Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-11

WITNESS:   Well, Mr Chairman, there was a lot resistance from the main stream policing across the board in respect of the work that we were doing.  We had very little co-operation.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Visser on record.  I really do have to object to this kind of questioning.  I mean, how many represent the main stream?  What is the main stream?  I mean are we really going to get involved in this kind of argument?  With all due respect, it's unfair, because it can't be challenged.  It can't be proved, not in this session anyway, Mr Chairman.  One would imagine that a statement like that should be accepted as being highly contentious.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it takes the matter much further, Mr Wills.  In fact, I think one of the main bases on which the ITU was regarded as not being proper was because it didn't conform with the same reporting structures.  I think that's really an issue that one could debate around not in this forum.  So I'd ask you to leave that sort of question out, please.
/
MR WILLS
4A

MR WILLS: As you please, Mr Chairperson.  I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lasich.

MR LASICH: Sorry, Mr Chairman, just point that arises, if I can say, bleakly from that and I don't intend to debate it over too long a period.  Superintendent, the ITU was set up to investigate the KwaZulu Police and hit squad activities within the KwaZulu Police and Inkatha.  Is that correct?  Is that how I understand it?

WITNESS:   Amongst others as well, yes.

MR LASICH: Were they ever delegated or given the task of investigating hit squads amongst the UDF/ANC members?

WITNESS:   That's correct.

MR LASICH: Have there been any prosecutions for those?

WITNESS:   That's correct.

MR LASICH: And how would you compare the number of prosecutions for those matters vis-a-vis Inkatha-related ones or KwaZulu Police ones?

WITNESS:   If I go and do some research probably I would give an answer.

MR LASICH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

MR LASICH: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LASICH

YASMINE SOOKA: Superintendent, just one more question.  You mentioned an investigation - a fraud investigation.  In respect of who was that investigation?

WITNESS:   Against General Mathe.

YASMINE SOOKA: Did anything ever arise from that investigation?

WITNESS:   As I explained, Mr McNally declined to prosecute.

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have knowledge, Superintendent, where Brigadier or General Mathe is now?

WITNESS:   He's since on

CHAIRPERSON: /pension,

CHAIRPERSON: 4A pension, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Brigadier Mzimela?

WITNESS:   He's on pension as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, the certificates which General Mathe, or Brigadier as he then was, issued to these people, he issued them, as I understand it at the level of detective constable?

WITNESS:   That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How long would you have had to have been in the Police Force to have reached the rank of detective constable?  What would be the normal period of service that one would have served to have acquired that rank?

WITNESS:   Firstly, you would have ... (end of tape) ... [break in recording] ... as a probationer straight from the Police College into a detective branch, but you'd only be appointed six months later.  So it's about a year that you would have to do the training.  Well, this was at that stage, Mr Chairman.  Presently it's different.

CHAIRPERSON: If you have no further questions for Superintendent Marion, we thank you and excuse you, Superintendent.

CHAIRPERSON: We adjourn the matter until tomorrow morning when there will be cross-examination of Mr Zweli Dlamini, unless people want to place on record now that they don't intend to cross-examine him, but we will be here to cross-examine him if people wish to do so.

MR LASICH: Mr Chairman, may I indicate I would be taking the same line with him as the other witnesses that have been dealt with in this matter.  I don't think it's going to take it any further.  Perhaps it can just be recorded that I join issue with him on his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want pressurise people into not cross-examining him at all.  We will be here.  The facilities
 /are available
4A are available and if people wish to cross-examine Mr Dlamini we will certainly meet for that purpose.

MR DE JAGER: Mr Chairman, you will have to pressurise me if you want me to cross-examine him.  I'm not going to cross-examine him.

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman, Maritz on record.  I looked at his evidence over the week-end, as I promised I would do and there are really only two small contentious issues.  The one relates to the house penetration training and the purpose thereof, which was debated with Dr Williams this morning as ... (inaudible) ... so you know what our position is on that.  I don't think it's going to serve any useful purpose to traverse that terrain again.  And the other one related to the unarmed combat training that was received in Venda and I was on the record that I received unsure as to what the witness said, because he says on the record that he was not involved, but it has a question mark directly after the word that - or whatever the word was, indicating that he was not involved.  And those are the only issues that I want to clarify and I don't think it's worth the trouble to bring him back for that silly little question, really, so I would be quite happy if we adjourned now so that we can get down to the serious business of our submissions.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Maritz.  If there anybody else who wants to do it, please say so now.  We can certainly have him, unless we bring here for an hour on Thursday morning, so that we can - if there's anything between now and Thursday that they feel that they want to put to Mr Dlamini, we can have him here on ... (intervention)

MR MACADAM: Just for the travel arrangements, it's
 /more convenient
4B more convenient for him to be here tomorrow, because as soon as we finish with him, he then wants to go back home.  So if we can have him here tomorrow and if there are no questions there are no questions, then at least he is finished, rather than having him waiting for another two days.
MR   (?)   : Well, what is the end result?  Do we come and see what happens tomorrow or what must we do?

CHAIRPERSON: We will have him here tomorrow morning for those people who wish to put questions to him.  9 o'clock.

MR COETZEE: We don't have any questions for him either.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Coetzee.

MR VISSER: I must place myself also on record, Mr Chairman, Visser, that we don't have any questions for Mr Dlamini.

MR WILLS: I don't have any questions for him, Mr Chairperson.  It's John Wills.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Lasich and Mr Maritz may want to reconsider their positions, if they - because if people can say here that they definitely don't want to have him here, we won't bother to reconvene.  If they do we'll be happy to reconvene.

MR MARITZ: Mr Chairman, as far as I'm concerned you don't have to bring him.

MR LASICH: Mr Chairman, as I indicated, and this panel has indicated, it is not a trial.  The panel can surely take note of what I've put to previous witnesses.  I would be doing the same thing with this witness tomorrow.  I don't see - he's going to deny it or disagree with me in any event, otherwise he wouldn't be here.  So I don't think it's going to take it any further.  So for my part,
 /I don't see
4B I don't see a need to question him, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly we'll take note of the sort of approach you've taken with other witnesses.  In that case we will adjourn until Thursday.  10 o'clock on Thursday.  10 o'clock Thursday morning.  Thank you very much.
PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED TO 1997/08/14
/PROCEEDINGS RESUMED