Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-06

MR COETZEE: (?)   Mr Chairman, there's one or two aspects that I indicated that I'd also like to put on record earlier on this morning.
Pertaining to this debate about the remark, I'd like to put on record that no such remark came from any of the  representatives that represents my clients.
The issues that I'd like to put on record are very similar to that that has been raised by my learned friend.  Before the Committee proceeds to accept the submission of Mr Varney I'd like clarification on the following issues which are of vital importance to the clients I represent.
The Section 30 notice which was served on our clients is based on allegations contained in the Varney report.  At all stages we were brought under the direct impression that Mr Varney will testify in this regard.
 /I firstly
2B I firstly refer to a letter dated the 30th of July 1997 where the chairman, Mr Lyster, indicated that cross-examination of Mr Varney will be allowed, but it will be limited.  I furthermore refer to a letter sent to General Groenewald on the 2nd of June 1997 where it is indicated that Mr Varney will be a witness.  At a later stage the Committee made a ruling that Mr Varney will no longer be giving evidence, but that he would only be making submissions.  I request the Committee to clarify by supplying reasons why the Committee decided that Mr Varney need not testify.  It possibly appears that the sole reason for this decision is the fact that the Committee does not wish possibly to have his allegations contained in the Varney report tested under cross-examination.
Furthermore, the main reason why were here is because we were brought under the impression that he is going to testify and that we will be able to test the veracity of the allegations contained in this report.
Furthermore, we request reasons as to why the Committee is of the opinion that Mr Varney has the necessary locus standi to make a submission.  On behalf of who does he make a submission and it's clear that in the normal procedure a submission relates to evidence that has been given during a hearing.
The submissions that Mr Varney makes do not relate to any evidence that has been led in these proceedings or that the Committee intends dealing in these proceedings.
It is furthermore submitted that it is procedurally unfair and the rules of natural justice have not been applied.  Due to the fact that the allegations contained in the Varney report have been referred in national
 /television
2B television and in the press, it is our submission that this report contains very serious allegations against the clients I represent.  There are factual inaccuracies and inferences are drawn from the factual inaccuracies.  Obviously these untested allegations severely prejudice our clients.
As late as the 5th of August a letter was sent to an attorney Coetzee that states that Mr Varney will be called as a witness.  I beg leave to hand up the documentation that are referred to indicating that the information - I beg leave to hand it up to the Committee.  I'm indebted.

MR LYSTER: We will take a short adjournment to discuss our response to submissions raised.
BRIEF ADJOURNMENT
ON RESUMPTION

MR LYSTER: I am not going to address each and every issue raised by Mr Coetzee and Mr Van Zyl, but just address them in general terms.
At the beginning of today's proceedings we understood that there was an agreement in existence to the effect that Mr Varney would make an unsworn submission and that there would be an opportunity for counsel to make rebutting submissions thereafter.  It seems that there was no such agreement and we are disappointed that only at this late stage are we told that there is in fact no such agreement and that there is still an insistence on cross-examination.
In view of the fact that time is clearly of the essence and that Mr Varney is leaving the country tomorrow we have decided the following that Mr Varney will give
 /evidence
2B evidence under oath and that he will do so for a period of at least one hour;  that counsel will have a very limited opportunity to conduct cross-examination of Mr Varney and this will probably only extend to about one and a half hours and thereafter, if any counsel present wish to make submissions - to submissions with regard to Mr Varney's evidence, that they do so tomorrow or at the end of the proceedings.
In view of the time constraints I wish to draw specific attention to remarks which I made at the beginning of these proceedings on Monday which are set out in Regulation 6.1 of the determined procedures for the hearing and also in remarks which I made in my opening address where I said that the panel will not permit any evidence - sorry, any cross-examination which amounts to a repetition of versions which have already been put forward in other forums.
With regard to locus standi of Mr Varney, this Committee - this Commission, in fact, is at liberty to request persons to make submissions and to give evidence before it and it has done so on many, many other occasions and it has asked people who do not represent any particular group or community or organisation to do so.  We believe that Mr Varney has locus standi.  He was - you will be aware he was appointed by the Minister of Law and Order specifically to investigate ... (inaudible) ... in KwaZulu-Natal.  He has an intimate knowledge of the political conflict in this province and we have no hesitation in believing that he is an appropriate person to make a submission here today.
I think those are all the remarks that I need to
 /make.
2B make.  I have repeated about three times that time is of the essence and we will now proceed with Mr Varney's evidence under oath.  Mr Varney, can you give us your full names, please.

HOWARD GRANT VARNEY: (Sworn States)

MR LYSTER: Mr Macadam.

MR MACADAM: Mr Varney, how old are you?

WITNESS:   37 years.

MR MACADAM: And do you hold any academic qualifications?

WITNESS: A B.A., LL.B., Bachelor of Law.

MR MACADAM: And is it further correct that you are an admitted attorney?

WITNESS:   Correct.

MR MACADAM: The Chairperson has indicated that you have extensive experience in the field of the political violence which prevailed and possibly still does exist in KwaZulu-Natal.  Could you briefly outline the extent of that experience?

WITNESS:   Yes, I practice as an attorney with the Legal Resources Centre in Durban focusing primarily on political violence cases.  During the course of 1994 or rather 1993, I was appointed by the Transitional Executive Council to investigate hit squads in the KwaZulu Police.  Just before the elections I was also appointed as Directorate of Policing Inspectorate in this region to monitor and oversee certain policing aspects of the elections and then during the middle of 1994 I was appointed by the Minister of Safety and Security to oversee an investigation into hit squad allegations particularly in the KwaZulu Police and I was the convener of the Investigation Task Board, a civilian body which oversaw the investigations of the ITU, the Investigation Task Unit who had actually carried out the

MR MACADAM: /investigations.

MR MACADAM: 2B investigations.

MR MACADAM: Now is it correct that when the Commission planned this hearing that you were requested to make a submission in respect of various persons whom the Commission felt may be implemented to their detriment in the evidence which may be heard at the hearing?

WITNESS:   Correct.

MR MACADAM: And did you then compile a written submission in respect of each and every one of these role players which were put into various groups depending on their political affiliations or associations with certain government structures which existed at the time?

WITNESS:   Correct.  They were, as I understand, sent in the form of Section 30 notices to the persons in question.