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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Okay, let's talk distribution.  It seems to me, if you look at these dates where those distribution dates or where those dates relevant to the day on which you released them to whoever was placing an order for them.  What does the dates signify here?

MIKE ODENDAL: No, the dates - I did not know when these cultures were handed out by whom, to whom.  I assume it must have been Dr Immelman that handed them out to someone who came and collected it, but there is no connection with the distribution date the preparation date of the organisms.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, at list, it says in one column it says "datum gelewer".  What does that mean?

MIKE ODENDAL: That I would understand, would mean to me this was given to an operative or someone, or an agent or someone that came and collected it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MIKE ODENDAL: That's what it would mean to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes the point that I am making is that you are talking about 1989.  These toxic substances are being delivered as you say, possible to agents, in 1989, and all your understanding had been that this would have been in furtherance of a war situation.  Do you agree?

MIKE ODENDAL: I assume so, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now in 1989 there hardly was any war that was being fought by the South African Defence Force, do you agree?

MIKE ODENDAL: Well, Mr Chairman, you've got a good recollection,

CHAIRPERSON: If anything, there was a peace process in Namibia where the South Africans had been involved in a war that have even taken them to Angola.  Do you realise that?

MIKE ODENDAL: Yes, that's true.

CHAIRPERSON: 1989 we're actually talking elections in Namibia.  Do you realise that?

MIKE ODENDAL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now talking about cholera, how would it have been administered, these cholera cultures?

MIKE ODENDAL: There's only one basic - there's basically only one way I would think, and that would be to contaminate drinking water.

CHAIRPERSON: Contaminate drinking water.  And you, for instance, in peace time, in the election time in Namibia, these doses could have been administered in drinking water in Namibia.  What effect would it have had on the election process?

MIKE ODENDAL: Well, I think to start off with, I think the Department of Health would basically agree with me that if you have this organism in your environment, it can have a devastating effect on the health services.  It can lead to disruption because you need urgent medical attention to the people that are affected.  You can disrupt a whole area.  It can cause wide spread disruption.

CHAIRPERSON: You are talking about the disruption of an election process, possibly even leading to some deaths.

MIKE ODENDAL: Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: And you agree that the quantities of this cholera culture that you produced was sufficient to have been able to produce an epidemic, certainly that would have affected a population of 1 million plus in Namibia at this time, had there been a plan to do so?

MIKE ODENDAL: That's possible, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it not worry you that in peace time you were being asked to produce toxins of those proportions?

MIKE ODENDAL: You see, at this stage, and as I mentioned it to you, there was a stage that we produced these organisms and that could have been in 1988 even.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I'm talking what you are agreeing on.  Here in 1989, which is peace time, you now know that certain of these toxins were being collected, certainly were being delivered to agents as you called them, did that not worry you - or let me not talk that time.  Now, with the benefit of hindsight, doesn't it raise a number of questions in you head that these things were being delivered through Dr Immelman to whoever, CCB maybe, Armed - Special Forces, you were aware that these projects where they were  associated with the South African Defence Force and linked in some ways to Special Forces, were you not?

MIKE ODENDAL: It is disturbing, yes, but at that time it wasn't, you know, we had a lot of projects going, and when you get an order or a directive to produce something, you had to produce it.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time you were aware that your projects were associated in some ways with Special Forces ...(intervention)

MIKE ODENDAL: Well, not at the time when we produced it.  Afterwards I realised that that could have been the possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you realised it, didn't you think that some of the toxins that you were producing, they're actually destined for operations by Special Forces?

MIKE ODENDAL: Well, I sort of realised that, you know, but it was too late to do anything at that stage, because in those cases it would have been - the results would have been evident.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.  There were things you could have done, but then, that's not my function at this stage.  Mr Vally?

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Chairperson, can I just before we loose the point on the cholera thing, do I understand this correctly, the cholera example, isn't that a particularly, isn't the one that particularly exemplifies a certain degree of callousness, because on what you say cholera renders children, young children and the elderly most vulnerable to it's effects, so really, it would affect that section of the population most, not so?

MIKE ODENDAL: Yes, that's true.

ADV POTGIETER: The innocent really?

MIKE ODENDAL: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And that underlines the callousness, if you will, to use that - those organisms in a sort of an offensive way?

MIKE ODENDAL: Well, I think even more so if you were to use those organisms in your own country.  I think, you know, it's completely irresponsible, it's grossly irresponsible to do that.

ADV POTGIETER: Wherever you apply it, you going to affect children and the elderly most.

MIKE ODENDAL: Okay, if you're in a war-like situation, then I think, you know, your target would be, let's say adult men,

ADV POTGIETER: Exactly.

MIKE ODENDAL: But otherwise, I think, you know, to target the other populations of - would be callous.

ADV POTGIETER: So even in the war situation, it doesn't really gel with one's sense.

MIKE ODENDAL: Well I think even in a war situation, you know, to go and contaminate specific villages for that purpose would be - I would agree to that, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Randera?

DR RANDERA: Just make it clear for us, you started work at Roodeplaat in 1985.  You say you worked there for 8 1/2  years, that takes you to 1993, midway through 1993.  When did you stop producing, what we're looking at is stuff that may have been produced in '88, '89, '90, possibly right up till 1993?

MIKE ODENDAL: Well, I think at the end of 1990, and I can just go through my project list to corroborate those facts, but we did stop when the political initiatives became more prominent and then more constructive.

DR RANDERA: It is possible that you may have actually been producing cultures right up till 1993.

MIKE ODENDAL: No, I can assure you that we didn't do it up to 1993, because for the simple reason, there were a lot of other commercial ventures in which we became involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally, I think there has been an indication by the Ministry that we may well be going into areas of proliferation.  I don't want an argument, I am just indicating that it is so, and it happens to be at a stage where I thought it would have been convenient to have an adjournment.

MR VALLY: We could adjourn, but I think that was a mistake on Mr Arendse's part.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's why I said I'm not going to have an argument.

MR VALLY: What we're talking about happened in 1942 already.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, for the record gentlemen, Mr Valley can we make an arrangement that we start at well, at 08h30 tomorrow, seeing it's a long a day and there are two witnesses that are going to stand over for cross-examination?  I'm in your hands, if you want ...(indistinct)