Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-14

CHAIRPERSON: There was evidence relating to van Niekerk's cross-examination on that very point, and he gave a very different answer, as you will recall.  Have you dealt with that over the page, or ... (incomplete)

MR DE VOS: No, I don't deal with van Niekerk's version because Pitter didn't testify in the Msani case, and I thought most of the other colleagues would deal with the evidence and place it before you on the basis that ... (incomplete)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry.

MR DE VOS: Place is before you so that everything can tie up and it can be useful to you.  What I can do, we can quickly look it up and make a submission in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I think that will be useful, because it was put to Mr Visser yesterday.  He also said that the discussion held at Liberty Life Building was - could only be interpreted in a benign or innocent way, and that any
 /reference
reference to "wegneem van die persoon" meant to take him away from the area so he could not influence State witnesses.  That's the interpretation which General van der Merwe gave to that particular memorandum or minute of the meeting of November 1988, and I pointed out to Mr Visser, who was representing Mr van der Merwe, that Colonel van Niekerk was cross-examined by the Judge in the Msani trial on this very, very point, and Colonel van Niekerk admitted that "wegneem" meant to take him away so that he would not be able to stand trial.  And he was asked by the Judge whether would that not be an obstruction of justice, and Colonel van Niekerk answered yes, that would be so.  So, it's clear from the evidence that was given by van Niekerk that he doesn't agree with your interpretation of the meeting of November 1988.  And I put that to Mr Visser, and he said well, that was the evidence, and it may well be that if there was an obstruction of justice that was being considered there then this would be something that General van der Merwe might wish to add to his amnesty application, because as you are aware General van der Merwe has applied for amnesty for bombing of Khasho House.  So, I think it would be useful to get a submission on that, because we are clearly talking about two different versions here altogether.  We're not saying which one we believe at all, but there is evidence under cross-examination from van Niekerk that the question about "'n lid wat 'n probleem het en wegneem van die gebied" does not mean - does not mean that this can be interpreted in an innocent or a benign way.

MR DE VOS: I am almost finished with my submission.  Maybe if you can give us a minute or two we'll come back
 /and make
and make a submission on this.  I am just going to finalise the submission as I was busy with it at the moment.  
After listening to all the parties Pitter instructed his personnel to make the necessary arrangements to incorporate the trainees as individuals into KwaZulu Police.  That's paragraph 9 of that document.  Now, then Pitter's involvement in this whole saga actually ends by the end of March '89, when he again becomes the Chief of the South African Navy, and he has no knowledge what transpired after that with Marion.
A document which is also relevant is a document dated the 2nd of May 1990.  It refers to CSI's visit to Ulundi on the 9th of May 1990.  Obviously it does not refer to Pitter at that stage.  It's an internal document prepared by Colonel van den Berg addressed to DST, and in this document, paragraph 2 (b), mention is made of what was said by - allegedly said by the Chief Minister, and that's an Afrikaans version that's been quoted there, whether alleged hit squads was mentioned.  Now, it's obvious that this document never left Military Intelligence.  In this regard we are referring you to the van Tonder evidence in the Msani trial.  I haven't got the page number reference here unfortunately.
Then there was a signal dated the 22nd of May 1990.  This document was not seen by General Geldenhuys.  
Now, we then submit that none of the documents that were handed in in the Msani trial, or any of the documents that we've seen here, incriminates our clients in any unlawful activities, and we further submit that there is no nexus between the training given to the Inkatha members
 /and the
and the crimes they committed.  
And, before we ask for an adjournment we've got a conclusion, but maybe - I see my learned colleague, before he falls asleep, can he do the conclusion?