Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-10-03

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, can you please answer the question.  You're being taken along as the man with the technical knowledge of the bomb.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That's right, Sir.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.  If the plan is to ensure that absolutely nobody is injured or killed, your technical knowledge would be important because you would in control of the timing of the explosion.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So you would want to be one hundred percent clear in your own mind what the terms of your mandate was from your superiors.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I went on what Mr van Zyl said.  I based my opinion on what Mr van Zyl told me, in that there would be no loss of life or there should not be any loss of life.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And did you and Mr van Zyl discuss what the consequence might be if someone was injured or killed by accident?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Not as far as I can recall, no.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see because we have to accept that, and you'd have to accept this, you're parked outside of a building, you're relying on information that you received from Mr Hardien, so in a sense you have to go on trust and you have to hope that Mr Hardien's observations have been correct, because if they prove to be wrong you must accept that the potential existed to kill or injure someone.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see I just want to put it to you that Mr van Zyl has a very different version to you and I want to read to you from his statement, and although this is one of his Section 29 statements, he confirmed the correctness of this portion.  He says what happened was the following - and for purposes of the record this is bundle B, page 40, paragraph 78, he says that you were called to the hotel and that you arrived shortly thereafter and then he says the following happened
"The workings of the limpet mine was explained to Calla Botha by Britz"
Is that correct?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: He says
"Calla Botha then became aware of this project.  That was also said by Staal Burger, that this project leaves the possibility that people from the Kewtown community can be injured"
Can you recall that?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You can't.  Do you dispute Mr van Zyl's evidence in this regard?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I am saying I did not hear that, it was not said where I could hear it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Don't you agree with me Mr Botha, if he'd said that, that would most certainly be the kind of thing that you would be likely to remember?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is why I'm saying I did not hear it, I deny that I heard it.  I'm saying that it was not said where I was present.  It wasn't said in order for me to hear it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You're saying if it was said at the meeting, you were out of earshot?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: If it was said, that is correct, that's exactly what I said.

MR KAHANOVITZ: How big was this room?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: It was a normal hotel room.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So the prospect is there that if it was said, that you wouldn't have been able to hear it?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Sir, percentage-wise I do not know, but the fact of the matter is that I did not hear it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see because if you look at the context of Mr van Zyl's statement, he's explaining what was being explained to you Mr Botha, who'd now just become involved, as to what the project encompassed.  He goes on to say that Mr Burger said
"It had to be restricted to the minimum"
and Mr van Zyl gave his evidence, the explanation he gave for what was said was that it had to be accepted that a risk existed that people might be killed even though the CCB was going to attempt to prevent that from happening.  Do you accept his evidence?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That's Mr van Zyl's version, it's his own personal version.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So you don't dispute that Mr Burger said this, because you can't, is that what you're saying?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, that is not what I'm saying.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What are you saying?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I'm saying that if he said it, he said it to Van Zyl and not to me.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but that means you can't dispute that Mr Burger said it.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I can dispute the fact that I heard it, I did not hear it.  So that results in the fact that I cannot say if he said it or not.

MR KAHANOVITZ: My question is a very simple one, I think you've answered it, you don't or can't dispute that Mr Burger said it.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: In all probability then I can't, no, because I didn't hear it.  Or - ja, I didn't hear it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I also want to put it to you that while you were being asked questions by Mr Hockey and he asked you at what point in time you were told that a decision had been made that you and Mr van Zyl were going to go to the premises, you stated in unequivocal terms that that decision was made during the journey from Johannesburg.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I said the discussion took place.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said it was discussed there and then the decision was made actually later when the bomb was handed over, they kept the device.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I'll argue it once we've got the record, I recall it differently.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not saying that he might, I can't recall myself, we can look at the record, but at one stage he did say that when Mr Hockey, maybe not the first time, he did say that they just discussed it on the way down.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well what I wanted to put to him is that he'd in fact changed his version in the course of the questioning and the reason he'd done so was that he's very keen to make sure that his version tallies with Mr van Zyl's.

CHAIRPERSON: You can put it to him.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I do not agree with that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Because I must put it to you that Mr van Zyl gave a very clear explanation of the time sequence involved which caused that decision to be made.  Mr van Zyl's version was that you met with Mr Hardien at DF Malan airport at approximately 1 o'clock in the afternoon, is that correct?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I accept that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl says at that time the plan was still that neither you nor he was going to go to the Early Learning Centre.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: "Ek is bereid om dit te aanvaar.".

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you accept that?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: The words that I used were that we possibly discussed it, or let us leave possible out, we discussed it on our way to Cape Town.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well Mr van Zyl in his evidence doesn't say that, in fact what he says is that after you'd given Mr Hardien the limpet mine to go and place at the Early Learning Centre, it was at that point in time, in the course of the afternoon, that he started to get concerned that Mr Hardien might place the bomb elsewhere.  Did he discuss that with you?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: This is what I just testified.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Did he suggest to you that Mr Hardien might go and place this limpet mine in the police station?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: He said he wanted to make sure what the facts were concerning the placing of the bomb.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now Mr Wessels debated with you issues surrounding the possible placing of ice and/or dismissal of people from the CCB, and I just want to ask you one or two questions about that.  Would you say - what would you say the position would be if a person with full knowledge of the activities of CCB, was unfairly dismissed from the CCB, might such a person pose a security risk to the CCB?  Staal Burger walks in, he says "I'm dismissing you without notice", you're left out to your own devices, do you think such a person might pose a security risk to the organisation?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: He might.