CHAIRPERSON: Colonel du Plessis, you are still under oath. You can proceed Ms Hartle.
HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: (s.u.o.)
MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, just for the record I have now made available to you all the parties involved. The following documents, a copy of the affidavit of Mr du Plessis which is dated the 29 of January 1986. There is an extract from a Herald report dated Wednesday, August the 3rd: "Missing Pebco Men Were In Custody".
There is a letter written by Lieutenant Colonel Snyman on the 21st of May 1985 and then there are two affidavits of Mr Harold Snyman, which are dated the 22nd of May 1985 and the 22nd of July 1985, these are bound together.
And lastly Mr Chairman, there is a further extract from the Evening Post Friday, March the 22nd, unfortunately we only had a few A3 pages and I’ve only been able to copy one for the Committee’s desk.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the other affidavit’s that you are talking about, I can’t locate them - by Harold Snyman.
MS HARTLE: I’m sorry Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: You referred to an affidavit by Harold Snyman, didn’t you?
MS HARTLE: Yes, it should be among your bundle which I left with your assistant. Mr Chairman, I’m sure ...[intervention]
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, here it is. Is it two of them?
MS HARTLE: There’re two, they’re bound together - they’re stapled together.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is that the only affidavit that you have mentioned? Are those the only affidavits that you have just referred to?
MS HARTLE: Yes, Harold Snyman and Mr du Plessis. Mr du Plessis’s was handed in yesterday.
CHAIRPERSON: All right. Don’t you have an extra copy of du Plessis’s affidavit?
MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, I did give a copy to you yesterday and I thought that I needn’t make another copy. I will during the ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes we’ve got it, thank you.
MS HARTLE: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I proceed?
MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, should these not then be given Exhibit numbers?
CHAIRPERSON: We can do that straight away.
MR BRINK: May I suggest then that the affidavit of Mr du Plessis be marked B.
CHAIRPERSON: Didn’t we have B yesterday?
MR BRINK: Yes, C, I beg your pardon. The letter written by Mr
Snyman dated the 21st of May 1985, we’ll mark that E.
CHAIRPERSON: Mark what?
MR BRINK: That’s the letter E, mark it E.
CHAIRPERSON: What is D?
MR BRINK: I beg your pardon, I’ve got mine - I’m in advance. That will be D, I beg your pardon, D. The affidavit of Mr Snyman, dated the 22nd of May, E and his affidavit dated the 22nd of July, either F or E1 whichever you think.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, the first one is dated the ...[intervention]
MR BRINK: The first one is dated the 22nd of May.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, E1?
MR BRINK: That we can mark as E1 and the affidavit dated the 22nd of July as E2 and then the extracts or copy of the newspaper report dated the 3rd of August 1988, we can mark as F. Is this only one copy that the Committee have got? And then the extract from the Evening Post, March the 22nd 1996, mark G.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, is that the lot?
MS HARTLE: That is correct Mr Chairman, may I proceed?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, indeed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, to recap our cross-examination yesterday, you stated that you have applied for amnesty at the Truth Commission’s invitation, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MS HARTLE: Now, my instructions are that my clients take it as an affront that you perceive that you’ve been forced as it were to apply for amnesty and that you do not care to apologise to them for the atrocity that you have committed.
MR DU PLESSIS: I said yesterday that I am sorry, I’m sorry that that what happened, happened.
MS HARTLE: Yes but Mr du Plessis, do you understand what I’m putting to you? My clients feel that it is an insult to them that you are merely applying for amnesty at the Truth Commission’s invitation and not out of your own volition.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don’t have any comment on that.
MS HARTLE: If I recall, yesterday you said that you were not named by any of your colleagues as being involved in any of the atrocities?
MR DU PLESSIS: At the stage at which I applied, no.
MS HARTLE: If you did not make this application for amnesty, would any criminal prosecution have ensued against you or are you aware of any charges being investigated against you - any criminal charges?
MR DU PLESSIS: They didn’t approach me, if I can put it that way.
MS HARTLE: Is it possible that you will still be charged for any
criminal offences?
MR DU PLESSIS: It’s possible.
MS HARTLE: Now, regarding the detail of the operation which you said you left up to Captain van Zyl, there was an uncanny similarity in the modus operandi in the deaths of Mthimkhulu and Topsi Madaka and the Pebco 3, would you agree with that?
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct.
MS HARTLE: Can you account for that similarity?
MR DU PLESSIS: I was involved in both cases and I think that that is what would explain the similarities.
MS HARTLE: I don’t understand, can you clarify that?
MR DU PLESSIS: I was present during - involved in Mthimkhulu and Madaka’s elimination and I was also present or involved in this.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, you said you didn’t have any hand in the finer details of how the three were to be killed, how they were to be eliminated?
MR DU PLESSIS: I testified that I told Captain van Zyl or suggested to him how they should be eliminated.
MS HARTLE: The similarity, would you put that down to coincidence or is it a modus operandi which you had - a ritual so to speak, that you’d got down to a fine art?
MR DU PLESSIS: That was the only way that I knew at that stage, I
didn’t know any other way.
MS HARTLE: But you yourself were not involved in deciding on how they were to be eliminated?
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I just interrupt, I don’t know whether you could just pause for a second each time before you put your next question because time and again I keep on missing your opening words - all the time, there’s a moment when there is an overlap between the interpretation into English and your voice and each time I seem to miss key words, thank you.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, I asked if it was coincidental that the modus operandi in respect of the deaths of Mthimkhulu and Madaka was the same as in relation to the Pebco 3 or whether or not it was a ritual that you’d got down to a fine art, in other words had you agreed beforehand that that was probably a foolproof method which you could use again?
MR DU PLESSIS: I believe at that stage that is was a good method and that I could use it again.
MS HARTLE: I want to come back to the finer detail of the operation. Now, there were three distinct phases, the one was the abduction, the second was the elimination and the third was the disposing of the bodies - the covering of your tracks, now you were only a party to the decision as I understand it to eliminate and you
passed on that decision to Captain van Zyl.
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct.
MS HARTLE: Now, you stated yesterday that you intended to make it look like the three leaders had left the country?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MS HARTLE: And you made reference to the vehicle being left on the South African/Lesotho border?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MS HARTLE: Now, if it was your intention, why was the vehicle destroyed?
MR DU PLESSIS: I can only testify on the basis of hearsay evidence on this point. Captain van Zyl told me afterwards that the vehicle had been in such a condition that he was not prepared to take it to the Lesotho border and that’s why he made a different decision.
MS HARTLE: And when did you realise that your finer plan to ensure that the vehicle was on the South African/Lesotho border, had not been carried into operation?
MR DU PLESSIS: When Captain van Zyl reported back. The abduction took place on the 8th, the elimination took place on the evening of the 9th, that would then have been on the 10th of the month.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what sort of condition was he referring to? What did you understand him to mean when he said the vehicle was in such a condition that it could not be taken to the border?
MR DU PLESSIS: It was mechanically in such a poor condition that it couldn’t actually drive that far or be driven that far.
MS HARTLE: It would still have been possible to tow the vehicle to that border and leave it there if you had certainly wanted to give the appearance that the three leaders had left the country.
MR DU PLESSIS: I suppose it could have been done, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: If a vehicle was towed over such a distance, how many kilometres approximately would it have been if it had to be towed?
MR DU PLESSIS: I think to the Lesotho would have been 400+ kilometres.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, that wasn’t feasible.
MR DU PLESSIS: No, it’s correct, it wasn’t actually possible but I’ve learnt now that everything is possible if people want everything to be possible. I suppose we could have taken it there with a low bed truck, taken the car there and actually deposited it at the border but realised that everybody would then know that. But I suppose it was possible if there was some proper planning yes, I suppose it was possible.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I’m just saying that I know it’s possible but in terms of your plan, it was not feasible.
MR DU PLESSIS: No, it wasn’t.
MS HARTLE: You testified yesterday that you believed that the plan - the execution had been partially successful, now there were several things that went wrong with your plans, is that not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, actually the only thing that went wrong was the problem with the vehicle but I don’t think that was such a drastic mistake.
MS HARTLE: The further fact which put a spoke in the wheels was that Mr Norman Zwandile Fazi saw the Pebco 3 being abducted from the airport despite your attempts to keep it low key and to use people from outside of the city who would not be identified.
MR DU PLESSIS: I think that is your opinion, I think the Judge’s opinion was somewhat different and as far as I can recall there was a different testimony and an interdict by Mr Fezi’s colleagues or by his - there was evidence by his seniors that he wasn’t on duty that day at all. And I think if you look at his evidence and if we listen to the evidence today as to what happened in reality, that is was an improbability.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, are you suggesting that Mr Fezi did not see the three being abducted from the airport?
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct.
MS HARTLE: How would he have known of that at that stage? How could he possibly have known?
MR DU PLESSIS: The fact remains that the only part of the truth in his body is that he was close to the bodies when they were abducted but as to how it happened, that is impossible.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, may I ask the question again, is it your suggestion that he did not see the three being abducted from the airport?
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: But don’t you think the Judge - looking back now and in fact even then, didn’t you think that the Judge ought to have believed him?
MR DU PLESSIS: If you look at his evidence and if I remember correctly - I don’t have his statement in front of me but if I remember correctly, he alleged that they got off the plane and that they - whilst they were still on the runway, they were arrested by people clad in camouflage uniforms and that they were taken from there in a police van or in a patrol van.
CHAIRPERSON: That would have been very strange evidence.
MR DU PLESSIS: That was his evidence.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, I put it to you that it was the persistence of Mr Fezi that made this application possible today, that brought this out into the open.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don’t know why you say that but I don’t agree with that.
MS HARTLE: I asked you yesterday whether or not it was a coincidence that these three leaders had been abducted and your answer as I understand it was that is was not a coincidence.
MR DU PLESSIS: It was planned that way.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here, I don’t want to disrupt the proceedings. Questions were asked now and believe my learned friend has stepped off that issue about this witness Mr Fezi, may I just enquire questions were asked on a specific factual basis and questions were asked about evidence that was tendered. Is my learned friend intending to call Mr Fezi as a witness or provide the evidence that was given by him?
CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know.
MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, Mr Fezi is present and he is available to testify and we will lead that evidence if necessary to substantiate those allegations. He should have been approached to testify in East London but that unfortunately didn’t happen.
ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, we would obviously - I don’t know about my learned friend but in the light of the allegations, we would obviously like an opportunity to cross-examine him.
ADV DE JAGER: But Mr du Plessis, it’s not evidence until he
testifies.
ADV DU PLESSIS: If he testifies Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible] opportunity to cross-examine him but we don’t know whether he’ll be testifying at this stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Just for clarification, what do you mean when you say that he was or he could have been called as a witness in East London to testify? Do you mean during the criminal trial there was any or what do you mean by that?
MS HARTLE: At the stage when the family were called to testify in relation to the atrocities committed against them, either he didn’t realise that he was one of the victims who could have qualified for reparation under this Act.
CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]
MS HARTLE: Sorry, did you hear me Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: No, I didn’t.
INTERPRETER: There was a problem with the interpretation, if the question could please be repeated.
MS HARTLE: Sorry, I’m referring the hearings in East London at
which the family gave evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: TRC hearings?
MS HARTLE: At the TRC hearings.
Mr du Plessis, to come back to the question whether or not it was a coincidence or a plan to abduct these three persons
specifically, I put it to you that their arrangement to go to the airport must have been an on the moment decision - an on the spur decision?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, I don’t know what their decision was but Deon Niewoudt expressly arranged via his informer that those three people should go to the airport.
MS HARTLE: Now as I understand it, two other persons might have been with them but for the fact that they had other obligations.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don’t know about that, I can only testify as to what I know and the arrangement had been made by myself. The decision was made that these three people would be taken out and that they should be enticed to go to the airport and that’s as far as I know and that’s how it worked out.
MS HARTLE: If the two other leaders had been present, would you have gone ahead with the operation?
MR DU PLESSIS: I testified yesterday that I don’t think we would have detained them in those circumstances, I think we would have reflected as what to do further.
MS HARTLE: Yesterday you were quite adamant that the purpose of their abduction was not to interrogate, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: That was not the exclusive purpose, yes.
MS HARTLE: And you were also adamant Mr du Plessis, that they had not been assaulted.
MR DU PLESSIS: No, that’s not what I said, I said that upon my arrival in Cradock they did not appear to me to have been assaulted.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, did you not testify yesterday that you did not see them - perhaps I’m mistaken, that you did not see them when you went to visit at Post Chalmers on ...[inaudible]
MR DU PLESSIS: I didn’t see the Askaris.
