Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-18

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, with respect, how long is this cross-examination going to stand down?  I understand my learned friend's predicament, but with all due respect, Mr van Zyl did not deviate in any respect from his application.  My learned friend had an opportunity to consult beforehand and the only reason why I'm asking this, Mr Chairman, I do not think we should unnecessarily delay and have all the applicants first testifying and then have the representative, the Evidence Leader and the representative of the family.  The Evidence Leader's position I can fully understand, he must listen to both sides of the story before he can make up his mind.  As far as my learned friend is concerned ...

CHAIRPERSON: I propose that we take a short adjournment now and try and find out what's the position about Ms Samuel's clients.  We'll adjourn until ...
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Samuel, did you have an opportunity to consult?

UNKNOWN: I have consulted and I do have a few questions to ask.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, before my learned friend on behalf of the family starts, I would just like, with the permission of the Commission, to hear whether the family oppose Mr van Zyl's application for amnesty and if so, on what grounds?  I think I'm entitled to hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Could you please tell us what is the position?  Is the application opposed?

UNKNOWN: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR LAX: Press the button please.

UNKNOWN: At this stage the family have indicated to me that they are opposing the application for amnesty.  The instructions are that according to them, their brother was not killed in action
and that is the reason why amnesty is - there was no reason to in fact kill him and that is the reason why amnesty at this stage is being opposed.  There is no, in fact, proper evidence that this man was indeed a double agent.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you kindly refer us to the section on which your position is based?

MR BOOYENS: I've got the Act available for my learned friend, Mr Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: I've got one, but it's in the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.  Okay, could you continue?  We'll see what ...

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Mr van Zyl, you cannot say whether this person, this deceased person, was in fact working as a double agent, is that correct?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I had no personal knowledge of the fact, Mr Chairman, but I had Col Visser's word for that and at that time that was enough for me.

UNKNOWN: You cannot even say whether he was in fact an ANC member?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: For the same reason, at the time I believed that he was, because Col Visser assured me that he had been.

UNKNOWN: Did you ask Col Visser for any further information to satisfy yourself that in fact he was an ANC member or a person operating on both sides?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Col Visser discussed certain aspects of his fears in connection with this person's actions with me, Mr Chairman.  I cannot remember the details of that.  I can actually remember that he had stressed the fact that the fact that this person had turned again to the side of the ANC would have endangered the lives of his handler at the time, as well as other members of the branch, as well as the probability that our Intelligence Operation in Swaziland could have been jeopardised.

UNKNOWN: Did you find out from Col Visser who in fact ...(intervention)

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon, Ma'am?

UNKNOWN: Did you find out from Col Visser who his handler was?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Not at the time.  I did not know who his handler was, Mr Chairman, I saw that in Col Visser's statement later.

UNKNOWN: So according to you, you are saying that the possibility was that Col Visser wasn't the handler of this person as well?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: That Col Visser was not the handler?

UNKNOWN: The handler of this person.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: There is - I think it is a fact that he was not the absolute handler of this person.  That this person was actually handled by another member of his branch.

UNKNOWN: When you say not the absolute handler, what do you mean by that?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I mean that he was not the sole handler of this agent.

UNKNOWN: Are you saying that there is more than one person involved in handling him?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I say that the person, when he was working for the Security Branch Soweto, was handled by a member of the police who was responsible for this agent's movements and actions and that person, normally, would have reported back to Col Visser, that those were the norms at the time, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Now you made mention that when you all went to pick up this person, it would appear to you as though Col Visser was the handler, from the conversations.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: No, I did not indicate that, Mr Chairman.  I did indicate that it appeared that Mr Visser had certain knowledge of this person's actions while he was a then agent.  I would like to rectify it as such please.

UNKNOWN: Did it appear to you as though Col Visser in fact knew this person personally?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: He definitely knew him personally, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: When you went to this place by the name of Klerkskraal, you mentioned that you all in fact went to fetch this person.  You've actually also pointed out that as far as you are aware, he was not drugged or sedated.

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

UNKNOWN: Can you say whether in fact this place was in fact a police station that you all went to fetch him or whether a house?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: As I said, I cannot recall.  I stated specifically in my statement, because I made an attempt to be specific, I cannot remember whether this was an office, a house or in fact a police station, Mr Chairman and it is possible that Col Visser could clear that up for you.

UNKNOWN: So does it also, is there also a possibility that this person could possibly also have been sedated prior to you being there, or even drugged?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: No, definitely not, Mr Chairman, this was latish afternoon and the person was moving freely and speaking and he was in a relaxed way, he was not sedated at all.  He was comfortable in the back seat of the car, speaking to Col Visser about matters that I had no knowledge about, but he was definitely not sedated, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Do you know why Mr Gold mentioned then that he was in fact sedated or drugged?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: All I can think of Mr Chairman, is that the person, the next morning when Mr Gold saw him for the first time, was in fact very tired and that is the only reason that I can think of that somebody might have thought that he was sedated, because I didn't sleep that night.  I was tired.  If he slept, he must have slept fairly fitfully, driving in the back of the car and I assumed that he was tired.

UNKNOWN: Are you in a position to say who in fact made the decision as to the manner in which this person was to in fact be eliminated?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Are you talking about eliminated or disposed of?

UNKNOWN: Disposed of, sorry.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: It was decided by Col Visser and myself and I will take responsibility for the suggestion, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: So you are saying there was a joint decision?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Why was it necessary for you to become part of this?  This incident, this person was working out of the area in which you were stationed completely.  Did you not make inquiries as to why you had to become involved in this?