Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-22

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, I don't think my legal representative would have done that or could have done that because I discussed the matter with him in consultation and as I said before, to sit here today and say what you told each other, we're not deaf mutes who will say:  "Here's a bomb, go and explode it".  We talked about these matters and we were worried about the matter and we were worried, whether you want to believe it or not, but the order was that nobody should be killed or injured and that is the bitter pill you cannot swallow, that that is the truth.  But I'll go further and I'll say yes, the possibility that there could be loss of life, it's possible and that's why we gave the order and I think in the end, that's why Mr van Zyl on the ground, in the end used his own discretion to ensure that nobody was injured or killed, apparently people were injured, but that's all I can tell you about this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: But can you recall any conversation with Mr van Zyl to the effect that if people died, they should be QTY members, Q-Town Youth Members?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: It's like I said, if I acknowledge it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just asking if you can remember whether you said it.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I cannot remember it, but it is possible that we had such a discussion.  It's logical, it's a logical assumption that can be made today.  I would have said yes, if somebody has to die, leave the innocent people, let it be a target.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, you'll agree with me there's a big difference between a plan which is formulated in such a way so as to ensure that there will be no possible loss of life versus a plan that is formulated in such a way that possible loss of life is encompassed?  I'll give you an example here, because obviously there's a difference between setting the bomb to go off at 3 o'clock in the morning when you're dead certain there's no one around, versus setting the bomb to go off at half-past eight at night, when there is a risk that people might be harmed, you agree with me there's a difference?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Okay.  So there's a difference between Mr Verster giving an instruction to you to hand on to Mr van Zyl.  "Mr van Zyl, you must take every possible measure to ensure that no one is injured or killed", versus Mr Verster saying to you:  "The plan encompasses the possible loss of life or injury, but you must avoid it", do you agree with me?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So what was the instruction?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: The instruction was that there should be no loss of life, but the possibility of loss of life was discussed.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see because the version which you gave yesterday in chief was to the effect that Mr Verster had clearly said to you that there must not be loss of life.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And there impression that you gave was that the instruction that you had received, was that your operatives must go out of their way to make sure that innocent people would not be harmed, that was your evidence yesterday.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And when you said innocent people, you added on, you said i.e. not only members of the Q-Town Youth must not be harmed, but other private people must not be harmed, that was your evidence yesterday, correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now that, a plan where you're going out of your way to make sure that no innocent people are harmed, is different to a plan which encompasses possible harm to innocent people, do you agree with me?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, I don't follow your question.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you had already agreed to that, the example about the bomb going off at 3 o'clock, or at half-past eight.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Oh yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The one where you're going to be absolutely sure that no one is going to be injured and the other one where there might be injuries, it's two different - the one's at half past eight at night, the other's at three in the morning.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see, it can't be that the plan was that every step must be taken to ensure that innocent people were not harmed, because if that was the plan, you wouldn't have set the bomb off at the time that it was exploded, you agree with me?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Firstly, I was not in control of the time factor, I did not know until what time the meeting would continue.  If I had to execute the project, I might have set the bomb to explode at 3 o'clock, but the effect it would have had on the people would not have been the same, where you set it to explode shortly after the meeting, with the order that no people should be injured or killed.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you suggesting that it was within the discretion Mr van Zyl to have set the bomb off at 3 o'clock in the morning as opposed to at half-past eight at night?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: It was in his discretion because they are on the ground.  They see, maybe the Kewtown movement decided to have a party after their meeting, or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Kahanovitz is getting at, what Mr Kahanovitz is asking is, was it in Mr van Zyl's discretion to place the bomb at the hall when it was sure that the hall was deserted and no one else was around, like at 3 o'clock in the morning, not a discretion that if the meeting, instead of finishing at 9, finished at five to three, I mean then it's exactly the same, whether it's three or at nine.  Did he have the discretion to place the limpet mine to go off when the building was completely deserted at three in the morning, if the meeting finished at nine?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: He had to see to it that the bomb exploded at a point when the hall was empty, at what time it would be, I couldn't say.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But what you're saying is that if that was your instruction, you might have interpreted it in such a way so as to explode the bomb in the early hours of the morning because then you could really be certain that it was empty, you might have done that, is that what you're saying?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, we are speculating, but it's possible.

MR LAX: Can I just ask a question if I may?  This place that we're talking about is referred to as a hall, in fact it isn't a hall as such, it's a centre with a small hall on the one side and a whole range of other buildings on the other.  It wasn't like it was just one big hall that would then empty and there would be no one else there.  Do you see all those buildings up there?

CHAIRPERSON: That is ...

MR LAX: You can see the plan on the wall, that's an architectural drawing of the building.  So the notion that people would leave the hall and that would be the end of it doesn't really apply if you think about it in that way.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR LAX: You would expect that somebody would check the whole building, not just the hall.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: As far as I'm concerned, the Early Learning Centre was a hall.  I had no such detailed plan, I didn't see such detailed plan.

MR LAX: Yes, but if you were on the ground and you realised from what you saw on the ground, that that is the extent of the building rather than just a hall, ...

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR LAX: Would you have detonated that bomb within minutes of the meeting completing?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, I think I would have made sure that the complex as such, was empty.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you were in the in-house where the strategy and the plan was discussed in detail, isn't that so?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well Mr van Zyl says you were there.  You seem to be a bit vague as to whether you in fact attended that in-house.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I have forgotten a lot of things.