Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — 1997-12-04

MR TREURNICHT: Mr Chairman before the witness answers this I strongly object to this line of questioning.  We've been given amnesty applications for the very purpose for my client to prepare on that to see what's in it and to be able to reply.  He's now aggressively asked about applications, or the contents of applications which hasn't been handed to him.  We don't know why this is sprung onto him and I do object, and I want you to rule that before he is to reply to that, he is given access to those documents and be allowed to take advice and then to allow the continuation of the questioning.

MR LYSTER: : Certainly, if he doesn't have the applications he should be given them now which is the time we said we would adjourn for lunch and you will be given an opportunity during the break to study them and then to give an advised answer.
 I think we should take as short a time as possible for lunch and try and get back here at 2.45pm.  
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR LYSTER: Thank you we are going to start again now.  People please take their seats.  Unfortunately we haven't yet got the third application which was referred to earlier on but if we could leave that question over until....

MR TREURNICHT: Mr Chairman I will leave it but before I leave it there's been a pertinent statement put to Dr  Barnard.  I will leave it but I want to counter it immediately I don't know whether the questioner is going to come back. He promised to come back in 15 minutes time he hasn't yet.

MR LYSTER: He's the one who has gone to fetch the other  amnesty application so he will be back.  Do you want to respond to this specific question which he put?

MR TREURNICHT: I just want to place on record what actually, the suggestion put to Dr Barnard was totally and utterly incorrect.  What was put to him is that at least three senior officers have used his name, they have named him have called him by name in the amnesty applications.  I've now got two of them and I will certainly object in future if this kind of incorrect statement is put to my client as a fact.  For the record I've got two of those applications before me and the one the  following  was said
"General Johan van der Merwe (this is Schoon's application) ordered me to determine whether the security branch had the necessary information and capabilities to act in Lesotho.  I then delegated the order to Major de Kock.  Major de Kock submitted a report in which he explained and motivated his reasons for acting against the targets.  I handed the report to General van der Merwe and on the same day he discussed it at CIC and he got the authority to act".
 What you see is that Schoon is surmising as to what van der Merwe did.

MR LYSTER: Did Brigadier Schoon there say that authorisation was obtained from CIC from CIC?

MR TREURNICHT: He says, he gave this (verslag) to van der Merwe and then he goes on to say
"....and on the same day at CIC he discussed it and got the authorisation
But what I am saying is that from this alone it appears that Schoon, the maker of the statement is surmising as o what happened  with van der Merwe at CIC.  Van der Merwe's application says, 
"I havee have taken cognisance of the contents Brigadier Willem Schoon's application regarding this incident.  Although I can recall the event I do not if or at what stage the matter was dealt with by CIC".
It's quite clear the man who must know from these two applications, doesn't know. So it was utterly irresponsible to put to my client something that he hasn't seen and which is factually incorrect. And I don't know, I see the questioner has arrived, whether he's got de Kock's application because I would like to see it and I will deal with that but maybe not to waste time we should proceed on the other lines.

MR LYSTER: Ja,  Mr  McAdam.

MR KHOISAN: Yes Mr Chairman I do have de Kock's application and also his evidence in mitigation when he was testifying in court.

MR LYSTER: Mr  MacAdam if you could just read that part of it which relates to authorisation for cross-border raids and if it names CIC and or Dr Barnard. Or if it's going to take some time to find it I think we will have to make a copy available to Dr Barnard that we should perhaps deal with it at a later stage.  Okay will we find the relevant spot, we will make copies and we will read it at the end of this line of questioning.

MR MCADAM: Mr Chairman I will just place on record that this is a panel which was convened to gather information which would then be put to the various witnesses and that it's been decided now that only questions by myself will be put to the witnesses not by other members of the panel. It appears that there have been some errors made by the persons responsible for ensuring that the other side had everything that they were entitled to, and that I propose at this stage not to put questions to witnesses on matters that they have not been supplied with documentation.
 What I've seen of de Kock's amnesty statement is the reference to intelligence services but nothing as clear and specific as was put by Mr Khoisan.  I think that in the circumstances that this issue should not form part of this hearing.  Once these documents have been properly studied and if it is relevant I would propose that possibly questions be put to Dr Barnard with specific references to page references and they can be replied with if it becomes relevant at that stage for the committee to have his comments on these documents.

MR LYSTER: And we have taken note of the comments made by Mr Treurnicht relating to the two applications which you have seen and of those by Mr McAdam  relating to the third one which doesn't appear to mention CIC or Dr Barnard .  Thank you very much.

MR TREURNICHT: : Mr Chairman.

MR LYSTER: Mr MacAdam do you want to continue with general questions to Dr Barnard?