=====================================================================
DATE:&#9;14TH OCTOBER 1999
=====================================================================
 DATE:&#9;14TH OCTOBER 1999

MATTER:&#9;APPLICATIONS OF MR MATHEBULA AND MR &#9;&#9;MOSIANE - POSTPONEMENT

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

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today is Thursday the 14th of October 1999. We adjourned yesterday when Ms van der Walt was busy cross-examining Mr Mathebula. However, before we can afford Ms van der Walt that opportunity, we have been advised that Mr Lamey would like to have certain things recorded in relation to his legal representation of Mr Mathebula. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Madam Chair.

&#9;The situation has arisen that I feel myself duty-bound to withdraw as an attorney of Mathebula and Mr Mosiane, as a result of potential or indeed a conflict of interest. As it pleases you. I don't know whether there is anything more that you would like me to say.

CHAIRPERSON: I may just mention that ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: I have explained this also just shortly to Mr Mathebula and I explained to him that arrangements can be made by the Evidence Leader, for alternative legal representation. I've also explained to him that it only pertains to this incident so far.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And it is also your request that you withdraw on behalf of Mr Mosiane.

MR LAMEY: Yes, I ask then to be allowed to withdraw for both Mr Mathebula and Mr Mosiane in this incident, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I may tangentially mention that this matter has already been discussed quite extensively in chambers, initially with Mr Lamey and the Members of the Committee and later on procedurally, with the other legal representatives representing all the applicants in relation to this matter.

&#9;Mr Lamey, we have no objection as a Committee to your request that you withdraw in relation to this incident to represent both Mr Mathebula and Mr Mosiane. We however would request Mr Steenkamp to approach the legal representation of both applicants at great speed and to report to the Committee by not later than tomorrow, as to what progress would have been made in relation to the appointment of attorneys to represent both applicants, after which we will then discuss the matter with the legal representatives of the other applicants, to see how we can put that matter to bring it to its logical conclusion, because not all of them are going to be present during the other incidents that we'll be sitting here at this venue to hear. 

&#9;Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will immediately, I'm already engaged in the process of appointing lawyers for both the applicants. I will make sure that all the necessary is done as speedily as possible. I hope to be in a position even by today to inform you exactly what the position is.

CHAIRPERSON: That will be greatly appreciated.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We must stress that it is our intention to conduct these hearings as speedily as possible. We hope we will not in future, as we sit here, particularly in this hearing and in this venue, be confronted with a situation where counsels or attorneys do not apply their minds properly and timeously to ensure that we do not encounter problems that will result in applications having to stand down.

&#9;This application will therefore, as a result of Mr Lamey's withdrawal, stand down to a date to be arranged within the next four weeks. I hope that will not inconvenience the other legal representatives. I see, and I would like it to be recorded that everyone is nodding that it will not greatly inconvenience them.

MR HATTINGH: I confirm, Chairperson, that it will not inconvenience us.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. The matter is standing down.

MR LAMEY: May I just say that I wish to apologise to the Committee, as well as to the other legal representatives about the inconvenience caused. I just want to say that I thought - I don't want to elaborate further on it, but I did not realise that the conflict was there and material during consultations, but I wish to apologise in any event if I have made a mistake in overseeing such ...(indistinct). Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Your apology is accepted, Mr Lamey.

&#9;Mr Mathebula, you may stand down as a witness. You will be called, Mr Steenkamp will advise you accordingly.

WITNESS STANDS DOWN

APPLICATION OF MR MATHEBULA AND MOSIANE ADJOURNED TO A DATE TO BE ARRANGED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NAME:&#9;EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We shall now proceed with the application of Mr Eugene de Kock, who is the next applicant in relation to the same incident. Mr Hattingh, you are appearing for Mr de Kock?

MR HATTINGH: I appear for him, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated. Mr Hattingh?

