of the sender is a document that was available at the post office? Will you agree with me there?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And that it is unlikely that somebody got this document beforehand to then attach it while all the information was already on the package. You cannot also remember that you have seen such a document like D2 maybe when you delivered it.

MR BELLINGAN: No, I saw the address somewhere as it was enlarged here, but I cannot say that it was this document.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I would like to ask you something that I do not understand. Did you know that, or you said it was normal practice to ensure it, but did you at any stage think that if Mr Radebe posts this parcel - and you said that you could have given him money, that he maybe had to pay for insurance, that he had to maybe write something down? Was this something that you thought of?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I can also write with a pen without pressing my hand on the paper. I thought that maybe he would have done something like that. There were certain chances you had to take, nothing worked the way it was supposed to always.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you never thought that he had to sign something?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, well we believed at that stage that if we were caught we would have been protected, we wouldn't have gone to court. We were protected within the Security Branch, we would have covered it up.

MR RAUTENBACH: Just to summarise that part, you were not too worried about the fact that he had to fill something in?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I wasn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt again, I'm afraid I'm hopelessly out of touch with these things nowadays. When you send a parcel, particularly when you're sending one that is going to go into a foreign country, do you have to put what the contents of it are?

MR BELLINGAN: I think in the past you had to say yes, it was either plastic wares or it was rusks or magazines. I do not know if it was necessary, I'm not sure.

MR RAUTENBACH: It seems, concerning the insurance slip and in the evidence in the criminal trial, that the slip does make reference to a cassette. I'm not talking about the photocopy, I'm referring to that this is something that would have appeared, that somebody would know that this insured package contains a tape recorder.

MR BELLINGAN: It may be that I told Simon that it is a tape recorder, I cannot argue that, it was a long time ago.

MR RAUTENBACH: I would just like to tell you concerning that aspect, initially I got the idea that you basically said that you wouldn't have talked to him about it.

MR BELLINGAN: That why I'm saying it could have been. Usually we wouldn't have talked about it, but he could have asked me what he must write on the parcel and I could have told him that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Although there are certain aspects in his evidence which are not satisfactory to say the least and which are contradictory, this part of his evidence that it would have been a parcel for Dirk Coetzee and it would have come from the lawyers for human rights, and then he corrected himself and said lawyers who do these things within that context, it seems to me - and I want to put it to you, as if a conversation must have taken place otherwise he wouldn't have been able to present that evidence.

MR BELLINGAN: I think he may have read that in the newspapers later concerning the lawyers for human rights. I saw the name, but it wasn't an issue at that stage. Maybe it was in the media. It was a conclusion he made.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm not going to take it any further than that, just to make the picture a bit more clear. I'm not going to tell you that you had to be aware of this, but I think you have to take not that Bheki Mlangeni was the chairperson of one of the biggest ANC branch and that was the Jabulani Branch in Soweto.

MR BELLINGAN: Mr Chairperson, it could have been, but there were various branches in the country and I cannot say that we knew all the branches, we concentrated on more on the freedom fighters.

MR RAUTENBACH: And he was also detained at various times, but as I say, I'm not going to put it to you as a fact that you should have known it. This discussion that you were supposed to have had with - which Radebe talks of, surely there must have been some type of explanation given to Radebe - he's not an askari, he's more a policeman at Vlakplaas, as to why he had to actually hand in the package when you could hand it in yourself. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, if Col de Kock said that he had to go with Bellingan or Balletjies, or whatever he calls me, it would have been final, there wouldn't still be an explanation from my side. But we could have communicated, so it's not ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: So you don't dismiss that evidence of his?

MR BELLINGAN: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then concerning what happened at Vlakplaas, evidence was led by Mr Bosch and he indicated that you were the second operator. What is your comment on that?

MR BELLINGAN: I would not differ from him there, I just don't think that we worked in such defined sections, he did something, you do something. I think it may be a bit confusing. The stuff was in his office and we had no access to it.

MR RAUTENBACH: At this stage it does seem, concerning the road that this package went, that there was some link missing and that is the person who put the addresses on the parcel and who basically - I do not want to use the word "manufacture", or went through the process where he printed out the addresses and then attached it to the package and maybe he used the right address and then the wrong address, made a spelling error, the person who was responsible for that as well as the "Evidence - Hit Squad" written on the tape, if it was the same person because that link in the chain is gone. You don't know?

MR BELLINGAN: Well I told my legal representative there's somewhere a missing link. There was a person Charlie who was also in the office, maybe he went with Bosch, I'm not sure. His name is not mentioned.

MR RAUTENBACH: He's also a person who did not apply for amnesty.

MR BELLINGAN: I know it was suggested in various of our applications.

MR RAUTENBACH: If I may ask you this way, if we go through the whole chain or the process, that we cannot find any evidence concerning that specific aspect and it could have been possibly a person or persons who did not apply for amnesty, who fulfilled the task within that link.

MR BELLINGAN: It could have been, but I think is - as I said earlier on, if it was me I would have said I pasted this thing and I wrote on it, but I know it wasn't me. And I'm sure the other colleagues would have done the same thing, I don't think there's one person who wants to hide it, everyone is here to tell the truth, so it is a possibility. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR LAX: Sorry, what was the name you mentioned there? I just didn't hear it clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it, because this is a problem that's facing us too, that when you say that somebody may have written the addresses as well as "Hit Squad", that you accept a possibility, on Bosch's evidence, that somebody not only read "Hit Squad", but opened the package and substituted it and we've heard nothing about that. That's part of what the mystery is.

MR RAUTENBACH: That is correct, Mr Chairman, this is 100% correct.

MR BELLINGAN: The name is Charlie Chait, not Tait that we spoke of earlier on. Chait, C-h-a-i-t. - "e". I think there's an "e" as well. It could be a possibility, it's not for definite.

MR SIBANYONI: Were his fingerprints and writing specimens taken?

MR BELLINGAN: I cannot say, Chairperson, I do not know what the investigative officer's reports say. I do not know whose fingerprints were taken, I cannot say that it wasn't taken.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Bellingan, a section in your evidence I am not quite sure if I understand and that is concerning the cleaning process in case it may be incriminating. How did you hear of it, did you have any contact with Kritzinger?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I had no contact with him, it was a rumour. You get a call from head office and we hear we have to clean up because Judge Goldstone is on his way, we take everything and throw it in the trash cans.

MR RAUTENBACH: It sees, according to the evidence of Kritzinger, the he basically conveyed this directly, that he would have said - or I understand out of Mr Klopper's evidence that ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: He's have to comment about that.

MR RAUTENBACH: You don't know anything about this, you just accept it that this is again a rumour we have to clear up?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, at that stage we had to retrace our steps and clean everything up.

MR RAUTENBACH: No more questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: I just want to ask you a couple of questions relating to the surveillance of the Dirk Coetzee family. Who was with you on occasions when you did carry out this surveillance?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, at one stage it was myself and Steve Bosch who did the surveillance, some of the other members, some of the black members were also involved. One night we went to the restaurant where she met people, so I cannot specifically say, but I would say mostly it was the Vlakplaas members.

MS LOCKHAT: Because Klopper in his evidence in the criminal trial, stated that Mr Tait was one person that went with you to that particular restaurant. He mentioned four people, himself, yourself, Mr Tait and Martinus Ras.

MR BELLINGAN: It could have been, yes. We were a large group of people who were around the restaurant on that night.

MS LOCKHAT: That's on page 20 of bundle 2, where he mentions that.

&#9;Did Mr Martinus Ras and Mr Tait work for Vlakplaas?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: Were they involved in this operation as well?

MR BELLINGAN: Not as far as I know.

MS LOCKHAT: But they accompanied you on the surveillance and the tapping in of the phones and so forth or ...?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, they did accompany us in the surveillance and the surveillance only.

MS LOCKHAT: Is it possible that any of them, after the operation, after you got the package and so forth, dealt with the package as well? Is it possible?

MR BELLINGAN: I cannot say, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: And Mr Tait also accompanied you, as Mr Radebe said, to the post office, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: According to his evidence, but I cannot believe why Mr Tait did not apply because he's applying for many other incidents. I cannot remember him in the vehicle, but I will not argue with him though.

MS LOCKHAT: I just want to get back to the meeting. You said you didn't attend the meeting but de Kock went to the office of van Rensburg, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS LOCKHAT: And you didn't accompany him inside the office, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: No, he went to go and fetch something, an envelope, I stood in the door and waited.

MS LOCKHAT: Was the door closed or open?

MR BELLINGAN: It was an open door.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you hear what they were discussing?

MR BELLINGAN: As I can recall, de Kock said that he came to fetch the envelope and then afterwards I heard that it was the address of Coetzee.

MS LOCKHAT: Was there anybody else in the room?

MR BELLINGAN: No, not as far as I can remember.

MR LAX: Sorry, I didn't hear the answer, just repeat.

MR BELLINGAN: Not as far as I can remember.

MS LOCKHAT: And you don't know whether du Plessis was there or not.

MR BELLINGAN: No, I cannot remember.

MS LOCKHAT: Did Mr de Kock tell you at that stage - after he got the address, did he tell you what you're going to do with it at that time?

MR BELLINGAN: If I can remember correctly, we walked down the passage and he said "This is Dirk's address and we're going to make a plan". He did not give me the details in what we are going to do.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you understand what he meant by "make a plan"?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Dirk Coetzee was enemy number one, so I could agree with that.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, I've no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Bellingan, apart from merely posting the parcel at the post office, was Mr Radebe also expected to pretend, as if he was Bheki or was he only going to say he's posting the parcel on behalf of Bheki?

MR BELLINGAN: I believe that he would have said that he would just like to post this parcel on behalf of somebody. I don't think he would have pretended to be Bheki, but I think if somebody asked him for identification he just would have said he's a courier. I believe he would have done that.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: Thanks Chair.

&#9;Just firstly about the money you would have given him. You would have drawn those funds from the normal secret source of funds, you would have had to make some kinds of entries to get those funds.

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, if I would have given him the money, it would have been that way, yes. I would have written out a claim, a false claim, because I also had access to it, de Kock trusted me. So I would have just handed in a claim for that. I believed I would have given him the money.

MR LAX: What I'm suggesting to you is that it would have been an additional factor in the process which would probably have triggered your memory or something that would have stayed in your mind a bit more than just delivering it to the post office.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that could possibly be so.

MR LAX: So the fact that you don't recall it may well imply that it didn't happen at all.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, it could have been that it did not happen, that he got money from somebody else, money that I did not give him, but it just seems that it would be normal that I would have given it to him.

MR LAX: Because he doesn't recall the money either and he clearly doesn't recall taking it out of his own pocket and claiming it back afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: But quite clearly somebody had to pay for the postage.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, somebody would have to pay, Chairperson, it could have been me ...

MR LAX: Okay, that's the first aspect. The next aspect is, at the time you and Col de Kock went to van Rensburg's office that day, were you already aware of some sort of operation of this nature? Had it already begun to take place?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, at that stage we did surveillance, tapping, and there must have been discussions amongst each other that we had to get Dirk Coetzee. We would have tried to do something else, for example getting the address. So I believe, maybe not in detail, but we would have started a plan at that stage to bring ideas together.

MR LAX: Because you're aware of the differences between Mr de Kock's evidence yesterday, and of course you weren't here, but I'm sure your legal representative pointed out to you the differences between what you're saying and what he said. Just to repeat it for your benefit, is that van Rensburg was with du Plessis in the office and they spoke to de Kock about this matter, and what I want to get to is the issue of the other address, in other words the address of the sender of that parcel, because Mr de Kock left HQ that day with both of them. You have no recollection of that at all?

MR BELLINGAN: No, none at all.

MR LAX: And in your mind this was just a short message, you went there to pick up an envelope and nothing more.

MR BELLINGAN: An envelope or a note yes, but I cannot remember that he took or received any addresses. I was standing outside of the door, so I could not really see what specifically happened. It could have been two notes.

MR LAX: You see the evidence was that du Plessis left the office, so if he left the office he would have walked past you.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I would have seen him.

MR LAX: And it would have been something that stuck in your mind.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR LAX: He then went to another office and came back with another piece of paper with an address on and a name on it.

MR BELLINGAN: I will not argue that.

MR LAX: The fact is though that you were told by, on your version, that you had Dirk's address, you weren't told you had another address.

MR BELLINGAN: No, that is correct, yes.

MR LAX: You can't be confusing some other meeting with the meeting where the decision to make a plan was taken?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Because prior to this you didn't know anything about the making of the plan with Dirk. Have I got it correctly?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I do agree.

MR LAX: Now you said that there wasn't a very thick file at HQ, and from that I wanted to check whether you actually ever saw his file at HQ.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I would just like to rectify something there. I didn't see the file, so I cannot say how thick it was. I did not have any knowledge about this file.

MR LAX: Okay. You maybe just expressed yourself a bit excessively in that instance.

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Then this last - sorry, there's two other points I just wish to follow up on. The first is, it seems clear from the way you've spoken about whatever interaction there may have been between you and Radebe, that you yourself weren't particularly concerned about being caught or leaving behind traces that might lead back to you. Because your subsequent evidence in relation to that was "Well if we were, it would just be covered up in any event, as was always the practice".

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I believed so.

MR LAX: And consequently it's highly unlikely that you would have therefore, in that instance and in that context, told Radebe to take any special precautions.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I believe - I think out of experience he knew that he must not leave any fingerprints, it was logical that he shouldn't just touch anything. But I believe he would have known not to leave any fingerprints behind.

MR LAX: You see his evidence is he had not inkling this was a lethal package, so he would have had no reason to suspect that he should take any special care.

MR BELLINGAN: I will not argue about what he thought.

MR LAX: And then finally, all of you so far don't seem to know who this missing link is, how is it possible that all of you working together in the same place and in constant communication with each other all the time, studiously avoid knowing who this other person or persons are that may have, in one way or another, had something to do with this parcel?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, I told my legal representatives I cannot believe it. If it was me who wrote it I just would have said yes, but Charlie was also at the farm at that stage. I do not believe it was him, but I cannot give an explanation where that missing link is. I cannot really understand why anything would be held back concerning this, it just doesn't make sense to me.

MR LAX: There would only be one reason why and that is because you know that person didn't apply for amnesty and therefore you might want to cover up for that person.

MR BELLINGAN: I do not believe so, Chairperson.

MR LAX: No, fair enough. That's it, Chairperson, from me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I would like to continue from there. This package we are told about, how it was wrapped up at the offices, the Technical Division, how you fetched it from there, took it and gave it to Mr de Kock, who presumably would have treated it with a great deal of care, knowing what it was, it then emerged on Mr Bosch's desk and somebody had written or stuck a label onto it, it was taken from there by you, was it? Or who gave it to you?

MR BELLINGAN: I think Col de Kock or Mr Bosch gave it to me.

CHAIRPERSON: It was taken from there and given to you to be posted and it had labels stuck on it. We have been told that it was either kept in Mr Bosch's office, which was a secure room with a steel door, or in a safe, yet nobody can explain how suddenly from something merely wrapped up with brown paper, it becomes a parcel addressed, with the sender's name and address on it, with, it would seem, postage stamps or postal payment stuck on it, with insurance having been arranged, and nobody knows. Doesn't this appear to be a deliberate concealment of information?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, I do agree with you, it does not make sense. I told my advocate that I couldn't believe that there was a missing link. As I said, if I did it I would have said well, I did it and get it over with, but I cannot believe that there's a missing link. Somebody in the group had to do it, had to write it.

CHAIRPERSON: My final question is, were you told what post office to go to?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, I do not want to lie, but I believe they would have said in Johannesburg in the centre of town, close to the offices of the sender. If I decided on Jeppe or Braamfontein, I cannot say but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's the point I wish to make, and you've made it for me, "close to the offices of the sender". That was a factor in choosing the post office, to build up the proof where who had sent it.

MR BELLINGAN: I agree with you.

CHAIRPERSON: And you think you were told that?

MR BELLINGAN: I believe so, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Just to follow up on that. I mean the office close to the sender's office would have been the Braamfontein Post Office, not the Joubert Park Post Office.

MR BELLINGAN: I can remember where I stopped, but I see it was Braamfontein, but I always thought it was Joubert Park or Jeppe Street Post office.

MR LAX: Ja. No, Jorisson Street is right up, quite far from Joubert Park.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, it could have been, I do not know Johannesburg that well. But I will agree with it, that it was Braamfontein, it was on the document.

MR LAX: It sounds strange that having got that instruction you then didn't go to the one at Braamfontein but you went to the one at Joubert Park.

MR BELLINGAN: I cannot argue with that.

MR LAX: Some explanation may assist, but obviously you can't remember.

MR BELLINGAN: I agree, there.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you did remember that it was to be posted somewhere in central Johannesburg, to link up with the offices of the sender.

MR BELLINGAN: If it was Joubert Park or Braamfontein, I cannot remember specifically.

CHAIRPERSON: Which one. But that was the purpose of going there.

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I don't know whether - I've just seen on Exhibit D6, there's a stamp of Joubert Park and then later there's the writing "Braamfontein" on the other exhibit. I'm also - I just picked that up, I don't know whether you ... D5 is Braamfontein and then D6, there's a post office stamp "Joubert Park".

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, may I just be of some assistance here. D5 has been pointed out, it was a document that was most probably - on the evidence of the inquest records you'll notice "retour" on the right, in other words "on the way back", and that the office of - although it says "Office of Posting - Braamfontein", I think it was common cause in the inquest, even for the witnesses that were called, that the parcel was in fact posted at Joubert Park and that the "Braamfontein" that appears on D5, was a document that was filled in at Lusaka, probably with the idea of indicating the destination, being Braamfontein. 

&#9;You will also notice on D5, there's a date, "Date of Dispatch". Now there was evidence that there was tippex, with tippex the date was changed and from the evidence in the inquest, it transpired that a "9" was tippexed out and was replaced with the "10/11", that's 10th of November, which corresponds with the actual sending of the parcel from Lusaka back to Johannesburg. I just hope that may just clarify some of the issues.

CHAIRPERSON: I can't understand who or what organisation should be so interested to tippex out the date from the 9th to the 10th.

MR RAUTENBACH: I may just point out that at the inquest that question was raised "Why was the tippex on the yellow ticket?" And then some forensic expert looked at it and actually removed the tippex and basically came to the conclusion that the "0", in other words, "10", that there was a "9". So whoever - it actually pointed towards, at the posting of the documents, someone changed the date from the 9th to the 10th, which in itself doesn't seem to be suspicious at all. 

&#9;What we understood was that the yellow document, the yellow card, was something used all over the world as - I'm not sure whether a post office is supposed to, when they get back the yellow ticket, to forward it to some central office, which of course South Africa at that stage wasn't part of the arrangement. But that's the way we understood it.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether we're going to have someone giving evidence about this package and the postage, because I must say I'm totally confused as to what this first envelope on D1 is, going to Switzerland, which looks from the way it is there, that it might have been an envelope in which the insurance certificate was put. But was it found stuck onto the parcel? Where does it come from? We were given a photograph of what appears to be an envelope addressed to Bern in Switzerland, which doesn't tie in with any of the other information we've been given.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, may I just point out that if you look at D1 for instance, you will see that this was taken at the crime scene - there's a box of cigarettes that you will see sticking out at the bottom of the page, so what happened was, the two documents that you see "Insured Parcel" and the "Union de Postal Universal", is not the same document as such. My understanding was - and if it's necessary to get that evidence, we will have to do so, that that was the reverse side of the so-called yellow document, the document that eventually gets forwarded to one central place, and that seems to be a Switzerland address.

CHAIRPERSON: So that you say comes from the other side of D5.

MR RAUTENBACH: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I ...(intervention)

MR LAX: There's automatically that worries me about that assumption and that is if you look at D5, it's all crumpled on the one end and the envelope on D1 isn't.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have checked this now with my instructing attorney, the document that we are - our definite recollection that that is the reverse side of the document, but I'm not sure whether the photostat doesn't make that clear or what the situation is, but that was, the understanding was that it's a yellow card that is used internationally and forwarded to one central place. I don't know what they do with it, why they want to have this information and what the purpose of it is, or whether only some countries are registered at this specific organisation.

&#9;I will, Mr Chairman, also just look at the record that is available, just see what I can get from the record, but you will notice in the extracts from Kritzinger's evidence that there was a lot of cross-examination about for instance, the change from "9" to "10", about the yellow card. And it started off - the bone of contention was, if you look at the investigation docket, it was put forward as yet another piece of overseas material and therefore it wasn't something that was manufactured in South Africa. That was the theory at the time, advanced by the police as well as by the Attorney-General's office, that it was something that was manufactured somewhere with Eastern European material, somewhere overseas, brought into the country for this purpose to get to Coetzee. 

&#9;And during that cross-examination, in the course of that investigation it was basically established on the probabilities, that the document was something that was attached to the parcel in Lusaka and not in South Africa. The post office officials in South Africa didn't know what this document was about and they didn't know how to deal with, especially when a matter is being posted from South Africa to overseas. That's as far as I can take it, Mr Chairman. If it's necessary and we'll have to call a witness on that issue, then we'll have to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well these photographs to me are entirely confusing. If you look at D1, there's a packet of cigarettes above the envelope, you can see the bottom of it, right? You've seen that?

MR RAUTENBACH: I do.

CHAIRPERSON: When they come to take D3, they put a cassette on top of the same envelope. When they come to take D5, they put the notice on top of the packet of cigarettes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What are they doing?

MR LAX: Just one other thing that one can notice, and if you look carefully, what I refer to as the crumpled portion of that thing, is in fact the balance of the insurance slip because you can see the remainder of the cross that's on the top, it you look on the other portion, coming through there. And in fact there's a separate line dividing that card from the piece underlying it and it says "OPU Quality of Service Test". So this is obviously some organisation of postal unions that are running some sort of statistical data collection on how long it takes items to go from point A to point B.

MR RAUTENBACH: I will agree with that observation, it seems that that seems to be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: And if you look below the OPU, there's a little nick in the thing, they're two different - as my colleague says, they're two bits of - it's not the one sheet of paper going through, they've put one on top of another.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, I agree with that observation as well. But in any event, it seems that those were then -from the photostat at least, as I was basically explaining what our understanding was, two separate documents. The one was the insurance and the other one was this yellow card referring to whatever data they needed in this organisation. 

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR BOOYENS: ... no thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS

WITNESS EXCUSED

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MR BOOYENS: I call my next witness, Mr Wal du Toit.

NAME:&#9;W A L DU TOIT

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

MR SIBANYONI: Your full names please.

WYBRAND ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson.

&#9;Mr du Toit, you have bundle 1 before you, please proceed to page 129. Mr du Toit, just for the sake of background, you yourself compiled your amnesty application without the assistance of a legal representative.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And did you simply do this as you thought they would like to have it done?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: There have been a number of occasions that you have testified before the Chairperson himself particularly, and this section from page 129 to page 158, is the basic background that you have incorporated in all your amnesty applications.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And you confirm this as correct.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Then on page 159 up to and including page 164, you once again deal with your background in a more compact manner.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And then on page 164, you deal with the Dirk Coetzee matter and the Bheki Mlangeni matter which forms the subject of this particular amnesty application.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: On page 165, you describe that during May 1990, Lt Col de Kock came to you to discuss a certain matter with you, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Basically speaking, what did he tell you?

MR DU TOIT: He informed me that he had received an order to manufacture a parcel bomb which would be addressed to Dirk Coetzee, with the intention of killing him.

&#9;Furthermore, he elaborated on the background and stated that given the position which Dirk occupied within the ANC at that stage and in the light of what he had already said, this could cause great damage, not only in the present but in the future, for the Security Branch and the members of the Security Branch in their personal capacity, as well as the informers.

MR BOOYENS: Dirk Coetzee at that stage was quite notorious in the Security Branch, because this was after he had made certain revelations.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And I think it was generally known that he had defected to the ANC camp.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Mr du Toit, if we could just deal very briefly with the background of the Technical Division. You had a technical intelligence gathering capacity by means of the tapping of telephones and so forth, but your division was not really occupied with the evaluation of intelligence or any such matters, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct. Generally we established an infrastructure and brought it into operational execution.

MR BOOYENS: So you were not involved in the ...(indistinct) selection of targets or anything of that nature?

MR DU TOIT: No, not at all.

MR BOOYENS: You were basically a support section?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now a number of questions have been posed about this. If one of the senior officers at the Technical Division - perhaps we could just deal with this very briefly, if you were a senior officer at the Technical Division, how would you describe that unit which resorted below you?

MR DU TOIT: We were known as the Mechanical Division, which dealt with tasks of a mechanical nature primarily. MR BOOYENS: Then there was also a section which was occupied with the tapping of telephones and the interception of faxes and such sort or things, I would assume.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And how was this section known?

MR DU TOIT: Electronic Surveillance.

MR BOOYENS: That did not resort under you?

MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Helberg was involved or in charge of that.

MR DU TOIT: I think he may have been involved with that personally as a Commander at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: And the statement has already been put by me during consultation that Mr Helberg was the type of man who basically stuck to the rules. Would you agree with that?

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

MR BOOYENS: Now perhaps you could briefly explain to the Committee. If someone in the Security Branch wanted to tap the telephone of somebody else with the insistence of Mr Helberg, just summarise for the Committee how this would have been executed.

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, firstly I must state that I do not regard myself as an expert in that area because I did not deal with these matters in my personal capacity and I will just have to rely on my recollection and the small amount of knowledge or expose that I gained during the years. To the best of my knowledge, an applicant would have to submit a written application form which would then be submitted to the Postmaster-General for authorisation, but what the delegation period or limit was at head office, I don't know. It has been mentioned during other evidence that it had to be with the Commissioner or the Minister. I myself would doubt that to some extent, but it would be delegated to someone in head office. I would agree with that.

MR BOOYENS: And if such a delegation would then be approved, what would the mechanics of that be on ground level?

MR DU TOIT: Firstly, the Postmaster-General would then extend this authorisation to his own personnel within the framework of the post office, then the line would be made available to us and it would be executed by means of a link on the mainframe at Pretoria central, or the Pretoria central telephone exchange, which would then be sent through to Rebecca Street and we could undertake the tapping. 

MR BOOYENS: And it would then be connected to a cassette recording machine which would be voice activated.

MR DU TOIT: No, not necessarily voice activated, but it would be automatic.

MR BOOYENS: So within your knowledge, was there any way in which Mr de Kock for example, without the intervention of the senior on the higher levels, would have been able to get past Mr Helberg in order to tap the telephone line of Dirk Coetzee's wife?

MR DU TOIT: No.

CHAIRPERSON: It wouldn't only be past Helberg, would it, it would be past the Postmaster-General?

MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Because this had to be something that was done in the post office, the connection was made.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So were you then made aware during your discussion with Mr de Kock, that Dirk Coetzee's wife's telephone was indeed being tapped?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot say that I became aware of it at that stage necessarily, but during the course of time - we're referring here to a month/six weeks, I became aware of it. We had quite a bit of traffic to that particular room where the tapping was executed and it came to my knowledge eventually.

MR BOOYENS: And with regard to you, the statement which Mr de Kock made that it was authorised by head office, did this fortify your belief?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, it did.

MR BOOYENS: Now during your discussion with Mr de Kock, was any mention made as you have stated in your affidavit, that Dirk Coetzee's elimination would be conducted via the postal service?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And the reason was that he was abroad and for some or other reason the decision was made that it would not be practical to use any other method?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now after Mr de Kock had the discussion with you and you were brought up to speed regarding the background - you have heard the evidence that was given by Mr Bosch that upon occasion he visited Japie Kok, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And apparently the two of them entered your office and came to discuss the proposed explosive device.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you already know at that stage?

MR DU TOIT: I already knew the background. Mr de Kock had visited me in his personal capacity and informed me that this would be executed at a certain stage.

MR BOOYENS: Did you then tell Mr Japie Kok to continue with the exercise?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: We know that at a later stage the two Kok brothers always worked quite closely together, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And at a later stage apparently - they will testify to this, I just want to expedite matters, Japie Kok fell away due to other commitments and Kobus Kok continued manufacturing the device. In your capacity as commander, did you later visit Vlakplaas with Kobus Kok and Steve Bosch, where this explosive was tested?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: In as far as one could see anything into this, was there any reason why a pig's head was used to test the explosive device?

MR DU TOIT: No, not to the best of my knowledge.

MR BOOYENS: However, it was advisable to test the device on the aspect of a living organism or living tissue?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct. Perhaps I could add that I think the reason for that was that it was a very small charge which had to be highly effective, it had to produce the desired effect.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. Perhaps at this stage you could just explain to the Committee, although the man who built the device is actually Kobus Kok, but possibilities were mentioned, for example I know that he stated initially that later it was decided to use headphones. You were in charge of the situation, why would it have been more advisable to use the headphones for example, and not the actual device? Why was it advisable not to fill the device with explosives and fill the headphones instead, what was the reason for this?

MR DU TOIT: During the evidence here someone posed a question with regard to whether or not it was a parcel-bomb. I think that one should view this in the light of the fact that it was a refined parcel-bomb which would be more effectively target oriented, so that no other bystander would be injured or killed in the process. The principle was to be selective when it came to targets.

MR BOOYENS: So this device would be designed to injure only the person who had donned the headphones?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand what you've just told us, that was one of the reasons for the test, because the explosion was designed merely to go straight into the head, roughly from ear to ear, and not cause damage elsewhere.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: In either event, after the prototype was tested, the other device was completed and delivered and that was the last that you heard of it for quite some time.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Much time later, it would appear somewhere in February, you heard of an explosion in Johannesburg, during which Bheki Mlangeni died.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And as far as you knew, was Mr Mlangeni ever a target?

MR DU TOIT: I never knew anything about Mr Mlangeni, therefore I don't believe him to have been a target.

MR BOOYENS: But you did not undertake the determination of the target, so based upon what you know, he wasn't a target?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: I think that we will ask Mr Kok about the security measures which were taken to render the device as secure as possible under the circumstances, but would it be correct to say that with any explosive device there is a measure of risk unfortunately?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now Mr du Toit, is it correct that in as far as you were in a position to determine the value of Mr Coetzee as a target, did you feel that this was a correct target in the context of the situation of warfare?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And is it further correct, as you have already testified, that the decision to eliminate such a person and the decision to continue whatsoever with the operation, was not within your control?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Thus you apply for amnesty for any offence which may emanate from the attempted murder of Mr Coetzee and the murder of Mr Mlangeni?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you confirm the balance of your amnesty application?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I do.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

MR SIBANYONI: What would be the affect of the delay on this device? It was posted in May and it only exploded in February the following year. Does the lapse of time have any affect on the explosive?

MR DU TOIT: No, Chairperson, it was very stable. Military explosives which were used which could lay dormant for years and not be affected by time at all.

CHAIRPERSON: But on that - it's a matter that's suddenly struck me, this went off when the machine was turned on.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that would rely on some form of power, wouldn't it? - battery-operated.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So isn't the question, what would happen to the batteries after a delay of nine months?

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, that is correct, I don't know whether I may have misinterpreted the previous question, the explosives themselves were stable. I thought that that was the angle in which the question was posed. Actually it is surprising that the batteries may have lasted that long because nine months is a very long time, particularly in Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we've heard that it was sent from here to Zambia and still around in Zambia for months and months, one would have imagined that that was sufficient to completely flatten the batteries.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: A very good advertisement for what ever make of batteries it was.

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

&#9;Mr du Toit, did Mr de Kock, when he directed the request to you to assist with the manufacturing of such a device, also inform you that the order came from above?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did he mentioned any names that you can recall, Mr du Toit?

MR DU TOIT: If I had to be very honest I wouldn't be able to say that I remember that he mentioned any particular name.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And from your perspective you did not regard it necessary under the circumstance, to obtain any authorisation from any higher level in order to manufacture this device?

MR DU TOIT: No, I think that on previous occasions during evidence given by the former Commissioner, evidence was also given that we had devolved authorisation to assist with covert operations led by Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: And you had previously provided such assistance.

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Had you ever manufactured any other explosive devices upon the request of Vlakplaas?

MR DU TOIT: I myself hadn't done that much. We can refer in this case to the zero-detonation handgrenades. There were also other cases.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall off the top of your head when your division was involved in the manufacturing of devices which were sent via the postal service?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I think the case that I can refer to is a pen set or something like that, which was posted.

MR HATTINGH: To Swaziland?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I think so.

MR HATTINGH: Did it ever occur in your experience that an explosive device which was posted would find it's way back to the sender? In other words, arrive back at the person who had actually sent it.

MR DU TOIT: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you determine from Mr de Kock, who was in charge of the tapping?

MR DU TOIT: No, at that stage I simply accepted that it was authorised and legal. There was no other way that it could have taken place in our division.

MR HATTINGH: So therefore it would have had to have been authorised from the very highest level?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that is what you accepted?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I accepted it as such.

