Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

UNKNOWN: With respect, as it was understood there was a 
climate of war because a large proportion of the white population 
viewed this as a climate of war, and there was resistance against 
this and various groups made various statements which have 
already been submitted as evidence before you, and clearly there 
was a climate of war.
	It was carried over as a fact that a resistance would take 
place, that the deceased was bringing in weapons from Angola, 
there was talk of when the ANC would lay down their weapons, 
that history exists and with respect there was definitely a climate 
of war and it must be considered that a number of acts of violence 
took place.
	This proved it self until the elections had taken place, there 
were many acts of violence which were done in opposition to this 
ANC/SACP takeover.  Visser testified yesterday that the ballot 
boxes be blown up to prevent people from voting, there were all 
those explosions which were actually about something else, but 
the preceding history indicates that this climate did exist, and was 
promoted until the very last moment.

ADV POTGIETER: What would be more relevant for our 
purposes, those deeds which he referred to, were those connected 
to the Conservative Party?

UNKNOWN: With respect, Chairperson, connected to the 
Right Wing Parties.

ADV POTGIETER: Your client's case if I understand correctly, 
is that he acted in support of the Conservative Party with regard 
to this incident, and I think it is of greater relevance for us to 
know to which degree this action was connected to the 
Conservative Party, this might assist you.

UNKNOWN: With respect, you will remember that there 
were various fronts who along with the Conservative Party 
planned the same type of resistance in this country, and the 
Conservative Party stood in conjunction with that proportion of 
the population who were planning this resistance in order to 
prevent a government coming into power which they didn't want 
to come into power, a communist government.
	That is what they feared and it was a real and genuine fear 
for every person who had been born during the years of the total 
onslaught and had learnt the meaning of communist in that 
context.
	The National Party and a number of its allies and the 
Conservative Party, propagated this view and that is what was 
consistently portrayed and it could not be done away with 
overnight as a genuine fear.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you draw any distinction in your mind 
between a communist government and a black majority 
government in the country?

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairperson, as the witness 
viewed it, as the society viewed it and as it was put forward in 
many cases, the ANC was the majority and the communist 
government would be the minority.
	And upon those facts, it would appear that the control was 
placed in the hands of the Communist Party, although the ANC 
government would be the instrument whereby the government 
would be controlled and the country governed, and that is how I 
understood it.
	Honourable Chairperson, at various moments, the evidence 
of the applicant was attacked in terms of the Conservative Party's 
lack of policy in terms of violence.  None of the political parties 
who functioned in this country, including the South African 
Police or any instruments of the State, had a determined or 
particular policy of violence which was officially recognised.
	If such a policy had existed, and if it had been announced, 
that party would not have had any kind of survival.  It would have 
been regarded as a criminal party.

CHAIRPERSON: Would the National Party in your belief, at 
that time, also believed in violence but did not want to disclose 
it?

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairperson, with respect, the 
National Party was in power and by means of its various organs, 
which were involved in the conflict at that stage, the Police, the 
Defence Force and various other institutions, the Commando's, 
and other such organisations which were involved in the struggle 
against the ANC, used these instruments and it came to light in 
various instances that the Police community came forward and 
said that they acted upon orders, or that the climate indicated 
that they acted upon orders, and the answer therefore is that the 
National Party definitely maintained a policy of violence.  That it 
definitely existed.
	With respect, in various instances it appeared in the media 
that certain individuals were seen as targets, where members of 
the ANC were killed under various circumstances and this must 
have had a definite influence on this perception of war, because 
of the policy of violence.
	With respect, one cannot ignore the acts of violence which 
were committed by the ANC.  A milieu of violence existed and it 
promoted itself or continued to exist until at least after the 
election. This piece of history which occurred so swiftly, which 
perhaps in world history happened much quicker than what it 
would have happened in other countries, nonetheless remains a 
fact that it occurred.

ADV POTGIETER: Do you say that we should find that the CP 
had an undeclared policy of violence?

UNKNOWN: I would like to put it to you in this way that it 
was definitely so if one considers that the leaders and various 
other individuals said that other methods needed to be used, other 
than the democratic process, not by means of the ballot box.
	That they would not be subjected to a communist 
government, that they would not give their country up.  How 
should it be interpreted, how would one interpret or combat that 
resistance?

ADV POTGIETER: You ask that we make the inference from 
the statements made by the leaders that the party indeed 
maintained an undeclared policy of violence?

UNKNOWN: With respect, that is what I am asking because 
if one considers what the party said in terms of mobilising, 
therefore people were advised to go over to mobilisation.  Passive 
versus active are described, and then it was left to those who 
would put it into operation, they had to interpret these statements 
in the broader sense.
	It was said we will not give up our country, we will fight 
for it.  The leader of the Conservative Party, Dr Treurnicht, said 
that he would not serve under a communist government or under 
President Mandela.
	If it was as such, how could it then have been interpreted in 
the light of these statements.  Also in terms of the statements that 
the Conservative Party made that Codesa was a futile exercise.

CHAIRPERSON: It was one thing for a leader to say I will not 
serve under Dr Mandela, it is perfectly reasonable for people of 
standing to say that they will not serve under a government, that 
is not the same as saying that I am going to go to war to see that 
I am in government in the place of him.  Isn't that so?

UNKNOWN: With respect, we should not view this in terms 
of compartments, but in a holistic sense.  
	What these leaders said, what Dr Hartzenberg said, what 
various individuals such as Snyman said, for example, the 
mobilisation, the various acts which were committed, the stock 
piling of weapons and acts of violence were being committed, 
what would be the interpretation of these facts?
	Especially in light of a statement where someone says that 
he would not serve under such and such a government?  It is 
threatening, it is quite obviously eminent that the unity State 
would occur as envisioned by the ANC and the SACP, it wasn't 
something which was part of the further future.
	At that stage the elections took place, in April 1994, as we 
know.

ADV POTGIETER: I am just trying to clear up this aspect, 
what must we make of the evidence of Dr Hartzenberg which was 
clearly indicating that the SACP or that the CP did not have a 
policy of violence?
	He could not have said that they had a policy of violence, if 
he had said so the CP would not have continued to exist.