Special Hearings — Armed Forces Hearings — 1997-10-08

MR GOOSEN: General Geldenhuys, let me then cut through to the evidence of General Joubert earlier today was that he had received an instruction to formulate a plan in terms of which support could be provided by Special Forces to the South African Police for deployment inside the country in unconventional, or using unconventional or revolutionary methods.  Did you provide, did you provide such an instruction to General Joubert or not?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairman, I told General Joubert he must prepare himself to give effective support to the Police when needed.  But I am trying to put this answer in perspective by saying that I did not only said it to General Joubert, I told it to the whole Army, the whole Air Force.  I must have said it in the Councils of the Defence Force, in all the Special Forces I told everyone we must give our support to the Police and it must be of a high quality.  And General Joubert said he had to work out a plan about how he would provide this support to the Police.

MR GOOSEN: So the short answer is, yes, you did.  You did give such an instruction to General Joubert?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS GELDENHUYS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you.  And you heard today the evidence of General Joubert that he formulated a plan which involved the use of Special Forces in unconventional and also covert methods and also the methods, the revolutionary methods employed against the Security Forces?

MR COETZEE: The question is pretty vague.  I don't know precisely what my learned friend is getting at.

MR GOOSEN: You heard the evidence that he formulated a plan along those lines, was that plan ever submitted to you for your approval?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS GELDENHUYS: No, Mr Chairman.  But may I ask at what stage, please remind me at what stage did he say that they should use revolutionary methods?  Is that correct?

MR COETZEE: That is my problem as well.

MR GOOSEN: Okay.  I will find you the passage in a moment, but General Joubert actually presented sections of his amnesty application in which he states that that was the basis on which it was formulated.
 Now, I will read the passage to you where he says "in the middle 1980's it was clear that assault could not be met, page 5, paragraph 251, that this could not be met by conventional methods and that it became necessary for the Security Forces to use unconventional and revolutionary methods".

JOHANNES JAKOBUS GELDENHUYS: I saw that.

MR GOOSEN: Would you agree with, or firstly let me ask you this.  Was a plan setting out the deployment on unconventional and also using revolutionary methods presented to you at any stage?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairman, there wasn't an operational plan as such presented to me.  And regarding this paragraph it is quite a subjective view which General Joubert should answer himself.  It is a view which he gives, a subjective view.  But I don't want to split hairs about that.

MR GOOSEN: It may have been a subjective interpretation, but can I draw your attention to section 2, page 11 of the submission made by General Viljoen today, where a portion of a quotation from General Malan is quoted and I will read it to you.
 It is, I think that was the original paragraph, it doesn't really matter, it is 2.11.  The government judged that it was not possible to withstand this onslaught only by normal and traditional military actions.   In the process therefore use was made of unconventional methods.  These methods included cross-border operations, strategic communications operations, STRATCOM, disinformation operations, other covert operations such as the CCB."
 I take it you would agree that the CCB fell under the Officer Commanding Special Forces and support for anti-Marxist liberation movements?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS GELDENHUYS: That is correct.

MR GOOSEN: So we've got another subjective view from the Minister of Defence at that time, that unconventional methods in fact were used?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairman, I don't want to split hairs, but I am just curious that the word revolutionary methods are used.  I agree that it appears in General Joubert's application, but I can't remember the exact words, and for anti-revolutionary tactics using revolutionary tactics wasn't quite right to me, but I can see the context within which General Joubert meant it.
 And I see it was included in paragraph 12.9, but I don't want to quibble about it, I agree the thinking was about how to adapt to the various strategies and tactics being employed and that any effective possibility, conventional or unconventional, could be used to counter this threat.  I agree with this.

MR GOOSEN: And General Joubert in his testimony indicates that part of the unconventional methods used was would also have been, was contemplated the identification of specific targets for elimination, meaning killing?  Would you agree that that was contemplated at the time?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairman, we are talking about a Defence Force, and we are talking about war.  That people were going to die and that people were going to shoot each other, was something that I accepted. Regarding me, as far as I can judge, there is a difference between killing and cold blooded murder as an illegal act.

MR GOOSEN: The essence of General Joubert's evidence was that he understood that he had been given an instruction to formulate a plan which involved also the elimination, the identification of people and the elimination of those people, the killing of those people, inside the country?  That was the nub of his evidence, would you say that General Joubert interpreting your instruction to him, was acting reasonably in his understanding of that interpretation or not?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairman, how General Joubert understood me, is not something you should ask me, you should ask him how he understood me.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that is the question.  The question is seeking to establish from you now that you have heard his evidence, and I think we have all heard his evidence, in fact there were statements that were put to General Joubert by your Advocate, we want Mr Coetzee, if he can only be allowed to testify, thank you, I know your very important role that you guard his interest, but let him testify, now what the question seeks to say to you is that you heard his evidence, he says I understood him when he made a typical remark for instance, to be saying this is your authority,  I am putting it crudely.
 Of course he did qualify his reply by saying well, it may well be that you know, that is not what he meant, but that is what I understood him to be saying, he was giving authority to certain things.  Now what he wants to know is now that he says so, do you consider his understanding to have been reasonable or not in the circumstances?
 Is it the sort of thing that a reasonable person should have understood from you?  And it is a reasonable Commander in the Special Forces of the South African Defence Forces, understanding a specific remark made by the Chief of the South African Defence Force.  What he seeks to know is he says so, he says I understood him to be saying so.  What he wants to know, was in your view, that a reasonable understanding of what you were conveying to him?

JOHANNES JAKOBUS GELDENHUYS: Mr Chairman, you are placing me in an extremely difficult position.  Here on the one side is General Joubert applying for amnesty and I don't think that these kinds of questions whether I think that he made a right conclusion regarding what I have said, especially referring to something which happened 11 years ago, at a certain function, and I don't want now to give a judgement whether he made a reasonable conclusion.  I think it is unreasonable to expect it from me to answer that.