Special Hearings — Armed Forces Hearings — 1997-10-09

MR GOOSEN: It was never necessary, in the period '83 to '87, never once necessary to do anything other than arrest people, detain them, charge them, ensure that the prosecution, the lawful evidence is presented, incarcerate people, restrict them to areas, utilising the legal framework, it was never, ever necessary in that period to step outside the bounds of what you are entitled to do in law, is that correct?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Mr Goosen, I think General van der Merwe has commented on that very clearly.  At the level where I moved that was the understanding, that and all the other capabilities, all the energy of the State was used to combat it.  But Sir, and we've said it, in the process, in the structuring, in the circumstances, in the structuring of the organisations and in the process and in the understanding of people, in their perceptions, other perceptions could have developed.  Not on a broad pattern but it's for those people that's concerned there to explain that how it affected them particularly and individually.  I cannot comment on that.

MR GOOSEN: General I don't think that, firstly I don't think you've answered the question, I don't think you are fully understanding it, perhaps that's why you don't answer the question ...(intervention)

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Alright, perhaps you should pose it in Afrikaans.

MR GOOSEN: Perhaps I should just explain it to you.  I am asking you whether it is your view that from the period 1983 through to 1987 it was never necessary for a member of the police or the army to ever act outside the law in order to combat terrorism or the onslaught against the country?  It's a very simple question ...(intervention)

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: But Sir ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry if I could just intervene.  What seems to be going wrong here is that you are construing legal measures as what he's referring to, he's meaning unlawful actions, ja, that's what he's intending to say. So if you can, if I can maybe help just by explaining, he's referring to unlawful actions when he says outside the law, not outside the legal framework or legal mechanisms or so on, or organs of State, it's in that sense that he's trying to focus the question.  So it's essentially unlawful acts.

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Well Sir let me comment then on the particular incident, the case of the so called doctored handgrenades that went to the Minister of Law and Order.  Is that per se a legal action?  If I now go on record and I say yes, and eventually a court of law decides that it wasn't self-defence, that defence is not obtainable in those circumstances, then I've lied.
 So I say, what I say to you Sir, is that at my level, at my level, I never gave and it was not required of me to give any illegal, within the country, any operation of an illegal nature, at my level.  
 How in the process into a big organisation, structured in very many layers of command and as I've stated, also structured in the State Security Council line of functioning, and which I've commented on at a former meeting, created to some extent, Sir, another line of command, how it was understood and comprehended by everyone Sir, that's impossible for me.  
 And for me to respond to you Sir, to say yes, I think we could have combated the whole onslaught at that stage purely by using absolutely legal means, that I cannot say to you.  What I can say to you Sir that many means are used which is neither legal or illegal.  It doesn't mean - some of these Stratcom actions are of necessity illegal nor are they legal.  But those are the strategies that you use in a counter-revolutionary situation.

MR NTSEBEZA: General maybe ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ntsebeza.

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you Chair.  I have a difficulty, maybe part of the difficulty is that I am aware that you are also an academic and you may slip into that mode.  Just taking the incident that you have referred to, the Zero Zero Hour incident, the handgrenade, as I understand the position there handgrenades were spiked, the effect of that was that when the mechanism was removed it should blow off those people who were operating those.  Now - and as I understand it, I am stating the position in very broad terms, the Minister of Law and Order then was aware of this, actually authorised it, and it was implemented.  Now are you seriously wanting us to accept that that was a legal operation in any sense of the word?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Mr Chairperson firstly I have mentioned the incident in a certain context.  If you rule Sir that I should comment on it again I have done so in my submission and General van der Merwe has discussed it and placed it in its proper context and that is what I say it's necessary.  He explained how many policemen were killed by having handgrenades thrown at them.  He explained the circumstances in which this occurred.
 I have said, Sir, that it was the duty of the Minister to take it either to legal advisors, either to the State Attorney and then make his decision.  That's what he was supposed to do.  
 For me, at this stage Sir, to say well the Van Wyk decision in such and such a case that you can place a loaded firearm in your premises so that if someone breaks into it he commits a crime and he is then killed that was held by the Appellate Division to be legal.  I don't think that will be help the issue at all Sir.  
 I am saying that every case of that nature should be dealt with.  This is how these people, they understood it.  They took the safeguard of submitting it to their Minister to ask him what is - they didn't go off and commit an unlawful act.  They submitted it and it was then the duty of myself and of the Minister to judge it and to give authority or not.  
 Now obviously Sir, until and unless that memorandum is placed before me I cannot say what ten years ago I personally recommended about it, whether it should be rejected, whether it should be done this or that, but the fact is that the Minister authorised it. Now I am only saying that it could be construed as an illegal action.

MR NTSEBEZA: I just want, without looking into the general circumstances, I am just wanting you honestly as you sit there before God to tell the Commission, let's forget for one moment the legal trappings and what have you, we are sitting here as a Commission that seeks to find the truth, and at this point we are not even sitting in judgement, we are not even wanting to make a finding, are you saying as you sit there before God, that where a Minister knew beforehand that handgrenades were going to be used to his knowledge, with his authorisation, they were going to be placed in the hands of youths who did not know that the damage would be to themselves than to their objects, that they would be killed thereby, that that was a lawful action of self-defence, is that what you are saying?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: I am advised by my legal advisor that I need not answer that question at all because it goes into a particular case where amnesty is being asked for.  But my general, just, I want to say this apart from that, that I don't know what stood, and I've said it, in the memorandum.  You are surmising Sir this is what stood there.

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes.

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: And that is untrue Sir.

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes.  Well I would have hoped that your legal advisors should have advised you not to raise it specifically because this is a matter that you raised specifically but I take the point.  Advocate Goosen.