Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR J VAN ZYL: That is what I am telling you.  I cannot recall that this conversation took place.  If I had spoken to him, the facts which he is relating are not completely correct and I cannot remember that I actually put it to him in that way.

UNKNOWN: Is is possible that you told Mr de Kock that you had personally shot him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot say whether that is possible, I cannot say why I would have done it.  I cannot even think why I would have twisted the names.

UNKNOWN: Let us take this point for point.
	What is in Mr de Kock's statement, and you can tell me what is correct and what is not correct.  I am referring to page 256 of the handout.  Mr de Kock states that he took over - do you have it before you?

MR J VAN ZYL: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: Is it possible?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible.

UNKNOWN: He thinks that your rank at that stage was Captain and he knew that you were stationed in Port Elizabeth.
	Is that correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes that is Sir.

UNKNOWN: Then he says that you contacted him at Vlakplaas.  You wanted to know if he had contact with the Ballistic Unit of the South African Police, seeing as he had some problems, did you say that to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall that.

UNKNOWN: Why can you not recall that, Mr van Zyl?

MR J VAN ZYL: Because the conversation might have taken place it was just a very long time ago and I cannot recall whether we spoke of this.

UNKNOWN: Is it possible that you did require assistance from the Ballistic Unit of the South African Police?

MR J VAN ZYL: That could be so.

UNKNOWN: You required assistance from the Ballistic Unit?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: Then Mr de Kock says that Van Zyl told me that he was having problems with a rifle that he had used in an operation.  Is that so?  Can you recall that?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, but it is possible.

UNKNOWN: I beg your pardon?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I cannot recall this from memory.

UNKNOWN: Is it possible that Mr de Kock is correct when he says this?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.

UNKNOWN: Mr de Kock states that you wanted the Ballistic characteristics to be altered.  Is that correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible.

UNKNOWN: Then he goes further to say that he told you that he did not have a contact and he proposed that you dispose of the firearm in the sea.  Is that correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is possible.

UNKNOWN: And your answer was that there were approximately 120 of these firearms in the country and that it belonged to a very good friend of yours.

MR J VAN ZYL: I don't know.  I am not certain, it is possible that I said this.

UNKNOWN: Now is this correct in terms of the objective facts?

MR J VAN ZYL: Well, I do not know about the 120 firearms.  All that I can surmise is that I licensed the rifle to myself.

UNKNOWN: You see, the problem I have Mr van Zyl, is that in terms of the objective facts, this is not correct.
	What you are saying is not correct.  And then you proceed to say that it could be true.  That you said to Mr de Kock.  So why are you dishing up false facts about Mr de Kock.

MR J VAN ZYL: I don't know.  Perhaps that could have been the manner in which we would have conversed.  I cannot say whether or not we did this.

UNKNOWN: Well, I have a problem because you told us earlier on that he was a confidant of yours and that you trusted him with sensitive information, so why would you have told him lies?

MR J VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I do not believe that I said what he says that I said.

UNKNOWN: Wait a minute.  We will come to that matter later.
	You said earlier that it was possible that you had said to Mr de Kock that there were 120 firearms.  Now I am asking you  why are you lying to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: Perhaps I wanted to place him under a different impression.

UNKNOWN: Why would you want to do that?

MR J VAN ZYL: Perhaps because I didn't want him to know the whole truth.

UNKNOWN: I beg your pardon?

MR J VAN ZYL: Because I didn't want him to know the whole truth.

UNKNOWN: Let us see which other lies you dished up for him.
	In the following paragraph, Mr de Kock states that later on in the year I met van Zyl in Pretoria, or it could have been when I was in Port Elizabeth.  Is that true?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes it is possibly true.  We met each other over that time period.  I cannot remember exactly when.

UNKNOWN: But you did meet each other again later in that specific year.  Perhaps we should just achieve some clarity.  Are we speaking of 1985?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Would you like to place that into a specific time context?  The date when this conversation could have taken place.

MR J VAN ZYL: I have no idea.

UNKNOWN: Which month?

MR J VAN ZYL: I do not know.

UNKNOWN: Then Mr de Kock says that you personally informed him of the fact that you were in charge of an operation when Goniwe and others were abducted.
	What do you say of that?  Is this correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Mr de Kock goes on to say that you informed him that you and your people were personally involved in the operation.
	Did you say that to him.?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is possible.

UNKNOWN: Then he says that you told him that you had ambushed Goniwe and the others and abducted them.  Is that correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is possible.

UNKNOWN: He says that Van Zyl told me that...

MR J VAN ZYL: Let us just stop there.  I don't understand the word "taken"...

UNKNOWN: Well, you understand the language that you used as part of the Security Police.  It could have meant abducted or taken.

MR J VAN ZYL: I am not certain.

UNKNOWN: So Mr de Kock made an error and you wouldn't have told him.  Is it possible that you could have said this to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, it is possible.

UNKNOWN: Mr de Kock also says that you saw him in a yellow vehicle.
	What do you say of that?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.

UNKNOWN: You said this to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I told him that I had a yellow vehicle at the time.

UNKNOWN: Well, if Mr de Kock  when he says that you told him that you put him in a yellow vehicle.  Mr de Kock is therefore making an error here?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Then Mr de Kock says that you told him that the vehicle had belonged to the Security Police.  Did you say that?

MR J VAN ZYL: He must have assumed this.

UNKNOWN: No, Mr van Zyl, that is not the question.

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall whether I said that to him.

UNKNOWN: If Mr de Kock were to say it, would you deny it?

MR J VAN ZYL: I would not.

UNKNOWN: Then Mr de Kock proceeds to say that when you told him of the incident, you also told them that you were quite surprised when Goniwe struggled and fought back.  Did you say this?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall this exactly, so it is possible.

UNKNOWN: Did you tell him this or not?  This is your version, the version you have been presenting to the Committee yesterday and today.  It could be another lie that you have dished up for Mr de Kock.
	Why are you lying to him again?  Mr Chairperson, the witness says "if" I said it to him.  That's very far from a denial.  Well let me ask you again.  If Mr de Kock says that that is was you said, what would you say of that?

MR J VAN ZYL: That it is possible that I said it.

UNKNOWN: So you are saying that it is possible that you told him this?
	Now I ask you once again, why if you are saying that it is possible that you said it, are you lying to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot say why I would have done it then, Mr Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: Then Mr de Kock says that during the struggle, Goniwe almost managed to take Van Zyl's weapon.  Did you say this to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall.

UNKNOWN: Well, let me ask you again.  If Mr de Kock says that you did say this?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, it is possible.

UNKNOWN: Once again, is this a lie that you have told to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is correct.