Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-29

ADV JANSEN: If you would just give me a few minutes Chairperson.   No further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

ADV JANSEN: .

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, Cornelius, I act on behalf of the applicant N.J. Vermeulen.  Only one single aspect.  General, we are assuming that this operation had been passed down along the lines, as put by Adv De Jager. What would happen if the non-commissioned officers did not carry out the order?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: In all my years in the Security Police, I was under the impression that a person was approached to carry out such an operation, if the person giving the orders or closest person giving the order, was of the view that that person could be trusted and was further of the view that that person would possibly carry out the order.
	I was also always under the impression that there was always the understanding that those who didn't want to take part, were free not to do so.

MR CORNELIUS: But if an order came from a senior officer in this hierarchy, it would have been a serious offence if this junior officer disobeyed his senior officer?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: My understanding of such a situation to which we are now referring, is that a person always had a choice to refuse to take part in the operation.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Cornelius,  is the position not such that if you received an illegitimate or unlawful order that you don't have to obey it?

MR CORNELIUS: I am now going to say to the General that the brief was given to all members and it is signed by all the top members in the hierarchy that all these members were given orders to carry out all instructions.  I have an example and a copy thereof to hand in to the Commission.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: If there was such a written undertaking, then in my mind I would still have felt that I would argue it if I didn't agree with it and I would refuse if I didn't agree with it.

MR CORNELIUS: You are aware of the brief to which I am referring, which is normally signed by the Minister?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, yes, I know what a brief is.

MR CORNELIUS: And in this brief a mandate is given to subordinates to actually carry out orders?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: So, to put it lightly it would be not very wise not to carry out an instruction?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I think I want to return to what Mr De Jager said, or somebody said, that I was always of the view that if the order was unlawful, that you had the right to refuse.

MR CORNELIUS: But if a person had to be eliminated, so-called enemy of the State, was it then justified that such an order could be carried out?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is what I believed in my own personal convictions.

MR CORNELIUS: And if you as a member of the top power structure believed that, then junior people like Vermeulen and Snyman would ipso facto have assumed that?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, just to make a follow up to the question which was asked to you a short while ago.  Where the person sought to be eliminated, is perceived to be a danger to the State and a member of the Security Branch is given instructions by his seniors to eliminate such a person, is the person so approached free to refuse to carry out those instructions?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That was what I believed.

CHAIRPERSON: With what consequences, if any?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, you are asking me a question I can't answer.  I don't know what the consequences would have been.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you think would have been the consequences if any?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, with respect you are asking me to speculate.  I am going to try and answer and I am going to say that he would probably have been transferred from that position and be replaced by a different person.
	For example a person who was involved in the Security Branch would have been transferred to the uniformed branch or he would have been transferred to the administrative branch, but this is plain speculation from my side.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, in one case, and that is the reason why I am asking you, in one instance we were told that in fact the life of such a person could even be in danger because his very loyalty could be suspect?  Do you think that is far fetched?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would not say it is totally far fetched, according to me it would depend on the extent or the scope of the instruction and the danger which it will have, if this person would discuss it with other people.  I would not then discard this as completely far fetched.

CHAIRPERSON: What I am trying to convey to you is that with regard to junior people, such a person would find himself in a catch 22 situation, wouldn't he?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would not exclude that.  I would not exclude that that the junior person could assume something like that.

CHAIRPERSON: And you know for that reason I fail to see what choice such a person had because you conveyed to us that such a person would have the choice to refuse to carry out such an instruction, I don't see how much choice such a person does have if any.  Does he really have, I mean, does he have a real choice?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As you are putting it I agree.  I have referred previously to my own perception.  In operations in which I was involved, of which I can think quickly, I always assumed that if I approached somebody to assist me, if he refuses me, I am not going to put pressure on him and then sorry, it just had to be like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Should he refuse, will he be transferred to a different Section, what explanation would he give to his friends for this transfer?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, no, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: If he had to tell the truth, he would have to say they asked me to  eliminate somebody and I refused.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That is no choice.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I don't know.  I did not expect it and I have just stated what I thought could happen.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Van Rensburg, is the qualification that you would approach somebody who in all probability would accept this instruction?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: You would not approach somebody whom you know cannot be trusted, if I can put it in that way?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: You are exactly right.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: If we go further into this matter, the Security Police were carefully selected members?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Were the selected on the basis that they were people who would not hesitate to execute an instruction?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I can't say that.

ADV DE JAGER: But a person who was not very loyal would not have been selected as a Security Policeman?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct sir.  That is how I perceived that.

ADV JANSEN: Mr Chairman, sorry to interrupt, there was one aspect which I omitted to canvas with the witness.  I don't know if I can ask your permission to do so at this stage?  Thank you.  Again, Mr Jansen on behalf of applicant Ras.
	Mr Van Rensburg, covert operations were executed without written rules, is it correct to assume that covert operations entailed various different offences, destruction of property, assaulting people, eliminating people?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is a possibility.

ADV JANSEN: Is it correct to say that there was not really hard and fast rules on which level approval should be given for specific kinds of operations?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, there were no specific guidelines in this regard.