Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

GEORGE BIZOS: I asked you whether the seriousness of the two offences of attempted murder as against the less serious aspects of the other two matters, played any part in your conscious decision to claim privilege for the two lesser ones and lie about the two more serious ones.

MR VERSTER: No, it had to do with the way in which it was admitted that it was approved or not approved.

GEORGE BIZOS: But now that doesn't make sense because Gen Webb denies that he knew anything about Omar and Evans, so those two according to Gen Webb, were unauthorised.  Where is the difference in the distinction that you say you made as a reason for admitting, or rather for claiming privilege for the two and lying about the other two?

MR VERSTER: I do not understand the question, if you can please repeat it.

GEORGE BIZOS: No, you see it's simple logic which doesn't require a university degree'd graduate like yourself to understand.  You tell us that the reason why you chose the two to claim privilege was because there was a dispute about the authorisation, did I understand you correctly?

MR VERSTER: That is correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: But in respect of the two that you did not claim privilege but you lied about, Gen Webb didn't support you at all, he says - you know he hasn't applied for amnesty, surely you must have known at the time that he knows nothing about it.  So the distinction that you make is not supported by the facts because if there were differences of opinion, then you wouldn't have distinguished the two because there is no distinction.

MR VERSTER: That was how I handled it back then.  It happened a long time ago, Mr Chairperson, I've already said in which context it was done.

GEORGE BIZOS: And there was no dispute between you and Gen Webb in relation to the bombed centre, because he and you have applied for amnesty.  So the distinction that you make, once we put the facts on the table, does not make sense.  If I am correct in that logical analysis I will ask you again, that the only difference that appears to us to be a logical one and a practical one in the circumstances, because you knew that the probability was ten years imprisonment for each one of the attempted murders, but something much less if there was going to be a prosecution at all at that time in your mind, in relation to minor, comparatively minor matters.  That's why you made that distinction.  Do you understand that?

MR VERSTER: I do understand that, but I have no comment.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well other than this faulty logical reason that you have given, can you think of any other reason that the one that I have suggested to you?

MR VERSTER: Those are all the reasons about the situation at that time, before and also during the Harms Commission, and that dealt with everything that I have said earlier on today, Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: Your personal criminal liability would not have been affected whatever Gen Webb was going to say, was it?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean in respect of any of the incidents?

GEORGE BIZOS: In respect of ...(inaudible)

MR VERSTER: I did not know what would happen to me or anyone else, I was afraid that I would once again be locked up.  This would make it impossible for me to do anything about the whole situation at that time as it existed, and as I have explained it.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did you tell either your first counsel or your second counsel that you were guilty of the attempted murder of Omar and Evans?

MR WESSELS: With respect, Mr Chairman, that question needn't be answered.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well he has admitted it in open Court now, Mr Chairman, he has waived any privilege that there may have been.  Let us be practical about this.  He's waived it, we're not dealing with a criminal trial, we are dealing with an amnesty application where he admitted it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it does go to attorney/client privilege if he ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: It's valid until it is waived, Mr Chairman, and if a person stands up in a public forum and says that "I am guilty of this", there is absolute waiver. But I'll rephrase the question in order to avoid ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it might even put that counsel in a spot, I don't know what the answer would be or what ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: Well if that counsel is put in a spot, maybe he deserves to be put in a spot, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but I think that is what the privilege is there for.

GEORGE BIZOS: Anyway, I'll put it this way, Mr Chairman.
	I am going to suggest to you that if you had told your counsel that you were guilty of these two attempted murders, he would have advised you to claim privilege as you claimed for the other two.  Have you got any comment to make on that?

MR VERSTER: No comment.

GEORGE BIZOS: Very well.  Now there is one aspect, a final aspect that I want to deal with.  Did you consider that if you took part in an attempted murder, that you were legally committing a criminal act in terms of the law of South Africa?

MR VERSTER: I did consider that, definitely, but I had the sovereignty of the State in mind and I did my work.

GEORGE BIZOS: No, well let me - because you see some of the things let's say, confuse me, but let us just say this.  All these actions, the secrecy, the hiding of files, the untruthfulness, all this was for the purposes of hiding the fact that criminal offences were being committed in the country.

MR VERSTER: Why was the structure then put there with the budget?  So that it could function.

GEORGE BIZOS: Some servants of the government are criminals.

MR VERSTER: That is not true, that is a direct insult.  I can say the same to you ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: ...(inaudible) And if money was made available for attempted murder, isn't the person who did it a criminal?

MR VERSTER: I saw that as a military operation and I approached it from a military point of view.

GEORGE BIZOS: Where in the criminal law did you find that you can commit attempted murder or murder or malicious injury to property because you are a military man?  Where did that stand anywhere in South African law?  Or do you consider to be above the law?

MR VERSTER: Mr Bizos, three-quarters of the people who are in the government today did exactly what I did and they are sitting in management positions in this country, so you are not impressing me with your approach.

GEORGE BIZOS: No, answer my question please.  If somebody wants to ask those people those questions, they can ask them, and you can't answer my question by posing another question.  I want to know, did you consider yourself above the law?

MR VERSTER: Definitely not, I said just now I ...(intervention)

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.  You didn't say that you were ignorant of the law.

MR VERSTER: In any case that is not an excuse.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, of course not.  And I want to say finally, that it is clear from your answers in the Harms Commission and before this Committee that you actually have no insight into yourself, Sir, and the nature of the acts that you committed and the harm that you have done.  You have insight into yourself.

MR VERSTER: That is your opinion.

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams?

MR WILLIAMS: Yes thank you, Mr Chairman.  I just want to say that I received Exhibit G about two minutes before we commenced this morning ...(no sound) I'm prepared nonetheless to just canvass one issue with the witness.  Thank you.
	Mr Verster, yesterday Mr H du Plessis asked you a question and according to my notes this is the answer that you gave -
"At the Harms Commission I could have had another legal team.  There was no pressure put on me and I gave the correct answers at place."
Or words to that effect.  Now did you tell this Commission those words yesterday?

MR VERSTER: I did put it like that yesterday, yes Chairperson.