Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-21

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee, I noted what you informed me about, that you are not putting any questions, but if there are any serious discrepancies that exist between the evidence of Mr Burger and what Mr Barnard might say, the fact that you have informed me that you are not going to cross-examine that doesn't mean that you are making any admissions, won't take away, might not in any way affect the rights of anybody else to argue that because it wasn't put, less weight must be attached to it, I just want to place that on record.  I cannot force anybody to cross-examine.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Commissioner, it is not something I pulled from the air, this is after proper consideration that I have made that decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  I think this might be a convenient time, before you start Mr Bizos, I see it is one o'clock now, we will take the lunch adjournment now, thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Bizos, do you have any questions you would like to put to the applicant?

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Kahanovitz ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, in 1989, approximately how many days did you spend in South-West Africa?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Approximately one day, I few in the morning, and in the afternoon, out again.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It was the only time you went to South-West Africa in the whole of 1989?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I will come back to that.  Can you tell us about any projects that were proposed to you by the members of Region 6, that were rejected?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So every single idea put forward by Mr van Zyl, Mr Botha and Maree, every single idea that one of them came up with, was in fact adopted?

MR P DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, I don't think the evidence was van Zyl and them put ideas.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what I understood there, Mr Kahanovitz, certainly in some instances is that information obtained from the ground, was relayed, like just a name, and then there would be background study and then there was an instruction to do a pre-study.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, the witness said there were two possibilities.  The one is where the information from the ground ...

CHAIRPERSON: One from the infrastructure and one from the ground?

MR KAHANOVITZ: And then there was another one where the information might come through Mr Basson and they might be given a name.

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, but (indistinct), is Mr Kahanovitz suggesting that the idea for example to eliminate Mr Omar, or to blow up the Early Learning Centre, came from operatives on the ground?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Can I ask the questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you.  What I am trying to ascertain Mr Burger, is the following, let's take any example, it doesn't matter where the name comes from, you get given a name of someone who is a potential target and forget about whether it comes through Mr Basson or whether it comes from van Zyl, Botha or Maree, all right, are you with me?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you ever attend any meeting where it was suggested that Mr X or Mr Y had been identified as a potential target, the matter was discussed and for one or other reason, it was decided that that project would not be adopted?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Chairperson, I will try and answer the question as follows:  the information which came from the members themselves, and was brought to my attention, would be taken by the Co-ordinator to the intelligence structure and the proposals of the member who brought the information, Mr Verster  in his capacity, would then discuss it with his intelligence structures, and then come back with an order.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It doesn't appear, can I put something to you that appears to me to be a logical proposition?  Take the UDF Executive for instance, there is a fairly long list of names of people besides Mr Omar, who your information structures could have given you, right?  They could have said Trevor Manual is on the UDF Executive, Cheryl Carolus is on the UDF Executive, Allan Boesak is on the UDF Executive, and so on and so forth?
	Was there any process that you had engaged in to say "look, of these people, why Adv Omar as opposed to the others??

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: We did not concentrate on the individuals as such.  If the information was that he was part of the structures of the enemies of the country, and participated in their activities, irrespective of whether he actually pulled the trigger himself or detonated the bomb, but the intelligence was that he formed part of this banned organisation, then in that context, it would be seen in that context.
	We for instance, did not say that there are some priority targets, but in this case, it was Mr Omar.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see what I don't understand about your evidence is that you tell us that in broad terms you had a definition of the enemy, the ANC, the UDF, South African Communist Party, PAC and so on and so forth, do you agree?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Obviously you are not going to kill everybody who is attached to one of those organisations or who are promoting the aims and objects?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So, some or other process would have to be gone through where you sit down and you discuss "look, of the people on the UDF Executive, if we are going to maximally disrupt the enemy, in the best possible way, it makes more sense to target Adv Omar as opposed to Cheryl Carolus".  Surely one would have to engage in those kinds of discussions for the objectives of your organisation to make any sense?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But I haven't heard anything in your evidence about any discussions along those lines, ever having taken place, about any proposal having been put forward that for instance, Cheryl Carolus should be targeted for the following reasons, "we decided that she is not a person who we should select", that is why I come back to my question, what names were put forward, but for one or other reason, rejected as being unsuitable targets?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I can only say Chairperson, that nothing was not approved, nothing was rejected in respect of other names.  It was never submitted to me, and I would like, well, I can understand Mr Kahanovitz' logic, unfortunately that is not the way it happened, other names were not supplied to me or submitted to me.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see, I can understand Mr van Zyl as a mere member of Region 6 saying "all I did was I collected information from Gakkie, I passed it upstairs, what happened to it afterwards, I am not really sure", I can understand him saying that in his capacity.
	You, as the Regional Manager, one would expect that in some way you would be involved in a filtering process so that the objectives of Region 6 could be maximised, does that make sense to you, "burn Mr Roskam's car, don't burn Mr Evans' car.  Kill Mr Evans, but burn Mr Roskam's car", where were you discussing these objectives, how was it taking place?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, those aspects were discussed and I conceded that I did make my contributions.  I did give input.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It must be inevitable then that a name linked to some or other project, would have been put forward and rejected for one or other reason?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Never?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Not as far as I can remember.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So you are saying that in so far as you provided input, all the input that you provided, was input in support of every single proposal that was put forward?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, the information would come, final decisions were taken upstairs, I would give my recommendations or my input, whatever, I would add that.