Special Hearings — Armed Forces Hearings — 1997-10-08

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, for the record I am Van Zyl.  I represent Gleeson who also received a notice regarding the Act, and I just want to ask one or two questions from General Joubert regarding a certain instance and I want to put something on the record concerning the contents of his application.
 Regarding the questions I want to pose to General Joubert is earlier today I showed a statement which you made during 1996, the middle of 1996, there is no date but you've signed it and you read the contents of that during lunch time, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have those documents that were secretly, not secretly, but were traded between the two of you during lunch time?

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, this statement I obtained this morning from one of my colleagues.  No, as far as I know you don't have a copy of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Aren't you in a very invidious position, where we should listen to you talking between yourselves, with us as a panel in which you are examining the pros and cons of a statement which is not before us?

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, the purpose of my examination is not ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I know what the purpose of the question is, but we are sitting here to be fully appreciative, whether the questions you will be putting to this person, are proper, are fair, and it is totally, totally disempowering for us as a panel to sit here whilst you are asking each other about a document which we do not have before us.  Is it a fair request for you?

MR VAN ZYL: According to my submission yes, and the reason is the following.  I am not going to pay attention to the contents of the document, I just wanted to know whether he says that the contents are true.

CHAIRPERSON: Unfortunately I cannot sit here where you are discussing a document whether it is the contents or not, which we do not have.  Please facilitate to us the acquisition of a document which you are going to be using to ask a witness who is before us.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, may I just find out whether there is another copy available, then I can hand it over to you.  With your permission, I would like to provide you with a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: Everybody please make copies.  Can you ask other questions or was it the only question?

MR VAN ZYL: This is the only aspect I want to refer to.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Coetzee can ask questions whilst you gentlemen arrange to make copies.  You can arrange to have copies made.  Adv Coetzee?

MR COETZEE: As the Commission pleases.  In your statement you confirm that the minutes of the so-called document signed by Meerholtz is not a true reflection of the meeting which you attended, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR COETZEE: General Geldenhuys agrees that that document which was shown to you is not a true reflection of any meeting he attended, do you agree with that?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

MR COETZEE: First of all I want to tell you I am not going into any detail regarding the incidents and the names of the people involved, regarding the incidents for which you are applying for amnesty.  I am just going to address certain broader aspects and I am going to ask you questions specifically referring to your own application and your evidence of today.
 First of all, I want to refer to page 11 of your amnesty application regarding the approval.  Paragraph 4.2.16, this plan had to be presented to General Geldenhuys.  That was a very busy time for everybody.  Before a formal meeting could be arranged, I met him at a farewell function for the Chairman of Armscor and I mentioned this plan to him and he said that it sounded good.  I accepted this as an approval of the plan and I also accepted that he would convey this to the Commissioner of Police.
 This is the only basis on which you are saying that Geldenhuys gave any authorisation for further operations?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR COETZEE: I don't want to question you on your subjective beliefs at that stage, but you believed and that is also in your submission, that you believed in your own mind, that that was authorisation, but you accept  that perhaps it was not authorisation, and that Geldenhuys did not regard it as an authorisation.

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: It depends Mr Chairman, I can't accept that General Geldenhuys ...

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Coetzee, I think he said so when he testified.  I think he said if I recollect his evidence, that I've got the distinct impression that this an authority, but whether it was so or not, in fact is a different question.

MR COETZEE: So you can't say that that was authorisation from his side, it was only your own perception you testified about?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: General Geldenhuys could have decided the matter from one side and I could have viewed it from another side.

MR COETZEE: Many questions have been posed regarding internal operations in support of the Police and repeatedly you told the Committee that you could not act internally without supporting the Police.  The reason why you repeated this evidence today is because the situation internally was primarily the responsibility of the Police, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR COETZEE: You played a secondary role and that was supportive?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR COETZEE: I am not going into the detail of these incidents, but in all those incidents for which you are applying for amnesty, those were operations in support of the Police, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: It is correct.

MR COETZEE: And in every incident you pertinently asked whether the operation was authorised by the Police and confirmed according to you then, every time you established that we had to support the Police and from the side of the Police, you tried to determine whether the Police had authorised this?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR COETZEE: I am not going into the detail of the third incident, but after a specific incident it came under your attention that there was possibly Defence Force involvement in one of these incidents for which you are applying for amnesty, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: No, I don't think so.

MR COETZEE: I am not going to handle this incident in detail, but the incident you are referring to in 4.4 of your application, reference is made to two incidents.

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

MR COETZEE: After this incident, there were allegations and it became known that there was possibly the involvement of the Defence Force where these people were eliminated, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

MR COETZEE: After this incident, General Geldenhuys called the special meeting and on his own initiative he developed a procedure regarding authorisation to be obtained when Special Forces were to support the Police, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

MR COETZEE: And after this authorisation procedure, that was what it was all about during this meeting, this authorisation to
support the Police, after this authorisation procedure was laid down, no other operations took place, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

MR COETZEE: Eliminate can mean different things, and I don't want to start a debate on this.  Eliminate can also mean killing a person, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes, I have already testified to this extent.

MR COETZEE: I am putting it to you that General Geldenhuys never gave any authorisation that any person should be eliminated in the sense of to be killed.  Would you like to comment on that?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Regarding, is that from my evidence or not?

MR COETZEE: No.  If you don't want to comment on that, it is not necessary.

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: No, I don't want to.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get that reply General Joubert.  Are you saying you are not making a comment on that now, okay.  Thank you.