Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-21

MR KAHANOVITZ: You will no doubt recall that at that time, the State was not particularly reticent when it came to killing its enemies, you will know that one of the reasons why the Amnesty Committee of the Truth Commission have been as busy as they are, is that various agencies of the State were at that time engaged in killing the people they perceived to be the enemies of the State?  Do you agree with me?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That very ...

MR KAHANOVITZ: Several State agencies were involved in the period of the State of Emergency, in killing, murdering, assassinating, destroying the property of people who they perceived to be the enemies of the State?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, if I remember correctly, the police hit-squads they  wrote about in the press and other similar cases of terrorism from the ANC, so, yes, there were dirty tricks on both sides.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And you will agree with me that as far as the Security Forces were concerned, if they believed that somebody was a legitimate target, who for that reason deserved to die, they would do just that, they would kill them?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I have missed the starting of your question, the last part ...

MR KAHANOVITZ: At that time, if one of the State agencies that was involved in the killing of people, came to the conclusion that a person was a legitimate target, they were not shy, they were not reticent about making a decision to eliminate that person?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you agree with me?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Correct, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And in that context, there was no reason for the CCB to be shy or reticent about killing alleged terrorists?  Do you agree with me?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And in that context ...

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Excuse me.  Chairman, could you just tell me what is the translation of reticent?

INTERPRETER: "Terughoudend" of "nie huiwerig nie".

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: "Terughoudend"?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you agree with me?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So, where you had clear information that a particular group of people are involved in blowing up buildings in support of the ANC, at that time, there was no reason to be reticent about making a decision to kill people like that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, I want to deal briefly with your appearance at the inquest into the death of David Webster, you gave evidence, did you not?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, I did.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, Mr Chairman, if I can avoid it, I am not going to hand in more paper, I am just going to put a few submissions to the witness, which he will hopefully readily agree to, as regards what he testified to.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and if they want to see it afterwards, whatever, you can make it available to the Attorney or the applicants themselves.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, you have already heard the evidence of certainly Gen Webb that an attempt was made to protect the Defence Force and the government by putting forward a version at Harms that Region 6 of the CCB was by and large only involved in the collection of intelligence inside of South Africa, but the rider was added that Region 6 did not engage in offensive activities, within the borders of South Africa, do you recall that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, except for what we asked for our privilege against self-incrimination.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I am not certain what that has got to do with what I was putting to you?  You are aware that Mr van Zyl for example went to Harms and said "we were involved in the Omar project, the Evans project, so on and so forth" and the general tenure of his evidence was that Region 6 was involved in offensive activities within the borders of South Africa, correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You on the other hand, decided to go with that version that said that Region 6 was not involved in offensive activities within the borders of the Republic of South Africa?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I agree with you, except the cases where we asked for privilege.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I don't understand your answer, maybe you can explain that.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: At the Harms Commission, we mainly gave evidence about the collection of intelligence and  the execution of the projects which followed on that, outside of South Africa, and then said that we asked about the Omar and the Evans, and the bomb and the "Apie", we asked for privilege against self-incrimination.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr Burger, it is obviously not as simple as that, because if you are telling the Commission or an inquiry that Region 6 does not engage in offensive activities within the Republic of South Africa, anybody hearing that evidence must infer from what you are saying, that it follows that it would not have been possible for Region 6 to for instance plan to assassinate Dullah Omar within the borders of the Republic, do you agree with me?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So the purpose of that evidence was to create the impression of the minds of Judge Harms that Region 6, it was not within Region 6 mandate to kill people within the borders of the Republic and accordingly, they would not have formulated plans to kill people like Omar and Evans, correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is true.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You carried on with that version at the time of the Webster inquest, correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, I did.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Why?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Because I was still employed by the South African Defence Force.

MR KAHANOVITZ: By the way, you were no longer working for the CCB, but at that stage you were working for the Directorate of Covert Collections, isn't that so?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And what was your job at DCC?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: At DCC?  At DCC I was appointed, it is an organisation which operate only on information and I was appointed to - my areas were Mozambique, Madagascar and there was another foreign region, I cannot remember.  There were three regions I was responsible for.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You were asked questions as the Webster inquest about Roland or Bruce White and you claimed privilege, you refused to answer questions on the basis of your privilege against self-incrimination, correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You will agree with me, you can only claim privilege where you believe that the evidence that you would give, might implicate you in a crime?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: It might?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Implicate you in the commission of a criminal act?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No Mr Chairperson.   I there applied for privilege, for some obscure reason, maybe because I could get away with it, except that the monitoring of Roland White, there was nothing else.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the point of claiming privilege from something that isn't going to incriminate you in a crime?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I have told you I think there I took a chance to see if I could escape from cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Tactical move in those proceedings?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You are claiming then you had absolutely no discussions with your Counsel about this matter, because I would expect a competent lawyer would want to know from his client on what basis he claims privilege, so that he can advise his client?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I cannot remember, I think Mr Peet Coetzee was our Advocate at that point, and I cannot remember the reasons.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But whose suggestion was it that one would just claim privilege  as a (indistinct) to avoid cross-examination?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I must have been my own.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Oh, you came up with that yourself?  Really, what you are telling us, that you are the kind of witness where one would never really know when you are telling the truth or not?