Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Today is the 29th of September 1997. For the record the panel of the Amnesty Committee hearing these applications consists of myself, Judge Ngoepe and to my right Adv De Jager SC, and to my left Adv Potgieter SC.

Mr Brink would be leading evidence for the Committee and the various legal representatives will put themselves on record. The applications to be heard are those of Eugene Alexander de Kock, 0066/96. Daniël L. Snyman, 3766/96, Nicholas J. Janse van Rensburg, 3919/96, Gerhardus Jakobus Lotz, 3921/96, Jakobus Kok, 3811/96, A.L. du Toit, 3381/96, Nicholas Johannes Vermeulen, 4358/96, Marthinus D. Ras, 5183/97, Gideon Johannes Nieuwoudt, 3920/96.

And gentlemen, who places themselves first on record, proceed.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, my surname is Hugo and I appear for Alexander de Kock.

ADV BOOYENS: May it please the Commission, Mr Chairman, Kobus Booyens, instructed by Van der Merwe and Bester. I appear for the applicants Nicholas Janse van Rensburg, number 3, Gerhardus Jakobus Lotz, number 4, and Gideon Johannes Nieuwoudt, number 9.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I represent Daniël Lionel Snyman. My surname is Lamey from the firm Ruth and Wessels and I am assisted by my colleague, Mr Rossouw.

ADV JANSEN: Mr Chairman, I am Adv Jansen, I am instructed by Attorney Julian Knight of Pretoria. We act for Mr Marthinus Ras.

MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, Wim Cornelius. I act for Nicholas Johannes Vermeulen from Cornelius Attorneys, Pretoria.

ADV FORD: Mr Chairman, I am Adv Ford, instructed by Mr S. Gough of Rushmere (indistinct) Incorporated. I represent the widows of two of the victims, Mrs Mgoduka and Mrs Faku.

MR KEMP: Mr Chairman, the name is Kemp. I appear on behalf of Mr Du Toit and Mr Kok, instructed by Mr Peet Pelser from Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: We have been told that one of the applicants, would that be Mr Nieuwoudt, is not feeling well and just briefly give the reasons so that they should appear on record.

ADV BOOYENS: That is correct Mr Chairman. Mr Nieuwoudt is unwell. A Doctor's certificate is available, but due to unforeseen circumstances, we didn't bring it along. We will make it available to the Commission tomorrow. We hope that he would be ready to proceed with his evidence by Wednesday, hopefully, perhaps tomorrow.

I in fact intended to call him first, but this is one of those things that happened and although logically it would have been the ideal person to call first, because he gives the overall picture, nonetheless, I think I am satisfied, subject to my learned friends' attitudes, that we can proceed with the matter, although it might be slightly disjointed.

I intend calling Mr Van Rensburg then as my first witness, and I think it has been more or less agreed between the various legal teams, that that would then be the next logical point to start, although not the most logical one.

I ask that Mr Nieuwoudt be excused until he is well enough to attend these hearings again.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who would you like to be excused?

ADV BOOYENS: Nieuwoudt, Nieuwoudt, number 9.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see. Very well, we will proceed without him. We hope he would be joining us very soon, as soon as possible and you are obviously appearing on his behalf and you have no problem if we proceed without him.

ADV BOOYENS: No, Mr Chairman, we have taken full instructions in this matter. I am satisfied that subject to something unforeseen happening in the evidence, which might necessitate consultation, we will be able to proceed. Of course one cannot give a hundred percent guarantee in circumstances like that, but at this stage, I am instructed that we are ready to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, then let's proceed.

ADV BOOYENS: I call Mr Van Rensburg.

NICHOLAS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Mr Van Rensburg, you are an applicant for amnesty in this application and also other applications which do not form part of the subject matter of this application?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You have your amnesty application in front of you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm the contents of the first page? His evidence is at page 69 of the record Mr Chairman.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I confirm it.

ADV BOOYENS: As well as the second page, that is your history as a member of the Police?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You give a very brief overview of you background, the things that you believed in and your political convictions and the government or political policy that you supported, that is on pages 2 and 3 of the application.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: As far as the offence or offences are concerned, for which you here apply for amnesty, you are applying for amnesty in connection with the death of Warrant Officer Glen Mgoduka, Sergeant Amos Faku, Sergeant Desmond Mapipa and Mr Xolile Sepa Sehati, also known as Charles Jack, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And you give the particulars regarding place and time of these offences?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You were not personally involved in the death of the deceased, however you fulfilled a liaison role?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: If we look at page 3, in 1989 you were stationed at the Security Headquarters and you were in command of Unit C10 which coordinated all the Security investigations in the Republic?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You were also responsible for detentions in terms of security legislation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And in November of 1989 the whole of C Section of the Security Police including Vlakplaas were placed under your control and command?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Before you were transferred to Pretoria, you were stationed in Port Elizabeth at the Security Branch here?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you then in respect of the man who became at the end of 1989 the Commanding Officer of the PE Branch, Mr Gilbert, did you get to know him?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Can you recall that a couple of days before the Motherwell bomb incident, you received a phone call from Mr Gilbert?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Gilbert is now deceased, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: This conversation is dealt with on the second paragraph of page 4 of your application. The conversation was not a code conversation as such, but it was a conversation from which you drew certain inferences?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Would it be a correct summary of the situation to say that Gilbert told you about certain black members of the Branch had started working with friends, and that you concluded from that that he was trying to say that they were actually working with the ANC/SACP alliance?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Did he further inform you, I am still referring to the telephone conversation, that there were serious consideration given to this matter and that it was decided that a plan should be made with the people in your terms, that they should be eliminated?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Gilbert give any indication that he had been given authority from higher up for this operation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, he did.

ADV BOOYENS: What were his words in this connection?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As far as I can remember these were words to the effect that he had been given the okay from above.

ADV BOOYENS: This conversation took place on an open line?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV BOOYENS: So you didn't discuss details?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, we didn't.

ADV BOOYENS: When the statement was made to you that he had been given the okay, the so-called okay, we are talking about 1989, did you find that surprising that an okay had been given for such an operation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I wasn't completely taken by surprise.

ADV BOOYENS: Within the Security Police fraternity, were there already cases known where operations had been performed, that had been authorised?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Were there cross-border operations that you were aware of and which, as far as you were aware, had been authorised?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV BOOYENS: That includes operations in Lesotho, operations in Swaziland and Botswana, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: There were also incidents ... (intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I am sorry to interrupt you. When you say that you got the impression or that he told you that he got the okay from above, who was at that stage in charge? Who did you think he was referring to when he said people from the top gave him the okay?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: My perception was that it referred to the top structure of the Police and also on a ministerial level in some cases.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but at that stage, who formed the structure, who were the people by name?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: In 1989 if I remember correctly it was General Van der Merwe who was the Commissioner of the South African Police. Mr Vlok was the Minister of Law and Order.

ADV DE JAGER: And was it your impression that when he said that he got the okay from above, that he had been given the approval of these people, or what did you think he meant?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I didn't know from whom, but the perception which I had was that it had to be either at the level of the Security Headquarters, at a very senior level, either the Commissioner of the Minister or on all three levels.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, you've mentioned the Commissioner and the Minister. Who was the Head of Security or the Chief of Security in control of Security at a high level?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: General Smit was the Security Chief.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew of Gilbert's position within the Security Branch structures?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I did. I knew what his position was.

CHAIRPERSON: And you knew where he was placed?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Taking into account the place where he was placed and his precise position within the Security Branch, who would have been, from whom in particular, would you expect him to have got the instructions?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: From the Head of Security.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was it then, did you say General ...

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It was Smit.

CHAIRPERSON: Smit?

ADV BOOYENS: It is General Basie Smit?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Perhaps just arising from the questions put to you by the Chairperson. Could you perhaps explain to us very briefly, Gilbert was the Divisional Commander for the Eastern Cape, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And their line structure, in other words, their direct command, that ran to the Chief of Security from the Divisional Commanders?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is how I understood it.

ADV BOOYENS: C10, where you were in command, or C Section, that was a separate section, it didn't run through you, their contact with the Security Chief?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Van Rensburg, you were also the Divisional Commander or Commissioner of the Eastern Cape at some stage?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, no, I wasn't.

ADV BOOYENS: I think I must also say that you were second in command at some stage in the Eastern Cape?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I was for a short while, I was second in command.

ADV BOOYENS: When you and Gilbert worked together in the Eastern Cape, who was the senior of the two of you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Gilbert.

ADV BOOYENS: You then deal with the following. You were saying that when you heard about the okay, you were already aware of other operations which you referred to and which you said there had been authorization for, it was known in the security fraternity, it was known that the blowing of COSATU House had been authorised?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, in the security establishment it was known that it had been authorised.

ADV BOOYENS: Also Khotso House?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Khotso House, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Were there any cases where authorization had been given to eliminate some of your colleagues, such as the case here?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Not as far as I was aware at that stage. I didn't know about any such cases.

ADV POTGIETER: So this was the very first time that you became of such an instruction?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct. Yes, of this particular kind of order.

ADV BOOYENS: On page 5 you continue by mentioning that Gilbert told you that this operation enjoyed high priority, that there was a further problem that the people were involved in some kind of fraud?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Did he then further tell you that he was sending Captain Nieuwoudt to you to come and discuss the matter in detail with you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, he said he was sending Nieuwoudt to me because in the Eastern Cape there wasn't the necessary capacity to launch the necessary operation.

ADV BOOYENS: The next morning, well the arrangement was that Nieuwoudt would come and see you the next morning?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Gilbert request you to give Nieuwoudt the necessary help?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you make a specific arrangement that Nieuwoudt should come and see you early the next morning?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOOYENS: You make the allegation that he was to come and see you at six o'clock that morning?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That was approximately that time, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: What was the reason for that? It is very early, long before normal office hours?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I told Gilbert that or Gilbert suggested that Nieuwoudt should come and see me at my office on this particular day and I told Gilbert that I had other commitments for the day and if he wanted Nieuwoudt to come and see me, it would have to take place very early in the day because I wouldn't be available the rest of the day. And that is why it was arranged for early in the morning.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you also infer from Gilbert's conversation that this was a matter which would probably be dealt with by Vlakplaas, did you try and contact Colonel De Kock?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Mr Gilbert specifically mentioned to me that Vlakplaas would have to assist here. There wasn't capacity otherwise.

ADV BOOYENS: On the day before Nieuwoudt arrived there, did you manage to contact Colonel De Kock?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I couldn't get in touch with him. I telephoned him at home that evening, but his wife couldn't tell me where he was, I could not track him down.

