Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

PIETER JOHANN 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.

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

PIETER JOHANN 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.

GEORGE 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.

PIETER JOHANN 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.

GEORGE 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?

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

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

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

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

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

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

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

GEORGE BIZOS: Answer the question please.

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

GEORGE 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.

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

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

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I've already answered that.

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

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

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

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I regarded it as military action.

GEORGE 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?

PIETER JOHANN 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.

GEORGE 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?

PIETER JOHANN 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.

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

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: We are all human Chairperson.

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

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

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

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

GEORGE 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?

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

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

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

GEORGE 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?

PIETER JOHANN 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.

GEORGE 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.

GEORGE 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.

GEORGE 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.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 405.