Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1998-10-14

MR PRINSLOO: So what you're saying is that at stage you believed in a war, you believed in the protection of Volkstaat?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No, I didn't say that I believed in a war.

MR PRINSLOO: So you didn't believe in violence at all?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I didn't say that either.

MR PRINSLOO: You wouldn't have used violence at any time, so what did you need the weapons for, could you please tell the Committee?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: We created safe houses in which we would protect our women and children and that is what we needed the weapons for.

MR PRINSLOO: So you would not have reconciled yourself with the idea of a Volkstaat, obtaining a Volkstaat?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I reconciled myself with the obtaining of a Volkstaat but not with violence.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.  Mr van Schalkwyk?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Holder, did you ever consider lodging an appeal against your sentence?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes I did consider this.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you proceed with your appeal?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: My former legal representative dissuaded me from continuing with the appeal.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you agree with the judgement of the judge in the case in which you were found guilty?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes I identified myself with the judgment of the court.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you agree with the judgement of the court?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes I agree with the court that I was involved in the death of Mr Terblanche.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you read the judgement of the court, did you read it personally?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Mr Kotze read the judgement to me.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you agree with the judges judgement as put out in the essential facts?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Well I can't remember all the facts right now.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Are there specific facts which the judge found with which you did not agree?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: If you could read these facts to me I could listen to it once more and then inform you.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: We will come to that shortly.  Did you fill in form 1 of your amnesty application yourself?  I'm referring to page 16, 17 and 18.

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Did you initial the page in order to indicate your agreement with what is contained thereon?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Paragraph 8(b), why didn't you fill in that you had undergone military training?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: We filled in this application form together, Mr Kotze and myself and we did not answer all the questions here, we provided answers to this on other pages and documents which we formulated.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But I asked you whether or not you just filled this form in yourself, why didn't you indicate you military training?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: With the rest of my application I did indicate my military training.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is it correct that you made an additional statement, page 43, 44, 45 of this application?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that's correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: On which date was the second supplementary affidavit made?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I beg your pardon?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: On which date did you make this second supplementary affidavit?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: The 6th June 1998.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Your legal representative has during the process made certain amendments with regard to a certain paragraph.  Why were these amendments not made during your supplementary affidavit when you had the opportunity?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Because I did not have the entire amnesty application with me, only this portion of it was faxed to me.
My wife brought it to me and I took the oath at prison and it was sent back.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I put it to you that the changes brought about by your legal representative on behalf of you are facts which would have been known to you before you made these changes?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I saw this on Monday.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I also put it to you that these amendments were made in order to adjust to the other applications of the other applicants?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is not true.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You have just testified that you did not have all the documents at your disposal?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you are trying to tell us is that you made these amendments based upon the fact that you had perused all the documents?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No, we saw that it was not correct on Monday when we consulted with Mr Kotze.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So what you're actually telling us is that when you made the first affidavit there was an oversight according to which you did not see that there were certain errors?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: My amnesty application was handled by attorneys,  Mr Grobbelaar who handled my case in court.  During 1996 when Mr Nelson Mandela announced the extension of the cut-off date set up this application a few days before the cut off date,  a few days before the cut off date for amnesty applications my wife approached Mr Kotze, to undertake this thing with which Mr Grobbelaar had not done anything at that stage.  So, this was compiled during a very brief time, it was typed and Mr Kotze's secretary brought the document, we perused it and initialled it and that Friday afternoon it was placed on an aeroplane to Cape Town so that it could reach Cape Town before the cut off date on that Saturday.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I refer you to paragraph 17, an amendment was brought about there from army bases to army headquarters and this was initialled by yourself and the Commissioner of Oaths?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: What page is that?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Page 25, paragraph 17.

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you rectified this one error.  Why didn't you rectify the other errors at this stage in the same fashion that you had rectified this particular error?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Well I didn't notice it on that day.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is it correct for us to say that you perused the paragraphs, saw this one error but did not pick up the incorrect set up of the essential facts pertaining to this case?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But is it not these facts which formed the basis of your application which are of cardinal importance to you?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you realise that this was taken before a Commissioner of Oaths?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you further confirm that the second affidavit is also a proper affidavit which was taken in front of a Commissioner of Oaths?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir I put it to you that your cardinal evidence was changed at a very later stage, why did you do that?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: As I've already told you I did not notice it, I did not notice it that day that I initialled the documents.  You must realise that these things were undertaken on the 9th and applications closed on the 10th and my nerves were not in their best state on that day.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Sir, would you regard the first applicant, Mr de Meillon, as a confidante or a friend of yours?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: Excuse me?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Would you regard the first applicant, Mr de Meillon, as a confidante or a friend of yours?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I would describe him as an acquaintance.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: So you wouldn't really describe him as a friend of yours?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No I wouldn't.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You heard Mr de Meillon's evidence.  Do you believe that he has been open and honest regarding everything?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: No I don't believe so.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: In which regard has he not been open and honest?

EDWARD WILLIAM HOLDER: I think he is trying to protect certain people.