Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-13

GEORGE 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.

GEORGE 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.

GEORGE 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.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Is this in the Harms Commission?

GEORGE BIZOS: Commission.

PIETER JOHANN 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 exactly what happened at the Harms Commission.  It happened with the Webster Commission and we must say very clearly that in spite of the Judgements and in spite of the independence of the Judiciary, it was an orchestrated attempt to blame the CCB for everything that happened and this can be seen several times in statements that were given in over the years.

GEORGE BIZOS: You wouldn't accuse Mr van Zyl, the man sitting behind you there, to be party to that conspiracy, to wrongly accuse you of committing these acts that you say you did not commit.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I do not know, Mr Chairperson, you must please specify now.  I do not know what I just said.

GEORGE BIZOS: No it's not what you said, it's what Mr van Zyl said that may be of greater importance.  Now you also didn't single out Lubowski, Anton Lubowski, when I asked you about paragraph 405.  You said you didn't remember anything - you didn't remember whether this was during your period of stewardship of the CCB.  Do you recall that?  Were you telling the truth when you said that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, once again I say that I was speaking about the group of incidents.  Certain of them could have been during my time, others not and others I do not know.

GEORGE BIZOS: Why didn't - what do you know say that I am asking you about Lubowski?  Do you admit now that that was during your period of stewardship?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It was during the same time that I was working for Special Forces in the CCB and the Lubowski incident took place at that time.

GEORGE BIZOS: ;   Why didn't you name and remembering that didn't you say:  "Well, I remember Webster and I remember Lubowski."  Why didn't you say that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Because I am speaking as I think and this is what you do not want to hear, Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: What I want to hear is the truth and not how you think.  Now let me read to  you on page 58 of Bundle B.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have that Mr Verster?  It's Bundle B page 58.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  It's a statement made by Abram van Zyl and I think it's dated 1990, I'm not sure.

GEORGE BIZOS: Look at what he says in the middle of page 58, Lubowski, wrongly spelled, but surely it must be Mr Lubowski.  Do you remember that, see that?

CHAIRPERSON: It's got a heading there in the middle of the page called Lubowski.

GEORGE BIZOS: You see that?   What is says is
"As far as I know ..."

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It was one of the members of Region 6, Mr Chairperson, Chappie.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was that his real name?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is how I know him, Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: By that name?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It is Chappie Maree, Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: It's the second applicant in this case, isn't it?  Isn't he?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I know he's an applicant in this matter, whether he's the second or the third.

GEORGE BIZOS: Why were you reluctant to mention his surname?

CHAIRPERSON: He's an applicant.  He said he didn't know whether he was the second or third, but he's confirmed he knows that he's an applicant.

GEORGE BIZOS: Why were you reluctant to mention the surname of one of your fellow applicants?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: My attitude can be as it wants to, Mr Chairperson, if I do not want to speak or if I want to come from a milieu where I do not talk about things, then this is my attitude and you will definitely not change it, not now or tomorrow.

GEORGE BIZOS: I will persist in doing my work in the manner which is expected of me and you can advise yourself what to do.  Now
"I never saw them together and I also do not know what he looks like.
		Who shot Lubowski?
		I cannot say.
		Aichison did have the task to work with him or to work on him.  The presentation was done by Chap, Staal and Joe Verster approved it and recommended it to the Chairperson."
Does that statement come as news to you?