amntrans AMNESTY HEARING 1997-11-05 PORT ELIZABETH 3 JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL 5637/96 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54827&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/pe/pebco2a.htm ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Chairman, my name is Wim de Villiers, I appear for Mr J.M. van Zyl. Before I continue with the application, I would like to make a few amendments. On page 43 of the Bundle and specifically paragraph 9(a)(3) where the places are indicated. Page 43, paragraph 9(a)(3) where the places are indicated, it has been numbered 1 to 4. Number 1 should be Port Elizabeth and Cradock, that must be included there, and number 2 is Port Elizabeth. Number 3 the entire area of the RSA and number 4 Port Elizabeth. Thank you Mr Chairperson. JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY ADV DE VILLIERS: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Van Zyl, you are an applicant in this matter and you are applying for amnesty for the acts mentioned on page 43 of the Bundle, paragraph 9(a)(1) to (5)? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: And I read these. Point 1, abduction, killing and disappearance of the Pebco, namely S. Hashe, Galela and Godolozi? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Number 2, malicious damage to property that relates to the vehicle? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Number 3, the possession of an unlicensed firearm? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Number 4, defeating the ends of justice by means of the destruction of a weapon? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: And number 5 any other civil or criminal liability which may arise from that particular act? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: And the acts were committed in the period or periods mentioned under 9(a)(2). Number 1, 8 May 1985 abduction and malicious damage to property? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Number 2, 9 May 1985, murder? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Number 3, in the period 1975 to 1985? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Number 4, during 1986? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: The places where these acts were committed, 1, Port Elizabeth and Cradock? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Number 2, Port Elizabeth? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Number 3, the entire territory of the Republic of South Africa, Port Elizabeth and Cradock? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV DE VILLIERS: Number 4, Port Elizabeth? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Van Zyl, in your application and specifically from pages 44 onwards, 44 at the top of the page up to paragraph 9 on page 45, you sketch the political situation which existed in the Eastern Cape and this political background was also sketched by Major Du Plessis to this Committee, do you confirm that? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV DE VILLIERS: Major Du Plessis, in his application also testified and gave a much wider picture, a broader picture of the political situation in the Republic of South Africa and more specifically in the Eastern Cape, do you agree? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV DE VILLIERS: When did you arrive in the Eastern Cape? MR VAN ZYL: In January of 1984. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did you perceive the situation to be as sketched by Major Du Plessis? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Do you agree that the situation and the possible actions on management level were discussed and that the conclusion was reached that action had to be taken? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: How do you know that Mr Van Zyl? MR VAN ZYL: When I arrived in Port Elizabeth in January of 1984, the situation was developing and the situation in the townships of Zwide, KwaZakhele and New Brighton was according to my view at the time, was becoming very politicised. I am not saying that the people hadn't at that stage been politicised, but in 1984 to 1985 there was a great increase in the political activities which amounted to the chaotic burning down of buildings such as schools and attacks on the homes of policemen, attacks on persons, the blockading of streets and general chaos and defiance and we as the Police and Security Police, realised by the middle of 1985, that we simply could not enter these townships during the day. We had to drive in convoy, we couldn't enter these areas in single vehicles and we could only enter these areas in convoy with a certain measure of safety. ADV DE VILLIERS: One day, before the 8th of May 1985, Major Du Plessis, called you to his office and he told you that it was essential to eliminate three Pebco leaders namely Mr Hashe, Galela and Godolozi? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE JAGER: Mr De Villiers, as far as this aspect is concerned, it would seem as if it is possibly in dispute that these three names, or that there were only three names. If there are aspects which are in dispute, you must please not put any leading questions on anything in dispute. You must please just let the witness answer in his own words. ADV DE VILLIERS: On this occasion Mr Van Zyl, certain instructions were given to you. MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. Major Du Plessis, at that stage explained to me and it wasn't the first time that we had discussed the situation, it was discussed on a daily basis. We discussed it in depth and we were all aware of the desperate situation in the townships at that stage. Major Du Plessis told me that there was no other way, no other legal way to try and stabilise the situation other than to eliminate these three people, Mr Hashe, Galela and Godolozi. ADV DE VILLIERS: You then asked Major Du Plessis, how and where this should take place, his answer was at Post Chalmers and that the people should disappear. He also added that the only way which he could think of was to shoot the people and then to burn their bodies? MR VAN ZYL: I asked him how this should take place and how we should make it look as if they had disappeared in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth, because at that stage I wasn't that familiar with Port Elizabeth. He suggested that the bodies be burnt. ADV DE VILLIERS: Was there any discussion regarding vehicles or what should happen to a vehicle if a vehicle was to be involved? MR VAN ZYL: That was apparently part of the modus operandi that a vehicle, if a vehicle was involved in this kind of operation, should be taken to the Lesotho border, it should be left there and then should form part of our misleading tactics to try and pretend that these people had left the country illegally. ADV DE VILLIERS: What was your personal view regarding this instruction? MR VAN ZYL: I was aware of the situation in Port Elizabeth at that stage and I felt that it was a decision that wasn't taken lightly. And I agreed with it. I agreed that it was the only option and the fact that Colonel Du Plessis told me that he had discussed it with Colonel Snyman, created the impression with me that if it came from Colonel Snyman, then it most probably came from even higher authority. I am not trying to offend Colonel Snyman, but I did not think that Colonel Snyman was entitled to make such a decision on his own. I respected Colonel Snyman greatly and regarded him as a very religious, very conservative man and a very responsible person. He gave me the impression that he was the kind of man that would only take such a decision if he was authorised to do so from higher authority. That was my inference, the inference which I drew and I hope that I was correct at the time. ADV DE VILLIERS: How did you know Major Du Plessis personally? How was he as a person? MR VAN ZYL: Major Du Plessis was also a responsible person in my view. I never saw him commit any acts of violence. I didn't know whether he was an advocate of violent methods and the fact that he gave me such an instruction, further confirmed for me that the order had probably come from a higher authority. ADV DE VILLIERS: Weren't there any other options that could be exercised? MR VAN ZYL: I didn't think so. We discussed all the alternatives and options on a regular basis and I agree with what has already been mentioned, that we at that stage, were convinced that detentions would be counter productive as a result of the fact that it would lead to further unrest and violence and that would escalate and the other methods mentioned, would also not prove to be effective. The situation had become desperate and it is very difficult to actually describe it today. If a person wasn't there during those days and in those townships and areas, it is very difficult to explain it. It is very difficult to understand what the situation was at that stage. Mr Nyoka asked Mr Du Plessis yesterday why couldn't you consider rather assaulting these people or bombing their houses, do you have any comment about that? MR VAN ZYL: I don't think assault was ever considered for obvious reasons and to bomb the houses, was also not considered. All that I can say at this stage is that innocent people could have been killed in that case and that would definitely have been counter productive. ADV DE VILLIERS: Was it the task of the Security Branch to combat terrorism and to uphold the State? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did you protect the State from communist expansionism as identified in the liberation movements and their military wings? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that was my calling and my vocation at the time, it was my career and as I said, that was what I saw as my task to maintain the government of the day and I think at that stage we also saw it as a form of patriotism and now, in retrospect, we realise that our patriotism was misplaced and that in fact, we were actually just propping up the government of the day. ADV DE VILLIERS: Was Pebco part of these organisations? MR VAN ZYL: Correct, yes. ADV DE VILLIERS: Do you confirm the political objectives of the Security Branch as set out on page 48, paragraph 10(a)(1) and further? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: I am going to read it to you from subparagraph (1)(i), these objectives as such were the political objectives of the Security Branch and the objectives can be further defined as follows: the protection and maintenance of the government and the legal institutions established by the government, the protection of the integrity of the former government to thereby ensure that the community should not loose its confidence in the government as a result of acts of terror and propaganda coming from the communist orientated organisations. South Africa and its western capitalist society was to be protected from a violent take over by a communist orientated liberation movements which had as an objective to make the country ungovernable. These above mentioned objectives namely the normal western democracy, we had to maintain and protect that and in this specific instance, the activities of Pebco had to be neutralised. The activities of the members could not be combat in any other way than to eliminate them. MR VAN ZYL: That was my view at that stage, yes. ADV DE JAGER: I have a bit of a problem here. Are you reading from page 48, paragraph 10(a)(1)? ADV DE VILLIERS: That is correct, yes. ADV DE JAGER: Please continue, perhaps I missed something, mine looks different, this page 48. ADV DE VILLIERS: It is paragraph 10(a), page 48 Mr De Jager and I read as far as paragraph 1.4, just above (b) on page 49. ADV DE JAGER: Then my document differs from yours. ADV DE VILLIERS: These are the documents furnished to us and that is the way they were paginated Mr De Jager. ADV DE JAGER: Can your Attorney just please come and assist me so that we can assure that our pages correspond. ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr De Jager, it is the same, they do correspond. ADV DE JAGER: So, then I have no sub-paragraph (4) under 10(a) at all. Paragraph 10(a)(1) then sub (1)(i), sub (1)(ii), then 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. ADV DE VILLIERS: That is correct, I thought I made that clear but apparently not. ADV DE JAGER: You were referring to subparagraph 4? ADV DE VILLIERS: 1.4 on the next page which concluded the piece that I read. ADV DE JAGER: Yes, so that continues on to page 49? ADV DE VILLIERS: Correct. Why did you think that the Security situation would be improved if the leadership of Pebco was eliminated? MR VAN ZYL: As I said, it wasn't my decision, by I agreed with it because according to the information at our disposal, these three people, the three deceased, were very active and they were so effective in fact, that they were directly and indirectly involved in the organising which then created the vacuum which nearly replaced the (indistinct) government in the townships and we also had certain information at our disposal which we got from our informers, which linked them to certain activities and we also had certain non-physical sources, in other words technical, surveillance methods and the monitoring of telephone conversations of which we had transcripts etc. So all these things persuaded us at that stage, that they were probably the three most effective organisers in the townships. ADV DE VILLIERS: How do you associate this operation or action with the carrying out of your duties at that stage? MR VAN ZYL: At that stage? I accepted the order, the instruction because I thought it would play some part in stabilising the situation even if it was only on a temporary basis. The legal methods which we had at our disposal, were apparently no longer effective and had no positive results. ADV DE VILLIERS: Were you in any way advantaged, or did you benefit financially or otherwise by your actions? MR VAN ZYL: No. ADV DE VILLIERS: During this incident, you were a Captain and the Unit Commander of the section focusing on terrorist activities? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: And you fell under the component of Black Affairs and you were under the command of Major Du Plessis? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: On the morning on the 8th of May 1985, you had a discussion with Major Du Plessis, what was this discussion about? MR VAN ZYL: The discussion with Mr Du Plessis had the following substance, namely that there would be an opportunity during the next day or the following day at which these three people, Mr Godolozi, Mr Hashe and Galela could be abducted in a way which could possibly not be traced and that I should speak to Lieutenant Nieuwoudt about this matter. And that I should get together a team to actually plan the operation to abduct and eliminate them. ADV DE VILLIERS: During May of 1985 Captain Roelf Venter, Warrant Officer Gert Beeslaar and a team of so-called askaris from Vlakplaas, were at work in Port Elizabeth? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: They were tasked to gather intelligence regarding terrorist activities in this region? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did you then decide to make use of Venter's team? MR VAN ZYL: We decided to make use of the askaris. Captain Venter was obviously in charge of the askaris and the idea was that the askaris, because they weren't known in the area, and because their vehicle wasn't known, that they should actually carry out the abduction and that would then mean that no member of the Security Branch would be implicated in the abduction. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did you also give Lotz and Nieuwoudt instruction to assist in this operation? MR VAN ZYL: Lieutenant Nieuwoudt would obviously have been involved, and I also asked him to assist and I also asked Sergeant Lotz to help. ADV DE VILLIERS: These last mentioned members, in what capacity were they employed at the time? MR VAN ZYL: Lieutenant Nieuwoudt was in charge of the intelligence gathering component also in the Black Affairs component and Sergeant Nieuwoudt worked under me on the terrorism desk. ADV DE VILLIERS: The circumstances leading to getting the three members to the airport, that was all manoeuvred by Nieuwoudt? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Can you recall how it came about that they went to the airport? MR VAN ZYL: I know that it was done by means of a telephone call and most of the detail information I have only recently re-read, but what I can recall is that there was to be a false telephone call from a source or an informer to I think Mr Hashe personally, to try and entice them to go to the airport. I can't remember what the excuse was to have been, but I think it had something to do with the British Consul or Embassy and that that was then the ostensible reason why they should go to the airport. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did you and Lieutenant Nieuwoudt go to the airport in a vehicle? MR VAN ZYL: I can't recall exactly whether Nieuwoudt and I were together in a car, but I can recall that we sat near the airport in a car, it is a long time ago and I suspect that we drove in different vehicles and I must add that I am speculating on this because I can't remember exactly. ADV DE VILLIERS: Were askaris and Venter in other vehicles? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: The askaris were in a minibus, I cannot remember the make and Mr Venter and Beeslaar were in a Nissan Safari. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did you see that the askaris approached the three activists after they had climbed out of their vehicle and picked them up? MR VAN ZYL: The three weren't approached at the same time. The askaris were in radio communication with us. We monitored the movements of the three activists near the airport and gave the askaris the sign when they arrived as well as a description of the vehicle. Photo's of the activists were given to the askaris. Lieutenant Nieuwoudt was in communication with them by radio and as I recall, the two askaris had got out first. The two activists who climbed out of the bakkie first were intercepted. The driver went to park the vehicle, at which time they stopped alongside him and forced him into the vehicle. ADV DE VILLIERS: Were the activists then taken to the minibus by the askaris? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did one of the askaris then drive the Pebco 3's vehicle to where the others were? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: How did it come about, or what was the decision what was to be done with the vehicle? MR VAN ZYL: The initial decision was that the activists' vehicle was to be taken to the Lesotho border to make it seem as if they had left the country. Lieutenant Nieuwoudt reported to me that the askari who drove reported to him that the mechanical condition of the vehicle was such that it would never reach the Lesotho border and I gave an impulsive order which boiled down to the fact that he had to get rid of the vehicle in whatever way he thought fit, burn it out. I asked him whether he knew of a place where to get rid of it and he proposed an area in KwaZakhele. ADV DE VILLIERS: Was that done? MR VAN ZYL: It was done, I was not present. It was reported to me later that he and Sergeant Lotz did this. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did you and the others then go to a disused police station at Post Chalmers near Cradock? MR VAN ZYL: I went ahead to unlock the place and to prepare it and the askaris came after me. I can't remember how long after me it was, I was under the impression that Captain Venter and Mr Beeslaar went with them to bring them safely to there, but I am not quite sure of that. At Cradock I went to the Commander's house, at that stage. I woke him and asked him for the key of the police station at Post Chalmers. I brought him under the impression that we were busy doing source debriefing. He gave me the keys at which I then left. I unlocked the house, there were candles which I then lit. ADV DE VILLIERS: At the old police station itself, the askaris took the activists to the garage behind the building? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Where was Nieuwoudt at that stage? MR VAN ZYL: He and Sergeant Lotz arrived later by vehicle. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did Lieutenant Nieuwoudt speak to one of the activists in the building? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, he did. He spoke to him in the lounge. It was one of the activists. I can't remember whether he spoke to all three of them during the course of that evening, but when he spoke to them, it was one by one. It was normal interrogation which deal with Mr Hashe's links to a foreign suspect. As Sergeant Nieuwoudt can speak Xhosa and the conversation was therefore in Xhosa and English so that I did not quite understand it from time to time. At that stage I was busy unloading things from the vehicle, baggage etc. ADV DE VILLIERS: Can you recall that one of the other persons participated in the interrogation? MR VAN ZYL: It is possible that the askaris participated in the interrogation at that stage, but it wasn't quite necessary for them to become involved at any stage. At that stage their task had been completed and they were only used to spend the night there, because they had to be under the impression that they had participated in the abduction and that the three activists had only been abducted for means of interrogation. ADV DE VILLIERS: Who was present in the house, was it you, Captain Venter, Lieutenant Nieuwoudt, Beeslaar and Lotz? Is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: And the askaris were in the garage? MR VAN ZYL: Most of the time, yes. ADV DE VILLIERS: Allegations were made yesterday that some of the activists had been assaulted, do you have any comment on this? MR VAN ZYL: They were not assaulted. There was no purpose in assaulting these men. At that stage we were in the position where we had to wait for Mr Du Plessis to monitor the situation in Port Elizabeth. He had to report back to us whether any one of us had been identified at the airport. He was in the position of gaining information very quickly in this regard and we could not afford to injure any one at that stage and then to have to release them again if he came to us with a report that the situation in PE was such that we could not continue with the operation. ADV DE VILLIERS: Were the activists then locked up in the garage later after they had been given beds and blankets? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: The next morning Lieutenant Nieuwoudt continued with the interrogation and informed you at one stage that each one of the activists were prepared to act as informers but that he could not trust them? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember whether each one of them was prepared to be an informer, but at one stage he did tell me that one or two spoke to him about this, about the possibility of becoming informers, and he could possibly affirm this, but it is true that he said that he would not be able to trust them. ADV DE VILLIERS: Was the same procedure used in the interrogation as the previous evening? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. Lieutenant Nieuwoudt had a wide knowledge of what was happening in the townships, he confronted the activists with this in general and we hoped that this would be sufficient intimidation to make them give us new information. We did however feel that we knew everything about their activities and that we could not get a great deal of new information. At one stage, I do not know whether it was the morning or the afternoon, one of the accused had a story of the AK47 gun, but we followed it up within a few days and it seemed as if it was false. ADV DE VILLIERS: Later you ate together and in the afternoon Venter, Beeslaar and the askaris left for Port Elizabeth? MR VAN ZYL: That is as I can recall. ADV DE VILLIERS: Major Du Plessis arrived approximately at twelve o'clock that day and you reported back to him about what had happened? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did he give you any information? MR VAN ZYL: He said that the situation in Port Elizabeth was positive, that nobody was apparently aware of the abduction and that the operation to eliminate these activists had to go ahead. ADV DE VILLIERS: Can you remember who was present at this stage when Major Du Plessis arrived? In other words, were the askaris still there? MR VAN ZYL: I think that at stage they had already left. ADV DE VILLIERS: Yesterday you heard that statements were made to Major Du Plessis that during this day assaults took place, do you want to comment on that? MR VAN ZYL: No assault took place on these three activists. ADV DE VILLIERS: Is it possible that assaults could have taken place which you did not have any knowledge of? MR VAN ZYL: I was not present all the time, but the activists showed no signs of having been assaulted. They seemed at ease. ADV DE VILLIERS: Is it correct that you gathered wood during the day and continued with the interrogation? MR VAN ZYL: The interrogation was done mainly by Lieutenant Nieuwoudt, Lotz and I gathered wood and at one stage he left to buy food. ADV DE VILLIERS: Is it correct that your recollection is that you did not find out anything new during the interrogation? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Is it also correct that by early evening the three activists were given coffee which contained a sleeping pill? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Can you remember what it was and where it had been obtained? MR VAN ZYL: I provided it. I did service in the operational area, Ovamboland for many years and at the beginning of 1985 I was in Ovamboland for a period of service. Due to the fact that I did a lot of semi-military work, I had this in my possession. I had to put up drips and basic para-medical assistance which I had to provide and this sleeping pill was part of a small supply of medical equipment that we had found in the suitcase of a guerilla fighter of SWAPO which was given to me. I learnt from the Medical Doctor exactly what it was, they were in glass (indistinct) and he told me that it was more a sleeping pill than a painkiller. I put it in my own medical case and kept it there for in case I should need it. As I had nothing else, that is what I used. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did they have the necessary effect? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV DE VILLIERS: Do you confirm that after the three activists were asleep, that you shot one of the activists in the back of the head and in this way killed him? MR VAN ZYL: I did. ADV DE VILLIERS: Can you remember who was the person whom you killed? MR VAN ZYL: I could not remember, I spoke to Lieutenant Nieuwoudt yesterday and he gave me an idea of whom it could have been. ADV DE VILLIERS: Who do you think it was? MR VAN ZYL: It think it was Mr Hashe. ADV DE VILLIERS: Did Lieutenant Nieuwoudt and Sergeant Lotz each kill one of the other activists in the same way? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. I do not know to whom I gave the weapon at that stage. After that each of the persons were carried out into the backyard and were shot in the back of the head in the same way. ADV DE VILLIERS: Can you indicate what type of weapon was used? MR VAN ZYL: It was a weapon that I provided myself, that was a weapon of .22 calibre which I brought from the former Rhodesia after my period of service there in 1975. It was an unlicensed weapon. ADV DE VILLIERS: What did you do with the weapon afterwards? MR VAN ZYL: I sawed it into pieces and threw it into the sea. ADV DE VILLIERS: Was that in 1986? MR VAN ZYL: Approximately 1986, yes. ADV DE VILLIERS: After this the three bodies were placed on a pile of wood, diesel was poured over them and they were set alight? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Is it your recollection that after approximately six hours they bodies had been burnt to ash? MR VAN ZYL: It could have been a bit longer, it carried on the whole night. ADV DE VILLIERS: Was the ash scraped together after that and placed in black bags? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV DE VILLIERS: Is it true that Lieutenant Nieuwoudt removed these bags with the ashes and reported back to you later that he had thrown the bags in the Fish River? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: You and Sergeant Lotz left for PE together in your vehicle? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: And you reported to Major Du Plessis that the operation had been completed? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Do you confirm any part of your application which has possibly been left out in this evidence before the Commission? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Van Zyl, the question has also been asked about why Mr Du Plessis should apply for amnesty. Can you tell us why you applied for amnesty? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, at the stage which I applied for amnesty, I was still in Angola when I considered it last year. After the incident took place, from that time onwards, I think that any person has a need for forgiveness, it doesn't matter how strong, how macho an operative you are, but I found and I felt that all the deeds, all the illegal deeds that I had committed, that if I spoke up about them, that I would get the forgiveness from God and I think it is necessary to be forgiven. And this was my greatest motivation. ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Van Zyl, we know what your profession was in 1985, what are you doing at present? MR VAN ZYL: As from 1991 I have been involved in humanitarian mine sweeping. ADV DE VILLIERS: Why do you think that you were requested to do this task with regard to the Pebco 3? MR VAN ZYL: I do not know why Mr Du Plessis chose me. I think that I can just speculate that he thought that I was best equipped to plan such an operation. Personally, I chose Lieutenant Lotz and Nieuwoudt for exactly the same reasons because they were balanced people, or are balanced people, and do not have any psychopathic tendencies and that I thought that they would be prepared to do it. ADV DE VILLIERS: What was the specific purpose of this operation? MR VAN ZYL: The purpose as I can remember, was to remove the three activists from society so that they could no longer participate effectively in organisation and be either directly or indirectly responsible for the unrest in the townships. ADV DE VILLIERS: Was the interrogation that took place therefore instrumental or secondary to this purpose that you had just described - the interrogation? MR VAN ZYL: The interrogation as I have already said, was mainly to bring the askaris under the impression that this was the purpose for abducting the activists. At no stage did the askaris know that they had to be eliminated. Colonel Venter and Beeslaar did not know this at that stage either, but they could have suspected it at a later stage, I am not sure. It was therefore in addition to the ultimate purpose of the operation which was the elimination of the activists, that is all. ADV DE VILLIERS: You also told us that if you think back there was maybe excessive patriotism. Can you give us a bit of background why you would have had this patriotism at that stage? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I think I speak for most of the Security Police, they grew up in this Security Branch where we got our culture from the more experienced people and continued with this ourselves, a culture of discipline and especially of not questioning. We never questioned anything. Maybe as a result of the discipline and in retrospect, possibly as a result of an exaggerated sense of responsibility or patriotism as we interpreted it. ADV DE VILLIERS: The image was created yesterday that these activists were not dangerous, can you comment on that? MR VAN ZYL: The activists as such physically were not dangerous because they did not have the training or the background to be dangerous in themselves, but their influence and the influence that they had, was according to our information and our convictions at that stage, was such that they could be linked directly and indirectly to a great deal of the activities that took place. Some of them were also involved in the recruitment of recruits for terrorist training abroad which had as its purpose to violently overthrow the government of the day. ADV DE VILLIERS: You also mentioned to me in consultation about some of the incidents that some of the other members of the community had to deal with in this period. Can you give us more information about some of these incidents? MR VAN ZYL: I mentioned it yesterday because rent boycotts were referred to yesterday, there were many consumer boycotts. Apart from the other actions, murders committed and cases of arson which took place. During the consumer boycotts we actually saw these things and we listened to complaints where people who had simply had to go and buy their supplies in areas controlled by for instance Pebco, these people were forced to actually eat all those supplies, for instance frozen chickens and the like, they were actually forced to eat these things. I know of a case where a bag of flour was eaten and oil was consumed after that. This was as a result of the intimidation from a side of people such as these activists. ADV DE VILLIERS: What is your feeling, there was also a question yesterday that do you think that you would have been charged criminally if the ordinary Police knew of these deeds? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV DE VILLIERS: Thank you Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DE VILLIERS. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. It has been suggested that you had to report in all directions. This type of operation, although you were under the impression that they were "authorised", they were clandestine operations, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV BOOYENS: Did you want to say anything else? MR VAN ZYL: I am not sure if I know what you are referring to, but it could be that you are referring to the Joint Management Council. I heard the question yesterday, if they were being referred to in the overt manner in which the question was asked, they would become conspirators the moment they did that, there was no purpose in creating co-accused or conspirators in this structure, it was therefore a clandestine operation. ADV BOOYENS: With this principle of clandestine operations hand in hand with this goes the need to know principle, surely? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, absolutely. ADV BOOYENS: Is this also the reason why the askaris were not trusted to be present during the elimination of these people? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. We did not know them personally and therefore we did not know whether we could trust them, we did not know what there convictions were. Although at that stage we did not think that we had to doubt their loyalty, it was such a delicate operation that we did not want to involve them. ADV BOOYENS: When we are talking about this type of clandestine operation, was it a type of situation which one or was the impression one of do the operations, but remember if you get caught, you are on your own, we know nothing about it, coming from the authorities? MR VAN ZYL: That was definitely the impression that I had and perhaps this had no basis and this was the impression that from a higher authority there was approval whether direct or indirect for this type of operations. ADV BOOYENS: And also that in as far as it was possible, that they would cover up for you but that if the situation arose that you were caught, then you would have to deal with the problems yourself. Did you realise that that was the case? MR VAN ZYL: I did realise that, yes. ADV BOOYENS: Is that how clandestine operations work? MR VAN ZYL: I think that is how they work throughout the world. ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, my learned friend Mr Lamey indicated to me that he wants to after me today, so I will go first. Mr Van Zyl, can you recall exactly what was said to Captain Venter before the operation, were they specifically told that the operation had as its purpose to interrogate the activists? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. I think that is what the words implied. ADV DU PLESSIS: You had been asked about this, I just want to ask a few more aspects. You said that one could not really trust the askaris and that one had to work on a need to know basis, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: I did not say that one could not really trust them, I said we did not know whether we could, we did not know them personally and it was unnecessary to make them accomplices in this regard. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, perhaps I did not formulate it correctly. Is it correct to say that under those circumstances, you would not even consider any serious assaults taking place on the activists in the presence of the askaris? MR VAN ZYL: There was no purpose in assaulting these people. ADV DU PLESSIS: Therefore you would not allow it that eliminations take place in the presence of the askaris? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did I understand you correctly, the askaris were therefore used basically only to assist you in the abduction, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: It was their task that they would abduct the activists and transport them to Post Chalmers. ADV DU PLESSIS: And the bus in which you travelled, would be used to transport them? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: And they would have been used during the transport to watch over the activists/ MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: And this specific bus was also used because the windows were blacked out? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember that they were tinted. ADV DU PLESSIS: If I put it to you that Mr Beeslaar is going to testify that the windows were tinted, you won't argue about that? MR VAN ZYL: I will accept that. ADV DU PLESSIS: When you arrived at Post Chalmers, was anybody there or was there nobody? MR VAN ZYL: There was nobody at Post Chalmers. ADV DU PLESSIS: You testified that with regard to the askaris and Captain Venter and Beeslaar, that you can recall that they spent the night there and that they left the next morning, is that correct that is what you can remember? MR VAN ZYL: That is as I can recall. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did I understand you correctly in your evidence in this regard, that it is possible that regarding this aspect, you might not be correct and that it is possible that what Beeslaar said, or what he will say when he testifies, that he and Captain Venter only arrived later that afternoon, that this might possibly be correct? MR VAN ZYL: It is a long time ago, my focus was on the operation itself. It was an extremely unpleasant experience and it is possibly so that with regard to the additional members, I could have made a mistake. With regard to the askaris, they were definitely there. CHAIRPERSON: On what basis, on what reasonable basis then did you distinguish between Venter and Beeslaar because it would mean, it would suggest that what you are saying is that you were aware that Venter left and your recollection Beeslaar remained. ADV DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, that is not how I understand the gist of my question or his answer. CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. ADV DU PLESSIS: That is not how I understood the gist of my question or his answer. What I understood from him is that he did not distinguish between Venter and Beeslaar, what I asked him was does he concede that he may be wrong in respect of when Venter and Beeslaar arrived there, namely that they didn't spend the evening there, but that they arrived later the afternoon, which was the evidence of Colonel Venter and which will be the evidence of Mr Beeslaar. And as I understood him, he conceded that possibility. CHAIRPERSON: That is his own version of which he is not sure. I accept that his recollection may be wrong, but what is the witness' recollection about the event? What is your recollection about the event? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, why I distinguished between Colonel Venter and Mr Beeslaar on the one hand and the askaris on the other hand is solely because they travelled in two different vehicles and I know that the askaris followed me at a distance with the three activists. What I am not sure about is whether Mr Venter and Beeslaar had followed in their car as well. My recollection is that they were there, but I am not sure sir. And I do know that the askaris were there. CHAIRPERSON: I think it answers my question because then you could have made a mistake in respect of Beeslaar because he travelled with askaris, he was associated with the askaris to a certain extent. MR VAN ZYL: No sir, not in this instance. He travelled with Mr Venter in his car, in the Nissan. CHAIRPERSON: To the place? MR VAN ZYL: That is my recollection, but as I said I concede that I may have made a mistake in that respect Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, maybe I can just clear this up. Colonel Venter's evidence and the evidence of Warrant Officer Beeslaar, Colonel Venter has already given evidence and Warrant Officer Beeslaar will give evidence, is that the askaris travelled in the minibus to Post Chalmers immediately after they got hold of the activists. Colonel Venter and Warrant Officer Beeslaar returned to Glenconnor, they did not go with that same evening. They only went through to Cradock the next afternoon. That is only Beeslaar and Venter and they arrived at Post Chalmers late that afternoon. Now the evidence of Mr Van Zyl was as I understood it, was that Captain Venter and Warrant Officer Beeslaar, as far as he remembers, travelled together with the askaris on the same day to Post Chalmers, that they spent the evening there and that they left the next morning. But the concession that he made which I asked him to make, is that in respect of Beeslaar and Venter, he may be wrong, meaning that it is possible that Venter and Beeslaar as they testified and will testify, arrived there only the afternoon. So it is just a question ... (intervention) CHAIRPERSON: I may have misunderstood. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is a concession that I asked of Mr Van Zyl. Do I understand you correctly that is the concession you made? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. Yes, and as I said my own focus at that time was on the operation that had to follow and that was probably going to be that evening and it was very, very unpleasant and I was not looking forward to it and I think it is possible that I could have made a mistake. I know that Venter and Beeslaar were at Post Chalmers, but if I had made a mistake about the time, then it is unfortunately possible. ADV DU PLESSIS: I also want to put it to you in all fairness that I discussed the matter thoroughly with Beeslaar and that in turn he says that his recollection is as I put it to you but it is also possible that after all these years, that he is wrong and that this will be his evidence. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Du Plessis, perhaps you should put of the other microphone and not move your hands, because it seems to affect the microphone. ADV DU PLESSIS: I did not know that it is so sensitive. Perhaps I should use Mr Lamey's microphone. Mr Van Zyl, do you understand what I am saying? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV DU PLESSIS: Let's go over to another point. Did you ever get any feedback from the Commanders regarding this operation in the form of any criticism? MR VAN ZYL: No. ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you accept that everyone was satisfied with what you had done and that you had not been reprimanded? MR VAN ZYL: In the first place I had to carry out the operation, but regarding the operation, the decision I took to burn out the vehicle was a very big tactical mistake. ADV DU PLESSIS: What I want to know is that you were never criticised, nobody ever came back to you and said that it was an unauthorised operation and why did you ever do it, what was wrong, why did you do it? MR VAN ZYL: No one knew about the operation as far as I knew, apart from Colonel Du Plessis and Snyman. ADV DU PLESSIS: Regarding your political motive, were you a supporter of the National Party at that stage? MR VAN ZYL: I did not actually have any political affiliation. I supported the government of the day and although I was not a member of the National Party as far as I can remember, I most probably was a supporter of the NP. ADV DU PLESSIS: One last question. You testified with regard to the involvement of the three activists in several events, especially at meetings - are you of the opinion that the involvement of the activists could have originated from criminal deeds which people could have committed who attended those meetings? MR VAN ZYL: It was the general opinion, because it wasn't only about what was said at these meetings, there were many private conversations between these people and people overseas and other activists which were definitely related to criminal deeds and violent deeds and the recruitment of people for terrorist training overseas. ADV DU PLESSIS: Do I understand you correctly if I say that although the activists only acted at meetings sometimes, do you say that it is a possibility that those actions led to criminal actions of other people, among others violence? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. I see it is now ten to one. Is it possible that we can have an adjournment at this stage? There is certain aspects that I just want to clarify before I start with cross-examination? CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what has been so drastic in here, isn't everything that should normally be covered in consultation? ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I can start. CHAIRPERSON: Well, start on other aspects of the matter which don't require consultation and then we will see how far we can go. ADV LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Zyl, you testified here that your memory is a bit vague on certain aspects, including the question of whether Captain Venter and Warrant Officer Beeslaar had been or arrived at Post Chalmers that evening, whether they arrived together? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Is your memory also vague as regards the question of when the elimination took place? MR VAN ZYL: No. ADV LAMEY: Are you quite sure that it took place on the next day? MR VAN ZYL: The day after the abduction, definitely yes. ADV LAMEY: And what time in the evening? MR VAN ZYL: It was about sunset. ADV LAMEY: Sunset? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. It was dusk. ADV LAMEY: Did you have a braai that evening? MR VAN ZYL: No. ADV LAMEY: Are you quite certain of that? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, very certain. ADV LAMEY: Are you sure that Warrant Officer Beeslaar and Captain Venter did not arrive later that afternoon at Post Chalmers as they would state in their versions? MR VAN ZYL: I have conceded that I am not sure exactly when they arrived there. My initial recollection was that they arrived just after the askaris because they travelled just behind the askaris. ADV LAMEY: Now if that is your recollection, why then do you concede that you possibly could be wrong? MR VAN ZYL: Because this happened such a long time ago, it has been a long passage of time. ADV LAMEY: Yes, but if that is your recollection in your own mind, then why had you made the concession that you could possibly be wrong on that point? MR VAN ZYL: Because Venter and Beeslaar's roles in this operation were very small and because the askaris' roles were a bit bigger and because my purpose with the operation was the elimination of these people. The interrogation was only an additional reason for bringing the askaris under the impression that the people had been abducted for that reason. ADV LAMEY: Was Venter and Beeslaar fully informed as to the objectives of the operation? MR VAN ZYL: They were informed as to the purposes for the abduction, namely the interrogation. ADV LAMEY: Why were they only briefed on that aspect of the operation? MR VAN ZYL: Because it wasn't necessary to give then any further information. They were not involved in the elimination at all so therefore it wasn't necessary to make them accomplices. ADV LAMEY: If you then have that recollection but you make the concession that they possibly did not arrive there on that same evening, why then can you be so sure regarding your recollection about when the elimination took place? MR VAN ZYL: Because I took part in the elimination and because the elimination made a far greater impact on me than the arrival or departure of Venter, Beeslaar or the askaris. ADV LAMEY: I can understand that the elimination made a great impression on you, but the passage of time and the day on which it took place, isn't it possible that you actually are making an error as far as that is concerned? MR VAN ZYL: No, not at all. ADV LAMEY: Why not? MR VAN ZYL: Because that is the way I remember it. ADV LAMEY: Yes, but the question is why do you remember it so specifically? Because Major Du Plessis, during cross-examination conceded that it could possibly have taken place a day later, it could have been a day later that he arrived there? MR VAN ZYL: I didn't hear that. I didn't hear Major Du Plessis conceding that point. But then if he did so, then that is his recollection. ADV LAMEY: To put it in full, my recollection of Mr Du Plessis evidence was that it was also his recollection that it was the next day, but under cross-examination he conceded at some point that it could have been later, especially when he was asked about the fact that he first wanted to make sure that there were no problems and that the elimination had to be postponed for that reason and to a further question he said that it was possible that it could have been a day later. MR VAN ZYL: No. CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's put it this way. Isn't it so that the true reason why you concede that you may be wrong, is simply because Venter's version and Beeslaar is different from yours? MR VAN ZYL: No, it is not the only reason why sir. Mr Chairman, I wanted to get that operation over and done with as soon as possible. Major Du Plessis reported back the next day at about midday, that as far as he was concerned the coast was clear in Port Elizabeth and that we could go ahead with the operation, there was no way that I would postpone that until the next day. An operation like this is a very unpleasant experience and to postpone it for another day, would have meant putting all three of us through the same tension and I was trying to get it over and done with as soon as possible. ADV LAMEY: If your memory is not quite clear on this point and you have conceded that, then if Mr Mogoai who is an askari or was an askari, and Mr Koole who is a permanent member of the Force, I am specifically stating that Mr Koole wasn't an askari, if they who served directly under Venter and Beeslaar, if they came here and testified that Captain Venter and Beeslaar were in fact present from the very first night, would you be prepared to make the same concession that they could possibly be correct in their evidence? ADV DE JAGER: But that was also his evidence, that he was under the impression that they were there from the very first evening. Because he thought they had followed him. So that is not a concession which he made, it is simply that he was persisting in what he had said earlier on. ADV LAMEY: Yes, perhaps I did not formulate my question properly, maybe I will rephrase. These men who served directly under Venter and Beeslaar, would you concede that their recollection on that particular aspect would possibly be more accurate than your own, the fact of whether Venter and Beeslaar were there or not? The movements of Venter and Beeslaar were not that important to you, your focus was on the elimination, but here you have two other people who were moving around with their Commanding Officers and who would surely have been aware of their presence or not? ADV DE VILLIERS: I don't think it is fair to ask my client that question because I think the question is being put to him does he think that one person's recollection is better that another. CHAIRPERSON: No, no, that is not the question. ADV DE VILLIERS: That is how I understand it. CHAIRPERSON: It is a very fair question. ADV DE VILLIERS: May I then request that the question please be repeated. ADV LAMEY: Would you concede that in light of the fact that your focus was on the elimination and the focus of the askaris was not on the elimination, that they were in a better position to remember whether Venter and Beeslaar were there that evening and the fact that they arrived there together on that afternoon? MR VAN ZYL: No, I said I would concede that if Venter and Beeslaar say that they arrived there together that evening, I would concede that. I don't need the askaris to confirm that. I am trying to say what happened to the best of my ability. CHAIRPERSON: That is not the question. The question is you have got on the one hand a version put forward by Venter and Beeslaar, on the other side you have got a version put forward by Mr Lamey's clients, two other people. And leaving apart what your personal recollection is, you have got two sets of people, two on the one side, two on the other side, they give two different versions. You have already indicated that you are prepared to concede Venter and Beeslaar could be correct, now the question is would you also be prepared to concede that Mogoai and the other person could also be correct, that is the question? MR VAN ZYL: If they say that Venter and Beeslaar arrived the next day and left the next day Mr Chairman ... CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat yourself? MR VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon? If they should say that Mr Venter and Beeslaar contrary to what I said, had arrived the next day and also left the next day, then I would go along with that. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Van Zyl, they are not saying that Venter and Beeslaar arrived the next day. What they are saying is that Venter and Beeslaar arrived that first night with them. MR VAN ZYL: That is what I initially said and that is how I recall it. ADV DE JAGER: And that is what you also said, so your recollection and the recollection of Mr Mogoai and Koole, these recollections correspond, you agree that Venter and Beeslaar were present that first night? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is how I have it. ADV DE JAGER: Now, Venter and Beeslaar's version differs from yours and Mr Mogoai and Koole's version. They say they only arrived the next day. MR VAN ZYL: Chairman, I have already made the concession that I can't recall exactly when Venter and Beeslaar arrived there. The fact of the matter is that they were and that they left the next day. CHAIRPERSON: The question is would you also concede that Mogoai and the other person can possibly be right? That is the question? MR VAN ZYL: Well, I said so initially Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Was that the question you wanted to know? Was that what you wanted to know? ADV LAMEY: Yes, to a certain extent, but there is a further aspect which I specifically wanted to find out. CHAIRPERSON: Can you hold it until two o'clock if you don't mind? ADV LAMEY: As it pleases the Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until two o'clock. COMMISSION ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, please continue. JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV LAMEY: (cont) Thank you Mr Chairman. Before I proceed, I have noticed that the bundle of the verbatim evidence of Mr Venter which forms part of the Committee's bundle is incomplete. I am in possession of a complete bundle and I am going to ask my colleague to hand it up as well as to hand copies to the evidence leader and the family of the victims. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we do have the copies. ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Zyl, before the adjournment we were busy with your recollection about Captain Venter and Warrant Officer Beeslaar on the first evening after your arrival and this will also be valid for the next day at the old police station at Post Chalmers. In your evidence you said that it was your recollection that they were there but on the question from my learned friend, Mr Du Plessis, I got the impression that you had also made a concession that your information or your memory could possibly be faulty in this regard, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. The reason for that is that Mr Venter and Beeslaar played a very small role at that stage. ADV LAMEY: I did not have my headphones on, I could not hear your reply. MR VAN ZYL: I repeat it is correct Mr Chairman, and the reason why I was unsure is because Mr Venter and Beeslaar's role in this operation was less important. ADV LAMEY: If Mr Mogoai and Koole say and this will be their evidence that Captain Venter and Beeslaar were there, will this strengthen your recollection to such an extent that you will be less inclined to make that concession? MR VAN ZYL: It makes no difference to my recollection, at this stage I am not very sure about that point. CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps the question should have been that if they should testify, would it have influenced you in any way? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman. ADV LAMEY: I do not understand why you are making that concession that you are making that concession, but at the same time you are saying that it is your recollection that they were there? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, it was my recollection as I mentioned in my statement. At that stage I did not feel that I was speculating. It is a long time ago and as far as I am concerned, it was a less important aspect of the operation and that is why as a result of the period of time that had lapsed, I am unsure about this. ADV LAMEY: Was any arrangements made at any stage, I believe that you were actually in control of the execution of this operation? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Was there an arrangement made with you at any stage that the command of the askaris would be left to you at any stage? MR VAN ZYL: I do not think that this was done directly. ADV LAMEY: Are you saying no? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember positively that there was such an agreement. ADV LAMEY: Would you have remembered it if such arrangements had been made? MR VAN ZYL: Probably yes. ADV LAMEY: Can you remember exactly ... (intervention) ADV DE JAGER: But were all the men not under your command, Venter and Beeslaar, weren't they also under your command with regard to the abducting of the people? MR VAN ZYL: Indirectly most probably yes, but no such decision was made that I was in command and who was second in command, etc. ADV DE JAGER: But you would have been in the position to say stop and everybody would have had to stop? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Mr Van Zyl, I can understand and this is not disputed that the leadership of the operation regarding the abduction and questioning or interrogation and the departure to Post Chalmers was under the initiative and leadership of the Port Elizabeth Security Branch, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: But the askaris were under the command of Captain Venter? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV LAMEY: And they were in the area under his command as well? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: And they were just to go with or were they involved in the operation? MR VAN ZYL: They had to carry out the execution of the operation. ADV LAMEY: But the direct line of command between the askaris and their Commander was with Captain Venter? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Can you recall exactly and I am now asking you whether your memory is quite clear on this point, when the askaris departed from Post Chalmers, according to you when was this? MR VAN ZYL: I would say that it was just before lunch time on the second day. ADV LAMEY: In other words the very next day? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: And you are certain of this? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: And Captain Venter and Beeslaar? MR VAN ZYL: I would say approximately the same time, but once again I am not quite sure as far as they are concerned. ADV LAMEY: If you say that you are not sure, is it possible that they could have left a bit later? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is possible. ADV LAMEY: When would Captain Venter and Beeslaar have left the next day at the very latest? MR VAN ZYL: I would have to speculate about that. ADV LAMEY: Can you not recall? MR VAN ZYL: No, actually I cannot. ADV LAMEY: But you testified that if I understand correctly that Captain Venter and Beeslaar were not present at the elimination? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Nor did they know about it? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: You said that the people were eliminated at dusk of the following day? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: And you are sure about that? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: Between the stage that the askaris departed and Captain Venter and Beeslaar departed, when should they have departed in all certainty? If you take those scenarios of which you are sure, if you get them together, when did they have to leave? MR VAN ZYL: Then they should have left late that morning. ADV LAMEY: Late morning, but you say that they were definitely not there by late afternoon, round about dusk, not that evening either? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Are you sure of that? MR VAN ZYL: I am. ADV LAMEY: I want to refer you to what Warrant Officer Beeslaar said in his evidence. I am referring to page 78 where Beeslaar says that Captain Venter and I went to Cradock the next day of the day thereafter and then he carries on to saying that they then arrived there at the old police station. How they arrived there is not necessary for purposes of questioning. What he said in paragraph 2 of that page, it was already late afternoon, but the sun was still shining. Captain Venter and I spent a few hours there and among others, we braaied and enjoyed a few drinks. There were three black men present, approximately five metres from where we were standing. I just want to stop there. If Beeslaar now says that they left the late afternoon, at the top he says the next day or the day afterwards, if he says that they arrived late that afternoon, they spent a few hours there and that amongst others they braaied and enjoyed a few drinks, what do you say about that? MR VAN ZYL: I do not think that the statement says that he arrived there late afternoon of the next day, perhaps he can just assist me in this regard. CHAIRPERSON: Of any day? MR VAN ZYL: All that he says is that the next day or the day thereafter we went to Cradock. He did not say that they arrived there that afternoon. CHAIRPERSON: The first sentence of the second paragraph. He is reading it in conjunction, he is reading these two sentences in conjunction. MR VAN ZYL: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: He is reading these two sentences in conjunction. MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I definitely recollect one braai and that was late that morning when we had meat and the activists ate with us. We did not eat again that day. I cannot recollect if Mr Venter or Beeslaar were there when we were eating, but my recollection is that Mr Venter and Beeslaar had left at least by early afternoon, but definitely during the first part of the day. CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I don't know how you want to deal with this, but maybe you should take it step by step because it is a little bit convoluted the way you are dealing with this aspect. I mean shouldn't you deal with the first sentence on the top of the page and then move on to the next paragraph which seems to be an independent aspect and you know, not just deal with them in this way? I am sure you know how best to deal with this, but it is a little bit confusing to the witness and indeed to us as well. For my own sake, can I just ask the witness, you have seen the first sentence on page 51? MR VAN ZYL: I have. CHAIRPERSON: Well, there is a suggestion or there is a concession possibly on the part of the person who makes this statement, that he could have arrived there not just the following day but in fact possibly the day thereafter, what do you say to that? MR VAN ZYL: No, I have already conceded that it is possible that they arrived the next day, in other words the second day sir. What I do not concede is that it could have happened even a second day after that, it did not happen another day later. So that is as far as I am concerned, this is correct, they did not arrive two days after we abducted the activists. CHAIRPERSON: As he suggests? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. I am saying that I have conceded that it is possible that they arrived the next day, but sir, it was definitely not the day after that as he is saying in his statement. CHAIRPERSON: Yes. ADV DE JAGER: And if we speak of the second day, then the first day is when the abduction took place and the second day was the day on which the elimination took place? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE JAGER: You are thus differing, or there is no possibility as far as you are concerned, that the abduction took place on the first day, that the second day just passed and that the elimination took place on the third day? MR VAN ZYL: I keep to it that it was the second day. There is no way in which I would allow this operation to carry on for an extra day. CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lamey? ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Zyl, did I understand you correctly that the remains of the deceased, the ashes, were thrown into the river on the 10th, and that you reported it then? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Why would that have taken place on the 10th? MR VAN ZYL: Because the whole night of the 10th we were busy with the extremely unpleasant task of burning those people. ADV LAMEY: Would it not have been urgent? MR VAN ZYL: It was a remote place and in the early morning hours of the next morning this occurred. ADV LAMEY: I want to refer to Warrant Officer Beeslaar's statement. The crux of his statement as I read it in context is that he says that if you look at the previous page, page 77, he and Captain Venter went back to Glenconnor after the abduction was carried out at the airport. And then it carries on to page 78, where he said that the next day or a day thereafter, he and Captain Venter went to Cradock. What he is saying here is in paragraph 2 of page 78, before I put it to you, you testified that you ate braaivleis during the day? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Can you remember when this took place? MR VAN ZYL: I said it was more or less late in the morning, middle of the morning. ADV LAMEY: Were the askaris already gone by that time? MR VAN ZYL: No, I think they were still there. ADV LAMEY: Now Beeslaar states that it was already late afternoon, but the sun was still shining. Captain Venter and I spent a few hours there and braaied and enjoyed drinks. MR VAN ZYL: Under no circumstances would I have allowed anybody to have drinks during such an operation, that is the first point. Secondly I recall this differently, the afternoon we gathered wood and we were alone with the activists, except for Deon Nieuwoudt who interrogated them most of the time. ADV LAMEY: As you said yourself, with regard to the askaris, here was an element of misleading, they were not supposed to know what the ultimate purpose was, is that true? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: Would it not have been more probable if they had said that they had been there the following evening as well and that they did braai and enjoyed drinks? MR VAN ZYL: I don't get the point. ADV LAMEY: Your evidence states that you would never have allowed alcohol at such an occasion, my question to you is if it was part of the planning of the operation, and there was an element of deception, would it not have created a measure of normality for your presence at Post Chalmers in the eyes of the askaris, to have this braai? MR VAN ZYL: If the use of alcohol is a normality among the askaris, it was not amongst us, not during any of our operations and especially not there. ADV LAMEY: No, that is not the question the question is if your evidence was that deception was part of the plan as far as the askaris were concerned? MR VAN ZYL: Is this with regard to the purpose of the operation, they were not necessary for any interrogation, therefore it was not necessary for them to remain there any longer, they did not have the background, they did not speak Xhosa and they could be of no further use to us. ADV LAMEY: If you wanted to bring about this deception, then surely you had to do this in a convincing way? MR VAN ZYL: I thought we were very convincing. ADV LAMEY: I want to put it to you that it was done with conviction to such an extent that the people were interrogated intensively the evening for a bit when they arrived and especially the next day and that their evidence is that a braai was held and that drinks were enjoyed the next evening? MR VAN ZYL: That is wrong. ADV LAMEY: The Pebco 3 were not arrested at the airport, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: They were arrested right in front of the airport. ADV LAMEY: Were they arrested or just grabbed and abducted? MR VAN ZYL: No, they weren't arrested, they were abducted. ADV LAMEY: Now, we have the situation that you want to mislead the askaris as far as this operation is concerned and the reasons behind it. Your evidence is that you grabbed the people at the airport, or that they grabbed them and that they abducted them and that they were informed as regards the abduction and their role there? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Now, they were taken to a place, a remote place as Major Du Plessis said approximately 280 kilometres from Port Elizabeth? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: An old police station? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: The persons arrived there and you said that they were merely interrogated superficially, no assaults took place? MR VAN ZYL: That is true. ADV LAMEY: And the next morning, during the course of the morning, the askaris were requested to depart? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: And the Security Branch members remained behind in your presence or in the presence of the detainees? MR VAN ZYL: That is right. ADV LAMEY: Do you really think that people who are busy planning an operation, who wants to mislead others as to the purpose of their detention at Post Chalmers, that they would just be asked to leave the next morning? That they were never asked to help with the interrogation, the purpose was to assist with the abduction? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I think it is completely natural. ADV LAMEY: What conviction would you have been able to create amongst them in that short period that they were there? What would have happened if they started to wonder what they were doing there, if they had just thought that they were assisting with the abduction, what the purpose was behind this abduction, did you not think that that question would arise? MR VAN ZYL: But I told you that as far as they were concerned, the objective was interrogation. I did not discuss the length of time these people would stay there. ADV LAMEY: But I understood your evidence that they would only be involved in the abduction and that was all they were told, not the interrogation. The reason for the abduction was the interrogation, but were the askaris told this? MR VAN ZYL: I think so. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I think with your permission, I am going to intervene at this stage because this thing keeps on coming time and again about misleading the askaris, and the reason given. I think I should ask you Mr Van Zyl, the people are asked to abduct somebody for the purposes of interrogation, according to you. They were made to believe that that was for interrogation? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct sir. CHAIRPERSON: You expected them to believe that solely for the purpose of interrogating a person, you need to abduct him? Did you in the past abduct people to go and interrogate them? MR VAN ZYL: No, we did not sir. CHAIRPERSON: But did you really, did you really think that these people would believe that just for the sake of interrogating somebody, you need to abduct him? You can go and fetch him from his house so that his family can see that he is being taken away by the police, after all he is going to come back? MR VAN ZYL: That seems logical now sir, after 12 years, I cannot say what our train of thought was at the time, but I concede that that is logical now. CHAIRPERSON: Even then it was logical? I can't understand how you can keep on saying that you didn't trust the askaris, you mislead them into thinking that the people are being abducted solely for the purposes of interrogation, they would have to be less than wise to believe that. MR VAN ZYL: That is correct sir, but in a way I was also protecting them knowing about the operation, about becoming accomplices. CHAIRPERSON: And this aspect of not trusting them. If you didn't trust them about the question of elimination, how could you trust them enough to involve them in the abduction? Surely they would know that those people eventually were killed, wouldn't they know that? MR VAN ZYL: They could have surmised that afterwards, of course. CHAIRPERSON: Of course they would have known, I can't understand why you keep on saying that they cannot have been involved there because you did not trust them, when in fact you used the very same people to abduct the people you are going to kill. If they were not trustworthy, did you not think that they would spill the beans? MR VAN ZYL: I did not say that they were not trustworthy Mr Chairman, I said that we did not know them, we did not know whether we could trust them to that extent and that is why I did not want to involve them in the final operation. CHAIRPERSON: But you trust them enough to involve them in the initial operation which is directly linked with the disappearance of the people? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: How do you explain that? MR VAN ZYL: I concede your point sir, as I say after 12 years, it looks ridiculous now. CHAIRPERSON: Okay, continue now Mr Lamey. ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. You see Mr Van Zyl, the whole point of the rendition of the two applicants who I am representing, is that they were not even informed that there would be an abduction. They received their orders from Captain Venter merely to pack clothes for three days. They were briefly told that they had to wait at a certain point near the Security Branch offices where they arrived from Glenconnor and that they then had to follow a vehicle to the airport and there they were simply told that they had to park their minibus and their evidence is that the people who were involved in the physical abduction of these people, were Captain Venter whom they saw and they referred to about four or five white men. While these people were walking to the entrance of the airport, there was a movement and they were merely just gathered together, and taken to the minibus where Mr Mogoai, Koole and Mamasela were waiting for them. MR VAN ZYL: That is completely false. What is the purpose then that they with us if we could have abducted them ourselves, we would have transported them ourselves. We would not ask them only to transport these people for us. ADV LAMEY: But I want to put it to you that only you will know whether this is the truth, but the probability is that the askaris were involved in the identification of terrorists in the area and that there was probably a plan as you say, to eliminate them in the end, but before that elimination, you wanted to get maximum information from these people regarding the movements of terrorists, arms that were hidden because their evidence would be that this is what happened during the interrogation and this is the nature of the interrogation that took place at Post Chalmers? MR VAN ZYL: The askaris were not equipped to interrogate these three activists. ADV LAMEY: I am not saying that they did it on their own or that they undertook to do this, but this is the nature of the interrogation that took place. ADV DE JAGER: Just reply to that please. MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, Deon Nieuwoudt did the interrogation. The askaris did not have the background to interrogate anyone from the PE area. They could not work in our black townships and they were not a success in that operation and they were only used because they could assist with the abduction. ADV DE JAGER: Can I just get this quite clear? Are you clients say that they parked at the airport, they did not leave their vehicle, they remained in the vehicle and that other persons, four or five white men, grabbed the other people with violent means, I don't know how, but they never left the vehicle, they just sat there waiting? ADV LAMEY: What they are saying is that they were mainly given instructions by Captain Venter at the scene as to where to park. They waited in the vehicle and from the position from where they were parked, they could see how the white men grabbed, apprehended these people on their way to the entrance of the airport. No violence was used. It was rather strangely normal the way this has occurred, they were just as if they were assisted to the minibus where the askaris were waiting for them. And from there they got further instructions as to where to go. Were Captain Venter and Beeslaar part of this plan of deception, surely they should not have know what was to happen either? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: But they were informed about the abduction? MR VAN ZYL: That is right. ADV LAMEY: Are you saying that they were told that the people were to be interrogated at Post Chalmers? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Do you know whether the askaris were told that the people were to be interrogated? MR VAN ZYL: No, I cannot recall that specifically. I think that it might be the case. ADV LAMEY: Why do you say that you cannot remember? MR VAN ZYL: Because I was not there when Captain Nieuwoudt interrogated them. ADV LAMEY: No, I am asking. I know that they were there when they were interrogated, I want to know whether they were informed that interrogation were to take place? MR VAN ZYL: I am not sure. ADV LAMEY: Did they have any idea - I will get back to this later. Captain or Colonel Venter, in his evidence before the Amnesty Committee, said and I am referring to page 218 of his evidence, it is not in the document that you have, but I will request that this bundle be marked as an Exhibit H. Mr Venter says on page 218 between lines 20 and 30, he says I knew at least that they would be assaulted in order to extract information from them and they would be intensely interrogated. ADV DE JAGER: Maybe you should just read the whole sentence - that much I knew from previous experience. ADV LAMEY: As it pleases Mr Chairman. I want to ask you whether you agree that it was normal practice and I would like to refer later to the specific passage because it was normal practice in the Security Police that people were assaulted during interrogation, and he says he knows it as a result of previous experience, do you agree with that? MR VAN ZYL: No. Yesterday we also had the case that interrogation was confused with torture. There are different types of interrogation and if the askaris did the type of work which sometimes requires them to assault people, then it was probably normal because they tried to get other information. They most probably caught terrorists which they had to get information from urgently regarding murder, arms caches etc, other contact persons or information which had to be gained from them urgently, then it is possible that assaults took place. I do not want to say that there was never any assaults taking place during interrogation, but it is not normal and it was not the rule and that is definitely so. Interrogation also means questioning. Not only interrogation with torture. ADV LAMEY: But you were also part of a terrorist tracing unit? MR VAN ZYL: We had nothing to do with terrorists. ADV LAMEY: Why do I then understand when you said that you were in command of the unit that dealt with terrorists? MR VAN ZYL: I was in command of the desk which kept up the data base regarding illegal exiles in this whole region from Port Elizabeth until where the section ended. This went together with the gaining of information with regard to every terrorist that we referred to as a terrorist at that time. They did not necessarily have any training. This was documented, reported to Head Office and often we got information from other areas and this information was shared with us, this was the norm at that stage. This is what kept me busy at the terrorist desk. The tracing of insurgents was also part of this as well as the recruitment and any accompanying activities. ADV LAMEY: Would you say that your work was a bit more general than that at Vlakplaas? MR VAN ZYL: I would say so. ADV LAMEY: But it also included the tracing and tracking down of insurgents and MK soldiers, exiles who had come back to South Africa, who had been active in the area? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: You have also testified that in such cases with such persons, that it was not excluded that assaults would take place from time to time? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: The askaris who were mainly involved with us, surely as Captain Venter was a member of Vlakplaas, they would be exposed to assaults during interrogation? MR VAN ZYL: That is possible. ADV LAMEY: That is why I want to refer to your point again and the tactics of deception which was used. Would it not have been more convincing if these people, you have this plan to eliminate them, but they do not know about it due to certain risks linked to the elimination, but they were not to suspect why these people were to be taken to Post Chalmers and the most logical reason was to be skip the interrogation, assault the people which the askaris were exposed to and then request them at one stage, to leave if no information was to be gained so that afterwards you could say that in any case no new information was gained ? MR VAN ZYL: It did not happen as you said. ADV LAMEY: Their rendition will be that this is how it happened, that these people were interrogated and that they were assaulted during interrogation. And you say that this is not true? MR VAN ZYL: This is untrue. ADV LAMEY: Can you tell us a bit more about this AK47? Which one of the detainees spoke about the AK47? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember which one it was. ADV LAMEY: What was said in this regard and how did it come up? MR VAN ZYL: Lieutenant Nieuwoudt told me that there was information that one of them had said that he knew about a hidden AK47 in a house of a family member and we made a note of this of the address, and we followed this up and this was not true. ADV LAMEY: When did you follow this up? MR VAN ZYL: No, I cannot remember. ADV LAMEY: In your evidence you previously said that it was quite a few days afterwards, did you determine that? MR VAN ZYL: I think it was a few days later. ADV LAMEY: Was it not important that if that information was given, that it would be followed up immediately? MR VAN ZYL: We did not attach a great deal of value to that information at that stage. We did not think it was true. ADV LAMEY: Why not? MR VAN ZYL: Because we knew about these peoples' activities. ADV LAMEY: But can you tell us how it happened that this information was just tendered? MR VAN ZYL: No, I was not personally there. ADV LAMEY: Will Mr Nieuwoudt be able to tell us more? MR VAN ZYL: That is possible. ADV LAMEY: You see Mr Mogoai and Koole will testify that after the assault on one of these people and I will revert to that a little bit later, perhaps say who gave that information, I maybe wrong, but I think it was Mr Hashe who came forward after he had already been assaulted and said that he knew about an AK47 which had been concealed at a family member's house, but he later told one of the askaris that he made a mistake. Let me correct myself, he later said that that was not the truth regarding the AK47 and that the white members overheard this and that they were very angry about this. After this emerged, the fact that the hadn't told the truth about it, that he was further assaulted? MR VAN ZYL: That is not true. ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Lamey, can I just interpose for a moment here. Mr Van Zyl, if you say these people were not subjected to any assault why should a person lie and say there is an AK47 somewhere when that person is not being subjected to pressure? Doesn't this suggest that somehow pressure in the form of assault may have been used against such a person to the extent that he would even end up telling a lie? MR VAN ZYL: I can see your point Mr Chairman, but we thought that the pressure brought on them by Lieutenant Nieuwoudt's knowledge of their activities, was enough to gain information out of them. ADV LAMEY: You certainly or surely didn't know about all the information which these people possessed. MR VAN ZYL: It would have been impossible to know everything that they knew, but we had a fairly good coverage of their movements and their activities. ADV LAMEY: Wouldn't it have been necessary, in the light of your own evidence, that you didn't know about everything that they knew about and that you were specifically tasked with tracking down the infiltrators in the area and also in the light of Major Du Plessis' evidence and your own evidence, that these three people played a key role in the unrest in the Port Elizabeth area. Wouldn't it have been essential to have extracted the maximum information from them before elimination? MR VAN ZYL: If we had specific information about any incident regarding what one of these people would have known about, then we would have exerted specific pressure on them, but at that stage we didn't have any such specific knowledge. ADV LAMEY: But the pressure could also have been brought to bear without any prior knowledge of certain incidents, in other words to force a person under pressure, to coerce a person to actually give certain information? Is that not the purpose of assault during interrogation? MR VAN ZYL: As I said we didn't need any such information so urgently. The fact is that the decision was taken to eliminate them as a result of their general conduct of actions in the preceding months and which had led to the situation of unrest in Port Elizabeth. ADV LAMEY: These are three very important leaders in this area. You've said that they may have possessed valuable information which you at that stage didn't yet know that they had possessed? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: No, your evidence was that you conceded that you weren't aware of everything and all the bits of information and knowledge that these people knew about? MR VAN ZYL: I said it was possible. ADV LAMEY: But it must be possible, and you must know that it is possible. MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV LAMEY: For that reason if we look at that part of your evidence, you knew that these people probably possessed information that you didn't yet know about. Wouldn't it therefore have been extremely important to get that information out of them before you eliminated them? MR VAN ZYL: No, it wasn't that important. ADV LAMEY: If the people were eliminated without that information having been extracted, and also in view of the fact that they were very important leaders in the area, then your version actually amounts to the fact that they were sent to their graves without you ever having obtained this information to try to perhaps try to combat further unrests and incidents later on? MR VAN ZYL: That was not the purpose of this operation. CHAIRPERSON: It might not have been of course, but it would have been the effect of the operation. The effect of the operation could well have meant that they died with information, valuable information in fact? MR VAN ZYL: That is possible Mr Chairman, but it didn't mean that they were the only people who knew about whatever the gentleman is referring to. The purpose of the operation was to eliminate them and as I have said before, the interrogation was a secondary factor. I wanted to get it over with as soon as possible and it may sound feeble, but I also want to get it over as humanely as possible, there was no point in me putting any more pain into the whole situation for everybody and that includes us by assaulting or torturing them. CHAIRPERSON: They would not have known that you were eventually going to kill them? It could not have been torture. The thought of dying could not have been torture to them unless you had told them that you were going to kill them any way? MR VAN ZYL: No, of course we didn't. CHAIRPERSON: So it could not have been. The thought of being killed could not have constituted a torture. MR VAN ZYL: I am not talking about their knowledge that they were going to be killed, because they didn't know that sir. What I was referring to is our knowledge that we had to do that by the end of that day and it was as I have said, a very, very unpleasant event in my life and I would not have been able to put them through unnecessary physical pain on that day. CHAIRPERSON: Either you or Colonel Du Plessis mentioned that these people even had contacts overseas? MR VAN ZYL: They had contact in neighbouring countries Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: And you didn't think that they could be interrogated in that regard, it could yield valuable information in that regard? MR VAN ZYL: It is possible that Lieutenant Nieuwoudt interrogated them, I cannot remember that Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: As far as you are concerned, did you not think that they could give valuable information in that regard, as far as you are concerned? MR VAN ZYL: At the time I was not very concerned with what they were saying because of the importance and as far as - it was an enormous operation that was laying ahead of me to take their lives. CHAIRPERSON: And you were not interested in the information that they might give, however valuable it might be with regard to their contacts overseas? MR VAN ZYL: I would have been very interested of course sir. I was not prepared to exert physical violence on them to get that out of them. CHAIRPERSON: Did you try to get it out of them without physical violence? MR VAN ZYL: Yes sir, Mr Nieuwoudt spoke to them for hours on that day. CHAIRPERSON: Was it on your request that he did that? MR VAN ZYL: Yes sir. CHAIRPERSON: Did you want that information from them, from the deceased, if they had any? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, of course Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: But you never spoke to them yourself? MR VAN ZYL: I might have, but very little, because Lieutenant Nieuwoudt had more background about the area, about the suspects and also because he speaks Xhosa very well. CHAIRPERSON: We know that when people are interrogated, often notes are taken and then one comes back again to question them again and then you compare previous notes with what they say and so on and so forth? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Did that process happen? MR VAN ZYL: Lieutenant Nieuwoudt took notes Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever read those notes? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Did they contain any useful information? MR VAN ZYL: Not much more than we already knew Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: You testified that you went to gather wood? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV DE JAGER: How long did that take? MR VAN ZYL: It took more or less the whole afternoon. ADV DE JAGER: So there was a long period during which you were not present with these detainees? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. Sergeant Lotz and myself went to gather wood. ADV DE JAGER: Is it possible that they were assaulted whilst you were not present there? MR VAN ZYL: If they had been assaulted, I certainly saw no signs of it when I returned. ADV SANDI: Do you recall anything that was being said in those notes Mr Nieuwoudt gave you? MR VAN ZYL: I don't, it handled generally with the general affairs of Pebco, of personalities and the situation in the Eastern Cape. I am sorry, Mr Chairman, it is 12 years ago, I do not remember any detail about the interrogation. CHAIRPERSON: Would it be fair to say that strictly speaking you really did not have any interest in interrogating those people? MR VAN ZYL: It was of secondary interest Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: We were told, I can't remember whether it was you or not or Colonel Du Plessis, that it was a superficial interrogation? MR VAN ZYL: As it was a secondary interrogation, I suppose one could say that, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey? ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Zyl, I hear that you say that the interrogation was of secondary importance in the context of the entire operation and that the primary objective was to eliminate them, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: Once again, I must put it to you that the issue or the primary objective of the interrogation was not created as such in the eyes of the askaris? MR VAN ZYL: I thought we had done enough in that regard. I was not aware of the fact that the askaris were so aware of interrogation taking place accompanied by violence that they wouldn't be misled. ADV LAMEY: The persons, you testified that they were interrogated separately, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: It is correct as far as I can remember, yes. ADV LAMEY: Whilst one person was being interrogated, where was the other one? MR VAN ZYL: Ii think in the garage behind the house. ADV LAMEY: Are you sure that that was the only place? MR VAN ZYL: Perhaps they were sitting outside. ADV LAMEY: There were old cells there at that police station? MR VAN ZYL: The cells were completely to the one side of the house, and I didn't have the keys to the cells. ADV LAMEY: The applicants will testify that upon arrival that night, the instruction was given that one of them should be taken to a cell, one or more of them. But that there was definite mention of a cell. MR VAN ZYL: Who said that? ADV LAMEY: I can go back to my statement and check it up. Mr Mogoai on page 34 of his statement says, paragraph 9, approximately two hours after leaving Port Elizabeth we arrived at an old farmhouse. No lights were on and we were shown where to park and candles were lit inside the house. The three men were taken out of the car and one said that Galela should be taken to the cells? MR VAN ZYL: I have no knowledge of that. ADV LAMEY: Is it possible though that Galela was taken to a cell or that somebody had said that he should be taken to a cell? MR VAN ZYL: We didn't make use of the cells. ADV LAMEY: Did you read the statements of Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai completely, in its complete versions? MR VAN ZYL: No. ADV LAMEY: Mr Mogoai also says in paragraph 11 on page 35, that Godolozi at some point was assaulted. He didn't want to cooperate, that was the crux of the statement, I am not going to read it verbatim, just to save time, and afterwards he was taken back to his cell. That was that same evening after their arrival at Post Chalmers? MR VAN ZYL: We did not use the cells. All three men slept in the garage. ADV LAMEY: Were you saying that all three these people were locked up in the garage that night? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: The applicants will say that in the house at the old police station, there were certain rings in the floor and that Mr Hashe who had been handcuffed was further cuffed to these rings fastened into the floor. They said it was an old police station, but it actually looked like a house and in this house there was a room and in this room there were rings in the floor and that Hashe specifically was handcuffed to these rings that night? MR VAN ZYL: I don't recall these rings. I can recall that there was a pole or a post or something to which horses might have been tethered in the past but I can certainly not recall any rings inside the house. ADV LAMEY: Are you saying that your legal representatives had not discussed the contents of Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai's statements with you at all? MR VAN ZYL: Only to a very limited extent. ADV LAMEY: So, to this day you are not aware of what their versions are? MR VAN ZYL: I have read it, but that was months ago. I only returned from Mozambique last week. It is possible that I have read it, without knowing exactly what it was. ADV LAMEY: I would like to return to what Mr Beeslaar says. He says, I am returning to page 78, he says at paragraph 2, that on that day they spent a couple of hours at that place and you have said that that evidence of Beeslaar must be incorrect, because according to you Venter and Beeslaar had already left, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: He further says on paragraph 3, that he actually kicked one of these prisoners somewhere on his body? MR VAN ZYL: I did not see that. ADV LAMEY: He also says in the last paragraph, that they only returned to Glenconnor later that evening at about nine o'clock, him and Captain Venter? MR VAN ZYL: That is impossible. At that stage the operation was virtually complete. ADV LAMEY: Yes, that is how I understand your evidence, unless you are making a mistake as to the day on which it happened? MR VAN ZYL: That is not so. ADV LAMEY: In fairness I want to put it to you that the two applicants will testify that they spent two nights at Post Chalmers and they slept in their minibus and that on the morning of the third day, if you start counting from the day on which the abduction took place, that they left Post Chalmers and that Captain Venter and Beeslaar left after them and went back to Glenconnor. MR VAN ZYL: I am sorry, but that is wrong. ADV LAMEY: How did the askaris and the minibus arrive at Post Chalmers, were they a long distance behind you or did they follow your vehicle directly? MR VAN ZYL: They followed me directly, or they followed me, I can't remember whether they were directly behind me, but I can recall that I asked them to wait at some point in Cradock, I think it was near the sports ground, near the recreation centre. They had to wait whilst I went to fetch the keys for the house and after which they then followed me to the house. ADV LAMEY: Can you recall whether there was a roadblock on the way there that night? MR VAN ZYL: No, I can't recall a roadblock. ADV LAMEY: They say that they can recall that they were stopped at a roadblock and that they were behind another vehicle and that arrangements were made with the people manning the roadblock, to let them through? MR VAN ZYL: I can't recall that. ADV LAMEY: Do you know how the people were lured to the airport? MR VAN ZYL: No, I would have to speculate. I don't have all the detail. I think Mr Nieuwoudt would be in a better position to testify as to that. ADV LAMEY: But you were in charge of this operation on the ground? Wasn't it important for you to know exactly how it was to proceed? MR VAN ZYL: He was in charge of the informer and he assured me that he would definitely be able to lure one of these people, activists to the airport. ADV LAMEY: Only one? MR VAN ZYL: He said at least one of the three activists had been targeted, he would be able to get to the airport. ADV LAMEY: Now, what would have happened if only one had arrived at the airport, would only this person have been eliminated? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I think so. CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when did he tell you that, that he expected to find at least one? MR VAN ZYL: During the course of that day Mr Chairman, the day that we actually abducted them. CHAIRPERSON: Did he tell you which one? Did he give you the name? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, he did say that at least that Mr Hashe would be there sir. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. I read somewhere that the person used as bait or the pretence used, the ruse used was that these people were to go the airport to fetch somebody from the British Embassy, do you have any knowledge of that? MR VAN ZYL: That is what I learnt yes, that is correct. ADV LAMEY: Did you know whether it would be a black or a white person? MR VAN ZYL: I didn't know. ADV LAMEY: In this scenario namely that one or more members of Pebco were expected to arrive at the airport and that they were expected to meet somebody from the British Embassy, and they were then to be intercepted, grabbed beforehand, would you not have expected that to have caused some measure of consternation? MR VAN ZYL: In what sense? ADV LAMEY: Do you know what consternation means? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, obviously but what do you mean at the airport itself or as a result of the abduction or what? ADV LAMEY: I meant at the airport itself. What I mean is that these people were to arrive at the airport and they were grabbed at some point before meeting this person they thought they were meeting? MR VAN ZYL: Yes? ADV LAMEY: Did you not expect that there would be a measure of consternation if these people were intercepted or abducted by strangers whilst they were ostensibly going to the airport to meet somebody from the Embassy? Don't you think that some form of resistance was to be expected from these people at the airport? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, but that is why we had the askaris to do it. The askaris were used to a lot more severe resistance than what these people could possibly offer. ADV LAMEY: But such a consternation at the airport would have caught the public eye? MR VAN ZYL: If that was the case, I would have aborted the operation. ADV LAMEY: But Mr Van Zyl ... (intervention) ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey you are busy speculating. Could you please give me an indication of the following. The people were abducted, are we now speculating on whether there was a consternation or not, the point is they were abducted, they were taken away and they were killed, so what is the point of all this speculation? ADV LAMEY: Perhaps I should explain Mr Chairman. There is a factual dispute as to how this actually happened. And what we are dealing with here are the probabilities of how it happened. ADV DE JAGER: Yes, well then put your client's version to him. Say there was a consternation or there wasn't. Because what we are doing now is purely to speculate whether there was or wasn't a consternation and when are you actually going to get to the point? ADV LAMEY: My instructions were that there was indeed not any form of consternation. ADV DE JAGER: Well, if there wasn't, then what is the purpose of your questions? ADV LAMEY: The purpose of the question and I have to reveal the relevance here, is the following. In the view of my applicants' version, this abduction aspect had to have been so orchestrated at the airport that it should create an illusion of normality. ADV DE JAGER: Well, I think that is common cause Mr Lamey. Surely these people wouldn't have done the abduction in such a way as to publicise the fact to all and sundry, surely they would have tried to do it in an unobtrusive way. ADV LAMEY: Mr Van Zyl ... (intervention) CHAIRPERSON: I know what you want and I know why you want to put that. But shouldn't you find out from the witness as far as he knows as to how these people were gotten into the car? Or have you already established that? MR VAN ZYL: I have actually given evidence to that effect sir. ADV LAMEY: Okay, could you perhaps repeat that evidence of yours? What happened there at the airport? Or let me first ask you, can you specifically remember what happened at the airport, were you in a position to see what was happening and can you recall what happened? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I had a fairly good recollection of what happened. ADV LAMEY: Can you tell us exactly what happened? MR VAN ZYL: The vehicle entered the airport entrance and the three activists were inside this car. We had radio contact with the askaris. I can't remember exactly where they were at that stage. Their vehicle was moving. Mr Godolozi and Mr Galela were put off at some point, they got out of the car. It was somewhere between the arrival and departures halls if I remember correctly. The askaris then after Mr Hashe left to go and park the vehicle, they grabbed them or intercepted them and placed them in the minibus. They then drove to where Mr Hashe parked the car and after he had parked or stopped the car, they also placed him in the bus. CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, how did they get them into the car? MR VAN ZYL: They grabbed them and pulled them into the car, sir. CHAIRPERSON: Violently? MR VAN ZYL: Not really, it was not really necessary. It did not look as if they were resisting at the time. CHAIRPERSON: You see, that is exactly the point where there are different versions and I think this is what Mr Lamey was driving at. What I want to know, what I am curious about is were they talked into getting into the car, which I think is one of the versions which we came across and then once in the car, forced down to lie on the car or were they physical, violently grabbed and pushed into the car? MR VAN ZYL: No, it seemed more like they got in voluntarily. I had the idea that the askaris actually had their hands on them, but there was no violent action. ADV LAMEY: Mr Van Zyl, you testified that you went to the airport in your own car? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: And Captain Venter and Beeslaar drove in a different car? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV LAMEY: Were these Police cars? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: Who was with you? MR VAN ZYL: I was alone. Lieutenant Nieuwoudt was also in a vehicle, and at a stage we sat together in one vehicle, I cannot remember whose it was. ADV LAMEY: So there was the minibus plus three extra vehicles? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: Mr Nieuwoudt's vehicle, was that also a Police vehicle? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. Police vehicle in the sense that it was a government vehicle, it was a civil vehicle. I cannot remember the make, model and colour but it was a normal sedan vehicle. ADV LAMEY: The normal vehicles that were used by the Security Branch? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: With the registration number as well? MR VAN ZYL: Normal registration numbers. ADV LAMEY: Was it your ordinary vehicle, the ordinary vehicle that you used? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: And that of Mr Nieuwoudt also? MR VAN ZYL: Most probably also. ADV LAMEY: Was there no danger that the Pebco 3 who were approaching the airport could notice the vehicles and suspect something? MR VAN ZYL: There were a few vehicles in the parking area. ADV LAMEY: But what would have happened if they had arrived there and they saw that there were vehicles of the Security Branch? MR VAN ZYL: It was dark and they were quite a distance from us. ADV LAMEY: What kind of distance are you talking about? MR VAN ZYL: Approximately 75 to 80 meters. ADV LAMEY: What was that far from you? You are talking about a distance of 75 meters, what are you saying? MR VAN ZYL: He came in at the entrance to the airport, he drove up towards the arrival and departure hall to the parking area, that was about 40 to 50 metres from where we had parked. ADV LAMEY: Where were you and Mr Nieuwoudt specifically with regard to the entrance to the building, not the entrance to the airport but to the building? MR VAN ZYL: We were on the parking area, where the taxi area is today. ADV LAMEY: But you did not know which route these people were going to follow, they could have seen you driving passed? MR VAN ZYL: They did not park directly where we were. ADV LAMEY: But they could possibly also have been looking for parking? MR VAN ZYL: Then we could have intercepted them there Mr Chairman. ADV LAMEY: Where was the minibus parked? MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember. It moved but I do not know where exactly they waited at that stage, but we were in radio communication with them. ADV LAMEY: And Captain Venter? MR VAN ZYL: Captain Venter was possibly also there. Lieutenant Nieuwoudt and I were together and I think Captain Venter and Beeslaar were either with us or they were in the car next to us. ADV LAMEY: Why was it not part of the planning that Captain Venter would also assist in intercepting these people? MR VAN ZYL: Because then a white person would be involved. ADV LAMEY: But the evidence of Major Du Plessis was that the idea was that members of your Security Branch would not be identified? MR VAN ZYL: That is true. ADV LAMEY: Here we now have Captain Venter, we brought him in and he is a strange person? MR VAN ZYL: But still, I said that it would have been a white man who would have been involved in the abduction. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I think we are entitled to know what are we busy with so that we can follow proceedings with you. Really I am trying to grasp the point that you are busy with, I am not able to follow what point you are making. You may have to explain to us, so that we may also, you know, be with you. ADV LAMEY: I will come directly to the point. You see Mr Van Zyl, I also wondered if the two applicants who are applying for amnesty for abduction and assault, why would they then given other factual evidence with regard to how this occurred at the airport that these people ended up in their minibus, and the first logical explanation if I can - they said that they were waiting in the minibus and that these people were apparently intercepted quite normally at the entrance to the airport and led to the minibus. Captain Venter was among them and one of the applicants, one or two said that he remembers that Nieuwoudt was also one of them, but they do not know the identity or Mr Koole does not know the identity of the other local members of the Security Branch, he only knows of Mr Nieuwoudt, and in view of Major Du Plessis' evidence, these three members, these Pebco 3 were fearless. He even said that they sometimes visited the Security Branch, in other words the impression that I get when I look at what the applicants are saying is that these persons were lured in one or other way, they did not know how it was to happen, but while they approached the entrance, you appeared. You were moving around in the inside and you simply just approached them and they are not aware of what happened between you, but you simply just took them to the minibus. MR VAN ZYL: It did not happen in that way. ADV LAMEY: I want to put to you that what must have happened is that you must have told these people that they were to come with you for interrogation and what they would have done, because they had nothing to fear from you? MR VAN ZYL: That is not true. ADV LAMEY: And that is why they offered no resistance? MR VAN ZYL: Unfortunately it is not so. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, why were the askaris and the Policemen then present, what was their role then? Surely they must have been unnecessary then? ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, they themselves do not know what their roles were because they were not informed. But the importance of what happened later is their involvement in the interrogation when the information was to be gained. MR VAN ZYL: That is not what happened, or what was obvious, we did not need them with the interrogation, they had no background with regard to the Eastern Cape activities and we did not need them to assault these people. Their purpose was to do the abduction and to bring these people to the Post Chalmers police station. CHAIRPERSON: There is a version that the Policemen who confronted these people, identified themselves as Police and or produced some kind of identification and that is why these people followed? MR VAN ZYL: I could not see that from where I was that they were saying that they were Police or how, what they told them or what they said to them, from that distance. ADV LAMEY: You see Mr Van Zyl, this also has to do with the previous testimony that an impression of deception had to be created among the askaris and that this whole objective would have been miscarried if it took place other than a normal arrest, if it seemed as if it was not a normal arrest? MR VAN ZYL: Is that what you suppose? ADV LAMEY: I say this is what happened. It is probably so in the light of your rendition that the purpose was to mislead them in order to arrest them. If deception was the objective, then surely the illusion also had to be created that the person was arrested in a normal manner? MR VAN ZYL: No, then we would have done it ourselves. Then we would not have needed to mislead anybody or to create an illusion. ADV LAMEY: But I want to say that they did that because so that the deception could be successful in the eyes of the askaris, and that it seemed as if these people were arrested normally at the airport? They were lured there, but they were arrested there in a normal manner? MR VAN ZYL: And that would have lessened the role of the askari to that of merely a taxi driver to Cradock? ADV LAMEY: Or their presence at the interrogation when there was information which they could follow up? MR VAN ZYL: I have already said that the askaris were not successful in the Eastern Cape because there was not one Xhosa among them, that was a mistake to bring them to the Eastern Cape to do pseudo work in this area. Pseudo work means that you act as if you are a terrorist and under that cover, you come into the area and you gain information which then in turn might lead to an arrest. It didn't work in the Eastern Cape in this way. ADV LAMEY: But information could have come forward which they could have followed up? MR VAN ZYL: We had our own interrogation team, or investigative team and we could have got the information from them. ADV LAMEY: Why then, did you make the askaris come to PE? MR VAN ZYL: We did not ask how the team was to be compiled. I did not even know whether there were Xhosas among them, and we hoped that they would be able to operate here, but we learnt the hard way that it did not work here. ADV LAMEY: Are you saying that there were no Xhosa speakers in the total askari team? MR VAN ZYL: I am not saying that, I am saying that if there was a Xhosa they were not a big success in this area. ADV LAMEY: If you say that they are not Xhosa speaking, are you speaking about the two applicants Mogoai and Koole or are you talking about the whole group of askaris who were assisting in PE? MR VAN ZYL: I didn't say that they were not Xhosa speakers, I said that there were not any Xhosa speakers under the askaris who were here at that stage. As far as I can remember, that was the reason why they were not successful and they were really not successful. Elsewhere they were used very successfully and made many arrests in other parts of the country, but in the Eastern Cape this was not successful. ADV LAMEY: But hot information, information that can be followed up regarding houses where people were hidden and arms that were concealed, surely that does not need Xhosa speakers to follow that information, do you agree with that? MR VAN ZYL: They did not know Port Elizabeth. If we were to approach a house in which there were armed terrorists, we would have used the Internal Stability Unit or the Unrest Unit to assist is. We had positive information that terrorists were concealed in a house where there were weapons, at that stage I never worked with the askaris, I did not know what their ability was, how they would be able to act in a difficult situation. I would not have gone into a terrorist situation with them.I would not have known what was behind me. ADV LAMEY: I find that really surprising that a specialist task team of the Security Police at Vlakplaas, that if their abilities were doubtful that they were even asked to come to PE. MR VAN ZYL: I said this is the first time that we ever made use of their services. We hoped that with the assistance of pseudo work, that we would be able to get them to do arrests. ADV LAMEY: But surely you would not have used their services, if they did not have a good service record? MR VAN ZYL: That is what I said, elsewhere in the country they were very successful. ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just get instructions from my clients. ADV SANDI: Mr Van Zyl, can I ask you. When you say you do not recall the roadblock one of the two applicants is talking about, are you suggesting that there was no such a roadblock at all? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, no. What I can recall definitely, I don't mind stating, but I cannot recall the roadblock on the road. I am not saying that it wasn't there, I am just saying that I simply cannot recall a roadblock on the road, because once again it was not important to me and that is probably why I am not remembering it. ADV SANDI: Surely if there had been a roadblock on the way as the applicant has said, that must have posed some kind of a danger to the prospects of success for this operation and you would remember that? MR VAN ZYL: No, not at all. Mr Chairman, if there had been a roadblock, I was an Officer at the time, and I would probably have spoken to the people and said, also told them to let the next car through and therefore I don't see that as a big obstacle. I am speculating because I cannot remember this roadblock. I am not saying that it wasn't there. ADV LAMEY: Mr Van Zyl, Mr Du Plessis' testimony was that you informed him on the 10th of the destruction of the vehicle, is that correct? Is his evidence correct? MR VAN ZYL: It could have been the 9th, but I cannot recall this specifically. ADV LAMEY: In his testimony it was the 10th? MR VAN ZYL: Then perhaps it could have been the 10th, if he can remember so well, but I cannot remember exactly when I told him about the vehicle. I did tell him on the 10th that the operation had been completed, and it is possible that on the 10th I could have told him about the vehicle again. I just find it strange that I did not tell him about this on the 9th, when he came to us. But I am speculating, I cannot recall this specifically. ADV LAMEY: Unless things only came to completion on the 10th, the elimination and that he was only then informed about everything? MR VAN ZYL: I have said this over and over again that this was finished on the 10th and we left on the morning of the 10th, after we had cleaned up. ADV LAMEY: Mr Van Zyl, can you think of any reason why the two applicants whom I am representing, will request amnesty here and expose themselves to the risk of possibly not obtaining amnesty or being granted amnesty and to say of their involvement of assault when it did not even take place? MR VAN ZYL: The same is valid for me. Can you say why I would ask for amnesty for murder and then deny a lesser crime such as assault? ADV LAMEY: Yes, I can think of a reason and I will tell you what that reason is. The reason is that you must offer justification for the plan to eliminate and that you will have problems if this was the objective and the instructions from higher ranking officials, then you will have problems with your amnesty application to justify assaults which took place prior to this. That is the reason. MR VAN ZYL: The reason why your clients are saying what they are saying, is that they are confusing these events with other events in which they have participated. ADV LAMEY: Can I just have a moment Mr Chairman. Mr Van Zyl, in my cross-examination in my opinion I stated most of the renditions of the two applicants, I just want to know from Mr Chairman I've got no further questions and I don't think there is anything further that I wish to put to this witness, unless the Committee feels that there are important things that I may have missed out which I should put to the witness, in all fairness to him. CHAIRPERSON: Not that I can think of, but if you feel that you have left out something, you will know what to do, I am sure. ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV LAMEY CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV NYOKA: Good afternoon Mr Van Zyl. MR VAN ZYL: Good afternoon, sir. ADV NYOKA: I just wanted to know where are you based, where were you based between 1990 and 1997, that is your residence, because I heard you saying that you were in Angola and now last week in Mozambique, exactly where are you based residentially? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I live in Pretoria. I have been involved in humanitarian landmine clearance in various parts of Africa since 1991. I am currently involved also in Bosnia- Herzegovina and we are doing a contract in Mozambique as well, which I am overseeing. ADV NYOKA: I must concede you are doing a very wonderful job. Humanitarian landmine cleaning, it is contrary to what you did before, not so? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Yes. If that is the case and the amnesty process started in 1995, why did you not apply immediately as you were doing a noble job now of clearing landmines and getting involved in Bosnia, why did you not apply at the very first instance Mr Van Zyl? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, in 1995 I started a contract in Angola which lasted for 14 months. I was at the time very ill informed about the Truth Commission and its pros and cons and as I grew up in a both military and Security Branch background, I was in a culture where I had to decide whether the system would really bring about reconciliation in this country and whether the system would really bring about forgiveness in this country and whether the system was not just causing more bitterness by the actual facts that were coming to light. Those were the things that I struggled with during that time. I had no source of information really to inform me about the as I say, the pros and the cons of the system. But during 1996 towards the end of 1996, I started to feel, well I was convinced that there was no other way for the future of this country but to take part in a process like this and if it is so, because I have also since seen Bosnia and Croatia, and it is so that if people are not willing to forgive each other and forgive the past, the future is impossible. And that was the main reason why I applied for amnesty. ADV NYOKA: When did the right time actually click, that this is the right time? I am clear in my mind that I should now go forward in 1996, when? MR VAN ZYL: September, October last year. ADV NYOKA: You see, why I asked that, it coincides with the fact that Mr Venter applied for amnesty and testified in November last year and shortly after that, you applied, because you were mentioned in his application? That is a strange coincidence? MR VAN ZYL: That is not so Mr Chairman. In my case, I was also under the impression that it would be best if the whole group that was involved, came forward as a team. I thought it would also have the best impact on all of their family lives and to move together in a group and tell the truth about what happened. ADV NYOKA: Sorry, do you deny the fact that ... (intervention) MR VAN ZYL: No, I am getting to the point, sorry Mr Chairman, and so I was away most of the time. The only time I came back from Angola was to attend conferences on landmine clearance abroad and I had to get in touch with all my colleagues who are sitting next to me and who are applicants at the moment as well, and to get their feelings as well and we had to speak about it. So it is a case of there was certainly some late action on our part, but then again, it did happen long before the deadline of 10 December. ADV NYOKA: Is that the reason why your statement being based in Pretoria, having your own Attorney, is so identical in the background with the four that are based in Port Elizabeth, almost paragraph to paragraph is identical. That is why I asked you where you were based? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, as far as the political background went, we agree on what is being said there, it is a motive that we also all feel and agree about. And therefore we did not think that it would be to our detriment if we filed it like that. We all inspected each other's motives, political motives and we jointly decided on a political motive. ADV NYOKA: So the two legal firms worked together in drafting the statements? MR VAN ZYL: I think it could be said, I can speak for myself and the other applicants, that we did see each other a few times and we agreed on the political motives as they stand there. ADV NYOKA: If you said, if as you said you had already apologised to God, but what I find strange is that you had not apologised to the families particularly. You are not seeking amnesty from God, but from people on earth, why had you not made the opportunity? Doing a wonderful work as you are currently doing, I am going to seek this family and I am going to apologise to clear my conscience so that this does not come back to you in your engagements in Angola and your engagements in Bosnia? Any comment about that? MR VAN ZYL: I have got nothing against meeting the family at any time. At the stage we were advised by our legal counsels that it was not feasible before the amnesty hearings and personally, I am speaking for myself, I would very much like to see everybody that was effected by my actions. CHAIRPERSON: Do you have a problem if he starts with God first? ADV NYOKA: I beg your pardon? CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any problem if he starts with God first? ADV NYOKA: Your Worship, because the decision will be made on judgement day, we all know the decision, but here on earth he must do it immediately, I've got that problem. ADV NYOKA: On a light note. Mr Van Zyl, you said, are you finished? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV NYOKA: Okay, you said you were advised not to do that before, what about during or after the amnesty? Can't you do that now? I will suggest something very dramatic, can't you walk out from where you are sitting and come over and apologise to them, just to be melodramatic for a change, can't you do that? MR VAN ZYL: Sir, one of my colleagues have tried that already in private and I wouldn't mind doing it in private, if you don't mind. ADV NYOKA: So I see that you looked at your Attorney and he nodded, he said no. I saw you looking, apparently wanted to ... (intervention) ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Nyoka, I called my client and I told him not to do it. He didn't look at me and then got my attention. ADV NYOKA: You did look at your legal representative, not so? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I looked at my legal representative. ADV NYOKA: Yes, it doesn't matter if it was before or after, but you did look at him, no so? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did. But it does not mean that if, whatever my answer was, that I am not prepared to meet any of the victims' families at any time. ADV NYOKA: Did you want to say something Mr De Villiers? ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Nyoka, perhaps you must address the Chairman and I wanted to say that I think you are going to make this into a circus, we are trying to determine a very important matter here. Maybe we can deal with that afterwards or later. ADV NYOKA: I am not reducing this to a circus, this means a lot to my clients. You may reserve your circus statement in your argument, thank you. When Mr Du Plessis, Mr Zyl motivated the abduction and murder plot, did he attribute the destabilisation to specifically these three persons, Pebco persons, and say they are solely responsible, exclusively responsible for this? MR VAN ZYL: No, I don't think he said that they were solely or exclusively responsible Mr Chairman, what he had said was that they were the main people responsible for the situation and for the conditions in the township at that time and that their elimination was the best chance that we had of establishing stability in the area. ADV NYOKA: Were you not curious to find out why them, not the rest of the other five Executive members? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, no. I did not question that. ADV NYOKA: Was it not of interest to you because you are going to embark on something very major, taking someone else's life, was it not important to ask that just to satisfy yourself? MR VAN ZYL: We grew up as I said before, in the Police and the Security Branch, in a disciplined culture of not questioning senior instructions and yes, of course it was very important and because I had also access to the files and the reports that were coming into our office, every day we had meetings about that, I have already admitted sir, that I agreed with this order at the time, on its merits. ADV NYOKA: Did you state from what period they were responsible for this or whoever say from January to that May 1985 or any other period, did you state that? MR VAN ZYL: I arrived there in January 1984 Mr Chairman, and I was aware of their activities from about that date, so before that, I could only read their files and listen to other members' comments and after that, I didn't know. ADV NYOKA: So they may have been responsible for destabilisation even longer than 1985, the three that you identified, not so? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I cannot comment on the time before I arrived there. ADV NYOKA: Okay, I won't be long on that. Did you say that these three were being identified because of their positions in the Executive if Pebco or just because of their role in the community? MR VAN ZYL: I think it was a combination Mr Chairman. About the influence that they could exercise by their positions in the community as well as after hours, which were very important and as far as I can recall, all three of them had been reported on numerous occasions to be involved in organising after hours, not necessarily at meetings and so on. ADV NYOKA: Okay, can you turn to page 140, that is the Executive, page 140 the last paragraph. There it is stated that on the 20th of November 1983, there were 15 Pebco Executive members and out of that up to the 26th of March 1985, that is a month and a half before the elimination, if you can note there is only the President, Mr Godolozi who had influence and the organiser, Mr Galela. At that stage Mr Hashe was just an additional member, he did not have influence up to the 26th of March, that is a month or so before. How could he be therefore involved in that if that was the case? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, to be specific, I have been away for - it happened 12 years ago and I cannot remember the exact grounds on which they were prioritised. All I can remember is that at the time I agreed with it, I admit that and that I was satisfied at the time once again, that this action would have the desired effect. ADV NYOKA: Maybe I was narrowly focusing on the Executive, basing decision on Executive. I am seeing the vice-President, general Secretary, assistant Secretary and Treasurer were not identified, the only two people identified in the entire Executive and out of an Executive of 15, my problem is why only three were identified out of 15 and only two of whom exercised influence? MR VAN ZYL: I can only assume sir that the reports about their activities were of such a nature that they were not, the others were not as active as the three that were prioritised. ADV NYOKA: Pebco worked as a collective cadreship, not individually. Do you not know about that as a former Security Policeman? MR VAN ZYL: I am sure formally they did sir, but there was also informal and individual actions, that were reported by various sources and as I said both technical and people that reported information about their activities. ADV NYOKA: Okay, I won't be long on that. When he told you about the killing of these three, did you immediately know them or did photographs have to be shown to you of these three? MR VAN ZYL: I had met Mr Hashe before, and I had spoken to Mr Hashe. Mr Godolozi and Mr Galela I had not known personally because my involvement on the terrorism desk in which they at the time did not feature. ADV NYOKA: So you knew Mr Hashe well? MR VAN ZYL: I did not know him well, I met him once or twice sir, and I spoke to him. ADV NYOKA: But you could remember his face, not so? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV NYOKA: My problem is that why is it when you said you don't know who you killed, you had to be reminded yesterday by Mr Nieuwoudt, why is it that you didn't know the person that you killed, if you had met him before? MR VAN ZYL: I don't know, it is Mr Chairman, it was a very traumatic incident to me and I wanted to get it over with as soon as possible and we had never spoken about this again in detail and I asked Deon Nieuwoudt yesterday if he could remember because I could not and he said that he though that is who it was and I accepted it. ADV NYOKA: Can I assume that you were dizzy before you shot him? MR VAN ZYL: I was ... (intervention) ADV NYOKA: Or something like that? MR VAN ZYL: No, I was not dizzy. ADV NYOKA: Why is it that you could not know someone who is asleep, unconscious because of the sleeping pill, you took a gun consciously, you knew where the trigger was and you fired a shot, but you don't know the face but you could remember pulling the trigger, how is that possible? MR VAN ZYL: I don't know Mr Chairman, but it was unfortunately a fact. ADV NYOKA: Mr Van Zyl, you said that on the 8th of May Mr Nieuwoudt had told you that at least one person could be present at the airport, but Mr Du Plessis said it was made for certain that three will be there. There is a contradiction there, do you agree with me that that version fits with the version that any Pebco leadership members who were there, were going to be eliminated, it was just by chance that these three were there, would you agree with me on that? MR VAN ZYL: Not correct Mr Chairman. I don't think Deon Nieuwoudt was certain that these three were going to be there, but he said to me that at least one of them would be there and that if anybody else had turned up with say Mr Hashe, I would have called the operation off. I would have aborted the operation. And if we had only one person and he arrived alone, I would have probably gone ahead with the operation and the other two members might, and I am speculating, might have been eliminated at a later date, but this is speculation. ADV NYOKA: Why would you go ahead if there was one person because three were identified the other two would have instead in going (indistinct) MR VAN ZYL: Because it would be very difficult to get all three of them at another time together again. ADV NYOKA: You mentioned a source at the airport, do you mind sharing this secret with us. Do you mind sharing that secret with us as to who the source is? MR VAN ZYL: I didn't say that the source was at the airport Mr Chairman, I said it was a source of Deon Nieuwoudt's who would have lured the three activists under false pretences to the airport. ADV NYOKA: Let me check your statement. ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Chairman, I see it is four o'clock, I don't know if it is an opportune time to adjourn at this stage? ADV NYOKA: Can I just finish? CHAIRPERSON: I think that suggestion cannot come from you, it should come from the person who is busy with the questioning. I am saying this because you are the best person to know at which point it would be most convenient to adjourn and please do so when you get to that point. ADV NYOKA: Yes, I will just after finishing the source part, not before. In your statement it is said here as far as I can remember the source lured the activists by means of a telephone call to the airport and accompanied Lieutenant Nieuwoudt in a vehicle to the airport. Unless you are not stating it as a fact, you are saying you assume, you don't recall correctly, but you said he accompanied Mr Nieuwoudt to the airport. ADV NYOKA: No, I never said that. I said at the time that I actually accompanied Lieutenant Nieuwoudt, but that was a mistake, I used my own car Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Mr Chairman, when is the time to adjourn because we can go on, but I am not going to be long. I was not going to be longer than 30 minutes. CHAIRPERSON: Now is the time. ADV NYOKA: Then we can adjourn. CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until half past nine tomorrow morning. COMMISSION ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION ON 06-11-1997 - DAY 4 CHAIRPERSON: It is the 6th of November, we are continuing with the same application. JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: (still under oath) CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV NYOKA: (cont) Thank you Mr Chairman. Firstly Mr Chairperson, I just handed in a bundle but that relates to Mr Snyman later on. That bundle incorporates the documents that Mrs Hartle handled yesterday. I have given it to the relevant applicants' representatives. Thank you. Can I continue, Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Van Zyl, we were still talking about the source. Was the source present at the airport that day of the abduction, 8th of May? MR VAN ZYL: Not to my knowledge Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Did you get to know the source at any stage before or after? MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman, it was not a rule that we ever met each other's sources or informers. ADV NYOKA: But I thought that as a person in charge of the operation, it was the professional thing to do to ensure that the entire operation was well organised and executed, that you would know who and what each participant was going to do and how he or she was going to do it, not so? Including in the case of Mr Nieuwoudt, who he source was? MR VAN ZYL: Not at all, Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Why was that not done? MR VAN ZYL: Because Mr Nieuwoudt was a professional, because he handled sources professionally and I had full trust in his discretion. ADV NYOKA: So you were not curious to find out who the source was? MR VAN ZYL: Not at all, we were not curious about each other's sources at all Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: I find that very strange. Any comment? MR VAN ZYL: Not at all, it would have been a breach of trust to a source if Mr Nieuwoudt had to reveal it to all and sundry around him sir. ADV NYOKA: You were not all and sundry, you were his immediate superior and in charge of him? MR VAN ZYL: It could still have influenced me Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: How would it have influenced you? MR VAN ZYL: In the handling of other sources maybe Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: How was that? CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka, I don't know, but you see even the source himself would not feel comfortable if more and more people happened to know of him as a source. I don't think it worked like that. Maybe it is because I didn't know how it worked. ADV NYOKA: You said I know this point was laboured yesterday, you said you decided to use Mr Venter's team for the abduction only and that you communicated that instruction or suggestion, to your superior, Mr Du Plessis, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: It was communicated by Mr Du Plessis to ourselves and we decided jointly that that is how it would happen, Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: And who communicated that to Mr Venter? MR VAN ZYL: I would think that either Mr Du Plessis or myself had communicated that to Mr Venter. ADV NYOKA: And he understood it in that sense that his role or mandate was only to abduct? MR VAN ZYL: I am sure that was the case Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: What I find strange is why would he then say in his application "it had been requested that my askaris were to assist the Branch with regard to further interrogation and investigation and I left them under the command of Sergeant Van Zyl." Why would he say that if the instruction was clear abduct only, do nothing further? MR VAN ZYL: I do not know why Mr Venter said that Mr Chairman. The instructions were clear that the askaris had to help with the abduction and to convey the activists to Post Chalmers. ADV NYOKA: And there was an understanding that he will be in charge of his team, is that not so? MR VAN ZYL: He was in charge of his team, Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: You were in charge of the rest of the team, he was in charge of the abduction team, not so? MR VAN ZYL: He was in charge of them while they were in Port Elizabeth Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: You came to the question that I was coming to. Why did he then not go along with his team if he was in charge, go to Cradock? MR VAN ZYL: As I told yesterday, it was my recollection that Mr Venter did actually accompany the team to Cradock, but I also made a concession that my recollection might be mistaken and that they actually only arrived the next day sir. ADV NYOKA: And were you involved in the Goniwe incident which occurred two months later? MR VAN ZYL: I have asked for amnesty for that as well sir. ADV NYOKA: So you were involved? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV NYOKA: Were you also the mastermind in planning the operation? MR VAN ZYL: I was in charge of the operation Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: What I find strange is why this operation was not similar to the one at Cradock because there those people were taken to Blue Water Bay and killed and it was left as if the world had to see that the Police were responsible for that. In this case the involvement was concealed and people were taken to PE, why was there such a discrepancy? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I have given my full cooperation to the Committee. I have also made a statement and during the hearing I will deal with it in full. There were reasons and I was given an instruction with particular regard to the matter that you are asking me about. ADV NYOKA: No, I am not trying to probe about the Cradock matter, I want to put it to you that the Pebco people did not die at Cradock, they died almost or after the Cradock killing. There was no difference in the operation. MR VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon sir, they died after the Cradock ... (intervention) ADV NYOKA: During or after the Cradock people were killed. MR VAN ZYL: You are wrong sir. ADV NYOKA: That is what you are saying. And why is it if you trusted Mr Nieuwoudt as a person who implemented schemes, he was not involved with the Cradock one because he is not applying for amnesty for that one? MR VAN ZYL: He was not involved in that occasion. ADV NYOKA: Why did you not involve him? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember what the conditions were Mr Chairman, why he was not involved. ADV NYOKA: When these people were taken from the airport, were their heads covered? There is evidence that their heads were covered, their legs shackled, do you know anything about that? MR VAN ZYL: Ii was not in that kombi Mr Chairman, I do not know what happened to them inside the kombi. ADV NYOKA: But you won't dispute the fact that that could have been the case? MR VAN ZYL: It may have been the case Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: And at Cradock, were their heads at any stage covered? MR VAN ZYL: It wasn't necessary to cover them Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: No, I am not asking about necessity, I am asking whether or not their heads were covered? MR VAN ZYL: They were not as far as I can recall Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Thank you. The evidence of other people is to the effect that their heads were covered as soon as they were abducted at the airport and their legs shackled. MR VAN ZYL: It did not happen in my presence Mr Chairman, and at Cradock they were definitely not covered. ADV NYOKA: But you did testify to the fact that they did not resist at the airport? MR VAN ZYL: That is as far as I could see from the distance where I was, it was dark although electrically lit, that is as far as I could see sir. ADV NYOKA: If they did not resist, why was it necessary that the entire team go with them to Cradock if at Cradock you sat with them, you, Mr Nieuwoudt and Mr Lotz sat with them and even drank or ate together? Why was it necessary for the entire team to go there if the people were not assaulted, if the people were not interrogated extensively? MR VAN ZYL: The entire team only consisted of four people as far as I can recall Mr Chairman. We did not have the transport to take them back to their living quarters where they were staying and we did not see that as unnatural for them to move together. There were three activists and I don't think it was out of course to take four people with them. ADV NYOKA: I am sure it would have been easier for transport to be arranged before the abduction, for them to go back to their quarters rather than going with you, because their presence was not necessary really? MR VAN ZYL: We thought that it was sir, to transport them to Cradock. ADV NYOKA: Were you afraid that they could perhaps fight against you? I want to understand why did they go with you, you could have managed with you, Mr Nieuwoudt and Mr Lotz, why did they go? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember why exactly they had to go. They went and that was the plan that they were used in the abduction and that they would transport the people to Cradock. ADV NYOKA: And their role there, what was it before? MR VAN ZYL: Their role was really finished at that time. ADV NYOKA: And at Cradock? MR VAN ZYL: They could have actually come back Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: No, what was their role at Cradock briefly on arrival? MR VAN ZYL: Their role would have been to guard the activists when they were outside the garage if we were not busy speaking to them and that was it Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: But you don't know that, you are not sure? You say their role could be, you are not sure? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot think of any other role that they played there Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Right. Whilst you were sitting with them as you said, did they not ask you Mr Van Zyl, what was all this drama of yesterday, this abduction, this our being driven about two hours, yet now we are sitting nicely and cooley and chatting, did they not ask that? MR VAN ZYL: No, not that I can recall Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: They did not ask why they had to be abducted? MR VAN ZYL: They did not ask me that Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: They did not ask why they were not charged formally or being informed that they were detained in terms of the Security Laws? MR VAN ZYL: They did not, not in my presence Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: And that they had to be driven about 260 kilometres, not taken to a local police station and interrogated there, they did not ask that? MR VAN ZYL: No, they did not. ADV NYOKA: And if it is true that their heads were covered, they did not ask why did you cover our heads? MR VAN ZYL: As I say, they were not covered in my presence Mr Chairman. They did not ask that, no sir. ADV NYOKA: And they did not ask who are these four Security Policemen whom we don't know? They did not ask even that? MR VAN ZYL: No, they did not. ADV NYOKA: And you say despite all that, they were at ease with themselves? MR VAN ZYL: They seemed at ease Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: I put it to you that it will be unnatural for any person under such circumstances to be at ease with himself. MR VAN ZYL: They seemed to be at ease Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: You are not detained as normal, you are not arrested, you are taken far away to a place at night, covered and they did not even bother to ask what happened to our vehicle? MR VAN ZYL: Not that I can recall Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: You said that you did not wish to waste time, you wanted to be clinical and do the job quickly. Why did you not do it as soon as you abducted them at the airport, take them to the beach and kill them? MR VAN ZYL: Because my instructions were that we had to get rid of the bodies Mr Chairman and that could not just be done at the beach. ADV NYOKA: But it was done with the Cradock 4? MR VAN ZYL: Those were different instructions and also the instructions to me was given by a different person, Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Yes, but you could have killed them at the beach and get rid of the dead bodies later or as you did, you threw your firearm in the sea, you could have thrown that body in the sea, not so? MR VAN ZYL: I don't think so Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: I put it to you that you took them there, because you wanted first to interrogate them and brutalise them. MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman, they were taken there, it was suggested to me that they be taken there because the place is far from civilisation as it be. ADV NYOKA: All right. Okay, at arrival at Cradock, why after the first round of interrogation by Mr Nieuwoudt, did you not say Mr Nieuwoudt, my instructions are clear, we are here now, we have finished our first round, let's kill them now. That very night, why did you not do so? MR VAN ZYL: Because the askaris were still there Mr Chairman and I did not plan to have the askaris as part of the operation. ADV NYOKA: So when did the askaris leave, not in the morning? MR VAN ZYL: They left during the morning, yes. ADV NYOKA: Then why did you stay with them that afternoon and kill them only at night, because the askaris were not there in the afternoon? MR VAN ZYL: Because the chances were there that somebody else from the Security Branch, the Police or whoever may arrive there unannounced and I did not want to be busy with that task during the day for them to see it, I thought the night was better Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Could that not have been done in the garage and the bodies be left there in then disposed at night? I am not saying that it is nice to say what I am saying, but I am trying to follow your logic, could that not have been done in the garage and the bodies left there and then burnt later on? MR VAN ZYL: I suppose it could have. ADV NYOKA: Then why was it not done? MR VAN ZYL: Because it was done that evening, that was what I decided to do. I cannot answer why I didn't do it earlier sir. ADV NYOKA: I therefore put it to you that you were not a man in a hurry to do the job if there were such delays, as you suggested yesterday. Any comment? MR VAN ZYL: You are wrong, Mr Chairman, that was my intentions and those were my motives at the time. ADV NYOKA: Mr Chairman, I am not going to labour the point. And if the three leaders were never assaulted, I assume at some stage you went to gather wood, why did the interrogation take so long? Evening, morning and early part of the afternoon, after twelve? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Nieuwoudt mainly talked to them Mr Chairman, and Mr Nieuwoudt has got a very broad background about the activities around the Port Elizabeth organisations and I can only assume that he covered all of them. It was also known to us that Mr Hashe had visited Lesotho the previous or two years before, maybe three, and Mr Nieuwoudt obviously asked him, talked to him about that visit as well. ADV NYOKA: Despite all that length of talking, there was no new information gathered? MR VAN ZYL: No major information, no Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: I wonder why it was long, if there was nothing new? I do not understand if I talk to someone, I do not get anything new, I talk at length at length with him or her. Let me not be sexist here, him or her. MR VAN ZYL: I do not see anything strange in that Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: I find it very, very strange. CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, is your evidence that at the time when these people were killed, I believe it was the second evening, am I right? MR VAN ZYL: It was the evening after they were abducted, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying it was your earliest possible moment to can kill them? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, at the time I thought it was Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: And if the evidence is correct that their heads were covered at the airport, I don't say you said that, if it was correct, why would their heads be covered if at all eventually they were going to be killed? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, maybe it was the modus operandi of the askaris to do that when they picked up, arrested or abducted people. I cannot answer for that. ADV NYOKA: Okay, I will ask them that later on. You mentioned the issue of the AK47. Did you get to hear that or did you hear from someone else? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Nieuwoudt told me that one of them volunteered information about that Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: He just volunteered information without being pressured? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment on how he volunteered it Mr Chairman, but as I said yesterday, Mr Nieuwoudt's knowledge about the activists was thought to be enough pressure on them to bring about new information. ADV NYOKA: And when did you hear of that AK47 story, in the morning or that very evening or in the afternoon? MR VAN ZYL: No, that I can't remember Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Can't remember? If people are just talking casually, I find it strange that someone who doesn't know that he is going to be killed eventually, will just volunteer something that may land him to imprisonment unless he was pressured, do you agree with me? You don't have to agree with me, but do you agree with me that it is strange that when people are talking nicely and then someone will just out of the blue, without having been pried or real evidence against him, will just say look there is something I know about an AK47. MR VAN ZYL: It depends I think if someone wants to waste time or just want to lead you on a false path, he may also volunteer information like that Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: But it was not the first time Mr Van Zyl, that these people were detained. They could have done that earlier on in their detention and the charge of terrorism could have been laid against them and a conviction even on a single evidence, resulting? I find it strange that all of sudden they will do that at Cradock and not earlier on, even they had previous detentions? Would you agree with me? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember when any of the three were detained during my time in Port Elizabeth Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Do you dispute the fact that they were never, ever detained? MR VAN ZYL: Of course not, but during my time in 1984 and 1985 I cannot remember them being detained. ADV NYOKA: What circumstances, Mr Van Zyl, did you meet Mr Hashe. You said yesterday you had met Mr Hashe before? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. I can recall that I met Mr Hashe in his house, at his house Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: What were you doing in his house, were you there to arrest him or interrogate him or what? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, at the time I can recall that we had actually had information about somebody that had visited him and that we went to the house at night and we actually searched the house Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Can I ask a question about this AK47 story? As I recall your evidence it was later learnt that the AK47 story was not true? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Were the three gentlemen confronted about that or anyone of them who had volunteered the information as you had just said? MR VAN ZYL: About the fact that it was not true Mr Chairman, I am afraid they were not alive by then Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: If that information did not lead anywhere, I find it strange that someone will volunteer that information but lying in doing so if he was not pressured? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, if I remember correctly, Mr Nieuwoudt did not put a lot of weight, he did not believe the story himself at the time very much, and the way he conveyed it to me was that he wasn't at the time thinking that it was a true story, but we had to - took the address and we had to follow it up. ADV NYOKA: I accept that, that may not have been reliable, but the point is if someone is talking casually, volunteering information, why will he volunteer a lie? He would rather have not said anything than lie, unless he was pressured to do so? MR VAN ZYL: I was not there, I was not there Mr Chairman, I cannot speculate on why he volunteered the information at the time. ADV NYOKA: Did you not go to him and asked him about this yourself? MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Why not? MR VAN ZYL: Because I knew what the conditions were at the time and I did not see it fit for myself to speak to him about it as well. ADV NYOKA: What conditions were those? MR VAN ZYL: I had the address of the people that he had mentioned at the time and I cannot remember where or who it was. ADV NYOKA: Did you at any stage interrogate the three persons? MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: In his written statement Mr Lotz will say, he is going to testify after you, that you, Mr Nieuwoudt and the askaris participated in the interrogation that very first night, yet you say it was only Mr Nieuwoudt, what do you say about that? MR VAN ZYL: The fact that I was present, probably prompted him to say that I also interrogated them. ADV NYOKA: No, I don't think Mr Lotz is a fool. He would have said you were present, but not interrogated. There is a difference between the presence of a person and someone interrogating. MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, it is possible that I had asked Mr Nieuwoudt to ask them one or two questions as well, but as far as I can remember Mr Nieuwoudt was conducting the questioning at the time. ADV NYOKA: So you could have interrogated via Mr Nieuwoudt? MR VAN ZYL: That is possible Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Or perhaps you intervened Mr Nieuwoudt interrogated the persons? Then you don't answer to that? Further than that Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole also said that you participated in the interrogation, confirming what Mr Lotz is going to say? MR VAN ZYL: As I said it is possible that I asked them one or two questions through Mr Nieuwoudt Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, but how would you describe your role? Would you describe it as participation in the interrogation because they are describing it as participation in the interrogation? MR VAN ZYL: I would describe it as very secondary, as Mr Nieuwoudt had much more knowledge about the activities that he was asking them, I could not really add to that Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the impression you gave us that you did not participate in the interrogation? MR VAN ZYL: I did not mean to mislead you, I meant Mr Chairman that I was there and it is possible that I asked some questions through Mr Nieuwoudt as well, but it must have been a few, I have no recollection of that, but it is possible. CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure that I can say that you are saying you participated or you did not participate. I don't know whether you are saying you participated or you did not participate? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, the fact that I was present some of the time while Mr Nieuwoudt interrogated them, could also have meant that at some time I had asked something to add to his questions, so in fact it would mean that at some times I did participate. ADV NYOKA: Thank you. I am moving on to assault Mr Van Zyl, did you assault these people? MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: I am informed that you are not the type that assaults people. Mr (indistinct) Jack said that he was being assaulted in June a month after that and you came and intervened on his behalf, but you took him to the beach and told him that you dealt with so-called terrorists in the army, you saved him from being assaulted, do you remember that incident? MR VAN ZYL: No, I don't recollect that Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: You don't, it is in your favour. You don't assault? MR VAN ZYL: I still do not recollect the incident Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Mr Jack just informed me today telephonically, and he is present, and he is very grateful to you and he said I must say that. I know I am diverting now, but he is very grateful to you for that, but you deny that incident? MR VAN ZYL: I do not deny it, I do not recall it Mr Chairman. I can remember arresting Mr Jack once during the state of emergency in July of August of that year probably because that was when the state of emergency was called out. I did not assault him, that I know when I arrested him, but I do not recollect taking him to the beach and telling him what he said sir. ADV NYOKA: So you must have been intervening in many assaults for you not to remember this one, which occurred to you? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, I did not regard it as very important. ADV NYOKA: Okay. Let me move away from that. Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole said that the three activists were assaulted especially when they cried, saying that they are not going to say anything, they would rather die. Then the policemen pounced upon them and assaulted them. They were brave in death, what do you say about that? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, that is not how it happened at all. ADV NYOKA: In particular Mr Godolozi and Mr Hashe. They said we are not talking, we would rather die and immediately people angered assaulted them, including them. MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I cannot comment on the askaris' knowledge even of the people. It did not happen like that, not when I was there. ADV NYOKA: And someone was crying in the garage, you did not hear anyone, one of the activists crying in the garage? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: I wonder why they will say that if that was not the case? Are you saying that they made that up? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment why they say that Mr Chairman, but it is not how it happened. ADV NYOKA: So they made the stories up? MR VAN ZYL: It is false. ADV NYOKA: At least we agree on something. You commented about only two less drastic legal options, assault and bombing, but you said these were not - you commented about bombing, but you said that there were problems with that, but you did not comment about assault, why it was not considered. Can you elaborate? MR VAN ZYL: I commented on bombing and assault yesterday before, because you had actually mentioned it the previous day sir. Assault would have been out of the question, it would have served no purpose and I thought it was clear to everybody that that would have had no effect at all. I cannot think that one can intimidate a motivated person like that at all by assaulting him. Bombing the house would have served no purpose at all, because innocent people could have been killed, and it was never considered. What was considered on just about a daily basis, were the other legal actions that we could have taken, and that was discussed. We were not the only officers at the Port Elizabeth Security Branch, we were quite a big staff and we had daily meetings about the information that came in through the night. These people worked night and day and information was sent to Security Branch Head Quarters in Pretoria on a daily basis with our comments and that included detention and restrictions Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: I will assume that nt one person was assaulted during that ear because as far as I know, Mr Nieuwoudt who applied for amnesty, assaulted Mr Jack and Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole. How can you say an assault would not have had the desired results, if it was never tried at all, just to be tried because he or she, as a human being feels pain, not so? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I was never present, during my entire career in the Police, that somebody had suggested that assault be used to curb a person's activities. ADV NYOKA: Regarding bombing, Mr Du Plessis mentioned yesterday that if there was a decision that only three people be killed, abducted, that decision is complied to to the letter, because of the professionalism of the Police. I am certain that if there was the scaring method of bombing the house without people inside, due to the monitoring of the Security Police, the bombing could have occurred when the occupants were not inside because of the expertise of the Police, do you agree with me? MR VAN ZYL: That was never considered Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: That could have been done to ensure that when there was no one in the house, let's just scare them. MR VAN ZYL: I don't think so, Mr Chairman, I think it would have had the same results as detention. ADV NYOKA: You did not mention other less drastic methods like threats through the mail or telephone or leaving of death threats at the entrance doors, things like those? Were those not considered? MR VAN ZYL: Those were not part of my modus operandi at any part of my life. ADV NYOKA: You never thought about that? MR VAN ZYL: Never sir. ADV NYOKA: I wonder where I got them from, because that is the information that we are obtaining as being used by the Police before. MR VAN ZYL: I have no knowledge of that Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Did each of you use the same weapon in firing the person? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: That was your weapon? That was your weapon, a rifle? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Why is it that not one person shot each and everyone, why did you have to exchange the gun around or the weapon around, it is not a gun? The weapon around? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, that was probably the way that I intended to do it, but I can remember I handed the gun to the next person after I shot the first person. ADV NYOKA: You know, this is not nice even to me Mr Van Zyl, but it seems to me as if it was like a game, kill your own person, not so? That is how it seems to me when I am reading your statements? MR VAN ZYL: Not at all, Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: And were you not afraid that there could be a sound coming out of this gun and alerting people around? MR VAN ZYL: That is why it was a remote spot that was suggested to me, Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: How did it sound when you fired the shot, was it loud? MR VAN ZYL: The gun was a silenced gun Mr Chairman, it was ... (intervention) ADV NYOKA: I must confess, I was trying to trap you I thought you were going to say it was a loud noise, because someone said it was a silencer. You are alert Mr Van Zyl. MR VAN ZYL: I am just recalling what happened there Mr Chairman, I am telling the truth. ADV NYOKA: No, I am not fighting with you about that, I was just commenting. You said you possessed this weapon, unlicensed from 1975, that is for ten years? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Why did you keep it for so long? MR VAN ZYL: Because I had intended to actually license it at some time, because at the time I was collecting firearms, I was very interested in firearms, have been all my life and I am an armourer, qualified and at the time I brought it out because it was a curious weapon. I brought it out illegally on a military flight from Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe and I kept it and hid it for these years. ADV NYOKA: Had you used it before that incident at all, between 1975 and 1985, did you use it? MR VAN ZYL: I used it just to make sure that it worked, and I worked on it because as I say I am an armourer. It was not totally fixed when I had it, when I first got it, I remember I did some work on it to make it into a working order. ADV NYOKA: Before using it, going to Cradock, did the other gentlemen have their own weapons? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, we are all issued with service weapons? ADV NYOKA: Then why did they not use their own weapons rather than yours? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I took this weapon because it was unlicensed, I could get rid of it if I had to and because it was silenced. ADV NYOKA: Okay, and you said you got rid of it the following year, 1986 by throwing it into the sea not so? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Why did you dispose of it then? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, because I did not want that weapon with me any more. ADV NYOKA: You know, I am curious, if you wanted to dispose of it, why did you not dispose of it when the fire was burning that night? Why waited till 1986? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember why I waited Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: I put it to you that you just destroyed that weapon especially when criminal investigation was launched about this incident, not in 1986, you just destroyed it now. There is not reason why you should pick up 1986, when you had regained the initiative, there was a state of emergency, activists were in prison? Not so? MR VAN ZYL: No sir. ADV NYOKA: This sleeping pill, are you sure it came from you and not from Mr Nieuwoudt? MR VAN ZYL: It came from me Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Why I am saying that is because last month Mr Nieuwoudt said he supplied the pill when drugging Mr Mthimkhulu Madaka and coincidentally a sleeping pill is used in 1985? MR VAN ZYL: I have no knowledge of that, it was not a sleeping pill. As I said yesterday it was a glass (indistinct) filled with a liquid substance. ADV NYOKA: Did you know that you were taking it when you took it from PE to Cradock, because in your statement you are not sure where this pill came from according to my interpretation in English? MR VAN ZYL: No, I said I recalled in my statement, that it came from my medical bag, from my time of service in Ovamboland and I was always travelling with a medical bag, I still travel with a medical bag wherever I go Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Did you tell the others of this method, that you had this thing that was going to be used? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall telling them before the time or when I told them Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: So they were not curious to find out how we are going to implement this on our arrival at Cradock? MR VAN ZYL: No, it was not decided before the time that we would give them sleeping pills as far as I can recall Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: This is the last portion Mr Van Zyl, it is about following orders. You said that having a military background, you are trained to follow orders? MR VAN ZYL: I think everybody in the Police is as disciplined or more disciplined than I am Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Whether those orders are unlawful or not, they have to be followed? MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman, I have also said that I specifically agreed with what happened at the time and I admit that. ADV NYOKA: Yes, you agreed about an unlawful order. My point was do you obey an order, whether it is lawful or not, I don't say you agreed with it. You agreed about an unlawful order, the order was unlawful? MR VAN ZYL: I know that Mr Chairman. At the time the situation was so desperate and deteriorating every day, that those drastic actions were decided on because the other measures were not regarded as effective. ADV NYOKA: So whether the motive, whatever the motive was, as long as it was an order that came from above, and you more or less identified with it, it didn't matter what the motive was, not so? MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman, that was one of the only orders like that I ever received in my life. And I did obey them, yes. ADV NYOKA: Did you agree immediately? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember when I agreed, I had discussed it certainly with Colonel Du Plessis and as it, he first told me a week or two before this incident that it was decided upon and yes, I did probably agree the same day. ADV NYOKA: I assume it was not necessary for you to argue with him about other legal options like suggesting a state of emergency, the removal of the activists to another area, further detention (indistinct), it was not necessary? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I have already said that at that time we had discussed alternative options every day until then, and as far as the state of emergency is concerned, that was in the hands of the Minister of Law and Order. We had no idea at that time, that there would have been a state of emergency two months later. ADV NYOKA: But if your conscience told you that this is unlawful and I am not going to do it, you could have asked to be removed from that Security Branch department to an ordinary Police department, you had that choice? You had no obligation to follow unlawful orders? MR VAN ZYL: I was also a very motivated person, who believed at the time that we were moving very fast towards the violent overthrowing of the system at that time, and I did not believe that that should happen. I believed in the order of that day, I served the government of that day and I believed that it would make a difference, a positive difference and it was not only for the whites, there were a lot of blacks suffering at the hands of activists in those days in the townships as well, Mr Chairman. It was not only the black policemen either, I believe there were a lot of moderate blacks in these townships. I also believe that, while we are here, we should also spare a thought for the victims of a lot of people that died here whose murderers were never found because of the breakdown of the law and order at the time because investigations could not be followed up in the normal manner, and that happened. And those were the things that added to the situation that we regarded as most drastic at the time. ADV NYOKA: You have made a speech Mr Van Zyl, I must commend you on that. That situation was brought about by the ANC in exile, not so through the Pebco, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: What makes me to wonder now is why these people were suffering through this activities, they would in 1994 give the ANC 62 percent of the vote if they were suffering under it? I find that very, very strange? MR VAN ZYL: 62 Percent? ADV NYOKA: Yes, 62 percent of the vote, and you said they were moderate blacks? MR VAN ZYL: I think the remainder of the 38 percent might be of the people that I am referring to Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: We don't know who that 38 percent is? MR VAN ZYL: No, I can only speculate Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: We will have to wait for 1999, it may be more than that. CHAIRPERSON: I am going to urge you to get to the real issue. ADV NYOKA: You said you thought that with due respect to Mr Snyman, the order may have come from higher authority? MR VAN ZYL: I had that distinct impression at the time because of my opinion of Colonel Snyman and Major Du Plessis Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: I want you to assist me in this, I have four levels of authority higher than Mr Snyman. The first one is the Regional South African Police Commissioner, Brigadier Swart, not so, after Mr Snyman? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Then the second one is the South African Commissioner National, am I correct? MR VAN ZYL: Correct Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Then the third one is the ministerial level of the Minister of Law and Order? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. ADV NYOKA: The fourth one is the cabinet, or parallel to the State Security Council, those four levels, not so? MR VAN ZYL: Correct. ADV NYOKA: One of those four levels, the authority must have come from then, not so because you said it came from higher authority - you can choose which authority. MR VAN ZYL: I did not say it came from higher authority, I said that taking into regard Mr Chairman, the personalities of Major Du Plessis and Colonel Snyman as I knew them, I honestly did not think that either of them would take such an order on their own and that is I assumed, that it came from a higher level. ADV NYOKA: You may have been correct in your assumption Mr Van Zyl, because firstly Mr Le Grange was in Cradock and said the Police must make a plan and secondly, and most importantly, on the 7th of May, before the abduction Mr Le Grange was in Port Elizabeth. I would like to take this opportunity of circulating a ten sentence report from the Eastern Province Herald which said Mr Louis Le Grange paid a brief visit to Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage on Tuesday, that is the 7th of May. Lieutenant Colonel Gerry van Rooyen, South African Police Liaison Officer for the Eastern Cape, last night confirmed that Mr Le Grange paid a flying visit to the African townships in the area. Was that not a coincidence? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment on that, I did not know that Mr Chairman. There was no way that Mr Le Grange would tell me, at my level of I was Captain at the time, and confirm that he had actually given permission for this act to happen. It just did not work like that. ADV NYOKA: Were you not aware that he came to visit? MR VAN ZYL: No, I was not Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: He may have paid a courtesy call to the Regional Commander Mr Snyman, he can't just go to the township without coming to the Security Branches? MR VAN ZYL: I did not know about that Mr Chairman, I cannot confirm it. ADV NYOKA: I put it to you that it is a strange coincidence that Mr Le Grange will come the day before and then these people disappear, if he did not know? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment on that, I did not see him and I did not know of the knowledge of his visit either. ADV NYOKA: Okay, I accept that you may not know, but will you agree with me that it has been a tradition in politics that the cabinet meets or met weekly, once a week? I know you are not a politician, but that is the tradition, they met once a week? MR VAN ZYL: I don't know exactly how often they meet Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Okay, just have faith in me. If that is the case, would you agree with me that the following week the cabinet may have met, and confronted Mr Le Grange and said Mr Le Grange, this had been publicised that you are going to be in our hearing, that these people disappeared. Did you have anything to do with that, it could have happened, not so? During the following weekly meeting of the cabinet? MR VAN ZYL: It could have, I can really not speculate on what happened Mr Chairman. ADV NYOKA: Yes, all right. Finally Mr Van Zyl, and I am saying this sincerely, I wish you all the luck when you go to your overseas trips and I want to say that you belong to this country. I am not joking, you belong to this country, come back and then we sort out these problems, thank you. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV NYOKA. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS HARTLE: Mr Van Zyl, what are the other applications that are before the Amnesty Commission, in relation to what other incidents are you applying for amnesty? MR VAN ZYL: It relates to an incident that happened in 1980 Mr Chairman, that is also a murder and apart from this application, the Cradock 4 and one other incident in Cape Town where there were no lives or damage to people involved Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Why did you resign from the South African Police? MR VAN ZYL: I actually wanted to at the time, wanted to undergo a selection course for reconnaissance commando, Special Forces and that is why I resigned. MS HARTLE: I notice you are one of a few applicants who have not retired from the Police Service on the basis of ill health, have you suffered any post-traumatic stress as a result of these incidents? MR VAN ZYL: My stress have been very private and I have not gone to any medical facility for help, if that is what you are referring to Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: In this application, you do not make mention of any criminal prosecutions, are there criminal prosecutions to be pursued against you or that are being investigated against you? MR VAN ZYL: Not that I am aware of Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: And if there were to be a civil claim for compensation made against you in your personal capacity, would you be able to afford to meet a claim for compensation? MR VAN ZYL: I don't think so Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Why is that? MR VAN ZYL: Because my income is not in any higher bracket than the normal person's position, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Do you have any assets capable of attachment? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I have a house. CHAIRPERSON: This is not an insolvency enquiry. MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, with respect, I would like to persist with the questioning, because it is relevant to what is at stake for this applicant. I would like to make the suggestion in my submissions later on, that he has nothing to loose, whether he gains amnesty or not. CHAIRPERSON: Well, bring it in line. Explain to us how it is related to these proceedings. MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, I will rather leave that, this line of questioning. Are you referred to as Sakkie van Zyl as well? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Now, it is true that you are only applying for amnesty in respect of this incident, after you were named by Colonel Venter when he testified and in his submissions to the Commission in October last year? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: And I think you stated that it wasn't a coincidence, you were out of the country at the time? MR VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon, why wouldn't it be a coincidence? MS HARTLE: I am putting it to you that the reason why you did not apply for amnesty prior to Colonel Venter naming you in October last year, was a mere coincidence. In other words, you would have applied for amnesty before, except that you were out of the country if I understood you correctly? MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not say that. I said that at the time I was out of the country, and at the time I was trying to gain as much information about the system as possible and that I was still making up my mind. MS HARTLE: But you felt even then that you couldn't bring the application without consultation with your colleagues? MR VAN ZYL: No, I just said that I felt that it would have been better if all of us went forward because of the bitter taste that it left with me that I was implicated. MS HARTLE: You see, I must question why you felt it necessary to get together to discuss your feelings and to speak about that, this application for amnesty, particularly your application for amnesty in relation to your own involvement and complicity? MR VAN ZYL: I felt responsible for the people who worked under me Mr Chairman, and I still feel guilty about involving them because it probably wrecked their lives mentally at least, in a similar way to my own. MS HARTLE: You see, you have told us just now that your stress is a very private thing, likewise a confession is a very private thing. MR VAN ZYL: There is no facility for a private confession here Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: You see, you wouldn't go to a confessional for example, with all of your colleagues and confess your sins there before God. It is a very personal thing, that is what I am saying to you? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: I find it strange that you found it necessary to discuss with the other applicants exactly what they were going to be doing in relation to the amnesty proceedings. MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, in all the Forces, there is a bond, a camaraderie and I felt it was fair to them to tell them what I am going to do and to hear if they felt the same, if they agreed with me. MS HARTLE: Would the purpose of your discussions be perhaps to warn them that you might be naming them in your amnesty application? MR VAN ZYL: No, it is like I just told you Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: You see Mr Van Zyl, isn't it so that you wanted to contrive a common truth as it were? You would want to concoct a version which would be simple, it would be short, it would be lacking in detail and it would be easy to commit to memory, and it wouldn't necessarily implicate the name of any of your colleagues? MR VAN ZYL: Not at any stage, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: You see, but there is a sense in which you protect your colleagues, your old colleagues. You have spoken about a bond, a camaraderie, that exist between you. MR VAN ZYL: I don't need to protect them. I feel protective towards my junior officers, because I involved them, but I also felt that it was fair Mr Chairman, to tell them what I was going to do and to consult with them, whether they felt the same at the time. MS HARTLE: Because you see the Pebco operation as it was carried out, is very similar in detail to that involving Mthimkhulu Madaka and to a certain extent also Mr Kondile. MR VAN ZYL: I have no knowledge of those operations, I did not even follow the proceedings that happened here recently, because I wasn't even in the country Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: The similarities that exist are the abduction, the shooting while they were drugged and then the burning of the bodies. MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment on the previous operations that you are mentioning, Mr Chairman. As I told you in my evidence, I asked Colonel Du Plessis what we should to, he suggested that these people had to disappear completely. I asked him how that could be done and he actually said to me that in the way that I described. MS HARTLE: I just want to examine for a short while your brief that was given to you by Mr Du Plessis. What exactly, or let me just ask you this first, you were given the instruction as I understand you evidence on the 8th of May 1985? MR VAN ZYL: The final instruction that we should go ahead, that there was an opportunity because he had obviously spoken to Mr Nieuwoudt who had his source alerted to something like this. MS HARTLE: So there was a previous discussion in relation to a general operation? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Du Plessis discussed this with me a week or two earlier in which he told me that this was, the situation was so desperate that it should happen like I said. MS HARTLE: Now, the fortnight before the incident, when you discussed it with Mr Du Plessis, what exactly were your instructions at that stage? I am not interested in what your instructions were on the 8th of May, what were your initial instructions two weeks before the incident? MR VAN ZYL: That the leader element of Pebco should be eliminated and in particular Messrs Hashe, Galela and Godolozi. MS HARTLE: Now, at that stage, I assume had no knowledge that those three persons would be at the airport at the same time on the 8th of May? MR VAN ZYL: No, I had no knowledge, no. MS HARTLE: And I find it improbable that Mr Du Plessis would have had that knowledge at that stage, that the three would be together at that place? MR VAN ZYL: He should not say that we should abduct them from the airport Ma'am. He said that we should plan an operation to abduct and eliminate them. MS HARTLE: Those three persons specifically? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. MS HARTLE: They were named? MR VAN ZYL: They were named. MS HARTLE: None of the other Pebco leaders were named? MR VAN ZYL: No. MS HARTLE: So your task was to eliminate those three persons? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: And how were you to eliminate them? MR VAN ZYL: At the time, as I said, I asked him what we should do and he said that they should disappear. In other words, that we should get rid of the bodies, that it could not be traced. And I asked him how to do it, as I said, and that he told me. MS HARTLE: So you asked him how to do it? MR VAN ZYL: I asked him how we should get rid of the bodies, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Did you ask him how to eliminate them, or how you should eliminate them? MR VAN ZYL: I don't recall that Mr Chairman, it was not necessary. MS HARTLE: It was not necessary? Sorry, did I hear you correctly? MR VAN ZYL: I did not regard it as necessary Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Are we to assume from that that you would take care of those details? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I can think we can assume that Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Is that in fact what you believed when you were given the instruction, that how you eliminated them was entirely up to you? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, I just told you, it was discussed and it was suggested either by myself of Mr Du Plessis, that we probably shoot them, but I cannot remember that he told me specifically that he told me specifically to shoot them. What he specifically told me was that we could burn the bodies at a remote place. MS HARTLE: At that stage that you had the discussions, was the remote place already agreed upon? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Did you have several discussions, or was there only one prior to the 8th of May? MR VAN ZYL: No, it is possible that we had more than one, I cannot recall. MS HARTLE: I am not asking what is possible, I am asking you what your evidence is. MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember more discussions than the one in which initially he told me about, and when he told me that we should go ahead. MS HARTLE: What was your discussion in relation to the motor vehicle? Let me just ask you this first, you obviously didn't discuss necessarily what would happen to a vehicle at that stage, because you didn't know where or how you would find your victims? MR VAN ZYL: I don't think at the early stage we discussed the vehicle, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Now were you in given that assignment, informed that you would be working with anyone in particular in order to carry out that operation? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, he told me to select a team. MS HARTLE: Was it your decision to select the Vlakplaas Unit? MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman, that was done impulsively on the day of the 8th, because they were in the area and because we thought they could be used for that. MS HARTLE: And prior to the 8th, had you identified certain persons who you could use in the operation with you? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Lotz and Mr Nieuwoudt. MS HARTLE: They were your personal choice? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Is there a reason why you selected those persons? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I just thought they would be strong enough to stand up to a traumatic operation like that. MS HARTLE: Why did you believe that? MR VAN ZYL: Because I had worked with them for more than a year until then, Mr Chairman. Sergeant Lotz, excuse me was also in the operational area for a short while years before that, I had actually met him there at the time. MS HARTLE: Now, if I recall your earlier evidence, you said that this was the first time that you had actually been given an instruction of this nature? MR VAN ZYL: To burn somebody, that is correct Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: To? MR VAN ZYL: To burn a body to ash, that is correct. MS HARTLE: Now, this method of burning wasn't new to the Security Forces in Port Elizabeth at the time? MR VAN ZYL: I had never used it until then. MS HARTLE: Had you heard that it had been used? MR VAN ZYL: No, I don't think so, I don't know anything about these previous operations. MS HARTLE: I am not suggesting that you had any complicity in the previous operations, Mr Van Zyl, I am just saying that you worked very closely together as a Unit, you were aware of what was going on. The earlier incidents Mthimkhulu Madaka for example, that happened prior to the disappearance of the Pebco 3? MR VAN ZYL: I did not know of those operations, I did not know of those people at the time. MS HARTLE: Was there any discussion in relation to previous methods tried and sort of fool proof tested methods for example the burning of the body, I mean this was the first time you were going to be burning a body. Had you actually known what it would entail? MR VAN ZYL: No, I asked Mr Du Plessis at the time and he told me. MS HARTLE: What did he tell you? MR VAN ZYL: He told me that we should use wood and fuel. MS HARTLE: Did he tell you how long it would take? MR VAN ZYL: No, he did not. MS HARTLE: Did he tell you how much wood you would require? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, not that I can recall. MS HARTLE: Did you discuss it with your colleagues, to whether or not that kind of attempt would be successful? MR VAN ZYL: I may have, I do not recall that Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Why don't you recall? I mean this was the first time you were given an instruction of this nature, surely you must have agonized over it, you must have considered it fully and you must have gone over the various aspects of the plan before you could put it into operation? MR VAN ZYL: It is possible that we spoke about it, it is more than 12 years ago. My memory, what stands out in my memory is what actually happened and what happened, and I took part in that, and that I remember very well. MS HARTLE: Now, on the 8th, the instruction to you was confirmed that you were to abduct the three persons? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Now coincidentally the three happened to be together and you were informed that they were going to be at the airport? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, as I said yesterday the way I recall it Mr Nieuwoudt told me. I think when Mr Du Plessis told me he said to me that the three would be there. When Mr Nieuwoudt told me, he said to me that he knew that at least one of them would be at the airport, but it is possible that all three would be there. MS HARTLE: In the two weeks prior to the 8th, had you, between the three of you, discussed various manners or ways, methods in which you could draw them away, draw them to a place together? MR VAN ZYL: It is possible, I do not recall anything like that Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: You see Mr Van Zyl, this is the problem that the families have with your application, it is so lacking in detail. These issues must have been on your mind, they must have played on your mind. MR VAN ZYL: The issues that were really at stake about what happened on the scene, have been on my mind. It has been on my mind for a long time. But I did not think about it, we never spoke about this again, it is like an unspoken thing between us because it was a serious matter and there was nothing to talk about. MS HARTLE: When did Mr Nieuwoudt inform you of the three's presence at the airport, the arrangement, the fact that they were to be lured? MR VAN ZYL: During the course of the day of the 8th, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Did you then communicate with Mr Du Plessis again in that regard? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I think we did. MS HARTLE: Now, after you were informed by Mr Nieuwoudt of an opportunity that existed, how did you then go about planning or putting into operation the final stages of your plan? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I can remember that we had a meeting in Mr Du Plessis office at which Nieuwoudt, myself and Captain Venter was definitely there during the course of the day in the offices, I am not sure whether he was at that specific meeting, at which Mr Nieuwoudt informed us that he had a source that would call Mr Hashe at a number that was not generally used and that he would lure him to the airport. MS HARTLE: Was that the only meeting that you had prior to the abduction on that day? MR VAN ZYL: The only? MS HARTLE: Meeting that you had prior to the abduction, on that day? MR VAN ZYL: It is possible that we had another meeting, but not a formal meeting, because we were together during the day. MS HARTLE: Who was together? MR VAN ZYL: At various stages, the group, but there could have been one or two missing. MS HARTLE: Which of you were present again, I need to understand how many meetings were held because you had to plan this operation in the minute detail? MR VAN ZYL: That I cannot remember Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: You were given new facts and you had to then fit everything into place as it were in order to settle the final arrangements. MR VAN ZYL: The final arrangements were that the askaris would be used, that they would meet us at an arranged place in (indistinct), and that from there we would move to the airport, shortly before the people arrived. Mr Nieuwoudt was in charge of that, and he monitored their movements as well. We had our radios and shortly before the time, we went and parked at the places like I described. MS HARTLE: What was the arrangement with regard to the motor vehicle? MR VAN ZYL: We then decided that the motor vehicle would be taken to the Tele Bridge, near the Lesotho border, to make it look as if the activists had actually left the country. MS HARTLE: Mr Van Zyl, I put it to you that you couldn't have known at that stage, that they would arrive in a vehicle. MR VAN ZYL: How else would they get to the airport Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: You wouldn't know that they would arrive in their own vehicle, which would be left behind. MR VAN ZYL: So it was a plan that if they arrived with a vehicle, that is how we would do it Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Is there any reason why you have not dealt in your submissions with the plan to create the impression at the end of the day, that the Pebco 3 had left the country, in other words the placing of the vehicle on the border? MR VAN ZYL: No, there is no reason for that Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Because you see, if you read your submission in paragraph 10 at page 46 of the record, the sixth line from the bottom of paragraph 10, the three activists accompanied the askaris to the askaris' minibus which was parked nearby and one of the askaris drove the Pebco 3's bakkie to where or vehicles were. I asked Captain Nieuwoudt whether he knew of a suitable place where we could get rid of the bakkie and he suggested that it be taken to KwaZakhele and be burnt there. I put it to you Mr Van Zyl, that that is inconsistent with your suggestion that there was a prior arrangement to dispose of the vehicle in a particular manner. MR VAN ZYL: I just did not manner that there was a prior arrangement Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Sorry, I can't hear what you are saying. MR VAN ZYL: I said I just did not mention, I do not know for what reason, that there was a prior arrangement. I only asked Lieutenant Nieuwoudt to destroy the vehicle after he had reported to me that the mechanical condition of the vehicle was such that it would not reach Lesotho border or even near that. MS HARTLE: Mr Van Zyl, you see, you don't mention in your submissions that that transpired, that there was a prior plan, you then discovered that the vehicle wouldn't make it to the border and then there was a change of plan. I put it to you that the only reason why you've raised it in your evidence, your oral evidence yesterday, was because Mr Du Plessis mentioned it in his evidence. MR VAN ZYL: Not at all Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: You want to bring your version in conformity with his, I put it to you that that is what you are trying to do. MR VAN ZYL: That is not true. CHAIRPERSON: Could this be a convenient point for an adjournment until eleven o'clock. MS HARTLE: That is convenient. COMMISSION ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION CHAIRPERSON: You may continue, Ms Hartle. MS HARTLE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Zyl, if I may just take you back a step. I asked if there had been any criminal prosecutions against you. Were there at any stage any criminal investigations into your involvement into the deaths of the Pebco 3? MR VAN ZYL: It was probably investigated from the time that it was reported. Do you mean was I approached? MS HARTLE: Were you approached, yes? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I was approached. MS HARTLE: Were you approached by the Attorney General, D'Oliviera? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct. MS HARTLE: Were you summonsed by him? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Would it be correct Mr Van Zyl, that you denied any complicity in these acts, complicity with these acts in relation to the death of the Pebco 3? MR VAN ZYL: It was an unofficial talk as I recall it, and it was just before I was going to apply for amnesty Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Is it correct that you denied complicity with these acts? MR VAN ZYL: I did deny it Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Why did you not feel constraint at that stage to tell the truth? MR VAN ZYL: Because it was a totally different matter, I was going to apply for amnesty Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: So your real intention is only to seek indemnification as it were? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I don't regard myself as a criminal, these acts were committed with an absolute political motive at the time when this country was in dire straits as I recall it. And it was political, therefore i felt that I had the right to apply for amnesty. MS HARTLE: Should you not have taken the Attorney General into your confidence at that stage and assisted him in bringing the perpetrators to book for these offences? MR VAN ZYL: I was advised not to, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Because I put it to you Mr Van Zyl, in reality the purpose of your seeking amnesty is really to get indemnification from prosecution. That is the real purpose of your being here today. MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: To come back to the operation itself at the airport, is there a reason why you yourself attended at the airport when the three were abducted? MR VAN ZYL: I would think that I wanted to oversee the operation from a distance Mr Chairman. We were using VHF radios for which one had to be in within line of sight for proper communications. MS HARTLE: And the vehicle in which you were conducting these activities from, was it - did it have darkened windows? MR VAN ZYL: My own vehicle? MS HARTLE: That you were driving in, yes? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: So you were clearly visible to the activists, if you want to put it that way? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, I was in the parking area, away from the entrance and the exit path. MS HARTLE: And if they had seen you there, at least Mr Hashe would have recognised you, and would have perhaps taken flight? MR VAN ZYL: That is possible. MS HARTLE: Much has been asked about whether or not it was a coincidence whether these particular three persons were at the airport on that day. You are aware of the article which forms part of the papers of Mr Nieuwoudt's application. I can refer you to page 253. I can't make out the date, but it is an extract from what appears to be the Evening Post, it is an article by Mr Jimmy Matco which states that ANC MP, Henry Fasie and former United Democratic Front Regional President, Esra Ngowi were lucky to miss the trip to the death garage in Cradock nine years ago. MR VAN ZYL: I have never seen this report before Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Now, my instructions are that they may have been with the Pebco 3 at the airport on that day in question, but for the obligations which they had. MR VAN ZYL: I cannot comment on that, I did not know that Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Let me ask you this Mr Van Zyl, if the five had arrived at the airport together, would you have abducted all five and eliminated all five? MR VAN ZYL: No, I would have aborted the operation then Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Why? MR VAN ZYL: Because the three people targeted were not by themselves Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Mr Van Zyl, did the thought occur to you at all in your planning operations, and particularly that morning when you had made the last and final details, that these three members would not arrive at the airport? MR VAN ZYL: Of course it did. As I said Mr Nieuwoudt told me that at least one of them would arrive at the airport, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: And would you have been happy to get one if one of them had arrived? MR VAN ZYL: At the time, I believe, yes. MS HARTLE: But if one of them plus Mr Fasie perhaps and somebody else would have arrived there, you would not have carried out your operation? MR VAN ZYL: No, I would have called it off. MS HARTLE: Was your instruction only to abduct and eliminate those three persons? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Major Eric Winter at Cradock, was he aware of the operation? MR VAN ZYL: Not at all. MS HARTLE: What was he made aware of? MR VAN ZYL: I visited him that night, with no notice given at all and I asked him for the keys of the house which he had, and I told him that we were going to speak to sources or debrief sources, I cannot remember, but it had to do with informers. MS HARTLE: He came to the house the following day? MR VAN ZYL: No. MS HARTLE: Now I believe in Captain Venter's evidence, if the Committee would just bear with me, I will find the relevant place in a moment, but on my reading of the papers, Colonel Venter testified that he had actually been shown to the house by Eric Winter? MR BRINK: It is correct that that is what Colonel Venter had said at one stage, but it was put to him when further questions were asked that he may well have been mistaken and that Winter was not involved. ADV DE JAGER: And I must point out, you wouldn't be aware of it, but Winter himself turned up on his own and I don't know whether he gave evidence, or whether he tendered an affidavit, but he denied that he had been there at all. ADV DE VILLIERS: Yes, Mr Chairman, may I also come in here. I just want to make a point that Colonel Venter conceded during the evidence, that he may have been wrong with referring to Winter and as far as I can remember, Winter introduced an affidavit denying his involvement. MS HARTLE: I am indebted to the Committee. Now, you said in your evidence in chief, you were quite emphatic about the fact that you had medication which you had brought from your past activities, that you had with you in your possession. MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Was it within your contemplation, that that was what you would use to drug your victims before shooting them? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember when I thought of it, but the stuff was in my bag, and I had the bag with me and it could have been the same day or it could have been decided on days before. I can speculate on when I decided to use it, I cannot remember that Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Mr Van Zyl, I put it to you that you must recall whether or not that was within your contemplation, because you were either going to murder somebody in cold blood, while they were awake and in their full senses or you are going to wait until they were sleeping, or you were going to administer some drug to them which would render them less aware of what was happening. MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember when the decision was taken Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Now, ironically similar procedures were adopted with Mthimkhulu Madaka's death and Kondile's death, the victims were drugged. MR VAN ZYL: I did not know of that. MS HARTLE: You didn't discuss that with your colleagues? MR VAN ZYL: No. MS HARTLE: And it wasn't presented to you as a fool proof method, so to speak? MR VAN ZYL: No, it was my decision. MS HARTLE: You see, I put it to you that the drugging, my clients instructions are to put it to you that it is no more than an attempt to make this Committee believe that you wanted to be humane in carrying out your operation. In the same way that you testified that they were given camp cots with bedding, and that they were given food. MR VAN ZYL: Those were absolutely true, and Mr Chairman, Mr Hashe was a dignified person at the times when I met him. The other two gentlemen I did not know. And those were the reasons that I could not get myself to kill them without them not knowing about it. MS HARTLE: Now before I leave the aspect of the medication, I want to refer you to page 14, at page 47 of the papers. The fifth line down. It is on page 47 of the papers before you Mr Chairman, paragraph 14 in the middle of the page, it is the submissions of the applicant. In the fifth line down you say I can't remember what exactly what the drug was or where we had got it from. MR VAN ZYL: I wrote this statement in September, October of 1996 Mr Chairman, and I have refreshed my memory as I have refreshed my memory on many other things that I think is quite natural after such a long time. And when you speak to people also, they tell you of something and if you genuinely remember it, you remember it. And if you don't, you don't. MS HARTLE: These submissions that various of the applicants have filed, have been amplified during the course of the proceedings, they have been updated, and new information has been furnished. Is there any reason why you didn't amend your papers in relation to both that aspect and the aspect concerning the motor vehicle? MR VAN ZYL: I thought that it would be sufficient if I speak about it at this hearing Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Van Zyl, I would like to read the entire sentence to you, it may be misleading to refer only to half of it. I can't remember exactly what this drug was or where we had obtained it from, but it is possibly that it formed part of a military medical kit which I still had from the time that I worked in Ovamboland. MR VAN ZYL: It refers to the medicine which I referred to. MS HARTLE: On the issue of refreshing your memory, you testified yesterday in relation to Mr Hashe, you said that you knew him from a previous meeting but you stated that when you shot the person who you killed, you don't recall who that person was. If I understood your evidence correctly, you were not familiar with Mr Godolozi and Mr Galela, but you knew Mr Hashe? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct. MS HARTLE: And you said that you had never spoken about this in detail, prior to, I assume prior to bringing this application, you hadn't discussed who shot who? MR VAN ZYL: No, we did not. MS HARTLE: But I submit that you must have, I put it to you that you must have spoken about this at least at the time the applicants collaborated together to finalise or settle the applications for amnesty. MR VAN ZYL: We were still asked by our various lawyers to give our own versions of the story Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: And how was it that Mr Nieuwoudt refreshed your memory about who it was you shot? MR VAN ZYL: Because I asked him. MS HARTLE: You don't recall who you shot? MR VAN ZYL: No. He told me who he shot and I assumed that I shot Mr Hashe. MS HARTLE: You merely assumed that you shot Mr Hashe? MR VAN ZYL: I have a blank on that Mr Chairman. I assume that and if I could remember it clearly, I would have said so. MS HARTLE: I put it to you that it is most improbable that you would not recall at least the face of the victim whose life you have taken. Where did you shoot the persons, where in relation to the house etc were they actually shot? MR VAN ZYL: It was at the back of the house Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Outside, outdoors? MR VAN ZYL: Outside, outdoors on the lawn. MS HARTLE: Now, is there any reason why you did that out in the open if your whole purpose in going to Post Chalmers was to do so secretively? MR VAN ZYL: It was nearly dark at the time, and it was a very remote place Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: If I recall your evidence, it was dusk. MR VAN ZYL: It was nearly dark. MS HARTLE: Dusk. MR VAN ZYL: That is right, it means the same thing Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: It was not absolutely dark and if anybody ... (intervention) MR VAN ZYL: I said it was nearly dark. No, anybody could not have just walked in on there. The house is situated as such that we would have known if anybody was approaching. MS HARTLE: Then I put it to you Mr Van Zyl, that you could have taken them out at any stage of the day if it was that private? MR VAN ZYL: I suppose we could Mr Chairman, but the chances were more remote that somebody would arrive at night, than during the day. CHAIRPERSON: But if they were to be killed when it was dark, does it matter whether the place is remote or not? If it is dark, it is dark any way? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman, but it also meant that shortly after that we had to make a fire that lasted hours, and that anybody could have walked onto us while we were making that fire during the day. CHAIRPERSON: I see, thank you. MS HARTLE: Now who made the fire? MR VAN ZYL: The three of us made the fire Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: That would be you, Lotz and Mr Nieuwoudt? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. MS HARTLE: And the material that you needed to make the fire, the fuel that you needed for the fire, where did that come from, who obtained that? MR VAN ZYL: Lotz, mainly Lotz and myself during the course of that afternoon Mr Chairman, it was dry wood that we collected in the dry river bed area behind the house. MS HARTLE: And what else? MR VAN ZYL: And diesel. MS HARTLE: And the tyres? MR VAN ZYL: No tyres. MS HARTLE: You mentioned tyres. MR VAN ZYL: No I didn't. MS HARTLE: Can you explain to us how you went about your, I know this is not very nice for the family to hear, but they have to hear, how did you go about incinerating their bodies? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, we stacked some firewood in quite a big heap, about a meter high and we put the three bodies, next to each other, on top of this. We put some diesel on it and we lit it. We had to put more and more wood on it as the night proceeded and until the bodies were totally burnt out. MS HARTLE: How long did this process take? MR VAN ZYL: At least six hours Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: I don't want to keep you from asking the questions, all I want to know is whether in fact the family asked you to ask these details? If they did, I am satisfied that you are asking. But it could be disturbing to them, but if they want to know it, they are entitled to know it and you are entitled to proceed. But I am concerned about their feelings and whether they in fact wanted to hear all the gruesome details. MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, there is another reason why these questions must be asked and that is because the family, my instructions are, that their loved ones were not killed in this manner. My instructions are that they were sighted elsewhere and in asking Mr Van Zyl the detail. ADV DE JAGER: You could proceed if that is your instructions. I've got no qualms about it if it is your instructions, you should proceed, it is your duty. MS HARTLE: As the Committee pleases. I am sorry Mr Van Zyl, I don't recall your last answer, how long did the process take? MR VAN ZYL: I said at least six hours, but into the early hours of the morning Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: And at the time when the bodies were being burnt, were only the three of you present? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: And you three personally, physically carried out this operation and you three put the ashes into black bags? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairman. MS HARTLE: Now this isn't evidence, it is evidence in the Section 29 proceedings, concerning Mr Joe Mamasela he says that the bodies were removed from the scene in a brown I think, if I recall it, Toyota motor vehicle he said. MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, if Joe Mamasela was one of the askaris that was used to abduct these people, he was definitely not present at the scene. MS HARTLE: If I can just refer you to the relevant page of Mr Mamasela's evidence, page 15 of the separate bundle of papers, called the supplement. This is what he says happened. I am reading from approximately the middle of the fuller paragraph, it is the third paragraph down the page, unnumbered paragraph. He says this that after they were killed, we even cleaned the ground on which there was blood. While we were busy cleaning up, a brown Toyota kombi arrived and the three deceased were loaded in. Not ashes, he refers to bodies. MR VAN ZYL: It sounds to me like a totally different incident Mr Chairman, Mr Mamasela was not there. MS HARTLE: Were any of the other askaris there? MR VAN ZYL: No, they were not. MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, I have nothing further, thank you. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS HARTLE. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Captain, I won't keep you long, you will be happy to hear, but I just want to deal with another aspect. You said that before you brought your application for amnesty, naturally enough you discussed these events with your colleagues, Colonel Snyman, Colonel Du Plessis, and the others, is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR BRINK: And presumably the Pebco 3 featured very strongly as well as the other matters, but this featured very strongly in those discussions? MR VAN ZYL: They were discussed Mr Chairman. MR BRINK: Did you discuss the chain of command relating to the giving of the orders to kill, you see, because your evidence was that at that stage, you were told by Du Plessis to do it, because he had told you that Colonel Snyman had told him to do it. I presume now, you are out of the Police Force, there is no question of rank to be concerned about, you are all in concave so to speak and you would then presumably go to Colonel Snyman and say Colonel who gave you the instruction? MR VAN ZYL: I have never had the opportunity to speak to Colonel Snyman personally, unfortunately Mr Chairman, I spoke to Major Du Plessis. MR BRINK: So Colonel Snyman didn't take part in the discussions which you held prior to your making application for amnesty? MR VAN ZYL: Not when we met with the others, no sir. MR BRINK: So did you never meet him again after this incident? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I met him once in I think it was November of 1996, there was a meeting at the South African Police College addressed by Police Advocates, the ex-Commissioner of Police, General van der Merwe and about 300 Policemen and Colonel Snyman was there as well. We did not discuss anything in detail at that time. MR BRINK: Was there any reason for that? MR VAN ZYL: It was a meeting to explain to us what the TRC is about and what our rights are and but with no advice to what we should do, we still had to decide for ourselves. MR BRINK: Was that after you had made your application or before you made your application? MR VAN ZYL: That was before. MR BRINK: Just before? MR VAN ZYL: That was just before. MR BRINK: You had obviously been told about the relevant provisions of the Act relating to amnesty? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I have Mr Chairman. MR BRINK: And I paraphrase it, you know one have to establish some sort of order given by one's superior and that sort of thing, to commit a criminal offence? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, it is in that regard that I spoke to Major Du Plessis about. MR BRINK: Now, I want to know, having regard to the fact that Major du Plessis as he then was, had told you that he had had authorization from Colonel Snyman, why you didn't use that opportunity because you had in mind to bring an application for amnesty, why you didn't approach Colonel Snyman in private and say Colonel, who gave you the order or who approved the order which you gave Du Plessis? MR VAN ZYL: I was satisfied that my application as it was, contained the evidence as I remembered it. MR BRINK: Didn't you want to find out more? I mean, after all you have only had Colonel Du Plessis' word that Snyman had authorised this. I am not suggesting that you weren't entitled to believe Colonel Du Plessis, but what I am suggesting to you is that it is strange that you didn't when you had the opportunity, broached the matter with Colonel Snyman to ascertain from whom he received the orders or approval for these murders. MR VAN ZYL: Well, I did not, I do not regard it as strange Mr Chairman. MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps before any re-examination, just place a fact on record for the Committee's purpose and perhaps for everybody else concerned, which may be important in this matter. It may also be important when Colonel Snyman gives evidence. It relates to the reference to the Minister Le Grange. You will recall that in the zero hand grenade incident, in respect of which evidence was given, evidence was given by Colonel Venter and Brigadier Jack Cronje that Minister Le Grange gave the order for that operation. You will recall that evidence and I want to place on record, that that order was given approximately in June 1985 by Minister Le Grange. The relevance of that is that I intend to argue in this matter that where Colonel Snyman and reference was made by Mr Van Zyl about that now, where Mr Snyman is going to testify about the discussion he had with Minister Le Grange during May 1985, and the fact that Minister Le Grange authorised an operation such as zero hand grenades in June 1985, that it indicates that from the government's side there was a concerted effort or a plan or instructions given throughout the country, to operate in this fashion and to do operations in this way. I just want to place that on record Mr Chairman, because I think that is an important fact to take into account and maybe I can just ask Mr Van Zyl, do you know anything about that operation, the instruction of Minister Le Grange to Brigadier Cronje relating to the zero hand grenade incident? MR VAN ZYL: No, Chairperson. ADV DE VILLIERS: Thank you for the opportunity Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DE VILLIERS. ADV DE JAGER: The learned Attorney referred to the incident of Mr Jack, do you recall that incident? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I recall it vaguely, it was during the emergency regulations of 1985. ADV DE JAGER: He said that Mr Jack asked him to put it to you that you intervened and prevented him from being assaulted? MR VAN ZYL: I said that I cannot recall that, what I can remember is that I arrested him during that period of time. I cannot remember that I actually intervened at any assaults. ADV DE JAGER: Can you not recall that you ever intervened at any assaults? MR VAN ZYL: No, I cannot. ADV SANDI: Mr Van Zyl, you said yesterday as well as this morning that when Mr Nieuwoudt mentioned the AK47 story to you, he said he did not even believe it, am I correct? MR VAN ZYL: That was the gist of his report, that is correct. ADV SANDI: Did he say he believed anything else that was being said by these three gentlemen? MR VAN ZYL: He did not comment on anything else that I can remember Mr Chairman. ADV SANDI: He didn't point out to you anything that was said by these three gentlemen or anyone of them which thing he believed? MR VAN ZYL: He obviously did, but only those things that he also knew about Mr Chairman. ADV SANDI: Can you remember any specific thing which he said had been said by one of the three gentlemen which he believed? MR VAN ZYL: No, I cannot Mr Chairman. ADV SANDI: Did you say one of the things Mr Nieuwoudt told you was that one or two of them had offered himself to work as an informer? MR VAN ZYL: I recall that Mr Chairman. ADV SANDI: Mr Nieuwoudt did not believe that one either? MR VAN ZYL: He did not believe that either. ADV SANDI: You mean to say that he did not believe that such an offer was genuine? MR VAN ZYL: That is what I would think Mr Chairman. ADV SANDI: What kind of pressure in those circumstances, could compel a person to offer to become an informer, does this not perhaps suggest that they may have been assaulted to the extent that the offer was made? MR VAN ZYL: It did not happen in my presence Mr Chairman, I cannot speculate on that. There was no sign of assault when I saw them. ADV SANDI: You testified that you had to wait for Mr Du Plessis to contact you and inform you that everything was in order, you had not been detected in the abduction is that correct? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman, which is also the main reason why we only eliminated them the following night and not during the day. ADV SANDI: Would you exclude any opportunity of an assault after Mr Du Plessis had accordingly informed you that your abduction had not been detected, you could proceed with the plan? MR VAN ZYL: There was no assault Mr Chairman. ADV SANDI: Even after Mr Du Plessis had informed you that you had not been detected? MR VAN ZYL: Not in my presence Mr Chairman. ADV SANDI: Lastly, let us talk about the vehicle. Who gave the report that the vehicle was not in a good condition to travel such a long distance? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Nieuwoudt told me that, he had received a report from the askari that had driven that, that is my recollection and that I just on the spur of the moment then said, well, get rid of the vehicle and burn it out if you have to. ADV SANDI: What did Mr Nieuwoudt say that askari had said to him, what exactly did that askari say to Mr Nieuwoudt concerning the condition of the vehicle? MR VAN ZYL: No, they did not go into detail of the problems that the vehicle had, they just said that this vehicle would never get near Tele Bridge and that we should not even attempt the drive of that distance. ADV SANDI: Thank you, thank you Mr Chairman. MR VAN ZYL: Excuse me Mr Chairman, that is what Nieuwoudt told me. ADV SANDI: Yes, but you see the reason why I am asking this question is we have been told that the askaris were not supposed to know that the idea was to eliminate these gentlemen. MR VAN ZYL: It is not the askari who told him that it would not reach Tele Bridge, Nieuwoudt told me that the vehicle would not reach the Lesotho border. The askari just told him that it is in a very bad condition. ADV SANDI: Maybe we can ask the question to Mr Nieuwoudt when he testifies, thank you. MR VAN ZYL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON: Why did you tend not to believe information which was given freely and voluntarily? MR VAN ZYL: Are you referring to the AK47 information Mr Chairman? CHAIRPERSON: Correct. MR VAN ZYL: I don't know, Mr Nieuwoudt said that his impression was that he doubted the information. CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you believe it? MR VAN ZYL: I didn't say that I didn't believe it. We made a note of the address and the name of the people in the house that was given to Mr Nieuwoudt, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Well, did you believe it? MR VAN ZYL: You never know what to believe Mr Chairman, I had no reason to believe or disbelieve it, it had to be investigated. CHAIRPERSON: Where did you stand in relation to that information? Because you can't both disbelieve and believe it? MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not say that Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Well, were are you standing, did you believe it or did you not believe it? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I do not know what my opinion was of the information at the time, as I say it had to be investigated to be proved or disproved. CHAIRPERSON: Was it difficult to believe it? MR VAN ZYL: No. No Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Was it difficult to disbelieve it? MR VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman, it was probably untrue because at the time, there were not many AK47's in this area and it had to be investigated to be proved or disproved. CHAIRPERSON: So in summing it up, that ambivalent and uncertain position you adopted whether to believe it or not to believe it, what do you say will be the reason for you not quite straight away believing it? MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, as I say just to believe something that is unproved, was not our way. It had to be investigated. It had to be taken seriously but it still had to be investigated sir. CHAIRPERSON: You must have found it strange that Nieuwoudt said he didn't believe it without even investigating it? MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall questioning him on it Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Captain Venter told us, I am referring to page 4 of the small bundle, line 23, he says it had been requested that my askaris were to assist the Branch with regard to further interrogation. ADV DE VILLIERS: Mr Chairman, we can't seem to find the page, can you just say that again. CHAIRPERSON: Page 4. ADV DE JAGER: Typed page 190. ADV DE VILLIERS: We found it, thank you Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Captain Venter says it had been requested that my askaris were to assist the Branch with regard to further interrogation and investigation. MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall asking Captain Venter to leave his askaris there to help with the interrogation Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: In fact this would be contrary to your evidence that the askaris were not supposed to help with the interrogation, that is what you testified, am I right? MR VAN ZYL: They had no background to ask anything about the Port Elizabeth area Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: That may be so, I am saying this will be contrary to your evidence? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: He goes on to say and I left them there under the command of Sergeant Van Zyl. Is this a correct statement? MR VAN ZYL: No, I don't agree with that Mr Chairman. He left them there under my command, it is possible, I have conceded that he may have left them there, but I cannot recall asking him to help me question or help Nieuwoudt question the activists, no. CHAIRPERSON: Well, if Captain Venter left them at that place, would they not have remained under your command? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, they would Mr Chairman, that is correct. I am sorry I misunderstood you there. CHAIRPERSON: On the next page, the top thereof, the Commander at Cradock was to take me to Van Zyl, where I was also to meet with my askaris and regain command over them. You agree with that statement? MR VAN ZYL: No, the Commander of Cradock never visited me at that time Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Now, let's leave the Commander of Cradock and get the second leg of the sentence. Where I was to regain my command over the askaris? MR VAN ZYL: No, I don't agree with that Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Though this would be perfectly consistent with the previous sentence which I read to you that he had left the askaris under your command and now he says he is coming back to regain the command? MR VAN ZYL: As I conceded yesterday Mr Chairman, I wasn't sure whether he was there right from the start. So if he arrived again, he obviously regained command over them again. ADV DE JAGER: And if he had been there all the time? MR VAN ZYL: He would have been in command of them, Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: He would have been in command throughout? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairman, of his askaris. CHAIRPERSON: Then the next paragraph, a day or two later we went to Cradock. Now, a day later in the way that you understand the course of events, a day later would be the 9th the abduction having taken place on the 8th, am I right? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: And two days later in the way that you understand the course of events, would be the 10th? MR VAN ZYL: Of course, yes Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: We do know though that while there may be other different versions, you version would be that as far as the 10th is concerned, there were no askaris and there was no Venter, there was no Beeslaar? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: The next paragraph, we had a barbecue and had some drinks. Did you have some drinks? MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, I would never allow drinks at any of my operations. CHAIRPERSON: So in your view, Captain Venter's statement is not correct? MR VAN ZYL: I think he is confusing it with another barbecue and another place Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: But he doesn't seem to be confusing it because he goes on to say and the three captives were with us. MR VAN ZYL: We fed the three captives late morning on the day of the 9th Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Now, he goes on to say that their faces were covered. MR VAN ZYL: Their faces were never covered when I was there. CHAIRPERSON: So again here you disagree with him? MR VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Then he goes on in the same paragraph, Deon Nieuwoudt or Sakkie van Zyl told me that the investigation or interrogation had gone well and that much information had been gained? Did you tell him that? MR VAN ZYL: I do not recall telling him that either Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Well, it could have been Mr Nieuwoudt because he is not sure here himself, but let us look at the last leg of that sentence, where he says that much information had been gained. According to him much information was gained through interrogation. Do you agree with that or do you not agree with that? MR VAN ZYL: Well, in the first place we did not gain any information really Mr Chairman, and in the second place I do not recall that I had said that to him and I cannot say for what reason Deon Nieuwoudt would have told him that, if he had said that to him. CHAIRPERSON: Well, as far as you are concerned, you have problems with that sentence that much information was gained? MR VAN ZYL: I have Mr Chairman. ADV SANDI: Can I ask Mr Van Zyl, why do you say in reply to this question we did not gain any information, didn't you say you were not part of the process of trying to extract any information from them? MR VAN ZYL: Excuse me, are you asking Mr Chairman, if I was part of the interrogation? ADV SANDI: I am trying to understand your answer to the question that is being asked to you by the Chairman. Your answer is as follows: we did not get any information from them. I thought you said this morning that you were not part of that process of trying to get any information and you said maybe you have referred one or two questions through Mr Nieuwoudt? MR VAN ZYL: The fact that I was in charge Mr Chairman, meant that Mr Nieuwoudt would have reported to me what was being said and that is why I say we as a group. I did not mean that I took part in the interrogation all the time and that that meant we, I meant we in the sense that we were there as a team and that Nieuwoudt had reported to me that there was not much information gained. ADV SANDI: Would it not then have been appropriate for you to say according to Mr Nieuwoudt not much information had been obtained? MR VAN ZYL: That would have been more correct Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: If you look at the next paragraph on that same page, the sentence reading later that evening I went along with Beeslaar, back to Glenconnor and the Vlakplaas askaris joined us that evening or the next morning. Let's start first that evening. Again if his evidence is that he came there a day later, it would mean that the askaris joined him the evening of the 9th, if he did come on the 9th? Then that evening would refer to the evening of the 9th, if he did come on the 9th and not on the 10th in other words? MR VAN ZYL: It would seem so Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: To the extent that he is suggesting that the askaris joined him only in the evening, I am going to ask you whether the askaris were there on the evening of the 9th? MR VAN ZYL: No, they were not there Mr Chairman. They left by midday, they were not there that whole afternoon. CHAIRPERSON: So if his evidence is correct that the askaris joined him only in the evening, and yours is also correct that they left mid morning, it could well suggest that the askaris might have gone to some places between they left you and when they joined him in the evening? MR VAN ZYL: That is a possibility Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: And he says or the next morning? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Now, if he was there on the 9th and he speaks of the next morning of the 9th, he would mean the 10th? MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: And according to you the askaris were not there on the 10th? MR VAN ZYL: No, they were not. CHAIRPERSON: Which would be contrary to some of the evidence by the askaris, it would be contrary to the evidence of one or two of the askaris? MR VAN ZYL: I don't know about their evidence Mr Chairman. ADV DE JAGER: Mr Van Zyl, I understand that Joe Mamasela will possibly testify. There is a statement contained which is made by him and no questions were put to you about what he might possibly say, so if he does testify and if he keeps to this declaration, then I think I should ask you a few questions with regard to what he is saying. He says among others that there was an interrogation and that Mr Hashe, it is from page 13 over to page 14, among others that he was in possession of 17 AK47's which was concealed in his sister's house. They are no longer speaking about one AK47, but of 17 AK47's. Did they ever speak about 17 AK47's? MR VAN ZYL: No, I have no knowledge of 17 AK47's. ADV DE JAGER: He continues to say that Mr Koole, was Mr Hashe the older man? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV DE JAGER: That Mr Koole kicked him in the face and that the Warrant Officer Koole kicked him hard in the face, so that there was foam coming out of his mouth. After that everybody assaulted the man by kicking him and jumping on him. MR VAN ZYL: That is very false. What would have been the reason for a whole lot of people to assault him without any reason. ADV DE JAGER: Then he also says that Warrant Officer Koole's clothes were covered with blood as well as his shoes. MR VAN ZYL: That is false. ADV DE JAGER: He says thereafter they went to fetch Mr Godolozi out of the garage and when he saw the condition of Mr Hashe, he said that he would cooperate fully. He said that he would become an informer but initially Lieutenant Nieuwoudt did not want to know anything about this but later he did decide that they would give him a chance and that he would wait a while. MR VAN ZYL: I know nothing about this. ADV DE JAGER: He says then Galela was fetched from the garage. And at that stage Mr Hashe and Godolozi were back in the garage again. I remember that Warrant Officer Koole did not throw Sipho Hashe, how was according to me dead by that stage, throw him in the garage. We started to interrogate Galela, but he did not have a great deal of information, he was the general Secretary of Pebco. Then he says that Beeslaar assaulted Galela by squeezing his testicles and by strangling him. He says that between five o'clock and six o'clock the next afternoon Galela had already died and the other two had died earlier and Galela was placed with them in the garage. Then he says that they remained there that day and that they left the next morning while the bodies remained behind. MR VAN ZYL: That is false Mr Chairman. I do not know what his motives was with this declaration and this detail, but I can say that it is totally false. ADV DE JAGER: If there is evidence, I just wanted to put it to you because this is evidence which could be led at a later stage. CHAIRPERSON: I think I should also draw your attention to what Mr Beeslaar says in his documents, page 78 of the big bundle. He says that is the second paragraph, let us read the first paragraph, the opening sentence thereof where he says, he talks of the following day or a day thereafter. Let's look at the next paragraph which reads it was late in the afternoon already, but the sun was still shining. Captain Venter and I spent a couple of hours at this place and we had a barbecue and we had some drinks. You see, this issue is cropping up again of the braai and some drinks. Now I think it is coming from Mr Beeslaar. MR VAN ZYL: As I said before Mr Chairman, I would not have allowed any drinks at an operation like this, and as I also said they were not there during that afternoon. So I don't agree with that statement sir. CHAIRPERSON: In fact not only does he say that they arrived late afternoon, but he says thereafter they actually spent a few hours? MR VAN ZYL: That was not on that day sir, that did not happen like that. CHAIRPERSON: And he says there were three black people there about five meters away from where we stood and their heads were covered. I assumed that it was for identification purposes. MR VAN ZYL: I cannot see what his point is there Mr Chairman. When we fed them it was late morning, and I cannot see why their heads would have to be covered, because we knew who they were and if they were standing around with their heads covered, surely they would have sat somewhere. CHAIRPERSON: But one would also wonder why he would say so, that their heads were covered, especially if two people say that? MR VAN ZYL: Well, their heads were never covered in my presence Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: And in the next paragraph he says he tried to speak with them and then he says I kicked of these prisoners on their bodies. MR VAN ZYL: That did not happen in my presence Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Well, he says you were five meters away? MR VAN ZYL: Not in my presence I am sorry, Mr Chairman, that did not happen. CHAIRPERSON: I would regard, if these people were assaulted five meters away, you were only five meters away, I would say that you were present. MR VAN ZYL: If I was present, I would have seen that Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: You denied emphatically the question of assault. Are you aware that there was a tendency on the part of members of the Security Branch to assault the detainees? MR VAN ZYL: I know of it, yes Mr Chairman. ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just in respect of what you put out of the affidavit perhaps just make one or two points clear which will be cleared up in evidence by Mr Beeslaar, in respect of what you put out of his affidavit. The one aspect that I would want to make clear about the evidence that he will give is he says ... (intervention) CHAIRPERSON: As long as you don't interpret what stands there because it is for the witness to come and testify about that. ADV DU PLESSIS: No, if you will allow me to, to put what he is going to testify in amplification. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can tell us, as long as you don't interpret. ADV DU PLESSIS: No, interpretation, it will be evidence Mr Chairman. Just for record purposes towards Mr Van Zyl in all fairness towards him and towards you as well, the important point that I want to make is with reference to the kick where he says I kicked some of the prisoners on the bodies. His evidence will that it was one kick and that he did that to attract the attention of that specific person, because he wanted to speak to him. That will be his evidence. CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter what his explanation is, the fact is that he says he kicked them. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, yes, there is no denial about that. I just wanted to place it in context Mr Chairman, thank you. CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, repeat what you told us. ADV DU PLESSIS: His evidence will be that he kicked the person once, because he wanted to attract his attention to speak to him. He couldn't attract his attention otherwise, because his head was covered. CHAIRPERSON: Mr Du Plessis, I read the sentence to say I kicked some of these prisoners. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I am just saying to you what his evidence will be and obviously he can be asked questions about that. But that is what his evidence will be. ADV SANDI: That seems to be an interesting way of attracting people's attention when you want to speak with them. MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I do not know whether I am expected to testify now. ADV SANDI: You don't have to respond do that. ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, he will testify and I am sure he will be able to answer the questions. CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Villiers, do you have questions in re- examination? ADV DE VILLIERS: I have no questions Mr Chairman, thank you. NO FURTHER EXAMINATION BY ADV DE VILLIERS. ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just be permitted, there are just certain aspects that I just want to put as what my clients will say with regard to a certain aspect which I just want Mr Van Zyl's comment on and which I have omitted to put to him. CHAIRPERSON: Why did you omit to put them to him Mr Lamey? ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, it is with regard to the radio in the vehicle, which I have taken instructions after that and then also with regard to photographs that were shown to my clients. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you mean you left them through an oversight. ADV LAMEY: May I proceed Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Did you omit putting those questions to him when you had the opportunity to do so, through an oversight on your part? ADV LAMEY: Yes, I have also taken subsequent instructions after his evidence to clear these things up and I have been supplied, but I have also omitted another aspect in view of an oversight from my part. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, try to cover aspects Mr Lamey, because there is so many legal representatives here and if each time we have to go back again and again, we will start moving in a circle, we will never finish. ADV LAMEY: I will be very brief Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can do that. FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV LAMEY: Mr Van Zyl, I would like to place it on record very briefly that it is also the two applicants for whom I appear here, it is their version, that they were blindfolded on the way to the old police station and that the blindfolds were only removed at some stage at the police station and during interrogation? I want your answer to that please? MR VAN ZYL: I can't recall seeing them blindfolded. ADV LAMEY: So your answer is that you can't recall? MR VAN ZYL: I never saw them with blindfolds on, if they were blindfolded in the minibus, I wouldn't have known about that. ADV LAMEY: No, but the point is that they arrived there wearing these blindfolds and after they got out of the vehicle and were interrogated at the old police station? MR VAN ZYL: I didn't see that, I can't recall seeing that. ADV LAMEY: So you simply can't recall that? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: You said that there was a radio in the vehicle, that the askaris used? MR VAN ZYL: I said that we were in radio contact with each other. ADV LAMEY: Yes, that is the point that I want to clarify. Is it possible that you were in contact with anybody else, because my information is that they didn't have radios in the cars? MR VAN ZYL: I don't know what the position was with the radios in the cars, but as far as I can recall Sergeant Lotz took the askaris from Glenconnor to the airport and he had a radio in his car, or a hand held radio. ADV LAMEY: Do you say that Lotz was in the car with them on the way to the airport? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. That is how I recall it. ADV LAMEY: Now my instructions are that that is not the case, but that one or two of the white men were in the vehicle with them on the way to the airport, but that they drove to the airport themselves and on the way to the airport there were only these three askaris in the car. It was only after the departure from the airport that one white person entered the vehicle. MR VAN ZYL: That is not how I recall it. Sergeant Lotz was supposed to have fetched them from Glenconnor to show them where the airport was and where our rendezvous would have been near the airport. ADV LAMEY: My instructions are further that no photographs were shown to the askaris specifically relating to the identity of the Pebco 3. MR VAN ZYL: As far as I can recall, we gave photographs to Captain Venter to show to them. ADV LAMEY: Did you give it to Captain Venter? MR VAN ZYL: Yes. ADV LAMEY: You don't know whether he gave it to them? MR VAN ZYL: No. ADV LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV LAMEY. CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Villiers did you want to re-examine or put questions in the light of Mr Lamey's questions? ADV DE VILLIERS: I have no questions Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DE VILLIERS. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van Zyl, you may stand down. MR VAN ZYL: Thank you Mr Chairman. WITNESS EXCUSED. ADV DE VILLIERS 220 J M VAN ZYL PORT ELIZABETH HEARING AMNESTY/EASTERN CAPE ADV BOOYENS 247 J M VAN ZYL ADV DU PLESSIS 255 J M VAN ZYL ADV LAMEY 313 J M VAN ZYL ADV NYOKA 358 J M VAN ZYL MS HARTLE 387 J M VAN ZYL MR BRINK 392 J M VAN ZYL 412 COMMITTEE J M VAN ZYL