Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-08

CHAIRPERSON: I was suggesting that you are true to yourself. You said you might be repetitive, you have made these points and I am sure we have all taken good note of them. Thank you.

MR HAYSOM: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: But Professor Haysom can I just ask you, I am just trying to understand. Does the issue that you raise does that relate to the technical side of what is before us? Or does it also relate because you see we have got a whole array of witnesses.

MR HAYSOM: No it relates to the technical stuff.

ADV POTGIETER: Is that so?

MR HAYSOM: Ja.

ADV POTGIETER: Because some will be talking about the management of this process, not necessarily about the technical side of it.

MR HAYSOM: I would not want to preclude an issue which somebody may want to raise at the end of the day but speaking before you as I do now it would seem to me that the question of the management, financial systems of abuse of human rights violations are in fact what the Committee was doing. In fact what the programme is about in any abuse. It is not an issue which would contribute to proliferation. An uncovering of abuse cannot proliferate. The only thing which would proliferate is the revelation and many of the documents before you, will be technical documents. They will explain the compounds, how they were synthesised, maybe improvements in the synthesis of those documents. That is the obligation which South Africa has. Remember South Africa, that the current government may well not be the author of those technologies. We are not even arguing that, that technology constitutes an important asset which needs to be protected, which is certainly an issue which has been raised before. We are arguing that as the guardians of that technology we have international obligations as to how we deal with it.

ADV POTGIETER: Alright then it is only in respect of that portion, that aspect of the hearing that you are proposing that we should impose a blanket sort of in camera process?

MR HAYSOM: Yes. What I am suggesting is that this thing cannot be regulated by spotting. You cannot isolate, we will conduct this every scientist may in the course of his own defence and he is entitled to explain anything as fully as he wants, rely on the technical information and the purposes of the project or the purposes of the technologies they were involved in. He will have to traverse some of the technical information.

ADV POTGIETER: I think I understand you.

MR HAYSOM: So what we are saying is you cannot leave it to chance. There are just one or two issues I just want to emphasise at the end there. Lawyers frequently talk about, what we are not talking about is embargo, we are talking about a temporary embargo. The only inconvenience is to the journalists and it is a temporary inconvenience. They have arrived here today whereas they are going to have to come back here next week and get the transcript. And I am saying that what is at risk, what is at risk is so important that many inconvenience to the journalists getting it this week as opposed to next week really cannot constitute sufficient cause to hold this matter in camera and then try and balance it and try and make rulings and allow lawyers to jump up and say "No that should be in camera, that is a proliferation issue," and so. So on the balance of convenience we want to argue that our proposal is the better one. If there is a matrix a other way I would put it in the danger of contravening Mr Ntsebeza ruling, if there was a matrix and there were three objectives there would be truth, there would be transparency, publication, reconciliation. That is the second one. And thirdly there would be the dangers of disclosure. The proposal we make gets full marks on all three. The proposal to hold it in camera does not satisfy adequately the rigorous search for truth requirement. It does not and as a consequence meet the other proposal in regard to full publication because you have got a truncated enquiry. And then obviously it does not deal with the dangers posed by the material with which you are dealing. You yourselves now are going to be the ones in the position of the government. I need to say that it is impossible for the government to abuse Section 21 a to hold this matter in camera, to enforce the in camera holding. Section 21 a of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction Act which specifically empowers the minister to order an in camera hearing in respect of any proceeding other than a court proceeding which is likely to lead to the proliferation. We do not want to approach that because it seems to me evidently a matter which is to be decided by the Truth Commission itself. You are co-responsible now for the technologies which are going to be placed in front of you in the course of these proceedings. Mr Chairman I had indicated that Mr Minty would then, would want to address you on certain of the other issues.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just find out it may be that some of my other colleagues wanted to get some clarification from you, others jumped the gun. Thank you very much. Professor Abdul?