Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-06

MR VISSER: The last question on that issue is, do you possess of any evidence throughout all your enquiries and investigations, in the position in which you were, which you can point this committee to, to support your contention that General van der Merwe knew anything about the concealment of persons anywhere?  Where he was - where you could draw the line, make the connection to him?

WITNESS:  Yes, I don't see that as a particularly material point. I'm not suggesting that he was involved in specific cases, that he arranged bail and concealed people himself, but here he is providing overall direction - policy, in a sense.  What he's saying is, "Bail can be arranged and then take the members away, conceal them".

MR VISSER: Yes.  Mr Chairman, I'm probably through.  Will you bear with me a moment?  I'm sorry, Mr Varney, I'll be with you in a second.  Let me just check whether there's anything else that I have to put to you.  Fortunately for me some of the points have already been covered by my predecessors here.  Yes, yes, there is one other point which I mustn't forget about.  In this very same document, in paragraph 15 there's something here that bothers us.  It starts with Brigadier Burger.  Now, my instructions from now Major-Burger, is that he didn't attend this meeting.  I'm just wondering whether you are in a position

MR VISSER: /or with your

MR VISSER: 5B or with your knowledge whether you can comment on whether this reference to Brigadier Burger may have been a misspelling and that it may have referred to somebody else, and I don't want to raise any disputes with my fellow colleagues here, but I'm going to suggest to you that it's probably a reference to General Jac Buchner.  Can you possibly comment on that?

WITNESS:   Well, I'm not in a position to state whether it's a misspelling or not.  However, given that Jac Buchner did attend one of those meetings, I think it is unlikely that in the same document they would make that sort of mistake.

MR VISSER: Well, I was going to suggest exactly the contrary to you.  The fact that there must have been a mistake is (1) the man says he wasn't there - Burger.  (2), We've got Buchner on the scene, so the probabilities that it must have been just an oversight or a mistake.

WITNESS:   I'm not going to argue with you on that one.

MR VISSER: And neither am I with you.  May I just ask my attorney, because I think that's all I wanted to raise, Mr Chairman.  He says that he can't think of anything else that I can bicker about, Mr Chairman, so I will stand down, thank you.

MR VISSER: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairperson, could I have 30 seconds, please?  Mr Varney, I don't know whether you know that I'm acting for Former Minister P D C du Plessis, who apparently was a member of the larger State Security Council over the period 1986 till 1989.  Again I wish to express the - state that I have no instructions regarding your submissions which you are dealing with here, however your reply to what I'm about to ask may or may not have an

MR MARITZ: /effect on the

MR MARITZ: 5B effect on the instructions to be obtained from client.  In your submissions you refer to various State Security Council meetings ranging over a period of some eight years.  I believe the first one was 1979, up to 1987.  Some of the minutes of such meetings, to a more or lesser degree, refer to some form of counter-revolutionary warfare.  If I understand you correctly, you also seem to differentiate between the highest in the State Security Council - obviously various levels of authority within the Government, including the State departments of the day.  I think you would appreciate that members may have come and gone over the years.  Certain persons may have been ad hoc members.  Some persons may have attended these meetings for reasons other than perhaps you would want the Commission to believe.  The question, Mr Varney, in view of the above, do you seriously suggest that all persons should be held accountable for the alleged acts of murder or can you elaborate or explain to the Commission what you mean by the words, "All" and, "Accountable"?

WITNESS:   In so far as the members of those bodies were aware, had foresight, anticipated that the supplying of an offensive para-military unit to a civilian body, a civilian organization involved in a political and bloody on-going conflict, that they would use that capacity to launch offensive strikes against their opponents, I would argue yes, they are accountable for the acts that flowed from that project.  We don't know whether any one of those individuals had any greater connection, but I don't believe one has to show a greater connection.  One simply has to show that that foresight existed and that is more than evident from the documents themselves, from the

MR MARITZ: /circumstances.

MR MARITZ: 5B circumstances.  You don't have to be an expert to see that.  It's quite patently obvious.   Niel Barnard himself said he anticipated loss of life arising out of such a project.

MR MARITZ: Thank you for qualifying your submission, Mr Varney. Thank you.

MR MARITZ: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MARITZ

MR VAN ZYL: There is just one aspect that I would like to take up with the witness please.  Mr Varney, do you know Mr Rocky Williams?  He is a member of the Defence Force or attached to them in one or other way.  He testified earlier today.  Do you know him?

WITNESS:   Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: Is it correct that he was provided with all the documents that you also had at your disposal to compile this report?

WITNESS:   Yes, I'm aware that he at least got a copy of the report that I drafted.  It is called, "The Varney Report", but it's the role of the former State in political violence, and I'm not sure what else he was supplied with.

MR VAN ZYL: But at least he had the documents that's attached and part of your Varney Report, the whole of the report?

WITNESS:   He had the whole of the report and he was, in fact, last year supplied with a number of documents as well.  Exactly which ones I cannot recall.

MR VAN ZYL: But at least various documents were provided to him, in order to enable him to formulate his opinion as he testified today?

WITNESS:   Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

WITNESS:   I should clarify that last year when Mr Williams was supplied with documents, it had nothing to do with this Truth Commission hearing.  We were attempting to get Mr Williams to speak

MR VAN ZYL: /to the Attorney-

MR VAN ZYL: 5B to the Attorney-General to give him the opportunity of talking to a military expert, but Mr McNally declined to take up on that offer.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you, Mr Chairman, just one other aspect, please.  You make mention of the three accomplice witnesses that testified in the Malan trial last year, being Messrs Cloete, Opperman and Khumalo, and you also criticise them - I think it's on page 57 of your Varney Report - to the effect that their evidence was not satisfactory, but then while, in compiling this document that you read into the record today, your submission, in certain instances you do rely on the evidence of Mr Opperman.  Is it a question that you sometimes prefer to use his evidence and sometimes not?  And then he's reliable and in other instances not reliable?

WITNESS:   No, not at all, absolutely not.

MR VAN ZYL: Explain it to us, please.

WITNESS:   I did not say in that document that - I think the words I used were, "Performed poorly" or something along those lines, and you can have the most honest witnesses in the world, who will perform atrociously in court.  They will forget.  They will think they have remembered something.  They will be tricked into saying certain things.  I certainly don't have to tell you and your colleagues that an honest witness isn't necessarily a good witness.  I do ... (intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: (Inaudible).