Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-13

GEORGE BIZOS: The CCB did kill some opponents of the government and tried to kill others.  There is evidence that the CCB was involved in the killings of Mr David Webster, Mr Anton Lubowski, Miss Dulcie September, Mr Jacob Molekwana and Mr Matsela Pholokela in Botswana and Miss Tsitsi Tshileza in Harare and it says this was - the intended target was Mr Jacob Zuma in Maputo.  Now let's take them one by one.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, I object to this question.  If we're going to deal with each of these individuals, they may or not have been incidents on their own.  I submit that this Committee is not here to deal with any of those particular incidents.  Some of them appear to be outside the country in any event and it's been indicated and let me  reiterated that the attitude ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike)

MR WESSELS: Let me reiterate, the attitude of Mr Verster is that he will not answer any questions pertaining to any incidents outside of South Africa.

GEORGE BIZOS: May I put specific questions?  I merely read the document and then you can rule on each question.  Were these people named in this paragraph killed during your stewardship of the CCB?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I don't know Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Try and remember.  You were a Senior Managing Director to rid South Africa of its terrorists, your opponents and here is a list of so-called terrorists that were killed.  Surely you must have had an interest to find out who is killing our enemies and doing us a favour, these names can't be strange to you, they are not strange to millions of people in South Africa.  Please tell us, were they killed during your stewardship or not?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I do not know Mr Chairperson.  I just want to confirm that there was National Intelligence Special Forces, there were Defence Force operations, there was the Security Branch of the police, there were Commands and in the last more than 12 years, the CCB was held up as the structure who was responsible for everything.  I do not know.  I did not have anything to do with it and my advocate also said that I should not talk about anything outside the country's borders because this Commission cannot give me amnesty for another country.

GEORGE BIZOS: We'll come to each one of the matters that you have raised in your purported answer.  The question is, are you seriously suggesting that you do not know, whether you had anything to do with it or not, which we will deal with in due course, whether these killings were during your stewardship of the CCB, or not?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I have already answered the question, Mr Chairperson.  I do not know.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, did you ever have a meeting with your own operatives at the time of the killing of Webster as to whether they did it or not?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, Mr Chairperson, on occasion, not specific meetings, but I did speak to them about it

GEORGE BIZOS: But therefore you could have answered that question honestly, couldn't you?  You couldn't have forgotten about the meeting with your operatives as to whether they had anything to do with Webster's murder. Could you have forgotten about it?   Were you telling the truth when you said you didn't remember whether or not it took place during your stewardship?  Were you telling the truth or not?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, I thought about the whole group because I cannot remember the specific circumstances and the time and Webster is a case that is dealt with in one of my statements.

GEORGE BIZOS: For a person with a university degree who is given a list of names and he says he doesn't remember anything about any of them, to say that you answered it ...

MR WESSELS: That wasn't the question that was put to Mr Verster, Mr Chairman.  I object to this ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think this is also a question of argument here, is what we're dealing with.

GEORGE BIZOS: ... I don't know about others, but I do know that Webster must have been during my stewardship because I had a meeting with my operatives.  Why didn't you tell the truth?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, I say what I'm thinking and not what Mr Bizos wants me to say.

GEORGE BIZOS: Have you got any other answer to the question Sir?  It's not what I want, I am asking questions on behalf of the Committee who have the duty to assess your credibility, Mr Verster.  Why didn't you answer the question honestly?  I don't know about the others, but I do remember that I had discussions with my men about Webster.  Why didn't you answer ...

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman I thought that you made a ruling that this is a matter of argument in due course.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we can argue about the credibility.

GEORGE BIZOS: No Mr Chairman with respect the ruling was that he spoke about the whole lot of them.

CHAIRPERSON: The group, yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: The group.  I have now taken one of the group and in order to test this witness's credibility and there's more to come, that he had to do with the consequences of the Webster killing, in order to persuade you that he was not telling the truth when he said that he did not know about these people Mr Chairman, and I would appeal that he be allowed to answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the question, Mr Verster is, when you answered the previous question saying that you don't know whether the stewardship - during your stewardship the killings of these people mentioned in paragraph 405 took place, your answer was:  "I don't know."  Then in response to a subsequent question you said you had discussions with some of your operatives regarding the death of Mr Webster.  Mr Bizos is now asking you why didn't you, when you answered the previous question about the group, exclude Mr Webster from that answer, that is the question.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, purely because my head works in the way that it works.  I saw them as a group, I handled them as a group and after that, when Webster was pointed out as an individual, I remembered that statements had been made about this incident and there's no other reason for this and it has nothing to do with my credibility because this is already in document form.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: The question of Webster's death couldn't have escaped your mind because it was dealt with at an Inquest, was it not?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: And you gave evidence at that Inquest?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: Before Mr Justice Stegmann?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was your evidence accepted or rejected?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, I don't think it was accepted, if I think back now, Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Let me read to you a passage from His Lordship's Judgment .
"Regarding Verster,"
he says,
"Verster's evidence was characterised by calculated ambivalence."

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, I object to this line of questioning.  Firstly I submit it is irrelevant for the purposes of you deciding on the issues before you and secondly, Mr Bizos is reading from the Judgment of Mr Stegmann, given in approximately 1993, if I remember correctly.  In that Judgment, Mr Justice Stegmann accepted the evidence of certain witnesses and rejected others.  Subsequent to that, things have changed.  People whose evidence was accepted have then subsequently been proven not to have been telling the truth, whilst others, like Mr Verster, have been vindicated with the attitude that he had taken at that particular time and I submit it is unfair for Mr Bizos to read portions of that particular Judgment to Mr Verster as if that was the last word that was said on the topic.