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

MR NTSEBEZA: And that there could have been a minute of this nature which reflected the proceedings at that meeting, except what you are contesting is whether these particular minutes are a reflection of a particular meeting at which you and the Chief of the Defence Force were present?

LEGAL COUNSEL: Sorry, can you just repeat the last portion of the question.  It got a bit lost?

MR NTSEBEZA: Yes, what I am asking is you are not disputing that there could have been a meeting on the 28th of April 1987?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: No, there could have been a meeting.

MR NTSEBEZA: And would there have been a minute which would reflect a meeting that had taken place, a planning meeting that had taken place?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: There weren't supposed to be minutes kept for that meeting.  For that planning meetings.

MR NTSEBEZA: Or for any planning meetings?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: This specific planning meetings which I had with the Chief of the Defence Force.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.  Just perhaps to wrap on a few aspects here, because you may want to adjourn shortly.  A few aspects, General Joubert, minutes were not meant to be kept, is it not so, precisely because those meetings concerned discussions about the elimination or individuals and the method for approving such operations, is that not the case?
 Is that not the reason why the minutes should not have been kept, because of the sensitivity of those topics?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, certain things which are so sensitive that they cannot be put onto paper.  Those things were so sensitive.

MR GOOSEN: Precisely so.  One of those things must surely be approval at the highest level at the South African Defence Force by the Chief of the South African Defence Force that a particular person should be eliminated, killed.  Is that not so?  Wouldn't that be one of the types of things that are so sensitive you wouldn't commit it to writing?   Correct?

MR NTSEBEZA: Is that the position General?  Is your answer yes to the question put to you by Adv Goosen?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Just come again.

MR GOOSEN: Let me repeat it.  You indicated that there are some things that are so sensitive that they should not be recorded and reflected in a minute.  I accept that.
 One of those, must surely be the fact that the Chief of the South African Defence Force might be approving of the elimination of an individual, that that would be of such a sensitive nature that you wouldn't want to record it in a minute of a meeting, not so?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes, that is true.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you.  And is it also not correct that in your testimony thus far this morning, quite apart from when we dealt with this particular document, you testified positively to two particular facts.
 One of which was that the Chief of the South African Defence Force in fact approved a plan which involved the elimination of individuals, individual enemy targets inside the country?  Unconventional methods to be used, is that correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Yes.

MR COETZEE: His testimony is not that in fact that it was approved.  He says he thought ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Again I am asking who are you representing?

MR COETZEE: I am representing General Geldenhuys and I am trying to look after General Geldenhuys' interest and his testimony was not that he in fact approved.  He referred to his amnesty application and he said I thought he authorised this.  The question is not correctly put in light of the evidence given by General Joubert.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you restate that please.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I will, thank you.

MR LAX: I am sorry, with respect to all of you, his evidence in relation to prior to putting together that plan was that he thought his original plan was approved.  However, his evidence was also very clearly that in relation to the procedure to be put into place, that was discussed with General Geldenhuys and others, and that was his clear evidence, uncategorically.

MR GOOSEN: And that was in relation to a specific operation.  The second element which I would put that you testified to positively General Joubert, was ... (intervention)

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, sorry, can we take it piece by piece, because I am getting bombarded with statements.

MR GOOSEN: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: You try to rush a little, forget about the time, just carry on.

MR GOOSEN: The first aspect to which you testified to positively namely that not in relation to the plan, but in relation to a specific matter, the elimination of an individual enemy target was in the knowledge of and approved of by the Chief of the South African Defence Force, that is one of the factors that you testified to positively, prior to us coming to this document, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you repeat that in Afrikaans, to give him a bit of time.  This is a very important question.

MR GOOSEN: General Joubert, there were two elements to your testimony.  Are you picking up an Afrikaans translation, thank you.
 Two elements to your testimony outside of the ambit of this particular, of what we dealt with with this document.  The first of those is that in respect of the plan, you understood that your plan which involved the elimination of individual targets that that was approved by the Chief of the South African Defence Force, that is the first aspect.
 The second aspect that in respect of a particular operation, it came within the knowledge of the South African Defence Force and that that principle was approved by him.  You at no stage were told that it was unacceptable to the Chief of the South African Defence Force, do you recall that evidence and do you confirm that?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, I don't understand one hundred percent what this question is because in my evidence I said regarding the approval of this plan, I was under the impression that the remark made by General Geldenhuys meant that authorisation was given.
 Whether that was what General Geldenhuys experienced, I don't know, but that was how I answered.  In the second incident, during a second incident, and that was regarding the involvement of the Police, I said that based on that specific situation, a procedure was developed according to which authorisation had to be obtained. That was how I understood that and that was how I experienced that.

MR GOOSEN: But the principle that a person could be eliminated was accepted, that was why a procedure was developed?  Correct?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, I think at this stage and if you go back to what General Viljoen had said and which is contained in all these documents especially these thick set of documents,  in these documents reference is made repeatedly to the elimination of people.
 That was not a question at all.  At the highest level people were talking about the neutralising or the elimination of people.  This is not strange to me.  We referred to eliminating.  But now Mr Chairman, we can dispute for hours what is meant by elimination or neutralisation.

MR GOOSEN: General, that is not the purpose of it.  I accept absolutely what you say.  All I was wanting to do was simply to confirm at least those two elements of your testimony.
 The second element is that at a certain stage because of a particular difficulty, a procedure for dealing with that approval had to be put in place, and the Chief of the South African Defence Force was involved with that exercise?

MAJ GEN JOUBERT: That is correct.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you very much.  I have no further questions at this stage, Mr Chairperson.