Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-10-01

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, but I will accept that version because to put plan B in operation for an ambush, without weapons, would be senseless. They couldn't make use of their service pistols and weapons. We had sufficient weapons and I would have provided them with weapons.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have dealt with that kind of detail yourself or would you have just told them take Eastern Bloc weapons or Makarovs?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Perhaps I gave it to them myself or perhaps I could have given the key to the safe to any of the three members, they were confidantes and I trusted them, and I could have told them to go and fetch weapons.

MR BOOYENS: Mr De Kock, this is not a trial, but I must give you the opportunity to comment. I want to put it to you that the evidence as given by Van Rensburg and Nieuwoudt as to what happened in Pretoria is the truth and not the version given by you. What is your comment?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I can't speculate on that. I can't make that decision. I leave that for the Commissioners to decide.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr De Kock, when you gave to Mr Van Rensburg the second time, was any mention made of ANC membership on the side of the colleagues who had to be eliminated?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, he only mentioned that it had to do with Goniwe and other similar incidents.

ADV POTGIETER: He did not say that these people were recruited by the ANC?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, nothing like that.  At another time and during another incident, he told me that, but this is not relevant here.

ADV POTGIETER: During this matter no mention was made that these people were recruited by the ANC or had defected to the ANC?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, not at all.

ADV POTGIETER: Did I understand you correctly, and received indemnity for this matter?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That's right.

ADV POTGIETER: And the civil claims were settled?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is what I know, I don't have enough information but my legal representative said that.

ADV POTGIETER: No civil claims were instituted against you?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, I did not receive a summons.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, I should find out from Mr Booyens, whether possibly you have got any further questions in the light of what my colleagues could have asked the witness.

MR BOOYENS: Perhaps that just on that specific aspect, Mr Chairman.  Mr De Kock, Genl Van Rensburg said that he was not in his office that morning.  You could not have contacted him. You heard that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, I heard that here.

MR BOOYENS: And very importantly enough, it seems that already during the Goniwe inquest, Adv Mostert, on behalf of the Defence Force, mentioned that some of these people had turned to the ANC, that they put out feelers. I am just summarising this.  This was many months before the amnesty applications.
	I want to put it to you specifically, that this information would have been known to you, because it was a very important factor to convince you to take action.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, it was not mentioned to me and I have no knowledge or no in-depth knowledge of what happened during the Goniwe inquest.

MR BOOYENS: You say that you got the impression that Van Rensburg and Nieuwoudt had already discussed these matters before you arrived there?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You cannot say that it came to Van Rensburg's notice but not to your notice?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I don't understand your question?

MR BOOYENS: Did they mention it to Van Rensburg that these people wanted to defect, was it mentioned before you came there and not to you?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I wouldn't know.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY
	I have a few questions to Mr De Kock. I represent Mr Lionel Snyman and it is on his behalf that I direct the questions.
	Mr De Kock, in the Motherwell judgment where you acted as a State witness, Judge van Rensburg summarised your evidence and said that you were satisfied that this operation would have happened in the broader police and country and police interest, that these people should be killed, and you agreed to continue with this.
	Now were you satisfied and is a correct summary of your evidence in that trial?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I am sorry I couldn't hear well.

MR LAMEY: Mr De Kock, perhaps you should put on your ear-phones, you would hear better.  I repeat the question, Mr De Kock.
	In the summary of your evidence, in the judgment by Judge Van Rensburg in the Motherwell incident, where you were a State witness, your evidence was summarised and I refer to page 517 of this document.  
	Your evidence was summarised by saying that Van Rensburg told him that it had to do with the Goniwe matter and many other of these matters, and that you said that you were satisfied, that this was done in the interests of the country and of the government and of the police, that these people should be killed and therefore you agreed to continue with this operation.
	Is the summary of your evidence correct?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, it is correct.

MR LAMEY: I accept that things had to happen quickly on Vlakplaas.  There was little time to go to Port Elizabeth. Is that correct?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Am I wrong in saying, and I am referring specifically, and I am talking of Snyman here, that at least at Vlakplaas it should have been told to him and Ras and Vermeulen that this operation regarding the elimination of policemen was in the interests of broader interests of the country and the police?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Am I also correct in saying that Mr Snyman had reason to believe, especially had reason to believe that when policemen would be killed, that such an incident had to be cleared by you with head office?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Am I also correct in saying that a person in the position of Mr Snyman, as a warrant-officer and in the light of the evidence here, that you did not put a choice to these members, and that he could not question this action?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairman, if he had told me that he did not want to go, I would have not have held it against him.  But in the context of those times, and the loyalty of the members, he would have not gone against my wishes. And I can't see why he could disagree or refused.

MR LAMEY: Mr De Kock, were these people chosen specifically by you to go to Port Elizabeth?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: According to your judgment you decided that they would be the best people for the job?  Your order was also as you have admitted, that the case was urgent.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, it was urgent.

MR LAMEY: And regarding this urgency, there was not a lot of time to debate this matter?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: If there was a debate or discussion, it would have been very short-lived.  But I remember no discussion about this matter.

MR LAMEY: Mr De Kock, if they were told that these actions would be in the interests of the country and the security of the country, and you have already testified that they had all reason to believe what they had been told was correct and you also verified it with head office.
	Would any questioning of the motive for these actions, would it not have been possible for a warrant-officer to question this or would it not have been possible to regard this as questioning an order, or also, a sign of disloyalty?