CHAIRPERSON: For the purposes of the record, I'm Judge Pillay, I'm going to ask my colleagues to announce themselves for the same purpose and thereafter the various legal representatives.
MR MALAN: Wynand Malan.
ADV SIGODI: Adv Sigodi.
ADV STEENKAMP: Andre Steenkamp, I'm the Evidence Leader. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR VICTOR: Andre Victor.
CHAIRPERSON: For whom do you appear?
MR VICTOR: Chairperson, I am appearing on behalf of Nicolaas Jacobus Janse van Rensburg.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chair. I am Francois van der Merwe and I'm appearing on behalf of Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit. He's not in the first bundle, he is the applicant whose name appears on the second bundle, that is why we are here on short notice. Thank you.
MS VAN DER WALT: Louisa van der Walt, on behalf of Mr C S Rorich. I beg your pardon, and Mr van Dyk. Sorry, I almost forgot one of my clients.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe, you are here on short notice.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, that is indeed correct, Chairperson.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR VAN DER MERWE: DHL can perform miracles these days.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I am appearing on behalf of the fourth applicant, Mr Hattingh.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there no appearance for Mr D J Coetzee?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, Mr Coetzee's representative is Mr Julian Knight. I've spoken to Mr Knight last on the 29th, in the pre-hearing conference. I phoned him and I spoke to him about this. He was also present there where we discussed this specific issue. Subsequently I also contacted him two days ago and I also spoke to his counsel last night and again this morning. He just now sent me one of his colleagues from his office. His position is this and he's asked me to convey it to you, Mr Chairman, Honourable Members. He is of the view ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knight?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Knight, Mr Chairman, on behalf of Mr Coetzee. ... that Mr Coetzee has already testified in this matter.
CHAIRPERSON: What he means is he's already testified about this matter perhaps, but he hasn't testified in this hearing yet.
ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct, Mr Chairman. As far as he's concerned, he's only an implicated party now in this matter. I mean for today. Just for the record, Mr Chairman, I've read through all the testimony of Mr Coetzee personally, and the only section I could get referring to this specific incident was included in the bundle. It's in the bundle, there's specific reference to this specific incident, Mr Chairman.
As far as Mr Knight is concerned, he's only awaiting a decision in this matter. He's an applicant but now he's awaiting his decision. He says he's already been heard on this matter by a previous Committee, has heard his testimony in this specific incident and there's no reason for him to be present here today.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, in that other hearing before a different Panel, was the application made in respect of this incident?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, there was an application by Mr Coetzee, there is reference to ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) my question. When he appeared in that other matter and when he made his application, was one of his applications in respect of this incident that we are about to discuss?
ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct, Mr Chairman, it was heard with other incidents, together with other incidents.
CHAIRPERSON: And he led evidence on this incident?
ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Then surely it is a matter for that Committee to make a decision on it.
ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Well in that case then I'll accept your word for it and we won't deal with the matter then.
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, just for the record, I've asked Mr Knight specifically to forward a letter in this regard to the Committee, that could be handed in to the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Please, that - well you may as well get hold of him and ask him to also include in that letter that the application in respect of this incident has already been heard by a specific Panel, I don't know who the Panel was, on a specific date and that they're quite happy if we remove that application from this roll.
ADV STEENKAMP: I'll do so, Mr Chairman. I can just also say for the record, Mr Knight has indicated at the pre-hearing conference that such a letter will be forwarded to the Committee. I have not received such a letter and I have just phoned him again asking for such a letter.
CHAIRPERSON: Well he may not have given a date, please tell him that, hopefully, our time is limited and we hope to receive the letter before the State President tells to finish.
ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Have the representatives decided who will proceed?
MR VICTOR: Chairperson, we will commence, with your leave. I then call Mr Nicolaas Jacobus Janse van Rensburg to testify.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Janse van Rensburg, which language do you prefer to use?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Afrikaans, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?
