Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-14

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I would not say that there had been.   I can for instance think, it is difficult to say, I don't think that words were put in your mouth and it was said "listen, you have to say this", but during, taking down a statement, certain questions were put to you, leading questions were put to you and then you would accede to that, these things had happened.

MR WILLIAMS: I will leave it at that.  Mr van Zyl, I want to ask you who was the enemy, who was your enemy?  I know Mr Kahanovitz asked you some of these questions, unfortunately, I am not going to go into too much detail there, but I want to ask you because it will lead to somewhere later on.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I have already answered that question.

MR WILLIAMS: Okay, can you turn to Bundle B, page 15.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Bundle B, page?

MR WILLIAMS: Page 15.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr van Zyl, if you say pressure is put on you to make a statement under Section 29, in order to be freed under Section 29, obviously you would have to tell the truth, is that not so?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR SIBANYONI: Didn't you explain that the, some of the things in your Section 29 statements were not true, because of the pressure which would be the different result?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: To whom, explained?

MR SIBANYONI: In other words you said some of the statements, some of the statements in your Section 29 declaration, were not correct and they were not correct because you were receiving some pressure, you were just stating these things.
	But my question is, I would expect you to tell the truth, so as to be released under Section 29?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, that is the logical inference that one could draw, I understand what you are putting to me, but I will tell you that in Section 29 statements which were made then with the Police, 80 percent of those statements are false.  You say anything just to be released from that situation.
	I do not refer to my own statement, I refer over the wider spectrum, everyone who had to make Section 29 statements, and that is why a Section 29 statement is not admissible in a court, because it is made under coercion.

MR SIBANYONI: Therefore an untruth in Section 29 statements, cannot be as a result of the pressure which was put on you?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Indeed.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams?

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.  Would you agree that the rest, that about 90 percent of the contents of your statement, which was made under Section 29, according to you, are correct and truthful?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: With regard to the long Section 29 statement, you would see that the statement that you are referring to, I made before the time, it was a quick way that I thought that in some instances, I could give them false information and tell them what they wanted to hear so that they could release me, but at the end of the day, this did not work.  I was still detained, and I then decided to open-heartedly, give my full co-operation after which I made the big Section 29 statement, which in my opinion, is 95 percent correct.

MR WILLIAMS: Mr van Zyl, on page 15 in Bundle 2, would you  mind reading the last sentence there?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Which paragraph?

MR WILLIAMS: Paragraph 16.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: "... it was spelt out on the course by Joe Verster, that two bonuses ..."

MR WILLIAMS: Sorry, page 15, paragraph 16, the last sentence.  Sorry, page 15.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the last sentence on page 15, under paragraph 16 on my papers?  It is page 5 of the statement.
MR VAN ZYL
"... Mr Joe Verster also told us that persons who endangered the security of the State and who maintained such a public, high public profile that the South African Police could not act against them,  such persons would be targets of this organisation."

MR WILLIAMS: And the next sentence?
MR VAN ZYL
"... He mentioned the names of Allan Boesak and Desmond Tutu as examples."

MR WILLIAMS: In which province did Allan Boesak and Desmond Tutu live?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: In the Cape Province.

MR WILLIAMS: That was the province that you were in charge of, is that not so?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct, yes.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you at any point in time consider registering projects against the two of them, or either one of them?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MR WILLIAMS: Were those your actual tar gets, or the actual targets of the CCB, people against whom the South African Police could not act?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, not necessarily.  It was part of the category of persons who qualified as targets for the CCB.

MR WILLIAMS: And other people would, would members of the ANC qualify as targets?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I believe so.

MR WILLIAMS: Supporters of the ANC?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I believe so.

MR WILLIAMS: Do you know that the ANC had millions of supporters in the late 1980's?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MR WILLIAMS: On what basis would you decide that a particular target had to be selected?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: My evidence was that in most cases, the targets were identified by means of an intelligence structure, and although we did obtain information with regard to individuals or with regard to bodies who were involved in activities, which would be to the detriment of the State at that stage, I do not know what the criteria was exactly for which, for example, it was decided that Min Omar would be targeted.

MR WILLIAMS: How would you decide that you were going to work on something or collect information on someone, if you were unclear whether that person would actually qualify as a target or not?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: We had information, we obtained information in general and then that information would be processed, and I say once again, it went to the intelligence wing of the organisation and if a decision was taken, the information I accept was tested, or this makes sense, we have more information with regard to this target, and then they would come back to me and tell me "go and do a preliminary study on this target".

MR WILLIAMS: who was supposed to do that, to verify the information?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: The intelligence structure of the CCB.  Who that was, I do not know, I never directly liaised with them.  My evidence is up to now that the information that I obtained, would be given to the Co-ordinator who would process it and my instructions would be received from the Co-ordinator, or from the Regional Manager.

MR WILLIAMS: Is your evidence that the Co-ordinator had to give it to the intelligence wing, or ...

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I would assume so.

MR WILLIAMS: Do you know as a fact who was supposed to verify that information?  Who had to pass the information on?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, I do not know those persons.  I never had contact with them.

MR WILLIAMS: But I am asking, the organisation within which you operated, do you know who in your organisation had to send the information on to the intelligence wings and have it verified?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That was the function of the Co-ordinator.

MR WILLIAMS: That was Wouter Basson?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Wouter Basson.

MR WILLIAMS: Just before I come to the actual Kewtown incident and the emanation of information and whatever, I just want to ask you a few questions on statements which also appear in your statement, in one of your statements.
	In Bundle A, page 89 you say that -
"... all projects were approved by the Chairperson",
	is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts on page 89, Mr Williams?  There is the second last sentence and then the last sentence?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is how I understood the structure and I believe it worked like that.

MR WILLIAMS: In Bundle B, page 19, there is a sentence which reads
"... if the project was recommended by the Chairperson, it would be submitted by the Chairperson to the Min of Defence for approval."

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No, it is not a fact.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you explain to the Committee why does that sentence also appear in your statement?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: It is a Section 29 statement.