Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

CHAIRPERSON: There is just one more point that I would like to ask you about.  At the bottom of page 77, the very last line, the Court quotes from your statement which they referred to then.
	Reference is made to the firearms at a place and then on page 78, it is stated at the top of the page, I didn't know that there were policemen there, they said there were blacks, it was an Army camp there at Devon, I drove the vehicle.
	In the statement you made to the police, you said you had been told to collect the firearms in Devon, that is where the Army base was, and that is where the black guards were.  Is that correct, is that your version in your statement to the police when you made it to them?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is basically a lie then?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: The statement that you made is therefore a lie sir?  The statement to the police?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Specifically with regard to this Army base at Devon?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Well, I sort of amalgamated the two when I was in court, I didn't specifically mention Pretoria in my statement.

CHAIRPERSON: When you spoke to the police, you didn't refer to Pretoria, because you didn't regard it as necessary?  You didn't need to refer to the trip to Pretoria?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: So you told the police nothing about the trip to Pretoria?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you adjusted your story to exclude Pretoria and you said that the black guards were at the Devon base, in other words you substituted Pretoria for Devon in the statement you made to the police?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: I contradicted myself there Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but look, you didn't want to speak to them about Pretoria.

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: They just asked me about the incident in Devon Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: But what I mean is, if I understand your evidence correctly, there was no discussion that there were blacks, that it was an Army base, etc.  There was no discussion like that between you and Mr De Meillon?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: But that conversation was with regard to Pretoria as a matter of fact?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you made the statement to the police, you actually took the discussion that had taken place with regard to Pretoria, and applied that to Devon?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: That is correct Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that to make the whole thing more credible to the police, to keep Pretoria out of it?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Well, I didn't regard Pretoria, or think of Pretoria as part of the incident Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Fine.  Mr Van Schalkwyk, my apologies, you may continue.

MR SIBANYONI: Just one question Mr Van Schalkwyk, before you continue.  If you didn't want to speak about Pretoria, why did you speak of the Army base and the blacks there, because I understand this has something to do with Pretoria?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: I was referring to the guards in Pretoria Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, was it your object at all to steal firearms?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You were successful in stealing one firearm?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No, it wasn't successful Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But you did manage to steal one firearm?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: I didn't steal it Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, you were in possession of this firearm that had been stolen, afterwards, at any rate?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why didn't you then go and give this firearm to your Lieutenant, but rather go and throw it into the water, the purpose was to obtain an arm to use?  Why did you go and throw it away?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Well, the idea was to obtain automatic firearms and the same Officer told me to throw away the pistol.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are saying, only automatic firearms would be held, whereas hand held arms would be thrown away?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: What you are saying is a policeman was killed for a side arm, which you would throw away then, because it wasn't an automatic weapon?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, you have just said side arms would be thrown away, a policeman is shot for a side arm that was thrown away?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: What I am saying sir is that we didn't need side arms, we had them.  The purpose was to obtain automatic firearms.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So if Mr De Meillon says that this firearm had been stolen for the purpose of stealing that firearm, then he is lying?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Please repeat your question sir.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: If Mr De Meillon says that the purpose was to steal the firearm, then you say the purpose was not to steal a side arm, only automatic arms?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes, only automatic arms sir.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: As far as your knowledge goes, is Mr De Meillon open-hearted and honest in everything?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: I don't know him at all sir, I met him twice only.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You say you don't know him at all?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: I had only met him twice, I don't know his attitude and personality.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You would therefore not regard him as a confidante or friend?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: With regard to the facts of this case, do you differ from Mr De Meillon?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes sir.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you are saying to us that Mr De Meillon is not open-hearted and honest in his application or the facts he is putting before you?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: There are people he is protecting sir.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: My question is again, is he open-hearted and honest in the facts that he is bringing here?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: With regard to Mr Holder who was with you, is he open-hearted and honest?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you have any knowledge as in the case of Mr De Meillon, where he was not open-hearted?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, did any of these people who accompanied you, use or take any alcohol that evening?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you use any other habit forming medication or drugs?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No sir.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you possess any other firearm?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No sir.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When you arrived in Pretoria at the end of this trip, was it light or dark?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Well, it was strong dusk sir.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: When you left there, was it still light?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No, it was dark.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone cut out at that stage.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: The first applicant wrote to the father of the policeman who was killed, why didn't you do the same?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: I didn't have his address and I didn't know whom to contact Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you make any attempts to obtain his address?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No Mr Chair.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So sir, how can you say that you have remorse towards the family if you didn't at all try to contact them?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Sir, I know how I feel inside about this event, this incident and about the deceased person.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You pleaded not guilty in your trial, is that correct?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But that isn't the action of somebody who has remorse to plead not guilty?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Well, I did so because my legal advisor told me to plead not guilty.