Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-02-09

MR DU PLESSIS: I, Hermanus Barend Du Plessis, am 53 years of age and born on the 29th of September 1944 at Mossel Bay.  I grew up on a farm in the Mossel Bay district and matriculated at the Punt High School as Mossel Bay.  My father was a farmer and my mother was a teacher.  I grew up in a strict Afrikaner home and our whole family was members of the Dutch Reformed Church.
	I joined the South African Police after completion of my schooling and I and my parents supported the Government of the day. During this time, I was of the opinion that apartheid was justifiable and necessary for the safe existence of the Whites at the Southern part of South Africa and a democratic Government.
	I was convinced that as part of the white population group and that the only reason for survival and to guarantee their further existence, is to support the Government of the day.  That would only be possible if every population group could exist separately while the white population group would fulfil the dominant rule.
	During my career in the South African Police I acted at all times in a bona fide manner as a member of the South African Police and as a supporter of the Government of the National Party.  I saw my duty to protect the constitutional dispensation of the day and to prevent that the power basis of the National Party should be overthrown.
	These personal convictions of mine were supported by my membership of the Dutch Reformed Church and they unequivocally supported the National Party's policy.  I am aware in which way the National Party Government conditioned us as members of the South African Police, to keep us loyal and true to the Government of the day.  
	During training courses at the South African Police and liaison with other members of the security police and political leaders of the National Party, we were repeatedly told that the revolutionary philosophy with the purpose of overthrowing the present regime posed a great threat for us and that the black liberation movement through these, the liberation movement wished to enforce on us their own regime.
	This revolutionary onslaught I saw - regarded, in the same light as communist aggression.  I was frightened that the communist philosophy would regard South Africa as a very important target and the struggle was on a psychological level at that stage.
	I regarded myself as a member of the South African Police service and the security police.  As one of those people would be responsible - through security activities, to enforce law-enforcement, to create peace and stability even if that entailed the irradication of the family and enemy and their structures that would exist while there were revolutionary forces.  These revolutionary forces were a threat and we were forced to do everything in our power to prevent that.

UNKNOWN: Mr Du Plessis, if you turn to page 14 - that's the second page, and there you explain dates, who and where on - these particulars on which your application is based.  Regarding the nature of this you state that the person was arrested at Van Rooyens Hek border post in the Free State, he was not arrested by you?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: He was arrested by some or other security branch who was responsible there, is that correct?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

UNKNOWN: When did you meet the deceased for the first time?

MR DU PLESSIS: Shortly after the 10th of July 1981.

UNKNOWN: At that stage, did you go cold into this situation or were you kept up to breast regarding his activities?

MR DU PLESSIS: I was kept up to date with his interrogation through the Free State, they did that by telephone or crypto messages.

UNKNOWN: I shortly want to refer you to a document - a security report, on page 167 on Volume 2.  This specific security report is concerned with the deceased and came from Prinsloo in which he says that the information was received.  Did you see this document at a certain stage?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: To summarise, this document is before the Committee.  It summarises a few people with whom the deceased was associated and also the fact that those people came from the Eastern Cape and their activities in the Eastern Cape, is that correct/

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Booyens, can you refer to us - I think it's paragraph 5 and six in this document.

UNKNOWN: That is correct Mr Chairman, it is also paragraph 4 which is relevant, and there are a few names mentioned there coming from the New Brighton area in Port Elizabeth - it goes on till paragraph 8.

ADV DE JAGER: You can also consider 11.

UNKNOWN: It actually goes on till paragraph till paragraph 11, is that correct?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

UNKNOWN: This was a security report.  Before you received this report there was communication between you and the people in the Free State although you did not have access to this specific documents.  You received telephone calls from them regarding him?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I received telephone calls and I received encoded messages.  This report is a summary of some of the most important encoded messages which came from the Eastern Cape.

UNKNOWN: And Mr Kondile was known to the security branch in the Eastern Cape - Division Eastern Cape.  Later on there might arise confusion, Division Eastern Cape was round about Port Elizabeth, is that correct?  (transcriber's own translation)

MR DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: And there was also a division: Border?

MR DU PLESSIS: That was in East London.

UNKNOWN: Where was Elliot, was it ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: That was part of the Border Division.

UNKNOWN: When did you more or less see the deceased for the first time after he was arrested in the Free State?

MR DU PLESSIS: That was after we found them there and to the 10th of July he was sent to the Eastern Cape.  I would see him that day or the day afterwards.

UNKNOWN: Where did you see him for the first time?

MR DU PLESSIS: That was in Humansdorp at the police station.

UNKNOWN: The deceased was detained in terms of security legislation, is that correct?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: And then, did you start interrogating the deceased?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: During this interrogation, who was responsible for this mainly?

MR DU PLESSIS: I myself.

UNKNOWN: And during this interrogation, did the deceased give his co-operation immediately, or did you have to force him to do that?

MR DU PLESSIS: On certain points he co-operated but regarding others he hid some information, he concealed it.

UNKNOWN: Did you assault this man while interrogating?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I assaulted him.

UNKNOWN: How?

MR DU PLESSIS: I can remember that I hit him with my open hand and then also with my fist at certain instances.  I did not assault him brutally but I did assault him.

UNKNOWN: There is a document that was handed in from Mr Dunstan who alleged that you applied electrical shocks, do you know anything about this?  Were you involved in this?

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't know about that and I was not involved in that.

UNKNOWN: Mr Du Plessis, you yourself and as far as you know, did you or your colleagues - and I think the people talk about a kind of a field telephone with a dynamo powder, did you ever use something like that?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I did not.  I don't know of any people from the security forces who used this dynamo phone, I'm referring to Port Elizabeth.  I know that the detectives used this type of method.

UNKNOWN: And you say you yourself assaulted him, did you see that anybody else assaulted him?

MR DU PLESSIS: I did not see anybody else assaulting him. At certain occasions he mentioned to me that the people from the East London security branch had assaulted him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see any injuries on him during the time that you were interrogating him?

MR DU PLESSIS: I did not hurt him, I did not see any injuries myself.