Amnesty Hearings — Klerksdorp — 1999-05-11

CHAIRPERSON: I think this is not a very apt example because we know at that stage there was a rift amongst the Boer people, the Afrikaner people - I don't know what term to use without offending anybody, but there was that rift and at the heart of the rift, from what I can understand, was this whole question of a Boer nation, volk, having their own start and all that sort of thing and then we get the situation where a person is standing up and is now making a statement that goes to the very heart of the one faction's beliefs in respect of their nation, namely the Covenant, one of the most sanctified elements of their culture.  So there is that political element in it.  It is not just a question of somebody who is heterosexual and somebody who is not and somebody being offended by somebody else's sexual orientation.  There is no sort of political element there whereas in this case, as the applicants have testified, they felt extremely strongly about this and they saw it as a threat, a threat to what they believed in politically, also of course religiously, but there was that political element.  And Mr Terre'blanche did concede in his argument, he said there was a political element, but I concede that there was also a large measure of religious motivation because in their ...(indistinct) it was difficult to separate the religion from the politics in that particular situation.

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: I was going to concede that the evidentiary value of that statement will have to, by its nature be very limited.  My argument is not that there was any personal malice or that the applicant acted for personal gain, that is not my submission.  If those allegations have been made by Mr van Jaarsveld, I do not from my point of view, align myself with that.  I have no basis, evidentiary basis upon which to align myself with that submission.  My submission is very simply based on the question of the religious motivation and whether that falls within the ambit, technically, of this Commission's brief.  I wish to take it no further than that, I wish to make that very clear.  Alright.
	And then in respect of the Ventersdorp matter, I leave it in your capable hands, Honourable Chairperson.  I wish to however come to the defence of Mr Rudolph.  He has raised a portion of the transcript in which the Judge - no not the Judge, the Honourable Magistrate is evaluating his evidence, I would however like to state that further on in the judgement, I can't recall what page exactly, that the evidence or the allegation that Mr Rudolph was in fact in possession of a firearm was rejected by the magistrate.  So I mean, there is no way that anybody can rely on that specific part of Mr Venter's testimony at the trial.  It was indeed even rejected then.  In respect of both then that incident and Mr Terre'blanche's application on possession of arms and ammunition, I leave it in your capable hands.  Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, do you have any reply Mr Terre'blanche?