CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody. We resume with the hearing. When we adjourned yesterday, Mr Kahanovitz was still questioning Mr van Zyl. Mr van Zyl, I remind you that you're still under your former oath.
ABRAM VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)
MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Commissioner, yesterday I was to take instructions and revert to the Commission on the issue of the venue. If you will recall, in chambers.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MARTINI: I have taken instructions and we've decided to deal with this issue on the record, rather than in chambers. If I may revert with my instructions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MARTINI ADDRESSES: Firstly, Mr Commissioner, as I say I've been instructed to place this on record, more particularly since yesterday at 5 o'clock an incorrect media report was transmitted on the radio, to suggest that the issue of the venue has been settled, that the parties have agreed to move the venue to Athlone Technikon Centre. Now that report was incorrect. We don't know how that report got to the media, more particularly since the hearings were in chambers where there was no media present, but as we all know that report was incorrect, no decision was taken.
For the record, Mr Commissioner, my instructions are, and they remain, my client will not consent to altering the venue. My client's instructions are as follows. The Commission has made a decision on the venue. The decision was taken. The venue was originally Adderley Street. That was pursuant to a Court Order. There is a Court Order that stands in respect of the venue. What is important, Mr Commissioner, is that this venue was not selected by my client per se, he did not suggest this venue. This venue was given to us by the Commission. Hence the Commission made a decision on the venue. Hence the issue of the venue has been determined and that issue is finalised.
If of course certain parties feel aggrieved by the decision to hold the hearings here, then obviously, Mr Commissioner, the aggrieved party can do what my client did. They have the rights of recourse to a court of law and if they do feel aggrieved for whatever reasons, if they feel they've been unjustly treated, unfairly treated in the Commission selecting this venue by consensus, because we stress a venue had been selected. More particularly, Mr Commissioner, because in terms of the Act, the Act provides that the Commission is to notify the venue for the holding of hearings and the time for the holding of such hearings. That decision has now been taken and the venue is - this is the venue.
Mr Commissioner, I do not want to - the whole issue of the venue has been fully ventilated in these proceedings, in a court of law, fully opposed proceedings. Now if certain parties believe that they are aggrieved, for whatever reason, we feel this venue is accessible to all concerned. The Act does not stipulate or make it mandatory for the venue to be selected to be in Athlone. What the Act does stipulate is that the proceedings, subject to certain exceptions, must be open to the public. Well these proceedings are open to the public. The Commission and all parties concerned, are aware of my client's concerns as to the venue in Athlone, which I do not want to rehash and waste the Commission's time.
Hence, Mr Commissioner, in the light of a Court Order, in the light of the Commission's own decision to hold the hearings here, my client objects to altering the venue. And should the Commission, in the face of a Court Order, in the face of its own decision to select this venue, now unilaterally wish to change this venue, it's our submission, Mr Commissioner, that the Commissioner will be acting grossly improperly and irregularly and in so doing, having knowledge of my client's concern about Athlone, it would in effect unfairly be preventing my client from continuing to participate in these proceedings. This would also be a violation of my client's rights and addition, it is obvious that this could prove extremely, extremely prejudicial to my client.
So, Mr Commissioner, in those circumstances my client does not consent to the altering of the venue, and I've been instructed that all his rights on this issue are reserved, and we would hope that at these hearings this is the last word said, that we can get on with the business at hand, that the Commission's been mandated to do, that's to deal with the amnesty and not the issue of the venue, since it's been decided, more particularly since the Commission we appreciate, has a very limited time span and my client would like to get these proceedings over and done with and participate in them freely and securely and safely. Thank you, Mr Commissioner.
CHAIRPERSON: Does anyone wish to comment. Thank you. Yes, we've noted ...(intervention)
MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, there's just one comment I'd like to make in relation to the change to this particular venue. We all know that the 7th Floor at 106 Adderley Street was definitely not suitable for the amount of legal representatives and so forth, Chairperson, and therefore we got a venue which was suitable and large enough to accommodate all of us, Chairperson. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kahanovitz, you're free to proceed with your questioning.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KAHANOVITZ: (cont)
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr van Zyl, could you please go to page 104 of bundle A, paragraph 45.
CHAIRPERSON: Page 104?
MR KAHANOVITZ: 104, bundle A.
And if you could just read the whole of paragraph 45 into the record.
MR VAN ZYL
"After a few days, Barnard returned to Johannesburg without the Omar project being completed. I received information that Omar had had a heart attack and that he was at home, which had jeopardised the project. Barnard proposed that the project with regard to Omar, be postponed for a few weeks.
I contacted Peaches on the instruction of the Regional Manager, to find out whether he was able to obtain some of Omar's pills and he told me that he would try that. I discussed the matter of the pills with the Regional Manager, in the presence of the Co-ordinator, Nick Botha and Chappie Maree. There was another person present whose name I cannot recall, but who had been previously in a medial regiment of the Defence Force. He was responsible for the obtaining of logistical support. In others words he would assist with the tablets. I mentioned that endeavours would be made to obtain a pill of Omar and then was told by the Regional Manager to hand over the pill to the unknown person who was present. He said that they would manufacture a similar pill which looks exactly like the pill which was given to him and that Omar would die of a heart attack after he had taken it.
The Regional Manager said that he would discuss the matter with the Chairperson, via the Managing, as an approved project had already existed. I received instructions from the Regional Manager to continue with the project and to try and find the tablet. Shortly afterwards, during August of 1989, I received two small white tablets from Peaches. I was informed that those were the tablets that Omar drank for his heart condition.
I, during a cell meeting, gave the tablets to the person attached to the Medical Regiment, in a hotel room. I can't recall who all was present during this meeting."
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now the information that Mr Omar had had a heart attack, where did that information come from?
MR VAN ZYL: Originally from Peaches.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now if you go to the top of page 105, what you say is that you received an order from Staal Burger to contact Peaches, to establish from Peaches if it was possible for Peaches to get hold of Adv Omar's heart pills, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is what is said there, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Is it correct?
MR VAN ZYL: What actually happened is as I have testified yesterday, after I received confirmation, Chairperson, that Minister Omar had had a heart attack and that he would be recuperating at home, Peaches initially came with the proposal that because he had access to the premises of Mr Omar, he could obtain some of these heart pills. And following thereupon I discussed it with Staal and then we planned that we would exchange the tablets with a treated tablet that would cause a heart attack. So the initial proposal came from Peaches. That is not as it is written here, this statement is not exactly as my evidence was yesterday.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, it's not a question that it's not exactly the same, in fact it's very different. Can I ask you to tell me, so that I understand your version correctly, as regards Peaches' involvement in the early phases of planning this operation, was it Peaches who came to you in the first instance and said to you "Mr van Zyl, I can get hold of Adv Omar's heart pills and what I as Peaches suggest, is that you guys manufacture a different pill that's going to cause his death"? Was that all Peaches' idea in the first instance?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot say that it was Peaches' idea. Chairperson, this happened a long time ago. There was a discussion between and Peaches, following on the fact that Minister Omar was at home because of a heart attack and it is quite possible that I may have asked him "Do you have access to the premises of Minister Omar and can you obtain some of his heart pills?" It's possible that he told me this, I can really not recall. The fact of the matter remains that I saw the possibility that we could exchange his heart tablets and I discussed it with Staal Burger and the fact of the matter is that later tablets were handed over to me, which I gave to Peaches, but the finer detail, with all respect, I cannot recall.
MR KAHANOVITZ: It's not fine detail, Mr van Zyl, there are three versions floating around now. As I read your amnesty application it appears that the initiative to go and obtain Mr Omar's heart pills comes from Staal Burger. That's how I read the sentence.
MR VAN ZYL: No, I would say how I read that sentence is that the instruction came from him, but not necessarily the initiative. I think the initiative came between myself and Peaches and my later discussion with Staal, but the instruction to obtain it came from Staal. I think that is the difference there. I refer to an instruction and you are referring to the initiative.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Wouldn't you agree with me that you might know that you have access to laboratories that can manufacture pills that look like heart pills, that can kill people, did you know that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Peaches wouldn't know that.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Right. So not knowing that, it is extremely likely that Peaches would have come up with the idea.
MR VAN ZYL: I say that's improbable, but I cannot exclude it, that he possibly came forward with that proposal, but I do not deny that the proposal may have come from myself.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Kahanovitz, if I could just ask one little question.
Who did Peaches think you were?
MR VAN ZYL: At that stage Peaches, he just knew me under a false name, Thinus de Wet. He did not know who I was working for and that I was indeed attached to the Army or anything to that effect, he had no idea of my true identity as well as where I worked. Chairperson, as I have already testified in my evidence-in-chief, when he was recruited he was recruited and told that we wanted to protect the interests of business, overseas businessmen. So it was not told to him that we were working for the Defence Force and that we were attached to any security organisation.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In fact, Peaches, according to your version, was under the impression that you were doing work for this group of overseas businessmen, so it would never have crossed his mind that you might have access to pills of this nature.
MR VAN ZYL: I agree.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now where did you obtain your knowledge from, that pills of this nature could be manufactured?
MR VAN ZYL: This was during a course that we had completed during January 1989. This was on a Defence Force farm just outside Pretoria, where it was mentioned to us that the organisation has a division, EMLC was the abbreviation, that could provide logistical support to us and that logistical support would have included forms of poison, which was applicable in this regard.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr van Zyl, this isn't poison, this is a sophisticated operation involving the manufacture of tablets that will cause heart attacks in someone that has pre-existing heart problems, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And there's a specific purpose in carrying out the attack in that way. I assume the idea is that no-one will in fact know the victim has been murdered.
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I just want to put it to you that you gave an entirely different version on the question of where the initiative for this plan came from, to the Court in the matter of State vs Barnard, because in that case you said that the initiative for the plan, in all its elements, had been the idea of Peaches. Go to that record at page 1875, starting at line 11.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that bundle G?
MR KAHANOVITZ: Bundle G.
MR VAN ZYL: What is the page reference?
MR KAHANOVITZ: 1875, bundle G.
MR LAX: What line?
MR KAHANOVITZ: The reference is on 1875, line 11 through to 1876, line 3. I will read the relevant portion.
You're asked the following question:
"Is it correct that later possibly other plans were thought about to do something to Mr Omar, this pill which would look like a heart attack which would cause him to die?"
The answer:
"It is so, Your Worship, the proposal came from Peaches, because for me - because he would not have another opportunity to kill Mr Omar by means of the firearm and he put forward a proposal or brought a proposal that since he had access to the house of Omar, he would obtain some of the pills that he uses as medication and that we would exchange it with pills which would either poison him or cause him a heart attack."
Then the question is:
"In this planning, was it Peaches that came forward with this plan?"
"Correct."
Then you're asked whether the CCB has the capability to make such pills and you say that that is indeed so. Then at the top of the following page the question is pertinently put to you:
"Was this tablet manufactured following on Peaches' proposal?"
"Correct."
Now which version is the correct version, the one you gave today or the one you gave the Court in State vs Barnard?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, it's exactly as I testified now. Peaches told me that he had access to the house and because of this we discussed the issue of how we can execute the project. I do not deny that it could have been Peaches' proposal and that I actively participated. I also do not deny that it could have been my proposal and I participated. The fact remains that Peaches and I discussed it, and if you want to interpret it as that I lied in court, that is not so. I cannot recall exactly. It makes sense, I knew that the organisation had the capability of manufacturing tablets which would assist us in this regard. And I do concede that Peaches in all probability, would not have known about this. I do not want to blame Peaches and I do not want to claim to be innocent, it was a joint endeavour of ours to try and execute the plan.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, I don't accept your answer. Your evidence in State vs Barnard was clearly to the effect that the initiative for the plan was that of Peaches. Do you agree with me?
MR VAN ZYL: I think one has to have a look here, he was the person who mentioned to me that he had access to the house of Omar, and because of that we progressed in the discussion of "Because you have access to the house of Omar, can we execute the project with a weapon?" "No, we cannot." And then I could have told him "Can you possibly obtain some of the tablets." I cannot recall that it happened that way, but at the end of the day I say that I deny that I spoke any untruths in court and I deny that that version differs from the version that I gave here yesterday.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, you're obviously not telling the truth in State vs Barnard, if regard is had to your version here. You didn't say to the Court in State vs Barnard, "I can't quite remember whose initiative it was." Correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You clearly told the Court in State vs Barnard, whose initiative it was.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so, but it was not a lie but it's not one hundred percent correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But why is it not a lie, Mr van Zyl?
MR VAN ZYL: Because I have already explain it to you now and unfortunately I cannot explain it any better because you don't want understand what I'm saying.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Because your answer doesn't make sense, that's why I don't want to understand it. You, if you had been in any doubt in State vs Barnard, you wouldn't have said to the Court, in circumstances where you believed as you now say that you do, that's it's highly unlikely that Peaches himself could have come up with this idea of swopping the pills, you wouldn't have told the Court in State vs Barnard, in those circumstances, that it was Peaches' idea.
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I think I've already answered that question, I cannot qualify myself any better than I have.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. You then say you met with Burger, Basson, someone called Nick, with Botha - was Botha at the meeting? Just let's look at the reference again.
MR VAN ZYL: It says
"The Co-ordinator, Wouter Basson, Nick Botha and Chappie Maree and another person whom I did not know, attached to the Medical Regiment."
MR KAHANOVITZ: You're sure Botha was there.
MR VAN ZYL: I believe so, otherwise I would not have put it in the statement. If you're asking me today whether he was, I cannot even recall, I go on what is stated in my statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but you'll recall the general thread of your evidence is that these things work on a need-to-know basis.
MR VAN ZYL: That is true.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So we however have a meeting here discussing a specific project in which Chappie Maree and Kalla Botha are not involved, correct, yet they're attending the meeting to discuss the means of eliminating Adv Omar. That's why I'm just checking with you whether you're sure.
MR VAN ZYL: Once again this is an inference that you are making. As I said, there was a meeting where those persons were present. I under no circumstances say that they were present during the discussion and that they participated in the discussion of the project. We had a cell meeting, we discuss something, everyone is present and then two persons would discuss something with each other and the other persons would be in another room. That is what I refer to here.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no, no, Mr van Zyl, your words are very clear ...(intervention)
MR MARTINI: Mr Commissioner, if Mr Kahanovitz will let the witness finish his answers.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, go to page 105, look what your sentence says
"I discussed the matter of the pills with the Regional Manager, in the presence of ..."
and then you list the names of all these people.
MR VAN ZYL: That is not correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.
CHAIRPERSON: So this statement's not correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, what I am trying to say here is that it is not correct that it was done in the presence of Botha and Chappie Maree and so forth, that was not the practice. When - the statement is incorrect, I would have only discussed it with Staal and the Co-ordinator, and I know that the person from the Medical Regiment was introduced to me and it was said that as soon as I obtain the pills I have to hand it over to him. The only other person that I know of who knew of this project of Omar, with regard to the pills, is Nick, but as far as I know Chappie did not have any knowledge and as far as I know Kalla also didn't know, they were not part of the discussions.
CHAIRPERSON: But would there have been any reason to keep the project secret from Chappie Maree and Kalla Botha, seeing that you were all part of the same organisation and probably all friends, know each other very well? Why hide it?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so, Chairperson, but that was practice. It was also told to us during our training that my projects I should not discuss with my colleagues, even if these were persons whom I had contact with every day. There we also used false names. They wanted to maintain a high level of secrecy and that is what we tried to do. So they did not have knowledge of that.
CHAIRPERSON: Just let me get this clear then, Mr van Zyl, so what you're saying is that there was a meeting where all these people were present, Maree, Botha, Nick, the Co-ordinator etcetera, they were all present, but when you spoke about this particular project the discussion was confined to yourself, Mr Basson was it, the Co-ordinator?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Burger.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, correct.
CHAIRPERSON: The Regional Manager and this person from the medical ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: From the Medical Regiment, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But he's not Nick?
MR VAN ZYL: He's not Nick.
CHAIRPERSON: And who was Nick?
MR VAN ZYL: Nick was also a false name of another person. This was a person, Chairperson, who was identified.
CHAIRPERSON: So he wouldn't be involved in that discussion about the pills.
MR VAN ZYL: He was specifically - with regard to the pills he was part of the discussion because it is the same Nick whom I received the powder from at a later stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So when you were talking about the pills, what happened to Kalla Botha and Chappie Maree? Where they told to put earmuffs on or leave the office and come back, or did you leave the office, what happened with them?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, it is how it happened, either the guys left the room or they must have been in another part of the room where they were talking and we formed a group in another part of the room. This is how we worked. The only thing I am saying here is that the submission in my statement that it was done in the presence of these persons, was not factually correct. If one draws the inference that they knew of it, that inference is incorrect. That they were indeed present during the cell meeting in the same room, that is true, yes. And I have no reason to sit here today and to deny that they were not there if they were there and sat in on the project discussion.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Kahanovitz.
MR LAX: Sorry, before you do.
I'm just a bit puzzled Mr van Zyl, it seems to me that you guys got all this training, you had all the instructions and when it suited you, you just disobeyed them. I'll go back to what you said yesterday. You broke certain rules, you didn't break other rules. You can't even remember as you sit here today, exactly who was present and who wasn't, you can't tell us at all with any degree of certainty, whether this statement in this affidavit is correct or not correct. You have no recollection of it. So I don't understand why you're being so adamant about it. You broke your own rules when it suited you, you didn't break them when it didn't suit you. How can you with any degree of absolute certainty in your heart, tell us that this is exactly what happened on that day, when you can't remember this incident at all. You can't remember this meeting, that's pretty obvious to me.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so, but that is what I testified.
MR LAX: Well then why are you denying that certain things were possible or not denying that certain things were possible?
MR VAN ZYL: What I am saying, Chairperson, is that I deny that - because it was the practice that when I had a cell meeting with the Co-ordinator and the Regional Manager, Chappie was not present, neither was Kalla, and I ...(intervention)
MR LAX: But you can't even remember that you see, you just can't remember it, you don't know whether that's so. And the trouble is you've already conceded that you broke your own rules all the time. There are other instances in your testimony and in all this evidence, where people who shouldn't have been present were present, where people where you had explicit orders not to involve them, you involved them. So how can we with any degree of certainty, rely on what you're saying?
MR VAN ZYL: You have to make that decision.
MR LAX: I'm trying to understand what is it that you can indicate to me that can be convincing. You see, we're dealing with someone like yourself here, who says on the one hand "Well, I broke the rules when it suited me", and there are instances here where you involve other people who had no need to be there at all.
MR VAN ZYL: I hear what you say, but I think that attests to my credibility. I could have sat here today and said I never broke any rules, but I told you on two occasions I did things thing that I was not supposed to do. Do not penalise me for things that I did not do and then - if I broke two rules, then I did not break any more rules, otherwise I would have told you about this. I can tell you with conviction that on the day of the meeting that it was our rules - I don't think Staal would have allowed it and I do not think that the Co-ordinator would have allowed that Chappie and Kalla sat in on a meeting where we discussed the tablets of Omar, where it had nothing to do with them. It based on those rules that I am saying that I can say with certainty that Chap and Kalla were not part of the discussion, but I do know that the other two persons were part of that discussion because I dealt with them at a later stage.
When I received the tablets I handed the tablets over to a person from the Medical Regiment. I received the powder from Nick at the airport, that is why I know that they were involved, but Kalla and Chap were not involved. That is why I can say that with conviction, but I cannot tell you exactly what the hotel room look like at that stage and when I and Staal and the Co-ordinator and the other two persons talked, where Kalla and Chap were. I cannot recall. With all respect, Chairperson, I cannot recall. It's not important for me to know where they were.
MR LAX: The fact of the matter is that but for this statement here at page 105, you wouldn't have any other recollection of this meeting.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, let's list the number of occasions on which this statement is being used as the basis for leading of evidence from you, either in a Commission or in a court of law. It was used in the Harms Commission and you were led on the basis of the statement, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: It was used in the criminal prosecution of Ferdi Barnard and the prosecution there used it as the basis for you evidence, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: They used my Section 29 statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: They also had this statement.
MR VAN ZYL: They did have it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: They didn't have it?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, they did have it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You also gave evidence in the criminal prosecution of Dr Wouter Basson, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: When was that?
MR VAN ZYL: It was approximately three weeks ago, and once again my Section 29 statement was used.
MR KAHANOVITZ: They didn't have this statement?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Sir, that is not what I am saying, I said that they led me from my Section 29 statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In the sense that it was put in front of you while you were giving evidence.
MR VAN ZYL: Exactly.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now what did you tell the Court in the Dr Wouter Basson case, about who was present at this meeting?
MR VAN ZYL: I would have told them exactly what I testified this morning, of the person from the medial regiment, because it was important for them to know who that person was. I cannot identify him. I identified Nick - well, told them of Nick. They identified him themselves. He testified there and he confirmed what I had said. He confirmed that he gave the powder to me later. So what I testified here earlier, that Chap and Kalla were not present, is also what I testified to there.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What's Nick's real name?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know, I only know him as Nick.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But didn't you read the charge sheet in State vs Dr Wouter Basson?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I didn't.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You didn't?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
CHAIRPERSON: There's quite a lot of reading involved there.
MR KAHANOVITZ: According to that charge sheet, Nick's real name is E J Smit ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: That may be, I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What was Nick's role? Wasn't he in charge of finances according to you?
MR VAN ZYL: He was with finances, he was involved with finances as far as I know. What exactly he did I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You had contact with him from time to time while you were in Region 6.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so and I think that if I have to say in the approximate year that I'd been there, I saw him about three times.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you and the gentlemen who are applying for amnesty here, I assume at least some of you had meetings to make a decision as to whether you were going to apply for amnesty or not, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: We naturally decided and that was early in 1990.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Certainly, I think four of you at that time at the same lawyer.
MR VAN ZYL: It was myself, Ferdi, Kalla, Wouter Basson, Staal and Chap.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You all had the same lawyers.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. I assume one of the issues that would have arisen for discussion is that given that this Nick person was also involved in the conspiracy to kill Adv Omar, whether he should apply for amnesty or not. I mean you were all in it together.
MR VAN ZYL: Nick was not part of our group.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Why do you say that?
MR VAN ZYL: Because he was not there.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you saying - oh, because he wasn't a member of Region 6 itself?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I'm saying that Nick was not part of the group that was at the initial legal representative, Piet du Plessis.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, maybe I'm phrasing my question badly. One of the issues I would imagine is, should all the people from the CCB who were involved in this assassination plot apply for amnesty and if so, what are they going to say? One of the issues would be, is Nick going to apply and if so, what is he going to say?
MR VAN ZYL: No, you know, Sir, let me surprise you, the five of us whose names I've just mentioned, did not even have contact with Joe Verster, we did not even have contact with the General at the end of the day. We did not know what they were doing. We did what we felt was right and we followed the instructions of our legal representative, Mr Piet du Plessis at that stage, and that is how it happened.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, it doesn't surprise me that you might not have been in contact with Joe Verster and Gen Webb, but all I'm asking you is, did the issue of Nick come up? I assume your answer is no.
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. And if I ask you why has he not applied for amnesty, you will say "I don't know."
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now were at that stage aware of the existence of the Roodeplaats Laboratory?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Where did you think these pills were coming from?
MR VAN ZYL: I had no idea.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now this person from the Medical Regiment, what does he look like?
MR VAN ZYL: He's about - when I saw him he was about 16/27 years of age, he was tall, brownish hair in a middle path, a thin moustache and light in colour, light complex, about 1,82 metres in length and he was thin.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Is he one of the people who is giving evidence in the Dr Wouter Basson case?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Was he a doctor?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know. As far as I know and from what I've heard, he was related to the Medical Regiment in the Defence Force. Whether he was a doctor, I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm just trying to understand what's Nick doing at this meeting as a financial person.
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know, he was there. I did not invite him to the meeting, I didn't do that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So if I ask Staal Burger, he'll be able to explain that to me.
MR VAN ZYL: Probably, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So you know of no role that Nick was going to play, apart from the fact that at the end of the day he is the man that handed you the powder that was supposed to be sprinkled over the food?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, let me put it this way, that was the role that Nick had played. But Nick could have played another role that had him at the meeting at that specific day that could have had something to do with Staal and him or the Co-ordinator and him, but concerning me, I had no other conversation with him.
CHAIRPERSON: Because the actual acquisition of the pills wouldn't involve payments, would it?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Chairperson, that was part of the structure that had existed and the Co-ordinator knew who to approach to be able to obtain it.
CHAIRPERSON: So he wasn't there in his capacity as a finance man for the acquisition of the pills?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I don't believe so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What did the ...(intervention)
MR LAX: Sorry, before you go.
Normally the Co-ordinator would be the person who would facilitate you receiving that stuff.
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAX: 'Cause that was the case with the limpet mine in the Early Learning Centre.
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now what did the man from the Medical Regiment say at this meeting?
MR VAN ZYL: All I can remember is that the person was introduced to me and then after I'd obtained the pills I would eventually give it to him and I know that I had eventually given it to him at a cell meeting where Staal would also have been present and the Co-ordinator would also have been present there.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You were trying to establish what was possible at that stage, in other words, you wanted to know from the man with technical knowledge, whether "If I get hold of the pills, can a pill of this nature be manufactured?"
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And he said yes.
MR VAN ZYL: The answer was yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And how long was this meeting? Any idea?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know, I can't tell you, probably also an hour, half an hour.
MR KAHANOVITZ: The next thing that happens is you get two small white tablets from Peaches in August 1989, and he tells you that these are the pills that Adv Omar uses, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you ever get feedback as to whether those pills were in fact heart pills?
MR VAN ZYL: I can imagine that it was mentioned to me, but I'm not sure.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No I'm just asking in the light of the trustworthiness of Peaches, he might have given you any pills under the sun.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so. No, I understand, but I imagine that confirmation had been given of this, that it was a prescription for some kind of illness.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now Wouter Basson, this Wouter Basson, denies that he attended this meeting that you've just discussed. Now if you can go to bundle C, page 34. Maybe while Mr Martini's looking for his bundle, I'll just read you the relevant passage. This is an Inquiry under the Truth Commission legislation in terms of Section 29, and Mr Basson ...(intervention)
MR MARTINI: Sorry Mr Kahanovitz, is it bundle B?
MR KAHANOVITZ: C.
CHAIRPERSON: C for Cat. Do you want to use this one?
MR MARTINI: I have a bundle B, which comprises - what page of bundle C?
MR KAHANOVITZ: C.
CHAIRPERSON: Page 34.
MR LAX: Just so you know what you're looking for, it's a transcript of a Section 29 Inquiry.
MR MARTINI: Very well. I don't seem to have a bundle C, Mr Chairman.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.
MR KAHANOVITZ: ... Mr Basson is being asked questions by a Mr Khoisan, about this plan. Mr Khoisan says to him
"To whom did you go to rework those tablets?"
Mr Basson's answer is:
"I wasn't involved, the decision was made and taken further by, I think, Mr Verster. I'm not sure. It was himself and someone else. And the next thing you know, it was available. I myself didn't hand it over to the members of Region 6. I don't know who handed over the tablets. I never saw them and I do not know who handed it over. I do not know that an effort was made to obtain these tablets, and that's all."
Now Mr van Zyl, you'll agree with me if Mr Basson participated in this discussion and he knew that the man from the Medical Regiment was there and what procedure was going to be followed, this evidence must be untrue.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so, but I also have to say that he says in his statement
"I myself didn't hand it over to the members of Region 6."
which is totally correct because I received it. He's referring in this instance to tablets. As far as I know he did not handle it, because as I told you the pills that I received I gave to the person from the Medical Regiment and I received the powder from Nick, I did not get it from the Co-ordinator, and that might be why he would have answered the question like that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, but the essence of what he's saying, he says; "Look, all I know is that an effort was made to obtain these tablets, that's all." Right, that's his final sentence. He goes on to say; "If you ask me about the details, who was involved, I can't tell you anything because all I know is that I think it was taken further by Mr Verster, but I'm not sure. And the next thing you know, it was available. He also says he doesn't know who handed over the tablets.
"I never saw them and I don't know who handed it over."
In other words, he's telling the person who is asking him the question, "Don't ask me for details about this incident, about these pills, because apart from what I'm telling you, I know nothing." Correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I hear what he says and that is why I tell you that I don't find it strange that he would have answered that question like that, because I gave the pills to the unknown person from the Medical Regiment, and that was my evidence. I received the powder from Nick, I never said that I got it from the Co-ordinator. So his statement makes sense to me.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, it doesn't make sense, Mr van Zyl ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Kahanovitz, if you look on page 100, I don't know if this would have any bearing on this present discussion ...
MR KAHANOVITZ: Of which bundle?
CHAIRPERSON: The same one, I mean page 35, sorry, typed page 100, page 35. It says
"MR BASSON: As I told you, I was never involved with the handing over of these chemicals. I was part of the presentation when something like this was asked for, but the obtaining and how it go to the members, that you should ask them in order to clarify this."
Is that something different?
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, the point I'm trying to make, if Mr Basson was at the meeting he would obviously know about Nick and the man from the Medical Regiment and the man from the Medical Regiment was going to go and get the pills manufactured. That's simply the point.
MR LAX: But you see it goes further than that, because they then go on to talk about the failure of the pills and the trying to poison him and that's where the question of chemicals - it's in addition to the re-working of the tablets. If you read it carefully you'll see that's what he's saying. So that's the second phase of the operation, because the fact is that once the - you couldn't get the tablets in the end and then you used a powder instead.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR LAX: And the object of the powder was to poison him. So what's being said here on page 35, is exactly in line with the plan, and what he says in essence is, he knows nothing about it.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR LAX: So even if you're using a strict interpretation, in the previous page he's talking about tablets and he's saying well, he didn't know anything about the tablets, it was a powder. Here he's now saying he knows nothing about the powder either. So the question still stands, in essence, and that is if he says he didn't know anything about the powder, would that be a lie?
MR VAN ZYL: Let me answer it in the following way, Mr Chairperson, and that is that I up to the day, if I remember correctly it was the 13th of September 1989, that I'd received the powder from Nick at a hotel at the airport, at Jo'burg International Airport, up to that day I was still thinking that I would receive pills and it was only there that I had for the first time seen that they were giving me powder in a bottle. So I do not know if Basson had known that there are pills or there is powder or there is no pills and powder, I can't answer that. Only on that day I became aware of the fact that it is powder and not pills.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr van Zyl, it's also rather a strange statement for Mr Basson to be making in general, because we know that his main function was logistics, so one would have expected that if he's involved in logistics and procurement, he would be integrally involved in this process. He's telling us he wasn't, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: In this specific incident regarding the pills, where I gave evidence, I told you what his role was. I just want to mention it to you that even though Wouter had been the Co-ordinator and responsible for obtaining logistic support from contact persons and obtaining for instance, salaries that would have been paid over to us and other supporting instruments, it is also the case that Mr Basson from time to time regularly was absent himself, where he was involved with other projects that I do not know of, but as a result of which he could not get to us a Co-ordinator, and in those cases a person like Nick would for instance keep contact with us as the Co-ordinator.
MR KAHANOVITZ: This man from the Medical Regiment, was he called anything at the meeting?
MR VAN ZYL: He had name, but unfortunately I cannot remember it. It would have been a pseudonym in any case. I saw him on two occasions.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he have a rank? Did you call him Captain or Colonel or ...?
MR VAN ZYL: No, no, Chairperson, we were all working under pseudonyms.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now the charge sheet in the Dr Wouter Basson case refers to a Dr R J Botha, alias Koos, whose job was that of Medical Co-ordinator of the CCB.
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know him. His name does not ring a bell with me.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. You then have a meeting on the 12th of September in Cape Town, and that appears from page 115 of bundle A, paragraph 55, starting on the bottom of page 115, you say
"On Tuesday the 12th of September (and now I'm turning over to page 116) I met Barnard in Cape Town and I wanted to hear how the monitoring of Omar was going. I was told that it was continuing. Later on I met Barnard and Peaches again and Barnard told me that he was finished with the monitoring of Omar and that he would be returning to Jo'burg. On the same day I flew back to Jo'burg.
Later I met Botha and Nick in a hotel at the airport where I gave R10 000 back to Nick. The R10 000 was related to the Omar project. Nick then gave me a white-coloured powder in a small bottle. Nick told me that the powder came from the Regional Manager and that it had to be sprinkled over Omar's food because they could not manufacture the pills. The powder would also give Omar a heart attack. I took it and then went back to the Cape.
On the same day I met Peaches at the DF Malan Airport and I gave him the bottle, with the instruction to sprinkle the content thereof over Omar's food."
Now this meeting with Barnard and Peaches, they're both present at the same meeting, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember, I would have said that yes, they were in all probability both present.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What was explained to Peaches as to what Barnard's role was in the Omar affair? Was Peaches told "This guy's job is to watch you"?
MR VAN ZYL: To together with him help to make new proposals if necessary, so that we can execute the project. In other words, he saw Barnard in a supporting role.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Why were you giving Nick this R10 000 back?
MR VAN ZYL: I was requested to do so, because as I have already testified, as a result of the fact that the then President, PW Botha, then suffered from a heart attack and Mr FW de Klerk had become the new President, our internal projects were all brought to a halt and all funds that were at our disposal, we had to give back to the organisation and this is the reason why I flew up to give him the money back and also to get the powder from him.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Your evidence is entirely contradictory, if all projects were being stopped, how could you be continuing the execution of a project to murder Adv Omar?
MR VAN ZYL: I had permission to continue with that project, from the Regional Manager because it was an authorised project. I think you must understand that no new projects were submitted that could have been executed, no new submissions were made from the 1st of September.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, the evidence that was given at the Harms Commission was something along the following lines, it was said that PW Botha knew about the CCB and their activities, but FW de Klerk didn't, so that when FW de Klerk became the State President, until such time as he was informed, the CCB would not, as far as internal activities were concerned, would not conduct any further internal activities. Was that your understanding?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: This not withstanding, the CCB decides to continue with the project to assassinate an extremely high profile political leader in the Western Cape, how can that possibly make sense?
MR VAN ZYL: That is what I'm telling you, my understanding was that all projects that had been approved up to the 1st of September had to be finalised and that no new project after the 1st of September, would be presented until Mr FW de Klerk was informed of the existence of the CCB.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, just to take a hypothetical scenario, Adv Omar is then killed a week later in circumstances where FW de Klerk knows nothing about the project, how could it possibly help to say "We're stopping all projects but those which have prior approval can continue"? Because the problems for the CCB leadership when called in by FW de Klerk, to explain why this has happened, would be the same. I don't understand your answer.
MR VAN ZYL: No, I think you are insinuating in this case, I mean you are making a hypothetical statement, I do not think that the previous State President or Mr PW Botha was informed about every project and the project relating to Omar. I think he was aware of our existence as a unit, as part of the Defence Force, but the extent to which he was aware of the projects that were handled by us, I cannot say. I hear what you're saying, but I think that question can be answered by the General.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Weren't you worried? They come and tell you "PW is leaving, FW de Klerk is coming in, for this reason we're stopping all projects, however you go ahead with this Omar project", didn't you find that a rather worrying suggestion?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I didn't.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But as I understand your evidence up to now, is that when I asked you about why it is that you thought that you had indemnity as such, was that the people in high places would look after you, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Implying that the regime as it was currently constituted, then under PW Botha, was aware of the kind of activities that you would be engaged in and that people up on top would look after you if you got into trouble.
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you're being told "Something's changed, Botha's gone, de Klerk's in. For this reason we must stop all projects." But you go off and continue with this assassination plot.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You weren't worried at all.
MR VAN ZYL: No, I was just following instructions.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Excuse me?
MR VAN ZYL: I was just following instructions.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you ask questions?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you ask why they're going to be no further projects?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I've just explained to you, because it was said to me that the next State President did not know, or wasn't informed about the existence of the CCB, then I went on leave and then we came back and then there was another period of months that had lapsed where we had to inactive, because they told us that the President had not yet been informed and as a result thereof we were still inactive. So there had been discussions afterwards, at the end of September, the beginning of October.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now we know that on your version after the powder was handed over to Peaches, you allowed him to attempt to sprinkle this powder for approximately a week and then you phoned him and you told him the project's abandoned, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct, that is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: This in circumstances where for months and months you'd been trying to shoot Adv Omar and you'd given several months for that plan to either come to fruition or not, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You go to all this trouble to get this powder manufactured from a chemical laboratory and after a week you pull the plug.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Why did you give it such a short time before abandoning the project?
MR VAN ZYL: I think myself and the Regional Manager were quite frustrated at that stage because the project could not be executed. At that stage I was on leave and I contacted my Regional Manager and I told him that we do not have the capability to execute this project and then I received an instruction from him to tell Peaches that he would have to destroy the weapon and the powder and stop the project. It was a decision we made.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I know it's a decision that you took, but the fact that you, on your version, terminated the project after only approximately a week, did this have something to do with the political changes that were taking place?
MR VAN ZYL: No, it possibly played a role, possibly not, but it was just a decision that we had made.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So you thought ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: What you are insinuating in this case is that I possibly would have acted illegally by giving him the pills because a new President had already been elected, that is not so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm not insinuating that, I believe everything that you were doing all along was unlawful, so it makes no difference. Now you thought that a week was a reasonable time for Peaches to gain access to the Omar household - how was he going to get close enough to Adv Omar's food, to sprinkle this powder?
MR VAN ZYL: I have already testified that according to him he would have known someone who allegedly worked in the house of Omar or was resident in the house, I can't remember.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And did he report back to you from time to time, about how the project was going on?
MR VAN ZYL: I had telephonic contact with him and I do not think any detail was discussed, it was just a matter of the project has not been completed yet, so I would have kept in contact with him.
