Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-14

MR FALCONER: (?):   Mr Chairman, might I have an opportunity to just make one observation from what Mr Wills has said.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR FALCONER: That deals with the first point he made, where we contended that it is common cause that the Inkatha Freedom party, the KwaZulu Government, members of the KwaZulu Government, and various installations of the KwaZulu Government, were under siege of attack from the African National Congress or the UDF, or MK, as it was.  And, if I understand Mr Wills' statement he says that none of his clients who he represents have contended in their evidence that that was in fact the case.
My understanding is that Mr Wills does represent Mr Brian Gina Mkhize, and I've only got my handwritten notes here to refer to, but it was clear that Mr Mkhize
 /said some
said some words to the following effect.
"We saw tribal councillors being killed, elderly people forced by UDF to drink cooking oils, etcetera.  We decided to fight the UDF, which was furthering the aims of the ANC."
It is upon that, and other evidence which was led before this hearing, that we based our assumption that it is common cause, and clearly his clients do state that they were under siege.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR COETZEE: Just one or two aspects we'd like to reply to.  On the same point that my learned friend has just made, I find it extremely strange that it can be seriously contested that it is part of the facts before this Commission and common cause that the ANC was attacking the Inkatha during this time period.  I don't understand on what basis my learned friend can even dispute this evidence, because it's the evidence of his own client.
Furthermore, my learned friend has misunderstood, or has not gone through all the evidence relating to the training and deployment of these Caprivi trainees.  The whole function of the defence Force was only the training.  The deployment would have been done at a later stage.  It was the function of Constitutional Development at that stage, and the KwaZulu Government.  It was not the function of the South African Defence Force to deploy the people.  It was never their function.  And he totally leaves this point out, and tries to make something that was the responsibility of other departments the responsibility of the Defence Force.
Furthermore, my learned friend refuses to put this
 /whole
whole paramilitary group in the right perspective.  The largest majority of this paramilitary force was contra-mobilisation, and he's trying to make out that this was 200 people that were trained to go attack people, which is clearly not the case.  The case is that the vast majority was contra-mobilisation.  And furthermore on the evidence of his own - of the Caprivi trainees that have testified here, it is only a select few that got involved in these unlawful activities, but he fails to refer to the correct evidence.
He makes an - I ask the Committee to correct me if I am wrong, but I have had opportunity to peruse the record, and there is no mention of anything happening in 1987, if I remember - if my recollection of the record is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: No.  Mr Luthuli gave evidence that in 1987 in Clermont and in Mpumalanga Caprivians were - according to his version were extensively involved in killing.  He gave a very detailed description about how this would take place.  He said that the Inkatha members would attack houses with petrol bombs, people would run out of the houses, and Caprivians would shoot them as they ran out of the houses.  That was in 1987.

MR COETZEE: I accept that.  The further aspect that is also clear, the unlawful deployment cannot in my submission be connected to any clients that I represent.  They weren't involved in this deployment on any basis.  If there was any deployment for any unlawful activity it was without their knowledge, and they could not have foreseen it.
If you would just bear with me for a moment.  
 /(Pause)
(Pause)  I submit that my learned friend's analogy with
the Caprivi trainees to wild animals, and the duty of care relating to a wild animal, and a soldier that is trained and is supposed to be disciplined is untoward, and there is no comparison.  
I have no further submissions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Coetzee.  Just one aspect, Mr Coetzee and Mr de Vos.  Maybe you can assist us here.  It just arises out of what Mr Wills has said, and that is the question of payment.  There is evidence that these people were paid until quite late.  Do your clients agree that it was them that - or the military at any rate, that paid them?

MR DE VOS: (?):   Without having the opportunity to clearly take instructions on this point, but it appears that the Military Intelligence was involved in the payment of the Caprivi trainees, and if I remember their evidence correctly the picture is that at one stage Admiral Pitter went to Buthelezi and said, "Well, look, we were only supposed to train these people, have them on our books, so to speak, for a year.  You must please take them over now."  And then the whole problem came that the KwaZulu Government and the central Government, and Constitutional Affairs never done the work that they were supposed to do.  And their budgets - and to a certain extent they were paid by Military Intelligence because of the situation as it was.  That, I think, is the best picture I can give at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, my recollection was that that was in fact the case, and there was further evidence, as you'll recall, in the Msani trial that M Z Khumalo in fact asked
 /the SADF
the SADF for a salary and a vehicle, and received both - through that same fund, as far as I recollect.  Is that correct?

MR DE VOS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.  I think - I am not sure about the date, but I think that the evidence was handed in at the Goldstone Commission that payment occurred through a front company, through Armscor.  I am not sure until what time.

CHAIRPERSON: Somewhere in this huge mass of documents there's a specific reference as to how payment would be effected, and it was going to be effected as if it was a foreign donation coming via Armscor to an account in the name of Inkatha.  But in fact the money didn't get paid by Inkatha, it got paid by Military Intelligence themselves.  The evidence is that Opperman would go up pay them, or Cloete, or one of those people, from time to time.  Is that correct?

MR DE VOS: Yes, we also have the picture, but I think one - it was agreed between the Government and Inkatha that the Government would supply the money.  But I think if one looks at the documents that you're probably referring to - the first document is the 19 December document in 1985, where Cor van Niekerk suggested th