Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-24

MR BOOYENS: You continue then on page 6 to deal with the development of the unrest situation starting from 1976 in Soweto and it's expansion, do you confirm that?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes I do.

MR BOOYENS: And then you also deal with Mr Mthimkhulu's background briefly on page 6.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes. that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You sate at the top of page 7, second paragraph that
"It was part of the ANC/SACP strategy to make Black townships ungovernable"
Testimony has been led before this Commission about no-go areas etc., but let us return to the 1982 situation, what was the situation in the Eastern Cape at that stage?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It was a situation of large scale disturbances, particularly in the field of education and also as far as the normal movement inter alias of traffic in the Black areas - we were concerned because this was also disturbed.  There were mass meetings, there was labour unrest, there were boycotts in the labour field, there were pamphlets inciting people to activities, that were distributed on a continuous basis.

MR BOOYENS: Were there also acts of terror at the time?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, there were at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: Were arms being smuggled in at that stage as well?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that was also taking place.

MR BOOYENS: What was the situation with regard to no-go areas already at that stage in Black townships?  Did these exist in the Port Elizabeth area and the Eastern Cape?  Were there no-go areas?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, there were.

MR BOOYENS: Did this basically involve that any percepted members of the apartheid regime like the police etc., be prevented from continuing from their normal activities?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it is correct.

MR BOOYENS: That was the background, we are now on page 7 of your application.  This was the background against which you and Mr van Rensburg discussed the activities of the two deceased?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, we did discuss it against this background.

MR BOOYENS: In these discussions of yours, was consideration given to the options that were open to you as far as the two deceased were concerned and limiting their activities, is that correct?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Which options were discussed and considered?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Well, legal options aimed at punishment or at court actions or at keeping them without trial.

MR BOOYENS: Okay, let us look then at actually taking legal steps against them, was that considered?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, we couldn't because we didn't have adequate testimony at this stage.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have information?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, we did have.

MR BOOYENS: Was the information of such a nature that it couldn't be used in court?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Was it for example from informants?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So as far as testimony is concerned and witnesses, was this not adequate to institute legal steps against any of the two?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: The second option is the possible house arrest option which was used in certain cases, is that correct?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: What was the problem in this regard?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: The problem was that firstly, it is an option which is difficult to implement and the application thereof was difficult because of manpower, the geographical situation, location.  Long before one arrived there people would know that one was on the way there, it would give further status to this person, it wouldn't limit his activities as such, his open activities would not be stopped and it could ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What was the difficulty in implementation?  You just had to go to his house to make sure he was there and observing the provisions of the order didn't you?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that could be done.

CHAIRPERSON: And you could prevent him from having visitors as was usually done?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that could have been done.

CHAIRPERSON: Very simple to supervise.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Well not always Chairperson, it could have been done but it's not that easy under the circumstances.  There were always people that warned beforehand when we approached and then at certain points we couldn't enter the township with certain vehicles.

MR BOOYENS: Sorry Mr Chairman, are you finished?
	You already mentioned the no-go areas and you said you couldn't enter with normal vehicles, what do you mean?  Is it because of the no-go areas that you couldn't enter?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Was it also during night time, was it impossible then or even dangerous to go and make these visits?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, very clearly dangerous to do it.

MR BOOYENS: The other possibly was detention in terms of Section 6, the Internal Terrorism Act of that time?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: What was wrong with that option, if any?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Well the fact that the person was of ill-health and this turned him into a martyr - you gave him status of a martyr and now to detain him again for a long period would actually increase his stature even more and would have resulted in more protests, more marches and other actions undertaken then by the youth and the community.

MR BOOYENS: If we then take into consideration that he was detained shortly beforehand for a short period - brief period and he was then set free, do you think you would have succeeded again by detaining him and would you have gained permission to do it again?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes I doubt whether that would have been possible so shortly after his previous detention and also because he alleged poisoning.

CHAIRPERSON: When was he detained for a short period and released Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: He was detained from May until October Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And you call that a short period?

MR BOOYENS: I didn't call it a short period Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But it was translated as a short period.

ADV DE JAGER: I'm sorry I think it was wrong, the witness said that he had been held shortly beforehand and not for a short period - shortly before.

MR BOOYENS: Maybe I speak a bit too fast Mr Chairman.
	That then was basically the criminal procedure actions that you had considered at the time, is that correct?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Were these options also discussed with Mr Erasmus?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, they were discussed.

MR BOOYENS: He was the branch commander, is that correct - I mean the section commander, is that correct?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Was there one meeting only or was there more that one meeting?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: There was more than one meeting.

MR BOOYENS: Did it involve you, Mr du Plessis and Mr Erasmus, sometimes only you and Mr du Plessis, is that correct?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Okay, I think we have dealt with pages 7 and 8.  Do you confirm the correctness of the rest of your statement in your application there, is that correct?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: On page 9, last paragraph, it is alleged that a certain point had been reached in the  discussions, is that correct?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: What was the nature of the information gained at that stage?