MR J VAN ZYL: ...for Mr Winter, and I cannot say why the expression "Veiligheids Gemeenskap" is used.

MR BIZOS: Why do you say that the Security Police in Cradock would not have supported this?

MR J VAN ZYL: I’m not saying that.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR J VAN ZYL: I’m not saying that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You’re not saying that. Are you able to contradict the evidence of Mr Winter that he told Judge Zietsman that he was in favour of the re-appointment. We will prove the record, but would you accept that for the time being?

MR J VAN ZYL: I will accept it.

MR BIZOS: If that is so, and if Mr Winter told the truth then you as the Chief Investigator on the question of life and death relating to Mr Goniwe, remained particularly ignorant of the situation in Cradock.

MR J VAN ZYL: No, if I was not informed of this matter, it means that I was not informed, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, did you ask Mr or Major Winter as to whether Mr Goniwe should live or die?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR J VAN ZYL: No.

MR BIZOS: Did you ask him whether he was one of the top candidates to be dealt with in order to restore what you called "law and order" in the Eastern Cape?

MR J VAN ZYL: I personally did not ask him Mr Chairman. He arrived sometime in 1985 and we had access to information much bigger than he had.

I did not consult him, no.

MR BIZOS: When did you speak to Major Winter in 1985?

MR J VAN ZYL: I must have spoken to him many times.

MR BIZOS: Many times. Including the period when you were involved in this investigation?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is very possible, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Very possible?

MR J VAN ZYL: I probably did.

MR BIZOS: You probably did?

Did you discuss with him what this alleged super agitator from Oudtshoorn was doing in Cradock?

MR J VAN ZYL: That I cannot remember, Mr Chairman, if I did.

MR BIZOS: You couldn’t have, because his evidence in his affidavit that was read to you yesterday, he said that he did not know Mr Mhlawuli, or know anything about him.

MR J VAN ZYL: I accept that.

MR BIZOS: I can’t hear you.

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Winter only arrived in Cradock sometime in 1985 Mr Chairman. I said yesterday that it was very possible that Mr Winter had little knowledge of Mr Mhlawuli. But Mr Winter never expressed to me his recommendation or that he was for the re-appointment of Mr Goniwe.

MR BIZOS: The question was actually whether you had ever asked him what Mr Mhlawuli was doing in Cradock.

MR BOOYENS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, if I can just enter at this stage.

Mr Winter’s affidavit does not say that he did not know anything about Mr Mhlawuli, he only said if you have reference to exhibit "B":

"I didn’t know Sicelo Mhlawuli at all."

It does not say anything about I did not know anything about him. Exhibit "B" Mr Chairman, in the first paragraph.

MR BIZOS: I’m sorry, what is you point?

MR BOOYENS: My learned colleague made the statement that Mr Winter’s evidence was that he did not know anything about Mr Mhlawuli.

MR BIZOS: I submit that in the context, the objection is not well founded.

There are three categories which the witness refers to:

In regard to the two distinguishing factors between the first and the second, I submit that the third is quite clear that he did not know him and he did not know anything about him, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you still persist with your objection?

MR BOOYENS: I will leave it in your hands, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You see, I didn’t ask you when he came to Cradock. We know when he came to Cradock. I asked you whether you had asked him whether he knew anything about Mr Mhlawuli.

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember that I asked him Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and if his affidavit is to be believed, he had never heard of him; he knew nothing about him.

Have you any comment on that?

MR J VAN ZYL: No. He never expressed the fact to me afterwards that he did not know Mr Mhlawuli, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, we would ask to hand in the affidavit of Petrus Johannes Coetzee, the Commissioner of Police at that time, as the next exhibit "J", and his report to the Minister, marked "K", in relation to the re-appointment of Mr Goniwe.

At the time that General Coetzee made this affidavit on 31st August 1992, he was the Commissioner of Police, as exhibit "J" makes it clear. He was head of the Security Police whilst the Minister was Mr Le Grange.

He says that he signed the next document, which is now exhibit "K":

"The document on page 8, I signed on 25th June in...", in "K" ‘86, but in the context obviously it was intended to be ‘85 and we will show you why.

"After consideration in paragraph 20 of the memorandum to the Minister, the recommendation of the South African Police in respect of action against Mr Goniwe as contained, namely that Mr Goniwe in the evenings until 6 ‘o clock the next morning, be restricted to his home. In other words that is a so-called category "B" restriction order".

And in paragraph 12, "My overall impression upon reading these documents is that the intention was to deal with the whole matter within the framework of existing legislation, so that all the interested parties interests could be satisfied and in respect of the interference with Mr Goniwe’s liberties, to deal with that in a very practical matter".

You accept that? That this is the document of the then head of the Security Police?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And do you accept the memorandum, exhibit "K", where General Coetzee gives what the information was in relation to Mr Goniwe. Would you like an opportunity to just glance at it?

Now, there are two aspects in this report. First of all there is no suggestion in this report that Mr Goniwe was involved in violent actions, nor is there anything in this memorandum which makes him the danger that you say he was on your information. Do you agree with that?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, not all. Mr Chairman, in paragraph 8 it is mentioned that: "It is significant that most of these towns protest actions were launched and often accompanied by violence which led to police action."

This is put very softly at the time. We had a lot of information about the activities that happened after each visit of Mr Goniwe to these country areas. There was a lot of information about the "recruitment of people to leave the country and that dealt or referred to Mr Goniwe, he was responsible for this recruitment. He and the people closest to him". I do not know why this was not mentioned in this memorandum.

MR BIZOS: You see, Mr van Zyl, one of the questions is, do we believe you who tried to put horns on Mr Goniwe after his death, or do we accept the statement of the Commissioner of Police, that he went no further than asking people to form civic associations and to associate themselves with the UDF which was calling for a democratic solution to the country’s problems?

Where is this hard information that you speak about Mr Goniwe doing all sorts of terrible things? Why isn’t it in the Commissioner’s report?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, the Commissioner’s report is quite a lengthy document. It’s eight pages. I would like to request an adjournment that the witness can read the report properly and then he can ask my learned friend’s question.

MR BIZOS: Well, I thought you had gone through the document. Had you not, Mr Van Zyl? Or didn’t you have enough opportunity?

MR J VAN ZYL: I glanced through it quickly. That is why I referred you to the excerpt in paragraph 8, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, where is there - take your time. I’m sure that the Committee won’t have to adjourn, subject to what the Committee may have to say, for you to point out to us where there is information in the possession of the Commission that Mr Goniwe was advocating violence or he was recruiting people for MK or anyone else, or was involved in sabotage or violence or anything.

MR J VAN ZYL: I did not say that.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR J VAN ZYL: I never said he was involved in sabotage, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Zyl, you have painted a picture of a person who was responsible for much of the problems in the Eastern Cape and that was the basis for the decision to killing.

All Mr Bizos is asking is in the Commissioner’s report, can you see any information that substantiates this description of a person that’s a hardened trouble maker.

MR J VAN ZYL: Not in what I have seen, Mr Chairman, except for what I have pointed out.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I am going to offer you an opportunity to read the document. How long do you think you will take?

MR J VAN ZYL: Five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we then adjourn for that period.

ADJOURNS.

MR BIZOS: Mr Van Zyl, have you had an opportunity of studying the document, exhibit "K".

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Do you agree that what the Commissioner says in that report is substantially different to the impression that you tried to give the Committee or the information that you had about Mr Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: I would say that this is a watered down version of the information that we had at our disposal, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Why should the Commissioner of Police want to "water down" information that you had, if it was put before him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot answer that.

There is also, in paragraph 9, I see there is an appendix that I don’t know if that refers to anything else, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, you don’t for a moment suggest that there would be anything in the appendix to contradict what was above the signature of the Commissioner of Police?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot say, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now there are just one or two aspects that I want to put to you. Would you agree that it was the pride of Cradock that not a single window pane of their schools was damaged due to the influence of Mr Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember the exact conditions at the different schools in the area...

MR BIZOS: Are you able to deny what I have put to you?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember specifically anything to the contrary, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Do you agree that on the information available to the Commissioner, no offence was committed by Mr Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: No offence that we could charge him for, according to our information Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: No, you see, we don’t know what your information was other than what you tell us, and it’s possible that you may not be believed. This is why the question was on the information supplied by the Commissioner.

Do you agree that no chargeable offence could be brought against Mr Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now can you please - you know in your applications we get this chorus about people’s courts, murders, necklacing and everything else.

Now let’s deal with Cradock where Mr Goniwe was. Were there any people’s courts, that held any trials in Cradock?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember specifically what happened in Cradock. The "G-Plan" of which Mr Goniwe was the architect, prescribed the establishment of people’s courts and street committees, that should replace the normal procedures.

That happened in a lot of towns and townships and villages where Mr Goniwe...

MR BIZOS: Street committees and community courts are one thing. What I am asking you is whether there were any Kangaroo courts, in which people were tried in Cradock, or whether there were any killings in Cradock, or any serious assaults against anybody in Cradock or any other of the gruesome things that you describe in your application as the state of affairs in Port Elizabeth.

Was any of that taking place in Cradock or not?

MR J VAN ZYL: I was personally at Cradock when there was unrest and stone throwing at various occasions, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Stone throwing at who?

MR J VAN ZYL: At the police.

MR BIZOS: At the police, by youngsters. By school children?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Now, do you know of it being made public in a newspaper article that Mr Goniwe himself prevented youngsters from actually throwing stones at the police on a specific occasion and that he was the person who took the initiative to do that?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember if I knew about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Zyl, if I understand you correctly, this "G Plan" , the author of which was Mr Goniwe himself, was there any rate of success in this plan?

MR J VAN ZYL: Very much so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that not be grounds enough, or sufficient grounds, to charge him? For a crime?

MR J VAN ZYL: If there was anybody that would give evidence against him at the time, we would have certainly done that.

CHAIRPERSON: So you couldn’t attach the authorship of this "G Plan" to him? With any measure of success, in a court of law?

MR J VAN ZYL: In a court of law is unfortunately different at a time like that Mr Chairman.

The amount of intimidation at that time was incredible. And I investigated even murder cases in Port Elizabeth at the time where in the beginning there were a lot of witnesses and in the end they would just not give evidence. And I think everybody can remember that.

MR BIZOS: Yes, it was possible of course to obtain statements at Sanlam, under torture, was it not.

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I don’t know what you are talking about, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You don’t know what I am talking about? Is that what you said, Mr Van Zyl?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, we won’t go along that path of the history of Sanlam buildings for the purposes of this inquest Mr Van Zyl.

Let me confine myself to Cradock.

MR J VAN ZYL: I never tortured anybody or got a statement through torture, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I’m sorry, I can’t hear you.

MR J VAN ZYL: I said I never tortured anybody or got a statement through torture like you are insinuating, Sir.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but a lot of false information was procured by your colleagues at Sanlam buildings. Didn’t you know about that?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. You didn’t follow the cases that were going on in the courts in which those were exposed and numerous statements were thrown out by the courts. Taken by your colleagues at Sanlam buildings.

MR J VAN ZYL: I have no knowledge of that.

MR BIZOS: You have no knowledge of that.

But let’s deal with this matter. If you had such vital information, would it not have been in a file and if it was reliable, would it not have been in a file and would not the Commissioner have suggested stronger measures against Mr Goniwe rather than supporting his re-instatement?

MR J VAN ZYL: If the information had been sent up from the Divisional Headquarters to Pretoria, he would have been in possession of that information, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Was there any reason to keep it away from the Commissioner that was asked to comment on this?

MR J VAN ZYL: Not that I know of, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, in relation to the information available about his re-instatement, there will be evidence that it was generally known in Cradock and elsewhere that a decision was taken to re-instate him and that he expected to be the principal of the school, when schools opened in the middle of the year.

Did you know about that - that it was generally known?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I cannot remember that.

MR BIZOS: May we hand in a portion of a transcript recorded at Cradock on 24th June 1985, Mr Chairman, as exhibit "L".

Will you please look at page 17, the last page of that statement. This comes as a report of the person that was listening to the telephone of Mr Goniwe, Mr Chairman and was made public at the inquest before Judge Zietsman.

Please look at the last page. You see there the 4th line.

"Molly: Now Matthew, tell me did you receive any letter in connection with your appointment?

Matthew: No, not as yet, but it is probably on the way.

Molly: I would like to be part of your celebration.

Matthew: Okay. (And they laugh)."

How come that Molly Blackburn knew about Matthew’s re-appointment, or proposed re-appointment, and you, the person so closely connected with the investigation as to whether Goniwe should live or die, were ignorant of it?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is if we accept that they are serious in this conversation, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: What’s the joke? That they may have purported to engage in not being serious.

We know that there was a recommendation on 12th June, we know that the Commissioner of Police recommended it, we know that the Security Council Secretariat recommended it and you say that this might be a joke.

MR J VAN ZYL: They are laughing.

MR BIZOS: I suggest to you that the only joke about it is that you should think about it being a joke.

MR J VAN ZYL: Not at all. They are laughing at the end.

MR BIZOS: Yes, they are laughing because of the party that was going to take place. Are you saying that this is not evidence that Molly Blackburn knew about his re-appointment?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I’m not saying that Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: So, what is the idea of trying to dismiss it as a joke?

MR J VAN ZYL: I’m not trying to dismiss it as a joke. I said that, and I said before that I did not know about this re-appointment, Mr Chairman. Or I cannot remember that I knew at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Zyl, the question is simple.

Around the 25th, that was before Mr Goniwe was killed, Molly Blackburn knew of his re-appointment. The question from Mr Bizos is how is it that Molly Blackburn could have know about it and not you?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember if I knew.

MR BIZOS: Now that’s a very interesting twist of events, Mr van Zyl.

Your answer suggests that you might well have been told about his proposed re-appointment. Otherwise you wouldn’t have given that answer, would you?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, are you saying to the Committee that it was possible that you proceeded with the murder of Goniwe well knowing that there was a recommendation from the highest authority that he should be appointed as principal at the Cradock school?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, there were daily discussions of all these activities. It is very possible that this re-appointment was discussed as well.

If there was an instruction to stop with the plans to carry out this operation, I would expect that to have come from my superiors. I cannot remember if we discussed it, I am speculating.

MR BIZOS: If it is established that the question of the re-appointment was public knowledge, public in the sense that people interested in the fate of Mr Goniwe and what was going to be the future of Cradock and the education of their children, and you might have heard about it, did you not think that it was incumbent upon you to try and find out whether authorities higher than Du Plessis, higher than Van Rensburg, higher than Snyman, did not think that it was in the interests of the country to kill Goniwe, before you went on with it. Shouldn’t you have tried to find out what is this business about the re-appointment of Goniwe. Here I am, planning to murder him and others are writing him letters that he is going to be re-appointed.

MR J VAN ZYL: What is the question Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Shouldn’t you have enquired before continuing with the execution of your murder plan?

MR J VAN ZYL: As I have said Mr Chairman, this was discussed everyday. It was, I cannot remember whether his re-appointment was discussed and perhaps I should have enquired. I cannot remember if I even did that.

MR BIZOS: Don’t you recall that quite a fuss was made by the then unusual event of a Minister inviting Mr Goniwe to talk to him about how the problems of the district could be solved?

MR J VAN ZYL: That I don’t remember, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Had you not heard that the Regional Commissioner of Education had gone to Cradock in order to meet Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember knowing of that.

MR BIZOS: How could these things have passed by the person who had been given this awesome responsibility of murdering Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: A long time has passed, Mr Chairman. I don’t remember those events.

MR BIZOS: People may be excused for not remembering what happened in humdrum events that we perform as a matter of course. Surely matters of life and death you would have remembered if you wanted to speak the truth, Mr van Zyl?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is a long time. I don’t think it is unnatural that I cannot remember the finer matters of this case, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: This is not finer detail, is it Mr van Zyl? It goes to matters of life and death.

There may of course - have you got any answer?

MR J VAN ZYL: I think it is - it should be considered as finer details, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I see. Finer details.

Unless of course you well knew of what Minister De Beer and his department were doing and it was going to be, you’ll forgive the expression, "over your dead body", that Goniwe would be re-appointed. You were going to see to it that those attempts were frustrated.

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I was still not the last person to decide whether this operation should carry on or not. There is no way that I could say "over my dead body" would this have happened. I was working on instructions as well.

MR BIZOS: Would you have carried out those instructions if you knew that there was a recommendation to re-appoint Mr Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: As I say, I don’t know. I cannot remember if there was a recommendation, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I am asking you hypothetically in order to test your state of mind.

Would you have carried out the instruction to kill Goniwe if you knew that there was a recommendation that he should be re-appointed?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: What is possible?

MR J VAN ZYL: That I would have done it. I cannot answer for what I would have done then, but I would think that it was possible that we would have carried it out if the instruction was to continue with the operation.

MR BIZOS: The very least you ought to have done, I would suggest, as the person charged with doing the actual killing, to say, "Hey, there appears to be a contradiction here. One arm of the State says re-appoint him as principal, and a Colonel in Port Elizabeth and his subordinates told me to kill him. I want clarity before I become a murderer. Whether this is authorised by the State by whom I am employed, because the State appears to be talking with more than one voice".

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I am being asked to speculate on what I would have done. If it was in the interest of the State’s security and I had considered it so, and this instruction was to carry on, I would probably have done that.

MR BIZOS: Irrespective of what knowledge you might have had that the Commissioner of Police had recommended that he should merely be restricted at home during the night hours, but allowed to teach and the Secretariat of the Security Council had recommended that he should go back to school and only matters covered by the regulations of the Education Department were to apply to him.

You would still have done it?

MR J VAN ZYL: I don’t know if I would have done it if the Commissioner of Police had made different recommendations, Mr Chairman. Because my instructions come from my immediate seniors, who I assumed worked for the Commissioner of Police.

I never knew about the memorandum that the Commissioner drew up.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Zyl, if there was a conflict of instructions as between the Commissioner or Minister and your immediate superiors, whose instructions would you follow?

MR J VAN ZYL: If I knew about the conflict, Mr Chairman, I would definitely have not carried out the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Forget about the actual instruction.

Whose instruction would you respect?

MR J VAN ZYL: If I knew that there was a conflict between my immediate superiors’ instruction and that of the Commissioner, I would not have carried out the operation because then I knew that I would be asking for trouble.

Mr Chairman, I can also not imagine that if there was a conflict between the Commissioner of Police and Colonel Snyman, Colonel Snyman or my superiors, would have carried out an instruction in conflict with his wishes or orders.

MR BIZOS: As early as the 6th June, according to exhibit "G", the affidavit of Geldenhuys:

"Rondom Meneer Goniwe het daar a potensiele belange botsing ontstaan tussen die Departement van Onderwys en Opleiding aan die eenkant, en die veiligheids gemeenskap aan die ander kant".

How could there have been this conflict - it’s in paragraph 4 of exhibit "G", Mr Chairman. How could the fact that there was this conflict about a person that you had been given a special task, have been kept from you?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, this person refers to a potential clash of interests. He doesn’t refer to a definite clash. And I definitely had no knowledge of such a potential clash.

MR BIZOS: The question was, why and by whom, and why would this be kept a secret from you?

MR J VAN ZYL: I wasn’t aware of a clash like this, Mr Chairman. And this person says that there is a potential clash.

MR BIZOS: Well, yes he uses - but we know what the clash was from the rest of the document. Whether he should be re-appointed or not.

MR J VAN ZYL: I was not aware of any clash at the time between the authorities, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Bear with me for one moment please, Mr Chairman.

I’m sorry, I can’t locate a document for one moment Sir. It has been waylaid. I must have a document before I put....

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, while my learned friend is looking for that document, and not in order to interrupt his train of thought. The Geldenhuys statement we have got has a page missing. We have got up to paragraph 8 which runs partial and then on page 2 and then paragraph 4.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, you say you have got up to paragraph 8 that is incomplete and that’s your last page.

MR BOOYENS: No. Page 3 is missing. We’ve got a page 4, but we haven’t got a page 3 of the Geldenhuys statement.

MR BIZOS: Well, I’m sorry for that. But we will put it right during the adjournment.

Now you have been given a copy of Mr van Jaarsveld’s statement insofar as it relates to Mr Goniwe. This appears on page 277 in the second volume of the documents prepared by Counsel for the Commission, Mr Chairman.

You recall that I asked you what discussions there were about the possibility of putting Mr Goniwe to death, and you said that there were such discussions but you could not remember when or where or precisely whether they were during 1984 or 1985. Do you recall that?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, did you ever get any suggestion coming from Pretoria Head Office that they were looking into the question of the elimination of Mr Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember that. I have seen this statement from Mr van Jaarsveld in which he is not sure whether it was me that he had spoken to. I do not recall such a person or such a meeting or driving to Cradock with him.

It looks a bit vague to me, and if I had remembered it, I would have definitely mentioned it because it cannot change anything to my case, as far as I can remember. I really cannot remember this incident.

MR BIZOS: But it also tends to show a number of things.

The fact that you do not have a recollection. Firstly that it might have happened and that you don’t remember.

MR J VAN ZYL: There is a remote possibility, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Although remote, there is a possibility?

May I just have a word with Counsel for the State?

That talk about putting Goniwe to death was not a matter which started when you were called in by your superior officer Van Rensburg. There was talk about it before.

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s correct, but the operation started after the conversation with Colonel van Rensburg.

MR BIZOS: Yes, the planning of a specific operation.

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s right.

MR BIZOS: But there were suggestions before, and once you concede the possibility, you do not exclude the possibility that the orders came from above. From somebody sent from head office down here?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is possible, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And although no date is mentioned in this document, there is an event of the smashing of the windscreen of a person named - this Janet Cherry. And she has reason to remember the date well. Is it possible that this suggestion was made as early as March 1984?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember when it was Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: But you would not exclude the possibility that what you call talk or loose talk about the killing of Mr Goniwe was as early as March 1984.

MR J VAN ZYL: That is possible.

MR BIZOS: And you cannot possibly under oath deny the statement of Mr van Jaarsveld as to what happened. That he was down here for this purpose.

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, as I said yesterday, if Mr van Jaarsveld has reported to Colonel Gerrit Erasmus, it could not have happened in 1984, because Colonel Erasmus left at the end of 1983. Then I could not have been here, because I only arrived here in Port Elizabeth in 1984. And if the person that he suspects was me, if that was real, then Colonel Erasmus could not have been here. And that person will be able to tell us when - who was here and who he spoke to, but I cannot recollect that, and I don’t know if Colonel Erasmus can recollect that.

MR BIZOS: Where were you in March 1984?

MR J VAN ZYL: I was in Port Elizabeth Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And when did Colonel Erasmus...?

MR J VAN ZYL: Leave? In December 1983, Mr Chairman.

I said that yesterday. It is very confusing to me and if I could remember it, I would have said so.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But now, when Colonel Erasmus left, did he come back from time to time?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember that he came back even once to Port Elizabeth, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You see your inability to remember whether it happened or not suggests to me that the discussion about killing Goniwe was so common place and so often discussed that that is why you cannot be certain as to whether this happened or not.

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, this person is much more adamant that he knew Colonel Erasmus. As he said here, he was the commander of the Port Elizabeth Security Branch. Their offices were in Strand Street, Port Elizabeth.

Colonel Erasmus was aware of the purpose of our visit. He can remember that, but he cannot remember that he actually met me. He suspects that it was one Sakkie van Zyl, and I cannot remember that. That I met him. I think it is much more likely that he is confusing me, than he is confusing Colonel Erasmus. It would seem to me.

MR BIZOS: Merely the identity of the people concerned. That’s as far as you are prepared to put it.

But there was talk at that time about the elimination of Goniwe.

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember speaking to a person like this about this, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, you’ve described Colonel...

MS R PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, if I may interject at this point.

Gerrit Erasmus is being represented by Wagenaar, Muller & Du Plessis. I have been sent a letter from their offices which may shed some light on the issue. Beg leave to hand up the letter as-where are we now - exhibit "M".

MR BIZOS: "M" yes. Well, we will have regard to this letter.

Mr van Zyl, I want to ask you about the personal relationships. Colonel Snyman remained a Colonel in Port Elizabeth, but Van Rensburg rose to what rank?

MR J VAN ZYL: Major General.

MR BIZOS: And Du Plessis raised to what rank?

MR J VAN ZYL: Colonel, full Colonel.

MR BIZOS: In relation to the exercise of real power and authority in 1985, who really called the shots in Port Elizabeth? Snyman or Van Rensburg?

MR J VAN ZYL: Colonel Snyman was the Divisional Commander of the Division, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. You and I know that, but that’s not the question.

The question was who really called the shots?

MR J VAN ZYL: In what respect?

MR BIZOS: Who was the pro-active person, the dominant person in the Security Police in Port Elizabeth? Snyman or Van Rensburg?

MR J VAN ZYL: I am not sure if I follow you, Mr Chairman. Colonel Snyman was the senior, Colonel Van Rensburg was a Lieutenant Colonel at that time, and he became a Colonel I think during the time that I was here.

ADV D POTGIETER: I think, Mr van Zyl, the question is, if you want to put it that way, who was the "big boss".

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Snyman, without a doubt.

MR BIZOS: Yes, that was on paper. But who really was the dominant person in the branch?

MR J VAN ZYL: Who took the strongest lead, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR J VAN ZYL: Colonel Van Rensburg was a different type of person to Colonel Snyman, who was as I said yesterday a soft spoken, soft hearted person who was good with administration and Colonel Van Rensburg, I would say, was probably the one with more field experience.

MR BIZOS: And was the question of elimination of Goniwe a matter of paperwork or field experience?

MR J VAN ZYL: Now I see what you’re saying...

MR BIZOS: I though that you would have got the idea a long time ago Mr van Zyl.

I asked you who was calling the shots, and you have given two or three answers in the hope of my leaving the question there. Why can’t we have a straight answer that the branch was really being run in the field and in the control of the personnel, it was Van Rensburg.

MR J VAN ZYL: Not to my knowledge. Colonel Du Plessis was in charge of the section where I worked, and he was much more of a leader of us in the field than Colonel Van Rensburg was, who was not active in that regard at all. But Colonel Van Rensburg referred us to Colonel Snyman in this matter.

MR BIZOS: As a matter of formality, after he had given you an order to put the plan into operation?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot answer for him, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Zyl, do I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that Mr du Plessis was more acquainted with the field than Mr van Rensburg.

MR J VAN ZYL: Not more acquainted, but due to his lower rank and his activities, he was more involved, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you say that he was more assertive than the rest?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I would not say that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You, in your application, speak of the GBS in a number of places and the pressure that it was putting on you in order to find a solution to the problem.

Who told you of the pressure at the GBS?

MR J VAN ZYL: As far as I can recall that was either Major Du Plessis at various occasions from Colonel Snyman, and Colonel Snyman himself at Officers Meetings.

MR BIZOS: And Van Rensburg?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall that he referred to the GBS.

MR BIZOS: What were you told about the pressures of the GBS?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, this was a general feeling that was conveyed that Colonel Snyman was actually under pressure from the GBS as head of the Security Police to do something constructive and to find a solution, although the politicians did not offer any solutions at that time.

MR BIZOS: Well, Minister Le Grange apparently offered a solution if we are to believe Mr Snyman’s affidavit. Kill Goniwe.

MR J VAN ZYL: I have subsequently heard of that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now what about the pressure from the army personnel and the Chairman of the GBS, Mr van der Westhuizen?

MR J VAN ZYL: I have no personal knowledge of that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Was it not reported to you?

MR J VAN ZYL: Not in person.

Not that it was him in person that put the pressure on.

MR BIZOS: Had you not heard that an ultimatum had been given to him as Chairman of the GBS that unless things were dealt with in the Eastern Province, he would lose his job?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall that I heard anything like that at the time, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, you speak about pressure. What pressure was there?

MR J VAN ZYL: It was probably the same pressure that was put on us, which was just a pressure that we had to find solutions as well, and get information about the situation, but it was out of our hands.

MR BIZOS: When you say pressure to find a solution. When there’s not directive as to what possible solutions you were to find, how were you to solve the problems?

MR J VAN ZYL: I don’t know, Mr Chairman. That is what made the time a very frustrating one. In the middle eighties.

MR BIZOS: Didn’t you ask when it was reported at meetings at the GBS, pressure is being put to solve the problem. Well what did they suggest? Did you ask?

MR J VAN ZYL: I don’t know what was suggested. I do not know if I asked. We discussed this often. We discussed the various options that were open to us.

MR BIZOS: Had it come to your notice that the Security Council consisting of army personnel, security personnel, police personnel....

MR BOSMAN: Will you excuse me. I just want to pick up on your previous question if you don’t mind.

MR BIZOS: Yes, of course.

MR BOSMAN: Mr van Zyl, the JMC was representative of a number of state departments and interested elements?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is how I remember it.

ADV G BOSMAN: And now the question is, if someone in the JMC exerted pressure, the total JMC could not have exerted the pressure. What was the driving force behind the JMC? Who brought this about?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairperson, I do not have very good knowledge of the composition of the JMC at that stage. I do not know precisely who they all were, my JMC knowledge was based upon that which I heard from senior officers.

I think that Colonel Van Rensburg or Snyman are in a better position to say who they regarded as the driving force within the JMC. I am really not certain, Mr Chairperson.

MR BOSMAN: May I just ask, from who in the JMC do you think the pressure was exerted?

MR J VAN ZYL: I would say from the institutions which dealt more security, or who were at the head of things regarding security.

MR BIZOS: Did it come to your notice at any time that the head of the army had redefined murder as excluding any killing of any of the enemies of the State by unconventional means provided it did not boomerang on the State?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman, I have no knowledge of that.

MR BIZOS: Well, your description of the killings here fit into that exclusion from murder by the head of the army. Was this killing by unconventional means? Leaving aside your mistake with the gun.

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And, was the manner in which it was done calculated that there should not be any comeback to the State?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And the third requirement by the head of the army was that it should not put in danger the lives of innocent civilians. That is, you know, like blowing up places where civilians would be around and things like that.

It also, if we leave Mr Mhlawuli out of the equation, it also complied with that requirement.

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Is that yet another one of those coincidences, or is the Committee entitled to say that the coincidence is too close to be ignored that this was an army/police operation.

MR J VAN ZYL: I really do not know about the coincidences, Mr Chairman, and I personally have no knowledge of the Defence Force involvement.

MR BIZOS: Except the signal, of course.

MR J VAN ZYL: That I learnt about much later, but that is not to say that it was connected to this incident. I do not know.

MR BIZOS: Who did the army’s dirty work? During this period?

MR J VAN ZYL: I don’t know, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Would you now regard the killing as dirty work?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: It may be a convenient stage....

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn till 2 ’o clock.

JOHAN MARTIN VAN ZYL: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

Our learned friend correctly pointed out that there were annexures to exhibit "K". We have them both. May I suggest that we mark them "K(i)" and "K(ii)" and ask for leave to hand them in?

Could you please have a look at the end of Annexure "A" with the big numbers 103 and 104 in "K(i)".

This is where there is a recommendation during 1984 that Mr Matthew Goniwe, Mr Ford Calata, Mr Mbulelo Goniwe and Mr Madoda Jacobs be restricted.

MR BOOYENS: My apologies. My learned friend just mind repeating his question. The witness had difficulty in finding what you were referring to Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I’m sorry, I can’t hear my learned friend. I think he was directing a question at me.

Oh, I’ll repeat the question.

You will see that the associates or handlangers are mentioned there as Matthew Goniwe, Ford Calata, Mbulelo Goniwe and Madoda Fezile Jacobs. You see that the first three names there correspond with the three in the signal of the 7th June 1985. Do you agree with that?

MR J VAN ZYL: I see that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: There isn’t a long list of "hangers-one" that you have suggested that were considered of sufficient importance to be dealt with in 1984.

MR J VAN ZYL: Excuse me Mr Chairman. Where does this memor and can you tell us by whom it was sent?

M R BIZOS: Yes. This is the annexure to the Commissioner’s report. Because he wants to give as full a picture about Mr Goniwe’s activities as possible.

Now, do you agree with that?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, I see that Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And do you agree that Mr Mhlawuli’s name does not appear anywhere, doesn’t feature anywhere in any meeting or anything of that nature between Mr Goniwe and Mr Mhlawuli?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s right, Mr Chairman.

Could you tell us when it was dated please, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Well, from the internal content you will see that it was ‘94, because we know that after it was submitted, Mr Goniwe was detained. But the more relevant part is the one that we do have the dates, Mr van Zyl, and please look at "K(ii)".

Perhaps we can give you another copy so that your Counsel can have one - now you see that this is a very interesting document in relation to the matters that we have been discussing yesterday and today. Would you agree that this is the ‘85 document and it starts from 4th January 1985 and if you go to the last page, 11, to the 16th June 1985?

Now all the "dangerous revolutionary activity" of Mr Goniwe is set out in this document. The first one is that the American Ambassador from Pretoria called on him. You see that?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And Mrs Sheena Duncan of the Black Sash, who established the Black Sash Advice Office in Cradock, that was also noted as one of his activities.

And then it goes on that he went to Somerset East, whilst the South Eastern Youth Congress was formed, and so it goes on.

I don’t want to take you through the whole lot, but the people that he had contact with appear on page 3: Mr Cowell, M. Peters, J.W. Cargusten, also on page 3, M.J. Hanna, M. Brink, a Susan, that he met with Ford Calata and Sparrow Mkhonto and Linda on page 4, Linda Mangeli and Zola Mangoli and Baba Doti and Msimeni Lawrence Gazi - so there is no - and that he even went to a funeral where mention was made of Mr Nelson Mandela, Mr Oliver Tambo, Mr Joe Slovo, so that whoever was gathering this information didn’t spare the mentioning of any names. On page 6, the name of Joanne Bekker, if I remember correctly an important journalist, was mentioned and a Sister Ramashwana is mentioned on page 8. And again the same on page 9 and Van Zyl Slabbert, Andrew Savage and Moorcroft of the PFP are mentioned. And Mr Lutusi Boy Mantiyi is mentioned on page 11.

Nowhere, right up to the 16th June is the dangerous revolutionary Mhlawuli mentioned.

Do you agree?

MR J VAN ZYL: I see that Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Do you still persist in the pretence that you considered Mhlawuli one of the "dangerous" people associating with Mr Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is not a pretence, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR J VAN ZYL: It was not a pretence, Mr Chairman. We...

MR BIZOS: It’s not a pretence.

If it’s not a pretence, how come all those names are mentioned, and his name nowhere appears?

MR J VAN ZYL: I have never seen this document before. I cannot tell you who drew it up and on what grounds.

MR BIZOS: I know that you have not seen it, but do you agree that it is a continuos document showing the continuos monitoring of Mr Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: It seems to be a summing up of the activities that were reported, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And if he was - if Mr Mhlawuli was prominent, according to your evidence in order to justify his killing, was anywhere near Mr Goniwe in circumstances in which it was suspected that he was involved in unlawful activities with Mr Goniwe, how come his name doesn’t appear there?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot give you an explanation for that.

MR BIZOS: And this was an important document because obviously it was sent as a summary to the Commissioner of Police for the purposes of recommending to the Security Secretariat whether or not Mr Goniwe was to be re-instated into his job or not.

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot comment on who sent him this information for the purpose of his detention, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: No, but what does it look like?

Does it not look like a summary of Mr Goniwe’s file which was conveniently destroyed after his death?

MR J VAN ZYL: Security Branch Headquarters in Pretoria, Mr Chairman. This was what was reported on SAP67’s at their disposal.

MR BIZOS: Well, I’ve done my bit to explain to you what our submissions are going to be. I’m not going to take it any further.

But, could you please turn to volume 2 of what is called Cradock 4, although we know that one of them was not from Cradock, but it’s the journalese way of establishing that label, and would you please have a look at page 284. Written in pencil in that document.

This is a document which was put before the Geldenhuys Committee and comes from the exhibits in the inquest held by Judge Zietsman. Please have a look at the second paragraph.

"At request of the Security Community and for security reasons, he on 26th November 1983, was notified by telegram that as from 1st January 1984, he would be transferred to Graaff Reinet as a teacher in mathematics and science."

Will you accept from me that the evidence, that this comes from an affidavit, the person who made it told the court that the words "veiligheids gemeenskap" which was lightly deleted, was deliberately deleted, although the person who made the statement stood by this document as it appeared without the line across it.

Will you accept that please?

Now do you agree that Goniwe was transferred at the instance of the "veiligheids gemeenskap"?

MR J VAN ZYL: It happened before I arrived in Port Elizabeth, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you discuss it with your colleagues?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes. When I arrived here in ‘84, ja I can remember that it was a discussion topic. The fact that he had been transferred to Graaff Reinet.

MR BIZOS: And that - it goes on to say that Goniwe saw it as a punishment. Do you agree with that?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And the last paragraph - that he had the fullest support of the community, of the school committee and of the students in Cradock.

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes it would seem so and it seemed like that right through the time that I knew of him.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now you were in "Koevoet", Mr van Zyl. And whose decision was it to transfer you to the Eastern Province?

MR J VAN ZYL: It was at my own request, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And to go into the Security Police?

MR J VAN ZYL: I had been in the Security Police before and "Koevoet" was regarded as a unit in the Security Police.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And your colleague, Mr Eric Winter, was also in "Koevoet", who had seen service with you at Ovambuland?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: Who else that had been in "Koevoet" was sent to the Eastern Province during 1984 or 1985?

