Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-29

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, maybe I should just explain.  During this operation it was said - I know somebody was shot there, but at some stage I had forgotten about it, I only know that the most important point was that the person who had got away.  I know that Mr de Kock was very dissatisfied because the person had got away and this was something which had remained me.  I had forgotten about the person who was shot there, not that I did not know, but I did not think about it afterwards because it remained with me that one person had got away.

MR LAMEY: You have also made a false statement, is that correct?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: A statement of yours appears in bundle 5 on page 64 to 64, which appears to have been taken down in June 1989, by Brig van Wyk, is that correct?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.  I just have to say that I did not write out the statement, the statement was just given to me to sign.  And I am honest when I say that I cannot recall whether it was attested to before me, but I knew it was false information contained therein and I never read the statement, right up to this week when I had a look at it, because I knew it was false.

MR LAMEY: In your amnesty application you say the main reason with regard to the inquest, to give false statements in the inquest is firstly to omit Mr de Kock's participation and to construct the facts as such so that a proper roadblock was said to be there and that the persons had been killed in an attempt to arrest them.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: I will not go through everything, but the statement also portrays that you were fired at first and then you returned fire.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that is not the truth?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And there was a stopper vehicle with a blue light and the impression is that there was a roadblock and under those circumstances the people were shot after they had fired on you.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And that is not true?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Before you had made this statement, after the shooting incident in Piet Retief, at some stage did you realise that this version would be made in an inquest?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, well at that stage it was logical that the true facts would not be given.  As I have said, the statement was drawn up a long time thereafter, but the purpose was to cover the true facts.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: And am I correct when I say I accept that the reason why this was done was because there was an ambush here and that there was no roadblock, and this would boil down to murder?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And it would seem as if Vlakplaas' participation had to be omitted from the incident and that was the reason for Mr de Kock's absence there?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, I understood that Mr de Kock would not have been involved in this incident, for whatever reason.  I would assume he did not want to have his name once again in another shooting incident.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible because of the first incident?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: I assume so, yes.

MR LAMEY: I see in this false statement that with regard to yourself it is just said that you are attached to Security Head Office.  That is not wrong, Vlakplaas was a branch of Security Head Office?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: But it does not say specifically that you were a member of Vlakplaas or C1.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, we did omit that purposefully.

MR LAMEY: What it done purposefully?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, in all our statements.  In this regard we did not pertinently state it as such.

MR LAMEY: In other instances as well?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Would it be correct to say it was to protect the covert activities of Vlakplaas?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.  I also did not testify in the inquest which was held afterwards.

MR LAMEY: You did not give oral evidence?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Were you at the scene when the reconstruction was done?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: No, I know I saw photos of the scene afterwards, but I cannot recall that I was at the scene.

MR LAMEY: The reason for omitting Vlakplaas' participation and to construct it as such that it would not indicate murder or an ambush, is it correct to make the assumption that with this, covert operations of the Security Police had to be protected and that it would be an embarrassment for the government if it was made known?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And with regard to the political objective, you have set this out on page 310 and 311, do you confirm that?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, I do.

MR LAMEY: And did you also know that from your personal experience, that there were much problems with regard to infiltrations from Swaziland during that time?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And which led to acts of terror within the RSA?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: And you also state that Swaziland was a thoroughfare for infiltrations, specifically in the PWV area.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I think that's the evidence-in-chief.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey.  Ms van der Walt, do you have any questions to ask?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you, Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
	Briefly, Mr Nortje, at the time with these events there were many infiltrators ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, it would appear to me that you have not listened to his evidence-in-chief.  I was waiting for you because that was led in evidence-in-chief, the question that you are about to put.

MR PRINSLOO: But I just want to put this point.
	Mr Nortje, your evidence was that 36 persons were going to be infiltrating, did you know about that?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: No.

MR PRINSLOO: But there were a great number of infiltrators, as you knew?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And on this particular evening of these events, according to your statement on page 308, the person climbed out of the vehicle when Mr de Kock shot him.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, well at least he was busy climbing out, he hadn't put his feet on the ground yet.

MR PRINSLOO: But all that I really want clarity about, Mr Nortje, is that this incident took place very quickly.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Because it was an ambush, these were people who were trained, they were armed, they could shoot at any time and the one who shot first would come off all the better.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And a member of the Police Force had already jumped out and run past the vehicle.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Manzini?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you saw this at the same time?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it possible, Mr Nortje, that the impression may have been created that this person who was climbing out of the vehicle, who was opening the door to climb out, may have fired?  That a person observing this from the outside may have observed this?

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: Well a person who wasn't immediately among us may have had that impression if he had been some distance behind us.  It's very difficult to explain this, but there is a difference.  Mr de Kock had an uzzi and this person had an AK, and if you have the experience, then you will able to distinguish between the noises.  But it is possible at the back may have thought so, but this did not take place.

MR PRINSLOO: If I understand you correctly, your evidence was that you were under the impression that Mr Pienaar was at the Moolman Hotel.