Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-06

MR DE VOS: Mr Varney, I'm putting it to you that you do not know your facts very well.  Can you remember the evidence of General Groenewald, that he made a submission to Buthelezi round about December 1985 on behalf of the branch of the Department of Constitutional Development?  They informed the various homelands regarding propaganda and the reporting back, whether it was done on behalf of Minister Heunis' Department of Constitutional Development and he was the man who raised this matter in the State Security Council.

WITNESS:   I'm not disputing that Heunis was the man who raised the matter, but are you suggesting to me that Malan played no role in that meeting?

MR LYSTER: Look, I must interject here.  Let's just stop this issue of Malan.  We've already said it's speculation.  You've made your point.  Both of you have.  I think let's move on.

YASMINE SOOKA: Howard, I think that it would - that perhaps if you could answer the question and not answer with another question it would be helpful.

WITNESS:   I take the point, but it was a question just by way of clarification.

YASMINE SOOKA: /

YASMINE SOOKA: MR DE VOS

YASMINE SOOKA: 4B

MR DE VOS: Then I want to put it to you on the 20th December 1985 the only subject which was raised before the State Security Council was the establishment of a security force for Buthelezi.  I'm reading it to you,

MR DE VOS: "(1) Minister Heunis, Minister le Grange and Minister Malan should give assistance to Minister Buthelezi so that a security force could be established in KwaZulu/Natal."

MR DE VOS: Do you agree with this?  That is contained in the document as it stands.

WITNESS:   [Break in recording] ... done on the minutes.  Sorry, are you suggesting that because it says ... (intervention)

MR DE VOS: Se maar net, "Ja".

WITNESS:   Ja.

MR DE VOS: Die tweede vraag is - the second point is Buthelezi should get additional personnel measurements (?) especially ... [break in recording].   Would you agree that that's what it says there?

WITNESS:   (No audible reply)

MR LYSTER: He's never going to dispute that.  I mean, let's just get on.  Get to the point, please.

MR DE VOS: I want you to have a look at this document.  All that the State Security Council decided that a security force should be established in KwaZulu/Natal and additional ... [break in recording] ... protection should be provided to Minister Buthelezi.  Is that correct?

WITNESS:  Can you just repeat that, please?

MR DE VOS: All that the State Security Council said is that three Ministers should provide assistance to Buthelezi to establish a security force and additional security measures should be provided for Buthelezi.  Is that what is written there?

WITNESS:   Of course it is, Mr de Vos, but

MR DE VOS: /that's taking

MR DE VOS: 4B that's taking a - I can see where you're going and I don't want to preempt where you're going, but it's a very simplistic way to deal with it, because it's suggesting that that particular meeting dealing with - or that particular period dealing with this resolution here lasted perhaps two minutes, because that's all they said.  Obviously a lot - much more was said, but we don't have the particular minutes of that.  So what you need to do is you need to look at the supporting documents.  You need to see this meeting in conjunction with the 3rd February 1986 meeting and you need to see that meeting in conjunction with the State Security Council's sub-committee report of 15th January 1986.  You need to see it also in conjunction with the Groenewald document drawn up on the 16th January 1986.  You can't simply look at it and say, "Well, they're only authorising the setting up of a security force, therefore it's fine".

MR DE VOS: Let us look at the 3rd February Security Council minutes and we will look and see whether we can actually dispose of this point.  Page 4 of it.  It says there,

MR DE VOS: "Minister Heunis reports to the meeting about measures taken in this regard.  The meeting approves of these measures and approves of the fact that Mr Heunis must continue with these measures."

MR DE VOS: Do you see that and do you agree with it?

WITNESS:   We can all read.  I think just cut to the chase.  Don't ask me whether I can read the documents.  Just cut to the chase.  What is it that you want to put to me?

MR DE VOS: What I'm going to put to you is the following.  Where in this document do you see the words, "Offensive

MR DE VOS: /para-military

MR DE VOS: 4B para-military capacity"?

WITNESS:   I just mentioned seconds ago that you cannot adopt, when you're looking at documents, a simplistic view that because you don't see the words, "Offensive para-military unit" in it, it's not there.  That would simply be - I'm going to be blunt - crazy.  If you look at the totality ... (intervention)

MR DE VOS: Mr Varney, may I interrupt you?  I don't want to interrupt you, but would you agree that the word, "Offensive" or, "Offensive capacity" does not appear anywhere in Annexure A?  Do you agree, yes or no?

WITNESS:   Mr de Vos, I have already conceded what has been read.  What I'm trying to put to you - rather, I'm not putting anything to you, but what my answer is, is that you have to look at all these meetings together and, starting in November 1985, when it recorded that Buthelezi in a military document wants an offensive capacity, that then goes to the State Security Council.  I accept that the 20th December meeting called for the setting up of a security force, but that doesn't absolve them from - there is nothing here to suggest that it wasn't discussed.  Of course, I can't say whether it was discussed or not, but what I can do is I can then point to the sub-committee report and I think you need to take out that sub-committee report and I'll point it to you, because this is the report ... (intervention)

MR DE VOS: I'm not referring to the sub-committee, I'm talking about the chief committee.  Please answer my question.  You are giving long, protracted answers.  My question is a very simple - is it in Annexure A, yes or no?

YASMINE SOOKA: I think you should put your question and then Mr Varney should say, "Yes" or, "No" and then make your
 /point and then
4B point and then let's move on.

MR LAX: Sorry, the question is put, yes or no, Mr Varney.  You've given your explanation in the previous answer.  We've taken note of it.  Does Annexure A refer to, "Offensive" in any way at all?

WITNESS:   I've already conceded some time back that it doesn't.  I'm not disputing what he's reading to me ... (intervention)

MR LAX: Let's leave it at that.

WITNESS:   But I'm trying to put it in context.

MR LAX: Let's leave it at that.  We've heard the context.  We've read your submissions and we've heard your evidence.  We've heard the context.  It's really not necessary for us to hear it over and over again.  Thanks.

WITNESS:   Mr Commissioner, can I ask whether I am expected to ignore ... [end of tape] ...[break in recording] ... simply because the word doesn't appear in one document.  Obviously I can't and I need to put that on record and I let it rest there.

YASMINE SOOKA: But I think, as Mr Lax has said, that you have laid the context before us.  We have noted the explanation that you've given and I think it would help matters if you just move on, on a yes or no or very brief explanation.

MR DE VOS: Can you please answer the question, Mr Varney?

WITNESS:   Mr de Vos, do you want your yes or no.  Well, no, it doesn't appear there.

MR DE VOS: Then, Mr Varney, in the sub-committee's meeting no decision was taken about para-military forces.  Do you agree?  There were suggestions but at the chief committee where Dr Barnard attended the whole issue of para-military and offensive, etcetera, it wasn't decided on.  The whole issue was referred to the highest political authority.  Is

MR DE VOS: /that correct?

MR DE VOS: 5A that correct?