amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 2000-10-03 CAPE TOWN 20 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54505&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/2000/201003ct.htm CHAIRPERSON: Morning everybody. We'll continue with Mr Botha's evidence this morning. CARL CASTELING BOTHA (s.u.o.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS (Cont) Mr Botha, whilst you were in detention in November/December '89, did you know that Mr van Zyl and Mr Hardien were also detained under Section 29? MR BOTHA Just for the record I must just state that I have an old rugby injury in my left ear, I'm struggling to hear and I have a bit of a post-nasal drip, which means that I have a bit of a hearing problem at the moment, so with respect, Mr Bizos, I'm just struggling to hear you. I apologise for that, but I did hear your question. MR BIZOS I'll raise my voice so that we can get on. MR LAX Can I just say, if you put one of these one it's very helpful. The reason I put it on is not because I'm not listening to you in your language, but because from these years of experience I know that these things really help. MR BOTHA I appreciate it, Mr Lax, I'm just not used to it, so I would prefer to continue without it for a while. Mr Bizos, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe that Mr van Zyl, or at least I was in detention and just a few days before my release, Mr van Zyl was arrested. As far as I can recall, I don't believe that they told me that he had been arrested. I cannot recall that. MR BIZOS ...(inaudible - no microphone) MR BOTHA Also not. Definitely not him. I definitely wasn't informed regarding that. MR BIZOS Did you expect the detention before it took place? MR BOTHA Brixton investigated the matter as such that they viewed it as a very high profile security type matter, so they didn't share those particulars with me. MR BIZOS No, in your mind, did you believe that you may be detained and you may be called upon to make a statement about what you had done? MR BOTHA It was possible, yes. MR BIZOS Did you and Mr van Zyl discuss the possibility of your detentions? MR BOTHA No. MR BIZOS Not at all? MR BOTHA No. It was just as big a surprise to me and I didn't have the opportunity to communicate with Mr van Zyl in any way. MR BIZOS Now when you made that statement you told us yesterday you wanted to say things that would exculpate you, will make you not guilty, or less guilty as possible. MR BOTHA At the time of the affidavit I reasoned as such primarily to assist the police within a specific framework and also because I didn't want to compromise the organisation to such an extent that they would not be willing to assist me. MR BIZOS In that state of mind you no doubt told them that the bomb at the Early Learning Centre was merely for the purpose of frightening people and that you didn't intend to kill anybody. MR BOTHA I gave the facts regarding the bomb as best as I could recall. MR BIZOS No, answer the specific question, which is: one of the best serving statements that you could have made to your interrogators in relation to the Early Learning Centre incident, would have been: "We did not intend to injure anybody, we merely wanted to frighten them." That would have been the most self-serving statement you could possibly have made. MR BOTHA In the way that you have stated it, yes, but I have told you what my experience was at that point. MR BIZOS Do you say that you told your interrogators what the purpose of the bomb at the Early Learning Centre was? MR BOTHA As the facts were known to me at that point. MR BIZOS You told them. MR BOTHA Yes. MR BIZOS And did they record those facts? MR BOTHA They did. MR BIZOS As you told them? MR BOTHA Yes, they did. MR BIZOS And did they express satisfaction that they accepted that portion of your story? MR BOTHA I don't think these were facts which were known to them, so yes. MR BIZOS And they were pleased to hear that the purpose was not to kill anybody but merely to frighten them. MR BOTHA I cannot say that they were pleased to hear that. MR BIZOS In any event you have a very clear recollection that you told them what the purpose was? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR BIZOS And that was recorded in your statement and you signed it. MR BOTHA Correct. MR BIZOS Now you see, would you please have a look at that statement and try and find where in that statement you told your interrogators that the purpose was merely to frighten people and not to kill them. CHAIRPERSON The statement's in bundle B, pages 1 and following through to 10. MR BIZOS Please take your time ... INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. MR BIZOS Please take your time and just show us the page and the lines where you say what the purpose of the bomb was. MR BOTHA I state quite clearly there that "Shortly afterwards we heard a bang" It's as I've stated previously. MR BIZOS No, no, just listen please. Show us where you say what the purpose of the bomb was. MR BOTHA I do not see it the way that you want it at the moment, I have simply stated it as I saw it and I cannot explain it any differently to you. MR BIZOS Would you accept from me that having read your statement very carefully again over night, that that exculpatory or partly exculpatory statement nowhere appears in your statement? MR BOTHA I simply see the fact that the bomb had to be set off. MR BIZOS No, we're not talking about letting the bomb off, please credit us with a little intelligence and try to, or rather, stop trying to avoid the kernel of the question. Do you agree that on a very careful reading of the whole of this statement, nowhere therein do you say what the purpose of the bomb was? MR BOTHA I will answer again if you will give me the opportunity. I stated to the investigating team that I had to detonate the bomb and that is what I've stated. MR BIZOS Do you think that you've answered the question? MR BOTHA Yes. MR BIZOS Well let's leave the rest for argument on this particular point. You see, you told the Committee a short while ago that you had a distinct recollection that you told them what the purpose of the bomb was to ...(indistinct) that is was not to kill anybody, but merely to frighten them. Did you or did you not say that a short while ago? MR BOTHA Then I should just rephrase, perhaps I conveyed it incorrectly. MR BIZOS No, let's - do you agree that that is what you said? MR BOTHA Possibly I meant that I had to detonate the bomb. MR BIZOS No, I'm not asking you what you meant, do you agree that that is what you said? MR BOTHA Possibly I stated it as such but I did not mean it as such. MR BIZOS Not "moontlik", do you agree - you know this "moontlik" has already been discredited by His Lordship, Mr Justice Stegman in the Webster Inquiry, here "moontlik" doesn't cut much ice. Do you agree or disagree that this is what you said? MR BOTHA If I stated it as such, I request the opportunity to rectify it ...(intervention) MR BIZOS Right, now just before we go further .... MR BOTHA May I also have the opportunity please? I stated that I had to detonate the bomb, that was my primary task. I was there to detonate the bomb. Bottom line. MR BIZOS Yes, the bottom line is, did you speak the truth or did you lie to the Committee when you said that you told the investigators that the purpose of the bomb was not to injure anybody, but in order to frighten? MR BOTHA Sir, I possibly said that to the investigating team, I was in a Section 29 situation. If I stated it, I ask you once again for the opportunity to amend it by saying that I told them that my exclusive purpose at the scene was to detonate the bomb. MR BIZOS You did not, in answer to my question previously, say it is possible, you said that you had a definite recollection that this is what you told the investigating officers. You see, it's no good answering "dis moontlik", I will not accept that as an answer for the things that you have specifically said. MR BOTHA If I stated it and they did not embody it within my affidavit, it cannot not hold water. I was under pressure, I signed what was given to me and that is the matter. MR BIZOS Oh, are you now saying that things were omitted from your statement, material things were omitted from your statement and you signed it in ignorance of that omission? Is that what you are now saying? MR BOTHA No, that's not what I said. MR BIZOS Well what are you saying? MR BOTHA I say that I told the investigating team that my share in the entire project was merely to detonate the bomb, to ensure that the bomb went off. CHAIRPERSON Mr Bizos, if I could just ask a question. This statement here, Mr Botha, under what circumstances was it made? I know it was in Section 29, but were you sitting across the table from the investigating officer or were you given a piece of paper and told to go into your cell and write it? Did it take three weeks to write, did it take half an hour to write? If you could just give us ... MR BOTHA Honourable Chairperson, I'm not precisely certain how long it took to write it, they used various methods, among others, they came to interrogate me and then made notes, they also asked me to put certain things in writing in the privacy of my cell and upon another occasion I sat with them and sat across the investigating officer, where he was also taking notes. CHAIRPERSON Oh, so it was taken over a period of time, some of it was written by yourself privately, some of it was in response to answers given to questions? MR BOTHA That is how I recall it. CHAIRPERSON Sorry, Mr Bizos. MR BIZOS Well you see what I'm going to put to you is the fact that it does not appear is clear that you didn't tell them. Would you accept that as a general proposition? You couldn't have told them, because it isn't there. Would you accept that? MR BOTHA I will stand by the fact that it was a Section 29 statement which was made under pressure, and I wasn't certain of what I said to them regarding this. MR BIZOS Well why didn't you say that earlier when I asked you whether you had told them what the purpose of the bomb was? Why didn't you say that: "I don't remember, I was under pressure, it was Section 29, I don't remember"? Why do you change your evidence when the ridiculous nature of your evidence comes home to you when the document is shown to you? MR BOTHA It was not my intention, I must have expressed myself incorrectly. MR BIZOS Expressing oneself incorrectly may be in relation to a phrase, may be in relation to a time, may be in relation to some other minor aspects, how can one express oneself incorrectly in relation to the very important issue as to what the purpose of the bomb was? MR BOTHA My objective with the bomb was to detonate it, that was my objective. MR BIZOS Well I won't repeat the question, it's obvious that you don't want to answer it. Now may I suggest to you that the reason why there is nothing in it, is because you didn't know what the other participants of this crime were going to say, you didn't know what Van Zyl had said or might say and you did not know what Hardien had said or might say and this is why you kept quiet on this very issue. What do you say to that? MR BOTHA It didn't matter to me what they said, I knew according to what was said to me, what I was supposed to do and it didn't matter to me what Mr van Zyl or Mr Hardien said. MR BIZOS Would you agree that your case would have been substantially more favourably viewed if the intention was not to injure or kill anybody? Would you agree with that? MR BOTHA Yes, but that's debatable. MR BIZOS Well why is the obvious so debatable? MR BOTHA I don't view it as the obvious, Mr Bizos. MR BIZOS In your capacity as a policeman, didn't you ask people: "Why did you shoot, why did you pull the knife, why did this happen or why did that happen"? Isn't that an obvious question to ask? MR BOTHA Yes, it must be. MR BIZOS And isn't it obvious for people to give a less serious intent for doing what they would have to admit they did than a more serious one? Is that not obvious? MR BOTHA I don't think that this is less serious, but the point of the matter is that I had an SPM Russian manufactured limpet mine in my possession, I set off a bomb in an urban area, I was part of a project which was aimed at detonating a bomb in a residential area, so I cannot think that it was less serious. It's all the same to me. To my knowledge this was what I knew, I was supposed to detonate the bomb, I was to ensure that the bomb went off. Any one of those. MR BIZOS Well you made yourself guilty of the explosion of a bomb, you made yourself guilty of the laws that Parliament had passed and by a government to which you were so loyal, that would be tantamount to an act of terrorism. Would you agree with that? MR BOTHA Yes, that is correct. MR BIZOS Now wouldn't it have been the obvious things to say: "But we never intended to injure anybody, we only wanted to frighten them"? MR BOTHA That is why the answer in my statement states expressly that I was a member of a State organisation which authorised it and within our framework legalised it. MR BIZOS But you know, this is nonsense that you thought that it was lawful, why did you want to keep it away from the police? Why did you lie, why did you defeat the ends of justice, why did Gen Krappies Engelbrecht tell you that he would use his good offices in order to defeat the ends of justice? What nonsense is this about legality? MR BOTHA It is fear, fear brings about that one doesn't talk about this class of thing. There were two different structures within the State, the Defence Force and the Police, who at times would be one another's arch enemies. MR BIZOS You say that you were merely employed to push the button, to provide the - to take the bomb and press the button, is that what your function was going to be? MR BOTHA No, that is not what I have said. MR BIZOS What was your function? MR BOTHA Within my framework my function was to accompany Mr van Zyl and to ensure that the limpet mine would safely reach its destination, to activate it, to arm it, as I said yesterday, to prepare it for the final phase before it's detonation. MR BIZOS Let me put it in your own words. Do you agree that arming the bomb is rendering assistance to the person who commits the crime or exploding a bomb, that you were his accomplice? MR BOTHA Yes, Mr Bizos. MR BIZOS And did you exercise any personal discretion as to whether this act should be committed against this property for one reason or another, or did you merely blindly follow what Staal Burger had told you and what Van Zyl was going to do? MR BOTHA "Blindly follow" is a bit strongly put, I was in an organisation where one would receive an instruction and I carried out the instruction. MR BIZOS Were you to obey orders without questioning the why-fore? If go an order to put a bomb in a nursery school to kill the nursery school children, would you have done it? MR BOTHA At this point I just want to make use of the opportunity just to put maximum disruption within context for you. Maximum disruption was not regarded as the most severe form of action, it was the most severe form of disruption within the context of the project, within the context of the person who had to be disrupted. So if maximum disruption meant that we would have to destroy the building, then that is how I regarded maximum disruption. I served within a State dispensation within a Defence Force set-up, where my primary function was to carry out orders and that is what I did. MR BIZOS Mr Botha, I didn't ask you about a double-talk of the CCB and its articulated policy in slogans, I asked you a simple question. If you were asked to arm a bomb in order to kill a group of nursery school children, would you have done it without any exercising any sort of discretion? MR BOTHA I cannot see that such an instruction would have been given, but the point of the matter is that if an instruction was given to me which had been approved on the level that I believed it would be approved on, I had no other choice but to carry out the instruction. MR BIZOS Please answer the question in relation to the specific facts that I put to you, because I want to establish whether you as an individual thought that you had to exercise a discretion in relation to the crimes that you were committing. Yes, or no. Would you have armed the bomb in order to kill a group of nursery school children? MR BOTHA That is too hypothetical, it didn't happen and I'm not going to commit myself to that. I'm not prepared to answer yes or no. MR BIZOS But we want to test how you viewed your position. You say that if an order was given you had to act, we are trying to test from you by taking it to its extreme limits, whether you had a discretion or not. If you don't want to answer the question, say so, please do not try to waylay me by double CCB talk. MR BOTHA It's not double CCB talk. I am just telling you my experience of it. MR LAX Can I just interpose for one second. Mr Botha, really, the question's a very simple one, did you apply discretion or didn't you? Did you simply follow orders or did you have any discretion in the matter? Yes or no. MR BOTHA Mr Lax, I carried out my instructions, that is what I did. MR LAX And therefore in the context of Mr Bizos' question - and you've already answered it in relation to this particular incident, if the instruction had been to kill those people, you would have done so. MR BOTHA That's correct. I have stated this previously. MR LAX You didn't question that? Or did you? MR BOTHA I didn't question it because it was never said to me, I was simply told that the bomb had to be detonated. At a later stage during our journey to Cape Town, I was told what the purpose of the bomb was and I continued. And I must emphasise again that it wasn't my project, so I didn't know more than what was said to me. CHAIRPERSON Mr Bizos. MR BIZOS In your amnesty application you say in paragraph 1.3, that everything contained in Mr van Zyl's affidavit is true and correct and that you associate yourself in particular to Van Zyl's version on the Early Learning Centre. MR BOTHA Yes, I see that. MR BIZOS The reference Mr Chairman, is pages 33 to 34 of bundle A ...(indistinct) paragraphs on page - page 11, paragraph 1.3 and the reference to Van Zyl are contained on pages 33 to 43 of Van Zyl's affidavit, which I believe are contained on page 107 to 114, according to my note, of bundle A. Now do you adhere to that to this day? MR BOTHA I would just have to read the content, it is a statement which was undersigned a number of years ago by me. I see what you have referred to. MR BIZOS Yes, you made a statement under oath in paragraph 1.3, do you stick to it or do you want to amend it, qualify it, correct it, dispute it? What do you want to do about it? MR BOTHA I signed the statement as such. I would have to study the document for its content once again, there are many documents that I have signed including this one. I see what you have referred to, is there anything specific that you would like to ask me about? MR BIZOS You also say in your ... on page A11, paragraph 2, that your evidence at the Harms Commission was truthful, do you want to stand by that? MR BOTHA By nature of the situation there were certain things that I did not state before the Harms Commission, so there are matters regarding which I did not testify completely open-heartedly before the Harms Commission. CHAIRPERSON But those matters that you did testify to, were they truthful? MR BOTHA I cannot recall my evidence before the Harms Commission. I know that at the time of the evidence before the Harms Commission we were instructed not to speak about certain things and to speak about other things. So I'm not entirely familiar with the content of my evidence before the Harms Commission. MR BIZOS ...(indistinct) old-fashioned fundamentals. You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, to Judge Harms. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR BIZOS Did you or didn't you? MR BOTHA As I have stated, I cannot recall what was said. I also undersigned a Section 29 statement, so I cannot tell you with one hundred percent certainty that I said everything before the Harms Commission as I was supposed to. I stated my evidence according to my instructions from the higher levels of the hierarchy. MR BIZOS When did you become uncertain as to whether you told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the Harms Commission? MR BOTHA What I am saying to you is if I could have the opportunity to study my Harms Commission evidence, I might be able to answer your question with greater clarity. I'm not certain whether I spoke the truth about everything. MR BIZOS But did you in your application for amnesty before this Committee, if you had those doubts about your evidence, why did you say that you gave evidence honestly before the Harms Commission? Why didn't you have those reservations then and only now when you know that you may be opposed to not having told the truth? MR BOTHA Mr Bizos, that's not what I'm saying. I have various statements before me, I would just like the opportunity to reacquaint myself with the content of my evidence, then I will be able to answer your question. MR BIZOS At the time that you took an oath in your application for amnesty you said that you gave honest and truthful evidence before the Commission, why did you not have your present doubts about whether you had done so before the Harms Commission? Why didn't you express them then and why do you express them now? MR BOTHA I'm trying to tell you if I stated that then I stated it. I'm just asking you because I'm in front of you and a Commission today, I'm asking for the opportunity to re-examine my evidence before the Harms Commission, so I can give you a more comprehensive answer. MR BIZOS But I'd like an honest answer to the question that I have already asked before I accept your invitation. Why did you not have these reservations about whether or not you told the truth to the Commission at the time that you said that you did honestly tell the truth to the Commission? Why didn't you have those reservations at that time? Please answer that question. MR BOTHA I am before the Commission to tell the whole truth, that is why I am asking you to allow me the opportunity to reacquaint myself with the full truth. MR BIZOS Well I can't do more than ask you the same question three or four times, we will proceed without you having answered that question effectively. Now did you tell the Commission that you were not aware of any project involving the elimination of Adv Omar and moreover, that you were not aware of any project at all where assassination was contemplated? Did you say that? MR BOTHA Contemplated on Mr Omar? MR BIZOS I beg your pardon? MR BOTHA Are you saying contemplated in general, or contemplated with regard to Mr Omar? MR BIZOS Well Omar and generally. MR BOTHA Definitely not Mr Omar and regarding Webster, I have already testified before the Commission. MR BIZOS Just let me repeat. "He told the Commission that he were not aware of any project involving the elimination of Omar", did you say that? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR BIZOS Was that the truth that you were not aware of it? MR BOTHA That is the truth. MR BIZOS You didn't know anything about it as a result of reports made to you by Ferdi Barnard? MR BOTHA Mr Barnard never told me that he was supposed to kill Mr Omar. MR BIZOS He never said that to you? MR BOTHA No. MR BIZOS When did you learn that for the first time? MR BOTHA Throughout 11 years things were spoken of and things were said, I didn't know what the scope of Mr van Zyl's projects was. MR BIZOS And did you say that you were not aware of any project at all where an assassination was contemplated? MR BOTHA When, Mr Bizos, when did I say this? MR BIZOS When you gave evidence before the Commission, at pages G2134 to 5. MR BOTHA Before the Harms Commission? MR BIZOS Yes. MR BOTHA I stated that. MR BIZOS I'm sorry, it's F and not G, Mr Chairman. Now you've already told us you were deliberately untruthful to Judge Harms, first of all because of the Webster killing. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR BIZOS And what about all this so-called monitoring, what was the purpose of all the monitoring that you did? MR BOTHA I have said before that the purpose of the monitoring is first of all to get additional information with the plan to launch a project. MR BIZOS There has been evidence from Mr Verster and others that the CCB was not an intelligence gathering organisation, it was to execute the orders given in relation to the harm to individuals and property. Do you agree or disagree with that evidence? MR BOTHA I agree to an extent. In the second part of my answer I will say to you that with the planning of a project means that you cannot launch it if you have limited information, the monitoring could lead to a future project. MR BIZOS Now is it not correct that such monitoring that may have been done was in order to determine how to kill or disrupt people? MR BOTHA It is so to an extent, but you have to add "if", "how or if" somebody must be killed or damage be done. MR BIZOS Yes but you see if you were monitoring someone as to how best to kill him, if somebody decided to kill him, is really helping in the commission of a crime for the purposes of killing him. MR BOTHA Sir, that is why I'm saying it to you now it is the pre-study, the run-up to a potential project. If, hypothetically, I monitor Bruce White and he turned and he's a firm believer now of the National Party, hypothetically I will not continue with the project. If I can see that he is what we think he is and I get a profile and I make a presentation or a submission and on the basis of my idea of this person a project will follow. MR BIZOS A short while ago I asked you whether you were aware of any plans to kill Adv Omar and I asked you whether Mr Ferdi Barnard had ever told you about it, do you remember what your answer was? That: "It's 11 years ago, I don't remember when someone may or may not have. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR BIZOS When you were giving evidence before the Harms Commission did you know that attempts had to been made to kill Adv Omar? MR BOTHA I was personally involved with it, but they could possibly have said at that stage that there was a project for the elimination of Mr Omar. MR BIZOS Leave out the word "moontlik", I told you that it doesn't cut any ice here, because that doesn't mean anything. When something is "moontlik" it's not evidence. You cannot avoid my questions by that manner. When you were giving evidence before the Harms Commission, were you aware that there were steps that had been taken to kill Omar, or not? MR BOTHA Will "miskien" suit you better? "Miskien", that suit you better than "moontlik"? MR BIZOS No Sir, answer the question. Did you know at the time that you gave evidence at the Harms Commission that plans had been set afoot in order to kill Omar, yes or no? "Maybe" is not an answer in this situation, because you either had knowledge or you did not have knowledge, it's not something that is outside your own experience. Please answer the question. MR BOTHA I heard that Mr van Zyl had a project going with specific reference to Adv Omar. What the project entailed I was not quite sure about. MR BIZOS Were you asked at the Harms Commission whether you knew of any plan to kill Adv Omar? MR BOTHA I cannot recall. MR BIZOS Well if I assure you that at page 2134 you were asked by Mr Luitingh(?) "Up until the beginning of the end of last year you were brought under the impression that there was also a project with regard to the elimination of Omar" and the answer was: "No." Do you recall that? MR BOTHA If it is stated here, yes. You will also see at the top of the page "You were told about the Omar project." "The last time I heard that there was a project. What the nature of the project was I cannot say." MR BIZOS Very well, take that as well because it doesn't make any difference for the ... You did say those things, the record is correct about this? MR BOTHA That's correct. MR BIZOS Would you please contrast that with page 6 of bundle A, the third paragraph. Please read it out. CHAIRPERSON Page 6, bundle A - may page 6 ... MR BIZOS Bundle B ...(indistinct - no microphone) CHAIRPERSON Bundle B, page 6, third paragraph. MR BIZOS Just read it out aloud please. MR BOTHA "Nick then gave Van Zyl a bottle with pills. This pill was intended for Omar, an attorney in Cape Town. Peaches, an informer of Van Zyl had to smuggle this to Omar in order to give him a heart attack. I did not know much about this. At a later stage I heard from Ferdi that he was approached by Van Zyl in order to get information on Omar." CHAIRPERSON I think just on the interpretation, "to kill him, to assassinate him". INTERPRETER The Interpreter apologises. MR LAX Well just read further on, carry on reading. MR BOTHA "Van Zyl then continued with his leave" MR LAX Oh sorry, that's ... MR BIZOS Now do you agree that that evidence in your, or that statement is in direct conflict with what you told the Commission? CHAIRPERSON When you're talking of Commission, you're talking of Harms? MR BIZOS Harms. CHAIRPERSON Yes, I think if you could just mention the name Harms, because sometimes we'll get confused with what's said here and there. MR BIZOS Do you agree that page 6 of bundle B, paragraph 3 is in direct conflict to what is contained at page 2134 of the Harms Commission, yes or no? MR BOTHA Sir, that is why I told you at a previous opportunity ...(intervention) MR BIZOS No, start off by answering the question directly, yes or no? MR BOTHA Mr Bizos, I once again do not want to enter into an argument with you, I cannot answer it on a yes or no, I will answer it in the way in which I can. MR BIZOS Try to do it your way. MR BOTHA This is my style, this is the way in which I answer questions, that is why I told you I was under Section 29 detention, there was confusion concerning the Harms Commission. You heard evidence in this regard. It was over a period of 11 years that certain things - and I have to state this for the record, that certain things I wanted to forget and certain things that I could not forget, that is why I take the opportunity to sit in front of this Commission to make a full disclosure and to give you the answers to your questions. What is stated here is true, I cannot deny it or dispute it, but I can also say that I made this to give as much as possible to the investigative team and also to give them as little as possible. So in front of the Harms Commission, I want you to see that in the light of the circumstances under which I made this statement. I can see the discrepancies concerning my evidence in front of the Harms Commission, and as you pointed out, I did say in front of the Harms Commission that at a later stage I became aware of a project. Once again it was not my project, I did not do research on this project ... was Omar supposed to fall ill because of the pill or was he supposed to be killed using this tablet or pill? That is why I'm not applying for amnesty for the Omar incident, because it was not my project. All these questions, and this is my submission, you had to ask of Van Zyl. I cannot answer for him. I cannot see the relevance of it. MR BIZOS May I remind you that the substance of your answer in relation to a passage of time is completely irrelevant to these two documents. You signed the document in December 1989 ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON 1990. MR BIZOS 1989, the statement. CHAIRPERSON '89, sorry, thank you. MR BIZOS You were giving evidence in 1990 and your state of mind couldn't possibly have suffered by the passage of so little a period of time about such a dramatic event as to whether or not Adv Omar was going to be killed or not, or whether you had knowledge that Adv Omar was going to be killed or not. MR BOTHA I will highlight two factors, the one was uncertainty, the second one was fear. Together with that there were elements within our structure and also from the higher hierarchy who worked emotionally on the conscious members in a cell in Region 6, and based on those influences I made certain statements, right or wrong. MR LAX May I just interpose, Mr Bizos, may I just ask something? MR BIZOS Yes, certainly. MR LAX You've said it again now and you've said it earlier and I was going to ask you about it but the flow of the questioning moved on, so I was going to reserve it for later, but you said it again now, something about instructions from higher levels at the time of Harms. MR BOTHA That is correct, yes. At that stage there was uncertainty in our cell and I'm going to use a word that is used a lot, will there be backing from the Generals in Staff, will there be backing from the politicians, will the State President distance himself from us? And because of these factors there was a lot of confusion, there was confusion in our cell about what we had to say, what we didn't or must not say. And that was the situation that was at the order of the day. MR LAX Yes, that's a state of confusion, I want to know what your instructions were from the higher levels. MR BOTHA As far as I can recall we had to talk about things that were known within certain guidelines. MR LAX Does that mean you had to withhold the truth as long as you thought it wasn't known? MR BOTHA I accepted that is what was said. MR LAX And who were the higher levels, individuals that spoke to you? MR BOTHA That was the message that came through and I assume it came from Verster to our Co-ordinator to our Regional Manager. That's the impression that I had. MR LAX Yes, but the question is, who told you that this was the instruction? MR BOTHA Sir, it had to come right through from the Generals to Verster, because Verster was - there was an argument between Verster and the Generals and that is the assumption that was made. MR LAX No, you're not answering my question. MR BOTHA I can't mention a specific person, Sir. MR LAX No I'm saying, who told you this? Somebody must have sat you down in a meeting or in a group and said: "Look guys, this is the instruction from above." I'm not asking you to assume that ...(intervention) MR BOTHA I accept it was Mr Burger. MR LAX Thank you. Sorry Mr Bizos, please continue. MR BIZOS Wouldn't the simple answer to my questions have been that: "We in the CCB decided not to disclose to the Harms Commission that there were any killings within the borders of South Africa, nor any conspiracies or attempts to kill within the borders of South Africa"? Isn't that what the decision was and weren't you carrying out that instruction deliberately before Harms? MR BOTHA That specific instruction was not given to me. My involvement in the Webster incident, I worked independently or I decided independently with Mr Barnard not to talk about it. They never told me not to talk about other potential murders, because I never had such a project. I never had a project where there would be the loss of life or the result would have been the loss of life. MR BIZOS Do you agree that if the proposition that I put to you is correct, that there was such a decision, it would cover the contradiction between your Section 29 statement and your evidence before the Commission? MR BOTHA You can read it like that, yes. It is not how I saw it though. MR LAX Sorry, are you saying you didn't know at that stage of any project that involved the killing of someone internally? MR BOTHA Except for the project that Mr Verster approved, this is the project of Mr Barnard where we decided we will not talk about it. Concerning Adv Omar, my memory is a bit vague concerning that. I know that there was a project and I spoke within the framework of what I knew at that stage, I did not think it was my place to talk about another individual's project. MR LAX You see my difficulty with your answer is this, at the time you testified at Harms you'd already made that statement, that Section 29 statement. MR BOTHA That is correct, but I also told the Commission yesterday what my view was concerning the Section 29 meeting. MR LAX Yes, but regardless of your mental condition and the affects of being incarcerated, the fact is that you told them the truth in that statement with regard to the pills and all that stuff and it's explicitly said in there that you knew that Omar was to be eliminated. So if that is the case, how could you say that when you testified before Harms, you didn't know of any plan to kill anybody other than Webster? Do you see the problem? MR BOTHA I do. As you've said I knew, I could not have known one hundred percent because I was never involved in the pre-study or the approval with regard to the project. CHAIRPERSON Because in that statement at page 4 you say "He further told me that Peaches was tasked to shoot Omar" So now we know that you weren't part of the project, but I mean if your colleagues start talking, was there any reason to - you obviously had no reason to doubt that, otherwise you wouldn't have put it in the statement. MR BOTHA I beg your pardon, Mr Chairperson, are you talking about page 6 or 4? CHAIRPERSON Page 4 and it's just the one line paragraph, fourth from the bottom. "He further told me that Peaches was tasked to shoot Omar" and then you carry on after that and you talk about the heart attack pills, on page 6. MR BOTHA This is what Ferdi told me, Mr Chairperson. It was not his project, so I could not say with certainty that this is how it was. CHAIRPERSON Well I mean I can understand that because you weren't there. I also can't say many things for certainty because I didn't see them personally, but I accept them because I've been told that they've happened. You know if I come home from my work and my wife tells me what she did, I accept that, I don't have to say "Well I'm not certain that she did that." There's certain things that people tell you that you accept, specially if you're going to repeat them in a statement. MR BOTHA I understand what you're saying. CHAIRPERSON I mean you can't say you didn't - obviously we all know you can't say for certainty about what other people did if you weren't there, but then why repeat what they tell you in a statement if you're not satisfied that that was the situation? MR BOTHA That was the state of mind in which I was when I made this statement. MR LAX You see it wasn't just any old person that told you this, it was your close friend who told you this. MR BOTHA I accept it so, yes. MR LAX And you would generally accept what he told you to generally be the truth, he wasn't going to lie to you. MR BOTHA I hear what you're saying. MR BIZOS Thank you Mr Chairman, for that reference. But even more startling is at the end of that paragraph 3 on page 6 you say: "An offer was made by Van Zyl to Ferdi for R50 000 to kill Omar." Now where did you get that information? MR BOTHA It was mentioned at a stage, I cannot say exactly when. MR BIZOS From whom did you get that information? MR BOTHA It was very obvious that it came from Mr Barnard. MR BIZOS And nothing could have been clearer, that there was a plan to kill internally, wasn't there? MR BOTHA Somewhere in another statement I also stated that Mr Barnard said that he was not quite sure if Mr van Zyl was serious or not. MR BIZOS Now in relation to the Early Learning Centre you did mention it in your statement under Section 29, did you speak about it before the Commission, the Harms Commission? MR BOTHA About what, Sir? MR BIZOS About your role in the Early Learning Centre bomb incident. MR BOTHA I presume I did, I'm not hundred percent clear on that. I'm sure I did. MR BIZOS You're sure you did? MR BOTHA In all probability, yes. MR BIZOS You didn't have any problem about speaking about it? MR BOTHA Can I look at my statement? MR BIZOS Yes, well ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON I think that Mr Bizos is talking about the evidence given at the Harms Commission. MR BOTHA Yes. MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone. MR LAX Sorry, your microphone Mr Bizos. MR BIZOS ...(inaudible) any difficulty? MR BOTHA Not that I'm aware of, Mr Bizos. MR BIZOS Not that you're aware of. MR BOTHA No. MR BIZOS Was there a statement sanitised - you know what I mean by that, made more favourable by your legal advisers at the time to put into the Harms Commission's record and not the one that appears in bundle B of the 29th - of 12th of December '89? Was there another statement? MR BOTHA Not that I'm aware of, I'm not sure Sir. MR BIZOS You're not sure. MR BOTHA No. MR BIZOS Did anyone advise you to claim privilege in relation to the Early Learning Centre before the Harms Commission? MR BOTHA There were a few cases where we had to plead, I'm not sure if this was one of them. MR BIZOS Was that advice given to you? MR BOTHA Sir, it was the acceptable norm that where the result would be self-incrimination we had to plead. MR BIZOS But by that stage when you came to give evidence, didn't you know that Van Zyl had spoken about it? MR BOTHA I possibly knew, yes. MR BIZOS Did you claim privilege in relation to Rosscam's car? MR BOTHA I think I did. MR BIZOS And was that on advice? MR BOTHA I accept it was. MR BIZOS Now do you agree that the person that was supposed to burn the car, burn out the car, didn't exist? MR BOTHA No, I will not admit that. MR BIZOS Well if he did exist he wasn't used for the purposes of burning the car. MR BOTHA That I would agree on. He did exist. MR BIZOS But nevertheless you and who else shared the sum of money and held out to your superiors that the money was given to this person? MR BOTHA Me and Mr Barnard more specifically, yes. MR BIZOS I thought that you were doing these things for the love of the fatherland and country. MR BOTHA That is precisely the way it was. MR BIZOS Including the misappropriation of your country's funds? MR BOTHA MR BIZOS Some people have to work for a year to earn that. MR BOTHA Those persons didn't place themselves in a position where they had to burn out a vehicle for the purposes of the organisation's objectives. MR BIZOS So patriotism is a relative thing, it can be betrayed for a small sum of money. MR BOTHA No, it was part of it. I could not not have put a claim in, then it would have been clear that Geoffrey had not burnt out the car, so I had to follow through with the entire progress and claim money for the Coloured man by the name of Geoffrey. MR BIZOS Now in your application for amnesty you refer to Van Zyl's affidavit. CHAIRPERSON Paragraph 1.3 as far as I can recall. MR BIZOS Did you read that affidavit carefully before you incorporated it into your statement as the truth? CHAIRPERSON Page 11. MR BOTHA I did read it possibly, I don't know how carefully but I did read it. MR BIZOS Now do you agree that there are contradictions between your evidence, your statements and the statements of Van Zyl and the evidence of Van Zyl? MR BOTHA Regarding my Section 29 statement and his statement? MR BIZOS Yes, and also in relation to the evidence. MR BOTHA With regard to my Section 29 statement and his statement, yes. MR BIZOS Why did you unreservedly confirm the correctness of Van Zyl's affidavit when you knew that there were differences between you? MR BOTHA Those were the differences, as I stated, were in my Section 29 statement, which I accept as having been incorrect. MR BIZOS Now we will argue about those differences, that they are material differences and that the reason for these differences is that statements were made originally at a time when the one did not know what the other one had said. MR BOTHA Once again I will tell you briefly, perhaps I haven't made my point clear, the fact of the matter is that I simply went along to detonate the bomb. Everything that you have said is possible and all other matters related to that possibility, but my primary purposes was to assist Mr van Zyl, due to my expertise regarding explosives and more specifically the SPM limpet mine. MR BIZOS Well let's deal with a number of the issues from you. Were you or were you not in the car when the bomb was activated? MR BOTHA I was in the car. MR BIZOS Insofar as anyone may have said that you were not in the car at that time was untrue? MR BOTHA You have asked me and I said I was in the car. MR BIZOS Did you press the button or did someone else press the button? MR BOTHA I pressed the button. MR BIZOS If anyone says that someone else pressed the button, that evidence isn't correct. MR BOTHA Once again, I have told you I pressed the button. MR BIZOS Did anyone try to press the button before you did? MR BOTHA Yes. MR BIZOS Who? MR BOTHA Mr Abram van Zyl. MR BIZOS And before Mr van Zyl, did anyone attempt to let the bomb go off? MR BOTHA No, Sir. MR BIZOS Did you change the batteries? MR BOTHA No, Sir. MR BIZOS If anyone says that the batteries were changed and that was the reason why there was this delay in letting the bomb off, will that evidence be correct or incorrect? MR BOTHA My response is that I did not exchange the batteries. CHAIRPERSON Were the batteries changed? MR BOTHA Not as far as I know. MR BIZOS Was there anything wrong with the remote? MR BOTHA The remote stalled in detonating the bomb, I examined it, there were various possible factors, such as the safety or a contact point which didn't make the connection. It took me a number of seconds to examine the device and then I activated it. MR BIZOS Was there any plan at any stage that Hardien would press the button in your and Van Zyl's absence? MR BOTHA I think that was part of the pre-study. I think it was part of the initial plan. MR BIZOS Were you and Van Zyl dropped away from the vicinity of the centre shortly before the button was triggered? MR BOTHA No. MR BIZOS If anyone says that was so, would that be untrue? MR BOTHA My answer is no. MR BIZOS You're not prepared to comment on why this conflicting evidence was given, conflicting between you and Hardien, Hardien and Van Zyl and you and Van Zyl? MR BOTHA You asked me a question and I gave you an answer. MR MARTINI Chairperson, I've missed all that, something went wrong with ... CHAIRPERSON How long have you been ... MR MARTINI Just now, the last issue about ...(no microphone) CHAIRPERSON Mr Bizos, would you mind just repeating. I think just go back to about where you were asking about the contradictions in the evidence, if you could just repeat that for us please. MR BIZOS Are you able to explain why in such a simple transaction as pressing the button for a bomb to go off, there would be contradictions between you and Hardien, Hardien and Van Zyl, you and Van Zyl? Can you explain why those contradictions may have come about? MR BOTHA I have given you my version which I accept as the correct version. MR BIZOS Did you yourself ever say that you and Van Zyl were dropped off some distance away from the centre? MR BOTHA I did say that at a certain stage. MR BIZOS Now what was the purpose of that untruth? If your present evidence is correct. MR BOTHA I will once again refer you to my Section 29 statement and everything that went along with that. I do not see the necessity to elaborate on this yet again, I've explained the reason to you at the time of deposing my Section 29 statement. MR BIZOS Was there any discussion with you that it was a Coloured woman that was going to place the bomb in the hall? MR BOTHA I suspect that I also stated it as such in my Section 29 statement. MR BIZOS But what is the purpose of that untruth? Am I to understand that there was no such discussion? MR BOTHA It is a possible inference that I drew due to a discussion that I heard between Van Zyl and Hardien and everything that went along with that. As I've said, I cannot say for certainty where it comes from. CHAIRPERSON Sorry, Mr Bizos. Just to get back to that last one about being dropped off, you're saying you were definitely not dropped off. MR BOTHA Yes. CHAIRPERSON You stayed in the vehicle the whole time. MR BOTHA Yes. CHAIRPERSON For what possible purpose? If you want to make up facts to mislead the investigator or whatever, what can you achieve by saying that you got out of the car? Nothing turned around whether you were in the car the whole time or if you got out of for a short while, so why should it even come into your mind at all to say it, if it's such an insignificant little detail that has no consequence at all? MR BOTHA Chairperson, my only answer is merely because I was completely uncertain of what to say during my Section 29 statement, because I didn't know what, where, how, what I was supposed to say. It was my only motivation at that point. MR BIZOS The passage about being left some distance behind, the sixth paragraph on page 5 of B, Mr Chairman. Now was the mechanism, the calculator ever handed to Hardien? MR BOTHA No. MR BIZOS Did anyone - did you hear anyone say that it was? MR BOTHA No, except that I think I stated it in my 29. MR BIZOS You actually said so under oath? MR BOTHA In my 29, most probably yes. MR BIZOS What was the purpose of that? MR BOTHA I explained to you yesterday how I would investigate a matter as a detective and I wanted to distance myself from the scene in as far as it was possible. MR BIZOS So this was not - far from this being said as a result of any confusion or any pressure, it was for the purposes of exculpating yourself? MR BOTHA Amongst others, Sir. I told you there was numerous reasons for me acting the way I did. MR BIZOS Let's deal with this one, the specific reason for this one, that you were well enough to - I can think only of the Afrikaans, of the investigating officers "om die bos to lei". MR BOTHA I made my entire statement to mislead them. MR BIZOS I see. Have you got any yardstick by which the Committee can measure when you are telling the truth and when you are lying? MR BOTHA All I have to offer you is my integrity which I have tried to illustrate to you in conjunction with the fact that I'm here to speak the truth, as well as the fact that I have no need to mislead the Committee, and simultaneously, there would be no sense to it. MR BIZOS Are you a religious man, Mr Botha? MR BOTHA I beg your pardon? MR BIZOS Are you a religious man? MR BOTHA Yes, I am. MR BIZOS We've heard that you offered a prayer before this bomb was exploded. MR BOTHA I will explain my Christianity to you briefly. I am a Christian in the true sense of the word, I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and the eternal life which is attached to that. Since I can remember, since childhood I would practise religion every evening of my life and everyone who knows me would be able to tell you this unequivocally, including Mr Burger, Mr Barnard and Mr van Zyl. And whenever there was a function people would make use of me to lead them in prayer during such a function, being the opening of a place or a birthday function or whatever the case may be. Mr van Zyl and I practised religion that evening, not specifically for the purposes of detonating the bomb, it was a regular ritual that we practised. I happened to be in the same place with him at that time and we held our religion together. MR BIZOS He said that you prayed for the success of your project. MR BOTHA We asked for the Lord's will to preside. MR BIZOS Well perhaps the Lord's will was that the bomb ...(inaudible) INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone. MR BOTHA Well the mere fact that it went off shows to me that it was the will of God. That is my interpretation of it. MR BIZOS And you were doing God's work on this night. MR BOTHA Sir, I was part of a dispensation where God offered me the opportunity, it was not for me to question whether it was his will or not. The bomb went off. I asked for his will to be done and the bomb went off. MR BIZOS Do you remember the Lord when you raise your hand and say to speak the whole truth and you lie? MR BOTHA I remember doing that and speaking the truth. MR BIZOS Well, I'll leave it at that. MR BOTHA Thank you. MR BIZOS You tell us that your affidavit that was placed before the Commission is annexed, we haven't been able to find it anywhere, do you know or perhaps our learned friend knows what affidavit is referred to. MR VAN ECK Mr Chairman, if I can come in on this one here. We took over this matter from, I think the beginning of last year and since we noticed that we've endeavoured to get hold of that statement. I've approached Ms Coleridge a few times to see if we can't get hold of it, we've been to the Harms Commission to try to get hold of it, unfortunately up to now we were not able to trace it at all. I can't say what happened to it. We have tried everything that's possible to get it but unfortunately we couldn't get hold of it. MR BIZOS Very well Mr Chairman, I accept that and will try and proceed on the basis thereof. MS COLERIDGE I also just want to confirm from the Commission's side, Chairperson, we were never in possession of that statement. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. It seems that it's unfortunately not available. MR BIZOS Why was your presence as a bomb expert needed merely to press the button? MR BOTHA Sir, my presence as I interpreted it, was to bring the limpet mine into its final stage of preparation for detonation. MR BIZOS Did you hear what Mr Barnard said about this matter? That you were really surprised that you were asked to take part in this, because you could teach a chimpanzee in 10 minutes how to do it. MR BOTHA I heard his evidence, yes. MR BIZOS What do you say, was he telling the truth or not? MR BOTHA I don't believe I would have used those precise words ...(intervention) MR BIZOS Well leaving aside the colourful language that Mr Barnard uses, did you use words to that effect? MR BOTHA Not that I can recall. MR BIZOS Can you explain why Mr Barnard may have wanted to say what he said, if you had not uttered words to that effect? MR BOTHA Perhaps I used other words. I cannot think that Mr Barnard would recall my precise choice of words. MR BIZOS Well do you concede that you used words to that effect? MR BOTHA I have told you upon a previous occasion that the contrary is also true, that I was actually relieved to return to the system no matter what the method. MR BIZOS On page 5 of your statement, of the bundle - sorry, B, you say "Later that week we gathered at a hotel. There I heard that the R100 000 had been approved for this project." Did you say that? MR BOTHA This in my statement here, however it is false. MR BIZOS Why did you sign it, for what purpose was this falsehood put in there? MR BOTHA Once again I will have to tell you the state of mind that I was in meant that I didn't reason rationally. I considered a number of options at that stage and perhaps I coloured it as such in order to oblige the organisation to become involved, to give this whole matter unnecessary colour or unnecessary meat. I cannot say any more than that. They same aspect pertains to this part of my statement, it is false. MR BIZOS Were you visited by a Magistrate? MR BOTHA I beg your pardon? MR BIZOS Were you visited by a Magistrate when you were detained? MR BOTHA No. MR BIZOS Are you sure? MR BOTHA I was not. MR BIZOS You've got to be careful about being sure about that. Were you visited by a doctor? MR BOTHA I was. MR BIZOS Did you complain to the doctor that you were disorientated and you didn't know what you were talking about? MR BOTHA I lost 12 kilograms in 25 days, so I think it's fairly obvious. MR BIZOS Yes, it may be that "I lost weight", but I ask you, did you tell the doctor that you were disorientated and that you didn't know what you were talking about? MR BOTHA I did not state it in such specific words possibly, but from his examination a doctor could clearly see that I wasn't myself. MR BIZOS Alright. Leaving aside this R100 000, let's try and determine what the price of a human life was for the CCB. You only got R5 000 for helping Barnard to kill Webster. MR BOTHA Correct. MR BIZOS He only got R10 000 for killing him, that's correct? CHAIRPERSON I think just to be fair Mr Bizos, there was a salary as well. This was a performance bonus I think. MR BIZOS Yes. Over and above your salaries. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR BIZOS This was the bonus. Now we know that Peaches had a salary, we don't know for certain whether Hardien had a salary, but let us assume that he didn't, we have heard that he was promised R30 000 for placing that bomb. Are you in a position to dispute that? MR BOTHA I didn't promise it to him. MR BIZOS No, no, you were part of an organisation. We have heard that R30 000 - would you accept that there is evidence that he was promised R30 000? MR BOTHA I heard from the evidence here that that was the amount. MR BIZOS And we also know that he was actually short-changed by R12 000. Now we don't know the purpose of the reduction, it may be because the bomb didn't succeed in its purpose, but even at the R18 000, why should some unemployed person who is described as a gangster, be paid R18 000 for merely placing a bomb to frighten people? And others, including Peaches, including Barnard, including others, should be called upon to kill people for less? Can you explain that at all? MR BOTHA I cannot. MR BIZOS Is it possible that the R12 000 was deducted and used for another purpose or purposes, because the main objective of the bomb did not materialise? MR BOTHA I cannot say that. MR BIZOS If you knew what the average rate for a murder was, why did you choose to speak about R100 000 in your statement? MR BOTHA How should I know what the average amount for a murder would be? MR BIZOS From your experience. MR BOTHA The 15 is not necessarily an average amount. If you want to refer to Dr Webster. MR BIZOS No, we know of a R5 000, we know of R10 000, we know R15 000 for Peaches, we know what was promised in relation to Gavin Evans ... CHAIRPERSON I think even if you didn't know those other amounts, but at the time that you did the statement you knew that Mr Barnard got R15 000 for the assassination of Dr Webster. MR BOTHA Yes, Sir. CHAIRPERSON Which was a high-profile operation. The question asked by Mr Bizos is if you knew that R15 000 would be paid for an assassination of that nature, why would you mention the amount of R100 000 in your statement? Because obviously you must have known that R100 000 is a lot higher than the amount paid for the Webster operation. MR BOTHA I wish I could give you an answer to that, but I cannot recall my reasoning at the time of it. I must apologise for that, but I cannot tell you. CHAIRPERSON Yes, that R100 000 of course, the way it's contained in your statement, R100 000 was approved for the whole project. It doesn't necessarily mean the fee to kill a person, it would have included disbursements, travelling expenses, hotels, etcetera. MR BIZOS You in answer to Mr Lax, spoke about indemnity that would be given to you for all your actions because they would be considered legal. Is that - have we understood you correctly? MR BOTHA That is approximately what I said, yes. MR BIZOS Well, I'm going to put to you that you couldn't have believed that, and eventually the evidence of Mr Verster and Mr Burger was that no such promise of indemnity was made, promises were made that you would try and defeat the ends of justice, but not that you would get indemnity. I know they didn't use the expression "defeat the ends of justice", but that is what it amounts to. MR BOTHA I believed unconditionally that I would not be prosecuted. How ever they would orchestrate and execute it was not important to me. The fact of the matter was that I was not supposed to be prosecuted. MR BIZOS Tell me, did you ever yourself receive an order, either directly or indirectly down the line, from the Head of the Army, the Minister of Defence, to provide true evidence to the Harms Commission? MR BOTHA Not individually. In the media, if I recall correctly, it was stated by among others, the State President that there should be honest evidence during these proceedings. MR BIZOS Well did you discuss this with - you know a newspaper report may not have the authority of one of your leaders in the organisation, did you ask whether the State President and the Minister of Defence had ordered that you should provide true evidence to the Harms Commission? MR BOTHA With the discussions that took place, these were in our structure, I heard from the discussions which took place what the evidence would be and I abided by that. MR BIZOS Did you ever get any orders to the contrary, that you must mislead the Commission? MR BOTHA Once again, there was a complex situation between Mr Verster, the Generals in Staff, the Minister of Defence, the State President, with regard to our existence and discussions were led regarding the matter. What the nature and scope of the discussions were, I cannot tell you ...(intervention) MR BIZOS Sir, it was a simple question. MR BOTHA But I cannot give you any other answer, I cannot recall. MR BIZOS Did you receive any order to mislead the Commission? MR BOTHA I cannot recall it that specifically. CHAIRPERSON If not order, any request, any suggestion. MR BOTHA What I can tell you is that discussions took place there and I cannot recall one hundred percent of the details and I will have to stand by that. MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) correctly you said this morning that there was at least a serious suggestion if not an order, that you should mislead the Commission. MR BOTHA I did not use the word "mislead". MR BIZOS No, I know, but the effect of that. MR BOTHA That is debatable, the word "effect" is debatable. ...(end of side B of tape ... no continuation for Mr Lax's question) MR BOTHA Yes, Sir. MR LAX And then you decided to abide by that version. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR LAX So you guys actually got together and worked out a version based on what you knew would be told to the Harms Commission, and you all stuck to that version. MR BOTHA In all probability, yes Sir, that is what could have happened. MR LAX And you knew full well that that version did not incorporate the full truth. MR BOTHA I wouldn't say the full truth, most probably not as elaborate, but ... MR LAX No, let's not play games here, it's not about ...(intervention) MR BOTHA No, Mr Lax, I cannot say. MR LAX No, no. You see you've already told me this, you've already told me that you left out certain facts. MR BOTHA That is why I'm saying to you no, it was not that elaborate. MR LAX So if you left out facts, then it wasn't the full truth. MR BOTHA It may not have been the full truth, but a part of the truth. MR LAX Well it figures, part of the truth is not the full truth. MR BOTHA I accept it so. CHAIRPERSON Sorry, after you detention did you have any contact at all with Gen Krappies Engelbrecht? MR BOTHA Not as far as I can recall, I do not think so. No, I did not. CHAIRPERSON Mr Bizos. MR BIZOS You see in your application for amnesty we can understand that you being confused while under Section 29, in paragraph 7 in your application for amnesty, on page 15 of bundle A - please read it out. CHAIRPERSON Right at the bottom of page 15, the last line, bundle A. MR BOTHA "I would like to indicate that I saw the higher command of the State President as the upper Commander of the Defence Force, and I would like to say that I also gave my co-operation for the Commission in this regard." MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) MR BOTHA You can interpret it in that way. I stated it in the way in which I thought it good and within the framework which I thought was the truth I testified. MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. MR LAX Just repeat your ... MR BIZOS You there go - sorry the previous question? MR LAX No, no, just the statement you've been making now didn't come over, so it won't be recorded. MR BIZOS You there go further and you say that you distinguish yourself, or you exclude yourself from the general CCB "verneukery" because you in consonance with the State President and the Head of the Army and the Minister of Defence, told the whole truth. That's an outrageous lie. On your own evidence. MR BOTHA Sir, I did follow most of the things, I testified in front of the Commission, I did give them my co-operation. MR BIZOS Yes, well I won't repeat my questions or argue with you, we know what your attitude is. Now I'm merely going to put to you, to give you an opportunity to respond to the suggestion that we are going to make in argument, that the terms of your employment, the bonuses that you got, the package that you got, are factors which may properly be described, a view for your motive for committing these crimes was personal gain. Do you wish to say anything in relation to that? MR BOTHA At no stage was it to get personal gain. MR BIZOS Well we will argue that the facts speak for themselves. You said that you went to Mr du Toit as your counsel, to ask for advice and you were advised that the Rosscam incident was not a sufficiently serious violation to come within the ambit of the Act. Did you disclose all the facts to Mr du Toit? MR BOTHA I cannot recall. MR BIZOS Yes, we know Du Toits as senior counsel, a tall one and a short one, which one did you go to? MR BOTHA Etienne du Toit is the one to which I refer. CHAIRPERSON The one who writes the books, the Criminal Procedure book? MR BIZOS Yes, that was the ex-A-G person, the short one. Now, did you tell him that you used the money for yourself? MR BOTHA Sir, I cannot recall, I told him what occurred during the project. This is what I can remember now. MR BIZOS What do you say, in the evidence of Gen Webb and Mr Verster they both deny that they had any knowledge of it or authorised any such project? In fairness to the General, it may not even have been a matter with his province, or that his authority was not required. What do you say to that evidence? MR BOTHA I cannot answer that. I've told you what I thought the approval of the project was and how I understood it. MR BIZOS Can you advance any reasons why Verster would deny such authority? MR VAN ECK Mr Chairman, if my memory serves me right, it was put to Mr Verster about Rosscam and he also said it was not regarded as a serious violation of human ...(intervention) MR WESSELS No, no, no, that is not so. He said that he couldn't remember such an instruction, that is all he said. MR VAN ECK Mr Wessels, did he not continue to say that it could have been so? I think that was his evidence, that he said it could have been an instruction he gave .... MR BIZOS Well the record will speak for itself. MR VAN ECK That's exactly what he said, Sir. MR WESSELS Ja, in cross-examination I think, Mr van Eck, he said that he couldn't remember but it's possible that it might have happened like that. MR BIZOS What was going to happened to the Rev Frank Chikane? MR BOTHA Sir, the name was given to me for monitoring and for collecting information ...(intervention) MR BIZOS Monitoring for what reason? MR BOTHA For what the reason may be. MR BIZOS What does that mean? I don't want slogans of the CCB, what did it mean, what would you do with the monitoring of the Rev Frank Chikane? MR BOTHA Mr Bizos, I will explain it as follows. If the information was of such a nature and the Co-ordinator found it satisfying, Mr Verster and the Regional Manager would then present or suggest a project and they would say that I can use a 158 limpet mine, if they wanted it. MR BIZOS No, but you see monitoring was not what public statements does he make, what - did you monitor what public statements he made? MR BOTHA At the time I did not work on Mr Chikane, I said that so in no uncertain terms quite a few times. MR BIZOS Right. Irrespective of what you personally did, your monitoring was not what the person did for the purposes of ascertaining whether or not he should be a target, your monitoring was what car does he drive, what security arrangements are there in the people's homes, what are their habits, what time do they leave for work, what time do they come back from work. Those are not matters - you don't deserve to die or not to die, having regard how you spent your daily routine, from a Security point of view, why were you interested in these things if not for the purposes of eliminating the people that you were monitoring? MR BOTHA All the detail that you've just provided us with, I cannot say it in any better way. Seen in the light of the person's profile, they would then eventually possibly become a target. MR BIZOS Well let's take the instance of Mr Bruce White, where did the name Bruce come from? MR BOTHA It was a name that was given to me by my structure. MR BIZOS Yes. We know that his name as Roland, but of what possible importance was to monitor what motor car he used? That would not have been helpful as to whether he deserved to live or die, but rather monitoring as to how best to kill him. MR BOTHA Sir, he already had a profile, so the monitoring of what type of vehicle he drives once again led us to a next point which was his address ...(intervention) MR BIZOS His what? MR BOTHA ... which led us to a next point, his residential address. This is now hypothetical, this is not what happened, I'm saying this hypothetically. So from there on various aspects will flow from it and at the end of the day all this information will be combined and then a decision will be made. MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) in the diary that has been produced in court? MR BOTHA I did not see it personally, the name was just given to me. MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) MR LAX Mr Bizos, sorry, just one second. I understood that when you were given a project or the preparatory work for a project, that in fact invariably the suggestion for what kind of action would be taken came from the operative himself. The operative made the suggestion to the Regional Manager or the Co-ordinator. That's what I understand the situation to be. MR BOTHA That could possibly well be so, Sir, but that would merely be a suggestion and it would be open for discussion. MR LAX But you see, just to pick up on what Mr Bizos was asking you is, if you were going to monitor somebody you'd want to know with what object in mind, because simply to get an address is one thing, to confirm an address for the purposes of maybe launching an attack, you'd want to look at the premises, you'd want to ascertain whether that was a suitable place, you might want to look at his workplace, work out if there was an opportunity there, you'd want to do an evaluation of whether that was a suitable place to launch an attack or a suitable place to break his window or a suitable place to beat him up, not so? MR BOTHA That is correct Mr Lax, but we did not have this information ...(intervention) MR LAX Just listen to the rest of my question. So in order for you to do that evaluation and monitor him in this way, because you were given an address and you were given a photograph with regard to Mr Chikane, for example. MR BOTHA Yes, Sir. MR LAX With regard to Mr White you were given a bit more than that I think. MR BOTHA An address and ...(intervention) MR LAX Also just an address and a photograph? MR BOTHA That's right. MR LAX Okay. So surely you would have had to say in your mind, okay, what exactly am I doing this for? So that I can be effective and deliver what's expected of me. MR BOTHA Can I answer you? That was the beginning phase, it was in such an early phase that I could not say that, we had nothing to work with, so we had to collect additional information before we could form an opinion about what my suggestion would be concerning this person. MR LAX Just to follow up, did you know the person's profile already? Had that been determined? MR BOTHA I knew that he was busy with left-wing activities, what the nature of it was I cannot really comment on, but he already had a profile that highlighted him as a possible target. MR LAX Well according to the diary he was a priority target. MR BOTHA That is why they probably gave us the names to see what their movements were and to collect additional information, who he socialised with, who he met and what accompanied that. That's how I saw it. MR LAX Yes. And what did you understand by the word "priority target"? MR BOTHA I did not know that it was a priority target. MR LAX Yes, but knowing now that it was a priority target, what was the difference between an ordinary target and a priority target? MR BOTHA The way in which I understood priority target was that you had to specifically work on that person over the shortest period of time, collect as much information as possible and to make a presentation afterwards. That's how I understood priority, it was a priority target. MR LAX It wasn't that this was a target for elimination, rather than a target for some other lesser type of action? MR BOTHA No, priority target does not necessarily say, or is a reference to the act that will be committed. MR LAX Thank you. Sorry, Mr Bizos. CHAIRPERSON Mr Bizos, would it be a convenient time to take the tea adjournment or do you want to finish the point that you made? MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) CHAIRPERSON Yes, certainly. MR BIZOS You see, you were known as Deon. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR BIZOS And White is your project in the diary, according to the diary. MR BOTHA Very well. MR BIZOS But there is /2, who was the other person that you were supposed to monitor in this context? MR BOTHA Frank Chikane was the name that was given to me. MR BIZOS Can you explain, if you were not seconded to do this, why the diary should mention that? MR BOTHA I cannot comment on that. MR LAX Just for easy reference, Mr Bizos, could you just give us the page reference of the diary or the date or whatever, it just helps us go back to it later. MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) May, Mr Chairman, the bottom left-hand corner. Is the number 2 there Frank Chikane or do you not know? MR BOTHA I don't know, Sir. MR BIZOS Well who were the two people that you were seconded to? MR BOTHA Bruce White and Frank Chikane. MR BIZOS Mr Chairman, might I give you a reference in relation to a disputed matter on the record? The evidence of Mr Verster at page 389 of the record, cross-examined by Mr Hockey "So you are saying that you have no knowledge of this project"? "MR VERSTER: No, if I remember correctly I read it in the documentation and I imagine years ago I read it in the newspapers, but it is not a project that was officially authorised by me, there could be an interpretation on regional level, but the Regional Manager can answer that question." CHAIRPERSON Was that relating to Rosscam? MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) I've shown this passage to my learned friend Mr Wessels, he has a recollection that in cross-examination by another counsel ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON Mr van Eck. MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) be that as it may ...(indistinct - no microphone). Apparently this goes off for some reason or other. Will you please switch off when I am speaking. CHAIRPERSON No I think the problem's not so much with that one, it seems to come from when these ones are put on it goes off. MR BIZOS Alright, we'll be careful then. Can you give us a date for Rosscam's car please, a month will do. MR BOTHA If I remember correctly it was during September. MR BIZOS Before or after your supposed suspension? MR BOTHA After. MR BIZOS After. How long after the Early Learning Centre? MR BOTHA Possibly two weeks. MR BIZOS As far as Hamutenya is concerned, you say that it was due to incorrect identification and did you say that this was Staal Burger's project? Staal Burger denies this. Have you any comment to make? MR BOTHA No, I do not. MR BIZOS Do you stand by your statement that it was Burger who gave you ... MR BOTHA These were names that were mentioned and this is an assumption that I made. MR BIZOS You say that Hamutenya was Burger's project, where did you get that from? MR BOTHA It is maybe during a co-ordinating session that the name was mentioned, I cannot say today. MR BIZOS Do you agree that in speaking about Hamo, H-a-m-o T-e-n-t-j-a, was an attempt to spell Hamutenya? MR BOTHA It's possibly so, yes. MR BIZOS Ja, it's the only thing that makes sense. Very well. Why was there panic when Aitchison was arrested? MR BOTHA Because of the fact that he was connected to our cell. That was my interpretation. MR BIZOS ...(indistinct - no microphone) chief about it, perhaps we will just argue about it. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR BIZOS But do you agree that generally speaking, people panic when there is a danger of them being exposed for the wrongs that they've done? MR BOTHA Maybe just expose. MR BIZOS ... he was merely to monitor, there was nothing to really worry about, was there? MR BOTHA I think there was. MR BIZOS Were documents destroyed in relation to Aitchison and Lubowski? MR BOTHA With specific reference to the book, yes we attempted to get hold of the book at the Royal Ascot Hotel. If it was destroyed afterwards I cannot say with certainty. MR BIZOS What was the purpose of it? MR BOTHA It was a traceable book with the connection to Mr Maree. MR BIZOS Well that's consistent with the CCB wanting to put distance between itself and Aitchison. MR LAX Just repeat your question, the Interpreter was still translating what you were saying ...(indistinct - no microphone) MR BIZOS The whole purpose of it was to put distance between you, the CCB, and Aitchison. MR BOTHA That is correct, yes. MR BIZOS Did anybody ever suggest that defeating the ends of justice is a serious crime for which you can go to prison? MR BOTHA I have already told you what my viewpoint was concerning prison sentence. MR BIZOS Yes. Nobody worried about such niceties. MR BOTHA Because we would not go. MR BIZOS Now after the killing of Webster - this is the last issue, Mr Chairman, with which I'm going to deal. After the killing of Webster, was there an enquiry as to what role, if any, the CCB had played? MR BOTHA From where, Mr Bizos? MR BIZOS Mr Verster, the investigating officer, one or other of the Generals. CHAIRPERSON And internal enquiry. MR BOTHA There was, yes. MR BIZOS Well tell us who approached you and what did they say to you and what did you say to them. MR BOTHA Sir, during a co-ordinating session enquiries were made concerning Dr Webster, it was mentioned that the request came from Joe Verster. At a certain stage myself and Mr van Zyl informally discussed this. That was approximately the 2nd of May, and that is in chief what I can recall. MR BIZOS Well was there anything said about why Verster was interested in this one? MR BOTHA Yes, he wanted to find out if Region 6 was involved in it, which was a concern to me because based on what happened he forced me to keep quiet. MR BIZOS I'm sorry I didn't hear, you say that - did you mention the word "sukses" MR BOTHA No, I did not. MR BIZOS What did you say? I'm sorry I didn't hear. CHAIRPERSON Find out if Region 6 was involved. MR BIZOS I see. What would have made him think that Region 6 might have been involved? MR BOTHA Sir, that was - I did not know that either, it forced me to keep quiet because of the fact that Mr Verster wanted to distance himself completely from a project that he approved of, according to my knowledge. MR BIZOS The message to you was that Verster was going to deny what you knew he had done? MR BOTHA That's how I interpreted it. MR BIZOS What he had authorised. MR BOTHA Correct. MR BIZOS He must have suspected that one or other person in Region 6 might have helped Barnard. MR BOTHA I wouldn't say so Sir, no I don't know. MR LAX What do you mean you don't know? You knew from your discussions with Barnard that he'd authorised it. MR BOTHA I'm sorry, could you just repeat. MR LAX You knew from your discussions with Barnard that he had authorised it. MR BOTHA That's right. MR LAX So on the one hand you know he's authorised it, on the other hand you know he's wanting to give the impression that he doesn't know what is going on. MR BOTHA That is exactly so. MR LAX So the thrust of the question was, why should that happen? MR BOTHA To distance himself from the project. I do not know, that was just as strange to me, it was unbelievable. MR LAX Precisely. Why should he be asking his own operatives, some of whom would understand that this thing happened inside in Gauteng, a strong possibility Region 6 is involved? MR BOTHA I do not know that, I cannot say. I do not know if he wanted to relay the attention from himself or if he wanted to place the fault on another structure, the SAP, whoever. It was just as strange to me. MR LAX Was this his style, playing these sort of funny ...(indistinct) type games. MR BOTHA His specific style or the CCB style? MR LAX Yes, or the CCB style and his style. MR BOTHA Yes, the CCB, it was their forte. MR LAX So you were constantly conning each other as to what you were involved with? MR BOTHA No, not necessarily each other, the community, the ...(intervention) MR LAX No, but here you were conning each other. MR BOTHA Yes well I do not know if it was his style, I just experienced what he stated. MR BIZOS We have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Bizos. We'll take the short tea adjournment now. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION CARL CASTELING BOTHA (s.u.o.) CHAIRPERSON Mr Wessels, do you have any questions? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Botha, before you joined the CCB did you commit any crimes of any nature? MR BOTHA No. MR WESSELS So you were recruited into the CCB with clean hands and you were quite enthusiastic to become part of this organisation, is that correct? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS It was a new career which beckoned to you. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And you foresaw that you would spend quite a long time working there. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And according to your blue plan you had to establish yourself in such a way that you would be able to operate for many years in the future without any exposure. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS It was during the middle towards the end of 1988. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS You were quite exited regarding this new career of yours. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And you attended a training course during which you were given training by the Defence Force and Special Forces staff members. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And among others, members of the CCB which already existed then. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Mr Joe Verster presented lectures to you? MR BOTHA Yes, he did address us. MR WESSELS He addressed you. And you met him there? MR BOTHA No, I had met him previously. MR WESSELS You met him previously and he addressed you there. What was the nature of his address? MR BOTHA In general terms he simply confirmed what he had said to us upon a previous occasion, during the session that we had after our recruitment, where the organisation would go and he gave us more facts pertaining to this. MR WESSELS And I accept that he and other persons emphasised with you that this was an extremely sensitive organisation which would be performing very sensitive work. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Covertly? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS In the sense that nothing which had to be done could be traced back. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS There had to be absolute cut-off points in any operation or in any action whatsoever. MR BOTHA Yes, I accept that. MR WESSELS So that it could never emerge with those in control or the State. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Who presented the lectures to you regarding security? MR BOTHA Mr Wessels, I cannot recall it off the top of my head, my statement will tell you who was present there. I cannot recall the precise presence of persons. MR WESSELS Would it be correct to say that your interpretation of the situation was that security was of the highest priority within the organisation? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And this would ensure the continued existence of the organisation and your career? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Indeed Mr Verster and other members who were higher up in the organisation were paranoid about security, isn't that so? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And you realised that you were dealing with a professional soldier who believed absolutely in the observation of rules and procedures. MR BOTHA A professional soldier which had not functioned in the urban environment, that is correct. MR WESSELS So he viewed it in the perspective of the military where rules would be followed to the letter and there would be no deviation from such procedure? MR BOTHA That is correct. We were specifically employed to utilise our expertise regarding the urban environment. MR WESSELS Yes, subject to the rules and regulations of the organisation and the method of action. This was emphasised to you upon various occasions. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And this was during 1988? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS That is when you begun to achieve your cover and you formulated your blue plan. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS When did you and Mr Barnard become friends again? Was this while you were busy establishing your blue plan towards the end of '88, or was it before that? MR BOTHA I think it was probably prior to it, just after his release. MR WESSELS Yes. And when did you realise that Mr Barnard was indeed also working for the organisation? MR BOTHA During one of our discussions which ensued. MR WESSELS And when was this, can you give us some kind of timeframe? Towards the end of '88, the middle of '88? MR BOTHA I think it was the middle of '88. MR WESSELS And that is when you knew that he was also working for the same organisation? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And you and Mr Barnard were very good friends, even in those days already? MR BOTHA That is true. MR WESSELS One could even say that your relationship at that stage was that of blood-brothers. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS So one should then accept that between you and him there was the greatest measure of openness and honesty? MR BOTHA It was limited. I would say to the greatest extent, every person exercised his own discretion regarding what could be said or should be said. MR WESSELS Mr Barnard is the type of person who was known for talking, he like to talk about his activities and what he was doing in life. MR BOTHA I think that that is a bit of a generalisation. MR WESSELS But he wasn't a secretive person. MR BOTHA On the contrary, he could be quite secretive. Some of the things that he said I've only heard here, despite the fact that I have been friends with him for 15, almost 20 years. MR WESSELS And did you tell Mr Barnard that you were working in Region 6? MR BOTHA I believe I told him that I was involved with the same structure and organisation. MR WESSELS The same organisation yes, but didn't he ask you: "Where are you working, what sort of work are you doing?" MR BOTHA I may have told him. The inference was rather obvious, because all the South African Police members resigned at the same time and were recruited into Mathyssen at approximately the same time, so I thought that the inference would be obvious. MR WESSELS And didn't you ask him in which region he was working and what he was doing? MR BOTHA In general terms he explained his working methods to me, which were not entirely in line with ours. MR WESSELS What did he explain to you, how did he do his work? MR BOTHA In retrospect one of the biggest mistakes and I will say this with regard to our placement, was that we were dealt with in general whereas we should have been handled individually, it would have led to much greater success. Mr Barnard was indeed handled as an individual who had a single person link to the higher authority. MR WESSELS And did he tell you that he was working on those terms? MR BOTHA In broad terms yes. MR WESSELS And did he tell you who his handler was? MR BOTHA Not initially but at a later stage he told me the name of the person, who I didn't know. MR WESSELS Yes, but when he initially told you that he was also working for the organisation, did he also tell you that he was working on the basis of a handler through to the top? MR BOTHA He used mutual words such as in-house, pre-study, handler, Joe Verster, that class of words. MR WESSELS But it was exactly the same working method that you followed? MR BOTHA Yes, except as I told you, we functioned in a cell, everyone had his own projects but Mr Barnard functioned individually on the ideal basis as I saw it. MR WESSELS And you said that the only difference between you and him was that there was more view? MR BOTHA No, it was more about the coverage and credibility within the community regarding your involvement with a specific blue plan. MR WESSELS I don't understand. MR BOTHA Then I will explain to you briefly. The fact that we were part of Mathyssen Bus Service was an initial problem, many questions arose regarding the fact that we were actually working for Mathyssen Bus Services. What emanated from that was the fact that every person had to establish his own blue plan subsequently. MR WESSELS And that is when you started working according to the same way that Barnard did? MR BOTHA With the exception of the co-ordination sessions which still took place on a collective basis, the salaries were paid out to a region, we had one Co-ordinator who handled all four of us. So there was still differences. MR WESSELS Yes, that is what I put to you. His working method was the same as yours, but as far as you understood it he was the only one in that cell in which he operated, while you were fourscore in that cell? MR BOTHA Yes, that is correct. MR LAX May I just ask something Mr Wessels, I just want to go back quickly because the same issue arose yesterday and I didn't want to waste time then, but it's happened twice in a row. Can I just clarify this? You said this is apropos his handler ... MR BOTHA Excuse me Mr Lax? MR LAX With regard to his handler. MR BOTHA Yes. MR LAX You said he mentioned the name of a person and you didn't know this person. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR LAX What name did he mention to you? MR BOTHA Lafras Luitingh. MR LAX He used his real name? MR BOTHA Yes. He mentioned the name Louis as well, but he said he knew who it was. MR LAX Yes and you - well, hang on a second. Did he use his cover name, i.e. Louis, or did he use the name Lafras Luitingh? MR BOTHA In all probability he would have said: "My handler is Louis, he uses the codename Louis but I know it is Lafras Luitingh." Something to that effect. MR LAX And you didn't know that person at all? MR BOTHA Not at all. MR LAX Had you not met Louis? MR BOTHA No, Sir. MR LAX Thank you. MR WESSELS And this was during 1988? MR BOTHA Approximately, yes. MR WESSELS In 1988 you were not yet applied operationally, is that correct? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS In the first quarter of 1989 you were not yet operational. MR BOTHA Although in '88 I went to South West. So one could probably also view that as a form of an instruction to visit South West Africa. MR WESSELS And what did you do there? MR BOTHA I went to examine the situation that was in existence there before the election. MR WESSELS But it wasn't an operational project as such, it was aimed at examining the situation there? MR BOTHA It was an instruction. MR WESSELS And this was in '88. And subsequently you received a few names to work on for the first time in 1989? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS When did you receive those names? MR BOTHA Approximately during April. MR WESSELS In April 1989. Very well. At the end of 1988 there was a problem between Mr Barnard and Mr Luitingh which had to do with one McQuillan and there was the perception with Mr Luitingh that Mr Barnard had jeopardised the existence of the organisation and his own identity due a leakage of information, is that correct? MR BOTHA Yes it was mentioned to me in general terms. MR WESSELS Yes just generally you were informed by Mr Barnard that this was the situation. MR BOTHA He said that there was a problem. MR WESSELS And that Mr Luitingh had blamed him for this breach of security which had taken place. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And then early in 1989 there was another security breach which once again had to do with Mr McQuillan, where Mr Barnard, despite Mr Luitingh's instruction not to have contact with Mr McQuillan, went ahead and did it and assisted McQuillan with Brig Victor. Did he also tell you about that? MR BOTHA Yes, I vaguely recall the incident. MR WESSELS So you knew that Mr Barnard upon two occasions, had experienced problems regarding security breaches in terms of his conduct, isn't that so? MR BOTHA Although he justified his conduct, if I think back. MR WESSELS Yes, he tried to rationalise it by saying that he thought he had to go and help the man because he needed him and so forth. MR BOTHA Yes, that McQuillan contacted him, etcetera. MR WESSELS Yes. And after you were at your training course you realised that Mr Verster and Mr Luitingh must have been rather upset regarding this security breach in light of everything that you were taught regarding the CCB and the method of action during the training course, isn't that so, Mr Botha? MR BOTHA Yes, that is correct. MR WESSELS Yes, you realised it. MR BOTHA I did. MR WESSELS Then I would just like to take a leap forward for a while. At the end of the year you were arrested. MR BOTHA Yes, in 1989. MR WESSELS When were you arrested? MR BOTHA Approximately November. MR WESSELS Did you expect that you would be arrested or did it come as a shock? MR BOTHA It was a shock. MR WESSELS And you also testified here earlier that you were very upset, that you believed unconditionally that you would not be prosecuted of anything and that the organisation would support you, because those were the promises which were made to you during the training course. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Yes, and you also testified that you were worried about Mr Barnard because he was arrested at approximately the same time. MR BOTHA Before me. MR WESSELS Oh, he was arrested before you. How long before you was he arrested? MR BOTHA I don't recall the dates. MR WESSELS Approximately. MR BOTHA There were two occasions upon which he picked up problems. Possibly approximately two to three weeks before me. MR WESSELS And did you know the reason for his arrest? What did the rumours lead you to believe, why was Mr Barnard being detained in terms of Section 29? Because Section 29 detention would be applied for those who were suspected of involvement with acts of terrorism against the State. MR BOTHA My suspicion was that it was about the organisation and more specifically, Dr Webster. MR WESSELS And you were quite concerned that Mr Barnard should be taken care of. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And you were not prepared to do anything which could place Mr Barnard in a negative light or cast any suspicion upon him, is that correct, although you knew that he was involved with the Webster incident? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS So you would have tried to protect him at all costs. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And the protection that you foresaw for yourself and for Mr Barnard, you could obtain this protection from within the ranks of the organisation. MR BOTHA We were in service to the organisation, so by nature of the situation they were our employers and I appealed to them for assistance. MR WESSELS Precisely. And you placed your entire future with the organisation, you were promised that they would see to your interests and you performed your instructions within the structure of the organisation and you believed that the same would be of application to Mr Barnard. MR BOTHA That is correct. CHAIRPERSON Sorry just before you proceed Mr Wessels. You say that it was a shock that you were detained in terms of Section 29, you've also said that about two weeks before your detention Mr Barnard was detained, did you yourself have any suspicion that your detention might have been a consequence of Mr Barnard having said something to the authorities while he was in detention that might have implicated you? MR BOTHA Only after the time. At no stage did I think that Mr Barnard would speak about the incident which had taken place or my involvement with the organisation, given his nature, also the Webster incident. MR WESSELS ...(indistinct) INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. MR WESSELS You would not have said anything to the police which could have placed Mr Barnard in a negative light? MR BOTHA Or the organisation. MR WESSELS Or the organisation. MR BOTHA Yes, or the organisation. MR WESSELS And you attempted in as far as it was possible for you, to maintain the cover of the organisation at all costs? MR BOTHA Absolutely. MR WESSELS Because you still believed at that point in time, that although you were under arrest things would happen behind the scenes and that the organisation would look after you. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Very well. Did Mr Barnard ever tell you that he was discharged from the organisation? MR BOTHA Mr Wessels, he mentioned at a stage but he didn't view it as a discharge per se, I think his interpretation was more that he was put on ice. But it was mentioned. MR WESSELS Now you were also placed on ice. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And it is rather clear that you were not discharged. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And you understood it as such. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS To be placed on ice and to be discharged were totally different things. MR BOTHA The modus operandi which was followed by the organisation with Mr Barnard's discharge was similar to putting him on ice, he still kept his vehicle and he enjoyed the benefits of his position. So it didn't appear that he was actually discharged. MR WESSELS Yes so you never believed really that he was discharged? MR BOTHA That is correct. Although I stated it in my Section 29 statement, I did not understand it that way. MR WESSELS But that's precisely what I'm getting at, why do you say on page 4 of bundle B, in approximately the fourth or the fifth paragraph, and this is after you had monitored Bruce White "At this stage Ferdi was discharged by his Co-ordinator, Louis." MR BOTHA I will explain it to you in light of the tempestuous relationship that they had, and that sometimes it would happen that one would say certain things which one would want to take back later and he conveyed it to me as such and I didn't know how to approach this during my detention, should I say that Ferdi was involved or not. Once again it had to do with my state of mind during my 29 detention and I acted in accordance with this. MR WESSELS Please Mr Botha, let us not deal too much with your state of mind, you sat in your cell and you made a statement to the police. MR BOTHA Let us just struggle with it for a moment once again, because your client spent a few days under Section 29 detention and the reaction that he caused wasn't favourable, so person such as him who was a trained recce with many award, could not even handle that kind of pressure, what not to speak of someone like me who didn't have that much training, who was completely inexperienced when it came to that kind of pressure. The difference in our training comes to mind here, so I would like to place that on record. MR WESSELS Yes, it is true, the pressure of that kind of detention is very high and one will talk eventually. They will keep you there until you talk. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And you realised that and that's why you made the statement, because you realised that the sooner you spoke the sooner you'd be able to get out of the cell. MR BOTHA Partially, yes. MR WESSELS And it wasn't that you were in such a state that you didn't really know what you were saying anymore. MR BOTHA Emotionally I was very close to that point. MR WESSELS Perhaps you were emotionally unstable, but not to the extent that you didn't know exactly what you wanted to say. MR BOTHA It did influence my thoughts. MR WESSELS So it influenced your thoughts to the extent that you made a false statement, is that what you're trying to say? MR BOTHA Once again I didn't know whether I should link him to the organisation or whether I should protect him and say that he wasn't a member of the organisation. I didn't know how to deal with the situation. CHAIRPERSON Just on that, wouldn't it have been in your interest to have, in that statement, bearing in mind the fact that you assisted Mr Barnard in the assassination of Dr Webster, to have continued to link him to the CCB, in the event that sometime in the future if the Webster bubble had to break, then it could perceived as being a CCB operation and not an operation carried out by an individual who you helped? MR BOTHA In retrospect it sounds like the appropriate route to follow, but during my detention I wasn't thinking completely rationally and I have stated that I may have had my own agenda. MR WESSELS I beg your pardon? MR BOTHA I said that I did not act correctly during the deposition of my statement. MR WESSELS Why did you say that you did not act correctly? MR BOTHA With regard to certain things that I said regarding the Athlone bomb, the whole idea of saying that Ferdi was definitely discharged, these were things that I should have approached differently. MR WESSELS But Mr Botha, the Honourable Chairperson has asked you about the point that I was planning to get to. You stated that you were there and that your good friend, Mr Barnard, was also there and that the only protection that you had lay within the organisation, that you were not prepared to say anything about him that wasn't true and now according to your version you make a false statement about him which breaks the connection with the organisation at a time when he needed the organisation most. MR BOTHA Yes but at the same time I must also say the following. Perhaps I distanced myself from him to a certain extent because I saw that he wasn't going to get any protection regarding Webster. MR WESSELS How did you see that? MR BOTHA Upon a previous occasion I have testified before the Committee. If I just tell you how Mr Verster acted with regard to the enquiries that he made and the fact that it was clear, whether by his own initiation or whatever the motivation was, he was certainly not going to take responsibility for this. That was my inference. MR WESSELS When did you realise this, the day after Webster's murder? MR BOTHA Among others, yes, and during subsequent meetings. MR WESSELS The day after Webster's murder there was a co-ordination meeting during which enquiries were made during this meeting by Staal Burger and the Co-ordinator, I accept, where they said that Joe Verster wanted to know whether any of you were involved with Webster. MR BOTHA Correct. MR WESSELS On the grounds that it appeared as if he didn't know? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And you realised automatically that it was strange that he was asking these questions because he was the one who issued the order in terms of Mr Barnard. MR BOTHA Yes, it was strange because we worked internally and he had the position to be able to say to Mr van Zyl: "If another bomb goes off I'll hold you responsible." In other words, if it were to happen again he could say to Mr van Zyl: "Look I told you, look what's happened." We were under pressure to perform internally and he was getting people from the outside to come and operate in our regions. MR WESSELS We are quite far away from the bomb. MR BOTHA I'm just trying to assist you. MR WESSELS We are dealing with the day after you and Barnard shot Webster dead. MR BOTHA I'm using a hypothesis. MR WESSELS And then you have this person who comes to the organisation, who was supposed to have given the order to Mr Barnard directly, and he starts making enquiries with your cell members to try to determine who was involved. MR BOTHA Yes, I found it strange. MR WESSELS It was rather strange, isn't that so? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS What did you think was going on? MR BOTHA I didn't know what Mr Verster's objective with such enquiries was, it unnerved me to a great extent. MR WESSELS It must have shocked you. MR BOTHA Yes, it did. MR WESSELS Because now you found yourself involved in a crime for which one could receive capital punishment and this was the first crime that you had committed. MR BOTHA Yes, that is correct. MR WESSELS You were an innocent rookie civilian who became involved with this organisation and the first thing that you did for the organisation was to commit this murder under instruction, allegedly. MR BOTHA I was with Brixton Murder and Robbery and the Security Branch where I functioned in State relation and I still regarded my work as State related. MR WESSELS Yes, but you didn't commit crimes before this time Mr Botha, isn't that so? MR BOTHA I did not regard it as a crime per se, this deed pertaining to Dr Webster. MR WESSELS No, we are still before that point, before you arrived there you had not committed any crimes, that was your evidence, is that correct? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS And now your first action in the CCB is to commit a murder. MR BOTHA Which I did not necessarily interpret as a crime. Yes, my answer is yes. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, do you really want to say that you didn't know that what you were doing there was a crime? Whether it was an instruction from a State organisation or not, did you really think that the State could not give an order for you to commit a murder which wouldn't be a crime? MR BOTHA From the nature of the framework in which I operated, it was stipulated to me that this was part of our activities. MR WESSELS But Mr Botha, you functioned within this organisation and you were told that the organisation would protect you and you believed that you would not be prosecuted, that things would happen behind the scenes to prevent that the A-G would prosecute you, but you knew that you were committing a crime. MR BOTHA A crime without any prosecution, yes. MR WESSELS Yes, nonetheless you knew it was a crime. MR BOTHA That is correct, but I have just explained my definition of crime to you, within my own context, from within my own framework. MR LAX Just on a point of clarification. The Early Learning Centre was on the 31st of August, Webster was later than that. MR WESSELS ...(indistinct - no microphone) MR LAX 1st of May, sorry. Thank you, I was just getting confused there. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, the day after the incident you found out what was going on, you must have been extremely concerned regarding what was happening. MR BOTHA Yes, I was. MR WESSELS Did it not occur to you that perhaps Mr Barnard had lied to you, that this instruction had never come from Joe Verster? MR BOTHA I testified yesterday with regard to Mr van Zyl's integrity pertaining to the issue of instructions or the execution of a project, so too I did not doubt Mr Barnard's integrity, I accepted what he told me. MR WESSELS My question to you is whether at that stage you didn't doubt or think that Mr Barnard had lied to you. MR BOTHA I was doubting many things. MR WESSELS Did you consider it as a possibility that Barnard may have lied to you? MR BOTHA That as well as the fact that Mr Verster himself initiated the thing and didn't want to link the organisation to it. MR WESSELS And now you found yourself between the devil and the deep blue sea, because whatever happened you were being crushed to pieces among these great millstones, because you didn't know if Barnard had lied to you and if he had lied to you, you acted beyond the parameters of the organisation and then you would not enjoy the protection of the organisation, isn't that so Mr Botha? MR BOTHA The organisation has not protected anybody to this very day, firstly, and secondly, ...(intervention) MR WESSELS Mr Botha ... MR BOTHA Let me just finish because you asked me a question. At the time of the instruction which was given to Mr Barnard, I believed unconditionally that it was indeed the instruction. I had no reason during the execution of the instruction to doubt this at all. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, return the 2nd of May 1989, during a cell meeting you hear that the person who issued the instruction allegedly wants to know who was involved in this crime, this murder. MR BOTHA That is correct. Not directly, indirectly. MR WESSELS Yes. And you must have started to doubt, or at least to think that "either Mr Verster was busy spinning an awesome web of intrigue or Mr Barnard lied to me." MR BOTHA Many options came to mind. MR WESSELS Yes, they must have occurred to you. And if Mr Barnard had lied to you, then you would be standing beyond the framework of the organisation and you would have quite a big problem at hand because you wouldn't enjoy the protection of the organisation, isn't that so Mr Botha? MR BOTHA If you express it as such, then yes. MR WESSELS And if it wasn't the case and it was indeed Mr Verster who was busy with some sinister motive and who was no making enquiries, there would also be a rather big problem for you. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS So you must have been a very worried man at that point in time, isn't that so? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS And you realised that what you had done went beyond the rules of the organisation, isn't that so? MR 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? MR 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. MR 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? MR 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. MR 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? MR 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? MR 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? MR BOTHA I wasn't there. MR WESSELS But what did he tell you? MR 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. MR 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? MR 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? MR 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? MR 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. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And that the plan was to shoot him with a shotgun. MR 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?" MR 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? MR 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? MR BOTHA I accepted that he didn't. MR WESSELS He didn't? MR 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? MR BOTHA Not necessarily. MR WESSELS Not necessarily? MR BOTHA No. MR WESSELS How's that? MR 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. MR 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? MR 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? MR 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. MR BOTHA Then I would have accepted that Mr Barnard would have fired the shot and then gotten out and reloaded and fired again. I was placed in that position. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, what I'm asking you is to test how reasonable your action would have been simply to accept that this was an order, in light of probabilities. You see if only one person were to have been involved, say Mr Barnard was involved alone, it would increase the risk of successful completion and escape of this project. MR BOTHA I cannot answer to that. MR WESSELS But if Mr Barnard had to do the driving himself and shoot with the left hand, possibly while driving by the house, he would have to fire through an open window, he wouldn't be able to aim and wait first, he would have to drive and as soon as the target was in line he would have to shoot precisely at that time. So it would take a very specific time calculation. MR BOTHA Yes, with his left hand. MR WESSELS And didn't that mean that it was a very risky operation to complete successfully? MR BOTHA It was his project, I cannot say. MR WESSELS Yes naturally, Mr Botha. CHAIRPERSON Why do you think he asked you to assist him? MR BOTHA Honourable Chairperson, maybe because he wanted to make sure about the facts that Mr Wessels now highlighted and he thought it would be better concerning the aim, leaving the scene, one of many reasons. CHAIRPERSON Mr Wessels. MR LAX But in essence these were all factors that would reduce the risk of failure. MR BOTHA That is correct. To take somebody with, yes. MR WESSELS There was a great risk that it could not succeed and if he had to stop and get out and shoot again, somebody could see him, that you could be cut off or he could be cut off at the scene and if he was arrested then the whole organisation would be exposed and the State would be exposed, is that not true? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Then it surprises one that he did not at that specific time when he received the instruction and made the suggestion, inform Luitingh and Verster: "Look let us get somebody else to assist us, it will improve our chances of success with a hundred percent." MR BOTHA Possibly he did say that, I cannot give you an answer if he said it or not. MR WESSELS Did you not think that you should ask him: "Listen Ferdi, why don't you suggest, or why didn't you suggest to Verster and Luitingh that I must assist you or somebody else must assist you"? MR BOTHA Sir, I did not ask him that. At a previous opportunity I think I told Mr Bizos that certain things I did not ask, you just do not ask certain things, you're asked to assist with an operation and you assist in the way in which, or on the basis of what you believed at that stage. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, it was not that you did not ask questions because there's an instruction and your work was to execute instructions, this was your friend who asked you to commit murder. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Then you do ask. MR BOTHA I did ask the question concerning the approval of the operation, I did not ask if there was another person who was tasked to assist and who was not available. I believed that he involved me because he trusted me first of all, and because hypothetically he did not trust the person who he was supposed to take with. I cannot say, I just knew that he trusted me and he asked me to assist him because we believed in the same ideology. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, you realised right from the beginning, as you testified, that you were not authorised to be in that vehicle, that they did not give their approval. MR BOTHA The was approval for the project yes, but ...(intervention) MR WESSELS But not for you to assist. MR BOTHA No. MR WESSELS Why did you not tell Mr Barnard: "But listen, get some approval that I assist you or that I can go with you, so that I do not have to act in an unauthorised manner"? MR BOTHA Sir, we functioned in two different cell structures and it would have been ridiculous of me to have asked him that. MR WESSELS Now you come here and you are in a position, it's the end of March, it's almost April, can you recall when you were informed? MR BOTHA It was just before the end of April. MR WESSELS Before the end of April? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS How long before the end of April? MR BOTHA I would say a week or two weeks, I cannot say. MR WESSELS Very well. And you now know that Mr Barnard, according to what he told you, was placed on ice by the organisation because he committed two security breaches. Did you know that? MR BOTHA Sir, to be placed on ice they never attach a specific period of time, he could have been placed off the ice or he could have been active again, it could have suspended at that stage. MR WESSELS Well we do know that those security breaches - well the first happened in the beginning of the year and the second one early in '89. I think Mr Barnard said it was in March/April that this occurred. Well let us accept it for now, it corresponds with evidence that has been led before and which was not disputed. Well now you know that Mr Barnard was either suspended or discharged or placed on ice, is that correct? MR BOTHA I accepted that was so, yes. MR WESSELS Exactly in the same period of time when he leaked this - he received this very serious instruction to go alone and kill Webster. MR BOTHA MR WESSELS Well there was a long period of time in which he could practise, he could monitor the house and so forth, so it was not that urgent, Mr Botha, this was a planned murder which was planned over a period of time, weeks actually. MR BOTHA Well it became a priority and he was then removed and he could become active again. As what happened to me with the Athlone bomb. MR WESSELS Let us not think further back, you are now in March. You are told by Mr Barnard that he's tasked to kill Dr Webster. MR BOTHA It was April. MR WESSELS End of March/April, whenever. End of March you said. It doesn't matter, during that time. You know that it was in the same timeframe in which he was in trouble and if he was now discharged from the organisation or if he was placed on ice, it happened in that period of time. MR BOTHA Or if it was an argument or not, that is also a possibility. MR WESSELS I beg your pardon? MR BOTHA Or if it was an argument or not, that's also a possibility. MR WESSELS An argument between? MR BOTHA Between himself and his Co-ordinator. MR WESSELS Yes, between himself and Lafras Luitingh? MR BOTHA That's correct. MR WESSELS So they don't have a good relationship? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS Did you not see it as a contradiction that in the light of his relationship with Luitingh and Verster and in the light of his security breach that he committed which was very serious and placed the organisation which was just established, could result to the exposure of this organisation, that this could not be associated with an instruction that he directly, him of all people received to go and kill Dr Webster? MR BOTHA Sir, I cannot comment on that because I do not know what his relationship was with his Regional Manager or his Co-ordinator. I do not know anything about it. I myself was in a position where I had a personality clash with my Regional Manager, but they still applied me. So I do not know what the situation was. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, you do know what the situation was, you already testified about what the situation was. You heard that he had an argument with Luitingh and that his relationship was not very good, you also know that he committed two security breaches of a very serious nature and that there were a lot of problems, that he was placed on ice because of it. MR BOTHA Sir, I did not say that, I said there were personalities that immediately after an argument, or whatever the circumstances were of the security breach would put this on ice and say: "No, let us continue, we've sorted this out, accept that you were wrong and let us continue, the organisation was not compromised to such an extent, let us continue with our relationship." I cannot testify about it. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, elementary logic states that in the position in which you found yourself during that time, your first question would have been: "But how do you reconcile this very sensitive and dangerous instruction with the position of Mr Barnard in the organisation after the security breaches and his personality clashes? How do you reconcile that?" It had to come up with you. MR BOTHA I will explain it to you. In the light of the instruction I used that logic that you just referred to and my logic was it had to be an authorised project in that Mr Barnard would go and execute it. MR WESSELS And the 2nd of May 1989, Mr Verster made certain enquiries, did it not create some concern with you in that you thought back when you believed Barnard: "I innocently thought that he received the instruction, but now indeed it seems that it is possible that he never received that instruction"? MR BOTHA You've already asked me before and I said yes, there were a few aspects that bothered me. MR WESSELS What did you do to solve these concerns and doubts? MR BOTHA I kept quiet. MR WESSELS You kept quiet. In the March or the beginning of March you are now beginning with your new career, you are very enthusiastic about it, you want to prove yourself, you want to do your bit which you believed was the right thing to do in the country, to fight the terrorists, and before you became really operational you receive an instruction that you know is illegal and that if it is exposed you will lose your job, is that not true Mr Botha? MR BOTHA Yes, I accepted that it will not be exposed, I accepted that it will not be exposed. I accepted that nobody will know about it, it will not be exposed. MR WESSELS Well what made you make that inference? I'm not talking about the murder now, the fact that the organisation will find out about it, the fact that you were involved? MR BOTHA It can only be confirmed by myself or Mr Barnard. I was prepared not to say anything and I assumed he did that as well. MR WESSELS So you were prepared to take that risk at that stage to assist Mr Barnard, against the rules of the organisation? MR BOTHA I was prepared to take the risk because I was brainwashed during a course which your client held or held a lecture, it was concerning the sovereignty of this country, South Africa, as well as the ideology that we followed in prevention of internal terrorists and acts of terrorism. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, you were not brainwashed to such an extent that you could not use your own head in terms of following the rules of the organisation, it was the opposite, is that not true? MR BOTHA We were brainwashed to execute what we were appointed for. MR WESSELS You are then willing to place your career in jeopardy, to go against the rules of the organisation, act with Mr Barnard and you are furthermore willing to place your life in danger, and at that stage we still had the death sentence and if you were caught then you could have received the death sentence, is that true? MR BOTHA That is correct, but then you also have to see it in the same context, in that I believed that I will get indemnity, notwithstanding the fact that my exposure with Mr Barnard would come to light. I was convinced that Mr Verster will also then in that type of situation act on my behalf. MR WESSELS So you believed with certainty that everything would be alright? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Very well. This is now the beginning of May, you now realise that things are not right, they're not going the way you want them to, you were under the wrong impression, which way doesn't matter, what did you do to solve this very serious situation? MR BOTHA Once again I kept quiet, I accepted that nothing said - like we did not even refer to him as Webster, we referred to him as the "W incident". MR WESSELS You did not even talk to Mr Barnard? MR BOTHA Yes, we did by nature of the situation and I told him this is what's happening and he could not believe. I said: "Joe's denying it and he's doing enquiries" and he said: "I cannot believe it." I will not use the words used, but he said he could not believe it that that's how he reacted, and it just proved that by the nature of the situation it created some reserve towards Verster. MR WESSELS Whether you did believe Mr Barnard or not, or if you believed that there was not such an instruction, or you realised that Mr Joe Verster was the largest or the biggest fraud in the CCB, is that not true? MR BOTHA Both situations that you just sketched to me held water. MR WESSELS And if the latter was applicable, then you had to get out of this organisation as soon as possible, because there will be a lot of problems for you because it was clear that Joe Verster was busy framing members of his own organisation in terms of instructions that he gave. MR BOTHA Well I will not say that he framed him. Mr Barnard was not found at the scene, Mr Barnard would deny that he was involved in it. How could he frame him? MR WESSELS Well this was supposed to be the beginning of a phase that could in the future become a frame, in that Verster was trying to cover his tracks now, in the guilt will be placed on somebody else and not on himself. MR BOTHA If you made the necessary precautions on Mr Barnard's side, he would deny it up till today. He would never have been found guilty of this murder. MR WESSELS Yes, but you had to have serious doubts concerning the integrity of your Commander. MR BOTHA Yes and no. Yes, because he denied it and no, because he initiated a project which he did reasonably well. MR WESSELS It is about exposure Mr Botha. MR BOTHA I hear what you're saying. MR WESSELS You not want to be exposed, you did not want to get into trouble, you did not want to go to jail or get the death sentence. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS But with the risk that you ran by remaining with this organisation under this Commander and another member, you were busy placing yourself in a great risk. MR BOTHA I can hear what you say, but I did not interpret it in that way, once again I followed the objectives of this organisation. MR WESSELS But what do you do now, you receive the instruction, shortly afterwards you have to go and monitor Bruce White. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And you do not know why you have to monitor him, maybe he has to be killed or eliminated, is that not true? MR BOTHA Yes, that was a possibility. MR WESSELS And what do you do, you go, you get your good friend Barnard, going against the rules of the organisation, to assist you. MR BOTHA Once again it wouldn't have come to light. 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? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS But most crimes come to light at a certain stage. MR 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. MR 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. MR 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? MR BOTHA Yes, I did. CHAIRPERSON Did you know that she had also been involved in monitoring Dr Webster's house? MR 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? MR 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. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS You were in her vehicle at various opportunities while you monitored the house. MR 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? MR 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? MR BOTHA No, I did not think of it. MR WESSELS You did not? MR 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? MR 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. MR BOTHA It is possible. MR WESSELS And it was speculation or it was a consideration that you thought of. MR 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. MR BOTHA Yes, in all probability. MR WESSELS Once again an instruction from this organisation? MR BOTHA That's correct. MR WESSELS Once again an instruction from this Commander whom you cannot trust at all. MR 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? MR 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. MR 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. MR LAX Absolutely. I'm not saying it's not a cause for concern in this witness, that I'm accepting without doubt, what I'm saying is it's not a sinister or a totally outrageous form of conduct that you would expect from him and therefore to put it to him on that basis, which is how I'm hearing you put it, you're saying this is so unreasonable to expect Verster to behave in that way, that he would be framing his own man. I'm saying he's not framing him, it's equally - maybe we're talking at cross-purposes... MR WESSELS I think we're talking at cross-purposes, because I'm not suggesting that, I'm merely referring to what in his mind must have been the reason and nothing further than that. MR LAX As long as this is clear then let's proceed on that basis. MR WESSELS All that I'm saying to you Mr Botha, is that in your mind strange things were now happening and that the possibility came up in your mind that Verster's busy doing sinister things which could place you in danger and that he would not admit that this was a CCB instruction. MR BOTHA Sir, as I have said before it can possibly be that he had in mind to place it before somebody else. MR WESSELS I'm talking about other structures, I'm not saying what he had in mind, I'm just trying to find out what was going on in your mind. You probably felt very worried about what Verster was doing. MR BOTHA And I said yes and no, yes there may have been method in his madness. MR WESSELS Yes but it could also be to your disadvantage. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS You do nothing about it, you do not ask anything from anybody or to anyone and you continue with your career in this structure. MR BOTHA Who could I have asked? MR WESSELS Could you not have discussed it with anybody in the organisation? MR BOTHA Can you identify anybody for me? MR WESSELS Could you not discuss this with Gen Webb? MR BOTHA We had no access to him. MR WESSELS For something of this serious nature you could have got access. MR BOTHA I had to go through Verster to go to the General, there was no other way, there was no other line of contact. MR WESSELS Well you knew that Gen Webb was the Commander, the Chairperson, you knew that Gen Webb is a General in Special Forces. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR WESSELS You knew that he had a telephone. MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS By nature of the situation you could phone him and say: "General, I would like to make an appointment, I've got very sensitive issues that I'd like to discuss with you." MR BOTHA I was a footsoldier and the General and Verster walked together, and you are now trying to say to me that I must consider that option, I have to go to the General and discuss an instruction that he possibly does not even know of. MR WESSELS You did not think of anybody in the police or another confidant who you could approach, you were prepared to continue. MR BOTHA That is also why I ended up in the Section 29 detention, because people spoke about things. MR WESSELS You then continued and you now get the instruction to monitor Bruce White and you foresee that there could be a possible instruction at a later stage to eliminate him. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS You continue and you involve Mr Barnard, once again against the rules of the organisation. MR BOTHA As you say, yes. MR WESSELS And did you in this period of time of a month after the Webster murder, think that maybe you should start acting within the rules of the organisation, that you are busy with very serious matters and that you have to follow the rules? MR BOTHA Sir, I have said to you before that I was very willing, I wanted to achieve things in this organisation and I did not have a substructure which I could apply to do the monitoring for me. In other words I had to do it myself. I will stand by that. CHAIRPERSON What about Geoffrey, when did you get hold of Geoffrey? MR BOTHA Sir, it was in the region of April. I could have used him most probably. MR WESSELS Why did you not make use of him? MR BOTHA Sir, he was in a phase in which I was still - he was still in the Peaches phase, the test phase and I was not ready to apply him in such a project. MR WESSELS Mr White was not a priority target or project? MR BOTHA: It was a name that was given to us and we were told that we have to focus on him. MR WESSELS Could you not go to your Regional Manager and ask him, tell him that: "Look, I've got a problem, I haven't got anybody that I can apply, we have to wait a while"? MR BOTHA Seen in the light of my situation with Staal Burger, it would have been fatal. MR WESSELS Why, Mr Botha? MR BOTHA I cannot go to him Sir and show to him that I, or indicate that "I cannot do this now, you have to assist me, I'm not qualified to do it, because you gave me this name and I cannot do anything about it." I couldn't do it. MR WESSELS You were rather willing to take the risk of discharge if it came out that you broke the rules? MR BOTHA Sir, in retrospect it was not supposed to come out. I did take precautions, a mistake was made and it was not supposed to come out, otherwise it wouldn't have come out. MR WESSELS It did come out and you were in a lot of trouble. MR BOTHA That is correct. CHAIRPERSON Mr Wessels, when it's a convenient time we'll take the adjournment. I don't know if it's a convenient time now. We will now take the lunch adjournment until 2 o'clock, thank you. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION CARL CASTELING BOTHA (s.u.o.) CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Wessels. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WESSELS (Cont) Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Botha, you told Mr Bizos that you requested and that you begged for them to look after Barnard, do you recall that? MR BOTHA Yes, I basically insisted upon it. MR WESSELS Who is the "they" or "them"? MR BOTHA I took up the matter with Staal Burger, our Regional Manager, as well as Nick Nienaber. MR WESSELS And when did you have these discussions? MR BOTHA I suspect that it was in September, with the first problems that he picked up. I can't say precisely when it was, it was with his first arrest or detention and the enquiries regarding Lubowski or whatever the case was, I'm not sure. And then there was also a second occasion before my own arrest that I asked for him to be given assistance. I said he needed help. MR WESSELS And what was their attitude? MR BOTHA It was dual in nature. Firstly, they were initially unwilling to help, to the extent that they were going to turn their backs on him and at a later stage they realised that they had to assist him. MR WESSELS And what did you tell them, why should they assist him? MR BOTHA I sketched two scenarios for them. Firstly, because he didn't have any contact with his handler or his Co-ordinator, and I simply sent the message through them and then secondly, because he was involved with me. MR WESSELS Because he was involved with who? MR BOTHA With me. MR WESSELS With you? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS Why didn't he have any contact with his handler? MR BOTHA He didn't have any right for legal visitations and I was basically the only way in which we could make use of a channel to get information to him. MR WESSELS What did you say to Mr Burger and the other person as a reason why Mr Barnard should be looked after, in what had he been involved? MR BOTHA I suggested that he knew about them, that he knew of my involvement with them and that he had indeed recruited Aitchison and as such he knew about the structure and I didn't want to place him in a situation where he would expose us. MR WESSELS Didn't you tell them that the organisation should look after Barnard because Barnard could expose the situation and that he didn't have any contact? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS Did you tell them that he was still a member of the organisation? MR BOTHA Well I said that he was in the organisation, I can't recall my precise words, it was something to that effect. MR WESSELS But if he was still in the organisation, why wouldn't his handler have seen to his interests? MR BOTHA Because he didn't have any contact with him and I don't think they really knew how to work with money and Brenda's situation regarding her daily existence, and I wanted to create a channel so that they money could be channelled. MR WESSELS Very well. So you wanted to keep Mr Barnard in the situation as far as possible, so that he could still enjoy the benefits of whatever protection would be provided? MR BOTHA I just gave the facts as they were known to me. MR WESSELS Yes. And those facts were to the effect that he was still a member of the organisation and that he didn't have any contact with his handler and that they had to look after him? MR BOTHA Correct. MR WESSELS And it was also to Mr Barnard's advantage in as far as you were concerned, that he remain a member of the organisation, that he be regarded as a member of the organisation? MR BOTHA If he could, then yes. MR WESSELS Yes of course, and your relationship with him was still very favourable at that stage and you believe that he deserved it. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS I want to refer you to your statement after your arrest, in bundle B, page 4. You state there in the third or the fourth paragraph from the top of the page "At this stage Ferdi was discharged by his Co-ordinator, Louis." What is your comment on that? MR BOTHA I have already given elaborate commentary on this. MR WESSELS Were you mistaken? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS What was the position? Was he on ice? MR BOTHA I told you I wasn't certain whether he was on ice or whether it was an argument that they had. I'm prepared to concede that I was aware of an argument which took place, there was some discord. Let's keep it at that, there was a measure of discord. MR WESSELS So there was some discord between two members, but that wouldn't necessary mean that one of them would be automatically discharged or that the one would no longer be a member of the organisation. MR BOTHA Yes, that is correct. MR WESSELS So you stated it in positive that he was discharged but then you realised you were mistaken? MR BOTHA Well I have explained why I stated it as such. MR WESSELS Two paragraphs later you refer to your own position and you state that you were put on ice. MR BOTHA I don't see it, but if it is like that ... MR WESSELS It is in the paragraph "I reported to Burger what had happened. He was very angry with me. He reported the incident to Joe. I was seriously reprimanded and put on ice." MR BOTHA With regard to the Bruce White incident? MR WESSELS Yes. So the term "to be put on ice" was clearly understood by you? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS Just tell me Mr Botha, in which manner was the statement taken, what was the circumstances? MR BOTHA More specifically what do you mean? MR WESSELS Well you were in the cell. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And then you decided that you would make a statement, because without making a statement you would not be able to find your way out of the cell, is that correct? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS And questions were put to you by the police. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Who were the persons that interrogated you? MR BOTHA W/O Rossouw and Detect-W/O Carter. MR WESSELS Did they take you to another room for the deposition of the statement? MR BOTHA The statement was composed in various manners, they gave me the opportunity to make notes, they took a statement, there was a variety of ways in which they composed the statement. MR WESSELS And did they put these questions to you over a period and you give your response to them over a period? MR BOTHA I thought about the questions and we discussed them. It wasn't specifically a question and answer format, it didn't happen on that basis. MR WESSELS Did it stretch over a number of days? MR BOTHA Yes it is possible, this happened 11 years ago, I cannot recall precisely. MR WESSELS And after you had given your answers, was it typed up and put in a statement form? MR BOTHA I accept that that is what happened. MR WESSELS And that it was then presented to you and you studied it and signed it as true and correct? MR BOTHA I accept that. MR WESSELS Did you take an oath? MR BOTHA That is correct. CHAIRPERSON If I could just ask a question, Mr Wessels. You didn't get any written contract of employment or anything like that, did you? MR WESSELS Yes Sir, I did. CHAIRPERSON Did you? MR BOTHA Yes. CHAIRPERSON And what did that contract state with regard to dismissal? Can you recall? Why I'm asking is, if you were called in and Verster or Burger said: "Look, I don't like the look of your face, you're fired", a wrongful dismissal clearly, would you have gone to court? MR BOTHA I didn't have a copy of the contract. It is possible that certain disciplinary steps were set out which I cannot recall, so I cannot tell you with certainty. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Wessels. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, at this stage you still wanted to protect Mr Barnard in as far as it was possible. MR BOTHA I just wanted to stick to my version of his position. MR WESSELS Well you didn't want to bring him into trouble unnecessarily or you didn't want to prejudice him unnecessarily. MR BOTHA I wouldn't have wanted to do that to anybody. MR WESSELS You see you continue in this statement and on page 6, in the middle of the page you state "Before I was put on ice I saw a CV of a person by the name of Roland Aitchison. I obtained this CV from Ferdi, who had obtained it while he was outside of the organisation." So once again you refer to the fact that Barnard was out of the organisation. MR BOTHA Yes I hear what you're saying. MR WESSELS I find it odd that under the circumstances where you found yourself, you would give a statement to get out of the cell and in this statement you would make remarks which would have the potential effect of depriving Barnard of this organisational protection. MR BOTHA I understand, but then there is a further contradiction with regard to the overtures that I made to my region to relay the message to his region to take care of him. It is just as contradictory with my statement, that is why I would like to appeal to the fact of my Section 29 detention where I wasn't thinking straight and I may have misinterpreted certain things, that Mr Barnard didn't necessarily tell me that he was out of the organisation, that it was my assumption, that perhaps he thought I could send the CV through to his handler. I cannot recall the situation. MR WESSELS Were you questioned about Webster? MR BOTHA During my detention? MR WESSELS Yes. MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS And you denied everything? MR BOTHA Yes I did. MR WESSELS On page 7 in the middle of the page you state "Burger wanted to know from me whether Ferdi knew about the involvement of me and the others. I responded no." Is that correct? MR BOTHA Yes I possibly responded in that way. MR WESSELS Why did you respond in this fashion? Why didn't you tell Mr Burger that Ferdi knew about you but that he shouldn't worry about it, that he was also a member of the organisation? MR BOTHA Perhaps because I didn't want to place Burger in the position where he could discriminate against me, so to speak, I had already made a mistake and I had been placed on ice as a result of it, I was very hesitant to approach this. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER Chairperson, perhaps one should see if this sentence is within the broader context of the statement or whether it only pertains to Aitchison. CHAIRPERSON It looks like it may just be referring to the "betrokkenheid" with regard to Aitchison. MR WESSELS I don't have a problem with that, Mr Chairman. And then you proceeded and at the bottom of that page you state that later you again reported to Burger that Ferdi had again been arrested. "He phoned Joe immediately, Joe assured him that he would speak to the Chairperson and that we should not worry." Is that correct? MR BOTHA Yes, that is correct. MR WESSELS But there was tremendous uncertainty with you regarding Mr Barnard's position at that stage, isn't that so? MR BOTHA Yes there was uncertainty. MR WESSELS You were uncertain, you were not sure whether he was involved with Aitchison and Lubowski, isn't that so? MR BOTHA I don't know, it may have been. MR WESSELS You don't know? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS But you knew that he was involved with Webster? MR BOTHA Correct. MR WESSELS And that this was a very prominent matter which was under investigation. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Didn't you think it feasible that at that stage you should start telling the truth to everyone, in order to ensure that the organisation would come to the aid of you and your friend Mr Barnard? MR BOTHA Up to that point I had not yet been exposed, in other words, exposed as being involved with Mr Barnard. I accepted that with regard to the remark that was made there that Joe would see to it that everything would be sorted out, that he had realised that there was a problem, that he knew what my involvement with Mr Barnard was and that he would act accordingly. MR WESSELS Very well. Later you came out of detention and you swiftly realised that the CCB was not going to be accepting responsibility for Webster, is that correct? MR BOTHA What do you mean that I realised swiftly? I saw from the beginning what Mr Verster's attitude was. MR WESSELS But shortly after your release the Harms Commission commenced and Slang van Zyl gave evidence there regarding involvement and he testified how Joe Verster had made enquiries about Webster. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS You were aware of those activities, you were aware that the CCB denied any involvement with Webster. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Just before we proceed with the history I would like to take you back to the murder of Dr Webster himself. You heard from Mr Barnard that you had to kill Dr Webster, correct? MR BOTHA I hear what from Mr Barnard? MR WESSELS That you had to kill Dr Webster. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And you were told that it would be by means of a shotgun. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Did you ask him precisely how you were going to do it? MR BOTHA We must have discussed it. I accepted - yes, I asked him. MR WESSELS You asked him? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS What did you ask him? MR BOTHA Precisely how we were going to do it, what his plan was. MR WESSELS And what did he tell you? MR BOTHA He stipulated that I would drive, that he would sit in front on the left and as soon as we had the target in sight within a limited distance, he would fire one shot and kill the person. MR WESSELS Was that at the beginning, before you began monitoring him? MR BOTHA It must have been during that as well. MR WESSELS When you went out with him the first time, did you know that this was the plan? MR BOTHA I knew that he had to be killed and then we started our discussion. So I assume that that was the first time. We had to be prepared every time in case we had the target in sight. MR WESSELS Did you have the balaclavas in the vehicle every time and were you armed at every time? MR BOTHA Yes, with all the occasions that I accompanied him. MR WESSELS And on these occasions did you accompany him during the day? MR BOTHA That's correct. MR WESSELS What sort of shotgun was it? MR BOTHA It was a sworn off shotgun. MR WESSELS What sort? MR BOTHA I cannot recall the name. MR WESSELS What sort? Automatic, semi-automatic? MR BOTHA It was a double-barrel. MR WESSELS And did you know that make of shotgun? MR BOTHA No. MR WESSELS Did you know that it was his shotgun? MR BOTHA He said it was a shotgun that he had obtained. MR WESSELS Did you ask him from where he had obtained it? MR BOTHA As Mr Barnard testified, he had a lot of access to many weapons and I didn't question it. MR WESSELS Didn't you think that it was something that the CCB must have provided? MR BOTHA I accepted that he suggested to the CCB that he would obtain the firearm. MR WESSELS What was the position of Mr Riley? MR BOTHA As far as I know there was no position. MR WESSELS Now on this particular day, how did the murder take place? MR BOTHA After a period of time that we spent there on the 1st of May we saw a white bakkie pass by our vehicle, Mr Barnard identified the bakkie at a distance and saw that it was Dr Webster accompanied by Maggie Freedman, he told me to drive slowly in the direction of Dr Webster, the balaclavas were put over our heads and our faces as we approached the vehicle. Mr Barnard prepared himself in the left of the vehicle with the shotgun which already had a pellet in it. MR WESSELS Where was he seated, in front or at the back? MR BOTHA In front on the left. We approached the vehicle and I recall that he called out to Webster and that Dr Webster looked around in his direction in surprise and motioned towards the vehicle. I remained dead still and waited for the shot. After he had fired the shot I pulled away. MR WESSELS And you drove off? MR BOTHA Yes, I drove off. MR WESSELS And you were pursued by a vehicle. MR BOTHA There was a vehicle. I don't know to which point the vehicle pursued us, but yes there was a vehicle. MR WESSELS And did Mr Barnard tell you what he was going to do then with this firearm of his? MR BOTHA He said that he would see to its destruction. MR WESSELS Did he tell you anything about what he was going to do with regard to his handler? MR BOTHA He just said that he would inform him accordingly that the project had been executed. MR WESSELS Were you aware that he had paged Mr Luitingh a number of times in subsequent days? MR BOTHA He told me at a certain point that he was struggling to get hold of Lafras. MR WESSELS And did you tell you that he had managed to get hold of Lafras? MR BOTHA At a stage he mentioned that he had spoken to him. MR WESSELS And what did he tell you? MR BOTHA He told me that a meeting had been arranged and that he wanted me to accompany him to the meeting, which I did. MR WESSELS Yes and when did this meeting take place? MR BOTHA I cannot recall the precise date but I know that it was at the Hyperama. MR WESSELS I beg your pardon? MR BOTHA I do recall that it was at the Hyperama, but I don't know precisely on what date. MR WESSELS How long approximately after the incident? MR BOTHA A number of days. I'm not certain how many days. MR WESSELS And did you ask him what Verster had said about the instruction which had been successfully executed? MR BOTHA At which stage? MR WESSELS At any stage. MR BOTHA He simply told me that Lafras was impressed, and I left it at that. MR WESSELS Did you tell Mr Barnard that on the 2nd of May, the day after the incident, you heard during a cell meeting that Verster was making enquiries of your involvement? MR BOTHA Yes, that was my evidence before lunch. MR WESSELS And what was Mr Barnard's attitude towards that? MR BOTHA As I've said, he couldn't believe it and then we started speculating on the motivation for the denial. MR WESSELS Didn't you ask if he asked Luitingh about this aspect? MR BOTHA No, I didn't. MR WESSELS And after the meeting with Luitingh took place, did you still not ask him what Lafras said, why was Joe making enquiries about this incident? MR BOTHA No, how would Ferdi have known that Joe was making enquiries, in order to be able to convey this? MR WESSELS Well if he heard it he could say: "I heard Joe was making enquiries." MR BOTHA Where would he have heard it? MR WESSELS From you. MR BOTHA But that would have exposed me. MR WESSELS Yes, that would have exposed you, so he was trying to protect you? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS And when you were sitting there in the parking lot, could you see the vehicle in which Luitingh was seated? MR BOTHA Yes, I saw a vehicle but I don't know what sort of vehicle it was, I cannot recall, but I saw Ferdi walking over to a person and he stood there talking to him. MR WESSELS Did the person remain seated in the vehicle or was he outside? MR BOTHA Initially he was inside but then he got out of the vehicle. MR WESSELS Did you see him, did you know him? MR BOTHA No, I didn't know him. MR WESSELS Could you identify him? MR BOTHA By means of Ferdi, yes. MR WESSELS Well could you see his appearance? MR BOTHA Not really, there were many vehicles passing by in-between us and I lay flat in the vehicle in case he looked in our direction. So I looked very quickly and I didn't have any other involvement in the meeting. MR WESSELS What was your involvement in the meeting? MR BOTHA Mr Barnard told me that in the light of the allegations which had been made by Mr Verster, he was uncertain and as he stated in his version, he had heard rumours of persons who had executed operations and subsequently the person who was responsible or the informer, would be eliminated and I was there in case there were any problems. And that is what I did partially. MR WESSELS What weapon did you have on you? MR BOTHA I had a 9mm CZ. MR WESSELS And did Mr Luitingh climb out of the vehicle before Mr Barnard arrived there? MR BOTHA I cannot recall these details precisely. MR WESSELS And you lay flat on the seat and peered over? MR BOTHA The seat was pulled back. MR WESSELS And you peered over to see what was going on? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And then Mr Barnard returned and he told you that he had obtained money. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And he gave you R5 000. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Didn't you think it's extraordinary, given the fact that he was a member of the organisation and he was receiving a salary? MR BOTHA I was also aware of the bonus system and I accepted that it was merely a production bonus. MR WESSELS Very well. Mr Botha, did you at any stage before 1995, admit to anybody or state to anybody that you or Mr Barnard had been involved in Dr Webster's death? MR BOTHA No. MR WESSELS So you kept in entirely secret? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And during August 1992, the Webster post-mortem inquiry began. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And during this time evidence was given of Mr Barnard's involvement in it. MR BOTHA His suspected involvement. MR WESSELS Yes. MR WESSELS Among others, evidence was given by Lafras Luitingh that Mr Barnard upon an occasion had come to him and said that he had shot Dr Webster. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS That he told this to Joe Verster and that Joe Verster told the Generals. MR BOTHA I believe that was the evidence. MR WESSELS And then there was a situation during which it was speculated by everyone on who was responsible for Dr Webster's death, the CCB or Mr Barnard. MR BOTHA Yes, there was such speculation. MR WESSELS And it was very clear to you at that stage that the blame for Dr Webster's murder would be placed upon Mr Barnard by the CCB. MR BOTHA Yes, it appeared to be as such. MR WESSELS It wasn't only Mr Luitingh who gave such evidence but there was also evidence from Derek Louw, whose real name is Chris Nel, if I have it correctly. MR BOTHA I don't know them at all, but I accept what you have said. MR WESSELS And you realised that the incident would be the responsibility of Mr Barnard. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And that you were also at risk as a consequence. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS You were aware of the serious consequences of being found guilty of that incident. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS There was already an Amnesty Act on the table. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And according to your beliefs and your own position you believed that you did everything in the interests of the organisation and in the execution of an instruction and that you believed bona fide that this was an act which was committed by the organisation and that the terms of the Amnesty Act which were of importance at that stage, would give you indemnity for it. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Why didn't you apply for amnesty? MR BOTHA There are two reasons. Firstly, Mr Barnard and I came into a serious confrontation because we discussed the matter, I asked him what the situation was, I said that perhaps there was an opportunity here, that we should definitely discuss it, but upon various occasions he refused to do so, to the extent that he said that he would rather go to prison instead of putting the others in the cells, and I said: "But you must understand my position", and he said that he didn't tell anybody about my involvement and he wanted to protect Joe at all costs still, because he realised that he wouldn't have Mr Verster's backing. I left it at that. Secondly, I was not responsible for the project, it was not my project, I didn't want to apply alone for amnesty for a project which wasn't mine to begin with. MR WESSELS I find it difficult to understand. You see, by requesting amnesty at that stage or at a later stage, given the fact that Joe and Lafras could also apply for amnesty if they were exposed, no-one would have gone to jail because everybody would have received amnesty, seeing as the act was committed with the objectives which would fall within the ambit of the Act. So no-one would have been prejudiced if you had decided to tell the truth. MR BOTHA I'm prepared to go on record by saying that if it wasn't for the fact that there was prima facie evidence that Mr Verster was involved with our projects and had extended approval for these projects, he also wouldn't have requested amnesty. There was no way in which and Luitingh would have requested amnesty for the Webster incident after Barnard had exposed them. MR WESSELS Is that your own deduction? MR BOTHA Is that your own deduction? MR BOTHA No, it is based upon discussions which took place, during which I could see the hesitance with regard to the application for amnesty regarding certain projects. MR WESSELS You see Mr Botha, you took a tremendous risk when you realised that evidence was coming from everywhere indicating that you were involved, or at least not you but Mr Barnard was involved with the Webster incident. CHAIRPERSON Do you want Mr Botha to comment on that or... MR WESSELS ...(indistinct - no microphone). I was passed a note here by Mr Kahanovitz, I just want to read it. MR KAHANOVITZ I just wanted to clarify the situation in respect of something that was put to the witness. CHAIRPERSON He's having difficulty reading your writing, Mr Kahanovitz. MR KAHANOVITZ It appears so. Just in relation to something that was put to the witness about what was the evidence at the Webster Inquest. I just wanted to point out that at the Webster Inquest it was Luitingh's version that although he had this meeting with Barnard, he actually never passed the information on to Verster. He says - this is in the Finding at pages 137 to 138, Judge Stegman notes that two witnesses, Luitingh and someone by the name of Louw, this is probably the Chris Nel that we've heard of, both said that Barnard had made confessions to them, but he goes on to find that "Although two members of the inner circle, Luitingh and Louw, now claim that Barnard had already confessed to the murder and that Luitingh had informed Louw of the confession, neither Luitingh nor Louw then passed on what they knew of the matter to Verster. The explanation of this state of affairs is somewhat weak. Firstly, Luitingh and Louw claim to have disbelieved Barnard's alleged confession and secondly, Luitingh testified that if he had revealed Barnard's confession to Verster, he would at the same time have revealed his own breaches of security in failing to make a clean break with Barnard and that as he feared for the consequences of his breach of security, he kept his knowledge of Barnard's confession from Verster." CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Could you just repeat the page numbers please. MR KAHANOVITZ 137 to 138. I think Luitingh might have subsequently changed his version. CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Kahanovitz. MR WESSELS I think Mr Botha, what Mr Verster testified is that at a certain stage he received this information from Mr Luitingh, and it could be at the time when the Generals made the investigations, but I will not speculate it any further. What I'm putting to you is that there's at least two members of the CCB who then involved Mr Barnard in this murder. MR BOTHA If you just give me a moment to comment on that extract. Mr Luitingh was a trustee of Mr Verster, so much so that they come from the Defence Force inner circle. He has not got - he cannot discuss this with Mr Verster under oath. Do you now understand why on the basis of what has been said now, I can go to Verster or Webb to discuss things if he under oath states that he as an inner circle member, would not have discussed it with Verster. This is they psychosis of fear that was present concerning Mr Verster and his capability. MR LAX Can I just correct the transcript please. The word "trustee" was used instead of confidant. You just spoke about being a confidant of Verster's, rather than a trustee. In other words, a relationship of trust between them. CHAIRPERSON Can I just ask one question before you proceed, Mr Wessels. Do you know at all of the circumstances under which Derek Louw or Chris Nel came to know of Mr Barnard's involvement of Dr Webster? MR BOTHA No, Sir, I do not know the person. MR KAHANOVITZ But Mr Chairman, according to this Luitingh passed this information on to ... CHAIRPERSON To Derek Louw, sorry. Yes, so my question wasn't appropriate. MR KAHANOVITZ It's not claimed that Barnard was the direct source. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone. MR WESSELS Luitingh told Louw about it and then asked him what he had to do. Mr Chairman, let me read from page 1974 from the record, that is the evidence of Louw "Did Lafras Luitingh make mention of a discussion which he had with Barnard after Dr Webster's death?" the answer: "Yes." "Did he tell you what Ferdi Barnard told him with regards to Webster's death?" "Yes. The information that I received from Lafras was that Lafras was clearly nervous. I cannot quote the conversation in the way in which we had it, but Lafras was worried and he told me because I was aware of the fact that Joe Verster discharged Barnard, Joe Verster's opinion of Barnard was according to what I heard, hearsay, that he believed Ferdi Barnard was a criminal and that there was no position for somebody like him in the organisation. Lafras asked me and he said that he was worried or concerned that Ferdi Barnard told him something which would put him in a bad position, because if he would he would fire him, which is Lafras. He then asked him about it. He was not willing to talk about it. I realised that he had a problem and Lafras kept quiet or told me to keep quiet and I said that I will not discuss this with anyone, and then he told me that Ferdi Barnard used the English word "claim", in that he floored Webster. These are the words that he used. And this was an attempt to prove to Joe that he was acceptable, that he can be used by the CCB and that he must not be discharged or fired." Can you recall that evidence? MR BOTHA Yes, I can recall it. The words that they used there, that he must not be fired. This is now Mr Lafras Luitingh's words or is it the other party's words? MR WESSELS This now Mr Louw who reported about what happened between him and Luitingh. MR BOTHA That he must not be fired? MR WESSELS Yes. MR BOTHA He was therefore not fired. MR WESSELS The point that I'm trying to make here is that at that stage you knew that Mr Barnard was accused and evidence was now there that Mr Barnard made a certain admittance and that you were at risk. MR BOTHA I did not see this. Mr Barnard had the opportunity to make certain admissions and he did not, so there was no risk for me because I told him to keep quiet about the whole matter. MR WESSELS But you now have heard that Lafras Luitingh said that Barnard would have told him this, and this was said in court and Luitingh also testified to that effect, that Barnard would have told him that he shot Webster, and you are now aware that you are at risk. MR BOTHA If you see it that way, yes. MR WESSELS Did you not mention to for example a legal representative of a higher political person or the Attorney-General, did you not tell them: "I want to talk, I want to tell the truth now and the people who really gave the instructions must take responsibility for what they, for these instructions that they gave"? MR BOTHA Sir, I did that at the beginning of last year. MR WESSELS The beginning of last year, that was 1999? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS For the first time? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Did you contact the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Pretorius, and tell him about it? MR BOTHA Yes, I did. MR WESSELS Can you tell us how it happened that you went to go and see him. MR BOTHA Sir, accompanied by my legal team I went to go and visit Dr Pretorius concerning a matter and at a certain stage the discussion took a different turn in which they made an offer to me and asked me if I did not want to talk to them about certain incidents. Which I then did. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, don't hold back, tell us why did you go and see Dr Pretorius, was it true that there was a police investigation held against you? MR BOTHA It's not relevant to this Commission. MR WESSELS It is relevant. MR BOTHA It is not at all. MR WESSELS You were investigated in - am I correct if I say that there were various factors of fraud, insurance fraud? MR BOTHA Not at all, and I'd like it to be removed from the record, because at no stage did this happen. So you are willing to speculate. I'm telling you at no stage first of all, and secondly, it's not relevant. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, I will put it to you that I will argue that the reason why you went was because you were in trouble. MR BOTHA Sir, I would just like you to qualify the difficulty, and I'm not threatening you now, but if this results in damage to my person I will give instructions to my legal team. MR WESSELS You are welcome to do it. MR BOTHA Then I'd like to ask you to make sure about the facts. I'm not speculating, I'm asking you to do the same. MR WESSELS Then tell us why did you go to Adv Pretorius? MR BOTHA I've just told you it is not relevant to this Commission and it's got nothing to do with insurance or any relevant matter concerning insurance. MR WESSELS What was the offer that was made to you? MR BOTHA They spoke to me about Dr Webster amongst other things, including other activities of the CCB. MR WESSELS And what was told to you concerning Dr Webster? MR BOTHA They asked me if I wanted to talk about Dr Webster, the truth as I saw it or knew about it. MR WESSELS To share this with the Attorney-General. MR BOTHA How do you want me to explain it to you, must I use legal terms? MR WESSELS Did you then decide to do it? MR BOTHA Yes, that is correct. MR WESSELS And what would you have then told the A-G? MR BOTHA As I've already mentioned. MR VAN ECK Chairperson, this point has been dealt with, Mr Wessels asked for documentation, we did take it up and I've already placed it on record that Mr Pretorius them do not want to make known the contents or give the documents. And to ask it now in an oral fashion will not help. We cannot give them the documentation, we also cannot talk about the contents thereof. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, are you not willing to say what you received for the disclosure that you made to Adv Pretorius concerning Webster? MR BOTHA I received nothing except the agreement that I will qualify for a 204 if I tell them the truth. MR WESSELS And is that everything that happened there? MR BOTHA I will repeat it. MR WESSELS I beg your pardon? MR BOTHA I will repeat it, yes. MR WESSELS So that is the full deal that was struck between yourself and the Mr Pretorius? MR BOTHA If you see it as a deal, it can be a deal. There was an agreement with the office of the Attorney-General and I agreed with it. MR WESSELS And there were no further advantages for you, apart from the fact that you will not be charged with the Webster incident if you tell them the truth? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS No other advantages? MR BOTHA No. MR WESSELS So you then decided that you were going to tell the truth. MR BOTHA Yes, that is something that I decided to do. MR WESSELS You did not think about it before last year to do something like that? MR BOTHA Yes, at a certain stage I did discuss it with Mr Barnard. MR WESSELS When did that discussion take place? MR BOTHA I cannot give you a date, but at a certain opportunity I did discuss this with him. I think it was over two opportunities that we discussed it. MR WESSELS Why didn't you do it then? MR BOTHA Sir, because I did not feel satisfied about the fact that this is what I really want to do. MR WESSELS Then you made had this agreement with Mr Pretorius and then you made a statement. MR BOTHA Yes, then they did it. MR WESSELS You went to Mr Barnard and discussed this statement with Mr Barnard? MR BOTHA Yes, I mentioned it to him. MR WESSELS Did he look at it and approve? MR BOTHA I do not think that I took it with me, I think I just shared it with him. I think I told him this what I'm going to do, I will keep to the facts as he gave it to me and he had no problem with that. MR WESSELS I see. And in that statement that you made, did you then associate yourself with the death of Mr Webster? And you came to this Commission or this Committee earlier on in this year and you heard about what happened here and the questions were put concerning the Webster incident. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS And did you decide, what are you going to answer if they ask you questions with regards to Mr Webster? MR BOTHA Exactly what I'm doing today, I'm going to tell the truth. MR WESSELS You're going to tell the truth? MR BOTHA Yes. MR WESSELS So you will disclose your role in the death of Dr Webster, everything that came with that, the surrounding circumstances, etcetera? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Did you tell this to Mr Barnard? MR BOTHA I think he accepted that I was going to do this. MR WESSELS Why do you say you accepted that he was going to do it? MR BOTHA Well because I discussed it with him at a certain stage in C-Max in Pretoria. MR WESSELS And was this before the matters were heard in March, the beginning of this year? MR BOTHA Yes, I think it was probably before that. MR WESSELS So before this matter was heard in March this year, you went to go and visit Mr Barnard in C-Max in Pretoria and you told him there that you are going to tell the truth. MR BOTHA That is correct. His sentiments were that he was not going to say anything, he's going to stick to what he said before. He was investigated concerning Dr Webster and he was not going to say anything further. MR WESSELS So he realised at that stage that you're going to come and implicate Joe Verster and Lafras Luitingh, compromise them with regards to this murder. MR BOTHA Well I did not apply for amnesty in this regard, so I'm not quite sure what my feeling would have been, if I would have testified about it or not. MR WESSELS But from the first day onwards it was probably very clear to you that Mr Bizos and others will ask questions with regards to Mr Webster. MR BOTHA Yes, and I could answer the questions as my advocate just answered your questions on behalf of Dr Torrie Pretorius. MR WESSELS No, this is not what it's about, he gave us an answer concerning the statement and what happened there between yourself and Pretorius, but he did not say that you will not come to testify about Verster and Luitingh's alleged involvement. MR BOTHA You miss the whole point. I told you if they had asked me that question I would have answered it as follows. I would say that I made a statement with the A-G and I am not authorised to talk about it, I did not apply for amnesty in this regard. MR WESSELS Now Mr Botha, that time when you and Mr Pretorius were together and you were offered this deal, did you realise that it's not going to be good enough to say that you were involved in the murder, you also will have to give a reason why Dr Webster was killed. MR BOTHA Sir, I kept to the facts as they were known to me, and that's all that can say in this regard. MR WESSELS Listen to my question. MR BOTHA No, you are using the wrong choice of words, that makes me a bit uncomfortable. MR WESSELS Let me choose different words then. When you were with Dr Pretorius, did you know that they were interested in finding out the whole story and this will include the motive and why you were involved in the murder? MR BOTHA Yes, the full truth. MR WESSELS And you had to give a reason why Dr Webster was killed. MR BOTHA Once again, the whole truth. MR WESSELS And you went to Barnard, and I will put it to you that you discussed this aspect. MR BOTHA Yes, I told him what I was going to do, I said that I was going to talk to Dr Pretorius concerning the Webster incident and that I have to associate myself with the truth and the facts of this matter. MR WESSELS When did you hear that Mr Barnard is going to say what he just said here in front of this Commission? MR BOTHA It was after the second sitting, Mr Wessels, I told you now for the third time. MR WESSELS After the second sitting that was in June. MR BOTHA That is correct, yes. He still could not decide if he must take part in the reconciliation process or not and what happened here did have an emotional influence on him and he did what he thought was the best. MR WESSELS When did you find out that he was going to do this? MR BOTHA Not long ago, Sir, when he decided finally to do it. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, how long is "not long ago"? MR BOTHA A month, two months, I cannot recall. It's irrelevant. I visit him, sometimes it's once a month at the most, if he gives me another visit I'll take another visit. So I cannot attach a time to it, it is 20/30 minutes a month that I can communicate with him. MR WESSELS And am I then correct if I say that you knew this before this sitting took place or started last week, you heard this from him in prison? MR BOTHA Yes, he told me that he was going to take part in the process and he felt that he owed it to himself and the other parties who were affected by his actions. MR WESSELS Did he tell you that he was also going to testify concerning the bomb with the 4 kilograms of nails attached to it? MR BOTHA No, he did not say that at any stage. MR WESSELS Did you hear about it the first time when he testified about it here in front of the Commission? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR WESSELS Did that evidence surprise you, Mr Botha? MR BOTHA Yes, it did. MR WESSELS Why did it surprise you? MR BOTHA Because it's not the truth. MR WESSELS If you say it's not the truth, what do you mean? MR BOTHA With regards to the fact that it happened like that, I was responsible for the limpet mine and I, on record in my testimony, testified that I did not attach nails to this SPM limpet mine and I also did not say this to Mr Barnard at any stage. I concede that if a discussion took place I also described my reaction to this Commission. MR WESSELS Did you have a discussion where he told you that Slang van Zyl told him that 4 kilograms of nails were attached to the limpet mine? MR BOTHA I've just told you that I do not think that the number 4 was ever mentioned. MR WESSELS Was there a discussion where Mr Barnard told you that Mr van Zyl told him, who is Barnard, that there were nails attached to this bomb? MR BOTHA I do not think he said nails, because people were not supposed to be killed. He said such a discussion took place, I said I didn't recall it and if the discussion did take place my reaction would have been I cannot understand why Mr van Zyl would have said something like that. MR WESSELS You also heard that Mr Barnard testified here that when he told you this you said no, it is not true, the instruction from Gen Webb was that there should not be any loss of life. MR BOTHA That was the impression that I had, yes. I was brought under that impression. MR WESSELS Yes and that's what you testified about. But what are you saying now, did you say this to him? MR BOTHA If the discussion did take place I would have reacted in the same way, I cannot recall the discussion, and this is now for the fourth time that I've said this. MR WESSELS Mr Botha, if that discussion had taken place you would not have reacted in this way, you would not have told him the instruction from Gen Webb was that people should not be injured, because you were not involved in an in-house, you had no contact with Gen Webb. What you would have said or stated would be then: "Ferdi, Slang's talking rubbish, I was there, I prepared the bomb, there was no nails." MR BOTHA I've just put it to you like that, this is what I've just said. I do not know if you need to adjust the volume, but I've just said that. MR WESSELS That is why I'm asking you now, you would not have said what Mr Barnard testified about, about what you said. MR BOTHA Sir, I cannot stand in or associate myself with his version or his interpretation of his Afrikaans, I cannot stand in for it. If he wants to make use of the word "chimpanzee" or I use the word "baboon". I would like to make it very clear to you, you are criticising. MR WESSELS I'm not criticising your evidence at this stage. MR BOTHA: You are asking me questions if I can agree to it and I cannot. MR WESSELS So what I am putting to you now is that Mr Barnard did indeed not tell the truth when he testified about these so-called nails that were used. MR BOTHA If there was a discussion between himself and Mr van Zyl and Mr van Zyl, because of some reason, whether it was to satisfy his ego or any other reason, said that, I cannot agree with that. He had such a discussion with me and I denied it. MR WESSELS You see Mr Botha, what I would like to put to you is that at a certain time when you were in a lot of trouble and under a lot of pressure you made a deal with the Attorney-General and you do not want to tell us what the surrounding circumstances are. MR BOTHA We are back to that point. MR WESSELS That information will come out later. You had to find a motive or a reason why Dr Webster had to be killed and it was then decided that the guilt will be placed before Luitingh and Verster, because they are the people in the CCB who were involved and who testified against Mr Barnard. MR BOTHA There are also various other people who testified against him. MR WESSELS Not with regards to the Webster incident. And they furthermore decided, this is now Mr Barnard, and I'm not saying you decided, but Mr Barnard decided that when he came to testify here that not only is it Joe Verster and Lafras Luitingh who have to be blamed for this, but that Slang van Zyl will also feel some pressure, because he's the one who put him away for 10 years. Then the evidence was led concerning the so-called 4 kilograms of nails which was attached to the limpet mine which Slang then would have said took place, but then at a later stage he realised that you are also going to be incriminated by it and now you've got a very serious problem to get amnesty. Then the evidence was given that: "No, I spoke to Calla about it and Calla then said this is not true, the instruction from Gen Webb was nobody had to be injured or was supposed to be injured." And in that way Slang will be implicated and you, his friend, will get off. MR BOTHA Sir, this is your version. I will just give a brief reaction. What Mr van Zyl and Barnard's relationship was, I'm not quite sure. The discussion that took place between the two of them, I cannot say about it. Mr Barnard has not got the ability to influence me that I will incriminate anybody or will see that anybody will be in trouble unnecessarily. Secondly I would like to say to you that this so-called deal to which you are referring is not applicable just to me, there are also other people who are involved and also went to the A-G for 204s concerning certain aspects of their evidence. MR LAX Can I just clarify something, I'm now a bit puzzled based on what your earlier evidence was and I'd just like to clarify it. What is your evidence with regard to this issue of the nails? Were you told by Barnard, or can't you remember whether that discussion took place? MR BOTHA I can't remember that the discussion actually took place. What I'm saying is, if there was a conversation regarding this matter, I would have, in no uncertain terms told him that was not my instruction to put any nails or to kill any people at any stage during this execution of this bomb. MR LAX In other words, if I understood - and this is what I understood your evidence to be originally, that you denied to Barnard - in fact you confirmed what you told us. MR BOTHA Yes. MR LAX That you denied that this was in fact the intention or that anything like that had happened and that your answer is in line with what he says you said. MR BOTHA That's right, yes. MR LAX I'm just clarifying, is that your evidence now again? MR BOTHA That is correct. If I reacted, that's how I would have reacted, yes. CHAIRPERSON I just want to know, just also out of interest, why were you so adamant that the figure wasn't mentioned? MR BOTHA It just sounds ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON MR BOTHA I will put it to you like this. A limpet mine weighs one kilogram, to add four kilograms to one kilogram would have resulted in a, or it would have made a large difference in the carrier bag that was used. It sounds absurd to think that the 4 kilograms of nails will be attached to a 1 kilogram limpet mine. MR LAX Can I just clarify this. His evidence was that he couldn't remember the exact unit of measure, he thought it might have been 4 pounds or 4 kilograms, that was his evidence. CHAIRPERSON 4 pounds would be less than 2 kilograms. MR BOTHA Or possibly 4 grams. MR LAX Did he used pounds or kilograms? MR BOTHA No, Sir, I'm not sure about that. MR WESSELS Mr Barnard(sic), the point is that you prepared the bomb and that there was no singular nail in the bomb. MR BOTHA That is correct, Mr Wessels. MR WESSELS I have no further questions, thank you. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WESSELS CHAIRPERSON Mr du Plessis, any questions? MR H DU PLESSIS I've got no further questions, thank you. NO QUESTIONS BY MR H DU PLESSIS CHAIRPERSON Mr Coetzee. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR COETZEE Mr Botha, there was just one aspect that I want to clear up with you. During the detention of Mr Barnard in terms of Section 29, did he send a message to you at any time while he was there in detention with regard to Ponti House, the apartment building Ponti, where he told you in the message that they were aware of Ponti, and also that he wasn't going to say anything about Webster. Can you recall anything like that? MR BOTHA Yes, I recall such a message. MR COETZEE And you responded by spreading that information. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR COETZEE And a while afterwards there was a fire in the Ponti building, do you know about that? MR BOTHA I heard about the fire through channels. MR COETZEE Just for the sake of clarity, being put on ice, you were on ice when you were approached to go and detonate the Athlone bomb. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR COETZEE It was not the complete isolation and disposal of a member while he was on ice? MR BOTHA Briefly one would still be part of the organisation, it was a punitive measure, a cooling off period that they would apply to one. MR COETZEE And the money that was received at the Hyperama by Mr Barnard from Mr Luitingh ...(intervention) MR BOTHA Where was that? MR COETZEE At the Hyperama, after the Webster incident. ... was this personal money from Mr Luitingh? How did you understand, what was the origin of the money? MR BOTHA We were paid in cash in envelopes. This was done according to the same principle. MR COETZEE Yes, but where did the money come from? MR BOTHA It must have come from the Defence Force, it had to have been State money, that was my inference. MR COETZEE Then just another aspect regarding Mr Verster's apparent ignorance regarding who shot Webster and his subsequent enquiry. The idea that was fostered with you during training, was it through possible disinformation that you would be protected if something that you had done were ever to be exposed? MR BOTHA It was one of the options which was mentioned. MR COETZEE I have nothing further, thank you Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR COETZEE CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr du Plessis. MR P DU PLESSIS Nothing, thank you Mr Chairman. NO QUESTIONS BY MR P DU PLESSIS CHAIRPERSON Mr Martini? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MARTINI Thank you, Chairperson, a few questions. Mr Botha I'm not an expert in bombs, I just need to know, once this limpet bomb is activated, does it become a very dangerous object to drive around with or carry around or fiddled with? MR BOTHA By nature of the situation, Mr Martini. MR MARTINI Sorry, by nature of the situation you mean by activating it? MR BOTHA My answer is yes. MR MARTINI Now a limpet bomb, is it put together with screws or - are there any screws in a limpet bomb? MR BOTHA I think what keeps the mine together is that there are six screws which keep this mine together. MR MARTINI Now just when Mr Bizos was cross-examining you he seemed to have a difficulty, your evidence is not that you were meant to go with on this project in order to press the remote control, is that correct? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR MARTINI Your purpose was really as an expert to activate the mine. MR BOTHA To arm it. MR MARTINI To arm it. MR BOTHA Yes. MR MARTINI Correct. I mean a lay person without any knowledge of bombs, or any person not trained in bombs wouldn't know how to activate that. MR BOTHA No, Sir. MR MARTINI And would you agree it would be extremely dangerous for somebody that doesn't know much about bombs, to attempt to activate it? MR BOTHA Absolutely. MR MARTINI Would you also agree that once the bomb has been activated, it would also be dangerous for somebody to fiddle with that mine? MR BOTHA Extremely. MR MARTINI Now you say you armed the mine, the bomb and once you armed it you put it in Mr Hardien's boot - sorry, forget Hardien's boot, I don't think that was your evidence, you put it in the boot of a car. CHAIRPERSON It was put in a sack. MR LAX It was put in a bag. CHAIRPERSON Or a bag and then into the boot. MR MARTINI Thank you, Chairperson. Sorry, you put it in a bag and then in the boot of a car. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR MARTINI So were you the last person that dealt with this bomb before it was placed in the boot? MR BOTHA Yes, Sir. MR MARTINI And once it was placed in the boot, what then happened? MR BOTHA At this stage Mr Hardien departed from us in his vehicle with the mine, or the bomb in the back of the boot. MR MARTINI He departed alone without you or Mr van Zyl? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR MARTINI So once he departed, neither you nor Mr van Zyl had any contact with, physical contact with that bomb? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR MARTINI And your recollection is as the last person who touched it, there were no nails, either 4 pounds or 4 kilograms of nails attached to that bomb. MR BOTHA None. MR MARTINI Right. Just one more question which I had a similar difficulty as Mr Lax in understanding is, Mr Barnard - just let me understand this discussion, Mr Barnard alleges that Mr van Zyl had told him that he planted 4 kilograms or 4 pounds, I recall kilograms, but let's leave it at the number 4, on this bomb and that according to Mr Barnard, he then discussed this with you, in other words he told you about this discussion which Mr van Zyl had with him. Now do you recall such a discussion, I mean the discussion where Mr Barnard said to you: "Hey, Mr van Zyl says you wanted to put 4 kilograms, he put 4 kilograms of nails on this bomb in order to ensure people were killed"? Do you recall that discussion? MR BOTHA Honourable Chairperson, I have said at various times that I cannot recall the discussion. I cannot deny that it did take place, but I cannot recall the discussion. MR MARTINI I'll tell you why, correct me if I'm wrong Mr Botha, I made a note here when you were asked earlier and my note is, what I recall you did say you don't recall such a discussion, but if this was your evidence earlier, just correct me if I'm wrong, you said: "If such discussion did take place, I do not believe that Mr van Zyl would have told Barnard that." Is that your evidence? MR BOTHA It could be so, yes. MR MARTINI That's my note. So when you mean "that", did you mean if such discussion had taken place, you wouldn't have believed that Mr van Zyl would have said to Barnard: "I put 4 kilograms of nails on the bomb"? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR MARTINI And the reason why you would say you don't believe that, is it because to your knowledge, that is in fact what did not take place? MR BOTHA That's right. MR MARTINI No further questions, Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MARTINI CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Martini. Mr Williams, are you going to be asking any questions? MR WILLIAMS I've got no questions. NO QUESTIONS BY MR WILLIAMS CHAIRPERSON Mr Hockey. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HOCKEY Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Botha, is it correct that at an in-house, the in-house is where you discuss the execution of projects, is that right? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR HOCKEY You were not present at the in-house where the Athlone bomb was discussed, is that right? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR HOCKEY At how many in-houses were you present where the execution of your projects were discussed? MR BOTHA At one. MR HOCKEY And which one was that? MR BOTHA The one regarding the Rosscam incident. MR HOCKEY Who was present at that in-house? MR BOTHA The Regional Manager, Mr Wouter Basson, me and Joe Verster. MR HOCKEY Now the reason why I ask you that is because Mr Joe Verster denied that he gave authority for that project. MR BOTHA Mr Hockey, we have already clarified that aspect regarding his evidence and what it was, I don't think we need to reiterate it. MR HOCKEY I just want confirmation on that. You say that he was present, was authority given for that project at that in-house? MR BOTHA It was in-house and as far as I know, that is how it took place. MR LAX Sorry, you haven't answered the question, the question was, did authority get given at that in-house? MR BOTHA Yes. MR HOCKEY If your evidence in that regard is correct, then Mr Verster lied. MR BOTHA Then it is so. MR HOCKEY There was also a lot of questions and speculations as to the reasons why Mr Verster at the meeting of the 2nd of May 1989, asked what he asked, so I just want to ask you one or two questions about that. At that time, May '89, did your seniors in the CCB know of your association with Mr Barnard? MR BOTHA No. MR HOCKEY There were media reports immediately after the killing of Dr Webster, that there were two people involved in the killing. MR BOTHA At a stage they said three, four, they mentioned various numbers. MR HOCKEY The media reports? MR BOTHA Correct. MR HOCKEY Did some of the members in the CCB know that you were playing rugby with Mr Barnard? MR BOTHA They weren't really all that interested in my activities, so I'm not certain, perhaps, perhaps not. MR HOCKEY Are you saying there was absolutely no way that they could have known about your association with Ferdi Barnard? MR BOTHA That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they could have known that I was playing rugby with him, I'm not certain. If they could go to the trouble of attending a club rugby match, they would have seen so. Mr Barnard didn't play first team on a regular basis while we were practising together and working together. MR HOCKEY Let me just ask you about your Section 29 statement. Is it right that in this statement you twisted the facts a little bit? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR HOCKEY But in essence, the things that you say in this statement, the actual facts is true? MR BOTHA Many of those things are true. MR HOCKEY For example, well it's obvious that the Athlone bomb incident did take place. MR BOTHA Yes. MR HOCKEY But the surrounding circumstances, how you described how it happened is not right. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR HOCKEY While you were in detention, were you visited by anybody of the CCB? MR BOTHA No. MR HOCKEY I think you also answered the question yesterday to the effect that you weren't visited by Krappies Engelbrecht. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR HOCKEY No if that is in fact the case, if you were visited by anybody by the CCB, the police who questioned you could have found out whether that is true or correct, is that not so? MR BOTHA They could have found out. MR HOCKEY Whether in fact you were visited or not by any member of the CCB. MR BOTHA Of course. MR HOCKEY Because they keep a record of who visits you. MR BOTHA Correct. MR HOCKEY You wouldn't have lied about something like that in your statement, something that they could easily find out? MR BOTHA No. MR HOCKEY Now in your statement, can I just refer you to page 8 of bundle B, about the middle of the page you said that "At the time of my detention Brig Engelbrecht, along with Brig van Rensburg paid a visit to me." then you say further: "Brig Engelbrecht told me during the visit that I knew that I had to keep quiet. He said that this was the message that he received to convey to me." Now this "aanhouding" that you're talking about here was your Section 29 "aandhouding", detention. MR BOTHA Yes, Sir. MR HOCKEY So why would you say that in your statement? MR BOTHA Because those are the facts, that's what took place. MR HOCKEY So are you saying now that he did visit you? MR BOTHA He wasn't involved with the CCB, not one of those persons, I have maintained all the time. MR HOCKEY Is this the Krappies Engelbrecht that you were talking about? MR BOTHA That's correct. MR HOCKEY But you said, Sir, that Krappies Engelbrecht did not visit you while you were in detention. MR BOTHA No. CHAIRPERSON No, he said he did visit him together with Van Rensburg and then he said that you'll recall the evidence where he indicated he'd been ...(indistinct - no microphone) MR HOCKEY I beg your pardon. Who is Marius? MR BOTHA MR HOCKEY It's not Pieter Botes? MR BOTHA I mean Pieter Botes, I'm sorry, that's what I meant. I beg your pardon. CHAIRPERSON And is Pieter Botes a Regional Manager who had a problem with Verster? MR BOTHA Correct. MR HOCKEY And is it correct that his offices were bombed? MR BOTHA I basically heard that in the corridors, I suspect that there was an incident like that, yes. MR HOCKEY Now who executed that bombing? MR BOTHA I speculated. MR HOCKEY But it's also a fact that could easily be established, whether it was true or not? MR BOTHA Yes, very easily. MR HOCKEY And you say in your statement that you, well you insinuate that it's possibly the CCB. MR BOTHA I'm insinuating that it could possibly be on the instruction of Mr Verster. MR HOCKEY When you were asked to assist with the bombing of the Athlone Early Learning Centre, and you testified that only on your way to Cape Town, while driving to Cape Town did they, did Mr van Zyl really tell you what the purpose behind this project was. MR BOTHA He gave a more detailed report to me. MR HOCKEY When did Mr van Zyl decide, tell you that you were going to go with to actually detonate the bomb? MR BOTHA At no stage did he tell me that. MR HOCKEY He must have told you at some stage. MR BOTHA I was never supposed to detonate it, it wasn't my job. MR HOCKEY He must have told you at some stage that you're going to go with to detonate the bomb. MR BOTHA The evidence states expressly that the man tried to activate the bomb, he couldn't succeed, he gave the mechanism to me and I detonated the bomb. MR HOCKEY Just listen carefully to what I say. When did Mr van Zyl tell you that you were going to go with, not you specifically, but you're going to go with to see when the bomb was going to be detonated? You were going to go with to the scene where the bomb was going to be detonated? MR BOTHA We discussed this during our journey. CHAIRPERSON The journey from Jo'burg to Cape Town? MR BOTHA But you have asked me two different questions, what was the first? MR HOCKEY Maybe you didn't understand me. I think you understand now what I mean. MR BOTHA No, you've put two completely different questions. CHAIRPERSON The question, correct me if I'm wrong Mr Hockey, is that when did Van Zyl tell you that you will actually go to scene, the Early Learning Centre premises? MR BOTHA We decided that during our trip. Mr Hockey actually asked the first question: when was I informed that I was actually going to detonate the mine. CHAIRPERSON I think he changed it then to when you decided to go the premises. MR HOCKEY Ja, I think we understand each other now. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR HOCKEY I mean when were you informed that you were actually going to the scene. That you say you discussed on the trip. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR HOCKEY Were you always under that impression that that was going to happen? MR BOTHA The instruction was initially that Mr Isgak Hardien would detonate the limpet mine independently and would report back to us at a later stage. MR HOCKEY ...(indistinct - no microphone) you said that only after Mr van Zyl, or you handed the bomb over to Gakkie, did Mr van Zyl decide to go to the scene to see to the detonation of the bomb. MR BOTHA No, it was in the preamble to it, it was discussed, no definite decision had been taken yet. Once the decision had been taken with a hundred percent certainty, I'm not sure when that happened, but he conveyed his fears to me, indicating that he wanted to see where the bomb would be placed, in which room it would be placed. Those were the fears that he shared with me, but the actual decision, he might have taken that decision five minutes before Hardien's departure, I cannot tell you with certainty. MR HOCKEY So now you're saying that decision was not made on the trip? MR BOTHA I'm saying that it was discussed, it was an option, I wouldn't say that it was one hundred percent definitely decided. MR HOCKEY After you gave the bomb to Mr Hardien, he met you again the evening. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR HOCKEY Initially the plan was just to hand over to him the detonation device. MR BOTHA But we had already decided that. MR HOCKEY Initially, initially that would have been the plan. MR BOTHA Yes, that's correct. MR HOCKEY But in the meantime you decided that you were going to go with to the scene. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR HOCKEY Now Adv Bizos asked you, or said that you were trying to make this Section 29 statement as exculpatory as possible and what would have made it lighter for you was if you had said in this statement that you made sure that there were no people in the building at the time, however you did not state that in your statement, in your Section 29 statement. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR HOCKEY Was there any reason for that? MR BOTHA We have debated this point, I said that I told the investigating team that it was my purpose to activate or arm the bomb and the rest of the project was Mr van Zyl's responsibility. MR HOCKEY But you certainly had the opportunity to say that you made sure that there were no people in the building. MR BOTHA I don't understand why it isn't noted there, I accept that I must have said it to the investigating team, I don't know why it isn't noted. MR HOCKEY The factual situation is according to your evidence, that Mr Hardien went inside the building and came back to say that there are no people, or rather, that there are still people in the building. MR BOTHA That was after we were busy with the observation and he was picked up at the hotel. MR HOCKEY And in your Section 29 statement you said that Mr Hardien left at one stage, but not that he went to go look whether the building was empty, but he went in order to detonate the bomb. MR BOTHA I have noted what you have said. MR HOCKEY I just find it very strange that it is not categorically stated in your Section 29 statement that Mr Hardien in fact, if this is the truth, Mr Hardien in fact did go and check whether there are people in the building or not. MR BOTHA I accept that it has not been noted as such. MR HOCKEY Now when Mr Hardien left to go check whether there are people in the building, where in relation to the building were you? MR BOTHA I was not with the inspection, it is difficult for me to say precisely. We stood some distance away, a few hundred metres away, after we had dropped him off. I cannot tell you precisely where. MR HOCKEY "Aantal honderd meter", what does that mean? MR BOTHA Two hundred to three hundred metres, I cannot recall precisely, but we stood quite some distance away after we had dropped him off. CHAIRPERSON When you say you stood, what do you mean, in the motor vehicle or did you get out at all? MR BOTHA No, Chairperson, we dropped him off and then we held observation on a position which was some distance away from the building. MR HOCKEY When he returned to say there are still people in the building ...(intervention) MR BOTHA Correct. MR HOCKEY ... what did you do after that? MR BOTHA We moved closer so that we could have a better point of observation of the building. I sat in the back of the vehicle and Mr Hardien was in front with Mr van Zyl, and we observed the building. MR HOCKEY When this took place did you stand at a particular place or did you drive around? MR BOTHA We drove around once more, but we were stationary primarily. MR HOCKEY Where did you stand? MR BOTHA A few metres away from the building, I cannot tell you precisely where. MR HOCKEY What is a "aantal meter"? MR BOTHA I don't know, anything between 10 to 30 metres, I don't know, but so much so that we could see a name which we could attach to a face of a person coming out of the building. MR HOCKEY That's the reason why I'm asking you this question. You were near enough in order to attach a name to a face. MR BOTHA That is why I have answered as such. MR HOCKEY In other words you could clearly identify individuals? MR BOTHA Not me, Mr Hardien. MR HOCKEY But you could also see. MR BOTHA Yes. MR HOCKEY Could you see the faces? MR BOTHA I could. MR HOCKEY Now you said that people came out of the building, you testified yesterday that people came out of the building and names were attached to faces. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR HOCKEY You mentioned the name Mr Williams. MR BOTHA Among others, as far as I can recall, yes. MR HOCKEY Do you actually remember that particular name? MR BOTHA A number of names were mentioned, I can recall his name. MR HOCKEY You remember his name? Do you remember the name of Mr Chris Ferndale? MR BOTHA I think he mentioned that name. I'm referring to something which took place 11 years ago, these are names that I can remember. Possibly I could be mistaken by saying that these were names which were mentioned, names of Committee members and that they do not resemble a face which Mr Hardien saw. I cannot recall precisely. MR HOCKEY But now I'm asking you whether that name was mentioned as one of the people that came out of the building. MR BOTHA It's possible. MR HOCKEY You see we're again sitting with the problem, "dis moontlik". MR BOTHA Yes, it is a problem. MR HOCKEY It's not really an answer. MR BOTHA I accept that, that is why I can tell you that I don't know. I could say definitely, I could use any option, but I cannot recall. I cannot recall is closer to possible. MR HOCKEY Besides Chris Ferndale you don't seem to say that "dit is moontlik" that the name Peter Williams was mentioned. MR BOTHA There were a number of names. As I've said, I don't know if these are names of Committee members. I can recall that Mr Hardien said that such and such were coming out and leaving in their vehicles. MR HOCKEY Mr Botha, yesterday you ...(indistinct) said that Mr Peter Williams was a name that was mentioned. MR BOTHA Yes, it is one of the names which were mentioned, I accept that, those are the names that I can recall. That is my recollection. MR HOCKEY You see my next question was going - or I was going to state it to you that Mr Chris Ferndale in fact was not at that particular meeting, and it's the only context in which his name could have been mentioned. MR BOTHA As a Committee member. The name could have been mentioned to me as a Committee member of the Kewtown Youth Movement. MR HOCKEY The other fact is that in 1989, Mr Chris Ferndale was not a Committee member of the Kewtown Youth Movement. MR BOTHA Sir, I do not know the name from any other place than my meeting with Hardien and Van Zyl. It was not my project, I never worked on Chris Ferndale, so I do not know where I would have heard about him. MR HOCKEY Did you - while you were standing there and these people were coming out of the building, were you facing the building? MR BOTHA I think so, yes. CHAIRPERSON I mean you must have been if you could identify their faces. MR BOTHA I may have look in the rear-view mirror or something. MR LAX Could you see the parking area? MR BOTHA Yes Sir, I could. MR HOCKEY I'm asking you this question because Mr van Zyl's evidence was that the vehicle in which you were was facing away from the building. MR BOTHA That is why I'm saying to you that I cannot recall. I cannot say with certainty. MR HOCKEY You cannot recall? CHAIRPERSON But when you said "facing", Mr Hockey, you can sit in a vehicle and turn your neck and look around. Did you mean the vehicle was facing, or they were looking at the building? MR HOCKEY If I remember correctly, after the ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON The vehicle was parked there but that doesn't mean that the people in the vehicle weren't facing the building, because you can turn your head and look. MR HOCKEY Sorry, I meant the vehicle, the vehicle was not facing. CHAIRPERSON The vehicle, can you remember which way the vehicle was, the front of the vehicle was pointing when you were keeping observation there? MR BOTHA I really can't remember. MR HOCKEY But the vehicle was stationary at the time? MR BOTHA That is correct, yes. MR HOCKEY Can you remember whether you reversed at any particular point? MR BOTHA No Sir, I cannot recall. MR HOCKEY Get closer to the building? MR BOTHA I cannot recall. It's possible, but I cannot recall. MR HOCKEY You testified that Mr van Zyl first tried to detonate the bomb. MR BOTHA That is correct, yes. MR HOCKEY And there was a problem, you took the detonation device. MR BOTHA He handed it over to me. MR HOCKEY What did you do to it? MR BOTHA I possibly looked at the battery casing, rolled them, or just looked. I do not think I did anything specifically more than that. MR HOCKEY So you're saying now that you did look at the batteries? MR BOTHA I've said it all the time, I've said it could be that there's some dirt in the connecting points, but I did not change the batteries. I did not change them. MR LAX Can I just clarify something. You say you possibly could have done this, do you remember doing it or don't you? MR BOTHA I can recall that I looked at it, maybe I opened it to see if there's some dirt between the contact points of the batteries. I know that I had the mechanism in my hand and I accept that it's possible that I looked at the battery, but I did not change them. MR LAX You see again you say "maybe I did this, maybe it's possible I did that", either you have a clear recollection of taking the batteries out, fiddling, cleaning the contacts, putting them back in, checking the pad. MR BOTHA I wouldn't have taken the batteries out. What I'm saying is I opened the back of the calculator and just turned the batteries around, in all probability, but I did not take it out. MR LAX But you see my problem is, either you remember it or you don't, the rest is speculation. If you don't remember it, then you're saying "well maybe I did this or maybe I did that, anything's possible." MR BOTHA Apart from replacing the batteries, that I definitely remember not doing. MR LAX Yes, but do you remember opening the back and turning the batteries? MR BOTHA Yes, I do. MR LAX So then it's not a question of it's possible that you did that, you did it. MR BOTHA I did do it, yes. MR HOCKEY What made you to decide that there was nobody in the building? What happened? MR BOTHA Could you just repeat your question. MR HOCKEY What made you to conclude that there were no people in the building? MR BOTHA The fact that Mr Hardien told Mr van Zyl that there were not people in the building and that we could not see any vehicles in the parking lot. MR HOCKEY The only thing that happened was, according to you, that you saw people coming out of the building and names were put to faces. MR BOTHA That is so. MR HOCKEY Now in this regard you testified yesterday that you had to go on the word of Mr Hardien. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR HOCKEY But now the factual situation is, Mr Botha, that there were people in the building when the bomb was detonated and evidence will be called to that effect. MR BOTHA Sir, within my framework, Mr van Zyl took the necessary precautions to ensure that there were not people in the building. If you say that there were people in the building, I will say to you as I've differed from Mr Bizos yesterday, that I cannot dispute it, I'm not in a position to dispute it. I'm saying that I'm basing it on the precautions that were taken by Mr van Zyl and I'll base it on the discussions Mr van Zyl had with Mr Hardien, and his relationship with him worked that Mr van Zyl trusted him in that he conveyed the truth to him and afterwards the bomb was detonated. MR HOCKEY Did you see that there are statements amongst these statements that were given to your legal counsel, that there were people inside that building that had nothing to do with any political organisation? MR BOTHA I heard it in evidence, yes. MR HOCKEY There were people there that attended a soccer meeting. MR BOTHA Karate or soccer. MR HOCKEY Sorry? MR BOTHA Karate or soccer? MR HOCKEY A soccer meeting, and these people were inside the building at the time that the bomb was detonated. Are you aware of that? MR BOTHA Sir, I heard the evidence in front of the Commission and I'd like to express my regret concerning that, I was not aware of it, but if you say that to me I've got no choice but to accept that it's possibly so. MR HOCKEY Do you also accept that members of the Kewtown Youth Movement and of other youth movements in the region were still inside the building when the bomb was detonated? Are you prepared to accept that as well? MR BOTHA Sir, I can go on what was told to me, that the Kewtown Youth Movement left the building. That was conveyed to Mr van Zyl. I just listened to this conversation, it was directly mentioned to me. MR HOCKEY But I'm asking you whether you're prepared to accept today. MR BOTHA If you can give me proof, I cannot deny it. MR HOCKEY There are statements to that effect, taken by the police. These statements are all in possession of your counsel, that there's a number of people that were inside the building when the bomb went off, and you're saying you still, you're still looking for evidence to that effect before you accept it. MR BOTHA No, I accept what you are saying to me. If you say it's so, I've got no choice but to accept it. MR HOCKEY Thank you, Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HOCKEY CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Hockey. Before I get to you, Mr Kahanovitz - Mr Rheede, any questions you'd like to put? MR RHEEDE No questions, Mr Chairman. NO QUESTIONS BY MR RHEEDE CHAIRPERSON Mr Kahanovitz? MR KAHANOVITZ Thank you, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON This is an addendum to Mr Bizos, you're not starting fresh? MR KAHANOVITZ Most definitely not, no it's arising out of - you don't need to be that worried. CHAIRPERSON I also want to give Ms Coleridge a chance. I don't know if you want to do it after her or before. You may as well do it now. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KAHANOVITZ Now Mr Botha, could you just ask you counsel to give you a copy of Exhibit K, the photographs, and could you just look at photograph number 23. MS COLERIDGE It's Exhibit N, for the record. CHAIRPERSON It was initially K, remember, we kept changing it and it ended up being Exhibit N, N for Nellie. Photo number? MR KAHANOVITZ It's 23. Can I proceed? Mr Chairman, if you could just indicate to me when you've got to the appropriate place so I might proceed. CHAIRPERSON I've got the photo here. This is the photo, you can see a curve in the wall? MR KAHANOVITZ That is correct. CHAIRPERSON The big hole in the wall, yes. MR KAHANOVITZ Mr Botha, I want to ask you a question now on the assumption that your evidence is correct that this limpet mine was not doctored to add shrapnel, and let's assume for the sake of this question, that this limpet mine was never doctored. Now if you look at the kind of damage that that limpet caused to this wall, I assume you will agree with me that the force of the explosion was certainly capable of killing people? MR BOTHA Yes, Sir. MR KAHANOVITZ Can we take that further and say that the force of that explosion would be capable of killing more than one person? MR BOTHA Yes. MR KAHANOVITZ So you'll agree with me if one had wanted to kill people using this particular limpet mine there was no necessity to first doctor that by adding additional shrapnel? MR BOTHA That is so. MR KAHANOVITZ Now you've already testified that you were called by pager to come to this meeting in Johannesburg, where you received your instructions to travel to Cape Town with Slang van Zyl, correct? MR BOTHA That's right, Sir. MR KAHANOVITZ Now did Staal Burger say anything to you and to Mr van Zyl after you arrived at that meeting, as to whether loss of life was envisaged? MR BOTHA He did not say it to me. MR KAHANOVITZ So he said absolutely nothing, for example, to the effect that: "Look, you must try and make sure that no-one is injured or killed, but if someone is injured or killed by mistake, then that is acceptable to the CCB? MR BOTHA The exact details I cannot recall, I understand that he told me that the limpet mine had to be detonated. That was Mr van Zyl's project, the project was approved and that's what I was interested in. MR KAHANOVITZ No I'd like you to answer the question, because this isn't vague detail, I'm assuming you would want to be very clear on what the attitude of your superiors was to potential loss of life. Do you agree with me? MR BOTHA I was more focused on the fact that we received the instruction to set of the bomb. MR KAHANOVITZ No, can you please answer the question. You're being taken along as the man with the technical knowledge of the bomb. MR BOTHA That's right, Sir. MR KAHANOVITZ Alright. If the plan is to ensure that absolutely nobody is injured or killed, your technical knowledge would be important because you would in control of the timing of the explosion. MR BOTHA That's correct. MR KAHANOVITZ So you would want to be one hundred percent clear in your own mind what the terms of your mandate was from your superiors. MR BOTHA I went on what Mr van Zyl said. I based my opinion on what Mr van Zyl told me, in that there would be no loss of life or there should not be any loss of life. MR KAHANOVITZ And did you and Mr van Zyl discuss what the consequence might be if someone was injured or killed by accident? MR BOTHA Not as far as I can recall, no. MR KAHANOVITZ You see because we have to accept that, and you'd have to accept this, you're parked outside of a building, you're relying on information that you received from Mr Hardien, so in a sense you have to go on trust and you have to hope that Mr Hardien's observations have been correct, because if they prove to be wrong you must accept that the potential existed to kill or injure someone. MR BOTHA That is so. MR KAHANOVITZ You see I just want to put it to you that Mr van Zyl has a very different version to you and I want to read to you from his statement, and although this is one of his Section 29 statements, he confirmed the correctness of this portion. He says what happened was the following - and for purposes of the record this is bundle B, page 40, paragraph 78, he says that you were called to the hotel and that you arrived shortly thereafter and then he says the following happened "The workings of the limpet mine was explained to Calla Botha by Britz" Is that correct? MR BOTHA Yes. MR KAHANOVITZ He says "Calla Botha then became aware of this project. That was also said by Staal Burger, that this project leaves the possibility that people from the Kewtown community can be injured" Can you recall that? MR BOTHA No. MR KAHANOVITZ You can't. Do you dispute Mr van Zyl's evidence in this regard? MR BOTHA I am saying I did not hear that, it was not said where I could hear it. MR KAHANOVITZ Don't you agree with me Mr Botha, if he'd said that, that would most certainly be the kind of thing that you would be likely to remember? MR BOTHA That is why I'm saying I did not hear it, I deny that I heard it. I'm saying that it was not said where I was present. It wasn't said in order for me to hear it. MR KAHANOVITZ You're saying if it was said at the meeting, you were out of earshot? MR BOTHA If it was said, that is correct, that's exactly what I said. MR KAHANOVITZ How big was this room? MR BOTHA It was a normal hotel room. MR KAHANOVITZ So the prospect is there that if it was said, that you wouldn't have been able to hear it? MR BOTHA Sir, percentage-wise I do not know, but the fact of the matter is that