Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1996-07-01

JUDGE WILSON: Nobody has told us about balaclavas over the heads or gloves. You weren't there, were you?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: No, I wasn't, but that was our modus operandi.

JUDGE WILSON: And we were told that they were going to take, if they found a woman there, they were going to take her into the laundry or somewhere and tie her up, very close contact.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: I suggest to you that it appears that the planning was reckless as to whether this person would be or any servant who was unlucky to be seen by these people, would be killed or not, and that that is what you agreed to?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Well, as I said, it was a mistake of mine to have allowed the operation in the first place. I have deep regrets about it.  But I don't think that they would have been recognised in any circumstances, because wearing that balaclava, wearing the gloves, wearing camouflage uniform, I believe makes on totally unrecognisable.

JUDGE WILSON: Walking outside a - 150 metres away from a hotel in the morning, dressed like this?  That's what we were told it was.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, well, our modus operandi was to be do all movements very clandestine. That is why we used to wear camouflage uniforms so that we would move in the bushes.

JUDGE WILSON: You have also referred us during the course of your evidence to a letter or letters of Olivier.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Oliver Matthie, that's right.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, there are three of them, aren't there?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Are they all addressed to you?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: The name that is on there is Jean Pierre du Toit, which was a false name, but it was directed to me.

JUDGE WILSON: Because they seem to be mainly worried about his relationship with Christine and contain very little indicating any political relationship between you, do they?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Well, the part that was in Z11, number 4, I think it is underlined, I don't know whether it is underlined in your copy, shows that there are five men that he had ... (intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: Oh, he had found some Italian boys who would come out but he would only come out with them if he didn't see Christine in June?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: No, I think ... (intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: That's the underlined portion
"And I will come only if I don't see Christine in June.  The five Italian boys too."

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Christine again.  The next paragraph is -"I don't know what is the game of Christine."

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That is correct.  We did not write much about politics and our objectives at that stage, because of fear of interception by the security police. However, he was feeling very bad about Mr Van Wyk that had taken off his girlfriend from him.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, that was his prime concern in writing to you, wasn't it?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That was ... ... (intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: And which Mr Van Wyk was that?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: My co-accused.

JUDGE WILSON: So he was angry, he says he would never want to meet your co-accused again and yet you say he was working with you and your organisation.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That is correct, we were working together.
However, there was this internal problem between the two of them.  However, I felt that our overhead objectives would have been put ahead of personal feelings.

JUDGE WILSON: He doesn't seem to agree in his letters, does he?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Well, at that stage he didn't.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.  Thank you.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Du Plessis, in your evidence you mention that White had assured you that the operation would be carried out and it was a simple operation to carry out.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is what he ... (intervention).

SISI KHAMPEPE: With regard to the Louis Trichardt incident.

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That is correct, that is what he had assured me of.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And you had participated in the planning, you had been advised of the details of the plan by Mr White?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: No, I wasn't part of the planning. He had only told me that he knows of these weapons where he could steal them, at a private holding, and he knew the people, that he knew the whereabouts and that it would be a simple operation.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But then you approved of the plan, you must have been told of the plan?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: I approved in principle that they - the weapons could be stolen there.  However, I did not have access to the detailed plan because I wasn't present when the detailed plan was worked out.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But was the plan not discussed with you?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: No, the plan was not discussed with me. I was on holiday with my family at that stage when the final detailed plan was set up, I presume.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, you say what the detailed plan was, you were told it was perfectly simple, they were going to go to the house, walk in and take the guns.  What are you now talking about final detailed plans?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Our modus operandi was to draw a plan of a place to decide what the entrance way would be, what the access way would be, and it was done in a military fashion.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Du Plessis, did you not give Mr White your gun for the operation?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: I left my firearm at home, as he had asked, because we moved all our operations fully armed.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Yes, you knew that - did you know that there was a likelihood of them using a gun?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: The firearms was put to their disposal and we used to take firearms with us. In the event of security force intervention.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Now this was a simple operation.  This was what was conveyed to you, but you gave them your gun?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Yes, we would never have known where and when the security force might be able to intervene.

SISI KHAMPEPE: With regard to the car incident, were there any means made to ascertain the ownership of that car by you, before the car was stolen?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Was there any ...?

SISI KHAMPEPE: Did you make any means to ascertain the identity of the owner of the car that you intended to steal?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: No, no, we didn't.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And your intention was never to have had your own people?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: As far as it was possible for us, I would, I didn't want to harm our own people, no.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Was there any urgency which presented itself that resulted in you having to steal the car then and there, without having conducted any kind of investigation to, with regard to the identity of the owner of the car?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: Well, we decided that we must, we need a car and that it would inevitably have to be stolen.  We felt that at a later stage it would be possible to find out such things. However, we didn't have the infrastructure to investigate such things, at that stage.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Would it have been an impossible thing to do though?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: I don't know whether it would have been impossible, but it would have been very difficult at that stage anyway.

SISI KHAMPEPE: You had a movement formed on the 16th of December 1990.  That's SAPAT?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: That is SARO.

SISI KHAMPEPE: SARO?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: The South African Republican Organisation, yes.

SISI KHAMPEPE: What is the difference between that movement and the one which was later formed? SAPAT? Which one came first?  SARO or SAPAT?

JEAN DU PLESSIS: No, SARO would have been a political wing of the organisation where SAPAT would have been a military wing.  The idea of SAPAT had started while we were in the Army, while White and I were still in the South African Defence Force, and then later on I had decided to change the name of SAPAT to the National Socialist Partisans.

SISI KHAMPEPE: How many members belonged to SAPAT, before it was changed to NSP?