Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-03

UNKNOWN: I am really sorry to disappoint you, Chair, but I do not know the specifics of what the embargo did and what it did not include.  What I can tell you, because I can see that this is a matter of concern for you, is that our propulsion industry at the time was a very very well-developed industry, still is and propellants of most modern kinds were developed
there and produced there to the standard of most international standards.  I would be really surprised if there was any cause for this substance to be transported on aircraft at all.  I apologise that I cannot be more specific on this issue, but I am very sure that there are countless people of Somchem that could answer all your questions as perfectly.

UNKNOWN: I would like to ask Mr Peyaga, we have made numerous enquiries about the whereabouts of the relevant people from Somchem, I'm afraid we're not very close to them.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not know that Mr Peyaga is in a position to recite at the moment, maybe at another time, for one thing, he has not been sworn in and for another, we having a witness on the stand, we either have to say we have no further questions from him in which event we should release him and then continue the next issue.  Do you have any questions?

MS PATTA: Just one, maybe just one, I understand about APC and that wasn't your area of expertise, do you remember Somchem being shut down in 1987 because they needed to extend its production capacity for the Intercontinental Missile Ballistic Programme when you were at Armscor because they needed to do renovations?

UNKNOWN: I do not remember shut-down, no.  I do remember construction, yes.

MS PATTA: And when they were constructing, did this hamper the production of APC?

UNKNOWN: I don't know about that at all, I was not aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it hamper the production of anything at all, I mean, would you be saying you were at full capacity during the construction period as you were before it?

UNKNOWN: I was, Chair, not aware of any interruptions.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are not saying, you are stating your considered opinion as to what the production levels were?
What I'm trying to say, if we had it on authority that there either was a shut-down or an interruption in production activity levels, you wouldn't deny that, or are you saying you are certain, you emphatically deny that there every was either an interruption in the production or a shut-down?

UNKNOWN: Chair, I want to be as explicit as I can.  If there was an interruption of the supply, I am sure that I would have known and I didn't know about it.

UNKNOWN: One last question, you - I just want to make sure that I interpret you correctly, you said that after the Helderberg accident you were requested by SAA or the Maritime Institute was requested to help with the search by SAA?

UNKNOWN: That is certainly my recollection, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Magadhla?

MR MAGADHLA: Thank you, Mr Chair.  Were any of Armscor employees summoned to give evidence before the Margo Commission on the Helderberg issue?

UNKNOWN: I don't know, sir.

MR MAGADHLA: Even those who had been invited to join the search in the sea, the area of the disaster?

UNKNOWN: I don't know, I'm not aware of people being asked to give evidence, I don't know, I simply don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have expected that they should have been called, given that they had been officially asked by SAA to go and assist and they did in fact go to assist.

UNKNOWN: I don't know, sir, I would speculate if I have to tell you that.

MR MAGADHLA: Did you ever get a report seeing that you knew that these people had gone there and that being confirmed?  Did you ever get a report that in fact this was the product of their investigation?

UNKNOWN: Yes, I know about such a report, I know about the reports that were sent in to Armscor about the findings of the team and about the work that they had done in helping the search teams to find the pieces of wreckage.

MR MAGADHLA: Was that report ever discussed at a level where you participated in the discussions of that report?

UNKNOWN: I do not recall that, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: So you only know that there was a report that was filed, but you don't know what its contents were?

UNKNOWN: To my recollection, Mr Chair ...(intervention)

MS PATTA: Excuse me, we do have the report.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking the witness, in fact.

UNKNOWN: To my recollection, sir, the IMT, the Institute of Maritime Technology made quite an important contribution towards this search by helping the search parties with the patterns in which they searched, this was contained in the report.  That, at least, I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember, because you've got a copy of the report or is it because you discussed it at your level?

UNKNOWN: I remember because it was due to a discussion at that level, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was that discussion about, what was it seeking to say?

UNKNOWN: I think basically there was satisfaction about the job that they've done.  I must say that I'm struggling to remember the exact content.  There was also some aspect of the underwater detection that was not as satisfying as they'd hoped for.  If I remember correctly, and here I must confess that my memory is not crisp, the wreckage pieces was on a very great depth and this caused a problem for the team.

CHAIRPERSON: Now at the time that this report was being discussed, was there already a speculation about the possibility of the plane ever being caused by, not only the fire on board, but also by that fire being caused by a combustible substance that may have irregularly carried on that flight?  Was that discussed as part of that analysis of the report?

UNKNOWN: I don't remember that.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not saying that it never was discussed, for instance where it could be said, look we have found no evidence that the fire was caused by a combustible substance that was - because we went there, we searched, we got the parts and they were analysed, they were subjected to forensic tests and all that and there is no way in which that theory can be confirmed.  Was there a discussion of that nature in the ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: I don't remember such a discussion, Chair, and it might be my poor memory or it might just be that that came out after the fact.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Magadhla?

MR MAGADHLA: In view of the fact that certain reports in the Press at the time, I think one of which led to the complaint by Armscor to the Press Counsel.  According to your knowledge, did the investigation into the disaster itself extend to certain officials of Armscor, where certain officials of Armscor approached you with a view to ascertaining from them as to whether there was any involvement by Armscor or not?

UNKNOWN: Chair, I'd like to understand the question as well, this investigation ...(intervention)

MR MAGADHLA: There was the Margo Investigation, the Margo Commission, now did that extend to certain officials of Armscor being asked questions as to whether or not they had anything to do with the disaster itself, or whether having material, dangerous material loaded into the aircraft?

UNKNOWN: Thank you for clarifying that.  I don't remember, I cannot recall about Armscor officials being part of this, but of course for our Chief Executive Officer, Mr ...(inaudible), I do remember that Mr van Vuuren of course made sure that that matter was investigated to make sure that there was nothing that could possibly have been involved in Armscor.

MR MAGADHLA: Was that an internal investigation by Armscor?

UNKNOWN: As far as I know, yes.

MR MAGADHLA: Could it have been then that that report would have formed part of, or would have been present to the Commission as the version of the happenings by Armscor?

UNKNOWN: It could have been, Mr Chair, I simply don't know.

MR MAGADHLA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions?