Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-24

MR BRINK: And (b) that there was to have been a Magisterial inquiry into this business in the following May, was that also not discussed at all?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Not at all, Your Honour.

MR BRINK: But now, isn't that strange?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: It is not strange to me, Your Honour.

MR BRINK: You see we know that in December of the previous year a summons had been issued for damages arising out of alleged assault, you know that?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BRINK: And in April a claim for damages and a substantial amount of money, was made against the Minister of Police?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is so.

MR BRINK: And that must have been the cause of extreme embarrassment to the Security Branch in Port Elizabeth?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, Your Honour it was, but that was an embarrassment for us in December already.  It was a given.

MR BRINK: Yes, but wasn't the fact that the second summons and the fact that there was going to be a Magisterial inquiry, something which really concerned you all very, very much indeed?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Your Honour, yes, one could argue in this manner, but I tell you that it was not the case with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I find this very hard to accept when you have told us, as I understand it that one of the reasons for deciding to eliminate this man, was despite the fact that he was an invalid, he had become a martyr and was accordingly of great influence in the region.
	Surely the fact that he might shortly thereafter become a successful litigant, in the poisoning case, added to this danger and it made it even more important that he should be removed?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Your Honour, yes, if one thinks about it, it is so, but I can't think back that we ever discussed this.

MR BRINK: When Mr Mthimkhulu returned home in January of 1982, would I be correct in assuming that he was kept under constant surveillance by the Security Police?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: No, Your Honour.

MR BRINK: Although apparently he was going to meetings and causing trouble one way or the other?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: We did know about his movements, yes, but not on a continuous basis.

MR BRINK: And when it came to your knowledge in April that he was apparently in possession of weapons, was any raid made upon his place of residence?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Our information was not that he had the arms with him physically.

MR BRINK: What, that arms were merely available to him?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that he had access to arms.

MR BRINK: All right.  Now, I just want to move on to the final point.  Would you just have a look at pages 18 and 19, starting page 18 of your supplementary application?

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Brink, before you go to that, can you just clear one thing regarding the final statement by the witness.
	According to the information you had, where were these weapons located?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: It was in so-called DLB's, which we did not know exactly where they were located at that stage.

MR BRINK: If you go to the what appears to be the third paragraph on page 18 of your supplementary application, that is the paragraph which begins "the conversation to a great extent" and finishes off "will illustrate it more clearly."
	Do you see that paragraph?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BRINK: Would you then turn to page 4 of Bundle A and have a look at the centre paragraph and that is the application of General Van Rensburg.  I note that the wording in your application is in identical terms, do you see that?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct, Your Honour.

MR BRINK: And if you go further down on page 18 of your supplementary application,  the last paragraph "the conclusion", which finishes on page 19 "(indistinct)", which is the penultimate paragraph on that page, do you see that?
	It goes to about more than two thirds of the way down page 19, finishing "to put into effect"?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct, Your Honour.

MR BRINK: And that appears to me to be also identical to pages 7 of General Van Rensburg's application, the second paragraph on page 7, "the conclusion" and finishing on page, the end of the first paragraph on page 10 "to put into effect the threats."
	Again it appears to me identical.

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct, Your Honour.

MR BRINK: Now, I find that a little odd, can you possibly explain this?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Your Honour, we consulted with each other and refreshed each other's memories.  The Advocate also consulted with us and I accept that that is the way in which he wished to state this particular statement, or the Attorney, that is the way he wished to make the statement.

MR BRINK: Can you possibly tell me, who made the first statement.   You see the one appears to be copied from the other?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: I made my statement in Pretoria and General Van Rensburg made his statement at another Attorney.  General Van Rensburg made his statement first in Port Elizabeth.

MR BRINK: So the statements were made separately to different Attorneys, in different places?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: This supplementary statement was made at the same Attorney.

MR BRINK: Yes, but even if one has regard to your original application, the old page 19 in Bundle A, the bound page 19, I think you will find very much the same sort of wording.

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BRINK: Are these your words in there?  These are your actual words?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: No, it is not my direct words.

MR BRINK: Now, I was just curious why there seemed to be absolute identical wording in these separate applications, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR BOOYENS: Just dealing with this last aspect raised by Mr Brink, was the position that you went to see Attorneys in Pretoria and then returned to my present Instructing Attorney, is that correct?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And were you placed in possession, your Attorneys in Pretoria, of General Van Rensburg's statement before you made yours?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct both questions.

MR BOOYENS: So it appears as if to a large extent the wording was followed virtually exactly in Pretoria, so you had Van Rensburg's statement and it was faxed up to Pretoria?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct to both questions.

MR BOOYENS: As far as informers are concerned, my learned friend, Mr Phosa asked you and pointed out to you which was quite logical that informers did not always speak the truth, that their information was sometimes distorted or wrong.  How did you normally react to an informer?   Would you for example act upon a single informer's information if he hadn't been proved accurate and dependable or did you check?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: We tried to investigate this firstly and normally we did the evaluation after this had been confirmed by other informants.

MR BOOYENS: Or perhaps not through physical means but to listening in to telephone conversations?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct or thought investigation.

MR BOOYENS: It has been put to you by the Honourable Chairperson, that Mthimkhulu himself was not personally  involved in the violence with the exception of one instance where there was information that he was involved in a shooting incident.
	According to your information and on the grounds of your research, what was the position as far as inciting other people to violence, was concerned?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Your Honour, where there were meetings where he was involved, in most cases, violence erupted after the meetings.

MR BOOYENS: Did you then arrive at the conclusion that what he did and said in some way led to this?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.