Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-20

CHAIRPERSON: Did you often receive cash from De Kock?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: No sir, it wasn't like on a daily basis or a monthly basis.  It came as he felt good.

CHAIRPERSON: And what sort of money are we looking at, what were the amounts?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: I don't know, sometimes it might have been R200-00, sometimes it might have been R1 000-00, I don't know sir, I can't remember any more.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this unsolicited, you didn't ask for it?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: No, you never asked for it, it just came.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it strange for somebody just to give somebody money out of the blue or without any explanation?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: We didn't query that.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean wouldn't he say, okay, here is some money, work well done, thanks very much, or happy birthday or Christmas or something like that, you just got money, R1 000-00, R200-00 and you didn't know what it was for?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: We didn't query that Mr Chairman.  That was a gesture from Mr De Kock and we thought that was normal.

CHAIRPERSON: When this money was given, were you alone or was it given to other colleagues of yours?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: Sometimes there were people, it came in an envelope and you just received it and that is that.  There was nothing funny about it, nobody thought any bad things about it.

CHAIRPERSON: But you thought it was reward for services rendered?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: I just thought it was, I won't say services rendered, I thought it was just for that we were working at the Unit and that, but never for, special payment for a job that we did.  No, I won't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising, Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Vermeulen, what you are trying to convey to the Committee, is that you were rewarded for your loyalties, is that what you are trying to say, to the Unit?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: You never committed acts with the idea that you were going to be enriched by the commission of those acts?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: No, never sir.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you ever, when you acted, when you received instructions from Eugene de Kock, feel that you were acting for your own personal gain as envisaged in Section 20(2)(i) of the Act?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: No Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Vermeulen, I would just like to discuss this award aspect, you have heard Mr De Kock's evidence that in other Branches of the South African Police, sometimes bonuses were paid to Police Officers for services well rendered?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: In your division, there was no provision made for such bonuses, officially?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr De Kock felt that this was unfair that other divisions received bonuses for duties well performed, but you not?  I believe that that was indeed Mr De Kock's attitude and was this why he from time to time, gave you some cash as bonuses?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Without it being connected to any specific operation?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you are aware of the fact that you were present during his criminal trial?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: Yes, I was Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you are aware that several charges of fraud were put to him, where in terms of - false claims were lodged to pay for these bonuses?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that he was found guilty with regard to those fraud charges and that he is serving a sentence therefore?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then, he does not apply for amnesty for those fraudulent actions?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Muller?

MR MULLER: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MULLER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No questions, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Vermeulen, just one question, what was your rank at the time that you were in East London?

NICHOLAAS VERMEULEN: I was a Warrant Officer, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.  Mr Cornelius, do you have any further witnesses?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no further witnesses, thank you Mr Chairman.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Muller, are you calling any witnesses?

MR MULLER: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?

MR MAPOMA: No, no, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So, does that then conclude the leading of evidence in this hearing?  No further witnesses to be called by anyone?  I see it is just about the tea interval, when will it be convenient for legal representatives to make submissions?  Do you want to discuss it over the tea break and we can take the tea break now and then if you can let us know, well, we will come in in any event after the tea break, and then take it from there.  Thank you.  We will now take a short tea adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  Mr Mapoma, has it been decided when submissions will be made?

MR MAPOMA: Yes Chairperson, a proposal is that they argue tomorrow morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you all agreed with that?  I think with regard to the submissions, if you can concentrate on this question of remuneration and the interpretation of its exclusion for personal gain.  I think that is the main aspect to be concentrated on.

MR MAPOMA: One other issue Chairperson, regarding Mr Clive Brink's application.  Mr Malan has got an announcement to make.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson.  I have just received a telephone call from Mr Clive Scrooby to tell the Honourable Committee that he will indeed withdraw the amnesty application of Mr Clive Brink.  It was also said to me that he received a fax this morning to the effect, his reasons will be the same as that which was given for Mr Anton Nieuwoudt.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't really need the reasons for a withdrawal, but as long as we know that it has been withdrawn, so that we can then make arrangements that we needn't set up here again on Monday at fairly great expense.  So the position then Mr Malan, is that we will not have a hearing next week, seeing that both Messrs Nieuwoudt and Brink have withdrawn their applications.

MR MALAN: Indeed, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  We note then that Mr Clive Brink has withdrawn his application that was set down for hearing at this venue in East London, next week.  We will be having argument in this matter that we have heard this week, tomorrow.  The legal representatives wish to have some time to prepare that argument, and we will then adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning and we will then hear submissions at that stage.  Thank you very much.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS