Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-06

WITNESS:   Mr Maritz, do you want me to answer each proposition or must I deal with it at the end?

MR MARITZ: No, no, no.  Do you concede so?

WITNESS:   Well, I don't think it's as simple as that.  Certainly there were a great many differences between Dr Buthelezi and the Government at the time.  He opposed them.  But we have to look at what, in fact, were those differences and, largely, they revolved around issues like his opposition to incorporation of KwaZulu into the - as an independent homeland ... (intervention)

MR MARITZ: No, no, I'm not talking about that.  The only area, as I understand it, where they had common ground was that if change had to be brought about, it had to be done democratically.  That was the standpoint of Dr Buthelezi, not so?

WITNESS:   Well, to answer your question, Buthelezi did take the standpoint that change to apartheid should take place peacefully.  He was opposed to certain things that the Government was doing, but ... (inaudible).

MR MARITZ: In a nutshell - sorry - in a nutshell, he was totally opposed to the policies of the then Government?

WITNESS:   Well, I think that is where you're probably incorrect and I intend to answer as follows.  Buthelezi was, in fact, part and parcel of the central structure of

MR MARITZ: /apartheid, the

MR MARITZ: 5A apartheid, the homeland system.  He administered apartheid in black areas on behalf of the white state.  In that sense he was part and parcel of the apartheid state.  He ran a surrogate structure on behalf of Pretoria.  That he opposed incorporation, that he opposed racism, that he wanted change to apartheid, I don't think can alter that.  And, certainly, Buthelezi's other desires, namely that of resisting and taking action against the ANC and UDF and using the most forceful measures, coincided with that of the State, so at certain levels - certainly at those levels Buthelezi and the Government were ad idem and you'll even see in the Marion documents themselves, drawn up by military officers, where Buthelezi says he has to criticise - he had to criticise Malan in public and there it's written in the documents, but he did so tongue in cheek, and that's recorded as something he put across to Malan via these officers, so that opposition, I think, has to be viewed in the light of his other objectives.

MR MARITZ: Well, I must say, Mr Varney, that I find your opinion very novel and quite shocking.  I'm taken aback by it, because in those years, in the '80s, it was universally accepted, as far as I know, that Dr Buthelezi was in strict disagreement with the policies of the South African Government.

WITNESS:   Being in strict disagreement doesn't necessarily mean that strategic alliances cannot be entered into ... (intervention)

MR MARITZ: That's another thing.  We're not debating that.  Please, Mr Varney, let's get on.

WITNESS:   Well, with respect, I think I'm entitled to  ... (inaudible) ... (intervention)

MR LYSTER: Just hang on, both of you.  Both of you, just
 /stop right
5A stop right here.  Please don't raise your voice, Mr Maritz.  It's really unnecessary.  Let's just conduct this in a calm and professional manner, please.

MR MARITZ: Now, secondly, do you concede that at the relevant time Inkatha people were being killed and maimed and property was being destroyed?

WITNESS:   Yes, I said so in my submission.  I think it's in the second or third paragraph.

MR MARITZ: Do you concede that Dr Buthelezi approached the Government for protective assistance?

WITNESS:   Well, I'll give a qualified yes.  It's quite evident from the face of the documents that he sought protective assistance and offensive assistance as well.  He wanted to protect his people from attack and, at the same time, he wanted the ability to take the initiative and launch offensive actions against the ANC and UDF, in order to prevent them from attacking his people.  So I think it's a two-part request that he was involved in there.

MR MARITZ: The fact of the matter is that he went to the South African Government and he wanted protection?

WITNESS:   If one wants to put it in simple terms, in his eyes, yes, he wanted protection, but he wanted protection in the form of - partly in the form of an offensive striking capacity.

MR MARITZ: Do you concede too that Dr Buthelezi was the Minister of Police in KwaZulu?

WITNESS:   Yes, I think you can say that goes without saying, that's history.

MR MARITZ: Do you concede that the KwaZulu Police had fire power?

WITNESS:   Yes, they were armed.

MR MARITZ: Do you concede that they could have been misused?

WITNESS:   Yes.

MR MARITZ: Now, I think this is the salient point, Mr Varney.

MR MARITZ: /I'm not talking

MR MARITZ: 5A I'm not talking about speculation.  I'm not speaking about deduction and I'm not speaking about argument.  What I want to know from you is this.  Is there a single factual basis upon which you can say to this Commission today that when Dr Buthelezi came to the then Government for assistance that the Government should have regarded him, (a) as a total blatant liar and (b) as a killer?

WITNESS:   Sorry, you want me to answer whether the Government believed Dr Buthelezi to be ... (intervention)

MR MARITZ: I've made my question very plain and I am not shouting.  The question is a plain one, not conjecture, nothing of the sort.

WITNESS:   Yes, no, I just want to clarify.

MR MARITZ: Is there a single factual basis upon which you can say to this Commission or to anybody else that the then member of the Government should have known that when Buthelezi came to them for this cry - with his cry of help - that he was a liar, that he was a killer and that he was going to use whichever was given to him for unlawful purposes?

WITNESS:   Your choice of words does put it in quite a stark fashion.

MR MARITZ: That's how start it is, yes.

WITNESS:   No, absolutely.

MR MARITZ: Do you have any factual basis at all?

WITNESS:   I have spent the better part of this afternoon painting the picture as reflected on the documents.  I've spent the better part of the afternoon analysing what I believe to be blunt and unambiguous references to an offensive capacity and when - in my reading of those documents I can come to the conclusion, and I think it's a compelling conclusion, that when Chief Minister Buthelezi went to the Government and wanted an offensive capacity he wanted a

MR MARITZ: /capacity to

MR MARITZ: 5A capacity to take the initiative and strike back.  He would have been aware that during the course of those actions loss of life would occur as people get killed in attacks and, furthermore, when the Government supplied that capacity they would have been aware of the very same simple, obvious fact.

MR MARITZ: Mr Varney, you've argued the matter again.  Isn't the simple answer, "No"?   Isn't it?