Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

MR GOOSEN: Covering up, when we talk about covering up, we're talking about the appointment of a police investigator whose principle function is in fact not to investigate, to make sure that there is insufficient evidence available to establish that security force members who were involved with the unlawful activity are ever brought to book.  That's what we mean when we talk about a covering up, you would agree with that?

ADRIAAN VLOK: No the investigations which took place in these cases where there were allegations against a member of South African police were not done by somebody from the same section as the policeman under suspicion.  In other words if there were allegations against a policeman in the Security Branch, then the Detective Branch would be given the instruction to investigate and not the Security Branch.

MR GOOSEN: No I just wanted to make sure that we understand one another when we talk about a covering up.  You know that we're talking about a situation in which unlawful activity is committed, security police members are responsible for doing that.  In order to ensure that that never sees the light of day the investigation of that matter is so conducted that that never emerges.  Correct?
 Do you agree that one other element in relation to covering up and preventing unlawful activities coming to light would be the provision of disinformation.  Do you agree with that?

ADRIAAN VLOK: Yes that is correct.  It did happen. I was involved in those things in conveying incorrect information but it can be that I appointed somebody to do certain investigation into an incident and that the investigating officer went to talk to the people and that they gave him the incorrect information.  That he wasn't necessarily involved in the cover up.  He simply bona fide investigated and then submitted the evidence to me.  So it could have worked both ways.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Vlok would you agree with me that in circumstances in which very senior members of the police at the level of the commissioner or possibly a general or whatever is involved in deliberate exercise of either misleading by providing false information or by ensuring that information that is available about the involvement of police in unlawful activity never sees the light of day.  That by doing so those senior police members send a message to the people with whom they work and under them.  That where it is in the interests of protecting or where it is necessary to protect the interests of the security police, covering up of the involvement of security police will occur in specific instances.  Do you agree with that message?

ADRIAAN VLOK: Once again we have to place it in the correct context.  The circle within which the conduct of a senior officer where he cooperated with somebody to cover up, you see it wasn't the entire police force who were aware of that, it was a small group of people in respect of those people who knew it could have been that the conduct of that police officer created the impression amongst them that yes, let's go for it, let's do whatever we want to. But that was a small circle of people.  Now it's too late, we're only hearing about some of these things now it's too late now.

MR GOOSEN: Just by way or wrapping up this particular portion, we know Mr Vlok the following things. That there was an all out war against communism. There was a rapid escalation of the conflict in the '80's, it was perceived as a total onslaught.   There was a counter revolutionary strategy formulated, part of that was that we need to deal with the revolutionaries, we can't necessarily rely only on the legal mechanisms available.  You understood the mind of the policeman on the ground, you set out to do that, you knew that those people, those policemen were under enormous pressure.  In fact you applied some of that pressure.
 Against that background we've seen the formulation of policy in  the use of certain language.  You've made a number of concessions in regard to that.  You've said there was never any unlawful intent on the part of members of the State Security Council or the cabinet.  You can understand with hindsight that there could have been misinterpretations. That politicians erred because they didn't do enough, they  didn't put in place proper safeguards.  
 Now here's the TRC's problem and we've been trying to explore it this morning as well.  No politician involved at the level of State Security Council has yet conceded that there was ever an intention to engage in unlawful activity or to authorise it.  But we know that countless killings, countless eliminations in fact occurred in the country right across the board. We know that scores of policemen were involved in systematic unlawful activity around the country.  We know that those generals, brigadiers, colonels and so on, who were systematically misinterpreting or that they were systematically interpreting instructions. And the question is this Mr Vlok, perhaps you can assist the Commission. Where did those generals, those brigadiers and colonels, where did they coordinate their systematic misinterpretation of State policy, was there a structure other than the State Security Council, other than the Cabinet, whether in the police or outside of the police.  Was there some place there systematic unlawful activity on the part of police members, particularly security police members, was sanctioned, was authorised?  You yourself, you indicate the words that were used, the language used was innocent, it was never intended that these words should mean kill, yet in your own submission you use words like uittewis to mean kill.  Would you have us, have the Commission believe that these exhortations that you never authorised unlawful means, that all unlawful means was a function of a systematic mistake on the part of the police and the security force members?  I want to suggest to you, it's my view, not the panel's view, I want to suggest to you that that scheme is simply implausible.

MR VISSER: With great respect Mr Chairman may I be allowed to say something here.  I don't know what the question is here because it's been a very very long introduction, but the point I do wish to draw your attention to is the perception that there was only one basis upon which policemen on the ground acted unlawfully was that it was a misinterpretation, was not this witnesses presentation, it comes from Mr Goosen.  I see Mr Malan is nodding his head in agreement. With respect there may be many other instances where policemen who are going to before the Amnesty Committee may tell the Amnesty Committee that we did this because we thought for other reasons than this interpretation that we were authorised to do what to do what we did.  I'm just putting the correct perspective so that in fairness to the witness a crisp question may be asked of him which he can understand on the basis of his evidence, with respect.  I don't want to object, I just want to be helpful Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I again, I mean being just an ordinary lay person, what I have understood is what he has tried to put forward actually, that Mr Vlok was in charge of all the police.  He was a member at some point of the State Security Council which was advising Cabinet about how you have to handle revolutionaries and this council used language, amongst other things, used certain language, eliminate, neutralise etc etc which at the primary level did not mean what it appears most people thought it meant and so when that goes down the line, you ask there were unlawful actions, there are some that Mr Vlok concedes were approved, but most of the unlawful activity in the police force which has now come to light, which shocks him, his major submission is that that did not happen because of direct instructions, direct orders, it must have been.