Special Hearings — State Security Council Hearings — UNKNOWN

LEON WESSELS: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman we come from 
different backgrounds and we come from different launching pads.  I have 
listened to the witnesses that have appeared before you since yesterday 
morning.  The document I had prepared I had made available to your staff 
yesterday morning because I knew given the evidence that you were about to 
receive I would be tempted to change it.  I have not changed my document, 
this is how I felt yesterday and I stand by my statement and you will just have 
to bear with me, I hope, as I present it to you now.  
 May I further say that I had, listening to Mr Botha and Mr Vlok 
yesterday, I had the privilege of working with both of them for three and a 
half years, 18 months with Mr Vlok, which was a privilege, two years with Mr 
Botha, which was also a privilege and my colleague right next to me and I 
have seen many sunsets and many sunrises in battle, and I am pleased to be 
associated with him from this position.   
 I, however, will say what I have to say off my own bat and I don't hold 
any of them accountable for what I am saying.  I say that for my own account.  
I do remember, Mr Chairman, Abraham Tiro.  Many years ago I took a 
resolution never to forget his tragic death.  In life he introduced me to the 
realities of South Africa.  In his death his memory never allowed me to forget 
the tragedies of South Africa.
 I remember Mr Chairman the first time we met.  You were kind enough 
to make mention of an area that we share, those were the days of isolating 
Botha in his laager, making this country ungovernable.  We are not afraid to 
inherit a wasteland.  Those were the days of states of emergency, emergency 
regulations and the steps taken under those regulations that we thought were 
necessary to save life and property.  I remember saying to you then, during 
that encounter Mr Chairman, that the political climate was such at the time 
that many people would not understand the fact that we were even speaking to 
each other.  To the government and National Party establishment you were a 
sanctions activist and a political trouble-maker.  
 I proudly remember, Sir, that I was appointed to this position, and I 
take it it was because of this position that I am here today, by Mr Botha as 
Deputy Minister of Law and Order.  I think kindly of him and believe that he 
deserves credit for major initiatives.  Those were the days of the Homburg 
hats, I hated that, but I loved my work.  I remember Sir, proud soldiers and 
policemen now on their knees in front of the Amnesty Committee, I cannot 
condone those violent unlawful acts, but nor can I condemn the persons.  I 
cannot disown them.  We were on the same side and fought for the same cause, 
namely law and order as we saw it, and also to ensure that this country would 
not be made ungovernable.  Power was not be wrested from us in a 
revolutionary manner.  I cannot disown any of those men and women who were 
on our side.
 I do not believe that individually or collectively I ever took a decision 
that cannot stand the test of daylight here today.  Every decision was taken 
within the ambit of the law as it was known then.  The law may be criticised 
today and I will certainly agree and concede that that law will not stand the 
test of constitutional scrutiny at this juncture.  However, that was the law of 
the land.
 I further do not believe that the political defence of I did not know.  I 
want to delete the WE and I want to delete the US.  I said I speak of my own 
bat.  I further do not believe that the political defence of I did not know is 
available to me, because in many respects I believe I did not want to know.  I 
am afraid I am deleting and amending that sentence to that effect.
 In my own way I had my suspicions of things that had caused 
discomfort in official circles, but because I did not have the facts to 
substantiate my suspicions or I had lacked the courage to shout from the 
rooftops, I have to confess that I only whispered in the corridors.  That I 
believe is the accusation that people may level at many of us.  That US is not 
deleted.  We simply did not, and I did not confront the reports of injustices 
head-on.  It may be blunt but I have to say it.  Since the days of the Biko 
tragedy right up to the days of hostel activities, hostel atrocities in the late, 
late eighties, as we went up to the record of understanding the National Party 
did not have an inquisitive mindset.  The National Party did not have an 
enquiring mind about these matters.  We have to applaud, and we have to give 
credit to Mr F W de Klerk for the actions he had taken to appoint the Harms 
Commission and to appoint the Goldstone Commission.  I simply believe that 
it is a pity that there is not a collective political and moral acceptance of 
responsibility forthcoming from the quarters from which I emanate.
 It became clear from evidence before the Truth and Reconciliation 
Commission that even sharply probing judges had been wilfully misled in 
many cases by key security forces personnel.  Not surprisingly some 
individuals had done the same to gullible politicians not excessively keen to 
ask pointed questions.  Eugene de Kock's recent claim in his amnesty bid I 
submit is correct, namely, that any National Party politician or supporter, I 
may add, at the time who believed that we held power because of persuasion 
and not through coercion was out of touch of reality to put it mildly.
