Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: No, Sir, I cannot, it is not a simple matter of saying yes or no.

CHAIRPERSON: Because this question has been put in different forms, so there can't be much confusion.

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: No.  He put this question in various ways and I tried to the best of my ability to reply and this is matter of: "Is Mr Bizos still hitting his wife", it's not a matter of yes or no only.  In a similar way as Mr Tambo had not said that he had given permission to that deed in Amanzimtoti, in the same way it applies here.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I respectfully apply that the witness be ordered to answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Is your answer - do you have any answer other than the one you've given now?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Sir, the answer is that Mr du Plessis and the Conservative Party - despite the fact that the Conservative Party had not instructed him to commit the deed, the CP and Mr du Plessis accepted that Mr Clive Derby-Lewis acted on behalf of the Conservative Party and it's cause.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman with respect, that is not an answer to the question, I have asked a clear and precise question - is it consistent with Mr du Plessis saying that the interpretation of the speech of Doctor Treurnicht at the monument could not possibly have been interpreted as a licence to commit violence because 30.000 other people there present did not interpret it that way, is there a contradiction in what Mr Prinsloo said or not?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Mr du Plessis.

GEORGE BIZOS: du Plessis, I beg your pardon.

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Sir, that was also Mr du Plessis's subject of point of view which he expressed, it was his subject of point of view - any other person could have expressed another point of view.

GEORGE BIZOS: Were you in Parliament when Mr du Plessis expressed that interpretation of your leader's statement?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: I was there.

GEORGE BIZOS: At the monument?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Yes, I was also at the monument.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did you in any way contradict what Mr du Plessis said in Parliament?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: No.

GEORGE BIZOS: Why not?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Because I did not regard it or I regarded it as Mr du Plessis's point of view, it's possible that other people could maintain other points of view and at the moment - in the debate, he did his job and it was over and done with.

GEORGE BIZOS: Surely it is not the job of a parliamentarian when speaking of a colleague, to misinterpret facts?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, it is definitely not a policy matter, it is a practical situation which cropped up and occurred.   Mr du Plessis took a certain point of view, it is possible that other people could express other points of view and I had no problem with what Mr du Plessis said.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was the policy ...[intervention]

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: And I also don't have any problem with what Mr Botha stated when he said - he interpreted it differently, he could have done so.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was the question of what the policy of the Conservative Party was in relation to violence, a policy matter or not?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, naturally - violence, there's nothing in a constitution, in a programme of principles or in our programme of principles which refers to violence, we are a political party, we have a political viewpoint and a political goal that we strive for and we didn't take a point of view with regard to this because we accepted that we had to use other means to achieve our goals and our point of view was that violence could not be used to achieve political objectives.

GEORGE BIZOS: So, the answer to the question is a short: "Yes, the policy of the Conservative Party in relation to violence is an important matter and it is a policy matter and not a subjective matter"?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, if you talk about policy but with reference to a specific situation like this which had arose and where a person could interpret - persons could interpret it differently.  Here two member of Parliament of the CP - and you are referring to policy here but the question that is really concerned is: "What is this reference to the third freedom struggle and how was it interpreted" and the two members interpreted it differently.

GEORGE BIZOS: I'll try for the last time Doctor Hartzenberg ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, ...[inaudible] ...[intervention]

GEORGE BIZOS: Was the question ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, the witness did answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let's move on Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: With respect, there was no answer Mr Chairman.  To be told the question is: "How was the third - the second or the third war of liberation fought", is not an answer to the question as to whether or not the question of the policy of the CP in relation to violence, is a policy matter or not?  Was it a matter of policy when the debate in Parliament was taking place or not?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that as I understand the evidence, violence as a matter of policy did not form part of the policy of the CP.  The emphasis seems to be that the interpretation of the policy of the CP is what has led to the present problem, members of the CP have interpreted to mean that they could resort to violence - that is how I understand that evidence.

GEORGE BIZOS: Let us ask you this on the basis of the Chairman's interpretation of your answer Mr Hartzenberg, who was interpreting the policy correctly, Mr Botha or Mr du Plessis?  In your view as a leader of Deputy Leader of the Party, who was interpreting the policy correctly?  It's no good smiling at me, answer the question.

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, perhaps I have a third viewpoint and do not agree with either of the two points of view.  I think my point of view is that a political party's work is - in political manner, to achieve it's objectives and under those circumstances which we found ourselves, we said politically we would do everything in our capacity to achieve our liberty in a certain portion of South Africa and maintain it there and if we are attacked we have the right to defend ourselves - that's my point of view.

GEORGE BIZOS: Let me ask you question on the basis of your answer, you say that ...[intervention]

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon Mr Chair, I have not objected to any noise, the people in hall can shout and make any kind of noise that they wish to when we adjourn - I don't even hear it but that lady, Mrs Hani and the lady with the green dress, they perform to such an extent that I honestly cannot hear the Afrikaans in my earphones.  May I please request, can't they just keep quiet while the sitting is continuing?

CHAIRPERSON: If this is a Truth Commission, - whether a witness is lying or not lying, is to be decided by the people who are sitting here and not the audience.  Please, you can hold whatever views you want but you're not allowed to shout your vies in such a way that you disturb the people giving evidence, please, please.
	May we proceed where we left off, I'm sorry.

GEORGE BIZOS: Doctor Hartzenberg, you said that it may be that neither Mr du Plessis nor Mr Botha's interpretation of the policy be correct, that there may be a third view, are you speaking on a speculative basis or are you able to advance a third view of the CP's policy at the time?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: I've just told Mr Bizos and the Committee what my personal point of view is, I just told you that.  I just told you what my personal point of view is, must I repeat it to you again?

GEORGE BIZOS: No, you said that they neither may have been correct and there may have been a third point of view of the policy, could you please tell us ...[intervention]

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Yes, and I told you ...[intervention]