Special Hearings — Armed Forces Hearings — 1997-10-08

MR GOOSEN: Thank you.  Now, can we perhaps talk about that procedure?  There is a particular document General, I want to refer you to.  It was provided when the subpoenas and the Section 30 notices were sent out.  Those were just compiled, you may not have got all of the documents, but they are not all relevant to you.
That is a compilation of all of the documents that were sent to all of the people who received Section 29's and Section 30's.  Just so that it is clearly understood, I am not  springing a document on you.

MR NTSEBEZA: Adv Goosen, if you could just bear with me I would like to be on board your sort of asking questions, and I just want some clarity.  Just following just on a little part of the questions that you have put to General Joubert.  Do I understand your answers to his questions to be saying what was discussed by you and the Chief of the Defence Force, was the procedure of carrying out specific operations, not the principle of eliminating through the methods used.  I mean through the methods that have been approved of certain specific targets.  In other words, what you were discussing or what you were engaged in was what was going to be the procedure for the carrying out of specific operations, the approval thereof, not the principle which I understand had been accepted even by the Chief of the Defence Force, that in the climate that prevailed, it was necessary to eliminate certain specific targets?  Do I understand that to be the position?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR NTSEBEZA: Adv Goosen.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson.  General Joubert, the documents as I said is a compilation of the full set.  We want to leave them there on the table in case we need to refer to any one of those with any of the other witnesses.
 One of the documents that you would have received as part of that, is contained right at the end of the Bundle.  If you could refer to that please.  It is at page 104 and 105 of the Bundle.  Do you have it there, I think the last two pages?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Oh, yes.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.  This is just picking up on the question of the if you like, the channel.  The channel of communication and the basis upon which approval of a particular target would take place.

LEGAL COUNSEL: Sorry Mr Goosen, just for our help.  Which document are you referring to?  Ours are not page numbered as your are, just give us the title, it is fine?

MR GOOSEN: Presentation CCB to the South African Defence Force.

LEGAL COUNSEL: Thank you, that is helpful.

MR GOOSEN: Sorry, I assumed that you had been given a numbered Bundle as well, I apologise.
 General, this is a document which is dated the 28th of April 1987, so it is slightly later period than what we were talking about as to when the plan that you devised, was formulated.
 It is a document compiled by, and you will recognise the document, I am sure, given that at a much earlier stage during the proceedings at the Goniwe inquest, this document was made available to you and you commented on it in an affidavit which was submitted during the course of the Goniwe inquest in relation to this matter.  That affidavit hasn't been attached here, but if you do want to see that, we can give you a copy of it.
 It is a document compiled by the late Mr Meerholtz and it appears to be a minute of a discussion held with the Chief of the South African Defence Force at the time, at that stage also General Geldenhuys.  You were present at this discussion, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.  The discussion deals with certain matters relating to the CCB which was a front structure as we have been informed, which would have fallen under your immediate command or control as Officer Commanding Special Forces at the time, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.  Now, if you would refer to - the first aspect to refer to there is paragraph 7.  These here reflecting - the passage reading "methods used", Head of the Defence Force we regard these activities not as murder and define them as follows.  An attack on a hostile target in an unconventional way not to involve innocent people."  Could you comment on what was exercising the mind at the meeting as you understood it, the Chief of the South African Defence Force?

LEGAL COUNSEL: Mr Chairman, with the greatest respect, I think it is unfair to ask this witness what was going on in the mind of somebody else.  He can only testify what is going on in his own mind.

MR GOOSEN: All right, I will rephrase it Mr Chairperson.  I didn't expect that the General would read the Chief of the South African Defence Force's mind.  It refers to methods that would be applied.  Methods that would be applied by CCB operatives, is that correct in the carrying out of operations by the CCB, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes, that is correct.

MR GOOSEN: Right.  And those methods that would be applied would according to this minute, would not be regarded as murder?  Is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: No, that is correct, yes.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.  We would, I assume here be talking about the killing of an individual, the elimination of an individual which is not defined as murder, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct, yes.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, fine.  And that was a matter that was pertinently raised by the Chief of the South African Defence Force at that meeting, at that point?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.  Mr Chairman, I just want to establish the legality of this document.  You will see this document has not been signed by anybody except by Corrie Meerholtz and it had not been verified. This document originated from an information and planning session which I held on an annual basis regarding the Special Forces and the CCB.  This is one of these documents.
 This is a highly confidential or sensitive document.  It is supposed to be, it is not too sensitive anymore, because I have it in my hands now.  I was very, very surprised when I was confronted with this document during the Goniwe trial.  When the Attorney General put this document into my hands, because I did not have any recollection of such a document.  I should not have existed.
 The planning sessions did take place, that is correct, but whether the contents as described here is correct, neither I nor anybody else can vouch for that, because it had not been verified like ordinary minutes. What I am trying to say is this document should not exist at all and unfortunately the person who had signed this, is deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: General Joubert, the fact is that there is a document, that it is signed.  Are you denying or disputing any matter in that document?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Mr Chairman,  all I am trying to say is that I am not one hundred percent sure whether this was how this point was discussed. The word "murder" could not have been mentioned for example, but the author of this document has perhaps inserted this word.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, the document makes the point that certain procedures or killings should not be seen as murder.  It is not saying it is murder, it is saying it shouldn't be seen as murder and then goes on to a particular definition. And I am just worried or concerned or puzzled that someone such as Meerholtz should actually write this up if it wasn't as he saw it, so if there is a particular denial you wish to make, if you dispute what is here, then of course it can be placed on record.
 But if you are not doing that, then I think either it exists or it doesn't.  And we need to get your comment on the existence of this piece of paper as the question was put by Mr Goosen.