Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-15

MR WILLIAMS: I just want to refer you to Bundle B, page 51, paragraph 15, the seventh line from the bottom.  The sentence reads as follows
"... they told me that I should deny everything about the bomb explosion, otherwise I would go to prison alone."
	My statement to you is, my question to you is did they tell you that you will go to jail alone, or words to that effect?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR WILLIAMS: The statement specifically says that they told you to deny everything about the bombing incident, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I told you they told me to deny my involvement with the CCB and projects.  I told Gen Badenhorst with regard to the bomb explosion project, therefore I cannot recall that they specifically told me "don't admit to the bomb explosion, or don't admit to that", they said deny all my projects.

MR WILLIAMS: I can understand if you tell me that your memory today, or that your memory ten years ago was better than it would be today?   At the time when you made the statement, you had a better recollection of what occurred than you have today, is that so?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR WILLIAMS: Would you concede then that at the time when the statement was made, that it was made because you remembered the specifics of what had occurred?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR WILLIAMS: And that is why you specifically included the word "bomb explosion"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It may be.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLIAMS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Williams.  Mr Hockey, would you like to ask any questions of Mr van Zyl?

MR HOCKEY: Yes, thank you Mr Chairperson.  I've got very few questions, most of the questions that I would have liked to ask, has been exhausted.  I must just say for the record that the statements made by both Mr Williams and Mr Kahanovitz, I stand by those statements and we have heard your responses to that.  That is in respect of what really happened, specifically in respect of the bombing incident.
	My instructions relate only to the bombing incident, however, just in clarification I've got one or two questions relating to the Tutu incident.
	My first question in that regard, Mr van Zyl, is your evidence in respect of the Tutu incident, is that you received an instruction to hang up a monkey foetus on the premises of Bishop Tutu, is that right?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR HOCKEY: Were you instructed or was it one of your projects to monitor Bishop Tutu?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Not at all.

MR HOCKEY: So before you received this instruction to hang up a money foetus at his place of residence, did you have any other dealings with Bishop Tutu?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR HOCKEY: Did you go to his place where he lives, at any stage?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR HOCKEY: Was it the first time that you went to his premises the night that you, is it so that the first time that you went to his premises, was on the night that the monkey foetus was hung up in the tree, on his premises?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I believe so, because I did not even know where it was, Peaches took us there.

MR HOCKEY: So is it your evidence that you did not know where it was?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, my evidence is, yes, I think we can accept it as such.

MR HOCKEY: Did you know in which area he lived?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Bishops Court.

MR HOCKEY: Can I just refer you to Bundle B, on page 34.  	You talk here about this monkey foetus and I am going to read out to you, if you want to follow, it is about the eleventh line from the bottom of paragraph 63.  I will start with "I decided that Ferdi Barnard would accompany us", have you got that?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR HOCKEY: And the very next sentence reads that
"... I knew where Desmond Tutu lived."
	This is your statement, Mr van Zyl?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR HOCKEY: Quite clearly you knew where he lived?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I did not know where his residence was, I knew he lived in Bishops Court, but I didn't know where his house was.

MR HOCKEY: You don't say in your statement that you asked Peaches to lead you to his place, you quite clearly say that "I knew where Desmond Tutu lived".

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I did not know, he took me there.

MR HOCKEY: We will argue about that later, but the interpretation is quite clear for me.  In paragraph 64 you say
"... usually there were guards ...",
	I will start at the beginning of the paragraph.
"... at a house which I knew as that belonging to Desmond Tutu, we stopped."

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.
MR HOCKEY
"... at a house which I knew ..."?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Which was identified to me as Tutu's house.

MR HOCKEY: Please Mr van Zyl.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: May I answer the question?

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, can the witness answer the question?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: We arrived at the house, we drove around the house because we had to make sure whether there were guards and so forth and so forth, and the house was identified to me as Tutu's house, and it is in that context that I said it.  I have never been at his house.

MR HOCKEY: Please Mr van Zyl - "the house which I knew as that of Desmond Tutu"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I deny that.

MR HOCKEY: Do you deny that, in your statement you say that you knew that house as Desmond Tutu's?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I am telling you that that evening was the first time that I went to Tutu's house.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but going to, when you say you are going to somebody's house, it might have been the first time you actually entered the house, but had you been in the street outside the house?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I knew that Bishop Tutu lived in Bishops Court.  Never before had I been to that house Chairperson, until that evening.

MR HOCKEY: You also say that you know that there were security guards at that premises?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Because when we arrived there, we did not just stop and climb over the fence, we first  had a look at the house to see what the house looked like, where the entrances were and where the security guards were.

MR HOCKEY: Now, how do you know that there are usually security guards on the premises?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: There is a security gate, there is a little hut for guards.

MR HOCKEY: Did you see that for the first time that evening?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR HOCKEY: Now why do you say that usually there are security guards on that premises?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It is an inference I drew.

MR HOCKEY: I will read to you what you say
"... usually there were guards, but this particular evening I didn't see any guards."
	That is also in paragraph 64 of your statement, sir.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It may be.

MR HOCKEY: I am just putting it to you that there is a clear contradiction in what you say here in this statement, and what you are testifying today.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I differ.

MR HOCKEY: Sir, just in respect of the time factor, your evidence is that the bomb at the Early Learning Centre exploded nine o'clock, give or take five minutes?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is my evidence.

MR HOCKEY: In other words, it could be five to nine, it could be five past nine?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR HOCKEY: Now, as an ex-policeman sir, you know that police officers normally record the times when important events take place?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is true.

MR HOCKEY: As it appears to be in this case, it can be a very, very important fact of evidence, right?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR HOCKEY: Now, the bomb expert that was called to the incident on that evening, clearly states that he was called, he was called at ten to nine the evening?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR HOCKEY: Five minutes before your discretionary period?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Very well.

MR HOCKEY: Do you accept that you could be wrong when you say that that bomb went off at nine o'clock, give or take five minutes either way?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It is possible.

MR HOCKEY: Could you have made a mistake, that it could have gone off half an hour earlier?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I doubt that.