Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-02

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: This is correct.

MR HUGO: And you also did enquiries with the men regarding exactly what happened?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, after I had visited the scene, I did do enquiries with them and I was given explanations, but I did not pursue this, the local branch, Inspectors' Branch cordoned off the area and they investigated and the investigation went its normal way.

MR HUGO: I don't want you to explain to us what they told you, but you were satisfied from the explanations that you found and that you got, that this was a legitimate operation and that you could leave it in the hands of the police to investigate it further?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: This is correct Chairperson.

MR HUGO: In this way, after this incident happened, an inquest was also held where extensive evidence had been led and a finding had been made that your people could not be held responsible for this event having happened?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: This is correct Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Did you, yourself, testify in this inquest?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And the evidence was the same as you are giving today?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: This is correct Chairperson.

MR HUGO: Mr de Kock, then it is also so that you have applied for many incidents, you applied for amnesty for many incidents, indeed your amnesty application encompasses about more than 1000 pages, is that correct?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And in this way, you were consulted with for hours by me with the eye on setting up this amnesty application?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And both myself and you had been properly aware of the Chesterville incident and certain rumours that were being spread?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: This is correct Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And it is also correct that we had spent hours going through documents and that you of your own accord, have decided not to apply for amnesty for this incident, is this correct?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: This is correct Chairperson.

MR HUGO: And for one very simple reason and this is that you had been convinced of it that you had not committed an offence?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: This is correct Chairperson.

MR HUGO: If you had any doubt that an offence had been committed, then it would have been the easiest thing for you in the world, to just add this to your amnesty application?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: It would have been no problem at all Chairperson.

MR HUGO: One last aspect, after this event had happened, how quickly afterwards were Vlakplaas asked or requested to leave the Durban area?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, I think this would have been a day or two afterwards.  It was not a question of us running away from the area.  I think I still stayed behind for I think a week with a small group of askaris and the rest of the people deployed in the area of Piet Retief, against the North-Natal/Swaziland border and also at the Paulpietersburg/Vryburg area where they were working.  I have a vague recollection of this, but I think this is what happened.  I had still been here for about a week with about six to eight people, as I said.

MR HUGO: And then just to return to the beginning, if one hypothetically speaking accepts that Vlakplaas had already decided in Pretoria to come and kill people, then it would have been the easiest thing for you to take one of the illegal weapons that were in your possession at Vlakplaas or one or more of these weapons, to take this along to the operation and no one would have known about that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: We could have brought ten AKs, we could have used all the ammunition,  we could have withdrawn from the area and could have gone to another place and it wouldn't have been a problem.

MR HUGO: Would you then get an AK on a legitimate basis just because you wanted to use it as a show-piece?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, this AK was the property of Security Headquarters, it came from their stores.

MR HUGO: Thank you Chairperson, we have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hugo.    Mr Ramawele, have you got any questions?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes Mr Chairman, I do have questions.  I am going to start to refer the hearing to the Supplementary Bundle - Eugene de Kock, it is the Bundle which was referred to by Mr Cornelius, thank you.  I refer to page 14.   Mr de Kock, here in your affidavit you say, you can just confirm if this is true, you say
"... as the Commanding Officer of a Koevoet Unit, in the previous South West Africa, I developed a reputation of a very harsh tracer of the so-called terrorists."

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR RAMAWELE: "... I had no formal training as a Security Policeman and I had no practical experience of investigative work regarding Security matters."

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR RAMAWELE: "... and for all practical purposes, I was only a trained soldier in an armed struggle against SWAPO."

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR RAMAWELE: Furthermore you say
"... most of the members including myself, were better trained for operations of military nature."

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct yes.

MR RAMAWELE: Then further on you say
"... these members, like myself, were already not any more susceptible for violence and human suffering because of all the violent deeds in which we participated and to which we were exposed to during our service period in the previous mentioned units."
	Later on you say -
"... these had to be people who would not hesitate from danger and would not hesitate to combat the terrorist threat by killing people."
	Is that so?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct Chairperson.

MR RAMAWELE: You heard yesterday, it was suggested to Nofomela that you could have, you might have been wishing to protect him when you said that, or you may have wanted to protect him, you know, such a suggestion was made, did you hear that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, that is correct.

MR RAMAWELE: In the light of what I have just read to you and also - in the light of what I have just read to you, do you think  really that a member of C1, of Vlakplaas, would be protected in the sense that you would say he should not get into a situation where he has to fight the so-called terrorists?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No Chairperson, certain people had to be used for certain tasks.  Certain people were more suitable for specific tasks, some people were not suited for cross-border operations for example and then you would have used people who were more suited.

MR RAMAWELE: In this instance I am talking about Mr Nofomela, would you say that Mr Nofomela was not, was a person who had to be protected from getting into Chesterville?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, he was not protected.

MR RAMAWELE: In other words what you are saying is that Mr Nofomela was quite able and - was quite able to get into Chesterville and carry out the instructions if he was instructed?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes Chairperson, I mean - Nofomela when I arrived in Vlakplaas in 1983, had already been a murderer.

MR RAMAWELE: Why do you say that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, when I arrived there in 1983, they had already told me about the Griffiths Mxenge situation and he was also involved in the shooting at Swaziland.

MR RAMAWELE: Okay.  Now, why did you go to Durban?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele, I assume you are moving to another point now?  I am going to take the adjournment and then you can deal with the new point when we come back.

MR RAMAWELE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will reconvene at half past eleven.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele?