Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — 1997-12-04

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: Mr Chairman if I understand this question correctly, the recent history of this country which goes over ages, it's not free from conflict not even till today, even after establishment of our democracy for which we are all very thankful,  there's still conflict, people are still being killed.  Against the background of this history people from both sides of the political perspective had the wrong view, and this had an effect - did not only have an effect on people in the security forces but on all people.  A practical example : a few weeks ago in the Cape a person who was functioning on a third political level taking responsibility there, he was caught by people applying law and order and he said "after Mandela disappears we will kill the white people like flies."  That was reported in the press.  This is an example from both sides that there are deeper inner feelings in people's hearts.   What I'm trying to say here is that people in the security forces certainly had certain subjective meanings or subjective understandings when they took certain actions.  I'm not trying to create an impression of security forces being little angels.  The conflict of the past were not waged by angels people on both sides did wrong deeds.  People from the liberation movement also did that in a very cruel manner.  My point of view was that the SSC, of which I have knowledge, not of the Cabinet, the SSC and its structures did not ever authorise any illegal actions, that was my standpoint.  My standpoint was that the SSC and it supportive structures never supported illegal actions like the elimination of people.

MR MCADAM: The problem for the Commission is that especially during 1985 to '89, and this is without referring to any amnesty applications, it was determined that many political activists had been murdered, many senior members of the security forces had applied for amnesty for the elimination of those people.  It's not junior officers and those operations did not involve people acting on their own.  Various peoples from various departments were involved and in-depth planning was done.  Its very necessary to accept that those people did get official authorisation for those activities,  because it could not be established that they did that for any personal gain.
    Mr Chairman before I make the following statement I would like to elicit the meaning of Advocate Treurnicht and the Lawyer Kallie Albertyn -  but if you do not have facts in these documents and these allegations which are not based on facts and that is you can infer that the TRC is biased and they have certain pre-conceived ideas which they are trying to confirm. I can't react to your question in any other way.  
 I've already stated my specific point of view and I can't repeat this point of view time and again.  I just want to maintain what I have said.  If you in the Commission has a dilemma in this regard I've already given you my meaning I can't give you another meaning.

MR MCADAM: Apart from the evidence supplied during previous hearings regarding the SSC and the security forces....(intervention)

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: If it refers to those documents  provided to us numbered A-L...(intervention)

MR MCADAM: No, it's transcipts ....(intervention)

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: I've been provided with documents of evidence given by Botha, Vlok, an deputy minister Meyer and various generals of the Defence Force and the police. And, in a lighter vein, I want to say somebody whose accountable in the public sector, there's a lot of documents to work through but I have done that.

MR MCADAM: : And Johan van der Merwe's documents have you read through that?

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: : Just give me a minute please.  I have it thank you.

MR MCADAM: : If we look at page 22 and that is in response to a question by Glen Goosen, I see the transcipt is all in English  so I can proceed in English.

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: I have no problems Sir.

MR MCADAM: In the middle Mr Goosen said
"I understand you correctly that there is no general authorisation or necessarily a general policy that certainly unlawful actions could be carried out, but that unlawful actions were carried out were authorised in particular instances and that senior members of either the State Security Council or senior members within either the police or the military or the......"
....(intervention)

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: : I am sorry Mr Chair I don't know where you are now.  Just refer to this page please.

MR MCADAM: I beg your pardon.  It's on page 22.

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: : Unfortunately our page 22 or my page 22 certainly does not say what you are reading now Sir.  I can show you.

MR MCADAM: : It seems that there is a mistake.  Page 21.  It appears to be 21.    Do you have the right page?  I just go back to what Mr Goosen said.
"If I understand you correctly, you would say there's not a general authorisation or necessarily a general policy that certain unlawful actions could be carried out, but that unlawful actions were carried out were authorised in particular instances and that senior members of either the State Security Council or senior members within either the police or the military or politicians in those instances would have been aware of that and that they agreed with that.   Is that I understand the thrust of your answer?
General van der Merwe: That is correct, this is also presented in my amnesty application'.
 He then goes onto the following page at the middle where General van der Merwe  then says.  
"Mr Chairman I have already testified before the Amnesty Committee and before the investigation team and I have confirmed that certain instructions were given with the approval of the Minister..."
and he is referring there to the Minister of Safety and Security.   
"I have no doubt at all that he would have informed the State Security Council, consequently if that is denied  that the previous Government in this case specifically in State Security Council did not have knowledge of certain unlawful actions that is not true".
Can you comment on this statement by the General?

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: On page 22 which had just concluded I want to do from the back to the front.   General van der Merwe says
"Mr Chairman, I have already testified before the Amnesty Committee and before the investigative team and I confirm that certain instructions were given with the approval of the Minister.  I do not doubt that at all that he would have informed the State Security Council".
 I find that a very strange remark by van der Merwe.  He was a member of the SSC according to the statutes, and I personally was present at most meetings of the SSC and I find it really strange that he, who was also present, that he could think that the SSC could have been informed.  That's the first point I want to put. I do not agree with van der Merwe's point of view at this stage and that it was authorised that it was inferred, as he infers.  
 Now back to page 21 .  He says that he can draw the inference that at some stage the SSC authorised it and then van der Merwe said -  "I do not agree".

MR MCADAM: It would also not surprise you that the Minister of Law and Order also applied for amnesty, for actions during these times.

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: The amnesty application of the Minister of Law and Order, I think you referring to Vlok, I haven't seen that I can't comment on that.

MR MCADAM: : If we can go on to the evidence of Craig Williamson.  He testified during the same hearin - just give a minute please I think it's in the same bundle of documents it's on my page 90 we start on page 90.

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: It starts with - "Now further to the academic aspects..."  is that were we are?

MR MCADAM: : I see we have wrong page numbers. My page begins - "No, no, Chairman - thank you General".   One of my members can just help you to get to the correct page.