Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-03

MR BRAIZBLATT: Did they clarify this when they returned to Johannesburg, did they ask as soon as they came back to Johannesburg what it was?

MS PATTA: Yes, they did.  They also did so because they could get no clarification on the ground.

MR BRAIZBLATT: We certainly didn't know.  Once again I say, look, we didn't know.  If we would have know, we didn't know, there's no way we can know.  I mean, look, with all due respect, I can't tell from looking at a profile and a box that's partly damaged if it's a missile, I really can't tell.  I don't know whether anyone of us here can tell, I certainly can't.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any further questions for this witness?  Thank you, Mr Braizblatt, thank you for having come.

MR BRAIZBLATT: Thank you for having me.

CHAIRPERSON: And you should appreciate that we have a job to do and we're trying to it.

MR BRAIZBLATT: I most certainly do.

CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise you are excused for the moment.

MR BRAIZBLATT: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not know whether you have any witnesses to call.

MR BRAIZBLATT: Sorry, I'm on my way if you don't need me any further.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for ten minutes which would mean we should re-assemble at 11h50.  I'm sure the tea has gone cold.
WITNESS EXCUSED
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, we've got at court Dr J L Steyn, the former Managing Director of Altec and his attorney.  Mr Peyaga who is now the Armscor Company Secretary wishes to sit in, do you have an objection to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Has he been subpoenaed.  We have a big problem with that.  Unfortunately the law is very clear, it's only witnesses who have been subpoenaed and members of the staff or the Commission who can and should be present at a section 29 enquiry.  It's not a public hearing.

UNKNOWN: Mr Peyaga is however here as the lawyer to the next witness who is Mr Steyl from Armscor.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Terreblanche, I don't understand.  Is the person who you are talking about a lawyer?  Are you a lawyer?
...(inaudible) 
No it's not, it's a Commission, but you are not representing any of the people who are going to be testifying.

MR PEYAGA: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Does he have any objections to you being here, because if he had, then,

MR PEYAGA: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you adopting Mr Peyaga as part of your legal team.

MR PEYAGA: No, I'm not as part of Dr Steyl's legal team, but obviously because of the position that I have in Armscor and the fact that I have consulted with Dr Steyl, I am his lawyer, I feel that there would not be much of a detriment either to this case or the Commission's secrecy provisions if I am here.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just constrained about the legal provisions, they seem to be parametery.  I will err on the side of relaxing what I consider to be an irregularity, and I will not take it further on that.
 This is a section 29 enquiry, it is an enquiry that is intended to be an investigation into the issues in relation to which who have been called or subpoenaed or invited to give evidence must provide us with information.  So it is an investigation and an information gathering exercise.  The law, section 29 and particularly sub-section 5 of act 34 of 1995 provides that all information gathered at such an enquiry remains confidential until it has been released by the Commission, subject to the requirements of the act.  So none of the information gathered at this part of the proceedings will be made available to the public because of the provisions of section 29.  It is for that reason that only members of the Commission's staff and Commissioners are present and need to be present at this enquiry, and it is also our placing that only witnesses who have been subpoenaed and/or their legal representatives are permitted to be present.  I must state for the record that I am not satisfied that sufficient reason has been given for the presence of the other legal representative who is going to be representing a client who has not yet been called, but I hear his submission that he has consulted Dr Steyn, I also take not that Dr Steyn and his legal representative do not have any objection to him being here.  I do not know if it is a matter in relation to it.  I have a discretion, but having said that, I will play it by the ear for the moment.  Let me just emphasise again that every person who is in these proceedings is sworn to confidentiality and it is for that reason the law is strict about who should be present.
 The members of this panel, starting with myself, Ntsebeza, a Commissioner in the Human Rights Violation Committee.  To my right is Mr Wilson Magadhla, Head of Special Investigations.  And to the right is Ms Chrystelle Terreblanche, who has investigated all issues that are sought to be explored in this matter.  And with me is Ms Debra Patta who has been contacted to the Commission and is going to assist Ms Terreblanche in putting questions relevant to issues that are going to be dealt with in this enquiry.  There is also Ms Glenda Wildschut who is a Commissioner in the Reparations and Rehabilitations Committee, she's not here today, but we're hoping to be joined by her in the afternoon.
 Before Dr Steyn gives evidence, I will have to swear him in.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just indicate that if it is in Afrikaans that you feel you can best express yourself, there is provision for simultaneous translation and if it is your wish that you should either respond in Afrikaans then you can make use of these listening devices.  I don't know - we have translators there and I don't know in what channel Afrikaans is - channel 1.  So if you are more comfortable with Afrikaans than otherwise, please feel free at any stage to deal with it.
 I do not know how you propose to deal with the issues, Ms Terreblanche, I don't know whether there's a proposed statement that should be read into the record or whether the witness will respond to questions, otherwise the ball is in your court.

UNKNOWN: (Duly sworn in, states)

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chair.  I have invited Mr Steyn here to clear up a number of issues, the invitation read that he should answer questions pertaining to the relationship between Armscor and the Altech during the latter half of the 1980's and to provide details and answer questions about Altec's trade with foreign countries during the latter half of the 1980's.  I do not know whether you have prepared anything in writing or whether you wish to just answer questions.

UNKNOWN: Chair, I have not prepared anything in writing.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  Can you just as a matter of introduction please tell us how you came to be the Managing Director of Altech, where your career started, what your expertise is in?

UNKNOWN: Chair, I am a Physicist by training and I have been working with Armscor for about 18 years, until, I guess, about 1990.  At the end of that period I was asked to join Altech and I was not the Managing Director of Altech, I was asked to join as a Group Executive Director of a number of companies in Altech, and I did.  After Altec I then also went on and joined Telkom, our telecommunications operator where I have been until last year.  I am now no longer in the service of Telkom either.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not on the record.

UNKNOWN: The first question that we would like you to clear up, is the relationship that existed all along between Armscor and Altech?

UNKNOWN: Chair, as far as I know, this relationship between Altech and Armscor was a normal procurement business relationship, I have to say as far as I know, because I was not directly involved in the procurement line, I was at the time in charge of research and development.  So to the best of my knowledge it was just a normal relationship between our procurement divisions and a private sector company.