Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-10-02

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, it took place, it is just that his recollection is perhaps better than mine, I cannot attach a mass to the hammer as such.

MR VAN ECK: Rosscam was never - or you never applied for the Rosscam incident.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, I didn't.

MR VAN ECK: Who dealt with your amnesty applications?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Mr Piet du Plessis from the attorneys firm, David Botha, Du Plessis and Kruger.

MR VAN ECK: We heard from Mr Barnard that he first dealt with other attorneys, did you also have other attorneys before this?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Was Mr du Plessis your attorney right through this?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Can you tell the Honourable Committee why you did not apply for Rosscam.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Sir, when we compiled our applications we had a senior attorney, Etienne du Toit, and we were advised that it was not a human rights violation and I therefore do not have to apply for amnesty for this.

MR VAN ECK: Did you accept it as such?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, I did.

MR VAN ECK: Did you at that stage have any reason to doubt it?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, I did not.

MR VAN ECK: If you were advised to do something else would you have applied for the Rosscam incident?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, I would have.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you get of that incident, Mr van Eck.
	You keep mentioning this term "maximum disruption", did you consider yourself personally, that the burning of Mr Rosscam's car constituted maximum disruption?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes it was motivated on the hand of the specific circumstances surrounding this person.  It was also part of the project that it would be a maximum disruption in his life, in the execution of his career, his daily activities and movements.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it would seem it would probably have been nothing more than an annoying inconvenience, I mean he can go and hire a car or borrow a motor car, I mean it's hardly a maximum disruption.  I mean his car could have broken down, it wouldn't have been a maximum disruption.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: As the organisation's objectives read, the disruption could be the breaking of a window up to the killing of a person and this incident was in-between the two.  For us it was enough to disrupt him.  The project led to this.

CHAIRPERSON: It's just that I'm interested in the term "maximum disruption", you always seem to use the term "maximum disruption".

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr van Eck.
	What was your specific object in doing that, in smashing this car up?  I mean you've said maximal disruption but that's a euphemism, what was your actual object?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Mr Lax, amongst other things, to bring across a message that he is busy with activities that are to the government's detriment and whoever he may then connect with this act would then disrupt him in terms of his personal activities as the SR member of Wits.  That was our idea.

MR LAX: So you were trying to intimidate him, to put it plainly?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That's correct, yes.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Botha, while we are dealing with this maximal disruption, did this differ from person to person?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, it did.

MR VAN ECK: Apart from Rosscam, which was a project that you presented, or maybe not executed in the right way, but it took place in September, did you within Region 6 execute any other projects that you personally made submissions for, held an in-house meeting, got approval for and completed?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, I did not.

MR VAN ECK: At a certain stage you were in a discussion with Mr Barnard who approached you to assist him in an observation of Dr Webster.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN ECK: When did this take place?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: It was, if my recollection is correct, it was in April of '89.

MR VAN ECK: Did you at that stage know that Mr Barnard worked for the same organisation but just in a different region or in a different capacity?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I knew that he was involved in the same organisation, yes.  I was not quite sure about his region, but I knew that he was involved in the organisation.

MR VAN ECK: What was in Region 6, what was your relationship with Mr Burger at that stage?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Sir, we had a few confrontations that led to certain personal differences or an argument between the two of us.  In short, I said we had personality clash.  It may seem a bit childish to say that I felt that he did not give me enough attention, but that's what it boiled down to.

MR VAN ECK: If you say that you felt left out, does this mean that you felt that the daily activities in Region 6 were shared with you?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, I did not expect it, but I just got the feeling and it was just a feeling that I personally had, that I was not involved and I did not receive all the advantages.

MR VAN ECK: You were approached by Mr Barnard to assist him in the Webster case, did you know Dr Webster at that stage?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, I did not know him, but I did know that he was a high profile left-wing activist.  If I can put it in that way.

MR VAN ECK: What did Ferdi Barnard say to you?  It was Dr Webster, and what was the end objective?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Mr Barnard approached me in April where he showed me an A4 photograph of Dr Webster, as well as two addresses, together with a file and an investigative journal that we use stating the dates of visits and what occurred there.  He, amongst other things, explained to me Dr Webster's involvement in left-wing organisations as well as the recruitment of students for underground structures.  He also stated that there was an incident in which Mr Webster was involved in Mozambique and where he disclosed certain information and that he got the instruction to eliminate Dr Webster.

MR VAN ECK: How did you accept this?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Once again in context, I trusted Mr Barnard and I do not want to place this outside of, not put it into perspective, but we did trust each other.  Apart from our friendship, I believed what he said, he conveyed certain facts to me that correlated with what we did in the organisation and based on what he told me, I made the inference that he did receive approval from the highest level in terms of the execution of this operation and I did not question it.

MR VAN ECK: Was it at any stage necessary for you, whether it was through your action or what Mr Barnard told you, to doubt what he said?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, never.

MR VAN ECK: The activities or the way in which you worked before, was it necessary for you to question that?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I verified it by means of a conversation that we had, where he mentioned to me that the in-house and the presentation took place in the Ponti House.  He conveyed certain facts to me that made sense, because I was also knowledgeable concerning an in-house meeting and I did not question it, no.

MR VAN ECK: And the Ponti Building?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I also did not question that, I was also at the Ponti Building where we drove with one vehicle and he said to me that he attended a meeting, I cannot recall his exact words, where he went into the Ponti Building and I waited downstairs for him.

MR VAN ECK: Did he mention the name Verster?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: We have heard of two Mr Versters, which name did he give you?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Joe Verster.

MR VAN ECK: Is this the same Joe Verster who you met in your capacity in the CCB?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: What did he mention about Joe Verster?