Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 2000-06-15

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I did not attend any such meetings.  As I said Calla was only arrested in December, if my information is correct, and after I retired from the CCB, I was isolated.

MS COLERIDGE: What do you mean isolated, Mr van Zyl?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I was isolated, I did not have contact with the people.

MS COLERIDGE: But surely Mr Maree, Mr Burger, you surely could have had contact with one another?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: We could if we wanted to, but there was no contact.

MS COLERIDGE: Did you use the same legal representative, all of you, Burger, Maree, yourself?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I used the same representative after my Section 29 detention, and to be honest, the day of my arrest, I had no legal representative.  Mr du Plessis was arranged for me by my then wife, Brenda, without my knowledge.

MS COLERIDGE: Well, that might be so.   I just want to put it to you Mr van Zyl, that once Barnard and Botha was arrested, there was panic which you conceded, amongst your members, that you met regularly at the Ponte Building and in the Midrand to discuss, because you could have been arrested at that time, Barnard was arrested  earlier and Botha in December, and you made your statement in February, there was two months in which you could meet with your other members of the CCB and arrange a version that was suitable in the circumstances, what is your response?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I deny that vehemently, that is not so.

MS COLERIDGE: And that when you made that Section 29 statement, you had to stick to that story, because you were cross-examined on your Section 29, you had to stick to your story and you were not aware of the TRC process ever coming about at that stage, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is so.

MS COLERIDGE: And therefore in that statement regarding the Athlone Learning incident, you kept the Athlone incident to a minimum, by not acknowledging that your intention was to kill, at that stage, is that correct?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Not at all.

MS COLERIDGE: And that your members of the CCB feared that you would have attempted, plenty of attempted murder cases on your hands, instead of just an incident where you say that you did not want to cause any loss of life, what is your comment on that?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: I deny that.  It is totally untrue.

MS COLERIDGE: In relation to your indemnity, we have heard that you received indemnity.  I, we, have not to date received any information regarding those applications and whether it was granted or not, have you made any further enquiries?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about indemnity in terms of the 1991 and 1992 acts?

MS COLERIDGE: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Or indemnity granted by the Court after the giving of evidence?

MS COLERIDGE: I am referring to the indemnity in 1991, that stage, Chairperson.

ABRAM VAN ZYL: Up to date I have not received any documents from any organisation that spells that out to me.

MS COLERIDGE: Just for the record Chairperson, I have been doing some research in trying to obtain this, but to date we have had no records mentioning that the applicant has been granted indemnity in terms of that Act, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: One would imagine that if you had been granted indemnity in terms of the previous Act, you at least would have known about it?

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is possible Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It is possible that you might not, but ...

ABRAM VAN ZYL: That is our information, according to our information from our legal representatives, that it was processes and approved, but I have not received any documentation in that regard.

GEORGE BIZOS: May I ...

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: There was a mass application, about 3 000 policemen for indemnity which was not in terms of the Act.  The Act, the then acting President, Mr Pik Botha, whilst Mr P.W. Botha was out of the country or indisposed, but he purported to grant indemnities under a Section which empowered the President to grant indemnity for what one may call the non-serious violations of human rights dealing with, the Section that he purported to act on was one that dealt with people going in and out of the country without a passport, the possession, it may cover the possession of firearms ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think in that instance, each of those 3 000 didn't actually make application, it was ...

GEORGE BIZOS: I think they signed ...

CHAIRPERSON: Did they have to sign a document?

GEORGE BIZOS: I think that they signed, police officers went around getting signatures from their members, from about 3 000 people with unspecified offences.  That is how I remember it.

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, that is not correct, there was another procedure, another Act, under which applications were made by various applicants for amnesty, it wasn't under that Regulation that Mr Bizos is referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: The 1992 Act, the Indemnity Act?

MR WESSELS: There were hearings, on the previous occasion when Mr Verster testified, the same issue arose, the Evidence Leader made enquiries through the agents of the Commission, and the response was that Mr Kleinhans who was dealing with it, was contacted, he informed that it was in fact processed, but it was never published, because the reason was that they thought that this Mr Wouter Basson was the other one which is being charged now, and for that reason they didn't want to publish it, but everything was processed up to that stage.  That is the information that we got last time.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MS COLERIDGE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct), Mr van Zyl is unaware of himself having been granted any indemnity.

MR LAX: Can I just check, have you checked the Government Gazette's to see whether his name appears anywhere there?

MS COLERIDGE: You see, this is the whole point regarding this, that it has never been published in the Government Gazette, so that is where we stand at this point.

MR LAX: Because many other people were published?

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairperson, this is correct about that different procedure, but that procedure had a Committee of three wise men, retired Judges which there had to be a hearing to advise the President and if the President was satisfied, he would grant an indemnity which would be published in the Gazette.  If there was no hearing before ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think it was Judge Solomons and Steyn, was it ...

GEORGE BIZOS: And Leon?

CHAIRPERSON: And Leon?

GEORGE BIZOS: There was that procedure, you are correct, but ...

MR WESSELS: Mr Chairman, sorry, may I just say we are talking about actually two different Acts.  The one was the Indemnity Act, 35 of 1990, that is the first one, and the other one is the Further Indemnity Act, 151 of 1992.
	The first purported to grant amnesty automatically, and there was no publication and the other one, there had to be an application.  As far as my clients are concerned, and I am also aware Mr van Zyl, and Mr Botha, applications had been done and submissions had been made in terms of Act 151 of 1992.
	It is true that there was no publication of names, but I made it clear right from the outset of this application before this Commission that we totally reserve our position regarding those applications.  We are not going to deal with it, and we are not at this stage, going to insist that indemnity was granted or should have been granted, we are just not dealing with it, and we are totally reserving our position regarding those two Acts as far as my clients are concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, whether it has been granted or not, doesn't really impact on these proceedings.

MR WESSELS: I agree, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We have done various proceedings where persons have already got indemnity in terms of those other Acts and we have never ...

MR WESSELS: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished your questioning?