Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-06

MR MACADAM: And is it further correct that prior to you being informed that you would testify this week, you compiled a further submission, a document which is dated the 4th of August 1997, which was then circulated on the first day of these hearings?

WITNESS:   Well, Mr Macadam, it's not a further submission.  It is merely a summary of the more salient points that are already contained in the Section 30 notices, but in its composite form it is in fact my submission, not a further submission.

MR MACADAM: And are there any new issues which you raise in this latter document which were not contained in one or other of the original submissions?

WITNESS:   As far as I am aware I refer to one document, a 1979 State Security Council document which was not referred to in the Section 30 notices, but I understand that that document has been circulated to the representatives here today.

MR MACADAM: And ... (intervention)

MR MACADAM: MR   (?): The document hasn't been circulated.

MR MACADAM: /Well,

MR MACADAM: 2B Well, for the sake of brevity, I shall not refer to that particular document then.

MR MACADAM: Just for the purposes of the record, do you confirm the correctness of these written submissions?

WITNESS:  Which written submissions?

MR MACADAM: The ones that accompanied the Section 30 notices and the document dated 4 August.

WITNESS:   Correct.

MR MACADAM: Now accompanying the Section 30 notices, were various documents which purport to be compiled by either the South African Defence Force or the former State Security Council, certain of those documents were exhibits in the case of S v Peter Msane and Others in the Durban Supreme Court last year, but there are certain other documents which were not included in that trial.  Is that correct?

WITNESS:   That is correct, they are largely State Security Council documents.  They were seized by members of the Investigation Task Unit for use in their investigations and they have now been lodged in the State archives.

MR MACADAM: And the documents which were used in the S v Peter Msane, they went through as Exhibit E in the trial.  How were those document obtained and how, before the actual trial commenced?

WITNESS:  Can we not assume that given that they were proved in court that this particular hearing can accept that particular process or do you wish me to through a blow by blow account of obtaining a warrant from the Pretoria Magistrate's Court and then going to Military Intelligence Headquarters and the procedure that followed?  I think that's probably unnecessary.

MR MACADAM: If you can - where they actually obtained from before they were presented as exhibits in the trial.

WITNESS:  /Well,

MR MACADAM: 2B Well, from different places.  The Operation Marion documents themselves were handed over by Military Intelligence representatives and it is their claim that it was held by one Brigadier C J Van Niekerk.  Other documents, the State Security Council documents were seized from State archives and a number of other documents were obtained from other sources within the South African National Defence Force.

MR MACADAM: Now if you could proceed to make your submission as you are an admitted attorney, I don't propose to lead you as I would a lay person.  So I leave it in your own hands and I'll merely stop you if there are any issues which I believed should be clarified for the elucidation of the Commission and the community which wishes to hear these proceedings.

WITNESS:   Thank you.  Chairperson, members of the Human Rights Violations Committee, before I commence there is one small concern I have from my side, which isn't a major concern compared to my learned friends across the stage.  I understand I am going to be curtailed in terms of time in presenting my analysis and I think that would be rather unfortunately if I were prevented from presenting the analysis in full.  I am going to suggest that I be permitted to in fact complete my submission.  I will endeavour to keep it as brief as possible.  I can tell you now that in terms of the sections before you, for those of you with copies, I will deal with the background and introduction and context more or less as it is.  The sections dealing with Operation Marion which is the bulk of the section, there I will endeavour to summarise and paraphrase and maybe even skip sections, but I do believe that I should be allowed to

MR MACADAM: /finish

MR MACADAM: 2B finish the entire submission and if need be, I'm sure my learned friends would have no objection if we carried on a little later than expected.

MR LYSTER: Please continue, Mr Varney.

WITNESS:   This hearing focuses on human rights violations carried out by state sponsored hit squads operating in the townships of Mpumalanga in the late 1980s and Esikaweni in the early 1990s.  This violence caused untold destruction and misery to the residents of these townships.  The wider evidence suggests that much of this organised violence had its roots in certain state initiatives taken in the mid 1980s.  These activities were the subject of intensive investigations undertaken by the Investigation Task Unit, the ITU, between 1994 and 1996.  The ITU's primary brief was to investigate hit squad activities carried out under the cover of the KwaZulu Police.  I have been asked to give an overview of the picture unearthed by the ITU.  This story, I believe, explains how it was possible for hit squads such as the Esikaweni hit squad, to act with impunity for several years.  This particular story relates to acts of violence and brutality committed against supporters of the United Democratic Front and the African National Congress by hit squads of the Inkatha Freedom Party and KwaZulu supported by the former National Party controlled South African Government and its security organs.  It does not suggest that the IFP was not the target of similar actions launched by the ANC and UDF.  Numerous IFP member, KZP members and others involved in governmental structures were the targets of hit squad actions launched by the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto weSizwe, Self Defence Units and militant comrades.  Since

MR LYSTER: /the

MR LYSTER: 2B the mid 1980s KwaZulu-Natal and areas on the Witwatersrand have been involved in varying degrees in a low intensity war.  This war has claimed the lives of more than 20 000 persons.  It is not the aim of this Commission to apportion blame on to one side or another.  Members on both sides have been both perpetrators and victims.  It is however plain to see that the conflict was not a matter of acts carried out aimlessly ... [break in recording] ... on all sides.  Sadly, with regard to KwaZulu-Natal we are still waiting for political leaders - on all sides of the political spectrum - to display statesmanship by revealing their roles in this war.  True conciliation and peace will not be achieved by face-saving disclosures behind closed doors and secret amnesty deals.  Only the truth boldly stated and for all to see will permit us to put the past behind us.  At the end of the Commission's term I believe that the central question it must answer on the set of facts arising out of this inquiry is whether the Caprivi operatives such as Luthuli and Mkhize who have testified in this hearing acted out a series of unconnected private frolics, or whether they were not part of a wider strategy devised and orchestrated at the highest political levels.  I will argue that the documentary and oral evidence and the probabilities point conclusively to the latter.  Moving to my introduction, in the case of Esikaweni the High Court in the matter of S v Mbambo made a finding that organised hit squads were responsible for much of the violence in the area between 1992 and 1993.  In his finding on sentence, the Presiding Judge, Mr Justice N van der Reyden made the following finding and I quote -

MR LYSTER: "The present case is confirmation of