MR MOOSA: In your own words, you are talking about a person

who is not unintelligent.

MR DU PLESSIS: That’s correct.

ADV MOOSA: I want to put it to you that your version of -

before I do that, you say you assaulted Mr Kondile, did anyone

else of the people you mention assault Mr Kondile?

MR DU PLESSIS: I did say that at one stage he alleged that

some of the East London people assaulted him during the

interrogation, but I cannot remember the details.

ADV MOOSA: And what about the Eastern Cape branch?

MR DU PLESSIS: I do not know of a single person except for

myself who assaulted him.

ADV MOOSA: And related to the number of interrogations how

often did you assault him? Was it only during one interrogation

or was there more than one occasion?

MR DU PLESSIS: If I can recall one case, I concede that there

might perhaps be two. That was at the beginning when he was

transferred from Bloemfontein to the Eastern Cape.

ADV MOOSA: Other time?

MR DU PLESSIS: I will repeat, I can recall one case and there's

a possible second time but I don't want to be specific about that.

ADV MOOSA: Can you be specific about the first time, how did

you assault him?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can remember that I slapped him. There is

a possibility that I also hit him with a fist. You must just realise

that it happened a long time ago and I cannot remember all the

details.

ADV MOOSA: I realise it happened a long time ago and I also

realise that you said anything can happen.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV MOOSA: I am putting it to you that it's most unlikely that

you would have been so gentle with Mr Kondile. You would

more likely have resorted to the electrical shocks and the

treatment described in Mr Danster’s affidavit.

MR DU PLESSIS: I suppose that's what you would like to hear

but I can just tell you what happened. If you have any other

information I am sorry I cannot help you any further.

ADV MOOSA: In fact it's very likely that you assaulted him so

severely that the fear of another Biko case was a real one.

MR DU PLESSIS: Definitely not.

ADV MOOSA: When Mr Kondile was arrested, that is in the

Free State and up to the time he was brought to the Eastern Cape

what were your real intentions about this man if he refused to

cooperate what was going to happen to him?

MR DU PLESSIS: That did not come up as far as I can

remember, I do not want to speculate about that.

ADV MOOSA: You surely speculated about it at the time.

There was more than an equal possibility that he would not want

to cooperate.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well according to what is said here he

already made a good contribution. That was already a very good

start.

ADV MOOSA: Yes but according to you in any event he didn't

want to cooperate because he was writing to the ANC.

MR DU PLESSIS: At the end, yes, but that was only at the end.

ADV MOOSA: What was your thought at the beginning about

when that possibility eventuates what would you do with him?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I never speculated about that.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you always under the impression that he

was co-operating and giving you the information that you

required?

MR DU PLESSIS: In the beginning partially, yes, but when we

questioned him specifically about certain things it became clear to

me that he wanted to conceal things. I cannot remember

specifically what it was but it dealt with, amongst others, the

pointing out or identification of people in Transkei. Thereafter

he gave his full co-operation as I believe him to have done.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he identify the people in the Transkei?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, he even described at which desk they sat

in the back, and as a result of this the Transkei police went to the

back and as a result of their mistakes the two ran away and fled

through, over the Maseru bridge, fled the country. And one

person is Masweyako, I can still recall the surname and I also saw

it in these documents, as I explained it.

ADV MOOSA: Earlier on, that is before lunch time, we spoke

about the sharing of statements together and you mentioned some

of the people who could have been present, you did say that that

happened in Pretoria, could you tell me where exactly in Pretoria?

MR DU PLESSIS: In one or other hotel, I cannot recall the

name, we met on occasion.

ADV MOOSA: And were you the only policeman present or

were there other persons, policemen and ex-policemen of course?

MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot think of anybody else who was

present.

ADV MOOSA: As far as the timing of your request for the Free

State to send Mr Kondile over, having received Security reports

on a somewhat regular basis from the Free State, why exactly did

you time it after about two weeks for him to come over to the

Eastern Cape?

MR DU PLESSIS: I did not time it as such. I had to wait for

them to transfer the man to us. The man was arrested in the Free

State. I had to wait until they transferred him to us.

ADV MOOSA: You have mentioned in your evidence that Mr

Kondile was "booked out" a few times, is that correct?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV MOOSA: Do you remember plus/minus how many times it

was?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know. I tried to ascertain according

to the Occurrence Book but there is no continuity to see when he

left, when he came back and where he was.

ADV MOOSA: So the Occurrence Book entries were not

particularly helpful?

MR DU PLESSIS: Not at that stage because I do no know where

we took him, I cannot remember anymore, there were also

occasions that I spoke to him in the cell. So I cannot help you

any more than that.

ADV MOOSA: You have, of course, given evidence that other

documents were falsified including details of his re-detention is

that right? That he was released and then arrested again.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, no ...(intervention)

ADV MOOSA: Well not arrested, kidnapped.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, what I meant by that is that according to

me he had been released. By implication he had been released in

the book. I did not re-arrest him, I just never released him.

ADV MOOSA: But a detention under Section 6 of the then

Terrorism Act had certain implications regarding for example,

visits by magistrates and doctors, not so?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV MOOSA: To questions from the Chairman of the

Committee you seem to indicate that you were not certain

whether these occurred or not?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know, I have no documentation in

front of me after all the years, and I dealt with a great many

detainees. I cannot say whether they were examined by the

doctor or whether they spoke to a magistrate etc. I do want to

go as far as to say that I do believe that he was visited by an

inspector for detainees, I don't know why I recall that, that such

a report from this inspector was submitted to the Harms

Commission. I think that the inspector for detainees at that stage

was a Mr Koekemoer or it could have been van Zyl, I am not

sure. There were two of them, and I think that such a report was

handed in, however I cannot recall this one a hundred percent, it

is possible.

ADV MOOSA: It is of course so that Mr Kondile did complain

about being assaulted at one stage, is that right?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes he did complain to me.

ADV MOOSA: Wouldn't it have been the easiest thing in the

world to have him actually medically treated if he was in fact not

assaulted?

MR DU PLESSIS: I could have taken him to a doctor but he did

not insist, and at that stage the relationship between us was so

that he would have told me that he had pain and that he wanted to

go to the doctor, but he didn't. In short I can just tell you that

he did not request to be taken to a doctor and nor did I take him,

as far as I can remember.

ADV MOOSA: Having reached the conclusion after intensive

discussions with Mr van Rensburg and Erasmus that Kondile had

to be eliminated, what prevented you then from confronting him

with the note that you had found and discussing that with him?

MR DU PLESSIS: I suppose I could have done that but I did not

do it because I was satisfied that he had not yet sent out a

message in the first place and I did not want to make him

suspicious.

ADV MOOSA: But how would there be any danger from him,

he's now definitely going to be eliminated, not so?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV MOOSA: In this trip from Jeffrey’s Bay through to Port

Elizabeth and from Port Elizabeth to Komatipoort was there much

discussion with Mr Kondile?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, not as far as I can remember.

ADV MOOSA: On the surface, however, the two of you still got

along very well?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV MOOSA: And ...(intervention)

ADV BOOYENS: I was just suggesting to my client that perhaps

he should slow down with the interpretation. I think we are

going to pick up problems once again. I wasn't suggesting how

he should answer a question.

ADV MOOSA: Thanks. If I got it correct from your evidence-

in-chief you were in the car with Mr Kondile, is that right, on this

trip?

ADV BOOYENS: That's correct.

ADV MOOSA: Have you any idea whether he knew what he was

in for?

MR DU PLESSIS: No he did not know.

ADV MOOSA: Was there any reason given by any of you for the

trip that was undertaken?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can speculate as to what we told him but I

cannot recall that we said anything pertinently. It could be that

we said that we wanted to transfer him to other people who

wanted to ask him further questions. I do not know, I cannot

recall.

ADV MOOSA: You have mentioned that it happened to be a

Sergeant Otto who shot Mr Kondile, is that correct?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

ADV MOOSA: And Sergeant Otto happens to be a person who

committed suicide, is that right?

MR DU PLESSIS: At a later stage I heard that he had died. I

don't know whether he committed suicide or what. I saw him on

that day and not again.

ADV MOOSA: Were you introduced to him?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV MOOSA: And by whom?

MR DU PLESSIS: I am not sure, possibly he introduced himself.

ADV MOOSA: Mr Coetzee has been very clear that there were a

number of policemen who were there including Archie Flemington

and other people that he's mentioned.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't agree. I want to tell you this about

Archie Flemington. I am certain in my heart that I saw Archie

Flemington for the first time during the Harms Commission in

Pretoria.

ADV MOOSA: Mr Coetzee certainly doesn't mention an Otto but

he refers to a person he did not know, a slender person, who took

a gun, but that he says was Archie Flemington's gun, am I right?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know.

ADV MOOSA: And that gun was used to kill the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

ADV MOOSA: Thank you. Now is it just mere coincidence that

you happened to choose a person who is now dead to have done

the killing?

MR DU PLESSIS: Facts are facts your Honour, I can't wish

them away.

ADV MOOSA: Well I will put it to you that the fact is that in

comparing your versions Mr Coetzee's version is eminently more

probable, that in fact there were other policemen present.

MR DU PLESSIS: There were other policemen, yes, we were

there.

ADV MOOSA: Yes, besides the group that you have spoken

about.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know about that, definitely not what I

saw.

ADV MOOSA: Wouldn't it have been protocol for Mr Coetzee

to approach the person in charge in the Komatipoort area?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't think it was necessary. Perhaps he

had contacted him, I don't know.

ADV MOOSA: When he came to the Eastern Cape he made it his

business to contact Mr van Rensburg, not so?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can't comment on that.

ADV MOOSA: Tell me about the fire that was made, what was

used to make the fire?

MR DU PLESSIS: It was dry sticks, some wood which was lying

around and we brought bigger pieces of wood together. I am

referring only to myself here. I am not sure whether diesel or

petrol was used, I can't remember distinctly.

ADV MOOSA: Whether it was diesel or petrol was it actually

taken by somebody to the scene ...(intervention)

ADV BOOYENS: No I think there may be a misunderstanding.

The witness' answer was, he cannot recall whether there was

diesel or petrol.

ADV MOOSA: Yes, the question is, whatever it was that was

used to light the fire was it already taken by somebody else to the

scene?

MR DU PLESSIS: I think so. I can't remember that we have

taken something with. I can't say that diesel or something was

used there. I can remember the wood, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: I think what the witness said, is he can't

remember whether anything was used, and not whether either

diesel or petrol was used. His answer was, "I can't remember

whether anything was used".

ADV MOOSA: You were saying earlier that it was dry wood

that was used, could you give us the time when the process began

of gathering wood? Plus/minus are we talking about afternoon or

evening, what time was it?

MR DU PLESSIS: We came there during late that afternoon. I

think the arrangement was that we would meet Mr Coetzee at six

o'clock. I think we met him round about that time. There already

had been gathered dry wood at that stage and we gathered some

more wood afterwards, more wood was gathered afterwards.

ADV MOOSA: So if I get you correctly this process started in

the afternoon?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV MOOSA: And did it go along all evening that more wood

was gathered and put on the burning fire?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct, yes.

ADV MOOSA: Were no tyres used at all?

MR DU PLESSIS: Definitely not.

ADV MOOSA: You see I am again going to put it that the

version that Mr Coetzee gives of wood and tyres actually being

brought on the scene is far more probable than what you are

telling us now.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't agree.

ADV MOOSA: You have given some evidence of how this

incident affected you.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV MOOSA: I wonder if you've spared a thought at all for

how it's affected the family of Mr Kondile?

MR DU PLESSIS: I realise that it must have been a bitter

experience for them.

ADV MOOSA: You have given a list which goes as many as ten

points and you still refer to other documents after that which are

supposed to define the political object that you sought to achieve,

is that correct?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

ADV MOOSA: I put it to you that if we go one by one through

your list we will find that nothing will justify the murder and the

callous and inhuman way in which Mr Kondile was treated by you

and the others to justify any political objective.

MR DU PLESSIS: I realise that it is difficult for any person to

accept that, but the other side of the story is also true. We

received the same treatment from the ANC. They had a task

which they had to fulfil, I also had a task which I had to do, just

like they believed I also believed that I was doing the right thing.

Nine out of ten cases, all of us were wrong and the politicians

did not do their jobs.

ADV MOOSA: Well very good, but there is something called

proportionality and whether it's from the ANC and whether it's

from you, once you exceed that line we can't talk of politics

anymore.

MR DU PLESSIS: Definitely yes, I believed in any case that I

did all that in the interests of the politics and of my country to do

that.

ADV MOOSA: I don't think you understood me. There is a

point we reach, even in terms of the Act in terms of which you

are applying for amnesty where we cannot even begin to talk

about politics because you've crossed the line.

MR DU PLESSIS: I realise that, yes.

ADV MOOSA: As far as the family of Sizwe Kondile is

concerned Mr du Plessis, you certainly crossed the line.

MR DU PLESSIS: I am sorry to hear that.

ADV MOOSA: And perhaps it would be best if I put it in my

client's own words, Mrs Kondile actually feels that people like

you ought not to be free in a civilised society.

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no comment regarding that.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MOOSA

 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Thank you Mr

Chairman. Good afternoon Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Good afternoon.

MR NYOKA: You basically considered two options before you

decided to kill Mr Kondile, namely to detain him further or to

charge him, those are the only options that you considered, is that

correct?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is all that I can think of.

MR NYOKA: You must have been very experienced as a security

officer?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I had good experience.

MR NYOKA: Why did you not consider the following options -

firstly, testing his loyalty by giving him false information about

your informers or principal agent just to test what his direction

was going to be before trusting within only two week or three

weeks, why did you not do that? Maybe that would have averted

his death.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well in the first instance I did not do that.

That's point number one.

Secondly, if I provided him with false information regarding

a principal agent I would caused somebody else's death.

MR NYOKA: And you said that you have belief in the Western

style of democracy, and one of the basis of detaining and

interrogating a person is a criminal prosecution, why did you not

pursue that line of criminal prosecution?

MR DU PLESSIS: Your Honour I don't know what you are

referring to or actually what you are asking. If I had done that

the agent and the network would have been exposed.

MR NYOKA: I am saying that as a State employee you owe your

allegiance to obeying the laws of the country and you said in your

background that you believed in the Western democratic lifestyle,

why was that not your main focus of criminally prosecuting this

person, other than killing, death?

MR DU PLESSIS: The fact is initially I started to charge him

but later on I saw that he was more valuable to be used as an

informer.

MR NYOKA: Did you regard it as your fault that he did, the

alleged turnabout, did you regard it as your fault?

MR DU PLESSIS: No.

MR NYOKA: If then it was not your fault why then did you not

refer your problem further on in the command structure for better

alternatives or suggestions, because it was not your fault that he

turned-about, why did you not refer it further?

MR DU PLESSIS: Your Honour I did what I felt was necessary.

I don't think one can do much. This is how it happened. We can

speculate for a whole week.

MR NYOKA: No I am not speculating. Specifically I am saying

that why did you not refer this to the Regional Commissioner of

the South African Police, firstly; secondly, to the National

Commissioner of the South African Police, and thirdly, to the

Minister of Law and Order for better solutions, why did you not

do that?

MR DU PLESSIS: I approached General Erasmus and he

provided a solution at that stage.

MR NYOKA: If you felt like not criminally prosecuting the

deceased, despite the clear evidence in front of you rather than

kill him, why could not have killed him politically by causing him

to agree on tape for working for you and then sending the tape

indirectly, or directly, to the ANC in Lesotho. He will not have

been believed with whatever information he brought?

MR DU PLESSIS: We know this does not work.

MR NYOKA: Did you consider it? It doesn’t matter whether it

viable or not, did you consider it?

MR DU PLESSIS: No I never considered that.

MR NYOKA: And if you had simply released Mr Kondile he

came with an ANC person's motor vehicle for a short period,

allegedly without accomplishing the mission that he came for and

gone back unscathed, do you think that the ANC would still have

been suspicious about him even if you had released him on the

basis that you had no evidence?

MR DU PLESSIS: When?

MR NYOKA: Rather than killing him, just releasing him back to

Lesotho.

MR DU PLESSIS: I know which information he had access to.

MR NYOKA: My point is that you would not have been believed

because, precisely because of the fact that he came for a short

period with Mr Chris Hani's car but nothing happened to him. He

didn't even accomplish his mission ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: They would have believed him, yes.

MR NYOKA: So now you are speculating yourself now.

MR DU PLESSIS: This is the only speculation and the only

inference I can draw, and it's not the first time that this

happened, many people were murdered like that.

MR NYOKA: And you said the deceased's main area of

operation was Transkei, which according to the laws of South

Africa was an independent state, not so?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: You could not have dealt with the so-called

Kondile problem with the Transkei authorities and then denying

that you ever dealt with him and causing them to interrogate him,

prosecute him and pursue further investigation, could you not

have done that?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, you could do anything but the fact

remained he had all the information available.

MR NYOKA: You were involved in a similar abduction and

murder of two Port Elizabeth activists, Mthimkulu and Madaka,

not so?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: Eight months later ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: In April 1982. They were also similarly supplied

with a knockout mixture shot and burnt.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: And their bodies were thrown at the Tele Bridge

next to Lesotho. Similar modus operandi. Sorry at Fish River

Sun, their car was left at the Tele Bridge, next to the Tele

Bridge, is that correct?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct, ja.

MR NYOKA: This operation under consideration like the

Mthimkulu and Madaka one, why is that local Security policemen

were not used like in Mthimkulu and Madaka? Why do you have

to ask Mr Dirk Coetzee to be involved for instance?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well we perhaps have learnt from Mr Coetzee

how to do it.

MR NYOKA: Maybe because he was going to be the supplier or

facilitator of knockout drops from Mr Lothar Neethling.

MR DU PLESSIS: No I don't know about knockout drops.

MR NYOKA: In the Mthimkulu and Madaka matter it was only

you and Mr van Rensburg and Mr Nieuwoudt who were involved?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: That is for two people, that is Mthimkulu and

Madaka, but in this one there were five involved. What role was

envisaged for each of the five people in the Kondile matter, what

role was envisaged exactly?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you asking what role was envisaged or

what role did they in fact play?

(The speakers mike is not on)

MR NYOKA: What role did they play, what role was envisaged

to be played by each of them?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can't comment on that. We were three

people because the vehicle, Kondile's vehicle, had to be taken

from Bloemfontein to the border.

MR NYOKA: Was it not because you wanted to create a festive

atmosphere in celebration of averting another Biko scandal and

that you wanted to gain experience?

MR DU PLESSIS: Definitely not.

MR NYOKA: Do you know of any reason why Mr Danster will

say that you assaulted the deceased if that was not the case?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: But it's right he did assault the deceased.

MR NYOKA: I am mentioning the specific acts Your Worship

like electric shocks etc, etc, not only those that the applicant

mentioned.

Do you know of any reason why he mentioned the specific

acts of assault and mentioned the people that were involved

including some that were not applicants if that is not the case,

including himself?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know. It could be that he is making a

big mistake, that he is thinking of somebody completely different.

MR NYOKA: What is strange to me is that you concede - Mr

Nieuwoudt, Mr Roelofse and the late Mr Buzane were included by

him, including himself, as people who assaulted the deceased, you

deny that they were involved, it's not because they are not

applicants?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I deny that they were involved.

MR NYOKA: Sorry Worship I am reminded it's tea time by the

evidence leader.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR NYOKA: At one stage there are two periods of detention

and interrogation - there is the one between the 10th of July to

the 24th, that is Humansdorp. And then the second one from the

24th of July to some time towards the end of July, beginning of

August, at which of the two stages did he start to cooperate, Mr

du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: He already started co-operating in

Humansdorp.

MR NYOKA: And when did you make the offer to recruit him?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know, I can't remember whether it was

Humansdorp or Jeffrey’s Bay, I can't remember.

MR NYOKA: And can you tell us why he was conveniently

detained in relatively remote areas like Jeffrey’s Bay or

Humansdorp which were 70 to 60 kilometres from PE where most

of you are based?

MR DU PLESSIS: In the first instance Your Honour there was a

principled decision that he should be detained in safe cells and

that we found at Jeffrey’s Bay. Jeffrey’s Bay was qualified to

keep these people. We did not have many of those secure cells

and there was another one at Algoa Park and also Louis Le

Grange Plein, that was the one thing.

And there is nothing else that I can think of now why we

could not detain him there. We could have kept him in the police

cells. It could have been that the other police stations were full.

We had problems with Algoa Park because information was

leaked from there. I am speculating about that, but that was the

reason why they were detained there. We were detaining a lot of

people at that time.

MR NYOKA: Was it not because also that you do not want to be

disturbed in assaulting him and torturing him hence a remote area

like those places?

MR DU PLESSIS: Your Honour Jeffrey’s Bay is not a very

remote place, Humansdorp neither.

CHAIRPERSON: Tortures have known to have taken place in

huge cities.

MR NYOKA: On the informer theory do you agree with me that

Mr Danster had nothing to gain by saying that Mr Kondile refused

to be an informer, despite the beatings? As he added that he also

later on co-operated.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know what Mr Danster’s agenda is.

