Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

MR VAN ZYL: I do say so. Now I just want to bring you back to your previous answer just for clarity. I'm not trying to be repetitive, just for clarity. You were saying that you presumed that what that particular sentence meant was that particular groups who opposed intimidators or revolutionaries be given support by either the police or the military under certain circumstances?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Ja, sure. I think if you read it here then it seems as if it's concerned with formal and informal policing. I don't know whether the defence force would have given support or training. It refers to responsible instances. The police and the Defence Force. That's what I'm saying, perhaps a supporting action. But the Defence Force was not responsible for policing.

MR VAN ZYL: In your answer you said that you presumed that this was the meaning. Why did you presume it was the meaning?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Mr Chairman, we referred to a certain document deriving from the Defence Force, I said I've never seen this document before and I've given a reply in connection with this document. And you came to me and said that is correct. What else did you want me to answer then?

MR VAN ZYL: You seem to indicate that in terms of this question you presumed that this was what it meant, meaning that you think that it could have meant something else. You weren't particularly clear. By reading this particular instruction you presumed that this is what it meant. Because perhaps it was ambiguous, perhaps it wasn't exactly clear. Is it capable of being interpreted in another way? Why did?

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman I object to this. Can't we move on please? If the questioner has something pertinent to say let him say it. But this type of circle argument is not going to get us (...indistinct)

MR VAN ZYL: Let me phrase it (...indistinct)

MR LYSTER: If you presume that it says something it's not necessary an indication that you think it means something else. It's an indication that you think it means what you think it means.

MR VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon. Is it capable, is this instruction capable of being interpreted in different ways by different people?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Really I don't know. I'd like to help you but I wouldn't know.

MR VAN ZYL: Is it possible that somebody can interpret this statement to authorise via the use of informal policing the neutralisation of activists, i.e. the elimination of activists or intimidators? Is it possible?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Just the last portion again I didn't hear you clearly?

MR VAN ZYL: Is it possible to interpret this statement to mean that via informal policing - I'm not sure what informal policing means. I don't know if there's a strict definition of informal policing. To interpret that phrase to mean that activists could be eliminated, i.e. killed? Is it possible?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: You know it is very difficult for me and I've referred to this specific aspect. I don't know what the terminology is and the various interpretations among the various cultures. In the Defence Force, if it was the infantry involved in the situation, I would answer; no, they won't interpret it in that way. The result is that I can't tell you that people outside could have interpreted it in this or that way. But the Defence Force could not have interpreted it in that way. It had certain doctrines according to which they acted. And all the time I'm referring to internal activities. And I would have said no. The Defence Force could not, should have not, should have not interpret this in that way.
 Mr Chairman, referring to the Defence Force you act in groups, not individually. You have written and oral instructions. They should have not interpreted it in that way. Neutralising in the Defence Force terminology it does not mean that.

MR VAN ZYL: (...indistinct) "Uit te wis" - that means kill?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: I want to put it in that way, previously you've said that should there been armed forces infiltrating the country and the Defence Force was asked to act against them. Remember that question? And then the instruction would be: "Eliminate them." That means: " do the task because they going to shoot you," and I won't allow my soldiers to be shot. But they asked for a truce, at that moment you can arrest them.

MR VAN ZYL: (...indistinct) terminology means kill?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: In this specific instance yes when I refer to the armed forces.

MR VAN ZYL: I'd like to refer you to a document that I gave you earlier this morning, was the document that Mr Maritz referred to about the orders. And again both I acknowledge that you were a; given it this morning and b; that Mr Maritz has said that you will attempt to assist and also that you are a person with tremendous expertise in this particular regard.

MR MARITZ: I didn't say that. I object I never said that. I said he was career officer all his life and possibly he'll be able to interpret it as well as the next guy. I didn't make him an expert.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you. I draw your attention to page 1, point 7 which says clarity. "The use of accepted military terminology and phraseology helps to convey identical meanings to users. Expressions that could be conveyed different meanings to different people must be avoided." Number 1.
 We turn over on the next page. Point 10 under the sub heading simplicity. "All elements are to reduced to their simplest form. Any possibility of misunderstanding must be eliminated." And then if you go to point 14 under authoritative expressions. The last sentence: "Subordinates are to be told in direct and unmistakable terms exactly what the commander wants them to do."

MR MARITZ: 14?

MR VAN ZYL: Now to be direct, I put it to you that the phrase that we've been debating, the phrase talking about intimidators must through formal and informal policing, must be neutralised, in fact doesn't comply with these instructions. It's vague, it's capable of misinterpretation and it's particularly on your version capable of conveying different meanings to different people.

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: What's your question?

MR VAN ZYL: I'm putting it to you that the section we've been talking about referring to intimidators must be by means of formal and informal policing, they must be neutralised does not comply with the spirit of these instructions. In that it can convey different meanings to different people. It is, it's not reduced to it's simplest form. It is possible of being misunderstood and subordinates are capable of misinterpreting it.

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman I must raise another objection. One of the functions of a cross-examiner is to listen to answers. My client has stated categorically that he cannot speak for other departments, he can speak for the SADF and his clear evidence was there's no room for misunderstanding by a member of the SADF.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, point 1 it is an instruction which comes to the State Security Council from the SADF. If it comes to the State Security Council from the SADF it is expected that it will comply with the conventions of service writing approved by the SADF. And I'm putting a very simple question to Mr Malan. I'm asking whether in fact the instruction that comes from the SADF to the State Security Council is in compliance with these conventions of service writing.

MR LYSTER: General Malan has said that in the context of the Defence Force nothing that was done or said at the State Security Council could have been misinterpreted. In the light of this document which relates to clarity, simplicity, non ambiguity, does he want to express another view and or revise his view in any way? I think that should be the question. Because this document was only discussed after General Malan gave his answer relating to the fact that nothing that's said in the SSC could be misinterpreted within a military context.