amntrans AMNESTY HEARING 1999-05-11 KLERKSDORP 2 AM 7994 VENTERSDORP https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=53397&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1999/99051011_klk_990511kl.htm CHAIRPERSON So if we could proceed on that basis and I would remind you that you are still under your declaration to tell the truth. (s.u.c.) I thank you Mr Chairman. I would just like to request you to allow me to use a minute or so in order to get to the part with regard to the documentation on the weapons. CHAIRPERSON Yes I think if you take a look, it's ...(intervention) MS PATEL 29. CHAIRPERSON I refer you to pages 29 to 36 of the documentation. That is page 34 then, very well. MR TERRE'BLANCHE ADDRESSES COMMITTEE Mr Chairman, during 1982, the AWB got hold of some weapons. In court it was said at the time, that the weapons, the ammunition of which I had never seen the identity, but as was described in court it was parts of AK47s and would I suppose one or two pistols. These weapons, members of the AWB got it from a member of the, Mr Kees Moos, an erstwhile member of the AWB. I became aware of that when later it was shown at a house in Delmas and the allegation was made that the ammunition was up in a cupboard and parts of weapons were stored in trunks. The idea with regard to the getting hold of the weapons was to keep those should the erstwhile government capitulate in the same way that the white colonial governments, in a very short time span, handed over their power to a majority government and the fear was voiced by members of the AWB that the same fate could be that of the whites in South Africa with a very fast taking over of power resulting in chaos, that as is the case of the Belgian Congo, as was the case with the Belgian Congo and other places, murder would take place and people would lose their lives. That was also our defence in the Supreme Court and the verdict of the judge was that we would in any case not be allowed to possess those weapons even though the intention would be to use it in order to protect ourselves. We therefore had the weapons in our possession illegally. We had those weapons in our possession. The judge did say in his verdict that we, to a great extent, were the victims of circumstances. I reconciled myself with the idea at the time that under those circumstances it would be well and right that the weapons should not be given, handed over to the police but for political reasons we were to keep them should the history repeat itself and we are being confronted and being put in chaos and evolution by other forces. I humbly submit that I do qualify for amnesty for the possession of these weapons. It was the organisation, the AWB, who accepted responsibility for those weapons. I, as leader of the AWB, finally accepted responsibility. We kept it there and it had to stay there until a situation would arise that we would perhaps need it in a situation of chaos and warfare. That is my side of the story, Sir. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you. On this issue relating to the weapons, Ms Patel to you have any questions? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL Yes, perhaps just one. You stated in your application that you received the weapons from an agent from the South African Police, could you perhaps just give us the details as to how that came about? Was there an agreement between you and this agent, or can you give us the specific manner in which he got the weapons and gave them, handed them over to you or your organisation as such. Mr Chairman, I would firstly like to say that in a later court case, exhibits at my disposal, I would have evidence where Mr Moos during another court case prior to this case prior to this case - unfortunately I did not have the information at my disposal during my court case, when in court he was asked whether he worked for the Security Police, he answered "Yes, I work for the Security police" At a later stage he was asked again: "Do you at this stage currently work for the Security Police?" ... upon which Mr Moos said: "Yes, I currently work for the Security police". With that knowledge at my disposal, I immediately came to realise that Mr Moos is in fact an agent of the Security Police. Where he got those weapons from, I do not know. He told us that he had bought them. The weapons were fetched from his plot by a one Mr du Plessis from Delmas and a one Mr Jan Groeneveld from Pretoria. The weapons were then transported to Delmas to the Du Plessis' farm. It was two trucks were filled with weapons and like as I have said before, pieces of ammunition. The weapons in most cases were dissembled. There was also ammunition. I then came to my, went to my brother and this person to his farm upon which I agreed that we should not transport it any further and therefore we buried it there. That is the information I have at my disposal. It happened 10 years or more ago. It was a decade. I am therefore not as sure ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON I think it was 1982, it's 17 years ago. MS PATEL Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL ADV BOSMAN I have no questions, thank you Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you. I would like to mention those two cases and I would immediately like to add that it was not the style of the AWB to, either within the act of politics or those people getting direction in politics, to kill those people or to in any way harm them bodily. The furtherest the movement went in our case was to tar and feather the person without there ever being an intention of doing bodily harm to him. Coming to the Ventersdorp situation, I would also like to have something to say on that. I thank you for your patience Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Chairperson, no, as regards Ventersdorp, I just want to keep to the standpoint that the intensity in the whole matter was that Mr de Klerk should speak. We wanted him to appear here and to talk. We wanted to put questions to him which we believed would bring him great political embarrassment. We wanted to prove that in places such as Ventersdorp, the rural areas, that he was no longer acceptable. You will remember that Ventersdorp was then already a seat for the Conservative Party and that he had defeated Deputy Minister Wilkins there in the previous election. We wanted to challenge Mr de Klerk. It was a few of his, some of his promises which he never kept. We had the situation of growing squatter camps in the surrounding areas, but what is most important is that we wanted to destroy him politically in Ventersdorp by giving him a - the fact that we did not trust him in Ventersdorp, that we had lost all confidence in him and that he was no longer acceptable as President and as leader of the country. I also want to mention, which I did not mention yesterday and that is that the member of the Assembly of the Conservative Party, Mr Fanie van Vuuren was between the first three of people who walked to the hall where Mr de Klerk was. There were many members from the Conservative Party and other parties and that members of the Conservative Party and members of the AWB had armed themselves with sticks etc., with which to hit the dogs who were set loose upon them. That is true. A situation of war was created by the media. However, when the document reached me, that they were prepared to talk, I regarded this as the ideal opportunity and as a breakthrough because I wanted to be in that hall. I think that I was prepared to meet Mr de Klerk politically and by means of arguments to defeat him there. On my way to the hall the masses shouted that the would go with and no-one, as was testified, could prevent these people who were not only from the AWB, from also asking questions. These were very extreme circumstances and then unfortunately the incident took place which I mentioned yesterday and I will reply to any questions that you might still have regarding this matter. I thank you. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. As indicated yesterday there was this application - as indicated earlier, there was this application to have Mr de Klerk subpoenaed. I would like, at this stage, just to make the ruling on that before we proceed with the matter. R U L I N G Both the applicants have applied for Mr F W de Klerk, the former State President, to be called as a witness and to testify as a witness in this matter. They have both expressed the belief that the actions taken by Mr de Klerk were the proximate cause of the so-called battle of Ventersdorp, and accordingly that it was he and the members of the forces acting on his behalf who were responsible therefore. They have both stated that Mr de Klerk should be compelled to testify at this hearing so that they may put questions to him and so that he may explain inter alia why he visited Ventersdorp on the day in question and also to explain the actions of the members of the Security Forces on that day. Section 29 1(c) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act number 34 of 1995, that is the Act that establishes the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and which governs the conduct of these proceedings, provides that: "The Commission made for purposes of the holding of a hearing by notice, in writing, call upon any person to appear before the Commission and to give evidence or to answer questions relevant to the subject matter of the hearing." It is clear from this that the decision to subpoena a person to testify at a hearing rests entirely with the Commission. Before such a decision is taken this Committee must be satisfied that it is both essential and necessary for such person to testify in order to enable it to arrive at a just decision in regard to the granting or refusal of amnesty. We, after consideration of the information placed before us, including the submissions of the applicants and the written applications, are of the view that the evidence of Mr de Klerk would not be essential and necessary in order to enable us to arrive at a just decision in this matter. Our duty is to determine whether the applicants have satisfied the criteria set out in the aforesaid Act for the granting of amnesty, namely that the acts committed by them were acts associated with a political objective as defined in the Act. That they have made a full disclosure of their own participation and that their applications comply with the requirements of the Act. We are satisfied that such a determination will be able to be arrived at without the testimony of Mr de Klerk. In deciding whether the above criteria have been satisfied, it will not be necessary to establish which side involved in the conflict was guilty of causing the conflict. This is not an investigation into the causes of the Battle of Ventersdorp but is an amnesty application of the two applicants. The applicants will neither be prejudiced nor compromised in the absence of the testimony of Mr de Klerk. We accordingly rule that the application to have Mr de Klerk subpoenaed as a witness in this matter be REFUSED. We have been informed that Mr de Klerk did receive notification in terms of Section 19 4 of the Act, and that he was informed of his rights to attend this hearing and to adduce evidence if he so desires. Obviously he has elected not to attend or to adduce evidence. So that is the ruling. Mr Rudolph, I would just like to remind you as well that you are still under your former declaration to tell the truth and then if you could just tell us what happened on the day in question and particularly the part that you played in it. P J RUDOLPH (s.u.c.) Thank you Your Honour, I abide by your decision. As a lay person who is not familiar with the law but as somebody having a great interest in that, I thought in their definition of the total disclosure, to get Mr de Klerk here, I abide by your decision. Nevertheless, I have considered to withdraw my application so that you would then have to deal with the situation regarding Ventersdorp. After a quick consultation it was his decision. I appreciate that, that I then also will proceed with my application. May I then proceed? I would just like to say to you that you are going to have to accept that in the idiom of the total disclosure it is a fairly long process and I am going to have to get certain exhibits to you. The fact that I am going to read it should perhaps make things a little quicker. CHAIRPERSON Sorry, Mr Rudolph, if I could just speak to my secretary quickly. Yes, Mr Rudolph? MR RUDOLPH Your Honour, in the first instance I am going to tell you about a part of my application, as I called it then the application for amnesty. I am going to give you the background and the reasons, the political events and the events at Ventersdorp. When I read this to you, I will attempt to do this in the third person rather than the first person. I am going to read this and if I speak about the applicant I am referring to myself. At that stage the applicant was 58 years old, Afrikaans-speaking and residing at Plot 25, Wildebeeshoek, Dewild. The application is the founder of the Order of the Boerevolk movement which is therefore the reinstatement of the two Boer Republics as it existed in 1902, before Great Britain took over. Under the ...(indistinct) of the movement the applicant was involved in the incidents of political ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON Sorry, Mr Rudolph, could you please go a bit slower, Mr Rudolph, it's is very difficult for the interpreter. MR RUDOLPH Must I start from the beginning? CHAIRPERSON You can continue. MR RUDOLPH "The raising of the Transvaal "Vierkleur" at the, and the bomb attack at Melrose House in Pretoria where the Peace of Vereeniging was concluded in 1902. On this terrain the Vierkleur was raised as well. As a result of this and other attacks, the applicant on the 17th of September 1990, was arrested and charged with the theft of weapons, sabotage and other offences. With the agreement between the then government and the ANC, the applicant was also set free on the 18th of March 1991. After his release, the applicant had a post as Secretary-General at the AWB. In that capacity he became involved in the events at Ventersdorp for which he is now requesting amnesty. With this point of departure, the applicant and others, during August 1991, they decided to attend the public political meeting of the former State President, Mr FW de Klerk at Ventersdorp and to put questions to him regarding the independence of the Boer Republics' political prisoners who were still in prison and who are still there, squatters on Boer land which was a matter of actual importance and interest at Ventersdorp at that stage. It has to be noted that at the time of the Ventersdorp event he was a resident of Ventersdorp." CHAIRPERSON You said that you decided to attend a public meeting of the State President, was the meeting advertised as a public meeting? MR RUDOLPH Your Honour, I am not following you. What advertisement are you referring to, our attendance there or what? CHAIRPERSON No, you said - I just want to get this matter cleared up, you said that in August 1991 you decided to attend a public meeting of the State President, which was to be held in Ventersdorp. Now we have also heard earlier that that meeting was then said to be a meeting just for members of the National Party etc. Now this question of whether it was a public meeting or a closed meeting for a limited class of persons, namely members of the party, you have said it was a public meeting, why do you say it was a public meeting, was it advertised as such? This is all I just want to know at this stage. MR RUDOLPH Yes, the meeting was advertised as a public meeting. It was advertised by means of placards and posters on the lamp posts. Posters were placed on notice boards and even in the media. CHAIRPERSON Thank you, you may continue. MR RUDOLPH As a result of that, a march took place to the hall where the meeting was to be held and a confrontation with the police, which opposed the invitation to speak to the Cabinet Minister. The applicant tried to get past a police cordon but was arrested at the hall where the meeting took place and held in a police van until he was charged later that evening. Although there was a shooting incident and people were killed, the magistrate found that the applicant had already been arrested and therefore could not have had any part in the events. With that I want to tell you that my involvement or responsibility, that I am not trying to get away from my responsibility with that statement. The applicant was charged with conspiracy and public violence and found guilty. The crime which the applicant was found guilty of which the applicant still denies was a crime had political objectives and was the main reason for the application for amnesty. The applicant appealed against the sentence because reconsideration did not exist. The applicant keeps to his conviction that he had a meeting with the Cabinet Minister and was illegally prevented by the former SAP to attend this meeting. The appeal has since been rejected." At the hearing, Your Honour, I used, made use of my right to give an explanation to the court. As I had said that I was not guilty, I will use my civil right to explain this to the court. And at this stage I also want to say to you that perhaps it is not in such legal terms as preferable but this is the attempt of a lay person. If the charge sheet includes a crime then the person who has incited the crime is absent at this hearing. His name is FW de Klerk. If I was involved in anything which is referred to as common purpose on the charge sheet, then that purpose was to appeal for a place in the sun for my people and my religion and for the reinstatement of my peoples' freedom on the land which was taken from our forefathers by Britain. Such action I do not regard as illegal, even less so that it was done with criminal intentions. To anyone who has the experience of the Goedgevonden incident in Ventersdorp and what happened in Ventersdorp before this and who shares in this experience, it should have been clear that Mr de Klerk has before him too, Jan Smuts, will have no doubt to have his people, people who oppose him, to have been killed. In opposition to this I tried to warn and tried to take precautions by suggesting specific action. The public life sets high demands to those who are called to act on behalf of a cause. Those demands require personal safety, position and status to be placed on the alter of the nation. One cannot say that you are a leader and then doubt when the struggle, when faced with the struggle. When one is in the position of leadership and when not only the honour of your people but also its continued existence is being threatened and you are moving to a place where you have to act on behalf of your people and your religion, where you have a meeting, not only with a Cabinet Minister, but also with the future of your people, you do not allow yourself to be interrupted by misleading ... (end of tape) ... for the continued existence sets a high price. Therefore, I could not disrupt public calm. I am a registered voter in the constituency of Ventersdorp - at that stage I was. At the time of the event I was an inhabitant of Ventersdorp. During my stay in Ventersdorp, the town was, had peace and calm while I was present there, which was most of the time. FW de Klerk is not a registered voter in the constituency of Ventersdorp, nor was he a resident of Ventersdorp. During his visit to the town, accompanied by a large contingency of policemen, there was no peace and calm in the town. The unrest is then therefore clearly to be placed in front of his door than in front of mine. I did not disrupt the members of the community. As a matter of fact, if the history of this time is one day seen in perspective, it can be said of me that I protected those specific rights. I am not the one who did not acknowledge the rights of the members of the community by refusing them attendance to the public meeting. I was not the one who denied the rights of the public community by trying to prevent them by means of violence, from keeping a meeting with Minister Amie Venter in front of the town hall. I was not the one who made, who disrupted the lives of the people of the community by placing barbed wire there and using police dogs to attack them. In this regard it would have been much more suitable to use the commander of the SAP during the Ventersdorp incident and to call him before court. I did not affect the authority of the South African Police. The SAP has no other authority than to restore and to maintain law and order. It does not fall within that authority to erect barbed wire, use teargas, bullets and vicious dogs and to take a stand against people who, for peaceful reasons, want to state a civil case. Such action is tyranny at the highest level and it calls against, it shouts against everything that is democratic and civilised and such a State deserves absolutely no continued existence and I am very glad that that State has been destroyed. What is said to me in this statement is therefore not true at all. If the State is to say that it is a crime that it is a - to fight for the survival of the Boer people and to be counted for those people and stand up for them, it is proof of only one thing which is that that State is rotten in its core. With regard to the charge sheet, the following: I did nothing which could substantiate me firing at the police with a firearm. During the incident I did have a firearm on me but I never fired at anything or anybody, not even when I was provoked twice and I was assaulted by the police. I did not fire with a firearm at members of the public, I did not fire at anybody or anything, but I do know that members of the South African Police did fire at members of the general public and some of the members of the public were shot dead by the South African Police. So in this matter the court implicated the wrong person. I did not assault members of the general public, on the contrary, I can say that members of the general public during this incident were assaulted by members of the South African Police. In fact I myself am one of the members of the general public who was assaulted by the South African Police. I still bear the consequences of that in that since this incident I suffer from headaches and my right arm was injured. I have not assaulted members of the South African Police. Also with regard to this charge, the wrong person again is in the, is being accused. They have attacked me, I have not attacked them. I honestly must tell you I cannot understand why the investigating officer wants to prosecute me. I never - I find it senseless to fight vehicles in any way. I haven't damaged property. I did not want to break through a police cordon. In my official capacity as Secretary General at the time I had an appointment to meet Mr Amie Venter in front of the hall. I deny that I have worked together with anybody to commit a crime. In the Ventersdorp episode I did see signs of conspiracy but on the side of Mr de Klerk and the South African Police and on their side Mr de Klerk, the South African Police, the South African Defence Force without conspiracy taking place beforehand, we would not have a very unpopular political personality. A Police Force with barbed wire, an armed Police Force with infantry and vehicles, we would not have that simultaneously at the same place. I am not guilty of an offence as is being made out in terms of Section 3. I was on my way to the meeting of one FW de Klerk, to exercise my civilian right and responsibility and I also had an appointment to meet a Cabinet Minister in front of the hall. Despite the efforts of the police not to allow me to my right I did move up to the hall where I was assaulted for a second time by the police. I was not allowed to attend the meeting, I was arrested and I was illegally detained. I am, as I have already said, a registered voter in the Ventersdorp constituency and at the time I was living in Ventersdorp. I have a democratic right to attend a meeting as a leader of a registered political party and to listen to the abdicating State President. Mr de Klerk was at Ventersdorp in his capacity as State President and if that was not the case I would have liked to have questioned him about that if the State was to call him as witness. Your Honour, could I then at this stage just ask, there are certain exhibits then which will not be relevant. I would nevertheless like to hand in the document so that you could then later use it or do you expect me to rather go through the total document? CHAIRPERSON MR RUDOLPH Thank you very much Your Honour. CHAIRPERSON I think you have left us with the impression that it was certainly a political meeting that was to take place and that you were to attend the meeting in your capacity as political people. MS PATEL Will everyone please rise. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION P J RUDOLPH (s.u.c.) CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Rudolph, you may continue. MR RUDOLPH Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Chairperson, in terms of the information that these documents are in your possession and that volumes are available, I thought to perhaps cut out some of these and only concentrate on those that are important to me. If I have to approach some of them, concentrate on some of them, you can give me an indication. I would just like to say to you and mention certain ideas with regard to the trial where I gave evidence. CHAIRPERSON MR RUDOLPH I told the magistrate who was responsible for the hearing that in this case the police action played a very important role to the extent that you should also give a verdict on that. We gave our reasons for these in public and you also found it necessary not to emphasise what happened at the police station. It was the afternoon at Ventersdorp prior to the meeting during which we tried to get the police to arrange for the charges. If the, during the, if you were present at that meeting that afternoon - may I read a little faster now? I do not hear the interpreter. CHAIRPERSON He indicates ja. MR RUDOLPH Thank you very much. I would like to say to you, if the afternoon before the meeting of the, - was present, you would have seen the person who gave evidence before you, General Malan, and in which you gave a verdict and I have no problem with that. I believe that General Malan should have made a good impression on the court, but it was placed on record that there was tension between myself and General Malan. And I respectfully submit that if you were present that afternoon, you would also have come to the conclusion to which I came, that General Malan and his people, because they wanted to fight, were prepared to treat people very badly to say the least of it. I have seen the glowing of war in his eyes. You saw him at the coals of the burnt out fire, and it was astounding if one looked at the role of the police that old friends such as Brigadier Scholtz and those people who were house, friends moved past one another in order to contact one another telephonically while it could have been sorted out in a different way if we were prepared to look one another in the eye. I refer to this Your Honour because you have that document in your possession. Today those same people are getting ready to become the government of tomorrow. Our road is a road of struggle. I mentioned these dangers to the court in order to demonstrate that the law plays an important role in the development of a nation. People standing today in court may tomorrow have power in their hands. In other words what is going wrong today could be correct tomorrow, what is right today could be proved wrong tomorrow. The meeting at Ventersdorp which caused this was a meeting that was held by the State President. If people worried about the course of things, there was no better man than the State President to allay those fears. Prior to that there were problems with the squatters at Goedgevonden, squatters who took the land of the Boers because they were being threatened and they became the minority in their own country. The only place in the world where there is a comparative example is in Palestine, where the Jews came in and the result was that to this day there is not peace there. The day will dawn that these walls will also be evidence that there were farmers or Boers who tried very hard to bring about freedom. A place where it should be done was in Potchefstroom, but Ventersdorp in the commando hall, it wanted to stop the State President and with the role name of Rex, they wanted to keep their opponents away. Then Your Honour, I also said in that court, as I have done yesterday, and I would just like to repeat it quickly. In conclusion, I would like to quote quickly with regard to the flame in my chest, paining in my chest, so that you can know that it is not only in my chest but also in the hearts of other people. We are part of history. We are part and witnesses of this and if I know you would understand it. I would like to quote from a court case which took place in 1962, in October which was the Rivonia trial of the current State President on 22 October 1962, and in that Mr Mandela said: "Government violence can only do one thing and that is to bring counter-violence. If there is no dawning of sanity on the part of the government, the dispute between the government and my people will finish up being settled in violence and by force." The same could be said about the Boer people. He further says: "Whatever sentence Your Worship sees fit to impose upon me for the crime of which I have been convicted before this court, may he rest assured that when my sentence has been completed I will still be moved, as men are always moved by their conscience." I would like to conclude with that and I would like to conclude by telling you that what we have done here, at least I and I also know my colleague here next to me did the same, was to say to you that there is not a difference between the fight of the Boers and that of the other people in front of us, which took us to Ventersdorp was the freedom of the Boer nation and the Boer people. That will stay alive. And if I told you that I do not recognise the current government, Your Honour, I would also like to say to you in the same breath that the previous government for the same reason was not acknowledged by me. I thought that we could perhaps in all honesty tell you what motivates us and like my good friend here told you yesterday, I stand here for one simple reason and that is that I would like to clear my record. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Rudolph. that is that this matter was politically driven. For your information I would also like to mention, Mr Rudolph, for the past half decade is no member of the AWB and that is evidence was done in all honesty. In conclusion, I would just like to say, like Mr Rudolph, that night I did not shoot anybody. In fact my weapon was in a briefcase with my documents. That was my briefing order to ask Mr de Klerk questions. I did not have any weapons on me. In conclusion then, neither Mr Rudolph nor myself could get any political gain - sorry, financial gain from this and that there was no motivation about personal hate and revenge in any way. It was politically motivated and that in the end we have been convicted as criminals, without having the privileges of the criminal where they could at least enrich either one. We did not assault people who we have been cross with or wanted to do that. We did not even have that satisfaction of somebody who assaulted somebody else because he proved himself as being in a superior position. I leave this case in your hands. And I would like to associate myself with Mr Rudolph when he said that it stays the ideal, it is the right of each individual and it is the right of a nation to fight for him, for that nation. I thank you for your patience and I hope that the mere fact that we who have been regarded as the far rights - and I have been, it has been mentioned that I was somebody with his colleagues, that we actually, and his cronies. In the other two cases for which I am applying as well, it was never a situation of white against black or an effort to promote Mr de Klerk or his government. I suppose you have been confronted in the first opportunity here that it was about real Boers, Christians who fought against a watered down compromising government, which once again has been proved in this matter. They used the South African Police and the South African Defence Force to save themselves whilst they could not come up with a political solution and never went to the nation or the other nations and opposition who were living with them in the same country. This was politically motivated without any serious human rights violations. And we belong to the Boer nation which was through the Covenant of Blood River, in which we confirmed that we are bound to the God of our fathers. I thank you Chairman and Judges, thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Terre'blanche. Ms Patel, do you have any questions to ask Mr Rudolph? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL Yes, I do, thank you Honourable Chairman. MR RUDOLPH Yes, Your Honour, I was present there. MS PATEL Okay, could you briefly just for the sake of giving us the full picture of what had in fact occurred during those few days, could you tell us briefly what the discussions were about and what decisions, if any, were made by the AWB at that meeting. MR RUDOLPH I must tell you, Your Honour, that that was in August. On the 18th of March I was freed and released after a hunger strike of 30 days. I had stomach problems and from time to time I could not attend those meetings. It was a long time ago, but I do recall that amongst other things, matters were discussed, those matters which should be asked of Mr de Klerk if we could get access and how that access should be negotiated. There was also the possibility being mentioned because we knew the National Party would use the police and how they went about things, that we foresaw problems and how to combat those problems. One thing is for certain and that is that the leader insisted that we, unlike the other parties, should not prevent Mr de Klerk from having his meeting, that we would allow him to have his meeting and then give him a motion of no confidence. I hope that is an answer to your question Ms Patel. MS PATEL Yes, thank you, Mr Rudolph. Can I just ask you, at that meeting was a decision taken that members of the AWB would have to arm themselves with firearms as well? - besides your normal knopkierries and batons whatever. MR RUDOLPH CHAIRPERSON I'm sorry, Ms Patel. Mr Rudolph, could you just give us an idea of the numbers? At the time the conflict broke out, approximately how many members and supporters were there of the AWB on the one hand and approximately what were the numbers of the Security Force members and others on the other side of the conflict? MR RUDOLPH I just want to say further that the AWB people were there in uniform or most of them were in uniform and I think that we accepted responsibility for those people. The fact that some of the people who were killed, who had been wearing khaki clothes and who did not wear the signs of the AWB, should serve as an indication of who could all have been present. There was also of course the other situation. There was one policeman who testified in court that he had been clothed in khaki clothes and that he mixed with the people there. So how many agents provocateurs there were present, I cannot tell you. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you. Ms Patel? MS PATEL Thank you, Honourable Chairperson. For the record, if one looks at page 220 of the bundle, the number of police that was estimated at the time of the trial, was in fact 900, and there is also a list on page 220 onwards as to the amount of weapons that they had in their possession from the Security Forces' side. There was also an allegation, Mr Rudolph, at the trial that members not only from the AWB but from the group of marches had teargas in their possession and had in fact hurled it at the police, could you perhaps comment on that? MR RUDOLPH MS PATEL Just finally, the question of the lights in the town having been switched off, can you enlighten us on how that had occurred, did you have any knowledge of that power? Was that planned by you or was it just somebody who did it on his own? Can you just briefly enlighten us please. MR RUDOLPH I am not an electrical engineer but I do understand how electricity works. Allow me then to just start at the beginning. At the offices of the AWB, there was a person, a certain Mr Stoekie. In the court case Mr Stoekie alleged that a discussion between the leader and another leader was heard regarding the lights which had to be switched off. So, if there was a calculated attempt at putting the lights off I cannot tell you, but I can tell you that there were circumstances which indicate that the knocking down of the fuse box could have been the cause of the short-circuit or power failure. I can also just explain that the person who worked at the office, Mr Stoekie, was also the man, the first witness who was called by the State as an accomplice, and he testified before the magistrate in that hearing that I wanted to shoot down the helicopter of Mr F W de Klerk and that the meeting had stopped me from doing this. While General Malan who was not in favour of me testified that no-one could have known that Mr de Klerk, that evening at Ventersdorp, would have arrived there in a helicopter. I am just telling this to show to you as to what the attitude was of people that evening at Ventersdorp. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Ms Patel? MS PATEL Thank you Honourable Chairperson. If you would just grant me a moment I think there is just one other point, one final point that I wanted to raise. ADV SANDI Sorry, Ms Patel, if I can just ask Mr Rudolph something whilst you're paging through your paper. Mr Rudolph you mentioned something about people who were coming from a funeral in the Transkei, was there a clash, any conflict between your group and these people who were trying to go past here, what happened? MR RUDOLPH CHAIRPERSON Ms Patel? MS PATEL CHAIRPERSON I will ask Advocate Bosman if she wants questions, you carry on looking and if you find what you want to ask you can do so later. Advocate Bosman, do you have any questions you would like to ask Mr Rudolph? ADV BOSMAN Mr Chairperson if I could just confer with you for a minute I know I ... MACHINE SWITCHED OFF ADV BOSMAN Mr Rudolph, if this Committee should afford you or grant you amnesty, then we must identify the different victims of this incident. Can I ask you to page to page 113 and 114 and then ask you whether you are able to tell us which of these victims are known to you and what their affiliation was on this specific evening. I am not asking whether you knew them well personally, but whether you can identify them as belonging to a specific group. MR RUDOLPH The other people of the black people who were there and who were injured, many of them did not appear at court, so I did not have the chance to ever listen to them or to know how they had been injured. There were people who had testified in court that they had been thrown, stones had been thrown at them, but I do not know any of them personally. And as I say, I do not know of a single member except for myself who was a member of the AWB and who was injured there. ADV BOSMAN Thank you Mr Rudolph, I think you assisted us greatly. Then there are a few things that I want to ask you just for purposes of clarity. Did I understand you correctly that you were aware of the tension that evening? MR RUDOLPH You did Commissioner. ADV BOSMAN And that you could foresee that there would be a possible conflict. MR RUDOLPH Yes, we knew the police and we knew the National Party and these kinds of action. We did envisage this, but the whole week before the meeting there were media statements from the National Party and from other organisations and the letters which came from the Town Council of Ventersdorp and which was sent to the police and the Defence Force in order to defuse this tension, but there was just no stopping it. ADV BOSMAN Then in conclusion, Mr Rudolph, I just want to read one paragraph to you from the ruling of the magistrate, and I would appreciate it if you could say whether it is correct or not. It is on page 187 of the bundle which you received from the Committee. It is approximately 10 lines from the bottom and it starts with: "It was decided" - I am going to read it to you. "It was decided that licensed weapons, arms, would be brought with, that doom insecticide would be used as protection against the dogs, that blankets and coats would be brought to throw over the barbed wire, that plaster of Paris arm protectors would be worn to serve as protection against the dogs and that a first aid post would be established in a flat." Now I am not trying to set a trap for you. I would just like to know from you whether this is factually correct or not? You do not have to comment. MR RUDOLPH It is factually not correct, but perhaps if I do not comment on that I will not be able to inform you properly but the person I am referring to ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON You may comment there. MR RUDOLPH Thank you very much. The person who was giving that - who gave that evidence and has been referred to by the magistrate is Mr Stoekie. That is the man who I told you I have good reason to believe was an agent or an informer of the police in the offices of the AWB and who sent out that story about the lights. Regarding Stoekie, the following is the situation. That first aid station which was set up or established in the flat was his responsibility but it was an old arrangement amongst the AWB. The matter of blankets or coats, you know that just as people will not leave their weapons at home they also do not leave their children and in August in the Highveld, I do not know where you come from, but August in the Highveld is extremely cold and this could have been discussed, this matter regarding the blankets and the coats. In my plea I said that I would never have approved the use of Doom because I did not think that Mr de Klerk was an insect who had to be sprayed with Doom. ADV BOSMAN Was this intended for the dogs? You would possibly take this analogy further but I would not invite you to do that. Chairperson, that is all. CHAIRPERSON MS PATEL NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL CHAIRPERSON Advocate Sandi, do you have any questions you would like to ask Mr Rudolph. ADV SANDI CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you Mr Rudolph, that concludes your testimony. MR RUDOLPH May I just, Your Honour, in the end say that yesterday and today I brought you under the impression that I was not in favour of the government. It was not a reference to your expertise and what you are doing. I bend in front of the power of the sword, thank you. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. WITNESS EXCUSED CHAIRPERSON CHAIRPERSON Sorry, Mr Rudolph, I should have asked this while you were giving evidence. If I could just ask you one more question please. You mentioned that you were injured and that you suffer from headaches and your right arm was injured. How did that come about, your injury? MR RUDOLPH Your Honour, after having passed the blockade and the dogs, I was assaulted by the police with batons and thrown to the ground. I was then manhandled and that caused the injury. I obviously also landed on the ground with my head and probably that is part of the headaches that I have suffered at a stage. CHAIRPERSON MR TERRE'BLANCHE No Mr Chairman, thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON Ms Patel? MS PATEL No, I do not intend calling any witnesses, thank you Honourable Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON That then concludes the leading of the evidence in this matter. All that remains at this stage is the making of submissions and then of course later our duty to make a decision. I wonder if it would be possible to take any early lunch and perhaps then immediately after the lunch we can then start with the submissions and make the submissions you wish to make in regard to your application. Thank you. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Rudolph are you in a position to make any submissions? MR RUDOLPH CHAIRPERSON Are you in a position to make any submissions now, are you ready? MR TERRE'BLANCHE We are ready, Your Honour. CHAIRPERSON You are welcome to sit down. The Honourable Mr Chairman, at the end of this session on my part, my appreciation for having listened to us and in the spirit in which this application for amnesty and my evidence took place, I would also like to conclude. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to state our case to you. I am also grateful for having been given the opportunity to try to prove to the world outside that we were never criminals in this country, that we never used the laws of the country in order to promote our political motives, but that the acts of the previous government were used to make criminals out of us. For your information and that of a totally unreliable media, I would like to say that we applied for amnesty in order to prove to our families and our people as well as our nation and our people that we indeed never perpetrated criminal deeds in order to enrich ourselves to in any way support ourselves, to promote ourselves. On the contrary, in these three cases, as far as I am concerned, there was also a lot of humiliation, financial losses were, we had financial losses and that which we have done, we did in the spirit of our conscience and a deep responsibility towards our God. The matters serving before you, we believe qualify for amnesty. The requirements by your Committee was proved in this Committee. Firstly, certainly there was no proof that the tarring and feathering of Professor van Jaarsveld was not a very strong political motivation, that the mere fact that Professor van Jaarsveld indicated a new direction in his position as Professor of History and which he had to do with the youth, gullible youth and to such an extent he abused the realities of the Covenant that after the attention drawn by the AWB on what was said by him, his text books were even removed from schools. I mention this because that mere fact also supports our political motivation very strongly. Therefore, for political reasons we saw politically motivated that the person, Mr van Jaarsveld, tried to change history and to leave a nation disillusioned and take them away from their God and to tear them away from their vow to God, tear them away from that which was sacred to him and which comprises the biggest part of its culture. Mr van Jaarsveld, his family, thought to make a personal attack on me as well as that of the other 39 tarrers and featherers. Mr van Jaarsveld in his submission that he read to the world, used the opportunity given to him by the court by even doubting my relationship with my God. Mr van Jaarsveld accused me also that I did not for the sake of my conscience did what I have done but that I did that in order to promote my political career in the AWB. That in itself is proof of the fact that there is a strong political motivation. Mr van Jaarsveld said that it was only merely politics, but in the presence of a Boer peoples' God I have to confess to you and admit that it was not only politics per se, but that there was a strong motivation because of my religion and my responsibility as a Boer to protect the dignity of my God. Nevertheless, I do believe humbly, that I adhere to all the requirements for amnesty with regard to this specific matter. With regard to the weapons, I would like to draw to your attention that these weapons, that there was never any evidence that these weapons were required to in any way gain from that. Those were not acquired and put under my control were sold for money or any other gain, those weapons were left at Witrandjiesfontein and it was left there should they be needed because of political changes, political instability, which could lead to chaos, revolution and disruption. Those weapons were indeed buried by the AWB but we never took them out again. They could probably still be in the fertile soil of my old family farm. Those weapons were taken away by the Security Police when it suited them, when they wanted to stop the young, up and coming movement which could be a strong opposition to the government. That is why Mr Moos who, without a shadow of doubt had strong ties as was also said by myself to the Security Police was sent out of the country without ever returning. I believe, humbly, that the weapons there were kept there and were not handed over to the SAP because we as political opponents of the government, could not trust that government. In fact, we saw that government as a government who would like to change the course of history and it would like to end the sacrifices of the nation. Therefore, my humble submission is that in that case, I adhere to all the requirements for amnesty. In the third instance, with regard to the Battle of Ventersdorp, it is perhaps not to be disputed that it was about politics. In that case, we certainly had the best example of when something is done by being motivated by politics. Such a transgression, offence, could never take place if Mr de Klerk did not force himself down and he tried to gain, not the AWB. He would look stronger and he would show, prove to the world that he would go to the Boers and that he would not give the Boers the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to place Mr de Klerk, to draw the attention to Mr de Klerk. He believed there was a stronger person and apparently he did not care about the corpses left behind in the streets of that town. In my evidence I proved, and I think it is relevant here again, that shortly afterwards he was not again going to a place where it was just as unpopular, this time round however, Boipatong, black community. Mr de Klerk, once again, had to leave the audience. He once again had to flee from the public and behind him in his terrible abuse, as in Ventersdorp of the South African Police and the Defence Force, once again leave dying people behind in the streets. I believe with regard to the third application that it is simply not able to say that in this case I do not qualify for amnesty. I, Honourable Mr Chairman, also because I am not a legal man, I perhaps at the wrong stages made applications to you which should take place, but I would once again like to point to one thing and unfortunately I have to repeat myself, I once again want to say that these cases took place during a time when the National Party of FW de Klerk ruled and was in power. Our approach towards that government was that we indeed regarded the government as a bad government and a weak one, as party political opportunists for whom it was about own positions in most cases, as a governed without principles to which we could not trust the governance of this country, as an arrogant government who was prepared to allow people to be killed for the sake of his own honour and positions. To allow people to be killed, people of their own nation, but also to allow people of their own security forces to be killed as long as they could prove a political point. I therefore believe that in all three of these cases, my application to you is justified, that I would have the opportunity and that this Committee, being given the opportunity as a law abiding citizen in a country, my beloved country, having given the best days of my life in order to maintain law and order in the South African Police as an ex policeman, who at a stage was even elected. I was even elected to be responsible because of my talents for the safety of the State President and that of the Premier. Despite the fact that at that stage when I was a member of the unit, the guard who was responsible for the security of the Premier and the State President, my political motivation took me away from politics. I resigned and politically, without violence, I started fighting that infamous government and to the best of my ability I, the de Klerk, Vorster and PW Botha governments, I fought. My ideal was directly against government policy. I was in favour of a Volksstaat where the Boer people could govern themselves in freedom. I, in my policy, never made provision for the addiction of any nation. The AWB policy spelt out clearly. We were looking for political borders to give freedom to my nation and any other nation. I wanted to lead my people to worthy, to a nation who such as in the case of the British, Germans, the Israelis, whoever. As I saw it at the time, the Zulu, the Xhosa as well as the Venda, that policy did not give protection to the political opportunists such as de Klerk and his other politicians. I was prepared to even show my disgust outside of the acts of the country, as was the case with the tarring and feathering, the illegal weapons, the Ventersdorp meeting which at a late stage all of a sudden we were not allowed to attend. I place this application in your hands and I am grateful for this body, so that it can be recorded because history is busy to write mercilessly about the actions of all of us who were here and I would like to trust and I record it. I would however, and I know that it is not my right to do so, I would like to make an appeal to this Committee that while this Committee - the biggest task of this Committee is to bring about reconciliation and peace but above all, truth, to ask that what happened in my case, that people coming with allegations and insults are not allowed that they, untested, give it to the press who is still in the hands of the previous government, give them the opportunity to do exactly the contrary of what this Committee wants to achieve, to write that and I refer here to Mr Desmond Thomas(sic), his report in Beeld today. If you would like to heal, then little men such as Desmond Thompson being to lie, allow to heal and to break, instead of healing to break down and to publish irrelevant evidence as to what is actually happening in your Commission. I thank you for your patience and I would like you to forgive me for having abused your time. Perhaps it will be a good thing for the sake of future reports with regard to your amnesty committee in the press. I thank you. CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Terre'blanche. Mr Rudolph, do you have any submissions that you would like to make? MR RUDOLPH IN ARGUMENT I am going to be very brief. I would just like to raise the matter of the total disclosure and the political objectives. Regarding the total disclosure, yesterday, in my ignorance, because I thought it would take the matter a bit further, my request was, that we get Mr de Klerk here because I thought that there should not be an opportunity for the Committee to have heard something which it should not have heard. When it comes to the judging of my approach, I can just show you the document which was made available by the Committee, on page 2801. I never received this document, I never received anything from the TRC except the wrong address as to where the Commission would sit. On page 2801, the magistrate at Potchefstroom was busy with his ruling and in the second paragraph on the page, it starts with accused number 2: "Accused number 2 is an outspoken man, fired by the emotions, he does not doubt to express himself as opposed to those who differ from his political objectives nor does he put all facts in front of him, even though this could be to his detriment." And then - I am sorry am I too quick? MS PATEL It is 243 of the bundle, Honourable Chairperson. MR RUDOLPH "His standpoint that he was not guilty of a crime even though other people would be guilty, is by nature of the case, not acceptable. The evidence shows that the police officer who describes his pistol as a .22 calibre is wrong. He also denies that he said, when he took the baseball bat, 'give the thing that I can hit them with it'. I deny that today still. Here the court gives preference to police evidence and in this way the magistrate continues and then he says, in the second last or third last line: "I do not believe that his denial is a purposeful attempt to excuse himself. I think that the impression gained by the court as a witness, is that he would not stop to acknowledge that even if it is not in his favour." As regards the political objectives, it is so that today we are in another time-frame but I also told you that my political motives are exactly the same. However, in the time that we have had to deal with the new government, on numerous occasions we have seen a different approach for which I am personally very grateful. Mr Desmond Thompson is a man who has been writing about politics for a long time and as was true of the National Party mouthpiece, held us up as Nazis or fascists. Just as the same people held up black nationalists as communists, we were regarded as Nazis and fascists when we differed from them. I am standing in front of you and I have tried to tell you what is in my heart and what happened that day. I also tried to convey to you that our struggle, a struggle of the Boers, the Boer people and nationalists will continue until we die or until we have scored a victory. That political objective which I had at Ventersdorp, I still have today. I had envisaged no gains, I have no political ambition except for the fact that one day somewhere, there will be a place in the sun for the Boer people and that the liberation flag, the Vierkleur, will once again fly over our country, the Transvaal. That is why I am here today and if the Lord will acknowledge this, I will be found along the way and I hope under different circumstances. I thank you. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Rudolph. Ms Patel, do you have any submissions to make. MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT Thank you Honourable Chairperson. I will start in chronological order as the events took place. However, before I start on the merits of, or my submissions in respect of the different events for which amnesty It is my respectful submission Honourable Chairperson that the applicant is not entitled to rely on evidence and information that came to light after the incident had in fact taken place in order to support his political motivation at the time. CHAIRPERSON ADV BOSMAN Ms Patel, perhaps a question one should answer is, can one always divorce politics from religion and the other way around, should one not look at the political philosophy espoused by a particular group and then ask yourself, within that particular group can you divorce politics from religion and the other way around? If one looks at the Irish political system, is that not in a way akin to what we have heard here today? MS PATEL It is my respectful submission, Honourable Chairperson, that indeed there is very little in life that one can say is not political. My point of departure however, is that can one argue that the nature of this dispute that took place, can one argue that that dispute falls within the brief of this Commission, purely because it is political in the general sense? That is very simply my submission, Honourable Chairperson. I do not wish to take it any further than that. ADV SANDI Sorry, Ms Patel, I hear you saying "a dispute", a dispute between who and who? MS PATEL There was a dispute, in terms of the evidence before us, between the applicant and his organisation and Mr van Jaarsveld. ADV SANDI Having regard to all the evidence that is being made by the applicants, is it possible to come to any conclusion that there was anything personal between the applicants and the late Professor van Jaarsveld? MS PATEL In the evidence before us there was nothing, there was merely the submission by Mr van Jaarsveld yesterday that the motivation was not so much the need to protect his religious beliefs ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON But on that, I think I must just mention that Mr van Jaarsveld elected to make a statement not to subject himself to cross-examination and you know we must take a look at that statement in that light and ...(intervention) MS PATEL CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you very much Mr Chairperson, I would just like to again repeat that my total political conviction rightly or wrongly is being driven by my education emotionally and my belief in the living God. I thank you in reaction to the statement of the honourable lady, it did say that there are groupings to whom politics are of great importance. Nobody will deny that it is a killing game politically, which took place for 600 years in England. If I was not in politics, Honourable Chairperson, and if there was not an AWB, Van Jaarsveld would not have been tarred and feathered because then there would not have been a political standpoint by a body who carried this out and did not enable us to resist. Somebody who was further from politics and somebody who would have seen the elements of politics because he involved himself in the bible in the same way that Mr van Jaarsveld said here, Mr van Jaarsveld involved himself in the history of politics. The history is the placing on record the situation of what happened, conventions that were entered into, land being claimed and land being lost that is exactly what history is all about. It is the placing on the record and the archiving of the political history and past with regard to the political past of the Boer people at Blood River, the historian said to the opponents of the Boer people not to trust God because he was present at Blood River. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you. Mr Rudolph, there is no reason for you to reply because Ms Patel did not make any submissions in relation to the Ventersdorp incident which is the only one but if you wish to say something further you may. MR RUDOLPH CHAIRPERSON Thank you. That then brings a conclusion to this hearing. We will reserve judgment and we hope to get the decision out in the very near future. This matter was set out for a week, we finished on Tuesday and we hope to use the rest of the week gainfully in respect of this matter and get that decision out as soon as possible. So thank you very much indeed and we will now adjourn and hopefully that decision will be out in the very near future. Thank you. WITNESS EXCUSED MS PATEL Would everyone please rise. HEARING ADJOURNS