Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — 1997-02-24

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it is difficult because certain people were intricately involved 
over a long period.  General van der Merwe was involved to a certain extent and I intend, when he gives 
evidence again, to ask him certain questions about the State Security Council.	I did raise that with 
Captain van Jaarsveld and as I understand it, 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 34

<UNKNOWN>: General van der Merwe would only be able to assist the Committee in a very general, limited way.
	One must remember that certain people were involved in certain capacities with the State Security 
Council and what is also of importance is that Captain van Jaarsveld was involved with the development of 
the whole counter- revolutionary strategy.

ADV DE JAGER: General van der Merwe offered to give evidence without being subpoenaed.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes.  The only difference between General van der Merwe and Captain van 
Jaarsveld, well two differences, was that, or the only difference is that General van der Merwe is not a State 
witness and he offered voluntarily to come and give evidence.
	Captain van Jaarsveld, I may mention, has indicated his willingness to give such evidence before 
the Committee.  He is represented by Mr Meintjies, an attorney, and Mr Meintjies mentioned to me that he 
will place his client's view on record, but I can submit to you at this stage that they have given an indication 
that he has no problem whatsoever to assist this Committee with this evidence and to place this evidence 
before this Committee.
	Mr Chairman, the last point I want to make about this is that we cannot see that there can be any 
prejudice for any party involved in these proceedings if such evidence is placed before this Committee, 
after all this procedure is about truth.  Truth first and foremost and we fail to understand why the truth 
should be kept from this Committee and from the public at large and from the applicants, where it can 
assist the applicants in their applications.  And especially the evidence that they have given where nobody 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 34

<UNKNOWN>: can be prejudiced.	We fail to see that the Attorney General can be prejudiced in respect of his investigations 
or perhaps any future criminal proceedings.
	There is, however, Mr Chairman, one last request which Captain van Jaarsveld asked me to raise 
and I am sure that Mr Meintjies will confirm that, and that is his request is that he be allowed to give such 
evidence before this Committee in camera.  Mr Chairman that can be done in terms of Section 33 of the 
Act and, in respect of Section 33 I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Commission can in any 
proceedings, if it is satisfied that it would be in the interest of justice firstly, or and with the emphasis on 
or, there is a likelihood that harm may ensue to any person as a result of the proceedings being open, may 
direct that such proceedings be held behind closed doors and that the public or any category thereof shall 
not be present at such proceedings.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr du Plessis, didn't you advance that one of the reasons that it is in the interest of the 
public to know and now you are asking us to do this in camera?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, in the interest of the public in respect of not necessarily 
publication of that information now.  What I am saying is publication of that information after the 
Committee has considered the evidence and when the Committee gives the judgement in this matter.
	It is also obviously in the interest of the public not necessarily to hear the evidence, but it would 
be in the 
interest of the public to know that any evidence which might be of importance to an applicant, is 
entertained by the
Committee, even if it is done in camera, and that nobody is allowed to influence the proceedings of this 
Committee in 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

ADV DU PLESSIS: 35

<UNKNOWN>: respect of evidence and the truth.
	And for that purpose it is also important for the public.  Mr Chairman, however, that is a request 
from Captain van Jaarsveld.  Obviously the applicants - I am applying for that on behalf of Captain van 
Jaarsveld, simply and purely because he asked that it be done in that way.
	As far as the applicants are concerned, we deem the evidence of such importance that we would 
request the Committee to give serious consideration to Captain van Jaarsveld being called as a witness.

HASSAN MALL: Mr Meintjies, is there anything you wish to add?

MR MEINTJIES: As the Committee pleases, Mr Chairperson.  I appear on behalf of Captain van Jaarsveld.  
I have appeared sporadically before this Committee on behalf of Captain van Jaarsveld and would once 
again like to confirm that Captain van Jaarsveld is not unwilling to come and give evidence before this 
Committee.  On the contrary he is very willing but the problem that I am struggling with and which 
Captain van Jaarsveld is also having difficulty with is being necessitated to apply for amnesty.
	The applicants' legal representative submits to this Committee that Captain van Jaarsveld will not 
be prejudiced in his amnesty application by evidence which he may give here if he should come and testify. 
If we were to have an open situation, this applicant will have no control over which questions will be put to 
Captain van Jaarsveld and it could definitely be to the prejudice of Captain van Jaarsveld.  Be that as it 
may, Captain van Jaarsveld is willing to come and give evidence.
	The request which the applicants' representative 
PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR MEINTJIES: 36

<UNKNOWN>: submitted on his behalf, is as such and this application is thus submitted to this Committee that the 
application be heard in camera should Captain van Jaarsveld be called upon to testify.
	The reason for this would be that the matters which will be addressed in the evidence of Captain 
van Jaarsveld and under cross-examination will be limited to the position with regards to the structures and 
workings of the State Security Council.
	Lastly, Captain van Jaarsveld is willing to give evidence where and when the Committee decides 
that the Committee would like to call him as a witness and we will stick to the Committee's decision.
	Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Meintjies, there has been an indication that it would be required of him to give 
evidence with regard to the anti-revolutionary plan.

MR MEINTJIES: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: You said that you would not mind that it be limited to the structures and those aspects, 
but that he should be asked to give evidence about the anti-revolutionary plan and also instructions from 
the State Security Council and for instance Mr Cronje - what is your attitude?

MR MEINTJIES: ;	Once again Mr Chairperson, it should not be a problem for my client as long as he is not 
expected to 
give evidence about matters which he is going to apply for amnesty, where he was personally involved.  
Thank you very
much.

ADV DE JAGER: How are we going to know what his amnesty application will entail and 
prevent such questions being put PRETORIA HEARING	AMNESTY/

MR MEINTJIES: 36

<UNKNOWN>: to him?

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, this is part of the problem I have with a public hearing, I do not know 
which questions will be put to him and it has to be limited in some way or another so that my client is not 
prejudiced.

ADV DE JAGER: Certainly, whichever way this is done, it can only be determined if we know which 
matters he is applying for amnesty for and in such a way prevent such questions being put to him, 
otherwise there is no other way of us knowing.