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

&#9;Mr de Kock, you are an applicant in this matter and your application appears from page 307 of bundle 2 of the documents, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And on page 309 to the top of 310, you give a brief summary of your version of this incident.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Except in as far as I am going to examine you regarding certain aspects thereof, do you confirm the details of this?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You refer there to a Mr Dos Santos.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that Mr Vermeulen reported to you regarding him. How certain are you that Mr Vermeulen told you that Mr Dos Santos was also involved in this matter?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have a vague recollection thereof and it could be that it may also have been pertaining to another arrest, that Mr Dos Santos name was mentioned. Therefore I will concede that there is a possibility of confusion here.

MR HATTINGH: I have fixed your attention with regard to information which was brought to our attention on Mr Mosiane's application. I will give you the reference, page 237. On page 237 of bundle 2, he refers to an incident which is not thoroughly set out in this bundle because it does not form part of the incident which is being heard here, but he refers to "kidnapping of bomber" and he also refers to the fact that he acted under the command of Col Prinsloo and that he, along with Simon Radebe, Eric Sefade, Shabalala and Eric Maluleka were ordered to patrol the streets of Mamelodi in search of a person which was known to him and Simon Radebe as Bomber. And this bomber, according to him, was indeed "arrested" and was abducted and that they then took him to Vlakplaas where he was interrogated and as we have heard "tubed", in order to obtain information from him and your name is also mentioned there. 

&#9;&#9;"Later Simon, Col Eugene de Kock, Eric ..."

... I presume Eric Sefade, and that is where the matter ends. 

&#9;We were informed that this person Bomber was indeed one of the persons who had been arrested and later successfully prosecuted. Can you recall any such an incident?

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

MR HATTINGH: And was - I've forgotten the name of the person of again, the name that you have mistakenly given in your application, Dos Santos. Was he involved in that matter?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore you are not certain whether you are confusing that incident with this incident, with regard to Dos Santos?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it is possible that I am confusing the incidents.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock, you have also submitted a supplementary affidavit which was heard during the hearing of the first cluster of incidents dealing with Vlakplaas and particularly Vlakplaas as a political and operational unit of the South African Security Police.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And this document has repeatedly been served before various Committees and forms part of the documents served before them. Do you confirm the details embodied in that document?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Mr Vermeulen came to you and asked you for explosives which would be used to blow up the body of a person, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did he tell you that this was a person who had been interrogated by members of the Pretoria branch of the Security Police?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is this the branch of which Mr Prinsloo was the Commander?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: When you were approached to offer assistance to his branch with regard to the tracing of so-called terrorists, who approached you?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, as far as I can recall there was a request from the Divisional Commander, the regular custom was that the member of the division who wanted askaris would go to his Divisional Commander, where he would lodge a written request, the Divisional Commander would approve it and then it would be sent to head office, to C-Section and be devolved to C-Section at C1, where we would deploy a group in that specific area.

&#9;Sometimes this would take place on short notice, that such a request would be lodged at short notice. It would then be done telephonically and immediately followed up with a written request. And in this case it came from the Divisional Commander.

MR HATTINGH: Who was this?

MR DE KOCK: It was Brig Cronje.

MR HATTINGH: Very well.

MR DE KOCK: And indeed I recall, although vaguely, that I went to see him, he was here in Pretoria in the Compol building and I also received documentation from him, such as reports, security reports, there were also identification reports with regard to photo album numbers, file numbers and so forth.

MR HATTINGH: Were there any references to the names of persons and so forth?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, references to terrorists here in the Northern Transvaal area, who were involved in activities. I cannot give you all the names now. But then for example, you would have the name, then there would be an identification such as the MK name, the photo album name, the reference to the C2-Section, computer enquiry number and index number and so forth. So sometimes it could be quite an extensive document.

MR HATTINGH: And these documents which were made available to you, was this done in order to enable you to determine what the scope of their need would be in that particular regard?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Such as how many askaris you would have to send and how many members you would have to send?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct. And what would also sometimes occur is that members from the specific region would say "We have a certain person or certain persons in this area, we're looking for such and such an askari" and then that person would specifically be mentioned by name, that they required that person who would perhaps know the persons that they had identified. If not, we would feed the details into the computer at Section C2 and see which of the askaris had been in a camp with these persons in Angola or Tanzania or Botswana, then we would decide which asakris would be suitable to send.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. But you cannot recall which so-called terrorists or activists were involved in this particular matter?

