CHAIRPERSON: Morning everybody. Mr Burger I remind you you're still under your former oath and when we adjourned yesterday Mr Kahanovitz was putting questions. Mr Kahanovitz.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you Mr Chairman.


Mr Burger, yesterday we were looking at the diary of Wouter Basson. Can we carry on looking at that diary at page 29, the entry for 27 July? You will see once again there are a number of entries on this page concerning South West Africa. There's an entry about "Gemarteldes", people who have been tortured, "Vergaderings bywoon", attend meetings and about recruiting people who want to take on tasks out of revenge, you see the Afrikaans: "Recruit members to do revenge tasks"?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you aware of some plan to recruit people who'd been tortured by SWAPO, to become unaware members of the CCB?


MR KAHANOVITZ: You're not. Alright. In the middle of the page after, you'll see those six notations about observing the routine of the person, so on and so forth, there's an entry that says the following:

"Girls like Bessenger, close to Tjongarero, may fall two weeks after Hamutenya."

Now in CCB language, I'm assuming, well you tell us, what do you think the word "val" means there, fall?

MR BURGER: Eliminate.

MR BURGER: Alright. Now Calla Botha tells us in his statement at bundle B page 9, I'll just read you two sentences from that. He says:

"Hamutenya was a project of Burger's"

and he carries on to say:

"Hamutenya was a well-placed project but had to be cancelled because of a wrong identification."

Now do you admit that Hamutenya was your project?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So is Mr Botha not telling the truth?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Was Hamutenya a CCB project?

MR BERGER: I don't know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You've got no idea. He also says that you recruited a local dancer to go to South West Africa to gather information, is that true?

MR BURGER: That's true.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That's true. Alright. He also says that you went there and I also have a further statement from Slang van Zyl which I'll hand in if necessary, which he gave to the Namibian police, who were investigating Lubowski's assassination in which he says that you and Maree visited South West Africa regularly. Do you dispute that?

MR BURGER: No, I do not agree.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So both Mr Botha and Mr van Zyl say that you visited South West Africa. You're however sticking to your story that you only spent part of a day there.

MR BURGER: As I said before, I went in in the morning and I left in the afternoon on my own.

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, could we at least have sight of the statement some time? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Kahanovitz, could you arrange for that, that that last statement that you referred to.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I'll give it to Mr Martini at the tea break. Now Tjongarero, was he a project?

MR BURGER: Not as far as I know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Once again from, I think its in Mr Botha's statement, yes, he says again at B(9): "Ferdi" referring to Ferdi Barnard, "was sent to South West Africa by Louis" which is Lafras Luitingh’s code name, "to gather information about Tjongarero's movements". Do you have any knowledge of that?

MR BURGER: None. Chairman, I think these questions come from Article 29 statements. I have no knowledge of those and I do not talk about external projects and these persons' names are linked to SWAPO and the then South West Africa.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, there is considerable evidence also from a former operative by the name of Pieter Botes, do you know who he is?


MR KAHANOVITZ: But you heard Mr Verster mentioning his name.

MR BURGER: Yes, I saw him for the first time at the Harms Commission and I spoke to him.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, I'll just draw it to your attention that Mr Botes has confirmed that there were projects involving Bessenger, Hamutenya, Tjongarero. I assume you don't want to answer that.

MR BURGER: I deny it and I will not answer any questions on that.


CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Kahanovitz, could you just refresh my memory, who was Mr Botes?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Botes was a member I think of - he wasn't in Region 6, I think he was in Region 2, but he was used in the Namibian campaign, but Mr Verster or Gen Webb mentioned that he'd been dismissed from the CCB and that's where his name came up in the evidence here.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright, if you could please turn to page 30, the 1st of August. Now the entry there reads:

"Bert must chase Grosskopff and have his supporters attacked"

and then there's a dash:

"G Evans"

Now if we read that entry together with your amnesty application and your evidence which you gave in chief, your evidence has been that one of the reasons for targeting Gavin Evans was the CCB's belief that he was in some or other way involved with Grosskopff, is that correct?

MR BURGER: It's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That's right. Alright. And Bert, we know is a reference to you, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So this entry appears to corroborate what you say in your statement, namely that you had been tasked to make preparations for the elimination of Gavin Evans. Is that correct?

MR BURGER: Correct, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And if we can just skip, jump to page 33, that is the entry for the 24th of August, you'll see at 1 o'clock, well first you'll see at the top of the page it says:

"keep day open for in-house Region 6."

You with me?


MR KAHANOVITZ: And then at 1 o'clock it says:

"N.B. Jack will talk tomorrow with Chairman about Evans."

MR BURGER: I see that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So that Jack we know is Joe Verster, correct?

MR BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And that is an entry that suggests that a meeting has been set up for the following day for Verster to talk to the Chairman about Evans.

MR BURGER: It seems like it, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But do you have a recollection of discussions along this nature having taken place round about the 1st of August?

MR BURGER: I cannot remember the dates but it could be true.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you have any reason to dispute the dates as they appear in Mr Basson's contemporaneous diary?


MR KAHANOVITZ: You'll agree with me it's more than likely that these dates are accurate in the sense that Mr Basson made them at that time and his diary was seized before he would have had the opportunity to alter anything on it?

MR BURGER: It's true.


CHAIRPERSON: There seems to be very little in the way of alterations, or certainly there's none on this page.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes. So you wouldn't be in a position to dispute that these discussions were taking place round about the 1st of August 1989?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. You see, if I understand your evidence-in-chief correctly, you mentioned that Mr van Zyl's operatives were brought up from the Western Cape and they were going to attempt to stab Gavin Evans, to make it look like it had been a robbery, correct?

MR BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, it seems to me, just let me give you also a date, that is on Mr van Zyl's version, that occurs round about March/April 1989.



MR BURGER: Yes, that's where we started with Evans and Maree.

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no, not - he doesn't say that that was when it was started. You see, his version is that the murder of Mr Evans was going to take place round about March/April 1989 because that's when he flew Peaches up to Johannesburg.

MR BURGER: Sir, I cannot remember the dates precisely but I know that Evans was given to Mr Maree in 1989, beginning of 1989 and I want to say that in March it was given to Mr Maree and Mr Maree took a long time with this until about May. Afterwards he came to us with the address etc and it was transferred to Mr van Zyl at a later stage.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see Mr van Zyl tells us that the in-house, or let me not use that word because he says it wasn't a proper in-house, but he says his involvement, he was called to a meeting concerning the Gavin Evans project in March 1989 and - sorry the dates I gave you before aren't quite correct. He said - it's round about late April, early May 1989, he says: "One week after Easter", are the words he used, "Peaches was flown to Johannesburg to kill Gavin Evans". Alright? That's his version. Now I want to put to you that Evans's - the plan to assassinate Gavin Evans was not abandoned in May '89 because all that really happened was that Peaches was flown up to Johannesburg, he wasn't able to kill Evans at that stage. The CCB didn't abandon the plan to kill Evans, what they did was, they were waiting for an opportunity where they would be able to get better information as to his movements, his proper address and so on and so forth and they would then attempt to kill him at that stage. Do you agree with that?

MR BURGER: I agree Mr Chairman. I want to think that the Evans' case was talked about later again and in that way Jack wanted to talk to the Chairman about Evans again.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, because that's why you were still discussing it in August 1989, so in so far as Mr van Zyl's statement suggests that the Evans project was abandoned in April/May 1989, it is incorrect.

MR BURGER: You will remember that the project was given to him with the task to execute it. The pre-studies and presentation had been done by myself and Mr Basson and the information was done by Mr Maree, so as far as he and his infrastructure are concerned, yes, it was abandoned.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Peaches himself says in his statement that what he was told before he left Johannesburg was that the project was being postponed, not terminated, he says the project was being postponed for execution till a later date. Isn't that likely?

MR BURGER: It's possible that Mr van Zyl told him that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now just tell us what was happening, what kind of discussions were you having in August? What was the plan in August?

MR BURGER: I wasn't there.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But it refers specifically to you, it says that you must ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: "Jack talks tomorrow to Chairman about Evans"

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no, go back to page 30.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 30 at the top on the right-hand side.

MR BURGER: Yes, that is:

"Bert must chase Grosskopff and have his supporters attacked, for example Evans".

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but the notation says that it's you that are in charge of that, that you must hunt Grosskopff and kill his supporters. You are Bert.


MR KAHANOVITZ: So why is the diary entry referring to you?

MR BURGER: Because I was told to try and find Hein Grosskopff.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but it's obvious that Mr Verster would involve you as the Regional Manager in this process, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So tell us what instructions you were given.

MR BURGER: To gather information about Grosskopff and about his supporters, including Mr Evans.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright, so you weren't able to kill Mr Evans earlier during the year. What steps were you taking now in August to make sure that the job was finally completed?

MR BURGER: No, there wasn't a new address available, or nothing.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But why was Mr Verster supposed to meet with the Chairman about Evans on the day after 24 August?

MR BURGER: I don't know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So you can't recall any further steps that were taken after Peaches left Johannesburg in May '89 to follow up on the Evans project?


MR KAHANOVITZ: But you've just told us you couldn't find out any additional details as to his whereabouts?

MR BURGER: It's true.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So somebody must have been tasked to do that.

MR BURGER: No, they would have told me if somebody got it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you trying to suggest it was just all left hanging in the air?

MR BURGER: Yes it was left.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Just left hanging in the air?

MR BURGER: It was left hanging in the air.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Your version doesn't make sense, because ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: It does to me.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well I don't think it makes sense to anybody else because ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: You're assuming that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Because if, as you've already conceded, the Evans project was going to be pursued after Peaches had left Johannesburg, it logically follows that somebody would have to take up that task, do you agree with me?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So somebody would have to endeavour to establish his address, his whereabouts and come up with a plan to kill him, correct?

MR BURGER: It's true.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So who did that?

MR BURGER: Nobody in Region 6 at that point.

MR LAX: Sorry, may I intervene just while you're conferring there? Surely as Regional Manager of Region 6, it was the internal region, you or one of your men would have been tasked with that job?

MR KAHANOVITZ: We were tasked, it was abandoned and afterwards there was not another project about Evans.

MR LAX: But these entries make it clear it wasn't abandoned and you conceded that.

MR BURGER: I beg your pardon?

MR LAX: And you've conceded that.

MR BURGER: Conceded?

MR LAX: You've conceded that it wasn't abandoned.


MR LAX: So it's inconceivable to me that if it wasn't abandoned, that you did nothing about it.

MR BURGER: No, we did nothing about it. The possibility that the information around Evans could continue, yes, I agree according to the entries it seems like it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr Burger, you've already said - sorry.

MR LAX: I just want to say - what steps did you take on Grosskopff, at least?


MR LAX: On Mr Grosskopff?

MR BURGER: I arrived nowhere with Mr Grosskopff.

MR LAX: No, that doesn't tell me what steps you took, that just says you didn't get anywhere. What steps did you take?

MR BURGER: We did inquiries and it seemed that he was overseas.

MR LAX: And his supporters?

MR BURGER: And his supporters, no, we concentrated first just on Mr Grosskopff.

MR LAX: Yes, but how did you "jaag" him and his supporters? "Jaag" can mean chase as well, hey? Follow up as opposed to hunt.

MR BURGER: Yes. Jag with one a is hunt, "aa" is chase, so it can't be hunt. I started to concentrate on Mr Grosskopff and the information was that he was abroad.

MR LAX: The whole purpose here was of the link with Evans.


MR LAX: That's the whole objective.

MR BURGER: It was left behind because of other work we had to do.

MR LAX: So the fact that all of this is here for example on page 30, you didn't really pay it much mind then on your own version because you were busy with other things?

MR BURGER: I believe that as soon as concrete information could be gathered around Mr Evans, the project would have continued.

MR LAX: But you see, a few days later something must have happened because Jack went to talk to the "Voorsitter" about Evans.

MR BURGER: I don't know about that.

MR LAX: Yes, but even if you don't know about it, you can infer that Jack wouldn't have gone to talk to the Voorsitter about Evans if there was nothing new to talk about because he'd already spoken to him and got permission to do the job, as far as you understood.

MR BURGER: I think the Chairman - Jack or Mr Basson could explain this entry, but such an entry says such to me and to you, but there was a movement happening against Evans.

MR LAX: Yes, fair enough, I don't expect you to know what they spoke about, but all I'm having a difficulty with is understanding why you were tasked with this thing, there was clearly some development around it ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: I deny it.

MR LAX: Let me finish. And you have no recollection of that at all?

MR BURGER: Not of this, no.

MR LAX: Sorry, please continue.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Your evidence earlier on, while I was cross-examining you, your evidence was clearly that you said that the "Evansgeval het later weer ter sprake gekom en Jack" referring to Verster, "wanted to discuss it again." Remember that evidence?


MR KAHANOVITZ: And Jack wanted to discuss it again. That was your evidence. I asked you about these entries. I asked you to explain them. You agreed with me that the Evans matter once again came up for discussion and Joe Verster wanted to discuss it.


MR KAHANOVITZ: What did he want to discuss? Surely he wanted to discuss what progress was being made in the matter?

MR BURGER: Well, he wanted to continue with the project and we had no information about his activities.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but you'd only be in a position to tell him that if you'd taken steps to attempt to establish his movements, his whereabouts and you would then say to Mr Verster: "We have been looking out for the man, Mr So-and-so's been sent round, his house has been watched, his flat has been watched, his telephone has been bugged. Unfortunately, after having taken all of those steps, we can't find him."

MR BURGER: No, we didn't have that information available to us.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well what - were you waiting for Mr Evans to report to your office?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So what are you suggesting?

MR BURGER: I think you are a bit sarcastic, but it's your right. No, there were information structures through which you can gather this information, for example this entry about Jack talking to the Chairman about Evans, the Chairman also gave evidence that he had his information structure, Jack had his sources, CCB has its own sources, so what this discussion was about, it could only have been about information because our own structure in Region 6 as you heard, could not ascertain his address and his movements.

MR LAX: May I just ...?


MR LAX: But surely if they had all this information and they were having all these discussions, surely they would have shared that with you because you were making no progress?

MR BURGER: They had to.

MR LAX: But they didn't.

MR BURGER: Not as far as I know.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just on this, the Evans project was Mr Maree's?

MR BURGER: Originally, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and then when he fell out of the picture because of his other commitments etc, whose project did it become?

MR BURGER: Mr van Zyl.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr van Zyl said that he was only brought in on an ad hoc basis because he had functionaries who could carry out the operation and he was an in and out contact, he really knew very little about it, he just made Peaches available for a couple of days. Now we've heard that the project kept going and obviously, because of these entries, for several months. Who would have taken it over if van Zyl didn't?

MR BURGER: The project was abandoned when it failed.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say it was abandoned, was a conscious decision made to drop it?

MR BURGER: Yes, Mr Verster said: "Abandon the project". I conveyed this message to Mr van Zyl and asked him to send his people back to the Cape, but Mr Evans would remain a priority target, yes I agree, but there was nobody else in Region 6 who was tasked to, at that point, to start a pre-study because we still gathered information around him, we still needed information and Mr Botha was put on ice.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you see, if one reads this entry at page 30: "Bert must chase Grosskopff", the very wording used indicates to anyone who reads it that you were expected to do something.

MR BURGER: About Grosskopff.

CHAIRPERSON: So if you were expected to do something, then one would have imagined there would have been some direct talk about it.


CHAIRPERSON: With you. And was there that?

MR BURGER: Yes, there was.

CHAIRPERSON: But no mention of Evans?

MR BURGER: Chairman, I will agree, we did talk about Evans, but I personally never concentrated on Evans.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you. You will agree with me, the entry in the diary has got an important "en". It says:

"Bert must chase Grosskopff and kill his supporters."

In other words, the task is to eliminate his supporters.


MR KAHANOVITZ: And on your version, the only supporter of Grosskopff that you've ever mentioned is Gavin Evans.

MR BURGER: What I named at that stage, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The entry clearly means that you must eliminate one of Grosskopff’s supporters, namely Gavin Evans. "Laat omval", that's what the entry says.

MR BURGER: Yes, but as I said, it was written like that, it's true and it must have been conveyed to me like that, but personally I did not work on Evans.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Also as a matter of simple mathematics on your version you tell us van Zyl's out of the loop at this stage, correct? Van Zyl's not working on Evans, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: You tell us that Maree can't work on Evans because he's busy on foreign projects, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: You tell us that Botha can't work on it because he's on ice. Well that only leaves you.

MR BURGER: And I didn't get to it. That's it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I think I must move on. Right, turn to the following page, page 31.

"More ammunition. 2nd of August. 300 rounds of 9mm, 50 rounds of 45mm, 100 rounds of 303."


MR BURGER: That's an old weapon. Chairman, I can only say that Charles and Lee, those names mentioned above it, I see the ammunition, yes, Mr Kahanovitz is right, but Mr Basson handled a lot of regions, but yes, I see it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, turn then to the 3rd of August, page 32. You will see it says:

"Determine options around client two, friends, movements, official programme, s.o.s, social activities".

Then it sets out certain options. Line 1 it says:


and then in brackets:

"Anton, medical, motor bomb, close actions, far actions, distant actions"

Now Mr Basson in other proceedings, when he first told the Court that these were options that were going to be used to recruit someone to the CCB, but under cross-examination he conceded that you can't recruit someone with a car bomb, so he then changed his evidence to admit that these were options that were being considered for the elimination of someone. Now, I'm putting it to you that these concerned plans to eliminate certain SWAPO leaders in Namibia and that you're aware of what the details of those plans were. Do you care to comment?

MR BURGER: I deny it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You're aware of a plan that was made to assassinate people at the Namibia by Night Club in Windhoek.

MR BURGER: I deny it and I will not testify about that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Okay. Then turn to page 34, 29th of August. You'll see at the top there's another limpet mine.

"Obtain limpet"

and this is shortly before the Early Learning Centre blast.

MR BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Then page 35, 5th of October, it says:

"Final co-ordination today, transfer money."

Do you have any idea what that refers to?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Then on the following page, 31st of October, there's another reference to a further training course for Region 6,

"Course Region 6 for week"

What training course was this?

MR BURGER: I was with my members, we attended a course, that was in January '89. I have seen in the diary on 27 August, there was such an entry in the diary about a course and now again. It may be that something like that was planned, but it was not executed where I was present.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Wasn't it Mr van Zyl's version that at the time that he resigned, that another course had been scheduled? He was about to go on another training course?

MR BURGER: It's possible.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So you're saying you're aware of some training course that was scheduled but for one or other reason, it never happened, but you can't tell us why?

MR BURGER: I didn't attend the course, I don't know if it took place, but it's possible.

MR KAHANOVITZ: By why would you not know if you were the manager? I would imagine you would be integrally involved in the process of the further education and training of the members of Region 6.

MR BURGER: At that stage all activities, all projects, executive projects had been abandoned in Region 6. It was the order of the Managing Director, no project had to be executed or planned as from that point, even before that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Is this because of the changeover from the PW Botha regime to the FW de Klerk regime?


MR KAHANOVITZ: But Gen Webb denies that any such thing every happened.

MR BURGER: The order was very clear to me from the Managing Director that all internal projects and operations had to be abandoned, we had to rationalise also in the external regions and as little production and project files as possible had to be active.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you get the impression while you were in Region 6 that Joe Verster was far more in control of the CCB than Gen Webb was?

MR BURGER: I think that's not a fair question in the sense that I have respect for both members, but to be honest, I think Gen Webb was in 1989, with the appointment, as the Afrikaans proverb says, he was thrown into the deep end and from a conventional situation he moved over to a covert operation and yes, my impressions were that Col Verster was better informed and he was more up to date and he had more experience in the workings of a covert organisation.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see, I also get the impression from having listened to both of their evidence, that Col Verster had different views to Gen Webb about the extent to which one might engage in assassinations inside South Africa. What was your view? What did you pick up while you were in the CCB? Were there differences of opinion?

MR BURGER: Between?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Webb and Verster about the extent to which the Security Forces might be used to assassinate people inside the country.

MR BURGER: I can't comment on that. I was never present at Webb and Verster's discussions.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Except that you and Col Verster went back a long way. I assume you had conversations from time to time?


MR KAHANOVITZ: But he never discussed with you?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Now, if you turn to your amnesty application, but before you do so, were you aware - you gave evidence at the Webster Inquest, you've already admitted that, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: You must have been aware of the fact that at that inquest, Gen Webb denied that he ever authorised Omar and Evans?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Right. Could you then turn to your amnesty application, bundle A, page 134? You're asked on that page to make entries as to whether the acts that you're applying for amnesty for were carried out with the approval of any particular body and then in paragraph (b) on that page, ...(intervention)


MR KAHANOVITZ: 11(b), it says:

"If so, state particulars of such order or approval and the names of the persons who gave such order or approval"

and you'll see - is that your handwriting or your lawyer's handwriting?

MR P DU PLESSIS: I may just say it's not mine.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose handwriting is it then?

MR BURGER: That is mine.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You've heard, by the time you fill in this form, that Gen Webb denies that he authorised Omar and Evans, yet you state here in terms that Gen Webb approved these projects. Would you care to explain?

MR BURGER: Well that was my assumption that I made and the line of command and the structure on which the authorisations were done.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But why don't you put in the facts as you know them, as opposed to the inferences which you seek to draw?

MR BURGER: Well, Mr Verster told me that it had been authorised.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but you knew that Gen Webb had denied, in a Court of Law, that he'd given approval for these projects, don't you think you should have drawn that to the Amnesty Committee's attention?

MR BURGER: I think on their respective applications, they would have become aware of that, of Webb and Verster's applications I'm referring to, but as far as I'm concerned, the line of command that I was concerned with, that was the structure of command which was followed.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, you had no idea ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: I can't tell you Gen Webb is lying, or Mr Verster is lying. As far as I'm concerned this order had been authorised from somewhere above and that is how I indicated it here.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You are no doubt aware that if the Chairman of the CCB claims that the projects were never authorised, that creates problems for you?

MR BURGER: Well, I don't think for me because my order came from the Managing Director.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, if you turn the page to page 135, there's a question, it says:

"Are civil proceedings pending or envisaged as a result of the acts in respect of which amnesty is sought?"

And your answer there:

"Not applicable."

I take it that you're not asking then for indemnity against civil proceedings?


MR KAHANOVITZ: You're not asking for indemnity against civil proceedings, otherwise you wouldn't have filled in not applicable there?

MR BURGER: It's been filled in not applicable.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, with respect it doesn't say whether you are asking for any indemnity.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think it relates to - and in any event we don't give different categories of amnesty, it's either amnesty or no amnesty, we don't give partial amnesty in respect of criminal proceedings and maybe not in respect of civil.

MR P DU PLESSIS: I may just say that well up to this date I'm not aware of any civil proceedings pending or even envisaged and I think that is why it was filled in in this manner.

CHAIRPERSON: We also do, Mr Kahanovitz, get many, many applications where people have neither been charged with criminal, or don't even expect criminal prosecution or civil suits but they've just applied because they've done something and they want to apply for amnesty.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now on the question of whether you obtained any financial benefit from being a member of the CCB, I assume as in the case of Mr van Zyl, your conditions of employment improved while you were in the CCB compared to your remuneration package in the South African Police?

MR BURGER: Yes, it improved.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Isn't it also so that at the time that you left Brixton Murder and Robbery the unit was in disarray because two of your colleagues were being charged or had already been found guilty of murder?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Had they been found guilty at the time that you left or were they only charged at that stage?

MR BURGER: No, I think they had already been convicted.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Senior members, certainly one, what were the ranks of the two people concerned?

MR BURGER: One was a Captain and he was at Murder and Robbery stationed somewhere on the East Rand. The other one was a Sergeant stationed at Brixton.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Those facts would hardly reflect favourably on you as the Commanding Officer of that unit.

MR BURGER: I said so, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And that certainly was a factor which influenced you to move out of the police force?

MR BURGER: Well the interpretation which my seniors attached to the situation was the reason that I became convinced that I should seek other - another job. I did not agree with their opinion.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now let's go to page 141 of your amnesty application, the portion where you deal with the Early Learning Centre project. I assume you've read this document shortly before giving your testimony here. What is your attorney writing as a note to you?

MR P DU PLESSIS: I'm not writing, I'm taking notes of what the questions and answers ...

MR KAHANOVITZ: Oh, I see. No he seemed to be particularly interested in what you were writing. Mr Burger, did you read your ...(intervention)

MR P DU PLESSIS: I don't think he'd be able to read my handwriting.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, did you read your application?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Apart from what your - the one factor that your attorney mentioned while you were giving evidence in chief, is everything in this application true and correct?

MR BURGER: No, it's not.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well would you care to point out to us which aspects are not?

MR BURGER: Are you referring to the entire application or just the bomb section of it?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, let's just deal with the whole application. Just before I start asking you questions, tell us which parts are incorrect.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we'll have to take that paragraph by paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just going to say, it's not very fair to ask somebody a long document, what's correct and what's not. Maybe, do you want an adjournment for him to read it and mark what's wrong, because he might just forget something now and then a whole issue will be made of it and it will be because he didn't have enough time?

MR DE PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, it's not necessary for an adjournment, then the inference will again be that he's been told what to say or somehow motioned to him what to say, then I insist that we proceed now on a paragraph by paragraph analysis of this and let him tell us what's not right, we can do it immediately.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Maybe it's best to do it on a - you see, I don't want to cross-examine him on the basis of what's in here if he's going to tell me in advance that parts of it are wrong because if he says that in advance ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's do it the way Mr du Plessis has suggested.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Well, can I suggest then we deal with the Early Learning Centre and you read through the paragraphs on pages 140 and 141 and tell us what's wrong, if anything.

MR BURGER: May I start?

"Another member of Region 6, namely Abram Slang van Zyl, obtained information from informers relating to the terrorist activities of a gang in Cape Town known as the Kewtown Youth Movement. According to the information, this organisation sought to disrupt the election which was to take place during this period. As part of this attempt to disrupt the election, attacks were launched on the lives of candidates who were running for election and apart from this, bomb attacks were also launched on premises which were to be used as polling booths during the election. We also learned that the particular gang was planning to cause a major fire in the squatter camp in Khayelitsha shortly before the election, which would then lead to riots with accompanying disruption of the election. We in fact had information that the gang was responsible for bomb explosions at the Athlone Magistrates Court and Athlone Post Office. The Post Office which was damaged in the explosion, was also a polling booth for the election. Persons were killed and seriously injured in these explosions."

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright, let's pause there. Is there anything incorrect there?

MR BURGER: That so far is still in line with the information.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. If you can just go to the bottom of page 140, the top of page 141, you say that as part of the Q-Town Youth's attempt to disrupt the election, attempts were made on the lives of candidates. Now you will recall that when I cross-examined Mr van Zyl, I asked him whether any information of that nature had ever been revealed by his informants and he said no. I just want to know from you what you claim to be the source of that information.

MR BURGER: Mr Verster had an information channel and so did Gen Webb.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Who told you this, Mr Basson or Mr Verster?

MR BURGER: Mr Verster.

MR KAHANOVITZ: He came to tell you this?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, what detail did he give you?

MR BURGER: I can't remember the detail now, but I would assume it would be as contained here in the application.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You then say in that same paragraph:

"We also learned that the gang were planning to cause a major fire"

Who are "ons"?

MR BURGER: That would be myself, the co-ordinator and the member.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But the "lid" concerned, Mr van Zyl, denies ever having furnished you with any information.

MR BURGER: Yes, but I'm telling you now that this information did not come from Mr van Zyl, it came from above.

MR LAX: But he went further, he denied any knowledge of that at all, never heard it before, at the stage the operation was happening.

MR BURGER: I'm not with you.

MR LAX: Van Zyl went further, he didn't just say he wasn't the source of that information, he said he knew nothing about that, he doesn't know where it even came from, he'd never heard it before at that time.

MR BURGER: I heard that, yes.

MR LAX: But you were both at the same briefing where this information would have been fed to both of you at the same time.

MR BURGER: I assume so.

MR LAX: So how come he doesn't know anything about it at all?

MR BURGER: I don't know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well certainly one possibility is that you made this stuff up when you put it into your amnesty application.

MR BURGER: No, that's not the way it was.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Why should the Committee not find that? The primary source of the information denies having any knowledge about this and Mr van Zyl's the only person who has been able to give us any detail whatsoever concerning any kind of investigation made into the Kewtown Youth. You when we ask you on what basis did you come to these conclusions, where did you get the information? All you can tell us is Joe Verster told me that. Full stop.

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Didn't you just copy this out from somebody else's amnesty application because you appear to have no independent knowledge of these events yourself?

MR BURGER: Of the events?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, when I ask you for details...

MR BURGER: No, I can't remember the details.

MR LAX: Sorry, you didn't answer the question though which was, did you not maybe copy this from someone else's application?

MR BURGER: No, this was drafted by my advocate, I read it through and it's correct as far as I'm concerned.

MR LAX: Well, did he maybe not copy it from someone else's application?

MR BURGER: That I wouldn't know.

MR LAX: Well either you or - if you don't know that that's what he might have done, did the same advocate prepare all these applications? For example, did the same advocate prepare Gen Webb's application as prepared yours?

MR BURGER: I can't remember, I really can't remember who drafted these applications, this was done by Advocate Hattingh.

MR P DU PLESSIS: May we just show the witness the date? That will assist him.

MR BURGER: It was done by Adv Flip Hattingh. Now I don't know whether Gen Webb also was his client as well, I don't know.

MR LAX: But the bottom line is that you don't know how that got in there, did you tell your advocate those facts?

MR BURGER: Yes, it was conveyed to him.

MR LAX: But as Mr Kahanovitz suggested to you, you don't have any other recollection of it, you're just assuming that because it's there. You don't remember that.

MR BURGER: I told him this information was conveyed to me by Mr Verster, conveyed to me or to us.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The Khayelitsha information as well?

MR BURGER: Yes, yes that as well, because I know that information came from Gen Webb's side and from Mr Verster, information came down to us and which told us that that is what is being planned.

MR LAX: How are you able to distinguish, I'm just interested, between what came from Verster and Webb and what came from Van Zyl and his people? How are you even able to unpack it at this stage? I mean, to be absolutely honest with us, how are you able to distinguish who gave you what information at this stage?

MR BURGER: It is difficult, it really is difficult to be absolutely correct today, but the fact remains that there was information from the ground given by van Zyl and then also from Verster's information structures, his own structures.

MR LAX: I'm just trying to be sure how sure you are.

MR BURGER: I was certain that that information was the information which we got before the project was carried out.

MR LAX: Ja, but you're not actually sure where it came from?

MR BURGER: Except for the way I've just explained it to you.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, can I show you something? Hold your finger on page 140, which is your application dealing with the Early Learning Centre, if you look at Mr Basson's application at page 43, you will see the paragraphs are word for word the same.

MR BURGER: Yes, it is.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And they come off the same word processor.

MR BURGER: Definitely.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, where did the lawyer who drafted this get the information from?

MR BURGER: He got it from us. He consulted the whole lot of us around the table and spoke to us.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Isn't it strange, very strange, that you and Mr Basson have word for word, exactly the same recollection of these events?

MR BURGER: That was how it was put together by our advocate and how it was given to us. We read it and at the time we thought it was in order to sign it as such.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright, let's carry on. Page 142, if you could read those three paragraphs up to the top of page 143 and tell us whether they are accurate.


"The information that we received further indicated that that gang or group were planning further bomb explosions in order to disrupt the election. The source which gave us the information also told us that the gang regularly had their meetings in a hall in the Early Learning Centre in Athlone.

Because the source was not prepared to reveal his identity, no police action could be taken against the gang. Under these circumstances it was decided that we should act against them to try to intimidate them and frighten them off so that they would not continue with their actions as set out above.

Thereupon the decision was made to cause a limpet mine to explode in the hall where that group usually met. In order to ensure that there would be no injuries in the explosion, it was decided to provide the limpet mine with the remote control detonation device so that the exact time on which it exploded could be controlled.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you happy with that?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Now the strange thing about this version, about the source ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: Just a moment please, I just want to check something. No, I think this paragraph 2 here, the information which we received above which indicated that that group, they were planning further bomb explosions to disrupt the election, the source which gave us the information etc. etc., the source which gave us that information was actually Col Verster, that is now relating to the bomb explosions and also in respect of the attacks they wanted to launch.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Oh so it's Col Verster who was unwilling to give evidence in a Court of Law? That must follow from your answer.



"Since the source was not prepared to disclose his identity, no police action could be taken against this gang."

MR BURGER: No, I think that the information in this matter came from three sources namely Mr van Zyl's source on the ground, secondly Col Verster and the Intelligence Structure and somewhere in this whole application, I think things were a bit - have gone awry, they've become a little bit confused, but the truth of the matter is that there were sources like Gakkie, like Verster with his own Intelligence structures and Gen Webb's structures and those are the things that caused us to act against the Early Learning Centre.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So what's your version now? Your version is all of these sources were unwilling to disclose their identity, is that your version now, that we should...

MR BURGER: Mr van Zyl, Mr van Zyl's source.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you've just told us we mustn't read the word "die bron" in the singular because there were "bronne", isn't that your version? Can you remember what your version is?

MR BURGER: Yes, Mr Kahanovitz, you're being very technical about this little matter, but I'm now talking about the source, not just the bomb, the source, I'm telling you the truth.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You tell us how we must read that.

MR BURGER: The application as a whole amounts to this, namely that we were part of the planning and execution of the bomb at the Early Learning Centre in Athlone. Intelligence came from the ground, from Mr van Zyl's source. Further information came from above, from the Intelligence structures and those intelligences or pieces of information were combined, the project was approved and carried out.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger what you're trying to tell - what you were trying to tell the Amnesty Committee in this paragraph was the following: that consideration was given to bringing the police into the matter, correct? That's what you're suggesting.


MR KAHANOVITZ: You're saying: "We couldn't bring the police into the matter because the source wasn't willing to disclose his identity, correct?

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you never considered handing this matter over to the police, you're making that up.

MR BURGER: No, we would not have handed it to the police.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So why did you put this in your application? You're trying to make it look as if there was a reasonable decision-making process that was engaged in, where consideration of an alternative to bombing was considered, namely making use of the ordinary laws of the land to prosecute these people, that never happened.

MR BURGER: ...(not translated - transcriber's own transcription) No, what is written here is not the truth.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Thank you.

MR BURGER: ...(not translated) "Op daardie stadium was ons nog in die diens van die Weermag en was dit 'n onsekere tydperk van wat sou gebeur met die struktuur met die weermag, met die politieke situasie." Were we going to get protection or not from the structures and the feedback which we got was that as far as ourselves and the structure was concerned, we had to protect these as far as possible and that is the explanation for the way some of these truths were covered up.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That if you look at what's contained in this application in general, you're aware no doubt that there's a requirement of full disclosure to get amnesty?

MR BURGER: Here, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You'll agree with me that when it comes to full disclosure, obviously the Committee wants to know if a particular person was tasked to go and shoot someone, what's the name of that person, you'll agree with me.


MR KAHANOVITZ: A particular person had to go and plant a bomb, what's the name of that person? You'll agree with me.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Would be fundamental to the notion of full disclosure.

MR BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. You'll see you give no details whatsoever, let's take the example of the Early Learning Centre, there are no names mentioned of who was involved in executing this project. Look at your paragraph, the last paragraph dealing with the Early Learning Centre at page 143. You with me, have you read it?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Now we know, because we've heard evidence from other people, that a whole string of people involved in these events, we know that Mr Botha was involved, we know that Mr van Zyl was involved, we know that Mr Basson was involved, we know that Gen Webb was involved, we know that Mr Hardien was involved. You don't mention a single name of anyone.

MR BURGER: No, I didn't.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But surely you understood that you must disclose the relevant facts?

MR BURGER: Chairperson, we were informed by our legal representatives and we acted accordingly and in 1991 drafted these applications accordingly. In 1992 there were further amnesty applications. In 1996 it happened again, so I think it was perhaps sheer negligence and that's why I'm here today to tell you the truth, but to constantly attack me on that which I've already admitted and when I've said it's not the whole truth etc and all your questions which you were going to put to me, I would have to say yes, it's not right, I didn't do it, so on, but the point is ask me today, here I am, what is it that you still want to know, I will reveal it, I will disclose whatever you want to know because I can only tell you about that which I have personal knowledge of. This application was, as far as I was concerned, at the relevant time, an application for indemnity vis a vis myself because as far as I was concerned, each member made his own application in which he admitted his complicity, so for me as a lay person and not as a legal person, the compilation of all the applications ultimately is placed on the table and then you can see how it all links up.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You know Mr Burger, your explanation rings hollow from an experienced policeman. Before you completed this application, you must have drafted countless witness statements.

MR BURGER: Yes, I did.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. You, more than anyone, would know that when you draft a witness statement, you're obviously going to put in details. When you're drafting a statement from a criminal suspect, if he says to you "'n bron", you're going to say: "What was his name?" Correct?

MR BURGER: That's correct, Mr Kahanovitz. Nobody has ever - I have never done an amnesty application before in my life.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Sorry Chairperson, I don't want to interrupt, but is this all relevant? We've got time constraints.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we know that there's no names here Mr Kahanovitz and we also know that it was a form that's been used over and over again since 1991 and we've heard the answer that it was done on his lawyer's advice.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, there's the other aspect. I didn't want to interrupt because I want my client to answer all his questions, but surely the whole idea was and perhaps I'm totally mistaken then, but the whole idea was to summarise whatever you're asking amnesty for, where I was responsible for van Zyl and Botha's statements we tried to do it quite fully and in detail, but the whole idea was that there would be hearings where you would make a full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this is a question for argument, so we often get ...(intervention)

MR P DU PLESSIS: So that was my perception.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we often get applications which don't contain the details that one would normally want to have in an application, but there's normally explanations for it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now this plan concerning the Early Learning Centre, it encompassed possible deaths, correct?

MR BURGER: There has been evidence and I will repeat that. The direct question that Mr Kahanovitz is asking, yes, the possibility or the probability existed but the order was that there should be no loss of life.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see, the reason I'm asking you this again is when I cross-examined Mr van Zyl, I read him a statement where he'd reflected what you had said to him at the time, in which the terms of the mandate that he received was that although deaths were to be avoided, if someone should die, that fell within the terms of the mandate, so long as the people who died were members of the Q-Town Youth. Recall that?

MR BURGER: It could have been said.

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, but Mr van Zyl said that's what you said to him and when Mr van Zyl finished giving his evidence, your lawyer did not put to Mr van Zyl that he was giving inaccurate or false evidence about what had been said to him by Mr Burger on that occasion.

MR BURGER: No, I don't think my legal representative would have done that or could have done that because I discussed the matter with him in consultation and as I said before, to sit here today and say what you told each other, we're not deaf mutes who will say: "Here's a bomb, go and explode it". We talked about these matters and we were worried about the matter and we were worried, whether you want to believe it or not, but the order was that nobody should be killed or injured and that is the bitter pill you cannot swallow, that that is the truth. But I'll go further and I'll say yes, the possibility that there could be loss of life, it's possible and that's why we gave the order and I think in the end, that's why Mr van Zyl on the ground, in the end used his own discretion to ensure that nobody was injured or killed, apparently people were injured, but that's all I can tell you about this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: But can you recall any conversation with Mr van Zyl to the effect that if people died, they should be QTY members, Q-Town Youth Members?

MR BURGER: It's like I said, if I acknowledge it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just asking if you can remember whether you said it.

MR BURGER: I cannot remember it, but it is possible that we had such a discussion. It's logical, it's a logical assumption that can be made today. I would have said yes, if somebody has to die, leave the innocent people, let it be a target.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, you'll agree with me there's a big difference between a plan which is formulated in such a way so as to ensure that there will be no possible loss of life versus a plan that is formulated in such a way that possible loss of life is encompassed? I'll give you an example here, because obviously there's a difference between setting the bomb to go off at 3 o'clock in the morning when you're dead certain there's no one around, versus setting the bomb to go off at half-past eight at night, when there is a risk that people might be harmed, you agree with me there's a difference?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Okay. So there's a difference between Mr Verster giving an instruction to you to hand on to Mr van Zyl. "Mr van Zyl, you must take every possible measure to ensure that no one is injured or killed", versus Mr Verster saying to you: "The plan encompasses the possible loss of life or injury, but you must avoid it", do you agree with me?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So what was the instruction?

MR BURGER: The instruction was that there should be no loss of life, but the possibility of loss of life was discussed.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see because the version which you gave yesterday in chief was to the effect that Mr Verster had clearly said to you that there must not be loss of life.


MR KAHANOVITZ: And there impression that you gave was that the instruction that you had received, was that your operatives must go out of their way to make sure that innocent people would not be harmed, that was your evidence yesterday.


MR KAHANOVITZ: And when you said innocent people, you added on, you said i.e. not only members of the Q-Town Youth must not be harmed, but other private people must not be harmed, that was your evidence yesterday, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Now that, a plan where you're going out of your way to make sure that no innocent people are harmed, is different to a plan which encompasses possible harm to innocent people, do you agree with me?

MR BURGER: No, I don't follow your question.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you had already agreed to that, the example about the bomb going off at 3 o'clock, or at half-past eight.

MR BURGER: Oh yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The one where you're going to be absolutely sure that no one is going to be injured and the other one where there might be injuries, it's two different - the one's at half past eight at night, the other's at three in the morning.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see, it can't be that the plan was that every step must be taken to ensure that innocent people were not harmed, because if that was the plan, you wouldn't have set the bomb off at the time that it was exploded, you agree with me?

MR BURGER: Firstly, I was not in control of the time factor, I did not know until what time the meeting would continue. If I had to execute the project, I might have set the bomb to explode at 3 o'clock, but the effect it would have had on the people would not have been the same, where you set it to explode shortly after the meeting, with the order that no people should be injured or killed.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you suggesting that it was within the discretion Mr van Zyl to have set the bomb off at 3 o'clock in the morning as opposed to at half-past eight at night?

MR BURGER: It was in his discretion because they are on the ground. They see, maybe the Kewtown movement decided to have a party after their meeting, or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Kahanovitz is getting at, what Mr Kahanovitz is asking is, was it in Mr van Zyl's discretion to place the bomb at the hall when it was sure that the hall was deserted and no one else was around, like at 3 o'clock in the morning, not a discretion that if the meeting, instead of finishing at 9, finished at five to three, I mean then it's exactly the same, whether it's three or at nine. Did he have the discretion to place the limpet mine to go off when the building was completely deserted at three in the morning, if the meeting finished at nine?

MR BURGER: He had to see to it that the bomb exploded at a point when the hall was empty, at what time it would be, I couldn't say.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But what you're saying is that if that was your instruction, you might have interpreted it in such a way so as to explode the bomb in the early hours of the morning because then you could really be certain that it was empty, you might have done that, is that what you're saying?

MR BURGER: Yes, we are speculating, but it's possible.

MR LAX: Can I just ask a question if I may? This place that we're talking about is referred to as a hall, in fact it isn't a hall as such, it's a centre with a small hall on the one side and a whole range of other buildings on the other. It wasn't like it was just one big hall that would then empty and there would be no one else there. Do you see all those buildings up there?

CHAIRPERSON: That is ...

MR LAX: You can see the plan on the wall, that's an architectural drawing of the building. So the notion that people would leave the hall and that would be the end of it doesn't really apply if you think about it in that way.


MR LAX: You would expect that somebody would check the whole building, not just the hall.

MR BURGER: As far as I'm concerned, the Early Learning Centre was a hall. I had no such detailed plan, I didn't see such detailed plan.

MR LAX: Yes, but if you were on the ground and you realised from what you saw on the ground, that that is the extent of the building rather than just a hall, ...


MR LAX: Would you have detonated that bomb within minutes of the meeting completing?

MR BURGER: No, I think I would have made sure that the complex as such, was empty.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you were in the in-house where the strategy and the plan was discussed in detail, isn't that so?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Well Mr van Zyl says you were there. You seem to be a bit vague as to whether you in fact attended that in-house.

MR BURGER: I have forgotten a lot of things.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you have some sort of a medical condition that ... I'm sorry, I'm not asking this as a joke, I'm asking you whether you have some sort of a medical condition that affects your memory.

MR BURGER: My lawyer thinks so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Your lawyer thinks so.

MR BURGER: No, I'm trying to be honest today and I want to tell you the whole truth to the best of my ability, but I'm not aware of a medical condition, but it's possible and it happened many years ago and I challenge each one of you sitting and laughing to answer questions about what happened last week and to divulge the details, it's not that easy.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you. So is it pointless for me to put to you what Mr van Zyl had to say about what he recalls was discussed in that meeting?

MR BURGER: You can put it to me.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But will you be able to remember?

MR BURGER: If I can.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well Mr van Zyl, for example, says there was information placed before the meeting as to the time, he'd received information from his informant as to the time that the meeting was scheduled and the time that the meeting was scheduled to end, can you remember that?

MR BURGER: The meeting at the Early Learning Centre?


MR BURGER: Yes, it could be.

MR KAHANOVITZ: He takes it further. He says that in the light of that information a decision was made as to the time at which the limpet would be exploded.

MR BURGER: Then it's true.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But once again, I can see from the way you're answering the question, you're saying: "I can't independently recall, but if that's what Mr van Zyl says, then it must be so", that's your answer?

MR BURGER: I would have liked to have the pre-study and the project in front of me so I could show you and tell you what was discussed and what happened. All of us rely on our memories today and this is why we seem so uncertain.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Berger, that's a very strange answer to be given by somebody that was party to a plan to make sure that the Harms Commission didn't get hold of those files.

MR BURGER: I think that's an allegation you make and I take exception that I'm involved in something like that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well when I say you, I say the CCB.

MR BURGER: No, you spoke to me, you're busy with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we're getting off the track now, we're wasting time now. Can you remember the in-house meeting, Mr Burger?

MR BURGER: No, I can't remember that specifically.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, the change that was made to the plan when van Zyl and Botha got to Cape Town, you will recall that the plan was that the "onbewustelike lid" would go off and explode the bomb.


MR KAHANOVITZ: But what in fact happened was that Botha and van Zyl went along.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Was there any consultation with you as to the change in the plan? Did they phone you in Johannesburg as say: "We know that it's a CCB rule that the "bewustelike lede" never go along, but we want to change the plan for various reasons? Was any contact made with you?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So in doing that, they violated your instruction?

MR BURGER: Yes, the guidelines.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now if Mr van Zyl says that the budget for the amount to be paid to Mr Hardien was R30 000, are you in a position to dispute that?


MR KAHANOVITZ: You don't remember what it was, but you don't dispute that?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright, well the facts are that the amount he requested in the budget for payment to Mr Hardien was

R30 000 but instead of paying him R30 000, he paid him only R18 000, do you recall that evidence?


MR KAHANOVITZ: What explanation do you wish to give for why Mr Hardien was only paid R18 000?

MR BURGER: I was not aware of it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, you've heard me put it to Mr van Zyl that that is one of the facts which goes to show that what was planned was to kill the people in the hall and that the amount of R30 000 was agreed on as payment to Mr Hardien because the plan was to kill people. You remember hearing that evidence?

MR BURGER: I heard you put it to Mr van Zyl and he denied it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, I want you as the Regional Manager to explain to us why you were going to pay R30 000 to Mr Hardien to merely explode a limpet mine in these circumstances, compared to paying at most R15 000 to the people who were tasked, to the group of three people who were tasked to assassinate Adv Omar, what explanation do you wish to give?

MR BURGER: The amount of R30 000 was asked for for this project of the Early Learning Centre. The other amount for Mr Omar, I cannot remember exactly why there was such a difference, if I must say now what it was, I think it was because Mr Omar was at that stage, he didn't have the profile at that time that he has today as Minister, but he was a prominent figure in the UDF, the ANC and the damage hypothetically speaking, the damage in the structure of the elimination of Mr Omar - well R15 000 sounded alright and it was the first time - this was the first time we had to do with a bomb and I think the informant or Mr Gakkie, whoever he is, he could have told Mr van Zyl: "Listen, I'm going to work with an explosive and I'm not trained and I'm this and if they catch me with it I can be accused of sabotage". There are different reasons, the impact that such an explosion could have in the organisation could be important and I think that's why the amount was R30 000.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, the price to be paid, you are suggesting in your evidence, you appear to agree with me, must bear a relation to the risk which the operative will take in carrying out the act, you agree with me?

MR BURGER: Yes, it is a risk.

CHAIRPERSON: There'd be one factor because it also depends on the nature of the act to be carried out as well, I should imagine would be important.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That is - certainly a highly relevant factor would be if you get caught, what kind of punishment might you face.

MR BURGER: That as well.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You're going to charge more to kill someone than to burn someone's car, you agree with me?

MR BURGER: For the bomb you pay more.

CHAIRPERSON: But I mean if you're going to put a bomb in a car parked in a dark parking lot, or you're going to put a bomb which is going to be aimed to kill somebody, the price will be higher for the murder than the blowing up of a car.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Well I'm going to just put this to you. We're going to argue at the end of this case that you haven't given, neither you nor Mr van Zyl, have given any acceptable explanation for agreeing to pay Mr Hardien far more than was to be expected in relation to this bombing. You also haven't given any explanation as to why you eventually paid him less than had been agreed on.

MR BURGER: I didn't pay him. He was supposed to get R30,000.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Kahanovitz when you say agreed on, as far as I will recall, the agreement was between the CCB, it wasn't with Gakkie.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, that was Mr van Zyl's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, there wasn't an agreement with Gakkie to get R30 000.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Were you - are you saying you weren't aware that Mr van Zyl actually paid Mr Hardien less than the R30, 000 that had been mentioned in the meeting?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, did he give you back the rest of the money?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So what happened to the money?

MR BURGER: You should ask him.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But his version is that you and him divided up the balance amongst yourselves.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Sorry Chair ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously). Mr van Zyl's version was that Mr Burger kept R5,000, R7,000 of it was applied to the Omar project to Barnard's expenses, it's not that - it's incorrect.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I didn't mean on a 50/50 basis. You've heard his version. Mr van Zyl's version would be that you would have a very clear understanding of what happened to the money because you were the person that arrived with the R30 000 in cash, you had a discussion, the basis of which was that not all of that money would be given to Mr Hardien. Do you deny ever having such a discussion with Mr van Zyl?

MR BURGER: It's correct, but apparently you forgot about it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Sorry, I don't understand ...

MR LAX: Can I just clarify one thing, just quickly Mr Kahanovitz? Sorry Mr Burger. Just a thought that occurred to me and I want to be clear that I'm clear on what your evidence in this regard is. You seem to be saying that you understood that the sum of R30,000 was being paid to him because he'd asked for that amount of money.


MR LAX: Did I understand that correctly?


MR LAX: And clearly that's not the case because he accepted R18 000.


MR LAX: I just wanted to clarify that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: With respect Mr Lax that's not the - there's another possibility, that he agreed to accept the reduced amount because the job wasn't completed in the fashion contemplated.

MR LAX: Fair enough.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, your version then is the following: You had a meeting with Mr van Zyl, you handed over the R30 000 to him.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Your understanding was that you'd handed him R30,000 which he was going to pay to Gakkie.


MR KAHANOVITZ: And that's all that happened at that meeting.

