Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-15

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I would like to submit to you that with the South African Police, you went through a minute to minute process of how the events progressed and that you drove the whole way with them.

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Could you please repeat that?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I submit to you that you made certain identifications to the police and that you went with members of the South African Police, you travelled the whole road, the exact route that you had followed, and you showed that to the police?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman, they asked me to point out the route to where the incident took place, and that was the road I knew to get to Devon.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Well, I will like to point to the finding on page 78 that you had moved with the police and pointed out to them the route that evening, which started at 19H40 with the police, where you started at Constantia hostel, that you went to room B203, that from there you went to Ockie's room, that you then departed from the hostel with the police and that you extensively described to them, the road which you had travelled from the hotel to Devon and that in no way did you indicate that you had driven to Pretoria and explained the road directly to Devon.

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Well, they had asked me to point out where the event had taken place at Devon, the incident.  That is what I did.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, I am submitting to you that in a question in the court, during the court case, you had indicated that an entry had been made at 19H50 where you had gone to Pretoria, but that would have been impossible to have driven to Pretoria in the time that you are talking about.
	I don't understand that clearly sir.  I submit that there had been too little time to travel to Pretoria on that particular evening, and that initially you had also indicated to the police, that you hadn't gone to Pretoria?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: I was in Pretoria Mr Chairman.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Why did you then indicate to the police that you had driven directly from the hotel to Devon?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Because they had just asked me the route to Devon where the incident had taken place, they didn't ask me anything about Pretoria.
	I didn't regard Pretoria as part of the incident Mr Chairman.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are saying to us is that the first attempt to steal firearms, was not regarded by you as part of the operation?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: I was arrested for murder and robbery and I was asked where the incident had taken place Mr Chairman.

ADV GCABASHE: But Mr Van Zyl, looking at the very same paragraph from page 77 to 78, I have always understood you evidence to be and correct me if I am wrong, that the Army camp that you had targeted, where there would be black people who were drunk, was Pretoria?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: This paragraph, page 77 to 78, is referring to Devon, because you did not talk about Pretoria at all, or have I got something wrong here?  Which is what I think part of what Mr Van Schalkwyk is dealing with, this Army camp, you were talking to the police and the Court in relation to this particular paragraph, but you talk about the same blacks at an Army camp who would have been drunk.
	I am not too sure as to where this camp was supposed to be.  You are telling us it was Pretoria, you said to the Court and the police you were referring to Devon.  Just help me with that, maybe I have just misunderstood something.

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: I just described to them where the incident had taken place.   Would you have regarded Pretoria as part of the incident?

ADV GCABASHE: No, I am simply talking about the reference here and as you realise, my Afrikaans isn't that  ... (new page) ... Pretoria material, the Pretoria target was this camp where there would be drunk black people normally and you would be able to get these weapons relatively easily.
	This here talks about Devon, not Pretoria, but the same fact is used here.  This is why I am saying maybe you can help me, because maybe I am getting it wrong.

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: It was the finding of the Court, and they didn't refer to Pretoria.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chair, if I could just assist.  I believe that the parties are talking passed each other at this stage, page 77 and I would respectfully point this out, that was just the finding of the Court a quo with regard to the case against Mr Van Zyl and Mr Holder, and this is the finding of the Court, this is not the testimony that Mr Van Zyl, or the evidence that Mr Van Zyl would have given.
	The Court in line 24 as part of the finding says that it is clear that this visit to Pretoria is a figment of the imagination.   This is not the evidence of Mr Van Zyl's that he is being confronted with, but rather the finding of the Court.

CHAIRPERSON: It appears to me as if Mr Van Zyl in his evidence before the Court had said that he had indeed mentioned Pretoria in the places he pointed out because it appears as if from his evidence, the entry on page 78 opposite the time 19H50, is incomplete because there should also have been a reference to the trip to Pretoria.
	It appears as if during the trial he had said he had pointed it out, he had mentioned Pretoria to the police and he had pointed it out but the police had just not entered it correctly, recorded it correctly and on the basis of all of this, the Court decided that it must have been a figment of the imagination that they had visited Pretoria.
	There was no reference in the notes regarding what was pointed out to Pretoria, there was no reference to Pretoria and it seems as if there was a further complication in that regard in the sense that Mr Van Zyl says that he had indeed pointed out Pretoria to them, but they had just not written that down.
	That is the way I read it, but perhaps he could explain it to us exactly what had happened at the trial.  Did you listen to the discussion we had now Mr Van Zyl?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it indeed so - Mr Van Zyl, could we clarify the situation, let's see if we can.
	You apparently in your statements made to the police, you made no reference to Pretoria?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is what you confirm us today?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't refer to Pretoria, because you didn't regard it as relevant,  it actually concerned the murder?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: When it came to the trial, you indeed mentioned Pretoria in your testimony?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You referred to the trip to Pretoria?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: And then it became apparent that the Court had criticised your testimony because the Court said that there had been no reference in your statements to Pretoria, that there had been no reference in the notes pointing out things, to Pretoria and therefore the Court found that the trip to Pretoria was simply something that had been made up, a story made up and that it had never taken place?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So you tried to convince the Court that you had indeed been in Pretoria?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And they didn't believe you?

WILLEM JOHANNES VAN ZYL: That is correct.