Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1999-02-12

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: As I said it was an order, I didn't mean that Ashley wanted ...[intervention]

MR LAX: No, no, we're just going round in circles.  Carry on Ms Thabete?

MS THABETE: Earlier on in your evidence you also said that you abducted these two men because you wanted to question them, do you remember that?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes it's ...[indistinct]

MS THABETE: What did you want to question them about?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Why they were looking for me, for which branch they are working for.

MS THABETE: But you already knew they were looking for you, they were investigating your gun running?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes and what do they want from me and that's why I said in my application we tortured them.

MS THABETE: No, you already knew they were investigating you or allegedly investigating you because you were involved in gun running.  What other information did you want from them?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Well I want to know the truth, what they want actually from us, the real story.

CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't that the truth Mr Plaatjies?  You already knew the details of the investigation, what more did you hope to get from them.  You knew, you believed that you were being investigated for gun running, you never doubted that was the reason why you were being investigated?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes Mrs Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So what more did you expect to extract from them?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Well as I said as we were torturing them it came out Madame Chair they denied they were policemen also so it was difficult for us that's why we abducted them because they denied.

MS THABETE: But they didn't deny they were not policemen, didn't you say you heard in court they were not policemen?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes in court I heard.

MS THABETE: So they were telling the truth, they were not policemen?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes, they were telling the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose?  Why was it necessary to ascertain that information whether they were policemen or not?  I mean you already had come closer to them and you had identified them as being the same persons that had been pointed out by Ashley to you?  Why then go to the extent of getting that kind of information from them?  It doesn't make sense to me, your order is to kill and not to confirm an information.  Why then should you torture in order to seek to confirm any kind of information?  Why go outside the scope of your specific orders?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Well Madame Chair that time there's nothing I could have done, it just happened that day.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, you keep on telling us that there's nothing that you could have done.  We are here to get evidence from you in order to consider your application.  We expect to receive information by way of evidence from you.  It will not assist us in getting responses "there's nothing that I could have done."  We need information.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just interpose here?  Tell me, did you search them for firearms, these two policemen or so called policemen?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes we - because I was the first one to the car I ...[indistinct] under the seats while I was at the back of the seat also there were no firearms in their possession.

ADV BOSMAN: But surely a security cop would wear a firearm on his person?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: We come again back there and that's why maybe we continued to torture them.

ADV BOSMAN: To do what?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: To find out why - because there was no firearms in the car.

ADV BOSMAN: Now didn't you then when they denied - think that they were not policemen, they deny it, there are no firearms, not in the car, not on their person.

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes they denied they were ...[indistinct]
but they just ...[intervention]

ADV BOSMAN: No, that's not my question.  My question is, should you not then have thought that these guys are not policemen?  They've got no firearms, there are no firearms in the car and they say they are not policemen and you keep on torturing them, why?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Mrs Chair I think there is some cops that walk without firearms at that time so it's obvious I took it maybe that way.

ADV BOSMAN: Why did you keep on torturing if you knew that they were cops in your own mind?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: I can't answer that question Mrs Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it true Mr Plaatjies that there was no reason for you to torture them in order to extract any kind of information if you were actually executing the instructions of Mr Ashley which did not say you must torture to obtain any kind of information which instructions merely said kill them because they are investigating you for among others gun running?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes Mrs Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And therefore what you did you did outside the instructions given by Mr Ashley?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: I would say that was because by that time Madame Chair it was war, there was nothing I could have done, it was war.  I agree with Madame Chair.

MS THABETE: You say you abducted them to question them?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes.

MS THABETE: To get information from them?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes.

MS THABETE: That's correct?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes.

MS THABETE: If they had given you that information would you still have shot them?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: Yes because I should have shot them to protect my identity at the end of the day.

MS THABETE: So you would have shot them for the reason of protecting your identity?

JULIAN DION PLAATJIES: And the cell group.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to the next issue Ms Thabete.

MS THABETE: Thank you, no further questions Madame Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Do you have any re-examination Mr Leopeng?

MR LEOPENG: No re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Leopeng, are you in a position to address us?

MR LEOPENG: Madame Chair, I ask for a short adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?  You don't need a short adjournment.  This is a very simple matter, there's nothing complex, there is no evidence that has been led here that is not in your papers.  Why should you require an adjournment?

MR LEOPENG: Madame Chair, it's not an adjournment for the purpose of consultation or whatever, it's just ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, you don't need a consultation for purposes of addressing us, you address us on the evidence that has been led by way of viva voce and by way of documents, we have Annexure A which is his application form and Annexure B is the supplementary affidavit and you have been sitting there listening to the vive voce evidence given by Mr Plaatjies.  What more do you need in order to prepare for your legal address?

MR LEOPENG: I will proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

UNKNOWN: Well Madame Chair and the Committee my argument will just very simply be that the idea and the main objective of the applicant in abducting and killing one of
the two abducted Indian chaps was just to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Did he abduct only one Indian chap or he abducted both?

MR LEOPENG: He abducted both and killed one, that's the evidence, was simply that he abducted and killed one solely because they were investigating him for the gun running, that's the evidence and that's all ...[indistinct] the objective as he said was just to send a clear message to other security officers and I do not have further argument on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude your address?

MR LEOPENG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabete?