Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-10-01

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: It would be difficult to give you a blow-by-blow account of what was discussed.  There was a brief discussion about the methods.

MR BOOYENS: I thought that was only discussed once you got to the technical division?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, I have already said that it was discussed at Genl Van Rensburg's home, whether it should be an ambush or an explosion.

MR BOOYENS: The fraud issue, that was the only reason that was given to you at that stage?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct.

MR BOOYENS: You are already in a situation where these people have placed you on so-called leave to escape the glare of the Harmse Commission.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Correct.

MR BOOYENS: Didn't it become clear to you at that stage already that they were actually trying to apportion blame to Vlakplaas and Coetzee?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Well, Vlakplaas took the entire portion of the blame.

MR BOOYENS: So when you were put on leave, you already were realising that they were shifting the blame onto you?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Well, I didn't think that.  That is in fact what they did.

MR BOOYENS: Sorry, my mistake. You knew that they were loading the blame onto you. Is that correct?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: And your chief at C Section, Van Rensburg, must have been part of the people that were shifting the blame onto you.  That's only logical.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, I don't know what went on in his head, but he was part of the cover-up action on the general staff level.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, we are talking about the same period.  We are talking about 1989, during the time of the Harmse Commission. I just want us not to misunderstand each other.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Correct.

MR BOOYENS: You were officially on leave.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Is it possible that Genl Van Rensburg could possibly have struggled to get hold of you because you were on leave?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I can't say that he would have struggled. I don't recall that he had trouble, because he didn't actually get hold of me and every Vlakplaas member had a radio tracking device.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, but you were on leave, Mr De Kock.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That's correct. But I was on this leave or suspension with a full salary and full subsidies and with the use of Government vehicles and access to Government money and Government petrol.

MR BOOYENS: And you went to the office every day.  Mr De Kock, perhaps I misunderstood you. You were not placed on leave, you were just now referring to your suspension on full pay. So was the impression created to the outside world that you were suspended?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: It was held out to the outside world that I and others had asked to be suspended from duty, so that that could create the impression that we could not continue with our normal duties.

MR BOOYENS: So in fact you weren't on leave?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Technically speaking, no.  Not legally speaking.

MR BOOYENS: It was suggested to you at that stage that the only reason why members of the police should be killed, was because they had committed fraud and the fact that they had stolen money.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: That must have been a shocking suggestion to you at that stage and that's why you went back to Van Rensburg, as you put it.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: The suggestion to kill was not the shock.

MR BOOYENS: But it was the reason.  The suggestion that colleagues were to be killed, in other words people who fought alongside you, that was very shocking.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, but more than that, it was the reason why these people should be killed, simply because of fraud.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: And I want to explain.  If you will allow me an extra minute. That I had a wider understanding at that stage regarding the interception of cheques and moneys, destined for trade unions.  The economic disruption of organisations, et cetera.  Because a friend of mine in the intelligence service in Port Elizabeth, Carl Edwards, had long before this incident, now I mean about two to three or four years before this incident, had informed me how cheques were intercepted, moneys were intercepted and with the purpose of causing economic disruption of these organisations.  What he didn't mention was where the money went.

MR BOOYENS: Yes?  So the killing of these people surely didn't think that the people who had intercepted it, had put it in their own pockets?  So the killings still related to their criminal offences.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: For me what it was about, was the protection  of certain projects.  Because there were similar projects in Johannesburg and Pretoria, and Pretoria was also actively busy with such a project.

MR BOOYENS: And if this project was to be exposed during the Harmse Commission hearing, it would actually cause a bigger wound and more damage.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: So when there was mention of liberation movements' money, you in any event thought it was a security police project that had to be protected?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, that was the immediate idea.

MR BOOYENS: But why, if you thought it was a security police project and the Harmse Commission was pending, why go back to Van Rensburg?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Well, why don't we cancel the project and just cover it up?  We are in fact already busy doing that.

MR BOOYENS: Mr De Kock, I don't understand at all.  Your feeling was that it was better to cover up the project. How would that have solved the problem?

MR BOOYENS: Because the existence of the project would have already been known then.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, it would in any event have become known, but as I have said,at that moment, that stage in that house, during that brief discussion, that was my initial impression and view.

MR BOOYENS: Did you at that stage, during the discussion in the house, did you have a problem with your background knowledge of the project, with agreeing to kill people?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, because the Harmse Commission was staring us in the face and the Harmse Commission I saw in a broader context as simply an attack on Vlakplaas. It was an attack aimed at the whole of the security fraternity.

MR BOOYENS: So you in fact had no problem?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, at that stage I didn't have a problem. At that stage in the house, I had no problem with assisting.

MR BOOYENS: And you agreed? You then and there agreed to help with this project?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, I agreed.

MR BOOYENS: Without qualification? It was on Van Rensburg's request or on his instructions.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Did you accept it without any reservation and qualification?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, I had no problem at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: I notice that you say that you have no recollection that Mr Nieuwoudt went along with you in the car.  Does that mean that you can't remember it? In view of what I put to you at the outset of my cross-examination, it is actually irrelevant, it is not important. It is not something which you would necessarily remember.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, I have enough time, so last night I sat and I thought about it, because I also have no recollection of what happened to him. When we got to head office, I can't remember whether he stayed behind in the car. I really thought about this, because I don't want to prejudice anybody without good reason, and I can't see him anywhere, I can't place him anywhere.

MR BOOYENS: So you say you don't know what happened to him at head office?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I can't say that because he didn't accompany me in the car. I have no recollection of that.