Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-15

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody.  Please take care being the Ides of March today.  When we finished yesterday, Mr Williams was questioning Mr Verster.   Mr Williams you may proceed.

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

MR WILLIAMS: (Cont)
	Thank you Chairperson.
	Mr Verster, if you can just recap where we left off yesterday with regard to your intelligence gathering procedure you stated basically that you'd received information from a source.  That information then be disseminated or tested or verified by other sources or structures and assessed.  It would then become intelligence, is that correct?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: And would you agree that the intelligence arm of the State basically was used to verify the information that was supplied to you?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Was that the procedure in all the cases?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes that was the information process of the Defence Force, that was so.

MR WILLIAMS: Was that the procedure in our case for example, I'm referring to the ELC, the bombing of the ELC.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, the Co-ordinator was trained and he was the channel through which it went, I think the question should be asked to him and I think at the time when the information was placed in front of me it cannot have done anything else but go through that process.

MR WILLIAMS: But say you had to make a decision, did you ask your operatives those questions?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No it was not my duty to do that.  What I had to do was to ensure that it was verified and I would ask general questions as specific details would be the work of the intelligence community to confirm that.

MR WILLIAMS: You state that it was your duty to make sure that the information was verified did you in fact make sure or ask whether the information was verified?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, as a rule I would do that.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you do it in our ...(intervention)

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It was eleven years ago, I would have done it as a rule, I can't specifically remember if it happened then so it must have been like that.

MR WILLIAMS: Now would it have been proper for your operatives to rely solely on the information of an illiterate gangster and not verify that information?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I think I've already answered that question.  An element of the information would in this case come from ground level and after that it would go through a process and then it would be confirmed.

MR WILLIAMS: I'll ask you again.  Would it have been proper for your agents to rely solely on the information of an illiterate gangster.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, they did not only in this case depend on a gangsters information.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think the question, Mr Verster, was in any incident, in any matter, would it be improper for your operatives to rely solely on the information of a gangster?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No I do not think that that can be done, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: So do I understand that your answer is that it would have been improper if that was the case?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Now I want to refer you to bundle A, page 182.  Would you mind reading the first paragraph to us?  Page 182.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say the first paragraph, the first numbered paragraph right at the top?  "Enige", from "Enige".

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: "Any intelligence and information within the R.S.A. came mainly from the South African Police.  Any co-operation steps could only happen if it was approved.  The South African Defence Force and Special Forces specifically could only act within the R.S.A. and if the South African Police knew about it and/or co-operated with it, the South African Police could without the South African Defence Force act because factually all the information and intelligence was given by them."

MR WILLIAMS: This forms part of your statement, is that correct?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Now is it correct that the information was supplied to your organisation by the SAP at the time?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: And that your organisation and the SAP co-operated on other levels as well?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Never directly, indirectly on the basis that it is stated there, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Sir, I'm asking you this question because I was in the hall, I was in the building of the Learning Centre when that bomb exploded and when I ran out of the building I immediately noticed a Casspir on the scene or close to the scene and within minutes of the bomb exploding there were also policemen and explosives experts on the scene.  Do you know whether they had prior knowledge that something was going to happen that night?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No not at all, I was not aware of it at all.

MR WILLIAMS: I gained the impression that there was co-operation between the police and your unit due to those facts that I've just mentioned to you.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I do not know about that, their direct connection with any such cases was not allowed especially not in the interior.

MR WILLIAMS: Could there have been indirect contact with the police?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I do not know that, I can't say what the circumstances in that case was Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: It has also come to my knowledge that a day after the bomb exploded that some policemen confronted the principal of the creche and showed her some pamphlets and said that those pamphlets were found in the building and by implication they were saying that our youth left the pamphlets there and/or could be responsible for the planting of the bomb.  Do want to comment on that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I have no comment.

MR WILLIAMS: In the statement that you've just read you say that
"The South African Defence Force and Special Forces specifically could only operate within the R.S.A. if the South African Police knew about it or co-operated.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: Now the question is, did the police know about your intended actions?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Not from my side, they did not know.

MR WILLIAMS: yes but can you explain to the Committee what does that mean?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, I think if I have to explain this then it would have to be a lecture of about an hour or so but I would put it to you in the following way that that paragraph handles about the intelligence community.  The CCB was only a sub-division of Special Forces.  The CCB gathered information regarding combat information that was directly applicable to it.  The CCB did not gather intelligence for or did not co-ordinate it into departmentally.  The proper strategy of the intelligence plan of the State was national intelligence and on international level and the South African Defence Force was responsible for the rest of Africa and the police for South Africa itself and a question was asked in the past couple of days about for example Trevits.  Trevits was one of those structures where interdepartmental co-operation took place with regards to intelligence and if we talk about confirming something then it means that for instance Christo Britz, that he would be the person that would speak through the intelligence structure with an intelligence officer and that person would then confirm to the Special Forces' structure and then he would for example go to Trevits or the Police so our regulations were that we would not speak directly to any police personnel except for maybe an operation where you receive an order as within an emergency situation to cooperate with the police but since we became a structure that functioned outside the State, we did not cooperate directly with the Police.