MR MOOSA: In your own words, you are talking about a person
who is not unintelligent.
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct.
ADV MOOSA: I want to put it to you that your version of -
before I do that, you say you assaulted Mr Kondile, did anyone
else of the people you mention assault Mr Kondile?
MR DU PLESSIS: I did say that at one stage he alleged that
some of the East London people assaulted him during the
interrogation, but I cannot remember the details.
ADV MOOSA: And what about the Eastern Cape branch?
MR DU PLESSIS: I do not know of a single person except for
myself who assaulted him.
ADV MOOSA: And related to the number of interrogations how
often did you assault him? Was it only during one interrogation
or was there more than one occasion?
MR DU PLESSIS: If I can recall one case, I concede that there
might perhaps be two. That was at the beginning when he was
transferred from Bloemfontein to the Eastern Cape.
ADV MOOSA: Other time?
MR DU PLESSIS: I will repeat, I can recall one case and there's
a possible second time but I don't want to be specific about that.
ADV MOOSA: Can you be specific about the first time, how did
you assault him?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can remember that I slapped him. There is
a possibility that I also hit him with a fist. You must just realise
that it happened a long time ago and I cannot remember all the
details.
ADV MOOSA: I realise it happened a long time ago and I also
realise that you said anything can happen.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
ADV MOOSA: I am putting it to you that it's most unlikely that
you would have been so gentle with Mr Kondile. You would
more likely have resorted to the electrical shocks and the
treatment described in Mr Danster’s affidavit.
MR DU PLESSIS: I suppose that's what you would like to hear
but I can just tell you what happened. If you have any other
information I am sorry I cannot help you any further.
ADV MOOSA: In fact it's very likely that you assaulted him so
severely that the fear of another Biko case was a real one.
MR DU PLESSIS: Definitely not.
ADV MOOSA: When Mr Kondile was arrested, that is in the
Free State and up to the time he was brought to the Eastern Cape
what were your real intentions about this man if he refused to
cooperate what was going to happen to him?
MR DU PLESSIS: That did not come up as far as I can
remember, I do not want to speculate about that.
ADV MOOSA: You surely speculated about it at the time.
There was more than an equal possibility that he would not want
to cooperate.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well according to what is said here he
already made a good contribution. That was already a very good
start.
ADV MOOSA: Yes but according to you in any event he didn't
want to cooperate because he was writing to the ANC.
MR DU PLESSIS: At the end, yes, but that was only at the end.
ADV MOOSA: What was your thought at the beginning about
when that possibility eventuates what would you do with him?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, I never speculated about that.
ADV DE JAGER: Were you always under the impression that he
was co-operating and giving you the information that you
required?
MR DU PLESSIS: In the beginning partially, yes, but when we
questioned him specifically about certain things it became clear to
me that he wanted to conceal things. I cannot remember
specifically what it was but it dealt with, amongst others, the
pointing out or identification of people in Transkei. Thereafter
he gave his full co-operation as I believe him to have done.
ADV DE JAGER: Did he identify the people in the Transkei?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, he even described at which desk they sat
in the back, and as a result of this the Transkei police went to the
back and as a result of their mistakes the two ran away and fled
through, over the Maseru bridge, fled the country. And one
person is Masweyako, I can still recall the surname and I also saw
it in these documents, as I explained it.
ADV MOOSA: Earlier on, that is before lunch time, we spoke
about the sharing of statements together and you mentioned some
of the people who could have been present, you did say that that
happened in Pretoria, could you tell me where exactly in Pretoria?
MR DU PLESSIS: In one or other hotel, I cannot recall the
name, we met on occasion.
ADV MOOSA: And were you the only policeman present or
were there other persons, policemen and ex-policemen of course?
MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot think of anybody else who was
present.
ADV MOOSA: As far as the timing of your request for the Free
State to send Mr Kondile over, having received Security reports
on a somewhat regular basis from the Free State, why exactly did
you time it after about two weeks for him to come over to the
Eastern Cape?
MR DU PLESSIS: I did not time it as such. I had to wait for
them to transfer the man to us. The man was arrested in the Free
State. I had to wait until they transferred him to us.
ADV MOOSA: You have mentioned in your evidence that Mr
Kondile was "booked out" a few times, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
ADV MOOSA: Do you remember plus/minus how many times it
was?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know. I tried to ascertain according
to the Occurrence Book but there is no continuity to see when he
left, when he came back and where he was.
ADV MOOSA: So the Occurrence Book entries were not
particularly helpful?
MR DU PLESSIS: Not at that stage because I do no know where
we took him, I cannot remember anymore, there were also
occasions that I spoke to him in the cell. So I cannot help you
any more than that.
ADV MOOSA: You have, of course, given evidence that other
documents were falsified including details of his re-detention is
that right? That he was released and then arrested again.
MR DU PLESSIS: No, no ...(intervention)
ADV MOOSA: Well not arrested, kidnapped.
MR DU PLESSIS: No, what I meant by that is that according to
me he had been released. By implication he had been released in
the book. I did not re-arrest him, I just never released him.
ADV MOOSA: But a detention under Section 6 of the then
Terrorism Act had certain implications regarding for example,
visits by magistrates and doctors, not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
ADV MOOSA: To questions from the Chairman of the
Committee you seem to indicate that you were not certain
whether these occurred or not?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know, I have no documentation in
front of me after all the years, and I dealt with a great many
detainees. I cannot say whether they were examined by the
doctor or whether they spoke to a magistrate etc. I do want to
go as far as to say that I do believe that he was visited by an
inspector for detainees, I don't know why I recall that, that such
a report from this inspector was submitted to the Harms
Commission. I think that the inspector for detainees at that stage
was a Mr Koekemoer or it could have been van Zyl, I am not
sure. There were two of them, and I think that such a report was
handed in, however I cannot recall this one a hundred percent, it
is possible.
ADV MOOSA: It is of course so that Mr Kondile did complain
about being assaulted at one stage, is that right?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes he did complain to me.
ADV MOOSA: Wouldn't it have been the easiest thing in the
world to have him actually medically treated if he was in fact not
assaulted?
MR DU PLESSIS: I could have taken him to a doctor but he did
not insist, and at that stage the relationship between us was so
that he would have told me that he had pain and that he wanted to
go to the doctor, but he didn't. In short I can just tell you that
he did not request to be taken to a doctor and nor did I take him,
as far as I can remember.
ADV MOOSA: Having reached the conclusion after intensive
discussions with Mr van Rensburg and Erasmus that Kondile had
to be eliminated, what prevented you then from confronting him
with the note that you had found and discussing that with him?
MR DU PLESSIS: I suppose I could have done that but I did not
do it because I was satisfied that he had not yet sent out a
message in the first place and I did not want to make him
suspicious.
ADV MOOSA: But how would there be any danger from him,
he's now definitely going to be eliminated, not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
ADV MOOSA: In this trip from Jeffrey’s Bay through to Port
Elizabeth and from Port Elizabeth to Komatipoort was there much
discussion with Mr Kondile?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, not as far as I can remember.
ADV MOOSA: On the surface, however, the two of you still got
along very well?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
ADV MOOSA: And ...(intervention)
ADV BOOYENS: I was just suggesting to my client that perhaps
he should slow down with the interpretation. I think we are
going to pick up problems once again. I wasn't suggesting how
he should answer a question.
