Amnesty Hearings

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, has the witness been sworn?

CHAIRPERSON: No, not yet.

NICK VAN RENSBURG: (s.u.o.)

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I ask for leave to put in as Exhibit BB a recording of a conversation between the late Mr Matthew Goniwe and Thembile Lumko on the 23rd of the sixth '85.

Have you got a copy of it General van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You will see that this a report from Cradock to, I assume Port Elizabeth made by Major Winter. Do you see that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I see it.

MR BIZOS: And is this the format in terms of which the security police in Port Elizabeth would have been informed of any significant information relating to Mr Goniwe's activities?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it is part of that.

MR BIZOS: Did you receive many such documents from Cradock reporting on Mr Goniwe's activities?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Sir.

MR BIZOS: Do you remember this one?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I can't remember that specifically.

MR BIZOS: But this in the ordinary course of events would have come to your offices, you were the person for receiving the communications and classifying them and putting them into place, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: And in all probability this came to you shortly before Mr Goniwe's death?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, it might be possible.

MR BIZOS: Including very many other documents of a similar nature, as to what was happening between Mr Goniwe and other people.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It is possible or it's probable yes.

MR BIZOS: You know General, the Committee's function is to try and find facts. We all know that there are possibilities, all sorts of possibilities, try and give an honest answer other than "dit is moontlik" because I'm going to suggest to you that it is not helpful.

Do you remember whether or not an important message relating to Mr Goniwe's attitude to violence came to you shortly before you authorised or took part in the - his execution?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can't remember that today.

MR BIZOS: But now, if on this question of life and death this - attention was paid to this particular bit of evidence taken on it's face value, would you agree that Mr Goniwe advises this young man not to indulge in acts of violence?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I agree with that.

MR BIZOS: Well, if you've got a young man that is prepared to attack the police and take a gun away from them and you have a leader of the UDF saying to him: "Hey man, you'll be shot there by the police. I don't know what advice to give you but as I say, you are busy with a difficult battle which you will not win" - that is surely the battle of attacking the police, "what you can do try and restore peace there".

This is a dangerous revolutionary advising a young person who had behaved in a violent manner. Was this taken into consideration before putting the decision, to put him to death, into operation?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I can't remember that. I can't remember whether I had taken that into consideration. I can't remember that specific incident.

MR BIZOS: Can we assume that if Mr Winter reported this he would also have reported that in his very town Cradock, earlier in the month or earlier in May/June, there were serious negotiations about re-appointing Mr Goniwe?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I've read something like that and I've already said on Friday that there was a document containing my signature that there was a meeting like that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. So you now recall that there was definite information transmitted to the security police in Port Elizabeth that there were serious negotiations at a high level from the Department of Education with Mr Goniwe about his reinstatement?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And that Mr Goniwe - I beg your pardon, Mr Winter was being consulted about it, that he was party to these negotiations as to what the effect on the peace and security of the people of Cradock would be if Goniwe was re-appointed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. Are you referring to that document, I agree.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, this document BB seems to be a report of something which happened on the 23rd of June 1985, it was sent out the day afterwards as it seems to me. And it came E.F.N. Winter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was directed: Division Eastern Cape Security Branch, Divisional Commander.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Who would have received this document?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I could have received this document, Mr Snyman could have received it, somebody else could have received the document.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking the question Mr van Rensburg, in the light of your evidence right in the beginning left the impression with me that resorting under your certain tasks was accepting these type of documents and despatching them to head office.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. The most of these documents I would have certainly received. I would have booked them out to the various sections and possibly they commented on that, perhaps they had other facts to their disposal and added those and I would have sent that to headquarters then.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this document discussed in your office?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I really can't remember, if I could remember that I would have admitted that.

CHAIRPERSON: But what can we find then? Was it discussed or not? It was sent to the Division Eastern Province Security Head Office to the Divisional Commander.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can only speculate that it would probably have been discussed. I can't remember who participated in that discussion. If I remember distinctly about this document or this incident I would say "yes" but I cannot say "yes" if I am not sure about my facts and if I can't remember that exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: According to your evidence there is one other alternative, that this document was hidden away.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, no, I can't accept that, I can't believe that.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Bizos, excuse me - for interrupting please.

Mr van Rensburg, the information as you see it here regarding Goniwe, does that coincide with the image you have of Goniwe or is this surprising, this evidence saying that what you should do is to maintain peace?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, we can speculate about what Mr Goniwe is saying. He could say certain things over the telephone and for tactical reasons meaning something else but it's only speculation.

I would not say that this is a very dramatic surprise for me because as I've said I don't know because in the games we played during that time there was surveillance and tapping of phones and you can't know what the person exactly meant. I can't speculate, I can't say what he said he did not mean.

ADV BOSMAN: We are referring to speculation. Should you have discussed this information and you could remember this, would this be your reaction saying this, that games were being played?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It's a possibility yes, that it could be interpreted like that. It's one possibility, I'm not saying it's a fact.

ADV BOSMAN: What is the other alternative Mr van Rensburg?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, as I've said sometimes it wasn't applicable to have open confrontation with the police and I can't always say exactly what the motives were for some actions, I can't say with any certainty.

MR BIZOS: Will you accept as a fact that either you or Mr Snyman must have seen this document?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, yes.

MR BIZOS: Would you agree that taken on face value this document is or what Mr Goniwe is recorded as having said in this document, is inconsistent with his support for Kangaroo Courts?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Once again I can only speculate about it. [No English translation - transcriber's own translation]

MR BIZOS: No, no, just a moment please. You exercised the decision to put a man to death.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: On the grounds that he supported violence.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: I'm not asking you ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, actually the perception of the security police was ...[indistinct] he caused it.

MR BIZOS: That he caused it, yes. Not only that he supported it, that he caused it. On the face of this document not only would he not cause it but he was advising a young person not to start a struggle that he could not finish and he must go and restore peace. Is that consistent or inconsistent with what you say you believed Mr Goniwe to be doing?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, this is not inconsistent, I agree with what is written here.

MR BIZOS: Yes. I think the Afrikaans word is "onversoenbaar".

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Which is a word which I like. Yes. So we have this inconsistent document, why did you and Mr Snyman allow your underlings to kill Mr Goniwe four days later, once there was a document which negatived your perception of what Mr Goniwe stood for?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman with respect, the witnesses evidence this far is that he says he can't remember this document that's surely the logical jump that he specifically allowed it goes a bit further and to expect him to answer for Mr Snyman is certainly not fair, Mr Snyman is not here.

MR BIZOS: That may be an unfortunate fact for the time being General, but you told us that either you or Mr Snyman must have had this document.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, what would you have done had you seen this document then?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, as I've already said, what is written in this document could have various purposes why it was written like this. Number two, there was a lot of other information regarding Goniwe's activities apart from this piece of information and that convinced us that he held a serious threat for the dispensation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, are you saying then - I want to be as fair as possible as I can be to you, are you saying you would not have changed your mind about him despite the contents of this document?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't think so.

MR BIZOS: Incidentally Mr Chairman, could you remark it CC because we split up the previous into AA and BB so this would be CC.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed then, which should be AA and which should be BB?

MR BIZOS: AA is the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Hand-written one?

MR BIZOS: The hand-written one is AA and the enclosure, the annexure is BB Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR BIZOS: Now where is all this information that came in to you, what happened to all the information showing the contrary of that contained on CC?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I don't know where those documents are today.

MR BIZOS: Well we've heard that three files were destroyed, now who was in charge of the documents in Port Elizabeth?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I don't know. I think there was a Warrant Officer Wilken in charge of this room where all these files were kept, that is the only person I could remember who was in charge of these files.

MR BIZOS: On whose behalf was it, could he do whatever he wants with them or would he have to go to either you or Mr Snyman or both before he could destroy them?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, certainly he could not destroy them on his own.

MR BIZOS: When was a decision taken to destroy them?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know.

MR BIZOS: Try.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I was never present during any discussion pertaining to the destruction of these documents.

MR BIZOS: Well the affidavit before the Committee, if my memory serves me correctly, says that once they died the files were destroyed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is so.

MR BIZOS: Now you were the second in command in Port Elizabeth, how could the files have been destroyed without you knowing about it?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I probably knew about these files being destroyed after they had been killed. Probably Snyman told Wilken to destroy them, I don't know exactly when they were destroyed.

MR BIZOS: Well, why would they have been destroyed? Surely this was an important matter, there was going to be an inquest into the death of these people? Who decided and why they should be destroyed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I did not participate in this - making this decision to destroy these documents. The rule was that when people died the files had to be destroyed.

MR BIZOS: Whose rule was that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: As far as I can remember this was an instruction from headquarters.

MR BIZOS: Why would such an instruction be given, why shouldn't the record of this person's alleged wrongdoings in the mind of the security police be destroyed, there may have been very important information in them as to who might have had a motive to kill them for instance?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The files of people who were killed, as far as I can remember, were usually destroyed after these documents were scrutinised to see whether any were important enough to keep and the others were destroyed because if you kept all these files there wouldn't have been place to store all of them.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I hope you are not serious in that, you said the files of people who had been killed. How many people had been killed that had files that there would not be a room big enough to keep their files?

MR BOOYENS: No Mr Chairman, it is not: "had been killed", it is: "when a person had died", that's what should have reached my learned friend's ears. [No English translation - transcriber's own translation]

MR BIZOS: Is that what you meant?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now was an inquest into the death's of Goniwe and his associates held before this file was destroyed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can't remember.

MR BIZOS: The ordinary investigator, not the security police investigator Mr Els who was in charge of that investigation, did he - was he given access to those files?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, Mr Els never communicated with me regarding this, he spoke to Snyman at certain instances. I don't know whether that was about these files or what.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Please tell me on - which Joint Management Committee Meetings you attended and what sub-committee meetings you attended during May and June 1985.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No Sir, I cannot give you an honest answer because I myself doubt whether I attended any of those meetings but it could possibly be that I did attended one or more of them.

MR BIZOS: On page 25 of your application you say

"At this stage there was a pressure placed by the Joint Management Committee and the security forces - was placed on the security forces to achieve stability in the region and to get the situation under control"

And the on the same page at the bottom you say:

"Major du Plessis who was the commander of the unit and was responsible for black matters obtained information through the enforced Joint Management System, ...[indistinct] got information about these identified exploited leaders. And that indicated that the political activists of Cradock by the names of Goniwe, Calata, Mkhonto and another activist Maluvu was a serious threat for the constitutional dispensation".

Now, tell me please, mention one name of a person in the GBS structures that discussed Goniwe with you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Personally with me, with me personally, privately?

MR BIZOS: Yes, that was the question.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I can't remember a person like that.

MR BIZOS: Try and remember.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR BIZOS: This was, I assume, one of the most important things that you ever did in your life as a security policeman, to help in the murder of four people. Pleas tell us, you say that it was as a result of pressure from the GBS centre, mention one name, one name of a living person or one who is capable of giving evidence that mentioned to you this fact.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, there's no such person.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, who exerted this pressure on you then?

MR VAN RENSBURG: This pressure was exerted via Snyman from the Joint Management System.

CHAIRPERSON: It's "via" Mr Snyman?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Who in the Joint Management System exerted that pressure?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can't say today whether it was the Joint Management System in total or whether it was a sub-committee of the system.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in the position just to mention one name?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR BIZOS: You see if it were Mr Snyman, one would have expected you to have said so at the time that you made your application and you did not know that Mr Snyman was going to say that he's incapable of giving evidence. Why didn't you mention the name of Mr Snyman in your application?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Because Mr Snyman came and told me this.

MR BIZOS: The question was a simple one and I will insist on an answer. If it was Snyman that told you this, why did you not mention his name in your application?

MR VAN RENSBURG: As I've said previously, this application was drawn up on a basis, on a broad basis. At that stage I did not know, -I did not put the full story on paper.

MR BIZOS: Why not?

MR VAN RENSBURG: My legal representative said at that stage that I would give testimony orally and then I could tell the whole story.

MR BIZOS: Well let us, whilst we are on this topic, take it a little bit further Mr van Rensburg. Please draw the Committee's attention where, in your application or in the application of the other four applicants, there is a statement that Mr Snyman said or indicated that he had received instructions or authority from higher up. Where, anywhere in these applications is that fact stated?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No Sir, it's not here, as I know the document it's not here.

MR BIZOS: Right. Yes well, and as we checked the document during the weekend we agree with you that there - it's nowhere in the document. Now, do you agree that in the mind of Mr van Zyl, who gave evidence before you and in your own mind are now giving evidence, this fact that Mr Snyman must have received an order or a directive from above assumed great importance.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Can you please explain why that fact of such great importance was not mentioned in the applications of any of your fellow applicants and yet it assumed such importance during the course of the oral evidence that Mr van Zyl and you are giving?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I cannot explain why my follow applicants did not mention it. My attorney told me that: "We do this on a broad basis and later you will under oath give evidence orally and you can tell your whole story then".

MR BIZOS: Well, I don't want to put your attorney in an invidious position of possibly having to give evidence in order to confirm that you could not possibly have told your attorney that you were under the distinct impression that Mr van Zyl had acted on orders from above, because if you had told him that it would have found itself in the written application as one of the important factors.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

ADV BOSMAN: I take it you meant Snyman.

MR BIZOS: What did I say?

ADV BOSMAN: You said van Zyl.

MR BIZOS: Oh.

ADV BOSMAN: You said van Zyl.

MR BIZOS: No, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm sorry.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, can you repeat please?

MR BIZOS: I'm going to suggest to you that if you had told your attorney that van Zyl must have acted - Snyman must have acted from orders from above, that fact would definitely have been put into your application by your attorney.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, he - probably he would have.

MR BIZOS: Therefore we can assume that you can't blame your attorney for having left it out?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't blame him.

MR BIZOS: So it must have been a conscious decision on your part to leave this important fact out of your application if in fact it was so?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not think about it at the time, I laid down a broad basis. At that stage we did not consult. He told me there would be consultation later, probably with an advocate and then I could give my testimony verbally.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, your attorney surely explained to you that this unusual procedure established particularly for a limited period and for specific purposes included full disclosure, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now full disclosure would included who gave the order, not so?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's what Advocate Bizos is driving at, that in your quest to fully disclose the facts leading to the death of these four people you would have, if it existed, included in this full disclosure the order from above attorney decided to leave it out. You would have correct the position before you signed the document.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I cannot say specifically why I did not mention it, if it is so then I faulted. All that I can say is that what I say before this Committee, that is what I know and that is my testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what happened in respect of a statement or lack of it regarding the person or persons who gave this order from above?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I cannot say why at that stage I did not mention it. I was of the impression that I should give a broad basis of what happened and later I could tell the full story.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr van Rensburg, this forgetfulness is not being very helpful and besides that I want to point out to you that you signed this document less than a year ago.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now please help us, I mean we need to get certain facts.

MR VAN RENSBURG: As I said I can say that I probably didn't tell my attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember whether you did tell him or not in the first place?

MR VAN RENSBURG: If I have to be honest then I cannot really remember if I told him or not but I will accept for the Committee's purposes that I did not say it.

MR BIZOS: General van Rensburg, I am going to suggest to the Committee during the course of argument that both Mr van Zyl and you showed an anxiety when giving oral evidence before the Committee to volunteer that Mr Snyman must have had authority from higher up.

Would that be a correct statement of what happened here in this hearing, that Mr van Zyl volunteered it and you volunteered it and you had no difficulty in saying that Mr van Zyl acted on orders - I'm sorry, Mr Snyman acted on authority from above. Do you agree that it was readily given without any reluctance?

MR VAN RENSBURG: This is so, it's my impression that Mr Snyman had instructions from higher up.

