Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — 1997-10-14

MR R F BOTHA: I won't blame you for gaining that impression if you concentrate on the documentation of the State Security Council.  The Cabinet was governing the country, there is not the slightest doubt about it.  The decisions in respect of finance, economics, transport, housing, agriculture were far more important from time-to-time than these decisions.  You had a budget, so many billion and then go and check it, so many billion would go into education, housing, health services etc, I need not tell you that.  Now you have been concentrating it seems to me, very much, and I don't blame you, on the State Security Council documents, all the decisions were taken to Cabinet.  You are not dealing with State Security Council decisions, you are dealing with Cabinet decisions, Cabinet, it can be proved not only factually but that is the constitutional position.   So the Cabinet was governing.  The State Security Council was a security committee.  There was an economic committee of Cabinet; a constitutional committee of Cabinet; a welfare something, "maatskaplik" in Afrikaans, committee, and then security.  And security was one of four entrusted to the Security Council and within the Security Council, according to the law that created it, certain Ministers were members and the Head of State, the President, the Prime Minister could coopt others, except he could not coopt deputy ministers, only ministers or certain heads of department.
 And I sincerely believe that too much power is attributed to the State Security Council.  The power was given by law to the Minister.  The Minister of Defence is without any power.  The State Security Council can't empower him, he is without any power unless a law of Parliament gives him that power.  The same applies to the Minister of Police.  These are the facts.  
 But now as I said if you were inundated with committees, with regional committees and the State Security Council had all these other departments in - we spent many, many times on identifying for instance that in a certain black township we get a call that there is only one tap of the water supply has broken and now it will be easier for the enemy to organise a demonstration, now can't we quickly put in pipes of water, you see.  Overall in terms of a conference that the Minister of Finance must attend in Frankfurt tomorrow night where 80 German bankers will demand from us certain assurances regarding certain matters otherwise they don't roll over a six billion loan which can sink the country, against those decisions, with respect, paying ten thousand for informants by the Security Council, with respect Mr Chairperson.  If there was no State Security Council you would have had more-or-less the same situation in this country.  
 And the Cabinet was the government, and the Cabinet had to report to the caucus, the caucus of the National Party had quite a lot of power, there is no question about it.  Conferences, annual conferences of the party in the various provinces, they had power.  They could make or break you.  They elected the leaders or kicked them out.  And the caucus elected the Head of State.  That's where the power was.  
 But within the State Security Council were six, seven officials of government departments, the President, and with the duty that he must report to the Cabinet and that the Cabinet must then subscribe to the State Security Council decisions.  I don't blame you for that impression, I don't blame you for that impression because the things that were newsworthy would be the Seychelles, for weeks on end it was Seychelles.  An attack of that nature, blood that has flowed and then reactions at the United Nations, and this was what bothered me.  If I then go to Upington or Pofadder and hold there a meeting in the midst of the Seychelles debacle then very few people at that meeting in question time would even refer to it, they would like to know from me when is the government going to put in that water pipe from the south because their cattle die.  And people would say they need assistance for food for their sheep.  If I tried to discuss with them the Seychelles there is a mask coming down, they were not interested.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just give an opportunity to one or two other people who are I think wanting to follow-up.  Yasmin Sooka and then Wynand Malan.
MS SOOKA:  Mr Botha I think I am reminded of what you quote of
the Eminent Persons Group at page 6 of your submission when you 
say that the South African government has perfected a specialised 
political vocabulary which was saying one thing means quite 
another, and I am struck as you talk about the separation that you 
are making between the politicians on the one hand and the role and 
activities of the military and the police.  And I think the question 
that we have to answer next year, which we have to put in the public 
arena is, where does the buck stop?   Where does political 
accountability lie for the killings that have taken place both inside 
our country and outside of our country?  On page 43 of your own 
submission you talk about the suspicions that you had.  On page 41 
you say - "I did not approve, would not have approved or 
authorised the killing of political opponents of the government".
yet in the same breath you say Cabinet must take responsibility.  Now I think we are all confused, who is responsible for the killings that took place the charge of which is our - the responsibility of our Commission to investigate and establish what happened in terms of gross human rights violations?  And I think we are getting rather tired of the rhetoric.  Forgive me for being blunt because you end so nicely by apologising, but I am confused and I would like to know where do we say the blame lies in the chain of command for the killings that took place?  Please help me.

CHAIRPERSON: Wynand Malan.