Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I would require time before closing my cross-examination, to have a look at a number of other documents.  I would like to reserve the right to apply on Monday morning for leave to put anything that I have omitted in this very long record and I would ask for that indulgence.
	I don't know who else has any questions to put and I don't know whether you want to adjourn at this stage Mr Chairman or whether I could be given this indulgence, I'm in the Committee's hands.  I can only say that I have completed the prepared cross-examination that I've had up to now but I'm not satisfied in my own mind that there may be other matters that have arisen as a result of his evidence that I would want to put to him.
	There is another matter Mr Chairman, that I may have to put questions to him that I may not be able to put to another applicant, which may require re-assessment of what I have to put to him Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I think the promise of my learned friend that he'll probably have further questions is one that will materialise so I would prefer to re-examine once my learned friend has concluded his final or third final cross-examination wherever that might be.
	So at this stage, unless my learned friends on the right-hand side of the table - but I've got sympathy with my learned friend's suggestion that we then adjourn now unless there's something else we can do.  I propose only to re-examine when he's finished.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any questions?

MS PATEL: I do Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I can't hear.

MS PATEL: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it likely to take long?

MS PATEL: No, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we can deal with your questions.

MS PATEL: I'm quite happy to proceed.
	Mr van Rensburg just for clarity's sake, could you please explain who approached whom first regarding the question of the elimination of Mr Goniwe and whoever accompanied him?  Did you approach van Zyl and Mr du Plessis or did they approach you first?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I approached Mr van Zyl first because as I have stated in my chief evidence I could not find Mr van Zyl and that is why I informed Mr du Plessis after that.

MS PATEL: The meeting at which the modis operandi for this specific killing was discussed, how long did that meeting last?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Approximately 20 minutes, perhaps a half an hour, I'm not completely certain of that.

MS PATEL: Two specific options were mentioned at the meeting, one was a robber and the other one was that this attack should look like a vigilante attack.  Were the merits and de-merits of these option discussed in any great length?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, as far as I can remember any of the options would have been acceptable.

MS PATEL: Acceptable by whom Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: With us who were discussing it.

MS PATEL: Are you saying then that you were willing to leave that decision then entirely in the hands of du Plessis and van Zyl?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MS PATEL: Why was this, why did you take that decision not to become involved?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't think that I made a decision not to get involved.  If I recall correctly, Mr du Plessis and Mr van Zyl asked me what I thought of how the operation should be carried out and indeed it was my suggestion to make it appear as a robbery or an attack.
	They agreed with that but I left the final decision up to them regarding - you must realise that circumstances would also have played a role so would it be a robbery, would it appear as if it was a vigilante attack, that I left up to them.

MS PATEL: That is what I find curious Mr van Rensburg, that you wouldn't have taken the time out to discuss the specifics of an operation where you yourself at the end of the day may possibly would have had to accept responsibility for it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It might be strange to you but it wasn't strange to us, it was normal.

MS PATEL: What do you mean by normal?  Is this an average operation that was carried out on various occasions?  I don't understand, please explain.

MR VAN RENSBURG: What I'm trying to say is that they way I see the matter when persons have to perform a task, let us call it a military task or a murder or whatever we would like to name it in this relation, then for the - the final decision is left to the officer on ground level because he will have to adjust according to circumstances.

MS PATEL: I ask you once again Mr van Rensburg, if you at the end of the day had to accept responsibility for the operation, why didn't you take a greater part in the planning of this operation?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know what kind of answer you are looking for.  I assume responsibility, I've just said that I assume responsibility for what I did.  If I could say anything else I would, surrounding the operation itself, but I can't.

MS PATEL: Given your knowledge of the operation and the manner in which it was carried out, did you have any objections to the manner in which it was carried out?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Well, I did not expect that it would be like that.

MS PATEL: What do you mean by that: "so wees nie"?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Let us say so gruesome.  I did not expect it to be exactly that but of course today I cannot say know, it has happened.

MS PATEL: Are you then by implication saying Mr van Rensburg that given the gruesomeness of the manner in which this act was carried out, that Mr du Plessis and Mr van Zyl and whoever acted with him had then exceeded the bounds of the authority.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I wouldn't say that.  One has to consider the circumstances of the operation, one should consider that the person at ground level must be able to adjust to circumstances.
	And I can only speculate that they decided to make it appear as if it was a vigilante attack and we could speculate on this as to whether they went too far or not in terms of the killing.

MS PATEL: Given your knowledge at the time of the deceased in this matter and of the area in which you operated, is it possible that a less violent and gruesome manner - gruesome operation could have been conducted towards the same end?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It could have been so.

MS PATEL: So then it wasn't necessary to kill the deceased in the manner in which they were killed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I cannot give you an answer, with all due respect, I think that you should ask the individuals who performed this on the ground level.

MS PATEL: But you are the person Mr van Rensburg, who authorised this operation.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MS PATEL: Surely you should accept responsibility for the manner in which the operation is carried out.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I do accept responsibility for it.

MS PATEL: And if that operation exceeded the bounds that was expected by you, then surely you should have had problems with that and that should have been dealt with at some level when they reported back to you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: They did not report back exactly or - let me say that Colonel Snyman and van Zyl informed me the next day that the operation had been carried out and it was only subsequent to that that I found out how it had happened.

MS PATEL: Did you then not call them back in for an explanation?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No I did not.

MS PATEL: Why not?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know, we did not discuss such things.

MS PATEL: Why not Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: We just never did it.

MS PATEL: What is the reason for not discussing an - surely de-briefing is a normal part of any operation, especially one as gruesome and as sensitive as this?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know.  I would not like to discuss things like this afterwards.

MS PATEL: Why not Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Because one doesn't want to repeat it again and again.  One wouldn't want to discuss it, it was over.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, shortly after the murders there was an official investigation into the crimes, not so?