Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-24

ADV DE JAGER: Should for instance he put a document in writing with regard to what he might want to 
say in this 
regard, would you not be able to come to an agreement with the other parties?

DR PRETORIUS: Yes, if General van der Merwe wants to, or brings testimony and our learned friend, Mr 
Currin would then ask him questions using such a document which is indeed a good suggestion, then he 
could use the document drafted by Captain van Jaarsveld to ask questions to General van der Merwe, he 
could then say for instance in 1981 the counter-revolutionary policy was put on paper in such and such a 
way and then that would be a way in which such, the whole 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

DR PRETORIUS: 47

<UNKNOWN>: problem can in fact be addressed.

HASSAN MALL: Mr Meintjies can you tell me when the application for amnesty was made by Captain 
van Jaarsveld?

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Yes it was during early December with the support of the 
Attorney General.

HASSAN MALL: ;	Mr Currin, I understand that you wish to make some comments?

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairman, just one or two issues that we would like to record on behalf of the 
victims.  We obviously don't know what this witness is going to say about the State Security Council and 
we don't know what General van der Merwe is going to say about the State Security Council, so we are 
really not in a position to assess the value of the evidence.  What we would say, however, is that if we were 
to take on face value the representations made by Mr du Plessis, it sounds to us as if the Captain is not 
being called in his capacity as a Captain, but rather as a person with particular expertise around the State 
Security Council and who represented the Security Police on that structure, so it seems to us that he would 
be a very important witness.
And we would therefore support the application, because our clients would certainly like to hear what he 
has to say
about the State Security Council.  
	I would also just like to comment briefly on the question of the evidence being heard in camera 
and record that our clients would be strenuously opposed to the evidence being heard in camera.  We don't 
believe that really any real motivation has been submitted to support the application if one looks at the Act, 
it says that if it would be in the interest of justice.  In our view it would be in the interests of justice for the 
public at large to 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 47

<UNKNOWN>: hear about the State Security Council and how it functioned.
	And then secondly that there is a likelihood that harm may be caused to any person as a result of 
the proceedings being open.  There has been no evidence at all of harm resulting from the proceedings 
being open.  The only harm that was referred to was possible harm in relation to prejudice with his own 
application, but quite frankly whether the application is heard behind closed doors or in public, the situation 
as far as his subsequent amnesty application is concerned, would be exactly the same.
	In any event that possible prejudice could be dealt with in the same way as the Committee would 
deal with any prejudice to General van der Merwe when he testifies, where, if for example a question may 
prejudice his application, your Committee is quite entitled to curtail that question and one could deal with 
questions on an ad hoc basis as and when they are before the Committee.
	So quite frankly we have heard no serious motivation for it to be heard in camera and I think we 
need to remind ourselves that the constitutional dispensation in this 
country really underscores and underwrites and emphasises the need for openness and transparency, and I 
think the
situation should be unique before the Committee were to decide in favour of a hearing in camera.
	Thank you Sir.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr Currin, the distinction that you are seeking to draw is more apparent than 
real.  Really that he is coming to testify as an expert and not in his capacity as a police officer, I think the 
distinction is more apparent than real.  The fact of the matter is that he is not coming here before us to come 
and theorise and teach us about 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR CURRIN: 48

<UNKNOWN>: theories of counter-revolutionary strategies and the like, he is coming to tell us about his experiences in his 
capacity as a policeman during the time when he was involved in the police as Mr du Plessis so many 
times, countless times, emphasised, from the 80's over a long period.  I mean he is coming here to testify 
about those experiences.
	I am not sure whether a lot of things turns around that point, but I am just saying that that 
distinction really - it is not real.

MR CURRIN: Mr Chairperson, I think maybe my point was misunderstood.  The only reason why I made 
that comment was because someone said he is only a captain and there must be other people of higher 
ranking that would know more about it than him.	It is in that context that I am saying, it is not his 
capacity as a Captain which gives him the knowledge, it is his experience on the ground.

HASSAN MALL: Mr Mpshe, is there anything you wish to say?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Nothing I wish to say Mr Chairman, thank you.

HASSAN MALL: The Committee would like to consider the
application that has been made and to consider the various points that have been advanced for and against 
the application.  We will give our decision on this matter in due course, but as soon as we can.  We are not 
in a position to do so now.  I realise that it is important for all parties concerned to know as soon as possible 
where they stand in connection with the preparation and the conduct of their application, and we shall 
endeavour to do so as soon as we can.
	I want to know whether in the meanwhile we are prepared to proceed with the leading in evidence 
in any of the other applications?
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 49

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just be afforded the opportunity to reply to Dr 
Pretorius very, very shortly?

HASSAN MALL: Yes, please do so.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you.  Mr Chairman it is true that we requested a meeting with Captain van 
Jaarsveld because he is a State witness, we cannot really speak to him.  We requested a meeting this 
morning purely to obtain information which might be relevant in respect of General van der Merwe's 
evidence.  During the discussion certain information was divulged to us which we deemed of grave 
importance for the applicants and on that basis we requested Dr Pretorius, at that stage this morning, if the 
Attorney General would not be prepared to allow Captain van Jaarsveld to come and testify.
	Clearly we were aware of your decision previously and that was not something that we wanted to 
consider previously.  We were also not informed of the extent of
Captain van Jaarsveld's knowledge until we spoke to him this morning.
	We did take steps last year to obtain other witnesses and it is not a question of only becoming 
aware of certain people who were involved this morning.  In any event as I can recall Captain van Jaarsveld 
gave us an indication that whoever was named this morning, would not in all probability be prepared to 
assist us.
	In respect of the evidence that Captain van Jaarsveld will give evidence in his own amnesty 
application, he would be in the same position as General van der Merwe, he is also going to give evidence 
in his own amnesty application and we cannot see that one should wait for that amnesty application 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 50