amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS CAPE TOWN https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54648&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/capetown/capetown_1kond3.htm MR MOOSA: In your own words, you are talking about a person who is not unintelligent. 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 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. 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. 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 MR NYOKA: And can you tell us why he was conveniently 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 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? 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 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 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? 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 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, 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. 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