Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-13

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody.  We resume with the hearing.  When we adjourned yesterday, Mr Kahanovitz was still questioning Mr van Zyl.  Mr van Zyl, I remind you that you're still under your former oath.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)

MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Commissioner, yesterday I was to take instructions and revert to the Commission on the issue of the venue.  If you will recall, in chambers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MARTINI: I have taken instructions and we've decided to deal with this issue on the record, rather than in chambers.  If I may revert with my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MARTINI: Firstly, Mr Commissioner, as I say I've been instructed to place this on record, more particularly since yesterday at 5 o'clock an incorrect media report was transmitted on the radio, to suggest that the issue of the venue has been settled, that the parties have agreed to move the venue to Athlone Technikon Centre.  Now that report was incorrect.  We don't know how that report got to the media, more particularly since the hearings were in chambers where there was no media present, but as we all know that report was incorrect, no decision was taken.
	For the record, Mr Commissioner, my instructions are, and they remain, my client will not consent to altering the venue.  My client's instructions are as follows.  The Commission has made a decision on the venue.  The decision was taken.  The venue was originally Adderley Street.  That was pursuant to a Court Order.  There is a Court Order that stands in respect of the venue.  What is important, Mr Commissioner, is that this venue was not selected by my client per se, he did not suggest this venue.  This venue was given to us by the Commission.  Hence the Commission made a decision on the venue.  Hence the issue of the venue has been determined and that issue is finalised.  
	If of course certain parties feel aggrieved by the decision to hold the hearings here, then obviously, Mr Commissioner, the aggrieved party can do what my client did.  They have the rights of recourse to a court of law and if they do feel aggrieved for whatever reasons, if they feel they've been unjustly treated, unfairly treated in the Commission selecting this venue by consensus, because we stress a venue had been selected.  More particularly, Mr Commissioner, because in terms of the Act, the Act provides that the Commission is to notify the venue for the holding of hearings and the time for the holding of such hearings.  That decision has now been taken and the venue is - this is the venue.
	Mr Commissioner, I do not want to - the whole issue of the venue has been fully ventilated in these proceedings, in a court of law, fully opposed proceedings.  Now if certain parties believe that they are aggrieved, for whatever reason, we feel this venue is accessible to all concerned.  The Act does not stipulate or make it mandatory for the venue to be selected to be in Athlone.  What the Act does stipulate is that the proceedings, subject to certain exceptions, must be open to the public.  Well these proceedings are open to the public.  The Commission and all parties concerned, are aware of my client's concerns as to the venue in Athlone, which I do not want to rehash and waste the Commission's time.  
	Hence, Mr Commissioner, in the light of a Court Order, in the light of the Commission's own decision to hold the hearings here, my client objects to altering the venue.  And should the Commission, in the face of a Court Order, in the face of its own decision to select this venue, now unilaterally wish to change this venue, it's our submission, Mr Commissioner, that the Commissioner will be acting grossly improperly and irregularly and in so doing, having knowledge of my client's concern about Athlone, it would in effect unfairly be preventing my client from continuing to participate in these proceedings.  This would also be a violation of my client's rights and addition, it is obvious that this could prove extremely, extremely prejudicial to my client.  
	So, Mr Commissioner, in those circumstances my client does not consent to the altering of the venue, and I've been instructed that all his rights on this issue are reserved, and we would hope that at these hearings this is the last word said, that we can get on with the business at hand, that the Commission's been mandated to do, that's to deal with the amnesty and not the issue of the venue, since it's been decided, more particularly since the Commission we appreciate, has a very limited time span and my client would like to get these proceedings over and done with and participate in them freely and securely and safely.  Thank you, Mr Commissioner.

CHAIRPERSON: Does anyone wish to comment.  Thank you.  Yes, we've noted ...(intervention)

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, there's just one comment I'd like to make in relation to the change to this particular venue.  We all know that the 7th Floor at 106 Adderley Street was definitely not suitable for the amount of legal representatives and so forth, Chairperson, and therefore we got a venue which was suitable and large enough to accommodate all of us, Chairperson.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Kahanovitz, you're free to proceed with your questioning.

UNKNOWN: (cont)
	Thank you, Mr Chairman.
	Mr van Zyl, could you please go to page 104 of bundle A, paragraph 45.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 104?

UNKNOWN: 104, bundle A.
	And if you could just read the whole of paragraph 45 into the record.
MR VAN ZYL
"After a few days, Barnard returned to Johannesburg without the Omar project being completed.  I received information that Omar had had a heart attack and that he was at home, which had jeopardised the project.  Barnard proposed that the project with regard to Omar, be postponed for a few weeks.
			I contacted Peaches on the instruction of the Regional Manager, to find out whether he was able to obtain some of Omar's pills and he told me that he would try that.  I discussed the matter of the pills with the Regional Manager, in the presence of the Co-ordinator, Nick Botha and Chappie Maree.  There was another person present whose name I cannot recall, but who had been previously in a medial regiment of the Defence Force.  He was responsible for the obtaining of logistical support.  In others words he would assist with the tablets.  I mentioned that endeavours would be made to obtain a pill of Omar and then was told by the Regional Manager to hand over the pill to the unknown person who was present.  He said that they would manufacture a similar pill which looks exactly like the pill which was given to him and that Omar would die of a heart attack after he had taken it.  
			The Regional Manager said that he would discuss the matter with the Chairperson, via the Managing, as an approved project had already existed.  I received instructions from the Regional Manager to continue with the project and to try and find the tablet.  Shortly afterwards, during August of 1989, I received two small white tablets from Peaches.  I was informed that those were the tablets that Omar drank for his heart condition.
			I, during a cell meeting, gave the tablets to the person attached to the Medical Regiment, in a hotel room.  I can't recall who all was present during this meeting."

UNKNOWN: Now the information that Mr Omar had had a heart attack, where did that information come from?

MR VAN ZYL: Originally from Peaches.

UNKNOWN: Now if you go to the top of page 105, what you say is that you received an order from Staal Burger to contact Peaches, to establish from Peaches if it was possible for Peaches to get hold of Adv Omar's heart pills, is that correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is what is said there, yes.

UNKNOWN: Is it correct?