Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

UNKNOWN: With respect Mr Chairman, a man in Mr Hani's 
position, who was loved by the greatest majority of the black 
population, they supported him, that was a fact, and there was a 
fact that there was going to be a takeover.  They would have 
given their lives to force this government to a takeover, how 
would they now turn around and say we are willing to give little 
bits and pieces of the country to this and that, and while John 
Robby said he wouldn't do that, how could that have happened?
	What purpose would it have served, what did he have to 
clear out?

ADV POTGIETER: Why did he not clear it out with his own 
party?  Why did he not discuss it with the Conservative Party 
leadership to take this radical step to assassinate a political 
leader?

UNKNOWN: As I have already said Mr Chairman, if he had 
gone to the top leadership in the Conservative Party and told 
them that he was going to kill Chris Hani, it with respect, would 
have meant that he and Treurnicht would have landed in jail, and 
then the Conservative Party would have been the end of the party. 
	If you take the leader away, the party would have been 
disbanded.  You would remember that Von Lieres and the 
Attorney General stated it to Mrs Derby-Lewis, that was 
effective, take the leader out and then the party falls apart.
	If you had to clear that out, he and other people 
compromised themselves to committing an offence.
	That is not logistics in a war situation.  I don't want to 
make a comparison but it worked very well in regard to the ANC.

ADV POTGIETER: You see, you are reacting and you are 
based on a position that Treurnicht would have said go out and 
kill him and kill all the others, and if he said no, Derby-Lewis, 
this is not the policy of this party, then Treurnicht would have 
not been part of an offence.

UNKNOWN: It could have been an option yes, but at the 
moment he did that, he became part of that and this leader of the 
party would have become part of this.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Could it not be argued that he did not do it 
because he knew it was not the policy?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, without referring to the policy 
again at length, this would go against everything because then he 
would involve and this would be a conspiracy, it would have been 
a conspiracy with the Conservative Party to commit an offence, 
and the party would land in jail.
	Now, he would do it on his own, without involving other 
people.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: That would have been the consequence of 
the policy then.

UNKNOWN: I beg your pardon?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: That would have been the consequence of 
their policy if they would have landed in jail.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, if that policy was declared, they 
would have landed in jail, without even having done something.  
If they have said openly that they would commit violence.

JUDGE WILSON: You said his leader Mr Treurnicht, would 
have landed in jail with him?

UNKNOWN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But Mr Prinsloo, I mean you say that it 
would have been impossible for him to clear that with the leader, 
Mr Treurnicht, because of a possible arrest with Mr Derby-Lewis, 
but he had previously cleared with Mr Treurnicht, the issue of the 
anti-Chris, the killing of an anti-Christ?

UNKNOWN: He cleared with respect Mr Chairman, the 
principle of killing it, he didn't say he will kill somebody.

SISI KHAMPEPE: And couldn't he have done the same with 
regard to the killing of a political leader?  Clearing the principle 
and not the actual deed?

UNKNOWN: With respect Mr Chairman, if you say you will 
kill a leader, then you are committing yourself to killing a leader 
who is in existence.

SISI KHAMPEPE: We are dealing here with an issue which was 
not crystal clear, the killing, assassination of leaders of political 
organisations, wasn't a policy which was as crystal clear to the 
CP and why shouldn't he have done that, why couldn't he have 
cleared that principle with Mr Treurnicht?
	He had a very close association with Mr Treurnicht, he also 
had a very close association with Mr Hartzenberg?

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairman, as soon as the killing 
of a leader was mentioned, people would put two and two 
together and compromise this person.  Why would he ask that?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I think at the end of the day your problem is 
there was, you are saying there was a political party, it didn't 
have the courage of accepting the policy which would put them 
into jail, however, you are now constraint to argue in some way, 
that there was in fact a policy.
	When those people themselves, perhaps for sensible reasons 
I don't know, whereas those people themselves, because they 
didn't want to go to jail, they didn't have such a policy, they 
didn't have the courage of coming out and declaring it, because 
they didn't want to jail, they might have gone to jail, you are 
right.
	But now you find yourself in a situation where by reason of 
the fact that those political leaders did not have the courage to 
openly admit violence as a method for fear of going to jail, now 
you are at a disadvantage now, you are constraint to argue in 
some way, that oh, no, there must have been such a policy.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, with respect, I am not limited 
to that.  The National Party up till today, will not agree that they 
had such a policy, but the evidence is clear that there was a 
policy like that, because they kept the National Party in 
government.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: All I am saying is that they are putting the 
applicants to some extent, in a difficult position.  They are 
making it a little bit difficult.

UNKNOWN: With respect, it is so, but it goes back a far 
way.  They could not have had a declared policy of violence, 
because they would have then been incarcerated.  The National 
Party would have liked it to incarcerate the Conservative Party if 
they supported violence.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But for purposes of the present application, 
it wouldn't have been so difficult for the leaders of the CP to 
have come before this Committee to disclose that there was such 
a policy?

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairman, I don't know whether 
one of them would admit that.  I don't know whether they had a 
policy like that, who would come here and say I have committed 
an offence without having applied for amnesty?
	Should a leader have done that and based on the argument 
that he could do it, it would mean that a question would be put 
behind that party.  Now, they agree that they were busy with 
violence and now the history has developed and there is quite a 
different approach at the moment.
	At the moment it has to do with reconciliation, we are not 
concerned with what had happened in the past.  The party at the 
moment has the same objectives, but they want to follow a 
peaceful road.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Hartzenberg was quite emphatic on this 
issue, he stated that violence could not be used at that stage by 
the CP to achieve any of their political objections, that was his 
evidence.  That is my problem.

UNKNOWN: The problem Mr Chairman, is viewed in 
isolation.  While this interview was held and said are you against 
violence, naturally he had to say yes, we were against violence.
	We were against violence in its broadest sense, but violence 
for a specific purpose is a different question.  We could see it in 
relation why was it committed, what was the motive, what caused 
it, we should all see this as one.
	With respect, according to Dr Hartzenberg, it was seen as a 
full scale war.  How does one wage war without violence, that 
amazes me.

JUDGE WILSON: You defend yourself against the attack.  
Hartzenberg stressed that the attitude of the party would be 
defensive, to defend itself against attack, to have the moral high 
ground.

UNKNOWN: He did say so, that is correct.  But in terms of 
the background of the climate, it must be considered.