Amnesty Hearings — Klerksdorp — 1999-05-10

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, Mr Terre'blanche, I think what we'll do is we will deal with this Van Jaarsveld incident and when that is finished we will get back to the possession of the weapons incident.
	Mr Olivier, are there any questions you would like to put to the applicant?

MR OLIVIER: I am indebted to you, Your Honour, for dealing with this matter ...(indistinct)  We have decided - and on proper consideration of the record in which Mr Terre'blanche had been found guilty of crimen injuria, in considering the application that was made to the Commission, that it is our view and the family's view of the late Professor van Jaarsveld that we are not going to put any further questions to Mr Terre'blanche, that we are not going to formally oppose his application, but that we would make a special plea to yourselves to hear Mr Albert van Jaarsveld, the son of the late Professor van Jaarsveld, to hear what he has to say as to their view, for they are victims in the process as envisaged in the Act and that for that reason they have prepared a particular document, a representation, that they merely would like to read out and that which they wish as a family to be the record of their view of the misplaced and misguided actions of Mr Terre'blanche.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, but I think before we do that Mr Olivier, I will just ask Ms Patel is she has any questions to ask the applicant.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, perhaps just one of two.
	Mr Terre'blanche, your choosing of, sorry is there a problem?

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: Yes, you did not get through to me, perhaps there is a fault.

MS PATEL: I'll start again.

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat your question please Ms Patel.

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: It is all right now.

MS PATEL: Mr Terre'blanche you have given us the background to which the incident has taken place.  Can I just ask you very simply, did you see Mr van Jaarsveld as a political opponent or when the attack took place, were you motivated simply by his views as an individual and the possible effects that those views could have in terms of your own vision of the promise that was made at the battle of Blood River?

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: Chairperson, of course I did regard Professor van Jaarsveld as a political opponent.  As today, those years were also seen against the background or the, those who gave the direction in politics, namely the Afrikaner Broederbond.  The Broederbond determined policy without the people and the voters knowing about it.  The Broederbond was a secret organisation for the so-called intellectuals in the order of the government and no-one could for example, ever become a minister and very few could even be elected to Parliament had they not been members of the secret Broederbond.  To me this was a typical Broederbond onslaught which had been launched from the University, through the press and carried to the public to finally be killed by Parliament.
	To me, this was not only an onslaught on my God but also an onslaught on my people who thereafter would never again be able to ask for triumph from God when he had to fight for his continued existence.  Yes Mr Chairperson, I definitely did regard Professor van Jaarsveld as a Broederbonde who used his position to propagate Broederbond policy that was politically, it was political and therefore with the political movement the AWB, the decision was taken and we tarred and feathered him.

MS PATEL: However, were you primarily motivated by his differing religious beliefs on that particular promise that was taken at the battle of Blood River?  Was that your main source of concern, his different religious beliefs?

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: Chairperson, I was not, and I say this in all fairness, and the family of Professor van Jaarsveld must please excuse me because I do not want to affect the position of Professor van Jaarsveld, but I wasn't even sure as to what he believed was true, that what he said there, because all the years he had associated himself with what the Vow and the Covenant meant and at that at this stage it was given to those people as a shock that the professor had a totally different point of view.  His argument with his friend of many years, Dr Rex, is also proof of this.  This was a shock to Rex.  And I want to say once again that I think that the viewpoint - and if Professor van Jaarsveld did not know that the implications that his paper would have great political implications that is possible, then we could not have known that he did not know that but what we do know is that his paper was stopped and in later years the Broederbond did follow this up and had the Sunday clause removed.  I hope that that satisfies you.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Perhaps this would be an opportune time now for Mr van Jaarsveld to make his statement.  Perhaps if you ...(intervention)

MR OLIVIER: May I use this particular microphone?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think if he can just bring his chair up next to you Mr Olivier and he can use that microphone.
   Sorry, Mr van Jaarsveld, what are your full names please?

MR VAN JAARSVELD: My full names are Floris Albertus van Jaarsveld.

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: Mr Chairman, with due respect and please forgive me because I am not familiar with the finer legal points.  I do not understand that there is something being read which could have an influence on my amnesty application.  If that is the case, I would just like to know whether this can be tested by myself who has to defend myself here, or is it simply something that is being read which in fact will not be relevant when it comes to my application.  I am slightly at sea with regard to this.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Olivier, Mr van Jaarsveld's legal representative has indicated that he wishes to respond to you.

MR OLIVIER: We have appreciation for your concern.  We have taken it into consideration.  What we stand to do here then is simply to record what the late Professor van Jaarsveld and his family feel as victims of what was done and that it should be reported here.  It should be placed on record as such in terms of this legislation and we therefore are not trying to convince the Commission to take this into consideration in your application.  It is purely a submission by a family member because of your actions.

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: Mr Chairperson, I would like to voice my concerns still that if this, in this certain submissions were to be made such that my arguments with regard to the interpreting of the Vow should be incorrect and I will then be questioned then I - and I do not have sufficient reason to prove my statements and ask questions as well, then I think this opportunity is being used to make me suspect while I have to be in your hands to be tested because of evidence I can do nothing about.
	I am very aware that my actions can be tested by the Van Jaarsveld family, which is why we have the legal representative.  I am prepared to stand for what I say here and I am prepared to answer all questions after my submission to you and we have to accept that we have a different version of what happened, that is to be sketched here, which is not tested whether for the record of history or if that is the case, I don't know whether this is the right place to do so if it is not to be tested before the judges without I contest the relevance or the correctness thereof.   I object to such document being read out.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Olivier, the content of the document, if you could just give an indication of what it is, does it merely express the effects of the action that it had on the family, or does it take a stand on the correctness of the paper that was to be presented by the Professor?  Is it going to place in issue this whole question relating to the sanctity of the Covenant or not?