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

MR GOOSEN: Mr Botha perhaps I am going to come back to the question of the use of the words elimineer and neutraliseer at a slightly later point.  But just to go back to the first part of your submission, you don't indicate in your submission whether you are of the view that the Minister of Defence and/or Mr Botha were aware, prior to launching the 19 May raids in relation to the EPG, whether they were in fact were - or is it your view that those raids were launched with their knowledge in the first place; and secondly whether those raids were launched deliberately to scupper the EPG efforts?

MR R F BOTHA: I don't know.

MR GOOSEN: On either of those questions you don't know?

MR R F BOTHA: No I don't know, I have my suspicions, but a suspicion is not a fact.

MR GOOSEN: Did you make enquiries in that regard as to what the reason for those raids were?

MR R F BOTHA: Yes of course I did, and I was told that they had - I've explained this to you here, I wish to draw your attention to documents I worked two weeks on which you ought to read, really with respect, and I did this out of respect for the TRC ...(intervention)

MR GOOSEN: I certainly did read them and I don't mean any disrespect to your documents, but the fact of the matter is the impression from your document, I mean we can - on page 14 you say
"It's the prerogative of the Chief of the South African Defence Force to deal with military operations".

MR R F BOTHA: Of course it is.

MR GOOSEN: I accept that.  Was it within the Chief of the South African Defence Force to order simultaneous air strikes on three capitals, it's never been done before, never done subsequently at precisely the time ...(intervention)

MR R F BOTHA: The law allows him to do so ...(intervention)

MR GOOSEN: .... of the EPG ...(intervention)

MR R F BOTHA: Mr Chairperson the - I'm speaking about the law and that's a law man, now what more can I do?

CHAIRPERSON: What I think I mean is the line that is being pursued is that you have a body that is in the country, and the substance of your presentation is that there was the possibility of a breakthrough in the way that you would have wanted it to be happening, and then it seems sort-of out of the blue something happens which clearly, and you yourself say so, it is one act too many to upset the international community.  And I think what Glen is trying to find out is, whether the three strike, I mean the strike on three Commonwealth, Commonwealth capitals was a deliberate act seen as having the consequence of going to subvert the EPG and whatever it might in fact have achieved.

MR R F BOTHA: Mr Chairperson I think I have largely responded to it in my reply in the documentation submitted.  I will read it again where I deal with this matter, where General Obasanja now and I are taking leave of each other.
"But in the early morning of 18 May 1986 the South African security forces launched attacks on Harare, Lusaka and Gaberone, each was a Commonwealth capital which the EPG had recently visited in the course of their search for a South African solution".
Then I say,
"If one day we meet again he will probably tell me it was just one provocation too much".
I say, I said to myself,
"If so I will understand him, I felt very much the same".
 On the other hand the EPG stated, and it was published in our press, that the raids were not the reason for the decision to discontinue the discussions.  And then later on I categorically stated, no, we were not consulted, if we were consulted in view of our - the importance we attached we would strongly have opposed.  These are the only facts I know of.  I cannot speculate on the possible motives.  
 I did enquire, of course I did enquire and I was told that there was an urgent need to stop an imminent attack from ANC activists or operatives from the three capitals, they were going to move southward and it was the duty of the Defence Force in terms of their tactics, in terms of their duty towards the country to stop these activists there and then and to prevent them from crossing the border and making other arrangements that would have resulted in the killing of South African civilians.  
 Now my department, the Department of Foreign Affairs had an overseas duty, three-quarters of the staff working for Foreign Affairs, five-sixths were abroad, I did not have a police service in this country or a defence force, I did not sit in at Chiefs of staff meetings, I sat with my ambassadors and people, I cannot say what went on in the minds of others.  For that purpose I respectfully suggest that you ask the people who authorised the raids to explain that.  I asked them about it as I said, and they gave me this explanation.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Dumisa Ntsebeza.

MR NTSEBEZA: Thank you Chairperson.  Perhaps I need to say to you Mr Botha that you must take it as given, that there has been preparatory work for this session.  That inasmuch as you spent two weeks to prepare for it those people across there have spent as much time to prepare for these hearings ...(intervention)

MR R F BOTHA: I accept that.

MR NTSEBEZA: And that maybe we will get sooner to the end in resolving the questions that we must put if we, (a) answer the questions put, because there's a purpose for the questions; and be more direct to the questions, I mean in our answers.
 We have heard you, I mean we have spent an hour listening to you, more than an hour and we accept your explanations, but we have a far more important duty than just to sit here accept a submission and say thank you to you.  We have a task which goes far beyond just listening.  We need to be able to say we are satisfied that what the words on paper say mean exactly what they say and I would rather ask you, appeal to you, that you should bear with those who put questions to you, that it's not an idle exercise.  It's not an exercise that is intended to irritate you.  It may be probing, it may be robust, but it is intended for you to be able to say I went to the Commission, I subjected myself even to their most probing questions, but I stood for what I believed in.  So I think it is against that background that I think you should understand why they put the questions that they do.  It's not as though they don't understand what you are saying (...indistinct).
 I think mine is simply to say maybe now that you possibly understand what I have indicated that you should respond to their questions and try and reply to them to the best of your ability maybe by crisp short replies to questions that they put.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  Mr Botha can I just clarify your evidence in this one.  You indicated that you have suspicions that Mr Botha and Mr Malan knew about the raids prior to them being launched but you have no facts on which you can state that that is the case, is that correct?

MR R F BOTHA: Correct, yes.