Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

ADRIAAN VLOK: If we are talking about political factions, and it seems to me that that is what Mr Goosen has in mind, it is true that there was conflict between political parties but there were also clashes amongst and between white political factions which we had nothing to do with.  The National Party, the AWB, the CP etc they were also engaged in a political battle and we had a war of words sometimes, but we also had battled, struggled with each other in other ways.  In the black community, for instance we might have helped to establish a political party, I can't even recall whether there were any that were successful and if they had conflict amongst each other and if things went wrong that does not mean that we had foreseen that.  Perhaps we should have.  But we had tried to establish a political organisation which could assist in counter-mobilisation on a political level, to find a different political solution in South Africa.

MR GOOSEN: If support was provided by members of the police to the Witdoeke in KTC in 1986, and I think the Commission has heard substantial evidence in that regard, let's assume for the moment that support was provided, either in the form of not taking action against the Witdoeke when they launched attacks on other members of the community or by actively supporting them, providing of funds and other forms of support, would you say that the policemen that were involved in rendering that support that they were misinterpreting the policy of the State Security Council in regard to contra-mobilisation?

ADRIAAN VLOK: But with respect Mr Goosen is now submitting to me speculation that if it can be proved that the police had helped the Witdoeke, and Mr Goosen then continues by saying that we'd heard evidence, I told you that this Witdoeke case I think spent two or three years in the Cape Supreme Court and as far as I am aware it was never proved that the South African Police had indeed supported the Witdoeke as Mr Goosen now alleges.  So if he puts it to me in that way I must say that is speculation because it was never proved.  So I can't answer the question.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Vlok with respect you can answer the question and it's not too far-fetched speculation.  The question is, if it were to be established, if it were to be established that policemen were in fact supporting the Witdoeke in KTC then, on the basis of your testimony today, you would say that those people must have misinterpreted the policy guidelines set out by the State Security Council in respect of contra-mobilisation, is that correct or not?

ADRIAAN VLOK: But with respect Mr Chairperson Mr Goosen wants me to react to speculation and to make a statement.  I have explained to you what the facts were in the Witdoeke case and that's as far as I can go.

MR GOOSEN: But with respect Mr Vlok significant portions of your presentation yesterday is based on speculation.  You say if a policemen interpreted what I said to mean that I gave an instruction to kill well I can understand it because perhaps I must accept responsibility for that.  That's exactly what I am asking you to do to address the question.  You've done it repeatedly in your submission.

ADRIAAN VLOK: I also added that if it is proved in their amnesty applications that they misunderstood it like that, so if Mr Goosen would give me that proof, and it's been tested then I can perhaps have a look at it and then I can answer the question.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Vlok no, you commented on what would be a - whether a particular interpretation would be acceptable or not without and prior to proof.  I am asking you to do exactly the same in respect of this particular situation.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I foresee a misunderstanding here.  Perhaps if I may be allowed just to advise my client I think we might be able to move along.  I think he doesn't understand the question correctly Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought it was a very straightforward question, I mean you understand the words, but that is what lawyers are paid for, make us understand things that are straightforward.  Thank you very much.  (General laughter)

MR VISSER: Thank you for assuming that I am getting paid Mr Chairman.  (Laughter)
 Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you Chairperson.  I have always known that you are a fair man, I have received good advice and I can tell Mr Goosen, if it is proved, and this is speculation, but if you can give me the proof, if it can be proved that they helped then I would say, or I can say that they acted outside the scope of their powers and then we will have to go and look at their demarcated areas, their powers and competencies and I cannot say anything more about that.

MR GOOSEN: Does it flow from that that in all circumstances in which members of the security forces, in particular the Police, were involved in the provision of support, support used in the broad sense, either by not acting or by acting in favour of one particular - that in all circumstances in which that occurred those policemen would have been acting outside of the scope of the authorisation provided by the policy in respect of contra-mobilisation?

ADRIAAN VLOK: It was a policeman's duty and responsibility to act whenever there was a situation of law and order that had to be maintained.  If somebody broke the law then he had to act, and if they didn't do that then they actually contravened their own rules.  That's the first point.
 If they were given guidelines such as for instance the plan drafted for counter-mobilisation action, and there must have been detailed plans, and they went outside the boundaries of those approved plans and according to which they had to work, then they also acted outside their authority and powers but I am not aware of that.

MR GOOSEN: And then that would have been based on a misinterpretation of the policy guidelines of the State Security Council?

ADRIAAN VLOK: I don't know what actually went through his mind when he did that.  He stood there and he thought well perhaps those people who are fighting are my friends I mustn't do anything.  That's wrong, he should have acted.  If he exceeded his authority and acted in that way then that was also wrong.

MR GOOSEN: So in respect of KTC specifically did you or did you not know that members of the South African Police acted in support of the Witdoeke in KTC?

ADRIAAN VLOK: There have been many allegations about Witdoeke and KTC.  The case also went to court for three years and I never saw any proof and our settlement agreement was also, without any - done on the basis that there was no acknowledgement of guilt.  On that basis it was done.

MR GOOSEN: But Mr Vlok that's not really answering the question.  You see you can adopt a posture which says I will wait for someone else to prove the case.  You are entitled for example in a court of law to plead not guilty even though you know that you are guilty, but I am asking you did you know or did you not know that the South African Police supported Witdoeke in KTC?

ADRIAAN VLOK: When the Witdoeke unrest took place I was deputy minister,  I became Minister afterwards, and at no stage I had any knowledge of any assistance by the South African Police to the Witdoeke.