Special Hearings — Media Hearings — UNKNOWN

JOHN HORAK: Oh, very much so.  Very much so, Sir.  I was approached by Afrikaans newspapers on various occasions and offered a job, and in the SABC of course.  When I went to the SABC in the early 1960's, there it was no infiltration.  The SABC was asked to employ me in a particular situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Knowing that you are a policeman?

JOHN HORAK: Yes, yes, they were told.  Yes, they were told by General Venter, that they needed a man in the SABC and they were sending me there.  And they full well knew.	Also I want to tell you about a public broadcaster of today, there was a problem, technically everybody who worked for them, were informers.  And I will tell  you why I am saying this.	No, if you read a Broadcast Act of today, it is stipulated very clearly that the SABC had to support the government of the day.  It was a law.  And when anybody joined there, they were read this particular law.	It was law, they had no choice.  So anybody who worked there, knew from day one, that they had to support the government of the day.	On the Afrikaans press, right now, on a paper like Beeld, there appears names in the by lines of people who was serving officers in STRATCOM quite openly in my day in the Security Branch.  They were there.	The Afrikaans press certainly was terribly involved, I could identify - I would give you one example.  After I left the police, I tried to get a job and a newspaper interviewed me and asked me to come the next day.  The next day when I arrived, with very embarrassed faces they told me that unfortunately they couldn't go ahead with employing me, because of certain signals that had been sent to them from government quarters.	An hour later I walked in a Pretoria street and a man's wife, who was in that paper, but who was in that point in time a senior policeman, came up to me and said, so you didn't get a job in this paper.  It is the first time I had seen him in three years.	He knew exactly, I knew exactly what was going on.  And there was certainly misused to a greater extent.  One should never forget that in the 1970's still, even in the 1980's, the Editor of Die Burger, was a member of the caucus of the National Party and he sat in on caucus meetings.	That was official.  He guided the policy, so it was official policy that was given.  But I also want to tell you that on the top management of my own company, which may sound a little bit humorous, but it is a very sad story and I am going to use his name, because he is innocent and I think everybody here knows that he is innocent.  	I want to use the name of Bernard Nakum, he is today a businessman.  Bernard Nakum wore his regimental tie in the SAN officers.  He was a Captain in the military, quite openly, nothing secret about it and he was a member of NUSAS.	And somebody in the Establishment criticised him and things weren't going well for me either at that point in time.  And I told people about the criticism of Benny Nakum at Headquarters.  About two or three weeks later, Benny, it is possibly today the first time that he will know what really happened.	Benny Nakum was stopped by Mr Lester Walton, who was then the Managing Director of the company in the passages, and said I want you to wear your tie every Friday.  We will leave it at that.  But what I am trying to say to you is that there were influences at work.  And it wasn't as a front level.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we are going to have to conclude now unfortunately.  I just want to hear if there are any other questions from my colleagues.  There are none?	Mr Horak, it just remains for me to thank you for having made yourself available and for having been prepared to respond to the questions that we had put to you.  We unfortunately always have the difficulty of time when we are dealing with these things at our public sessions and it is really all that we have time for at this stage.	But I want to thank you very much for having come and to your Attorney as well.

JOHN HORAK: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We are going to take an adjournment for lunch, but a shorter adjournment that what we had planned for initially in order to try and catch up with our schedule and in order not to inconvenience people too much.	We will adjourn until 1:30, when we will very sharp and we will reconvene at 1:30 with the testimony of Mr Williamson and I apologise to him and to Mr McPherson whom we had thought that we would be able to take before we actually adjourn for lunch.	So we will now take the luncheon adjournment until 1:30.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: We are about to start, so will you please take your seats and settle down?	The next witness is Mr Craig Williamson.  Good afternoon Mr Williamson and welcome.

MOEGSIEN WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Welcome to your legal team as well.  Before we take your testimony, I am going to ask you just to take the oath.
STATE OPERATIVES

MOEGSIEN WILLIAMS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may be seated.  Mr Ntsebeza will facilitate your testimony.

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you Chairperson.  Let me take the opportunity to also welcome you Mr Williamson and your legal team, Mr Levin and I didn't get the other gentleman's name.	I don't know how you propose to make your submission, whether you have a prepared submission which you would like to talk to.  In this event, if you have, then possibly that is where we should start and then thereafter we possibly have to contextualise your submission.

MOEGSIEN WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I think I will briefly summarise the basic points of the evidence that I am able to give which relates to documentation that I have handed over to the Commission, to your Investigators and I think that questions on that will probably then be the easiest way then to go.

MR NTSEBEZA: Very well, Mr Williamson, if you could proceed then.