 With the benefit of hindsight I now believe that we had failed the 
security forces because we did not offer this country a viable constitutional 
vision to end the conflict.  And secondly, that the relationship between the 
security forces and the National Party politicians, as a collective, in general, 
was not an open transparent one, and therefore we did not manage the security 
forces Intelligence services properly.  If we had managed them properly you 
would not have had to listen to evidence on the one hand they, believing that 
they acted with authority, us telling you that we did not grant the authority 
which they believed that they had had.  But that has been the subject of a long 
debate and will continue to be debated in front of your Commission.
 The observation made by the Commonwealth group of Eminent Persons 
in their report on page 65 dated the 7th of June 1986, I repeat 
June 1986, I submit is correct.  "We are left with the impression 
of a divided government, yet even the more enlightened 
Ministers whom we met seemed to be out of touch with the 
mood in the black townships.  The rising tide of anger and 
impatience within them and the extent of black mobilisation and 
so of course are the great generality of white South Africans, 
only some ten percent of whom we were told have ever seen 
conditions in a township.  Put in the simple way the blacks have 
had enough of apartheid.  They are no longer prepared to submit 
to its oppression, discrimination and exploitation.
 They can no longer stomach being treated as aliens in their own 
country.  They have confidence, not merely in the justice of 
their cause but in the inevitability of their victory.
 Unlike the earlier periods of unrest and government attempts to 
stamp out protests there has been during the last 18 months no 
outflow of black refugees from South Africa.  The strength of 
black convictions is now matched by a readiness to die for those 
convictions.  They will therefore sustain their struggle whatever 
the cost.  The campaign against collaborators and the ruthless 
elimination of agents of white authority will continue.  More 
and more black townships will be rendered ungovernable and 
the process of creating popular structures of self-government 
within them will gather momentum.  The number of street and 
area committees will increase and their functions will 
progressively".
 So far the quote of the Eminent Persons Group.  Those were the very 
reasons why it was imperative to launch constitutional negotiations and bring 
it to finality.  To many of us this became a dream of which we never lost 
sight.  Some of us, on both sides of the political divide, however, still had to 
learn and others are still learning the Chris Hani truism once expressed to me 
 "We concede the fact that we never broke the back of the South 
African Defence Force and South African Police, but you must 
concede the fact that you never broke the spirit of liberation in 
the townships".
To my mind this was the basis of the political settlement.
 When the epilogue of the interim constitution was finally accepted at a 
very late stage in the negotiation process which gave South Africa its new 
democratic dispensation many of us gave a sigh of relief.  The relief we felt 
was for the fact that we could have the full truth out in the open without 
vengeance.  A country has to know its history.  We hurt one another and the 
time has come for healing.  
 I believe had it not been for that milestone judgment of Justice 
Mahomed in the Azapo case brought against the State President we would not 
have had the situation which we have today as Justice Mahomed had said in 
that judgment that we were moving away from the shame of the past to the 
hope of the future, and that that epilogue had granted him the opportunity to 
make the judgment which he did, and that is why we are all here, and that is 
why we had felt the relief at that particular moment in December 1993.
 With the National Party government the question of amnesty and the 
inevitability of a Commission probing the past was never the subject of 
penetrating debate where one and all expressed their expectations or anxieties 
openly.  Everybody had played their cards close to the chest and discussions 
in this regard were inconclusive, often resulting in lobby discussions.  This 
always left me with a feeling of discontent.  
 I don't feel as if I am in the dock today, and I don't feel as if I am 
being charged with anything which I had done, criminally or otherwise.  I 
don't believe that I am pleading for my innocence here today.  I participate in 
these proceedings gladly, openly, but that particular paragraph does make me 
a little bit angry in the sense that I would have loved to have seen the State 
Security Council, as it functioned on which I served as a coopted member 
under the Chairpersonship of Mr P W Botha today, deal with the accusations 
that we have to answer here.   
 And I believe that it is a pity that, excuse me for saying this about two 
great men of this country, namely Mr Botha and Mr de Klerk, that they have 
had their squabbles with one another that we are not today standing here in 
front of you as a coordinated team of the Security Council.  
