Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

UNKNOWN: Then I would like to deal with Section 
22(a) which I would present to the Committee.  This is the 
section which reads that the offence for which the applicant is 
applying should be a deed which is related a political objective.  
	I would like to present to the Honourable Committee that 
the applicant was a member of the Conservative Party.  It is 
argued that after the deed the Conservative Party apparently said 
in the media that he was not a member of the Conservative Party. 
 I would like to argue to you that that indeed was his testimony.  
Mr Hartzenberg testified and he made no mention that he was not 
a member of the Conservative Party.
	The applicant presented his background, his birth in Poland 
to the Committee and his experience of the Communist Party.   I 
would like to present to the Committee that his background in 
Poland and his experience of the Communist Party was not 
presented to the Committee in order to say that he had developed 
a hatred towards Communists on that basis and that is why the 
deed was committed, but if one studies his testimony it is not 
indicated in any other way.  He did this in order to say to the 
Committee that he knew what would happen if the country would 
be ruled by a communist dispensation.
	The applicant immigrated to South Africa and because he 
came to South Africa he became involved in politics, although at 
that stage he was not a citizen of our country and could not 
participate in elections.  From the initial stages he realised that 
changes were taking place in the country and he became closely 
involved with the Conservative Party's breaking away.  
	At that point he was quite aware of South African politics 
and he realised, as it is set out, that the policy which prevailed at 
that point was about change and that there might be a possible 
communist dispensation in government.
	He met Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis during 1995 and became 
further involved in politics and assisted the Conservative Party 
with elections and by-elections.  And after he was granted 
citizenship in 1988, before that time in 1985 he also became a 
member of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging and when he was 
granted citizenship in 1989 he participated in his first election in 
South Africa.
	He also testified that he realised in 1990, when the 
ANC/SACP was legalised, that there was a definite problem which 
was developing in South Africa and he believed that there would 
be  an ANC/SACP rule in the government.
	He was also present when Dr Andries Treurnicht delivered a 
speech at the Voortrekker Monument in May 1990 where the third 
struggle for freedom was mentioned.  And he testified that during 
that meeting Dr Andries Treurnicht swept or called the masses of 
people who attended the meeting, called them to battle.  And 
after that he attended negotiations where the Conservative Party 
decided that they should ready themselves for a possible war.
	In 1992 he was also further involved, and he testified 
regarding that, he was involved in the referendum which was to 
take place and it was decided afterwards that the democratic road 
was most definitely for the Afrikaner, as definitely closed for the 
Afrikaner nation of which he regarded himself to be a member.
	The applicant who was involved in politics as I have just 
argued, was more involved with the second applicant, Mr Clive 
Derby-Lewis, and his politics. What appears very strongly within 
his testimony is that he as an immigrant from Poland.  He came to 
be under the influence of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, that he regarded 
him as a political leader and not just a politician and he also 
regarded him as one of the policy makers of the Conservative 
Party.
	After the referendum in 1992 it was very clear to the 
applicant that the CP and the other right-wing groups - and I wish 
 to argue that it should be considered that he was also involved in 
AWB meetings.  AWB was one of the right-wing groups and the 
AWB was not and is not a political party.  The members of the CP 
belonged to the CP as a political party and to the AWB as a right-
wing organisation.  It is not to say that the members of the AWB 
could not have been Conservative Party members.
	Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg testified - and I'm still dealing with 
this under the fact that this offence occurred within a political 
struggle as Section 22(a) determines, Dr Ferdie Hartzenburg 
testified that it was not the policy of the CP, the written policy 
which they as a political party expressed or carried out.  Violence 
was not their policy.
	However Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg's testimony must be seen 
very thoroughly as an entirety.  He testified that during 
August/September 1992, after the signing of the Record of 
Understanding that was between the National Party and the ANC, 
the CP realised that it was now involved in a political struggle. 
	Up until that point the CP had achieved quite a level of 
support in politics.  They won a number of by-elections and it 
became very clear that the Conservative Party which at that point 
had already become the opposition, if there were to be a general 
election the voters - that would be before it was an open election 
for all population groups, the CP realised that it might able to 
defeat the National Party.  But with the undersigning of the 
Record of Understanding the CP realised, and this was made clear 
from every platform from their supporters, that now there was an 
overwhelming struggle and that the Afrikaner nation's freedom 
was in danger because if the ANC/SACP Alliance came into 
power, the Afrikaner nation would lose it's freedom.
	And the policy - this is his testimony, the CP's policy was 
to strive for the freedom of the Afrikaner nation and it did not 
change since the establishment of the Conservative Party.  Now 
with the signing of the Record of Understanding, this freedom of 
the Afrikaner was put in danger and that is how the CP regarded 
it and it was also expressed as such.
	He also testified that it was very clear to the Conservative 
Party that the ANC and especially the SACP under the leadership 
of Mr Chris Hani would not grant the Afrikaner nation it's own 
territory, they wanted a unity state.  And he also testified about 
an army which Mr Hani had ready, with 10 000 troops if the vote 
did not swing in favour of the ANC and the negotiations for the 
unity state would be enforced with violence.
	The testimony of Dr Hartzenberg continued and said that as 
a result of this political struggle which existed or ruled the 
country at that point - it cannot be seen as anything else, the CP 
decided to mobilise in all areas, not only religiously or in the 
educational sphere, on all levels.
	The CP mobilised to resist the ANC/SACP Alliance in terms 
of the threat towards the Afrikaner nation.

JUDGE WILSON: When ...[inaudible] in the sense that 
...[intervention]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE WILSON: ...[inaudible] in the sense that we would have 
to activate our people, not in any military sense of mobilisation.  
If you look at page 755 of the record he says there
		"In the course of 1992 we realised that because those 
opinions were diminishing we would have to mobilise 
our people to demonstrate in a visible manner that we 
were quite serious for the preservation of our liberty"
and he goes on over the next page to say that
		"We would have 18 interest groups including 
education, agriculture, local government etc., and 
also security and safety"