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

MR CILLIERS: It had nothing to do with his life expectancy, it had something to do with his intellectual abilities and was not linked at all to his life expectancy.  That is how I understood the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now when you take that remark that has been made in that sort of context, you believe it or you don't believe it, but then there is also at this level recommendations and in the nature of those sort of recommendations, recommendations that are made in language that is ambiguous, which says for instance that recommendation on 29(c), he must be you know, in such a relative weak physical condition so that he should not live long.
 I understand and I take the point where you say it did not necessarily mean he should, something active must be done to promote that relative weak condition, but does it not say - does it say it also could not have meant that something active must be done?

MR CILLIERS: If one reads this in isolation, it could have meant that.  We do not have the document, we did not have it before this, but if one looks at the contents, specifically at the paragraph that you referred to yourself, paragraph 19, then it excludes the possibility of active action because paragraph 19 says that one of the options are detain him longer, this will result in the fact that his health deteriorates as a result of age.
 By the recommendation one must see that recommendation as the choice of option five, the continued detention to release him at a later age.  So as Dr Van Rensburg said, it then seems as if it refers to age and not active behaviour or conduct, and that is the only point that I am making.
 I must however concede that to some extent with his evidence, that this document has nothing to do with the whole project which he was involved, or the greater Coast project, that this is actually outside the context of the relevant investigation.  But it was my feeling that the situation had to be rectified, that one could not just make such light-hearted recommendations without having studied the document.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR CILLIERS: I have no further questions.

ADV POTGIETER: Dr Van Rensburg, you indicated that at about this time, there was a ground swell, there was considerable pressure for the release of President Mandela?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: That is right.

ADV POTGIETER: Now, my recollection is not very clear on this one, but wasn't it so that prior to his release, not too long prior to the release, he had allegedly contracted some or other disease, I think it was diagnosed at tuberculosis or something like that, do you have any recollection along those lines?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, I do not have specific recollections at all, Advocate.

ADV POTGIETER: All right, we might want to pursue that, but I thought you might have some recollection.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, I do not.

ADV POTGIETER: Well, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Dr Van Rensburg, at last - oh, Mr Vally?

MR VALLY: Just one thing before the witness is excused, not a question to the witness Mr Chairperson, but to record that the allegations relating to President Mandela and his treatment or assaults upon his person in which ever form, is from a State Security Council minute, dated March 1986, for the record, that it is from the State Security Council minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VALLY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that I had made that fairly clear.  Thank you Mr Vally.
 Mr Van Rensburg, you are excused.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Thank you.

MR POLSEN: Mr Chairman, sorry, just before you excuse the witness, I would like to let the record show that the witness was given a document that he had not had the opportunity of reading the document, and that there was then a debate which followed on his interpretation of this document, without his having had sufficient time to really study the full import of the entire section.
 Just for his protection, before you excuse him, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is well accepted Mr Polsen.  If we could then now finally release you Dr Van Rensburg.

<UNKNOWN>: .

CHAIRPERSON: I believe you are calling Dr Wynand Swanepoel.

MR VALLY: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Before anything happens maybe we need to swear Dr Mijburgh in. Advocate Potgieter.

ADV POTGIETER: Dr Mijburgh will you stand please. Please switch on the microphone. Your full names please?

PHILIP MIJBURGH: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Dr Mijburgh. May I formally welcome you to these proceedings.
 May I just again state some ground rules for those who were not here. 
 One of them is the newspaper. People who are wanting to read newspapers are entitled to do so but outside this room. 
 The cellphones please, starting with the Commissioners if you can switch your cellphones unless you have got a noiseless cellphone but the idea is that you should not have cellphones switched on. Mr Vally what is the position?

MR VALLY: Mr Chairperson the position is as follows; I have indicated to my learned friend we were waiting because there was a case that I referred my learned friend to. I have mentioned this in the past to him and I just gave him a copy of it; FERRIERA v LEVINE.
 The position is this that as regards Dr Mijburgh, we telephoned Advocate Torry Pretorius from the Attorney General's office to determine whether he is going to be charged. We had a rather vague response in that we were told at some future date he may be charged. But strictly for the purposes of facilitating these matters and strictly for the purposes of speeding up this hearing I have suggested to my learned friend that he argue the issue of whether Dr Mijburgh and Dr Wouter Basson should be compelled to give evidence before this hearing jointly. Thereafter if there is agreement by the Chairperson we will take another witness so that I can research the points raised by my learned colleague and after that witness has given his evidence give our response thereto. That is my suggestion to the panel.

CHAIRPERSON: If you could bear with us? Mr Cilliers what is your attitude to the proposal by Mr Vally?

MR CILLIERS: My suggestion Mr Chairman is that we either do it in a global sense otherwise you will have a disjointed argument in the end. It will partly an argument from my side and then Mr Vally can come back after he has done the research and then I am going to advise you regarding the legal position after his argument. This is going to make it very difficult for you as a panel. I have suggested to Mr Vally that the next witness, I do not know whether there was a big problem for the presentation to distinguish between Dr Swanepoel and Mijburgh and my suggestion is that Dr Swanepoel should be called. He is going to give evidence as he has been subpoenaed for. And I am prepared to provide my argument and even my notes to Mr Vally on which my argument is based. So that he knows what he can expect, what my argument will be. I do not want to take him unawares. Last week I informed him regarding this type of application. I have also referred the authority I am basing this on. I have already given that to Mr Vally. The evidence of this Dr Swanepoel should be handled in that way and then Mr Vally will be in a position to argue in the correct order and one after the other. So that you will be in the right position to evaluate.