Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-24

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Your Honour, the words were used that collaborators and any other persons who worked with the so-called system, had to be dealt with.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he ever charged with incitement of violence?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: No, he was never charged.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Why had no physical evidence against him, because at that stage there was anarchy in the black townships, nobody was prepared to come to the fore to testify against these persons

CHAIRPERSON: But you have just told us what he said at meetings, we know that the Security Branch was regularly represented at meetings, we know that they had recording devices.  If you are so satisfied that you can say without a shadow of doubt that he said this at meetings, you must have had direct information that he said it, why couldn't that have been used?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Your Honour, tape recordings had been made at these meetings, but I can give you the assurance that the quality of those tapes was of such a nature, that it could not be used.  It was taken up at the Attorney General's level and at high levels and as far as I can remember, attempts were also made to have experts testify with regarding to voice recognition, but we couldn't succeed in getting this done.

MR BOOYENS: In summary then, the Attorney General's people were not satisfied that the information that you had, was adequate for a successful procedure to be instituted against these people?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did the situation broaden further during 1981 and later where Trade Unions, Community Organisations, Churches, other Youth Organisations actively entered into the struggle?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And did violence and unrest escalate?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You yourself was a Policeman on ground level, were you in the midst of the violence?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.  My vehicle on numerous occasions was stoned.

MR BOOYENS: Did the situation eventually develop that by mid 1981 some of the leader elements were detained?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.  Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Inter alia Mthimkhulu?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You heard your colleague's testimony, why Madaka was never detained because namely that a source had been very close to him?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And that any questioning would have led to the source being identified?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And I think it is a matter of public record, that people who cooperated with the Police and who were sources had their lives threatened?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You are not prepared to divulge the identity of the source?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Although the leaders were detained, did it - okay, let's leave that there.  The leaders were detained, but the violence continued, is that correct?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: If we then briefly refer to the detention of Mr Mthimkhulu, in terms of Section 6 of the Terrorism Act, did he make a statement?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, a so-called statement was taken from him, but it was worth nothing because it could not be used as evidence.

MR BOOYENS: So the statement he made, would not have played a role in later decisions?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Not at all.

MR BOOYENS: He did not in the legal, technical sense make a admission?

CHAIRPERSON: Why couldn't it be used as evidence?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Your Honour, if I remember correctly  his statement denied everything that we charged him with.  He referred to meetings and to speaking at meetings and he said those were just innocent statements made there.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you mean is that his statement didn't conform with your suspicions, so you thought it was worth nothing?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct, Your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: This is now besides your suspicions and the statements that he had also not agreed with information obtained from informers?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: The statement which he had made, was made in terms of Section 6 of the Terrorism Act, is that correct?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: But as far as I know, that type of statement was not allowed as testimony in a court?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: It was not allowed because it was made forcefully or under force, under duress?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: He was detained, he went to the Cape.  You heard about the allegations of poisoning, you were confronted by the Police and the press in December already.  The allegations that he had been poisoned?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now, let us look at the situation after his release.  After his release he arrived here, there is a photograph taken at the airport where he was confined to a wheelchair?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: The fact that he was in a wheelchair, did he attend meetings in his wheelchair and address the meetings from his wheelchair?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.  They transported him from one meeting to the next where he addressed these meetings and used as an example that whatever the system wished to do to him, he would continue with the struggle.

MR BOOYENS: 1982 was also the 70th anniversary of the ANC and was also a year where there was general intensified activity in the field of the liberation movements?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And these were the meetings where he after his release from hospital, he gained increase in stature?  Stature ascribable to the fact that he was a victim of the agents of the Apartheid regime?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did his condition improve in due course?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: We have this wheelchair picture.  Was he confined to a wheelchair, couldn't he walk at all?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: He could walk.

MR BOOYENS: Could he walk without assistance, did he walk with a stick, or what was the position?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Well, he walked with a stick although he walked in a shuffling manner.

MR BOOYENS: If we look at the year 1982, as a general statement describing the situation in Port Elizabeth, did it escalate the violence etc?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: During that year for example commemoration services to celebrate the ANC's existence were held.  Did he play an important role, Mthimkhulu now at these meetings and also as a symbol of what the regime had done?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did the situation escalate to such a state or level that a greater level of insurgency developed?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Were campaigns launched against black councillors?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, various campaigns were the order of the day.

MR BOOYENS: Was the Police later forced to establish Special Investigation Units to try and limit this type of activity?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, a number were established.

MR BOOYENS: The position regarding Police access to these areas, what was the attitude of the uniform people and the ordinary detectives regarding these places, were they prepared to go in or not?