Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-14

MR DE VOS: Yes.  May I refer you - it's in the documentation.  If you look at - let's take the document first dated the 28th of January.  Now - just a second, I just want to see - paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of that document refers to further Marion training.  Paragraph 8, bases for Marion, and you will see there Khumalo sketches his problems in regard to discipline and so forth.  Paragraph 9, liaison.  He refers to a person that should be put in - placed in a permanent capacity to liaise with them.  And then, if you look at paragraph 12 - no, sorry, 13, 14 and 15, under "Propositions," the same three things are discussed, what should be done about it.  And then if you look at paragraph 16 you will find a reference to what they say "Operasionele verantwoordelikheid" and they refer to (a) and (b), that refers to comops, and (c) refers to covert operations  "(Onhoorbaar)...volgens behoefte."
Now, that is where the liaison comes in, and that's where
 /the situation
the situation should be discussed.  I deal with it in my heads, in the submission.  Sorry, if you will bear with me for a second.  (Pause)  Ja, paragraph 26.4.1 of our submission we set it out.
There wasn't proper liaison between what happened in KwaZulu, what happened in Pretoria, what happened down in Durban from the Natal Command's point of view, and this had to be addressed.  And that is actually what was discussed, and that corresponds with the document, Exhibit E2, page 64 and 66.  You see, that gives you that picture of that period in the history of Operation Marion.
Then we refer to the Minister's meeting.  None of our clients were actually there.  And you will also see from the record of that meeting that none of what was said there, what was done there, was in fact reported to any of our clients, so I am not going to deal with that.
Then the next document that we have to deal with is a document dated the 31st of August 1988, and that's a telex that's been sent by the Minister's secretary to the Chief of the Defence Force, Geldenhuys, as information to HSAW2.  Now, that was Admiral Pitter.  Let me rather read, otherwise I am going to talk too long.  The telex dated the 31st of August '88 was sent by the military secretary, Malan's secretary, to HAW Cape, for information HSAW2, Pitter.  According to the evidence led in the KwaMakutha trial M Z Khumalo visited the Minister's office on the 30th of August 1988.  It was a very brief meeting, and the real content of his complaints was discussed with the military secretary, I must mention, in the absence of the Minister.  That was the evidence.  He complained about the lack of bases facilities, paragraph (a), personal
 /transport,
transport, paragraph (b), lack of assistance from the SADF's liaison officer, paragraph (c), and the last paragraph, 
"Experiencing serious problems with person having to be withdrawn from society for a time."
Now, in paragraph 4 of this telex or signal General Geldenhuys was requested to attend to these problems.  Now, if you look at the document you will see the following.  I am talking about the telex now.  Geldenhuys in turn referred the matter to the Chief of Staff Intelligence.  This is evident from a note at the top of the page that reads, 
"HSI to recheck and give back."
Geldenhuys confirmed in his evidence during the Msani trial that this was his handwriting.  Pitter, who received this note, in turn wrote a note to HDIO, van Tonder, that reads - please look at the bottom of that document.
"HSADF also wants a written input to discuss with the Minister before September '88."
Now, van Tonder in turn referred the matter to Colonel van den Berg, who made a note, M1, almost in the middle of the page, next to the address.  Okay, you've got that place.  Standing for memo 1 that reads - I quote in Afrikaans.
"Reply drafted.  HSI would discuss with HSADF on 4th October 1988."
Then there's a signature and a date next to it, 6.10 - 6th October.
Admiral Pitter denies that - now, the important
 /thing about
thing about this whole thing is who is the person referred to in this telex?  Was it Mr Luthuli, or was it not Mr Luthuli and was it somebody else?  Were any of my clients involved in a covering up at that stage, or weren't they?  That's the issue actually of this whole document.  We say if you look at Pitter's evidence, Pitter denies - sorry, I lose the signal.  Pitter denies that Luthuli was the person referred to in this telex.  He stated during the section 29 inquiry that it was only during the KwaMakutha trial that he became aware that Luthuli was taken to Ferntree base.  According to him the person referred to in this telex was in fact another Inkatha trainee.  This trainee was hospitalised, and was committing a security break by leaking information to the hospital staff.  Now, General Geldenhuys had no knowledge - or personal knowledge as to the identity of the person, but confirms Admiral Pitter's evidence that it was somebody who was a patient in a hospital.  Now, if one compares - and this is on record.  This is what was said last year.  Geldenhuys testified to this effect.  Record, page 4291 and 4292.
Now, if you compare M Z Khumalo's evidence also given in the Msani trial it's obvious he was also referring to somebody in hospital, and it's obvious according to his evidence also that it was not Luthuli that was referred to.  I am almost sure - and I didn't concentrate on Luthuli in this specific hearing simply because of the reason he does not take the matter very high up to our clients, but if you compare the time that when he was taken to Ferntree, you will find - I have got a feeling about it, that was round about January '88 or
 /'89.  That
'89.  That wasn't in August, so the person that's being referred to in this telex is not Luthuli.  That's my submission to you, but I didn't study all the documentation because we're not really involved with Luthuli at this stage.
Then can I go to the next document, the reply by Colonel van den Berg dated October 1988 ... (inaudible - end of Side A, Tape 3) ... does not form part of Exhibit E2, but in fact forms part of another document.  This was found, if I remember correctly, in the Chief of the Defence Force's files.  It wasn't part and parcel of the documents recovered from Cor van Niekerk, it was found in the Defence Force, the Chief of the Defence Force's files.  May I just see where I have got to?  (Pause)  Thank you.  Now, this document we say is a reply prepared by van den Berg in answer to that telex dated the 30th of August.
Now, General Geldenhuys explained in the court a quo that Admiral Pitter was apologetic about the contents of paragraphs 6 and 7 of this document.  He testified as follows, and I quote from the court record now of the Msani trial.
"He told that shortly before he came to see me he took note of paragraphs 6 and 7 and noticed that these were answers to questions which had not been put in the signal.  He said he didn't have the time to talk with his staff, and further explained that in reference to paragraph 6 people who were not members of the Defence Force could not apply for
 /indemnity
"indemnity under section 103 of the Act.  Further he said that this aspect in paragraph 7 would not end in application for indemnity, and that there had not been an incident for which indemnity needed to be applied.  I agreed with him."
And this is important.  Both Groenewald and van Tonder say - sorry, this is important before I go on with his evidence.  None of them were aware of the so-called KwaMakutha murders.  Now, we're in '88, almost at the end of '88 already, and if you receive a document at that stage, you're unaware of any illegal activities, you think it's somebody who is going to create a security break, then you consider documents in another way than you would have done if you were aware of wrongful activities, and that's the point I want to make.  And that's why Groenewald then says, and I continue, 
"I was not aware of an incident such as KwaMakutha which was happening, or which might have happened, and I could not see how it could have happened.  HSI also told me that in any case one could not under section 103 apply for indemnity for something which could happen in the future.  We agreed about this, and he said that he would convey it to his staff and explain it to them."
Now, this was stated at page 4294 and 4295 of the Msani trial record, and I think this is virtually what Pitter also said before this Committee.
 /Now, Varney
Now, Varney tries to make a huge point out of the question of vryvaaring, etcetera, etcetera, but there's really nothing in it, because it does not relate to anything.  It's sort of - if van den Berg had inside information, or had more knowledge at that stage, it wasn't conveyed to the upper echelon, and the upper echelon didn't do anything about it in any case.  Now, General Geldenhuys thereafter discussed the aspects raised in the telex with Minister Malan, in other words only the four issues, bases, etcetera.  
Then I move on, and you heard a lot of debate on this meeting of the 8th of November '88 at the Liberty Life Building between Generals van der Merwe and Smit, where one of our clients, Admiral Pitter, was also present.  Admiral Pitter testified before this Commission that this meeting took place in order to inform the said police generals about Project Marion.  Both of them were recently appointed to their posts.  Admiral Pitter does not have a very good recollection of what transpired at these meetings.  We wish to point out to the Commission that Luthuli's name - well, this is just for interest's sake.  We wish to point out that Luthuli's name does not appear in this document.  In other words if this was the purpose to cover up, or whatever the case may be, then one might have expected Luthuli's name to appear there, but it does not.
The Defence Force attitude was that there was information potential amongst the Inkatha trainees which could be utilised in a positive manner.  General van Tonder, HIO, gave a broad picture of Project Marion, and thereafter Brigadier Cor van Niekerk mentioned certain
 /problems
problems that could cause security breaks.  He mentioned that certain members acted unlawfully, outside the scope of Project Marion, and that could jeopardise the security of the whole project.  General Smit thereupon said that the Detective Branch cannot be influenced in any way, and that they must do their work in accordance with the law.  General van der Merwe then added that in some cases bail can be arranged according to the merits of the case, and he further stated that if bail was granted the offender had to be removed from the area in which the offences were committed.  The only point I am trying to make is this.  There is nothing untoward in what was said there.  To say that a person had to be removed from the area does not mean that he didn't have to attend his trial.