Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and I must say we as a Panel here are not bound by the findings of the Commission.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  No, I realised that and that is why I thought it fit to take it up with this witness, so it can be on record here, so that I can work on these facts later on when it comes to my clients.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Now just before I refer to certain incidents which I just want you to confirm or deny, may I ask you whether you perused the findings of the Commission regarding the CCB specifically, the objectives, the wide-ranging nature of the CCB's activities?  Did you read it?

MR VERSTER: Yes, I did go through it.

UNKNOWN: And do you confirm it?

MR VERSTER: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: So I can safely at a later stage refer to this and argue that Mr Verster confirmed the CCB's nature as contained in the findings of the Truth Commission?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, we can discuss specific things maybe, but I accept the broad aspects.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, then I will just continue.
	When it comes to my clients - or firstly, only Mr Basson, he was in any case a member of the Defence Force and of the CCB for a very long time before 1989, is that correct?

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: And he was part of the whole structure that you have laid out here.

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: And he would also have been one of the officers before he was freed from the Defence Force, who would then specifically have received the same instructions and information that you received from the higher structures, is that correct?

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: And then I just specifically want to get to my clients, Burger and Maree, to their position.  During May 1988 they were recruited, is that correct?

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: I do not know if - I will naturally put things to you and you can confirm it or not, I realise it might be leading but I don't think it is anything new, it is in statements ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: With respect, once we deal with the facts I would object to leading questions, Mr Chairman, because there is an identity of interest between ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If you could just avoid leading questions, Mr du Plessis.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I will.

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(inaudible - no microphone)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

GEORGE BIZOS: ... because of the identity of interest.  He can do it if he likes, but the weight that we - anyway.

CHAIRPERSON: ... the weight of anything else, but I think probably the best way, although you would be entitled in certain circumstances to put leading questions, just to avoid them.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll do it as far as possible, but without - I don't want to take up too much time.
	In May 1988 these people were recruited, is this correct?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: With their recruitment were they trained?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, it was systematically developed.

UNKNOWN: And for the duration of 1989, they were not activated, is that correct?  For 1988.

MR VERSTER: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: The training that had been given to them, did this involve any intelligence that was given to them?

MR VERSTER: That is correct.  Basically what you read to me, the political climate in the country, and their instructions were to develop us accordingly to be able to counter the revolutionary climate in the country.

UNKNOWN: The aims of the CCB, were they discussed with them completely?

MR VERSTER: Yes, that was done.

MR HOCKEY: With respect, Mr Chairman, I can't see how these questions that Mr du Plessis asked this witness now stems from the questions that were asked by the Panel.  Maybe he can just clarify that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's in relation to the - Mr du Plessis said the question of proportionality.  I think what he's endeavouring to get across is that their acts were in relation to the prevailing political circumstances, the prevailing struggle that was reigning.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And that they were acting in terms of the orders, or in fulfilment of the general orders of Joubert, as set out in the Report which is referred to.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'm nearly finished.  I think I've covered virtually everything.
	Was the matter of protection by the State in the case of disclosure where irregular deeds were relevant, was that handled with them?

MR VERSTER: It was discussed with them, Mr Chairperson, but I do know that in the statements of some of the people there is the perception that they would be protected.  It could have been understood by the members who worked for me, that the structure would organise legal representation and that we were in a bigger system and how we functioned and how attempts would be made to help anyone who ran into difficulties.  But I think that in some of the witnesses, or some of the evidence, I was quoted as saying that we would receive indemnity and it could be in the handling of the Defence Act, and there is a section in the Defence Act where it is said that amnesty and the treatment of the safety of the State and that under this element of the Defence Act, it would be transferred.  And it is in this  regard that members thought that they would get indemnity and it was treated like this and it was discussed and from my side it was undertaken to give them protection.

UNKNOWN: But you would agree with me that this could have been the perception of all my clients?

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: That is what you told them, that State protection in such a case would be given.

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr du Plessis.
	Did you have that perception yourself?

MR VERSTER: Mr Chairperson, on my level in terms of the Act I felt that yes, but I doubted a lot.  I knew that let's say in the interests of the country and in terms of our role and our mission I doubted the hierarchy's attempt although I was part of the decision-making process, where someone would have a problem and then money would be made available for legal representation for that person ...(intervention)

MR LAX: No, no, I'm talking specifically about the indemnity in terms of the Defence Act.  Do you think it applied to you?

MR VERSTER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time of the operations of the CCB.

MR VERSTER: Yes, in terms of the Act I thought that we could if we negotiated it correctly, we could receive it although I personally doubted it.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what were your doubts?

MR VERSTER: Purely in the loyalty of the politicians towards soldiers in an internal situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Sorry Mr Chairman, just one last aspect, perhaps not directly arising but I would just like to put this to the witness for his comment, with your leave.
	If I once again turn to the Report of the TRC, paragraph 393, let me just read the one sentence -
"Those who were recruited into the CCB from the ranks of the SADF or Police, did not regard themselves as operating outside the rubric of the State Security system."
If my clients would tell the Commission at a later stage that at all times they thought and they knew that they were part of the South African Defence Force's security system and that they were employed by the State, would you confirm this?

MR VERSTER: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR P DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr H du Plessis, any questions arising?

UNKNOWN: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR H DU PLESSIS

UNIDENTIFIED COUNSEL: I also have no further questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY UNIDENTIFIED COUNSEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Eck.