Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-13

GEORGE BIZOS: ... on paragraph 405, was Dulcie September killed during your period of stewardship of the CCB?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, the Dulcie September incident is totally irrelevant to the applicant's application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that question, I don't have a problem, I can't recall the date that she died.  Do you know Mr Verster whether - when Dulcie September was killed?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether it was during the period of your stewardship, when you were the Managing Director?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: It could be during that period.   Yes, it was during that period.

GEORGE BIZOS: Very well.  Did you ever make any inquiries as to who might have killed her?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, may I again object again to this line of questioning?

GEORGE BIZOS: Chairman, we're entitled to know the extent of the conspiracy in terms of the authorities because it is said here, I am not cross-examining in the air, I have a Commission's report here which says that the CCB was responsible.  I am entitled to ask whether this witness made any inquiries or not about her death.  Depending on his answer, inferences may be drawn about the extent of the conspiracy and the circumstances, Mr Chairman.  This cannot be avoided.  If there is substance in our main argument, then this is a legitimate question which the witness has to answer.  He can refuse to answer it if he wants to, but not on the basis that it is irrelevant.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, I submit there's no substance in the main argument of Mr Bizos.  The authorities that he quoted related to finding a motive in criminal proceedings.  It may have been relevant in those particular cases.  We have here a completely different procedure with a different purpose in mind where a person comes and he says:  "I admit to having done certain things.  I'm asking for amnesty."  Those criminal cases are quite the opposite, there it is adduced to prove that a person committed the offence or the deed that he's being charged for.  Here it is admitted.  What is the purpose?  Is it being denied that the applicant took part in these offences for which he applied for amnesty?

CHAIRPERSON: The conspiracy is admitted here, Mr Bizos.  Normally in those other - they say that they did conspire to kill Messrs Omar and Evans.  In a criminal case in order to establish when there hasn't been such an admission as to whether there was a conspiracy by a gang, the Msomi Gang etc, then you can look at similar evidence to establish it, but here it's admitted so.

GEORGE BIZOS: I am not unmindful of that, Mr Chairman, but here we have to have five applicants who admit only five attempted murders.  I beg your pardon five instances where there has been no killing, I think that that is the way ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Bizos, I don't know - well this particular matter, this particular hearing is dealing with these incidents in which there was no killing, I don't know and it's not on record, maybe it can be found out, it's been alluded to by Mr Wessels that there are other incidents in which applications for amnesty have been applied for by some, at least some of the applicants here.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I am not unmindful of the distinction between a criminal case and this, but findings of fact have to be made both in a criminal case and here in relation to motive and it will become - motive is going to become apparent.  The context in which - now if they were in fact committing other  murders, that is part of the context.  The object or objective of the offence, whether the offence was committed in the execution of an order and the proportionality of the offence, now unless you have a full picture of what the terms of the conspiracy were and what they may have done in terms of it, how do you decide these questions in which findings of fact have to be made.  They can't confine themselves to the five incidents where there has been no loss of life.

CHAIRPERSON: We've had other matters Mr Bizos where we've heard of particular incidents.  One Panel comes and they listen to five or six incidents committed by a particular unit of the police which has committed hundreds of incidents.  Now if each and every such hearing had to get the full background, it would be an almost impossible situation.  We are aware - I don't think it's been denied, well perhaps that could be asked - has it been denied whether the CCB was involved in the killing of other people generally?  Whether it was ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, I did ask that question: "And if so, how many?"  Mr Chairman, it's a question that I am going to ask but what I am asking about is, in relation to Dulcie September, is whether he, who was in the business of killing the enemies of the State, whether he heard about it or not, or what discussions there were or not.

CHAIRPERSON: There can't be any problem with that, could there, whether he heard of it or not and what it involved ...

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, I submit that it is not relevant for these proceedings and we can't carry on about if there can be any harm in answering or not answering those questions.  We've got to draw a line on relevancy and it is my submission it is not relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: This is going very slowly.  I just wonder if I shouldn't - if you could just bear with me.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, Mr Wessels, we're of the view after having discussed the matter that with regard to the way or the modus operandi of the CCB which we know very little of, if the questions regarding to that could be put in general terms, specifics you know as to what - who reported to who etc., should be confined to the matters before us because really we can't and won't be making any findings in the Dulcie September, Lubowski, Webster matters, so if you could be more general and not link it to specifics or details of other events.  Obviously there's - well we've been told that there's a reluctance to answer those overseas questions, they won't and I think we'll just be knocking our heads against the wall to be persisting to ask about details of other incidents.

GEORGE BIZOS: I accept the ruling and I will put general questions Mr Chairman, but the refusal to answer what may be relevant questions has consequences and I will take the refusal and will argue later as to whether - I want to put questions, to be refused and I will argue later whether the refusal was justified or not and the consequences that they may have.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, may I interrupt here.  I object to that line.  It is not open for Mr Bizos to ask irrelevant questions that are inadmissible and then later argue the witness refused to answer those questions and therefore an adverse inference must be drawn from his refusal.  I submit in each instance you must decide whether it is relevant for that question to be answered and if it is found that it's not a relevant question to be answered, then the witness isn't even to be asked whether he wants or refuses to answer that question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  I think Mr Bizos understands that ...

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, I'll try and ...(indistinct - no microphone)
How many people were killed by the CCB during your stewardship?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Chairperson what I can remember is what we've already applied for amnesty for.  For instance I think of the Ribeiro incident, that was in any case Special Forces, it wasn't specifically CCB.  No there's no-one ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: So you can't recall anyone that the CCB killed?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Not off the top of my head, I cannot remember anyone else in the CCB's time.

GEORGE BIZOS: Your function was to kill, among others to kill people in order to save South Africa from terrorists, is that right?