Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-15

MR WESSELS: He just skipped it because of this objection by Mr Hattingh at the time and therefore my submission it will be clear that because privilege was claimed the inference form that is that it would be incriminatory and therefore he didn't deal with that and therefore the question put by my learned friend would then not be a correct proposition put to the witness because it was suggested that there was the opportunity to mention that there was authorisation for these projects and it doesn't appear here but it doesn't appear here because nothing appears here because there was privilege claimed.

CHAIRPERSON: Except for the - let's talk about the Early Learning Centre.

MR WESSELS: Yes but even the Early Learning Centre ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's in respect of that ...(intervention)

MR WESSELS: It's all, everything that appears is in respect of the statement that was read out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and in respect of Mostert's/Burger statement.

MR WESSELS: I can also perhaps refer to the Harms Report.  I don't know if everybody has got it but at page 44, sorry page 42, would be the first part of it where there's reference to a statement where it is said that in exceptional cases it did happen that the CCB acted internally.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, it's in bundle D on page 40, if you want to refer to that?

CHAIRPERSON: Bundle D page 40.

MS COLERIDGE: If that is your typed page 44 would be page 40 in our bundle, bundle D.

MR WESSELS: And then on the next page there it says
"The validity of this excuse could not be tested because the witness is concerned, resorted to this excuse, he refused to give particulars on the ground that such answers might incriminate them."
Then reference is made in the next paragraph contrary to this official version, is that given by witnesses Botha and Van Zyl and may I point out that during those hearings Mr van Zyl decided not to rely on any privilege and he gave the evidence that you had before how all these incidents occur and then the Commissioner finds on page - mine is 44, where he deals with the Athlone Bomb Incident then there's sufficient evidence to show that the CCB and some of it's members from Region 6 planted and activated the bomb and then Dullah Omar, Advocate Dullah Omar, there is sufficient evidence that points to members of the CCB having been guilty of either the conspiracy to murder Mr Omar or attempt to murder him and the same applied to Gavin Evans.   Gavin Evans on the next page.
	So what I'm saying, Mr Chairperson, is that as Mr Verster had testified in answer to my learned friend that there was a statement prepared for the Harms Commission on which there was privilege claimed for all these incidents for which amnesty is now being applied for and that is why there hasn't been much reference to that in the transcript of these proceedings that Mr du Plessis is reading from and that is also with respect why a statement over the SABC news last night is an incorrect statement where it is suggested that Mr Verster lied to the Harms Commission on this because that wasn't an issue before the Harms Commission because there were privilege claimed there.  Perhaps if it can be dealt with on that basis, I don't have any objection if you continue with this line of questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson, I have studied the document.  Privilege is relied on with regard to Bishop Tutu's incident and reliance is made on privilege with regard to the Early Learning Centre but I could not surmise from this document whether privilege is relied on with regard to Dullah Omar and the Gavin Evans incident and if my learned friend says that there is a statement upon which a privilege is relied and then my cross-examination would be unfair towards Mr Verster in this regard then I do not want to be unfair towards him and with my regard then I want to ensure that I have the correct documentation before I question him on this aspect.  So once again I would propose that this aspect stands over to another opportunity and that we acquire the correct documentation.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anybody who wishes to say anything?

GEORGE BIZOS: We have the comfort of being able to read at the end.  I think Mr Wessels has not had an opportunity of really looking at pages 9 and 10.  The way we see it and perhaps a short adjournment may persuade Mr Wessels that privilege was claimed in respect of the Bishop Tutu and the Early Learning Centre matter but in respect of the others, no privilege is claimed and it looks to us and page 10, paragraph 8, when he is asked about a statement of the 2nd February 1990, his answer is
"I confirm the correctness of the information embodied in this document"
in respect of the Omar and the Evans matter no privilege was claimed, there was a denial and also if you have a look at the bottom of page 9:
"Abovementioned person were monitored by members of the CCB as part of CCB normal work procedure in order to obtain information."
So you wouldn't have claimed privilege and did not claim privilege so it may - I actually sympathise with Mr Wessels having to deal with a document such as this which is obviously not the official ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So we don't know how accurate it is?

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(inaudible) completely justified but I don't know what the Commission wants to do with it but it would appear that because of the exculpatory nature of the statement by Mr Verster in relation to Omar and to Evans at that time where he actually confirms the statement which appears to be the statement that we handed in yesterday which he confirms as correct.  It would appear that the question that was last asked can be dealt with in terms of the document as it is here but I don't want to make any final submission in relation to the matter, I merely draw attention to what we have had an opportunity to look at hurriedly and we leave it to the Commission as to how it wants to deal with it.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

GEORGE BIZOS: Of a statement that we read out yesterday to the witness and his responses to it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think in the circumstances seeing everybody seems to agree unless there is anything else anybody wishes to say that you need to take a pragmatic approach here and endeavour to get a transcription of the relevant evidence from the official record.  Would that be possible?  Would that be available perhaps even in the Commission's archives?

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(inaudible) for Mr Du Plessis on our knowledge of it, of the matter, with the resources available.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(inaudible) and for a copy of the record, the record is available at various places.  My learned friend, Mr Khanovitz may be able to be of assistance?

CHAIRPERSON: I see him shaking his head vigorously in the negative.

GEORGE BIZOS: We haven't got of this evidence, we have other portions but it may be that it will take at most a day, we wouldn't like to leave the matter in abeyance for the adjournment, Mr Chairperson, I don't mind him standing down for a day or two and the record could become easily available.  A Copy within a day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes because it's only a small portion of the record that we're looking for, it's a question of ten pages perhaps.  Would that be possible Mr du Plessis to get hold of the relevant extracts?

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, I can only enquire.  Those are the circumstances I may propose, if it has your approval, that we adjourn right now so that we can find out whether we can obtain it because if it is in any way possible I would like to conclude these aspects that I do not have to return later with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos says as well I think it would also be fairer for Mr Verster as well that he finishes his evidence as soon as possible.  I don't think he would want to hang around to come back at some unknown date in the future to testify again.