Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-07

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Vos, we are aware of that.  We have access to all that evidence.  We've read summaries of the evidence and the judgment and I think at the outset of these proceedings I said that this witness, for example, has put a particular version on record.  He said that his training in the Caprivi was for a very specific purpose.  That's how he understood it.  That he understood that he was to be trained in deadly skills and that he was to return to this province and he was to kill people and I think it would help us if you put to him that your instructions from your client are totally contrary to that, that they understood that they were doing something of a secret nature at the request of Minister Buthelezi,
 /in order to
3B in order to train them to provide protection for himself and his VIPs, as other members of counsel have done, because I don't see your line of cross-examination is really taking us much further.  The witness is confused and we are also becoming confused.  It seems to me that there are two very different opposite versions taking place here on either side of us and it would help us if you could put to him a version and ask him whether he agrees with it or not.

MR DE VOS: Mr Chairman, maybe it can save time.  I've got my computer here.  Maybe I can try and extract from last year's trial record.  A lot of explanations were used with the AK-47s.  It's going to save a lot of time.  And then I can continue tomorrow morning with that on that basis.

MR WILLS: Obviously this affects my client.  Possibly there's a misunderstanding as well, with the greatest respect to you, Sir.  My client isn't up here as an expert on what South African Defence policy is.  He's not an expert on military strategy.  Basically, he's here because he has the urge to tell, to the best of his knowledge, what occurred in his own lifestyle and so, with the greatest respect, I don't think that he can take the issue as regards the higher strategy any further, and with the greatest respect to his evidence so far, I don't think he's attempted to do so.  He's made one allusion or one - he's alluded to something which might have been responsible for the confusion, where he said that because of his training he wouldn't be sitting here, but I don't think his intention in that is to say that because of that the South African Defence Force is or is not responsible.
 /It's just
3B It's just a factual situation which has occurred in his life, but clearly he cannot take the matter of higher strategy between Ministers and Generals any further at all and I don't think he intends to do that.  I think in his evidence, the whole of his evidence he has related to people who are pretty low down in the command chain.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Vos, I think anything that relates to why they were trained in the use of AK-47s as far as your clients were concerned should be best put to us by way of a submission, as you've told us you will be doing in due course.  I don't think the witness can throw any light on that really.  He would just be speculating as to why they were trained in those weapons.

YASMINE SOOKA: In any event, I think it's Mr Varney's submission that, in fact, he draws that kind of link and I think you are going to address a memorandum that sets out your clients' position in respect of a lot of those issues and I think that's where it could properly be dealt with in terms of a higher strategy.

MR STEWART: Mr Chairperson, if I may address the panel.  As you know, I represent two of the witnesses in these proceedings and they are due to be cross-examined in due course - perhaps tomorrow and the days following.  As I understand it, the panel has been asked for some sort of ruling as to whether those people here representing people who may be implicated by the evidence should put a version or must put a version and it seems to be intimated, by some of my colleagues at least, that it's illegitimate that the panel ask them to put a version and I'd like to make this representation on behalf of my clients, which is this.  They've come here to tell their story.  In certain
 /respects it's
3B respects, it's being said that they're lying and they are in an impossible position, where they don't know in what respects it's said they're lying.  If those people who are here, representing those who are implicated do not in some way put a version and say what their case is, my clients don't know where they are.  They are left with a series of questions - some sort of TV game show - with no substance to the proceedings, with no sense of in what respect is it said that they're wrong, in what respect is it said that they're lying, only, as Mr Lax has put it, circles within circles.  My submission would be then not only is it entirely proper and common-place that counsel be asked what their instructions are and what their version is.  Not only is it entirely common-place and proper, it should be asked in this instance.  That is what these proceedings are about.  If people are here and not able to put a version then they shouldn't be here at all, in my submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr de Vos, I stated right at the beginning of these proceedings that that is how limited cross-examination should and will take place, that we put a version to a witness and ask him whether he agrees with it or not and I agree with Mr Stewart and this is no news to us, as the panel, that that is what we expect them to do and it is certainly not improper to suggest to you that you should put a version and we expect you to put a version.

MR DE VOS: May I then also request this Commission adjourn so the Commission first reads the KwaMakutha trial record?

CHAIRPERSON: No, Sir, we will not adjourn.  We will carry
 /on with the
3B on with the cross-examination now, and please don't clap.

MR DE VOS: Mr Chairman, may I further place on record the reason why we are here is that we received notice and there is an allegation being made against us.  It reads as follows,
"You were party to the provision of an offensive military capacity to Inkatha.  This capacity was utilised offensively against the political enemies of Inkatha.  You anticipated that the offensive para-military capacity would be used to carry out pro-active or pre-emptive attacks, which would result in death and injuries."
That is the allegation made against my clients and the whole of the SA Defence Force.  Now, may I now continue with my cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.