Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-12

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Kahanovitz is getting at, the question was "are any of the statements contained in the documentation between pages 11 and 60 of bundle B, factually untrue" and the response was "well relating to the Early Learning Centre, the Omar incident and the money incident, they are correct".  I think  besides those incidents, are there any other matters that might be factually untrue, contained in ...

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Chairperson, there is only one instance where this person is focusing on, and that is the Lubowski incident, where factually incorrect versions appear in the Section 29 statement, and I do not want to elaborate on that because this is not part of my application, and in terms of one instance for which I did not apply for amnesty, is the burning down of a printing press.
	I mentioned there that I gave Gakkie instructions to do this, it was not Gakkie, it was indeed Peaches Gordon.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, let's deal with the paragraph concerning Mr Lubowski.  Can you direct us to the paragraph which you say contains untrue facts?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I just want to ascertain, are we on page 58?  Chairperson, I read to you and I think it may facilitate matters to comment afterwards.
"...  As far as I know, Chap handled Aitcheson.  I never saw them together, I do not know what he looks like.  Who shot Lubowski, I do not know, I am not able to say, although Aitcheson was tasked to work for him."
	This factually is incorrect.   The last part - 	"... Aitcheson was tasked to work for him."
	I do not have any knowledge of it, it was said to me, but that is incorrect.
"...  The submission was done by Chap ..."
	that is also incorrect.
"...  Staal and Joe Verster approved it and recommended it to the Chairperson ..."
	that is also incorrect.
"...  On the 1st of September 1989 I saw Chap made the submission to Chriso ..." (transcriber's interpretation),
	that is also incorrect.
"...  Shortly afterwards I went to the hotel room and went on leave the same day, I went to Cape Town, that is why I do not have any knowledge about the project and while I was in the Cape, I had Ferdi Barnard there on Omar's matter and he and I were in the Cape when Lubowski was shot.  That was the last time I saw Ferdi."
	That is all correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, you said it was said to you that Chappie Maree was Atcheson's handler, but that, is that your evidence, it was said to you, but what was said to you is not correct?  Is that what you are saying?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, in terms of the fact that Chap Maree handled Aitcheson, it was said to me, but I did not see that.  That factually is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So what is wrong with the sentence
"... Aitcheson's my kennis strek, het Chap vir Aitcheson hanteer ..."?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: There is nothing wrong with that, that is not what I have said.  What I have read to you, what is incorrect here, I said in the third line, Aitcheson was tasked to work on him, that is the first incorrect statement that I pointed out to you.  I did not point the first sentence out to you as incorrect.

MR KAHANOVITZ: All right, so you are saying somebody told you that, which is why you put it in the statement, and you subsequently discovered that it was untrue?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, that is also not what I am saying.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Well, is the statement true?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: The statement that Chappie handled Aitcheson?

MR KAHANOVITZ: No, the statement that Aitcheson was tasked to work on Lubowski?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I don't know about that, in other words that is false.

MR KAHANOVITZ: I don't understand your answer, Mr van Zyl.  When you put that sentence, when you inserted that sentence into the statement, and you swore an oath that it was true and correct, on the basis of what knowledge or information did you come to provide the policeman who drafted the statement, with that information?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Chairperson, that was a Section 29 statement, which was made under coercion and that is just inferences put in here so that a statement could be made, so that one could be released.  That is why I am pointing out that it is incorrect.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Are you suggesting that the Investigating Officer who prepared the statement, put those words into your mouth?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is not what I am saying, I said these were inferences that I drew.

MR KAHANOVITZ: But you are the person who drew the inferences?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And now you are wishing to withdraw from the inference that you drew, is that what you are saying?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so, because factually that is incorrect.  The only reason why I am doing this, is because I cannot prove it.  If I could prove it, then I would have told you this is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: So you are saying you don't know whether it is true, that Aitcheson was tasked to work on Lubowski?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: It could be true?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It could be so.  I do not know.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Judge, might I have one minute to look at a document?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

UNKNOWN: (Microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Martini, if we can stop doing that.

MR MARTINI: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I accept that, I apologise for that.  My client asked me for a legal opinion on the questioning and I said we should carry on answering.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Mr van Zyl, I am going to come back to the Lubowski incident later, so I am going to reserve my questions about the truth or otherwise of what was being said there.  Apart from those two paragraphs and the statement made in relation to the printing press, the wrong name that you supplied, is everything else in these statements a hundred percent true?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: According to my perspective, yes.

MR KAHANOVITZ: If I could ask you to look at bundle A, page 74, paragraph 8.  You said in your amnesty application
"...I confirm herewith that there was no personal gain involved in my action and that my conduct was with a political motive".
	Is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.

MR KAHANOVITZ: You have already admitted that you joined an organisation, whose primary purpose was to maximally disrupt the enemy by the commission of amongst others, criminal acts, including assassinations?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And you agreed to carry out criminal acts on behalf of that organisation?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I agreed to concur with my instructions, and that this included criminal actions, is so.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The answer is yes?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Yes, but I think one has to see it in the right perspective.

MR KAHANOVITZ: And in agreeing to commit these acts, your version is that there was no personal gain involved, in other words you are saying that you did it purely for selfless patriotic reasons, because you thought the security of the  State was threatened?  Is that your version?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Chairperson, when one continues with that paragraph it says on the following line
"... I saw my task as acting as a soldier and to protect the government of the day and to maintain the State dispensation."
	That is why I did this, I was part of a structure that belonged to the Army and where instructions were given to me, which I concurred with.  No other benefit, there was no other benefit involved for me.

MR KAHANOVITZ: The part I am interested in, you are saying money had nothing to do with your motive, you were doing it for patriotic reasons?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.  Money played no role in the execution of any of these instructions.

MR KAHANOVITZ: Let's deal with the carrot that was dangled before you when you were enticed to join the CCB.  I am just going to take you through various aspects of your package.  In the first place, and you have already testified about this at the Harms Commission, you were offered a much better salary than in the SAP.  You said your salary increased by approximately one third, is that correct?