Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-14

MR WILLIAMS: The statement or the information which you received contained various allegations, for example, one of the allegations was to the effect that the owner of the place, of the centre, Beulah Fredericks, worked hand in glove with the Kewtown Youth Movement and that to some extent, she was also involved?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is the information that I received.

MR WILLIAMS: Some of the information was to the effect that we were a bunch of gangsters, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, gangsters in what form, in what term are you using it?

MR WILLIAMS: The Afrikaans term that was used was "bendes", I think some of the applicants even referred to that?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR WILLIAMS: I think Mr Wouter Basson referred to that, Gen Webb as well?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR WILLIAMS: Where would they have received information to that effect?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I do not know.

MR WILLIAMS: But wasn't the only information which they received, information which emanated at an organisational level, from you?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I was not the only source of information of the intelligence structure, or of the Co-ordinator for that purpose.  The information that I obtained, was sent through and whoever else obtained information, I do not know.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you at any stage think that we were a group of gangsters?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I never regarded you as part, because of the information that I received, as part of the enemy, because of the structures to which you were attached.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you at any stage refer to us even as "bende"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr van Zyl, I ask you, are you prepared to accept as a fact that most of the information that you were supplied with, are incorrect?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I am not prepared to accept that, on the contrary along the course of this hearing, I read through certain documentations which confirmed my suspects that our pre-summary of the matter was one hundred percent correct.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you just inform us what documentation are you referring to?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I refer to your own statement in one of the documents, in which you admit that at two occasions before the explosion, you had been detained in terms of Section 29 Emergency, State of Emergency, so I think ...

MR WILLIAMS: I have never been, okay, just complete first.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I think someone who is busy with community work, would not be involved in such things.

MR WILLIAMS: I have never been detained under Section 29?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I am certain I read such a statement.

MR WILLIAMS: Okay, you have read incorrectly.  Are you saying that you are convinced in your own mind that most of the information which was given to you, was correct, was factually correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I was convinced, convinced in my conscience, that the information we received, was correct.

MR WILLIAMS: Today as you sit here?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I did not go to any trouble to try and determine  from which members the Kewtown  Youth Movement existed and what they did.

MR WILLIAMS: But you have just said earlier now, that you are convinced that some of the information is correct, from what you have seen from my statement for example, and other documentation?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I did see that some of the information, it would appear is definitely a support with regard to the fact that the Kewtown Youth Movement was an affiliate of the UDF and the UDF of the ANC.

MR WILLIAMS: Let's look at the information that you received.  Maybe you can tell us  basically what is correct and what is not correct.
	In Bundle A, page  107, one statement was that - 107 the very last sentence -
"... the information was also in regard to a hall, known as the Early Learning Centre in Athlone, which was used by prominent UDF and ANC activists."
	Is that statement true or false?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I received the information, I sent it through as such, I believed it is correct.

MR WILLIAMS: You have just told me earlier that you believe, today, that some of the information that you received, is correct, based on some documents that you have seen.  I am going through the information that you have received.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Please repeat the question.

MR WILLIAMS: Were we prominent UDF and ANC activists at the time?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I cannot say that, that was not my function.  I have testified to this effect many a time, to go and find out whether Peter Williams was an ANC activist and where he was in the hierarchy of the ANC, I was a soldier who executed my instructions, after targets were identified to me, and I would appreciate it you understand it.

MR WILLIAMS: I put it to you that that piece of information is incorrect.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It may be.

MR WILLIAMS: The second statement is that secret meetings were held.  I put it to you that that statement is incorrect?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That was my information.

MR WILLIAMS: The entire community knew that we meet there.  In fact, even people outside the community knew that we meet there, that is why CAYCO for example could come there that night, because they knew they would find us there?

MR WESSELS: That is again evidence, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If you can keep the evidence out of it, Mr Williams, please.  You will be given an opportunity to testify if you wish.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman,  I do not think that Mr Wessels is not entitled to raise objections, he obviously is, because he has identified, his client has identified himself with the witness, but in relation to this question, Mr Chairman, there is ample evidence that Mr Williams can rely on, that is already on record, in order to put that question.
	I have no doubt about it, and I am sure that the Commission will have no doubt about that, so that I do not think, I do not think that Mr Williams with respect, should be put on a very short leash.  He has sitting next to him, a person who is not a lawyer, who also has obviously given him instructions, Mr Chairman, and who has apparently personal knowledge about the matters.  I would appeal that we can sort out at the end what there is no evidence about, and whether Mr Williams is obliged to give evidence or not, but I would appeal that he is not put on a short leash, in order to  prevent him from doing a difficult task.
	He is both a victim, who also has legal qualifications, and it is very difficult under these circumstances, where he was a potential victim, or to be killed, whether wittingly or unwittingly, that he should be given some leeway in order to put the case that he believes should go before the Committee.  Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR HOCKEY: Mr Chairman, if I may also just add.  If I were asking those questions, I simply would have said that "my instructions are", now Mr Williams is in the difficult position that he has personal knowledge, because he was there, so it is, he doesn't want to say "my instructions from myself are", so we can take it that those are his, he knows about these things, it is evidence that he can lead, and on that basis, these questions should be allowed, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr Chairperson, I also feel that I shouldn't be restricted to ask the questions that I am asking.  I will obviously watch the limits to what extent I go, Mr Chairperson, but given the fact that I have got personal knowledge about these incidents and about the statements, I think it is absolutely, it is fair to put it to the witness in the manner in which I am doing it.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, it is clear to me that my objection is not being understood.  I have no objection if Mr Williams asks these questions from personal knowledge, and supports that if he takes the witness stand and introduce that by way of evidence under oath.  But he is not allowed to give evidence from the protection of the Bar as it were, and come into conflict with a witness who is testifying.