Human Rights Violation Hearings — Moutse — 1996-12-02

ROELF MEYER: Thank you Chairperson.  Chairperson, I am in the second instance or in the second place, probably not the best informed person to speak on the issue that you have asked me to come and make a submission about.  I never had a specific responsibility in regard to this issue.  Namely the creation of the homelands and whatever happened in regard to the issue, but I have tried to, in the little time available, tried to refresh my own mind and to do a little bit of research as to what transpired.  I think it is appropriate although not necessarily in regard to this specific issue that is before the Commission at the moment.  It might be of some value just to refresh our minds as to
MOUTSE HEARING TRC/MPUMALANGA
4 R MEYER
where the idea originated from.  Of course one then has to look at what the architect behind the homelands idea had in mind himself and that was of course Verwoerd, H F Verwoerd.  Now, one can only, in these times, read what he had to say about it.  It would therefore, again, not be possible to put yourselves, yourself in the mind, actually, of the person who created the idea, but only to read from what he has said in speeches and in other literature on the issue.  Let me immediately say what I am trying to do, therefore, for the sake of the Commission, if I may submit, Chairperson, is not to argue a case, but rather to try and give a perspective.  I am definitely not arguing a case here this afternoon in favour of the homelands policy.  I want to make it very clear because with hindsight one can certainly say that that was a big mistake.  The point is in understanding what transpired over a period of 30 years, one has to go back to that time and, at least, try and create a perspective of what was at the back of the minds of those that created it. 
  Now it seems to me from what one can read in various speeches of Verwoerd that he himself, at least, had in mind the creation of a policy and of instruments that would try to address the problems related to the Constitutional future of the country as he saw it.  It is interesting to note that in some of the key references that he made in this regard, he tried to find a moral basis for the idea of creating the homelands.  A moral basis which he, in his words, described as to give to each and every person the right to govern over his or her own people.  He was reading in Afrikaans, if I may, from a particular sentence that I came across in one of his speeches in which he said, and that was in 1961, the moral foundation is aimed at providing for each his own 
MOUTSE HEARING TRC/MPUMALANGA
5 R MEYER
rights in full with regard to his own people.  So at least it seem that he tried to find a moral basis for what he intended to do and that moral basis then went further to say.  Incidently in the same speech he said that he wanted to address the soul of the matter and that was to get away from discrimination and domination.  If I may read again from a particular passage in this speech, in Afrikaans again, where he referred to a honourable member of the opposition, at that stage who questioned him.  He said the honourable member for Parktown has said that discrimination and domination is the heart of the entire debate and situation in which we find ourselves.  This is indeed the heart of the matter and the Government it its policy attempts to escape this dilemma.  Then he goes on and he says therefore we take the position that you should to each wherever he may live in his particular areas should be granted political governance over his own people.  So it seems, if I have to analyse this today, Chairperson, it seems to me one has to come to the conclusion that in the mind of Verwoerd he wanted to establish a moral basis and that the basis was therefore to try and get away from discrimination and domination and to do it by separating the various peoples of the country.  
 Now, as I said earlier, it is not my intention to go much further with this argument or this perspective, at least, this afternoon, but rather to deal with it more fully then in a written submission.  Simply for the sake of allowing ourselves to get behind what was the intention, but to take this through to the period that is in question, that is the subject for investigation now before the Commission.  One has to recall that between those remarks in 1961 of 
MOUTSE HEARING TRC/MPUMALANGA
6 R MEYER
Verwoerds' and what happened in the middle of the 1980s in this particular area.  Can I just say, Chairperson, incidentally it is my second time that I can recall visiting, specifically, this hospital.  The previous time was, I think, more or less ten years ago when I had certain responsibilities and, inter alia, came to visit this hospital to see the conditions here.  Now what happened here in the mid-1980s is a reflection of what, apparently, Verwoerd had in mind and which did not work out.  One must recall by the mid-1980s that four of the homelands had independence, so called independence.  That was the Transkei, Venda, Bophututswana and Ciskei and KwaNdebele was the fifth in line for independence.  Apparently, if I understand the information correctly, the idea of creating independence, also, for this homeland originated from both sides.  On the one side from the side of the South African Government and on the other side it was, apparently, also the desire of the Homeland Government, at that stage, because already soon after it gained self legislative status in the early 1980s, the legislature of this homeland decided to pursue independence.  By the 1980s or by 1986 this desire was answered by an announcement by the South African Government that KwaNdebele would become independent, I think, by the end of that year.  That is 1986.  
 Now in some way, Chairperson, KwaNdebele seems to be a good case study of the whole homelands policy in the sense that it was also part of the original dream of Verwoerd.  Although it came into existence much later and it seems even that at the time of Verwoerd the thought of a separate homeland for the Ndebele was not in his mind, at least.  Although, therefore, this homeland came into being at a much
MOUTSE HEARING TRC/MPUMALANGA
7 R MEYER
later stage it was also part of the original dream, but it was also the first one and the only one where independence was pursued, but did not come into existence because, of course, as we all know, independence never materialised here.  The reason or the reasons why it never materialised seems to me to be twofold, if I again, I understand the information correctly.  After the announcement of the possibility of KwaNdebele becoming independent at the end of 1986 and those announcements were made, if I remember correctly, firstly in February of 1986 by the then Commissioner General for this area and later through an announcement, I think it was by the then State President, Mr P W Botha, in May of 1986 that a specific date was actually intended for its independence.  I think it was December 1986.  Now after those announcements and more specifically after the May announcement, huge uprising took place in this area and therefore there was a huge internal reaction against the idea of independence which certainly contributed to the area never becoming independent.  
 There was also another reason which I came across and that was that after the announcement in May of 1986 by the then State President, apparently, the South African Government had second thoughts about proceeding with independence.  I am informed that there was a meeting.  I guess, and unfortunately I could not confirm the exact date of that meeting today and nobody relevant could actually give me the exact date, but it seems to me, if I deduct from other dates, that that meeting might have taken place in early August of 1986.  A meeting that was called by, it seems to me, the then State President, Mr P W Botha, and which was particularly attended by Mr Pik Botha and Mr
MOUTSE HEARING TRC/MPUMALANGA
8 R MEYER
Barend du Plessis as Minister of Finance and the then Minister for Development Aid who was Dr Gerhard Viljoen.  At least they who I mentioned were present and it was held with the then Prime Minister or Chief Minister, rather, of this area, the late Simon Skosana.  At that meeting he and his associates were informed that the South African Government would like the people or the legislature of this area to consider the question of proceeding with independence because of financial considerations.  I am being told that, particularly, Minister Pik Botha and Minister Barend du Plessis, both of them had very serious doubts about the question of independence for this particular area and they took such a position on the side of the South African Government and since Mr Barend du Plessis was the Minister of Finance, and I checked this information with him personally.  He took a very strong stand that there was no chance for this area to become independent and having fiscal autonomy or independence as well.  That would have meant that the area would not have a separate independent Ministry of Finance as well as other financial instruments or institutions of its own if it does become independent.  Apparently, on that basis, or at least, that was one of the arguments that was produced during that meeting, the people from KwaNdebele were sent back and asked to reconsider the matter.  
 If my information is correct there was thereafter, in fact, a decision then which I am not sure whether it was followed through immediately by the legislature of KwaNdebele that the area should not become independent any longer.  I guess that decision was taken by mid-August 1986.  Now if my information, therefore, is correct and my
MOUTSE HEARING TRC/MPUMALANGA
9 R MEYER
assumption is that that meeting took place at the beginning of August, that was definitely also further reason why, in fact, this area eventually did not become independent.  
 That is a little bit of the political background which I could research.  Chairperson, I am afraid to say that I did not have much more time to go into all the details.  I am quite prepared to try and give a further or try and give some answers if there are further questions, but I was mainly asked to deal with the question of the political background to this whole issue because, quite clearly, much of the violence that took place in those years, 1985, 1986 and later on, arose from the whole question of independence or not.