ADV MOOSA: Thanks. If I got it correct from your evidence-
in-chief you were in the car with Mr Kondile, is that right, on this
trip?
ADV BOOYENS: That's correct.
ADV MOOSA: Have you any idea whether he knew what he was
in for?
MR DU PLESSIS: No he did not know.
ADV MOOSA: Was there any reason given by any of you for the
trip that was undertaken?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can speculate as to what we told him but I
cannot recall that we said anything pertinently. It could be that
we said that we wanted to transfer him to other people who
wanted to ask him further questions. I do not know, I cannot
recall.
ADV MOOSA: You have mentioned that it happened to be a
Sergeant Otto who shot Mr Kondile, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
ADV MOOSA: And Sergeant Otto happens to be a person who
committed suicide, is that right?
MR DU PLESSIS: At a later stage I heard that he had died. I
don't know whether he committed suicide or what. I saw him on
that day and not again.
ADV MOOSA: Were you introduced to him?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
ADV MOOSA: And by whom?
MR DU PLESSIS: I am not sure, possibly he introduced himself.
ADV MOOSA: Mr Coetzee has been very clear that there were a
number of policemen who were there including Archie Flemington
and other people that he's mentioned.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't agree. I want to tell you this about
Archie Flemington. I am certain in my heart that I saw Archie
Flemington for the first time during the Harms Commission in
Pretoria.
ADV MOOSA: Mr Coetzee certainly doesn't mention an Otto but
he refers to a person he did not know, a slender person, who took
a gun, but that he says was Archie Flemington's gun, am I right?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know.
ADV MOOSA: And that gun was used to kill the deceased.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.
ADV MOOSA: Thank you. Now is it just mere coincidence that
you happened to choose a person who is now dead to have done
the killing?
MR DU PLESSIS: Facts are facts your Honour, I can't wish
them away.
ADV MOOSA: Well I will put it to you that the fact is that in
comparing your versions Mr Coetzee's version is eminently more
probable, that in fact there were other policemen present.
MR DU PLESSIS: There were other policemen, yes, we were
there.
ADV MOOSA: Yes, besides the group that you have spoken
about.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know about that, definitely not what I
saw.
ADV MOOSA: Wouldn't it have been protocol for Mr Coetzee
to approach the person in charge in the Komatipoort area?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't think it was necessary. Perhaps he
had contacted him, I don't know.
ADV MOOSA: When he came to the Eastern Cape he made it his
business to contact Mr van Rensburg, not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can't comment on that.
ADV MOOSA: Tell me about the fire that was made, what was
used to make the fire?
MR DU PLESSIS: It was dry sticks, some wood which was lying
around and we brought bigger pieces of wood together. I am
referring only to myself here. I am not sure whether diesel or
petrol was used, I can't remember distinctly.
ADV MOOSA: Whether it was diesel or petrol was it actually
taken by somebody to the scene ...(intervention)
ADV BOOYENS: No I think there may be a misunderstanding.
The witness' answer was, he cannot recall whether there was
diesel or petrol.
ADV MOOSA: Yes, the question is, whatever it was that was
used to light the fire was it already taken by somebody else to the
scene?
MR DU PLESSIS: I think so. I can't remember that we have
taken something with. I can't say that diesel or something was
used there. I can remember the wood, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: I think what the witness said, is he can't
remember whether anything was used, and not whether either
diesel or petrol was used. His answer was, "I can't remember
whether anything was used".
ADV MOOSA: You were saying earlier that it was dry wood
that was used, could you give us the time when the process began
of gathering wood? Plus/minus are we talking about afternoon or
evening, what time was it?
MR DU PLESSIS: We came there during late that afternoon. I
think the arrangement was that we would meet Mr Coetzee at six
o'clock. I think we met him round about that time. There already
had been gathered dry wood at that stage and we gathered some
more wood afterwards, more wood was gathered afterwards.
ADV MOOSA: So if I get you correctly this process started in
the afternoon?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
ADV MOOSA: And did it go along all evening that more wood
was gathered and put on the burning fire?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct, yes.
ADV MOOSA: Were no tyres used at all?
MR DU PLESSIS: Definitely not.
ADV MOOSA: You see I am again going to put it that the
version that Mr Coetzee gives of wood and tyres actually being
brought on the scene is far more probable than what you are
telling us now.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't agree.
ADV MOOSA: You have given some evidence of how this
incident affected you.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
ADV MOOSA: I wonder if you've spared a thought at all for
how it's affected the family of Mr Kondile?
MR DU PLESSIS: I realise that it must have been a bitter
experience for them.
ADV MOOSA: You have given a list which goes as many as ten
points and you still refer to other documents after that which are
supposed to define the political object that you sought to achieve,
is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
ADV MOOSA: I put it to you that if we go one by one through
your list we will find that nothing will justify the murder and the
callous and inhuman way in which Mr Kondile was treated by you
and the others to justify any political objective.
MR DU PLESSIS: I realise that it is difficult for any person to
accept that, but the other side of the story is also true. We
received the same treatment from the ANC. They had a task
which they had to fulfil, I also had a task which I had to do, just
like they believed I also believed that I was doing the right thing.
Nine out of ten cases, all of us were wrong and the politicians
did not do their jobs.
ADV MOOSA: Well very good, but there is something called
proportionality and whether it's from the ANC and whether it's
from you, once you exceed that line we can't talk of politics
anymore.
MR DU PLESSIS: Definitely yes, I believed in any case that I
did all that in the interests of the politics and of my country to do
that.
ADV MOOSA: I don't think you understood me. There is a
point we reach, even in terms of the Act in terms of which you
are applying for amnesty where we cannot even begin to talk
about politics because you've crossed the line.
MR DU PLESSIS: I realise that, yes.
ADV MOOSA: As far as the family of Sizwe Kondile is
concerned Mr du Plessis, you certainly crossed the line.
MR DU PLESSIS: I am sorry to hear that.
ADV MOOSA: And perhaps it would be best if I put it in my
client's own words, Mrs Kondile actually feels that people like
you ought not to be free in a civilised society.
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no comment regarding that.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MOOSA
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Thank you Mr
Chairman. Good afternoon Mr du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Good afternoon.
MR NYOKA: You basically considered two options before you
decided to kill Mr Kondile, namely to detain him further or to
charge him, those are the only options that you considered, is that
correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is all that I can think of.
MR NYOKA: You must have been very experienced as a security
officer?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I had good experience.
MR NYOKA: Why did you not consider the following options -
firstly, testing his loyalty by giving him false information about
your informers or principal agent just to test what his direction
was going to be before trusting within only two week or three
weeks, why did you not do that? Maybe that would have averted
his death.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well in the first instance I did not do that.
That's point number one.
Secondly, if I provided him with false information regarding
a principal agent I would caused somebody else's death.
MR NYOKA: And you said that you have belief in the Western
style of democracy, and one of the basis of detaining and
interrogating a person is a criminal prosecution, why did you not
pursue that line of criminal prosecution?
MR DU PLESSIS: Your Honour I don't know what you are
referring to or actually what you are asking. If I had done that
the agent and the network would have been exposed.
MR NYOKA: I am saying that as a State employee you owe your
allegiance to obeying the laws of the country and you said in your
background that you believed in the Western democratic lifestyle,
why was that not your main focus of criminally prosecuting this
person, other than killing, death?
