Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Neidt. Hanif?

MR VALLY: Thank you Madam. Advocate Neidt we've gone through your whole submission. It's quite an extensive one. There's just a couple of issues that I would want clarity on. The first issue you mentioned early on in your submission of the internal security office of the department which was involved in gathering information about individuals, organisations and publications and making recommendations to the minister. Very briefly tell us what kind of recommendations did you make?

MR NEIDT: Chairperson can I ask Mr du Bruin because I think he's one of the people who has the most intimate knowledge of that particular department, to respond to that.

MR DU BRUIN: Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair the practice at the time was that the suppression of communism act in particular specified certain grounds on which the minister could act against a person or an organisation or a newspaper. Now the police and later on the national intelligence service they submitted memoranda containing information. That information was scrutinised by the offices of this particular section and advised the minister whether the information and facts contained in the submissions by the police or the other security instances complied with the requirements of the act. And then it was left to the minister of justice whether he would like to act against the person or make a submission to the state president, the cabinet for the declaration of an organisation to be unlawful or the prohibition of a publication. That was about all.

MR VALLY: So you didn't actually set out instructions that so and so should be eliminated or anything of that sort?

MR DU BRUIN: No, none whatsoever.

MR VALLY: You did set out instructions that so and so should be banned?

MR DU BRUIN: Pardon?

MR VALLY: You did set out instructions that so and so should be banned?

MR DU BRUIN: Ja, Ja.

MR VALLY: Or this organisation should be declared unlawful?

MR DU BRUIN: Ja in terms of whether the provisions of the act are complied with.

MR VALLY: So this is the internal security branch of the department of justice. And it operated there from 1960 to 1982?

MR DU BRUIN: Yes.

MR VALLY: Whereafter it went to the department of (...indistinct) security?

MR DU BRUIN: Law and order.

MR VALLY: Law and order. Let's just move forward. You also had something else besides the department of - sorry the internal security branch you also had directorate of security legislation which was in the department of justice but controlled by the minister of law and order?

MR DU BRUIN: Madam Chair after the Rabie commission made his recommendations the internal security act 74 of 1982 was enacted by parliament. And in terms of that act there should be a director of security legislation appointed by the minister of justice but the director of security legislation he made submissions to the minister of law and order. So administratively the director of security legislation he was still under the minister of justice but otherwise he made recommendations to the minister of law and order. That's the only difference that came about.

MR VALLY: Okay. Lets' move forward again now to section 29 detentions.

MR DU BRUIN: Which page is that?

MR VALLY: 44. I beg your pardon. You say therein that the state of detainees made reports to the attorney general regarding assaults. Sorry you may not say that on exactly that page. You say it on the next page but it starts there. Are you aware of any reports of assault which were reported by the inspector of detainees to the attorney general from which prosecutions followed? Or firstly were there any reports of assaults made?

MR DU BRUIN: Chairperson we kept a register on all the complaints especially the assault complaints. And I think we can bring it to the commission if the commission would like to see it. But we checked on every report and we also refer it to the particular attorney general and also asked the police for their comments and their reports. But we have a complete record of all the complaints. And all the out-comings and in certain instances there were prosecutions.

MR VALLY: Can you give us an idea what percentage of complaints were investigated further and prosecuted?

MR DU BRUIN: Well it's a very, very small percentage.

MR VALLY: Less than five? Less than ten?

MR DU BRUIN: Well I think it's less than five.

MR VALLY: Were there many complaints of assault?

MR DU BRUIN: There were quite a lot.

MR VALLY: Where you saw there was a pattern of assault of section 29 detainees did the department of justice in itself do any investigation regarding these reports of assaults?

MR DU BRUIN: No but Madam Chair I must explain again. Since '82 the director of security legislation worked actually for the minister of law and order. And it was reported, each and very instance was reported to the minister of law and order. And you will recall that at a certain stage some of the judges especially in the old Natal indicated that they would resign from the bench rather to apply the security act. And then the minister of law and order, he once again he issued certain directions to the police and he himself conducted certain investigations but not by the minister of justice.

MR VALLY: You're not aware of any investigation within the department because of the reports that the inspector of detainees had been giving you regarding assaults?

MR DU BRUIN: No.

MR VALLY: Let's just talk about section 29 detention. Pages 47 to 49 of the submission there is a reference to the board of review. As, you see it board of review regarding section 29 detentions? This was established in terms of section 35 of the internal security act. Now as human rights bodies at the time it would be interesting for us to know did such a board actually exist?

MR DU BRUIN: Yes.

MR VALLY: Can you tell us who the judges were who sat on this board?

MR DU BRUIN: Well I can't recall the names but I think the first one was a Mr justice Human. I think he was later succeeded by Mr Justice van Reenen. I thin they both died in the mean time. And then there was Mr justice Heath. I think those were the judges involved. Human, van Reenen and Heath. Ah, no not Heath, MacGreath, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry may I just follow that up with a question? That board of review also included an attorney, a practising attorney?

MR DU BRUIN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were the attorneys appointed? And did they function because we'd like those names as well?

MR DU BRUIN: Mr Mike Odendaal, he was a practising attorney in Pretoria.

MR VALLY: My scribe didn't get the names of the judges down. It was justice Human, van Reenen?

MR DU BRUIN: Justice van Reenen.

MR VALLY: Ah, and MacGreath? Thank you.

MR DU BRUIN: I will make sure but I know that a justice MacGreath was also some time or other involved in that review committee but we can make sure about that.

MR VALLY: Was judge Myburgh ever involved?

MR DU BRUIN: Pardon?

MR VALLY: Judge Myburgh?

MR DU BRUIN: No, no.

MR VALLY: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you pass on from that point, because I see you actually have the statistics, I presume these files are available as well?

MR DU BRUIN: Yes each and everyone.

CHAIRPERSON: You see from just a practical experience reasons were never advanced for why people were still being kept in detention but you were then asked to make representations and you were never quite sure what you were actually making representations about. And I think what we would want to see are why some of those reasons for the refusals are. So if they're still in the files and I know that you've kept those files meticulously then we will.

MR VALLY: There is also provision for the involvement of the chief justice. In terms of section 41 the chief justice or other judge of the appellate division were given certain review powers. Was this ever invoked?

MR DU BRUIN: No. Not in one case.