Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

MR VAN ZYL: Would you say it's fair to say and I'm not talking about in terms of race, I'm talking about in terms of who was the allegations against whom. Let me rephrase this. Would you say that the State Security Council and the security forces of the day subjected allegations of abuse and crime by members of the liberation movements and terrorist organisations to the, were equally vigorous in their investigations of such abuses as with crimes allegedly committed by the security forces? Would you say that they committed them?

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman I must object to this. My client has made it clear he wasn't the Minister of law and order, it wasn't within his (...indistinct) and it is totally unreasonable to expect my client to answer this question.

MR VAN ZYL: I'm asking the question.

MR MARITZ: This question has to be asked to the Minister of law and order not if so repeatedly.

MR VAN ZYL: I'm asking the question to General Malan as a member of the State Security Council and a member of the Cabinet of the government of South Africa which takes collective responsibility. I'm not asking him the question in respect, in his capacity as Minister of Defence.

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: What's the question?

MR VAN ZYL: Would you say that the Cabinet of South Africa at a political level committed equal resources and investigated allegations of abuse by the security forces and allegations of abuse by members of the liberation movements with equal vigour?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: I wouldn't know. It's very difficult to say. I wasn't so intimately involved in it. So I'm sorry I can't reply to it.

MR VAN ZYL: How many times in Cabinet was concern raised about abuse carried out by security forces against members of the liberation movements?

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman once again this is a totally unfair question. The questioner possibly would have access to Cabinet minutes, he can take it up there. But to try and ask my client to remember off-hand what happened over a stretch of ten years in Cabinet is totally unreasonable.

MR VAN ZYL: Let me rephrase the question. Can Minister Malan ever remember ever a concern being raised in Cabinet by, about abuses by the security forces?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Yes.

MR VAN ZYL: Which instance is that?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: A letter arrived from people concerned and it was discussed.

MR VAN ZYL: Could you give us more information on that.

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: I'm afraid you'll have, I'm not sure whether it was at the State Security Council or where. I only know about that and it happened round about the nineties.

MR VAN ZYL: In the nineties? Prior to that you have no recollection of abuse by the security forces being discussed in Cabinet or the State Security Council?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: No this wasn't abuses by the security forces. It was unsolved murders.

MR VAN ZYL: Unsolved murders of anti-Apartheid activists or terrorists or just unsolved murders like criminal murders?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: I wouldn't know. I think what you should do is go to the, I think it was Mr de Klerk. Go and ask him.

MR VAN ZYL: But just for the record, you have no recollection of abuses by the security forces being discussed in Cabinet?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Not that I can recollect. There might have been but not that I can remember. But I must put it to you it could have occurred especially if I think in terms of operations where aspects went wrong, it could have been discussed. I do not think it would have been discussed at the State Security Council. That department doesn't discuss this. In the State Security Council a Minister would inform the, would be informed if there were certain atrocities. I do not know whether it was discussed there or whether it was ever discussed there, I cannot recall that. It does not mean however

MR VAN ZYL: (...indistinct) to the cross-border raid which occurred simultaneously in Gaberone, Harare and Lusaka. Were you aware of that raid before it occurred?

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman I have another difficulty here. I've read in the presentation by the old SADF

MR LYSTER: By who?

MR MARITZ: SADF, that's the Constant Viljoen thing. I read there that there has been and that's my impression, there has been a ruling that because of the total uncertainty relating to amnesty and the difficulty is, is that amnesty does not apply beyond your borders. And in regard to things which were done across your borders and amnesty wouldn't avail you, and that being the case I understood from that presentation by General Viljoen that there's been a ruling or there is an understanding in the Commission that particularities of specific operations are not pursued. That's the one thing.
 My understanding of it is that what can be pursued is the government's policy in regard to operations across the borders. Now it sounds like a fine distinction but it's not a fine distinction. And if you would address the issue of the government's policy without reference to specific occasions where the dilemma of placing a person on risk and where there is no room for amnesty being, to be granted, I must object to questions directed at that kind of particularity. Because it may very well be that my client could be placed on risk in that regard. So I just want to sound this caution that if it is a general discussion on government policy as depicted in the relevant papers and if it can be restricted thereto, then we can get somewhere. Thank you.

MR LYSTER: Mr Maritz my only understanding of any ruling by the Commission relating to such questions apply only in respect of people who have applied for amnesty and who correctly I believe request the Commission not to ask them any questions concerning matters which would be dealt with fully at a public amnesty hearing. But I know of no ruling whatsoever which prohibits questions being asked about or to people who have not applied for amnesty.

MR VAN ZYL: And furthermore Mr Chairperson there is currently - shall address him when he (pause)
 Mr Chairman if I could perhaps address you on this matter? There is currently in a section 29 investigative enquiry pertaining to the activities of the CCB a number of members of the CCB who were asked questions in relation to cross-border activity and on this matter they refused to answer questions not, on the basis that it may incriminate themselves. Notwithstanding that the act provides for people, compels people to answer to questions in instances where they may incriminate themselves and that is currently a matter which is being placed before the attorney general for a decision in this particular matter. So perhaps what we should do is ask the questions to Minister Malan and Minister Malan will then, General Malan would then be in a position to make a decision as to whether he wishes to answer the questions or not. But the act in terms of which Mr Malan is here states that he is under an obligation to answer questions and it is for him to, based on consulting with his legal advisor to make that decision.

MR LYSTER: I think that is the general position that we would quite understand that if General Malan had applied for amnesty and would want to deal with any questions relating it cross-border incidents at that enquiry. It's another question as to whether he feels that the question may subject him to possible criminal investigation. As to whether he should