Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-11

MR MOOSA: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	I was saying earlier that if we look at these documents there is no mention of a note and you agreed to that, is there any mention in amongst these documents that Mr Kondile agreed to work for the security branch as an informer?

MR ERASMUS: I believe there is, yes.

MR MOOSA: Could you assist me by pointing it out?

MR VISSER: Page 176 Mr Chairman.

MR ERASMUS: Here is a report, I take it it's an encoded message sent by Mr du Plessis and the person who signed this was Mr van Rensburg
"The abovementioned was released on 81.08.10 after he was recruited as an informer.  Arrangements were made to meet him again on 24.08.81 but this did not occur.  With his release a date was given namely 2.10.81 and this was not met either.  No information can be obtained as to where he is at the moment.

UNKNOWN: Just let us clear as to whether it was a false letter because it says that he was released on the 10th of August, technically this was true but he was not released, he was abducted, no arrangements were made. Mr van Rensburg who wrote this letter or Captain du Plessis were both aware of this, that this man was killed on that day or on the next day.

MR ERASMUS: I believe that the rest of the meetings which were stipulated here are definitely false but he was recruited as an informer, that is true.

MR MOOSA: Mr de Jager has asked the question I was going to put to you next.  You would agree with me Mr Erasmus, that it's a remarkable coincidence that the date reflected in your application - October, tallies with the story given by Dirk Coetzee more or less from the beginning.

MR ERASMUS: I believe that the date in my application is wrong, how the Attorney General or the attorney and I understood each other, I don't know how that happened.  I didn't read through it later again either but that's not the real date, that's wrong.

MR MOOSA: You asked for a written report from Mr du Plessis after having received a verbal report from both him and Mr van Rensburg, did you not also ask for a detailed written report immediately after the expedition to Komatiepoort?

MR ERASMUS: I did not find this necessary, the man had been eliminated and it was over.

MR MOOSA: So are you saying that as far as head office was concerned there would have been no further reports after the expedition or what exactly is the position?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct, there was no further report made to head office except for the fact that it was mentioned that he did not come to his meetings in October.

MR MOOSA: You will agree with me Mr Erasmus, that is Mr Coetzee's version is correct, that is that he heard that the person had suffered a brain haemorrhage after trying to escape from a window, then what we are here dealing with is an attempt to cover up what happened, not so? - by eliminating Mr Kondile.

MR ERASMUS: I don't agree with that, the version that we are giving is the correct version.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Erasmus, according to your testimony and that of your colleagues, Mr Kondile must have been dead by the 12th of August 1981, is that correct?

MR ERASMUS: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: And this information which was sent to the head office at Ladybrand, according to this it seems as though he was still alive in October '81.  Look at page 175 please, Volume 2.  There is a letter according to the copy that I have, sent by Captain du Plessis to Bloemfontein as well as to Pretoria and the date there is September '81.

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: What is written in that letter is how Mr Kondile admitted that he had been trained.

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: I would have expected that at that stage a report would have been made to head office that he had agreed  to becoming an informer or am I wrong?

MR ERASMUS: I cannot remember at what date he arrived exactly and I won't be able to tell you at what date he agreed to be a source or an agent.

JUDGE PILLAY: According to the testimony by this time he should have agreed already because he was dead?

MR ERASMUS: Yes, because this is September, I see that this is September.

JUDGE PILLAY: And this seems as though this is just an ordinary letter to keep head office informed as to the investigation.  The file should have been closed, due to the fact that he had been released and he was an informer already  according to the false information which you conveyed or which was conveyed?

MR ERASMUS: I cannot give you an explanation for this, du Plessis wrote this.  I see that I signed the telex to send it but I cannot give you an explanation regarding this matter as to why it was done or why not.

JUDGE PILLAY: Unless it's the truth as it stands here?

MR ERASMUS: I don't believe that that is the truth.

JUDGE PILLAY: Is it possible or not?

MR ERASMUS: I cannot say.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I purposely waited till the witness has finished his reply because I didn't want to influence him but may I also refer you on the same line to page 74 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] first please.  What was the purposes of sending this report at page 175?

MR ERASMUS: As I've already said I cannot recall why this was sent, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you surprised that it contains misinformation?

MR ERASMUS: No, I won't be surprised.

CHAIRPERSON: What would be the point in misinforming headquarters?

MR ERASMUS: I don't think there's a point in it.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless there's something more sinister?

MR ERASMUS: I can say that I don't believe that there was anything sinister about it.  The whole operation was done in a clandestine manner and it was completed, so I don't believe that there was anything sinister about it.

UNKNOWN: Can it be that it was part of the cover-up?

MR ERASMUS: That is possible but then I'll have to guess.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you were trying to draw our attention to another page?

MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, I think Justice Pillay's questioning also brings into consideration page 74 of Volume 1.  I didn't want to interfere because I wanted the witness to answer for himself but that is the question I think which relates to - this page also relates to that question, paragraphs 2 and 3 I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Moosa, do carry on.

MR MOOSA: Thank you.
	I believe that the contents of the letter on page 175 which you were focusing on is significant as well.  On reading that - and you can take time to read it, would you agree with me that what is being said is: 
"We are not dealing here with a trained terrorist, we are dealing merely with a bodyguard of Mr Hani"

MR ERASMUS: I don't want to agree with you, as far as my information goes he was trained.

MR MOOSA: And would you agree that page 175 basically is in line with the contention I put to you?

MR ERASMUS: Repeat that please?

MR MOOSA: Mr Kondile was not a highly trained terrorist as you have told us but in fact was merely a bodyguard.

MR ERASMUS: As far as I can remember I never used the term: "highly trained", I said he was a trained terrorist.  As soon as you are trained in firearms then you are trained.

MR MOOSA: Yes, is that your only comment?

MR ERASMUS: No further comment.

MR MOOSA: Did you not think it important Mr Erasmus, that once the police officers whom you instructed to complete the task of eliminating Mr Kondile, came back that they brought with them the note that Mr Kondile was alleged to have written for you to make a complete report?

MR ERASMUS: I made no further reports to anyone so it was not important.

MR MOOSA: But you are Divisional Commissioner in the Eastern Cape, would I be right in saying that the general populist - the general public must have faith in you to execute your policing duties in a way that protects them?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct.

MR MOOSA: And that they would not expect you to be committing deeds of terrorism?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct, yes.