Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-11

MR ERASMUS: It was done by my office, not this specific summary but the previous telexes were sent to head office.  There was one from Bloemfontein by du Plessis.

UNKNOWN: Mr Erasmus the information regarding the note, was that ever sent to head office?

MR ERASMUS: I have no knowledge of that.

MR VISSER: If I may attempt to be of assistance Mr Chairman, what the witness is referring to is what you will find at page 167 of volume 2.  You will see that at 167 that was a report which emanated from Bloemfontein and the person who made the report was Prinsloo.  But if you go on to the period when Kondile was in the Eastern Cape at page 172 you will see it's Captain du Plessis who now deals with the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 172?

MR VISSER: Yes.  I merely want to refer to the fact that it is Captain du Plessis who deals with the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the date of this document?

MR VISSER: This is the 17th of July 1981 Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: And it is clear that at that stage Mr Kondile must have been in Port Elizabeth.  And you will see that this is a report directed to Compol, which is Security headquarters in Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

JUDGE PILLAY: We once again get to the same question, was head office informed about this betrayal or this traitor, do you know?

MR ERASMUS: I don't believe so, because if you see in the testimony given by Mr du Plessis this man's - he was not discussed any further with head office.

JUDGE PILLAY: That's exactly the point, so am I correct if I say that the factors which you used to make this decision, together with the other two, these factors, it was never sent to head office?

MR ERASMUS: No you are not correct.  I am saying that the factors which I took into consideration when I made the decision were the same factors excluding the note.  In other words they had all the information but possibly not the information regarding the note.  I personally did not see the note myself.

JUDGE PILLAY: But surely the note is the crux of the whole problem?

MR ERASMUS: Yes it is the crux of the problem but as I would say I made the decision myself and did not communicate with head office regarding this decision.

JUDGE PILLAY: And do you know whether Mr du Plessis informed head office regarding this note?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know, but I don't believe so.

MR VISSER: Mr Erasmus perhaps we must just refer back to your testimony this morning when you spoke about the relationship and execution of tasks, instructions which you received from head office and how you regarded your own task as divisional commander and you said that you had to deal with the problems on grassroots level.

MR VISSER: That's correct.  However it may be regarding one or two three discussions you requested a memo which had to summarise everything for you, which you had in front of you after the consideration thereof and documentation you came to a decision, and what was the decision?

MR ERASMUS: The decision was that Kondile was to be eliminated.

MR VISSER: That was the first case and I am now referring specifically to the other cases of Mthimkulu and Madaka, this was the first time that you became involved in such a decision?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: It can perhaps be argued or accepted that every time you went to the Security Branch that you got hold of a trained terrorist that you killed him, is that the position?

MR ERASMUS: No that's not the position at all.  We charged a great number of people in the courts and prosecuted them successfully.

MR VISSER: Did you therefore regard this as an extreme case?

MR ERASMUS: Yes.  Because as a result of this information which was given by Kondile we couldn't do anything other than make this information known and I felt that this was an extreme case which I had to deal with.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Erasmus, please help me understand the limits of your powers as the person in charge in that area.  Where you had an extreme situation such as this you were essentially authorised to take a decision to eliminate a person without any further recourse to your superiors in Pretoria.

MR ERASMUS: I was appointed and I was the commander.  I had to deal with the situation at grassroots level.  This operation was done clandestinely and the intention was that this would never be exposed.

MR VISSER: So you knew that this was an illegal offence, it was a crime?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say that this operation was done clandestinely, that it should never come to light, I understand you to mean that even headquarters were not to know about it, is that it?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct, yes.

MR VISSER: That's the whole point that the Chairman is addressing, that's what it's all about.  You had a problem that you could not solve and according to you there was only one way of solving this problem.  What would be the use or the sense of having this publicised in the media or telling head office, what would have happened then?

MR ERASMUS: It would have offered no solution.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that mean that you had the power of life and death over a man?  You considered information given to you by your juniors, you have no way of verifying that because you didn't see the note; you don't ask Kondile whether in fact he has written that note, or whether the note was planted there by somebody, in other words you make no effort to go and speak to Kondile to make your own assessment of the man, and you decide to pass the sentence of death on him, is that what you are saying?

MR ERASMUS: I said that I trusted my people.  It was not necessary for me to go back on their word or to mistrust them.  If I was wrong then I was wrong.  I made my decision.  I cannot say much more about this.

MR VISSER: When you made this decision and you gave the instruction did you do this in your personal capacity as a person who has life and death in his hands, or what was your position?

MR ERASMUS: I acted as a policeman and I believe today, still ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You know that doesn't make any difference whether you acted as a policeman or as an ordinary human being, the fact of the matter is that you have the power of life and death and you exercised that power in this case.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman may I lead him on the provisions of Section 20(2)(b) with your leave.
	Did you give this instruction and make this decision as Gerrit Erasmus or as a policeman?

MR ERASMUS: I made this decision as a policeman.

MR VISSER: And how did you argue - how was what you did, how was this in relation to your duties as a policeman?

MR ERASMUS: I regarded this as a protection of lives and property and the disruption and putting a stop to terrorism and bomb attacks because Mr Kondile was not a scholar, he was a trained terrorist who was involved with terrorism, infiltration of terrorists which he pointed out to us, explosives were brought in and I do not have to say this to you, what the chaos that resulted from these bomb attacks in this country.

MR VISSER: And as a security policeman was one of your tasks the protection and maintenance of internal security?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Where did you place yourself as a security policeman in the struggle between the State structures and the liberation movements?

MR ERASMUS: I believed that we were the last bastion in the struggle.

MR VISSER: So in other words what you are saying is that what you did and what you believed was part of your duties, your powers as a security policeman?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Erasmus you were a high-ranking policeman not so?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: And surely you know the rules and laws regarding policemen?

MR ERASMUS: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Under which Act or law could you kill a person?

MR ERASMUS: There are many ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Not many, but let us hear.