MR DU PLESSIS: The fact is initially I started to charge him
but later on I saw that he was more valuable to be used as an
informer.
MR NYOKA: Did you regard it as your fault that he did, the
alleged turnabout, did you regard it as your fault?
MR DU PLESSIS: No.
MR NYOKA: If then it was not your fault why then did you not
refer your problem further on in the command structure for better
alternatives or suggestions, because it was not your fault that he
turned-about, why did you not refer it further?
MR DU PLESSIS: Your Honour I did what I felt was necessary.
I don't think one can do much. This is how it happened. We can
speculate for a whole week.
MR NYOKA: No I am not speculating. Specifically I am saying
that why did you not refer this to the Regional Commissioner of
the South African Police, firstly; secondly, to the National
Commissioner of the South African Police, and thirdly, to the
Minister of Law and Order for better solutions, why did you not
do that?
MR DU PLESSIS: I approached General Erasmus and he
provided a solution at that stage.
MR NYOKA: If you felt like not criminally prosecuting the
deceased, despite the clear evidence in front of you rather than
kill him, why could not have killed him politically by causing him
to agree on tape for working for you and then sending the tape
indirectly, or directly, to the ANC in Lesotho. He will not have
been believed with whatever information he brought?
MR DU PLESSIS: We know this does not work.
MR NYOKA: Did you consider it? It doesn’t matter whether it
viable or not, did you consider it?
MR DU PLESSIS: No I never considered that.
MR NYOKA: And if you had simply released Mr Kondile he
came with an ANC person's motor vehicle for a short period,
allegedly without accomplishing the mission that he came for and
gone back unscathed, do you think that the ANC would still have
been suspicious about him even if you had released him on the
basis that you had no evidence?
MR DU PLESSIS: When?
MR NYOKA: Rather than killing him, just releasing him back to
Lesotho.
MR DU PLESSIS: I know which information he had access to.
MR NYOKA: My point is that you would not have been believed
because, precisely because of the fact that he came for a short
period with Mr Chris Hani's car but nothing happened to him. He
didn't even accomplish his mission ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: They would have believed him, yes.
MR NYOKA: So now you are speculating yourself now.
MR DU PLESSIS: This is the only speculation and the only
inference I can draw, and it's not the first time that this
happened, many people were murdered like that.
MR NYOKA: And you said the deceased's main area of
operation was Transkei, which according to the laws of South
Africa was an independent state, not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: You could not have dealt with the so-called
Kondile problem with the Transkei authorities and then denying
that you ever dealt with him and causing them to interrogate him,
prosecute him and pursue further investigation, could you not
have done that?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, you could do anything but the fact
remained he had all the information available.
MR NYOKA: You were involved in a similar abduction and
murder of two Port Elizabeth activists, Mthimkulu and Madaka,
not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: Eight months later ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: In April 1982. They were also similarly supplied
with a knockout mixture shot and burnt.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: And their bodies were thrown at the Tele Bridge
next to Lesotho. Similar modus operandi. Sorry at Fish River
Sun, their car was left at the Tele Bridge, next to the Tele
Bridge, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct, ja.
MR NYOKA: This operation under consideration like the
Mthimkulu and Madaka one, why is that local Security policemen
were not used like in Mthimkulu and Madaka? Why do you have
to ask Mr Dirk Coetzee to be involved for instance?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well we perhaps have learnt from Mr Coetzee
how to do it.
MR NYOKA: Maybe because he was going to be the supplier or
facilitator of knockout drops from Mr Lothar Neethling.
MR DU PLESSIS: No I don't know about knockout drops.
MR NYOKA: In the Mthimkulu and Madaka matter it was only
you and Mr van Rensburg and Mr Nieuwoudt who were involved?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: That is for two people, that is Mthimkulu and
Madaka, but in this one there were five involved. What role was
envisaged for each of the five people in the Kondile matter, what
role was envisaged exactly?
CHAIRPERSON: Are you asking what role was envisaged or
what role did they in fact play?
(The speakers mike is not on)
MR NYOKA: What role did they play, what role was envisaged
to be played by each of them?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can't comment on that. We were three
people because the vehicle, Kondile's vehicle, had to be taken
from Bloemfontein to the border.
MR NYOKA: Was it not because you wanted to create a festive
atmosphere in celebration of averting another Biko scandal and
that you wanted to gain experience?
MR DU PLESSIS: Definitely not.
MR NYOKA: Do you know of any reason why Mr Danster will
say that you assaulted the deceased if that was not the case?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: But it's right he did assault the deceased.
MR NYOKA: I am mentioning the specific acts Your Worship
like electric shocks etc, etc, not only those that the applicant
mentioned.
Do you know of any reason why he mentioned the specific
acts of assault and mentioned the people that were involved
including some that were not applicants if that is not the case,
including himself?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know. It could be that he is making a
big mistake, that he is thinking of somebody completely different.
MR NYOKA: What is strange to me is that you concede - Mr
Nieuwoudt, Mr Roelofse and the late Mr Buzane were included by
him, including himself, as people who assaulted the deceased, you
deny that they were involved, it's not because they are not
applicants?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, I deny that they were involved.
MR NYOKA: Sorry Worship I am reminded it's tea time by the
evidence leader.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
MR NYOKA: At one stage there are two periods of detention
and interrogation - there is the one between the 10th of July to
the 24th, that is Humansdorp. And then the second one from the
24th of July to some time towards the end of July, beginning of
August, at which of the two stages did he start to cooperate, Mr
du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: He already started co-operating in
Humansdorp.
MR NYOKA: And when did you make the offer to recruit him?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know, I can't remember whether it was
Humansdorp or Jeffrey’s Bay, I can't remember.
MR NYOKA: And can you tell us why he was conveniently
detained in relatively remote areas like Jeffrey’s Bay or
Humansdorp which were 70 to 60 kilometres from PE where most
of you are based?
MR DU PLESSIS: In the first instance Your Honour there was a
principled decision that he should be detained in safe cells and
that we found at Jeffrey’s Bay. Jeffrey’s Bay was qualified to
keep these people. We did not have many of those secure cells
and there was another one at Algoa Park and also Louis Le
Grange Plein, that was the one thing.
And there is nothing else that I can think of now why we
could not detain him there. We could have kept him in the police
cells. It could have been that the other police stations were full.
We had problems with Algoa Park because information was
leaked from there. I am speculating about that, but that was the
reason why they were detained there. We were detaining a lot of
people at that time.
MR NYOKA: Was it not because also that you do not want to be
disturbed in assaulting him and torturing him hence a remote area
like those places?
MR DU PLESSIS: Your Honour Jeffrey’s Bay is not a very
remote place, Humansdorp neither.
CHAIRPERSON: Tortures have known to have taken place in
huge cities.
MR NYOKA: On the informer theory do you agree with me that
Mr Danster had nothing to gain by saying that Mr Kondile refused
to be an informer, despite the beatings? As he added that he also
later on co-operated.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know what Mr Danster’s agenda is.
MR NYOKA: I don't hold any brief for him either. If at first
you had to assault Mr Kondile and he refused to divulge certain
information surely you must have been on guard not to trust him?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, no, no, no, let us understand one another
well. There are people today in the government who was very
difficult to cooperate with us and today they are still loyal. It's
not to say that if you cooperate right from the beginning you can
trust a person. It could also be vice versa.
