Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

MR GOOSEN: And the schema of your submission maintains that the persons responsible, in real terms, you accept moral responsibility and you accept responsibility for the misinterpretation, I understand that, and you do that as an individual, but in essence the people responsible for leading the South African Police down a wrong path, are those people outside of the sphere of responsibility of the politicians.  That's in effect what you are saying, not so?

ADRIAAN VLOK: No, I think Mr Goosen has lost me somewhere along the way because that's not what I said.  I said that we at the top took certain decisions and we used terminology without actually really thinking about it and that worked its way through to the people on the ground and they misinterpreted it, and for that I accept responsibility.  I should have seen to it that those misinterpretations couldn't arise.  I can't go further than that.
 But I have to say to you that there was this structure and there was a certain chain of command which operated both ways.  So the instructions which I received and which I conveyed to the Commissioner and which he then conveyed all the way down to the man on the ground, in the same way as I have to take responsibility for that, and I am applying for amnesty, so each individual must take responsibility for the way he misinterpreted certain words and he must adduce proof to the Amnesty Committee, and then there's no point of dispute between us, then we actually agree.  
 I simply raised as a possibility that I must accept as the responsible Minister that we used terminology which was capable of misinterpretation but they still have to prove that that in fact happened.

MR GOOSEN: But the misunderstanding then arises because of the system that you had, you are saying that you and your Cabinet colleagues could never have misunderstood what was intended, you could never have and you didn't.  The people who did misunderstand were those who were not party to the State Security Council decision-making.  Everybody outside that system, those are the people who made the mistake, is that correct?

ADRIAAN VLOK: We who were in the Cabinet could also have misunderstood but then we didn't have any excuses because we actually sat there.  We heard the discussion.  But the operative on the ground in Pofadder who had to actually carry out these instructions he had no idea what we discussed, so I think he has a reason for saying look that's the way I understood it, because that is the normal meaning of the word.

MR GOOSEN: You can then on the basis of your scheme as to how one understands responsibility here, you have two people pointing at one another and responsibility falls somewhere in-between, not so?

ADRIAAN VLOK: I am not following the question.

MR GOOSEN: The very simple reason that the persons who made the mistakes are not the politicians, not the people responsible for formulating the policy, everybody else made the mistake.

ADRIAAN VLOK: I don't agree with you at all.  Yesterday I admitted that we made mistakes.  Pik Botha also said the same, he admitted making mistakes.  I really must say, Chairperson, Mr Goosen and I are not understanding each other properly because I in fact admitted that we made mistakes.

MR GOOSEN: Yes the mistakes that you admitted to Mr Vlok were mistakes in not doing sufficient, not taking sufficient steps, not now with the benefit of hindsight, with the benefit of hindsight you can turn back and you can see what happened and you can say well we were mistaken.  That's the mistake you admit to.  You don't admit to making any mistake at the point at which you formulated the policy.

ADRIAAN VLOK: With respect I admitted that formulation was an error, I said that.  And I said that as a result of the use of certain words that certain Stratcom actions which flowed from that were perhaps illegal and I admitted that.  So with respect I have to say it's not only the people on the ground who made mistakes, I also made mistakes.  We as politicians also made mistakes, I can't speak on anybody else's behalf, I am speaking personally and I can say yes, I made mistakes, I admitted it and for the mistake that I made I am now asking for amnesty.

MR GOOSEN: But you never intended, you never intended that unlawful action should occur ...(intervention)

ADRIAAN VLOK: That's right.

MR GOOSEN: Every unlawful action that occurred was as a result of a mistake.

ADRIAAN VLOK: Not every one ...(intervention)

MR GOOSEN: ...a misunderstanding.

ADRIAAN VLOK: Not every one.  I tried to explain the exception that one of the Stratcom actions from which certain things could flow we perhaps thought it was an illegal instruction but we foresaw that certain illegal things could flow from that.  So you mustn't see it in its nicely rounded off finality ...(intervention)

MR GOOSEN: Give me an example of the Stratcom action then - approved ...(intervention)

ADRIAAN VLOK: The Chairperson gave me an example yesterday, we distributed a pamphlet about somebody who lived in a certain town and we told lies about him and the community became angry with him and they burnt down his house.  That is an example.  And I've accepted responsibility for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Could I just ask one tiny question, one small question.  When you accept, I think, moral responsibility, what does that mean?  Does that mean - no I shouldn't put - I shouldn't make it a leading question, here is a policeman who has misunderstood your instruction and killed somebody and acted bona fide and you say you accept responsibility, what does that mean?

ADRIAAN VLOK: I am actually sorry that you didn't ask a leading question because then you would have helped me because our Ministers are the people who actually deal with morality so now I am a little bit in trouble.  But as I understand it I can't run away from those occasions where somebody, as a result of my action, as a result of misunderstanding my words, committed an offence.  I am morally obliged to stand by him and to say I accept moral and political responsibility.

CHAIRPERSON: What would that mean?  Sorry, I am just, I mean being slow thinkers ...(intervention)

ADRIAAN VLOK: Normally a politician...

CHAIRPERSON: ....in a court of law what status would that statement have?  I mean here is a person who has committed a murder because they have misunderstood your instructions and you say I, not he, I take moral responsibility, what does that mean?

ADRIAAN VLOK: Actually I can't answer that, I don't know what it would mean in a court of law.  I must be very honest.  But here we are busy with reconciliation in the Commission and reconciliation is based on morality and on moral values, I have to say to you that for me it means that I can't distance myself from these people, that I must accept joint responsibility, political and moral responsibility.

MR GOOSEN: Would it not be so that in circumstances where you foresaw that unlawful actions might be, might flow from policies approved by you or instructions given by you that you would in fact bear criminal liability in the event of those unlawful actions occurring?

ADRIAAN VLOK: I don't know.  You would have to go and look at the specific incident to see whether those things actually arose.  In general it may be so but I don't know.