ADV SANDI: Ms Hartle, can I just help here? As far as I can remember I think he said there was no ways they could have been assaulted, he could not see any physical evidence of assault and he goes even further to say that if they had been assaulted they would have told him and they never told him anything.
That was your evidence Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MS HARTLE: As the Committee pleases.
When you saw them on your visit to Post Chalmers, were they wearing anything on their heads? Were their heads covered?
MR DU PLESSIS: No.
MS HARTLE: Did you speak to them?
MR DU PLESSIS: I think I spoke to them, I can’t recall the detail but I accept that I spoke to them.
MS HARTLE: If we can come to the issue of the political motive, who prepared your application?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Jan Wagner in Pretoria in the initial phases and then I went to Mr van der Merwe.
MS HARTLE: And who furnished the information to these persons in respect of these submissions concerning the political motive?
MR DU PLESSIS: That was myself.
MS HARTLE: Now, do you agree that there’s much of a sameness in virtually all of the submissions made to the Committee?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MS HARTLE: By the different applicants?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct, we did consult with each other and we refreshed our memories as to what happened, not all of us but some of us indeed got together and some of us also exchanged our statements amongst each other and we gave those to the legal representatives and they drafted the submissions.
MS HARTLE: Why was there a need to do that, why was there a need to have a common political motive as it were?
MR DU PLESSIS: I left the matter in the hands of my legal
representatives.
MS HARTLE: Do you believe Mr du Plessis, that your acts were politically motivated?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.
MS HARTLE: And do you believe that the murder of the Pebco 3 was warranted?
MR DU PLESSIS: At that stage yes, if you think back to it now you would say yes.
MS HARTLE: Now you’ve already heard it said that the higher politicians have said that the abduction and the death of the Pebco 3 was mala fides and unauthorised and I refer in this regard to the National Party’s amplified submissions which were made during the week on Wednesday the 14th of May 1997 in response to the questions whether the NP claimed involvement for the Pebco 3 specifically, Mr F W de Klerk’s response was that the killings were, and I quote
"Unauthorised and mala fides"
Can you comment?
MR DU PLESSIS: I never said that Mr F W de Klerk knew about it, what I did say was that there were politicians and high ranking officers who knew what was happening, perhaps they weren’t directly informed but they knew by implication and by implication also the authorisation came through to us.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, as I understand the question referred to, Mr de Klerk doesn’t say he did not authorise the killings, in which case you would have said: "Yes, I never said he authorised the killings". He doesn’t say he authorised the killings, he says the killings were not authorised. Do you understand the point I’m trying to raise with you?
MR DU PLESSIS: I understanding that you said that he didn’t say that he authorised it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so your answer you gave it is as if the question put to you was that Mr de Klerk says he authorised, in which case you could have said: "But I never said he authorised". He’s just putting it as a general, he says: "The killings were not authorised" and that sentence as it stands is so wide that it could possibly even mean not authorised by anybody.
MR DU PLESSIS: I didn’t say that he gave me the authorisation.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but I think the question or the proposition put to you here is the following: Mr de Klerk said it was entirely unauthorised, it hadn’t been authorised by anybody and it’s not as if he says that he didn’t authorise it, what he actually said was that is wasn’t authorised by anybody at all, that is the question which the Chairman is now putting to you for your comment.
MR DU PLESSIS: As we’ve said right from the start, there was no direct authorisation, I don’t know how Mr de Klerk can say that he
knows that nobody authorised it.
Secondly, I assumed that authorisation had been given for this by implication. I can only add that if you say to any person or the Government that there is nothing that can still solve the problem - if we’d already used all the means at our disposal and nothing was actually helping to solve the problem but there was still pressure on us to solve the problem, what other solutions did we have, what other options did we have?
CHAIRPERSON: Doesn’t this statement imply Colonel, that whoever did it had no authority to do it?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct, yes. That is correct but I think in the circumstances in which these things took place - one must bear that in mind, we existed in a totally different ...[indistinct] at the time and the attack on the Government of the day was of such a nature that we were fighting the battle on all fronts, within the borders of the country and abroad - outside the borders of our country, and that meant that the ordinary methods were not longer good enough.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, arising from the Chairman’s question, you said that you conveyed all the plans - that it had been suggested by the Government that these plans were no longer effective and that the Government or somebody on behalf of the Government then said to you: "Well, make a plan then". I would like to put it to you that that could be interpreted as having been left to your discretion as to what you were going to do.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well, that is exactly what we inferred, we on the ground because each and every time via the JMC - via the relevant desks at head office, speeches made by Ministers in which they told the electorate that they would ensure that the chaos comes
to an end. One could only draw one single inference from that as far as I’m concerned, I was on the ground, I knew what was going on and they were leaving it to me to decide what plans to make.
ADV SANDI: Whilst you are there, why did you think that the statement that says: "Make a plan" - I suppose in Afrikaans that would be: "Jy moet a plan beraam", "Maak ‘n plan", why do you think that statement necessarily and solely meant that you should devise a plan for these people to be killed?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is one word which I used but that is the only inference which I can draw because if there’s no other plan, then what remains because from the morning till the night we were busy making plans to try and restore law and order and if those plans were no longer effective, then that would be the only other plan that remains to be made - that was the only inference that I could draw.
ADV SANDI: Yesterday, I understood it to be part of your evidence that there was already a silent policy as you referred to it, a silent policy that such political opponents must be killed, do you remember that?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
ADV SANDI: Now, if Mr Snyman was aware of the existence of that policy, why did he not explicitly and specifically say: "Kill those people", why should he make such a broad statement giving you a discretion, a statement that says: "Make a plan", why does he not specifically say: "Kill these people"?
ADV DU PLESSIS: With the greatest of respect Mr Chairman, to the Honourable Commissioner, I think the evidence was that Snyman conveyed to him that Louis le Grange said to him that they must make a plan and I do not think - with the greatest of respect, that was in the evidence that the Honourable Commissioner is now putting.
CHAIRPERSON: The witness as far as I can recall - I think I do have it in my notes which I revised when I got up early this morning, he said he interpreted that a statement which he got from Mr Snyman - Mr Snyman had got the statement from the Minister concerned, the statement that says: "Make a plan". He said his personal interpretation of that statement was that such people would have to be killed. Isn’t that correct counsel?
ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, if you put it that way that’s 100% correct.
ADV SANDI: Why Mr du Plessis, did you simply jump to the conclusion that such a statement means that these people must be killed"? A broad statement, a statement giving you a discretion to exercise, a statement which does not necessarily exclude other extra legal methods to deal with the situation. Can you answer that one please?
MR DU PLESSIS: You’re referring to the discussion between myself and Colonel Snyman?
ADV SANDI: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well, I testified yesterday that Colonel Snyman and I had discussed this thing over quite a long period of time and at the stage when I went to him and told him that that was the only alternative, he didn’t tell me directly that I should kill them, what he did say was that if that is the only alternative, then I must proceed. What I mean by that is, I could go ahead and kill them.
ADV SANDI: That was your interpretation of the statement?
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct.
ADV SANDI: The questions to you is, why did you interpret that statement in that way? It was a broad statement that says: "Make a plan", in other words try and do something, the statement did not say to you, you must kill.
ADV DE JAGER: I think you’re at cross purposes, you are referring to the conversation which entailed an instruction from Snyman.
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct.
ADV DE JAGER: But there was another occasion on which le Grange told Snyman to make a plan.
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct.
ADV DE JAGER: So, we’re dealing here with two different discussions, the one deals with a plan and the other deals with the elimination?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
ADV SANDI: When did you discuss this matter for the first time with Mr Snyman?
MR DU PLESSIS: Are you referring to the elimination of the people? I think it was about a week or two before they were eliminated.
ADV SANDI: In what context exactly did Mr Snyman make this statement to you, that you should: "Make a plan"?
MR DU PLESSIS: I’m assuming that you’re referring to Minister le Grange and that discussion?
ADV SANDI: Mr Snyman as I understand it, was giving a report to you about the conversation he had had with Mr le Grange?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct and if I recall correctly - I may be wrong but if I am correct, that’s when I said to him: "We have no other options but to eliminate these people". That is when it emerged amongst others that Mr le Grange had at some occasion in Cradock by implication had said that if we have no other alternatives then we should proceed to elimination.
ADV SANDI: Are you - this appears to be something new to me now, are you saying now the idea of elimination was discussed with
Mr le Grange? Didn’t Mr le Grange make a general statement that says: "If the normal legal methods of dealing with this situation cannot yield any positive results, make a plan", isn’t that what Mr le Grange said?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct, I don’t know what Minister le Grange told Snyman but that’s what Snyman told me and that is the only inference that I could draw.
ADV SANDI: Okay, in spite of the difficulties which I continue to have in my mind on this aspect of your evidence, I will not take it any further.
CHAIRPERSON: We must just be careful about something as to what Mr le Grange might have said. Are you saying that he said: "If other legal methods cannot work" or did he just simply say: "Do everything possible to bring the situation under consideration"? Did he say: "If legal methods would not work", would he have said that?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is not what I said - I didn’t speak to him.
CHAIRPERSON: That is the form in which the question came from my colleague and that’s why I was saying we need to be careful about that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, and I didn’t comment on it.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, you were asked by my colleague on the left as to when you started discussing the elimination but can I ask you
as to - how long before the incident was the decision actually taken? I’m referring to the day when you went to Mr Snyman - Colonel Snyman and said him: "You know, I think we should eliminate these people"?
MR DU PLESSIS: It could have been four or five days to a week.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, in response to the question opposite 11(a) of your application, it is asked
"Have the acts and offences etc., been committed on the orders of or with the approval of a particular body, organisation, liberation movement, State department or security force"
And your response is:
"Yes, on behalf of the South African police and by implication also the Government of the day, the then Government of the Republic of South Africa"
Now do you concede that you might have misinterpreted that you had authority to eliminate the three leaders?
MR DU PLESSIS: I did not say that I had authorisation, I said that I did it in the interest of the country because I believed that is why I was there, not only to keep the Government of the day in power but also to bring about peace in this country.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, is the authority not only an applied
authority - implied authority?
MR DU PLESSIS: I suppose one could argue that way.
MS HARTLE: Members of the National Party say that your acts were mala fides and unauthorised, you might have been mistaken as to that authority that you had in which event you will not have a political motive?
MR DU PLESSIS: If they say that today yes, but I still say that I believed and this was my instructions that I had to everything in my ability to keep this country out of the hands of the communists.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, while on the issue of the details of the operation, what became of the bodies? Do you have any first-hand knowledge of what became of the bodies?
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you mean at the end?
MS HARTLE: At the end of the operation.
MR DU PLESSIS: Only Captain van Zyl told me at the end.
MS HARTLE: That the bodies were incinerated?
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct.
MS HARTLE: Now, there was in Joe Mamasela’s Section 29
submissions - and I believe that Mr Lamey’s client’s might also have said so or have said in their submission, that the bodies were removed in a brown motor vehicle. I assume that the whole bodies were removed from the scene, I can just refer you to this section.
MR LAMEY: Correction Mr Chairman, my learned friend has
referred to also the applicants who I represent and it’s not my recollection that it’s their version of any knowledge that the bodies were removed in any vehicle.
MS HARTLE: My apology Mr Chairman.
MR LAMEY: In fact they have no knowledge about the elimination or removal of the bodies.
CHAIRPERSON: Ys, we have noted that. Where is the reference?
MS HARTLE: I refer to page 15 Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Of what?
MS HARTLE: Of the Section 29, the supplement to the amnesty application - the submissions or the evidence rather of Mr Joe Mamasela. He says in the middle sorry, the 3rd paragraph from the top
"The ground was stained with blood and we cleared that up as well - we cleaned it up, whilst we were busy cleaning up a brown Toyota Kombi arrived on the scene and three deceased were loaded into this vehicle"
He then says:
"We left the White people and the deceased at the police station and left"
There’s a suggestion in that that the bodies were not burnt.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what is the question in that context?
MS HARTLE: I was asking the witness initially if he had first
hand knowledge of what became of the bodies, he then said that he had no knowledge other than that which was conveyed to him by Captain van Zyl and I’m putting it to him that the bodies may have been removed from the scene rather than burnt.
ADV DE JAGER: ...[indistinct] no knowledge - it wasn’t there, so that question should be directed to van Zyl or Niewoudt who were present.
MS HARTLE: Sorry, through the Chair, I’d like to persist with the question whether the witness had any knowledge that the bodies were removed rather than burnt.
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no knowledge or information in that regard.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, I’d now like to refer you to Exhibit C. This is the affidavit which you deposed in the third application which was brought by my client for Xhlxhla Woolly Godolozi to be produced and I refer to paragraph 3 on page 2 thereof where you state as follows
"Although the security police monitored the
activities of Pebco, Godolozi had never been regarded as a big fish and no decision was made to have him arrested by the security police.
I deny strongly that Godolozi was arrested by the security police at any stage or that he had been detained at any stage by the security police"
Now, firstly on the issue of political motive, you state in this affidavit that:
"Godolozi had never been regarded as a big fish"
MR DU PLESSIS: That is what it says here and I’m satisfied with that, it was not the truth. The impression that I created with this is that we were not very interested in Godolozi, in brief that part up to and including the third line, they are all lies.
MS HARTLE: It is a lie then therefore?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that’s true.
MS HARTLE: And do you accept that you have perjured yourself in this affidavit?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is true.
MS HARTLE: And is it correct Mr du Plessis, that you are not seeking amnesty in respect of that perjury?
MR BOOYENS: With respect Mr Chairman, may I refer to page 84, he applies for amnesty for any offence or ...[indistinct] based on his involvement with the Pebco 3 and that with respect is wide enough to cover that.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, were you aware yesterday of the existence of this affidavit?
MR DU PLESSIS: I was not aware of this specific one, I did say to my legal representatives that I - that there were three interdicts as far as I can remember, I’m not sure in which of them I made statements. If I made statements in which I intimidated myself, then I have to reply to that.
MS HARTLE: ...[inaudible] incriminations?
MR DU PLESSIS: I couldn’t hear the question.
MS HARTLE: You see, this is the problem that the family have with your submissions, it appears that you will seek amnesty only in respect of those acts in which you are identified, that you are not prepared to come forward with the whole truth.
MR DU PLESSIS: All that I can do is to say to this Commission today that I did come forward and I’m applying for amnesty for everything that I’m aware of that I did wrong in the past.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, paragraph - are you finished with paragraph 2, dealing with paragraph 2, or ...[intervention]
MS HARTLE: Paragraph 3.
CHAIRPERSON: I don’t want to take you out of line - paragraph 3.
MS HARTLE: No, I’ll go onto something else Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: All right. No, I just wanted to - it just surprised me Colonel, you say that
"I also deny vehemently that Godolozi at any stage was regarded or was arrested by the police at any stage"
I would have thought that - I mean you knew that was not true, I
accept that you were aware that you were not telling the truth.
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct but if I can just mention to you that if I can recall correctly - I’m now depending on my memory, it was about somebody who had seen him, I do not have the facts but somebody saw him in Alexandra in a police cell and what I am saying by implication is that we did not arrest him at that time, nor was he being detained - I’m saying that by implication.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, what about
"At any stage"
What about the words:
"At any stage"
You can’t restrict it to one incident.
MR DU PLESSIS: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Don’t, I think leave it there. You see, what I’m saying to you is I thought it would have been enough to say that
"I deny"
but to go on and say:
"I deny vehemently"
I mean, was it really necessary to go to that extent in line Colonel?
MR DU PLESSIS: It was an affidavit that was being made, these are the words of the legal representative.
CHAIRPERSON: It’s quite amazing, it’s quite amazing really that.
ADV DE JAGER: But in this affidavit it is clear that you want to
cover up everything, you did not admit to anything.
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct.
ADV DE JAGER: So, this is a false affidavit?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: You can go on.
MS HARTLE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr du Plessis, was there not a lot of political unrest that stemmed from these applications that were brought by the family for their loved ones to be produced?
MR DU PLESSIS: There was a great amount of unrest but I cannot recall that is resulted in further unrest.
MS HARTLE: You were involved in the litigation at the time, obviously you were consulted with.
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct.
MS HARTLE: And the family’s stress at not being able to find their loved ones must have been abundantly clear to you and you
deliberately chose to withhold the truth from them.
MR DU PLESSIS: At that stage I had no choice.
MS HARTLE: Why didn’t you have a choice?
MR DU PLESSIS: The truth would have come out at that stage and I know what the consequences would have been.
MS HARTLE: You could have perhaps less coolly placated the family by saying that they had left the country?
MR DU PLESSIS: I think at a stage we said this by implication, I
cannot recall correctly.
MS HARTLE: Now, those who were assisting you in the litigation, were they a party to this knowledge that the Pebco 3 had in fact been eliminated?
MR DU PLESSIS: I do not know who all were involved.
MS HARTLE: Your legal advisers, were they aware of that, were they aware of the truth?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, they were not.
MS HARTLE: You did not take them into your confidence?
MR DU PLESSIS: No.
MS HARTLE: So they assumed like the families and the rest of the country, that you had absolutely no knowledge of the whereabouts of the three?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MS HARTLE: Now, flowing from this litigation - I can refer you to Exhibit G which is the extract from the Evening Post on Friday, March the 22nd in an article written by Mrs Zitkelo Fayo regarding Mr Norman Zwandile Fezi, the witness who saw the Pebco 3 being abducted from the airport and it was entitled
"It was a Crime to be a Witness"
He says that after he came forward and mentioned the fact that he had seen - that he had witnessed the abduction of the three, that the police were soon after him raiding his home day in day out.
He was subsequently fired by the airport company within three weeks for bad conduct and that not long after, on June 2 1998, after several near misses during which attempts were made to kill him, the Eastern Cape Development Board which controlled Black housing in the cities and towns outside the homelands and the Eastern Cape also gave him notice to vacate his family home at Boxha Street. It also cancelled his residential permit in Port Elizabeth and he was given no reasons, he was simply given a month’s to vacate the house failing which he and his family would be forcefully evicted and even arrested.
Now do you have any knowledge of those incidents?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, I have none.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, do you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever even hearsay concerning these incidents?
MR DU PLESSIS: Not at all.
ADV DE JAGER: Didn’t you read that in the newspaper?
MR DU PLESSIS: It is possible but at this stage I cannot remember.
MS HARTLE: I put it to you Mr du Plessis, that it is improbable that you had no knowledge of the harassment of Mr Fezi.
MR DU PLESSIS: I definitely had no knowledge of that.
MS HARTLE: And then I refer you to Exhibit F which is an extract from the Eastern Province Herald dated 3rd of August,
Wednesday. Where you present at the court proceedings when evidence was led by Mr Sizani and others concerning the alleged sightings of the three leaders at various places after their disappearance?
MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot remember if I was by all, one of these interdicts came into operation during the night at about 11 or 12 o’clock and I was present there.
MS HARTLE: I want to refer you to the final paragraph in the third column, it reads
"Mr Sizani"
This is the second day, the day after the hearings had resumed and the hearings were delayed for 45 minutes when Mr Sizani failed to arrive for the hearing. He was traced to his ...[inaudible] home by the late Mr Tole Majudina, the instructing attorney and the article reads:
"Mr Sizani arrived on crutches with an injured leg. The court heard that he had been knocked down by a car on Monday night after his first day in the witness box"
And my instructions are that he was knocked down by a White Ford Sierra motor vehicle while he was riding on a bicycle. Do you have any knowledge of this incident?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no knowledge of this.
MS HARTLE: Mr du Plessis, is it your view that these incidents which happened to these two witnesses were merely coincidence or that there was a plan on the part of the police services or the security branch to harass them for their involvement in that litigation?
MR DU PLESSIS: It is very difficult for me to comment on this, I cannot see what purpose it would have served to bother these people in any way - I cannot see any sense in it.
MS HARTLE: Clearly the evidence they were leading was embarrassing to the security branch?
MR DU PLESSIS: That might have been.
ADV DE JAGER: If they were intimidated or feared for their lives because they had testified, would it not have served a purpose to silence them?
MR DU PLESSIS: But the evidence had already been given.
CHAIRPERSON: But surely it could affect other prospective
witnesses?
MR DU PLESSIS: I suppose that’s possible but as I said yesterday, we could speculate forever about this but I have no knowledge of that and I think in any event that it would have served no purpose.
MS HARTLE: In closing Mr du Plessis, my instructions are to put it to you that your so-called political motive is at best contrived or alternatively, that you acted outside of the ambit of the expectations of you and that the abduction, torture and death of the three amounted to nothing more than cold-blooded murder. Do you wish to comment?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no comment.
MS HARTLE: And secondly, that you have not taken this Commission into your confidence and that you have not told the truth.
MR DU PLESSIS: At this point I can assure you that where I’m sitting here I’m doing everything in my ability to tell this Commission the truth.
MS HARTLE: And lastly, my instructions are to put it to you that your actions are inconsistent with one who has come to reconciliation. If you do feel contrition, my instructions are that you have not shown that to the family.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don’t believe that that is true.
MS HARTLE: My instructions are that a real desire on your part to advance reconciliation and reconstruction can only begin when you are prepared to confess all and to take my client’s hands and apologise for what you have done.
MR DU PLESSIS: I have the desire to do this at one stage or another.
MS HARTLE: Why should you delay it Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: I testified yesterday that I got instructions from
my legal advisers not to do it at this stage.
MS HARTLE: Do you not accept that that advice is contrary to the objectives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the purpose of your application for amnesty?
MR DU PLESSIS: I don’t think so.
MS HARTLE: I put it to you Mr du Plessis lastly, that if you don’t make the approach you’ll never know any peace.
I’ve nothing further, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS HARTLE
CHAIRPERSON: I think a number of the points that you raised at the end were really points for argument if you had so wished.
I think at this stage we should ask members of the public to please refrain from making remarks loudly. We are here concerned with very serious and sombre events which give no pleasure to anybody to listen to and I would have thought that we would show the necessary respect to the occasion - unfortunate occasions such as these incidents, by also conduct and in the way that we conduct ourselves during the hearings.
We all have got - we are all human beings and we may feel like making some remarks about the evidence but please, if you want to make any remarks about the evidence make a silent remark in such a way that the person sitting next to you should not hear you. I’m concerned that we are just about to reach a stage where
we’ll strip the occasion of the dignity that it so much deserves and I think we should try to maintain that order of respect and dignity, that would be the least contribution you could make and in fact the least tribute you could pay to the deceased. I sincerely hope that we will try to do that.
Mr Brink?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Good morning Colonel. In the course of the evidence given yesterday you mentioned the so-called M Plan and in this regard on page 110 and 111 of the documents, you made mention of this, is it not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: I think it is on 210.
MR BRINK: The M Plan policy appears in an edition of Seshaba which was published almost a year after this incident.
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MR BRINK: Can you comment on that?
MR DU PLESSIS: I believe that this was just included because it was Seshaba that could be obtained but that this situation was present in the Eastern Cape as from 1984.
MR BRINK: To refer briefly to the banishment option - just to refer briefly to this, is it not true that banishment could have solved your problems in the sense that the people could have been transferred to a smaller town and the local police could have
monitored their activities?
MR DU PLESSIS: In the first instance, a small town regardless of where - I know of very few towns were there was no unrest, that in the first place and in the second place according to me - in my opinion, it would have served no purpose because the moment that we removed or banished these people, there would immediately - or the unrest would have spread and the normal question: "Bring our leaders back", was valid at that stage - you’d just get back to the same thing.
MR BRINK: At all times Pebco was a legal organisation, is that true?
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct.
MR BRINK: Do you have Exhibit A1 in front of you? It’s the microfiche regarding Godolozi. Will you please look at page 7 - the pages have not been numbered but it is the 7th page, there’s a memorandum and it goes further on the 28th of June ‘81 and says the he was elected President of Pebco and on the next dates he addressed Pebco meetings in Port Elizabeth and mention is made of a few dates from 1981 to ‘85. I accept that Godolozi committed no crime when he addressed meetings at Pebco or when he attended these meetings during those years.
MR DU PLESSIS: The fact that the meetings were held, that was not crime.
MR BRINK: And the fact that he attended those meetings.
MR DU PLESSIS: That was no crime either.
MR BRINK: And the fact that he addressed those meetings?
MR DU PLESSIS: That depends on what he said.
MR BRINK: You have informants don’t you?
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct, but I don’t know what was said at all these meetings.
MR BRINK: At the end of that page you go further and the memorandum refers to -with regard to increase ...[intervention]
MR DU PLESSIS: I have a problem with the sound, there is almost nothing coming through to me. (transcriber’s own translation)
INTERPRETER: The interpreters are having a problem hearing the speaker.
MR BRINK: At the end of that page the memorandum mentions Godolozi’s initiation and a petition list with regard to increased house rent.
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct.
MR BRINK: Once again surely not a crime?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, but every time something is taken from a third tier of Government and the politicisation takes place - in the first place the mobilisation, then the politicisation and arising forth from that crimes are committed. I think it is general knowledge to all of us what happened there.
MR BRINK: Please look at Exhibit A2 ...[intervention]
INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear.
MR BRINK: Please look on the last page of Exhibit A2, do you have it?
MR DU PLESSIS: I do.
MR BRINK: What do you say was wrong with Mr Galela’s activities regarding Pebco?
MR DU PLESSIS: All that I can say is that he also addressed the meetings he organised and this just incited the unrest and the anarchy.
MR BRINK: Do you have any proof that he committed any crime in this regard?
MR DU PLESSIS: I did not have the proof, if I had the proof I would have prosecuted him.
MR BRINK: Lastly, please look at Exhibit A3, especially page 8
"Before the 29th of September 1993, the former Hashe or the late Hashe was detained and was released on that date"
Is that true?
MR DU PLESSIS: Which page are you referring to?
MR BRINK: The 8th page at the end of that, do you see the reference which is made to the 29th of September 1983?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MR BRINK: He was released.
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MR BRINK: Do you understand the question?
MR DU PLESSIS: As far as I know you made a statement.
MR BRINK: I’m asking whether he was released on that date?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well, that is what it says here, I can only accept it as that.
MR BRINK: And please look at pages 9 and 10, what was wrong with his actions?
MR DU PLESSIS: As it reads here, this is not a full picture of what happened. In the first place I don’t believe that - I think these pieces were just drawn to prove that we opened dossiers that these people had left the country, I don’t think they asked the computer to find out everything about these people and that is why there are only dates next to Mr Godolozi’s name and not any information about what he said. I think this is only a guideline, we worked with files - head office put these things into the computer.
MR BRINK: Is it your evidence that these three people the so-called Pebco 3, that they were extremely dangerous?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
MR BRINK: That they would have committed murder?
MR DU PLESSIS: I say that they were also involved in murders by implication as a result of the politicisation.
MR BRINK: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK
ADV SANDI: Mr du Plessis, whilst we’re talking about the documents Mr Brink has just referred you to - on those documents, why was it necessary to give the computer a false information?
MR DU PLESSIS: I never said that.
ADV SANDI: It appears from these documents that it was stated that the three had disappeared from Port Elizabeth and they may have left the country.
MR DU PLESSIS: As we have already testified - I think that I testified about this, that we - let me start at the beginning. The moment that we established that somebody had left the country for military training or whatever purpose, then a docket was opened and this was reported to head office together with all the particulars and in this case we could not make any exception because we maintained by implication that they had left for Lesotho. That is what we wanted to do, that’s why we also opened dockets that they had left the country and this is what was printed on these computer printouts as far as I can remember.
CHAIRPERSON: Yesterday a question was put to you and if I remember correctly you were asked whether, if the other members of - the other leaders of Pebco had also gone to the airport, you would have had them abducted as well and - you must tell me if I’m wrong, I got the impression that your answer was that you couldn’t have tried to abduct a lot of people - something to that effect.
MR DU PLESSIS: If I can remember correctly and this is - I did not think that there would be more people but if this had been the case we would not have continued with the plan and that is what I wanted to say by implication, we would then have detained them, the normal detention process and then made a decision.
CHAIRPERSON: When you discussed the elimination finally with Colonel Snyman, which specific people did you agree upon for elimination?
MR DU PLESSIS: These three people.
CHAIRPERSON: I got the impression from what was put to you by one of the legal representatives for the family, that it was by sheer coincidence that exactly these three people turned out to be the three to go to the airport because the others suddenly had obligations elsewhere. Now, did this now then fit nicely with your previous decision to eliminate exactly the three?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, if we think back yes, but the arrangement was made with Mr Niewoudt to organise that these three persons went to the airport, that is the knowledge that I had. The fact that - I did not know that the others weren’t available, but that did fit in well with our plan yes, but the instruction was given that these people had to be lured to the airport.
CHAIRPERSON: Who engineered the move that precisely the three should go to the airport?
MR DU PLESSIS: I gave the instruction pertinently, I accepted it as being an instruction and Mr Niewoudt organised that part of the situation and what exactly he did and how he did it, I do not know at this stage but I accepted that he would let those three come to the airport.
CHAIRPERSON: What I wanted to find out from you was that as far as you know the person who engineered that exactly those three should go to the airport, was Mr Niewoudt? As far as you know, is that the position?
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you have no details as to how he worked that out?
MR DU PLESSIS: No, I don’t.
CHAIRPERSON: Does this mean that - well, I’ve got to ask you because you were in charge of this operation, should we understand you to mean that had it turned out that only two of them - only two of the three went to the airport together with a third other leader of Pebco, that would not have been in accordance with the plan?
MR DU PLESSIS: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: I’m not going to ask you as to what would have happened because that would be speculation, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Or do you want to venture an opinion as what
you would have done in that case?
MR DU PLESSIS: I believe - and I’m speculating in this regard, that Captain van Zyl would have come back to me and told me that there’d been a change of plan.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever in your career, interview anyone of the three deceased - or rather interrogate?
MR DU PLESSIS: I interrogated them at various opportunities, not when they were in detention but on several occasions I spoke to all three of them.
CHAIRPERSON: Were they not in detention when you spoke to them?
MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot remember whether it was when they were in detention but I did speak to them a great deal. We saw one another often, they came to see us too. We did not only go and see them but they came to us as well.
CHAIRPERSON: I’m getting the impression that you are not saying that you actually interrogated them.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don’t think that I interrogated them in the sense that you are now intending to convey, I can’t recall at this stage of any such an occasion. Perhaps if somebody can assist me, then I would be able to recall but I can’t remember a single instance.
CHAIRPERSON: How do you manage to come to such a drastic decision that they be eliminated if you had not at all interrogated them to assess them and see how dangerous they are?
MR DU PLESSIS: The picture that I had as a result of the information that I had and that the information was true and the circumstances which existed in this area, these things were all sufficient for me.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you think it was safe enough to take action as a result of a picture that you had obtained?
MR DU PLESSIS: Well, I had a very clear picture.
CHAIRPERSON: We know now of course that even on that occasion you did not interrogate them, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you not think it was necessary to interrogate them on that occasion?
MR DU PLESSIS: You’re referring to the last occasion?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: I don’t know, I cannot think that interrogation would have served any purpose at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, they might have convinced you that they were not a danger, you might have got the idea that they did not deserve to be killed?
MR DU PLESSIS: The information that we had was very clear and the result of that information was also clear.
CHAIRPERSON: Yesterday you referred to an office of the United Nations High Command, which office was that which was infiltrated
by the security police?
MR DU PLESSIS: I just want to speak on our behalf, it was the one in Lesotho.
CHAIRPERSON: So that is the office which collaborated with the security branch in putting up that album?
MR DU PLESSIS: Some of the photos yes, we didn’t get all of them from them.
CHAIRPERSON: Where did the others come from?
MR DU PLESSIS: From various other informants, also from the C26 cadres - there are even family photos included.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?
RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Just one aspect Mr Chairman. You were asked whether you saw the newspaper report which my learned friend referred to, it is this report Exhibit G, 22nd of March 1996, were you still present in the Eastern Cape?
MR DU PLESSIS: Just repeat the date.
ADV BOOYENS: 22nd of March 1996.
MR DU PLESSIS: No, I was not in the Eastern Cape anymore.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I gained the impression during your question to Mr du Plessis, that you’re under the impression that possibly the applicants that I represent have put it to this applicant that there were more that three people destined to go to the airport.
I just want to put it clear, my questioning was more in the form of a question and not put as a version - they don’t know these facts but I was just asking questions around that aspect.
I just want to put it clear, my questioning was more in the form of a question and not put as a version. They don't know these facts, but I was just asking questions around that aspect with regard to another aspect which is possibly relevant, of which the relevance I did not want to disclose at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: I think you misunderstood me.
ADV LAMEY: I just wanted to make it clear. If I understood you wrongly, then it is not necessary to ... (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you misunderstood me.
ADV LAMEY: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Chairman, certain things cropped up during cross-examination, please allow me the opportunity to clarify this with the witness.
ADV BOOYENS: I've got no objection Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes well, let us allow him, let's see what it is about.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Du Plessis, Captain Van Zyl will say that a while before the 8th of May 1985, he was summonsed to your office and you told him that it was essential to eliminate the leadership of Pebco, would you confirm that?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
ADV DE VILLIERS: At that stage the leadership was Mr Hashe, Galela and Godolozi?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
ADV DE VILLIERS: Captain Van Zyl told you on this occasion how and where, you said at Post Chambers and you also said that they should just disappear, you also said that you thought that the only way was to take them to a remote spot, to shoot them and then to burn the bodies?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
ADV DE VILLIERS: At this occasion it was also agreed that if a vehicle was involved, it would be taken to the Lesotho border so that the idea could be created that they had left the country?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
ADV DE VILLIERS: Afterwards and on the morning of the 8th of May 1985, you told Captain Van Zyl that the time was ripe and that he should put together a team to ...
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you are moving too fast for some of us.
ADV DE VILLIERS: I am sorry Mr Chairman. I will repeat the last statement. The morning of the 8th of May 1985, you told Captain Van Zyl that the occasion was now right and that he should put together a team and specifically with relation to Mr Hashe, Galela and Godolozi, to abduct them and to eliminate them?
MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.
ADV DE VILLIERS: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM ADV DE VILLIERS: .
CHAIRPERSON: One of the things you put to the witness, you said your client's version is that he was told that the Pebco leadership should be eliminated and you said he was told some time in May, or well before May, something to that effect and then you went on to say that at that stage Pebco leadership consisted of, then you mentioned the deceased.
ADV DE VILLIERS: That is correct Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: But is that your client's version, that the Pebco leadership, or is that going to be your client's version that at that stage the Pebco leadership, the entire leadership of Pebco consisted of only three people?
ADV DE VILLIERS: No, the people to be eliminated were these three people.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe you should have put it that way because you didn't put it that way, you said he was told that the Pebco leadership should be eliminated and you went on to say that at that stage the Pebco leadership consisted of then you mentioned the three people.
ADV DE VILLIERS: No, I tried to convey that there was a discussion regarding the fact that these three people should be eliminated and that specifically an instruction was repeated on the morning on the 8th of May, 1985.
CHAIRPERSON: At the time when your client was told about the elimination, was he given the names?
ADV DE VILLIERS: I would have to take instructions on that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right. I think maybe we should adjourn until, oh, there you are, you can obtain your instructions.
ADV DE VILLIERS: Chairperson, yes, he was given the names, specifically those three peoples' names.
CHAIRPERSON: I think maybe it is a convenient stage to adjourn and Mr Booyens, do you want to put one or two other questions?
ADV BOOYENS: No, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS
ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just ask whether I may just put one or two things to Mr Du Plessis. The one aspect has arisen from the affidavit that was handed to us by the legal representatives for the family, the previous court application, and the other aspect is just one aspect that I just want to put on behalf of the applicants, to Mr Du Plessis?
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you can do that when we come back at half past eleven.
ADV LAMEY: As the Court pleases.
CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until half past eleven.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, you wanted to put questions to the witness?
ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Just again for the record, Lamey for the applicants Mogoai and Koole.
HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: (s.u.o.)
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV LAMEY
Mr Du Plessis, I would like to refer to Exhibit C, and in your previous affidavit in an application, on page 3 of that application, it will be paragraph 4 in the middle of paragraph 4, you stated the following: Although in the past arrests had been made by the Security Branch at the Port Elizabeth airport, I would like to pause there, what follows up to the end of that sentence, is that portion of your statement true?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you just start again please.
ADV LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Mr Du Plessis, I will repeat the question for the record. I am referring to page 3 of the statement of the affidavit, that is Exhibit C, and in the middle there a sentence which reads although in the past arrests had been made at the Port Elizabeth airport by the Security Police, it always took place after the arrestees had got off the airport and had entered the hall and had received his baggage. Now, what I want to know is whether that portion of your affidavit is indeed the truth?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, it is the truth.
ADV LAMEY: Then Mr Du Plessis, arising from the questions put to you by Mr Brink, the following. I am now referring to a statement which appears on page 38 and it is paragraph 3 of the amnesty application of Mr Mogoai. I beg you pardon, it is paragraph 2 where he says that at Post Chalmers, he is referring here to the interrogation at Post Chalmers, he says that there were three policemen, had been burnt to death in the Zwide area of Port Elizabeth,
He says also that these detainees had been interrogated about this incident as well and that they were also interrogated about attacks on the homes of policemen and which had been burnt down. Now the question is, did you have any knowledge of such an incident at that time in the Zwide area where a policeman or policemen had been burnt to death?
MR DU PLESSIS: I believe that I knew about it. I can't place them exactly, but there were many policemen killed and it is very possible.
ADV LAMEY: I thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV LAMEY: .
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?
ADV BOOYENS: No thank you, nothing further Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Colonel, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