MR NYOKA: And when he had agreed to be an informer he was
still in detention, not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MR NYOKA: And when you gave him a full briefing on the
security network he was still in detention?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MR NYOKA: Why was he still in detention if at all he had been
asked and agreed to be an informer and on top of that he was so
trusted to be furnished with such vital information, why was he
still in detention?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well he was kept in detention, that was the
decision and I can't comment on that now.
CHAIRPERSON: I think this ground has been covered already,
has it not?
MR NYOKA: Who was this unknown person to whom this note
was addressed?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can't remember.
MR NYOKA: You did not follow it up?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, I could possibly have followed it up but
how?
MR NYOKA: If Mr Kondile was still in detention how would he
have managed to send the message out to this person if he didn't
even - were able to follow it up? How was he going to be able to
let the message go out to him?
MR DU PLESSIS: No I never said that, I could not follow it up,
I said I did not do it.
MR NYOKA: And this note, what was it, was it a paper or two
papers or what, this note that you found underneath his blanket?
MR DU PLESSIS: No it was not a long note, it was a short little
note on which the information was written. I don't want to
speculate. It was a part of a page. It was written in small
handwriting. This was among the other papers he had there.
MR NYOKA: So there were other papers underneath the
blanket?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes those were notes he addressed to me.
MR NYOKA: Why did you not confront him about this and say
Mr Kondile what are you doing to me now? What are you doing
to me now?
MR DU PLESSIS: I did not do it.
MR NYOKA: Why not?
MR DU PLESSIS: I told you I did not know what I could expect
at that stage, I did not know how to handle that and that is why I
approached a senior officer.
MR NYOKA: At Bloemfontein why was the car not kept at the
police station?
MR DU PLESSIS: As far as I can remember it was pertinently
not kept there because Hani at certain stages or at various
instances he or some of his agents visited Bloemfontein and he
could have had contact at the police stations. That's why we
decided not to keep the vehicle there, and this is what I can
remember now. It might not have been the specific reason but
that is what I remember now. I can't tell you exactly where the
vehicle was kept either but it was somewhere in Bloemfontein.
MR NYOKA: You said that your intention was to leave both the
bodies and the car visible so that the car could be found that Mr
Kondile was trying to skip the country and the body found on the
other side of the border of Mozambique not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: Do you agree with me that the Barberton area was
nearest to the Swaziland border rather than the Mozambique
border?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know that area.
MR NYOKA: I've got a map if you want to see it.
MR DU PLESSIS: I accept what you say. I did not decide to
leave the vehicle there.
MR NYOKA: Do you further agree with me that had you gone
on with the plan of not burning Mr Kondile the car would have
been next to Swaziland and the body in Mozambique, there would
have been no logic for the body and the car to be in such different
places, do you agree with me?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: And how is it that the vehicle was never found
despite the fact that it was left in such an area?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know.
MR NYOKA: And your team was in charge of the operation and
the task team, why do you have to be persuaded by Mr Dirk
Coetzee to change your plans of leaving the body on the other
side of the border?
MR DU PLESSIS: Ag Your Honour I don't want to speculate
about that. This was a discussion which took place between him
and van Rensburg and I just abide by that.
MR NYOKA: I put it to you that you knew all along how you
were going to kill Mr Kondile. That you were going to supply
him with knockout drops or sleeping mixture, kill him and burn
him. You are ascribing to him because he came forward publicly
to the world in 1989, out of bitterness you are ascribing that to
him, any comment?
MR DU PLESSIS: I planned, I was part of the plan to kill this
person but definitely not with the so-called knockout drops, or to
burn him. I did not have any knowledge of that.
MR NYOKA: The place that was selected for the killing was a
remote one so that it could not be seen, you also could not be
seen, not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes that's correct.
MR NYOKA: What steps did you take to ensure that you were
not seen?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well we were always present ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Is that really pertinent now, because the event
has occurred, he was killed, what purpose is there to ask
questions like this?
MR NYOKA: My learned friend there are two purposes. The
first one is that I did not hear the witness saying that the
cartridge was taken after the shot was fired. Secondly, I did not
hear him saying that the blood was cleared so that
...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't been questioned about the cartridge.
MR NYOKA: I was going to that Your Worship but you cut me,
I was going to ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No I thought you were talking about the
position where the execution took place ...(intervention)
MR NYOKA: No I was wrapping up, I was coming to that Your
Worship ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well come to that please.
MR NYOKA: The cartridge, did anyone take the cartridge away?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can't remember.
MR NYOKA: Did you clear the blood at the spot where he was
shot before he was placed on the pyre?
MR DU PLESSIS: I think it was done, I did not do it personally.
MR NYOKA: But you don't know for a fact whether it was
done?
MR DU PLESSIS: No I don't know.
MR NYOKA: You say that the body was completely burnt to
ashes?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: Without tyres being used?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's my recollection, ja.
MR NYOKA: Bones did not remain?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can't remember that anything was left.
MR NYOKA: We have expert evidence that if a body is burnt
bones will remain and if bones do remain and they were thrown
wherever they should still be there.
MR DU PLESSIS: I can't help you in that respect.
MR NYOKA: Finally Mr du Plessis your affidavit in response in
response to Mr Coetzee's averments I think through the Harms
Commission you said that briefly Mr Kondile co-operated, why
did you not go further and say that he was an informer and we
furnished him with information, that is why he may have
absconded, that wouldn't have done your case down, it will have
strengthened your claim that Mr Kondile absconded? Why did you
not add that?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know Your Honour. This is what is in
my statement, I can't even remember what is there.
MR NYOKA: And it was under oath that you said that.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: And today you are also under oath?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
MR NYOKA: Why do you think you should be believed now
when you lied then?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, in the first place I came to the fore.
MR NYOKA: From 28th of April 1994 to November 1996 after
you had resigned from the SAP in 1993 and after the National
Party Government was no longer in power, that is for two years
before you applied, why did you not come forward with the truth
if you are so remorseful?
MR DU PLESSIS: I've said previously that the opportunity was
created by this Committee and I've said it earlier that initially we
did not trust this Commission and we were influenced by, for
example, Colonel Erasmus and we came to the fore, and I am not
sorry about that today.
MR NYOKA: And if you say you had eternal pain after that
incident why did you jump from one murder to another within
eight months or nine months from Kondile to Mthimkulu?
MR DU PLESSIS: What I refer to is that I am still suffering this
pain. A job had to be done and there is nothing you can do about
that.
MR NYOKA: My instructions from my client is that you have
robbed him of a role model and a father and you have not told the
truth today, the son, Bantu, the son of the deceased. You have
robbed him of a role model and a father and you have not told us
the whole truth today, any comment?
MR DU PLESSIS: I am very sorry that this happened, but the
fact that I am sitting here today I can assure you that I am telling
the truth and I am telling what I can remember and what I know
of.
MR NYOKA: In conclusion have you approached him to
apologise personally, he's a young man?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have not.
MR NYOKA: Why not?
MR DU PLESSIS: I did not do that because my legal counsel
told me not to do that at this stage.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYOKA
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to the
applicant?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman just two or three questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Sir. The question I want to put
to you which I do not understand, you were in control of this
investigation from the start, you went out of your way with
thorough planning to cover up the matter. Nine years after this in
1990 you told lies to the Harms Commission, what I find
interesting is that all the applicants have filled in the same
application once again, what is the possibility that by means - we
have the possibility again that you can mislead the Truth
Commission again. The same modus operandi that you used with
the Harms Commission as well as with the initial investigation.
The fact that you are leaving out certain important information,
you left out the name Danster from your amnesty application.
The fact that this person was assaulted it's not even mentioned,
can you comment on this?
CHAIRPERSON: Can you - you make a long statement and now
you are asking him to comment on all the points that you've made
in that statement ...(intervention)
ADV STEENKAMP: I'll break it down.
CHAIRPERSON: What about be a little more specific and put
them one by one.
ADV STEENKAMP: Right Mr Chairman. My question to him is
the following. It seems to me that when it came to filling in the
amnesty applications which appear to me to be duplicates, that
the same modus operandi was followed, as you did in the Harms
Commission as well as during the investigation of the matter.
ADV DE JAGER: Let him just reply to the one first as you
asked him. The question to you is that you misled the Harms
Commission, you are now following the same modus operandi in
this case. What is your comment on this?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can just deny it. I am now speaking the
truth. I do not believe that one makes these mistakes more than
once.
ADV STEENKAMP: The question I want to put to you is that
Danster and Coetzee both say the deceased was badly assaulted.
Can you give any reason as to why they would say that?
ADV BOOYENS: With respect on that question regarding Dirk
Coetzee, where does Dirk Coetzee say that? If my learned friend
can just point out where he said that the deceased was assaulted
seriously otherwise I must object. His evidence was that General
van Rensburg told him that the man jumped through the window
and landed on his head during interrogation. I cannot recall him
saying that he was seriously assaulted. Dirk alleges that he only
saw him.
ADV STEENKAMP: Good. Can I then ask you, is there any
reason why a person such as Danster will lie about this?
MR DU PLESSIS: Lie about what?
ADV STEENKAMP: That Kondile was assaulted.
MR DU PLESSIS: But I said that he was assaulted.
ADV STEENKAMP: That you assaulted him seriously, why
would he lie about this, can you give a reason?
MR DU PLESSIS: No I acknowledge that I assaulted him
...(intervention) Can I just reply please, can you just give me a
chance to reply.
I am saying that I did assault him. I know of no case where
Danster was present during his interrogation.
ADV STEENKAMP: Do you know a person by the name of
Sergeant N N Batsane, the person who is mentioned by Danster,
was he ever present?
MR DU PLESSIS: It's most probably Bezane, he died quite a
few years ago, I think it's '81 or '82.
ADV STEENKAMP: Was he ever present?
MR DU PLESSIS: No he was not.
ADV STEENKAMP: Did he ever refer to the deceased as
Kwezi?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, not as far as I know. I called him by the
name of Kondile.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: How well did you know this man Danster?
MR DU PLESSIS: It's very difficult. I do not know how long
he had been with the Security Branch at that stage so it's difficult
for me to say as to whether I knew him for a year or two years. I
knew him quite well, he worked under me.
CHAIRPERSON: During the time that you had Kondile under
interrogation was Danster at the same police station or the same
unit that you were?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Danster knew that Kondile was being
interrogated?
MR DU PLESSIS: I do not think that he knew, I think it's a case
of him hearing a bit, and at a later stage he was used by myself
and Mr Raath in the single quarters at Jeffrey’s Bay.
CHAIRPERSON: You've no doubt read the statement made by
Mr Danster?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Among other things he says "there were
occasions when Kondile was kept without sleep for several nights,
his torture would extend for days", have you anything to say
about that?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can deny this categorically, really.
CHAIRPERSON: He also says, among other things, that Kondile
was suffocated with a tube, an electric shock was administered to
him for lengthy periods.
MR DU PLESSIS: I deny that. I can only speak for myself. I
have no knowledge of this.
CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't say that you applied electric shock
to him, he says that this was what was done to Kondile and all
you are saying is you don't know about it?
MR DU PLESSIS: I do not know about that.
CHAIRPERSON: That might have been done by somebody else?
MR DU PLESSIS: If that had happened I believe that he would
have complained in the first place. In the second place one would
have seen the scars. That is what I would like to believe.
ADV DE JAGER: Were those methods not followed exactly for
that reason so that there were to be no scars?
MR DU PLESSIS: I do not know if one is assaulted so seriously
or suffocated with tubes then I think there would have been scars.
CHAIRPERSON: If one is kept without sleep for long periods of
time during interrogation then there would be no scars.
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct but I would have realised
that.
CHAIRPERSON: How?
MR DU PLESSIS: By seeing that he was sleepy and exhausted.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That means only that you were there at
the time. I understand you were not 24 hours a day with Kondile.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: In your absence this might have been done to
him.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I think that anything is always possible,
but I have no knowledge of that.
CHAIRPERSON: You have heard of people being kept awake
for long periods of time during interrogation?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: So that's not such a strange thought?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct. I also want to tell you that I
do not know why, why in this case it would have been necessary.
CHAIRPERSON: It may be necessary because they were seeking
to extract information from him and he was apparently not willing
to give that information.
MR DU PLESSIS: I must differ there.
CHAIRPERSON: There can be no other reason why this was
done. I mean if he was very, very willing in giving information
there would be no need for anybody to do that, to keep the man
awake for several hours.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's why I am denying this.
CHAIRPERSON: Well you are denying that you did it, and I am
putting it to you that there is a possibility that that was done
because you weren't there 24 hours a day.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct but I am telling you that it
might be possible but it is highly improbable that a person whom I
was satisfied had given the information would have been treated
in this way.
CHAIRPERSON: May this not have been done before he gave
the information?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON: There was no point in doing this when he had
already given information.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: So when it's suggested that this was done it
could only be before he volunteered information if he did
volunteer.
MR DU PLESSIS: He started in Bloemfontein by giving us
information.
CHAIRPERSON: Well nobody from Bloemfontein has come to
tell us that.
MR DU PLESSIS: I am now dealing with the report that I
received and I am satisfied in my heart that this comes from
Bloemfontein and I am satisfied that they only received this from
one source and that was from Kondile.
CHAIRPERSON: What dealings have you had with Mr Danster
after the death of Kondile?
MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot remember. He was still at the
Security Branch and they charged him with one or other criminal
offence and I really do not know anything more about the path
that he followed. It's a long time ago since I've seen him.
CHAIRPERSON: Is he still in the police force?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, not as far as I know.
JUDGE PILLAY: Mr du Plessis tell me, I've not doubt that you
read the statement starting on page 13 of the record before you
signed it. That's your statement, your application for indemnity.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
JUDGE PILLAY: You were absolutely satisfied with all the
facts as contained in there before you signed it?
MR DU PLESSIS: I believe that to be true, yes.
JUDGE PILLAY: That the question of sleeping agencies were
possibly used on Mr Kondile before he was shot, was it only
today or some time before?
MR DU PLESSIS: I'm speaking under correction but the record
can speak for itself. I think that in the Harms Commission it was
mentioned, or in the first statement from Mr Coetzee which he
made, I think he mentioned it there.
JUDGE PILLAY: Did you accept that as the truth?
MR DU PLESSIS: No I did not.
