Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-09

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Well he was head of forensics and I suppose that the ... (indistinct) also reported to him.

ADV POTGIETER: I'm sorry, just repeat that?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: The ... (indistinct) police, the narcotics bureau also probably reported to him so I just wanted peace of mind that this was a genuine legal project.  For example, if I was asked to make mandrax at Delta G I would have refused.

ADV POTGIETER: Alright, we're going to speak about that in a minute, let's just stick to the ecstasy issue.  What did you, did you want to get clearance from the police, did you want to get reassurance from the police that what you were doing was not in breach of the law or what?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes, yes I wasn't exactly sure at that stage, I'm not knowledgeable about the law, whether ecstasy was a classified substance or not.  I didn't even bother to try and find any documents where this was related so I just went to Neethling and asked him.

ADV POTGIETER: Was Neethling an acquaintance of yours or a friend of yours?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I've know Dr Neethling since the early 60's because where I used to work at the Roodeplaat Horticultural Institute, not RRL, but the one nearby, the government institute and Neethling was also stationed there although I think he was paid by Onderstepoort, I worked for Research and Irrigation at that stage, I was working on toxic plants ... (indistinct) so I've known Neethling for many many years.

ADV POTGIETER: So was it on that basis that you ... (intervention)

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: It's on that basis.

ADV POTGIETER: Approached him as an acquaintance, not so much in his official capacity as member of the police?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Well yes, he was a member of the police, he was a very senior policeman and he would listen to my story without being prejudiced.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes but I must get clarity unfortunately.

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: What did you expect, did you expect an opinion of an acquaintance/friend or did you expect an authoritative position from a police person?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: No I took a guy with me, Mr Sybrand van der Spuy and I wanted an authoritative opinion whether we could get the go ahead with this project or not from a legal standing point of view.

ADV POTGIETER: So you saw General Neethling in a dual sort of capacity as an acquaintance but also as somebody who could give you an authoritative view on behalf of the police?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: Were you happy after that discussion with him?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes, I got the distinct impression that he was relaxed about this project otherwise he would have told me this.  Dr Neethling is a very straightforward guy when it comes to things like that and he would have given a strong opinion so I just got the idea that he didn't want to be involved with the army projects, but that we had his tacit consent where this was concerned.

ADV POTGIETER: But did he create the impression that he's aware of this issue that you were raising?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: No he didn't create the impression that he was aware from the start that this project was going on, no.

ADV POTGIETER: No, but when you discussed it with him.  What impression did he create in you mind?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Well he discussed the chemistry of ecstasy with me and from that I could deduce that he at least knew about ecstasy and how it was made.

ADV POTGIETER: And about the project?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: The project as such he didn't discuss with us.  As I said, he was non-committal where that was concerned, honestly.

ADV POTGIETER: But why were you then satisfied after that discussion, I don't follow that?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: I just got the idea from him that he didn't want to talk about this.  I got the impression that he didn't want to talk about this, he discusses the chemistry with me and from this I must just quietly assume that he knows about this project and that he approves of it.

ADV POTGIETER: But I mean ... (intervention)

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: That's the impression I got.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, I mean but wasn't that an unsatisfactory situation, I mean you were concerned about this, you were told that you're expected to be instrumental in producing quite a large quantity of these things ... (intervention)

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes, it was ... (intervention)

ADV POTGIETER: And you were suspicious about it?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: It was unsatisfactory to me but Dr ... (indistinct) Neethling can be overbearing in his attitude towards people so I didn't want to put up a fight, I've had differences of opinion with this guy in previous years and I just didn't want to put up another fight with him.

ADV POTGIETER: Wasn't there a residue of doubt in you mind after all this?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Not really, because I was assured by Dr Mijburgh and so on that this was straightforward army project with a view of making an incapacitant and that was that.

ADV POTGIETER: Well scientifically you were not persuaded, from what you tell us you were not persuaded at all that ecstasy or MDMA was an effective incapacitant even.  You were not persuaded that that would serve that purpose, not so?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: To this day I would still say it isn't, but as I say I am not a pharmacologist and maybe these guys that had more insight into what real incapacitants should do and not do.

ADV POTGIETER: Were you suspicious that this substance would be used for illegal purposes, for making money, selling it?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: At that stage no, I wasn't really suspicious about that.  I actually trusted that the people that was put in charge of me and so on were ethical people, I mean they were medical doctors and so on and we had the Surgeon General as the head of this group and I assumed that all these people are ethical in this approach.

ADV POTGIETER: And after you found that it was encapsulated?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Well I started having my doubts about that but I mean this is an alleged offence and I cannot at this moment really make up my mind.  What I do know is that capsules that I've taken from that area, which was what Medchem Pharmaceuticals operated in, I was told by the police that they have analysed this material and that some of those capsules did contain ecstasy.

ADV POTGIETER: If we come to this MX, the mandrax situation?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: In order to produce mandrax, the methaqualone, the active ingredient has that to be bought elsewhere or how do you obtain that?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Well you know I believe that the active start - the materials for making this are actually controlled substances and I think that the police watch out very carefully whoever sells these starting materials for making mandrax and if Delta G did obtain it and manufacture this material, then I don't know how they came about it that they did obtain it.  As I said I wasn't involved in this mandrax project so I can't comment on that.

ADV POTGIETER: You mean you either need the co-operation of the police or the blessing?

JOHANNES MATTEUS KOEKEMOER: Or alternatively, you must obtain the starting materials clandestinely, in some manner.  I have never operated on that level so I can't really tell you.

ADV POTGIETER: Ja, fair enough.  How persuaded are you, because you had said to us that in your view there is a possibility - I don't even know whether you referred to it as a probability - of MX, of mandrax being used as an effective incapacitant.  Now ... (intervention)