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

MR LAX: Can I just clear up a question you asked, just so it's absolutely crystal clear in the answer. You said you never 

experienced that such parcels ever found their way back to the sender and by that you meant the purported sender, obviously.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, yes, indeed. 

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

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

&#9;Mr du Toit, the request from Mr de Kock, at that stage was there a specific request concerning the walkman, or was this revealed only later?

MR DU TOIT: I did not know that he specifically said walkman, it can be so. I cannot specifically remember that.

MR LAMEY: When you went to Vlakplaas to go and test this device, you said in your statement on page 167 - it's a small aspect, I'd just like to clear this up, Bosch got into your vehicle. Could it be that Bosch drove off to the river with his own vehicle?

MR DU TOIT: This is as far as I can recall, because at that stage he had a blue Husky bus with a lot of space inside. If it was something different, it could be so, but that is what I can remember.

MR LAMEY: That is because Mr Nortje and Mr Bosch drove down together and as far as they can remember they drove with Bosch's vehicle.

MR DU TOIT: It could be so, yes.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I ask something before I forget, it doesn't arise from anything. We heard previously, and I should have asked that question previously, that evidence was led that the device used, the wiring as I understand it, was of Eastern European origin.

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I am not the right person to give evidence concerning this, but I think my colleague, Mr Kok, will be able to give you a better picture about what material was used for this device. I do not have the details.

CHAIRPERSON: Well what I'm trying to find out is, did anybody enquire where the device came from? We know where it was bought, we've been told where it was bought, did anybody go and ask them what they were selling at the time?

MR DU TOIT: I cannot help you, no Mr Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, the situation is this, that there was an attempt during the inquest by the investigating team - now if I say there was an attempt by the investigating team, it doesn't mean that, well very few of their attempts were in fact successful, but in trying to locate the dealership where it was bought from, I think the closest that they could come as I recall, was that it was either type 1 or it's one of the Eastern, Hong Kong or something like that. That was the device itself, but the evidence actually went further. As far as the all sorts of material that was used and electrical wiring, with that type of thing the investigation actually went at length to exclude them from being South African manufactured. But we will deal with that.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what was worrying me. It was no -it was accepted it was some foreign device and once one gets to try one in Hong Kong, where the bits come from is I don't think a matter you would ever investigate from here. But it wasn't - because I know there are certain South African makes, it wasn't ever suggested it was a South African make, it was a foreign ... Thank you.

MR LAX: Just on this issue, sorry. I'm just puzzled by this. Was the purpose of this whole innuendo to suggest that someone else was having a go at Mlangeni or at Coetzee and not the South Africans?

MR RAUTENBACH: In fact, Mr Chairman, the innuendo was quite clear. The suggestion was on behalf of the police as well as the Attorney-General's staff, that it was the ANC who wanted to get rid of Mr Coetzee because he became an embarrassment to them. That was the suggestion that was made.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, may I then proceed with the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Toit, the first aspect in your evidence that is, I do not want to use "interesting", but it is the following. You said that it was mentioned to you by Mr de Kock that the target was Mr Coetzee, then you were asked what was said to you, if Coetzee was the target. It was - how can I put it, it was not a legitimate target but it was a planned target and you answered and said "Yes, Coetzee was the person who at that stage did the things that put the police in a bad light and could have been a danger personally to various members". This is a personal opinion maybe, but could you just comment on it. &#9;

&#9;I would expect that you would have said that we are a technical department, we receive, let's use the word "job card", if it is approved by the powers to be, people in the higher ranks and we know that there is approval, then according to this job card, I then have to complete this. I would not expect from you that you would be - it was known to you who the target was.

MNR DU TOIT: "Wel ons is nie noodwendig altyd al die teiken besonderhede toevertrou nie, dit moet ek dadelik sê. In hierdie geval is dit aan my toevertrou. Die regverdigingsgronde was nie by ons gesetel of dit ten uitvoer gebring moes word, al dan nie, maar ek het maar in my eie verwysingsraamwerk dit veroordeel en ek kon daarmee akkoord gaan." ...(no English interpretation)

MR RAUTENBACH: Would it be right if I say - because actually your own frame of reference or your own opinion, had to be irrelevant, you were basically in the position that if you received the instruction, you are the technical person - I mentioned the word "job card", I cannot thing of anything better, but you had to carry out that "job card"? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR DU TOIT: The duty, yes, Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then Sir, I would like to ask you on that same aspect, you referred to Helberg and there was also reference made to the Electronic Surveillance. The department that you were the head of, how can we describe it, as what? If we had to now give it a name.

MR DU TOIT: The Mechanical Division.

MR RAUTENBACH: The Mechanical Division. And then there was the Electronic Surveillance Department, how many departments or sections were there in this Technical Division?

MR DU TOIT: There was also an Electronic Workshop for maintenance and repairs and that was for the tapping of telephones, Electronic Surveillance and then Administrative Personnel as well as a Radio Department.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now if you look at these departments and concerning the Mechanical Department, you were the head?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And your rank was at that stage? A Captain?

MR DU TOIT: No, I think I was Colonel.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to ask you, you were talking about an overall head of this department, who was the overall head of the whole unit, the whole Technical Department?

MR DU TOIT: Col Helberg.

MR RAUTENBACH: Col Helberg. Now what I would like to ask you is, people come to you and say "We want things executed and they say in this case, or apparently said to you "Dirk Coetzee is a target and we want to eliminate him". What was your position concerning Helberg? If Helberg is the overall head of the department or section, what liaison did you have with him?

MR DU TOIT: I would like to repeat what I said earlier on. We did talk about this in the previous proceedings, I do not have all the details of covert operations. I had limited powers.

MR RAUTENBACH: You must remember, Mr du Toit, that although you were involved in other applications, for some of us it is well-known evidence, but for others it is not. I was not involved in any case where you gave evidence, so you have to be patient.

MR DU TOIT: I'm not impatient.

MR RAUTENBACH: My question in this regard is - and I would like to try and get to the core of it as soon as possible, in other words you say that you had the discretion in cases where you could inform Helberg or in which cases you wanted his support or in which cases you said you didn't need it.

MR DU TOIT: I wouldn't say that I had a discretion if I was to inform him or not. In most cases I did not inform him about covert operations.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did not inform him?

MR DU TOIT: Not inform him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why was that?

MR DU TOIT: It is about the principle of compartmentalisation, people who do not have to know shouldn't know.

MR RAUTENBACH: What made you special, that in this section you could make decisions about must know and mustn't know? For example, you are not going to inform Helberg.

MR DU TOIT: I think, Mr Chairperson, I do not think I was special, I was just in a position where I had certain experts working under me and who were usable in this type of operation.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you say that you had certain experts that worked under you and they worked in a very professional way and could execute certain things in a professional way, I can understand that. But what I'm getting at is, you are in a Technical Department or section and one of them is the Mechanical Department, there Helberg is the overall head, what made you in your capacity, where did you get the authorisation to make your own decisions about what devices can be built or what kind of devices must be reported back to Helberg? Because it seems as if you had a special authority, something that had to be given to you, it could not have come from nowhere.

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I do not think that I had any special authority. I once again refer to the capacity that I do have that senior officers knew about. I was not called in and told that "You have the authority to do whatever you want to", all instructions and tasks and requests that came my way, instructions that were already agreed upon on a higher level, the time when it got to me there was a lot of support concerning them.

MR RAUTENBACH: But Mr du Toit, the only idea that you could have had that this specific project was agreed on at a higher level, was only Mr de Kock himself, no-one else.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that's correct, for me it was enough.

MR RAUTENBACH: It was enough for you?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And the fact that Mr de Kock told you this, was good enough that within your discretion you could decided to report or not to report and then decided not to report because it was approved on?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, maybe I am confused with this question, but for me it was enough to execute the task and not to convey it Mr Helberg. For me it was enough. I did not need any other input to convince me that it comes from a higher level, we trusted each other, I trusted Mr de Kock, I did not believe that he would give me any instruction that was not authorised or approved by the higher authorities.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you did have the capacity, if I understand your evidence, to tell him "I'm not willing to continue unless this aspect is confirmed by the people higher up in the hierarchy of the system".

MR DU TOIT: Capacity yes, maybe I could have. I do not think in those days it would have been suited for a Security Branch person not to execute such a project.

