Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-10-03

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I would say that it was beyond the framework which had been presented to me personally, it was not beyond the rules of the organisation, because I saw it as an approved project within the organisation.

MR WESSELS: But you knew that you weren't permitted to be part of it because the organisation had a certain modus operandi, is that so?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, but the organisation had also referred to opportunity targets and in light of the same - I'm just struggling to find the word, the same working method and objective that Mr Barnard and I shared, I justified this.  It as the same modus operandi.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Wessels is getting at, and we've heard this from other applicants here, that there was always this question of a cut-off and that as far as possible a conscious member should not actively involve himself physically at the scene of an incident.  That was a basic general rule.  We know that from Mr Barnard's evidence, he was handled differently, he was employed as, according to himself, as a hitman as such, a person to carry out deeds himself, but the others always had to have this cut-off point, and Mr Wessels is saying your physical participation in the murder of Dr Webster, as a co-perpetrator, was in breach of that general rule that you should not be on the scene.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: And Mr Botha, when Mr Barnard came to you the first time and said to you that he had been tasked to murder Dr Webster as an opportunity target, and that you were to assist him, you knew immediately that what you were about to do would be completely beyond the rules of the organisation, isn't that so?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: He came to me and he said that he had been given a priority target, that he'd already worked on Dr Webster with regard to the collection of information and the verification of addresses and that he needed me to assist him with the execution of the project.  I realised that it was not completely in line with my region's guidelines and rules, but I looked at the overlapping position of the organisation and realised that I could assist him with a project which had been approved from the highest level.

MR WESSELS: It did not agree completely with the rules of the organisation as you knew it, in fact it did not correspond at all with the rules of the organisation as you knew them.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I do not agree with you, it corresponded to a great extent.

MR WESSELS: But could a directly conscious member become directly involved in the execution of a murder?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: The Honourable Chairperson has just said that it was differently adapted or applied and from his situation it appeared to be justifiable.

MR WESSELS: So in your opinion this exception to the rule was justifiable, according to your opinion?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: He explained the precise process of the submission and the plan in no uncertain terms and he also told me that he had received the instruction from Mr Verster, who told him that it was an approved project.

MR WESSELS: And what happened during the in-house, tell us?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I wasn't there.

MR WESSELS: But what did he tell you?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Simply that he had conducted the in-house presentation.  What precisely he said there would be speculative for me to say.  He told me what he said, but it is of no value to me now.

MR WESSELS: But tell us what he told you.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: He said that he had information at his disposal, that he had conveyed this during a submission on the Board and that certain suggestions were made on how the person should be shot, it was from him and from Mr Verster, and that they had decided to use a shotgun and that Dr Webster should be killed as such.

MR WESSELS: And did you ask him whether he had formulated or discussed a thorough plan with Mr Verster regarding the process of killing Dr Webster?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: He simply told me that he had described the location of the address, that a shortened shotgun would be used and that the plan had to be executed.

MR WESSELS: But you learnt that if there was going to be a task to act against somebody, there had to be a plan, there had to be approval for the plan and its precise execution.  You knew that the plan had to explain the cut-off points, the security, the certainty for those involved, the organisation, the escape route and so forth.  It was a very detailed programme which had to be compiled, isn't that so?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes, I accept that he handled it on that basis.

MR WESSELS: And didn't you ask him, Mr Barnard now, didn't you say: "But to go and shoot a man dead is quite a serious thing to do and if one is caught, then that's the end of you"?  Didn't you ask him what precisely the plan was, what you were going to do?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: We drove the route several times, I had no doubt that the escape route as he had stipulated it was foolproof ...(intervention)

MR WESSELS: No just a moment, before we get to that let me just take you back, perhaps you misunderstood me.  You were still busy talking to him when he told you that he had been tasked to kill Dr Webster.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: And that the plan was to shoot him with a shotgun.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: And then did you ask him: "How are we going to do this in practise, are we going to drive by, what precisely are we going to do?"

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: He explained it to me and I also drew my own inferences of what would take place at the scene.

MR WESSELS: How did he explain your role?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I was simply supposed to drive the vehicle.

MR WESSELS: And did you ask him if he had cleared this with Luitingh and Verster?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I accepted that he didn't.

MR WESSELS: He didn't?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: That is correct.

MR WESSELS: So didn't it appear to be strange to you that he was going to kill someone in a vehicle that was supposed to drive by, and it should have been rather clear to the persons who had given him the order and the approval for the plan that if he was going to be doing the shooting, he would need someone else to drive the vehicle?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Not necessarily.

MR WESSELS: Not necessarily?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: No.

MR WESSELS: How's that?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Mr Barnard was left-handed and he could drive the vehicle and shoot the person at the same time.

MR WESSELS: Well that is possible in theory, but it would require much expertise and skill and it could also shipwreck the entire project, because one small mistake would mean that one could shoot and miss, one wouldn't know how far away the target would be, whether the target would move, how difficult the shot would be.  So it would complicate the plan tremendously.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Not necessarily.  I differ from you, Mr Barnard's skill appeared to be above suspicion to me.

MR WESSELS: Are you saying his skill was above suspicion?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: Yes.  And at the same time it was given as the primary motivation why we were supposed to wait to get the person into the street or to penetrate the person then in order to kill the person.

MR WESSELS: Why do you say that his skill was above suspicion, what did you know about his skill when it came to shotguns?

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: I knew of his police career, that he was very experienced in handling firearms and my logic told me that a left-handed person with a shotgun at short range, ought to hit the target.

MR WESSELS: But one could not foresee precisely how short that distance would be, whether the person would be stationary or whether he would be moving.  The target could just be wounded, even with a shotgun at short range.