Special Hearings — Caprivi Hearings — 1997-08-14

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, our clients failed to appreciate one extremely vital and important aspect relating to this very hearing.  The Commission has gone to great lengths to hear and determine the so-called truth relating to the very volatile situation in KwaZulu-Natal.  Many a word has been said at the instance of the Commission about the activities of the so-called Caprivi trainees, implicating only Inkatha, and/or the IFP, the former South African Defence Force, and possibly the former South African Defence Force.
Mr Chairman, your mandate is to seek the truth, which is indeed a very noble cause to pursue.  The question on behalf of our clients is whether you will be able to attain just that without even endeavouring to hear evidence relating to the rationale behind the attacks committed by the ANC/UDF on members of Inkatha, as was testified inter alia by Mr Mkhize.  
Why, Mr Chairman, have you not bothered to lead evidence on this cardinal aspect, which gave rise to Chief Minister Buthelezi approaching the government of the day to take measures to protect Inkatha leaders against indiscriminate attacks of violence committed by the ANC/UDF alliance?  
It seems as if the ITU has followed a similar approach.  Mr Varney stated that the ITU's primary brief was to investigate the KwaZulu Police.  Superintendent Marion was not even in a position to provide this
 /Commission
Commission with the results of the investigations pertaining to hit squad activities of the ANC and UDF.  It is clear that they are also not interested in investigating hit squad activities of the ANC and UDF.  In this regard I refer to the record, page 224 and 609.
Our clients wish to place on record that they abhor the unnecessary violence which took place in KwaZulu-Natal, which was precipitated by the ANC and UDF's unlawful attacks on the KwaZulu Government structures and Inkatha leaders.  The political violence between Inkatha and the ANC continues.  It is their honest desire that some type of peaceful and lasting solution can be reached.  However, we respectfully submit that our clients cannot be held accountable for this unnecessary mayhem and bloodshed for the reasons stated herein.
Dr Buthelezi was the head of the KwaZulu Government, Inkatha, as well as the Minister of Police, and in these capacities he approached the government of the day for assistance to enable him to protect themselves from unlawful attacks launched against the KwaZulu Government and its officials, Inkatha dignitaries, and in this regard requested a paramilitary capacity to provide them with the necessary protection.  
At the time Buthelezi was the South African Government's political opponent, and as such never wanted it to be known that he received any form of assistance from the government.  He therefore requested that any assistance to him remain secret.  Therefore the South African Government's assistance had to be of a covert nature.  
The South African Government, after investigating
 /the needs
the needs and requirements, instructed the South African Defence Force to render assistance to Buthelezi on the basis of a paramilitary capacity.  Generals Liebenberg, Geldenhuys, Groenewald and Admiral Pitter at all times accepted Dr Buthelezi's bona fides, and at no stage foresaw that the deployment of these trainees would be for unlawful purposes as alleged by the Esikhawini hit squads.  If the evidence of the Esikhawini hit squad members is to be accepted then it means that Dr Buthelezi, when negotiating with the South African Government, had a hidden agenda.  At the time there was no ways that this could have been foreseen by Generals Liebenberg, Geldenhuys, Groenewald and Pitter.
The roles played by our clients have been dealt with above, and it is respectfully submitted that there is no ways that our clients can in any way be held accountable for the atrocities of the Esikhawini hit squad.  It is also submitted that our clients' involvement in Operation Marion was at all times lawful.
Mr Chairman, if we could take a short adjournment, and then we can revert back to you on that one issue relating to that certain meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  I am a bit concerned about Mr Lassidge, as to when he will make his submission.

MR LASSIDGE: Mr Chairman, our submission is no more than 18 pages long.  I see there is sort of a lunch problem here, but I would suggest once they've finished we could then continue.  Perhaps we should take a 15-minute adjournment then.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Lassidge, we didn't intend taking a lunch break at all.  We're quite happy to proceed.
/
MR LASSIDGE

MR LASSIDGE: Well, so are we, Mr Lax, so it's up to the team in front of me, how long they would like to sort out their last submission.

MR COETZEE: Five minutes will suffice.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short, five-minute break.
SHORT  ADJOURNMENT

MR COETZEE: (Inaudible) ... deal with the meeting at Liberty Life with van der Merwe and Smit, and what - do you want to make any further submissions relating to what was said, relating to the arrangement of bail, and taking somebody away basically?
We wish to reply thereto as follows.  We stand by the version as set out in our submission regarding Admiral Pitter, and also his explanation given at the section 29 inquiry.  Both of you were present.  The important aspect to note is not what was precisely meant as a solution to the problem, but that Admiral Pitter found that this was -this solution unacceptable to him, and that is the main reason why he decided well, look, these people must now be incorporated in the KwaZulu Police as individuals.  So there was  no - the proposal, of whatever nature it was, was unacceptable, and then he made a decision, look, they must now be incorporated as individuals.  I think that's the most important aspect.  That's all I would like to say at this stage.  Thank you.

MR DE VOS: Thank you.  That's summarised then everything that we want to place before the Commission.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr de Vos, Mr Coetzee.  Ja, thank you.  There are no questions that we want to ask at this stage.  We may address further points of
 /clarification
clarification to you in writing to Mr van de Hoven's office.  Thank you very much indeed.  And, you know, you're obviously welcome to be excused now if you want to.

MR DE VOS: I personally would like to hear - I've got a long way to travel back to Pretoria, but being here, and being paid, I am going to listen to what my learned colleague is going to say to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you certainly earned your money today.
Mr Lassidge.

MR LASSIDGE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, before we start, the document which we've placed before you is basically written submissions in respect of these hearings.  If I may explain, Mr Chairman, we'll get to that stage at some stage during the submission.  It is not as bad as it looks.  We've tried to be as brief as possible in our submissions as you've indicated you can forward written questions to us, and the back part of the document is actually just a schedule of certain submissions which we make which we won't be dealing with in this hearing, but we ask you to take note of that.
Mr Falconer and I have decided to deal with it in this way.  He will read out the first portion of the submission, and then I will take over.  I then hand over to Mr Falconer.