Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-11

MR VISSER: And I received many of these documents regarding Kondile and those are documents found in Volume 2 from page 167 to 176, I don't know whether those are all the pages but are these examples of the documents you are referring to?

MR ERASMUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: At a certain stage Mr van Rensburg and Mr du Plessis came to you.  Tell us what happened there.

MR ERASMUS: On that day, I can't remember the exact date, those two people came to my office and Mr du Plessis was the spokesman and he told me that during this time he had recruited Kondile as an informer or agent.  During this recruitment he had to provide information to Mr Kondile.  This information pertained to how information could be gathered from Lesotho.  They told me that a principle agent be used who had to be placed in such a way that he could liaise with Kondile.  He told me that Kondile was prepared to act as an agent for the security police.  That wasn't strange to me because it happened often that we recruited people.  One day Mr du Plessis had visited Kondile and he realised or rather he found a note which Mr Kondile supposedly wrote to the ANC.  This entailed according to Mr du Plessis that the principal agent and also the whole network, the whole security network from Lesotho, in Lesotho would be destroyed.

MR VISSER: Was this based on the information in fact that du Plessis gave to you, didn't you also come to this conclusion?

MR ERASMUS: It was very clear according to my background as a security man that if this were to become known to the ANC, that Kondile had knowledge of the principal agent and if his identity were to become known the whole intelligence network would be destroyed.

ADV GCABASHE: If, I am sorry Mr Visser, if I might ask Mr Erasmus, in the regular reports you received from Mr du Plessis had he already indicated Sizwe Kondile's willingness to work for the Security Branch?

MR ERASMUS: I cannot recall that now.  He possibly said that to me orally.

ADV GCABASHE: The question though is really, at the time you had this particular meeting with Mr du Plessis and Mr van Rensburg did you already know of the circumstances of Sizwe Kondile?

MR ERASMUS: That he was to become an agent, yes.

ADV GCABASHE: Yes.  None of that information was new to you?

MR ERASMUS: No.

JUDGE PILLAY: I just want to correct something, you said "it was new to me" that was the note.

MR ERASMUS: Ja.

MR VISSER: According to your insight, and with your background as a security policeman which you tried to sketch here this morning, what would have been the consequences of this potential leakage regarding your Intelligence network?

MR ERASMUS: I think it had further implications, not only to our network but to other networks as well and these would all be destroyed completely.

MR VISSER: Now it can be argued that then it would have been one of those problems which one would just have to accept and rebuild a new network, not so?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.  But I do want to add that a security network under the circumstances prevailing in those years and because Lesotho was actually not in favour of us I believe it would have taken years to build up again.

MR VISSER: What did you think from your experience as a Security policeman what could possibly happen to the principal agent and his informers?

MR ERASMUS: I believe that nothing would be left of him.  His life would not be worth anything at all as well as everyone near him, close to him.

MR VISSER: Instead of considering murdering Mr Kondile why did you not say that he just be detained?

MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairman Section 6 of the Act stipulated clearly that as soon as the information which he could provide had been obtained he was to be released.  Further detention would therefore not work.

MR VISSER: To place it in perspective this was before the period of general unrest in emergency conditions which authorised unlimited detention?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Why not just have Mr Kondile charged and found guilty and give him a jail sentence, would this not have solved the problem?

MR ERASMUS: No this would not have solved the problem.  As soon as he came into contact with his legal representatives, his family, then this information would have gone out from the cells with the results that I have already sketched to you.

MR VISSER: We know that you finally reached the decision and you gave the instruction that he was to be eliminated, did you not do this because this man had been so seriously assaulted and for such a long time that he actually tried to escape through a window and landed on his head and sustained brain injuries, was that not the reason why you decided to have him killed?

MR ERASMUS: I want to tell you very honestly today that I do not even know about the assault that Mr du Plessis testified to.  The fact that he fell on his head and sustained brain injuries I have no knowledge of this either.  I do not even know that he was injured at all.

MR VISSER: When did you become aware for the first time of the allegation of this so-called brain injury?

MR ERASMUS: I think it was in the newspapers during the Harms Commission although I was not involved in it a great deal was written about Kondile and these things.

MR VISSER: What can you recall about the discussions that you, van Rensburg and du Plessis had?  Was it one discussion or more than one?

MR ERASMUS: I believe that it was more than one.  It was reported to me and I think I instructed du Plessis to give me a summary of exactly what was going on regarding Kondile and although that documentation passed my desk I just wanted to ensure that that which I knew was what he was really telling me.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why did you want it in writing?

MR ERASMUS: I just wanted to go through it again, I wanted to - before I made any decision I wanted to ensure that the information had been summarised in one.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why, who told you that?

MR ERASMUS: So that I could make a decision.

JUDGE PILLAY: Let's go further, why did you not go to Mr Kondile and find out yourself about this man, whether it was the true?

MR ERASMUS: I trust my people and I don't think that it was necessary for me to go and question him again to confirm what I already knew.

ADV GCABASHE: What in fact did you then do to verify this information?

MR ERASMUS: I am saying that I trusted my people.  I accepted that the information as provided to me, which was also reported to head office that this information was indeed correct.

ADV GCABASHE: I am sorry I don't understand that.  You say you did not do anything further?

MR ERASMUS: I did nothing further.  I did not go and see Kondile if that's what you mean.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand you to say that when Mr du Plessis gave you a written report that you conveyed that to head office, is that what you are saying?

MR ERASMUS: No, I said that it was for my own information.

CHAIRPERSON: The head office was never informed?

MR ERASMUS: Security head office would already have had all that information.

CHAIRPERSON: How?

MR ERASMUS: As it was reported from the pieces, the documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I mean who notifies Security head office?

MR ERASMUS: It is done through my office by Mr du Plessis who sent in various reports regarding the progress made during the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what I am trying to get at, there's a crucial matter here, they come to you because you are their senior, my questioning merely wants to know whether this crucial information is passed on to headquarters and if so, who did it.  And you say that Mr du Plessis did it.

MR ERASMUS: I said that this information, of which I requested a summary had already previously been made available to head office.  He basically just gave me a summary of the situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Just tell me, who conveyed it to head office?