Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: But why are you doing this, Mr van Zyl?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot say at this point why I did this then.

UNKNOWN: Well it simply doesn't make any sense to me as to why you had to tell all these lies to Mr de Kock.  Can you offer any explanation as to why you did this?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is not something over which I can speculate right now.  I must concede that it is possible.  I can't actually give you an explanation as to why I did this at that stage.

UNKNOWN: Very well.  Mr de Kock goes on to say that during the struggle - oh sorry, we have dealt with that already.  In the next sentence he says that during the struggle, a shot was fired through the roof of the yellow police vehicle.
	Did you say this to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I don't think so.  A shot was not fired through the roof of the police vehicle.

UNKNOWN: Well, let us just achieve maximum clarity on this, because it's a very important aspect which we will address further.
	Did you possibly tell Mr de Kock that a shot was fired through the roof of the vehicle?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible.

UNKNOWN: Once again you have been lying to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: I do not know if I did it.

UNKNOWN: But you are saying it's possible.
	Now I ask you once again  why, in your version you concede it is possible, but why do you present an incorrect version to Mr de Kock regarding what happened?

MR J VAN ZYL: Chairperson, both Mr de Kock and myself  grew up in a milieu of disinformation and we have unfortunately applied and used it when it suited our purposes.

UNKNOWN: Are you saying that you purposefully misinformed Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I cannot say what I meant with it at that time, because I cannot remember it.

UNKNOWN: Very well.  While we are with this point, we are going to refer to it again, I would like to achieve clarity with this.
	Is your version that a bullet was not fired through the roof of this vehicle objectively?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, that is true.  I have no doubts.

UNKNOWN: Now Mr de Kock also says that you told him that Eric Winter was also present and in Van Zyl's words "Drunk as usual".  What do you say of that?

MR J VAN ZYL: I could not have used it in this context, so here Mr de Kock is not speaking the truth.  Not with regard to this conversation.  There might have been another conversation in which we discussed the person, but it could not have been used in this context because Winter was not involved.

UNKNOWN: Well now possibly these are the objective facts, I would not like to expand on that right now.
	The question is  what did you say to Mr de Kock.

MR J VAN ZYL: In this context I did not say to him and definitely not during this discussion in relation to the matter.

UNKNOWN: In relation to this matter your memory is fresh and clear at this point, and Mr de Kock is making an error?

MR J VAN ZYL: It must be an error because I cannot recall that I ever discussed Mr Winter's drinking problem and I can assure you that Mr Winter was not involved in this operation, and if I discussed this operation with Mr de Kock, I would not have mentioned Eric Winter's name because he was not present.

UNKNOWN: You are once again confusing the principles.  I am not asking you objectively, I am asking you what you said to Mr de Kock because you have already conceded that you have told a number of lies to Mr de Kock.

MR J VAN ZYL: It - they were possibly lies.  If  I spoke to him exactly as you have said, then they were definitely lies.  In relation to Mr Winter, I cannot concede that I said that in this context.  Perhaps at another time, during another discussion it might have happened but Winter was not involved, he was not present, and I cannot see why I would implicate him.

UNKNOWN: There are several examples of where your memory fails you when you testify regarding this incident, however, you are prepared to say that Mr de Kock definitely is not correct regarding the context of this discussion and we will just have to test to what degree your memory is correct.  And whether or not you recall the events correctly.
	May I just ask you, objectively speaking, did Mr Winter have a drinking problem?

MR J VAN ZYL: We have discussed this yesterday.  Sometimes he drank a bit more than us.  He was not under the influence of alcohol every day, so I do not think it was actually a drinking problem.

UNKNOWN: Mr de Kock continues by saying that you said that Goniwe and the others were taken to a farm or a plot where they were murdered.  Did you say that to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: Once again, objectively, it is not true.  And I cannot think that I would have said this to him.

UNKNOWN: Therefore you are stating that Mr de Kock has once again made an error and he is presenting a false version to the Committee regarding what happened.

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I just believe that he is confusing the facts in terms of the time periods.

UNKNOWN: Then Mr de Kock says that Van Zyl told me that they were burning documents on the farm or smallholding.

MR J VAN ZYL: Objectively, once again it is incorrect.

UNKNOWN: That is not the question, Mr van Zyl.  Did you say this to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I cannot recall that I ever said this to him.

UNKNOWN: Is it possible that you said it to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I do not have any knowledge of any documentation that was burnt.

UNKNOWN: Mr van Zyl, that's not the question.
	The question is did you say this to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible in another context.

UNKNOWN: Well, within which context?

MR J VAN ZYL: That's difficult to say, but I do not recall that any documents were ever burnt.

UNKNOWN: Now, why are you referring to another context?  Were documents or - sorry let me put it to you this way  was any mention ever made of any documents which were burnt, between you and Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: I do not know why he is referring to documents so once again Mr de Kock is telling you - or making a false statement regarding this issue.

UNKNOWN: What do you have to say regarding that?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is not true.  I can say nothing else but that.

UNKNOWN: You maintain that at this point Mr de Kock is not taking the Committee into his confidence and he is providing a false version of the events to this Committee.  Is that what you are saying?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, not at all.  I am saying that Mr de Kock's version is not correct, and that has nothing to do with whether Mr de Kock is taking the Committee into his confidence, it's got to do with his memory.

UNKNOWN: Mr de Kock continues and says that Winter threatened to kill Gert Lotz if he ever spoke of the incident.  What do you say to that?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairperson, I do not recall that.

UNKNOWN: You cannot remember it?

MR J VAN ZYL: No.

UNKNOWN: Could you have said this to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: I don't even know if I could have done that because it's not even true.

UNKNOWN: Is it possible that you said this to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot think that I would have said this to him.

UNKNOWN: What's the answer yes or no?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I did not.

UNKNOWN: Once again Mr de Kock is not correct on this point and he is submitting a false statement regarding the issue.
	Is that what you are saying?

MR J VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I do not know why I would have said that to him.

UNKNOWN: But you have just told the Honourable Committee that you might have provided this information.

MR J VAN ZYL: Then it might be possible.

UNKNOWN: So, now you are saying that you might have said it, but the objective would have been to misinform...

MR J VAN ZYL: What I am saying is that I cannot remember and if I had said it, it would probably have been to misinform, but I cannot remember.

UNKNOWN: Well that's the next question.  Objectively speaking, did Mr Winter ever threaten Mr Lotz with death if he ever discussed the incident?

MR J VAN ZYL: Not in my presence.

UNKNOWN: Did you ever acquire any information regarding this?