Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-18

ADV SANDI: Yes, but even, if I understand you correctly, even without looking at the pictures that appear on page 140 and 141, you do not have a clear independent picture in your mind of this person, isn't that what you're saying?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: That is what I'm saying Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember how this person was dressed at the time of the assassination?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I cannot remember, no Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: As I understand it, you didn't spend a very long time with this person anyway, perhaps that contributes to your difficulty to be able to have a clear picture in mind of this person?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: That is possible, Mr Chairman, I saw him for the first time late in the afternoon.  He travelled in the back of the car during the night.  I never had a look during that time at him and I only saw him again during the course of the morning.  My picture of him is vague, very vague.

ADV SANDI: When you saw him again the next day in the morning, how many hours did you spend with him?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: After first light, possibly four or five hours maybe, Mr Chairman, at the most.

UNKNOWN: We'd also bear in mind Mr van Zyl, that this incident happened like a very long time ago as well.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: Why didn't you in fact - sorry, why did you in fact hand over a firearm to Mr Carr?  Why didn't you in fact give your own firearm to Mr Carr at the time when you were about to shoot the deceased, or Mr Madondo?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: My recollection is that I actually received this firearm at some time prior to that and it could have been shortly or before as I said previously in my testimony, from Mr Gold and I cannot actually recall whether I gave this firearm to Mr Carr with any instruction or whether he took it.  I do not think there were any words spoken at the time.  My recollection about that is vague as well.  The reason for, why this specific firearm was used, as I said before, it was a Walther hand machine carbine with a silencer fitted to it and the reason was only to try and suppress the sound not to draw too much attention to the incident.

UNKNOWN: You mentioned that in fact when Mr Carr fired, he in fact had missed and - or sorry - you mentioned that this person in fact, when Mr Carr fired, this person, Mr Madondo then jumped up.  Mr Carr in fact makes no mention in his application of you in fact, of this person in fact jumping up.  He says that he had fired and I think had missed and then you shot this person, Mr Madondo.  There was no incident of Mr Madondo suddenly springing up.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: That is - my recollection of that is very clear, Mr Chairman.  He jumped up.

UNKNOWN: Are you in a position to tell us where exactly this incident took place?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Yes, unless things have changed in the area very much, the old farm house was just off the main road between Piet Retief and Pongola on the western side of the dam.  It is a very well-known and big dam.  It was only known to me as - referred to as the Pongola dam and I cannot remember exactly how far from the national road, but those are the co-ordinates, more or less.

UNKNOWN: You see because the family would like to know where exactly he was, in fact, where this took place so that they can perform whatever ceremony they need to.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I understand that and that is why I also indicated my sincere desire to identify the deceased positively because it would be painful for the wrong family to sit here today and listen to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Samuel, perhaps we'll try and find out whether any of the applicants would be able to positively identify the exact spot or the near exact spot where this happened and then it could be arranged that the family could visit this place if they want to.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zuko would you kindly, with the assistance of the other legal representatives, see whether you can do something about this?

MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, I'll take it upon myself to do that.

UNKNOWN: I have no more questions.

CHAIRPERSON: As was already stated, I think in the interest of especially the family, we should try and make sure whether it was indeed Mr Madondo who was killed because it could be very traumatic if we accept that that's the position and it was in fact another person, but we'll try and see, I think as the Hearing progresses, may be we get more information about it.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair.  Just on that, have you been able to, this incident is said to have happened in the second half of 1980, have you been able to ascertain from your clients as to the whereabouts of Mr Madondo at that time?

UNKNOWN: As far as clients' instructions are, is that he has disappeared from 1979 and the possibility is that he could have been in detention for a long period because there were certain periods when he was in fact kept in custody.

ADV SANDI: Has it been accepted that he was in fact a member of the ANC?

UNKNOWN: It has been accepted that he was a member of the ANC.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zuko?

MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR MAPOMA: Mr van Zyl, when you first spoke to Mr Visser, you will recall you said in your evidence in chief that he said there was an MK trained person who was arrested, do you recall that?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: Not that he was arrested, Mr Chairman.  There was an MK person that had been working for the branch at the time and that he had turned and that he was working for the ANC again and that he had to be eliminated.  I cannot recall that Col Visser told me that he was arrested at that time.

MR MAPOMA: I thought you said so in your evidence in chief.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: That he was arrested?

MR MAPOMA: Yes.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I cannot recall that, Mr Chairman.  If I said that, maybe it was because that I later learned that we picked him up from a police station or from ...(intervention)

MR MAPOMA: Did you not say that in your application that Visser said this man was arrested?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: That he was arrested earlier, in paragraph 2 on page 68 or my application, Mr Chairman
"That a trained member of MK
in the fifth line, ...(not translated)
"wat vroer gearresteer is maar op daardie stadium as 'n beruggewer vir die Sowetotak gewerk het, weer "gedraai" het en besig was om 'n dubbele rol te speel."
That he was arrested at an earlier stage Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: And then what happened?  What was his narration to you then?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon?

MR MAPOMA: He was arrested earlier on, that's what he said, and then what happened?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: My assumption was that if he had been arrested earlier and then worked for the Security Branch afterwards, that he was obviously released, that he was free to move around and to do the work that his handler expected of him and that he had not been under arrest at that time anymore, that is what the implication was to me at that time.

MR MAPOMA: Now, you also said that a particular member of the Security Branch was the actual handler of the deceased person.  Who is that member of the police who was handling the deceased?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I did not know that at the time, Mr Chairman, I saw that in Col Visser's statement at a much later stage.  If I can renew my, I cannot remember if it was Martin van Niekerk, or Martin van Rooyen.  I did not know the handler, I said so.

MR MAPOMA: Now that handler was reporting to Mr Visser.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MAPOMA: So is it your evidence that you never communicated with the handler of the deceased person, you personally?

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: I never knew him, Mr Chairman, that's correct.

MR MAPOMA: And did you ever communicate with Brig Goosen yourself directly?