Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-05

MR VISSER: Well, I take your point and perhaps I'm the one that's confused.  Can I tell you what I'm talking about, Mr Mkhize.  I'm talking about the offensive group, the defensive VIP protection group, that's the second group.  The contra-mobilisation group and the intelligence group.  Do you understand that?  That's what I'm talking about now.

WITNESS:   Therefore when you're talking about

MR VISSER: /that,

MR VISSER: 1B that, you are not talking about the advanced course, you are now in the specialised course.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry that I confused you, because I didn't understand that this way, but do you understand now I'm talking about those groups?

WITNESS:   Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: And were those groups divided into, in the last month of your stay at Camp Hippo?

WITNESS:   Can you repeat?

MR VISSER: Were you divided into those groups during the last month of your stay at Camp Hippo?

WITNESS:   Yes.

MR VISSER: And just check with me whether I'm correct.  In the list of the defensive or the bodyguards, there were 28 members.  Is that correct?  Is that your recollection?

WITNESS:  I don't remember how many there were, because I was in the contra-mobilisation unit.  I didn't work with the other groups in the specialised course, I didn't have any contact with them, therefore I don't know as to how they were trained.  I only know about contra-mobilisation only.  I don't know how many there were.

MR VISSER: Did I hear you correctly to say that in the contra-mobilisation unit or group there were eight persons apart from yourself?  Is that what you said in your evidence?

WITNESS:   No, I said there were eight, eight zero, eighty.

MR VISSER: In fact the correct figure is that you were a total of 114 in that group, the contra ... (intervention)

INTERPRETER: 114 or 140?

MR VISSER: One four.  Which was far in a way the largest group of the Caprivi trainees.  Would you agree with that figure?

WITNESS:   I do agree that we're the biggest group among the other groups and I said I estimated it to be eighty, not exactly eighty.

MR VISSER: I'm not criticising you, I'm just putting to you the

MR VISSER: /correct

MR VISSER: 2A correct figures.  And the point which I want to make to you and you can say whether you know about this or not is that the offensive group consisted of 33 members.

WITNESS:   I have already explained, Your Honour, that I don't know how many there were in the other groups, because I did work closely with them.

MR VISSER: May we accept what you've told us today to be your final word on what the purpose of your training in the contra-mobilisation group was, namely it was publicity directed to strengthen and support and draw support for your organisation?  That's what you were trained for, is that correct?

WITNESS:   That's correct, you quoted me well, especially when you are referring to the specialised course.  From all the training that we get, there was a specific aim, as I have also given the aim of the advanced course.  I also give you the aims behind contra-mobilisation.  In other words we were trained in such a way that we shall be flexible, that if a need arise where the skills for the advanced course are needed, we will be able to apply them and again, if ever skills for contra-mobilisation are needed, we will be able to apply them.

MR VISSER: Back in South Africa, how were you applied?

MR NTSEBEZA: Can I just indicate that that again is going beyond the parameters of the evidence that he has led.  There will be evidence that will be led by Mr Macadam on their deployment on mobilisation and I think the question should be disallowed.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, this is going to be impossible.  I think I will - I will rather defer my cross-examination until I can sensibly ask questions of this witness.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.
/
MR LYSTER
2A

MR LYSTER: Thank you, Mr Visser.

MR DE VOS: Sorry, before my learned friend, Mr Van Zyl, starts his cross-examination, if I understand this Commission correctly, this witness' evidence will be heard in stages.  Now there is a lot of decisions in our law that says it's not proper to hear evidence piecemeal or to  conduct cross-examination piecemeal.  In the way that his evidence is now led before the Court, we're sitting in this awkward situation that his evidence is stopped at a certain point.  Then it's said to us that as far as the Defence Force is concerned, the old Defence Force and the members that we appear on behalf for, that it's unlikely that our attendance would be necessary next week.  Now it's difficult for us to understand how his evidence on the one hand can be led about training, next week about so-called murders and then evidence is going to be led by Mr Varney or he is going to make submissions about the old Defence Force was part and parcel of anti-terrorists campaign in this country.  In other words, what is actually happening here, a basis is being laid on the one hand and next week he is going to take it further and at the same time it is being said to us that we are not involved in his evidence that he's going to give next week.  On the other hand we have the situation that that is exactly the opposite of what Mr Varney is going to argue before you.  Now on the basis that it's improper to hear evidence piecemeal or to cross-examine piecemeal isn't it proper for this witness to complete his evidence completely or on the other hand to make a ruling that we all reserve our cross-examination until next week, so that he can finish his evidence and then we can ask the
 /necessary
2A necessary questions, otherwise we're going to be stopped or Mr Visser's situation will arise time and again.  Can the Commission maybe make a ruling on this?  Thank you.

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr - is it De Vos?  Thank you very much for what you've said.  I think that we need to remind your goodselves that in fact this is a Commission of Inquiry and this is not in fact a Court of Law and the Commission, in fact, sets its own rules and procedures and for its convenience it has decided in fact that the witness should be led in various phases, beginning first with his training.  Obviously we need to satisfy the legal requirements which are set out in the Act and in fact which have been determined in the cases that have come through, which is to allow in fact your particular clients the opportunity to place in rebuttal facts which come through this witness' evidence and in fact to allow your clients the opportunity to put forward their particular views on a particular issue.  You have in fact raised, I think, a very sensible option and certainly, if it is the view of all of you that we should allow this witness to complete his evidence in total before we allow cross-examination, so that it is done in a sensible way, I don't think there can actually be a problem with that and if all of you want to proceed in that particular way, then that's fine with us, because the purpose of this opportunity is really to allow each of you to do your own questioning or put your own version for your particular clients, so if you want a short adjournment to decide whether all of you comply with that, then we won't have any problem with making that particular ruling.
MR   (?): And may I ask whether the ruling which you
 /have
2A have now suggested would include the possibility of reserving cross-examination until the end and include the possibility of cross-examining with regard to issues which had already previously been dealt with?

YASMINE SOOKA: Will you be more specific when you say issues previously dealt with?  Are you talking about issues dealt with in other trials or in this particular matter?
MR   (?): No, it is simply in this particular matter.  If cross-examination always - if the evidence has been completed on this issue and the witness is led on further issues in the future, that we could revert to this issue and fully cross-examine on this issue.