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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally the two Commissioners would like to clarify some questions in the light of the evidence just led, Dr Randera and thereafter Mrs Sooka.

DR RANDERA: General just, I mean we have got to the samples now and clearly there seems to be an understanding of trust, distrust that's taken place, now what happens to these samples?

DR KNOBEL: The samples were ...(intervention)

DR RANDERA: And where are they?  Were they tested?

DR KNOBEL: Yes Sir, yes Sir they were then taken to the Forensic laboratory of the Police and you have attached to this document the affidavit of, I think it was a Brigadier, yes Brig Strauss who says that he received these samples from Colonel Steyn.  So what happened here is the samples were then handed over by Commandant de Bruin to Colonel Steyn.  Colonel Steyn took it to the Forensic laboratory, they tested each of these samples and they - rather Brig Strauss then confirmed what the contents were of each of the samples.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Randera?

DR RANDERA: No I am fine.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Sooka.

YASMINE SOOKA: General you see it actually gets quite strange because these things are destroyed on the 27th of January, but we've got samples taken firstly by - the first four samples, then later we have the next three samples.

DR KNOBEL: Yes.

YASMINE SOOKA: My understanding of the way this reads is that some of these samples are kept by Commander de Bruin.  But then in paragraph 4 he says
"Please make a decision regarding what we must about these samples".
Then you get the remarks of Brig Basson which says, the three that he had they are later given to Commandant de Bruin because they are now deactivated.

DR KNOBEL: Yes.

YASMINE SOOKA: And he tells de Bruin that these were taken on the day of the destruction.  So everything is Basson, Basson, Basson.  Now we don't know where these are kept, but the date when they are actually tested is on the 3rd of May 1993.  Now I find that very difficult because here we are, we are talking about the destruction of substances which have quite a serious problem.  They are a serious problem for your particular unit.  If I was in charge I would want to see them tested on the same day.  I would want to see that the samples I take, I test them immediately and I make sure that I follow them all the way out to the sea if I can, to make sure that they disposed off.  I can't understand all these delays in the process but also the reliance on Brigadier Basson, knowing at that time that there's a huge question mark around him.

DR KNOBEL: I'm not so sure about the huge question mark but we won't discuss that again.  I've already given an answer to that.  But if you look at the chronology here Miss Sooka, the minutes of the meetings of the Coordinating Management Committee meeting is the 29th of January, that is two days after the actual destruction took place.  In those minutes Brigadier Basson gives feedback in paragraph 5 about what had occurred, he indicates that the police were not prepared to go along with the flight, that we would ask the Director of Counter Intelligence to issue a certificate.  He also says that they took samples.
 The Chief of the Defence Force then says it should be kept by the Chief Director of Counter Intelligence until the destruction has been confirmed to the Minister and if he then has no further problems with it then the samples can be destroyed.  That's the instruction of the Chief of the Defence Force.  
 When the feedback was given to the Minister we said: "Well what do we do with these samples, let's get confirmation of what is in it".  Chief of Counter Intelligence doesn't have a laboratory capability, so the negotiations take place with the police service to see if they would be prepared to do this for us.  That did take some time, you're quite right but we do have a certificate then which is available on the 30th of March and we have a document signed by Brigadier Strauss who says when did he actually test them.

YASMINE SOOKA: Yes, but may I just ask another question?  You see it says he took the following - he just talks about
"die volgende verseelde monsters"
Now which is it, the three, the four?  I'm not sure you see, you can't tell that from this document.

DR KNOBEL: He says he has a holder - if you look at Brigadier Strauss's document he says
"A container marked amongst others, product B, container marked product BX, 1 marked product C and one with no alphabetic identification".

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Miss Sooka?

YASMINE SOOKA: I think General, the point is you don't know which of the samples it is.  Which are the ones he tests, does he test the first four that were taken, does he test the three that were later given?  I can't make it out but I don't think we are going to get anywhere with this inquiry so perhaps I should just hold this, thank you.

DR KNOBEL: But if I may Mr Chairman.  If you look at the certificate issued by Commandant de Bruyn, it says in paragraph 2
"The cargo consisted of the following: 18 drums (product M), 73 white metal drums (product BX), 2 metal drums (product C), 2 small plastic containers (product F), 2 small metal drums (product C)".
And then he speaks about:
"B and B"
Those alphabetical indications in my opinion correspond to what Brigadier Strauss says in terms of B, BX and C.  And certainly from a point of view of myself and the Coordinating Management Committee, B was the BZ analogue, BX was the baxil and C was the cocaine that we had reported before to the Minister.  At the time we were satisfied that that was the fact, it had been destroyed.   I will admit that there are some uncertainties here and I understand the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Can I just ask you about, in that same bundle E3, the affidavit by Heinderich Frederich Strauss who was a Brigadier in the South African Police in the forensic laboratory, paragraph 3, do you know the document I'm talking about?

DR KNOBEL: Yes, I think so.

MR VALLY: He says: on the 3rd of May 1993 from Colonel Steyn he got the following sealed ...[intervention]

DR KNOBEL: I read that just now, yes, that's correct.

MR VALLY: Now the 3rd of May, is that the only time it was analysed?

DR KNOBEL: Mr Vally, that was the time that the forensic laboratory found time to do these investigations.

MR VALLY: Fair enough, alright.  Well, let's take it further, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, he says
"3.1 A container marked: Product B
  3.2 A container marked: Product BX
  3.3 A container marked: Product C
and:
3.4 A container with no alphabetical identification"

DR KNOBEL: Yes.

MR VALLY: Do you see that?

DR KNOBEL: Yes.  Firstly, Colonel Steyn, is Colonel Steyn the gentleman who is your assistant?

DR KNOBEL: He took over as Project Officer on the 1st of April 1993.

MR VALLY: Right, so he's the person who hands this over, and do we know how it gets to him?

DR KNOBEL: Yes, he can testify to that, I questioned him about it.  He fetched the samples which were still at the Director of Counter Intelligence and physically took it to the forensic laboratory.

MR VALLY: Right.  Clearly from the way the samples are marked in paragraph 3 of Brigadier Strauss' affidavit, that ties in very closely with this document by Commandant de Bruyn
"On the 30th of March 1993, Brigadier Basson gave me three further samples: (1 each of products B, C, and BX)

DR KNOBEL: Yes.

MR VALLY: How would he know that on the 30th of March?  How would Commandant de Bruyn know that the three further samples given to him on the 30th of March by Brigadier Basson were these items that we're talking about because they had not been analysed?

DR KNOBEL: He's simply using the alphabetical indication of the holders that had been marked in that way.