/ 18 October 2002

Twist in trial of rightwingers

A tale of intrigue and hit lists has emerged in a murder trial that has been linked to the pending treason trial of a group of rightwingers.

The counter-terrorism methods allegedly used by the police have been questioned by the wife and former business partner of one of the men facing treason charges over the alleged white terrorist plot to overthrow the government.

Sarel Kruger is a former business partner of Adriaan ”At” van Wyk, who is being held with more than a dozen others in connection with an alleged right-wing plot.

Van Wyk’s wife, Cornia, and Kruger are concerned about the role of an alleged informer who is listed as a potential witness in the treason trial.

Their concern follows the emergence of an affidavit by the witness, JC Smit, in which he claims to have been party to theft from and murder of a man police were investigating in connection with the treason case.

The murdered man, 27-year-old Nic van Rensburg, ran a firearms training business in Centurion, called the First Defence Training Institute. He was shot nine or 10 times with a .22 on May 9.

Three weeks before his murder the police crime intelligence division raided First Defence Training Institute in search of illegal weapons. They apparently found nothing.

Kruger says that police investigating the murder told him that he and Van Wyk were on the same hit list as Van Rensburg. Van Wyk was only arrested on August 16.

In his affidavit Smit, who worked at First Defence, claims that he was party to the planning of the murder, which he alleges was carried out by another man, Chris Streicher, when Smit was not present.

Streicher is being charged with the killing. The motive for the killing appears to be unclear, but some reports have suggested that Van Rensburg was suspected of informing on the rightwingers.

Smit said Streicher had also tried to kill Van Wyk. He had thrown a brick through Van Wyk’s window the night before the murder to lure him outside, but gave up when no one ventured out.

More importantly, Smit’s affidavit claims that during this period he was in regular contact with Superintendent Louis Pretorious, one of the key investigators in the treason case, and had reported to him several times.

In his statement Smit also claims that over the Easter weekend this year he accompanied Streicher when he broke into Van Rensburg’s house and stole the hard drive from his computer.

He states that Streicher told him he had handed the hard drive to a Hannes Greyling of crime intelligence in Potchefstroom. A group of the alleged treason conspirators was arrested soon afterwards.

Kruger says that Smit’s statement — which was taken by the investigating officer in the murder case — suggests the police knew about the planned murder and did nothing to stop it. He says he had made further investigations that suggested the police were using informers to plant misinformation in far-right circles.

Superintendent Pretorious was cross-examined on Smit’s statement during the bail hearing in the treason trial. He denied that Smit had briefed him about Streicher’s plans or about the murder after it had taken place.

Pretorious said he worked in a different division from Greyling and had no knowledge of what he was doing. He conceded they were both part of crime intelligence.

At the murder trial, Inspector Werner Pieterse, the investigating officer, testified that he had obtained the records of Smit’s phone calls, which showed he had spoken to Superintendent Pretorious twice on the day of the murder — after it had taken place — and six times the next day. Pieterse testified he had not yet been able to take a statement from Pretorious.

Kruger said that though he believed Van Wyk was innocent, he was content to let the treason case take its course. But he said he wanted answers about Smit’s affidavit and how he and Van Wyk had come to be targeted.

Advocate Dries van Rensburg, who is leading the treason case, told the Mail & Guardian that the circumstances under which Smit’s affidavit was given to the defence in the treason case needed to be investigated. He said the matter of Smit’s affidavit was a very ”funny business” and that Smit would have to confirm the affidavit in court.