Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-10-01

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, that was Maj Baker, he was second in charge. I just wanted to explain to you what happened when I was suspended or the special leave, when I told Genl Le Roux this meant suspension, and I regarded as special leave, and I asked him did I have any signing powers, he said no, and that means that I was suspended.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS
	Thank you, Mr Chairman, Cornelius, acting on behalf of the seventh applicant, N J Vermeulen.

MR JANSEN: Sorry, Mr Chairman,  if I could just come in.  There is one question which I omitted to ask, if I could just return?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN
	It is Jansen again, on behalf of Ras.  Mr De Kock, Mr Ras says that he can't remember specifically whether he was appointed as the leader of this group.  Could it have been that that was something which had to be determined by Mr Nieuwoudt?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Mr Chairman, it is difficult to say, because the way I handled things, indicated that Ras would be the leader and he would report back to me. But I do not have a problem with that, if that was his idea. It was normal to think that, because all three of them had the same rank. I did not say you were the leader, you were the first or second.

CHAIRPERSON: But perhaps did you mean only with regard to your group from Vlakplaas? I know eventually they might have to be - eventually they might have to be under the command of somebody else senior in Port Elizabeth and the like, but did you possibly, when you saw him as leader of the group, are you possibly referring to the, if I may put it, the Vlakplaas group?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, he would act as leader of the Vlakplaas group, but as soon as they are not under my command and they were under a police officer, then for the purposes of discipline and control, they were under the command of that officer.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he the same person who was to come back and give a report to you?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, it would have been Ras, yes.

MR JANSEN: It would have been Mr Ras?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, it would have been Mr Ras.

MR JANSEN: I think that is how Mr Ras remembered that. In broad terms he would report back to you, but it was not pertinently mentioned that he was the leader. This was not a typical Vlakplaas group who had to go to this area.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman, I have of further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS
	Thank you, Mr Chairman. Cornelius, acting on behalf of the seventh applicant, N J Vermeulen.
	Col De Kock, you were a strong leader, all commands given to the members were obeyed?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: They were loyal to you?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You worked on the basis of the need to know and the members knew that when you gave an instruction, it is only that bit of information they had to know.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.  Just to explain. Experience
taught me later that nothing remains a secret for longer than 14 days amongst these men. Some interaction did take place after an operation, and sometimes we would hear that somebody knew about something, although it was not full detail. They knew things they were not supposed to know.  But that only remained at Vlakplaas.

MR CORNELIUS: You knew you did not have to motivate this instruction?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I gave the order and provided some detail.

MR CORNELIUS: You, the members would know that you and the security structures would take responsibility for their actions?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What is important for me and for my applicant, is that should he refuse to obey an order, which was in the interests of the country, was it logically that from your side there would be doubt regarding this person?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Not immediately. Because I was exposed to the same circumstances, I understood how they felt, and the conflicts which were there, but he would have not doubted that.

MR CORNELIUS: But should it have existed would you have doubted his loyalty and would you have moved or shifted him out of operations?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: If that happened twice or three times, you would have asked wasn't he tired, wasn't he tired of fighting. Then you would have perhaps channelled him into a less operational level.  Yes, I know this is not a direct answer, but this is how I wanted to explain this broadly as possible.

MR CORNELIUS: In future you would be careful to give orders to this person?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I won't give him an order except when he approaches me.

MR CORNELIUS: This member would prejudice himself if he does not obey an order.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, it could prejudice him later on.

MR CORNELIUS: And we have a specific official who has obtained specific sensitive information, and he could also become a safety risk?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Eventually, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Then I am going to play devil's advocate, should that information and his security breach was of a serious nature, could it happen that he would be eliminated perhaps?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, if it seemed, to use the terminology that he would reveal facts or defect or reveal information to the Press, then such actions would be considered.

MR CORNELIUS: The conclusion we then can reach is that the members in the unit shared this knowledge, and realised what a tremendous responsibility they had when they received an order?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

ADV DE JAGER: Mr De Kock, you earlier told us that you tried to eliminate Dirk Coetzee or played a role in that attempt?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I played a role in that attempt, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Was this before or after this incident?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairman, I think it was after this incident, but the command structure was the same.

ADV DE JAGER: It wasn't before this incident because had Dirk Coetzee not already testified in front of the Harmse Commission?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: If I recall correctly, they wanted to prevent Dirk arriving in London to testify at the South African Embassy before the Commission.

ADV DE JAGER: So do you know whether Dirk Coetzee was still in the country at that stage?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I think he had already left the country.

ADV DE JAGER: And the bomb was sent to him whilst he was in Zimbabwe, long before he went to England?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, he was in Zambia and the way I understood it, they wanted to prevent him arriving in England, to testify against Genl Neethling.

ADV DE JAGER: And you said that nothing remained secret for very long?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Unfortunately not.

ADV DE JAGER: If for instance, Mr Vermeulen had known that you were prepared to eliminate and kill Dirk Coetzee, what choice would he have had to disobey one of your orders?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: As I have already said, I was accessible for all members, as a result of the intimacy which existed in the group, we had quite a good inter-personal relationship and he could have taken me to one side and said that he had objections, but it would have been to his disadvantage.  Because I had gone through all these things myself first and then reported to them. I had sympathy for these aspects.