Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR J VAN ZYL: Not that I can recall.

UNKNOWN: Well, Mr van Zyl, what do you mean when you say "not that you can recall"?  Is it possible that there was talk of this kind of thing.

MR J VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairperson, Mr Winter had no knowledge of this incident.

UNKNOWN: That's not the question.
	The question is whether Mr Winter, to the best of your knowledge, ever threatened Mr Lotz with death if he discussed the incident again.

MR J VAN ZYL: No.

UNKNOWN: So it never happened.

MR J VAN ZYL: Not in my presence.

UNKNOWN: And then De Kock says that you told him that if he, I'm assuming that this refers to Mr Lotz, if he would ever discuss the incident, well let's proceed to something else.  It's my memory that Van Zyl said that Lotz was still in prison.  Did you say this, that Winter was still drunk at that stage.  Is this true?  What is your memory?
	Is that once again also possible, or do you exclude it completely?

MR J VAN ZYL: I never heard Mr Winter threaten anybody with death.

UNKNOWN: That's once again the objective facts.  So therefore Mr de Kock is once again making an error?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Then Mr de Kock says that Sakkie van Zyl was very worried about the weapon and once again repeated that it came from his best friend.
	What do you say to that?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible.

UNKNOWN: That you said it to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Once again, in terms of the objective facts, if we have to accept your evidence and testimony today, another lie which you have told to Mr de Kock.

MR J VAN ZYL: It would appear as such.

UNKNOWN: And this is the second time that you present a lie to Mr de Kock.

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes that is so.

UNKNOWN: So why did you do it?

MR J VAN ZYL: I think it is just the way in which we discussed it at that time.

UNKNOWN: Then Mr de Kock says that a day or two after the incident, "we left for the Moyat Islands in the Comores" where you were going to dive...

MR J VAN ZYL: I think it was much later than a day or two that I went to the Comores.

UNKNOWN: That might have been so.  Would you like to say how much later it was that you went to the Comores.

MR J VAN ZYL: I would say it wasn't a day or two, it was rather a week or two after the incident.

UNKNOWN: Then he says that apparently you were there for 14 days  and that you informed him that General Krappies Engelbrecht took over the investigation.  Did you say that to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is possible, Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: And is that in line with the objective facts, to the best of your knowledge?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is correct, although it was only in 1988 that I was informed that General Krappies Engelbrecht had taken over the investigation.  I do not know exactly when before that it was that he took over.  But I do know that Eric Taylor informed me in 1988 that General Krappies Engelbrecht was involved with the investigation.

UNKNOWN: Well, could you just tell us for interest sake how it occurred that General Engelbrecht took over the investigation?

MR J VAN ZYL: I think during that stage General Engelbrecht was still involved with murder and robbery and head office in Pretoria.  I do not know where he was during 1988.  Taylor phoned me to inform me that General Engelbrecht was in Port Elizabeth and that he would be investigating the matter.

UNKNOWN: Did General Engelbrecht ever liaise with you regarding the issue?

MR J VAN ZYL: I met him later for the first time in Pretoria.  That was during 1988 and General Engelbrecht spoke to me about the matter.

UNKNOWN: Well, what did he say to you?

MR J VAN ZYL: General Engelbrecht told me that he was investigating the matter and that I was a suspect in the matter.

UNKNOWN: That you were a suspect?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Why would he have said that to you?  Where did he obtain this information?

MR J VAN ZYL: I though he was trying to bluff me and I denied it.

UNKNOWN: But why on earth would General Engelbrecht try to bluff you by saying that you were a suspect in the matter.
	What would he achieve through this?

MR J VAN ZYL: Perhaps he had information at that time and regarding the case, and he might have been trying to catch me with it.

UNKNOWN: Are you saying that there might have been information which General Engelbrecht had at his disposal which indicated that you were involved in the incident.

MR J VAN ZYL: I didn't know at that stage.  But I know that he was already in Port Elizabeth, and I wasn't sure which information he had acquired.

UNKNOWN: Might I just ask you  you know in terms of your version you received orders from the higher levels of the hierarchy.  Why didn't you tell General Engelbrecht that this was a security operation, I was involved in it and that is how it happened.

MR J VAN ZYL: That is not how we would have done it.  General Engelbrecht - I didn't even know whether he was involved in the Security Branch at that stage and for quite some time I was no longer involved with the police, so I didn't know what the actual situation was and I was not in a position to speak to him directly.

UNKNOWN: The final aspect of this discussion between you and Mr de Kock was that he took over all the traffic offence fines which were issued on the yellow police vehicle.
	Is that true?

MR J VAN ZYL: I  cannot recall that I said that to Mr de Kock, but that was objective and it might well have happened.

UNKNOWN: I would just like to return to the beginning of your statement  on page 42 of the bundle.
	Item 3, you say per address Advocate McAdam of the Witness Protection Programme.  Now can you explain to us how it came about that you were in a Witness Protection Programme?

MR J VAN ZYL: Advocate McAdam suggested that I write down the address as such in this application.

UNKNOWN: Are you under witness protection?

MR J VAN ZYL: For the Truth and Reconciliation, yes.

UNKNOWN: I don't want the particulars, but can I ask you how it came about that you became part of this programme.

MR J VAN ZYL: Advocate McAdam and one or two policemen asked me if I wanted to be in this Witness Protection Programme, meaning that during these Amnesty Hearings, I would receive protection from them, and I did not think that this would be to my disadvantage.  I agreed to it.

UNKNOWN: Is there any particular reason why you thought it was necessary for you to be in this programme?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.  I am applying for several misdemeanours, offences and I have no doubt that in spite of the fact that I might receive amnesty, that I will surely be a potential target.  I don't think this is unrealistic.

UNKNOWN: If I remember your testimony correctly, you applied for three incidents.   A person you killed in 1980.  And then the Pebco Three incident and then the current incident.

MR J VAN ZYL: That's correct.
	I never said that I only applied for three.  Mr Bizos asked me about the incidents where there was loss of life.  I have applied for four incidents.  The fourth incident is an incident where myself and Mr de Kock were involved where the building of the UDF was damaged.  It is a community building in Cape Town.

UNKNOWN: Now, when was this?

MR J VAN ZYL: I think it was 1987, Mr Chairperson '87 or '88.

UNKNOWN: And now you resigned from the Security Police and you train the SAP Special Forces.  What is this Special Forces that you joined?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chair, what does it matter - how relevant is it if he joined the CIA or the Defence Force or Special Forces.  He joined up with in 1986, after this incident.  I have a problem with the relevancy of this.