Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And as I understand the evidence that the Port Elizabeth security police were also - some of them were questioned about it until someone intervened, not so, someone from higher up?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I do not know whether someone from a higher level intervened.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that's not a major issue.  Some of the members of the security police in Port Elizabeth were questioned, not so?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know if that was so at that point in time.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I'm not giving you a particular time, some time after the murders, I think it was Advocate or policeman Els, if I remember, was investigating these murders.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time in trying to manipulate this cover-up, was there no meeting or discussion amongst the members of the security police to at least be consistent in answers to Mr Els?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, not that I was involved with.

MS PATEL: Are you saying Mr van Rensburg, then that there was no cover-up afterwards?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I'm not saying there wasn't a cover-up, I just don't know.

MS PATEL: If there wasn't a cover-up Mr van Rensburg, surely all of this information would have come to light many years ago.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, well I didn't talk about it and I'm assuming the other members also did not talk about it.

MS PATEL: So as far as you were concerned, an experienced officer as yourself, the fact that the deceased had been killed was the end of the matter,  there was no need afterwards to ensure that your tracks were covered.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I assumed that the people on the ground did it in such a way that it wouldn't leave any tracks.

MS PATEL: Why did you have so much faith in them Mr van Rensburg?  Did you have previous experience with them in other operations of this nature?

MR BOOYENS: With respect, that's not a proper question Mr Chairman because that may reflect on other operations.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean other applications?

MR BOOYENS: It starts with an operation and ends with an application.

MS PATEL: In respect then of other matters where you haven't made application for amnesty, are you saying then there was an understanding amongst your members as to how they should operate under these circumstances.

MR BOOYENS: That presupposes that there were operations where he did not apply for amnesty and where he was involved in murders, there was no such evidence.  I object to that question on a variety of grounds Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it to you this way.  Mr van Rensburg, why is it that you were able to have so much faith in your colleagues?  How did that faith develop?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can't give you an answer.  There was a certain culture which existed.  There was a situation as I've already said, of war and you simply had to trust your colleagues otherwise you wouldn't be able to operate.  Then you simply would have to sit back with folded arms and do nothing.  You simply had to trust your colleagues.
	There were risks attached to these things whether you liked it or not, there were risks.

MS PATEL: You were present here when Mr van Zyl testified that the P.E. security branch was like any other police branch and that you didn't necessarily trust everyone who had worked there and that was the basis for his motivation for the possible disinformation that had been sent through to Mr de Kock.  How does that accord now with your understanding, between yourself and your colleagues, that there was trust between yourselves?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, I can't comment on Mr van Zyl's answer, I can't vouch for whom he trusted and whom he didn't trust.  I wouldn't say that I trusted all security branch members.  You, to a certain extent operated on a feeling, that feeling and people that you'd worked with for quite a long time, well you had to make a decision as to whom you trusted and whom you didn't and sometimes you would make the wrong decision.

MS PATEL: Are you saying that there was a possibility that you could have been wrong about Mr van Zyl and Mr du Plessis?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It's possible yes, that one could have summed them up incorrectly.

MS PATEL: If that possibility then existed Mr van Rensburg, surely you would have been more meticulous in ensuring that the operation was carried out properly and that your tracks were covered?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I've already said that we discussed the matter as far as we could and then I had to leave it up to them, to the members on the ground or the senior member who had to operate, execute the operation.
	There was no other choice.  If I did it in any other way then there would have been no operation.  If I had that much doubt as far as my colleagues were concerned, there simply wouldn't have been an operation.

MS PATEL: Alright, let's leave that there, there's just one or two further aspects that I wanted to raise with you.
	At the report back meeting, can you recall specifically what was reported to  you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Colonel Snyman and Mr van Zyl came in that morning, they came to my office and all that was said was that the operation had been carried out, it was done, it was finished.  They left virtually immediately.

MS PATEL: There was no discussion around what happened to the weapons that were used and the vehicle that was used and who was involved, none whatsoever?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

MS PATEL: Just one further point.  If I can refer you to page 60 of the bundle, that's the application of Mr du Plessis.  Mr du Plessis states that - if we start at page 59 sorry, the paragraph starts at 59, he states that at various times prior to this specific incident there were discussions held around the possible elimination of the Cradock 4, do you have knowledge of that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, no I wasn't aware of that.

MS PATEL: He says further that the information gathering process that was co-ordinated subsequent to those discussions was in fact co-ordinated between the two of you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: There were often discussions between myself and Colonel du Plessis regarding Goniwe and his hangers-on and their activities, we often talked about that.

MS PATEL: So then you would in fact, in terms of this, have had a hands-on approach to all the information that was in fact gathered around these four deceased.

MR VAN RENSBURG: At that stage yes, I had quite a broad knowledge of their activities.

MS PATEL: Are you saying then that you've forgotten a lot of that and that accounts for what you can't explain today and at that stage you were fully aware of all material information surrounding Mr Goniwe and the rest of the deceased in this matter?

MR VAN RENSBURG: What was a matter of record at that time was at my disposal.  Colonel du Plessis also sometimes chatted to me about some of these people and their activities.  At that stage I had to read a lot of different documentation and a lot of things passed through my hands, it's not possible for me to recall exactly about these things in detail.

MS PATEL: Fair enough.  But then what was on record was then sufficient for you to come to the conclusion that you would support the decision to kill the accused - not the accused sorry, the deceased in this matter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What was on record and the oral communications available at the time.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, have you got any questions?

MR HUGO: Just two questions thank you Mr Chairman, three in fact.

CHAIRPERSON: Three?  I hope that's a promise.

MR HUGO: Mr van Rensburg, in your application you say that in 1984 - I'm referring to page 23 of the application, alternative structures were established and you say that intimidation and violence which included the death of community members and police members, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.