CHAIRPERSON: It’s 18 October 1999. We'll proceed with the applications for amnesty of Mr Gold and others. The Panel consists of myself, Chris de Jager, Adv Ntsiki Sandi and Mr Lax.
I would like the representatives to place themselves on record. Mr Wills, could we start with you.
MR WILLS: Yes, thank you, Chairperson, Honourable Committee Members. My names is John Wills, attorney of Pietermaritzburg, I'm acting for Donald Spencer Gold in this matter.
MR BOOYENS: Kobus Booyens, instructed by Strydom Britz, on behalf of the applicant Mr van Zyl, Mr Chairman.
MEV VAN DER WALT: "Louisa van der Walt, mnr die Voorsitter. Ek tree op vir die tweede applikant, soos gemerk op die stukke, Schalk Jan Visser.
MNR PRINSLOO: Mnr die Voorsitter, ek verskyn namens Schoon, sowel as Carr. Mnr Carr was Vrydag opgeneem in die hospitaal in Pietermaritzburg, en het 'n operasie ondergaan en sal gevolglik nie hierdie verrigtinge kan bywoon nie. Ek het egter geen beswaar dat die verrigtinge voortgaan nie. Dit is ook so met mnr Carr bespreek en hy het daartoe toegestem, net soos ook met u in kamers bespreek, mnr die Voorsitter.
Mnr die Voorsitter, dan wil ek ook net meld dat ek ook geen beswaar het dat mnr Lax deel vorm van die Komitee nie, in die lig van die feit dat hy deel gevorm het van 'n ondersoek ingevolge Artikel 29, waar mnr Schoon getuig het. Daar is geen beswaar daarteen nie. Dankie, mnr die Voorsitter".
MS SAMUEL: I'm Ms Samuel and I represent the family of the deceased. The deceased's family is not present, so I'd like it to be placed on record that to a large extent I'm going to be hampered with regard to cross-examination as I do not have firm instructions from her in that respect. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will for sure allow you ample time to consult if she turns up, if you haven't consulted yet and we'll allow you to cross-examine. You need not start, or you could start if you want to, but you could reserve cross-examination if you want to.
MS SAMUEL: Thank you.
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, my name is Zuko Mapoma, I'm the Evidence Leader. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: As far as Mr Carr's application is concerned, that will be postponed sine die. We'll proceed with the other applications and we'll complete it as far as possible. If at a later stage Mr Carr would give evidence and if you would require it, a copy of his evidence would be made available to any of the representatives, so that they could amplify their arguments in this case.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Right.
MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, the applicants have agreed among themselves that Mr van Zyl will testify first.
MR WILLS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, just one point before we commence with the actual applications. My instructions are to withdraw those applications in respect of, and I refer the Chairman and the Committee to page 8 of the bundle. We are withdrawing what appears at 4.3 and 4.4, that is the attempted kidnapping of the ANC operative in Swaziland and the crossing from Swaziland into South Africa, without going through a border post.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
MR WILLS: ... it's page 8 of the bundle, 4.3 and 4.4.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chair, I call Mr van Zyl.
MR VAN ZYL: Would you like to testify in English or in Afrikaans?
MR VAN ZYL: I understood first that there was no interpreter. I would like to speak Afrikaans please. If questions are put to me in English, I will answer in English.
JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Are there any problems regarding the interpreter?
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, there are no problems now about the interpretation. There was a problem then because the Afrikaans interpreter did not arrive then.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether others - if you've got the same problem, there's a lot of noise on our earphones.
PROBLEMS WITH EARPHONES
EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, we go ahead.
Mr van Zyl, your amnesty application is from page 65 of the bundle, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is true.
MR BOOYENS: You corroborate the content of pages 65 to 67.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR BOOYENS: You are applying for amnesty for the murder on a man whom you only know as MK Scorpio, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: Maybe "know" is the wrong word, you refer to him as MK Scorpio.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's right.
MR BOOYENS: You do not know what his true identity is and you never knew and it is correct to say that according to the photo that is here, you can't say whether that is him or not.
MR VAN ZYL: That is true, I can't identify him according to the photos.
MR BOOYENS: The incident for which you apply here is the murder of this person, and according to your memory it was in the second half of 1980, and took place at Josini Dam, or Bolapoort Dam as it was known at that time, in the North of Natal.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's correct.
MR BOOYENS: On page 68 of the application you set out that in 1980 you were a Branch Commander of the Security Forces in Ladysmith, Natal. Is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it is.
MR BOOYENS: The applicant, Col Schalk Visser of the time, did you know each other?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chair, we had dealings with each other because of our work at various occasions. We were both involved in intelligence collection operations in neighbouring States, especially Swaziland, and because much of the information that I gathered, applied to the Witwatersrand and vice versa, we had a lot of dealings with each other from time to time.
MR BOOYENS: You had also known each other before in your careers in the Security Branch, although he was a more senior than you. So you had known each other for a long time, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: How would you describe the relationship between you and Col Visser?
MR VAN ZYL: Col Visser was a very respected officer in the Security Branch, and I specifically have felt the same about him, I respected him as a person of integrity, because I believed that, and I'd heard that he was a person who led from the front instead of sitting behind a desk sending people out just to work.
MR BOOYENS: Were you satisfied that Col Visser was the type of man who - you said that had integrity, that if he sent a request your way, you could rely on it, that is was reliable information that he was reacting on?
MR VAN ZYL: Absolutely.
MR BOOYENS: During the second half of 1980, Col Visser phoned you at Ladysmith one day and asked you to come Johannesburg, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it's correct.
MR BOOYENS: During the telephone call did he give you any detail as to what he wanted to talk to you about in Johannesburg?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chair, he just indicated that it was very urgent and that it was a delicate matter that he wanted to discuss with me urgently, personally.
MR BOOYENS: So that same day you went to Johannesburg, is that right?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: About how long after the call?
MR VAN ZYL: I remember that I left within the hour.
MR BOOYENS: So you would have for instance, you would more-or-less have been in Johannesburg about three hours later.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Sir.
MR BOOYENS: In Johannesburg, upon arrival where did you go? Did you go to his office or to his house?
MR VAN ZYL: We met at his house, Mr Chair.
MR BOOYENS: Were only you and Col Visser there?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Please tell the Committee, Mr van Zyl, in essence what was discussed between yourself and Col Visser.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chair, Col Visser told me that an impimpi from the Soweto Security Branch, who was a trained ANC member and who had been arrested and who at that stage had changed his mantel to the wind and worked for the branch as an agent, that they had good information that he was acting as a double agent and had started operating again for the MK and that that endangered the lives of his handler as well other Security Force members in the sense that it threatened the operation, the intelligence operation, and it was necessary to act against him immediately. And that he had received orders from HQ to eliminate the person, to make him disappear and that it had to happen very quickly.
MR BOOYENS: It was not possible for you at that stage to know whether the intelligence that he was relying on was true or not, or to verify it or to investigate it. is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I was a junior officer, I was a Lieutenant at the time and as I said, Col Visser was a senior members and a person whom I respected absolutely and I had no reason to doubt his word. It was also very clear that he was very serious.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he a Colonel already then?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Sir.
MR BOOYENS: Did you have any reason to doubt the correctness of what he was saying to you?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Sir.
MR LAX: Can I just ask something, sorry. Mr Booyens, sorry.
Even if you did question his motives or his judgements, you wouldn't have asked him or you wouldn't have done anything about it surely, as a junior office.
MR VAN ZYL: Sir, if it had been somebody else and if it had been an officer that I did not have the respect for that I did in this case, then I might have found some sort of excuse to get out of it, but in this case I respected the officer in this regard and as I was a very motivate person at that time as well and seeing that it was him, I had no reason to doubt him, no.
MR LAX: To doubt. If I may just say, you're welcome to speak Afrikaans, I'm quite fluent in Afrikaans, I just struggle with speaking Afrikaans from time to time, but I am fluent in it.
MR VAN ZYL: Thank you.
MR BOOYENS: He said the order came from HQ, did he name any people at head office?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chair, not at that stage.
MR BOOYENS: It would not have been customary for a senior officer to give the name of another senior at HQ to a junior, so there was nothing strange about that?
MR VAN ZYL: Quite correct.
MR BOOYENS: Later in the application the name of Col Piet Goosen was mentioned and later you heard that he had been involved, did you know him?
MR VAN ZYL: I had met him at that stage, yes. I knew him as well, of him.
MR BOOYENS: I think he was a Brigadier at that stage?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Brig Goosen was the head of the Intelligence or possibly Second in Command, but he was a very senior member of the Intelligence Branch of the Security Force. That's true.
MR BOOYENS: After the conversation between you and Col Visser about the problem that he had with this MK person, was there then a conversation between the two of you as to how to fulfil the command of Head Office?
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct. It was clear that the person would have to be killed. It also came out clearly that he had to disappear totally. I can't remember whether it was I, myself, but we decided that we would make use of explosives to get rid of the person's corpse. I did not know the rural areas in Transvaal at that stage, didn't know about a place that was deserted enough, where one could try and do this and I suggested that the only place that I knew of that was remote enough and suitable, was the Northern Natal area known as Zululand.
MR BOOYENS: You made the statement just now and I just want to make clear, you said it was clear that the person had to disappear, was that the instruction that you were given, that the person had to disappear?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's the way I remember it, Mr Chair.
MR BOOYENS: You then mentioned to him the possibility and was he open to this idea that you used Zululand, (a) Zululand and (b) explosives?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, he was.
MR BOOYENS: You, at that stage Mr van Zyl, you knew the Zululand area quite well?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's true.
MR BOOYENS: At some or other stage you realised that you needed an explosives expert, is that right?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: At some or other stage you called Sgt Donald Gold, is that right?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Let's just look at the history with Mr Gold. You knew each other at the Security Branch Pietermaritzburg, is that right?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: In those days he was a Sergeant and you were a Warrant-Officer?
MR VAN ZYL: That's right. I arrived in Pietermaritzburg May or June 76 and I met Sgt. Gold the next year, got to know him the next year, when he came to Pietermaritzburg more often and eventually was stationed at the branch himself.
MR BOOYENS: Did you, after you left Pietermaritzburg when you were at Ladysmith, did you still have regular contact with Sgt Gold?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes. Sgt Gold was the explosives expert and the Inspector for the whole area. He travelled quite a lot and gave lectures for institutions and schools in respect of preparedness and terrorism, as well as was also involved in arms exhibitions. He was a very popular person for that type of speech.
MR BOOYENS: So let us call it counter propaganda on behalf of the Security Police/Government for what was known at that time as the terrorist attacks against South Africa?
MR VAN ZYL: I didn't see it as counter propaganda, I saw it as an effort to inform people and to keep them prepared for the real threats from time to time they would be faced with.
MR BOOYENS: What was your relationship with Sgt Gold?
MR VAN ZYL: I thought we were good friends, I think.
MR BOOYENS: Did you trust Sgt Gold?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I did.
MR BOOYENS: And so you phoned him to help you?
MR VAN ZYL: That's right.
MR BOOYENS: Mr van Zyl, I know it's almost 20 years ago, but in other words you would not have naturally, not have told him to come to Zululand and to come and explode a corpse, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: That's right.
MR BOOYENS: But you did insinuate or give him symbolic images to tell him that he had to blow up something?
MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember my exact words or the exact images and symbols I used, it was a between-the-lines conversation. I tried to explain to him that it was a very delicate operation and that he had to bring along the explosive and that that would be the purpose of his presence during the operation.
MR BOOYENS: Mr van Zyl, one can use explosives for a bridge or a person to be exploded, to be blown up. Did you try and give him an indication, more or less, what the scope of the operation would have been, for instance if he needed to blow up a bridge, he would have needed a lot of explosives, maybe 5 ton.
MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember Mr Chair. I would guess that I would have given him some suggestion that it was not as big a job as a bridge.
MR BOOYENS: What was your arrangement with Mr Gold? Where would you meet and when?
MR VAN ZYL: As far as I can recall, he would meet me the next morning early and I judged that I would be driving through the night to fetch the deceased and to transport him to Zululand.
MR BOOYENS: Mr Gold says that you met at Mbazwana, what do you say about that?
MR VAN ZYL: It's a long time, Mr Chair. In this case I think Mr Gold is mistaken, Mbazwana does not ring a bell with me at all concerning this operation. I can remember specifically that we were at Pongola, we had coffee, I imagine that Brig Visser had a flask of coffee with him and we drank coffee, which we shared with the deceased and I remember it as Pongola.
MR BOOYENS: Geographically, for the record, Mbazwana is at the coast, is that true?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's correct. It is close to Sodwana Bay. At that stage the road between Mbombo and Mbazwana was in a very poor condition, so I can't imagine that we would have been able to get to Mbazwana with my car, but it is a long time ago.
MR BOOYENS: If you say your car, do you mean a conventional car, not a four-wheel drive?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's what I now say. My car was a Ford 3 Litre, a Cortina. It was low, close to the ground. I don't know if I would have been able to get to Mbazwana at that stage. I can't remember ever being at Mbazwana with that specific vehicle.
MR BOOYENS: The arrangement was now that Mr Gold had to meet you at Pongola and then you and Col Visser, page 69, you went to a rural town and fetched the deceased, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Col Visser, when I spoke to him later he said it was a place between Ventersdorp and Klerksdorp with the name of Klerkskraal.
MR BOOYENS: So that was in the Western Transvaal?
MR VAN ZYL: That's right, Sir.
MR BOOYENS: But you only heard that later? When you did your application, you couldn't remember the place but it was in the Transvaal rural area?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Sir.
MR BOOYENS: You fetched the man at Klerkskraal. Where was that?
MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember whether it was at a house or at an office or perhaps at a police station. I remained seated in the car and Col Visser went and fetched the person. They came back and the person sat in the back of the car and Col Visser sat in the front. The person had no handcuffs and he was calm and had not been forced to come with us.
MR BOOYENS: In other words, he was not treated like a prisoner?
MR VAN ZYL: No. The conversation between them was like those between a handler and an agent.
MR BOOYENS: And then you left for Northern Natal?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, it was late afternoon, the sun was setting.
MR BOOYENS: You drove through the night and early in the morning reached Pongola?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct. I can't remember exactly, it could have been about 4 o'clock, perhaps earlier, when we reached Pongola.
MR BOOYENS: And Mr Gold, according to your recollection, you met him there?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: You told me it's difficult to remember precise detail, but from Pongola, as you remember, tell the Committee what were your movements then?
MR VAN ZYL: I remember that we went to Josini Security Branch where we met Gert Schoon. W/O Schoon, I had contacted him but I can't remember whether it was the day before from Jo'burg or that morning from Pongola, however, we did meet with him and I recall that it was close to or at the Security Branch at Josini.
MR BOOYENS: Josini and Pongola are how far from each other?
MR VAN ZYL: 35 to 40 kilometres more or less, yes.
MR BOOYENS: At some or other stage the operation was explained to Mr Schoon as well as the motivation for it, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, either myself or Col Visser explained to Mr Schoon, I can't remember, but I explained to him how serious it was, how urgent it was and the fact that we were looking urgently for a place to finalise the operation and that I could only think of their area. Mr Schoon was a bit surprised, possibly. He told me that he would get hold of Sgt Des Carr at that time, I can't remember whether that was Josini or Mbazwana, because he was stationed at Mbazwana at that stage and he would have heard whether Karel could perhaps help us. The only place that he could think of that was remote and suitable enough, was at an old farmhouse close to the Josini Dam, almost on the banks of the dam, the Josini dam, close to the Pongola camp and that the destruction of the corpse could hopefully take place there. We knew that the corpse was eventually exploded on an island in the dam.
MR BOOYENS: How did the island come into it?
MR VAN ZYL: It was also I think from Mr Schoon because he knew the area better than we did. I think that he suggested that the island, because it was in the middle of the dam and the dam covered a large surface, that the island was perhaps remote and suitable for the operation.
MR BOOYENS: Would arrangements be made for a boat then?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't remember whether the boat had been arranged at that stage already or whether we all first went to the farm house. I can remember that we did arrive at the farm house and that we waited there for Mr Schoon to return with the boat. Brig Visser, at that stage, was waiting close to the dam as far as I know, for Mr Schoon to return with the boat and at the house it was just me and Sgt Gold and the deceased and my recollection is that Sgt Carr arrived a little bit later.
MR BOOYENS: So in any case before you could start with your side of the operation, the boat would have had to be there otherwise you'd have been stuck with a person who had been killed and no boat.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, yes, though I can't remember how we communicated about the boat.
MR BOOYENS: How far is the farmhouse from the side of the dam, the water?
MR VAN ZYL: A couple of hundred metres, depending on how high the water was because just before, I had stayed before in the house doing an observation on the Swaziland border between Piet Retief and Pongola and the country borders go directly along the national road and it was known that the ANC made use of that point to bring terrorists and logistics into the country and that point was, at that stage, under observation for quite a while and then we also stayed in that house. My recollection is that that house was about 200/250 metres from the water.
MR BOOYENS: While you were waiting, where was Scorpion at that point?
MR VAN ZYL: He was, I can't remember for all of the time, but he lay under a tree right in front of the house and was asleep at some stage.
MR BOOYENS: The possibility was mentioned, some of the people mentioned it as a fact that this man was given drugs. Do you know something about this?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I have no knowledge of that.
MR BOOYENS: You yourself did not have drugs with you, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I didn't.
MR BOOYENS: And you yourself didn't give him drugs?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I didn't.
MR BOOYENS: And he was constantly in your presence and in Col Visser's presence?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: You drove through the night, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: My inference was that the person was tired. I myself was also tired. He also slept in the car and with the waiting, he wasn't involved in any of the conversation, so he just went and lay down under the tree and slept.
MR BOOYENS: Mr van Zyl, Mr Des Carr arrived a bit later, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Then they decided to go ahead with the elimination of MK Scorpion, is that right?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Please tell the Commission shortly, briefly what happened there.
MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember whether I - I recall that I got the firearm from Sgt Gold at some or other stage, perhaps just before, perhaps at that point. It was a hand machine carbine with a silencer and this was handed by me to Des Carr. I don't remember that we said anything. I can't remember anything being said. Mr Des Carr went and kneeled about a metre or two away from the deceased and shot him. At that point I was about 5 metres behind him and Sgt Gold, I don't know where he was at that point. Sgt Carr pulled the trigger, after which the deceased jumped upright suddenly. I can't remember whether Sgt Carr jumped out of way, but the deceased charged in my direction. I took my pistol from the holster and shot him through the head.
MR BOOYENS: Can you remember how many shots?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember, Mr Chair.
MR BOOYENS: So the deceased died there, probably died there?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Did you and Mr Carr and Mr Sgt Gold then cover the corpse of the deceased in a piece of canvass?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes. Sgt Gold then got to the scene and we took a piece of canvass that Sgt Carr provided. We took it out. We rolled him up in that. We placed him in the back of the Landrover. Sgt Des Carr's Landrover. The blood we covered with sand. I think that's how it happened.
MR BOOYENS: And did you then drive off to the water side?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, to the point where Col Visser and Mr Schoon were waiting with the boat.
MR BOOYENS: Did Mr Gold take you, follow you in his own car?
MR VAN ZYL: That's the way I remember it, yes.
MR BOOYENS: Were you all with the body and the explosives then on the boat?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Then you went to the island?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: And at the island the corpse was unloaded?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's correct.
MR BOOYENS: And you took it to the middle of the island?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's right.
MR BOOYENS: You and Mr Gold packed explosives around.
MR VAN ZYL: I recall that we put it on top of the body.
MR BOOYENS: At that point you were, you had not done your explosives course, is that right?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: The explosives were then detonated, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: You say in paragraph 6 on page 70 that you recall that there was then a second explosion because he had not been totally destroyed.
MR VAN ZYL: That's the way I remember it. Apparently I'm the only one who remembers it this way. That remains to be my memory, that we had a second load of explosives but it is a long time ago and I remember very vaguely.
MR BOOYENS: So you have now already referred, Mr Gold says there was only one explosion. Some of the other members also say that they heard only one explosion, saw only one explosion. Is it possible? You say that you recall two explosions. What are you trying to tell us with your statement that it's a long time ago?
MR VAN ZYL: When I made the statement, I had not read any of the other statements. I tried to write it as through the years I could remember it. Even now when I think back, it seems to me as if there were two explosions, but I must admit that when I read Sgt Gold's statement, as well as some of the others, of course I began doubting myself. It is something that I really cannot remember above other things. I can remember that it was me who shot the person and not someone else, and more or less what the circumstances were when that happened, but the destruction of the corpse is a very more vague image to me and it is something that I really don't want to remember.
MR BOOYENS: Is my inference correct that it is possible that the second explosion might be a mistake on your part, although you personally remember two explosions?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is possible.
MR BOOYENS: Then after that, in any case after the explosion, the body had been totally destroyed and then you left the island?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: And you went back, you and Col Visser went back to Jo'burg, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: This situation regarding - no sorry we did that already. Mr van Zyl, you have already touched upon the fact that you, at that point, were a very loyal Security Force member and that you trusted Col Visser and when they told you that there were instructions from Head Office, a request that you must help him with this assignment and he told you, he explained to you that this person was a double agent, did you regard this as a necessary part of the struggle at the time?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know, Mr Chair, it was the first time that I partook in such an incident and it has always been against my principles and yet I felt that it was the only way under certain circumstances and that at that stage I felt that it was warranted, justified.
MR BOOYENS: Your broader political purposes, objectives you spoke about on page 71 and 72, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: And do you corroborate these, as you wrote it?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I do.
MR BOOYENS: I would like to refer you to page 72 at the top, paragraph (b) where you say that the target had been a trained terrorist who'd been sent out of the country to commit acts of terrorism and that he had to be prevented from carrying on with this. Is that based on the fact that the information given to you, this is based on information given to you, not information that you yourself gathered, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: It's also based on the fact that he had training to commit acts of terrorism, not necessarily implies that he had at that stage committed such acts already. You refer specifically to the fact that he could continue with acts of terrorism as if that implies, yes, that he had already committed acts of terrorism, but that's not what you wanted to say, you wanted to say that if he went back to the opposition he could have continued with his initial purpose, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's more correct.
MR BOOYENS: What was said to you was an instruction that the man had to be killed and were you also satisfied that under the circumstances or on the information that was given to you, that this was the only option?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MR BOOYENS: Although it was not your decision, this way or the other?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR BOOYENS: So you did not take the decision, that decision was taken for you? You were appropriated operationally?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, it is correct, but I take full responsibility for what I did.
MR BOOYENS: So you confirm your amnesty application and do you ask for amnesty for your share of the murder of the person you knew as Scorpion, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's correct, Mr Chair.
MR BOOYENS: Also for any other misdemeanour regarding explosives that may have related thereto?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chair.
MR BOOYENS: As well as any other misdemeanours in connection with the destruction of the corpse related to that matter?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's correct.
MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chair, that is the evidence.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills.
MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WILLS: Mr van Zyl, you say it was you who contacted Mr Gold by telephone?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.
MR WILLS: So in other words, it was directly as a result ...(end of tape) to him a junior officer, that he must assist in this operation. Would you agree that this was an order?
MR VAN ZYL: That's affirmative.
MR WILLS: So in other words, he had no choice in the matter, if he was to obey his orders?
MR VAN ZYL: Of course, no such order is a legitimate order, Mr Chairman, but the conditions at the time were such that in fact Mr Gold had very little choice and I would not have approached him if I did not at that time feel that he would go along with it.
MR WILLS: Yes. Now it obviously wouldn't be common practice for you to have described explicitly what this operation was going to be over the telephone, because that wouldn't have been a secure and confidential means of communication for an operation such as this?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR WILLS: So it is likely that the exact details of this operation wouldn't have been communicated over the telephone?
MR VAN ZYL: Not the exact details, no Mr Chairman.
MR WILLS: Yes. Now I've consulted with my client and whilst his memory is that the order was to go to Mbazwana, he's not going to take issue whether that was Mbazwana or Pongola, the fact of the matter is that you met at some police station and you continued with the operation. My client is of the view that when he first saw the person who was pointed out to him as being a double agent, that this person appeared to be sedated. You've commented that as far as you're concerned, you didn't give him any drugs. How did he appear to you the morning at the police station, at you say the Pongola police station?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember if he left the car, Mr Chairman. I can remember that he was sleeping in the car at one time during the journey and as was said, the next thing that I can, the recollection of the deceased was at this house where he was lying sleeping under the tree. My view was, as I said earlier that thinking back, that he was probably as tired as I was.
MR BOOYENS: Now at the actual scene where the deceased was killed, there appears to be no dispute between your client's version and my client's version that he wasn't involved in the actual murder.
MR VAN ZYL: He was not involved, Mr Chairman.
MR BOOYENS: Yes. In fact my client informs me that there was a bit of a joke about him not being involved, that he was scrimmaging around in the back of his car because he was, it was seen that he avoided that actual murder, can you recall anything to that effect?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall that we ever discussed this, Mr Chairman. Incidents like these were very uncomfortable occasions and I never, as far as I can remember, discussed details about any of these incidents that I had been involved in afterwards. I can remember that I deliberately tried to avoid any discussions around this.
MR WILLS: I think your counsel has dealt with the issue of the number of explosives. My client is adamant that there was in fact only one explosive, but you don't necessarily dispute that, that one explosion to destroy the body?
MR VAN ZYL: I have already indicated that I have doubts Mr Chairman and that I will concede that.
MR WILLS: Now, is it so that and I'm referring to page 19 of the bundle, that after this operation, in paragraph 44, after this operation my client, in fact he was a Warrant Officer at the time, Warrant/Officer Gold, was waiting with Col Visser for you to report that all was clear and at that point he gave you the unused exploder and the cables, can you recall anything to that effect?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot, Mr Chairman, I wouldn't dispute that.
MR WILLS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, if you could just bear with me.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Page 90 paragraph 44?
MR WILLS: Paragraph 44. Sorry, Mr Chairman, I must withdraw that, that was that shot, I've just had instructions, actually given allegedly to Mr Schoon, so I must withdraw that.
But the point that I'm wanting to make is that this was in fact the only operation, as far as you know, that Mr Gold was ever involved in of this nature?
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.
MR WILLS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Zyl, as far as the question is concerned that was asked to you, the person Scorpion, that he might have been sedated, I would like to put it to you that at the time that he was transported from Klerkskraal to where he was eventually killed, he was treated as if he was still an agent of the police. He had no handcuffs etc so there was no reason to give him sedation. That is what Col Visser will say.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct. The person was calm and at ease and he and Col Visser spoke about matters that I didn't know about and people that I didn't know about. I can't remember their conversations but he was not in handcuffs and he seemed quite relaxed, as far as I'm concerned.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you said in your evidence in chief also, but you are now under cross-examination, you didn't say it again, but is it correct that when you stopped at Pongola that you gave him coffee, where he also had coffee with you?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that's how I remember it. The flask that Col Visser brought along, he shared coffee with us.
MS VAN DER WALT: And he seemed normal?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, he did.
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr van Zyl between you and Mr Schoon, your co-applicant, did you trust each other?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, we did.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Des Carr, the applicant, did you know him well?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I knew him not as long as Mr Schoon, but I know that he was considered to be a very steady, solid kind of a person and that's why I accepted when Mr Schoon introduced him to me, to help us.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Zyl, as you know today, Mr Schoon - Mr Carr is in hospital at the moment. He has undergone an operation and according to his application he says that you informed him that the person who was to be executed there, was a double agent and a traitor.
MR VAN ZYL: I can't remember, but it's probably true, yes, because I knew him and Col Visser didn't know him as well, so it was probably me who told him, who gave him the information.
MR PRINSLOO: Then according to his application, it appears that he says he was 10 to 15 metres away from the person, on page 55 of his application. You say you were closer?
I don't want to make a difference, that's just a dispute, that's just what he says. I'll take that point up with him, I don't think anything will turn around it.
MR VAN ZYL: When I read it in his statement, I wondered whether it didn't mean 1.0 or 1.5 but that also shows how one's image of something can change over 15 or 20 years. My recollection remains that he kneeled near to the person and that he was very much closer.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chair, no more questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Samuel would you be in a position to proceed? Are your clients present at the moment?
MS SAMUEL: Mr Chairman, client is not present at the moment. I would like to reserve my cross-examination.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mapoma?
MR MAPOMA: Chairperson, I would also like to hear the version of the victim first.
MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, with respect, how long is this cross-examination going to stand down? I understand my learned friend's predicament, but with all due respect, Mr van Zyl did not deviate in any respect from his application. My learned friend had an opportunity to consult beforehand and the only reason why I'm asking this, Mr Chairman, I do not think we should unnecessarily delay and have all the applicants first testifying and then have the representative, the Evidence Leader and the representative of the family. The Evidence Leader's position I can fully understand, he must listen to both sides of the story before he can make up his mind. As far as my learned friend is concerned ...
CHAIRPERSON: I propose that we take a short adjournment now and try and find out what's the position about Ms Samuel's clients. We'll adjourn until ...
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Samuel, did you have an opportunity to consult?
MS SAMUEL: I have consulted and I do have a few questions to ask.
MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, before my learned friend on behalf of the family starts, I would just like, with the permission of the Commission, to hear whether the family oppose Mr van Zyl's application for amnesty and if so, on what grounds? I think I'm entitled to hear that.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Could you please tell us what is the position? Is the application opposed?
MS SAMUEL: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR LAX: Press the button please.
MS SAMUEL: At this stage the family have indicated to me that they are opposing the application for amnesty. The instructions are that according to them, their brother was not killed in action
and that is the reason why amnesty is - there was no reason to in fact kill him and that is the reason why amnesty at this stage is being opposed. There is no, in fact, proper evidence that this man was indeed a double agent.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you kindly refer us to the section on which your position is based?
MR BOOYENS: I've got the Act available for my learned friend, Mr Chairperson.
MS SAMUEL: I've got one, but it's in the car.
CHAIRPERSON: Right. Okay, could you continue? We'll see what ...
MS SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS SAMUEL: Mr van Zyl, you cannot say whether this person, this deceased person, was in fact working as a double agent, is that correct?
MR VAN ZYL: I had no personal knowledge of the fact, Mr Chairman, but I had Col Visser's word for that and at that time that was enough for me.
MS SAMUEL: You cannot even say whether he was in fact an ANC member?
MR VAN ZYL: For the same reason, at the time I believed that he was, because Col Visser assured me that he had been.
MS SAMUEL: Did you ask Col Visser for any further information to satisfy yourself that in fact he was an ANC member or a person operating on both sides?
MR VAN ZYL: Col Visser discussed certain aspects of his fears in connection with this person's actions with me, Mr Chairman. I cannot remember the details of that. I can actually remember that he had stressed the fact that the fact that this person had turned again to the side of the ANC would have endangered the lives of his handler at the time, as well as other members of the branch, as well as the probability that our Intelligence Operation in Swaziland could have been jeopardised.
MS SAMUEL: Did you find out from Col Visser who in fact ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon, Ma'am?
MS SAMUEL: Did you find out from Col Visser who his handler was?
MR VAN ZYL: Not at the time. I did not know who his handler was, Mr Chairman, I saw that in Col Visser's statement later.
MS SAMUEL: So according to you, you are saying that the possibility was that Col Visser wasn't the handler of this person as well?
MR VAN ZYL: That Col Visser was not the handler?
MS SAMUEL: The handler of this person.
MR VAN ZYL: There is - I think it is a fact that he was not the absolute handler of this person. That this person was actually handled by another member of his branch.
MS SAMUEL: When you say not the absolute handler, what do you mean by that?
MR VAN ZYL: I mean that he was not the sole handler of this agent.
MS SAMUEL: Are you saying that there is more than one person involved in handling him?
MR VAN ZYL: I say that the person, when he was working for the Security Branch Soweto, was handled by a member of the police who was responsible for this agent's movements and actions and that person, normally, would have reported back to Col Visser, that those were the norms at the time, Mr Chairman.
MR SAMUEL: Now you made mention that when you all went to pick up this person, it would appear to you as though Col Visser was the handler, from the conversations.
MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not indicate that, Mr Chairman. I did indicate that it appeared that Mr Visser had certain knowledge of this person's actions while he was a then agent. I would like to rectify it as such please.
MR SAMUEL: Did it appear to you as though Col Visser in fact knew this person personally?
MR VAN ZYL: He definitely knew him personally, Mr Chairman.
MR SAMUEL: When you went to this place by the name of Klerkskraal, you mentioned that you all in fact went to fetch this person. You've actually also pointed out that as far as you are aware, he was not drugged or sedated.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.
MS SAMUEL: Can you say whether in fact this place was in fact a police station that you all went to fetch him or whether a house?
MR VAN ZYL: As I said, I cannot recall. I stated specifically in my statement, because I made an attempt to be specific, I cannot remember whether this was an office, a house or in fact a police station, Mr Chairman and it is possible that Col Visser could clear that up for you.
MS SAMUEL: So does it also, is there also a possibility that this person could possibly also have been sedated prior to you being there, or even drugged?
MR VAN ZYL: No, definitely not, Mr Chairman, this was latish afternoon and the person was moving freely and speaking and he was in a relaxed way, he was not sedated at all. He was comfortable in the back seat of the car, speaking to Col Visser about matters that I had no knowledge about, but he was definitely not sedated, Mr Chairman.
MS SAMUEL: Do you know why Mr Gold mentioned then that he was in fact sedated or drugged?
MR VAN ZYL: All I can think of Mr Chairman, is that the person, the next morning when Mr Gold saw him for the first time, was in fact very tired and that is the only reason that I can think of that somebody might have thought that he was sedated, because I didn't sleep that night. I was tired. If he slept, he must have slept fairly fitfully, driving in the back of the car and I assumed that he was tired.
MS SAMUEL: Are you in a position to say who in fact made the decision as to the manner in which this person was to in fact be eliminated?
MR VAN ZYL: Are you talking about eliminated or disposed of?
MS SAMUEL: Disposed of, sorry.
MR VAN ZYL: It was decided by Col Visser and myself and I will take responsibility for the suggestion, Mr Chairman.
MS SAMUEL: So you are saying there was a joint decision?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.
MS SAMUEL: Why was it necessary for you to become part of this? This incident, this person was working out of the area in which you were stationed completely. Did you not make inquiries as to why you had to become involved in this?
MR VAN ZYL: At the time, Mr Chairman, as I said before, I worked from Ladysmith, which was the branch where I was the Commander. Col Visser was in Soweto, he was the head of the division of Soweto Security Branch and both branches, as well as the Port Natal Branch and the Eastern Transvaal Branch as it was known at that time, handled agents and Intelligence Gathering Networks inside Swaziland. That was necessary because Swaziland was an important jumping-off place for infiltrating cadres, operatives from MK into South Africa to commit deeds that we all know about at that time. We thought that it was necessary to gain as much knowledge from there inside and that included Maputo, Mozambique, as well as Swaziland and for that we needed agents on their side, agents inside Swaziland, that could give us information about movements, about decisions, about vehicles being used and various other things that we had to know to keep track of these personalities.
MS SAMUEL: Did you not make inquiries as to why it was necessary to dispose of this body in the manner as you described, blowing it up?
MR VAN ZYL: I was part of the decision, Mr Chairman. Col Visser stressed to me the fact that the person, that he had instructions that this person had to disappear completely and I could, on that moment, think of no other way to do this than to blow the body up.
MS SAMUEL: Was this the first time that you were involved in operations of this kind, eliminating of persons?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.
MS SAMUEL: After this incident, did you ever become involved in the elimination of person?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I think ...(intervention)
MR BOOYENS: Relevance Mr Chairman. With respect, I object to that question, especially if it's afterwards, how could it possibly be relevant in judging Mr van Zyl's deeds at the time of this occasion? If it was before there may be, on a stretch, still something relevant but afterwards certainly cannot be allowed.
MS SAMUEL: I will withdraw that question. Prior to this incident, were you involved in the elimination of persons?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.
MS SAMUEL: There is a statement by Mr Gold when he mentions as to how he became involved. He says he in fact had heard about persons being eliminated. Mr Chairman, I'm just trying to find this.
MR BOOYENS: Page 16.
MS SAMUEL: On page 16 he mentions
"I became aware that certain operations were underway, although I was unsure as to the details."
CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph?
MS SAMUEL: Paragraph 33, on page 16. He says
"I became aware through this vague system of innuendoes, I became aware that certain operations were underway, although I was unsure as to the details. These involve the combating and elimination of ANC guerrillas known at the Security Branch at the time as terrorists. As a loyal member of the Security Services, I indicated to Apt Sakkie van Zyl that I was available for this type of work under the same discreet methods of innuendo."
Now this would indicate therefore, that you were involved in this type of work, subsequent to this particular incident.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think so. It would - that there were members of the Security Police involved, not that he himself was involved, that they had heard rumours and innuendoes that the Security Police as such, the body of Security Police, some of them were involved in killing other people.
MS SAMUEL: I won't ask that question any more.
CHAIRPERSON: But on that basis, I think you could ask it.
MS SAMUEL: Were you - sorry, Mr Chairman. Were you involved in this sort of work then?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.
MS SAMUEL: Were you aware of any members or persons under you who were involved in this sort of thing?
MR VAN ZYL: Not at that time, no, Mr Chairman.
MS SAMUEL: Did you not ask Col Visser as to why he had in fact chosen you to undertake this sort of job?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't think I asked him Mr Chairman. Col Visser did mention that he did not want to involve any of his members of his branch because that could have put himself in a very bad position in the branch. I accepted that he had used me because maybe he decided that he could trust me at the time.
MS SAMUEL: Do you know whether any questions or any investigation was raised after the disappearance of this person?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't know, no Mr Chairman.
MS SAMUEL: Were you also aware that at some stage - were you ever made aware that at some stage this person was detained and laid a complaint about injuries which he suffered?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.
MS VAN DER WALT: May I please just ask here? This is not my client but it will be necessary for me to know this? The legal representative of the family speaks of this person, I would just like to know who is the person to whom she is referring because that can be in dispute, if she can just say this person is - she must also not say the deceased, she must say whom she is referring to because it can be important.
MS SAMUEL: The person I am referring to is Oupa Ronald Madondo.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I have never known a person by that name.
MS SAMUEL: You have never known of a person by that name? But you cannot dispute that it was him possibly who was in fact the person eliminated?
MR VAN ZYL: That it was him possibly?
MS SAMUEL: That it was him who was the person involved in this.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I cannot say if it was this person at all and I cannot identify him by the photographs in this publication that's available to me either. I only knew him by the name that Col Visser mentioned to me and that was his MK fighting name, bush name, pseudonym at the time, which was Scorpion and I'm sorry, I would have really liked to have identified the person by these pictures that are available, because it is also important to me as a person, but I am sorry, I cannot identify him as Oupa Madondo, Mr Chairman.
ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr van Zyl, just to get this clear for me. The picture of the person appears at page 140 and 141. Are you saying that could not be the person you are talking about?
MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, excuse me. What I'm saying is that I'm unable to identify him by these pictures. I cannot confirm that this was the person. The likeness that I have a recollection about is not identical to this person that I see in these pictures.
CHAIRPERSON: But, you can't confirm that it was this person, but you can't deny it either?
MR VAN ZYL: My honest opinion Mr Chair is that it does not look like the person whom I vaguely recall.
MR LAX: If I may? I understood your earlier evidence to be that this happened a long time ago and that your memory was such that you couldn't remember this person clearly enough to be able to identify him from the photographs, that was the tenor of your testimony previously. You're now saying something subtly different to that. You're saying that the image you have in your head is different to these photographs and that's a positive failure to identify, that's a positive statement, saying the person you remember is different to this person. What you said previously in your testimony was that this happened a long time ago and you can't remember whether this person in these pictures is the same as that person.
MR VAN ZYL: It is not meant that way, Mr Chairman. I would have thought that if I'd seen these pictures or the pictures of the person, that I would have been able, that it would refresh my memory and that I would have been able to identify the person. These photographs do not do that for me and the memory is very vague, it doesn't seem that this person is familiar to the person that I think I can remember.
ADV SANDI: Yes, but even, if I understand you correctly, even without looking at the pictures that appear on page 140 and 141, you do not have a clear independent picture in your mind of this person, isn't that what you're saying?
MR VAN ZYL: That is what I'm saying Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember how this person was dressed at the time of the assassination?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot remember, no Chairperson.
ADV SANDI: As I understand it, you didn't spend a very long time with this person anyway, perhaps that contributes to your difficulty to be able to have a clear picture in mind of this person?
MR VAN ZYL: That is possible, Mr Chairman, I saw him for the first time late in the afternoon. He travelled in the back of the car during the night. I never had a look during that time at him and I only saw him again during the course of the morning. My picture of him is vague, very vague.
ADV SANDI: When you saw him again the next day in the morning, how many hours did you spend with him?
MR VAN ZYL: After first light, possibly four or five hours maybe, Mr Chairman, at the most.
MS SAMUEL: We'd also bear in mind Mr van Zyl, that this incident happened like a very long time ago as well.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MS SAMUEL: Why didn't you in fact - sorry, why did you in fact hand over a firearm to Mr Carr? Why didn't you in fact give your own firearm to Mr Carr at the time when you were about to shoot the deceased, or Mr Madondo?
MR VAN ZYL: My recollection is that I actually received this firearm at some time prior to that and it could have been shortly or before as I said previously in my testimony, from Mr Gold and I cannot actually recall whether I gave this firearm to Mr Carr with any instruction or whether he took it. I do not think there were any words spoken at the time. My recollection about that is vague as well. The reason for, why this specific firearm was used, as I said before, it was a Walther hand machine carbine with a silencer fitted to it and the reason was only to try and suppress the sound not to draw too much attention to the incident.
MS SAMUEL: You mentioned that in fact when Mr Carr fired, he in fact had missed and - or sorry - you mentioned that this person in fact, when Mr Carr fired, this person, Mr Madondo then jumped up. Mr Carr in fact makes no mention in his application of you in fact, of this person in fact jumping up. He says that he had fired and I think had missed and then you shot this person, Mr Madondo. There was no incident of Mr Madondo suddenly springing up.
MR VAN ZYL: That is - my recollection of that is very clear, Mr Chairman. He jumped up.
MR SAMUEL: Are you in a position to tell us where exactly this incident took place?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, unless things have changed in the area very much, the old farm house was just off the main road between Piet Retief and Pongola on the western side of the dam. It is a very well-known and big dam. It was only known to me as - referred to as the Pongola dam and I cannot remember exactly how far from the national road, but those are the co-ordinates, more or less.
MS SAMUEL: You see because the family would like to know where exactly he was, in fact, where this took place so that they can perform whatever ceremony they need to.
MR VAN ZYL: I understand that and that is why I also indicated my sincere desire to identify the deceased positively because it would be painful for the wrong family to sit here today and listen to me.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Samuel, perhaps we'll try and find out whether any of the applicants would be able to positively identify the exact spot or the near exact spot where this happened and then it could be arranged that the family could visit this place if they want to.
MS SAMUEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS SAMUEL
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zuko would you kindly, with the assistance of the other legal representatives, see whether you can do something about this?
MR MAPOMA: Yes, Chairperson, I'll take it upon myself to do that.
MS SAMUEL: I have no more questions.
CHAIRPERSON: As was already stated, I think in the interest of especially the family, we should try and make sure whether it was indeed Mr Madondo who was killed because it could be very traumatic if we accept that that's the position and it was in fact another person, but we'll try and see, I think as the Hearing progresses, may be we get more information about it.
ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair. Just on that, have you been able to, this incident is said to have happened in the second half of 1980, have you been able to ascertain from your clients as to the whereabouts of Mr Madondo at that time?
MS SAMUEL: As far as clients' instructions are, is that he has disappeared from 1979 and the possibility is that he could have been in detention for a long period because there were certain periods when he was in fact kept in custody.
ADV SANDI: Has it been accepted that he was in fact a member of the ANC?
MS SAMUEL: It has been accepted that he was a member of the ANC.
ADV SANDI: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zuko?
MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MAPOMA: Mr van Zyl, when you first spoke to Mr Visser, you will recall you said in your evidence in chief that he said there was an MK trained person who was arrested, do you recall that?
MR VAN ZYL: Not that he was arrested, Mr Chairman. There was an MK person that had been working for the branch at the time and that he had turned and that he was working for the ANC again and that he had to be eliminated. I cannot recall that Col Visser told me that he was arrested at that time.
MR MAPOMA: I thought you said so in your evidence in chief.
MR VAN ZYL: That he was arrested?
MR MAPOMA: Yes.
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall that, Mr Chairman. If I said that, maybe it was because that I later learned that we picked him up from a police station or from ...(intervention)
MR MAPOMA: Did you not say that in your application that Visser said this man was arrested?
MR VAN ZYL: That he was arrested earlier, in paragraph 2 on page 68 or my application, Mr Chairman
"That a trained member of MK
in the fifth line, ...(not translated)
"wat vroër gearresteer is maar op daardie stadium as 'n beruggewer vir die Sowetotak gewerk het, weer "gedraai" het en besig was om 'n dubbele rol te speel."
That he was arrested at an earlier stage Mr Chairman.
MR MAPOMA: And then what happened? What was his narration to you then?
MR VAN ZYL: I beg your pardon?
MR MAPOMA: He was arrested earlier on, that's what he said, and then what happened?
MR VAN ZYL: My assumption was that if he had been arrested earlier and then worked for the Security Branch afterwards, that he was obviously released, that he was free to move around and to do the work that his handler expected of him and that he had not been under arrest at that time anymore, that is what the implication was to me at that time.
MR MAPOMA: Now, you also said that a particular member of the Security Branch was the actual handler of the deceased person. Who is that member of the police who was handling the deceased?
MR VAN ZYL: I did not know that at the time, Mr Chairman, I saw that in Col Visser's statement at a much later stage. If I can renew my, I cannot remember if it was Martin van Niekerk, or Martin van Rooyen. I did not know the handler, I said so.
MR MAPOMA: Now that handler was reporting to Mr Visser.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.
MR MAPOMA: So is it your evidence that you never communicated with the handler of the deceased person, you personally?
MR VAN ZYL: I never knew him, Mr Chairman, that's correct.
MR MAPOMA: And did you ever communicate with Brig Goosen yourself directly?
MR VAN ZYL: No, I did not Mr Chairman, not about this matter. I actually met Col Goosen I think only at a later stage, but I knew of him because he was a very senior officer at Security Branch Headquarters.
MR MAPOMA: So I take it that now you relied solely on Col Visser's account and no one else?
MR VAN ZYL: I've already said so, yes, Mr Chairman.
MR MAPOMA: Did Col Visser not tell you where - did you not ask from him, I mean, further verification that this person was a double agent actually?
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall the full discussion at this stage, Mr Chairman, but at the time I was satisfied by what Col Visser told me, that it was indeed the case and that it was indeed as serious as he had said.
ADV SANDI: Would it have been a part of normal practice amongst the Security Police if your senior is given an order to do x, y, z, you ask him: "Please give me a full proof of the facts", would that be a normal thing to do?
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, there was nothing regular about these actions and it was a highly irregular incident. I was a Lieutenant at the time. I'd been one for about one year. Col Visser was a full Colonel, by far my senior and what I knew of him was enough for me at the time not to question and not to seem as if I doubted his word.
MR MAPOMA: But what strikes me Colonel, is that in your evidence you say it was clear that the deceased had to be eliminated, had to be removed completely and that gives me an impression that a full briefing was given to you.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman as I said, I cannot remember the full facts of our discussion, but after Col Visser briefed me, to me it was clear enough that this grave action had to be taken at that time and I can now only say that I assume that he had briefed me fairly fully, but I cannot remember the facts because it did not really concern me personally.
MR MAPOMA: The purpose was to kill him so that he cannot advance further his actions, that was the purpose. Is it not so?
MR VAN ZYL: As well as the fact that he was definitely jeopardising, jeopardising the life of his handler and other members of the branch that had been known to him, yes Mr Chairman.
MR MAPOMA: Yes. So for those particular reasons he had to be killed.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, that is what I believed, Mr Chairman.
MR MAPOMA: Now why had his body to be disposed of?
MR VAN ZYL: Perhaps Col Visser could answer that, but all I could think of is that if he had been buried, which was another option, he could be found again, Mr Chairman.
MR MAPOMA: Can you tell this Committee now of any political objective that you intended achieving by disposing of the body of this person?
MR VAN ZYL: The objective was basically to cover up the crime itself, which had a political objective, Mr Chairman.
MR MAPOMA: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MAPOMA
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
MR BOOYENS: No thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS
MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr van Zyl, you say that you spoke to, as far as you can recall, you spoke to Mr Gold telephonically.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: And you told him that he needed to come up to Mbazwaan. You indicated from your evidence that some sort of explosion would be required and you said you would have, by innuendo, indicated that it would be a smaller explosion than a larger explosion, so that he wouldn't bring a huge amount of explosive with. That's the gist of what Mr Booyens put to you and you replied in the affirmative.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, accept there's a name Mbazwaan, I think that's in dispute.
MR LAX: Oh yes, the Mbazwaan part of it, that's not in dispute, in the sense that it could have been just as easily Pongola or Josini. But you met him at Pongola, as far as you recall.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes. Mr Chairman, ...(intervention)
MR LAX: The issue here is the focus of the question, just so we can be clear. The rough content of your discussion, I don't expect you to remember your words 20 years later, but the thrust was there was a job to be done, it involved explosives and it didn't involve a large amount of explosives.
MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, yes, I agreed with my representative when he put it to me like that. It is to a great extent speculation on my part, as to what I had said at the time that had to give Mr Gold the idea that he had to bring a certain amount of explosives. I cannot recall how I would have put it, maybe I could have said to him that there was a small package that had to be destroyed. M cannot even say if said that, Mr Chairman, but it is possible.
MR LAX: You see, nowhere in your recollection or in his recollection is there any mention of the HMC with the silencer and the silencer is what is very important. It was an unusual thing to bring a silencer along.
MR VAN ZYL: I think Mr Gold could perhaps shed some light on that, Mr Chairman, because at the time there were weapons like that available from certain branches at headquarters and at some time or other some of the divisions sometimes had access to weapons like there. There were HMCs and there were I think, Uzzis as well, which Mr Gold could tell you about. So ...(intervention)
MR LAX: The issue is a simple one here, the thrust of my question. It's not that those weapons weren't available, it was nowhere do you say you asked him to bring it, because only you would have asked him to bring it, no-one else would have asked him to bring it.
MR VAN ZYL: I cannot recall asking him to bring it, no, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: And nowhere does he say he was asked to bring it. So the issue is not the availability. This is an unusual incident where it would have been unusual to bring a silencer, unless there was a specific request for it.
MR VAN ZYL: Well as far as I can recall, Mr Chairman, the weapon with the silencer did not go with me because I had no idea what Col Visser wanted to see me about. If I had told Mr Gold to bring this weapon with the silencer, I cannot recall it at this time. It is possible.
MR LAX: All I wanted to suggest was that he doesn't mention being asked to bring a silenced weapon.
MR VAN ZYL: I realise that.
MR LAX: Now, as far as the year goes, 1980, are you quite certain in your mind that it was 1980, or are you - could it have been 1979, for example?
MR VAN ZYL: I don't think so. 1980, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: Why are you so certain it was 1980?
MR VAN ZYL: Because it happened a few months before my transfer to Namibia, to Ovamboland and if it had been in 1979, I would have recalled that because I only became an officer at the end of 1978 and in 1979 I assumed the position of Branch Commander at Ladysmith, Natal, and I am sure that I would have remembered if this incident happened in '79.
MR LAX: So you peg this incident chronologically because it was a few months before you were transferred to Namibia.
MR VAN ZYL: This is the way that I recall it, yes, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember when did you become Branch Commander at Ladysmith?
MR VAN ZYL: I think it was in January 1979, Mr Chairman, because I became an officer in December 1978, that I remember, and I went back to Pietermaritzburg where I'd been stationed at that time and then I received a transfer, and it would have happened in either January or February 1979, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: Now as far as you recall, how many times did you speak to Gold, just the one occasion?
MR VAN ZYL: During this incident?
MR LAX: About this incident and where you asked him telephonically to come up there.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, I think that was only the one time, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: Because he says that you phoned him but he also goes on to say that - at paragraph 34, page 16, just for the record
"I had previously been advised that explosives were going to be used."
MR VAN ZYL: I read this. I can only think that he meant that that was during my telephone conversation which is previous to reporting to Mbazwaan Police Station or Pongola, as I have it, and I definitely did not discuss the incident with him before the time because there was no time for that, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: Precisely. No-one else could have advised him of that either, because nobody else knew besides you and Visser at this point in time, that this operation was going to happen.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR LAX: You don't know how many times you shot this man.
MR VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, I cannot remember. It was once or twice, it could have been twice.
MR LAX: But you definitely hit him once in the head that you know of?
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: You don't know whether you hit him anywhere else in his body at this stage?
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR LAX: And Carr, as far as you recall, only fired one shot.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct. He said to me afterwards that he had a stoppage. I never inspected the weapon to see whether he had a stoppage or not, he fired one shot.
MR LAX: Of course Carr's version of the incident is different, and you've already had that put to you.
MR VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is why I am so convinced of the distances that I thought that his typist made a mistake or something, because I recall him being much closer to the person than he seems to state.
MR LAX: Okay. And also on Carr's version, there's no indication that the person even got up or attacked you at all.
MR VAN ZYL: It was put to me already. I have a very vivid recollection that he did actually jump up, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: Ja. I mean your recollection is such that he charged at you.
MR VAN ZYL: That was the idea that I got, yes. He was not necessarily charging at me, he was charging in my direction, he was moving in my direction, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: Precisely. If you'll just bear with me a moment, Chair, I just want to check something here.
In the time that you were in the area of Pongola and during the time that Mr Gold was present, Mr Gold mentions this person being called by another name, he talks about Ruben, he talks about Roland, he talks about another name as well, but the name Rue stuck in his head. You didn't hear this person called by the same name?
MR VAN ZYL: No, and as I said I would have liked to have been able to identify him more clearly, but I cannot remember that, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: It's just that you would have been in the same place and the same name would have been mentioned. If Gold heard it, there's a strong likelihood you would have heard it.
MR VAN ZYL: Not only that, I spent much more time with him than Mr Gold did and I still do not remember that.
MR LAX: It's patently clear that the person who was most familiar with him was Col Visser.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct, Mr Chair.
MR LAX: And just for the record, my own note does indicate that you spoke of this person and you spoke of the relationship between this person and Visser, as being one of informant and handler.
MR VAN ZYL: That's correct.
MR LAX: You didn't say he was his handler, but you said their relationship was the same as, and they were comfortable in each other's presence as if ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: They definitely met each other before, yes, but I cannot recall if Mr Visser ever called him by a name, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: Yes. It's highly unlikely that he wouldn't have.
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAX: I mean you were in each other's company for something like 12 hours at least.
MR VAN ZYL: Ja.
MR LAX: And he certainly didn't call him Scorpion in your presence.
MR VAN ZYL: No.
MR LAX: So he must have called him some other name.
MR VAN ZYL: That is correct.
MR LAX: This is not really a question for you, but it is for you in the sense that you formed your own independent justification for this, according to what you've told us. How could Security Headquarters be in mortal danger by one agent turning? How is that even remotely feasible?
MR VAN ZYL: I never said that Security Branch Headquarters was in danger, what I said was that individual members who handled him, or the member that handled him as well as other members that may have been known to him, could have been led into an ambush. Mr Chairman, I personally handled agents in Swaziland and every time I handled that agent I had to meet him at a prearranged place. I had to trust that agent, that agent could have led me into an ambush every time if he had turned, and that goes for every policeman that ever handled agents.
That is what I was speaking about, that this person, if his loyalties had indeed changed, that the person who handled him or those Security Branch members, were in fact in physical danger.
MR LAX: We've heard mountains of testimony during the course of the last four years about agents and handlers and informants and handlers and it's very rare to find that an agent ever comes into contact, an informant, certainly of this nature, with more than two or three handlers at any one time of any description.
MR VAN ZYL: This person had been infiltrated from abroad as a trained MK cadre, Mr Chairman, he was therefore - for him to change his ideological mind-set, he had to be spoken to by various people in the Security Branch who had various interests from the different desks. He had been interrogation for sure, by different people from Security Branch Headquarters and then later by Soweto as well. That was just the norm at the time, he had to know more than one person. Maybe he was handled later by Mr Martin van Niekerk, but before that he must have, during this phase in which he was turned, he must have met more people than only Mr van Niekerk, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it's van Rooyen, not van Niekerk, so don't implicate somebody that ...(intervention)
MR VAN ZYL: I'm sorry, I was confused. Sorry, Mr Chairman.
MR LAX: The point is a simple one, with respect, the people who turn somebody don't end up being his handlers. The people who do the turning are generally people who move from instance to instance, they're highly skilled at that and in our experience there weren't a lot of them who were excellent at that job, and they went around and they created what came to be called askaris, by using psychological tactics to achieve that purpose. They didn't handle the individuals in the informant capacity, it had very little to do with them. Isn't that so?
MR VAN ZYL: It doesn't change the fact that he knew him, Mr Chairman, and that he knew where they might have been or where they might have moved around. Even though they didn't handle him afterwards he could identify them at any time.
MR LAX: I'll leave it, it's really an academic point and I'm wasting our time here.
MR VAN ZYL: But in hindsight it is also easy to be clever now, Mr Chairman, saying it, with respect from my side. At that time this was the position that stared us in the face and that is the way we reasoned at that time. I'm not trying to justify this action, I've never tried to justify our actions, I'm just trying to explain what the conditions were and how we thought and how our minds worked at that time. They might have been totally wrong, and in hindsight, they have been wrong. And those are the facts.
MR LAX: No, no, I realise that and I see that from the way you've been answering the questions. Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Can he be excused?
MR BOOYENS: Ja, I would ask that he be excused, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Would he be available if something should crop up, or what's the position?
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF
MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I will ask that he be excused, but Mr van Zyl will be an aeroplane flight away this week. Next week ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Aeroplane flights may even be quite a distance. No, ...(indistinct - no microphone). Mr Booyens, we won't recall him if it's not necessary or if you yourself don't think it's necessary to recall him.
MR BOOYENS: I'm talking about a domestic flight.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Right. Who would be the next witness?
MR WILLS: Thank you, Chairperson, I call Mr Gold.
