Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-14

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I gave him all the money.  I mean if I did not need to take R7 000-00 of that money and give it back to the project Dullah Omar, then I would have given Gakkie R25 000-00 because that is what I received from Staal, but I couldn't do it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, would you in the same statement go to page 39, paragraph 77 and possibly explain these sentences to the Committee?  You are talking in paragraph 77 about the in-house concerning the Early Learning Centre and you deal with the plans.
	Then you say -
"... Gakkie at this stage had already in principle agree to help with placing the limpet mine.  During the in-house a budget had also been attached.  Gakkie would receive R30 000-00 for his part."
	Now I asked you to confirm that, I think it was this morning or yesterday, you said that that was indeed true as stated there, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I don't recall you qualifying yourself in any way whatsoever by saying "well, we budgeted for R30 000-00 for Gakkie, but it was left up to my discretion afterwards, how much I was going to give him"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You didn't say that, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you are saying, you are telling us now that is how the system works?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, the system does not work like that, the system expected of me, and I said this in my evidence-in-chief, right at the beginning, the system expected of me to give the R25 000-00 that I received from Staal, to Gakkie and I took R7 000-00 of this to give back to the organisation on the Omar project, and I gave the balance to Gakkie.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, let me explain to you why you are having problems.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: With what?

MR KAHANOVITZ: You are having problems with giving a logical answer here, because  the plan was to pay Mr Hardien R30 000-00 in circumstances where people were going to be killed?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I deny that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You would never have agreed or budgeted for an amount of R30 000-00 for Mr Hardien, just to plant a limpet mine in circumstances where the price for assassinating Dullah Omar was at most R15 000-00?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I deny that statement sir, it is absolutely sucked out of the thumb.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You reduced the amount that you were going to pay him from R30 000-00 to R18 000-00 because the plan did not go off in the way that had been contemplated?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I deny that vehemently.  I mean here I am and I admit that I erred by using Ferdi at that time, when I had to pay him for his expenses and his services and I qualified why I did it.  Why would I say it if it was not like that?

MR KAHANOVITZ: You needed to misappropriate money in order to pay Ferdi Barnard, because you could not make payment to Barnard via the ordinary channels because you would have got into trouble with Joe Verster, because you weren't supposed to be using him?  Correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.  There was no budget officially for me, to budget for Ferdi Barnard, that is why I budgeted for him from the R7 000-00 that I took from the R25 000-00 as I explained it here.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You couldn't have budgeted for Ferdi Barnard's services, because you weren't allowed to use his services, isn't that so?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So here you had an opportunity, R30 000-00 had been budgeted for Gakkie, but you weren't going to give him that, so you could use some of that to pay Barnard and Joe Verster wouldn't be any wiser after the event?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: As I read your statement, you say that Staal Burger pocketed R5 000-00?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Well, he gave me R25 000-00, I did not see the R5 000-00, the difference between the R25 000-00 and the
R30 000-00.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You say
"... he further said that he would take R5 000-00 for himself".
	I read that to say that you say he stole that money?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It could be.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Is that what you are saying?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is what I am saying.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And that he said to you that you could also steal R5 000-00 if you wanted?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR MARTINI: ... place it on record that it is not steal, it is misappropriate possibly.  I don't want to object again.
	The Commissioner made the statement, Mr Lax, last time, but anyway, I don't want to get embroiled.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you.   Did you advise Joe Verster subsequently that you had not in fact given Gakkie the R30 000-00 which had been budgeted for?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, before - you were detained under Section 29 on the 6th of February 1990, is that correct, thereabouts?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, before you were detained,  you and Barnard received a warning that the Police were onto the CCB because Botha had already been detained before you?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, your facts are wrong.  Mr Barnard was arrested first and then after that, and he was detained in terms of Section 29, and then Mr Botha was detained, and then he came out and a week after that, I was arrested.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Just dealing with you, Mr Barnard's statement at page B144 is dated 22 November 1989, you are correct.
	Mr Botha's statement at page B10 is dated 12 December 1989 ... (tape ends) ... Barnard making a statement first, followed by Botha in December, followed by you making, getting detained in February the following year, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So, Barnard is detained before Botha, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You, Botha and Hardien, accordingly had an opportunity to discuss what versions would be given to the South African Police?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: There probably were occasions, but it wasn't done.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, we are going to argue at the end of these proceedings, that the version of events that you and your co-applicants, certain of your co-applicants, have given concerning the Early Learning Centre, is quite obviously untrue and that what had indeed been planned, was an explosion intended to kill and or seriously injure the members of the Kewtown Youth who were attending a meeting at the Early Learning Centre on the night of 31 August 1989.
	I am going to put to you that what was planned, and what subsequently happened, was something along the following lines:  firstly you had already agreed that the maximal disruption of the enemy encompassed the use of murder, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes, I just want to say that on the statement, I reject it as totally false, and yes, it is my evidence that maximal disruption of the enemy did include the death of the enemy.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It is also so that you have conceded that the CCB believed that the people meeting in that hall on 31 August 1989 were engaged in acts of sabotage against the State and intended to commit further acts of this nature in the future, that is what you believed, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It is also so that the CCB believed that the best way to combat this threat, would be by killing or injuring as many of these alleged terrorists as possible, by exploding a limpet mine during a meeting scheduled for 31 August 1989?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is total nonsense.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It is also so that there was considerable pressure from the hierarchy to take urgent and decisive acts because of the perceived threat posed by these people to the forthcoming elections?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It was a presentation of a project and the approval of a project, and according to this, we acted.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but you have already agreed that there was considerable pressure from the hierarchy to take urgent and decisive steps against these people because of the perceived threat to the forthcoming general elections?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.