CHAIRPERSON: Were there instructions regarding the powder, like the amount to be used, how to place it on the food, was it to be cooked in, was it to be in liquid, or ... anything like that, instructions on how to use the powder.
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, they told me that it was a powder, I cannot even tell you how many grams of it there was but there wasn't much of it and it had just to be simply, on one occasion, be sprinkled on top of his food, and that was the instruction and that is exactly how I conveyed it to Peaches.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, this R10 000 that you gave back, that R10 000 was money that you had been given for, for what purpose?
MR VAN ZYL: The R10 000 was part of an original R15 000 which I received on the Omar project, of which R5 000 was paid to Peaches and of which he would have given R2 500 to each of the persons whom he recruited to shoot Omar.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So that money was money that was going to be used on the Omar project for, amongst other things, to pay Peaches, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So if Peaches was going to succeed in killing Omar, then you were going to have to have money to pay him.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But why are you then giving the money back?
MR VAN ZYL: On instructions. I would have obtained it again.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Before also the plan was that Peaches would use two other people so that there would be "'n afsny punt", now the plan is to use Peaches himself, why?
MR VAN ZYL: It was the proposal that was made and it was approved as such. I do not find that strange.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you go back to Johannesburg on the same day and you meet with Kalla Botha and Nick, what is Kalla Botha doing at this meeting?
MR VAN ZYL: If I recall correctly, Kalla also had to return funds and Kalla was the person - at that stage he was in Johannesburg, and he picked me up from the airport and transported me to the hotel where I saw Nick.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now was he present when the white powder was handed over by Nick?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I accept that he was in the room, I accept that. I cannot recall it, but I do know that Kalla will allege that he was involved, because he testified to that effect in the Basson trial.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So if he says he knew about the plan to eliminate Omar, is that correct? Would Botha have known about the plan to eliminate Omar?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know, what I do know is that he testified that he had knowledge of the powder, so to which extent he was familiar with the project I cannot say, I didn't discuss it with him. I think you should ask him that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I want to know what your version is because either he was in the room when the powder was being handed over or he wasn't. If he was in the room, he may well know about the project, he may well have known about the project, if he wasn't in the room, well maybe he doesn't know about the project. What do you have to say?
MR VAN ZYL: I am saying as far as I know, I heard now that Kalla testified in the Wouter Basson matter that he was present when I received the powder from Nick and that he confirmed my version and insofar as his extent of testimony, I cannot comment on that because I didn't discuss it with him.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you hear his evidence at the Wouter Basson case?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Then how do you know that's what he
said?
MR VAN ZYL: I spoke to Adv Torrie Pretorius, he contacted me.
CHAIRPERSON: But he was present in the room when it was handed over? Can you remember that as you sit here today?
MR VAN ZYL: I believe that in all probability that is the case. I cannot say that yes, I can recall him standing on my left and he saw. He was with me in the room when the stuff was given to me, I cannot recall it, according to his version he was involved.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So if Kalla Botha told the Harms Commission that he knew nothing whatsoever about a project to eliminate Dullah Omar, he wouldn't have been telling the truth.
MR VAN ZYL: No, I'm not saying that. I have just told you that as far as I know, Kalla testified that he was present when the powder was given to me. Whether he knew what the reason was and what the purpose was for the powder, I cannot comment on. I think that is a question that in all fairness, you must ask of him. I cannot say whether he speaks the truth or not, I did not tell him anything of the Omar project.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What did Ferdi Barnard say at this meeting where you discussed the powder? Did he think it was a good idea?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Well he was the - as I understand your version, Mr Barnard was being sent to Cape Town because he's a man full of ideas, he's a man good at gathering intelligence, now I assume in that capacity you would have wanted his input.
MR VAN ZYL: It is possible that I may have discussed it with him, I cannot recall. It's possible that he supported me in this regard, I cannot recall.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Who manufactured the powder?
MR VAN ZYL: I have no idea.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now go to page 116 of bundle A, paragraph 56. You say
"I never saw Peaches, Isgak or Barnard thereafter. After a week I contacted Peaches, he informed me that he could not sprinkle the powder over Omar's food. I informed Peaches to destroy the pistol and the powder and to ceased the project on Omar immediately, as previously agreed with the Regional Manager."
Now what discussion did you have with Staal Burger beforehand?
MR VAN ZYL: I had a telephone discussion with him on that specific day and told him that we cannot execute the project, and I proposed that the matter be ceased. He gave me instruction to cease the project and that Peaches should receive instructions to destroy the pistol and powder.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Why did Mr Burger say that he thought the project should be terminated? What was the reason he advanced?
MR VAN ZYL: I proposed to him that the project be ceased because we could not execute it and in light thereof we should cease the project, and he seconded it and he gave me that instruction. I do not know whether there were other reasons that played a role in why he told me this.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you really believe that Peaches would destroy the gun? After all, he had pulled the wool over your eyes relating to the printing press matter and the minibus matter. First of all, why destroy the gun, why not just get it back?
MR VAN ZYL: It was probably part of the way we worked and that was the instruction which I received and I gave him that instruction. I had mixed feelings whether he would destroy it or not, but on one side I would have wanted to believe that he did so.
CHAIRPERSON: I would have thought that the chances of him destroying the gun were absolutely zero.
MR VAN ZYL: I hear what you're saying, as I have said I had mixed feelings.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Kahanovitz.
MR LAX: Sorry, how could you have mixed feelings? I mean here's a man who's a gangster, he's involved in activities, criminal activities and you leave him with a Makarov pistol with a silencer and ammunition, is that totally irresponsible?
MR VAN ZYL: Call it irresponsible, I think today one would say it's irresponsible but at that stage I did not think about it in that way, but that is how it happened and there's nothing I can do about it now, it's water under the bridge.
MR LAX: You see I'm not meaning irresponsible in the sense you're meaning it at this stage, I agree, I didn't even think of that at the time, I'm talking about your cut-off points, I'm talking about your breach of security, these are things that you say were so important to you.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so, but we worked on a basis of integrity and ...(intervention)
MR LAX: But here was a man you knew had no integrity, even on your own version you were worried about him.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so, but that's what I did, what do you want me to say? With all respect, that was the instruction that I gave to him and what happened with that firearm I do not know. And believe me, it is not the only firearm of that origin that is in the Cape, in this vicinity, if it was not destroyed.
MR LAX: No, no, it's just that this was a one with a silencer on it.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR LAX: We've heard that most of those with silencers were generally produced locally, in the sense that the silencers were fitted locally.
MR VAN ZYL: That may be so.
MR LAX: And so, if that one were to be found it would be very easily traced back to you, because these were specially manufactured weapons. We've heard they were - I've listened to many amnesty applications where silenced Makarovs were manufactured in Rebecca Street and distributed all over the place, used by people like Vlakplaas and so on. So it's, you know, we're talking about weapons that were tampered with, that were used in other situations, it wouldn't have been that difficult, given the time-frame we're talking about, 1980/1990, for somebody investigating the matter to know where that weapon came from.
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot dispute that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, after you gave this Makarov to Peaches, weren't you so worried that he might use it for the wrong purpose that one of the reasons you decided to send Ferdi Barnard to Cape Town, was to make sure that Peaches didn't use this Makarov which you'd given to him, for the wrong purposes. You sent Ferdi to Cape Town to make sure that it wasn't used for the wrong purpose.
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know, that may be the case. What I do know is that where I was concerned at some stage about one of my operatives, that they might not have concurred with my instructions, was with the planting of the bomb at the Early Learning Centre and my subsequent involvement there. It may be with regard to the firearm, I cannot recall it now.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Does that statement I've just made to you make any sense, sending Ferdi to Cape Town to watch Peaches to make sure that Peaches doesn't use the Makarov for the wrong purpose?
MR VAN ZYL: I think my primary reason why I sent Ferdi to Cape Town, as I have said, was to ascertain whether the versions that Peaches gave to me as to why he could not execute the project, that that was factually correct. That is the reason why I sent Ferdi down to the Cape.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But was there a secondary reason, the one that I've just mentioned?
MR VAN ZYL: That could have played a role possibly, I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You can't remember. You see, the Court in State vs Barnard was terribly interested about the reasons why Mr Barnard had been sent to Cape Town, because the charge sheet said that the reason Mr Barnard got sent to Cape Town, was to go and assassinate Adv Omar. You were aware of that.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Okay. You on the other hand want to give evidence that that was not the reason why Mr Barnard got sent to Cape Town.
MR VAN ZYL: It's the evidence that I gave here as well.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm aware of that. In the natural course of events you were asked in that trial "Tell us, Mr van Zyl, why did you send Mr Barnard to Cape Town?" And one of the reasons you gave, you said there were two, the one was that he must watch to see what Peaches is doing in general, in relation to getting the plan executed. The other reason that you gave was that you were terribly worried that Peaches was going to use this Makarov for the wrong purpose.
MNR VAN ZYL: "Dit mag wees."
MNR KAHANOVITZ: "Mag wees"?
MNR VAN ZYL: "Ja."
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, the reference is 1870, lines 23 to 30, bundle G.
CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient time for the tea adjournment?
MR KAHANOVITZ: If you'll give me five minutes I can finish the Omar issue.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now just on the question of you telling Peaches that he can get rid of the weapon himself, just let's deal briefly with the extent to which you were aware that he was unreliable. We've already dealt with the kombi and the fact that the money was stolen from you and this happened before you made the phone call to Peaches, to tell him that he must get rid of the Makarov himself, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You say in your own statement that you had told the Regional Director on several occasions, that Peaches was unreliable, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now I'm going to put it to you that you never phoned Peaches to tell him that he must get rid of the Makarov himself, and the reason you never made that phone call was because Peaches never had the Makarov.
MR VAN ZYL: That is not true.
MR KAHANOVITZ: The reason you didn't make the phone call was because it was unnecessary to make the phone call, because Peaches no longer had the Makarov, if he ever indeed had it, the Makarov had been given to Mr Ferdi Barnard, over there, to complete the job.
MR VAN ZYL: I deny that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: The reason why you have such enormous problems explaining the sense of your statement that you just relied on Peaches to destroy it, is that that event never happened. Mr van Zyl, a person like you with your knowledge of Peaches at the time, would never have just phoned up Peaches and said "Peaches, I rely on your integrity in these circumstances, you yourself just get rid of the Makarov." It would never have happened.
MR VAN ZYL: That's exactly what happened.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And the reason you invented that version was because you wanted to create the impression that this gun had been in Peaches' hands and not in Barnard's hands.
MR VAN ZYL: That's entirely untrue.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now the Judge in Mr Barnard's case, found that Mr Barnard had indeed been handed a Makarov with a silencer, where did he get that gun from?
MR VAN ZYL: The Lord only knows, I think you should ask him. He did not get it from me.
MR KAHANOVITZ: He had independent access to Makarovs with silencers.
MR VAN ZYL: It's possible, I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now if you ...(intervention)
MR MARTINI: Sorry Chairperson, is Mr Kahanovitz going to put to my client that the gun which Judge Els allegedly found was in the possession of Mr Barnard, is the same weapon that was in the possession of Peaches? Because it's a misleading statement, to leave it in the air and say the Judge found he was in possession of a Makarov. Mr Lax earlier said he's heard a lot of evidence of numerous of these weapons manufactured, so is Mr Kahanovitz putting, in fairness to the witness, that the Judge in the Barnard case, found that Barnard had the Makarov which Peaches allegedly had in his possession?
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, I'm not.
Now please go to bundle G, page 1868, line 28. I just want to read you a portion of your evidence there. You're asked the following:
"In June of '89, did you regard Peaches as a reliable person, on whom you could depend?"
"Yes, Your Worship, I did regard him as such otherwise I would not have asked him to do the project of Dullah Omar."
And then it said:
"We're talking about June '89."
And then the Judge says to you:
"Yes, but now what happens is three months has already gone by."
And your answer is:
"Your Worship, I still trusted him and in any case I had no-one else that I could use to execute that project for me. Therefore, yes I regarded him as reliable enough at that stage to execute the project."
And then Mr Ackerman says:
"Is it correct that he misled you at various stages before June 1989?"
And then you say:
"Not that I knew of at that stage. I only found out that Peaches had misled me when I was detained in February 1990."
Now that statement is untrue, because you could hardly have only discovered this when you were detained in February 1990 if you told Staal Burger on several occasions prior to your detention that you believed that Peaches was unreliable. Or am I splitting hairs again?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I think what it was about during the period from April, May, June, when I discussed the unreliability of Peaches, it was also about his incapability of functioning productively. As I also testified it was about the fact that we paid him a fixed salary at some stage and I said "Listen we're not ...", or I made a proposal that we do not pay him a fixed salary, we only pay him for work he had completed. So yes, I had a suspicion that Peaches was conniving behind my back and I only had the facts available to me after I spoke to Gakkie during our Section 29 detention, when I received certain information from him. So therefore I would not say that the statement is entirely untrue.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You and Mr Hardien were allowed to have discussions while you were under Section 29 detention?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: The statement
"I only found out that Peaches misled me when I was detained during February 1989."
are you still insisting that's a true statement?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I said factually I can say it was the first time that I became aware of it. Factually.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But that can't be so, Mr van Zyl, apart from the fact that you told Mr Burger on several occasions that you thought he was unreliable. The reason that you thought that was for instance, after the kombi had allegedly been burnt you yourself made independent enquiries, phoned the Athlone Police Station and so on and so forth and at that time came to the conclusion that the wool had probably been pulled over your eyes. Correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So at that stage you, and you've already admitted this earlier on in your evidence yesterday, you came to from the view that these were people not to be trusted because they had misled you.
MR VAN ZYL: That amongst others the case. I think with the kombi instance Ismail was involved and I contacted Peaches to receive confirmation whether the kombi had been set alight, which he gave me. But I think the first time with regard to Peaches, which drew my attention to his unreliability, was when we tested him with the package with the stones which was returned and he had fiddled with the package. That is also in my evidence. And his excuse to me was that he gave it to another person and that the other person had opened it. So therefore at that stage I mistrusted him, but as I have said I had no-one else to use and I regarded him as reliable enough to continue with this project.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, the simple truth of the matter is that it's not that easy to find people who will agree to carry out murders for you, you didn't have anyone else, according to your evidence here, that was available to you at the time, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You didn't trust Peaches at all, but the fact of the matter was that he was the only person besides Mr Barnard, who was available to you at the time and who would be prepared to carry out ...(indistinct), therefore you just had to use him whether you trusted him or not.
MR VAN ZYL: No, at that stage I handled two persons who worked ...(intervention)
MR KAHANOVITZ: Sorry, I left out Mr Hardien's name. I'm terribly sorry.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Gakkie, Isgak. So those were the two persons whom I handled who were known to the organisation of the persons who worked for me. I could only choose between the two of them. Gakkie was already involved in other projects of mine at that stage, so I only had Peaches. And as I've said, yes one does not find these persons around any corner and I was obliged to use his services even though I did not trust him.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you report to Mr Burger that Peaches had become sympathetic towards Mr Omar and it was for that reason that he could no longer be trusted to be involved in a plan to eliminate Mr Omar?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember that, it is possible. I cannot remember.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Why is it possible?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember, it is possible that I said that but I cannot remember.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You must clearly remember what the reasons were for terminating the project.
MR VAN ZYL: Please Sir, it's 12 years ago, I cannot remember it, it was not important to me and even today I do not see it as important, those finer details of discussions that had taken place between Peaches and myself.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, but Mr van Zyl, if Peaches had become sympathetic towards Mr Omar and for that reason he could no longer be used, you would hardly have left the Makarov in his possession.
MR VAN ZYL: I received an instruction that Peaches had to be told to destroy the Makarov and the powder and ...(intervention)
MR KAHANOVITZ: Sorry, did that order come from Mr Burger?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. So if Mr Burger thought that Peaches had become sympathetic towards Mr Omar, he would hardly have told you that you can leave the Makarov in Peaches' possession.
MR VAN ZYL: You can ask him that yourself.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Answer the question, it's a logical proposition.
MR VAN ZYL: The fact of the matter is what is logical for me unfortunately is not logical for you and vice versa. The fact of the matter is that that is how it happened and you want me to answer the questions or give you the answers that you want. I unfortunately cannot do this, I can only testify about what I can remember and what I experienced. I really cannot go any wider than that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Just for purposes of the record go to page 148 of bundle A ...(intervention)
MR MARTINI: Mr Commissioner, I think this is a long five minutes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, this is the very last question. That's Mr Burger's application for amnesty. He says, page 148
"The plan to eliminate Mr Omar could eventually not be executed due to the fact that the Coloured person who should have helped Mr van Zyl in this regard, later appeared to be unreliable and also sympathetic towards Mr Omar. Indeed this person, according to information that we had received, had taken no steps to execute the plan to eliminate Mr Omar."
Is that statement correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment on that, but in terms of what I experienced, this statement is not correct. But this is a statement that you will have to make to Mr Burger.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you, Mr Chairman, this will be an appropriate time.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We'll take a 20 minute adjournment for tea.
MS COLERIDGE: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
ABRAM VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Kahanovitz.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KAHANOVITZ: (cont)
Mr van Zyl, we know that one of the methods that could be used by the CCB was intimidation, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: After Adv Omar had his heart attack, apart from the steps that you've referred to already in relation to the plan to eliminate him, was any plan set in motion to intimidate him or any members of his family?
MR VAN ZYL: Not that I know of.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you aware of the existence of a plan to kidnap the Omar's daughter?
MR VAN ZYL: Not at all.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So if such a plan existed you would not know if it was part of the CCB strategy, you can only say that as far as you know in relation to Region 6 and your activities, you were not aware of that plan?
MR VAN ZYL: I was not aware of it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just on that Mr Kahanovitz.
If there was such a plan would you not be upset that you were unaware of it, seeing that the Omar project was your project as such? Wouldn't you expect ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: Let me put it this way, Mr Chairperson, today is the first time that I've ever heard of such a thing. If you ask me today whether I would have been upset, no I would not have been upset about it. I'm glad that I'm finished with the things of 1989, so no.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Kahanovitz, that plan, was it at that time?
MR KAHANOVITZ: It was shortly after Adv Omar had his heart attack that information was received of a plan to kidnap his daughter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now in 1989, what was the average monthly turnover at Incom Investigations?
MR VAN ZYL: I can't say, maybe in the region of R2-3 000 a month.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did it not increase at all as time progressed? During the course of 1989.
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Because your version has been that you got to a certain point where the income that you were earning from the investigation agency was such that you could afford to dispense with your CCB activities.
MR VAN ZYL: I think it was more a case of me seeing the potential in the business that my salary could be covered. At that stage I did have one person working for me, Ben van Zyl, and his salary was paid from the business. That was the income. You must remember that after that, late in October I resigned, and in November I was actively busy in the business. December which was a holiday period. January/February I was arrested and then everything came to a halt. So it was not a good business at that stage.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now did - just to remind the Committee, Incom was the name of the investigation agency that you started at the time, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: How many bank accounts were you operating at that time?
