CHAIRPERSON: Doctor Swanepoel, welcome to these proceedings. Before you take the stand and testify I will ask Advocate Potgieter to swear you.

ADV POTGIETER: Full names please.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Vally, or is it Mr Chaskalson?

MR VALLY: I'll be commencing and Mr Chaskalson will be taking over Mr Chair. The reason I'm beginning is, we need to invoke the provisions of Section 31 of our Act in respect of this witness. I had a brief discussion with my learned friend. If you look at Section 31(2) we may compel this witness to respond to questions which may be self incriminating. In order for us to do that we have satisfy the requirements set out in Section 31(2).

I can for the record, Mr Chairperson, confirm that:-

(a) We have consulted with the Attorney-General who has jurisdiction for that requirement, Section 31(2).

(b) We have to satisfy the panel that the information that we require from such a person is reasonable, necessary and justifiable in an open democratic society based on freedom and equality. And I will briefly address these aspects.

Firstly, that the purpose of our Commission is an important both government concern and social concern in that we are trying to determine the gross violation of human rights in our mandate period and the value reflected therein in terms trying to expose gross violations of human rights would, I submit, reflect the values inherent in our Bill of Rights.

Secondly, the restriction or the interference with the witness' constitutional rights is impaired no more than is absolutely necessary and in this regard I would refer to Section 31(3) of our Act which states:

"Any incriminating answer or information obtained or incriminating evidence directly or indirectly derived from a questioning in sub-Section (1) shall not be admissible as evidence against the person concerned in criminal proceedings in a Court of Law or before anybody or institution established by or under any law, provided that incriminating evidence arising from such questioning shall be admissible in criminal proceedings where the person is arraigned with a charge of perjury or a charge contemplated in terms of Section 39 of this Act or Section 319(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act"

Thirdly the benefits to be gained are not out of proportion to the restriction of the witness' constitutional rights and this regard I respectfully refer the Commission to the objectives as set out in our Act.

And finally I would submit that the evidence given by this witness to the Commission, in view of our obligation to make a report to Parliament, to make recommendations as regards any potential future violation of human rights and what steps should be taken to prevent these are of significant social benefit to the society and therefore should be allowed to be led.

And I would respectfully submit that this meets the requirement as set out in Section 31(2) (b), that the information we require is reasonable, necessary and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on freedom and equality.

As regards the third issue, Section 31 Sub-(2), Sub-(c) we need to satisfy ourselves that the person has refused or is likely to refuse to answer a question or produce an article on the grounds that such an answer or article might incriminate him or her.

My learned friend will confirm that in discussions before my submission that there is a possibility that he, a likelihood as the Act states that Doctor Swanepoel would have declined to answer questions on the basis that they may incriminate him and on that basis I have made my submission. Thank you Mr Chair.


MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman, I agree with the submission of my learned friend. I did give an indication that there might be some difficulties regarding incriminating questions and I agree with his suggestion that we in advance, bring into operation the specific provisions in order to protect the witness against the result of giving incriminating answers already at this stage, then we don't have any difficulties further, then he can without difficulty answer any questions put to him at any stage of the proceedings and we don't need argument in-between, whether this might an incriminating question or not.

It's always a very difficult situation to handle, so I agree with the submission by my learned friend, that at this stage already the provisions of the specific Section are being brought in operation by yourselves and that the specific indemnity is given to Doctor Swanepoel.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Cilliers. I'm sure I'm reflecting the views of the panel that to the extent of Doctor Wynand Swanepoel's testimony which is being given during the course of this hearing, to that extent the provisions of Section 31 will apply and he will be compelled to answer all questions on the basis that any evidence that he leads in this inquiry shall not be used for purposes of prosecuting him at a later stage.

Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you Chairperson.

MR ARENDSE: Sorry Chairperson, just before we proceed, there was a matter which I raised with you during the break and you said you would address it and issue a directive which is appropriate.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We, over the last two, three days and consequently upon an application by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there a ruling that any new documents that might be brought, and especially documents that might emanate from witnesses, must be discovered so that the Ministry should not be placed in a position where such document have not been debated upon as to the susceptibility to proliferation beforehand.

And I would like to emphasise and direct that if any witnesses are going to be producing such documents as may have the potentiality to affect that agreement, those documents must be discovered ahead of time so that counsel for the Ministry and all relevant counsel should have the necessary agreement as to whether or not they are in line with the agreement.

So I just want to remind those who represent witnesses who might testify, that if there are any new documents which do not form part of the bundle of documents that have been situated to counsel and to witnesses, those documents need to be discovered first to counsel for the Ministry so that their agreement should capable of being enforced.

Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Doctor Swanepoel, could you tell us what your qualifications are?

MR SWANEPOEL: I'm a dentist by professional qualification.

MR CHASKALSON: Just for the record insofar as it is necessary, we identified Mr Swanepoel as a Doctor at the outset and the correction insofar as it stands should just be noted.

Mr Swanepoel, could you tell me when you joined the Special Operations team in Special Forces?

MR SWANEPOEL: In 1983. April of 1983 I joined the Medical Special Operations. I was never a member of Special Forces.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell me what your functions were during that time?

MR SWANEPOEL: I was mainly in charge of personnel, administration and logistic support and co-ordinated these functions.

MR CHASKALSON: Who else was involved in your unit?

MR SWANEPOEL: Doctor Wouter Basson was the head of the unit, Doctor Philip Mijburgh and then there were other doctors and a great deal of conscripts.

MR CHASKALSON: Was Doctor Johnny Koertzen by any chance a member of that unit?

MR SWANEPOEL: He was a conscript but joined the permanent force a while later.

MR CHASKALSON: During this period of time, did you participate in any operations?


MR CHASKALSON: Did you at any stage, later after you had left this unit, participate in any Special Force operations?


MR CHASKALSON: When did you join RRL?

MR SWANEPOEL: I am not sure but it was approximately 1 April or 1 June '86.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell us who recruited you?

MR SWANEPOEL: Doctor Basson.

MR CHASKALSON: And under what circumstances, how was your new job explained to you?

MR SWANEPOEL: Doctor Basson explained that they had a front company where the management aspects and the co-ordinating aspects in terms of personnel and finance had become a bit or a problem, got out of hand, and they had problems with the control thereof.

He asked me whether I would be prepared to take up this role as I had already had managerial experience from my stint in the Defence Force. He asked me whether I would do this and after two or three months I said yes.

MR CHASKALSON: So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that there was a management problem at the company and they wanted you to go in and try and sort that out

MR SWANEPOEL: There was a management crisis as I later realised, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: And you said that you had had experience during your time in the Army with these sort of management issues?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's correct, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you have any scientific background?


MR CHASKALSON: Were you told what the nature of the work that was to be done at RRL was?

MR SWANEPOEL: I was informed that RRL dealt with the evaluation and the development of biological and chemical agents for the purpose of being able to diagnose them and to trace them and to be able to diagnose the working thereof and in whichever form it could be expected in terms of diagnosis. And then I was also informed that the ultimate purpose was to give treatments, neutralisation methods and contamination which had to be developed.

MR CHASKALSON: So this sounds a strictly defensive programme. Your aim is to identify possible substances that could be used in chemical and biological warfare and then undertake work to neutralise such agents, decontaminants?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's correct, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you. What was your title when you joined RRL?

MR SWANEPOEL: In which regard are you referring to now?

MR CHASKALSON: Well, were you the Managing Director of the Company?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, initially I was the Director of Management Services.

MR CHASKALSON: Could you explain how the structure worked when you joined?

MR SWANEPOEL: The structure at Roodeplaat?


MR SWANEPOEL: Roodeplaat was divided - and I cannot recall very well but I'm going to try my best, into a Research and Development Section and then the Experimental Animal Centre and a Personnel Section.

MR CHASKALSON: Maybe let me phrase the question in a slightly different manner. Could you tell us who were Directors at the time you joined the company and what each of the Director's functions were?

MR SWANEPOEL: Doctor Daan Goosen was the Managing Director. Doctor Schalk van Rensburg was in Laboratory Services and Doctor Andrè Immelman was there for Research and Development and Mr D W Sparmer was the Head of Personnel and Administration. They were also the Directors.

MR CHASKALSON: And was Doctor Goosen a Director as the same time as you were a Director or did you replace him?

MR SWANEPOEL: He remained as a Director for a short while afterwards, approximately four to five months and then he was made the Managing Director of another company in the group.

MR CHASKALSON: At that stage was anybody appointed as the Managing Director of the company?

MR SWANEPOEL: I was appointed, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: What are your understandings of the function of a Managing Director of a company?

MR SWANEPOEL: To control the effectiveness of the Company in terms of personnel co-ordination to do a task and motivation as well as to achieve results. And my view of this was to achieve production effectivity or effectiveness and to take control of financial management and to make it streamlined.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you see yourself as having any involvement in the actual subject matter of the company?


MR CHASKALSON: Isn't that a little strange?


MR CHASKALSON: So you are a Director of a Biological Company and your functions in regard to that company are personnel related, financially related and production related?

MR SWANEPOEL: Not personal, personnel.



MR CHASKALSON: You had absolutely no function whatsoever at your company?


MR CHASKALSON: Who had that responsibility?

MR SWANEPOEL: Doctor Andrè Immelman was the Head of Research and Development, Doctor van Rensburg was appointed to do the ethical aspects of research and to approve these first of


MR CHASKALSON: You said at the outset that the company was a front company, who did you report to in the SADF structure?

MR SWANEPOEL: We had various structures.

MR CHASKALSON: Could you elaborate on those please?

MR SWANEPOEL: It was the KBK which was referred to earlier, the Financial Committee and a Security Committee and the CCC.

MR CHASKALSON: What would be reported to each of those structures?

MR SWANEPOEL: To the CCC reporting was mainly done regarding the financial and personnel aspects and the future of the company and the course of the company. The Financial Committee which ran parallel to this, dealt with the financial matters which were reported on monthly and the Security Committee, we reported to them on - well, this was highly confidential by nature of the case, and we had to have quite a great deal of communication about this, about various information from their side and from ours.

MR CHASKALSON: Would reporting of experimentation that was taking place at the company be to the Security side of things?


MR CHASKALSON: Who would that reporting be made to?

MR SWANEPOEL: The reporting of research results, we dealt with them as any other contract in the company and that was to the person who gave the instruction, Doctor Basson.

