Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-15

MR MARTINI: Before Judge Levi made such a finding, did you ever testify at those proceedings?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I did not.

MR MARTINI: So Judge Levi didn't have the benefit of your evidence or any cross-examination?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR MARTINI: Now, is it correct reference was made to His Lordship, Mr Justice Els' decision in the Barnard matter that His Lordship Mr Justice Els accepted your evidence in relation to the Omar incident?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR MARTINI: Now, I got the impression that the Commission were somewhat not too sure exactly of the functioning of the CCB as it pertains to you.  I want to deal with that issue.
	I got the impression at one stage when it appeared that I might be mistaken, that the Commission thought that when you were asked to come up with the plan for example, the assassination of Min Omar, a decision was taken then that he should be eliminated, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, it did not work like that.  Mr Chairperson, a decision was only taken for the execution of a project during the second in-house and I was not present there.   When I do a preliminary study, it is only a study and a proposal that I would then take back to my Regional Manager, as a result of which a first in-house would be held.

MR MARTINI: Can I put it to you this way, either Mr Burger according to the evidence that we have heard, or Mr Basson, will suggest to you "make a plan, come up with a proposal for example for the elimination of Min Omar", is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR MARTINI: In making that suggestion, according to your structures, the decision, it wasn't a decision that Min Omar will ultimately be killed at that point in time, the decision wasn't taken then?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, not at that stage.

MR MARTINI: So then you go out and your formulate a plan, is that the way I correctly understand your evidence?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR MARTINI: After your plan you have an in-house, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR MARTINI: At that in-house, do you discuss the plan that you have prepared?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR MARTINI: Thereafter, it will go up according to the evidence, to a second in-house with Mr Verster and the Chairman, whoever that might have at the time, make a decision based on your plan?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Martini, just - and that  plan, would that include the assassination of the victim?

MR MARTINI: Correct, for example, I am using it as an example, for Min Omar the plan would have included "this is my plan how to assassinate Min Omar", that is at the first in-house?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR MARTINI: That is discussed at the first in-house?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR MARTINI: But you aren't then told at the first in-house to "go out and execute the plan"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR MARTINI: From the structures of the CCB, after the first in-house, that plan the way I understood the evidence, gets taken up further up, between the Managing Director and the Chairman so to speak?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR MARTINI: They consider the plan, we assume?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Martini, maybe I am dumb or confused, but let's just take the Omar matter, Peaches comes and says "Mr Omar is an activist", right, and the initial instruction is just to get information about activists in the UDF and the ANC, Peaches comes and says "Mr Omar is an activist", my understanding was that that information was then relayed up, right, that information was relayed up, then it goes through the intelligence system and they come back and they say "yes indeed, Mr Omar is an activist, do a 'pre-study'", for what?

MR MARTINI: That is what I am trying to ...

CHAIRPERSON: You see, the "pre-study", what do you do for the "pre-study", is that a "pre-study" to kill him or to abduct him or just to monitor him or what?  In other words there is some sort of decision made to kill him?

MR MARTINI: Mr Chairperson, allow me to finish, that is where I think, that is the confusion I am trying to clear up.  The point, what I am trying to deal with the witness is that when it is asked to carry out the "pre-study", to come up with a plan to kill him, that is not a final decision that he must die.

MR LAX: Can I maybe help you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who makes the plan that the "pre-study" must include the assassination, who makes that decision?

MR MARTINI: Mr van Zyl, to take it a step back, I have actually left out the information from before, but you gather,  you get information, Min Omar is a high profile member of the UDF and ANC, you submit that to your Regional Director, Manager, or Mr Basson, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR MARTINI: From there you assume, because according to the structures, that should be verified through some other channels available to the CCB or Mr Basson, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR MARTINI: You have no knowledge of that verification process, personal knowledge?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, not at all.

MR MARTINI: Thereafter, the way I understand it is Mr Basson or Mr Burger would say to you "yes, he is a high profile, go and prepare a plan to have him eliminated"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR MARTINI: That in itself, is not a decision for you or authority, to go out and eliminate Min Omar?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, not at all.

MR MARTINI: Then you prepare the plan and you say "this is how we can do it, stab him when he comes to the driveway", whatever the plan might entail how to eliminate him and you present it at your in-house, first in-house?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes, I would put it in writing Mr Chairperson, and then I would hand it over to either the Regional Manager or the Co-ordinator, as a result of which an in-house would then be held, not necessarily on the same day, but as soon as possible as the Managing Director is available, because he naturally has to be present.

MR MARTINI: So you have the in-house and you discuss your plan to eliminate Min Omar?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR MARTINI: Now, after that in-house, there is a further in-house, the way I understand the evidence of Verster and your evidence, what they call a "second in-house", between the Managing Director and the Chairman?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR MARTINI: Now, let's stop at the "second in-house".  At that point, according to your structures, it could be possible that the Chairman and the Managing Director may say "we are not going to carry on with the elimination of Min Omar"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is possible.

MR MARTINI: However,  if they decide "we like the plan" they make a final decision to eliminate and that is brought back, down the channels to you, is that how it works?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Through the Regional Manager, correct yes.

MR MARTINI: In other words you would then get your instructions from Mr Burger, I assume the Regional Manager was Mr Burger?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR MARTINI: He would then say to you "go ahead and eliminate Min Omar"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: According to the plan that was submitted.

MR MARTINI: If they hadn't come back with that instruction, one assumes then that the upper echelons, the MD and the Chairman, might not have decided to carry on with the elimination of Min Omar?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR MARTINI: Does that clear it for you, Chairperson?

MR LAX: Can I just add one thing?  It seems to me that at the point at which you fed the information back and then a decision is taken to do a "pre-study" ...

MR MARTINI: It is a decision to do a "pre-study", that is the point.

MR LAX: Well listen carefully, and then you will hear me, the decision to do a "pre-study" is in essence an approval that the person is in fact a target suitable for elimination and then your purpose is to work out the best way to do it?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.