DAY: 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Today we'll be commencing with the hearings of Messrs Botha, Maree, Basson, van Zyl, Burger, Verster, Webb, Barnard. I'd like to welcome you all here. Before we commence, I'd like to briefly introduce the Panel to you. On my left is Mr Jonas Sibanyoni, he's a member of the Amnesty Committee, he's an attorney and he comes from Pretoria, Gauteng. On my right is Mr Ilan Lax, also a member of the Amnesty Committee, also an attorney. He comes from Pietermaritzburg in KwaZulu Natal and I am Selwyn Miller. I am a Judge of the High Court attached to the Transkei Division of the Court. These proceedings will be simultaneously translated and in order to benefit from the translation, you must be in possession of one of these devices. If you do not have one, they will be available, I'm sure, from the Sound Technician. I can't see him at the moment, but he must be around somewhere. There he is. If you want to benefit from the translation, please get one of these.

I would at this stage request the legal representatives to kindly place themselves on record. Let's start here.

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, the name is Marco Martini from the law firm Martini, Patlanski in Johannesburg, representing Mr Abram van Zyl.

MR BOSMAN: Mr Chairman, I'm Alex Bosman, attorney, acting for Joe Verster.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, J J Wessels. I'm at the Johannesburg Bar and I represent Mr Verster.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, the name is P du Plessis from the firm David Botha, du Plessis and Kruger on behalf of Burger, Basson and Maree.

MR H DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, H J Du Plessis of the firm D P Du Plessis Attorneys from Pretoria, acting of behalf of Gen Webb.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, I'm Coetzee, S J Coetzee, an advocate practising from Centurion. I'm acting on behalf of Mr Barnard.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Chairman, J A C van Eck, representing Mr Botha, from Johannesburg.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, my name is G Bizos. I'm a member of the Johannesburg Bar and counsel employed by the Legal Resource Centre in Johannesburg and I appear together with my learned friend Colin Khanovitz of the Cape Town Bar on behalf of firstly Mr Gavin Evans, instructed by Mr Steve Khanovitz of the LRC in Cape Town. I'm also appearing for Minister Dullah Omar, instructed by Ms Faizlin Omar, who also happens to be the Minister's daughter, instructed by Faizlin Omar of Hofmeyr, Herbsteins and Gihwala of Cape Town. I also appear together with Mr Khanovitz in all the matters, for Ms Fatima Omar, a victim of the Early Learning Centre, a bomb incident. We also appear for the owners of the Early Learning Centre, the Foundation of Community Work, Mr Chairman.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is Peter Williams, I'm an attorney, but I'm acting in my personal capacity as a victim. Mr Chairman, if it please the Committee, I would also like to place on record at this stage my disappointment at the selection of this venue. My family, my friends and members of the community would have like to be present at these hearings, but this venue is inaccessible to them and accordingly they can't be here. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Williams. This venue had to be changed and at short notice the venue was changed. There are however, I know it's not quite the same, facilities outside with close circuit television for people who wish to observe the procedures, but I note what you say.

MR HOCKEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. The name is Selvin Hockey. I'm an attorney with the firm Moosa, Waglay and Petersen in Athlone. I act on behalf of Oesman Alexander, Chris Ferndale and Bruce Malgas. They are all from the Kewtown Youth Movement, at the time and then I also act on behalf of Regina Isaacs, Mazeema Mohamed, Miranda Abrahams, all members of the Cape Youth Congress at the time and all of them were present in the building of the Early Learning Centre when the bomb went off.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson. My name is Lyn Coleridge. I appear on behalf of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Chairperson, just in relation to implicated people, I have 13 Exhibits that I have furnished to everybody. The first one is in relation to Isaac Engelbrecht, that's General Engelbrecht, well-known as Krappies Engelbrecht. The attorneys Wagener and Associates furnished us with a document whereby he denies all allegations in respect of this incident, Chairperson. Can we, just for the record ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, is everybody in possession of this? I have a covering fax cover and then an affidavit. Can we receive this, we'll call it Exhibit A.

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless there are any objections.

MR BIZOS: We have received a copy. We have no objection to it being filed as Exhibit A, but our concurrence in this is not to be construed as an admission that we accept the correctness of the contents and we reserve ourselves the right to ask you, Mr Chairman, if need be, to call the deponent to that affidavit to give evidence and to answer relevant questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos. This affidavit will then be received and called Exhibit A.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson. Then there is another affidavit, submitted by Goldberg and Victor attorneys, Chairperson, on behalf of Nicholas van Rensburg. In the statement he states that he was not the admin person, because we were a bit in a tizz with regard to who this Nick person was and just on record that he states that he is not that person and the only involvement was that he visited Botha when Botha was held in terms of Section 29, Chairperson, so can we mark that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Unless there's any objection, we'll receive this as Exhibit B on the same basis as indicated by Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Chairman, yes, that is acceptable to us.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just also in relation to other implicated people, Brig Cole was informed and notified. Gen Joubert from Special Forces was also notified. Mr P W Botha, the previous Minister, and then Gen Genis as well as Isgak Herdien, Chairperson. I believe our investigators have been having a problem in serving this notice because it seems that he is dodging the notice, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll give him the benefit of the doubt until we know better whether he's dodging or not, but it was not possible to serve the notice.

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: There is a preliminary matter that we want to deal with and that is this, that Minister Dullah Omar intended being here this morning. Unfortunately pressing business kept him in Pretoria. I am here, together with my colleagues, to oppose the applications for amnesty. However, Minister Dullah Omar is the Minister responsible for pirating this legislation through Parliament and for a number of years the Minister responsible for it's implementation. He wants to avoid speculation as to what his attitude to these applications is. He has prepared a statement dealing with this issue and I think that it is important in order to avoid speculation, that that statement should be read to you and I think it would be appropriate if we ask his daughter to read it on his behalf and I ask for leave for her to do it now, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Any objections from anybody? ...read the statement into the record.

MS OMAR READS STATEMENT BY MINISTER DULLAH OMAR INTO THE RECORD: I am Faizlin Omar, an attorney with Hofmeyr, Herbsteins, Gihwala. I represent my father, the Minister of Transport, Abdullah Mohammed Omar, also known as Dullah Omar.

In connection with the amnesty applications of Carl Casteling Botha, Wouter Jacobus Basson, Abram van Zyl, Daniel F. Du Toit Burger, Pieter Johann Verster, Edward Webb and Ferdinand Barnard my, father states:

Dated 10th March 2000 at Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Omar. Mr Bizos would it be possible to have photocopies made of that statement? I think it would be more convenient.

MR WESSELS: Sorry for interrupting, Mr Chairman. Before that is done, may I just place on record my objection to that and my objection to this statement being read into the record and being regarded as evidence or having any value at all.

With respect, the deponent to that affidavit has no right to make submissions which may or may not influence the Committee in granting amnesty to the applicants. His view in regard to whether full disclosure has been made in the affidavit or the application is irrelevant and his personal beliefs about all of that is irrelevant for the purposes of this hearing.

It is also my submission that for that affidavit to be part of the record, can only lead to the Committee possibly being influenced in having a certain view of the matter which is not proper. There are no factual allegations in that affidavit which can play a part in this hearing and therefore that affidavit is irrelevant. Furthermore, for the deponent to complain about the venue I submit in effect is contempt of court because as far as I understand it and I wasn't part of that application, the Court made a ruling as to what the correct position is and it doesn't lie in the mouth of an individual to come and criticise the Court's judgment in this respect.

I therefore object to that affidavit being part ...(shouting in the background)

CHAIRPERSON: Please, if we could be quiet and let's just hear what Mr Wessels has to say.

MR WESSELS: ...Affidavit being part of the record of the proceedings of this hearing.

MR BIZOS: Firstly, it is not an ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think before you respond Mr Bizos, are there any other representatives of applicants who wish to say anything?

MR MARTINI: Thank you Mr Chairman. I think I should respond because that's directed directly and squarely to my client. I share the same sentiments as my colleague. I think it's highly improper for that statement to be, not an affidavit, I understood it to be a statement, to be read to the Commission and it's with regret that Minister Omar should adopt such a stance. We would have thought, this is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but what is important Mr Chairman, is that a Judge of the High Court of South Africa, of which - who fell within the jurisdiction in years before Mr Dullah Omar, interdicted the proceedings from taking place in Athlone.

Mr Chairperson, unfortunately Dullah Omar, Minister Omar was not there, the Judge did remark that the whole process in selecting the venue was unfair to the applicant and the order was granted and this is very important and I want to put something on record, since there is transparency, Mr Chairman. At the outset, as soon as the venue was known, objections were made by myself, representing Mr van Zyl, as to the venue as being insensitive, impartial and irresponsible. Those objections were not taken heed of. On the contrary, and I'm sure all my learned colleagues appearing here with me today, will support what I have to state now, Mr Chairman. A pre-trial conference was held. The notice is available. The Commission placed as an agenda on the notice and I quote paragraph 3 thereof, "The venue for the said hearing."

That venue, the issue of the venue was to be debated. When we got to the pre-trial conference on, I think it was the 2nd of March 2000, the Commission adopted the stance through Ms Coleridge who is here to say, the Commission was not negotiable on the relocation of the venue. This, Mr Chairman, necessitated unfortunately and regrettably, an urgent application being launched by M van Zyl, interdicting these proceedings from taking place today at the original venue, namely the Early Learning Centre, pending the relocation of the venue and a sad state of events transpired from then, Mr Chairman. Mr van Zyl continuously requested that the venue be altered, in fact it was suggested that the venue be altered to the TRC building. This was met with strong opposition. To quote, Mr Chairman, there were reports to the press and this is what I also find regrettable, after all, this is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission we're appearing before. In the Cape Times, March the 8th edition: Ms Lynn Coleridge reports, and it's quoted:

and she goes on:

Now, it's with regret that such emotive words as "vehemently opposes" and representing this very Committee. Notwithstanding that, Mr Chairman, an application is then launched by my client, Mr van Zyl, where no order for costs is being sought against the Commission. This was done in the belief that the Commission is to be impartial and that's my understanding of the whole Act, thinking that the Commission would abide a decision of the High Court. With regret, the Commission carried out what it had publicly stated and vehemently opposed the application. Notwithstanding that no order for costs was being sought against the Commission, one would have expected the Commission to have taken a stance to abide by the decision. Affidavits were filed by members, we assume, of the Commission and I stress here, Mr Chairman, that nowhere in the affidavit was it ever alleged that the deponents were authorised or acting on behalf of the Commission, so I do want to be fair, I do not want to suggest that it was done with the Commission's knowledge or approval, because there is no such statement. We can only assume it was and it's with regret that in those affidavits a logistics officer of the Commission states under oath that the manner in which the Commission determines a venue is by establishing the victims, where the events took place and once she has that information, she states and I'm summarising, but the affidavits can be available, she then sets out to obtain a venue and Ms Cloete says that she did this on the 31st of January 2000. In other words that she was given the information so that she could proceed to locate a venue. Surprisingly and unfortunately, Mr Chairman, the Commission had addressed a letter to my office on the 25th of January 2000, stating that the venue was the Early Learning Centre. Now, that belies the very statement that only on the 31st was the Commission setting out to establish a venue. The answer given in court, but never corrected on affidavit by Mr van Rooyen from the Bar was: "Sorry, it was a mistake", but unfortunately it's a mistake that's under oath and it's never been rectified.

Mr Chairman, in the affidavit and I call them representatives of the Commission because I do not want to cast any aspersions to the Committee because there was no representation made that there was acting with the authority of the Commission or this Committee, disputing my client's bona fides, suggesting the whole application was male fides, Mr Chairman, well, a Judge of the High Court has corrected the position, it has found that my client's application was bona fides because the order was granted with costs against the Commission and that's unfortunate because it's a waste of taxpayers' money. Why do I say that, Mr Chairman? Because immediately after the order and within hours, we received notification that the venue was changed and lo and behold and remarkably, my client in his affidavit had suggested that the venue be held in this very building. That was opposed on the basis that there's no facilities in this building and remarkably within hours of the order, we now find this venue available. My client's concerns, as the Judge remarked, had not been taken into consideration in considering the venue and my client, unfortunately for victims or Minister Omar, has rights even under this Act and a Judge upheld his right and that was a victory for justice and its with regret that Minister Omar does not accept a decision of the Judge.

Mr Chairman, notwithstanding all this, my client, Mr van Zyl, has applied for amnesty voluntarily, notwithstanding that it is his contention that indemnity has already been granted under a previous Act and he has done so in order to participate within the spirit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for the purpose of attempting to achieve reconciliation in this country and in our way forward and in so doing, Mr Chairman, he has come here today to these very hearings, notwithstanding the treatment he was given, with the expectation and belief that he will be given a fair, just, impartial hearing and that his application for amnesty will be dealt with on the same basis, which we trust Mr Chairman will be the case and unfortunately, Mr Chairman, if Minister Omar was here today and chose to participate, we accept he has pressing business, possibly he could have made a reconciliation with my client, after all I understand this is the purpose of this, to face each other, to possibly reconcile. He has chosen not to be here and it's with regret that Minister Omar has chosen to make this statement that he has made. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes, I support especially what Advocate Wessels said on behalf of his client. On a more personal note, I take notice with deep regret what the feelings are of the Minister about my clients and their attitude and that, without giving them the opportunity to testify in front of this Commission about their possible regret about what they did. It must be said that obviously Mr Omar only read the documentation and he hasn't heard as yet what the relevant parties are going to say about their personal feelings and may I say that that obviously, the matter of regret and the personal feelings is not an element of the amnesty application, but they came here to obviously personally give evidence in that regard.

I was involved in the amnesty application from a very early date on behalf of, at that stage, also Mr van Zyl and Mr Botha and I wish to refer this Commission to their statements which were signed as early as 1990, that is four years before the new dispensation and I wish to refer to page 54 of Mr van Zyl's statement and I'm also going to briefly refer to Mr Botha's statement and I wish to indicate that Mr Burger, Mr Maree and Mr Basson, whom I represent, confirmed the statements. It reads as follows, Mr van Zyl says during 1990 already, as I said:

Also in a further affidavit, also dated 15th of November 1990, where Mr van Zyl said:

Then the 15th of November 1990, Mr Botha made a statement to the same effect and he said inter alia:

Certainly these are not people who do not have remorse for what they did and I say again, they have not even been granted the opportunity to discuss their personal feelings in front of this Commission before this unfortunate statement by Mr Omar was now entered into the record and may I also just state again that their statements were confirmed by my clients, Burger, Maree and Basson and I therefore take notice with deep regret about Mr Omar's feelings, but may I say he obviously was incorrectly advised about the documentation in this matter and that it is also clear that this statement should not have been entered at this stage, but that Mr Omar should have waited until the finalisation of the evidence in this matter, before stating his feelings in the manner he did. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR H DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, my client associates himself with what has been said and I will not repeat. I would just like to place it on record that in terms of the statement of the Honourable Minister, I would like to object that he objects to my client, Gen Webb's application, and I would like to place it on record that he did not even apply for amnesty with regard to the Dullah Omar matter.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairman, on behalf of Mr Barnard, I can just reiterate what Mr du Plessis has already - I'm not going to take the matter any further.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Chairman, on behalf of Mr Botha, the same applies to him, what was said, also the same - he doesn't apply for amnesty for Minister Omar, so what was said in the statement about the personal feelings is not applicable to him, but he is now included into that. As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: To Mr Martini's statements about the application to court, except to say this, that there is nothing there in Minister Dullah Omar's statement to criticise the order that was made by consent, Mr Chairman and not on the basis of any judgment, but nevertheless, it is an Order of Court. He merely says that he regrets that the community that he has lived in and that the victims, the feelings of the victims or intended victims of the acts of some of the applicants, were deprived of a right to listen to it in their own community, but I don't know that any useful purpose will be served once we're here, in making any further statements in response to Mr Martini.

I may say, Mr Chairman, if I'm permitted a personal observation, that I was at the pre-trail conference and my impression and my perception is that the applicants, but Mr Martini was the most vocal of the applicants, was really an objection to go to an area where black people lived.

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairman, I take strong objection to a statement made publicly and I would like Mr Bizos to apologise, to suggest, to make a suggestion, obviously Mr Bizos hasn't bothered to read the affidavits and it's got nothing to do with race ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Martini, let Mr Bizos finish and I'll give you an opportunity to reply.

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) particularly by Mr Wagener who is not here, who, when asked what examples were there of anyone's life being in danger in the hundreds if not thousands of applications that have hitherto been held, some of them in places like New Brighton and other places, he was not able - none of them were able to give any specific, I'm talking about the pre-trial conference and not the application Mr Chairman, no one of them was able to give any example of any harm having come to anyone, but particularly Mr Wagener spoke at some length that he is not prepared to be subjected to toyi-toying and singing of songs, he actually mentioned one of them, that was - may be interpreted as an incitement to violence. That is the only thing that we heard about at the pre-trial conference, Mr Chairman, but be that as it may, I want to deal with the objection made by my learned friend, Mr Wessels.

The Committee is entitled, Mr Chairman, to hear the views of the victims or intended victims, to take them into consideration as to whether or not amnesty ought to be granted or reconciliation is to be advanced by the granting of amnesty. The statement read properly actually says that it is the wish of or the hope of Minister Omar that the applicants will take the opportunity of doing what they did not do in their papers and the portions that were read out, Mr Chairman, the portions that were read out do not, with respect, amount to what Minister Omar was expecting, rightly or wrongly.

But Mr Chairman, we have a situation of a statement which has been made. Minister Omar regrets that he could not be here this morning and I have been assured and I am sure that he will make good his promise to be here, he wants to be here and if it's not an affidavit, he is going to listen to what the applicants are saying and then it will be his prerogative to decide whether he wants to say anything more. The purpose of the statement was, I thought, made clear Mr Chairman and that is this, that speculation may have arisen. Why is the erstwhile Minister of Justice briefing counsel to oppose applications for amnesty, if he himself was so extensively involved in the process? He was correctly entitled to clarify his position because the public perception might be created that he was behaving in an inconsistent manner and I submit that the statement has been read in, there is no reason to keep it out, it has been read into the record, I would ask that it should be received as Exhibit C and if my learned friends want to ask the Committee to call Minister Omar, or if he decides to give evidence, this is a matter which you can hear about in due course, but to suggest in such vociferous terms that there was anything improper in Minister Omar clarifying his position, firstly in relation to his attitude to the applications for amnesty and secondly, in relation to the matter being removed on the application of one of the parties at a time when a day or two before, there is nothing improper in it, there is no criticism of the Judge who made the order, it was merely a personal expression of how he and members of his community feel and I believe, Mr Chairman, that we should, that the Committee should accept the statement as Exhibit C and that we should proceed with the application, Mr Chairman. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just ask Mr Williams and then we'll get any reply. Mr Williams do you have anything to say?

MR WILLIAMS: Ja, Mr Chairman, I've got nothing to add to the discussion here.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Martini.

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairman, you've heard Mr Bizos. I would like a formal retraction of the statement that he made that the only reason I didn't want to go there is because it's a black community. That is not correct and you've heard Mr Bizos elaborate and in his speech today he mentioned Mr Wagener, not Mr Martini. I take great exception and I would want the retraction of that statement from Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: I will repeat, Mr Chairman. The perception created on me and the attorney who accompanied me to that was that the reasons given by Mr Martini, Mr Wagener and the other persons who associated themselves with the request for the transfer of the hearing, my clear perception was from the reasons given by them, that they had very serious objections to going into a black area and the opening words of Mr Wagener, with which Mr Martini and others associated themselves: "Whoever decided to have this in an area such as this, when there are other places available?" This is how the discussion started, Mr Chairman.

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairman, it's unfortunate Mr Bizos should incorrectly record what transpired. However, Ms Coleridge had undertaken to give us minutes of that meeting by the 7th of March, which we have never got. However, to correct the record, I take great exception to Mr Bizos's chosen recollection of memory at that meeting. There's a letter dated 24th of February from my office, which forms part of the application:

There is no suggestion of race and it's once again unfortunate that Mr Bizos wants to make this a racial issue. In the affidavits before the Court that can be tendered in evidence, there's not a tittle or suggestion that race had to do with anything. On the contrary the Early Learning Centre is one of the buildings that forms the subject matter of the very amnesty application and the Judge made that clear during argument. He also found it to be insensitive to hold it at that very hearing. For Mr Bizos to suggest racism here on my part or even on the part of my client, is dealt with in the contempt it deserves. It's not true and unfortunately, maybe Mr Bizos has another agenda in this transparency, to make such a statement which is not true. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Martini.

F I N D I N G

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Gentlemen. We had a brief discussion here. The statement that's been read into the record by Ms Omar of her father Mr Dullah Omar, in no way touches upon the merits of any of the applications, it expresses the views of the writer of the statement, or the maker of the statement. It has been read into the record. I think receiving a photocopy of what already is on record, is going to make very little difference indeed. I can assure everyone present that the Panel is fully aware of the fact that this is nothing more than a statement expressing the views of a victim which, as mentioned by Mr Bizos, victims are entitled to make in terms of the Act. I can also assure everyone present that no evidential weight regarding the merits of the matter will be attached to this statement at all and I can further assure everybody present that the Panel will give a completely and utterly fair hearing in this matter. We have no preconceptions, or stands in this matter. We are here to listen to the evidence, to receive it, to listen to the learned submissions made by the representatives and at the end of the day to apply what - the knowledge that we gain from this hearing to the criteria set out in the Act and come at an object decision as to whether or not each and every one of those criteria have been accepted. I just want to stress that that is the position here. So by receiving this typed version of what is already on record as Exhibit C, I can assure you, will not in any way influence the proceedings in this matter, it's already on record, so this statement will be received as Exhibit C and by making it an exhibit, I'm not attaching any weight to it as an exhibit in a court case and normally has weight attached to it, it's merely what we'll call it. We'll call it C.

I've just received an important note informing me that it's time for tea now. I think this would be a convenient time to take the short adjournment, 20 minutes, and then we can hopefully after the adjournment resume with evidence relating to the merits of the matter. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed, it's probably going to get a lot warmer than it is now. Please feel free to remove jackets, jerseys, if you wish. We now commence with the leading of an applicant. Mr Wessels, is it agreed that your applicant's going to testify first?

MR WESSELS: Yes Mr Chairman, Mr Verster will testify first.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels.

MR WESSELS: Chairperson the amnesty application appears on page 153 of bundle A and it runs up to page 194. I am not going to run through the whole application. I do not think that all of it is relevant. I shall however ask the applicant to supply certain information with regard to what the CCB was and then we shall go over to the specific incidents for which he applies for amnesty.

EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS: Mr Verster is it correct that you were the Managing Director of the organisation known as CCB?

MR VERSTER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR WESSELS: Will you please briefly tell us how the CCB was founded?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, the Civil Corporation Bureau was a branching of Special Forces of the South African Defence Force who operated under civilian circumstances and worked in plain clothes. It was established in 1986, it was used in operations against the then enemy, the ANC SACP Alliance and to disrupt the enemy to the maximum.

MR WESSELS: Will you please explain to us how exactly the structure functioned when there was an instruction and how these would be executed?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, there were several methods which would regulate it, but the structure was founded where members dealt with the management of the foundation and they had operatives on ground level who executed operations by receiving information from the higher echelons, so that it could be executed by the uniformed side of the South African Defence and specifically the Special Forces of the South African Defence Force, which would move to the CCB and from there the instructions would be given to ground level and on the other side it could also happen that information would be made available from ground level to Management of the CCB and then it was verified and information was gleaned from this and plans were formulated within the structures and then it was given to me on my level as the Managing Director and then I devolved it down to the uniform side, namely the Commanding Officer of Special Forces and thereby the operation was approved.

The equipment, financing and logistical support was supplied from the formal side of Special Forces to the CCB in order to execute the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Verster, would that be in respect of all operations that that procedure would be followed?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Chairperson. This was applicable to all operations. There might have been minor variations depending on the time and speed needed to execute an operation but that is the modus operandi that we used.

MR WESSELS: Mr Verster, will you please explain to us what the principle covert operations would entail and if the CCB was such a body?

MR VERSTER: In our culture we distinguished between clandestine and covert operations, Chairperson. Clandestine operations were seen as those operations which at that stage could be recognised by the government of the day and on the other side we had covert operations. We were a covert structure and the intention was and per definition, as we dealt with it, was that the government of the day would not accept responsibility for those types of operations. I would also say that the entire structure was built around this and our financial planning, existing procedures, were written depending on this and this was submitted inter-departmentally. For example our plan within the CCB was given to the Treasurer and it was approved by the Auditor General's people who were also present and we functioned according to those lines.

MR WESSELS: Will you please explain how the regions functioned?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, there were several regions. I shall not go through all of them, it is part of the evidence, but the specific region under discussion is Region 6. It was an internal region and this entailed the entire Republic of South Africa. With regard to Region 6, it was the region that was founded later as opposed to the other regions which were responsible for example for Zimbabwe or Botswana or Mozambique and that was purely based on information, observations which were made according to the conduct of the enemy. In other words the ANC at that stage had training bases from Tanzania to Zambia as well as in Zimbabwe and then there were access routes which were used by the then enemy into South Africa and later this ran into the heart of South Africa, Johannesburg, Cape Town. It is general knowledge. If we look back at what had happened back then, Region 6 was then founded to disrupt that enemy who was threatening the sovereignty of the State.

MR WESSELS: Is it correct that Staal Burger was the Regional Manager of Region 6?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Staal Burger and the other members who are here today, were members of region 6, Chairperson.

MR WESSELS: And then I would like to arrive specifically at the incidents for which you apply for amnesty. These appear on page 190 of bundle A, paragraph 1.1. Will you please read that?

MR VERSTER:

MR WESSELS: The information that you had with regard to Gavin Evans, where did you gain this from and from whom did you gain this?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, the information was a collaboration of several sources and in this regard, if my memory serves me correctly, it came from ground level. In other words Region 6 had connections with the police and through these channels and other sources, they fed it back to us and to Headquarters level. It was then verified as part of the information system of the whole Defence Force and of the State itself and thereby the information was confirmed with regard to the activities of, for example, Evans in this matter or in this case.

MR WESSELS: Did the authorisation take place as you have already explained, through normal procedures?

MR VERSTER: In this regard, if I recall correctly, it came from ground level. It came to me and I then used Defence Force structures in order to confirm it and I had them continue, but at some stage I submitted it to the hierarchy, namely the Chairperson of Special forces.

MR WESSELS: On page 191 you refer to the second incident for which you apply for amnesty. Will you please ready that?

MR VERSTER:

MR WESSELS: In this regard where did the information come from?

MR VERSTER: Once again the information came from ground level, from the region itself. Because of their connections with the underground and with members of the police, it was then submitted to me. We confirmed it. A plan was formulated by the region and then we authorised it according to that.

MR WESSELS: And then in paragraph 1.3 you deal with a bomb at the Early Learning Centre.

MR VERSTER:

MR WESSELS: Then you continue in paragraph 2 that Mr Omar was a member or supporter of the ANC and will you please read 2.2.

MR VERSTER:

MR WESSELS: You can stop there. Mr Verster, is it correct that this incident was comprehensively described and details were supplied as to what happened and what had taken place before the Harms Commission in 1990?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WESSELS: Where Mr Slang van Zyl who was involved in this incident, had given comprehensive evidence with regard to what had happened there, is that correct?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WESSELS: You have also read the statement of Mr van Zyl?

MR VERSTER: Yes, I have.

MR WESSELS: And those statements, with regard to the facts as far as you know, are they correct in essence?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, I cannot testify as to how correct their statements are, but with regard to where it touches upon me, where I gave authorisation for the operations and what the purpose and function of the structures were, they were correct, but because we worked on an indirect basis and for example Mr van Zyl had his own operatives on ground level, I did not have access to information at that stage, but in essence it is correct, this concurs with the purpose of the Civil Corporation Bureau.