MR VAN ZYL: One.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Your personal account and your business account was the same account.
MR VAN ZYL: I think it was too different accounts.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Right. At what bank was your personal account?
MR VAN ZYL: At ABSA bank, if I'm not mistaken.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Maybe?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it could be. Or Standard Bank, I don't know. I can tell you where I am now and how many accounts I have. It is 12 years ago, it's irrelevant. I don't know where it was.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You can't remember where you banked. And Incom?
MR VAN ZYL: The same thing, maybe at ABSA or maybe at Standard.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So it's one of the two.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What branches?
MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, I object to this. What is the relevance of this question?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz can tell us.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, there's evidence about money, money that was received and for what purpose it may or my not have been used for and also it relates to Mr van Zyl's personal gain from his activities in the CCB, and the question in the Act as to the person's motive. If we can get clear evidence about how much money he was making from his sideline while he was in the CCB, that might be useful just to get a sense of what the business' turnover was.
MR MARTINI: But he's given the turnover Mr Commissioner, R2-3 000 per month. He's given the explanation and he says then it was Xmas, then he was arrested in January and February, so he's given the answer.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, it's always very useful to test what a witness says against the actual documents. I don't need to accept what he says.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but do you think the bank would give you information about what the state of the account was 12 years ago?
MR KAHANOVITZ: The TRC could get that information if they wanted it, or we could ask for a subpoena. I'm just trying first to establish where those accounts area, we can then make a decision as to whether we want to or need to subpoena them.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you.
Okay, you can remember that you were at ABSA or Standard Bank, I assume you can remember which branch you banked at.
MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember that either.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You can't. No, but Mr van Zyl, that can't possibly be so.
MR VAN ZYL: Many things are possible and that's also possible. Go and look for it.
CHAIRPERSON: Would it have been in Johannesburg?
MR VAN ZYL: It is in Jo'burg, Mr Chairperson.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But I assume you remember - most people could remember, when I used to the bank I used to go to such and such a place. I remember it was in that street in that suburb. Most people could tell you that about facts relating to 20 years ago in their life.
MR VAN ZYL: Unfortunately I am not one of those people, Mr Chairperson. I can tell you where my current bank accounts are, I can tell you where it's been for the past 10 years. Where it was at that stage, I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you have an overseas account then?
MR VAN ZYL: Not at all.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you have one now?
MR VAN ZYL: I do.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you recall how often you made deposits into the Incom account?
MR VAN ZYL: No idea, Mr Chairperson. I must just say that no money that I received from the Defence Force was ever deposited into that account, but no money.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Which account?
MR VAN ZYL: In the Incom account.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And your personal account?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, because that was part of my salary.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now dealing with the monkey foetus incident, do I understand your evidence to be that this was a once off event and not part of a programme of Region 6 or CCB activities directed against Bishop Tutu?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, my evidence was that I received specific instructions from the Regional Manager, to take the monkey foetus to Cape Town, where it would be hung up in the garden of Bishop Tutu. My evidence was further that I did no "aanbieding" in this regard, it was an instruction that I followed. What the aim of it was, I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: As you sit here now, do I understand your view to be that you can't really work out the sense of that plan, in fact it seems a bit stupid, but you agreed to go along with it because these were your orders?
MR VAN ZYL: I gave evidence about this during the Basson matter and I did not see it as a joke. You're telling me that I thought it was stupid. I do not see it as a joke, I do not see it as stupid, it was an instruction that I received, it was a foetus that I received and I executed the instruction. It is as simple as that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In other words you thought it made sense? The understood the logic of the plan.
MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, the witness has answered, but I think this is an appropriate time, I do not want to continuously object. I thought that these hearings have been called for on the acts of amnesty applied for in respect of conspiracy on Minister Omar, conspiracy to murder Evans and the Early Learning Centre. I thought the Commission has ruled that the application in relation to the foetus is going to be dealt with in chambers.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, might I refresh Mr Martini's memory. When this issue came up with Col Verster it was debated in that context and questions were allowed insofar as is relevant to the whole nature of the application that's before you, insofar as it's relevant to credibility. And I'd like to proceed on that basis.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you.
Mr van Zyl, I'm not asking you whether you thought it was a joke, I'm asking you whether you thought the plan made any sense to you.
MR VAN ZYL: The instruction that I received was executed by me, to a degree it was a low risk instruction. How can I put it to you, an instruction probably makes sense to you. The fact that I did not know what - if there had been an aim behind the instruction of the monkey foetus and what this aim was, does not necessarily make is senseless to me.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, do you agree with me, not every day in one's life people come and tell you that you must go and hang a monkey foetus in someone's tree and that you must knock certain nails that have been treated by a witch-doctor down the side of their driveway. It's the kind of thing that people think "If you're asking me to do this, why must I do it, does it have a purpose?" Did those thoughts cross your mind at the time?
MR VAN ZYL: It did.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And what did you think to yourself, did you think there are some brilliant people up in Pretoria who've come up with a fantastic scheme, or did you think this doesn't make any sense to me? What did you think?
MR VAN ZYL: My impressions were that it was possibly a phase of a project, but I received no information or gathered no information regarding this and I didn't ask anyone about it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What do you think as you sit here today?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know what to think.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You don't know what to think. You can't express an opinion, whether it was a stupid plan, an intelligent plan, you've got no opinion.
MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, he said he didn't know what the plan was behind it. He says he got an instruction to hang the foetus, he says he has no knowledge of what the plan was, whether it was initiating some sort of other plan, so how can he express an opinion?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he said that he can't, he hasn't got an opinion on it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you agree that the purpose of the plan was to intimidate Bishop Tutu?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you agree that intimidation is a crime?
MR VAN ZYL: It could be.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You obviously discussed the nature of the plan with Ferdie Barnard because you brought him in to assist.
MR VAN ZYL: I mentioned to Ferdie Barnard that I wanted him to accompany me, that we had to hand the monkey foetus and I asked him to put the nails in the driveway, but I did not tell him what the aim of the exercise was because I didn't know what it was. That is the only thing that I discussed with him, that he should accompany me and that he should help me.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Can you think of any motive that Mr Barnard might have to tell lies about what you told him in relation to the monkey foetus project.
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know what he said.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no, I'm not asking you if you know what he said, I'm asking you can you think of any motive that he would have to tell lies about what you told him in relation to the purpose of this project.
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot that there was any motive, but I do not know what he said.
MR KAHANOVITZ: 'Cause you want to wait and see what he says.
MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, surely he must either put what the witness is going to say, how can this be a fair question to the witness? We don't know what Mr Barnard is going to say. Either Mr Kahanovitz must put it to him and say "Do you agree with it, is it a lie?" Not just leave it in the air.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, I'm putting it like that for an obvious reason, this witness waits to see what the person says and then he tells you why it is that it's said in that way. So I want to know before I put it to him what Mr Barnard says, whether Mr Barnard has any reason to tell lies about that event.
MR MARTINI: Well that's an unfair question, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: ... what he can say about what Mr Barnard thinks, but I also can't on the other hand see any harm in answering the question.
MR LAX: Perhaps you could put the question in a different way. "Did Barnard have any reason to lie about you? Was your relationship bad?"
MR VAN ZYL: No, I don't believe so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In fact, Mr van Zyl, you'd gone out of your way as I understand it, to help Mr Barnard at the time that he was in need of financial assistance. He needed work. He'd come to you and he'd told you that he was down on his luck and he needed work.
MR VAN ZYL: He helped me, and I gave evidence in this regard yesterday.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no, but what you haven't testified about was the fact that Mr Barnard needed money at the time, that was one of the reasons why he was willing to help you.
MR VAN ZYL: No, what I said was that Mr Barnard had offered his services to me as a result of his intelligence contacts he had and that he offered me his services because he was related to the CCB in an inactive basis until he was going to work outside the country the next year. He didn't come to me and say to me "Listen, I'm going to work for you and you must pay me R5 000 a month", or can I do it, that was not the arrangement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, what happened Mr van Zyl, was that Mr Barnard wanted to work for the CCB, Mr Verster did not want to give him a job after his probation period expired, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot give evidence regarding this, I think you'll have to ask Mr Barnard who he worked for in the CCB, other than myself or Mr Verster.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Barnard therefore didn't have a proper income.
MR VAN ZYL: I also cannot give evidence relating to this.
CHAIRPERSON: Just one small point. Why in this particular incident did you not make use of cut-off people? Did you yourself have to go to the garden and hang this foetus and put the nails in, whereas we've heard in relation to the Omar project, that you were very particular about using cut-off people, whereas here you, although it wasn't, from what I gather, your own project, but you an operative were being used directly.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I also used Peaches' services that particular evening and I think it's as a result of the fact - well, I think it is because it was a low risk project that I received the instruction to do it myself.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, Mr Barnard made a first statement while he was in detention on the 22nd of November 1989, okay. He then made a second statement on the 6th of December 1989, and that statement starts at page 82 of bundle B. What he says in that second statement is that he wishes to come clean about certain untruths that were contained in the first statement and he then goes on to say the following at page 93, about your and his involvement in this project. In the middle of the page he says that you asked him to come to Cape Town to hang up this monkey foetus, that you went - that you and he and a Coloured person went at 2 o'clock in the morning to Bishops Court to hang up the monkey foetus, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is not factually precisely correct. At that stage Ferdie was already down in Cape Town, he did not accompany me to Cape Town, that I did ask him and that Peaches was involved and another person who was involved, an unknown person, that is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Didn't Staal Burger also come down to Cape Town for this project?
MR VAN ZYL: He was supposed to come but he did not come.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Then he says - and now he's referring to his earlier statement, he says
"The information regarding the five steps that would have been followed that I mentioned in my first statement, I heard from Slang and not from Dirk. The identity kit of Dirk that I set up was false and such a person does not exist in the organisation. Once again I did it to protect Slang."
Now he goes on to say:
"Slang knew nothing about the first two steps of said five point plan but he mentioned to me that a hyena would the next step and that Trevor Tutu would be killed by means of a witch-doctor poisoning. It was only mentioned to him and as was the case with the first two steps, he would not be involved in the last two steps. I suspect that Staal unlawfully informed him about this, seeing as it was not the policy of the organisation to inform a person so completely."
So, just let's summarise. He said that he lied in his earlier statement in order to protect you, you can't comment on that. He says however that you told him about a five point project of which the hanging of the monkey foetus was the third step. The fourth step would be the hyena and the fifth step would be to poison Trevor Tutu. Now is that true?
MR VAN ZYL: It's news to me, it's the first time I hear this.
MR KAHANOVITZ: It can't be the first time that you heard it, because ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: Believe me when I tell you it's the first time that I hear about the hyena and Trevor Tutu that had to be poisoned etcetera. It's absolute news to me.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Weren't you here during the proceedings when we ran for a week last time?
MR VAN ZYL: I was.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But Joe Verster was cross-examined on this, so you must have heard about it.
MR VAN ZYL: Not that I can remember, not regarding the hyena and Trevor Tutu.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So if Ferdi Barnard says you told him about a five point plan, he's lying.
MR VAN ZYL: Absolutely.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Can you think of any good reason why Ferdi Barnard would make this up?
MR VAN ZYL: Sir, you know the circumstances under which Section 29 statements are made and I believe that you have defended many people in the past, where you proved that Section 29 statements were made under force and it's probably for the same reason that he made such untruths in his statement, but I in my life have never prejudiced Ferdi or harmed him or caused him to be vindictive towards me. So I cannot tell you he had a good reason to do it, other than it being a lie.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Isn't it so that such a plan indeed existed and that the case against Dr Wouter Basson is proceeding on the basis that there is indeed evidence about the existence of this plan? It's not something that Mr Barnard invented.
MR VAN ZYL: No, I cannot comment on what the reason is for the charge against Dr Basson regarding the monkey. I'm telling you that I do not know of any five point plan regarding this project. I was not involved in the previous plans and also not the later plans, all that was asked of me is what I've given evidence to and if Mr Barnard has further knowledge, then it is his right to give evidence regarding this.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You'll agree with me Mr Barnard would need to have a fantastic imagination to have invented this concept of the hyena and the poisoning of Trevor Tutu.
MR VAN ZYL: I don't think he is the only one with such an imagination.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Would you not agree with me that the five point plan makes more sense than that hanging of the monkey foetus, seen in isolation? Wasn't it the plan that the - it was hoped that when Mr Tutu, Trevor Tutu was murdered, the police investigation would reveal that black people with traditional beliefs had been targeting Tutu and then the blame for what had happened to him could be placed on these people and not on the State?
MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, it's another unfair question, he asked my client "Wasn't this the plan"? My client has told this Commission, he says he has no knowledge of a five point plan.
CHAIRPERSON: How relevant to us is his opinion? Can't you deal with this in argument?
MR KAHANOVITZ: Well it's relevant in the sense that at the end of the day we're going to argue that it wasn't a single incident in isolation and we're also going to argue that he's not telling the truth about his knowledge of the existence of the five point plan and we're going to argue that it's a far more logical and plausible inference to be drawn that such plan existed, and I'm putting to him the reason why we're going to say that, for his comment.
MR MARTINI: But he's testified Mr Chairperson, he says "I have no knowledge of a five point plan", so how can you ask him to express an opinion on a plan which he already says "I have not knowledge of"?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you're asking him to express an opinion on something that he says he's got no knowledge of. It's just in relation to this particular question, I'm not preventing you from arguing ...(intervention)
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, you can put a hypothetics to a witness on the basis of what you intend to argue, for his comment and he can say "I think you're talking nonsense" or he can say "I think ..." He can say "I've told you I don't think there's a five point plan, but I agree with you that it doesn't seem to make sense that this monkey foetus would be hung up in isolation." ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but then he can also say "I don't agree with you", and whatever the answer is, isn't going to weaken your argument at the end of the day, so it's sort of irrelevant. And time is of the essence here.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.
Let's deal with the project against Gavin Evans. Can you go to page 117, paragraph 58.
MR MARTINI: Bundle A?
MR KAHANOVITZ: Bundle A.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what page was that, Mr Kahanovitz?
MR KAHANOVITZ: 117, paragraph 58, and could I ask Mr van Zyl just to read paragraph 58 into the record.
MR VAN ZYL
"During March 1989, myself, the Regional Manager and Maree, met in a flat in Jo'burg and I was told that there was an in-house held on a project that would involved the elimination of a man by the name of Gavin Evans. He would be robbed at knife-point and I was told to organise with Peaches to come to Jo'burg from the Cape and also to bring a person with him, in order to execute the project. Peaches came to Jo'burg and I spoke to him in a hotel and I told him that Evans would be the target of the project. The project was not my project, but the project of Maree, and he continued with the project. I gave Peaches R2 000 in cash to cover their costs. It was agreed that Peaches would receive R5 000 to execute the project. Later it appeared that the information regarding the address of Evans was not correct and that he could not be found. I conveyed this to the Managing Director and he said that the project could not continue. The project was then halted."
MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you still of the view that your intended target name was Michael Evans?
MR VAN ZYL: Michael Gavin Evans, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you aware that Mr Evans, Gavin Evans has a brother called Michael Evans?
MR VAN ZYL: It could be.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm just trying to work out who it was that you wanted to kill, because Michael Evans and Gavin Evans were both political activists at the time, were both involved in End Conscription Campaign activities and so on and so forth. I just want to know from you ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Kahanovitz, is there a person called Michael Gavin Evans? Is Michael's middle name Gavin perhaps? Thank you.
MR MARTINI: Well how do we test this, Mr Chairperson, do we accept Mr Kahanovitz's word that this is the - is he going to call the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: He's representing the family.
MR KAHANOVITZ: If it's necessary I'll call a witness.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm sure we can accept - I mean you are representing the family, so ...(intervention)
MR KAHANOVITZ: Well if Mr Martini has any doubt, I would be happy to call Michael Evans ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think that will be necessary.
MR KAHANOVITZ: He's sitting over there.
CHAIRPERSON: But Michael Evans and Gavin Evans are two brothers and there's no Michael Gavin Evans?
MR KAHANOVITZ: His name is Michael John Reid Evans and Gavin's second name is - sorry, it's Gavin Mark Reid Evans and Michael John Evans.
CHAIRPERSON: Reid being the family name?
MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes.
MR MARTINI: So I was correct in possibly not accepting Mr Kahanovitz's version.
MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, with a respect, the hilarity that Mr Martini attempts to bring into this proceeding from time to time, is very hurtful to our clients. We have heard about jokes, but we don't need any jokes when the identity of the would-be deceased is being discussed, and I would appeal to him through you, to please stop trying to introduce humour into the proceedings - of that nature.
MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, that was not humour, versions are being put to a witness and we're entitled to test it. It was certainly not humour, and we've just established that Mr Kahanovitz did not exactly know his client's names, he had to take an instruction. This was certainly not humour and I'd ask Mr Bizos once again to refrain from making these emotive inflammatory statements. My client is entitled to accept that when he's cross-examined, that what's put to him is correct. That's all we tested.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well we've heard - we won't make humour of serious matters and also if we can cut out on the personal attacks here.
So Mr van Zyl, when you write in your statement here "Michael Gavin Evans", where did you get that from?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, those are the names that I could remember, Michael Gavin Evans, but maybe to clear up the identity of the person that we worked on, at a stage he lived, I think they would call it the Troyeville area, and he was a journalist working at a newspaper company. Maybe the witness that was here just now could say that it was him, or whether it was his brother.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Right Mr van Zyl, are you prepared to accept for purposes of these proceedings, that your intended target was one, Gavin Evans and not one, Michael Evans?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And that insofar as your statement refers to a target by the name of Michael Gavin Evans, it is incorrect.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now at this meeting that you attended where the project was discussed, the only people present, if I understand your statement, is yourself, Staal Burger and Chappie Maree.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now did you present a written "voorstudie" concerning the method that would be used to eliminate Evans?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Why not?
MR VAN ZYL: Because it was said to me that I just had to execute the project, I just had to get Peaches and a second person to come to Jo'burg so that they could execute the project. The project had already been presented and as I understood it, it was Chap Maree's project and I just had to give execution to it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did Chappie Maree prepare a "voorstudie", in which it was said that gangsters that work with Slang van Zyl, will be used to carry out the murder?
MR VAN ZYL: I assume so, although I was not present during that presentation.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but did he come to you before he made the presentation and say to you "Excuse me Slang, but will it be possible to use your guys from Cape Town and bring them up to kill this guy"?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So he just put it into the "voorstudie" off his own bat.
MR VAN ZYL: If he did it like that. I was not present during his preliminary study, so I cannot comment on it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Isn't it so that this project was in fact taken away from Chappie Maree and was given to you because Maree was being sent to work on a project outside of South Africa?