MR BIZOS: Do you agree that it was given without any reluctance and with some enthusiasm?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know, it was without reluctance.

MR BIZOS: Right, let's stick to that: "reluctance". Why were you reluctant to tell your attorney and why were you reluctant to put it in the form if you were not reluctant to say it in evidence?

MR BOOYENS: With respect, he never said he was: "reluctant" to tell it to his attorney, he just said maybe he didn't tell it to his attorney or he accepts that he didn't tell it to his attorney. He never said he was reluctant to tell him about it, that's not a proper question.

MR BIZOS: Very well, let's ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, what did he say then?

MR BOOYENS: No Mr Chairman, he never said he was "reluctant". I've got - the only objection I've got - he's "reluctant" to tell his attorney. My learned friend is putting a positive statement that he said he was "reluctant" to tell it to his attorney. He never said he was "reluctant". My objection is against the word "reluctant".

MR BIZOS: I'll change the question so that we do not become involved in semantic arguments Mr Chairman.

You had no reluctance whatsoever in saying it in Court before the Committee?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR BIZOS: Why did you not tell your attorney and why did you not have it in the form if you were - were you quite willing on your own to mention it in the hearing?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I cannot tell you today why it is not in my application.

MR BIZOS: Well, ...[intervention]

MR VAN RENSBURG: I possibly did not mention it to my attorney, I cannot remember if I told him but I will accept that I did not mention it to him. As I've said previously I gave a broad basis of what happened.

MR BIZOS: At the time that you signed the form, did you expect Mr Snyman to be giving evidence before the Committee, whenever that may have happened? - at the time when you signed the form.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Surely if he did apply for amnesty.

MR BIZOS: And you knew that he had applied for amnesty.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I heard later that he did.

MR BIZOS: Well I want to suggest to you the obvious, that this enthusiasm to tell us that the order came from above, in this Committee, was prompted by the fact that you knew or you believed that the inquiry would stop there because before Mr van Zyl and you gave evidence you knew that there would be an attempt - well, let's put it on a neutral basis, that there was a probability that Mr Snyman may not be giving evidence in this case.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I did not know that Mr Snyman would not give evidence in this case. I speak of the time when I made this application.

MR BIZOS: I accept that. The gravamen of the suggestion to you is that when you learnt that he may not be a witness you felt free to speak about matters which you knew could not be taken any further and that your loyalty to the old guard would remain by you disclosing that Snyman had orders from above, that it would be a dead-end.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't have any loyalties towards the Defence Force or towards politicians, it's not true.

MR BIZOS: I didn't say anything about politicians, I said something about the old guard of which you formed a part in the security police.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No Sir, that is not so.

MR BIZOS: Now, you see - let's have a look at Mr Snyman's application or let's stick with yours for the time being, let's stick with yours for the time being. Please turn to page 40, oh no I'm sorry, that's Snyman, hold on one moment please. Please turn to page 29, have a look at 11(a): [No English translation]

"Is die daad"

I'll leave out the alternative words:

"Goedkeuring van die betrokke"

and then the last two words:

"State department or security forces?"

and then you say:

"Yes"

"And if so, name particulars with reference to these instructions or authorisation and the date thereof if known, name and address of person or persons who gave order or gave authorisation"

If you were to fill in this form today to be in accordance with your evidence, would you have filled it in in the same way or would you have given more particulars?

MR VAN RENSBURG: In respect of 11(a) and 11(b)?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would have filled it in the same.

MR BIZOS: You wouldn't have given any further particulars?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, not at 11(a) and 11(b).

MR BIZOS: But in 11(b): "Colonel H. Snyman" the full picture would have been: "on orders given to him from above"

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, I didn't say this straight out, it's the impression that I got, that Colonel Snyman received the instruction from higher up. I cannot substantiate this and that's why I put Colonel Snyman's name there.

CHAIRPERSON: So factually according to you it was Colonel Snyman's decision to have Mr Goniwe and the three others killed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is so. He told me ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I know what he told you. Is this your testimony that according to you it was his order, it was his decision?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it was his decision. I don't know if it was his decision but his instruction to me - if he decided with other persons, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: But according to you it came from him?

MR BIZOS: But now Mr Snyman is not a "Staats departement", is it - is he?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I see him as a member of the State Department or the security forces.

MR BIZOS: Well, do you think that the GBS had nothing to do with this?

MR VAN RENSBURG: [No English translation - transcriber's own translation] No, I'm not saying that Sir.

MR BIZOS: Well why didn't you say so, that one of the state departments or one of the security structures were responsible, why didn't you say that?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, the question - if one just reads the question, if my learned friend perhaps just reads the question that he had to answer, it speaks of persons that gave an order.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, which question are you talking about?

MR BOOYENS: Question 11(b) as it's on the printed - not printed form, this is a copy of the printed form.

MR BIZOS: I was reading 11(a) Mr Chairman.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I made certain deductions, I cannot say for a fact that this order came from the JMC.

MR BIZOS: Or from head office?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Or from head office.

MR BIZOS: You see you can't blow hot and cold Mr van Rensburg because I thought that we had agreed during the course of last week on Friday, that you believed that it was on higher authority. Do you want to detract from that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, no Sir. I believed that this was probable.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well I can only give you another opportunity to possibly explain what we are going to argue, that your readiness to mention the higher authority now and the reason why you kept it back before was because you've now learnt that it's going to be a dead-end by mentioning it here whereas it might not have been the case if you had mentioned it in your form.

MR VAN RENSBURG: This is not so.

MR BIZOS: Have you read page 277 of the volume two before the Commission?

It's in this document here Mr Chairman, page 277.

Just by the way, we see the references of:

WH11 on Exhibit CC

and:

WH10 on Annexure A page 277

what are those references to?

MR VAN RENSBURG: WH10 is mail interception and WH11 is bugging.

MR BIZOS: I see, yes. Now, did you know Major Craig Williamson?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: What dealings did you have with him in 1985?

MR VAN RENSBURG: None.

MR BIZOS: '84, I beg your pardon?

MR VAN RENSBURG: None.

MR BIZOS: What section of the security police was he in at that time?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I think he was in Intelligence Unit.

MR BIZOS: Intelligence unit, yes. You told us that there were discussions about Goniwe during '84.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And the possibility of eliminating him in '84 was discussed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, not that I know of.

MR BIZOS: When was the first suggestion of elimination to your knowledge?

MR VAN RENSBURG: To my knowledge it was when Mr Snyman asked me to approach Mr van Zyl and Mr du Plessis.

MR BIZOS: Who approached you first, Snyman or van Zyl?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Snyman.

MR BIZOS: And not van Zyl?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR BIZOS: When - what was the time lapse between the first mention by Snyman and the visit to your office by du Plessis and van Zyl?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The same day when Mr Snyman approached me I approached Mr van Zyl and the next day I approached Mr du Plessis and the final instance when they approached me was about a week before these persons were killed when I referred them to Colonel Snyman.

MR BIZOS: If anyone were to suggest that the security apparatus was discussing the elimination of Goniwe and others before any approach by you to du Plessis and van Zyl, would that be correct or incorrect?

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

MR BIZOS: Please have a look at page 59, the application of Mr du Plessis

"This operation and the possible elimination"

page 59, the last paragraph.

"of the Cradock 4 has been discussed previously at various instances in the so-called security community but the details and dates of these discussions are unknown at this stage"

MR BIZOS: How come one of your officers knew about plans to kill or to have operations for the killing of the Cradock 4 among officers in your unit without you knowing about it?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I did not know about it.

MR BIZOS: Does that mean that Mr du Plessis was party to the discussion of operations for the elimination of these people and he kept it a secret from you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It could possibly be.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would they keep things like that secret from you?

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

MR BIZOS: So that we have this situation, that an officer junior to yourself was party to the discussions of eliminating Goniwe without you knowing anything about it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I did not know about that.

