Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-14

GEORGE BIZOS: Will you please turn to Bundle A, page 118?  This is a statement made by Mr van Zyl.  On Tuesday 2nd May 1989, it was before you signed the statement in Bundle A which was signed on the 2nd of February, or rather Bundle B, in February 1990 you signed the statement so Mr van Zyl speaks before you signed that statement and this is what he says.
"On 2nd May 1989"
Have you got that page?  Please have it so that you can follow it.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 118 and it's paragraph 59 from the beginning thereof.  Bundle A.

GEORGE BIZOS: I do not do ...(indistinct) to your mother tongue, please read it yourself, loudly so that we can all hear.
MR VERSTER
"On Tuesday 2nd May 1989, it came to my knowledge that David Webster had been killed in an assassination attempt and I also recall that I saw it on tv. news.  A few days after the Webster murder, there was a cell meeting in a hotel room where I, the Regional Manager Maree and Botha were present.  We waited on the Co-ordinator.  While we waited the Regional Commander or Regional Manager said that he would have to see the Managing Director with regard to the Webster incident.  He still said that the Managing Director was concerned about the incident and that the Managing Director suspected our cell of being involved with the Webster matter.  I do not know anything of the Webster murder and have no knowledge that his murder was ever discussed in our cell or at our region.  I had nothing to do with the murder of Webster at all."

GEORGE BIZOS: Is Mr van Zyl telling the truth that you were worried about the Webster murder, that it may have been done by his region?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I did become concerned later on.

GEORGE BIZOS: Not later on, before you signed the statement to the - Webster was killed on the 1st of May, the meeting is called on the 2nd of May, the year before, or approximately seven months before, you made a statement where you said
"By nature of the situation I cannot bear any knowledge whether any members had discussed the matter and if they did, what was discussed."
You must have discussed it because van Zyl says that you were worried that it might have been he and his group and he could only have expressed what he has said in paragraph 59 if you had discussed the matter with him, which follows as night follows day, that paragraph 29, signed in February the following year, was false.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: May I just confer with my legal representative?

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, a witness ...

CHAIRPERSON: What's being put to you is that you've got that section of the statement that's been made by Mr van Zyl in which it says that shortly after the incident, after the murder of Mr Webster, there were - they spoke amongst themselves and Staal Burger said well, he's got to speak to you the Managing Director because you were worried about the possibility of the cell being involved.  Now all that Mr Bizos is asking is what Mr van Zyl says there seems to be conflicting with what you say in paragraph 29, which one is wrong?  If Mr van Zyl's statement is correct, then the answer to question 29 on page 72 is not correct.  One of them must be correct and one incorrect, they both can't live together, so that is what Mr Bizos is asking you.  Which one is correct?  What do you have to say about it?  Is that right?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I don't know Chairperson, that is how I answered it at that time and I think that there may be a technical reason why I stated it as such.  At a later stage I knew of the Webster incident.

GEORGE BIZOS: You know, it's not so easy to explain it that way but I am not going to press you any further with the obvious.  It was obvious that you were untruthful in the statement that was handed in at the Commission.  Did you give evidence on the basis of this statement?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I did Chairperson and I regarded it as correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: And did you repeat the untruth that you told in paragraph 29?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Well, I do not regard it as an untruth.  It was too long back.  I cannot recall whether it was ever used in the Harms Commission because there were ...(intervention).

GEORGE BIZOS: Do you accept or reject the statement deposed to by Mr van Zyl?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I reject it at this stage.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, what does that mean, at this stage?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Exactly what I am saying, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, it means that you may change your mind.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, I will stick to my statement.

GEORGE BIZOS: You will persist in your statement.  But now, the murder of Dr Webster was headline news, was it not?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Were you not interested, as Mr van Zyl says that you were, as to whether one or other of your men was responsible for it?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is so, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: You were not interested?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, I was.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well then, if you were interested, what did you do about it?  Didn't you perhaps go to Mr van Zyl and say:  "Hey, what is this?  Did you or "van ons manne" commit this murder?" which would have been a natural question to ask?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, I made such inquiries.

GEORGE BIZOS: At the time that van Zyl says that you did ask, the day after the murder?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I cannot recall the time.  I do not know exactly what the purpose of it was.  I cannot recall the exact time.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well,  it would have been natural that it was at the time when it was headline news.  If you did it, it must have been at a time when it was headline news.  I'll repeat the question.  Is there an answer?  No answer.  Can we proceed?  Do you want some more time to think about it?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No we can continue.

GEORGE BIZOS: But there is no answer.  Very well, let us now turn to paragraph 32.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 73, same statement, paragraph 32 down at the bottom.

GEORGE BIZOS: 73, yes, page 73, paragraph 32.
"What is your comment to allegations that the murder of Adv Anton Lubowski was a project of the CCB?"
Answer:	"This is denied categorically."

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That's  correct, Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: ;   And also in paragraphs 34 and 35 on page 74
"Is or was Donald Aichison an aware or unaware agent of CCB?"
and your answer:
"No."
		"Who is or was Donald Aichison's handler"
		"Not applicable."
Were those your answers?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Correct, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now we know from other evidence, that Chappie Maree was Aichison's handler.  Did you know that?

MR WESSELS: ;   With respect, Mr Chairman.  What is the relevance of these questions.

GEORGE BIZOS: Whether this witness can be believed or not, Mr Chairman.  If he's made two consistent statements, Mr Chairman, I'm entitled to put it to them or if there is evidence to contradict his affidavit which is going to be led, I am entitled to put it because one of your functions is whether this witness can be believed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, you can proceed.

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  And if there is such evidence that he was, would there have been any reason for Chappie Maree to hide it from you?  Have you an answer to that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: So then we can proceed.  Let us go to paragraph 45.  Do you still deny that Aichison was a CCB agent?  Do you still deny it?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Aichison at a later stage it came to my knowledge that he was the person who was handled by Maree.

GEORGE BIZOS: Would you say, are you suggesting that this was after you signed the statement on the 2nd of February 1990?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: So you knew that before that date and the statement that you made in paragraph 35 was false?  Have you got an answer to it?  Do you want to make any comment on it?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I have no comment.