MR VAN ZYL: I have no knowledge of it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: If it had happened you would have knowledge of that because what would have been said to you by Staal Burger, was "Mr van Zyl, can you please take over this project, it's now your responsibility because Mr Maree has to work on a project outside of South Africa?" Correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, what I can remember of this incident is that Chap did the presentation, but he did not have people who could give execution to this project. At that stage I was the only person in Region 6, who had already recruited people so that projects could be executed and this was why I was asked to make my people available.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr van Zyl, your version throughout in relation to this incident, has been that "This was Mr Maree's project, it was not my project."
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: "My only role was that I was a cog in the machine, in the sense that I was asked to make available the people that I had in Cape Town, to carry out the job."
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Which is a very different version to one which says that the project was in fact taken away from Maree and given to you.
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know where you get this version from, because this is not what I said.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I know it's not what you said, but I'm putting to you that that is a version and I'm asking if that is a version, is it an untrue version?
MR VAN ZYL: According to my knowledge I do not know about it, so I would say that it is an untrue version.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: You would have known if you were made in charge of the project, surely.
MR VAN ZYL: Certainly.
CHAIRPERSON: And what you're telling us is that as far as you're concerned you were just merely a facilitator, in the sense of providing people who had recruited, to assist Chappie Maree in his project.
MR VAN ZYL: Absolutely correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Can I ask you then to look at Staal Burger's amnesty application at page 144 of bundle A. Now maybe we should just start at the bottom of page 143, under the heading "The Gavin Evans Incident". It says that Gavin Evans came under the attention of the CCB, and for that reason it was decided to monitor him to see if he was involved in activities which undermined the security of the State, correct? That's what he says.
MR VAN ZYL: I read it like that, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: He then says one of the members of Region 6 received an order to monitor Evans, and obtained his details concerning his home and work address, but before he could go over to monitoring him, it was decided to send him to a foreign country to be involved in another project. Now your version is certainly at the initial stages this was Chappie Maree's project.
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: We can infer, although Staal Burger doesn't mention the name of who the member was, that to the best of your knowledge the first person who was instructed to deal with Evans in Region 6, was Maree.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So that the member of Region 6 who's being referred to there in the first instance, is Chappie Maree.
MR VAN ZYL: I believe so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Right. What he goes on to say is the following
"Hereafter the project was handed over to another member of Region 6, to be further dealt with."
Now the only person that we know who had other dealings with this project, is you.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So we can infer that the person who he's saying that the project was handed over to, was you.
MR VAN ZYL: I agree.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now Mr Maree also says that you're not telling the truth about this project. If we go to page 29 of the bundle, volume A, it's his amnesty application, if you could just read paragraph 4 and 5 of his statement.
MR VAN ZYL
"During approximately March of 1989, I received in instruction to monitor Mr Gavin Evans, in order to determine whether he was involved in undermining activities against the State. I was aware that if I could find any proof which indicated that Evans was indeed involved in undermining activities against the State, possible action would be taken against him and that such action could be of a violent nature and could lead to his elimination. I however never received any instruction to take any steps with regard to the possible violent action against Gavin Evans. Before I could execute my instruction to monitor Gavin Evans, I received instructions to execute a project outside South Africa and the Gavin Evans project was taken away from me."
Paragraph 5:
"I later heard that one, Abram, Slang, testified before the Harms Commission that plans had indeed been made for the elimination of Mr Gavin Evans. I was not involved in the making of any such plans or any attempt to execute such plans."
MR KAHANOVITZ: ...(inaudible) your version and his are entirely contradictory, in the sense that you say that Chappie Maree was in charge of a project involving the elimination of Gavin Evans, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So if he says he was never involved in the framing of any plans to murder Gavin Evans, he's not telling the truth.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But you will notice that both Chappie Maree and Staal Burger are in agreement that the project was handed on to you and that the reason the project was handed on to you was because Mr Maree had to become involved in a foreign project.
MR VAN ZYL: That is there versions, it may be so. I already said how I became involved and what my role was.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And they are two out of the three people who were present at that meeting.
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Can you think of any reason why they would want to invent a version saying that the project was handed on to you?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know, they say the project was handed over to me, they never said that I did a pre-study in these statements, according to what I can see. What they meant by that you'll have to ask Mr Burger and Mr Maree, then we will hear.
CHAIRPERSON: Just on this one - sorry, if I may put something else to him.
On page 145, Mr van Zyl, it says, talking about the Gavin Evans project, this is Mr Burger's application:
"A pre-study was then done with the aim of executing Mr Gavin Evans' elimination and the study was done by Abram van Zyl and was submitted for approval."
MR VAN ZYL: I see that, I deny that I did any pre-study on Evans.
CHAIRPERSON: Or that you made any presentation of any pre-study at all?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr van Zyl, you know what we've heard up to now is that the person who would be involved in the execution of the project, would be integrally involved in the preparation of the pre-study. Because you would be the man who would know, 'look I've got these guys from the Cape who I can use, I suggest, given their capabilities, that it be done in such and such a way, at such and such a place, at such and such a time'.
MR VAN ZYL: I agree with you entirely.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you agree with me that even though it's logical, the truth of the fact is you say that it never happened in that way?
MR VAN ZYL: That's exactly so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Was any preparatory study done concerning Evans, that you're aware of, as to time, place and method?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Well what was said to you at the
meeting?
MR VAN ZYL: Well at the meeting it was told to me that there was already an approved project for the elimination of Evans, that he had to be killed with a knife so that it appears to be a robbery. His residential address was given to me, and that was it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now the amount that was going to be paid to the murderers, was R5 000, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Which is one third of the amount that had been allocated to be paid to all those involved in the murder of Dullah Omar, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Was this because there was less risk involved or because Mr Evans was a less important figure than Mr Omar?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment on that, I would believe that Mr Evans did not have such a high profile, it's clear that he did not have such a high profile as Mr Omar, but I did not decide on the amount of R5 000.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you made an earlier statement concerning this event, which is materially different, I just want to refer you to that. If you can go please to page 58 of bundle B, paragraph 4. What you said there is the following
"Michael Gavin Evans was a member of the ECCFFF and other radical bodies. Gordon and Ferdi worked on the person just to obtain information. The project was jeopardised when security placed limitations on him."
MR VAN ZYL: I read that, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now that's false.
MR VAN ZYL: Absolutely.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Would you care to comment on why you made that false statement under oath?
MR VAN ZYL: I would just like to read the rest of the paragraph.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Sure.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you need the rest read into the record or not, or are you going to read it later, Mr Kahanovitz?
MR KAHANOVITZ: I don't need the rest read, but I'm open to ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you can read it, Mr van Zyl.
MR VAN ZYL: That paragraph's entirely false. It was done under Section 29 and that's all I can say.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And that's after telling the Committee yesterday that apart from the errors that you'd pointed out, everything else in these statements was a hundred percent correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not think that this is the main statement I made and to which I had referred, I think this is one of the brief statement which was made at a later stage, maybe right at the beginning.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Oh, are you now saying that when you gave that answer yesterday, you weren't referring to this statement?
MR VAN ZYL: To my main Section 29 statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, Mr van Zyl, I asked you - we were talking about the statements that you made and I made it very clear which pages I was referring to in the bundle.
MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, that's not correct, when we ended last time my client was asked to compare his Section 29 statement, and I even noted an objection for this very reason, I said this would be an ambush to say well, go refresh your memory and then he's going to say well, you assured us it's all correct, now it wasn't correct. That was the very objection I raised. His statement which my client said he read was his main Section 29 statement. Now maybe there was method in my madness to suggest to Mr Kahanovitz to go through the statements issuably in order to avoid this dispute.
CHAIRPERSON: So what statement are we looking at here? Which statement is this that begins at page 47? Is this the main Section 29 statement?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Chairperson, this ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Is this a secondary Section 29 statement?
MR VAN ZYL: If I am not mistaken, this statement was a brief statement that was first taken on the 21/2, it was taken after my chief statement, and I refer to my chief statement which went from page 11 to page 45. My Section 29 statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, can I just short circuit this, because before we broke up on the previous occasion the record will show that I referred Mr van Zyl to three statements that he'd made. I then asked him whether any facts contained in any of those statements, were false. Mr Martini raised an objection at the time and the arrangement was that Mr van Zyl would return on a subsequent occasion and then point out which portions of the record - sorry, not of the record, which portions of the statements were false or incorrect. The word plural was used, the record will reflect - when the plural word statement was used, the record will reflect when we started off yesterday the plural was used on the previous occasion. He was also asked on the previous occasion
"Have you read these statements?"
And he said:
"I have read these statements hundreds of times."
Can we just get a version maybe from Mr van Zyl at this stage.
Are you saying that if I had referred you to the statement in the plural, then you would have come and told the Commission that the paragraph you've just read was untrue?
MR VAN ZYL: Definitely, because I was looking at my Section 29 statement, referring to pages 11 up page 46 or 47, and I would like to refer you to paragraph 44 on page 27. In my main Section 29 statement that I made is exactly what I testified here.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So are you suggesting that when you left on the previous occasion with a view to coming back here and pointing out any errors in your statements, you and your lawyer only looked at that one statement?
MR VAN ZYL: I personally only looked at this statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did your lawyer not come to you and say "Mr van Zyl, you must look at pages so and so to so and so"?
MR VAN ZYL: No, he did not.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Won't you look at what you told the Court about those three statements in State vs Barnard. Please go to bundle G, page 1838. You're asked on the tope of the page, you're being led by the State Prosecutor, you're asked about Section 29 statements.
MR VAN ZYL: Statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Statements.
MNR VAN ZYL: "Het u 'n afskrif van die verklaring voor u?" "Is u daarso?"
MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but carry on down the page, Mr van Zyl. You were asked whether you'd made such statements, you said
"During the month of February 1990, I was detained in terms of Section 29."
then you said:
"And there I had made a Section 29 statement."
then the prosecutor says to you:
"More than one?"
and then you say:
"Two to be exact."
"Two, yes. And the particulars therein, are you prepared to tell us whether that is the truth?"
then you say:
"Your Worship, as far as I know the particulars in the Section 29 statements and which appears on this statement, is one hundred percent the truth."
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In other words, you were aware that you made more than one statement while in Section 29 and you were saying that everything contained in them was a hundred percent correct. And one of the statements that you were referring to must be the statement that we've been dealing with now.
MR VAN ZYL: No, if I read that statement then I would have picked up the difference, I would have testified to that effect in the Ferdi Barnard matter and I would have pointed it out to you. I only had a look at my chief Section 29 statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, what you were telling the Court in State vs Barnard is quite clear, you say "There is more than one Section 29 statement, I know about the existence of these statements and what's contained in these statements is hundred percent correct."
MR VAN ZYL: According to my knowledge.
MNR KAHANOVITZ: "Ja, volgens jou kennis." Now you on a previous occasion before this Committee, testified that you had met with Mr Gavin Evans and that you'd apologised to him, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And I assume that what you said to him was that you apologise to him for what you or the CCB had tried to do to him, ie to kill him.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And I assume you said to him you didn't think that that was justified, that you were sorry.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And I assume what you did not say to him was that if you could live your life over again, you would even with hindsight, have still followed the same path with the CCB.
MR VAN ZYL: That's how I felt at that stage.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You did feel that at that time.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But then you would hardly have apologised to him and said that you were sorry and that what you had done was wrong.
MR VAN ZYL: At least I apologised.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you recall a tape recorder was running at that meeting?
MR VAN ZYL: It could be.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I want to put two newspaper articles in front of you, in which your exact words at that meeting are quoted, for your comment.
MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, do we have to accept that those are the exact words, that the press in fact correctly quoted them?
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl can comment.
CHAIRPERSON: He can comment on that when ... Are these part of - they're not part of the ...(indistinct)
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, I'm going to hand them up now.
CHAIRPERSON: We can make arrangements ...(intervention)
MR KAHANOVITZ: I've made copies.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh have you, thank you.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: You say there are two?
MR KAHANOVITZ: There are two newspaper articles.
CHAIRPERSON: So we'll call those Exhibits H1 and H2.
MR KAHANOVITZ: H1 is an article from the Sunday Star or 25 March 1990 and H2 is an article which appeared in the Weekly Mail of 12 March 1990.
CHAIRPERSON: So H1 is the Sunday Star and H2 is the Weekly Mail. Yes, I think the one is a continuation of H2, is that right? Is H2 two pages, Mr Kahanovitz?
MR KAHANOVITZ: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
CHAIRPERSON: No, "Face to Face with Slang".
MR KAHANOVITZ: No Judge, H1, the Sunday Star article, consists of two pages.
CHAIRPERSON: Starting with ...
MR KAHANOVITZ: "It was nothing personal" is the first page. The second page contains a photograph of Mr van Zyl, his wife and Mr Evans. And the one headed "Face to Face with Slang" is the Weekly Mail article.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR MARTINI: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that consists of two pages.
MR MARTINI: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
CHAIRPERSON: No, that's right and then H2 is Face to Face with Slang. No photograph.
MR MARTINI: ...(indistinct - no microphone)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's it, that's H1 and then H2 is that other one you've got.
MR MARTINI: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: I'll just give you some time to read it, Mr van Zyl.
MR KAHANOVITZ: ...(no recording) to you." Are those your words?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot say, it may be. It sounds like my type of discussion.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You don't have any reason to doubt that you were correctly quoted in these articles?
MR VAN ZYL: I do many press interviews and I can tell you there's no reason for me not to believe that possibly is not the truth, but I do not have a problem with the general extent of what is written here.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. You didn't write any letters afterwards to the newspaper at the time and say "I was incorrectly quoted"?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now let's look at Exhibit H1, the Sunday Star article, in the first column you're quoted as saying, third paragraph - well before we get there, you see the journalist who wrote this article, David Briar and Kit Katson, say that the two of you were brought together by the Sunday Star, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In other words, they're saying it was on their initiative that you were brought together.
MR VAN ZYL: It may be. I did not call him and ask him to come and see me.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In the third paragraph you're quoted as saying
"I'm very proud to have been a member of the CCB. I think they did good work and contributed to the peace climate in South Africa at the moment, no matter how strange it may sound to you."
Then on the - did you say that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I said it in my statement also, I was proud of being a member of the CCB. It was within a context of war during that time, we fought the enemy, they fought us. I was proud of it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: On the following page of that article, third column, second paragraph and third paragraph you said the following
"I am not sorry I was a member of the CCB, but that's over now. The new President, Mr de Klerk, has made it possible to stop this sort of action. If you were to ask me what I would do if I were borne again, I would say that I would like to live my life all over just as I have done up to now, even if it includes going back to jail for months. This is how I feel about it."
You said that?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Then in Exhibit H2, the Weekly Mail article, first column you'll see Mr Evans writes that, this is in the fifth paragraph, he says
"I had agreed to a request to meet Mr van Zyl, under the mistaken impression that he wished to say sorry, but it emerged that his agenda was a different one."
And then he quotes you. The one is a repeat of the quote in the Sunday Star article:
"I will never apologise for anything that I've done whilst I was a member of the CCB."
and you added:
"You have to fight war with war."
Now you will agree with me - you did say that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it sounds like it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: If you say to Mr Evans "I will never apologise for anything that I've done whilst I was a member of the CCB", you could hardly have been apologising to him.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, and no. I think once again Sir, we should place the thing in context. That is so. You see, there's a day and night difference between these two reports because the one is prejudiced one-sided report of Gavin Evans himself, the other one is from a more objective reporter, and it would be good if quote the other things I have said there, but I do not deny it. And the fact that I met Gavin Evans and spoke to him, I can give you the assurance that I apologised insofar as I thought it necessary, but do not expect of me that the past of which I was part of and what I thought necessary at that stage, and which I still think today, that if it was not for the Forces that fought the then ANC and the UDF years ago, the situation in this country would have been totally different. We cannot debate here today whether the war was right or wrong and who was right and who was wrong.
MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, possibly this is an opportune time, what is the relevance of this questioning on these newspaper articles? What relevance does it have to the Act of amnesty? As I understand ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's not a criteria.
MR MARTINI: I just don't want to waste this Commission's time and just have - you know I've tried not to object, but I do appreciate we have limited time.
MR KAHANOVITZ: It goes to credibility and I'll show you why in a minute, if I can just finish dealing with the articles.
Mr van Zyl, I've read both articles carefully, the general sentiment that you appear to be expressing is the following, correct me if I'm wrong, "It was a war situation at the time, I'm not sorry for things that of necessity had to be done during that war situation. Those were the times. If I could live my life over again and those times had to repeat themselves, I would follow the same path".
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So what is it that you were sorry about?
MR VAN ZYL: That there were circumstances in the country which forced me to have to fight under dangerous conditions with the then enemy of the country. This is one of the things of which I was dissatisfied and that I was sorry about, that the politicians could not solve the problems and that we were used to a great extent, to solve those problems.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So you're saying you weren't - you told Mr Evans that you were sorry that there was a war, not that you were sorry that he personally was targeted.
MR VAN ZYL: You have read the reports and I think let us stick to them, I cannot tell you more. What I said to you now was that on my appearance, first appearance before this Commission, approximately two months ago, I apologised to the party for my part in the matter because today I have a different perspective on life than what I had in 1990, when I made these statements.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Just one last point on this article. At page 699 of the record of these proceedings I ask you the following question
"As regard Mr Evans, did he approach you or did you approach him?"
and then you said:
"We approached Evans. At that stage Piet du Plessis was my legal representative and we approached him. He came in. There was a press conference after we met."
I assume that evidence is wrong because you've admitted that the approach came from the Sunday Star, you didn't approach Evans.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did not call him and ask him to come and see me, my attorney contacted me and said that - my then attorney, Mr Piet du Plessis, contacted me and said that they wanted to hold a press conference with myself and Gavin Evans and whether I would accede to it. That is what happened.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you, Mr Chairman, this an appropriate time.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this would be a convenient time to take the lunch adjournment. We shall do so until quarter to two.
MS COLERIDGE: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
ABRAM VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KAHANOVITZ: (cont)
Mr van Zyl, please turn to page 107 of bundle A, paragraph 48. I want to start dealing with the Early Learning Centre. Now in this paragraph what you do in general terms is that you mention certain information that you'd received and you then go on to say that you prepared a written submission setting out the facts and information you'd received, which you then handed on to Wouter Basson, on the 10th of August 1989, and that this document contained the motivation for the selection of the Kewtown youth and the Early Learning Centre as a suitable enemy target for the CCB, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Where did you see the date?
MR KAHANOVITZ: On page 109 in the middle, you say
"I presented all these facts to the Co-ordinator during a pre-study on approximately the 10th of August, on a written basis, after which the in-house was arranged."
...(transcriber's interpretation)
That is where the date comes from.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Now if you can go back to page 187, I'm going to break this down into sections. You say
"In the meantime, on an instruction I gathered information over a period of about one month, amongst others by means of Isgak, in relation to the violent disruption of the September election in the Cape, especially the Coloured election."
Who gave you this order to gather information on the disruption of the September elections?
MR VAN ZYL: The Regional Manager, Staal.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now we know you made your presentation on the 10th of August, do you have any idea when you received this instruction? It must have been a month before the 10th of August.
MR VAN ZYL: I've said approximately a month beforehand.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What was said to you by Mr Burger?
MR VAN ZYL: It was just a part of the general instruction, if information could be gathered in my region, that could be processed by the CCB, that I would gather such information. In other words, it wasn't a specific instruction that we had to gather information regarding the Early Learning Centre. I did not know about the existence of the Early Learning Centre until it was identified to me by Isgak.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but we can infer from that sentence that you were asked to gather information concerning what was believed to be the violent disruption of the September elections, in other words do I assume correctly that Mr Burger had received information that a disruption of this nature was planned but he wanted you to find out more detail?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I do not see it in this context, but I can remember that what had happened is that I'd heard about the hall and I had mentioned it to Staal, and as a result thereof he asked me to gather more information about this specific site.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no, but that's something entirely different, because - what this paragraph goes on to say, you're given a general instruction to go and collect information in regard to - oh you say there are two elements, if I look at the next sentence. Firstly in regard to the disruption of the election and then you go on to say
"The information was also in relation to a hall known as the Early Learning Centre in Athlone, that was used by prominent UDF and ANC activists. Secret meetings were held there which discussed deeds of sabotage and terror and also planned against the State."
What those two sentences read together, suggest that Staal Burger knew about this when he came to give you the instruction. Am I reading it incorrectly?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is a wrong conclusion.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Is the correct inference to be drawn, that point 1, Staal Burger comes to you and he says "Please go and get information about the elections and the violent disruption of those elections." You then went to Isgak and you said "Isgak, go and get information for me." As a consequence of that information you found out about the Early Learning Centre?
MR VAN ZYL: No, what happened is that I had received information from Isgak regarding the site and the organisations using the place, I mentioned it to Staal and he told me to gather more information in relation to the allegations that Isgak had made and this is what I'm referring you to.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So before Staal Burger gave you the instruction to collect information, you had gone to him and said "I already have information about the potential violent disruption of these elections", as a consequence of that he said to you "Go and get more information"?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you say you received your information from inter alia Isgak, who were your further sources of information?
MR VAN ZYL: I would imagine that I also tested it, that I tested some of this information with Peaches, but I'm not sure and I do not want to give evidence to this as a fact.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you then say in general terms that you received information that there were acts of sabotage and terror which were being planned in this building, what acts of terror or sabotage had been planned there?
MR VAN ZYL: There were allegations that had been made by Isgak, that the bomb explosions, for example, at the post office and the police station at Athlone, had been planned at that specific hall.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You say - this is at the top of page 108
"It appeared that the UDF and ANC activists who had been under restricted regulations according to emergency regulations, were also under the name of Kewtown Youth Movement."
Now was the UDF restricted under the State of Emergency regulations at the time?
MR VAN ZYL: The ANC had been and I believe that the UDF was also, I'm not sure.
MR KAHANOVITZ: The ANC was probably a banned organisation.
MR VAN ZYL: And the UDF was an affiliate of the ANC and the Kewtown Youth Movement was in its turn also affiliated to the UDF.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But the simple question, was the UDF restricted under the emergency regulations, yes or no?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot say.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But you say in your sentence - oh, you're talking about the activists or the organisation? Oh you're saying it's the activists who were restricted, who'd formed a new organisation. Is that what the sentence says?
"It appeared that the UDF and the ANC activists who were under emergency regulation restrictions ..."
In other words, restricted individuals had formed a new organisation called the Kewtown youth, is that what the sentence means?
MR VAN ZYL: That is what is said there, but I think I would have wanted to say that it was the organisations as such, not only certain individuals.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You see - do I read this correctly to mean what you're really saying is that the Kewtown youth were not really the Kewtown youth at all, the Kewtown youth were the UDF/ANC, just another name.
MR VAN ZYL: That is information that we had at our disposal.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But even more than that, weren't you really saying that this was a cell of, what you would have called terrorists, militarily operative people, militarily trained people who were meeting there?
MR VAN ZYL: That is not what I am saying here, what I say here and what I gave evidence to is that we saw the Kewtown Youth Movement as a threat, as they, according to our information were affiliated to the UDF, which in its turn was affiliated to the ANC, which was a banned organisation at that stage.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, but you say that the people who were meeting there in the first place, had in the past been involved in acts of terror.
MR VAN ZYL: We did have such information.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In the second place, you say that your information was that your information was that they were intending to commit further acts of terror in the future.
MR VAN ZYL: That was also conveyed to us.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In other words, your information was that the people who were meeting there were engaged in military activities.
MR VAN ZYL: In cases of sabotage of terror, that's correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And what was your understanding at the time as to which component of the ANC or the UDF were generally engaged in these kinds of activities.
MR VAN ZYL: What do you mean, are you meaning what division?
MR KAHANOVITZ: I mean are you saying you thought these people were in Umkhonto weSizwe or what are you saying?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not know. What we did is we gathered the information, the available information relating to the hall, the use of the hall, the persons who met and held meetings at the hall, I processed this information to the Co-ordinator, who then sent it through, I suppose, to the information systems where it was confirmed and as a result of which I then received instructions to do a preliminary study. So I cannot tell you whether the people that came there were members of Umkhonto weSizwe, or which organisation they were members of.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now after having stated that this organisation was intending to disrupt the election and they'd been involved in acts of terror, you go on to say right at the bottom of page 108
"I had received other information and also documentation that indicated that these persons who were killed in the explosions and other people related to the organisation were involved in the bomb explosions and that further bomb explosions were planned up to the 6th of September 1989, in the Cape."
Now what documents did you obtain?
MR VAN ZYL: If I remember correctly it was banned literature that allegedly was used in that hall. I think you know the term "banned literature", such types of information. We did not get information, a written document in which it was specifically said "Listen we are involved in these incidents and we're planning this", the documentation I'm referring to is banned literature.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Didn't you obtain documents in which the people involved with the Kewtown youth had written letters admitting that they were responsible for some of these acts of terror?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Well take a look at your statement, one of your Section 29 statements, I think this is what you would call your main statement, at page 39 of bundle B, right at the top. You're dealing there with the information which you received. You'll see, third line - are you there?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ
"Documentation had already been handed to me by Gakkie, that was amongst others, written by Chris Ferndale. It was typed letters and the content thereof said that mentioned person and other people whose names I cannot remember, were responsible for the said bomb explosions."
I read that to say Gakkie gave you a typed letter, written by Chris Ferndale, in which Ferndale represented that he and other persons whose names you can't remember, were responsible for these explosions. Isn't that what your statement says?
MR VAN ZYL: That is what it says.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And this written letter also goes on to say
"That they planned similar bomb explosions up to the 6th of September 1989, in the Cape."
Correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is what I said.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now a letter like this, written by Mr Ferndale, you'll agree with me, would be damning evidence in a court of law.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now what was your information regarding who the owners of the centre were, who owned this building?
MR VAN ZYL: We had information that it belonged to a woman by the name of Buela. Who exactly she was, I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you accept that information as being correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I assumed at that stage that all the information that had been received from Gakkie, was correct, but it was sent through to the information channels, to the information structure, to verify it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Go back to the - just for the purposes of the record, the 6th of September 19, I assume that was the date on which the elections were intended to take place.
MR VAN ZYL: 6 September.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Is that the date on which the elections were to happen?
MR VAN ZYL: If I remember correctly, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you say, on the fifth line, page 109
"The apparent reason for the bomb explosions was the intimidation of people in order to intimidate them so that they would not participate in the elections which was also involving the Coloured people. Amongst others, I was in the possession of a letter that the same organisation sent to one of the candidates, Mr Alex Anderson, in which he was warned not to take part in the racist elections."
...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think the interpretation said "Alex Anderson", it's Alex Anthony.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you've already mentioned that you prepared this affidavit while this matter was still fairly fresh in your mind, it was a few months after the event, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: This statement was made, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And everything you - you'll see in the next sentence you go on to say that you presented all these facts in your pre-study, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: So can I accept that all the significant information concerning the Kewtown youth and the activities at the Early Learning Centre are set out in this paragraph, starting at the bottom of page 107 up to the middle of page 109? This is all the significant information you collected.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
CHAIRPERSON: Just on that, I just want some clarity, I wasn't a hundred percent sure, this letter you talk about on page 39 of bundle B, did you actually have that letter?
MR VAN ZYL: If I'm talking about this, Mr Chairperson, then I would have had it like this and I would have handed it over.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR LAX: Sorry, can I just clarify one other aspect, if I may.
When you say you handed it over, the sort of information, the list of names, that stuff you would have handed over for verification, is the term you used.
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR LAX: Is that the same process that Mr Verster spoke about, that you knew about?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR LAX: in other words it went to the various intelligence channels and it was collected and checked with whoever were required or thought of as suitable targets?
MR VAN ZYL: That is how I understood it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, I'm not sure you're answer's correct there because your earlier evidence had been - Mr Lax was asking you about the contents of your "voorstudie", correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Your earlier evidence was that at the time that you were busy with the "voorstudie" in an incident such as this you would have known two things, the target and what was to be done to that target.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So when you presented your pre-study you knew that the Early Learning Centre was the target and you knew that an act of sabotage was being planned.
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So it couldn't be that that information would be sent upstairs to verify whether the project should go ahead or not.
MR VAN ZYL: I differ from you because that information that I had gathered, the documentation that we obtained, it was gathered in the period of approximately a month, that we refer to here, and all this information was fed through to the Co-ordinator, as a result of which I received an instruction to do a preliminary study to destroy the site by means of an explosion.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But all I'm saying is this written pre-study would not have been sent off for verification of the facts contained in your written pre-study, because all the pre-study would concern was the mechanics of the project, or is it different in this case?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I concede, I think the preliminary study would have been about the vicinity, what we proposed should be done, what logistical support we needed and what the budget is attached to that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You see but then your "voorstudie" would not contain a motivation for why the Early Learning Centre should be targeted or why the Kewtown youth should be targeted.
MR VAN ZYL: Why not?
MR KAHANOVITZ: Because your version up to now has been you wouldn't really have to deal with that in the "voorstudie", because that's being determined from up above, all you're dealing with is the mechanics of the operation.
MR VAN ZYL: No, Sir, that is not what I said. It is so, you cannot expect that during a pre-study wider aspects would not be touched upon, other than the act that had to be committed and the logistical support attached to it, one would speak about various other aspects.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But Mr van Zyl, this particular "voorstudie" that you're fairing to at page 109, it would appear to me that it would have contained a comprehensive motivation for why the Kewtown youth and the Early Learning Centre should be targeted, containing annexures of various documents that you would say would support their targeting.
MR VAN ZYL: No, that is not how I understand my statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But you say in the middle of page 109, after setting out all these facts, you say
"I submitted all these facts to the Co-ordinator on a written basis, during a pre-study on approximately the 10th of August."
...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: From which I infer that all the information that you set out in the rest of your paragraph is contained in that "voorstudie".
MR VAN ZYL: No, not really, what I've said was that the information that was gathered, the literature which was obtained was over a course of one month, this was sent through during cell meets to the Co-ordinator, and then I received an instruction to do a pre-study. Whether another document was attached to that pre-study which ... I cannot tell you, that was not the purpose of the purpose of the pre-study, to give information. The purpose of the pre-study was as I have said many times, was to make a proposal of how the premises could be damaged.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Okay. So should we read the words
"Ek het al hierdie feite ..."
rather to mean:
"Some of these facts during a pre-study was placed on a written basis ..."
or should we read it to mean:
"Ek het geen van hierdie feite ..."
MR VAN ZYL: You can read it as you like it, the facts as I've explained to them, that's how you should read them.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Well I'm just putting it to you your version is quite clearly that you're saying that you didn't put all of those facts in your preparatory submission. How long was this document?
MR VAN ZYL: I can really not recall, probably a few pages.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Between the 10th of August, the date on which you made this presentation, and the date of the explosion, did you obtain any further information as to why this project was justified?
MR VAN ZYL: It may be, not that I can recall at this stage.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What was the budget that was included in your pre-study?
MR VAN ZYL: I think there was a budget of approximately R30 000.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, the R30 000 was the amount that was budgeted for what Gakkie would be paid, it couldn't have been the budget for the whole operation.
MR VAN ZYL: No, then it would have been more in terms of hotel accommodation for the time period that I was down here and when Kalla Botha accompanied me, for the aeroplane tickets back, so yes, make it R35 000.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now when you presented your pre-study, was it only the Co-ordinator who was present, Basson?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I would have given it to the Co-ordinator because of which at a later stage I was asked to attend a first in-house.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Right. Now further down page 109, you say after the pre-study was presented
"An in-house was arranged on approximately the 25th of August, by the Regional Manager. Because of information supplied by me a project was identified, the destruction of the hall known as the Early Learning Centre in Athlone and I proposed that it should be done by placing an activating a limpet mine there."
Now this is then the first in-house, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And you state in another one of your statements that this was at the Millpark Holiday Inn.
MR VAN ZYL: It could be.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you also say in that statement that the Lubowski project was discussed at the same meeting, this is at page 35 of bundle B, paragraphs 68 through to 70. Can you just read paragraphs 68, 69 and 70 of that statement, into the record.
MR VAN ZYL: I shall read it, I would just like to remind you that these are the paragraphs that I mentioned to you, of which the content is not factually correct. 68
"Approximately a week after I handed over the pills I received a message on my pager to call Staal Burger at a number. I called the number, it was at the Millpark Holiday Inn. Staal Burger told me that I had to go and see him immediately. I then saw Staal Burger in a room at the hotel at approximately half past one. I then met Christo Britz and Joe Verster at the same hotel room. I think it was a Wednesday. Joe Verster told me that Anton Lubowski would the coming Saturday be awaited in Cape Town. I did not know him. I was then informed that Christo Britz would inform me as to where Lubowski would make two speeches, namely one in Johannesburg and one in Cape Town, and my instruction from Joe Verster was to monitor Peaches (which is actually incorrect, it has to be Lubowski), to monitor him during his visit to the Republic of South Africa. He had to obtain information with regard to persons with whom Lubowski made contact and places he visited. The following day, I think it was a meeting next to the road close to Halfway House, Christo Britz had a picture of Lubowski as well as the place where he would give his speech. He supplied me with the place where Lubowski would make his speech, it was Johannesburg Country Club, in Auckland Park. Particulars were handed to me in written form. At this stage I cannot recall whether a project was proposed or submitted. The hotel's name in Cape Town I cannot recall. "Ek het 'n aansoek om voorskot uitgemaak en aan Christo Britz oorhandig." It was also approved by Staal Burger. I cannot recall the amount. The cash was received from Christo Britz. The following day I did not trust Peaches and paged Ferdi Barnard and had a meeting with Ferdi Barnard in Florida, close to Checkers parking area. Ferdi Barnard then agreed to monitor Anton Lubowski during his visit in South Africa. The particulars, the photo and the cash amount was handed over to Ferdi Barnard there. I did not inform the members of the organisation that I was using Ferdi Barnard in place of Peaches."
MR KAHANOVITZ: The following paragraph as well please.
MR VAN ZYL
"After approximately six days, Ferdi Barnard, I again met Ferdi Barnard at the Checkers parking area in Florida. He then handed over information which he had gathered with regard to Lubowski during his visit in South Africa. Ferdi Barnard conveyed to me that Lubowski's mother and his divorced wife were living in Cape Town. He also supplied the two addresses to me. He could not tell me whether Lubowski was staying with his mother or his divorced wife, he would however have seen Lubowski at the meeting but could not monitor the meeting because his name did not appear on the guest list. He furthermore determined that Lubowski stayed in the Rosebank in Johannesburg. He rented a red BMW from Johannesburg airport. The particulars of this vehicle as well as the particulars of other vehicles that could be related to Lubowski's stay in Johannesburg, was conveyed to me by Ferdi Barnard. The particulars I gave to Christo Britz in the presence of Staal Burger at a hotel which I cannot recall the name of."
MR KAHANOVITZ: This is not the portion that you deny?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: This you admit to being true.
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And you've previously admitted that people who were being monitored by the CCB, were usually being monitored because they had been targeted for attention of some form or other.
MR VAN ZYL: I think that's a logical inference to draw.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you go on to say in paragraph 74 at page B38, that on the same day that you received your instructions to monitor Lubowski, the ones we've just referred to, the Early Learning Centre was also discussed. This is at page 38, paragraph 74, you say
"I was informed by Staal Burger, I think it was on Monday, 28th of August 1989, that my project regarding the Early Learning Centre was approved for execution by myself and Isgak. I had already before this date or proposed an in-house on the project at the Millpark Holiday Inn. It was the day on which I received instructions to monitor Lubowski."
So on the same day that you obtained the instructions to monitor Lubowski, you were told that - sorry, let me rephrase that, on the same day that you received your instructions to monitor Lubowski, the in-house was held in relation to the Early Learning Centre.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Which was discussed first and which was discussed second?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall in what sequence, I would suppose that the project was presented firstly there, the ELC one.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You carry on in paragraph 74, B38, to say
"During the in-house, Staal Burger, Joe Verster, Christo Britz and myself were present in the hotel room."
Now do I take it these are all the people who were present for the in-house in relation to the Early Learning Centre?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now regarding this in-house, I want to know if the following issues were discussed, and please tell us in each case who this issue was raised by and what was said. Did you discuss at this meeting whether the information that you had obtained could be used in a prosecution?
MR VAN ZYL: No, not that I can recall.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you discuss whether your informant would be prepared to reveal his identity?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: It wouldn't have been necessary because you told them who your informant was, I assume, that he was Gakkie.
MR VAN ZYL: But now you refer to his identity, disclose identity to whom, to the police?
MR KAHANOVITZ: Well to the police, yes.
MR VAN ZYL: No, definitely not.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You didn't discuss it?
MR VAN ZYL: No, we didn't.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Right. Did you discuss whether the suspected terrorists, whether it would not be possible to detain them under the emergency regulations or the Internal Security Act?
MR VAN ZYL: Not that I can recall.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you discuss at the in-house, whether the venue might be bugged and the information obtained by this process used to justify the arrest or detention of the suspected terrorists?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you discuss whether the owners of the building might not be approached to warn them that the Kewtown youth were using their premises for criminal activities and to request them to bar the Kewton youth from using these premises in the future?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you discuss whether it was not maybe stupid to bomb a building to prevent further acts of terror, in circumstances when it must have been obvious that the terrorists would, if the hall was destroyed, merely move their planning operations elsewhere?
MR VAN ZYL: We felt at that stage that if the hall was destroyed, that this would have disruptive consequences and as I state in my statement, it would have a disruptive consequence for the persons who were using it and secondly, it would focus the attention of the police on the hall and then with their high profile investigations they could possibly execute some arrests with regard to the persons who used that hall, because they could have drawn the inference that it was their own bomb that was used and so forth. I say these things in my statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm just asking you, did anyone at the meeting say "Look maybe this isn't such a brilliant idea to bomb a hall to prevent terrorists from meeting there in the future", did anybody raise that at the meeting? I'm not asking about your statements, I'm asking you about the meeting.
