Amnesty Hearings — East London — 1999-04-07

CHAIRPERSON: Just before we adjourned for the tea break, Mr Jansen asked the Committee to make a ruling in regard to a point of procedure.
	It is apparent from Mr Jansen's line of questioning that he was about to ask the applicant questions relating to an incident that was in no way related to the subject matter of this particular application.
	The basis for the application made by Mr Jansen, is that to allow such questioning, would have the effect of shortening proceedings in another application as had been discussed at a meeting that had been held with one of the Amnesty Committee  members, namely Judge Wilson.
	I don't know what actually occurred at that meeting, I wasn't present, but we are left with the principle now as to be decided whether to allow this questioning in relation to an incident which has nothing at all to do with the subject matter of this application.
	We all know that in these hearings, these amnesty hearings, that we are liberal in the application of the laws of procedure and evidence far more so than we would be in a court case, and there is a bit of latitude with regard to the leading of hearsay evidence and with regard to leading questions, and indeed even with regard to certain points that may be irrelevant.  It is not as tight, one can put it that way, as would be applied in a court case.
	We, the panel have discussed this matter during the adjournment and we are of the view that it would be improper to allow the questions to be asked and make such a ruling, the ruling being that we will not allow it.  To do so would in our view, lead to various potential difficulties.  For instance if we did make the ruling that the questions of this completely irrelevant to this application, evidence be led, such evidence would then become part of the evidence of this particular application, which might, depending on the answers given or the answers not given or refused to be given, have an effect on whether or not the criteria of full disclosure has been made.
	If there is not a full disclosure in respect to a piece of evidence that is completely irrelevant, but which is ruled can be pursued, how does that effect non-disclosure in this application, that sort of problem.
	We also believe that this questioning would not really have the effect of shortening proceedings because the time taken in this, the questioning in this application, would be the same time, presumably that would be taken if the evidence were to be led, where it ought to be led at the application of Mr Jansen's client.
	In the circumstances, we are of the view that seeing that the evidence is completely irrelevant to this application, that we will not allow the questions to be put.  However, Mr Jansen of course is free to put any questions to the witness that are relevant to this particular application and the subject matter thereof.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, could I have five seconds just to take instructions from my Instructing Attorney?

CHAIRPERSON: We will just take a very short adjournment and then you can take instructions.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman, members of the Committee.  I have no further questions.  May I then also ask, we will be, my Attorney and I, we will be in attendance probably  until lunch time, we won't just desert the place, but may we then also be excused at any time thereafter?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.  Thank you.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

MR PRINSLOO: On behalf of my clients, Brigadier More and Colonel Hall, no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener, in your other capacity as representative for various implicated people and interested parties, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, no questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma, do you have any questions to ask the witness?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Mr Chairperson, thank you.  General, in your evidence which you gave yesterday, or background, you made mention of the Joint Management Councils, would you just explain the structure of this JMC?  I just want to get, to be clear, was Transkei having its own JMC and Ciskei its own, just explain this please?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Chairperson, the English term was Joint Management Board - according to the prescriptions for these Boards, the military representatives of the command and I was the Head thereof, served on this Board with the military representatives from the Ciskei and that was called the RSA/Ciskei Military Board, it was just military in nature.
	And then there was also an RSA/Transkei Board, also military.  As observers on these Boards, you had Foreign Affairs and in the mid 1980's, there was a department Development Assistance.  I think they aimed at giving assistance to the TBVC States and they also had sitting on the JMC.
	Now the other representatives were people from the military, myself, Staff Officers, people from the Air Force.  I don't think the Navy was represented, sometimes from the Medical Services when medical assistance was on the agenda.

CHAIRPERSON: General, were those Joint Military Boards or Councils, was it only in the Eastern Cape with respect of Ciskei and Transkei or was there also one in Port Elizabeth which didn't include Ciskei and Transkei?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Chairperson, no the JMC or JMB was an unique institution for the TBVC States, each one of those Venda, Bophuthatswana, they each had a JMC.  I had two of them, of those areas or States in my area and therefore there were two, north was Venda, northwest with the Headquarters in Potch, they had the Bophuthatswana one.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you sir.  You said you were a co-Chairperson of this Board.  Who else was chairing?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: If the meeting was held in Port Elizabeth, then as host I also acted as Chairperson.  When it was in Ciskei, with the JMB there, then the Chief of the Defence Force there, then acted as Chairperson and it was first of all Brigadier Nel.   In the Ciskei he was succeeded by Malan, I can't remember the date.  I think it was approximately in 1985 that Malan took over from Nel and then one of those would then act as Chairperson.
	In the case of the Transkei, if the meetings were held in Umtata, it was originally Ron Reid-Daly and later on, it was Gen Mitigaga who was then Chairperson.
	During the only joint meeting that we had in East London, I acted as Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: This plan, Strelitzia, what does the name Strelitzia arise from, why was it named by this term?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Strelitzia is a flower, I think you find it especially in the area of Grahamstown.  It is representation of the Eastern Cape, we just wanted to find a symbol that would convey the Eastern Cape idea.
	I don't know whether it is unique to the Eastern Cape, but I know that one finds it here.  We just took a name that we could identify the Plan with.

MR MAPOMA: As I understand it, this Plan did not go any further, when it was not approved by the Council which you presented it to.
	After it was not approved, then there arose Plan Katzen.  Now, for Strelitzia you had an Advisory Board that you established, now was this Advisory Board involved in the Katzen Plan?

CHRISTOFFEL PIERRE VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Chairperson, no.  Not as a Board, but one of the members of the Advisory Board that I had, that was Dr Tertius Delport, I had a personal friendship with him, and especially elements such as the normalisation parts of Katzen, I discussed with him.
	He was not part, such as my Staff Officers would have been, he was not part of Katzen.

MR MAPOMA: Was he part of the drawing of the Plan which you presented to Gen Liebenberg?