Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR J VAN ZYL: I don't agree with that.
	It is, as far as I am concerned, not quite right and Mr Lotz I think himself could explain why he wrote it like that, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: So are you saying then that Mr Lotz is lying?

MR J VAN ZYL: No.  I am saying that the way that he put it, that I only informed him on the day of the 27th is not correct, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Does one then infer from that, Mr van Zyl, that either you are lying or he is lying?

MR J VAN ZYL: I think Mr Lotz means it in a different context, Mr Chairman.
	I am definitely not lying about when I told him.

UNKNOWN: What different context would that be, Mr van Zyl?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I think Mr Lotz will be able to tell you whether this was in fact only mentioned to him on the 27th for the first time, and why he wrote it like this in his application.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question is  what would be your comment if Mr Lotz comes to confirm his statement?

MR J VAN ZYL: I am not lying, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Then just one further aspect.
	Mr du Plessis, sorry Mr Snyman, mentioned in his application on page 38 of the bundle, sorry it's page 37 at the bottom, the last paragraph.  He mentions that Major du Plessis and Captain van Zyl had come to see him to discuss this matter.
	Are you with me Mr van Zyl?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: All right.  He also says further down that
		"Various options were discussed".
	Surely, if the decision was taken beforehand as to what the fate of the deceased would be and that the purpose in going to Mr van Zyl was merely to inform him, or to put the case before him, different options would not have been discussed?

MR J VAN ZYL: I think different options were discussed on an ongoing basis, Mr Chairman.
	On this specific meeting which I can't see the date of, and I cannot remember that we discussed in detail different options on the day that I was referring to, but it is so that on different other occasions, different options were discussed.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting, Mr van Zyl, that you and Mr du Plessis went to Colonel Snyman on various occasions to discuss the future of Mr Goniwe and his colleagues?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.  Not as far as this operation was concerned.
	As I said before, different options was discussed at different other meetings during the course of the preceding months and I just cannot remember on the day that Major du Plessis and myself went to Colonel Snyman that we were actually discussing different options in detail on that day.

UNKNOWN: If one reads further down the paragraph, Mr van Zyl, it was in fact in that meeting that the decision was taken as Mr van Zyl has stated
	"That the four individuals be neutralised urgently."

MR J VAN ZYL: ; That was not the impression I had.  My impression was more that Colonel du Plessis, Major du Plessis at the time, was re-confirming the latest information that Colonel Snyman had actually known about.

UNKNOWN: That doesn't, however, confer with the statement of this applicant, does it?

MR J VAN ZYL: No.  But that is how I remember it.
	Colonel Snyman was head of the division.  He had access to all information at an ongoing basis, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: So then your impression of Mr Snyman being a soft-hearted person and not being able to even let the word to "kill" or "murder" pass his lips doesn't really accord with the fact that a clear decision was taken in that meeting to kill these persons.
	Surely what other meaning does one attach to the word "geneutraliseer"?

MR J VAN ZYL: As I have always said, I have always been under the impression that Colonel Snyman wouldn't have taken this decision on his own or on his own level of authority, but I never asked him about it.  And I still don't believe that Colonel Snyman would have done this on his own authority.

UNKNOWN: During the meeting in which Mr du Plessis and yourself went to discuss the question of whether the deceased should be killed or not, did Mr Snyman then at that stage say, "I need time to think about this and call you back to another meeting"?  Or was there only one meeting?

MR J VAN ZYL: There's one meeting that I can remember, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: So then the decision was taken there, or alternatively, in your presence did Mr Snyman contact anyone else before taking the decision?

MR J VAN ZYL: Not in my presence.

UNKNOWN: So then he made the decision himself, not so?

MR J VAN ZYL: He gave the final authorisation himself.	That is the way that I saw it, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: But the decision was taken by himself, without consultation to anyone else in your presence at that stage, given that there was only one meeting.

MR J VAN ZYL: In my presence, yes.

UNKNOWN: Thank you I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any questions Mr Hugo?

UNKNOWN: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
	Mr van Zyl how long have you known Mr de Kock?

UNKNOWN: I have met Mr de Kock  I think during the last days of 1980 or in the beginning of 1981.

UNKNOWN: Were you with Mr de Kock in "Koevoet"?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: Did you get to know him well during the "Koevoet" days?

MR J VAN ZYL: Reasonably well, Mr Chairperson.

UNKNOWN: Would you say that there was a relationship of trust, a close relationship of trust between the two of you?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, there was definitely a measure of a relationship of trust between us.

UNKNOWN: Did you trust him with sensitive information?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, at times we did.

UNKNOWN: Since you met him for the first time until today, has there ever been any friction between you and Mr de Kock which you could recall?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I don't really think so.

UNKNOWN: There were never any problems between the two of you?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, nothing.

UNKNOWN: I am uncertain at this stage what I should think of your evidence in terms of what Mr de Kock has stated.  So I am going to state it to you broadly.
	Am I understanding your evidence correctly when I say that there was a conversation with Mr de Kock where certain aspects are correct, other aspects which were discussed at the time are not correct.

MR J VAN ZYL: I have said that it is possible that we discussed it, but I cannot remember the actual incident or time.

UNKNOWN: If I recall your evidence correctly, you stated that Mr de Kock was confusing certain facts and his memory is failing him in terms of certain details.

MR J VAN ZYL: I did say so.

UNKNOWN: Let me just state that Mr de Kock says that his memory is very clear and that he has absolutely no doubt that that which he has stated in his statement in actual fact is what was discussed between the two of you.	What do you have to say?

MR J VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I would like to say that Mr de Kock - I would not like to say that he has purposefully lied, but I have looked at his statement and that which he says of Mr Goniwe who was shot, is impossible because it is not like that, it didn't happen like that and that is where Mr de Kock is definitely confusing - if I had spoken to him, this matter with the actual facts.

UNKNOWN: Mr van Zyl, you should just distinguish between the objective facts as they occurred or that which Mr de Kock says that you related to him.	Do you understand?

MR J VAN ZYL: I do understand, of course, but I cannot understand why I would have told it to him in this way.

UNKNOWN: That is the question.  That is what I am asking you.
	Did you during a telephonic conversation with Mr de Kock relate information to him, among others, that you had killed Mr Goniwe.

MR J VAN ZYL: That is what I am saying  that I can't remember.

UNKNOWN: I am asking you again.  Did you tell him that you had killed Mr Goniwe?  Yes or no?