Special Hearings — Mandela United Football Club Hearings — 1997-11-24

CHAIRPERSON: I'll allow it but if you could start winding up now.

MR DE KOCK: I would just like to advise Mr Semenya and he could look at that.  If he already has the documents, then he is withholding it;  if he doesn't have it, he can look at it again and we can talk about it again.  I received information from a source that there was a statement made by a Mr Shongo related to Winnie Mandela and her group in some way.  He talks specifically of this robbery and the fact that Mrs Mandela was very angry because a certain member of her group didn't want to participate in this robbery, and I suggest that you get that document and give it to the Truth Commission and that you also study it and then we come back to it because where I'm trying to help you, but you're trying to get on my back.  That is not the way gentlemen behave.   I am now a convict but you will not get on my back.

MR SEMENYA: Mr de Kock I don't share the description of a gentleman with you.

MR DE KOCK: I did not ask you, I did not ask you at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry I wonder if we could get back to the issues here which are under discussion.  Mr Hugo, I wonder if you would caution your client to answer the questions please.   Mr Semenya, if you could get on with the job please.

MR DE KOCK: I apologise;  it will not happen again.

MR SEMENYA: Did Colonel Potgieter tell you that Mabotha was not involved in any incidents involving the killing of a policeman?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, he did.

MR SEMENYA: And that he didn't know where any more firearms were hidden?

MR DE KOCK: I don't remember it but it was about the killing of policemen.  Should he be released to kill policemen, he would have committed terrorism again and that's why he had to be taken effectively out of circulation.

MR SEMENYA: Who's opinion was it that he was going to commit terrorism?

MR DE KOCK: That was Colonel Potgieter's and I must say I agreed with him.

MR SEMENYA: And I'm asking the question,  was those his express words - if we release the man, he is going to commit terrorism again?

MR DE KOCK: Verskoon my?

MR SEMENYA: Were those the words of Colonel Potgieter - if you release the man, he will go on and commit terrorism again?

MR DE KOCK: It was very likely, yes, that it would happen again.

MR SEMENYA: But you discussed it that it is undesirable that a man be released because he would go and commit terrorism?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, because we discussed whether we should allow it.

MR SEMENYA: I have no further questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr..
(speaker's  microphone not on)

SPEAKER: Madame Chairperson may I be permitted two questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you may, can you get on with it thank you.

SPEAKER: Yes Mr de Kock, I am appearing for the family of Sergeant Pretorius and I would ask you first whether you were aware of this incident before.

MR DE KOCK: No, Mr Chairman, I heard in short, in brief, I was at John Vorster Square when I heard about two or three days after that he had been shot and I think his wife was still working at John Vorster Square and that it was more than a terrible shock because I think Colonel Dion Greyling told me, maybe she can confirm but I think she heard it on the two-way of portable radio that her man, her husband, had been shot, and I don't know if it's like that.

SPEAKER: The second question I want to ask you: did you in the securities area where you moved, did you discuss in any way about his death.

MR DE KOCK: No, I heard nothing sinister, from what I heard here I made two deductions only and that is, the one was that he was maybe concerned about the safety of his source but that's just speculation and that's why he jumped out of the car;  the second that with the interrogation of the investigators into his death, I got the feeling that the death of Sergeant Pretorius was not as important as protecting Jerry Richardson as a witness.  That is just my opinion;  I might be wrong.

SPEAKER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis could you just put your name on record.

UNKNOWN: Yes Madam Chair, it' Roelof Du Plessis, I act for two people - for Colonel Jan Potgieter on instructions from Rooth & Wessels and I also act on behalf of Captain Wouter Mentz who applied for amnesty in respect of this instance.
 Colonel de Kock, let me just tell you in the beginning I tried to avoid this situation, I did not want to ask you today about your amnesty application or about credibility aspects - you know that.   I was placed in a position which is very uncomfortable for me and I have to do this, I have to put this to you.  Do you stand by the contents of your amnesty application and the correctness of it?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I do.

UNKNOWN: Do you stand by the testimony you gave today?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, I do

UNKNOWN: I just want to discuss one aspect with you quickly with regard to Captain Mentz's application.  His application is materially the same as yours.  There's one aspect where there's a difference and I want to put that to you. Captain Mentz's testimony was and his application also said this:  that you and he did not return to Vlakplaas after Mabotha had been picked up but he said 'we turned on the Witbank highway and the Askari was tied up.  When we got on the ground floor he was already tied up.  I did not know what was happening and, but I realised then that he was in difficulties.  He was handcuffed, he then describes that they went to Penge Mine and then returned to Vlakplaas.

MR DE KOCK: He and I returned to Vlakplaas, I know we moved back to Vlakplaas, we did not travel behind the vehicle of Mabotha until where he was handed over.  I don't recollect that but I don't have a problem with the difference he has with me.

UNKNOWN: Sure, it's not a material difference;  I just wanted to mention it.
 Colonel de Kock, could you just tell us normally when did Vlakplaas eliminate a person?  When did Vlakplaas eliminate a person?   When did you and the people at Vlakplaas eliminate a person?  When ?  Under which circumstances?

MR DE KOCK: There wasn't a laid down rule as to who would be eliminated.  The moment there were requests or a problematic person somewhere here or outside the country, initially we didn't operate internally except in a couple of isolated cases in a covert aspect, then we specialised firstly in foreign, across the border operations.  Those requests or indications came from head office itself.

UNKNOWN: What I want to know is what kind of people were eliminated by you?

MR DE KOCK: It would be an enemy or a traitor or someone who was a danger to the establishment or the state or a collaborator or a supporter who became a problem.  I want to qualify there: Vlakplaas did not elect, select the targets.

UNKNOWN: You dealt with these things covertly?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Not many people knew what you were doing with regard to eliminations?

MR DE KOCK: Without the security branch and head office knew but not the nature of it, not the fine details.

UNKNOWN: Did not everybody at all security branches countrywide knew?

MR DE KOCK: No.   Not everyone but certain people would have known, individuals would have known.  It was not a question of placing it on a notice board.  Certain officers when they got together socially they would discuss a problem, they would say in a conversation, "this person is giving me a problem" and somebody else would have said "we have the resolution; let's talk about it - the solution - later".

UNKNOWN: Everyone who operated with you at Vlakplaas would have known, wouldn't they?

MR DE KOCK: Certain people knew and new members weren't brought in and some weren't brought in at all.

UNKNOWN: That's why I'm asking.  As I understand it, only selected people knew that Vlakplaas was busy doing eliminations for covert operations.   It couldn't have been widespread.