Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Eck?

MR VAN ECK: Mr Chairman, may I suggest that we take the luncheon adjournment now, so we can rearrange our seating this side and start at quarter to two?

CHAIRPERSON: I see it's quarter to one, if we can then take, it will probably be convenient at this stage, we'll take the lunch adjournment through till quarter to two.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr van Eck.

MR VAN ECK: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'm calling Mr Botha.

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN ECK: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Botha, you are an applicant here before the Committee, you are applying for amnesty, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: How old are you?

MR BOTHA: 39.

MR VAN ECK: Could you tell us briefly, your school career, where did you complete your school career?

MR BOTHA: I matriculated from DF Malan in 1979 and I joined the Police College in Brixton in Johannesburg.

MR VAN ECK: And during that period in time did you come to know Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: I had already know Mr Barnard before '79. If my memory serves me correctly, I think that I already met him in 1976/'77.

MR VAN ECK: In what capacity?

MR BOTHA: He had a younger brother who played rugby with me and due to this rugby connection we had contact. As a school pupil I had already worked with him when he was attached to the Narcotic Bureau.

MR VAN ECK: And after school, what did you do?

MR BOTHA: I matriculated in 1979 and then I went to RAU where among others I studied for a B.Ed Degree.

MR VAN ECK: Did you complete your studies?

MR BOTHA: No, I didn't.

MR VAN ECK: Did you maintain contact with Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: We ran into each other on an on-off basis.

MR VAN ECK: And when you were at RAU, did you continue with rugby? Did you see Mr Barnard there?

MR BOTHA: I didn't see him there but I did continue with rugby.

MR VAN ECK: And while we are on the topic of your rugby, what other sports did you participate in?

MR BOTHA: I had provincial colours in judo and rugby.

MR VAN ECK: And when you say provincial colours in judo and rugby, could you elaborate on that briefly?

MR BOTHA: I had Northern Transvaal colours in Judo as well as Transvaal colours. I was a champion for a number of years. I played my first provincial rugby match when I was in standard four, I played for the Transvaal Craven Week. Subsequently I played on all the representative teams of Transvaal to the senior level and I played my last match during the Lion Cup Final in 1994, or rather, 1993.

MR VAN ECK: Did you play foreign rugby at any point?

MR BOTHA: Yes I did, I played in France, in Hong Kong and I also went to Israel on a tour.

MR VAN ECK: And after your student days you joined the police.

MR BOTHA: Yes that's correct.

MR VAN ECK: When was that?

MR BOTHA: It was approximately in 1981, in the middle of 1981.

MR VAN ECK: Could you briefly sketch your police career for us.

MR BOTHA: I joined the South African Police as a student in the Security Branch in John Vorster Square. Afterwards I was at the Police College in 1982 and I returned to the Security Branch in John Vorster Square, where I qualified as a demolitions expert. In the middle of 1987 I requested a transfer to Brixton Murder and Robbery, where I was until my discharge in 1988.

MR VAN ECK: And when did you complete the demolitions course?

MR BOTHA: I underwent a course in 1983 and an advance course in 1985.

MR VAN ECK: What did this involve?

MR BOTHA: Among others, the disarming of bombs. During my period with the Security Branch the country was in a state of chaos and it was my task to disarm bombs and other types of explosive devices.

MR VAN ECK: What sort of limpet mines are there?

MR BOTHA: There are two types, the SPM limpet mine which has 950 grams of explosives, then there is the 158 which contains approximately 340 grams of explosives.

MR VAN ECK: Very well, we will return to that later. You requested to be transferred to Brixton Murder and Robbery.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Is it because they were looking for demolitions experts at that unit?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct, that is one of the reasons. It was also a specialised unit which enjoyed much prestige and I wanted to continue my services there.

MR VAN ECK: Before you were transferred, did you know Staal Burger, Chap Marais and Slang van Zyl?

MR BOTHA: No, I did not know them. Coincidentally I ran into them at the scene of an explosion where they were trespassing, and that is how I came to know them.

MR VAN ECK: And after you were transferred to Brixton Murder and Robbery, did you come to know these persons on a more intimate social level?

MR BOTHA: Yes, coincidentally I was with Mr van Zyl and Mr Marais' group, they were established Detectives at Brixton Murder and Robbery.

MR VAN ECK: At a certain point there was movement at Brixton Murder and Robbery, where it had to do with Staal Burger.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Did you have anything to do with it?

MR BOTHA: No, I didn't.

MR VAN ECK: Later Mr Burger made certain requests to you.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: And we know now and I think it is common cause that it gave rise to the recruitment of members of the police to work at the CCB.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: You've heard the evidence of among others, Slang van Zyl, Verster and Burger and so forth, regarding how the CCB's Region 6 came to be. Do you agree in general terms with that evidence?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I do.

MR VAN ECK: Could you briefly state, if you can recall, in what order you were recruited.

MR BOTHA: Mr Marais was recruited by Mr Burger, after that it was me and then it was Mr van Zyl.

MR VAN ECK: And I think it is also common cause that among others, you had an interview with Mr Verster, there were salary negotiations and certain packages were offered.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Did you then formally resign from the police?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: And all of you went to work for Mattheysen Bus Services?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that was our front when we were recruited into the CCB.

MR VAN ECK: And it is common cause that during your time at Mattheysen a course was presented.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: It was a Defence Force farm.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: You also attended this course.

MR BOTHA: Correct.

MR VAN ECK: Very generally, what was the nature and scope of that training?

MR BOTHA: The objectives of the organisation were set out in more comprehensive terms, the objectives regarding what we were supposed to promote in terms of our involvement with the organisation. This was discussed at length. Among others, there were also forms that we had to study and everything that was based upon the CCB's plan, we had to examine all these aspects.

MR VAN ECK: You were also informed regarding the various plans that had to be followed, the process of establishment, the use of false names and so forth.

MR BOTHA: Yes, that was the red and the blue plan respectively.

MR VAN ECK: What was your false name?

MR BOTHA: Leon Calitz.

MR VAN ECK: And what was the form of address among the members of the CCB? After you went over to the CCB, what was the form of address among your members?

MR BOTHA: The only person who insisted upon being addressed as a Mister or a Colonel was Mr Burger, the rest were all addressed by their first names, not their false names but their first names.

MR VAN ECK: And during your time at Mattheysen, how did you address Mr Burger?

MR BOTHA: Most of the times as Colonel, sometimes and Mister.

MR VAN ECK: What was your rank when you left Brixton?

MR BOTHA: I'm not certain, I was either a Detective-Warrant Officer or a Detective-Sergeant. I did not study my discharge certificate that closely. I think it was Detective-Sergeant.

MR VAN ECK: Was the CCB a private organisation or what sort of organisation was it?

MR BOTHA: It was a covert organisation which resorted under the South African Defence Force. It was an organisation, once again, which was directly connected to the State, to the government of the day.

MR VAN ECK: Thus you were still in State service but simply in a different organisation.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: You salary, medical benefits, pension, did you still receive these benefits on a monthly basis?

MR BOTHA: Yes, in the form of cash.

MR VAN ECK: We also heard that there were vehicle allowances and so forth, did you receive these?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: And all this money that you received, who paid it out to you?

MR BOTHA: It was primarily channelled through Mattheysen Bus Services, the company for which we worked during our first phase of establishment with the CCB, however, the money came from the Defence Force.

MR VAN ECK: And also the CCB name has a civil connotation, did you ever doubt at any stage that you were busy with anything other than a State institution?

MR BOTHA: Not at all.

MR VAN ECK: We have heard of a cooling off period of approximately six months which had to be undertaken, during which there wasn't much movement.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: And during that six month period, did you visit the former South West Africa?

MR BOTHA: Towards the end of 1988.

MR VAN ECK: And what was the purpose?

MR BOTHA: It was to monitor SWAPO and to see what the current climate in the country was at the time of my visit, and then I had to give a feedback report to my region, to my cell, or to Mr Burger more specifically.

MR VAN ECK: We have heard that presentations had to be made and that approval had to be gained for the South West Africa/Namibia or yours, did you make such submissions?

MR BOTHA: An amount was budgeted and basically by means of an administration submission, a budget was allocated to me.

MR VAN ECK: Can you recall who told you to go there?

MR BOTHA: In all probability it was Mr Wouter Basson or Staal Burger. I must just add that I initiated the whole thing to a great extent, it was during our establishment phase, it was more-or-less a general discussion in the media, the whole question surrounding Namibian independence and SWAPO and so forth.

MR VAN ECK: Just to return to the phase of establishment, what was the plan, what did you have to establish?

MR BOTHA: My blue plan was established in a CC called Cabot International, it was a promotions company which among others, would distribute promotional items bearing company logos.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, could you just repeat the name of the CC.

MR BOTHA: It is Cabot International, Sir, C-a-b-o-t International.

MR VAN ECK: And what would the CC have to do?

MR BOTHA: We had to distribute promotional items for companies.

MR VAN ECK: You went to South West Africa, you went to Namibia at least, you returned, what did you say and what did you do?

MR BOTHA: I returned and during a cell meeting I informed the relevant parties that SWAPO was going to win the election and if we wanted to play any kind of role in South West, we would have to take definite steps in order to be able to do so.

MR VAN ECK: And who were these parties that you informed?

MR BOTHA: Staal Burger and Wouter Basson.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Botha, we are referring to incidents which took place more than 11 years ago, did you keep a journal and file of what you did during these times?

MR BOTHA: No, I didn't.

MR VAN ECK: What was the reaction when you stated that the election would most probably not go as it had been hoped for or planned for?

MR BOTHA: It was not favourably received, among others it was said that perhaps I'd visited the wrong country and that the manner in which I had set it out was not correct and that SWAPO was not going to win the election.

MR VAN ECK: It was also mentioned in discussions that more definite action had to be taken.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: At any point thereafter up to this moment, did you have anything to do with the election there, with any actions there?

MR BOTHA: I did not.

MR VAN ECK: We've had evidence here from Mr Barnard, indicating how he went there and so forth, you personally, were you involved in any way in any matter which had to do with foreign countries?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: After the six month cooling period, various regions were allocated to every one of you.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Which region did you receive?

MR BOTHA: I think I should just clarify this matter somewhat more. A region was never rigidly applied, persons would be allocated to a region but that did not prevent us from operating in other regions. The Transvaal region was allocated to me.

MR VAN ECK: The former Transvaal?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: And that stage, when the region was allocated to you, were you still well known in sports circles?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: You were a well known figure.

MR BOTHA: Yes, I was.

MR VAN ECK: Your friend at that stage, Mr Barnard, what was his position?

MR BOTHA: He had just been released from a prison sentence that he had served and he had been working at an insurance brokerage as an assessor, we met each other at a certain point and told each other that we were attached to the same structure, and upon that basis we struck up a friendship.

MR VAN ECK: Let's be more specific. You said that you informed each other that you were attached to the same structure, were these direct admissions or roundabout admissions?

MR BOTHA: I had the feeling that Mr Barnard was trying to recruit me, I had the same idea with him and before we wasted each other's time even further, we told each other where we were working. We had already established a relationship of trust since 1977, I knew that he had been in the police when I was a school pupil. We took each other into confidence.

MR VAN ECK: Did you have any further rugby connections at that stage?

MR BOTHA: Yes, we did, every day we practised together in the gym, we also went jogging together and we also played rugby for the same club.

MR VAN ECK: He stated that at that stage you were the Captain of the first team.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: And on a daily basis you re-established contact with him.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Can you recall which region or division was allocated to Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: Cape Town.

MR VAN ECK: Were you requested at any point to assist with the testing of certain unconscious members who would be recruited?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I was.

MR VAN ECK: Could you elaborate on that for us very briefly.

MR BOTHA: During January 1989, I went with Mr van Zyl to the Cape for the recruitment of unconscious members. At the time of this visit we recruited Peaches Gordon, among others, I also tried to recruit a Coloured man, but it was unsuccessful. During a follow-up visit we tested Peaches Gordon by means of an exercise which Mr van Zyl devised in order to test his credibility.

MR VAN ECK: Did you assist Mr van Zyl, therefore?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I did.

MR VAN ECK: And was Mr Burger ever in the Cape during that time?

MR BOTHA: During the initial recruitment he was in the Cape.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Marais was not there, he had gone to Natal as far as you were concerned.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Did you have any further work related contact with him?

MR BOTHA: The only contact we had was purely during cell meetings and where meetings were held with regard to salaries and during our establishment period.

MR VAN ECK: Regarding cell meetings, how regularly did they take place?

MR BOTHA: It is impossible to attach a specific time to these meetings, they took place quite regularly. We gathered together on a regular basis. In our initial time at Mattheysen, we spent time together on a daily basis.

MR VAN ECK: You mentioned a Coloured man that you tried to recruit, could you elaborate on that.

MR BOTHA: I cannot even attach a name to a face, it was a Coloured man who I attempted to recruit at that time in Cape Town. It never materialised.

MR VAN ECK: Did you recruit anybody else in the Johannesburg environment?

MR BOTHA: During April, I once again tried to recruit a Coloured man by the name of Geoffrey, I was successful in my recruitment and we had an arrangement that he would gather information for me and that I would commensurately reward him.

MR VAN ECK: And in terms of this cooling off phase certain names were given to you.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Which names were they?

MR BOTHA: Bruce White and Frank Chikane.

MR VAN ECK: With the exception that the name Frank Chikane was allocated to you, did you at any stage do anything definite with regard to him?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: We have heard of certain attempts which were made to kill him with poison ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you proceed Mr van Eck.

You say the names Frank Chikane and Bruce White were given to you, by whom and why?

MR BOTHA: It was during a regional cell meeting, every one of us received names to monitor and to collect information on and then most probably to devise a project on.

MR VAN ECK: What would the project involve?

MR BOTHA: Based upon the objectives of the organisation it would maximal disruption of the enemy, not necessarily the murder of a person, it would depend upon the case and that would lead to our decision regarding any project that may emanate from the information.

MR VAN ECK: Who gave you the names?

MR BOTHA: It was the Co-ordinator, Wouter Basson.

MR VAN ECK: With the exception of the names, did you have any further information regarding these persons?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I did. If I recall correctly I had a photograph and an address.

MR VAN ECK: Just to return to Frank Chikane, we are aware that later attempts were made to kill him, do you have any knowledge of this?

MR BOTHA: None.

MR VAN ECK: Were you involved in this in any way?

MR BOTHA: Not at all.

MR VAN ECK: Was the Frank Chikane project ever removed from you formally?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Do you know why any other person continued with Frank Chikane?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Were you ever informed whether or not there was a reason, did you ever try to establish a reason pertaining to anything that was done by somebody else?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: And while we are on the name of Bruce White, did you take any definite action regarding Bruce White?

MR BOTHA: I did, I tried to collect information on him, I identified an address and I conducted observation at this address.

MR VAN ECK: In your amnesty application which was compiled we find that you are applying for the Athlone bomb explosion.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Which took place on the 31st of August 1989.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: We do not find that any application has been made for Bruce White.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: And also not for Frank Chikane.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: We will return to that later. But at this stage, Mr Barnard indicated that it was his impression that Bruce White had fall.

MR BOTHA: I cannot elaborate on that, perhaps that was his personal impression and perhaps it was also based upon the objectives of the organisation. Our observation at this particular address was for the purposes of collecting information.

MR VAN ECK: We will return to Bruce White later, but this was an incident in which you and Barnard were involved in June 1989, and you were also arrested for it.

MR BOTHA: No, we were not arrested as such, we were asked to report to Brixton for questioning.

MR VAN ECK: And this held certain consequences for you and Mr Barnard, this action with Bruce White.

MR BOTHA: Yes, it did.

MR VAN ECK: With the exception of Bruce White, did you in your division and the Coloured man later, have any success with regard to projects that you executed and so forth?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I did, but there was an advantage and a disadvantage of being known in the region. The advantage would be that one would have greater access with regard to certain places, but the disadvantage was also that due to one's profile one could not hypothetically use another name, it wouldn't work in the particular region where one would be so well known. I did launch further projects, Anton Rosscam.

MR VAN ECK: The Rosscam project, was it registered?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Was it considered on an in-house level?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Where was this?

MR BOTHA: At the Ponti Building.

MR VAN ECK: Were any submissions made?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Were any amounts of money approved for this?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: What would it have involved?

MR BOTHA: The project would have involved the burning of Mr Rosscam's vehicle.

MR VAN ECK: What purpose would this have served?

MR BOTHA: He was quite a well known person and he used his vehicle on a daily basis, and at that stage it was about maximal disruption and we wanted to put him in a position where he could not move about freely, that is why we burnt his vehicle.

MR VAN ECK: With the exception of his vehicle which had to be burnt, were there any other plans pertaining to Mr Rosscam?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: And was the submission only about the burning of his vehicle?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: And who initially was the subject, or who was the person that would do it?

MR BOTHA: The Coloured man, Geoffrey.

MR VAN ECK: Was this the so-called unconscious member?

MR BOTHA: Yes, he was an unconscious member.

MR VAN ECK: Was that project ever executed by Geoffrey?

MR BOTHA: The project was executed but not by Geoffrey.

MR VAN ECK: How was it executed?

MR BOTHA: Mr Barnard and I decided at a certain point that Geoffrey would not perform to our wishes, that we might have overestimated his capacities and that we ourselves would continue with the project.

MR VAN ECK: Was this in 1989?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: We have heard the evidence of Mr Barnard regarding how you broke into the vehicle and poured the petrol into the vehicle and how the vehicle was burnt, do you agree with it?

MR BOTHA: To a great extent. I'm not certain of the hammer, but to a great extent I would agree with his version.

MR VAN ECK: And if you say not necessarily the 4 pound hammer, is it that you cannot recall it or is it a case of it not having taken place?

MR BOTHA: Yes, it took place, it is just that his recollection is perhaps better than mine, I cannot attach a mass to the hammer as such.

MR VAN ECK: Rosscam was never - or you never applied for the Rosscam incident.

MR BOTHA: No, I didn't.

MR VAN ECK: Who dealt with your amnesty applications?

MR BOTHA: Mr Piet du Plessis from the attorneys firm, David Botha, Du Plessis and Kruger.

MR VAN ECK: We heard from Mr Barnard that he first dealt with other attorneys, did you also have other attorneys before this?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Was Mr du Plessis your attorney right through this?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Can you tell the Honourable Committee why you did not apply for Rosscam.

MR BOTHA: Sir, when we compiled our applications we had a senior attorney, Etienne du Toit, and we were advised that it was not a human rights violation and I therefore do not have to apply for amnesty for this.

MR VAN ECK: Did you accept it as such?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I did.

MR VAN ECK: Did you at that stage have any reason to doubt it?

MR BOTHA: No, I did not.

MR VAN ECK: If you were advised to do something else would you have applied for the Rosscam incident?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I would have.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you get of that incident, Mr van Eck.

You keep mentioning this term "maximum disruption", did you consider yourself personally, that the burning of Mr Rosscam's car constituted maximum disruption?

MR BOTHA: Yes it was motivated on the hand of the specific circumstances surrounding this person. It was also part of the project that it would be a maximum disruption in his life, in the execution of his career, his daily activities and movements.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it would seem it would probably have been nothing more than an annoying inconvenience, I mean he can go and hire a car or borrow a motor car, I mean it's hardly a maximum disruption. I mean his car could have broken down, it wouldn't have been a maximum disruption.

MR BOTHA: As the organisation's objectives read, the disruption could be the breaking of a window up to the killing of a person and this incident was in-between the two. For us it was enough to disrupt him. The project led to this.

CHAIRPERSON: It's just that I'm interested in the term "maximum disruption", you always seem to use the term "maximum disruption".

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr van Eck.

What was your specific object in doing that, in smashing this car up? I mean you've said maximal disruption but that's a euphemism, what was your actual object?

MR BOTHA: Mr Lax, amongst other things, to bring across a message that he is busy with activities that are to the government's detriment and whoever he may then connect with this act would then disrupt him in terms of his personal activities as the SR member of Wits. That was our idea.

MR LAX: So you were trying to intimidate him, to put it plainly?

MR BOTHA: That's correct, yes.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Botha, while we are dealing with this maximal disruption, did this differ from person to person?

MR BOTHA: Yes, it did.

MR VAN ECK: Apart from Rosscam, which was a project that you presented, or maybe not executed in the right way, but it took place in September, did you within Region 6 execute any other projects that you personally made submissions for, held an in-house meeting, got approval for and completed?

MR BOTHA: No, I did not.

MR VAN ECK: At a certain stage you were in a discussion with Mr Barnard who approached you to assist him in an observation of Dr Webster.

MR BOTHA: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN ECK: When did this take place?

MR BOTHA: It was, if my recollection is correct, it was in April of '89.

MR VAN ECK: Did you at that stage know that Mr Barnard worked for the same organisation but just in a different region or in a different capacity?

MR BOTHA: I knew that he was involved in the same organisation, yes. I was not quite sure about his region, but I knew that he was involved in the organisation.

MR VAN ECK: What was in Region 6, what was your relationship with Mr Burger at that stage?

MR BOTHA: Sir, we had a few confrontations that led to certain personal differences or an argument between the two of us. In short, I said we had personality clash. It may seem a bit childish to say that I felt that he did not give me enough attention, but that's what it boiled down to.

MR VAN ECK: If you say that you felt left out, does this mean that you felt that the daily activities in Region 6 were shared with you?

MR BOTHA: No, I did not expect it, but I just got the feeling and it was just a feeling that I personally had, that I was not involved and I did not receive all the advantages.

MR VAN ECK: You were approached by Mr Barnard to assist him in the Webster case, did you know Dr Webster at that stage?

MR BOTHA: No, I did not know him, but I did know that he was a high profile left-wing activist. If I can put it in that way.

MR VAN ECK: What did Ferdi Barnard say to you? It was Dr Webster, and what was the end objective?

MR BOTHA: Mr Barnard approached me in April where he showed me an A4 photograph of Dr Webster, as well as two addresses, together with a file and an investigative journal that we use stating the dates of visits and what occurred there. He, amongst other things, explained to me Dr Webster's involvement in left-wing organisations as well as the recruitment of students for underground structures. He also stated that there was an incident in which Mr Webster was involved in Mozambique and where he disclosed certain information and that he got the instruction to eliminate Dr Webster.

MR VAN ECK: How did you accept this?

MR BOTHA: Once again in context, I trusted Mr Barnard and I do not want to place this outside of, not put it into perspective, but we did trust each other. Apart from our friendship, I believed what he said, he conveyed certain facts to me that correlated with what we did in the organisation and based on what he told me, I made the inference that he did receive approval from the highest level in terms of the execution of this operation and I did not question it.

MR VAN ECK: Was it at any stage necessary for you, whether it was through your action or what Mr Barnard told you, to doubt what he said?

MR BOTHA: No, never.

MR VAN ECK: The activities or the way in which you worked before, was it necessary for you to question that?

MR BOTHA: I verified it by means of a conversation that we had, where he mentioned to me that the in-house and the presentation took place in the Ponti House. He conveyed certain facts to me that made sense, because I was also knowledgeable concerning an in-house meeting and I did not question it, no.

MR VAN ECK: And the Ponti Building?

MR BOTHA: I also did not question that, I was also at the Ponti Building where we drove with one vehicle and he said to me that he attended a meeting, I cannot recall his exact words, where he went into the Ponti Building and I waited downstairs for him.

MR VAN ECK: Did he mention the name Verster?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: We have heard of two Mr Versters, which name did he give you?

MR BOTHA: Joe Verster.

MR VAN ECK: Is this the same Joe Verster who you met in your capacity in the CCB?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: What did he mention about Joe Verster?

MR BOTHA: Mr Barnard said that an in-house was held concerning the operation or project, information that he collected over a period of time and that he conveyed to Mr Verster, as well as his Co-ordinator, Mr Lafras Luitingh, who was unknown to me, who handled him or who served as his Co-ordinator, and he presented the project to Mr Verster and Mr Verster basically gave him the approval with regard to the execution of the project.

MR VAN ECK: Did the name Lafras Luitingh ring any bells?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: You said that it was a person that was unknown to you.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Did you receive information that Lafras Luitingh was also involved in the CCB?

MR BOTHA: Mr Barnard presented him as his Co-ordinator, he could have used the word handler, but it's got basically the same profile.

MR VAN ECK: You cannot specifically recall the exact words?

MR BOTHA: No, I cannot.

MR VAN ECK: Did you deem it necessary Mr Botha, to question that which you were involved in with Mr Barnard, to take this up with people in your region?

MR BOTHA: I could not because it was against the rules and with the activities of the CCB, which I accepted, and we also had a very unique situation between myself and Mr Barnard and it would have been impossible to share this with my region or with my cell members.

MR VAN ECK: Would you, for example, have mentioned it to Burger or Basson? What do you think their reaction would be?

MR BOTHA: It would not have been a very good reaction. I think it's an understatement if I put it that way. It would have led to my immediate dismissal.

MR VAN ECK: What do you think would be the results or the consequences if the operation was executed in the elimination of Dr Webster and if you've mentioned this to Dr Webster?

MR BOTHA: Well they would have suspended the operation or the project.

MR VAN ECK: What did you do in terms of the execution of this project of Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: Well generally Mr Barnard and myself monitored or visited Dr Webster's house. I think it was three or four times, I would say it was four times. We monitored movements and to see if he appeared and certain opportunities, I think it was the 1st of May 1989 Mr Barnard came to pick me up at my residence in a white vehicle and we again followed the normal routine to the monitoring of the house and the observation that took place there and on that specific day Dr Webster drove past us in a white pick-up or bakkie and Mr Barnard felt that this was the ideal moment to execute the project and he continued and eliminated the person with a sawed-off shotgun. I acted as the driver of the vehicle and that was in general my participation in the project.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Botha we have heard the evidence of how Mr Barnard went to go and practice with somebody else's shotgun were you involved in that preparation?

MR BOTHA: No I wasn't.

MR VAN ECK: Were you involved in the preparation of the shotgun?

MR BOTHA: No I wasn't.

MR VAN ECK: Every time when you went to go and observe the house were you ready, if the opportunity comes up to execute this operation?

MR BOTHA: Yes we were prepared and ready every single time we went.

MR VAN ECK: Did you make use of balaclavas?

MR BOTHA: Yes it was in the vehicle. During the execution of the operation we also covered our faces with it.

MR VAN ECK: Was there any other opportunity in which Mr Barnard could shoot Dr Webster?

MR BOTHA: Not what I know of, not where I accompanied him. I did hear that he did observe the house at other times but not when I was with there.

MR VAN ECK: With Brenda for example.

MR BOTHA: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN ECK: Were you involved in the writing down of the details?

MR BOTHA: No. In short it was his project. I assisted him as a confidante if I can explain it in that way.

MR VAN ECK: After the shooting of Dr Webster were you dropped off at your house and Mr Barnard left with the evidence, do you know what happened to it?

MR BOTHA: No Sir, he just said that he broke the shotgun into pieces. I also again did not question his integrity or in terms of what he told me. Once again we had this trust between the two of us but I would doubt that he held the weapon at his house, for example.

MR VAN ECK: On that specific day there was a lady with Dr Webster, did you see her?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Barnard told us what his initial attitude was towards this Commission, how he approached this Commission, and his initial attitude was that he is here but he will not cooperate.

MR BOTHA: That is correct. People who know Mr Barnard will know that he's a difficult person to get along with. He's a difficult witness and he is also a person who has got a history as far back as his first detention that he never implicated anybody else.

MR VAN ECK: The reason why I am asking you this is that Mr Barnard explained to us that why at the previous sitting he systematically started changing his attitude towards the Commission to the approach and sympathy that came especially from Mrs Omar and that this resulted into a change of mind and on which he then decided to take this Commission into his confidence.

MR BOTHA: Yes I was party to this and I did observe it and was part of it, that is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Right. It is common cause and I will ask you on this a bit later and certainly you will be asked by other parties concerning this, you were asked about why you denied any participation in the Webster murder. It was put to you that you made a statement to the Attorney General, Mr Pretorius, which included your involvement in the Webster murder.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: More-or-less when was this?

MR BOTHA: It was in February last year.

MR VAN ECK: 1999?

MR BOTHA: That's correct.

MR VAN ECK: In other words it was a long time before Mr Barnard had a change of heart with regards to admitting to the murder of Dr Webster?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, yes. As Mr Barnard testified I visit him on a regular basis in C-Max in Pretoria and at a certain stage I had a conversation in which I told him at a certain stage he will have to draw a line. I am part of the reconciliation process. At the end of the day, apart from the deeds that we committed I also have a conscience and I just want to clear my conscience, and I was approached by the Attorney General, Mr Pretorius, and I told him this is what I feel. I want to do this. And he supported me. And he also said to me that he was not going to open his heart, if I can put it that way, but this is my right to do what I want to, and that is what I then did.

MR VAN ECK: Up to the time when you made contact with Mr Pretorius was Mr du Plessis your legal representative?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: This is now from the beginning of the CCB and the revelations that happened throughout this process?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: During that process while you spoke to Mr Pretorius were you still with Mr du Plessis, as a client of his?

MR BOTHA: Yes Sir. Just before I made a statement I felt that because of ethical reasons it would not be correct to place his integrity in doubt, there would be a clash of interests, I then decided to get a different legal team to represent me.

MR VAN ECK: Is it correct that when you changed your legal team you did not inform Mr du Plessis what the reason was? You did not disclose the Webster incident to him?

MR BOTHA: No I did not.

MR VAN ECK: Is there a reason for this?

MR BOTHA: Sir I had never discussed Webster with anybody, it was a closed book. I saw that Verster and other CCB, I saw how they reacted during my detention and the day after the shooting he asked people if we were involved and that made me realise that this project would not be admitted, either by himself or by any other party. So it was a closed book.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Botha, when you made this statement to Mr Pretorius, was that after the conclusion of Mr Barnard's trial, after he had been convicted of the murder of Dr Webster?

MR BOTHA: Yes Sir, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So why did you elect to make a statement to the Attorney General's office, what was the purpose? Was it just to purge yourself, to come clean in the spirit of reconciliation or was there some other reason as to why you went to the Attorney General in particular, the Attorney General's office?

MR BOTHA: Sir they approached me. I also went to them with regards to another incident that had nothing to do with the Commission's proceedings, and they also asked me to make a statement in this regard. The seed was planted and I started thinking about this and struggling with it and I felt that here's an opportunity to come clean and I just then applied myself to it.

MR VAN ECK: You never applied for amnesty for the death of Mr Webster?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN ECK: The post mortem inquest was held.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: The Harms Commission addressed this.

MR BOTHA: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN ECK: On both occasions you decided not to make known what your role was?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Did you have any personal knowledge of the instructions given to Mr Barnard? Did you trust his word?

MR BOTHA: Yes I did.

MR VAN ECK: Why did you continually deny your part in it or to tell the truth, why did you lie all this time?

MR BOTHA: Sir I will put it to you again, that it was Mr Barnard's project and that I could not take responsibility for something that he had no protection of. It was very clear that he stood alone. I was a bystander or outsider, somebody who just assisted him in the execution of the project and I could not disclose the project. So that was my viewpoint.

MR VAN ECK: With the Harms Commission and the investigation that took place there who covered your legal costs?

MR BOTHA: It was the Defence Force.

MR VAN ECK: It was after you were arrested in terms of Section 29?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Did any person with a rank, did they tell you to keep quiet?

MR BOTHA: Yes, during my detention.

MR VAN ECK: Who did?

MR BOTHA: Brigadier Krappies Engelbrecht. He was accompanied by Brigadier van Rensburg while I was detained in Hartebeesfontein.

MR VAN ECK: What was your expectation from the structure of the CCB during the Harms Commission proceedings?

MR BOTHA: Sir it was very clear that during our training it was presented to us that we would get indemnity for the acts that we commit and it became clear to me that we will not get the protection from the generals and staff and that it came from a level above them, the politicians, and we were told that what is on the table now we will talk about and we kept to that.

MR VAN ECK: Did you see how your good friend Mr Barnard was dealt with?

MR BOTHA: Yes I did see how they dealt with him.

MR VAN ECK: Did he say anything to you concerning the Dr Webster incident with regards to disclosure?

MR BOTHA: No Sir, because we saw how Mr Verster and Lafras Luitingh dealt with him it was not negotiable that we would say anything about it. It would have been a very bad reflection on us.

MR LAX: Can I just interject for one second. With regard to the issue of indemnity did you understand that you would get indemnity or was it something different to that?

MR BOTHA: No I think within the context that you are viewing it it is different. During our training it was said to us in no uncertain terms that the organisation would at all times enjoy protection whether it be from the generals and staff, whether it be from the politicians to such an extent that I was brought under the impression and I state this categorically that the State would see to our interests if we experienced any problems. So if I refer to indemnity I say it in the context that we would not be prosecuted.

MR LAX: Does that mean it would be covered up, or the prosecutions would be stopped or how would they get it right?

MR BOTHA: Most probably a combination of the two that you have just mentioned. There wouldn't be any prosecution and most probably there would be a cover-up.

MR VAN ECK: The question will be asked as to why after your detention and arrest you did not go to the people in Region 6 and to Joe Verster and say, but Webster was part of your projects you have to protect us.

MR BOTHA: It would have been denied categorically by Mr Verster. On various occasions through my regional manager and through Nick Nienaber I said that my involvement was of such a nature that it could expose the structure. I was led to understand by Mr Nienaber in no uncertain terms that the situation with regards to Mr Barnard was under control and that it would be pressed in a certain direction in order to bring about his release. Which did not happen.

MR VAN ECK: What was the general feeling regarding you and Mr Barnard's ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, there was a strange translation that came through there, an unusual name was mentioned, did you mean Barnard, were you talking about Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: Yes Sir.

MR LAX: Because a name like Marentol came through.

INTERPRETER: The Interpreter apologises, it was mis-heard.

MR LAX: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Botha, just to follow up on Mr van Eck's question, after the shooting of Dr Webster did you consider that to have been a successful operation?

MR BOTHA: Absolutely, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: So what then - we know that your participation was against the rules but the fact that it was a successful operation in the sense that Dr Webster was shot and that the perpetrators had got away without trace, do you think you would have got into trouble even if you divulged your role to your colleagues in the CCB after the event? If you had told them wasn't there a possibility you might have even got a bonus, project bonus?

MR BOTHA: I would like to do that but you have heard Mr Verster's position, there was no way that I would risk it, to take recognition for a project which wasn't mine knowing that Mr Barnard did not enjoy the support that he should have received, according to me.

MR VAN ECK: And to return to the compensation regarding the Webster incident, were you with Mr Barnard at the Hyperama in Roodepoort in the parking area?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Was it a well-known area?

MR BOTHA: Yes. As Mr Barnard explained we were divided into two and with the vehicle that was three, so we were divided into three segments. It was a well-known meeting place for all of us.

MR VAN ECK: Who met you there and what happened?

MR BOTHA: I went with to meet Lafras Luitingh and for the duration of the meeting I remained in the vehicle.

MR VAN ECK: Did you meet Lafras Luitingh personally on that day?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Were you prepared in case anything happened that day?

MR BOTHA: Due to our training we were always prepared especially with regard to observations and weapons and so forth. Mr Barnard told me the reason why he wanted me to accompany him and I acted accordingly.

MR VAN ECK: Was anything given to you subsequently?

MR BOTHA: Mr Barnard felt that the compensation that he received for the execution of the project, which was R15,000, justified paying me an amount of R5,000.

MR VAN ECK: Where did Mr Barnard get the R15,000 from?

MR BOTHA: From Mr Luitingh. He handed it over to him in an envelope and directly from Mr Luitingh he walked back to his vehicle and opened the envelope after we departed.

MR VAN ECK: Was this at the Hyperama parking lot?

MR BOTHA: Yes that is where he received the envelope.

MR VAN ECK: At a later stage it emerged within your relationship with Mr Barnard that there was reasonable dissatisfaction regarding the Bruce White incident. I just want to refer briefly to Bruce White and the reaction of your members there before we return to the Webster incident. What did you and Mr Barnard do with regard to Mr White?

MR BOTHA: We conducted observation at his address of employment in order to obtain further information due to Mr Barnard's incapacity to wait, so-to-speak, due to his impatience, which is probably a better word, he forced the situation into a direction which he shouldn't have and he did that with regard to Mr White's movements with his vehicle where he parked his vehicle and so forth.

MR VAN ECK: Did you take Mr Barnard with to conduct observation at Bruce White's residence?

MR BOTHA: No, at his place of employment.

MR VAN ECK: His place of employment.

MR BOTHA: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN ECK: What was the purpose?

MR BOTHA: To obtain further information regarding his residential address, his vehicle, his profile, who was travelling with him, who wasn't travelling with him and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: The Interpreter has requested you to please repeat the question.

MR LAX: Perhaps if you just slow down a tiny bit they will be able to hear you more clearly as well.

MR VAN ECK: Was any provision made with regard to the observation of Bruce White that he would fall?

MR BOTHA: No that was premature. Due to the activities of the structure it was a possibility but it was never stated as such.

MR VAN ECK: And you did not apply for indemnity for Bruce White?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Why not, can you explain that?

MR BOTHA: Once again I do not regard it as a gross violation of human rights according to the stipulations for the Indemnity Act.

MR VAN ECK: Was any observation conducted with regard to Bruce White, or was it just for the identification of a name which was given to you by Mr Basson?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: During your observation there was there any confrontation with the police?

MR BOTHA: Yes, perhaps that is put too strongly, but a situation arose during which the police came to question us regarding our involvement with Mr White.

MR VAN ECK: And as a result thereof you were taken to Brixton Murder and Robbery.

MR BOTHA: They asked us to report there for questioning.

MR VAN ECK: Who questioned you?

MR BOTHA: Two members, but I cannot recall their names. I apologise, I cannot recall their names. They were Murder and Robbery detectives.

MR VAN ECK: Was there a Captain Zeelie who was involved at a later stage?

MR BOTHA: We met him at the Brixton offices, he asked for an explanation, I gave him an explanation, he did not accept it, and on the following day we provided them with a better explanation.

MR VAN ECK: There are two Zeelies, Major Charles Zeelie, the demolitions expert, and Captain Gert Zeelie who was the detective, which one was it?

MR BOTHA: Both are known to me. Mr Zeelie was with Security Branch and Captain Gert Zeelie was with Murder and Robbery in Brixton.

MR VAN ECK: So it's the second one?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: You worked with Gert?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: The following day you gave a better explanation you said.

MR BOTHA: Yes I did.

MR VAN ECK: Where did this explanation originate from?

MR BOTHA: Mr Barnard obtained an explanation regarding a white BMW that we had to take back from a person and that is what I told Mr Zeelie.

MR VAN ECK: What was the reaction of Mr Burger and Mr Verster after it came out that you and Barnard had conducted observation on White together and that your involvement with each other was disclosed?

MR BOTHA: Perhaps that will answer the Chairperson's question better. Due to this incident I was almost discharged. I heard later that it had been recommended for me to be immediately discharged. I said to the rest of the cell members that Mr Barnard was not aware of their existence and anything that was related to that. They accepted it and I was put on ice, so-to-speak, in the regard that I could not continue with my activities despite the fact that I was still receiving a salary I was not operational at the time of this ice period.

MR VAN ECK: And this was seen as a punitive measure against you?

MR BOTHA: Yes, it was embarrassing.

MR VAN ECK: And the fact that you were put on ice was because you were seen by the police or because you were in the company of Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: I think it was a bit of both. At that point the organisation had to be protected at all costs and the cut-off point within the cell was not correctly handled and used by Mr Barnard with the execution of this project.

MR VAN ECK: Was your relationship with Mr Barnard, within the context of the CCB, ever approved by the top structure of Region 6?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: After that day did you do any further work whatsoever on Bruce White?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Do you have any personal knowledge regarding whether anybody else did any further work regarding Bruce White after that time?

MR BOTHA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you move off just one point of clarity, we heard from Mr Maree when he was asked to monitor or get the address of Gavin Evans he didn't even want to do anything himself. He didn't want to go out, he didn't want to be seen, why did you yourself, as a member of CCB, physically monitor Mr White? I thought that was against the rules as well. I thought you always had to have a cut-off.

