Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-13

UNKNOWN: Because your version up to now has been you wouldn't really have to deal with that in the "voorstudie", because that's being determined from up above, all you're dealing with is the mechanics of the operation.

MR VAN ZYL: No, Sir, that is not what I said.  It is so, you cannot expect that during a pre-study wider aspects would not be touched upon, other than the act that had to be committed and the logistical support attached to it, one would speak about various other aspects.

UNKNOWN: But Mr van Zyl, this particular "voorstudie" that you're fairing to at page 109, it would appear to me that it would have contained a comprehensive motivation for why the Kewtown youth and the Early Learning Centre should be targeted, containing annexures of various documents that you would say would support their targeting.

MR VAN ZYL: No, that is not how I understand my statement.

UNKNOWN: But you say in the middle of page 109, after setting out all these facts, you say
"I submitted all these facts to the Co-ordinator on a written basis, during a pre-study on approximately the 10th of August."
...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR VAN ZYL: Correct.

UNKNOWN: From which I infer that all the information that you set out in the rest of your paragraph is contained in that "voorstudie".

MR VAN ZYL: No, not really, what I've said was that the information that was gathered, the literature which was obtained was over a course of one month, this was sent through during cell meets to the Co-ordinator, and then I received an instruction to do a pre-study.  Whether another document was attached to that pre-study which ... I cannot tell you, that was not the purpose of the purpose of the pre-study, to give information.  The purpose of the pre-study was as I have said many times, was to make a proposal of how the premises could be damaged.

UNKNOWN: Okay.  So should we read the words
"Ek het al hierdie feite ..."
rather to mean:
"Some of these facts during a pre-study was placed on a written basis ..."
or should we read it to mean:
"Ek het geen van hierdie feite ..."

MR VAN ZYL: You can read it as you like it, the facts as I've explained to them, that's how you should read them.

UNKNOWN: Well I'm just putting it to you your version is quite clearly that you're saying that you didn't put all of those facts in your preparatory submission.  How long was this document?

MR VAN ZYL: I can really not recall, probably a few pages.

UNKNOWN: Alright.  Between the 10th of August, the date on which you made this presentation, and the date of the explosion, did you obtain any further information as to why this project was justified?

MR VAN ZYL: It may be, not that I can recall at this stage.

UNKNOWN: What was the budget that was included in your pre-study?

MR VAN ZYL: I think there was a budget of approximately R30 000.

UNKNOWN: No, the R30 000 was the amount that was budgeted for what Gakkie would be paid, it couldn't have been the budget for the whole operation.

MR VAN ZYL: No, then it would have been more in terms of hotel accommodation for the time period that I was down here and when Kalla Botha accompanied me, for the aeroplane tickets back, so yes, make it R35 000.

UNKNOWN: Now when you presented your pre-study, was it only the Co-ordinator who was present, Basson?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I would have given it to the Co-ordinator because of which at a later stage I was asked to attend a first in-house.

UNKNOWN: Right.  Now further down page 109, you say after the pre-study was presented
"An in-house was arranged on approximately the 25th of August, by the Regional Manager.  Because of information supplied by me a project was identified, the destruction of the hall known as the Early Learning Centre in Athlone and I proposed that it should be done by placing an activating a limpet mine there."
Now this is then the first in-house, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is so, yes.

UNKNOWN: And you state in another one of your statements that this was at the Millpark Holiday Inn.

MR VAN ZYL: It could be.

UNKNOWN: Now you also say in that statement that the Lubowski project was discussed at the same meeting, this is at page 35 of bundle B, paragraphs 68 through to 70.  Can you just read paragraphs 68, 69 and 70 of that statement, into the record.

MR VAN ZYL: I shall read it, I would just like to remind you that these are the paragraphs that I mentioned to you, of which the content is not factually correct.  68
"Approximately a week after I handed over the pills I received a message on my pager to call Staal Burger at a number.  I called the number, it was at the Millpark Holiday Inn.  Staal Burger told me that I had to go and see him immediately.  I then saw Staal Burger in a room at the hotel at approximately half past one.  I then met Christo Britz and Joe Verster at the same hotel room. I think it was a Wednesday.  Joe Verster told me that Anton Lubowski would the coming Saturday be awaited in Cape Town.  I did not know him.  I was then informed that Christo Britz would inform me as to where Lubowski would make two speeches, namely one in Johannesburg and one in Cape Town, and my instruction from Joe Verster was to monitor Peaches (which is actually incorrect, it has to be Lubowski), to monitor him during his visit to the Republic of South Africa.  He had to obtain information with regard to persons with whom Lubowski made contact and places he visited.  The following day, I think it was a meeting next to the road close to Halfway House, Christo Britz had a picture of Lubowski as well as the place where he would give his speech.  He supplied me with the place where Lubowski would make his speech, it was Johannesburg Country Club, in Auckland Park.  Particulars were handed to me in written form.  At this stage I cannot recall whether a project was proposed or submitted.  The hotel's name in Cape Town I cannot recall.  "Ek het 'n aansoek om voorskot uitgemaak en aan Christo Britz oorhandig."  It was also approved by Staal Burger.  I cannot recall the amount.  The cash was received from Christo Britz.  The following day I did not trust Peaches and paged Ferdi Barnard and had a meeting with Ferdi Barnard in Florida, close to Checkers parking area.  Ferdi Barnard then agreed to monitor Anton Lubowski during his visit in South Africa.  The particulars, the photo and the cash amount was handed over to Ferdi Barnard there.  I did not inform the members of the organisation that I was using Ferdi Barnard in place of Peaches."

UNKNOWN: The following paragraph as well please.
MR VAN ZYL
"After approximately six days, Ferdi Barnard, I again met Ferdi Barnard at the Checkers parking area in Florida.  He then handed over information which he had gathered with regard to Lubowski during his visit in South Africa.  Ferdi Barnard conveyed to me that Lubowski's mother and his divorced wife were living in Cape Town.  He also supplied the two addresses to me.  He could not tell me whether Lubowski was staying with his mother or his divorced wife, he would however have seen Lubowski at the meeting but could not monitor the meeting because his name did not appear on the guest list.  He furthermore determined that Lubowski stayed in the Rosebank in Johannesburg.  He rented a red BMW from Johannesburg airport.  The particulars of this vehicle as well as the particulars of other vehicles that could be related to Lubowski's stay in Johannesburg, was conveyed to me by Ferdi Barnard.  The particulars I gave to Christo Britz in the presence of Staal Burger at a hotel which I cannot recall the name of."

UNKNOWN: This is not the portion that you deny?

MR VAN ZYL: No.

UNKNOWN: This you admit to being true.

MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: And you've previously admitted that people who were being monitored by the CCB, were usually being monitored because they had been targeted for attention of some form or other.