Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-29

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is how I understood it, yes.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, I find it incredible that a person at the highest prominence at the time of the pending Harms Commission, which had been launched to investigate hit squad activities, that it was that person that you called in once again to commit the same kind of acts which were being investigated.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I am not sure of the dates on which Mr De Kock was placed on leave.

MR HUGO: Let me put it to you, it was in early December that he was placed on leave and I further put it to you that in this period, during which you gave him this instruction, he was actually on leave.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: If you say that, I will accept it.

MR HUGO: I further put it to you that that was one of the reasons why most probably you struggled to get hold of him on that day.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That could be the case, yes.

MR HUGO: Why did you give such a sensitive instruction to Mr De Kock at that particular time?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Well, Mr De Kock, although he was on that leave at that time, had if I remember correctly, made a request that he could still attend to certain administrative arrangements etc, and he wanted permission to continue with that.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, with all respect, blowing up four policemen in Port Elizabeth cannot be defined as an administrative function.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I will concede that, but at that stage Mr De Kock was in charge in Vlakplaas.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, with all due respect, sorry to interrupt you, he was not at that stage in charge of Vlakplaas.  He was placed on leave.  I am putting it to you that there was an acting Commanding Officer which you should have been aware of because you were in command of that Unit.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Now I am asking you once again.  Why did you not, if you thought it was necessary for Vlakplaas to become involved in this gruesome operation, why did you not give instructions to the acting Commanding Officer of your Unit, the Unit of which you had intimate and detailed knowledge?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Because at that stage I trusted Mr De Kock, he was one of the members that I trusted in the Vlakplaas Unit and I didn't know to what extent I could entrust this operation to the man then in charge.
	I didn't have the necessary confidence in him to actually approach him whereas I did have that confidence in Mr De Kock.

MR HUGO: Well, just for interest sake, who was that second in command at that time?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: If I remember correctly, I think it was Mr Baker.

MR HUGO: That is correct.  Are you saying that you didn't have confidence in Mr Baker?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, no, that is not what I said.  I said, or what I wanted to say is that I didn't have the same position or situation, relationship of trust with this man, so I didn't know whether I could approach him with this instruction.

MR HUGO: Let me put it to you like this.  You knew that you will be able to abuse Mr De Kock far easier that Mr Baker and that is why you gave him the instruction.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, that is not so.

MR HUGO: I think this might be a suitable time for the tea adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn.  After tea you may have to direct your questions with more precision.

MR HUGO: I will do so Mr Chairman.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: (s.u.o.)

MR HUGO: (cont)
	Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Van Rensburg, just before the tea break, we paid attention to the aspect that these things happened during the Harms Commission or even leading up to the Harms Commission Investigation, can you remember that?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can remember that.

MR HUGO: I am putting it to you once again that irrespective of the high profile of Mr De Kock at that stage, you thought it wise to involve him in this incident?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: I am putting it to you that I find it extremely surprising that there was this investigation regarding the hit squad activities and in the midst of this investigation, you used the implicated person, the main player, you implicated this person.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: You can find it strange sir, but that was how it happened.

MR HUGO: Do you have no other  explanation just saying that was how it happened?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I was also involved in the Harms Commission and that was how it happened.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, I want to put it to you bluntly the reason why you involved Mr Eugene de Kock, was to make sure that he becomes more involved in these activities you were busy with at that stage, by that ensuring that he could not afford it to give evidence against the Generals and the senior structures during the Harms Commission.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I am saying this is incorrect.

MR HUGO: And I put it to you and I don't want to go into this in more detail, that during this time, you gave the same kind of instruction to Mr De Kock to launch an attack in Botswana where people had to be killed and this was just before the Harms Commission, what do you say about that?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No sir, I do not have any knowledge of this.

MR HUGO: I want to summarise that, and I think that the two of us should agree, that it was of cardinal importance that Mr De Kock, during the Harms Commission proceedings, that he should testify in favour of the Security Police and if he did not do that, it would have been catastrophic for the country and the Security Forces.  If I say the country, I refer to the government of the day.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I can't comment on this matter.  I don't know in which De Kock was involved before that time.  I cannot say what damage he caused.  The reason why he became involved in this operation, and the Harms Commission did not play any role in this regarding the disclosure of anything.

ADV DE JAGER: I just want to get clarity.  You are asking two questions in one.  For example during that time he was also involved in Botswana and the reason was to implicate him further and you say you don't have knowledge about that.  On which of these two questions you answered?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I am referring to Botswana.

ADV DE JAGER: You don't know about this Botswana operation.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.  Not while I was there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, I don't know whether this could be of any importance, but did you client want to go and testify before the Harms Commission to testify against the establishment, the Generals and others?

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, he had no choice in the sense he was one of the main role players.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, that is not what I am asking.  I am asking you did he want to go and testify and disclose things against the Generals and the establishment?

MR HUGO: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If he didn't, then I don't see the basis of your question, on what basis are you putting all this to the witness?  If in any event he never wanted to go and testify against these Generals, why should you put it to this witness and say well, the reason why you wanted to involve him was to prevent him from testifying against the Generals, if he never in any case wanted to testify against the Generals.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, at that stage and Mr De Kock will testify to this effect, during the Harms Commission he indicated to some of the Generals that he has certain problems regarding the procedures, and based on that, they could infer that his activities were kind of unlawful.
	That was the basis on which I am asking this question.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you shouldn't.