ADV BOOYENS: Just to make it quite clear, at that time you lived in Pretoria in Nomkwaai Park, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Mr De Kock also stay there?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: How far away was his house from yours?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would think about 50 metres, but let's say between 50 and 100 metres to be more accurate. I am not that good at judging distance.

ADV BOOYENS: In any event, the next morning at six o'clock, Nieuwoudt arrived at you place, at your office?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And did you thereafter phone Colonel De Kock and asked him to come over?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Before Colonel De Kock arrived, let's just call him Nieuwoudt, Mr Nieuwoudt, did he tell you what the background of this whole matter was?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOOYENS: To sum it up, what was the story?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: He told me that some of the black members of the Security Branch of Port Elizabeth had been recruited by the ANC and had very sensitive information in their possession which they wanted to give to the ANC.

ADV BOOYENS: Could or would furnish this information to the ANC? And let's deal very briefly with your personal experience.

If Security Branch members at that stage, if they were to become double agents for the ANC with whom you were waging a struggle at the time, in your view, would it have been a serious matter?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I think we will lead more detailed evidence in this regard, but to sum up, the Intelligence gathering mechanism consisted of agents. Those were policemen who worked underground, correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: It consisted of informers?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV BOOYENS: It consisted of safe houses?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV BOOYENS: It consisted of so-called collaborators, people who weren't registered informers but who also would give you information?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV BOOYENS: There were methods, non-physical methods used to intercept information, interception of post, monitoring of telephone conversations, planting of monitoring devices, etc, so there was a whole security system involved here?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOOYENS: And if there were four members in a team and one was an informer, would it be reasonable that amongst the four of these members, they would have had reasonably good knowledge of whom the informers were and they had general knowledge of the security system and network?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes. That is the way Mr Nieuwoudt put it to me and it was logical for me to assume that they would have certain knowledge about the security network.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, should a security network be revealed or exposed, what would the effect be of this on the struggle existing at the time between the government and the ANC/SACP alliance?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, in my view that would have undermined and hampered the capacity of the Security Branch in the Eastern Cape and it would have taken us in the Eastern Cape in any event, it would have set us back in our struggle against these forces. It would have been a big blow to our information system and would have taken time to reconstruct that.

ADV BOOYENS: What would the effect have been on the security and safety of people like informers and agents?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: There was a strong possibility that some of these people would have been attacked or killed. Their safety would definitely have been prejudiced.

ADV BOOYENS: It was already declared policy at that stage that there would be attacks on members of the Police or collaborators, people who worked for the government?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And amongst the four of them, there would have been a fairly, they could have given a good profile of other members of the Security Branch, where he lives and what he looks like, etc?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: These factors you took into consideration?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You did not take the final decision, but as far as you were concerned the authorization had already been given for this operation and after the information which Nieuwoudt gave you, you were satisfied that this was a case where you could get involved in such an operation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOOYENS: You did not give the authorization?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Colonel De Kock then arrive in the mean time?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And did Nieuwoudt brief him and explain the circumstances to him as to the background of the whole situation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you satisfied that the decision was justified?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And were you for that reason prepared to give Colonel De Kock the order that he should help Mr Nieuwoudt?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct, Mr Chairman. I would just like to mention that I asked Mr De Kock whether they were up to it, whether they were able to actually carry out such an operation and he said yes. And I gave the instruction that he should then assist with the operation.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. On page 7 of your application, you say that you left the two men there, that is Nieuwoudt and De Kock and you left to attend a briefing session at the Security Branch in Soweto?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Mr Chairman, Mr De Kock and Nieuwoudt left my house and shortly afterwards I also left.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I meant they didn't leave with you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you play any further role in the planning or execution of this operation?

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

ADV BOOYENS: You only later heard that the operation was successful?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You have already to some extent touched on the political objective pursued when you said that should this type of information become known, it would expose and jeopardise the whole security situation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And you also deal with this aspect on page 8 in paragraph 10?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: If theoretically you were able to stop the operation at this stage, on the information which Nieuwoudt gave you and seen against the political background of the country in 1989, would you have stopped the operation if you were able to or would you have given the go ahead for the operation, if it depended on you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would have given my authorization.

ADV BOOYENS: If the Commission would just bear with me Mr Chairman. That concludes the evidence in chief, Mr Chairman. Sorry Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence in chief, I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate the way in which you have dealt with this aspect, but would you not refer the witness to page 6 of the statement, paginated page 74?

I will ask him this question. Mr Van Rensburg, do you have that page in question? Do you have it in front of you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I beg your pardon, I didn't quite hear. Yes, I have it.

CHAIRPERSON: I see it written there that the lives of some of these informers were in danger. Could you please just continue from there onwards.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: These members had already been tasked by the ANC to place a limpet mine under one of the Security vehicles to show their solidarity towards the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Must I continue? He further told me that some of the members had been involved in the elimination of M. Goniwe, T. Galatha, S. Mkonto and S. Mslawuli and that they were on the point of making it known to the ANC and to also make known the names of other members who were involved.

CHAIRPERSON: That is Mr Nieuwoudt?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct, that is what he told me.

ADV BOOYENS: With your permission Chairperson, the limpet mine incident, was any date given to you for the planning, or when it was planned?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I can't remember a specific date but according to what I can remember, it would have happened very shortly. It had to happen very shortly thereafter.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm your application?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Any other counsel appearing for one of the applicants, who wants to put questions to the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Chairperson, yes, I act on behalf of Mr De Kock, and I would like to ask a couple of questions to this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, you are Mr Hugo?

MR HUGO: That is correct. Mr Van Rensburg, when did you first meet Mr De Kock in your career?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I think it was in April of 1989 approximately.

MR HUGO: Could you tell the Committee how it came about that you had contact with him or met him?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I can't remember. I can't remember whether it happened at the office or at Vlakplaas perhaps, or where. I really can't recall our first meeting.

MR HUGO: Now, in 1989 you were transferred to the Security Headquarters in Pretoria, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR HUGO: If I understand your evidence correctly, Vlakplaas Unit C1 or Unit C10, fell directly under your command?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR HUGO: Could we perhaps just deal with how Vlakplaas came about and its objectives? When did you for the first time become aware of the existence of Vlakplaas or Unit C1?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, I think it was in 1980 or 1981. I am not sure of the exact year, but I would say as far as I can recall, it was round about 1980/1981.

MR HUGO: You then for the first time became aware of the existence of this Unit, C1?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: General, perhaps before I ask you the next question regarding the function of Vlakplaas, could you perhaps tell me are you aware of what gave rise to the establishment of such a Unit?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As I understood it, there were in those days some of the trained ANC people, people who had undergone military training, and who had returned to the Republic for some or other purpose, who had been arrested and questioned and some of them were turned and they declared their willingness to cooperate with the South African Security Police or Force, and there was then the need to accommodate these people somewhere for their own safety and that they would be absorbed into a Unit with permanent members of the South African Police and work along side them in order to track other returnees and the purpose was also that they should try and obtain information relating to such persons.

MR HUGO: So that is the way you understood the reasons and the motive for the establishment of this Unit in the early 1980's?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Could it put it to you like this, according to your understanding, Vlakplaas' conduct and actions which sometimes took place in a covert way, that it was legitimate according to what you knew about Vlakplaas and their modus operandi?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is the way I saw it.

MR HUGO: That was the way you saw it in the early 1980's. Was there any change in your views at any stage, did you views or perceptions change perhaps later to the extent that you perhaps thought that the conduct of the Unit wasn't quite so legitimate?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, as early as 1981.

MR HUGO: Yes? What happened to change your mind and to your views that these things weren't always done in a legitimate way?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: The then Commanding Officer of Vlakplaas, Mr Dirk Coetzee, mentioned it to me.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, what did Mr Dirk Coetzee tell you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: He told me that he was involved or had been involved, in certain operations. He didn't give me specific details about what kind of operations, but he mentioned that the Unit would also eliminate activists if necessary.

MR HUGO: You didn't ask him as to the details of these operations which were clearly carried out in an illegal way?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

MR HUGO: Why didn't you ask him Mr Van Rensburg?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I didn't ask him. I can't recall that I asked him such a question.

MR HUGO: You see what I find surprising is that you were a police officer responsible for safety and security and security in the country, and for doing it in a proper and legal way and here you have the situation where one of your own Security Policemen who came and told you that we are involved in certain illegal things and he mentioned certain operations, but you didn't specifically ask him about these operations and what the reasons for them were.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: He mentioned it by the way and he said that he had been given authorization or orders to perform certain operations.

MR HUGO: Well, Mr Van Rensburg, that creates an even bigger problem for me in the sense that here he was talking about orders and instructions and authorization to carry out operations. Don't you think there was a duty on you to actually ask him who had given him the authorization, etc?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I didn't ask him. I regarded it as a matter which at that stage was confidential and I regarded it as a thing to be dealt with on a need to know basis and I didn't ask him about it.

MR HUGO: What was your rank in 1980 and in 1981 Mr Van Rensburg?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: In 1980 I was a Major.

MR HUGO: And after Dirk Coetzee had told you these things, was that, according to you, acceptable and did you accept them as such?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct. I just want to tell the Commission that Mr Coetzee and I were already on a date that I can't remember, I think it was somewhere in 1979 or 1980, that we were involved in a cross-border operation in Swaziland, and for that I am also applying for amnesty.

MR HUGO: Can you tell this Committee in the early 1980's were you satisfied that a need existed that certain actions should be taken against the liberation fighters which on should take place on an unconventional way?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I felt like that and because of various statements by amongst others politicians.

MR HUGO: You know, I want to put it to you in this way. I am involved with the first applicant's hearing or case for about three years, and I am still uncertain about this stage during which the decision was made that illegal ways and means should be used or methods should be used to combat the enemy.

When, for the first time in your career, did you receive the instruction to act in this way and by this way I mean unconventional and unlawful manner?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As I have already told you Mr Chairman, it could have been in 1979 or 1980, I can't remember specifically, but it was round about those years.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I just interrupt you there. When did Mr Coetzee disclose to you that people were eliminated, some such things? When did he disclose to you for the first time?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As far as I can remember Mr Chairman, it was round about the middle of 1981.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR HUGO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now Mr Van Rensburg, during this period, this initial stages when you received instructions to become involved in a cross-border operation, I accept especially regarding cross-border operations, that you received instructions from senior officers? Officers who were obviously your seniors?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Did you ask these officers for the motivation for these actions?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I did ask them. It was during general discussions that we mentioned these things.

MR HUGO: Could you, should you wish or if you did not want to cooperate, could you refuse to do this?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I accept that I could have.

MR HUGO: And regarding the instructions that you have received, did you every time make the necessary enquiries and try to determine whether it was properly motivated, that it was justified, because it was in the interest of the country?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, according to me.

MR HUGO: So you did every time make proper enquiries?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I did proper enquiries every time as far as I could, or as far as I thought it was necessary.

MR HUGO: Could you just tell me, from which officer did you receive an instruction for the first time to become involved in such an unlawful action?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It was from Brigadier Van der Hoven.

MR HUGO: And I accept based on what you have said, that you also asked Brigadier Van der Hoven why this operation was being launched?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I want to put it in this way. I approached Brigadier Van der Hoven with certain problems we were experiencing. I made a certain proposition to him and he accepted that, he approved that. He agreed with my proposal.

MR HUGO: What was the nature of the proposal you made to Brigadier Van der Hoven?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That was that we should use trained people in Swaziland who were coming into South Africa to come and eliminate people here, that we should attack their safe houses in Swaziland.

MR HUGO: Did you give him a motivation why you thought it should be done?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I do not want to be unnecessarily difficult, but with all due respect to my learned friend Mr Hugo, the witness testified that that is the subject matter of another application. This cross-examination goes to nothing else but to carefully scrutinise an application which is not before the Commission at this stage.

I can very well understand that if my learned friend because his client was working under the command of the applicant at this stage, wants to clarify the role that my client played of his client, but quite frankly is my learned friend opposing this applicant's application for amnesty? If so, on what basis is he opposing it and what locus standi as a co-applicant has he got to oppose it? I would like to hear that from him, and furthermore this is going so wide that it is really where it can serve no purpose to listen to the full details of another operation which this Committee or another Committee like this, at a later stage may have to hear. Thank you sir.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, if I can just answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you answer that. The passed two or three questions bothered me a bit precisely in the way that Mr Booyens is saying. I appreciate that you are entitled to put questions as I understand most of them, to put questions to the witness about the modus operandi as to how they operated, which would be general questions.

But the minute you condescend to a particular issue and try to deal with that, we may have some problems, unless you are about to say to us that your client's application in respect of for example the Swaziland operation, is also before us, which is not the case.

And I think to that extent there is merit in his argument, but without of course, we don't want to stop you from asking questions about how the Security Police generally operated or in particular possibly between the two of them, your client and the witness.

With regard to the other, you can reply with regard to the other aspect.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, I would just like to add this is the purpose why I am asking these questions. We are going to indicate further on when the first applicant will give evidence, that because of his involvement in Vlakplaas, he was placed in a very difficult situation. That it was actually impossible not to obey these instructions.

Then we are going to indicate that Vlakplaas was used as a so-called base from where hit squads were operating and these questions according to us, respectfully, are posed to indicate how the applicant when he found himself in this milieu for the first time and found that unconventional methods were used, and he was taken up as part of this environment, this was how he was trained and this was how he followed instructions. This is the basis of these questions.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Hugo, can't you just put it to him and say these are the facts, do you agree or not agree. With this type of questions, we are going to sit here for two days.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, perhaps I can try to cut it short but what I want clarity about is the basis on which Vlakplaas functioned, how the senior officers viewed it, and what the functions of Vlakplaas were.

One of the issues is why this specific applicant used the services of Vlakplaas for an operation which was to take place in Port Elizabeth?

ADV DE JAGER: As the Chairman has already said, we have no objection to you asking these questions, but try to come to the truth as quickly as possible. As you know this Amnesty Committee has still to handle 1 600 if these cases. Please try to assist us, come to the core of the matter as quickly as possible.

MR HUGO: At this stage, I would like to aim these questions on the establishment and the functions of Vlakplaas, so that there is clarity for which clarity was used.

ADV DE JAGER: If these facts are provided by the client, put it to him and ask whether he agrees.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do that, perhaps for the comfort of Mr Booyens, are you opposing the application or are you not opposing the application?

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, what we are saying is that there are certain facts which have not been mentioned in this application and which we would like to emphasise.

CHAIRPERSON: In the favour of your client?

MR HUGO: That is correct, Mr Chairman, in favour of our client.

CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, later you were appointed as the Commander of Vlakplaas.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: When you arrived at Vlakplaas, what was the situation there and referring to the situation, I specifically mean the modus operandi used at Vlakplaas?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, the modus operandi at Vlakplaas was the normal ways people acted, that the people were divided into groups. Every group had an officer in charge as leader. In every group to use the terminology used, there were ascaris as part of these groups. They were previous liberation fighters or whatever you want to call them, and they had been changed to work with the Security Forces. They were turned around.

MR HUGO: When you took over charge of Vlakplaas, were you aware of it that the members of Vlakplaas C1, were involved in unlawful actions, illegal actions and cross-border actions?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

MR HUGO: Was that a problem for you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR HUGO: Why was it not a problem for you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Because of statements I have heard made by politicians and because of statements made at head office. It was obvious that we were in a undeclared so-called war and that conventional methods could not stop the onslaught against the government.

MR HUGO: You knew that Vlakplaas was involved in operations that were according to the laws of the country, illegal. You had no problem with that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No. During that time, during those circumstances I did not have a problem with that.

MR HUGO: Could we just shortly say that the political climate at that stage necessitated that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That was what I believed.

MR HUGO: And you personally knew of some of these operations which happened in that way?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would not say personally in the sense that I was personally involved, except for the operation in Swaziland. But regarding that operation Vlakplaas members or Vlakplaas did not exist at that time as far as I can remember.

MR HUGO: I am referring to the time that you became the Commander of Vlakplaas and that was in 1979, I am sorry 1989.

The politicians that you are referring to and their statements, do you know if politicians knew what the functions and purpose of Vlakplaas was?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I did not have inside information in those circles, but that was definitely my perception that they definitely knew about what was happening there.

MR HUGO: To which politicians are you referring? Specifically the previous Minister of Law and Order, Minister Adriaan Vlok?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: And who else?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would not find it strange if General Malan did not know about this.

MR HUGO: Why are you referring to General Malan, why should he know about Vlakplaas' existence and the way the operated?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Because he was the Minister of Defence at that stage.

MR HUGO: And which other senior police officers knew on which basis Vlakplaas functioned?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It is difficult to say who they all were. I can just refer to a few of them. I would definitely accept that General Van der Merwe knew about that, that he was aware.

MR HUGO: That was General Van der Merwe who was Head of the Security Police at that stage?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, he was a Commissioner at that stage.

MR HUGO: Yes, I think you are correct. He was Commissioner at that stage. The Head of Security Police was Basie Smit, did he know about how Vlakplaas members were operating?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR HUGO: That they were involved in illegal operations

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR HUGO: The funding of these operations which were launched from Vlakplaas, how was the funding done?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't know.

MR HUGO: General, you were in command of this Unit in 1989?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I did not understand you correctly, what was the word, it was secret funding.

MR HUGO: Could you tell us how that worked in practice?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As far as I know, the funding had to be approved by one or more of the Generals in the Security Branch and then this approved application was processed by the Financial Unit at head office.

MR HUGO: I am sorry to interrupt, did you know that there was a secret fund which could be used by the Vlakplaas Unit, it amounted to several million rand?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I was aware that there was this fund, but I did not know to what this amounted.

MR HUGO: Were you aware that from higher structures, approval was given and instructions were given to Mr De Kock and other members at Vlakplaas, to obtain money from this fund by means of handing in of false claims amounting to fraud?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I am not.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, you will agree with me that regarding this operation where you instructed Mr De Kock to become involved, it had certain financial implications?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Where did you think this money would come from for this operation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, in the first place I was not part of the planning of this operation. If I say planning, I mean the execution of this operation on grassroots level. I was not certain or I was not aware of specifically which funds Mr De Kock had access to. I knew there was a secret fund.

I did not know precisely how that administration was handled. I accepted that should funding become necessary, Mr De Kock would approach me and I also accepted ... (intervention)

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, Mr De Kock, and I am putting it to you, did not approach you for funding and did you not deem it fit to at a next stage ask him how this operation was financed?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I did not.

MR HUGO: Why did you not do that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I did not think it was necessary.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, I am putting it to you that it was precisely the way in which the general staff and the senior police officers operated, in other words to keep a distance between themselves and the other policemen.

And I want to put it to you that you knew should problems arise at a later stage, it would be easier to distance yourself from any criminal steps which could be instituted against these people, what do you say to that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I am saying it is not correct.

MR HUGO: I want to ask you once again regarding the funding, because this is a matter which we will address later on as well, and my client will testify on this. Did you at any stage make any enquiries regarding the money to be used to fund and launch this operation?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did you assume that they would use funds from the allocation that you expected them to have gotten from the secret fund?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, I put it to you that Mr De Kock in order to properly plan and to carry out this operation, had to generate funds and he did so as was the custom by instituting false claims and the money which he obtained in such a way, he then gave to his men to cover their travel costs and other logistic expenses which they had.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I can't deny it if that is what he says. I didn't do that myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, what is your problem about this problem of funds, because the witness' understanding concedes that your client would have made use of this purse which contained secret funds and well, he didn't even discuss it with your client.

He expected that your client would do that and he is not denying that your client would have used those funds.

MR HUGO: I am putting it to the witness that that is the basis and I am accepting when he says that that could have been the way it happened. The other reason why I am touching on this point, is that in the application there is a specific question as to financial or other gain for any individual and that is why I am mentioning it now.

Mr Chairman, I think it is five past eleven, I am not certain what the custom is.

CHAIRPERSON: We normally stop at about quarter past eleven.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, I put it to you that during 1989 when this operation was being planned, the Harms Commission of Enquiry was taking place. Can you recall that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR HUGO: If I can perhaps give a little bit more detail about that. I think it was before the Harms Commission actually started their sittings, but the decision had already been made that there would be such a Commission of Enquiry. I put it to you further that police circles, especially amongst the more senior ranks there was great consternation about this enquiry which was soon to be launched, can you recall that?

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

MR HUGO: And I am further putting it to you that the most prominent role players in police circles, were in the Harms Commission, Mr De Kock, a Mr Paul van Dyk, Koos Vermeulen, Brian Ngulunga, Joe Mamasela and Jeff Bosigo, can you recall that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can.

MR HUGO: These were all members of Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, at some stage as far as I am aware they were members.

MR HUGO: And the person whose name featured most prominently at this time was Mr De Kock, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I think you could put it like that.

