Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-13

MR VAN ZYL: I think that's a logical inference to draw.

UNKNOWN: Now you go on to say in paragraph 74 at page B38, that on the same day that you received your instructions to monitor Lubowski, the ones we've just referred to, the Early Learning Centre was also discussed.  This is at page 38, paragraph 74, you say
"I was informed by Staal Burger, I think it was on Monday, 28th of August 1989, that my project regarding the Early Learning Centre was approved for execution by myself and Isgak.  I had already before this date or proposed an in-house on the project at the Millpark Holiday Inn.  It was the day on which I received instructions to monitor Lubowski."
So on the same day that you obtained the instructions to monitor Lubowski, you were told that - sorry, let me rephrase that, on the same day that you received your instructions to monitor Lubowski, the in-house was held in relation to the Early Learning Centre.

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: Which was discussed first and which was discussed second?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall in what sequence, I would suppose that the project was presented firstly there, the ELC one.

UNKNOWN: You carry on in paragraph 74, B38, to say
"During the in-house, Staal Burger, Joe Verster, Christo Britz and myself were present in the hotel room."
Now do I take it these are all the people who were present for the in-house in relation to the Early Learning Centre?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, yes.

UNKNOWN: Now regarding this in-house, I want to know if the following issues were discussed, and please tell us in each case who this issue was raised by and what was said.  Did you discuss at this meeting whether the information that you had obtained could be used in a prosecution?

MR VAN ZYL: No, not that I can recall.

UNKNOWN: Did you discuss whether your informant would be prepared to reveal his identity?

MR VAN ZYL: No.

UNKNOWN: It wouldn't have been necessary because you told them who your informant was, I assume, that he was Gakkie.

MR VAN ZYL: But now you refer to his identity, disclose identity to whom, to the police?

UNKNOWN: Well to the police, yes.

MR VAN ZYL: No, definitely not.

UNKNOWN: You didn't discuss it?

MR VAN ZYL: No, we didn't.

UNKNOWN: Right.  Did you discuss whether the suspected terrorists, whether it would not be possible to detain them under the emergency regulations or the Internal Security Act?

MR VAN ZYL: Not that I can recall.

UNKNOWN: Did you discuss at the in-house, whether the venue might be bugged and the information obtained by this process used to justify the arrest or detention of the suspected terrorists?

MR VAN ZYL: No.

UNKNOWN: Did you discuss whether the owners of the building might not be approached to warn them that the Kewtown youth were using their premises for criminal activities and to request them to bar the Kewton youth from using these premises in the future?

MR VAN ZYL: No.

UNKNOWN: Did you discuss whether it was not maybe stupid to bomb a building to prevent further acts of terror, in circumstances when it must have been obvious that the terrorists would, if the hall was destroyed, merely move their planning operations elsewhere?

MR VAN ZYL: We felt at that stage that if the hall was destroyed, that this would have disruptive consequences and as I state in my statement, it would have a disruptive consequence for the persons who were using it and secondly, it would focus the attention of the police on the hall and then with their high profile investigations they could possibly execute some arrests with regard to the persons who used that hall, because they could have drawn the inference that it was their own bomb that was used and so forth.  I say these things in my statement.

UNKNOWN: I'm just asking you, did anyone at the meeting say "Look maybe this isn't such a brilliant idea to bomb a hall to prevent terrorists from meeting there in the future", did anybody raise that at the meeting?  I'm not asking about your statements, I'm asking you about the meeting.

MR VAN ZYL: No, not that I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr van Zyl, this letter written by Chris Ferndale, it's really hard evidence.  I mean here you've got a letter written by a person saying these people, and there's a list of names you can't remember, have been involved in bombing and they intend carrying out further bombings in the future, that is hard strong good evidence, evidence that is very unusual I should imagine, that you get something in writing containing those sort of admissions.  Evidence which could result in probably a very short case and a conviction and probably evidence that would have greater effect in disrupting the activities of that group, than a limpet mine in the hall.  Did they not even discuss using that letter as evidence?

MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I agree with you entirely, with your argument, but you have to understand that we were a covert organisation and that although there must have been liaison as it was presented to us, with other structures, other security structures in the Force, I had the impression that when projects are given to us we have to execute it by ourselves and that our information would not necessarily be given over to other Forces, for example the SAP, so they could deal with it, it was something that we kept to ourselves.  I do concede that there was a more effective method under the circumstances, to have dealt with that information but it was not done as such because within our system we handled that intelligence as we thought best at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Kahanovitz.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.
	Now Mr van Zyl, we know that the CCB had a mandate to fight fire with fire as it were, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: And you had a mandate to kill people, it was on the agenda.  In appropriate circumstances you could kill people.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Right.  Now surely at the in-house you would have discussed whether it would not maybe be far more effective to explode the bomb while the Kewtown youth were meeting, so that you might kill or injure some of these terrorists.

MR VAN ZYL: No, it was not discussed, we specifically still mentioned that earlier the evening there would have been a karate class at this hall and it specifically told to me to ascertain that no children were to be present in the hall when the explosion took place.  So in other words, we took precautionary measures to try to limit loss of life and injuries.  We did not want to go and kill these people, I think if we wanted to do it we could have done it in another manner that might have been more effective.

UNKNOWN: Sorry, are you saying the possibility of killing these people, these terrorists, was discussed or it wasn't discussed?

MR VAN ZYL: It was not discussed.

UNKNOWN: You see I would have thought that in the kind of world in which you were operating that - according to you, you now have hard evidence, that here's this group of terrorists who bombed people in the past and are going to bomb them in the future, to me it would seem to me to be the logical and obvious thing that would be discussed at a CCB meeting concerning people like that, is "Shouldn't we kill them?"

MR VAN ZYL: That is the inference that you draw, it was not so.

UNKNOWN: It was never discussed.

MR VAN ZYL: No.

UNKNOWN: But you'll agree with me you wouldn't have to kill them at that meeting at that time.  Forget about the karate class, you could have formulated a plan to kill these people at some other place at some other time.

MR VAN ZYL: There was no such discussion.

UNKNOWN: Do you have any idea why your superiors were so against killing these people?

MR VAN ZYL: No.

UNKNOWN: You'll agree with me they'd be the kind of people that your superiors might have thought it's a good idea to kill. - terrorists.

MR VAN ZYL: Please repeat the question.