Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-08

CHAIRPERSON: Before resuming the cross-examination, I just want to make a few remarks about statements which were made by counsel before the break - Mr van Zyl and others, and the panel is concerned by these remarks by counsel that they choose at this stage to withdraw from cross-examination.  It has never been the intention of this panel to inhibit cross-examination, other than to bring it within the limits of what is possible in terms of the time frame available to us.  We believe that by not cross-examining that you will be doing a disservice to your clients and we would urge them to do so, bearing in mind that this hall is booked for the whole of next week until Friday afternoon, and there are only - I think there's only one new witness to be heard, so I would really urge counsel to reconsider their position, and I would also ask them to bear in mind that if full cross-examination, as would be permitted in a court of law and as happened in the Msane trial, which went on for, as you know, months and months, if that sort of cross-examination is not permitted counsel should bear in mind that they have ample opportunity to deal with the evidence of each witness by the way of written submissions at the end of this process.
 /So those are
2A So those are just some remarks which I will ask counsel to reconsider this afternoon and during the course of the week-end.  Having said that we will then proceed with Mr Luthuli.  I think Mr Visser wanted to make some remark.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, thank you.  In the tea adjournment, during the tea adjournment, my learned colleague, Mr Maritz, pointed out to me what this is all about.  I was totally unaware of it, I may tell you, but I have considered the situation and if my learned friend would allow me to say so, I have no quarrel with what is in paragraph 39.3 of his statement, which Mr Luthuli made at that stage.  It is basically correct and there is nothing that I should place before you in that regard.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser.

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman, it's Maritz on record.  I was still - I intimated that I was, as far as I was concerned, done with my cross-examination.  The happy news is that is the truth.  I am finished.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Maritz.

MR MARITZ: May I just record, Mr Chairman, that it doesn't necessarily imply that my clients agree with everything that has been said by the witness.  As far as my clients are concerned much of what I may still raise or could raise with Mr Luthuli involves argument and I think time will be better served if we raise those issues in a proper submission later during the proceedings and we will take that opportunity when the occasion arises.  Thank you very much.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MARITZ

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Maritz.  Mr Lasich.
/
MR LASICH
2A

MR LASICH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Luthuli, my name is Lasich.  I see your counsel indicated to you who I represent - the Inkatha Freedom Party and the members who have been implicated in these hearings.  I noticed or I was informed that you were being interviewed by the press during the short adjournment.  Is that correct?

WITNESS:   Which period are you referring to?  Now or when?

MR LASICH: Just now, a short while ago.

WITNESS:   No, there is no truth in that.

MR STEWART: Mr Chairperson, perhaps I can clarify that.  My client did speak with someone from the SABC for the purposes of arranging an interview in due course.

MR LASICH: Thank you, Mr Stewart.  Now, Mr Luthuli, I noticed during your evidence, when you gave it previously during these hearings a few days back, you had a document in front of you.  What was that document?

WITNESS:   Which document are you referring to?

MR LASICH: Unfortunately ... (intervention)

WITNESS:   Are you referring to the one I'm showing just now?

MR LASICH: Unfortunately, Mr Luthuli, I can't see it from here.  I just wanted to know if you were referring to a statement or anything that you've made.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Luthuli, did you have a document with you the other day when you were making - when you were giving your evidence?  Did you have notes or something with you?

WITNESS:   Yes, I do, but this had nothing to do with this occasion.  I can give the members of the Commission this document that I'm having.  It bears no relevance to this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Luthuli.

MR LASICH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Luthuli, how would you see yourself in regard to the events you've

MR LASICH: /described?  A

MR LASICH: 2A described?  A cold-blooded killer or a foot soldier?

WITNESS:  I regard myself as a soldier, but a politically-minded soldier or politically-aligned soldier.

MR LASICH: Now, if I understood your evidence previously, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but you indicated you were involved in the murders or the killings of so many people you can't remember precisely when and where in certain respects.

WITNESS:   I want to explain what I was referring to when I said that.  What made me say that was there were so many occasions that took place in South Africa where my name has been mentioned or where I have been involved and it is possible that I was not personally present when these took place, but I issued the specific orders for these murders to be carried out.  Therefore I could say I could be equated to a killer myself.

MR LASICH: Did you not yourself personally take part in assaults on UDF members?

WITNESS:   I had already explained that I did that.

MR LASICH: Now, I don't want to delve in this over too long a period during this cross-examination, but it's been mentioned that you served time on Robben Island for what's been termed, "Terrorism-related offences".  Could you just give us an idea of what those offences were?

WITNESS:   Firstly, I was arrested in the then Rhodesia.  That is where I was fighting.  And I was later deported by the then Smith Government.  I was deported to South Africa and in South Africa I was convicted for the fact that I went outside the country to be trained without a travel document or passport.  I was also charged for being a member of an illegal organization.

MR LASICH: And did you plead guilty to those offences or not

MR LASICH: /guilty?  ---

MR LASICH: 2A guilty?

WITNESS:   You remember that at that time we were fighting.  I wouldn't have admitted that I was guilty, knowing fully well that I was fighting for a good cause.

MR LASICH: Mr Luthuli, I am sure you understand this is not a trial and we can't cross-examine you as long as we would like to due to the limited nature of these proceedings.  But just on the point, you've mentioned the IFP during the '80s.  Is it not correct that it was Inkatha?  It was not a formal political party during that stage?

WITNESS:   That is correct.

MR LASICH: Now, you've said that your motivation, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, your motivation to come clean was inspired by bodies such as the TEC forming basically the beginnings of a new South Africa.  That motivated you to come clean and in the interests of peace and reconciliation admit all?

WITNESS:   That is correct.

MR LASICH: Could you give us an idea of round about what year that was that you had this motivation to come clean?

WITNESS:  I don't remember the year.

MR LASICH: Was it before the Mbambo trial?

WITNESS:   I don't remember.

MR LASICH: Was it before the 1994 elections?

WITNESS:   I don't remember.

MR LASICH: You see, I want to put it to you, Mr Luthuli, you gave evidence in the Mbambo trial in mitigation of sentence on behalf of those gentlemen sitting over there and it seemed to me that you weren't frank with the Court.

MR WILLS: I haven't got a microphone.  I'd just like to ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Just hang on.  Just borrow a microphone so that you can go on record, please.
/
MR WILLS
2A