Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-12

MR LAX: Just try and understand the rationale for breaking one and not the other, because there is no difference between Barnard doing it and you doing it.  Both are equal security risks?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I agree with that, but the fact of the matter is if I were to be allowed to break ten rules, and I am only breaking one at the end of the day, I don't think you should ask me why didn't I break the other nine, I just broke the one.  I did it and I admit to doing it.
	It is just so that I didn't break the other rule.

MR LAX: I am just trying to understand the logic that you may or may not have used in coming to those decisions.  But you cannot explain it, because it is a long time ago, so let's leave it at that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, I read your evidence carefully in the S v Barnard case.  You failed to tell the Court that using Mr Barnard was off limits, that he was a persona non grata.  In fact, you made up a different version entirely at page 1844, line 20.
	You were being asked in-chief about whether Mr Barnard was connected to the CCB at the time that you decided to make use of his services.  Now the question that is put to you is -
"... did you after this determine whether he was still attached to the CCB, after the death of Dr Webster?"
	Then you say -
"... Your Worship, I did.  And to place this in context for you, I used Ferdi on a specific project to help me in Cape Town, and the first time I used him was towards the end of March 1989 and at that stage the accused informed me that he was still attached to the CCB, but that he was basically placed on an inactive list, because he would go and execute his tasks outside the country."
	Then you are asked -
"... Mr van Zyl, I first want to get the date, you say March 1989 ...",
	and so on and so forth and then you change, you correct the evidence and you say -
"... no, it was in July."
	Then at line 10 on page 1845  you are asked -
"... when you used him at that stage, this is July, August, September, do you know whether he was still involved with the CCB, did he tell you anything"?
	Then you say -
"... no Your Lordship, at that stage, over and above the involvement with me, it was my impression as a result of what he told me, that he was placed on an inactive list in anticipation of his further instructions to go and work outside the country."
	Question then -
"... Did you then deduce that the CCB would use him outside the country?  That is correct.  Did you ask him in which ways they would use him?  No, Your Lordship."
	Now, that evidence is entirely untrue, do you agree with me?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, why are you saying so?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well Mr van Zyl, your evidence up to now has been, you were at all material times aware that Joe Verster had decided at the end of Mr Barnard's probation period, that he would not be used by the CCB, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, that is not what I said.  I differ with you.

MR KAHANOVITZ: How can Mr Barnard be a persona non grata in the CCB, but at the same time be on some inactive list for use in a foreign country?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Qualify yourself please, I am just not following your argument.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Kahanovitz is saying, and correct me if I am wrong, you have testified here that at the time that you approached Mr Barnard, he was a persona non grata in the CCB, he was regarded as a security risk by Joe Verster and you also said that by using him to monitor Mr Omar, you made an undisciplined decision.  I think you used the word undisciplined decision?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Because of Mr Barnard's status in the CCB, whereas if you take a look at the evidence that has been read out now by Mr Kahanovitz on these two pages, that is not the same picture.
	Here Mr Barnard is still part of the CCB, he has just been put on ice a bit, he is on a list because he is going to be used overseas, it is not the same picture.  This is what Mr Kahanovitz is asking you, what is the situation?  How do you marry what you said at the court, to what you have said now here?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, what I testified to in court, does not differ from what I have said up to now.  I was aware of the fact and that Ferdi had told me that he was on an inactive list and that he would go and work outside the country in the following year, but I cannot understand that my evidence in court and the evidence that I give here, that it is now said that these are not the same, because to me they are exactly the same.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Kahanovitz, firstly it is not, but secondly it actually goes further than that, because in your statement here, later on you go to say that you had to take R7 000-00 of certain money that had been allocated for another purpose in order to pay Mr Barnard?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Because you couldn't hand in a budget or a receipt for payment for Mr Barnard, because you knew you would get into trouble, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You don't tell the Court in S v Barnard anything about that?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: They didn't question me about this.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What you were doing in S v Barnard, was you were attempting to give the Court the impression that there was nothing untoward about using Mr Barnard in relation to the Omar project, because you didn't want to paint Mr Barnard in a negative light?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I differ from you.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I am going to deal with your evidence in S v Barnard about the circumstances under which you came to pay Mr Barnard and how much you paid him.  Why did you not tell the Judge in that case that the payment wasn't authorised?  Just because nobody asked you?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is exactly the case, but I want to tell you that the Prosecutor in that case, Mr Ackerman, was exactly up to date, and he led me from my Section 29 statement and from my statement that I made in front of the Commission.  The fact that he did not present it, please don't blame me for it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So it is once again a question of a legal practitioner trying to lead the Court astray?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is the statement that you are making, I am not saying it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, paragraph  42 at page 102 of bundle A you say, you have now, it is July, you have sent Mr Barnard to Cape Town, you say
"... at this stage pressure was being applied on me that the Omar project had to be taken forward, I was back to Johannesburg, where approximately in the middle of August 1989, decided Mr Barnard would have to be sent down to Cape Town again with the instruction to monitor Mr Omar again."
	Now, who was placing you under this pressure?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: The Regional Manager, Staal.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What did he say to you?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: He wanted the project to be completed.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So you are sitting here with a problem, you've got Peaches who is not moving on the job, how is it going to help to send Mr Barnard, to go and watch - by the way who is Mr Barnard going to monitor, Peaches or is he going to monitor the two people that Peaches has hired?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Peaches.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What is the use of monitoring Peaches, if he is, I mean Peaches isn't even going to shoot Mr Omar?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I introduced Ferdi Barnard to Peaches and Peaches took Ferdi out to the site, to Omar's house so that he could show him what the problems were that they were experiencing, etc.  I think it makes sense.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now these two other gangsters, who is going to get the Makarov?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I gave the Makarov to Peaches.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Between the two of them, they are going to have one gun?  Why are there two of them?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That was the proposal from Peaches.

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, but you made the presentation at the "in-house", what was your view, you've got to set out your ideas?  You said that two people should be used, why?