JUDGE PILLAY: On page 17, page 5 of your statement, the
top line, your statement reads as follows:
"On that particular evening Mr Kondile was given a
sleeping drug without his knowledge."
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct. This fact I heard from
Colonel van Rensburg after the incident that he had been given a
sleeping drug. However I did not see what had happened. I did
see that he had something to drink but I did not know that there
was something in the drink.
JUDGE PILLAY: That fact was not within your personal
knowledge as such?
MR DU PLESSIS: No. I did make the deduction and that is why
it was discussed with us because from where he sat he just fell
over.
JUDGE PILLAY: I see in one of the introductory questions you
were also asked whether you were an official or member or
supporter of any political organisation and so forth, if so name it
and you said it's not applicable.
MR DU PLESSIS: I think that we rectified this at a later stage.
JUDGE PILLAY: I am sorry, because then the version I've got,
the copy I've got say it's (...intervention).
ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman with your permission, the copy
I've got here, 7A is National Party member, if I can perhaps just
show it to you, there may have been some logistic problems
somewhere. But the NVP's(?) have definitely been corrected.
With the Commission's permission perhaps, no we haven't got
typing logistics but if we could perhaps then just replace page 1
there, if it hasn't been done on the Commission's papers. I think
we've got.....
ADV BOOYENS: The copy that we have does not include that.
I apologise, I don't know how this happened; may I ask, my
lawyer still has two copies here, may I just ask permission, we
don't have any more but the others have been sent.
ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you must just ensure that the correct
copies are in front of us if there are amendments, because it may
be that we will deal with documents which aren't the correct
documents.
ADV BOOYENS: We will definitely ensure that that is the case.
I will ask my lawyer to look at the committee member's
documents and to ensure that they're correct.
ADV STEENKAMP: I can just say that the documents that you
have in front of you was the copies of the latest amnesty
applications that we had in our possession.
CHAIRPERSON: However you'll have these made, you'll have
copies made for everybody and make that available to all of us.
JUDGE PILLAY: Then Mr du Plessis, I understand that
Humansdorp was perceived, or the police cells in Humansdorp
was perceived to be as you put it, a safe cell?
MR DU PLESSIS: Actually Jeffrey’s Bay.
JUDGE PILLAY: Was Humansdorp Police Station not as
appropriate as you would have wanted it?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
JUDGE PILLAY: Why was he then sent to Humansdorp in the
first place?
MR DU PLESSIS: Because other detainees were being detained
at Jeffrey’s Bay at that stage and we could not get any other
accommodation for them at that stage as far as I can remember.
JUDGE PILLAY: Now how long after you first met him did
you make this offer to become an informer?
MR DU PLESSIS: At this stage I must speculate, possibly
fourteen days after that.
JUDGE PILLAY: Did you assault him as you described before
then or after then?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, before that.
JUDGE PILLAY: And how long after your offer did he accept
the offer?
MR DU PLESSIS: His co-operation was so good that it is
difficult to say. A day or two or three thereafter he said that he
was prepared to cooperate. There were still questions that posed
a problem and one was as to how he was going to be transferred
and he made suggestions himself as to how he could be taken up
into this stream again.
JUDGE PILLAY: And did you only assault him on one day?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can recall one day specifically but if
someone tells me that it was twice then I would believe it to be
true.
JUDGE PILLAY: How long after you first met him and started
to interrogate him did you find it necessary to assault him?
MR DU PLESSIS: It was not very long thereafter.
JUDGE PILLAY: And then over two weeks of interrogation and
perhaps assault if I can include it, you then decided that he'd been
broken down sufficiently to make him the offer?
MR DU PLESSIS: No we did not break him down. In the
beginning we did. I did that personally, but thereafter he gave his
co-operation and we started building him up.
JUDGE PILLAY: Now tell me, after the decision, as you put it
in your statement, it was an agreement between the top three
members of the Security Police in Port Elizabeth, it was decided
that Mr Kondile should be assassinated. You then asked
someone whether he'd participate in it. Who was that?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Raath.
JUDGE PILLAY: And he took some time to consider the issue
and then came back to you and said he was willing to participate.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes it could have been the same day or the
next day, I cannot remember.
JUDGE PILLAY: Did you explain to him the whole history
behind the decision and what was going to happen?
MR DU PLESSIS: In general yes.
JUDGE PILLAY: What would have been his position had he
refused to cooperate?
MR DU PLESSIS: Nothing.
JUDGE PILLAY: He would have known all this information?
MR DU PLESSIS: No no.
JUDGE PILLAY: Would he not have been a danger to certain
members?
MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Raath was never present where we
dealt with the briefing and the informer story. I did this on my
own. I made mistakes with Kondile but I did not make that
mistake.
ADV DE JAGER: Is he not asking you as to you informed Raath
that you were going to murder this man, so Raath knew that you
were going to murder him? And what would have happened if he
had said that he was not going to cooperate? Surely then he
could have laid charges against you?
MR DU PLESSIS: I trusted him, I had the confidence in him to
say voluntarily whether he wanted to go with or not and that he
would have left it at that. That's a chance that we took.
JUDGE PILLAY: You testified that whatever you did to Mr
Kondile and your participation whatever occurred to him, you
did not on a personal basis but rather as part of your duty as a
policeman. What duty would that be?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well in the first instance my task was to
protect the government against enemy forces; we were in a state
of war at that stage with the ANC and I was sent by the
government to Rhodesia to Zimbabwe or as it was then called,
Rhodesia, where we did the same and all that happened there was
that it was across our border and this inside our border; so it
remains the same. If one ran into one another and shot one
another, it remained the same.
JUDGE PILLAY: Members of the South African Police even
now have the power to shoot, even to kill under certain precise
guide lines, not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
JUDGE PILLAY: Would you agree that this would not fall under
that, would not be covered by the Act?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
ADV GCABASHE: Mr Du Plessis, if you can help me with one
point. Sizwe Kondile agreed to work for you. He then turned on
you. You drove to Barberton and he was in shackles if I
understood the translation correctly. Is that right?
MR DU PLESSIS: I do not believe that he was handcuffed, I do
not recall saying that. Nor can I remember, it's possible but I
cannot remember.
ADV GCABASHE: He was then shackled or tied to the tree,
that was your evidence if I understood you correctly?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes there he was bound or shackled.
ADV GCABASHE: Now if this man became a comrade of yours
because he had agreed to work for you, why was he shackled to
the tree?
MR DU PLESSIS: He leant against the tree, he wasn't tied to
the tree, his hands were just cuffed and we had just told one
another that at that stage it had already been decided as to what
his end would be.
ADV GCABASHE: So he wasn't shackled to the tree but his
hands were cuffed at that stage, yes?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes that's correct.
ADV GCABASHE: And when you gave him his drinks he had
these with his hands cuffed?
MR DU PLESSIS: I did not give him his drink. I do not recall
if anybody untied him.
CHAIRPERSON: But you did say that he was given something
to eat and drink.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct but I cannot remember in
detail whether he was cuffed while he was eating or drinking.
CHAIRPERSON: But you do remember that he was cuffed.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: You do remember that he was given something
to eat and drink.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Well the question is this, what is the only
inference you can draw from that? That somebody else took the
cuffs off?
MR DU PLESSIS: He could have eaten with his handcuffs on,
that's the other deduction you can make, that he could have been
eating and drinking with his cuffs on but I cannot recall this
specifically.
CHAIRPERSON: And I trust nobody told him why he was being
cuffed?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't believe so. It could also be that we
told him, but I really don't know. It's too long ago.
CHAIRPERSON: This is a very dramatic situation isn't it.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now here is a man who co-operates with
you, you know that he is not a true co-operator, he does not
know that you have found out his duplicity towards you. You
take him in the car travelling a long distance. As far as you are
concerned, at no stage he's told that you have found him out and
you haven't told us what his attitude was, whether he asked you
where he was being taken, why he was being taken and so on. All
I gather from your information is at various stages you say you
can't remember. Now these are important facets of the case and I
would like you to to try and remember.
MR DU PLESSIS: On several occasions I have tried to
remember, I cannot remember. We transported many people from
one place to another, it can be that we gave them a reason and I
can think of quite a few if I must speculate, but I do not believe
that that's what you expect of me. I can think of no way or of
anything that I can recall as to what happened between the two of
us at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: You must recall whether at any stage you
communicated to Kondile that he is an enemy of the state and you
are going to kill him.
MR DU PLESSIS: I doubt whether I ever did that.
CHAIRPERSON: And what about your colleagues?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well not what I heard.
CHAIRPERSON: Whose idea was it that his drink should be
laced?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know. I've heard from General van
Rensburg that this was done by Dirk. But I did not see that.
CHAIRPERSON: You didn't see all this, was it because it was
dark or was there some other reason?
MR DU PLESSIS: In the first instance, I wanted to see as little
as possible about what was happening there. That I could say in
all honesty today. This was not something I wished to be
involved in and psychologically one tries to get this out of your
system as quickly as possible.
ADV DE JAGER: This sleeping drug, would it have been
possible if he saw that that he did not want to drink that?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well I think so, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: So as far as you know it was not thrown in so
that he could see it?
MR DU PLESSIS: It was possible that this was put into
something to drink because Dirk said that and van Rensburg said
that, and I've asked them pertinently, why did this man fall over?
It was strange at that stage.
ADV DE JAGER: You say it was not necessary to assault this
person because he did give his co-operation?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: But let's suppose I come from East London
and I ask him questions, he does not answer, and the reason is not
that he doesn't want to answer, but that he doesn't have the
information and he says I don't know. Is that not a probability
that I am convinced or I think he knows that he could be
assaulted?
MR DU PLESSIS: That's a probability yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Because we think that he's hiding something
while he indeed does not know, he's not hiding anything.
MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.
ADV DE JAGER: And did it happen to you that you assault a
person while you think that he knows, whereas he did not know?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes it did happen before.
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions you wish to put to this witness
in re-examination?
ADV VISSER: Well Mr Chairman before you get to Mr
Booyens, I believe I've been skipped.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry - to the extent that your client has been
implicated?
ADV VISSER: Yes of course Mr Chairman. I've only got two
points which I think should be addressed very briefly.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes put them Mr Visser.
EXAMINATION BY ADV VISSER: Mr du Plessis, you
explained to the Committee what the danger was that you foresaw
what could happen to your network should Mr Kondile be charged
or came into contact with other people or should he be released.
You remember that evidence?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct yes.
ADV VISSER: You did not say anything about what, according
to your experience, would happen to the principal agent. From
your experience could you give any evidence to the Committee
regarding that.
MR DU PLESSIS: If that were exposed he would have been
murdered and he would have been forced to expose his other
informers and they would have been in the same danger.
ADV VISSER: A second aspect which I just want to touch upon
(...intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Unless they converted him into an ANC
informer.
MR DU PLESSIS: If you want to take that chance, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.
ADV VISSER: A second aspect referring to a question asked by
Mr Nyoka, my learned friend, which you should expand upon. As
I've understood the question; when you were thinking about who
should participate, who from PE should participate in this
undertaking, the question was posed, which role did you envisage
for each of these persons? And perhaps you did not think the
same as I think my learned friend wanted it to achieve. Thinking
back and if you can't remember, say so, think back, there were
three of you; it was van Rensburg, you and Raath who went there.
If you can start, why did Raath have to go with?
MR DU PLESSIS: He had to drive the vehicle from
Bloemfontein to Komatipoort.
ADV VISSER: This will also be Raath's evidence that this was
what was put to him. The next question is and I'm trying to
refresh your memory, in those circumstances would you inform
Raath fully what you intended to do with Kondile or can't you
remember?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can't remember but I think I did inform him
fully.
ADV VISSER: You and Mr van Rensburg, why was it necessary
that the two of you had to travel with Mr Kondile in the vehicle?
MR DU PLESSIS: In the first place the negotiations with
Coetzee was not done by myself but by Mr van Rensburg and
there was somebody who still needed protection.
ADV VISSER: Did you think there was the danger that he would
try to escape along the road?
MR DU PLESSIS: No but he could start suspecting something,
that was a possibility yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman may I interrupt prior to re-
examination. I know the issue was mooted this morning as to
what the position of the other parties were here. Mr Chairman
representing Mr Coetzee, may I just place myself on record, I'm R
Jansen, instructed by Mr Knight on behalf of Mr Coetzee. Our
position is still that we would like to cross-examine the
applicants, most certainly if it is intended to call Mr Coetzee as a
witness and we would like the Committee to make a ruling on
that. There are a couple of reasons Mr Chairman why I submit
cross-examination should be allowed. Firstly the version of Mr
Coetzee has never been tested in a scenario where any other
person has admitted any involvement in the murder of Kondile and
that in itself makes these hearings completely different to any of
the other hearings that have taken place relating to this incident
and I submit that there are various aspects on which Mr Coetzee's
evidence at this stage, considering the new allegations or the new
facts presented by these applicants can assist this committee to
come to the truth. I may just mention one fact for instance is the
incrimination of a Mr Roy Otto, that's the first time that we hear
of his involvement. Now other than the fact that this person is
deceased, Mr Chairman, the facts of the matter are that there is
documentation available which suggested that Mr Otto was on
leave at the time, in fact had been on leave for a month and a
half, which gives credence to the suggestion that there is
something sinister in the choice of a dead person to be the person
shooting or committing the actual killing. It's this type of thing
which I submit has to be considered.
CHAIRPERSON: Well no that's totally unrelated to your client,
because your client doesn't mention any names of the persons that
did the shooting.
MR JANSEN: No but he men (...intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't implicate Otto.
No Mr Chairman, but what he does do is he mentions, Flemington,
he mentions a person on Flemington’s staff which he describes as
being a tall slender, blond-haired person whereas Roy Otto, the
evidence will be, fits the opposite description, fairly short, stocky
and not blond at all.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Whether you’re client's evidence
becomes relevant or not in these hearings is a matter which this
Committee would like to consider.
ADV VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman. The only problem is, that's
why I say that that ruling must be made now for the simple reason
that should his evidence become relevant, comments that he will
be making on this new evidence which he's never had the
opportunity of making comments on will then be placed on record
and these applicants would never have had the opportunity to
respond to what he said there. Now it may work unfairly both
ways, it may work unfairly against Mr Coetzee, it may work
unfairly against these applicants.
