Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-15

MS COLERIDGE: I am nearly done, thank you Chairperson.  Mr van Zyl, Mr Wouter Basson in his Section 29 stated that
"... I was unhappy with the person van Zyl and I was unhappy with Region 6 which did not follow procedures which was unprofessional, according to me."
	What did he mean by that?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I don't know Chairperson, I don't know why he made such a statement.  You would have to ask him yourself.

MS COLERIDGE: Did you have any altercations with Mr Basson, at any stage regarding procedures, etc?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.

MS COLERIDGE: So would you say that this is an unfounded statement?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Correct.

MS COLERIDGE: And Mr van Zyl, in relation to your background, why were you chosen for the CCB, we know that you weren't really an intelligence gathering, you had no real skills in intelligence gathering, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: No.  I have comprehensively dealt with the reasons why I went to the CCB and how it came about that I was recruited.  I don't know if there was anything unclear about that.

MS COLERIDGE: Was there any assault case pending against you as well, where you had to testify for 55 days in a criminal court?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: A long time ago, I was the accused in an assault matter with other policemen, and we were found not guilty.

MS COLERIDGE: And then, can you just elaborate on the four PAC members that had died as a result of being shot at by the Brixton Murder and Robbery Unit, were you involved in that?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I was.   I handled the project that specific evening.  I cannot recall whether there were four or three, they were in a stolen vehicle.  It was a situation of us or them.  The persons were killed in the process.  There was a post-mortem inquest held in this regard and it was concluded.

MS COLERIDGE: When you say it was a matter between you and them, we know that no shots were fired by these PAC members, can you comment on that, there were never any shots fired?

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to maybe anticipate  Mr Martini.  Does it have anything to do with the merits of that incident?  We are not really going to make any finding in regard to whether they were shooting or not?

MS COLERIDGE: Yes Chairperson, I understand, but I just want to point out a fact that why Mr van Zyl actually was recruited by the CCB, was because of his past background and because he was a person that you could rely on to get results, Chairperson, not because of his intelligence skills or anything like that.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Say again please.

MS COLERIDGE: Is it correct that it was found that these PAC people did not fire any shots at the police and that they were shot by the police and you were part of that cell and that they were killed, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is correct yes.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, I think, that was what I was going to conclude ...
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Mr Martini, do you have any re-examination?

MR MARTINI: I would like to re-examine, are we going to carry through, Mr Lax wants to leave,  I believe.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we are not sure.  Perhaps we should, do you need a bit of time before you re-examine?

MR MARTINI: I will just need five minutes to re-examine, but I understand Mr Lax ...

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a five minute adjournment to enable you to put your ducks in  a row, regarding re-examination and also if we could quickly, between people, talk about when we should be adjourning.  Mr Kahanovitz?

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairperson, if Commissioner Lax is able to stay, we would ask that the next witness be called, because I see that Mr Wessels is gone, so that we can assume that he is not, he is prepared to allow the fate of his client ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we would like to for obvious reasons, try to get as much done as possible.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, so I think that it is really for ...

CHAIRPERSON: It is going quite slowly and we have still got lots of people to testify.

GEORGE BIZOS: ... and I thought that this is what we were concerned with.

MR H DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairperson, may I just place on record that Mr Wessels asked me whether I would place Gen Webb in the witness stand now or not, because of the earlier indications that we would finish earlier, there are also other aspects that I need to take up with Gen Webb, before we start leading his evidence.  We were not ready to do that, and I think that it is unfair that we start now.  His evidence also has a direct impact on Mr Wessels' client and he asked me whether I would call him, before we would adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not for us and the Panel to determine the order in which the applicants are going to be called, we don't mind in which order they are called.  But perhaps if all of this could be considered very briefly in this five minute adjournment,  rather than us speaking like this.  But we are prepared to sit here the whole day.

GEORGE BIZOS: We were assured Mr Chairman, that Mr Webb would be the next witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: It would be most helpful if we hear what Gen Webb has to say and it may save a lot of time, if we do have an hour or an hour and a half at least, of his evidence-in-chief, but we do not want, we do not want to  ...

CHAIRPERSON: You see, I agree with what you are saying Mr Bizos, the thing is that we don't want any prejudice to occur to any person, to any party in this matter, and so we wouldn't want evidence to be led by X and because Y's attorney or advocate is not here, that there was some irregularity, etc, that we would be revisited in some other, we don't want that sort of situation.
	We want to do as much as possible

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, if we are not entitled to make decisions in relation to the proceedings mero motu, Mr Chairperson ...

MR MARTINI: Chairperson, may I just enquire because if we are going to stay until four, which I have no problem with, then we might as well adjourn until two.  We are just trying to accommodate Mr Lax, we understand he possibly...

MR LAX: Don't worry about me, I am quite happy to spend an extra night here, I have got an early morning flight if I need it.  Originally I was booked at quarter past four, so and it was impossible to change that, so I have managed to secure another possible flight at half past six tomorrow morning.  I am here, if we need to go on and all the other factors are in place, I can stay, it is not a problem.

MR MARTINI: Might I then suggest that we adjourn till two o'clock, if we are going to carry on till four, subject to, I don't know the other difficulties that exist now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we can do that and perhaps if it is not possible, because of Mr Wessels' absence to proceed, and I take your point that people shouldn't make decisions mero motu, we don't want to actually end up with anybody being prejudiced, whether there is any possibility of calling another applicant instead.

MR H DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, I think in all fairness as well, I have to place on record that the Evidence Leader said yesterday that we would adjourn at one o'clock today and at some stage it was said that we would adjourn at two, and this morning it was said that we would adjourn at two, so now for Mr Bizos to come and say that people cannot mero motu take any decisions to leave the place, is not fair towards Mr Wessels in his absence.

GEORGE BIZOS: You said here that other arrangements will be made by Mr Lax, and we will not adjourn at two o'clock?  This was said and my colleagues here said that they gave an undertaking that they would be finished in 15 minutes.
	I don't want to say anything ...

CHAIRPERSON: I don't have that view, and I realise that we've got a situation here, Mr Wessels have in fact gone.  I just don't want any process to take place that might be prejudicial to anybody.