Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-12

MR KAHANOVITZ: When you say that you are convinced that he is going to come and tell the truth, are you saying that you have knowledge that he is going to come and give evidence where he is going to say that that portion of his statement is untrue?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Naturally long after this statement had been made by Mr Basson, I was part of a process when we were handing in our amnesty applications, and what his exact evidence will be, I will not be able to tell you.  But I am aware of the fact that he supports me in my application regarding the Early Learning Centre, the Dullah Omar incident and all the other incidents.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What you are really saying is that the time that you handed in your amnesty applications, you tried to reconcile all of your versions?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, what I am saying is that at that stage myself, Burger, Maree, Botha and Basson used the same legal representative and it is in this process that I had become aware of the fact that my application as it is written today, is supported by all the parties that I have just mentioned.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What do you mean by "was supported by", it is supported by?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It is reasonably simple, where in the past it had been denied, where in 1990 when I testified before the Harms Commission, where I was pushed to one side and I was told that I had done things on my own and this was not the case, etc, in time those same people had realised that there is only one truth and this is the truth that I had told, and this is why I am supported in relation to my application.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Did Mr Basson ever deny that Region 6 was involved in the activities that you said that Region 6 was involved in?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I think what I am saying here is that in terms of the first paragraph, it is clear that he said that only a monitoring process would be applied to Omar, which was not the case.

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no, Mr van Zyl, you misunderstand what he is saying.    He is not saying that there was only a monitoring project.  Where you and he differ is on how the process was initiated.
	In other words, he says the name Omar was given to you so that you could go and obtain information as to whether Dullah Omar was indeed involved in activities that were undermining the interests of the State.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I see further in the next paragraph, I will just quote
"... the decision was made that mentioned Omar would have to be eliminated."
	I misunderstood it.  What I do say is that I did not receive instructions from him, I deny that, to gather further information relating to Omar.  The initial information that I had received concerning Omar and that had been channelled through regarding Omar, that was it, as far as my information was concerned.  A further instruction was to do a preliminary study so that he can be eliminated.  I deny this paragraph 2.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Who was the conduit for your instructions at that stage?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Who was the, when you were preparing for, in the preparatory phases, wouldn't your instructions come from Mr Basson?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So why should he get it wrong?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I do not know, you would have to ask him.

MR KAHANOVITZ: When was Omar registered as an official project?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Kahanovitz, is that after the first "in-house" or second ...

MR KAHANOVITZ: I think maybe we should ask the witness to answer that.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I think it would be in the region of end June, beginning of July, if I remember correctly.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What do you understand by, and I will use the language that you normally use in Afrikaans was "registered as a project", what do those words mean?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: If I refer to a registered project here, what I mean by it is that it was approved by the Chairperson, and then I received an instruction from my Regional Manager to budget for it financially and to execute the project.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You have just said you think that was in June?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I think it was at the end of June, beginning of July.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Why would you pick that time?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, it was quite a while before that, I think it was in April.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Why April or June?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Because that was the time, could I have a look at my statement and then I will give you the date.  You have read it and you know what the date is.  The reason why I thought it was July was because I sent Ferdi down and I sent him down in August and in September and then it would be April.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Would that be then at the time, roundabout the time when the first "in-house" would have taken place, in April 1989?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All right.  Who was present at that "in-house"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Myself, the Regional Manager, the Managing Director.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Anybody else?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: The Co-ordinator.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Burger, Basson, Verster and van Zyl?  Okay.  You had made a written "voor-studie" in this case.  I assume if a simple matter such as the printing press is about a page or two pages, how long was this "voor-studie"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I cannot remember.

MR KAHANOVITZ: No idea, all right?  The meeting, the first "in-house", about how long did it go on for?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I cannot remember that either.  It was probably approximately an hour, it could be longer.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What was discussed?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: My proposal about how the project would have to be executed.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Which was?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That Peaches would obtain two people to help him and that Mr Omar would then be shot at his house.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Was there any discussion about whether, given that you had hired Peaches in the first instance because you thought he would be a suitable assassin, why were you now going to bring two other unknown people who would receive instructions from Peaches, why involve these two additional people in the project, why not ask Peaches to shoot Omar?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It would lead to further cut-off points, in other words if they were to be arrested, then I would be one step further away from being identified.

MR KAHANOVITZ: In the plan that you presented, did you know who these people were?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So you had no idea whether they were going to be good or bad at the job, you just relied on whoever Peaches hired?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is the way we worked.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, what was the budget for the whole project?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I think it was R15 000-00.  Wasn't it R15 000-00, it is written in my statement?

MR KAHANOVITZ: R15 000-00 is the figure that you mentioned that was going to be paid to Peaches?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That couldn't have been the budget for the entire project, that is just his payment?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Do you recall what the budget was for the whole project?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I mean naturally it did provide for plane tickets but what exactly it was, I cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: And also for the two assistants of Peaches, would they be paid?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: They would have been paid from this.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What were they going to receive?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I think they would each have received R5 000-00.

CHAIRPERSON: So that R15 000-00 was a three way split, R5 000-00 for Peaches and his two associates?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Why did you need to give these gangsters a gun?  I mean, I am assuming these are the kinds of people who had their own guns?