Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-10

ADV DE JAGER: You are still under oath.

MR MOOSA: If I may ask for permission - with apologies for interrupting the process, to place something on record from the point of view of the family of the late Sizwe Kondile.  We notice from the bundles available to us that evidence from Ginotry Danster and corroborating evidence for Mr Coetzee's version from Almon Nofomela and Mr Tshikalanga, are available and they have counsel for them.
	We would like these witnesses to be available and we will consider our oppositions and if necessary, call them as part of the cases for victims.

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to make an announcement in that regard in any case.  Do carry on.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, if I may just interrupt - it's not anything technical, I referred you to certain telexes sent by Mr du Plessis yesterday that was in the old bundle at pages 54 and 57 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: In fact, those telexes appear at pages now at - I seemed to have missed it, at pages 69 and 70 of Volume 1.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you Sir.

MR JANSEN: Mr du Plessis, it is correct that you and your colleagues - that your deception or the fact that you misled the Harmse Commission, that this was successful?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: Your evidence and the versions that you gave to the Harmse Commission were discussed previously during certain discussions with the involved persons, you were to testify there?

MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot agree with that.  I did not discuss my testimony with anyone else.

MR JANSEN: You were not involved with any meetings where Mr van Rensburg addressed a number of the other officers about what the tactic was to be?

MR DU PLESSIS: Most certainly not.

MR JANSEN: Specifically with regard to the Kondile incident, would you agree that the allegations that Kondile was murdered by the security police, were rejected by Judge Harmse?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: And the reasons for that, will you agree with me, is that a great deal was made about the improbability that a person would burnt to death in a place where forestry activities and sugar cane plantations took place?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: A great deal was also made about the improbability that somebody was given a sleeping drug in order to facilitate these persons - allow these persons to shoot him, those who wanted to kill him.

MR DU PLESSIS: I cannot recall the detail anymore.

MR JANSEN: You will accept if I put it to you?

MR DU PLESSIS: I will accept it as such.

MR JANSEN: A great deal was also made in the Harmse Commission in general about a scarcity job cards - who was where, based on the job cards.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm aware of that.

MR JANSEN: It can be accepted generally that you used your job cards to hide where you actually were.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: Why - for the purpose of your applications in this matter, why was it necessary to get together and to discuss things in Pretoria?

MR DU PLESSIS: In the first place there was doubt amongst many of us - it was not only the people from the Eastern Cape who got together, as to whether we should apply and Colonel Erasmus played a big role.
	In the second case, after all these years one cannot remember all the details and by discussing these things one's memory is refreshed.  	And thirdly, we also wanted to inform one another that we were going to apply for amnesty.

MR JANSEN: You are aware of the real differences between your version and that of Mr Coetzee's regarding Kondile?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I am.

MR JANSEN: Firstly, that Kondile or that he saw Kondile alive on the 13th of September and that he was murdered at the end of October, possibly even the first week in November.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's what he alleges, yes - I realise that.

MR JANSEN: And you will agree that the only deduction that one can make or inference is - forget about the Kondile matter, that if a person is detained in "kommunikado", then there is one or other sinister reason for that which has something to do with the torture of such a person.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's not always the case.

MR JANSEN: The other difference is the reason for Mr Kondile's murder, you say that it has to do with serious dangers for the security network in the Eastern Cape and the country as a whole.  Mr Coetzee, - according to what was told to him, says that it was just a normal case of an assault on a detainee which went too far.

MR DU PLESSIS: As you have put it to me, somebody informed Mr Coetzee about this and I don't know who it was but this is wrong.

MR JANSEN: Can you think of any motive which Mr Coetzee could have had in 1989 and before the Harmse Commission, to lie about such matters such as the date on which Mr Kondile was killed and the reasons for his murder?

MR DU PLESSIS: In the first place I cannot think of a reason but I can tell you - and I'm speaking under correct, perhaps you can help me, that I do not believe that in the beginning Mr Coetzee said when Kondile had been killed.  And in the second place - due to certain circumstances, he made other allegations later.
	Amongst others, that when the so-called allegation came that he had been taken to Bloemfontein where he had been released - his vehicle had been given to him in Bloemfontein, he was once again abducted and returned to Jeffrey's Bay where he was detained for two to three months - that is what I can recall, I'm not saying that I am right.

MR JANSEN: Yes, that is an accurate recollection, you are well aware of Mr Coetzee's version.  And it is also true that he did not give a specific date as to when he saw Kondile.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you are stating it as if he did have a specific date.

MR JANSEN: Yes, but you will agree that he recalled or linked a very specific incident with seeing Kondile and that was the stealing of an Audi vehicle.  And you will accept that the theft of that Audi vehicle which belonged to a person from a trade union, that that theft was accepted even in the Harmse Commission, as that is happened on the 13th of September?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: You will also accept that Mr Coetzee realised very well in 1990, that he was facing a great number of denials, will you accept that?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR JANSEN: That he was up against people who were regarded by the public as honourable people?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: That he was facing a legal system which would most probably accept that the security police were guilty of murder?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: What on earth would motivate such a person to lie about something which would just bring him into more trouble, can you think of anything?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I cannot, all that I can say - and this is one of the reasons that we spoke to one another - this is just my opinion, that if one listens to Mr Coetzee's testimony - at his long testimony, it has to do with an extended period and I believe that he is making a mistake regarding certain matters.  I'm not saying that he is telling lies but I do say that he is making mistakes as regards certain dates.

MR JANSEN: Whether it's a mistake or not, I think that's a matter for argument later.

ADV DE JAGER: Can it not be that you are making a mistake as to when he was released?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, I have documentation which proves when he was released and that is a telex from head office that he had to be released on the 10th.

ADV DE JAGER: But it has already been put to you previously that some of the documents could have been falsified in order to fit in with the pattern.

MR DU PLESSIS: But I cannot say that I'm satisfied that that document was not false.  We applied to have him released because we wanted to have him released as soon as possible and that is why he was released on that day, I'm quite satisfied with that.