Amnesty Hearings — White River — 2000-05-04

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: I had no insight into the top structure, I was only a common member of Toekomsgesprek.  I was a member of the Defence Interest Group and I was in the Geographical Group of Paul Kruger.  These were groups which were divided into geographical locations, and that is the extent of my involvement.  But with regard to the higher top structure, I did not have any dealings with them.

MR SIBANYONI: So are you saying your activities were authorised by Toekomsgesprek, or by the Conservative Party?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: Directly by Toekomsgesprek and indirectly by the Conservative Party.  Chairperson, you will see in my application I stated that Toekomsgesprek was a vehicle that the CP used in order to further its policy at grassroots level.  The Conservative Party would never have stated in public that it was busy placing any bombs anywhere and exclusively for that reason, Toekomsgesprek was founded and that is why it was a secret organisation.  That is why his activities were not known to everyone and that is why these instructions came via the Conservative Party, but directly from Toekomsgesprek to us.

MR SIBANYONI: Are you saying these activities of Toekomsgesprek were even secret to the top structure of the CP?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: I would not be able to answer you on that, Chairperson.  With regard to the top structure I am not able to tell you who gave who instructions, but we were aware that top placed officials of the CP were involved with Toekomsgesprek, as well as the explosives training where I was present.  I do not think you can blame us if we accept that the Conservative Party had given their approval to what Toekomsgesprek had said and the instructions that were received from the CP.

MR SIBANYONI: The problem we are saddled with, Mr Kruger, is that the Act envisages that people will be acting in authority of publicly known organisations or parties etcetera, now having a letter from the CP, which to an extent indicates that they never advocated a policy of, I would say, carrying out illegal activities.  What is your comment about that?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: Chairperson, the only comment which I can give to that is that somewhere in the chain a link is missing, information which came to the bottom, as it had the approval of the CP, it would appear that it did not have the approval of the CP, but that information was conveyed to us as if the information came directly from the Conservative Party.  So whenever there was a break, it would have been somewhere in the top structure.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Sibanyoni.
	To follow up on Mr Sibanyoni's point, you apparently say that you accepted that what you had done was upon instruction from Toekomsgesprek firstly, and the fact that Mr Ben Snyders mentioned to you that he received instructions from Douw Steyn, you just accepted it.

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: No, Chairperson, I did not just accept it in good faith, but the acceptance was easier after Mr Douw Steyn also informed us that the time has arrived that Lowveld High be "banged".  And if I received an instruction afterwards from Mr Snyders, I would have believed that it was easy to accept that that instruction came from Mr Douw Steyn, because on previous occasions he had told us that the time had arrived that Lowveld High had to be "banged".  And it was shortly afterwards that Mr Ben Snyders arrived and told us that we had to prepare to commit such an act.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  You see it would appear that the furthest you can take it is to Mr Douw Steyn, he told certain things to your group and you accepted that he spoke on behalf of Toekomsgesprek and you were under the impression that Toekomsgesprek spoke on behalf of the CP.

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So your actual link here and the actual party who had the answers to all your questions is Mr Steyn.  He was notified of these proceedings and he indicated that he was not interested and apparently he is not present here.

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: Chairperson, we would have wanted Mr Douw Steyn to be present, so that our legal representative could cross-examine him, so that the truth could come out here.  I have heard that Mr Steyn had received such notification of this amnesty application which is being heard today and that he said that he was not interested in attending.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he know when you spoke to him, when he told you that your application would dealt with administratively, did he know that you were incriminating him in this case?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: Two years ago he did not know it.  As I have said, at that stage we did not have legal representation after we left Mr Smit, we did not have any legal representation, it was only on a previous appearance before the Amnesty Committee where we received legal representation and only afterwards the process was picked up again.  So there was a long lapse of time where we were alone, and on our previous appearance we appeared without any legal representation.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you infer from the discussion with Mr Smit, that if you would incriminate Mr Steyn, that he would have to remove himself from the case?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And he earlier informed you that you did not have to mention any unnecessary names.

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Under the suggestion that you should not incriminate anyone else.

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: He said that it was not necessary to do so because this matter would be dealt with administratively.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kruger.  Mr Smit, any re-examination?

MR SMIT: There are just two aspects that I'd like to take up with the witness.
	The initial application of yours as it appears on page 54 to 59 of the documents, these are typed application and I see that Christ Smit Attorneys name appears on page 56.  Were these the applications that he had drawn up on behalf of you and your fellow applicants?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: I have read through these - the second one is Mr Ras, but no names are mentioned in these applications, is that correct?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: And it was upon his advice that no names appeared.

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: And then the letter which was attached later, but which was not attested to, this is on page 93, did you supply this on your own behalf?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: Yes, this was my own attempt.

MR SMIT: This is the document that appears from page 93 to 97.

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: That is correct, yes.

MR SMIT: Chairperson, just another aspect.
	You were asked if the instructions which you received were directly then from either from Mr Snyders, and this was confirmed by Mr Steyn, so these two persons were really the persons who said "Go and place bombs", and you accepted that they were authorised to give such instructions to you.

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: Mr Snyders gave evidence that at a stage during training, during explosives and arms training, that Mr Andries Beyers who was one of the chief figures in the Conservative Party, was present.  Were you present then?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SMIT: At that stage Mr Snyders said that he was the Secretary-General of the Conservative Party.

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: That is correct.

MR SMIT: Was he present where some of these bombs which were built were tested?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: Yes, they were present.

MR SMIT: Did you at any stage hear from him - did he give his approval and did he participate in the planning of the actions of blowing up State premises?

JAN PETRUS KRUGER: We accepted, Chairperson, that his mere presence there and the fact that he did not say anything about these explosives, while we tested them, rendered his tacit approval for these actions.