Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-26

MR HATTINGH: (cont)
	Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr de Kock in general, with regard to both incidents - let me ask you the question about the second incident first.  Did Brig Schoon know that you would be involved in a similar incident such as the first one?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.  With the meal or the function at Moolman, just before all of us went our separate ways, I notified him that I would remain behind with more members because I would have accompanied him to Pretoria otherwise.  And he knew the reasons for that.

MR HATTINGH: And did you inform him that this would be another ambush-type operation?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did he express his approval of that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you report back to him after the operation?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you report to him that you had shot the people dead during the ambush?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The information that you had before you became involved in any of the operations, was this information that these were trained terrorists who were going to infiltrate the country?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.  The information was of such quality, and from the enquiries it appeared that this was the reason why we should preferably set up and ambush because we knew that we were dealing with trained MK members here and by nature of the situation, an MK members was synonymous with a machine-gun and or a missile launcher of anything that went along with that.

MR HATTINGH: Did you act in both instances in your capacity as a member of the South African Security Police and in the execution of your duties as such?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And this was also in order to combat terrorism?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: With the advantage of retrospect, how do you feel about the fact that you shot these people dead during an ambush?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, if one thinks about it today, one cannot think that any of our members, whether it be on our side or on the side of our opposition, sank to the levels where we grabbed each other by the throats and literally strangled one another.  It just doesn't make sense.
	If you study the normality which gradually emerged after 1994, one cannot believe that one couldn't see it oneself.  It's very difficult to express.  That relentlessness, the lack of total tolerance, must have developed over a period of time, so that the lines which were drawn between right and wrong transformed into a grey area, that we dehumanised one another and that ultimately we achieved nothing by the destruction of lives on both sides.
	I cannot say anything further, because one will not be able to rectify it by what has already taken place.  One can perhaps attempt to prevent that this sort of thing happens again.

MR HATTINGH: The members of Vlakplaas who participated in these operations with you, were under your command?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.  I accept full responsibility for my share, my planning and the leadership that I provided, the decisions that I took.  I also accept full responsibility for the members under my command, of Vlakplaas, and in this case particularly because by nature of my seniority there I also accept full responsibility for the members of the Eastern Transvaal Security Branches, insofar as the actions and combat and the cross-border operations are concerned.

MR HATTINGH: Were you the most senior officer during both these operations?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh.  Ms van der Walt, do you have any questions you would like to put to the witness?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr de
Kock, on behalf of those that I'm appearing for there are singular aspects that I want to clear up with you and that would be regarding the second incident, that is the incident involving the minibus.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: My clients who were involved in that operation state that a formal inquest was held.  You were not involved in it, as you gave evidence.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Then I stand corrected, I will accept it as that.

MS VAN DER WALT: The second post-mortem inquest was held under the Chair of Mr Poolman, who was a district magistrate from Pretoria.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I would accept that.  I am corrected.

MS VAN DER WALT: Furthermore, the clients who were involved in the second matter maintain that when the bus came to a standstill and the person on the left front side disembarked from the bus with the AK, he began to shoot with the firearm in his hands.  Can you recall this?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, no.  However, I would like to explain it as follows.  It is probably my gunfire which they may have seen because as I've said, we were between a metre and two metres away from one another, nothing further than that.  I would concede to that, that there may have been some error in judgement on that side.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you proceed, Ms van der Walt.
	Mr de Kock, was there any firing from any of the people in the minibus?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, we did not give them the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: At any stage?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: As I have said, if I had taken a second longer or if the person on the left front had been a second faster, with that short distance and with that limited angle of fire in which he would have concentrated his gunfire, this would have led to a blood-bath, there is no doubt about that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Rorich and Mr van Zweel will give evidence that on the tar road between the two places where they stood, there was also a mark in the tar road, which they allege came from the fire of the person who climbed out of the vehicle.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, I will not dispute that, my attention was focused on a more serious and more immediate danger, but I believe that if he had fired and if he had hit me there would have been traces of gunpowder on my body.  That was the nature of the distance.  However, I will not dispute it, it may be the perception of others.

MS VAN DER WALT: The clients for whom I act in these matters give the evidence like that according to both incidents.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you very much, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions you'd like to put?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr de Kock, this source or informer who provided the information was the same person in both cases.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And in both cases the information was correct, that these persons were trained MK members.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, the information was so correct and with the interrogation it was decided that there would be an ambush, that we would have to do with MK members.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Pienaar's impression is that in the case of the vehicle which was driven by Lieutenant Mose, who has passed away since then, that he switched on the left indicator light, which would indicate that the persons in the vehicle were armed.  Can you recall that or not?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I would concede to that.  I cannot recall it, but
I would concede to it.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage you believed that these persons were indeed armed, the persons in the Corolla.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I had no doubt.

MR PRINSLOO: Insofar as it concerns the second incident, the vehicle was driven by a member of the Detective Branch, Mr Manzini.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.