Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-29

MR HUGO: And regarding the instructions that you have received, did you every time make the necessary enquiries and try to determine whether it was properly motivated, that it was justified, because it was in the interest of the country?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, according to me.

MR HUGO: So you did every time make proper enquiries?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I did proper enquiries every time as far as I could, or as far as I thought it was necessary.

MR HUGO: Could you just tell me, from which officer did you receive an instruction for the first time to become involved in such an unlawful action?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It was from Brigadier Van der Hoven.

MR HUGO: And I accept based on what you have said, that you also asked Brigadier Van der Hoven why this operation was being launched?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I want to put it in this way.  I approached Brigadier Van der Hoven with certain problems we were experiencing.  I made a certain proposition to him and he accepted that, he approved that.  He agreed with my proposal.

MR HUGO: What was the nature of the proposal you made to Brigadier Van der Hoven?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That was that we should use trained people in Swaziland who were coming into South Africa to come and eliminate people here, that we should attack their safe houses in Swaziland.

MR HUGO: Did you give him a motivation why you thought it should be done?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I do not want to be unnecessarily difficult, but with all due respect to my learned friend Mr Hugo, the witness testified that that is the subject matter of another application.  This cross-examination goes to nothing else but to carefully scrutinise an application which is not before the Commission at this stage.
	I can very well understand that if my learned friend because his client was working under the command of the applicant at this stage, wants to clarify the role that my client played of his client, but quite frankly is my learned friend opposing this applicant's application for amnesty?   If so, on what basis is he opposing it and what locus standi as a co-applicant has he got to oppose it?  I would like to hear that from him, and furthermore this is going so wide that it is really where it can serve no purpose to listen to the full details of another operation which this Committee or another Committee like this, at a later stage may have to hear.  Thank you sir.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, if I can just answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you answer that.  The passed two or three questions bothered me a bit precisely in the way that Mr Booyens is saying.  I appreciate that you are entitled to put questions as I understand most of them, to put questions to the witness about the modus operandi as to how they operated, which would be general questions.
	But the minute you condescend to a particular issue and try to deal with that, we may have some problems, unless you are about to say to us that your client's application in respect of for example the Swaziland operation, is also before us, which is not the case.
	And I think to that extent there is merit in his argument, but without of course, we don't want to stop you from asking questions about how the Security Police generally operated or in particular possibly between the two of them, your client and the witness.
	With regard to the other, you can reply with regard to the other aspect.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, I would just like to add this is the purpose why I am asking these questions.  We are going to indicate further on when the first applicant will give evidence, that because of his involvement in Vlakplaas, he was placed in a very difficult situation.  That it was actually impossible not to obey these instructions.
	Then we are going to indicate that Vlakplaas was used as a so-called base from where hit squads were operating and these questions according to us, respectfully, are posed to indicate how the applicant when he found himself in this milieu for the first time and found that unconventional methods were used, and he was taken up as part of this environment, this was how he was trained and this was how he followed instructions.  This is the basis of these questions.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Hugo, can't you just put it to him and say these are the facts, do you agree or not agree.  With this type of questions, we are going to sit here for two days.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, perhaps I can try to cut it short but what I want clarity about is the basis on which Vlakplaas functioned, how the senior officers viewed it, and what the functions of Vlakplaas were.
	One of the issues is why this specific applicant used the services of Vlakplaas for an operation which was to take place in Port Elizabeth?

ADV DE JAGER: As the Chairman has already said, we have no objection to you asking these questions, but try to come to the truth as quickly as possible.  As you know this Amnesty Committee has still to handle 1 600 if these cases.  Please try to assist us, come to the core of the matter as quickly as possible.

MR HUGO: At this stage, I would like to aim these questions on the establishment and the functions of Vlakplaas, so that there is clarity for which clarity was used.

ADV DE JAGER: If these facts are provided by the client, put it to him and ask whether he agrees.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do that, perhaps for the comfort of Mr Booyens, are you opposing the application or are you not opposing the application?

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, what we are saying is that there are certain facts which have not been mentioned in this application and which we would like to emphasise.

CHAIRPERSON: In the favour of your client?

MR HUGO: That is correct, Mr Chairman, in favour of our client.

CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, later you were appointed as the Commander of Vlakplaas.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: When you arrived at Vlakplaas, what was the situation there and referring to the situation, I specifically mean the modus operandi used at Vlakplaas?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, the modus operandi at Vlakplaas was the normal ways people acted, that the people were divided into groups.  Every group had an officer in charge as leader.  In every group to use the terminology used, there were ascaris as part of these groups.  They were previous liberation fighters or whatever you want to call them, and they had been changed to work with the Security Forces.  They were turned around.

MR HUGO: When you took over charge of Vlakplaas, were you aware of it that the members of Vlakplaas C1, were involved in unlawful actions, illegal actions and cross-border actions?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

MR HUGO: Was that a problem for you?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR HUGO: Why was it not a problem for you?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Because of statements I have heard made by politicians and because of statements made at head office.  It was obvious that we were in a undeclared so-called war and that conventional methods could not stop the onslaught against the government.

MR HUGO: You knew that Vlakplaas was involved in operations that were according to the laws of the country, illegal.  You had no problem with that?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.  During that time, during those circumstances I did not have a problem with that.

MR HUGO: Could we just shortly say that the political climate at that stage necessitated that?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That was what I believed.

MR HUGO: And you personally knew of some of these operations which happened in that way?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would not say personally in the sense that I was personally involved, except for the operation in Swaziland.  But regarding that operation Vlakplaas members or Vlakplaas did not exist at that time as far as I can remember.