Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-11-18

UNKNOWN: I'm next, Mr Chairman.
	Chairperson, I do not intend to repeat everything that my colleagues have said, I just want to confirm what has been said by Mr Wessels is applicable to my client.  An aspect that I would like to add with regard to the ape foetus or the monkey foetus, my client does not have any objection to whatever way you want to handle the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, I shall not repeat my Heads, I shall stand by that.  I would just like to add that criticism has been voiced in Mr Bizos's heads with regard to the evidence of Gen Webb, for example on page 8
"All the applicants failed to act within the course and scope of their duties, Section 20(2)(b), in that they breached the CCB's internal rules by omitting to do the following
19.1	By failing to take proper steps to ensure that information received from an illiterate gangster was probably verified and checked before an act of violence was perpetrated."
	The only thing I would like to say concerning that, with regard to the criticism to Gen Webb's evidence, you have to bear in mind and see it in the background that Gen Webb was appointed as Commander of Special Forces.  He came there, there CCB was already in existence, so he took over an existing structure and just continued with it.  
	And furthermore you have to bear in mind that he was never involved in the identification of a project, he was involved in the collection or verification of intelligence, he was not involved in the planning, he was not involved in a pre-study, and he depended on what his subordinate, Col Verster told him.  So his evidence and what he knew of a project or did not know, you have to see that in that light.  That is all I have to say.  Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Are you going to say anything about the conflict of the evidence between Gen Webb and Mr Verster, what approach we should take, or whether ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Are you referring to the dispute between the two of them with regard to the Omar and Evans incidents?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Chairperson, it is quite simple.  You will not that even in the Harms Commission and the other commissions of enquiry, Gen Webb said continually: "I did not authorise those projects".  So he has continuously held the viewpoint that he did not authorise it and if he did authorise it he could also have applied for amnesty here, which he did not do.  So his version still remains the same.  If you look at Mr Verster's version in this regard, there are various versions which he put forward to you, whether he had authorisation or not.  But for purposes of Gen Webb, I think you can accept that his evidence in this regard is correct, that he never authorised it and that is why he did not apply for amnesty with regard to that.  Thank you, Chairperson.

MR LAX: If I understand his evidence correctly, he's never been in any doubt about the fact that he didn't authorise those ...

UNKNOWN: That is consistently his version of those two incidents, Mr Chairperson.  I thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis.

MR VAN ECK: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  If I can jump in at this stage.  Regarding Calla Botha, also I share the same view, in that I'm not going to repeat the requirements of the Act, it is before this Committee, and I am the first one to confess that this Committee knows much more about it than I profess to do so I'm not going to repeat it for the Committee.  As well as the position of the law.  That was also argued already before you and I'm not going to repeat it.
	Regarding the Heads of Argument, I also submitted Heads and I'm not going to read it out, it's brief, and the point I made in there I think is quite clear.  Regarding Botha, when he was giving evidence the translation that came through described him as a qualified demolitions expert, now that is not right, he was an explosives expert, and I submit that there's a big difference between a demolitions expert and an explosives expert, Mr Chairman, and that is not due to the fault of Mr Botha.  It maybe created the impression that he was there to demolish a building and that's surely not the position.
	Mr Chairman, if we look at the arguments relating to Botha, from the Heads we've been served with, Botha was placed on ice.  Botha was basically in his own words, not informed of what happened there at the CCB, especially the relationship between him and Burger was not as it was between Burger and the other people working there.  
	And when Van Zyl encountered problems relating to the bombing of the Early Learning Centre, Van Zyl urged on Burger that he wanted Botha to help him in that.  On that basis Botha came back.  On that basis Botha was then informed by them.  	And I submit at this stage, when he arrived there at the hotel he was encountered by Basson, Burger and Van Zyl, and he had not reason to query the decisions already made, the in-house, the plans, everything.  He was requested at that stage to carry the bomb and as an explosives expert, to arm the bomb at the Early Learning Centre.  He had nothing to do with the preplanning.  He had nothing to do with the political motivations regarding that.  And I submit with respect, Mr Chairman, that if we look at Botha's evidence relating to that incident, that he told this Honourable Committee exactly what he was informed and he had no need to query of those decisions there.
	If we look at page 2 of part A of the bundle from Mr Bizos and Mr Kahanovitz, the criticism levelled against the people in the Early Learning Centre, from paragraph 4:
"The evidence of the applicant is to the effect that a bombing was intended merely to frighten the members KTY"
It's false.  Botha had nothing to do with the preplanning of this, this was Van Zyl's part.  Van Zyl had to do it and Botha had to rely on what Van Zyl said.  You must also have regard to the evidence of Gakkie Hardien, how he described Botha as:
"that fat person.  Met him for the first time"
There was no contact between them.
	If we go further and we look at page 3, from paragraph 5 on part A from the Heads, I submit that if we look at that, the bulk of that criticism can't be levelled against Botha.  Botha was not involved in the gathering of the information.  Botha was not involved in the planning of this and Botha was most definitely not involved, in paragraph 8, the payment of Hardien.  He had nothing to do with the initial R30 000 and the eventual R18 000 that was paid.  So if we look at that, then I submit that we must look at the evidence of Botha and the role he played there in context, as it happened there that day.  That he was called in from the cold and asked to do a certain job in relation to the CCB, been instructed to that by Burger, Basson and his colleague at that stage, Van Zyl.

CHAIRPERSON: He did say that he believed that there wasn't any intention to kill any person.

MR VAN ECK: Ja, there was no intention relating ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: So the criticism or what you call the criticism of the evidence, but the statement on page 2, that the evidence of the applicant ...(indistinct) the KTY was to frighten people and not kill them is false.  That would also apply to Botha, because he said that there was never an intention to kill and in fact I think he went so far as to say it was divine intervention that came in and ensured that that didn't happen.

MR VAN ECK: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If it's found that the intention was to kill, what effect would that have on Botha's application?