Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-12

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Peaches was at that stage involved with the project of Min Omar, and that was a big project, so I did not have much choice.  Although I did have my doubts about him, I could not, I could possibly have done it, but I did not end his mandate at that point, as an operative.

MR LAX: Then just one last thing, just to follow up on the Chairperson's question to you.   Is it possible that you did not report this failures because you didn't want to be seen in a bad light?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes, it probably is possible, but I don't want to prejudice myself, but it is possible.  I don't know if I reported it or not.  It might be possible.

CHAIRPERSON: But it is the sort of thing that you should have reported?  I mean now, as you sit here now and think about it?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I should have done it, yes.

MR LAX: And failure is something one tends to remember?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I think failure might just be something that you would like to forget.

MR LAX: Yes, that is precisely why you do remember it?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, Peaches who you now say was responsible for stealing this R2 000-00, Peaches is now deceased, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And dead men don't give evidence?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Just in general terms, I want to ask you something about Gen Webb's evidence, you have heard his version will be that he authorised the Early Learning Centre project and...

MR MARTINI: Sorry Mr Commissioner, I think this is an unfair question, Mr Kahanovitz says his evidence will be, how do we know that will be his evidence?  After all, there is a statement before the Commission, but the Commission is calling for hearings?

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, maybe you can change your wording, it has been suggested or, it is anticipated.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, you recall that Gen Webb's representative put certain questions to Col Verster regarding the authorisation of certain projects and at the time he said that his client will say certain things?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And what was put was that Gen Webb denies that he authorised the Omar and Evans projects, on the other hand, he admits that he authorised the Early Learning Centre project and the project "apie".  Now, would you be prepared to comment on why Gen Webb is putting forward this version, do you understand his version, because as I understand your evidence, your evidence is that the Chairman authorised Omar and Evans?
	But you are now in a difficult decision, because the Chairman says you are not telling the truth?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, what I can say is that I submitted by project up to the first "in-house" level and that I then accept that Verster would submit the project further to the Chairperson, Gen Webb, and if Gen Webb is saying this and that he did not authorise it, then I cannot comment on it, I was not part of these processes, I cannot take it further than the first  "in-house".

MR KAHANOVITZ: What Gen Webb's version would amount to is you say Omar and Evans are authorised CCB projects, Gen Webb, who was in charge of the CCB says that is not so.  Your, in military language, Commanding Officer is saying that your version, that you were engaged in official business in an authorised project, he is saying you are lying.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I don't think this is what is said Mr Chairperson, because I mean, I also do not mean what Gen Webb will testify regarding these projects, but what I can tell you is that I accepted my Co-ordinator, and I can accept that my Regional Manager, as was the case with the Managing Director, that their knowledge regarding these project, that they would give their knowledge regarding these projects to the Commission and that they would testify on exactly the same basis  I am testifying on it.
	The reasons why Gen Webb will say that he does not know about it, I do not know.  I was not part of this process.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What Gen Webb told the Harms Commission is that as the general rule, the CCB did not engage in offensive activities against the enemies of South Africa internally.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairperson, I know this is the case, but I stand under correction, but I myself think that Gen Webb had changed the statement because as a result thereof, you must remember at that time with the Harms Commission, it was relied on the right of privilege and as a result thereof, many things had not been said and as a result thereof, lies were also told.
	But if Gen Webb comes here today and says that we as Region 6 internally did not act offensively against the enemies of the State and this did not include the killing of people from time to time, then he would be lying.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you have any idea why, given that Gen Webb's version has been that offensive activities against the enemy such as murder, sabotage and so on, were not permissible in South Africa, why he is now saying though that the Early Learning Centre was an authorised project?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I cannot comment on this.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The Afrikaans word "geleentheidsteiken", was that a word that you used in the CCB?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What does it mean?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: As I understood it, it was terms that were used where a person was identified as a target for the organisation and you per chance found yourself in an environment where you could disrupt that person, whatever that disruption would involve, and you could continue with that disruptive action.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All right.  Okay, to move on to the Omar incident.   Let's deal with the statement at page 98 of bundle A, paragraph 39.
	You say in the first sentence that at some stage you received an order from Staal Burger that Peaches must be asked to collect information about prominent radical figures in the Western Cape, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, what I am saying there Mr Chairperson, is that I had received an instruction from Staal that I would have to gather information relating to radical people in the Western Cape, but I then approached Peaches.
	It was not a specific instruction to me to go to Peaches and say to him "please bring me the information".

MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you ask Peaches at that stage to go and monitor Dullah Omar?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Sorry Mr Chairman, I just need one minute.  Could you look at the application of Wouter Basson, page 49, paragraph 4.3, bundle A?
	Just read what Mr Basson has to say under the heading "The Dullah Omar Incident", the first to paragraphs.
MR VAN ZYL
"... Mr Dullah Omar, an Advocate related to the Cape Bar was also identified as a radical political activist.  He was a managing member of the UDF who according to information that was in our possession, was a front organisation for the ANC and for this reason, a decision was made to monitor him, in order to determine whether he was involved with undermining activities against the interests of the State.  The instruction to monitor him, was given to the aforementioned Abram van Zyl.  He initially executed the instruction with the help of two coloured gang members in Cape Town."

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see what Mr Basson is saying is that the process was that, not that you must go and look for prominent radical figures, you were given Mr Omar's name and you must go and monitor if he is involved in undermining activities which threaten the interests of the State.  That is the instruction that you received and that you executed that instruction with the use of two coloured gang members.
	Your versions are different?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes, I am convinced that Mr Basson will give you the true version, this is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that the statement that you have read out, is not correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.