Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-24

MR PHOSA: Implied in your suggestion to him as you put it was: "You know best whom to trust, so please get someone that can be trusted not to let us down"

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

MR PHOSA: Which means that when Niewoudt's name was mentioned you said to yourself: "He is - must be a tried and trusted person or a dependable person"?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: This is what I have believed.

MR PHOSA: Didn't he perhaps say so - du Plessis say to you: "Listen, Niewoudt is our man, he definitely is the person we should go for"?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I cannot remember if he immediately identified Niewoudt as the correct man or whether it was afterwards that he mentioned it in the office: "Yes, I've decided on Niewoudt, he's our man, we can trust him".

MR PHOSA: Now Mr van Rensburg, it doesn't really matter whether it was at the office or where.  Before the incident happened he must have given you an assurance, either verbally or somehow that this person is safe on a need to know basis?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Phosa, surely when you say to an officer in the police force: "Go and find someone who can carry out this operation with you", you are then relying on him to find someone who will do so, you don't ask further questions - this was a Captain in the police force he delegated the authority to.  Have you ever been in a disciplinary unit?

MR PHOSA: Luckily not been but I've been in karate, it's a bit of a jump.  My question Mr Chairperson, has a reason and unless I'm told not to ask ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are wasting time proceeding with this, putting to him again and again: "Did you ask du Plessis if you could trust him, how did you ask du Plessis", you've put the same question about four times so far.

MR PHOSA: All I did was I said: "Whether orally or otherwise, he must have given you an indication" and I have a reason for this Mr Chairperson, you may see it differently from me, you're entitled to but if you stop me I won't ask it.

CHAIRPERSON: I see no point in the question.  If you can tell me what the reason is?

MR PHOSA: If I were to give an easier reason it will be quicker to answer it than to debate it now, so if I'm being stopped I'll stop it but if I'm being allowed to ask the question, debating it will take ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, carry on with the next question.

MR PHOSA: Right.  Mr du Plessis - what's his name again - van Rensburg, now after you had done the job - the four of you sorry, the three of you - oh no, no sorry, no, no, no, the better question is this - no, it is three, the better question is this - the first question is this, physically you and Mr du Plessis could have killed these two persons?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR PHOSA: I'm saying it in this sense - I know you've agreed, you could have them abducted the same way they were abducted?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR PHOSA: You could have trapped them into the belief that they were going to be interrogated?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR PHOSA: You could equally have got them to where they were taken to ultimately, in the same pretext like they were going to be interrogated?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR PHOSA: And since they were killed that easily by being put to sleep, you could have done that - the two of you?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, if you allow me, I just need to put it to you - there was another vehicle involved, their vehicle and that vehicle also had to accompany us.

MR PHOSA: So was the real reason for a third person, this vehicle?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That was one of the reasons, yes.

MR PHOSA: Well then what was the other reason, what was the other reasons for him coming in besides the vehicle?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Chairman, I cannot give you the exact reason but one reasons was that I felt that du Plessis and myself were too few people, that we need assistance from a third person to execute the task - that was my decision.  As already indicated there was this extra vehicle that had to be taken so we should have - we were supposed to take it somewhere else, we could not have left it in the street it had to go with us, that was part of our planning.  I felt that we needed another help.

MR PHOSA: By the way, you personally did the shooting?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: The one.

MR PHOSA: Yes.  And whose decision was that - as to who was going to do the shooting?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I don't believe although I think - there wasn't an exact decision taken as to who should do the killing or not, when the situation occurred I felt I'm the senior person here, I will have to take the first step.

MR PHOSA: We now know that Mr du Plessis shot the other person.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR PHOSA: Mr Niewoudt.

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That's correct.

MR PHOSA: Was he instructed or did he just take it over?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Niewoudt?  No, as far as I can remember I shot the man and Mr Niewoudt spontaneously - if I say spontaneously I mean he took the next man and shot him.  I cannot remember any decision as to whom should kill whom, it wasn't an issue -  it was not something we argued about or that we even discussed.

MR PHOSA: I want to spend as little detail on this aspect as I must, I would personally not go into it but I have to.  Just one more on that - who - did you all, did you both use the same firearm?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR PHOSA: And were those official firearms that you used?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I used my service pistol.

MR PHOSA: Yes but you should know, did he use a service pistol as well?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I am not sure, I take it for granted.

MR PHOSA: Was your firearm registered as being your - for your official use?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR PHOSA: And if his was also official, it would have been similarly registered?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR PHOSA: What happened to those firearms?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I still have mine.

MR PHOSA: The very same one?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR PHOSA: That maybe explains what you said earlier on about investigation.  Are you - was there any investigation done of whatever nature by the police to find out what happened to these two?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.  Yes, there was one.

MR PHOSA: Was it done by policemen or by a police branch - or whatever you call it, independent of the security police?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I'm not sure anymore but I was under the impression that the investigating branch did do an investigation at that point in time - the detective branch.  They did do an investigation regarding the disappearance of these people but I cannot state clearly who were involved.

MR PHOSA: Right, I'm not having a brief for any of the police departments - from what you have indicated it would seem that you had done a thorough job of making this a secret up to a point, isn't it?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As far as humanly possible, yes.

MR PHOSA: Unless the four of you spoke about it, nobody else would be have been able to talk about it as far as you know, isn't it?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As far as I know, yes.

MR PHOSA: So what is it that you feel the police could have done to investigate this matter, which they didn't do?

NICHOLAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I do not think they could have actually achieved anything, I doubt it.

MR PHOSA: Just to deliberately go back to the Kondile matter, is there anything that the police in that matter could have done to investigate, which they didn't do according to you?