Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Mr Chairman I want to come back to what I've tried to explain yesterday. The question is absolutely correct in the sense that what George Schultz said. And if you read the strategies which were agreed to by the Cabinet there was a policy of initially, proactive defence policy and when the situation developed dynamically it was changed to an offensive posture. And this offensive posture actually means that you could act across the borders and it should maintain the initiatives.
 If you look at cross-border operations like you have mentioned, in the offensive posture of retaining the initiative and acting pro-actively according to the government's policy if the Defence Force has to act against such a target, the government had to say yes or no. The Defence Force would not do it on their own behalf.

MR VAN ZYL: Once it was approved by the government such proactive steps against armed groups of terrorists outside the country would acceptable?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Will be?

MR VAN ZYL: Acceptable, will be permitted?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Yes that is correct. If they approved it.

MR VAN ZYL: General Malan would that principle apply in respect of armed groups of terrorists who had crossed the border and were now inside South Africa and information was provided that this group of terrorists was about to launch an attack on a shopping centre or an SADF base or a Wimpy bar, etc. Would that principle that you would apply externally also apply internally?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Mr Chairman it's easy to philosophy about these type of actions but if you go to the reality of the situation, it's very difficult because the circumstances will prescribe what to do. I will answer it in this way. If it was a armed force coming across the border it was highly probable that the police had the responsibility to look after this. If they carried arms the police would say the military had to assist them. If that situation occurred and the enemies stayed in the same place you would attack an armed force with arms. If they asked for a truce you would arrest them and take them away. In other words you will fight with weapons against weapons internally under those circumstances.

MR VAN ZYL: If I understand you correctly that if an armed group of terrorists enter into the country and they are armed it would be acceptable for the SADF to engage them militarily and act against them in the same way that they would act against them if they were outside the country?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Yes. If the army was available to do that, I don't have all the guidelines now but under the circumstances you've described it would act in that way.

MR VAN ZYL: that the SADF and the South African Police had principally different ways of dealing with a threat to the country or how shall I put it? Restoring law and order? That the ultimate aim of the South African Police is to arrest people involved in unlawful activity and bring them before courts of law. And that the SADF would act against people in a military way and launch military operations. That the SADF were not trained to and generally did not perform arresting actions?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Mr Chairman this is a very serious question. There's a very important factor emerging here. This is why I keep on saying that the army supported the police. The Defence Force does not take the initiative. They do not for example have the powers to arrest people. They could not kill people for example. The Defence Force supported the police. The Defence Force acts as a group. There's not one soldier standing all by himself acting individually. It's usually part of a group. A group with one leader. This one leader gives instructions. This whole facet of action is done in an organised way. He's working according to certain drills and those will be applied under all circumstances. There are standing instructions. There are the codes of discipline.
 If he's in the country he is not above the laws of the country. He has to act lawfully and this is what I want to convey to you all the time. So yes, he would act but the probability that he would get into a situation in an armed confrontation is very rare. 
 Let us look at the towns. he would go into these towns and he would man road blocks but the police would search the people and the police would arrest the people. The police would be in charge. If certain areas are searched the police would do it, not the army. I hope that answers your question.

MR VAN ZYL: General Malan if there is an armed group of terrorists within the country and intelligence is brought to the SADF's notice that they are within the country, say at a safe house somewhere and they are, information is brought to your attention that they are about to launch an attack, it is conceivable that the military would then be brought in to take action against those terrorists?

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry to intervene again but these hypotheses are taking us no where. Have we got an academic discussion here? What is worth to this Commission, I don't know but I certainly cannot fathom any useful purpose in a hypothetical discussion of this nature. If the cross-examiner has something to say let him say it but this sort of debate is not taking us any where.

MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson what we are here to do is try to establish state security policy. The terms of that police had very real consequences for people in this country, for the ways in which members of the security forces conducted themselves. And I put it to you that it is not by any means academic. It had very real consequences for the lives of people in this country. I'm generally attempting to establish from General Malan questions in relation to what in policy terms would be and would not be permitted and then we will proceed to discuss specific case studies in respect thereof.

MR LYSTER: If you could move towards the point that you hope to make?

MR MARITZ: Well Mr Chairman, with great respect that is an issue that I understand. If that is the question why can't the witness be asked in direct terms what was the government's policy in this particular situation. Then everybody knows where we're going but a hypothetical discussion is really not going to take us any where.

MR LYSTER: Well I think we certainly are learning something about how the military behaved in the late 80's during the state of emergency and I think that it's a series of questions about the same thing rather than one question but nevertheless if you could draw to a?

MR VAN ZYL: I'm happy to do so chairperson. General Malan would you agree and these were sentiments expressed by Minister Pik Botha, Minister Adriaan Vlok, Roelf Meyer and Leon Wessels during our previous hearing and those transcripts were provided to you, that from the mid-1980's onwards the leadership of the National Party and the leadership of the security forces began to use increasingly strident rhetoric in relation to countering the terrorist threat to the country? They began to use forceful language as to what steps should be taken to counter terrorism in the country?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Forceful language?

MR VAN ZYL: Strident rhetoric like: "Stamp out the revolution, hunt them down, sniff them out, etc"