MR BIZOS: And if he has spoken the truth at the bottom of page - at the end of page 59, it would mean that he, du Plessis must have spoken together with others officers in your unit.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, this is what is stated here.

MR BIZOS: And that is so, so that there was a conspiracy amongst your junior officers to kill Goniwe before you were approached by Snyman.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, it might be so, I can't refute it.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I think to use the word conspiracy which is a technical word, is perhaps not strictly speaking correct because ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: There were discussions ...[intervention]

MR BOOYENS: Can I finish my objection, then my learned friend can answer? Because du Plessis' evidence says

"The possible elimination of this man was mentioned"

now if you just talked about the possible elimination of somebody, you haven't got the elements for a conspiracy. That's my only objection, it's that it's a technical aspect whether that will amount to a conspiracy, I say it will not, not the aspect that there were discussions.

MR BIZOS: Let's change the words. The operation and possible elimination of the Cradock 4 was discussed at previous - on previous occasions in the so-called "security community", who was the "security community"?

MR VAN RENSBURG: You are asking me now to give a definition of this security community. If we refer to the security community we refer to all people or departments who participated in the security apparatus of this state, this would include the army, the Defence Force, the police, the Joint Management System.

MR BIZOS: Well, it would appear that you as the second in command in the security police in Port Elizabeth knew nothing about discussions for the elimination of the Cradock 4 before Snyman came to you.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: And would you have expected Mr Snyman to keep any secrets from you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, certainly not but sometimes he could have felt that there were things I did not have to know about.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, will this be a convenient time?

MR BIZOS: Yes, thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

NICK VAN RENSBURG: According to the written note made by my colleague Mr Mtshaulana on Mr van Zyl's evidence, he said that he was aware of a meeting between Mr le Grange and Mr Snyman and that the meeting was in February 1985. He said that during that conversation or meeting with Mr Snyman, Mr Snyman had already suggested that Goniwe must be eliminated. Now I assume that note to be a correct ...[intervention]

MR BOOYENS: No Mr Chairman, I think, I don't think that was the evidence of Mr van Zyl.

MR BIZOS: Well, I'm relying on a written note and I think that my learned friend should refer to a note or his note of it before objecting. If he's relying merely on his memory I am going to persist in the question unless the Committee's recollection of this is any different Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What do you it should be?

MR BOOYENS: My recollection of what Mr van Zyl's evidence was is that Snyman did not at that stage already suggest the elimination of - his evidence was that le Grange said they must make a plan with the activists in the Eastern Cape, that was the information that was given to him.

Not that he, Snyman then suggested that Mr Goniwe be eliminated. I don't think there was any reference whatsoever to the name Goniwe at all according to the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: When?

MR BOOYENS: During the feedback that he got.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to get this clear Mr Booyens, are you saying when van Zyl first met Snyman no mention of Goniwe was made?

MR BOOYENS: No, that's not what I'm saying. My learned friend is referring to the evidence that Mr van Zyl gave in general about that he heard about the meeting at Cradock where Snyman had an informal discussion, let's call it that, with Louis le Grange and that he heard that the Minister had said, after it had been explained to them that legal means doesn't work anymore, that they must make a plan with the activists. That is my recollection of the evidence Mr Chairman. The note that my learned friend has - whether I rely on my memory or not, the point is that we should try and stick to what was correctly stated and if necessary then I would suggest - I would request that the members of the Committee consider their notes in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'm going to do that.

Mr Bizos, can you give us an idea whereabouts in the evidence that may be?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR BOOYENS: That was definitely in his evidence in chief as well.

MR BIZOS: Perhaps one of the - it's where the Court also took part in the question, it was at the time when I suggested that: "Would Mr le Grange have said this in the absence of his Commissioner or behind his Commissioner's back. It's at that time, dealing with page four of van Zyl's application for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: van Zyl?

MR BIZOS: van Zyl. That is what we were dealing with in cross-examination when I suggested that this was said Mr Chairman. But in order to save time, may I put it on a hypothetical basis, the record will speak for itself Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, we're happy to adjourn to discuss the matter and see if we can be accurate about it.

MR BIZOS: Well, I don't know how available the tapes are, how readily available they are.

CHAIRPERSON: I was thinking of whether the Committee can ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Can find their note.

CHAIRPERSON: Can find our note, yes.

MR BIZOS: It may be - it's of some importance in view of what I have to put Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then we'll adjourn and see if we can establish with any certainty what was said.

MR BIZOS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

NICK VAN RENSBURG: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I'm not too sure whether this is going to help you or Mr Booyens. As far as we can conjure up our notes we amongst ourselves are in agreement on the following position: that at the alleged meeting over a cup of tea between le Grange and Snyman, the issue of getting rid of agitators was discussed.

By the time Snyman and van Zyl met, Goniwe had acquired the status of an agitator who should be - with whom a plan should be made. And this plan obviously was interpreted as to kill him. I'm not too sure whether that helps you.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] in order to get progress and once the record becomes available it will speak for itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

Did Mr Snyman ever refer you to a conversation between him Snyman and Minister le Grange?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Did you say Mr van Zyl or Mr Snyman?

MR BIZOS: No, just listen to the question.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Did Mr Snyman ever speak to you about a meeting that he, Snyman had with Minister le Grange?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Did he tell you what the Minister said?

MR VAN RENSBURG: He told me that the Minister mentioned or they discussed the problem of activists and that Mr Snyman said that legal actions do not - are not successful and that a plan has to be made with the activists.

MR BIZOS: And did he tell you how he had interpreted that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, he did. He told me that he got the impression or that he interpreted it, is that the activists had to be eliminated.

MR BIZOS: Now, who was the top of that list of activists that more serious steps had to be taken?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, this was not mentioned, this was in a broad discussion.

MR BIZOS: Was Goniwe not mentioned?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Not to me at that stage.

MR BIZOS: Wasn't Cradock the flashpoint?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Cradock was one of the flashpoints in the Eastern Cape.

MR BIZOS: And wasn't Mr Goniwe, the thorn in the flesh of the security police, mentioned?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes he was.

MR BIZOS: During the conversation between Mr le Grange and Mr Snyman, according to Mr Snyman.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can't remember that they discussed Mr Goniwe specifically.

MR BIZOS: But in any event whatever Mr le Grange may have intended, you and Mr Snyman and the security police in Port Elizabeth had Mr Goniwe in mind when speaking about high profile activists that had to be dealt with in a more serious manner.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Sir.

MR BIZOS: During - from the end of May to the time of Mr Goniwe's death, on how many occasions did you speak to Mr Snyman about that subject?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Twice.

MR BIZOS: When was the first?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The first time was when Mr Snyman mentioned to me that I should speak to Mr du Plessis and van Zyl regarding this procedure.

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry I didn't hear the first bit, could you just repeat that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: This was the instance when Mr Snyman mentioned to me to speak to Mr du Plessis and Mr van Zyl with regard to the possible elimination of this person

MR BIZOS: So that was an inquiry, yes?

CHAIRPERSON: At that stage, was there any mention of Mr Goniwe that Mr Snyman mentioned to you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Goniwe alone?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, he said Mr Goniwe and other of his leader figures.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the same day that he mentioned this, that he spoke to Mr le Grange?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it at another day?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It was on a previous occasion.

MR BIZOS: Let's just get - the first time, precisely what did Mr Snyman say to you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: He mentioned to me that he was at JMC meeting and in private discussion with defence force personnel. He received much criticism and in the JMC meeting and the security police's inability to handle with the activists.

And that it was said to him that a plan had to be made with these people, drastic plans had to be made with these people with regard to possible elimination. And he asked me to speak to Mr du Plessis and Mr van Zyl and to ask them to deal with the persons, Mr Goniwe and his leadership figures, to identify the situation.

MR BIZOS: Was that approximately three weeks before the killing?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: When again did you discuss it with Mr van Zyl?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The same afternoon.

MR BIZOS: The same day?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes? Yes, what was said then?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I mentioned to Mr van Zyl that Mr Snyman was at a JMC meeting and that security branch was criticised because of our inability and that Mr van Zyl and Mr du Plessis were to look at Mr Goniwe and his leadership figures who were responsible for the situation in the area. And the possibility was to be investigated to eliminate these persons.

MR BIZOS: Right. Now that was still one conversation that you have spoken to us about with you and Mr Snyman, what other conversations ...[intervention]

MR BOOYENS: No, Mr Chairman, my learned friend's question was: "when next did you discuss it with Mr van Zyl"? and that's the question he answered.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: He answered - perhaps my learned friend intended to say Snyman I think but you said van Zyl.

MR BIZOS: I apologise, I apologise and any suggestion that - it's my fault, I'm sorry, I should have said: "When was the second discussion with Mr van Zyl - ag, with Mr Snyman"? I'll get it right - Mr Snyman.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The second discussion with Mr Snyman was Mr du Plessis and Mr van Zyl was with me and then I referred them to Mr Snyman and they came back to me. Thereafter Mr Snyman came to me and told me that he gave authority to Mr - or permission to Mr van Zyl and Mr du Plessis to eliminate Mr Goniwe and his other leadership figures.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it the first time you mentioned Goniwe's name to van Zyl?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I'm not sure again if we at Mr van Zyl or Mr Snyman, excuse me, I get confused.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I'm confused.

Mr Bizos you were talking about Snyman's second meeting with this witness.

MR BIZOS: That is so. What Mr Snyman said to the witness on the second occasion, he told us that there were two meetings with Snyman or two discussions with Snyman in relation to the matter and I want to identify those.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry Mr van Rensburg.

You proceed Mr Bizos, I will ask that question.

MR BIZOS: Yes. When was the second meeting with Mr Snyman?

MR VAN RENSBURG: This was approximately a week I would say, before the people were murdered.

MR BIZOS: A week before the murder, right. And what did Mr Snyman say to you then?

MR VAN RENSBURG: He just mentioned to me that he gave permission to Mr du Plessis and Mr van Zyl to murder Mr Goniwe and the other leadership figures that were identified.

CHAIRPERSON: Goniwe. Was the mention that a plan had to made concerning Goniwe?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No. When Mr Snyman came to speak to me the first time he mentioned Goniwe and his leadership figures.

MR BIZOS: And when were the four deceased mentioned by Mr Snyman to you if at all? When were the names of the four deceased mentioned to you if at all by Mr Snyman?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The morning after they were murdered.

MR BIZOS: And that is the first time that you heard the name of Mr Mhlawuli for the first time from Mr Snyman?

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

MR BIZOS: You only heard from Mr Snyman, the name of Mr Mhlawuli after they were dead?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, as far as I can recall.

MR BIZOS: Right. So to your knowledge Mr Snyman never specifically authorised the killing of Mr Mhlawuli?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Not where I was present.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And now, let us just deal with this aspect. Can you find anything, either in Mr Snyman's application for amnesty or yours, about what you have described as having taken place at the first meeting?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I've read Mr Snyman's application and nowhere can I find in his application that he mentions it in his application. I may have looked wrong but as I can recall that I've read it ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Carry on, finish.

MR VAN RENSBURG: In my own application I cannot find it either.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you regard what you now say was said at the first meeting, as an order to kill?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Why, on your statement in your application, did you say that you sent du Plessis and van Zyl to Snyman for approval of the plan if he had already given an order that they should be eliminated?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It's because Mr Snyman mentioned to me that - the day when he spoke to me and he asked me to deliver the message to Mr van Zyl and Mr du Plessis, he told me after they identified Mr Goniwe and his leadership figures no action should be taken before they finally cleared it with him.

MR BIZOS: It's not so easy General. Your application, the application of van Zyl, the application of du Plessis makes it clear that the plan was initiated either by you or van Zyl or du Plessis or the three of you and that it was to be sent to Snyman for approval, for "goedkeuring". That's what all the applications say.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is not so.

MR BIZOS: I know that you now say that it is not so but why, can you explain why it appears in the application that the plan was discussed by the three of you and it was sent to Snyman for approval and the only thing that he said was: "You do what is the best for the country" which was assumed to be approval. Can you explain that contradiction?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Not today, I cannot.

MR BIZOS: Yes, because I suggest that you cannot explain the contradiction because you and the other applicants are not telling the truth as to how this decision came to be made.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No Sir, that is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, what do you mean when you say that you cannot explain here today?

MR VAN RENSBURG: At the time of this application my mind was probably still confused, I cannot say specifically. It was not elaborated specifically on everything. I gave in - I served a broad application. It was said to me that I can verbally testify and then paint the whole picture. I cannot recall more of this.

MR BIZOS: Well, because if what you say in your written applications is nearer to the truth than what you are saying in evidence today, it may well appear that the well-trained and accomplished killer Mr van Zyl of Koevoet who came to Port Elizabeth in '84, late '84 or in '84 and left at the end '85/'86 from Koevoet, was here really to get rid of the PEBCO 3 and Goniwe and that he initiated the plan and came to you with du Plessis and you merely rubber-stamped it in a way with Snyman. What do you say to that, if that is the impression that is created in the evidence.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You are wrong Sir.

MR BIZOS: But at least it explains the contradiction.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I would not say that.

MR BIZOS: Were your offices in 1984 in Strand Street in Port Elizabeth, the offices of the security police?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can say this with almost certainty. I'm sure '84 it was still in Strand Street.

MR BIZOS: Did Mr Sakkie van Zyl accompany Mr van Jaarsveld to Cradock in March 1984?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know Sir.

MR BIZOS: Was Henry Fouchè in Cradock in '84?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I think he was there then.

MR BIZOS: Would you consider that the home of Mr Goniwe was well loaded listening apparatus?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would.

MR BIZOS: Where did Mr Erasmus live whilst he was the head of the security police in Port Elizabeth?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I didn't hear properly, where did he stay?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: When I arrived here he stayed in Framesby and a while later he moved to the other side of the National Road, I would say still Framesby but he moved out at one occasion.

MR BIZOS: When did his appointment to the head office come through, do you know?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I think at the end of 1983 he left here, it must have been somewhere in 1983.

MR BIZOS: Did he not have unfinished business to do in Port Elizabeth in '84?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Erasmus?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know Sir.

MR BIZOS: Did he take any interest when he went to head office or elsewhere, in his erstwhile area Port Elizabeth?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Not that I know of.

MR BIZOS: Was Miss Janet Sherry known to the security police in Port Elizabeth?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Was she being followed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It's possible that she was followed.

MR BIZOS: Do you recall that her windscreen was smashed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, it's possible that I could have known this.

MR BIZOS: You don't know whether her windscreen was smashed on the 21st of March 1984?

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

MR BIZOS: That the 21st of March, was the 21st of March an important date on the date - on the calendar of the security police?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I think in the whole country, the 21st of March was Sharpeville Day if I remember correctly.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Wasn't the security police observing meetings held by the people of Port Elizabeth to commemorate Sharpeville Day?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would say they did do it, we did do it.

MR BIZOS: If at or near such a meeting Janet Sherry's windscreen was smashed, would it pass by the security police or would the security police know about it?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I don't know, I would believe they probably had knowledge of this. It would probably have reached them, I cannot argue the point.

MR BIZOS: I'm going to put to you that plans were afoot inspired by Mr Williamson at the head office and to be executed in part by Mr van Zyl as early as that date in March, 21st of March 1984.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I cannot deny it, I cannot argue it, I cannot say that it is so, I do not know of this.

MR BIZOS: But it's consistent with there being discussions and talks and pressures and counter-pressures in relation to giving up the legal methods and taking more drastic action against prioritised activists.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I do not know at that stage if it was relevant to Mr Goniwe, whether it was a point of discussion at that time.

MR BIZOS: We have already dealt with the participation and knowledge of Mr Winter about the negotiations for the reinstatement of Mr Goniwe, do you know whether there were any talks or rather any demands by Cradora for the reinstatement of Mr Goniwe?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, there were.

MR BIZOS: And did you know that one of the conditions which Cradora and other UDF affiliated organisations were demanding in order to put an end to school boycotts was the reinstatement of Mr Goniwe and Mr Calata?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And did you know that initially the Department of Education and Training which was a euphemism for Bantu Education Department, did you know that at the beginning they said that they would not agree to that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I cannot remember this today but I cannot say that I can say that it was not so.

MR BIZOS: I dare say - who was in charge of intelligence in the security police in Port Elizabeth?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, if I recall correctly, at that stage there was not intelligence division at Port Elizabeth. As far as I can recall it was established later.

MR BIZOS: Well I take it that ...[indistinct] may not have been a special desk for intelligence that newspaper reports of events would be watched by members of the security police in order to see what was happening and what demands were and what counter-proposals being made and what proposals were being made, you couldn't keep yourself uninformed of what was in the public domain and being debated in newspapers and to a lesser extent the then SABC radio programmes and television programmes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it is so.

MR BIZOS: Did no newspaper report come to your notice, that there was serious consideration being given to the re-appointment of Mr Goniwe and Mr Calata to the school in Cradock?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, there were mention of the possibility of re-appointing them.

MR BIZOS: This was whilst you were preparing to kill them?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Did you ignore those newspaper reports?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, those were only reports, no decision had been taken in this regard.

MR BIZOS: You never took any steps to telephone the Department of Education or any of the committees responsible for this inquiry to find out before putting your plan into execution?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

MR BIZOS: The best source of information about Goniwe must have of necessity have been Mr Winter and the Cradock security police?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, they certainly were a part of the information gathering process regarding Kondile(?), Goniwe but even from Port Elizabeth and the surrounding areas ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Yes, no what I am saying is I know that you got information from elsewhere but the most important source must have been where Mr Goniwe lived and where Mr Winter had the sophisticated listening devices in order to report to him.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And if the documents had not been destroyed I must assume that you will accept that there must have been many documents there reporting the process of the negotiations?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can't dispute that.

MR BIZOS: Now, where is the monitoring of Mhlawuli and where - can you recall any specific documents that were there or were there none or if there were, were they destroyed? You can't really tell us?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, Sir.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I have some re-examination by I don't know whether any of my learned friends have perhaps got an interest. I think only my learned friend the evidence leader has asked questions so far, I don't know whether my other colleagues have been asked whether they've got any questions. Obviously if you don't think they should ask any questions I'm happy to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: I ...[indistinct] Mr van der Merwe, he agreed with you and Mr Hugo had a very few questions. He promised three, he went over that but he did keep it short.

MR BOOYENS: Oh yes.

MS PATEL: Mr Booyens sorry. Mr Chairman, I was amiss in not placing on record at the start of the proceedings that Mr Levin of Levin and Associates was in fact representing Craig Williamson and given that his name has now cropped up, I wish to place the following on record.

That he is in fact appearing on behalf of him, that he unfortunately was not in a position to attend the proceedings and finally that he wished it to be placed on record that he reserves all his client's rights in this regard, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss Patel, what could that mean, reserving all his rights? Did he not specify?

MS PATEL: He did not specify.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I suppose he knows and that's his ...[no sound]

Yes, Mr Booyens?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

General van Rensburg, just a very few short questions. You've been referred to Exhibit F by my learned colleague regarding this destroying files.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Paragraph two of Exhibit F says

"If a person for whom a file was kept, if he became inactive or he died, the file was destroyed"

You said that that was a standard practice?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Much is being said by my learned colleague about the meetings under the chairmanship of Vlok where all the Generals were involved and a committee was presumably appointed, do you have any knowledge or information regarding the appointment of the State Security Council?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No that I know of.

MR BOOYENS: Much has been said by my learned colleague of Exhibit U or rather I. For clarity's sake, from what I can gather from this, this is a memorandum and I refer to that up to page four, it's a memorandum. Is it from the police or another state department?

MR VAN RENSBURG: It seems to me it's from another government department because mention is made of the Director General who signed this document on page four.

MR BOOYENS: The statement in Exhibit I, that the local security community was continuously kept up to date and supported the strategy of reinstatement, are you aware of that? Do you see that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: My learned friend also referred you to Exhibit U, it is the summary of about the Cradock mini-JMC.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes?

MR BOOYENS: Go to page three, paragraph 6(a) in this document, and it seems that at that stage at least the attitude of the mini JMC was that Goniwe would not be re-instated in his teaching post.

While we have this document in front of us, you've answered a question of my learned friend that Cradock was a flashpoint but this document contains a summary of incidents which took place from the 7th August 1983 to the 3rd February 1984, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And you refer specifically - and it's marked here page 8 to 15, that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: I don't want you to read all of this, but starting incident 24 on page 9, incident 27 - Mr Chairman, may I suggest that the Committee just mark it, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 up till 47. 49 to 56 and 59, I'm sorry till 56, are these incidents related to the unrest?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Mr Chairman, there may be more but I'm just trying to summarise.

MR BOOYENS: Referring to the document on page 12 we're mentioning threats and unrest related incidents and are a few examples, incident 5, 10, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26 up to 30, 35, 37 and 38, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: If you can quickly look at document K, that is a letter from the Commissioner to the Minister, the date 25th of June 1985, was that when the South African police, their reaction was conveyed to the Minister?

MR VAN RENSBURG: According to that document, yes.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, I'm referring to the document, I'm not saying that you have personal knowledge. Mr van Rensburg, reference is made to proposed action against Mr Goniwe who was an ex-teacher, a former teacher and it appears from this document that the police or the commissioner did not make a final recommendation and made two propositions.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You are aware that Mr Winter at a certain stage mentioned that according to him, the re-appointment of Mr Goniwe, that he supported that. According to you, was that an official point of view and did you know about that point of view?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I regard it as his personal point of view.

MR BOOYENS: And did you know about his opinion regarding the reinstatement?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, possibly but I can't remember.

MR BOOYENS: You've been referred by my learned colleague to Exhibit BB, this is a presentation of the CCB and the head of the Defence Force and the Defence Force's comment.

My learned colleague talked about the redefining of the offence murder by the previous head of the South African Defence Force, it's in 1987 but at any stage before this document was indicated to you by my learned friend, did you know what the head of the Defence Force and the head of the CCB talked about?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

MR BOOYENS: Just a minute please. Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

DR TSOTSI: Just referring to Exhibit CC, on page 2 a statement was quoted to you which was allegedly made by Mr Goniwe in which he indicated that he wanted peace not violence, do you remember that?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

DR TSOTSI: Now you said that that statement might mean something different from what appears on it.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Sir.

DR TSOTSI: What do you suggest it should read? According to you what would you think is the meaning or the correct ...[indistinct]

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't want to speculate about what the correct meaning of that is. What I did say or try to say was that that was - it seemed to have been a conversation by telephone and one can speculate, did Mr Goniwe say exactly what he wanted to say during this conversation, that's all I tried to say.

DR TSOTSI: Are you suggesting that Mr Goniwe was aware that his telephone was bugged and he spoke this in order to sort of close his tracks?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I won't be surprised or at least I would accept that he knew that his telephone was bugged but I'm saying - I can't give an opinion on whether Mr Goniwe was honest in what he was saying or whether he had other intentions.

DR TSOTSI: Can you refer us to any other document in which Mr Goniwe said what he did not in fact mean?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, that's not what I've said.

DR TSOTSI: Well I mean, how did you come to the conclusion that he might be meaning something else than what appears on the face of the document?

MR VAN RENSBURG: If he, and we're speculating now, if he accepted that we were bugging his conversations he surely would not have said over the telephone: "Attack the police" or something in that regard, something referring to violence.