MR DE KOCK: No. And then also not the procedure that we followed in selecting a specific group in this matter.

MR HATTINGH: In either event, you gave an order to Ras and Vermeulen to assist Mr Prinsloo with other members of Vlakplaas, including askaris.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And they then departed.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore you knew that it was about the tracing and identification and arrest of activists or so-called terrorists.

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

MR HATTINGH: Then Mr Vermeulen came to you and requested explosives.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You then refused.

MR DE KOCK: Correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you explain why you refused?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, my immediate feeling was that this was not a case which affected Vlakplaas, it had to do with the branch who had made enquiries and if the man was dead, in this case they could do their own dirty work themselves.

MR HATTINGH: And did Mr Vermeulen then depart from you?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did he return at a later stage?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did he repeat his request to you?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, and there was a sense of urgency to it, such as there could be no delay.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then reconsider the matter?

MR DE KOCK: Yes. After he had departed and I took the time to reconsider, I realised that even though it did not affect me directly, it affected me indirectly because it affected the entire Security Police, and if it affected the Security Police, it affected the SAP, and if it affected the SAP, it would affect the State dispensation, and that is why I gave him the key to the explosives storeroom.

MR HATTINGH: This person who was interrogated, this person who died according to the information which was conveyed to you, did you think about the reasons why he was interrogated?

MR DE KOCK: It could only have been terrorism, there could have been no other reason.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. But when you received the request from Vermuelen, it was a request for explosives to blow up a corpse.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, that the person was already dead and that there was a dead person on their hands.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then agree or allow Mr Vermeulen to take the explosives?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, as much as he required.

MR HATTINGH: And did he then do so?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And was any feedback given to you later?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, he did mention ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Who is "he"? Is that Vermeulen?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What did he tell you?

MR DE KOCK: He stated that along with Capt Prinsloo, or under the command of Capt Prinsloo, he had participated in the explosion of a body near Northam and that the electrical cable with which the explosives had been detonated had touched the overhead power lines and that Mr Prinsloo had been quite severely shocked.

MR HATTINGH: Someone else mentioned here that it was Vermeulen who had been electrocuted. Are you certain about this fact?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because in the back of my mind I still thought that during the following lectures which would be presented to operatives, it had to be mentioned that one shouldn't shock oneself to death if such a situation presented itself again. I visualised it, it was an immediate mental note that I made. 

MR HATTINGH: But the incident took place and that was important to you. Are you certain that it was said to you that it was Prinsloo who had been electrocuted and not Vermeulen?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, that is my recollection and that is why I have stated it as such here. I will not dispute it, but that is what my recollection is.

MR HATTINGH: And that is the total knowledge that you have of this entire incident?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard the evidence of Mr Ras, that he showed you a newspaper report in which there was a report about this incident and that you asked him whether or not this matter could be traced back to you. Do you recall this?

MR DE KOCK: No, I don't, but that doesn't mean that he didn't do it. I will concede that it may have taken place and that that would have been my attitude, just to ensure that no fingers could be pointed at us because we had provided the explosives.

MR HATTINGH: So Mr de Kock, just to summarise with regard to your political objective, what was the reason why you agreed to assist Mr Vermeulen and agreed to let him take explosives?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, here for me it was about the protection of the Security Branch of Pretoria on a direct basis and then naturally by nature of the circumstances, the protection of Vlakplaas, something about which we were very sensitive. But the Security Branch ultimately did the same work that we did and they were just as sensitive, we could not afford another Bantu Biko situation or anything similar to that and that emphasised the gravity of the situation and led me to my decision.

