Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-18

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: No, I did not Mr Chairman, not about this matter.  I actually met Col Goosen I think only at a later stage, but I knew of him because he was a very senior officer at Security Branch Headquarters.

MR MAPOMA: So I take it that now you relied solely on Col Visser's account and no one else?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I've already said so, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Did Col Visser not tell you where - did you not ask from him, I mean, further verification that this person was a double agent actually?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I cannot recall the full discussion at this stage, Mr Chairman, but at the time I was satisfied by what Col Visser told me, that it was indeed the case and that it was indeed as serious as he had said.

ADV SANDI: Would it have been a part of normal practice amongst the Security Police if your senior is given an order to do x, y, z, you ask him:  "Please give me a full proof of the facts", would that be a normal thing to do?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, there was nothing regular about these actions and it was a highly irregular incident.  I was a Lieutenant at the time.  I'd been one for about one year.  Col Visser was a full Colonel, by far my senior and what I knew of him was enough for me at the time not to question and not to seem as if I doubted his word.

MR MAPOMA: But what strikes me Colonel, is that in your evidence you say it was clear that the deceased had to be eliminated, had to be removed completely and that gives me an impression that a full briefing was given to you.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman as I said, I cannot remember the full facts of our discussion, but after Col Visser briefed me, to me it was clear enough that this grave action had to be taken at that time and I can now only say that I assume that he had briefed me fairly fully, but I cannot remember the facts because it did not really concern me personally.

MR MAPOMA: The purpose was to kill him so that he cannot advance further his actions, that was the purpose.  Is it not so?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: As well as the fact that he was definitely jeopardising, jeopardising the life of his handler and other members of the branch that had been known to him, yes Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Yes.  So for those particular reasons he had to be killed.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Yes, that is what I believed, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Now why had his body to be disposed of?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Perhaps Col Visser could answer that, but all I could think of is that if he had been buried, which was another option, he could be found again, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Can you tell this Committee now of any political objective that you intended achieving by disposing of the body of this person?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: The objective was basically to cover up the crime itself, which had a political objective, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR BOOYENS: No thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.
	Mr van Zyl, you say that you spoke to, as far as you can recall, you spoke to Mr Gold telephonically.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: And you told him that he needed to come up to Mbazwaan.  You indicated from your evidence that some sort of explosion would be required and you said you would have, by innuendo, indicated that it would be a smaller explosion than a larger explosion, so that he wouldn't bring a huge amount of explosive with.  That's the gist of what Mr Booyens put to you and you replied in the affirmative.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, accept there's a name Mbazwaan, I think that's in dispute.

MR LAX: Oh yes, the Mbazwaan part of it, that's not in dispute, in the sense that it could have been just as easily Pongola or Josini.  But you met him at Pongola, as far as you recall.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Yes.  Mr Chairman, ...(intervention)

MR LAX: The issue here is the focus of the question, just so we can be clear.  The rough content of your discussion, I don't expect you to remember your words 20 years later, but the thrust was there was a job to be done, it involved explosives and it didn't involve a large amount of explosives.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, yes, I agreed with my representative when he put it to me like that.  It is to a great extent speculation on my part, as to what I had said at the time that had to give Mr Gold the idea that he had to bring a certain amount of explosives.  I cannot recall how I would have put it, maybe I could have said to him that there was a small package that had to be destroyed.  M cannot even say if said that, Mr Chairman, but it is possible.

MR LAX: You see, nowhere in your recollection or in his recollection is there any mention of the HMC with the silencer and the silencer is what is very important.  It was an unusual thing to bring a silencer along.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I think Mr Gold could perhaps shed some light on that, Mr Chairman, because at the time there were weapons like that available from certain branches at headquarters and at some time or other some of the divisions sometimes had access to weapons like there.  There were HMCs and there were I think, Uzzis as well, which Mr Gold could tell you about.  So  ...(intervention)

MR LAX: The issue is a simple one here, the thrust of my question.  It's not that those weapons weren't available, it was nowhere do you say you asked him to bring it, because only you would have asked him to bring it, no-one else would have asked him to bring it.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I cannot recall asking him to bring it, no, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: And nowhere does he say he was asked to bring it.  So the issue is not the availability.  This is an unusual incident where it would have been unusual to bring a silencer, unless there was a specific request for it.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Well as far as I can recall, Mr Chairman, the weapon with the silencer did not go with me because I had no idea what Col Visser wanted to see me about.  If I had told Mr Gold to bring this weapon with the silencer, I cannot recall it at this time.  It is possible.

MR LAX: All I wanted to suggest was that he doesn't mention being asked to bring a silenced weapon.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I realise that.

MR LAX: Now, as far as the year goes, 1980, are you quite certain in your mind that it was 1980, or are you - could it have been 1979, for example?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I don't think so.  1980, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Why are you so certain it was 1980?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Because it happened a few months before my transfer to Namibia, to Ovamboland and if it had been in 1979, I would have recalled that because I only became an officer at the end of 1978 and in 1979 I assumed the position of Branch Commander at Ladysmith, Natal, and I am sure that I would have remembered if this incident happened in '79.

MR LAX: So you peg this incident chronologically because it was a few months before you were transferred to Namibia.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: This is the way that I recall it, yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember when did you become Branch Commander at Ladysmith?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I think it was in January 1979, Mr Chairman, because I became an officer in December 1978, that I remember, and I went back to Pietermaritzburg where I'd been stationed at that time and then I received a transfer, and it would have happened in either January or February 1979, Mr Chairman.

MR LAX: Now as far as you recall, how many times did you speak to Gold, just the one occasion?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: During this incident?

MR LAX: About this incident and where you asked him telephonically to come up there.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Yes, I think that was only the one time, Mr Chairman.