Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-13

CHAIRPERSON: Would this be a convenient time for the tea adjournment?

UNKNOWN: If you'll give me five minutes I can finish the Omar issue.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright.

UNKNOWN: Now just on the question of you telling Peaches that he can get rid of the weapon himself, just let's deal briefly with the extent to which you were aware that he was unreliable.  We've already dealt with the kombi and the fact that the money was stolen from you and this happened before you made the phone call to Peaches, to tell him that he must get rid of the Makarov himself, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: You say in your own statement that you had told the Regional Director on several occasions, that Peaches was unreliable, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: Now I'm going to put it to you that you never phoned Peaches to tell him that he must get rid of the Makarov himself, and the reason you never made that phone call was because Peaches never had the Makarov.

MR VAN ZYL: That is not true.

UNKNOWN: The reason you didn't make the phone call was because it was unnecessary to make the phone call, because Peaches no longer had the Makarov, if he ever indeed had it, the Makarov had been given to Mr Ferdi Barnard, over there, to complete the job.

MR VAN ZYL: I deny that.

UNKNOWN: The reason why you have such enormous problems explaining the sense of your statement that you just relied on Peaches to destroy it, is that that event never happened.  Mr van Zyl, a person like you with your knowledge of Peaches at the time, would never have just phoned up Peaches and said "Peaches, I rely on your integrity in these circumstances, you yourself just get rid of the Makarov."  It would never have happened.

MR VAN ZYL: That's exactly what happened.

UNKNOWN: And the reason you invented that version was because you wanted to create the impression that this gun had been in Peaches' hands and not in Barnard's hands.

MR VAN ZYL: That's entirely untrue.

UNKNOWN: Now the Judge in Mr Barnard's case, found that Mr Barnard had indeed been handed a Makarov with a silencer, where did he get that gun from?

MR VAN ZYL: The Lord only knows, I think you should ask him.  He did not get it from me.

UNKNOWN: He had independent access to Makarovs with silencers.

MR VAN ZYL: It's possible, I do not know.

UNKNOWN: Now if you ...(intervention)

MR MARTINI: Sorry Chairperson, is Mr Kahanovitz going to put to my client that the gun which Judge Els allegedly found was in the possession of Mr Barnard, is the same weapon that was in the possession of Peaches?  Because it's a misleading statement, to leave it in the air and say the Judge found he was in possession of a Makarov.  Mr Lax earlier said he's heard a lot of evidence of numerous of these weapons manufactured, so is Mr Kahanovitz putting, in fairness to the witness, that the Judge in the Barnard case, found that Barnard had the Makarov which Peaches allegedly had in his possession?

UNKNOWN: No, I'm not.
	Now please go to bundle G, page 1868, line 28.  I just want to read you a portion of your evidence there.  You're asked the following:
"In June of '89, did you regard Peaches as a reliable person, on whom you could depend?"
		"Yes, Your Worship, I did regard him as such otherwise I would not have asked him to do the project of Dullah Omar."
And then it said:
"We're talking about June '89."
And then the Judge says to you:
"Yes, but now what happens is three months has already gone by."
And your answer is:
"Your Worship, I still trusted him and in any case I had no-one else that I could use to execute that project for me.  Therefore, yes I regarded him as reliable enough at that stage to execute the project."
And then Mr Ackerman says:
"Is it correct that he misled you at various stages before June 1989?"
And then you say:
"Not that I knew of at that stage.  I only found out that Peaches had misled me when I was detained in February 1990."
Now that statement is untrue, because you could hardly have only discovered this when you were detained in February 1990 if you told Staal Burger on several occasions prior to your detention that you believed that Peaches was unreliable.  Or am I splitting hairs again?

MR VAN ZYL: No, I think what it was about during the period from April, May, June, when I discussed the unreliability of Peaches, it was also about his incapability of functioning productively.  As I also testified it was about the fact that we paid him a fixed salary at some stage and I said "Listen we're not ...", or I made a proposal that we do not pay him a fixed salary, we only pay him for work he had completed.  So  yes, I had a suspicion that Peaches was conniving behind my back and I only had the facts available to me after I spoke to Gakkie during our Section 29 detention, when I received certain information from him.  So therefore I would not say that the statement is entirely untrue.

UNKNOWN: You and Mr Hardien were allowed to have discussions while you were under Section 29 detention?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.

UNKNOWN: The statement
"I only found out that Peaches misled me when I was detained during February 1989."
are you still insisting that's a true statement?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I said factually I can say it was the first time that I became aware of it.  Factually.

UNKNOWN: But that can't be so, Mr van Zyl, apart from the fact that you told Mr Burger on several occasions that you thought he was unreliable.  The reason that you thought that was for instance, after the kombi had allegedly been burnt you yourself made independent enquiries, phoned the Athlone Police Station and so on and so forth and at that time came to the conclusion that the wool had probably been pulled over your eyes.  Correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: So at that stage you, and you've already admitted this earlier on in your evidence yesterday, you came to from the view that these were people not to be trusted because they had misled you.

MR VAN ZYL: That amongst others the case.  I think with the kombi instance Ismail was involved and I contacted Peaches to receive confirmation whether the kombi had been set alight, which he gave me.  But I think the first time with regard to Peaches, which drew my attention to his unreliability, was when we tested him with the package with the stones which was returned and he had fiddled with the package.  That is also in my evidence.  And his excuse to me was that he gave it to another person and that the other person had opened it.  So therefore at that stage I mistrusted him, but as I have said I had no-one else to use and I regarded him as reliable enough to continue with this project.

UNKNOWN: Mr van Zyl, the simple truth of the matter is that it's not that easy to find people who will agree to carry out murders for you, you didn't have anyone else, according to your evidence here, that was available to you at the time, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: You didn't trust Peaches at all, but the fact of the matter was that he was the only person besides Mr Barnard, who was available to you at the time and who would be prepared to carry out ...(indistinct), therefore you just had to use him whether you trusted him or not.

MR VAN ZYL: No, at that stage I handled two persons who worked ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Sorry, I left out Mr Hardien's name.  I'm terribly sorry.

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Gakkie, Isgak.  So those were the two persons whom I handled who were known to the organisation of the persons who worked for me.  I could only choose between the two of them.  Gakkie was already involved in other projects of mine at that stage, so I only had Peaches.  And as I've said, yes one does not find these persons around any corner and I was obliged to use his services even though I did not trust him.