Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-21

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That his activities were suspended.

MR VAN ECK: And who would take that decision?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Mr Verster.

MR VAN ECK: Would you also have any input in that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, I may.

MR VAN ECK: That would mean that he was not included in any activities or executions?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: The decision to contact him to help van Zyl, whose decision was that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: It was my suggestion to the Chairman, sorry to the Managing Director, Verster.

MR VAN ECK: And you phoned him, Botha?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: After discussing it with Verster, I phoned Botha.

MR VAN ECK: Can one accept that before this contact, or this call, there was no contact between you and him?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I think so, yes.

MR VAN ECK: You mentioned that you called him because he had reasonable knowledge of explosives?  Were you aware of the fact that he was an explosives expert, trained, when he was in the Security Branch?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I don't know what his qualifications are, but I knew that he was involved with the bomb disposal unit.

MR VAN ECK: Yes, he was an explosives expert.  I don't want the perception to exist that he, in his spare time, he trained himself with explosives?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: He was trained in the Police Force.

MR VAN ECK: With regard to the happenings at the Early Learning Centre, the planning, was he, he was not briefed by you or anybody else about what had to be done, about the aims, etc?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

MR VAN ECK: The only matter where there was an "in-house" from Botha's side, at the CCB, that was at Roskam?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: And that is the one where the advise was that it should not be seen as a gross violation of human rights?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Do you know how Botha was distanced at the end from the CCB or released from the CCB?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Released?  I think at that stage, we all got the message from Verster that everything was stopped.

MR VAN ECK: And to conclude, was there during the time that the CCB was getting active, were there clashes, personal clashes between you and Botha?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: What time?

MR VAN ECK: After the first cooling down period, where you worked at Matthysen and afterwards, were there at times any personal clashes between you and Botha?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, I cannot recall anyone.

MR VAN ECK: Of such a nature that at one time, he was pushed out?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, he was pushed out because of the aspect as explained.

MR VAN ECK: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ECK

CHAIRPERSON: Did that deteriorate into an argument, did you have a personal clash about that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Some bosses take things personally when they happen at work, and others are more objective?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, not that I can recall Chairperson.

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I have no questions. I would just like to place on record that the fact that I do not question him on behalf of Barnard, must not seem that I agree with everything that is testified, but that aspect, I will handle in his application, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR COETZEE

MR P DU PLESSIS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, just before my learned friends on the other side proceed, there is just one aspect I admitted to deal with.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly Mr du Plessis.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Burger, I just want to refer shortly to your application for indemnity, your first application was in terms of the 1990 Act and the date is 28 March 1991 and it was an affidavit and you were advised by Adv Flip Hattingh, is that correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And Havengas, the Instructing Attorneys?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And afterwards there was a second Act implemented in terms whereof you were informed that this 1990 application was referred to two Judges, who heard the application through your legal representatives on 9 December 1993?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And afterwards there was a third Act, Act 34 of 1995, according to that, your application was submitted, according to the prescribed form, Form 1 and it was completed and whereby the original application, the 1991 application was annexed hereto, as motivation, is that correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: This, the last application of the 2nd of December 1996, that is only the form that was completed, the affidavit is still the original one?  Is that correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: On this form, you show the four cases for which you apply for amnesty, and amongst others, you are asked on page 3 of the form, "state whether any person was injured, killed or suffered any damage to property as a result of such acts, omissions or offences", the answer is "no".  That is not accurate, is that true, that there was no damage or injuries?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, that specific answer is incorrect Chairperson, and I blame my legal team for that.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Yes, we accept the responsibility, you are correct, for a change.  Sorry.  May I refer you to the original affidavit dated 28 March 1991, there you refer specifically to the bombing incident on page, and injuries, on page 143 of Bundle A, the middle paragraph you say specifically in the 1991 statement
"... there were other people in other parts of the building, and as far as you know, one or two persons sustained light injuries."

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: It doesn't make any sense if you read this together with the form, I referred to, and of course the whole meaning was that the building should be damaged, and that would be handled on the same level?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: I am not going to handle the original statement, we went through that, and there are a few inaccuracies in the document, I can for example show you where it is said that on page 144, in the process of the monitoring of Mr Evans, you learnt that he had connections with Mr Heinz Grosskopff which according to information, was responsible for more than one bombing attack in the Republic of South Africa, that is not accurate.
	That that information was gained through monitoring, that information came from the intelligence structure?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And in conclusion, I just want to ask you the last aspect, you will admit that during the Harms Commission, there were attempts to cover up?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And it was your order that from the side of General staff, there were attempts to convince you to reveal as little facts as possible, is that correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR P DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels, any questions?

MR WESSELS: No questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WESSELS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR H DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Martini?

MR MARTINI: No, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MARTINI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Eck?

MR VAN ECK: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ECK

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee?

MR COETZEE: No questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR COETZEE