I would also just like to add that, Chairperson, that the CCB was an Executive structure of the South African Defence Force. The South African Army back then was responsible for battles on land. Special Forces were co-opted by the Chief of the Army to assist South African Defence Force and the CCB was the structure who moved on the terrain where the enemy chose to move and this was under civilian circumstances. Our purpose was to destruct the enemy and if it was necessary, to kill the enemy. We saw it as a military operation, as part of the structures of the then structures and we tried to execute it to the best of our abilities.

MR WESSELS: Were you aware of the identity of the operatives that Mr van Zyl had used in order to perform the tasks that had to be performed?

MR VERSTER: There were certain instances where names were given to me, for example Peaches and so forth, Chairperson, but I did not have any clue as to their real identities and I had no connection with them. This would have been in contravention of the rules that we had.

MR WESSELS: Were you aware that Mr Barnard was used?

MR VERSTER: Under no circumstances was I aware that Mr Barnard had been used by Mr van Zyl. I only learned this later when I read their statements, Chairperson.

MR WESSELS: Thank you Chairperson. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Martini, do you have any questions you would like to put to the applicant?

MR MARTINI: No questions Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, any questions? Mr P du Plessis, any questions?

MR P DU PLESSIS: No questions thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr H du Plessis, any questions you'd like to put?

MR H DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, I need to get instructions from my client.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Coetzee, any questions?

MR COETZEE: On behalf of Mr Barnard, I've got no questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MR VAN ECK: As it pleases the Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN ECK: Mr Verster the reference to giving of instruction, the names that you have given there, that was in the group as a whole and not to individuals?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, yes, the structures functioned to the effect that where I will speak to the Regional Manager and the Regional Manager will contact the person who was directly tasked with the operation whom I cannot recall now, but depending on which project it was, we worked in that manner and it was not necessarily the whole group as a whole.

MR VAN ECK: Thank you Chairperson.

MR H DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, may I just mention at this stage that we have no questions and we reserve the right to ask questions later, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, do you have any questions you would like to ask this witness?

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Verster, I want to read to you from volume 2 of the Commissions' report at page 143, paragraph 4.1.8. Have you got that document? I'm sure that your counsel has.

CHAIRPERSON: This is the report...

MR BIZOS: The report of the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps, if I could just ask, oh, we've got copies here, thank you. This comes from volume 2 of the Commission's report which was published about 18 months ago. Mr Bizos, we'll receive this photocopy as Exhibit D. It's to page 133 paragraph, I didn't catch - page 143

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Right, have we got that here Ms Coleridge?

MS COLERIDGE: I just want to check with Adv Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if - I think there's only one edition but I think we might have the wrong pages here.

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I wasn't aware that Mr Bizos was going to refer to this and these were the extracts that we took from the final report, so I thought this would be of assistance to us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos can just put his question and perhaps read from the extract and we will ensure that copies of the relevant page and paragraph are made and handed to all concerned.

MR BIZOS: Please listen carefully because I'll have a number of questions to ask you about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Bizos, before you proceed. Sorry to interrupt. It's on the very last page of this bundle that's just been handed out, Exhibit D.

MS COLERIDGE: At paragraph 4.1.8.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR BIZOS: You must please read that carefully, make sure that you understand it, because I have a number of questions to ask. Have you read it?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, this section, as an introduction before I answer any questions, I would like to say that I can the technical differences of the paragraph and I understand it. I do distance myself with the method upon which it was said.

MR BIZOS: Let us try and establish this rule. I ask you questions and you answer them. Subject to the Committee stopping me from insisting on a direct answer to my question, or any objection from your counsel, I am going to insist on direct answers to my questions. The question was, have you read it and understood it? Is the answer yes?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, may I just say the following? Mr Bizos, you do not impress me with what you say, you do not impress me at all. I answer I am free, I have my own right in answering how I choose to.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think, Mr Verster, if you can just please bear in mind that Mr Bizos is now questioning you. If you could answer the question, it's a fairly simple question and if you could just listen and answer. He asks - he’s got a right to cross-examine applicants on behalf of victims. If you don't wish to answer a question, or you refuse to, you can say so, but please let's not have this in-fighting. Mr Bizos ...

MR BIZOS: Have you read it and understood it?

MR VERSTER: Mr Bizos, Mr Chairperson, I have the right to say what I wish to say. This morning I sat and listened to things where were said to me before I had something to say. Now before I answer Mr Bizos, I would like to say what I want to say. I was a professional soldier of the South African army ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: I will insist, in the interests of the proper conduct of these proceedings, that the witness answers the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Please answer the question, Mr Verster. You can make statements later.

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, I read it the first time and I understood it 100%.

MR BIZOS: Were you one of the persons that is referred to as, I'll use the words of the Commission, were you part of the leadership of the CCB?

MR VERSTER: I think that is clear from the documentation. I am answering as I please, Chairperson. I said I answer the question as I choose.

MR BIZOS: You heard from His Lordship, the presiding Judge, you answer questions directly, Mr Verster.

MR VERSTER: I answer indirectly, if it is necessary.

MR BIZOS: I will repeat the question and will insist on an answer. Were you part of that leadership? Yes, or no.

MR VERSTER: Definitely, as it is clear from the documentation. Certainly, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Now if you were part of the leadership, please tell us how many operatives there were in the CCB during your tenure of office in the leadership of the CCB, more or less.

MR WESSELS: Chairperson, may I ask what is the relevance of this question with regard to what you have to decide upon?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I expected my learned friend to object and the only surprise is that it came so early, but we are ready to answer the question, Mr Chairman, or the objection, because we will submit and we have written argument to support it, that we are not obliged to confine ourselves to the incidents that the applicants have chosen to ask amnesty for. May I hand in heads of argument Mr Chairman, in support of the ambit of our cross-examination that we are entitled to? I have copies of it for my learned friends and I think that we might as well have this - I'm entitled to enounce how many people there were and what ...

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if Mr Wessels has seen this document.

MR BIZOS: Yes, we'll go through it, we'll go through it Mr Chairman. We have enough copies for everybody and - okay, thank you.

Mr Chairman, this question was raised at the pre-trial conference where an attempt was made to confine us to questions only on these incidents and my answer was, and I don't think that Mr Martini and I will disagree on that, that I maintain the right to ask all the relevant questions subject to your directions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I haven't read these Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: May we go through it?

CHAIRPERSON: If I might just say that with regard to the structure, exercise etc of the CCB, that may well be relevant, but we don't want to hear the details or the merits of an operation that might have taken place in Botswana or Mozambique, that sort of thing, we don't want to ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: No, we are not going to go into those details but we submit that we are entitled to cross-examine on the structures and what he as one of the leaders has done, in order for you to decide whether he has made full disclosure or not, but don't let me pre-empt the argument, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, your question Mr Bizos, does this not - Mr Bizos, your question about the number of operatives, the one that you've just put to Mr Verster.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that relate to the whole of the CCB or just the Region 6, the internal ...

MR BIZOS: No. No, everything that fell under the leadership of the witness Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it Mr Verster, if you could just confirm? You were the - I don't know what the correct term was - the Managing Director or the CEO of the CCB in respect of all its operations, external, internal?

MR VERSTER: Yes that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAX: Just your mike, sorry Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: I have appointed an assistant for the purpose, Mr Chairman. He says he expects a fee.

Mr Chairman, the details in relation to Botswana are not to be understood to concede that the witness has the right to refuse to answer questions in relation to external matters and it will become apparent as to why we do that, Mr Chairman. What we say in these Heads, Mr Chairman, is that we deal with the question of the extent to which evidence concerning the Commission of crimes in respect of which no amnesty has been sought is relevant and accordingly admissible. In terms of Section 20 (i)(b), the applicant must satisfy the Amnesty Committee that the offence is an act associated with a political objective. Section 20 (ii) provides that whether a particular offence is an act associated with political motive, must be decided with reference to the following criteria and we set them out. The motive of the person who committed the offence, the context in which the offence took place, the object or objective of the offence, whether the offence was committed in the execution of an order if the proportionality of the offence to the objective pursued.

Regard being had to the activities of the CCB and the factors referred to above, it is submitted that the following evidence must be said to be relevant to a proper determination of the context in which the acts were committed, the motive of the offender and the further factors referred to in the section. If several other politically inspired criminal acts, besides those in respect of which amnesty is sought, were committed on behalf of the same organisation by the same individuals, during the same period of time, then evidence concerning these events is relevant to the proper determination of context, motive, objectives and proportionality. Context surely concerns the overall activities of the CCB and the applicants' knowledge, this in the way in which their applications have been drafted albeit they omit, so we would submit significant details. Taking this argument further then, the following.

