Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-10-01

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kemp?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KEMP
	Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Kemp is the name, I act on behalf of applicant number 5, Jacobus Kok and applicant number 6, Wynand du Toit. I have only a few questions. 
	Mr De Kock, to commence, I would like to just mention a couple of facts, mention is made in the Harmse Commission and the witnesses involved there. I just want to go and look at the framework of time when this happened, to refresh your memory.
	Is it not so that Almond Nofamela in October 1989 was to be executed in the Central Prison in Pretoria?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, that's true.

MR KEMP: And it was on the eve of his execution that he brought an interdict or an application to stay the execution and the information led to Dirk Coetzee coming to the fore and he started revealing information, as well.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That's correct.

MR KEMP: The Harmse Commission was then appointed and there was first an informal inquiry by the Commission itself, without any public inquiry, and that took place from the end of October 1989 to more or less the end of March 1990. Is that correct?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR KEMP: And the evidence led before that Commission was led from more or less April to June 1990 and the investigation in London where Dirk Coetzee testified took place in April 1990. Is that correct?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I would agree.

MR KEMP: Would you agree that at a stage when you arrived at the technical division on that particular day, after you had been to Van Rensburg and Bezuidenhout, that at that stage you were satisfied in your own mind that the operation was authorised and was essential.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I just want to correct something here.  I have no recollection of arriving there with Capt Nieuwoudt, but yes, I was satisfied in my own mind that the operation was legitimate and perhaps not legitimate, but that it had been authorised.

MR KEMP: At that stage had long had you known Mr Du Toit?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I had met Mr Du Toit on one or two occasions in Ovamboland, when they brought up supplies, but I only got to know him well after I returned from Koevoet.

MR KEMP: But it was before this incident.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Oh, before this incident I saw him often at the office but also socially.  Very limited socially speaking.

MR KEMP: Would it be correct to say that at that stage there was a strong position of trust between yourself and Du Toit?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.

MR KEMP: When you arrived at Mr Du Toit, did you convey to him that there had already been authorization from head office for this procedural operation?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, as in many of the previous operations, I mentioned it to him, because you are not going to mislead him, because it was very simple for him to just to pick up a phone and find out.  But the situation between us was one of trust and he never questioned the situation, because we had that relationship. We wouldn't act underhand vis-a-vis each other.

MR KEMP: You have no independent recollection today whether Mr Nieuwoudt drove to the offices with you.  But he was present during the discussion which you had with Du Toit. Is that correct?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR KEMP: Mr Du Toit's recollection of the time during which it took place is not very clear. In his view it took place between 10 and 11 in the morning, but he would say that it could possibly have been earlier or even later. And you can't take the matter any further than that?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, I can't.

MR KEMP: Mr Du Toit will also say that the issue of an ambush as an option or as a first option, was not really discussed, but it didn't play a prominent role in the discussion which took place between him and you.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, no, because the issuing of the Eastern Bloc weapons was of a dual nature.  If the explosives didn't work there would be an ambush; if the explosives did work then there would be members, and there were survivors, they would have been eliminated with the Eastern Bloc weapons.

MR KEMP: You earlier testified that if you had gone directly from Genl Van der Westhuizen's house to the technical division, you would have not have found anybody there. Now Mr Du Toit will testify that he often started work before seven in the morning.  Now if you say, talk about going there directly, are you referring to even earlier than seven o'clock?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes.

MR KEMP: Is that correct?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, we could start splitting hairs about the time, but I never arrived at the offices at seven, because as I said, we would not have found anybody there.  I had to arrange with him when to see him because I did not know what his programme was like.

MR KEMP: Mr Du Toit will also testify that he can't recall that you phoned him to arrange for a meeting, but he wouldn't deny or dispute it. He simply has no independent recollection of you making prior arrangements with him.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: I have no problem with that.

MR KEMP: You said that you were involved in the plans or steps taken, to try and eliminate Dirk Coetzee. Isn't it so that you were also indirectly involved or at least aware of the fact that one of the security branch or Vlakplaas members, had in fact been eliminated during the proceedings of the Harmse Commission.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: After he had testified, yes.

MR KEMP: It was Brian Ngqulunga?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, and that also forms part of my application.  As it was mentioned, the command structure was the same.

MR KEMP: Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me one moment.  Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KEMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ford?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FORD
	Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Ford, on behalf of Mrs Mgoduka and Mrs Faku.
	Mr De Kock, annexed to the application of Mr Nieuwoudt is the judgment given by his Lordship, Mr Justice Van Rensburg in the criminal trial in which Mr Nieuwoudt and others were convicted. You testified in that trial, that is common cause.

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

MR FORD: At page 539 of the application, I am going to read to you from the middle of the page and the words of Judge Van Rensburg
"In truth, De Kock created the impression to us that it would be a great relief for him to come to the decision to reveal all the details which had been weighing heavily on his mind for many years."
Was that a correct finding?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: Yes, that was a correct finding, Chairman.

MR FORD: I think it has been canvassed in some detail with you by your legal representative, the fact that you received indemnity and that the likelihood of civil claims is very small.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR FORD: Now have already expressed in questioning by Mr Booyens for certain of the applicants, the fact that not only were you embittered but you were also nauseated by the reactions of certain of the generals under whom you fell.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairman.

MR FORD: Do you have any reason to harbour the same feelings towards Mr Nieuwoudt?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR FORD: I haven't heard it suggested by any of the other persons who have questioned you, and I cannot think of any reason, is there any reason why you should want to give false evidence against Mr Nieuwoudt?

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: There is no such reason, Chairperson.  My view, which may not be popular, but it could be correct, is that Nieuwoudt fought in the way that he thought was right.