Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-06

MR DE VOS: Please answer my question, Mr Varney.  The purpose of my questions is to demonstrate that you are a

MR DE VOS: /prejudiced or

MR DE VOS: 4A prejudiced or biased witness.

MR LYSTER: Well, with respect, Mr de Vos, just put it to the man that he's biased.  You know his background.  You are going to waste a long time going through, "Are you this, are you that, are you the next thing?"  Closing all the channels and then you are going to put your punch to him.  We know that, but rather just put the proposition to him that he's biased and if you want to state the basis upon which you make that statement, do so.  You know, we just simply don't have the time to do it piecemeal and painstakingly in that sort of fashion.

MR NTSEBEZA: It seems to me that what is in contention here is the version that Mr Varney has put as a witness and if that is in contention I think let's go to the heart of the matter.  It can never be limited cross-examination if it is going to go into his life history, where he was born, whether he's an attorney, whether he's an ordinary attorney.  We must address the issue.  If there is a version which you say Mr Varney has failed to put to us as a Commission put the version.

MR DE VOS: Thank you, Mr Commissioner.  The point I'm trying to make is this.  In all the documents which we've seen, all these documents have as a basic principle that the Judge, sitting with assessors, did not do their work properly, that Advocate McNally and his team and you were a member of that team, that they also did not do their work, that the Defence Force, which you are trying to suggest had ulterior motives, that the Government of the day also had ulterior motives, and that the State Security Council, as such, also had all kinds of ulterior motives.  Is that your evidence?

WITNESS:   Are you suggesting that

MR DE VOS: /because of

MR DE VOS: 4A because of certain papers that I've written that I'm suggesting the Court had ulterior motives?  You seem to have lumped the Court and the State Security Council and hit squads all in the same boat, so I think that you need to differentiate or categorise as to what you are referring to.

MR DE VOS: Mr Varney, the point is very simple.  You criticised Judge Hugo explicitly in all the documents.  You said that he should have called certain witnesses, that he didn't understand the documents, etcetera.  Is that correct?

WITNESS:   Yes, that is evident from the face of the papers I've written.

MR DE VOS: In other words, is it correct that you are biased?  You have a very particular view of events and you do not agree with what happened during the eight-month trial in Natal.  Is that correct?

WITNESS:   Absolutely.

MR DE VOS: Let us look at the documentation as you referred to it in your evidence today before this Commission.  The first document to which you referred is dated the 18th July 1985.  That was the meeting of the State Security Council, if we try and do this in chronological order.  Would you agree with that?  Please forget about the 1997 document.  Let us look at 18 July 1985, that document.

YASMINE SOOKA: May we ask that while the witness is being cross-examined that counsels preferably keep their cell phones off so as to ensure that the proceedings don't get interrupted.

MR DE VOS: Do you have the document?

WITNESS:   Yes, proceed.

MR DE VOS: According to you, on that occasion there was a national strategy established or formed by the South

MR DE VOS: /African Government

MR DE VOS: 4A African Government based on Fraser's book, as well as McCuen's book.  Is that correct?

WITNESS:   If you look at my submission that the meeting held on 18th July 1985 refers to principles which coincided with the lessons and principles set out by counter-revolutionary writers, such as General C A Fraser.

MR DE VOS: Yes, what about it?

WITNESS:   That is my answer.

MR DE VOS: So, is your answer then that references were made to all these works by Fraser and McCuen, but was it actually accepted by the Government of the date and the State Security Council as the Government's principles?

WITNESS:   These principles are set out in a State Security Council meeting dated 18th July 1985, under the heading, "Beginsels vir die bekamping van ..." ... [break in recording]

INTERPRETER: "Principles for the combating of the revolutionary onslaught".

WITNESS:   And these principles informed the State at the time of counter-revolutionary strategies, and they happened to coincide with the writing of Fraser and McCuen.

MR DE VOS: Mr Varney, you are afraid to answer my question, because you know what I'm going to do.

WITNESS:   [Break in recording] ... your question.

MR DE VOS: Would you agree that if you look at item 8 of this document, it is said there, "For the information of the meeting the chairperson gives the following synopsis of the principles of revolutionary warfare, based on the writings of various experts on the topic".  Would you agree?

WITNESS:   [Break in recording] ... are you trying to say that, in fact, those principles didn't form State Security strategies at the time?  What is the actual point

MR DE VOS: /you are trying

MR DE VOS: 4A you are trying to make?  Perhaps you should get to that.

MR DE VOS: Please just answer my question.  Is that what it says here?  Would you agree that the reason why it was given to these people at the meeting was for them to take note of it - for their information?

WITNESS:   That is what is says there and I'm arguing further that those principles, in fact, informed that meeting and State Security policy in the development of State Security strategy to counter the revolutionary onslaught.  That I've said.  You know, what more can one say about it?

MR DE VOS: These same points were debated by General Oelschig at the Msane trial.  Do you remember that?

WITNESS:   I think, Mr de Vos, just get to the point that you want to make.

MR DE VOS: Mr Varney, you are a witness.  You are not an attorney.  Please just answer my question.  Were these issued debated with General Oelschig?

WITNESS:   I cannot obviously recall everything that General Oelschig raised, but he did deal extensively with counter-revolutionary strategy during his evidence.

MR DE VOS: Yes.  May I assist you, Mr Varney.  Can you remember that General Oelschig testified that General Fraser wrote two books and the first book was written in the early '60s, when he was still a Brigadier?  Do you remember that?

WITNESS:   (No audible reply)

MR DE VOS: And the second book was written in the late '60s, when he was a General.

WITNESS:   Six or seven years apart, along those lines.

MR DE VOS: Yes, a long time.  What is interesting is that the second book which he wrote stopped at paragraph 31 of that summary which forms part of the appendix to his book.  Do

MR DE VOS: /you remember

MR DE VOS: 4A you remember that?

WITNESS:   In the second edition or paper that he wrote, which was based on that early edition - I think they were both called, "Lessons learned from past revolutionary wars" - in the second edition that particular paragraph doesn't contain the reference to acts of terrorism.  You are going to suggest now that he changed his mind between the first paper and the second paper.  Well, I would dispute that.  I would argue that he hadn't changed his mind, that that particular reference was edited out, as many others were edited out, not because he had changed his mind, but because of other reasons.

MR DE VOS: Mr Varney, you are trying to preempt my questions.  My question is this.  The first books, appendices were not attached to the State Security Council's memorandum, but the second one was.  Do you agree with that?