Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-15

MR WILLIAMS: Sir I tell you that I've got no doubt in my mind that the intention with the bomb was to kill us.  I tell you that because of several factors.  Firstly the lights were on that night, there were cars in the vicinity which made it abundantly clear that there were people in that centre.  I was in that centre, I never left that centre that night.  In fact your informer knows me very well and he would have seen me leaving the building, if I left the building and I also want to place on record that it is - I don't know what your, how one can describe it, if its sheer coincidence or I'll attribute it to the hand of God that we are still alive today because Sir, we were about to enter the place where the bomb was placed, the wall where the bomb was placed and fortunately the principal of the place happened to be there that night which was never the case on other nights and she told me not to enter that hall because the soccer people had to use that hall.  We then left the hall and we used the boardroom instead.  Barely ten minutes later that bomb went off.  Do you want to comment on that?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I have no comment.

MR WILLIAMS: The point that I'm making still is there is no doubt in my mind that the intention was to kill us that night and that is born out by the facts that this project made provision for the loss of our lives according to the statement by Mr Slang van Zyl and also according to another statement in where you alleged that you were conceding that you might have given instructions that the enemy had to be killed?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I think those are deductions you are drawing there.

MR WILLIAMS: Did this project or was there permission to kill us or to kill the youth movement during this project?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I've already answered that question.

MR WILLIAMS: And if someone else says that there was permission for that would that person be lying?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, the normal cross-fire situation could emanate and I've already told you what we thought about that.

MR WILLIAMS: Sir, I don't want to hammer on this point but I want to understand why did your unit not consider other options, for example the infiltration of our group?  If we were a group of terrorists wouldn't it have been logical to send an informer into this group, to find out what is our next plan of action, what are we going to do and in that way prevent possible loss of lives or destruction of buildings?  And I must add also that membership was open?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Chairperson, if we wanted to kill you we would have killed you.  The idea was to deliver a message, do not explode your bombs because it could explode against you as well, that was the message and thereafter the operation was executed as it was executed.  My work, if we wanted to shoot you we would have shot you.

MR WILLIAMS: But I'm ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Williams, I'm slightly confused by  your last question when you asked why wasn't an informer sent in because he had been mentioning an informer, you said that the informer was in the hall and you would have left and now you're asking why wasn't an informer sent in so is ...(intervention)

MR WILLIAMS: Sorry Judge, I mean why wasn't an informer not sent in to infiltrate the organisation.  The term ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: This informer you'd been speaking of privately was he not part of the organisation or what?

MR WILLIAMS: Maybe for the record I should just state that he was never ever a member of our organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks.

MR WILLIAMS: Yes Sir, I think before I depart from that point, can you just explain to me logically speaking why that option was never considered?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is a hypothetical question, we can sit and speculate here as to what I could have done for days.  The plan was made at ground root level, they submitted to me, it was approved, so I am not going to speculate as to what I could have done.  I could have run away and gone to another country.

MR WILLIAMS: Wasn't that the sensible option, I mean not your latter option but to send an informer or not necessarily?  You don't want to buy me?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That's a hypothetical question, a speculation.

MR WILLIAMS: But now ex post facto, if you must consider that now wasn't that a logical option?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: In this context I can't have an opinion, it's years ago, I don't know.

MR WILLIAMS: Sir, if you're involved in a war it doesn't necessarily mean that you must throw out logic by the window.  And then Sir, I want to ask you, I think you've answered this question that you were aware that gangsters were being used by your men, is that correct?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Was that official policy to employ gangsters?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Any method, persons would have had access.  It could have been a Dutch Reformed preacher, if he had access he'll use it.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you personally approve of using gangsters?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I've already answered that question.  If we had to reach an objective he would be used, he did not need to be a highly qualified rocket scientist, we only needed someone who had access.

MR WILLIAMS: Sir, I want to ask you, do you know how many gangsters were employed countrywide by your organisation?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No, I do not know.

MR WILLIAMS: Do you know more or less?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: Not at all.

MR WILLIAMS: Do you know whether gangsters were employed in other parts of the country?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I could be, it could have happened, those were unaware members, I did not see them, I did not know them and the handler or the persons who sit before you here today will answer those questions.

MR WILLIAMS: Yes Sir, but projects came to you for your approval?  It had certain budget implications?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: I do not know the aware members, it is done at regional level and it is submitted to me.

MR WILLIAMS: There are certain ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think there was a misinterpretation, you said you don't know the unaware members, it came through as aware members.

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: That's what I meant, unaware members.

MR WILLIAMS: But there were in house meetings with yourself where presentations were made to you.  Didn't they advise you during those presentations that you were x, y and z or gangsters?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: In this regard there were specific people because they were involved in a specific project.

MR WILLIAMS: Maybe I should also ask at this stage, Advocate Bizos asked you the same question yesterday.  How many people were killed by the CCB inside the country during your tenure?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No one else for which we have applied for.

MR WILLIAMS: Okay, now are you aware that gangsters were given weapons by the CCB?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: There was a specific project where one weapon was given.

MR WILLIAMS: In other instances were gangsters ...(intervention)

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: No Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: But did you anticipate that this gangster might want to commit crimes with this weapon, with this gun that was given to him?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: As all structures did it could have been.

MR WILLIAMS: Can I just ask you, under what circumstances were weapons given to gangsters?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: This was only for one singular project.  According to procedures that weapon had to be returned if it could be handled in such a manner.

MR WILLIAMS: But did the - did you ever consider the fact that this gangster could use this weapon to kill innocent other people?

PIETER JOHANN VERSTER: If the project was completed the weapon would be handed back and nothing else would happen.