Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

H B 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.

H B DU PLESSIS: I doubt whether I ever did that.

CHAIRPERSON: And what about your colleagues?

H B DU PLESSIS: Well not what I heard.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose idea was it that his drink should be 
laced?

H B 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?

H B 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?

H B 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?

H B 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?

H B 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?

H B 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.

H B 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?

H B 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.

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?

H B 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.

H B 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.

H B 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?

H B 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?

H B 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?

H B 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?

H B 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.