Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: I think Mr Chair, Mr Bizos also has to accept that I have the freedom to answer the questions in the way that I wish to and have to and not the way in which he wishes me to answer the questions.

GEORGE BIZOS: Listen to the question please and we will get on quicker Doctor Hartzenberg.  Will you please look at the transcript, Exhibit R6, have you got it in front of you?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: No, I don't have it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, we just wish to get the copy of the document.  [Transcriber's own translation]  Mr Chairman, we don't have R6.

CHAIRPERSON: It must have been handed in Mr Prinsloo, because we all have it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is that the document which refers to: "Ferdie Hartzenberg, 20 April '93"?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Agenda - News Interview, is that the document that Mr Bizos is referring to?

GEORGE BIZOS: R6.

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?

GEORGE BIZOS: R6.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just one paragraph?

JUDGE WILSON: No.

GEORGE BIZOS: The paragraph Mr Chairman, LV - Doctor Hartzenberg in the Recent Past.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now, you have this document before you
"Doctor Hartzenberg in the Recent Past - A Member of the Conservative Party, Koos Botha Involved in Bombing"
...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: This is page two - for people who are looking for it.

GEORGE BIZOS: Shall I start again
"Doctor Hartzenberg in the Recent Past - A Member of the Conservative Party, Koos Botha Involved in Bombing in Pretoria,  now Mr Derby-Lewis is implicated in the Hani assassination.  The question is, is there a culture of violence developing in the Conservative Party?
FH is your initials?
"No, not at all Mr Venter, the Conservative Party has never - since it's inception, planned acts of violence.  Actually the planning of the Conservative Party has as it's aim to prevent violence in the country, by offering a political solution that will create peace and stability and prosperity in South Africa"
Was that your answer to the question?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: That is my reply and if you look further you will see that ...[intervention]

GEORGE BIZOS: Please listen for the next question Doctor Hartzenberg ...[intervention]

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: And it was outside the Conservative Party.

GEORGE BIZOS: Please listen to the questions that I'm asking ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just answer, that is your answer isn't it?  I think we'll move on quickly if you just say: yes, it is your answer.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now, in this answer ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, the answer goes further than Mr Bizos has allowed him to go.

JUDGE WILSON: As I read it, the answer to the question that you put to him Mr Bizos, is set out in three paragraphs there.

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Not just the one you read.

GEORGE BIZOS: Is the paragraph that I have read part of your answer?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: And particularly
"Actually the planning of the Conservative Party has as it's aim to prevent violence in the country, by offering a political solution that will create peace and stability and prosperity in South Africa"
Is there any ambiguity in that portion of your answer?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, that is the Conservative Party's point of view from the beginning, it is still so and at that stage we also started planning for possible attacks on ourselves and we were in the early stage of doing planning there and we said that circumstances may arise where the use of violence will be justified to defend oneself.

GEORGE BIZOS: Doctor Hartzenberg, the question was:  "Is there any ambiguity in that part of your answer"?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: No, there isn't.

GEORGE BIZOS: If there was no ambiguity in that part of your answer, why was it an ambiguous policy that you gave us three alternatives of yesterday afternoon?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Sir, it concerned interpretation of the third freedom struggle - that term, it did not concern Conservative Party policy.  The Conservative Party does not have a policy - even now, regarding the use of violence because it is a Democratic Party but when violence is implemented against you, you have to decide what you're going to do about it.
	That was the stage we were approaching in '92/'93 and we decided not to go on the offensive mode but to be defensive and at that stage people interpreted things differently.

GEORGE BIZOS: When you were asked yesterday what the policy of the Conservative Party was in April 1993, why didn't you make as clear a statement as you made in the paragraph that I read out to you?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Sir, if you now go back and you go and listen to what I said, you will realise that it's exactly the same that I am saying today, I said we do not have a policy and I expanded on that today and I said no Democratic Party as far as I know, used violence as a method, only Communist Parties.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, I will not repeat my question Doctor Hartzenberg, let's go on
"The violence is not in the Conservative Party, it is outside theConservative Party"
"The violence is not in the Conservative Party"
Is that a clear and unambiguous statement that there is no element of violence in the policy of the Conservative Party?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, that is correct, I said there is no violence in the Conservative Party, it is outside.  And that violence had increased to such an extent that in 1989 there were 1.400 political murders, in 1990 after the unbanning, there were 3.600, in 1993, there were 3.700 and that is the way things increased and it was occurring right around us.
	And I would like to state to Mr Bizos that 3.700 murders in one year is more than the number of people of South Africa who died in one single year in the Second World War - in a full scale war, not a low intensity war, but it was the equal of a full scale war.
MR BIZOS
"The violence is not in the Conservative Party"
Is that an unambiguous statement of what the Conservative Party policy is?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Naturally Sir, if 3.700 murder occurred in 1993 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hartzenberg, I know you would like to expand on your answers but you will save yourself a lot of time if you said: "Yes, that statement is unambiguous" and leave it at that.

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You're being asked whether that question - that sentence is unambiguous ...[intervention]

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, the violence was not in the Conservative Party because during 1992 there were 3.600 outside the Conservative Party.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] that is not the question that has been put to you, if that question is put to you then you can say so but right now you should just say: "Yes, that sentence is unambiguous"

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: It was unambiguous.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now, I want to go next to the final paragraph on that page - Lester Venter
"Forgive him for interrupting you there, I hear what you say - that the Conservative Party is not involved in the planning of violence"
Is that another clear indication - an unambiguous statement as to the policy of the Conservative Party in relation to violence?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: Is that correct?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Unambiguous, right.  Then the first paragraph on page three
"It is not the Party, it is not.  The Party did not plan any acts, actually the Party said on all it's members - I beg your pardon, on all it's meetings at it's congresses: "That our aim is create a political situation in South Africa where there will be peace and stability"
Is that also an unambiguous statement of CP policy in relation to violence?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: That is correct Sir.