Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-24

MR MEINTJIES: It seems to me that the solution to that Mr Chairperson, would be that he not be 
questioned about specific actions but about the structures and operations of the State Security Council and 
the anti-revolutionary action of the State, in other words an objective - excuse me for a minute, I am 
looking for the word - perhaps searching for the spirit ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: You mean about the policy and not the application thereof?

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson, that was very helpful.

JUDGE MGOEPE: Mr du Plessis, I am going to ask you this question because I would like you to 
deal with it so that Mr Pretorius can, when his turn comes, he will be able to respond to the points that you 
would have made in response to the query I am going to raise to you. 
	It seems to me if one listens to your argument, one 
gets an impression as though the kind of evidence that you want can only be found peculiarly within the 
mind or
knowledge of Captain van Jaarsveld.  I would be surprised if that would in fact be the case, in fact his rank 
suggests 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 37

<UNKNOWN>: that, as you say he is a Captain, I would have thought that there would have been people more senior to him 
who would have knowledge of all these things in respect of which you want him to come and testify.  If 
that is the case, if the position is that this knowledge that you want him to come and share with us, the 
knowledge does not peculiarly reside in him alone, I would have thought that any other person who is just 
as much conversant with all these facts, would be as good a witness as he could be, unless of course there 
are some other reasons that we don't know of why you particularly want this particular witness.
	And on the submissions that you have made to us so far, you emphasise the generality of his 
evidence, that you want him to come and give.  On the submissions you have so far made nothing suggests 
that he and he alone out of the security establishment can come and testify about these aspects.
	Nothing that I have picked up - I am not through yet.
	If I can just make one point just to round the point up.  You see I am troubled by the fact that we 
are going to have to go back to the same argument which you had last time.  I am also troubled by the fact 
that it seems to me that low and behold by coincidence the State has an interest in a particular witness and it 
turns out that that happens to be the witness in respect of which you also want to call that particular 
witness.	
	And then it takes us back to the same argument which we had last year; given that fact that this 
matter was argued before us last week in more or less the same nature; given the fact that the kind of 
evidence does not peculiarly reside within the knowledge of a particular witness about 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

GAUTENG: 38
whom there is some argument; given the fact that other witnesses can possibly, competently, perhaps even 
more knowledgeably, come and testify about those particular aspects; given the factors also raised by Mr 
Meintjies, is there a basis on which we should still be arguing about whether this particular witness should 
come or should you not in fact take the liberty that you do have, and you can have, to call other witnesses 
who are more knowledgeable which would obviate us sitting here again, going through the same argument 
which we had last year?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I would like to answer that.  Mr Chairman one must take 
the history of the applicants and their applications, under what circumstances they launched the 
applications and the general attitude of the Security Forces towards the proceedings before this Committee 
into account.
	Clearly it is very difficult for the applicants to even get to speak to certain people who were 
involved with the State Security Council.  As I have made clear in the application when I advanced 
reasons, we have tried to do so.
	We have had, however, difficulty in getting cooperation.  Not just in respect of this issue, but in 
respect of other issues.  There is, Mr Chairman, a general feeling it seems, especially amongst the superiors 
of the applicants, that this Commission should not be assisted.
In the light of that it makes the applicant's position very difficult because of the fact that if we cannot even 
arrange a consultation with a possible witness to determine what that witness could assist us with, if we 
cannot get
information pertaining to who served on the State Security Council and its various sections, it makes the 
applicant's 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 39

<UNKNOWN>: task very difficult.
	Now, that initially, that is the one reason why the applicants find themselves in a lot of difficulty.  
The second point I want to make is, and I have already made that point, is that the party for whom the 
applicants gave their whole lives and their career during that time, namely the National Party, has not 
offered the applicants any assistance whatsoever with these proceedings, has not contacted the applicants 
and has made no effort whatsoever to be of any assistance.
	The only senior person who has up to this stage been prepared to take responsibility for and on 
behalf of the applicants has been General van der Merwe, for which the applicants are very grateful.
	Mr Chairman, at this point in time it is the applicants who were really, if I can call them, the foot 
soldiers, who stand before this Committee, who took the responsibility to give evidence before this 
Committee about the whole background of the National Party struggle, about the whole background of 
apartheid, in respect of which they were foot soldiers Mr Chairman.  They were not the people who gave 
the orders.
	They were not the people who were in charge and they are simply not assisted by people who are 
in a position to assist them.  And although I am taking a time to raise this, I will address the Committee 
again in my heads of argument when I deal with this matter in argument, but that is a reality of the 
applicants' applications.
	The applicants have access to certain people who are
prepared to testify on their behalf and when we deem it necessary we will call such witnesses.
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 39

<UNKNOWN>: But in respect of this issue, the applicants have grave difficulties.  The difficulties, as I have said, 
are firstly to identify who was involved and, secondly, to get those people to assist the applicants.  Now the 
application of Mr Currin which he did discuss with you in chambers which hasn't been made yet, but the 
request to subpoena certain witnesses would include witnesses for instance who were involved in the State 
Security Council.
	One of those persons as far as my knowledge goes was a secretary of the State Security Council in 
1985.  If that object is attained those witnesses will give evidence before this Committee, but those 
witnesses do not want to support the applicants and they do not want to help the applicants in their 
applications.	That is the first point that I want to make.  
	The second point I want to make in answer to your question is that Captain van Jaarsveld was 
involved with the development of the counter-revolutionary strategy right from its inception.  As far as I 
understood that was round about 1980 and the development of the strategy took place until approximately 
1985 when it was implemented.
	Captain van Jaarsveld was intricately involved in this whole process throughout the time.  He was 
also involved as the representative of the Security Police on the State Security Council for a long period of 
time and he was therefore, over a long period of time, intricately involved with the system.
	Captain van Jaarsveld also completed a Masters' Degree as far as I know in Political Science, 
which dealt with,