Amnesty Hearings — Klerksdorp — 1999-05-11

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rudolph.
	Mr Terre'blanche, do you have any questions that you would like to ask Mr Rudolph, not to give evidence now, but if there are any questions you would like to ask him in your capacity as a co-applicant?

MR TERRE'BLANCHE: Mr Chairman, thank you very much.  I don't want to put questions to Mr Rudolph, I also do not want to give evidence.  The evidence of Mr Rudolph is proof at least and
that is that this matter was politically driven.  For your information I would also like to mention, Mr Rudolph, for the past half decade is no member of the AWB and that is evidence was done in all honesty.
	I am grateful that on both sides, there is supportive evidence that wasn't changed by legal advisors and nothing was said prior to this and that it is a great privilege for me to my dignity, to see the truth and the relevance of that of a person who is no member of my party
	In conclusion, I would just like to say, like Mr Rudolph, that night I did not shoot anybody.  In fact my weapon was in a briefcase with my documents.  That was my briefing order to ask Mr de Klerk questions.  I did not have any weapons on me.  
	What happened that night, the AWB was not responsible for.  The AWB tried to prevent - because we were prevented from going to that meeting, people were killed by order of De la Roosa who misused the police in order for political gains.  In future, this should never happen again, that people in senior positions, when they want to promote their own political motives, use the State machinery and our security forces in order to build their political image and even go so far as to endanger peoples' lives.
	In conclusion then, neither Mr Rudolph nor myself could get any  political gain - sorry, financial gain from this and that there was no motivation about personal hate and revenge in any way.  It was politically motivated and that in the end we have been convicted as criminals, without having the privileges of the criminal where they could at least enrich either one.  We did not assault people who we have been cross with or wanted to do that.  We did not even have that satisfaction of somebody who assaulted somebody else because he proved himself as being in a superior position.
	I leave this case in your hands.  And I would like to associate myself with Mr Rudolph when he said that it stays the ideal, it is the right of each individual and it is the right of a nation to fight for him, for that nation.   I thank you for your patience and I hope that the mere fact that we who have been regarded as the far rights -  and I have been, it has been mentioned that I was somebody with his colleagues, that we actually, and his cronies. 
	In the other two cases for which I am applying as well, it was never a situation of white against black or an effort to promote Mr de Klerk or his government.  I suppose you have been confronted in the first opportunity here that it was about real Boers, Christians who fought against a watered down compromising government, which once again has been proved in this matter.  They used the South African Police and the South African Defence Force to save themselves whilst they could not come up with a political solution and never went to the nation or the other nations and opposition who were living with them in the same country.
	This was politically motivated without any serious human rights violations.  And we belong to the Boer nation which was through the Covenant of Blood River, in which we confirmed that we are bound to the God of our fathers.  I thank you Chairman and Judges, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Terre'blanche.
	Ms Patel, do you have any questions to ask Mr Rudolph?

MS PATEL: Yes, I do, thank you Honourable Chairman.
	Mr Rudolph, just a couple of clarifying questions.  Testimony was given at the trial that there was a meeting held by the AWB on the 6th of August 1991, in which certain discussions were had and proposals were made in terms of the planning around how Mr de Klerk's meeting was going to be dealt with, were you present at that meeting of the 6th, can you recall?

MR RUDOLPH: Yes, Your Honour, I was present there.

MS PATEL: Okay, could you briefly just for the sake of giving us the full picture of what had in fact occurred during those few days, could you tell us briefly what the discussions were about and what decisions, if any, were made by the AWB at that meeting.

MR RUDOLPH: Your Honour, that meeting to which the State is referring to now was a meeting which was called by Mr Terre'blanche in which he told the secretary of the organisation to also tell me to attend that meeting.  As it is custom in the, customary in the political set up that meeting should take place in order to discuss that meeting with regard to Mr de Klerk's visit and to do planning.
	I must tell you, Your Honour, that that was in August.  On the 18th of March I was freed and released after a hunger strike of 30 days.  I had stomach problems and from time to time I could not attend those meetings.  It was a long time ago, but I do recall that amongst other things, matters were discussed, those matters which should be asked of Mr de Klerk if we could get access and how that access should be negotiated.  There was also the possibility being mentioned because we knew the National Party would use the police and how they went about things, that we foresaw problems and how to combat those problems.
	I know that a lot was said about the fact that the AWB had a first aid tent and equipped it.  Your Honour, prior to the Ventersdorp situation shots were fired at farmers at Goedgevonden and people were injured, but it was a practice over a number of years of the AWB to, during such meetings, have an emergency tent because we had people who handled weapons and knopkierries and batons that was planned there because that meeting at a stage had to be rounded off where I was not present.  It was to be discussed how Mr de Klerk's visit should be handled.  
	One thing is for certain and that is that the leader insisted that we, unlike the other parties, should not prevent Mr de Klerk from having his meeting, that we would allow him to have his meeting and then give him a motion of no confidence.  I hope that is an answer to your question Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Yes, thank you, Mr Rudolph.  Can I just ask you, at that meeting was a decision taken that members of the AWB would have to arm themselves with firearms as well? - besides your normal knopkierries and batons whatever.