MR NYOKA: I don't hold any brief for him either. If at first

you had to assault Mr Kondile and he refused to divulge certain

information surely you must have been on guard not to trust him?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, no, no, no, let us understand one another

well. There are people today in the government who was very

difficult to cooperate with us and today they are still loyal. It's

not to say that if you cooperate right from the beginning you can

trust a person. It could also be vice versa.

MR NYOKA: And when he had agreed to be an informer he was

still in detention, not so?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR NYOKA: And when you gave him a full briefing on the

security network he was still in detention?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR NYOKA: Why was he still in detention if at all he had been

asked and agreed to be an informer and on top of that he was so

trusted to be furnished with such vital information, why was he

still in detention?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well he was kept in detention, that was the

decision and I can't comment on that now.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this ground has been covered already,

has it not?

MR NYOKA: Who was this unknown person to whom this note

was addressed?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can't remember.

MR NYOKA: You did not follow it up?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I could possibly have followed it up but

how?

MR NYOKA: If Mr Kondile was still in detention how would he

have managed to send the message out to this person if he didn't

even - were able to follow it up? How was he going to be able to

let the message go out to him?

MR DU PLESSIS: No I never said that, I could not follow it up,

I said I did not do it.

MR NYOKA: And this note, what was it, was it a paper or two

papers or what, this note that you found underneath his blanket?

MR DU PLESSIS: No it was not a long note, it was a short little

note on which the information was written. I don't want to

speculate. It was a part of a page. It was written in small

handwriting. This was among the other papers he had there.

MR NYOKA: So there were other papers underneath the

blanket?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes those were notes he addressed to me.

MR NYOKA: Why did you not confront him about this and say

Mr Kondile what are you doing to me now? What are you doing

to me now?

MR DU PLESSIS: I did not do it.

MR NYOKA: Why not?

MR DU PLESSIS: I told you I did not know what I could expect

at that stage, I did not know how to handle that and that is why I

approached a senior officer.

MR NYOKA: At Bloemfontein why was the car not kept at the

police station?

MR DU PLESSIS: As far as I can remember it was pertinently

not kept there because Hani at certain stages or at various

instances he or some of his agents visited Bloemfontein and he

could have had contact at the police stations. That's why we

decided not to keep the vehicle there, and this is what I can

remember now. It might not have been the specific reason but

that is what I remember now. I can't tell you exactly where the

vehicle was kept either but it was somewhere in Bloemfontein.

MR NYOKA: You said that your intention was to leave both the

bodies and the car visible so that the car could be found that Mr

Kondile was trying to skip the country and the body found on the

other side of the border of Mozambique not so?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: Do you agree with me that the Barberton area was

nearest to the Swaziland border rather than the Mozambique

border?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know that area.

MR NYOKA: I've got a map if you want to see it.

MR DU PLESSIS: I accept what you say. I did not decide to

leave the vehicle there.

MR NYOKA: Do you further agree with me that had you gone

on with the plan of not burning Mr Kondile the car would have

been next to Swaziland and the body in Mozambique, there would

have been no logic for the body and the car to be in such different

places, do you agree with me?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: And how is it that the vehicle was never found

despite the fact that it was left in such an area?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know.

MR NYOKA: And your team was in charge of the operation and

the task team, why do you have to be persuaded by Mr Dirk

Coetzee to change your plans of leaving the body on the other

side of the border?

MR DU PLESSIS: Ag Your Honour I don't want to speculate

about that. This was a discussion which took place between him

and van Rensburg and I just abide by that.

MR NYOKA: I put it to you that you knew all along how you

were going to kill Mr Kondile. That you were going to supply

him with knockout drops or sleeping mixture, kill him and burn

him. You are ascribing to him because he came forward publicly

to the world in 1989, out of bitterness you are ascribing that to

him, any comment?

MR DU PLESSIS: I planned, I was part of the plan to kill this

person but definitely not with the so-called knockout drops, or to

burn him. I did not have any knowledge of that.

MR NYOKA: The place that was selected for the killing was a

remote one so that it could not be seen, you also could not be

seen, not so?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes that's correct.

MR NYOKA: What steps did you take to ensure that you were

not seen?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well we were always present ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is that really pertinent now, because the event

has occurred, he was killed, what purpose is there to ask

questions like this?

MR NYOKA: My learned friend there are two purposes. The

first one is that I did not hear the witness saying that the

cartridge was taken after the shot was fired. Secondly, I did not

hear him saying that the blood was cleared so that

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't been questioned about the cartridge.

MR NYOKA: I was going to that Your Worship but you cut me,

I was going to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No I thought you were talking about the

position where the execution took place ...(intervention)

MR NYOKA: No I was wrapping up, I was coming to that Your

Worship ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well come to that please.

MR NYOKA: The cartridge, did anyone take the cartridge away?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can't remember.

MR NYOKA: Did you clear the blood at the spot where he was

shot before he was placed on the pyre?

MR DU PLESSIS: I think it was done, I did not do it personally.

MR NYOKA: But you don't know for a fact whether it was

done?

MR DU PLESSIS: No I don't know.

MR NYOKA: You say that the body was completely burnt to

ashes?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: Without tyres being used?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's my recollection, ja.

MR NYOKA: Bones did not remain?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can't remember that anything was left.

MR NYOKA: We have expert evidence that if a body is burnt

bones will remain and if bones do remain and they were thrown

wherever they should still be there.

MR DU PLESSIS: I can't help you in that respect.

MR NYOKA: Finally Mr du Plessis your affidavit in response in

response to Mr Coetzee's averments I think through the Harms

Commission you said that briefly Mr Kondile co-operated, why

did you not go further and say that he was an informer and we

furnished him with information, that is why he may have

absconded, that wouldn't have done your case down, it will have

strengthened your claim that Mr Kondile absconded? Why did you

not add that?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know Your Honour. This is what is in

my statement, I can't even remember what is there.

MR NYOKA: And it was under oath that you said that.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: And today you are also under oath?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: Why do you think you should be believed now

when you lied then?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, in the first place I came to the fore.

MR NYOKA: From 28th of April 1994 to November 1996 after

you had resigned from the SAP in 1993 and after the National

Party Government was no longer in power, that is for two years

before you applied, why did you not come forward with the truth

if you are so remorseful?

MR DU PLESSIS: I've said previously that the opportunity was

created by this Committee and I've said it earlier that initially we

did not trust this Commission and we were influenced by, for

example, Colonel Erasmus and we came to the fore, and I am not

sorry about that today.

MR NYOKA: And if you say you had eternal pain after that

incident why did you jump from one murder to another within

eight months or nine months from Kondile to Mthimkulu?

MR DU PLESSIS: What I refer to is that I am still suffering this

pain. A job had to be done and there is nothing you can do about

that.

MR NYOKA: My instructions from my client is that you have

robbed him of a role model and a father and you have not told the

truth today, the son, Bantu, the son of the deceased. You have

robbed him of a role model and a father and you have not told us

the whole truth today, any comment?

MR DU PLESSIS: I am very sorry that this happened, but the

fact that I am sitting here today I can assure you that I am telling

the truth and I am telling what I can remember and what I know

of.

MR NYOKA: In conclusion have you approached him to

apologise personally, he's a young man?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have not.

MR NYOKA: Why not?

MR DU PLESSIS: I did not do that because my legal counsel

told me not to do that at this stage.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYOKA

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to the

applicant?

 

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman just two or three questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Sir. The question I want to put

to you which I do not understand, you were in control of this

investigation from the start, you went out of your way with

thorough planning to cover up the matter. Nine years after this in

1990 you told lies to the Harms Commission, what I find

interesting is that all the applicants have filled in the same

application once again, what is the possibility that by means - we

have the possibility again that you can mislead the Truth

Commission again. The same modus operandi that you used with

the Harms Commission as well as with the initial investigation.

The fact that you are leaving out certain important information,

you left out the name Danster from your amnesty application.

The fact that this person was assaulted it's not even mentioned,

can you comment on this?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you - you make a long statement and now

you are asking him to comment on all the points that you've made

in that statement ...(intervention)

ADV STEENKAMP: I'll break it down.

CHAIRPERSON: What about be a little more specific and put

them one by one.

ADV STEENKAMP: Right Mr Chairman. My question to him is

the following. It seems to me that when it came to filling in the

amnesty applications which appear to me to be duplicates, that

the same modus operandi was followed, as you did in the Harms

Commission as well as during the investigation of the matter.

ADV DE JAGER: Let him just reply to the one first as you

asked him. The question to you is that you misled the Harms

Commission, you are now following the same modus operandi in

this case. What is your comment on this?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can just deny it. I am now speaking the

truth. I do not believe that one makes these mistakes more than

once.

ADV STEENKAMP: The question I want to put to you is that

Danster and Coetzee both say the deceased was badly assaulted.

Can you give any reason as to why they would say that?

ADV BOOYENS: With respect on that question regarding Dirk

Coetzee, where does Dirk Coetzee say that? If my learned friend

can just point out where he said that the deceased was assaulted

seriously otherwise I must object. His evidence was that General

van Rensburg told him that the man jumped through the window

and landed on his head during interrogation. I cannot recall him

saying that he was seriously assaulted. Dirk alleges that he only

saw him.

ADV STEENKAMP: Good. Can I then ask you, is there any

reason why a person such as Danster will lie about this?

MR DU PLESSIS: Lie about what?

ADV STEENKAMP: That Kondile was assaulted.

MR DU PLESSIS: But I said that he was assaulted.

ADV STEENKAMP: That you assaulted him seriously, why

would he lie about this, can you give a reason?

MR DU PLESSIS: No I acknowledge that I assaulted him

...(intervention) Can I just reply please, can you just give me a

chance to reply.

I am saying that I did assault him. I know of no case where

Danster was present during his interrogation.

ADV STEENKAMP: Do you know a person by the name of

Sergeant N N Batsane, the person who is mentioned by Danster,

was he ever present?

MR DU PLESSIS: It's most probably Bezane, he died quite a

few years ago, I think it's '81 or '82.

ADV STEENKAMP: Was he ever present?

MR DU PLESSIS: No he was not.

ADV STEENKAMP: Did he ever refer to the deceased as

Kwezi?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, not as far as I know. I called him by the

name of Kondile.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

 

CHAIRPERSON: How well did you know this man Danster?

MR DU PLESSIS: It's very difficult. I do not know how long

he had been with the Security Branch at that stage so it's difficult

for me to say as to whether I knew him for a year or two years. I

knew him quite well, he worked under me.

CHAIRPERSON: During the time that you had Kondile under

interrogation was Danster at the same police station or the same

unit that you were?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Danster knew that Kondile was being

interrogated?

MR DU PLESSIS: I do not think that he knew, I think it's a case

of him hearing a bit, and at a later stage he was used by myself

and Mr Raath in the single quarters at Jeffrey’s Bay.

CHAIRPERSON: You've no doubt read the statement made by

Mr Danster?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Among other things he says "there were

occasions when Kondile was kept without sleep for several nights,

his torture would extend for days", have you anything to say

about that?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can deny this categorically, really.

CHAIRPERSON: He also says, among other things, that Kondile

was suffocated with a tube, an electric shock was administered to

him for lengthy periods.

MR DU PLESSIS: I deny that. I can only speak for myself. I

have no knowledge of this.

CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't say that you applied electric shock

to him, he says that this was what was done to Kondile and all

you are saying is you don't know about it?

MR DU PLESSIS: I do not know about that.

CHAIRPERSON: That might have been done by somebody else?

MR DU PLESSIS: If that had happened I believe that he would

have complained in the first place. In the second place one would

have seen the scars. That is what I would like to believe.

ADV DE JAGER: Were those methods not followed exactly for

that reason so that there were to be no scars?

MR DU PLESSIS: I do not know if one is assaulted so seriously

or suffocated with tubes then I think there would have been scars.

CHAIRPERSON: If one is kept without sleep for long periods of

time during interrogation then there would be no scars.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct but I would have realised

that.

CHAIRPERSON: How?

MR DU PLESSIS: By seeing that he was sleepy and exhausted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. That means only that you were there at

the time. I understand you were not 24 hours a day with Kondile.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In your absence this might have been done to

him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I think that anything is always possible,

but I have no knowledge of that.

CHAIRPERSON: You have heard of people being kept awake

for long periods of time during interrogation?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So that's not such a strange thought?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct. I also want to tell you that I

do not know why, why in this case it would have been necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: It may be necessary because they were seeking

to extract information from him and he was apparently not willing

to give that information.

MR DU PLESSIS: I must differ there.

CHAIRPERSON: There can be no other reason why this was

done. I mean if he was very, very willing in giving information

there would be no need for anybody to do that, to keep the man

awake for several hours.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's why I am denying this.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you are denying that you did it, and I am

putting it to you that there is a possibility that that was done

because you weren't there 24 hours a day.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct but I am telling you that it

might be possible but it is highly improbable that a person whom I

was satisfied had given the information would have been treated

in this way.

CHAIRPERSON: May this not have been done before he gave

the information?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no point in doing this when he had

already given information.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So when it's suggested that this was done it

could only be before he volunteered information if he did

volunteer.

MR DU PLESSIS: He started in Bloemfontein by giving us

information.

CHAIRPERSON: Well nobody from Bloemfontein has come to

tell us that.

MR DU PLESSIS: I am now dealing with the report that I

received and I am satisfied in my heart that this comes from

Bloemfontein and I am satisfied that they only received this from

one source and that was from Kondile.

CHAIRPERSON: What dealings have you had with Mr Danster

after the death of Kondile?

MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot remember. He was still at the

Security Branch and they charged him with one or other criminal

offence and I really do not know anything more about the path

that he followed. It's a long time ago since I've seen him.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he still in the police force?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, not as far as I know.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr du Plessis tell me, I've not doubt that you

read the statement starting on page 13 of the record before you

signed it. That's your statement, your application for indemnity.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: You were absolutely satisfied with all the

facts as contained in there before you signed it?

MR DU PLESSIS: I believe that to be true, yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: That the question of sleeping agencies were

possibly used on Mr Kondile before he was shot, was it only

today or some time before?

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm speaking under correction but the record

can speak for itself. I think that in the Harms Commission it was

mentioned, or in the first statement from Mr Coetzee which he

made, I think he mentioned it there.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you accept that as the truth?

