Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

MR VERSTER: The comment which I would like to make is that the first part I said that if it was so, then I plead privilege.  I think that is how it was put in this document, I explained exactly why I did this.  I say once again I was in complete isolation, that is in regard to what I have now discussed here with you, and I could have been locked up again.  I could one again have submitted that I did these things on my own.  There was a history from the time when we experienced problems, where Gen Webb disappeared as Commander, he was not available to me, he told me to continue on my own.
	Now afterwards it is easy to speak of it, he knew what his responsibilities were and it is indeed because he did not want to own up that we had managed a joint project, he knew exactly what the role and function of the CCB was, maximal destruction of the enemy, and the whole attitude was that "you, Verster, take responsibility for this, I don't know of anything".  And I understand why he did this, but in Act 44/97, and it is put in writing by myself as such, there are specific actions which we call "conduct in action", how a Commander in the face of the enemy - this was a revolutionary war and this was the enemy, how a Commander had to act with regard to his subordinates.  And I put it to Gen Webb, Mr Chairperson, and I put it to the rest of the Army, they knew what instructions they gave me and they did not on the same level look at me and acted against me as I looked at my persons.  And that is why there is no more documentation why Gen Webb tried to convince the government and how he tried to iron out the projects and how we acted as a link between the CCB and the Generals in Staff, or the rest of the State.  So in that regard it was exactly against that background which I've explained to you that I am being asked now.

UNKNOWN: I'm almost done, Mr Verster.  One of your motivations why you would have said this to Gen Webb, you said that you did not have access to arms except through the channel to the top, is that correct?

MR VERSTER: That is how the channels worked, yes.

UNKNOWN: You had no other source of firearms except for your channel to the top?

MR VERSTER: No, I had no personal source of any arms within the structure.

UNKNOWN: Let us see what you told the Harms Commission, Mr Verster.  I refer you to page 1646 of the same exhibit.  1646, Chairperson, in the centre of the page.
"The point that is important is that the CCB could and supplied its own firearms."
		"Yes, it has to be so, we were a private sector."
		"And you did not receive it from the Army?"
		"We also received arms from the Army, yes."
		"But you could and did receive arms from outside the Army?"
		"That's correct."
	So once again that is not correct what you told the Commission, or the Committee?

MR VERSTER: I explained to you in which context I told this.  There were external projects which had nothing to do with this and those were survival techniques because I was all alone, I did not have a General who helped me, I had no subordinates who helped, I sat at home by myself.  And at this stage I want to put it to you, Chairperson, that right up to today this dispute is not between the CCB and the current government, the current government in my regard are being misled by what is said here because it was planned that way eleven years ago and it's working today, that plan is working.  Our dispute is how senior officers and politicians of the previous government had acted against persons whom they sent to their death and how they functioned and how they took steps and how they forged financial plans and how in newspaper reports - I can speak of an incident, an investigation was submitted or was done in the Harms Commission, about a bomb that was exploded at Centurion, which was told to the Commission in a such thick report that it was I and Pieter Botes and I planted a bomb at him.  I never made any statement within that investigation but it was handed in and eventually it was found that Pieter Botes himself detonated the bomb, but the truth was it was the police who caused that friction, the police detonated the bomb, so that it would appear as if I or him did this.  And this was placed before the Harms Commission and that very same evening - and then I speak to the SABC and then I tell them how do you tell - "how can you say that I planted to bomb?"  Then the SABC would tell me "it's orchestrated attempts, we can say what we want to.  Direct lies, it was orchestrated.

UNKNOWN: A final aspect, Mr Verster.  Adv Bizos put it to you that the evidence in the Webster investigation - and he read the part to you where Gen Webb gave evidence, maybe I should read it to you once again
"Can you tell the Committee had happened there?
		"Gen Badenhorst called me in and it came out that Dullah Omar and Evans, according to information, was to be eliminated.  That's what came out there."
		"Who were all at this meeting?"
		"It was Gen Badenhorst, Brig Engelbrecht of the SAP, Col Verster, I think Christo Britz and myself were there.  I cannot recall whether there were any other persons there."
		"You all sat there and discussed the matter."
		"It was actually not a discussion, it was feedback from Gen Badenhorst to myself."
		"What was Col Verster's reaction to these allegations?"
		"That evening I asked him at which level was Omar and Evans authorised and he said at his level."
...(intervention)

MR LAX: Mr du Plessis, sorry, before you ask the next question, just give us the reference to that.

UNKNOWN: It's a document that Adv Bizos ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Yes, I know it's an exhibit, it's probably E if I remember right, but just which page are you referring to?

UNKNOWN: Page 1674 at the bottom and page 1675 at the top, from line 20 on page 1674 and then the first few lines from the top.

MR LAX: I don't need to read it, I just wanted to make a note of the actual place it was.  Thank you.

UNKNOWN: And then Adv Bizos put it to you that that evidence was directly contradictory to your evidence right here and then you answered, you accept that it is in conflict and whether it is correct is another matter.  Is that correct?

MR VERSTER: Yes, that's what I said.

UNKNOWN: And then Adv Bizos put it to you that Gen Webb did not apply for amnesty for these two instances and then you gave the following answer
"We over a period of time of eleven or twelve years had a specific dispute with regard to this.  There may be other evidence but I said it was discussed with the Chairperson.  Over twelve years it's said that I authorised it, maybe I handled it at my level."
Is that correct?