Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-13

UNKNOWN: And what was your understanding at the time as to which component of the ANC or the UDF were generally engaged in these kinds of activities.

MR VAN ZYL: What do you mean, are you meaning what division?

UNKNOWN: I mean are you saying you thought these people were in Umkhonto weSizwe or what are you saying?

MR VAN ZYL: I did not know.  What we did is we gathered the information, the available information relating to the hall, the use of the hall, the persons who met and held meetings at the hall, I processed this information to the Co-ordinator, who then sent it through, I suppose, to the information systems where it was confirmed and as a result of which I then received instructions to do a preliminary study.  So I cannot tell you whether the people that came there were members of Umkhonto weSizwe, or which organisation they were members of.

UNKNOWN: Now after having stated that this organisation was intending to disrupt the election and they'd been involved in acts of terror, you go on to say right at the bottom of page 108
"I had received other information and also documentation that indicated that these persons who were killed in the explosions and other people related to the organisation were involved in the bomb explosions and that further bomb explosions were planned up to the 6th of September 1989, in the Cape."
Now what documents did you obtain?

MR VAN ZYL: If I remember correctly it was banned literature that allegedly was used in that hall.  I think you know the term "banned literature", such types of information.  We did not get information, a written document in which it was specifically said "Listen we are involved in these incidents and we're planning this", the documentation I'm referring to is banned literature.

UNKNOWN: Didn't you obtain documents in which the people involved with the Kewtown youth had written letters admitting that they were responsible for some of these acts of terror?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember that.

UNKNOWN: Well take a look at your statement, one of your Section 29 statements, I think this is what you would call your main statement, at page 39 of bundle B, right at the top.  You're dealing there with the information which you received.  You'll see, third line - are you there?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR KAHANOVITZ
"Documentation had already been handed to me by Gakkie, that was amongst others, written by Chris Ferndale.  It was typed letters and the content thereof said that mentioned person and other people whose names I cannot remember, were responsible for the said bomb explosions."
I read that to say Gakkie gave you a typed letter, written by Chris Ferndale, in which Ferndale represented that he and other persons whose names you can't remember, were responsible for these explosions.  Isn't that what your statement says?

MR VAN ZYL: That is what it says.

UNKNOWN: And this written letter also goes on to say
"That they planned similar bomb explosions up to the 6th of September 1989, in the Cape."
Correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is what I said.

UNKNOWN: Now a letter like this, written by Mr Ferndale, you'll agree with me, would be damning evidence in a court of law.

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: Now what was your information regarding who the owners of the centre were, who owned this building?

MR VAN ZYL: We had information that it belonged to a woman by the name of Buela.  Who exactly she was, I do not know.

UNKNOWN: Did you accept that information as being correct?

MR VAN ZYL: I assumed at that stage that all the information that had been received from Gakkie, was correct, but it was sent through to the information channels, to the information structure, to verify it.

UNKNOWN: Go back to the - just for the purposes of the record, the 6th of September 19, I assume that was the date on which the elections were intended to take place.

MR VAN ZYL: 6 September.

UNKNOWN: Is that the date on which the elections were to happen?

MR VAN ZYL: If I remember correctly, yes.

UNKNOWN: Now you say, on the fifth line, page 109
"The apparent reason for the bomb explosions was the intimidation of people in order to intimidate them so that they would not participate in the elections which was also involving the Coloured people.  Amongst others, I was in the possession of a letter that the same organisation sent to one of the candidates, Mr Alex Anderson, in which he was warned not to take part in the racist elections."
...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think the interpretation said "Alex Anderson", it's Alex Anthony.

UNKNOWN: Now you've already mentioned that you prepared this affidavit while this matter was still fairly fresh in your mind, it was a few months after the event, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: This statement was made, yes.

UNKNOWN: And everything you - you'll see in the next sentence you go on to say that you presented all these facts in your pre-study, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: So can I accept that all the significant information concerning the Kewtown youth and the activities at the Early Learning Centre are set out in this paragraph, starting at the bottom of page 107 up to the middle of page 109?  This is all the significant information you collected.

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Just on that, I just want some clarity, I wasn't a hundred percent sure, this letter you talk about on page 39 of bundle B, did you actually have that letter?

MR VAN ZYL: If I'm talking about this, Mr Chairperson, then I would have had it like this and I would have handed it over.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LAX: Sorry, can I just clarify one other aspect, if I may.
	When you say you handed it over, the sort of information, the list of names, that stuff you would have handed over for verification, is the term you used.

MR VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR LAX: Is that the same process that Mr Verster spoke about, that you knew about?

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR LAX: in other words it went to the various intelligence channels and it was collected and checked with whoever were required or thought of as suitable targets?

MR VAN ZYL: That is how I understood it.

UNKNOWN: Mr van Zyl, I'm not sure you're answer's correct there because your earlier evidence had been - Mr Lax was asking you about the contents of your "voorstudie", correct?

MR VAN ZYL: Correct.

UNKNOWN: Your earlier evidence was that at the time that you were busy with the "voorstudie" in an incident such as this you would have known two things, the target and what was to be done to that target.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: So when you presented your pre-study you knew that the Early Learning Centre was the target and you knew that an act of sabotage was being planned.

MR VAN ZYL: Correct.

UNKNOWN: So it couldn't be that that information would be sent upstairs to verify whether the project should go ahead or not.

MR VAN ZYL: I differ from you because that information that I had gathered, the documentation that we obtained, it was gathered in the period of approximately a month, that we refer to here, and all this information was fed through to the Co-ordinator, as a result of which I received an instruction to do a preliminary study to destroy the site by means of an explosion.

UNKNOWN: But all I'm saying is this written pre-study would not have been sent off for verification of the facts contained in your written pre-study, because all the pre-study would concern was the mechanics of the project, or is it different in this case?

MR VAN ZYL: No, I concede, I think the preliminary study would have been about the vicinity, what we proposed should be done, what logistical support we needed and what the budget is attached to that.

UNKNOWN: You see but then your "voorstudie" would not contain a motivation for why the Early Learning Centre should be targeted or why the Kewtown youth should be targeted.

MR VAN ZYL: Why not?