Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-29

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, that is still my impression today.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have heard Mr Pienaar's evidence indicating that he was not there?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, I have heard his evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo.  Mr Hattingh, do you have any questions?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Nortje, when you were led regarding Koevoet, which was a paramilitary, it peaked my memory regarding something which Mr de Kock had told us about quite some time ago, but which we have not placed on the record yet and perhaps you have knowledge of this.  Are you aware that Mr de Kock also gave the order that members of Vlakplaas be trained in parabat jumping?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that these members were duly trained, or at least a great proportion of them?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And there was also a first group of black members of the Security Forces who were trained at parabats?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the reason for that was because they could be used as a sort of semi-military operational unit at short notice?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The permission was given, according to Mr de Kock.  Was written permission given, do you know whether it was?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And this would have been necessary because it was a costly operation and aircraft had to be used?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, it was expensive.

MR HATTINGH: And who provided the aircraft?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: I know that we were at Phalaborwa, we stayed in the army camp, 5 Reconnaissance Commando.  I'm not sure who the owner of the aircraft was, but it was paid ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: It had to be paid for.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And payment for it was obtained from the Secret Fund?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the parachutes, I understand that the task force didn't want to provide you with parachutes, that is why you consulted 5 Reconnaissance Commando?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And they provided you with these parachutes?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Just singular aspects.  Mr de Kock, according to you - or before I get to that, apart from the parabat training, was regular training given to people at Vlakplaas, with regard to the use of weapons and weapon craft and explosives?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, that would be to equip them for possible situations.

MR HATTINGH: So you were always ready on a contingency basis?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You say that Mr de Kock was upset about the man who had escaped and this reason was ambiguous because he said that this person had escaped with the identity of the informer, which he could make known.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And also that that person could have been involved in further infiltration of ANC members.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The evidence which according to you was evidence that Mr de Kock did not want his name involved with the incident, someone else may have decided that his name should not be implicated in that incident.  Is it possible that you may have made a mistake, that this was not him who wanted it, but somebody else?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, that is the impression that I got from him, but it may be that the decision may have come from Gen Engelbrecht or somebody else, that his name be kept out of it.  But this is just something that I recall him telling me, that his name had to be kept out of the matter, but the final decision, I don't know who took that decision.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, Mr Chairman, thanks.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: No questions, thank you, Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane?

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Nortje, you have already referred to the false statement that you made in anticipation of the inquest which was to be held at Piet Retief.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And this is on pages 55 and 56 of bundle 5.

MR LAMEY: No, it's 63 and 64.

MR MOERANE: I'm sorry, I'm looking at the previous one.  Yes, that's right, 63 and 64.
	This statement like the others, seems to have been made on the 26th of June 1989, in the sense that the attestation part of the statement is actually already typed in as the 22nd of June 1989, not so?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And your evidence is that you were just presented with the statement which had already been typed out for you to sign.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: You knew at the time that there was supposed to be an authorised version of the incident.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: And that it had to be consistent with what others were saying?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That's correct.

MR MOERANE: And this was all organised by, amongst other people, Brig van Wyk?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Correct.

MR MOERANE: Are you able to throw light on the identity of the vehicle, whether it was a Nissan E20 or whether it was a Toyota Hi-Ace?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: I would say it was a Nissan E20.  It was a Nissan, yes.

MR MOERANE: Yes.  If in fact the vehicle that was at the reconstruction was a Toyota Hi-Ace, would you be able to explain how that came about?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Perhaps they didn't have a Nissan, or think about that aspect.

MR MOERANE: So they would have shot up a Toyota Hi-Ace and put sticks through it ...(intervention)

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: I beg your pardon, I think that the same vehicle that we shot at was used at the scene.  They would have used the same vehicle, because it stood at the Piet Retief Police Station for quite some time after the incident.  And after the reconstruction, I think I saw the vehicle parked there at Piet Retief for quite some time.

MR MOERANE: And the vehicle that you saw at Piet Retief was an E20?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR MOERANE: I suppose you have no explanation why the Piet Retief people, such as W/O Pienaar describe that vehicle as a Toyota Hi-Ace?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: No, I cannot explain that.

MR MOERANE: In the last paragraph on page 63, the events are described in the following words
"At that moment, Const Manzini jumped out of the vehicle at the right front and ran around the front of the vehicle.  I could see him clearly because the vehicle lights were switched on.  At the same time the passenger who was seated in front on the left jumped out and at the same time opened fire."
Now you have told this Honourable Committee that that in fact is false.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: But I notice that that particular version has been persisted in by some of the people who are asking for amnesty.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, I saw that.

MR MOERANE: Yes.  If in fact that person had fired, you would have seen him.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Definitely.

MR MOERANE: Now on page 64 you say - let me not say you say this because you say you are actually not saying that, but it is recorded that you are saying
"I investigated my weapon and saw that I had fired 20 shots."
Now this is actually not what you said.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: No, that is not correct.

MR MOERANE: But this appears in a false shooting incident report "skietvoorval" report, which was compiled by the officer who compiled that in terms of police standing orders.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That's correct.