MR RAUTENBACH: But if that is so, then it means the following, Mr du Toit, and that if it was not suited for a security person to execute it, it could possibly happen that you would execute instructions from individuals and which were not approved in the hierarchy.

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, I know of no such possibility. There was a trust amongst the people from the Security Branch and I am not aware of such a situation.

MR RAUTENBACH: Your rank was a Colonel at that stage.

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: What was Mr de Kock's rank?

MR DU TOIT: I think we had the same rank at that stage, maybe Lieutenant-Colonel.

MR RAUTENBACH: Just a question about Kritzinger. Did you have anything to do with him, the investigative officer?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, in the post-mortem investigation I was interrogated by them.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you talking about the court proceedings?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember that Kritzinger asked you to search the Technical Department?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, he did.

MR RAUTENBACH: When was this done? Did he notify you about this, or how did he do it?

MR DU TOIT: No, he did not notify me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did he notify anybody? Do you know if he came to search the place?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, he did.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know where he did it?

MR DU TOIT: He did it in the Technical Department.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was it in the Technical Department or the Mechanical Department?

MR DU TOIT: He came to look at us, he went through our storerooms to compare electrical wiring. I was not present, I only accompanied him on my floor.

MR RAUTENBACH: May I just have a moment.

&#9;Just one last aspect, Mr du Toit. Did you have any information about when the package left the Technical Department, in what shape it was, did you see it, did you receive any report-back on that?

MR DU TOIT: No, not at all. 

MR RAUTENBACH: I presume that you would have known what type of device it was and what it entailed as it left.

MR DU TOIT: Yes, that's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Who would have conveyed this to you?

MR DU TOIT: Well I attended the testing of the prototypes.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you knew exactly what was going on?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you know that it was expected that the Technical Department had to wrap this up, that it will not be a walkman that was delivered but something that was packaged? Did you know that?

MR DU TOIT: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

MS LOCKHAT: I have no questions, thank you, Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR BOOYENS: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU TOIT: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR BOOYENS: I call Jakob Francois Kok.

NAME:&#9;JAKOB FRANCOIS KOK

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

MR LAX: Are those your full names, Mr Kok.

JAKOB FRANCOIS KOK: (sworn states)

MR LAX: You may be seated. Witness sworn in, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Page 119, Chairperson.

&#9;Mr Kok, to prevent any confusion on the record, you are Japie Kok.

MR J F KOK: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You completed an amnesty application in the case of Dirk Coetzee and Bheki Mlangeni and you did not make use of a legal representative when you wrote this.

MR J F KOK: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you confirm the content of this amnesty application as it appears in this application?

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

MR BOOYENS: Mr Kok, in short, you heard the evidence of Wal du Toit, you also read his application documents. Do you confirm that?

MR J F KOK: Yes, I do.

MR BOOYENS: Steve Bosch came to you at a certain stage with a request, is that correct?

MR J F KOK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Could you tell us in short what his request was and what you did.

MR J F KOK: Mr Bosch came to me on a certain day with an instruction from Col de Kock that a parcel must be prepared to eliminate Dirk Coetzee. They came with a suggestion or an idea of a tape recorder or a radio, but we had to see what was practical.

MR BOOYENS: After the request did you talk to anybody about it?

MR J F KOK: I said to him that we have to go and get some clearance from Col du Toit, to get authorisation before we can continue.

MR BOOYENS: Did he tell you who sent him to you?

MR J F KOK: He said that de Kock sent him.

MR BOOYENS: You then went to Wal du Toit.

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And you then told him about the request.

MR J F KOK: Yes, I did.

MR BOOYENS: And what was du Toit's reaction, what was your conclusion?

MR J F KOK: That he already knew about the request that would come, and then he said that we can continue and start working on the package.

MR BOOYENS: You then had the authorisation to continue?

MR J F KOK: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have any reason to doubt that Col du Toit considered it or that he had instructions from a higher level?

MR J F KOK: I had no reason to doubt him because he wouldn't have allowed me to continue without it being authorised.

MR BOOYENS: And just in short, although it was not within your discretion who the targets were or were not, in many cases you did not know who the targets were and as my learned friend said, sometimes you had a job card without knowing who the targets were.

MR J F KOK: That is correct, we were not involved in target analysis.

MR BOOYENS: But in this case it was told who the target was.

MR J F KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And it was not a type of target that made you surprised in any way, under the circumstances?

MR J F KOK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Your brother, Mr Kobus Kok and yourself discussed the practical aspects of this matter.

MR J F KOK: That is correct, Chairperson. Myself and Sgt Bosch first went out to go and buy a walkman. After Col du Toit gave us the authorisation we went to go and buy a walkman in order to look at the possibilities of the execution.

MR BOOYENS: And afterwards you started working on a practical way in which to do this and Kobus worked with you.

MR J F KOK: Yes, automatically I would draw Kobus in and we worked together and we planned it together and how we could practically execute this.

MR BOOYENS: And at a certain stage you got other responsibilities and you dropped out of this.

MR J F KOK: Yes, I was out of town for a few days and then Kobus continued with the project.

MR BOOYENS: And did you at any stage see the completed product, or the device?

MR J F KOK: No, I never saw the final product, just when I came back he just told me that he did complete it and executed it and the package is on its way.

MR BOOYENS: So do you apply for amnesty for any offence and that is the attempted murder on Mr Coetzee and the death of Mr Bheki Mlangeni?

MR J F KOK: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you confirm your application?

MR J F KOK: Yes, I do.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no questions for this witness.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

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

&#9;Mr Kok, initially you said that the idea was to use a tape recorder, who came up with the walkman suggestion?

MR J F KOK: Chairperson, in the discussion while we talked about what our options were and we thought about what was the most practical and what would work the best, it came out at that stage that the cheapest thing would be a walkman.

MR LAMEY: Was that with the first visit from Mr Bosch?

MR J F KOK: Yes, that was the first visit to me, that was after we got the authorisation and talked about it, that was the discussion.

MR LAMEY: Was that now after the discussion with your commander, Wal du Toit?

MR J F KOK: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Or did it happen in the office of Wal du Toit?

MR J F KOK: No, it was after we left du Toit's office and we came to my office and we started discussing the possibilities.

MR LAMEY: But did you say it was better to use a walkman?

MR J F KOK: It is difficult to say it was me, but it was a joint discussion and that's when we came up with this idea. It was a joint planning session.

MR LAMEY: Because Mr Bosch said that he remembered that at one stage he was requested to go and buy a walkman, but before that he cannot remember where it was mentioned, and then he in the end went to go and buy it.

MR J F KOK: That may be his recollection, but I remember that that same day we drove off to go and buy a walkman.

MR LAMEY: That same day?

MR J F KOK: Yes, out of my office we went, it was within ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: But wouldn't Mr Bosch have to put in a false claim to get funds?

MR J F KOK: In practice it didn't work that you first get money and then go and buy it, if you had enough money with you, you could pay for it and then claim it back later.

MR LAMEY: Because I do not understand, he wouldn't have known at that stage that he had to go and buy something.

MR J F KOK: We had instructions to go and make this thing work. From Technical side we cannot do it if we haven't got something to work with.

MR LAMEY: How many walkmans were bought, one or two?

MR J F KOK: I think the first time we went we only bought one. It could have been that at a later stage there was another request for another one, and that could perhaps support Mr Bellingan's evidence that he went with Mr Bosch to go and buy a walkman. It could maybe confirm that. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR LAMEY: Oh, I see. Do you know anything about the tapes?

MR J F KOK: No, I cannot remember anything about tapes. At that stage there was no mention made about the tapes, so I do not know what they are talking about.

MR LAMEY: Your brother, may he know something about that?

MR J F KOK: Yes, possibly.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

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

&#9;Mr Kok, I have a few questions that I would rather ask your brother, but just in general I would like to know from you, people talk about so-called pseudo operations where an item is manufactured and then used afterwards when there is a forensic test done on it - maybe AK47 bullets were found on the scene and it is said this and this happened or that a handgrenade was from Eastern Europe origin, what I would like to ask you is, concerning your unit - I do not know in how many incidents you were involved in and I do not want the details concerning this, in how many instances you were involved in the manufacturing of a type of device that can be used by the Security Police or Forces, but is it not possible to say in general whether it was general practice to use material that would lead the investigators on a different route?

MR J F KOK: From our side we would definitely use - because we were in a war situation and the enemies from the Eastern Block countries weaponry was used, we tried as far as possible to use material and weapons that could not point fingers at the Security Branch. So you did make use of the Eastern Block countries, weaponry and materials from that country.

MR RAUTENBACH: At that stage did you realise that at the Technical Department, concerning the equipment that you had, whatever it was, the smallest or the biggest, part of the material that you used, that it could point a finger away from you?

MR J F KOK: Concerning weaponry and explosives we did not use the equipment within, we could go to the Explosives Unit, because it was something that was seized every single day and I think South Africa was at that stage one of the biggest, the country with the most Eastern Block weapons. And it was also mentioned in previous hearings that some of the weaponry was packaged by terrorists and in the onslaught they used material that was made in England. If we used to something like that, we had to get the same material from England. So it could be possible that we had that.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm talking about detonators now. Would you also have had access to various types of detonators?

MR J F KOK: Yes, it was possible to get detonators.

MR RAUTENBACH: What was your rank at that stage?

MR J F KOK: I think I was a Captain.

MR RAUTENBACH: And your brother was also a Captain?

MR J F KOK: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Just one aspect, Mr Kok. Did you ever, or did you have any contact with for example - I think it would be pure coincident, but with for example, Mr Kritzinger who investigated this case?

MR J F KOK: I knew him in another level, we were together on an officer's course, but I did not see him at that stage.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you cannot recall that he for example, came to investigate the offices or to do a search?

MR J F KOK: Yes, he came to do a search of the offices.

MR RAUTENBACH: Concerning the search, if he did search the offices one would expect that he would find material like as you said, had Eastern Block origin, or was it not there at that stage?

MNR J F KOK: "Nee, ek kan nie sê dat daar nie iets was nie, maar die feit dat ons het, soos ek sê, ons het 'n amptelike taak gedoen, by voorbeeld om wapentuig wat vir demonstrasie doeleindes deur die Springstofeenheid gebruik is om van die goeters leeg te maak, by voorbeeld landmyne leeg te maak. So as jy springstof smere sou geneem het, sou jy dit gekry het daar by ons want dis goed waarmee ons gewerk het. So die kans dat hy werklik iets sou kry wat, om te verbind, ek weet nie of dit moontlik of hoe lewensvatbaar dit sou wees." ...(no English interpretation)

MR RAUTENBACH: I think it may be better if we take that point up with your brother. I have no further questions. 

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Just one question, thank you, Chairperson.

&#9;Did you expect that Mr Wal du Toit had the authority of Mr Helberg in this instance?

MR J F KOK: Chairperson, as Mr du Toit explained it, certain work which was allocated to our offices and which was compartmentalised in our office and we had responsibility to him, or received instruction from Mr du Toit. If he had clearance from Helberg, we never knew about that and we did not know whether it was necessary that he must clarify it with him. We believed that his instructions or his command position was enough for him to give us instructions to do this work. 

MS LOCKHAT: But you believed that he had the authority to authorise this?

MR J F KOK: Yes, I believe so.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) Sorry. When you bought the walkman, did they come packed up in a box?

MR J F KOK: No, it was in a blister pack. "Hierdie plastiek verpakte kaarte wat die walkman was met die oorfone wat oor die walkman is. So dit is in 'n plastiek, hierdie vinnig verpakte wat op die hakke hang. Dit was so 'n stel gewees". ...(no English interpretation)

CHAIRPERSON: So if it was ultimately packed in cardboard, you wouldn't know where that came from?

MR J F KOK: No.

MR LAX: Just while we're at it. Your recollection is only one walkman and one set of headphones at that stage.

MR J F KOK: Yes, Chairperson, because we started and we had to find out how to execute it. It would be no use to buy two walkmans at the beginning if we do not know what we are going to do with them.

MR LAX: As far as you know there was probably another bought at a later stage, although you're not sure about it.

MR J F KOK: I can confirm that it was conveyed to me.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.

&#9;Sorry, who told you that?

MR J F KOK: If my recollection serves me right it was my brother who told me.

MR LAX: Thank you, no further questions.

MR BOOYENS: No re-examination, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR BOOYENS: I call Jakobus Kok. Page 97, Mr Chairman.

NAME:&#9;JAKOBUS KOK

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

MR SIBANYONI: Your full names please.

JAKOBUS KOK: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, you may be seated. Sworn in, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: You are known as Kobus Kok.

MR J KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And your application appears on page 97 of the documents. The background that you sketch there you have previously confirmed before the Commission, is that correct?

MR J KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: From page 105 you deal with this particular matter, is that correct?

MR J KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So you are in a similar position to your brother and Mr Wal du Toit, you also compiled your documents independently.

MR J KOK: Yes, without the assistance of any attorney.

MR BOOYENS: You also confirm what is stated here with regard to Mr Wal du Toit's application.

MR J KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Is it correct as you have stated on page 107, that you and Japie were basically indirectly under the command of Col du Toit and that you worked on the explosive device which was used in this matter?

MR J KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You have heard Japie's evidence that the two of your discussed the matter and came to the ultimate conclusion that the explosives be placed in the ear section of the headphones.

MR J KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Then with regard to singular aspects regarding the device which you ultimately manufactured, the stability of the specific explosive and the explosive device, we have to accept that this is an item which travelled quite extensively and returned quite extensively before its explosion. How stable was it, how secure did you render the device, or at least attempt to render it?

MR J KOK: The explosive device itself was very secure, we used military explosives and detonators. The charge was of such a nature that only if someone held it in his hand or if it was restricted, would it really cause any damage to the person himself. 

&#9;The device, the cassette player itself was adjusted to such an extent that it would delay the sound and send a current through to the ears. So it was safe, in the sense that it would not work on any other cassette player, it would only detonate on that particular cassette player.

&#9;Furthermore, the packaging and the packaging of the headphone itself, it was surrounded by cardboard, the detonator itself and there was also a metal screen on the front, which was behind the sponge section. So in terms of explosive devices it was very safely manufactured. This was also proven by the fact that it moved through the postal system for about nine months before it came to detonation. 

MR BOOYENS: The possibility of tracing this particular device by means of X-rays and so forth, would you have expected them to be able to detect such a device?

MR J KOK: Chairperson, due to the technique that we employed, I believe that nine out of ten trained persons would not have been able to trace it. I do not wish to give any further details of how this was done.

MR BOOYENS: I don't believe that it is really in the public interest to say which measures you took.

MR J KOK: But it is virtually impossible to trace this device by means of an X-ray machine. Perhaps a dog would have been able to trace the device under certain circumstances.

MR BOOYENS: It is correct that Japie, although he was initially tasked to deal with the matter, you and him co-operated and when he left you continued independently in co-operation with Steve Bosch, in the manufacturing of these devices.

MR J KOK: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And is it also correct that at a later stage - or let us deal with this first. You knew that Coetzee was the target?

MR J KOK: Yes, that was presented to me by Sgt Bosch, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And it was not your decision. Despite this he was the sort of target that you would have expected the Security Forces to have at that stage?

MR J KOK: Well personally I didn't make any evaluation of any targets, I wasn't involved in target identification or evaluation. I would have expected that due to what he had done and the fact that he had acted as a traitor, he would ultimately have been a target.

MR BOOYENS: It is also correct - you have heard the evidence of Mr du Toit, that you manufactured a prototype and that this was tested at Vlakplaas.

MR J KOK: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You were satisfied with the functioning of the prototype?

MR J KOK: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And then you built the final type.

MR J KOK: Yes, that is correct, I manufactured the final type.

MR BOOYENS: Was it then repackaged?

MR J KOK: In what regard?

MR BOOYENS: Well you told us, and I just want you to tell the Committee, that when you purchased the item it was in bubble wrap.

MR J KOK: Yes, we replaced it into the bubble wrap and wrapped it up in brown paper.

MR BOOYENS: So basically it looked like a new product off the shelf? 

MR J KOK: If you were to open it, yes it would appear to be a new product straight off the shelf.

MR BOOYENS: What can you recall of the cassettes?

MR J KOK: If I think back, at a certain stage there was a Neil Diamond and a BZN cassette which was mentioned to me. And with the benefit of hindsight I can recall that Steve Bosch and Bellingan, on the day when they came to fetch the package, it had not been completely wrapped and the cassettes were wrapped with that package in the brown paper.

MR BOOYENS: Did you make up the package?

MR J KOK: Yes, I did.

MR BOOYENS: And you wrapped it in brown paper. How did you seal it?

