Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-15

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Verster, we've understood this context, you've told it to us now a number of times but the fact remains, the question to you is did you mislead the Harms Commission?  A short answer must be yes even though we know why you did it, we understand your motivation as you've explained it to us.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: This was still, I did not mislead the Harms Commission, at that stage we did not accept it and I prepared the documentation with this in mind and this was as a defence of the situation that we were in.

MR LAX: Mr du Plessis?

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  Mr Verster, with all respect, I do not want to argue with you but if you want to be honest and you didn't want to mislead the Harms Commission then you certainly would have said that let's limit ourselves only to Gavin Evans and the case of Dullah Omar that it was a project of the CCB and what your planning around this was and how far you had come with execution of the plan, is this not true?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I would never have said it in my life, I would never have said it in front of the dirty tricks of the Harms Commission and the dirty tricks of the generals, the four ministers, that planned together that the CCB had to be isolated, under no circumstances.

UNKNOWN: But then I am correct, Mr Verster, that you consciously withheld information in the Harms Commission in order to mislead them, is this not true?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, I explained to you what the situation was.

UNKNOWN: If at that stage when you made this statement at the Harms Commission, thought that the matter Evans and the matter Omar as at that stage the project was known to you had a risk of you being prosecuted would you not also then have asked for privilege Mr Verster?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I don't know this is just speculation.

UNKNOWN: It is not speculation, Mr Verster, can you please answer the question or can't you answer the question?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Please ask the question again?

UNKNOWN: Let me repeat the question.  If at that stage in front of the Harms Commission, had the opinion that the Omar and Evans matters or projects could place you at risk in any way of being prosecuted would you then not also have asked for privilege?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes I would have.

UNKNOWN: So according to you at that stage this project held no danger for you, the Omar and Evans matter, is this not true because then you would have asked for privilege?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: But I did, I did do that.

UNKNOWN: I'm putting it to you that you in the Omar and Evans matter did not ask for privilege?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I was under the impression that I did.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairperson, may I ask, before this questioning continues, that we get a copy of that document because what is being put now to Mr Verster...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think so Mr Wessels and I think this would be a good time to take the lunch adjournment.  Mr du Plessis, how long is that document that you've been referring to, would it be possible ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairperson, it's a couple of pages it won't take that long to make copies available.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you link up please with Ms Coleridge and then if we can get copies made during the lunch adjournment to distribute to all the representatives.

UNKNOWN: Yes  I'll do that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll appreciate that, thank you.  We'll now take the lunch adjournment, thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  I have a document before me, it appears to be an extract from evidence that was led before the Harms Commission.  Mr du Plessis, is this the document?

UNKNOWN: That is the document Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: Exhibit G, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll receive this document then and call it

EXHIBIT G: .  Have you had the opportunity to take a look at it Mr Wessels?

MR WESSELS: I had a quick look at it.

CHAIRPERSON: If you require some time for re-examination then you can have it.

MR WESSELS: Yes I would certainly, this matter hasn't been resolved yet and we have to investigate this matter much further because this is an extract that my learned friend got apparently from the Defence Force in some form.  This is not a copy of the official record.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh.  Yes.

MR WESSELS: Some dispute about whether it is complete or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WESSELS: My instructions at this stage are that this is not complete because there are - in the time available I haven't been able to read through it totally but it seems that it doesn't contain any detail about the Omar and Evans matter whereas my instructions are that there was a statement filed in which Mr Verster together with other members of Region 6 claimed privileges for those incidents and that is very relevant to this whole issue.

CHAIRPERSON: But from your point will it be in order to proceed with Mr du Plessis' questioning of Mr Verster at this time and then take - you can have some time or how do you wish to go about this?

MR WESSELS: Well I ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, there is a dispute.  I was not involved in the Harms Commission but my learned friend was indeed involved there so I can only go on what he says to me.  I think it would be very unfair if this extract is not the correct version and if I cross-examine the witness on it so at this stage I would propose that it is improbable that we would finish at the end of this week that I reserve my rights with regard to this and then at the following opportunity we shall see if we can obtain a correct version or a version from the Harms Commission's proceedings where there is no dispute and that at that opportunity I question Mr Verster with regard to this incident.

MR WESSELS: Chairperson, ...(inaudible) that maybe of relevance and might solve the problem.  On page 7 of this document it will be observed that the evidence was led from page 1 by Mr McNally and then he started off by dealing with the statement to Brigadier Mostert, that is the statement that appears in Bundle B, page 73, and then he goes through the questions and answers and that is then read into the record.  Then on page 7 at the bottom it says
"VERSTER:  Chairperson, no, is that question 50?"
	"MCNALLY:  Yes, I believe it was about the Bishop Tutu incident."
	"MR HATTINGH:  With respect, this statement was made to Brigadier Mostert.  Since then this witness has made a statement for purposes of the police wherein he states that he relies, this has to be the Commission's purpose not the Police's purpose where he relies on the privilege not to answer questions with regard to the Tutu incident and I requested no questions with regard to this be put to him any longer."
I think that places the matter in perspective, Mr Chairperson. Again reference to the previous Mostert statement:
"No further questions are put"
and then they carry on ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There's mention of Messrs Omar and Evans at the top of page 7.

MR WESSELS: Well that is where they still read out the previous statement and then we get to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But it's still disputed that this is the official transcription of the evidence?

MR WESSELS: Yes, no certainly, this is not the official transcription.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and that it's correctness is therefore placed or maybe placed in dispute?

MR WESSELS: It may turn out that this is in fact correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WESSELS: But once you read the whole thing and then see that the evidence leader during that Commission, Advocate McNally didn't bother to even deal with the matters on which privilege was planned.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.