Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

ADV POTGIETER: I understand the point that you are making, 
but here, under oath before us, he confirmed that the CP did not 
have such a policy and that it would have been understandable 
that some of the supporters might have believed that such a policy 
of violence existed, but he maintained that the CP did not have 
such a policy.

UNKNOWN: With respect, he indeed said that there was a 
climate of violence which was created by the CP, that is a fact.  
He also maintained that the CP believed in the existence of a 
policy of violence, but then one would have to think about it 
objectively and I believe that the Committee will do so and ask 
the question what did exist if that scenario was sketched.
	Then one cannot say anything else but the fact that the CP 
did promote a policy of violence, that violence should be used.
	But how else would one prevent a party from coming into 
government if one couldn't prevent it at the ballot boxes?
	I do not like to make comparisons, but just how look at 
how successful the ANC was by using violence and forcing the 
government to give over the country.  Various voices in the world 
had said do away with apartheid, and still there was no success.  
Only until the ANC had used violence, did it actually bring about 
a measure of success.

ADV POTGIETER: I would not like spend too much time on 
this point, yet I do understand what you are saying.  You have 
said that there was an undeclared state or policy of violence.

UNKNOWN: With respect, these are not conflicting 
statements because there was not an officially declared policy of 
violence.
	But that climate coupled with the evidence in a holistic 
sense, compile a series of facts and it would be unfair to expect 
that parties within this country, according to this legislation, 
should have maintained a policy of violence while the ANC/SACP 
alliance from the outside, were untouchable and maintained and 
announced policy of violence, which they applied in every 
instance.
	In that respect one should look at the fairness of the 
application of the law.  There should be an equal application of 
the law, and on that basis it was stated.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Can you take that debate a little bit further? 
 I think you have made your point about that.  Suppose we do 
find that there was no such a policy, declared or undeclared, 
where does this leave your client's case?

UNKNOWN: Do you mean that none of the evidence or the 
witnesses which I've sketched at this point, existed?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: The CP did not have such a policy?  The 
Conservative Party.

UNKNOWN: A policy which said that one shouldn't, or that 
one should kill people?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: You - let's assume that we do find that the 
CP did not have the policy to kill people, to assassinate people.

UNKNOWN: An announced policy?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Whether declared or undeclared, we do find 
that they didn't have any such policy at all.

UNKNOWN: With respect Mr Chairman, I want to argue 
that the climate was there, and that the client subjectively 
believed that there was such a climate.  The climate was created 
as I have already told the Honourable Committee.
	The climate was there.  He in a bona fide way believed 
there was such a climate.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: A person in the position of Mr Derby-Lewis 
who was close to the leaders of the party, would you argue that 
subjectively he believed, even though the CP did not have such a 
policy, declared or otherwise, he himself, as an individual, despite 
his position in the party, despite his close relationship with the 
leaders, subjectively believed that there was such a policy?

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairperson, with respect if you 
look at the judgment or the statements of the leaders, the climate, 
the happenings in the country, is that what he believed he was 
part of the leadership, he was involved in that.  
	They participated in various processes.  In Krugersdorp for 
example he committed some things, various things were done 
against the Conservative Party.  Koos Botha, there is a dispute 
about that, apart from him, nobody else was repudiated. 
	With respect Mr Chairman, the witness said that he had 
spoken about Dr Treurnicht and he said regarding the aspect of 
killing the anti-Christ, and he said he is not holding it against Mr 
Hani as a person, but against the Communist Party.
	And also the declared policy of the Conservative Party was 
that they would not tolerate a takeover and compare it Mr 
Chairman, with cases which have already served, for example 
cases from the ANC, for example in Messina.
	The ANC themselves decided they take out a leader in the 
name of Mr Lukela and other people.  They have done that with a 
political motive, they have done that to force this government to 
overthrow the government.
	And with respect, it worked, and here the Conservative 
Party said we are going to fight fire with fire, we are not going to 
use conventional methods and he forms part of this.
	They said we have to mobilise, we have to act in a resistant 
way and while this process is in the near future, how else could 
that be interpreted?  It could not have been otherwise, that there 
was a quiet to put it that way, policy that violence could be used.
	What form of violence, that could not be prescribed.  In any 
war situation, in any violence committed during war, in a bush 
war and underground activities, you cannot expect otherwise.  
Just as in the case of Police when they killed various people.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I was talking about Mr Derby-Lewis who 
was a very senior person.  I am not talking about foot soldiers, 
who may not know what the policy of the organisation is.  I was 
referring to Mr Derby-Lewis, precisely because of his position in 
the party and I would have thought that he would know at any 
given time, exactly what the policy of the party was.

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairman, this is the problem I 
have with the legislation.  If you ask what is the policy of the 
party, if he said his co-leaders would go over to violence, that 
they said themselves, what more evidence could there be that 
there was violence?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Well, what you are saying is that there was a 
time when Dr Hartzenberg and Mr Derby-Lewis did not have a 
common understanding of the policy of the party?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, I am not saying that.  I myself 
am saying that they would not have used conventional methods 
any more.  The debate is about what ...

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: No, we are talking assassinations Mr 
Prinsloo.  The way Dr Hartzenberg understood the policy of the 
party, the assassination of people was never part of it and you are 
saying in the mind of Mr Derby-Lewis, assassinations would have 
been part of that policy.

UNKNOWN: With respect Mr Chairman, it has never been 
the ANC's policy to assassinate people, they have never said 
explicitly we are going to assassinate people, this shouldn't be 
viewed in isolation.
	It should be seen holistically.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Mr Prinsloo, I want to know from you 
whether you are saying, is your argument that there was, there 
must have been a time when Dr Hartzenberg understood the 
policy of the CP differently from Mr Derby-Lewis, when it came 
to killings or assassinations?  
	Are you saying Dr Hartzenberg and others' view was that 
the killing was not part of the policy whereas a person like Mr 
Derby-Lewis might have in his subjective mind, thought that that 
was the policy?

UNKNOWN: With respect Mr Chairman, at that stage it 
could not be said that Mr Hartzenberg in his mind, had the idea of 
assassination, but what was clear from his evidence was that there 
would be resistance, mobilisation and conventional methods 
would not be used any more.
	This is evident also in the case of Koos Botha who has also 
applied for amnesty, he committed violence.