Amnesty Hearings — Klerksdorp — 1999-05-10

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: ... in the presence of his audience where he was delivering a paper on the promise which was made at Blood River, to speak about that promise and with pieces which we obtained beforehand as information, the AWB decided that Professor van Jaarsveld would be tarred and feathered so that the claim can be, that the emphasis can be placed on the fact that we regarded his, the contents of his speech as the breaking of a promise which we had been bound by to our God, the Holy Trinity and the God of Blood River, who brought, who gave us the victory at Blood River.
	Without tiring you, as background I do want to mention that I grew up in the Western Transvaal as a boy in a Christian home and that the history of the Boer nation was fed to me from my birth, that I was assured of the fact that my parents who were my first educators were very religious Christians. 
   Nothing in their lives could ever make me doubt at all that what they would convey to me would not be true and correct, as true as the ten commandments which I promised with them from church to church in the same way as true, was the promise made by Blood River by the leader Sarel Cillier.
   I do not have this here as an exhibit, but I do not believe that Sarel Cillier's promise which was noted by the State Secretary, one Bandjies, by the objectors, the Van Jaarsveld family's official legal representative, that this will be doubted at all.
   Bandjies says that Sarel Cillier stands on the cannon wagon and he lifts his hands to the heavens and he says, and now I am going to mention a few elements.
"Here we stand in front of a holy creator of heaven and earth to make a promise to him that if he will be with us and if he will surrender the enemy to us, that this day and this date will always be commemorated" and I quote out of Dutch: 'as one day of thanksgiving is the day Sabbath day, that we will build a house to the honour of his name and that we will tell our children of all generations that the honour of victory belongs to God alone.'
    The promise made by Sarel Cillier was noted as Bandjies and used at festivals.  I want to mention that my father, for 20 years, has been chosen uninterrupted by the festival committees as the Chairperson of the Ventersdorp Committee.  Every year the opportunity was given for the people to elect another chairperson.  My father was chosen time and again.  My father was involved in the building of a house in the honour of his name, the Festival House, at the Ventersdorp Town Council land and my father read the promise of Cillier annually and said that the honour of the victory at Blood River belongs to God alone. Perhaps to a greater extent than a Sabbath, this was commemorated.  
	On a Saturday, or rather the day before history was spoken about, when the people got together and games were played, but the Day of the Covenant was held and a speech was made and the covenant was read and the people had to pledge themselves once again to give all honour to God.  The part was that we were to, the promise was that we had to tell this to our children, to the furtherest generations and this was done there.  It was God, it was not a myth.  It was God who protected the 440 trekkers in The Lager against the assaulting or attacking forces of Tambohlane.  It was God, who on the evening of the attack prevented the attack on the small lager, when mistiness and wet weather came from the Seekoei gat and the river.  It was God who did not let the chief Induna see storm lanterns but angels before them.
	I must say that the English historian, Shadwick from Natal declares that there were between 15 000 and 30 000.  Gustav Preller said, after long deliberation and research, Zulus said who survived, told him that the Zulus did not attack that evening because of the spirits of the forefathers were hanging above the lager.  I see no reason why the Zulus could not see that the Boers were lighting their lanterns.  I, often, in speeches on Covenant Day said: "Who am I to say that the Zulu did not see the angels of God who were hanging protectively over the lager".
	I want to go further and say that I believe that they did see the Angels because for seven days from the Sabbath to the Sabbath, the Voortrekkers repeated the Covenant to God.  Cillier went as far as to say that if there is one single person here present who does not want to form part of this covenant of this contract between us and God, that if he gives us the victory that we will Honour him and him alone and that we will say that God was on the side of the Boers at this battle.  If there is one who does not believe this, let him remove himself for seven days.  This was prayed for.
	The result of Blood River is known throughout the world.  The history of Blood River is not so well-known to the people of today, but it is noted and stands in contrast with certain allegations that Blood River, the battle of Blood River was there as a result of the abilities of Andries Pretorius and Cillier and their military force and power.
	The intervention of God took place when one notes that in the small lager hundreds of cattle and horses were gathered who, when the instruction came at daybreak from the throats of tens of thousands "Bulelani Abatagati", kill the magicians.  And the tremendous rattling of the assegais and the stamping of ten thousands of feet and the shouting from strong manly chests and the firing of the cannons and the shots that rang out as compared to the tremendous sound and noise, the oxen stood still and none of the horses became afraid.  A confrontation or situation in which neither ox nor horse was in history, it was as if God himself had whispered to these animals and they stood still.
   I confess here in the presence of you Sir, who, with regard to this matter indeed are justice from the soil that my God from Blood River that I believe it was him who in fact brought the victory to the extent that Pretorius alone was only wounded lightly and that the river henceforth would carry the name of Blood River and in the terrible battle and the victory which took place there.
	Mr Chairman, Honourable Judges, I am being confronted today because I with my whole heart and soul, believe that God brought the victory for us.  With my whole heart and soul I believe that I have a brief and that I am bound to God, and that that day should be a Sabbath day henceforth.  And that year the press would report widely that Professor van Jaarsveld, in the position he has as professor in history, that he would develop a different view about history with specific reference to Blood River, after having studied his paper.  The least that could be said about that is that the Sarel Cillier vow was being put a slur over.  The report over that paper, that total paper, that the Boers cannot claim that God was on their side, that it cannot be said with conviction that the Sabbath clause should be removed.   Mr Chairman, if the Sabbath clause were to be removed and this day would then be declared a holiday and not a Sabbath day then we have not graced God in any way and we did not give him a single day on which he should be thanked.  We should remember that the government of the day also was the member of the nation who was responsible for the Covenant of Blood River.