MR HATTINGH: The explosives that you made available, were these explosives stored in a storeroom at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And these were explosives that we have heard about regularly, which were brought in from Namibia?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct. And among others, for the sake of completion I can state that a directive was sent out somewhere in 1995 or '96, that all explosives or explosive devices in the country, among others, ammunition and guns and shells, be sent to Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Would that be of Eastern Block origin?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, including handgrenades which would have been used operationally or if there was a request from a branch or a unit we could then provide these.

MR HATTINGH: And you did ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I'm sorry, you probably mean '85 or '86?

MR DE KOCK: I'm sorry, what did I say?

MR MALAN: '95 and '96.

MR DE KOCK: I'm sorry, that is not possible.

MR HATTINGH: And in this manner did you also receive weaponry of Eastern Block origin from other units or branches?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you store it at Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And was it used operationally?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You had no motive of gain in this matter?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You did not know who the person was whose body was blown up?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore you had no personal sentiment towards him?

MR DE KOCK: None.

MR HATTINGH: Just to be complete. The Security Branch or the Security Police rather, in general, their task was to combat terrorism and to maintain internal security?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You accept that the Northern Transvaal Security Branch was busy operating in that relation and that it was in that relation that you were approached?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I had no doubt, and the security branches would never deal with ordinary crime. If they receive any information regarding gold and diamonds or ivory, they would send it to the relevant department or branch, they didn't deal with such matters themselves at any stage.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, we have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr Jansen?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, just a few questions.

&#9;Mr de Kock, I'd just like to take you back to page 237 of the bundle, the small introductory part of this matter of Bomber. My questions are just in general. Can you recall during the period March 1986, to which extent the askaris at Mamelodi were involved? Except for the initial request that they assist Northern Transvaal.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, I cannot recall. The deployment was a normal deployment, it wasn't a special request for a special covert operation, in other words something underhand.

MR JANSEN: Can you recall the matter of Bomber?

MR DE KOCK: Not in detail Chairperson. I cannot recall that Bomber was at Vlakplaas, but that probably means that I was not at Vlakplaas when he was brought there. I know that Vlakplaas executed several arrests in the Pretoria area, among others, Mamelodi. 

MR JANSEN: I have unfortunately seen this aspect since after we adjourned yesterday and it would seem that there was much other activities in Mamelodi at the same time and among others, it was other contacts with Pat Mhlango's sister. So at this stage I would just like to mention to you I may try to find the complete application for this incident, but you will see that your name is mentioned in the final sentence on the page and the sentence is unfortunately not complete. I get the impression that Mamelodi was the hotspot at that stage and there were a couple of specific individuals who were being hunted.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson, there were quite a number of bomb incidents in the Northern Transvaal vicinity and it also went out to the Western Transvaal. The ANC was not only in our area, for example, Britz which was still under Northern Transvaal and then we take the following, let's say Swartruggens, they were not regionally bound.

MR JANSEN: And although this was a normal request for the deployment of askaris, one gets the impression that the circumstances in Mamelodi were extraordinary, it was not a routine searching of possible persons in Mamelodi, specific persons were being hunted at that stage and Vlakplaas' askaris were specifically applied for this purpose.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that was one of their tasks, the more legitimate tasks were identification and arrests of terrorists.

MR JANSEN: And except for this we see what is written in Mr Mosiane's application. Can you recall any other persons that were brought to Vlakplaas, whether they had been arrested or abducted during that period? If you cannot you must please say.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, I don't have a specific recollection. Later such instances did take place, but not during this period of time that I can recall.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

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

&#9;Mr de Kock, in cross-examination by my learned colleague, Mr Hattingh, Mr Vermeulen said that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and that it affects his memory of the past.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, he actually received advanced treatment for this disorder.

MR CORNELIUS: And I think it is within your knowledge that he was taken up as a State President's patient at some point.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, as I look at him one can still observe this disorder.

MR CORNELIUS: The point is that there is some measure of confusion. Apparently when he asked you the deceased was still living, but you understood that the man had already been killed and the body must be blown up, correct? ...(transcribers interpretation)

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that is how I received the information.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. And then you had no reason to doubt that Vermeulen was the one who was shocked by the blow, electrocuted.

MR DE KOCK: I won't dispute that, Chairperson, but that was my recollection and that is how I told it.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

&#9;Just to return - although this might be some background to this Bomber on page 237, if I may refresh your memory, can you recall that his real name was Toka? He was charged along with several other persons in Delmas in a circular Court before Judge van der Merwe.

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall it. C1 Vlakplaas, worked on a national basis and other than this group in Pretoria, I might have had six or seven other groups deployed in other areas, for example in Eastern Transvaal, Western Transvaal, in Cape Town and in Durban. So the amount of detail is just too much to recall all of it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wagener?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Just singular aspects, Mr de Kock. You have heard by client, Mr Roslee's evidence that the deceased, or that he and Mr Ras jointly killed the deceased minutes before his body was blown up.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I heard that.

MR WAGENER: And on behalf of my client I would like to place on record that when Mr Vermeulen fetched the explosives from Vlakplaas, the deceased must still have been alive. You can't dispute that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I will go on the information which Mr Vermeulen gave to me.

MR WAGENER: And that the deceased was not deceased during interrogation but that he was killed, as testified by Ras and Roslee. You cannot dispute that?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, and I have said I won't dispute it, I could only - I did not even know that Roslee was there.

MR WAGENER: And then Mr de Kock, a final point. I have omitted in leading to lead this evidence for Mr Roslee, but he informs me that during those years, in 1986, he still had hair and a moustache and many people confused him and Dos Santos because they looked similar and that might be the reason as to why there is confusion here and where the name Dos Santos came about. Do you have any knowledge about that?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, I met Mr Roslee there in Ovamboland. I don't believe that I would have had that problem, but other people may have had that problem.

MR WAGENER: No I realise that, Mr de Kock, and I must say I should have taken it up with Mr Vermeulen, but your evidence is that Dos Santos' name came to you via Mr Vermeulen, and my instructions are that these two men from time to time were confused because of their looks, Roslee and Dos Santos.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it may be so that other people had that problem.

MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener. Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson, no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Chairperson, no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Kock, can I summarise your evidence correctly if I state that the request that you obtained from Brig Cronje was not to specifically infiltrate Pat Mhlango or his unit, but it was a request that you provide resources of a general nature with regard to the general tracing, identification and arresting of among others, MK members?

MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson. I would just like to qualify that. For example, the moment when I devolve my persons to Brig Jack Cronje and then for all action, discipline and command, they would fall under the command of Brig Cronje and he will appoint people to be their commander and for purposes of operation and the application they would fall under those persons. Because they're the investigative officials, they know what they want and they will deploy my people as it suits them.

CHAIRPERSON: At that stage did Brig Cronje mention the name Pat Mhlango to you, at the time of his - at the meeting which you had wherein you were requested to provide such assistance?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, it may have been in the documentation, but I cannot recall it. It could have been there, but I cannot testify to that. I'm just trying to be of assistance here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So the request was of a general nature?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was a normal ordinary deployment to search for terrorists in the vicinity of Pretoria, in their area.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he indicate to you for how long your men will have to assist in that assignment?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the ordinary deployment was three weeks, 21 to 22 days, and then the people came back to rest, so it would have been for that duration. If he wanted other people, more people, I would have withdrawn other people and if he wanted to have the investigation continued, then I would have kept the people there longer.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did you at any stage have contact with Brig Cronje whilst your men were with Mr Prinsloo on assignment? Did you have contact whereby you would have been given reports by Brig Cronje of what they were doing?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson no, he would not report to me. If there was something specific he wanted he would contact me, but as with other divisions where I accompanied my people, I introduced the group leaders to the Divisional Commanders and said afterwards "These are the people, who is the appointed officer who will handle them or manage them?" And then I would just go and continue with an inspection of my people. So there were no follow-up meetings between myself and Brig Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: The first report you received in relation to this matter is as you have deposed to, that was from Mr Vermeulen.

