Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-14

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, but there can be uncertainty.  A letter bomb, for instance, that is set to someone by post may be opened in the presence of other people, women and children maybe, opened if it's sent to an academic, in the presence of his/her students.  All sorts of people can be killed by explosives such as limpet mines and letter bombs, can't they?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, that is the case Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: And also, we know that things like letter bombs, limpet mines and other bombs may, whatever the planning may have been, have a delayed reaction, or they may take a long time to go to some place over the post, or they may be opened by the spouse of the person concerned.  Did the CCB have any policy about the use of such explosives?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Except for the planning, as I explained to you, there is only the normal approach of minimum force and violence to limit loss of lives and to  aim it at the target and that is that, Mr chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Were these instruments readily available to the CCB and there for the asking?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, it was available, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And were they available on requisition?  You didn't have to buy it, or anything like that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, our financial, logistical and Intelligence system was linked to the system of the Defence Force so the Special Forces Headquarters was structured in such a way that in its logistics you could get from ammunition to explosives on demand, according to a specific procedure and Special Forces served as the source for the rest of the State's equipment and this includes National Intelligence, right up to the Security Police and us too and also all the other regiments of Special Forces and even the arm, if they wanted it.

GEORGE BIZOS: These also served often a double purpose because the explosives supplied to you were of Easter Countries' origin, so that you could put the blame on the enemy, so to speak, and get double marks for it.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That's correct, it was the usual Special Forces procedures.

GEORGE BIZOS: In the report-back, was it reported to you that persons were injured?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, it was reported to me.

GEORGE BIZOS: ;   What was your reaction to it?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: The normal reactions that persons were injured in cross-fire, that it was a problem and it could not be always prevented.

GEORGE BIZOS: ;   Cross-fire means there were two people shooting or two people exploding, where was the cross-fire here?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It has the same connotation for me, what I have said right now.

GEORGE BIZOS: You didn't caution or reprimand the persons in relation to the operation?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, we were not happy with it, but it could not be prevented.  It was a war situation in the country.

GEORGE BIZOS: In your application for amnesty in paragraph 1.3, on page 191 you say
"This bomb went off during the late hours and according to my information, no one was injured or killed during this explosion."
Do you agree that this is contrary to the evidence that you have just given that the matter was reported to you?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, Chairperson, I may see it as such.

GEORGE BIZOS: I suppose you'll tell us that it was a mistake?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: ;   Yes, it was probably just a mistake.

GEORGE BIZOS: The injury of persons in attempting to destroy a property, was not of sufficient importance to you to remember when you applied for amnesty, what had been reported to you?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I would not have applied for amnesty if it was not important.

GEORGE BIZOS: I want to turn to the - oh I'm sorry - did I not ...

CHAIRPERSON: We've got the paragraph number, thanks.

GEORGE BIZOS: The Bishop Tutu incident.  Did you think that Bishop Tutu was a target.

MR WESSELS: With respect, Mr Chairman, I object to this question.  The applicant did not apply for amnesty in regard to the Bishop Tutu incident, it is therefore not before your Commission as far as he is concerned.  I submit it is irrelevant to the purposes of this application.

GEORGE BIZOS: With the greatest respect to my learned friend, but that is an issue in respect of which other people have asked amnesty.  He was to authorise it.  It's inconceivable that it can be suggested that I cannot ask him questions about it in order to prove that and the full circumstances that were reported to him because it's particularly relevant to the amnesty applications of the other persons.  The objection is not well-founded, in my submission.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, it was firstly decided that that wouldn't be part of the hearings before you, that was in terms of the meeting that we had, the pre-trial meeting.  Secondly if information comes out about Mr Verster's involvement in regard to the Tutu incident, although these proceedings may not be used in a criminal court, the information that comes out here, may be used against him if there is such a prosecution, if there is in fact such an offence that he had committed, therefore it might incriminate him indirectly and I submit that he is therefore not obliged to answer any questions in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Ms Coleridge.  Yes, I notice that the documents contain information relating to the incident involving Bishop Tutu and also as has been said, certain of the applicants have applied for amnesty in respect of that.  Was it agreed that it wouldn't be dealt with here or not, because although it is a matter that could be dealt with in chambers in that it doesn't involve a gross human rights violation, as defined in the Act, we were prepared to accept anything relating to it, but I just want to know what was agreed.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, initially this whole CCB matter was referred to Judge Denzil Potgieter to decide whether certain matters are going to be held in chambers and it was decided and I was informed thereof, that the Tutu matter would be resided in chambers, Chairperson, being that it was a non-gross violation of human rights.  But in relation to, just for the purposes of coherency, I don't think there's a stage where, for instance, Mr Verster will be cross-examined or questioned on this issue, so depending on the Committee whether it's relevant at this stage, because we'll have to decide on this matter anyway in chambers and Mr Verster's evidence in relation to the orders, is obviously of essence to us as well because they were part of the CCB, so I shall leave that in the Chairperson's hands as to whether we're going to deal with that issue.

GEORGE BIZOS: Our attorneys wrote registering an objection to the matter being dealt with in chambers.  As far as we know, no decision has been made on it and at the pre-trail conference we indicated that we would deal with the matter, we would ask the Committee to deal with the matter.
	Here we have a situation Mr Chairman, where I believe that in so far as it may have - the decision may have been taken by a single member of a Committee, that it is not to be dealt with in the ...(intervention)