Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

MR VAN ECK: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
	Just flowing from certain questions asked by Mr Lax, Mr Verster we are talking about incidents or an incident that happened more than ten years ago and where these meetings were held in certain places, the so-called in-house meetings, and we can accept that your memory became vague and that you won't remember all the details.  Would you agree with this?

MR VERSTER: This is correct, Sir.

MR VAN ECK: And you were asked about actions in Gauteng and your answer was with reference to Evans as one of the things that happened there, can you remember that?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN ECK: And in your evidence throughout you referred to amongst others, the person who was responsible for Evans, and he was my client Kalla Botha.

MR VERSTER: That is correct, I was under that impression, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN ECK: And then if one goes and looks at the documentation and who applied for the specific incidents, I think that it's very clear from bundle A that Mr Botha only applied for the Early Learning Centre bomb explosion and that Messrs Maree and van Zyl applied for the Evans incident.

MR VERSTER: That is correct, I realised this later and that was my mistake.

MR VAN ECK: So one can then assume that if you refer to Botha regarding Evans, that you made a mistake.

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Sir.

MR VAN ECK: There was amongst others, reference made by Mr Hockey to the use of certain people, did you at any stage in the Ponti Building in Brixton, Jo'burg, receive presentations and listen to these presentations?

MR VERSTER: Yes I did, several times.

MR VAN ECK: And I assume that certain members of Region 6 were present at these presentations, not necessarily always the same people.

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: A name was mentioned yesterday of a Mr Anton Roskam(?), does this ring a bell?

MR VERSTER: Yes, I remember the name from the past.

MR VAN ECK: The name also appears, amongst others, from the Section 29 statement of Mr Botha.  And that is an incident that is referred to of a vehicle that was burnt out that Mr Botha did not apply for amnesty.

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: My instructions from Mr Botha were that that was one of the only presentations that he had done personally and this was a submission that was done the Ponti building.

MR VERSTER: I cannot remember it, Mr Chairperson, I think that I also stated it like that, and I accept that it could possibly have happened but I do not remember such a presentation or a submission.

MR VAN ECK: Now he will also give evidence that he, Mr Burger and Basson were present there.

MR VERSTER: I cannot remember that, Mr Chairperson, but it is in any case not a gross human rights violation, that whole incident as I understood it.  But I cannot remember that incident at all, there were many projects.

MR VAN ECK: Yes, but you will not deny that something like this could happen or could have happened?

MR VERSTER: I will not, no.

MR VAN ECK: And he will if he gives evidence, he will give reasons why this incident - he did not apply for amnesty for this incident, but this is not applicable now.

MR VERSTER: Very well.

MR VAN ECK: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ECK

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, do you have any questions arising?

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(inaudible) out of the questions asked by Mr du Plessis for the sake of completeness, Mr Chairman, but I will be very brief and by reference.
	You readily agreed with the conclusions and statements of the Commission, do you agree with paragraph 395?  You can look at it quickly. I don't want to read it out, just tell us whether you agree or disagree, in order to test your fair-mindedness.  Do you agree with paragraph 395?

MR VERSTER: There are small differences, but in broad it is correct.  For example ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: Correct.  Thank you, let's proceed ...

MNR VERSTER: "... Lafras Luitingh was ook 'n koordineerder."

GEORGE BIZOS: Let's go to paragraph 397, do you agree with that one?

MR VERSTER: Correct, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you.  Then let's go to 407, do you agree with that one?

CHAIRPERSON: 407?

GEORGE BIZOS: 407.

MR VERSTER: No, Chairperson, here are elements, specifically external things and certain names that I do not know in that paragraph.  I said in general I do agree, but specifically if I look at that paragraph there's doubt.

GEORGE BIZOS: You're not prepared to tell us whether you did any of those things or not.

MR VERSTER: No, Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Right.  Will you please look at paragraph 411, do you agree with that?

MR VERSTER: I agree with the approach, but not the last part of the sentence.  In terms of the law I can see that it can be so.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.   Do you agree with the general conclusion on page 408, in paragraph 418?

MR VERSTER: The only part that I do not agree with, Chairperson, is the "systematic pattern of abuse", the rest I can read in terms of the law as I understand it.  As it is presented here a while back our actions were purely within the context of a counter-revolutionary struggle.

GEORGE BIZOS: You don't like the use of the word "abuse"?

MR VERSTER: No, I do not like it.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes well, we'll argue that part.
	Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Bizos.  Mr Williams, any questions arising?

MR WILLIAMS: No questions, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR WILLIAMS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hockey, any questions arising?

MR HOCKEY: Yes just one or two, Mr Chairperson, thank you.
	Mr Verster, Mr du Plessis pointed out to you the development of what was called the war inside the country and you confirmed that that was indeed the case.  Now do you still say or agree that whatever the ANC and anti-apartheid activists were doing inside or outside the country was unacceptable and immoral?

MR VERSTER: I can understand that there was a liberation struggle, but the methods they used were the same as ours, but I think it was immoral, the terrorism part of it.

MR HOCKEY: And the methods that were used by the CCB and Vlakplaas, was that according to you acceptable behaviour?

MR VERSTER: No, it was fighting fire with fire, it was exactly the same as the ANC did.

MR HOCKEY: So do you consider that also as immoral?  Your activities.

MR VERSTER: I regard it - in a war situation we all acted wrongly.

MR HOCKEY: You also testified yesterday that - in fact it's in your statement, statement A attached to your application, you said that if you have the chance again to do what you did, you'd do it again.

MR VERSTER: Insofar as if there was another revolutionary struggle in the country and I was involved with it, then on the same basis I will wager a counter-revolutionary war against them and act against them.

MR HOCKEY: Would you have chosen that the apartheid government stayed in power up till today?

MNR VERSTER: "Dis 'n politieke vraag wat ek nie ...(tussenbeide)"

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, I object against this, we're now revisiting ...(inaudible) that we dealt with three days ago ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is also arising out of what was put by the Panel.

MR HOCKEY: The question relates to - it's from the proportionality.  I will leave that there.  The witness already testified to that effect yesterday and I just wanted him to confirm that to put the record straight, Mr Chairman.
	Mr Verster, the conclusion of the Commission, you did refer to it and you said that you disagreed with it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He said he disagreed with the use of the term "systematic abuse".