Amnesty Hearings — Klerksdorp — 1999-05-11

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  As indicated yesterday there was this application - as indicated earlier, there was this application to have Mr de Klerk subpoenaed.  I would like, at this stage, just to make the ruling on that before we proceed with the matter.
R U L I N G
   Both the applicants have applied for Mr F W de Klerk, the former State President, to be called as a witness and to testify as a witness in this matter.  They have both expressed the belief that the actions taken by Mr de Klerk were the proximate cause of the so-called battle of Ventersdorp, and accordingly that it was he and the members of the forces acting on his behalf who were responsible therefore.  They have both stated that Mr de Klerk should be compelled to testify at this hearing so that they may put questions to him and so that he may explain inter alia why he 
visited Ventersdorp on the day in question and also to explain the actions of the members of the Security Forces on that day.
	Section 29 1(c) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act number 34 of 1995, that is the Act that establishes the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and which governs the conduct of these proceedings, provides that:
"The Commission made for purposes of the holding of a hearing by notice, in writing, call upon any person to appear before the Commission and to give evidence or to answer questions relevant to the subject matter of the hearing."
	It is clear from this that the decision to subpoena a person to testify at a hearing rests entirely with the Commission.  Before such a decision is taken this Committee must be satisfied that it is both essential and necessary for such person to testify in order to enable it to arrive at a just decision in regard to the granting or refusal of amnesty.
	We, after consideration of the information placed before us, including the submissions of the applicants and the written applications, are of the view that the evidence of Mr de Klerk would not be essential and necessary in order to enable us to arrive at a just decision in this matter.
	Our duty is to determine whether the applicants have satisfied the criteria set out in the aforesaid Act for the granting of amnesty, namely that the acts committed by them were acts associated with a political objective as defined in the Act.  That they have made a full disclosure of their own participation and that  their applications comply with the requirements of the Act.  We are satisfied that such a determination will be able to be arrived at without the testimony of Mr de Klerk.
	In deciding whether the above criteria have been satisfied, it will not be necessary to establish which side involved in the conflict was guilty of causing the conflict.  This is not an investigation into the causes of the Battle of Ventersdorp but is an amnesty application of the two applicants.  The applicants will neither be prejudiced nor compromised in the absence of the testimony of Mr de Klerk.
	We accordingly rule that the application to have Mr de Klerk subpoenaed as a witness in this matter be REFUSED.  
	We have been informed that Mr de Klerk did receive notification in terms of Section 19 4 of the Act, and that he was informed of his rights to attend this hearing and to adduce evidence if he so desires.  Obviously he has elected not to attend or to adduce evidence.   So that is the ruling.  
	I would just like to stress that this ruling in no way prejudices your applications at all.  We just want to hear the role that the two of you played in the conflict and are just looking forward to a full disclosure and we feel that, with regard to the third criteria, namely that your applications comply with the requirements of the Act, that has already been fulfilled.  That is a technical matter relating to the submission of your application, the completion of them,  times etc., and they are in order, so it is just a question of the political objective and full disclosure.  And as I have said, we are of the view that we don't have to hear the evidence of the former State President, to determine whether you participated with a political objective and whether or not you've have made a full disclosure.  In this regard, it is not necessary for us to make a finding of what was the cause of the battle, who was the guilty side in the battle etc.  I hope you understand that.
	So, I think then if we can then proceed with what actually happened on the day in question and what the roles were that you played in that so-called battle.  I think, in this regard - I don't know if you still want Mr Rudolph to commence with the testimony as you indicated earlier, and then we will continue with the testimony of Mr Terre'blanche.
	Mr Rudolph, I would just like to remind you as well that you are still under your former declaration to tell the truth and then if you could just tell us what happened on the day in question and particularly the part that you played in it.

MR RUDOLPH: (s.u.c.)
	Thank you Your Honour, I abide by your decision.  As a lay person who is not familiar with the law but as somebody having a great interest in that, I thought in their definition of the total disclosure, to get Mr de Klerk here, I abide by your decision.  Nevertheless, I have considered to withdraw my application so that you would then have to deal with the situation regarding Ventersdorp.  After a quick consultation it was his decision.  I appreciate that, that I then also will proceed with my application.  May I then proceed?
	I would just like to say to you that you are going to have to accept that in the idiom of the total disclosure it is a fairly long process and I am going to have to get certain exhibits to you.  The fact that I am going to read it should perhaps make things a little quicker.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think before you start, Mr Rudolph, if I could ask my secretary to be on hand to make photocopies of those when you've finished reading them so that they don't get mislaid somewhere along the line.  Thank you.  Yes, Mr Rudolph, you may commence.
	Sorry, Mr Rudolph, if I could just speak to my secretary quickly.  Yes, Mr Rudolph?

MR RUDOLPH: Your Honour, in the first instance I am going to tell you about a part of my application, as I called it then the application for amnesty.  I am going to give you the background and the reasons, the political events and the events at Ventersdorp.
	When I read this to you, I will attempt to do this in the third person rather than the first person.  I am going to read this and if I speak about the applicant I am referring to myself.
	At that stage the applicant was 58 years old, Afrikaans-speaking and residing at Plot 25, Wildebeeshoek, Dewild.  The application is the founder of the Order of the Boerevolk movement which is therefore the reinstatement of the two Boer Republics as it existed in 1902, before Great Britain took over.  Under the ...(indistinct) of the movement the applicant was involved in the incidents of political ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Rudolph, could you please go a bit slower, Mr Rudolph, it's is very difficult for the interpreter.

MR RUDOLPH: Must I start from the beginning?