Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-12

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally, what is the order of things today?

MR VALLY: Mr Chairman we are firstly waiting for the ruling of the panel on the application made by Mr Cilliers regarding the evidence which we wish to lead from Dr Basson and Dr Mijburgh.

CHAIRPERSON: I see neither Mr Cilliers nor Dr Basson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman unfortunately we are not sure where Dr Basson is.  Perhaps he has a problem with the traffic.  Mr Currin says that he is outside.
 Regarding Mr Cilliers, he referred to yesterday to the judgment of Botha and Mr Chaskalson informed us this morning that you understand you haven't had a look at that and he's making arrangements that you can look at it as soon as possible and that you can study it should you find it necessary.  He is outside, he'll be here any minute.

CHAIRPERSON: I'd asked my brother Adv Potgieter to deal with that aspect.  I don't know whether -  We have discussed on the question of what turns on the Botha judgment and to the extent that it addresses prejudice.  We do not know whether it is going to take the case any further.
 Is it possible to get Mr Cilliers inside.  We are going to deal with the matter in relation to which ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: I will try to find him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cilliers the panel has been debating, as it should have last night already, and we just want to find out from you whether the Botha case that was being referred to by you insofar as it addresses the question of prejudice.

MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman Mr Chaskalson told me just before nine o'clock that Mr Potgieter wanted to have a look at the Botha judgment and he could not find it last night.  I agree that it is a very necessary judgment.  It really addresses all the points we have posed.
 I have made arrangements, this is a case of about 30 pages, and it will take a few minutes to fax that.  My secretary in Pretoria is photocopying it and will fax it then to a number Mr Chaskalson has supplied me with in your offices.  I think it will be here in about 15 minutes time.  It could perhaps take a little bit longer because the case is about 30 pages long and the fax will take about 20 minutes.  Within the next half an hour the full judgment will be available and be made available to Mr Potgieter.

CHAIRPERSON: What I want to find out is, I think in argument you were asked to run us through the case, what it is about and all that, and our view was that it was being referred to insofar as it is relevant to the whole question of prejudice.  Can you confirm that that in a sense ...(intervention)

MR CILLIERS: That is correct.  It also addresses that problem.  As I have told you yesterday I did not have the opportunity to study it myself, but the few notes I obtained it also addresses the aspect of prejudice and it is my impression, based on these notes, that it is a very necessary case Mr Potgieter has to consult, and therefore we are in the process of making it available to him within the next few minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cilliers.  Mr Vally do you want to say anything relevant to what Mr Cilliers said?  Let me indicate the panel is rather reluctant to go ahead and we have tentative views which as you know may drastically be altered by the case that has been relied upon.  I take note of course of the fact that Mr Cilliers himself has not read the judgment, he relies on a judgment that he has not himself read, but he has taken notes and I don't want to penalise him for that.  Could we - we would find ourselves in a very invidious position were we to go ahead with a tentative view without having taken due regard to a matter and to a case that was referred to us.
 We are of the view that maybe let's take evidence until tea by which time obviously the judgment would have come, and we will take a look at the judgment during tea and we can then stand down that evidence which was being led, deal with the question and take it from there.  How is that for an arrangement?

MR VALLY: We don't have any objections to that suggestion save as to say that on receipt of the judgment, and I am pleased that the panel has noted that reliance is made on a judgment which Mr Cilliers has stated he hasn't read himself, save as to say that during tea time we can reconsider the situation in that if we can start with the witness we would rather finish that witness, and then judgment can be given thereafter.  But if we can reconsider the situation at tea time as the Chairperson has indicated.

CHAIRPERSON: The panel is just rather loathe, given time constraints, to have to wait for a judgment that is being faxed from I don't know where, when we have work to do.

MR VALLY: We are ready to go with the witness which I believe is not refusing to give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we have the witness who is co-operative to come and give evidence.

MR VALLY: Our next witness is Dr Knobel.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  General welcome generally and I have been noticing your presence for quite some time, but let me formally welcome you.  Mr du Plessis I take it you are on record as representing General Knobel?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you Chairperson.  Morning General.

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: (s.u.o.)

MR VALLY: General Knobel would you prefer to being referred to as General Knobel or Dr Knobel?

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: Mr Vally I have no objection to any way you refer to me.

MR VALLY: Thank you.  General Knobel can you briefly tell us ...(intervention)

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: I beg your pardon Mr Vally I would like to request that I want to make a statement before I start answering questions, if the Committee will allow that.

MR VALLY: Certainly General Knobel we have no problems with that.  There is one request that I want to put before the panel.  The representatives of the Minister of Foreign Affairs have indicated to us that there may be issues raised by General Knobel, General Knobel I believe has got details of certain projects which possibly encompasses a number of projects.  We don't know because we don't have sight of that document and the only request is that should General Knobel wish to quote from that particular report that he would indicate to the gentlemen, to the legal representative of Foreign Affairs which sections he's going to report from and they will advise the panel if there is no agreement with General Knobel, otherwise in consultation with General Knobel agree as to how you present those quotes so as to avoid the danger of proliferation.  I don't know if General Knobel's legal representative has an approach in that regard and if he's agreeable to the suggestion.

MR DU PLESSIS: We have no problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand Mr Vally that we, including yourselves, the panel, are going to be listening to evidence which we cannot follow as it is being read into the record?

MR VALLY: Well there's two legs to this.  One is I am not sure if General Knobel has a written statement.  If he has then I would request a copy of it in terms of the procedures for the hearing which were sent to General Knobel with our Section 29 notice.
 The second aspect is there is a big document referring to a certain project and that's a document which we don't have, the panel doesn't have, which may lead to proliferation, and that's the document I am referring to which is relevant for the purposes of my earlier explanation.
 If General Knobel can make available his statement and we can make copies for the panel that would be appreciated.

DANIEL PETER KNOBEL: Mr Chairman that certainly is possible, we can do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and given the nature of these hearings one wouldn't like to feel like walking into a mine field blindfolded.  How long is it going to take?  This hearing doesn't seem to want to start today.  How long is it going to take to get copies made?

MR VALLY: As long as the ...(intervention)