Amnesty Hearings — White River — 2000-05-04

MR SNYDERS: The situation at Nelspruit High School was - I wish to put it clearly to the Committee, was that we are very sorry and I am terribly sorry for what had happened there, but the two bombs that had exploded at the Agriculture College and at Nelspruit High, were electrically installed and I personally developed the mechanisms so that they should explode at three in the morning when there was no-one around.  I was five kilometres away from there and the echo from the Agriculture College which was at the foot of the mountains, it seemed to me as if all the bombs went off simultaneously and then we departed.
	I did not realise that the bomb at the high school did not explode, because if I did know that it did not explode, I would have gone back to disable it, because apparently I tripped when we planted the bombs and some dirt came into the mechanism and unfortunate the gardener who arrived there on Monday, found these things and picked it up and the mechanism went off.

MR SMIT: When you say "these things", for the sake of completion, how were these bombs manufactured?

MR SNYDERS: The bomb that had the timing mechanism was in a gas bottle, the explosives were in a gas bottle and the others were connected to it with cortex in a truck's slave cylinder which was closed up, and it was connected to that and it placed next to the house of Kon Booyens, next to his garages, and it was placed as such so that persons would not be injured if anyone was close-by, but I did not realise that they did not detonate.

MR SMIT: The explosives within the gas bottle, with which the bomb was manufactured, this was bought by yourself and manufactured by yourself?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, it was.  It was amfax.

MR SMIT: And where did you get the resources for this?

MR SNYDERS: We received this from a Sasol depot where Mr Douw Steyn was an owner.  It was fertiliser that we used, and we were financially supported.

MR SMIT: Will you please have regard to page 10 of the documents, paragraph 10(a).  There you mention the political aim, you say that
"It was in order to disrupt the then regime, in order to force a general election before the implementation of the transitional government."
These actions that you have described now, am I correct in saying that the objective was in order to disrupt the regime?  Was this to construct a reign of terror, or what was this all about?

MR SNYDERS: Firstly, it was to draw the attention of the government that the greater part of the Afrikaners in South Africa were not happy with their policy at that stage, and secondly, it was in order to scare people from the National Party and its policies and then also to draw the attention of the leadership figures, to tell them that it was not acceptable, this transitional period that we were going through.

MR SMIT: When you say you wanted to force a general election before the implementation, would you please explain how the planting of bombs and the actions that you had launched, cause a general election.

MR SNYDERS: If there were many bombs going off all over the place where we planned them to go off, it would create the impression that the country was ungovernable and then Mr de Klerk would call a State of Emergency, or call an election, but we did not want a referendum at that stage, we wanted a general election which would have been more representative at that stage.

MR SMIT: A final aspect, the political objective which you have described now, was this your own viewpoint or was that the CP policy or the Toekomsgesprek policy?

MR SNYDERS: It was basically the CP's strategy in order to force the government to listen to them, because as you know they were ignoring the media and television and all those places, and these actions would have placed the attention on them and also of the people, because you know what coverage the media and television gave to them at that stage.

MR SMIT: Somewhere in your documents you mention that the instruction did not directly come from management of the CP, it would appear that it came from Toekomsgesprek, the secret organisation.

MR SNYDERS: The management of the CP was the Toekomsgesprek because it had to take place in secrecy, but Commandant Douw Steyn was connected to them directly and he had to clear all actions with Dr Treurnicht and with Mr Andries Beyers, who was the Chief Secretary at that stage.

MR SMIT: This information, was this to your own knowledge or were you told this?

MR SNYDERS: I was informed of all of this by Douw Steyn, and I personally attended some meetings.

MR SMIT: Is there anything else that you would like to add at this stage?

MR SNYDERS: No, it is only about the fact that at Nelspruit High there was dissatisfaction, and once again I would request the Commission and the relatives of Mr Sithole and so forth, I would like to apologise to them for what had happened there.  These actions were never aimed against any black person or persons who were in the National Party at that stage, it was aimed at the National Party leaders and to draw the attention to that.  I would just like to offer my apologies to all the families who had suffered and I would like to tell them that it was not aimed at any one of them.

MR SMIT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, Learned Committee Members, I have no further questions at this stage.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SMIT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Smit.  Mr van Wyk, any questions?

MR VAN WYK: Thank you, Chairperson.
	Mr Snyders, I have a few aspects which I would like to take up with you.  I appear on behalf of your brother, Louis Snyders.  Would you agree with me that your brother at some stage had worked for you?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: Would you agree - I would not like to go in-depth here, but at some stage you accused your brother of theft, do you recall that?  And you withheld his bonus with regard to work done at Escom.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: And it would appear that there are several disputes between yourself and then within your family with regard to your father.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: There are differences between you.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

MR VAN WYK: Your father at some stage lived with you and then he left your house, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: Well he did not live with me but he lived on the farm.

MR VAN WYK: And your father at a later stage went to live with your brother, is that correct?

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I think so.

MR VAN WYK: Do you not know of this?

MR SNYDERS: I am not entirely certain, I just knew where my father lived at some stage.

MR VAN WYK: With regard to this point, I would just like to conclude that my client, your brother, says that he heard from your sister that because of these differences between you, you at a stage would have said to your sister that your brother would crawl before you, can you recall that?

MR SNYDERS: No, I am not aware of that.

MR VAN WYK: Why I ask this question of you, Mr Snyders, is because the first application which you handed up was dated the 22nd of February 1996, if you study page 12 of your bundle.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN WYK: You would agree with me that in your initial application you nowhere involve your brother, Louis Snyders, my client.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: And the second application I see has the stamp of the 3rd of December 1999, if you study page 76 of the bundle.  Have a look at my bundle.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN WYK: And in this supplementary application your brother's name appears on three occasions.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

MR VAN WYK: Why did you not mention your brother's name right from the start?