Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-13

MR LAX: Well then why are you denying that certain things were possible or not denying that certain things were possible?

MR VAN ZYL: What I am saying, Chairperson, is that I deny that - because it was the practice that when I had a cell meeting with the Co-ordinator and the Regional Manager, Chappie was not present, neither was Kalla, and I ...(intervention)

MR LAX: But you can't even remember that you see, you just can't remember it, you don't know whether that's so.  And the trouble is you've already conceded that you broke your own rules all the time.  There are other instances in your testimony and in all this evidence, where people who shouldn't have been present were present, where people where you had explicit orders not to involve them, you involved them.  So how can we with any degree of certainty, rely on what you're saying?

MR VAN ZYL: You have to make that decision.

MR LAX: I'm trying to understand what is it that you can indicate to me that can be convincing.  You see, we're dealing with someone like yourself here, who says on the one hand "Well, I broke the rules when it suited me", and there are instances here where you involve other people who had no need to be there at all.

MR VAN ZYL: I hear what you say, but I think that attests to my credibility.  I could have sat here today and said I never broke any rules, but I told you on two occasions I did things thing that I was not supposed to do.  Do not penalise me for things that I did not do and then - if I broke two rules, then I did not break any more rules, otherwise I would have told you about this.  I can tell you with conviction that on the day of the meeting that it was our rules - I don't think Staal would have allowed it and I do not think that the Co-ordinator would have allowed that Chappie and Kalla sat in on a meeting where we discussed the tablets of Omar, where it had nothing to do with them.  It based on those rules that I am saying that I can say with certainty that Chap and Kalla were not part of the discussion, but I do know that the other two persons were part of that discussion because I dealt with them at a later stage.
	When I received the tablets I handed the tablets over to a person from the Medical Regiment.  I received the powder from Nick at the airport, that is why I know that they were involved, but Kalla and Chap were not involved.  That is why I can say that with conviction, but I cannot tell you exactly what the hotel room look like at that stage and when I and Staal and the Co-ordinator and the other two persons talked, where Kalla and Chap were.  I cannot recall.  With all respect, Chairperson, I cannot recall.  It's not important for me to know where they were.

MR LAX: The fact of the matter is that but for this statement here at page 105, you wouldn't have any other recollection of this meeting.

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: Mr van Zyl, let's list the number of occasions on which this statement is being used as the basis for leading of evidence from you, either in a Commission or in a court of law.  It was used in the Harms Commission and you were led on the basis of the statement, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: It was used in the criminal prosecution of Ferdi Barnard and the prosecution there used it as the basis for you evidence, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: They used my Section 29 statement.

UNKNOWN: They also had this statement.

MR VAN ZYL: They did have it.

UNKNOWN: They didn't have it?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, they did have it.

UNKNOWN: You also gave evidence in the criminal prosecution of Dr Wouter Basson, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: When was that?

MR VAN ZYL: It was approximately three weeks ago, and once again my Section 29 statement was used.

UNKNOWN: They didn't have this statement?

MR VAN ZYL: No, Sir, that is not what I am saying, I said that they led me from my Section 29 statement.

UNKNOWN: In the sense that it was put in front of you while you were giving evidence.

MR VAN ZYL: Exactly.

UNKNOWN: Now what did you tell the Court in the Dr Wouter Basson case, about who was present at this meeting?

MR VAN ZYL: I would have told them exactly what I testified this morning, of the person from the medial regiment, because it was important for them to know who that person was.  I cannot identify him.  I identified Nick - well, told them of Nick.  They identified him themselves.  He testified there and he confirmed what I had said.  He confirmed that he gave the powder to me later.  So what I testified here earlier, that Chap and Kalla were not present, is also what I testified to there.

UNKNOWN: What's Nick's real name?

MR VAN ZYL: I do not know, I only know him as Nick.

UNKNOWN: But didn't you read the charge sheet in State vs Dr Wouter Basson?

MR VAN ZYL: No, I didn't.

UNKNOWN: You didn't?

MR VAN ZYL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: There's quite a lot of reading involved there.

UNKNOWN: According to that charge sheet, Nick's real name is E J Smit ...(intervention)

MR VAN ZYL: That may be, I do not know.

UNKNOWN: What was Nick's role?  Wasn't he in charge of finances according to you?

MR VAN ZYL: He was with finances, he was involved with finances as far as I know.  What exactly he did I do not know.

UNKNOWN: You had contact with him from time to time while you were in Region 6.

MR VAN ZYL: That is so and I think that if I have to say in the approximate year that I'd been there, I saw him about three times.

UNKNOWN: Now you and the gentlemen who are applying for amnesty here, I assume at least some of you had meetings to make a decision as to whether you were going to apply for amnesty or not, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: We naturally decided and that was early in 1990.

UNKNOWN: Certainly, I think four of you at that time at the same lawyer.

MR VAN ZYL: It was myself, Ferdi, Kalla, Wouter Basson, Staal and Chap.

UNKNOWN: You all had the same lawyers.

MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: Alright.  I assume one of the issues that would have arisen for discussion is that given that this Nick person was also involved in the conspiracy to kill Adv Omar, whether he should apply for amnesty or not.  I mean you were all in it together.

MR VAN ZYL: Nick was not part of our group.

UNKNOWN: Why do you say that?

MR VAN ZYL: Because he was not there.

UNKNOWN: Are you saying - oh, because he wasn't a member of Region 6 itself?

MR VAN ZYL: No, I'm saying that Nick was not part of the group that was at the initial legal representative, Piet du Plessis.

UNKNOWN: Yes, maybe I'm phrasing my question badly.  One of the issues I would imagine is, should all the people from the CCB who were involved in this assassination plot apply for amnesty and if so, what are they going to say?  One of the issues would be, is Nick going to apply and if so, what is he going to say?

MR VAN ZYL: No, you know, Sir, let me surprise you, the five of us whose names I've just mentioned, did not even have contact with Joe Verster, we did not even have contact with the General at the end of the day.  We did not know what they were doing.  We did what we felt was right and we followed the instructions of our legal representative, Mr Piet du Plessis at that stage, and that is how it happened.

UNKNOWN: No, it doesn't surprise me that you might not have been in contact with Joe Verster and Gen Webb, but all I'm asking you is, did the issue of Nick come up?  I assume your answer is no.

MR VAN ZYL: No.

UNKNOWN: Alright.  And if I ask you why has he not applied for amnesty, you will say "I don't know."

MR VAN ZYL: I do not know.

UNKNOWN: Now were at that stage aware of the existence of the Roodeplaats Laboratory?

MR VAN ZYL: No.

UNKNOWN: Where did you think these pills were coming from?

MR VAN ZYL: I had no idea.

UNKNOWN: Now this person from the Medical Regiment, what does he look like?