Amnesty Hearings — Klerksdorp — 1999-05-10

MR TERRE'BLANCHE COMMITTEE: Mr Chairperson, Your Honour, pardon Sir.  Mr Chairman, Your Honour, Judges, as a matter of fact it is true that these two applications for amnesty, that of Mr Rudolph and myself is about one matter, the same matter.  And I obviously very much agree with what Mr Rudolph said when he refers to the fact that, to Mr de Klerk, the person whom it is all about in that after all this time during which we walked around with a criminal record, actually should be called to this court in order to afford us the opportunity to ask him some questions.
   Mr de Klerk, in fact as the leader of the National Party, came to Ventersdorp.  Initially, it would have been a public meeting which would be reported widely and which all tax-payers and all voters be able to apply that, to be there, but a week before that Mr de Klerk decided that it wasn't necessary for him to give certain answers to tax-payers and he then indeed made this meeting a National Party meeting at which only members of his party could be.  That, at a late stage appeared on the placards.
   Mr de Klerk however, still as the State President, abused his power in that he used the state machinery in order to defend himself and protect himself and to give him a power display in Ventersdorp.  I, Your Honour, do not at this stage would like to elaborate on the details in this matter, but I would like to say to you that when Mr de Klerk eventually left there, there were dead people lying in the streets and that the police was used in order to shoot on members of the public, those who were not Nationalists.  
	However, Your Honour, Mr Chairperson, that was not only what happened.  Mr de Klerk, in a short while afterwards, had a similar meeting in Boipatong I would suggest, and also running away from there, about six people, dead people, were also lying in the streets.  Mr Rudolph gave you a proper picture of what in fact happened there that night.  I would therefore like to support Mr Rudolph in his effort to apply that the one person who would be able to give answers with regard to the taking of lives of people, Mr de Klerk, should appear in front of your Committee so that we could ask him some questions, who could perhaps give us information.
    I, Mr Chairperson and Honourable Judges, do not plan to be branded as a criminal in terms of the law so that it can appear in history because I made myself guilty of public violence while the public violence was forced down by Mr de Klerk and his party, not even his government.
   In all modesty, in a time of reconciliation and us seeking for it, I feel I am, should no longer be branded as a criminal while the basic right of, I wanted to exercise the basic right of the electorate and I wanted to be at a meeting led by Mr de Klerk with me and the tax-payers' money and the likes of me.  The total abuse of the South African Police and the Defence Force in order to enable him there and to then in the long run walk off while we are being branded as people seeking violence, who actually go there to break up the so-called meeting.
   I would like to conclude by saying the following.  Mr Chairman, Honourable Judges, there is no proof that the AWB wanted to break up the meeting and to stop Mr de Klerk from addressing those people.  The AWB's standpoint was that we had to speak there, that we had to be present in order to ask him very important questions.  Even more, to state to him our disgust as State President and as party by attracting more votes in order not to give him a vote of support in Ventersdorp.  We did not get that opportunity in Ventersdorp.  And once again my humble submission is that in the Court it was also said that while the order "shoot to kill" by a certain Brigadier de la Roosa - and in fact there were, shots rang out.  It was me who, in the street between two groups of teargas bombs, pulled in an aged man behind a car, I moved to the centre of the road, I pushed up my hands in the air and I asked them not to shoot.  I said: "don't shoot".  I say this in all - in being very humble that I believe, Chairperson, that it was me, through the mercy of the Lord, who stopped further blood loss, killing, because then the shooting was immediately stopped while I was standing there and the shots rang out all around me.  And therefore I was prepared to give my body in order to save people's lives.  I no longer want to have a record as being found guilty of public violence while the, those people who actually did it do not even have to appear before you, Your Honour.
   I would then therefore support Mr Rudolph strongly and I would therefore like to ask that you reconsider the possibility of calling Mr de Klerk here.  I think that at the weekend - we had reports that Mr de Klerk found himself at Sun City, he therefore is in this vicinity at some of the big casinos.  I know it will not be comfortable, perhaps, he perhaps enjoys it there, but for the sake of justice we would quickly like to ask him before he once again leaves the Republic on the Greek Yacht.
MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rudolph mentioned when he was making his address that you've have applied for two other matters that aren't on the roll today, is that correct?  What were they, what do you have to say in relation ...

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: Mr Chairman, the two matters he referred to is a matter in which I probably - if he wants to use me as a witness, would be willing to appear.  The other matters at which I, you seek my appearance, is the tarring and feathering of one Professor van Jaarsveld, a decade or so ago and the possession of weapons, for which I am prepared and ready to give evidence as you so wished.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, do you have any submissions to make on the application has been made by the applicants?  	Just correct me Mr Rudolph, you've made two applications?  Mr Rudolph has made two applications, one for Mr de Klerk to be subpoenaed for the Ventersdorp incident, which application has also been made by Mr Terre'blanche, and then Mr Rudolph has made a further application that his matter be postponed.  You want to hear all your matters together, is that correct, the Natal bus incident and the Pretoria incident involving the reporter?  That is how I understand it.  Do you have anything to say on those applications?