Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-17

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Because I think it would not have been logical to me that a seven year old daughter or a son would have to be killed because there is not logic in it, that such a person could have been a risk for the State.

MR LAX: The simple question I'm putting to you is based on this assumption.  Either you obeyed orders or you exercised your own discretion.  If you exercised your own discretion as you say you would have done because you're then challenging the very thesis of the instruction.  You know, either it's not for you to reason why or but for you to do and die, or it is for you to reason why in which case in the very basis upon which your reasoning works is challengeable by everybody present in the sense that we need to then examine what your thought process was and why you arrived to certain conclusions in which case it's also logical that to simply rely on person X being identified as a target isn't good enough, if you follow the logic?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I understand your logic, I understand your point you're trying to make but I differ with it, with respect.  I am saying that I accepted it bona fide that the targets that I am applying for here were well and properly identified target persons or target premises and I would have, as a result of I won't say my discretion but as a result of my logic.  I would not just obey an order blindly and kill a seven year old child when such an instruction is given to me, I would refuse to do it.
	I would please like to mention to you that after I returned from my vacation just before I quit in October 1989, we were told that no project will continue because - the Regional Manager, Burger, told us this, no project will continue because Mr F W de Klerk then had just taken over as State President from Mr P W Botha and it was then said that Mr F W de Klerk has not yet been informed about the existence of our structure and before that has been done no operational execution could be given to the project.  
	During those meetings I told them that it does not make sense to me, there was a stage when a monkey foetus was given to me to go and hang on the premises of Archbishop Tutu and now Mr F W de Klerk is coming and he says in his speech that he will be talking to the ANC and other people and banned organisations, and then I said that Bishop Tutu cannot be a target of this organisation any more.  And I'm saying this to you, that was my discretion and I mentioned this discretion pertinently to Burger on that day.  I may have discretion and an opinion irrespective of whether I'm obeying orders or not.  I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khanovitz?

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, but the crucial point, and you agree with this, you have a discretion, you exercise a moral choice in relation to the example of the seven year old child, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KHANOVITZ: There's no difference between the seven year old child and the name that you are given of a 30 year old adult in circumstances where you know next to nothing about that adult?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No Sir, I differ.  I do beg to differ.  You cannot in our context of warfare compare a seven year old child to any adult, whether it be Evans or whoever it was.  I do differ with you.

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, the principle is exactly the same in the sense that you personally as an individual exercising a moral choice had no idea as to why that person whose name was given to you on the list deserved to die?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I've told you, in Mr Evans' case it was known to me that he was a member of the ECC and we all know what the ECC did.  Are you aware of what they did?

MR LAX: But what did they do?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: They were an institution that was opposing the Defence Force.  They for example advised persons not to report for military duty and not to attend their military service and that was a thorn in the flesh of the Defence Force.  I think Mr Evans was detained at some stage because of his involvement there.

MR LAX: Did they commit any acts of violence, other than going to jail?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No that I know of.

MR KHANOVITZ: But Mr van Zyl, your version boils down to this.  If you are given a name of any adult and let's not use the F W de Klerk examples, you don't know who this person is, you've never even heard of them before, you're given the name, as far as you're concerned that person is a legitimate target, it's been through the structures, it must be right?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR KHANOVITZ: But Mr van Zyl, but then at the end of the day I'm submitting to the Commission that you're basically agreeing to kill that person for money?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is not so, not at all.  I shall say, Chairperson, that someone who kills a person for money, it could not be at my level and it could be at the level of the unaware member, someone like Peaches, someone like Isgak.  These are persons who would have killed Mr Omar for money, these are persons who would have planted a bomb for money, who were involved or endeavoured to kill Mr Evans for money.  I am not in that category, money was not the issue with me.

MR KHANOVITZ: I'll get to that later Mr van Zyl.  Can I refer you to page 117 of bundle A, your amnesty application?

MR SIBANYONI: Maybe before you ask that question.
	Mr van Zyl, would you say money influenced people to join the CCB?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I think it was a small considering factor for me because I earned a better salary in the CCB than what I had earned in the SAP, but I did not join the CCB exclusively for money.  I had committed no act within the CCB for a monetary motive, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, before you proceed, did everybody get that missing page, 112 the way it's been marked?  We were handed it this morning, if you haven't got then I'm sure we'd be able to get it from Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just before we started the proceedings this morning I gave everyone a copy.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Khanovitz?

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, just read to yourself, you don't need to read it aloud.  Paragraph 58 of your amnesty application which is really the statement which you handed in to the Harms Commission.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I have read it, Chairperson.

MR KHANOVITZ: You'll notice just as the timing of the making of this statement this is fairly soon after the event before the Harms Commission had commenced and before you knew that there was going to be an amnesty process and what the criteria for amnesty were, do you agree with me?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Just for the record, the 18th March 1990.

MR KHANOVITZ: You'll also agree with me that the version that you set out in relation to the person that you referred to as Michael Evans is that
"It's not my project, it's Maria's project"
and you make no mention whatsoever of Mr Evans' political profile, in fact you set out no reason whatsoever for why Mr Evans has to be eliminated?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KHANOVITZ: In contrast, when it comes to dealing with the question of why Minister Omar had to be eliminated, you set out at some length in your statement Mr Omar's political profile and the reasons for targeting him?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KHANOVITZ: When you gave evidence at the Harms Commission you were being asked questions about the selection of Gavin Evans as a target based on this statement.  You were asked the following question - and for purposes of the record it's page 719 of the transcript of the Harms Commission, line 30.  The question which was put to you was the following
"Was he a political figure?"
and the answer was the following:
"I would not say that he was a political figure perhaps."

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so, I understood a political figure as a politician.

MR KHANOVITZ: No, I'm sorry, I don't understand your answer.