Amnesty Hearings — Klerksdorp — 1999-05-10

MS PATEL COMMITTEE: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I will deal with the latter application first.  In respect of Mr Rudolph's other applications that he has submitted, I would like to say that those applications are receiving the consideration of the Committee.  The Committee are however not ready for a hearing and that is the reason why is has not been set down now.
   The reason that the Ventersdorp application of Mr Rudolph has been set down is because it was, in fact, ready for a hearing and that it could conveniently be joined with Mr Terre'blanche's application.  I can see no reason why we cannot at this stage split his applications and hear it separately.  I would however also like to point out that we are operating under serious time constraints, that we are being put under pressure to finalise the work of the Committee as soon as possible and that we are trying to finish our matters as and when they are ready.
   In respect of the second application that Mr de Klerk be subpoenaed, I would like to state at the outset that, I think the problem has risen that this is the first time that we're hearing of this because both the applicants are in fact unrepresented, that our offices hadn't, up until now, received notification of both the applicants' desire to in fact have Mr de Klerk subpoenaed.  Be that as it may, I would however like to state that, in my respectful submission, I am not certain that having Mr de Klerk present is going to take the applicants' case very much further in respect of what they have applied for.  I think the merits of the case have been adequately dealt with at the trial, the judgement, a copy of which has been placed before Your Honourable Chairperson.  It is my respectful submission that we proceed with this hearing.  Thank you.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible) given to Mr de Klerk about this hearing?

ADV BOSMAN: I will have to double check, Honourable Chairperson as to whether he was, in fact, notified or not.
   If I may?  Just on his question of notification, if indeed he was notified he would have been notified as an interested party and he would then have had the option of deciding whether he wanted to appear or not to contribute to the hearings or not.  I am not sure that that would help us or take the matter much further.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have anything further to say Mr Rudolph or Mr Terre'blanche?

MR RUDOLPH: Mr Chairman, the mere fact that the Act makes provision - and I am a lay person, but as I understand the law is that where a person is implied, he should be notified of the fact that he has been implied is to my mind the responsibility of the Committee.
   The situation with regard to Mr de Klerk as the person who caused the whole problem at Ventersdorp we'd sketched to you, and that is part of the case as the representative of the State and that is why, therefore I cannot see why in the case of the Ventersdorp case we could not receive amnesty and the matter being solved in chambers for the simple reason that neither I nor Mr Terre'blanche were involved in gross human rights violations and why then we have this in public, I simply cease to understand.

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: Mr Chairman, it is my humble submission that I would also like to request if it is about justice and reconciliation it is only logical that the matter should be tested from both sides.  We are willing to allow the evidence we are giving here to be tested by Mr de Klerk's presence and most certainly some of the best legal experts assisting him.
  There are - people were killed that evening and we would like to prove to this court that we indeed are not responsible for the death of those people and that it was indeed our people who died there, not members of the government and its forces, but it was our people who were killed.  The order was that our people should be shot dead and the person who for a reason that cannot be understood, held a meeting, not in order to exercise his democratic right and to gain votes prior to the election but a person who said he now held a meeting for those people who already voted for him.  He changes and makes nonsense of the basic principle of the democracy by changing his own democratic meeting to a National Party and for that reason he used strong parts of the South African Defence Force, a big part of the South African Police and he knows, Mr Chairman, what he was doing because this is why he had the people there, that it could lead to conflict.  
	The crux of what we, of our problem is why Mr de Klerk decided to not like other politicians, have a public meeting and put his case, that privilege members of the opposition parties never had before but Mr de Klerk can arrange a National Party meeting while he uses the privilege of the State President and/or the costs involved he uses.  
	I would like to ask you respectfully, I would like to ask the Honourable lady who is responsible for the arrangements here if it is possible at all for this amnesty application and the refusal of this application for myself and Mr Rudolph because of a lack of evidence which cannot prove the correctness of what we said if Mr de Klerk is not being brought here and if our application for amnesty is not successful because of that, then I think the reason for the existence of your Reconciliation Committee, in fact ceases to exist.
   There are two parties in this case.  It was the members of not only the AWB, also the members of those people who oppose Mr de Klerk and the others - the others are Mr de Klerk himself and the Police Force and the Defence Force he brought along there.  I would like to complete by again saying that it cannot be a coincidence that when Mr de Klerk had to immediately leave Boipatong, leaving six corpses again, it is not a coincidence that what happened at Ventersdorp,  Mr de Klerk simply did not care what happened as long as he could arrive in a helicopter and he could flee in a Casspir.  Leaving people behind lying in streets, that did not matter to him.  In fact he never showed any sympathy with my people who were killed in the streets of Ventersdorp.  I thank you, and I hope that our humble submission with regard to the request regarding Mr de Klerk would meet your favourable approval.

CHAIRPERSON: First of all, I just want for purposes of the record, you've both said that you are appearing for yourselves, are you doing that out of choice?  Are you aware of your rights that you are entitled to Legal Aid representation?

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: Mr Chairman, we are very much aware of that, but in the situation in which we find ourselves, or let me rather speak for myself, I am fully aware of that but I prefer, because my case is clean and I am honest in this matter, to go to the Truth Commission without having to use a third or a second person.  I trust the process and I trust my case and the correctness of my behaviour so as not to use Legal Aid.
   Nevertheless, we thank you.  We are aware of the fact that you are prepared to pay for this.  We save the State rather that amount then.

MR RUDOLPH: Mr Chairperson, I would also just like to say that I cannot afford legal help and in any case I am not prepared to simply come walking in here with just any attorney or advocate because this is an important case with great implications.  I have told you that I am, do not trust the government and I do not trust its structures and therefore I will not use the Legal Aid  Board.  In that case, I will have no conscience.  I trust you, so ...
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF