Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-29

UNKNOWN: Well, if one looks at page 5 of your application Mr Van Rensburg, during our telephone conversation Brigadier Gilbert mentioned that this operation should be given the highest priority and that there was a further problem of fraud which had been brought to his attention which meant that the issue was further complicated and was now extremely urgent.
	It seems that the issue of fraud played quite an important role as far as Brigadier Gilbert was concerned?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That could be the case.

UNKNOWN: Did you investigate in any way what the allegation of fraud was about?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

UNKNOWN: Why not?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I was not involved on the ground with this matter.

UNKNOWN: But you were about to give orders to your operatives to go and participate in a murder, in a multiple murder?  Surely Mr Van Rensburg, you were interested at least in finding out what these people had done or what they were alleged to have done?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: The fraud aspect was not important to me, it is correct when you say it wasn't an issue for me.  As far as I can remember Mr Nieuwoudt did not discuss it with me.   What was important to me were the aspects revolving around the security breech and the overthrow of the Security Branch's activities, the placing of a limpet mine, those were the aspects which in my view were important and which I considered.

UNKNOWN: And for that you had only Mr Nieuwoudt's word?  In respect of that information?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: You made no enquiries to ascertain whether it was correct, whether it was made up, whether there was any factual basis for it whatsoever?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

UNKNOWN: The possibility never occurred to you Mr Van Rensburg, that if there had been a fraud committed and other persons were involved in the fraud, the easiest way to cover it up would be to murder those who may have given information about that, that never occurred to you?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, it didn't.

UNKNOWN: Does it occur to you now as a possibility?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I don't know.  If you put it like that, well, I don't know whether there was such a possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, let me interrupt you Mr Ford.  This question of fraud, you said you did not discuss the issue of fraud with Mr Nieuwoudt, because to you it was not of importance.  What was of importance to you was apparently the fact that these people were a security risk, that they might divulge information to the ANC etc, etc.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But if in fact the question of fraud was not of importance to you, I would have thought that that would have been all the more reason why you would have to discuss it with Mr Nieuwoudt and say to him, well, listen these other things I see them, they are important, but there is this aspect of fraud, I am not happy about it.
	I don't think that the question of fraud should be brought into consideration for the purpose of eliminating people because how can you kill somebody and give as one of the reasons the fact that he committed fraud?  Why didn't you raise it in that context?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I simply didn't do it.  I admit that, I didn't do that.  What was of crucial importance to me were these other factors.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't it make you uncomfortable?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, it didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it not make you uncomfortable to think that one of your, some of your colleagues may be killed for amongst others, having committed fraud?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.  I really didn't consider the issue of fraud, I thought about the other things.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but why didn't you say to Nieuwoudt, this thing of yours, this question of fraud, to me it is all nonsense, how can it be mentioned as one of the reasons for killing people.  Why didn't you take them to task about that, question them about that?	Isolate it and deal with it with them?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I didn't.  I didn't do it.  I didn't see it in that light.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Van Rensburg, did you ever asked who these colleagues were that were to be eliminated?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: yes, I did.

ADV POTGIETER: Were you given the names?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you have any comment on that since you knew some of them?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I can't recall whether I commented in any way and if so, what I said.  It is one of those things which a person must expect.

ADV POTGIETER: Were you shocked when you heard the names of your colleagues who were about to be eliminated, well-known members of the Security Branch who worked with you?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, obviously you are shocked.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you ask how on earth can you eliminate these people, they are loyal colleagues, they are well-known?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: But sir, it had been sketched to me that there were circumstances indicated, that they were not that loyal and that they were in fact committing treason.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, but you held a contrary view and opinion of them?  You had no reason not to trust them, why didn't you argue with Nieuwoudt and say to him, but look, what is the actual basis for your allegations against your colleagues, and on the basis of which you are asking me for authorization for murder?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I didn't.

ADV POTGIETER: So you made no point of it, it was not an issue?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I simply assumed that the matter had been cleared, and that was essential.

ADV POTGIETER: But do you think that a senior member, it was reasonable on your part not to ask a single question and to at least satisfy yourself that what you were about to do, was based on fact?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It was reasonable in the sense that I thought it had been cleared, and that there were no other options.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Not only didn't you argue with Nieuwoudt Mr Van Rensburg, you didn't even try and investigate in any way the truth of what he was telling you, is that right?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

UNKNOWN: Now we know what apparently Mr De Kock's evidence in this regard is going to be in regard to the fraud I am talking about now, and that is that when he spoke to you, if my memory of his application serves me correctly, that when he spoke to you and Mr Nieuwoudt, the only factor which was mentioned initially, the reason for the elimination of his colleagues, was the question of fraud.  You deny that?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I deny that.

UNKNOWN: Was the question of fraud discussed at all when Mr De Kock was questioned?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I can't remember something like that.

UNKNOWN: Are you saying it might have happened, but you can't remember it?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It could have been mentioned by Mr Nieuwoudt, there was a certain stage where I went to the kitchen to make coffee and I said I was on my way to another place and it could have been at a moment when I was not present, but I cannot remember something like that.
	In all sincerity I cannot say that it could or could not have been mentioned.

UNKNOWN: Well, then is it also possible that your memory is as foggy as it appears Mr Van Rensburg, that Mr De Kock is right when he said he came back to you because he was not satisfied that fraud was a sufficient reason for eliminating colleagues?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, that is not true.  That is absolutely not true, that day I was not in my office.

UNKNOWN: According to Brigadier Gilbert, how many persons were involved, how many of your colleagues were to be eliminated?

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I can't remember whether he told me exactly how many.