Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-24

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I applied for amnesty because the present Government gave me the opportunity to apply for amnesty for those transgressions which I committed during the reign of the previous Government and which I believed I had done for their cause because I, after completion of these proceedings, I would like to lead a new life.  And because I'm sorry today for what had happened and for what I had done.

MR BOOYENS: In other words you say that you have two reasons for your application firstly, the opportunity had been created and secondly, you are sorry about what you had done.  It was also true that your application was not immediately filed when the opportunity was given.  Could you please explain to the Commission because I think it is something that may be asked to you, why it was done in this way.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: At that stage when the Amnesty Commission was first mentioned and that people could apply for amnesty, there was amongst the ranks of the police - of people who could have been involved, a degree of uncertainty regarding the system and there was also some suspicion regarding the Amnesty Committee.  There were fears that we would not receive a fair trial.

MR BOOYENS: That was the first consideration?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that was the first consideration.

MR BOOYENS: When it later became apparent that the Amnesty Committee consisted of Judges etc., there was still quite intensive discussions regarding this among police?

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

MR BOOYENS: Was it then also recommended from a former Commissioner of Police, General van der Merwe, that those who were guilty of offences had to apply for amnesty?

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

MR BOOYENS: After you had decided to apply for amnesty with regard to this, this was the stage when you decided?

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

MR BOOYENS: Then you had to get legal counsel?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: There were financial implications regarding your application?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Is that a matter - that the financial problems had been resolved, is that one of the reasons why your application was only filed later?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Does that explain - well I take it that you went, saw your attorney and that you started with the application, is that correct?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: You also referred to the fact that there was a degree of distrust among the ranks of the security police regarding the whole amnesty process.  You also participated in an application which went to the Appeal Court with Mr Jan du Preez and on that occasion, did you make a sworn statement with regard to your application to Mr Wagner, the instructing attorney to Mr Visser in this matter?

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

MR BOOYENS: You also did not state the truth in that statement?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Why not?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It was to protect my interests.

MR BOOYENS: Perhaps you should give more clarity in this regard.  At that stage you had applied for amnesty?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I hadn't.

MR BOOYENS: The application had been addressed because you felt that you had to be given the opportunity - I think it was at the Human Rights Committee, to state your side of the matter, is that correct?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, we wished to have more time.  The notices had to give us more time to prepare ourselves for appearing and we wanted more facts.

MR BOOYENS: And the interests which you wished to protect, were you at that stage also not prepared to make full disclosure because you didn't trust the situation fully?

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

MR BOOYENS: You have already referred to the fact that at present you are sorry about what happened.  At the time when you committed these crimes, what was your primary consideration for doing so?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: The primary consideration was to protect State security.

MR BOOYENS: Was there any other reason for committing these deeds?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR BOOYENS: Is there anything else that you would like to add here?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, that's all.

CHAIRPERSON: Very good timing, I think we'll take the short adjournment Mr Booyens.

MR BOOYENS: May I suggest we take the short adjournment Mr Chairman, if there's anything else.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: (s.u.o.)

MR BOOYENS: That concludes the evidence-in-chief Mr Chairman.  I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, I indicated that that concludes my evidence.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, have you any questions?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have no questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Phosa?

MR PHOSA: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr van Rensburg, are you commonly known as Nick amongst your colleagues?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR PHOSA: All right, what are the many accusations levelled against you by Mr Dirk Coetzee, besides these two that you've admitted?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I cannot recall - I didn't make an inventory of all the allegations, maybe you should mention some of them, then I can testify to it or not.

MR PHOSA: No, you said it in your evidence in chief - when you gave your evidence you yourself - evidence in chief, you said: "The allegations made by Coetzee that I have not admitted, it's because I deny them", in other words there are others - I thought that you know what you're referring to.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: There are for example the allegations regarding the poison, as an example.  There may be other things which I can't at the moment recall, I don't know.  I know the things that I've done and those are the things for which I applied for amnesty for.

MR PHOSA: Just for the last time on that aspect, the aspects that he raised or he mentioned against you, the ones that you deny and cannot now remember, are they serious allegations involving the killing of people, the assault of people?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, not that I'm aware of, that I can remember at the moment.  The only thing that I can remember where he made serious allegations against me, is this case and the case of Kondile and also a case in Swaziland where I was not physically involved but for which I also applied for amnesty.

MR PHOSA: And the Kondile case, have you applied for amnesty?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That's correct.

MR PHOSA: Just to start on that point then, so you killed - with others, you killed Kondile?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR PHOSA: I would assume for the same reasons as you killed these two young people, Mthimkhulu and Madaka?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, it was not for the same reasons, the circumstances were not the same.

MR PHOSA: Well now, I was trying to shorten it.  The background surely, the details about what each of them did - what Kondile did, was Kondile killed for something unrelated to political activity?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it did concern political objectives.

MR PHOSA: You killed him also in endeavour to be of assistance to the then Government in power?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I agree with that.

MR PHOSA: So I was saying then in that context, the underlying reason for eliminating Kondile is exactly the same as for eliminating these two.