Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — 1997-12-04

MR LYSTER: It may be repetitive but I think I do need to say it and in saying it, I just have a feeling and I may be wrong that you have been less than forthcoming and frank with us.  Because you have painted a picture in your description of the State Security Council and the various Government agencies of which you were a Head and the others, Military Intelligence, the security branch etc,  you have painted for us or sketched for us this State Security Council and these various agencies as being primarily and essentially benign in their approach, concerned only preventing the destabilisation of this country, and the identification of people in the broader community with whom in the later 80's with whom you could successfully facilitate and further the negotiation process.  That's the sort of picture that you provided for us.
 There is another view and I'm not saying it's the view that this Commission has accepted, but there is another view and it is the view that is supported by the cumulative effect of the testimony that we have received in this Commission and by the amnesty applications of very senior people, I'm not talking about sergeants, I'm talking about colonels and generals, the cumulative effect of amnesty applications of amnesty applications which suggest contrary to your view that there was a well co-ordinated strategy to target and eliminate people that the Government agencies had in fact identified.  They were assisted in this by well-resourced agencies which produced detailed target dossiers.  There's a fundamental dilemma and I'm repeating what my colleagues have said for this Commission that there are two very different views.  Your view is not supported by the people who've come before us, by some people who've come before us and have said the words uitroei, uitwis, eliminate they meant one thing and one thing only and that is the disingenuous  of people at a high level to suggest that it meant anything else than kill.  We have a very, very fundamental dilemma because at the end of the day we have to make a finding to what, for example bodies like the State Security Council, what their directives meant when they said in the '86,'87 those years when the counter-revolutionary war became more intense, when said use all means possible to fight the enemy.  That they, there is a view that says that they intended the lower orders those charged with carrying out these directives to do exactly that to eliminate them, to wipe them out.  
 As you know there has been this during the Political Party hearings and the Armed Forces hearings people have said well, we may have used word like uitroei, uitwis, maak 'n plan met eliminate but of course we meant that to mean arrest or detain or ban.  Whereas the people who did the uitroeing and the uitwising understood it at all times to mean one thing and one thing only, which was to kill people.  Where I have a problem with the role of NI in that, is that if politicians were using words like eliminate, uitroei, uitwis and they intended them to mean arrest than anything within the scope of the law, but people at the lower level were in fact taking them to mean something else, why didn't the NI the NIS become aware of this?  Why didn't it bring immediately and urgently to the attention of the Government that there was a loose and highly reckless and irresponsible use of language here, which was leading to a situation which strategically that you say that you are against?  
 It seems - I can't understand how these sort of things were happening.  I can't understand how people were being killed, eliminated by for example Head of the security branch for the Eastern Cape, security branch in KwaZulu Natal.  I am talking about Snyman and General Serfontein in Natal who applied for amnesty for the deaths of many people.  Why didn't the NIA know about this?  You described yourself as probably the best agent, well you said amongst the best in the world or very good  I see your counsel shaking their heads, I presume you put yourself above merely a good intelligence agency.  How was it that you didn't know about these things?  
 I've asked a lot of questions but it's a huge dilemma for this Commission.  We have two, as my colleague Ms Wildschut said, we have two fundamentally different realities confronting us and we need your guidance which, where we are to find the truth  somewhere between those two.  I don't know if you are even able to comment on that or answer a question.  It may just be an observation that I'm making.

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: I'm sorry I've listened attentatively to what you've been saying.  I'm looking for a specific document in which the remark which you started with namely: that my evidence was less than forthcoming was also made by you towards somebody else.  And Advocate on Lieres von Wilkau at that same instance objected to that and now I also object to that.  I find it very strange, while it's not my task to make judgements about the Commission, I find it very strange  that this Commission which at a stage the chairman and the vice chairman were involved in certain cases when they made statements regarding the evidence of certain people,  I find it absolutely unacceptable in the spirit of reconciliation.  I have to draw the inference that you have already made a judgement regarding my testimony.  I think it's  wrong, it is unacceptable.   Secondly I wish to state you have specific points of view which you are subscribing to.  I'm under the impression that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is there to find the truth, discover the truth to be able to establish reconciliation.  I can draw the inference from your standpoint.

MR LYSTER: Perhaps Dr Barnard if I can just interrupt, that isn't my view, I said there is a view and it is not necessarily the view of the Commission those are my words.  It is not my view.  I said there is another view to the one you have expressed, it's not necessarily the view of the Commission but it is a view which is supported by the cumulative effect of testimony we've heard and amnesty application, it is not my view.