Amnesty Hearings — Klerksdorp — 1999-05-11

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Terre'blanche.
	Mr Rudolph, do you have any submissions that you would like to make?

MR RUDOLPH: I am going to be very brief. I would just like to raise the matter of the total disclosure and the political objectives.
	Regarding the total disclosure, yesterday, in my ignorance, because I thought it would take the matter a bit further, my request was, that we get Mr de Klerk here because I thought that there should not be an opportunity for the Committee to have heard something which it should not have heard.
	When it comes to the judging of my approach, I can just show you the document which was made available by the Committee, on page 2801.  I never received this document, I never received anything from the TRC except the wrong address as to where the Commission would sit.  On page 2801, the magistrate at Potchefstroom was busy with his ruling and in the second paragraph on the page, it starts with accused number 2:
"Accused number 2 is an outspoken man, fired by the emotions, he does not doubt to express himself as opposed to those who differ from his political objectives nor does he put all facts in front of him, even though this could be to his detriment."
And then - I am sorry am I too quick?

MS PATEL: It is 243 of the bundle, Honourable Chairperson.
MR RUDOLPH
"His standpoint that he was not guilty of a crime even though other people would be guilty, is by nature of the case, not acceptable.  The evidence shows that the police officer who describes his pistol as a .22 calibre is wrong.  He also denies that he said, when he took the baseball bat, 'give the thing that I can hit them with it'.
I deny that today still. 
	Here the court gives preference to police evidence and in this way the magistrate continues and then he says, in the second last or third last line:
"I do not believe that his denial is a purposeful attempt to excuse himself.  I think that the impression gained by the court as a witness, is that he would not stop to acknowledge that even if it is not in his favour."
	I believe in regard to the matter of total disclosure or full disclosure which Mr Terre'blanche, my colleague, regarding the Ventersdorp matter, I am in agreement with him.
	As regards the political objectives, it is so that today we are in another time-frame but I also told you that my political motives are exactly the same.  However, in the time that we have had to deal with the new government, on numerous occasions we have seen a different approach for which I am personally very grateful.
	That time at Ventersdorp we were pressed for time and we had to take action.  Mr Terre'blanche told you about the role played by the media in our denigration and which denied us the opportunity to state our case properly.  This is a tactic, not only used by the National Party, but other organisations as well and is as old as ...(indistinct) 
	Mr Desmond Thompson is a man who has been writing about politics for a long time and as was true of the National Party mouthpiece, held us up as Nazis or fascists.  Just as the same people held up black nationalists as communists, we were regarded as Nazis and fascists when we differed from them.
	You were in this court yesterday, the Committee was here, I was here, but the media tells us about yesterday's events.  
"Rudolph and Terre'blanche wore khaki clothes."
Now I would like to say, if I wore khaki clothes yesterday, then Mr Desmond Thompson was drunk.  That is the situation which we are faced with and which the press has created because when one wears khaki clothes then I am a Nazi and a fascist.  In those terms, Mr Terre'blanche, a Boer nationalist has also been described.  I have nothing else to say to you.
	I am standing in front of you and I have tried to tell you what is in my heart and what happened that day.  I also tried to convey to you that our struggle, a struggle of the Boers, the Boer people and nationalists will continue until we die or until we have scored a victory.  That political objective which I had at Ventersdorp, I still have today.  I had envisaged no gains, I have no political ambition except for the fact that one day somewhere, there will be a place in the sun for the Boer people and that the liberation flag, the Vierkleur, will once again fly over our country, the Transvaal.  That is why I am here today and if the Lord will acknowledge this, I will be found along the way and I hope under different circumstances.  I thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rudolph.  Ms Patel, do you have any submissions to make.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.  I will start in chronological order as the events took place.  However, before I start on the merits of, or my submissions in respect of the different events for which amnesty
is being sought, I would however comment on the applicants' position that they have likened their position in society in a sense to that of the liberation movements.  In a sense the flip-side of that submission, Honourable Chairperson, is that neither of the applicants were subject to forced removals under the previous government.  They were not subjected to the inferior education system.  They were beneficiaries of the apartheid system in respect of the separate development policies.  There were questions - not the questions, there was the policy of job reservations and better employment opportunities and most importantly, the were not disenfranchised under the previous regime, Honourable Chairperson.  Accordingly, they had the right to mobilise and wield whatever political clout they could muster to achieve their objectives, that in fact a limited democracy reigned supreme in the country during the time in which these offences were committed.
	Be that as it may Honourable Chairperson, I would like to move on to the question of the application in respect of Mr van Jaarsveld.  It is my respectful submission in response to Mr Terre'blanche's submission, that he relies on certain ex post facto facts or information that has come to light in terms of the submission made by the late Mr van Jaarsveld's son, in relying on their political motivation at the time.
	It is my respectful submission Honourable Chairperson that the applicant is not entitled to rely on evidence and information that came to light after the incident had in fact taken place in order to support his political motivation at the time.
	My second point in respect of that incident, Honourable Chairperson, is the question of whether one is motivated by a difference and a religious dispute, whether that amounts to a political motivation in terms of our enabling legislation.  It is my respectful submission Honourable Chairperson, that it in fact does not.  The applicant has said time and time again that his attack on Mr van Jaarsveld was in fact motivated by Mr van Jaarsveld trying to change history and more importantly was to tear them, was Mr van Jaarsveld's motivation to tear them away from God which comprised the bigger part of their culture.  If that is indeed the motivation, Honourable Chairperson, where does one then draw the line?  Can one then not argue that everything in life where one, that everything in life is in fact political that it affects your culture to a greater or lesser degree.  To use an example, let's assume that under the previous government an applicant stands before us having committed an offence against someone of a different sexual orientation and his argument is that heterosexuality is a part of his culture and that is what he wanted to preserve and that is indeed then his political motivation in that he wants to support a particular way of life.  Can we then say that this is the brief of this Commission?