Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-24

<UNKNOWN>: think the name of his thesis was "The role of the population in counter--insurgency".
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 40

<UNKNOWN>: He is therefore Mr Chairman, a witness who has intricate knowledge of the subject and the 
counter-revolutionary strategy over a long period.  He was involved with the inception as well as the 
practical implementation thereof.
	In respect of the State Security Council, he also has a broad knowledge of the working thereof and 
he would be able probably as any other person, apart from possibly the most senior politician, to give the 
Committee the general information pertaining to the working of the system.
	If evidence of Captain van Jaarsveld is denied, and the applicants cannot call Captain van 
Jaarsveld as a witness, it would in all probability mean that the applicants will not be able to place that 
evidence before the Committee.  We will still strive to obtain witnesses and get people to assist us in this 
regard, but I want to make it very clear that it is not as in the case of a simple court case, simply phoning 
somebody and asking him to come and assist. There are various problems involved for possible witnesses 
and most of the people are very reluctant to participate in the process.  And that is the reality of the 
problems which the applicants have.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Well, what you described in the second point is important but certainly it 
cannot be blown out of proportion, the important thing from what you have been saying is that they have 
difficulties, the applicants have difficulties as I understand you, in securing anyone else who could be 
willing, who is willing to come and help them.
The fact that Captain van Jaarsveld was involved in the development of that surely he couldn't have done 
that
single handedly, he must have done it in collaboration with 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 41

<UNKNOWN>: a number of people and subject to the approval and veto and whatever suggestions of many other people, 
that surely it is not, that aspect, while it is important, is not such that it makes him singularly relevant to the 
proceedings more than anyone else.	But I take your point about the fact that they have got difficulties in 
getting other people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: ;	Yes, Mr  Chairman, I just want to make one point which I probably didn't come 
through clearly and that is that Captain van Jaarsveld was involved, there was a long period in which he 
was involved with this.  Now there are lots of people who were involved, but some people were involved 
for shorter periods of time. Some people were involved in State Security Council, but not involved in the 
development of the counter-revolutionary strategy.  So yes, it might be possible perhaps to obtain other 
witnesses even if they should be forced to come and testify, but that would mean probably three or four 
witnesses where Captain van Jaarsveld himself can give evidence because he was involved over a long 
period.

HASSAN MALL: Dr Pretorius?

DR PRETORIUS: As the Committee pleases. I am appearing on behalf of the Prosecution.  Again the State 
wants to oppose this request in the most strongest terms.  Allow me to sketch some background.
	The applicants has heard that Mr Brian Currin wants to cross-question General van der Merwe 
with regard to the State Security Council and they requested additional 
information with regard to the State Security Council.  They have approached the Prosecution that they 
want to consult
with Captain van Jaarsveld.
	In agreement with the Tshabalala decision and the 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

DR PRETORIUS: 42

<UNKNOWN>: Hassam decision, the Prosecution has agreed that they may consult with Captain van Jaarsveld.  In this way 
they were able to obtain the necessary information as well as the background information should General 
van der Merwe give testimony they could then make - state the evidence to him.
	The Prosecution is not closed with regard to the general public and so forth, they allowed our 
learned friends to consult with Captain van Jaarsveld and to obtain the necessary information from him.
	The request that he must bring testimony, however, is it was a spurious application and now 
Captain van Jaarsveld, the State witness must now be called.
	While I am on this point of sketching background, this morning the names of other persons were 
given who might bring some information to the fore with regard to the background theory and policy in this 
regard.	I was only provided these names this morning and I doubt whether in this very limited period of 
time, they were able to contact these other persons.  
	Mr Chairman, on the previous occasion I have already presented to you the possible prejudice of 
this very, and in fact, key witness, State witness who might be subjected to extended hearings.  He is 
indeed a key witness to the Prosecution.	As in my previous presentation to you, when such a request was made at the beginning of the hearing, there is however a crucial difference which must be understood Mr Chairman, these are a request from the applicants with regard to amnesty.  It is their detailed knowledge, the way in which they thought and the acts which they took part in which is at hand here.  If 
there is information peculiarly in the mind of Captain van Jaarsveld, PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

DR PRETORIUS: 42

<UNKNOWN>: then it is of no use to them, because what is of importance here is the motives and actions of the applicants.  
The applicants must say what their political motives were and how they saw the matter.	It is of no use 
for them when Captain van Jaarsveld knew more than what they did.  If any information is peculiarly in the 
knowledge of Captain van Jaarsveld, then it is of no use to them, since this application for amnesty is that 
of the applicants and not that of Captain van Jaarsveld.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Certainly Dr Pretorius if instructions were given from above that certain 
actions should have to be taken or if a policy was made with in which people acted, surely this must be of 
importance?

DR PRETORIUS: This is the case Mr Chairman, and if Captain van Jaarsveld should come with his own 
amnesty application at a later time, he will indeed give testimony with regard to his peculiar knowledge 
and should he have given such instructions, he will make such application.
	Any applicant can say that they received instructions from say, General van der Merwe or 
whomever else, but the general knowledge, the broad policy decisions which might be of relevance here, 
tells us nothing about the peculiar knowledge relevant in the case of every application.	This crucial 
difference must be kept in mind at all times.  
	The other difficulty against which, with respect, you must guard at all times, is that this process 
must not 
be abused to circumvent any possible future prosecution.
That this process will be used with regard to Joe Mamasela or a Willie Nortje to discredit such persons, so 
that in the case that amnesty is not granted, that the possibility of prosecution will be reduced because the 
main State witnesses PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

DR PRETORIUS: 43