Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-08

JAN LOURENS: Mr Vally, it was right at the beginning.  It was as far as I can recall, it was CR.  It was applied as a sort of a grenade to the baboons in the very original set-up at Roodeplaat Research Laboratories, and that was it.  It was a - it wasn't a fantastically scientific experiment in the sense of particular measurements or blood samples being taken, or whatever the case may be.  But, I did not stay the total experiment, so they may have done it afterwards, but that was my only exposure.

MR VALLY: Just very briefly you say the original set-up, just, was it the restraining - the box ...(intervention)

JAN LOURENS: No, no, it was in the open.

MR VALLY: So what happened, just very, very briefly?

JAN LOURENS: Just very briefly there was a cage, there was a baboon in the cage, this smoke grenade was chucked in the cage and it released the teargas.  That really was the extent of the experiment.  I never witnessed any experiment in terms of baboons or other animals in the contained environment that existed at Roodeplaat Research Laboratories, and that was really the serious scientific stuff.  I never worked with any of those.

MR VALLY: There were a number of animals kept at the Roodeplaat Research Laboratory?

JAN LOURENS: Yes, there was a number of dogs, there was a chimpanzee, there was a number of baboons kept.  I don't know if they ever worked on the chimpanzee, but I knew the worked on the other animals, yes.

MR VALLY: And the restraining chair was used for these animals in the gas chamber as far as you're aware?

JAN LOURENS: The restraint chair was used for the baboons.

MR VALLY: Thank you, Dr Lourens.

JAN LOURENS: Thank you, Mr Vally

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you go onto cross-examination, can I just clarify something in my own mind.  Did you say that after you met General Knobel in 1992, firstly, was his attitude if I can summarise it, one that said that was  not his project and got the impression that he just didn't want to know.

JAN LOURENS: Mr Ntsebeza, Dr Knobel had always been very accommodating in terms of listening to me, etc, etc.  It wasn't an arrogant or aloof attitude, in other words, he didn't sort of dismiss me and say listen, go away, it's not my project.  He listened to me and he said quite clearly to me that as far as he was briefed this was outside the scope and he didn't - it wasn't his project.  Dr Knobel never said to me, I know noting, I don't want to know about it, go away.  If I created that impression, it was the wrong impression, he didn't do that at all.

CHAIRPERSON: But in the end, that was if one could summarise his attitude, I take the point that he was not, you know, arrogant and dismissive, but in the end you got the distance impression that he didn't want to know, he didn't want to discuss this thing.

JAN LOURENS: True.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.  Now, the Minister you went to, did I get you correctly that it was Minister Meyer?

JAN LOURENS: Yes, it was Roelf Meyer.

CHAIRPERSON: Roelf Meyer.  And, had you indicated to him, if you recall, what it was that you wanted to talk to him about?

JAN LOURENS: Yes, I went to this common friend, a lawyer, and I just said to him, well you know, there's - I have this problem.  I had spent funds from a company, I'm - my partner is now questioning what had happened to these funds, and I'm not in the position to disclose what I'd done with the funds.  I'd - and the lawyer friend obviously said, but what did you do with the funds, and I told him about the screwdriver projects and the walking sticks, etc, because I had to take him in my confidence, and then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying in substance you told him more or less about the screwdrivers, what you've told this Commission here?

JAN LOURENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And your impression - and you did that because you wanted it to be conveyed to Minister Meyer?

JAN LOURENS: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: And was it his response - did he respond to you in any way?

JAN LOURENS: Well, he didn't meet wit me.  What happened is that I waited in the foyer, my friend went up to see the Minister.  He spoke to the Minister and explained the matter to the Minister, and of course what I'm telling you now is hearsay, and the Minister then immediately said go back to General Knobel, and we saw him that afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: And at what stage did you meet - was it General Knobel you said, or General Liebenberg?

JAN LOURENS: No, we met General Knobel and then when we arrived he said, gentlemen, this is not my project, this is not in discussion with me, you're going to have to carry on to General Liebenberg, and we then went to see General Liebenberg.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was he who said "daai speelgoed"?

JAN LOURENS: Yes.  What then happened in terms of the, just to clarify the situation as far as the financial aspect was concerned is that the next morning, or very soon thereafter, General Knobel in turn discussed the issue with Charles and said forget it and leave.  And that was it, that was the end of it.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.  Cross-examination?  Mr van Zyl

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  At this stage I am not in a position to cross-examine for the following reasons, this morning I spoke to Mr Vally together with Mr Chaskalson, specifically regarding the matter of incriminating evidence against any of my clients.  What was told to me was to the effect that they are not specifically aware of witnesses because they have not been given statements from witnesses such as, for example, Dr Lourens that has testified now.  Statement was given to us of Mr Andre Immelman.  I understand that he will not give oral testimony.  The summonses that they have received, there is no notification that my clients have been implicated.  As a result, there is no preparation that has been done in this regard.  I have not consulted with my clients.  The evidence, 80% thereof that I have heard here today, from Dr Lourens, are aspects of which I only became aware for the first time, and I do not know whether my clients have any knowledge of this.  As a result of this I am in the position that I am going to request from you, Mr Chairman, that I be given the opportunity to consult with my clients in this regard to take instructions from them.  As I've indicated to you, I do not want to say that there is going to be cross-examination, it depends on my instructions.  These specific aspects have not yet been discussed with my clients and I ask for an opportunity to do this with them.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Zyl.  I do not know if you were placed on the record.

MR CILLIERS: Yes, I have been placed on the record, and I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: No questions, thank you.  Mr du Plessis?

UNKNOWN: We are unaware of certain aspects and I am also reserving Mr Knobel's right until I have discussed it with him.

CHAIRPERSON: There is an indication that these legal representatives want to reserve their rights on the basis that have been set out.  What's your attitude?