Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-26

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That you would have said to him in reasonably cruel terms to shoot the woman.  Do you have any comment about that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes.  Without trying to play the good boy I am not certain about the language, but I did indeed tell him to shoot her.

MR JANSEN: From the original or the initial evidence with regard to Vlakplaas as a whole, that we had in Pretoria, is it correct that it emanated from that evidence that the most of the Vlakplaas members were issued with Makarov pistols and other eastern block weapons?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I would not say the most of them, the members who were selected for cross-border operations and covert operations had Makarovs which had silencers.

MR JANSEN: Yes, correct, I think maybe I did not use the correct words.  And you are also aware that Mr Ras says that the Makarov which was planted at the scene, as well as the two handgrenades, were in his possession.  Are you aware of his evidence to that effect?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, I did read that, but my recollection indicates that it came from Mr Pienaar.

MR JANSEN: Mr Ras says that his recollection is that there was a discussion between yourself and Mr Pienaar, where it was discussed that Mr Roelf Venter was to be contacted to find such weapons and before any steps were taken in this issue, he mentioned to you that he had his Makarov and the grenades with him.  Can you recall that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, my recollection indicates that one of the Makarovs was available from Mr Pienaar.  He could assist us later.  And this includes the handgrenades as well.  We could not get Mr Venter there because somebody had to drive to Piet Retief from the scene and when we left Piet Retief, Mr Venter was not yet there.  So it is confusing in that sense.  I do not want to dispute it with him, but it is confusing.  I cannot give you certainties here.

MR JANSEN: And Mr Ras furthermore says - and I am just putting this to you because I don't think we will reach much or that at the end of the day we would want to choose one person's version above that of another, but for the sake of completion I want to put Mr Ras' version to he.  He also says that he specifically fired two shots with the Makarov while it was in the hands of one of the victims at the scene.  Can you recall anything to that effect?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, it would make sense to do that under those circumstances, but I cannot recall it.  I would ascribe it if somebody could clear it up for me.  And as I say, it would make sense, but however I cannot recall it.

MR JANSEN: And Mr Ras furthermore says that the two shells formed part of evidence material during the inquest.  Can you recall that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, it is difficult to say.  What I do know about the Makarov pistols is that I had to as quickly as possible -  the Makarov which was used at the first shooting incident to place it by Mr Naidoo's body, it had to be replaced with another Makarov because it was a problem later in Court because photos were taken of the first Makarov for purposes of the first inquest and when I replaced the Makarov with the second Makarov, identification problems arose because a Makarov is an eastern block weapon and is upon licensing by some of the eastern block countries, and with the first Makarov I had for example 13 tension indentations on the locking mechanism at the top and with the second Makarov which I brought to replace the first one, there were something like 8, and Mr Jakoep(?) clearly pointed this out to me during the inquest.  So somewhere there is some confusion.  I have now given you my memory about that.

MR JANSEN: In any event, with regard to the first Piet Retief incident it is correct that none of the persons who participated in the operation received any benefit for this incident?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And the victims of this first incident were only known to yourself, or their personal identities were not known to you, they were known to you as persons who were part of the ANC and of certain operational units of the ANC?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, they were known as trained persons to me and Mr Pienaar identified one of the women who had been trained in Cuba, an Intelligence Officer in Cuba.  That is my memory thereof.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen.  Mr Moerane, do you have any questions you would like to put to the witness?

MR MOERANE: Yes, Mr Chairman, but at the outset I would like to place two matters on record.  Firstly, that on receipt of the documents and going through them, my instructions were to oppose each of the applications for amnesty.  That is still our position.
	Secondly, we were advised that this week, from Monday to Friday, we shall be dealing with the first incident only.  A pre-hearing meeting which was scheduled to take place in Pretoria was aborted after.  I attended it, but other parties couldn't attend.

CHAIRPERSON: I heard about that.

MR MOERANE: So some of the families of the victims in the second incident are not here for that reason and our preparation concentrated on the first incident.  I will be in a position to ask some questions.  It might be necessary to ask further questions at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR MOERANE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Colonel, the Piet Retief inquest into the first incident was a long drawn out affair, which must have been very traumatic to the families of the victims.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, it was.

MR MOERANE: Because to begin with, they were called up there to identify the bodies of their loved ones some weeks after the incident.  I know you are not directly involved with that, but I take it you know that.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moerane, are you saying that they had to actually physically identify the bodies several weeks after the incident?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR MOERANE: To be more precise, I believe it was on the 23rd of June, in other words 15 days after the incident.
	I shall not ask you why that was the situation, I'll ask W/O Pienaar, who at the stage was the investigating officer.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Very well, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: According to you information and knowledge, these relatives had to interact with W/O Pienaar.

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

MR MOERANE: Because somebody, I do not know who, appointed him the investigating officer of the incident.

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

MR MOERANE: And you will recall that at the inquest that very issue was debated and W/O Pienaar was removed as investigating officer because in effect he was investigating himself, amongst others.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That's correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: And is it correct that the clothing that had been worn by the victims was burnt, was destroyed?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Chairperson, I have no knowledge of that, but during the inquest I heard that.

MR MOERANE: W/O Pienaar was replaced as investigating officer, by Brig van Wyk, for a short while.

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

MR MOERANE: And thereafter he was replaced by Brig Engelbrecht.

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

MR MOERANE: I think he goes by the nickname of "Krappies" Engelbrecht.

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

MR MOERANE: Now you have testified about the relationship that you had with Gen Engelbrecht.  Let's call him General Engelbrecht because for his troubles he was promoted to that rank.

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