MR VAN ZYL: No, not that I can recall.
CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr van Zyl, this letter written by Chris Ferndale, it's really hard evidence. I mean here you've got a letter written by a person saying these people, and there's a list of names you can't remember, have been involved in bombing and they intend carrying out further bombings in the future, that is hard strong good evidence, evidence that is very unusual I should imagine, that you get something in writing containing those sort of admissions. Evidence which could result in probably a very short case and a conviction and probably evidence that would have greater effect in disrupting the activities of that group, than a limpet mine in the hall. Did they not even discuss using that letter as evidence?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I agree with you entirely, with your argument, but you have to understand that we were a covert organisation and that although there must have been liaison as it was presented to us, with other structures, other security structures in the Force, I had the impression that when projects are given to us we have to execute it by ourselves and that our information would not necessarily be given over to other Forces, for example the SAP, so they could deal with it, it was something that we kept to ourselves. I do concede that there was a more effective method under the circumstances, to have dealt with that information but it was not done as such because within our system we handled that intelligence as we thought best at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kahanovitz.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you.
Now Mr van Zyl, we know that the CCB had a mandate to fight fire with fire as it were, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And you had a mandate to kill people, it was on the agenda. In appropriate circumstances you could kill people.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Right. Now surely at the in-house you would have discussed whether it would not maybe be far more effective to explode the bomb while the Kewtown youth were meeting, so that you might kill or injure some of these terrorists.
MR VAN ZYL: No, it was not discussed, we specifically still mentioned that earlier the evening there would have been a karate class at this hall and it specifically told to me to ascertain that no children were to be present in the hall when the explosion took place. So in other words, we took precautionary measures to try to limit loss of life and injuries. We did not want to go and kill these people, I think if we wanted to do it we could have done it in another manner that might have been more effective.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Sorry, are you saying the possibility of killing these people, these terrorists, was discussed or it wasn't discussed?
MR VAN ZYL: It was not discussed.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You see I would have thought that in the kind of world in which you were operating that - according to you, you now have hard evidence, that here's this group of terrorists who bombed people in the past and are going to bomb them in the future, to me it would seem to me to be the logical and obvious thing that would be discussed at a CCB meeting concerning people like that, is "Shouldn't we kill them?"
MR VAN ZYL: That is the inference that you draw, it was not so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: It was never discussed.
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But you'll agree with me you wouldn't have to kill them at that meeting at that time. Forget about the karate class, you could have formulated a plan to kill these people at some other place at some other time.
MR VAN ZYL: There was no such discussion.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you have any idea why your superiors were so against killing these people?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You'll agree with me they'd be the kind of people that your superiors might have thought it's a good idea to kill. - terrorists.
MR VAN ZYL: Please repeat the question.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Your Mr Verster et al, would have supported the idea of selecting a target for assassination, people involved in military activities inside the country against the State, people exploding bombs for instance.
MR WESSELS: With respect Mr Chairman, the evidence of Mr Verster wasn't as put by my learned friend to the witness, the evidence of Mr Verster, but it would depend on the circumstances, you wouldn't always kill a person, you might take other measures in certain circumstances and the way it is framed it's as if Mr Verster said always people like that would be eliminated. It gives an incorrect complexion on the matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
Mr van Zyl, would you yourself and would you have thought that Mr Verster, Mr Burger and the others who attended, would have thought that the actual people who were members of the Kewtown group would have been legitimate targets for an attack?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you. Now tell me, I'm just trying to work out whether the plan was, and I'm going to give you three possibilities here, whether it was merely to give the people who were attending these meetings a fright? That's the one possibility. The second, whether it was to destroy the whole building? The third was whether it was only to destroy a part of the building?
MR VAN ZYL: I would say it was a combination of two and three.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm a bit confused, either you wanted to destroy the whole building or part or are you saying you wanted to destroy most of the building?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, the hall in which the meetings were always held, that was the objective thereof. And if one had a look at it, the explosives that were supplied could impossibly have, in my opinion, destroyed the whole building because then they would have given me a box full of explosives. So it was done to destroy the hall where the people met.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, because you'll agree with me the building is much bigger than just the hall.
MR VAN ZYL: It is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So I take it that the object was to destroy the hall, not the building.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And I take it that you're saying it wasn't just to give people a fright, but it was to in fact destroy the hall.
MR VAN ZYL: And to send them a message.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But you'll agree with me you can give people a fright by exploding a small explosive or a thunder flash, without using the kind of explosives that would destroy a hall?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you and the CCB had access to the best technical equipment and advice on the use of explosives, correct? Well amongst the best.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, we had access.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now I'm assuming on your version you're saying in the first place you didn't want to harm people.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In the second place, that neither you nor co-operatives wanted to be arrested.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now at the meeting, did you discuss why you were going to use a limpet mine as opposed to any other form of explosives?
MR VAN ZYL: The reason therefore was that because of the information that we received the persons who used the hall were allegedly involved in acts of terror where limpet mines were used, and that is why we decided to use a similar mine.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Was it because of the symbolic nature of the limpet mine? Is that what you're saying?
MR VAN ZYL: Because of the reasons that I have just explained to you now.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But you see, am I understanding you correctly, you're saying because they used limpet mines, therefore we're going to use limpet mines because we want to send out a particular message?
MR VAN ZYL: No, if you can recall I said that after the explosion we expected the police to arrive at the scene, they would make a finding that a limpet mine was used and if they investigate the matter properly we hoped that they would draw the inference and said that the persons who gathered in the hall, it was their own limpet mine that was detonated.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now given your objective of not wanting to harm people, I assume that at your in-house you discussed the size of limpet mine that you were going to use, how many kilograms of explosives, whether you were going to use a mini limpet mine or some other kind of limpet mine.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And what was discussed and who said what?
MR VAN ZYL: A proposal was made that we should use a large limpet mine.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Not a mini limpet mine?
MR VAN ZYL: I think it was a large limpet mine.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Who proposed this?
MR VAN ZYL: It could have been me, it could have been the Co-ordinator, I can really not remember.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But you don't really know anything about limpet mines.
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So you wouldn't have proposed it.
MR VAN ZYL: No, but I know the difference between the two, what they look like.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you attend an explosives course while you were in the South African Police, bomb course?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you discuss the original of manufacture of the limpet mine? In other words, whether it should be from the Eastern Bloc or from somewhere else.
MR VAN ZYL: Not that I can recall.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you discuss whether you should use only one limpet mine or more than one limpet mine?
MR VAN ZYL: It could have been discussed.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You can't remember.
MR VAN ZYL: I can't recall.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you know that a limpet mine is an anti-personnel mine?
MR VAN ZYL: My understanding of a anti-personnel mine is something that is placed in footpaths to kill foot-soldiers, a limpet mine is something that is used to destroy buildings and structures.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mini limpet mines?
MR VAN ZYL: Mini limpet also for that matter.
MR KAHANOVITZ: At the in-house did you discuss what time of the day or night the explosion should occur?
MR VAN ZYL: We discuss that it should be approximately 9 o'clock in the evening because at that stage the meeting with which information on, would be over by then.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you discuss - now assuming you don't want to injure anyone and you don't want to get caught, whether it might not make more sense to set the mine to go off in the early hours of the morning? You could set the limpet on a fuse and you could be far away from the scene at the time that the limpet exploded. Was that discussed?
MR VAN ZYL: We did discuss that and it was found that a remote control mechanism would be a far safer mechanism because the fuse mechanism that you are referring to is very unreliable and in that process could lead to injuries to other innocent people.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, my instructions in this regard are that these fuses are not accurate in the sense that you can set them to a limpet mine going off at an exact time in the sense that there's a margin of error, but that certainly if you wanted to blow up an empty hall at 3 o'clock in the morning, that fuse is more than accurate enough for that purpose.
MR VAN ZYL: It may be.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Well assuming that to be so, can you explain why you didn't decide to use a limpet with a fuse, blowing up the hall at 3 o'clock in the morning? In circumstances where you could have been at the airport at the time that the explosion occurred.
MR VAN ZYL: It was important to us to ensure that no people were injured or killed in that explosion, and in the light of these circumstances, it was safer for us to use a remote control mechanism than to make use of a limpet mine that would have to be planted and that would detonate in its own time. It's a simple as that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright, I'm coming back to that later. Can you tell me, given that your object was to merely cause structural damage to the building, why did you want to place the limpet inside the building, as opposed to against an exterior wall?
MR VAN ZYL: Once again it is the case that we wanted to use the exact hall, we wanted to destroy the exact hall that would have been used that evening by the people mentioned in my statement.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I assume you are aware that you can cause structural damage to a building by placing an explosive against an exterior wall?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So the same symbolic message could have been sent by placing the explosives against an exterior wall.
MR VAN ZYL: To a certain extent. As I said to you, by planting a limpet mine inside the hall that was used that specific evening by people of the Kewtown Youth Movement, would after the explosion - the first thing would have asked is who were the last people to have used this hall and then they would have obtained the names of those people and accordingly they would have been able to make the inference that it was their bomb that had exploded. If it was planted on the outside of the structure, I don't think they would have made this inference.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you discuss in the meeting where the device should be placed? You must have discussed this. Just tell me who said what.
MR VAN ZYL: Is this at the in-house?
MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes. Maybe let me preface this - before you answer the question, let me put this to you. You're no doubt aware that there's a science to using explosives to cause structural damage?
MR VAN ZYL: Please repeat.
MR KAHANOVITZ: A science. There are people who have specific knowledge about how to place bombs, so as to cause structural damage. They have expertise, do you agree with that?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, that is a bomb is to be placed in a certain position in relation to the structural elements of a building, it can cause a certain amount of damage if you put it here, you can cause a certain amount of damage if you put it there. What expert advice did you obtain on this subject?
MR VAN ZYL: None.
MR MARTINI: Mr Commissioner, might I just butt in here. I don't want to interrupt my learned colleague, but what is the relevance of all this? Is he going to put it factually what my client is alleging, because my client's made a statement, he says "We didn't intend to kill anybody". Is he now going to attempt to allege that my client did kill somebody with this explosion? Otherwise, where are we going with this process? It's taking a lot time. I mean, the applicant applied for amnesty for bombing the building. We've seen statements in the documents submitted by the Commission, that some party may have had injury on the head, there's no deaths. So where is this really taking us, because we could be here many, many days with questions like this.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, that's exactly what I'm going to argue and I'm going to get there.
MR MARTINI: ...(inaudible)
MR KAHANOVITZ: No.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I think it's clear, it's common cause that no-one died.
MR KAHANOVITZ: I'm going to argue at the end that it was - the object of the exercise was they were intending to kill the people in the meeting.
CHAIRPERSON: You may continue.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you.
Now why would you not have obtained expert advice about where the limpet should be placed?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not deem it necessary under the circumstances and it was also not asked of me to do so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you receive instructions about where the device should be placed?
MR VAN ZYL: I do know that we discussed it and that we proposed that the limpet mine be placed in a bag and that the bag was placed in a cupboard so that it could be hidden. That is all that we basically discussed about the placing of the limpet mine. Where exactly the cupboard was in relation to the hall, I do not know.
MR LAX: Sorry, can I just interpose.
Did you have a plan of the hall at that time? Did you know where the cupboards were?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairperson, we did not have.
MR LAX: You never went inside that hall.
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR LAX: You didn't even have a diagram of the hall.
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR LAX: Even a rough one?
MR VAN ZYL: No, we had a description of what the hall looked like on the inside. The description we got from Gakkie, but there was not a sketched plan relating to the hall.
MR LAX: I'm just puzzled, so you don't know what kind of damage would arise from the placing of the mine, other than it would go off in the hall?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Which was rather strange, Mr van Zyl, in the light of the fact that you said in your application that the object of the exercise was, and I use the Afrikaans words, "om die saal te venietig", which means to destroy it. Correct?
MR VAN ZYL: What's so strange about that?
MR KAHANOVITZ: I'll leave it at that. At the time that you had the in-house, had the person who would place the device been identified?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What had he been told that he would be paid?
MR VAN ZYL: An amount of R30 000.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Why was it necessary to risk using a gangster when a trusted CCB person could have placed the device himself in the middle of the night?
MR VAN ZYL: That was the way in which we worked.
CHAIRPERSON: R30 000. So that person for placing a mine in the cupboard, would get more than the person who was later to assassinate somebody?
MR VAN ZYL: That is the amount that was approved for me.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Now ...(intervention)
MR LAX: Sorry. Was there any rationale for that, that you can think of?
MR VAN ZYL: No, that is the amount that was given to me, that was mentioned to me that had been approved by means of the budget. That's the amount that I accepted. I didn't see anything strange about that.
CHAIRPERSON: If you as Project Leader - what was your salary then? R3 000 a month?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now somebody's going to get ten months salary for taking a case into a hall. Okay, there's a risk factor, but didn't you find that to be a bit gross?
MR VAN ZYL: At that stage I didn't find that suspect at all.
MR LAX: My next question was going to be, in relation to your "voorstudie", didn't you prepare a budget, a proposed budget as part of the "voorstudie"?
MR VAN ZYL: No, the budget was actually done - if I say together with the preliminary study, then I mean the budget was actually done the day of the first in-house. It might have been that I might have mentioned an amount in my preliminary study that could have been less than R30 000. I can't remember that.
MR LAX: You see, if someone's doing a presentation to someone else about a proposal for a project, surely the budget forms part of the proposal. You say to your people that "Here we are, this is the way we intend presenting it, this is how much it's going to cost our organisation: airfares x 3, accommodation x 2, possible salary suggested X." It then goes through, they decided no, hang on this is too much, they scrap that by so much or whatever. But surely you as the person putting forward a proposal, which is what it was, would prepare a reasonably detailed budget.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so, I did give evidence in this regard, that's the case, but I cannot remember the amount of R30 000, whether I proposed it and whether it was accepted and what the amount was. I do not deny that there was a budget attached to that proposal.
MR LAX: You see because the original proposal would have come from you.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR LAX: And that may obviously have been varied or it may have been left the same.
MR VAN ZYL: That is also true.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Maybe I can refresh your memory. If you can go to page 39 of bundle B, I'll just read you the sentence. You said
"At the time of the in-house Gakkie at this stage had already agreed in principle, to help with placing the limpet mine. During the in-house a budget was also attached. Gakkie would receive R30 000 for his part. I submitted the budget in writing."
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now we know that Peaches had recruited Gakkie and they were members of the same gang, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I know that he recruited him, whether they were members of the same gang I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now this is now August 1989, in March '89, Peaches had agreed to arrange Adv Omar's assassination for R15 000 and he wouldn't even shoot him himself.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Split into three.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: We know that the going rate for sabotaging, burning down a printing press or burning out a kombi, seemed to have been - well certainly less than R3 000, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: We know that the price to assassinate Gavin Evans is R5 000.
MR VAN ZYL: I gave evidence in this regard.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You were agreeing to pay Gakkie double, or more than double the costs of assassinating Omar, to place a limpet mine which wasn't even going to injure anyone. That's your version.
MR VAN ZYL: That is what I've testified.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Now was it discussed at the meeting?
MR VAN ZYL: What?
MR KAHANOVITZ: At the in-house.
MR VAN ZYL: What?
MR KAHANOVITZ: This price of R30 000. I would think - I would expect Mr Staal Burger to have said "But Mr van Zyl, why so much money?" I mean if Peaches is willing to murder Omar for half or less than half of that, why in heavens name would you want to pay this man R30 000 for this job?
MR VAN ZYL: No, that is definitely the case that we discussed the budget and that consensus had been reached, but your insinuations that R30 000 had been paid because people had to die during the bomb explosion, is so far removed from the truth that I do not even want to comment on it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: All I'm asking you is whether Mr Basson or Mr Burger at the meeting questioned the amount.
MR VAN ZYL: It is possible.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You can't remember whether there was any debate as to whether your budget was acceptable?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now your version is that you personally proposed the use of a remote control device.
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You agree with me a remote is a fairly technically complex device, in the sense that in the first place the limpet had to be modified so that it could accommodate a remote, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Normally you would use a remote so that the bomber can time an explosion with exact precision.
MR VAN ZYL: True.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So that when you press the button the bomb explodes.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now this seems to have been a fairly complicated in-house meeting, how long was this one?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know, probably the same as the others, an hour or maybe more.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And just summarise for me the ultimate conclusion at the end of this meeting.
MR VAN ZYL: I have already given evidence in this regard, that a limpet mine that would be set off by means of a remote control, would be provided to me, that I would give it to Gakkie and that he would place it in the hall and that he would have done the activation thereof later in the evening.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you get information as to the range of the remote? Did you have within 30 metres or could you be a kilometre away? Did you have any technical information regarding what the range of the remote is and whether the remote could work through a brick building, a cupboard, that sort of thing?
MR VAN ZYL: No, that information I only obtained the day that I received the limpet mine and the device and then it was demonstrated to me and this distance was explained to me.
CHAIRPERSON: And could it work through a brick wall, you didn't have to have a direct ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: Not line of sight, no.
CHAIRPERSON: So it was better than the TV remotes you get. You don't have to actually have the sensors, the radio remote.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so, Sir.
MR KAHANOVITZ: At the in-house was it discussed what story would be given to the press after the explosion occurred?
MR VAN ZYL: Not at all.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you not discuss that at all in the sense that you said the object of the exercise was to give the impression that the explosives ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: No, Sir.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no discussion.
MR VAN ZYL: I don't want to interrupt you, but I mean we were a covert operation, so I don't see how we would have spoken to the press at any stage.
MR LAX: Well just on that issue, I mean it something that puzzled me, you wanted the police to actually catch these guys, you wanted them to be directed towards this bunch of people that you thought were bombers, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That was our secondary aim, that's correct.
MR LAX: But you didn't plan anything other than the fact that you used a limpet mine of a specific origin that might be associated therefore with revolutionary forces? Other than that you didn't think of phoning the local police station and saying "Hey, here's a tip, look for certain people in relation to this mine", or drop a note off through Isgak at the police station, or leave the names in the vicinity, on a piece of paper, like copies of the letter that you had, or something like that?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairperson, that was not discussed at all during the presentation or at any other stage afterwards. Not by our cell, by my cell.
MR LAX: You'll concede those are the most obvious ways of achieving your secondary purpose.
MR VAN ZYL: Not necessarily, but I think it is once again a matter of one trying to obtain your primary goal. In other words, regarding the destruction of the hall. I would concede that the argument is valid but I mean it was not done and I cannot comment on this any further.
MR LAX: Thank you.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, wasn't it part of the general modus operandi of the State Security Forces at that time, that when an incident happened in which they were involved, what was referred as a "dekstorie" was planned in advance so that it would generally be disseminated throughout the media that, for instance, these terrorists had blown themselves up?
MR VAN ZYL: It was not the plan with this specific project, but yes, I have heard of it, I think it's general knowledge and especially in the past in cases where handgrenades were used. I know of no other case where a limpet mine was used for this purpose.
