Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-12

CHAIRPERSON: Can we stand it down for five minutes.

UNKNOWN: Chairperson can we place our position on record?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: We understand from General Knobel and his legal representative that he intends to refer to a report called or styled Operation Cloud which is a report on Dr Wouter Basson and South Africa's CBW programme.   This is a top secret report which we object to being dealt with or handed in for that matter in public.
 We understand that specifically the General intends to refer to pages 32 to 100 of this report.  Now these pages refer to TRC record 21 to 23 of the bundle which you have before you.  Now these documents in terms of our agreement with Messrs Vally and Chaskalson are documents which the TRC has agreed not to use at this hearing or to distribute to the press.  
 Now just for the record initially the Department had objected to the hearing being held in public on essentially three grounds.  These are that issues relating to proliferation or that evidence is likely to come out which deals with issues relating to proliferation; issues relating to our country's international relations and matters relating to protocol and especially the issue relating to the demarche.
 Thirdly, our obligation under international agreements.
 Now our view is that the report on Operation Cloud deals with all three of these issues, and specifically pages 23 to 100 deals with these issues.  
 Now we accordingly are compelled to object to this report being referred to in public.  Obviously at this point, in view of the arrangement could assist us greatly if we could have sight of the General's statement, and as it were if we can then see if there are matters which touch on these three issues, then it's quite possible that we can proceed as we have done up till now.  
 However, we cannot deny the General the right to refer to the report especially insofar as it concerns him personally or his credibility for that matter. 
 The alternative would then be that if it is necessary for the General to rely on the report that this be done in camera.  From our side we don't think it is necessary for the General to refer to the report in any kind of detail especially relating to these three issues on which we based our initial objection. For example, if the General needs to rely on the fact that he had a meeting with former President de Klerk or with Mandela, which the report does deal with, then clearly we can't have a problem with that.  It is the detail, and this detail, if you do have sight of the report, is typewritten in cursive, those details we do object to.
 Thank you Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman on behalf of my client I want to place something on record.  I want to respectfully submit that during this week you have listened to a lot of evidence but you did not get any idea what that project entailed, and now you have the opportunity where a person who headed this project for a long time can give evidence regarding the crux of the project itself, and I can't understand what the Department of Foreign Affairs' problem is to take that evidence away from you.
 With the greatest of respect you have listened to a lot of evidence and much of that was just gossip.  Now you have the person heading that project who can give you that evidence and I can't understand the basis on which the Department of Foreign Affairs takes that away from you.  They support transparency, that's why they require Dr Basson to testify, but when Dr Knobel wants to testify they object to that.  
 This is a person who is, of all people, able to provide all the evidence you require, and you will be able to listen to all that.  The press has conveyed an image of this project which is far-removed from the truth, and they also must hear, for once and for all, what this project was about.  
 So it's my submission that you should listen to all his evidence.  It will not be irrelevant and it won't be proliferation.  He is the vice chairman of the Proliferation Council and if there's one person who will take care that he does not proliferate it's this witness himself.
 My learned colleague, with respect, can object.  Mr Kennedy is with him to lead him in this regard, but to limit this witness' evidence so that he can't render parts of his evidence you will never get the true picture of what happened.
 On behalf of my client I want to put the record straight, he's a member of the Proliferation Council.  We are referring to two documents.  
 Firstly, a submission has been made by my client to the TRC in January 1997.  The contents of that document must form part of the record and he wants to read that into the record so that that evidence can also be made public.
 The second aspect which is relevant here against which my learned friend objected to be handled in public, that is a report of a National Intelligence Agency, it's titled Project Cloud, and it's from that document my client is going to refer from page 32 to 100.  It's important for my client and in the interest of justice that he can quote from that document and we have no objection that that specific part will take place in camera.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Arendse.

UNKNOWN: Just to reply, especially to my colleague Cilliers.  I didn't understand him to represent the General, and then secondly the very things he is saying seems to me to be a good enough reason why Dr Basson should be giving this Committee the information which you seek.
 Our understanding is that the fact that there was this programme it seems to be a fact that it did exist, it seems to us that what this Commission wants to establish is whether that programme was used for offensive or defensive purposes and more particularly whether the end result of that programme resulted in human rights, gross human rights violations, and that is why the Department, and the office of the Deputy President supports this process.  It is important for all of us to know what the effects or outcome of this programme was.  In that regard there is no objection, and that we feel should come out in the open and I was on record late yesterday saying that we have been quite satisfied up to now about the way the process has been handled.
 So our objection, however, is in regard to the detail of this programme, which we don't think is necessary for this hearing to know and especially as it affects these three legs of our initial argument.  We don't think it is necessary and that is why I respectfully submit agreement was reached with Messrs Vally and Chaskalson in regard to the use of these documents.
 The other thing is General Knobel is not here in his capacity as a member of the Committee on non-proliferation.  He is here in his personal capacity and his capacity as Surgeon-General and insofar as allegations have been made against him up to now by various witnesses he's got to deal with that, and we don't think for him to deal with that it is necessary to refer to the report in any kind of detail.
 Alternatively we have suggested a compromise, which is not a happy one, and that is that if we do deal with the report that we do do so in camera.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally.

MR VALLY: From our brief look at the statement of General Knobel we believe that there would not be matters of serious concern regarding the issue of proliferation.  However, should the need arise we can consider an application for the matter to be heard in camera.  There is a formal requirement as to how we should proceed with that, but I would suggest that on specific issues that we confer with both Advocate Arendse and Mr du Plessis so as to avoid unnecessary wasting of time rather than automatically going into camera.