Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

ADRIAAN VLOK: No Chairperson Mr Botha did not create that culture or atmosphere.  Yes, he was on the side of the security fraternity because he believed that they would maintain order and that they would prop up the governing party whilst the negotiations were taking place, so I can't deny that he was strongly in favour of the security forces, and that he also held his hand over them.  That I can't deny.  But there was never an opportunity for any of us, or to say that there was never an opportunity for any of us to ask questions about National Intelligence, Security Police etc, that certainly was not demonstrated by him.  On the contrary he asked very trenchant questions about what was happening and he said you must look at this and that because it's not fair and not right.  That is my experience of Mr P W Botha as President.

MR MALAN: I have a third question.  Can you recall, or was it your experience that some of your colleagues in Cabinet, in the caucus, ever shared their concerns with you regarding the public perception, did they ever say to you look what is actually happening?  Were you ever challenged by any of your colleagues or did you ever challenge the President and say look there have to be investigations, something is seriously amiss?

ADRIAAN VLOK: I have to be very honest in saying that I was never confronted by any colleague who said that look on this point we need serious investigation.  Colleagues did voice their serious concerns about police conduct, I can perhaps mention Pik Botha's name.  On certain occasions he said to me the conduct of the police in this and that case really damaged our image abroad.  That he would say to me.  Colleague Chris Heunis, former colleague Chris Heunis and later Dr Gerrit Viljoen also on occasions said to me the conduct of the police in detaining people has seriously damaged or made more difficult the process of negotiations, and then we would have a discussion on that.  But they did not come to me and say look there are certain rumours that there is something serious amiss, no that did not happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.  Yasmin.

YASMINE SOOKA: I just want to check with you in terms of the response you made to Dr Boraine, would you say that at the very top, at the rank of generals, there could be less likelihood of a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what policy was?

ADRIAAN VLOK: At the State Security Council meeting usually there would be present the commissioner ...(intervention)

YASMINE SOOKA: But there would be less likelihood of a misinterpretation between the two of you.

ADRIAAN VLOK: Ja ...(intervention)

YASMINE SOOKA: You see why I ask this question ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Why can't the witness just respond to the question Mr Chairman, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Give him a chance.  Continue.

ADRIAAN VLOK: I want to say that the system operated in such a way that it was usually only the Commissioner who had sitting at the State Security Council meetings.  Sometimes some of the other people, if you look at the minutes, you will see that it was only the Commissioner who was present there, so he knew what the agenda was and what was discussed, but the other generals, the other members of the top structure, the generals and the brigadiers they also weren't present, so they would also not have been able to hear the discussion, so they could also have misinterpreted those words.

YASMINE SOOKA: It's just that it's quite clear that right at the top rank, they've applied for amnesty, now I go back to the question which Mr Malan put to you yesterday, surely there should have been sufficient trust between you and the top-ranking generals for them not to lie to you?  But it's very clear now, from what you've said, that they must have lied.

ADRIAAN VLOK: It's not only clear from what I've said, one of these people who are applying for amnesty for a specific incident in which he admits that the Minister wasn't informed and you know which case I am referring to.  I don't want to mention names.  So it's not only my perception, it wasn't only my admission to say that I wasn't informed about everything.  They are saying it themselves that they didn't inform me on everything.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Glen.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.  Perhaps just to follow-up on that element, do I understand you correctly Mr Vlok that the first line of misinterpretation then would have been at the level of the Commissioner of the Police, and that the further and subsequent misinterpretations would flow from that because the Commissioner of Police is responsible for conveying the decisions taken at the level of State Security Council through to the operational structures?

ADRIAAN VLOK: The first line of misinterpretation, if you are saying that it went from me to him, well it didn't work that way.  The documents which we discussed and which we looked at, the documents of the State Security Council, well the Commissioner of Police was a member of that Council so he heard the discussions, so he couldn't have misinterpreted my words or instructions.  He must have done it in turn down the line of command.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, but that's the point.  I mean you are saying that everyone that participated in discussions at the level of the State Security Council could not have misinterpreted, okay, they didn't misinterpret, the intention was clear, everyone then immediately below that level now I take it you are saying below the level of Commissioner, immediately below the level of Commissioner, responsible for implementation, the first line of misinterpretation, that's where responsibility lies, is that correct?

ADRIAAN VLOK: No, no, let us be very specific, let us look at the specific case.  Did the Commissioner attend that meeting?  Did he know what the discussion was about?  If he wasn't there then that was a possibility that he could have misinterpreted it.  If he was there then he formed part of the discussion and then he knew what the intention was.

MR GOOSEN: The effect of that is this extraordinary fire-wall between you, as the Minister, and the politicians and paid functionaries of the department, commissioners, there is an epic gap between what is understood by the police as an operational structure and the politicians.  So we've got to go to determine whether the Commissioner was there or not, if the Commissioner was not there possibly he misinterpreted the instruction, that accounts for a whole spate of unlawful activity that then flows in consequence of that.  Why is there this unbreachable wall between the politicians and the operatives responsible on the ground?

ADRIAAN VLOK: With respect I don't see that there was a wall between us but we functioned within a certain system.  You had the Minister and then the next person in line was the Commissioner and the Commissioner attended certain of the meetings and documentation was drafted by people and decisions were taken and certain words were used and this was then conveyed to the people lower down.  And I have already said to you that the command structure from the operative on the ground as far as up to me, that went through the channels, the sergeant, the warrant officer, the lieutenant, the captain, the major and then the colonel, the brigadier and the general.  That was the chain of command.  There was no other way in which the operative on the ground could have sent me any kind of information.  He couldn't have phoned me and said look this is what we did.  It just simply didn't work that way.
 So I can't agree with you that there was a wall, but in this chain of command certain misinterpretations of what we intended at the top, that did take place. It wasn't a wall, but there was a structure and a channel that was followed.