Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-21

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, Mr Nortje has on that aspect, has put it on record Mr De Kock that it is not as such that he approached him to do that specifically for him and his wife, but it was rather as he put it, it came as a gesture of goodwill from Mr De Kock and at a time much longer, after this specific incident.  That brings us back to the aspect of the question of personal gain, as far as Mr Nortje is concerned, it is my submission also on the evidence before the Committee, that there is any evidence that suggests that his participation in this specific incident, arises from any expectation or promise to receive that piece of land, or any other personal gain that he would benefit from.
	As Mr Hattingh has pointed out, one must remember that Mr De Kock became first owner of this property and it was much later given to Mr Nortje as a gift, at a later stage.  Now, I would submit that there is nothing in the evidence that connects this benefit which he has received, at all, with this specific incident.  In fact, it would appear that it was something of a general nature, something which was much more inspired by reasons of friendship than anything else.  One must also bear in mind that Mr Nortje worked closely with Mr De Kock, that is almost common cause.  He came a long way with him since the days, especially also of the conflict in Namibia.
	Mr Nortje, I may just further mention that Mr Nortje's evidence is also that there was no, he was not a party and he has no direct evidence prior to the supply of the evidence to Duli, of any  mention of any financial, finances, regarding this transaction, firstly.  Secondly also he have not heard of anything to the effect that there would be any special reward or compensation for his participation in this incident.
	Mr Chairman, I do also wish to as the general broader picture, I have made just a short list of particular pages from the record of the evidence given by Gen Van der Merwe in the Cosatu House/Khotso House hearing and I wish also to refer to pages 263, 264, 266, 268 and 269 thereof.  I don't know if you want me to quote?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am aware of that, I wasn't involved personally in it, but I have read the submission by Gen Van der Merwe as well as various other submissions that have been made to the TRC and I am sure that what was said there is pretty much in line, but we do have the transcripts available and we can have recourse to them.  But we are fully aware of Gen Van der Merwe's submissions regarding what the state of affairs was over various periods of time.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.  What I just do want to add thereto is that he makes also specific mention of the trust which members of the Security Forces had among themselves as well as the loyalty which was expected of them in those years.  Mr Chairman, except if there is anything else from the Committee's side, those are my submissions.
	It is my submission that clearly as far as Mr Nortje is concerned, that he also has made a full disclosure, his written affidavit as well as his evidence in my submission, was open and frank, he went so far as also to place everything that he knows or heard about, before the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: There were a couple of contradictions with regard to detail, such as who was present at the meeting at the Jan Smuts hotel, that sort of thing.  What do you say to that?

MR LAMEY: Yes, Mr Chairman, yes, there are these contradictions, but I think one must also bear in mind that Mr Nortje would certainly not unnecessarily place himself on that scene if he hadn't been there.  As far as that contradiction between his evidence and Mr De Kock is concerned, it is my submission that if one gives consideration to that aspect, that that must be assumed as correct.

ADV SANDI: As I understood his evidence, he was not physically there at the meeting in the sense of picking up each and every word that transpired between Colonel De Kock and Mr Duli?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the contradiction was whether he was at the hotel or not.

MR LAMEY: I think Mr De Kock said that he cannot remember exactly whether, or he excluded that, but Mr Nortje's evidence was, if I remember correctly, that he was there, but he was not a party to ...

CHAIRPERSON: To the actual discussion?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And one can also look at the aspect of whether it is a material contradiction or one which can be ascribed to the passing of time and that sort of thing.

MR LAMEY: Yes, one must also take into consideration that there has been a passing of time.   One must also take into consideration that there has been various incidents where both him and Mr De Kock have been involved and one would not be surprised if these contradictions come up and it is normal that there will be differences on certain aspects.  As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.  Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Will it be an appropriate time for a tea adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take the short tea adjournment, thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, we have had very complete legal arguments by my learned colleagues.

CHAIRPERSON: It is always easier to argue third in line than it is first.