Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — UNKNOWN

H B DU PLESSIS: Well we were always present ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is that really pertinent now, because the event 
has occurred, he was killed, what purpose is there to ask 
questions like this?

MR NYOKA: My learned friend there are two purposes.  The 
first one is that I did not hear the witness saying that the 
cartridge was taken after the shot was fired.  Secondly, I did not 
hear him saying that the blood was cleared so that 
...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't been questioned about the cartridge.

MR NYOKA: I was going to that Your Worship but you cut me, 
I was going to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No I thought you were talking about the 
position where the execution took place ...(intervention)

MR NYOKA: No I was wrapping up, I was coming to that Your 
Worship ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well come to that please.

MR NYOKA: The cartridge, did anyone take the cartridge away?

H B DU PLESSIS: I can't remember.

MR NYOKA: Did you clear the blood at the spot where he was 
shot before he was placed on the pyre?

H B DU PLESSIS: I think it was done, I did not do it personally.

MR NYOKA: But you don't know for a fact whether it was 
done?

H B DU PLESSIS: No I don't know.

MR NYOKA: You say that the body was completely burnt to 
ashes?

H B DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: Without tyres being used?

H B DU PLESSIS: That's my recollection, ja.

MR NYOKA: Bones did not remain?

H B DU PLESSIS: I can't remember that anything was left.

MR NYOKA: We have expert evidence that if a body is burnt 
bones will remain and if bones do remain and they were thrown 
wherever they should still be there.

H B DU PLESSIS: I can't help you in that respect.

MR NYOKA: Finally Mr du Plessis your affidavit in response in 
response to Mr Coetzee's averments I think through the Harms 
Commission you said that briefly Mr Kondile co-operated, why 
did you not go further and say that he was an informer and we 
furnished him with information, that is why he may have 
absconded, that wouldn't have done your case down, it will have 
strengthened your claim that Mr Kondile absconded? Why did you 
not add that?

H B DU PLESSIS: I don't know Your Honour.  This is what is in 
my statement, I can't even remember what is there.

MR NYOKA: And it was under oath that you said that.

H B DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: And today you are also under oath?

H B DU PLESSIS: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: Why do you think you should be believed now 
when you lied then?

H B DU PLESSIS: No, in the first place I came to the fore.

MR NYOKA: From 28th of April 1994 to November 1996 after 
you had resigned from the SAP in 1993 and after the National 
Party Government was no longer in power, that is for two years 
before you applied, why did you not come forward with the truth 
if you are so remorseful?

H B DU PLESSIS: I've said previously that the opportunity was 
created by this Committee and I've said it earlier that initially we 
did not trust this Commission and we were influenced by, for 
example, Colonel Erasmus and we came to the fore, and I am not 
sorry about that today.

MR NYOKA: And if you say you had eternal pain after that 
incident why did you jump from one murder to another within 
eight months or nine months from Kondile to Mthimkulu?

H B DU PLESSIS: What I refer to is that I am still suffering this 
pain.  A job had to be done and there is nothing you can do about 
that.

MR NYOKA: My instructions from my client is that you have 
robbed him of a role model and a father and you have not told the 
truth today, the son, Bantu, the son of the deceased.  You have 
robbed him of a role model and a father and you have not told us 
the whole truth today, any comment?

H B DU PLESSIS: I am very sorry that this happened, but the 
fact that I am sitting here today I can assure you that I am telling 
the truth and I am telling what I can remember and what I know 
of.

MR NYOKA: In conclusion have you approached him to 
apologise personally, he's a young man?

H B DU PLESSIS: I have not.

MR NYOKA: Why not?

H B DU PLESSIS: I did not do that because my legal counsel 
told me not to do that at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to the 
applicant?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman just two or three questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you Sir.  The question I want to put 
to you which I do not understand, you were in control of this 
investigation from the start, you went out of your way with 
thorough planning to cover up the matter.  Nine years after this in 
1990 you told lies to the Harms Commission, what I find 
interesting is that all the applicants have filled in the same 
application once again, what is the possibility that by means - we 
have the possibility again that you can mislead the Truth 
Commission again.  The same modus operandi that you used with 
the Harms Commission as well as with the initial investigation.  
The fact that you are leaving out certain important information, 
you left out the name Danster from your amnesty application.  
The fact that this person was assaulted it's not even mentioned, 
can you comment on this?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you - you make a long statement and now 
you are asking him to comment on all the points that you've made 
in that statement ...(intervention)

ADV STEENKAMP: I'll break it down.

CHAIRPERSON: What about be a little more specific and put 
them one by one.

ADV STEENKAMP: Right Mr Chairman.  My question to him is 
the following.  It seems to me that when it came to filling in the 
amnesty applications which appear to me to be duplicates, that 
the same modus operandi was followed, as you did in the Harms 
Commission as well as during the investigation of the matter.

ADV DE JAGER: Let him just reply to the one first as you 
asked him.  The question to you is that you misled the Harms 
Commission, you are now following the same modus operandi in 
this case.  What is your comment on this?

H B DU PLESSIS: I can just deny it.  I am now speaking the 
truth.  I do not believe that one makes these mistakes more than 
once.

ADV STEENKAMP: The question I want to put to you is that 
Danster and Coetzee both say the deceased was badly assaulted.  
Can you give any reason as to why they would say that?

ADV BOOYENS: With respect on that question regarding Dirk 
Coetzee, where does Dirk Coetzee say that? If my learned friend 
can just point out where he said that the deceased was assaulted 
seriously otherwise I must object.  His evidence was that General 
van Rensburg told him that the man jumped through the window 
and landed on his head during interrogation.  I cannot recall him 
saying that he was seriously assaulted.  Dirk alleges that he only 
saw him.

ADV STEENKAMP: Good.  Can I then ask you, is there any 
reason why a person such as Danster will lie about this?

H B DU PLESSIS: Lie about what?

ADV STEENKAMP: That Kondile was assaulted.

H B DU PLESSIS: But I said that he was assaulted.

ADV STEENKAMP: That you assaulted him seriously, why 
would he lie about this, can you give a reason?

H B DU PLESSIS: No I acknowledge that I assaulted him 
...(intervention)  Can I just reply please, can you just give me a 
chance to reply.
	I am saying that I did assault him.  I know of no case where 
Danster was present during his interrogation.

ADV STEENKAMP: Do you know a person by the name of 
Sergeant N N Batsane, the person who is mentioned by Danster, 
was he ever present?

H B DU PLESSIS: It's most probably Bezane, he died quite a 
few years ago, I think it's '81 or '82.

ADV STEENKAMP: Was he ever present?

H B DU PLESSIS: No he was not.

ADV STEENKAMP: Did he ever refer to the deceased as 
Kwezi?

H B DU PLESSIS: No, not as far as I know.  I called him by the 
name of Kondile.

CHAIRPERSON: How well did you know this man Danster?