Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-10-03

MR WESSELS: It wasn't supposed to come to light, Mr Botha, but you were an old Detective, you were even a Sergeant in the Detective Branch, and you know that no crime is supposed to come to light or be exposed, is that not true?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: But most crimes come to light at a certain stage.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Not necessarily all of them.

MR WESSELS: Yes, but a lot of them, Mr Botha, and there's always the risk that a crime will be exposed or come to light.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Well we did not commit a crime while we observed Mr Bruce White.

MR WESSELS: No, but you committed a very serious crime when you killed Dr Webster.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: We had already left the scene, there were no ballistic tests to be done.  Mr Barnard destroyed all the articles which could incriminate us or associate us with this murder, all that we had to do was to keep quiet.  If Mr Barnard kept quiet it was the perfect murder.

MR WESSELS: It's not that simple because now the Commander's doing strange things, he is - or this could lead to the framing of yourself and Mr Barnard.  It is a very worrisome idea.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Wessels, if I could just ask one question.
	Did you know Brenda Mills?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that she had also been involved in monitoring Dr Webster's house?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, Sir, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know, or do you think that she knew that you were assisting Mr Barnard in the Dr Webster operation?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Sir, I don't think so at the time or shortly thereafter, but it came to light at a later stage that she did.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.  Mr Wessels.

MR WESSELS: Mr Botha, you knew that you were driving in Brenda Mills' vehicle.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: You were in her vehicle at various opportunities while you monitored the house.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: It was not just her vehicle, there were other vehicles involved as well.

MR WESSELS: Did you ask Mr Barnard if he used Brenda Mills or informed about this instruction?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, Sir.

MR WESSELS: Did you not think that there's a possibility that Mr Barnard would have said too much and could have told Brenda about this instruction that he received?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, I did not think of it.

MR WESSELS: You did not?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No.

MR WESSELS: Very well, let us go back to the Bruce White incident.  You foresaw that there could have been trouble concerning Bruce White, is that what you are saying?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, that is possible Sir.  It's once again speculation.

MR WESSELS: It's possible that you could receive an instruction to kill him.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: It is possible.

MR WESSELS: And it was speculation or it was a consideration that you thought of.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No, no, you are forcing me to consider it now.

MR WESSELS: Very well.  And if you were asked to kill Mr White, you would have done it.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, in all probability.

MR WESSELS: Once again an instruction from this organisation?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That's correct.

MR WESSELS: Once again an instruction from this Commander whom you cannot trust at all.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I can hear what you are saying, but I would just like to clarify.  He did it maybe with his own reasons, without placing his integrity in doubt.

MR WESSELS: I do not understand what you're saying, what does this mean?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I will try and explain it in a different way.  Mr Verster possibly had his own agenda where he made certain enquiries in our region, there was a cut-off date given to Mr Barnard and, as Mr Barnard explained to you here, and what Mr Verster's reason was for the enquiries that he made, it may not put his integrity in doubt.

MR WESSELS: Mr Botha, whatever Mr Verster's objective was and which you could speculate at that stage, could only lead to one conclusion and that is that is was a sinister objective.

MR LAX: Well that's not so, Mr Wessels, please.  With the greatest of respect, I've been listening to you saying "sinister" over and over again, he could have been establishing cut-off points in his own organisation.  I mean any number of other things, it need not necessarily have been sinister, and I've been listening to you all the time.  Earlier you heard me put to this witness other possibilities which he accepted as well.  So you know, the question is that it could have actually establishing a cut-off point within his own organisation, so that even the people in Region 6 didn't know what was going on, so that they wouldn't even begin to suspect he'd given the instruction.  It's also a probability which is not sinister at all, but which is exactly in line with his paranoia about security.  So really, it's not the only possibility and you're putting it to him as if it is the only possibility he could have drawn, and that's not fair.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I would like to continue Sir, by saying it could possibly have been a Stratcom operation from Mr Verster, in that it was disinformation that he tried to convey.  It is something that I can only speculate about.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, might I point out, there appears to be another problem with this line of cross-examination.  On Mr Barnard's version he says he only made the report to Mr Luitingh a few days after the 1st of May, in other words Mr Luitingh only knew then that Barnard had been involved, whereas on Mr Botha's version the meeting that was convened was on the 2nd of May.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say Luitingh only knew then that Botha was involved, wasn't Luitingh involved in the instruction, I mean that Barnard was involved?  Wasn't Luitingh involved in the initial meetings before the assassination?  Barnard's version.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes but the point is on Mr Botha's version, at the time that this meeting was convened, Barnard had been unable to report to his handler that he'd carried out the shooting because he'd been unable to get hold of his handler.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes because he was reacting to the press reports and the media reports of the death.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes the short point is that there's no evidence here to suggest that at the time the meeting was convened that Verster already knew that Barnard had killed Webster.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes although on Barnard's version he had ordered him to do so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well he could have inferred it obviously.

MR WESSELS: I'll deal with Mr Lax's point, Mr Chairman.  With respect Mr Lax, that is not the point that I'm bringing home.  In the perception of the witness at that time, Mr Verster was doing something which was sinister, because he knew that Verster had given the instruction and now Verster was making enquiries, why would he make enquiries if he knew what was happening.

MR LAX: To create the impression in Region 6 that he didn't know who gave the instruction ... just let me finish, and so that the rest of Region 6, at their meeting, would actually go away thinking well, this wasn't out operation and not further condone any possible security breach and have a perfect cut-off point then.  Because for example, Both didn't know Luitingh when they first started, he only found that out much later, so that was their style.  I'm saying that's the one scenario, it's a possible scenario and quite a ...(intervention)

MR WESSELS: Yes but if that is so Mr Lax, then it is still an action by Mr Verster which is cause for concern, because Verster knows that this was his instruction and now he's making enquiries as if he is totally ignorant of why Webster was killed.