Special Hearings — Armed Forces Hearings — 1997-10-08

MR COETZEE: If I may intervene at this stage, I am Ettiene Coetzee for purposes of record, I appear inter alia on behalf of General Geldenhuys.  As I understand General Joubert's evidence, he is disputing the authenticity of this document.  He says I am not the author of this document, I don't know if terminology such as murder was used during this meeting.
 I cannot stand in for this document and I cannot confirm the contents of this document.  My instructions are from General Geldenhuys that he also disputes the authenticity and the contents of this document.  I am also aware that General Joubert made a second statement where he also disputes the  contents of this document.
 It is my submission that this document is not a proven document, General Joubert denies the contents of this document as well as my client, and that no questions should be allowed, at this stage, further on this document, unless the document can be proved.  Because both General Joubert and General Geldenhuys both dispute the authenticity and the contents of this document.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Goosen?

MR GOOSEN: Thank you.  Mr Chairman, if I may ... I don't understand what, unless I don't understand either English or Afrikaans, that General Joubert is disputing the authenticity of the document.
 I indicated, in fact I will make available after lunch adjournment, we will make available the affidavit deposed to by General Joubert at the time that this document was presented to him.  It is not placed in dispute.
 What he says is that he cannot say that this as it is here reflected, a record by Corrie Meerholtz, who I may point out was the Deputy Officer Commanding Special Forces, is that correct?  He was your 2 IC, Meerholtz, is that not correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: No, no.

MR GOOSEN: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's establish who ... (intervention)

MR GOOSEN: Well, if I can just finish the point that I am making, it is not that pertinent at this stage to the point, Mr Chairperson, that he can't say that the phrases used by Meerholtz in recording this here, were necessarily used at the meeting.
 That is what he said, he doesn't dispute the authenticity of the document.  Unless he wants to now indicate that he in fact does, but Chairperson I think an intervention like this, General Geldenhuys will be called.  The position can be dealt with on that basis, if he wants to put something on record, that is fine, he will have an opportunity to do so.
 In fact, we propose to have discussions or have questions directed at General Geldenhuys in due course precisely on the document.

MR COETZEE: If my learned friend wants to ask questions relating to this document, it is clear that this witness is not the author of this document.  Now he is trying to prove the contents of this document through someone who is not the author of the document.  I don't know how he is going to achieve that, General Joubert is clearly stating I am not the  author of this document.

CHAIRPERSON: Could I just interrupt you.  You are not representing General Joubert, are you?

MR COETZEE: I am not representing General Joubert.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I don't think that your comment is valid and until such time as General Geldenhuys is before us, where you will be representing him, then of course we will hear you with pleasure.

MR COETZEE: If I may have the opportunity to finish my submission, it is obviously clear that the contents of this document implicate on General Geldenhuys.  I submit that this document must be proven and the contents of this document must be proven that it is at least, whether the witness agrees with the contents of the document, whether it is a true recollection of what transpired during this meeting and if he disputes the contents of the document, then it must be put properly on record.  My learned friend starts off as if General Joubert agrees with the contents of this document.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, with respect, perhaps if my learned colleague could allow me to develop the line of questioning, we will get to the point when General Joubert will be afforded an opportunity to say whether this accurately reflects the planning meeting that he had at the time with the Chief of the South African Defence Force or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson.  Can I refer you General Joubert, to another portion of the document which is in fact a more important portion of the document?

MR COETZEE: With all due respect, the document must be proven and put in the right ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think I have made my ruling.  Thank you very much.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  Could you have regard to paragraph 9.2 of the document, it is a little bit - it reads "internal activities", paragraph 9 and I will deal with the pertinent portion, 9.2 "elimination of specific targets, a channel for handling these aspects is being established.  This channel will be discussed on the 12th of May and the Commanding Officer of Special Task Force will be there."  Does this record reflect what was discussed at the planning meeting, in particular at this stage, in particular, in regard to the establishment of a channel for the approval of operations involving the elimination of targets identified inside the country?   Can you indicate whether that accurate reflects an element of the discussion held at the meeting which you indicate this document concerns?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, I am afraid I can't comment on this because I can't remember what all this entails.  I don't know to which channel reference is made for example.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we just get clarification.  You have already stated on record that these planning committees took place.

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And discussions were held about planning.  So that is not in dispute?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: No, there are meetings.

CHAIRPERSON: What you are saying is you cannot recall whether precisely 9.2 sums up what was actually discussed at this particular meeting?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson.  General Joubert, you indicated at the outset when I first indicated the document to you, that a document of this nature, ought not to have been brought into existence, because it reflected the planning meetings, or a planning meeting, that you held and at that stage held on at least on an annual basis it would seem, with the Chief of the South African Defence Force.  The issues raised in this document and the document was provided to you some time back, and you would have had an opportunity with your legal counsel to consider the contents of the document.
 Does the document accurately reflect a meeting held on or about the 28th of April 1987, at which both you and the Chief of the South African Defence Force were present?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, this was what I tried to explain earlier.  These meetings did take place.  I don't have a problem with that, but whether the contents of this document is correct, that I cannot guarantee.
I can definitely not guarantee that.

MR NTSEBEZA: That is not the question General.  The question is whether you can recall whether on the 28th of April 1987 there was a meeting at which you and the Chief of the Defence Force attended.  I think that is what the question seeks to say.

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes, but that I have said.  The meetings took place.  Whether it was on the 28th, I am even not sure whether it was on the 28th or not.  It could have been on any other date, but there was planning meetings held, that is true.

MR NTSEBEZA: In other words you are saying, you are not saying, when you say you don't know whether it was on the 28th or not, you are not denying that there could have been a meeting on the 28th of April 1987 at which you and the Chief of the Defence Force were present?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.