Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-17

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.  I have a security firm and I have an investigations business.  From an investigation's capacity I was involved where the senior structure of Shell House was assisted with the submission of projects to senior Ministers with regard to the combat of crime amongst others here in the Western Cape Region but I was not financially remunerated for that.  I did this because those persons, I met with those persons from the ANC structures and we befriended each other.

MR KHANOVITZ: You'll also agree with me there was nothing whatsoever to stop you from making any apology that you saw fit in the application documents that you filed with the TRC?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I agree, yes, I would just like to tell you that today is not the first time that I apologise for my involvement in the CCB.  I'm a person because of my investigation capabilities and because of the high profile matters that I in the past was approached by persons from the press with regard to how I feel about my past and already there I have rendered those apologies as far as six years back, Chairperson.

MR KHANOVITZ: As regards Mr Evans, did he approach you or did you approach him?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: We approached Mr Evans.  At that stage Mr Piet du Plessis was my legal representative and we approached him, he came in.  There was a press conference after we met.

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr Chairperson, I'm going to have to get instructions from Mr Evans, I can't take ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I understand that Mr Khanovitz.

MR KHANOVITZ: You've made, besides the statement that you read out yesterday, there are various statements of your contained in bundle B.  Have you had an opportunity to read those statements?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: May I just have a look to what you are referring to?

MR KHANOVITZ: I'm referring to the statements that start at page 11 of Bundle B and run through to ...(intervention)

ABRAM VAN ZYL: You are now referring to the Section 29 statements.  I had an opportunity to read it about a hundred times in the past.

MR KHANOVITZ: Can I just find out at this stage, just for purposes of the record, there are in fact three statements there, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That may be so, yes.

MR KHANOVITZ: Now do any of those statements contain untruths that you would like to tell us about now as opposed to later on in the cross-examination?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I would like to place it on record that there are certain aspects in the Section 29 statement which was brought to my attention which are incorrect and one of the specific matters where I can recall is where I said that Chap made a submission to the Chairperson in terms of the Lubowski matter.  That was an inference that was drawn, it was an interpretation by the officer that had taken a statement from me that put it down as such.  Factually that is not correct but in essence not one of my Section 29 statements differs factually drastically form the statement that I have put forward before this Commission therefore I shall propose, go through the Section 29 statement, paragraph for paragraph and then I shall comment on it and I shall tell you what I feel is factually correct or not and you may get technical.  I don't want to do it that way and I'm not willing to do it that way.

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, well I would submit that would be a fair way of doing it, there's so much paper in this matter, to make a bold statement and say have you memorised your statements that you made years ago under the security legislation and then come today and say, "well you see you've misled us, you've told us it's all correct."  I think the fair approach to the witness bearing in mind the volume is that Mr Khanovitz takes up the offer and goes through the statement and asks my client is that correct or isn't it correct?

CHAIRPERSON: We understand what you say but I don't want to tell Mr Khanovitz how to cross-examine.  If what you say occurs we take into account your remarks, we're fully aware somebody's asked questions about documents that are made long ago and makes a bold statement and then it just depends on the nature of the contradictions now but I'm not going to tell Mr Khanovitz how to conduct his cross-examination, it's an unfair question.  I shouldn't use the word cross-examination, I should use your questioning strictly speaking, we're not in a trial here.

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr Chairperson, I'm not willing to question the witness on that basis, I'm quite happy for the witness to come and say I've had an opportunity to look at those statements now, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that this, that and the other thing is factually incorrect.  The reason it is factually incorrect is the Investigating Officer forced me to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: If that's the way you want to do it then maybe Mr van Zyl might need a bit of time to read them now.  I don't know when he last read them, he said he's read them hundreds of times, I don't know if he is in a position to say well, there's three statements here and they're fairly lengthy statements, you know page 8, line 13, page 9 line 4, is incorrect and to do it your way he would need time to perhaps read them and mark where he thinks there might be differences.

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, might I make a suggestion.  I'm not telling Mr Khanovitz how to question but I'm here to ensure that my client is asked fair questions.  Now the way he wants to do it is certainly not fair.  Mr Khanovitz has heard the evidence.  If he believes there's evidence in conflict with what my client has already testified then he can say in the statement, look at the statement, is this paragraph correct, my client can have a look at it?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but there might be statements contained in the statements, he might have made statements here which have no bearing at all on matters contained in this statement therefore there's no evidence before us as to certain aspects of the statements.

MR MARTINI: Well then Chairperson, to be fair to the witness then maybe we should read the statement, adjourn now, let us read through it, there are three I've heard and let's deal with it.  I do not want the situation, Chairperson, sorry Chairperson, this is very important, because to question this way and then later argue well I gave you the opportunity, you told me you knew the statements, you've read them and now you've contradicted yourself.  I don't want that situation to arise and that wouldn't be fair to my client.  We're here, there's public gallery, my client is a businessman, there are press reporting and if he does make a mistake and the report, the way press certainly do report, it might have implications for my client and that would be very, very unfair.

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr Chairperson, might I say the following, all three of those statements are sworn statements.  Mr van Zyl, as he has said has had an opportunity to look at those statements on many occasions.  One would have thought that if there were falsehoods or inaccuracies in those statements, Mr Martini when he was leading his client in chief would have drawn the Commission's attention to those falsehoods or inaccuracies, explained the circumstances under which that had come about and then one could have proceeded on that basis.  I'm keen to avoid the kind of situation that arose with Joe Verster's testimony where as soon as you refer the witness to a paragraph there's going to be some counsel at the Pretoria bar put those words into my mouth and so on and so forth.  The witness is in a position to read the statements, say in advance whether there's anything in those statements which is untrue or he can stand by his statements.  I cannot cross-examine him on the basis that every time I point a statement that he previously made and then it transpires that what's therein contained is untrue then we hear a reason for the first time as to why that inaccuracy has come to the fore.