Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-16

CHAIRPERSON: But do you confirm the contents of paragraph 62 as being what you said and as far as you're concerned, being correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I confirm that that is so and that it is correct, yes.  And then I would like to continue with paragraph 63.
"During my leave in September 1989, I reconsidered my connection or attachment to the CCB.  I realised that the country was entering a new phase of negotiation under the State President, Mr F W de Klerk.  I was of the opinion that Mr de Klerk was prepared to speak to the ANC, which would mean that the internal arms struggle would be ceased and that Region 6's objective would become obsolete.  The new approach with the enemy enjoyed my support and I looked forward to the day when the CCB's actions were no longer necessary.
		In light of the abovementioned and on behalf of my family, I decided to cut off any relationship with the CCB in order to lead a normal life as a South African citizen, with the view of a future in a new peaceful South Africa.  I therefore resigned in October 1989 from the CCB."

MR MARTINI: Mr van Zyl, before these acts in respect of which you're asking for amnesty, what were your political objectives?  You dealt with them in your amnesty application, if you could please just read that into the record.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I will accordingly read Bundle A, page 72 to page 74.  It is Annexure B
"The actions referred to in Annexure A, I did with a political aim and for political reasons in the presupposition that a State goal was served, always in the execution of instructions, as set out underneath.  I was a member of the Civil Co-operation Bureau, the CCB, and therefore a member of the South African Defence Force.  In the Harms report, page 34, the circumstances under which I joined the CCB are set out in paragraph 6 to 24 of my affidavit and I stick to this.  I specifically want to draw attention on paragraph 10 of my statement where I said that at that stage I had the opinion at that time as a member of the South African Defence Force, that the enemies of the Republic of South Africa were busy with a secret war against the Republic of South Africa.  It was a situation which for survival had my sympathy and also my interests.
		It was clear to me that the conventional ways of warfare at that time in the exterior of South Africa, was not efficient and effective and that steps in a secret way were necessary against the enemy.
		In paragraph 22 in my affidavit I said that during the training course I was told by the Managing Director of the CCB that I would be indemnified and that I would not be prosecuted and the argument was that the Defence Force and the State approved of these projects and that I would not be prosecuted seeing as how the country was also in a war situation internally.  I also summarised the situation like this. 
		I confirm hence that while I gave evidence in front of the Harms Commission, I also gave evidence to this effect and that I was not contradicted during cross-examination.  See Harms Report, page 44, footnote 9.  In this regard I would like to point out that other than the CCB, I did follow the higher authority of the State President and the Chief of the Defence Force and the Minister of Defence, and I also confirm that no personal gain was involved in my steps and that my actions always happened with a political motive.  I saw my task as a soldier and a member of the South African Force, to protect the government of the day and also to maintain the existing State system.  My steps were a reaction to the total onslaught against the government of the day and the enemies of the Republic of South Africa.
		I will also respectfully propose that the findings of the Harms Commission would confirm that with my steps I acted with a political goal.  I had no other political goal other than the protection of the government."

MR MARTINI: Sorry, Chairperson, I just want to deal with certain issues with my client now.  Thank you, Chairperson.
	Mr van Zyl, when you joined the CCB in 1988, did you support any particular organisation at the time?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I think it is apparent that all Afrikaans-speaking or most Afrikaans-speaking white people at that stage supported the government of the day, which was the National Party, and it was also my point of view at that point.

MR MARTINI: Mr van Zyl, you stated that when you joined the CCB you went on a course, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR MARTINI: At the course, did the course entail you being enlightened on the structures that were available to the CCB?  Any other organisations which could assist the CCB organisation within the framework of the State organs.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, because the CCB as such was a covert operation there were no details that were given to us concerning which support organisations we could use, but mention was made to us that the CCB did have an intelligence structure at its disposal and that the CCB had a facility at its disposal, which was known as the EMLC.  That facility was responsible for the gathering of logistical support, for instance weaponry.

CHAIRPERSON: What does EMLC stand for, do you know?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I can't remember.

MR LAX: If I remember correctly it's mentioned in someone else's papers, something to do with electromagnetic component, or something like that.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Something like that, yes.

MR MARTINI: Thank you.
	Mr van Zyl, you've heard today and throughout the week quite a lot of debate relating to the Harms Commission, the testimony that you've given here today at the Truth Commission, before the Amnesty Committee, is that the same evidence you've given at the Harms Commission?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is the case, Mr Chairperson.  This statement was prepared by my legal team at that point and this is the evidence that I gave since March 1990.

CHAIRPERSON: So the evidence which you've read now from the statement, which is now your evidence in this matter, is in certain respects somewhat outdated, I think you talk about having a two-month old child and that sort of thing.  That child would now be 10 years old.  And that you live in Florida, does that still apply?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson no, apart from personal situations that have changed, factually regarding the projects that I gave evidence of, the contents of that statement is still the same and correct.

MR MARTINI: Sorry, Mr Chairman.  In effect what I'm dealing with is these acts that you're claiming amnesty for, the evidence relating to that is the same evidence as given at the Harms Commission.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is the case.

MR MARTINI: Now when you testified at the Harms Commission, were you given any indemnity?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairperson, I also state that completely on page 1 of the statement, that no promises were made to me and that I gave the evidence because I felt that I wanted to cooperate with the Harms Commission and that I gave this evidence at that stage during 1990, with the realisation that I could be prosecuted.  In spite of this fact, I did give this evidence.

MR MARTINI: Did you claim any privilege at that Commission?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairperson, I did not use my right to privilege apart from possibly in one case, and that is the Lubowski matter in South West, in Namibia, but I don't believe that that was privilege, that was outside the jurisdiction of the Harms Commission and evidence was not given in this regard.