Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-22

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: The application as a whole amounts to this, namely that we were part of the planning and execution of the bomb at the Early Learning Centre in Athlone.  Intelligence came from the ground, from Mr van Zyl's source.  Further information came from above, from the Intelligence structures and those intelligences or pieces of information were combined, the project was approved and carried out.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger what you're trying to tell - what you were trying to tell the Amnesty Committee in this paragraph was the following:  that consideration was given to bringing the police into the matter, correct?  That's what you're suggesting.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You're saying:  "We couldn't bring the police into the matter because the source wasn't willing to disclose his identity, correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you never considered handing this matter over to the police, you're making that up.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, we would not have handed it to the police.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So why did you put this in your application?  You're trying to make it look as if there was a reasonable decision-making process that was engaged in, where consideration of an alternative to bombing was considered, namely making use of the ordinary laws of the land to prosecute these people, that never happened.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: ...(not translated - transcriber's own transcription)  No, what is written here is not the truth.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.  Thank you.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: ...(not translated)  "Op daardie stadium was ons nog in die diens van die Weermag en was dit 'n onsekere tydperk van wat sou gebeur met die struktuur met die weermag, met die politieke situasie."  Were we going to get protection or not from the structures and the feedback which we got was that as far as ourselves and the structure was concerned, we had to protect these as far as possible and that is the explanation for the way some of these truths were covered up.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That if you look at what's contained in this application in general, you're aware no doubt that there's a requirement of full disclosure to get amnesty?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Here, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You'll agree with me that when it comes to full disclosure, obviously the Committee wants to know if a particular person was tasked to go and shoot someone, what's the name of that person, you'll agree with me.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: A particular person had to go and plant a bomb, what's the name of that person?  You'll agree with me.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Would be fundamental to the notion of full disclosure.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.  You'll see you give no details whatsoever, let's take the example of the Early Learning Centre, there are no names mentioned of who was involved in executing this project.  Look at your paragraph, the last paragraph dealing with the Early Learning Centre at page 143.  You with me, have you read it?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now we know, because we've heard evidence from other people, that a whole string of people involved in these events, we know that Mr Botha was involved, we know that Mr van Zyl was involved, we know that Mr Basson was involved, we know that Gen Webb was involved, we know that Mr Hardien was involved.  You don't mention a single name of anyone.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, I didn't.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But surely you understood that you must disclose the relevant facts?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Chairperson, we were informed by our legal representatives and we acted accordingly and in 1991 drafted these applications accordingly.  In 1992 there were further amnesty applications.  In 1996 it happened again, so I think it was perhaps sheer negligence and that's why I'm here today to tell you the truth, but to constantly attack me on that which I've already admitted and when I've said it's not the whole truth etc and all your questions which you were going to put to me, I would have to say yes, it's not right, I didn't do it, so on, but the point is ask me today, here I am, what is it that you still want to know, I will reveal it, I will disclose whatever you want to know because I can only tell you about that which I have personal knowledge of.  This application was, as far as I was concerned, at the relevant time, an application for indemnity vis a vis myself because as far as I was concerned, each member made his own application in which he admitted his complicity, so for me as a lay person and not as a legal person, the compilation of all the applications ultimately is placed on the table and then you can see how it all links up.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You know Mr Burger, your explanation rings hollow from an experienced policeman.  Before you completed this application, you must have drafted countless witness statements.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, I did.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.  You, more than anyone, would know that when you draft a witness statement, you're obviously going to put in details.  When you're drafting a statement from a criminal suspect, if he says to you "'n bron", you're going to say:  "What was his name?"  Correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That's correct, Mr Kahanovitz.  Nobody has ever - I have never done an amnesty application before in my life.

UNKNOWN: Sorry Chairperson, I don't want to interrupt, but is this all relevant?  We've got time constraints.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we know that there's no names here Mr Kahanovitz and we also know that it was a form that's been used over and over again since 1991 and we've heard the answer that it was done on his lawyer's advice.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, there's the other aspect.  I didn't want to interrupt because I want my client to answer all his questions, but surely the whole idea was and perhaps I'm totally mistaken then, but the whole idea was to summarise whatever you're asking amnesty for, where I was responsible for van Zyl and Botha's statements we tried to do it quite fully and in detail, but the whole idea was that there would be hearings where you would make a full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this is a question for argument, so we often get ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: So that was my perception.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we often get applications which don't contain the details that one would normally want to have in an application, but there's normally explanations for it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now this plan concerning the Early Learning Centre, it encompassed possible deaths, correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: There has been evidence and I will repeat that.  The direct question that Mr Kahanovitz is asking, yes, the possibility or the probability existed but the order was that there should be no loss of life.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see, the reason I'm asking you this again is when I cross-examined Mr van Zyl, I read him a statement where he'd reflected what you had said to him at the time, in which the terms of the mandate that he received was that although deaths were to be avoided, if someone should die, that fell within the terms of the mandate, so long as the people who died were members of the Q-Town Youth.  Recall that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: It could have been said.

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, but Mr van Zyl said that's what you said to him and when Mr van Zyl finished giving his evidence, your lawyer did not put to Mr van Zyl that he was giving inaccurate or false evidence about what had been said to him by Mr Burger on that occasion.