Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-26

MR MOERANE: Well let's move from the general to the specific.  Generally.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Generally a branch would request a group to come and work in an area, such a request would have to be followed up or supported by means of a telex report.  That would be submitted to Brig Schoon and from there it would be channelled to me and sometimes there would be specific enquiries about specific askaris who they required.
	In certain operations, Brig Schoon called me in and then the operation would be given to me and an explanation of what they wanted.  Sometimes one would be told to sort it out, depending on what the situation was, or the specific task at hand.
	In this case, Brig Schoon and I would have travelled together to Island Rock.  However, I notified him that I would not be able to do so, due to an expected infiltration I would have to depart earlier, so that he could make other arrangements and I would go through in the meantime to assess the situation.
	Such information would come through quite often and then nothing would happen.  However, there was a line of control.

MR MOERANE: And how do you know that your deeds received the knowledge and attention of the Generals?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, after I had spoken to Brig Schoon he would have to provide further information or at least report to the Head of Security.  There would be questions.  The General would want to know what happened because he in turn would have to inform either the Commissioner or the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON: Would this happen in respect of just about every operation that you were involved in?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And how do you know that your activities came to the knowledge of the Minister of Police or Minister of Safety and Security, or whatever he was called then?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, I will have to depend upon tangible evidence and that is in the case where there were personal congratulations from person to person, then the Minister or the General may congratulate Vlakplaas as a group or the entire unit.  There would be the delivery of rewards or the decoration of members of Vlakplaas.

MR MOERANE: Would it be correct to say that the Minister at times visited Vlakplaas for functions?

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

MR MOERANE: In the company of Generals?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And they were entertained there at Vlakplaas?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Is it also correct that on the occasion that the press were to visit Vlakplaas, you received advance warning of their visit?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Which enabled you to remove weapons to a different location?

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

MR MOERANE: And remove certain personnel that you didn't want to be seen or identified there?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And when there was an intention to visit the second place, you were also given advance warning and you removed your weapons from that second place to another location?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Would it be correct to say that co-operation between our unit and the police took place at all levels, right up to the highest level?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.  I would just like to qualify something and that is that the Uniform Branch and the Detective Branch - let me put it like this, the regular policeman on the street would not have been involved in our situations, with the exception of times when the askaris caused problems, such as a shooting or assault, or where accidents had occurred and our vehicles carried false number plates, then we would for example - in my case, I would have gone to the Station Commander and told him that I would rectify certain aspects and leave it at that and if I could not succeed, I would then consult higher authority.

MR MOERANE: Would it be correct to say generally that the illegal activities of the askaris were generally covered up?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, consistently.

MR MOERANE: The only unfortunate one that was not covered up was Nofomela's killing of the farmer.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: It was impossible to cover that one up.

MR MOERANE: And of course as we all know, that led to a can or worms opening, particularly before he was executed.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Before he was due to be executed.

MR MOERANE: Before he was due to be executed.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Let's come to both incident now, generally.  Is it correct that where you took up your positions no standard or usual roadblocks were set up?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, not at all.

MR MOERANE: In particular there was no sign of a police presence in the area?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, none whatsoever.  For example, also not a vehicle that was parked in the road which would have created any suspicion.

MR MOERANE: And no blue light to warn people approaching?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, that would have indicated that the persons insisted that the driver turn around, or they may have jumped out and run away.  Or even more serious, that they opened fire on us first.

MR MOERANE: So can we accept that those applicants who say that there was a vehicle with a blue light before the approach of the second vehicle, are not telling the truth?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, I cannot make any statements about that, but what I do know is that directly after the shooting the vehicle was pulled into the road, with a blue revolving siren or light.  And I have read my statement here this morning for the first time, upon my arrival here, I did not read the statements made by the other members in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, where was this vehicle with the blue light immediately prior to the shooting?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: It was concealed with the other vehicles, behind the line of fire.

MR MOERANE: In any event, if that vehicle had been brought to a place where it could be seen before the shooting, that would have defeated the whole purpose of the ambush?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, then we may just as well have left it.

MR MOERANE: Coming to the second incident, you have described in graphic detail what happened and how you approached this vehicle and how this person wielding this firearm was about a metre or two in front of you.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: If this person had fired at you, you surely would have noticed that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: From that short a distance and with that firing tempo of an AK47, I believe that my midriff or chest area would have disintegrated.  And with the limited angle in which it was necessary for him to fire - and I've thought about this quite a lot, he could not have done anything other than to wound seriously or kill four or five, there's no doubt.

MR MOERANE: And in any event, if he had fired his weapon and had missed you, there's no way that you'd not have been aware of that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, as I have said I believe that I would have had gunpowder traces on my clothing.  There was no chance that I would not have known it.

MR MOERANE: With regard to this second group, was your intention the same as with the first group?  In other words, to ambush them and kill them.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Let's get to the person who was across the border.  I think you have stated very clearly that the intention there was clearly to kill that person or those persons.