Special Hearings — Health Sector Hearings — 1997-06-17

ADV POTGIETER: Yes but now - I am sorry.  Are you finished?  But now you see what you are really telling us is that we should conclude, as a Commission, that what happened was that these two decisions, the one not to act at all against these practitioners and the other one which eventually resulted in the most severe form of censure that can be imposed on a practitioner, now those two decisions is entirely attributable to an honest sort of process applied by two different bodies?
 Bearing in mind that the suggestion that was made earlier that for example insofar as MASA was concerned, the Union was concerned, there was a suggestion of undue influence on the part of the Department of Health, taking into account the patent irregularity that occurred in this particular instance, can we really reasonably conclude as a Commission that this was just an honest exercise of the minds of two different structures, honestly each coming to their own, although very opposing positions on the story?  And that's my difficulty.

LEN BECKER: I wasn't involved in the Biko affair from beginning to end, but I must just say that my experience of Council and particularly at the time when I was involved, that the Council's attitude was one of objectivity.  I think I can say without fear of contradiction that there was no effort at cover-up by the Council of this matter. Everything that was done was reported on openly at Council meetings and it was reported in the Press as you know.  Certainly no attempt was made to influence me during the second half of this episode, or any other member of Council which I know about.  I cannot say that Government representatives on the Council did not express an opinion whilst this was being debated, but pressure on Council I must deny.  I am not aware of that and I don't think it existed.

ADV POTGIETER: There has never been a suggestion of the Department of Health influencing unduly the process on the part of the Council?

LEN BECKER: I have never even heard that mentioned by anybody.

ADV POTGIETER: You see to me it's perplexing to try and work out how, given the facts of this particular matter, and there's real consensus here that what happened was irregular, there's no question about that.  And there were very clear views expressed about the way in which the Council dealt with this particular matter, very critical views towards the Council and I can understand that.  I mean taking into account the facts of the matter.
 And for one body, one Committee in the same body to come to a conclusion that there should be no steps at all, not even an inquiry, and the other one finding that there should be an inquiry and the inquiry resulting in what we know happened eventually.  That's very hard to understand, for an outsider.  That's why I am putting it to you. I know that you now represent the Interim Council, the new structure, but that we should put that difficulty to you because we are going to have to grapple with that ourselves.

LEN BECKER: I understand your problem and I can just repeat what I said earlier, and that is that the Committee of Preliminary Inquiry had certain evidence at its disposal, they took a decision which eventually turned out to have been incorrect.  There is no question about that.  They took that decision on the evidence that they were presented with.   Subsequently when an inquiry was held by the Council that Council then had further evidence, verbal evidence given at the time of the Inquiry, they had the opportunity of cross-examining and listening to the evidence of Drs Lang and Tucker. So there is other evidence which was submitted subsequently to the Council.  And as I have said if the Committee Preliminary Inquiry in the first instance had ordered an inquiry that evidence would most probably have come out at the time.  But that is where our inquiry went wrong.
 But I can repeat that I am not aware of any pressure being brought at the Council and that that influenced the decision.

ADV POTGIETER: I thank you for your assistance Doctor.  Thank you Chairperson.

WENDY ORR: I think as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission looking back over the 34 years under review we have to be careful not to blame the Council for everything that went wrong.  I do believe, however, that the Council had certain very specific responsibilities and duties towards the patients and the population of South Africa which perhaps it did not always observe, and I do hope that through this process of examining our past we can ensure that whatever grows out of the Interim Medical and Dental Council will be a far more pro-active and active body than the South African Medical and Dental Council of the past.
 I want to thank you gentlemen for coming here today and for making the presentation.  I trust that you will continue to be part of the process as we look at the transformation and the responsibilities of statutory and professional bodies who, after all, are the bodies we look to, to maintain the professional reputation and conduct of professions like the medical profession.  Thank you.

LEN BECKER: Thank you.

NICO PRINSLOO: Thank you.
SUBMISSION BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL SERVICES

WENDY ORR: Our final presentation for this afternoon will be from the South African Medical Services and I ask Lt General Knobel and his team to please come to the table and Advocate Denzil Potgieter will be facilitating their evidence.  Dr Ramashala reminds me that she and Adv Potgieter will be facilitating the evidence.

GEN M KNOBEL: Madam Chair ...(intervention)

WENDY ORR: Oh I'd like to hand over to my two co-Commissioners who will swear you in and facilitate your evidence.

GEN M KNOBEL: I was just going to announce that all three of us will be contributing to this presentation.  I will do the main presentation but when there are questions afterwards all three of us will participate.  I was just going to suggest that all three of us could take the oath.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you General and good afternoon.  Brigadier can I perhaps ask you to just get back to the microphone before you take up your position, and could I ask you gentlemen please to rise for the oath and perhaps start on the left with - perhaps General you can give me your full names and then go down the line before I administer the oath.

GEN D T MASUKO: (sworn states)

GEN M KNOBEL: (sworn states)

BRIGADIER J L J VAN RENSBURG: (sworn states)

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you very much.  You may be seated.
Dr Ramashala.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: General is it my understanding that you are going to give a summary of your submission?

GEN M KNOBEL: Madam Chair no, it will certainly cover some of the aspects in our written submission, but it will also have some added information.

MAPULE RAMASHALA: Okay.  Would you proceed then.