Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-03-17

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, then I submit I don't want to prolong these proceedings but I'm here to protect my client so if that's what Mr Khanovitz wants to do then we'll adjourn, we'll read the statement, the first one, if we're going to deal with the first one.  We can then question on that statement.  If he really wants to go onto the next one we'll adjourn and read that one.  He can laugh in the gallery but I'm not exposing my client to this type of ambush, Chairperson, because it's clearly to say to a man you were in jail, you were pressurised to sign this statement years ago, now come here years later and say you've read it, you know it backwards, I'm going to ask you questions.  We know what's going to happen.  There might be a loss of memory and there's going to be an argument that my client had not been honest and I don't want that prejudice, Chairperson.

MR KHANOVITZ: Chairperson, Mr van Zyl is free to say that those statements were made under duress, they contain a host of inaccuracies.  If that's his version I don't know what his version is.  Might I suggest in the interests of progress the following, that I will endeavour to take up as much time as possible cross-examining him without reference to those statements that when we come back on the next occasion he will then be given an opportunity to point out any falsehoods or inaccuracies in those statements and we can proceed on that basis.

MR MARTINI: That's fair Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and they are quite lengthy statements, I think that might be the way seeing we're only sitting for a short while today.

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, I accept, I think that would be practical, we can carry on with that at the next hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Khanovitz?

MR KHANOVITZ: Chairperson, I'm going to ask Mr van Zyl exactly the same question about the evidence which he gave at the Harms Commission except in this case, Mr van Zyl, you'll agree with me that you've already stated in your amnesty application that all the evidence which you gave at the Harms Commission was true, is that not so?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KHANOVITZ: So you don't need to reread your evidence at the Harms Commission with a view to ascertaining whether it was true or not?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Not at all.

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, you would though be in a position at this stage to tell us whether any of those three statements were made under duress in the sense that somebody forced you to sign something against your will?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I think it is common knowledge that any Section 29 statement is done under duress.  However, I am of the opinion that there is nothing in any of those three statements that if it is contradictory to what I had testified to this Commission or before the Harms Commission or in any criminal trial that I cannot explain.

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, maybe you can just answer the question.  Did you tell any untruths in those signed statements due to pressure which was exerted on you?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Definitely.

MR KHANOVITZ: You did?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR KHANOVITZ: Well, if you're aware of that surely you are now in a position to tell us as we sit here now which aspects of those statements are untrue?

MR MARTINI: Sorry Chairperson, we've dealt with this, you know...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I think Mr Khanovitz has already said that he will go into the detail and the next hearing after Mr van Zyl has had the opportunity of reading the statements with that question in mind but there won't be any pressure, I can assure you, we're not going to hold it against him.  He mentioned some aspects that are untrue but not all of them.  It's a long statement made a long time ago.  I'm not going to hold it against Mr van Zyl and I'm sure Mr Khanovitz won't at this stage either because he has already said let him read the statement before he answers it fully but Mr van Zyl has said, look there's definitely, he used the word "beslis", definitely untruths.  The question is what can you tell us, perhaps he should just make the question slightly more vague to eliminate any later argument.  Can you tell us of some examples of that?

MR KHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, you heard the question posed by the Chairperson, you obviously are aware of certain material aspects of those statements that you know are untrue.  Could you just draw our attention to those in broad terms?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Chairperson, if I may refer to the Early Learning Centre incident I can refer to the Omar incident, I can refer to the Evans incident and I can refer to the monkey incident and as I sit here now there are no contradictions in my Section 29 statement or in my statement before the Commission here.

MR KHANOVITZ: And nothing that you said in relation to those four incidents was stated under duress?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR KHANOVITZ: So what you're really saying is that if there are untruths in those statements, they might relate to other issues such as for instance the Lubowski issue?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is what I'd like to say, yes.

MR KHANOVITZ: I would still ask you though when you do return in June to draw our attention to those inaccuracies and untruths?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I shall do that definitely, Chairperson, if there are any.

MR KHANOVITZ: Now you will have heard when Mr Verster gave his evidence that on several occasions he said "I was a soldier obeying orders" do you recall that phrase?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes I heard that.

MR KHANOVITZ: Now let's just clarify the situation in your case.  Wouldn't it be correct to say that you were certainly not a soldier in the sense that you were a member of the South Africa Defence Force subject to the military disciplinary code?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I agree with that statement, yes.

MR KHANOVITZ: In other words a captain in an infantry unit could not give you an order which you had to obey?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR KHANOVITZ: And it follows from that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Khanovitz, may I just intervene here just on one aspect?

MR KHANOVITZ: We know that the CCB was attached to Special Forces and that you were civilians as such, one of the guys as civilians, did you have for your own purposes any sort of ranking system there.  Were you the equivalent although you weren't given the actual rank, were you regarded as being at the rank of lieutenant or at the rank of captain or any other rank and Mr Botha the same and Mr Maree and all of you or were you just ordinary civilians or regarded yourself as ordinary civilians although you were attached to the army?  I'm talking other than Mr Verster who we know was an army man and Gen Webb obviously, but you people who were pulled in from the Police?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No Chairperson, I regarded myself as a member of the Defence Force but not a member of any rank.  There was no rank structure available to us, we were known as a common operative.  In the covert structures that is not rank, that is just a definition.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they linked to ranks?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: The first rank, if one wants to call it that or the position of seniority would only come in at the level of the Regional Manager, Chairperson, because Mr Burger was addressed as Mr because he had that title or he had that post and in the same way Mr Verster was addressed as Mr because he held the position of Managing Director and the General we always addressed as General.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry counsel.

MR KHANOVITZ: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
	Mr van Zyl, as an ex-policeman you know that for instance in the Police Force you are as a member of the SAP who were obliged to obey a lawful command?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR KHANOVITZ: And the same would apply as a member of the Defence Force, you are obliged to obey a lawful command?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct.