Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — 1997-12-04

MR MCADAM: If the document as a whole is read, as a whole the clear impression is that Trevits was one of the structures which was involved in planning or gathering information with the aim of killing people.  If we look, for example, at the bottom of page 14
"The members of Trevits not only looked at Intelligence but also looked at the ANC structures within our identified areas".
Andthe person goes on to describe a long term involvement with Trevits he said he's the first secretary of the organisation and he goes on to say that at a later stage when the negotiations were well under way that is when the killing of people stopped and there was efforts devoted to then the peaceful solutions to the country but he clearly says that in this period Trevits was one of the organisations involved, may well only be involved in the process of providing information on which attacks could be carried out, but clearly that murder of persons was involved and he's applied for amnesty for those cases.

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: Respectfully can I answer, is there any question I have to answer?

MR MCADAM: I just want your comment that a person in this position would be under such a wrong impression regarding the purpose of Trevits.

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: These documents it goes to annexture E and there are certain interviews I don't know what this entails.   This documentation I received at a very late stage.  I understand that.  I want to ask if that is your question.  I wanted you to refer to where in his application Trevits was used to eliminate people.  Where is this stated in his application that Trevits was used to eliminate people?

MR MCADAM: Well in the first place on page 13 that the establishment of Trevits was because of the failed action of the ANC....(intervention)

MR TREURNICHT: May I assist my colleague Mr Chairman. If he looks on page numbered 3 of this application he will find at the bottom of that the following: a general description of Trevits which I submit is in line with w hat I have suggested earlier on.
"Trevits was an inter- departmental work group and it enhanced the working of projects.  The inputs of the various working groups and Trevits is one of those working groups enhanced the process of target identification.  The so-called target dossiers were held at Headquarters".
The applicant in this application, when he describes in general the functions of Trevits he doesn't describe it in the fashion in which my learned friend suggests, has suggested it to the witness.

MR LYSTER: Mr MacAdam you said that Trevits was not involved in the elimination or the killing of people as such.  Is it your contention that the gist of this application is that the purpose for which they developed targets was so that such targets could be.  Is that what you're saying?  (speaker's mike is not on)....
 I think just put it to the witness in fairly crisp terms I don't think that Trevits itself was an executing body,  but I mean that not in the sense that they kill people but that the purpose for which they gathered information was so that those people could then be eliminated by that I mean killed by other bodies. Is that what you suggested?

MR MCADAM: That's correct Mr Chairman.

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: Mr Chairman I have already made my standpoint but that was not the case.  That would be wrong if you draw the inference that, that was the purpose of Trevits.  I want to place it on record that I do not agree with that, it is wrong.

MR MCADAM: And possibly just to conclude there are various applications by former members of Trevits for matters where they provided Intelligence which led to the killing of people.  I am only putting facts which should be considered by the committee in the end.
 This is not a personal attack on you.  But I just want to give you the broad picture according to which we are working.  A lot of publicity was given last year at a public meeting of a Brigadier of the Security Branch which committed varied assassinations in South Africa and he alleged that when he attended Trevits meetings the people who had to be eliminated were discussed, information was obtained to enhance this elimination and to establish where they were staying, were there people with weapons nearby whatever.  Would you like to comment on that?

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: I still support my standpoint regarding Trevits.  I want to add that I think that it is not fair that during this hearing to bombard me with a lot of amnesty applications which I do not have, and to make certain allegations about what Trevits had done or should have done, I think it's unfair and not correct.  I'm still supporting my own point or view.

MR MCADAM: If we go onto a next point and that is specifically regarding the Security Council provided to you.  If you read through this documentation you see in the early 1980's the terms are used like "detentions etc", and it's rather moderate terms. but after 1985 there is a difference in terminology and the way the language is used and now suddenly reference is made to elimination, permanently taken out of a community, disrupt etc.
 The first question I want to put to you is the year 1985.  Was that a watershed year in the revolutionary onslaught against the country at that stage?

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: Mr Chairman, unfortunately I did not receive any documentation as to before 1985.  The question you are asking is, yes 1985 and afterwards the revolutionary climate and conflict in South Africa escalated drastically internally and overseas, and this also led to the declaration of the State of Emergency.

MR MCADAM: Would it be correct to assume that at that stage the South African Government was busy losing this battle, but before that it was just single cases by the so-called trained terrorists planting a bomb or just shooting somebody but now whole communities resisted and places were made ungovernable and security forces couldn't move in places like Port Elizabeth, economic pressure was put on the Government by stay-away actions and also these civil societies established by the Government, those people were murdered.  People did not want to be involved in things associated with the State.....(intervention)

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: Please ask your question.....(intervention)

MR MCADAM: Can you confirm, was that the background to that area at that time. iIs that so?

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: On page 35,36 I described in detail, I don't want to reiterate and my standpoint is that was an escalation of conflict.
That what you're saying is true. That is what I've also said in my document.  That is what I've also said in my document

MR MCADAM: Did that situation cause a big problem for the country of the day?

LUCAS DANIEL BARNARD: Certainly it led to the problem that a Government had to find a negotiated political settlement because it had to do with people who did not have political power and they tried to use violence and conflict to obtain political power.
 In my presentation I also said that many people were frightened that there would be a revolutionary takeover, but the argument was we cannot get a negotiated agreement with its broad divisions of all the peoples in this country if we work in a revolutionary climate.  We had to create a stable climate where this negotiated settlement could be reached.  
 There is no example where there are deeply divided communities in the world whether it's in the Middle East whether it's in Northern Ireland, it's not possible to get an answer to a problem if there is anarchy and that was also the point of view of the SSC that the situation should be stabilised.   A climate had to be created where this whole process could be developed in a peaceful way.

MR MCADAM: Would you say that the primary policy of the Government of the day was that we should counter this problem to find a peaceful settlement so we can negotiate it with the oppressed people?