MR J VAN ZYL: There were one or two junior members, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Please remind us of their names.

MR J VAN ZYL: No, Lieutenant Pickard went to "Koevoet" from Port Elizabeth. There was a Constable or a Sergeant Loots that was transferred also in 1984 to Port Elizabeth.

MR BIZOS: Is that also an applicant in this case?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Another Loots?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And who else?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, the applicant in this case is Lotz.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon, yes of course. I’m sorry.

MR J VAN ZYL: That is all that I can remember, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, what special qualities did "Koevoet" have that attracted you and made you suitable for transfer to the Eastern Cape in 1984/85?

MR J VAN ZYL: What special qualities did "Koevoet" have?

MR BIZOS: Well, what special qualities did you possess which found favour with people to transfer you to "Koevoet" and found favour to transfer you to the Eastern Cape in 1984/85?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, that I wouldn’t know, Mr Chairman.

ADV D POTGIETER: Well, why did you want to come to Port Elizabeth?

MR J VAN ZYL: Because I had already spent a number of years in Ovamboland, Mr Chairman and I just wanted to continue my career at the Security Branch, somewhere in the country.

ADV D POTGIETER: Why Port Elizabeth, why not elsewhere?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember what my reason was at the time, but it - Colonel Erasmus was in charge here and I had known him from years before and at the time that I applied for the transfer to Port Elizabeth, I don’t think Colonel Erasmus had already known that he was going to be transferred away, and I can remember speaking to him whether - what the conditions were like and whether he would accept me at the branch and so on.

He was affirmative, but during the time that I was waiting to be transferred here, he also got transferred away from here.

MR BIZOS: Were you working in close association with Mr Eric Winter whilst you were in "Koevoet"?

MR J VAN ZYL: As close as everybody at unit was, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Were you in the same unit?

MR J VAN ZYL: There is only one unit, and that is "Koevoet". I had a team and at one stage Mr Winter had a team as well, although he was regarded as the investigations officer who handled general intelligence at the unit.

MR BIZOS: Did you become good friends whilst you were operating in Ovambuland in "Koevoet"?

MR J VAN ZYL: Fairly good friends, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Was "Koevoet" considered an unconventional unit?

MR J VAN ZYL: Necessarily so, we were fighting a very unconventional war, Mr Chairman, and all units that were involved in counter insurgency on that level could be called unconventional, I suppose.

MR BIZOS: And were there unconventional means used in order to deal with persons who were considered enemies of the State, even though they may have not been carriers of AK47’s?

MR J VAN ZYL: Not so....

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I am not so sure about the relevance. I concede whether "Koevoet" was unconventional, but the moment we get to what happens at "Koevoet", I am beginning to fail to see the relevance of that.

So I would object to this line of questioning going further than it did at the moment. I didn’t because obviously training in "Koevoet" and so on I think would be relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, without wanting to predict what Mr Bizos is intending to do, perhaps I am going to invite him to argue the point.

MR BIZOS: Well, let me try and give you a few more details from which the drift of my questioning may become more relevant, Mr van

Zyl.

Was Sergeant Hough and Chris Labuschagne, were they also in "Koevoet".

MR J VAN ZYL: I don’t know who you are talking about. Sergeant who Sir?

MR BIZOS: H-o-u-g-h.

MR J VAN ZYL: Not that I can remember.

MR BIZOS: And Chris Labuschagne?

MR J VAN ZYL: I do not remember him Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And do you know whether together with Eric Winter they were transferred to Cradock?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, there was somebody else that was transferred to Cradock, not Hough or Labuschagne. From the unit.

MR BIZOS: Who was that?

MR J VAN ZYL: I don’t know, I can’t remember Hough or Labuschagne being in "Koevoet" but that is possible, because they were junior members.

There was another "Koevoet" member at Cradock called Lourens, George Lourens.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now out of all the people that there were in Port Elizabeth, why were you chosen to lead this execution of this plan of unconventional killing?

MR J VAN ZYL: I really don’t know, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Has it occurred to you that with you from "Koevoet" in Port Elizabeth and Mr Winter from "Koevoet" in Cradock, may have been a way of augmenting the strength of the Security Police here under the soft hearted Mr Snyman?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I have not thought of that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Mr van Zyl, if anyone of the applicants in this case said to the relatives or the victims that there were at this stage three groups on the lookout to kill Goniwe. Your group....

MR J VAN ZYL: Which stage is that Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: This is June, from June 7th to June 27th.

Your group, an army group and the Goniwe group. And it was said by one of your fellow applicants that you were lucky on the 27th because your plan worked on that day, whilst the others were trying to do the same thing.

What comment would you have to make on that statement?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I have no knowledge of that utterance, or of the contents of it. But I definitely don’t know about any other groups or teams that were having the same task at the time.

MR BIZOS: And on the question of your authority, and the reason why you did this.

The person that you say gave you authority may be interpreted as having left it in your discretion as to whether it was in the best interests of South Africa or not. Can you please tell us if that is so interpreted, how you would have served (in your view) the interests of South Africa by murdering four people.

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, that was Colonel Snyman’s way of putting it I think lightly for himself. There was no doubt about what he meant.

It was no question of discretion.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now as far as your authority....

CHAIRPERSON: Well answer this then. How did you think by killing these four gentlemen it would serve the interests of the Republic of South Africa?

MR J VAN ZYL: Along with the instructions that I received, Mr Chairman, I was convinced at the time, at the time, that the elimination of these people would bring about stability in the area. It was not my decision, but I agreed with it.

MR BIZOS: In which area?

MR J VAN ZYL: In the areas that Mr Goniwe, especially, were influential in.

MR BIZOS: And where was that?

MR J VAN ZYL: It was the whole of the Eastern Cape, including some regions in the Karoo, towards the South Western Districts and the Northern Border areas as well, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: If the information was - before you was only that which appears in the documents which were at the disposal of the Commissioner of Police, would you agree that it was not sufficient to kill people for that sort of activity?

MR J VAN ZYL: If the information at our disposal at the time were only the information that we had seen here today and yesterday, it would not have even been an issue in the Security Police, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Even though the Security Police felt it duty bound to report it, like a visit by the Ambassador and things like that and other matters - helping to form civic organisations. All those things that are listed by the Commissioner would not have been grounds for killing Mr Goniwe or any of the others.

MR J VAN ZYL: Not that was listed here as such, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well you see, because we are going to suggest to you that Mr Goniwe was not doing anything else, I am going to suggest to you that there was ill-will and malice in your action, possibly as a result - not only you personally but the others, that having suggested his dismissal from his job, that he would have been viewed as a victor over you by being reinstated, and you were going to stop it.

MR J VAN ZYL: That is totally untrue, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: It does correspond, however, does it not with the "nooit, ooit, ooit weer" statement in the document of the 23rd May, and that which was the Security Police view at the time, and that being overridden by higher authority. The Secretariat of the Security Council.

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, was that a Security Police document or a....

MR BIZOS: Well we can look at it. It’s an exhibit.

It’s quite clear in the documents as a whole that that was the position of the Security establishment.

MR J VAN ZYL: I’m sorry. May I just remind myself of that again please, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Exhibit "C", Mr Chairman.

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, this is not a Security Police document. This is a GBS document.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Do you say that the police didn’t agree with this proposal?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I could never say that, but you had said Sir that the Security Police had said "nooit, ooit, ooit weer"....

MR BIZOS: Wasn’t that the Security Police view?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember that specifically Mr Chairman. I was a Captain at the time and I might have missed it because of that, but I didn’t know this.

MR BIZOS: And having regard to the savage manner in which these murders were committed would be additional evidence, would it not, that you really hated these people, Mr....

MR J VAN ZYL: Not at all, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You didn’t hate them?

MR J VAN ZYL: No.

MR BIZOS: You stood by whilst they were stabbed in a cumulative number of sixty-three times.

MR J VAN ZYL: It does not mean that I like it, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

I have no further questions.

ADV D POTGIETER: Mr van Zyl, do you have exhibit "J"?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

ADV D POTGIETER: Can you please look at paragraph 9.

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, I have it here Chairperson.

ADV D POTGIETER: Do you accept that the two addendum’s, "K(i)" and "K(ii)" originate from the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch and partially the Port Elizabeth Division of the Security Branch.

MR J VAN ZYL: That is highly possible, Mr Chairperson.

ADV D POTGIETER: So, in other words, these exhibits "K(i)" and "K(ii)" actually originate from the Security Police.

MR J VAN ZYL: Not as such. The content of the information probably comes from Port Elizabeth on the basis of other information acquired from the Port Elizabeth branch.

ADV D POTGIETER: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS R PATEL: Thank you Mr van Zyl.

If I can refer you to page 48 of the bundle, it is your application in fact. To paragraph 10. In there you have mentioned that you gave both Eric Taylor and Sergeant Lotz instructions to monitor the deceased in this matter.

Could you perhaps elaborate, what stage or when specifically were these instructions given.

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, this was shortly after I originally spoke to Colonel van Rensburg and after I had spoken to Major Du Plessis. Shortly after the first instructions, three weeks or so, two or three weeks before the incident.

MS R PATEL: So that would have been about three weeks before?

MR J VAN ZYL: More or less, Mr Chairman.

MS R PATEL: Two to three weeks before.

What was the import of the instruction. What specifically did you want to know?

MR J VAN ZYL: I wanted to know exactly where these activists were going, what they were doing, who they were dealing with and who were the people that were being used as their helpers or their Lieutenants in the different regions.

MS R PATEL: Was it explained to Mr Taylor and Mr Lotz what the purpose of the information was that you required?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman as far as I can recall I spoke to them at that time about this and about what the purpose was, yes.

MS R PATEL: So they would have known that there was a plan that you would have wanted to put into operation and the information was required for that specific purpose?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes Mr Chairman.

MS R PATEL: Right. Can you perhaps then explain why Mr Lotz in his application makes no mention of these instructions that you would have given to him? If I can refer you to page 13 of the bundle.

MR J VAN ZYL: No. Mr Chairman, no I don’t know why Mr Lotz says it like that. He was definitely part of the intelligence gathering in the preceding weeks.

MS R PATEL: Mr Lotz in fact goes further and he says quite clearly that he was informed only on the 27th as to what the purpose of the operation would be.

Surely Mr van Zyl, if this was explained to him three weeks before and that if he was, as you say, actively involved in the intelligence gathering, there would have been no need at all for you to explain on that day why his services were required.

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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: 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.

MS R PATEL: Thank you I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any questions Mr Hugo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr van Zyl how long have you known Mr de Kock?

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

MR S HUGO: Were you with Mr de Kock in "Koevoet"?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR S HUGO: Did you get to know him well during the "Koevoet" days?

MR J VAN ZYL: Reasonably well, Mr Chairperson.

MR S HUGO: 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.

MR S HUGO: Did you trust him with sensitive information?

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

MR S HUGO: 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.

MR S HUGO: There were never any problems between the two of you?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, nothing.

MR S HUGO: 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.

MR S HUGO: 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.

MR S HUGO: 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.

MR S HUGO: 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.

MR S HUGO: 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.

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

MR J VAN ZYL: That is what I am telling you. I cannot recall that this conversation took place. If I had spoken to him, the facts which he is relating are not completely correct and I cannot remember that I actually put it to him in that way.

MR S HUGO: Is is possible that you told Mr de Kock that you had personally shot him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot say whether that is possible, I cannot say why I would have done it. I cannot even think why I would have twisted the names.

MR S HUGO: Let us take this point for point.

What is in Mr de Kock’s statement, and you can tell me what is correct and what is not correct. I am referring to page 256 of the handout. Mr de Kock states that he took over - do you have it before you?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s correct.

MR S HUGO: Is it possible?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible.

MR S HUGO: He thinks that your rank at that stage was Captain and he knew that you were stationed in Port Elizabeth.

Is that correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes that is Sir.

MR S HUGO: Then he says that you contacted him at Vlakplaas. You wanted to know if he had contact with the Ballistic Unit of the South African Police, seeing as he had some problems, did you say that to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall that.

MR S HUGO: Why can you not recall that, Mr van Zyl?

MR J VAN ZYL: Because the conversation might have taken place it was just a very long time ago and I cannot recall whether we spoke of this.

MR S HUGO: Is it possible that you did require assistance from the Ballistic Unit of the South African Police?

MR J VAN ZYL: That could be so.

MR S HUGO: You required assistance from the Ballistic Unit?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR S HUGO: Then Mr de Kock says that Van Zyl told me that he was having problems with a rifle that he had used in an operation. Is that so? Can you recall that?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, but it is possible.

MR S HUGO: I beg your pardon?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I cannot recall this from memory.

MR S HUGO: Is it possible that Mr de Kock is correct when he says this?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.

MR S HUGO: Mr de Kock states that you wanted the Ballistic characteristics to be altered. Is that correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible.

MR S HUGO: Then he goes further to say that he told you that he did not have a contact and he proposed that you dispose of the firearm in the sea. Is that correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is possible.

MR S HUGO: And your answer was that there were approximately 120 of these firearms in the country and that it belonged to a very good friend of yours.

MR J VAN ZYL: I don’t know. I am not certain, it is possible that I said this.

MR S HUGO: Now is this correct in terms of the objective facts?

MR J VAN ZYL: Well, I do not know about the 120 firearms. All that I can surmise is that I licensed the rifle to myself.

MR S HUGO: You see, the problem I have Mr van Zyl, is that in terms of the objective facts, this is not correct.

What you are saying is not correct. And then you proceed to say that it could be true. That you said to Mr de Kock. So why are you dishing up false facts about Mr de Kock.

MR J VAN ZYL: I don’t know. Perhaps that could have been the manner in which we would have conversed. I cannot say whether or not we did this.

MR S HUGO: Well, I have a problem because you told us earlier on that he was a confidant of yours and that you trusted him with sensitive information, so why would you have told him lies?

MR J VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I do not believe that I said what he says that I said.

MR S HUGO: Wait a minute. We will come to that matter later.

You said earlier that it was possible that you had said to Mr de Kock that there were 120 firearms. Now I am asking you: why are you lying to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: Perhaps I wanted to place him under a different impression.

MR S HUGO: Why would you want to do that?

MR J VAN ZYL: Perhaps because I didn’t want him to know the whole truth.

MR S HUGO: I beg your pardon?

MR J VAN ZYL: Because I didn’t want him to know the whole truth.

MR S HUGO: Let us see which other lies you dished up for him.

In the following paragraph, Mr de Kock states that later on in the year I met van Zyl in Pretoria, or it could have been when I was in Port Elizabeth. Is that true?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes it is possibly true. We met each other over that time period. I cannot remember exactly when.

MR S HUGO: But you did meet each other again later in that specific year. Perhaps we should just achieve some clarity. Are we speaking of 1985?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR S HUGO: Would you like to place that into a specific time context? The date when this conversation could have taken place.

MR J VAN ZYL: I have no idea.

MR S HUGO: Which month?

MR J VAN ZYL: I do not know.

MR S HUGO: Then Mr de Kock says that you personally informed him of the fact that you were in charge of an operation when Goniwe and others were abducted.

What do you say of that? Is this correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible, Mr Chairman.

MR S HUGO: Mr de Kock goes on to say that you informed him that you and your people were personally involved in the operation.

Did you say that to him.?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is possible.

MR S HUGO: Then he says that you told him that you had ambushed Goniwe and the others and abducted them. Is that correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is possible.

MR S HUGO: He says that Van Zyl told me that...

MR J VAN ZYL: Let us just stop there. I don’t understand the word "taken"...

MR S HUGO: Well, you understand the language that you used as part of the Security Police. It could have meant abducted or taken.

MR J VAN ZYL: I am not certain.

MR S HUGO: So Mr de Kock made an error and you wouldn’t have told him. Is it possible that you could have said this to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, it is possible.

MR S HUGO: Mr de Kock also says that you saw him in a yellow vehicle.

What do you say of that?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, that is correct.

MR S HUGO: You said this to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I told him that I had a yellow vehicle at the time.

MR S HUGO: Well, if Mr de Kock when he says that you told him that you put him in a yellow vehicle. Mr de Kock is therefore making an error here?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR S HUGO: Then Mr de Kock says that you told him that the vehicle had belonged to the Security Police. Did you say that?

MR J VAN ZYL: He must have assumed this.

MR S HUGO: No, Mr van Zyl, that is not the question.

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall whether I said that to him.

MR S HUGO: If Mr de Kock were to say it, would you deny it?

MR J VAN ZYL: I would not.

MR S HUGO: Then Mr de Kock proceeds to say that when you told him of the incident, you also told them that you were quite surprised when Goniwe struggled and fought back. Did you say this?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall this exactly, so it is possible.

MR S HUGO: Did you tell him this or not? This is your version, the version you have been presenting to the Committee yesterday and today. It could be another lie that you have dished up for Mr de Kock.

Why are you lying to him again? Mr Chairperson, the witness says "if" I said it to him. That’s very far from a denial. Well let me ask you again. If Mr de Kock says that that is was you said, what would you say of that?

MR J VAN ZYL: That it is possible that I said it.

MR S HUGO: So you are saying that it is possible that you told him this?

Now I ask you once again, why if you are saying that it is possible that you said it, are you lying to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot say why I would have done it then, Mr Chairperson.

MR S HUGO: Then Mr de Kock says that during the struggle, Goniwe almost managed to take Van Zyl’s weapon. Did you say this to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall.

MR S HUGO: Well, let me ask you again. If Mr de Kock says that you did say this?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, it is possible.

MR S HUGO: Once again, is this a lie that you have told to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is correct.

MR S HUGO: But why are you doing this, Mr van Zyl?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot say at this point why I did this then.

MR S HUGO: Well it simply doesn’t make any sense to me as to why you had to tell all these lies to Mr de Kock. Can you offer any explanation as to why you did this?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is not something over which I can speculate right now. I must concede that it is possible. I can’t actually give you an explanation as to why I did this at that stage.

MR S HUGO: Very well. Mr de Kock goes on to say that during the struggle - oh sorry, we have dealt with that already. In the next sentence he says that during the struggle, a shot was fired through the roof of the yellow police vehicle.

Did you say this to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I don't think so. A shot was not fired through the roof of the police vehicle.

MR S HUGO: Well, let us just achieve maximum clarity on this, because it’s a very important aspect which we will address further.

Did you possibly tell Mr de Kock that a shot was fired through the roof of the vehicle?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible.

MR S HUGO: Once again you have been lying to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: I do not know if I did it.

MR S HUGO: But you are saying it’s possible.

Now I ask you once again: why, in your version you concede it is possible, but why do you present an incorrect version to Mr de Kock regarding what happened?

MR J VAN ZYL: Chairperson, both Mr de Kock and myself grew up in a milieu of disinformation and we have unfortunately applied and used it when it suited our purposes.

MR S HUGO: Are you saying that you purposefully misinformed Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I cannot say what I meant with it at that time, because I cannot remember it.

MR S HUGO: Very well. While we are with this point, we are going to refer to it again, I would like to achieve clarity with this.

Is your version that a bullet was not fired through the roof of this vehicle objectively?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, that is true. I have no doubts.

MR S HUGO: Now Mr de Kock also says that you told him that Eric Winter was also present and in Van Zyl’s words: "Drunk as usual". What do you say of that?

MR J VAN ZYL: I could not have used it in this context, so here Mr de Kock is not speaking the truth. Not with regard to this conversation. There might have been another conversation in which we discussed the person, but it could not have been used in this context because Winter was not involved.

MR S HUGO: Well now possibly these are the objective facts, I would not like to expand on that right now.

The question is: what did you say to Mr de Kock.

MR J VAN ZYL: In this context I did not say to him and definitely not during this discussion in relation to the matter.

MR S HUGO: In relation to this matter your memory is fresh and clear at this point, and Mr de Kock is making an error?

MR J VAN ZYL: It must be an error because I cannot recall that I ever discussed Mr Winter’s drinking problem and I can assure you that Mr Winter was not involved in this operation, and if I discussed this operation with Mr de Kock, I would not have mentioned Eric Winter’s name because he was not present.

MR S HUGO: You are once again confusing the principles. I am not asking you objectively, I am asking you what you said to Mr de Kock because you have already conceded that you have told a number of lies to Mr de Kock.

MR J VAN ZYL: It - they were possibly lies. If I spoke to him exactly as you have said, then they were definitely lies. In relation to Mr Winter, I cannot concede that I said that in this context. Perhaps at another time, during another discussion it might have happened but Winter was not involved, he was not present, and I cannot see why I would implicate him.

MR S HUGO: There are several examples of where your memory fails you when you testify regarding this incident, however, you are prepared to say that Mr de Kock definitely is not correct regarding the context of this discussion and we will just have to test to what degree your memory is correct. And whether or not you recall the events correctly.

May I just ask you, objectively speaking, did Mr Winter have a drinking problem?

MR J VAN ZYL: We have discussed this yesterday. Sometimes he drank a bit more than us. He was not under the influence of alcohol every day, so I do not think it was actually a drinking problem.

MR S HUGO: Mr de Kock continues by saying that you said that Goniwe and the others were taken to a farm or a plot where they were murdered. Did you say that to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: Once again, objectively, it is not true. And I cannot think that I would have said this to him.

MR S HUGO: Therefore you are stating that Mr de Kock has once again made an error and he is presenting a false version to the Committee regarding what happened.

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I just believe that he is confusing the facts in terms of the time periods.

MR S HUGO: Then Mr de Kock says that Van Zyl told me that they were burning documents on the farm or smallholding.

MR J VAN ZYL: Objectively, once again it is incorrect.

MR S HUGO: That is not the question, Mr van Zyl. Did you say this to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I cannot recall that I ever said this to him.

MR S HUGO: Is it possible that you said it to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I do not have any knowledge of any documentation that was burnt.

MR S HUGO: Mr van Zyl, that’s not the question.

The question is did you say this to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible in another context.

MR S HUGO: Well, within which context?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s difficult to say, but I do not recall that any documents were ever burnt.

MR S HUGO: Now, why are you referring to another context? Were documents or - sorry let me put it to you this way: was any mention ever made of any documents which were burnt, between you and Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: I do not know why he is referring to documents so once again Mr de Kock is telling you - or making a false statement regarding this issue.

MR S HUGO: What do you have to say regarding that?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is not true. I can say nothing else but that.

MR S HUGO: You maintain that at this point Mr de Kock is not taking the Committee into his confidence and he is providing a false version of the events to this Committee. Is that what you are saying?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, not at all. I am saying that Mr de Kock’s version is not correct, and that has nothing to do with whether Mr de Kock is taking the Committee into his confidence, it’s got to do with his memory.

MR S HUGO: Mr de Kock continues and says that Winter threatened to kill Gert Lotz if he ever spoke of the incident. What do you say to that?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairperson, I do not recall that.

MR S HUGO: You cannot remember it?

MR J VAN ZYL: No.

MR S HUGO: Could you have said this to Mr de Kock?

MR J VAN ZYL: I don’t even know if I could have done that because it’s not even true.

MR S HUGO: Is it possible that you said this to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot think that I would have said this to him.

MR S HUGO: What’s the answer: yes or no?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I did not.

MR S HUGO: Once again Mr de Kock is not correct on this point and he is submitting a false statement regarding the issue.

Is that what you are saying?

MR J VAN ZYL: Chairperson, I do not know why I would have said that to him.

MR S HUGO: But you have just told the Honourable Committee that you might have provided this information.

MR J VAN ZYL: Then it might be possible.

MR S HUGO: So, now you are saying that you might have said it, but the objective would have been to misinform...

MR J VAN ZYL: What I am saying is that I cannot remember and if I had said it, it would probably have been to misinform, but I cannot remember.

MR S HUGO: Well that’s the next question. Objectively speaking, did Mr Winter ever threaten Mr Lotz with death if he ever discussed the incident?

MR J VAN ZYL: Not in my presence.

MR S HUGO: Did you ever acquire any information regarding this?

MR J VAN ZYL: Not that I can recall.

MR S HUGO: Well, Mr van Zyl, what do you mean when you say "not that you can recall"? Is it possible that there was talk of this kind of thing.

MR J VAN ZYL: No, Mr Chairperson, Mr Winter had no knowledge of this incident.

MR S HUGO: That’s not the question.

The question is whether Mr Winter, to the best of your knowledge, ever threatened Mr Lotz with death if he discussed the incident again.

MR J VAN ZYL: No.

MR S HUGO: So it never happened.

MR J VAN ZYL: Not in my presence.

MR S HUGO: And then De Kock says that you told him that if he, I’m assuming that this refers to Mr Lotz, if he would ever discuss the incident, well let’s proceed to something else. It’s my memory that Van Zyl said that Lotz was still in prison. Did you say this, that Winter was still drunk at that stage. Is this true? What is your memory?

Is that once again also possible, or do you exclude it completely?

MR J VAN ZYL: I never heard Mr Winter threaten anybody with death.

MR S HUGO: That’s once again the objective facts. So therefore Mr de Kock is once again making an error?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR S HUGO: Then Mr de Kock says that Sakkie van Zyl was very worried about the weapon and once again repeated that it came from his best friend.

What do you say to that?

MR J VAN ZYL: It is possible.

MR S HUGO: That you said it to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR S HUGO: Once again, in terms of the objective facts, if we have to accept your evidence and testimony today, another lie which you have told to Mr de Kock.

MR J VAN ZYL: It would appear as such.

MR S HUGO: And this is the second time that you present a lie to Mr de Kock.

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes that is so.

MR S HUGO: So why did you do it?

MR J VAN ZYL: I think it is just the way in which we discussed it at that time.

MR S HUGO: Then Mr de Kock says that a day or two after the incident, "we left for the Moyat Islands in the Comores" where you were going to dive...

MR J VAN ZYL: I think it was much later than a day or two that I went to the Comores.

MR S HUGO: That might have been so. Would you like to say how much later it was that you went to the Comores.

MR J VAN ZYL: I would say it wasn’t a day or two, it was rather a week or two after the incident.

MR S HUGO: Then he says that apparently you were there for 14 days and that you informed him that General Krappies Engelbrecht took over the investigation. Did you say that to him?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is possible, Chairperson.

MR S HUGO: And is that in line with the objective facts, to the best of your knowledge?

MR J VAN ZYL: That is correct, although it was only in 1988 that I was informed that General Krappies Engelbrecht had taken over the investigation. I do not know exactly when before that it was that he took over. But I do know that Eric Taylor informed me in 1988 that General Krappies Engelbrecht was involved with the investigation.

MR S HUGO: Well, could you just tell us for interest sake how it occurred that General Engelbrecht took over the investigation?

MR J VAN ZYL: I think during that stage General Engelbrecht was still involved with murder and robbery and head office in Pretoria. I do not know where he was during 1988. Taylor phoned me to inform me that General Engelbrecht was in Port Elizabeth and that he would be investigating the matter.

MR S HUGO: Did General Engelbrecht ever liaise with you regarding the issue?

MR J VAN ZYL: I met him later for the first time in Pretoria. That was during 1988 and General Engelbrecht spoke to me about the matter.

MR S HUGO: Well, what did he say to you?

MR J VAN ZYL: General Engelbrecht told me that he was investigating the matter and that I was a suspect in the matter.

MR S HUGO: That you were a suspect?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR S HUGO: Why would he have said that to you? Where did he obtain this information?

MR J VAN ZYL: I though he was trying to bluff me and I denied it.

MR S HUGO: But why on earth would General Engelbrecht try to bluff you by saying that you were a suspect in the matter.

What would he achieve through this?

MR J VAN ZYL: Perhaps he had information at that time and regarding the case, and he might have been trying to catch me with it.

MR S HUGO: Are you saying that there might have been information which General Engelbrecht had at his disposal which indicated that you were involved in the incident.

MR J VAN ZYL: I didn’t know at that stage. But I know that he was already in Port Elizabeth, and I wasn’t sure which information he had acquired.

MR S HUGO: Might I just ask you: you know in terms of your version you received orders from the higher levels of the hierarchy. Why didn’t you tell General Engelbrecht that this was a security operation, I was involved in it and that is how it happened.

MR J VAN ZYL: That is not how we would have done it. General Engelbrecht - I didn’t even know whether he was involved in the Security Branch at that stage and for quite some time I was no longer involved with the police, so I didn’t know what the actual situation was and I was not in a position to speak to him directly.

MR S HUGO: The final aspect of this discussion between you and Mr de Kock was that he took over all the traffic offence fines which were issued on the yellow police vehicle.

Is that true?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot recall that I said that to Mr de Kock, but that was objective and it might well have happened.

MR S HUGO: I would just like to return to the beginning of your statement on page 42 of the bundle.

Item 3, you say per address Advocate McAdam of the Witness Protection Programme. Now can you explain to us how it came about that you were in a Witness Protection Programme?

MR J VAN ZYL: Advocate McAdam suggested that I write down the address as such in this application.

MR S HUGO: Are you under witness protection?

MR J VAN ZYL: For the Truth and Reconciliation, yes.

MR S HUGO: I don’t want the particulars, but can I ask you how it came about that you became part of this programme.

MR J VAN ZYL: Advocate McAdam and one or two policemen asked me if I wanted to be in this Witness Protection Programme, meaning that during these Amnesty Hearings, I would receive protection from them, and I did not think that this would be to my disadvantage. I agreed to it.

MR S HUGO: Is there any particular reason why you thought it was necessary for you to be in this programme?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes. I am applying for several misdemeanours, offences and I have no doubt that in spite of the fact that I might receive amnesty, that I will surely be a potential target. I don’t think this is unrealistic.

MR S HUGO: If I remember your testimony correctly, you applied for three incidents. A person you killed in 1980. And then the Pebco Three incident and then the current incident.

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s correct.

I never said that I only applied for three. Mr Bizos asked me about the incidents where there was loss of life. I have applied for four incidents. The fourth incident is an incident where myself and Mr de Kock were involved where the building of the UDF was damaged. It is a community building in Cape Town.

MR S HUGO: Now, when was this?

MR J VAN ZYL: I think it was 1987, Mr Chairperson ’87 or ‘88.

MR S HUGO: And now you resigned from the Security Police and you train the SAP Special Forces. What is this Special Forces that you joined?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chair, what does it matter - how relevant is it if he joined the CIA or the Defence Force or Special Forces. He joined up with in 1986, after this incident. I have a problem with the relevancy of this.

MR S HUGO: Well, Mr Chair, firstly it is relevant on the grounds that the applicant needs to take into confidence the Commission because of the facts in this incident. I won’t take this aspect any further if he doesn’t want to answer to that. It’s fine.

I just want to come back to the first meeting that you had with General van Rensburg. Let me ask you this before we begin with that. Are you satisfied that you have given all the relevant information to this Honourable Commission?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, to the best of my memory.

MR S HUGO: All the details and particulars as far as you can remember?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR S HUGO: Now I want to know from you - the meeting that you had with General van Rensburg where it was decided to kill Goniwe. Was it decided between you and Mr van Rensburg. Was it decided how he was going to be killed? I want to know the logistical particulars.

MR J VAN ZYL: It was at the final meeting when we came back from Colonel Snyman and the question arose of how the operation was going to be set into place. I specifically asked if it was going to be an operation like the previous one as in the Pebco 3, where the person were burnt out in totality and General van Rensburg told me that it was not to be so. And it had to look like a vigilante type attack or like an Azapo attack..

MR S HUGO: Can I just stop you there at that point. You now knew the actions of the activists and the struggles between the different organisations in the Eastern Cape.

If you refer to vigilante attacks, which form did these vigilante attacks take, according to the best of your knowledge?

MR J VAN ZYL: We attended many of these scenes where the attacks took place. It was usually sharp objects, like a knife or an axe, or a hatchet, where people had multiple wounds from these weapons and bodies were burnt out, or half burnt.

MR S HUGO: Did Mr van Rensburg, during this discussion, refer to vigilante, or did he speak in particular of hacking and stabbing wounds?

MR J VAN ZYL: I don’t remember if he mentioned it specifically, it is possible.

MR S HUGO: Which preparations did you make for this operation so that it looked like a vigilante operation?

MR J VAN ZYL: As I have said, I asked the other members to bring along a knife and on the day of the incident, I took two containers with petrol along.

MR S HUGO: I want you to think about the question and explain to me the totality of the logistical preparations you made for this operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, where are we going?

MR S HUGO: As I understand it, Mr van Zyl’s memory is - there is one problem Mr Chair, there are several aspects (I say several but it’s two or three) that there is no concurrence between Mr de Kock’s testimony and Mr van Zyl’s memory.

I wish to show that this witness does not take the Commission into his confidence and is not placing the full facts before the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Does this entail going through his whole testimony?

MR S HUGO: Mr Chair, if you want me to give you a version and then ask the witness to react on that, either that or having to go through his whole testimony discussing all the details.

Mr Chair, can I just ask a few more questions and if you feel it is relevant or not, please stop me.

The operation that was to be brought about - was the idea that you alone would kill these people?

MR J VAN ZYL: The directive was not put to me as such.

I thought that I would do it by myslef.

MR S HUGO: That you would do it alone?

MR J VAN ZYL: Do the eventual killing myself. The physical act, yes.

MR S HUGO: Now why do you ask of the other persons to also bring knives.

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chair, they were part of the operation and this was preventory measures. I don’t know why I did it at that stage.

When I drove away with the first person, I planned to kill all of them.

MR S HUGO: Can you remember to the best of your memory what role did you have for the black members of the group?

MR J VAN ZYL: I did not know what could go wrong, I didn’t know how the operation was going to go exactly.

MR S HUGO: These members, you never told them before the incident what was to happen and what was the objective of it?

MR J VAN ZYL: It was a later decision on my part.

MR S HUGO: May I ask you where did the black group wait for you?

MR J VAN ZYL: This was in a black township in New Brighton.

MR S HUGO: Mr Chair, there’s a chart that’s been placed before you. Can you ask that this be marked as an exhibit...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, before we continue with this chart, isn’t it common case that they met each other in a particular place and that they did stab the deceased. What does it matter where they waited for him?

MR S HUGO: Mr Chair, the point that I wish to reach is there’s a discrepancy in Mr van Zyl’s witness in respect of what he said about the shot that went through the roof and this is the point that I wish to concern myself with.

Can you just look at this map, Mr van Zyl? Where were the black group on this map?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chair, I have said previously I don’t remember where the rendezvous point was. We had several places where we rendezvoused and if we went out together in other incidences, it’s been a long time since I’ve been in this area. I cannot remember.

MR S HUGO: Your testimony is that you went with four persons from Olifantshoek - can you just show on the map from which direction you arrived?

MR J VAN ZYL: From the Northern side.

MR S HUGO: Then you turned left?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s right.

MR S HUGO: And then you left these persons in the presence of Mr Taylor and yourself and Mr Lotz went across the road to point "B"?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s correct.

MR S HUGO: What time is this approximately?

MR J VAN ZYL: Mr Chair, this is round about 11, just after 11 in the evening we intercepted them. And then we went back to the bushy area and we must have been there about 12:00 or 12:30 in the morning. The burning of the vehicle would have taken longer than 20 minutes, that should have been, must have been just after 1, I wasn’t watching the time.

MR S HUGO: The dark stripe that is shown there, is that a tarred road?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s right.

MR S HUGO: How busy is this road?

MR J VAN ZYL: It’s a quiet road in the evening, but there is traffic on that road from time to time.

MR S HUGO: To the best of your knowledge?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, I assume so. It was known as a quiet area.

MR S HUGO: Then Mr Chair, there’s another document in front of you which I would like to submit as another exhibit. It is photos that were used during the death inquest. I think this would be exhibit "O". I am not sure, Mr Chair.

Mr van Zyl, I just want you to look at the album. Photo number 9. Do you have this in front of you?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, I do.

MR S HUGO: Do you agree that this is a photo of the car that was burnt.

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR S HUGO: The vehicle that belonged to Mr Goniwe?

MR J VAN ZYL: I accept this, yes.

MR S HUGO: You have burnt the vehicle, you poured petrol over it and now you moved back, if I can refer you to exhibit "M", the chart, would you like to indicate where you are moving now. In which direction were you moving?

MR J VAN ZYL: Back in the direction of "C", where the persons were waiting. Taylor was waiting with the activists.

MR S HUGO: And all four of the activists are standing there? The point I wish to reach that they were sitting in a car, in Taylor’s car. All four of them still cuffed?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s right.

MR S HUGO: And you decide to take the first one and kill him. Is that correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s correct.

MR S HUGO: How did you decide which one of these activists would you take first?

MR J VAN ZYL: No, I did not give preference to any of them.

MR S HUGO: You opened the door and took the first person that was closest to you. Is this correct?

MR J VAN ZYL: I cannot remember if I took the first one closest to me. I cannot remember specifically how I took him.

MR S HUGO: The point I wish to reach is that the person you took out of the vehicle was he still cuffed? And we know now that this was Mr Mkhonto.

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes.

MR S HUGO: How was he cuffed? Behind his back?

MR J VAN ZYL: Yes, behind his back. I said yesterday that he was cuffed behind his back.

MR S HUGO: Now, you put him into your vehicle?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s correct.

MR S HUGO: Excuse me, Mr van Zyl, was it just his arms that were cuffed?

MR J VAN ZYL: That’s right.

MR S HUGO: Thank you.

Now you load him into your vehicle. Is he in front or on the back seat? Left behind you or right beh