Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-14

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I wish to explain myself, Chairperson.  What I wish to say is that was not my function.  My function was only the war part, but many a time I gave it to the rest of the structure and it was on another level and eventually it lands up in Parliament, let us say, but it has nothing to do with me.  My function was to be a soldier and to shoot where I am told to shoot.

MR LAX: So the simple answer is no, you didn't consider lawful methods because that wasn't part of your work.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I don't think it is so.  I did - when I considered it, I did send it on and if it was clear that it was something that could be handled in an aggressive - could not be handled in an aggressive manner, then I would send it on, but under other circumstances, we did not, then I would just formulate an operational plan.

MR LAX: Just give us one example of one lawful method before we break for tea, that you would have prescribed.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: When information comes from ground level and I'm thinking of a specific project which will not be touched upon here, because it is outside the country, we would give the information from a direct team of mine, through this Intelligence channel.  It goes to Special Forces Head Office.  They co-ordinate and the person is arrested.

MR LAX: Well, you see that's precisely what Mr Bizos was putting to you.  Precisely that kind of thing, he was saying:  "Why didn't you use the same kind of liaison to recommend that somebody be detained under the emergency regulations, or dealt with, or prosecuted, or whatever the case might be and your answer was:  "That wasn't possible, we didn't have those linkages."

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: We had the system and I say once again, all these things are in your possession, I don't know what you know or what you have read, all of these things are in your possession.  My function was not to concern myself with this.  I could send it on, but my function was, there was an operational plan for a reason, where it comes from I do not know, to look at it operationally and then we formulated an operational plan according to it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and I think this would be a convenient time, or would you like to finish your line of questioning?  We'll take the short tea adjournment now.  Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: (cont)
	Mr Verster, I want to now turn to the bomb that was placed by your men at the Early Learning Centre.  Who made this proposal to you?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Once again it came through the Co-ordinator to me so it was Christo Britz and it came from Slang van Zyl, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now whose idea was it that a limpet mine should be put in this nursery school or creche?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It was a plan that was formulated on regional level, that was what the collective region gave to me.

GEORGE BIZOS: Who actually was the person who brought it to you?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: The presentation was done by Slang van Zyl, but the person who brought it to me was Mr Britz, according to the system.

GEORGE BIZOS: Who's Mr Britz?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Wouter Basson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, let's deal with him.  ...(indistinct - no microphone) to use a false name here.  Did they tell you what the purpose of placing this bomb in a creche was?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It was once again to disrupt the enemy and a strong point that emanated from this was that there was information that subversive actions were planned from that building and soon thereafter there was a possibility for a bomb that would explode at some or other centre, which would be done from the planning which was done at that building and on that basis a proposal was made that we would explode a bomb beforehand.

GEORGE BIZOS: Who made that statement to you?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: As I recall it, it came from Staal Burger who then formulated it.

GEORGE BIZOS: So Staal Burger said:  "Let's do a pre-emptive bomb explosion, in order to persuade the enemy", whoever that might have been, "not to explode a bomb themselves."  That was the one version that we heard.  Did you ever hear any other reasons why a bomb had to be put there, from anyone?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, in the same presentation it dealt with the fact that this building was used by radical elements who worked in the Cape vicinity and that's why we wanted to destroy it.

GEORGE BIZOS: Who were you going to destroy, the building or the enemy, the individuals that used it, or abused it, for that purpose?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: The planning was that we would only destroy the structure and we did not want to kill people.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was there any other reason suggested by you, by anyone?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, not that I am aware of, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: There was certainly no suggestion by anyone that you should try and kill the enemy that was using the premises for subversive purposes?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, in my opinion, it was only to destroy the premises.

GEORGE BIZOS: So that it cannot be used either by the subversive groups, nor by the kindergarten children, that was the purpose?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, it was used for subversive purposes and it is a choice that we felt that they had made.

GEORGE BIZOS: If anyone came to a reasonable person with that proposal, the first question would have been asked is, who is the owner of this property, because the greatest damage was going to be done to the owner, wasn't it, if the centre was destroyed?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That may be so, but there was a state of emergency and a war situation in the country.  The consideration was as I have put it to you.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now you see, you know when property is abused by people to whom the property doesn't belong, a reasonable person would say:  "Let's go the owner and report that maybe people without the knowledge of the owner are abusing this property in order to put an end to the use of the property for that unlawful purpose.  That's what a reasonable person would have done, wouldn't one?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I do not agree with you.  Under the circumstances which we functioned, Chairperson, it happened many a time that the enemy, as we called them, did something on the one side and then we did something on the other side.  It was an open war where we did not function through formal structures.

GEORGE BIZOS: And whether the property of a charitable institution was destroyed or not, without the management of the charitable institution even being suspected of doing anything wrong, that was no concern of yours?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Exactly, just like Amanzimtoti or the Church Street bomb, no one goes to the guy and says:  "You are the wrong person and we shall plant a bomb now."  It was an instance of a war situation.

GEORGE BIZOS: A person was sentenced to death for what he did.  What should happen to you?  If you want to draw parallels, we will draw parallels, Mr Verster.  That person was sentenced to death and executed, what do you suggest should happen to you, get amnesty?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Chairperson, it is not only a truth situation, the purpose ...

GEORGE BIZOS: I would suggest to you that you answer questions by not drawing parallels because you are giving an indication that for you the gore is going on, Mr Verster.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is not true, Chairperson.