Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1996-07-01

UNKNOWN: And would you agree then with me further, that when you say I couldn't justify, you are actually referring to NSP, that NSP cannot justify the death of the three people?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That's right, we couldn't justify it. However, because the people that were involved in the killing, was a part of the organisation and because they went on that operation to achieve goals of the NSP, namely to get weapons, I felt to a certain extent responsible for it.

UNKNOWN: Ja, but still following up on the fact that the NSP could not justify the three deaths, then it would mean to us that the three deaths had absolutely nothing to do with the objectives of the movement?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, it had nothing to do with the objectives of the movement and it was, had nothing to do with the planning either.

UNKNOWN: The NSP to my mind, and if I am wrong you must say so, was known to a very limited part of the community, that very few people know about it. Is that correct?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That's correct, yes.

UNKNOWN: Now when did you - that question has been answered.   No further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE

HASSAN MALL: Mr Grimbeeck, have you any questions to put to this witness?

CROSS- ADV GRIMBEECK: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I would like to put a few questions to the witness. Mr Du Plessis, just to return to your background.  You mentioned to us that your mother and father were divorced when you were still very young and you then went to live with your father. You also testified that your mother later remarried, quite a liberal person.  According to my understanding he was also Jewish, is that correct?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That is correct, she went to live with him but they didn't actually marry.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Right. So as I understand it that fed your father's hatred towards Jewish people in general?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, I was absolutely torn apart, because I felt very close to this Jewish man when I went to stay with my mother and my father of course, despised Jewry entirely and that contributed to my tension and conflict.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Well, you then went to Amanzimtoti and there you met Mr Van Wyk.  You testified that your father indoctrinated you and that he presented certain convictions to you and tenets to you and that you eventually came to believe in these political convictions. What was Mr Van Wyk's involvement?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, because my father and I regularly discussed politics, that was the main theme of our discussions and because Mr Van Wyk was my friend, my best friend at that stage, and often came to visit us, eventually participated in these discussions.

ADV GRIMBEECK: How did Mr Van Wyk feel after a while?  He started thinking and feeling like yourself and your father?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Well, initially he just chatted to my father about politics in my presence, but after a while he and my father started discussing politics at length even in my absence, and I think there were certain instances when Mr Van Wyk came to look for me and I wasn't at home, and he then would chat to my father.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Now you were bosom friends with Mr Van Wyk, during your school years and even after you left school.  How would you describe his political views and attitudes?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Well, he had largely the same beliefs as I had and my father, in fact they were identical his views, and he was also strongly convinced of his views, namely these views which were the same as ours.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Now the relationship between yourself and Mr Van Wyk at school, could you tell us a little bit more about that, and more specifically, which one of you would you have regarded as the leader?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: I was the leader.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Could we then say that Mr Van Wyk held you in high regard?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Well, it is difficult to say, because we were friends, but we had a great respect for each other, but it is possible that he had a very high regard for me, held me in some awe.

ADV GRIMBEECK: You then came to Pretoria, went to the Army and you met Mr White.  Tell us a little bit more about Mr White.  What type of person was he?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Mr White, when I met him in the Army, had very strong military views, militant views, and he had a friend who came from Zimbabwe, and the two of them had very strong aspirations to place Zimbabwe under a White government once again.  That, of course, fitted in very neatly with my ideas.  Mr White had a strong personality and he was very determined.

ADV GRIMBEECK: As regards Mr White's views on violence, could you elaborate on that?  Was he a pacifist, did he believe in solving matters through violence?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: When I met him initially in Oudsthoorn, when we shared a room, he was already quite militant, but in reality he wasn't a violent person. I never saw him involved in any fights, but his ideas were very militant.

ADV GRIMBEECK: How would he have confronted when confronted and provoked?  Would he have run away or would he have stood his ground and fought?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: No, White was not a person to run away.

ADV GRIMBEECK: So he'd rather have fought his way out of a conflict situation?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Well, White was a big strong man, not only physically but also mentally, he was mentally strong and that's one of his qualities which I found very attractive, and he would definitely not have turned his back on a fight and run away.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Now as regards your great friend, Mr Van Wyk, how would you sum him up as regards violence?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Well, he wasn't quite so militant initially, but he was prepared to stand his ground whenever necessary and when he was confronted.

ADV GRIMBEECK: As regards loyalty?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: I experienced him as a very loyal person, especially towards our objectives and aims.

ADV GRIMBEECK: You further testified that White and yourself decided to establish an organisation. You also swore an oath, a blood oath. Could you tell us a little bit more about this blood oath?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, it was a long time ago and I can't remember the exact wording of this blood oath, but it basically said that our loyalty to the organisation and towards the White people in this country, and towards the White race internationally, it declared our absolute loyalty towards the White race and it also declared that we were prepared to fight to the death for the liberation of the Whites in this country.

ADV GRIMBEECK: What I find important here, is were any penalties provided for, if a person should betray the organisation?  Was that aspect covered at all in the oath?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, it was agreed that if anybody should betray the organisation, that such treason was punishable by death.

ADV GRIMBEECK: What would you consider to be treason?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: If somebody disclosed our names and activities to the Police or basically revealed what the organisation was up to.

ADV GRIMBEECK: As regards disobeying orders, what were your views on that, did you view that in a serious light?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, because we were so sensitive at that stage and so small and vulnerable, we had to act in a very disciplined way, which meant that orders had to be complied with down to the last detail.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Right.  What was the structure of command in this organisation, what was your position, what was Mr White's and Van Wyk's and Grobbelaar's, what was your respective positions?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: I was the leader of the organisation. White would originally have held the rank of captain.  He was the military leader and Grobbelaar and Van Wyk were just the ordinary soldiers.  At a later stage Van Wyk would have joined the information wing, because he had a very good computer background.

ADV GRIMBEECK: Now who would have given orders to Mr Van Wyk, should you find yourselves in an operational situation?