Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-08

CHAIRPERSON: And is that also consistent with the finding in the Msane trial?  Because I'm a little confused now, because it appears from the judgment in this matter that -in the words of the Judge, that it was common cause, and I would take it that your client, the IFP and Dr Buthelezi and M Z Khumalo, that would include them - it was common cause that in 1985 M Z Khumalo was asked by Buthelezi to assist in the recruitment of some 200 Inkatha supporters
 /to be trained
2A to be trained and eventually employed as KwaZulu Policemen, and that they were, in fact, trained in the Caprivi Strip.  Does your client concede that?

MR LASICH: That is conceded, Mr Chairman.  I refer specifically in this regard to the evidence of M Z Khumalo at that trial.  We will deal with this fully in our submission later.  I am merely trying to shorten the proceedings.  Our hands are tied - not by yourself necessarily, but by the time restrictions - as far as in-depth cross-examination.  I could not do justice in respect of cross-examination with the limited time we have, so I don't intend to go through each and every thing and attack Mr Luthuli's credibility at length.  Sorry, Mr Chairman, if I could just clarify.  I have referred this Commission to the evidence of M Z Khumalo in that matter and, as I have said, it's common cause they were trained in the Caprivi, but the purpose was for them to be recruited as KwaZulu Policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lasich.  Should you reconsider and you want more time to cross-examine there will be time available next week.  As I have said, this hall is booked until today week, end of next week.

MR LASICH: I do appreciate that, Mr Chairman.  However, I would imagine, to do justice to cross-examination would take at least a week with Mr Luthuli.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Stewart.

MR STEWART: Mr Chairperson, unless we know what it is that's denied and what isn't denied, the question can't be answered and I would then suggest that the denial is merely recorded.  In due course it will be given substance but that there's nothing for my client to answer, save for
 /confirming all
2A confirming all of his evidence, which is not going to serve any purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's what Mr Lasich was doing, was placing that denial on record.

MR LASICH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  If may just see if my attorney has any ideas.  Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LASICH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Is there anybody else who would like at this stage to resume the cross-examination?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, Visser on record.  I have no questions for this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser.
MR    (?)   : Certain of the issues that affect our clients have been put in dispute by Mr Maritz. ... (end of tape) ... [break in recording] ... South African Defence Force at the time.  We deny that any of their involvement in the training, even be it on a limited basis, was in any way unlawful and we also submit that where Mr Luthuli's evidence differs from the evidence given by our clients in the Msane trial we deny it.  And I stand by my original viewpoint at this stage.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other members and counsel present who wish to put questions to Mr Luthuli?

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you, Mr Luthuli, you indicated in answer to Mr Maritz, as regards the deployment of the Caprivians, when they returned to South Africa - you indicated that fairly shortly after their return to South Africa they were deployed in offices throughout KwaZulu/Natal.  Do you remember that?

WITNESS:   Yes.

MR WILLS: You indicated that they were deployed to do their

MR WILLS: /work.  Can

MR WILLS: 2B work.  Can you tell me what that work actually was?

WITNESS:  Firstly, it was to assist members or certain members of Inkatha in places that were under Inkatha or Inkatha strongholds.  Secondly, they had to assist in the training of the Inkatha Youth in their respective places.  Thirdly, it was to help the people to kill certain members who had been identified by the Inkatha leadership.

MR WILLS: Now, tell me, do you have any knowledge whether or not this type of activity extended to parts of what is now Mpumalanga/Ermelo - the Ermelo area townships like Wesselton or ... (incomplete)

WITNESS:   That is true.

MR WILLS: And did this type of activity extend to certain areas of the then Transvaal?

WITNESS:   That is correct.

MR WILLS: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLS: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I just want to mention it that I stand but I have taken notice of the proposition of the Commission that there will be time next week.  This week-end I will use to reconsider my position and I will inform you accordingly.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr de Vos.

MR DE VOS: I just want to place on record the question put by my learned friend Mr Wills to Mr Luthuli does not actually form part of the brief of this present Commission - referring now to Ermelo - because in terms of the notice we received this Commission would only examine the operation of hit squads operating in the townships of Mpumalanga and Esikhaweni.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MACADAM: Mr Chairperson, there's just one practical issue that has arisen as a result of Mr van Zyl indicating that he would like over the week-end to reconsider his
 /position and
2B position and possibly then exercise his right to cross-examination.  The witnesses are in a Justice witness protection programme and I would ask Mr van Zyl before he leaves that he can just communicate with me that - I have to make some decision whether these witnesses should be returned to the Justice programme after today or whether they should remain in attendance until the end of next week and this is purely just an issue of practical - but I'd ask Mr van Zyl to communicate with me before he leaves so that we can make proper arrangements in that regard.  I don't want to indicate that this is an intention that he should not exercise any right to further cross-examination, but there are practical rulings that have to ... [break in recording].

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I can just confirm that I will discuss that with Mr Macadam.  Thank you.

MR MACADAM: There are no other aspects I want to canvass with the witness, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Stewart.

MR STEWART: I have nothing, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Luthuli.

MR MACADAM: Mr Chairperson, may we at this stage then hear Mr Dlamini, who testified previously, as in the case of Mr Luthuli?  This is solely to afford counsel the opportunity to cross-examine and not to adduce any fresh evidence.
MR   (?)  : During the lull, Mr Chairman, is the procedure now changed?  I thought that it was now decided that these witnesses would give their full evidence and that all the cross-examination would stand down till
 /later.  Are
2B later.  Are we going back on that and saying now we can cross-examine?  Because we've attempted that procedure and we know it doesn't work.