Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-01

CHAIRPERSON: In the light of what is being put, it's again quite something that is very worrisome, that a Judge was who was presiding should - and if it was at his invitation that you and those Flight Engineers obviously were at his invitation at the place, and I want to put the other proposition, and this what I put to Gert yesterday, that we must take into account what the times were at which we were living in those days.  It is not far- fetched, it may, in 1998, appear to be far-fetched for a suggestion to be made that a Judge could have made a proposition of that nature, but when you take into account what happened in this country, when evidence was placed by an advocate of a Senior Counsel, for instance in the case of the Harms Commission, before the Harms Commission, evidence that was placed over a long period - against the bedrock of public confessions that had been made by certain individuals about the prevalence of hit squads, evidence which was rejected as being false, but which has not been proved in every single event by the perpetrators coming forward, and many others, to show that it was not just an act of a few bad applies, it was a prevalence, the nature of which we deal in this particular chamber, day in and day out in an expression by way of amnesty applications.  So those sort of things are not far-fetched, and that a Judge could have make a proposition like that is not fare-fetched, and it is our experience from what has been put before us in the course of this enquiry that people were frightened then, and still are frightened now because of the sort of environment that was created by suggestions which, it is our view, made by this Judge that it is not in the national interest for certain information to be made available for that Commission.
 So, it is absolutely and critically important that you should endeavour to recall why it was that you went to see Judge Margo at his house, at his invitation, at a crucial time when the presiding officer should have stayed away from private conversations of any nature whatsoever which involves people who were potentially witnesses before you.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Thank you, Chair, for explaining it, I've not been up to speed on the Truth Commission processes living in Mauritius, so I would thank you for that background.  I certainly would endeavour every single bit to scratch my head during the next discussion that come and if something recalls there, I give - I'm under oath, I give you my solemn word that I will tell you, I've got nothing to hide, I've got nothing to pretend, I didn't do anything wrong, and believe me, if there's anything at all I can help, I will.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Klatzow?

DR KLATZOW: Captain Mitchell, if a conversation about the Engineers Report was had with you, it would be something that you would remember?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: There were two reports, you know?  There was a very serious report about the Boeing, about the problems on the electrical systems and how to de-activate the electrical systems.

DR KLATZOW: Please answer my question.  Had the Flight Engineers given you a report about a meal being served at a different interpretation on board the aircraft, you would have remembered that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Probably, Dr.

DR KLATZOW: Had the Flight Engineers had an altercation with you or had you been in any way heated about this report, you would have remembered that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I had a fairly good number of arguments with the Flight Engineers Association because I represented SAA, so I ...(intervention)

DR KLATZOW: I'm talking about the report relating to the Margo Commission.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I'm not aware of this one, Dr.

DR KLATZOW: Is there any reason why the Flight Engineers would wish to incriminate you or to get you involved unnecessarily or to falsely accuse you?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I can't see why they should

DR KLATZOW: Of course they couldn't.  I now want to read to you what Jimmy Mittens says,
"A teams comprising my brother and Andre Halt, both Flight Engineers, helped me analyse.  We unanimously said the investigation went down the wrong track, we believe to this day that there were two fires aboard that plane and at that stage we did not know that the ZUR tapes went missing.  We submitted out report and immediately realised we were standing on toes.  We summoned to SAA, Mickey Mitchell, Chief Pilot from the SAA Safety Officer asked us if we were accusing him of saying that the pilot, Captain Uys was told to fly on despite the fire.  We hadn't even thought of it at that stage."
Do you remember that conversation?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No.

DR KLATZOW: Is there any reason why Mittens would lie?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I don't want to call people liars, Dr, but inaccuracy probably.

DR KLATZOW: I don't think so, I think that they would confirm that under oath.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, but inaccurate.

GLENDA WILDSCHUT: Excuse me, I just want to say that he said this to me - this is something he said to me very recently and he was very passionate about it and said he would do that under oath.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I have no difficulty, maam, but I don't recall this, I really don't.

DR KLATZOW: I want to put it to you, Captain Mitchell, that the reason that you cannot recall that is not because your memory is fading, because you have quite a clear memory of many of the things which you've testified to today, I want to put it to you that the reason that you disavow any knowledge of this, is because there are extremely sinister implications which could very well involve you.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I'm sorry, I don't agree.

DR KLATZOW: And that one of the implications is that a vital tape, which you claim nothing was on, despite the fact that you hadn't listened to it, went missing after it was in your care, and you'd passed it on to somebody else, and that you never informed the Margo Commission of the steps of this tape.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Sorry, sir, I did, via Rene van Zyl.

DR KLATZOW: You were in the witness box, you had heard the conversation, you had every opportunity to say to the Judge, Judge - you were discussing the tape immediately before my presentation, I had that tape, it was locked in the safe, and this man had the keys and he's the man you should ask about it.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Don't you think Rene van Zyl would have done that?

DR KLATZOW: I'm not asking what Rene van Zyl would have done.  I want to know why you didn't do it.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Sorry, sir, that's not my job, that's his job.

CHAIRPERSON: I differ, I differ, I differ, I differ, Mr Mitchell.  In a Commission nobody has a job like there is a job description.  In a Commission, especially in a Commission, more than in fact in a court of law, in a commission you endeavour to bring information to the attention of the Commission that might be germane to the issues being thrashed out, and that might assist the Commission to arrive at a fair and a balanced verdict.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And I'm sure you now appreciate, if you had brought that information to the attention of the Commission then we would certainly not be here.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, you're right.

DR KLATZOW: Well, why didn't you?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: As I say, in my ignorance, Dr, I'm not aware of Commissions or acts, this is the first one I've ever been to, is that I assume that the investigator has sent a lot of time with the Judge explaining things.

DR KLATZOW: Well, I want to put something else to you, Captain Mitchell,

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.