Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-10

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  If we can arrange now to start, ladies and gentlemen.  Mr Chaskalson, I take it that we are doing the cross-examination of Dr Van Rensburg.

MR CHASKALSON: That is how I understand proceedings.  I am afraid that Mr Vally is slightly late this morning, but the agreement as I understand it from last night is, we would deal with this issue first and then from there, there may be - we would like ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally is here.

MR CHASKALSON: I shall change chairs.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally, I take it that Dr Van Rensburg is on for cross-examination at this stage?

MR VALLY: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Van Rensburg, I only need to remind you that you are still under oath.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Zyl, are you going to start the ball rolling?

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I am ready to continue.  Mr Chairman, before I start with the cross-examination, I want to place certain aspects on record.
 There is a great number of aspects which my clients, and I refer specifically to Dr Swanepoel which places him in dispute, but after consultation, we are of the view that many of the disputes are related to your work.
 I am not going to address all aspects and just refer to certain points.  I am just mentioning it so it wouldn't leave the impression that many things are not in dispute.  Many aspects are placed in dispute, but they will not be addressed during cross-examination.
 Dr Van Rensburg, I don't have clarity regarding exactly what your function was at RRL.  Can you give us a description of exactly what your function was and to answer the question, I want to give you two clues from your evidence yesterday.
 You said that you were involved in only one project, that was the fertility project and that at a certain stage, you said that what you did during your time at RRL and your words were, to higher the level of science, in other words the level of scientific research was increased.  In the light of that evidence, can you tell us what your exact functions were?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, my job descriptions are available, I can give that to you.  My function is Director of Laboratory Services, was primarily to help design, create, equip, staff, laboratories, to introduce, help introduce technology, to appoint, select and appoint staff and to administer the running of these laboratories.
 The job changed with time from being Director of Laboratory Services.  Later about two thirds way through the life-span of Roodeplaat, my job was changed to Director of the Animal Centre.  In other words I had nothing to do with the laboratories.
 The last eight months of my work at Roodeplaat, I was demoted to Scientific Advisor and that is - my function there was particularly concerned the final reporting and quality of research work.
 Does that answer your question?

MR VAN ZYL: If I understand you correctly Dr Van Rensburg, you were not involved in the research or the scientific work regarding the hard projects, you were not involved in those.
 Those were the chemical or biological warfare research being done, you were not involved in that.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I had to provide the facilities, the staff, certain technology, maintain the laboratories.  These laboratories were used almost in an identical manner for both commercial research and for hard work, shall we call it that.  In that way, most certainly I did indirectly contribute to hard work and that is the basis for my amnesty application.

MR VAN ZYL: Did you apply for amnesty?  Do you have it available here?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I have it available, yes.

MR VAN ZYL: The essence of my question regarding what your exact work was, should you receive an instruction that a certain organism had to be evaluated and analysed for the purposes of biological warfare, you would not be involved in the physical work and research but you indirectly rendered assistance, you didn't do the exact work?
 It appears to me and you were here yesterday when Dr Mike Odendal testified that he was the scientist involved in the research and doing the work.
The so-called need to know principle was applied strictly?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Especially the lower the level, the stronger it became.

MR VAN ZYL: What do you mean by that?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Directors for example, leaked a little bit more information to one another.  Those were for two reasons, because you had to have for management purposes, know what was going on.  And then secondly, we were a small group.
 There were many meetings, almost every day and the Directors and the management got together at some or other stage.

MR VAN ZYL: Certainly the detail of research was not discussed there?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR VAN ZYL: In other words what exactly was asked to be done by the Defence Force, the detail of that would not be discussed during those meetings, it was only the daily management of the company being discussed there?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR VAN ZYL: Receiving instructions, yesterday you testified that you received no instruction at any stage to do any specific research or for any specific project.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, that is not correct, I did receive instructions for the infertility project.

MR VAN ZYL: Let's forget about the infertility project.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Further in my presence, usually in small groups, the need for a substance which could stimulate a disease is not traceable easily, but it was not directly given to me, it was discussed in small groups, for example to Dr Odendal.
 I just happened to be there, it was not addressed to me specifically.

MR VAN ZYL: This fact that such a request was put to you and it was disturbing to you?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Right in the beginning it was disturbing, but I became used to that and I accepted the situation at that institution.

MR VAN ZYL: And that was the kind of research in which you would not become involve, it would once again be done by Dr Odendal or somebody else?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I was not directly involved.

MR VAN ZYL: Taking into consideration the strong need to know principle, I find it very strange that if such a substance was required, but your evidence seems strange that this substance which you were looking for, if a need to know principle was applied, it would be within that realm, but I think it was done informally during discussions, that that demand was made.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, yesterday I outlined the procedure of projects.  A verbal instruction would come to the research worker, right.  That is the need to know principle.
 The research worker comes back with a written proposal, protocol.  That would go to Andre Immelman, who himself would get the project into an acceptable form for him.  It would then if it involved animals, serve at the Ethics, the Animal Ethics Committee.  Every project using animals, had to be approved by the Animal Ethics Committee, otherwise it could not proceed.
 It is there that I would on a need to know principle, see a lot of the hard projects.

MR VAN ZYL: I understand that, Dr Van Rensburg, if research had to be done on organism X and animals were involved, that had to be put to you, but the purpose for which it was demanded, was something different.
 I could ask you to do research about X, Y and Z, but the reason for this research does not have to be conveyed to you.  This is the problem that I have, you said there was a very strong need to know basis, now a request was made for an agent as you have described.  This is mentioned informally during discussion, where you were present and it is also mentioned in your presence, although you did not have to do the research?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I had to provide facilities for that research work to be done, and in that regard, I was involved.