Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-21

MR HATTINGH: Benefited from this incident, but from the evidence which was placed before you, it emerged, but that statement from which that fact emerges, was a statement which he made in, I think in Denmark for purposes of the criminal investigation against De Kock.  You are fully aware of the fact Mr Chairman, that a State witness' statement in a criminal matter and Nortje did give evidence against De Kock at his trial, is available to the defence, so you can accept therefore that he had access to that statement at the time of his criminal trial.  He could have dealt with that, or let me rather put it this way, he was therefore aware of this allegation contained in that statement.    He could have seen from that statement that it was a statement of a general nature, and that Nortje didn't really have knowledge of what he was talking about there, and that was confirmed by Nortje in his evidence here, that information came to him by way of hearsay rumours that he overheard, he had no specific knowledge and no first hand knowledge of the fact that De Kock received any money.  De Kock could easily have said no, I deny that and Nieuwoudt never said that he paid De Kock money, so he could have kept quiet about it Mr Chairman, but he elected to take the Committee into his confidence and he told you about the money which he received which clearly demonstrates the fact that he made a full and open and truthful disclosure about the money which he received.
	The extract from the Truth Commission's report in our submission clearly establishes the fact that De Kock at an earlier stage, probably a much earlier stage than his evidence before you and this Committee, also disclose that fact.  He has no recollection of having disclosed the fact, but he did tell you that he had interviews with Investigating Officers attached to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and that it is quite possible or even probable that he could have told them that.  We submit that that information could only have come from him, because as I have already indicated to you, it was only himself and Nieuwoudt who were present at the time of the handing over of this amount, and Nieuwoudt, to our knowledge, and on the information before you, never disclosed a payment of R160 000-00 to De Kock and never added the rider that De Kock at first refused to accept the money so it could only have come from De Kock, which demonstrates to you Mr Chairman, that at a very early stage already, De Kock disclosed this fact.
	We submit Mr Chairman, that this demonstrates that he didn't consider the receipt of this money, as a reason for supplying the arms in question.  Look at what happened to the money after he received the money, Mr Chairman, and once again, it may sound suspicious to you.  We submit it ought not sound suspicious to you, the fact that the money was lying in his car.  He bought stands, paid for the stands with money.  He subsequently and quite some time after the incident with which we are dealing here now, or even quite some time after the third incident when he received the money, gave away the one stand to Nortje and the other stand with the house on it, to Kloppers.  Mr Chairman, you must also take into account the fact that Kloppers was in no way involved in any of the three transactions that we are dealing with.  Why would De Kock give him the bulk of the money if it was intended to be compensation for the part that they played in the coup?  Kloppers was simply not involved.
	The point that I am really making Mr Chairman, is that he gave away according to his evidence, everything which he received.  Doesn't that clearly show that he didn't perform the act for personal gain?  If that was his motive, Mr Chairman, surely one would have expected him to hold onto the money, or the assets that he purchased with the money?  Why would he gave it away to colleagues of his - clearly shows with respect, that that was not his motive at the time when he agreed to deliver the arms.
	One must also bear in mind Mr Chairman, that his own evidence is to the affect that he did not say to Nortje when he donated the stand to him, there was no mention made of the coup, of the arms that were supplied.  It was never said to Nortje take this stand as reward for your participation in this incident, quite the contrary was said Mr Chairman.  The evidence was "vat dit vir al die dinge wat ons saam gedoen het, vir al die dinge wat ons saam gedoen het", now that Mr Chairman, includes the time that they spent in Koevoet in Namibia.  It can therefore never be said that he donated that stand to Nortje as compensation for his participation in this particular incident.

ADV SANDI: Maybe Mr Hattingh, in this connection one can also mention in his favour, Colonel De Kock, that there was evidence by one of the applicants that he was generally a very generous person to his subordinates.  One of them mentioned that he gave him R5 000-00 or something?