Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-06

WITNESS:   Yes, the decision as set out ... (intervention)

MR DE VOS: In die hoogste ... (tussenkoms)

WITNESS:   Sorry, may I finish my answer?  What the inter-departmental committee on the 16th January 1986 was considering, or the key point, was sub-paragraph (27), I believe it's these - (i) - whether to recommend the setting up of an offensive para-military unit.  There it is in plain Afrikaans in print.  That was the subject of the debate at the IDC meeting and that's what went to the State Security Council meeting on 3rd February.  Now, to tell me that because the word, "Offensive" and, "Para-military" wasn't there - is not recorded in a skeletal minute that hardly records the discussion, that therefore it wasn't discussed.  I think that's a crazy proposition to make.

MR LYSTER: Mr de Vos, I want to draw it to your attention that you've been cross-examining Mr Varney now for one hour and twenty minutes, which doesn't leave Mr Maritz very much time at all.  And I agree with my colleagues that this is going very slowly.  You need to put forcefully your propositions to Mr Varney and let him agree or disagree and leave it at that, because this doesn't seem to be taking us anywhere.  You know, the fact that a word, "Offensive" isn't mentioned in a particular document, well, I sincerely hope that's not your strongest point.

MR DE VOS: May I then follow through with my point, Chairperson.  Mr Varney, please look at the State Security Council meeting's minutes - the 3rd February meeting.  Does the State Security Council take any decision on the assistance to be given to Chief Minister Buthelezi or

MR DE VOS: /KwaZulu or

MR DE VOS: 5A KwaZulu or may I put it to you, do they refer the issue to Ministers Malan and Heunis to make an evaluation regarding Minister Buthelezi's requirements?  What does the State Security Council do?

WITNESS:   Mr de Vos, that is evident from Annexure A attached to those particular minutes, although you do leave out the little, small matter of the sensitivity being taken up by the highest political level, and the sensitivity I would argue is what was debated at the IDC meeting, namely whether to create an offensive para-military unit for Chief Minister Buthelezi.  That was what in issue and that is what the sensitivity was about.

MR DE VOS: Do you agree that the State Security Council did not take a decision?  Just answer yes or no.

WITNESS:   I have actually answered that question.  They re ... (intervention)

MR DE VOS: In other words, they didn't make the decision, yes or no?  Is that correct?

WITNESS:   (No audible reply)

MR DE VOS: Mr Varney, then I don't understand your arguments and your documentation.  Your arguments to incriminate Liebenberg and Groenewald from day one was because you said that they were busy with execution actions.  Now, we've moved to the 3rd February, but nobody, not even the State Security Council, has made a decision yet.  Would you agree?

WITNESS:   At a document date 10th February 1986, and I shall give you the TRC annexure number - TRC16 - you will see that support - the support for Chief Minister Buthelezi has been approved at the highest political level and if you can't understand the argument, well, that's ... (intervention)

MR DE VOS: Mr Varney, this document was debated for hours in the court a quo. General Groenewald testified on this.

MR DE VOS: /These papers

MR DE VOS: 5A These papers were given to him by the investigating unit in a very incomplete way.  That was his evidence.  He was then asked - this document had a certain annexure, 19th December 1985 document - because it says a document was signed by Admiral Putter, saying that he made the submission to Malan - in other words the 19th December document - for that reason he told you, the investigating unit, "Yes, I did".  When he finally got hold of the 19th December document, he saw that it dealt with Lekganyane, and he had nothing to do with Lekganyane.  For that reason he said in court that he had nothing to do with Lekganyane and the 19th December document.  Let us look at the document of the 10th February.  All that this document says - it's a document drafted by Brigadier Cor van Niekerk, do you agree?  He is not a member of the State Security Council, not a member of the Cabinet.  He is not the chief of the Defence Force.  Would you agree with that?

WITNESS:   You know, it's really pointless putting these sort of questions to me.  Of course I'm going to agree with you, but I think just put your version to me.  What is the point you are making?

MR DE VOS: The point I'm making is this, all that is stated in this letter, you base your entire argument on one word, which says that on the 19th December 1986 a submission under a certain reference was sent by or made by Groenewald to the Minister of Defence about assistance to Chief Minister Buthelezi and Bishop Lekganyane and then the point which you want to make is that since then assistance to Chief Minister Buthelezi has been approved at the highest political level.  That is the point you want to make.  Now, the ultimate answer is this, Putter,

MR DE VOS: /who signed

MR DE VOS: 5A who signed this, was not in Cape Town for the State Security Council meeting.  Van Niekerk, who drafted this letter, was also not in the Cape.  Am I correct?

YASMINE SOOKA: You know, I think whilst, you know, one wants to allow you some kind of leeway, at the same time, this is not a court of law.  This is a commission of inquiry, where we are really trying to get an understanding of the points that your client is making, as well as the contentions and perspectives made by Mr Varney.  Now, if your instructions are to say that this document is not accepted as being a valid confirmation by your client of approval at the highest level then put it that way and Mr Varney can actually say he disagrees or he agrees with you.  But we are really not getting anywhere with this kind of - I know that it's normal in a court of law to cross-examine in this fashion, but remember the purposes are different.  In a court of law there is a whole question of a burden of guilt, an evidenciary burden that one must deal with.  Our job here is to come to an understanding of the conflict of the past and to get to an understanding of what your clients accept or don't accept.  So I would really be grateful, as will my colleagues, if you could try and structure your questions in a way to advance the version which they would have us believe is what they want you to put to us, please.  I agree with my colleague, it does not detract with the cross-examination because Mr Varney will then get an opportunity to say yes, he agrees with your perspective or no, he doesn't, but it will move us faster along the road, because we cannot traverse it in this kind of fashion.  We are really not going to give your other colleagues any opportunity then
 /to put some
5A to put some kind of question to Mr Varney.

MR DE VOS: On the 10th February there could not have been authority for assistance to Buthelezi.  Would you agree with that?  And I'm putting it to you those are my instructions.

WITNESS:   Yes, well, I understand that those would be your instructions, but there is no way of informing us unless you are going to produce some sort of evidence to show that between the 3rd and the 10th that there wasn't some sort of authority that was handed down, albeit at an informal level, as President de Klerk has already testified before the Truth Commission, this highest political level wasn't a formally-constituted body.  It was individuals getting together to make certain decisions.  Now, unless you are able to come up with something a little more solid and substantial I don't see why one shouldn't accept what that document says.  Unless you are able to show that that document is a fabrication or is wrong for some reason, I cannot accept your argument on this.