Amnesty Hearings — White River — 2000-05-04

MR SMIT: My submission would be it could be very easy for the Conservative Party to file a letter in this regard.  No submission was made before this Commission, no representative from the Conservative Party, who has a real interest in this matter because it bears down directly on the Conservative Party's attitude at that stage during the time that these deeds were committed, no-one comes before this Committee to say but these people, it is denied that they were ever given instructions.  It's just a letter, it's not under oath, it's written by a Mr Wouter Hoffman.  He could have attended these meetings.  That would be my submission.  	'Cause the problem now is, we have applicants who at that stage acted on instructions, they were members of the Conservative Party and of Toekomsgesprek, they believed that all the instructions they received from people who were in high positions at the Conservative Party, the instructions given to them by those people were instructions from the Conservative Party, and they acted on those instructions because it was a political objective that had to be obtained.  The National Party, the ruling party at that stage, had to be put in its place.  Now a couple of years later these people have the problem, they are being blamed criminally for certain deeds that were done under instructions at that stage.  If they look back and say well, we were given instructions by these people, everybody behind them who were above them suddenly says "We were not involved, we did not give instructions".  How do they do that?  The one, Mr Steyn, does not come to the Commission to say that, the Conservative Party writes a letter and says "We distance ourselves".  Mr de Jager, who was high up in the Conservative Party, says it could quite have been possible that such an organisation existed.  He did not have knowledge of it, but now in retrospect, it's obvious that something happened.  And he says very importantly on page 109, he says
"Ek het sedertdien bewus geraak dat dit egter wel plaasgevind het, en vanwee die verstrengeldheid van Toekomsgesprek en die KP, was van die lede wat dit bygewoon het bona fide onder die indruk dat dit die amptelike goedkeuring van die KP weggedra het."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR SMIT: So what he says is these guys on ground level who received the instructions, were absolutely under the impression that the instructions they were receiving were from the Conservative Party and were approved by them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, by necessary implication Mr de Jager is saying, his opinion that he's expressing here is that these people more than likely were, in good faith, under the impression that they were acting on behalf of the CP, but the implication of that is that that was not the official position of the CP.  These people were bona fide under the impression, but it was not officially CP policy.  So the question is, is that good enough for your clients, does that establish that they were acting on behalf of the Conservative Party?

MR SMIT: I would submit so.  Objectively, if one looks at it now, eight years later, one could say that they were members of the CP, they were acting on instructions, they believed, subjectively they believed, but looking at it objectively, instructions they believed were real instructions from the Conservative Party and that certain measures were to be taken to go to a certain goal.  And therefore, that makes them fall directly into the category of the Act.
	In that instance I might mention to you, Mr Chairman, in Pretoria, Mr Koos Botha, who was a CP member of parliament, or he was at - no I think he was a member of parliament in Wonderboom, received amnesty for putting a bomb at the - I received a note, there was a bomb at one of the schools in Pretoria and he, on the same basis, received amnesty, stating that it was, according to him, instructions from the Conservative Party.  He did it with the political objective to further their interests.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  You see the first question that we must determine is whether your clients were executing the official policy of the Conservative Party, which is a politically known organisation, if not, have they acted under the bona fide belief that they were doing so, and if so, is that sufficient in terms of the law?  Then it becomes a legal question, is it sufficient in terms of the law, to comply with requirements of Section 20.
	So we - at the first stage, we're debating this first stage and the difficulty that we raise is, in the light of all of this - it is a letter as you rightly say, but no Conservative Party member on the other hand also, has come to support their application to say no, but these people they're known members and they were acting on our behalf.  And then we have Mr Steyn who was their immediate channel to the Toekomsgesprek Chief Council, and as they believed, to the Conservative Party, and he seems to be distancing himself, he's not supporting the application.  If anything he seems to be casting aspersions at the credibility of your clients, to say you know they're absurd, this is a laughable allegation that they're making.  Now under those circumstances, is there sufficient before us to find as a fact that they were acting in execution of official Conservative Party policy.  That's the first question.  The other one is the legal one.

MR SMIT: Ja, that we can get to.  My submission, to summarise would be, due to the fact that no other proper evidence is being put before this Committee, other than two letters, or one letter from the Conservative Party and one little by Mr Steyn, made on an acknowledgement, which I in his position would also have done, 'cause he's being blamed for a couple of things here that were not all above board, due to no other evidence before this Committee, therefore the version of the applicants should be accepted as being the correct one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and that version as I understand it, is that they bona fide believed that they were acting on behalf of the Conservative Party.

MR SMIT: Ja, that the instructions came from the Conservative Party, because of the fact that first of all, Mr Christo Smit, as well as Mr Douw Steyn, were leader figures in the CP and these guys were giving instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: So, I mean the effect of that is that there is no evidence before us - let's leave aside for the moment the letter and what Mr Steyn wrote on the acknowledgement, there's no evidence before us that these acts in fact fell within the Conservative Party's policy ...(intervention)

MR SMIT: Or fell out of it.

CHAIRPERSON: ... the evidence that we do have is the applicants' evidence that they believed that to have been the case.

MR SMIT: They at meetings were told that this is the policy and therefore they acted on these instructions.  That's what they testified.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes they believed that to have been the case.

MR SMIT: Ja, they were actually informed at meetings "This is the policy, this is what we have to do".  They were under the impression that Toekomsgesprek was a body of the CP, and a legal body as far as I could establish from them, and therefore they were acting on instructions from the Conservative Party.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so on that scenario we have the belief of the applicants.

MR SMIT: That would be my submission, on that basis.

CHAIRPERSON: Now are you submitting that that belief is sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Act?

MR SMIT: I would submit so, yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.  Which provision are you referring to?

MR SMIT: Mr Chairman, bear with me for a moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, take your time.

MR SMIT: Mr Chairman, that would be Section 20(2)(f).  Unfortunately I have the Afrikaans copy in my possession.  That is the one dealing with the person who on reasonable grounds believed that he was acting within the scope and ...(intervention)