Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-14

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.  The region would come to me and these activities would happen over a certain time and it could then happen that the region via the Co-ordinator, would then start talking to me long beforehand and they would tell me that they are looking at one specific individual and that one specific individual is someone who is busy threatening the sovereignty of the State and it would develop like that and on a day when the presentation is made, after it was co-ordinated beforehand, then it is said:  "These are the current facts" and I am then told, it is confirmed by the Intelligence channel, or it is like this or it isn't the case and this was then a factor that would be considered in making a decision.

CHAIRPERSON: When you answered Mr Bizos's question to the effect that you have no knowledge whether Mr Evans was involved in the end conscription campaign, are you saying that that information was not in that proposal, or you can't remember?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, as I understood it, is that I did not have the detail of the background of articles that he had written or whatever the case may be and if his brother for instance had been part of a specific plan, then I would have known about him, but I cannot now remember the specific information detail of this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: ...Make a decision as to how the intended target was to be dealt with?  What were the options available to you?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, that would depend on the options that had been evaluated and that had been placed in front of me by the region itself.  It has to do with disruption.  It did not necessarily mean that the individual had to be killed.  Sometimes it was possible for me to say no, it is not necessary to go that far and on my level, I would then give my opinion and I would help formulate the plan and refine the plan and then if it was a very heavy decision, it would be processed from the Chairperson up and I do not know who the Chairperson spoke to, that was his matter, and in certain cases it would then - well I would accept that the Chairperson always spoke on a higher level, but I did not have access to this level, but this is basically how it worked.

GEORGE BIZOS: But tell us the options.  You say that this was not sufficiently serious to kill the person.  What other options could you have ...

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I think we've already said it, in terms of what the definition of disruption is.  Please wait, let me finish.  What we could have done is that we could have recruited Mr Evans, we could have decided that we wanted to use him.  We could make him independent regarding money for instance, but in the specific options, the region's decision, if they say that they proposed that the following would happen, his house be burned down for instance, or he had to be shot, or whatever the case might have been, I just want to confirm to you, because we are talking about region 6 all the time, but these activities Mr Chairperson were only a drop of the CCB's activities and our activities were mostly outside the country and we had to keep the enemy from the borders of the country and in certain cases there were incidents such as these that we are now applying for amnesty for, so it was not as if it happened every day, it was an exceptional case.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was it any part of your function or culture in this CCB to use the tremendous powers that the State had in terms of its legislation in order to avoid to deal with people that you had information, by banning them, detaining them, house arresting them, and not killing them or burning their houses, or corrupting them by bribing them.  Was this no part of your equation at all?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, Mr Chairperson, we did not have any other function other than what I've already told you about.  I think that was a police function.  I know that was a police function.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Verster, we know that a large number of the people who operated in Region 6 were in fact policemen.  Did they lose their status as policemen when they joined CCB or did they still have the powers of a policeman to arrest people, you know, the powers that go beyond the normal civil arrest?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No Mr Chairperson, they were all members who quit the police and they also gave up their commissions and there was even a six month waiting time, where an arrangement would - and an arrangement between departments that they could not be used by other departments and this was also the case regarding them.

GEORGE BIZOS: But ... (indistinct - no microphone) state of emergency during your period as head of the  CCB, did you ever on any occasion apply your mind when a proposal was made to you, that you had to commit crimes against citizens, rather don't let us commit crimes, there are statutory powers, please deal with this person, did you ever do it?  Please deal with this person in terms of the law of the country, such as it was?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, any such incidents had nothing to do with me.  At that time where from my side any presentations had been made, or made to me from ground level, I would send it up and if it came from the top, then I would see it as something that had already been considered and I did not have the authority to decide about life or death myself.  This was not within my powers.  This was found in the total structure.

CHAIRPERSON: What Mr Bizos is getting at is, you get info from the ground, right?  This person is an activist, he's a member of the UDF, whatever it is, or he's a journalist who's associating with activists, couldn't you, at that stage, without sending it on through to the Intelligence Services, merely say:  "Well look, go to the local Security Branch and ask them to pick him up and detain him in terms of Section 29" because the activist wasn't - was Mr Evans and Mr Omar, were you of the view that their continued freedom would result in people dying?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, I was an operational soldier and I would like to put it to you in the following way, that written procedures prevented us from contacting other departments, other than through the process that I had explained to you already, so if we had information and this happened many times, that we only sent information through and then it would end up with Special Forces for instance and then we would function as a source of Special Forces' combat information and then we would be protected and details would not be given about where that information came from, so this happened quite a lot.  We would do it as you said it, but we could not present it left and right.  This was not our function and we were prohibited from contacting other departments directly.

MR LAX: Sorry, I know it's almost tea time.  Just to pick up on this.  The impression one gets from you is you say you were just a professional soldier, you didn't consider those legal options that were open to you and from the answers you've given, you never considered any legal options, you only considered in your whole method of operation, extra-legal options?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Chairperson, it was never taken up lightly, it was seen as a last resort after it came from grassroots level.  What I am saying is that I was not supposed to liaise with other departments.

MR LAX: We're talking here about you evaluating particular projects and conduct.  It's plain and simple as that.  Now that conduct was either legal or it was unlawful and the simple question I'm putting to you is, did you consider lawful methods or not?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It happened many times, but it was not my function.

MR LAX: Just give me a straight answer.