Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-09-14

MR BRACHER: That's Mr Johan du Plessis, one of the applicants in this matter?

MR SMIT: Correct.

MR BRACHER: I want to put it to you that neither of them said anything about that in their evidence.  And if the Commission should believe you and find that they have not made a full disclosure of all relevant facts, they may not be entitled to amnesty.  Do you nonetheless persist in saying that it was said at a meeting at which they were present?

MR SMIT: I cannot testify about somebody else's testimony.

MR BRACHER: Do you persist in saying it was said at a meeting at which they were present?

MR SMIT: As far as I can remember, yes.

MR BRACHER: Excuse me, "so ver soos u kan onthou"? Is there some doubt as to whether it was said at meeting at which they were present?

MR SMIT: I'm not saying that I doubt it, I'm saying that as far as I can remember they were there.

MR BRACHER: What does that mean, do you mean you remember it happening there?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR SMIT: Like I said, as far as I can remember they were there.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean: as far as you can remember?  Either you remember if they were there or you do not remember they were there.

MR SMIT: I remember they were there.

MR BRACHER: And the meeting at which a bomb in Jan Smuts was discussed, Mr Abie Fourie was there as well you said?

MR SMIT: That's correct.

MR BRACHER: And Mr du Plessis?

MR SMIT: That's correct.

MR BRACHER: And if Mr Prinsloo carried out his intention, Mr Terreblanche must have known there were bombs being built, trailer bombs being built as well?

MR SMIT: That's correct, Mr Terreblanche would have known about all of these bombs.

MR BRACHER: How do you know that?

MR SMIT: Because this was direct instructions, as we received it directly from him and the generals in staff.

MR BRACHER: You got it direct from Mr Prinsloo, you didn't get direct from Mr Terreblanche.

MR SMIT: Mr Prinsloo was a member of the generals in staff, the generals in staff's instructions and execution of it is approved by Mr Terreblanche directly.

MR BRACHER: Well I'll leave it at that, you don't know that.  I just want to ask you about the Volkstaat, have you got in front of you these volumes?  There's a bound volume called: "Index, Volume 1" and if you have, please turn to page 95.  We're looking at the evidence of Mr Vlok, Johannes Abraham Vlok.  Similar evidence was given by the other applicants.  Can you just read aloud paragraph 21 please?
MR SMIT
"The instruction was given that we must move to the Western Transvaal where the future Volkstaat would be established and that all members must leave their work and houses to go to the Western Transvaal in order to protect the Volkstaat.  If they do not follow the demands of the Afrikaner Boerevolk, the election will not take place"

MR BRACHER: And just turn over the page and read the introductory part of, the first sentence of 24.
MR SMIT
"We as members of the AWB believed that the Western Transvaal will become the future Volkstaat and that we must protect and get hold of this at all costs.  At that stage the AWB already received the freedom of 21 Western Transvaal towns"

MR BRACHER: You see, the evidence was here that the Volkstaat was going to be in the Western Transvaal, and when I listened to that video I didn't hear anyone speak about: "die hele land", did you hear those words being used?

MR SMIT: The whole country was not mentioned no, but what does mean but that Mandela would come and beg for a centimetre of land.

MR BRACHER: Can you explain why some of the applicants would sell property in Pretoria if that was going to be part of the Volkstaat?

MR SMIT: The beginning of the Volkstaat would have been the Western Transvaal, so somewhere we needed a beginning.  That is all that I can testify.

MR BRACHER: But were your instructions not to "bekom en beskerm" the Western Transvaal?

MR SMIT: At the beginning, yes.

MR BRACHER: I also didn't hear on the video anything about "ontwrigting van die verkiesing".  That wasn't said in any of the extracts, was it?

MR SMIT: I cannot comment on that.

MR BRACHER: Well you listened to it when I listened to it, did you hear anybody say that the instructions given at that meeting were to "ontwrig die verkiesing"?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bracher, to be quite fair, there were insinuations at least that the forthcoming elections were not acceptable.

MR BRACHER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now while there may not have been as forthright an allegation that there must be an attack on the elections, one can read in the circumstances, an attack, when they say they didn't find it acceptable.

MR BRACHER: I won't pursue it Mr Chairman.
	You said that at these meetings you were in charge of "toerusting", what did you actually do, what did you supply or obtain?

MR SMIT: Which meetings are you talking about?

MR BRACHER: Meetings at which bombs were discussed.

MR SMIT: That would be at the game farm.

MR BRACHER: Excuse me?

MR SMIT: Is that now on the game farm?

MR BRACHER: Ja.

MR SMIT: I never got hold of any equipment, it was already obtained.

MR BRACHER: The other evidence that we had here was that there was an operational radio on the farm which was in touch with the head office of the AWB, which would not make it necessary for Mr Prinsloo to drive backwards and forwards.

MR SMIT: As I also testified, at the meeting on the verandah of the game farm, the same distance as we are from each other, I was still busy struggling to make connection with the head office and we could not do that.

MR BRACHER: The other evidence is wrong?

MR SMIT: What evidence?

MR BRACHER: There was evidence in this hearing that there was radio communication between the farm and head office.

MR SMIT: No, we couldn't make connection or communicate with head office, that is why it was only Nico Prinsloo who drove to and fro.

MR BRACHER: ...[inaudible]

MR SMIT: Is that now ...[intervention]

MR BRACHER: No, sorry, in this period when you were gathering in the Western Transvaal.

MR SMIT: I arrived at head office when we got there and I wasn't there again.

MR BRACHER: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRACHER

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Mr Chair.
	Sir, you say that the purpose to get back to the - the purpose was to disrupt the elections and you believed that these bombings would further that aim, would disrupt the elections?

MR SMIT: That's correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Now on the tape we hear Mr Terreblanche saying that: "Next month this time we will have a new government", did you hear that on the video tape?

MR SMIT: Correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Would you agree with me that it seems as though Mr Terreblanche himself was of the view that within a month from the 2nd of April there would be a new government?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is not put in the context properly.  It was very clear that Terreblanche said that there are only two choices.  I did make a note of it.  He said that there are only two choices, either there will be a new government with the flag of the 666 or we will be a Volkstaat.  It was a choice between these two.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not believe that that's what the attorney asked, she's not talking about options.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I think, with respect, it must be put clearer because I do not follow to what she is referring.

CHAIRPERSON: But your client or witness said that he does have knowledge of it.

MR SMIT: I do carry knowledge of what was said on the video but I agree with my legal representative that there were two options.  It was not said that within a month we will have a new government.   We had two options, either a Volkstaat or under a new government.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, I don't know if I have it correct but as I remember it he said: "If we do not do certain things we will have a new government next month".  Is that not right?

MR SMIT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And my opinion he talked about warfare.