Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-19

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You had to make an affidavit regarding a great number of incidents in which you had been involved during your career at Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And I assume that these circumstances under which you made those affidavits, were not very beneficial for accuracy?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I recall, and if I am incorrect, you must please correct me, I recall that you gave evidence at that time that you did indeed experience great emotional pressure or stress while you were making these affidavits in Denmark, it was stress which was caused by the facts that you had turned on your former colleagues and that you were providing information against them, and that this was caused by the fact that you feared for your life and that you found yourself in a foreign country, under very strange circumstances?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in the course of your evidence, Mr Nortje, at various occasions, you had amended your affidavit which you made for the case?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And at various occasions you said that you were not certain, that your recollection told you one thing, but that you were not really certain about it?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Would it be fair of me to say that on face value or according to the evidence which you have given, it would appear that your recollection of the specific events, is not as clear as that of Mr De Kock?

MR NORTJE: I would concede to that.

MR HATTINGH: Because you agreed with his version after you had heard it, and your memory had been refreshed in certain aspects?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that his recollection of these events is therefore more reliable than yours would be?

MR NORTJE: With relevance to certain aspects, I wouldn't say everything.

MR HATTINGH: Then finally, your Attorney has already highlighted this, there was no talk of remuneration before the incident?

MR NORTJE: No, there was not.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear anybody speak of remuneration during the planning?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: And afterwards did anybody speak of remuneration?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: You made that affidavit of yours on the strength of information which you obtained afterwards from certain individuals?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: People other than Mr De Kock?

MR NORTJE: Mr De Kock also spoke of it, he also spoke of remuneration which was received.

MR HATTINGH: But beforehand there was no talk of remuneration?

MR NORTJE: No.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh.  Mr Malan, do you have any questions that you would like to ask the witness?

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Nortje, at the beginning of your affidavit you say that Nieuwoudt and Van der Westhuizen were the key role players in this operation.  Is this based on the information which you gained from Mr De Kock, or is this based upon your own observation?

MR NORTJE: This is what I received from Mr De Kock and upon my own observation, I observed them together and to tell you the truth, I didn't ...

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon?

MR NORTJE: I didn't know about the first incident, Mr De Kock told me about it afterwards, and he also told me who had been involved.  After this, according to what I can recall, they were the key role players in the organisation of the weapons, and according to me they knew everything, or at least the incorrect impression may have been created by Mr De Kock, I can't say for sure, but that is what I saw.

MR MALAN: At any stage when you were present, was the name of Mr Anton Nieuwoudt ever mentioned?

MR NORTJE: No, not at all.

MR MALAN: Your knowledge about the "key players" is also not based upon a fact which you inferred from other circumstances, except that which you heard from Mr De Kock?

MR NORTJE: No, that is only what I heard from Mr De Kock.

MR MALAN: Well, let me define it further for you, Mr De Kock said during his evidence that for a coup to be successful, the hearts and minds of the masses and the Army was to be behind you, so you suggest in your introductory paragraph that Nieuwoudt also orchestrated this aspect?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR MALAN: The alternative would be that Duli was already the kind of person that had that influence?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I understood it.

MR MALAN: And the issue surrounding the financial benefit has already been cleared up, we don't need to discuss that any further, thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MALAN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan.  Mr Jansen, do you have any questions?

MR JANSEN: No Mr Chairman, no questions.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions?

MR MAPOMA: I have no questions Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, do you have any re-examination?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, just on one aspect.  Mr Nortje, just in reference to the question which was put by Mr Malan, you did indeed understand that Duli from the inner circles of the Transkeian government would have planned and executed the coup?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But if you indicate that Anton Nieuwoudt and Van der Westhuizen were the key players, could you just explain what you mean by that in coherence with the idea that Duli would have been the instrumental player, what would have been the role of Nieuwoudt and Van der Westhuizen?

MR NORTJE: Well the idea which I had was that Duli used them as the links between the two governments.  Who was involved behind the scenes, is unknown to me, but Van der Westhuizen and Nieuwoudt were the people who represented the Army and I knew that to plan a coup, would not have been undertaken only by them, there would have been higher ranking Officers who were also involved, but they were the links as I understood it.

MR LAMEY: You say that Duli would have used them, and is it also the case that they may have used Duli as an instrument?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it is possible.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Sandi, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

ADV SANDI: Thank you Chairperson, maybe just one.  Mr Nortje, is it - you heard Mr De Kock saying that on a certain day, after the attempted coup in the Transkei, you approached him to say that yourself and your wife wanted to buy a plot, do you agree with that, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is not true sir.  That is not true.

ADV SANDI: Did you hear him saying that?

MR NORTJE: I heard him saying that, but that is not true.

ADV SANDI: What exactly is the position?

CHAIRPERSON: You may speak Afrikaans if you wish.

MR NORTJE: I did receive the plot from him, but at that stage, it was not in the discussion.  It was only late in 1992 that I registered the plot in my name, so it wasn't a point of discussion at all, I didn't tell him that, he didn't tell me that.  As far as I can recall, we never had such a discussion about him buying me a plot or giving me a plot.

CHAIRPERSON: So why did you get the plot then?  What was the reason for the plot being transferred in your name?

MR NORTJE: He gave it to me or at least, he said to me do you want a plot, do you want this plot?  I knew he had the plot and he said take the plot for everything that you and I have done together, I suppose we could call it goodwill.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was a straight donation?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni, do you have any questions you would like to ask?