Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

CHAIRPERSON: Morning everybody.  Shortly after we adjourned yesterday the extract of the evidence given by Mr Verster before the Harms Commission, became available and since then copies have been made.  We've just received it a few minutes ago.  You will recall that at the end, just shortly before the end of the proceedings a document also dealing with the evidence given by Mr Verster, was received as Exhibit G.  I think in the circumstances we will scrap that document and disregard it and call the new document Exhibit G.
	Mr Wessels, have you had an opportunity to go through this document?  And Mr du Plessis?

MR WESSELS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to proceed?

MR WESSELS: We are ready.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

UNKNOWN: (Cont)
	Thank you, Chairperson.
	Mr Verster, let us cut it short.  I put it to you that the evidence that you have delivered before this Commission with regard to the Evans and Omar incident, is contrary to the evidence you had given at the Harms Commission.

MR VERSTER: That is indeed so, Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: So did you now lie to this Commission or did you lie to the Harms Commission?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, if you would grant me the opportunity to answer that question.  In documentation that was available to me, documents of the past eleven or ten years, I would just like to say as background that there was a dispute before the Harms Commission between myself and Gen Webb.  That dispute entailed the fact that I had authorised the project but that Gen Webb could not recall it.
	The Harms Commission - and I think today it is still true, that the approaches and the evidence of the previous government's side was in my opinion an attempt to firstly assist the Police and secondly to expose the CCB, and thirdly to grant the opportunity to the previous government to get away.  I opposed it.  I was at the Harms Commission against my own will.  I said here that I had claimed privilege to certain things, I later corrected everything and in terms of documents I did correct those things.   
	And it happened to me in the Harms Commission that at some stage I stayed away from the Harms Commission when I had to lead evidence because I said that I had a problem with the Harms Commission and then the government, by 10 o'clock that evening, would tell me that they would withdraw my legal team if I did not appear the following day in the Commission.  All these things are in writing.  So I do admit that then for those reasons I had misled the Harms Commission and I do admit that I did so because I was in complete isolation.  For example, it was quite obvious to me and I have put it here before you already, that newspaper reports from the State's side with regard to for example the financial plan, the financial plan was forged before me and there was said that there was a distinction between internal operations and external operations, which was never the case.  For example, this made me think that Gen Webb could be told by the higher structures of the State, it could have been a direct instruction from the Minister, that under no circumstances should internal action be approved because now we have made a distinction with regard to the financial plan.  The money that was spent for Dullah Omar and Evans and so forth, were irregular expenditures in terms of a financial plan that was forged after three years as if that was the policy.  The implication of that forgery was that we had used money from 1986 in such a manner which had now changed in 1989, according to which we had been audited now.
	Furthermore, Gen Badenhorst told me that "leave Slang van Zyl, I will look after him, I'll speak to him."

CHAIRPERSON: Who was that?

MR VERSTER: Gen Badenhorst, who handled the investigation for the Army.
	Mr Slang van Zyl approached me at a stage during that time and told me I will thank him one day for what happened there, and I was under the impression that here was an orchestrated endeavour in which Gen Webb and the Generals sat on the one side, where within Region 6, Region 6 could be told what to do and promises were made to them and be employed in such a manner that I would be presented.  And you should keep in mind that there was no clear law with regard to amnesty as we have now.  
	I am also not here to attack the personality of Gen Webb, but that incident was the direct cause of my attitude that was applicable in the Harms Commission, which place in documents all over.  And in 1993, later, I think it was in 1993, there was an application for amnesty where even my legal representation told me that I have to apply in terms of the law and I insisted that a statement of mine be attached to it in which I said that what happens here and what happened with the Harms Commission, it was against my will, I did not want to apply for amnesty, it is the government who are trying to expose these aspects, they are trying to find the culprit for the whole system and at that stage with regard to the - I concentrated on the monitoring because that dispute had not been resolved yet and for the reasons I have put forward here.  And later when I made contact with Region 6 again, I found out that they were under the same pressure as I.  I did not have access to my premises, I did not have access to the files there, I did not have an income, I was locked up and placed under detention as the Managing Director, and this indicated the ambit of the problem and I later corrected it and ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Verster, when were you locked up?

MR VERSTER: Chairperson, I think it was approximately May, during the first part of 1990.

CHAIRPERSON: And for how long were you there?