MR BOTHA: It was against the rules, but once again I was eager, I was much younger than Mr Maree and I didn't have a sub-structure such as Mr Maree had when he made use of Mr van Zyl's. And within the structure I had to achieve, especially in the light of my sentiment that I was being placed at a disadvantage, I had to come out of my corner so-to-speak to show them that I could also achieve.

MR VAN ECK: In other words you wanted to make an impression?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR LAX: Can I just continue in that vein. Both you and Mr Barnard, again in another incident, then did the work yourself after this in the Webster incident, why did you do it then? Did you not learn from this experience?

MR BOTHA: Yes and no. If I had to use terminology, we thought we had got away, and once again we felt untouchable to a certain extent. Geoffrey had not executed the project successfully enough in my opinion and once again I had to achieve. That is why I did it myself. You are referring the Rosscam vehicle?

MR LAX: Yes. And then if I could take it one step even further, in the next chronology of it is the issue of the Early Learning Centre. Again, but this time with Van Zyl, you both do the work yourselves, most of the work.

MR BOTHA: Mr Lax I hear what you are saying, I wouldn't say it was most of the work. I was tasked with activating the mine and at a later stage Mr van Zyl tasked me to detonate the mine. The placement of the bomb was the more important aspect to me, which we didn't do, so we did not place the organisation at a disadvantage with regard to that. The order was carried out and maintained.

MR LAX: Except in this sense that you weren't meant to be at the scene at all and you people were at the scene.

MR BOTHA: Once again it wasn't my project. Mr van Zyl should have taken certain precautionary measures which I supported and that is how we executed the project.

MR LAX: You see the thrust of all these questions is, you guys had rules but you broke them all the time, you didn't stick to them. That's how it seems to me. The only person who appears to have stuck quite carefully to the rules was Mr Maree.

MR BOTHA: I hear what you are saying but simultaneously I must say that the rules perhaps were not that narrowly observed. The execution of projects was a priority for us at that stage given the internal situation of the country and during training it was also stated that we had to ensure that we took calculated risks. Either the project would not be executed or you would do it yourself. That was our reasoning, right or wrong, but I accept what you have said.

MR LAX: Yes. Sorry, we are running quite far ahead, I didn't mean to do that, it was just this principle that I was dealing with.

MR VAN ECK: Thank you Mr Lax. Mr Botha, in the many cell meetings that you attended were your members ever asked why there wasn't any movement, what was going on, why the lack of progress?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Who put these questions?

MR BOTHA: The regional manager and the co-ordinator, Wouter Basson.

MR VAN ECK: And at that stage had you made any progress with regard to the organisation's objectives?

MR BOTHA: Not to the scope that I would have preferred but we did try.

MR VAN ECK: The sentiment of, among others, Mr Burger who threatened to discharge you when it became known that you were working with Mr Barnard, did you ever feel afterwards that you could say that you and Mr Barnard had shot Dr Webster dead?

MR BOTHA: Not at all. I must just add on that point, the contact with regard to Mr Verster was exclusive via the co-ordinator. So it wasn't as if I could call him up and say let's go and have a coffee I want to tell you something. There was a clear cut-off point with regard to any meeting with Mr Joe Verster.

MR VAN ECK: What do you think the reaction would have been if you had said subsequently that you and Mr Barnard had shot Dr Webster dead if it was Staal Burger's reaction where you and Mr Barnard were viewed together observing Mr White?

MR BOTHA: Given the cut-off points which were maintained and the management of the project I could not exclude that they would sacrifice me and Mr Barnard as happened by implication during our Section 29 detention. Rumours were spread that we had been involved in the murder and I believe that it was one of the motivations as to why we were detained in terms of Section 29. So it was my fear that Joe Verster would exonerate himself and Luitingh and apply a so-called cover-up operation and sell Barnard and I out, and I wasn't prepared to take that chance.

MR VAN ECK: It could have led to the death sentence.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: While you were on ice from June until you received the call to assist the organisation again in August, what were you doing?

MR BOTHA: I continued with my blue plan which was Cabot and I continued to try to collect information in my own way, I tried to stay busy. No particular directions were given to me, I simply wasn't allowed to be involved.

MR VAN ECK: Were you still part of the cell meetings?

MR BOTHA: No I wasn't.

MR VAN ECK: Was any feedback given by any person to you regarding what the CCB and Region 6 was occupied with at that stage?

MR BOTHA: No, there were many stories and rumours but there was no official feedback as such.

MR VAN ECK: And at the end of August you received a call to report to a hotel, can you recall this?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: What was your immediate reaction?

MR BOTHA: Once again my eagerness played a significant role. I was anxious to return to the structure, yet simultaneously I felt that I was being drawn in again and that I might be tossed out at a later stage, nonetheless I was eager to assist Van Zyl.

MR VAN ECK: Who phoned you, can you recall?

MR BOTHA: Staal Burger personally.

MR VAN ECK: And who told you there, where you met them there at the hotel, what was going to happen?

MR BOTHA: Generally it was explained to me what was going to occur. It was not my place to make enquiries regarding the project as such. I received an order from my regional manager in co-operation with the co-ordinator and I accepted that Mr van Zyl would inform me more comprehensively on the way to Cape Town. They explained the device to me, but as a demolitions expert it was fairly elementary to understand, and that was the information that I received.

MR VAN ECK: Despite the name of the organisation, the Civil Co-operation Bureau, was there any disciplinary structure within the CCB? One could almost say some kind of rank structure.

MR BOTHA: There was seniority, there was definitely seniority, and the seniors clearly made the subordinates feel subordinate.

MR VAN ECK: If you were told about an instruction could you refuse to execute it?

MR BOTHA: No I could not.

MR VAN ECK: If you were to refuse to execute it what would the consequences have been?

MR BOTHA: I was not prepared to take the risk. It is speculative but I have explained the capacities of the organisation and in the light of this I was not prepared to take the risk of refusal.

MR VAN ECK: You said that you were almost happy to be involved again?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: The planning prior to the bomb incident at the Early Learning Centre, was this ever shared with you, the prior in-house planning, the decisions regarding what was going to be done and so forth?

MR BOTHA: In general terms it was explained to me. We travelled from Johannesburg to Cape Town via car and Mr van Zyl did explain aspects of the operation to me but I was not involved in the planning of it, in the approval of it or anything like that.

MR VAN ECK: Were you involved in the observation and the persons who would have been involved with that?

MR BOTHA: Yes I was.

MR VAN ECK: In what capacity?

MR BOTHA: I had to ensure that the bomb would be detonated. I also had to ensure that execution would be given to the project.

MR VAN ECK: Did you see the bomb in Johannesburg?

MR BOTHA: Yes I did.

MR VAN ECK: What sort of bomb was it?

MR BOTHA: It was an SPM limpet mine.

MR VAN ECK: The small one or the big one?

MR BOTHA: The big one, grey in colour, one kilogram in mass.

MR VAN ECK: Was it the one with the 950 grams explosives?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: The detonator, was this shown to you?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Was it a standard detonator for this sort of mine?

MR BOTHA: No it wasn't.

MR VAN ECK: What would the standard detonator involve?

MR BOTHA: A standard detonator is an uncontrolled detonator which would lead to an uncontrolled detonation. It is a steel wire which is influenced by temperature and various other factors which would lead to an uncontrolled explosion. The mechanism which was attached to this was a controlled mechanism which we would have control over with regard to time and so forth.

MR VAN ECK: Was there any accuracy in terms of time control in detonation with a standard detonator?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Was this subject to variables?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Were you told why a different detonator was going to be used?

MR BOTHA: Because it had to be a controlled detonation.

MR VAN ECK: Can you recall who said this to you?

MR BOTHA: Mr van Zyl, among others, as well as Mr Basson.

MR VAN ECK: Did Mr Burger have any input into this?

MR BOTHA: Not that I can recall except that he approved the project. I didn't ask any questions. By nature of the situation I accepted that it was approved and that was his major share.

MR LAX: Sorry, why did it have to be a controlled detonation?

MR BOTHA: It had to take place at a specific time.

MR LAX: Did you know why, what was the object of that? Did you know? If you didn't know then say so, but if ...(intervention)

MR BOTHA: At a later stage Mr van Zyl informed me that a meeting would be taking place and that the exclusive purpose of the project would be to disrupt and damage the structure and that fatalities were not a foreseen consequence.

MR VAN ECK: Thank you Mr Lax. You as a demolitions expert had to have realised that that sort of mine could bring about loss of life and damage.

MR BOTHA: Yes, by nature of the situation, although to establish loss of life, in my opinion, another device would have had to be used.

MR VAN ECK: What would you have used?

MR BOTHA: There are various types, this is speculative, but there are car bombs which were available. There were also black widow limpet mines, there were various other options. A limpet per se causes shockwaves and I don't mean that this will not cause loss of life but the shrapnel and everything else related to it is not the ideal mine to use if you want to kill people.

MR VAN ECK: What sort of shrapnel effect would a limpet mine have?

MR BOTHA: The parts of the structure in which it was placed would be affected by the shrapnel, but the shrapnel attached to the device itself is limited.

MR VAN ECK: You saw the mine and then you took it into your possession?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Was the detonator tested in Johannesburg?

MR BOTHA: Yes it was.

MR VAN ECK: How did you test it?

MR BOTHA: By means of a fake charge it was detonated. Which would not necessarily detonate the device itself but the principles were the same.

MR VAN ECK: Did it work?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: And did you and Mr van Zyl depart for the Cape then?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Can you recall what your movements in the Cape were?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Can you tell us.

MR BOTHA: We arrived in Cape Town and went directly to his brother-in-law's apartment where we rested. We met Isgak Hardien at the airport.

MR VAN ECK: If we could just pause for a moment. Did you know Isgak Hardien?

MR BOTHA: No I didn't.

MR VAN ECK: Were you informed what his background was?

MR BOTHA: In broad terms, yes. We met him at the airport where I put the limpet mine in his boot. After I had activated it and that is all up to that point.

MR VAN ECK: What happened with the placement?

MR LAX: Sorry, when you say you "activated" it, what did you actually do?

MR BOTHA: Most probably a better word would be "I armed it".

MR VAN ECK: Could you then explain briefly what this means, what you have just told us?

MR BOTHA: I attached the detonation mechanism to the limpet mine basically to prepare it to activate, to explode.

MR VAN ECK: So the activation doesn't mean that it had been set off already?

MR BOTHA: That is why I used the English "armed".

MR VAN ECK: So these were just final preparations?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: And subsequently?

MR BOTHA: We bought the bags, we put the mine into the bags and placed it in the boot of the car and Mr van Zyl gave certain instructions to Mr Hardien which he executed, and he placed the bomb in the place where Mr van Zyl told him to place it.

MR VAN ECK: Did you ever enter the hall personally?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Did you have any input in saying where the bomb should be placed?

MR BOTHA: No I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not, seeing that you were the expert? Because we know that Mr van Zyl was a layman when it came to mines, weren't you asked what would be the best place - should it be close to the wall; should it be away from the wall; should it be high up; should it be low down, that sort of detail?

MR BOTHA: I expected the question. The in-house was conducted on a very thorough level and I could not deviate from what the plan was at that stage. I was led by the approval which was given and I don't believe that Mr van Zyl would have wanted to deviate from that.

MR VAN ECK: Just in conjunction with that, was it at all possible for you to walk about inside the hall and to find a suitable place yourself?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: You said that the bomb had been placed, you departed, what happened then?

MR LAX: Sorry, before you go there. Do I understand from your evidence you were present at the in-house and that you heard that kind of detail or did you just arrive there afterwards?

MR BOTHA: Mr Lax the in-house was at a different stage that it took place. This was only the handing over of the limpet mine at the Protea Gardens Hotel, so I did not take part in the in-house itself. They just told me how it worked and the rest of the information, but I was not part of the planning in terms of the placing of the limpet mine.

MR LAX: So do I gather then that you didn't know where it was supposed to be placed and you relied in Van Zyl to follow whatever he had been told?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr van Eck.

MR VAN ECK: Thank you Mr Lax. Did you at that stage have any reason to question that what came before or what was done before?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: They mentioned to you that the bomb had to be placed to your left, Hardien was picked up at a later stage and you returned to the cell.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Did Mr van Zyl give any instructions to Hardien to see if there were any people in the cell, what was the position?

MR BOTHA: He asked to go and see if there were people ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, can I just correct something that's going on in the interpretation. The Interpreter is talking about the cell, it's in fact the hall.

MR VAN ECK: Yes, "saal"

MR LAX: Hall, the Afrikaans is "saal" in English "hall".

INTERPRETER: The Interpreter apologises.

MR VAN ECK: Did you go and look at the hall to see if it was empty or not?

MR BOTHA: He gave me the instruction to go and look, yes, what the situation was in the hall. Mr Hardien came out and said some of the managing members or committee members from the Kewtown Youth members were still busy with a meeting and we continued with the observation at the scene.

MR VAN ECK: At that stage was there any reason for you to question the actions of Mr van Zyl or Hardien who formed part of the in-house meeting?

MR BOTHA: No Sir.

MR VAN ECK: Was there at any stage before you handed over the limpet mine or the bomb and it was placed in a bag, did they attach nails to it, wrapped it around the limpet mine?

MR BOTHA: No at no stage did this happen.

MR VAN ECK: Would they have attached nails to it, or if they did what would have been the difference in the effect of this bomb?

MR BOTHA: Well the weight would change and it would also have more shrapnel and it would have caused more damage and it could have resulted in the loss of life or lives.

MR VAN ECK: Did you see if they tampered with this bomb at any stage to - modified in any way before it was placed in the hall?

MR BOTHA: We prepared it up to the final stage when I handed it over to Mr Hardien. No layman would continue tampering with the bomb or would be willing to attach nails with tape to it so I brought it in its final stages of preparation and handed it over and I never saw it again afterwards.

MR VAN ECK: Did you have any knowledge of the pre-planning that took place about who will detonate the bomb?

MR BOTHA: Yes I did.

MR VAN ECK: What did you know about it, who would activate the bomb?

MR BOTHA: According to the knowledge that I had Mr Hardien will detonate it. On the way there, on the way to Cape Town Mr van Zyl and I spoke about it and he expressed his concern about the detonation of the bomb and he decided, because it was his project, that to keep the detonating device with him at all times and that we will observe the scene ourselves to see if the explosion took place and if the limpet mine was placed in the hall.

MR VAN ECK: Did you have any reason to question the decision of Mr van Zyl in that regard?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Very well. You are now in the area of the hall. Hardien was sent in. Were reports made to Van Zyl if there were still people in there?

MR BOTHA: Well Mr Hardien came out and he said that the meeting was still continuing and we had to wait a while.

MR VAN ECK: So you waited?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: And we know that the bomb exploded at a later stage, did you specifically take note of the time or what time the bomb had to detonate?

MR BOTHA: What was told to me was that the bomb had to be detonated when there was nobody left in the hall. That's all that was put to me.

MR VAN ECK: It was very clear that there was a front entrance and a back exit, where in relation to the hall were you parked?

MR BOTHA: Sir I cannot recall but I think from where we were parked we could see the parking lot in front of the hall and the hall itself and we also moved on Mr Hardien's instruction concerning the people who left the hall and the vehicles were not there anymore, then Mr van Zyl wanted to detonate the bomb.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr van Eck, Mr Botha I can't recall but were you at the inspection in loco, did you come along to the hall?

MR BOTHA: No Sir.

MR LAX: Have you been there since, during the course of this hearing at all just to have a look?

MR BOTHA: I have never been back there Sir, no.

MR VAN ECK: Have you been there before?

MR BOTHA: No Sir.

MR VAN ECK: Before the evening of the explosion?

MR BOTHA: No Sir.

MR VAN ECK: And you also say afterwards you did not go there either?

MR BOTHA: That's correct.

MR VAN ECK: Did you have any personal discussion with Hardien?

MR BOTHA: Sir no, we were in the same vehicle and we could have exchanged a few words. I acted more as a listener.

MR VAN ECK: Did you have a discussion with him that he should do this or that or was it something that was between him and Van Zyl?

MR BOTHA: Yes it was something that was between him and Van Zyl.

MR VAN ECK: Did you report back at any stage that there were still people in the hall when the bomb was detonated?

MR BOTHA: Mr van Zyl's reaction was that we had to wait.

MR VAN ECK: Did you wait?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: You then decided to detonate it at a later stage?

MR BOTHA: Yes. I sat with Mr van Zyl in the front of the vehicle, they sat in front and they observed the hall and as the people left the hall they could attach certain names to certain people. I think Mr Williams, the other Mr Peter Oliver. I cannot recall any of the other names and Mr Hardien said that well according to him the hall would be empty and then Mr van Zyl decided to detonate the bomb.

MR VAN ECK: Who detonated the bomb? What happened?

MR BOTHA: In short Mr van Zyl attempted to detonate it, he could not detonate the bomb. I took the charge, the sender in my hand and I tried to find out if there was not a problem, maybe with the batteries or something and I covered it up again and I said well I'll try and I detonated it.

MR VAN ECK: Can you recall at that stage how far you were from the hall?

MR BOTHA: I think we were a few hundred metres from the hall. This is now during the observation but we drove towards the back or maybe I should say around the block. I would say we were there approximately 30 or 40 metres from the hall itself.

MR VAN ECK: When the bomb was detonated Mr Botha did you personally see if there were people in the hall?

MR BOTHA: Well as far as I know there were not. What I could see there were no people in the hall.

MR VAN ECK: It's very clear that you heard and saw when the bomb went off, what did you do afterwards?

MR BOTHA: We drove directly to the airport. We went on the highway and we flew back to Johannesburg.

MR VAN ECK: Who met you in Johannesburg, can you recall?

MR BOTHA: Yes it was Mr Maree and Mr Burger.

MR VAN ECK: You now mention Mr Maree's name, was he involved in the arrangement or the planning of this bomb?

MR BOTHA: No not as far as I know.

MR VAN ECK: Do you know why he was at the airport that evening?

MR BOTHA: No Sir I am not sure.

MR VAN ECK: Did you take part in any feedback to Mr Burger with regards to the bomb?

MR BOTHA: Well just that the bomb detonated and my role in it.

MR VAN ECK: Did you receive any remuneration or bonus for the detonation of the bomb?

MR BOTHA: It is so long ago I cannot recall. I know that at a certain stage they did pay out bonuses. If it was done I will accept it and if they did it would be around R3,000, but I cannot recall.

MR VAN ECK: Did they give you any feedback with regards to injuries?

MR BOTHA: Sir, we heard that there were some light injuries and what the nature of it I do not know.

MR VAN ECK: If you talk about injuries can we just go back to your application form where it describes the nature of your act or application. On page 3 there's a question on the application form that is filled in

"State whether any person was injured, killed or suffered any damage to property as a result of such acts, missions or offences".

and your answer here is "No." You are saying now that you heard that people were injured, why is it that we find this answer in your application form which is contrasting now with your evidence?

MR BOTHA: I see on the following page - "suffered any damage to property", by nature of the situation I knew that the property was damaged so why would I deny it. I do not know, I cannot give you an explanation. Our application was submitted by Botha & Kruger and I have got no explanation for it.

MR VAN ECK: When you submitted this or compiled this application were you led by legal representatives?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Did you question the contents thereof?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: You do realise that it's wrong?

MR BOTHA: Yes I do.

MR VAN ECK: Do you know or do you have any knowledge if money was exchanged afterwards?

MR BOTHA: Yes I knew about money that was handed over.

MR VAN ECK: What do you know about it?

MR BOTHA: There was a budget approved for this project. I do not know the specific amounts though, and I do know amounts of money were paid over, I think it was R18,000.

MR VAN ECK: Were you involved in that?

MR BOTHA: No not at all.

MR VAN ECK: Were you involved in, what would be known in layman's terms as a de-briefing session, do you know what happened there?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Botha after the incident of the bomb explosion in Athlone were you once again pulled into the structure of Region 6?

MR BOTHA: Yes I was.

MR VAN ECK: To what extent?

MR BOTHA: I continued with my normal activities.

MR VAN ECK: And what did this entail?

MR BOTHA: It was the identification of targets, the description of projects, the initiation of projects and those type of things.

MR VAN ECK: Very well. You mentioned before about Rosscam, you are now back in the structure, but it doesn't seem as if you have really achieved a lot apart from setting off a bomb. Did you do anything else with regards to Rosscam?

MR BOTHA: Yes Sir, I continued to burn out the vehicle with Mr Barnard.

MR VAN ECK: That was in September of the same year?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Did you give feedback in an in-house meeting that you made use of Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: No I did not.

MR VAN ECK: Why not?

MR BOTHA: Once again because of the security break that would be created. I said that Geoffrey, my unconscious member executed the operation.

MR VAN ECK: And Geoffrey was the name that you gave when you made the initial in-house with regards to the Rosscam project?

MR BOTHA: That's correct.

MR VAN ECK: Was remuneration given to hand over to Geoffrey?

MR BOTHA: There was.

MR VAN ECK: What happened to it?

MR BOTHA: It was R5,500 which I shared with Mr Barnard.

MR VAN ECK: After the Rosscam incident did you do anything in the interests of the CCB, anything further?

MR BOTHA: As you can see my visit to the Royal Ascot Hotel, if you can see that as being in the interests of the CCB, yes.

MR VAN ECK: Yes that is what I would like to know.

During that time when you were placed on ice did you keep contact with Barnard?

MR BOTHA: Yes I did.

MR VAN ECK: Was information given to you at any stage concerning a man called Aitchison?

MR BOTHA: Yes Mr Barnard gave me the CV of Ronald or Dolan Aitchison and we attempted or it was my intention to apply him in the structure.

MR VAN ECK: Can you recall when you received this information from Aitchison?

MR BOTHA: If I can recall I think it was in April.

MR VAN ECK: Did you meet Aitchison?

MR BOTHA: No I never met him.

MR VAN ECK: Up until today?

MR BOTHA: Never.

MR VAN ECK: What did you do with what Mr Barnard gave you with regards to Aitchison?

MR BOTHA: Sir before I could do anything about the CV I was placed on ice. I then handed over the CV to Mr Burger and after that I was placed on ice.

MR VAN ECK: What did you say to Mr Burger concerning the CV that you gave?

MR BOTHA: I said it was somebody that I met, this is his CV and it seems to be somebody with certain capabilities and I just gave it to him.

MR VAN ECK: To Mr Burger?

MR BOTHA: That's correct.

MR VAN ECK: What was the reaction on Aitchison, what was Burger's reaction on the information that you gave him?

MR BOTHA: Well he accepted it and he said, well thank you.

MR VAN ECK: Did he say he was going to continue?

MR BOTHA: No I was then placed on ice and at a later stage when I did certain enquiries surrounding this Mr Verster said Aitchison is busy, he's involved and it's a hands-off type if situation.

MR VAN ECK: So you hand over a CV of Aitchison and you never have anything to do with him again?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: Just for clarity purpose, which Mr Verster told you?

MR BOTHA: Joe Verster. Mr Burger told me that Joe Verster said that he was involved and that we cannot make use of him.

MR VAN ECK: Very well just to prevent any further confusion we heard the name from Mr Barnard of Rich Verster.

MR BOTHA: Yes. I met him once. I cannot really describe him but I did meet him once, yes.

MR VAN ECK: Did he give you any instructions at any stage?

MR BOTHA: No he never.

MR VAN ECK: So if you refer to Verster you refer to Joe Verster?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: Lubowski, have you heard of such a person?

MR BOTHA: Yes I heard that after he was killed, I heard about him.

MR VAN ECK: Did you know if monitoring was done on him?

MR BOTHA: No I did not.

MR VAN ECK: If people had to follow him into Namibia?

MR BOTHA: No I did not know of it.

MR VAN ECK: Did Mr Barnard at any stage mention to you that he monitored Lubowski in Johannesburg?

MR BOTHA: Not as far as I can recall, no. But there is a possibility but I cannot recall it, no.

MR VAN ECK: If I have got my facts right Mr Lubowski was killed on the 13th of September 1989.

MR BOTHA: Yes I think that's the date.

MR VAN ECK: What happened afterwards?

MR BOTHA: A meeting was held where they discussed the death of Mr Lubowski. As I have stated in one of my statements the people who attended was myself, Mr Maree and the other members of the cell also present. There was some nervousness with regards to Mr Aitchison's possible involvement in the death of Mr Lubowski and they told me to lie low. Now that can mean various things.

MR VAN ECK: We will come back to the lying low. Did you make any enquiries, did you ask what is going on here?

MR BOTHA: I did and the connection that I made was that Aitchison was possibly involved without Mr Maree knowing about it and then they wanted to do damage control. I do not think they knew exactly what he did. But just the involvement confused them.

MR VAN ECK: We heard the evidence of Mr Barnard that the two of you went to go and steal a book, a book concerning Aitchison.

MR BOTHA: Yes that was at the Royal Ascot Hotel in Norwood. I heard that Mr Maree had a meeting with Aitchison and they wanted to destroy the evidence.

MR VAN ECK: Who did you send to go and steal the book?

MR BOTHA: I think it was Mr Staal Burger.

MR VAN ECK: Why did Ferdi Barnard go with?

MR BOTHA: It was once again an operation that is impossible to do alone and we assisted each other.

MR VAN ECK: Was this a type of operation where they would be an in-house and an unconscious member involved?

MR BOTHA: It was a spontaneous request and it was just to assist a colleague.

MR VAN ECK: Was there urgency connected to this?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: At the Royal Ascot Hotel, what happened there?

MR BOTHA: Myself and Mr Barnard attempted to get hold of the book. After a certain time or after we struggled we at long last stole one of the books, unluckily it was the wrong one that we did.

MR VAN ECK: Another person Alex Kouvaris appeared at the scene, were you still present?

MR BOTHA: We were leaving at that stage, we were on our way out.

MR VAN ECK: Who is Alex Kouvaris?

MR BOTHA: It is a friend and a colleague of Mr Burger.

MR VAN ECK: Why was it important for you to mention that Mr Kouvaris was there?

MR BOTHA: He was also in the hotel industry and it was very strange that I met him there. It was just such a strange coincidence and I also felt that Mr Burger tasked him to steal the book.

MR VAN ECK: After you were asked to steal the book at the Royal Ascot Hotel were you applied again to do anything concerning the Lubowski project?

MR BOTHA: No, the next day I met Mr Wouter Basson at the same hotel where he told me that I must leave the whole project, and I then did that.

MR VAN ECK: After the Aitchison incident, the stealing of the book at the Ascot Hotel, did you do anything else for the inner circle of the CCB in Region 6?

MR BOTHA: No I was arrested shortly after.

MR VAN ECK: Why were you arrested?

MR BOTHA: Under Section 29 certain allegations were made concerning the organisation and David Webster and I was arrested and detained in Hartebeespoort.

MR VAN ECK: How long were you detained for?

MR BOTHA: Approximately a month.

MR VAN ECK: Did you have access to people while you were under detention?

MR BOTHA: No I did not. I got family members to contact Mr Burger. He ignored the contact and afterwards he did make contact on which my father forced him to apply for my release.

MR VAN ECK: Who provided you with the funds for these applications?

MR BOTHA: It was the South African Defence Force.

MR VAN ECK: Do you know where they paid it in?

MR BOTHA: I think it was paid to the legal representative, Mr du Plessis.

MR VAN ECK: Did any police officer visit you while you were in prison?

MR BOTHA: Yes it was Krappies Engelbrecht and Brigadier van Rensburg.

MR VAN ECK: Did they say anything to you?

MR BOTHA: They just made it very clear to me that I had to keep quiet. They also told me that the consequences, or my inference was that the consequences thereof would not have been favourable.

MR VAN ECK: You made a Section 29 statement, I think it was W/O Derek Carter who was attached to the Brixton Murder & Robbery unit and in this statement or when you made this statement did you tell the truth or what you saw as the truth?

MR BOTHA: No Sir I did not.

MR VAN ECK: Just to pause here for a while, the statement you made was about the detonation of the bomb at the Athlone Centre and Mr van Zyl made certain statements on the grounds of your statement where he mentioned that a lot of it was false and that the detonation device or the switch that resulted in the detonation or explosion was dealt with by Mr Hardien.

MR BOTHA: I can recall that he made the statement but I will say that Mr van Zyl's version is the correct version.

MR VAN ECK: Was this with regards to the detonation of the bomb?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Why is there such discrepancies in your evidence?

MR BOTHA: I worked in this branch for a long time. I have worked with a lot of Section 29 detainees and I was under the impression and it was so that the statement could not be used against me. So I tried to give as much information as possible without saying too much, if I can put it like that.

MR VAN ECK: Were you released at a later stage?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: According to the interdict after your release what did you do?

MR BOTHA: Sir I was told to lie low for two to three months where I then went to Cape Town with my family and did exactly that. I lay low.

MR VAN ECK: Did they provide you with funds?

MR BOTHA: Yes and amount of R8 or 10,000 was given to me and they told me that they have arranged for a house. I have to go to this place. I stayed there for a while and after that I arranged for my own house.

MR VAN ECK: When were your services suspended?

MR BOTHA: It was when they started down-scaling of the staff in the organisation. I heard that some of my cell members went to DCC. I did not. I continued with a private business, it was insurance and I started working in the insurance environment.

MR VAN ECK: Was there money involved?

MR BOTHA: I think it was approximately R200,000.

MR VAN ECK: Was this used to establish yourself in a private capacity?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: We will come back to Webster's post mortem inquest that followed on that, but did you at any stage take part in any covert operations through DCC?

MR BOTHA: No, not at all.

MR VAN ECK: Were you approached to continue activities in similar organisations?

MR BOTHA: No, not at all.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Botha at the CCB you have already told us that you sometimes felt left out what was your relationship with Mr Burger? Were you a trustee?

MR BOTHA: No I would not say that. I think it came from my days in Brixton. I was a new officer there. They were all established members, the rest of them, Wouter Basson was the heart of the cell with regards to our connection with the rest of the organisation. So I think they also incorporated them in the group and I don't think they saw me as being of any value, not that I feel sorry for myself, but I was the person who had to do the project to the best of my abilities and I think it came from the involvement in DCC. At no stage I did anything that could justify my involvement in DCC. The other members were transferred but I was not asked to transfer.

MR VAN ECK: Very well. In the beginning you stated that you played rugby abroad, what countries did you play in?

MR BOTHA: I said yes I played in France, China, Israel, Wales, various other countries.

MR VAN ECK: Did you make certain requests that you be transferred to foreign countries?

MR BOTHA: I did.

MR VAN ECK: To whom?

MR BOTHA: Mr Burger.

MR VAN ECK: And what was his reaction?

MR BOTHA: He said it was ridiculous.

MR VAN ECK: You have heard the evidence here of Mr Maree that he could go and establish a life in Germany.

MR BOTHA: It was surprising to me, yes.

MR VAN ECK: After an amount of money was paid into your account and you established yourself in your private capacity did you have any contact with the former members of Region 6, for example Slang van Zyl?

MR BOTHA: Because of the workings of the commissions and the post mortem inquest, yes, we did have contact with each other.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN ECK: Did you know what role Mr Barnard played?

MR BOTHA: No. Mr Barnard and I went through a phase when we did not see each other very often. I think it was at the stage when he started with the drugs and everything that happened with that and I think the calming effect that I had on him was lost and we lost contact with each other for a period of time.

MR VAN ECK: So you cannot say, or personally know what he did during that time?

MR BOTHA: No. Mr Maree, did you have contact with him?

MR BOTHA: Also on the grounds that I just explained to you.

MR VAN ECK: Why are you here today?

MR BOTHA: Sir first of all because I was given the opportunity to become part of the reconciliation process and by nature of the situation there is a lot of things that I do not feel very good about but that I justify within my position within a State organisation. I am here first of all because I want to make use of this opportunity and secondly, because I want to show that I have got regret and I would like to continue with my life. It is a period of 11 years since this incident took place and in the meantime my personal life went downhill. My connection to the CCB was not very good for my business. I suffered a lot of financial losses because of my involvement in the CCB. So in short Sir, I would like to take part in a reconciliation process. I believe in the new State dispensation and I would like to declare myself willing to take part in this process.

MR VAN ECK: Do you regret what you did?

MR BOTHA: Yes I do.

MR VAN ECK: Did you commit any of these acts out of vengeance towards any person?

MR BOTHA: Not at any stage.

MR VAN ECK: Were any of these acts aimed beyond the political context?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN ECK: Did you draw any personal benefit with the exception of your regular remuneration?

MR BOTHA: With the exception of the amount that I mentioned pertaining to the Rosscam matter, no.

MR VAN ECK: And that which Mr Barnard gave you?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN ECK: You have heard the evidence of Mr Barnard and the influence that this whole process had on him, what influence has the process had on you and how do you feel towards the persons who were affected detrimentally by your actions, particularly the bomb?

MR BOTHA: I have seen the effect that it has had on Ferdi Barnard and I would like to say that for similar reasons I was anxious to testify to get the burden off my shoulders as well. I think it was very clear from the beginning what my relationship was with Mrs Omar for example, and the members of the youth who were represented here, and from the very beginning, and I say this within context, I reached out to them, not because I felt it to be out of guilt, but I wanted to reach out and apologise. I had done this before I testified. Briefly I saw what the process had done to Mr Barnard and he was quite a tough nut to crack and this process definitely broke him. So therefore I would also like to express my regret and my remorse unconditionally to those who were involved and to ask for their forgiveness.

MR VAN ECK: Do you share Mr Barnard's sentiments?

MR BOTHA: Yes I do.

MR VAN ECK: Mr Chairman if you can bear with me for one moment. Mr Botha is there anything that you would like to add in terms of the evidence you have given?

MR BOTHA: No, with the exception that in conclusion I would once again like to express my gratitude to the Committee for the opportunity to state my case openly and in so doing to get my involvement in these things out of the way once and for all and to live the rest of my life with a clear conscience and perhaps I could eradicate the scars that the last 11 years have left on my life and resume some sense of normality.

MR VAN ECK: Thank you Mr Chairman I have got no further questions at this stage.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN ECK

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr van Eck. Mr Wessels.

MR WESSELS: Mr Bizos and I will work together for a change.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to.....

MR WESSELS: Mr Bizos will start.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to start Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Yes if I may. We co-operated to that extent.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Let me just start, Mr Botha, where you finished off, or almost finished off. You got R200,000 ...(intervention)

MR VAN ECK: Sorry Mr Chairman if I may interrupt, Mr Bizos I apologise for that, my client requests this Committee or this hearing can just adjourn for a very short time.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take five minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CARL CASTELING BOTHA: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

You got a package of approximately R200,000 which is approximately five years of your salary, is that right?

MR BOTHA: I did not calculate it like that but the amount is more-or-less correct.

MR BIZOS: Because you got it in advance, capitalised, you really got a value of over R300,000 for less than 18 months almost non-service.

MR BOTHA: Yes Mr Bizos I think you are putting it out of perspective. I think it's about the time that I already sacrificed by being in the police and the pain and suffering that I endured on behalf of the State till my discharge.

MR BIZOS: Suffering.

MR BOTHA: I beg your pardon?

MR BIZOS: You inflicted pain and suffering.

MR BOTHA: With respect that's your personal opinion.

MR BIZOS: Wouldn't you agree that victims suffered greater pain and suffering than the perpetrators?

MR BOTHA: From your perspective yes, but just remember I also have a family. I have heard what you have said with regard to my involvement meaning that I must have had a choice to do it or not. I exercised the choice to do it but I did not foresee that I would have to bear this pain and inconvenience. I believed in the hierarchy that brainwashed us. I grew up within a milieu where the apartheid dispensation was the order of the day and perhaps you should incorporate that background.

MR BIZOS: I hear all that. We haven't come to your political motivation yet, we just want to get some facts.

MR BOTHA: I am referring to the ideology.

MR BIZOS: Yes. We just want to get some facts about the money that you got. Did you get the impression that those responsible for paying you the money were paying you in part in order to secure your silence?

MR BOTHA: No, I never experienced it that way.

MR BIZOS: Now you were also visited whilst you were under Section 29 detention by Krappies Engelbrecht and another senior officer, did they threaten you?

MR BOTHA: Yes they did threaten me.

MR BIZOS: For the purposes of keeping you silent?

MR BOTHA: Correct.

MR BIZOS: Did you take the threats seriously?

MR BOTHA: Yes I took it very seriously. If I could explain to the Commission what Brigadier Krappies Engelbrecht showed me, he made like this, or else like that. So that was reason to take it quite seriously.

MR BIZOS: You are saying that he put his finger over his mouth and said or else - by pulling his finger across his throat. Clearly indicating that you would be killed.

MR BOTHA: That I would be silenced, yes, what ever it meant.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did that have an effect on you?

MR BOTHA: Definitely, I don't know if you have visited anybody under Section 29 detention. I was the average citizen who had never ever been exposed to that class of treatment, so by nature of the situation it had a tremendous influence on me - to this very day. I still experience certain impressions which the cells left on me.

MR BIZOS: Is General Krappies Engelbrecht still around?

MR BOTHA: I accept that he is. I have not had contact with him again. I have seen him now and then in the media but I have no contact with him.

MR BIZOS: Are you still afraid of him?

MR BOTHA: It's not that I was afraid of Krappies Engelbrecht, I was afraid of the system, the structure of the organisation, the individuals who were trained to kill. I was afraid of them. I wasn't afraid of Brigadier Engelbrecht, per se.

MR BIZOS: But did you feel that General Engelbrecht had a hold on those having the power to kill you?

MR BOTHA: There must have been a bond and I am sure that he conveyed messages through people.

MR BIZOS: And did that play any role in your keeping silent?

MR BOTHA: My question to Brigadier Engelbrecht was, how soon will you be able to get me out of here and he remarked that I should keep quiet but they would do what they could, that it wouldn't take longer than six months, if I recall correctly. Six months in there would be like 16 years, and I told him that there was no way that I could stay there for that time. So I indicated that I would keep quiet until I couldn't do so anymore, and the things that I had spoken about were already known. By nature of the situation I had to give detail in order to achieve my release.

MR BIZOS: When did you become aware that Mr van Zyl had already spoken about the Early Learning Centre bomb whilst you were in detention?

MR BOTHA: I was detained before Mr van Zyl, so I didn't have any contact with him. After my discharge I had contact with him, or after my release so-to-speak.

MR BIZOS: How did you know that they knew what had happened that prompted you to speak?

MR BOTHA: I accepted that there must have been a leak somewhere. It is a question for Brigadier Flores Mostert perhaps because he gave me certain facts which were alarming.

MR BIZOS: What facts did he disclose to you?

MR BOTHA: Among others the fact that the bomb had exploded. I couldn't deny it, a bomb had exploded and it was alarming to me the fact that he knew about the bomb or a bomb which had gone off.

MR BIZOS: Did he tell you what Van Zyl had said about it?

MR BOTHA: No he didn't. As I have said I was in detention, I don't know where Mr van Zyl was or who he was speaking to.

MR BIZOS: Now I am concerned about your statement that you believed that statements made under detention would not be admissible, were you forced to make that statement?

MR BOTHA: Let me begin at the beginning. Firstly yes, it is a general fact that Section 20 statements are not permissible but that is the impression that I have, and I worked with Section 29 imprisonments so perhaps I have been mistaken for all these years. By nature of the situation there was pressure on me despite the fact that I didn't get proper meals; that I was deprived of all my freedom; that I could not obtain legal counsel; that I didn't know what was going on outside; that I felt that I was going to be sacrificed; the fact that I begged and pleaded for them to look after Mr Barnard, which was not done. So if I were to make my own inference I asked them to help Mr Barnard but instead of them helping him further possible rumours were spread which established my detention as well. So by nature of the situation it was a form of coercion, it was a grave form of coercion.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But now how would it have helped you if you gave what you have described before the Committee false details in relation to the bomb?

MR BOTHA: Firstly I tried to cooperate, I tried to follow the golden mean in terms of my co-operation with the police to try and achieve my release but also to remain part of the South African Defence Force system, so I tried to say as little as possible with that. I tried to follow the golden mean.

