Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

MR DE KOCK: I would tell you that in camera. I'm not going to tell you that in public because it is not part of this amnesty. I don't want you to ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Could you write it on a piece of paper?

MR DE KOCK: I will tell you that later in camera.  I will give it to my lawyer and he can hand it over to you. I don't want that to be held against me or that, that person can be prevented to again land in that position, but I don't want it to be broadcasted because I want to be fair. And I'm not arrogant. But in that case we're going to have to do the same who extracted people's toenails in Quatro and raped people, I don't want to elaborate on that. But in that case we're going to have to do the same with regard to them.

UNKNOWN: The Act does make provision for people being giving notice in terms of section 30 to make representations in respect of matters raised in that way. But could I pass on to another question please.

MR SEMENYA: Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: Yes?

MR SEMENYA: I don't know. My understanding is the witnesses yesterday were represented and we have an interest in these proceedings. I don't know what could be their grounds for confidentiality.

UNKNOWN: Mr Vally, do you want to address me on that issue please?

MR VALLY: Madame Chair, we from this side will be very interested to know who this person is, whether we find out in camera or in public is not a matter which really concerns us. This matter has been raised, was raised of Mr de Kock's own volition and therefore I will submit it would be in the public's interest to give us the name. But I await your ruling.

UNKNOWN: Mr de Kock, as Mr Semenya has pointed out, the people who appeared yesterday were represented by counsel. They I think were entitled to put that information before us. I think it would be in the interest of justice for you to give us that name. As my counsel has said over there you chose yourself to mention that one of the people who appeared yesterday, actually falls into that category of persons who enjoyed torture. So my ruling is that you give me that name.

MR DE KOCK: I really have no problem with that but I would prefer to do that in the form of an affidavit, and doing it that way I don't want to go against your ruling because it's against my grain, however, I'm not going to do that now and involve him, the person or his family. I would give it to my lawyer and I will give it in the form of an affidavit. I can assure you that, that is going to be the case. I'm not trying to diminish your power in any way almost.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  Mr Semenya once we have received the statement from Colonel de Kock's attorney that will be made available to all of you, in a proper form. Are you satisfied with that?

MR SEMENYA: I am Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Madame Chair may I perhaps just enquire, does that refer to somebody who gave evidence yesterday?

UNKNOWN: Yes. I understood so. Colonel de Kock do you want to respond directly to Mr du Plessis.

MR DE KOCK: Can you repeat please?

UNKNOWN: ?:   Did you refer to somebody who specifically gave evidence here?

MR DE KOCK: Yesterday?

UNKNOWN: Is that the person you referring to?

MR DE KOCK: Yes a person gave evidence here yesterday.

UNKNOWN: And that is the person you're referring to?

UNKNOWN: That is what I understood.

MR DE KOCK: We had a number of people here and that is one of those people.

UNKNOWN: Colonel de Kock I would like to ask you another question please.  You mentioned that when the Soweto Security Branch people arrived at Marble Hall, there were six of them I think who came with Mr du Toit. Now there is a discrepancy between your evidence and that of Mr du Toit in that he claimed that Mr Mabotha was not assaulted and he never participated in that assault. In terms of your evidence you actually say that it was one of the most gruesome events that you actually witnessed. Now is there a possibility that even though you do not recognise Mr du Toit, from his giving evidence here, that if he was with that party he must have been involved in the assault?

MR DE KOCK: I will not be able to tell whether he was involved in the assault, it would be wrong, but that he could have seen it that is beyond doubt. It was not a place where one sat in a bush without seeing something. It was a central point where this took place.

UNKNOWN: I would like to follow that up please, because if there were six of them and you've mentioned that a Colonel Grobbelaar did not participate, were there any other members of that team who sat and didn't participate?

MR DE KOCK: Apart from the person who accompanied me, who is not represented here as far as I know, and I remember quite vividly, he did not participate.

UNKNOWN: One can deduce from that then that apart from Colonel Grobbelaar and a person that accompanied you, the remaining members of the unit who were there, did participate in the assault.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, certainly. It is not a matter of myself and Klopper participating, we wouldn't have been able to do it on our own.

UNKNOWN: So if Mr du Toit was part of that unit, then logically it would follow that he had participated in the assault.

MR DE KOCK: It could probably be but I cannot confirm because that would be false.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  My last question.  Would it be correct to say that in fact Vlakplaas operated as a cleaning up unit for perhaps other sections of the police and particularly the Security Branch, so that there could have been no misunderstanding on the side of Colonel Potgieter that once he had telephoned you to assist him with this problem that the conclusion to that would be that Mr Mabotha would have to be taken out. Even though it may not have been so specifically discussed?

MR DE KOCK: Yes a number of safety branches, at a number of safety branches they did their dirty work but we were there. It was a political unit and yes we had a number of tasks that we gave them, or that we received rather, with regard to border operations and even internal operations. Yes, we executed certain tasks which the other branches couldn't do on their own. And I'm referring here to Gotsenkanya, yes in that respect we were very active.

UNKNOWN: And the request was followed up a second time in 1991?

MR DE KOCK: In that region perhaps, around Jemmi Mbane and if it becomes necessary it is not about trying to, it is about trying to give you a better image and a better picture. We could perhaps discuss another matter which also took place in the eighties around the former colleague, Colonel Potgieter.

UNKNOWN: I would of course say that obviously there seemed to be now more than one instance when your assistance was sought in this fashion. But I don't want to be completely unfair, I will ask that you include that kind of information of other incidents as well, where your assistance was requested in this way, in a statement which can be distributed to Mr Potgieter's attorney as well as the other legal representatives present. Mr Hugo if you would undertake?

MR HUGO: Yes we'll certainly see to that, Madame Chair.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

COUNSEL: I beg your pardon Lady Chairperson. We haven't had an opportunity to ask any questions. I only have two questions.

UNKNOWN: I was not under the impression that you had chosen to exercise that right, when I asked the legal representatives to indicate that but I'll give you that leeway.

COUNSEL: Then it would have been my error, I apologise. Colonel de Kock, Colonel Hume du Toit testified that there were six people from Soweto who went to Marble Hall to fetch Mabotha. You can't remember that he was there that day, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: No I didn't know their names, so I can't place him.