Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-10

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I answered that it was clear that the present arrangement would not be able to continue very long in 1986.
 We could foresee that we would be getting a democratic government within the next three to ten years.  As Dr Randera pointed out under evidence yesterday, from 1986 to 1988 or 1989, a state of emergency was declared twice. The war in Angola was at its worse or at its height.
 So where these people who had that idea, got it, just they will know.  There are people who knew the history.

MR VAN ZYL: Yesterday you also said that Dr Swanepoel created fraudulent documents and they stole my cut of R3 million that I should have got.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: It would ultimately have been R3 million.

MR VAN ZYL: You also mentioned afterwards that you wanted it.  Is that correct?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I said I do not want their dirty money, but I do not want fraudsters to be encouraged.

MR VAN ZYL: What you are saying is that the money that you were actually entitled to, that you knew from the beginning that this was dirty money, and you were not interested in this?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, not at all.  I made concerted efforts to recover those funds.

MR VAN ZYL: Amongst others, you initiated a court case?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: They precipitated the court case, not I.

MR VAN ZYL: Was it not a matter of the fact that you were a claimant and that you were entitled to a certain amount of money?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: These people were entitled to just grab their millions and then to dismiss the staff, and I was angry because of this because I had appointed these people.
 More attempts had to be made to establish a permanent industry there.  Mr Chairman, when they liquidated the company, I lodged an objection to the liquidation account, pointing out to the Master of the High Court that certain shares were not the property of the people who got the benefit of them.
 May I finish the answer, it is important.

MR VAN ZYL: I do not know what question you want to answer, but continue.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: You asked about the court case.

MR VAN ZYL: I asked whether you initiated the court case?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

MR VAN ZYL: And I asked you thereafter were you not a claimant in the liquidation of the company?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I am answering the first question, who started the court case.

MR VAN ZYL: You replied to that.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, I am busy replying to that.

MR VAN ZYL: After that I asked you were you a claimant in the liquidation of the company.  That was the next question.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, may this gentleman give me a chance to finish the question, it is important, it is evidence that he doesn't want revealed.

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, with respect ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please allow the witness to answer.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I lodged an objection to the Master of the Supreme Court against the liquidation distribution account, pointing out that certain shares were going to people who were not the owners.
 There is a certain Mr H.O. Zestro and a Stephan Rossouw of the firm Coopers & Lybrandt who produced forged, falsified and irrelevant cessionary documents, cessionary type documents.
 These they presented to the Master.  They thoroughly confused him, they made a mockery of the Master of the Supreme Court and so doing, forced the Master to refer the objection to the High Court, which was entirely the initiative, the fraudulent document submitted by the liquidator to the Master had precipitated that court case.
 Now, I do not know who compiled those fraudulent documents.  I do know that the minutes of the Directors' meeting at Roodeplaat, of the 19th of November 1991 state that they took measures to confiscate my shares.
 Also the minutes of the 4th of December, deciding to deprive me of my shares, were fraudulent, falsified, I have a tape recording of that whole meeting to prove it and a transcript if you want it.

MR VAN ZYL: The matter was settled ultimately, is that correct?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: The instructions of Swanepoel and his crowd to the Attorney were to play the man, not the game.

MR VAN ZYL: The case was ultimately settled, is that correct?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: That was so, it was done in a forced manner because I did not have another R100 000-00 to spend on that, I was nearly bankrupt.

MR VAN ZYL: Am I correct that this was a settlement agreement in which you acknowledged that you were not entitled to the money?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I acknowledged that I would not put in a following claim.

MR VAN ZYL: Dr Swanepoel denies much strongly that at any stage, he compiled any false documents.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I did not say that it was he.

MR VAN ZYL: You said that yesterday.  He also denies ...

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: He signed it.

MR VAN ZYL: He denies that in any way, that he was involved in any illegal action be it in the form of supply of substances to kill people or connections with the CCB or anything of that nature which you testified to.  He denies that he was involved in any of these things.
 Slang van Zyl, myself and him, we were in a big fancy BMW and it was clear that they were very good friends.

CHAIRPERSON: Two minutes Mr Van Zyl.

MR VAN ZYL: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

MR VAN ZYL: .

CHAIRPERSON: Any further cross-examination?  Re-examination?

MR VAN ZYL: Mr Chairman, I know that my learned friend, Mr Du Plessis, indicated that he might have some questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, thank you for the opportunity.  First I want to say that the position with regard to Gen Knobel is the same as that of Mr Van Zyl's clients, I am therefore going to limit my cross-examination to a few aspects of the testimony given by Dr Van Rensburg.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just suggest that in the interest of - maybe you want to put your version to the client and then, well I can't suggest ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Dr Van Rensburg, when did you start working at RRL?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: 1st of August 1984.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yesterday you testified that the first time that you met Gen Knobel was when you were on the way out, is that correct?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: That is the first time that I had a meeting with him in his office.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you have any other meetings with him at any other places?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: He was previously Professor of Anatomy at the University.  I had seen the man somewhere.  I cannot remember that I communicated with him personally.

MR DU PLESSIS: So we have the position Dr Van Rensburg that you met him once and that was on your way out, that is in work connection?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yesterday you testified Dr Van Rensburg that at that meeting, the real work was never discussed?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: As you put it, it was only the financial abuse that was discussed?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then I accept that you also never personally knew much about the work or discussed the work that was done at RRL and the problems you had with your conscience?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then, you were also, I accept never present when anyone else discussed the problems that might have arisen with Gen Knobel?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, I was not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now, how could you then yesterday have testified as a fact that Gen Knobel was aware of what was going on?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Feedback was given on a monthly basis regarding Gen Knobel's approvals, of his report backs, etc.  This was done as a matter of routine.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you do not know what he said?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, I do not know what was said to him.  I just know that he sent millions of rands to our side.

MR DU PLESSIS: I am asking you whether you were aware of what was said to Gen Knobel?