I did not hear it. MR KAHANOVITZ You see because if you look at the context of Mr van Zyl's statement, he's explaining what was being explained to you Mr Botha, who'd now just become involved, as to what the project encompassed. He goes on to say that Mr Burger said "It had to be restricted to the minimum" and Mr van Zyl gave his evidence, the explanation he gave for what was said was that it had to be accepted that a risk existed that people might be killed even though the CCB was going to attempt to prevent that from happening. Do you accept his evidence? MR BOTHA That's Mr van Zyl's version, it's his own personal version. MR KAHANOVITZ So you don't dispute that Mr Burger said this, because you can't, is that what you're saying? MR BOTHA No, that is not what I'm saying. MR KAHANOVITZ What are you saying? MR BOTHA I'm saying that if he said it, he said it to Van Zyl and not to me. MR KAHANOVITZ Yes, but that means you can't dispute that Mr Burger said it. MR BOTHA I can dispute the fact that I heard it, I did not hear it. So that results in the fact that I cannot say if he said it or not. MR KAHANOVITZ My question is a very simple one, I think you've answered it, you don't or can't dispute that Mr Burger said it. MR BOTHA In all probability then I can't, no, because I didn't hear it. Or - ja, I didn't hear it. MR KAHANOVITZ I also want to put it to you that while you were being asked questions by Mr Hockey and he asked you at what point in time you were told that a decision had been made that you and Mr van Zyl were going to go to the premises, you stated in unequivocal terms that that decision was made during the journey from Johannesburg. MR BOTHA I said the discussion took place. CHAIRPERSON I think he said it was discussed there and then the decision was made actually later when the bomb was handed over, they kept the device. MR KAHANOVITZ I'll argue it once we've got the record, I recall it differently. CHAIRPERSON I'm not saying that he might, I can't recall myself, we can look at the record, but at one stage he did say that when Mr Hockey, maybe not the first time, he did say that they just discussed it on the way down. MR KAHANOVITZ Well what I wanted to put to him is that he'd in fact changed his version in the course of the questioning and the reason he'd done so was that he's very keen to make sure that his version tallies with Mr van Zyl's. CHAIRPERSON You can put it to him. MR BOTHA I do not agree with that. MR KAHANOVITZ Because I must put it to you that Mr van Zyl gave a very clear explanation of the time sequence involved which caused that decision to be made. Mr van Zyl's version was that you met with Mr Hardien at DF Malan airport at approximately 1 o'clock in the afternoon, is that correct? MR BOTHA I accept that. MR KAHANOVITZ Mr van Zyl says at that time the plan was still that neither you nor he was going to go to the Early Learning Centre. MR BOTHA "Ek is bereid om dit te aanvaar.". MR KAHANOVITZ Do you accept that? MR BOTHA The words that I used were that we possibly discussed it, or let us leave possible out, we discussed it on our way to Cape Town. MR KAHANOVITZ Well Mr van Zyl in his evidence doesn't say that, in fact what he says is that after you'd given Mr Hardien the limpet mine to go and place at the Early Learning Centre, it was at that point in time, in the course of the afternoon, that he started to get concerned that Mr Hardien might place the bomb elsewhere. Did he discuss that with you? MR BOTHA This is what I just testified. MR KAHANOVITZ Did he suggest to you that Mr Hardien might go and place this limpet mine in the police station? MR BOTHA He said he wanted to make sure what the facts were concerning the placing of the bomb. MR KAHANOVITZ Now Mr Wessels debated with you issues surrounding the possible placing of ice and/or dismissal of people from the CCB, and I just want to ask you one or two questions about that. Would you say - what would you say the position would be if a person with full knowledge of the activities of CCB, was unfairly dismissed from the CCB, might such a person pose a security risk to the CCB? Staal Burger walks in, he says "I'm dismissing you without notice", you're left out to your own devices, do you think such a person might pose a security risk to the organisation? MR BOTHA He might. MR KAHANOVITZ You were also - the Chairman debated with you the possibility of somebody taking some form of legal action after their dismissal from the CCB, I take it you'll agree with me one could hardly have gone to the Industrial Court to say: "I work for a secret organisation that kills people and I've been unfairly dismissed"? MR BOTHA I do not think so, unless you've got facts to substantiate it, facts which will expose people. You could done it then. MR KAHANOVITZ Sorry, I'm not sure I understand your answer. I'm putting a very simple question to you, you could hardly have taken legal ...(intervention) MR BOTHA You have to settle with "hardly". It was an option, but hardly, yes. MR KAHANOVITZ Yes. You will agree with me that even if the CCB had decided that they no longer liked a particular employee, and in an ideal world might want to get rid of them, it may well be that they couldn't afford to get rid of such a person because if they fired them, that disgruntled employee might pose a security risk to the organisation. MR BOTHA It's a possibility. MR KAHANOVITZ No further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KAHANOVITZ CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Kahanovitz. Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions you'd like to ask? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE Yes, thank you Chairperson. Mr Botha, just after the Athlone Early Learning Centre you and Mr van Zyl made your way to the airport, is that correct? MR BOTHA That's correct. MS COLERIDGE And then you were met there by Burger. We know that Burger was the Regional Manager of Region 6, is that right? MR BOTHA That is correct. MS COLERIDGE Did you discuss this matter with Mr Burger when you arrived at the airport and when he collected you? MR BOTHA Yes, we discussed it there. MS COLERIDGE And we also know that the person that was with Mr Burger collecting you was Mr Maree, is that correct? MR BOTHA That is correct. MS COLERIDGE So you discussed the Athlone Early Learning Centre in the presence of Mr Maree, is that correct? MR BOTHA As far as I can recall, yes. MS COLERIDGE So he would know about the incident involving the Athlone Early Learning Centre, that the bomb went off, etcetera, etcetera. MR BOTHA Most probably not the detail, but to an extent, yes. MS COLERIDGE But obviously you would discuss with Mr Burger ...(intervention) MR BOTHA Mr van Zyl would discuss that, I would not discuss it, Mr van Zyl would be doing that. MS COLERIDGE Mr van Zyl also then took you home in Mr Maree's vehicle, is that right? MR BOTHA As far as I can remember, yes. MS COLERIDGE Okay. We also know that Mr Maree didn't apply for amnesty for the Early Learning Centre. MR BOTHA He did not? MS COLERIDGE No. MR BOTHA Yes I'm not sure about that, I accept that. MS COLERIDGE Just in terms of your Section 29 detention, you said that Mr Burger had informed you that Joe Verster had discussed with Webb your Section 29 detention and they were going to take up the matter with Gen Smit and/or Gen Joubert. Now which Gen Joubert are you referring to? MR BOTHA Gen Joop Joubert. MS COLERIDGE Is it Joop Joubert? MR BOTHA Yes. MS COLERIDGE And Gen Smit, who was he? MR BOTHA Where did I - excuse me, can I just ...(intervention) MS COLERIDGE Okay, I will refer ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON Gen Smit is the Basie Smit of Narcotics, is it? MS COLERIDGE Page 7 of bundle B, Chairperson, the second paragraph from the bottom. You stated: "Burger further said that he heard from Joe that Gen Webb gave a list of our names to Gen Smit or Joubert." MR BOTHA That is correct, it's Gen Basie Smit. I think a list was provided to say who was involved in this organisation. MS COLERIDGE And what were they going to do for you, why did you give them the list? MR BOTHA No, I didn't give them a list. MS COLERIDGE Why they give them the list? MR BOTHA Possibly to arrange for our release. That's how I interpreted it. MS COLERIDGE And they was obviously aware of the CCB activities, is that correct? MR BOTHA I accept Gen Smit, or it would have been Brig Smit who knew about it. MS COLERIDGE And then just one last question. The Geoffrey you referred to, the person that you handled, what is his name? MR BOTHA Geoffrey, his name is Geoffrey. MR BOTHA No, but what is his full name? MR BOTHA No, I don't have that anymore, I'm sorry. MS COLERIDGE You can't recall his name at all and you handled him? MR BOTHA Not at all, no. MS COLERIDGE Thank you, Chairperson, I've no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE CHAIRPERSON Mr van Eck, do you have any re-examination? RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN ECK Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Botha, much was made of your Section 29 statement and how it was deposed of and there were certain portions that you wrote yourself and that others were obtained from your questioning and so forth, does this statement follow any chronological order? MR BOTHA No, it doesn't. MR VAN ECK If we look at the last section, you state there after you stated everything, that you wanted to add something more. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR VAN ECK And it appears that this statement was compiled piece by piece. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR VAN ECK Can you recall over what period this was done? MR BOTHA No, I cannot recall, I assume that it was for the duration of my detention, a few weeks. MR VAN ECK And on page 8 it is stated that Mr Engelbrecht told you to keep quiet and that he told you to keep quiet for about six to seven months. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR VAN ECK Did you take that seriously? MR BOTHA Very seriously. MR VAN ECK And then with regard to the Athlone incident, did you have any input into the decision making phase, with the exception of the physical handling of the bomb, as such? Did you have any input into the decision of where it would be placed, the next steps to be taken and so forth? MR BOTHA None whatsoever. MR VAN ECK Thank you, Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ECK CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Sibanyoni, do you have any questions you'd like to ask? MR SIBANYONI Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Botha, you were saying Mr Barnard communicated with you while he was in detention, did I understand you correctly? MR BOTHA No, I didn't say that, I said that a message was sent through to me. I didn't communicate with him. MR SIBANYONI Okay. In what manner was the message sent to you? MR BOTHA It may have been a variety of manners, possibly with the police officers who brought my meals to me, but I cannot tell you in which manner it was done. CHAIRPERSON Was this an oral message or a written message? MR BOTHA No it was simply a message that I received from somebody. It was conveyed to me orally. MR SIBANYONI Were these police who were looking after him sympathetic towards him, I suppose to such an extent that they can bring a message to you? MR BOTHA Sir, I wouldn't say most probably to an extent sympathetic as well, we were treated like outcasts, so in all probability, yes. But that wouldn't have meant a great deal to them, the Ponti and something like mentioning a name like W. He wouldn't have said the name, he would have said W, something like that. So it would have been a coded message which wouldn't have meant anything to the specific person relating the message to me. MR SIBANYONI Now let's come to the making of this statement, your Section 29 statement. Were you ever forced, was any pressure applied ...(intervention) MR BOTHA Sir, merely the fact that I had no access to any people from outside or my legal team and the fact that I was in solitary confinement, that was the pressure, the emotional pressure that was applied to me. That's the soul purpose of the Section 29 custody. MR SIBANYONI But you were never tortured, no physical force was applied to whatsoever. MR BOTHA No, fortunately not. MR SIBANYONI And also the time, the period you took in making the statement, it was as you please, nobody was forcing to be quick in making the statement I suppose? MR BOTHA Sir, what they would do, they would arrive at my cell saying: "Have you thought about what we asked", and if I subsequently answered: "I've got nothing to say", they would leave me for another week without speaking to me at all. That was they type of pressure that they applied at this moment in time. MR SIBANYONI Wouldn't you say therefore that means they were sort of sympathetic, either with the cause the CCB was fighting or that you were previously in the Police Force? MR BOTHA No, no, they weren't sympathetic with me, they saw this as a break, a bread in their police - what's the correct word now, during their investigation they would see that as a major break for them in their police career. MR SIBANYONI Lastly, whatever you stated in this statement, came from you, nobody suggested that to you? MR BOTHA There were certain things that they said to me that they knew of and they said: "Talk to us about this". Basically, they led me regarding certain aspects, and I also asked them, I said: "Do you know about this?" It was almost like a cat and mouse game, if I had to express it as such, the object was to see who knew what, so that I could determine how far to go, what to say, what not to say. MR SIBANYONI Thank you, Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni. Mr Lax? MR LAX Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Botha, just with regard to your blue plan, whatever happened to it? This company Capil that you started. MR BOTHA Cabot. MR LAX Cabot, I beg your pardon. MR BOTHA I did not continue managing the company, the company is dormant. MR LAX You said that while you were on "ice", you spent quite a bit of time carrying on with the establishment of that plan, what exactly did you do? MR BOTHA I went to the various manufacturers of the products that I was distributing and closed contracts with them and I also tried to determine the market needs for the products that I would be distributing. CHAIRPERSON And did you have a structure? You had rented office space, office furniture, that sort of thing? MR BOTHA That is correct, Honourable Chair. MR LAX Did you have partners, people, employees? MR BOTHA No. MR LAX Did you close any deals to supply any material to anybody? MR BOTHA I think that I did conduct singular transactions for embroidery and gifts and promotional items, which I provided to institutions. MR LAX Now you conceded to Mr Kahanovitz earlier that this mine that was used was big enough to kill and that no additional doctoring would be required, it was big enough to kill people. As you will recall, I suggested to you that the nature of the explosion was such, from these photographs, why didn't you as an explosives expert say to them: "Chaps, this is just too big man, if you're going to warn people and you don't want to injure people," The idea was never to kill anybody, the idea was to send a warning. I mean surely you as an expert know that the smaller limpet mine is a much better tool to use for this job. MR BOTHA No, not necessarily, and I will explain to you on the basis of my statement. If I look at the photos, the project was aimed exclusively at disrupting the structure of the building. Looking at the photos, it would appear to have been successful, it disrupted the structure of the building, it caused significant damage. Such a limpet mine with approximately 340grms of explosives would not have caused the same damage. MR LAX But these people could have used any other halls in the community, there are lots of other halls there, there are churches, there are all sorts of things, that couldn't possibly have been the object. MR BOTHA I accept what you have said, but my exclusive instruction was to do what I did. I understand what you've said and I respect your opinion, but I cannot tell you more than this. I have noted what you have said, but my exclusive instruction was what it was and I observed it. MR LAX Now you've told that you made this Section 29 statement because you realised from the questions that were asked of you by the two policemen who questioned you, it was Rossouw, if I remember correctly, and Carter. MR BOTHA That's right, Sir. MR LAX You said that from the nature of those questions that they asked you and now from what you've just said to Mr Sibanyoni, your questions to them, you realised how much they knew. MR BOTHA That's right, Sir. MR LAX Well if I look at this Section 29 Statement, they knew practically everything. MR BOTHA I understand what you've said, it was also insightful to me that they identified many of these things themselves from their information sources, whatever they may have been, or whoever they may have been. MR LAX Well wasn't it evidence to you from that that there was an enormous security breach within the CCB? MR BOTHA Yes, it was rather clear to me. MR LAX Well surely that would have been sufficient to tell you that now's the time to come clean, these guys know everything. The game's up. MR BOTHA I hear you, Mr Lax, but to who would I say this? MR LAX To the police, take your chances, cut a deal with the A-G at that time. MR BOTHA In retrospect it was probably an option, but I didn't view it as such. MR LAX Thanks Chair, I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Are there any questions arising out of questions that have been put? Mr du Plessis, I see you want to ... FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR P DU PLESSIS Thank you, Mr Chairman. Actually arising from what Ms Coleridge asked, I just want to ask one question. Mr Botha, Mr Maree's instructions to me were, and it was also his evidence, that upon your return from Cape Town you had to take his vehicle tot he airport for Mr van Zyl's use. Would you dispute that? MR BOTHA No. MR P DU PLESSIS Furthermore his instructions are that he was not physically present during the feedback to Mr Burger, is that also possible? MR BOTHA Yes, it is. MR P DU PLESSIS So you cannot recall specifically that he heard this discussion or the feedback between Van Zyl and Burger? MR BOTHA That is correct. MR P DU PLESSIS It would have been contrary to the working method. MR BOTHA That is correct. MR P DU PLESSIS Thank you. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR P DU PLESSIS CHAIRPERSON So you're saying that you can't remember whether Mr Maree was there or not at the airport? MR BOTHA I cannot recall. MR P DU PLESSIS Sorry, Mr Chairman, I'm not putting that he wasn't at the airport, I'm just putting that he wasn't ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON Oh that he may not have heard a discussion. MR P DU PLESSIS Yes, he wasn't present with the discussion as such. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Any questions arising out of questions that have been put by Members of the Panel? Mr Botha, that then concludes your testimony, thank you, you may stand down. MR BOTHA Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. In conclusion I would like to use the opportunity to express my regret once again regarding the particular persons who were affected by our actions and to offer my unconditional apology and sympathy. WITNESS EXCUSED CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Botha. Mr van Eck, are you going to be calling any further witnesses? MR COETZEE No. I beg your pardon Chairperson. At a stage Mr Barnard's cross-examination was standing down with regard to certain documentation which I believe both Mr Wessels and Mr du Plessis ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON ...(indistinct) to address that. Mr Wessels, do you wish to have Mr Barnard recalled for further questioning? MR WESSELS Mr Chairman, those documents, those two boxes there arrived here in the course of today. I'm told that those contain the evidence of the Barnard trial. CHAIRPERSON So at this stage the possibility still remains that Mr Barnard might have to be recalled, depending on what comes out of your reading of that. MR WESSELS Yes. CHAIRPERSON Are there going to be any further witnesses called on behalf of any of the applicants? No. Alright, that then brings us to the next stage. Mr Rheede? MR RHEEDE ADDRESSES Mr Chairperson, for the convenience of my client I'm just going to continue in Afrikaans. My client has a reasonably serious problem, I must state from the very beginning that he is willing to testify here but he has been approached to make an affidavit in order to facilitate the procedure, but there were two reasons why he will not be making an affidavit. Firstly, he has reading and writing problems and I would not want him to make an affidavit which he will have to read back in the future. Secondly, it is clear from the evidence that there are certain serious incriminating answers which will be requested. He has not applied for amnesty and he has a certain reputation in the Western Cape, which could have serious problems for his rights and it is my instruction to request, in the light of the fact that the Commission has subpoenaed him in terms of Section 29, that a Section 31 Appeal be made for consultation with the Attorney-General within this jurisdiction or the Chief Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, before he could actually be requested to answer these questions. The second point that I would like to offer is that we would like direction regarding who exactly has subpoenaed him as a witness. It would not appear to be the applicants because it appears as if their cases have been dealt with. Would it be persons on behalf of the victims or is it the Committee? This is my respectful submission that this indication will also influence who has the right to cross-examine him, upon which occasions he may be cross-examined. If it is the Committee that has called him, then he should testify in the final instance, as it would be in a courtroom situation. If it is on behalf of those persons who were involved in the Athlone Early Learning Centre, then it would be them who have subpoenaed him and they may cross-examine him and then be satisfied with the answers that he will provide. Similarly, this applies to the Committee who should be satisfied with the answers that he can provide. It has emerged previously with this sort of application and I think specifically of Pik Botha's evidence that he gave, and this is an aspect to be clarified. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you. Ms Coleridge, regarding the approach to the Attorney-General, has that been done? MS COLERIDGE Yes, Chairperson. I'd just like to inform everybody that Mr Isgak Hardien has been subpoenaed by the Commission. We have taken it up with the A-G, that is Head of Prosecutions, Chairperson, and as it stands there's no formal prosecutions pending against Mr Isgak Hardien to date, and that is basically the position in terms of prosecution, Mr Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON He didn't express any objection to Mr Hardien testifying? MS COLERIDGE I've received absolutely no objection, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Because I was under the impression that Hardien at one stage, although I'm aware that a subpoena was issued, actually volunteered to give evidence. MS COLERIDGE That is correct, Chairperson, Mr Hardien has on a numerous occasions indicated that he was willing to testify, but I just informed him that just to secure his presence and in order to also obtain legal representation which he deserves, we issued the subpoena, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Sorry, just bear with us a moment. So Mr Rheede, what is your client's ...(inaudible) then with regard to testifying? Is he prepared to testify? MR RHEEDE As I commenced, he is prepared and willing to testify, the only problem is that he is afraid of prosecution. And I state this as a consequence of his reputation in the Western Cape, there is a strong possibility that something like this may indeed take place. He realises fully that whatever his evidence here, it cannot be used against him in criminal proceedings, but the broad coverage that the proceedings have enjoyed, could plant the seed for prosecution. And the Act does not state anything specific about indemnity to be granted, but it is my submission that the only reason why there should be consultation with the A-G is for the exploration of the possibility of indemnity and that it indeed be granted. Why else would there be consultation with the A-G? CHAIRPERSON I think another reason is, because the testimony in a forum like this might affect some trial currently on the go or a proposed trial. But just to deal with that, I'm not arguing with you, is that if there's any possibility of prosecution the seed surely has already been sown by the evidence that has been given by various other people here relating to the activities of Mr Hardien, particularly in relation to the ELC. MR RHEEDE That may be so, Chairperson, but we have not yet found ourselves within a position where he himself has sat down under oath and stated precisely what took place. As it has been indicated by my learned colleagues on my right, there are certain differences in the evidence which has been delivered and that may influence the opinion of the A-G. If my client comes forward and states under oath precisely what took place, it may have serious ramifications or could influence the final decision for the instatement of prosecution. Chairperson, just to add to what my learned colleague has said, my client is not unwilling to testify, he has declared his willingness, however I would like to thank the Committee for the fact that they have obtained legal representation for him. It is clear to me from the past week's consultation that he did not understand everything that is going on. For example, it is my instruction that he didn't understand the meaning of the amnesty application and that he never applied, and this is due to basic ignorance. He is one of the persons here who stands a lot to loose. There could be very grave consequences that he may find himself in, purely because he was subpoenaed as a witness to testify here. CHAIRPERSON Although his role, particularly in the ELC incident has been very central, he's not just an implicated person who is on the fringe of matters, so the reason for subpoenaing him is understandable. His evidence could certainly throw a light on events and possibly assist the Commission. Taking that into account and also the fact that he's willing to give evidence, the fact that the Attorney-General has been consulted and the fact, the provisions of the Act which state that the evidence given here shall not be used as evidence in a trial, I believe we should proceed with his evidence. I don't know if he's ready to proceed now, but when we do, who will lead the evidence? Will it be Ms Coleridge, or yourself? MR RHEEDE Just before I answer that question, Chairperson, I just want to ascertain whether the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Western Cape has been contacted regarding this matter. CHAIRPERSON This is what I heard from Ms Coleridge. MS COLERIDGE Chairperson, it's Mr Sonn at the Super A-G's office, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON The Super A-G's been consulted. MR RHEEDE The reason I asked is because the Act specifically refers to the A-G having jurisdiction and I believe that .... CHAIRPERSON Well then perhaps you may have a point and the letter of the Act should be stuck to, but it does - and we have dealt with similar situations, it just relates basically to consultation with that. So it can be done. I think it would probably be wise at this stage to adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and then in the meantime this afternoon, if you could ...(intervention) MR MARTINI Sorry Chairperson, it's four-thirty, I don't think you'll get the opportunity this afternoon. CHAIRPERSON Well maybe - well we can try, endeavour to try to consult. I agree with what has been put, we should consult with the authority referred to in the Act, even though the other authority that you have referred to might be senior to that person, but we should stick to it. MR RHEEDE Chairperson, there is just one other point which has been brought, the sequence of evidence. It is my submission that the witnesses for the Commission are called last of all. This will influence whether or not we will begin tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock with this witness, or whether there are other witnesses who would object to our commencing tomorrow morning at nine. CHAIRPERSON From the Panel's point of view, we have no problems with the order in which witnesses are called. If I may ask Mr Kahanovitz and Mr Williams and Mr Hockey, if there's any intention of calling witnesses and what their views are as to when they should be called, before or after Mr Hardien? MR WILLIAMS Thank you, Mr Chairperson. We have considered the issue, as to whether we should call witnesses or not. Mr Chairperson, my view is that much will depend on the evidence which emanates from Mr Hardien's testimony. If he makes the necessary concessions, it might not be necessary to call witnesses from our side. So it would make sense and it would also be less time consuming to have testimony first. CHAIRPERSON Mr Kahanovitz? MR KAHANOVITZ I don't have a definitive answer to that at the moment, I'm waiting to see what happens. CHAIRPERSON But you don't feel strongly, the order in which any witnesses should be called? MR KAHANOVITZ No, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Mr Hockey? MR HOCKEY I feel the same way as Mr Williams, I'm certainly under the impression that the Commission has litus contestatio and that the Commission can decide in which order to call witnesses. CHAIRPERSON There's no fixed practice or procedure in this regard. MR HOCKEY I agree with Mr Williams that it might be more time consuming to hear Mr Hardien first and we'll certainly make an assessment after that, whether to call witnesses or not. MR LAX You mean timesaving. MR HOCKEY Sorry yes, timesaving. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Mr Rheede, I think it would probably be best to call Mr Hardien next. I think we'll adjourn now. Let's adjourn until half-past nine, that will give Ms Coleridge a little bit of breathing space in case the Attorney-General's office has closed its doors at half-past four and no-one's there, that will give you a little bit of extra time. MR RHEEDE Chairperson, just to answer the last question that you put regarding who will lead Mr Hardien, it is my knowledge and my instruction that Ms Coleridge will lead him and I will assist him in the delivery of his evidence. CHAIRPERSON Yes I think that would be the best way to go about it. Thank you. We'll adjourn until half-past nine tomorrow morning at the same venue. Thank you. MS COLERIDGE All rise. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS