Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-27

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairman, I am going to explain the dealings of the State Security 
Council before 1990 because after 1990 there were certain changes and if you are interested in that, those 
were merely technical changes, I might be able to inform you there as well. 
	Before 1990 the State Security Council was self-existent out of these the State President, the 
Minister of Defence, the Minister previously of Police and thereafter of Law and Order, Minister of Justice, 
Minister of Foreign Affairs and occasionally the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State Expenditure 
would be there as the State President deemed necessary.

ADV DE JAGER: That was a bit fast as my colleague indicated, were there five permanent members?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: There was the State President, the Minister of Defence, Minister of Law and Order, 
previously the Minister of Police, the Minister of Justice and the Minister PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 242	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: of Foreign Affairs, they were permanent members and occasionally the Minister of Constitutional 
Development, I don't know if he became a permanent member but he and the Minister of Finance 
eventually were there and other members according to who the State President deemed necessary and also 
the heads of the different departments. 
	The State Security Council in turn had a Secretariat.  This Secretariat had various committees and 
I think the committees whose dealings would be of interest to you and in whose dealings I would go into at 
length would be the Strategic Committee which dealt with various incidents with regard to certain matters.  
Then the Security Council had another committee, a Management Committee at divisional level where the 
heads of the departments and heads of the Defence Force served. I would say the Divisional Heads and 
other persons and it was further divided into branches with management centres where other members 
served at a lower level. 
	The State Security Council itself determined policy as far as defence was concerned, took 
decisions which were of National interest, which by way of the ministers involved and various departments 
would be executed via those departments. The Executive - the system was under a Minister who also 
reported directly to the Council from time to time and they served in a purely coordinational function.  
There were also various departments who contributed to the security situation and in that way brought them 
together and planned these things together and also would coordinate actions which were to take place.  
But all instructions were done via the departments in their own systems. As far as the joint management 
committee there was no authority to issue 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 243	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: instructions, so it was merely coordinational.  And when it came to policy and the execution of policy the 
State Security Council, in the light of information which was received from all the other committees, would 
determine the instruction and the policy and the department heads in their turn would execute these 
instructions through the departments. 
	There was also the Coordinating Information Committee. The chairperson was also a permanent 
member of the State Security Council.  Previously it was Dr Neil Barnard and the coordinator was - the 
coordinators consisted of the various of the heads of the various information committees which in those 
days were the National Intelligence and Military Intelligence and Foreign Affairs who also had an 
informatory role, and in their turn they would also contribute to what was submitted to the State Security 
Council to consider and also determine policy and decide which steps should be taken in the interest of 
National Security.

MR CURRIN: When you talk about taking a decision on policy and steps that need to be taken in the 
interests of State Security, are you referring to, for example, a decision as to whether the emergency 
regulations should be extended, is it that type of a policy decision?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Ja, that is correct, Mr Chairman. Inter alia it included other aspects such as when 
there was a specific area where there was unrest and it could overflow into other areas and cause a 
nationwide unrest situation, then it would be such a situation where there had to be decisions taken.

MR CURRIN: Now, that's a general decision. What about specific issues?   We have heard evidence, for 
example, that Trivets which has been referred to fairly extensively, would PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 244	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: have discussions they would identify targets, they would then implement action against a particular target, 
but that those decisions to implement were done with the knowledge of the State Security Council because 
there was a referral upwards through the Divisional Commissioner, through the Commissioner to the 
Minister and then to the State Security Council, could you tell us whether that is in fact how it operated?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I have already, in my evidence- in-chief testified about Trivets.  It was 
a Committee which was under the control of the Coordinating Information Committee and Trivets duty, I 
would like to repeat that for your information, Trivets duty was, inter alia, to identify targets that were 
threatening in surrounding areas and also work out ways of combatting such threats, and also where 
necessary cross-border operations and necessary eliminations.   And also within the country identify 
potential threatening targets. I never understood it otherwise and I never received any other information but 
thereafter within the law to combat such threat. Trivets did not report to the State Security Council directly 
but by way of the Coordinating Information Committee, and the only incidents which I am aware about 
where information was given by Trivets and where a decision was taken by the State Security Council was 
about cross-border operations.  But there were no other incidents which I can just remember off-hand 
where the State Security Council, in the light of information which Trivets made available to the 
coordinating Information Committee, took a decision.

MR CURRIN: And you are quite categorical when you say that any target identified within the borders of 
South Africa by 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 245	GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Trivets the only authority in regard to such a target would have been to act lawfully against such a target?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: That is correct, Mr Chairman, but at previous occasion I emphasised that due to the 
fact that Trevits had to identify potential threats outside the country and by means of cross-border 
operations and act against persons who were potential threats, it led to the confused or the misperception 
that targets within the country were regarded in the same category as members outside the country and in 
the past few months we encountered such perceptions.  But in being, it was never the intention of Trevits 
and indeed Trevits never operated in that manner.

MR CURRIN: If one takes for example the Nyanda attack which you are aware of, it is one of the 
applications which has been submitted, the killing of Zwele Nyanda and Keith McFadden, an attack in 
Swaziland, would that attack have been discussed at the level of the State Security Council before it was 
implemented?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, it was possible but I do not know about it. I, myself cannot comment 
on that.

MR CURRIN: So not all attacks that were exercised outside of the borders of the country would 
necessarily have been discussed on the level of the State Security Council?
GEN V/

UNKNOWN: Definitely not. There were acts committed without the necessary involvement or 
without having approached the Security Council first, that was our approach to this matter.