If the applicant says he committed an act or orders, he does not make full disclosure of the relevant facts if he fails to state that he received further orders at the same meeting or at a subsequent meeting, for that matter, or a previous meeting, to commit further offences. Evidence to this effect elicited under cross-examination would clearly be relevant ordinarily and permissible but may I ask you to turn back to page three? On the authority of the Appellate Division and on which we are making these submissions, by way of finality we say - note 1, Mr Chairman. We note that even in the sphere of criminal liability, relevant similar fact evidence is admissible despite its dangers. And it is dangerous and this is why it is, generally speaking, excluded. Something that does not apply to as large an extent as it is here because certain offences are admitted, which are dealt with in the cases that we quote. The submission however that such evidence is clearly admissible in the context of an amnesty application, when it impacts on the factors enumerated in Section 20 (ii) which we set out above and we rely on the case of R VS MATTHEWS AND OTHERS, 1961 SA 752, in the Appellate Division as it was then known concerning the question whether evidence which tendered to show the Commission of crimes not charged, was admissible. An issue in that case whether the members of the Msomi gang had the motive to attack members of a rival gang, evidence was produced of the gang's criminal activities unrelated to the actual charges in the case. Schreiner J A, after noting that the test for relevance is based on the blend of logic and experience, held as follows at 759(a) to (c):

To understand the nature and depth of their rivalry, there had to be an appreciation of the fact that the strength of each gang depended ultimately on its terrorising the public more effectively than its competitors and so at the end, evidence of the Msomi gang outrages could properly be adduced and in ...(indistinct) LETSOKO AND OTHERS, evidence concerning the commission of other crimes is admissible where there is sufficient ...(indistinct) and this is the case. In proximity of time in method or circumstance between the evidence sought to be led and the issue in respect, it is sought to be led.

May I return to 3.22 page 4, Mr Chairman? If the amnesty applicant says the objective of the attack was to disrupt the ANC, has he disclosed all relevant facts, where he fails to state that in addition to the one deceased's name in the application, or intended deceased, it makes no difference, he in the same attack shot four additional people who were in the same minibus taxi as the deceased named in the application, but in respect of whom no amnesty is sought and who were killed in consequence of a person's vendetta harboured by the amnesty applicant. The answer must surely be in the affirmative. The submission is accordingly that where an amnesty applicant has committed a series of criminal acts, on behalf of the same organisation in pursuit of that organisation's political objectives, full disclosure of relevant facts implies that he must put the Amnesty committee in the position where it can properly apply its mind to the criteria in section 20(iii) and this in turn implies that all evidence pertaining to motive, context, proportionality, absence of personal gain, absence of personal malice etc, is relevant to the determination and accordingly admissible. It follows from the above that the question whether the relevant facts to be elicited in evidence pertaining to a non-prosecutable extra territorial offence in respect of which no amnesty is sought, would be immaterial for purposes of determining whether such evidence is relevant to the proceedings. If, as Mr Joe Verster suggests, the murders of Evans and Omar constitute a proportional response in order to combat the threat posed by individuals to the State, then evidence concerning the methods employed to select other actual or intended victims, is clearly irrelevant. This would also be so, whether the victims were to be killed in RSA or elsewhere. A further reason why evidence concerning the commission of crimes in respect of which no amnesty has been sought, may be relevant, is to be derived from the meaning of the word offence. In paragraph 7, Section 21 (c) obliges the amnesty applicant to make full disclosure of all relevant facts with regard to the "offence" for which amnesty has been sought. This is an additional and both joined and alternative ground, Mr Chairman. It is our submission that there is evidence that the CCB's command structure formulated a conspiracy to murder a considerable number of persons who were identified as the perceived enemy of the State. Among these intended victims were Gavin Evans and Minister Dullah Omar. There were however other intended victims. Had the accused been charged with conspiracy to murder, it is our submission that the likely offence with which the CCB members or the Board of Directors of which Mr Verster was the Managing Director, would have been charged - was a conspiracy to murder all the intended victims selected or identified during the relevant period. Accordingly that is the offence for which amnesty should have been sought by the participants in the conspiracy. Cross-examination to detail - to elicit details of the full extent of the conspiracy, is accordingly relevant and permissible. A summary of the relevant case, nor dealing with the formulation of an indictment in circumstances where the State wishes to prosecute a wide range of conspiracy is set out as follows:

Further at 6.2.6. Schreiner J.A. states the following:

Following this approach, the court in R VS ADAMS AND OTHERS in 1959, generally known as a treason trial 1956 - 61 held that at last as far as treason is concerned, a series of treasonable overt acts in pursuance of one criminal design to overthrow the State, is chargeable as a single offence, as a single indictment."

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR BIZOS: Yes, I'm sorry yes, on page 4 the answer must surely be negative, Mr Chairman and not affirmative. I'm sorry, but the Heads of Argument were settled very late last night and early this morning.

Now there is another important factor, Mr Chairman and that is that we are dealing with reconciliation. If in fact a person was a member of an organisation whose purpose was to murder people, what sort of reconciliation can one expect by saying: "I will choose to apply for amnesty only for those cases on which there was no loss of life, which you have here and I will keep quiet about all the others and you can't ask me any questions about it." Now, that would be tantamount to rendering the provisions of the Act nugatory, Mr Chairman. There is a difference between asking someone who has applied for amnesty for one act and says: "Don't ask me if I committed any other acts, because they've got nothing to do with this" but the case law is very clear that where the acts are performed in furtherance of a conspiracy, then the evidence in relation to the other acts is admissible, in this case there cannot be full disclosure.

Let me illustrate it in another way. There was a conspiracy to kill Mr Gavin Evans. We haven't been told by this witness, but I suppose others may fill it in, that this was done for reasons a, b and c. As part of the policy he was a legitimate target. Surely we are entitled to say: "What was the policy, what other decisions were taken in relation to that policy and where did you not call your operatives off, but you actually allowed them to kill them", in order to test whether or not Evans was a legitimate target within the framework of that policy. If we are prohibited, as my learned friend objects that we cannot deal with other matters, there cannot be any full disclosure. Of course there are difficulties facing the applicants. They will say: "Well, we haven't applied for amnesty for these things, therefore we, if we give evidence here albeit it is not admissible against us in any criminal prosecution, we may on the information that may become available, be prosecuted." They have made their bed, Mr Chairman, and they must sleep on it. It was they who chose to choose the four or five acts in respect of which there were no deaths, they chose to apply for amnesty only for those violations of fundamental human rights which came to the fore in the Harms Commission, they have decided to keep quiet about everything else. We cannot be prohibited in terms of the Act from inquiring to what else they have done, but in relation in particular to this witness, who is one of the leaders, we have already got an unqualified admission on, he must know if he even says at the end of his application, "if you can remind me of anything, I will deal with it". Well, we want to take him up on it and remind him of many things, Mr Chairman, that happened during his stewardship of the CCB whilst he was one of the figures and I submit with the greatest respect, that we cannot be prohibited from asking relevant questions to the matters that we have raised in the Heads of Argument and what I have supplemented, but we do agree with you, Mr Chairman, that we do not have to go into the minutia in relation to the happening of every particular act and we will naturally obey any ruling by you Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee if we try and stray too far, but to be gagged on the grounds of irrelevancy in relation to what was the nature of the conspiracy, what was its policy, what was its extent and how many people they successfully killed, would be an undue restraint on us and not in terms of the ...(indistinct) of the Act. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wessels, do you have any response? Do you want some time or whatever?

MR WESSELS: Yes. Mr Chairman, Mr Bizos says that my client elected to make application for only these few matters or offences that we're dealing with now. If Mr Bizos had read his application, he will see that there are a number of other offences that he also made application for here in this application and some of those have been dealt with and others or another one is to be dealt with in due course. We have been brought here only on these three matters where we've made application for amnesty. Mr Chairman, the Act gives you jurisdiction in terms of Section 20 to grant amnesty. After considering an application for amnesty, if that act or omission or offence to which the application relates, is an act associated with a political objective committed in the course of the conflict of the past in accordance of the provisions of (ii) and (iii) and the applicant has made a full disclosure of all relevant facts, it shall grant amnesty in respect of that act, omission or offence. It is not so wide as to allow you to deal with all matters that may have ensued over 10 or 20 years, apart from that particular act. If that had been the intention, it would have been possible to frame it more widely than it did. If that is the intention, then certainly this Committee will be busy with the CCB for a very long time, if we have to deal with all those issues.

It is my submission that you are here to deal with all relevant facts concerning these various offences for which amnesty has been applied for, that you are not here to go outside that and have a review of the Harms Commission and to all aspects of the CCB internally or externally. We have been brought here, we've prepared only on the basis of these three offences for which the applicant has applied for amnesty and it is my submission that you should restrict the questioning in so far as relevancy is concerned, to these issues and anything that can contribute to these particular three offences. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Anybody else wish to make any submissions?

MR MARTINI: Yes Mr Chairman, I think possibly this argument should be dealt with at the beginning and I think all legal representatives should participate in it, so we get a decision rather than go through it step by step as each applicant testifies, otherwise we're going to have these arguments. I don't know how the rest of the legal - I just think it's a practical solution.

Mr Chairperson, I agree with Mr Wessels that unfortunately this Committee today is an Amnesty Committee falling under the auspices of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There are various committees. There are Committees on human rights violations, which gives that Committee different functions. Now this Committee is the Committee on amnesty. It's established to receive applications by applicants for amnesty. Section 18 of the Act and by the Act I mean the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, Mr Chairman, specifically:

and it goes on. Read with Section 20:

Clearly the act in section 20 which refers to the granting of amnesty pursuant to having had an application filed before you, Mr Chairman, relates to the very act that you're seeking amnesty. Possibly a Committee on human rights violations might have other powers, vaster powers than this Committee has, but in respect of this Committee, it's my submission that the evidence must be relevant to this act in respect of which the applicant applies for amnesty. This is the mechanism which an applicant has been given to come forward and make application for a specific act and surely on the strict reading of this legislation, the evidence to be led or cross-examination must be limited to the very acts in respect of which amnesty is applied for, because it would serve no purpose Mr Chairman, if one has to investigate additional acts, it's nonsensical because an applicant, even if evidence had come out that he was guilty of another act, of another gross violation, this Committee is not empowered to give him amnesty for that act because its not an act that amnesty was sought for because it says...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's quite clear. We certainly wouldn't grant amnesty for a matter which hasn't been applied for.

