Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-09-14

MR BRACHER: As I understand the evidence, you were aware of the Jan Smuts bomb and the Boksburg bomb and the pipe-bombs before they occurred, and you were part of the organising structure in the meeting, is that correct?

MR SMIT: That is correct.

MR BRACHER: Are you prepared to accept personal liability for the injury and damages and death that were caused there?

MR SMIT: No.

MR BRACHER: Why not?

MR SMIT: I have no desire to do that.

MR BRACHER: Do you accept personal responsibility, I don't care whether you have got the facilities or means or not?  If I issue a summons against you, will you consent to judgement?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, I would just like to place it on record that the very same Mr Bracher with regard to the previous amnesty applications, also issued a similar threat.
	I would like to put it to the Committee that this was quite a problem for the applicants.  The applicants are here and it is the Committee's duty with regard to the Constitution and the Law, the applicants are here to present the truth to you, they are also here to present evidence before you so that you, the Honourable Chair and the rest of the Committee, can construct the bridge which is mentioned in the Constitution among the divided community which existed and the future which lies ahead of us.
	How can it be expected in this country that reconciliation be achieved, if these applicants arrive here with the greatest will in the world and they try to present evidence which would support their applications, if they are forced to do so under duress.

CHAIRPERSON: What is wrong with the question?

MS VAN DER WALT: It is a threat Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you see it as a threat, it is a simple question?

MS VAN DER WALT: To ask this applicant whether or not he would accept accountability for a civil claim, if that is not a threat Mr Chairperson, then I don't know any more.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure whether it was a threat, I don't know if it was intended as a threat, because this witness is not an applicant.

MS VAN DER WALT: He is not an applicant, but he is being threatened with that, with a civil claim, and the same thing happened on a previous occasion.

CHAIRPERSON: I really wouldn't be able to say if this is a threat, it was simply a question with regard to whether or not he would accept accountability.  Yes, Mr Bracher?

MR BRACHER: As the Chair pleases.  I just want you to understand that what you are doing today is confessing to a crime, and confessing to a civil wrong which makes you personally responsible.  Do you understand that?

MR PRINSLOO: At this point, I would just like to intervene, with respect, that Mr Bracher was aware of the fact that this man was an accused before Judge Flemming.  He is aware of what the allegations were.
I don't know where he is coming from.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Prinsloo that he can clear this up with regard to this civil case which he is mentioning.  Quite honestly, I don't understand what the problem is with the question.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, I don't understand what the relevance is of the civil claim if any such evidence cannot be used, any evidence which is given here, cannot be used in a civil claim?

CHAIRPERSON: Allow him to answer the question, then I will tell you.

MR BRACHER: Do you understand my question?

MR SMIT: I prefer not to give evidence any further regarding this matter.  I did understand it.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you not want to answer the questions?

MR SMIT: I will answer the question but if I am going to be sued because of this, I wish to say nothing further.

MR BRACHER: Is Nico Prinsloo here today?

MR SMIT: That is correct.

MR BRACHER: Do you know if he is going to give evidence?

MR SMIT: No.

MR BRACHER: Can you point him out to me please?

MR SMIT: He is sitting right next to Mr Prinsloo.

MR BRACHER: Mr Smit, what did you do in the war?

MR SMIT: In which field?

MR BRACHER: Anything, tell me something you did to fight this war?  This great war to get your homeland.

MR SMIT: Well, to begin with I trained people before the elections.  I was part of a group of the group who was at the game farm and those who were going to distribute the bombs.

MR BRACHER: The trailer bomb group?

MR SMIT: I had knowledge thereof but I did not execute anything like that?

MR BRACHER: Did you consider yourself to be part of the trailer bomb group?

MR SMIT: No.

MR BRACHER: Do you consider yourself to be part of the Boksburg bomb group?

MR SMIT: No.

MR BRACHER: Do you consider yourself to be part of the Jan Smuts bomb group?

MR SMIT: No.

MR BRACHER: Was this discussed in a meeting at which you were present?

MR SMIT: There were senior members present at that meeting.

MR BRACHER: (No sound)

MR SMIT: Major - the whole Ystergarde of the Gauteng area.

MR BRACHER: (No sound)

MR SMIT: It is very difficult to estimate at this stage.

MR BRACHER: Estimate.

MR SMIT: Approximately 15.

MR BRACHER: Were they all on the farm?

MR SMIT: Correct.

MR BRACHER: Were they all with you on the farm?

MR SMIT: No, not all of them.

MR BRACHER: At home?

MR SMIT: That is correct.

MR BRACHER: Why didn't you shoot them in your war, isn't that your oath?

MR SMIT: In the first place it is rather a ridiculous question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bracher, he hasn't testified that they stayed at home because they didn't want to fight the war.

MR BRACHER: What were they going to do at home?

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker repeat the question?

MR SMIT: To come back, I would just like to repeat that it is quite ridiculous for you to ask me that question.  The way I feel about an oath and your feelings about an oath, would be two totally different sets of feelings.

MR BRACHER: ... ranks in the AWB, correct?

MR SMIT: That is correct.  It was a paramilitary civil organisation, nothing to do with the government or the army.  Yes, we maintained discipline.

MR BRACHER: What did you do disrupt the elections?

MR SMIT: I was part of a group, of the group who was at the game farm and those who were going to distribute the bombs.

MR BRACHER: Do you consider yourself to be part of the trailer bomb group?

MR SMIT: I had knowledge thereof but I did not execute anything like that.

MR BRACHER: Do you consider yourself to be part of a trailer bomb group?

MR SMIT: No.

MR BRACHER: Do you consider yourself to be part of the Boksburg bomb group?

MR SMIT: No.

MR BRACHER: Do you consider yourself to be part of the Jan Smuts bomb group?

MR SMIT: No.

MR BRACHER: Why was it discussed at a meeting at which you were present?

MR SMIT: There were senior members present at that meeting.

MR BRACHER: What was your rank?

MR SMIT: Major.

MR BRACHER: How many people were under you?

MR SMIT: The whole Ystergarde of the Gauteng area.

MR BRACHER: How many people was that??

MR SMIT: It's very difficult to estimate at this stage.

MR BRACHER: Give me an estimate.

MR SMIT: Approximately 15.

MR BRACHER: 15?

MR SMIT: That's correct.

MR BRACHER: Were they all on the farm?

MR SMIT: Please repeat.

MR BRACHER: Were they all with you on the farm?

MR SMIT: No, not all of them.

MR BRACHER: Did some of them stay at home?

MR SMIT: Correct.

MR BRACHER: Why didn't you shoot them, if they don't want to participate in your war?  Isn't that your oath?

MR SMIT: It in the first place it's rather a ridiculous question.

CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't testified that they stayed at home because they didn't want to fight a war.

MR BRACHER: What were they going to do at home?

INTERPRETER: Could the speaker repeat the ...[intervention]

MR SMIT: To come back, I'd just like to repeat that it's quite ridiculous for you to ask me that question, if he doesn't want to he doesn't want to.

MR BRACHER: That's not your oath is it?

MR SMIT: The way I feel about an oath and your feelings about an oath would be two totally different sets of feelings.

MR BRACHER: Now you had ranks in the AWB, correct?