Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-10-02

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Bizos, but what you have said in the statement here and what you have said to us now, if you had said what you have said to us now in the statement why do you think it would have been worse than what you said in the statement?  I mean because you have told us now that you were roped into this and that you had to push the button and a few details about what happened at the hall.  And you've also given a statement where you mention Van Zyl's name, Burger's involvement etc, but it's not the same as what you've told us here.  And I think I have the same difficulty as Mr Bizos.  It's not like the one is an exculpatory statement and the other inculpatory.  They both inculpate yourself to the same extent.  So why then fiddle around with facts when it's not going to make much difference.   Why do you think this was better to tell the police than what you've told us now?  In what specific detailed respect?  Take a look at page 5, yes.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I tried to keep myself away inasfar as it was possible.  I was a detective.  I knew the investigative process and I tried to remove myself from the scene.  I gave information according to what I thought was best.  I tried to protect myself because I didn't know what would emanate from my detention.  I didn't know if I would be there for more months.  I also allowed myself to be led by the investigating team.  I would support the things that they said.  When they asked who pressed the detonator I gave them roundabout answers, that is how I led my statement.

GEORGE BIZOS: Isn't the correct answer to my question that you knowing that you have a common interest to get amnesty with Mr van Zyl are anxious to reconcile your statement here by denying the contents in relation to detail in your statement made in detention?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I would be prejudicing myself by placing myself at the scene and knowing what happened, therefore I kept with my section 29 statement so that I could remove myself as far as possible from the scene.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did the Attorney General offer you indemnity for your participation in the killing of Webster?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes Mr Bizos, yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Has anybody offered you indemnity for the Early Learning Centre if you didn't get amnesty?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Who has?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: The Attorney General.

GEORGE BIZOS: For this as well?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: Which Attorney General did that?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Torrie Pretorius from the Pretoria AG office.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that also during 1999, same time as you went and made the statements?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That's right, Sir, yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now I want to see if I understand your evidence in relation to the purpose of the bomb.  Did you say that the purpose of the bomb was told to you by Van Zyl afterwards, that is that he had wanted a controlled explosion?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Afterwards when Sir?  Let's just clarify that point.

GEORGE BIZOS: That's what you used.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No afterwards when, after we left?

GEORGE BIZOS: After the explosion.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, how could that be possible.  After we left ...(intervention)

MR MARTINI: Chairperson that's not correct. It wasn't after the explosion.  That was not this witness' answer.

CHAIRPERSON: No the question Mr Bizos asked was, did Mr van Zyl tell you that after the explosion, and your answer?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Obviously not Sir, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Not.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now I noted that you said, "he told me afterwards what the purpose was for a controlled explosion", did you say that?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: If I can clarify the meaning of "afterwards", meaning after we left the hotel building, which at the time was a Protea Gardens Hotel, afterwards then.  So in other words most probably, in all probability not in the room but thereafter on our journey from Johannesburg to Cape Town he explained to me the essence of the explosion, of the bomb as such.

GEORGE BIZOS: We will get the record in due course and see what ...(intervention)

MR VAN ECK: Mr Chairman if I may just point out here.  The evidence was led in Afrikaans and his evidence was in Afrikaans, "hy het my daarna, na ons vertrek dit vertel", I don't know what the translation was ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: "He told me after our departure".

MR VAN ECK: ...that came through, but that was the evidence in Afrikaans.

MR MARTINI: Well Chairperson I am sure we could play back the tapes, it wasn't so long ago, rather than wait for the record.

GEORGE BIZOS: (microphone not on)...we will return to it.  The word "afterwards" was definitely used, I would not have written it down.

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't used the word "afterwards" because I was actually writing quite quickly here, I am not saying that it wasn't used, but my notes right or wrong say, "we travelled to Cape Town by car and Van Zyl explained aspects of the project".

GEORGE BIZOS: We will see what was said Mr Chairman.  I want to ask you a number of questions, when the button was pressed wherever it may have been pressed by, were the lights of the building on?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Once again my legal counsel in the interim has put the statements that this was 11 years ago.  I cannot recall it.  So you can ask me that question four times and I still will not be able to remember.  I will stand by that, whether the lights were on or off is impossible for me to say.  I am not prepared to speculate regarding this.

GEORGE BIZOS: Right.  Would you accept the evidence that people were in the building and were injured?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Once again it is speculative because I don't know who made the statements.  I don't know the integrity of the witnesses.  I cannot give you a definite yes or no based on such a vague question.  It is impossible.

GEORGE BIZOS: It isn't vague, but you don't accept it on that basis.  I will put it on another basis so that you can accept it for the purposes of the subsequent questions Mr Botha.
	If there is credible evidence before the Committee that there were people injured, if there is such credible evidence, would you accept that people do not generally sit in the dark in a hall or in an entrance hall, or in a room, or in a passage, they don't sit or stand in the dark, would you accept that?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Unfortunately not Sir, no.

GEORGE BIZOS: You don't accept that either?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No I can't.

GEORGE BIZOS: Oh I see.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: It has to do with every person's personal view.  What were you doing in that dark room, were you meditating, sleeping, praying, chatting, what were you doing?  I don't know what people do when it's light or when it's dark.  I cannot tell you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry but Mr Botha didn't you say you heard later that people were injured?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes I said that Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: So don't you accept that because you can't remember whether the lights were on, is that the reason why you can't accept it?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I am saying Mr Bizos explicitly asked me if I can remember if the lights were on or off.  Then subsequently to that he said if I would accept from people being injured that the lights were on.  That's the way I understand the question.

GEORGE BIZOS: You are quite serious in the answer that you have given that if people were injured the lights might have been, were probably off, but they were contemplating or they were doing something in which at eight o'clock at night they required no artificial light.  Is that your evidence?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That's not what I have said.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well what are you saying?  If people were in fact injured in that building will you accept that there were people in the building at the time that the explosion went off?