DR TSOTSI: ...[indistinct] out of the execution of the murders. Before the ...[indistinct] were perpetrated you had a discussion with Mr van Zyl and Mr du Plessis, isn't it?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That's correct.

DR TSOTSI: As to how they should be done.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Why it had to be done, is that what you're asking me?

DR TSOTSI: Why it had to be done.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

DR TSOTSI: Yes, and what about how it should be done?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, not at that stage.

DR TSOTSI: Or was that entirely in the discretion of Mr van Zyl?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I told Mr van Zyl and Mr du Plessis that Mr Snyman had asked that they should investigate the possibility of the elimination of these people to make it appear as if it was not the security police involved.

DR TSOTSI: Do you agree that the execution was very brutal in the extreme?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I would not dispute that.

DR TSOTSI: You wouldn't dispute it then?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

DR TSOTSI: If you had had to do it yourself, would you have done it the same way that Mr van Zyl did it?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, I don't know, I really don't know, circumstances would have led me. I can't say I would have done it otherwise or I would have done it in the same way. I can't say today what I would have done then.

DR TSOTSI: You agree it was very inhumane don't you, the way it was carried out? It could have been carried out, the killing could have been carried out in a less inhumane, in a more humane fashion than it was actually, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is possibly so, yes.

DR TSOTSI: Now when Mr van Zyl came to you and made a report on the success of the mission, did you draw his attention to the manner in which this, the inhuman manner in which the assassination had been committed?

MR VAN RENSBURG: He did not tell me exactly how these people were killed, we did not discuss that.

DR TSOTSI: Well you saw the post-mortem examination, didn't you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

DR TSOTSI: But you agree that from it - after you saw the post-mortem examination, did you speak to Mr van Zyl at all about the manner in which he had ...[intervention]

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I did not.

DR TSOTSI: Why not? Because you agreed - you accepted the manner in which he did the assassination.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I had to accept it, it had been done and that was final.

DR TSOTSI: Yes, but I mean it had been done but how? That is the point, how? Did you accept that he had - the question for instance of the burning of the car, did you accept that it was a correct strategy on the part of Mr van Zyl?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I've accepted - as he found it during the circumstances there, I accepted that he acted according to circumstances.

DR TSOTSI: Now you've mentioned that - or Mr - you I think, and Mr van Zyl before you, that the execution of the assassinations was made to resemble the methods adopted by whom? You said that they had to resemble the methods other than those which would have been adopted by the police. I just forget the name that - the actual name that you used. The method of assassination had to be such that the police were not suspected of involvement, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.

DR TSOTSI: So that is why the assassinations took place out in the bush and one body was actually found many kilometres away from the others were, was that part of the plan?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The plan in which I was involved, yes.

DR TSOTSI: Yes. Now I want to find out from you, had you any previous experience of these things taking place the way that you planned it? You planned it in order to avoid any suggestion that the police were involved.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman I'm sorry, I would not normally object to a question by an Honourable Commissioner but the question of - with respect, the question of previous experience of this type of thing clearly reflects on previous experience of a criminal nature which does not form the subject of the matter of this application. Is that question, with respect, admissible in these circumstances?

CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it differently then. How do you think it would be ensured that when the bodies were discovered, no fingers were pointed at the police?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can't say that the bodies could be so mutilated or the motor car burnt in such a way that they could not be identified, I could not foresee that.

It was certainly Mr van Zyl's intention but I can't say whether it was successful or not.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr van Rensburg, according your own evidence of that of Mr van Zyl, it seems that you've taken decisions here without any emotion, that you've just decided clinically that these people should be eliminated. Is my impression correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. During that time, those time we experienced in the country, we certainly did things you did not like but things which you believed you just had to do.

ADV BOSMAN: The impression of the country, I mean, did that raise certain emotions? It's difficult to understand that you say so little about how you felt. It was said that Mr Snyman was a certain type of person and some discussion would have taken place. Were there no discussions?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No. I just want to add, I experienced Mr Snyman as a soft spoken person but also as a patriot, that's how I would put it.

ADV BOSMAN: Would you say then that patriotism was the over-encompassing feeling, it's a very strong feeling?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Mr van Rensburg, I just want to ask you on the destruction of the files. To whom was Mr Wilken, the person who was responsible for the files, for the keeping of the files?

MR VAN RENSBURG: To Mr Snyman. Mr Snyman could delegate his authority to a more junior officer under Mr Wilken although I can't remember that distinctly, it could be a possibility.

ADV SIGODI: But then who would have told Mr Wilken to destroy the files or to tell somebody to destroy the files?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, as far as I can remember those were instructions that files at certain instances had to be destroyed. And I can assume that something like that is written, is contained in writing or a document from headquarters and that Mr Wilken knew about these documents and he knew the instructions contained in that document.

I accept that Mr Snyman delegated it to him or to somebody more senior than Mr Wilken and Mr Wilken worked under this senior officer. I assume that's how it happened, I'm not personally aware of what happened.

ADV SIGODI: But you knew what was going on, you were the second in command in the office, in the branch, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: And how long would it take for the files to be destroyed? I mean, after the death of a person or the killing of a person, how long would it - did they have a time period within which to destroy the files or would they destroy them immediately? Do you know or don't you know?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't know. I can only suggest that it was a quite a time after the file has been scrutinised to see whether there was anything of importance in the file which should not be destroyed.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, that's the point I'm coming to.

The file would have to be scrutinised and then whoever is destroying the file or first given an instruction to destroy the file would know exactly what was in the file, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The person who destroyed the file, would he have knowledge or what was contained in this file? Yes. I can't say whether he's gone through this whole document, then certainly he had the knowledge.

ADV SIGODI: Yes but you've just said that the contents of the file would be scrutinised and see if there was anything that was of importance in the file.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct, yes.

ADV SIGODI: Then in the file there would be the order that the - that a certain person must be permanently removed from society, is that correct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Whether there was an instruction like that in the file? To what are you referring?

ADV SIGODI: Well, I mean the - would the signal also be in the file?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't know of such a signal, at that stage I did not know about that.

CHAIRPERSON: [No English translation]

MR VAN RENSBURG: That signal was there.

CHAIRPERSON: What she wants to know is, that signal, would that be contained in the file?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't know. I can't think it would have been in that file, no.

ADV SIGODI: Why would it not be in the file?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Well, according to what I know about that signal, it was a signal coming from the Defence Force in Pretoria and I'm sure it would not be contained in security branch files.

ADV SIGODI: Why not?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can't think it would be in security forces files, I don't know about that.

ADV SIGODI: Why was there a need to destroy the files anyway?

MR VAN RENSBURG: This was standing instructions that files of persons who were deceased or person who were inactive had to be destroyed.

ADV SIGODI: What I find disturbing and which I would like to get clarity on is that it was known that these people had died in a very - their execution was extreme and whoever was responsible for destroying those files would have known the circumstances under which those people had died.

And I want to know, if whoever was responsible for the files was away at the time that he was destroying evidence which could at a later stage be relevant for an inquest or whatever Court proceedings that may come up, do you think that a person that was responsible for destroying those files would have been aware of the consequences of destroying those files?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I don't know, I did not destroy those files and I did not give the instruction to destroy those files.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Just a follow-up question, there was documentary witness that the education of - the Department of Education that Mr Goniwe had to be reappointed, this had to be against a certain background that they took this stance. In your opinion, speculative, would you assume this decision to be unpatriotic?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, not in respect to his appointment.

ADV BOSMAN: What is the difference then in the motivation if it wasn't patriotism according to you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The matter was not concerning his appointment as a teacher, not the motivation for his elimination in respect of his security activities.

ADV BOSMAN: So you say this feeling of patriotism was strong with the security branch but not with the other departments?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Well I would say that the particular Department of Education at that stage were concerned with having their department functioning effectively and they were just not - they were concerned with getting the schools to function properly.

ADV BOSMAN: Is it not a function of the Department to maintain the function of the schools? I just want to know how would you react in this instance, would it have irritated you if you knew about this?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I wouldn't say it irritated me. I used to weigh up, at the cost of what was their reinstatement or reappointment.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr van Rensburg, can I just clarify a point in re-examination? Do you have Exhibit H, the introductory paragraph of the JMS Action Committee?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Is this the structure that you referred to in your re-examination when you mentioned that you had no information of this?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, this is the document.

ADV POTGIETER: Was this what you referred to in re-examination?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: The committee that was under the Chairmanship of - what is the abbreviation for?

MR VAN RENSBURG: ...[No English translation]

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

MR VAN RENSBURG: The Joint Security Centre.

ADV POTGIETER: It seems this was a structure within the overhead system of the State Security Board.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It seems that it is.

ADV POTGIETER: In other words just like the JMC or the JMS, it was a sub-serving structure in the State Security System.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think you understand me correctly.

ADV POTGIETER: Do you say then at the divisional headquarters you had no information about the activities of this particular committee that is referred to in Exhibit H?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I can honestly not say if we had knowledge of the Action Committee. I can really not recall this particular Action Committee meeting. I don't know how many Action Committees there were. I was not up to date with what happened in those structures.

ADV POTGIETER: It seems like this one, this JMS Action Committee, JSC Action Committee was on the 6th of June. It looks like, if I understood the later witness, that Exhibit H's date was June 1985. Is the correct date the 13th of June 1985? You refer to Exhibit I and it gives the date as in June. It seems as if this report was drawn up about two weeks before the incident, when the Cradock 4 were murdered.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And it seems, on the last page on Exhibit H as I see it, in paragraph 43 there are certain recommendations that are made?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I see.

ADV POTGIETER: The first recommendation is that Mr Goniwe be appointed to a teacher's post in Cradock.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And if we go back to the first page, paragraph 3, then the document summarises this Action Committee in paragraph 3, if you can look at this you will see amongst others what this - various structures establish was that Eastern Province JMS gave a short written notice and it seems as if this Action Committee in respect of ...[no sound] and if the structures in your division concerned them. And it seems to me as we can draw inference that South African police security branch also served on this Action Committee, there would have been input from your division?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I can accept that.

ADV POTGIETER: Is it possible that at a stage there was referred to this procedure, this what you referred to as the Action Committee, the investigation, the discussion and then the recommendation. That you forgot it or is it - I say you when I say you I mean the division, that it didn't come to your attention.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I cannot say under oath that it could not have come under the - to the knowledge of the division, I cannot say this under oath here.

ADV POTGIETER: If it did come to the - your division's attention, would you have known of this or would you have been informed about this? Say for example if it reached Mr Snyman, do you think he would have discussed this with you?

MR VAN RENSBURG: He could have discussed it with me, Mr Snyman, he discussed certain issues with me and others not. He attended the JMS meetings and sometimes he informed me about them and sometimes he did not. I cannot say how much he informed me and how much he omitted.

ADV POTGIETER: Given these conditions, would you say that Mr Snyman would have definitely known about this?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I cannot say that.

ADV POTGIETER: As the divisional head.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, if this document came here, then he should have known about it.

ADV POTGIETER: I speak about the process, would it have come to his attention or would he have known about it?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I say this and I say it because - I do not know the process very well but I would assume that the contents of a copy of this document would have probably have come to the JMS. If Mr Snyman found out about it there or whether a copy was given to him, it's possible but I cannot say it is fact though.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, how well did you know Mr Goniwe, Calata, Mkhonto and Mhlawuli?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I knew them from documentation that came to my desk and through what was conveyed to me by members of the division or the branch.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't know them, any of them personally?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, not personally.

CHAIRPERSON: Please help me understand, the purpose of their killing as I understand your evidence, was to neutralise the effect on the community.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm also aware from other applications, that it was not beyond the security police in Port Elizabeth to make attempts in neutralising the enemy, as they put it, by getting them to cross the floor.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this - was an attempt such as that made in this case?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Not that I know of Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Why wouldn't you do it yourself?

MR VAN RENSBURG: At that stage it was not my task to work at grassroots level.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you suggest it?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I cannot say why I did not propose it, I did not propose it.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't that have been better than resorting to such drastic conduct?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it probably would have been if it was successful. If an attempt was made it would have been successful.

CHAIRPERSON: I can see or as far as I can understand the evidence, there was no attempt to avoid killing them but that killing them was the first and last resort to neutralise the effect.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I would not say this. Mr Goniwe was detained previously.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes once before.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. And I think there was - an application was considered to detain him again.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the others?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't have any knowledge if the others were detained.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I ask this question leading up to another question. Was this manner of conducting themselves in neutralising the enemy as it were, did it develop into one where death was the only alternative?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I ask again, why was there no attempt or attempts to suggest alternative mechanisms so as to neutralise them without having to kill them?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, it was considered, the alternatives were considered by Mr Snyman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not talking about Snyman, I will ask him that question if and when he comes, I'm asking it about you. After all you approved of this action.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes. What was told to me and what was contained in documentation what happened in the area, what was done by these people and the attempts to stop these people's destruction of the state's - detention - was not a workable method because whatever you did to these people, there would be boycotts, there would be threats and schools would be burnt down and schools would be boycotted and board members houses were destroyed. Whatever you wanted to do legally just didn't work.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's leave Mr Goniwe himself aside, what legal attempts were made to neutralise Calata and Mkhonto and Mhlawuli for that matter?

MR VAN RENSBURG: The legal methods were considered but it was decided that this did not work.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you - or let me put it this way, the threat that each of them posed together or singularly, was it of such a nature that it could only be countered with death?

MR VAN RENSBURG: That's what I believed.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not yourself think of maybe arresting them and keep them in communicado somewhere else, like has been done before?

MR VAN RENSBURG: This was considered, it was discussed.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was this?

MR VAN RENSBURG: This was when Mr van Zyl and Mr du Plessis came back to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Snyman and du Plessis?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, Mr van Zyl and Mr du Plessis.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you talk to them about it?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, I know you say you don't recall reading document CC.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: But tell me before we go to that document, who was in control, who was co-ordinating this whole episode of the killing of the Cradock 4? Who had control of this ...[indistinct] or to stop it or to allow it continue.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Snyman.

CHAIRPERSON: Now this document CC, would that not have been in the file?

MR VAN RENSBURG: In the what?

CHAIRPERSON: In the file that was destroyed.

MR VAN RENSBURG: It's possible that it was in there.

CHAIRPERSON: Now given the contents there, what is your attitude towards Mr Goniwe now?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Well if one would read here, this paragraph where Mr Goniwe answered

"Hey man, you'll be shot there by the police. I don't know what advice to give you but as I say, you are busy with a difficult battle which you will not win. What you can do, try and restore peace there"

I would summarise then that under these conditions, at this occasion, he would have said that there's something that you cannot win, don't continue with it.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you agree that those are the words of a person who intends to assist in restoring peace?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, if you read it so but I think one has to look at the circumstances. The said ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: So?

MR VAN RENSBURG: At that his advice was

"Don't go on with this struggle because you cannot win"

I do not exactly know what the circumstances were at grassroots level.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you think that possible interpretation that you give now and gave earlier in your evidence, is a convenient interpretation of what obviously stands or is in that document?

MR VAN RENSBURG: With all respect, in many occasions in the past I think, I was asked to speculate. I think in respect of this document again I was asked to speculate. I think I've mentioned earlier that what I say now I cannot say that it's the truth or I cannot say that this is what Mr Goniwe thought and I can speculate in the other direction too.

CHAIRPERSON: Why is it that the ordinary meaning of language is always doubted and some other connotation attached to it when a simple interpretation would suffice?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I think we need to take into account that we're dealing with intelligence with possible counter-espionage.

CHAIRPERSON: So to spite the import, not as you interpret it but as an ordinary person would, you still that the decision to kill Mr Goniwe and his colleagues was a proper one.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED