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

MR VALLY: Have you ever been in Doctor Immelmann's walk-in safe?

GEN NEETHLING: I have never been in Doctor Immelmann's office. I was surprised to hear that I was accused of being one of the two frequent visitors. I have never been in Immelmann's office. I am telling you. And I have two suit cases with which I went to work and none of them can be bulging because they are fixed form. There is one of them. The other one is the (...indistinct) It cannot bulge. This is ridiculous. And I don't know why he said that. I would like to see him there and ask him: "Please why are you not telling the truth? Why are you bringing me into a situation which does not exist." Let Immelmann ask you. Let anybody else ask you. I have never been in Immelmann's office, never.
 These are the sort of allegations which are being thrown into the world which makes Max du Preez very happy because he says now he is going to get me again. He can try.

MR VALLY: You are of course aware of the allegations Doctor Immelmann made in his affidavit? It has been shown to you?

GEN NEETHLING: I have no idea what Immelmann said. I have nothing from Immelmann.

MR VALLY: No I am sorry. Not Doctor Immelmann's affidavit. I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: You wanted to say van Rensburg ja.

MR VALLY: I think it was Mr van Rensburg. I beg your pardon.

GEN NEETHLING: Allegations that van Rensburg makes against me for carrying out poisons in bulging suit cases. I don't even laugh.

MR VALLY: I have no further questions Mr Chair.

MR POLSEN: Mr Chairman I am sorry I have to put the record straight. I don't think Doctor van Rensburg ever said that Doctor Neethling carried out poison in bulging suit cases.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

GEN NEETHLING: The press may have said that but the witness didn't say that.

GEN NEETHLING: Yes. Well Sir you know this disturbed my wife. She cried like a baby.

CHAIRPERSON: No General he was addressing the Chair.

GEN NEETHLING: I am sorry Sir, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Cross-examination Mr Polsen?

MR POLSEN: I have no questions Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Currin?

MR CURRIN: I have no questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Norman Arendse?

NORMAN ARENDSE: No questions Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Zyl?

MR VAN ZYL: We have no re-examination of the witness.

MS LEVINE: Mr Chairman, can I be heard? My name is Melissa Levine. I am an attorney with the Aravan and Dicks in Cape Town. I have received instructions from a colleague and a correspondent attorney in Johannesburg today, David Disan of the firm David Disan, Ameer and Ndlovo to put certain parts of the record in the case that has already been referred to in this hearing - the case of LOTHAR NEETHLING v MAX DU PREEZ a case which I understand was heard before the local division in the Transvaal. Either the Witwatersrand local division or the Transvaal provincial division I am not certain.
 I have also been supplied by Mr Disan with certain parts of the record which on behalf of Mr Disan's client, Die Vrye Weekblad the erstwhile newspaper edited by Mr Max du Preez I would like to put certain of the parts of the record to General Neethling on behalf of Mr Disan's client, Die Vrye Weekblad. And I ask the Chairman for an opportunity very briefly to do so?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr.

MR CILLIERS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. If it is my learned colleague's statement that she appears on behalf of the Vrye Weekblad it has not existed in the last few years. She pretends to be appearing for a client that does not exist. I am worried if this matter is becoming now seems to me a personal battle or dispute which wants to be reopened. It has nothing to do with CBW. And it is my respectful submission that there is no relevance of this matter towards this one.  That matter was about allegations of poison being presented to a certain policeman. But this has no bearing on this matter.
 In the first place my learned colleague has no locus standi to appear in front of you for a client that does not exist. And secondly there is no relevance to what we are discussing here.

MS LEVINE: If I may respond very briefly to what my learned colleague has said. It is absolutely correct and it is my instructions that the Vrye Weekblad does not exist any longer but in fact I would then be representing Mr du Preez who was the erstwhile editor of the Vrye Weekblad. And my understanding and instructions are that the Vrye Weekblad was in fact forced to close down as a result of a substantial award of costs made against it by the Appellate Division as a result of this matter which was subsequently taken before the Appellate Division where the Vrye Weekblad for various reasons could not discharge an onus of proof in the defamation case upon it and was therefore ordered to pay certain costs. As a result of which it was forced to close down. So the erstwhile company Wending Publikasie which was the owner of the Vrye Weekblad does not operate any longer. Whether it has been deregistered I do not know. And I am not instructed on that as yet.
 Further with regard to the allegation of my colleague or the submission made by my colleague that this is a personal vendetta of Mr du Preez my understanding from my conversation with Mr Disan this morning was simply that when the matter of LOTHAR NEETHLING v DIE VRYE WEEKBLAD MAX DU PREEZ AND OTHERS was taken on appeal because of the fact that Mr Justice Kriegler in the lower court, the court lower than the appeal court held for Die Vrye Weekblad. Then General Neethling then saw fit to take it on appeal. The Appellate Division could not find either way between the parties because it was simply a question of it did not know who to believe. So there was no finding made on credibility. And Mr Disan's instructions to myself have simply been should new evidence come to light during this hearing which could have a bearing on General Neethling's credibility then that new evidence will be brought and the appeal case reopened. 
 So it is in the interests of truth and in the interests of justice it would be submitted that these parts of the record in the lower court be now put again to General Neethling and that it is in interests of truth and justice that they be put. 
 And I therefore respectfully submit that the parts of the record may be put and that it would be part of the job of this Commission or the duties of this Commission to hear such submissions. Thank you. I await your......

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just find out from you are you saying those parts of the record are new evidence or is it your contention that out of questions you may put to the witness new evidence might come out that might necessitate the re-visitation of the judgment of the Appeal Court?

MS LEVINE: That would be the submission to the Truth Commission.

YASMINE SOOKA: May I ask the attorney what the connection would be between that and this particular hearing which relates to chemical and biological warfare?

MS LEVINE: May I just explain that this particular case, as I understand it, and these are my instructions on which have I have been briefed this morning, this case arose out of an article which was carried in Die Vrye Weekblad in which certain allegations of General Neethling supplying poison to the police were made. And General Neethling then sued the Vrye Weekblad for defamation of character. And there were certain questions in the parts of the record that I have are questions, examination in chief by the legal representative a certain Advocate Osry at the Johannesburg Bar representing General Neethling, to General Neethling, asking him to clarify certain things allegations that were made about him regarding the poison, supplying poison to the police. And this was evidence that was put to him and we would like to put it to him again because they relate to the aspect of giving poison to the police.