Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Prinsloo, I am sorry.  Judge Ngoepe's 
point is actually how can a subjective belief in the case of Mr 
Derby-Lewis given his leadership position in the party, how can 
such a subjective belief be bona fide?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, it cannot be argued that which 
method had to be used, that that subjective view is not correct.
	You cannot say we are going to blow up a house, we are 
going to shoot somebody, we are going to poison somebody, we 
are going to keep food from them, anything would be an efficient 
method.

ADV POTGIETER: No, the question is about policy.  Judge 
Ngoepe asked you should the Committee find that there was no 
such declared or undeclared policy, where does it leave your 
client's case, then you said that he subjectively believed in a bona 
fide way that it was the policy of the party.
	Now, I am asking you how could it be bona fide in the case 
of Mr Derby-Lewis?

UNKNOWN: Mr Hartzenberg said that it, what he said 
indicated violence.  What he had in his mind was what he believed 
subjectively and he himself said Derby-Lewis could have believed 
that subjectively.   He himself thought that, how else?

ADV POTGIETER: Is it bona fide for a person who had direct 
access to the Chief leader of the party, that he is there where 
things are happening, could that be bona fide for such a person, 
to think wrongly that a policy of violence existed?  That is my 
problem.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, he could have never believed 
wrongly in the climate of that time.  As I have already said what 
they have stood for and what the threat was and what the state of 
war was in that climate, he subjectively believed.
	He was part of the party, he was in the top structure and 
then it cannot be expected that he would go to Hartzenberg and 
said listen, I am going to kill Mr Chris Hani, that would have 
been the end of the Conservative Party.
	It would have been ridiculous.

ADV POTGIETER: It is not about a policy in such strong 
terms.

UNKNOWN: It is about the climate which existed, and that 
forthcoming from that in which he subjectively believed would be 
in the interest of the party to promote this party and to prevent 
that a communist government, would come in to govern.
	And what else could we do if there were no other methods? 
 With respect, by taking out a leader this was an efficient method 
at that stage.  It was the same as to overthrow the whole country 
at the ballot box.

JUDGE WILSON: But Mr Hartzenberg said that the policy of 
the Conservative Party was to act in a defensive capacity, so that 
they would be in a better moral position, they planned throughout 
to take up a defensive position.  That is why you are being asked 
these questions.
	That was the policy of the Conservative Party, to take up a 
defensive position, to mobilise themselves so that they could 
defend themselves.  How could someone have believed that it was 
in the interest of the party to sacrifice the moral position and go 
out and assassinate somebody?

UNKNOWN: With respect Mr Chairman, what I am trying 
to say is this is what Hartzenberg said, but it was also said that 
they would not subject themselves to the government under 
communist rule, how would it be done otherwise?	
	How could it be prevented?  How could it be defensive, 
how could you defend what, if the country is not being attacked? 
 What do you understand by that?
	With respect Mr Chairman, this mobilisation through 
resistance was to prevent that the country would be taken over 
and this was what happened afterwards.
	With respect, the leader could not say that he would have 
planned to kill people, or would have allowed people to be killed. 
 That would have been an offence.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But Mr Prinsloo, the idea of a whole 
mobilisation strategy, was to stage a visible demonstration of the 
CP people against the government with a view of achieving a 
political objective, which in a way is merely defensive and not 
pro-active?

UNKNOWN: That would have been one method Mr 
Chairman, surely.  Just as the ANC had various structures and 
they said we would make the country ungovernable.  They 
mobilised the church for example and they mobilised, a pattern 
was created by the ANC how you mobilise and how the various 
structures were intruded or invaded.
	How do you prevent it otherwise?  A climate was created in 
the country, how violence was being practised.  How people 
interpreted it, how the CP said we will fight fire with fire, what is 
the fire?  It is the threat of an overthrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Was part of the complaint or rather the 
grievance of the CP really directed at the NP, wasn't it?  That it 
believed that the NP was selling out the Afrikaner people and 
those who believed in the policy of the CP, isn't that so?

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairman, it is stated in the 
applicant's evidence, but at that stage the National Party was not 
a factor any more.  The CP and the applicant believed that they 
were not in government any more, and that the takeover was 
(indistinct), it would have been without any purpose to kill the 
leader of the National Party, because according to the CP, he 
didn't mean anything.
	He had already thrown in the towel.  It was a question of 
the resistance, the conflict was between the ANC/SACP and the 
CP and the people wanted to prevent that the country ...

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Prinsloo, you have previously referred to 
a situation which was caused by the CP leaders, in that through 
their speeches they promoted the use of violence.  Is it not true 
that in fact the CP leaders were merely prognosticating about the 
possible use of violence in the future, in the event of all their 
options having become exhausted and that in fact could not have 
been reasonably interpreted even by Mr Derby-Lewis, to have 
been tantamount to a policy of violence by the CP?

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairman, those methods that 
you've mentioned, they were said and according to Hartzenberg's 
evidence, it is clear that those other possibilities and other 
processes were non-existent at that stage.
	The democratic process did not exist any more and the 
climate at that stage, when that took place, and preceding that, it 
should be looked at all the Right Wing groups which had the same 
purpose, that is to remember that ANC/SACP would rule the 
country, and the history speaks for itself.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But I don't think that was the evidence of Mr 
Hartzenberg.  He conceded that the constitutional part was 
constantly being eroded at that time.  But that still remained an 
option and they were still party to the Codesa talks?

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairperson, that is what he said, 
but he said the chances were few.
	According to the evidence by the applicant, it was that 
Codesa was ruled by the ANC/SACP alliance.

SISI KHAMPEPE: (speaker's microphone not on)

UNKNOWN: With respect Mr Chairman, in those 
circumstances in that climate and the applicant considered the 
way how this takeover should be prevented on behalf of the party, 
because on behalf of whom did he have to do that?
	He did not belong to any other party, he did not support 
any other political party.  He supported the Conservative Party, 
he lived for the political party and that is proven by his history, 
and with respect the Conservative Party never repudiated him.
	I am not talking about the assassination, I am referring to 
his other actions.

ADV POTGIETER: But Mr Prinsloo, why did he not clear out 
this intention regarding Hani with the CP leadership, he had 
access to the top leadership?