Special Hearings — Armed Forces Hearings — 1997-10-09

MR GOOSEN: Would you agree that in consequence of the use of that veiled language if you like or ambiguous language, that when those instructions and orders and general policies were in fact presented to lower order officers within the security forces as a whole, particularly the security police since you were in the security police or in the police, that in consequence of that they were interpreted to mean that people should be killed and that death did arise in consequence of that?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Sir I am completely unaware of a particular occasion where that was the defence at that stage, or that was, not the defence, but that was the reason why something was done.  I was completely unaware that it could be construed in that way at that stage.  With hindsight yes, I say it could have been misconstrued.  If someone now comes and says I construed this particular word in the circumstances in which I were, in the situation in which I were, and I construed it then to mean that, I can't gainsay that.  I can't say no but that is untruthful.  I can only say how I understood it and what the procedure was. And let me say Sir, that whilst I was with the Security Police I don't remember or recollect on one occasion where these State Security Council documents came or either the complete documents or portions of it, came through me intended for the lower ranks.
 So what I am trying to avoid Mr Chairperson is to create the impression that this misconstruction, this possible misconstruction of a word was the sole, one of the main reasons why certain acts were committed.  If a man says so, if he understood it so, he must say it, where he saw it, under what circumstances he saw and in what committee he saw it and what the discussion entailed there and why he thought this meant that.  That I cannot comment on, with great respect Mr Chairperson.

MR GOOSEN: General do you have any explanation as to why words like "uithaal", "uitrooi", (remove), "uittewis" (eradicate), "verwyder", "elimineer", (eliminate), "neutraliseer", (wipe out), why would those words be used, can you explain that?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Sir, I did not formulate, I've said it Mr Goosen, I did not formulate the minutes of the State Security Council, it was not part of my duty.  So I cannot comment on it whether from the discussions that took place there in a committee meeting the person that's in charge of the minutes preferred certain words or whether he used, wanted to use certain words, or how he understood it, with great respect Mr Chairperson I think he should be approached, or she should be approached and asked what he understood and why he used those particular words.
 To my mind, I've already said, where once this occurred in one of the documents which you have sent me, when you construe it in its context it's quite obvious that there's no inference can be made from that particular word that someone should be assassinated.  Rather that it's a "gryp operasie" and the other it's a - well it's here I can read it out, four items enumerated under "eliminated" and not one of them refers to assassination.

MR GOOSEN: I've also just been passed a dictionary.  I want to read to you, I don't want to get into a semantic debate with you but you've chosen a particular interpretation of the word "eliminate and elimineer", let me read another one to you.  This is from Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, it's the English version.

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Is it in Afrikaans Sir?

MR GOOSEN: It's an English one.

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: No then I must object immediately Sir, the word "eliminate" in English will not have semantically absolutely the same meaning in Afrikaans.

MR GOOSEN: Let me read it to you nonetheless.
"Eliminate - remove; eliminate mistakes from one's writing;  the police have eliminated two suspects from their enquiry; eliminate waste matter from the body; kill ruthlessly - the dictator had eliminated all his political opponents; exclude from further stages in a competition -  he was eliminated from the contest in the fourth round, and so on".
Would you agree that the word eliminate can be interpreted to mean "kill"?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Yes it can.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: I don't disagree with that Mr Chairperson.

MR GOOSEN: Do you agree with the context, the general context of the nature of the revolutionary onslaught presented by General van der Merwe in his testimony this morning ...(intervention)

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Yes.

MR GOOSEN: You agree with that?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Yes.

MR GOOSEN: And do you agree that very senior members of the security forces, members of the Cabinet, members of the Government on numerous platforms exhorted members of the security forces to use the harshest possible action in order to counter the revolutionary onslaught against the country?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: Again Mr Chairperson this is a hypothetical question.  I will agree that I have heard politicians in Parliament, out of Parliament, I've heard academics in universities, at universities, at symposiums, stating that a revolutionary onslaught must be combated with extraordinary means, that the State should harness all its capabilities to combat it.  What I am objecting to Sir, is you say "harsh", harsh, you emphasise that word.  What I am saying Sir, and the case of my own Minister at that stage who was Minister Louis le Grange he stated it quite categorically firm, firm action.  So there could be no, as far as the senior levels are concerned no meaning placed on that, that it means that someone should be assassinated.

MR GOOSEN: So I take it General that you are saying that it was accepted in government, it was accepted in security forces and you accepted that it was possible to combat the revolutionary onslaught against the country, and you were Commissioner of Police from 1983 through to 1987, is that correct?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: That is correct.

MR GOOSEN: Yes.  So from 1983 through to 1987 that it was possible to combat the revolutionary onslaught against the country by resorting only to the use of legal means to do so?  I am not talking now about cross-border raids, let's leave that aside for the moment, by resorting inside the country only to the use of the legal framework, is that what you are saying?

PETRUS JOHANNES COETZEE: I have given that evidence under oath Sir to the Cillier Commission of inquiry, so that is my attitude that extraordinary legislation was required, it was termed draconian, that is the evidence that I gave then.
 But I also said Sir, that the State with its capabilities beyond the police, which is surely a big capability, that all those capabilities should be utilised.  So we mustn't narrow it down that I am of the opinion, I was of the opinion that only absolutely legal means as described in the common law of the country was necessary.  Obviously there were different facets, I've said that already.  
 The Terrorism Act was not meant Sir to combat a mass uprising.  It was meant to get hold of the returned terrorists in the country, the returned cadres in the country, that was what that was meant for.  
 The emergency regulations were meant again to combat mass action and so on and so on.  
 So the legal means must not be looked upon as solely formulated to combat a particular situation.  It is the legal means in the country is also formulated and structured, and you do it every day Sir, you reimpose, you amend laws, you amend statutes, you go on and on and on with the legal means, and I said all, encompassing all the legal means, I, at that stage when I gave evidence, when I was in charge of Security, I said that I think that is sufficient to combat the threat as it then was.