MR BURGER: The whole discussion, the bomb, everything.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But as far as the money aspect is concerned, all this stuff about Mr van Zyl and you and Mr van Zyl agreeing that less was going to be paid to Mr Hardien and therefore certain things could be done with the balance, that never happened?

MR BURGER: No, he had to pay the full amount to Gakkie.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That might be an appropriate time.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take the lunch adjournment until 2 o'clock.





CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.


If we could then look at your application starting at page 143, concerning the evidence matter. Mr Burger, to save time, can I just suggest that - I don't know if you've had an opportunity to read through this again during the lunch break? Instead of you reading the whole thing into the record, can't you just indicate to us what inaccuracies, if any, there are concerning Evans?

MR BURGER: Paragraph 1 seems correct. Paragraph 2 is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Just let's pause there. When you say one of the members.

MR BURGER: Mr Maree.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That's Maree? Alright.

MR BURGER: Paragraph 3, that's also correct. Mr van Zyl.


MR BURGER: That paragraph which follows: "In the process of monitoring of Mr Evans ..." that was phrased incorrectly in that paragraph. It's misleading in the sense that that information regarding Mr Evans and Mr Grosskopff came from the structure and not as a result of the monitoring of Mr Evans by Mr Maree. And then the visit to Grosskopff, that also came out of the structure. The bomb explosions in which Grosskopff was involved.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, do I assume the sentence once again: "Since the source once again did not want to have his identity disclosed and was not prepared to testify in a Court ..." that sentence, you with me? I assume a same comment applies to that which you made in relation to the Early Learning Centre?


MR KAHANOVITZ: There was never an issue as to whether or not you were going to prosecute Mr Evans based on the information that you had, correct?

MR BURGER: Yes, that's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The pre-study was done by the aforementioned van Zyl and submitted.

MR BURGER: That's incorrect. The pre-study was done by myself and the co-ordinator Mr Basson to the Managing Director. And then the finalisation of the project.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, the sentence on page 146 where you say: "As a result of this, the decision was taken to abort the process or the project", in the light of your earlier evidence, you'll agree with me, that's not accurate? All that happened was that you postponed ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: It was suspended, ja.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well it wasn't suspended, you postponed taking further steps until better information became available.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you, I assume, have no independent information yourself as to what Mr Evans was involved in? In other words, you're saying in so far as you say for instance in your application that Mr Evans was involved in bombings, if I have to ask you for details, all you're going to tell me is: "Mr Verster told me that, I can't take it any further", is that what your answer will be?

MR BURGER: That was the information from the structure.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Via either Mr Evans or - sorry, Mr Verster or Mr Basson?

MR BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So if I put it to you that Mr Evans denies that - well let me, before I even put it to you that Mr Evans denies being involved in bombing, Mr Evans, at the time that you say you formulated a plan to assassinate him, says that he'd never met Mr Grosskopff. Are you in a position to dispute that?

MR BURGER: He never met.

MR KAHANOVITZ: He never met Mr Grosskopff.

MR BURGER: That was not the information which we had.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, I'm just putting it to you, the information that you had was wrong. Secondly, you said yesterday that he was the Chairman of the ECC.

MR BURGER: That was the information.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well I put it to you that information was also wrong and you're not in a position to dispute it.

MR BURGER: My information was that he was the Chairperson of the ECC.

CHAIRPERSON: What Mr Kahanovitz is saying to you is you yourself don't know whether he was, from your own personal knowledge?


MR KAHANOVITZ: If I had to give you some other names of people who were involved in the ECC and ask you whether that person was the Chairman or wasn't, you're not in a position to deal with that?

MR BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see, you do recall though at the time the End Conscription Campaign was a very vocal and public organisation?


MR KAHANOVITZ: They were holding meetings, rallies, so on and so forth.

MR BURGER: Yes. I never attended those things personally, but that was the information.

MR KAHANOVITZ: No but the point I'm trying to make is that it's incomprehensible how you would get that sort of information wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: It was an open campaign, it wasn't an underground organisation, people holding placards in the street, protesting, that sort of thing.

MR BURGER: No, it was well-known.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And in fact their office bearers were well-known, this wasn't some underground structure that you needed to infiltrate.

MR BURGER: No, it was the front of the underground, of the ANC.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But what has that got to do with the question of whose the Chairman of the ECC?

MR BURGER: What is that?

MR KAHANOVITZ: You've told us that one of the reasons that Mr Evans ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: I didn't say that was one of the reasons, I said he was the Chairman of the ECC.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But when you gave your evidence ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: And the objectives of the ECC, were you familiar with those, the End Conscription Campaign?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Your lawyer, yesterday in chief, when you turned to the Evans matter he was leading you and you set out various factors that, I was certainly under the impression, that you'd taken into account in deciding to target Mr Evans which is why you were referring to those factors. You gave evidence that you'd received information that he was Chairman of the ECC, you then gave evidence as to what you thought the role of the ECC was, you went on to say that he was involved in Five Freedoms Forum and JODAC, what was the purpose of that evidence?

MR BURGER: To confirm his involvement with the front organisation of the enemies of the State.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you're telling us that's not the reason why you decided to assassinate him.

MR BURGER: Yes, those are the reasons why he became a target.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So therefore, because he was the Chairman of the ECC was one of the reasons why he became a target, on your version.

MR BURGER: That's the way you're putting it, I'm saying it was one of the reasons and I believed he was the Chairperson, although I can't deny the fact that he might not have been.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All I'm putting to you is that one of your members could have gone to any number of End Conscription Campaign meetings and established for themselves who were in leadership positions on the End Conscription Campaign.

MR BURGER: Or read the papers.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Would you care to comment on how it's possible that you get this information wrong?

MR BURGER: It came from the information and Intelligence structures.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well I'm also putting it to you that at the time that you say that Mr Evans was involved in planting bombs in collaboration with Mr Grosskopff, in the first place he'd never met Mr Grosskopff, in the second place he wasn't planting bombs, nor was he involved in any military activities against the apartheid State. You're not in a position to dispute that?


MR LAX: May I just ask something? What were the strong indications that you refer to here? You say there were strong indications that the said Evans and the said Grosskopff were involved?

MR BURGER: That was based on the information which we got from the information structures. Now you have a certain amount of trust that you place in your information schedules or channels to the extent that you believe that it is verified information and not unqualified information.

MR LAX: Ja but you see this doesn't say he was involved, it doesn't say he was involved, it just says there were strong indications that he was involved.

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR LAX: So even on your own evidence it was a supposition, it's not direct information that says he's definitely involved in this, therefore eliminate him, there are just indications, however strong.

MR BURGER: The statement reads strong indications. Once again it was written in 1991 and the indications were the information and intelligence which I had at my disposal.

MR LAX: The point I'm just trying to ask you is really, were there actually strong indications or is this just another indication of how you were trying to make sure that you could cover up sufficiently well for the CCB and the military by having reasonable cause, a reasonable causa to kill this man?

MR BURGER: I can only say that the intelligence didn't come from my side, it came from the structures and ...(intervention)

MR LAX: I'm not interested in where it came from, you understand, the thrust of my question is this, you've already told us that you lied about the involvement of the police and the consideration that the police, you couldn't use them to prosecute the man. That therefore is setting a basis for why you went on to some other sort of action against him, correct?


MR LAX: Similarly, these strong indications that he was involved in bombings is another reason why you could then take action against him, right?

MR BURGER: Yes, it is a reason.

MR LAX: And it sort of justifies your action in a sense.


MR LAX: And what I'm asking you, is this - if this is absolutely untrue and from what we're hearing Mr Evans denies this in its totality that he ever was involved in any such thing, is this not another part of you chaps at that time trying to show yourselves in a good light by justifying your actions?

MR BURGER: No, Mr Lax. I understand your question to be saying that we tried to condone or justify our conduct and acts, but the intelligence came from the structures to us, so we simply reacted to that intelligence. We reacted to the fact that he formed part of the infrastructure of the ANC and that by means or via the ECC, whether he was the chairperson or not, he undermined the image and the morale of the force and that made him a target.

MR LAX: You see you can't tell us a single indication. I understand it's a long time ago, but at least one connection maybe you might have still remembered, one indication that he was strongly involved.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, if we forget about your foreign targets, if we look at your South African targets and I'm going to take you, or potential targets, I'm going to take you through at a later stage, a list of names of other people, what strikes one is that you don't talk about having targeted Mr So-and-so, who was involved in Umkhonto weSizwe and you'd had information from a spy that had in MK that this person was a person who was trained in Czechoslovakia and so on and so forth, those aren't the kind of targets you were interested in, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: The kind of people that you were interested in were people who were broadly speaking involved in opposition politics in the extra parliamentaries here, UDF, ECC, Five Freedoms Forum and so on, Laurie Nathan, Jay Naidoo, Essa Moosa, Andrew Boraine, Anton Roskam.

MR BURGER: I only know about Roskam.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The point I'm trying to make to you is that you seem to have had a target list where, to become a CCB target, it was good enough to be someone who was involved in a high profile manner in one or other organisation which you had identified as being part of the enemy.

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It didn't matter whether there was any evidence which linked you to bombings or shootings or anything to do with military activity.

MR BURGER: From this aspect, or from the target?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, in order to be targeted, there didn't have to be evidence.


MR KAHANOVITZ: That you were involved in military activities, correct?

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, when you come to attempting to justify your decision to, for example target Mr Evans, what you endeavour to do is to falsely link him to bombing in order, or to Mr Grosskopff, or to some or other form of violent activities, in order to justify your decision to eliminate him.

MR BURGER: Yes, that is your opinion, Mr Kahanovitz, but that was the information at my disposal.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, I'm just putting it to you that we're going to argue in a similar fashion in relation to Adv Omar. You try and link these people to acts of violence, to provide some or other justification for the decision to eliminate them, whereas in truth and in fact that had little or nothing to do with your decision to select them as targets.

MR BURGER: I think I must just repeat that for us what was important and relevant were the structures of the enemy and to identify people within these structures and to act against them so that that could have the effect of destabilisation, or to intimidate them, so that that could ultimately reduce the violence etc committed against the Security Forces, so in other words to act as a counter insurgency measure.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The point I'm making to you, this isn't counter insurgency. Insurgents are guerrillas who come into the country carrying weapons, correct?

MR BURGER: Alright. Well let us not then say counter insurgents but just counter action.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, why don't you just call a spade a spade? We all know the CCB decided that the campaign, the kind of work that Security Forces were involved in at that stage they decided that they were going to kill people who were involved in, for want of a better word, what was regarded as left-wing politics.

MR BURGER: As enemies, left-wing politics in your terms and in our terms enemies.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You, right at the end of your application you say the following, paragraph 5.4 page 151:

"The CCB's modus operandi and conduct was based on the actions and modus operandi of similar covert organisations in other countries."

Do you have any idea why you inserted that into your application?

MR BURGER: It was well-known that there was the MOSSAD movement and English and United States movements, the CIA and there were certain organisations in Libya, etc., who acted in these covert ways.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You modelled yourself on the CIA for example and that therefore the CIA is an organisation which assassinates opponents of the American Government inside America, is that what you're trying to say?

MR BURGER: That's the impression which I got, I can't prove it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You've had no training whatsoever in the methods adopted by covert organisations in other countries?


MR KAHANOVITZ: From what I understand you went on a one week training course somewhere in South Africa.


MR KAHANOVITZ: So therefore you're not in a position to express any comment on whether the CCB's methods are based on the methods used by similar organisations in other countries, you just stuck that into your amnesty application.

MR BURGER: I think it's acceptable to have inserted that paragraph. We all know about such organisations and the CCB, well I don't deny that the CCB was also based on these covert principles.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now Mr van Zyl seemed to think that his target's first name was Michael Evans. Now Michael Evans was a person involved in the leadership structures of the End Conscription Campaign. Are you aware of that?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Is Mr van Zyl wrong in thinking that his target's name was Michael Evans?


MR KAHANOVITZ: How do you know that?

MR BURGER: Because it was directed at Gavin Evans.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, Mr van Zyl says the target's name was Michael Gavin Evans.

MR BURGER: It might have been that he said that, but it was aimed at Gavin Evans.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see, how do we know, if you tell us that one of the objects of the exercise was to kill someone who was playing an important role in the End Conscription Campaign and if, we know that Michael Evans was playing an important role in the End Conscription Campaign, how do we know that your target wasn't Michael Evans?

MR BURGER: It was Gavin Evans and I think Mr van Zyl was aware of that, he might just have inserted the wrong name, because he afterwards, as we have seen in the newspaper and so, he went to speak to Mr Gavin Evans regarding his actions. There was no mistake in the order to act against Gavin Evans.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl's evidence is that the only way in which he got to know about this was that he wasn't involved in the preparatory process, which you concede, that you and Mr Basson gave him the name and the instructions, so if he got incorrect information, he must have got it from you.

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, you've also testified in your evidence-in-chief that, you took us further, you said that Mr Evans was involved with weapons and explosives and he was moving in and out of the country.

MR BURGER: That was the information.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Once again I must put it to you, Mr Evans strongly denies being involved in any such activities and that you're not in the position to dispute that.

MR BURGER: I can't.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, you also said in your evidence-in-chief that when Maree was unable to work on the Evans project, you and Mr Basson became involved in preparing the pre-study, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So, it appears that the project then became yours, because he was the co-ordinator.

MR BURGER: I have already explained Chairperson, that Mr Maree was taken off the project as a result of certain problems, he could no longer be involved and the pre-study was then done by myself and Basson to the Managing Director and that we did the pre-study and we proposed that Mr van Zyl and his infrastructure be used.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Why did you not tell the Amnesty Committee in your application about the projects concerning the printing press and the microbus, because on your version, to the very best of your knowledge, these projects were projects which were approved by you and were in fact executed, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So why didn't you say, if that was your knowledge, why didn't you include them in your amnesty application?

MR BURGER: I didn't regard it, well I was under the impression that we were applying for gross violations of human rights and I didn't regard it in that light.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Who gave you, what was the name of the person who gave you the information concerning Mr Evans, that he was involved in military activities?

MR BURGER: The co-ordinator came with the information from the CCB's intelligence channels down to us with the information.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So your only source of information was Mr Basson? You spoke to nobody else?

MR BURGER: Originally it was just Mr Basson who came with this information.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And subsequently?

MR BURGER: Mr Verster.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But weren't you given documents, photographs, a folder?

MR BURGER: Yes, I can't remember what was on the project file in totality, but what I do know is that Mr Basson did come with certain names, the names of Mr Evans and couple of other people.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mention is made in one of the statements about a proper folder concerning the target, some history of the person, what they're involved in, computer print-outs of information that is obtained from information sources within the Defence Force. Did you ever see such files?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So the operative who must now work on Evans, what does he get given? Just an oral explanation? There's no CCB file on Gavin Evans, is that what you're saying?


MR KAHANOVITZ: There is a file?

MR BURGER: Yes, there is a file.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But what's in the file?

MR BURGER: I don't know what exactly was in the file, but the involvement as it was conveyed to us of Mr Evans in the ECC etc, that would have been indicated there.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Okay, where does that document come from?

MR BURGER: From the co-ordinator.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Where does the co-ordinator get the document?

MR BURGER: From CCB Intelligence structure.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr van Zyl says the CCB has no intelligence gathering capability of its own, that wasn't the function of the CCB.

MR BURGER: Who said so?


MR BURGER: He can't say that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you saying that there was an intelligence gathering unit attached to the CCB?


MR KAHANOVITZ: And that was the source of the information in your files?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Not National Intelligence or Military Intelligence, or the Security Branch?

CHAIRPERSON: Or Special Forces?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Or Special Forces Intelligence?

MR BURGER: That information as far as I'm concerned, came from our Intelligence structure at the CCB. Where his contact with the other Intelligence structures were and how he verified it, I wouldn't know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see, I've seen in other matters, these documents have got a big "Secret" on it and then it gives you the details of who the "bron" is, its got all sorts of detail in it. Those weren't the kind of documents you had?

MR BURGER: I can't remember, it might be.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever see a photograph of Mr Evans?

MR BURGER: No, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Would Mr Maree have had a photograph, or Mr ...

MR BURGER: I think...

CHAIRPERSON: Or Mr Peaches Gordon?

MR BURGER: No, he wouldn't have had but I assume that the co-ordinator who came with the information would have built up such visual material which he could show to the operator.

CHAIRPERSON: So did you speak to Peaches when he came?

MR BURGER: No, I never spoke to them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, thank you. Now I think what all of us here are trying to ascertain is, are you claiming that you were a professional operation?

MR BURGER: Not at the stage, well not initially, not in the beginning stages, we were still busy establishing ourselves and then it ended, so we didn't really ever have the opportunity to prove ourselves as a professional unit or to define ourselves as professionals after only seven or eight months worth of activity.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So if, in that context it might have been possible that mistakes were being made about the selection of targets, trying to iron out the teething problems?

MR BURGER: There might have been, but not as far as I'm aware.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Because what is quite remarkable about, and striking about your evidence is that you are, you were in charge of Region 6, one would have expected that when you came to give evidence here about why a particular person had been selected as a target, you would have been fully on top of the details in your capacity as Regional Manager. One would have expected that you would have said: "There was a file, the file contained reports from all sorts of sources, we had photographs, we had maps, we had drawings, we had plans."

MR BURGER: Chairperson, I beg your pardon, have you finished? I would like to try and answer the questions as follows: In 91 and at a later stage we once again applied for amnesty and then again in 95 when the new legislation came into force, we applied for amnesty. Today we are in the year 2000, it certainly can't be my mistake, or my fault that we only appear before the Commission at this stage, because there were numerous things, numerous cases which they had to hear first. Now added to that, everything has sort of faded in one's memory so everybody, whether you want to believe it or not, everyone has already entered into the spirit of true reconciliation, so you - one is actually busy closing the door on one's old life and starting a new life and that's why I suppose today I seem to you to be a person suffering from a degree of Alzheimer's disease, but I must tell you honestly, I will do everything in my power to reveal everything that I know, but the priorities in my life revolve around reconciliation and not to delve back into the past and into all the ugly things.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, if that is truly your attitude, then you would have no reticence about telling us about all the things that you were involved in, including things outside of the Republic of South Africa, so that you could truly reconcile yourself with your former enemies.

MR BURGER: Mr Kahanovitz, you know, this was a decision taken in the Defence Force, the South African National Defence Force and this was endorsed by Mr Joe Modise and the new Government and I acquiesce in that, I'm following that and I'm not talking about foreign operations, but you're trying to insinuate, constantly trying to insinuate that because we don't want to talk about those foreign things, that we were involved in those. I've told you repeatedly I deny that I took part in any offences abroad.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you suggesting that the Defence Force still exerts some control over what you may and may not say while you're applying for amnesty?

MR BURGER: Well that's the policy, the policy of the current dispensation in the Defence Force and no soldier, whether he's an MK or an ex-Security Force member or whatever will talk about foreign operations and that is what I go along with.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you yourself would have been aware from reading the newspapers and watching television that a considerable number of former operatives from the Government side have applied for amnesty in relation to external operations, correct?

MR BURGER: Repeat please.

MR KAHANOVITZ: A considerable number of operatives from the Defence Force and the South African Police have applied for amnesty in respect of external operations, whether it's bombings in neighbouring States, the assassinations of the members of the Schoon family, the Slovo family, so on and so forth, are you aware of those?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So on what basis are you suggesting that there's something that stops you, that prevents you from divulging details about external operations in order to apply for amnesty?

MR BURGER: You've mentioned a couple of isolated instances now, but where are the other 40 000 or 50 000? Why are those not here before the Commission?

CHAIRPERSON: We're getting involved in an argument here, we're getting a little bit side-tracked.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Now as regards the discussion of the target at an "in-huis" or at any stage prior thereto, did you as the Regional Manager have a discretion to say: "Look, I've heard what is said about such and such a person, but I don't think they're a suitable target for the CCB"?

MR BURGER: Yes, I had that discretion.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And you would also have a discretion to say: "Look, we might burn this person's car, but I don't think we should kill them"?


MR KAHANOVITZ: You would have such a discretion?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Now dealing with the Omar project, if you could once again just look at your application, pages 146 and 147, just read the first two paragraphs to yourself.




MR KAHANOVITZ: Is that accurate?

CHAIRPERSON: Just the first two paragraphs.

MR BURGER: Yes. Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You think it is accurate, because it's completely different to what Mr van Zyl has to say. Your version is that you obtained the name of Dullah Omar and certain information about him. For this reason you decided to monitor him to see if he was involved in activities against the interests of the State. You gave the order to monitor him to Abram van Zyl and Abram van Zyl carried out this instruction to monitor with the use of two coloured gang members. Correct? That's what you say.

MR BURGER: That's what I say.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now Mr van Zyl says that ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: Can I just continue?


MR BURGER: The paragraphs do not represent the real meaning, the aim here was that the information came from van Zyl and Mr van Zyl brought it to us, to the Intelligence structure that this was Mr Omar. It was verified again from the Intelligence structure, yes. Order given to Mr van Zyl, yes, monitor him and ascertain his movements and where he lives.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl says that he was not involved in monitoring Adv Omar to establish whether, using two gang members, to establish whether Adv Omar was involved in activities undermining the State. Mr van Zyl says he hired Peaches who was going to make use of two gang members to assassinate Adv Omar, that's his version.

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: There's no mention whatsoever that two gang members were going to be hired to establish whether Adv Omar was involved in activities undermining the interest of the State.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think that, correct me if I'm wrong Mr Kahanovitz, but my recollection of Mr van Zyl's evidence was that he had generally asked Peaches to be on the lookout for people who might be a political profile and Peaches supplied him the name of Mr Omar and he then just relayed the name to "Hoofkantoor".


CHAIRPERSON: Then after that there was a further instruction then to do a pre-study, or whatever.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes and as part of that plan, it was agreed that Peaches ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that came in the next phase later but initially it was a case of Mr van Zyl getting a name given to him by Peaches and just forwarding that name on up to the co-ordinator.

MR LAX: Put it another way

MR BURGER: Mr Kahanovitz is also correct.

MR LAX: I think the thrust of what Mr Kahanovitz has been asking you though, the difference wasn't to monitor him to establish his profile, the purpose of monitoring him was to establish his movements so that the appropriate method of execution could be ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously)

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So in so far as your application said that the purpose of monitoring was to establish whether he was a suitable target, it is inaccurate.

MR BURGER: That's inaccurate.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And the same then would apply to the second paragraph on page 147, where you carry on to say that as a result of the information that was received from these coloured gang members, it was established that Mr Omar was indeed involved in radical political activities, that's also not correct.

MR BURGER: Yes, that information we received as such was wrong, it came from other sources, that's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes and the next paragraph ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: From the other sources and also received from the other sources, that's the information we worked on.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And the next sentence is also wrong because it says:

"Once again this information could not be placed before Court by means of evidence and the decision was taken that the CCB had to act against the mentioned Omar himself."

Once again that wasn't a factor that was taken into consideration, correct?

MR BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Then page 148, the paragraph at the top of the page. Maybe once again just read that to yourself, it starts with the words: "The plan to eliminate Mr Omar".

MR BURGER: Just the one paragraph?


MR BURGER: Just the one paragraph? Yes, I have read it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright once again you say that the plan was abandoned when it became apparent that the coloured person who was supposed to help Mr van Zyl to carry out the task became sympathetic towards Mr Omar. Now Mr van Zyl says he never told you that Peaches had become sympathetic towards Mr Omar and in fact Mr van Zyl gives a different reason for why the project was abandoned. Are you sure your version's accurate?

MR BURGER: That he told me that Peaches was unreliable, that he was unreliable, that he couldn't trust him, there was a breach of trust between them.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but you take that much further. You say he told you that Peaches had become sympathetic towards Mr Omar, whereas Mr van Zyl's version is that Peaches was unreliable, he never suggested to you that he thought that Peaches had become sympathetic towards Mr Omar.

MR BURGER: It may be that I gave the meaning of sympathy to this unreliability.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You will also be aware from Mr van Zyl's evidence that there were a whole lot of stages in this process, that there was a plan to use a Makarov with silencer, subsequently there was a plan to make use of poison and so on and so forth. You make no mention of those plans in your amnesty application.

MR BURGER: No, I didn't.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What was the reason for that?

MR BURGER: The detail wasn't given at that stage, I don't know why and I think that was the advice we got at that stage.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That you mustn't even mention what the method was that was going to be used to kill the person, that was the advice you received.

MR BURGER: I can't remember, Chairperson, but I admit it is wrong. I should have done it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you would also have heard that Ferdi Barnard was found guilt by Judge Els of the attempted murder of Adv Omar, Mr Barnard was found by Judge Els to have waited in the area of Omar's garage with a Makarov pistol with a silencer, are you aware of that?

MR BURGER: I am aware of it now.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, your evidence if I understand it is that at that time and until the time of the Harms Commission, you had no idea that Mr van Zyl was making use of the services of Mr Barnard.

MR BURGER: I didn't know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, you've also, I think already said in your evidence, I can't remember if it was you or Gen Webb but that it - yes, you were asked by the Committee what you thought about Mr van Zyl's evidence that he contacted Peaches and told Peaches that Peaches must himself get rid of the Makarov. Remember that? You were asked questions yesterday and you said that you didn't think that that was the best way to go about things?

MR BURGER: Yes, I remember that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now would you agree that Mr van Zyl was a hard-working and conscientious person?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Was he proud of the quality of his work, keen to succeed?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Doesn't it strike you as being very inconsistent with the way in which he worked and his personality that he would take a risk of phoning up a known criminal whom he regards as highly unreliable and leaving it up to that criminal to get rid of the Makarov?

MR BURGER: It's difficult to answer the question from Mr van Zyl's viewpoint. In my opinion ...(intervention)

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no, please answer the question. I'm asking you on the basis of your understanding of Mr van Zyl's way of working, his personality and his character. Does it seem to you that that is the way that Mr van Zyl would go about doing his work?

MR BURGER: As a result of the position of trust between him and Peaches, I was satisfied that he'd give it to Peaches and tell him to get rid of it because how dangerous the situation was between him and Peaches, I can't say, Peaches could have used those elements he had in his possession against Mr van Zyl personally if they had such a situation between them.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So are you suggesting that if Mr van Zyl went to try and retrieve the gun from Peaches, Peaches might shoot him with it, is that what you're saying?

MR BURGER: It could have happened.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But not even Mr van Zyl suggests that.

MR BURGER: That's ideas I have.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now where did Mr Barnard get the Makarov with the silencer that he was using to attempt to assassinate Adv Omar?

MR BURGER: I was not aware of Mr Barnard, I don't know where he got it. With the information now at our disposal, I don't know if he got it from Mr van Zyl or from Peaches.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Can I put something to you that appears to be quite probable? We all know that Peaches was tasked to do the job, but he wasn't carrying out the job, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: We all know that there was considerable pressure on Mr van Zyl to succeed in his projects.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl needed a reliable person to do the job properly.


MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, Peaches wasn't reliable so he needed to bring in somebody who he could rely on to do the job properly and that person was Ferdi Barnard.

MR BURGER: I was not aware of it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But doesn't it strike you as you sit here today, that that's probably what happened that's why he was willing to take the risk of using Mr Barnard because he didn't have anybody else available to him at that time to do the job properly?

MR BURGER: There were other members from his infrastructures.

MR KAHANOVITZ: He doesn't mention any others that he thought could accomplish the job.

MR BURGER: He didn't tell me that he was going to use Barnard.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But now that you come to think about it, the truth having been revealed to you, doesn't it strike you that that's probably what happened?

MR BURGER: I believe so, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now on Project Apie, is it your understanding that the project was to intimidate Bishop Tutu or was the project to intimidate Bishop Tutu's gardener?

MR BURGER: I want to differ from Gen Webb in that it was aimed at the supporters of Mr Desmond Tutu and himself and his supporters.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Just explain to us your understanding of how that was going to work, briefly.

MR BURGER: You see the pre-study and information about the project was not at my disposal and I only carried out the order, get Mr van Zyl his infrastructure and carry out this project with the baboon foetus. What the intention was behind all that was revealed to us only after the disclosure of the organisation that Mr Tutu was a very high profile person and he enjoyed high status internationally and anthropologically it would have had an effect on him. Now I'm not an anthropologist, I don't know about the superstitions and in what the population group Mr Tutu belongs to believes in, I only had to make sure that the project goes ahead.

MR KAHANOVITZ: This information that you put into your amnesty applications about the study that was done about the superstitions and so on and so forth, is this something you found out after your involvement in the project?

MR BURGER: No, Mr Verster told me that it was a Region 9 operation and that they, as a result of the population study they had carried out round Mr Tutu, that they decided on this project.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright, but he told you that the object of the exercise was to discredit Tutu?

MR BURGER: Yes and his supporters.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Okay, but how?

MR BURGER: I don't know Sir.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So if I ask you today how the hanging of the foetus in the tree was going to discredit either the Arch Bishop or his supporters, your answer is: "I don't know."

MR BURGER: I can only assume that the project was carried out with the impression that Mr Tutu was a superstitious person like - as was shown by the study and that his supporters - I don't know, I cannot talk about their superstitions but there would have been an impact according to the study.

MR KAHANOVITZ: As regards the time at which you received the instruction, I assume as the Regional Manager you would have regarded it as a rather strange instruction for a start? It wasn't your everyday business.


MR KAHANOVITZ: And that being so, you might have been interested in knowing what the purpose was.

MR BURGER: And therefore?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Interested in comprehending what the purpose was.

MR BURGER: Yes, I wondered what the reason was.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright and I assume therefore you would have asked Joe Verster?

MR BURGER: That's why he said to me that a study had been carried out, that's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you also would have heard the evidence that this was only one part of a five point plan targeting Bishop Tutu, correct?

MR BURGER: Evidence before this Commission?


CHAIRPERSON: It was what was put to witnesses from the contents of Mr Barnard's statement, did you hear that in a statement, one of the statements made by Mr Barnard when he talks about this, he talks about this project having five phases and this was the third phase and then the fourth phase would have been hanging a hyena and then the fifth phase would be poisoning Bishop Tutu's son, did you hear that?

MR BURGER: I heard, yes, my legal representative told me that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it wasn't - I don't think Mr Kahanovitz was saying it was evidence here but it came - during the course of evidence it has been mentioned.

MR BURGER: I heard about it, I don't know about a five point plan.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, although you said that you don't want to give evidence about external projects, I noted that when you gave your evidence-in-chief, you were specifically asked whether Region 6 was involved in Lubowski's assassination. You recall?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, and then you denied that Region 6 was involved in Lubowski's assassination, you recall that?

MR BURGER: I denied it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well why did you give that evidence if your attitude was that you're not talking about external operations?

MR BURGER: But I'm not talking about it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What you're saying is in so far as you're denying something, you're willing to give that kind of evidence?

MR BURGER: I think I told you earlier.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You're willing to tell us what you didn't ...(intervention)

MR BURGER: I was not involved in any misdeed abroad and I refuse to testify about it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Would your evidence include making the following statement? The CCB was not involved in the assassination of Lubowski.

MR BURGER: No, I didn't say that and I can't say that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I noted that your evidence was qualified in the sense of saying it was not a Region 6 project.

MR BURGER: As far as I know, it wasn't.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm putting it to you that the reason you qualified your evidence in that way is because you're aware that the CCB was indeed, the CCB as a whole, forget about which region, was involved in Lubowski's assassination.

MR BURGER: I wasn't, Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That's not the question I put to you.

MR BURGER: I am not aware of CCB activities.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, I'm aware of the constraints here, there is, on time. There is considerable evidence that was available at the inquest into the assassination of Lubowski in Namibia to attempt to deal with this witness's answers on Lubowski, I would have to go into that evidence in some detail but it would appear that this is not an appropriate time to do that, so I'm not accepting his answers, but on the other hand I don't think that I should cross-examine him in the way that would be required to deal with the issue properly.

CHAIRPERSON: We understand it and appreciate your approach as well. Thank you Mr Kahanovitz.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you would have heard when Adv Bizos was cross-examining Gen Webb, that he read out sixteen names of people who, according to the various statements and documents before the Commission, appeared to have been targeted by the CCB.

MR BURGER: I've heard him ...(indistinct)

MR KAHANOVITZ: Ja, alright. Now Frank Chikane you in fact referred to in your evidence already and what was your version on that?

MR BURGER: I am not aware of the project on Frank Chikane.

MR LAX: Can I just ask a question? It's directed partly at you as well Mr Kahanovitz, are you going cover whether there was a project on the person or whether they were monitored, ...(indistinct) both of them, in a sense? Can I just ask this question? You would have been aware of every person that would have been monitored as Regional Manager, you would have known which of your members were monitoring whoever?


MR LAX: Because you would have had to manage them doing that?

MR BURGER: That's right.

MR LAX: So no monitoring would have taken place without your knowledge?


MR LAX: Although your authority might not necessarily have been required, for example if the co-ordinator told someone to do it, you would know they were doing it, but your specific authority wouldn't be required?

MR BURGER: No, I believe that the co-ordinator had to inform me if he asked any of my members in the region to do such a thing.

MR LAX: You see what I don't want to do is have to come back each time and say: "Well, you may not have known about a project about Frank Chikane, but were you aware he was being monitored?", for example, so perhaps in answering Mr Kahanovitz's questions, you could bear that in mind and just indicate which of the two, or both, then we'll save a lot of time.

MR BURGER: Alright.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright, the Rev Chikane, the evidence that we have before us from the various statements, Mr Botha says he was being monitored, Mr Barnard says there was a plan to murder him. Now what is your version? Firstly, do you agree that he was being monitored by Region 6?

MR BURGER: Chairperson, there were names from the Intelligence structure through the co-ordinator brought to us and it was given to members to monitor. I'm afraid that I say - I'm afraid I say no or yes and I'm proved wrong in that I don't have a file in front of me that I can consult.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, we understand that. Either you can remember something and you're prepared to say yes or no, or if you can't remember, then you must just say what the situation is.

MR BURGER: I cannot remember. I can't remember that Mr Frank Chikane was monitored.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. You're therefore obviously not in a position to dispute either Botha or Barnard's evidence?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Roland White we've already dealt with. Then Hamutenya we've dealt with. Lubowski we haven't really dealt with, but we can't. Trevor Tutu ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Just on - you're aware Lubowski was monitored in the country though?


MR KAHANOVITZ But your version is that that monitoring had nothing to do with any other additional plans?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Yet there's no suggestion that the CCB was monitoring anybody purely for the purposes of intelligence gathering, that Region 6 monitored people purely to gather intelligence, correct.


MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman in fact that was the evidence of Gen Webb that Lubowski was purely monitored for information purposes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And I'm aware that that's the version of Gen Webb. I'm putting it to the witness that there has been considerable evidence to the effect from the operatives that Region 6 did not exist to gather intelligence purely for the sake of intelligence gathering. It was not an intelligence gathering operation.

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So one can therefore infer that if Region 6 was gathering information about Lubowski, that intelligence was intended to be used for some offensive purpose.

MR BURGER: I wouldn't know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Trevor Tutu, the Bishop's son.

MR BURGER: What about him?

CHAIRPERSON: He's questions - this is this list - what Mr Kahanovitz wants to know is whether there was any, either - is it restricted to Region 6 or any CCB involvement relating to those people be it monitoring or projects?

MR BURGER: No, not that I'm aware of.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Laurie Nathan, another End Conscription Campaign person.

MR BURGER: Cannot remember.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You can't remember whether he was to be monitored?


MR KAHANOVITZ: You can't remember. Alright. Jay Naidoo of Cosatu.


MR KAHANOVITZ: You can't remember.

MR BURGER: No, I can't remember.

MR KAHANOVITZ: In other words it could be, but on the other hand you can't remember?

MR BURGER: I can only remember that while Mr Naidoo was still involved with Cosatu he was at one stage - they used hotels in Hillbrow and information was conveyed to the National Intelligence Agency from our ground level to make them aware of it, but that was the organisation Cosatu.

MR KAHANOVITZ: An attorney in the Western Cape by the name of Essa Moosa.


MR KAHANOVITZ: You don't recall?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Andrew Boraine, United Democratic Front.


MR KAHANOVITZ: You can't recall either way?


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Burger, you must either answer - when you say no...(intervention)

MR BURGER: I can't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, it's better to say I can't remember because if you say no, then it means no you didn't have a project.

MR BURGER: I cannot remember.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Just, if I can briefly return to the Rev Chikane, when I referred you to his name in the diary and I asked you to recall whether his name was given, you answered in the affirmative.

MR BURGER: If his name was given?

MR KAHANOVITZ: As someone who the Region 6 was interested in.

MR BURGER: Yes, I gave evidence that I can't remember, it's possible.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The Rev Allan Boesak.

MR BURGER: Not that I can remember.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Then someone by the name of K Mhlaba, you recall the Harms Commission found the CCB was involved in a plot to murder him in Natal, ring a bell?

MR BURGER: I don't know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Roskam we've dealt with already. David Webster.

MR BURGER: No involvement with him.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm not asking you whether you were personally involved in his murder. We now know and it's been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Barnard shot him and that Mr Botha was driving the car at the time the incident occurred.

MR BURGER: I was never aware of it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: There's mention in the diary ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware of any project at all, or any monitoring of Dr Webster?

MR BURGER: No, not at all.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Barnard's handler in the CCB, Lafras Luitingh, gave evidence in his trial that Mr Barnard told him the day after Webster was assassinated what had happened. Now you'll agree with me, as his handler, it would be his responsibility to report this to Joe Verster.

MR BURGER: Yes, Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And one would have expected that on receipt of that information, that this would be something of great importance to the CCB if operatives connected to the CCB without Verster's direct orders, had carried out an assassination. Verster would be very concerned about that, you agree with me?


MR KAHANOVITZ: And one would have expected at the very least that this would be something that would be discussed with the Regional Manager, Region 6?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Yet we have this very strange state of affairs where Mr Luitingh who's in the CCB, admits that he knows who carried out the assassination on the day after the assassination, but everybody else in the CCB claims they know nothing about it.

MR WESSELS: With respect, Mr Chairman, may I come in here? Mr Kahanovitz is not giving the matter the perspective that it requires and the evidence that was led during the Webster Inquest. During the Webster Inquest the evidence was given by Mr Verster that he received information or he was told by Lafras Luitingh that Barnard had told him that he had killed Webster. He further gave evidence that he reported that to Brig Engelbrecht from the police and Gen Badenhorst of Military Intelligence at the time of the inquiry into the CCB, that he had made inquiries about that. He was not aware of CCB operatives being involved, he was only told about Barnard. Barnard was not a CCB operative, he had been fired from the CCB and he was not aware, nobody mentioned Calla Botha's name at that time. The Judge at that time for whatever reason he decided, decided not to accept the evidence of Mr Verster. That evidence of Mr Verster has now subsequently been accepted by Judge Els in finding Barnard guilty of that, but that is precisely the evidence that Verster gave in 1992 already about what he had done about that whole matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps Mr Kahanovitz if - sorry.

MR WESSELS: And I submit that the proposition by Mr Kahanovitz to this witness, is not a true reflection of the facts surrounding that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wessels. Mr Kahanovitz, perhaps you can restrict your proposition to the witness, but ...

MR KAHANOVITZ: The simple proposition is the following. My Learned Friend is correct in pointing out that Mr Verster also admits that he was told.

CHAIRPERSON: The proposition initially was that everyone else didn't, that's why I say if you could restrict it to perhaps this witness's situation.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes. No, he's correct. How is it conceivable that if Mr Verster knew and Mr Luitingh knew, that you claim that you knew nothing about who had assassinated David Webster?

MR BURGER: Alright. Chairperson, I do not know Lafras Luitingh. Lafras Luitingh was not known to me. In fact I don't even know what he looks like today and he was not part of Region 6 and for that reason the methods of the - I didn't get the information although it had been conveyed to me.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You were the people who were primarily responsible for targeting people like David Webster. Surely you, as the Manager of Region 6, when you read the newspaper and seen that he'd been assassinated, you'd be terribly interested to know who had done it, if it wasn't Region 6?

MR BURGER: Yes, we were interested and Mr Verster came to see us and asked if we could help him, assist him.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, Mr Verster gave evidence, I think it was at the Webster Inquest, he said within days of the event, he made inquiries himself within the CCB to try and establish what information could come to the fore about who had carried out the assassination.

MR BURGER: It's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: In other words you're saying he came to speak to you?


MR KAHANOVITZ: At the time he came to speak to you, Lafras Luitingh had already told him that he'd received information that it was Barnard who had done it. Why would Verster not relay this information to you?

MR BURGER: I don't know Chairperson, but Lafras Luitingh and his group of people and Verster and the other regions all functioned on their own, independently, it was on a need-to-know basis and he wouldn't discuss it with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Once Brig - I've forgotten his name, Mr Wessels mentioned him.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Engelbrecht.

CHAIRPERSON: Brig Engelbrecht was involved, now he's doing the big investigation and he comes to the offices of the CCB to make inquiries about the death or the murder of Dr Webster, wouldn't that have been like throwing a rock into a beehive? Wouldn't it have caused great consternation amongst the members of the CCB, urgent meetings, let's get together, talk about it, what's the story, who knows what?

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, the evidence previously given was that it didn't quite happen like that, there was an inquiry, a secret inquiry, if I may call it that, where Brig Engelbrecht was assisted by Gen Badenhorst into the activities of the CCB, that was subsequent ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was that after his cessation of work?

MR WESSELS: Ja, that was in 1990 already.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I'll withdraw that then.

MR WESSELS: Ja, these events happened before. The evidence given earlier was that - I think Slang van Zyl gave the evidence that Verster made inquiries from Region 6 and asked him, he gave the evidence here, if anyone knew what had transpired there and whether anyone of Region 6 was involved in that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Kahanovitz.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you. Mr Burger, Mr Verster was well aware that Mr Barnard and Mr Botha were good friends, correct? And in fact they were the two people who were in the car together in relation to the Roland White incident which had occurred earlier that year?

MR BURGER: I never knew it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You didn't know about the Roland White incident?

MR BURGER: No, no, Roland White, sorry, ja.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You knew about?


MR KAHANOVITZ: In other words you knew about the relationship between Mr Barnard and Mr Botha and Mr Verster knew about the relationship between Mr Barnard and Mr Botha.

MR BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So someone goes to tell Mr Verster that Barnard has shot Webster. Mr Verster now wishes to make inquiries in the CCB as to whether anyone in the CCB is involved. I would have thought his first port of call would be Calla Botha.

MR BURGER: It may be the case.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And I would have very much thought that you would be involved in that process because these were your men.

MR BURGER: No, he was under my command and Verster did come to ask me that and he asked: "Who's involved in this thing?" I gave him the assurance we were not involved, there would be no authorisation, that procedures had not been followed, in fact until today nobody's told me or admitted to me that Ferdi Barnard was responsible for that. The Court procedure, I didn't follow those on a day to day basis, the Court procedures against Mr Barnard, so that's all I can say.

MR LAX: Can I just ask something? Did you actually ask your men?


MR LAX: So you went to Botha and you said: "Were you involved?"


MR KAHANOVITZ: And what did he say?

MR BURGER: He wasn't.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, Nico Bessenger, we dealt with already in relation to the diary. Trevor Manuel.

MR BURGER: I can't remember.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Daniel Tjongarero.

MR BURGER: No. No, I can't remember. I know he was a member of SWAPO.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, it appears to me that the only people that you remember are the people in respect of whom you've applied for amnesty, with the one exception of Mr Roskam.

MR BURGER: Yes, that's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You've already said that you were aware that there was a target list containing names.

MR BURGER: Yes, I was told about the priority list.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Did these strike you as being the kind of names that might have been on that target list?


MR LAX: Can I just clarify? Was this a target list, or was it a priority list, or was it a priority of targets list?

MR BURGER: Mr Lax, I am so confused myself by this stage, I really don't know whether it was a - it is a priority list of identified enemies of the forces, that's how I regard it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but a priority to do what?

MR BURGER: A priority list of targets, persons ...

CHAIRPERSON: I mean in other words there'd been a decision to eliminate them and if you come across them, preferably do so in the following order?

MR BURGER: No. No, it was a priority list in terms of which you had to, in respect of your various disruption techniques, in terms of which you could apply those and eliminate fell under that.

MR LAX: I've seen some of those lists, for example some of them developed in the State Security Council and they specified different priorities of actions in respect of different individuals and they were carefully drawn up lists with A and B priorities and C priorities and so on and in some instances they were priority for elimination, in others there was priority for removal, in others there was priority for - all sorts of these euphemisms were used. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about?

MR BURGER: At my level I never had access to those documents, I never saw those documents but I was aware of ...(end of tape)

MR LAX: ...In terms of names, which people were you told were identified or prioritised for elimination?

MR BURGER: That came from time to time via the co-ordinator to myself. It was difficult for me and I think it's difficult for you to understand that I did not have access to the CCB structures, I didn't have access myself to the intelligence structure, to Derek or to ...(intervention)

MR LAX: I've heard all of that, but here you are, you're the Regional Manager, you have several operatives underneath you and how you're even going to know that you've come across an opportunistic target, as you guys called it, if you didn't have at least in your head a whole whack of names that you could think: "Well okay, these are priorities, these are the sorts of people if we do happen to come across information or the opportunity presents itself, we can quickly arrange to eliminate them, for example, whereas others are not worthy of that, but if we do get an opportunity and we hear of information about them, we'll send that information through because that's in the line of monitoring as opposed to that, whereas someone else might be only of a priority that if you do happen to come across them, you slash his tyres or throw paint remover on his car or whatever. Do you see my point?


MR LAX: Now if you didn't know those people, if you hadn't sat down and had a meeting where you've done a target analysis and prioritisation of a group of people that you had to work on, how would you be able to operate? Just on a totally one on one basis? Surely you didn't work like that, one project at a time?


MR LAX: Only?

MR BURGER: Yes. I can understand that it might be rather difficult for you to accept that, but that is the way it was and we as Region 6, actually in 89 we started with our operational side of our tasks and it was only in the middle of 89 that I started linking up with the Regional Managers, the other Regional Managers who met with Joe Verster on a weekly basis. As far as the targets and the priority lists and the analyses as to what should happen to these targets was concerned, at that stage it was chiefly done by the co-ordinator via the intelligence structures. It was conveyed in that way to myself. We were, however, aware of the bigger targets and their identities such as Mr Slovo etc. and if an opportunistic target came up, yes then we would act speedily, that is true.

MR LAX: But you see, names like Slovo and company were external targets.

MR BURGER: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAX: So what other - what I'm trying to understand, you see, you've just confirmed my impression in a sense, what other big names that didn't come to you opportunistically like Omar's did, for example, what other big names did you have in the back of your head so that if you did happen to come across them you could do something about it?

MR BURGER: With hindsight, I think perhaps Mr Joe Modise I could say and people like that who were known to me.

MR LAX: But he was also external, Modise.


MR LAX: You see, none of these people are internal targets. You've told us essentially ... just let me finish. You've told us essentially that you never did anything wrong externally, you're adamant about that.


MR LAX: So - and you only spent one day in Namibia.


MR LAX: I don't know what other time you may have spent elsewhere, but primarily from the impression that we have is that you were busy in the country.


MR LAX: So which internal leadership figures were you, did you have as potential targets?

MR BURGER: I can't remember all the names of the UDF members and so forth and that's why Mr Verster started activating us by sending the co-ordinator and saying: "Give them names, give them lists", amongst which was the name of Mr Evans, so they helped us in identifying these targets.

MR LAX: You see, one would have thought that you would have called your men together in a meeting for Region 6 and the co-ordinator would have brought you some sort of crisis analysis of the onslaught and in that crisis analysis would have said to you: "Well here is the UDF, these are the ten leading figures in the UDF, these people are in Natal, these people are in the Free State like Terror Lekota for example, or these people are in Gauteng. Now these people in the Western Cape, those of you that are going to be working in that area, focus on these people."

Wouldn't that have - I mean that's basic stuff.

MR BURGER: That was to have happened in due course, I believe, but I really say we were still in our infancy and we hadn't yet progressed that far.

MR LAX: So you didn't even have the depth of analysis to be able to know and question whether somebody was actually who someone else told you they were?

MR BURGER: No, I think the targets or the people mentioned to us, the names given to us, one could ascertain from one's own observation that that person was a member of the ECC or UDF, or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Burger, Region 6 might have been newly established, the CCB wasn't new, correct?

MR BURGER: Region?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Region 6, you and your men might have only started working in early 1989, CCB itself had been in existence long before then, correct?

MR BURGER: Apparently, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes and even before the name the CCB came into existence, there were various other units which had other names before the CCB was created, such as Barnacle? In other words the modus operandi was nothing new, all that was new was the creation of an internal region, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: So you had skilled and experienced people, such as Mr Verster, who'd been with that type of work for a considerable period of time?


MR KAHANOVITZ: And they would have bought that experience and that knowledge to bear on the situation in South Africa?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Your inability, apparent inability to say one way or the other whether any of these people were being monitored, targeted, we're going to argue at the end that this is calculated amnesia on your part and the reason for your calculated amnesia is you do not wish to reveal here today who exactly was being targeted and why and if anybody would be expected to know those details in connection with Region 6, you would be the very person as the Regional Manager. Do you want to comment?

MR BURGER: No, I don't agree with you. I don't agree with your assumptions and the reason why I'm sitting here today is to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. It's a pity that you seem to make other assumptions because what I've told you is, before God, the truth.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Just one or two last questions. Mr Matthysen was your friend?

MR BURGER: Yes, he's my friend.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Still alive?

MR BURGER: Yes, yesterday or the day before he still was.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, you and the other members of Region 6 were attached to Matthysen Busvervoer in some or other capacity for round about eleven months.

MR BURGER: Six months.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Six months, alright. In that six month period money was passing through his business, cars were being bought and so on and so forth, correct?


MR KAHANOVITZ: What did Mr Matthysen think that these four ex-members of the Brixton Murder and Robbery Unit were doing at his bus company?

MR BURGER: He knew that it was a cover for the Security Forces.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And you asked him to do you a favour as a friend?


MR KAHANOVITZ: In return for remuneration?


MR KAHANOVITZ: Was he going to be paid?


MR KAHANOVITZ: He did it as a personal favour?


MR KAHANOVITZ: There's a mention in the diary of a written warning to be given to Calla Botha, what was that about? I'm just asking you, do you independently recall anything about a written warning being given to any Region 6 member?

MR BURGER: No, Mr Botha had been warned regarding his connection with Mr Barnard.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you recall whether he was given a written warning?

MR BURGER: I can't remember.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Before you started going to the Managers' Meetings, you said you were there for about six months before you started going to the meetings of all the Regional Managers, correct?

MR BURGER: Yes, more or less.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Before that, was Mr Basson going to those meetings?

MR BURGER: I don't know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well after you started attending those meetings, did Mr Basson attend them?

MR BURGER: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you know? Didn't you see him there or can't you remember?

MR BURGER: I don't know whether Mr Basson attended the meetings because I didn't attend them.

CHAIRPERSON: You said at one stage you, when you initially got there, you went in this - you didn't attend the other meetings, but at one stage in your evidence you said that you did attend Managers' Meetings later.

MR BURGER: Yes, at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what Mr Kahanovitz wants to know is at those meetings, the Region Managers' meetings, did Mr Basson attend them? That's all he wants to know.

MR BURGER: Mr Basson was a co-ordinator and I don't think that he would have attended those meetings.

CHAIRPERSON: But those that you attended, did you see him there or not? Did he attend or not?


MR KAHANOVITZ: I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kahanovitz. Mr Williams.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you. Mr Chairman I've got a few questions. I will be brief.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLIAMS: Mr Burger in your application you say that, refer to:

"A gang in Cape Town known as the Kewtown Youth Movement",

now you were the Head of the Brixton Murder and Robber, you know the term "bende" has a specific meaning and association. Now we've heard testimony here that some people think, or some of the applicants thought that we were gangsters in the classical sense of the word and other merely use the word "bende" as a label or maybe a label of convenience. What was your interpretation of the word "bende"?

MR BURGER: I think in the context of my application gang was a group of people.

MR WILLIAMS: So you did not think that the Kewtown Youth Movement were a lot of gangsters, is that your testimony?

MR BURGER: No, I accepted that this was a group of people who were politically orientated and were involved in acts of terror against the State.

MR WILLIAMS: You say that you received information from Mr Verster that the Kewtown Youth Movement were going to start a fire in Khayelitsha, is that correct?


MR WILLIAMS: What else did Mr Verster tell you were the Q-Town Youth Movement going to do?

MR BURGER: I think my amnesia is creeping in again. No on a more serious note, Mr Williams, I think - well in my application it is stated that, if I may just turn to that page, that there reference is made to bomb attacks on the polling booths and the disruption of the election.

MR WILLIAMS: You're reading from your application now, what independent recollection do you have about the allegations that Mr Verster was making?

MR BURGER: No, I can't remember.

MR WILLIAMS: The sum total of his contribution was that: "We were going to cause a fire in Khayelitsha"?


MR WILLIAMS: What was the information that was supplied to you by the Intelligence structures within the CCB?

MR BURGER: Please repeat.

MR WILLIAMS: By the Intelligence structures.

CHAIRPERSON: What information did you receive from the Information or the Intelligence structures relating to the Kewtown youth?

MR BURGER: That they were involved in the bomb attacks on the Athlone Post Office and the Athlone Magistrates Court.

MR WILLIAMS: You're reading from your application. Can you recall independently what their contribution was, yes or no?


MR WILLIAMS: You cannot recall independently?


MR WILLIAMS: You've testified earlier that there were three sources of information. The first source was Slang through his informant, the second source was Col Verster and the third source was the Intelligence structure which existed within the CCB. Now you've heard the testimony by Col Verster and that is that he never verified information, he did not contribute to the information, he said: "Go and ask the co-ordinator, you should ask those questions to him". Were you here when he testified to that effect?


MR WILLIAMS: Now I put it to you that Mr Verster's testimony is to the effect that he cannot tell the Committee whether the information that Mr Slang van Zyl received was verified by your Intelligence structures, or not, he could not assist the Committee in that respect.

MR BURGER: I can't comment on that.

MR WILLIAMS: Now if Col Verster would have said that: "I have information that Q-Town Youth Movement are going to cause a fire in Khayelitsha", don't you think he would have disclosed that to this Committee?


MR WILLIAMS: No, no, Col Verster would have told this Committee that he also gathered intelligence or he also obtained information .

MR BURGER: I believe he would.

MR WILLIAMS: And also would you agree with me that your testimony that the CCB had an intelligence structure within the organisation, is new testimony to this Committee?

MR BURGER: No, I don't know. My impression is that we had our own Intelligence structure.

MR WILLIAMS: Within the organisation?

MR BURGER: Within the CCB.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Verster's testimony was that they relied on information from the SAP and other structures outside the CCB.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he mentioned Military Intelligence as well and even the Security - I mean the Special Forces had their own Intelligence branch.

MR BURGER: That is the, to put it that way, the Intelligence table is the Intelligence structure of the CCB. I just want to correct something, Verster and Gen Webb testified that it is derived from other channels and put into the pipeline of the Intelligence channel of the CCB.

MR WILLIAMS: Okay, no I would not allow him to go into detail on these aspects but I want to put this question - these following questions to you. Is your testimony that Mr Slang van Zyl received information from an informer and that that information was in fact processed and confirmed, is that your testimony?


MR WILLIAMS: Now when you testified in chief, you said for example information - you received information about Dullah Omar. That information was verified. You received information from Roskam, that information was verified. you received information about I think it's the printing press, that was verified. In your testimony-in-chief you never said that you received, or the organisation received information about Kewtown Youth Movement and that information was verified. Can you explain the omission in your testimony-in-chief?

MR BURGER: I can't - if you could perhaps just remind me?

MR WILLIAMS: Explicitly in your testimony when you started to testify, you said you received information on the ground about Minister Omar, that information was processed, it was verified, it was confirmed and in the instance of Roskam, that was confirmed and the burning of the printing press, or the existence of the printing press, that was also confirmed. Now if you meant to convey to the Committee at that stage that the information about the Kewtown Youth Movement was confirmed, you would have told that to the Committee at that stage in your evidence-in-chief, not so?


MR WILLIAMS: Why didn't you do that?

MR BURGER: Because it was through Mr Verster, or it was verified by Verster.

CHAIRPERSON: What Mr Williams is getting at, Mr Burger, evidence-in-chief means that section of your evidence when Mr du Plessis was asking you questions before you were cross-examined by the other legal representatives when you were giving your version. What Mr Williams is saying, when you were giving your evidence-in-chief, you said all the information relating to Mr Omar and Roskam and those other names, projects he's mentioned, that was received from the ground, was verified by the Intelligence structure, but you didn't, when you were giving your evidence-in-chief say that the information relating to KTY, Kewtown Youth was verified. Now he's asking you, why didn't you say that it was verified when you were giving your evidence-in-chief, that is the question.

MR BURGER: I can't remember whether it was done.

MR WILLIAMS: I put it to you, you didn't do that.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but you can't remember whether it was verified or what?

MR BURGER: I can't remember whether it was verified, but there was information from Mr Verster's side which was additional to the intelligence we got from van Zyl.

MR WILLIAMS: Now you know that the applications of various of the applicants contained a whole host of accusations regarding the Kewtown Youth Movement. Do you know or do you not know whether or not that information was verified?

MR BURGER: Can you repeat your question please?

MR WILLIAMS: There are allegations that the Kewtown Youth Movement were responsible for X, Y, Z, do you know whether that information was confirmed or verified by the Intelligence structures or not?

MR BURGER: No, I don't know.

MR WILLIAMS: You don't know whether or not it was confirmed. Okay, I will leave it at that. Let us just turn to the issue of who controlled the funds within Region 6?

MR BURGER: At the structure of the CCB's office, there was a financial person.

MR WILLIAMS: What's the name of this person?

MR BURGER: I don't know.

MR WILLIAMS: But did you ever deal with that person?


MR WILLIAMS: Who would have dealt with that person?

MR BURGER: The co-ordinator.

MR WILLIAMS: That's Mr Basson?

MR BURGER: Mr Basson.

MR WILLIAMS: Now in terms of your own administrative arrangements, before that person would release funds, say for example to pay Gakkie R18 000 or R30 000, who's approval would he need on your documentation?

MR BURGER: Well the co-ordinator and myself, according to the in-house procedures, must get authorisation from the Chairperson and Mr Verster would ratify it by signing for it.

MR WILLIAMS: Now for each and every operation or project, would he need the signature of the, not the Chairman, Mr Verster?


MR WILLIAMS: Could he release funds without the signature of Mr Verster?

MR BURGER: I don't know, according to the structure no. Mr Verster was the Managing Director.

MR WILLIAMS: So in other words before funds were released with regard to any project, Mr Verster should have known about it?


MR WILLIAMS: Now we've heard evidence and I think you also said that you know about the Anton Roskam incident.


MR WILLIAMS: Do you know whether or not funds were released as a result of that project?


MR WILLIAMS: Who authorised the project?

MR BURGER: Mr Verster.

MR WILLIAMS: Now were you here when Mr Verster testified and maybe I should refer you ...

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he was here.

MR WILLIAMS: Okay, then I'll put it to you that the testimony of Mr Verster was that he did not know about the project. He came to learn about it through newspaper clippings some time after.

MR WESSELS: No, I don't think that was the evidence of Mr Verster. I think Mr van Eck asked him some questions on that and he said that he couldn't remember whether he had authorised that.

CHAIRPERSON: I must say I can't, sitting here now, recall exactly what the evidence was. I'd have to look at the record on that point.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairman, can I just quickly refer to the record page 388?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly Mr Williams, page 388, that's the evidence of Mr van Zyl.


CHAIRPERSON: 388? Oh is it the typed page 388, or what? Oh that's our transcript. He's being questioned by Mr Hockey?

MR WILLIAMS: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have the - it's page 388 of our transcript.

MR WILLIAMS: Ja, maybe if you can just read ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They're still just trying to find it Mr Williams. Could you indicate more or less the line that you want?

MR WILLIAMS: The third Hockey.

CHAIRPERSON: Right at the top.

MR WILLIAMS: Where you see the name Hockey for the third time.

MR BURGER: Hockey?

MR WILLIAMS: Ja, "Was that according to Calla Botha...".


MR WILLIAMS: Ja, can you just read that now?


"Was that according to Calla Botha for the information that was provided to him? Calla Botha says that according to the information that Anton Roskam was the Chairperson of the Wits SRC and was also a member of Jodac at the time. Sorry, what was that last organisation?

Jodac, Mr Chairperson.

Is that the Johannesburg Democratic Action Committee?

Something to that effect. A community based organisation. This doesn't ring any bells.

As far as I saw it in the documentation, yes and I think this is something that would have to be asked from the Regional Manager, if there was a project to burn out the car of this Jeffrey."

MR WILLIAMS: Ja, it should have read Anton, it's a mistake.


"Would it have been a requirement for you to give authority for such a project?

That is correct, it should have been like that.

So are you saying that you have no knowledge of this project?

No, if I remember correctly, I read it in the documentation and I imagine years ago I read about it in the newspapers, but it is not a project that was officially authorised by me, there could be an interpretation on Regional Level, but the Regional Manager can answer that question."

MR WILLIAMS: Can you just stop there? Would you agree with me that according to this record, the testimony of Mr Verster was that he did not authorise this project?

MR BURGER: It seems to me that he's not sure, but I will testify that he did and if you read the last paragraph, he said: "If I remember correctly ...", so here he's relying on his memory, "Ask the Regional Manager", on the other hand.

MR WILLIAMS: No, he's referring to the documents. "I read it in the documents, if he remembers correctly", that refers to that.

MR LAX: He then says, Mr Burger, he says: "But it was not a project that was officially authorised by me". He then says: "It could have been interpreted at Regional level but the Regional Manager", that's yourself, "can answer that."

MR BURGER: No, Mr Verster authorised it.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, may I draw your attention to page 590?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 590. 519 or ...?


CHAIRPERSON: 590. Yes. Is this talking about the Roskam thing?

MR WESSELS: Can I read it to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Is this, "I cannot remember that Mr Chairperson", is that what you want, is that the section?


CHAIRPERSON: "I cannot remember that Mr Chairperson, but it is in any case not a gross human rights violation, that whole incident as I understood it, but I cannot remember that incident at all, there were many projects." But does that relate to the Roskam? I'm trying to find ...

MR BURGER: Mr Chairperson,


MR BURGER: Paragraph 2.

MR WESSELS: Yes, on page 589, the last paragraph, it seems as if ...(indistinct)


MR LAX: I think the other relevant portion, just so we're clear on the record in presenting a fair picture is this one here where he says: "I cannot remember it Chairperson, I think that I also stated it like that and I accept that it could possibly have happened, but I don't remember such a presentation or submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so then we've got the evidence of Mr Verster where he says he doesn't remember and the evidence now of Mr Burger who says it was an authorised project.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Burger, who normally accounted for expenditure after a particular project? For example, if the project of Mr Evans would have been successful and Peaches was paid R15 000, who would have done the accounting for that project?

MR BURGER: The Budget gets was drawn up before the project was approved and then there was a financial file and a project file and there would be cross-references in those two and as soon as the operation was successfully completed, those funds would be channelled.

MR WILLIAMS: But who does the, what do you call "verrekening"?

MR BURGER: That would be done by the member and it's submitted to the co-ordinator and myself and then to the financial.

MR WILLIAMS: Was that always the case?


MR WILLIAMS: Now you've heard Mr van Zyl's testimony and it was also in some of the statement here that as far as the ELC is concerned, Early Learning Centre, that you were asked to do the accounting in that instance, now was that correct?

MR BERGER: That I was asked?

MR WILLIAMS: Ja to do the accounting?

MR BURGER: No, I didn't do the accounting.

MR WILLIAMS: In fact that statement was that you would do this accounting to Nick.

MR BURGER: Nick was at that stage the co-ordinator. The co-ordinator and the member would then do this accounting or clearing and then it would go to Verster.

MR WILLIAMS: So are you saying that Mr van Zyl did the accounting of the particular incident?

MR BURGER: Yes. He would deal with the clearing of this amount and the accounting and the co-ordinator who was at that stage Nick.

MR WILLIAMS: But you had insight.

MR BURGER: No, it was Mr Basson, I'm confused.

MR WILLIAMS: But you would have had insight into the statement because it had to go through you, not so?


MR WILLIAMS: Now in terms of the ELC project, what were your observations? What is the amount that was expended for this project?

MR BURGER: I think we've already heard that, but I know it was R30 000 plus then the expenditure, the expenses relating to the travel and accommodation and so on.

MR WILLIAMS: Is this what you ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Disbursements, R30 000 plus cost of disbursements?

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR WILLIAMS: Now is this what you in fact saw on the accounting statement?

MR BURGER: I can't remember today but it should have been or would have been submitted as such.

MR WILLIAM: so then the allegation that you took R5 000 for yourself would then be incorrect, not so?


MR WILLIAMS: Someone must be lying?


CHAIRPERSON: Did you hand money over to Mr van Zyl?

MR BURGER: Yes, Sir.


MR BURGER: Yes, Sir.

MR WILLIAMS: And did he give any money back to you?


MR WILLIAMS: So he kept all the money, whatever you handed to him, he kept all the money, is that your testimony?


MR WILLIAMS: We're pressed for time and I'm ...

CHAIRPERSON: You can carry on, I think if we could try to perhaps finish Mr Burger this afternoon would be better.

MR WILLIAMS: Now Mr Burger, I'm not going to go into detail but there are innuendoes in statements that you may have misappropriated funds and I just want you to briefly comment on it. In the statement of Mr Botha in Bundle B on page 3 he says that an amount of R70 000 was supposed to be used for an import and export business, but according to him, that money was never used for that purpose and the suspicion arose in the cell that you might have misappropriated those funds, do you want to comment on that?

MR BURGER: R70 000, that was for what? For an import/export business? It's the first time I've heard of that.

MR WILLIAMS: Should we quickly look at the statement?

CHAIRPERSON: Bundle B, page 3, right in the middle. In the middle of the page, statement by Carl Botha, dated 12th of December 89.

MR BURGER: I beg your pardon, I see it's also - there's something in the statement.

"Whilst we were still with Matthysen, Burger undertook a journey to London, he travelled with Alex Kavouris",

That's not correct.

"This project was to meet and recruit somebody in London. The person originally came from Zambia. I know that this person was supposed to establish and import/export business in Zambia. R70 000 had been budgeted for this project. Nothing came of this and the suspicion took hold in our cell that Burger had taken the money."

Sir, it's on a need-to-know basis. I would really like to know where Mr Botha got all this information from and to know about my projects.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you know if one looks at it, the statement just says that there was a rumour or a suspicion.

MR BURGER; I think this is all rubbish.

MR WILLIAMS: Okay, let's look at the same bundle, page 6, second paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: Back to that paragraph where it says that R20 000 was shared between yourself and someone else.

MR BURGER: Between him and Burger. This is totally untrue. I am not at all aware of this amount and I also don't know how you can confirm the suspicion by means of Ferdi Barnard who wasn't even active in this Region 6.

MR WILLIAMS: Then let's lastly look at same bundle, page 51, paragraph 13.

CHAIRPERSON: Whose statement is this Mr Williams?

MR WILLIAMS: The statement of Mr van Zyl.

MR BURGER: I think these statements were done by panicky people.

CHAIRPERSON: Which paragraph are you ...?

MR WILLIAMS: Paragraph 13.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 13.


"I know that Staal Burger and Alex Kavouris went to London during I think approximately 89, went to London by plane. It was for the organisation that they went to London and they had to go and speak to somebody there. I understood that Staal Burger gave Ten Thousand dollars to an unaware or non-aware member after he and Kavouris had recruited the person. Staal Burger used Alex Kavouris as an unaware member, but I don't think that he informed the organisation about this. I know that the clearing of the Ten Thousand Dollars had been outstanding for more than six months and there had been some speculation that Staal Burger and Alex Kavouris had taken the money themselves."

MR BURGER: That's not true.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr Chairman, perhaps we can just place on record that I think the rate value Dollar to the Rand at that stage must have been three rand to a dollar.

CHAIRPERSON: I think - when I was reading it, exactly that thought went through my mind that you don't times that by seven and a half, you times it by three at that stage, or something. Mr Hockey, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

MR HOCKEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, my questions have all been covered, so I've got no questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hockey. Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions you'd like to put?

