Mail & Guardian Reporter
FORMER defence minister Magnus Malan sat motionless in the Durban Supreme Court dock this week, pondering a front-page newspaper report under the headline “Ex-generals admit 20 crimes”.
The article referred to Monday’s landmark decision by various former security force generals, including former police commissioner General Johan van der Merwe, to admit “collective responsibility” for 20 human rights violations.
Malan, who is on trial for his alleged involvement in the 1987 KwaMakhuta massacre in which 13 people died, read the story slowly, smiled and handed the newspaper back to a curious journalist. “No comment,” he said.
Five minutes later, he was standing among many of his former military colleagues as Judge Jan Hugo entered the courtroom to start another day in the nearly four-month-old trial.
This week’s news that some former generals have approached the Truth and Reconciliation Commission fuelled speculation over whether Malan and some of his fellow-accused should follow suit.
Earlier in the trial, Malan scoffed at suggestions of appearing before the commission.
His legal counsel, advocate Sam Maritz, said on Tuesday: “As presently advised, I know of no desire to apply for amnesty.”
The past week of proceedings suggest the seven defence teams representing the accused may be finished with their case sooner than expected. Seven of the 17 accused have already testified in their defence and ailing Liebenberg could finish his testimony shortly.
Liebenberg was the co-author of the top-secret Liebenberg Report, which allegedly functioned as the blueprint for military assistance to Inkatha during the 1980s.
His testimony this week has highlighted possibly the major thrust of the defence case: that military assistance to Inkatha did not include “offensive” training of Inkatha supporters and did not result in “offensive actions” against the ANC.
He said reference to setting up an “offensive element” in his report should be viewed within the context of present-day military terminology, which made little distinction between “offensive” and “defensive” military functions.
“For us it was clear that we were talking about an offensive element within the context of proper protection,” Liebenberg said, adding that the Caprivi trainees had been instructed to protect dignatories and property of the KwaZulu homeland government.
His testimony matched that of former accused Tienie Groenewald, who served as chief director of military intelligence until 1986. Groenewald was one of three men discharged from the trial last month at the end of the state’s case, which, Judge Hugo ruled, had failed to incriminate the three men.
Called to testify last week, Groenewald told the court so-called offensive elements such as that outlined in the Liebenberg Report “are an acceptable part of VIP protection units worldwide”.
Earlier in the trial, IFP deputy secretary general and accused number seven in the trial, Zakhele “MZ” Khumalo, also claimed ignorance of alleged “offensive” intentions of the Caprivi trainees and their military instructors.
Khumalo, who served as liaison officer between Inkatha leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi and the SADF at the time of the KwaMakutha massacre, said the Caprivi trainees were transported back to Natal in 1986 “to win hearts and minds”.
Defence counsel has indicated that it might call upon military experts to explain the use of the term “offensive”.
The prospect clearly intrigued KwaZulu-Natal attorney general and senior state prosecutor, advocate Tim McNally, who appears to have a clear understanding of the meaning of the term.
“The whole issue of definition is being resolved by the authors of the term coming to explain the context in which it is used,” he said this week. “Whether they’re being truthful in the use of the word is something the judge will have to decide.”