Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-13

MR VAN ZYL: What actually happened is as I have testified yesterday, after I received confirmation, Chairperson, that Minister Omar had had a heart attack and that he would be recuperating at home, Peaches initially came with the proposal that because he had access to the premises of Mr Omar, he could obtain some of these heart pills.  And following thereupon I discussed it with Staal and then we planned that we would exchange the tablets with a treated tablet that would cause a heart attack.  So the initial proposal came from Peaches.  That is not as it is written here, this statement is not exactly as my evidence was yesterday.

UNKNOWN: Mr van Zyl, it's not a question that it's not exactly the same, in fact it's very different.  Can I ask you to tell me, so that I understand your version correctly, as regards Peaches' involvement in the early phases of planning this operation, was it Peaches who came to you in the first instance and said to you "Mr van Zyl, I can get hold of Adv Omar's heart pills and what I as Peaches suggest, is that you guys manufacture a different pill that's going to cause his death"?  Was that all Peaches' idea in the first instance?

MR VAN ZYL: I cannot say that it was Peaches' idea.  Chairperson, this happened a long time ago.  There was a discussion between and Peaches, following on the fact that Minister Omar was at home because of a heart attack and it is quite possible that I may have asked him "Do you have access to the premises of Minister Omar and can you obtain some of his heart pills?"  It's possible that he told me this, I can really not recall.  The fact of the matter remains that I saw the possibility that we could exchange his heart tablets and I discussed it with Staal Burger and the fact of the matter is that later tablets were handed over to me, which I gave to Peaches, but the finer detail, with all respect, I cannot recall.

UNKNOWN: It's not fine detail, Mr van Zyl, there are three versions floating around now.  As I read your amnesty application it appears that the initiative to go and obtain Mr Omar's heart pills comes from Staal Burger.  That's how I read the sentence.

MR VAN ZYL: No, I would say how I read that sentence is that the instruction came from him, but not necessarily the initiative.  I think the initiative came between myself and Peaches and my later discussion with Staal, but the instruction to obtain it came from Staal.  I think that is the difference there.  I refer to an instruction and you are referring to the initiative.

UNKNOWN: Wouldn't you agree with me that you might know that you have access to laboratories that can manufacture pills that look like heart pills, that can kill people, did you know that?

MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did.

UNKNOWN: Peaches wouldn't know that.

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: Right.  So not knowing that, it is extremely likely that Peaches would have come up with the idea.

MR VAN ZYL: I say that's improbable, but I cannot exclude it, that he possibly came forward with that proposal, but I do not deny that the proposal may have come from myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Kahanovitz, if I could just ask one little question.
	Who did Peaches think you were?

MR VAN ZYL: At that stage Peaches, he just knew me under a false name, Thinus de Wet.  He did not know who I was working for and that I was indeed attached to the Army or anything to that effect, he had no idea of my true identity as well as where I worked.  Chairperson, as I have already testified in my evidence-in-chief, when he was recruited he was recruited and told that we wanted to protect the interests of business, overseas businessmen.  So it was not told to him that we were working for the Defence Force and that we were attached to any security organisation.

UNKNOWN: In fact, Peaches, according to your version, was under the impression that you were doing work for this group of overseas businessmen, so it would  never have crossed his mind that you might have access to pills of this nature.

MR VAN ZYL: I agree.

UNKNOWN: Now where did you obtain your knowledge from, that pills of this nature could be manufactured?

MR VAN ZYL: This was during a course that we had completed during January 1989.  This was on a Defence Force farm just outside Pretoria, where it was mentioned to us that the organisation has a division, EMLC was the abbreviation, that could provide logistical support to us and that logistical support would have included forms of poison, which was applicable in this regard.

UNKNOWN: But Mr van Zyl, this isn't poison, this is a sophisticated operation involving the manufacture of tablets that will cause heart attacks in someone that has pre-existing heart problems, correct?

MR VAN ZYL: That is so.

UNKNOWN: And there's a specific purpose in carrying out the attack in that way.  I assume the idea is that no-one will in fact know the victim has been murdered.

MR VAN ZYL: Correct.

UNKNOWN: I just want to put it to you that you gave an entirely different version on the question of where the initiative for this plan came from, to the Court in the matter of State vs Barnard, because in that case you said that the initiative for the plan, in all its elements, had been the idea of Peaches.  Go to that record at page 1875, starting at line 11.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that bundle G?

UNKNOWN: Bundle G.

MR VAN ZYL: What is the page reference?

UNKNOWN: 1875, bundle G.

MR LAX: What line?

UNKNOWN: The reference is on 1875, line 11 through to 1876, line 3.  I will read the relevant portion.
	You're asked the following question:
"Is it correct that later possibly other plans were thought about to do something to Mr Omar, this pill which would look like a heart attack which would cause him to die?"
The answer:
"It is so, Your Worship, the proposal came from Peaches, because for me - because he would not have another opportunity to kill Mr Omar by means of the firearm and he put forward a proposal or brought a proposal that since he had access to the house of Omar, he would obtain some of the pills that he uses as medication and that we would exchange it with pills which would either poison him or cause him a heart attack."
Then the question is:
"In this planning, was it Peaches that came forward with this plan?"
		"Correct."
Then you're asked whether the CCB has the capability to make such pills and you say that that is indeed so.  Then at the top of the following page the question is pertinently put to you:
"Was this tablet manufactured following on Peaches' proposal?"
		"Correct."
Now which version is the correct version, the one you gave today or the one you gave the Court in State vs Barnard?

MR VAN ZYL: Chairperson, it's exactly as I testified now.  Peaches told me that he had access to the house and because of this we discussed the issue of how we can execute the project.  I do not deny that it could have been Peaches' proposal and that I actively participated.  I also do not deny that it could have been my proposal and I participated.  The fact remains that Peaches and I discussed it, and if you want to interpret it as that I lied in court, that is not so.  I cannot recall exactly.  It makes sense, I knew that the organisation had the capability of manufacturing tablets which would assist us in this regard.  And I do concede that Peaches in all probability, would not have known about this.  I do not want to blame Peaches and I do not want to claim to be innocent, it was a joint endeavour of ours to try and execute the plan.

UNKNOWN: Mr van Zyl, I don't accept your answer.  Your evidence in State vs Barnard was clearly to the effect that the initiative for the plan was that of Peaches.  Do you agree with me?