Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

ADRIAAN VLOK: As I've tried to explain, it was never the intention on the part of the political authorities to use those words, I told you where they came from, our omission was that we didn't actually go and look at those things and correct it, but it's true that as it flowed down the structures, right down to the ground it could have created or increased the opportunities for people acting outside the boundaries of the law.

ADRIAAN VLOK: But I think the thrust of my question was really the fact that people could utilise the opportunity to act outside of the law in dealing with the onslaught.  Did that fact not also serve the interests, the overall interests that the State Security Council and politicians would have sought to achieve in combatting the revolutionary onslaught?

ADRIAAN VLOK: Although it wasn't so intended, it could have had that consequence.

ADRIAAN VLOK: Just to maybe pursue that a bit further Mr Vlok. It's difficult to ask you questions that make  a concession, I'm expecting that you're not going to given the experience at certain points in these hearings ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let me try my little question.  What do you actually mean by onwettig?  My understanding of what you seem to mean is onwettig is only when a gross violation and especially, ie a killing at that happens.  When you say we did not sanction onwettige optrede, but then you say well there were some and you seem to speak only in terms of killings, what was illegal?

ADRIAAN VLOK: By illegal, I meant not only the killing of people, I also referred to other illegal actions such as those for which I'm asking for amnesty and you know what those are.

CHAIRPERSON: I would have thought, I mean well that is helpful except that I wonder whether when you and some of your colleagues speak of say, disinformation, you didn't regard that as onwettig.  I mean if you told a lie about me and the general white community believed it, that was not illegal.

ADRIAAN VLOK: I'd like to say that I included that under STRATCOM conduct and operations which could have led to illegal actions and if that prejudiced you then I think you had a case for laying a complaint against the particular policeman of for instance crimen injuria and you also had a civil claim against such a person.  It was illegal and unlawful.

CHAIRPERSON: Wynand.

MR MALAN: If you say that the Chairperson would have had a claim against the policeman involved, don't you think then he would also have a claim against the State as such and the question then is, is the political authority not primarily responsible then?

ADRIAAN VLOK: I agree with you.  Perhaps I should refer to my amnesty application.  I can only agree with you that it's not only against the policeman but also against the people who gave him these instructions and who authorised these actions, namely the State.

CHAIRPERSON: Yasmin Sooka.

YASMINE SOOKA: Then if we take what you say further.  All the politicians should have applied for amnesty in these cases where killings were the result or gross human rights violations were the result of these kinds of actions.

ADRIAAN VLOK: I listened to what my former colleague Pik Botha said here this morning.  Somebody asked him about the letter which he wrote to Mr de Klerk. I agree with Pik Botha that that was the correct way to do it.  But to apply for amnesty is a personal matter and I thought hard and long about my amnesty application, I struggled with it, I really questioned whether I should do it.  A lot of people in the community from which I come would say it's a disgrace, but I ultimately decided no, I must do what is right. So it's for each minister, each politician to make his own decision on that point.  But personally I support the idea of Pik who says that we should have lodged this application as he did, or as he explained it.

CHAIRPERSON: Glen.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.  Mr Vlok I can understand the concession you've made on indicating that with the benefit of hindsight, and I think to be frank, in the light of some of the testimony as well that has emerged at TRC hearings and amnesty hearings where you've in fact had scores of policemen who've said we did the following. We in fact did eliminate people.  So from your perspective, yes I can understand with the benefit of hindsight one can accept the responsibility for that and I think that has been indicated and is appreciated.  The question really goes to whether in every circumstance in which words like destroy, remove from society, neutralise, eliminate,  what was intended at the time that those words were used is purely of innocent, had an innocent meaning that was attached to it.  Innocent in the sense that it did not mean, uittewis, did not mean, to kill.  I asked the question in light of your own submission in, in fact at paragraph 6.4 where you're talking about the revolutionary threat and you say the revolutionary threat further had as it's objective to make the Republic ungovernable and to destroy and obliterate black councillors, members of the South African Police and other members of the security forces and officials of the state, meaning that these people were being targeted to be killed. You're using the discourse uittewis here in your own submission to mean kill.  Are you saying that in every instance in which that language is used at the level of the State Security Council, it did in fact have an innocent meaning, it did not connote that people should be killed?

ADRIAAN VLOK: Yes I have to say to you that as far as my knowledge goes, during my time on the State Security Council, never at any occasion was there the intention to kill people when those words were used and I've given you the proof of that by saying that it says obliterate in the document but it meant something different to the man on the ground but as you said, somebody could have misinterpreted it, somebody didn't have all the information and didn't have the benefit of sitting in on our meetings could have misinterpreted it, but we never intended when we used those words that people should be wiped out. As far as that paragraph is concerned I want to say that that terminology was commonly used in documents used which we gathered during radio broadcasts and documents which we received pertaining to our opponents.

MR GOOSEN: But you utilised the discourse as well, I mean you accept the fact that in your own submission as well you do utilise the discourse uittewis means to kill.

ADRIAAN VLOK: Yes but I really have to say that the use of those words in 1986, I don't know whether they were used thereafter, but it never bothered us then and we didn't regard it as a quid pro quo, they're going to obliterate us and we're going to wipe them out.  That was never our intention.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Vlok, through the period from 1985 onwards, 1985 into 1986, many people were in fact eliminated in South Africa, opponents of the government, members of community based organisations, members of the ANC as well were in fact eliminated.  And there are a number of instances which are fairly well known, the killings of the Cradock Four in the Eastern Cape, the disappearance of the Pebco Three, the killings of the Ribeiro's and so on and so forth, the assassination on Piet Ntuli and many others.  When it appeared to you that opponents of the government then, broadly or possibly participants in the revolutionary onslaught were in fact being eliminated, did you not regard that perhaps operatives on the ground within the security forces were in fact interpreting the instructions being given literally?