Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

CHAIRPERSON: In the background of the climate you talk 
about, there was a statement by Dr Treurnicht at Paardekraal was 
it, where he said that we must prepare for the next war, words to 
that effect?

UNKNOWN: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, that statement about we must prepare 
for another war, rested there because at no stage did the party 
say we have now declared war.  Have the party said that we have 
now declared war?

UNKNOWN: Nobody said we have declared war Mr 
Chairman, with respect, there was a war in existence.

CHAIRPERSON: So now why they said that we must now 
prepare for war, we must arm ourselves and so on, that doesn't 
mean that we have now declared war?  It means that we are 
preparing for a war?
	In that situation without a war being declared, an attempt is 
made, or rather assassination is made of a high profile political 
figure, without a war being declared.
	That assassination cannot then be said to be part of the 
policy because the policy is prepare for war, when we declare the 
war, then we will take control.  All right, the war was never 
declared.
	An assassination is carried out and quite clearly that 
happened without the CP declaring a war, albeit it at that time 
there was evidence of violence of various sides in the country and 
so on, but that violence in the country had been carrying on for 
some time.
	But at this crucial time of the killing of Chris Hani, the 
Nationalist Party had never taken the decision to in fact declare 
war, had it, the CP?

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairperson, there was never any 
declaration of war, but a war did exist.  With respect, if one 
compares this to the period when the ANC and the SACP waged 
their war, there was no expressed declaration of war, but there 
was a struggle and a fight, and a struggle consists of two sides, 
one shoot the other, one plant bombs towards the other, one kill 
the other, but there was killing on both sides, but the perception 
existed that a war existed and furthermore tat during this time, 
there was a particular war.
	And that is what the witnesses said yesterday, they were 
called here independently and the testified that they perceived it 
as a war.  In those circumstances it was regarded as a war, and 
the circumstances which had to be prevented would be the 
takeover of the ANC and SACP while the National Party had lost 
its course.
	That is what they were prepared to do in order to prevent 
this.  That is the objective that the applicant held.
	Honourable Chairperson, as I have already stated, the 
target which was set, was Mr Chris Hani to bring that particular 
party to its knees, to take out the leadership so to speak, and 
then further problems or to combat further problems that existed.
	I would like to argue with respect that the applicant, as we 
have already referred to in our heads, falls within the category of 
Section 20(2)(a) and (2)(d).  With reference to the criteria, I 
have ...

ADV POTGIETER: I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo, before you 
move on from that point.  Section 20(2)(d), which of the 
possibilities does your client support for his case?  Does he 
maintain that he was a member of the CP, and he acted within the 
ambit of his duties or that he acted within the ambit of his 
express or sworn capacity?

UNKNOWN: I would like to explain it as follows.  The 
applicant had certain duties which were explicit, that was 
mobilisation and the resistance to the ANC and SACP.  The 
resistance to the takeover of the SACP and ANC, in terms of his 
capacity, it involved the methods which he would apply in order 
to carry out this resistance.
	These duties of mobilisation for resistance and stock piling 
of weapons, were issued and that was within his sworn capacity.  
But as far as it involves 20(2)(c) ...

ADV POTGIETER: I understand 20(2)(a) is quite obvious to 
follow, I am more interested in 20(2)(d).  You are saying that his 
case is that as part of his duties in the mobilisation campaign, he 
launched this action, this assassination of Mr Hani.

UNKNOWN: As I have said, the resistance which was 
announced by the CP to prevent that the ANC and SACP come 
into power, seen in the broader sense, all the speeches the 
negotiations of the CP leadership, these were all methods of 
prevention.
	It was part of his duty, his sworn capacity and duties.

ADV POTGIETER: So this was part of his duties within the CP 
as an office bearer, a senior office bearer?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And he also had a sworn capacity to carry 
this out?

UNKNOWN: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: According to what did he have that 
capacity?

UNKNOWN: In terms of what was said by the CP, what 
they announced that they would go forward into resistance to 
prevent the ANC and SACP from coming into power.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Then I want to say with respect, he acted in a 
bona fide capacity.
	In so far as it affects Section 20(3) the motive is discussed 
in our heads and I have already referred to that.  I would like to 
argue with respect, that the context within which this offence was 
committed, it was committed during a time when a political 
struggle existed between the CP and the ANC and SACP alliance, 
and their allies.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you in your heads of argument, can 
you just tell me please?

UNKNOWN: I was just going according to the Section now 
Mr Chairman.  I will just let my colleague find it in the meantime.
	Just a moment please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, quite all right.

UNKNOWN: It appears on page 53 of the heads of 
argument.  It begins at paragraph 2 and proceeds to page 54, 
which refers to other aspects as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

UNKNOWN: With respect, the only other aspect which I 
would like to deal with, which is also referred to, is paragraph 
23(f), the relation between the action and the political objective, 
specifically the proportionality.  In terms of the evidence of the 
witnesses who maintained that the leaders had to be killed and 
what the consequences of such deeds would be. 
	With respect one must specifically consider the time, point 
in time when the action was taken and what the objective was.  
The objective was to prevent that there would be an ANC/SACP 
takeover, which was an eminent threat at that point.
	And that takeover which was a threat, must be weighed up 
in conjunction with the policy of the party that they were opposed 
to it, the feelings created amongst the followers, these two 
aspects must be balanced.  If there would be an ANC/SACP 
overthrow, it would be over, it would be like a death sentence, 
there was a great feeling of finality regarding that, within that 
context.
	Therefore within that context, to take out a leader would be 
an act of prevention and within the context of war, which they 
believed existed, to take out the leader would prevent that 
alliance from coming into power and prevent the disadvantages 
and the threat which existed for the CP as a party.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I was wondering whether you are comparing 
correct situations because I thought when you speak of 
proportionality, you would compare the ultimate objective not 
with the assassination per se, as an event, but with what they told 
us in so many words, was what they wanted to achieve, namely to 
create chaos.
	To create a chaotic situation during which possibly 
thousands of innocent people would be killed during that 
confusion, because they said they wanted to create a confusion 
during which the Right Wing would take over.
	Now, I think maybe you should, when you speak of 
proportionality, you should compare the ultimate objective with 
the scenario that they wanted to bring about, the chaotic situation 
that they could have brought about, that they wanted to bring 
about.