Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-07

MR DE VOS: We were not there.  None of my clients was in the Caprivi involved with the training.  We were the higher echelon at that stage.  It was delegated to some other people, some other groups, to do the training with the available weaponry they had at that stage.  We didn't plan the training itself.  We were only involved in the top structure to say that people should be trained.

MR NTSEBEZA: Are your clients conceding that AK-47s were used there or are they contesting that?

MR DE VOS: We are not contesting that but we say that various other weapons was also used.

MR NTSEBEZA: So what is your point?

MR DE VOS: The point is simply this, if the whole procedure had to be secret, that was requested by Mr Buthelezi and that was also their orders, then the whole training, everything, shouldn't be able - nobody should be able to trace it back to the South African Government.  You've listened to this witness's evidence.  He said they didn't know where they were.  Somebody said they were in Israel, but that was for security reasons,
 /and for no
3B and for no other reason whatsoever.

MR NTSEBEZA: So can we accept in this Commission, as your clients' instructions, that they deliberately used AK-47 rifles for the training in Caprivi because it was for security reasons and that is why they supplied AK-47s and AK-47s only.

MR DE VOS: I never used the word, "Deliberately".  I said they were not even there.  We say that we don't deny that they were trained in AK-47s but ... (intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: What are you testing then?   What are you testing with your questions?

MR DE VOS: With all due respect ... (intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: Are you denying - are you saying that did not happen?  I don't want an exercise for point scoring there, Mr de Vos, with respect.  What are your instructions?  Are your instructions that no weapons were used in that training course or are your instructions that no AK-47s were used in that training course?  Or are your instructions that your clients deny that AK-47s were used?  And if they were not used, what then were used?  What sort of weapon was used?

MR COETZEE: If I may say something as also part of the legal representatives that appear on behalf of the clients, I think it is highly irregular and unfair that counsel be cross-examined on what their instructions are and on what basis cross-examination should take place.

MR NTSEBEZA: With due respect, I'm not cross-examining counsel.

MR COETZEE: I'm not finished my submission, if you don't mind.  I take the exception to the manner that this is being dealt with.  This is not fair proceedings to make
 /the allegation
3B the allegations and cross-examine senior counsel when they are trying to put cross-examination to a witness.

MR NTSEBEZA: Have you finished?

MR COETZEE: I am finished, thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

MR NTSEBEZA: Now, now that you have finished, I say I need to know.  I am not sitting here because I enjoy sitting here.  I need to know what the case is that the senior counsel is putting to the witness.  I have a duty to make sure also that what is being put to the witness is not confusing and misleading the witness.  That's all I seek to know.  I still insist to know what are your instructions.

MR DE VOS: Can I respond to that, if I may.

MR COETZEE: Mr Lyster, if you want to say something ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No ... [break in recording].

MR COETZEE: I don't want this to turn into an unfortunate debate and I don't want any animosity between me and the panel.  I am trying my best to contribute to these proceedings to the best of my ability.  I definitely don't want to land up in a situation where there's any animosity between me and anybody on the panel.  I am ... (intervention)

MR NTSEBEZA: What is your point?  Just make your point, please.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, am I now being told how much time and ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, you are not.  Please let's hear what you have to say.

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr de Vos, I think there isn't a question of
 /cross-examining
3B cross-examining counsel, but I think what we want to understand is what exactly is the version your client is putting.  I am rather confused myself, because, you see, I think the position or the submission that was made by Mr de Vos is that the Defence Force can train anybody in any arms that they wish and I'm not quite sure if that is what he said, and then later on he followed that with a submission that his clients at the top delegated this task to someone else so if we can just get some clarity on that, so that we can get a clear understanding of the perspective as well.

MR DE VOS: Thank you.  I am indebted to you.  May I suggest at this stage, we've received notice that the KwaMakutha trial and exhibits will be handed in.  Can I make a suggestion, that this Commission adjourns now, reads the record, because we've been in court for eight months, come back and then do it on the same basis, because I've got an awkward situation.  It's been dealt with - training has been dealt with - evidence has been led.  Everything has been dealt with.  Now we are sitting in a situation that we must start afresh.  With all due respect, it's not fair.  It's not fair in the sense that this Commission must make a decision that will affect the history of the country.  You are trying to - and I mean I've got very great respect for what you're trying to achieve, to reconcile the people, to establish the truth, everything, but we are sitting in a predicament.  For a week or two we are going to hear evidence from one side.  You are not going to hear any evidence from us.  You can't hear complete cross-examination from our side.  It's - I think, personally - unfair to ask me, "Put instructions to
 /a witness",
3B a witness", whereas I'm still busy cross-examining, determining things.  In other words, what are we doing here?  We are curtailing the proceedings because of the time limits and other aspects.  It's not your fault and I'm not accusing anybody in that sense, but I've got a problem to put my clients' case properly before you and there are all these restraints that we are suffering from.  It's only a suggestion I can make.  I don't know how many of the Commissioners have read, say, for instance, Judge Hugo's judgment or studied all the documents, but it's necessary because we've heard Mr Varney's evidence on that point.  He virtually wrote a doctor's thesis on the whole subject.  Then we've the got - the whole question of training was discussed, evidence was led by General Groenewald, about a day or two, I think, by General Oelschig, approximately a day or two by General Liebenberg, by General Geldenhuys, where all these things have been dealt with.