Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-14

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I cannot specifically remember it, the following day, on the 1st, but I can remember that they said to me when I arrived at the airport, Johannesburg International, that there had been possible injuries.
	But whether we discussed it the following day, I cannot say specifically, but my logic tells me that it was probably discussed.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Would you look at your application for amnesty, which is sworn to be true and correct, at page 57 of Bundle A.
	You will see at page 56 you set out the incidents that you are claiming amnesty for, one of which is the Early Learning Centre, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Page 57 the question is pertinently put to you, "state whether any person was injured as a result of such acts, omission or offences" and you say "no".  Then you are asked to state the name of the victims, their occupations and so on and so forth, and in each case you state "not applicable".
	Why, knowing that people had been injured, did you lie in this application form?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I signed it, I can see that it is a typed document which was prepared by my legal representatives at that stage.  I did not have any information regarding to which persons were injured and their particulars, etc.
	So I don't know, it is factually wrong, but I do not think it is a conscious lie to mislead anyone.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But surely you would be aware that one of the things that would be of great importance to the Committee hearing your amnesty application, was the man says "I exploded the bomb", most people in those circumstances would want to know "was anyone harmed, any person harmed as a consequence of your act", correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Yet, you just decided to say no?  You didn't think it was important?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No ...

MR KAHANOVITZ: An innocent mistake?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Let's call it that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Would you care to explain how Gen Webb came to fill in his form and in his application form he says that he is aware that certain people were injured, you on the other hand says that none were injured?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I cannot explain that.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Now, I want to deal with the money that you paid to Gakkie ...

MR LAX: Before you go there Mr Kahanovitz, the other aspect of paragraph 9(b) is damage to property?  Why do you say no damage to property?  I can understand that you might have felt "well, these were light injuries, they weren't important"?  Your intention was to destroy the building?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is true, I do not deny it, but I mean the fact of the matter is that this thing was completed in this way and I signed it like this, but attached was my whole statement that accompanied this application, that says explicitly that the building had been damaged.

MR LAX: You see, then there would have been a reference to your affidavit there, as there is below, with regard to political objective?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes, that is probably an administrative mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kahanovitz?

MR KAHANOVITZ: Thank you.  Mr van Zyl, if you could please go to page 44 of Bundle B, about the middle of the page, paragraph 86 I want to read to you what you said there.
"... the evening of the 11th of September 1989, Staal Burger gave me an amount of R25 000-00 in cash in my brother-in-law's flat.  It was approximately seven o'clock in the evening.  Staal Burger then informed me that he budgeted for R30 000-00 as an amount for Gakkie's part in the explosion.  He further said that he would take R5 000-00 for himself and that I could take R5 000-00 for myself.  I then took R7 000-00 of this money and added it to my remaining R3 000-00 of the Omar project, so that there would be R10 000-00 again.  The reason why there was a shortage of R7 000-00 on the Omar project money, is that I paid Ferdi Barnard with it.  These were expenses that he had to incur and compensation for the period that he was working for me, as already discussed.  On the Tuesday, the 12th of September 1989, I gave the remaining R18 000-00 cash to Gakkie in a restaurant in the City.  The money that Staal Burger had given me, consisted of R50 notes.  I cannot remember if it was closed."
	Now, you had agreed with Gakkie that he was going to be paid R30 000-00 for the job, correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, the project was budgeted for R30 000-00, I don't think that I told Gakkie at any stage that he would receive R30 000-00.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, your evidence yesterday was that the budget provided for a payment of R30 000-00 to Gakkie?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct, but you told me that I had agreed with Gakkie to pay him the R30 000-00.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But why else would you budget for an amount of R30 000-00 to be paid to Gakkie, are you suggesting that you were in fact lying to your superiors, you put down a figure of R30 000-00 in circumstances where you never even had a discussion with Gakkie as to what he was prepared to, the amount that he wanted to be paid for the job?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I did not agree with Gakkie beforehand that we would give him R30 000-00.

MR KAHANOVITZ: What do you say now that you had agreed with him, what was the figure agreed on?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I gave Gakkie R18 000-00 that day, and he was satisfied with it.  The rest of the money I used as I say in the statement.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, before you, your evidence was that when you make these presentations, you would ascertain from the person "what do you want to be paid to kill Gavin Evans, what do you want to be paid to kill Dullah Omar", I assume you would have to go to Gakkie beforehand and say "Mr Hardien, what do you want, how much must I pay you to go and place this limpet mine"?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is not so.  In my evidence, it was at no stage that I spoke to any operative of mine and agreed with him on a price and then went.  The determination of a budget was approved at the first and second in-house, there the amount was approved, actually only at the second in-house.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It doesn't really matter at what stage we are talking, before the job is done, an amount is agreed with the people who are going to carry out the job, that has been your evidence all along?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is not my evidence.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It is not your evidence?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, I must put it to you that that was exactly your evidence yesterday, I questioned you carefully on all the stages and I asked you when you presented, made a presentation at the in-house and an amount was mentioned, had you discussed that with the person?  You are saying that you  just sucked these figures out of your thumb then, you just walk into the in-house and you just mention any old figure?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I did a preliminary study in which I identified an amount, and this preliminary study then goes to the first in-house where it would be presented.  Then it is approved there, but that does not want to say that that amount would still be approved at the second in-house.
	Then the Regional Manager would come back to me and tell me that "the project had been approved and this is the budget attached to it."

CHAIRPERSON: In this instance, I just read what already has been read by Mr Kahanovitz, it says
"... Staal Burger then informed me that he had budgeted for R30 000-00 as an amount for Gakkie's part in the explosion",
	correct?  So that wasn't the total budget for the project, that was Gakkie's part in the operation?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And Gakkie, if you went to Gakkie afterwards as you did on the 12th of September and give him R6 000-00, what made you give him R18 000-00, why didn't you give him R10 000-00?