MR CHASKALSON: You mentioned that when you joined the company there was an administrative crisis?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's correct.

MR CHASKALSON: Could you elaborate on that?

MR SWANEPOEL: It was not an administrative crisis alone, it was a management crisis in general. All three the other Directors, Messrs Sparmer, Doctor van Rensburg and Doctor Immelman made the statement that they could no longer work together with and under Doctor Goosen, that he kept the financial aspects a secret.

He never involved them in the formulation of budgets etc., personnel matters were not supported by him and they did not see their way clear to work under him and I hear that, I think that this is where the crisis existed.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you give any explanation why none of this was mentioned by Doctor van Rensburg when he gave his evidence?

MR SWANEPOEL: I have no idea, I cannot speculate about that.

MR CHASKALSON: And if he said that he thought that Doctor Goosen was doing a good job, you would say that he was lying?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is his interpretation.

MR CHASKALSON: You have just said now that he had said to you that he was unhappy with Doctor Goosen's performance at the time.

MR SWANEPOEL: That was the reason why I came to the company.

MR CHASKALSON: Was that a reason that was given to you by Doctor van Rensburg or was that a reason that was given to you by some other party?

MR SWANEPOEL: It was given by both, at least by all the Directors as well as all the outside parties.

MR CHASKALSON: So if Doctor van Rensburg has told us that he no problem with the management style of Doctor Goosen nor of his performance in the company, which incidentally involved both input into the scientific and other general management procedures, you would say that he was lying either to us now or to you at the time?

MR SWANEPOEL: I put it so unequivocally, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Swanepoel, he told us that your appointment was the end of the future. Do you have any comment on that?

MR SWANEPOEL: I cannot comment on his opinion, no.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you change any of the structures that existed at RRL prior to your joining the company?

MR SWANEPOEL: Perhaps you have now said two things in one. I did not change the structures before coming to the company but the existing structures when I arrived there, I could change and that is what I did, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell us what sort of changes you made?

MR SWANEPOEL: The Laboratory Services and the Research and Development I brought together as a unit and the Personnel and Administration as well and I kept Finance separate.

MR CHASKALSON: You earlier gave us your understanding of the role of the company in the Chemical and Biological Warfare programme at the time you were recruited, did this understanding change over time?


MR CHASKALSON: Did you know any of the scientists or researches at RRL prior to joining the company?


MR CHASKALSON: Had you met any of the researchers of scientists at RRL prior to joining the company?

MR SWANEPOEL: Only with my introduction. There was an occasion where I was introduced to them a few weeks before I arrived, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: And prior to that occasion which was just shortly before you took over, you had never met them?


MR CHASKALSON: Was Doctor Basson actively involved in the projects that were undertaken an RRL?

MR SWANEPOEL: I think so, yes, because the reporting of all the results and the instructions came from his side as being the one to deal with the Defence Force contracts at RRL.

MR CHASKALSON: Are you telling us, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that a project that would have come from the SADF who were for all intents and purposes the owner of this company, to RRL would be directed from Doctor Basson - or maybe you should just tell us, how was that directed into the project? Would it go from Doctor Basson to you or would it go from Doctor Basson to Doctor Immelman or from Doctor Basson to some other member of the company?

MR SWANEPOEL: To reply to your question directly, it would have come directly from Doctor Basson after discussion with Doctor Immelman.

MR CHASKALSON: So you would have no knowledge whatsoever of what contracts were being given to the company by the SADF?


MR CHASKALSON: Didn't this make planning very difficult?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, because the budgets and the planning came from the various departments to me and we only did the planning on their predictions and their budgets.

I must also draw the parallel between the commercial contracts that we dealt with. I never saw any of them or dealt with any of them either. It came into the company, a product was delivered and it left the company.

I'm sure that at the highest level of government, the President does not have such a good financial knowledge but he has his supporters or supporting team that advises him. I think that in the level of each company at that level, that it works in exactly the same way.

MR CHASKALSON: So your understanding of your role in this programme from commencement and essentially throughout your duration is that you were there to make certain that the people worked and that the systems worked. What actually happened would have nothing to do with you and you were not aware of it?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is correct, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Were you ever informed of any research and/or synthesis projects which took place at the company?


MR CHASKALSON: Not on one single occasion?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, not on a reporting basis, no. I can just qualify that in management meetings where there were problems with payments and clients I did hear the nature of the projects ...[intervention]

MR CHASKALSON: But that would have been in relation to what has been referred to as the: "soft projects", those projects which were of a truly commercial nature.

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, the commercial projects.

MR CHASKALSON: So in terms of the SADF projects no knowledge whatsoever?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's correct.

MR CHASKALSON: So how can you make a statement that this is a defensive facility?

MR SWANEPOEL: I did not make the statement, I explained to you that that is what I learnt about the thing before I went. You asked specifically what did I know about that and what was told to me and what was the objective.

MR CHASKALSON: Well let me ask you your opinion, what is your opinion of the facility?

MR SWANEPOEL: Precisely that.

MR CHASKALSON: What role did the Surgeon-General play in the company?


MR CHASKALSON: Was any reporting made to the Surgeon-General?

MR SWANEPOEL: The Surgeon-General was a member of the CCC's and the Financial Committee etc.

MR CHASKALSON: Was any reporting on the nature of projects undertaken at the facility ever made to the Surgeon-General?

MR SWANEPOEL: Not that I have any knowledge of, no. I cannot say yes or no, I do not know.

MR CHASKALSON: We've talked about commercial and SADF projects, was there some form of distinction made between these two projects in the company?

MR SWANEPOEL: Which two projects are you referring to?

MR CHASKALSON: Projects of a commercial nature, projects which have come from, on a SADF request from Doctor Basson?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, there was a clear distinction. There weren't only the two types of projects, there were three types and they were registered separately. There were the military projects which we know about already, there were the commercial projects which we also know of and then there were projects which we called in-house projects. In other words, where we had the scientists in a closed community, who could not speak out in terms of their research. We gave them the opportunity to do research further and to be able to speak on that at congresses and so forth.

MR CHASKALSON: Could you explain how each of those three separate projects would be handled?

MR SWANEPOEL: All treated in the same way.

MR CHASKALSON: And how would that have been?

MR SWANEPOEL: That there was a Project Application, Project Approval, Project Management and the course of the project and Project Results and post components and time components were placed on this.

MR CHASKALSON: Could you take us through those components again slowly and tell us who would be responsible for each component. I presume the request would come from an individual or maybe - I'd rather you told us how it worked properly.

MR SWANEPOEL: There were various ways in which such a project could be initiated. Firstly, if it was an in-house project it came from the researchers themselves who requested to do research into a specific direction. It was commercial then it would come from or arise from a need or a request from a client who would ask whether we could do specific research for him. These things were dealt with by Doctor Andrè Immelman. ...[intervention]

MR CHASKALSON: Can I just stop you there for a moment please. Doctor Immelman would be approached from an outside company for a commercial project?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is correct. Many years later we appointed a marketer to deal with this.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you be informed of a commercial contract?

MR SWANEPOEL: I was not informed about this. The work was done and completed, the funds were obtained and I was informed about the financial aspect, costs and income.

MR CHASKALSON: Let's continue.

MR SWANEPOEL: With regard to the military projects, those projects were also directly referred to Doctor Andrè Immelman who dealt with that.

MR CHASKALSON: To your knowledge are all of those projects from Doctor Basson to Doctor Immelman?

MR SWANEPOEL: I do not believe that all came from Doctor Basson, we also had projects from Armscor of a para-military nature but yes, the chemical biological aspects from Doctor Basson, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: And when we say Doctor Basson, would it be possible for Doctor Basson possibly to send a delegate of his own to Doctor Immelman and ask Doctor Immelman to do something?

MR SWANEPOEL: I cannot speculate about that, I doubt it.

MR CHASKALSON: So in terms of control of what was going on at your company in terms of the actual physical work that was being done there you had zero knowledge, zero control, zero interest?

MR SWANEPOEL: I had my specialists there to do that job, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you specialists ever report to you?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, in terms of, as I said the financial implications and the time implications.

MR CHASKALSON: Did your specialists ever report to you about the research that they conducted?

MR SWANEPOEL: Not for me, no.

MR CHASKALSON: So in terms of all of the instructions that were given from the SADF, presumably from Doctor Basson to your company, the nature of the work that was given to your company you had zero knowledge, you heard nothing about it and you had no interest in it?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Swanepoel, I'm not interfering with your rights, I just want to indicate that your replies, notwithstanding the provision of Section 31, are of a nature that you are committing yourself to a version ...[intervention]

MR SWANEPOEL: I can't hear you Mr Chairman. Must I put one of these on?

CHAIRPERSON: You are committing yourself to a version. I assume that that speaks for itself but I have a duty to indicate to you that the answers that you are giving are such that you are giving a version which given under oath is a version that you reconciled yourself is a version that you want to put.

I'm not prejudging the nature of your replies, I'm simply saying we will come to these questions. We may put the same question for our own quantification and if you are reconciled that it is the sort of version that you put across then it is so.

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chairman, but then I must ask you what you want me to say?

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not wanting you to say anything, I'm wanting you to speak the truth. I want you to ...[intervention]

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chairman, that is what I am doing.


MR SWANEPOEL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson?


Mr Swanepoel, it's been drawn to my attention that my previous question, when I asked about any reporting, you had said: "not formally". Did you have any knowledge whatsoever be it formal or informal?

MR SWANEPOEL: Of the Chemical Biological, the operational aspects? ...[intervention]

MR CHASKALSON: Of the nature of the research being done.

MR SWANEPOEL: Right Mr Chairman, I understand what you're meaning. Yes, in terms of the research, the biological and chemical agents, yes, I had heard of what was used, I heard common names being mentioned which meant nothing to me.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell me who you heard things from?

MR SWANEPOEL: Doctor Andrè Immelman mostly.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell me what sort of things you heard?

MR SWANEPOEL: It was about the type of agents they're researching. I've heard names that I have seen in these documents but I couldn't place them in any relevance in any research.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell us in what context these discussions took place?

MR SWANEPOEL: It wasn't discussions on the technical aspects of the research whatsoever, it was in terms of mentioning a name and then the talking about the financial aspects, the progress in terms of time and money.

MR CHASKALSON: So we might have a project which deals with Botulism for instance and so the name Botulism would be mentioned and then he would say: "Please give me a great deal of money"?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, he would do a budget on that project which would go through the Research Committees.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you clarify for me, during what discussions with Doctor Immelman you would have heard about names of products, I'm not understanding you fully.

MR SWANEPOEL: I understand that we had various management levels of meetings. We had a Management Meeting as well as a Board Meeting. At the Management Meetings we spoke about the day to day management of the company. These were names that were mentioned of which no specific reports were given but about the progress in general.

In the discussions amongst the researchers I heard names and the research which was done about the things but specifically about the course of it, which context it was discussed I cannot say.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell me why when you joined the company you put Lab Services and Research and Development which were previously being run by Doctor Immelman and Doctor van Rensburg into one single section?

MR SWANEPOEL: It happened a very long time ago, I cannot specifically remember the motivation for this restructuring but we wanted to make the organisation more streamlined and these were the main reasons, more streamlined and more functional. These were the reason why we made these structural changes.

MR CHASKALSON: More functional or an attempt to get a person who you were not certain you could control, out of the lib?

MR SWANEPOEL: I have no idea what you mean.

MR CHASKALSON: I'll return to this point in a moment. Mr Chair, if you could just bear with me one moment, I've got an indication that a colleague would like to say something to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well Mr Chaskalson. Doctor Randera?

DR RANDERA: Doctor Swanepoel, may I then just ask a question. This position that you took as the MD of the company and the answers that you've given to Mr Chaskalson that you didn't involve yourself in the actual questioning of what the research was all about, was this on this need to know basis that your organisations seemed to work on because earlier on you told us that you were a dentist?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's correct.

DR RANDERA: Now as a dentist you see a research document that says: "We are making cultures on Salmonella tifi(?)" now that's part of your training so you would know what Salmonella tifi is and what it's being produced for. And if we just ask in terms of the product itself because Doctor Odendal said to us yesterday that cultures were produced, that was the end product of what he was involved in.

Now did you not ask what that was for and where it was going to because I understand that once the culture was made there were no tests being done at your laboratories, that was done somewhere else. Did you ever ask yourself what is going on with these cultures that have potential danger to society?

MR SWANEPOEL: We can bring this in context with what I believe about the company and its proceedings or activities and this was in the context of the evaluation of biological and chemical agents in order to be able to diagnose and trace and work out methods of treatment, yes.

DR RANDERA: I'm still not clear. We have a product, the product let us say is a culture, if we just Doctor Odendal's explanation yesterday that 30mls say of - just for the sake of discussion, some analatifi(?) culture was produced, as the MD of the company, as the person who overseas everything, because that's the impression you're giving us, that was your role there.


DR RANDERA: What was the next stage? I understand this culture went into Doctor Immelmann’s fridge - and let me tell you I find that astonishing, that a company that spent millions of rands, once a product was produced went into a bar fridge as was told to us yesterday, in the safe of Doctor Immelman. What actually happened to the product beyond that or was that not your role, was it not a question what happened to that? Was it sold to somebody, was it ...

MR SWANEPOEL: It was not my responsibility to analyse the instruction and to trace it and to send the results to the client. The work was done at the request of the client as well as done with commercial projects, the results were obtained and the client was informed and he dealt with it in the way he felt he wanted to. I cannot speculate as to what the client did with it.

DR RANDERA: The client in this case was the Army?


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: So Doctor Swanepoel, what you seem to be saying is, despite a dental background the names of these toxins and/or other drugs were not known to you?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's not what I'm saying.

MR CHASKALSON: Well let me ask you that question and ask you to answer it then.

MR SWANEPOEL: The names of the organisms and they work is known to me or I could have read about it if they seemed vague to me but the point is that my perception in terms of the things that were being done there, be used for the purpose which I spelt out very clearly a while ago, and I was satisfied with that.

MR CHASKALSON: And you never questioned that perception?


MR CHASKALSON: What percentage of the projects undertaken at the company were commercial and what percentage were from the Defence Force?

MR SWANEPOEL: Initially the capacity of the company was utilised fully with Defence Force projects. By 1989/1990 we got it down to a 60/40 ratio, 60 military, 40 commercial.

MR CHASKALSON: So originally it was entirely SADF and then over time, and I think you said by 1989 ...[intervention]


MR CHASKALSON: '89/'90 it was 60/40?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's right.

MR CHASKALSON: And presumably this had something to do with an attempt to privatise the company?

MR SWANEPOEL: Obviously so, ja.

MR CHASKALSON: How was a company which was set up to be a front company supposed to fill this illusion if it had no clients?

MR SWANEPOEL: I cannot answer that question because I was not involved in the initial planning. My involvement later dealt with the changes which had to be brought about and I think that was one of the big problems to bring about managerial changes, that's part of the reason.

MR CHASKALSON: Were the two types, and here I'm leaving out the in-house but possibly the three types of projects, were they distinguished in different manners in the financial reports?


MR CHASKALSON: How would that be done?

MR SWANEPOEL: We received report-backs on a monthly basis from the clients regarding their time and their financing and they were dealt with in these compartments so that we could get to the percentage in terms of what the different liabilities were in the ...[End of tape, no follow-on sound] of that company.

MR CHASKALSON: Do you have any knowledge as to whether directions from the SADF were received as to what they wanted or would you initiate your own projects or would there be a combination of both?

MR SWANEPOEL: I believe that we received direct instructions from the client, the Army in this case or the Defence Force. We were also asked general questions for example: "look at the following aspects" which included no specific aspects of which the company would have to take the research initiative.

MR CHASKALSON: And that broad instruction was always: identify substances and try and find antidotes to those substances?

MR SWANEPOEL: Within the context that I explained.

MR CHASKALSON: You wouldn't be able to tell us what sort of projects you actually did for the SADF would you?


MR CHASKALSON: Was there a salary scale at the company, for instance, was the Managing Director, yourself, paid more than Doctor Immelman?

MR SWANEPOEL: I cannot recall it at the moment but yes, I think there would have been different levels. Yes, there were post level structures in terms of personnel and the company.

MR CHASKALSON: And you would have been paid more money than a Director of a particular, say Doctor Immelman if we're taking an example of a person, or Doctor van Rensburg?


MR CHASKALSON: How much more money?

MR SWANEPOEL: I cannot speculate now, I do not know and I cannot remember.

MR CHASKALSON: You were involved with all of the financial sides of the project?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's correct.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you be able to estimate as to what a basic salary or what the salary of somebody in the position of a Doctor Immelman or a Doctor van Rensburg would have been?

MR SWANEPOEL: I have not been prepared, I cannot speculate at this stage about this. I would like to prepare.

MR CHASKALSON: It seems a strange question, that you shouldn't be able to answer. I can understand that this was a long time ago and I don't mind if you don't give me exact figures but maybe you could just give us some sort of round indication. For instance, Doctor Immelman and Doctor van Rensburg, if they were getting R4 000, I would have got R5 000 or if they were getting R4 000, I would have got R8 000. Could you give us any sort of indication?

MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman, at this stage I will just advise my client not to take a guess. He says that if he gets the opportunity, it was not specified in his summons, where any indications were given of what he had to prepare in the extremely limited time that was given, that he had to prepare this aspect.

No documentation was provided in this regard and if it is of such importance Mr Chaskalson, I would recommend that my client be given the opportunity to look at relevant documentation. Mr Chaskalson most probably has it in his possession or Mr Vally, and that this be made available so that he could give you exact answers and that he is not expected to guess and speculate.

CHAIRPERSON: Does your case rest and fall on this aspect Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: My case doesn't necessarily rest or fall on this aspect. I would just like to point out that one of the items requested in the notice is set out as: "Activities of Roodeplaat Research Laboratories (Pty) Ltd, previously Inter Laboratories insofar as they relate to the programme or any other activities. We've now been told by the Managing Director that he practically doesn't know anything except for the financial side of the programme and I was just wondering if he could maybe help us in that manner.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he has given a reply that he would need to go and do research or try and see and then ...[intervention]

MR CHASKALSON: I would appreciate it if that information does come to hand, if we can get it in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: There has been an undertaking Mr Swanepoel.


CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a sense Mr Chaskalson in how long you are still going to be with the witness?

MR CHASKALSON: I think I am still going to be a fair amount of time but I think that at lunch-time we will be in a better position to assess how the questioning is going. I don't anticipate in being much more than say an hour after lunch at the maximum.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, we can't afford that. I must indicate very, very clearly.

MR CHASKALSON: I will endeavour to finish by 1 o'clock.


MR CHASKALSON: Doctor Swanepoel, I would like to draw your attention to a document which is numbered as TRC 26. It has a heading:

"Payments of Coast Projects"

If you could just indicate when you've located the document.

MR SWANEPOEL: I have the document.

MR CHASKALSON: Have you seen this document previously?


MR CHASKALSON: Do you have any idea of what this document is?


MR CHASKALSON: On the second page of the document there are a number of project system codes, could you read those out for us please?

MR SWANEPOEL: Which page is this specifically?

MR CHASKALSON: This is, it's got a number on it on the top of 4733 and it is the second page of TRC 26.


"Project Coast - Objective Codes"

1 - Establishment of Facilities for CCC Research

2 - Establishment of Security Coverage and Systems for Research

3 - Establishment of Security Systems for CCC Research

4 - Management of CCC Research

5 - Establishment of an Industrial Ability in regard of CCC

6 - Management of the CCC Technical Information System

7 - [no English translation]

8 - CCC Operational Support to the Security Forces"

MR CHASKALSON: And I'm just going to confirm that you haven't seen this document before?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, I haven't.

MR CHASKALSON: You described item 7 is actually marked as "Voer van CBO - Ops", you had read it into the record as operations, obviously this is a new document to you, could it also be operatives?

MR SWANEPOEL: It could be.

MR CHASKALSON: Could I ask you to turn another two pages on to page 4735 is the number where ...[intervention]

MR SWANEPOEL: Can I just comment on the last statement please?


MR SWANEPOEL: The feeding of CBW ops would mean that you have to feed them.

MR CHASKALSON: For there food?


MR CHASKALSON: And who would ...[intervention]

MR SWANEPOEL: ...[no English translation] means operations.

MR CHASKALSON: And if you wanted to pay somebody who was conducting an operation, that would go under operations as opposed to an operative?

MR SWANEPOEL: I cannot speculate specifically in that regard.

MR CHASKALSON: That's fine. Could you go back to page 4735 where 07 - Management of CBW Ops, and could you read us through that section?


"7/1 - Chancellor

7/02 - Chris

7/03 - Koos

7/04 - Mielie

7/05 - Hekkies

7/06 - Barries(?)

7/07 - Conventional

7/08 - Other"

MR CHASKALSON: Some of those seem to be a list of names, can you comment on that?

MR SWANEPOEL: I cannot comment on that.

MR CHASKALSON: If that was a list of names, have you ever met any people of those names?


MR CHASKALSON: You would not know where those people came from, assuming that they are people?


MR CHASKALSON: You would not be able to tell me for instance, Koos' real name or full name?


MR CHASKALSON: Would you have any indication as to who would know?

MR SWANEPOEL: I believe that Doctor Basson will know.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, we will raise that question with him. Before I leave this document alone, under Section 08 there is some handwriting there, there's also some handwriting on one of the earlier pages, sorry the last page 4739, do you by any chance recognise that handwriting?

MR SWANEPOEL: I am not sure about it, no.

MR CHASKALSON: For the moment that is all that I wanted to deal with on this particular document.

Mr Chair, if you would bear with me, I have an affidavit that I would like formally enter into the record. I understand that all of the relevant parties have been furnished with a copy of the affidavit. It's a copy of the affidavit of Doctor Andrè Immelman ...[indistinct]

CHAIRPERSON: You are not on the record Mr Chaskalson.

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry. It is a copy of an affidavit that has been deposed to by Doctor Andrè Immelman ...[intervention]

MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman, I haven't been supplied with a copy of that affidavit, may I have a copy?

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just check? I was of the impression that the documents were circulated.

MR CHASKALSON: As far as I was concerned it was circulated to the legal representatives of one that team. I'm quite happy to make another copy available.

MR VAN ZYL: I did receive a copy, I can confirm that.

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR DOCTOR IMMELMAN: Mr Chairman, I also received a copy that initially the documents were given to Doctor Immelman by means of my office because I act on his behalf. I later established that there is an arrangement with Mr Vally and the Attorney-General that this witness would not be called.

I do not know exactly what that ruling is but I just want to make it clear that if the affidavit is handed in by means of evidence that the correct value be attached to it. If it is done by agreement an affidavit cannot be cross-examined and it cannot give explanations so the value which is attached to that affidavit must be more limited and less than what somebody says under oath. I just want to reserve my rights in that regard on behalf of my client.

MR CILLIERS: Mr Chairman, may I at this stage just have it placed on record the attitude that we have regarding this specific document is that we find it very strange that Doctor Immelman who, if I listened to the testimony of Doctor van Rensburg, Doctor Swanepoel, what Doctor Odendal testified, then it seems to me as if Doctor Immelman is one of the most important witnesses in this whole matter.

And I find it extremely strange that from the side of Mr Vally agreements were entered into with the office of the Attorney-General, that he does not have to testify. The reason as I understand it is because he will be witness in a criminal case against Doctor Basson and Doctor Mijburgh.

And with all respect I find it strange the way in which this was done, in which the accused in the case are being subpoenaed and they are being expected to give evidence before you in public but agreements are concluded or entered into with Mr Vally and his team with the Attorney-General who is the party in that criminal case, that Immelman is kept away so that he does not give his version in public and that he does not have to subject himself to cross-examination as the people who are the accused in this specific case, as they will have to do if their applications do not succeed.

At this stage our attitude is that we oppose the handing in of the affidavit and we feel that you should have Doctor Immelman here, who is for all intents and purposes the most important man at these proceedings and that he should be here.

CHAIRPERSON: Now as I understand the position, you are not objecting to the document being used, you are just placing on record your reservations and your surprise that Mr Immelman is not, are you objecting to the document being used?

MR CILLIERS: I probably didn't make myself very clear. I also object to the use of the affidavit. The witness is available, he's been subpoenaed and there is no basis on which the Attorney-General for reasons of their own, should conclude any agreements that this witness not be subjected to cross-examination and it is my basis that this is a mala fides situation. Immelman should give his version himself.

MR CHASKALSON: Mr Chairman, if I may just address a few remarks. I'd just like to place it on record that the decision not to call Doctor Immelman to the hearing was a decision was made after serious consideration and discussion with a number of interested parties, including canvassed quite broadly within the Commission itself.

Doctor Immelman is under subpoena. The final arrangement that we had made with both the legal representative of Doctor Immelman and the Attorney-General was that we would prefer to have Doctor Immelman at the hearing. It was argued to us that it would severely prejudice a future criminal prosecution. We did not want to take such steps but we did warn the respective parties that if compelled we would require Doctor Immelman to be at the hearing.

I'd also like to point out another factor which I think it's slightly disingenuous to argue that it is unfair to subject Doctor Immelman to cross-examination when we are about to be addressed with legal argument as to why Doctor Basson and why Doctor Mijburgh should not even appear at our hearing.

MR CILLIERS: If I could just briefly reply. My learned colleague can get the reason for this in the Constitution where accused people have a fundamental right, entrenching the Constitution in Section 35 which gives them the right not to answer.

I find it extremely strange that the level on which this investigation is dealt with by them is on the basis that my learned colleague is now saying, that a witness should be protected for purposes of the obtaining of him being guilty and he's kept away and dealt with with gloves and that he should be protected until the hearing commences but the accused person who has a right, entrenching the Constitution, is not given that privilege. And the application to give them that same right which they have in terms of, not only the Constitution but in terms of our common law is dealt with by my colleague.

So in answer to his question he can get the answer of that in Section 35 of the Constitution. But what he is saying at this moment, I really find this very strange and with all respect the bone fides of that are above me or beyond me.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Cilliers, why do you say that we cannot receive the affidavit regardless of whether this witness is going to testify or not, why can we not receive this at this stage?

MR CILLIERS: The affidavit is being given to you, as Mr Chaskalson is saying ...[intervention]

ADV POTGIETER: Forget about that, listen to what I am saying. Forget about whether the man is testifying or not, why can we not receive the statement of the affidavit at this stage?

MR CILLIERS: You must go and look at the reason and the motivation behind. The motivation has been given in order to keep this person away to get prejudice in a criminal case which is going to follow and therefore I say that the motivation for the request to you is not bona fide.

ADV POTGIETER: Regardless of that it is an aspect which lies within our discretion. We can decide whether we are going to have the person appear here or not. It is something which we can decide about but the purposes of cross-examination or the questioning of this witness, why can that affidavit not be used?

MR CILLIERS: If it has been prepared and submitted to you as explained by my learned colleague, with no bona fide motivation then you can act on your own discretion. You should not allow that such negotiations follow to provide witnesses in criminal cases which would follow after this.

ADV POTGIETER: I cannot understand what the problem is, why we cannot use the affidavit. You are giving an explanation about the reason why Mr Chaskalson wants to place it in front of us at this stage, it might be so, it might be his reason. Why can we not accept it at this stage and decide later whether we want this specific witness here or not?

MR CILLIERS: Well surely, you should not allow that the procedure be abused which you should actually follow and if you know that there is a procedure which has to be followed which has the basis of non bona fide motivation, then you should not allow this.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand your position to be, are you arguing that this document is inadmissible? Are you arguing that the weight that must be given it must be one that would be given to a document whose ...[indistinct] value should be less than a document which was backed by the testimony of a person who would have to be cross-examined on the basis of his or her allegations? In other words, are you saying it is inadmissible and I haven't really heard you say that it is inadmissible or are you saying, if we are going to admit it then due weight must be given to the type of document that it is? That is the first question.

The second question, I understood Mr Chaskalson to be saying the agreement such as it is, is one that was clearly communicated to the Attorney-General to be depending on the discretion of the panel as the process goes on. If it so becomes that it is necessary for the witness to be called then the witness will have to be called.

Thirdly, isn't it about prejudice that this whole thing turns on? And if it is on the basis of potential or real prejudice, being the issue insofar as your clients are concerned, and if we are going to make a finding because I think in line with, certainly some authorities, where a finding which is detrimental to the person who is mentioned to his or her detriment is going to be made, then an opportunity must be made available to the person prejudiced by that evidence in one or two forms. Section 30 I think provides, it can be either in terms of written submissions or if it becomes necessary for the witness who made these allegations to be brought for subjection to cross-examination.

What I'm trying to get at is, is it not something that, to use a colloquialism, we should play be the ear? Let's have your objection noted only to the extent, unless of course you are going to argue very strongly and with authority that it is totally inadmissible, only to the extent that it can be admitted but no weight should be given to it.

MR CILLIERS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman, it's possible to argue that what you're proposing is perhaps in the direction Mr Potgieter is moving with his questions. Perhaps a practical approach will save time and which will eliminate all disadvantages. If can answer your questions in a certain order, whether it's admissible or not, it is not my argument that is not admissible. You will have a discretion in determining your procedures to allow such a document or not.

The argument goes further than that, it's based on that discretion. And my submission is that you already at this stage have enough evidence to say that I don't want to take in this document. Immelman is a very important witness, perhaps one of the most important, it not the most important and he must come to these proceedings. He is available, he has been subpoenaed. The submission I'm making is that in the exercise of your discretion you should not allow that negotiations take place and people be kept away who are necessary here to be able to determine the truth. These people are available and for some or other negotiation with the Attorney-General, because of that they are not being called.

The reason why he is not being called is very, very improper. In your search for truth, that is why you are here and a lot of money is spent on that, the evidence of almost the most important witness is not heard because the Attorney-General tells that this is going to impede my criminal case. But at the same time the accused in that criminal case whose rights are being protected by the Constitution, forget about their rights, we are only protecting State witnesses not the accused. That is not the impression that should be created here.

Regarding the admission here at this stage, just for a few questions, you are probably right, there is not total prejudicial circumstances which cannot be set right. You can exercise your discretion afterwards and say the witness must still come here to be cross-examined. I would request that after we've completed this evidence we should address you about this question, whether Immelman should testify or not and then you should make a relevant decision and make a ruling so that there's enough time to, before the end of the week, to fit him into the time slot.

I find it strange that these arrangements - I'm not saying Mr Chaskalson as a person was involved as a person and I'm referring to the evidence leaders, that they and the Attorney-General negotiated without Mr Immelmann’s lawyer being informed about this. I find this very strange that he was not involved.

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR DOCTOR IMMELMAN: I was aware of the fact that the overtures were being made and that there were negotiations that were going on as to whether Doctor Immelman would give evidence or not and I presumed that it was because in terms of Section 31 of this Act there is a right conferred on the Attorney-General in the sense that consultation may take place with him and I understood it was under that regime as it were, that the negotiations were taking place. So I was informed but I wasn't part of that particular agreement hence my cautionary remarks that if the affidavit is accepted as an affidavit due weight must given to it as to probative value without the viva voce evidence or the benefit of cross-examination having taken place. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR CILLIERS: I would abide by your decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, do you have anything to say on the law with regard to the weight that we need, should we be inclined in that direction, that we should give to this?

MR CHASKALSON: I do not feel that you need to apply unnecessary weight to the affidavit, I'm quite happy with the suggestions that have been made. The affidavit deals with a document that is a TRC document in many respects and is one we are going to go through. It places certain important information on the table and we believe that it is of importance to the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, can I make a suggestion? We obviously as a panel would like to put our words together as far as this particular aspect is concerned but pending that, is it not possible for you to go to some other aspects until lunch which is about twenty minutes from now?

DR ORR: We've had a 15 minute interruption.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, except that you said you'd be done but you didn't anticipate 15 minutes interruption.

MR CHASKALSON: I'll also qualify it by saying I said I would try to be done.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be acceptable?

MR CHASKALSON: I can try and work around it. I may ask that we stop slightly before the scheduled break but I will see if I can keep going because I want to deal partly the affidavit and partly with TRC 52, however TRC 52 is referred to extensively in the affidavit. I wouldn't necessarily have to question on the basis of the affidavit and in fact I'm quite happy to steer clear from it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, it is our view that in view of argument and view also of the slight concessions that have been made by counsel for the witness as far admissibility of the document is concerned, you may introduce the document at this stage already but all the, you know, reservations of law made by Mr Cilliers will have to be borne in mind.

MR CHASKALSON: I accept that. I can also, if it would be convenient, leave my line of questioning for a moment, deal with some other issues and then revert back to that potion after lunch. I don't anticipate to be more than half an hour after lunch.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you have my ruling.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you. While we're on the subject of the affidavit I just want to note out that it does refer to an Annexure, in fact it refers to two. One is an Annexure A and the other is a document which is TRC 52. For some reason that did not come with the affidavit.

I was furnished with a concept statement which has got all of the affidavits on it and I'd like to just distribute that if I may. If requested I can draw the similarities but in the affidavit it's referred to the document number 000100001100012. This reference sorry, is done on paragraph 17 of the affidavit and that document is document TRC 52.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson, conduct your proceedings in line with my ruling.

MR CHASKALSON: I am going to venture into the affidavit if I may.

Doctor Swanepoel, earlier on you had stated that you had never met any of the members of RRL prior to joining the company, that is correct?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's true.

MR CHASKALSON: Could you please read paragraph 25 of the affidavit out for us?


MR CHASKALSON: 25, the paragraph beginning:

"Ek onthou dat"


"I remember that before 1989 on the request of Doctor Basson, a small bottle with on 2 to 3 millilitre peroxide delivered to Doctor Swanepoel who was a Captain in the South African Defence Force. I delivered it to Doctor Basson's office in - I delivered it personally to Doctor Swanepoel"

MR CHASKALSON: Can you confirm or deny that content of that paragraph?

MR SWANEPOEL: I deny the contents of that.

MR CHASKALSON: Doctor, I'd ask you if you could read from paragraph 15 for me and I'm specifically interested in the last sentence of that paragraph beginning with your name.


"Wynand Swanepoel requested me to maintain good relations with Doctor Basson"

MR CHASKALSON: Would you confirm that, or deny that statement?

MR SWANEPOEL: I can't remember that. What I could have done was to say that those were our military clients and that we should handle them like you would do any clients.

MR CHASKALSON: Except up until 1989 he was your only client?

MR SWANEPOEL: I don't understand.

MR CHASKALSON: Earlier you had said that the SADF accounted for 100% of the work up till about 1989/'90, at which point the work was split 60/40 with the side that you said there was some stuff done from Armscor.

MR SWANEPOEL: I have to explain to you that the change in the relationship does not change overnight, it takes years to accommodate.

MR CHASKALSON: You told us earlier that if Doctor Immelman did something for Doctor Basson you would not be consulted, is that correct?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is true.

MR CHASKALSON: Notwithstanding the fact that you were Managing Director of the company?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's true.

MR CHASKALSON: Could I draw your attention to paragraph 17 and ask you to read that paragraph into the record for us?

MR SWANEPOEL: Paragraph 17 from Doctor Immelman's affidavit:

"The sales list with numbers B000010B000011 and B000012 was shown to me. I recognise the substances on the list and my handwriting on the side, also my handwriting on list number B000011 where I wrote: brought back next to the entry Mamba Toxin on 8.9.89. The words JK which I wrote next to the dates 19.3.89 and 23.3.89 I can't remember them well. I think it was referring to Johnny Knoetzen. The C next to the other dates meant Chris. That was my entry for substances which I delivered to Chris or one of the other associates. The K next to the other dates refer to Koos. Certain entries are not in my notes. Koos was a white person whom I met in Doctor Basson's office at the ...[no English translation] office. I was also introduced to Koos. He told me that Koos was also an associate. Meetings between me and Koos was arranged by Doctor Basson's secretary"

MR SWANEPOEL: I'd ask you if you could also refer to TRC document 52 which is actually the Annexure which should have been attached to the statement. On that list you will see that there do appear certain initials, those initials being JK, C and K. Can I just ask you to have a look at that and to confirm that for me?


MR CHASKALSON: And we heard that JK possibly stood for Johnny Koertzen, C stood for Chris and K stood for Koos, that is correct, according to the affidavit?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's correct.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you also confirm that earlier on when we looked at Section 7 of TRC 26 in the: "Bedryf van CBO Ops", the names Chris and Koos appear?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: So it is conceivable in that other list that these are indeed names of potential operatives?

MR SWANEPOEL: It could be, I can't speculate.

MR CHASKALSON: And you have no knowledge of who C and K are?


MR CHASKALSON: But you have met Johnny Koertzen before previously?


MR CHASKALSON: And that was during?

MR SWANEPOEL: While he was a conscript. I would say from 1983 to 1986.

MR CHASKALSON: And that was during the period when you were all in a similar unit I understand?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: And that would have included Doctor Basson, Doctor Mijburgh, yourself and Johnny Koertzen?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you. I would like you to have a look at TRC 52. I'm not going to take you through this entire list but you see, and if you would like to draw anything to my attention please feel free to. The third item there is Audi Carb - Lemoensap, that's next to the date 4.04.1989, there's a little c next to it which is Chris and there's a volume: 6 x 200 milligrams. Do you know what Audi Carb is?


MR CHASKALSON: For your information Audi Carb is an insecticide which is highly toxic in animals and humans. Let's look at the next item which is done 04.04.89 under the initial C, it's 3 x, it looks like 1 x 5 - I'm not certain what that is, it's bottles and it's of Azide whiskey. Sorry that's Azide, do you know what Azide is?


MR CHASKALSON: For your information Azide is Sodium Azide a herby Herbicide which is also a preservative. Acute poising cause a fall in blood pressure, convulsions and severe headaches.

Let's look down the list, there is on the 9th of the sixth '89, there are no initials next to that, it is described in the affidavit but we haven't read it if my memory serves me correct, that when there is no description that was going to Doctor Basson, which is read: "Spore en brief" Yesterday we heard evidence to the fact that that was indeed Botulism spores. Doctor Odendal said that, well not necessarily this specific item but Doctor Odendal gave testimony that he had put spores on a letter.

MR CHASKALSON: Dr Odendal said that he, well, not necessarily specific item, but Dr Odendal gave testimony that he had put spores on a letter, on an envelope. Let's leave that one aside. If we go down to the 21st of the 6th 1989 we see there's a volume of 3, and it's "Bierblik Phalium", do you know what Phalium is?

MR SWANEPOEL: All I know, it's a toxin.

MR CHASKALSON: The next item which is on the 22nd of the 6th 1989 has the initial "K" next to it, it's 200 grams. It is under the description "Suiker en Salmonella", do you know what Salmonella is?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, it's a bacteria.

MR CHASKALSON: A poison, was it also harmful to humans?

MR SWANEPOEL: I think in the right concentrate, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: The next item is 27 June 1989, there's a little "c" next to it. It is a 1 X 75 ml volume. It is whisky and paraquat. Do you know what paraquat is?


MR CHASKALSON: Paraquat is a herbicide that is highly toxic to humans. Apparently death in this case is often delayed for two to three weeks and it causes widespread organ damage, especially to the kidneys and to the lungs. I ask you to turn over the page. On the 11th of the 8th 1989, there's a volume of 5 which is "sigarette - B - Anthrax", do you know what Anthrax is?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, I think it's a bacteria.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) be put into cigarettes?


MR CHASKALSON: The next item, there are also a volume of 5 of them, this is also 2(c) and in fact the next five or so are all from (c), is "coffee chocolate". Do you know why Anthrax would be put into a coffee chocolate?


MR CHASKALSON: The next item is "koffie sjokolade" - also

volume 5, do you know Botulinum would be put in chocolate?


MR CHASKALSON: The next item is "peperment sjokolade - Audecarb", we did discuss Audecarb earlier, can you speculate as to why Audecarb would be in peppermint chocolate?


MR CHASKALSON: Okay, I'm not going to go through the rest of this list which is fairly extensive. This is a document that emanates from your company RRL. Can you explain how these items could fit into the defensive nature of the chemical and biological programme as you have explained it to us?

MR SWANEPOEL: As I've said, I haven't seen this document before, except when you provided me with a set of documents. I don't want to speculate, but it could possibly fit in in the explanation I have given regarding the various ways these things can be applied.

MR CHASKALSON: Is it that the purpose of RRL, as you saw it, was to identify substances and to find suitable neutralisers to those substances?

MR SWANEPOEL: Can I repeat what I have said, I said Roodeplaat had to do the evaluation and analysis of biological and chemical agents to be able to diagnose and trace them, and to establish the working of those in whichever forms it can be expected with the purpose to do neutralisation and decontamination.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) I'm going to have to ask you to speculate a little but, but I would appreciate it if you bore with me. Would it be your contention that this list is a list of substances, together with poison, which is simply a method to identify what could be done, or in your view, is it more likely that this is a list which you were unaware of, which you had not sanctioned according to your own view, but was in actual event a list of murder weapons?

MR SWANEPOEL: I am not prepared to speculate about that.

MR CHASKALSON: Could you explain the purpose of putting poison in whisky in terms of a defensive programme?

MR SWANEPOEL: I can possibly refer back to what I previously said, to determine how it would work in whisky, whether you could identify it in whisky, or whether you could provide that information to your client. Perhaps it was his need to know whether all these agents or substances could be traced in whisky. That is my interpretation.

MR CHASKALSON: Will you not concede that this list is possibly a list of abuses?

MR SWANEPOEL: The application I can't speculate about.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) these substances were given to people who are described as CBO Ops?


MS ORR: Mr Chaskalson, I've been promoted to the Chair, can I ask if you finished with that line of questioning, would it be an appropriate time to take a lunch break, or do you want to pursue "die verkopelys" further?

MR CHASKALSON: I think given the answers that we have given, it's not going to be taken all that much further, if necessary I can return to it in lunch, but I've made the point and the witness has provided his answer and I do not see him changing from that.

MS ORR: Thank you, we will adjourn for lunch and we will convene at 14h00.




CHAIRPERSON: Mr Chaskalson?

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you, Mr Chair. Dr Swanepoel, did you ever have any contact with General Lothar Neethling during the course of your work?

MR SWANEPOEL: On a personal level, yes, not in regarding to any work or contracts.

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry, you were socially friendly, but you did not discuss the nature of your work with him?


MR CHASKALSON: Did Dr Neethling ever visit RRL?

MR SWANEPOEL: On one occasion I can remember that he came to visit.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) on that tour?

MR SWANEPOEL: I cannot remember specifically.

MR CHASKALSON: Did the Surgeon-General ever visit RRL?

MR SWANEPOEL: That I cannot recall specifically.

MR CHASKALSON: Did ...(inaudible) ever visit RRL?


MR CHASKALSON: Would you say he visited frequently?

MR SWANEPOEL: It was not often, no, probably twice a year, or three times a year.

MR CHASKALSON: Were you friendly with Dr Basson?


MR CHASKALSON: If Dr Basson were to visit RRL, you would in all likelihood be consulting with Dr Immelman on some or other instruction, or would it be a social visit?

MR SWANEPOEL: I personally?

MR SWANEPOEL: When, if Dr Basson were to visit RRL, he would probably be meeting with Dr Immelman.


MR CHASKALSON: To discuss a project?


MR CHASKALSON: You would not have had knowledge of that project because the link between the SADF projects was from Dr Basson to Dr Immelman?

MR SWANEPOEL: That was not the rule, there were occasions of which I knew, and occasions of which I did not know.

MR CHASKALSON: You clarified that for me earlier. Earlier you had said that you knew of some of the projects if they came up in the course of financial matters or other matters, but you never had any understanding of what the nature of those projects were.

MR SWANEPOEL: That's correct.

MR CHASKALSON: That would apply to the present comments that you have just made as well?

MR SWANEPOEL: That's true.

MR CHASKALSON: Were you aware of the existence of a company by the name of Delta G?


MR CHASKALSON: What did you know of Delta G?

MR SWANEPOEL: I did not know a great deal about Delta G. I knew that it was a manufacturing facility and that it was part of Project Coast family.

MR CHASKALSON: Did RRL ever do any work for Delta G?


MR CHASKALSON: Did Delta G ever do any work for RRL?

MR SWANEPOEL: I can recall one aspect where we did research, or a specific peace of research that we wanted to have done there for the manufacturing of a substance. All that I can remember is that it was a fiasco. We never got anything from them and the relationship ended.

MR CHASKALSON: You would have had responsibility for the control of finances at RRL?

MR SWANEPOEL: Ultimately, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: And you would account to that other committee that we were talking about earlier in terms of higher up reporting to the SADF?


MR CHASKALSON: Were you a Director of any other SADF company, front companies?

MR SWANEPOEL: Not front companies, that I can recall as being front companies, but I was a Director of other companies.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) that you were a Director at RRL?


MR CHASKALSON: What were your functions at the other companies?

MR SWANEPOEL: As a Director on the board meetings in terms of financial and management inputs.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell us what those companies were?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, Protechnic, for a short while I Director of Lifestyle Management. I cannot recall anymore at this moment.

MR CHASKALSON: Can, aside from Delta G, were you aware of any other SADF companies that belonged to this scheme?

MR SWANEPOEL: I was not aware of any, no.

MR CHASKALSON: The two companies that you mentioned previously, are you saying that they are private companies, and not SADF front companies?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is what I suppose, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) companies?

MR SWANEPOEL: Protechnic, it was Jan Lourens, at times there was a Bernard Zimmer who was in time replaced by Charles van Remoortrere and later on when further shares were sold from Medchem Consolidated, Dr Mijburgh was a director, and I left the company as a director.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) companies, they certainly involved the same people who in some or other form, or at one or other stage were involved in SADF front companies?

MR SWANEPOEL: Not necessarily so. I did not know that Charles van Remoortrere or Bernard Zimmer were involved.

MR CHASKALSON: Dr Jan Lourens?

MR SWANEPOEL: He was a member at Seven Medical Battalion, but I did not know of any front companies.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible)


MR CHASKALSON: Were you paid a salary for your directorships in the other companies?


MR CHASKALSON: And can you tell us what your salary was?

MR SWANEPOEL: I think for the two or three years I was involved I earned R25 000.

MR CHASKALSON: R25 000 per year?


MR CHASKALSON: For the entire period?

MR SWANEPOEL: For the whole period.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you remember what your salary was at RRL when you were the Managing Director?


MR CHASKALSON: Isn't it strange that you can remember the one salary, but not the other?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, because it was one.

MR CHASKALSON: Sorry, can you just clarify that for me?

MR SWANEPOEL: I can remember it because Dr Schalk van Rensburg made a lot of noise about that at a certain stage. He drew attention to that because he saw that lying around, and he made a lot of noise about that.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible)

MR SWANEPOEL: His facts regarding what?

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible)


MR CHASKALSON: Did you have other business interests while you were working at RRL?


MR CHASKALSON: Did you disclose those business interests with your directors?


MR CHASKALSON: What was the nature of those business interests?

MR SWANEPOEL: I was a director and if I say business interests, it means I was a director, a director of Global Air Charter and Wisdom Travel.

MR CHASKALSON: Who were the members of those companies?

MR SWANEPOEL: They were Mrs Cecelia Grant and I can't remember - no, there were no other people involved.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(audible) there any links directly or indirectly to Dr Basson?


MR CHASKALSON: Did you receive remuneration for the work you did at those companies?


MR CHASKALSON: Would I be correct to say that your salary during this period is the amount you were paid at RRL and an amount of R25 000 in total for the other two companies?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is correct.

MR CHASKALSON: You have heard allegations about a lavish lifestyle, do you have any comment on that?

MR SWANEPOEL: I want to put it clearly that this comment is coming from grieved people and they were suspended from the company under very difficult circumstances.

MR CHASKALSON: So the lifestyle was not particularly lavish?


MR CHASKALSON: Have you ever gone overseas for RRL?

MR SWANEPOEL: I did yes.

MR CHASKALSON: What were the occasions?

MR SWANEPOEL: I can't remember specifically, but I can't remember - not more that four times. I visited various people and I positioned RRL for European markets on how we should structure ourselves and comply with the requirements of overseas markets, and I tried to recruit consultants.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible)

MR SWANEPOEL: No, but I've already sent assistance before the time.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you find it easy to explain to foreign people about the capacities and the abilities of your company?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, I did not find trouble in doing that.

MR CHASKALSON: So you weren't going to look to see what you could possibly do in the future.

MR SWANEPOEL: That's right yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Then how would you be able to examine properly if you didn't know what your company was doing?

MR SWANEPOEL: Because I did not require inside into the details of contracts to present information to them. I did not provide them with contracts, I tried to find consultants to help us manage various structures and to also come and address my specialist regarding the handling of contracts and standards for European market.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible)

MR SWANEPOEL: Op die oomblik?


MR SWANEPOEL: At the moment, two.

MR CHASKALSON: I believe in the past you had a very nice collection of Mercedes Benz cars, is that correct?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, they were not in my name.

MR CHASKALSON: Whose name were they in?

MR SWANEPOEL: It's in the name of a trust.

MR CHASKALSON: Who are the beneficiaries of the trust?

MR SWANEPOEL: My family.

MR CHASKALSON: Who obtained the assets to acquire those cars?

MR SWANEPOEL: I don't understand your question. Mr Chairman, I don't want to object unnecessarily, but this question is about which vehicles the person owns now, this is now a decade after this investigation. This is not relevant then. We are under time pressure as I see this, and with respect, my submission is that this interrogation is leading nowhere.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) and that is that he had two cars. The way I was enquiring about it, I understate that he potentially had a collection of cars which were certainly a prize collection, and I'd just like to establish what they were and at what stage he had this collection. This should take no more that a simple minute or two.

CHAIRPERSON: Put the question, Mr Chaskalson.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell us at what time period you started developing this collection of Mercedes Benz cars?

MR SWANEPOEL: I want to correct you, they were not Mercedes Benz motor cars, I've collected them over a period of thirteen to fifteen years. I've restored them myself. I bought them in a ...(indistinct) condition and restored them myself.

MR CHASKALSON: You have heard allegations of financial mismanagement during your period at RRL, do you have any comment on that?

MR SWANEPOEL: I reject it with utter contempt.

MR CHASKALSON: You stated that you had put a request to the directors that you wanted a full salary during a period which you were only prepared to do partial work, is that correct?

MR SWANEPOEL: Dr van Rensburg has a problem.

MR CHASKALSON: It is simple enough to answer whether the allegation is correct or incorrect.

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes. With respect, the witness has a right to motivate his answer.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) allegation was correct.

MR SWANEPOEL: Dr van Rensburg had a problem in the company because he could not work with his colleagues. They all protested, they scolded him, nobody was such a good scientist as he himself, according to him. Dr van Rensburg at various instances did not abide by certain targets, management targets. At every instance when he was called in to handle that, he left the office hysterically, he threw papers around and he walked around with a textbook, a Harvard Business Management book under his arm and he said he said he was a very good manager, and he does not accept the management staff of the company. At various instances we discussed these problems with Dr van Rensburg, not problems with only me, but with all the other people and I had to address these problems. It all culminated in October/November 1991 when at various instances over a period of two months Dr van Rensburg had an indication that he had to prepare for certain report back planning meetings. At that stage he was the head of the quality control unit and the purpose was to bring the company in line with the international standard organisation standards. That was part of those things I found overseas, so that we could compete with overseas research institutions. At that stage Dr van Rensburg made wrong propositions to the Bureau of Standards. His people were not informed, they did not know what their duties were. He forbade them to speak to anybody in the company, so when he was on leave, nothing happened regarding quality control. We were working according to a strict time schedule to be able to penetrate the market. I want to say it was part of that attempt by Dr van Rensburg which hindered us so we could not enter the European market when it was a good opportunity to do that. Dr van Rensburg had to appear in a hearing and he self referred ...(intervention)

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) the question which I started on and which your legal representatives have not asked you to address ...(intervention)

MR SWANEPOEL: What I'm trying to tell you from the evidence of Dr van Rensburg, you might hear it, put it against the background that he is a grieved scientist, according to his theory.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you say that he or you is more qualified in this particular field?

MR SWANEPOEL: What particular field are you referring to, sir?

MR CHASKALSON: Let us - can do this in a number of ways, we could start off in a chemical and biological field, non administrative functions.

MR SWANEPOEL: He has more knowledge than I have regarding that.

MR CHASKALSON: In your view both Dr van Rensburg and Dr Goosen were people who could not interact well with other people, is that correct?

MR SWANEPOEL: That is correct. Can I expand on that?

MR CHASKALSON: We don't need an elaboration at this stage, thank you. In 1986 you replaced Dr Daan Goosen, is that correct?


MR CHASKALSON: After a short period of months you took up the position as the Managing Director and he took up a position in the Roodeplaat Breeding Enterprises, is that correct?

MR CHASKALSON: And he was removed because there was something of a crisis going at RRL, is that correct?

MR SWANEPOEL: Not something of a crisis, it was a crisis.

MR CHASKALSON: So you experience as a Managing Director of RRL was poor then?


MR CHASKALSON: Do you feel that you performed well at RRL as a Managing Director?


MR CHASKALSON: Would you care to give us a brief summary of achievements of RRL while you were Director?

MR SWANEPOEL: RRL became well-known in the commercial world. The various structures were created within the organisation, firstly to determine the needs of the anti vivisectionists or perhaps to meet them. We established various committees. There was financial control. We budgeted, there was a personnel staff code. We tried to at that stage, when we failed, we were a leader regarding to Iso '92 standards. We had to leave that by the way. Regarding finances, we were well ahead. Regarding the turnabout of the handling of contracts, military contracts or the research contracts and in that respect we were doing well. In terms of the situation in which RRL found itself regarding the private and the open market, before my time, it was a very difficult time and at that stage when I was there in 1990, for example, we had progressed a far way to make the company more competitive and it was a successful commercial company.

MR CHASKALSON: What achievements that were made at RRL during your period?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, I can't remember anything specific.

MR CHASKALSON: Or would you just not know them if there were any?

MR SWANEPOEL: I know of various attempts which have resulted in anything.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) as being memorable enough for you to recall for us today?


MR CHASKALSON: Did you interact well with the scientist at RRL?


MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible)

MR SWANEPOEL: I hope so, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Were you ever involved in any scientific conversations or input into scientific discussions with them?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, I did not have the ability to do that.

MR CHASKALSON: So you have not published any scientific papers or anything of that nature?


MR CHASKALSON: Do you think that that was a particularly good chance for the Managing Director of a commercial research front company?

MR SWANEPOEL: I have no illusion about it, but the Managing Director of a company is there to manage the company and if the necessary specialists are there to handle the specific departments and the Managing Director does not necessarily have to be a researcher.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) expertise on their field?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, I had my specialists.

MR CHASKALSON: Was Daan Goosen at any stage ever requested to return to RRL after he had moved to the breeding enterprises?


MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell us when that took place and under what circumstances it took place?

MR SWANEPOEL: When I went to RRL, part of my guidelines was to assist Daan Goosen and not to get rid of him, and personally I devoted a lot of time in discussions with him, in interviews with him and assistance to him. All my planning I did together with him so that he could become part of the process and my point of view was that I wanted to improve his image. When I moved to RTO, one of the reasons was, he went to RTO, but he had to report back to me, so I remained involved with him. He came back from RTO, because there he was not available and he also hampered the contracts with Eskom and the Police and with the Defence Force. We had to appoint another Managing Director, and I consulted with him again. I withdrew him, or I drew him back to RRL to give Dr Goosen another opportunity to improve his image, and I made him head of the experimental animal section, but sometimes his people could not get hold of him because the one says he's there and the other says he there, nobody knew where he was. And then in the end Dr Goosen used the company for his own personal gain and he also used means from the company, and I want to make this statement, and the evidence is there, that the builders who built RRL, he asked them to make renovations to his house and then he drew a subsidy for that. This was part of the things being discussed during his retrenchment. He understood that and he knew what the reasons were. I have a letter in his own handwriting in which he says thank you for the way you handled this whole matter.

MR CHASKALSON: If my question were to say that he was approached by you after being forced out of the company and at some stage later you approached because the company was now in a crisis, to request his help, you would say that he was incorrect and/or lying.

MR SWANEPOEL: That's true, yes.

MR CHASKALSON: If I tell you that he made a simple suggestion, if you would like to turn this company around, put somebody in charge who knows the field, i.e., remove yourself, you would say that he was lying?


MR CHASKALSON: What do you believe of the quality of the science during your time?

MR SWANEPOEL: Please repeat the question.

MR CHASKALSON: Would you refer to your science at RRL during your period of management as good, bad or indifferent or incapable of categorising as I did not know science?

MR SWANEPOEL: I would say it was good.

MR CHASKALSON: How would you know it is good science if you can't say - if you can't tell us about scientific projects?

MR SWANEPOEL: Because I did not receive feedbacks regarding problems.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you outline for us why there seems to have been an interest at RRL in developing toxic chemicals that should be tasteless, colourless and odourless?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, for precisely the same reason as I've mentioned right in the beginning.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) as opposed to have in any way using such a substance on possible people.

MR SWANEPOEL: As I've already said, how can we trace it, how can we observe it, how can we diagnose it?

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) outside the mandate of the company?


MR CHASKALSON: And you would explain the putting of toxins into cigarettes, chocolates, various liquids and other substance and a category of testing what could be done as opposed to a category of testing which weapons could be manufactured?

MR SWANEPOEL: I've already said specifically yes.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you discuss or pass a comment on the interest in certain toxin which could cause death, but which would not be located in a post mortem?

MR SWANEPOEL: I can't comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just asking do you have an indication of how long you still want to be with this witness?

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Chaskalson.

MR CHASKALSON: Did you receive a payment at the time of the privatisation of RRL?

MR SWANEPOEL: Which payment?

MR CHASKALSON: The payment, did you receive shares in the company?


MR CHASKALSON: Did you receive proceeds from the sale of assets of the company?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, everybody bought shares.

MR CHASKALSON: What - how many shares you purchased and what was the purchase price?

MR SWANEPOEL: I can't remember the number of shares, but it was a par value.

MR CHASKALSON: Can you tell us how much you received when you redeemed those shares?

MR SWANEPOEL: Can I consult with my lawyer?

MR CHASKALSON: With pleasure.

MR SWANEPOEL: I will answer that question, I can't remember the specific amounts, but in the trust which I have referred, there was R4,5 million.

MR CHASKALSON: What you paid into that company, would you be able to approximate what that would have been? Would it have been R1 million?


MR CHASKALSON: Would it have been R500 000?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, it was about R50 000.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible)

MR SWANEPOEL: I can't remember, but it was when the shares were bought, it was before the privatisation process.



MR CHASKALSON: Would you care to give us an estimate as to when that privatisation process took place?


MR CHASKALSON: 1991, and when did you redeem your shares?

MR SWANEPOEL: I don't understand your question.

MR CHASKALSON: You received a pay-out of I think you said - you received a payment of R4 million, is that correct?


MR CHASKALSON: When did you receive that payment?

MR SWANEPOEL: You have to understand the whole process. This process of privatisation took place over various stages.

MR CHASKALSON: At the moment I'd just like to clarify the amounts.

MR SWANEPOEL: I can't remember the specific date, but I think it was roundabout 1991, 1992, so we're talking ...(intervention)

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) something like R50 000 and a final pay-out of something like R4 million in a time period of something like a year or two years.


MR CHASKALSON: Does that not seem like a exorbitant amount of money?

MR SWANEPOEL: Mr Chaskalson, if you are aware and know the privatisation process and the various stages which it entails, I can give you a direct answer.

MR CHASKALSON: So you would simply say that you would probably have thought of it as a good investment?


MR CHASKALSON: Schalk van Rensburg discussed the fertility programme with us and a request that you made to him to release certain untested products to you. Would you confirm or deny that?


MR CHASKALSON: Earlier on, and it's emerged repeatedly during this interview, you spoke about an MD and you likened yourself either to a hospital administrator or possibly even a president, and that you surrounded yourself with good people to make important decisions. Would you say that that is correct?

MR SWANEPOEL: I did not liken myself to them, I quoted as an example of how structures work.

MR CHASKALSON: Correct. Well leave the president aside and settle for a hospital administrator. How would you think that a hospital administrator could perform his job if he couldn't give an account of the patients and diseases, the equipment used the modes of treatment, the drugs available, the duties of staff, or the experiments done, and their ethics? Would you say he or she would be in a position to do that job well?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, Mr Chaskalson. I was a medical superintendent of Military 3 Hospital.

MR CHASKALSON: ...(inaudible) about the fact that you were the Managing Director of a company which potentially could prove devastating organisms and which you had absolutely no knowledge about.

MR SWANEPOEL: I trusted my specialists.

MR CHASKALSON: Thank you Dr Swanepoel, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any cross-examination, Mr van Zyl?

MR VAN ZYL: Just one aspect please, Mr Chairman. Dr Swanepoel, yesterday Dr van Rensburg testified that at the stage when Dr Daan Goosen was the Managing Director, he was involved in, amongst others, the research and he said the position after you took over changed as he said you did not make a similar contribution as Daan Goosen because you did not know what was going on with the research. Does it fit in with the knowledge you had about the process? You did not know about the research, that's why you did not interfere in that?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, the research I left for the researchers and I was involved in the management of the company.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.


MR POLSEN: Dr, you referred to various contracts by Daan Goosen, there was a freezing of a embryo which was done for Dr Rautenbach and I have statements of his subordinates which it was said they did this job. It was not a registered project and it was not on company's list of research projects. How did Dr Goosen register that?

MR SWANEPOEL: I don't understand your question.

MR POLSEN: You said that he concluded certain contracts or he impeded certain contracts. How did he do that with the establishment of the subsidiary company?

MR SWANEPOEL: The purpose was that the military, the Police and Eskom would stop their various projects and then these dogs had to be bred at RRO. Things went wrong and the feedback was that they could not work with Dr Daan Goosen. Eskom placed a person there, he was used as the director and Dr Goosen and that person experienced big problems, so the whole management or the operation of the company came to a standstill until such time that the other person went back to Eskom and they also took the contracts or the dogs back.

MR POLSEN: He also referred to subsidies being obtained for a house which was renovated.

MR SWANEPOEL: It was his house at that time. He had certain contracting work being done, building work and he asked a subsidy for that later one.

MR POLSEN: He was not - we will ask Dr Goosen about this ourselves. I have no further questions.

MR CURRIN: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination.

MR CILLIERS: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions from the panel?

MR POTGIETER: Did one of your projects deal with fertility?

MR SWANEPOEL: It was one of the registered projects at Roodeplaat. Initially it was an in-house project.

MR POTGIETER: And later, was it a hard project?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, in time it became a hard project, or part of that.

MR POTGIETER: Were you interested in that project?


MR POTGIETER: And the result of the project?

MR SWANEPOEL: I cannot comment on that.

MR POTGIETER: I understand that there were no results. Did you at any stage exert pressure on the people who were involved in the project to get results?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, I was not involved in this at all.

MR POTGIETER: Dr van Rensburg told us that he was one of the persons who worked together with Dr Borman, so Dr Borman was actually the person who dealt directly with this project?

He was a kind of an advisor to Dr van Rensburg and he said that on various occasions you exerted pressure on them to come to the fore with the product of that project.

MR SWANEPOEL: That's not true.

MR POTGIETER: Can you give us any reason why you think he would try and get you into trouble?

MR SWANEPOEL: It seems that it is not of much interest or importance. I think that I made myself clear, it's a personal - an old man whose got - who is grieved about things and wants to get his own back.

MR RANDERA: Dr Swanepoel, these companies that you were part of and how they were set up, now, from other people we've heard first of all, is it Infidel or Infladel, both RRL and Delta G reported to initially.

MR SWANEPOEL: It was Infladel, yes.

MR RANDERA: ...(inaudible)


MR RANDERA: And then we heard about Medchem as the holding company for many of these other front companies. Were you involved in Medchem?


MR RANDERA: Just explain to me again in terms of structure that you gave out earlier on that there was first of all your internal structure and then there was reporting to the middletory structures, the Finance Committee, the Co-ordinating Committee and the Security Committee. Where did Infadel fall, how did they come into the structure, or was there dual reporting that was going on?

MR SWANEPOEL: As far as my knowledge goes Infladel was a structure that was created to - for specifically in connection with the image to the outside. When companies were extremely confidential and had to have an image of a commercial industry, it was there to represent shareholding and to represent the channels of communication.

MR RANDERA: In the situation that we're looking at the present time, when you started off, your company was a 100% supported by the military, so there were no shareholders as such, were there?

MR SWANEPOEL: Nominee shareholders.

MR RANDERA: So who were these nominee shareholders?

MR SWANEPOEL: Myself - well, before my time Dr Daan Goosen, Immelman, van Rensburg and Mr Spalmer.

MR RANDERA: And the same then applied to Medchem as well, they were just nominee shareholders?

MR SWANEPOEL: I don't know.

MR RANDERA: You had nothing to do with it?


MR RANDERA: Some of the reports we have in our files as well as the information that came out in the last few days talked about an incident that took place in Mozambique in 1992 where several soldiers died, many were incapacitated, was your company ever involved in carrying out any tests there? Are you aware of this incident?

MR SWANEPOEL: I have no knowledge of that.

MR RANDERA: Earlier on when Mr Chaskalson asked you about your company and the contributions you made to it, you talked about the - that the science was of a high standard, that management was of a good standard, but what was the profitability of the company by the time it became privatised in 1991, and certainly by - and I'd like to know also the subsequent development, what happened to it, you've mentioned the sum of R50 000 that you invested in the company. What has happened to this company since?

MR SWANEPOEL: The company was specifically in the transitional phase. The intention was the purchasing of the shares and the privatisation between the employees of RRL. Part of the structures that were created were then also holder companies and the shareholders trust within the company. Perhaps I am missing the point now, but the intention of the company was to privatise, to take over commercial projects in its full capacity to deal with commercial projects. The Defence Force indicated that they would cease their projects, they did however conclude a contract with us for a further five years in 1989, or sorry, 1990 and with this contract we decided that we would deal with it and we would continue with the process. In the privatisation process we gave them a loan account, the Defence Force, and we also had to buy the property from them. In due course the Defence Force informed us that they had to implement increased option regarding the ending of contracts because they wanted to terminate the work and take everything back. Our provision was that we would continue with the company. In a specific year, I think this was also 1990, Minister Pik Botha announced in declare that we did not have chemical biological abilities, but he had to correct himself later and say that we did have this capability and this specific convention wanted to know who was involved, who were all the elements and what is their involvement in this specific subject, and on this basis we undertook not to make this known - it was undertaken not to make this known, but we were made known world-wide in terms of our involvement in the project and we started losing our clients, our commercial clients, that around which our whole company was built. At that stage we tried to negotiate with our clients, and we said stay with us, we will carry on dealing with your things, things are changing, but they also said to us, no, let's rather leave it at that, we are no longer interested. So we started losing clients as a result of the public making of this. This led to the process that finally we had to liquidate or subsidise the company with no prediction of the results thereof.

MR RANDERA: May I ask two questions to you, Mr Swanepoel. The first one is, I suppose it would be in the last few days, the thought that I go away with at the end of the day is, here was your company, particularly involved in what you call ...(indistinct) because that's you saw at the end of the day, and I must say, I haven't from any of your directors, scientists who were involved and earlier on I asked that question as well if you, had a reasonable explanation as to what's happened to these products. Do you sleep easily yourself, knowing that your company may be perhaps, somewhere in some fridge, these deadly organisms are still surviving?

MR SWANEPOEL: I must tell you that before I received these documents and the line of questioning from Mr Chaskalson it was not a problem for me, because I believe that it had happened as I had set it out to be a discussion initially. I cannot tell you what was done with this because these things were all removed under instruction, all documentation, all products were removed and went back to the client. In the commercial line one or other pharmaceutical company, if they have come to me, I do not know what the result of his intentions would be. If it is as you say, then surely, if you want to follow the approach that you are following, then I must tell you that the director of Musgrave must also sleep, very fitfully.

MR RANDERA: Having had an insight into all these documents now, that you say you didn't know about previously, and part of the Commission's responsibility is also to look at the future, what would you recommend as far as chemical and biological warfare goes for this country, and what processes should be involved if we were to become involved in developing such instructions?

MR SWANEPOEL: It can surely not be an open subject, you know the sensitivity regarding this subject in the world arena. There are many countries who have these capabilities and you say they do not, but they do. The handling of this will certainly in future still be done in a clandestine and extremely confidential basis. Depending on the Government's policy regarding publicising and what they want to pretend to other countries and other governments, I cannot comment on this. What I think is that I believe that one should have a defensive capability. It also depends on the threat, that's a political question, but if the political scene should change overnight, these are not things which are established in a day or two, these are things which develop over a long period of time and are prepared, and one must be ready to be able to handle oneself in such a case, as is the case with any other country.

MR RANDERA: One last question, yesterday we certainly heard somebody talk about the enemy. In your particular case did you become involved in this sort of work because there was an enemy for you too, and if so, who was this enemy?

MR SWANEPOEL: No, this was not my objective, it was just a further challenge regarding management and my own involvement.

MR RANDERA: So it was purely business for you?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, I was in the medical services and this meant support to troops and this was that medical services do not joint in the fight, they support their own troops, so my whole approach was a support role in my time in the military and with this management challenge - it was a personal challenge for me.

MR RANDERA: Thank you Chairman.


MS ORR: Dr Swanepoel, did RRL ever do any work for, or have any interaction with Protechnic?

MR SWANEPOEL: Yes, Protechnic - at one stage Mr Jan Lourens consulted for us as a biotechnical engineer in terms of the building of certain apparatus.

MS ORR: Are you aware that what Dr Odendal called larger quantities of bacterial cultures were prepared for testing filters at Protechnic?


MS ORR: You did not know that your company was producing products for testing at Protechnic?


MS ORR: And do you have any idea why Protechnic might have asked Dr Odendal to prepare five cigarettes contaminated with Anthrax?


CHAIRPERSON: You are excused Dr Swanepoel.

MR SWANEPOEL: Thank you.


MR RANDERA: Mr Chair I would request if we could stand down for five minutes, we have to send a message down to Mr Vally, but I understand the legal argument could probably take place now, and I just want to drag him back here.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll stand down for five minutes. Are we in a position to put any other witness in the event legal argument is still ...(intervention)

MR RANDERA: We are in a position to put another witness, but we would far prefer it if the question of the legal argument was resolved, just because it allows us to determine the timing for the remainder of the hearing.

MR POTGIETER: If I can assist, Mr Chairman, I went down to Mr Vally a couple of minutes ago to establish how far he was, and the impression I had that he would still need some time, so I think your suggestion of another witness is maybe time-wise the correct choice.

MR POLSEN: Mr Chair, if I may, I would like to consult with Mr Vally.


MR POLSEN: I would rather prefer that we do not lead the next witness right now.

CHAIRPERSON: No, was - I'm giving you the five minute adjournment, but five minutes strictly. If he is in any way going to be 10 minutes after five minutes, then we are taking the next witness.