Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-26

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, the indication that Lt Mose gave was that these persons were armed.  A man could not have foreseen that if they had been armed with sub-machine guns, how quickly they would have been able to produce their weapons.  And he would not have been in the position at the border post, to search the bags or the persons.

CHAIRPERSON: When - just to get onto another point, when you were at Moolman, you said you got there in the evening and you had to hang around and there was a bar there and you had social activities, were the members drinking alcohol there?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, the gathering was at approximately 11 o'clock that morning, the members who I selected to accompany me were under a Counter-insurgency Unit, I allowed them to have two beers or two glasses of wine.  I didn't want people ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No police coffee or boere tots, which we've heard about, anything like that?  Police coffee or boer tots we heard was where they the bottle of brandy and count five and that's a tot.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have never encountered anything like that, that someone would pour such a great tot, you might as well just drink it out of the bottle then.  It might have sounded quite to Mr Fourie, but that is not the way things worked.  And I would rather grant those members of mine two glasses of wine or two beers, than that they stand behind a corner and drink on the sly and then I don't know who I'm dealing with during the shooting.

CHAIRPERSON: So were you satisfied that at the time of the operation the people were all in their sound and sober senses?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, completely.

MR MALAN: I just want to achieve a measure of clarity regarding the preceding question put by the Chairperson.  Isn't it so that the drivers in both cases had to get away because there would be a shooting aimed at the vehicle?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, that would be an aspect of that planning, but if there was nobody inside the vehicle, he could have stopped there and it wouldn't have been necessary for him to run.

MR MALAN: But whether the persons were armed or not, the
driver had to get away otherwise he would have been shot.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not necessarily.  If Lt Mose, when he climbed out of the vehicle, began walking and raised his hands or indicated us to leave it, then that would have happened.  For us the signal or the indication would have been when he climbed out and ran around the front of the vehicle to get out of the line of fire because according to him these persons were armed.  Because when I pulled the trigger, within myself I was convinced that I was pulling the trigger on an armed person.

MR MALAN: But I'm speaking about the planning because it's the planning.  I thought I understood you to say that whether these persons were armed or not, you had no plans to arrest them.  Even if they were unarmed you were not going to charge them either, your plan was to eliminated them.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And if they were going to be eliminated, whoever the driver was it was the safest option for him to get away from the scene?

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

MR MALAN: So you didn't really need a sign, he just had to get away and as soon as he had left the scene you could commence with the shooting?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, I suppose it was a built-in factor.  If it was a question of simplicity, then that is what it is.  That is how the situation unfolded and that is how it is in my version here today.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions arising from questions that have been put by Members of the Panel?

MR MOERANE: Mr Chairman, just one question.
	Colonel, would I be correct in saying that in the planning of both incidents there was a prearranged spot where the vehicle had to come to a stop?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: In the case of the first vehicle, that's the Toyota Corolla, the vehicle actually did come to a stop more-or-less at the agreed place.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I would say within a pace of the precise place.

MR MOERANE: And it's your evidence that with regard to the second vehicle, it actually did not stop at the prearranged place, but proceeded some 80 metres beyond.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOERANE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Any further questions arising?
	Thank you, Mr de Kock, that then concludes your evidence, you may stand down.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, if you would allow me, I just want to introduce an exhibit.  A letter that was received on the 22nd of July 1999, from the attorneys Wagener Muller, just informing us that they appear on behalf of Mr Vlok, Mr Engelbrecht and Mr Schoon and that they won't be appearing at the hearing.  Chairperson, I have this morning informed Mr Wagener of the new allegations that were put to Mr de Kock, regarding Gen Engelbrecht's position as sweeper and he has informed me that they still maintain their position, Chairperson.  So I'd like to hand it in as Exhibit A.

CHAIRPERSON: Are the parties in possession of a copy of Exhibit A, the letter?  If copies could be made and then given to all the persons.  Any comment from anyone?  We've received this then as Exhibit A.
EXHIBIT A HANDED UP - COPY OF LETTER FROM WAGENER MULLER

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson.