Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-15

MR HOCKEY: Now I just want ...(inaudible)

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: ...(inaudible) R5000 for himself and that I could take R5000 for myself.

MR HOCKEY: Were you aware that the operatives below you made themselves guilty of those acts?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I do not know.  If this means they are guilty this is outside the financial plan, you are not allowed to do this, if they took it for themselves and they put it in their pockets for some or other reason but if they took it for budget money for plane tickets as a part of their budget for expenditure then it could be within the financial plan.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) says further on that and this was confirmed by Gakie Harding that he in fact received an amount of R18 000, are you aware of that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, apart from what I have seen here just now I was not aware of it.

MR HOCKEY: Just to complete the scenario, it says that he took R7 000 and used that R7 000 in another project, that is what he says, whether it's true or not I don't know.  Any comments?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I could be within the financial plan that he did take money for a project, it could have been part of the budget, if the paper work had been done correctly then it could possibly be within the financial plan.

MR HOCKEY: ...(inaudible) about the clean audit of the CCB after, well at the time that the operation closed down.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct.

MR HOCKEY: Who did this?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: The Auditor General, Mr Chairperson.

MR HOCKEY: Now obviously the Auditor General did not know of these projects, is that right?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, that is not obvious, they knew about all the projects that were available.

MR HOCKEY: Did you keep or abide to proper bookkeeping principles, accounting principles, for example you didn't issue cheques, there were no invoices that were kept, you basically dealt with cash, cash in hand, your people were paid in cash?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct.

MR HOCKEY: It's very easy to manipulate the books?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No there's a big difference, we were the only structure within the State system as far as I know that had a financial procedure where the money would then be written off before it was handled before it left the building and this was in terms of a financial plan.

MR HOCKEY: Sorry to interrupt you, I accept that money was written off before it was actually spent but I'm talking about the actual expenditure within the organisation?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That was beforehand it was described, what I'm saying to you that if it was written in the presentation, in the financial presentation which was a separate presentation from the operational presentation which says that this is the operation, we agree with it and then I would say that on the financial side show me the budget.  If it was written there that there is R30 000 and R18 000 would then go to the agent, R7 000 would go for that project and that R7 000 of it R2 000 would be for a plane ticket and the technique would have been that firstly the Regional Manager would verify it.  Physically, even internationally, we would phone the hotel and ask how much does it cost to stay at the hotel and they'd say R300 and in this way it would be worked out in that way and in this way it was approved.  It was approved in this way then, the Auditor General's criticism of previous ten years can be found in a document that they accepted specifically because there existed masses of structures to try and control the expenditure afterwards and then if it was correct in the presentation before me then it would be written off.

MR LAX: It's clear to me that you're not - he's asking a much more simple question which is if your budget was R30 000 for something, fair enough the money was written off, it was authorised before the time, we accept all of that.  However, the issue is that when your operatives paid in forma ex, 18 instead of 30 and pocketed the rest for themselves, you didn't know about it, perhaps Mr Burger didn't even know about it, the Auditor General certainly didn't know about it.  How did you control the money in that way?  That's what he is asking?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, I think I understood him one hundred percent.  What happened at ground level if someone wanted to cheat then he could do so under any circumstances but where I could authorise the money was based on what I told you, how it happened then and it was also not a duty from my side it was the individual and his region and a co-ordinator that would then further have to ensure that it was done.  But on ground level you cannot or you could not receive documentation from the criminal that you gave the money to.

MR HOCKEY: Let me ask you a simple question, Mr Verster, the Auditor General for example would never have known that
R30 000 was paid to a killer of Mr X in a certain project?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: He did not need to know that, it was described in the financial plan, he didn't have to know that, he would never know that.

MR HOCKEY: He deal with cash, your actual expenditure, forget about your budget now that goes with the Auditor General where money is allocated before it's actually spent or money is written off before it's spent but in your actual, your internal bookkeeping system you dealt with cash and you agree with me it's very, very difficult to manipulate under those circumstances.  For example, here in the Early Learning Centre according to Mr van Zyl, Staal Burger told him that
R30 000 was budgeted as payment to Mr Isgak Harding who placed the bomb in the Early Learning Centre but he pocketed R5 000 and he said that Mr van Zyl can pocket R5 000.  That's a manipulation?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, if Mr van Zyl's statement is correct, the budget, it could have been that this project was discussed at the beginning of the quarter and at that stage the gang member was already known and he knew that he would be involved and R30 000 was budgeted for him but in the presentation to me,
it had to say what the real amount was.  This person would receive R18 000 and because it was a covered secret structure you can go and read it, it is in the possession of the Commission, there is a procedure that was written out, a declaration has to be present, it has to be confirmed by the Regional Manager and also by me, it had to form part of the overall budget etc. etc. and the expenditure of this was consciously approved like this and there was other ...(indistinct) from the Auditor General and the point is management, good management.  They say the person is a uniformed soldier but now he wants to drive around in civilian clothes and then he will go and buy himself a civilian vehicle but he will pay it with a government cheque. 
	The State, whether they want to agree or admit it or not wanted that if you say you're in the private sector then you must have no links with the South African Defence Force and this plan was then approved so that it can then provide in this way so that you cannot go overseas or over the border and you can say that you want to buy meal and then you ask for an invoice and then it will point back and an agent will then in this say be uncovered.

MR HOCKEY: ...(inaudible) Mr Verster, but all that I'm saying is when you deal with cash you don't know what the people do with that cash that are under you.  Here for example we might have a situation where R30 000 could have been budgeted for a certain expenditure but at the end of the day only R18 000 was given to the person who was in terms of the budget entitled to the amount of R30 000.

CHAIRPERSON: Or a person books into a hotel that's R500 a night and goes and stays in one that's R150 a night, keeps the change, that sort of manipulation.