Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-12

MR KAHANOVITZ: You go on to say that Peaches supplied you with the details about this microbus and where it is parked, also the details of the two people that were going to work for  you, namely Ismail and Isgak, also better known as Gakkie and you then go on to say that, this is in paragraph 37, that the Co-ordinator, that is Mr Basson, approximately a week later, gave you authority to prepare a preliminary study for a project for the burning of this microbus.  Correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You go on to say that you did this study, handed it to Mr Basson who then placed it before Staal Burger and that the proposal was that the kombi should be burnt by Ismail where it was parked in the evenings, in Athlone, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Subsequently an "in-house" was held, you received approval for the project and the plan was that Ismail would be paid R1 500-00 for the execution of the project, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, who was the SWAPO member who owned this microbus?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No idea, Mr Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Did you ask at the time?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I will accept that that specific person's name was known at that stage, and that it would have appeared in documentation, but it was, I cannot tell you now.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Was it important that the microbus belonged to someone who was a member of SWAPO or would you have burnt the microbus even if it belonged to a private transport company?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I think it is very difficult to say, I will accept that there would have had to be a relationship with a banned organisation.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you saying that you viewed the owner of the microbus as being a person who was deserving of punishment?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: What happened Mr Chairperson, is that there were names of persons who allegedly were members of SWAPO and these names were given to me.
	These names I gave to Peaches and Peaches according to him, could track down one of these people, and additionally he  brought it under my attention, that that person was responsible for supporting supporters to a terrorist hearing with the bus.  Whether he was the owner of the bus, I do not know.
	I channelled this information through to the Co-ordinator and I assume that this information was tested by means of the Information Structure and as a result thereof, I received instructions to burn out the vehicle.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What purpose would be served by burning this bus?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I think it would have been a disruptive action, Mr Chairperson, maybe to disrupt people for one or two days, so that they could not get to the trial.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So for you in your own mind, it was justifiable to burn someone's microbus, merely to attain the objective of maybe interrupting one or two days' of transportation to a terrorism trial, is that what you are saying?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: What I am saying is that I received the legal instruction to do that.  At that stage I did not think it through, and I did not think whether it was justifiable to burn out the bus or not, I just did what was asked of me to do, and I have already told you that I think if they were to give me the same instructions today, then naturally I wouldn't do it.
	At that stage I was very naive.

CHAIRPERSON: It couldn't really have been a disruptive action?  I mean, you know, if my kombi gets burnt down, then I catch a taxi.  So if I want to get to a destination, I am not going to be disruptive by it, it is not like it was the only transport available to those people?   There is a huge amount of public transport, surely?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I agree with you Mr Chairperson, but I cannot think that there could have been any other reason for burning out the bus, other than it being a disruptive action.

CHAIRPERSON: Or just a malicious action, just to spite the driver or the owner of it?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I thought that it was a disruptive action so that we could prevent them from using the transport of supporters to go to the terrorist trial.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What was wrong with people going to attend the terrorism trial?  Why should their families, friends, not go and watch the trial?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, it was back then, in a time of undeclared war where we were fighting against the ANC, we were fighting against SWAPO, they took certain steps against us and we against them, and today you can ask yourself many questions, whether it was correct or not.
	At that stage any person who then associated him- or herself with the then enemy, were seen as an enemy by me.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You have also just said that you were merely obeying a lawful instruction.  We have debated this at the previous hearing, I am thinking that might have been a slip of the tongue on your part, it couldn't possibly have been a lawful instruction to go and burn someone's kombi?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Was it lawful?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.  It could not be lawful, but I will once again say that within the context of me receiving instructions, in terms of the structure that had been set up in which unlawful deeds were committed, and it is within that context that I saw it as a lawful instruction.
	I know that it was not lawful.

MR KAHANOVITZ: A lawful unlawful command?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: You can call it that.

MR LAX: Can I just interpose, there was a second part of that answer that perplexed me a little bit, Mr van Zyl.
	You said in essence, you were just following the instruction, you hadn't formed any assessment yourself, you said you just fed the information through, the instruction came back?  I asked this question of Mr Verster when he was testifying, you wouldn't have fed information back if you didn't think there was some validity in the objective of feeding that information through, isn't that so?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR LAX: So in fact you did form your own assessment of that information and you did form your own assessment of the object of sending that information through?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I understand what you are saying and I agree, but I am not totally sure what the crux of the question is.

MR LAX: The crux of the question is quite simple, really.  In a sense your previous answer was to deflect the responsibility for that action to those who gave you orders, and what, and thereby to indicate in fact that you yourself didn't really associate with the object entirely, it was simply a matter of following orders.  What I am saying to you based on your answers to me now, is that in fact you did associate with the object, you had to assess the object and you had to assess the nature of it, otherwise you wouldn't have sent the information through with the kind of approval that resulted in then the decision to go ahead?  It was explained to us, let me just clarify this, it was explained by Mr Verster that you were  required to do your own assessment and in a sense, in providing a report of a positive nature, you actually supported the decision, are you with me?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I hear what you are saying.  Firstly, we received instructions that we had to execute.  It is so that one was part of the gathering of information for certain of those projects, it is so that one was part of the presentation stage that happened and one can say that there had been a very eager interest from our side, over and above the fact that we executed instructions, and that we followed up those instructions, but it was all within the work structure.
	But it does not matter with what proposals I went to my Regional Manager or with what proposals I went to the Co-ordinator, but the eventual decision of what had to be done, and what did not have to be done, was with the Managing Director and the Chairperson, and from there we received the instructions and this is the reason why I want to tell the Honourable Commission how I understand it.