Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-14

MR WILLIAMS: I don't understand what you are saying.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It is simple.  I said that he gave me R25 000-00 and that he would be keeping R5 000-00 for himself.  What he used the R5 000-00 for, I do not know.   If he used it for himself personally, then it is improper, naturally.

MR WILLIAMS: Did he tell you that you can keep R5 000-00 for yourself?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR WILLIAMS: Meaning that you can appropriate that for yourself?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you understand when he made that proposition to you, that he was going to do the same?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I understood it that way.

MR WILLIAMS: And you concede that is highly improper, it is not in terms of your code?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR WILLIAMS: Somewhere in some of your statements you said that you gained the impression that Mr Staal Burger used the organisation, or abused the organisation?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Where did I say that?

MR WILLIAMS: Let's just look at the exact wording, Bundle B, page 49.  Just the second last sentence of the first paragraph, or maybe we should start with the sentence just before that.
	The first paragraph, the sentence begins with "it was approximately", would you mind just reading that into the record for us?

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got that, Mr van Zyl?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I have that.
"... it was approximately during July 1989 when Staal Burger and Tessa la Grange, the spouse of the then Capt la Grange when to the Drakensberg Inn Hotel for four days.  I know for a fact that it was done under the organisation's cost and the organisation was misled in this way.  The fourth reason was that my wife was expecting our child, and she requested me to lead a peaceful life."
	This is untrue, I cannot confirm that Staal went to the Drakensberg, not with Tessa la Grange.  It is Section 29 statement.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you explain to the Commission why you inserted that into your statement?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It is a Section 29 statement.

MR WILLIAMS: But can you explain to the Commission why you inserted it?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: You answer questions that the questioner wants to hear during a Section 29 detention, so that you can be set free.  There are many lies under a Section 29 hearing.

MR WILLIAMS: Did Staal Burger accuse you of having misused the organisation to enrich yourself?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Staal Burger for me, no.  At a stage he said to me, when I retired, that I misused the organisation, that is what he told me.

MR WILLIAMS: What did you understand, what did he mean by that?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I do not know.  But in no way did I misuse the organisation in the time that I was in their service, at no stage.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you think of a reason why Staal Burger would say that you misused the organisation?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I think you can ask him that.

CHAIRPERSON: What was your relationship at that stage with Mr Burger, that he would say that to you and that you would put this statement, a statement like this in your Section 29?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, the day when I went to retire, when I quit from the CCB, Mr Burger was naturally upset, and I think it was said in that light.
	We did not have a bad relationship, but I think it was said at the spur of the moment, and I do not believe there was anything meant by that.  I think Mr Burger is the best person to answer that question.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you say in one of your statements ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I am just saying you can continue.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you.  Did you say in one of your statements, that there was speculation that Staal Burger misappropriated $10 000?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I could have said it in my statement, it is absolutely untrue.  I have no facts relating to this.  It is a Section 29 statement.

MR WILLIAMS: I think that was said somewhere in Bundle B, page 51?  I will come back to that.  Would you say that the potential existed within the CCB structure for individuals to misappropriate funds?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.  I think the financial systems that were in place then, was good, but you yourself know that any system can at the end of the day, probably be misused, or most systems.

MR WILLIAMS: We have just dealt with the example of the Early Learning project, where R30 000-00 was budgeted for, for Gakkie, for Mr Hardien, but of R30 000-00 one of the agents took it, how could that have been accounted for in your reports?  Can you think how you could possibly have concealed that information or dealt with it to the satisfaction of Joe Verster?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: The accounting was done, the application for payment was done by me and I think the accounting of that specific project was done either by Christo or by Staal themselves.  Naturally it is possible, I mean if I have to give an agent R2 000-00 and I decide to keep R200-00 and give him R1 800-00, then it is possible, it can be done without my Regional Manager knowing it, and it can also be done without the Managing Director knowing it, or without the Chairperson knowing it.  It is cash money that you are working with.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there no requirement that you had to, so far as possible, produce any sort of voucher?  In other words if you are giving R18 000-00 to Gakkie, does he not have to just sign something, indicating that he has received that money?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, not at all.  You will just do an account to say that you have given him the money relating to a certain project, but he didn't have to sign anything.  There were certain cases where one would have to get receipts, but then there were cases where you could not get receipts, where you only filled in a form, and you signed it.

CHAIRPERSON: And if you stayed at a hotel, would you have to produce the voucher, the account?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: In the case of a hotel accommodation, you would have to take, you would have to attach the account when you did the accounting of the expenses.

MR WILLIAMS: So do you agree with me that it was possible to misappropriate funds?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I have just said that to you.

MR WILLIAMS: No, you initially denied it?

MR MARTINI: The witness says it is possible, he accepts that that possibility exists.

MR WILLIAMS: He initially denied it, that is why I followed it up.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what he said according to my note was that the system could be abused just like any other system in any other sort of organisation.

MR WILLIAMS: Okay.  Mr van Zyl, I want to move on to another point.  I want to, sorry, just before I move on to that point, I want to ask you what pressure was put on you while you were detained under Section 29?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Sir, you know, Section 29, you are detained at that stage, you could have been detained for a period of nine months and then it can be postponed to two years, until you have made a statement that the Investigating Officer of that specific case was satisfied with, that the contents thereof, is correct.
	I wanted to as soon as possible, to get out of that Section 29, and these two statements that you are referring to, are not correct statements.  This is why I am referring to the one big Section 29 statement that I have made, where the information and the facts related thereto, are one hundred percent correct to a large degree.  The pressure that is placed upon you, is pressure that you want to get out of jail as quickly as possible.

MR WILLIAMS: But the thing is, nobody ...

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No assault had been made on me.

MR WILLIAMS: But nobody suggested that you include that in your statement?  There was no outside suggestion that you include untruths in your statement?