Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-01

CHAIRPERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, this is a section 29 inquiry, it is a investigative inquiry held in camera in terms of section 29 of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act.
 It's an information gathering exercise, and for that reason only people who have been invited to come and give evidence and/or their legal representatives and members of the staff of the Commission, which includes translators and engineers, need and are permitted to be in attendance.   
 All evidence that has been given in an inquiry of this nature is confidential until the commission, subject to notice to affected parties, decides to release the evidence into the public domain, but for the moment such evidence remains confidential.
 Now, Ms Terreblanche, I do not know how you propose to deal with the presenting of evidence.   I would assume that you are going to call Dr Klatzow in his capacity as a forensics expert and consultant, and you will guide him.   I only want us to be certain as to whether we are going to run the two inquiries as if it was one inquiry, or whether we propose to separate the Helderberg inquiry, take all the evidence relevant thereto, then going to the Machel inquiry?

MS TERREBLANCHE: Unfortunately that was not possible due to logistics constraints.   Unfortunately today we will have to have our expert opinion from Dr Klatzow and from Deborah Patta in terms of the Machel inquiry.   Tomorrow we'll deal only with the Helderberg and on Thursday we will first deal with the Helderberg and then go into the Machel, which we will then conclude on Thursday.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in terms of the record, how is the record going to show?

MS TERREBLANCHE: Can we separate it in any possible way?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe the people who are dealing with the translation.   I think we should have separate records, because it's separate incidents, but we can take evidence in any sort of form.   Maybe that is something that we'll have to canvass with the engineers.   It should be clear, it should be possible that when we deal with one inquiry, we deal with it, and then if we have to take a witness who will deal with an inquiry other than the one for which evidence has been taken, then the records will have to show that we are dealing with somebody else other than which we have.

MS TERREBLANCHE: Yes, I assume it will be all right if we just state in the beginning of a new witness which inquiry this relates to.   The only problem would be the lawyer Van Rensburg, who would be here on Wednesday, who will be testifying in both cases.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, well by then, when he testifies, we can deal with one matter and then the other.

MS TERREBLANCHE: Right.

CHAIRPERSON: In that event, we will be guided by you as to who is testifying on what.   For the moment I believe you will be calling Dr Klatzow, and Dr Klatzow, welcome, and I am familiar with the circumstances of your being here and we are very indebted to you for having taken the time to be with us.
 These are matters in relation to which we have had enormous inquiries, especially from the friends of the victims of Helderberg, and it has been a persistent plea from them that the TRC must do something in relation to these matters.    
 It has not been an easy decision to have to take evidence even in this limited form, because of time and capacity constraints that have been placed on the TRC, but we are extremely grateful to you for having afforded the opportunity to come.
 Now, as is customary, we usually take evidence under oath, because that is the obligation, and I will therefore ask Commissioner Glenda Wildschut, who is sitting to my left, to swear you in.   Commissioner Wildschut?

DAVID JOSEPH KLATZOW: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Commissioner Wildschut.   Just for the record, the panel consists of myself, I'm Dumisa Ntsebeza, head of the investigative unit, and a commissioner in the Human Rights Violations Committee.   To my left, as I've indicated is Commissioner Glenda Wildschut, a commissioner and a member of the Rehabilitation and Reparations Committee.   To my right is Mr Wilson Magadla, who is in the Operational Directorate of the Investigative Unit, he's head of Special Investigations.   And on our extreme right, and it has nothing to do with her politics, is Christelle Terreblanche, and the name also should not associate her with her being on the right, far right, who is an investigator and has been collecting evidence in this matter.   Thank you.   Christelle?

MS TERREBLANCHE: Dr Klatzow, thank you for coming.    You have both been asked to be a consultant on this matter, due to your expertise.   We've also invited you to start off the proceedings by giving evidence and answering questions relative to the investigation in terms of to provide the commission with an expert analysis of the Margo Inquiry and the preceding Directorate of Civil Aviation Investigation into the 1987 Helderberg disaster.  Also to explain your opinion on the nature of the substance on board the plane, how it came to be there and how it ignited, as well as to make recommendations on the most suitable way to find the true cause of the crash.
 I don't know how you want to proceed, whether you want to make your representation and then afterwards we will ask you questions of clarification.   Would that be in order?

DAVID JOSEPH KLATZOW: Yes.   I would firstly like to say thank you very much for this opportunity to address you, Mr Commissioner, and I would like to suggest that I make the submission as a broad, overall picture, to give you an insight into the evidence, such as it was and such as it was led at the Press Council Hearing and at the Margo Inquiry.  I would then like to indicate to you why it is that I have grave misgivings about the Margo Inquiry, and I would like to point out to you areas which were either totally ignored or deliberately glossed over, or in some instances where the wrong conclusions entirely were drawn by the commission of the time.
 The way in which I would like, with your permission, to present the evidence, is to do so by means of a flip chart, which is in front of me, and Mr Commissioner, with your permission, I would like to stand in front of the desk and address yourselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Klatzow.