Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

GEORGE BIZOS: Now I want to read to you the passage in which you were questioned by His Lordship Mr Justice Harms.  On page 1579, Mr Chairman.  Do you see there: Chairperson
"But you see I have a serious problem, I think this affidavit is misleading, do you agree?  You keep quiet about the fact that there was an emergency plan, is that correct, and why?"
		"There was no specific reason.  I have - the files are still handled within an emergency plan or within a conventional plan in regions."
		"I think what you just told me now that you are satisfied that members of management of the regions were not in possession of Region 6 files."
		"What is meant by that is only the handling.  In other words, if something has to be done with regard to the files, that was the intention that you."
		"No, no, listen, earlier on you told me that according to this emergency plan these members of Region 6 are not in possession of Region 6 files and because of the institution of the emergency plan, is that correct"?
		"Yes."
		"Now why did you say here in this affidavit - 'Up to date of this I was not able to contact all the members of management of the region and consequently I could not determine where the files were which have regard to this region.'?"
		"That is now Region 6?"
		"That is correct."
		"But that is an untruth because you knew that they were not in possession of it, because the emergency plan was already instituted."
		"But perhaps when I drew up this statement I did not think that the files would be such a great issue."
		"Come on now, that is why for that reason you did not speak the truth."
		"No, I did not speak an untruth, I perhaps did not see it in that manner at that stage."
		"What did you not see?"
		"That now as you have put it now."
		"That it is an untruth?"
		"No, I did not intend it as an untruth."
		"But it is an untruth as it is stated there, do you agree?"
		"Under the circumstances I did not look at it with the same insight.  I do not think that I spoke an untruth here."
		"As it is stated there, is it not an untruth?"
		"No, as it is stated there it is to me the truth."
		"Then I don't know what the truth is, then I have serious problems comprehending what you are trying to tell me.  An emergency plan is instituted, the members of Region 6 as consequence of this, were not in possession of the files, but now you have admitted that you could not contact the members of region 6.  Can you not tell me where the files are?  And you said that you did not know that the files were of import but you give a three page long or two page long explanation that you cannot tell them your story what projects were internal or what projects were external because you do not know where the files are.  So you are saying that it is not important?"
		"No, the files are important.  You may have understood me incorrectly."
And then Mr McNally takes over -
"Let us deal with it on the basis of the difference of the evidence here today and the evidence in this affidavit.  Do you agree that there is a difference between what you are saying here, namely that you could not find the files because you could not get into contact with the persons from Region 6, although today you are saying that Region 6 files were not even with the Region 6 people."  "The approach is that the people could know, it can be obvious that someone within a region knows of the files or it may be that he does not know of them.  Within an emergency plan it is hidden somewhere that I do not know of.  I therefore feel that it would be obvious if to enquire from anyone who is involved with the CCB.  It can be with someone who does not usually deals with it, but I specifically do not have the exact particulars with regard to where the files are being kept."
		"What is your suspicion?"
		"At this moment I do not have any suspicions."
	I want to take that with something else that was asked of you by the Chairman in relation to this before asking you to comment.  If you would just bear with me, I just want ... Can we please go to page 1589, I'll read the portion which you have repeated here.  On a number of occasions you complained -
"It is not normal to lock up a Regional Manager under Section 29."
And then the Judge says -
"No, but I think one has to keep a little perspective here because we are losing perspective.  You activated the emergency plan in the middle of January because you were afraid that there would be a Commission of Inquiry."
		"That is correct."
		"This has nothing to do with you being locked up, that had taken place much later?"
		"It made my control at that point much more difficult."
		"But to give that answer every time gives a false perspective to events, and the complaint or the allegations about it you always knew.  The whole thing had its origin with the death of Dr Webster, and this led to that it was found that there was a bomb explosion.  Is that not so?"
And so it goes on.
"So therefore I do not know who you should blame for the fact that such allegations or accusations were made."
	Then I want to page 1590, the middle of the page.  Chairperson -
"But there is a very simple answer to what you are putting, and let us call it the Omar project.  All the persons whose identities could be disclosed with regard to the Omar project has already been disclosed, not so?  Is that correct?"
		"I do not want to speculate about that now."
I stop there and ask you, did you know that Slang van Zyl had already given evidence before you, and that his evidence was published?  It became well-known, did you know that?

MR VERSTER: I can accept that.  I don't know whether it was in the Commission or whether he just made a statement, but I know that they spoke beforehand.

GEORGE BIZOS: So that was - that you knew.
"But your speculation will not get you anywhere because we know who was involved with Omar, is that not so?  We have all the particulars.  Correct or incorrect, but we do.  Is that correct?"
		"No, I do not know whether that is correct."
Now you see - anyway I won't comment at this stage.
"So you don't know of anyone else that was contaminated by Omar?"
		"No, from the top of my head I am not able to say."
		"Now you say that with regard to Omar it was just purely monitoring, correct?"
		"Yes, that is correct."
		"Other people say that that was an attempt to murder him.  You know that, don't you?"
		"It could be."
So that - don't let me comment, we'll comment at the argument stage of how consistent you are in avoiding questions.
"So if the file is available, then it can only serve for the purpose where one can see what the instruction was or what the approval was, is that not so?"
		"That is so."
		"Then I do not understand your problem."
		"My problem is that I am sitting with continued projects."
		"No, but let us deal only with Omar.  In other words, the person who had the Omar file in his possession or the documents with regard to Omar, is doing the CCB a disfavour and he's doing you a disfavour."
		"That may be so."
		"And you are saying because the file should prove your innocence, is that not so?"
		"That could be."
		"So you are saying 'I do not have do not have access to the file otherwise I would have made it available to you.'"
Is this correctly recorded?

CHAIRPERSON: I think he's already made that admission ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: We don't have to go - right.
	Now please tell the Committee whether you had anything to do with the disappearance of the file or not, yes or no.

MR VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, I'm of the opinion that I have already explained it.

GEORGE BIZOS: No, just say yes or no.