Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-10

MR DU PLESSIS: I believe that I did, I cannot remember but I think I told Sergeant Raath - and I accept that he was also there, that they had to see that the person did not leave the place and that nobody saw him and that he was not to escape.

MR ROUX: And that's all information that you gave to Raath regarding the guarding?

MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot recall the details anymore.

MR ROUX: Did you ever supervise the guarding or see that they were doing the work correctly?

MR DU PLESSIS: I did visit them, yes.  I interrogated him there or had discussions with him while he was there as well.

MR ROUX: With who was that?

MR DU PLESSIS: With Mr Kondile.

MR ROUX: And for how long was he involved in the guarding?

MR DU PLESSIS: I must speculate if I say that approximately two weeks, perhaps a bit more, it could even be less.

MR ROUX: The instructions that you gave to Mr Kondile, it was not a normal instruction, it was a special instruction, would you agree with that?

MR DU PLESSIS: To Mr Kondile?

MR ROUX: Indirectly through Mr Raath.

ADV DE JAGER: I think you mean Mr Danster.

MR ROUX: Thanks Mr de Jager.  Yes, the instruction given to Kondile was not the general instruction, it was a specific one, that nobody came in and out?

MR DU PLESSIS: You're referring to Kondile again.

MR ROUX: Danster, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I gave many such instructions, I do not believe that it's abnormal.  We also did observations in offices sometimes, it's not such a terribly special instruction.  It was from the beginning when one worked with a detainee and he knew that he had to do everything in his ability to see that he did not escape, get information out or liaise with anybody else.

ADV GCABASHE: Clarity once more.  This instruction that was given to Danster, was given before the note was found at Jeffrey's Bay?

MR DU PLESSIS: Afterwards.

MR ROUX: Was it also normal to use somebody from P.E. to guard somebody in Jeffrey's Bay?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR ROUX: If Mr Danster guarded Kondile, was he authorised to speak to him regarding social matters or was he only allowed to speak to him formally?

MR DU PLESSIS: He could talk to him about anything as long as he did not interrogate him because he did not which line of interrogation I had been following.

MR ROUX: So, was it not possible at all that he could have interrogated him as a result of that reason?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, he could talk to him but the fact regarding the interrogation he was to leave alone because he had no knowledge.

MR ROUX: Why did you say earlier that it was possible that Danster could have interrogated him?

MR DU PLESSIS: What I meant with that was discussions, he could have asked him anything he wanted to when I wasn't there but my instruction was and he knew that he was not to talk to him about interrogation.

MR ROUX: When you were asked earlier as to whether Danster could have interrogated him, did you think this was social questioning or not directed at anything to the credit of the security police?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can't see how he could have interrogated him because he did not know what it was about.

CHAIRPERSON: Had Danster been entrusted with interrogating anybody else apart from Kondile?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct, yes.

MR ROUX: To get back to the point of the advantages or benefits that he was offered, I've been given the declaration to the Harmse Commission, it's page 61 of Volume 1.  In that you say and I'll read to you
"I gave an amount of R85 to him - this will become clear out of a copy of the prescription book here attached"

MR DU PLESSIS: Please read further.

MR ROUX: Is that correct?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, it is correct.

MR ROUX: Are those the large amounts that you spoke about?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, that was an amount - it was not given to him in any case, it was an amount which we just mentioned that he had to make contact again and if you read further then you'll realise that.

MR ROUX: What do you mean as apparent?

MR DU PLESSIS: We said that he had a date which was the 3rd of the month by which he had to report back.  I do not believe that one could get information as cheaply as that.

MR ROUX: That's why I asked you.  Do you agree that apart from Mr van Rensburg, Mr Raath and yourself, Mr Coetzee and Mr Otto the deceased, was nobody that knew that you were at Komatiepoort?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's what I believe, yes.

MR ROUX: Can you think of any reason why you or any of the other people would have made this known to other persons such as Danster?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I cannot think of any reason.

MR ROUX: Would you agree that it would be a stupid thing to do?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR ROUX: I then put it to you that I find it pure coincidence that if Danster testifies in his statement that the alleged murder took place near Komatiepoort, then he is just guessing.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, he's not just guessing, he read this in the newspapers, these things were widely publicised.

MR ROUX: Can you just tell the Commission where Mr Kondile was shot on his body.

MR DU PLESSIS: I do not know.

MR ROUX: Why don't you know?

MR DU PLESSIS: I did not look.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that you should ...[indistinct] really yourself as far as your client is implicated in this matter and to the extent that your client's version differs from the evidence given implicating your client or distancing your client from the facts.  Your client was not at Komatiepoort at the time - he doesn't claim to be there.
	Your client does say in his statement about seeing torture being inflicted and so on, whether it was on Mr Kondile or not, those probably be the matters that you might want to clear up.  I understand from the reading of your client's statement, that he witnessed torture being inflicted on Kondile.  This witness has denied that - it was put to him.  If your client is going to give evidence on that, should you not put that to this witness?

MR ROUX: I'm proceeding to that just now Mr Chairman.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Danster as an employee of the security police, would he in general be involved in interrogation as well? - in other matters, not Kondile's matters.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: And would he or could he have employed - if I may describe as the tools of trade, assaults on people he was interrogating?

MR DU PLESSIS: Are you now referring to other persons?

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I believe he could have.  Can I just tell you - if I can comment, what he is saying in his statement I believed happened at other places but this was not done to Kondile, that's what I want to tell you.

MR ROUX: Earlier on you said and testified that Kondile was interrogated by other members of the personnel as well.

MR DU PLESSIS: I spoke pertinently about East London.

MR ROUX: You don't know who it was?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I cannot remember.

MR ROUX: Is it not possible that Danster could have been involved?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I cannot see why because if the people from East London needed an interpreter, they did not need one because Kondile could speak English very fluently.  So they did not need an interpreter, I cannot see why they would have brought anyone else and he would not have been the interpreter.

MR ROUX: So Kondile mentioned to you that people had assaulted him in Jeffrey's Bay?

MR DU PLESSIS: He said the people from East London assaulted him, I cannot remember whether this took place at Jeffrey's Bay.  This report that I wrote from East London, they interrogated him then as well.  I cannot remember whether he was assaulted then or when.  He just said that they had hit him and he was dissatisfied because he was co-operating, why were they assaulting him.

MR ROUX: I can put it to you that it's interesting that Danster supports that and says that Kondile was assaulted in Jeffrey's Bay.