Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-18

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: At the time, Mr Chairman, as I said before, I worked from Ladysmith, which was the branch where I was the Commander.  Col Visser was in Soweto, he was the head of the division of Soweto Security Branch and both branches, as well as the Port Natal Branch and the Eastern Transvaal Branch as it was known at that time, handled agents and Intelligence Gathering Networks inside Swaziland.  That was necessary because Swaziland was an important jumping-off place for infiltrating cadres, operatives from MK into South Africa to commit deeds that we all know about at that time.  We thought that it was necessary to gain as much knowledge from there inside and that included Maputo, Mozambique, as well as Swaziland and for that we needed agents on their side, agents inside Swaziland, that could give us information about movements, about decisions, about vehicles being used and various other things that we had to know to keep track of these personalities.

UNKNOWN: Did you not make inquiries as to why it was necessary to dispose of this body in the manner as you described, blowing it up?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I was part of the decision, Mr Chairman.  Col Visser stressed to me the fact that the person, that he had instructions that this person had to disappear completely and I could, on that moment, think of no other way to do this than to blow the body up.

UNKNOWN: Was this the first time that you were involved in operations of this kind, eliminating of persons?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: After this incident, did you ever become involved in the elimination of person?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Yes, I think ...(intervention)

MR BOOYENS: Relevance Mr Chairman.  With respect, I object to that question, especially if it's afterwards, how could it possibly be relevant in judging Mr van Zyl's deeds at the time of this occasion?  If it was before there may be, on a stretch, still something relevant but afterwards certainly cannot be allowed.

UNKNOWN: I will withdraw that question.  Prior to this incident, were you involved in the elimination of persons?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: There is a statement by Mr Gold when he mentions as to how he became involved.  He says he in fact had heard about persons being eliminated.  Mr Chairman, I'm just trying to find this.

MR BOOYENS: Page 16.

UNKNOWN: On page 16 he mentions
"I became aware that certain operations were underway, although I was unsure as to the details."

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph?

UNKNOWN: Paragraph 33, on page 16.  He says
"I became aware through this vague system of innuendoes, I became aware that certain operations were underway, although I was unsure as to the details.  These involve the combating and elimination of ANC guerrillas known at the Security Branch at the time as terrorists.  As a loyal member of the Security Services, I indicated to Apt Sakkie van Zyl that I was available for this type of work under the same discreet methods of innuendo."
Now this would indicate therefore, that you were involved in this type of work, subsequent to this particular incident.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think so.  It would - that there were members of the Security Police involved, not that he himself was involved, that they had heard rumours and innuendoes that the Security Police as such, the body of Security Police, some of them were involved in killing other people.

UNKNOWN: I won't ask that question any more.

CHAIRPERSON: But on that basis, I think you could ask it.

UNKNOWN: Were you - sorry, Mr Chairman.  Were you involved in this sort of work then?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Were you aware of any members or persons under you who were involved in this sort of thing?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Not at that time, no, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Did you not ask Col Visser as to why he had in fact chosen you to undertake this sort of job?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I don't think I asked him Mr Chairman.   Col Visser did mention that he did not want to involve any of his members of his branch because that could have put himself in a very bad position in the branch.  I accepted that he had used me because maybe he decided that he could trust me at the time.

UNKNOWN: Do you know whether any questions or any investigation was raised after the disappearance of this person?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I don't know, no Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Were you also aware that at some stage - were you ever made aware that at some stage this person was detained and laid a complaint about injuries which he suffered?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.

MEV VAN DER WALT: May I please just ask here?  This is not my client but it will be necessary for me to know this?  The legal representative of the family speaks of this person, I would just like to know who is the person to whom she is referring because that can be in dispute, if she can just say this person is - she must also not say the deceased, she must say whom she is referring to because it can be important.

UNKNOWN: The person I am referring to is Oupa Ronald Madondo.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I have never known a person by that name.

UNKNOWN: You have never known of a person by that name? But you cannot dispute that it was him possibly who was in fact the person eliminated?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: That it was him possibly?

UNKNOWN: That it was him who was the person involved in this.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I cannot say if it was this person at all and I cannot identify him by the photographs in this publication that's available to me either.  I only knew him by the name that Col Visser mentioned to me and that was his MK fighting name, bush name, pseudonym at the time, which was Scorpion and I'm sorry, I would have really liked to have identified the person by these pictures that are available, because it is also important to me as a person, but I am sorry, I cannot identify him as Oupa Madondo, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr van Zyl, just to get this clear for me.  The picture of the person appears at page 140 and 141.  Are you saying that could not be the person you are talking about?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, excuse me.  What I'm saying is that I'm unable to identify him by these pictures.  I cannot confirm that this was the person.  The likeness that I have a recollection about is not identical to this person that I see in these pictures.

CHAIRPERSON: But, you can't confirm that it was this person, but you can't deny it either?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: My honest opinion Mr Chair is that it does not look like the person whom I vaguely recall.

MR LAX: If I may?  I understood your earlier evidence to be that this happened a long time ago and that your memory was such that you couldn't remember this person clearly enough to be able to identify him from the photographs, that was the tenor of your testimony previously.  You're now saying something subtly different to that.  You're saying that the image you have in your head is different to these photographs and that's a positive failure to identify, that's a positive statement, saying the person you remember is different to this person.  What you said previously in your testimony was that this happened a long time ago and you can't remember whether this person in these pictures is the same as that person.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: It is not meant that way, Mr Chairman.  I would have thought that if I'd seen these pictures or the pictures of the person, that I would have been able, that it would refresh my memory and that I would have been able to identify the person.  These photographs do not do that for me and the memory is very vague, it doesn't seem that this person is familiar to the person that I think I can remember.