	It should be borne in mind that it could only be the Sunday clause that should be removed and that the day itself could be left as such, but this is a matter between a human and God.  For the AWB there was no other way than to object to what we regarded as a gross violation and indeed a motion of no confidence in the God of Blood River.  The AWB has decided to, when the Honourable Professor - and I would immediately like to add that there could be no hate with regard to his person because we did not know him and that it was purely about what we had seen as the fact that the Covenant was distrusted and that in fact we had to object to that.
	I would also like to say to you that driven by politics, because we believed that at the back door of the University, the Day of the Covenant eventually had to be done away with.  It first had to be made suspect and God had to be sent away - was taken away, in other words as to meaning that no longer is the God of the constitution which at that stage we believed in, in which we said he looks over people and that he specifically saw to the survival of the Boers there.  As was the case in many other matters in politics, the public and the electorate had to be made used to this idea and eventually it is being passed through Parliament as the Professor of History said that the Sunday clause had to be removed.  Then Mr Chairman, we knew that it would not take long before the idea is being made acceptable and the nation eventually no longer believes in God in that simply accepting that the Sunday clause can be done away with.
	I could think of no other measure to enable us as a group of young people, to state our case.  And in those days the powerful regime of the national party destroyed us and we had no access to the press and the media, who to a great extent did not support us.  The power and the force of the communism and the liberalists and the way it could be seen in the press as a cancer.  We did not want to injure, cause injury to Professor van Jaarsveld, we did not want to cause damage to the property of the University, we never wanted to injure anybody from the audience.  That is clear from the case in which Rapport of 13th May 1979 said the following:
"The tarring or the tarrers and feathers, after the episode at Voortrekker Monument, worshipped the Lord and thanked him because it was not necessary for people to become involved in a physical fight between the public and the so called tarring and feathering, featherers."
I was not - did not stand alone in my conviction.  Also true from this report in that it is said that Professor van Jaarsveld received a letter from a lifelong friend, namely Professor Herman Rex, who was the chief of the Reformed Church.  In this matter the matter the friend ...(end of tape)
... grass will become rather long before things will be the same between him and Dr Rex.
	A friendship of long standing is something of the past because of a different view as regards the Day of the Covenant and the rather strong letter received from him.  He said that the letter came as a shock to him in that Rex writes amongst other things, about, with regard to Van Jaarsveld's view on the Day of the Covenant, the last straw that caused the camel's back to break.  The other straw which was put on top of the back of the camel and which - we don't know which one that was, but he referred to this one as being the last straw, he said he was through with him because of the vow and he further says - Dr Herman Rex unfortunately, is no longer with us but, until the end of days he, of time he believed in this and he said that he was shocked at the paper and that he had an appreciation for what that - sorry I repeat, that he has appreciation for those men who were responsible for the tarring and feathering of Professor van Jaarsveld.  
	The political motive for the tarring and feathering, Mr Chairman and Honourable Judges, was indeed to, what we have seen is a clever political move done through the professor at the University to stop that process in order to make an end to the plans in that regard and we had to prove that his paper was untrue for once and for all, as a paper that would bring resentment in the midst of the trekkers.
	For that wrong from which I could not really benefit in any way, in which there was no financial benefit for me in which I was - at the time I was a fairly poor Boer boy but I was found guilty of crimen injuria and malicious damage to property.
	Some of the tar landed on the carpets, something we should have known perhaps, but in all honesty we never thought of that.  There was at least no plan to damage the carpets and the movement did not really want to damage any property.  Nevertheless, we were found guilty of that.  I then had a criminal record because the pledge of Sarel Cillier, I wanted to protect and because I wanted to commit myself irrevocably because the wrong interpretation through that one should also no longer believe in that pledge.
	I would also like to say that my whole life I have been politically committed irrevocably to the principles of a sacrificing Christian and that it was a political game played there and I would not be able to correct by means of a paper or a sermon.  The AWB at the time was a political organisation, not a party political organisation but it was a political organisation with a constitution which politically, was motivated and as movement Professor van Jaarsveld was tarred and feathered by us.
	Lastly, Mr Chairman and Honourable Judges, because I firmly believed that the attack on the Day of the Covenant was something that would also make an end politically to the Boer nation, also because I believe that God alone was responsible for the battle there, the family of the late Professor van Jaarsveld do not expect false evidence from me by saying that I am sorry.  I cannot for the sake of this court and simply lip service, say I am sorry because my Master, Jesus from Nazareth, and the Trinity of God was defended by me because my nation was defended by me.  The attack on the Day of the Covenant was seen as a political set.  Because I made an end to that, I cannot say that I am sorry.  Something that is a pity Chairperson is that it is a pity that we have ever had such a paper and that there ever was such an action.
   The fact that, which I stick to what I have said with regard to the fact as to what happened in 1979, taught by my mother and my father and also the Bible, that one should pay your promises to God.  I thank you.