Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-10-03

GEORGE BIZOS: Were you to obey orders without questioning the why-fore?  If go an order to put a bomb in a nursery school to kill the nursery school children, would you have done it?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: At this point I just want to make use of the opportunity just to put maximum disruption within context for you.  Maximum disruption was not regarded as the most severe form of action, it was the most severe form of disruption within the context of the project, within the context of the person who had to be disrupted.  So if maximum disruption meant that we would have to destroy the building, then that is how I regarded maximum disruption.  I served within a State dispensation within a Defence Force set-up, where my primary function was to carry out orders and that is what I did.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Botha, I didn't ask you about a double-talk of the CCB and its articulated policy in slogans, I asked you a simple question.  If you were asked to arm a bomb in order to kill a group of nursery school children, would you have done it without any exercising any sort of discretion?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I cannot see that such an instruction would have been given, but the point of the matter is that if an instruction was given to me which had been approved on the level that I believed it would be approved on, I had no other choice but to carry out the instruction.

GEORGE BIZOS: Please answer the question in relation to the specific facts that I put to you, because I want to establish whether you as an individual thought that you had to exercise a discretion in relation to the crimes that you were committing.  Yes, or no.  Would you have armed the bomb in order to kill a group of nursery school children?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is too hypothetical, it didn't happen and I'm not going to commit myself to that.  I'm not prepared to answer yes or no.

GEORGE BIZOS: But we want to test how you viewed your position.  You say that if an order was given you had to act, we are trying to test from you by taking it to its extreme limits, whether you had a discretion or not.  If you don't want to answer the question, say so, please do not try to waylay me by double CCB talk.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: It's not double CCB talk.  I am just telling you my experience of it.

MR LAX: Can I just interpose for one second.
	Mr Botha, really, the question's a very simple one, did you apply discretion or didn't you?  Did you simply follow orders or did you have any discretion in the matter?   Yes or no.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Mr Lax, I carried out my instructions, that is what I did.

MR LAX: And therefore in the context of Mr Bizos' question - and you've already answered it in relation to this particular incident, if the instruction had been to kill those people, you would have done so.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That's correct.  I have stated this previously.

MR LAX: You didn't question that?  Or did you?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I didn't question it because it was never said to me, I was simply told that the bomb had to be detonated.  At a later stage during our journey to Cape Town, I was told what the purpose of the bomb was and I continued.  And I must emphasise again that it wasn't my project, so I didn't know more than what was said to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: In your amnesty application you say in paragraph 1.3, that everything contained in Mr van Zyl's affidavit is true and correct and that you associate yourself in particular to Van Zyl's version on the Early Learning Centre.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, I see that.

GEORGE BIZOS: The reference Mr Chairman, is pages 33 to 34 of bundle A ...(indistinct) paragraphs on page - page 11, paragraph 1.3 and the reference to Van Zyl are contained on pages 33 to 43 of Van Zyl's affidavit, which I believe are contained on page 107 to 114, according to my note, of bundle A.  Now do you adhere to that to this day?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I would just have to read the content, it is a statement which was undersigned a number of years ago by me.  I see what you have referred to.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, you made a statement under oath in paragraph 1.3, do you stick to it or do you want to amend it, qualify it, correct it, dispute it?  What do you want to do about it?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I signed the statement as such.  I would have to study the document for its content once again, there are many documents that I have signed including this one.  I see what you have referred to, is there anything specific that you would like to ask me about?

GEORGE BIZOS: You also say in your ... on page A11, paragraph 2, that your evidence at the Harms Commission was truthful, do you want to stand by that?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: By nature of the situation there were certain things that I did not state before the Harms Commission, so there are matters regarding which I did not testify completely open-heartedly before the Harms Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: But those matters that you did testify to, were they truthful?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I cannot recall my evidence before the Harms Commission.  I know that at the time of the evidence before the Harms Commission we were instructed not to speak about certain things and to speak about other things.  So I'm not entirely familiar with the content of my evidence before the Harms Commission.

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct) old-fashioned fundamentals.  You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, to Judge Harms.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did you or didn't you?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: As I have stated, I cannot recall what was said.  I also undersigned a Section 29 statement, so I cannot tell you with one hundred percent certainty that I said everything before the Harms Commission as I was supposed to.  I stated my evidence according to my instructions from the higher levels of the hierarchy.

GEORGE BIZOS: When did you become uncertain as to whether you told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the Harms Commission?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: What I am saying to you is if I could have the opportunity to study my Harms Commission evidence, I might be able to answer your question with greater clarity.  I'm not certain whether I spoke the truth about everything.

GEORGE BIZOS: But did you in your application for amnesty before this Committee, if you had those doubts about your evidence, why did you say that you gave evidence honestly before the Harms Commission?  Why didn't you have those reservations then and only now when you know that you may be opposed to not having told the truth?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Mr Bizos, that's not what I'm saying.  I have various statements before me, I would just like the opportunity to reacquaint myself with the content of my evidence, then I will be able to answer your question.

GEORGE BIZOS: At the time that you took an oath in your application for amnesty you said that you gave honest and truthful evidence before the Commission, why did you not have your present doubts about whether you had done so before the Harms Commission?  Why didn't you express them then and why do you express them now?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I'm trying to tell you if I stated that then I stated it.  I'm just asking you because I'm in front of you and a Commission today, I'm asking for the opportunity to re-examine my evidence before the Harms Commission, so I can give you a more comprehensive answer.

GEORGE BIZOS: But I'd like an honest answer to the question that I have already asked before I accept your invitation.  Why did you not have these reservations about whether or not you told the truth to the Commission at the time that you said that you did honestly tell the truth to the Commission?  Why didn't you have those reservations at that time?  Please answer that question.