Perhaps I could tell you a tale which would give you clarity regarding the subject. At a certain stage I became so claustrophobic that I felt as if I would do anything to speak in order just to get a visit, that is why I said on a certain day that I would like to clear my conscience, that I was prepared to tell everything that I knew, but that I wouldn't speak to any of them but to the General. They brought the General in by helicopter. He arrived there and he said, "Son can we talk to you, what's your position?". And I said yes General I would like to discuss a few things with you. They took me out of the cells and treated me like a decent well-educated person. They allowed me to have a cup of tea, and then they said, well are you read to speak? I said yes I would like to talk about the food. I would like to talk about my detention; my freedom; and a few other aspects. And they said no we'll change everything for you but let's just talk about the involvement of others, and I said no General I have got nothing to say about that. Naturally he expressed his disapproval and departed, but that hour of escape from those cells bought me another day.

So you must understand when I speak to you of unforced coercion or coercion without any physical pressure which is exerted on the individual.

MR BIZOS: I accept everything that you say in relation to detention without trial, and you are not the first person from whom I have heard it.

MR BOTHA: I accept that.

MR BIZOS: But what I am asking you is this, how would you have helped your situation in describing what happened at the explosion of this bomb at the Early Learning Centre by giving inaccurate detail? And please try and confine your answer to the question.

MR BOTHA: I will try to do so Mr Bizos. You have asked me for a third time, I will give you this answer and see if you find that satisfactory. By nature of the situation they had certain facts. They didn't know what the precise facts were. I gave them a concoction of the truth in order to get myself out of detention. Better than that I cannot do.

MR BIZOS: No but I will assist you to try.

MR BOTHA: Please.

MR BIZOS: If you admitted that you participated in the explosion of the bomb how would it help you to give false details in relation to the manner in which it happened? Try and answer that question please.

MR BOTHA: I will try once again to answer to the best of my ability. I was involved with the State organisation, an organisation which at certain points assured us in no uncertain terms of indemnity, the fact that we would not be prosecuted commensurately I dealt with this decision in the back of my mind and I said things which were not sober during my detention. And for someone who has not been in section 29 detention I cannot explain my behavioural patterns. I can also not sketch my state of mind unless you yourself have experienced it, and I doubt it.

MR BIZOS: You are partly correct, but I have heard enough people describe their experience. Try and answer the question ...(intervention)

MR BOTHA: Then I will accept your sympathy towards my detention as well.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but try and answer my questions. Let's try in another way.

MR BOTHA: Please.

MR BIZOS: If you were involved in Van Zyl and you were involved in the CCB how would it help you, how would it help the CCB, how would it help Van Zyl or any one of you by giving incorrect information in relation to the detail as to how the bomb was exploded?

MR BOTHA: Once again I will give you an answer. I wanted to force the organisation to stay true to their word regarding what we understood about indemnity during our training. I wanted to force them and show them, this is what I know, this is what I can say. So you have to achieve my release now. More than that I cannot do.

MR BIZOS: I will try once again. Why would the truth in relation to the detail once you made the great divide by implicating yourself, the CCB and Van Zyl, why wouldn't the truth have been better rather than false details?

MR BOTHA: Because I was uncertain of the reaction of the organisation. Let me put a hypothetical question to you. Let's say I were to expose all the correct facts. They could sacrifice me. Therefore I dealt according to my state of mind at that point whether it would assist me or not. I did the best that I thought during my detention and I will stand by that.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Bizos, but what you have said in the statement here and what you have said to us now, if you had said what you have said to us now in the statement why do you think it would have been worse than what you said in the statement? I mean because you have told us now that you were roped into this and that you had to push the button and a few details about what happened at the hall. And you've also given a statement where you mention Van Zyl's name, Burger's involvement etc, but it's not the same as what you've told us here. And I think I have the same difficulty as Mr Bizos. It's not like the one is an exculpatory statement and the other inculpatory. They both inculpate yourself to the same extent. So why then fiddle around with facts when it's not going to make much difference. Why do you think this was better to tell the police than what you've told us now? In what specific detailed respect? Take a look at page 5, yes.

MR BOTHA: I tried to keep myself away inasfar as it was possible. I was a detective. I knew the investigative process and I tried to remove myself from the scene. I gave information according to what I thought was best. I tried to protect myself because I didn't know what would emanate from my detention. I didn't know if I would be there for more months. I also allowed myself to be led by the investigating team. I would support the things that they said. When they asked who pressed the detonator I gave them roundabout answers, that is how I led my statement.

MR BIZOS: Isn't the correct answer to my question that you knowing that you have a common interest to get amnesty with Mr van Zyl are anxious to reconcile your statement here by denying the contents in relation to detail in your statement made in detention?

MR BOTHA: I would be prejudicing myself by placing myself at the scene and knowing what happened, therefore I kept with my section 29 statement so that I could remove myself as far as possible from the scene.

MR BIZOS: Did the Attorney General offer you indemnity for your participation in the killing of Webster?

MR BOTHA: Yes Mr Bizos, yes.

MR BIZOS: Has anybody offered you indemnity for the Early Learning Centre if you didn't get amnesty?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Who has?

MR BOTHA: The Attorney General.

MR BIZOS: For this as well?

MR BOTHA: Correct.

MR BIZOS: Which Attorney General did that?

MR BOTHA: Torrie Pretorius from the Pretoria AG office.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that also during 1999, same time as you went and made the statements?

MR BOTHA: That's right, Sir, yes.

MR BIZOS: Now I want to see if I understand your evidence in relation to the purpose of the bomb. Did you say that the purpose of the bomb was told to you by Van Zyl afterwards, that is that he had wanted a controlled explosion?

MR BOTHA: Afterwards when Sir? Let's just clarify that point.

MR BIZOS: That's what you used.

MR BOTHA: No afterwards when, after we left?

MR BIZOS: After the explosion.

MR BOTHA: No, how could that be possible. After we left ...(intervention)

MR MARTINI: Chairperson that's not correct. It wasn't after the explosion. That was not this witness' answer.

CHAIRPERSON: No the question Mr Bizos asked was, did Mr van Zyl tell you that after the explosion, and your answer?

MR BOTHA: Obviously not Sir, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Not.

MR BIZOS: Now I noted that you said, "he told me afterwards what the purpose was for a controlled explosion", did you say that?

MR BOTHA: If I can clarify the meaning of "afterwards", meaning after we left the hotel building, which at the time was a Protea Gardens Hotel, afterwards then. So in other words most probably, in all probability not in the room but thereafter on our journey from Johannesburg to Cape Town he explained to me the essence of the explosion, of the bomb as such.

MR BIZOS: We will get the record in due course and see what ...(intervention)

MR VAN ECK: Mr Chairman if I may just point out here. The evidence was led in Afrikaans and his evidence was in Afrikaans, "hy het my daarna, na ons vertrek dit vertel", I don't know what the translation was ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: "He told me after our departure".

MR VAN ECK: ...that came through, but that was the evidence in Afrikaans.

MR MARTINI: Well Chairperson I am sure we could play back the tapes, it wasn't so long ago, rather than wait for the record.

MR BIZOS: (microphone not on)...we will return to it. The word "afterwards" was definitely used, I would not have written it down.

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't used the word "afterwards" because I was actually writing quite quickly here, I am not saying that it wasn't used, but my notes right or wrong say, "we travelled to Cape Town by car and Van Zyl explained aspects of the project".

MR BIZOS: We will see what was said Mr Chairman. I want to ask you a number of questions, when the button was pressed wherever it may have been pressed by, were the lights of the building on?

MR BOTHA: Once again my legal counsel in the interim has put the statements that this was 11 years ago. I cannot recall it. So you can ask me that question four times and I still will not be able to remember. I will stand by that, whether the lights were on or off is impossible for me to say. I am not prepared to speculate regarding this.

MR BIZOS: Right. Would you accept the evidence that people were in the building and were injured?

MR BOTHA: Once again it is speculative because I don't know who made the statements. I don't know the integrity of the witnesses. I cannot give you a definite yes or no based on such a vague question. It is impossible.

MR BIZOS: It isn't vague, but you don't accept it on that basis. I will put it on another basis so that you can accept it for the purposes of the subsequent questions Mr Botha.

If there is credible evidence before the Committee that there were people injured, if there is such credible evidence, would you accept that people do not generally sit in the dark in a hall or in an entrance hall, or in a room, or in a passage, they don't sit or stand in the dark, would you accept that?

MR BOTHA: Unfortunately not Sir, no.

MR BIZOS: You don't accept that either?

MR BOTHA: No I can't.

MR BIZOS: Oh I see.

MR BOTHA: It has to do with every person's personal view. What were you doing in that dark room, were you meditating, sleeping, praying, chatting, what were you doing? I don't know what people do when it's light or when it's dark. I cannot tell you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry but Mr Botha didn't you say you heard later that people were injured?

MR BOTHA: Yes I said that Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: So don't you accept that because you can't remember whether the lights were on, is that the reason why you can't accept it?

MR BOTHA: I am saying Mr Bizos explicitly asked me if I can remember if the lights were on or off. Then subsequently to that he said if I would accept from people being injured that the lights were on. That's the way I understand the question.

MR BIZOS: You are quite serious in the answer that you have given that if people were injured the lights might have been, were probably off, but they were contemplating or they were doing something in which at eight o'clock at night they required no artificial light. Is that your evidence?

MR BOTHA: That's not what I have said.

MR BIZOS: Well what are you saying? If people were in fact injured in that building will you accept that there were people in the building at the time that the explosion went off?

MR BOTHA: I will tell you what I can say. I went on the evidence of Mr Isgak Hardien regarding the fact that there were no persons present at the time of the detonation of the limpet mine. Furthermore I will rely on Mr van Zyl's opinion with regard to the instruction that he gave for the limpet mine to be detonated because it would fit in to the stipulations at the in-house which were given to him. I would have to rely upon that.

MR BIZOS: And close your eyes to the fact that people were injured and that in all probability the lights were on and anyone who had eyes to see must have realised that there may be people in the hall at the time that the explosion went off.

MR BOTHA: That's your opinion Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: No, but you know it may sound a clever answer to you Mr Botha to say that it's an opinion ...(intervention)

MR BOTHA: Not at all.

MR BIZOS: You are telling us that you accept what Mr Hardien said and what Mr van Zyl said because it suits your case but you are not prepared to face any objective facts that may be found to be proved as a throwing doubt on the credibility of Hardien or the credibility of Van Zyl and above all your credibility.

MR BOTHA: I am not saying that I have to fight for my credibility here. I have given you the facts as I have experienced them and I must rely upon the two opinions of those who were involved with me at the scene. I cannot take it any further than that. I don't want to enter into an argument with you. I am telling you that this was my experience of it and I cannot say anymore. If you tell me that the lights were on and you have a witness who can verify this then I will have to say Mr Bizos so be it, that's your opinion. Then I will accept it for what it is worth. But I cannot accept it as having been so in essence.

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Bizos. Mr Botha it seems to me that you are not hearing the question properly. The question is, if people were in there and we know, let's put it this way, you yourself say people were injured ...(intervention)

MR BOTHA: Yes I heard that.

MR LAX: They must have been in the building to get injured.

MR BOTHA: Not necessarily, they could have been most probably - I am not sure, that's why I am not prepared to commit myself to that. They could possibly have been ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Have you see the photographs of the damage?

MR BOTHA: Yes I have.

MR LAX: They could not have been injured on the outside of the building from the nature of the damage.

MR BOTHA: That could have been glass Sir, I have seen explosive scenes where detonation took place where it could have been glass. It could have been a number of factors. It could have been the vacuum of the bomb as such. I am not sure of the injuries as such.

CHAIRPERSON: But it's not a question of committing yourself to whether the lights were on or not because you don't know - you say look I can't remember whether the lights were on or not.

MR BOTHA: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if somebody comes along let's say whose evidence, who is a very good witness, whose evidence is accepted and says "well the lights were on", now you don't have to commit yourself to that situation. If you can't remember they may well be on. From what you have told us, you said that you were sitting in that vehicle after you went around the block, you came a bit closer and then Hardien, people came out and Hardien mentioned a couple of names and then it was determined that all the people must have left.

MR BOTHA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you operated on that. But that doesn't mean that because those people were out that the lights were off.

MR BOTHA: I accept that Sir but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There might have been other people, there might have been a watchman there, there might be a caretaker there.

MR BOTHA: I accept what you are saying but Mr Bizos is trying to get me to agree that at some stage I should have foreseen the possibility that there were people - because of the lights that were on, I should foresee the possibility that there were people at that present time in the building as such.

MR LAX: Look that may be the case, that's why I was trying to help you. He is asking you some questions, listen to each question, don't think five questions ahead and then you find yourself getting stuck in a problem that isn't there.

MR BOTHA: I accept that Mr Lax but I did hear the second part of his question, that's why I am reacting the way I am.

MR LAX: Yes but it's all premised on the fact that there were people there, there were people injured. He accepts that you don't remember that the lights were on. He has no alternative.

MR BOTHA: I accept that, but it's all got to do with my credibility now. So if I do admit to what Mr Bizos says it could influence my credibility which I am not prepared to do.

MR BIZOS: Let's carry on. I will ask the questions that I am accustomed to asking and you can give the answers that you want and we will argue at the end whether any reliance can be placed on your evidence.

Now which is the front and which is the back of this building? And in relation to that is the parking ground in front or at the back of the building?

