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

MR COETZEE: I am putting it to you that although there was a state of war that everything possible was done to prevent that people should be eliminated in an unlawful manner, do you want to comment on that?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Please repeat your question.

MR COETZEE: Although this was a time of war and during a war a lot of things happened, and I wish to put it to you that everything possible was done from General Geldenhuys' side to prevent that people should be unlawfully eliminated, meaning to kill them, and that is internally.

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, I can't answer that question, because that is not what I said during my testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all Adv Coetzee?  I am going to have to use my sword very, very slowly.

MR COETZEE: Could you just bear with the sword for a moment, I don't think there is anything else, I would just like to discuss it with my Attorney and my client, if you can just keep the sword for a moment.

CHAIRPERSON: In the interest of time, can I interpose your cross-examination, while you are with these gentlemen, you can come back.

MR COETZEE: Thank you very much?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Zyl, is it?

MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman, it is Cilliers again.  This situation, I am acting on behalf of Moller, has also received a notice in terms of Section 29 and there is only one aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Be very brief Mr Cilliers.

MR CILLIERS: General, I don't want to go into detail regarding the principle, but I understand that one principle which was maintained or supported very strongly and is still being done so in the Defence Force, is the so-called need to know principle?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR CILLIERS: Do I understand it correctly that what that entails is that except if it is absolutely necessary that a person should know or need to know what an operation entails, he would definitely not be informed beforehand regarding this operation?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is completely correct.

MR CILLIERS: For example State witnesses in the so-called KwaMakuta trial gave evidence that it went so far as that when there was an operation and you had to fetch weapons to execute this operation, you would not tell that person for what you were going to use that weapon because it was not necessary for him to know?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That could have been, yes.

MR CILLIERS: Well, you say it could be like that, or does that mean if he did not know and he had to fetch the weapon, you would tell him, was it a principle enforced in the Defence Force that you would not tell him?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: No, if it was not necessary, you would not tell him.

MR CILLIERS: For example, evidence was also given regarding a situation in Natal where it was not necessary or it was not necessary to inform the Intelligence people in Natal regarding an operation there and the people were not informed based on this need to know principle.  Do you agree that this principle was so enforced in the South African Defence Force at that stage?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

MR CILLIERS: General, I want to put it to you without going into detail because it is not necessary to prejudice your application at this stage, that General Moller denies that he had any previous knowledge of the activities or part of the activities for actions for which you are applying for amnesty.  I am going to keep it as wide and as vague as that.  Do you want to comment on that aspect?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, one situation I want to make very clear.  Special Forces did not operate internally at that stage.  We did not handle Intelligence internally.
 The Intelligence we gathered internally was used for targets outside the country.  The 12th of June 1986, the situation escalated and I was asked to develop a plan to support the SAP internally and we did not have the necessary Intelligence regarding internal operations or internal targets. 
 In other words, we had to obtain this information for the people who possessed that information.  And whether it was from General Moller or whether it was from his Intelligence staff I can't confirm one hundred percent.  But the Intelligence did come from his commandment and from the SAP.  That is the short and the long of this story.

MR CILLIERS: And then in summary what you mean with that is that you can't say and one can understand because it is 11 years later, you can't say that this information was not obtained from Moller personally, because you also say it could have come from somebody in his command?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: All I want to say is his command made a contribution to provide the Intelligence for us.

MR CILLIERS: Is that what you are saying, and that is what mostly you can say?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

MR CILLIERS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cilliers.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, again Mr Van Zyl.    I hope that everybody has a copy of this statement.  I also have a copy available for General Joubert.  General do you confirm that you have read this statement today and that I have previously shown it to you?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: I confirm that.

MR VAN ZYL: Do you confirm that you have paraphrased every page and that you have signed the last page, page 8?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: I confirm.

MR VAN ZYL: You are aware of the contents of this statement?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: Do you confirm the correctness of the contents?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: I confirm the correctness of the contents of the statement.

MR VAN ZYL: And then the last aspect, I can put it in the form of a statement to General Joubert, if he wants to comment on that, this is regarding the contents of his amnesty application.
 Regarding a specific paragraph, pertaining to a specific incident, for the purposes of the record, 4.4.17 of your amnesty application, where certain allegations are made in which Gleeson is involved, regarding the contents of that paragraph or any other parts of your amnesty application, means that Gleeson participated in the planning or the participation on the murders of the persons referred to in that specific part of your application or that he would later be involved in the covering up and also later become an accessory of the fact, he would then say that he was not involved and did not act illegally.  Do you wish to comment on that or not?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, I wish not to comment on that.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van Zyl.

MR COETZEE: I only have, obviously there are various other aspects that I would like to canvass with this witness, but due to the time restrains, I cannot.  But I suppose there will be an opportunity at a later stage.
 My last question to you General, certain of the aspects in your amnesty application are based on facts as experienced by you or which you knew about?
 Certain of these facts have to do with your perceptions during that time, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

MR COETZEE: Especially regarding the broader statement that everybody had to know what was happening, that is one perception of the time?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR COETZEE: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Thank you Mr Coetzee.   Adv Goosen, do you have anything turning on the affidavit that was submitted by Mr Van Zyl or did you not really have time to look at it?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairperson, I have not made a study of it.  I would reserve my rights in this regard, I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well then.  You are ready to take your next witness?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: General Joubert ... (intervention)