Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-10-03

MR KOK: At that stage I also saw Martiens Ras, there were three Vlakplaas 
members, myself, Waal du Toit and Deon Nieuwoudt.

MR KEMP: You say the three Vlakplaas members, apart from Martiens, who 
were the other two?

MR KOK: It was Snor Vermeulen and Lionel Snyman.

MR KEMP: What were their roles at this place where you arrived?

MR KOK: I found out there, and it was confirmed to me, that their main 
purpose was protection.

MR KEMP: In preparing the vehicle, did you receive any help from anybody 
other than Du Toit?

MR KOK: The technical responsibility was basically that of Du Toit and 
myself, and it might be that somebody else gave us a hand, but I can't say for 
sure.

MR KEMP: The explosives were placed in the vehicle, what was the vehicle?

MR KOK: It was a white Jetta.

MR KEMP: Where did you place the explosives?

MR KOK: There were charges under the four seats and especially under the 
mats.

MR KEMP: These charges were connected to cortex?

MR KOK: That's correct.

MR KEMP: And this cortex was linked with another device?

MR KOK: In the final configuration it would have been like that, but we left 
this for the last operative, the one who would be responsible for using this 
device.  It would be safe to drive this vehicle.

MR KEMP: I just want to refer you to page 106 of the documentation. You 
see in paragraph 6.3.1, the second line, the third last word refers to 
(springdoppies) pellets.  Is that correct?

MR KOK: No, it is a typing error, it should be pellet (springdoppie).

MR KEMP: After you put these explosives in the vehicle, whose 
responsibility was it for eventually activating this device?

MR KOK: I don't have the information who was finally responsible but I left 
it to Deon Nieuwoudt who was responsible for this operation.  I explained to 
him how to activate this pellet initially.

MR KEMP: And how to arm it?

MR KOK: I call it a link-up but it has to do with the arming of this device.

MR KEMP: Did you know for whom this bomb was intended?

MR KOK: Not at all.

MR KEMP: Later you heard the names of the people who were killed?  Did 
you know any of them?

MR KOK: Not at all.

MR KEMP: After you had prepared the vehicle, can you give an indication 
what time it was when you finished?

MR KOK: I can't remember an exact time, but it was during the afternoon 
round about three, four o'clock that afternoon, I am not sure.

MR KEMP: What did you do then?

MR KOK: We withdrew and went back to Pretoria.  Meaning us, I and Waal 
du Toit.

MR KEMP: Did you drive directly to Pretoria or did you sleep over?

MR KOK: We went straight to Pretoria, that's correct.

MR KEMP: And the next morning you were back at work?

MR KOK: That's correct.

MR KEMP: When did you hear whether the bomb was successful?

MR KOK: I can't remember a specific day, it might have been the next day, 
when we came back to our office, I heard over the radio that there had been a 
bomb explosion in which four people were killed.

MR KEMP: Did you at any stage doubt the instruction to ask for your co-
operation, that it was not a lawful instruction?

MR KOK: I did not doubt it, that it was an unlawful instruction.  I never 
thought that people would be killed.

MR KEMP: Mr Chairman, if you can just grant me an indulgence.

ADV DE JAGER: I don't think that was the question posed to you. It was not 
whether it was lawful that you were justified in killing people.  The question 
was whether you doubted whether you should do it or where the instruction 
came from.

MR KOK: I trusted Waal du Toit implicitly and I was convinced and up till 
today, I am convinced he would not have given me an instruction if he knew 
that was an instruction cleared by head office.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he indicate to you that that was an instruction, an 
order?

MR KOK: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: What did he tell you?

MR KOK: He said there was a certain operation, I had to get all things 
together to prepare such an explosive device.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he tell you where this order came from?

MR KOK: I didn't ask him.  He did mention that it was a supportive function 
we had to do for the Port Elizabeth security branch in co-operation with 
Vlakplaas members.

ADV DE JAGER: You see, it is strange that you are saying this, but in your 
application on page 102 you say that he told you that it was a direct order 
from the security head office.

MR KOK: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: This is exactly why I am asking you, and you give a 
different kind of answer, that you trusted him and he didn't tell you.

MR KOK: I can't specifically remember what I have written here.

ADV DE JAGER: It is not what is written there, it is what is the truth.

MR KOK: I'm telling you the truth.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Kok, were you ever charged?

MR KOK: Yes, I was.

ADV POTGIETER: How did you plead?

MR KOK: I pleaded not guilty.

ADV POTGIETER: What was your version?

MR KOK: I gave no version, I refused to say anything. I did not give 
evidence.

ADV POTGIETER: How was your case presented during your trial regarding 
this alleged participation?

MR KOK: I was charged as an accused in the murder trial.

ADV POTGIETER: What was your version, was there any version put by the 
State witnesses regarding your participation?

MR KOK: Basically what is presented to the Committee, that was what was 
said by Snyman and Vermeulen.

ADV POTGIETER: Were there allegations that you were involved?

MR KOK: Yes, there were.

ADV POTGIETER: What was your reaction?

MR KOK: I denied that.

ADV POTGIETER: So ... (intervention).

MR KOK: To the contrary, I refused to say anything and I pleaded not guilty.

ADV POTGIETER: Why did you deny it?  Why didn't you just say that I 
followed a direct order from security head office, I did not doubt it at any 
time; I will not doubt Waal du Toit.

MR KOK: I was accused of murder and I was part of the system in which I 
believed. I was part of the group who rendered technical assistance. I was 
definitely not going to protect myself, not testify against my other colleagues. 
On three occasions the Attorney-General told me to that they were kind of 
going to crucify  Waal du Toit.

ADV POTGIETER: But you did not plan it, you were just a person, a link in 
the chain, connecting all the various elements.  You were probably shocked 
when they charged you?  Really, you acted according to a direct instruction.

MR KOK: Yes, I also say that ... (intervention).

ADV POTGIETER: Or did you know this was a big problem, this is a 
problem from A to Z?

MR KOK: No, not at all.

ADV POTGIETER: And that's why you just denied everything?

MR KOK: In the way I acted, I believed that when we are approached for 
assistance, the evaluation or the determination of the merits have already been 
done. The research had been done and the necessary investigation also. At that 
stage I was loyal to my commanding officer.

MR KOK: And later when Mr De Kock came there and it seems that Mr De 
Kock is going to tell the truth, he is going to disclose the whole matter, what 
did you do then?

MR KOK: What can I do?  I am a victim of circumstances.

ADV POTGIETER: And you go on with a lie?

MR KOK: I never told lies. I kept quiet, I denied to say anything.

ADV POTGIETER: You refused to tell the truth?

MR KOK: That is why I am applying for amnesty.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

MR KOK: I am sorry, this is why I am applying for defeating the ends of 
justice.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: I am Hugo on behalf of De Kock, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.  Mr Kok, I just want to ask you one 
question regarding the Motherwell incident itself. Can you remember at what 
stage Col De Kock testified? Can you remember something in this regard, 
after the evidence of Mr Snyman, after the re-opening of the State case ...

MR KOK: Please repeat your question?