MR MARTINI: Yes, so clearly the evidence must be limited to the very act in respect of which amnesty is sought. That's my submission Mr Chairman.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I'm not going to burden the record with any further address on this matter. I simply support Mr Wessels' and Mr Martini's submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis.

MR H DU PLESSIS: Thank you Chairperson. I support the arguments of Mr Wessels and Mr du Plessis thank you.

MR COETZEE: On behalf of Mr Barnard, we agree with the arguments already tendered.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Eck.

MR VAN ECK: ... by the Counsel on my left.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I would like to support the submissions made by Adv Bizos. I'd also just like to say, Mr Chairman, that there is case law to the effect, I think its the Azapo case, which deals with the interpretation of the amnesty provisions and in that case and in subsequent cases it was said that one should interpret the provisions of the amnesty legislation liberally or generously, so that being the case, Mr Chairman, I think one should give the counsel for the victims, the opportunity to go beyond the scope of merely the amnesty applications. I myself would like to, for example, ask Mr van Zyl what the extent of the co-option of gangsters in the Kewtown community was where the one act occurred and that is why I support the application by Adv Bizos. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hockey.

MR HOCKEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. I associate myself with the comments made by my Learned Colleague here and the submissions made by Adv Bizos. Mr Chairman, I just want to briefly refer to Section 21 of the Act which is headed Granting of Amnesty and the Effect thereof. Now 21 (i)(b) reads:

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's section 20 (i), not 21 (i) (b).

MR HOCKEY: To say that the other activities of the CCB are not relevant is not right. Mr Chairman, I represent some of the victims of one of the acts perpetrated by the CCB operatives and they want to know how they fit in in the grand scheme of things. They for example say that they had nothing to do with the allegations made against them by the applicants, is wrong, they were an ordinary Youth Movement, they were not involved with bombings of the Athlone Police Station, or at the Athlone Post Office. They relied - The CCB relied on information given to them by gangsters and they acted on that information and they want to know why did the CCB operate in this way. In which other areas did the CCB recruit gangsters? Where do they rely on information given to them by gangsters? Another subsection (iii)(b) says:

Now one of that criteria is, I'm referring to (b) then,

Now in this context Mr Chairman, my argument is that the victims are entitled to know how they fit into that broad objective of the CCB and therefore all the relevant facts are not restricted to these particular three incidents but other incidents that could ascribe to the CCB as well. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I agree with my Learned Colleague, Mr Hockey. The evidence must be led, it must be relevant and material to the matters at hand, to the amnesty applications and I agree that in terms of Section 20(iii)(b), that we must look at the context under which these acts and offences occurred, Chairperson, but obviously where it's relevant to these specific acts and material.

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairman, before Mr Bizos replies, may I just draw your attention to the powers that the Commission has in terms of Section 29, where an investigation can be made into any acts or in regard to anything that needs to be investigated. Such an investigation was in fact held and evidence was given, I think it was about two years ago, so all these questions that parties wish to have answered, could have been dealt with if it was thought relevant at that particular time and as I understand the position, the Evidence Leader has made extracts of portions of that or those hearings that were held and if she believes that that was the only portions that are relevant to this amnesty application, then I submit you shouldn't allow the matter to be opened up again and all that ground be recovered during these proceedings. That has already been done in the Section 29 proceedings. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to ...?

MR BIZOS: I want to illustrate in view of Mr Martini's intervention, opposition, by a statement in 5(a) page 86. The context, it is on the briefing of what the policy of the CCB was and it continues on top of page 86, Mr Chairman:

Elsewhere Mr van Zyl says more graphically, whether we kill somebody or we break a window, depended on the decision of Mr Verster, he was the Managing Director and presumably it will be confirmed by Gen Webb who is sitting here.

Now this is very important on the proportionality issue. How was this policy applied and how can we decide whether the witness has made full disclosure or not if we are prohibited from or restrained from asking questions, well what other decisions did you make? Illustrate to us when somebody had the penalty of death or the breaking of a window pane, so that the Committee decide what your policy was and how you applied it. It's very clear that we cannot do justice to the case that we have undertaken on behalf of the victims if we are restrained. My learned friend Mr Wessels, Mr Chairman, says for the last 20 years you can't go and do things. Now we're not interested in 20 years. We are interested in the period and that the question was, how many people were there in the CCB during your stewardship, during your leadership of this organisation? And then my learned friend says that we have misread the papers because he did apply for amnesty in other matters. Yes, we have not overlooked the pages 192 to 193 of the application in relation to Ribeiro and one other, the Community House, which was clearly outside the period when he was a CCB General Manager. It was at a time when he was a staff officer in the Special Forces, so we haven't forgotten about that and we want to give you and our learned friends an assurance that we will confine ourselves to the nature and extent of the CCB and its activities and the participation of each one of the gentlemen before you, of what they did so that you may properly decide whether they comply with the requirements of the Act. My learned friend Mr Wessels, correctly stated that there was a Section 29 hearing. It was a painful experience to read it, Mr Chairman, because the witness and the others spent most of their time making lengthy speeches and not answering questions about the importance of their work and refusing to ask questions on specific matters which they avoided completely and the Chairman of the Commission did not direct them to answer them. The victims are not obliged to accept those as the final word, they have a right to claim the information before the Amnesty Committee, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you. We'd just like to take a short adjournment to deliberate amongst ourselves so that we won't be overheard by everybody.

MR LAX: It's quarter to one.

CHAIRPERSON: I see it's quarter to one. This might be an opportunity to, instead of going out and coming back for five minutes, to take the lunch adjournment and if we could start again at half-past one, if that would be convenient. So we'll take the lunch adjournment now and then we will, if possible, proceed at half-past one. Thank you.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We've discussed the arguments that were submitted prior to the lunch adjournment and it's not possible for us at this stage to make a definitive ruling as to which questions may be put in the future, will be relevant or not relevant, we cannot anticipate what questions will be put. However we and certainly speaking for myself, know very little about the CCB and its operations and we would not find it irrelevant as to how such an organisation was established, how it worked, how it arrived at decisions, how it obtained information, how information was confirmed and matters of that nature. We are also of the view that we would not find it relevant, which has already been mentioned, as to the minutia or details of other operations in order for us to arrive at a decision in this matter. We are however, fully aware of the concerns of both the, of all the applicants and the victims in this regard. We also are aware of the fact that time is a factor as well. We would like these proceedings to proceed expeditiously.

So, all we can say at this stage is that if there is an objection from one side or the other side to a question in the future regarding relevancy, we'll consider it without the need of making the same submissions every time. We're fully aware of that. With regard to the question that the objection was taken to now, namely what was the size of the, or the number of operatives of the CCB during Verster's tenure there, we are of the view that there's no reason why such question should be excluded. I've personally got no idea as to the size of the CCB, whether it was small, whether it was large and it's the sort of information that certainly I can't see any prejudice to anybody, that information being revealed, so I will allow that question. Thank you. Mr Bizos.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

During your stewardship of the CCB, how many members did it have?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, the exact number is in previous documentation and at previous occasions has been given. If I recall correctly, it was in the vicinity of 160 members and reason why it is difficult to say exactly, because certain members were directly or as we called it, members who knew and then there were members who did not know, so there is a connection in that regard that makes it difficult to quantify. Approximately 160.

MR BIZOS: How many formal members of the CCB and how many might have been unwitting members of the CCB?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, I have just answered that now. I said I don't know exactly. I judged that the exact number would be approximately 160 fifteen years ago. I cannot recall right now.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be formal members? Actual members who were receiving ...

MR VERSTER: No, Chairperson. Certain were knowing and others were unknowing and the numbers, it's not possible to give it to you without any research.

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Bizos. You need to appoint another agent to press your button.

MR BIZOS: You made an estimate in previous proceedings that there were about 100 that were members and some 150 unaware members.

MR VERSTER: That may be so. I recall that there were previous instances that we discussed it.

MR BIZOS: Now was there a Board of Directors, with Directors in inverted commas?

MR VERSTER: No, Chairperson, I was appointed as the Managing Director. The General was the Chairperson and then we only had Regional Managers.

MR BIZOS: Well, whether we call them Regional Managers or Directors, please give us the names of the Regional Managers with the region for which each one of them was responsible.

MR VERSTER: I cannot recall all those names Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Give us the ones that you can remember.

MR VERSTER: Staal Burger was Region 6, that's the only name, the others had administrative names, I cannot recall any of their names.

MR BIZOS: Give us their administrative names, because there is ...(intervention)

MR VERSTER: I don't know what that is, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Mr Verster, I think that it is my duty to bring to your attention that we will argue if you persist in not giving us the names of people, that you are indulging in selective amnesia in order to protect your erstwhile co-conspirators. Now having done that, I am going to ask you again. What were the names or give us sufficient information in terms of which we can identify the leaders of the regions that formed the Board or Committee of which you were the Managing Director. Please do so.

MR VERSTER: Chairperson I cannot recall any other than Staal Burger, because I knew him for many years. I do not recall the names after eleven years of the other regional managers and in previous documentation names were put forward to me and I said yes, but it is too far back. I cannot state it better.

MR BIZOS: How often did you meet, this Board or Regional Committee, under your Chairmanship and the overseeing of the General, how often did you meet?