MR DU PLESSIS: No I did not.

JUDGE PILLAY: On page 17, page 5 of your statement, the

top line, your statement reads as follows:

"On that particular evening Mr Kondile was given a

sleeping drug without his knowledge."

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct. This fact I heard from

Colonel van Rensburg after the incident that he had been given a

sleeping drug. However I did not see what had happened. I did

see that he had something to drink but I did not know that there

was something in the drink.

JUDGE PILLAY: That fact was not within your personal

knowledge as such?

MR DU PLESSIS: No. I did make the deduction and that is why

it was discussed with us because from where he sat he just fell

over.

JUDGE PILLAY: I see in one of the introductory questions you

were also asked whether you were an official or member or

supporter of any political organisation and so forth, if so name it

and you said it's not applicable.

MR DU PLESSIS: I think that we rectified this at a later stage.

JUDGE PILLAY: I am sorry, because then the version I've got,

the copy I've got say it's (...intervention).

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman with your permission, the copy

I've got here, 7A is National Party member, if I can perhaps just

show it to you, there may have been some logistic problems

somewhere. But the NVP's(?) have definitely been corrected.

With the Commission's permission perhaps, no we haven't got

typing logistics but if we could perhaps then just replace page 1

there, if it hasn't been done on the Commission's papers. I think

we've got.....

ADV BOOYENS: The copy that we have does not include that.

I apologise, I don't know how this happened; may I ask, my

lawyer still has two copies here, may I just ask permission, we

don't have any more but the others have been sent.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you must just ensure that the correct

copies are in front of us if there are amendments, because it may

be that we will deal with documents which aren't the correct

documents.

ADV BOOYENS: We will definitely ensure that that is the case.

I will ask my lawyer to look at the committee member's

documents and to ensure that they're correct.

ADV STEENKAMP: I can just say that the documents that you

have in front of you was the copies of the latest amnesty

applications that we had in our possession.

CHAIRPERSON: However you'll have these made, you'll have

copies made for everybody and make that available to all of us.

JUDGE PILLAY: Then Mr du Plessis, I understand that

Humansdorp was perceived, or the police cells in Humansdorp

was perceived to be as you put it, a safe cell?

MR DU PLESSIS: Actually Jeffrey’s Bay.

JUDGE PILLAY: Was Humansdorp Police Station not as

appropriate as you would have wanted it?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why was he then sent to Humansdorp in the

first place?

MR DU PLESSIS: Because other detainees were being detained

at Jeffrey’s Bay at that stage and we could not get any other

accommodation for them at that stage as far as I can remember.

JUDGE PILLAY: Now how long after you first met him did

you make this offer to become an informer?

MR DU PLESSIS: At this stage I must speculate, possibly

fourteen days after that.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you assault him as you described before

then or after then?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, before that.

JUDGE PILLAY: And how long after your offer did he accept

the offer?

MR DU PLESSIS: His co-operation was so good that it is

difficult to say. A day or two or three thereafter he said that he

was prepared to cooperate. There were still questions that posed

a problem and one was as to how he was going to be transferred

and he made suggestions himself as to how he could be taken up

into this stream again.

JUDGE PILLAY: And did you only assault him on one day?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can recall one day specifically but if

someone tells me that it was twice then I would believe it to be

true.

JUDGE PILLAY: How long after you first met him and started

to interrogate him did you find it necessary to assault him?

MR DU PLESSIS: It was not very long thereafter.

JUDGE PILLAY: And then over two weeks of interrogation and

perhaps assault if I can include it, you then decided that he'd been

broken down sufficiently to make him the offer?

MR DU PLESSIS: No we did not break him down. In the

beginning we did. I did that personally, but thereafter he gave his

co-operation and we started building him up.

JUDGE PILLAY: Now tell me, after the decision, as you put it

in your statement, it was an agreement between the top three

members of the Security Police in Port Elizabeth, it was decided

that Mr Kondile should be assassinated. You then asked

someone whether he'd participate in it. Who was that?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Raath.

JUDGE PILLAY: And he took some time to consider the issue

and then came back to you and said he was willing to participate.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes it could have been the same day or the

next day, I cannot remember.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you explain to him the whole history

behind the decision and what was going to happen?

MR DU PLESSIS: In general yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: What would have been his position had he

refused to cooperate?

MR DU PLESSIS: Nothing.

JUDGE PILLAY: He would have known all this information?

MR DU PLESSIS: No no.

JUDGE PILLAY: Would he not have been a danger to certain

members?

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Raath was never present where we

dealt with the briefing and the informer story. I did this on my

own. I made mistakes with Kondile but I did not make that

mistake.

ADV DE JAGER: Is he not asking you as to you informed Raath

that you were going to murder this man, so Raath knew that you

were going to murder him? And what would have happened if he

had said that he was not going to cooperate? Surely then he

could have laid charges against you?

MR DU PLESSIS: I trusted him, I had the confidence in him to

say voluntarily whether he wanted to go with or not and that he

would have left it at that. That's a chance that we took.

JUDGE PILLAY: You testified that whatever you did to Mr

Kondile and your participation whatever occurred to him, you

did not on a personal basis but rather as part of your duty as a

policeman. What duty would that be?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well in the first instance my task was to

protect the government against enemy forces; we were in a state

of war at that stage with the ANC and I was sent by the

government to Rhodesia to Zimbabwe or as it was then called,

Rhodesia, where we did the same and all that happened there was

that it was across our border and this inside our border; so it

remains the same. If one ran into one another and shot one

another, it remained the same.

JUDGE PILLAY: Members of the South African Police even

now have the power to shoot, even to kill under certain precise

guide lines, not so?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Would you agree that this would not fall under

that, would not be covered by the Act?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Du Plessis, if you can help me with one

point. Sizwe Kondile agreed to work for you. He then turned on

you. You drove to Barberton and he was in shackles if I

understood the translation correctly. Is that right?

MR DU PLESSIS: I do not believe that he was handcuffed, I do

not recall saying that. Nor can I remember, it's possible but I

cannot remember.

ADV GCABASHE: He was then shackled or tied to the tree,

that was your evidence if I understood you correctly?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes there he was bound or shackled.

ADV GCABASHE: Now if this man became a comrade of yours

because he had agreed to work for you, why was he shackled to

the tree?

MR DU PLESSIS: He leant against the tree, he wasn't tied to

the tree, his hands were just cuffed and we had just told one

another that at that stage it had already been decided as to what

his end would be.

ADV GCABASHE: So he wasn't shackled to the tree but his

hands were cuffed at that stage, yes?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes that's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And when you gave him his drinks he had

these with his hands cuffed?

MR DU PLESSIS: I did not give him his drink. I do not recall

if anybody untied him.

CHAIRPERSON: But you did say that he was given something

to eat and drink.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct but I cannot remember in

detail whether he was cuffed while he was eating or drinking.

CHAIRPERSON: But you do remember that he was cuffed.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You do remember that he was given something

to eat and drink.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the question is this, what is the only

inference you can draw from that? That somebody else took the

cuffs off?

MR DU PLESSIS: He could have eaten with his handcuffs on,

that's the other deduction you can make, that he could have been

eating and drinking with his cuffs on but I cannot recall this

specifically.

CHAIRPERSON: And I trust nobody told him why he was being

cuffed?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't believe so. It could also be that we

told him, but I really don't know. It's too long ago.

CHAIRPERSON: This is a very dramatic situation isn't it.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now here is a man who co-operates with

you, you know that he is not a true co-operator, he does not

know that you have found out his duplicity towards you. You

take him in the car travelling a long distance. As far as you are

concerned, at no stage he's told that you have found him out and

you haven't told us what his attitude was, whether he asked you

where he was being taken, why he was being taken and so on. All

I gather from your information is at various stages you say you

can't remember. Now these are important facets of the case and I

would like you to to try and remember.

MR DU PLESSIS: On several occasions I have tried to

remember, I cannot remember. We transported many people from

one place to another, it can be that we gave them a reason and I

can think of quite a few if I must speculate, but I do not believe

that that's what you expect of me. I can think of no way or of

anything that I can recall as to what happened between the two of

us at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: You must recall whether at any stage you

communicated to Kondile that he is an enemy of the state and you

are going to kill him.

MR DU PLESSIS: I doubt whether I ever did that.

CHAIRPERSON: And what about your colleagues?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well not what I heard.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose idea was it that his drink should be

laced?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know. I've heard from General van

Rensburg that this was done by Dirk. But I did not see that.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't see all this, was it because it was

dark or was there some other reason?

MR DU PLESSIS: In the first instance, I wanted to see as little

as possible about what was happening there. That I could say in

all honesty today. This was not something I wished to be

involved in and psychologically one tries to get this out of your

system as quickly as possible.

ADV DE JAGER: This sleeping drug, would it have been

possible if he saw that that he did not want to drink that?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well I think so, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: So as far as you know it was not thrown in so

that he could see it?

MR DU PLESSIS: It was possible that this was put into

something to drink because Dirk said that and van Rensburg said

that, and I've asked them pertinently, why did this man fall over?

It was strange at that stage.

ADV DE JAGER: You say it was not necessary to assault this

person because he did give his co-operation?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: But let's suppose I come from East London

and I ask him questions, he does not answer, and the reason is not

that he doesn't want to answer, but that he doesn't have the

information and he says I don't know. Is that not a probability

that I am convinced or I think he knows that he could be

assaulted?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's a probability yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Because we think that he's hiding something

while he indeed does not know, he's not hiding anything.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And did it happen to you that you assault a

person while you think that he knows, whereas he did not know?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes it did happen before.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions you wish to put to this witness

in re-examination?

ADV VISSER: Well Mr Chairman before you get to Mr

Booyens, I believe I've been skipped.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry - to the extent that your client has been

implicated?

 

ADV VISSER: Yes of course Mr Chairman. I've only got two

points which I think should be addressed very briefly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes put them Mr Visser.

EXAMINATION BY ADV VISSER: Mr du Plessis, you

explained to the Committee what the danger was that you foresaw

what could happen to your network should Mr Kondile be charged

or came into contact with other people or should he be released.

You remember that evidence?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct yes.

ADV VISSER: You did not say anything about what, according

to your experience, would happen to the principal agent. From

your experience could you give any evidence to the Committee

regarding that.

MR DU PLESSIS: If that were exposed he would have been

murdered and he would have been forced to expose his other

informers and they would have been in the same danger.

ADV VISSER: A second aspect which I just want to touch upon

(...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Unless they converted him into an ANC

informer.

MR DU PLESSIS: If you want to take that chance, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

ADV VISSER: A second aspect referring to a question asked by

Mr Nyoka, my learned friend, which you should expand upon. As

I've understood the question; when you were thinking about who

should participate, who from PE should participate in this

undertaking, the question was posed, which role did you envisage

for each of these persons? And perhaps you did not think the

same as I think my learned friend wanted it to achieve. Thinking

back and if you can't remember, say so, think back, there were

three of you; it was van Rensburg, you and Raath who went there.

If you can start, why did Raath have to go with?

MR DU PLESSIS: He had to drive the vehicle from

Bloemfontein to Komatipoort.

ADV VISSER: This will also be Raath's evidence that this was

what was put to him. The next question is and I'm trying to

refresh your memory, in those circumstances would you inform

Raath fully what you intended to do with Kondile or can't you

remember?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can't remember but I think I did inform him

fully.

ADV VISSER: You and Mr van Rensburg, why was it necessary

that the two of you had to travel with Mr Kondile in the vehicle?

MR DU PLESSIS: In the first place the negotiations with

Coetzee was not done by myself but by Mr van Rensburg and

there was somebody who still needed protection.

ADV VISSER: Did you think there was the danger that he would

try to escape along the road?

MR DU PLESSIS: No but he could start suspecting something,

that was a possibility yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman may I interrupt prior to re-

examination. I know the issue was mooted this morning as to

what the position of the other parties were here. Mr Chairman

representing Mr Coetzee, may I just place myself on record, I'm R

Jansen, instructed by Mr Knight on behalf of Mr Coetzee. Our

position is still that we would like to cross-examine the

applicants, most certainly if it is intended to call Mr Coetzee as a

witness and we would like the Committee to make a ruling on

that. There are a couple of reasons Mr Chairman why I submit

cross-examination should be allowed. Firstly the version of Mr

Coetzee has never been tested in a scenario where any other

person has admitted any involvement in the murder of Kondile and

that in itself makes these hearings completely different to any of

the other hearings that have taken place relating to this incident

and I submit that there are various aspects on which Mr Coetzee's

evidence at this stage, considering the new allegations or the new

facts presented by these applicants can assist this committee to

come to the truth. I may just mention one fact for instance is the

incrimination of a Mr Roy Otto, that's the first time that we hear

of his involvement. Now other than the fact that this person is

deceased, Mr Chairman, the facts of the matter are that there is

documentation available which suggested that Mr Otto was on

leave at the time, in fact had been on leave for a month and a

half, which gives credence to the suggestion that there is

something sinister in the choice of a dead person to be the person

shooting or committing the actual killing. It's this type of thing

which I submit has to be considered.

CHAIRPERSON: Well no that's totally unrelated to your client,

because your client doesn't mention any names of the persons that

did the shooting.

MR JANSEN: No but he men (...intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't implicate Otto.

No Mr Chairman, but what he does do is he mentions, Flemington,

he mentions a person on Flemington’s staff which he describes as

being a tall slender, blond-haired person whereas Roy Otto, the

evidence will be, fits the opposite description, fairly short, stocky

and not blond at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Whether you’re client's evidence

becomes relevant or not in these hearings is a matter which this

Committee would like to consider.

ADV VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman. The only problem is, that's

why I say that that ruling must be made now for the simple reason

that should his evidence become relevant, comments that he will

be making on this new evidence which he's never had the

opportunity of making comments on will then be placed on record

and these applicants would never have had the opportunity to

respond to what he said there. Now it may work unfairly both

ways, it may work unfairly against Mr Coetzee, it may work

unfairly against these applicants.

ADV DE JAGER: Well on the other hand, if he's not giving

evidence here and he's not cross-examined, Mr Coetzee for

instance, then his evidence cannot be used against the present

applicants. If the present applicants do not give evidence against

Mr Coetzee in his application and he hasn't had the opportunity to

cross-examine them, then we as a committee can't use their

evidence in motivating a refusal of his amnesty application

because he didn't have the opportunity to cross-examine.

ADV VISSER: Yes honourable member, that was in fact our

position right at the outset in October last year that we merely

intended placing our version on record because we do not have a

ruling as to what other further evidence may affect Mr Coetzee's

amnesty application. I think it's quite clear that the Committees

are waiting to hear all the evidence before bringing out some

findings. Now if there is a ruling that the evidence led here will

not affect that application, then you are completely correct and

that was in fact our position right at the start. However there

was a very clear indication last time and I accept that the

Committee is comprised differently this time, but there was a very

clear indication that his evidence is very necessary and that these

issues are considered, the differences are considered as material

disputes and would have to be canvassed. - As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen the Committee has considered your

request to put questions to this witness and the Committee is of

the view that you should be afforded the opportunity to do so.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman with great respect we have an

interest in what is going on here. There has been an argument

addressed to you. My learned friend Mr Booyens hasn't been

given an opportunity, nor have I or been asked whether we have

any contribution to make Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No the Committee has decided that we would

like to hear this. It doesn't depend upon what counsel in the

matter have to say. The Committee is of the view that this is an

enquiry. We would like to hear the evidence and it may be when

the time comes, that you will have the right to question Dirk

Coetzee when he gives evidence

Mr Booyens I am allowing the questioning of your witness

by counsel for Dirk Coetzee. The Committee hasn't made up its

mind on Dirk Coetzee's evidence on this Kondile matter, and in

order that justice may be done, it does seem that your client

should be afforded the opportunity wherever his evidence varies

with the evidence of Dirk Coetzee to put that to Dirk Coetzee.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes Mr Chairman I hear the Committee's

ruling. Of course it seems to me that if the decision is only made

at the end of the day then whether or not to call Mr Coetzee then

the Committee may find itself in an extremely difficult position if

Coetzee then is not called then what value, if any, do you attach

to the questions and to the answers because then - at the moment

you've got to answer it like you would for a witness that would

be called. But the moment, if he's not called, then the answers

became answers to a collateral issue and is his first answer would

be relevant ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No the only reason why we think that Mr

Swart should be allowed to put questions to Dirk Coetzee

...(intervention)

ADV BOOYENS: No to du Plessis.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, on behalf of Dirk Coetzee, so that

Dirk Coetzee be made available.

ADV BOOYENS: Oh, yes no, then we understand each other Mr

Chairman. Mr Chairman but may I suggest that Mr Jansen depart

on his excursion tomorrow. I see it's already four o'clock, or

otherwise could I perhaps just ask for a short adjournment. I

received a S.O.S. message from my right-hand side

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR MARAIS: Mr Chairman before the adjournment, Marais here

representing Nofomela and Tshikalanga. I would submit that

since both my clients received notices in terms of Section 29 that

they have to appear here and that they may be required to provide

statements or to answer questions and since the credibility of

either Dirk Coetzee in this matter or the credibility of the

applicants in this matter may affect the outcome of the amnesty

application of either of those two, and insofar as the amnesty

application of Coetzee is linked in general to the amnesty

application of both Nofomela and Tshikalanga that I should also

be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine, inasfar as it may be

necessary after Mr Jansen, for Mr Coetzee, has dealt with the

matter.

CHAIRPERSON: I have not understood the reason why your

client has been served with a notice in the first place. It's

unfortunate that they have been asked to come here and make

themselves available. They have not been implicated by anybody

in these proceedings. They have not been implicated by Dirk

Coetzee and so I don't know what purpose will be served by

asking your two clients to be here. And as far as I see at present

it seems that we will not require your clients to be here.

Whatever the Committee may find in respect of Dirk Coetzee's

evidence cannot impact on your client because your client is not

touched by these proceedings.

MR MARAIS: Not in this incident specifically but in general

with regard to the credibility ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No it won't be, the credibility of Dirk Coetzee

in this matter he has applied for 30, 40 applications and I am of

the view that your clients are not involved in this application.

MR MARAIS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now I propose commencing at nine

o'clock tomorrow morning. Is there anybody who is against the

idea?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman the area where we live we have a

problem, if we commence at 9:30 there will be lighter traffic.

CHAIRPERSON: I would suggest that we try and be here at nine

o'clock.

ADV BOOYENS: Certainly Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: The heavy traffic before seven Mr Booyens.

ADV BOOYENS: No Mr Chairman that's not what I suggested.

Words are being put in my mouth again which I haven't uttered.

ADV VALUS: I have not addressed you. I am representing

Ginotry Danster. This is a very important witness and it's my

submission, and I understand that Mr Jansen has the authorisation

to cross-examine the applicant Mr du Plessis, and my submission

is that there is no difference between Danster and Coetzee's

position and if he has the opportunity to cross-examine the

applicant I also want to be afforded the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not place yourself on record.

ADV VALUS: Mr Chairman everybody had an opportunity to

speak and I did not want to intervene.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Danster apply for amnesty?

ADV VALUS: No he did not apply for amnesty, no he did not.

CHAIRPERSON: On what basis do you want to put questions,

your client hasn't applied for amnesty?

ADV VALUS: Mr Chairman if Mr Coetzee will testify evidence

will be led which will incriminate my client and the purpose of my

cross-examination will be to test the value of the incriminating

evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if that happens then we will allow you to

put questions at that stage. If Mr Coetzee implicates your client

then you will be afforded an opportunity to put questions.

ADV VALUS: Will that be only for Mr Coetzee then or will the

other applicants be recalled.

ADV DE JAGER: The point is did any of these people or nobody

said anything that prejudices your client. He did not say Danster

assaulted, he did not say your client did anything wrong.

ADV VALUS: It was said by way of indication that my client is

a liar.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Roux our problem is that we have a role to

fulfil or a task to complete before the 30th of June, and if we call

everybody who says somebody else has told a lie we will never

finish in time. We will determine whether your client's role was

so large or big that it's necessary that he's represented here and

that he should be cross-examined. We should reconsider this

before we decide upon that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we will tell you that if your client had

applied for amnesty obviously he has locus standi. If your client

was implicated by the applicants then you would have had a

chance, on behalf of your client to show that your client was

wrongly implicated. You understand? If Dirk Coetzee gives

evidence, or if any other applicants give evidence and if they

implicate your client then to the extent that your client may be

implicated you may put questions but only to that extent. You

will not be allowed to traverse the entire spectrum of evidence

that has been given. It is only to the extent that your client may

be implicated. Do you understand?

ADV VALUS: As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: I forgot to take your name down, what is your

full name please?

ADV VALUS: Advocate Valus(?)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This Committee will now adjourn

and resume at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

 

 

 

79

ADV MOOSA H B DU PLESSIS

 

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

MR NYOKA 107 H B DU PLESSIS

 

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

ADV STEENKAMP 110 H B DU PLESSIS

 

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

COMMITTEE 125 H B DU PLESSIS

 

CAPE TOWN HEARING AMNESTY/WESTERN CAPE

ADV VISSER 136 H B DU PLESSIS