Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR VAN RENSBURG: I cannot comment of the committee, I do not know if I even knew anything about this committee.  I can only say or speak in terms of how I received my orders by means of the line function and certainly from wherever the orders came for the elimination it was based upon the security activities of Mr Goniwe and others or at least their revolutionary activities and not only on the issue of his appointment or re-appointment to the Department of Education and Training.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew by your own admission before his death, that the question of Mr Goniwe's future as a principal or a teacher and his colleagues, only Mr Goniwe's future as a teach was being discussed at a level of higher power and authority than you were.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And to that extent his life was protected in this context, not so?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, one could put it that way.

CHAIRPERSON: Now on what basis would you say that you could override that and determine that Mr Goniwe should be removed permanently from society?

MR VAN RENSBURG: As a result of his activities, his revolutionary activities as a result of the fact that he played a prominent role in the establishment of alternative structures and the accompanying or the reaction to this, people who were being killed, property that was being damaged and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are acquainted with the reasons why he died.  The question is, how is it that at your level in ranking it was possible to override the authority of the group of people or the level of authority that was discussing the future of Mr Goniwe?

MR VAN RENSBURG: All that I can say is that is that this order came from Mr Snyman and I believed that it came from a very high authority and I believed that it should be executed unless we were stopped before it was carried out.  That is all that I can say and that is what I believed.

GEORGE BIZOS: I want to refer you to a portion of another document but before doing so, have you heard of Brigadier Fraser, the man who gave the theoretical and tactical advice to the army and to the security police as to how a revolutionary war should be fought by the security forces?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I may have heard it but I can't say that I know what it is today.  I'm not saying that I didn't hear it or didn't know it but I couldn't tell you today what it is.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, would this be Exhibit Z?

GEORGE BIZOS: Apparently you have been given a document, could you - is that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It appears to be a copy of a handwritten document.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, that will be the next exhibit.  I want to deal with - could you just put that down for a moment and not call it Z.  It will be the next exhibit but I think a Z - we gave the clerk of the Commission two exhibits and she handed out these.

CHAIRPERSON: It is marked
"Extract from lessons on the past"?

GEORGE BIZOS: That's the one yes.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, we have been given some documents again, may I perhaps suggest that we take the short adjournment now then the witness can look at both the documents that's been given to him, seeing that we know that the other one is the next one, and hopefully things would go slightly quicker.

GEORGE BIZOS: I have no objection but there are two short paragraphs that I want to ask the witness about Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: On Exhibit Z?

GEORGE BIZOS: On Exhibit Z there are two short paragraphs and a short paragraph on Exhibit AA, I would suggest we should name it.

CHAIRPERSON: Ask your questions and see if the witness is able to deal with it otherwise I'm going to have to give him an opportunity to read it.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.
	Now in relation to:
"How the counter-revolutionary war should be fought"
there are two paragraphs that I want to read to you and I want you to tell us whether this was in accordance with the learning and culture of the security forces, including the security police.  Paragraph (e) on page five - the full document is available if it's wanted Mr Chairman.
"The inescapable conclusion is that the overall responsibility should stay with the civilian power at every possible level"
and read that together with paragraph (e) on the next page, page 27:
"judiciously used forceful persuasion imposed upon a group, will be very tempting when government troops are trying to break the hold insurgents have in areas controlled by them but the eventual psychological effect of leniency as applied so successfully ...[indistinct] must be weighed very carefully against the immediate apparent advantages of force before it is used.  This indicates that the use of terrorism by government forces must be decided upon at the highest level and must be so applied as to avoid it boomeranging"
Now, is what you planned and was executed against Mr Goniwe and his colleagues a form of terrorism by the government?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, one could probably call it that, one could call it terrorism.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well thank you for that but now, do you agree that the use of terrorism by the government had to be applied by the highest possible level and that it - in order - and it should avoid boomeranging?  Do you agree with that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Would it therefore have been the decision, not your nor Mr Snyman's because you were in a high enough level, that if such a decision was taken it had to be taken at a much higher level?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that's how I felt.

GEORGE BIZOS: And the other document that I want to refer you to is Exhibit AA also coming from the inquest docket and an affidavit attached to it which we could call BB.  	Now I must at the outset indicate that this was at a meeting of high ranking security officers on the 28th of April 1987 which was after this event, but I want to read to you paragraph 7 and ask you whether this applied in 1985 as well in the security forces thinking and culture.
"Methods which"
Paragraph 7 of Exhibit BB.
"HSAV" [Afrikaans]
what does that mean to you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Probably Head Office, South African or head South African ...
MR BIZOS
"Do not regard these actions as murder"
and in inverted commas:
"nie" and defined it as follows:  An attack on an individual (VA)"
What does that stand for?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That would mean enemy target.

GEORGE BIZOS: "with non-standard issue weapons in a conventional      manner to not hit innocents"
Now does what the recommendation of the head said on the 28th of April 1987 in which he re-defined murder for the purposes of the security forces, apply in 1985?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: You didn't see this as murder?  And you had the authority of the head of the force not to see it as murder?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that's correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.  And it was in that climate that you did it but you apparently forgot that you had to have certainly about the authority at a higher level or you would have to find out that it was authorised by persons at the highest possible level.  Do you agree?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Would you repeat it, I did not understand the nature of the question.

GEORGE BIZOS: Although it fitted into the head of the army's definition of not being murder, you did not take the trouble to find out from whom that authority came in this instance.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

GEORGE BIZOS: And you knew that it had to come from the highest possible authority.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.