Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-21

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Chairperson, as far as my memory serves me,  firstly, if I may, I would like to before dealing with the project, I would like to say this, I have met Mrs Omar for the first time and members of the family, I see that they are here in the audience today, and I would like to, at the outset, and in advance say, that there was nothing personal, there was nothing personal aimed at the individuals concerned, and I will continue to say that the information which I received from members on the ground regarding Mr Omar, was that his person on the ground came to him and identified Mr Omar as a prominent member of the UDF, or which was the front organisation of the ANC in the country at that stage and which was also an identified enemy of the Republic of South Africa and the Security Forces.
	The UDF and its front organisations,  were according to our information in those years, actively involved in agitation and the fermenting of violence and Mr Omar was an element or formed part of the structure of those organisations.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You said a prominent member?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, a prominent member.   The consequence is that he was regarded and identified as a  prominent target.  The information was conveyed to Mr Verster by myself and the Co-ordinator, he listened to it and he said he would contact us again.  We went back and after some time, he contacted us, Mr Verster that is, and told us that we should instruct Mr van Zyl to do a preliminary study.

MR P DU PLESSIS: A preliminary study for what?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: A p preliminary study for the elimination of Mr Omar.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You are referring to the information from van Zyl, was only that information submitted to Verster?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Just before Mr Verster gave us this information, at the stage ...

MR P DU PLESSIS: Are you talking about Verster or van Zyl?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I beg your pardon, van Zyl, Mr Basson and I went to Verster, as I said.   Mr Basson told Mr Verster that that information as conveyed to us by Mr van Zyl, that he had verified this information with our other intelligence structures, in other words the information came from van Zyl on the ground, and it fitted with the information which we got from the intelligence structures.
	He subsequently contacted us at a later stage and asked us to give Mr van Zyl this order, instruction to do a preliminary study with a view to eliminating  Mr Omar.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Was that order given?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Did Mr van Zyl do such a preliminary study?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: This preliminary study, was it submitted to the, your Co-ordinator and Mr Verster?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: You say this happened during a meeting, was that done at the offices of the CCB or where did it take place?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, all these meetings took place in various hotel rooms, of course with false ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Burger, did you have any role to play at all in the compilation of that pre-study, in other words did Mr van Zyl, when he was compiling the pre-study come to you, sit down and ask for your advice, or did you get it after its completion, at a meeting?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: After the completion, there were him and myself and the Chairperson and Mr Basson, the Co-ordinator were all present, that is where the preliminary study which was done in writing ...

CHAIRPERSON: You say the Chairperson, is that Gen Webb?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I beg your pardon, the Managing Director, Mr Verster, where the four of us were all present, the preliminary study was submitted there and guidelines were given from the Chairperson to myself.

CHAIRPERSON: You say Chairperson again?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, I beg your pardon, it was Mr Verster.  Yes, we discussed the matter as a whole and would then come up with the best plan, ultimately decide on the best plan and go to Mr Verster and say "look, we think this and this and this, those are the aspects" and he would then say "right", he is first now going to take the information and come back to us.

MR P DU PLESSIS: So the answer to this Chairperson's answer ultimately is that yes, you could give certain input?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: After the pre-study had been done, and that was in writing?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: After the study had been done, the Managing Director took the study and did certain work on it?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, he took it, took it away and at a later stage he would then say right, he wants to see us again for an "in-house".

MR P DU PLESSIS: Why, why would he want to see you, what happened in the interim?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Well, Mr Verster would go away and do his own I think, a sort of a, well, I think he just studied the plan and the assumption was that he would then discuss the matter with the Chairperson and then give us the feedback.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Is that how you understood it, is that the way it was done?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, that is what he told us.

MR P DU PLESSIS: That the project had been approved, and that you could continue with an "in-house"?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: The "in-house" being a practical demonstration of how the project was to be carried out?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, with the accompanying budget, etc.

MR P DU PLESSIS: A lot of the elements of the preliminary study would also be contained and repeated in the "in-house"?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.  I just want to mention to the Committee that it wasn't as if there were only one or two "in-houses", there could be an "in-house" at any stage when information came to the knowledge of the command structure or came up from the lower ranks or from the ground when a situation changed, an "in-house" could be called to review the matter, to cancel it perhaps, to amend.

MR P DU PLESSIS: An "in-house" in other words is just another word for a meeting aimed at the execution of a task?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: That is when you are entering into the execution phase of the operation?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And there could be as many meetings as necessary?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Correct.

MR LAX: Are you saying that the impression that we have gained so far that there was a fairly structured process of first "in-house", second "in-house", Director to Chairman, back, and so forth, that wasn't at all structured in that way, it wasn't something that was, let's say, a procedure that had to be followed?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: It was a procedure Mr Lax.

MR LAX: What I mean is, it wasn't a fixed procedure?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, it wasn't a rigid procedure.

MR LAX: That required certain steps to be followed and only after each step was followed rigidly, could the matter be regarded as approved?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, it had to go through certain stages and then the authorisation had to be given.

MR LAX: Yes, but for example, yesterday when for example Mr Martini was putting questions to Gen Webb, he was in a sense saying "well, we had to go through the first 'in-house', then it came back, then it went to the second 'in-house', then it had to go after that, to the Chairman".  Now the way you are putting it, it might have gone only through one "in-house" and then be approved?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR LAX: It wasn't standard that it had to go through each stage?