NICOLAAS JACOBUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MR VICTOR: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr van Rensburg, is it correct that you are the applicant in this application for amnesty which has specific relation to incidents which took place in Swaziland during the late '70s?
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: For what is he applying? Which charges, so to speak?
MR VICTOR: Chairperson, you will note from the evidence which will be presented and which is embodied in the documents, that Mr van Rensburg was a member of the command group which gave the instruction for the attack on the two transit houses and that there was a loss of life during these attacks and therefore he is applying for amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: You would be in a position to tell us then whether he is applying for murder or a number of murders, arson or whatever the charge may be.
MR VICTOR: Chairperson, it will be for murder, in this case two murders and then the decisions regarding this, which will then include malicious damage to property.
CHAIRPERSON: How was the building damaged?
MR VICTOR: If I understand the affidavits correctly, the buildings were destroyed. The buildings were damaged by means of explosives.
CHAIRPERSON: Would that not include arson? I'm not certain that is why I'm asking.
MR VICTOR: I don't think it is arson. We don't really know whether or not there was a fire. We do know that there was an explosion and that this explosion destroyed the houses.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm assuming that that is the best that we can do under the circumstances.
MR VICTOR: I concur.
CHAIRPERSON: Two murders, one charge of malicious intent to damage property?
MR VICTOR: Yes, that would be two.
CHAIRPERSON: Anything else?
MR VICTOR: And then if there may be any other decision regarding the murder charge.
Very well. Mr van Rensburg, is it correct that you are the applicant in this matter? What are you doing currently, have you retired?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I have retired.
MR VICTOR: Where do you reside?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Hartenbos.
MR VICTOR: During your application you filed an affidavit, is that correct?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.
MR VICTOR: And this affidavit is embodied in the bundle of documents from page 1 to 11.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
MR VICTOR: I am showing the affidavit to you, is this the affidavit that you made?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it is the affidavit that I deposed.
MR VICTOR: Is it also correct that it was signed and attested to on the 7th of May 1997, in Port Elizabeth?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.
MR VICTOR: Is the content of the affidavit correct and did you depose of this affidavit voluntarily?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
MR VICTOR: Are there any aspects in this affidavit that you wish to clarify?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson. I think that there is one small aspect.
MR VICTOR: Are you referring to page 3 of your affidavit?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Page 3, point number 9.A.(2). You will see ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: What page is this?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Page 3.
CHAIRPERSON: No, you testified that it was page 3 of your affidavit.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I beg your pardon.
CHAIRPERSON: There is a number at the top of the page, which number would it be?
MR VICTOR: There's a typed 3 and then there is a 0000003 which is printed. It would be that.
CHAIRPERSON: From now on we will refer to pages as they have been indicated in the large print.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Is that at the top on the right?
CHAIRPERSON: The number of zeros and the three. If it was a monetary amount the zeros would be on the wrong side of the three.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Very well. Chairperson, I'm referring here to paragraph 9.A.(2), where it appears
"unknown during the late '70s"
According to my recollection, I would say that it was in 1980, approximately in the middle of 1980.
CHAIRPERSON: I am lost. You have said that you wish to amend something.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Then where do you want to amend this?
MR VAN RENSBURG: At 9.2 on that page - I beg your pardon, it is 9.A.(2). The two in brackets.
CHAIRPERSON: Where it now states
"Unknown"
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, where it now states unknown. I would say that according to my recollection now, it should have been 1980, mid-1980 approximately.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MR VICTOR: Then I also refer you to page 6 of your affidavit and specifically in the middle of the page, point number 1. Do you want to say anything about that?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I would like to say that it says
"Lieut Dirk Coetzee connected to the Security Branch, Middelburg"
according to my recollection it should be Vlakplaas. That at that stage he was at Vlakplaas and not Middelburg.
MR VICTOR: Chairperson, then I would also request leave that this affidavit be submitted to you and that you would mark it as an exhibit. This is then the evidence which my client wants to submit to you. I thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VICTOR
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Janse van Rensburg please tell us, are you the person who decided to enter Swaziland - that Swaziland should be entered, in order to blow up these two houses?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, upon various occasions during that period in time, I and the Divisional Commander of the Security Branch at Middelburg, Brig van der Hover, discussed these matters regarding the insurgency of persons who were coming to commit acts of terror, then returning to Swaziland and residing in transit houses, moving back and forth to Mozambique and then returning once again to commit acts of terrorism, and both of us were of the opinion that the only manner in which we could attempt to put a halt to this, would be to attack the transit houses and we decided collectively that it would be a viable option to do so.
CHAIRPERSON: That would be you and?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Brig van der Hover.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Chairperson.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Brig van der Hover then told me that he would notify me in terms of whether or not we would go over into such an operation and subsequently he informed me that it had been approved and that we could go ahead and do it. That we could take such action.
CHAIRPERSON: So then you assumed control of all of this?
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you began to put it into operation?
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And when this took place you knew that it was possible that persons could be killed?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you know of the manner in which the houses would be blown up?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I knew.
CHAIRPERSON: You were informed from time to time?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I was informed.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. And you have knowledge of your fellow applicants?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And you must certainly have studied the affidavits?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Not all of them, some of them, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Whose did you study?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Rorich's and Mr Hattingh's.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. In as far as it affects you, with regard to those two affidavits, do you agree with the content?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, with the exception of their times. I have a problem with times at which they said it took place.
CHAIRPERSON: Then we'll have to wait and see what they say about it.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But with the exception of the times, do you agree with the other facets, in as far as it affects you?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I do agree with it.
CHAIRPERSON: And who liaised with you regarding this incident?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, could you assist me, I don't really understand? You say who approached me?
CHAIRPERSON: No. You had the order, van der Hover told you that everything was approved and that you could begin.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly then you must have informed somebody below you and requested for this thing to be put into operation.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Who is that person?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Rorich.
CHAIRPERSON: And from time to time he kept you up to date regarding the preparations for this and how the preparations were coming along.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: He must also have informed you how it was to be executed and for which period it was planned.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, we discussed that.
CHAIRPERSON: And who all the persons would be who would be involved in the incident.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Therefore he liaised with you after certain preparations had been completed and he also informed you that this was the progress, this was what had been done, this was what still had to be done and so forth.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And how things looked at the houses which were planned for explosion and what they were going to do regarding the persons who were the targets, is that what he informed you about?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, in as far as it affects the time period in which it would have been executed, the aim was geared towards information that I had collected from Swaziland and we also regarded the action as a form of a raid, because shortly beforehand Sasol had been bombed with limpet mines and at that stage there was quite a movement of trained persons ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am aware of that, but what I want to establish is that you were in a position of power and you were in the position to say whether or not you could continue or not.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And I'm certain that one of the things that your people must have done was reconnaissance, to determine whether or not there would be any other strangers or strange persons in that house, so that they could guard against the unnecessary loss of life.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That wasn't possible, Chairperson, these targets were from another country where we didn't have any jurisdiction, we had to rely on agents and informers.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that may be so. I am not asking how you obtained your information, the fact remains that you received the information.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And I want to determine whether or not you were satisfied that you could continue with the operation and that in as far as possible innocent persons would be left out of it.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes definitely, it wasn't our objective to kill innocent people.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is the point. Were any reports made to you containing such information?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mrs van der Walt, do you have any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr van Rensburg, just regarding the final answer between you and the Chairperson, according to Mr Rorich and Mr van Dyk and their applications, Mr Rorich and Mr van Dyk both state that the target was selected and that the target would comprise two prominent houses in Manzini, which served as houses for trained terrorists. It was their order that the information indicated that there were trained terrorists in that house. They didn't have any other information.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Rorich, after we had consulted among one another this morning, confirmed that the date could have been June 1980. He maintains that it is a long time ago, but similarly to you he maintains that it was shortly after the Sasol attack.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe?
MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairperson, I have no questions, thank you. Francois van der Merwe on record.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Rensburg, as my colleague Ms van der Walt has put it to you, it is also my instruction from Mr Hattingh that the specific targets were selected and particularly aimed at trained persons.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Hattingh also concurs with you that the date was indeed after the Sasol attack in June 1980, according to his calculations. We would also then request a similar amendment from the Committee at a suitable time. Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you, Chairperson. I'm Adv T A Makhubele from the Pretoria Bar. I'm representing the victims in this matter. The only victim that could be located is Mrs Valerie Hlubi. Her house was damaged in this incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you just spell her name please. Valerie?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS MAKHUBELE: It's H-l-u-b-i. Hlubi.
Mr van Rensburg, you say you confirm the affidavits and specifically those that you have read of your co-applicants, you co-applicants mention that there was - the target was a - one of them was a white house and the other one they call it a "hout huis".
CHAIRPERSON: Wooden house.
MS MAKHUBELE: Yes, wooden house.
Where you satisfied that - before you finally gave the approval, were you satisfied that that was the only white house, or were there several white houses in that vicinity?
MR VAN RENSBURG: I cannot recall today whether or not there were various white houses in that vicinity. At that stage we were aware of two so-called white houses. I don't know why they were called white houses, but there were two in Manzini. The one was occupied by an ANC member, John Kadimeng(?). We are not referring to that house, we're referring to the other house which was also referred to as a white house because it was painted white, as far as I can recall and understand.
MS MAKHUBELE: The victim before the Committee today, Mrs Valerie Hlubi, my instructions are that her house - if the word "white house" refers to - or you understand it to mean the painting outside, my instructions are that her house was painted white and that next to her there was a cream/white house. My instructions are further that her house did not house any activists, but that the activists were housed in the cream/white house which was next to hers. What would you say to this?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, I would say that this is very strange, because the Swazi Police confirmed that this particular house was indeed a house which was used by trained ANC members as a transit house. Afterwards it was determined that the person who had died in the house of this particular lady was a trained ANC terrorist. I can no longer recall his name, but he was involved prior to this, in an attack on the Booysens Police Station and this was an armed attack.
MS MAKHUBELE: She will testify to the effect that her house is in plot 122. They used plot numbers 122, and that actually the house that was used by ANC activists was plot 123.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, if I might just add something ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment please. Keep that answer in mind, I just want to determine something from the Advocate.
Ms Makhubele tell me, you mentioned just now that the cream/white house was the one in which certain activities occurred ...(inaudible)
MS MAKHUBELE: The cream/white house is plot number 123, the house where ANC activists were staying.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, in response to the question put by the Advocate, I must say that the Swaziland Police confirmed to my subsequently that the particular house which was damaged in the explosion was indeed the correct house, it was the transit house of the ANC. And the former Commissioner of the Swaziland Police, Mr Mtetwa, still accused me of the fact that it was South Africans who had blown up that house.
MS MAKHUBELE: As far as the report you got, if you can remember it well, were there any other houses damaged in that incident or was that the only house?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, there were two houses which were simultaneously blown up that night, or at least the bomb exploded at two houses.
CHAIRPERSON: Where is the other house?
MR VAN RENSBURG: The other house was also in a Manzini residential area, but it was a wooden house.
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it perhaps that house to which the Swaziland Police referred?
MR VAN RENSBURG: They referred to both. They were aware of both. They knew that they had arrested people such as ANC cadres or trained ANC members on previous occasions at that house. They knew of the activities which were under way there.
MS MAKHUBELE: When I read all the affidavits I get the impression that the wooden house and the white house are not in the same vicinity, is this correct?
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
MS MAKHUBELE: So what I mean is, in the vicinity of that white house, were any other houses damaged?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I recall vaguely that there was a house next door of which the walls were cracked. I cannot really say with certainty the extent of the damage which that house incurred.
MS MAKHUBELE: Can I refer you to the affidavit of Dirk Coetzee, page 95. Unfortunately the bundle is not paginated so the pages ...
CHAIRPERSON: Is your bundle not paginated?
MS MAKHUBELE: ... I have is not paginated, so ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) hand machines. Has it not been done for you?
MS MAKHUBELE: ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: Is it there?
MS MAKHUBELE: ...(inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON: Now the two of us are in the same mode here.
MS MAKHUBELE: It's 867 98 - I don't know which one is ...
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MS MAKHUBELE: The number that appears here is 00000067. It's paragraph 5.4.14.1.22 of Dirk Coetzee's affidavit. According to him he says that he went to the scene thereafter and the part I want to refer you to is where he says
"The roof and windows on the southern part of the northern neighbour's house were badly damaged. I suppose the walls may have suffered as well."
and Mrs Hlubi's instructions to me are that this refers to her house.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That may be so, Chairperson, I would not be able to dispute it. I did not visit the scene after the explosions, so I could not assess the situation.
CHAIRPERSON: Therefore you cannot dispute it?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I cannot dispute it.
MS MAKHUBELE: Page 7 of your affidavit you say that your objective would not be to kill young children or innocent children. What I want to know on a follow-up to the clarifications put to you by Judge Pillay, are the precautions that you - obviously in the planning you - I've read all the affidavits there, there were people who made the bombs and obviously precautions would have been taken to guard against damage to neighbouring houses or property. Was this actually done?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, we didn't know that there was a child in the one house, we had no knowledge of that.
MR MALAN: Mr van Rensburg the question is, in your planning, did you try to prevent damage to neighbouring houses?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, the main objective was to actually blow up the house. I am not an explosives expert but these experts did their planning in such a way that the bomb was to be planted in such a way that it had its greatest impact on the target.
MR MALAN: Mr van Rensburg, don't you just want to listen to the question. In your order did you also give the order that adjacent or neighbouring houses should not be damaged?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Did you tell them "Blow up the house but make sure that the neighbours don't suffer damage"?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Quite correct.
MS MAKHUBELE: My instructions are that - as you have heard from Coetzee's affidavit, not only was Mrs Hlubi's house badly damaged, but also another house. Mrs Hlubi's is 122, the ANC's house was plot 123, a further plot, 124 was also damaged. Would you still say that enough precautions were taken?
MR VAN RENSBURG: I really can't answer the question, I don't know whether those houses were damaged. I can't dispute it at this stage, I don't know whether such houses were damaged. I can remember vaguely that there was a wall, an adjacent wall adjacent to one of the houses and this wall had collapsed or had been damaged. I don't know about any other damage. I can't remember it, so I really can't answer that with any certainty.
MS MAKHUBELE: You said in your affidavit that the houses were monitored and I take it you would have known by that day or by the time you give an order, who - that say in the neighbour's house there are these people living there, whether there are children, old people, because the house that you wanted to target was monitored. Is one of the purposes for monitoring, to see how many people live there, maybe their ages?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, we had to work on the information which we received, we didn't work on our own direct observation of these homes. So we had to go on the information which we received and some of this information had been confirmed by the Swaziland Police.
MR MALAN: Was that before the bomb?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: So part of your information you got from the Swaziland Police?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, regarding the existence of these homes and the purpose for which they were used.
MR MALAN: In other words they co-operated with you, the Police, in terms of the operation against ANC people at that stage?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Not - well I received this information from certain sources in the Swazi Police. The Commissioner of the Swazi Police sometimes made certain remarks to me and comments to me, other information bits of information I got from sources in the Swazi Police, who were my sources. I even saw documents, reports emanating from the Swazi Police, in which some of these things had been put in writing.
MR MALAN: So it wasn't a Police to Police relationship, it was sources within the Police, of which the Commissioner of the Swazi Police was one such source?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, he wasn't a source, we were - well if I had complaints about, for instance complaints or information about ANC activities in Swaziland, he wanted me to come and tell him about this.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MS MAKHUBELE: Thank you.
In plot 122 there was Mrs Hlubi's mother who is now 86 years old, she could have been 66 years old, and a five year old child. Fortunately the house was just damaged as described, but there were no injuries.
MR MALAN: Do you have a question, or ...?
MS MAKHUBELE: It's not a question, it's just a statement. I have no further questions for the applicant.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS MAKHUBELE
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
MR MALAN: Mr van Rensburg, at the back of the bundle, pages 69 and 70 - I don't know whether you were referred to those pages by Mr Victor, there's a short piece of evidence from Dirk Coetzee which says that he had been referred to his book, but that according to him he was not yet at Vlakplaas, because he said it was only in August of 1980 that he went to Vlakplaas.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I think he was at Vlakplaas. He might still have been at Middelburg, I really can't say, I can't remember that. You know he went from Oshoek to Middelburg, but just for a short time, a couple of months and then from Middelburg he went to Vlakplaas. So I want to say almost with 99% certainty that he was at Vlakplaas at that stage.
MR MALAN: You see, if you say you're certain - well I don't think he would make a mistake about the date at which he started at Vlakplaas, and the evidence is that this took place - there are also other references to this, about three days after the attack on the Sasol plant and then it could not have been August, it must have been June, and then Coetzee's right, that he was not at Vlakplaas.
MR VAN RENSBURG: I can't dispute that. I can't dispute it if you say that he wasn't at Vlakplaas, I will concede it. I simply assumed that he was at Vlakplaas, but I will concede the point.
MR MALAN: I have no further questions, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Rensburg, for what period, or over what period of time did the planning for this attack stretch?
MR VAN RENSBURG: I'm not sure, Sir, but I think it could have been two/three weeks possibly, but I'm not sure.
CHAIRPERSON: Was there a time when you gave the order or were given the order "Look come on men, we're actually taking too much time with this, let's just finish it now"?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, there was never an attempt to speed it up, not from my side. What was important to me was that if we did go there, that we should achieve the highest possible level of success. That was important to me.
CHAIRPERSON: Now the report after the incidents, were you told how many houses had been blown up?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Two?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you told that the targets had actually been blown up?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you perhaps told that perhaps more than the targets had been damaged?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you dispute it as the Advocate has put it to you now, that plots 1, 2 and 3 were also blown up, but that the house plot 122 was also damaged?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, not by the persons who were carrying out the order.
CHAIRPERSON: But will you concede that that's possible?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, it's possible. What I can specifically recall is that the Swazi Police told me afterwards when I was there, about this house which had been blown up and that two had been blown up. They said some windows had been damaged and I think they mentioned a wall that had been damaged. That's all I can remember.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe, I hope it's just a toy and you haven't got any other plans with that tyre.
MR VAN DER MERWE: It belongs the past, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
During that period there were also certain incidents of retaliation, do you remember that? From both sides.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: What I've just remembered is the possibility that this attack could have been in retaliation for the Sasol incident.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Sir, it is possible, but it was - before the Secunda attack it had already been planned and discussed and approved. The transit house had already incident had already been approved.
CHAIRPERSON: That's why I'm asking the question. So it didn't depend on what happened at Secunda?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No.
CHAIRPERSON: And it wasn't put in plan or in motion because of the Secunda thing?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No.
CHAIRPERSON: And after the incident did you perhaps find out who had been killed?
MR VAN RENSBURG: We learnt that there was a child in the wooden house who had died and in the other house a trained ANC man had died. According to our information he had been involved at an earlier stage, in an armed attack on the Booysens Police Station.
CHAIRPERSON: That was the information which you got?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And maybe that is the evidence which we have to accept. I'm worried about the child. Were attempts made at the wooden house, to find out who was inside before it was blown up?
MR VAN RENSBURG: According to my opinion, no. If you want to carry out such an operation at night, you can't go to the house and try and find out exactly who is inside or whether there's a child or whatever, you place yourself at risk. You're acting in a foreign country, there are numerous risks which you have to attend to. So I would say no, it's not possible. I'm very sorry about the child who died, I wish I could have prevented it. I wish we could have prevented it.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, one of the considerations is whether the incident or the death of a person is of such a political nature that it could improve the political situation for that party on whose behalf it was formed. It doesn't matter how. Do you understand what I'm saying?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Now if we look at the death of a small child, how in your view would that have strengthened the position of the government of the day?
MR VAN RENSBURG: I would not say that the death of the child would have improved the government's position at all. I say once again it's a pity that a child died, but I don't want to dilute my feeling of pity. But I want to also say that is was also irresponsible of the people to allow a child to live in an ANC transit house, where there were armed people in and out and in transit, on their way to commit acts of terror and on the other hand, there were also landmines that had been planted, aimed at Defence personnel and cars and innocent women and children who were killed. It was a war, we had to prevent these people coming through to your side to commit acts of terror. We did what we thought was right and good to try to prevent loss of innocent lives on this side. Unfortunately in this case, for which I've already expressed my regret, a child died.
CHAIRPERSON: You see according to information which we have at this stage, we don't know whether there were other people who were perhaps injured in that same house and whether other people were killed. It seems to me that that was a targeted house and it was only the child who was in that house and that child died.
MR VAN RENSBURG: My information was that during that period there was information that there were fourteen trained people on their way and that they were going to be staying in that transit house. That was our information. There was no information regarding a child and a member of the Swazi Police afterwards told me that they themselves were not aware that there was a child in that house.
CHAIRPERSON: I accept that. I'm trying to place you in a position to give us information, so that we can actually look at the proper considerations in this matter, so that we can ultimately come to a proper and right decision. As this case stands at the moment, the death or the killing of the small child is a problem, I'm worried about that. So we have to ask, did you do enough to confirm that just before you blew the house up, I'm talking about the wooden house, that those fourteen people, the trained people were indeed in that house and that in the circumstances as you saw them, the blowing up of the house with the fourteen people inside was right, in terms of that war which you're referring to? I must ask that question, was enough done? If enough had been done to determine whether the information was correct and that there were that number of trained people in the house, then it's an easy decision. If sufficient precautions had not been taken and those people were not in the house, then other questions arise to be able to determine whether the provisions of the Act have been satisfied and I'm asking these questions to enable us to be in a position to ask the correct questions and to make the correct decisions. Do you understand? I'm not trying to catch you out.
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I understand.
CHAIRPERSON: And that's why I'm asking you, what was done to verify that information as correct and to make sure, just before the house was blown up, that those fourteen were in fact inside the house?
MR VAN RENSBURG: It was a high risk operation. The information which we had was the information which we had to go on and to work on. It was a high risk operation. Our information was that there was always a man present at this wooden house and that he played the part of a caretaker. And these people couldn't have gone to the premises to investigate to find out who was there and what was going on. We couldn't monitor the place openly, it was a foreign country, we simply had to work on the information which we received and we had to plan our actions accordingly. I'm sure that my people who went there were not able in any way to determine whether those people were inside the house at 2 o'clock in the morning and then still place the device there without anybody noticing, with sufficient time to make their escape.
You must understand that they could have been observed at any point by, for instance, a police patrol and they still had to get out and there could be roadblocks. So time was a factor, a crucial factor. It's easy for us to sit here with hindsight and to think what could have been done, but there at grassroots level where the work actually had to be done, circumstances are often quite different at that level, quite different to the way we observe it now with hindsight.
CHAIRPERSON: You see the problem we have no is that you had contact with certain policemen in Swaziland, could they not, or one of those policemen not have been used to find out or to confirm that those fourteen people who'd been expected to come to the house, were in fact in the house?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, we wouldn't even have considered such a thing because you didn't want to involve other people outside of our little group, you didn't want to make anybody else aware of this operation. We couldn't run that risk and I would never have caused that risk to be taken.
CHAIRPERSON: This information that you would have received from those policemen, how independent was this to keep them out of the entire plan?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, they regularly conveyed information to me. It wasn't just a one off information piece that they gave me, I had other information from them regarding movements and other aspects of things which the ANC was involved with in Swaziland.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Thank you very much.
MR MALAN: Mr van Rensburg, I just want complete clarity. You only gave an order to Rorich and these two houses that you had previously identified were to be blown up, you did not give them any other instruction to see who was in the house or anything else, you had already decided to blow up those houses based upon the information that you already had.
MR VAN RENSBURG: That is correct.
MR MALAN: And only that.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Only that, except that in as far as possible neighbouring houses or bystanders or anybody else should not be injured or damaged, if it could be prevented.
MR MALAN: Then the question of the fourteen persons who would have been there according to the information, was your information that they would be there on that specific evening, or that they would be there at some or other point?
MR VAN RENSBURG: There was no specific time, it was said these persons usually came and stayed over in such a house for three days at a time sometimes, so if we had information which could lead us to expect that, say next week Wednesday fourteen persons would arrive in Mozambique, one could be certain that these would be trained persons and then we would know that if they arrived there on Wednesday, some of them at least would infiltrate over to the RSA by the weekend. So one had a few days leeway to work with in some cases.
MR MALAN: What was the primary objective, to destroy the houses, to kill people, to intimidate the ANC, or was it simply a tactical exercise?
MR VAN RENSBURG: The primary objective in my opinion at that stage, or the primary objective was definitely to make the ANC see that we were not going to tolerate this. We wanted to intimidate them, we wanted to make it clear that we would not tolerate the fact that they made use of neighbouring States to commit acts of terrorism and then conveniently slip back over the border, wait there for some time and sometimes go to Mozambique for a short while and then return to commit further acts of terrorism. The purpose was to say, "Yes, we know who you are, we know where your transit facility in Swaziland is, we know that you are trained and we will not tolerate your actions, we will not let you continue with this." And simultaneously, to send a message to the Swaziland Police that we will not tolerate the fact that they allow such free and open access to these activists, so that they can commit acts of terrorism in our country. If with both explosions we could have killed a number of trained persons, that would have been a bonus.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: As I've understood your evidence the explosion of the wooden house did not depend upon the presence of those fourteen trained persons.
MR VAN RENSBURG: The fact that we received information that there would possibly be fourteen persons there, gave me the feeling that it would be a good time to complete the planning, or to complete the operation.
CHAIRPERSON: Three weeks before the explosion of that house, wasn't that part of the plan?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it only the white house which was part of the plan?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No I must have misunderstood you. Three weeks before the time it was both houses. That was the plan.
CHAIRPERSON: And why was the wooden house part of the plan?
MR VAN RENSBURG: The wooden house was a transit house. It was identified and clarified as a transit house.
CHAIRPERSON: Three weeks before the time?
MR VAN RENSBURG: We knew this before that, before the three weeks.
CHAIRPERSON: But three weeks before the time the plan was formulated?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, more-or-less.
CHAIRPERSON: So that house would have been blown up regardless of whether or not there were people inside?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is entirely correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Innocent persons as well?
MR VAN RENSBURG: No, if the information was that there was, for example, a supervisor or if there were any other persons who were living in the house.
CHAIRPERSON: A week before the explosion of the house you say that you received information indicating that there would be approximately fourteen persons present there during the forthcoming week.
MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say this had nothing to do with the plan to blow up the house?
MR VAN RENSBURG: Chairperson, I'm not saying that it didn't have anything to do with the plan, but the plan was already formulated. The fact that there was an additional fourteen persons simply told us that this was a suitable time.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Rorich will be the following applicant. If we could just arrange for the microphone to be placed. Thank you.
