Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-06-17

MR BRACHER: You said you pointed out one site and then there wasn't enough parking place and you picked another site.

MR LE ROUX: Yes, it was a parking place or two parking places in front of it.  The general one I did tell you, it was exactly the place where we would plant the bomb.

MR BRACHER: But you see in your evidence you said
"I support the ideologies of the AWB. Anyone that questions our Volkstaat will be resisted"
Now when you killed these people that wasn't your motive at all, to try and resist people who questioned your Volkstaat?

MR LE ROUX: No, it was to convey a message, it was to create a psychosis of fear and it was a message of self-determination.

MR BRACHER: You also said: "Ek wil dood en verwoesting aan my vyande"
You wanted to do destroy your enemy but you didn't know who these people were who you were going to kill.

MR LE ROUX: Where do I say that?

MR BRACHER: In your evidence, it was your own words and I wrote it down.

MR LE ROUX: Oh.

MR BRACHER: Death and destruction to enemies.  Now Mr Ontong who was killed, Mr Semenya, Mr Walker and the other people I represent, you don't know whether they are enemies or not do you?

MR LE ROUX: No, I do not know Chairperson.

MR BRACHER: Are you going to call anybody from the AWB in support of your application, to support your allegation that these instructions came from the AWB?

MR LE ROUX: I think most of them that are sitting here would support it.  ...[transcriber's own translation]

MR BRACHER: No, I'm talking about seniors for the Staff Generals for instance.

MR LE ROUX: I do not know at this stage.

MR BRACHER: Are you going to call Mr Barnard who you say was to blame for what you thought?

MR LE ROUX: Please repeat the question.

MR BRACHER: Are you going to call Mr Barnard as a witness?

MR LE ROUX: He will not come here, no.

MR BRACHER: Give me a moment please, I'll try and cut out the ones that are repeats.
	The other thing you do in your written application is you move from war to revolution, what is the difference?

MR LE ROUX: Well I know that in a war you do declare a war but a revolution is a revolution.  I do not think that you can declare a revolution but a war does exist before you declare it sometimes so they're very close to each other Mr Chairperson.

MR BRACHER: Can you give me the distinction that you use in your application?  I tell you where or how it works, when you're talking about what the AWB said in public speeches, they said they wanted to have a war, when you talk about your motive at the end you talk about a, I'll give you your own words
"By starting a revolution it would bring fear to the ordinary people"

MR BRACHER: You see that doesn't come anywhere, previous to that, in anything that the AWB said in a public meeting, to do these acts of terrorism.  That was never said at a public meeting was it?

MR LE ROUX: No, I think it was said often.

MR BRACHER: Why didn't you put it in your application then?

MR LE ROUX: I think it was something, I think you yourself know you were at the SABC and all those places.

MR BRACHER: Why didn't you put it in here if that came at public speeches, that they wanted to put fear in the general public?  It was never said at a public meeting was it?  It was never said to you by anybody in the AWB structure?

MR LE ROUX: The other day over the news I saw that the AWB said: "Attack, attack".  I think those things were said.  It was said over the television and ...[intervention]

MR BRACHER: Where does it say: "attack innocent civilians"?  Who said that?

MR LE ROUX: No, that is ...[indistinct]

MR BRACHER: I've never seen that. I've looked, I've looked at press clippings, I've looked through your evidence, I've looked everywhere and I can't find it.  Who said: "attack innocent civilians"?

MR LE ROUX: I said from the beginning that it was not an official policy that stands in a book of any movement or the AWB as such.  I never said that.

MR BRACHER: Well that's the point I'm making, it was never said was it, by anybody in the structure of the AWB at a public meeting or a private meeting with you?

MR LE ROUX: He would have admitted it in a resistance movement, that to kill innocent people but daily it does occur with resistance movements right through the world.

MR BRACHER: Forget about the rest of the world, just talk about the AWB.  Did anybody say it to you, if so who?

MR LE ROUX: No, it was not directly said.  These specific words were not used at a meeting.

MR BRACHER: Your motive you say in paragraph 17 of your application
"During April 1994 my wife and I decided that there's only one way out for the Afrikaner Boerevolk and that is to fight for its future or survival"

MR LE ROUX: That's correct.

MR BRACHER: That was when you decided that you had to go on this terrorist campaign.

MR LE ROUX: No, no, no, fighting there was in a broader sense.  It can mean that I fight for the right of self-determination but if it boils down to it I would take a weapon.  That was the broader sense in which it was said.

MR BRACHER: What did you and your wife decide, that you would take up arms to defend the ...[intervention]

MR LE ROUX: Not necessarily only weapons.

MR BRACHER: Was it part of what you decided?

MR LE ROUX: I took all my weapons with me, yes.

MR BRACHER: When you and your wife decided that you wanted to fight for its survival, what did you mean?

MR LE ROUX: That which was necessary to obtain, to obtain or to do what we were told to do, we would do that.

MR BRACHER: What would you mean by: "veg"?  Would you go and kill innocent civilians, is that what you discussed with your wife?

MR LE ROUX: No, not necessarily.  If it does come to that and a bomb would be the means to an end, it would have occurred.

MR BRACHER: When you decided to go and kill other people's children, did you discuss it with your wife?

MR LE ROUX: No, Chairperson.

MR BRACHER: What role did your wife play, she was also a member of the AWB?

MR LE ROUX: No, nothing, she did not even know about the bombs till after it occurred.

MR BRACHER: Why didn't you discuss it with your wife?

MR LE ROUX: I was not with her at that stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: With all respect, I would like to raise the objection that this killing of people is taken out of context because the all the evidence is concerned with the fact that these people gathered in order to fight a war.  It was also the evidence of this applicant, the he said that in a war situation innocent people are killed.  That was what his evidence was about, it was never with regards to an instruction that was given to him or anybody else who was with him according to his evidence, that they should go out and kill innocent people.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs van der Walt, I think Mr Bracher is trying to make or it seems that at the end of the day he will argue that there was never such a decision made in the higher ranks of the AWB, the fact that bombs had to be planted and people had to be killed.  It seems to me that that is the essence of his cross-examination.

MS VAN DER WALT: But that is not what was put to the this witness.  It is not directly said to the applicant that there were no such instructions.  He is hammering on the fact that he spoke about the fact that innocent people died and that is what it is all about and that is my objection Chairperson.

MR BRACHER: My point is this, not that innocent people died but that only innocent people died.  It's quite different attacking a military target and somebody gets killed in the cross-fire or whatever of because of bombs ...[indistinct] to only to kill innocent people is quite a different league.
	Mr le Roux, what ordinary acts of war did your organisation carry out, like bombing police stations or something that represented the State that you so hated?

MR LE ROUX: I said before that in the Sweepslag it was accepted ...[intervention]