Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: '86 ja. Thank you. It says in column B regarding tasks I have read the aims and now I will read the tasks. I want to refer to task number 2, Roman number 2. "Neutralise, eliminate enemy leaders." There are some definitions. I do not know what the problem could possibly be with that. It is specified here to justice, police and the Defence Force. The SEM members as well, they were the socio-economic members. It was specified to them what was meant with that, there were definitions. But now you're going to ask me or you ought to ask me why did we have these problems? Why do we use these words? I realise that at grassroots level during my visits to the JMS's that is where the problem comes from. I am trying to give it you in all honesty.
 Various departments had various terminologies. And they always also have different laws, cultures and management mechanisms as well as various terminologies. It is quite correct, they have different tasks and their actions are different. In other words their execution of the tasks were different. I think this is where the problem originated because now we have generic terms and then this came up. 
 I have thought of an example in which I had been involved concerning Sandton, Alexandra, north of Johannesburg which was in terrible conditions. I took the people from the papers and brought them to military training college. I addressed them on revolutionary warfare. I then told them, after we had discussed everything that we are now going to fly to Alexandra. I'm going to show you Alexandra. And if I had been born and raised in Alexandra I would have been the leader of the revolutionary forces in this country because as a Christian I cannot understand how my neighbours can live under such circumstances. They smiled to me, we landed there and we got off. The government's policy during that time was that they pay these people approximately 20 000 pounds. At that stage the people still had this in shoe boxes. There was no running water, there was no other services. It was raining at that stage, there were pools of mud, there was no refuse removal. It was a complete tragedy there. 
 Then we spoke with that JMS and the order was, I cannot remember whether it was eliminate or neutralise the ANC because then it was a liberation area with the police withdrawn from there. The Defence Force came in, lifted the, the ANC members were arrested and the Defence Force made sure that everything was conducted in an orderly way. The civil force members gave me plans, plans on city planning how to get water there and how to get all the other services there and he gave me 12 million rand. I then went to the regional service council, they gave me the area on the other side of the Jukskei River for administration of that town. There was a guy with the name of Burger who was the chairman of a sub-JMS and the departments doing wonderful work. We relieved that there. 
 What did the departments do regarding elimination and neutralisation? The police arrested, the defence force removed the cordons, (the witness is moving a bit too fast) The municipality was involved, the regional people were involved, the private companies were involved. I was there when the first houses were sold. (interruption)
What I am trying to tell you is that the terminology slipped in due to various cultures in various departments who had to do certain tasks.

MR VAN ZYL: gain useful, illustrative material but I'm afraid you haven't answered the question that I posed. And that is; are those words ambiguous and capable of misinterpretation? Or are they clearly not capable of misinterpretation at all?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: (...indistinct) approach. I think you should ask the people who are really involved here. On an official level there was no problem, there were people who used it. Once again you have a situation there where one must go to each and every individual and determine whether they interpreted it correct.

MR VAN ZYL: (...indistinct) conceivable that in certain instances they will be misinterpreted, they are ambiguous?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: I'm saying something else. I'm telling you that you have to look at each and every case individually. If he interpreted it incorrectly and if he committed a crime he will have to come and ask and apply for amnesty. You can then ask it from him whether he interpreted it in an incorrect way. I would not have made that mistake but I cannot speak for other people.

MR VAN ZYL: (...indistinct) difficulty came that there were a whole range of different cultures, different departments, different styles, different ways of operating. And I supposed I'm asking you that if I put those words in different settings, amongst different people, with police, with the SADF, with the department of social welfare either in Alexandra or in the Eastern Cape or in Mamelodi or wherever, is it possible that somebody would misinterpret those words?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: No.

MR VAN ZYL: It's impossible to interpret.

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Don't ask me.

MR VAN ZYL: No I'm asking you is it possible? Because you sat on a body which drew up these words and approved them. Is it possible that a member of the security forces, for example the Commissioner of police, is it possible that he could interpret this to mean eliminate, is it possible?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Mr Chair, I'm sorry. I'm coming back to this. I'm speculating now. It is not correct. This is a very important facet, I'm not trying to, I've referred to difficult circumstances. I can't speak on behalf of other people. You must ask from them. If the Commissioner of police says - (is dit belangrik?)

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: I'm too fast again or what? Okay sorry.

MR VAN ZYL: Sorry. What I was trying to ask you. I was not asking you

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman please.

MR VAN ZYL: Sorry if I could complete my question?

MR LYSTER: I think he didn't finish what he was saying.

MR VAN ZYL: Oh, sorry.

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: No you can have the floor.

MR VAN ZYL: I think he was finished. General Malan I'm not asking whether in each individual case a certain policeman interpreted those words in that way. I'm saying whether it is possible to interpret those words in that way? I'm not asking in each individual case. Is it possible? Not whether they did, whether it's possible?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: I don't think Mr Chairman it's for me, who do not know the culture and the actions of the police, to provide you an answer to this. I've told you in regard of the Defence Force because I know that culture and I know if in the Defence Force said you should not contravene the country's laws. I can speak on behalf of the Defence Force but not on behalf of other departments. I've tried to illustrate what happened when those words were mentioned.

MR VAN ZYL: misinterpreted?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: No.

MR VAN ZYL: Not possible?

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: No.

MR VAN ZYL: Right. I'm going to move now. We'll just do a last thing and then we'll take an adjournment ...(intervention)

MR LYSTER: (...indistinct) it's a long question with a long answer?

MR VAN ZYL: I just put it on record that four of your Cabinet colleagues who did sit on the State Security Council have all indicated that it is possible to misinterpret those words.

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Did they talk on behalf of the Defence Force or did they talk about the other departments?

MR VAN ZYL: They said in general terms in relation to the conduct of the security forces.

ANDRE MARANDOM MALAN: Okay.

MR LYSTER: Thank you we'll break until twelve, till five to twelve.
HEARING ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR LYSTER: Okay we will resume the questioning now. Mr van Zyl I understand that you will proceed and bring your questions to a close in the next twenty minutes or so.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you very much.