Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  I think it may be sensible for us to 
take a break for lunch and return at quarter to two.  Thank you very much both 
of you young men.   Thank you, thank you, it is very deeply moving and we 
want to digest it and those people over there are looking forward to grilling 
you.  We invite you to come for lunch with us.

CHAIRPERSON: Glen.  I don't know which of the twins you want.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson thank you very much.  I am going to address 
my initial lines of questioning until I indicate otherwise to Mr Meyer, so I 
don't know whether Mr Wessels wants to remain seated there in the firing line 
as it were, no you are welcome to but - well whichever.  Thank you very 
much.
 Mr Meyer in reading your statement is it correct, do I understand it 
correctly that you base your acceptance of political responsibility on the fact 
that with hindsight, with the benefit of hindsight you recognise that at the 
time perhaps more stringent steps should have been taken to curb the 
transgressions which were recurring and that in essence the basis for 
responsibility that you accept is that of omissions on your part as you explain 
and perhaps persons other than yourself as well, is that correct?

MR MEYER: Chairperson I don't think I have to add anything to what I have 
actually stated there in the written paragraph in this regard.  Obviously it 
deals with the obvious question, what did our guys at the time do about the 
situation?  And I think one had to ask yourself that question and that is my 
response to that.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you very much.

MR MEYER: ...specifically, I am sorry to the wording that is contained there 
in paragraph 4.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you.  If one has regard to paragraph 3 of your 
submission, for a moment I want to leave aside the first bullet point there 
because that deals, as you have indicated with where there were specific 
instructions in that instance, regarding the other two aspects on which 
responsibility and accountability should be apportioned is it correct that there 
are really two options here?  The one is that unlawful actions which were not 
specifically authorised, which were bona fide on the one hand and there were 
those that were mala fide in the sense that people abused their opportunities 
and so on, is that correct, that's the schema?

MR MEYER: I am trying to make the distinguishing there between bullets 
two and three.  On the one side I am suggesting that as far as bullet two is 
concerned there were transgressions that could have been made on the 
impression that the person might have had that he or she was authorised by 
implication or that their actions would have carried the blessing of the 
government.  I think that is the one category. 
 And then I am also saying that it could have also happened as a result 
of over-eagerness on the side of the person that he or she had gone too far as a 
result of that over-eagerness and interpreted the mandate beyond what was 
actually a reasonable sort of mandate.  But the distinction between that and 
the third bullet to my mind lies in the fact that the third bullet deals with 
some cases that have become known, cases that have already served before the 
court, where to my mind it deals with situations where the person acted on his 
or her own agenda.  There is a clear distinction, to my mind, between the two.  
 I am not saying the first one, that is the second bullet for that matter, 
necessarily presents one with a clear answer, and therefore I refer to it as a 
grey area.  And also in my discussions with Professor Villa-Vicencio and Ms 
Rousseau, I think it was indicated that there is this grey area in regard to 
interpreting where was the limits of implied, an implied mandate or not, but I 
covered that all under bullet two.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you.  I take it then that on the basis of that distinction, 
that schema as it were, you've set out that you would then accept that there 
may well be instances in which the unlawful killing of a political opponent 
was as a result of a bona fide action on the part of a security force member, is 
that correct?

MR MEYER: I guess the question of bona fide actions in this regard is 
relevant.  I've also looked into the submission of General Malan in that 
regard, in regard to this subject of bona fides, and in general it seems to me 
one can concur with all that.

MR GOOSEN: So you would accept that in this schema of responsibility and 
accountability that it would have been possibly reasonable for a member of the 
security forces to have unlawfully killed a political opponent of government, 
correct?

MR MEYER: I tend to think immediately of the most recent example that has 
come to knowledge in terms of testimony last week regarding the Ribeiro case, 
and I think that is the kind of case in point.  But what I am suggesting here in 
an overall picture is that there are three dimensions, and I don't want to, don't 
have to go over it again, but this grey area remains grey and one will have to 
probably go into the facts regarding each and every case separately because in 
some cases it might be quite easy to determine whether there was an implied 
mandate.  In other cases there might have been no link but that the person who 
acted still acted on that belief.

MR GOOSEN: But in principle you would accept that there may be 
circumstances, and yes we will have to go into each particular set of facts in 
say an amnesty hearing, but in principle on this schema you would accept that 
it may be reasonable for a member of the security forces to have unlawfully 
killed a political opponent or a person perceived as a revolutionary or a 
supporter of a revolutionary cause at that time, is that correct?

MR MEYER: I think the implication of what I am saying here from that one 
can make that deduction, but as to the implications that you are suggesting I 
am not quite sure whether one has worked through all the consequences as far 
as that is concerned.

MR GOOSEN: Does that not then also imply that the level of political 
responsibility that it is necessary to accept political responsibility for the 
creation of a climate in which it may have been reasonable for members of the 
security forces to have unlawfully killed political opponents of the 
government?

MR MEYER: My suggestion would be that the climate was there in any 
event.  I don't think it was necessarily created by the political or military or 
police chiefs at the point.  I think the climate was there and it's for that reason 
important that one keeps in mind the nature of the conflict to my mind, and 
that is why I also referred to that in paragraph 5 in a broader sense.   There 
was on the one side daily activities - I can remember during the time I was 
responsible in the position that I am dealing here with, mainly '87, that there 
were reports on a daily basis of different acts of terrorism, or the killing of 
people from necklacing, or the planting of bombs and so forth, and of course 
that created one side of the picture.  We had an on-going situation of action 
leading to reaction, and reaction leading to further action.  
 So I am suggesting that the climate was there and it might not 
necessarily have been related even to a specific occasion where one could 
deduct a specific implied mandate.  But the general circumstances might have 
implied that.