Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-08

CHAIRPERSON: Hanif or Mr Vally do you want to be heard on this point?

MR VALLY: Two points. Insofar as it is relevant regarding the chemical and biological warfare hearing and there are aspects of that case, the whole case revolves around the issue of whether Doctor Neethling did or did not provide poison and I think ultimately the Appellate Division ruled in Doctor Neethling's favour. So insofar as those issues relating to poisons are concerned it is relevant.
 Insofar as the other motivation by my learned friend I would point out the provisions of Section 31(3) and my interpretation is that it does not have to be invoked after 31(2), that is just to compel people to answer. But Section 31(3) of our Act which states: -
"Any incriminating answer or information obtained or incriminating evidence directly or indirectly derived from a questioning in terms of subsection 1 shall not be admissible as evidence against the person concerned in criminal proceedings in a court of law."
And it goes on. 
 We have talked extensively about Section 31(3).  So that is my view. 
 Insofar as further information on the poisons yes there is no problem. And insofar as any other motivation there would be a problem.

MR CILLIERS: I would like to add the motivation has been provided. That is what Mr Vally is referring to. They want to see whether new information can be obtained to open an appeal. My learned colleague does not have to explain to you how that is going to be done. But they have one or other way that I do not know of. But the motivation is not bona fide to assist you to make a decision which you are supposed to make. You know there is only one day General Knobel which still has to testify. Doctor Goosen must leave before seven 'o clock tonight because Mr Polsen is not available. With respect, there is no time for this kind of internal vendettas between Neethling and Du Preez. And we should not use this forum for this. I oppose this.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally to the extent that you concede some merit in the sort of questions that would have been put were we inclined to allow this isn't it your view that they have been (...indistinct) I just had sight of this, if this is the portion of the record that is sought to be referred to David Disan of (...indistinct) Ameer, Ndlovo. Are these not the sort of questions that in the context of your raising the amnesty application you did cover and put is there anything new that you are going to be getting by putting these questions?

MR VALLY: I am in no way to answer that Mr Chair. I have not gone extensively through the whole court record. I just asked a specific question relating to the response of (...indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Exactly this is not even pretending to be the whole court record.

MR VALLY: I have no idea of more information in the record or the types of questions. I can't say that I have covered that aspect. I really have no idea.

CHAIRPERSON: I hate to have to do this. Can we take just 5 minutes?
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: An application has just been made by the legal representatives of Vrye Weekblad as it then was but not particularly for particular reasons on behalf of Mr Max du Preez for a legal representative instructed by attorneys in Johannesburg, David Disan and others to put questions to the witness, General Lothar Neethling. It seems to me that the canal of the application is that questions that may have to be put or that might be put to the witness might be of a nature that might assist the client on behalf of whom this application is made, in matters relevant to the credibility of this witness. And in a manner or in a situation which further evidence may be unlocked the nature of which might assist the litigant in the case of Max du Preez or LOTHAR NEETHLING v VRYE WEEKBLAD to bring an appeal against the decision of the Appellate Division. The basis seems to be that the Appellate Division returned a verdict that was not premised on a finding of credibility but had taken a position that it could not be said on the basis of all the evidence that either party had erred.
 If I am correct in my understanding what I understand to be the basis of the application it is hoped that in our endeavour to establish the truth and in the course of questions being put to the witness evidence might abound that would necessitate re-visitation to the case in which the present witness was a litigant with one Max du Preez. 
 Without going into the merits of this approach it seems to me that Section 31(3), to the extent that it refers to evidence that might be produced if we were to compel this witness to reply to any questions put to him would defeat the very ends which have been made the basis of the application, it seems to me none of the evidence which might be obtained from this process would be usable for the purpose indicated. 
 Now even if we were wrong in this view it appears there is nothing that can be put further to this witness that is likely to bring about a different position in terms of the replies that he is going to give and those which he has given already when certainly from the Chair and from the panel the case was put to him or references to the particular case was made. He has denied that he has ever done any of the things with in relation to which he was a litigant in the case mentioned. And I cannot see that he is going to take a different position. 
 In any event it seems to me the issues that were canvassed in that particular case in which he was a litigant have been canvassed by Mr Vally. And seems to us then, constrained as we are by time, it is an application which we unfortunately have to decline. 
 The application therefore to keep this witness further for purposes of being questioned by representative of Mr Max du Preez is refused. 
 Mr Vally I suppose members of the panel now have to ask questions. Are there any questions from the panel? Doctor Wendy Orr.

WENDY ORR: General Neethling on Monday when Doctor Jan Lourens came to give evidence he said that towards the end of his time at Protechnic he came to see you to speak about his anxiety about the screwdrivers and the umbrellas and certain other things that had been developed there and also about other developments around security. And you evidently told him and I quote what he said
"I want to have my toys back."
Sorry I am mistaken.

GEN NEETHLING: Yes you are. I am so glad you are mistaken let me tell you because I don't have these sort of toys.

WENDY ORR: I am sorry I believe that was General Liebenberg.

GEN NEETHLING: No problem he is dead, ja. That is why I am also glad it is not him.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Randera.

DR RANDERA: Dr I just want to come back to what many people have said, including yourself, and this is this question of the coming into existence of the CBW Programme. The rationale that is put forward is about a perceived threat. And sometimes in fact people have gone beyond a perceived threat they have talked about the use of - and I hope I am not contravening anything here, the use of chemical weapons in Angola in particular. Now my question to you really is were you ever party to documentation that was put to you where this was shown? Did you ever see any people who were harmed by chemicals used in Angola or was this just part of the propaganda that existed at the time?