MS COLERIDGE: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you have any re-examination Mr du Plessis.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, perhaps just one aspect.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR P DU PLESSIS: Mr Burger, the Chairperson's offices was at Speskop, is that correct? Speskop in Pretoria?

MR BURGER: The Chairperson, yes.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Yes, that's Gen Webb.


MR P DU PLESSIS: Was there any arrangement as to whether you were supposed to enter those premises of not?

MR BURGER: I was not allowed to.

MR P DU PLESSIS: why not?

MR BURGER: We were part of this covert organisation which was not allowed to be linked to the State at all.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Yes, but did it have anything to do with your profile?

MR BURGER: Yes, because I was known as well.

MR P DU PLESSIS: And then the issue regarding the bomb, was there any order that the mechanism was supposed to be detonated shortly after the meeting had adjourned, as Mr van Zyl testified, in other words, was there such an arrangement that should have had that effect on those present?

MR BURGER: Yes. I think it was so that after the meeting had adjourned the impact of the explosion would then have a greater impact on the members and would then discourage them from further participation in their activities, in their structure.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Would it make any difference as to the opinion you have expressed here as to whether if you had done it, you would have waited until 3 o'clock in the morning?

MR BURGER: Yes, well that was my explanation to Mr Kahanovitz, if you really wanted to ensure that there was nobody, but the effect would be greater if you had detonated the bomb immediately afterwards, after the meeting.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Then just lastly, the priority list. Let us assume that one can see it as a sort of a target list and even if that was the case, before such an elimination would take place, there would still be the registration of such a project and all the necessary approval and authorisation would have to be obtained?


MR P DU PLESSIS: Yes, you couldn't simply just walk down the road with a list and if you see somebody whose name is on the list, you could just shoot him dead.

MR BURGER: No, no.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Then lastly, the elimination of an individual in an organisation. I think we've covered it, but was it specifically to get rid of the individual, or was there a bigger motive behind it?

MR BURGER: As I explained yesterday, it was not aimed at the individual concerned, it was as a result of the structures to which he belonged and to hamper the activities of that structure in the bigger sense of the word.

MR BURGER: Yes, to destabilise them.

MR P DU PLESSIS: So in that context, would it have made such a major difference if Mr Gavin Evans had not been the chairperson or perhaps the secretary or perhaps a very active member of the ECC?

MR BURGER: That is true.

MR P DU PLESSIS: It would not have made a difference?


MR P DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

MR SIBANYONI: A single question, Mr Chairperson. Mr Burger you said Botha was only warned for his association with Barnard. Were there any steps taken, any disciplinary steps taken against him?

MR BURGER: Yes, Mr Sibanyoni, his activities were temporarily suspended.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that without pay?

MR BURGER: No, we paid him.

CHAIRPERSON: So I don't know if that's a punishment or, sometimes it's better off.

MR BURGER: He was a very active rugby player.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it after a formal inquiry?

MR BURGER: It was a decision made between the Managing Director, myself and the co-ordinator.

MR SIBANYONI: Were the complaints only his associations with Barnard, or were there any specific things which ...

MR BURGER: It was regarding his association with Mr Barnard.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax, do you have any questions?

MR LAX: Thanks Chairperson. Mr Burger, just - you ...(end of tape) ... sort of expenses were paid at that stage?


MR LAX: Yes.

MR BURGER: They paid for my office furniture, everything including the furniture and everything in my office.

MR LAX: Why would they have done that? You were the General Manager of the Hotel, wasn't there an office in the hotel with desks and chairs and so on?

MR BURGER: No, it was two rooms which were set aside for me and opened up for me to establish my office and I told Mr Kavouris that I was conducting my investigation unit, Staal Burger and Associates, from this hotel.

MR LAX: Yes, but you were also running the hotel as a General Manager for him as well.

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR LAX: It's just occurred to me, maybe that's why you spent a lot of time, not less time, doing things in the CCB.

MR BURGER: No, I did devote very little time to the CCB, if I look back at it now in 89, but in the same breath I can also say that it was quite some doing if you had a high profile to lead people to believe that you did not have any links with the State and so on so a lot of time was devoted to that link and the camouflage of that link.

MR LAX: Did you use Kavouris and his own networks for information?

MR BURGER: I didn't really get down to that, no, but that was one of the objectives.

MR LAX: Right. Now I want to just take you back to another aspect and that was the question of whether you were asked: "Well, did you have the discretion to veto suggestions and suggest other alternatives and so on", do you remember that?


CHAIRPERSON: It was towards the end of Mr Kahanovitz's cross-examination.


MR LAX: And you know if you wanted to stop a bunch of bombers from carrying on with their activities and give them a huge fright, surely you could have got them arrested under Section 29 of the then Internal Security Act? That would have put them out of business immediately, they would have spent at least a month or two in custody, they would have been questioned by the police about those activities.

MR BURGER: Yes, I think the problem there was that we couldn't link ourselves to the police by conveying information to them because then they would know that there's an organisation working on the ground, that they were not aware of.

MR LAX: But you didn't need to, I mean you could have just made an anonymous phone call. You could have dropped an envelope in the local Security Branch's office anonymously. I mean Hardien could have gone and taken the very letter that was in your file in which one of the chaps whose name escapes me for the moment is alleged to have indicated that he was responsible for the bombs and we've heard testimony that that letter existed and it was in your file and you must have seen it.

MR BURGER: I think the strategy was to create division within their own ranks as a result of the explosion of the limpet mine which would have meant that it could have been one of their own bombs exploding and through that the police would have paid attention to this aspect.

MR LAX: But how much better to give the impression that one of their own members was like an informer, here was this letter in his own handwriting, give it to the police, it would cause untold damage to the structure, such an obvious simple thing. You had the letter in your possession.

MR BURGER: That's a good way of reasoning but that's not the way we operated.


MR LAX: Please, go ahead Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: To do with this - did you really believe that the CCB was an entire secret to everybody other than its members and the couple of generals outside who were aware of it?

MR BURGER: Yes, I believed that it was an absolute covert organisation where the Managing Director's only contact outside of the CCB circle would have been the Chairperson of Special Forces and he on his part, it would have been the Head of the Defence Force.

CHAIRPERSON: But what about - are you saying that somebody like Ferdi Barnard was unaware of the existence of the CCB?

MR BURGER: He was supposed to be - not to know about it, but as it seemed later on he was in the system.

CHAIRPERSON: His friends were there, he participated in more than one project, we know.

MR WESSELS: With respect, Mr Chairman, I think you've got it - perhaps not the evidence before you, but Ferdi Barnard was initially recruited to become a CCB member and he was then dismissed, so he knew of the CCB.

CHAIRPERSON: And so he knew of the CCB, do you think that his integrity was such that he would never mention it to anybody after he had been discharged from it, that it would be his secret?

MR BURGER: Ferdi Barnard?

MR BURGER: No, Mr Chairman, I think that was one of the problems with Ferdi that he couldn't keep it to himself.

CHAIRPERSON: So in other words it might not have been such a secret, so to go to the police, I mean - you could have gone to the police around - you could have given it to Security Forces to take - I mean not Security, what's it called, Special Forces, to take to the police.

MR BURGER: Yes, there were ways to take it to the police.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry, Mr Lax.

MR P DU PLESSIS: Could I just place on record, there is other evidence indicating that Mr Barnard had a vehicle paid for by the CCB?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr du Plessis.

MR LAX: I'm sorry, I know it's late but there are just a couple of things that I need to clear up in my own mind. One of them was this whole issue of this structure that you will have heard of called Trevits.

MR BURGER: Called?

MR LAX: Trevits. I can't remember exactly what it stands for, but it was a structure that identified targets by primarily and it co-ordinated intelligence activities between all the different intelligence arms in the country.

MR BURGER: No, I never knew about it.

MR LAX: Ja. It's precisely the sort of structure to which, if you wanted to confirm that somebody was a target, information would be sent.

MR BURGER: Yes, I didn't know of its existence.

MR LAX: Right. Now Region 9 was which region?

MR BURGER: I don't know what region it was, I know there was somebody called Anton and it seemed to me as if it was a kind of a sociological funny region, I didn't know what it was.

MR LAX: Surely all the other regions were working externally? You were the only region, you were specifically established to work internally?

MR BURGER: That's correct.

MR LAX: That's the impression we have been given.


MR LAX: Now why was Region 9 working internally?

MR BURGER: I don't know. There are lots of things that we are unaware of ourselves.

MR LAX: Now, I'm just puzzled about your attitude to talking about matters that you were involved in externally, when it's your strong suggestion that you did nothing wrong externally, nothing whatsoever, so what are you afraid of? If you did nothing wrong, you can't be prosecuted for anything that you may have done. What - there's no policy that I'm aware of that prevents you from disclosing anything you did externally to us, whatever policy the Defence Force may have that you may think you are bound by, is of no consequence here at all and I'm just puzzled that you persist in this attitude that you're not going to talk about things you did when you didn't do anything wrong, it just doesn't make sense to me. Do you see my point? I mean you don't have anything to worry about extradition, because you didn't do anything for which you could be extradited, that's been one of the bases upon which those people have been, who've kept quiet about things they did outside, have kept quiet about them.

MR BURGER: Yes, Mr Lax, I'm sorry that that's the impression you get but I cannot blame you that you make such an assumption. I don't want to talk about external projects. You know, the opposition and everybody knows about the case in South West African, now Namibia, where Judge Levy made certain findings which I deny strongly and if you start testifying, then you may find yourself later in a situation where the impressions are created that you acted in a wrongful way and to prevent that, I stay with my decision not to talk about external projects.

MR LAX: Yes. No, I hear that. At least that's an explanation that I can understand, so thank you.

MR BURGER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Just very briefly, you as Regional Manager must have had documentation in your possession, work documentation, files, etc.


CHAIRPERSON: None whatsoever?

MR BURGER: No, I didn't. It may sound strange but the procedure was that all files, project files, financial files, everything was kept at the administrative offices of the CCB and I had no access to those offices, it was when I needed it, I would phone the co-ordinator and he would bring it to me at a specified office, I'd work on it there, I'd give it back to the co-ordinator, back to the office, that's it.


MR BURGER: I had no control.

MR LAX: Sorry Chair, just the one aspect where your interruption confused me, sorry to delay the matter. I gathered from your answers to Mr Kahanovitz that this question of the consideration of someone not being able to be prosecuted, in other words X didn't want to testify, they didn't want their identity to become known, let's take a specific, the question of Isgak Hardien not wanting to be known and therefore you couldn't prosecute, you told us that was just a construct and it wasn't ever a consideration, that isn't true, you conceded that.


MR LAX: So if anyone else says that, any of the co-applicants are saying that, obviously they're just party to the same lie?

MR BURGER: They should be, ja.

MR LAX: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising out of the questions that have been put by members of the Panel, Mr du Plessis?

MR P DU PLESSIS: No thank you Mr Chairman.



MR WESSELS: No thank you Mr Chairman.



MR MARTINI: One question Chairperson.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Burger, I didn't quite understand your evidence to be that. I understood your evidence was you weren't saying that the informant from the ground level didn't want his identity to be disclosed, because if we go back to your application,

CHAIRPERSON: Page 140 something I think, in Bundle A.

MR MARTINI: That last question caught me.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's page 142 or something like that.

MR MARTINI: Yes, Chairperson.


MR MARTINI: The way I understood your evidence when you were questioned by Mr Kahanovitz was, ...(indistinct) were you then suggesting that you didn't want to disclose Mr Verster, something to that effect, that his identity didn't want to be disclosed, and if I understood your evidence to be that it is incorrect to state that the informant on the ground level, let's take for example Gakkie, didn't want his name to be disclosed.

MR LAX: Could I just clarify it for you Mr Martini, if I may? You will recall there was some question first about Hardien and then he corrected himself and he said no, there were other sources and then Mr Kahanovitz interrogated who those sources were and then in response to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if interrogates is ...

MR LAX: He unpacked that question of who these sources were and then it was then in response to the unpacking of the different sources, that he said: "So you didn't mean it was Mr Verster?" and so he went through each one of them, but the gist of it entirely was that that was a total fabrication, that whole aspect.

MR MARTINI: On his part, even of the fact - that's not what I understood his evidence - I didn't understand the evidence to have been that the informant on ground level didn't want his identity to be disclosed, I understood the other issues, the other unpacked issues which Mr Kahanovitz unpacked, but I've never understood his evidence, but I suppose ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You can ask him, Mr Martini.

MR MARTINI: Well, Mr Burger, is your evidence that it's a lie to suggest that the informant from ground level who gave information to your operatives, didn't want his identity to be disclosed? Is that your evidence?

MR BURGER: No, of course we wouldn't have disclosed his identity.

MR MARTINI: So do you accept, so would it be correct if other applicants stated that on a similar context that they never want - the information wasn't even to police in the sense that you didn't want to disclose the identity of your informer?

MR BURGER: I think I must just put it in this way, the source we handled as a non aware member, his identity would be protected at all times, but the reason for the fact that I placed it in my application, it was used as a reason.

MR MARTINI: Yes, but you answered a question now to say if any other applicant stated that the identity, bearing in mind your cell all came from the police, was it procedure in the police force to reveal identities of informers?

MR BURGER: No, Chairperson.

MR MARTINI: So you now stated in answer to Mr Lax's question that if any other applicant stated that they didn't want to reveal this to the police because the informant didn't want to be disclosed, your answer was to Mr Lax that if any other applicant stated that, that would be a lie, is that correct? Do you stand by that?

MR BURGER: As I just explained to you Mr Martini, Chairperson, it is not about the disclosure of the source, the name of the source, we wouldn't have done it in any case, we would have protected him in the best way we can. What I tried to tell Mr Lax was the reason why we - I did that part into the application to indemnity was to be able to use it, do you understand?

MR MARTINI: Well, I'm not too sure I understand.

MR LAX: You see the whole thrust of the point is a simple one. This was another causa to add in on the basis that they could resort to other action against this person, because they couldn't involve the police, so the issue isn't whether or not Mr Hardien would be exposed, this is a justification for finding, for resorting to the bombing of the building, rather than a phone call to the police that: "We have a witness who can testify in Court". That aspect of that - that they even considered that as an option is a total fabrication and that's what he's confirming and so my - if you can just let me finish, so my question to him was focused on, that if any other applicant could come and say that was the consideration, that is also a fabrication because they'd be lying if they said that because it didn't happen that way. It's not about the exposing of the man per se, it's that they considered even reporting it to the police as a possible way of dealing with it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Martini what - the answer is Mr Burger's answer, whatever you can argue doesn't - it's his view.

MR MARTINI: That's what I want to get on record that it's his view, its not - maybe that's his motivation.

CHAIRPERSON: If there was another applicant who thought that and did that, then that's a question of argument, I don't think that ...

MR MARTINI: Well that's why I wanted to get, it's his view.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Eck, any questions arising?

MR VAN ECK: No questions, thank you.



MR COETZEE: No questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.


FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KAHANOVITZ: What was your salary at the Park Lane Hotel in your capacity as General Manager?

MR BURGER: Approximately about R3 000.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chair, this is not a question to the witness, but if you want to know the details of all the regions and their geographic locations, those appear at paragraphs 397 and 398 of the TRC's final report, that's Exhibit D. What is omitted from that report, that report deals with geographical regions, Regions 1 to 8, possibly Mr Basson will help us when he testifies, but there were in addition two further regions, Region 9 and Region 10. They were not geographical regions, but administrative regions. My understanding was that Region 10 was a financial support administrative function in the CCB that was called Region 10 and Region 9 we're still seeking clarification, but if ...

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) the funny region.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The funny region, but it's not a - it wasn't a geographical region.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Kahanovitz.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, do you have any questions?

MR WILLIAMS: I've got no questions.



MR HOCKEY: No thank you, Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: No questions, Chairperson.


MR MARTINI: Sorry Chairperson before we adjourn, just a procedural thing since we've been dealing with a lot of amnesia, we've heard this word amnesia, we were promised photographs by Ms Coleridge and I was promised a statement by Mr Kahanovitz, they seem to have forgotten in a short space of time.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge about the photographs. Ms Coleridge did mention it to me this morning about the photographs and I have also forgotten to raise it, but she says there is ...

MS COLERIDGE: It's at the police archives Chairperson, which I'll have to get from them.

CHAIRPERSON: This was actually yesterday. The photographs are at the police archives, the originals and Mr Kilian who is working on this matter for the Commission, I spoke to him yesterday, he said he's going to get them and he will get them - we'll get them to the legal representatives as soon as possible, but I don't know how long that is.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson.

MR MARTINI: Thanks Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then there's that statement, the other statement of Mr van Zyl.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Would it be convenient to start at 9 o'clock tomorrow? Thank you.

MR MARTINI: Sorry Chairperson. Tomorrow I've expressed my excuses at 2 o'clock to be excused, I'm just not sure if we are adjourning at 2 or not?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, we're adjourning, we've agreed that we're adjourning at 4 tomorrow.


MR MARTINI: May I be excused Chairperson from 2 o'


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR MARTINI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And you will ask somebody to just look after the rights of your client and then if anything extremely prejudicial arises, we will give you an opportunity to revisit it at the next hearing.

MR MARTINI: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll then adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock at the same venue. Thank you. And sorry, Mr Burger, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.