Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: In other words Mr du Plessis denies having tortured Kondile, the word torture is what we are talking about.  Carry on.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Rensburg you heard, denied that he ever visited Kondile together with Dirk Coetzee.

GINOTRY DANSTER: I did see him.

MR BOOYENS: The Commissioner, the later Commissioner, the Chief of Security, Mr du Plessis says was never there as you allege, General Coetzee.

GINOTRY DANSTER: I saw him and I was very sober.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Danster when you made this statement it was 15 years after this incident, is that correct?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Correct.

MR BOOYENS: And are you suggesting that you remember all these details?  Is it possible that you could be mistaken, that you are confusing this interrogation or some of the incidents in this interrogation with another one?

GINOTRY DANSTER: I am not mistaken.

MR BOOYENS: Can you give us as much detail about other interrogations that you were involved in?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Is that is what the Commission wants?

MR BOOYENS: The question is, do you think you can, your memory is good enough?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Mr Booyens I am going to answer about the statement on record because that is what the Commission requires from me.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Danster just two aspects.  You people returned with the police car and to your knowledge Mr Kondile's motor car was never here, is that right?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Could you repeat the question please.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Kondile's motor car was never at Jeffrey's Bay, is that correct?

MR BOOYENS: Ja okay, in other words to your knowledge you don't know what his car looked like, is that correct?

GINOTRY DANSTER: I have never seen his car, I don't know.

MR BOOYENS: The point is when you brought him down you certainly didn't bring his motor car down with him, you came down with the police car that was sent back the following day.

GINOTRY DANSTER: We were using the police car, yes.

MR BOOYENS: Then you have testified before in a court, have you, in your capacity as a policeman?

GINOTRY DANSTER: A number of times.

MR BOOYENS: Would I be correct to say without going into details Mr Danster that you have been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty again, not only the previous time with a false driver's licence, but you in fact did time in an offence involving dishonesty.

GINOTRY DANSTER: What does that have to do with this case?

MR ROUX: Sorry Mr Chairman for interrupting, I don't think it's hundred percent correct to say it's a dishonesty offence in any event.

CHAIRPERSON: He is not a party to this litigation so he has nothing to gain or lose ion this matter.  He might have given false evidence in matters in which he was implicated.  He might have been accused in those matters.

MR BOOYENS: No Mr Chairman I am talking about whether he's been convicted of crimes involving elements of dishonesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Put the crime, what is the nature of the crime.

MR BOOYENS: You are in fact in jail at the moment for falsifying currency is that correct?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Possession.

MR BOOYENS: Possession of false currency, okay.  Did you volunteer your information or were you traced by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and asked to make a statement?

GINOTRY DANSTER: (...indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: We couldn't hear what you said.

GINOTRY DANSTER: I gave information before the special investigators came to me.

MR BOOYENS: To who?

GINOTRY DANSTER: I gave the information to the ANC members.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

MR VISSER: Mr Danster it is correct that in July, August of 1991 you had had three years of experience as a policeman, and you've told us that you did give evidence in court of law.  Would it be correct to say you knew very well how important it is that when you make an affidavit concerning an incident that you must be absolutely certain that the events which you sketch in your affidavit is done correctly, would you agree with that?  You must be very careful when you make an affidavit?

GINOTRY DANSTER: I am listening.

CHAIRPERSON: You agree with that, don't you?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Yes.

MR VISSER: The person who attested your affidavit on the 18th of July 1996, I can't read his surname here, who is he?  I can make out M-U-M-U-G.

GINOTRY DANSTER: Mr Raji.

MR VISSER: I am indebted to the Commissioners, it's Mr Munigan.  Now this person in what language was he conversing with you at the time when you signed this affidavit?

GINOTRY DANSTER: He was speaking English but Bolo was also there who was speaking Xhosa.

MR VISSER: Was there a person there by the name of Bolo do you say?  Or how do you spell that?

GINOTRY DANSTER: B-O-L-O.

MR VISSER: And was he acting as an interpreter?

GINOTRY DANSTER: He would help here and there.

MR VISSER: Would I be correct in assuming that you really didn't need an interpreter, you know English and Afrikaans well enough to look after yourself, or would I be wrong in assuming that?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Yes I can speak English.

MR VISSER: And can you read English?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Yes.

MR VISSER: And I am not certain whether you have been asked this question before but at the risk of a repetition let me ask you this. After the - well perhaps I should ask you this first.  Whose handwriting is this document at page 43 and further pages of volume 1, whose handwriting is this?  Is this your handwriting or somebody else's?

GINOTRY DANSTER: It's Raji's handwriting.

MR VISSER: Did you tell him what information you had and did he sit and write it, is that how it worked, in the hotel?

GINOTRY DANSTER: He came and asked me for these details.

MR VISSER: And you gave them to him.

GINOTRY DANSTER: And I gave them to him.

MR VISSER: Alright.  And he wrote them down as you gave it to him.

GINOTRY DANSTER: Yes he was also using a tape recorder.

MR VISSER: And did you thereafter, when he had completed writing it down did you read it for yourself before you signed it?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Yes.

MR VISSER: Now when you made the affidavit would it be true to say that by that time there had been numerous press reports, news flashes etc in the media, both in the newspapers and on television about Mr Kondile?

GINOTRY DANSTER: I don't think that I got this information that I have divulged here from the media.

MR VISSER: I am not suggesting that to you Mr Danster, but we take note of your answer.
	Do you agree that there was a lot written in the newspapers about Mr Kondile?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Yes there were.

MR VISSER: And having worked with him yourself you must have been very interested in those newspaper reports not so?

GINOTRY DANSTER: Not so much.

MR VISSER: Well why the lack of interest?  This is a man that you interrogated on instructions of du Plessis who disappeared from the very place where you had last seen him and you knew that du Plessis and Raath must have had something to do with the disappearance.  Those are on the facts of your evidence Mr Danster, are you really telling us that you weren't interested in newspaper reports concerning Mr Kondile?

GINOTRY DANSTER: I would read them in the newspapers.

MR VISSER: Yes.  And now I am going to suggest to you that there is a great probability that what you read in the newspapers influenced your evidence in your affidavit and also here before this Commission, now I am suggesting that to you.

GINOTRY DANSTER: Mr Visser ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: You can address your replies to the Chairman.

GINOTRY DANSTER: The problem is that you stay in a white location ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just please answer the question.  It's been suggested to you that the statement you made is influenced, to some extent, by what you have been reading about Mr Kondile.

GINOTRY DANSTER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a short adjournment at this stage Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Well I hope it's shorter ...(intervention)