Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-12

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Basson does not say to you "but, what are we talking about here, Mr van Zyl, should we get the Traffic Police to go and give them a parking ticket"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You had absolutely no discussion with Mr Basson as to what steps, if any, might be taken against the owner of the microbus or the microbus itself?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So if they come back and they had said "thank you for your information, Mr van Zyl, the plan is that you must kill the man who owns the microbus", do you accept that?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And you would have gone ahead and executed that instruction?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All right Sir, you now have this preparatory study, it is in writing, in the case of this project, how long was your written submission?

CHAIRPERSON: Are we talking about the microbus?

MR KAHANOVITZ: The microbus, yes, how many pages?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I cannot recall.  I would have to guess, probably two pages, I cannot recall.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, Mr Basson, he reads it.  I assume at that stage he can say "we are not even going to have an "in-house" on this project, because I think it is nonsense"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Could you please repeat that?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Basson's role as the Co-ordinator, he must filter through the information which the operatives give him in their  written submissions in order to decide whether or not an "in-house" should be held to take the project further or do you hold an "in-house" on every written submission that comes, that is put on the table?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.  I accept that Mr Basson would then receive instructions to say that a pre-study has to be done and an "in-house" has to be held, but not, it is not necessary with regard to each pre-study that is done.
	I believe that an "in-house" would be held.  I cannot answer that question.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But in relation to every written submission that you made, preparatory submission that you made, a subsequent "in-house" was held?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is indeed so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, dealing again with the kombi.  Now an "in-house" is held, I assume at this "in-house", Mr Basson and Staal Burger would have been present?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Along with the Chairperson, I beg your pardon, the Managing Director.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr Verster?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So around this table we've got Basson, Verster, Burger and van Zyl and now you are sitting, having a discussion about this microbus?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: How long was this meeting?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I cannot tell you, but I would accept that it could have been anything from half an hour to probably an hour, hour and a half, I am not able to say.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, if Mr Burger wants to say "I think this is a stupid plan to burnt his kombi, it makes no sense", are those sorts of issues then discussed at the "in-house"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: What is discussed at the "in-house" Chairperson, is the submission of the pre-study that has been placed in writing by me, along with inputs from the Co-ordinator and inputs from the Regional Manager, that is what would be discussed there in order to bringing the project to execution according to the pre-study that had been done.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So you don't discuss whether puncturing the tyres might be better than burning the microbus, all you discuss is how we are going to go about burning a microbus?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I cannot tell you now whether in this specific regard, or in this specific instance,  alternatives were discussed with regard to the minibus.  That is possible that it was done, it is only humanly possible that alternatives would be discussed, but at the end of the day, and that is why at the end of the day the primary plan which was submitted, is actually discussed.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So, just in relation to the incidents that you are applying for amnesty for, we can accept then that at the time the "in-house" was held, a plan in the case of the Early Learning Centre, had already been approved and accepted to sabotage the building, all you would be discussing at your "in-house" were the mechanics of the plan - when, where, how, with what equipment, involving which operatives?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Similarly in the case of Min Omar, at the "in-house", before the "in-house" started, it had already been decided to eliminate Min Omar, all you would be discussing was who is going to do it, when are they going to do it, how are they going to do it, how much are they going to be paid and so on and so forth?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What was your understanding as a member of Region 6, as to who had decided?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I understood it that the final decision was the Chairman's decision and I would then accept that under the circumstances, the two persons who really decided whether a project would be executed, whether it should proceed or not, was the Managing Director, Joe Verster, or the Chairperson, Gen Webb, in certain of the projects.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see Mr van Zyl, you have also given evidence that what would happen after this was that there would be "'n tweede in-huis", and at that "tweede in-huis", the people who would be present would be Joe Verster and Gen Webb?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Correct, and they would be the only people?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: As far as I know, but it may be that in certain regards, the Regional Manager would be called in.  Whether this was done, I don't know.  My understanding of it, I understood during the second "in-house", only the Chairperson and the Managing Director would be present.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you see the evidence of Gen Webb as I understand it, and Col Verster's as I understand it, is that in order for a project to gain approval, it had to be approved by the Chairman, Gen Webb, in consultation with the Managing Director, Col Verster.  Correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The meeting at which that process would occur, is known as a "tweede in-huis", correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: If you follow the logic of what they are saying, until that meeting has taken place, there can be no project to eliminate Dullah Omar?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you see, what you have just said is entirely contradictory to what you have said before?  You say you walk into an "in-house" on the basis, on the premise, that there is already a decision that has been made, that the go ahead has been given for a project to eliminate Dullah Omar, all that needs to be discussed, is the mechanics, are you with me?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes, that is what you said.  That is not what my testimony has been, but please finish your statement, I shall answer it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But on Gen Webb and Col Verster's version, and in fact on your original version, at the stage that you are having the "in-house", Gen Webb knows nothing about the project?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct, I agree with that, but at that stage Chairperson, that project has not been approved  yet.  The project is only approved when it is submitted to the Chairperson and he gives his approval, and only then would I receive an instruction to execute that project.
	I think where the misunderstanding is here is these recommendations which one has to refer to, which has been done during the first "in-house" where I am present, a plan is then recommended to the Managing Director and that plan is taken further by him, to the Chairperson, and only at that level is it approved and then I shall receive an instruction to execute it.