Human Rights Violation Hearings — Rustenburg — 1997-05-07

KEVN P DOWLING: I never saw, personally, involvement of the South African Police Force in the, for example on the March 21st demonstration.  The Boputhatswana Security Forces were in the village.  On the other side of the Mission that same day, there was a South African Police contingent.  I also noticed during the demonstration that there were plain clothes White men, in cars, who seemed to be dialoging with the Boputhatswana Security Forces.  Whether they were part of the Bop army group or what I am not sure.  I could not tell whether they were South African police.  Personally I did not receive any, or I never experienced the involvement of the South African Police Services.
 I would just like to say that one of the issues that I mentioned was the harassment on our Mission of a group of six hundred homeless people whom we were supporting and giving refuge too, from the rightwing farmers.  They had come off the farms, and the farmers wanted them cleared out.  And one night we got a tip-off that two hundred farmers were coming in to clear these people out.  So we came into Rustenburg, got the South African Police out to come and protect the people and they did.  They came and protected the people there.  Incidents like that, I was then later on phoned by a mad farmer.  He was really very angry and he said if you do not get rid of them, we are coming in to get rid of them.  So I went up to Boshoek Police Station near the South African Police force there and I protested and I handed all the legal documents which we had been involved in, in getting a solution which would transfer these people in 1992, to what is now Boitokong.  And I showed them this has all been done in court.  We are just waiting for this to be ready and so forth, so tell these farmers, you know, to lay off, you know.  So I had no personal knowledge or experience of the South African Police involvement with the Bop Police.  I am not sure if they were.  That is all I could say.

RUSSELL ALLY: What was your attitude towards the Bop Government, with the whole concept of Boputhatswana as an independent country?

KEVN P DOWLING: That was particularly difficult.  At the second meeting I had with Mr Mangope and his cabinet, where Mr Mangope said to me, accused me, he said the fundamental problem here is that the Catholic Church does not support the independence of Boputhatswana.  And I said that you have got to understand that there is no country in the world that supports this as an independent state.  We do not either.  It is not up to me as a Bishop to give official support to Boputhatswana as an independent state, in fact, we do not.  It is part of the apartheid creation.  I said that does not mean that I am here actively working for the destruction of Boputhatswana, I said, we have schools for example, we have clinics and this sort of thing where we have our personnel, religious personnel involved.  Because it happens to be in Boputhatswana, we have to relate with your Government and your Ministers and so forth, because this is where we live.  That does not mean to say I recognise, and I refuse to recognise Boputhatswana as an independent state, I said.  But because this is the authority in this area, we have to relate to you.  But he was very angry that I did not actually give my own personal support and that of the Catholic Church to Boputhatswana as an independent state.  So it was that delicate thing, not recognising it, but a fait accompli that we were subject to them, in our schools, our health work and so forth.  We had to, as it were, work with them in terms of subsidies or whatever permission to have a school or whatever.  I do not know if that explains it.  It was a fine line ...(intervention)

RUSSELL ALLY: Implicit in not recognising Boputhatswana as an independent state, implicit in that was the idea then of support for those who were working to end the existence of the Bop State, is that not true?

KEVN P DOWLING: Well, you see, the way I approached that was that political groupings, civics organisations, the Baphokeng and so forth, what their political agenda was, was their right to have.  I was supporting their right to meet and to be able to express their views.  That was my position.  Mr Mangope interpreted my allowing St Joseph's Mission to be used as a meeting place, as not only implicit, but explicit support for these groups which he said, were bent on destabilising Boputhatswana.  I kept telling him that whatever people's political views were and what their actions were, in terms of bringing about justice and so forth or a new South Africa, was their right to have.  And it is only when we can meet in respect and without fear and start sharing these different views, that we could have some hope to build a reconciliation and to overcome these terrible problems we were in.
 So I was taking the position that I was not supporting the actual political brief of any group.  That was their right to have.  Any group could have whatever beliefs they wanted and I said to Mr Mangope, if the foot was on the other - if the shoe was on the other foot, or whatever it is, I said, if you and your political group were banned and harassed and prevented from meeting, I would give you St Joseph's Mission to meet, where you could meet, because I would respect your fundamental human right to meet, even though I might disagree with you, even though I might not think that your political philosophy or whatever, was the right one but I still would support your right to meet and to discuss without harassment.  I said, that is my position regarding our church facilities.  If you interpret that, I said to him, as supporting the destabilisation of Boputhatswana, I say I disagree with that.  I am not supporting any destabilisation of anything, I am supporting justice, based on human rights and that is it.

RUSSELL ALLY: So are you saying that you were not actually taking a position in the political conflict, because there was a political conflict going on?  Now, I respect what you say about supporting human rights.  Did that support for human rights not extend to taking a side in the political conflict taking place?