Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-14

CHAIRPERSON: Now, looking at the evidence on the problems discussed at the meeting, bearing in mind that this was the first time that the SADF members met with my client, he was an unknown factor to them, and is, if I may use the words, a new kid on the block, the security forces, having joined the Security Branch headquarters on the 1st October 1988, what they disclosed of the problem they are experiencing is found in van Niekerk's evidence in the Msani trial, confirmed by General van Tonder, as the problems relating to the status of the trainees, the ... (inaudible) ... of the Defence Force of arming these individuals and deploying them for the purpose for which they were trained and created, namely the protection of the IFP.  Further aspects that was brought about in my client's own evidence I'll deal with herein below.

CHAIRPERSON: You questioned Advocate Visser with regard to Colonel van Niekerk's statements during the trial, with regard to how he understood van der Merwe's interpretation.  Now, General van Tonder in his evidence was also - and this is with regard to the same issue, is how he understood General van der Merwe's suggestion, is that they're taking away a member, he would have to

CHAIRPERSON: /forfeit

CHAIRPERSON: forfeit bail.  That's how he understood it.  We must clearly distinguish between was that was General van der Merwe said or was that how they understood the whole question?

CHAIRPERSON: Now, the further question, and I quote in Afrikaans from the judgment. On a direct question of HUGO J it says,

CHAIRPERSON: "Are you telling us that he and the police have colluded to confuse justice, and that you would remove him from the Courts?

WITNESS:   No, I am not saying that.  I am saying the basic problem with the police is a practical one, what we have to do in a case like this.  The answer seems to be that the person needs to be taken away.  Yes, the police replied that they would not get involved.  But you did say that the member had to be taken away."

CHAIRPERSON: Now, I do not intend to repeat the evidence of my client given at the section 29 inquiry.  Suffice it to say that the problems posed, and the security risk, was given against the background of these people's military training, the trainees not being au fait with the law and their rights.  In the carrying out of their protective duties they could transgress the law and then pose a security risk.  The assistance asked by the SADF was for a special detective investigation unit to become involved when an SADF/Inkatha trainee was arrested.  This request was refused.  In that sense the remarks were made by General Smit that asking for special detectives to become involved was not practical.  It is incorrect to

CHAIRPERSON: /translate

CHAIRPERSON: translate ... (inaudible) ... with General Smit's detective branch.  He was not at the detective branch at the time.  With a little effort Varney could have established the fact if he was indeed interested in finding the truth.  In his March Varney report(?) he preferred, and even in the section 30 notice, to refer to my client as being the detective branch, and I submit that was done to further his submission of a greater conspiracy between the detective branch and the security police, which is devoid from all truth.

CHAIRPERSON: From the evidence at the Msani trial it was clear that the Security Police, and in particular General Smit, was not prepared to interfere with the detective branch and their investigations.  Now, the evidence presented by ... (inaudible) ... who at that stage was in the detective branch, supports this, that he and his unit were doing their job in the 1980s and 90s.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, in determining the truth you are to consider the evidence led at the meeting held on the 8th of November 1988.  Now, the submission I made in respect of the first allegations equally apply to the second allegations, and in fact support the complete opposite, that the SAP were not willing to assist in the covering up of crimes.

CHAIRPERSON: There is one last aspect that I would like to take up with you, and just to demonstrate how easy it is to make a mistake in interpreting documents, even if you're very bona fide.  And I took this up with my learned friend, Advocate Visser.  You will recall that he made the submission with regard to the South African Defence Force attending Mr Buthelezi, and that General Smit went along

CHAIRPERSON: /to give

CHAIRPERSON: to give information.  Now, from a reading of the documents it appears that the South African Defence Force contemplated asking General Smit to go along to Ulundi, but in actual fact he never went along, and by reading the documents, with your background of your perception, you draw an incorrect inference.  And that's a danger, and I want to urge if you look at the documentation be very careful in your interpretation thereof.  I think what you should bear in mind is the evidence you have, the evidence led in terms of the section 29 inquiries, and in that respect I would be grateful if those submissions of other people present at the meeting could be made available if we need to answer any further issues.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mrs Kruger.  Mr de Vos, tomorrow morning?  Just you and Mr Lassidge, I think, for the IFP.  Anybody else?  You'll be long, ja.  Tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock.  Thank you very much.  Adjourned until tomorrow morning.
PROCEEDINGS  ADJOURNED  TO  1997/08/15
 
/PROCEEDINGS
PROCEEDINGS  RESUMED  ON  1997/08/15

CHAIRPERSON: We will start now, and we will hear submissions this morning from Mr de Vos, Mr Toweel and Mr Lassidge, who will be in later, on behalf of the IFP.  Before we start we just acknowledge the presence of the Mayor of Durban, who is seated in the front, and we welcome her here today.  Mr de Vos.

MR TOWEEL: Mr Chairman, Mr Toweel, on behalf of Colonel van den Berg.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Toweel.

MR TOWEEL: If the Commission decides or contemplates a finding to the detriment of Colonel van den Berg, and notice of such contemplated finding is given to Colonel van den Berg, then Colonel van den Berg will exercise his rights in terms of section 30 of the Act, so no submissions will be made at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Toweel.

MR TOWEEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Vos.