Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-08

MR HAYSOM: Mr Chairman can I perhaps just clarify one or two issues which have emerged. I see the point has been made and I have been rebuked with making it too often but it did emerge again as it emerged repeatedly during our negotiations which is why I repeat it, is that we are not seeking to have the activities of the chemical and biological programme kept secret. We are not allowing you or suggesting that it is up to you as to whether to release it, we are asking you to release all the information about that particular programme.
 The second thing is, really the question is what is the most adequate forum in which this particular enquiry can take? And we really put forward the problems associated with an enquiry. And I just want to. You see we have not gone into the details and we do not think that, that would be appropriate here. This is what is going to be questioned, this is what they are going to reply and we do not know exactly where it is going to go. What we do know is this, there is serious difference of opinion between the scientists as to what constitutes proliferation. Your experts would differ from somebody else's experts. So that is a problem in the first instance. So the assessment as to what constitutes proliferation and what should be kept out is itself a difficult problem.
 Secondly, as I understand it there are documents and technical documents but some people say this is proliferation and that is not proliferation but even the documents which are not proliferation documents frequently call upon a witness to go back to his laboratory and produce his stuff to prove that it does not have the sinister imputation. And in fact some times to prove that it does have the sinister imputation that he wants to construct in regard to it. It may be alleged that he was doing something, a rogue operation on his own to make money and he may want to come and say: "No, no what I was actually doing was producing this and here is my material." I am not really in a position to say where and what witness and what thing would constitute a danger. All I know is that it is really like rolling the dice. 
 And our concern and the need to reappraise quite frankly the very helpful work that had been done together between us and your legal team came because of this unpredictable element. 
 Thirdly, in the course of our debates the issue has been raised the documents have been leaked or there is going to be a criminal trial down the line in which some of the documents would come out. Really it is cold comfort to us to know that certain documents have already found their way into the hands of the press or may have. It is cold comfort that there were documents that some of the potential scientists may have spoken to the press. We are confronted with our obligation to safe guard this dangerous thing, this technology, this information and we have to do the best we have and as I had indicated earlier I think you are in the same position as us.

MS GUMBI: Chairperson just one word to add on that. The obligation is on the government not to proliferate. Now you do not have the same obligation I suppose on leaks. Now the government cannot join that process effectively and become itself the agent which proliferates. That is the difference in Mr Hanif's argument.

MR VALLY: ...(inaudible) different obligation from people who put things on the internet.

MS GUMBI: People who put things on the internet it is not the government. If it is found that in fact it is this government which put those things on the internet then we are going to be censored. So we cannot adopt that attitude at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I think we all want to have a cup of tea. Witnesses and their lawyers if you went down to our tea room on the 7th floor whilst the panel tries to work out all these conundrums here. And I think if we resumes at eleven thirty we will try eleven thirty. We adjourn.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS: .
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Abdul are your colleagues here, have they disappeared?

MR MINTY: No they are still around. They are reflecting.

CHAIRPERSON: We resume.
R U L I N G
 The panel has considered very seriously the points that were put before it by yourselves and we do want to put on record our very deep appreciation. 
 Advocate Gumbi spoke about the ironies of the situation but we would want to stress that it says a very great deal about our country that the State as represented by yourselves could come before a body such as this one to debate and argue for the position of the State when perhaps in the past it might have been slightly different. We appreciate that very, very much and we are aware too of the very important obligations that you have put before us. The international obligations of the State with regard to the matters that have been canvassed.  
 We believe that a great deal is being said about the kind of society we want to help see established in this land to have what has been a very important feature of the Commission the openness, the transparency, and therefore we believe that the hearing should continue as an open hearing but with the very important caveats that have been entered. 
 We are aware of your concern about a disruptive in and out of camera, in camera, in public but I can assure you that the panel and those leading evidence are people who are steeled I think and we would very quickly be able to spot situations where some one was seeking to exploit this hearing for nefarious purposes. We would want to suggest that what was mooted by yourselves that if our decision were to be for an open hearing then the State should be represented by whoever they want to choose obviously but certainly some one with legal training. And in order to enable that to happen we will adjourn until two 'o clock. Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS