Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-13

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I did not bother about this Chairperson, because it sounds to me as if it's just hearsay or an opinion, but I do not know what this has to do with what we are here for.  My advocate said, and I have now repeatedly said it over the years, that I do not talk about any external actions.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did this come as news to you, or was it in your mind at the time when you did not avail yourself of the opportunity of saying:  "Yes, I do remember something about Lubowski"?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, Mr Verster has indicated that he will not ... (indistinct) relating to matters outside of the country.  This relates to something that happened outside of the country and my instructions are to place on record that he will not answer any further questions in this regard.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I ask that the witness be directed to answer the question.  There is no lawful excuse for him to refuse to answer questions for violations of fundamental human rights.  The Act specifically says:  "Within or outside the country".  It is an objection which has no merit in law, it is contrary to the express provisions of the Act.  I ask that the witness be ordered to answer the question.

MR WESSELS: With respect, Mr Chairman, there's no provision in the Act where you have the power to force the witness to answer that question.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think we have that power, but the question doesn't relate to an outside operation.  The question relates to what Mr Verster's reaction or knowledge is to what was contained in this statement of Mr van Zyl.  In other words when he read it, whether it was related to an outside incident or an internal incident is irrelevant.  In fact whether it relates - whether it was the Lubowski incident or not, it is just whether - what is his reaction to this statement made by Mr van Zyl with regard to his involvement.  Does he agree with it?  I think he's already said, as far as he's concerned it's hearsay or opinion.  So you can ask, but we don't want details as to the Lubowski operation.  We are not here to make any finding whatsoever in that regard.

GEORGE BIZOS: I am not dealing with that.  The question that I actually asked was if he knew about this that is said by one of his co-applicants as to what he and another applicant did, whether he had knowledge of this, and if he had knowledge of this, the following question is, why didn't he mention Lubowski when he was asked about it.

MR WESSELS: With respect, Mr Chairman, may I address you on this?  It's not a question as to whether this incident happened inside or outside of South Africa.  It relates to the Lubowski matter and everything that can be a chain, a link in the chain of events would in the criminal law be something that a witness has privilege against, if it could for instance incriminate him.  The same applies when there is an incident that occurred outside of the country, even discussions inside the country relating to matters that happened outside the country, could be a link in the chain of events leading to an outside incident and that he doesn't have to answer and he's not obliged to answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I know the point you're trying to make is with regard to the previous answer about putting them in a group etc.  Isn't this really a question of argument now, whether the applicant said ...

GEORGE BIZOS: I will accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: You can raise that ...

GEORGE BIZOS: I will accept that, Mr Chairman, I will accept that.  Did you ever give van Zyl instructions in South Africa to monitor Lubowski whilst he was in South Africa?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Chairperson, I cannot answer that question.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, are you aware of the fact that we may, we will definitely argue and are you aware of the consequences that if you persist in answering these questions about the operations of the body that you were a Managing Director of, that we will argue that you are not making  full disclosure, you're aware of that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Chairperson, I do not see it as such.

GEORGE BIZOS: You disagree.  Very well.  You know whether you should

CHAIRPERSON: I think with regard to whether questions should be answered or not, the position is that we don't have the power, the jurisdiction to force people to answer.  We can't find any witness who appears before us to be in contempt of the Commission as the courts have a power to find people being in contempt of court if they refuse to answer questions that the court feels should be answered.  We don't have that power, but the situation is, and I'm not at this stage saying at all whether or not failure to answer a question will amount to such, that we'll have to listen to argument later, but if questions are refused to be answered when they ought to have been answered and I'm not saying now that this is a case where they ought to or not to, I'm not going to pre-empt anything, then the risk run by an applicant in that situation is as has been said, there might be a finding that there hasn't been full disclosure and whether there's been a full disclosure or not, is one of the essential criteria which is taken into account in determining the success or otherwise of an application.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.  Mr Chairman, I wish to place on record that the witness from time to time has turned to his counsel to presumably ask for advice.  I have no quarrel with that, Mr Chairman, and I know my learned friend, he's a senior friend of the same Bar as I am, that he is entitled to be consulted and I don't mind that, but I would appeal to the witness that he should confine advice only on matters of law and not turn around on questions of fact.  Now on page 36 of bundle B, I want to read to you what Mr van Zyl says, the same Mr van Zyl, your co-applicant.
Perhaps I should start at the bottom of page 35, paragraph 68.
"Approximate a week after I had handed over the pills, I received a page message from Staal Burger to contact him at a number.  I contacted the number.  It was at the Milpark Holiday Inn.  Staal Burger then told me that I had to see him immediately.  I then went and saw Staal Burger at the abovementioned Holiday Inn at approximately half-past on p.m.  I also met Joe Verster and Christo Britz there with Staal Burger.  I think it was a Wednesday.  I was informed by Joe Verster that Anton Lubowski was expected from Windhoek the coming Saturday and would be expected in Cape Town.  I did not know Lubowski.  I was informed that Christo Britz would supply particulars to me the following day as to where Lubowski would deliver two speeches, namely one in Cape Town and one in Johannesburg.  My instruction from Joe Verster was to monitor Peaches during his visit to the Republic of South Africa.  He had to collect information with regard to persons whom Lubowski had met and places that he visited."
Now in order to place this in relation to time, this was at or about the time that pills were being arranged for Minister Dullah Omar in order to kill him.  Will you accept that, that this was the period that Mr van Zyl is speaking about?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Correct, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Right.  Were you at the Holiday Inn Hotel together with Christo Britz, Mr van Zyl, or not?