Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-24

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Well, they were afraid of going in.  That is in reply to the first question and in most cases, they didn't enter these areas.  They were sometimes prepared to go in with us, and we assisted them in attempts to fulfil their duties.

MR BOOYENS: During these days, the situation also developed to the point where if  you entered the area, you went in in large numbers, not just in two's or so?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct Your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: The campaign then was expanded further to the black people being intimidated in cases where they had their children in schools outside the schools that were boycotted?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And they were forced to bring their children back from the places where they had them put into schools?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: There are references to the restrictions or the possibility of I think it was the Affected Organisations Act or the Internal Security Act, and Mr Danie Pityana for example had been restricted under house arrest.

MR BOOYENS: He was also a leading figure?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: To what extent did this restriction limit his activities if at all?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Well, in my opinion, not at all.  Firstly because we couldn't place a person there to watch over him for 24 hours, the area firstly didn't allow this and when we acted against him, or when we could act against him, we did so, but he got suspended sentences in the court and a week later, he would transgress the restriction order again and the suspended sentence would be suspended and so forth and it would continue in that manner.

MR BOOYENS: So the new sentence would be suspended and the previous one as well?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That would appear to indicate that the court did not consider that he had committed any serious offences when he was breaking his house arrest?  What information was placed before the court as to his activities when he was not at home?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That he attended meetings and addressed people.

CHAIRPERSON: That evidence was led at trials was it?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: I cannot remember exactly now why he did not keep to his restriction orders, but that was the testimony that was led.

ADV SANDI: Are you implying that the court, by imposing a suspended sentence on him, was not conforming to your expectation to keep him in jail?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: I wouldn't say that.  What I am saying is that we achieved nothing by these attempts.  He simply did not keep to the banning order and this just encouraged him to do so again.

MR BOOYENS: The further factor which played a role regarding the question whether the restriction order had to be obtained against these persons, how did this work in brief?  One had to apply to the Police head quarters, a committee there decided to make a submission to the Minister and the Minister would make the final recommendation, is that correct?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Then the Minister of Law and Order or Police at the time, would then authorise the restriction order?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Were you of the opinion that factors such as the fact that you already had negative publicity regarding the detention and alleged poisoning of Mr Mthimkhulu, would contribute firstly should it be agreed to restrain him, this would just bring pressure to bear from other sources?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: These were the available facts when you started to hold talks as to what to do about Mthimkhulu and Madaka,, is that correct?

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

MR BOOYENS: As far as you were concerned, whether right or wrong, did you believe that the legal machinery was not the answer?

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

MR BOOYENS: Were you convinced that if something was not done, then further destabilisation would take place and unrest would increase?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Was there a loss of life during the unrest?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, there was.

MR BOOYENS: Not only the Police but also amongst civilians?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did the situation show an increasing curve as far as violence was concerned?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.  The public itself was so intimidated and so politicised  that it really provided a training, a basis for training internally here in Port Elizabeth, military training and political training.

MR BOOYENS: This actually took place?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, it did.

MR BOOYENS: Were there also letter bombs, explosive substances that were found?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, it is true.

MR BOOYENS: And on later occasions, weapons were also found in these boxes?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Some of these had been connected with madaka?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.  The same also with the bomb explosions, we had information that he was responsible for the placing of these explosives used.

MR BOOYENS: In other words for the provision of these explosives?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct, yes.

MR BOOYENS: You have also heard that information made available show that Mr Mthimkhulu specifically was intending a direct attack against members of the Security Forces, especially the black members.

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That was the information received.

MR BOOYENS: And in the talks held between yourself , Mr Van Rensburg and Mr Erasmus, was this really the last straw?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: I am on page 19, I just want to get it in front of me.  I beg your pardon Mr Chairperson.  Do you confirm the information on the stated page 19, the replaced page 19 of the application?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you confirm furthermore that you eventually decided that three of you, as your colleagues have testified, that the only option left was to eliminate Mthimkhulu and Madaka?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Can I interrupt for a minute.  At that stage, who was the first person to come up with the idea for the  first time, that killing is the only answer?  Who was the first person to say that?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Your Honour, I cannot recall chronologically what happened, but after we had considered all the different options, I think General Nick suggested this.  That is Van Rensburg.

MR BOOYENS: But ultimately it was a joint decision and there Commander Erasmus agreed?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now, just the fact that you were prepared to discuss this matter with your Commanding Officer, was there a clear perception amongst the ranks of the Security Officers that the elimination of these activists, was an acceptable alternative which the politicians would  (indistinct) and they wouldn't be confronted with it personally?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: We have heard evidence on the different political utterances made on their so-called instigation speeches made by certain persons which created an impression that the situation must be stabilised and they leave it to you to do in your way?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: If you in any way had been under the impression that elimination was not an acceptable means, would you at this occasion or any other occasion, discussed this with your Commander?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: I would not have.