Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-21

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, yes, Mr Nortje if I remember correctly said that that is the way he was.  He used to give away money, and those are not the actions of a man who is doing certain things for personal gain.  If you want to gain something from your actions, then one would presume that you would like to hold onto the benefit that you obtained in such a way, he gives it away.  In that regard, whilst it is mentioned Mr Chairman, bear in mind the fact that De Kock gave evidence that yes, because of the fact or rather it was conceded by I think Mr Vermeulen,  and Mr De Kock also dealt with it, maybe not in so much detail, that other members in the South African Police often qualified for bonuses in respect of work which they performed.  His people didn't qualify for such bonuses, he didn't think that that was fair and therefore he put in false claims in order to compensate his people.  That shows two things Mr Chairman, he didn't have to sell arms to get money to give to his members, he had the Secret Fund at his disposal.  He could simply institute a false claim as they so frequently did on his evidence Mr Chairman, by saying we have an informer who gave us information about a cache of arms and we found the cache of arms, and he's got to be compensated for that, we suggest that you give him R50 000 for it, and R50 000 would then be approved and the money would then instead be divided amongst the members of Vlakplaas, as it so happened in some instances.  I am only using this as an example Mr Chairman.  May I refer you in this regard to that part of the applicant's application which was placed before you, the general part, the introductory part of his application, Exhibit A.  First of all, page 1 thereof where De Kock sets out the crimes ... (tape ends) ... and sentenced and you will see if you look at number 7, fraud, and number 14, fraud, 23, fraud, 26, fraud.  He was charged with fraud and the fraud that we were dealing with here Mr Chairman, related to false claims for compensation put in by De Kock and money obtained from the official Police Funds, in this regard.  May I also refer you Mr Chairman, to page 41 of that document, paragraphs 47(a) which reads as follows
"... false claims, the Apartheid government effectively approved the total onslaught mania and sanctioned it by blindly allocating enormous amounts of money to military budgets during the 1980's.  There no limits to the quantities of funds that were made available to the Security Forces."
	So there he had his source of income Mr Chairman, if he wanted to compensate his members for services rendered, he didn't have to sell arms to other people, he could simply institute a false claim.
	On page 66 of Exhibit A Mr Chairman, I would like to read an extract from a Criminologist who gave evidence on his behalf  on sentence at the trial, his criminal trial and she said in the second paragraph on page 66 -
"... with regard to the false claims which was served, it must also be regarded against the background of the determined climate which reigned at that time.  Vlakplaas had a braai area which was used regularly for parties and recreation by Officers.  Very expensive Whisky would for example be purchased for the higher Officers.  This recreation of the top structure had to be disguised by instituting false claims in order to cover the costs thereof, and in the same fashion many false claims for a great variety of other purposes, were served."
	Again on page 71, the third paragraph -
"... another aspect which formed part of the sub-culture was to make out false claims for expenses which could not be made known.  This system lent itself to the abuse of State funds because even the person who had to control it, sanctioned it, and was an accomplice in this."
	It is clear from all the evidence Mr Chairman, that the accused had free access to large amounts of money, that he in fact submitted false claims, the proceeds of which was used inter alia to reward his people, to pay bonuses to his people as was testified to by Mr Vermeulen and for this, he is not applying for amnesty.  He disclosed them Mr Chairman, I can mention to you, that in his application, he disclosed the fact that he was involved in instituting these false claims, he also originally applied for amnesty in respect of those false claims which were issued to pay for expenses incurred on behalf of the South African Police.  Just by way of example, for instance if alterations had to be effected to the buildings on Vlakplaas, he would simply institute a false claim and use the money that he obtained in such a manner, to pay for these alterations.  In respect of such fraudulent actions, he did apply for amnesty, but even those applications, were withdrawn on his behalf, before the Committee started hearing the amnesty applications which were put in on his behalf.
	We submit therefore Mr Chairman, that there is no basis for finding that Mr De Kock had a motive for personal gain when he accepted the amount of money paid to him, in respect of the third transaction and we ask you to take that into account.  I may be wrong, Mr Chairman, I do not know who is going to deal in chambers with the first and second applications.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know, it could be any person, or any three persons.  It might well be that, because we dealt with this, they might push it our way, but it might also not be because just taking a look at my schedule, I personally and I am sure my colleagues here, would be on the road for a long time, and won't be back in Cape Town for a while.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, we may be incorrectly assume that these applications would also be dealt with by you in chambers.  If any of you, or perhaps all of you are involved in it, we ask you to take into account, the argument which we presented to you in respect of the third incident, but as far as the one before you at the moment is concerned, we submit that there is no evidence of whatsoever nature to the effect that Mr De Kock acted with the objective of obtaining a financial benefit for himself when he supplied the arms in question.
	The remark made by Mr Vermeulen, Mr Chairman, he said, or Mr Snyman, I can't remember which of the two of them said it, he said it was said in a joke and it was said after the arms were supplied.  How could it possibly have been taken seriously, they were dealing with Mr Duli?  How could a person such as Mr Duli have given land away, belonging to the government?  I submit that nothing can be made of that statement and that it certainly doesn't show that they had a motive for personal gain when they became involved in these transactions.
	Mr Chairman, there is also a lot of uncertainty   on the evidence before you, you will recall that mention was made of an amount of R50 000 which was going to be paid for leasing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that was an extract from a Court record in the bail application, I think, of Duli.