Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-14

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr de Jager.  Just before we continue I just want to have a word with my colleague.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Jager, there are one or two matters which we may address to you in writing, but I think at this stage we should just say that the Commission is satisfied, and has for some time been satisfied, that the reference to third force in the SSC documents was at all times reference to a lawful, uniformed third force, and there's no suggestion that any illegality attaches to those discussions, or any discussions after that date with regard to a third force used in that sense.  And we are fully aware that it never came to fruition in any event.

MR DE JAGER: Well, I am glad to hear that, Mr Chairman.  I am glad that it is said by yourselves in the open.  You will understand why I dealt with it, because again if one looks at Mr Varney's attack on my client, we are referred as a starting point, we are referred back to those, and that is where we had to start.  So, I am glad to hear what you say, and then at least this has come out in the open, and the opportunity that such a thing can happen in the Commission, due to all the other speculation, etcetera, we feel was then a good opportunity for us to have addressed you on this.  Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr de Jager.  Mrs Kruger.
MR ?: Mr Chairman, just before Mrs Kruger starts, I just want to beg your pardon for my absence just after the
 /lunch break.
lunch break.  We had a bit of a logistical problem with getting Mr de Jager's(?) submission to you in time, but I believe Mr Maritz ably answered any questions you had there.  And if there is anything in regard to the couple of aspects which I mentioned obviously you could communicate them to us.

CHAIRPERSON: That's fine.  No problem at all.
MR ?: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Kruger.

CHAIRPERSON: MRS KRUGER:   Thank you, Mr Chairperson.  For the record then my submission, or preliminary submission on behalf of General Smit.  Now, Kipling said in The Elephant's Child,       "I keep six honest serving men, they taught me all I knew, their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who."

CHAIRPERSON: Now, those are the questions that his Committee has to answer before making a finding to the detriment of my client.

CHAIRPERSON: According to the section 32 noticed dated the 23rd June 1997 the following allegations are made against him.  Firstly, that he colluded with senior members of the former SADF in supporting the deployment of Inkatha's offensive paramilitary capacity;  that this capacity was utilised offensively against political enemies of Inkatha;  furthermore that he anticipated that the offensive paramilitary capacity would be used to carry out pro-active and/or pre-emptive attacks which would result in death and injuries.  The second allegation, that my client was involved in the covering up of crimes committed by the Caprivi trainees.

CHAIRPERSON: /Now, in

CHAIRPERSON: Now, in respect of the first-mentioned allegations, neither evidence was adduced in support of these allegations, nor were any documentation referred to which could be interpreted or inferences drawn from to support these contentions.  You must carefully scrutinise the evidence and documentation, and you'll find that the six honest men, the what, why, when, how, where and who questions relating to my client are not answered.

CHAIRPERSON: I join issue with Mr Visser in his interpretation of the documentation, and with specific reference to the section 30 notice that was sent, and the paragraphs as it was set out there by Mr Varney.  I just want to, add one remark was made by Mr Varney, and I refer you to paragraph 9, in support of drawing this whole line from the planning right until the end operations.  He refers in paragraph 9 ... (inaudible - end of Side A, Tape 3) ... 68 of this document, and the Minister of Defence had instructed on the 21st of March 1988 that General Johan van der Merwe, Commissioner of Police, must be kept informed with regard to Operation Marion.  Now, what is created there?  The impression that's created by Mr Varney is that the Commissioner of Police must be kept informed, in other words that he had already known of Operation Marion.  Now, with all due respect, at this stage that General van der Merwe was the head of the Security Branch, and if you read - a careful reading of page 68 you'll find that Mr Varney has once again - and I think my other colleagues have alluded to the fact that there has been, and I would suggest a deliberate attempt, to mislead you, to project or to promote a certain perspective.  Because that particular document, and I am quoting this in Afrikaans,

CHAIRPERSON: /says

CHAIRPERSON: says,

CHAIRPERSON: "(Inaudible) ... proceed to give support to Buthelezi regarding Marion GS2. Actions against counter-mobilisation will be continued in a co-ordinated fashion.  SADF security must be informed to obtain his support."

CHAIRPERSON: Following from this General van der Merwe had to be advised presumably then of Operation Marion to get his support, and this document is only in 1988.  Next to that there's a little note that says,

CHAIRPERSON: "The Minister of Defence instructs ..."

CHAIRPERSON: on my copy the date is not clear, but it says March '88,

CHAIRPERSON: "... that General van der Merwe be informed about Marion."

CHAIRPERSON: And this is important, because the deduction that Mr Varney wants to make is that the SAP had been involved right from the start to Operation Marion, that the Security Branch was part of parcel, that there was close co-operation between the South African Defence Force and the South African Police, and in particular the Security Branch, with regard to the whole conduct of Operation Marion.  Now, if you accept this document and the handwritten note clearly it makes no sense, but from the South African Defence Force's own document they indicate, as late then as March '88, that the South African Security Branch has to be informed of this.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, my client's evidence at the section 29 inquiry was clear that he was only informed of the existence of a group of Inkatha members trained by the SADF at the meeting held on the 8th of November 1988.  From the

CHAIRPERSON: /evidence

CHAIRPERSON: evidence adduced at the S v Msani trial there is further evidence that after this meeting with the SAP the SADF resolved to disband the group.  See van Niekerk's evidence on page 3972 of the record.  Mr Howard Varney's submission also supports this contention, and I quote from his submission given on Tuesday the 6th of August 1997, where he says,

CHAIRPERSON: "As a result of this meeting, and the somewhat depressing outcome for the military officers concerned, a decision was then taken that somehow they must get these people into the KwaZulu Police, and steps were then taken to demobilise the paramilitary unit, and most Marion members were ultimately placed in the KwaZulu Police during June 1989."

CHAIRPERSON: Now, in respect of the second allegation, that my client is implicated in the covering up of crimes committed by the Caprivi trainees, no evidence was adduced in support of this allegation.  Mr Varney apparently did not deem it necessary to present evidence to support this contention, and I argue that he in fact did not have any evidence to support his contention.  During cross-examination he was asked by Mr Visser whether he possessed of any evidence throughout all his inquiries and investigations in the position in which he worked which he could point this Committee to to support his contention that General van der Merwe knew anything about the concealment of persons anywhere.  Now, the question was asked where you could draw the line, make the connection

CHAIRPERSON: /to him,

CHAIRPERSON: to him, and the answer,