Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-22

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, Mr Lax, I'm sorry that that's the impression you get but I cannot blame you that you make such an  assumption.  I don't want to talk about external projects.  You know, the opposition and everybody knows about the case in South West African, now Namibia, where Judge Levy made certain findings which I deny strongly and if you start testifying, then you may find yourself later in a situation where the impressions are created that you acted in a wrongful way and to prevent that, I stay with my decision not to talk about external projects.

MR LAX: Yes.  No, I hear that.  At least that's an explanation that I can understand, so thank you.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Just very briefly, you as Regional Manager must have had documentation in your possession, work documentation, files, etc.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: None whatsoever?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, I didn't.  It may sound strange but the procedure was that all files, project files, financial files, everything was kept at the administrative offices of the CCB and I had no access to those offices, it was when I needed it, I would phone the co-ordinator and he would bring it to me at a specified office, I'd work on it there, I'd give it back to the co-ordinator, back to the office, that's it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I had no control.

MR LAX: Sorry Chair, just the one aspect where your interruption confused me, sorry to delay the matter.  I gathered from your answers to Mr Kahanovitz that this question of the consideration of someone not being able to be prosecuted, in other words X didn't want to testify, they didn't want their identity to become known, let's take a specific, the question of Isgak Hardien not wanting to be known and therefore you couldn't prosecute, you told us that was just a construct and it wasn't ever a consideration, that isn't true, you conceded that.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

MR LAX: So if anyone else says that, any of the co-applicants are saying that, obviously they're just party to the same lie?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: They should be, ja.

MR LAX: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising out of the questions that have been put by members of the Panel, Mr du Plessis?

UNKNOWN: No thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MR P DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wessels?

MR WESSELS: No thank you Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR WESSELS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Martini.

MR MARTINI: One question Chairperson.

MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Burger, I didn't quite understand your evidence to be that.  I understood your evidence was you weren't saying that the informant from the ground level didn't want his identity to be disclosed, because if we go back to your application,

CHAIRPERSON: Page 140 something I think, in Bundle A.

MR MARTINI: That last question caught me.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's page 142 or something like that.

MR MARTINI: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MARTINI: The way I understood your evidence when you were questioned by Mr Kahanovitz was, ...(indistinct) were you then suggesting that you didn't want to disclose Mr Verster, something to that effect, that his identity didn't want to be disclosed, and if I understood your evidence to be that it is incorrect to state that the informant on the ground level, let's take for example Gakkie, didn't want his name to be disclosed.

MR LAX: Could I just clarify it for you Mr Martini, if I may?  You will recall there was some question first about Hardien and then he corrected himself and he said no, there were other sources and then Mr Kahanovitz interrogated who those sources were and then in response to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if interrogates is ...

MR LAX: He unpacked that question of who these sources were and then it was then in response to the unpacking of the different sources, that he said:  "So you didn't mean it was Mr Verster?" and so he went through each one of them, but the gist of it entirely was that that was a total fabrication, that whole aspect.

MR MARTINI: On his part, even of the fact - that's not what I understood his evidence - I didn't understand the evidence to have been that the informant on ground level didn't want his identity to be disclosed, I understood the other issues, the other unpacked issues which Mr Kahanovitz unpacked, but I've never understood his evidence, but I suppose ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You can ask him, Mr Martini.

MR MARTINI: Well, Mr Burger, is your evidence that it's a lie to suggest that the informant from ground level who gave information  to your operatives, didn't want his identity to be disclosed?  Is that your evidence?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, of course we wouldn't have disclosed his identity.

MR MARTINI: So do you accept, so would it be correct if other applicants stated that on a similar context that they never want - the information wasn't even to police in the sense that you didn't want to disclose the identity of your informer?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I think I must just put it in this way, the source we handled as a non aware member, his identity would be protected at all times, but the reason for the fact that I placed it in my application, it was used as a reason.

MR MARTINI: Yes, but you answered a question now to say if any other applicant stated that the identity, bearing in mind your cell all came from the police, was it procedure in the police force to reveal identities of informers?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, Chairperson.

MR MARTINI: So you now stated in answer to Mr Lax's question that if any other applicant stated that they didn't want to reveal this to the police because the informant didn't want to be disclosed, your answer was to Mr Lax that if any other applicant stated that, that would be a lie, is that correct?  Do you stand by that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: As I just explained to you Mr Martini, Chairperson, it is not about the disclosure of the source, the name of the source, we wouldn't have done it in any case, we would have protected him in the best way we can.  What I tried to tell Mr Lax was the reason why we - I did that part into the application to indemnity was to be able to use it, do you understand?

MR MARTINI: Well, I'm not too sure I understand.

MR LAX: You see the whole thrust of the point is a simple one. This was another causa to add in on the basis that they could resort to other action against this person, because they couldn't involve the police, so the issue isn't whether or not Mr Hardien would be exposed, this is a justification for finding, for resorting to the bombing of the building, rather than a phone call to the police that:  "We have a witness who can testify in Court".  That aspect of that - that they even considered that as an option is a total fabrication and that's what he's confirming and so my - if you can just let me finish, so my question to him was focused on, that if any other applicant could come and say that was the consideration, that is also a fabrication because they'd be lying if they said that because it didn't happen that way.  It's not about the exposing of the man per se, it's that they considered even reporting it to the police as a possible way of dealing with it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Martini what - the answer is Mr Burger's answer, whatever you can argue doesn't - it's his view.

MR MARTINI: That's what I want to get on record that it's his view, its not - maybe that's his motivation.

CHAIRPERSON: If there was another applicant who thought that and did that, then that's a question of argument, I don't think that ...

MR MARTINI: Well that's why I wanted to get, it's his view.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MARTINI

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Eck, any questions arising?

MR VAN ECK: No questions, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ECK

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee.