Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-24

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Well, you couldn't charge Madaka, because we didn't have direct testimony against him, evidence against him.  We did consider detaining him in terms of Section 6, but the problem with him was that we had an informer who was very close to him and if we had to detain him, possible questions could be asked which could identify the informer.

MR BOOYENS: Okay, we don't all think in terms of Security Police' frames of reference, but could you please explain to us what you mean when you say that possible questions could be asked which could lead to the identification of the informer, what do you mean?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Much of the information which we had obtained, had come in through this informer and this was also the only person at that stage with whom Madaka had discussed certain aspects.
	And by asking the wrong questions, he could discover that it could only have been that person.

MR BOOYENS: In other words to make it clear, if I were to know that you alone could know certain things and the same Security Police were to confront me with this, I wouldn't have to be very intelligent to say but you had given them the information, is that correct?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: So, the option in other words did not exist of detaining him and therefore possible restriction, the whole house arrest story, was that considered?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that was considered.

MR BOOYENS: That was also not found acceptable, why not?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we previously placed numerous people in this area, under restriction or house arrest.  It did not work and it did not bear any fruit because to limit these people to their houses so that they could not organise, was sort of an impossibility.
	First you did not have the staff to do so and secondly as the townships were set out in relation to each other, there were people who were constantly in contact with them.

MR BOOYENS: So it would be ineffective totally?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, totally.

MR BOOYENS: In your opinion, would restrictions have curtailed the people's activities at all?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: No, it wouldn't have, it would perhaps just have given them greater stature because he being restricted in the light of his health position, would have given rise to this kind of activity.

MR BOOYENS: As you had pointed out previously, the Security Branch already had a bad name owing to the Biko matter?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So, if something should have happened in Port Elizabeth, the whole country's Police structure would have been sensitive regarding what was happening in Port Elizabeth?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So for that reason, was it decided that the, let's refer to them as legal options to curtail these gentlemen's activities, would not be viable?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I am going on to a stage now which is going to take me longer than four minutes to finish.  I see it is four minutes to four, may I subject to your ruling, request that we adjourn at this stage?

CHAIRPERSON: 09H30 tomorrow morning.
HEARING ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Phosa, we adjourned yesterday till half past nine this morning, not till after you had checked out of your hotel.  Can you explain why you weren't here at half past nine?

MR PHOSA: Firstly I must apologise.  The reason for that was that I received a call from my chambers of a complication that I had to deal with before coming down, and I was hoping to do it as quickly as possible.
	Secondly through no fault of mine, the hotel where I am is understaffed, we queued up for 20 minutes and I couldn't have foreseen that and I apologise sincerely for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on then with the evidence.

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: (s.u.o.)

MR BOOYENS: (cont)
	Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Du Plessis, we were approximately at the middle of page 18 of your application yesterday.  Could you please expand a little bit before we get to the final conclusion of the meeting you held, could you possibly just sketch to us the general situation on the ground, in the early 1980's in the Eastern Cape?  I don't think it is necessary to explain too much on this, but if you could just tell us is it correct that by 1980 schools' boycotts and general unrest had already started?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: What role did Mr Mthimkhulu play in this regard?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: He was a leader amongst the people involved in the schools' unrest, he was also responsible for chasing pupils out of the schools, he together with another group.  Of the pupils who wished to attend school.

MR BOOYENS: Do you mean that he and a group chased pupils who attended school, out of the schools?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: In order to prevent them from going to school?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: The schools were furthermore used to politicise the masses and mobilise them, is that correct?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: This in turn led to violence breaking out, is that correct?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Was there already during those days incidents of bomb throwing?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Just to mention a few.  Bombs on the railway lines at New Brighton, in 1981?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Also in August 1981, at Constantia business centre?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And then in June 1981, at the old Administration offices?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Which other forms of violence occurred, was there violence against Policemen?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Your Honour, after meetings and after the politicisation of the masses had occurred, violence was the order of the day.  The streets were barricaded and Policemen's houses were attacked, teachers' houses were attacked and vehicles everywhere in the townships were burnt out.

MR BOOYENS: What form did attacks on houses take, arson etc?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Are you specifically aware of two members of the Security Branch being murdered in 1981?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Who were they?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: I can't remember their ranks, but the one was Tseu and Matanda.

MR PHOSA: I am sorry Mr Booyens, can I interrupt for a minute please.  Which year are you referring to now, is it 1980, can you be specific?

MR BOOYENS: Certainly Mr Chairman.  I have already stated that the bomb attacks occurred in 1981.  The violence stretched over 1980/1981 and 1981.  Is that correct?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: The Policemen murdered, did that occur in 1981?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: I think you have already dealt with this to some extent, the role of Mr Mthimkhulu, it is an overt role.  Did he play a prominent role at the meetings?

HERMANUS BAREND DU PLESSIS: Yes, he did.  He was a speaker at all these meetings and where they incited the crowd to violence.
	In this regard I just wish to point out that the politicisation was taking place openly.  The incitement to violence was done in a subtle manner and particularly after the meetings, groups who had already been instructed to do so, then further incited the masses to violence.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't say that you just have he incited the crowd to violence at meetings he addressed, you are now saying it was done in a subtle manner by people after the meetings, are you?