Special Hearings — Chemical And Biological Warfare Hearings — 1998-06-10

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Right, (b) Mandela has to be released outside the Southern African region, and (c) Mandela should be in a poor physical capability, so that he could not act as the leader any more.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not asking you at the moment to authenticate this document, but what do you understand (c) to be?  What does it say?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: (c) would be to cause him some health damage which would be consonant with what I overheard the intention was.  In addition to what I overheard, I will draw your attention to the extract I read from the Star, a news story, I did give the exact date which alleged that Doctors were aware of a plan to expose him to small doses of Thallium.
 That could cause central nervous system damage resembling meningitis, according to information supplied to me by Dr Basson years before.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, who was the person on this document on the first page who was responsible for any enquiries made in connection with this document?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: It says the Gen Major J.F.J. Van Rensburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Any relative of yours?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No relative, I don't know who this possibly could be.

CHAIRPERSON: You never knew who this person was yourself?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, I have never known him, I don't know of his existence.

CHAIRPERSON: And you have never seen this document before?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I have never seen it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And to the extent that there was mention in your environment of any weakening of the health of Dr Mandela, it was not - your evidence was not related to your knowledge of existence of this document purporting to come from the State Security Council?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Not at all Mr Chairman, I merely related what I had heard from Dr Immelman and the extract I had read in the newspaper.  There was never any other talk of any operation at the institute against Mr Mandela, neither was there any positive action that I know of.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Dr Van Rensburg.  Are there any questions from members of the Panel?
 Are there any questions from any representatives?

MR CILLIERS: Only a few questions from my side.  Dr Van Rensburg, on the face value of this document, it appears this document has nothing to do with the Project Coast, Roodeplaat Laboratories, Delta G at all, do you agree?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I didn't read the document Mr Chairman, but I can't say that it has anything to do, it doesn't appear to have anything to do with those.

MR CILLIERS: Secondly, you interpret (c) according to you, that it should be seen to that President Mandela be in a poor physical condition before he is released, in the sense that something had to be done actively to  see that he is in a poor physical condition, for example giving him some or other substance, is that your interpretation?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, there is one interpretation.  There are many possibilities of reducing a man's health to a status where he cannot act as a leader.

MR CILLIERS: But that is your interpretation?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: I, in the milieu that I was functioning and that Dr Immelman talked to me, I thought it logical that they would use a chemical substance, which was toxic to achieve this aim, yes.

MR CILLIERS: Do you agree with me, you have already said that, only a confirmation, that is not the only interpretation of (c) of paragraph 29?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, you could hit him on the head and cause brain damage that way too, theoretically, physically.

MR CILLIERS: Or you could just have detained him until such a stage that because of his age, he would be in a poorer physical condition, isn't that a possibility?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Certainly, if you did not intend to release him, you could wait until he was senile.

MR CILLIERS: All I am putting to you is, there isn't necessary a sinister deduction to be made from paragraph (c), it is a possibility but not a necessity?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't agree.  This is a very clear guideline that something had to be done positively regarding the intention to release him.

MR CILLIERS: Where do you see the very clear, positive action referred to?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: (b) says he has to be released outside the Southern African region.

MR CILLIERS: What does it have to do with a sinister motive?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: That means you can't detain him.

MR CILLIERS: All this means is that when you release him, do not release him in South Africa, release him, but release him for example in Europe.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: How can you ensure his poor physical health if you don't do something sinister?

MR CILLIERS: Doctor, if he would become so old we know that he was already aged at that stage, if he became so old and he is released in a region outside South Africa, (b) and (c) would be fulfilled.  Is that a possibility?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: No, it was not a possibility?

MR CILLIERS: Why are you saying that?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: The political situation of the day dictated that he had to be released shortly.  There was no question that he could be detained for another ten years.

MR CILLIERS: But after that, he was detained for another seven years.  Your, within a short time, became seven years?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: This document was dated 1984, you don't become senile in four years.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it was only four years from the date of this document.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: Yes, four years, not seven years.

CHAIRPERSON: I know the Bible refers to seven years.    If you look at paragraph 19, you see of the same document, 19(c) how does that read?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: 19(c), do you want me to read it Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: The possibility that his condition of health would decrease to such an extent that by later release, he would only be able to act as leader of the revolutionary onslaught for a limited period of time, is not excluded.
 This reads that it is possible that his health situation might deteriorate in the interim if one delays he release, which would mean that he could only possibly act as leader for a short time.

MR CILLIERS: If I could just ask something Dr Van Rensburg, in that context of the paragraph as a whole which the Honourable Chairman has read to you, it is clear that the deterioration of his health was not linked to active action by anybody, it was merely linked to the continued detention with the later release?

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: It is certainly that his health would deteriorate as he got older, if he was detained later, yes.

MR CILLIERS: The purpose as explained here is clear, if you see this in context, that it was the longer detention and not active conduct by giving him substances or hitting him over the head with a walking stick as you said.

SCHALK VAN RENSBURG: As stated in 19 (c) it does look like that, yes.

MR CILLIERS: So your whole conclusion at 29 is once again an illustration of the deductions that you make without any factual basis?

CHAIRPERSON: Except that he is basing it on a conversation which he says, was made.

MR CILLIERS: With all respect, he concedes that that discussion that he had with Dr Immelman from the document itself, it is clear that these documents had nothing to do with Roodeplaat where Immelman worked.

CHAIRPERSON: Except that you see the sort of inference that can be drawn.  Here is a person who is relating something about the health of Mandela having to be, it says no well, he is not going to live long, because you know something has been done to his health.

MR CILLIERS: As a result of his age.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, the conversation that he held, the conversation between him and Immelman, what was the nature of the conversation?