Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-07-27

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: I cannot comment on that.  He never discussed that with me, specific instances, I just know that he was attached to Koevoet.

MR MOERANE: But it is reasonable to assume or accept that he must have been involved in numerous shooting incidents, from the degree of knowledge that you know of.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, according to press reports and if I go along with that it is indeed so.

MR MOERANE: Not only that but from your knowledge of him.  You say you know him very well.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: I know him, I got to know him after he returned, but we never discussed his previous operations in Namibia or with Koevoet, so I'm not really aware of what he did there and with what actions he was involved there.

CHAIRPERSON: He said that he knows him reasonably well.

MR MOERANE: Have you been involved in shooting incidents in the past, or before that occasion?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Before this incident yes, I was involved with an incident Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: A shooting incident involving trained MK members?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.  It was in the Amsterdam vicinity Chairperson.  I cannot recall the exact date.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, what is the relevance of this particular question?  This is another incident, what's the relevance?

CHAIRPERSON: I think is would seem reasonable that the relevance is talking about recollection of what occurred during a fighting situation, but that's as far as I can see.  Am I correct?

MR MOERANE: Yes, Chairman, at the end of this inquiry a judgment will have to be made if necessary as to which version to accept, that of the witness or that of Col de Kock with regard to...

CHAIRPERSON: Whether or not there was a shot fired, yes.
You may continue.

MR MOERANE: Yes, I've asked you when was this Amsterdam incident?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: I cannot recall.  I would have to consult again.  I think it was in 1986 some time.

MR MOERANE: What happened in that incident as far as the shooting ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect...

CHAIRPERSON: We didn't get full details of the other incident but perhaps - sorry.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, the applicant made an application for amnesty.  That matter has not been heard, it's still pending.  Why must that matter be canvassed now?  It's never been done before.  If you want to test his reliability to see shots and that you could ask him about target shooting and many other ways to test his ability to recognise shots at night, or rather when people fired at him, did he act as a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we need to know the details of the Amsterdam incident, Mr Moerane, particularly seeing that it is going to be the subject matter of another application.

MR MOERANE: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We do know that there was shooting there.  Perhaps you can just go in broad terms, but we don't want to know who was involved and where and how.

MR MOERANE: No, no Mr Chairman, I didn't want him to canvas the details of that incident and obviously if that is the subject matter of another inquiry, I'll ask him even less about that, all I just wanted to find out was whether he was shot on, in other words whether somebody shot at him in that incident.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: No, shots were not fired at me.

MR MOERANE: Well, is there any incident in which somebody shot on you, or shot at you?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: No, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Mr Deetlefs, when did you report this incident, that is the second incident, for the first time?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: The same evening just after the incident I contacted my Commander in Middelburg and I sent a telex with the facts to him.

MR MOERANE: In other words on the 12th June?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Did you mention Col de Kock in the original reports?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: I did mention him, yes Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: So there was a document existing on the 12th of June wherein you had involved Col de Kock?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: And that was known to the District Head, Middelburg?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: Who was the Head in Middelburg at that time?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: At that stage it was Brig Visser.

MR MOERANE: Did you make a subsequent report?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: No, the first one was complete and had the complete particulars, so I don't think there was any follow-up report except to report the progress of the death inquest.

MR MOERANE: Well that report was not placed before the Inquest Court, the first one from the 12th June.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: No not that I am aware of Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: It couldn't have been because the whole object of subsequent reports and information placed before the Inquest Magistrate, was to deliberately conceal the involvement of Col de Kock.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: Why did you do it?  Why did you submit a false statement to the Inquest Court?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Because I was requested, I cannot recall by whom, but the request did come from head office that Col de Kock's name not be mentioned because it would jeopardise the second investigation.

MR MOERANE: But you see you were not the first, you were not the only person who might have done that.  There were people involved in the first incident who were also involved in the second incident, not so?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: That is true, but we are speaking of the person in command, Chairperson.

MR MOERANE: But were those people also required to conceal the involvement of Col de Kock, the people who were involved in the second incident, who had been involved in the first incident?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is so we all knew that we should not mention his name.

MR MOERANE: So for that purpose, it was necessary to put your heads together to come up with a particular version?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: I cannot recall that we met, it was just the statements of the members.  The facts which were entailed in those reports.  The only thing that differed from the statements was that Col de Kock's name was substituted by my name.

CHAIRPERSON: I see that, just on this point, I see that the statement that was referred to earlier, I think it's this one here on page 23 of bundle 5, that that statement was made by yourself on the 26th May, it doesn't say what year.  Sorry, it's June, sorry 17th June and it was attested to by Mr Pienaar, this Commissioner of Oaths.  Did  you write this statement yourself?  Did you have it typed out, did you write it out or did somebody else do it?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Mr Pienaar wrote it out Chairperson, I just confirmed the facts.

MR MOERANE: Well W/O Pienaar was the investigating officer of both incidents.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: He was originally.  He commenced with the second investigation but it was taken away from him.

MR MOERANE: Yes, but that was done at a much, much later stage.  The following year when the first inquest had started and as a result of objections from the representatives of the families.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOERANE: But W/O Pienaar was the investigating officer for both incidents.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: That is correct.

MR MOERANE: And he was taking statements from the people who were involved.

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Yes, that is so.

MR MOERANE: Well, back where this all started, it was important to reconcile your versions so that you present one consistent version, not so?

CHRISTO PETRO DEETLEFS: Chairperson, no, not really.  That was W/O Pienaar, he took the statements and I assume he would have seen to it that the explanations be the same, but at no stage did we come together and agree on a specific version.