MR HUGO: I am further putting it to you that the General staff, if you could call it that, arranged for Mr De Kock to be placed on special leave in this period, can you recall that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can.

MR HUGO: Apparently to create the impression in the press that Mr De Kock had been absolved of all his duties, pending the outcome of the Harms Commission?

MR 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.

MR 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.

MR 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.

MR 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?

MR 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.

MR 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.

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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.

MR 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.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY 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?

MR 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?

MR 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.

MR 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?

MR 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.

MR 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?

MR 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.

MR 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?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I am referring to Botswana.

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

MR 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.

MR HUGO: General, a few other aspects I wish to address shortly. The fraud aspect to which I have referred, was this discussed between you and Mr Nieuwoudt during this conversation which took place at six o'clock the morning at your home?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Not as far as I can remember.

MR HUGO: I am putting it to you that Mr De Kock says that this was the only aspect which was conveyed to him at that stage during the discussion where you and Mr Nieuwoudt were present.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I can't deny it that while Mr Nieuwoudt and Mr De Kock, Mr Nieuwoudt perhaps mentioned it to Mr De Kock. I can't recollect this in detail, but it was not the reason, the motivation why these people had to be murdered.

MR HUGO: I want to put it that Mr De Kock will say that the fraud aspect was mainly mentioned to him and that it was such a problem for him, that other policemen had to be murdered only because they were involved in fraud.

And he said after this meeting, he went back to your office and told you that this was not fair according to him, and he asked you precisely what was going on.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, that is not correct. That specific day you are mentioning, I was not in my office at all.

MR HUGO: Mr De Kock will also state that after he posed these questions to you that you indicated that it was not only because of the fraud that has been mentioned, but also that these people who had to be murdered, were involved in the Goniwe incident?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Nieuwoudt mentioned that in my home. He mentioned that to me and Mr De Kock.

MR HUGO: And I am putting it to you that Mr De Kock, based on what you have said regarding the Goniwe incident, that it was related to these four deceased people, and he was absolutely convinced that it was in the interest of the country that these people had to be eliminated. Do you have any knowledge of this?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I don't know what Mr De Kock thought at that stage and if he was under the opinion that it was enough to eliminate these people, but from my point of view, it had to do with the way these people would be disclosing security information or Intelligence.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, you were instructed or rather requested by Brigadier Gilbert to arrange for the elimination of the four deceased and he says this had been cleared at head office?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Did you not deem it necessary to go to your Security Head and tell him here is an operation which will be launched, which will have tremendous implications, is it correct to become involved in it?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: At that stage, as you have mentioned correctly, Gilbert told me that he has already cleared this matter and I did not regard it as my duty to motivate these actions. It had been done according to Mr Gilbert.

A request was addressed to me through Mr Gilbert, just to provide the means to do this.

MR HUGO: I am putting it to you that your office was directly next to the Head of the Security Commander. Should you have wished to find out whether there was clearance, it was very easy to just go to the office next door and to say we are in the midst of the Harms Commission, this is an operation which will have very important implications, is it correct, should it be executed?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: First of all I want to put something right. I was not situated next to the Security Branch office, the Head of the Security Branch's office, I was on a different floor. Secondly as far as I could determine, clandestine operations had to be done on a need to know basis.

And if the Head, I don't know if I during the clearing of the situation, whether it was ever mentioned that I should be involved. Should it have been mentioned, I believed that if the Head of the Security did not clear this matter, if he deemed it necessary that I should know, he would have informed me himself.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, you are in the same building with the head office, your men are going to be used by somebody else, several kilometres away. What do you do to protect your men? Shouldn't you have cleared with the head office to make sure that your men are adequately protected to make sure that this has been cleared with head office as Mr Gilbert tells you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, I had no reason to doubt what Mr Gilbert had told me and while I was part of the Security Police and especially during that period we are referring to now, it was evident that we were operating in various compartment and we operated on a need to know basis. This is how I interpreted this situation.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, wasn't there such a basis for you before you could send or authorise your men to leave all the work from Pretoria to go to the Eastern Cape, wasn't there such a necessity for you, I am not talking about your juniors, for you, to know by way of confirming with head office?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not see it in that way.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo?

ADV POTGIETER: Just a moment. Mr Van Rensburg, not even the fact that it was for the first time conveyed to you to kill some of your colleagues, it was the first time you received such a request, even under such circumstances you deem it not correct to liaise with the Head of Security which was near you to obtain a degree of protection for your men?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

ADV POTGIETER: The Security Head, you are referring to need to know basis, the Head of Security was obviously a person who would have access to that kind of Intelligence and operations, isn't that true?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I don't understand specifically what you are saying, what do you mean by enjoy?

ADV POTGIETER: If you knew about it, he, the person in charge, should also have known about it, there is no reason why you wouldn't have approached him, because he did not know?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, this was not how I experienced this whole situation.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you consider talking to the Head of Security?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Not at all.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you think he should not know?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I accepted that he had knowledge.

ADV POTGIETER: So why are you not confirming this, especially under these special conditions, referring to the elimination of your colleagues. This is happening for the first time in your career?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As I saw it at that time, I believed that if he wanted to discuss this with me, it had to come from him.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

MR HUGO: Mr Van Rensburg, the fact that a colleague of yours phoned you from Port Elizabeth and asked you to assist him with such an operation, and then saying that they do not have the capacity to do this, did you not question this?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

MR HUGO: Let me put it to you like this, during the same period, there were various operations executed in the Eastern Cape which the Eastern Cape handled on its own and they had the capacity to do these type of operations on their own.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I don't know to which operations you are specifically referring to, but that was what Mr Gilbert told me. He said they did not have the means or the capacity to do this. What he specifically meant by that, I could not determine during our telephone conversation.

MR HUGO: But before you used your men for such a serious operation, why did you not ask him why didn't he do it with his men?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I accepted what he said.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that is a very good argument you know. I mean how would you expect them to try and use people that they work with, what if they survived the attack, and they would identify them and the like? There may be so many factors.

I don't think the fact that they didn't want to use their own people, I don't think it is terribly important. I don't know what point you are trying to make? Did you expect the members of the Security Branch in Port Elizabeth themselves to try and kill their own colleagues?

Wouldn't you expect them to go and get people from outside, to import people as it were, from other areas?

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, for the same argument, Mr Nieuwoudt was also involved with his own people, whom he was responsible for.

CHAIRPERSON: No well, to a certain extent somebody had to be involved, but I don't know what point you are trying to make. It doesn't surprise me that, in order to eliminate their own colleagues in PE, they went to some other town to get some other people and it wouldn't even surprise me if they went to Vlakplaas, because Vlakplaas was reputed to be a very good machinery.

MR HUGO: Yes, that was the case, that Vlakplaas was notorious and my client is going to testify that they used Vlakplaas to be the hyena of the Security Police and to solve problems where problems occurred.

ADV DE JAGER: I think that is common knowledge and it was for example Vlakplaas was called to murder people in Durban and that they were called to murder people in other places. Even, they went to Cape Town.

MR HUGO: What I am trying to say is from my client's position, is that that was the basis on which they operated and how they were instructed.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr Hugo, that is what Adv De Jager put to you earlier on before tea time, he said put your client's version to this witness and you would be surprised to find that the witness does not dispute your client's version.

You start first by cross-examining, spending a lot of time on concentrating on cross-examining the witness only to find that possibly in the end, after all, that is the common version. Shouldn't you rather concentrate on putting to the witness your client's version, let's see where he disagrees with you before we spend a lot of time on cross-examination?

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, there is one other aspect I would like to address and I wish to ask the applicant after this incident, did you contact Mr De Kock afterwards to determine how this operation went?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As far as I can remember, I think it was the day or the evening of the explosion, I can't remember precisely when, Mr De Kock came to my office and told me whether I had heard on the news that morning that that operation was successfully completed. He said something to this effect.

MR HUGO: And did you report back to your senior officers that this operation was successful?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I did not.

MR HUGO: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO: .

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will proceed with my questions in Afrikaans. Mr Van Rensburg ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You are Mr Rossouw, you appear for which applicant?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I am Mr Lamey. I appear for Mr Lionel Snyman. Mr Rossouw is my assistant.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (Interpreters cannot hear the speaker properly - own translation) Mr Van Rensburg, could I ask you this, when did you become the Commander of Vlakplaas?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, I am under the impression that it must have been 1 November 1981.

ADV DE JAGER: I think you said that in your affidavit.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, if somebody says it was a month earlier, I couldn't really be able to deny or dispute that, but that is how I remember it.

ADV DE JAGER: At the bottom of page 71 it says, I was promoted to the rank of Brigadier and in November 1989 the whole C Section was transferred to me. I want to ask you if things are already on record, please let us elicit information that is not yet on record and which you differ with so that we don't just repeat what we have already heard and what we have on record.

MR LAMEY: (Own translation) Mr Van Rensburg, that question was just introductory to the next question. The question that I would like to know is before you became the Commander of Vlakplaas, you worked closely together with Mr Nieuwoudt for a considerable time?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Nieuwoudt and I were in the Security Branch in Port Elizabeth.

MR LAMEY: And before you became the overall Commander, you were in Port Elizabeth, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, that is not correct.

MR LAMEY: When did you leave Port Elizabeth?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: At the end of 1987.

MR LAMEY: By virtue of your position as the overall Commander at Vlakplaas and the Security Branch at that stage, you gave the instruction and you were also aware of the security situation in the PE surroundings?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I took general cognisance of the situation.

MR LAMEY: Did you assume that Mr Gilbert as well as Mr Nieuwoudt, by virtue of their positions, were intimately familiar with the security situation in Port Elizabeth?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Most definitely yes.

MR LAMEY: By virtue of your position and the fact that you had previously worked with Mr Nieuwoudt in Port Elizabeth, and also with Brigadier Gilbert, did you in your knowledge of these people also pursue and accept that you would be able to trust the information that they gave you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR LAMEY: I want to ask you a further question, you have spoken about the need to know principle. Could you explain what that principle actually entails and whether it was a general principle in operation in the Security Police and also at Vlakplaas?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As I understood it and interpreted it, this principle meant that in the case of any information or operations or actions which had to be launched, you only informed the necessary people or involved them in the planning for an operation.

The information was only shared with the people who actually needed to know the relevant information. And that nobody else was supposed to know about it.

MR LAMEY: Do I understand your evidence correctly that the motive, the complete motive for the operation was sketched to Colonel De Kock?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes. In the broad terms in any event.

MR LAMEY: But the motive would have comprised more than just the eliminating of Security Branch members for a reason other than criminality?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, these reasons I have already referred to.

MR LAMEY: You would have foreseen that Colonel De Kock would have in turn given further orders to his Vlakplaas members in carrying out of this operation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Would it be normal practice for non-commissioned officer as a member of Vlakplaas, even for Colonel De Kock to, in respect of orders which as far as you were aware, came from Security head quarters, for these non-commissioner officers to question such orders from officers?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I didn't think that they would question these orders.

MR LAMEY: So that was not standard practice?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No. Not as far as I was aware.

MR LAMEY: Especially not by non-commissioned officers?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Would such junior non-commissioned officers receive orders, would they assume that the operation had been sanctioned by higher authority and that it would be an operation which had to be carried out in the national interest?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV JANSEN: As it pleases you Mr Chairperson, my surname is Jansen and I appear on behalf of applicant Ras. Mr Van Rensburg, Mr Ras says in his statement that on the morning, the morning that he went to Port Elizabeth, he was in your office with Mr De Kock, where this operation was briefly discussed. That seems to be different in your application. Can you comment on that at all?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, that is not the way it happened. As I already said on that day I wasn't in the office at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, where are you reading from? Sorry to interrupt. What page are you reading from?

ADV JANSEN: Oh, from the Ras application?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what page?

ADV JANSEN: Sorry Mr Chairman, you will just have to give me a moment. Page 257. At the bottom of 257, top of 258.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Are you referring to the very last sentence on 257?

ADV JANSEN: 257 Chairperson, where they were invited in.

ADV DE JAGER: And on the next page, if you continue he says he invited us in and De Kock mentioned to him that he would send me, Snor Vermeulen and Lionel Snyman to Port Elizabeth.

Van Rensburg then said good luck and see what you can do there and then I went back to my office.

ADV JANSEN: It is so that some of the Vlakplaas members also had office at head quarters at Wagtehuis, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I am not a hundred percent certain any more. As far as I can recall, there were one office which was at the disposal of Vlakplaas at head office, and if I remember correctly two ladies worked there and they did administrative functions.

ADV JANSEN: It was also practice of some of the Vlakplaas people, especially the commanding members, that they would in the morning first report to head office?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV JANSEN: Would you not at least want to concede that such a visit by Mr Ras along with Mr De Kock, that morning, is perhaps a possibility, one which you can just no longer remember?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, in my mind I am certain that it is not possible that it happened that way. That morning after Mr Nieuwoudt and Mr De Kock left my home, I left my home and I went to a security meeting at the Security Branch in Soweto.

ADV JANSEN: I am assuming that when you were appointed as the person in command of C Section in the Security Police, that you were briefed by your predecessor, Brigadier Schoon regarding the functioning of the office and the normal practice there?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV JANSEN: Not at all?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Not at all.

ADV JANSEN: Wouldn't it have been normal practice that he would have introduced you to the prominent people serving under him and people with whom you would have had regular contact?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I can't recall it like that. The previous Commanding Officer retired and that is simply how it was. He told me that I should speak to Mr De Kock because Mr De Kock knew everything and that he would brief me.

ADV JANSEN: In any event, you were at that stage aware that Vlakplaas was involved in the killing of people?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I have already said so.

ADV JANSEN: And that when Vlakplaas operated, they operated in groups?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV JANSEN: You were probably also aware of the fact that head office had certain technical capacities?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV JANSEN: And that these people were the people who manufactured the bombs and so on?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I can't say that. Or let me put it this way, I did have such a suspicion, but I never had contact with the technical section in connection with that kind of thing.

ADV JANSEN: Did you have very regular, virtual daily contact with Mr De Kock?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would say on a regular basis.

ADV JANSEN: How regularly did you visit the farm?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Not very regularly.

ADV JANSEN: Is it correct that Vlakplaas at that stage was quite a large Unit, there were about 100 plus people involved in the Unit?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I really couldn't give you a figure here, but I will accept that that could possibly have been the number involved.

ADV JANSEN: And as the Commander of this C1 Unit at that stage and a member of the Security Police, with a number of years experience, one would assume that when you either gave an order or essentially gave your permission that an operation be carried out, that all your instructions and orders would be followed?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV JANSEN: And is it also so that these covert operations did not proceed along the basis of any prescribed rules?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV JANSEN: Could one also make the statement that these things took place within the framework of a culture to which people had become used to, in other words a person wasn't approached at some point and told look, you are now going to become involved in covert operations and the rules are X, Y and Z? It is something to which a person became used to and systematically and gradually became involved in?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would concede that.

ADV JANSEN: And just as the conversations which took place between the people were sometimes very vague in a similar way, the instructions which sometimes were given to them, were riddled with certain assumptions?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It is a little bit difficult, I don't understand exactly what you mean.

ADV JANSEN: You would accept that a person in the position of Mr Ras, who was a Warrant Officer, would accept that Mr De Kock had informed you about certain operations if De Kock deemed it necessary?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV JANSEN: And De Kock would have assumed that you would then clear it with certain people if you thought it necessary?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV JANSEN: A person who becomes involved in an operation purely for operational purposes, would simply assume that the intelligence gathering in respect of the operation and the processing of it and the consideration of that information, that all these things had been done by the bodies responsible for those functions?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It is possible.

ADV JANSEN: Well, isn't it so that a person who becomes involved as an operator in an operation, has no choice but to accept all these other aspects as a given?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV JANSEN: Would it be correct to say that it would be very strange for a person in Mr Ras' position, to ask all kinds of questions which would indicate that he was possibly questioning the merits of the operation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Could you repeat that please.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Van Rensburg, I think what is being put to you is this, Mr Ras was a foot soldier. He would just accept that the orders given were properly given and that he has to just carry out his job, is that the position?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV JANSEN: And, that the only questions which could be expected of such a person, would be those questions which was essential for that person in the carrying out of that operation, or his part of it?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is what I would expect.

ADV JANSEN: And that this kind of approach of this particular person, would also be applicable in cases where it was clear that the order was actually illegal or illegitimate, in other words where people were to be killed as part of the operation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV JANSEN: It would also be true where members of the South African Police were killed on the basis that there could be a possible bridge of security, endangering the lives of informers?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV JANSEN: If you would just give me a few minutes Chairperson. No further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV JANSEN: .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Mr Chairman, Cornelius, I act on behalf of the applicant N.J. Vermeulen. Only one single aspect. General, we are assuming that this operation had been passed down along the lines, as put by Adv De Jager. What would happen if the non-commissioned officers did not carry out the order?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: In all my years in the Security Police, I was under the impression that a person was approached to carry out such an operation, if the person giving the orders or closest person giving the order, was of the view that that person could be trusted and was further of the view that that person would possibly carry out the order.

I was also always under the impression that there was always the understanding that those who didn't want to take part, were free not to do so.

MR CORNELIUS: But if an order came from a senior officer in this hierarchy, it would have been a serious offence if this junior officer disobeyed his senior officer?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: My understanding of such a situation to which we are now referring, is that a person always had a choice to refuse to take part in the operation.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Cornelius, is the position not such that if you received an illegitimate or unlawful order that you don't have to obey it?

MR CORNELIUS: I am now going to say to the General that the brief was given to all members and it is signed by all the top members in the hierarchy that all these members were given orders to carry out all instructions. I have an example and a copy thereof to hand in to the Commission.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: If there was such a written undertaking, then in my mind I would still have felt that I would argue it if I didn't agree with it and I would refuse if I didn't agree with it.

MR CORNELIUS: You are aware of the brief to which I am referring, which is normally signed by the Minister?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, yes, I know what a brief is.

MR CORNELIUS: And in this brief a mandate is given to subordinates to actually carry out orders?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: So, to put it lightly it would be not very wise not to carry out an instruction?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I think I want to return to what Mr De Jager said, or somebody said, that I was always of the view that if the order was unlawful, that you had the right to refuse.

MR CORNELIUS: But if a person had to be eliminated, so-called enemy of the State, was it then justified that such an order could be carried out?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is what I believed in my own personal convictions.

MR CORNELIUS: And if you as a member of the top power structure believed that, then junior people like Vermeulen and Snyman would ipso facto have assumed that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Rensburg, just to make a follow up to the question which was asked to you a short while ago. Where the person sought to be eliminated, is perceived to be a danger to the State and a member of the Security Branch is given instructions by his seniors to eliminate such a person, is the person so approached free to refuse to carry out those instructions?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That was what I believed.

CHAIRPERSON: With what consequences, if any?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, you are asking me a question I can't answer. I don't know what the consequences would have been.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you think would have been the consequences if any?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, with respect you are asking me to speculate. I am going to try and answer and I am going to say that he would probably have been transferred from that position and be replaced by a different person.

For example a person who was involved in the Security Branch would have been transferred to the uniformed branch or he would have been transferred to the administrative branch, but this is plain speculation from my side.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, in one case, and that is the reason why I am asking you, in one instance we were told that in fact the life of such a person could even be in danger because his very loyalty could be suspect? Do you think that is far fetched?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would not say it is totally far fetched, according to me it would depend on the extent or the scope of the instruction and the danger which it will have, if this person would discuss it with other people. I would not then discard this as completely far fetched.

CHAIRPERSON: What I am trying to convey to you is that with regard to junior people, such a person would find himself in a catch 22 situation, wouldn't he?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would not exclude that. I would not exclude that that the junior person could assume something like that.

CHAIRPERSON: And you know for that reason I fail to see what choice such a person had because you conveyed to us that such a person would have the choice to refuse to carry out such an instruction, I don't see how much choice such a person does have if any. Does he really have, I mean, does he have a real choice?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As you are putting it I agree. I have referred previously to my own perception. In operations in which I was involved, of which I can think quickly, I always assumed that if I approached somebody to assist me, if he refuses me, I am not going to put pressure on him and then sorry, it just had to be like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Should he refuse, will he be transferred to a different Section, what explanation would he give to his friends for this transfer?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, no, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: If he had to tell the truth, he would have to say they asked me to eliminate somebody and I refused.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That is no choice.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I don't know. I did not expect it and I have just stated what I thought could happen.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Van Rensburg, is the qualification that you would approach somebody who in all probability would accept this instruction?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: You would not approach somebody whom you know cannot be trusted, if I can put it in that way?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: You are exactly right.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: If we go further into this matter, the Security Police were carefully selected members?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Were the selected on the basis that they were people who would not hesitate to execute an instruction?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I can't say that.

ADV DE JAGER: But a person who was not very loyal would not have been selected as a Security Policeman?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct sir. That is how I perceived that.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION ADV JANSEN: Mr Chairman, sorry to interrupt, there was one aspect which I omitted to canvas with the witness. I don't know if I can ask your permission to do so at this stage? Thank you. Again, Mr Jansen on behalf of applicant Ras.

Mr Van Rensburg, covert operations were executed without written rules, is it correct to assume that covert operations entailed various different offences, destruction of property, assaulting people, eliminating people?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is a possibility.

ADV JANSEN: Is it correct to say that there was not really hard and fast rules on which level approval should be given for specific kinds of operations?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, there were no specific guidelines in this regard.

ADV JANSEN: To put it very specifically, there was no rule for example if it was something not so important, for example theft of a vehicle, but when it had to do with the elimination of a person, it should be cleared with the Head of Security?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: There were no hard and fast rules.

ADV JANSEN: There was a very big grey area if I could put it in that way, on precisely which level an operation had to be cleared?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV JANSEN: It is something where you in the Security Police used your own discretion?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is like that.

ADV JANSEN: And junior members of the Security Police was not able to evaluate precisely where that line was drawn?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That was a possibility, yes. That is an acceptable point of view.

ADV JANSEN: But you would not expect it from a person in Mr Ras' situation, that he had to query you whether you held the approval on your level or whether you had cleared it with the Commissioner of with the Head of the Security Police. You would not expect it from him to ask this type of questions?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I would not expect it from him.

ADV JANSEN: All that was expected of such a person was to know that this instruction came from the top structure?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KEMP: Mr Chairman, Kemp on behalf of the applicants Kok and Du Toit, one aspect. It arises from the question put by the Commission members. You were asked what you would have done if somebody did not carry out an instruction and you said that you were speculating.

Is it correct to say that after 20 years of service as a Security Policeman, you never experienced a situation with circumstances like this, where they refused to carry out an instruction?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: If I understand you correctly, you are referring to an instruction I gave?

MR KEMP: That is correct.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I can't think of any such a situation.

MR KEMP: And then the last aspect, is it not like that General, that within the Security Forces it was prestige, regarded as prestigious to become a member of the Security Police?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR KEMP: I thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KEMP: .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FORD: Thank you Mr Chairman, Ford on behalf of the families of two of the victims. Mr Van Rensburg, you will understand I am sure, that it is of great importance to families of the victims that they should understand why their husbands, why their fathers were murdered?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I understand.

ADV FORD: And if they are to understand it fully, there must of course be a complete disclosure of all the relevant facts and a disclosure of all the names of those involved in the decision which led to the murder of their kid, would you agree with that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I agree.

ADV FORD: Now, we are to understand your evidence before this Commission today, you admit readily to being involved in the execution of four members of, or four persons, in Port Elizabeth, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: Now, I wasn't here, but I understand from the reports in the media, that last week you admitted readily also to having been involved in the execution of two young men in the Eastern Cape, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: Now, you start off your application for indemnity Mr Van Rensburg, by telling this Commission that you grew up in a normal conservative South African home. My parents supported the National Party and held the leaders of that party in high regard. Our whole family was members of the Dutch Reformed Church.

Am I right, Mr Van Rensburg, that the impression which you seek to create, was that you were just a normal God fearing Afrikaans boy?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is not correct, that is not what I am saying here.

ADV FORD: What precisely are you saying then Mr Van Rensburg?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Precisely what is written here. My parents were supporters of the National Party, my whole family was members of the Dutch Reformed Church.

ADV FORD: Well, then let's take it step by step. Were you a God fearing Afrikaans boy, Mr Van Rensburg?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I believed in the way I was educated in my parents' home and in the church, I believed in God and that I should be obedient to that God, and to believe in Him.

ADV FORD: I see. In order that there should be some understanding by those who have lost their loved ones, can you tell this Commission what changes such a person into an executioner, a murderer?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: The onslaught during this time against the Republic of South Africa or against the State, the government of the day, and that in which I believed in my culture and I believed with my whole heart, that if a communist black government would take over the country in a violent way, there would be a time of anarchy and I could not accept or believe that such a black nationalism and white people would be able to live together.

And I believed the government of the day, and that what they were saying, that I believed in that and I did everything in my power to protect those interests.

ADV FORD: I see, Mr Van Rensburg, you are surely not suggesting that through your upbringing, through your involvement in the Afrikaner community, through your involvement with the Afrikaner church, that it was ever suggested to you that execution, murder, was an acceptable practice, the ends would justify the means or the means would justify the end, either way?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, never ever. I never expected that the church would tell me to kill people.

ADV FORD: Well, what was the revelation which came to you somewhere along your career Mr Van Rensburg, which enabled you to take unto yourself the right to kill people?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I think I have already answered that question, but I want to add. According to my perception, this unlawful attacks by the liberation organisations, during which innocent people were killed, this led to the perception that you can't just fold your hands, you had to do something to fight against this people.

ADV FORD: Would you agree with me Mr Van Rensburg, that the assumption of the right to kill your fellow man, is something which shouldn't come out of perceptions, it would more likely come out of direct orders?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes. I don't understand exactly what you are saying.

ADV FORD: What I am asking Mr Van Rensburg is, did you decide that you had the right to kill and to order the killing of your fellow man because of your perceptions, or because somebody told you somewhere along the line, you have the right to do it?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: My convictions to combat this revolutionary onslaught and together with this, statements which were made by certain politicians, pressure from head office for results.

ADV FORD: You were a policeman, you were a policeman for many years, your duty was to maintain law and order, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: To in fact, bring criminals to justice, not to yourself participate in criminal activities?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: And through these perceptions of yours, you were able to make the step from maintaining law and order to criminal activity, just through these perceptions?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As I have already said, during that time, during those circumstances, I believed that this was the correct way to combat this total onslaught.

ADV FORD: Were you ever a member of Koevoet Mr Van Rensburg?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV FORD: Were you ever involved in military action outside the country?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV FORD: So your conditioning, your perceptions did not arise out of an exposure to killing in a war situation or a military situation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV FORD: Now, you have testified and it is contained in your application, that you were second in command if I understood your evidence, of the Security Branch here in Port Elizabeth, was that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, for a short while.

ADV FORD: And your senior if I understood it was Brigadier Gilbert?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: First it was Mr Snyman and then Mr Gilbert.

ADV FORD: When you were here in Port Elizabeth, have you already formed these perceptions that you had an entitlement to kill and to order killings?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: And who did you go to Mr Van Rensburg, when you wanted to kill somebody, who did you go and get authority from?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Sir, in the instances in which I was involved in in Port Elizabeth, I did apply for amnesty and in those circumstances, my direct head, in other words the Divisional Commander of the Security Branch gave me instructions.

ADV FORD: Well, can we know his name?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Well, there was General Erasmus.

ADV FORD: Was he the only one?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: There was also Mr Snyman to such a degree where we did cooperate in a certain instance.

ADV FORD: Now, if you were transferred to a very senior position in the Security Branch in Pretoria, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: Did you expect people to come to you looking for authority to kill?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I am not certain. I did not really expect it, but it could have happened. It would not have been strange.

ADV FORD: Well, I fail to see why you didn't expect it, you yourself had gone to senior persons in the Security Branch, in order for authority to kill, why should it have been different for others? You were now a senior person in the Security Branch?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, as I have said it is possible that people could have approached me.

ADV FORD: I apologise, are you finished?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: Now, Mr Van Rensburg, we know that both from your application and the application of Mr Nieuwoudt, the suggestion is that Brigadier Gilbert got the okay, as it were. Is my understanding correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: And Brigadier Gilbert is no longer here to tell us exactly how that happened?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: Well, then I am sure you can be of some assistance to this Commission Mr Van Rensburg, because he was applying for authority from the same place where you had been some short while before. Who would he have gone to specifically to ask for such authority?

ADV BOOYENS: With respect, I don't think that is quite what the witness said Mr Chairman. He stated he was never Commanding Officer of the Security Branch here. I am not sure what my learned friend is getting at, but if the question is intended to suggest that he was in a position to ask for authority, he was never the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch whereas Gilbert was.

Perhaps if my learned friend could just clarify the question, then one can understand what he wants.

ADV FORD: I will happily do so Mr Chairman. Mr Van Rensburg, I asked you if when you were in the Eastern Cape, you ever asked for authority to kill, do you recall that question?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is right.

ADV FORD: And you answered that question, did you not?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: Well, the question which I am now asking you follows from that question Mr Van Rensburg.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: You knew who to go to when you were here, surely you must know who Brigadier Gilbert would have gone to to seek the same authority?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Sir, when I was in the Eastern Cape in Port Elizabeth, I approached my Divisional Commanding Officer and that time I trusted him to approach him with such a plan.

ADV FORD: All right, well let's approach it from a different angle Mr Van Rensburg. As a senior official officer in the Security Branch in Pretoria, you would have been aware that such requests were being made from time to time presumably? Authority for killing?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: Who would those requests have been directed to?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would assume that it would have been directed towards the Head of the Security Branch.

ADV FORD: But now surely Mr Van Rensburg, you can be more helpful than that. Surely you would have been aware in your position in the Security Branch, you would have known precisely who would it be going to, who would be approached for this authority?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that now with reference to the Port Elizabeth or the Eastern Cape area?

ADV FORD: Anybody, anybody Mr Chairman, who was seeking the right to kill, to launch an operation to kill somebody.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I didn't know exactly who the person was to be approached, but I assumed that it was the Chief of the Security Branch.

ADV FORD: I see. We have heard through the questions which have already been asked, that there were any number of operations in which Vlakplaas was involved?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you leave this aspect, I am not sure I am clear in my mind, what the answer to the question is. The question as to whom would the witness expect Mr Gilbert to have cleared, to have consulted or got authority from, I am not quite sure whether that is clear to me.

ADV FORD: Shall I ask the witness to clear it up then Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Please will you?

ADV FORD: Thank you Mr Chairman. Can you clear it up Mr Van Rensburg, who precisely, you have heard the Chairman's problem?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I am not clear what the problem is.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you were asked, well you were told that Mr Gilbert is not here any more, he has since passed away and we don't know from whom he would have cleared the authority, or obtained the authority to come and approach you in Pretoria and so on and so forth, we don't know that. We know though that you yourself had for some time worked in Port Elizabeth area, you knew the structures and we also know that you are in Pretoria at the time when the instructions were given in respect of this particular operation, now the question flowing from there is, given your knowledge of the situation, who do you expect would have authorised Gilbert to proceed with this operation or who do you think would have given him the authority to proceed with this operation? Or who do you think Gilbert would have first discussed it with before he came to you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I thought that that would be the Chief of the Security Branch.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was that person at the time?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It was General Smit.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Van Rensburg, you obtained similar leave whilst in the Eastern Cape and you said you got it from General Erasmus?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: There has been evidence that General Erasmus did not get authorization from above, he took that decision and he assumed the responsibility to make that decision?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, what was General Erasmus' position in the Eastern Cape at that stage?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: He was the Divisional Commander of the Security Branch at that stage.

ADV DE JAGER: And as Divisional Commander he did not go and request authority from higher up, he made the decision himself?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, as far as Gilbert was concerned, what was his position, what was his rank in the Eastern Cape?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Exactly the same as that which General Erasmus held, he was the Divisional Commander of the Security Branch.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, if Erasmus did not need to obtain authorization higher up, why should Gilbert had that need?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I can't tell you. Perhaps Gilbert felt that he wanted to clear it at a higher level, that is the only inference that I can draw.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we ask you this questions which may not be fair at all, did Gilbert, I am not so sure, did Gilbert say to you that he had cleared it up with higher authorities?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, he said that he had been given the okay from above.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then the questions are fair.

ADV FORD: Mr Chairman, I see it is one o'clock, is that the time to adjourn?

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until two o'clock. I have been approached to ask members of the public who are using the headphones to please leave them, don't take them away, because they need to be recharged time and again. Please leave them in the hall. Yes, leave them on the chair where you are now, you will come back and use them when you come back, but they must now be left in the hall. The same thing should happen later, when we adjourn at four o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ford?

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV FORD: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Rensburg, just to finish off the aspect of the right to kill. You as a Security Policeman, I am sure have read much of the literature which is available dealing with counter insurgency and the like, is that a correct assumption I make?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I have read some of it.

ADV FORD: And would it be a correct statement for me to make that in most if not all the literature available, all are agreed that the elimination, the assassination of individuals is an absolute final resort?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: And if that is so in regard of members of the community, surely it would apply equally if not more so to your colleagues?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: Now, when you were involved in Port Elizabeth here in the Security Branch Mr Van Rensburg, did you know any of the victims Mr Mgoduka, Mr Faku, Mr Mapipa or Mr Jack?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I however don't, I can't recall Mr Mapipa. He could have been here but I can't place him, but the others, yes.

ADV FORD: And specifically Mr Mgoduka and Mr Faku presumably had worked in the Security Branch for some time, and were well-known Security Branch members, would you agree with that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I agree.

ADV FORD: And you personally had never had any problems with them I assume before you left?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, not personally.

ADV FORD: Well, let me ask you were you aware of any problems in so far as their loyalty as policemen were concerned before you left?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I wasn't.

ADV FORD: And presumably a second in command in the Security Branch in Port Elizabeth, had there been any such problems with their loyalty, their affiliations, you would have been aware of it?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I think so. I should have.

ADV FORD: Now, you have told this Commission in answer to some of the questions that have already been asked, that it was and is logically expected of a junior officer or even member of the Police Force, to obey an order when it is given to him?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV FORD: And you as a senior officer, were responsible for giving many orders?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: And certain of those orders, if we are to understand your evidence related to illegal, illegitimate acts, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Correct.

ADV FORD: And presumably you would have understood and expected that your junior officers would be relying upon you to ensure that orders which you gave them, be they legitimate or illegitimate in the overall context, were orders which were necessary and justified in the circumstances?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: And did you fulfil that duty Mr Van Rensburg, when you gave orders?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As far as I thought it was justifiable.

ADV FORD: Now, if, as you have already said, the elimination of individuals, the assassination of people and more particularly your colleagues, was it an absolute last resort presumably in no circumstances you would have considered it your duty to conduct extensive investigations to ensure that it was justified and necessary?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: Did you do that Mr Van Rensburg?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I didn't do it myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Ford. When you are asking whether he did that, are you asking a general question or are you asking in respect of this particular incident?

ADV FORD: This particular incident, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Because perhaps you need to indicate to the witness when you move from the general perspective onto a particular case, because at some stage I get the impression that it is not very clear as to whether you are still asking questions on a general level or whether you are asking questions in respect of a particular case.

ADV FORD: I am sorry Mr Chairman, I will specify. Mr Van Rensburg, you have already said this was the only, the first time and if I understood you, the only time that you were ever required to participate in the execution of your colleagues, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: So this is the instance I am talking about. Did you conduct investigations in regard to this incident?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I didn't do any investigation personally.

ADV FORD: Why not?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Because I wasn't in a position to make enquiries and launch investigations. The people on the ground were responsible for doing that and Mr Gilbert reported to me that he had cleared the matter with head quarters and I accepted it like that.

ADV FORD: Brigadier Gilbert was not responsible for any of the operatives at Vlakplaas, was he?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV FORD: That was your responsibility?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: And you gave orders to those operatives in respect of this incident, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I gave Mr De Kock an order.

ADV FORD: Well, then I put to you Mr Van Rensburg, that it was your duty to ascertain that what you were ordering them to do, was necessary, justified and the only possible alternative in the circumstances.

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, we discussed it in those terms in my house and the assurance was given to me that there was a proper investigation beforehand, and that there was no other option.

ADV FORD: I see. Now, you in your affidavit, page 3 of your affidavit, you say I was in charge of a Unit which conducted all security investigations in the RSA and coordinated all these investigations and also administered all the detentions in terms of the security legislation. Is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: You were well aware of the legislation available in so far as the detention of so-called enemies of the State at the time, was concerned, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: You were aware of the prohibition in respect of communication with legal representatives of such persons?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

ADV FORD: They couldn't communicate with members of their family?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: In fact their capacity for conveying information to the outside world, was extremely limited if it existed at all, do you agree with that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it was limited.

ADV FORD: So is it fair then to say Mr Van Rensburg, that if someone was in possession of information which you did not want conveyed to the outside world, detention was a reasonable and a viable alternative?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I wouldn't say that it was a hundred percent guarantee. There were many cases in which people who were detained, were able to smuggle information out to the outside world.

ADV FORD: So you were looking for a hundred percent guarantee?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, in certain circumstances, definitely. In certain cases.

ADV FORD: On how many occasions did Brigadier Gilbert phone you in respect of this incident?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Only on this one occasion.

ADV FORD: He phoned you on one occasion and approximately how long would you say that telephone conversation lasted?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I am not exactly sure, it could have been a minute or two minutes, perhaps three.

ADV FORD: Have you conveyed in your written application as we see it in the evidence you have given, everything which took place between you and Brigadier Gilbert, all the information that was conveyed to you in that conversation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As far as I can remember, yes.

ADV FORD: And what was the, in your mind, what was the most important factor that justified or that Brigadier Gilbert gave you, which justified the preparation for the execution of these persons?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: As I put it that the black members were starting to work with friends, and that the situation created great problems. That made me realise that these people could cause a great deal of damage if that happened, that they could convey information, they could expose a lot of things.

ADV FORD: Did he give you any detail as to the great problems he spoke of?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, he didn't.

ADV FORD: Did he give you any indication of the time period over which these members of the, your colleagues had been monitored in order to ascertain whether they were in fact doing what he said they were doing?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: He told me that it was extremely urgent, but he didn't elaborate further.

ADV FORD: And you didn't enquire any further as to precisely what investigations had been conducted?

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

ADV FORD: Now, the request as I understand it from your evidence Mr Van Rensburg, was that members from Vlakplaas who fell directly under you, were to be utilised in this operation for the execution of these persons, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: There was no mention of specific people, it was just Vlakplaas that was mentioned. The request was for Vlakplaas to assist.

ADV FORD: Yes, it was quite clear that members falling directly under you were going to be required to participate in this operation and you were going to have to give those orders?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: As the Head in charge, Head of Security, in charge in overall control of Vlakplaas as such, you were the logical person to go to, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: And presumably in other operations emanating from Vlakplaas, where other operations of a similar nature were conducted, you would also have been the person to whom your operatives from Vlakplaas would go to seek authority, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes. That is what I would expect.

ADV FORD: And if I understand your evidence, the authority for the execution for the elimination of persons, was not likely given, it was something which was considered at high level and considered seriously before authority was given?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: Is the effect of your evidence then that from the time you were in charge of Vlakplaas all operations which took place from Vlakplaas, would have been authorised by yourself?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, any activities wherein Vlakplaas would be involved. That is how I understood it.

ADV FORD: Now, by the end of this conversation with Brigadier Gilbert, you were under no misapprehension or certainly you had formed the clear perception that what was required was an operation in which persons, colleagues, were to be killed, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that was the impression which I had.

ADV FORD: And if I understand your evidence, because of the fact that it was on an open telephone line, you didn't make further enquiries at that stage?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: Now, when Mr Nieuwoudt, if we could just get the sequence of events quite clearly, precisely when was it that Mr Nieuwoudt came to see you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: It was that morning. I am not sure of the date, but Mr Gilbert phoned me and it was the next morning, six o'clock.

ADV FORD: I see, and how long was this before the actual incident, the placing of the bomb and the explosion which took place?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I have nothing in writing, but if I can remember correctly, it was two or three days.

ADV FORD: Is there something in this regard in writing, Mr Van Rensburg? Did you make notes of this conversation?

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

ADV FORD: I see, there is nothing in writing which you can refer to to ascertain precisely when this occurred?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV FORD: Now, in the light of the fact that you were to give the specific order to your operatives to participate in this operation, did you not feel it appropriate to also consult with the higher authority which Brigadier Gilbert had consulted with in order to confirm the order in this regard?

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

ADV FORD: Once again, I ask you why? Why not?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I think I have already answered that question, but as I've said in my previous answer I remember correctly, I didn't deem it necessary because Gilbert was my senior. He got clearance for this operation and as a result of the need to know basis on which we operated, I didn't think that it was necessary.

ADV FORD: Now, do I understand your evidence that Mr Nieuwoudt arrived alone at your house?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: And precisely what did he tell you Mr Van Rensburg?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Sir, he told me of the black members of the Security Branch in Port Elizabeth were recruited by the ANC and had very sensitive information at their disposal which could be passed on to the ANC and as a result of that, the lives of certain members of the Branch were in danger and the lives of certain informers were endangered as a result. These members had already been tasked by the ANC to attach a limpet mine to a Security Branch vehicle to demonstrate solidarity with the ANC.

He further told me that some of the members had become involved in the elimination of Goniwe, Galatha, Mkonto and Mslawuli. And that they were at the point of making known to the ANC the names of other members involved.

ADV FORD: You read that from your application, do you have an independent recall of the conversation which you had with Mr Nieuwoudt?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: More or less that.

ADV FORD: Is that all he told you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

ADV FORD: What was the issue of fraud which arose?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That was something which Mr Gilbert mentioned to me on the phone.

ADV FORD: Did you discuss that at all with Mr Nieuwoudt?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV FORD: Why not?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That wasn't important in my view, as far as the elimination of these people was concerned.

ADV FORD: 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?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That could be the case.

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

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV FORD: Why not?

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

ADV FORD: 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?

MR 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.

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

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

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

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

ADV FORD: 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?

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

ADV FORD: Does it occur to you now as a possibility?

MR 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.

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: yes, I did.

ADV POTGIETER: Were you given the names?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

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

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

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

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

MR 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?

MR 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.

ADV FORD: 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?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

ADV FORD: 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?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I deny that.

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

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

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

MR 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.

ADV FORD: 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?

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

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

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

ADV FORD: And according to Nieuwoudt?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Nieuwoudt talked about four people.

ADV FORD: You see in this Mr De Kock also disagrees, according to his application. He says there were two persons and an informant, if my memory once again, serves me correctly. Is he wrong?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I would say he is wrong.

ADV FORD: Are you sure he is wrong, or might you be mistaken?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, Mr Nieuwoudt mentioned four people when I asked him.

ADV FORD: Sorry, are you finished?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: You see if Mr De Kock is right, and that is his evidence, the possibility seems to arise that one of the unfortunate four in the car that was blown up, was there purely by chance, that only three persons were mentioned when the operation was discussed in your office, is that a possibility?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, Mr Nieuwoudt gave four persons names to me and the one I know, three of them I could place, the other one I did not know. I did not know whether he came there after my time or not, I could not place him.

ADV FORD: Now, in your discussions with Mr Nieuwoudt, did you put the alternatives to him, the possibility of detaining these persons?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not mention it to him.

ADV FORD: Why not?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Because according to him and according to what I have accepted, it had already been cleared.

ADV FORD: Well, did Mr Nieuwoudt tell you how long these colleagues had been under observation, how long they had been suspected of complicity?

ADV DE JAGER: Before the interval, I thought that it became clear that juniors wouldn't query instructions from the seniors? That it was in fact dangerous to do so, and in this case, we've got the position, he has repeatedly said so, that Gilbert was his senior. He got the instructions from a senior and if he would have applied between other juniors and seniors, why shouldn't it apply in this case too?

ADV FORD: Are you asking me, Mr De Jager?

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, because you are putting the questions on that basis, why didn't you go over the head of Gilbert and investigate?

ADV FORD: Commissioner, I thought there could at the very least be some distinction between the foot soldier, if one can call it the foot policeman in the street taking orders from his Commanding Officer and two Generals, a Brigadier and a General consulting with each other about an incident of this importance, I thought there might be some distinction.

ADV BOOYENS: I don't think at this time, this witness was a General already, I think he was a Brigadier himself.

ADV FORD: May I then say two Brigadiers consulting about a matter of such importance, would you have felt afraid to question your order of Brigadier Gilbert, Mr Van Rensburg?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: To question Brigadier Gilbert's instruction, no I did not question what he said.

ADV FORD: That wasn't the question. The question was would you have been afraid to do so?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I would not have been afraid to do that.

ADV FORD: Why didn't you then?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: We were busy with a telephone conversation and it was clear from what Brigadier Gilbert had said, that he did not want to discuss the matter any further over the telephone.

ADV FORD: So you were going to satisfy yourself with the information you received from Nieuwoudt, is that right?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, because I believed that it was cleared with Brigadier Gilbert and that he gave permission.

ADV FORD: And we have already ascertained, it has been your evidence, that you were going to give the orders in respect of your men, not Brigadier Gilbert. The buck stopped with you, if I could use that phrase in respect of your men from Vlakplaas?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: And your men, as we have already ascertained, were relying on you to make an educated decision in so far as those orders were concerned?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: Then why didn't you consider the alternatives, why didn't you investigate them with Mr Nieuwoudt, I am not sure what his rank was at the time? The alternative of detention?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not sir because I have already answered this question, I did not do that because I believed that Mr Gilbert had cleared this matter and he cleared this matter at head quarters, and that they had discussed these aspects already.

ADV FORD: Now, as has happened Mr Van Rensburg, because you are sitting here today, as this happened things went wrong, if I can use that phrase as far as you were concerned, because now you are before this Committee for Amnesty for your involvement for this matter. Did you not think that you needed to cover your back as it were, to go to higher authority yourself?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not. I was under the impression that I was going to take the responsibility, and I did just that.

ADV FORD: I am not sure if I asked the question, if you answered it, I am sorry if I am repeating it, but were you aware how long these people had been under observation, the victims?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't know.

ADV FORD: And you made no attempt to ascertain that?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

ADV FORD: You made no attempt to ascertain the extent of their communication with the ANC or the allegations in that regard?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I heard from Mr Nieuwoudt that there were certain informers and there was surveillance and such things.

ADV FORD: Well, if the portion you read earlier on, is anything to go by, the allegations must have been that there were substantial contact with the ANC by these members before then. They had received orders to place a limpet mine under a Security vehicle, there was the possibility of information being conveyed with relation to the murders of Messrs Goniwe and the others, so you must have been aware there was a substantial amount of communication with the ANC according to the information?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, according to what I have been told, yes.

ADV FORD: And one of the primary reasons for the murder of these four persons was that they should not cause this disastrous release of information with regard to the safe houses, with regard to the identity of the informants and the like, did I understand your evidence correctly?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV FORD: And you are looking for a hundred percent guarantee in so far as their silencing was concerned?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is what I believed.

ADV FORD: What was there to suggest that they hadn't conveyed to the ANC everything that they knew, already and the ANC was just waiting for the best opportunity to use it?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I don't know. I can't answer that question.

ADV FORD: Well, did you try to investigate it Mr Van Rensburg?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, not personally.

ADV FORD: Did you even ask Nieuwoudt about it, that possibility that you are closing after the horse is bolted, what point is there in killing these persons, they must have given all the information away already?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I don't know how much information has been already been conveyed to the ANC. There was also the question of the limpet mine which I accept could have happened at any time. That was how it happened.

ADV FORD: That is not an answer to my question, my question is did you canvass this with Mr Nieuwoudt?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

ADV FORD: Well, on the premise which you have already told this Commission, that the murder of persons was the last possible alternative, why didn't you?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I have already told you that according to what had been told to me is that this aspect had already been cleared on a higher level.

ADV FORD: 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?

MR 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.

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

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV FORD: Did that happen in this instance?

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

ADV FORD: Was that all that you expected?

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

ADV FORD: No written record?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No.

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

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

ADV FORD: 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?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

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

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

ADV FORD: 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?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: I see that, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: What about that fact?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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.

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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?

MR 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.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van Rensburg, I think for clarity sake I want you, there is confusion about how this command structure worked. You were never Commander in the Eastern Cape, you were second in command. If you gave authorization for an operation in the Eastern Cape, you could not go any higher than your Divisional Commander is that correct?

But Divisional Commander of a region were it Eastern Cape or another region, if they wanted to clear something, where should they clear that out or from whom should the instruction come, would that be the Head of the Security Police, and you were on a side function, is that correct?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Regarding this specific operation, the approval in principle for the elimination of these persons, did you have anything to do with the principle that these people should be eliminated or did this come from Gilbert?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: The instruction which you gave, let's put it in this way regarding the technical execution of this operation?

MR JANSE VAN RENSBURG: Yes, we can put it in that way.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have finished Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van Rensburg, you are excused.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I want to tell the Commission something which I think can be relevant in the further procedures. Sorry Mr Chairman, during the long adjournment I spoke to Mr Nieuwoudt and he told me that he is feeling a lot better and would probably be ready to testify tomorrow.

I have arranged to see him at four o'clock and if I am satisfied and according to what his Doctor tells me that he is ready to proceed with his evidence tomorrow, he will be ready to proceed tomorrow.

The reason why I mention this, I believe that because this begins and starts with Nieuwoudt, he would have been the logical first witness and once his evidence has been heard, in all probability would substantially shorted the evidence of all the other applicants in this regard as well.

I thought I would mention that for the convenience of the Commission and for the information of my colleagues in this matter. I know we will lose an hour, but we will probably lose more than an hour I would guess that if, for example one of my colleagues is to lead one of his applicants now and lead them substantially in detail, which will have to be covered by, which they will cover with secondary evidence, whereas Nieuwoudt in fact could cover it with the original evidence as to investigations and that type of thing.

I just mention that for the convenience of the Commission, Mr Chairman, and for the convenience of my colleagues.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we are afraid, we feel we must proceed because we need to finish this application and I think that we should proceed with one of the applicants and it must be, one of you must decide to call his client and if nobody does, we will direct that such and such a person be called. We wouldn't like to do that, but we operate on the basis that everybody, when you all came here this morning, everyone was prepared to proceed with the matter.

And Mr Booyens, you appear for both, you appeared for Mr Van Rensburg, you are also appearing for Mr Nieuwoudt?

ADV BOOYENS: That is correct Mr Chairman. And I also appear for Mr Lotz and I don't mind, I can call Mr Lotz, but I must mention that this will be a very good example of, that is one of the witnesses that will certainly, to call him before Nieuwoudt, there are certainly others who could then be called before Nieuwoudt.

To call him before Nieuwoudt would be a complete, will lead to a lot of wasted time, for the simple reason all that Lotz will tell you is I didn't even know about the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Lotz was based in Pretoria, was he not?

ADV BOOYENS: No, no, no, Lotz was the one who was based here that drove the explosive loaded motor car just to a point and left it there and heard subsequently of the big bang that had occurred.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think you must have obviously consulted with all of your clients and there is no conflict, otherwise you wouldn't be appearing for all of them. And having consulted with all of them, you would know what to reserve for, or leave out for Nieuwoudt or what should be canvassed by Van Rensburg, and for that reason I think you are an appropriate candidate now to proceed. You would be able to know how to lead Mr Lotz, because you have consulted with all of them.

You know what to leave out for Mr Nieuwoudt to come and clear up later on, or cover later.

ADV BOOYENS: I will know it, my colleagues who must cross-examine won't know it, that is my problem. It is the Commission's time, it is not my time, I am prepared to call Lotz now.

CHAIRPERSON: I think let's go ahead, let's see what happens. We will try to handle the situation as we go along.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, certainly.

WITNESS EXCUSED