Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-24

MR PHOSA: And you watched there, you watched there - sorry, and you sat there and watched?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, we added wood and then we would go back into the house and we would sit and rest and then we would come out again and have another look.  We took turns to sleep or to rest - lie down, one person would lie down and two others would sit and rest, go and see what's happening, whether the fire was still burning properly and add wood to the fire and that's the way we continued through the night.

MR PHOSA: Finally then, what did you think would happen to you and your colleagues if this had been discovered?  What would happen to you?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: We would certainly have been charged with murder.

MR PHOSA: That was your biggest concern, wasn't it?  That: "If this is discovered, we'll definitely be charged with murder and may languish in prison for quite a long time" -  oh, in those days you could hang hey?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

MR PHOSA: Much as you kill others, you wouldn't like to die would you?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is so.

MR PHOSA: And I put it to you, your silence in all these times was not so much because you thought that the others didn't mind, your seniors would inwardly be saying you did a good thing.  You knew that they would put you into prison and you might hang, that was your biggest concern.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it was a concern.

MR PHOSA: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PHOSA

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It was a factor.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman.  General, I just want to refer you firstly to page 9 of bundle A, which is a portion of your application.  I want you to refer to the last paragraph where you say
"A turning point was reached in the discussions after information had been obtained from various sources which indicated that Mr Mthimkhulu had sworn that he
would avenge himself etc."
Now when can you remember, did this information come to hand?  Was it during the 10 day period of discussion or before the 10 day period of discussion?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As far as I can remember it was during those 10 days.

MR BRINK: Now, I think it was you through your counsel, who handed in Exhibit D and those are the press cuttings.  Would you refer to the second last page of that bundle and that appears to depict a photograph - or a photograph depicting the late Mr Mthimkhulu in a wheelchair and this is an extract from the Evening Post of the 18th of January 1982.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I have that in front of me.

MR BRINK: It appears that at that stage he was very severely crippled.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BRINK: Am I correct in thinking that from the period of his return to his home in Zwede on or about that date until April 1982, he was kept under observation by members of your force?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I cannot reply to that, it is possible, it is very possible that that was the case but there are other gentlemen here present who could answer this with greater certainty.

MR BRINK: So you cannot whether or not ...[inaudible]

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I cannot say how regularly he was monitored.

MR BRINK: The probabilities would be - would have been rather, that he was kept under observation because this was a very, very prominent activist?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, entirely correct.

MR BRINK: And reports surely would have been made to you about his activities in the district, activities if any at that time?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BRINK: And to your knowledge, he remained in a wheelchair for some considerable time after his return?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

MR BRINK: So the question of revenge and possibly killing members of the security force particularly Black members of the security force, would have been remote in the extreme as far as he was concerned - I mean the man was a cripple?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, as far as he himself in person is concerned, yes.

MR BRINK: Now the Chairman raised with you earlier in your evidence, the options which you discussed, one of which was house arrest?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That's correct.

MR BRINK: Surely it would have been extremely easy to have this crippled man house-arrested, he couldn't have escaped?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, he couldn't escape, I agree with you.

MR BRINK: So wouldn't it have been the most suitable option in the circumstances, to keep a crippled man under house arrest?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Sir yes, one could argue in that manner but I have already under cross-examination by Mr Phosa, also stated the other considerations that had to be kept in mind when it came to restraining a person under house-arrest.

MR BRINK: General, I can understand your evidence relating to further detention in terms of Section 6, I can understand your concerns in regard to prosecution but I cannot understand your concern about house arrest in this particular case where you were dealing with a man who could not walk.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Sir, what you are saying is correct but as I've already explained, the opinion - the reaction that that could lead to and would probably have lead to of placing restrictions on this person.  There were many things that had to be taken into account as I had stated previously, boycott actions, stay-aways, shop boycotts etc., strikes etc., could follow.

MR BRINK: Yes, but the security branch at that stage weren't particularly concerned with public opinion.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, Sir but we had pressure from businesses when there were strikes, then they asked us why strikes couldn't ended, what we were doing about this, there was pressure from the top, the same problem for the same reason, the same with the schools, same with the delivery vehicles that couldn't enter these areas -these were all factors.

MR BRINK: Right I'll move onto another matter - this was dealt with me to some extent yesterday afternoon with General Erasmus and this afternoon by my friend Mr Phosa, but I just want to clear up this, why did you not consider the elimination of Mr Mthimkhulu prior to April 1990 - 1982, why was that not considered in March or late February?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I cannot tell - as in my evidence in chief his profile increased and the information which we had that he had indeed wished to avenge himself on the security police, these are all matters that brought us to the point where we realised we had to make a decision regarding this person.

MR BRINK: You see, I have to suggest - and I repeat what I put to General Erasmus, people may have the perception that the reason that this man was killed within 12 days of summons being issued for damage arising out of the alleged poisoning, people may think that that was the reason for his death.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It could be so.

MR BRINK: Finally, if I could just deal with - ...[inaudible] enquiry, with Exhibit F, now I accept that this was put in by your counsel on your behalf merely as an example of the sort of meetings which were held but is it your evidence that prior to Mr Mthimkhulu's death other meetings were held by the "Veiligheid's Bestuur Stelsel" which you attended?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I attended a number of these meetings.

MR BRINK: And was the question of: "elimination" also mentioned at those meeting or was this the first time?