Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-02

CHAIRPERSON: But that was a flash point, Chesterville was a flash point according to all indications, the members infiltrated, they act in self-defence, that is legitimate and justified, and then that was the end of the operation and then you just give up on Chesterville, you don't even try to find out anything more at Chesterville, who was responsible for this flash point?  Was that a normal procedure?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: This was nothing extraordinary.   I think a week or two weeks before the time, we were also in Durban and we also stayed for a day or two and we returned, that was not strange at all.

CHAIRPERSON: So you weren't worried about the shooting?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That was ordinary practice to go in, and then you returned home?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: The next day we went to a different place, I think some people went to the border of Swaziland the next day, if I can remember correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no attempt to get away from the shooting incident, to keep your members out of trouble?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: No, there was no problems experienced in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: If it in fact was the case that there was a need to get your members out of the area, perhaps because or possibly because the operation had gone wrong and there wasn't in fact a question of self-defence, would you in your position in your rank at Vlakplaas, during this operation, have been informed that this is why we need to leave the area or would that have gone to, would Willie Nortje and Paul van Dyk have been informed of that, would you just have been given instructions to leave and not known why?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: Yes, I think that will be like it would have been.

MS PATEL: Okay and then just finally one aspect, you say that Sgt Radebe would have been in control of the weapons in that vehicle, why would he then have to come to Willie Nortje for a weapon to prove his legend, would he not have had his own arsenal of weapons that he could have used?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: Not like AK47s, no Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: All right, thank you Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel.   Mr Vermeulen, in the light of the fact that the members acted in self-defence, did you then immediately return to Chesterville and try and arrest the person who had attacked the members?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: No Mr Chairperson, we did not go back there.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Does the panel have any questions?

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Vermeulen, initially I was under the impression that apart from the car in which you were travelling, there was the kombi which was driven by Nofomela as well as another car or two additional cars, was that not the case?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: No Mr Chairman.  It was just our vehicle that Willie Nortje was in charge of and then the other vehicle of Sgt Radebe.  That is as far as I can recall.

MR SIBANYONI: You were travelling in the vehicle in which Nortje was in charge?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Was Nortje the driver?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: I think so yes, because I think he knew the area better, yes, so he was the driver Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Who else was in that vehicle?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: It was my, myself, McCarter and Bosch.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

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

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  Mr Vermeulen, if I can refer you to Exhibit B, Nortje's statement then we notice that just after the shooting he says that
"... we immediately departed to Chesterville police station where a report had been made to Lt Hunter, is that correct?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So just after the shooting, this incident had been reported to the police?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: This is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And the normal investigation then followed?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And the police could then affect arrests on the people who had committed these offences if they deemed it necessary?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: I want to refer you to Exhibit D that is today for the first time come under our attention, if one looks at Exhibit D, it would appear as if proper authorisation had been asked for this AK47 rifle?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And at sight value it would appear as if you did not necessarily, were in illegal possession of a firearm?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: This is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: This document, Exhibit D, is very interesting in this aspect that it is a request that was made by W A. Nortje to Security Headquarters in Pretoria, so this weapon was not drawn at Vlakplaas?  If one looks at the top it says "C-Section Security Headquarters, Pretoria"?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: This is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And if one goes through the document, then in two paragraphs, paragraph 1 says
"... application is made hereby for the issuing of one AK47 rifle from SHQ (is this Security Headquarters?)"

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: This is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And then this also supports the period of the infiltration being 3 June to the 30th of June?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: This is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So on sight value of this document, this AK was then drawn for a period and not necessarily for one operation or one specific date?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And this document also supports that it was a show-piece, something for credibility?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: This is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And interestingly I note that it was approved by a certain Brig Schoon, this had to be Brig Schoon who was at that stage in control of Security in Pretoria?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So this AK47 was legitimately drawn from the police stores?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: This is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: If a clandestine, covert operation had happened, would you  imagine that such documentation would be available, would you expect it to be available and that approval would be sought from Headquarters?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: No Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And then one would rather expect that the weapon would be drawn from Vlakplaas' stores where there would be no record and no documents?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: This is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And this document, handed in by Ms Patel this morning, this comes from the police dockets, is that correct?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: I think so yes Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: In other words this document if one looks at Cato Manor, CR27/6/86, then this was probably handed in at the inquest?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: It could be the case Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So if there was anything irregular concerning this AK, then we would have had some action since 1986?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And then questions had been asked about the reasons why Vlakplaas had gotten involved?  It is normal that a request be made by Security at Durban for instance for Vlakplaas' assistance?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: According to your knowledge, this was to infiltrate, to get information and then I would assume that this information would be conveyed to Col de Kock and also the overhead operator and also the Security Branch?

NICOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: I will now refer you to the Supplementary Bundle - Eugene de Kock and this had been decided Mr Chairperson, that this background study of Vlakplaas would be at your disposal along with the amnesty hearings and this is Exhibit N, this was a Bundle compiled by my learned friend, Mr Schalk Hugo, who handed it in with Justice Wilson.