Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-12

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct, but it was a request when I did the preliminary study with Peaches, we discussed the matter, and it was requested that we provide them with a weapon with a silencer.  We then further thought that we would use a Russian made weapon, so that it could then not lead to Police or Army activities, so that it could lead away from the State in other words.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Just run me through that, someone gets arrested, they find a Makarov with a silencer in their possession, and then what?  They would think it is not the State?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Were Makarov pistols generally available on the market in South Africa at that stage?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, there were ones available, but maybe not as freely as today.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yes, all right.  What then happens, I assume is that at the end of this "eerste in-huis", Mr Burger and Verster approved this plan to use these two gangsters to shoot Mr Omar with the pistol with the silencer?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, was there any debate at the meeting as to whether he should be shot or maybe some other method, you put a car-bomb, poison him, so on and so forth?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, the only thing that I can recall was that there was a debate with regard to where exactly Min Omar should be shot.  Would it have been in his yard or on his way to his home, I can recall that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All right, and what was the recommendation made to you by your superior?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: There was a decision that Mr Omar would be shot when he arrived at his home and when he parked his vehicle in his garage.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Why was that choice made?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It seemed at that stage, to be the best plan ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR KAHANOVITZ: But why did it seem to be the best plan?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I don't know, that was the decision.  I cannot tell you now.  We evaluated the situation and it was a recommendation from my side that I thought this was the best plan.  I cannot explain it else.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I assume that you are the man on the ground, you have scouted out the possible locations and the possible methods and you have made a recommendation in your written submission, I assume, that Min Omar should be shot outside his house with a Makarov pistol with a silencer?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Just on that, Mr Kahanovitz, sorry to interrupt you.  Did you in fact scout out the situation, did you in fact go to Mr Omar's house and look at it, see where the garage is and where the gates are and the driveway, that sort of thing?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No Chairperson, once again this was done, we depended on the information that Peaches gave to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz?

MR KAHANOVITZ: You see Mr van Zyl, what I do not understand about that answer is that for instance when Mr Verster is cross-examined about "did you rely exclusively on the information that you received from these gangsters about whether so and so was a suitable target", it is said there is a process of verification, "of course we would never just rely on what these people told us", do you remember the evidence?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But when it comes to something related to "is this the right place to shoot someone, is this a good spot", then it is not necessary to go and check?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is how the system operated, that is how I handled it.  Other persons would have dealt with it differently, probably.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So in the case of the Early Learning Centre, was the first time that you ever saw the place, the night that you arrived there with a limpet mine?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR MARTINI: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, may I just come in at this stage.  What Mr Kahanovitz put to the witness regarding what Mr Verster said, was said in a different context.    What Verster said was that the information would be verified regarding the identity of the person, but not the actual location or how the project was going to be executed.  That wasn't, as far as my recollection goes, the verification that was spoken about by Verster.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I don't think I differ from my learned friend, that is the question that I put.
	Now, all right, the project gets approval or preliminary approval at the first "in-house", subsequent to that somebody comes to tell you that it has been to the second "in-house" and it has been approved?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so and Staal, my Managing Director, gave me those instructions, I beg your pardon, the Regional Manager.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Sorry, who told you this?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Staal Burger, the Regional Manager.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All right, so we assume or let's not assume, what did he tell you, did he tell you that the Chairman had been spoken to and the Chairman had approved the project?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: He told me the project had been approved and I accepted it.  I accepted that he had spoken to the Chairperson.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What was the time delay between the end of the first "in-house" and being told that the project has now been approved, finally approved?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is difficult to say, but I would estimate it was in the vicinity of a week to  two weeks.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You say that was the ordinary case and to the best of your recollection, that would be about the same time period that would have applied here?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: When it is a convenient time, Mr Kahanovitz, we will take the lunch adjournment.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we will take the lunch adjournment now, until quarter to two.  Thank you.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ABRAM VAN ZYL: ;   (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: We apologise for the late start, but we had a discussion.  Mr Kahanovitz?

MR KAHANOVITZ: (cont)
	Mr van Zyl, please go through page 101 of bundle A, paragraph 40 and if you could just read paragraph 40 into the record.
MR VAN ZYL
"...In Johannesburg I verbally conveyed the progress of the project to the Regional Manager.  I was informed by Peaches three days afterwards, after he paged me, that he had obtained two persons to do the work and that R2 500-00 would be paid out to these persons.  The Regional Manager gave me instructions to hand in an application for R15 000-00.  I had handed this in with the Co-ordinator shortly afterwards.  The amount was received in cash from the Co-ordinator and I paid it into a banking account of Peaches in Johannesburg, R5 000-00.  The R10 000-00 that was left over, I left in the safe in my house.  Peaches would contact me by means of a page, the message "the sun will shine" if the project had been executed.  The project went slowly for four or five months and Peaches did not make any progress with the report.  Upon this, I asked Ferdi Barnard during July/August/September of 1989 to monitor Omar.  I want to add ..."

MR KAHANOVITZ: You are starting to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Kahanovitz, he was just completing the translation.

INTERPRETER: I just wish to add that my mistrust with regard to Peaches was taken up with the Regional Manager on more than one occasion.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you.  Mr van Zyl, you are starting at this stage, to loose your trust in Peaches, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Is this because of amongst other things the microbus that was supposed to be burnt, but was never burnt, was that a factor?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It was.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And the other factor is that he was taking four to five months and nothing has really happened?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, if you could look at bundle B, page 129 which is a sworn statement of Ferdi Barnard you will see that in the middle of the page, he is talking about a certain Louis, and just to place this in context, Louis was the alias used by Lafras Luitingh, correct?