Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-29

UNKNOWN: You were aware subsequently after the bomb had exploded, of what had taken place, that the operation had been successful it I can put it in those terms?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I have already stated I can't remember whether it was that morning or the morning after that Mr De Kock came to my office and asked me whether I had heard the news that morning over the radio or TV, I am not sure, and I told him no, and he said this was on the TV or on the radio regarding this explosion and that was how the operation was completed.

UNKNOWN: When operatives under your command, Mr Van Rensburg, were involved in operations of this nature, did you expect a debriefing from them?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Did that happen in this instance?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Nothing more than what Mr De Kock told me that morning.

UNKNOWN: Was that all that you expected?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Well, if nothing had gone wrong and the operation was finalised, then we left it just like that.

UNKNOWN: No written record?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

UNKNOWN: Did you ask for any detail of the operation from Mr De Kock?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

UNKNOWN: Did you ever try and follow up the information you had been given by Nieuwoudt in so far as the alleged complicity with the ANC was concerned, in so far as the alleged involvement in fraud was concerned?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

UNKNOWN: Once again, you did not think it necessary?  Is that right?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, that was our culture, we do not talk about those things afterwards.

UNKNOWN: If you will just bear with me for a moment Mr Chairman.  Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV FORD

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: I have no questions, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, page 74 of your application page 6, which is now the portion that I asked you to read into the record earlier on.  If you were to look at the sentence reading "he further informed me that some of the members were involved with the murder on Goniwe, Galatha, Mkonto and Mslawuli", do you see that?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I see that, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: What about that fact?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: This was not a factor which I considered when I made my final decision.  According to me this was not a factor for the elimination.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand, before we come to that, I understand that sentence, tell me if I am correct, I understand that sentence to imply that this people had to be eliminated because some of them were involved in the elimination, or had been involved in the elimination earlier of the people mentioned in there and for that reason, they should themselves now be eliminated, that is how I understand that sentence?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Let me just look again.  He further informed me that some of these members were involved with the elimination of these members and that they were on the point of mentioning it to the ANC and also the names of the other members which were involved.  I don't know whether Mr Gilbert, if he ever took the decision - took this fact into consideration, but this was not the most important factor for me.  The other facts were more important.
	Those facts on which I based my judgement.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it not one of the factors that influenced you when you were told that they were on the brink of disclosing that information to the ANC?  The fact that they had taken part in the elimination of Goniwe and others?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: If you put it like that, that it could have been part of the treason, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, otherwise, what does that sentence mean?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: For me it means that this was something which they also had done.  In other words, it was part of the treason that they were going to disclose that to the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: And for that reason they must be eliminated?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It could be like that.  I did not regard that.  It could have been an additional factor, I will agree to that, but for me specifically the other things I have already mentioned, those were the main factors according to my judgement.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the importance of that whole sentence in your application?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Because that was what was said by Mr Nieuwoudt, and I meant on the basis of full disclosure I had to mention this.

CHAIRPERSON: And are you saying that that whole sentence or what is said in that whole sentence, is not one of the reasons that made you believe that these people should be eliminated, is that what you are saying?
	And before you answer that question, you must read that sentence right up to the end.  I see you are looking at me, sir, please read that sentence.  It is a very long sentence.  Please read it carefully.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes sir.  I did not interpret it in this sense, but if you read it in conjunction with the previous sentences, it amounts to the fact that yes, this was also treason that they were going to commit.
	This was other intelligence they were going to disclose, and yes, if I look at this in this way, it could have been another reason why they should have been eliminated.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, my question is, in your view, was that one of the reasons why they should be eliminated?  Did that influence you?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Not at that stage.  If I analyze this now, yes, but not at that stage.  For me, the other things which had been mentioned, that information was sufficient according to me, in conjunction with the idea that senior people have already cleared this on a higher level and that was their final decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, now listen to my question very carefully and you must tell me if you don't understand.  Earlier on you have told us that you were not influenced by the fact that these people had committed fraud, that did not influence you into believing that they should be eliminated, right?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, are you now also saying that what stands in that sentence, which I asked you to read through, that too did not influence you into believing that these people should be eliminated?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would say reading this in context, I would say yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I don't understand.  Mr Van Rensburg, now I don't understand what you are saying.  Why did you say yes, I don't understand?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, this was a contributing factor.  This was a contributing factor as I saw it.  That was the inference that I drew.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words now, you are saying, what stands in this sentence also played a role in your mind in believing that these people should be eliminated?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you qualify your yes, why do you say yes, I believe so?  Are you less certain about what you are telling us?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I can't remember exactly what went on in my mind or what influenced my judgement, but yes, I can accept it that this could have influenced me to a certain extent.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, according to your evidence that should also have been one of the factors to influence you, because they were going to disclose these things to the ANC.  Wouldn't that be a betrayal of your colleagues?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I overlook anybody among the practitioners before coming to re-examination, everybody have had their chance, have you?  We don't want to be taken on review by somebody saying we didn't give them the right to put questions.
	Now, I think maybe you can re-examine.