Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-13

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Chairperson, I'll accept it as such.  I have been in many places.  I cannot recall it, but I would accept it as such.  I would also like to put something in the open here.  I do not have any trouble admitting that someone was monitored.  What I do not understand is that after my advocate had addressed you, what has this to do - I find it very difficult to find a connection here as to my amnesty application and what is now asked here.  My legal representative has taken up an attitude and I would like to stick to that attitude that he has put forward to you, but there will be resistance in answering any questions, because there's no point in me taking that attitude and then answering again.

GEORGE BIZOS: You may consider it a game, but it is a matter of fundamental importance to the people that we represent, who do not consider it a game.  They want to hear the truth about what you and your fellow applicants did.  I will repeat the questions.  Were you in the same room with these persons?

CHAIRPERSON: The answer again, he said:  "I accept that I was", but it was a long time ago and he was at many places.  I understand it that he is not denying it, he is accepting it.  He's not disputing it.

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you.  And who was Christo Britz?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That was Mr Wouter Basson.

GEORGE BIZOS: It's one of the applicants here?

CHAIRPERSON: Was that his so-called administrative name, or was it an operational name?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It was an administrative name, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the applicant who appears as number 3 in the bundle.

GEORGE BIZOS: That's Christo Britz.  Now do you admit or deny that you gave instructions for Mr Lubowski to be followed and reconnoitring work should be done in relation to him?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, I object to the question.  We've had this a number of times.

GEORGE BIZOS: You indicated to your counsel that you were not prepared to answer that question, is that correct, Mr Verster?  Is that what you are saying?  You are not prepared to answer that question.

MR WESSELS: That is correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: Is that what - I'm interested in the evidence of Mr Verster, Mr Chairman.  Is that what you are saying, Mr Verster?  You refused to answer whether you were in that room or not for the purpose that is stated there?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is not true Chairperson.  That is not true what Mr Bizos says there now.  I said exactly that I could have been in the room, what I said is that my legal representative has explained my position to you and now I would like to keep to that attitude that my legal representative has put forward to you.  I am not afraid of answering that question.

GEORGE BIZOS: Do you refuse to answer the question as to whether what is said by Mr van Zyl you said at that meeting is true or untrue?  Do you refuse to say that?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, may I object formally.   What is the relevancy for these proceedings as to whether it was said or not said about Lubowski in an hotel room.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Bizos you're getting the applicant into a corner here.  He's indicated that he's not prepared to answer any questions about Mr Lubowski.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, well he answered that he was in the room with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, he said he doesn't dispute it, yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: He doesn't dispute that but he is not - I want from him that he is not prepared to say what transpired in that room.

CHAIRPERSON: If he wants to say that, he can say that.  I take it that's what he's saying, that he's not prepared to answer any questions concerning the Lubowski incident.

MR WESSELS: But Mr Chairman, before we get to his answer whether he's prepared or not prepared to answer that, I object to the relevancy of that question in the first place.  I would ask you to make a ruling as to whether that is a relevant question to ask of this witness, whether he has to answer questions about Lubowski or not, because if you find that it is relevant, then he must be advised about his rights and he can make a decision whether he refuses or not to answer the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, it's in relation to the context.  This is why I started off my same question that at the time that they were dealing with the attempted murder of Minister Omar, they were apparently also dealing with Mr Lubowski and I want to know whether he said this in order to be able to argue the extent of the conspiracy and whether or not there has been full disclosure.  I don't want to repeat the whole argument.  I submit that the question is relevant and that in terms of the authorities, the ruling should be that it is relevant.  If the witness doesn't want to answer the question, then let him do it knowingly, that you have allowed the question to be asked.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos - sorry for the delay - we're of the view that it's not necessary for the relevance of this matter as to what was said in that room regarding Mr Lubowski, so I think if you could take another track.

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Was it your duty to report what van Zyl or Wouter Basson may have found out about Lubowski?

MR WESSELS: With respect, Mr Chairman, we're getting back to Lubowski.  It's no good for my learned friend to ask these questions about Lubowski, because we submit it's not relevant for these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps if we could confine ourselves to what happened about the pills in that room and what happened there.

GEORGE BIZOS: I'm going to come to that, Mr Chairman, there is only a short paragraph about that in the application but we are entitled, in terms of the authorities that I have quoted to the Committee Mr Chairman, we are entitled to examine the nature and extent of the conspiracy and if we have reason to believe on the documents that have been placed before us in relation to the reporting procedure.  The fact that I personalise it in relation to Lubowski, when we know that he attended the meeting already is merely to try and get what the reporting procedure was and what can be the reason for refusing to, or considering irrelevant the question as to what the procedure was.

CHAIRPERSON: Couldn't you ask a direct question for instance in relation to Mr Evans' incident, or Mr ...(indistinct) exactly what the reporting procedure was with regard to the monitoring then?

GEORGE BIZOS: But Mr Chairman, we cannot ...(indistinct - no microphone) and we can check the answers given by the witness against the answers of the other applicants who contradict the witness and we do not have similar material in relation to Minister Omar.

CHAIRPERSON: But what was the question you wanted to put again, Mr Bizos?

GEORGE BIZOS: Whether he as the Director received reports in relation to the doings of van Zyl and Basson in relation to the monitoring of Lubowski.  That was the question.

MR WESSELS: I object to that Mr Chairman.  I submit it is not relevant that we go into those details for the purposes of these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Bizos with a view that it's not necessary for us to know and it will just lead to further incidents, If you do have that material, then we're going to get into the minutia of the Lubowski affair because then it will be said:  "Well, your answer to this question was X, but over here we've got a statement by somebody else saying that it should have been Y and then we're going to just get embroiled in this whole Lubowski incident in which the applicant has indicated that he's not going to answer, so I think if we can ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: He has a choice Mr Chairman, with respect, not to answer.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's explained.  Yes, well we know that he's saying that he's not going to answer questions relating to Lubowski, for whatever reason, I don't know what it's for.

GEORGE BIZOS: We will try and accelerate the process.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.