Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-22

MR KAHANOVITZ: You think it is accurate, because it's completely different to what Mr van Zyl has to say.  Your version is that you obtained the name of Dullah Omar and certain information about him.  For this reason you decided to monitor him to see if he was involved in activities against the interests of the State.  You gave the order to monitor him to Abram van Zyl and Abram van Zyl carried out this instruction to monitor with the use of two coloured gang members.  Correct?  That's what you say.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That's what I say.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now Mr van Zyl says that ...(intervention)

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Can I just continue?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: The paragraphs do not represent the real meaning, the aim here was that the information came from van Zyl and Mr van Zyl brought it to us, to the Intelligence structure that this was Mr Omar.  It was verified again from the Intelligence structure, yes.  Order given to Mr van Zyl, yes, monitor him and ascertain his movements and where he lives.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl says that he was not involved in monitoring Adv Omar to establish whether, using two gang members, to establish whether Adv Omar was involved in activities undermining the State.  Mr van Zyl says he hired Peaches who was going to make use of two gang members to assassinate Adv Omar, that's his version.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: There's no mention whatsoever that two gang members were going to be hired to establish whether Adv Omar was involved in activities undermining the interest of the State.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think that, correct me if I'm wrong Mr Kahanovitz, but my recollection of Mr van Zyl's evidence was that he had generally asked Peaches to be on the lookout for people who might be a political profile and Peaches supplied him the name of Mr Omar and he then just relayed the name to "Hoofkantoor".

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Then after that there was a further instruction then to do a pre-study, or whatever.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes and as part of that plan, it was agreed that Peaches ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that came in the next phase later but initially it was a case of Mr van Zyl getting a name given to him by Peaches and just forwarding that name on up to the co-ordinator.

MR LAX: Put it another way

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Mr Kahanovitz is also correct.

MR LAX: I think the thrust of what Mr Kahanovitz has been asking you though, the difference wasn't to monitor him to establish his profile, the purpose of monitoring him was to establish his movements so that the appropriate method of execution could be ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously)

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So in so far as your application said that the purpose of monitoring was to establish whether he was a suitable target, it is inaccurate.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That's inaccurate.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And the same then would apply to the second paragraph on page 147, where you carry on to say that as a result of the information that was received from these coloured gang members, it was established that Mr Omar was indeed involved in radical political activities, that's also not correct.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, that information we received as such was wrong, it came from other sources, that's correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes and the next paragraph ...(intervention)

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: From the other sources and also received from the other sources, that's the information we worked on.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And the next sentence is also wrong because it says
"Once again this information could not be placed before Court by means of evidence and the decision was taken that the CCB had to act against the mentioned Omar himself."
Once again that wasn't a factor that was taken into consideration, correct?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Then page 148, the paragraph at the top of the page.  Maybe once again just read that to yourself, it starts with the words:  "The plan to eliminate Mr Omar".

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Just the one paragraph?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Excuse me?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Just the one paragraph?  Yes, I have read it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Alright once again you say that the plan was abandoned when it became apparent that the coloured person who was supposed to help Mr van Zyl to carry out the task became sympathetic towards Mr Omar.  Now Mr van Zyl says he never told you that Peaches had become sympathetic towards Mr Omar and in fact Mr van Zyl gives a different reason for why the project was abandoned.  Are you sure your version's accurate?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: That he told me that Peaches was unreliable, that he was unreliable, that he couldn't trust him, there was a breach of trust between them.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, but you take that much further.  You say he told you that Peaches had become sympathetic towards Mr Omar, whereas Mr van Zyl's version is that Peaches was unreliable, he never suggested to you that he thought that Peaches had become sympathetic towards Mr Omar.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: It may be that I gave the meaning of sympathy to this unreliability.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You will also be aware from Mr van Zyl's evidence that there were a whole lot of stages in this process, that there was a plan to use a Makarov with silencer, subsequently there was a plan to make use of poison and so on and so forth.  You make no mention of those plans in your amnesty application.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: No, I didn't.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What was the reason for that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: The detail wasn't given at that stage, I don't know why and I think that was the advice we got at that stage.

MR KAHANOVITZ: That you mustn't even mention what the method was that was going to be used to kill the person, that was the advice you received.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I can't remember, Chairperson, but I admit it is wrong.  I should have done it.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now you would also have heard that Ferdi Barnard was found guilt by Judge Els of the attempted murder of Adv Omar, Mr Barnard was found by Judge Els to have waited in the area of Omar's garage with a Makarov pistol with a silencer, are you aware of that?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I am aware of it now.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, your evidence if I understand it is that at that time and until the time of the Harms Commission, you had no idea that Mr van Zyl was making use of the services of Mr Barnard.

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: I didn't know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, you've also, I think already said in your evidence, I can't remember if it was you or Gen Webb but that it - yes, you were asked by the Committee what you thought about Mr van Zyl's evidence that he contacted Peaches and told Peaches that Peaches must himself get rid of the Makarov.  Remember that?  You were asked questions yesterday and you said that you didn't think that that was the best way to go about things?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes, I remember that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now would you agree that Mr van Zyl was a hard-working and conscientious person?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Was he proud of the quality of his work, keen to succeed?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Doesn't it strike you as being very inconsistent with the way in which he worked and his personality that he would take a risk of phoning up a known criminal whom he regards as highly unreliable and leaving it up to that criminal to get rid of the Makarov?

DANIEL F DU TOIT BURGER: It's difficult to answer the question from Mr van Zyl's viewpoint.  In my opinion ...(intervention)

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, no, please answer the question.  I'm asking you on the basis of your understanding of Mr van Zyl's way of working, his personality and his character.  Does it seem to you that that is the way that Mr van Zyl would go about doing his work?