Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-10

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but in ways which I can assure you did not occur.

ADV DE JAGER: If the people from East London interrogated him at Jeffrey's Bay, would Danster have been present?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, he could have been but I want to tell you that I cannot think how it could have been possible because at that stage - according to my knowledge or what I can recall, he was never involved in that interrogation.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but he was guarding the man, he was sitting there, he had to ensure that nobody got to him.  Did he leave the room when the people from East London came or was he present?

MR DU PLESSIS: I didn't believe that after I found the note and after he was in that room, that there was interrogation done by people from East London, it was done prior to this if I can recall correctly.  If it took place in those offices I believe that he would have left the room, yes.  Under normal circumstances if we do interrogation we ask to be left alone with the person, so I cannot see why he - could have been there.

ADV DE JAGER: But you gave him the instruction to see that nobody got to this man, he had to look after him and now you're also telling us that if the people from East London came he would have left the room.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm talking about before he was in that room, before he was there while the normal interrogation was still taking place.

ADV GCABASHE: But Mr du Plessis, I understand you to say that Mr Kondile was assaulted in Jeffrey's Bay.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: And this was after the note was found?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I never said that.

ADV GCABASHE: This is precisely why I asked the question.  So you are saying he was not assaulted after the note was found, never assaulted after the note was found.

MR DU PLESSIS: Not that I know of.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as I understand your evidence, it is that after the note was found he wasn't even interrogated let alone being interrogated.

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct, I did say that I had discussions with him but as you put it, he was not subjected to interrogation.

MR ROUX: How did you go about arranging for him to placed in the single quarters?

MR DU PLESSIS: I just asked the - asked them for the key.

MR ROUX: Did this happen immediately?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, as far as I know.

MR ROUX: Who took him from the cells to the single quarters?

MR DU PLESSIS: At that stage the keys were in my possession so I believe that I took him.

MR ROUX: You cannot say for sure?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I can't.

MR ROUX: Did you ever consider the possibility that he could have written an earlier note?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but if one looked at that note in the style that it was written, it seemed as though it was the first one.

MR ROUX: So from the style of the note you got sufficient security not to investigate the possibility of an earlier note?

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct, that's a chance I had to take.

MR ROUX: Why did you have to take the chance?

MR DU PLESSIS: I could not do anything else.

MR ROUX: Could you not have questioned him and tried to find out whether he had written an earlier note?

MR DU PLESSIS: And you believe that he would have told me that?

CHAIRPERSON: Once again I want to tell you that you are here purely because of Danster's evidence about torture on this man, you understand?, by the applicant and I think that you should really confine your cross-examination to that aspect of the case and not on the general credibility of this witness on all the other issues.

MR ROUX: I concede Mr Chairman, I'll proceed now to the point.
	During the time before Mr Danster became involved with Kondile, various other people were involved with Kondile, it was you, Mr Raath and other members of the staff who also interrogated him.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, that's not correct, I only know of myself, Raath, members from East London, those are the only people I know about.

MR ROUX: It was you Raath and members from East London.  I want to put it to you that I find it strange that Mr Danster - or let me rather put it in this way, if Mr Danster then testifies that before the note was found Kondile was assaulted, he's telling a lie.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct, except if he refers to my assaults but I don't think he was with us.

MR ROUX: What do you mean he was not there?

MR DU PLESSIS: He was not there.

MR ROUX: Then, if he testifies that before the note was found there were assaults and in his submissions he refers to: "The Spook" an torture ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Roux, does Danster know when the note was found?  Is that his evidence that he knows when the note was found?

MR ROUX: According to his evidence no note was found.

ADV DE JAGER: How can you say then that before the note was found there were assaults, that can't be true, that is not a correct statement.

MR ROUX: I concede, thank you for your assistance.
	According to your evidence, before this note was found Danster is telling lies if he said there were assaults before the note was found.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't understand what you mean.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr du Plessis, you are saying he was assaulted before the note was found.

MR DU PLESSIS: Assaulted by myself.

JUDGE PILLAY: What Mr Roux is trying to establish is, if there were there any assaults it could only be before the note was found.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: And the statement is, then is Danster telling lies when he says that he was involved in all these other matters?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, he's telling lies.

MR ROUX: I'm putting it to you that he's taking a big chance to tell those type of lies if he knows that you, Raath and all the people from East London knew that he was not involved.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, why did he not apply for amnesty? That's very interesting that he did not apply for amnesty, he was then involved in cruel assaults.

MR ROUX: I'm just repeating the statement that I find it strange when he took such a chance when there are people who could testify that that did not happen.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't find it strange, you might perhaps.

MR ROUX: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROUX

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a short adjournment at this stage.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR ROUX: Mr Chairman, I want beg your pardon but I've omitted two things in my cross-examination, I will be quick?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MR ROUX: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Mr du Plessis, I want to refer you to Volume 1, page 168, entry 264 - it's Volume 2.

ADV DE JAGER: Is it Volume 2?

MR ROUX: It's Volume 2, page 186.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MR ROUX: Do you have it Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have page 186.

MR ROUX: 624, it says - the date is important, 10.8.81 and it says
"...[illegible] Kondile placed in cells on 14.11 by somebody"
Is that what you see there?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR ROUX: According to your evidence as I understand it, if the date is correct and the entry is correct, it's impossible that something like that had happened.

MR DU PLESSIS: It's not impossible.

MR ROUX: If I understand your evidence correctly, after the note had been found he was kept in single quarters and not in the cells.

MR DU PLESSIS: Precisely yes, but during that morning he could have been placed back in those cells before being released.

MR ROUX: Why would he have been placed in the cells again?

MR DU PLESSIS: In the first place he had to sign for his belongings and the books had to be cleared because he's going to be released.

MR ROUX: How do you release a person who has not been in the cells?  The single quarters, are they not an acceptable place for detaining prisoners?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I don't know how you get to that.

MR ROUX: I want to put it to you - I have to put it to you that Mr Danster's version is that you were involved in the assault with Mr Kondile.