Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-11

MR MOOSA: We have heard testimony from the previous witnesses about how their applications came to be compiled and they have told us about meetings, were you part of any or all of these meetings?

MR ERASMUS: I don't believe that we were ever all together at the same place.  I think that the meetings they are referring to are where we decided in Pretoria or put it to the members that the time applications for amnesty is running out and we tried to say this is a sword which cuts both sides and you must decide for yourselves whether you want to apply or not.   That is the one meeting I can recall.
	At a later stage there was a great deal of doubt and I believe unwillingness among a few to apply and another meeting was held somewhere in the Free State where we discussed these matters again.  And every group that was involved had to decide for themselves as to whether they wanted to apply or not.

MR MOOSA: I put it to you that in fact it was agreed that as far as those who didn't apply were concerned, those who did apply would cover up by not implicating them at all.

MR ERASMUS: I cannot agree with that, I am saying that it was every man and every member and every person who was involved or could possibly have been involved in the deed, it was his own good right to make that decision for himself.

MR MOOSA: In the statement of Mr du Plessis that you align yourself with in your statement, it is said that what was decided by consensus between the three of you was to act pro-actively, do you agree?

MR ERASMUS: In what sense?

MR MOOSA: It is in the statement you associate yourself with.  I was actually going to find the sense out from you.  Let me point it out to you.  It would be on page 115 - sorry, page 15 of the first volume.  Sorry, I don't seem able to pick up the word.  What was said in these statements is that the decision was that the three of you would act pro-actively in order to protect the networks and the security situation in the area.

MR ERASMUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR MOOSA: And enlighten us what you mean by pro-actively.

MR VISSER: If I may assist Mr Chairman, it's page 6 that my learned friend is looking for, it's the middle of the page.

MR MOOSA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: It is the application of Mr van Rensburg.

MR MOOSA: Well, let me leave that question out.  If it's the application of Mr van Rensburg, it's not something you say you align yourself with in your statement.  But you have already agreed with it, you say that you would agree that you wanted to act pro-actively, what did you mean by that?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] background has been covered Mr Moosa.

MR MOOSA: I tend to agree Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just carry on to something ...[intervention]

MR MOOSA: Let me move on.
	On this point generally, the Committee itself has questioned you at length about your power of life and death, do you agree with that?

MR ERASMUS: Yes.

MR MOOSA: I'm not going to traverse that ground also. What I am going to say though, on behalf of the family of Mr Kondile that I represent, is that in all probability what we have to deal with here - and it's going to be our contention, is a cover-up for the very serious injuries which were inflicted on Mr Kondile and it's a cover-up that you authorised.

MR ERASMUS: I don't agree with that.  What we have told the Commission is the real thing and I'm sorry to hear about the cover-up.

MR MOOSA: In other words our contention is that you are not making full disclosure to this Committee first of all.

MR ERASMUS: I believe that as far as it was possible for me, as far as I know, I have told you everything I know.

MR MOOSA: And also that you attempted to besmirch Mr Kondile as an informer, is something that you owe the family an apology for.

MR ERASMUS: I don't think I need to do that, I think those are facts.

MR MOOSA: We have heard a great deal of ...[intervention]

UNKNOWN: Mr Moosa, I think in fairness to the family it must be pointed out that at the end he didn't agree to be an informer and I think that should also be stated that that was perhaps the reason why he was killed.

MR MOOSA: Absolutely Mr Chairman, that does come out.  I'm referring to the family's contention that even the idea that he agreed to be an informer - according to them, is something that he owes an apology for.  That is ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the family shouldn't feel too aggrieved if they realise that the man in fact was merely misleading his captors and that he was not an informer.  The family ought not to feel aggrieved by that.

MR MOOSA: Mr Chairman, I do believe that this ground was covered in the Human Rights violations hearing and that is on the record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MOOSA: And I don't intend to take it much further.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Can I ask you a question?  I recall your putting it to one of the witnesses at one stage that it was going to be contended that Mr Kondile was in fact kidnapped in Lesotho and brought into the country, do you remember?

MR MOOSA: I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, we haven't heard anything further about that and is there going to be any evidence that he was in fact kidnapped?

MR MOOSA: Mr Chairman, the evidence around that - as far as the family is concerned, again appears in the Human Rights Violations hearing.  It concerns a very last phone call that Mr Kondile made and the general probabilities of the vehicle moving from Lesotho to South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, there was no evidence about it?

MR MOOSA: No, we don't have any other evidence.  If it does come to light we will certainly bring it to the attention of the Committee but I don't know if I'm going to be that hopeful.
	Further contention Mr Erasmus, would be that the crime that we're dealing with here is not political at all, it's got no political content.

MR ERASMUS: I do not agree with you.

MR MOOSA: And that it would exceed the bounds even if it had any political content, to which you could have gone?

MR ERASMUS: I told you what it had to do with, I agreed that it was a crime, that we were aware of it and that is why I'm here.

MR MOOSA: Your counsel has chosen to lead you at some length on your background. Again I'm not going to traverse that area except to say that it is the family's perception that the real terrorists were people like yourself.

CHAIRPERSON: That's a political comment.

MR MOOSA: Mr Chairman, the thing that was led and the annexure referred to are also political speeches.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with respect, I must place this on record that no political statement was made this witness in his evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on, let's get down to the relevant facts ...[intervention]

MR MOOSA: Mr Chairman, I'm actually on my last contention - in fact I thought it was the last, but just this one thing.
	You've heard evidence at length about what influenced you, am I right?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR MOOSA: And one of the things that slipped out of your mouth is that you now reflect on the situation and you feel that you were right in your actions all the time, would I be right in
that?

MR ERASMUS: I believed I was right, yes.

MR MOOSA: And it is in that context that the family believes that the real terrorists have always been people like yourself.

MR ERASMUS: I dealt with a great deal of terrorists my whole life long until I left the security branch.  So, if I'm a terrorist - as I've already told you, we killed one another as a result of politics.

MR MOOSA: That's the last question.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOOSA

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks.
	Any questions by you?

MR NYOKA: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, du Plessis.