Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-17

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Political figure I interpret as a politician.  Minister Omar, the State President, those are political figures as I interpret it.

MR KHANOVITZ: And someone who has a profile in the End Conscription Campaign is not?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, not in my opinion.

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, I must also put it to you on your version the following could have happened.  Mr Staal Burger could have given you a name of someone to assassinate and you would have bona fide accepted that that person was a legitimate target.  You would have complied with that instruction, killed the person, subsequently found out that the reason Mr Burger put that person's name on the target list was because he was having an affair with Mr Burger's wife?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Anything is possible but I am just thankful that it did not happen.

MR KHANOVITZ: I assume in most circumstances you wouldn't have been coming to the Amnesty Committee claiming that you had a political motive for killing that person?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No that would have been very difficult.

MR KHANOVITZ: Now let's deal with Minister Omar.  At the time that you agreed to comply with the instruction to eliminate Minister Omar, did you personally believe that Mr Omar was an enemy of the State?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes I was of that view, yes.

MR KHANOVITZ: Why did you hold that view?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: At that stage the information which I received from ground level was that Minister Omar was then involved in the senior management of the UDF, which was a banned organisation, and Mr Omar was also prominent in the defence or involved in the defence of terrorists during terrorist trials.  I think at that stage that was the main two reasons.

MR KHANOVITZ: If I follow your logic that would have made Mr Bizos sitting next to me and countless of my colleagues at the bar who defended the people who you call terrorists, legitimate targets, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is not what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: He mentioned two factors not just the defending in political trials.  He mentioned two.  No, well I'm just saying that it is not quite fair to put that question because he didn't restrict his reasons to just the one factor to which you are now restricting those people to the one effect.

MR KHANOVITZ: With respect, Mr Chairperson, the witness can say whether it is a relevant factor.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I'm not disallowing the question, I'm just pointing it out that you should give an example of someone who was involved in defending people and also involved in politics.

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, either you're saying it's a relevant factor to the decision to target Adv Omar or it's an irrelevant factor.  The weight that you attach that factor is a different issue.  You've already said it was a relevant factor in deciding to target him, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KHANOVITZ: Now the other was membership of the UDF, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KHANOVITZ: Do you have any idea how many members the United Democratic Front had?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR KHANOVITZ: So how ...(intervention)

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Hundreds of thousands, probably a few million.

MR KHANOVITZ: Were they all legitimate targets?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I think they were all targets or they could all have been targets for the CCB but not necessarily a target to eliminate.  They were classified.  If it was a person who was attached to a banned organisation, an organisation at that stage that had limits then usually you would be classified as the enemy of the State.

MR KHANOVITZ: But Mr van Zyl, the point is that you have a discretion, you've hit on what is the crucial factor.  Millions of people fall into the broad category of what you agreed was the enemy.  That in and of itself is obviously insufficient justification for their elimination, do you agree with me?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I agree.

MR KHANOVITZ: There has to be something more.  In Adv Omar's case as regards the something more you've listed two factors

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR KHANOVITZ: Now would everybody who satisfied those two characteristics be a legitimate target for elimination?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, not at all Chairperson.  I would like to state it clearly and I do not want a misconception to exist that Mr Omar did not become a target for the CCB just on the grounds of the information that I received from Peaches and sent through to my Co-ordinator, Basson, this was a phase of an intelligence phase.  He became a target after the intelligence structure who was responsible in playing a role in the identification of targets for our unit, had made certain confirmations.  I do not know what confirmation they did, I was not a part of that structure.  So I wish you to understand that it is unreasonable to say that we acted against Mr Omar just because he was a senior member of the UDF and because he attended terrorist trials, there might have been something else, I am not able to say, I do not have that information, but I would hope and I do believe that there was indeed other information with regard to Mr Omar which was supplied by the intelligence structure upon which a decision was taken to eliminate Mr Omar.

MR KHANOVITZ: I note that you say that you hope - because it's quite obvious then that you never took the trouble at the time to ascertain whether the selection of Mr Omar as opposed to countless other people who were involved in leadership structures of the United Democratic Front, was in fact justified if necessary for purposes of targeting him for elimination?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I agree Chairperson and that is why I say that was not my function, it was not expected of me to evaluate information whether I received it from ground level or whether that information was received from the Co-ordinator, that was not my duty, it was not my function.

MR KHANOVITZ: You will recall that when my learned friend Mr Bizos attempted to ask Mr Verster to justify the selection of particular targets, every time he said we must ask the people who were on the ground as to how that information came to be collected, do you remember that evidence?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: All too well.

MR KHANOVITZ: You were the eyes and ears of the CCB in the Western Cape, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KHANOVITZ: It was your responsibility to gather together and evaluate information for purposes of determining who should be targeted in the Western Cape, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That was a secondary function, Chairperson, that was not our primary task.

MR KHANOVITZ: Well what was your primary function?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I've already testified to that effect, Chairperson, our primary function was the execution, the disruption, the maximal disruption of the enemy of the then State.  It was the execution of projects, "go and break a window, go and burn a minibus, go and eliminate a person."  We weren't an intelligence structure, Chairperson, that was a front that was given at that time by Mr Verster and other persons to discredit me.  That was not my function.  ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR KHANOVITZ: Do you know Mr van Zyl, every time we try to find the person who is going to own up to saying I am the person who evaluated the information, put it together and came to the conclusion that for instance Minister Omar was the person to be eliminated, it's always said "it wasn't really me, it was this other person."