Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1996-07-01

JEAN DU PLESSIS: He would have taken his orders from me, except if I wasn't present, he would have had to take orders from White.

ADV GRIMBEECK: You testified that you initially planned an operation for Louis Trichardt.  You wanted so steal arms from a military base but that did not materialise.  After that you contemplated robbing a shebeen in Durban and that also did not materialise, and then you wanted to steal R4s on the spur of the moment at another base. That also did not occur.  Now at that stage, or as I understand it from you, you in all these cases had said that it wasn't safe and that you shouldn't continue with these actions.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

ADV GRIMBEECK: What was White's attitude after the third operation had been postponed and cancelled?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: He became very frustrated and he felt that we were not prepared to take sufficient risks.  He felt that we were going far too slowly.

ADV GRIMBEECK: You have heard what happened during the murders at Louis Trichardt.  Do you think that White was seeking an outlet for his frustration?  Could that possibly explain what happened?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: I could only speculate on this, I can't really tell you. I do know he was frustrated because we had cancelled three operations, and particularly, frustrated after the first operation was cancelled, because he had put a lot into it, a lot of planning and thought.  He became desperate for weapons.

ADV GRIMBEECK: As regards the second operation in Louis Trichardt, where these murders took place, I understand that a lot of planning also went into that operation.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Just repeat that?

ADV GRIMBEECK: In Louis Trichardt, during the second operation, a lot of planning went into the operation, surveillance of the premises.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, my knowledge of this is not very much bigger than your own because I didn't take part in the operation, I did approve it, but because I was away on holiday for a couple of days, I went to my aunt's wedding, I left all the planning and the detail thereof to White.

ADV GRIMBEECK: You further testified that your heroes, Jopie Fourie, Danie Theron and Genl De Wet, that these were your heroes, and to die for the cause was to die a noble death.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Is it so that the organisation would have gone all to extremes to pursue its objectives?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: We were extremely determined to achieve our objectives.  We thought and believed that what we were doing justified our objectives and we thought that the preservation of the White race was the alpha and the omega and that anything which contributed to that, whatever the price, we felt was justified.

ADV GRIMBEECK: And even if innocent people had to die in the process?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: If there was no other way, we felt that yes, even if innocent people had to die, as it must happen during any war, we felt that that would then be justified.

ADV GRIMBEECK: As regards the actions in Louis Trichardt, under cross-examination by Adv Mpshe you said that you couldn't justify it, the murders committed there.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes. I felt that as a result of our actions that innocent people should not die by our hand, and especially White people should not die as a result of our actions. But I believed that at a later stage when a full-scale war had erupted, that innocent people would then die, because it was unavoidable but it wasn't justifiable.  It is permissible but not justifiable. It will happen, you must accept that it will happen, but I couldn't justify it.

ADV GRIMBEECK: You also testified that you experienced a lot of guilt and reproach about the fact that people had died.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Why?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Well, I should have foreseen that people could be killed on that day in Louis Trichardt, I should have foreseen that and I didn't.  I should have realised that if there was the possibility that innocent people could be killed, I should have aborted the operation, but I didn't.  Not only the three people who died at Louis Trichardt, but also White and Grobbelaar who died. This really upset me, and I suffered agony about this and I feel responsible for their deaths as well, in that I was the leader of the organisation and I recruited Grobbelaar for the operation.

ADV GRIMBEECK: As regards the murders in Louis Trichardt, would the organisation accept and assume responsibility for those?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: I don't know, the organisation is no longer in existence and as I said, personally I feel responsible to some extent for their deaths, because I agreed to the stealing of the weapons and because I did not foresee that people could be killed, and I should have foreseen that.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Did you not reconcile yourself with that possibility, by staying on in the organisation after the murders were committed?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Pardon?

ADV GRIMBEECK: Had you not to some extent reconciled yourself with that possibility, by staying on in the organisation after people had been killed?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: You see, the murders which took place in Louis Trichardt were unacceptable to me, but our objective was far more important to me than anything else. We simply had to continue, irrespective of what happened, we couldn't stop.  We were in any event bound by the blood oath we had sworn and we simply had to continue.

ADV GRIMBEECK: You see, you also testified that the murders  ostensibly had nothing to do with the objectives of the NSP?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: that is correct.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Now after what you have just testified, can you still justify such a statement?  You see, it is commonly known that the operation, the aim of the operation was to obtain weapons. So can you still say that it had nothing to do with the aims of the operation?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: The attempt to get hold of weapons, certainly was linked with the objectives of the organisation, but the deaths of the people, that could not contribute, as far as I am concerned, to the aims of the organisation. I believe that the people panicked and that is why these people were killed.  Possibly because they were afraid of being identified, I don't know, but I cannot justify these deaths. I cannot do that.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Now seen globally in the bigger context of your aims, I would like to put it to you that what happened can be reconciled with the aims of the organisation, that the organisation did foresee that innocent people might be killed?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, the possibility was present in our minds, the possibility that innocent people would die at some stage.  As I said, in any war innocent people could die and I believed that we were heading a situation of war, but that we should go, personally go and kill innocent people, that was not part of our aims and objectives.

ADV GRIMBEECK: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV GRIMBEECK

HASSAN MALL: We will take the usual adjournment at this stage and resume at 14:15.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

JEAN DU PLESSIS: (Still under oath).

UNKNOWN: The aims and the objectives of the National Socialist Partisans, deviate in any way from any of the goals of other right-wing organisations?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairperson. I feel that the Nationalist Socialist Partisans' objectives were totally in line with those of various right-wing organisations, and were also intended to further the general goals of these organisations.

UNKNOWN: The objectives of the BBB, the Boerestaat Party, did you adhere to those principles yourself?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: Did you also - let me put it this way rather, if your movement had grown to the point at which action could have been taken, would you have been able to achieve your aims through acting only as the Nationalist Socialist Partisans or would you have had to involve other parties?