MR VERSTER: At times we met on a weekly basis, Chairperson. At times we met on a monthly basis, at other times on a daily basis. It depended on what had to be done and except for certain occasions when only persons who knew each other, we met and there were times when I went to the different regions. We functioned in a cell structure and we did not necessarily all meet.

MR BIZOS: Each one of these Regional Managers made proposals to you for the either elimination, or the dealing with and we will come to the other ways of dealing with, of individuals and you were working for them, with them and they were under your command. For how long, Sir, how many years?

MR VERSTER: It depends, but let us say for approximately three years.

MR BIZOS: Are you asking the Committee to accept that people that you worked with for three years, who suggested to you that murder and other serious criminal offences should be committed against citizens and others of this country, and you can't give us another name other than that of Staal Burger? Is that what you are saying?

MR VERSTER: What I am saying Chairperson is that we functioned firstly under administrative names and then for each project we had operational names. For every project we had a new name for every new operation and because of that, even when payment was done, even with the staff administration, we did not use proper names and that was approximately 11, 12 or 13 years back.

MR BIZOS: Who appointed these managers? Did you have anything to do with their appointment?

MR VERSTER: I did this in conjunction with submissions which I made to the Chairperson and the various Chairpersons who were in control.

MR BIZOS: Did you appoint people with mythical names?

MR VERSTER: Many a times. We did that often.

MR BIZOS: The leader of - the Managing Director of the CCB employed people to recommend the elimination of the citizens of the country without the Managing Director knowing their original names, is that what you are saying to the Committee Sir?

MR VERSTER: Not in all instances, but it could have happened.

MR BIZOS: No, no, no, no, no, please, you tell us that you cannot give us any other names, Mr Verster, because they used pseudonyms. Now I am asking you whether you employed people to kill the citizens of this country, without knowing their real names.

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, I answered that already. In the case of Staal Burger, I know what his name is and there were certain persons who were aware, where we already have the names and lists of documents and when we adjourn these proceedings, we can see what names I knew before and these were members of Special Forces.

MR BIZOS: No, I am going to put to you Mr Verster, that the reason why you refuse to answer this question honestly is because you still owe loyalty, greater loyalty to your erstwhile fellow criminals to the truth.

MR VERSTER: Chairperson I take exception that I be called a criminal. I was a professional soldier and Mr Bizos, all his questions he puts with that insinuation. I am not a criminal, I was a professional soldier.

MR BIZOS: Were you a policeman before you became a soldier?

MR VERSTER: Never.

MR BIZOS: Were any of your other Managers policemen before they became members of the CCB?

MR VERSTER: Yes, there were some Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: What is your standard of education?

MR VERSTER: I've got a University Degree in International Africa Politics and qualified at Staff Course Level.

MR BIZOS: Which university?

MR VERSTER: UNISA.

MR BIZOS: Unisa. Did anybody ever tell you that murder was allowed by people who joined the CCB?

MR VERSTER: No, we did not refer to it as murder. We executed military operations, as it happens in all other countries in the world.

MR BIZOS: Let us deal with our own problems and leave other countries out of it, please Mr Verster. Did anybody tell you, any responsible person, ever tell you that if you killed or caused somebody to be killed, you did not commit an offence because you were doing it as a professional soldier?

MR VERSTER: It did come up at meetings, where I, in the presence of the Chief of the Army, Gen Geldenhuys where he later denied certain instances and his definition was it was limited military operation where use was made of informal or as he put it, unconventional methods in order to kill the enemy, for example counter insurgency warfare.

MR BIZOS: Are you saying to the Committee that you were advised by the Head of the South African Defence Force, General Geldenhuys, that it was lawful to kill people?

MR VERSTER: I knew what the circumstances were, but I said that he did not advise me. The previous question was whether anyone had discussed this with me and I gave you an indication that it did happen and on that ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: We dealt with that question. The other question was, are you saying that the Head of the South African Defence Force advised you that it was not unlawful to kill people? Please answer that question, Sir.

MR VERSTER: I thought that I had answered it Chairperson. It was told to me that the killing of people in military operations of this nature, was a limited action, with unconventional weapons and unconventional methods.

MR BIZOS: So you thought that you were the prosecutor, the investigating officer, the judge and the executioner and that there was nothing wrong with it?

MR VERSTER: That is not what I said. What I do indeed say Chairperson, is that I protected the sovereignty of the previous government and I was firstly trained as an infantry man and the role of an infantry man is to kill the enemy under any circumstances. I was a paratrooper and that was to kill the enemy behind enemy lines and in Special Forces, I was a Special Forces soldier, to execute the enemy by any means whatsoever and at the CCB I was trained and advised and completed international courses in order to act where we can execute maximum destruction of the enemy.

MR BIZOS: Didn't your Minister deny that anybody in the South African Defence Force or at the instance of the Defence Force, was authorised to commit any murders?

MR VERSTER: I do not know about that. We founded a structure that discussed destruction and maximum disruption and we discharged persons from the South African Defence Force so that he could work in civilian clothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't hear that question Mr Bizos, if you could just repeat it please.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever hear your Minister of Defence say to South Africa and the world at large that no South African Soldier and no one at the instances of the South African Defence Force committed any wrongful act, did you never hear that?

MR VERSTER: I don't know, so many lies were told on political level that I don't know, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: I see, so you say if your Minister said that, he was lying and you knew it?

MR VERSTER: I was a fighting soldier and that is how I was trained and I was told ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: As a soldier, were you ever told about the Geneva Convention?

MR VERSTER: Yes, the Geneva Convention was not applicable here because we acted against terrorists and they chose to say that themselves.

MR BIZOS: Who decided who was a terrorist in order to enable you to eliminate him or her?

MR VERSTER: The South African Defence Force system and the Government of the day decided who the enemy was and the enemy was identified to us. They gave us the information and we worked according to that.

MR BIZOS: What qualified a person to be eliminated? What sort of conduct did he have to be guilty of?

MR VERSTER: We did not regard it as elimination then, we regarded it as killing the enemy who threatened the sovereignty of the government of the day as a soldier and if they threatened my people and my family and if there were bombs that exploded, we acted against these people, that was my work.

MR BIZOS: And you decided on the information that was given to you by your Regional Managers in relation to people within and without the country and you decided, together with your Managers and with the confirmation of Gen Webb, who was to be dealt with, once you find the word elimination or kill unsavoury. You decided who was to be dealt with in that way.

MR VERSTER: I could have never decided Chairperson. There are eleven years worth of documents with regard to the process and I say once again, the army was responsible for the country and the head of the army and the government, the enemy was identified, it was placed in documents year after year and in those documents, priorities were awarded. It was said that enemy bases, individuals and enemy buildings were identified. Those things were approved not by me, but by the Chief of the Army and then earlier I said today, because the enemy of the day could not be eliminated with aircraft or with tanks and because the enemy chose to move in civilian clothes amongst the civilians, we acted against those people under instruction as on a national level, instructions were given and the threat and the enemy was identified and information came from the top and from the bottom and on that basis we acted.

MR BIZOS: Was it the policy to deal with people in the following manner? To either kill them, or infiltrate their organisations, or bribe people around them or themselves, to compromise them in one or other way, or to blackmail them? Were those the options that were available to your organisation?

MR VERSTER: It was an interpretation of the meaning of disruption, yes.

MR BIZOS: And also in relation to property, the destruction of property?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: And you believed that all those acts committed by your CCB were not offences?

MR VERSTER: I did not say that, I said that that meant disruption.

MR BIZOS: Well another question, we're finished with that. You believed that doing any one of these things was not an offence?

MR VERSTER: I regarded it as protection of the sovereignty of the government of the day Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Answer the question please.

MR VERSTER: That is what I'm answering. That is what I regarded as military action against the enemy.

MR BIZOS: You did not ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words, Mr Verster, you're saying that you didn't regard them as offences per se.

MR VERSTER: I regarded them as disruption of the enemy and it was military action, yes, Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR VERSTER: I've already answered that.

MR BIZOS: Why don't you answer it simply? Did you consider them an offence or not?

MR VERSTER: Why don't you ask the questions simply, Mr Bizos, because then I'll answer it simply.

MR BIZOS: Nothing could be simpler and if I ask any ambiguous question ...

MR VERSTER: I regarded it as military action.

MR BIZOS: If I ask any ambiguous questions, you have very competent senior counsel next to you to object to the ambiguity of the question, you have the Committee and particularly the Chairman, who is a Judge, to pull me up if I ask any ambiguous question. I will answer it again. Did you consider any of these six methods of dealing with people as a criminal offence?

MR VERSTER: I think as I thought I had answered it, I regarded it as military action against an enemy who threatened the sovereignty of the government of the day.

MR BIZOS: I will ask it for the last time, so that it will not be said that you have not been warned that we will argue that you fail to answer questions because you know what the effect is going to be and that you indulge in the sort of double talk that has been going on around your circles for almost 30 years. Sir, do you want to answer the question, or don't you?

MR VERSTER: I have answered the question. I regarded it as military action and I did not regard it as a criminal offence, I regarded it as a military action.

MR BIZOS: Does that mean that in your mind the military could do not wrong?

MR VERSTER: We are all human Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: But the military could not commit any offence?

MR VERSTER: In war many things happen. I regarded it as a war situation.

MR BIZOS: Did you believe that the army could do not wrong?

MR VERSTER: No, that is not what I thought. I knew that the army could also be wrong.

MR BIZOS: In your discussions apparently if you discussed the Geneva Convention, did you discuss the Nuremberg Trials against the murder committed by the Nazi army, or the German army, did you discuss that?

MR VERSTER: No, Chairperson. I take exception that we are being compared to that.

MR BIZOS: ... killing certain types of people was not an offence because they were not human, that was their excuse, what was your excuse?

MR VERSTER: I have no excuse, I think I have already answered the question.

MR BIZOS: If you did not consider that you had done, committed any offence or you had done no wrong, you don't need amnesty, do you?

MR VERSTER: No, in terms of the law I do need it and in terms of what has been said here, an Act has been laid down and I was here and I know three quarters of the previous government did not apply for amnesty and they need it, so I am trying to adhere to the law.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but the law that you are referring to says that you are only entitled to amnesty if you have committed an offence and you say that you didn't commit an offence, you justify yourself as a military officer.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Bizos, whether an offence was committed or not, is more an objective thing than a subjective intention.

MR BIZOS: ... (indistinct - microphone not on)

In terms of paragraph 405 of the Report.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if we could see if its present in Exhibit D, that page.

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct - microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: It's paragraph 405, it's on the third last page of this Exhibit D. Nevertheless it starts with. Third last page of Exhibit D.

MR BIZOS: Ja, you're looking at bundles.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 405.

MR BIZOS: The CCB did kill some opponents of the government and tried to kill others. There is evidence that the CCB was involved in the killings of Mr David Webster, Mr Anton Lubowski, Miss Dulcie September, Mr Jacob Molekwana and Mr Matsela Pholokela in Botswana and Miss Tsitsi Tshileza in Harare and it says this was - the intended target was Mr Jacob Zuma in Maputo. Now let's take them one by one.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, I object to this question. If we're going to deal with each of these individuals, they may or not have been incidents on their own. I submit that this Committee is not here to deal with any of those particular incidents. Some of them appear to be outside the country in any event and it's been indicated and let me reiterated that the attitude ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike)

MR WESSELS: Let me reiterate, the attitude of Mr Verster is that he will not answer any questions pertaining to any incidents outside of South Africa.

MR BIZOS: May I put specific questions? I merely read the document and then you can rule on each question. Were these people named in this paragraph killed during your stewardship of the CCB?

MR VERSTER: I don't know Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Try and remember. You were a Senior Managing Director to rid South Africa of its terrorists, your opponents and here is a list of so-called terrorists that were killed. Surely you must have had an interest to find out who is killing our enemies and doing us a favour, these names can't be strange to you, they are not strange to millions of people in South Africa. Please tell us, were they killed during your stewardship or not?

MR VERSTER: I do not know Mr Chairperson. I just want to confirm that there was National Intelligence Special Forces, there were Defence Force operations, there was the Security Branch of the police, there were Commands and in the last more than 12 years, the CCB was held up as the structure who was responsible for everything. I do not know. I did not have anything to do with it and my advocate also said that I should not talk about anything outside the country's borders because this Commission cannot give me amnesty for another country.

MR BIZOS: We'll come to each one of the matters that you have raised in your purported answer. The question is, are you seriously suggesting that you do not know, whether you had anything to do with it or not, which we will deal with in due course, whether these killings were during your stewardship of the CCB, or not?

MR VERSTER: I have already answered the question, Mr Chairperson. I do not know.

MR BIZOS: Well, did you ever have a meeting with your own operatives at the time of the killing of Webster as to whether they did it or not?

MR VERSTER: Yes, Mr Chairperson, on occasion, not specific meetings, but I did speak to them about it

MR BIZOS: But therefore you could have answered that question honestly, couldn't you? You couldn't have forgotten about the meeting with your operatives as to whether they had anything to do with Webster's murder. Could you have forgotten about it? Were you telling the truth when you said you didn't remember whether or not it took place during your stewardship? Were you telling the truth or not?

MR VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, I thought about the whole group because I cannot remember the specific circumstances and the time and Webster is a case that is dealt with in one of my statements.

MR BIZOS: For a person with a university degree who is given a list of names and he says he doesn't remember anything about any of them, to say that you answered it ...

MR WESSELS: That wasn't the question that was put to Mr Verster, Mr Chairman. I object to this ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think this is also a question of argument here, is what we're dealing with.

MR BIZOS: ... I don't know about others, but I do know that Webster must have been during my stewardship because I had a meeting with my operatives. Why didn't you tell the truth?

MR VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, I say what I'm thinking and not what Mr Bizos wants me to say.

MR BIZOS: Have you got any other answer to the question Sir? It's not what I want, I am asking questions on behalf of the Committee who have the duty to assess your credibility, Mr Verster. Why didn't you answer the question honestly? I don't know about the others, but I do remember that I had discussions with my men about Webster. Why didn't you answer ...

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman I thought that you made a ruling that this is a matter of argument in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we can argue about the credibility.

MR BIZOS: No Mr Chairman with respect the ruling was that he spoke about the whole lot of them.

CHAIRPERSON: The group, yes.

MR BIZOS: The group. I have now taken one of the group and in order to test this witness's credibility and there's more to come, that he had to do with the consequences of the Webster killing, in order to persuade you that he was not telling the truth when he said that he did not know about these people Mr Chairman, and I would appeal that he be allowed to answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the question, Mr Verster is, when you answered the previous question saying that you don't know whether the stewardship - during your stewardship the killings of these people mentioned in paragraph 405 took place, your answer was: "I don't know." Then in response to a subsequent question you said you had discussions with some of your operatives regarding the death of Mr Webster. Mr Bizos is now asking you why didn't you, when you answered the previous question about the group, exclude Mr Webster from that answer, that is the question.

MR VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, purely because my head works in the way that it works. I saw them as a group, I handled them as a group and after that, when Webster was pointed out as an individual, I remembered that statements had been made about this incident and there's no other reason for this and it has nothing to do with my credibility because this is already in document form.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: The question of Webster's death couldn't have escaped your mind because it was dealt with at an Inquest, was it not?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: And you gave evidence at that Inquest?

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Before Mr Justice Stegmann?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Was your evidence accepted or rejected?

MR VERSTER: No, I don't think it was accepted, if I think back now, Mr Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: Let me read to you a passage from His Lordship's Judgment .

he says,

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, I object to this line of questioning. Firstly I submit it is irrelevant for the purposes of you deciding on the issues before you and secondly, Mr Bizos is reading from the Judgment of Mr Stegmann, given in approximately 1993, if I remember correctly. In that Judgment, Mr Justice Stegmann accepted the evidence of certain witnesses and rejected others. Subsequent to that, things have changed. People whose evidence was accepted have then subsequently been proven not to have been telling the truth, whilst others, like Mr Verster, have been vindicated with the attitude that he had taken at that particular time and I submit it is unfair for Mr Bizos to read portions of that particular Judgment to Mr Verster as if that was the last word that was said on the topic.

MR BIZOS: My learned friend can re-examine the witness. The impression of a Judge of a witness on a matter such as the Webster killing, where the witness did not volunteer information and he now admits that he gave evidence at the Inquest and what the Judge had to say about him in his assessment of his credibility, is relevant with respect, as to whether this is a person who would tell the truth or not. If there are other factors where we are told that he has been vindicated, I don't know why my learned friend says that he was vindicated, it may be that in the criminal trial other facts came out, I don't know, but I submit that the view of a Judge of a witness that gave evidence before him on a matter which occurred during his stewardship as a Director of the CCB is relevant and I'm entitled to put it to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, the witness has answered that his evidence wasn't accepted at the Inquest. He's not going to deny surely what the Judge said in they typed Judgement.

MR BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) ... because what he did in that Inquest, he is busy doing here, Chairman, and I want to put to him specifically that there is a pattern in his evidence. It is five lines. We have taken up more time than we would have taken if I was allowed to read the passage, Mr Chairman.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman it doesn't go only about the time that he's taken, it is about the fairness of the procedure and the relevance here of the procedure and the questions to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Bizos, if we can - you can use that in argument. I don't think it's necessary to put what the Judge said. He's already admitted that it wasn't accepted and you can refer us to it later, you've brought it to his notice.

MR BIZOS: Well as long as I have brought it to his notice, as long as I have brought it to the Committee's notice, then ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, unless he's going to deny that the Judge said that in the Judgment.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman. And was your evidence accepted by his Lordship Mr Justice Harms?

CHAIRPERSON: Is this in the Harms Commission?

MR BIZOS: Commission.

MR VERSTER: No, Mr Chairperson. I just want to have the opportunity to bring something out. You must understand that the organisation, the CCB, at that point in time and I'm now speaking about before 1989, did very sensitive work for the previous government and at that time and afterwards, and with the speech of F W de Klerk in February 1990, the Harms Commission, the Webster Inquest, the State at that time was worried about the fact that its involvement with the functioning of the CCB would then come to light and this caused that our structure, the CCB, was of the biggest enemies of the then government at the end of the day and what happened at the Harms Commission can then go back to the amnesty that was then given to me and I said that I was against the approach of the Harms Commission and this was that there was a conscious plan by which, where several Ministers were involved, to point to the CCB and Mr Bizos is talking about a pattern and there was a pattern that can be seen right through the Inquest which should be public knowledge for every member of the public and this is that, for instance, the kwaMakutha case, a Sergeant is taken there and it is then said that he did not understand what he did there and then the higher hierarchy gets away with it. With the CCB it is said that CCB did not know what they did and then the higher hierarchy gets away with it and in this way one can mention many incidents where people were brought to light and the golden line was broken by the politicians on the one side and the people who did the work on ground level on the other side and this is exac