Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-21

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No Mr Chairperson.   I was aware of Roskam, I was aware of the bus, I was aware of the printing press and I did not apply for those.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Kahanovitz is saying is, not what you were aware of, but that were in the public domain, that might be  linked to you?  I mean certainly, I think somebody  must have known about the burning of Mr Roskam's car, even if it was only Mr Roskam, he must have known of it, but maybe there wasn't any, maybe you didn't believe that anybody could link the burning of that vehicle, to yourself, whereas the ELC, you had a feeling, might be able to be linked to you, the Omar and Evans and Tutu?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember whether Mr Botha or who dealt with it, testified about that before the Harms Commission, and I simply, I requested the privilege against self-incrimination, not because I didn't want to apply for indemnity, I simply didn't regard it as a gross violation.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I am also putting it to you that the reason that you know that you can no longer claim ignorance about the burning of Anton Roskam's car and Region 6's involvement in that, is that you are now aware that it was found in the trial against Ferdi Barnard, that that was a Region 6 project and that Mr Burger and Mr Botha were responsible, sorry Mr Barnard and Botha were responsible?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, I was always aware that Mr Botha had been involved.  I didn't know about Mr Barnard.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you tell the Harms Commission that the burning of Mr Roskam's car was a Region 6 project?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And why might that be so?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I concealed it for some reason or other.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, I just want to deal with the administrative names used by the people in Region 6.  Your administrative name was Bert Brummer, is that correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It is also so that both you and other members of Region 6, used other alias' apart from your administrative names, when making contact with for instance what you have referred to as the structures, for example Mr van Zyl told one of the gangsters in the Western Cape that his name was Tinus le Roux?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.  De Wet?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think it was de Wet.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Sorry de Wet, yes, Tinus de Wet.  Do I understand the procedure that when you were giving instructions or conversing with potential unaware members, that you weren't using your administrative names, but a further set of false names, is that correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: When we did what?

MR KAHANOVITZ: If you went down to the Western Cape and you met with Peaches, you would just make up a name?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, that is possible.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You wouldn't' use your official administrative name such as Bert Brummer?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Right.  For instance in your case, one of the names that you went by was Nick Verbeeck, correct?  One of the names that you used, do you deny that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you spell that surname please?

MR KAHANOVITZ: V-e-r-b-e-e-c-k.  I am not sure if it is "ck" or "k".
	Mr van Zyl's administrative name was Andries Rossouw, correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I think so yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Chappie Maree's administrative name was Stephan le Roux, is that correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Calla Botha's administrative name was Deon Calitz?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Joe Verster's administrative name was Jack van Staden?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Jack, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Van Staden, correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I think so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All right.  Now, I think we all are still trying to understand the procedures that were followed in relation to the approval of projects.  If I understand your evidence correctly, you and Mr van Zyl, differ quite considerably as to the process that was supposed to be followed in relation to obtaining approval and preparing projects.
	I just want to refer you to the stages that he refers to in his application for amnesty and just establish from you what it is that you have to say about his version.
	He says, well, it is at pages 88 and 89 of Bundle A, paragraph 28.   He is dealing here with what happened at the, what they were taught during the training project.  You will see at the beginning of paragraph 28, he divides it up in stages, he says that an aware member were to gather information in which he would mention who was the target and he would provide full information regarding the motivation.
	This was called a pre-study, do you agree with that thus far?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All right.  He says that the pre-study would contain a budget, containing, referring to the approximate amount of money that would be needed, do you agree with that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: He says that the aware member motivating the project, would sign it and it would be given to the Co-ordinator who would hand it on to you, do you agree with that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: If you approved the project, you would sign it and hand it on to Joe Verster for his recommendation, do you agree with that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: If Joe Verster accepted it, then there would be the so-called "in-house", attended by you and Joe Verster, do you agree with that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, the Co-ordinator as well, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All right, you, Basson, Verster and the aware member would be present, the four of you, is that correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Would the Co-ordinator make an oral presentation during such a meeting?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Everyone would then discuss the matter?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Is that correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Joe Verster would then take the project to Gen Webb, is that correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That was the supposition yes, how it should be done.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You are saying that was the theory, but not necessary the practice, is that what you are saying?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Well, I believed it was.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you see, you would be the very person that would be in a position to know most clearly whether this had in fact happened, because what one would expect is that at the end of one of these meetings, Mr Verster would not be in a position to indicate to you whether the project had or had not received final approval?  That is the theory at least, did that accord with the practice?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, at the preliminary study and the "in-house" Verster did not give the order.  The approval for the continuation of the project and the elimination, that exists, but the order for the execution is got from the Chairman and then it is carried out.

MR KAHANOVITZ: From what you are saying one would logically assume that after the "in-house" had been held, Verster would come back to you and say words to the effect of "I have spoken to Gen Webb, Gen Webb has given the go ahead for this project"?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And you are saying that in respect of, I am leaving out "Project Apie", in respect of the other projects, that is exactly what happened?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: In other words if he hadn't gone to see Gen Webb, to obtain Gen Webb's approval, on your version, we would have a strange situation where he would come to you and made up a story that he had in fact been to see Gen Webb, whereas in truth and in fact, he did not?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Chairperson, I believed bona fide that Mr Verster with the seniority and the rank which he held, that he followed these guidelines unconditionally.