Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-21

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.  No, the procedure was as follows: a preliminary study had to be done whether the information came from the top or from the bottom, a pre-study had to be done for the Managing Director.  The Managing Director then went away with that study or submission and he goes back to his own structures.  He then comes back to us and says "continue" or "stop", or whatever the case may be.

MR LAX: I am sorry to butt in here, but you were the Regional Manager?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR LAX: Did you have the authority to, at your level, say "this pre-study is not good enough" or "it is clear from this pre-study that this is not a great idea, laugh it off"?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: The pre-study, at one stage, is done with the Co-ordinator, the Managing Director and myself, submitted in one process.  Now, if I did not agree with the plan, then I could of course give my opinion.

MR LAX: So there wasn't a prior stage at which you and the operative, as the Regional Manager, would have discussed the pre-study in a way, before it got to the next echelon, the Co-ordinator and the Managing Director?  Did it ever happen like that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: It could be that I had discussed the matter, the submission, with my member beforehand.  His information he would formulate in a written document.

MR LAX: You see the impression that we have got, is that there was a first "in-house", at that first "in-house" only you and the person whose project it was, and sometimes Wouter Basson might have been there, sometimes he might not have been there, but it was at that level.  The second "in-house" where we have been led to understand so far at any rate, that is my perception, then entailed the Managing Director and it was only after that level, that it then went up to the Chairman.
	Now, you have debunked that perception in the sense that you have said "well, it didn't quite work, it wasn't as rigid as that", but the point I am trying to understand is, did you exercise a qualitative discretion in the sense that you could stop it before it went to an "in-house"?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.  The pre-study had already been done, and then your impression isn't entirely correct, the pre-study is submitted or presented to the Co-ordinator by the member, the "in-house" which follows would involve the same four people, they would all be present again.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just say my impression of the evidence so far was in fact that it was testified by Mr van Zyl, that a pre-study would be presented to the Managing Director, maybe Mr Lax misunderstood that, but my view is that that is the evidence on record.

MR LAX: As I said, I might easily be confused, but that is why I am clarifying it.

CHAIRPERSON: The pre-study, Mr Burger has just this minute said, was presented to Mr Basson?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: The pre-study?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, it was presented to the Managing Director, Verster.

CHAIRPERSON: Verster?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Verster, Basson and myself, by the member.

CHAIRPERSON: It was presented to the Managing Director in your presence and Mr Basson's presence?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Burger, perhaps the question put here, wasn't clearly answered.  Before the pre-study was presented in its written form, I am sure you would have had contact still with people like van Zyl and you could make your contributions and give input?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, he could come and discuss the matter with me too.

MR P DU PLESSIS: In the case of Mr Omar, we have now reached the stage where you have said that the pre-study had been done and it had been presented to the Managing Director, and he gave the order that there should be a presentation, a so-called "in-house" for the elimination of Mr Omar?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That is correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And that is the order which you received from the Managing Director, Mr Verster?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Correct.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And if I understand correctly, according to the procedures as you understood it,  you then assumed at that stage, you assumed that he had already given the approval and that was also conveyed to you?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And then to continue, that particular "in-house" was done and the plan as it was to be executed, was on the table, along with the budget?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: What happened physically as from that point onwards, after the "in-house"?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: After the "in-house" the matter was executed, it was carried out.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Yes, but at what stage, immediately afterwards, or did Mr Verster first come back to you or what?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, Mr Verster would come back to me and say "all right, the order has been approved, we can proceed", the order given from the Chairperson.  And then Mr van Zyl would be briefed accordingly, and he would activate his people to carry out the plan.

MR P DU PLESSIS: This submission at the first "in-house", the presentation, is done by the member in your presence and the Co-ordinator's presence, to Mr Verster?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And he would then later come back to you and say "right, it has been approved, the order is now continue, go ahead"?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: What happens in-between the first "in-house" and the order to continue according to your perception?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: The Managing Director would get the approval from the Chairperson, he would speak to the Chairperson and come back to us.  That is how it was regarded in our vernacular.  The Managing Director spoke to the Chairperson, came back to me with the approval and say "proceed".

MR P DU PLESSIS: All right, you spoke to the Chairperson and that was the so-called second "in-house" which we understand from Mr van Zyl's evidence?  There you were not present?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Then the order was then conveyed that Mr van Zyl should carry on with the carrying out of the order?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: We know that in this case a Makarov pistol with its ammunition and a silencer was involved, was used?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Were you responsible for acquiring this weapon?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: The Co-ordinator, Mr Basson, handed me the weapon and the silencer, the Makarov, he also gave me the ammunition for it, and I in turn gave it to Mr van Zyl.

MR P DU PLESSIS: All right, we have Mr van Zyl's evidence in respect of the fact that this project was actually not carried out, due to certain problems encountered along the way.  You can confirm that the project actually was delayed, it wasn't carried out, yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: We also know from van Zyl's evidence that Barnard was utilised by him in some point, as he described it, to monitor apparently Mr Omar and Peaches.  Were you aware of that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

MR P DU PLESSIS: So your approval was not obtained for that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No.

MR P DU PLESSIS: At some stage the plan, as approved, namely the elimination by means of a machine pistol, a Makarov, it was amended, it was changed, can you tell us about that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Just for the record, it was an automatic pistol, not a machine pistol, the Makarov, it was an automatic pistol.

MR P DU PLESSIS: All right, just tell us when the plan was changed?