Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-14

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That was not my job Mr Chairperson.  There were structures that had to do that and they formed part of the whole National Intelligence management structure and the only thing I did was to authorise operational plans and to approve it based on the facts in front of me.

GEORGE BIZOS: Do you have any knowledge of a plan to kill Frank Chikane?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I know absolutely nothing of this Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was the name of Frank Chikane ever mentioned to you at or about the time that Gavin Evans's name was mentioned to you?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No Mr Chairperson, Frank Chikane from the beginning of the making public of the CCB and I'm under the impression that from the plan that was made to hide police actions, it was put in front of the door of the CCB and from the first Harms Commission, Frank Chikane's name came under the spotlight as if it was the CCB.

GEORGE BIZOS: The first applicant in this case, Mr Kalla Botha, in a statement which appears in Bundle B, page 4, I must get it in context, at the bottom, it's at the bottom of page 3 the last line
"During my meetings with the other members, we at a stage each got two names.  I got the names Frank Chikane and Ruth White and received a computer print-out concerning Frank Chikane.  Maree received Gavin Evans and another person and she had Abdullah Omar and another person.  The orders were that we had to gain information regarding these people."
What do you say to that evidence?  Did that ever come to your notice?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I saw the evidence but I do not know where it comes from.  We had no project regarding Chikane.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Kalla Botha isn't one in the class of person that you mentioned that would say things merely to bring the CCB into disrepute.  The answer must be no, Sir.  He's not one of those persons, is he?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Botha was under pressure at that time and he also had to make Section 29 statements and in my opinion it was prescribed by the police, he was under pressure, put under pressure, he was detained so the full circumstances under which he made the statement, I do not know exactly what that was.

GEORGE BIZOS: I think we will hear from him, but who would have an interest in compelling him to mention Chikane if it were not the truth, do you know?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, Mr Chairperson, it could have been general information exercises within the learning process or in the army process.  It could have been an in-house approach of his regional manager, but it did not come from me.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now I want to give an example to the Committee of the way in which you prepared your application for amnesty.  Will you please turn to page 190 of Bundle A, Mr Chairman.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was this drawn by you or by your legal adviser?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I assume that it was in co-operation with my legal team, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I notice it's typed.  Would that have been typed by your lawyers or yourself?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, it was probably done at the offices of the legal team, Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) give a full account of what had happened for the Committee to decide whether you had made full disclosure or not?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Let's take 1.1.  Do you agree?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, may I just place on record, Mr Bizos used the words "full account".  That is not what the application form says.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know and we've had many, many hearings which have lasted weeks and weeks, whereas the application form is probably eight pages long, so one can't  expect all the details and we do not expect all the details.

GEORGE BIZOS: No, I don't expect all the details, Mr Chairman.  What I'm going to put, Mr Chairman, not all the details, but didn't you think it, you yourself, think it necessary that the Committee was entitled to know who made the proposal, who approved of it, who was going to execute it and the other essential details?  Didn't you think that you owed it to the Committee to do that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, I think at the time of presenting this document, I also had other appendages of more than 30 folios about how the structure worked.  At that stage, after the Harms Commission, all our plans, our working procedures, our channels, that shows exactly who authorises what and how we worked and what the definitions were and what the rules and regulations were and what the financial procedures were and this was done repeatedly, so at the time of doing this part, it was only a confirming note of documentation that had already been handed in.

GEORGE BIZOS: 1.2 in relation to Minister Dullah Omar is even shorter.

CHAIRPERSON: I think there's reference made
"see appendage B and see appendage A."

GEORGE BIZOS: But what we submit is that those are lengthy documents about the witness's qualifications and other matters and do not give information as to what happened, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed with your question.

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(indistinct - no microphone) gives even less.  1.3 can be described as a similar matter, the same paragraph 2.  Now is there any explanation why there is such ...(indistinct) of information in this application?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, Mr Chairperson because as I said, all available documentation about the working procedures had already been given to the State from the Harms Commission and it was also transferred at this time, which explained the exact way of working, so if I mentioned the target and I read this together with the documentation of the workings that we had and then it gives the authorisation and also gives the financial and channel authorisation and explains it.

GEORGE BIZOS: In 1.2. one would have expected, you knew that there was an issue as to whether Mr Barnard was involved in Omar or not.  Did you not know that?  Had that not become an issue?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Yes, I realised that later, but I explained it to you that he was not in my frame of reference and in any case it would have been hearsay if I had included it in my evidence.

GEORGE BIZOS: The conflict is of evidence as to what the role played by Mr Barnard in relation to Omar, came to a head at already the Harms Commission, which was long before you made an application for amnesty.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is why I'm of the opinion that it belongs in his application, or it belongs in Slang van Zyl's application and not in my application.

GEORGE BIZOS: And also nothing about the role played by Peaches in this.  You knew about that, why didn't you mention it?  You see, I want to ask you this, Mr Verster,
if your application was dealt with as a single application without your co-applicants' applications, the information that you gave would have been mighty little to the Committee, would you agree with that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, I do not think so, Mr Chairperson, because I was at the management level, at the higher level where my role and my function was to authorise projects.  I had no access, I had no details about anything on ground level, so my amnesty I interpreted it as accepting responsibility on my level for what they did and that the involved persons would then on their level have to accept responsibility.

GEORGE BIZOS: On page 194, paragraph 5, I find the paragraph that reads
"There may be certain events where my memory leaves me and unless it is pointed to me, I am prepared to hand in another application."
You were dealing primarily with the elimination of people.  What was the purpose of this last paragraph, a sort of a safety net for yourself?  What was the purpose of it?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Exactly what is written there Chairperson.