Amnesty Hearings — Durban — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: not have been more probable for you to have asked for further instructions with regard to the fate of the car from Brigadier van der Hoven?

WITNESS:   I can't - I did not do it because, as I said previously, it would have been in the hands of headquarters to decide on the eventual fate of the car, because I must have put it to Brigadier van der Hoven, I accept, that as it is a new car instead of just destroying it - according to his knowledge I think it was that we must destroy the car, but I was trying to get the car usable in another part of the country in exchange for a similar car, which we called askari cars for operational purposes.

UNKNOWN: I don't think that was your evidence yesterday.  You did not discuss how the car was going to be destroyed with Brigadier van der Hoven.

WITNESS:   No, I did not.  I did not discuss it with him.

UNKNOWN: Why was it not discussed?  Why should it be the issue for discussion with headquarters when the person who had given you instructions to eliminate Mr Mxenge was Brigadier van der Hoven?

WITNESS:   Well, as I say, that is exactly what happened.  It was left in my hands to destroy all evidence, and from his point of view I am sure he would have - it was his attitude that I will destroy the car.  But I did not want to do it before discussing it with Brigadier Jan du Preez.

UNKNOWN: And you've also given evidence that Brigadier van der Hoven said it was imperative that Mr Mxenge should not be murdered by shooting him.

WITNESS:   That's correct, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Did you find it rather odd that he should not order

UNKNOWN: /the firearm

UNKNOWN: the firearm to be used?

WITNESS:   Not at all.  I think what

UNKNOWN: he had in mind was a plain robbery to make it look - a murder, and make it look like a plain robbery, and not use a firearm.  The reason why I think - and the logic, if there is any logic in it, I think Brigadier should explain, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Was it not odd to you that the use of knife should simulate a robbery better than the use of a firearm?

WITNESS:  Yes, I accepted that it would - that that was his attitude, that using a knife for the murder would make it more look like a black on black robbery.

UNKNOWN: In your opinion, Mr Coetzee, do you believe that the killing in fact succeeded in simulating such a robbery?

WITNESS:   In the end, with hindsight?

UNKNOWN: Yes.

WITNESS:   Not at all.  I mean it was an absolute slaughter.  It was a mess.  Why it got out of hand to that extent, I mean one should ask the people that were on the premises, and that is Joe Mamasela and Almond and David.

UNKNOWN: Would you not be blamed because you did not participate in the actual detail on how the execution was to be conducted?

WITNESS:    Can you just repeat the question?

UNKNOWN: Would you not blame yourself for not having participated in the details, the final details of the execution of the instructions from Brigadier van der Hover?

WITNESS:   Well, if at all I do I usually did lead from the front in operations, but as I say because it was in the black township of Umlazi, and a white person would stand out like a sore thumb, it was - I could not participate in the actual final operation.

UNKNOWN: Lastly, Mr Coetzee, you stated that the reason why

UNKNOWN: /Mr Ngulungwa

UNKNOWN: Mr Ngulungwa did not receive a payment of R1 000,00 was

UNKNOWN: because he had played a passive role.

WITNESS:   That is correct, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Does this mean he did not participate in any manner whatsoever in the execution of your order?

WITNESS:   Not in the physical assault on Mr Mxenge.  According to the report I received back from the team was that he just stood by with a gun in his hand, and therefore did not participate physically in the murder of Mr Mxenge.

UNKNOWN: Did you confirm this with Mr Ngulungwa?

WITNESS:   No, I did not as far as I can remember.  It's quite a while ago, but I did not discuss it with him.

UNKNOWN: Who gave you the report of the extent of his participation?

WITNESS:   Mainly Joe Mamasela and Almond Nofomela, and in a way Tshikalanga, but the greater reporters was - or the more detailed report I got from Joe Mamasela and Almond Nofomela.

UNKNOWN: When they were given instructions to execute the order to eliminate Mr Mxenge were they aware that they were going to get a special bonus in the event of them successfully executing those orders?

WITNESS:   Not at all, Mr Chairman.  As I said, that was the first time, and the only time during my stay at Vlakplaas, that people got money as a reward after a operation.

UNKNOWN: At what stage of the planning on how Mr Mxenge was to be executed did you decide to include Mr Tshikalanga and Mr Ngulungwa?

WITNESS:   Right from the start.  Mainly Mr Tshikalanga to add more people to the operation in case they were short of hands, and I could trust him because he's been with me for such a long time.  And from the start Mr Brian Ngulungwa because he was a Zulu from

UNKNOWN: /Umlazi, knew

UNKNOWN: Umlazi, knew the area very well, and, as I say, if anyone would address them of the passers-by in the street there would be a typical Zulu with a Zulu accent present, so that the foreign accent of Joe, Almond and David Tshikalanga would not be a factor if someone might have picked them up at a stage during observation or whatsoever.

UNKNOWN: Did Brigadier van Skoon knew that Mr Mamasela was brought to Durban for purposes of eliminating Mr Mxenge?

WITNESS:   It was specifically arranged - requested by me to Brigadier van der Hoven, and then Brigadier van der Hoven to Brigadier Skoon.  And as I said, when I walked in the Monday morning after the murder into Skoon's officer there was no discussion whatsoever on the details of the murder.  His first question was, without me reporting about anything about Mr Mxenge, was, "Have you left any traces?"

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

WILSON J: When were you at Vlakplaas, from when to when?

WITNESS:   I arrived there, Mr Chairman, in August 1980, and I left Vlakplaas on 31st December 1981.

WILSON J: Now, you've applied for amnesty for 14 incidents involving a gross violation of human rights.

WITNESS:   That's correct, Mr Chairman.

WILSON J: One took place in June 1980.

WITNESS:   That's correct.  I think it's the ... (intervention)

WILSON J: The bombing of a house at Manzini.

WITNESS:   That's correct, Mr Chairman.

WILSON J: And one took place from January 1979 - to 1979, also Manzini Post Office bomb.

WITNESS:   Ja.

WILSON J: Every other incident, as far as I can see, took place - and Joe Pillay was the first half of 1981.

WITNESS:  	/That's correct,

WILSON J: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

WILSON J: Every other incident took place in August to December 1981.

WITNESS:   That's correct, Mr Chairman.

WILSON J: So there was very little activity in 1980, or the first half of 1981.

WITNESS:   From August '80 til August 1981 I basically concentrated on building up the teams, getting the people transferred, getting the askaris appointed as policemen, arranged for all their documents to be in order, arranged for proper foodstuff for the farm, so it was for the structure on Vlakplaas, to get that off the ground and properly functioning.

WILSON J: Did you know what you were building up a team for?

WITNESS:   Yes, Mr Chairman, I did.

WILSON J: Was that you knew a building - you spent a year building up a team that was then going to be going to be engaged in the elimination of people.

WITNESS:   Not all of them, but selected from that personnel at Vlakplaas, yes.

WILSON J: But that was the purpose of building up a team.

WITNESS:   That's correct, and as I say in theory as the document that I quoted out that was handed in at the Harms Commission.

WILSON J: Did your senior officers accept that you spent a year doing no ordinary police activities, but building up the death squad?

WITNESS:   Absolutely, Mr Chairman.

WILSON J: Thank you.