Issued by: Truth and Reconciliation Commission
SEPTEMBER 2, 1997
STATEMENT BY DUMISA NTSEBEZA, HEAD OF THE INVESTIGATIVE UNIT AND ACTING VICE-CHAIRPERSON OF THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION
Transcripts of records made of the Section 29 inquiries involving former members of the Civil Co-operation Bureau (CCB) will be handed to the office of the Western Cape Attorney General today with a request by the Commission that charges be laid against them.
The TRC's complaint concerns Mr Joe Verster, former Managing Director of the CCB, and two members of the bureau's Region Six, Mr Abram "Slang" van Zyl and Mr Wouter Basson aka Christo Brits. They appeared between August 18 and 22 after being subpoenaed to give evidence and/or answer questions pertaining to a wide range of issues being investigated by the TRC's Western Cape Investigative Unit.
Transcripts of the proceedings involving Mr Verster and Mr Basson will be handed to the Attorney-General's office today, and those relating to Mr van Zyl in due course.
In the letter to the Attorney-General I explained that all three of them, through their attorneys, made applications to me for me to rule that they were entitled to refuse to reply to questions legitimately put to them on the basis that the answers might incriminate them. They invoked Section 31 of the Act governing the Commission and further took the attitude that the "Attorney-General having jurisdiction" referred to in the section also means the attorneys-general of foreign jurisdictions such as Botswana and Angola.
I rejected these arguments. I found that the section was designed precisely to compel witnesses who fear that they might incriminate themselves provided certain conditions have been met, one of which is consultation with the attorney-general having jurisdiction.
I found that the Commission had met all its obligations in terms of the Act. I ruled that any refusal to answer questions despite my ruling was a contravention of Section 39 of our Act.
Messrs Verster and Basson in particular persisted in their refusal.
I am of the view that they committed an offence in terms of our Act and I am formally laying a charge.
If found guilty of a contravention of Section 39 of the Act, the three could face sentences of up to two years' imprisonment or a fine or both.