Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

MR GOOSEN: Mr Vlok I want to move to another aspect, sort of picking up on where we were yesterday.  I want to refer you to page 11 of your submission.  Let me say at the outset that as I understand your submission you say that with the benefit of hindsight you accept that certain unlawful actions were committed by members of the Police and that they may have believed that they had the necessary authorisation for that.  That's the general thrust of it.  Yesterday I did ask you questions as to whether it was ever the position that unlawful actions were ever countenanced as part of the arsenal to use in counter-revolutionary efforts and you indicated that that was not the case.  Now I want to refer you to a few paragraphs in your submission, paragraph 3.7.7. you indicate there
"It is my sincere conviction that the politicians of the day had already, by the mid-eighties, come to realise as I thought, that the revolutionary onslaught would not be averted simply by making use of legal security action and that the only real hope for peace was a negotiated political peace.  This was manifested by the introduction and establishment of the tricameral Parliament on 17 September 1984".
 If I understand you correctly what you are saying in that paragraph is there was recognition that security force action was insufficient to deal with the revolutionary onslaught, and what was also needed in addition to security force action was a process of political settlement if you like.  Can I ask you then, why do you use the words "merely by making use of legal security action"?

ADRIAAN VLOK: That is exactly what it says, by making use of legal security operations and actions.  If we wanted to stem the revolutionary onslaught, other than by a political solution, we would have had to use extra legal methods.  It meant nothing more and I didn't intend to convey anything more than that.

MR GOOSEN: So there's not suggestion there, if I understand you correctly that you are distinguishing between legal security action and illegal security action?

ADRIAAN VLOK: That is correct.  No security action could have actually countered the situation, a political solution had to be sought.

MR GOOSEN: Can I refer you at page 14 to paragraph 3.7.11.  You say
"In an attempt to promote stability in relative peace the further instrument of emergency regulations was established by the announcement of a state of emergency, and that was put at the disposal of the security fraternity, but at best it could only be preventative in the short term.  But it was already clear at a very early stage that the revolutionary onslaught would not be stemmed by this alone.
 These measures also did not enable the security forces to by means of a legal and lawful action to prevent the violence and unrest on the ground and to normalise the situation.
 To put it briefly if the revolution could have been stemmed or stopped by means of arrests, legal action, detentions, bannings and court actions then that would have been a different story".
Do I take that to mean solely that beyond these actions, "arrests, detentions, bannings and court actions" that what you are saying was required is a political solution .....(tape ends)

ADRIAAN VLOK: ..the explanation which I gave as to the view of the security forces, we used all the tools and instruments in our hands to act legally against revolutionaries.  But that by itself was not sufficient.  We had to seek a different and another solution and that is why we pressed for a political settlement to solve the problem.

MR GOOSEN: So there's no suggestion there that there is also the option of unlawful security police action?

ADRIAAN VLOK: I want to deny vehemently that there is any such suggestion to be read into this that we would also have used illegal action to resolve the situation.

MR GOOSEN: Then at page 18, paragraph 5.7 you say
"As a result of the already mentioned phenomenon court actions became less and less of an option due to the necessary disclosure of the identities of informers which it often caused even during in camera proceedings in many cases it was easy for the accused to work out by a process of elimination who had conveyed the information to the South African Police as a result of which he was arraigned".
Again there do I take it that you're saying that those were just the problems experienced with proceeding to deal with matters in court, that there is no suggestion implicit in that that other non or unlawful means would have to be resorted to in these circumstances?

ADRIAAN VLOK: That is correct.  We experienced increasing problems to find witnesses who were willing to testify in court and once again this does not imply that we simply had to turn to illegal actions.  The emphasis is once again on seeking of a political solution and then you solve the entire problem.

MR GOOSEN: Then just to refer you to paragraph 6.15 on page 22 of your submission, and it's a summary of what really appears beforehand, I'll just read that.
"Allow me, however, to place the case in the correct perspective.  Although it became clearer with each passing day that the South African Police had sometimes in the past acted illegally this only happened as a matter of exception".
That's correct, that is your position?

ADRIAAN VLOK: That's correct.

MR GOOSEN: That where unlawful actions were carried out these were exceptions to the rule?

ADRIAAN VLOK: That's correct.

MR GOOSEN: And never authorised, may have been misinterpreted but never specifically authorised that unlawful actions should take place?  I am not talking about authorised at a lower level, I am talking about authorised at the highest level, State Security Council and so on.

ADRIAAN VLOK: Yes, but I must add the rider - I explained yesterday what could have happened as a result of Stratcom actions and that was authorised by us.  So I must be very honest with you it was authorised by us that certain Stratcom actions could be executed and if that gave rise to these things then, as I said yesterday, I must accept the responsibility for that.  I may just say that I am applying for amnesty for some of these incidents in which I was involved personally and for those in which I was not involved I put it in my amnesty application that the Committee must actually assist me because I don't know where these things could have taken place.

MR GOOSEN: But it is essence your position that unlawful actions carried out by the Police were "exceptions"?

ADRIAAN VLOK: With this proviso that I have just given you.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, accepted.  Now Mr Vlok the Truth Commission has received amnesty applications from two former Commissioners of Police; the heads of the Security Police; the head of C Sections, D Sections, right through the period from 1980 through to 1990, early 1990's; has received amnesty applications from security policemen based at Security Police headquarters, branch levels within the divisional branches, local security branch members, I might be open to correction, all but one of the commanders of the Vlakplaas Unit from 1979 through until when it was disbanded in 1992, scores and scores of security policemen have applied for amnesty in respect of unlawful activity.  Is it your view that all of those instances reflect "exceptions"?