ADV DE JAGER: Well on the other hand, if he's not giving
evidence here and he's not cross-examined, Mr Coetzee for
instance, then his evidence cannot be used against the present
applicants. If the present applicants do not give evidence against
Mr Coetzee in his application and he hasn't had the opportunity to
cross-examine them, then we as a committee can't use their
evidence in motivating a refusal of his amnesty application
because he didn't have the opportunity to cross-examine.
ADV VISSER: Yes honourable member, that was in fact our
position right at the outset in October last year that we merely
intended placing our version on record because we do not have a
ruling as to what other further evidence may affect Mr Coetzee's
amnesty application. I think it's quite clear that the Committees
are waiting to hear all the evidence before bringing out some
findings. Now if there is a ruling that the evidence led here will
not affect that application, then you are completely correct and
that was in fact our position right at the start. However there
was a very clear indication last time and I accept that the
Committee is comprised differently this time, but there was a very
clear indication that his evidence is very necessary and that these
issues are considered, the differences are considered as material
disputes and would have to be canvassed. - As it pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen the Committee has considered your
request to put questions to this witness and the Committee is of
the view that you should be afforded the opportunity to do so.
MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman with great respect we have an
interest in what is going on here. There has been an argument
addressed to you. My learned friend Mr Booyens hasn't been
given an opportunity, nor have I or been asked whether we have
any contribution to make Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: No the Committee has decided that we would
like to hear this. It doesn't depend upon what counsel in the
matter have to say. The Committee is of the view that this is an
enquiry. We would like to hear the evidence and it may be when
the time comes, that you will have the right to question Dirk
Coetzee when he gives evidence
Mr Booyens I am allowing the questioning of your witness
by counsel for Dirk Coetzee. The Committee hasn't made up its
mind on Dirk Coetzee's evidence on this Kondile matter, and in
order that justice may be done, it does seem that your client
should be afforded the opportunity wherever his evidence varies
with the evidence of Dirk Coetzee to put that to Dirk Coetzee.
ADV BOOYENS: Yes Mr Chairman I hear the Committee's
ruling. Of course it seems to me that if the decision is only made
at the end of the day then whether or not to call Mr Coetzee then
the Committee may find itself in an extremely difficult position if
Coetzee then is not called then what value, if any, do you attach
to the questions and to the answers because then - at the moment
you've got to answer it like you would for a witness that would
be called. But the moment, if he's not called, then the answers
became answers to a collateral issue and is his first answer would
be relevant ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No the only reason why we think that Mr
Swart should be allowed to put questions to Dirk Coetzee
...(intervention)
ADV BOOYENS: No to du Plessis.
CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, on behalf of Dirk Coetzee, so that
Dirk Coetzee be made available.
ADV BOOYENS: Oh, yes no, then we understand each other Mr
Chairman. Mr Chairman but may I suggest that Mr Jansen depart
on his excursion tomorrow. I see it's already four o'clock, or
otherwise could I perhaps just ask for a short adjournment. I
received a S.O.S. message from my right-hand side
...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I understand.
MR MARAIS: Mr Chairman before the adjournment, Marais here
representing Nofomela and Tshikalanga. I would submit that
since both my clients received notices in terms of Section 29 that
they have to appear here and that they may be required to provide
statements or to answer questions and since the credibility of
either Dirk Coetzee in this matter or the credibility of the
applicants in this matter may affect the outcome of the amnesty
application of either of those two, and insofar as the amnesty
application of Coetzee is linked in general to the amnesty
application of both Nofomela and Tshikalanga that I should also
be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine, inasfar as it may be
necessary after Mr Jansen, for Mr Coetzee, has dealt with the
matter.
CHAIRPERSON: I have not understood the reason why your
client has been served with a notice in the first place. It's
unfortunate that they have been asked to come here and make
themselves available. They have not been implicated by anybody
in these proceedings. They have not been implicated by Dirk
Coetzee and so I don't know what purpose will be served by
asking your two clients to be here. And as far as I see at present
it seems that we will not require your clients to be here.
Whatever the Committee may find in respect of Dirk Coetzee's
evidence cannot impact on your client because your client is not
touched by these proceedings.
MR MARAIS: Not in this incident specifically but in general
with regard to the credibility ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No it won't be, the credibility of Dirk Coetzee
in this matter he has applied for 30, 40 applications and I am of
the view that your clients are not involved in this application.
MR MARAIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now I propose commencing at nine
o'clock tomorrow morning. Is there anybody who is against the
idea?
ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman the area where we live we have a
problem, if we commence at 9:30 there will be lighter traffic.
CHAIRPERSON: I would suggest that we try and be here at nine
o'clock.
ADV BOOYENS: Certainly Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: The heavy traffic before seven Mr Booyens.
ADV BOOYENS: No Mr Chairman that's not what I suggested.
Words are being put in my mouth again which I haven't uttered.
ADV VALUS: I have not addressed you. I am representing
Ginotry Danster. This is a very important witness and it's my
submission, and I understand that Mr Jansen has the authorisation
to cross-examine the applicant Mr du Plessis, and my submission
is that there is no difference between Danster and Coetzee's
position and if he has the opportunity to cross-examine the
applicant I also want to be afforded the opportunity.
CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not place yourself on record.
ADV VALUS: Mr Chairman everybody had an opportunity to
speak and I did not want to intervene.
ADV DE JAGER: Did Danster apply for amnesty?
ADV VALUS: No he did not apply for amnesty, no he did not.
CHAIRPERSON: On what basis do you want to put questions,
your client hasn't applied for amnesty?
ADV VALUS: Mr Chairman if Mr Coetzee will testify evidence
will be led which will incriminate my client and the purpose of my
cross-examination will be to test the value of the incriminating
evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Well if that happens then we will allow you to
put questions at that stage. If Mr Coetzee implicates your client
then you will be afforded an opportunity to put questions.
ADV VALUS: Will that be only for Mr Coetzee then or will the
other applicants be recalled.
ADV DE JAGER: The point is did any of these people or nobody
said anything that prejudices your client. He did not say Danster
assaulted, he did not say your client did anything wrong.
ADV VALUS: It was said by way of indication that my client is
a liar.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Roux our problem is that we have a role to
fulfil or a task to complete before the 30th of June, and if we call
everybody who says somebody else has told a lie we will never
finish in time. We will determine whether your client's role was
so large or big that it's necessary that he's represented here and
that he should be cross-examined. We should reconsider this
before we decide upon that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we will tell you that if your client had
applied for amnesty obviously he has locus standi. If your client
was implicated by the applicants then you would have had a
chance, on behalf of your client to show that your client was
wrongly implicated. You understand? If Dirk Coetzee gives
evidence, or if any other applicants give evidence and if they
implicate your client then to the extent that your client may be
implicated you may put questions but only to that extent. You
will not be allowed to traverse the entire spectrum of evidence
that has been given. It is only to the extent that your client may
be implicated. Do you understand?
ADV VALUS: As it pleases you.
CHAIRPERSON: I forgot to take your name down, what is your
full name please?
ADV VALUS: Advocate Valus(?)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This Committee will now adjourn
and resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
79
ADV MOOSA H B DU PLESSIS
CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE
MR NYOKA 107 H B DU PLESSIS
CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE
ADV STEENKAMP 110 H B DU PLESSIS
CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE
COMMITTEE 125 H B DU PLESSIS
CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE
ADV VISSER 136 H B DU PLESSIS
