Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-08

UNKNOWN: Just one other question about this whole handing over what of course was a deadly weapon, as you yourself experienced, did it occur to you either during or after that time that you were travelling specifically to Europe with this weapon in your possession that you were going to hand over to someone, dit it occur to you that, you know, he must have been an agent who was going to use that one someone in Europe?  I mean, did you discuss it with him at all?

JAN LOURENS: No, it did occur to me, and it's not the type of occurrence, you know, to manufacture the screwdrivers and hand it over to a scientist whose going to test it and evaluate it, is really, it's at arm's length, it's not an issue, it's not an interlace with somebody who would pretend to you, this is my first interface with - and I knew it, with somebody that would potentially kill somebody else, and it didn't dawn on me until I actually woke up after the poison exercise, and then it was real.  I was in England for a few days thereafter, and I can't remember how many days, and I remember very well buying every single newspaper that I could my hands on to try and find out, you know, had somebody died mysteriously, and so on.  So, yes it - I was very aware of that aspect then.

UNKNOWN: And that was in when, what year?

JAN LOURENS: About '92.

UNKNOWN: Okay, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Dr Boraine.  Any other questions?  Dr Orr?

UNKNOWN: Dr Lourens, the question that I'm going to ask is perhaps not easily answered, and I ask it because part of the TRC's mandate is to attempt to understand the perspective of people who were involved in human rights violations, and although you yourself were not directly involved, I think you yourself would acknowledge that you were most certainly involved.  And I ask, what kind of environment, background, education produces a scientist, and you are a scientist, who does not question what were undoubtedly very dubious assignments, who does not ask for what purpose his research is going to be used, who even when it becomes blatantly obvious from the poisoning episode, that science is being perverted for abuse?   How is it that such a person is, doesn't take any action?  How was it that you didn't question, what was it about the social environment that enabled you to simply carry on and close your eyes, until really quite late in the whole process?

UNKNOWN: Obviously, you know, once you're out of the system and you look back, you ask the questions, you'll have to ask yourself these questions ...(tape ends)

JAN LOURENS: The first issue is that the performance of science is a drive in itself.  If you look at the manufacture of a chemical substance, difficult synthesis.  At the end of the day it poses a challenge.What the substance is may to some extent be irrelevant, whether it's a protein or a poison it's a complex chemical substance, and you would often find that scientists have a particular focus towards this particular end goal, this objective in achieving that, without thinking of its application. It's like nuclear fusion.  Nuclear fusion is a phenomenal, it's phenomenal science.  And a scientist working on nuclear fusion is not necessarily going to have the atom bomb in mind. And unfortunately I think it's a character of individuals as scientists to often not think about the application or the consequence.  That's the first part.  I mean that's the easy part.
 The second part is that why don't we question, why didn't I question?  Unless you've been in that system you wouldn't know, and the manner in which we operated, within that system, you know we have this term which we call the need to know basis, and it was an excuse utilised by the system to not tell you.  And you become used to it.  You simply just live in this environment.  I lived in that environment for four, five, six years where I knew quite well, being an intelligent individual that I was seeing a small segment of a big picture, and I believed that the people that knew what was good for me, and thus would expose me to the right things at the right time.  It's a naive, it's a practically stupid approach.  But that was the way it went. And it doesn't happen overnight.  
 You know a scientist is not taken from university as a bright young lad and said tomorrow morning you will start manufacturing chemicals to kill people.  It just doesn't happen like that.  It happens over a period of time and all of us have been gradually drawn into the system and over a period of time questioned less and less and less.  Those were the harsh realities of it all.  It's not just a fable I know, but this is the way it happened.  I don't know if I have answered your question.

UNKNOWN: It is a difficult question to answer, you have gone some way.  Thank you.
 One more question.  When you decided to approach the Attorney-General and/or the Truth Commission did you discuss this decision with any of your colleagues, Knobel, Basson, Mijburgh, Swanepoel?

JAN LOURENS: Dr Orr can I make a statement, please.  I take grave offence to the statement made by the gentleman on my right by calling me a martel gat, and I expect him to withdraw that immediately.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that said now, here?

JAN LOURENS: Here directly now, a few seconds ago.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is the gentleman?

INTERPRETER: A martyr.

JAN LOURENS: Defending Gen Knobel.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis.

UNKNOWN: It wasn't meant to be offensive.  I withdraw it.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that?

UNKNOWN: I made a remark to Mr van Zyl.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say that in these proceedings?

UNKNOWN: Yes I said it.

CHAIRPERSON: Martel gat.

INTERPRETER: A martyr.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say he was a martyr? ...that we take these proceedings seriously.  Mr du Plessis I don't know where you come from.  I respect you as a lawyer and as a legal representative.  I need to indicate that if you don't display to this Commission the sort of respect that is due to it, but once more if you do not, with due respect, refrain from intimidating witnesses, because whatever you meant, or whatever you wanted to do, that is an intimidation of a witness.  And I think the witness has every reason to take offence at what you said, and I think you should apologise to him.

UNKNOWN: I have already withdrawn the statement and I apologise to him.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the Commission reserves all rights that it has in regard to what you have done Mr du Plessis.  Dr Wendy Orr.

UNKNOWN: I will repeat my question.  When you decided to approach the Attorney-General with the information which you had and come to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did you speak to any of your colleagues, your previous colleagues from the project, about it?  And if so, what was their response?