 And that is the next point I make, namely, that the National 
Management System has had as its prime function the coordination of State 
activities, and yet listening to the evidence of all of us our actions, we are not 
here as a coordinated team under the chairmanship of our leaders, the leaders 
being Mr Botha who was the Chairperson of that State Security Council and 
the leader of the National Party Mr de Klerk at that time.   And you will 
recall and I remember that Mr de Klerk had said at his appearance where I was 
present, that he had done his utmost to consult and to coordinate, but the facts 
speak differently.  The facts speak that the officials are talking in one 
direction, we are talking in another direction and the leaders, the Chairpersons 
of this, the Chairperson of the Security Council and Mr de Klerk who 
inherited the leadership did not successfully mould all of us into one team as 
we are.  But I continue to speak of my own bat.
 I believe that there is a direct link between the National Management 
System, the Harare Declaration, Mr de Klerk's February speech, the agreed 
constitutional principles that formed the basis of our constitution and the 
signing ceremony of our constitution on the 10th of December 1996 in 
Sharpeville.  
 The National Management system was a holding operation to ensure 
that negotiations are launched and that the constitutional order was changed 
through the ballot box and not through the barrel of a gun.  That was 
paramount in our minds.  It was foremost in our minds.  
 The Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group in its document on page 42 
says it all -
 "No serious person we met was interested in a fight to the 
finish.  All favoured negotiations and peaceful solutions".
 General Viljoen in evidence before you said that this was a dirty war, 
and in many respects it was.  People were forced to drink cooking oil; people 
were forced to eat raw fish and raw meat; and on the other hand there were 
men with balaclavas from nowhere assaulting innocent citizens and those 
answers have not yet been found to my satisfaction or to my mind how that all 
came about.
 The Harare Declaration, to continue in this thread, proposed steps to 
create a climate for constitutional negotiations.  In the words of an ANC 
discussion partner, partners, they had to deal with the fact that it was not 
viable to storm Pretoria with smoking guns and in this way take over power.  
The door for constitutional principles to form the basis for the final 
constitution and to facilitate the transitional process was opened in this 
document.  I regret that typing error.  On the 2nd of February speech was a 
statesman's response to his constituency's aspirations that the conflict and 
political stalemate should be ended.
 I want to add that if there ever was a civilian in our ranks that was Mr 
F W de Klerk.  I know people accuse him of many things but I will be untrue 
if I don't publicly state that in our ranks the civilian was F W de Klerk, 
always, always warning and saying don't allow yourselves to be militarised.  
That was F W de Klerk.  The first one to disband the National Management 
System was F W de Klerk because he had always felt uneasy with that system.
 The signing ceremony of the final Constitution on the 10th of 
December 1996 in Sharpeville was symbolic, but it also signalled the fact that 
after 48 years, to that day, namely the 10th of December 1948, South Africa 
was now in step with the universal declaration of human rights.
 I conclude by saying I am both an African and an Afrikaner.  I am a 
liberated Afrikaner.  I am also a proud Afrikaner.  Liberated Afrikaners took 
the reform bit firmly between their teeth when it was necessary.  Both our 
hearts and our minds have been changed.  We love this country.  We have been 
liberated from the baggage of an immoral system of government.  Afrikaners 
can now resume their journey, galloping into the future, constructively 
criticise and participate in the affairs of State.  Afrikaners can now hold the 
government accountable and support it where their actions merit it, campaign 
for a Volkstaat if they so wish, argue for the respect and recognition of 
Afrikaans without the baggage of the past.
 I can think of no reason why Afrikaans-speaking South Africans and 
their children, or any other Afrikaner, from the cradle to the grave should bear 
the burden of apartheid.  With the framework of the Constitution we will 
strive for our place and we will fight for Afrikaans.  It is right that the book 
of the past should be opened and must be interpreted, but then we must also 
close them.  We dare not forget what has happened here, and I am not saying 
we should close the books and forget, but we should stop holding each other 
hostage in regard to the past and then bully each other mentally.  In this way 
we will never build a country.
 We have reached the end of a journey on a road marked by pitfalls, 
political doubts and obstacles.  However, the journey always carried forward, 
the road often became one of tight hairpin bends because I was afraid of 
negotiating the evils on bareback. I am now more than ever convinced that 
apartheid was a terrible mistake that blighted our land.  South Africans did not 
listen to the laughing and the crying of each other.  I am sorry that I have 
been so hard of hearing for such a long time.