Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-13

MR JANSEN: If somebody with a senior rank like Schoon or van Rensburg friendly requested you to assist in something, would you say that would generally be an order or simply a request that you can refuse or comply with at your will?

DIRK COETZEE: An order which I would say - if you wanted to get kicked out of the family and get rid of, you should refuse and that would be the end of your participation in the security police.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that that would apply to not orders but even requests?

DIRK COETZEE: No, I'll put it as orders, there's was never a request for you to do something, it was actually an order Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: But is it true that is was very often couched in a request?

DIRK COETZEE: That's correct, to go and assist, that's is correct Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: You're aware of the denials placed on record by General Neethling and you're also aware of the present differences that still exist between you and the applicants in this matter, that's correct?

DIRK COETZEE: That's correct Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: And you have obviously been through your versions on many occasions and as far as the judicial processes are concerned, I take it you cannot at this stage add anything to your previous testimony and attempts?

DIRK COETZEE: There's nothing more that I can do than what I've done over the past eight years Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: Yes.  As far as any extra judicial attempts are concerned, you have expressed your desire to assist one step - or to assist the TRC one step further - and if you may just place that on record.

DIRK COETZEE: I do Mr Chairman, I would humbly request and seriously request this Commission to do a polygraph test on what I've said in front of this Commission, to determine on whether I'm speaking the truth and would humbly and dearly invite the applicants and General Notnal Neethling to do exactly the same.  That would be a good indication to prove the non-guilt then of everyone involved if it comes down to that.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, while Mr Coetzee is still present - I neglected to do one thing I should have done.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR VISSER: I should have referred you Mr Chairman, to the Judgement of the Appellate Division in the case of Neethling versus Du Preez and others and Neethling versus the Weekly Mail and others.  It is reported in 1994, Volume 1 of the South African Law Report ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You'll do that in your head to us.

MR VISSER: Yes, but - except that if my learned friend wanted to make comment on just one page which I want to refer you to and it's a matter of a factual finding.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR VISSER: It's at page 756 by his Lordship Mr Justice Hookstra ...[intervention]

JUDGE PILLAY: What page was that?

MR VISSER: 756.  After the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, reference again sorry, 1994?

MR VISSER: 1 SA 708 and the specific passage Mr Chairman, you will find at page 756 in the side numeral G and it's numbered 3, where the Appellate Division found - made a factual finding, that Coetzee was constrained to admit that he was quite unable to determine the sequence of (1) the Vuzi and Peter murder, (2) the Kondile murder and (3) the general incident - whatever that may be, but I think you will interested Mr Chairman, in the first two because you will recall that Mr Coetzee's evidence is based on him going - after he had gone for the poison or the knock-up drops the first for Peter and Vuzi, he went for the Kondile knock-out drops and that's why he says it followed after Peter and Vuzi and therefore in the beginning of November.
	Of course the rest of the Judgement is also relevant Mr Chairman.  I may just refer you - I'm not going to read it, to - on that same page against the letter (I) and on the next page against the letter (I) and over the page Mr Chairman.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you familiar with that Judgement?

MR JANSEN: Yes, myself very familiar Mr Chairman, the context  of course is - I'd have to go into long explanations as to what were the present circumstances in the Neethling trial.  The first problem there was that although there were problems with the sequence, there was not dispute as to the time.  For instance there was no date of 10th August suggested as there was now for the event, so the whole - the entire factual enquiry related around events in October and early November and not ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Jansen, that could be dealt with in argument as I understand it ...[inaudible]

MR JANSEN: Yes, Mr Chairman, purely in argument, ja.

ADV DE JAGER: So, you'll deal with that in argument if ...[intervention]

MR JANSEN: Yes.  Mr Chairman, I may place on record that I have no objection to the findings of the Harms Commission, the Judgement in the Neethling trial, which are matters of public record ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: That's right.

MR JANSEN: It's simple typed papers that ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: It was based on the evidence ...[intervention]

MR JANSEN: Yes, and that my learned friends can use that if - to the extent that they regard it as relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR JANSEN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, there's just one aspect I wish to mention.  We will endeavour to obtain such evidence as we can as to whether the motor car was booked in in Bloemfontein and so and if we can obtain an affidavit we will make that available to the Commission.  It's unfortunately a situation where we've got to try and prove a negative in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: You'll do it in the form of an affidavit?

MR BOOYENS: We'll do it in the form of an affidavit if people are around and alive and - we are talking about events 15/17 years ago.

ADV DE JAGER: And you'll see to it that copies are given to all the parties?

MR BOOYENS: My attorney will see to that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Thank you very much.
	This has been an arduous and long hearing and I'm sure counsel would like to gather their thoughts before they make any meaningful submission to us for our consideration. And as in the past we've arranged with counsel if they wish, to make written submission to us on the assessment of the evidence and on such points, such as the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act and how those provisions should be applied to the facts of this case.  With that in mind, I would like to ask your co-operation in trying to find out whether you could furnish us - counsel who wish to furnish us with argument by Friday, a fortnight from now which is the 27th of this month.  Is that possible?  Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, speaking for myself, yes.  We would prefer to present you with full written argument.  I only have one problem and that is, to be accurate in our references we need the record and unfortunately experience has taught us that it takes time.  	I'm afraid that we will not be able to meet that deadline if we're going to do a proper job of the references to the evidence given before you.  I do - I think Mr Chairman, that it may be done in a month's time because that will give them two weeks time for us to type the record and let us have it and we would have two weeks in which to complete it.
	I don't want to waste time, I would prefer to do it while matters are fresh in my memory obviously, but there is that problem in the permutation Mr Chairman.