MR BOTHA: In all honesty I cannot remember now at this moment in time. I can't. As I said to you I explicitly took it from the way Mr Hardien and Mr van Zyl conducted them at this specific scene and I've got to go according to that. I did not attend the in loco as ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: We accept that.

MR VAN ECK: Chairperson, Mr Bizos did not let him finish, I think ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He said he did not attend the inspection in loco.

MR BIZOS: I apologise for that. Yes you did not attend the inspection in loco. Now if in fact there were motor cars in the parking ground, and there is evidence of damage to those vehicles as a result of the explosion, albeit minor damage, would you accept that not all the cars that were parked in what you call the parking ground, had left at the time of the explosion?

MR BOTHA: On the basis that you have put it to me I don't have a choice but to accept it according to your version.

MR BIZOS: Now we are getting somewhere yes thank you. Now has it occurred to you that Mr Hardien, having regard to his background may have lied either to you or to Mr van Zyl in relation to the presence or otherwise of people in the building?

MR BOTHA: The possibility exists, certainly Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Has it occurred to you that it is possible that Mr van Zyl misrepresented to you what the real purpose of this bomb being put there was, and knowing that you were not in the "voorstudie" he and Hardien requiring your assistance obtained it under false pretences. Did that occur to you?

MR BOTHA: No, Mr van Zyl's integrity is above suspicion to me with regard to that.

MR BIZOS: A gentleman above suspicion.

MR BOTHA: That is your translation.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR MARTINI: Sorry Chairperson Mr Bizos shouldn't make jokes of the answers he doesn't like that he extracts under cross-examination. He should keep his comments to himself and argue it, rather than make a snide comment when he extracts an answer which is not favourable to him. Thank you Chairperson.

MR BIZOS: .... that it's not favourable to me in view of the questions that follow and I certainly didn't hear anybody laughing with my question Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha if you were told that the purpose of the operation was to kill people, what would you have done?

MR BOTHA: If the pre-study was set out as such and if the instruction had been given as such then I would still have participated in the operation because that was the objective of our organisation.

MR BIZOS: Yes. What was the purpose other than to kill the people that were having the meeting there and belonging to the executive of the Kew Youth Movement, Kewtown?

MR BOTHA: Are you asking what the purpose of the explosion was?

MR BIZOS: Yes, according to Van Zyl and according to you, since you have so much faith in his credibility and honesty and forthrightness.

MR BOTHA: Sir the answer has actually got three legs. Firstly the maximum disruption of the structure as I have explained it before. The second leg would be to send a very strong message to the interested parties that they are being monitored and that there are people who are aware of their activities. The third leg would be that there is a possible connection that could be made to them in that it could possibly be one of their bombs that exploded. And the fact that those involved will know that it is not will create a feeling of intimidation.

MR BIZOS: This is what Mr van Zyl told you?

MR BOTHA: No Sir, this is what Mr van Zyl told me, yes that is correct. This is the reason why we placed the bomb there.

MR BIZOS: Just by the way, was your faith in the honesty and forthrightness of Mr van Zyl not in any way shaken by his denying that he authorised your blood-brother Ferdi Barnard to kill Advocate Omar with a Makarov pistol with a silencer, who do you think is telling the truth, your blood-brother or Mr van Zyl?

MR BOTHA: Sir I am not willing to speculate on something like that.

MR BIZOS: Oh.

MR BOTHA: I think it is not reasonable to ask me or to expect it from me because I do not have the facts available. I was not part of any discussion with regards to Advocate Omar. So you are now trying to pull me in in a way in which I will not go.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's our function to decide who to believe on that one rather than the witness'.

MR BIZOS: Yes I merely by way of an expression Mr Chairman as to who (the speaker's microphone is not on) - I just want to round it off, you see if in fact Mr Ferdi Barnard is telling the truth, would you accept that Mr van Zyl is capable of telling outright untruths, if?

MR BOTHA: I cannot give you an answer.

MR BIZOS: I am sure not, I am sure not.

Now I want to examine this answer of yours as to what the purpose was, what information was there according to Mr van Zyl or other information that you had these people that you wanted to frighten were guilty of?

MR BOTHA: Sorry can I just interrupt you on that point, I would just like to once again explain to you what my role and responsibility was concerning this incident. I was there in an observation position. I accompanied Van Zyl as an expert in an area of which he knew nothing. I did not make sure that I knew of all of the facts, I went exclusively on the grounds of an instruction that I received from the coordinator and the regional manager and what I observed in the handing over of this limpet mine. I went there exclusively on that basis and I accompanied Mr van Zyl. Once again you said I was not involved in the pre-study, I was not involved in the in-house and that is why I think it is unfair to ask me these type of questions because I cannot answer you with certainty even though I want to, and with respect I am saying this. I pick up a feeling of animosity from you because I am not accepting it that way, but I cannot. I can tell you how I saw the limpet mine, how I handed it over to Isgak Hardien, I can tell you what I observed there and that is my integrity that's on the table here, and it's my opinion about what happened there.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry but Mr Botha all that Mr Bizos asked you is - you said that Van Zyl told you what the purpose of the operation was ...(intervention)

MR BOTHA: That's right Sir, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...and that included inter alia to send a message to the people etc.

MR BOTHA: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Now all that Mr Bizos is asking is were you aware as to why it was necessary to send a message to those people, was that told to you? After all you probably sat for, I don't know how long it took you to drive to Cape Town, but it's a long drive, you were together a long time, or wouldn't you have asked well you know why these people, why that or? That's all that is being asked.

MR BOTHA: I concede Mr Chairperson. Mention was made ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what they were allegedly guilty of or suspected of being guilty of.

MR BOTHA: That was mentioned to me, yes.

MR BIZOS: Please answer the question, what were you told these people were guilty of?

MR BOTHA: Amongst other things that there are suspicions that they placed two bombs, I think one at a post office and one at a police station. If I can remember correctly secondly that they wanted to disrupt the elections in their way with certain actions that they wanted to launch that they planned during the meetings that took place at this hall in Athlone, and that it was not forbidden organisation but it was a situation that was created because of a certain pattern of thought. And that would then be the disruption of the September elections. In broader terms that is what he told me.

MR BIZOS: Did he also tell you that they were suspected of having been - not only that they were responsible for the bombs at the post office and the magistrate's court, but also that they were in possession of explosives and arms and ammunition?

MR BOTHA: That's the inference that I made, yes, if he did not tell it to me that would be a possibility, a most likely possibility.

MR BIZOS: So although there were many definitions of terrorism this was a bunch of primary terrorists that were to gather there that evening?

MR BOTHA: I will not say those are his exact words Mr Bizos, in broader terms yes, that's what he said they were busy with.

MR BIZOS: And what was more serious an offence to commit at the time by a group of ten or twelve young people than be in possession of bombs and go and place them at places, probably been aware of other explosives and they were about to explode them. By the way did Mr van Zyl also tell you that Mr Verster had said to him that if another bomb goes off in the Cape he, Verster, would hold Van Zyl personally responsible for that act of terror, did Mr van Zyl tell you that?

MR BOTHA: He could have mentioned it, yes, I cannot recall it though.

MR BIZOS: Did he or did he not mention it?

MR BOTHA: I cannot recall.

MR BIZOS: It's not likely that he would have kept such vital information of such importance to his partner driving what is it, 17 or 1800 kilometres, staying in the same hotel that you would have omitted that dramatic detail?

MR BOTHA: Maybe it was a personal discussion between the two of them that his ego did not allow him to say that and I could have made the inference that his region is out of control.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos when it's convenient we will take the adjournment for the day but only when you get to the end of a point.

MR BIZOS: The best way of making sure that the terrorist activities, I think you would have used the word terroristic activities, of these people was to kill them. What is the good of warning them, kill them, and you've got the maximum disruption in the bag, so-to-speak. There will be no more bombs at any rate from these people that were suspected of having let them off. Why not kill them. Wouldn't that have been in accordance with the policy and principles of the CCB?

MR BOTHA: Mr Bizos it may be so, once again it may be so, but unfortunately I cannot shed light on that. If you have asked me if possibly shouldn't they have been killed but my opinion doesn't mean anything because it wasn't my project. I did not make the recommendation. If you ask me it in 14 different ways wouldn't it have been better and with each one I say yes, it's got no influence on me.

MR BIZOS: Didn't you ask Van Zyl, but why don't we kill these bombers? What is this business of giving them a warning? Terrorists don't require warnings.

MR BOTHA: Even if I did ask the question it would not have been in his capacity to deviate from the plan so what would the purpose have been, so that is why I cannot think I would have thought such a question or waste my time in asking such a question, because that would have been a waste.

MR BIZOS: Well I am going to suggest to you that the project having failed, fortunately for these young people who were not doing any of the things that you suggest, you, Van Zyl and Hardien decided to lessen your intention in order to avoid the consequences and that neither you, nor Van Zyl nor Hardien are telling the truth as to what the purpose of this bomb was.

MR BOTHA: Mr Bizos I can tell you what was told to me if Mr van Zyl had said these are the reasons, I will accept it. I was not informed from the higher ranks what the reasons were I will go on the grounds of what Mr van Zyl said because I cannot stand in for what he said. Mr van Zyl said this must happen and I act accordingly. I drive with them, I activate the limpet mine and I assist him in the detonation thereof. I concede that your summation could be correct, it would not be my place because I cannot say it. That is why Mr van Zyl sat here so that you can ask him that question. I cannot stand in for what was said to him.

MR BIZOS: Did you discuss the purpose of this bomb with Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: Sir I could possibly have said that I detonated the bomb. I cannot think that I would have discussed the purpose with him in detail.

MR BIZOS: Let's take it step-by-step. You can't deny that you had a discussion with Mr Barnard about the explosion of this bomb?

MR BOTHA: I can say such a discussion took place, yes.

MR BIZOS: And do you remember what his evidence was?

MR BOTHA: I can recall, yes.

MR BIZOS: I'll confirm it for you. That he told you that Van Zyl had told him that the purpose was to kill these young people. Now, and that in fairness to you you said no, that is not what Van Zyl told me. Has Mr Barnard got that conversation correctly?

MR BOTHA: It's possibly correct, yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well you can't deny that that is what precisely passed between you and Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: If he conveyed it in such a way I would have reacted like such because if it had happened like that Mr van Zyl did not put it to me and he was not informed.

MR BIZOS: You are unable to deny that those were the terms of the discussion that you had with Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: I cannot say ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Thank you, that's enough. Now why would Mr van Zyl tell Mr Barnard a different purpose to what he told you as to the purpose of the bomb?

MR BOTHA: Because this organisation was made up of a lot of egos and the one's ego wants to be bigger than the other one's ego so this is my logical summation that he wanted to impress Mr Barnard by saying such a thing. Once again I am speculating, I cannot say.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Why don't you speculate that he may have been telling the truth to Mr Barnard but that he possibly mislead you?

MR BOTHA: But I just conceded that if it happened like that I cannot say it - I can say it possibly happened. I do not think - I cannot see how it can assist you.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Botha just on your response on your opinion as to why it was said, don't you think that Barnard would have been more impressed if Mr van Zyl told him that the purpose wasn't to kill, we set off a bomb and we didn't kill, in other words we achieved the object of the operation? Rather than make up a story about trying to kill people and failing. What's that got to do with ego when you are talking about a failure rather than a success?

MR BOTHA: No I differ from you Mr Chairperson. It is about the loss of life, how Mr van Zyl would have liked to have boasted about it. It would have given him larger credibility against a person like Mr Barnard.

MR BIZOS: Did you see Van Zyl regularly after your discussion with Mr Barnard?

MR BOTHA: I would think so, yes.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever ask him what is this nonsense that you told Barnard about our intention being to kill people, did you ever ask him?

MR BOTHA: No I did not.

MR BIZOS: Why not?

MR BOTHA: I do not think he wanted Ferdi to admit to me that he discussed the project with him, so I think Ferdi and Slang had their own relationship and Ferdi and I had our own relationship without Slang knowing what the relationship was.

MR BIZOS: If Mr Barnard had told the truth to you, had told the truth to you and if Van Zyl was speaking the truth you were the exploited expert who was not told the real purpose of the bomb, surely that must have been a matter of great concern that would have influenced your relationship with Mr van Zyl?

MR BOTHA: Sir once again I had to rely on what Ferdi Barnard told me. I cannot interpret it as the truth. I was at the scene, I know what Mr van Zyl told me and I acted accordingly. If he lied to me or not I cannot say, or I cannot stand in for him. I can tell you what he told me and more than that I cannot say.

MR BIZOS: What I would - the last question for this afternoon, if you can, why didn't you do the natural thing with your co-worker in the CCB, "why do you tell Ferdi Barnard that the intention was to kill and why did you tell me that the intention was merely to frighten, why did you play the fool with me, or why are you playing the fool with me?"

MR BOTHA: I did not discuss it Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: You've told us that, why not? Have you any explanation why you did not do it?

MR BOTHA: Possibly because he said it in the confidence of the situation that he did not know what our relationship was at that stage and I did not know what their relationship was like. That's how I did not know about Advocate Omar or that Ferdi Barnard was involved in the baboon incident. And that I stated categorically ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Have you any other explanation because if you haven't I think that I would ask the Chairman's permission to allow me to stop at this stage, have you any other explanation to explain this inconsistent and improbable conduct on your part?

MR BOTHA: That's my final answer.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will adjourn till tomorrow. We mentioned last week the possibility of starting at nine, is that possible, tomorrow? Yes. We will adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning, same venue. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS