Special Hearings — Armed Forces Hearings — 1997-10-09

MR GOOSEN: Understood that that's clearly a legal frame that doesn't operate in isolation but what he specifically indicated was that it was not sufficient to rely on, for example, long term detention in terms of Section 29 and various other legal mechanisms, prosecutions and so on, to be able to ensure that the security forces could contain the revolutionary onslaught against the State, and in that context other non-legal means were, from time-to-time, resorted to.  Would you agree with that?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Mr Chairperson that is not how I understood General van der Merwe.  I understood him to say that the onslaught, the revolutionary onslaught was many facetted and that in answer to that, in response to that, a many faceted response was necessary, including, including the use of what the vice-chairman, or Mr Ntsebeza has mentioned, draconian laws, I am not quarrelling with his definition of the laws which obtained at the time, including that, and including in certain circumstances which he has described the use of what he termed illegal operations.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.  No that's precisely the point ...(intervention)

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Unsanctioned, but the use of that.

MR GOOSEN: He did indicate though that authorisation was provided for specific illegal actions carried out.

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairman I know of one incident, I personally know of one incident.  I know that we have already discussed that, my legal counsel, over-border operations.  I have got serious doubts whether that could per se be described as legal operations, but there was no pattern of illegal operations ever authorised that I am aware of Sir.

MR GOOSEN: No I think that's correct.  I think General van der Merwe indicated that it was not a general authorisation to resort to illegal means ...(intervention)

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: That's right.

MR GOOSEN: But that in specific instances yes there was authorisation given for illegal activities.

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Sir I cannot indulge in conjecture.  I must be supplied with the specific incident and my response will then, if I know about, if it's within my knowledge, be specific.  But just to say that there were general incidents, that I cannot comment on Sir.

MR GOOSEN: Would I understand it then that you would say that in the period in which you were, firstly, head of the Security Police and then Commissioner of Police subsequently when you served in the State Security Council, over that period until your retirement, that under no circumstances where you were involved no illegal activities were ever authorised?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: By the State Security Council Sir, I am not aware of any illegal operation, and I am not referring now, I am placing that in parenthesis, in brackets, I am not talking about cross-border operations, but inside the country I am not aware of any illegal instruction being given by the State Security Council that illegal operations should be embarked on.

MR GOOSEN: Ja.  General van der Merwe also testified that when we were dealing with the use of words such as eliminate, "elimineer", "neutraliseer", "uittewis", "uitrooi" and words of that nature that those were - that that was unfortunate language used at the level of State Security Council and in various other fora where those phrases were used, would you agree with that?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Sir I think I must explain the procedure.  During my term of office only portions of State Security documents were forwarded to me via the office of the Minister of Police.  I never was in possession of documents itself, the whole complete set of documents.  So I responded by giving instructions based on the portions that I got, reported back to the Minister of Law and Order and he responded at the State Security Council, supported by me if necessary.  That is the first point that I want to make Sir.
 How it was dealt with by the Secretariat of the State Security Council I cannot comment on.  They formulated it.  They had a representative at the State Security Council, they overheard the discussions and I suppose they made a tape recording and they made the - they prepared the minutes.  
 Secondly Sir about the words itself.  I have, Sir, although I am in agreement with General van der Merwe that some of these words could lead to misunderstanding, but I have - this is a matter of interest Sir, I went and looked at just a school dictionary, initially, about the word "elimineer" and it's a school dictionary and I can give the particulars of it if it's necessary.  It's Bosman, van der Merwe and Barnes page 480 and it merely says it means in Afrikaans, " to remove or to eliminate".  That's the first point that I want to make.  Then I went to a more authoritative dictionary Sir, the "Hat" as we call it in Afrikaans, and there on page 194 it says "eliminate or remove", and it gives an example there of a sentence, "to try and eliminate all mistakes".  To my mind Sir it is thus obvious that the word per se does not mean when it is used in connection with a person that that person should be killed or assassinated.  That does not mean that in Afrikaans at all if you look at just an ordinary school dictionary or the more authoritative one Sir.  
 But more particularly Sir, in the document that you furnished me with, it says quite clearly what the steps are that should be taken to eliminate the person.  It sits quite clearly, in Afrikaans it's "gryp operasies". "seizures" and there's such type of operations.  It's military terms but nowhere does it indicate there that it means that you should go and kill a particular person if you read it in context.  I have it available if you want to discuss it. 
 I am in agreement Mr Goosen that in the process, as the document went its way wherever it went, to different committees and to different situations and different circumstances it could have been misconstrued, but to my mind sitting there, as a member of the State Security Council this is what it meant.

MR GOOSEN: Firstly General you indicated that the documents would have been forwarded to you by the Minister of ...(intervention)

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Portions of documents Sir.

MR GOOSEN: Or portions of documents.  Did any of the documents ever forwarded to you contain those words?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: I cannot recall that Sir after more than a decade.

MR GOOSEN: I take it from your previous answer, that that's not the one that you have just given, but the previous answer, that you concede that at the very least those words are ambiguous and capable of different interpretations, correct?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Yes not only those words Sir, all words are open to misconstruction or - I cannot go into semantics about that Sir.  The dictionary meaning is quite clear, but I don't think policemen or soldiers have got dictionaries when they read these things, these instructions, and I say depending upon your culture, your understanding, your comprehension, your language capability, it could have been misconstrued.

MR GOOSEN: Would you agree that given the fact that it would be capable, those words "elimineer", "neutraliseer", "uithaal", "verwyder", "uittewis", "uitrooi", that those words used in their ordinary usage in the context in which they were used as well within the security forces as a whole, that they would be capable of being interpreted to mean kill, to kill individuals?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Sir I cannot comment on that, that's hypothetical Sir.  I can say how I understood it.  No-one ever came to me from grassroot level and said to me but I understand this word, this particular word, I've heard it at this committee or I've heard it at that committee and to me it means in fact that I should kill someone, because I would immediately have told him this is not what was meant.