Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-10

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I cannot recall having said something like that.  That is not so.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yesterday you testified, or let me rather ask you in this way, have you ever had an interview or meeting with Gen Knobel before you were appointed as a scientist at RRL?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, how would I, he was not even involved.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know of any other scientist who had an interview with him before being appointed to RRL?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now, I want to know from you, how can you then testify that he was responsible for the appointment of all scientists?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: All senior scientists, all senior appointments had to be authorised by the Surgeon General, whoever he was.  It was an administrative routine procedure.  It formed part of the company's rules and regulations.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where are those rules and regulations?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Dr Swanepoel knows them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have them?    Or is that again an assumption that you are making?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I believe that I could perhaps be able to get parts of that.  All senior applications, including mine, was handed in and I had to wait for quite a while before my appointment was approved by the Surgeon General.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was this told to you?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: This is what I was told.

MR DU PLESSIS: That was Gen Nieuwoudt?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: That was the procedure.

MR DU PLESSIS: That was Gen Nieuwoudt?  Do you have any knowledge that Gen Knobel had to approve all appointments, or was it also a deduction that you are making?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Not all appointments, I said senior appointments.  I can recall specific instances.
 If for example we wanted to appoint a Pharmacist, something like that would have been approved by the Surgeon General before appointing such a person.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any knowledge that any of those people's appointments were approved or any documentation about those approvals made by the Surgeon General?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I did see such approvals, let me say that the feedback given by Dr Swanepoel that the appointments of those people, this was normal administration and it was approved.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is not what I am asking you, about the apparatus and normal administration.  I am asking you whether you had any proof that Gen Knobel authorised the appointment of any scientist?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I do not know personally, but the regulation say that he must.

MR DU PLESSIS: So that is a deduction that you are making, not so?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: It is a very reasonable deduction, not so?

MR DU PLESSIS: I am asking you is it a deduction?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: A last aspect Doctor, do you have any knowledge whatsoever of how this project was dealt with at a high level?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, I was totally unaware of the existence of Project Coast, I only learnt about it six months after I left.  That was the first time that I had seen Project Coast.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you hear about the existence of a Co-ordinating Control Committee?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know how this Committee functioned?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you know that there was a Financial Committee?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you know that there was a Security Committee?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: There was a large security organisation, I do not know which committee you are referring to.

MR DU PLESSIS: So actually you have no knowledge of what happened at top level management and how this project was dealt with?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Very little, I agree.

MR DU PLESSIS: So once again Doctor, your testimony that all expenses had to be personally approved by Gen Knobel, was not correct, it was a deduction?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I said large expenses which is not a deduction, these were specifically according to the rules and regulations of the company, that he had to approve the budget, as well as individual items such as vehicles, senior appointments, apparatus of more than R50 000-00, this had to be approved by either him or his office.  If he delegated this task, that could be possible that that happened.

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no further questions.
 Mr Chairman, if at this stage I could just make a request.  I did indicate that I am finished with my cross-examination of my witness.  I am finished, however, there is an aspect which I neglected to mention.
 He mentioned that he handed in an application for amnesty.  My submission is that we are entitled to see the contents of that and in that regard, I would just like to request that the witness make a copy available to us and that if there are any aspects in that regard which will need further re-examination, then I make such a request to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Was his amnesty application referred to or was it relied upon by Mr Vally or by Mr Chaskalson?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the witness in his testimony referred to the contents of his amnesty application.  I cannot remember what the specific phrase said, but he said- "as I have said in my amnesty application".
 I feel that we are entitled to know what is going on in it and that we can cross-examine him in that regard, regarding aspects which are related to this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally, what is your reaction to that?

MR VALLY: Mr Chairman, we expressly did not rely on the amnesty application of the Doctor.  Secondly the Doctor said that he had made an application, he mentioned an item therein, however, our Act is clear and I refer to Section 19(8)(a) and (b), subjects of the provisions of Section 33, the applications, documentation in connection herewith, further information, evidence obtained before, during an investigation by the Commission, and it goes on, shall be confidential.
 The confidentiality referred to in paragraph (a) shall lapse when the Commission decides to release such information or when the hearing commences.  The hearing being referred to there, is the amnesty application.
 I refer to the ruling of Judge Nugent in the inquest into the Khotso House killings, where he stated that there was no obligation on persons number one, to even disclose whether they made an application for amnesty, but number two, not to disclose the applications as such.  This is a ruling in that matter.
 He went much further to speculate whether we were ourselves, entitled to even release this applications.  The ruling of Judge Nugent in the Khotso House inquest is very clear and at the very least, at the very least, Mr Van Rensburg has that option.
 If the Commission had decided to release it, if we used it, then my learned friend would be entitled to it.  If we relied on the allegations therein, against his client, then he may be entitled to use it, but in the present circumstances, the option is with Dr Van Rensburg.  Thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Polsen?

MR POLSEN: I agree with what Mr Vally has just said Mr Chairman, I will have to discuss this matter.  I haven't seen the amnesty application, I don't know what the contents are and how it may be relevant, but I will have to take instructions.
 As things stand at the moment, my advice to my client would be not to make disclosures about the contents of this.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Zyl?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I accept that advice.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I agree with Mr Vally that the choice lies with Dr Van Rensburg.  He can exempt this if he so wishes.
 If the advice is that he didn't want to give it to us, then I would just like to ask him one or two questions in that regard.  Not about the contents, but about the reasons more specifically.
 I do not know whether Mr Polsen wants to discuss it with his client first, he has indicated what his advice is going to be, I do not know whether they want to discuss it.