Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-15

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Not at all, that was dealt with on regional level.  It was not my duty to monitor a region, I was the Managing Director, the Regional Manager would be tasked with that.  Ninety percent of your questions here are not applicable to me you must put them on regional level.

MR WILLIAMS: Well Sir, I put it to you that that bomb went off at twenty five to nine in the evening.  I tell you that because I was there.  Do you want to dispute that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I have that Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Do you or did the organisation discuss at more or less what time this bomb should be detonated?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That you would have to ask at regional level, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what he's asking - correct me if I'm wrong Mr Williams.  When the presentation was made and approval given can you recall or was the time of the explosion discussed?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I assume that it would have been discussed, I cannot recall, that was one of many projects, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: You say in your application
"The bomb went off during the late hours"
I think whether it's a matter of debate whether 25 to nine is in the "naglike ure" or not but did you know more or less what time the bomb was supposed to go off?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I do not know now, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Now Sir, I ask you that question because it has come to my knowledge that there were certain enquiries about the time when our youth met and certain information was supplied.  In fact incorrect information was supplied to your informer.  The informer was told that we meet between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock whereas we in fact met between 6 o'clock and 8 o'clock and the bomb went off half way between 7 o'clock and 9 'clock.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Information is unconfirmed intelligence and we can have a very long discussion about this, whether this informant or whether the source and to whose ears this information reached doesn't make a difference.

MR WILLIAMS: Sir, that indicates that the intention was to kill us because your men expected us to be in the building at that time?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I think I've already answered that.

MR WILLIAMS: Now I also want to refer you to bundle B, page 15.  This is also the statement of Mr van Zyl.  The last sentence of the first paragraph, just before paragraph 16, can you read that sentence out to me please?  Starting with "tydens die kursus".  The last sentence of the first paragraph?

CHAIRPERSON: Page 15, bundle B and it's the middle of the page.  "Tydens"

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: "During the course it was quite clearly spelt out by Christo Britz and Joe Verster to me that we should not work softly with the enemy and that wherever possible they had to be eliminated which would include the specific killing of a person."

MR WILLIAMS: Is this correct?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That was his interpretation thereof, the killing of the enemy was definitely the case, there were several projects and even in Region 6 so one cannot place the two together.

MR WILLIAMS: He states that
"It was spelt out quite clearly to me"

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: During the course, yes.

MR WILLIAMS: Now okay, it's not merely a perception, it is something which was told to him?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It was recognised here that our purpose was the maximal disruption of the enemy and that could include the death of persons, that would not be under any and all circumstances.  I said that persons could be intimidated, one could even befriend these persons so there's no connection.

MR WILLIAMS: I ask you again, is this statement correct?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I don't know, why don't you ask Mr van Zyl?

MR WILLIAMS: He is making allegations about yourself, Sir, about what you apparently or allegedly told the group or himself.  Do you want to respond to that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I think I have, I reacted to that, I have no trouble in admitting that Mr van Zyl may have thought that all persons that he saw had to be killed but I think you need to ask him.  There are specific definitions with regard to that.

MR WILLIAMS: But now the statement as it stands here, is that true or false?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I cannot answer on his behalf.  I told you I reject the Section 29 statement but under those circumstances I accept that my subordinates in the structures that they worked as they were trained could have thought that ...(intervention)

MR WILLIAMS: Now Sir, I'll ask you for the last time, did you ever tell your men that "we should not work softly with the enemy."

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I have said that I said that I have no problem with that.  Should I express it in other words?  What do you want me to say?

MR LAX: He asked you is it true, you can say yes or no?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Chairperson, I answer as I choose, I have no trouble or problem with it and that means yes, I have no problem that he would have thought that he should kill people, he was on a course.

MR WILLIAMS: I'm asking whether you said these words or words to that effect?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I may have said words to that effect, yes.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you or is a question of you can't remember now, conveniently maybe?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I think I have answered.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you, I ask you again Sir, can you remember whether in fact ...(intervention)

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: What do you want me to say and then I'll tell you straight out and then we will save some time.  What do you want me to tell you?

MR WILLIAMS: The truth.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I told you a course was given, I gave the definition of everything that we did.  Whether his statement is correct, that is what you are asking and I am not able to tell you.  What I can say is that he was trained to disrupt the enemy maximally and that includes the killing of persons and he as a member of the structure may have thought it and may have made provision for that and he may have heard it at times and I have no trouble with the fact that if he thought it, yes or no.

MR WILLIAMS: So do I take it that you said that the enemy has to be killed and be eliminated?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That was my work, I was a trained soldier.  If I could have every one of them in one group, I could have shot them.  I speak of the ANC and uMkhonto who threatened the sovereignty of the country.

MR WILLIAMS: I was the enemy at the time, in your mind, not so?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, not necessarily.

MR WILLIAMS: According to the information which came to you that I was a member of the Kewtown Youth Movement, my name was specifically mentioned and that according to the information we were involved in acts of terror, that was the information that came to you, not so, at that time?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That was an element of the information, yes.

MR WILLIAMS: So by logic I was the enemy of you at that time, not so?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That may be so, I did not know you.

MR WILLIAMS: Which means that they were entitled to kill me on your instructions, not so?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No they were not entitled, it was about proper planning procedure, they couldn't just go out and kill people.