MR DE KOCK: Indeed, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Mr de Kock, just to refresh my own memory. When did you take over command of Vlakplaas?

MR DE KOCK: The 1st of July 1985, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: '85.

MR DE KOCK: Correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you. No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I've got none, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr de - oh, before you are excused, I may find out if Mr Hattingh is bold enough to wish to re-examine.

MR HATTINGH: No, Madam Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH

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

MR DE KOCK: Thank you very much, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, where do we go from here?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, may I respectfully suggest that this matter stand down. I've thought about this matter, there's the question that the new attorneys may probably want to listen to the tape recordings or at least have some transcription of what was said regarding Mr Mathebula and Mr Mosiane. 

&#9;Then there's also probably the question of the position regarding the other applicants as well, what their positions are. Maybe they also want to have copies of what was said and what was not said. And then the question is, I would like to request Mr Lamey, unfortunately he left now, to request from him to bring the new attorneys up to speed as well on exactly what the position was. So I would suggest - I see on the roll, the schedule, the time available is on the 29th. I think 14 days will probably be enough to schedule the matter, or I will ask for the matter to stand down until that time. 

&#9;I think if we can't make a fixed date now, we will have some logistical difficulties in the future. Not all the attorneys who are present here are going to be involved in the matter of Monday, so I would suggest if we have a time, probably before the 29th, I will inform them, but I think it will be safe to say the 29th. I think 14 days will probably be safe.

CHAIRPERSON: This has already been explored in chambers, we don't want to postpone this matter to any particular date, the matter will simply stand down. I think you must actually be an optimist because we are most likely to get an attorney who will be very abit(?) and have time enough to give to the matter and be able to be brought up to speed much quicker than you would like to think. So we rather stand the matter down, you proceed with the appointment as speedily as possible of the two legal representatives for Mr Mathebula and Mr Mosiane and once that has been done, you will then liaise with the other legal representatives and you will inform the Committee in due course.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

MACHINE SWITCHED ON

PRESIDENT: Mr Steenkamp, as we have indicated to you in chambers and when we commenced today's proceedings we again emphasised, Mr Lamey has withdrawn from the matter, he may not bring any of the two legal representatives up to speed with regard to the matter.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR JANSEN: Madam Chair, may I interject. I promised right at the beginning those copies of the original evidence by Mr de Kock, on the general application. It took some time because unfortunately the copy that we had had our own markings on it. Can I beg leave to hand up three copies for yourself and the other Committee Members and I will let Mr van Heerden have the other copy. I think all the other representatives are in possession of that evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Jansen.

MR JANSEN: I don't know if it should get an annexure number or a bundle, it would be bundle 4, subject to what ...

ADV MOTATA: We'll rather have it as an annexure because we have the bundles as applications.

CHAIRPERSON: The last annexure we had was from Mr Wagener, which was E, can we have this as Annexure F. It will be F.

&#9;That being so, I think we'll excuse everyone for the day and our next hearing will commence on Monday. Are you in a position to give an indication, Mr Steenkamp, whether that application will be the one for the killing of Mr Justice Mbizana?

ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct, Chairperson. May I just add for the record, I've made all endeavours to see whether or not some of the other matters can possibly be brought forward, but numerous reasons that seemed to be impractical, it unfortunately cannot be done at this moment. But we will definitely start with the matter Ernest Rumango - I mean, Justice Mbizana, on Monday. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Well to the legal representatives that we will no longer have next week, we want to extend our appreciation for the assistance you rendered to this Committee. Than you. 

&#9;And to the members of the public and in particular to the victims, we appreciate your attendance. I hope Mr van Heerden will take time and explain to the victims that the matter is standing down and that they will still be here and he will be liaising with them to give them an indication of when the matter will be resuming. We nevertheless wish to extend our appreciation for them having made all the endeavours to attend. We know it's a very difficult period and we appreciate their attendance, thank you.

HEARING ADJOURNS TO A DATE TO BE ARRANGED

