Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-09-14

MR SMIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that what you are talking about?

MR SMIT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Answer the question then please.

MS CAMBANIS: Mr Chair, I had my note as Mr Terreblanche saying: "Next month we will have a new government", I didn't have the note on options.  I was asking ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MS CAMBANIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

CHAIRPERSON: He was suggesting certain processes.  As I understood it, in the context of making war.  And he said if those things did not occur then by next month they would have had a new government.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Mr Chair, I'll leave ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: Ms Cambanis, if it would help you, my note says, and I'm reading the Afrikaans
"Early next month we will have a "eenheid" state or a Volkstaat in South Africa and I said that I will never accept an ANC government and I will not change on this"
I think that was the context.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Mr Chair, I'll leave it at that then.
	Sir, then when you were being led you again referred to the evidence that General Constand Viljoen would have, the impression was that General Constand Viljoen supported this idea of the military option.

MR SMIT: That's correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Just for your comment Sir, Mr Viljoen's submission to the TRC - and I take this Mr Chair, from a submission dated the 19th of August 1996 at pages 25 and 26, where Mr Viljoen also talks or General Viljoen talks that
"We realised that the mood amongst some of our supporting groups was volatile and that one action is that it could very well become uncontrollable.  The demonstration at Kempton Park and the operation at Mmbatha showed that"
And then it goes on to say:
"We were at the cross-roads.  In the end we saw little sense in more violence and we wanted reconciliation and that is when the agreement came to the constitutional principle of the Volkstaat and this all this happens in March, Sir, 1994, a month before the bombings took place"
Do you accept that?

MR SMIT: I cannot comment on that.

MS CAMBANIS: Did you have knowledge of that in March 1994?

MR SMIT: According to my knowledge in March 1994 he would have supported us fully.

MS CAMBANIS: Was he not then participating in the elections Sir, General Viljoen?

MR SMIT: Not as far as I know.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Smit, did you not see in the streets his posters and placards?

MR SMIT: On the lampposts?

MR SMIT: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Not at all?

MR SMIT: No, I never saw his posters or placards.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, I won't debate it to you but any South African who was driving through any town or village at that time would have known that General Viljoen was participating but you are the exception to that, is that - I put that to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, he can't be the only exception, there were other applicants who claimed the same.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Mr Chair.
	You together with certain applicants did not see that?

MR SMIT: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, when we were watching the video material we heard a preacher or a priest giving what appeared to be a sermon, you heard that?

MR SMIT: Correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And what was the purport ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The preacher called it a sermon.

MS CAMBANIS: Was the purport of that, would you agree, that this Volkstaat is a mission from God, God's mission?  God had spoken and said the Volkstaat should come, is that fair?

MR SMIT: No.

MS CAMBANIS: What would you say, what was the purport?

MR SMIT: The content of that sermon was to protect and to hold onto that which is already ours, that was the country.

CHAIRPERSON: To who did it belong?

MR SMIT: The people who live here.

CHAIRPERSON: Everybody?

MR SMIT: If you look at the history, the white people built this country the way it is today.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I didn't ask this, I asked to whom the country belonged at that stage.

MR SMIT: To the inhabitants of this country, the National Party Government.

CHAIRPERSON: Black people?

MR SMIT: Not according to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Who gave this country to the Nationalists?

MR SMIT: They worked for it.  The National Party was in power for a number of years.

ADV BOSMAN: According to you, to whom does the land belong now?

MR SMIT: The ANC Government.

MR MALAN: Mr Smit, but your evidence was that the National Party was part of the enemy, and all the applicants' evidence was the same.

MR SMIT: That is correct because they gave the land away ...[intervention]

MR MALAN: Yes, they gave the land away, but they kept the land while the AWB and the National Party, on your evidence, did not sit on the same side.  The National Party did not represent the Afrikaner, as the AWB thought.

MR SMIT: That's correct.

MR MALAN: Now why then, if it was the National Party's country, how did the AWB then God's command keep or hold onto the country?

MR SMIT: Let me put it differently.  The country belonged to the whites.

MR MALAN: So if it was white communists it would have been alright?

MR SMIT: No, not at all.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, in summary, God's mission that it should go to white, it belonged to white Christians who spoke Afrikaans, that is who the land belongs to?

MR SMIT: I cannot testify about God's mission.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you think you can execute the word of God?

MR SMIT: In what circumstances?

CHAIRPERSON: Like that minister said.

MR SMIT: That minister pertinently pointed out from the bible that we have to fight what is ours and we have to hold onto it.

CHAIRPERSON: How would you then have executed this?

MR SMIT: By war, by disrupting the elections in order for it not to take place and to ensure that the land would stay in the hands of the whites.

CHAIRPERSON: And who would have done that, in the name of God?

MR SMIT: The right-wing.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that as the advocate or attorney described, as white Christian people who spoke Afrikaans?

MR SMIT: No, I'd like to move away from people who spoke Afrikaans, the AWB didn't only have Afrikaans speaking people but white Christian people.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Mr Chair.
	Sir, but part of the constitution of the AWB talks about white Christianity, white racial purity being one of the objectives of the AWB, is that correct?

MR SMIT: That is correct.

MS CAMBANIS: And part of the motivation is based on your religious belief, isn't it?

MR SMIT: That's correct.

MS CAMBANIS: Specifically it says, 1.3 of your constitution
"The national Christian living standards flowing from the Protestant religion guide the development of people's lives in all aspects of their lives"
Is that correct?

MR SMIT: Could you just repeat it please?
MS CAMBANIS
"The national Christian living standards flowing from the Protestant religion guide the development of people's lives in all aspects of their lives"

MR SMIT: That's correct.

MS CAMBANIS: It goes on to talk about
"The vow of "Blood River," confirmed at Paardekraal, November 1986"
which is what you believe, is that not correct?

MR SMIT: Could you please repeat that again?

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, it talks about
"The vow of "Blood River", confirmed at Paardekraal on 29 November 1986, consecrates the Volk's bond with God and he is honoured in eternal gratitude for his merciful deliverance"

MR SMIT: I'm sorry, the interpreter is interpreting extremely bad.  I'm being honest.  I cannot follow what you are saying.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, unfortunately I only have a copy in English, can I perhaps pass this on to you?

MR SMIT: No, it's okay, speak English, it's fine.
MS CAMBANIS
"The vow of "Blood River", confirmed at Paardekraal on 29 November 1986, consecrates the Volk's bond with God and he is honoured in eternal gratitude for his merciful deliverance"

MR SMIT: That is correct.