CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We want to start the proceedings. For the record, it is Monday, 30 August 1999, we are continuing with the amnesty applications of E A. de Kock and 9 other applicants in respect of Nelspruit 4 and Tiso. We have left off at the end of last week, with the evidence-in-chief still being presented of Mr Van Zyl. We will continue with that this morning.
BEN BURGER VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, have you got any further questions?
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)
Thank you Chairperson. I just want to say, Mr Van Zyl just mentioned to me that he has forgotten his jacket this morning, he just wanted to apologise, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this is probably the coldest morning that I have come across this part of the morning, so I don't know, perhaps we've got inverse sensibilities, but in any event, that is in order Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Van Zyl, on Friday, we adjourned at that point where you started testifying to which we referred to the first Coin incident. Can we continue from there?
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, before you start, I said on Friday that it seems as if Mr Van Zyl did everything possible for remuneration. During the weekend I thought about this, and the inference I drew was perhaps wrong, possibly you can argue that he resort under Article 23(1)(f). Don't draw any inference from what I have said on Friday.
MR LAMEY: My thanks to you Mr Chairman, I am obliged to you. When I became the legal representative and after consultation, I don't want to assume that the Committee will find this or that, but I was of the opinion that somebody who was a source and who received remuneration, etc still falls within the parameters of the Act and can qualify for amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: I haven't given it much thought over the weekend, but I agree with the general drift of what you are saying, it makes sense.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am obliged to you. Mr Van Zyl, can you shortly tell us regarding this first Coin incident, what did Holtzhausen tell you? Did he tell you to continue and these prospective people who were interested of robbing this Coin company, what was your arrangements shortly?
MR VAN ZYL: I just want to make sure, are you referring to the aborted attempt?
MR VAN ZYL: No, this was before the aborted attempt.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, it was basically organised that I would meet the people there and then I would take them to Nelspruit. Sergeant Holtzhausen would make all the arrangements in Nelspruit.
MR LAMEY: If you say that he would make the arrangements himself, with who was that?
MR VAN ZYL: With the staff and the police at Nelspruit, the people at the Coin company and the police.
MR LAMEY: Would he inform the police at Nelspruit?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is how I understood it.
MR LAMEY: Very well, at that stage did you understand from Tiso that the group who would go there and he himself, we handed in a document where Tiso said it was right at the beginning, that he said he had not done this type of thing before, what did you understand by that?
MR VAN ZYL: After that Tiso corrected that and said that the people whom he intended to take with, did commit armed robberies before and as I understood it, I understood that they were, I cannot say they were qualified, but they had experience in this type of activities.
MR LAMEY: Did you understand that previously they were involved in robberies?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Did you hear anything else from Tiso regarding political affiliations of the other people who would go with him?
MR VAN ZYL: I understood that the other people were also trained MK members. I accepted it like that because I accepted that Tiso would not co-operate with people who did not have the necessary experience.
MR LAMEY: Which arrangements did you have to make with them after Holtzhausen told you that you had to continue after he had made arrangements with the Coin staff, etc?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, the most important for us was to arrange transport, then we had control over the matter. What I am trying to say is then we knew when they would go, on which date and at what time. Then I made the necessary arrangements with Tiso, where I could meet him to give the Cressida to him, that happened in Soweto.
MR LAMEY: Did you hand it over to him there ... (no interpretation)
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I handed over the Cressida to him there.
MR LAMEY: What happened there when you handed over the vehicle to him?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I arrived there with my own vehicle, one of the other people brought the Cressida there. We met at a garage in Soweto, deep into Soweto and later on Tiso and two other people, I am talking under correction, arrived there with another vehicle. Then I handed the Cressida over to Tiso and at that time it was night already, it was very late. I can't remember specifically what the time was, but I drove deeper into Soweto to what I thought was just one of the other members or one of the other members of the group's house. There we stopped next to the pavement.
MR LAMEY: Yes.
MR VAN ZYL: There Tiso gave me a .38 revolver and requested me to hide this weapon in the car. I lifted one of the carpets at the back of the Cressida and told him where I was going to hide this weapon.
MR LAMEY: And afterwards?
MR VAN ZYL: Tiso and his three or four friends, I think they were four, they followed me in the Cressida. Hamilton and I, a person who was working for me at that stage, we drove in front and Tiso and his friends followed us in the Cressida until they arrived in Nelspruit.
MR LAMEY: Was that the same evening?
MR VAN ZYL: That was the same evening.
MR LAMEY: Did you know at that stage, what arrangements Holtzhausen had made?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, at that stage I was not sure. All I knew was that there was an arrangement that when I was to arrive there, we had to meet them at Coin Security offices or rather I had to contact them there. I succeeded in doing that and Hamilton was dropped near the police station when I arrived in Nelspruit. Hamilton went into the police station and his instruction was that he had to contact Holtzhausen at Coin and to inform them that we had arrived there and that we were on our way. And he would know what the message would be.
MR LAMEY: Can I ask you as follows, in your statement you said that Holtzhausen and his members had planned to hide in Coin's offices to ambush the robbers?
MR VAN ZYL: I knew about that.
MR LAMEY: By ambushing, what do you mean?
MR VAN ZYL: During all our actions, the people would be available inside and outside this place, when we knew about a prospective robbery or crime. When the people arrived there, the people would arrest them or whatever.
MR LAMEY: Were the plans to ambush these people to kill them without attempting to arrest them?
MR VAN ZYL: I foresaw that yes, and in any action when there is resistance or when shots are fired, the people would be killed. But no, that was not planned like that.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Can you continue, after Hamilton had contacted Holtzhausen, what did you do further?
MR VAN ZYL: The arrangements with Tiso and his friends were that I would go to the premises of Coin, I would park in front of these premises and then I would go in, if I did not come out again, they knew they could come in. That was exactly what I did. I drove to Coin, this premises are in a cul-de-sac, I parked in front of these premises and entered the building.
MR LAMEY: What happened then?
MR VAN ZYL: After I had arrived at Coin, I saw members of C10 there, I recognised one of the members. If I remember correctly, it was one of the people from Nelspruit Murder and Robbery Branch. I confirmed with Dougie Holtzhausen that the people had arrived there and then in an office on the top floor of the building, we sat there. I can't remember how many members were assembled there in that office, I think there were about eight to ten people who were waiting in that office. There we were sitting for an indefinite period, it could have been one hour to approximately three hours. We waited there for Tiso to arrive.
MR LAMEY: What happened then?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, they did not arrive there. Later on we determined or established that a security vehicle or a patrol van from a security agency ...
ADV DE JAGER: You say later on you determined, how did you determine, where did you get that information from, give us more detail please?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, later on I established from Tiso that they became frightened when they saw that there was a patrol van from a security company in the vicinity.
MR LAMEY: Was that during a later meeting with Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: I am going too fast now, it happened later, at a later meeting.
MR LAMEY: Can I ask you as follows, when they did not arrive there, did you receive any instructions or requests from Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, he told me to continue with the operation.
MR LAMEY: To make contact again?
MR VAN ZYL: To make contact again and to continue with the investigation. This was not strange that the people did not arrive there, it regularly happened that a planned action did not, was not completed because the people did not pitch up.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, at this point, I want to refer to other documentation. My instructions from Mr Van Zyl during the weekend was that he had received further documentation, or he discovered further documentation which we had not handed in previously, referring to the specific Nelspruit incident and the discussions with Tiso. I just want to hand the first document to you.
CHAIRPERSON: Now we have a note or rather two notes on one page that is dated the 20th of February 1992 and the 21st of February 1992 respectively, this is signed by H. Ndimande. This will be Exhibit M, M for Mary.
MR LAMEY: Mr Van Zyl, let us look at this note, I just want to ask, these dates, were these dates before the first aborted Coin action?
MR VAN ZYL: As I have said on Friday, Hamilton and I and Tiso at a certain stage before this plan ...
MR LAMEY: Hamilton, this is the person who signed this document?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes, as I have testified previously, we first went to observe this place and this is what this note refers to.
MR LAMEY: Is this the first part of the note that refers to that?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: It is noted that Tiso asked Hamilton questions?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that was how I perceived that.
MR LAMEY: Can you read that?
MR VAN ZYL: Question one, that is (a)
"... how many weapons are with the security guards? (b) What type of weapons they use? (c) How many security guards are there at night? (d) Do they have a two-way radio and ..."
I suppose (e) which is marked (c) -
"... How is movement of people at night in the area?"
MR LAMEY: Can you just then read the following note, or rather regarding the rest of the note it seems that contact was made between Hamilton and Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: This first entry refers to the relationship between Hamilton and Tiso.
MR LAMEY: And in the middle of the second paragraph
"... he later then asked Mr BB the same question he asked me earlier, if Mr BB did answer them hopefully to his satisfaction"
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR LAMEY: Then there is a date, the 21st of February 1992. Is this a note from Tiso regarding his relationship with Hamilton?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: What did Tiso according to this note, say to Hamilton?
MR VAN ZYL: I will read it
"... report back on the meeting between Tiso and his partners in Soweto. Mr Tiso telephoned me, informed me that they are now ready for the deal/job in Nelspruit. He however said that he and his partners have a car and two pistols at the moment and will make an attempt to organise some more, say another two or three pistols. He then informed me that he would not be able to see us today but tomorrow will be the right for a meeting. We agreed that we meet at a certain place in town tomorrow between "ek weet nie" and ten thirty."
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I just want to say that Mr Van Zyl has in his possession the original signed document.
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: And then we have a further note, dated the 25th of February 1992 and the 27th of February 1992. I had a look at that and it looks like a report written by Hamilton shortly before this incident. He also made a note on the 27th, that refers to the first Coin incident. I ask you permission to hand this in.
CHAIRPERSON: Would this be Exhibit N?
MR LAMEY: This is Exhibit N.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR LAMEY: Is this correct that this is a report written by him, regarding what had happened regarding the first Coin incident and the note before this, the 25th of February, refers to another matter
"... he informed us that the guys are very excited about the deal and we are keeping in touch with Tiso on this matter"?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR LAMEY: After this first Coin incident, did you make contact with Tiso or did he make contact with you, how did that happen?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I am talking under correction, but I think he made contact with Hamilton first. At a certain stage we did make contact with him, but it is difficult to answer that question.
MR LAMEY: But Holtzhausen approached you to continue with the investigation?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
MR LAMEY: Previously you testified, I cannot remember whether it was before the first Coin incident, but if you think back about this, do you think it could have happened after the first Coin incident that you established that Tiso drove the vehicle?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
MR LAMEY: That information, was that conveyed to Sgt Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: Definitely, yes.
MR LAMEY: Can you tell the Committee how did Holtzhausen, how did he react regarding that information?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, he was very interested in that. According to me he adopted quite a different approach to this matter, and there was a whole urgency to this matter and he requested me to continue with this.
MR LAMEY: Did you make contact with Tiso regarding further action?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I just want to return to my previous answer. After that stage, after the first Coin incident, I had contact with Tiso because I collected the Cressida vehicle from him, I just remembered that. It was the same day or the next day, I met Tiso again. After Sgt Holtzhausen's request to me to continue with the matter, I made contact with Tiso again and met him at several instances and then we discussed this whole matter.
MR LAMEY: What was Tiso's attitude, did he want to continue with this or was he becoming frightened?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, he wanted to continue with this matter. I was not surprised that they could not complete the first incident. If you take the other four members of the team, they have never seen those premises before, it was just a question that he wanted to test me and to establish whether they would be arrested or not. After the first incident, he trusted me more and he definitely wanted to continue with the robbery.
MR LAMEY: Had there then been further planning done in consultation with Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, later on a date was determined on which Tiso said that they would want to go down and I conveyed this date to Sgt Holtzhausen and I know that shortly afterwards, they went down to Nelspruit to prepare for the incident.
MR LAMEY: Had there at that stage, what did you have to do? Did you have to give a vehicle, what arrangements were made with the vehicle?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, once again I gave the Cressida to Tiso and them.
MR LAMEY: Do you know if a second vehicle had been involved?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairman, Tiso requested a second vehicle. I am almost sure that he had requested the vehicle and I then had to meet them again and I once again had to take them down to Nelspruit and as soon as we were en route, I also had to notify Sgt Holtzhausen.
MR LAMEY: What did you tell Tiso in relation to the second vehicle?
MR VAN ZYL: I admitted that it would not be possible to organise a second vehicle, which I then did organise with Sgt Holtzhausen. At that stage Tiso also asked me if I could organise big guns or AK47s for him which I also told him that I would see what I could do.
MR LAMEY: Did you make any promises regarding these weapons that he had requested?
MR VAN ZYL: No. I just said that I would see what I could do. There were no definite promises made.
MR LAMEY: And this you also conveyed to Sgt Holtzhausen, in relation to the weapons, the AK47s?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What did he request, big guns? What term did he use?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, in one of the reports I see that a reference is made to big guns. This was the term that had been used in the set-up Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: He did not say AK47s, he said big guns?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, while during the one time, while we were discussing the handling of AK47s, we did not refer to big guns, there we specifically spoke of AK47s, but on the street it was also known like this. But during certain conversations he spoke about big guns quite a lot and I had no doubt what he was referring to.
CHAIRPERSON: So in this case he was talking about big guns?
MR VAN ZYL: That is how I recall it.
MR LAMEY: What did you understand by this?
MR VAN ZYL: I understood that a big gun is an AK47.
MR LAMEY: Very well, what was the arrangements that Holtzhausen had made with you regarding the second action? We are now talking about Pretoria, before Holtzhausen had gone down to Nelspruit?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, the incident would have taken place in the same way.
MR LAMEY: What do you mean by this?
MR VAN ZYL: They would then once again be waited for at Coin's offices. According to me, the steps would have been organised the same as the first incident where they would have parked in front of the place and have gone in again at Coin Security.
MR LAMEY: And the arrangement regarding the second vehicle, did Holtzhausen tell you that a vehicle had been organised in this regard?
MR VAN ZYL: The confirmation of the second vehicle, I only received the evening before I went down to Nelspruit. Sgt Holtzhausen telephonically told me, because at that stage I was still in Jo'burg to meet Tiso, and he told me that the second vehicle had been arranged and he would leave the vehicle in front of the Promenade Hotel. I am well acquainted with Nelspruit so I was not confused as to where the vehicle would be situated.
MR LAMEY: Very well.
ADV DE JAGER: Pardon, if you talk about the previous evening, the evening beforehand, what would that evening be? Would that be that same night that the incident happened, or an evening and a day beforehand?
MR VAN ZYL: That would then be correct that it is an evening and a day beforehand, because the incident only happened the next morning. According to my knowledge, they had already been in Nelspruit for a whole 24 hours, a full day.
MR LAMEY: Just to get more clarity, is it correct that the incident eventually happened in the early morning hours, in the dark, on the 26th of March?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: So the day before that would be the 25th and the day before that, the 24th?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, I would assume that they had already gone down the 24th.
MR LAMEY: When they left to Nelspruit, did you already know about the kombi, that it had been made available?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, but there hadn't been confirmation of this and I did also not know where the kombi would be left.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you then make further arrangements with Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, the arrangement had been that I would meet him and his friends at the Carlton Shopping Centre in the Kort/Kruis Road area.
MR LAMEY: Where did you leave the Toyota Cressida this time?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I did not give him the Toyota Cressida that specific day. If I can remember correctly, then I had given him the Toyota Cressida the day beforehand and this was once again at the Diplomat Hotel.
MR LAMEY: Where is this?
MR VAN ZYL: This is a block away from Shell House.
MR LAMEY: In Jo'burg?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Very well. In other words, do I understand your evidence correctly, when Holtzhausen went for Nelspruit, you thought that the same pattern would be repeated at that stage again, regarding the Coin premises?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Had there been any information at that stage that Holtzhausen was planning something where these people would be killed?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you shortly you departed from Jo'burg to Nelspruit, meet Tiso again?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I did. Originally they did not pitch up and later on I made a call to his house and a lady then told me that she would convey the message or something to that effect, I know that they were approximately late for our arranged meeting time.
MR LAMEY: Yes?
MR VAN ZYL: Tiso arrived there with the Cressida and later on, more men arrived with a Peugeot 404 that I can specifically remember. They drove down to the underground parking area at Carlton Shopping Centre and later on they also joined Tiso.
MR LAMEY: What I want to ask you, these people who would go with Tiso, did you understand that this was the same group as the previous Coin action or did you think that other people had come in?
MR VAN ZYL: I understood that these had been the same people. The question could of course be, I cannot recognise the people. I can just add that with our first meeting in Soweto, it was dark and Tiso did not want me to have contact with these people, he spoke all the time. Also when we met at the Carlton, when the people arrived there, four of them walked away and went to buy food and myself and Tiso basically stood and had a conversation. This was basically the first time that I had seen their faces in the light.
MR LAMEY: Very well, you say that Tiso then later arrived and he was late?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then the other men also arrived?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Did you make further arrangements with Tiso, did you discuss this with him?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, it was basically the same again as the previous incident, where he had to follow me again and at that stage, I did know where the bus was going to stop and I told them that we would first have to go and fetch the bus at the Promenade Hotel. I cannot remember if at that stage he had asked me again if I had organised the AKs, or not, if I had gotten hold of the AKs. I cannot remember this.
MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you, before you met Tiso that evening, did you, when Holtzhausen had already been in Nelspruit, did you have further contact with Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, basically while I was at the Carlton waiting, I did once again contact Dougie Holtzhausen and I told him that the people were late. We definitely at that stage, did have contact with one another.
MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you, at which stage did you hear from Holtzhausen that another type of action had been planned?
MR VAN ZYL: This was shortly before my departure to the Carlton, I spoke to Sgt Holtzhausen and he then informed me regarding the confirmation of the bus, and then he also told me that another route had to be followed to Coin and that something had been set up there. It made a lot of sense to me, I knew exactly what it meant.
MR LAMEY: Did you understand that you then, what did you understand, what would your actions be to take them to this graveyard?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, as with the previous incident, the people followed me and I had to once again, lead them with my vehicle, but this time, taking a different road, that would be specifically the Khanyamazaan Road. Sgt Holtzhausen also told me that as soon as I had gone underneath the White River Road, underneath the bridge, I had to drive faster because this is where the ambush would take place.
MR LAMEY: Did you know at which place Holtzhausen was talking about, could you visualise this place?
MR VAN ZYL: I knew exactly where it was, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Very well, did you and Tiso and his group then depart to Nelspruit?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: I would just like to ask you, please explain to us, you arrived in Nelspruit, where did you go to then?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, we arrived in Nelspruit and I looked at the left hand side of the road, close to the Promenade Hotel as Holtzhausen explained, and I did see a white bus standing there at the side of the road. I stopped in front of the vehicle and if I can remember correctly, Tiso stopped behind the vehicle. I climbed out and I walked to the vehicle and I know that Sgt Holtzhausen had told me where the keys would be left. I still assumed that it had to be somewhere on one of the wheels, but I cannot remember exactly where I had found the keys to the vehicle. I unlocked the van.
MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you, did you up to that stage, see any weapons in the possession of the group?
MR VAN ZYL: I did see Tiso's weapon again Mr Chairperson, because he was with me all the time.
MR LAMEY: Was there anyone else?
MR VAN ZYL: With the other people I did not see any weapons.
MR LAMEY: What happened then?
MR VAN ZYL: I unlocked the van for them. Four of the men climbed into the vehicle, the one automatically moved in behind the steering wheel and Tiso was standing around a little bit on the outside, and the next moment they closed the doors and at that stage, I realised that Tiso would not be getting into the vehicle. I first thought that Tiso would possibly follow them with the Cressida, but Tiso then told me that his friends would commit the robbery and he would then wait outside Nelspruit, close to Hall's Gateway garage and after the robbery, he would then meet them there. He had already made arrangements with them to this regard and so that they could then have a quick escape vehicle to Jo'burg after the robbery. This was then totally different to what we had originally planned, but at that stage, there was nothing that I could have done to stop the thing, and then I went along with the plan as it had changed.
MR LAMEY: What happened next, after they got into the van?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, the van made a U-turn in the road and on the other side of the road, it parked. Tiso at that stage drove. I went to the van, just to talk to the man again and to confirm that he had to follow me, because every time up to then, I had spoken to Tiso only. I arrived at the van and stuck my head halfway into the van and I told this man that he had to follow me and that we would take the White River Road and then we would turn off at some place.
MR LAMEY: Did you notice anything else that is important?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, this is where the big dispute is about and I will not forget this. One of the men at the back of the vehicle, between the two front seats, he was sitting on his haunches, and it looked like an AK47 to me, it was a big rifle and he was sitting haunched between the two seats. The bus did not have seats at the back and I will never forget this, because I can still see his eyes.
MR LAMEY: What do you mean with his eyes?
MR VAN ZYL: It was not fear, it was the wound up way of "I am now ready to do anything." It wasn't friendly eyes, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Had you seen this weapon beforehand?
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Very well, and from there, what did you do then?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I got into my vehicle, we drove through to the White River Road. I turned in the direction of White River and at the Khanyamazaan turn off, I did take that turn off. At the bottom, at the stop street, I turned right and I went underneath the bridge. Before I drove away from the stop street, I made sure that they were behind me, but when I drove away from the stop street, I drove away very quickly so that I could get underneath the bridge. I looked back and I saw that they had also turned right and they were following me underneath, through the bridge.
MR LAMEY: What happened then?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, after I had gone underneath the bridge, I heard lots of rifle fire and as my instructions had been, I continued driving up to the industrial area. Shortly afterwards I made a U-turn.
MR LAMEY: Can you just explain to us, the shooting where the shooting incident had occurred, can you take that road to Coin Security?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, one can take that road.
MR LAMEY: Talking about distance, how far from the place where the ambush had been set-up and executed, how far is this place from Coin Security's premises?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I would say about 500 metres, but I doubt whether it would be more than a kilometre, if it would be that far.
MR LAMEY: Is Coin Security close to the industrial area?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Very well, you made a U-turn somewhere around there, where did you go then?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, I made a U-turn in the industrial area and I drove back to the bridge. I arrived there and I saw that this specific van was standing in the middle of the road. I turned left and parked at the side of the road, I turned left onto the road that one would take back, the White River Road and a group of people were standing there and I went to this group of people. I wanted to make a report to Sgt Holtzhausen regarding Tiso. Upon my arrival at this group of people, I heard rifle fire from the direction of the kombi. I looked in that direction and I saw Sgt Holtzhausen at the side of the van, where he was leaning to the front with his hands in the vehicle, where he was shooting into the vehicle with an AK47.
MR LAMEY: What did you observe further?
MR VAN ZYL: Then Sgt Holtzhausen, shortly after this, arrived back from the bus without the AK47 and then I told him that Tiso had not been in the vehicle. This had been a last minute decision from him, that he would be waiting at the Hall's Gateway. He then told me to depart from the scene. This was also his order right from the beginning, that I should not return to the scene, but he then told me once again that I should leave the scene.
MR LAMEY: Can you remember, did you possibly tell him something regarding Tiso, apart from the fact that he was waiting somewhere? Were you worried at that stage?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I was very worried. I believe that I must have told Dougie that the person had to be killed or eliminated, but I did foresee problems if Tiso was not found.
CHAIRPERSON: This is indeed what you had done?
MR VAN ZYL: I believe that I had to, Chairperson. I believe that it was generally accepted, but I believe that I also had input in this.
CHAIRPERSON: That this was your first reaction?
MR VAN ZYL: I believe it was. I believe it had to be Mr Chairperson, because I believe that I foresaw great difficulties at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MR LAMEY: After you told Holtzhausen this, what did you do further? You told us that he told you to leave the scene?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Did you do that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, when I left the scene, the van then started burning and a man was still sitting in the left front seat and he was leaning half way outside the van, he also started burning. With this image I left that scene. Later on I drove passed the scene again in going over the bridge this time, after I left there, I also heard an explosion and I think as a result of this explosion, I decided to go and have a look at what was going on there again.
MR LAMEY: Did you just drive passed there and look or did you climb out again or what was the situation?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, I did not stop again, I only drove passed.
MR LAMEY: And from there, where did you go?
MR VAN ZYL: Shortly afterwards I went back to Jo'burg, Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Did you have contact with Holtzhausen again after this?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I listened to Sgt Holtzhausen's evidence that later on, they had met me at the side of the road and they originally could not find Tiso. This is possible, but unfortunately I cannot remember that I had seen him again at the side of the road.
MR LAMEY: You heard Mr Nortje testified that they met you again at a stage to get clarity about where Tiso was?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember this Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Is it possible that you could have forgotten this?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it is very possible, because many things happened that evening. I cannot specifically remember.
MR LAMEY: After you returned to Jo'burg, did you have contact with Holtzhausen again?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Did you find out what happened to Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: He said that I didn't have to be worried about Tiso, Tiso is sorted out or the problem is sorted out, it would be words to that effect, but I didn't have to worry about that. I made the inference that the man had been eliminated.
MR LAMEY: I just want to get to the remuneration that you had received. Did you at some point after the incident, receive remuneration?
MR VAN ZYL: I did Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: From whom did you receive this?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, this would then once again be from Sgt Holtzhausen.
MR LAMEY: Can you remember how much it was?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, the same question had been asked to me in the court case, and I still think it was about R7 500, somewhere in that vicinity, it was definitely not more than R10 000.
MR LAMEY: Can I ask it to you this way, did you regarding other information that you had given, receive higher or bigger amounts than the amount you had received in this case?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can you remember these incidents?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I remember once specific incident and I would like to refer to it as the Braamfontein incident, at the Standard Bank.
MR LAMEY: Evidence had already been given on this incident?
MR VAN ZYL: I think so Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Did arrests take place here or were people killed here?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, seven people had been arrested, a stolen vehicle had been reclaimed, fire weapons had been found in possession of the people and basically they would have robbed the place, but they were ambushed at the escalator.
MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you, what amount did you receive in that case?
MR VAN ZYL: I received R15 000 Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: The other case of higher amounts than R10 000, can you remember this?
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you, there is an incident that you mentioned to me?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, we made several rhino horn arrests.
MR LAMEY: What was the highest amount that you can remember that you received from Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: If it hadn't been for Mr Flip Hattingh during the court case, I probably wouldn't have remembered it, but Mr De Kock - I had a problem with the Endangered Species Unit with a couple of cases that we had there for arrests, that we did not receive payment and Mr De Kock then took it up with Headquarters and I was paid R17 000 for something like five or seven different incidents.
MR LAMEY: Was this R17 000 the biggest amount that you have received?
MR VAN ZYL: That I can remember yes, Mr Chairman. During the court case, I could also not remember this.
MR LAMEY: Very well. You heard that Sgt Holtzhausen gave evidence that he definitely gave you R20 000, what would your comment be on this?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I did not receive R20 000.
MR LAMEY: Mr Van Zyl, then I just want to ask you, Mr Holtzhausen during cross-examination admitted that it could possibly be his own inference concerning Mrs Mandela's involvement, did you have contact with her personally?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: You never told Holtzhausen that she was physically taking part in these robberies and that you had personally made contact with her?
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Regarding Tiso and the group that would commit the robbery, after you had heard about his connection with Mrs Mandela, what did you understand these people to be doing?
MR VAN ZYL: According to me they were armed robbers for the political party, for the ANC. It was my idea that Mrs Mandela had knowledge about this.
MR LAMEY: How did you yourself see Mrs Mandela at that stage, what idea did you have of her, of her profile?
MR VAN ZYL: Could I use the words untouchable, there was an incident in Soweto specifically where an Uzi sub-machine gun was found in her department, I was not there personally but I knew people who found it there. And the possession of unlicensed firearms, was just covered up, nothing was heard of it again.
MR LAMEY: Were you aware of information of people gathering around her and then also their involvement with certain deeds, what did you understand?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, at that stage the Mandela Football Club was quite prominent in the news and I don't think it was a secret amongst the police members what her real intentions and actions were. I did not doubt that she ...
MR LAMEY: Can we just see what you understand under her deeds and actions?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not doubt that she would be involved with these incidents and armed robberies.
MR LAMEY: You were not surprised?
MR VAN ZYL: No, not at all.
MR LAMEY: I just want to return regarding the remuneration which Holtzhausen mentioned, did you provide any input regarding the amount of remuneration?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: At any stage during any other incident?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, that is not how it happened. As I have said before, there are certain incidents for which I did not receive any remuneration at all.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Van Zyl, am I correct in assuming that in general also regarding - that if an informer was registered by Holtzhausen to provide information on a regular basis, I want to put it rather in this way, did you expect that you would be remunerated for information provided?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Did you expect that the death of any persons or that murder would be remunerated?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I specifically thought that regarding murder, I would not be remunerated, because how do you justify something like that in an informer's claim?
But specifically for the arrest and being paid a higher or lower amount, no.
MR LAMEY: You would expect that when you provided information which would lead to the arrest of people, and because it was a successful operation, you would be remunerated accordingly?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.
MR LAMEY: At that stage when you heard that Holtzhausen was planning an ambush, why did you still continue with that, why did you still play a role?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, at that stage it became clear with whom we had to do. I had no problem with that. If it had happened with the first incident, I would have had a problem with that.
MR LAMEY: Why are you saying that?
MR VAN ZYL: The fact that - I would rather have wanted that they had to be arrested and then we could follow them up with other matters which could be linked with other robberies, we could do that by interrogating them. When that second incident was described to me, that there would be an ambush, I had a problem with that because I knew that these people, with Mrs Mandela's connection, and that is why I continued.
MR LAMEY: Did you reconcile yourself with that action?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Did you accept that the motivation for that was not thought out by you?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR LAMEY: Did you before this ambush anyhow had any requests regarding this matter, that they would have been shot dead during an ambush?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson. I just want to confirm again, in that respect I could only convey this information to them, how these people would act and whether they would be there on that specific day, I had no control over that.
MR LAMEY: Did you accept that Holtzhausen from his part, had a good reason why they wanted to eliminate the people?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I understood it like that.
MR LAMEY: From a political point of view?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that was how I understood it.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I just want to make sure, I think I have completed my questioning. I think you have already confirmed what is written on page 222 and do you confirm that that is correct, questions 10 and 11 on page 222?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Right from the beginning and information you provided that Tiso came back to you, you suggested the place where the robbery had to take place, do I understand that this incident developed in such a way that you would provide more than information? Tiso wanted you to take him to the place as well?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
MR LAMEY: Right from the beginning, did you have any expectations at all that you would be compensated if these people were killed in a shooting incident? Was it told to you by Holtzhausen or did you have this expectation that you would be compensated additionally if your information would lead to that result?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, additionally compensated, that is not correct.
MR LAMEY: (No interpretation)
MR VAN ZYL: I expected because in many of the cases where I provided information, I was compensated for that. Just to come back to arrest or kill ...
MR LAMEY: Listen, did you expect that the result of shooting people during an arrest or whatever, would be an additional aspect regarding compensation?
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Very well, and it was never told to you by Sgt Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR LAMEY: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Was that the last work you did together with Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: No, it does not appear like that, there were a few more arrests. I think there was specifically a Kensington robbery where the people were arrested outside.
CHAIRPERSON: After the incident?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that an ordinary robbery?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that was an ordinary robbery.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that all?
MR VAN ZYL: I think there was also the matter where counterfeit money, R50 notes were retrieved and people were arrested in that regard. No, there were more incidents after that, Mr Chair.
MR LAMEY: Can I ask you then, how long after this incident, did you have any connection with Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: About three, four, five months. To be safe, I would rather say four or five months.
CHAIRPERSON: They were all criminal matters?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And were you compensated for all of that?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you not compensated for all of those?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it only for the successful ones?
MR VAN ZYL: Some of the successful ones, I was not compensated for by C10.
MR LAMEY: I just want to ask you Mr Van Zyl, is it possible that some of these things were put together in one bag, for one sum of remuneration?
MR VAN ZYL: That was how Holtzhausen explained it to me, and I did not have a problem with that way of operating. If that was what they decided to pay, I accepted that.
MR LAMEY: So what you would, the situation would be is that you provide information for one incident and there was one statement made referring to both incidents, and you only received one sum or money from Holtzhausen, and that could encompass both cases or only was related to one matter?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know what the proposal was, or whether it referred to two matters, but that was the explanation given to me and that was compensation for two or three matters. That one was perhaps not relevant and that is why you received a bigger compensation for the other one.
CHAIRPERSON: So you had an easy, flexible relationship with Holtzhausen? You did not give him the impression that you had certain expectations from him, you did not create the impression that you wanted to be paid for every incident?
MR VAN ZYL: The only problem I had was with the unit for the Endangered Species.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I am referring to Holtzhausen. You had no idea whatsoever how these claims were processed, what was said in the claims or what the motivation was? Did you ever threaten Holtzhausen that you would use your contacts in the police to follow up what amounts were paid out when they crooked you?
MR VAN ZYL: He testified that I had contacts in the police Headquarters, I know nobody in the police Headquarters.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever get the idea that they were crooking you?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, in the past ...
CHAIRPERSON: No, I am only referring to Holtzhausen, I am not referring to Endangered Species.
MR VAN ZYL: In the past, regarding my own informers which I handled, I knew that high amounts were requested and that was shot down. I trusted Dougie, we had a very good relationship. If he said that, I accepted that.
MR LAMEY: There was nothing which was suspicious to you?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
CHAIRPERSON: If they did not pay you one cent for Nelspruit, would you have been upset?
MR VAN ZYL: No, for other incidents I wasn't paid either.
ADV DE JAGER: But you went there twice, you put petrol in your car, you had other expenses, did you not expect that you would be compensated for your expenses?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, Sgt Holtzhausen testified that he filled the car's tank with petrol. I remember one incident specifically where I went, booked in at Drum Rock with members of C1, I had my own room and they paid that once. I had a petrol card, so I carried my own expenses. It was not a situation that I went to Nelspruit only regarding the Tiso incident, we had for example other cases like a Mandrax case.
ADV DE JAGER: But this last time you went to Nelspruit specifically for the Tiso matter. The previous Coin matter, did you have other matters or did you go only for the Coin case?
MR VAN ZYL: What I am trying to say is I did not expect that I would be compensated for my expenses. That was on the basis of that that I had to obtain the information however long it takes and they would compensate me. I just mentioned that I also investigated other matters there. I am not saying that at that stage I was going to investigate all the other matters and just accepted that I wouldn't be paid. It regularly happened that I had to pay my own expenses without receiving any compensation, I had no problem with that.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR LAMEY: But you would not have been happy if you kept on providing information and were never compensated, you had expectations to be compensated?
MR VAN ZYL: It is not that I wasn't compensated for every incident, but at certain stages I was not compensated, I accepted it like that.
CHAIRPERSON: It was kind of like a business decision? You were under no obligation to provide information, you did that as a kind of business? If it was not a business proposal to provide information to Holtzhausen, you would find somebody else to provide information to? Thank you.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Zyl, this information you had about Tiso and his friends' involvement with Mrs Mandela, can you expand a little more about that?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I saw Tiso at a certain stage in the white Mercedes, I questioned him about that afterwards and he told me that they execute these armed robberies and this money was channelled back and if I can recall correctly, there was some or other commission involved or they could take a certain percentage of this robbed money. I did not ask any specific details about this, but that was the impression he gave me.
MR HATTINGH: That information Mr Van Zyl, did you convey that to Mr Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: I did, yes.
MR HATTINGH: You heard his evidence that at a certain stage he had access to information, at an early stage, that these robbers were in dispute with Mrs Mandela and they had decided to do this Nelspruit robbery for their own gain. Did you have that information?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know whether that happened so early in our relationship or whether it was after the first attempt. I cannot testify specifically when they had told me that, but it was conveyed to us.
MR HATTINGH: Did they make it clear to you that they were involved in previous robberies?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And did you understand that those robberies were committed to rob the money for the ANC coffers?
MR VAN ZYL: That is how I understood it ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: And that information was obtained from Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.
MR HATTINGH: Is there any reason why that information that these funds were meant for the ANC, why you did not mention that in your statement?
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson. My statement was compiled by another legal representative and it was just before the cut-off date, when we decided that I had to apply for amnesty.
MR HATTINGH: When did you hand in this application?
MR VAN ZYL: That was on the 10th of May. I can't remember when the cut-off date was, I remember that I took this application personally to the Johannesburg office.
MR HATTINGH: Was that before the extended cut-off date that you handed in your application?
MR VAN ZYL: I think it was the exact date.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, was that in May?
MR VAN ZYL: It was the 10th of May.
MR HATTINGH: 1997?
MR VAN ZYL: 1997.
CHAIRPERSON: That was the extended date, yes. The 10th of May was the cut-off date for the extended period.
MR HATTINGH: At twelve o'clock that night the time expended and you drove through to hand in the application? Did you prepare the statement in a great hurry? Did you decide initially not to apply for amnesty?
MR VAN ZYL: Initially I did not think that I had to apply for amnesty.
MR HATTINGH: And then what persuaded you to apply for amnesty?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, it was only three years later, and I saw in which direction things were moving. I felt that it would be worth the while to make my contribution regarding reconciliation and I really hope that my input can contribute in this respect.
MR HATTINGH: For this Nelspruit incident, you have already received indemnity?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I have Mr Chairman.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Van Zyl, when you were still associated with Murder and Robbery, you also handled informers?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you knew how this informer system worked?
MR VAN ZYL: I was, yes.
MR HATTINGH: And you knew that there were permanent informers who were registered, received a salary?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And then there were also informers who were paid from incident to incident?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And you knew that reports had to be written in which recommendations had to be made regarding the amount of the compensation and that was written by the handler of the informer?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: In the past, you compiled those reports yourself?
MR VAN ZYL: I did, yes.
MR HATTINGH: And your experience also taught you that the amount you suggested, was not the amount to be accepted in the end?
MR VAN ZYL: In most instances, no.
MR HATTINGH: Did you have some or other idea what the compensation scale was? You could not suck it out of your thumb, you had to know more or less what kind of compensation had to be paid for the various types of information provided?
MR VAN ZYL: Naturally Mr Chairman, more serious crimes was paid a higher compensation. You also looked at the informer's involvement in obtaining the information, whether his life was in danger for example and then most important of all, you had to make it as attractive as possible so that the informer could return with more information.
MR HATTINGH: Therefore it was important that the highest possible compensation had to be paid?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.
MR HATTINGH: Can you tell us shortly what is the evidence for a Detective Service?
MR VAN ZYL: That is the document used to support a claim for payment to an informer, and the Detective Service indicates the amount. It is confirmed then and that is the document accompanying a payment.
MR HATTINGH: Who compiles this Detective Service document?
MR VAN ZYL: It is the direct Head.
MR HATTINGH: Is it compiled before compensation is paid or after the amount has been approved?
MR VAN ZYL: If I remember correctly, I have left the police 10 years ago, but if I can remember correctly, it is after it had been paid.
MR HATTINGH: Tell me shortly, what is the purpose of the Detective Service document?
MR VAN ZYL: This supports the payment of the compensation, this document.
MR HATTINGH: After it has been compiled, where is it sent to?
MR VAN ZYL: It goes back to the specific Branch who made the claim.
MR HATTINGH: Is it given to the person who makes the payment and what must he do with that?
MR VAN ZYL: He must obtain a receipt from the informer in which receipt is acknowledged and that document is then returned to Headquarters.
MR HATTINGH: Is it not correct Mr Van Zyl, that that receipt in most instances was prepared at Headquarters?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I think that was the approval way of operating.
MR HATTINGH: In other words once, after the payment of an amount was approved, they also completed a receipt in the name of the informer who had to receive the money and the payment or the amount is indicated on this and then this is given to the Investigative Officer and that was given to the Head of the Department and then the receipt was signed?
MR VAN ZYL: This receipt could have possibly been made out at Headquarters.
MR HATTINGH: This is perhaps the right time to adjourn shortly.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will adjourn and reconvene at quarter past eleven. We are adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
BEN BURGER VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont)
...(no audible question)
MR VAN ZYL: ... specifically my evidence-in-chief.
MR HATTINGH: What do you mean basically, did you only read through the evidence-in-chief and did you also read through the cross-examination?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not have time to read through my cross-examination. I went back and I looked at the amounts mentioned in the amounts paid out during the cross-examination. That part was during the beginning of the cross-examination.
MR HATTINGH: So did you only read the record right at the beginning of the cross-examination? Why did you want to consult the cross-examination again regarding the amounts?
MR VAN ZYL: I remember many questions were asked regarding the amounts paid in the case, in the court case. Mr Francis mentioned R6 500 here, I did not agree with that amount and that was why I specifically consulted those parts again.
MR HATTINGH: What did you want to establish Mr Van Zyl?
MR VAN ZYL: As I remember I did not say R6 500, but I said R7 500.
MR HATTINGH: Was that the only amount you consulted again in the evidence?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR HATTINGH: You can remember that during this court case, your memory was very vague regarding payment of compensation for information, isn't that so?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR HATTINGH: You for example, to start with, could not recollect how much compensation you received for the four AKs which you provided information through to Mr Stolz and Mr Holtzhausen, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman, I initially thought I received R6 000 for that, because that amount appeared on one of our documents which was kept up to date by Hamilton. Later on, it was indicated to me that there was a Detective Service document for R12 000.
MR HATTINGH: That information that you received R12 000 and not R6 000, that only appeared during cross-examination, during your evidence-in-chief you mentioned R6 000? And so you did not recollect clearly about most of the amounts. If I can remember correctly, there was not one case in which you remembered exactly how much you have received?
MR VAN ZYL: Except for the Braamfontein incident, there I remember that we received R15 000.
MR HATTINGH: Was that the only one that you could remember distinctly?
MR VAN ZYL: And after that, I remembered about the R17 000.
MR HATTINGH: No, but that was after I refreshed your memory. I am referring to the first instance?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: At the first instance, you could only remember one amount and that was the R15 000?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: All the other amounts you could not remember?
MR VAN ZYL: That was very long ago and I had a problem with that.
MR HATTINGH: Naturally yes, it is more than seven years ago?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: You testified during the criminal case, Mr Van Zyl, that the compensation which you received for information provided to Vlakplaas, that you received that compensation from Mr Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: In most instances.
MR HATTINGH: Most or all of them?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I remember distinctly that the first payment had come from Mr De Kock. The others came from Sgt Holtzhausen.
MR HATTINGH: It does not help us if you say I believe it came from Holtzhausen.
MR VAN ZYL: That is what I can remember.
MR HATTINGH: That you received it from Holtzhausen because when Mr De Kock was not there?
MR VAN ZYL: According to my recollection, Mr De Kock was only involved in the first payment.
MR HATTINGH: That is the R12 000 which you initially thought was R6 000? Mr Chairman, I just want guidance from you, Friday I told you that I was going to go through the documents and that I am going to ask questions from that and then if I do that, I am going to refer to the pages supporting me. I would copy those pages and submit it to you, but if you look at Mr Van Zyl's evidence, it is very long and extensive. There are many pages that I want to refer to and in my humble submission it is not going to serve any purpose to say on page this and this you said this and this, this is the page, especially if he does not dispute it. With respect then, I want to submit that I refer to a specific page, read it to you and only if it is disputed by the witness, then I will show him the page and then provide the necessary copies?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it sounds like a reasonable proposal. We are also sensitive to loading these records. Unless there is any strong objection from any of the parties, I intend to allow Mr Hattingh to proceed on that basis and of course, Mr Lamey, I assume will have access if he needs, for purposes of re-examination or whatever. Very well, Mr Hattingh, I think you can continue on that basis.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Zyl, in your evidence-in-chief, on page 753 of the document, it is perhaps not important to say it is your evidence-in-chief, on the evidence on page 753 you were asked about the money that you received for Nelspruit and questions were asked about how much you received and you said
"... I am not sure, hundred percent sure, but it was less than R10 000. But I went through my records again and saw a receipt for R7 500 which I could not associate with another payment and therefore I suspect that it was more or less that amount, but it was not more than R10 000."
Do you remember that evidence?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I testified to that regard.
MR HATTINGH: And in the next sentence it is asked
"... do you know who gave that to you...?"
And your answer -
"... every time Sgt Holtzhausen gave the money to me.?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes. The first meeting where I met Holtzhausen, Mr De Kock was present and then he made that payment.
MR HATTINGH: Did he physically take the money from his pocket and gave it to you or did Holtzhausen in his presence, give the money to you?
MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. Then you also testified Mr Van Zyl, that you never received payment for work done in the presence of your own informers? That is on page 781 and 782 of the document?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: During cross-examination on page 1038 you said
"... the reason for that was that if they knew how much they got, they also wanted that amount."
MR VAN ZYL: I could have possibly testified that.
MR HATTINGH: If you are not sure, I just want to show you the exact page. It starts at the bottom of page 1037 and I say
"... we have information that at various instances you asked that payments for compensation should not be made in the presence of your informers because you did not want them to know how much you are paid for every transaction because then they wanted more then what you were paying them (and you said) it was possible."
MR VAN ZYL: It is possible, yes.
MR HATTINGH: And then you went on to say that you told your informers that you received less than what you actually received?
MR VAN ZYL: That happened yes.
MR HATTINGH: So that they would not ask for more than what you were giving them?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: You were reasonably interrogated in depth regarding the handling of the funds, you received?
MR VAN ZYL: I remember, yes.
MR HATTINGH: And you agreed that you did not bank all the money you received?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Do you remember Mr Holtzhausen's evidence that at a certain instance, where he was present, and you received compensation, that you put part of that in the drawer and then asked, you called your secretary, gave it to the secretary and asked her to bank it.
MR VAN ZYL: I heard that evidence, I don't think I would have just put it in a drawer, it could have happened that I gave money to my secretary to put in the bank and then some of that money was used in our petty cash box. But regarding putting the money in a drawer, I think I would have rather kept it in my briefcase.
MR HATTINGH: And if the payment was made in your office?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not have a drawer or a safe to keep the money safe.
MR HATTINGH: I don't want to say that you put the money there to store it - after Mr Holtzhausen left, you could do whatever you wished?
MR VAN ZYL: That is possible yes.
MR HATTINGH: You said that on page 792 and page 793 and also on page 1005. And so I led you through your evidence regarding a whole lot of transactions and I just want to take you through them one by one. Can you remember the R15 000 that you received and can you remember how much of this you had banked and how much you had kept back?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: On page 1003 of the record you were asked
"... can you remember if on the same day you had banked the money that you had received?
You answered -
"... no."
Then I put it to you -
"... because you see, according to this deposit book ..."
maybe just for the information of the Committee, I should say that during cross-examination you admitted that you still had some records, we asked for these records and amongst others, you made a deposit book available to us, is that not true?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And this is what we are referring to here
"... because you see according to this deposit book, on the 17th of October 1991 this would be the day upon which you had signed the receipt, this is the receipt for the R15 000, you had paid an amount of R3 000 in cash."
Can you remember this?"
MR VAN ZYL: I think I gave evidence to this effect. I had to have given evidence to this effect if it is on the record. I cannot specifically remember the date and the amount that was deposited.
MR HATTINGH: And then the sentence continues
"... an amount of R3 000 is deposited and you say that you cannot comment on this, would this be part of this money?"
And you say -
"... this is possible. Would this then mean that you had kept R9 000 back? This is possible."
MR VAN ZYL: It would possibly be R12 000?
MR HATTINGH: Yes, pardon. It is my calculations that weren't that good.
ADV DE JAGER: Had it improved in the meantime?
MR HATTINGH: To put it correctly, that you had kept back R12 000?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I would not have held back such a large amount, because to put this in the petty cash box, this R12 000, this would have been silly.
ADV DE JAGER: But you must pay your employees, you keep R12 000 or R9 000 back and don't you give your informer money and also your staff? Were they paid by cheque?
MR VAN ZYL: In certain cases Chairperson, they did receive 50 percent of the payment, but then there would still be an amount outstanding, I cannot remember what I did with that money, how it was deposited or who it was paid out to and how much was paid to the informer.
MR HATTINGH: Then I put it to you that on the day, the day that you had signed the receipt and on the next day, there is a further R5 000 that had been deposited, and I put it to you on the same page, 1003, and I can see that my calculations are correct here, that it would have been senseless to walk around with R12 000 in your pocket and to deposit R3 000 and then the following day go and deposit another amount?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember what we deposited there.
MR HATTINGH: What I want to admit here is that if you had received R15 000 on that day, then you would not have deposited R3 000 on that day and the following day deposited R5 000 again?
MR VAN ZYL: No, it does not make sense.
MR HATTINGH: One thing that is clear according to your records, Mr Van Zyl, is that you did not nearly deposit the amount which you received?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, during the court case, it was also reasoned like that. I did make an attempt to get statements, which obviously at the moment is on microfiche. What I have to add is that there was a credit card account as well, and then - in the court case I also gave evidence that it is possible that it could possibly have been deposited into another account, I cannot remember.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, let's continue. If you will grant me a moment, Chairperson. On page 1018 of the record you are questioned about further payments that you had received. I put to you
"... I want to mention it to you that in the documentation that you had made available to us, I received a deposit slip that according to this date, is dated the 27th of November 1991. According to this, a cash amount of R8 000 had been deposited, is this possible?
You say -
"... yes, it is possible."
This is not the part that I am looking for. Sorry Chairperson, my notes seem to be in a bit of a mess, let me just make sure ... (no interpretation). It is 1021, page 1021 and I am questioning you on this page about an amount which has been paid out to you, an amount of R7 000, can you recall that you had received such an amount?
MR VAN ZYL: It is very possible that I had received such an amount.
MR HATTINGH: And then I refer you on page 1021 and I say that
"... if I look at your deposit book on the 15th of January 1992, an amount was paid in of R5 000. Would this be related?"
Once again, it was a cash amount. You say -
"... this is possible. If this would then be a part of the R7 000, then you had kept back R2 000 of this, is that not so?"
You say -
"... there was another informer in this case as well."
Is this correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I do not know which payment you are referring to now, in relation to what case, but it would have happened like this. If an informer had been involved, I would have kept back an amount and paid it out to him.
MR HATTINGH: At this stage, I am just trying to set the principle that the cash amounts that you had received, you did not pay in full into the back account?
MR VAN ZYL: Not always, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: The facts that had been given to us, Mr Van Zyl, we have not seen one single incident where you had paid the full amount that you had received, into the bank. We have not encountered such a thing in the pieces that you had made available to us?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson. There were also deposit slips that we could not find, because it was loose deposit slips.
MR HATTINGH: Then you also gave evidence that it was possible that your secretary, Ms Vanessa Hamilton, that she on occasion could have signed a receipt on your behalf and could have received money on your behalf, can you remember this?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I can remember this and if I can recall it correctly at the moment, then it was specifically for a rhino horn case where she was involved in the arrests.
MR HATTINGH: I think it was for rhino horn and for dagga, if I can recall correctly?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: The fact that she was involved in the arrest, did not involve that she would receive the remuneration?
MR VAN ZYL: No, not necessarily Mr Chairperson. I know that that specific case was of such a nature that she handled it from beginning to end.
MR HATTINGH: An amount of R8 000 was paid out, would she then have received the full amount for this?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know Mr Chairperson, it is possible.
MR HATTINGH: Because on page 1024, a day after she had signed this receipt, an amount of R7 000 was deposited into your bank account?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, the payment would have been to us. It would have been my money, so it would be correct if it was paid into our account. I do not know what comment I must make on that.
MR HATTINGH: R500 was kept back?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: Was this maybe her remuneration and the rest went to you?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, she would not have received this remuneration because she received a monthly salary.
MR HATTINGH: Then I misunderstood you when you said just now that it was possible that the R8 000 could have gone to her, do you mean that it physically could have been paid out to her to your credit?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: But then on this occasion, this happened, not so?
MR VAN ZYL: It would appear so, I am not sure.
MR HATTINGH: Then it also appeared in the criminal case Mr Van Zyl, that you never paid income tax for as long as you had this business?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And that you admitted on your keeping of records, the way in which you banked these funds and parts thereof, was then to pay informants and to also cover other costs and that it would not have been possible for the Receiver to determine based on this, what amount of tax you had to pay?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, the records were kept very badly.
MR HATTINGH: And this is also a further fact that came to the fore, that your business was done in the name of a Close Corporation?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And there was almost a total lack of bookkeeping, is that not true?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: It also came to the fore during the cross-examination that you were under financial pressure during these times, not so?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, we opened the account with the specific facility and the specific facility still existed upon closure of the account.
MR HATTINGH: And did you not admit that pressure was applied on you by the bank manager?
MR VAN ZYL: I think anyone with an overdraft facility is put under a certain amount of pressure to deposit money.
MR HATTINGH: And I also put it to you that amongst the things we received from you, there was also a cheque of R2 000 that bounced?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember that.
MR HATTINGH: You cannot remember this, then I will refer you to page 1048. At the top of page 1048 I tell you
"... and on 7 November a cash cheque for R2 000 is written out and this bounces."
And you say -
"... this is correct."
MR VAN ZYL: It is possible, I cannot specifically remember what this was for and if the cheque was dishonoured in the sense that there are cheques that are on a seven day waiting period, I cannot remember this at all.
MR HATTINGH: You said, I asked you
"... if your limit was R20 000, why was this cheque dishonoured?"
And you say -
"... it is possible that the credit card came in and that this had pushed up the account?"
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, it is possible, I think that sometimes payments had been made from the one account to the credit card, because the credit card was in my personal name.
MR HATTINGH: And would this then result that you would go over your limit?
MR VAN ZYL: That is possible.
MR HATTINGH: And this on its own turn, would lead to the cheque for R2 000 being dishonoured?
MR VAN ZYL: This is possible Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: It would appear to me as if you were always on the border of the limit of this specific overdraft facility?
MR VAN ZYL: Not all the time, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Why did you close this business?
MR VAN ZYL: I received a better offer from an insurance company.
ADV DE JAGER: Did your income just exist of information money?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, we did other civil work as well and in the last few months of the business, we also concentrated on stolen vehicles and vehicles bought on terms of financing and this is basically what we started concentrating on solely.
ADV DE JAGER: So you for instance had an income from divorces or investigations on divorces and then regarding the stolen vehicles, how did you receive money from there?
MR VAN ZYL: This was done directly from the financing houses, so a person would say that somebody had not paid for three or four months and then you would have to find the car?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, or a vehicle was in arrears and then all of a sudden the vehicle was stolen.
MR HATTINGH: On page 848 of the record I put it to you
"... but you at a stage had said that the bank had applied pressure on you and for this reason you had to pay as much money as possible into the account and held back as little money as possible for the office?"
And you said -
"... this is true."
And then I put it to you -
"... but then you were under pressure?"
And your answer -
"... anyone wants to pay off his overdraft account, but I would not say that this was my motivation why I wanted informant fees or had led these people into an armed robbery to be able to get informant's fees."
Do you remember this?
MR VAN ZYL: I do remember this.
MR HATTINGH: Let us now come to the signing of receipts. Do you remember that you were asked if you had signed a receipt for the first amount that you had received, this would then be the R12 000 that you at that point thought it was R6 000?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did sign a receipt Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, but do you remember that you had been asked under which name you signed this receipt?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, this was the very first time that I had received money from them. I cannot remember if at that stage, I paid the first money under my personal name. I cannot remember.
MR HATTINGH: Do you remember what your answer was during the criminal case?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember if I received it in my own name and if it was under a false name.
MR HATTINGH: In the criminal case, page 727 you say, just to make it clear, that it is now regarding the first incident on page 726 I will start reading
"... Who did you recruit, who spoke to you?"
Your answer -
"... Colonel De Kock discussed the possibility with me and introduced me to Sgt Holtzhausen and told me that he would be my handler upon which I would then give my information directly to him. Where would this recruitment have taken place? If I can remember correctly, it was at the Jo'burg Sun Hotel. Was it during the handing over of the money? This is correct."
So we are talking about that incident. The next question was -
"... can you recall if you had signed any receipt? Yes, I did indeed sign a receipt for receiving this money. Do you know under which name you signed it? I did not sign it in my own name. I signed it in a white person's name and if I can remember correctly, it was either van Rensburg or Van Vuuren or Van der Westhuizen but it was Van something and it was a reasonably long surname."
Do you remember this?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, later on I then did recall the surname, it was Van Kloosder, Johan van Kloosder. At that stage I thought that - it is also possible that upon the first payment, but I cannot remember that I had a false name in the first payment, that the unit had given me.
MR HATTINGH: But this was your evidence?
MR VAN ZYL: This was my evidence. But the Van der Westhuizen, Van Rensburg that was wrong, it has to be Van Kloosder.
MR HATTINGH: I speak under correction but I think that your recollection of the name and the Van Kloosder name was also pointed out by me during cross-examination?
MR VAN ZYL: It was on one of the Investigators' Proof documents.
MR HATTINGH: But you couldn't remember it spontaneously?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I could not.
MR HATTINGH: At page 728 you say
"... I signed for receipt for the money paid out to me every time."
And I asked you in whose name and you say -
"... it was exactly the same, once again I cannot remember if it was Van Rensburg or Van Vuuren or Van der Westhuizen, I never signed under my own name."
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, in other divisions I did sign in my own name and my recollection is still that that first time, it could have been possible that I signed in my own name, but with C10's members, I normally signed under a false name.
MR HATTINGH: This is what you recall now, during the case it was totally different, not true?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Here you say pertinently that you never signed in your own name?
MR VAN ZYL: That was my evidence.
MR HATTINGH: And it was also your evidence that you also signed under this Van der Westhuizen, Van Vuuren or Van Rensburg name?
MR VAN ZYL: Van something, that is correct. And as I said it was Van Kloosder.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Hattingh, from the evidence so far I think it is common cause between you and the witness that all the money that had been received, was not deposited?
MR HATTINGH: That is true Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: And also concerning the names, it is not sure under which name it was received and which receipt he had signed or whatever the case might be?
MR HATTINGH: I believe that we have determined it just now, Mr Chairman. Later on, if I can just round it off, you could not remember at all under which names you had signed, do you remember, when it appeared that receipts had been signed under other names?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson. A lot of receipt had been signed, so it was very difficult especially because it was signed under false names.
MR HATTINGH: At the Carousel for example you said that you do not know under which you had signed there for your remuneration?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Indeed at the Carousel you could not remember the amount that you had received?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Then you said that you later realised that you did for the AKs for the first transaction, that you had signed under your own name?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And that you had signed and that the full amount of the receipt had been received by you?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: So there was nothing held back by anyone in this case?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Because these receipts was at Headquarters, not so?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, the receipts were later shown to me by the Investigation Team.
MR HATTINGH: So the State was in possession of them, that is the point that I am trying to make?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, they apparently got it at Head Office.
MR HATTINGH: And on one of the receipts that they had in their possession, you admitted that you signed it in your own name and that you received the full amount?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR HATTINGH: That being the R12 000?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: That would be the R12 000 and then you also said at a later stage in your evidence, where you said that you had always signed in the name of Van something and you later on in your evidence said that you signed the receipt as it was given to you, under which name, whatever?
MR VAN ZYL: This is where the Van Kloosder came from, it was written by Sgt Holtzhausen on the receipt.
MR HATTINGH: No, but it was not always the name of Johan van Kloosder?
MR VAN ZYL: That is how I remember it Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: At page 1014 I ask you
"... you sometimes signed receipts in the names of other people, not so?"
And you answer -
"... in which the receipt was filled in, in that name I signed."
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And we are now talking about a different name than the Van Kloosder name?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, I gave information to different divisions of the police, so I had different names.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Van Zyl, I did not cross-examine you about transactions that you had with other units of the South African Police and you realised this, but my cross-examination of you was about the payment that you had for information that you had given to Vlakplaas.
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And it is in a follow up to this cross-examination that you gave this information?
MR VAN ZYL: That is how I remember it, Mr Chairperson, that is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And indeed one receipt that had been shown to you, this is on page 1014, was in the name of Edward Moshaba, do you remember this?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, last time, a mistake had also been made concerning this. If I can remember this, Edward Moshaba was the accused in this matter. I don't know if I gave evidence to this effect last time?
MR HATTINGH: No, you did not, because in this case the receipt was shown to you. I tell you on page 1014
"... and a receipt had been shown to you, and this was in the name of Edward Moshaba and this was relating to remuneration for let's call it the rhino horn transaction and then you would have signed the receipt in the name of Moshaba, not so?"
And your answer is -
"... it is possible, but I want to add that this handwriting is very small and very difficult to identify, but specifically the R6 000, that is written out after the signature, I would have recognised if it was mine, because this handwriting is bigger and it does not look like this."
And then you continued and I questioned you further -
"... do you want to look at the original"?
And you say -
"... if possible, yes please. It is the original that was shown to me on Friday, the R6 000 in figures is not my handwriting and my signature, I say again, I do my e's like this sometimes."
And then I say -
"... yes?"
And you say -
"...but I cannot say if this is my handwriting."
And I ask you -
"... it is possible that it could be your handwriting?" Yes, I probably have to say yes or no, but I doubt it. I don't think it is mine."
And then I asked you -
"... if you had signed in the name of another person, don't you then specifically try to change your handwriting?"
And you say -
"... this is what I am looking at to see if I can identify it in this way."
And I ask you -
"... but do you do this, if you are signing in another person's name, you will try to write in a different style than what you normally write, is this not so?"
And you say -
"... yes, this is the case."
You continue and -
"... then it would naturally, and then you naturally would later find it very difficult to say if it had been you that had signed there or not, not true?"
And you answer -
"... yes, it probably should make it more difficult, that is true."
And I say to you -
"... because you are now trying to establish if you can recognise the handwriting, but if you specifically tried to cover up your own handwriting, then you would not be able to recognise it now, is this not so?"
And you say -
"... it is possible."
Do you remember this evidence Mr Van Zyl?
MR VAN ZYL: I remember this.
MR HATTINGH: And now I want to put it to you that you specifically at a later stage admitted concerning this Moshaba, that it was your handwriting, that it could have been your handwriting in the name of E. Moshaba, in other words that you could have falsified the handwriting of Moshaba? It did not appear to you like this, but you admitted that it could be the case, because you sometimes did your e's like that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it appeared like that.
MR HATTINGH: And the rest you probably couldn't recognise because you specifically tried to disguise your handwriting?
MR VAN ZYL: It is possible Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: On page 1013 you say that the e's look like yours on page 1022 and 1031, you do admit that it possibly could be your handwriting?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: At page 1014 you say that if a receipt had been signed in the name of Edward Moshaba, then you possibly would have signed it in that name?
MR VAN ZYL: It was possible, it was expected that it would be signed in the name of the receipt.
MR HATTINGH: You also gave evidence that you used the name Johan van Kloosder and that you consciously tried to use a different handwriting to try and disguise your own handwriting, can you remember this?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I still wrote in running handwriting.
MR HATTINGH: In other words you tried to make it appear as if it is not your handwriting?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: On page 1034 you say
"... the police could decide for themselves under which name remuneration could be asked for and this would necessarily then refer to the name that the receipt would be made out in?"
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did not have any control over that, Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And then you say on page 1042 I say to you
"... if I may just return to the signing of documentation, could I just in summary put it to you Mr Van Zyl that you cannot as you are standing there today, remember under which names you had always signed the receipts?"
And you say -
"... this is so."
Do you remember this?
MR VAN ZYL: This is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And then I continue and I say that it often happened that you used fictitious names and you say
"... this is true."
MR VAN ZYL: That is so Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And naturally you knew that it was a fictitious name that had been used and you say
"... this is correct."
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And I further put it to you that I want to put it to you that my information is that if fictitious names were used, it was normally on your request and you say
"... in certain cases, this had been so."
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Van Zyl, please answer that?
MR VAN ZYL: It did happen that other names were used, I did not have control about which names were used.
ADV DE JAGER: It is very clear that you signed in other names and wrote smaller and all those sorts of things. If a receipt had been shown to you that you received R1 000 but they only give you R50, would you have signed this receipt?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: So you would not have signed a receipt for less than the amount that had been given to you?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
MR HATTINGH: Then on page 1075 I question you further about this matter and I put it to you
"... to my surprise you, later on in your evidence and unfortunately we have not received this part of the record, so I could not study this properly, you said that you had signed under whichever name had been presented to you being either a black or a white person, whatever the case might be?"
And you answered -
"... it would appear to be that, as it was given to me, this was the way I signed it."
MR VAN ZYL: This is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And I continue
"... so that the statement which you made here and the evidence that it had originally led, that it would once again have been under a white person's name and that you also always signed under a white person's name, is not correct?"
And your answer is that your memory is that you always signed under the name of a white person but then you somewhere spontaneously said that you had signed under any name, irrespective of whether it was a white or a black person and you answer -
"... yes, the receipt had already been made out when I received it. In most of the cases it was like this, and then I signed it as it was presented to me."
Do you remember this?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: I say yes and you continue
"... my memory was that in most cases it was the name of a white person."
And I say to you -
"... names of non-white people could also have been used?"
And you say -
"... if I did sign the Moshaba receipt, then it would have been the case."
So in other words, they make out the receipt in a specific name and you signed in that name?
MR VAN ZYL: The receipt which was presented by Holtzhausen to me, yes Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever give proof signatures?
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson ... (no interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: There is no official record of Van Kloosder's signature, how it should look like, you just signed?
MR VAN ZYL: If the receipt was made out in a certain name, I signed that name. As I can remember, I signed mostly in a white person's name.
CHAIRPERSON: There was no proof signatures, there was no record against which the signature on the police received could be matched and controlled?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MR HATTINGH: Very well.
CHAIRPERSON: While Mr Hattingh is busy, is there a receipt, was a receipt presented during the court case where receipt of R20 000 for Nelspruit was acknowledged?
MR VAN ZYL: If I can remember correctly, that was in the name of Daniel Makaba. Up to this day I still believe I did not sign that, because that handwriting is not mine.
CHAIRPERSON: So there was a Daniel Makaba receipt presented and it seems to refer to the specific incident, this time when the Nelspruit amount was paid out?
MR VAN ZYL: As far as I can recollect.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that an official receipt? Was that part of the police record?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I can remember specifically during one of the payments, Dougie made a mistake on one of the receipts and he took a receipt from his briefcase and rewrote it. Whether that was his own receipt, I don't know, it was just in a photocopied format, it was not A4, it was smaller, half of an A4 page.
CHAIRPERSON: Daniel Makaba receipt, was that presented during the court case and was that acknowledgement of receipt for the R20 000 presented by Holtzhausen for the Nelspruit matter?
MR VAN ZYL: I think it was handed in.
MR HATTINGH: That was handed in, it was shown to you and on the basis of that you said it was not your signature. And then you have already testified that when you signed in a different handwriting, you tried to disguise it so that they could not determine that it was your handwriting later on. And if you signed in the name of an illiterate person, you would disguise your signature so that it appears that it could be the signature of an illiterate person.
MR VAN ZYL: I think that people would do it in that way, it is possible.
MR HATTINGH: You would have done it like that?
MR VAN ZYL: It is possible.
MR HATTINGH: Very well. Apart from that receipt presented to you in the trial, under the name Daniel Makaba, that receipt was for an amount of R20 000?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
MR HATTINGH: Do you have an independent recollection under whose name you signed if it was not under the name of Daniel Makaba for the Nelspruit compensation?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson. What I want to add, Daniel Makaba at that stage was a well known name in political circles. That is why it does not make sense that I would have signed under that name. But a specific recollection, no.
MR HATTINGH: Do you not confuse Daniel Makaba with Peter Makaba? Peter Makaba was the ANC's Youth Leader?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, is correct, it is Peter Makaba, yes.
MR HATTINGH: So Daniel Makaba was not such a well known name?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.
MR HATTINGH: Very well.
CHAIRPERSON: I just want to round this off, this Daniel Makaba receipt which was handed in during the trial, what did it look like? Was it an official document or was it just a piece of paper?
MR VAN ZYL: If I remember correctly, it was an A4 document. I can't remember what it looked like exactly. It was in the same format as the other receipt used by Mr Holtzhausen, it was a photocopied document, it was not a printed document.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it a typed document?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it was typed and it was photocopied.
CHAIRPERSON: On ordinary paper? Not on official State paper with an official receipt number or something that would fit into a series of numbers?
MR VAN ZYL: Or which you would use in the Police Service, the document number is on the top right hand corner, there were no numbers.
CHAIRPERSON: No official references on this document?
MR VAN ZYL: Not as far as I can recollect.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it something which you can just type, any person can type out that type of receipt? That is the only point I want to make, there was nothing official about this receipt, it was not an official State receipt, it was just a made receipt, typed receipt?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Was that not what all the receipts looked like?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, it was ordinary 80g white paper, the usual photocopy paper.
CHAIRPERSON: Like this?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And you say that is what all the receipts looked like, also those which were officially shown to you by the Investigative Officials which were in their possession and that was for an amount for which you signed?
MR VAN ZYL: There were such documents, yes.
MR HATTINGH: And there you admitted that that was your signature and you admitted that the amount indicated on the document, was received by you?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: Very well, apart then from Daniel Makaba's name, can't you remember any other name under which you signed for whatever amount for the Nelspruit incident?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR HATTINGH: And in your evidence the R7 500 you would associate with Nelspruit because in your books, there was such a payment?
MR VAN ZYL: That was how I established that amount, yes.
MR HATTINGH: You had no independent recollection what that amount was?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR HATTINGH: When the police showed you this document, there was a payment slip which was more or less during that time when you would have received that amount and then you said that was the amount you had received for Nelspruit?
MR VAN ZYL: I think that was how that had happened.
MR HATTINGH: If it was not for that document, you would have had no idea up till today how much you had received?
MR VAN ZYL: I never received R20 000, that was a large amount.
MR HATTINGH: That was not the question, my question is if it was not for this document, you would up till this day not have remembered how much you had received?
MR VAN ZYL: I indicated that, yes ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: And you will remember that it was also put to you during the trial that the State was asked to give further particulars regarding the amount you did receive and that they then mentioned an amount - just one moment please - they mentioned an amount of it was about R5 000 to R7 000 as I recall?
MR VAN ZYL: It was between R5 000 and R10 000.
MR HATTINGH: No, this is not what the further details said. On page 991 I put it to you, on paragraph 5.4 of further particulars it is stated
"... an amount of approximately R5 000 to R7 000 was paid to Van Zyl as compensation for the information provided to Holtzhausen."
Can you remember where the State obtained this amount from?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know Mr Chairperson ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: And this was long before Mr Holtzhausen became a State witness, at that stage he was awaiting trial, when this further particulars were presented.
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know when these further particulars were presented.
MR HATTINGH: It was before the trial.
MR VAN ZYL: That I understand. What I am trying to say is just before the trial, I became a witness, so I don't know on which date that had happened.
MR HATTINGH: And then you say on page 992, the next page - "... I could just as well have said that it was between R5 000 and R10 000 because I can't remember how much I got for that compensation."
Do you remember that?
MR VAN ZYL: That is what I said, yes.
MR HATTINGH: That was after the further particulars were stated?
MR VAN ZYL: That is possible, yes, I cannot remember that testimony.
MR HATTINGH: And if it was not for the deposit slip for R7 000 shown to you or put otherwise
"... if the deposit slip for R7 500 was just part of the compensation I deposited, I have no idea how much money I received."
That is on page 992 you are saying this and also on page 989 and 990.
MR VAN ZYL: I have to repeat that, I did not receive R20 000.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Van Zyl, the fact is that you would not have kept any document which would associate you with the Nelspruit incident?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: You would not, if you had received R7 500, easily made out a deposit slip that same day or the next day, for R7 500?
MR VAN ZYL: I doubt that, Mr Chairman.
ADV DE JAGER: Because if the police received the receipt for R7 500 and on that day you bank it, that could be a fact which could be kept against you?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know whether that was my motivation at that stage.
ADV DE JAGER: You knew that a murder was committed, apart from the other person, also Tiso.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: At that stage you were also planning that whatever you do, you should do nothing which would associate you with that crime?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes ... (no interpretation)
ADV DE JAGER: In your books you would find nothing which would say "for information regarding Nelspruit"?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson ... (no interpretation)
ADV DE JAGER: All the documents in the books, would therefore not be a correct version regarding the Nelspruit incident?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman, we had a certain form in the office that during an arrest, the person who made the arrest, who the accused were and if we received an amount later on, the amount would be written in and for that Nelspruit incident, we made no entries.
ADV DE JAGER: Only for that incident?
MR VAN ZYL: Only for the Nelspruit incident, we made no entries. Hamilton later on brought a newspaper clipping, but I kept no documents regarding that incident. But specifically for other incidents, we would write who made the arrest, a certain number and the accused's name and if certain property was confiscated, then what the value of the property was. If payment was made, we would provide a follow up report to say how much money was paid out in that claim.
ADV DE JAGER: In this respect, you did not do that because you did not want to create the impression that you were involved with this Nelspruit incident?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: While you cannot remember how much money you banked, you are not able to say how much you received?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: All that you can say Mr Van Zyl, is that you did not receive R20 000?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: That is all that you can say with certainty?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: You say that such an amount you would have remembered because it is a huge amount of money?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, I would have, yes Mr Chairperson ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: Is R17 000 not also a large amount of money?
MR VAN ZYL: It is, yes ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: You will remember that when initially you gave evidence, you had no recollection at all that Mr De Kock assisted you to obtain the money from Endangered Species?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman, at that stage I did not remember that, but that payment I regarded as a series of payments, but only later I realised it was a lump sum being paid to me for various incidents.
MR HATTINGH: In this regard I want to refer you to your evidence.
MR VAN ZYL: I embarrassed Mr De Kock because he assisted me to obtain the money.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that handled under your own name, this for the Endangered Species?
MR VAN ZYL: Much of that was done under our own name, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it only Vlakplaas which was handled under various names?
MR VAN ZYL: At SANAB I also worked under false names.
CHAIRPERSON: I see.
MR HATTINGH: On page 811 I questioned you about this and I asked you
"... can you remember that the accused assisted you regarding your claims against the unit Endangered Species?"
And you answered -
"... no."
"... Sgt Holtzhausen compiled a report in this regard which was discussed with you, can't you remember that? No. An information note, an extensive document, two or three pages, I can't remember, I haven't seen that?"
You say -
"... I have no recollection of that."
"... They, (the accused more specifically) assisted by Holtzhausen and these problems were discussed with Headquarters? I don't know, it is possible. And you were paid by Endangered Species? I remember I received money from Endangered Species. And did you in the end receive an amount which was due to you? Yes, I remember that. An amount of R17 000? I can't remember that amount."
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, at that stage I couldn't remember that. I don't know whether this payment was made by Endangered Species or by Holtzhausen, I suspect that Endangered Species paid that amount.
MR HATTINGH: Then I continue
"... can you remember whether that amount was cash or whether it was a cheque?"
You said -
"... I can't remember. But a substantive amount was received from Endangered Species? Probably, I can't remember. That was payment not only for one incident, but for various incidents, for which you provided information to them? It is so."
But you had no recollection that you received a large sum of money, R17 000, that you received in a lump sum, you did not remember it then?
MR VAN ZYL: No, not at that stage, yes. I only realised that I made a mistake there.
MR HATTINGH: Later you suddenly remembered that, what made you remember that you had received an amount of R17 000?
MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember specifically how that had happened, but during the trial I testified that at that stage I could not remember that amount.
MR HATTINGH: Would you grant me one moment please, Mr De Kock wants to focus my attention on something. Thank you Chairperson. I want to refer you to what you further said about this matter. On page 913 I question you about, it was first about the rhino horns where you admitted that you had made a mistake, where you said it was R6 000 because documents indicated it was R12 000 and then I on page 913 I asked you and you are saying
"... I am saying again, I can't remember that it was less than R10 000."
That was with reference to the Nelspruit incident and I asked you -
"... why is R10 000 such a magical figure, why do you remember that was less than R10 000, why not less than R20 000 or R5 000 or whatever?"
And you answered -
"... because I have never received so much as R20 000."
And I also told you -
"... you have never thought that you have received more than R10 000."
And you say -
"... in certain circumstances I have received R10 000 and more, but I can't remember specifically that it was for these incidents."
Then I asked you -
"... for what did you receive more than R10 000?"
And you say -
"... for example R17 000 from Endangered Species. And the one which I can remember distinctly, the one is I have received R15 000 for the Braamfontein incident, I am not sure about that."
You were also not sure about the R15 000 for the Braamfontein incident?
MR VAN ZYL: At that stage I was not sure, but I saw documents regarding that later on.
MR HATTINGH: I am asking you again
"... do you remember that you received R17 000 from the Endangered Species?"
And you say -
"... sort of. There are so many things that I can't remember."
MR VAN ZYL: That was a very strict cross-examination, I was not sure of my figures.
MR HATTINGH: I say to you
"... I provided the figures to you?"
And you said -
"... that is correct."
"... so why is the figure now, as one which, one of more than R10 000?"
You answered -
"...I think that it was so and after the Advocate had spoken to me, I remember that a report was compiled which was sent to Lategan."
MR VAN ZYL: Lt Lategan is from the Endangered Species Unit. For example there I remembered the R15 000.
MR HATTINGH: But you were not sure about the R15 000?
MR VAN ZYL: But then I just want to repeat that I never received R20 000.
ADV DE JAGER: The report sent to Lategan, who compiled that?
MR VAN ZYL: If I remember correctly it was either Holtzhausen or Mr De Kock.
ADV DE JAGER: But you did not know what they were recommending?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
ADV DE JAGER: How did you know that something was sent to Lategan which mentioned R17 000?
MR VAN ZYL: R17 000 was the amount which was paid to us. What was recommended, I don't know.
MR HATTINGH: At page 1046 I am asking you
"... why can it not be R20 000?"
And you answered -
"... I believe I will remember such an amount."
I ask you -
"... although you had forgotten R17 000?"
And you said -
"... it is so, yes."
Do you remember that?
MR VAN ZYL: I testified like that, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Hattingh, regarding this aspect, do you think there are more aspects which could assist us to determine whether amnesty should be given?
MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I drew the inference from the questioning, that it will be argued by Mr Klopper, that an amount of R20 000 was made available and that only R7 500 or R7 000 was paid to Van Zyl and the rest was shared by the rest of the members of the operation, including my client and if that is so, they did that for personal gain and then they are disqualified for amnesty. It is because of that, to contradict that evidence, that I am basing my cross-examination. Holtzhausen's evidence said that he paid the full amount.
ADV DE JAGER: There is no direct evidence that money was withheld, but the inference can be drawn that if he did not receive that, it could be that Holtzhausen is not a credible witness and there should be a distinction between the evidence of these two witnesses.
MR HATTINGH: This is why I am trying to cross-examine this witness in asking him why he is saying that he never received R20 000. Thank you Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairperson, I am listening to what Mr Hattingh is saying, it was not Mr Klopper's evidence that he has knowledge that Mr Van Zyl, or that he has any direct knowledge of this incident. His evidence was just in general.
ADV DE JAGER: He did not say that in this case, you are correct, but he did testify that there was a certain pattern?
MR LAMEY: Yes, in general, yes. What I want to add, Mr Hattingh says that it can be argued that the members who were involved in the operation, that from this money which for argument sake was kept back, that Holtzhausen did not give it to Van Zyl and that they made a personal gain from that. There is no evidence in this regard. I am saying this on the basis that the evidence from Gevers was that false claims were handed in for the money and all the other members, like Nortje, Klopper and even De Kock and Gouws said that they received no compensation for their involvement in the Nelspruit incident. I think we have to do with something that is on the level of Van Zyl and Holtzhausen's evidence and I don't think with respect that it takes this matter any further to hammer on this. As it pleases you.
CHAIRPERSON: I think there is merit in your position, Holtzhausen is the nearest to this money and he is not an applicant before us. Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you, I have rounded up that aspect, that was my last question. I just want to ask the following questions, you have already agreed in general that there were some instances where you yourself signed for a certain amount and that that amount received reflected on the receipt, and that you received the full amount?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: And that receipts mentioned here in the cross-examination, it was discussed in detail during cross-examination, those receipts were in possession of the State?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: So the State had the receipts that indicated that you signed for money and you say you did receive that money?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, there were some which I said I did not sign.
MR HATTINGH: So on page 1018 you concede that you signed for an amount which you received in full. I don't want to waste too much time, it is on page 1018 and then also the question of the incident when Vanessa Hamilton signed on your behalf, that full amount was also received?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.
MR HATTINGH: Page 1012, the Edward Moshaba incident, this receipt was signed in the name Edward Moshaba and the full amount was also received by you?
MR VAN ZYL: It is apparent from the record, yes.
MR HATTINGH: And you say on page 1027 to 1029 that regarding the previous receipts, you have received the full amounts indicated on the receipts?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes ... (no interpretation)
MR HATTINGH: And you also say on page 1042 that regarding certain aspects, where you signed under fictitious names, you received the full amount reflected on the receipt?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, regarding that, I did not specifically say I signed it or I did not sign it, but if I did sign as Edward Moshaba which the receipt was for R8 000, I did receive that full amount.
MR HATTINGH: I am also referring to the Van Kloosder case, that was also a fictitious name, did you receive that full amount?
MR VAN ZYL: The amount on the receipt, was given to me.
MR HATTINGH: Those receipts were shown to you at Head Office?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know whether those were the same receipts, but I saw some receipts.
MR HATTINGH: During the investigation, you spent quite a lot of time with the Investigating Officer in this case, not so?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not see them on a daily basis Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: This is not what I am saying, I am saying that you spent quite a lot of time with them, documents were shown to you?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct Chairperson. I misunderstood the question.
MR HATTINGH: Apart from the Daniel Makaba receipt, they did not or they could not show you a single receipt made out for a larger amount than the amount than you indeed received?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, one specific day we adjourned during the events and six receipts were then shown to me. If I can remember correctly, then three or four of the receipts had been identified by me as my handwriting.
MR HATTINGH: While you are talking about that, the amounts reflected on that, did you receive those amounts?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did receive it as I signed it.
MR HATTINGH: Let me try and express myself a bit more clearly, Mr Van Zyl. It did not happen that you, or that they could say to you, this is just an hypothetical case, that they could say to you please have a look at this receipt, this is for Johan van Kloosder and this is for R7 500, and you received this for the Nelspruit incident, but here is another receipt in the name of Daniel Makaba for the same incident, but for a much larger amount? Could it not be that two receipts were shown to you regarding the same incident?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, I also don't think that a person issuing a false receipt, would have sent it on to Headquarters.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, but if he wanted R20 000, then he would have sent on the receipt for R25 000, not so?
MR VAN ZYL: If he wanted R20 000 then he would have had to send a receipt on for R20 000.
MR HATTINGH: And if you signed under the surname of Van Kloosder ...
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Hattingh, I think you have to restate that because I don't think one can follow the evidence and I did not follow it properly myself. I think what you wanted to put to him, if I wanted to steal R5 000, then I would have had to have two receipts, one signed by you and I would send one up for R20 000?
MR HATTINGH: That is what I wanted to say, but I think that I am shooting myself in the foot here Mr Chairperson, because I think that the evidence was that the false one would then not be sent to Headquarters, so I don't think that this is a valid point that I am trying to make. Just a few other aspects Mr Van Zyl In your evidence in the criminal case, you gave evidence that there had been a break-in into your house, is that true?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And that about 50 percent of the documentation regarding your negotiations with the police, had been stolen?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, and also my computer.
MR HATTINGH: Your computer was also stolen? The whole 1992 and all the business documentation regarding that year, had been stolen, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And it is specifically that time's documentation that is applicable here?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, if I can remember correctly, then we lost September/October/November 1991's documents, or rather we found then.
MR HATTINGH: Then after that there was a gap and after this incident, documentation had been available again?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes. For instance deposit slips and the deposit book.
MR HATTINGH: In other words the only thing I want to say now Mr Van Zyl, is that if one had possession of this documentation, one could possibly have indicated more cases where you received remuneration for transactions that you were involved with, where it would have appeared that this would be the full remuneration?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR HATTINGH: And then this would probably have given us a further indication that you did not deposit all the money that you had received?
MR VAN ZYL: In certain cases it possibly could have done this.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Van Zyl, I want to put it to you and I want to ask you in the light of your bad memory, the amounts that you have received, if it is not possible that you could have received R20 000 in this case and that you simply had forgotten about that?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I do not want to admit to this because R20 000 I would have remembered that. I still feel like this, and although I had forgotten the R17 000, I still feel that I would have remembered the R20 000 and specifically because it was for one incident. The R17 000 was for several incidents. No, I therefore still feel that I did not receive R20 000.
MR HATTINGH: But this was a once off payment that you received, the R17 000?
MR VAN ZYL: I believe that this must have been the case, I cannot remember how it was paid out.
MR HATTINGH: At some stage you were under the impression that you had never received more than R10 000 from the police in general, do you remember this?
MR VAN ZYL: I think at this point, we had already spoken about the R15 000 from the Braamfontein incident.
MR HATTINGH: But this you remembered later? Initially you did not remember this?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall that.
MR HATTINGH: You cannot remember how much you had received for Carousel?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Indeed you cannot remember if you had received anything at all or can you?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember, I think this payment was made to James. I don't think I received money for the Carousel.
MR HATTINGH: Do you mean that it was for his account, the money that had been paid out had been paid out to him personally?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't want to say this Mr Chairperson, what I am saying is that I think that this was largely paid out to James. I cannot remember which amount.
MR HATTINGH: For his credit?
MR VAN ZYL: For him, yes. He was the informer. If it was in his name, I also do not know. I am not sure about that.
MR HATTINGH: But Nelspruit was also Hamilton's information, is that not the case?
MR VAN ZYL: Hamilton was a permanent worker.
MR HATTINGH: And you also could not remember if you had received money for the rhino horns after the aborted Coin incident, if you were remunerated for this?
MR VAN ZYL: I think we were remunerated for this.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Cornelius?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Van Zyl, if I look at your application, you had excellent knowledge of Murder and Robbery Unit of the police?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: You could make a distinction between the different units of the police being Vlakplaas, C10 unit and also the Murder and Robbery Unit?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: You also knew what the aims were of the C10, Vlakplaas Unit?
MR VAN ZYL: I did Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: The Panakai CC, the investigation that you had, you had different employees and agents, is this correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct ... (no interpretation)
MR CORNELIUS: And also the network of the ANC had been infiltrated by these agents and these sources and these people, did you see them as credible and reliable?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did.
MR CORNELIUS: And in your evidence-in-chief you also said that you investigated certain politically motivated offences?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: So you could make a distinction between a political offence and a normal criminal offence?
MR VAN ZYL: I could do this Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Indeed, you saw it as your job to get this information and to convey this information to the different units of the police?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you see James Ndimande as a reliable source?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did.
MR CORNELIUS: And the information that he had given you concerning Carousel was successful information and steps had followed from this?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And this would then also be an indication for the Vlakplaas unit that your information was reliable?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Through Hamilton Ndimande you met Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you speak to Tiso, did you get personal information from him?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, after our meeting, I personally spoke to him.
MR CORNELIUS: If I look at page 213 of your application you say
"... upon negotiations with Tiso and the negotiations were always about money and what could be done to get hold of money."
Was this then money for him personally or money for the ANC?
MR VAN ZYL: No, this was not only money for him personally, Mr Chairman, not as I understood it.
MR CORNELIUS: It was for the ANC?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: To be able to continue with their activities after the unbanning at the end of 1990?
MR VAN ZYL: That is how I understood it, Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you understand it that there was still a war underway?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, a war was definitely still being waged.
MR CORNELIUS: You had no doubt that the fellow robbers, and I am specifically referring to the Nelspruit incident, were ANC activists along with Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, that is how I understood it from him, that they had also been trained and that they were working with him.
MR CORNELIUS: In your application on page 213 you say in the second paragraph
"... I was told that Tiso himself and also the people that he knew, were loyal members and activists of the ANC."
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: This information you conveyed continuously to Holtzhausen, your handler?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: So no doubt can exist with the Committee that Holtzhausen would have had the same subjective thoughts about Tiso that you had?
MR VAN ZYL: I believe that he would have had Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: That he would have been convinced that these were trained MK cadres and possibly dangerous for the State?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, this is how it had been conveyed to Sgt Holtzhausen, so I believe that he would have conveyed it in this form, to his people.
MR CORNELIUS: And with the second incident where the ambush had been set up, there could have been no doubt with the members of C10 and Murder and Robbery that they would have expected that these people would be heavily armed?
MR VAN ZYL: This is the information that I had and the information that I conveyed to them.
MR CORNELIUS: Naturally the first attempt at Coin Security company, was a support for the members of C10 that Tiso and his friends were serious about this robbery?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, they were Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: If one then looks at Exhibit M which had been handed up before the Committee, there is also no doubt that if we look at the note of 21 February, before the first Coin incident where you say that - or where Ndimande says
"... he however said that he and his partners will have a car and two pistols at the moment and will make an attempt to organise more, say another two or three pistols."
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: This is also what you supported, that they would be armed?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: You say with your request that Tiso be killed after the Nelspruit ambush, and you said that this was to protect yourself and C10?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, I think this is when I had made this request. I saw in the pieces that I had made this request, I believe that it is very possible that I did make this request at that stage.
MR CORNELIUS: Because a connection could have been made to you that would also lead to the police?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is true Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Van den Berg?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. If we can start Mr Van Zyl, with the Appendix M where mention is made of certain questions that had first been put to Hamilton and then later put to you, do you have this Exhibit in front of you?
MR VAN ZYL: I do Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If we look at these questions, firstly
"... how many weapons are with the security guards",
Do you see that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I do ... (no interpretation)
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was your answer to Mr Leballo?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, my memory of this was that during the evening, there had been an unarmed guard at the door and then two staff members at the top, in the offices and one of them would always have been armed.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was this always the position at Coin during the evenings?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment on this, this is what I had seen, that one person was always armed, sometimes the other person also carried a weapon.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then in the second place the question was
"... what type of weapons they used?"
What was your answer to this?
MR VAN ZYL: I would have told them that it would have been hand weapons.
MR VAN DEN BERG: On the first incident then where it had been planned to rob this premises, you only saw one weapon in the possession of the robbers, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: This is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: This would then be the firearm that Tiso had asked you to hide?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then with the second incident, you only saw the weapon with Tiso, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You did not see weapons with the other people? I will get to what you had seen in the van just now.
MR VAN ZYL: I never had direct contact with the other people, they were always on the side, and actually we met at night and they had jackets on and things like that, but I believed that these people were armed.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You did not see weapons?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then you also allege that you had seen something that looked like an AK47 in the mini-bus outside the Promenade?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: It is common cause that after the people had been shot, no weapons had been found in the mini-bus, do you have knowledge about this?
MR VAN ZYL: There were two AKs in the mini-bus.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And it is common cause that these two AK47s had been planted there?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: At how many incidents were you involved where people had been killed, where you had given information? We know about Carousel and we know about this Nelspruit incident, had there been any other incidents?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And in both cases you received remuneration, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If we look at the statement that you have drawn up, there is a typed version at page 382 of the Bundle. The first information that you received about Tiso Leballo was a black man who wanted to sell cocaine to Hamilton, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did Hamilton at a later stage tell you that he had received orders from someone else to contact Tiso, do you have knowledge of this?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And this was a certain Mr Wittington, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I think Mr Van den Berg's information is wrong, in this case. Dick Wittington was not in the police or something like that, he was at offices where I also worked and I think Mr Van den Berg should rather refer to the members of the Security Branch at John Vorster Plain. At this point, I cannot recall the person's name, there were two people who handled him on a certain occasion.
CHAIRPERSON: Who handled whom?
MR VAN ZYL: Hamilton, as a source for the Security Branch.
CHAIRPERSON: While he was working for you?
MR VAN ZYL: I only found that out later and then I requested him not to have contact with them any more and that all information would be channelled through me to the other places.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he receive a full-time salary?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, he was locked up for smuggling in diamonds and during this arrest, he was then recruited as an informant by the Security Branch. At some stage he was arrested for these diamonds and I also had an office at the place where he was arrested.
CHAIRPERSON: Was this before he worked for you?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. When he came out of jail, that is when Dick Wittington introduced him to me. It is possible that the information could possibly be wrong that Wittington had introduced him to Tiso.
CHAIRPERSON: What is Wittington, what work did he do?
MR VAN ZYL: He did the same work.
CHAIRPERSON: He is also an Investigator?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You are correct Mr Van Zyl, it is my memory that has dropped me there. If one looks at Ndimande's statement then the two people that handled him are identified as De Beer and Visser. This appears on page 266, paragraph 3.
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Your conversations with Leballo handled about underground activities, drugs and illegal weapons, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson, amongst others.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Only after the first Coin incident, did you have knowledge that Tsitetso Leballo worked for Mrs Mandela, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I cannot say that with one hundred percent surety, I think that was the case. If one takes the events like this, then it would have had to be after the first incident that we determined this.
MR VAN DEN BERG: It is the case because Mr Leballo only started working for Mrs Mandela at the beginning of March of that specific year, 1992?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot deny this Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Indeed, he did not receive his first salary before he died, and this salary had been paid out to his family later on?
MR VAN ZYL: That is possible Mr Chairperson. I do know that before the first incident, we had contact with him at Shall House, but that he definitely was already working at that stage as Mrs Mandela chauffeur, I am not sure.
MR VAN DEN BERG: But you have evidence that this, the connection between him and Mrs Mandela, that specifically captured Holtzhausen's attention, this was very interesting to him?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, definitely, when it became known and I told it to Sgt Holtzhausen, he indeed became a lot more interested. Under normal circumstances we just would have continued up to the point where the person committed a robbery and then we could catch him red-handed.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it only after this meeting at the Advocate's chambers, after you had questioned him, where you found out that he was working for Mrs Mandela?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: So you found out about this by chance?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes. Chairperson, beforehand he had told me that he was with Winnie and things like this, but I don't think that I believed him at that stage. On that specific day I went to the Brazilian Coffee Bar and when I arrived there, he was standing outside and there he was standing with this very beautiful car and then he gave me the explanation. And then I waited around there and at a later stage, Mrs Mandela did get into the vehicle and I was satisfied that the information was correct.
CHAIRPERSON: So you did not believe him earlier on?
MR VAN ZYL: Not really. In many respects he was very prone to bragging and in many instances I caught him out where he didn't know what he was talking about, especially with the cocaine. I clearly saw later on that he did not know what kind of masses he was talking about, he knew what the street prices of one gram was, and how it was packaged.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, sorry Mr Van den Berg.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Not at all Mr Chairperson. According to you, the first attempt at Coin would have led to an arrest, is this correct?
MR VAN ZYL: This is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I will argue later based on what your fellow applicant, Mr Gouws had said, that this was never the intention?
MR VAN ZYL: I would not know Mr Chairperson, I was not part of the planning. I naturally foresaw that if there had been resistance or if shooting had taken place, then these people would naturally have acted accordingly. I could not say that I did not foresee that everything would go fluently, but this was the intention, to arrest these people as we had done with all the other cases.
MR VAN DEN BERG: It was only during the run of the evening of the Nelspruit incident, that you realised that an ambush would take place?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, I was informed of that telephonically ... (no interpretation)
MR VAN DEN BERG: And this was after Tiso and his men had reported at the Carlton, is that correct? You phoned Holtzhausen and you told him that you were on your way?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I would not have had the opportunity to contact or phone Sgt Holtzhausen again, because these people were in my presence, but I do remember that when the people did not pitch up, I let Sgt Holtzhausen know that the people had not arrived yet and that I was still waiting for them, and this was the message that I had received from a woman in Soweto and at that stage I was told. When the people arrived there, there was no more time to phone again.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand you correctly then, the ambush information came through to you that evening before the people reported to you?
MR VAN ZYL: That evening of that day, yes Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you were told exactly where to drive and how to drive?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: According to Holtzhausen the changes in the plan from Coin to Nelspruit was simply the fact that Leballo had worked for Winnie Mandela, simply due to this information?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You say that you were not close enough to the people who had reported, this is the other four people apart from Leballo, to be able to say if this had been the same group at Coin and then also at Nelspruit?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, I was under the impression or I was brought under the impression by Tiso that this would then be the same people again and that he only had the one team of people.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If one looks at the statement of Ndimande, page 280 and paragraph 49, this is Ndimande's version although it mostly hearsay. He says as follows
"... on 29-3-27 I heard about this incident, I bought The Star newspaper and read about the Nelspruit incident and on the same day I questioned Ben regarding the Nelspruit incident."
Up to this point, it is correct? Did he ask you about this incident?
MR VAN ZYL: He did Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: "... he first said that nothing had happened."
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: "... I brought the newspaper article under to his attention and on this he said that he could see that the people would murder him after the robbery."
Is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know if I told him this Mr Chairperson, I don't know if I gave him an explanation or something to that effect.
MR VAN DEN BERG: There are two aspects, the first aspect is that in the first instance you denied that something had happened to the people until he showed you the newspaper article?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then there is this second aspect that you have just given evidence about. To continue then
"... I asked him why the robbery did not take place and why there had been a roadblock. He said that the information had to have leaked out."
Do you see that?
MR VAN ZYL: I see that.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you confirm this?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Is this a correct version of what you had told him?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember what explanation I had given him Chairperson, I just know that I did not want to be honest with him and this is also why he was not involved in the second incident.
MR VAN DEN BERG: "... I asked him where the weapons came from because Tiso did not have weapons and he said that it was only Tiso who had previously been involved, that the group was a new group."
Do you see that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I do Chairperson ... (no interpretation)
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did he receive this information from you?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Where did he receive this information from?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know, there are many contradictions in Hamilton's statement. I do not know where he received this information from.
MR VAN DEN BERG: "... He told me that Tiso had also died with the others."
Did you tell him that?
MR VAN ZYL: That is possible Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: "... he said that Dougie had to kill them because it was a very dangerous gang."
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember which explanation I had given him Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: "... I completed a report about this incident."
Was this a report for your records or for someone else's records?
MR VAN ZYL: No, as I had given evidence previously, there had been a document that we had in our offices, specifically regarding arrests or successful actions, I do not know if he had compiled such a document.
MR VAN DEN BERG: But it is not one of these reports before this Committee as L or M or N?
MR VAN ZYL: You mean N that had been handed up this morning?
MR VAN DEN BERG: L is the document of the 18th of February 1992, it is about the further preparations and also request "they will need big weapons". M is the document relating to the different questions.
MR VAN ZYL: I have Exhibit L.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then N would be the Exhibit concerning the appointment with Tiso at the Carlton Centre, "the guys are very excited about the deal".
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I have Exhibit L in my possession. I just cannot remember what the question was regarding Exhibit L?
CHAIRPERSON: One of these Exhibits could be the report that Ndimande apparently would have compiled when it comes to the Nelspruit 4?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, the document that I am referring to is what we called an "arrest form". As I have explained previously, with the police officer's name, the case number and so forth.
CHAIRPERSON: So it is definitely not one of these ... (no interpretation)
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson ... (no interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Van den Berg.
ADV DE JAGER: The only thing that I do not understand and maybe our Evidence Leader can assist us in this regard, this affidavit seems to be the one given to the Attorney General and it seems as though there were annexures to this affidavit inter alia Annexures D and E as indicated on page 281. We didn't receive the Annexures with the affidavit?
MS PATEL: No Honourable Chairperson, we did not. If I may just add, the record for this incident is in complete mess, they are packed in apparently over 40 boxes, somewhere at an organisation that is not with the AG, they have contracted it out. There is no index as to what can be found, where unfortunately.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Van den Berg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. If we then further look at your statement, page 391, can I just confirm that in the second paragraph you say that - this is when you arrived at the scene after the shooting had happened?
MR VAN ZYL: This is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: "... I ran across the Khanyamazaan Road and I joined a group of policemen (and then the word zinco appears there, it should be left, is this not correct)?
MR VAN ZYL: It should be left, yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Because it appears again a couple of paragraphs later and I just wondered if this was the name of one of the deceased, but this should be left again.
"... I saw the person who was sitting at the left, in the front of the kombi, leaning half way out of the window of the kombi."
MR VAN ZYL: I assume it had to be left, yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You were never introduced to other people involved with this incident, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Is this the other robbers?
MR VAN DEN BERG: The other robbers, yes.
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You never spoke to them apart from the short conversation where you allegedly had seen the AK47?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: All the information that you had concerning these people, you received from Tiso, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Tiso never gave you names?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Any personal particulars?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van den Berg?
MR VAN ZYL: I was also not surprised that Tiso at the end did not take part in this robbery, because these people were always on the sideline and they were away from us, standing away from us, it was very secretive.
CHAIRPERSON: This was what he said to be his team?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: But he never went with them to this specific action?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say that you were not surprised by this?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, you know, even with the first incident, that first attempt when they did not arrive, I think that in fact he asked me to hide this weapon at the back of the car so that my fingerprints would be on it, I think he wanted to test me, to see what would happen to them in that case. It appeared to me more that he was the organiser.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you think he was acting in a strange way, not as a person who would then go full out to commit a robbery?
MR VAN ZYL: Maybe, and I completely forgot about the questions that he had asked me, he asked very relevant questions and the manner in which he spoke does not make me think that he was a person who had never committed a robbery before, definitely not. But that he had made the arrangements and that the other people would then do the dirty work, that did not surprise me.
CHAIRPERSON: So he is one of those people who would not leave his fingerprints?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Rather your fingerprints on the rifle?
MR VAN ZYL: And then he probably would have been able to give an explanation if they were pulled over and he would be able to say it is not mine, I don't even know about the weapon.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Van den Berg.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. There are a few other aspects about Ndimande's statement that I just want to test with you. In the first place, it had been his information that led to the arrest of the lady with the four AK47s, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Who is Rozina Mapule Powe? Do you know this person?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, this is a woman with whom I had done an investigation on counterfeit money. Indeed I had seen this name in Hamilton's statement as well.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Because he makes the allegation on page 270, paragraph 15
"... I was aware of a previous incident regarding Nelspruit. A black woman from Heledi, Soweto, was involved in this, she was Rozina Mapule Powe (and then he gives her address and also her telephone number). Ben encouraged her to get people to rob the Coin Security offices in Nelspruit, this was during August 1991."
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, this part in Hamilton's statement I had seen. Myself and Mapule went down to Nelspruit and I cannot remember what is the hotel's name there, but myself and her booked in as husband and wife regarding the investigation we were doing on the counterfeit money, and there were lots of talk in the hotel about this amongst the staff members. Because of the fact that we had booked in together in a room, people trusted me and we also effected this arrest. The fact that I had taken her down to Nelspruit to commit a robbery, it is a woman, it is a ridiculous statement.
MR VAN DEN BERG: He also made the allegation that the weapon that was hidden in the boot, was actually given to Tiso by you?
MR VAN ZYL: I think we just have to correct this, he says
"... it is my weapon."
MR VAN DEN BERG: It is page 274, paragraph 27, and in the last two or three sentences
"... what I did see is that Ben had brought his how revolved, a 38 Special and that he had given this revolver to Tiso and Tiso had hidden this weapon in the boot."
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, I had a .38 2 inch barrel and it was a silver colour weapon and I still have this weapon in my possession, Tiso's weapon was black in colour, a 4 inch barrel and I cannot say any more than this because it was at night that he had given it to me in Soweto. I definitely would not have given my own weapon to someone, this would have been ridiculous.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The key that was handed to Tiso, what was this about?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I mentioned to Tiso that there was a security gate in Coin's offices and I obviously gave him any security gate key.
MR VAN DEN BERG: So this was for a security gate inside Coin Security, not to get out there?
MR VAN ZYL: Not to unlock the front door, no. This would have been the last obstacle.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Okay. Mr Chairperson, I need to have a look at the evidence which was led this morning, and perhaps this might be an appropriate time to take the lunch adjournment, it is 25 past one.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take the lunch adjournment and we will reconvene in 30 minutes' time, at five to two.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
BEN BURGER VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Van den Berg, anything further?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: (cont)
Mr Chairperson, Mr Hattingh has a request which he wants to direct to you before I continue with my cross-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr De Kock is implicated in the one incident which is being investigated in Durban, this is not the one you are going to, another one. Mr Hugo, my lawyer is there, he is appearing on behalf of Mr Simon Radebe and he might request him as a witness. Unfortunately he has to reach Correctional Services before they lock up and they are leaving tomorrow morning early, there are some administrative matters to be finalised this afternoon and I request you to excuse him from further attendance today and tomorrow. I have no problem that we continue during his absence.
CHAIRPERSON: That is in order. Mr De Kock, you are excused to attend the other hearings.
MR DE KOCK: Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Van den Berg, it is back to you.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. This person, Ndimande, whom you trusted, gave you good information?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: He told you amongst others that he was a member of the PAC?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And he was trained by the PAC in Zimbabwe?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, that is how I understood it.
MR VAN DEN BERG: As I understand it, all the PAC training camps were in Tanzania and not in Zimbabwe, do you have any comment on that?
MR VAN ZYL: I know that Hamilton was also in Libya.
CHAIRPERSON: But can you comment on the statement regarding Tanzania or Zimbabwe, in other words there are no training camps in Zimbabwe?
MR VAN ZYL: I know that Hamilton came from Zimbabwe, he was a Zimbabwean citizen. Where he underwent his training, I am not certain, it was in anti-aircraft or cannon or rifle training.
CHAIRPERSON: That is what he told you?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You say that because he came from Zimbabwe you drew the inference that he underwent his training there, do I understand you correctly?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I only say that he came from Zimbabwe, I don't know where he underwent his training, but I also know that he was in Libya at a stage.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Van Zyl, in your evidence-in-chief you stated as a fact that Ndimande underwent training in Zimbabwe. I made a note of that and I controlled that during lunch time, are you saying now that this is incorrect?
MR VAN ZYL: I think I made a wrong statement there. I don't think that he was trained in Zimbabwe, he was from Zimbabwe and he was trained in anti-aircraft and guns. But where specifically he was trained and in which camp, I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON: But the point is these are all stories which he told you?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: These are not things that you know personally about? And you say he is not a South African, he is from Zimbabwe?
MR VAN ZYL: We also tried to obtain in a fraudulent manner, South African documents and paid R300, R400 for that.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Van den Berg.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The last aspect regarding Ndimande, if you look at his statement on page 272, he refers to the journey back, back from Nelspruit after you had done the reconnaissance at Coin, this is in paragraph 22.
"... En route we discussed what we would be doing with the money?"
Do you see that? That is about the forth last line from the bottom?
MR VAN ZYL: I see that there, yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Tiso told you that the money would be going to the ANC?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct. I have to provide the information, and therefore I would also have to get a part of the money and that is what Hamilton is referring to if I interpret his statement correctly.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I have put it to you that Tiso would have told you that the money would go to the ANC. Can you confirm that?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know whether he has repeated that at that stage Mr Chairman.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Your evidence, in various instances you draw inferences, you say you accepted it like that, etc, etc. Can I just give you a few bits of this type of information. You say for example that "I accepted it in that way" and that is referring to the other members of this gang, that they were also ANC trained members.
MR VAN ZYL: That was the information conveyed to me by Tiso.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You accepted that the money would be going to the ANC by means of the Winnie Mandela connection?
MR VAN ZYL: That is also what was conveyed to me by Tiso.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You said "I was under the impression", and there you were talking to how the money would be divided. These are only examples and there are other examples in your evidence of this. It seems to me first of all, you don't remember this vividly, this whole incident, do you agree with that, if we look at your cross-examination by Mr Hattingh?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I tried to testify to the best of my ability, here, this is how I remember those incidents.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And then secondly you draw many inferences where there are no substantive facts.
MR VAN ZYL: The facts are possibly not there now and I am sorry that I did not keep more detailed records and then possibly I could have assisted the Commission much more. This is what I recollect, this is how I can remember and I can't just add things to make it appear better. This is all I can remember.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, I don't have any further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van den Berg. Mr Francis, have you got any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, you say that you are a member of the National Party, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes. Can I rather say I was.
MR FRANCIS: Were you a card-carrying member?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I was not.
MR FRANCIS: Did you attend any National Party meetings?
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Was it ever a policy of the National Party to kill bank robbers?
MR VAN ZYL: Not that I know of Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: And is it also so that it is the National Party that unbanned the ANC, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.
MR FRANCIS: So at no stage did the leaders of the National Party say that you've got to kill members of the ANC who are involved in armed robberies?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: Were you ever an employee of Vlakplaas?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: So you can't really testify about the changes that took place at Vlakplaas?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: You in fact I think, heard testimony that Vlakplaas did in fact change after the unbanning of the ANC, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I've heard that evidence Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: It became more a unit that was going to assist other Branches of the police, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.
MR FRANCIS: They also worked through a network of informers, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: The information that you gave about the black woman with the AK47s, when was that?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, that was during 1991. I think it was July or round about there.
MR FRANCIS: That was after the unbanning of the ANC, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
MR FRANCIS: Did you attend any meetings that was addressed by the seniors at Vlakplaas, that is now in 1990, 1991, 1992?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, there was one occasion when there was a breakfast at one of their offices, I was present there, and there Gen Krappies Engelbrecht was also present. I can't say specifically it was a meeting where things were discussed, it was more a social gathering. That was the nearest I came to that type of thing.
MR FRANCIS: Am I correct that you only knew that Tiso and the four others were going to be killed or ambushed on the night of the 25th of March 1992?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.
MR FRANCIS: Before that, you did not in fact know that they were going to be killed?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not know that they were going to be murdered, no.
MR FRANCIS: So Mr Van Zyl, you say that you reconciled yourself with the aims and objectives of Vlakplaas, at what stage did you reconcile yourself with them?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I never had a problem with their activities, I knew that they worked intensively regarding terrorists. So right from the start, I had no problem with their viewpoints and with their activities.
MR FRANCIS: You are not answering the question I think, you said that because I think it was a policy of Vlakplaas I think to engage I think in a battle or to kill people I think who were robbing for the ANC, you therefore reconciled yourself with that? I want to know at what stage did you reconcile yourself with that especially when you only knew on the night of the incident that they were going to be killed?
MR LAMEY: I don't think that was his evidence Chairperson, what is put to him in so many words as Mr Francis put it to him. I don't think that was his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that is perhaps a bit of a rough summary, perhaps too rough, of what the testimony was. Do you want to be more specific or is there a broader point that you want to put to the witness?
MR FRANCIS: I think the point that I am trying to put to him is that it wasn't a National Party policy to kill ANC robbers, he wasn't aware of the role, he was aware that the role of Vlakplaas had changed, he in fact didn't know that the robbers were going to be killed, except for I think later that evening and I think he said I think towards the end of his testimony he said he basically reconciled himself with Vlakplaas' activities. I wanted to know at what stage I think did he reconcile himself with that?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, perhaps you can focus on that because he was saying that when he realised that there would be an ambush, he knew exactly what was going to happen and then he sort of reconciled himself with that. Perhaps you want to focus on that.
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, when did you realise that the five were going to be ambushed?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, as I have testified, it was either that day or that evening when I had a telephone conversation with Holtzhausen, he told me that the plans had changed, they are not going to wait for the people at Coin, but there was a place where they were going to kill them.
MR FRANCIS: When you were told this, what was your response to Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not have a problem with that Mr Chairman, I asked more detailed questions about where that would happen and what I had to do in this respect, he also explained that to me.
MR FRANCIS: Why didn't you have a problem with that?
MR VAN ZYL: I knew who these people were Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: We will come to that just now about your knowledge about who these people were, but didn't you say to him "look, I don't want to become involved in killing, I am just an informer, I am just a businessman, I just want to make money out of this whole thing"?
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson, at that stage we were in a war situation. I realised that the ANC was unbanned, on the street that was not the case. The war was still continuing. When Dougie told me that that was the plan, I knew exactly why a plan was made like that. Under normal circumstances, with armed robbers, we would wait inside the premises or we would wait until the people arrived there, that was the first time that it took this route and I knew exactly why.
MR FRANCIS: What war situation are we talking about? I thought the war I think was fought up to the 2nd of February 1990? What war situation are you talking about?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, this is not how I experienced it. People were killed on a daily basis and according to me, although the ANC was unbanned at that stage, it was still a war situation outside.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you involved in this war?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, I had exposure in this respect that I had contact with many of these people. I read the newspapers, I am enthusiastic newspaper reader, I watch the television and I had no illusions of what was going on there.
CHAIRPERSON: No, that I understand but are you saying that personally you were not involved in this war situation?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: It is just something that you read about or you saw on television?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, and as I have said the exposure I had from talking to other policemen. For a long time I worked in the Alexandra environment, I have many friends there. It was a daily occurrence that those types of things were still happening in Alexandra.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis?
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, I understood your testimony to mean that you were basically selling information to the police and that is how you were making business, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That was yes, amongst others.
MR FRANCIS: And I think you were asked also during examination-in-chief about whether or not you were going to get any benefit from this and you said yes, I have basically been working on this for three to four months and I have incurred expenses, do you recall that?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes, Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: So you were basically expecting some compensation for this?
MR VAN ZYL: I expected compensation for all my matters.
MR FRANCIS: We are talking about this one here.
MR VAN ZYL: I am busy answering, all the matters where I provided information, I expected compensation.
MR FRANCIS: So no matter whether or not people would have been killed, you would still have expected compensation, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: So when you said earlier that if this was just a cold-blooded murder, you would not have expected you know, compensation, that cannot be correct?
MR LAMEY: That is not what he said, Chairperson, that he would not have expected compensation where it was a cold-blooded murder, his evidence was he did not - that was not, if I remember correctly, that was not that he knew that that would be a factor in terms of his compensation. He didn't expect that to be a factor in the compensation, that people are killed, that it would attribute to the compensation, that was his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I recall that he said that it would not be possible for an informer to somehow benefit from the death. Yes, Mr Francis, perhaps that is the sense that he was trying to convey.
MR FRANCIS: Fine. Mr Van Zyl, do you recall I think where you testified at your criminal trial, you were asked what you expected should happen to the robbers?
MR VAN ZYL: I can remember that Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: Do you recall what your answer was?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I remembered that they were going to be shot.
MR FRANCIS: Did you say why you expected them to be killed?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, it is basically from previous experience, when people walk onto such a scene - I am looking for the Afrikaans word - these people are so charged up and at the next moment, there are policemen, usually shooting takes place and during the first incident I foresaw that there would be a shoot-out.
MR FRANCIS: Do you also recall you were asked why you had planned the robbery, do you recall that?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember that.
MR FRANCIS: I think I am going to take you to some of your testimony as Mr Hattingh had done.
MR VAN ZYL: I think I testified on the contrary, that they were armed robbers.
MR FRANCIS: Page 837, I didn't make copies of this because I think it would just burden the record unnecessarily. You were asked
"... why did you plan this robbery?"
And your answer was -
"... we wanted to catch Mr Tiso for an armed robbery."
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
MR FRANCIS: You were asked
"... who are the we?"
And your answer was -
"... me and Holtzhausen."
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
MR FRANCIS: So this was basically a set-up for Tiso to become involved in this armed robbery?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, as I have testified earlier the modus operandi was to get involved in these gangs and to talk about this, to brag about it and in most instances, these people on our recommendation went and they - I want them to show me how they committed this robbery and then I could obtain the information. This incident did not take this route. They never had the change to rob.
CHAIRPERSON: Usually you fall in with their plans?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But in this instance, the contrary happened, in this instance you had to make a plan because they did not have a plan?
MR VAN ZYL: The plan usually was that there was a bigger robbery outside, but I first want you to show me that you can do that.
MR FRANCIS: I will take you further, on page 838 I think line 10 you were asked again
"... was Holtzhausen involved in the planning of this robbery that you are testifying about?'
Your answer is -
"... yes. What was his part in this robbery? He had to provide the Hi-Ace bus and the Cressida."
Again I think it is something that you guys, you and Holtzhausen had initiated from the beginning?
MR VAN ZYL: No, this is not like this. I think it is very clear from the documentation I handed in, that is not what happened. I did approach Holtzhausen for the transport, I do not deny that, he assisted me in that regard. And there is nothing more to that.
MR FRANCIS: And furthermore I think you were asked
"... when did you make this plan?"
And the answer was -
"... early in 1991 while me and Tiso had already met. While I have exposed my covert activities to him and that made him think and now and then he queried me about this armed robbery. What is the meaning of to make him aware of it? At that stage, nothing. What was the idea of this? This is an area which need to be tested. You don't know the person, the same reaction, this is the same reaction to the AK47s. He said whether I would be interested in AK47s, he was impressed because I knew what price was paid for that. All this information I conveyed to him, so that he could trust me."
Is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
MR FRANCIS: And then I think you were asked further on the next page, at 839
"... but the idea to plant the little seed with him that robberies could be committed, was your idea? At that stage, yes. Are you saying that the idea was that perhaps he could convey information regarding robberies?"
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Then at the bottom of 839 I think you were asked this
"... So Tiso never provided you with information regarding planned robberies? No. Or robberies being executed? No. Did you not get the impression that he was busy spinning a tale? That is possible, yes, we don't know how to process this information because he was busy to play with us. The person on the other side can perhaps just be busy playing with us. So you take everything with a pinch of salt and then follow it up. If the information is then correct, it would get a case number and then you could determine whether a robbery had taken place. In Tiso's case this never appeared."
So am I then correct that at the criminal trial I think you testified that the impression you got was that Tiso himself had never taken part in any robberies?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, that evidence refers to the beginning of our meeting. Right at the beginning, we did not have that information but I can once again refer to the documents compiled by Hamilton and later on it appeared that they regularly committed armed robberies.
MR FRANCIS: No, but I put it to you I think that is in fact why you realised that Tiso and them were not involved in robberies and that is why you came up with the suggestion that they rob Coin Security because you knew that Tiso was just talking big, and that is why you came up with the suggestion that they rob Coin Security?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, it is not like that. What is very important is as I have testified before, is that various aspects or various seeds are planted during such a meeting. Every time he came back to armed robberies. That was not our modus operandi just to get people in an ambush to arrest him, he had a weapon and then we could have arrested him for that.
CHAIRPERSON: He created the impression that he wanted quick money?
MR VAN ZYL: That was his first words, he would do anything to make money.
CHAIRPERSON: Quick and easy way?
MR VAN ZYL: And then all the various aspects would have been discussed and then he came back to the armed robbery and he has forgotten the cocaine, he has forgotten the stolen vehicles.
CHAIRPERSON: And if you refer to robberies, do you only mention big amounts?
MR VAN ZYL: Not necessarily.
CHAIRPERSON: It is not somebody concerning to rob, street robberies, you were referring to armed robberies and robbing huge amounts of money and the idea was that huge amounts of money was involved?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: He was interested in that, and he focused on this possibility where he could rob a lot of money?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, with the purchase of dagga, at a certain stage from him, I think it was about R500's worth of dagga I bought from him and I said I could purchase much more, I told him the same regarding the cocaine. In creating this picture of the robbery, there was an expectation of a large amount of money, and I said that we did everything in an organised manner and there was the expectation of large amounts of money.
CHAIRPERSON: And then referring to cocaine, he only referred to small amounts?
MR VAN ZYL: He did not know if you have more than 100g, he did not know what the street price was, so it was clear that he did not know much about cocaine.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Francis.
MR FRANCIS: Then I think on page 841 you were asked again
"... did you try to obtain that?"
Your answer was -
"... Tiso is a very secretive person, only at a later stage in 1992, I determined where he was living. He always made contact with us. He provided very little information to us."
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: So then again, am I correct that Tiso in fact I think was quite secretive and basically kept most of his information to his chest? Is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I remember specifically that evidence.
MR FRANCIS: It is just a question, I mean was he secretive and kept information to himself?
MR VAN ZYL: I want to answer that, it was not a question that he said on the 17th of March we robbed Standard Bank in Braamfontein, such information he never presented to us. In that respect he was very secretive, or that tomorrow I am going to steal a car. He never gave us such precise information. As I have said in my testimony, in the beginning he made contact with us, after we had built up a relationship with him, he for example gave us his home telephone number and also the Shell House telephone number.
CHAIRPERSON: Can I ask you a question, did it seem that he was also planting a little seed?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, he also was testing me.
CHAIRPERSON: You were both playing the same game and at the end of the day, his hands were not dirty during the Nelspruit incident?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Just tell me one other thing, you contacts in the underground, did you try to get information from them regarding Tiso's profile, the people from the underground?
MR VAN ZYL: No, nobody knew him. Hamilton did not know him. It was also very interesting that we always met at the Carlton Centre with all these escalators, it was so difficult, once he is gone up the escalator, by the time you try to get there, that person has disappeared. Right in the beginning we did not know where he came from and where he was going to, but it was very interesting it was also in that very busy shopping centre, the Carlton. There was a reciprocal role, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Your investigations did not show that he was any big authority in the underworld, a recognised authority in the underworld? He had no big profile?
MR VAN ZYL: Not under the name Tiso, he was not a heavyweight in the underworld.
CHAIRPERSON: The people did not even know him, isn't it? Your underground contacts did not even know him?
MR VAN ZYL: No, that was not strange, because he just came back from exile and I don't know what he was doing that time.
CHAIRPERSON: And even Hamilton also, he could not provide a profile for Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: You were also asked on page 841 the following question
"... so you could never get corroboration for the fact that he had the ability to rob?"
Your answer was -
"... that is correct."
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairman, according to Section 204 I testified and I could not speculate about what Tiso told me, we never had concrete evidence for example a specific place.
MR FRANCIS: And on page 842 I think it was put to you
"... you talk a lot but you don't answer my question, Mr Van Zyl and the question is, was the planning that you and Sgt Holtzhausen would be involved with Tiso and his friends in a robbery? Ja."
CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember that Mr Van Zyl?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Hattingh is not a very easy person to take you under cross-examination.
MR FRANCIS: And then on 843 you were asked
"... what then was the idea behind the robbery? I don't know if it was to shoot them because they were members of the ANC."
Mr Van Zyl, you were a policeman for seven years, you know what it is all about, did you really not know what the purpose of this operation was and that is to kill the persons?
MR VAN ZYL: That is what I testified, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: The last reference is 843.
MR FRANCIS: At 844 you were asked
"... now tell us what was your motive to kill this person, to shoot him, why? It was an armed robber. Why? He was an armed robber. How did you know that? Though the picture he built up with me. And you persuaded him to commit the robbery? No, that I did not do."
Do you recall that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I recall that.
MR FRANCIS: And on page 845 this was put to you
"... you never meant to persuade this person to commit an offence so that you can get personal gain? That was not my intention."
Could you maybe expand on that that it wasn't your intention to benefit from this whole thing?
MR VAN ZYL: This was not for personal gain at that stage, I foresaw that I would be compensate as an informer, that is how I reacted to that.
MR FRANCIS: On page 845 you were asked this again
"... with the prospect that you would be compensated for your own criminal activities? This offence, the planning of this robbery, I just executed that. That was an order from Sgt Holtzhausen that I had to arrange this and this is exactly what I did and I knew that people could possibly be killed. And possibly there would be compensation afterwards."
But that cannot be correct because you knew that you would get compensation if they were arrested, isn't that so?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, as I have testified earlier - there is my English again - I never had a guarantee that I would be paid for every incident. Therefore I foresaw that I would be compensated for that incident. We must also make sure about which incident we are referring to, whether it is the first or the second one. Because in the second one, I was instructed to take these people to the place where they were to be killed, the first instance it was only an investigation.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether it was an order which you received, or an instruction, it was an arrangement you made with Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: If I say an instruction, he told me how I had to get there. It was an agreement between the two of us.
CHAIRPERSON: He just provided you with the details?
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, this refers to the second incident because there was talk about "doodmaak", because you said I think during the first incident I think there were no talk about killing them?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: On the same page, 846,
"... are you saying that you had just done this because you received instructions from Holtzhausen?"
Your answer was -
"... I was part of the planning, I knew that the people were going to commit an armed robbery or I suspected that. If that was not a direct instruction, I would still have been involved. You were not part of the planning, you were also part of the execution? That is correct."
Do you recall that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I recall that.
MR FRANCIS: But you were not working for C10, were you?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I was not a member of C10.
MR FRANCIS: And then on page 847 I think you were asked again about Tiso and you said, you were asked
"... but you have no confirmation at that stage, it was only bragging up to that stage, it could have been only bragging? Yes, that is correct."
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, the possibility was that it was only boasting or bragging, that is not the perception I formed at that stage, not with the things or the information he conveyed to us.
MR FRANCIS: On page 850 this was put to you
"... can I then draw the inference that your only motive for the planning of this robbery was to see that robbers were shot dead? Yes, that is how I want to see that."
MR VAN ZYL: I testified about the facts, those were the facts.
MR FRANCIS: "... did you have no financial motive? No, I don't think that was a motivation."
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: On page 865 this was put to you
"... this was done on purpose so that the people go there and when they arrive there, they would summarily be shot dead?"
MR VAN ZYL: That was how I understood that. That is how I foresaw that because as I have said before, the people arrived there and then the next moment there were nine or ten people. That was what I foresaw.
MR FRANCIS: You were also questioned about whether or not you knew that there was going to be a roadblock, do you recall what your answer was?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Page 931 you were asked
"... you say that you knew that they were going to be shot at a roadblock? That is correct. Who told you? Sgt Holtzhausen said there would be a roadblock put up under the bridge and then when I got to the roadblock, I had to speed away."
Was there a roadblock?
MR VAN ZYL: There was not a roadblock, Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: I take it that Mr Holtzhausen lied to you when he said that there was going to be a roadblock and that you will have to drive away from there?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, he told me that this would be the way they would set it up. When I drove passed there, I did see one vehicle on the side of the road, I did not expect to encounter a roadblock there, but I did know that this was how the planning would be.
MR FRANCIS: If you recall I think you were asked by Mr Hattingh as to why you went back to the scene after the shooting had taken place. Do you recall what your answer was to him?
MR VAN ZYL: To go and tell them about Tiso who was not in the vehicle, Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Didn't you say that it was more a question of curiosity feeds the cat?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did say that I was curious to see what had happened there because when I drove through there, there was war behind me. Many shots had been fired, but the main aim was to go and tell them about Tiso.
MR FRANCIS: And you will recall that after this lengthy cross-examination you then mentioned that you went back to tell Mr Holtzhausen about Tiso? But it is more a question that you were curious to see what had happened there?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I am sure about my evidence-in-chief that this was the reason why I went back, because it was important for me to go and tell them that Tiso was not there, because this was a complete new plan and this happened in the last moment, when I could not get hold of Sgt Holtzhausen.
MR FRANCIS: Let's, you were present when Klopper testified, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Partly, yes Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And you will recall that Klopper I think had testified that the members of Vlakplaas had lodged false claims, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I heard that Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And he also said I think in some instances even where a source had given information, that source would basically be cheated from his money, you heard that?
MR VAN ZYL: I did hear that Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And you also heard that he said, he testified and I think he said that - let's for example, if R20 000 was approved, a member of Vlakplaas I think would sign for the R20 000 and would give the source I think another I think letter or some form to sign which would stipulate the amount was that the person received?
MR VAN ZYL: I understood it like that Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: So obviously in your instance, depending on what the amount is, you've got a recollection that you were paid R7 500, you would have signed for R7 500 depending on what the amount is?
MR VAN ZYL: That is how I recalled it Mr Chairperson, but under cross-examination it became clear that it could possibly have been a bigger amount and that they cheated us, or that people were cheated with the claims, this I was not aware of at that stage.
MR FRANCIS: Am I then correct to say that you were basically not, I am not so sure if you, you should basically know what the word knock means, you were knocked by Vlakplaas, in other words you were cheated by Vlakplaas?
MR VAN ZYL: I think cheated would be a better word, because knock would mean that a transaction is set up and then one runs away with the goods instead of paying for the goods. In this aspect, I do believe that I was possibly cheated by Vlakplaas.
MR FRANCIS: You have also heard what Mr Klopper I think said, he said in such instances, Mr De Kock would get the bulk of the money, you heard that?
MR VAN ZYL: I heard this Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: So obviously if you did not get R20 000, one can safely assume that it must have been between Mr Holtzhausen and Mr De Kock, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: This is possible Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Do you recall that you were also cross-examined in the criminal case about Exhibit J, I think it is Exhibit J, do you recall that? That was now the letter that was drawn up by Holtzhausen and submitted to Mr De Kock?
MR VAN ZYL: I remember this Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: I would like you to look at Exhibit J again, the source that they are referring to in paragraph 1, is that you?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, it is very difficult to say. I believe that I am possibly being referred to here.
MR FRANCIS: I am referring to paragraph 1, not where it is written Daniel Makaba, paragraph 1.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I accept that reference is being made to me, but the information being reflected here, was not something that I had given through, so in that aspect, I don't think that it could be me.
MR FRANCIS: Are you saying that the contents of paragraph 1 is false?
MR VAN ZYL: It is false, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Or at least false in relation to you?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: So at no stage did you mention to Mr De Kock and Holtzhausen that you had basically received information that seven black men were going to go to Komatipoort, to Nelspruit, to get some AK47s?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: I think we all know that Mr De Kock also referred to this in his application for amnesty, that information did not come from you?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: If one looks at paragraph 2, it say
"... according to the source the AK47s were going to be used at a planned robbery of a bank or somewhere in Pretoria."
That information is false again?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson, this information is not correct.
MR FRANCIS: Paragraph 3, is that you reported that some of the members were involved in several robberies, is that information correct or false?
MR VAN ZYL: I would have conveyed that information, that part is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: What about paragraph 4, is that correct or false?
MR VAN ZYL: The people were stopped in an action.
MR FRANCIS: With the intention to prevent them from going to Pretoria to cause chaos and panic?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: With the terrorist weapons?
MR VAN ZYL: That is not correct.
MR FRANCIS: So that is false? You did not supply this information to Holtzhausen or Mr De Kock?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: What about paragraph 5 that deals with a mobile roadblock that was going to be set up, also observation points?
MR VAN ZYL: I was aware of the observation points or an observation point, that Mr Nortje would have been waiting at the side of the road, I was aware of this. This was also one of my questions to Mr Holtzhausen, if it would be safe at the Promenade and he said that people would be in the vicinity. That there was an observation point is correct, but regarding the mobile roadblock, there was no roadblock.
MR FRANCIS: So paragraph 7 thereof would also be false, it refers to a mobile roadblock?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not see one Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And then paragraph 8, it refers to I think that a BMW motor vehicle came together with a white kombi, that approached the roadblocks, you accelerated and it appeared as if, or no, you reduced speed and it appeared as if you were going to stop, as told by the members, as indicated by the members, and you thereafter accelerated?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, at that stage I had a silver blue BMW. I did not reduce speed, basically from the stop street, I pulled away and I drove through the bridge very quickly and reference is also made here to a white kombi. If we can then read a white Toyota panelvan under the same description, then it is right.
MR FRANCIS: But you were not told to stop?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson. I did not see anyone in the road.
MR FRANCIS: And then in paragraph 10, it says
"... the enemy fire from the kombi was answered by firing back at the vehicle."
That is not right?
MR VAN ZYL: I would not know about this Mr Chairperson, because at this stage I was not at the scene. But I doubt whether, I don't know.
MR FRANCIS: And then paragraph 11 deals, states that the vehicle came to a standstill after, about 100 metres from the mobile roadblock and the members of the Force approached the kombi. There was automatic fire from the kombi?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I do know that the kombi had stopped about 100 metres after the bridge, approximately 100 metres after the bridge, this is basically all that is true in this aspect.
MR FRANCIS: But no gunshot ensued from the side of the kombi?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not know, I was not at the scene at that stage.
MR FRANCIS: I think in, well, you won't obviously know about the two AK47s that were found in the kombi?
MR VAN ZYL: It was reported to me that two AK47s had been found in the vehicle.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you accept that you possibly could have made a mistake regarding the AK47 you allegedly saw in the kombi?
MR VAN ZYL: There is no way that I can ever forget that man's eyes. He did sit with that weapon. You know Mr Chairperson, I have been asked about this so many times and I have wondered how could it possibly have happened? Did Mr Holtzhausen not possibly leave this weapon in the van and the other evening at eleven o'clock, during consultation, I told Mr Lamey that it could possibly have been plastic. I saw that weapon there, I will never forget that man's eyes, I will not forget it. He definitely had a weapon.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Sorry Mr Francis?
MR FRANCIS: If you are insisting that there was a firearm in the kombi, it either means that one of the other police officers I think who said that he himself had taken a firearm in and had thrown it into the kombi, must have been lying then?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, whether they do not want to admit leaving a weapon there beforehand, this was my request that I had conveyed from Tiso. I did ask them afterwards "didn't you leave the weapon there" and I don't know, I know specifically that when I arrived on the scene and Dougie was busy firing the shots in the kombi because he was standing at the sliding door and he was shooting to the front, and when he was finished there, he did not return with that weapon. When they then would have put a second AK in the kombi, I do not know. But that evening when I walked to that vehicle and I put my head through the window, the third person who was sitting at the back behind the seats, were sitting there with the weapon in his hands. I definitely saw that.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you just put your head in and say "follow me"?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: You did not have a long conversation with them?
MR VAN ZYL: At that stage I had never spoken to them previously, this was just a confirmation, we are going to turn off at the White River Road.
CHAIRPERSON: And you actually spoke to the driver?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct and as I said, there were only two front seats and the third one was sitting behind the two seats at the back. In the court case I said that I am not hundred percent sure that it was an AK47, this is what I had seen. I am sure that it is an AK.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Francis?
MR FRANCIS: Then on the same document I think paragraph 20 reads as follows
"... the source was in life danger because he and his family were known to the suspect robbers who then succeeded in getting away. In spite of the danger that the source and his family was in, he still offered to help with tracking down the three people involved who succeeded in escaping."
Were there three other robbers that fled?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, there was only one, he did not escape and I am referring here to Tiso. I was known to them and my staff and my office telephone number was known to them, my car's registration number was known to them. That my family and I had moved, that is not correct.
CHAIRPERSON: It sounds as if it could be connected to the name of the so-called source?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't understand.
CHAIRPERSON: The name of the source is apparently a black person, so it looks as if the impression is created that a black person knew the robbers, him and his family and so forth?
MR VAN ZYL: No, they definitely did not know my family.
MR FRANCIS: This was just, some of basically is just false, and would you agree that it was basically drawn up to deceive the police with the information?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: And again I think ...
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Francis, was any mention made earlier in this report that there were six people in the kombi?
MR FRANCIS: I think there is reference to it, Mr Chairperson. It refers to seven black men to Komatipoort, so four of them got killed in the kombi and the three others then fled. Again I think just finally on this aspect, and I think it is already on record, but you were again cross-examined extensively by Mr Hattingh this morning about whether or not there is a possibility that you could have received the R20 000, but it must have been mistaken. Your version still is that you did not receive R20 000, if you did receive it, you would have recalled that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember that I ever received R20 000, not for this incident.
MR FRANCIS: And you will therefore agree - I am later going to argue that in fact what Mr Klopper said, namely that in instances I think where even sources I think had given information that they would not be given the full amount and the moneys would be split between Vlakplaas and that Mr De Kock I think would get the lion share from it.
MR VAN ZYL: I heard that evidence in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON: Was your relationship with Holtzhausen of such a nature that to be able to meet you half way and to be able to ensure that the money that you could get from this claim, that this money would then be made more, that he would then put false facts into this report so that you could get more money from the claim?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, naturally I do not know how he motivated these things to Headquarters. My knowledge of Sgt Holtzhausen was that he was down the line and straight forward, he did not veer off left or right. The manner in which this thing was formulated, I have never seen this before, or I have never seen something in this line before.
CHAIRPERSON: It is a very serious danger that the source, his whole family is involved now?
MR VAN ZYL: That is true.
CHAIRPERSON: But Holtzhausen never gave you the impression that he was going to do you a favour, that he was going to give you a little bit more money because you did a good job for us?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I think our relationship went both ways, I was open with him and he was open with me. I always got what was coming to me and if they had cheated me at that stage, I was also satisfied with what I had received.
CHAIRPERSON: There was never a relationship between you and Holtzhausen that Holtzhausen would then enlarge your claim so that you could more money from these events?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis?
MR FRANCIS: I am going to read to you what Mr Holtzhausen's got in Exhibit B, on page 4, paragraph 12. You are also aware that AK47s were planted at the robber, at the scene, you know about that now?
MR VAN ZYL: I know about that now.
MR FRANCIS: And also handgrenades were planted there?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: And Holtzhausen says the following about the Carousel incident, paragraph 12, page 4
"... we found weapon with two of the robbers. With the third one's body, I planted a handgrenade to be able to brand the whole incident as political. There was no physical indication or proof thereof that the robbers did have a political motive for this robbery although all my information indicated to this."
It is quite crucial, he says look you know, we planted this to give this the impression that this was a political robbery or incident?
MR VAN ZYL: I see this in his statement, yes.
MR FRANCIS: And don't you find it strange also that with the Nelspruit incident, two AK47s, depending on what you say, you are saying it is one, but an AK47 was planted together with two handgrenades? You don't know why, would you know why the AK47 and two handgrenades were planted?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, no. I don't know what his motives were at that stage.
MR FRANCIS: Here I think in Exhibit B it is quite clear, the motive was to let it look like a political incident?
MR VAN ZYL: Are we referring to the Carousel?
MR FRANCIS: Yes.
MR VAN ZYL: I see that he did mention it like that in his statement.
MR FRANCIS: Let's deal about this, I went through your testimony, I think I went through it three or four times and over this weekend too, that is now the evidence you gave at the criminal trial and nowhere, I've got it here too, but nowhere did you ever mention that the robbers were robbing to fill the coffers of the ANC? The closest I think that you got was that there was an ANC connotation, that was the closest that you could come, but I mean at no stage did you ever mention that these people were robbing to fill the coffers of the ANC?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, if we say ...
MR FRANCIS: Let me just ask you, I didn't ask you my question. Can you tell us why you didn't mention that at the trial, during examination-in-chief, cross-examination, re-examination?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, if we are saying that I am just referring to it a little bit, I don't think Mr Francis is creating the correct image. In several occasions in my evidence I referred to this, to the ANC connection, to the Winnie Mandela connection. I gave evidence under Article 204 and it was about the criminal case and I just want to add, this was in March 1995, the ANC came into power in 1994. I think I was afraid to say it just like that and this is why I held my application for amnesty back for such a long time, because I did not know what the repercussions could be.
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, isn't it really so that you lodged your application quite late because I think we have heard that Mr De Kock I think had decided to submit his application quite late, to mention or to implicate as many a policeman concerned, and I think you were basically given the lifeline when there was some mistake about some Gazette that had to be passed I think and that is I think why you got an opportunity to bring yours in later?
MR VAN ZYL: I do not understand this.
MR FRANCIS: No, the point that I am making is that you basically brought your application because you were implicated by Mr De Kock, he had decided to leave it for the very last moment to implicate as many policemen as possible who had taken part in various deeds? This is in fact I think why you brought yours so late?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, from and with my arrest I had contact with no one, not even Mr De Kock. I did not know who was lodging what application and who was saying what in their statements. Also with the criminal case, I gave evidence and I left there, I did not have further contact with them, because my life was also in danger at some point. My previous legal representative told me that the thing had already been postponed and he recommended that we apply for amnesty. This is what I did.
ADV DE JAGER: But the criminal case was before your application?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: So in the criminal case your part had already been exposed?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.
ADV DE JAGER: So when you applied, your involvement had already been exposed?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, everything was testified about under Section 204.
MR FRANCIS: You also deposed to two affidavits, is that correct? The one that was used during the Nelspruit incident and your application for amnesty, now?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I had an application and then the Investigation Team took a written statement from me, and I see that it has been typed over later.
MR FRANCIS: Do you recall when the written statement was taken? The written one, yes, because mine doesn't seem to have a date?
MR VAN ZYL: It is dated the 10th of February 1995. I just want to tell you Mr Chairperson, that the statement - they had started taking the statement the evening of my arrest or the afternoon of my arrest which was in May 1994, that is when they started taking down the statement and the statement was finished the 10th of February.
MR FRANCIS: In both affidavits you don't refer to Tiso wanting to rob to fill the coffers of the ANC? Any explanation for that?
MR VAN ZYL: This was about the criminal case at that point Chairperson. The question was also not put to me.
MR FRANCIS: Well, let's see what you've got in your application for amnesty. Again, there you don't refer to the fact that Tiso and his friends wanted to rob to fill the coffers of the ANC. I couldn't find that. If you could probably you know, show me where it is, I think it will be quite helpful but I can guarantee you that it is not there.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, this statement was made under a large amount of pressure. The application, the other one was made during the criminal case.
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, I am putting it to you that you are trying to couch this to make this incident to look like a political, you know something political, but that was just an afterthought, it was purely a criminal you know deed, that had taken place and now you are trying to clothe this by using politics?
MR VAN ZYL: There was definitely also a criminal aspect involved in this, but I am not trying to do this Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Let's look at the - let me ask you some other questions. Didn't you find it strange that if Winnie Mandela was involved in previous bank robberies, that these robbers would come to you without having AK47s when she was untouchable?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson ...
MR LAMEY: His evidence was not that Winnie Mandela had been involved in previous bank robberies, herself, that she was personally involved with any bank robberies.
MR FRANCIS: I will just rephrase that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR FRANCIS: Because I know that I think Mr Holtzhausen said I think he was told by Mr Van Zyl that she had been involved in some other robberies.
CHAIRPERSON: But he denies that?
MR FRANCIS: Yes. But don't you find it strange that if these people were working for the ANC, robbing on behalf of the ANC, that they would come to you with a 38 Special and don't even have other weapons?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, no, I did not find that strange. As I have said beforehand he had offered me weapons that I was supposed to buy from him. What I did know is that we had to drive a considerable while and it would have been stupid to transport an AK 300 kilometres in a vehicle that wasn't even his. At that stage I did not think it was strange.
MR FRANCIS: But you were obviously surprised that you were asked you know they had come to you to ask you for the tools? I am just putting the probabilities to you that I think it is highly improbable I think on your version, that I think it basically ties in, later I will tell you why I am saying so. If one looks at the notes that were kept by Ndimande, he doesn't refer to them having any links with the ANC or robbing on behalf of the ANC?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, once again, the notes that were kept by us, were only the facts that we had at that stage. After the first incident, I just want to add, when I arrived in Nelspruit to drop Hamilton off at the police station, this made Tiso very suspicious and he also mentioned this to me. His request to me was at a later stage, that we must not involve Hamilton any more, he did not trust Hamilton any more. I gave him an explanation why I dropped him off in town, I actually cannot remember what it was, but I don't think that he was very satisfied with my explanation.
MR FRANCIS: But Mr Van Zyl, we have got trained members of the ANC, this is what you are saying, they were trained members of the ANC, going to Nelspruit just being in possession of a 38 revolver to rob Coin Security, and you want us to believe that?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I did not have a problem with this at that stage because there was only the one weapon in Coin. I also told them that I would help them. I specifically know about the one weapon and I was under the impression that the other people also had weapons. Tiso's weapon was specifically shown to me the first time when I hid it, and then the second incident, I also saw that weapon.
CHAIRPERSON: Does Coin only have one weapon?
MR VAN ZYL: At night there is a black security guard working at the entrance and then you go up with stairs and then there is a security gate and then on the first floor, at that stage there was a white woman working there and a white man and only the white man would then have a side arm.
CHAIRPERSON: So that would be the only weapon on the entire premises?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And how much money do they keep there?
MR VAN ZYL: It is millions. We previously heard that it is Mondi's money, it is actually Sappi's money that is counted there ... (transcriber's own interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: That is an enormously big company?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is their entire salary package.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's hope the situation has improved in the meantime.
MR VAN ZYL: The Commission shouldn't get any ideas ... (no interpretation)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis?
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, I put it to you that Tiso and his companions I think were just cowards in the sense, in the sense that you had put a rosy picture to them, that they could just go there, catch the one guard, you had given him a set of keys or a key and they were basically just brought under this impression that they would just go there, take the money and leave again?
MR VAN ZYL: That was with the first incident and I obviously told him that I would help them with this, because I told them all the time that shooting does not have to take place. I painted a very rosy picture and this is specifically why he wanted to observe the premises first, because he wanted to see exactly what was going on there. The possibility that some of their patrol vehicles came back in the evening, was also mentioned to him by me. It is not a question of us just walking in and walking out with carry-bags with all the money in it. That was not the picture that I had sketched there.
MR FRANCIS: If one looks at page 215 I think it is the third paragraph, where the following appears
"... later Tiso told me that they got cold feet because a security official of a close firm, was noted."
This I think shows again the amateurs that you were dealing with? These could not have been trained members of the ANC who would just be scared off by a security official?
ADV DE JAGER: It might also point to people very careful in their planning and they won't go in if they suspect something?
MR FRANCIS: It probably could, I think it could, but I think the point that I am making is that ...
ADV DE JAGER: It could point both ways?
CHAIRPERSON: You mean they could seriously have thought that they won't come across any security guys there?
MR FRANCIS: Well, it is also I think it indicates that you were not really dealing with, well the argument I think that I will probably raise is that you were not dealing with trained members of the ANC?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes but I mean wouldn't that be the most naive kind of approach that one can think of? You go to rob Coin Security that is responsible for Sappi's money, and you - somehow you think you are not going to come across guards, or you come across a van and you run off? In any event, we don't know what happened.
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, what I find ironical is this, we are now here before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission you know where people are supposed to tell the truth and I think so far I think we have heard a litany of lies. I think you know the families I think basically I think really wants somebody to tell the truth you know. We have heard such a lot of things and now you are coming up with this whole afterthought and try to make this to look like a political thing. Please I mean you said, you talked about reconciliation, you say that you wanted to reconcile but somebody is lying, it is either you are lying or the other nine applicants are lying?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I almost understood at the beginning of the argument that I am the one lying here, I just want to say that I really just want to tell the truth here. I have no desire to lie here. I am a God-fearing person, it is important for me. It says that the truth will set you free and this is what I want to do.
MR FRANCIS: So did you lead these young men to their untimely death, you say you are a God-fearing person, did you lead them to their untimely death, Mr Van Zyl?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I want to say that my life has changed drastically. My outlooks in life has changed. In the 15 or 17 days in the jail is probably not a lot, but it was really enough for me.
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, let's deal with Mr De Kock's evidence. I know that you said that you are a God-fearing person, I am also a God-fearing person. Let's now just talk and tell the truth, and now is your moment, your moment has arrived to tell the truth.
MR VAN ZYL: That is all that I have been doing Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Did you tell Mr De Kock that a trained member of the ANC and also a personal driver of Mrs Mandela was in the process of smuggling weapons?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Did you tell Mr Holtzhausen that a trained member of the ANC and also a personal driver of Mrs Winnie Mandela was in the process of smuggling weapons?
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: So that information could not have come from you?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Did you say to Mr De Kock or Mr Holtzhausen that Tiso and other MK trained members wanted to commit an armed robbery either in Pretoria or in Nelspruit?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not mention Pretoria Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: But the Nelspruit suggestion came from you?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, this is how the information was conveyed every time. I just want to add that I did not convey this information to Mr De Kock, it was given to Sgt Holtzhausen.
MR FRANCIS: Did you say to Mr Holtzhausen or Mr De Kock that Tiso's mother was living in Nelspruit?
MR VAN ZYL: No Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And basically I think left the assumption that the robbery would have taken place in Nelspruit?
MR VAN ZYL: That is not the case Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Did you know what the political affiliations of the four other members were, the other persons were, except for Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I could only take it on Tiso's particulars.
MR FRANCIS: So where did they get the information that the other four were trained members of the ANC?
MR VAN ZYL: This came from me Mr Chairperson, as I said this is what Tiso had told me.
MR FRANCIS: I will come just now to what Tiso said, because I think Ndimande was a reliable person, one of your reliable employees, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Ndimande was reliable.
MR FRANCIS: ... the minutes of your discussions with Tiso, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: The first meetings, yes Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: We will come to it just now. Holtzhausen I think said that you said that they were robbing to fill the coffers of the ANC, is that correct, did you say that?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, this is the perception that I had, this is what Tiso made me believe. So this is then what I would have told Dougie Holtzhausen.
MR FRANCIS: Did Tiso say to you look John, I want to, I am robbing to fill the coffers of the ANC, is that what he said to you?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that it was organised with Winnie Mandela and that she also conveyed some of the information. I don't know exactly what happened there and how they worked.
MR FRANCIS: But when you were asked by Mr I think Lamey about the ANC connection, you didn't mention that that is basically what Tiso said? I will tell you what you said to him. You were asked about the ANC connection and I think you had the following
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Zyl, while Mr Francis is looking at the notes, you said that you had a perception, but did Tiso tell you that he was going to rob to strengthen the funds of the ANC, in other words that he was going to commit these robberies for the ANC?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, the fact came up that he had to share some of the money with Winnie who would then give it to the organisation. Which percentage and how this was arrived at, I got the impression that he also took his share off the top of whatever was taken. This is how I understood it.
CHAIRPERSON: So he said that he had to give some of the money to Mrs Mandela?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: To do what with?
MR VAN ZYL: As I understood it was given to the organisation.
CHAIRPERSON: Is this what he told you or is this a perception that you had or is this an inference that you drew?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember now, I cannot remember if he said this directly. I know that this was in my head at the time.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, Mr Francis.
MR FRANCIS: What I basically found was that you said that you thought that they were robbing for the ANC and Mrs Mandela knew of it and Mrs Mandela was untouchable and I think you then referred to this weapon that was found at the place, but you didn't say that this is basically what Tiso told you?
MR VAN ZYL: I know I mentioned the weapon, I don't know what the question is.
MR FRANCIS: I think that basically I asked you what exactly Tiso had said to you, you said that - I don't recall exactly what you had said, but I think it is on record, but you mentioned what Tiso had said to you that they were robbing on behalf of the ANC.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is how I have answered it now, yes.
MR FRANCIS: Did you tell Mr Holtzhausen that Tiso and them wanted a vehicle to fetch arms from Komatipoort?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: You did not even tell that to Mr De Kock, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I had no contact with Mr De Kock.
MR FRANCIS: So you won't know where that information came from?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Definitely not from you?
MR VAN ZYL: If you look at Exhibit J, all that information is contained there, everything I said is false and reference is made to the bank in Pretoria. I did not convey such information to them.
MR FRANCIS: Did Tiso in any of your discussions, tell you that him and robbers were going to go to Komatipoort to fetch weapons?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Whose suggestion was this to use a kombi?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I am certain that Tiso asked me for that. Not specifically a kombi, but he asked for a second vehicle.
MR FRANCIS: Are you quite definite about that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Wasn't it a suggestion from Mr Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: Why a kombi?
MR VAN ZYL: As I have said, he did not ask specifically for a kombi, they asked for a second vehicle. It is just by coincidence that the kombi was available.
CHAIRPERSON: You, yourself, did not ask for a kombi, you just asked for a second vehicle?
MR VAN ZYL: For a second vehicle, yes.
MR FRANCIS: I think some of the applicants testified and said that the information they got was that it was not just ANC members who took part in this, it is both ANC and PAC members? You didn't mention that to them?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson. Whether they saw Hamilton in this picture or not, I do not know.
MR FRANCIS: If I say members, I am referring to the applicants before this Commission. You didn't mention to them that the robbers were going to be ANC and PAC?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: Did Tiso tell you that he had an argument with Winnie Mandela about the proceeds of crime?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: And that he wanted to rob independently from her?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: Obviously if he was going to rob independently from her, one can assume that he would have taken the money for himself?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that was the idea I got, although shortly afterwards he was driving her car, so I don't know whether that argument was true.
MR FRANCIS: Are you saying to us that if you are a driver of Mr Chris de Jager, and you are involved in crime, does it basically mean that the proceeds of the crime would go to him?
MR VAN ZYL: No, not with the Isuzu bakkie. No, this is not what I am saying.
MR FRANCIS: This is what you are saying. You are saying that because he was a driver, it follows that the money, the crime proceeds would have gone to the person concerned?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I think the question was if he had this argument with Winnie Mandela, how can he be now involved with her.
MR FRANCIS: No, no, that wasn't the question, the question was I mean if you were Mr De Jager's driver and you were involved in crime, does it basically follow that the proceeds thereof would go to Mr De Jager?
MR VAN ZYL: No, not necessarily.
MR FRANCIS: And we also know that at that stage I think Winnie Mandela was being isolated by her own comrades, it was just shortly after the Stompie Sepei trial?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, she or they distanced themselves, one another.
MR FRANCIS: And obviously if she was going to rob, I think it would not have gone to the ANC, it would have rather gone to herself, you know for herself or wherever?
MR VAN ZYL: That is not how I understood it Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Again, this is again things which Tiso told you?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson ... (no interpretation)
MR FRANCIS: Holtzhausen I think on page 309, paragraph 12 of his affidavit said that you requested that all of them, that is now the five of them, should be killed to protect your identity? It is page 309, paragraph 12?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: That is now the fourth line
"... Ben told me at that stage that he was taking a big risk to deliver these robbers to the police. If they wanted to commit the robbery, they all had to be killed, to protect his identity."
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, this is not so. I have had thousands of people arrested and have arrested them myself for worse offences than this. I was not worried about my identity. I was worried because Tiso was not in the vehicle. If there was such a request, it would have been made at that stage, but I have never put such a request.
CHAIRPERSON: And let's suppose that at the Carousel they were all arrested there, then you would not have had a problem?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you correctly that you became worried after the four people were killed and Tiso was still alive?
MR VAN ZYL: He certainly would have known what was going on and why they were killed underneath the bridge.
MR FRANCIS: And this Mr Van Zyl, seems to be even before they had taken part in the Coin 1 attempt, that there was a request from you according to Holtzhausen, that Tiso and his "makkers" be killed?
MR VAN ZYL: Before the first incident, no, that is not true.
MR FRANCIS: You don't know why Holtzhausen will be telling lies, do you?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I don't think this is the total of Holtzhausen's evidence. At one or other stage Holtzhausen conceded that the motivation for the first incident, was not to kill the persons without arrest. And for that purpose, I asked him that question because I wanted to determine what he meant. Later on he conceded that he could have been wrong in that regard, saying that Mr Van Zyl made such a request at that stage. He conceded to that later on.
CHAIRPERSON: That is true. That is in fact the position as Mr Lamey has sketched it here.
MR FRANCIS: That is correct, I was just referring to the written application of Holtzhausen. Did you mention to Mr Holtzhausen that Tiso and his companions wanted AK47s to rob with?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, I mentioned that to him.
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, you were a businessman at that time?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: And part of your business was to sell information to the police at a fee?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: So the more I think you know syndicates that you could expose I think, you would have received compensation for that?
MR VAN ZYL: Naturally, yes.
MR FRANCIS: You were basically motivated by money to pay your employees, to pay your overdraft facilities, to pay your bond, to pay various stuff?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, I think everybody is motivated by money, but that was not my only business. Today I am still involved in investigating crime, I enjoy that. That was how it came about.
MR FRANCIS: On page 209 of your application, you've got the following
"... at that stage I was well aware that it was the purpose of the ANC/SACP alliance to overthrow the previous government with violence and to destroy the constitutional dispensation and I was aware that all forms of revolutionary warfare was accepted by the alliance to achieve their purpose."
This was prior to 1990, is that correct, before the unbanning of the ANC?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that was part of their purpose.
MR FRANCIS: Before 1990?
MR VAN ZYL: After 1990, nothing changed according to me. This was how I experienced it, this was how I viewed it.
MR FRANCIS: There are similarities between Carousel and Nelspruit, is that so?
MR VAN ZYL: Can you repeat the question please.
MR FRANCIS: There are similarities between the Carousel incident and the Nelspruit one?
MR VAN ZYL: In which respect?
CHAIRPERSON: Regarding the modus operandi. We have covered those aspects repeatedly. The circumstances of planning, etc.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, the Carousel incident was in co-operation with James and Dougie. People went there at various instances, they got their own vehicle to go there and commit the robbery. This was a typical incident where we were involved and we knew exactly on which date it would occur. Whether the comparison between Nelspruit and Carousel lies in that, that is correct then.
MR FRANCIS: But you also say Mr Van Zyl that after you had met Tiso at, it could either be just around the chambers or in the chambers in Pritchard Street, and you discovered that he was a driver for Winnie Mandela, this information was relayed to Mr Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And there was suddenly a change, he was more interested in Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: Did you know why there was a sudden interest in Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: It was logical, I did not doubt that. If I can add to that, you must realise we did not work on one incident or one gang of robbers at a time, it was our practice as we could gather the information, to convey it to Holtzhausen. He would usually say continue with the investigation until you have enough information. Regarding this incident, when I conveyed this information to him, to Holtzhausen, he changed. It was not the ordinary "just go ahead."
MR FRANCIS: You never asked him why he had this interest in Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: No, it was not necessary Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: Was it because he wanted to either expose Winnie Mandela or was it - because she was unpopular at that time, she was untouchable but this was an opportunity to expose her?
MR VAN ZYL: Well, the untouchable perception lies with me. This was how I perceived that. Dougie's motivation or perception at that time, I cannot testify for.
MR FRANCIS: When reading your affidavit, I get a sense that after the first failed Coin incident, Tiso basically stayed away and Holtzhausen basically encouraged you to get in touch with Tiso again?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. It is difficult to say precisely what happened there Mr Chairman. Because Hamilton initially had contact with me and Tiso, he compiled all these reports and my recollection was improved because of those reports. After the first incident, he was not involved in this incident any more, and it is difficult to say when he had contact with Tiso again or exactly what was decided. I know that we kept Hamilton out of this thing on purpose.
MR FRANCIS: I think one of the applicants testified and said that Tiso was wanted for 16 other robberies?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know where he got that information from.
MR FRANCIS: Not from you?
MR VAN ZYL: No, definitely not.
MR FRANCIS: I think one of them also testified and said that I think it was Holtzhausen who said that he thinks that Mama, I think was on the run for some other robbery?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I have also heard that Mr Chairperson. That was mentioned during the inquest, his previous criminal record was handed in and there was a summons on his name. Before that incident, I did not know about that.
MR FRANCIS: Ndimande I think in his affidavit, page 266, paragraph 4 said that he was requested by Visser to infiltrate the ANC? That is before he met you?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: And I think he further says that Tiso was just interested in leather jackets and taking of vehicles to Zambia and that was the interest that Tiso had basically expressed. What do you say to that?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, these leather jackets we are referring to, is what I sold from my office as part of a front. I think Hamilton misunderstood this. I sold leather jackets and various products as a front and the stolen vehicle things came out, that those were stolen vehicles, taken to the border in exchange for AK47s.
MR FRANCIS: I think on page 268, paragraph 10 I think Hamilton said the following
"... the next day I met Tiso at the Wimpy. We sat at a table and ate our breakfast. Pictures were taken of us. We were discussing the purchasing of weapons by me. I had to be a gun-runner. Tiso said that he had no market for weapons, he was more interested in motor vehicles and leather jackets, to export to Zimbabwe. Nothing valuable was decided upon, we determined to keep in contact and later on I handed back the weapon and tape recorder to Visser. I did not compile a report for Van Zyl for this."
The impression that he gives was that he was more just into leather jackets and stealing motor vehicles?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, Hamilton was administratively oriented, this is why most informers contacted Hamilton, he would write the report and convey it to me. In some cases, he was good outside in the field, I can't testify about this meeting, what his objectives were and whether he achieved his purpose.
MR FRANCIS: And on the same page, 269 I think paragraph 12 he says
"... at a certain stage I told Ben van Zyl about Tiso and how I came to know him. Ben was very interested in Tiso and requested me to introduce him to Tiso."
Again you were quite interested in Tiso, together with Holtzhausen. Why?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, he was introduced to me as a person who wanted to sell cocaine. I don't think Hamilton would openly come and tell me that he has met this person in this specific regard, I cannot remember that.
MR FRANCIS: You don't know why Hamilton on page 274, paragraph 27, states that, at the bottom of paragraph 27
"... what I saw was how Ben took his own revolver, a .38 to Tiso. He put that weapon in his boot, he concealed it in his boot".
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman. Hamilton makes a mistake. If we read further in his statement, you can see how he does not want to accept responsibility for phoning Holtzhausen although in his report he states why he phoned Holtzhausen. It would have been really irresponsible of me to hand over my weapon, it is a completely different weapon I have in any case.
MR FRANCIS: I have looked at the Exhibits that you have handed in, Exhibit N. In it they don't refer that these people were going to rob on behalf of the ANC, these were basically minutes, notes kept of your discussion between you and Tiso about Hamilton?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
MR FRANCIS: Even if one turns to page 377, there is nothing about the fact that they were going to do a job or pull a job for the ANC?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman, again, this entry is in December 1991. Exhibit N is in February 1992, that was before I had definite evidence that Tiso was involved with Winnie Mandela and that was specifically after this period that I took Hamilton out of this thing. Right in the beginning, the 12/91, we would not discuss these types of things in a report and we did not know where this investigation would lead us to.
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, you say that you saw a robber having an AK47 in the kombi outside Promenade?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: Did you tell Holtzhausen that this is basically what I have seen, I saw an AK47, you guys must be on the lookout, because these guys are armed?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, I did not have contact with him. During those times I had a pager, Dougie had a pager, I did not even have a two-way radio. It would have been very suspicious if I started looking for a telephone booth.
MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock I think in his affidavit stated that they could not even afford to give these armed robbers an opportunity for a gunfight because they knew that they were armed. Why would the police leave an AK47 in the kombi?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, as I have stated earlier, this is something which is bothering me. I would really like to know how that got there because everybody said something differently. I have looked at the option whether perhaps somebody had put an AK47 in there, or perhaps - I don't know. I saw that man squatting between those two seats with a firearm in his hands.
MR FRANCIS: Were you still sober when you saw him or were you sober at that point?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did not drink. I was waiting since nine o'clock that evening at the Carlton Centre and three o'clock that morning, the incident took place. I was also alone in my car, I wouldn't have taken that chance.
MR FRANCIS: What information did you have about Mr Mama at the time of the incident?
MR VAN ZYL: No information.
MR FRANCIS: He was not a member of the ANC, you cannot dispute that?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not know his name Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: I think you also heard that there were talks that a third person could probably have been, his father was a member of the IFP, did you know that?
MR VAN ZYL: I have heard that evidence yes, I did not know that.
ADV DE JAGER: Would that be Mr Mama, then?
MR FRANCIS: (Microphone not on)
ADV DE JAGER: Oh, not Mama's father was the one that was a member of the ANC?
MR FRANCIS: Of the IFP?
ADV DE JAGER: Of the IFP, sorry yes.
MR FRANCIS: I think you also heard what Mr Van den Berg had put to the other witnesses, that I think it Nalinda was, had left the country and I think did his matric in Zimbabwe and had left the country with a valid passport and was not linked to any political organisation?
MR FRANCIS: I do not know about that, I have heard that evidence, yes.
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, I've got a difficulty with this, you say that you were operating in the underworld?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.
MR FRANCIS: You met Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: But you don't even attempt to meet his companions?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, no.
MR FRANCIS: You could not even have known if they were spies, say maybe for National Intelligence?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I would have found that out Mr Chairperson, I can't go to a person and say "give me the names of all your cohorts, those people who work with you", it is not practical to gain that kind of information in that situation.
MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that you were basically motivated by greed and greed alone?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: And that this whole political connection is an afterthought?
MR VAN ZYL: This whole political?
MR FRANCIS: It is an afterthought, you just thought about labelling it under political motivation?
MR VAN ZYL: That is not so. That is definitely not so Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: You said you suspected that the second group were also involved in the first attempt?
MR VAN ZYL: That is what I believed, that those were the same people who were involved. The first time I did not even see their faces, it happened in Soweto meaning there were no street lights.
MR FRANCIS: How could you do such a thing, to become involved in such a murderous deed especially when you call yourself, you referred to christianity?
MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, at that stage I thought it was the correct thing to do. Now it appears what a farce this whole political spectrum was. Unfortunately that was how I regarded it at that stage, and I thought I was doing the correct thing.
MR FRANCIS: You said I think one of the reasons that you gave that a motor vehicle, your own vehicle, was to be able to monitor or have control over the situation?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: And obviously if they had their own vehicle I think you would not have had control over when exactly they would leave and where they would go to?
MR VAN ZYL: No, then it was unnecessary to involve me.
MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that you must have known even before that evening when you called Holtzhausen, that you must have known that they were going to be killed and they were going to be ambushed, and that you are not truthful I think when you say that you only discovered that that evening when you called Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, as I could remember the incident was planned at Nelspruit and that was what he told me over the telephone. The second incident would be the same as the first.
MR FRANCIS: No I think Mr De Kock I think said that the operation was planned in different phases, I think he mentioned the one, that it was also planned I think at Pretoria? I put it to you that it must have taken, the killing bit must have taken earlier and you were in fact aware of that?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, no, I was not aware.
ADV DE JAGER: You may say you put it to him that you've got a suspicion, but to put it to him as a fact would be wrong, because even Holtzhausen said he was only, his plan was only final after he had seen the people in Nelspruit.
MR FRANCIS: Yes, except I am not so sure what ...
ADV DE JAGER: In Nelspruit, when he was sure that Nelspruit's police would not accompany them.
MR FRANCIS: That is what he said, yes.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, Holtzhausen went further. He conceded that he only notified Van Zyl only from Nelspruit about the, what he has to do and about the "doodsakker", I specifically referred to "doodsakker" in my examination and he said "yes, it was only when he spoke to Van Zyl from Nelspruit.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR FRANCIS: That is so.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, have you got any further questions?
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, let's come back to the scene, you said you drove, you made a U-turn?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: And you went to Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. The group of people, Holtzhausen was not there initially.
MR FRANCIS: Where was Mr De Kock at that time?
MR VAN ZYL: During the criminal trial I also testified in that regard, I did not see him on the scene. I was looking for Holtzhausen on that scene.
MR FRANCIS: Mr De Kock I think testified and said that the one person I think who had basically been flung out, was still alive at some stage?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, the person who was sitting in the front, on the left hand side, when the bus caught fire, I heard him moaning.
MR FRANCIS: And I think he went further and he said that I think the person was alive for between three to four minutes and he just couldn't take him, you know hear the person I think moaning and groaning, you know moaning and groaning?
MR VAN ZYL: That was not a pleasant sound to hear, the person I am referring to, was sitting on the left hand side, in front, he was halfway falling from the vehicle.
MR FRANCIS: Did Tiso know that you were working in cahoots with Vlakplaas?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: He had never at any stage suspected that you had some dealings with Vlakplaas?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.
MR FRANCIS: He thought that you were somebody from the underworld?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: He would obviously not have had, been able to have linked you to Vlakplaas, would he?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson.
MR FRANCIS: So you don't know I think the other applicants said that a reason why Tiso had to be killed was that they feared that he would have exposed Vlakplaas and that is why he had to be killed? That was one of the reasons?
MR VAN ZYL: I have heard that explanation yes.
MR FRANCIS: But he would not have been able to link you to Vlakplaas?
MR VAN ZYL: No, not with the information that he had about me at that stage, but I am sure that any person who thinks logically could link that activity with the staff from Vlakplaas and this certainly, it could be deferred to me. This was not a situation that these people were killed and nobody knew who killed them, this was a police action.
MR FRANCIS: So-called police action?
MR VAN ZYL: So-called?
MR FRANCIS: Why did you want him to be killed?
MR VAN ZYL: Are we referring to Tiso?
MR FRANCIS: Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: He would be able to identify me, he would be able to expose me.
MR FRANCIS: And that was the primary reason?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: That he would have exposed you?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, at that stage I was very frightened, I knew that this was going to cause a problem.
MR FRANCIS: As the person who set them up to be killed, or set the others up to be killed?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.
MR FRANCIS: That was the main reason?
MR VAN ZYL: To protect myself at that stage, if I had made that statement, Mr Chairman, it was because of that reason. I realised that we had a problem, that Tiso was still alive, we have already acted against four of his companions and I am sure that at that stage, if I said that, it would have been there, on that scene and I told that to Holtzhausen.
MR FRANCIS: Mr Van Zyl, you confirm that Tiso had asked you for tools?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR FRANCIS: What tools were those?
MR VAN ZYL: Tools refer to firearms.
MR FRANCIS: Was that at the time that they knew that they were going to Nelspruit or was it just in passing?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember when that happened Mr Chairman, definitely during the second incident he requested again for AK47s. Whether he referred to tools at that stage, it is also possible.
MR FRANCIS: My difficulty with that is the following, when I put to you that if these were really trained members of Umkhonto weSizwe, they would not use their own AK47s from Johannesburg to Nelspruit and you said that I think no silly person I think would travel from you know, from Johannesburg to Nelspruit with AK47s, but I mean if you were going to give them AK47s, they would have done the same, it doesn't make sense to me?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, the request was that the vehicle and the firearms should be down at Nelspruit. I accepted that he would not be using his own weapons, perhaps that was why he put that request to me. Why specifically, I don't know. I am not hundred percent sure of that.
MR FRANCIS: Did you say to him that "look, I am going to put the AK47s in the bus, mini-bus in Nelspruit"?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that was our agreement that he would get his weapons at Nelspruit. I did not tell him that we would definitely obtain a weapon for him, but I told him that I would arrange the vehicle and I would try to get a weapon for him.
MR FRANCIS: But when you got there, didn't Tiso ask you "look John, where are the tools" when they got to the Promenade?
MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember because at that stage Mr Chairperson, Dougie Holtzhausen had already told me over the telephone that he would leave the weapons in the bus. In Johannesburg, before we left, if I told him that there or whether he asked for an explanation at the Promenade, I can't remember that. There was not a big gathering at the Promenade, it was a question of one or two minutes, get into our vehicle and depart. It is not that we arrived there and we had a long discussion about AK47s, where are my weapons and then we are not going to do the work, etc.
MR FRANCIS: What the Mama family finds not clear is the following - it is that Mr Mama did not know Tiso before the incident. They find it strange that you would make the arrangements with Tiso, you had given him a key, they reach Nelspruit, a key for the premises, they reach Nelspruit, Tiso decides not to get into the vehicle, he goes into the vehicle unarmed and they get killed?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I don't know what Tiso's motivation at that stage was not to accompany the others. This was a complete deviation from the plan. Whether there was a previous friendship or a relationship, I can't comment on that.
MR FRANCIS: Sorry, one second please. My client said the following, that she has basically come to the TRC to get to know how her husband got killed. She needs to go back to her children, who still needs to know you know, how their father got killed. She still believes I think that you have still not disclosed the entire truth? To her I think it is still a mystery and that she still does not know how he got killed? How he got in touch with you, how he got in touch with the other people?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I have sympathy, I have empathy, but I can't give more information than I have already given to you. How this group got to know one another, how it began, how it ended, I don't know. I only had contact with Tiso and at both instances, he kept the other people away from me. I never spoke to them, I was not introduced to them. I am sorry, I can't assist the Commission with that.
MR FRANCIS: I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FRANCIS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Francis. Ms Patel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I will be brief. Mr Van Zyl, it is correct that during this time, you know of cases in which other robberies were committed where people were arrested and successfully prosecuted, not so?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MS PATEL: Okay, so then in terms of your political motivation on page 222, where you basically justify the murder of the victims in this matter you say that
"... I was aware of the fact that normal police and juridical proceedings could not succeed and had to overcome the onslaught in other way."
That is not true in this case, is it, that you had options of arrest?
MR VAN ZYL: During the first incident, there was an option of arrest, and during the first incident, we did not know what the full connotation was, it was only after the first incident that we became aware of the whole connotation. At that stage Mrs Mandela walked out on the Stompie Sepei thing, nothing happened to her. That was the exposure that I had at that stage.
MS PATEL: It is not correct that she actually walked out, she was convicted and an appeal was lodged against the conviction at that time, not so?
MR VAN ZYL: I thought she got scotch-free like she did with all other things.
MS PATEL: Yes, Mr Van Zyl, so much for your knowledge of the political situation at the time.
MR VAN ZYL: I would think that was more criminal of nature. What I understood was that she was involved in the trial, and what happened to that up till today, nothing has come from that.
MS PATEL: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON: But you've made a mistake, apparently, because Ms Patel is putting it that she was acquitted of the Sepei matter in the Witwatersrand High Court. She appealed an this appeal was handled by Chief Judge Corbet and she was found guilty? Were you not aware of this?
MR VAN ZYL: That happened later on, that was not in 1992. At the beginning of 1992, the end of 1991, that trial commenced.
CHAIRPERSON: At that stage she did not walk out of court, this case was still going on?
MR VAN ZYL: At that stage she did not go to jail, although she was found guilty. I can't remember exactly what month it was.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know the circumstances of this trial, this is perhaps the only point Mrs Patel wanted to make.
MR VAN ZYL: No, not in detail.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't? Very well.
MS PATEL: I want to put it to you Mr Van Zyl, that with or without the knowledge of Tiso's involvement with Mrs Mandela, that given the resources and the skills available to the police at the time, that the option of an arrest was available to them in this case?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, during the first incident they would have been arrested.
MS PATEL: Thank you, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel. Does the panel have any questions?
MR SIBANYONI: Mr Van Zyl, what was the condition of light in front of the Promenade Hotel where the kombi was parked?
MR VAN ZYL: There were trees on the sides and there is a circle in the middle, a traffic circle in the middle. One could then drive around the left or the right hand side of the traffic circle. I would not say that it is very bright light, but there are lights there, so one can see a person's features.
MR SIBANYONI: So the moment you peeped inside the kombi, were you able to see all the people there, even everything inside the kombi?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I could only see the two people sitting in front and then the third person sitting on his haunches between the two seats.
MR SIBANYONI: So you are still insisting that definitely you saw what you believed was an AK47 or a weapon?
MR VAN ZYL: I am hundred percent convinced of this.
MR SIBANYONI: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just one or two questions Mr Chairperson. You have been asked many questions about the receipts and so forth, I just want to ask you regarding the receipts that you had signed with Holtzhausen, did you have a copy or the receipt that you kept with you, did you receive any documentation after signing something like this?
MR VAN ZYL: Sgt Holtzhausen always kept the receipt. I was only asked to sign it.
MR LAMEY: You have just been asked by Ms Patel about Mrs Mandela and so forth, in the beginning of your evidence you referred to that you thought that she was untouchable. What do you mean by untouchable?
MR VAN ZYL: It appeared as if she could do things and she was never prosecuted and nothing ever happened.
MR LAMEY: Let's just analyse this slowly. Firstly prosecution never took place, if prosecution did take place, did you at any stage - or let me ask it this way, if prosecution did take place, what do you think happened about this, did she receive imprisonment?
MR VAN ZYL: According to me she was never in prison.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, if she was never prosecuted according to him, then she could never have been in prison apart from under Section 29 possibly?
MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you, we know about the Stompie Sepei incident. Are you thinking also about other aspects, apart from the Stompie Sepei incident where prosecution had not taken place?
MR VAN ZYL: Specifically concerning an automatic weapon that had been found in her house. This just came to a cul-de sac, no one knows what happened about this weapon. Nothing came of it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but do you have personal knowledge of the circumstances of this incident, did you find the weapon?
MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, I also gave evidence to this effect that a person that I knew, was involved in this incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you don't have personal knowledge of this incident?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I also gave evidence in this regard.
CHAIRPERSON: You can just speculate?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you, who is this person you received this information from?
MR VAN ZYL: This was a Security Police officer in Soweto at that stage.
MR LAMEY: Regarding the notes that Hamilton had taken, had there been instances where you contacted Tiso where Hamilton was not present?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, especially during March after the first incident, we excluded Hamilton from this.
MR LAMEY: Yes, but before this, were there incidents where you had direct contact with Tiso where Hamilton had organised it, but Hamilton was not there when you spoke to Tiso?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Had notes also been taken in these cases or not always?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I think my taking of notes had been like my bookkeeping. Hamilton kept the notes mostly.
MR LAMEY: Then I just want to ask you, you mentioned this and did you in the De Kock hearing refer to the ANC connection between Tiso and this group of his?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I definitely did Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can I ask you, regarding this connection, had there been a pause with this question and were you asked "Mr Van Zyl, please explain just a little bit more around this connection, what was involved, what information did you have" or had it just been mentioned and then it was moved on?
MR VAN ZYL: Neither Mr Ackerman or Mr Hattingh specifically asked me questions about this.
MR LAMEY: Very well. You were arrested yourself?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Was this before you gave evidence in the De Kock trial?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Can you remember how shortly before the hearing you were called on to give evidence?
MR VAN ZYL: I think I was the third witness, I know I wasn't even on the witness roll. It was right at the beginning of the hearing.
MR LAMEY: Do you know if you gave evidence before Mr Holtzhausen?
MR VAN ZYL: I definitely gave evidence before him.
MR LAMEY: Do you know if Mr Holtzhausen at that stage was a client of Mr Hattingh and also a suspect?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Van Zyl, thank you, you are excused.
MR VAN ZYL: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, I think we will get to you in the morning.
MR CORNELIUS: I am ready.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: We have come to the end of the day, we will now adjourn the proceedings and reconvene here tomorrow morning at half past nine. We are adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
