Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-09

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I know that Gert told me that him, Steven and himself were involved in the Mx, not the Mandrax project but working on small scale development of Mx.

MR VALLY: Right.  And do you know why it was being done?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I thought it was part of the normal CBW programme.

MR VALLY: What is your opinion on Mx as an incapacitant?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: It could possibly be a good incapacitant because hypnotic sedative as far as I know and could be used as a potential incapacitant.

MR VALLY: Did you at any stage instruct Steven Beukes to produce a quantity of Methaqualone?  Do you know why he would allege such a thing, if he did?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: No.

MR VALLY: Can you indicate to us whether CR gas was produced on a mass scale at Delta G?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: It was made in ton quantities.  I know that there was a yearly report or something of Delta G Scientific year and by that time about 2.8 tonnes or something was produced.  That is TRC 61.

MR VALLY: I just want to go back to TRC 62 and 63.

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR VALLY: Have you studied those documents?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I had a look at them yes.

MR VALLY: Can you confirm that it relates to production of what you call Mx?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: That's quite right.

MR VALLY: Both TRC 62 and 63?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Well, TRC 63 actually, there's some reference to the RMO's written in handwriting on page 143 of TRC 62, which they gave code names to some of the  starting materials and that is also referenced I believe in TRC 63, yes.

MR VALLY: So they do relate to the manufacturing of Mandrax with the code names in them?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes, I would say that they do.

MR VALLY: And TRC 62 says
"Date completed: February 1988"

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR VALLY: TRC 63, the date at the bottom of the page is
"31st of August 1988"

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR VALLY: Are there any quantities reflected in either of those documents?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Are there any?

MR VALLY: Quantities.

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I haven't had to go to such depths where this is concerned, I'm not sure Mr Vally.

MR VALLY: I'm looking at ...[intervention]

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes, they do, they give you load x of this and that of that and so on, so they do give it.  That is on page 2 of TRC 63 for example.

MR VALLY: And based on that would you be able to estimate how much was produced?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Well I have to go and sit and work out the molecular masses and so on.

MR VALLY: Right.

MR VALLY: But I mean they start off with a quarter ton of the one starting material and so one assumes that you could end up with at least that quantity or a bit more because you add weight in the process.

MR VALLY: Right.  I'm looking at TRC 63.

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes?

MR VALLY: And page 125.  I won't mention the chemicals but it talks about 250 kilograms of something, 400 litres of something else, 151 kilograms of something else, 400 litres of something else and it goes on.

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes.

MR VALLY: So if I was to say that close to a ton probably was produced, a metric ton, would you agree that it is possible?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I wouldn't say that these quantities would give rise to that.

MR VALLY: Yes.

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I doubt that very much.

MR VALLY: Well give me a guesstimate.

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I would say that if you had to take purity into account, this would probably be equivalent to about, starting with chemical number one, you would probably end up with at least 250 kilograms of the pure product at the end of the day.  Probably if you wanted to make a ton you would have to four fold increase this quantity.

MR VALLY: And at the top of page, TRC 63, just underneath what is in handwriting, it says
"Mosrefcat:  M-O-S-R-E-F-C-A-T"

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes?

MR VALLY: So can we assume that this was the code name used for Mandrax?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes, I've never had any - it's the first time I heard about this.  I wish to remind you that Doctor Klaus Psotta became Manager of the Analytical Department in February, end of February 1988 and this is dated about August '88, so if that project was done there I would not have known about it through the Analytical Department because they didn't report to me at that stage.

MR VALLY: I see.  Just to get clarity.  Are you aware if you had permission from the Medicines Control Council for the holding of for example Ecstasy?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Well, Ecstasy wasn't illegal at the stage that we made it, it was only classified as a scheduled drug on the 7th of May 1993.

MR VALLY: And the precursors?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Not as far as I know.

MR VALLY: What about Mandrax?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Mandrax has always been an illegal, a drug of abuse according to what I know about Law 140 ...[intervention]

MR VALLY: Did you people have any exemptions?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I beg your pardon?

MR VALLY: Regarding the production or the holding of Mandrax?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I don't know what the legal implications are there.  I don't know what the legal implications would be if a government unit or an army unit tells its people to make something, to what sort of extent people working on that project would be exempt from legal proceedings.

MR VALLY: Who would Doctor Gert Lourens have required clearance from to produce Mandrax?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Probably from the Managing Director of the Company who Doctor Mijburgh at that stage I believe.

MR VALLY: Are you aware of whether such consent was obtained?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: No.

MR VALLY: Are you aware of who - and I'm going back to Ecstasy, who placed the order for Ecstasy?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I'm aware now and I was told at the board meeting that the order for Ecstasy was placed by General Knobel and I was also then shown a document at the Office of Serious Economic Offences by Advocate Dawie Fouche, I saw this order of Knobel.
 But I want to point out that the name for Ecstasy that is mentioned in that document does not coincide with the name that is, the actual name of 3,4- methylenedioximethamphetamine which MDM Hydrochloride.  And in both that document and also in the quote that is supplied in the TRC documents here by Doctor Mijburgh, the name for Ecstasy, although they called it Baxil, was not quoted correctly.  
 It's not chemically correct, the name they give there, and neither does it coincide with the name that is given in Act 101 of 1965 of the ...[intervention]

MR VALLY: That's fine.  The document you're talking about where there is reference to the manufacture of Baxil and it's got this, as you put it, incorrect title DMA - what's it called?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Dimethril Phenathril ...[indistinct]

MR VALLY: That's the one.  Was that, as far as you are aware, Ecstasy?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: That was Ecstasy.  I was told it was Ecstasy and I was told so by, probably Doctor Mijburgh made a mistake in the name of this compound but I was told in no uncertain terms what Ecstasy was and what I had to make.

MR VALLY: Do you have a copy of TRC 77(a) in front of you?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Can you just hold on please?  77?

MR VALLY: (a), that's correct.

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Hold on Mr Vally, hold on please.  77, yes.

MR VALLY: Who is it addressed to?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: It's addressed to Doctor Basson.

MR VALLY: No, I'm sorry, I'm referring to 77(a).

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Oh.

MR VALLY: Small a.

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: This is addressed to Doctor Mijburgh coming from Doctor Knobel, Surgeon General.