MR KAHANOVITZ: When Khotso House was blown up and when Cosatu House was bombed stories were spread blaming these explosions on the liberation movement.
MR VAN ZYL: That is true. I actually have to tell you that the evidence that has been available up to today is that those were SAP actions and that might be why they used that propaganda.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You're not suggesting that they were more sophisticated operations than yours?
MR VAN ZYL: One can see them as more sophisticated than us.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Could you go to page 110 of bundle A, and just read paragraph 49 of your statement into the record.
MR VAN ZYL: Paragraph 49?
MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes.
MR VAN ZYL
"Wednesday, the 30th of August 1989, I was requested by the Regional Manager to go to the Protea Gardens hotel in Berea, Johannesburg. There I met the Regional Manager, Nick, and the person from the Medical Regiment in the room. The Regional Manager told me that the project concerning the Early Learning Centre had been approved and that the Managing Director let him know that if one more bomb was activated by the Kewtown Youth Movement, he would see it as my fault. The Regional Manager then informed me that the Co-ordinator was on his way with the limpet mine, and after approximately three-quarters of an hour the Co-ordinator arrived at the hotel, with the limpet mine packed in a cardboard box. The limpet mine with a remote control, was shown to me and he demonstrated the working of it. The limpet mine was a great big grey Russian fabricated limpet mine, while the detonation mechanism was a pocket calculator with an aerial. The calculator would detonate the bomb by pressing the minus button. I have never worked with explosives and I was worried that life loss could result and I was also worried because I was not an expert in this field. I then requested the Regional Manager and the Co-ordinator for help and I suggested that Botha would accompany me to the Cape to handle the bomb because he had knowledge of explosives. The Regional Manager agreed and paged Botha, upon which Botha arrived at the hotel and the working of the limpet mine was explained to him by the Co-ordinator. Botha agreed to help with the project and the necessary arrangements were made."
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now what is Nick, the finances man, doing at this meeting?
MR VAN ZYL: He was there, I do not know.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You've no idea what he was doing there? It was a breach of the need-to-know principle.
MR VAN ZYL: No, I don't necessarily believe so, but I cannot tell you what exactly he was doing there.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Someone from the Medical Regiment, what's he doing at a meeting where you're going to discuss structural damage to a building?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know, I cannot answer the question.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Didn't he say something at the meeting?
MR VAN ZYL: It is possible.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What did he say?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember, Sir, I do not know what they were doing there.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You don't know what he said, you don't know what he was doing at the meeting and you'll agree with me that it's strange that he was at the meeting?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not find it strange, he was a known member, an aware member, and under the circumstances I do not find it exactly strange.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Well if it's not strange, explain to us what he was doing there.
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot explain to you.
MR KAHANOVITZ: The mere fact that he was a "bewustelike" lid doesn't explain him being there. Your evidence all along has been that you do not, even if you are a "bewustelike" lid, go to meetings that don't involve your own projects.
MR VAN ZYL: That is the case.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So he must be there to serve a purpose.
MR VAN ZYL: It was probably so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Otherwise he was not allowed to be there. Why was he there?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot explain that.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he the same person that we spoke about earlier with regard to the poison in the Omar project?
MR VAN ZYL: Nick. That is exactly so.
CHAIRPERSON: Not Nick the medical ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: And the Medical Regiment ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) the same person.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now I assume that because we're now at the meeting where the limpet mine is brought to you, that Gen Webb has now approved the project.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So by this stage, Wednesday the 30th of August 1989, the so-called second in-house must have taken place.
MR VAN ZYL: I agree.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now I want to refer you to - before I do so, we can also assume that in approving the project, Gen Webb would have acted on the basis of information supplied by you.
MR VAN ZYL: No, Gen Webb would have acted on information that he had received from the Managing Director, Joe Verster.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.
MR VAN ZYL: But I never made any presentation to a General.
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, we know that, but you made a presentation to Staal Burger, Staal Burger would have gone to speak to Joe Verster, Joe Verster would have then sat in a meeting where only he and Gen Webb were present. That's how I understood it.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Please go to bundle D, which is Gen Webb's amnesty application, page 19. Now on this page - Mr van Zyl, on page D19, Gen Webb talks about the information which he had received regarding the objects of the Kewtown Youth Movement and he says that he received information that they were going to disrupt the election and that such disruption would involved inter alia, the following things. You'll see at paragraph 1.1.1
"The launching of assaults on the lives of candidates"
Now you will agree with me you certainly furnished no information regarding planned attacks on the lives of candidates in the election. You've mentioned nothing of the sort?
MR VAN ZYL: No, the only thing I mentioned was the threatening letter that was aimed at Mr Alex Anthony, but not a planned attack on any such person.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Then, paragraph 1.1.3, at page 20, he says he also received information of
"A plan that had been made to start a fire in the squatter camp of Khayelitsha shortly before the elections, by which unrests would be started with accompanying disruption of the elections."
And he says he received information that the Kewtown youth were going to do this. Now you didn't supply him with that information.
MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not.
MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Chairperson, maybe the gallery should also take it seriously and let's not joke.
MEMBER OF PUBLIC: ...(indistinct)) seek the TRC to get clarity ... that's what you are doing ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Please, please, let us have some order here. Mr Kahanovitz.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you.
Mr van Zyl, please go to page 21 of bundle D, paragraph 2.1, you'll see Gen Webb says there:
"According to the information, the movement regularly had meetings in the Early Learning Centre in Athlone. The particular source who supplied the information to us was not prepared to disclose his identity, which fact made it impossible to involve the police in this matter. Under the circumstances it was decided that we should act against the persons in order to try and frighten them and to discourage them from continuing with their actions as planned according to the information received."
Now you've already said you've discussed nothing of the sort at your in-house meeting, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So certainly at your level no attention was focused on whether it might or might not be possible to involve the police taking action against members of the Kewtown youth. It wasn't on your agenda.
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And you wouldn't know why the General mentions this?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now - I'm sorry, I left out some aspects in relation to the in-house, can you tell me, when you had your meeting at the in-house, what information did you have about the time that the Kewtown youth were scheduled to have their meeting? Did you have any information?
MR VAN ZYL: We had information about that, that the meeting would have been held at approximately 7.30pm for approximately an hour, up to half past eight.
MR KAHANOVITZ: In fact you said in an earlier statement that you'd received information that the meeting would start at seven thirty and was going to carry on till 9 o'clock. Is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: It could be.
MR KAHANOVITZ: On page 42 of bundle B. Now the plan in relation to who was going to be given the remote, who was going to press the button, what was the plan, what did you discuss at the in-house?
MR VAN ZYL: Initially it would have been Gakkie who would have done it, he would have had to handle and control the whole project.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So Gakkie's going to press the remote, where are you going to be when he presses it?
MR VAN ZYL: Not even close-by. For all practical purposes we would have been in our hotel room.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And Botha?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: So what's Botha's function, just to activate the limpet mine at the airport?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you say it was said at the in-house that there was a sense of urgency, that you were told that if these people set off any more bombs, you personally are going to be held responsible.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it was told to me.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Was that the sense of urgency? In other words, it was urgent to take steps now because you're dealing here with a group of bombers who at any moment in the future, with the elections just round the corner, might go off and explode some more bombs.
MR VAN ZYL: Amongst others, yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now Gen Webb says that he himself went to fetch the remote control unit, do you know anything about that?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Didn't it strike you as a bit strange that the General himself would go an fetch the remote?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it could be.
MR KAHANOVITZ: It would - in the ordinary course of events, that would be Mr Basson's job?
MR VAN ZYL: I would agree.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now the General also says that this was regarded as a "geleentheids teiken". What he says is at page D25, paragraph 5.1. He says
"Primarily from the information that we obtained, it appeared that the particular organisation met in the Early Learning Centre on a regular basis."
and so on and so forth. He says - to of page 26:
"If action had to take place on such a short basis and only a brief time period was available in order to take a decision with regard to the action that would be followed, it is known as an opportunity target and in the light thereof, the decision had to be taken as soon as possible."
Was anything along these lines said to you at the time, that you're dealing with something called a "geleentheids teiken"?
MR VAN ZYL: No, my interpretation of an opportunity target differs from what is being said here.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Right. And I assume if I ask you why would Gen Webb agree to authorise the Early Learning Centre but not Omar and Evans, are you in a position to comment?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you mentioned in your evidence that you received information that weapons were being handed out in meetings of the Kewtown youth, correct? Weapons.
MR VAN ZYL: I did not have any knowledge about it.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You've also not said that it was part of the plan to make it look like - no, I'm sorry, you've said it was part of the plan to make it look like the Kewtown youth had blown up the hall themselves, is that your evidence?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Right. Now where would Wouter Basson have obtained his information about what the Kewtown youth were up to? Where would he have obtained it, from you?
MR VAN ZYL: I supplied information to him, I do not know whether he used any other sources.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Oh. I'm just going to put it to you for your comment, he says that information had been received that weapons were handed out at these meetings. Now from who besides you, could he have received this information? Can you think of anyone?
MR VAN ZYL: From the intelligence structures.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Oh, I see, alright. May I just have a minute? Now isn't it so that this project actually made provision for the loss of human life, so long as those who were killed were members of the Kewtown youth?
MR VAN ZYL: No, what we did discuss was that under the circumstances it was not one hundred percent possible to ensure that no persons would be injured during such an explosion or that no person would be killed. It is not possible to guarantee it one hundred percent. So under those circumstances, it was said to me that if it did happen, it was an approved project.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Right. So what was in fact discussed at the meeting where you were given the limpet mine, wasn't it said to you "Look, if there's loss of life, it's acceptable to us as your superiors, so long as the people who are killed or injured are members of the Kewtown youth"?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: It was never said to you?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Can I refer you to your statement at page 40 of bundle B. If you look at paragraph 78 at page 40, you deal with this meeting of the 30th August 1989, where the limpet mine was handed over to you. You say - now this is towards the end of paragraph 78
"The working of the limpet mine was described by Christo Britz to Kalla."
And maybe just to explain to the Committee, Christo Britz was Wouter Basson's codename, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ
"Kalla Botha then became aware of the project. It was also said here by Staal Burger, that the project made provision for the loss of human life in so far as it has regard for the members of the Kewtown Youth Movement. This had to be limited to the minimum, however."
Correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And just read the following paragraph into the record, paragraph 79.
MR VAN ZYL
"Kalla Botha and I, the same day, 30th of August 1989, left with my car for Cape Town. The cardboard box with the limpet mine was in the back of my vehicle in the boot. The remote control was in my attaché case. The following morning, 31st of August 1989, we arrived in Cape Town at my brother-in-law's flat, we went to sleep and we left the limpet mine in my car. Before I fell asleep I was busy with "godsdiens" and we read out of the bible that nothing would happen without the Lord's wishes. Kalla and I..."
MR KAHANOVITZ: Please proceed.
MR VAN ZYL
"Kalla and I had a short discussion about the text as to how we saw it in the light of our activities. In my prayer thereafter I asked for the will of God with the execution of this project. We then slept for approximately four hours. After I awoke I contacted Gakkie at 09H00 and told him that he had to meet me at 13H00 in the parking area of DF Malan, where I would hand over the limpet mine to him."
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now if you read those two paragraphs together, isn't it correct that the reason you and Kalla were praying to the Lord, was because you'd just come from a meeting where you've been told that you're engaged in a project which could lead to the loss of human lives?
MR VAN ZYL: Certainly that played a role.
MR KAHANOVITZ: And you're asking for the Lord's forgiveness in advance.
MR VAN ZYL: No, that is not what it says here.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now I assume Kalla Botha was told what the plan was.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: If you could then go to Mr Botha's statement at bundle B, page 4, bottom of the last three paragraphs at the bottom of the page. Just let me read to you what Mr Botha says, he says
"While I was still on ice, I gave my red pager to Burger because it was needed by Maree. One day I received an urgent message on my blue pager to contact Burger at the Protea Gardens Hotel. Upon my arrival there, Burger, Maree and van Zyl were there. There were also two unknown persons who were introduced to me as Nick, the new Admin man, and Theo, the Intelligence Officer. Christo was also there. I received instruction to accompany van Zyl to Cape Town by car. Still in the room they showed me a remote control device which we tested there. The instruction was that van Zyl and I had to transport a package to Cape Town. We departed for Cape Town the very same evening and knew that it was explosives that we had to transport. It was said to me by Burger that it was a project of van Zyl and that it was approved by the Chairperson. On our way van Zyl told me that the package would be handed over to Isgak. Overnight we arrived at his brother-in-law's flat. Isgak was contacted to fetch the package the evening. The following day we met Isgak at the airport. The package was handed over to him. He handed over two packages to Isgak. The one contained the bomb and the one was empty. I knew that there was a Coloured woman who had to place this bomb in the hall. The empty bag was for in the event of someone asking her where her bag was, then she would be able to present the empty bag. Isgak took the bags and left."
Now he says that the plan was that a Coloured woman would go and place the bomb in the hall, you say the plan was that Gakkie would go and place the bomb in the hall.
MR VAN ZYL: My version is correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: You say - you make no mention of Theo, the Intelligence Officer, being present at this meeting.
MR VAN ZYL: I have made mention of an unknown person attached to the Medical Regiment, it's probably the same person.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Someone who is attached to the Medical Regiment and someone who is an Information Officer, can't be the same person.
MR VAN ZYL: It could possibly be the same person. It was my interpretation of the person whom I thought he was and that may be Kalla's interpretation as to what he thought who the person was.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you know a person called Theo?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, if Botha's source of information was you - 'cause you must have been his source of information as to the plan.
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Where does he come with this plan that the Coloured woman is going to go and place the bomb in the hall?
MR VAN ZYL: Unfortunately I cannot answer that question.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Then let's go back to bundle A, page 112, can you just read paragraphs 50 and 51 into the record, which deals with the steps taken by you until the point that you arrived at the Early Learning Centre.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have 112A there?
MR VAN ZYL: I have it, Chairperson. Paragraph 51?
MR KAHANOVITZ: No, 50 and 51 please.
MR VAN ZYL
"The same day, 30 August 1989, Botha and I departed in my vehicle to Cape Town with the limpet mine in a cardboard box in the boot. The remote control I had in my attaché case. On the 31st of August 1989, we arrived in the Cape. We then slept for approximately four hours and after I awoke, I contacted Isgak and told him to meet me that afternoon at the parking area of DF Malan airport, where I would hand over the limpet mine to him. In the afternoon I met Isgak at the airport and Botha prepared the limpet mine. Thereafter the bag in which the limpet mine was placed was placed in the boot of Isgak's vehicle and I gave the following instruction to Isgak. He had to take the bag with the bomb and place it in a cupboard in the hall in the Early Learning Centre. The instruction was that Isgak would go directly from the airport and place it in the hall and that the bomb would be activated later that evening after all persons had vacated the premises. After the placing of the limpet mine he had to return tot he airport to confirm that he had executed his instructions. The remote control calculator I kept in my possession and I instructed Isgak to meet us at the Bellville Holiday Inn at seven that evening. At the airport, after Isgak had departed, I informed the Regional Manager that the bomb had been placed and he informed me that the Managing Director would be informed. At the same time I arranged with the Regional Manager that he would meet us at Jan Smuts airport on the 1st of September 1989, at 01H00. I planned to go on leave and the evening of the 1st of September 1989, I would go along with my spouse and leave my vehicle at the airport and I would spend two weeks in the Cape on holiday. Through the course of the afternoon I decided that the remote control device would not be handed over to Isgak. I was concerned about the fact that he could have placed the mine at any other place than the Early Learning Centre and it could be activated at a place and time of his choice. I discussed this with Botha and we decided that we would go along to ascertain that the bomb be placed in the correct place. The evening of the 31st of August 1989, Isgak met Botha and I at the Holiday Inn at 7 o'clock. We went together in a vehicle to the Early Learning Centre and at approximately a quarter to eight we arrived at the Early Learning Centre. Isgak pointed out the area there as well as the vehicles of members of the organisation. Approximately 400m away from the Early Learning Centre we parked and it was already dark. I sent Isgak into this hall to ensure that the children were out of the hall, because that evening there was a karate class for children. He had to determine which members of the movement attended the meeting."
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright, can you just stop there before we go into the details of what happened on that night. Now before the plan was changed, if I can just summarise, neither you nor Botha were going to go to the hall.
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Why?
MR VAN ZYL: Because those were our instructions.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But what was the purpose of the instruction, to - I assume it had to do with avoiding the risk of you being detected or arrested.
MR VAN ZYL: Probably.
MR KAHANOVITZ: That Gakkie must place it in a cupboard and then he must return to the airport to tell you that he has done so? That was the original plan.
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now in terms of that plan, when was he to be given the remote device?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall, it would have been at the airport probably, when he reported back that everything was in place, possibly at a later stage.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you then became worried that he might place it elsewhere and explode it at a place of his choice.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: What was it that you discovered about him on that day that made you worried that you didn't know before?
MR VAN ZYL: Nothing, absolutely nothing ...(intervention)
MR KAHANOVITZ: It was just a feeling that you had.
MR KAHANOVITZ: On the spur of the moment.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Oh I see, alright. In other words, you wanted to go with him to see that the bomb had been placed in the right place.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright. Why was the bomb to be placed in the Early Learning Centre in the afternoon, during the afternoon?
MR VAN ZYL: It was part of the planning because he had access to the premises.
MR KAHANOVITZ: But he - was it the plan that he only had access in the afternoon?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall, it was the decision that he would place it in the afternoon because he had access to the premises.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Were any plans made to make sure that Mr Hardien was not seen while placing the bomb?
MR VAN ZYL: By nature of the situation he was told to ensure that no-one would see him.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now Mr Hardien says in his statement that he placed the bomb in an empty cardboard apple box on a trestle table against the wall. Now did Mr Hardien, when he came back to the airport, did he report to you where he'd placed the bomb?
MR VAN ZYL: My understand was that he placed it in a cupboard as to his instructions.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Would you be prepared to comment as to why he's made a statement that he placed it on a trestle table against the wall?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment to that.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you haven't properly answered Mr Kahanovitz's question. Did he tell you at any stage that he had put the bomb in a cardboard box?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Chairperson, not that I can recall. What I do recall is that I met him at the airport and that he told me that he had placed the bomb and then I accepted that he had concurred with my instructions as we had agreed upon. I know for a fact that I would have asked him whether his identity was disclosed in this process and he denied that.
CHAIRPERSON: So as far as you were concerned, that evening the bomb was in a cupboard in the hall?
MR VAN ZYL: Correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you arrive there at 7H45, correct? Quarter to eight, according to your statement.
MR VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Sorry, 19H45. And according to your earlier evidence you were aware that the meeting was intended to start at half past seven, so you arrived fifteen minutes after the Kewtown youth meeting had started, correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Chairman, I would now go into the detail of what happened on that night, so this - unless we're going to ...
CHAIRPERSON: Do want to sit longer, carry on, or do you want to adjourn now? Yes I see that it is 4 o'clock, we will adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
