Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — 1997-10-14

MR GOOSEN: Okay.   Mr Botha I am going to go through a few matters by way of clarification on your submission.  You indicated in your, in the submission in respect of the military support or any military intervention in the former Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, that you have no, that you are not aware of any State Security Council decision in that regard.  Part of the bundle of documents which were sent to you was a State Security Council meeting of the 13th of August 1979 where General Malan assures the State Security Council under an item headed "Assistance and co-operation Zimbabwe/Rhodesia.  Purely defence force operations are what are contemplated".  In addition there is a document that was also sent, the 26th of March 1979 which refers to "Military operations" and "Clandestine operations obviously had to continue".  It's in the light of that, in preparing your submission, I assume that you had regard to those, and did you take those into account when you indicated that you didn't have knowledge of the State Security Council considering and/or authorising military interventions in the former Zimbabwe/Rhodesia?

MR R F BOTHA: Yes Mr Chairperson.  As I say again I said I am not aware of any decision of the State Security Council to interfere militarily in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia in 1979 or subsequently in the sense that we would send troops to participate in the conflict.  That means the Security Council did not take a decision that a certain South African regiment or battalion in South African uniforms with South African flags, that is what is said here, and that is correct.   But then I made it clear in the rest of my response that it is obvious that South Africans were being integrated in the Rhodesian forces and were fighting, or rather a part of the Rhodesian forces and the British government knew it and Mr Mugabe knew it.  The only South African unit that was there as a unit in South African uniform was at Beitbridge and he objected to it and we withdrew that unit.  But for the rest I do not know how many, but I know there were South African troops and they were integrated.
 Now from a defence force point of view I take it, that from their point of view it's still their troops, but from the point of view of linking it, it is a bit more difficult if you are fighting under Rhodesian commanders or part of Rhodesian units in their uniforms but you come from South Africa.  I take it this is what was meant by it.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Boraine.

DR BORAINE: Mr Botha I hesitate to raise this because you haven't got it in front of you, I only received this fax yesterday, but in order to try and understand how decisions are taken and so on, this is a fax from Kevin Woods who is in the Chikurubi Maximum Prison and I think most of us have been contacted by him and his colleagues who were tried in Zimbabwe, found guilty, sentenced to death I think but then that was commuted to life imprisonment, we've been dealing with them, as many of the people have, probably including yourself, on compassionate grounds, and saying that in fairness if the orders originated from South Africa they should have the same chance of applying for amnesty as anyone else in a South African prison because it seems that they do have at least dual citizenship.  They did have South African passports as well as Zimbabwean or Rhodesian passports.  Now in this, where he tells me he has applied for amnesty and indicates that probably the Zimbabwean government would not recognise the decision of this TRC, nevertheless because of his family and his friends he wants to come clean.  He wants to say this is what I did, this is why I did it and so on.  And he says whilst going, and I am quoting now
"Whilst going through some letters recently I came across one from Pik Botha...."
and I mean no disrespect, I am just quoting directly from that,
"....dated 25 July 1996".
and I don't expect you to remember this, I mean you write many letters.  In this letter he makes direct reference to the "acts for which we are jailed as having been...."
and then he quotes you as saying -
"...official and authorised".
He is now - I immediately faxed him and said that I'd be grateful if he could send me a copy of that letter and he has promised to do so.  
 I think that this is the point that we have found so difficult to establish.  For example nearby capitals are bombed, is it not reasonable to assume, at least to assume, that an act of such seriousness against a background of the work that you were doing and others probably, that it was at least reasonable to assume that one no Chief of the Defence Force could act like that without consultation, and that the consultation would reasonably have to be with the Head of State, if not with the Cabinet?  Now it clearly wasn't discussed in Cabinet, it wasn't discussed in the State Security Council.  But acts like these where people went into Zimbabwe to kill, because that's what they did, are now described, allegedly, in a letter as "official and authorised".  Now of course what I want to know and the Commission wants to know, "official" in what sense?  "Authorised" by whom, because the chain of command for us is very important?  
 We actually think that the security forces have a point when they constantly say they feel that they have been left holding the bag and the politicians have got off very lightly, and I quote them, and they say this many times to us, as you know.  So by "official" and "authorised" a group of people going into a neighbouring country to destabilise, to kill, being found out, found guilty in a court of law, sentenced to death, serious stuff, what does that mean?

MR R F BOTHA: In practice when South African troops were captured and then taken prisoner I had to try and obtain their release which sometimes took a long time.  In the case of Angola I succeeded twice, in the first instance to get those first seven troops out many years ago after our entering Angola, that was in 1976, '75.  Odile Harrington was also one in Zimbabwe, we obtained her release, there were others from Zimbabwe, we obtained their release and then there was this group.  I share your view for reasons of compassion I did my utmost to try and obtain their release or a further remission in their sentences over many years, over many years.  Because the mother of Mr Woods is getting on in years now and I think it is a great wish on her part to see her son before she dies.
 I cannot today here disclose all the methods that we've used already and what has already happened and who phoned whom about this matter, but I can assure you I've really done my best even after I was no longer Foreign Minister because you quote a date there, 19...?

DR BORAINE: The date of your letter, allegedly, according to Kevin Woods is 25th of July 1996.

MR R F BOTHA: Correct, it's quite correct, quite correct.  He sent me, and they allowed it to pass through prison, a letter, and I knew that what I would be sending him would be read, so I purposely said of them that what they did was "authorised" so that when the Zimbabwean authorities read it I hopefully thought they would have a little bit of extra sympathy for them and know it here is a Minister from South Africa who confirms it.  I am sure that was the case.  I am sure on the basis of the evidence that came out they must have been, either in the employment of the defence force or somebody connected to the defence force must have given them that job to do.  That's why I inserted those words.

DR BORAINE: In other words this was official and authorised ...(intervention)

MR R F BOTHA: Well that was my interpretation.

DR BORAINE: Ja.