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

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR DR IMMELMAN: I was aware of the fact that the overtures were being made and that there were negotiations that were going on as to whether Doctor Immelman would give evidence or not and I presumed that it was because in terms of Section 31 of this Act there is a right conferred on the Attorney-General in the sense that consultation may take place with him and I understood it was under that regime as it were, that the negotiations were taking place.  So I was informed but I wasn't part of that particular agreement hence my cautionary remarks that if the affidavit is accepted as an affidavit due weight must given to it as to probative value without the viva voce evidence or the benefit of cross-examination having taken place.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR CILLIERS: I would abide by your decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, do you have anything to say on the law with regard to the weight that we need, should we be inclined in that direction, that we should give to this?

MR CHASKALSON: I do not feel that you need to apply unnecessary weight to the affidavit, I'm quite happy with the suggestions that have been made.  The affidavit deals with a document that is a TRC document in many respects and is one we are going to go through.  It places certain important information on the table and we believe that it is of importance to the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, can I make a suggestion?  We obviously as a panel would like to put our words together as far as this particular aspect is concerned but pending that, is it not possible for you to go to some other aspects until lunch which is about twenty minutes from now?

UNKNOWN: We've had a 15 minute interruption.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, except that you said you'd be done but you didn't anticipate 15 minutes interruption.

MR CHASKALSON: I'll also qualify it by saying I said I would try to be done.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be acceptable?

MR CHASKALSON: I can try and work around it.  I may ask that we stop slightly before the scheduled break but I will see if I can keep going because I want to deal partly the affidavit and partly with TRC 52, however TRC 52 is referred to extensively in the affidavit.  I wouldn't necessarily have to question on the basis of the affidavit and in fact I'm quite happy to steer clear from it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, it is our view that in view of argument and view also of the slight concessions that have been made by counsel for the witness as far admissibility of the document is concerned, you may introduce the document at this stage already but all the, you know, reservations of law made by Mr Cilliers will have to be borne in mind.

MR CHASKALSON: I accept that.  I can also, if it would be convenient, leave my line of questioning for a moment, deal with some other issues and then revert back to that potion after lunch.  I don't anticipate to be more than half an hour after lunch.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you have my ruling.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you.  While we're on the subject of the affidavit I just want to note out that it does refer to an Annexure, in fact it refers to two.  One is an Annexure A and the other is a document which is TRC 52.  For some reason that did not come with the affidavit.
 I was furnished with a concept statement which has got all of the affidavits on it and I'd like to just distribute that if I may.  If requested I can draw the similarities but in the affidavit it's referred to the document number 000100001100012.  This reference sorry, is done on paragraph 17 of the affidavit and that document is document TRC 52.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, conduct your proceedings in line with my ruling.

MR CHASKALSON: I am going to venture into the affidavit if I may.
 Doctor Swanepoel, earlier on you had stated that you had never met any of the members of RRL prior to joining the company, that is correct?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's true.

MR CHASKALSON: Could you please read paragraph 25 of the affidavit out for us?

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph?

MR CHASKALSON: 25, the paragraph beginning
"Ek onthou dat"
MR SWANEPOEL
"I remember that before 1989 on the request of Doctor Basson, a small bottle with on 2 to 3 millilitre peroxide delivered to Doctor Swanepoel who was a Captain in the South African Defence Force.  I delivered it to Doctor Basson's office in - I delivered it personally to Doctor Swanepoel"

MR CHASKALSON: Can you confirm or deny that content of that paragraph?

MR SWANEPOEL: I deny the contents of that.

MR CHASKALSON: Doctor, I'd ask you if you could read from paragraph 15 for me and I'm specifically interested in the last sentence of that paragraph beginning with your name.
MR SWANEPOEL
"Wynand Swanepoel requested me to maintain good relations with Doctor Basson"

MR CHASKALSON: Would you confirm that, or deny that statement?

MR SWANEPOEL: I can't remember that.  What I could have done was to say that those were our military clients and that we should handle them like you would do any clients.

MR CHASKALSON: Except up until 1989 he was your only client?

MR SWANEPOEL: I don't understand.

MR CHASKALSON: Earlier you had said that the SADF accounted for 100% of the work up till about 1989/'90, at which point the work was split 60/40 with the side that you said there was some stuff done from Armscor.

MR SWANEPOEL: I have to explain to you that the change in the relationship does not change overnight, it takes years to accommodate.

MR CHASKALSON: You told us earlier that if Doctor Immelman did something for Doctor Basson you would not be consulted, is that correct?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is true.

MR CHASKALSON: Notwithstanding the fact that you were Managing Director of the company?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's true.

MR CHASKALSON: Could I draw your attention to paragraph 17 and ask you to read that paragraph into the record for us?

MR SWANEPOEL: Paragraph 17 from Doctor Immelman's affidavit
"The sales list with numbers B000010B000011 and B000012 was shown to me.  I recognise the substances on the list and my handwriting on the side, also my handwriting on list number B000011 where I wrote: brought back next to the entry Mamba Toxin on 8.9.89.  The words JK which I wrote next to the dates 19.3.89 and 23.3.89 I can't remember them well.  I think it was referring to Johnny Knoetzen.  The C next to the other dates meant Chris.  That was my entry for substances which I delivered to Chris or one of the other associates.  The K next to the other dates refer to Koos.  Certain entries are not in my notes.  Koos was a white person whom I met in Doctor Basson's office at the ...[no English translation] office.  I was also introduced to Koos.  He told me that Koos was also an associate.  Meetings between me and Koos was arranged by Doctor Basson's secretary"

MR SWANEPOEL: I'd ask you if you could also refer to TRC document 52 which is actually the Annexure which should have been attached to the statement.  On that list you will see that there do appear certain initials, those initials being JK, C and K.  Can I just ask you to have a look at that and to confirm that for me?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes.

MR CHASKALSON: And we heard that JK possibly stood for Johnny Koertzen, C stood for Chris and K stood for Koos, that is correct, according to the affidavit?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's correct.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you also confirm that earlier on when we looked at Section 7 of TRC 26 in the: "Bedryf van CBO Ops", the names Chris and Koos appear?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: So it is conceivable in that other list that these are indeed names of potential operatives?

MR SWANEPOEL: It could be, I can't speculate.

MR CHASKALSON: And you have no knowledge of who C and K are?

MR SWANEPOEL: None.

MR CHASKALSON: But you have met Johnny Koertzen before previously?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes.

MR CHASKALSON: And that was during?