MR J KOK: I think we used the regular packaging tape, the packaging materials that one would have to moisten in order to paste it onto brown paper. I think that is what we used.

MR BOOYENS: And did you wrap it in any rope or string or seal it?

MR J KOK: No.

MR BOOYENS: And as far as you know, Bellingan and Bosch were there together?

MR J KOK: Yes, as far as my recollection goes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And they then left with the packaged and wrapped explosive device?

MR J KOK: They then left with the wrapped device, and what happened to it is unknown to me.

MR BOOYENS: But you do know that a number of months later it was detonated?

MR J KOK: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now is it correct that you confirm the entirely of your application?

MR J KOK: Yes, I do.

MR BOOYENS: And indeed in the final instance, you acted as a member of the Security Forces within a situation of war, you had an order which was authorised and you were authorised to act against this target.

MR J KOK: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So you confirm the balance of your application?

MR J KOK: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And you request amnesty for any offence, omission or delict which may emanate from the attempt to kill Mr Coetzee and the death of Mr Mlangeni.

MR J KOK: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

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

NO QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

MR LAMEY: Mr Kok, from whom did you determine who the target was, who told you that Dirk Coetzee was the target?

MR J KOK: Chairperson, as I have stated in my application, I heard this from Mr Bosch the day after he came to find out what the progress with the project was. He clearly informed me of this.

MR LAMEY: You did not hear this from Mr du Toit or Mr de Kock, because Mr du Toit was already aware of it at that stage.

MR J KOK: I may have heard it from my brother, Japie Kok, but I wasn't involved in the operation at that stage and I regard the official time of being notified who the target was, the day that I began to work with Steve Bosch.

MR LAMEY: Yes, I understand that you worked with him, but there was a delivery from your brother to you, that is when you became involved, and I assume that you would have been informed about what you were about to do and why you were going to do so.

MR J KOK: Well if you have read my amnesty application, you will see that Japie Kok did not hand over to me, he was already out of town and he was busy with another operation. Steve Bosch made enquiries and he coincidentally spoke to me at that stage. I sent him to Mr du Toit, that is where he found out how far the project was, and at that stage I basically took over the project.

MR LAMEY: Oh, I see. So within your circles there wasn't any hand-over after your brother left, it was only upon enquiry?

MR J KOK: Yes, it was only when the matter was enquired about and the urgency of the operation was stated, that this took place.

MR LAMEY: Very well, I will not go into any further detail about that. The tapping action which was launched, instruction from Mr Bosch is that you knew about this previously, this is not something that he told you specifically.

MR J KOK: Chairperson, may I just reiterate. In my application I have stipulated what Mr Bosch informed me about.

MR LAMEY: Didn't you know about any tapping beforehand?

MR J KOK: It was very compartmentalised, I was not informed that the line was being tapped, I was not interested in that, I had other tasks to continue with.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then, do you know anything about a second walkman?

MR J KOK: Chairperson, my recollection is not very clear about this. According to my recollection, when I took over at that stage all the acquisitions had been conducted, there were already two players available and the headphones were also available. So I cannot say at which stage the one or the other was purchased, because I wasn't involved in it in the first place.

MR LAMEY: But there were two?

MR J KOK: Yes, there were two.

MR LAMEY: And then something else which I don't really understand so well. The ultimate packaging, after the explosives had been inserted into the headphones and the test had been run on Vlakplaas, it was replaced into the packaging as it appeared to be when it was purchased in the shop.

MR J KOK: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Because Mr Bosch recalls that it was in some form of a box or something like that.

MR J KOK: Chairperson, I replaced it into its original wrapping. It came in a set, the player was in the middle and the headphones surrounded the player and these were wrapped in plastic. And as far as I can recall, I wrapped it in regular brown paper and he assisted me with it.

MR LAMEY: And no addresses were inscribed on the wrapping?

MR J KOK: No, none whatsoever.

MR LAMEY: Now where were the cassettes inserted?

MR J KOK: They were inserted with the package. The packaged cassette player with the headphones, we placed them together, fitted them together and then this formed a parcel on its own.

MR LAMEY: So it was inside the plastic wrapping?

MR J KOK: No, the cassettes were in the cassette holders which were then placed on top of the plastic covering and then wrapped up in brown paper.

MR LAMEY: So you had the plastic container containing the walkman and then the cassettes on top. Was this placed in anything else?

MR J KOK: It was wrapped in brown paper.

MR LAMEY: Only brown paper?

MR J KOK: Yes, that is all.

MR LAMEY: But the brown paper would have been easily damaged.

MR J KOK: It was simply a temporary packaging from my perspective. I delivered the package, what happened to it afterwards, how it was supposed to be wrapped, I don't know. Personally I wouldn't have wrapped it and posted it such, that is why I have referred to it as temporary packaging.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: How long do you think you'll be?

MR RAUTENBACH: It's difficult to say, but maybe I should ask a couple of questions in case it's necessary to do some follow-up on some of the thing I've put to other witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that's why I've asked you the time because you indicated you had quite a lot of things you wanted to take up here. Right, start now and then when you reach a convenient stage when you think ...(intervention)

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

&#9;Mr Kok, the first thing I want to ask you is with regard to the package. As I understand your evidence you're actually saying that you put it in brown wrapping paper, this modified walkman and you gave it to them in that fashion and I deduce from that that you assumed that they would make up their own parcel in whatever way they wanted to and that they would send it in the way that they deemed the most favourable.

MR J KOK: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you would not have the responsibility of packaging this parcel in order to render it suitable for postage?

MR J KOK: I did not do that.

MR RAUTENBACH: So it was not expected of you to package this item into a postal item?

MR J KOK: No, I was only supposed to prepare the explosive device.

MR RAUTENBACH: Very well. So the brown paper that you received you basically just wrapped it up in this brown paper.

MR J KOK: It formed a parcel on its own, if one wants to see it as such.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now this brown paper which you used, which brown paper was it? 

MR J KOK: General brown wrapping paper that one would cover school books in.

MR RAUTENBACH: So this was something which was easily available anywhere, one could buy this in any shop? It wasn't anything sinister, it didn't have to be obtained from a specific place so that it would not be identified?

MR J KOK: No, the brown paper was not a serious issue.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I just want to ask you before we adjourn just with regard to the machines, I assume that both machines were identically prepared in order to test the one to see if the other would work similarly?

MR J KOK: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now just with regard to the modifications that you brought about to the machines and the wiring, did you change the wiring?

MR J KOK: I did change the wiring and I also added certain other aspects of wiring.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now these modifications that you made to the machine led to the fact that a certain amount of amps would be led to the headphones.

MR J KOK: Yes, there would be an amp difference.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now if we look at amps, I understand that it would have required a very low amp level to detonate the explosives even though they were very stable explosives.

MR J KOK: Yes, that is correct, but it wasn't only about the current, it was also about the potential difference.

MR RAUTENBACH: What would you say about the current?

MR J KOK: It was quite difficult to say, it would depend upon the resistance of the spring shells. These were military shells which were very stable, which came from weaponry. It's very difficult to say.

MR RAUTENBACH: But it was a relatively low current?

MR J KOK: No, it wasn't 3, 4, 5 amps.

MR RAUTENBACH: No, I understood from somewhere that someone told me when we were discussing the matter, that 3 would be sufficient.

MR J KOK: Yes, 3 was more than sufficient.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then just with regard to the wiring that you say that you changed and added to. That which you added, where did you obtain this from, the wiring?

MR J KOK: These were wires from an obsolete piece of equipment which had been imported from England I think, these were not wires which were locally purchased or obtained.

MR RAUTENBACH: So it was not locally obtainable?

MR J KOK: No, it wasn't.

MR RAUTENBACH: So the forensics expert who would have investigated these matters and attempted to determine from where the device came, where it was purchased, what make it was, would not have been able to trace it to South Africa?

MR J KOK: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Very well. It would then appear to me at this stage that it would be advisable to stand down until tomorrow morning, but I would like to say that according to your evidence that if there had been evidence that the packaging or the cardboard which was used was not at all available in South Africa or manufactured in South Africa, you would then say that this isn't anything that you really orchestrated.

MR J KOK: No, I didn't have anything to do with that, I simply used the brown paper.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, will that be a convenient time?

CHAIRPERSON: Nine thirty, gentlemen? We now adjourn till nine thirty tomorrow morning.

MS LOCKHAT: All rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

