Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — 1997-04-08

SISI KHAMPEPE: And if I understand your testimony earlier on, you actually gave Mr Froneman directives on what kind of a target he was to identify, am I correct in so concluding?

PIETER JOHANNES HARMSE: That is correct.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you, you may return.

WITNESSES: .

JUDGE WILSON: Does that conclude the evidence you propose leading?

ADV PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence that I intend to lead.

UNKNOWN: The same with me.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black.

MR BLACK: No evidence will be lead by ourselves, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Are you ready to address us?  I trust that this would be recorded.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, the testimony of the applicant Mr Harmse, is supported by that of the second applicant Mr Froneman.  The requirements in the Act which must be met is that there must be full disclosure and I want to argue with respect, that with regard to Mr Harmse, this requirement has been met entirely.
	There has not been any suggestion from the side of Mr Black that there is any lack of disclosure.  There is no evidence to the contrary either.  To determine whether the act in fact meets the requirements that this was in fact an
act linked to a political motive and this is the crime
committed by the applicant, I want to argue with respect that this application also meets this particular requirement.
	The applicant was a member of the Boer Resistance Movement, he acted on behalf of and under the instructions of the BWB and the purpose of his act was aimed against the then government as well as the ANC/SACP alliance in his words.
	The target determined by the applicant, he has given testimony, was one linked to members of the Muslim community which in his view and in the view of the BWB, were members of the ANC, members and supporters of the ANC.
	He believed that by placing a bomb at this particular target, this would bring the then government to other views, would convince the then government and would also the persons directly involved, the ANC/SACP alliance.  
	He believed, and he has been brought under cross-examination by my learned colleague, Mr Black that by placing a bomb at such a property of the Muslim community, this would make a difference with the then government as well as the great financial powers.
	I want to argue there was no racial hatred, no personal gain, that this was a political motive which was in the mind of the applicant and which he wanted to achieve.
	Furthermore his actions prior to and subsequent to the act, supports this argument.  The testimony as in Annexures A and B as well as in the verbal testimony, as well as the principles held by the Boer Resistance Movement, as well as those in his plea to the court and that is Exhibit D and in particular paragraph 4.7 which reads "I decided that as an 
Afrikaner it was my duty to defend my country against
communism and Black domination.  I decided to use a home made explosive device and to explode it in an area which would create tremendous publicity for the Afrikaner and the Afrikaner cause.  At a later point an area was identified by myself, namely the Indian business centre in Bronkhorstspruit.  The purpose was through the damage done there, to indicate to the government that it was the aspiration of the Afrikaner to be free of Black and communist domination."
	This was the argument of the applicant at his court case and in his application today, he stands by this claim.
	In the charge against the applicant, it was also indicated that this was an act with a political motive and we want to argue with respect that at no point during his hearing, court hearing nor at any time, there is any reason to believe that this act was not committed with a political motive.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Prinsloo could you explain to us to what extend religion plays a role in the political views of the Afrikaner?

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect religion plays the key and core role amongst Afrikaners.  If you look at Exhibit C you will see in the first paragraph what role religion plays amongst the Afrikaner.
	The religion of the Afrikaner, as given testimony by both Froneman and Harmse, both witnesses, would be taken away from them, it was their believe that were there to be an ANC/SACP alliance government and if the Muslim faith would then take preeminence, that then they would by oppressed and that the faith of the Afrikaner would be lost.
	With respect it would appear that the faith of the Afrikaner was very strongly held and it was embodied in the previous constitution.  The churches attended in the past by the Afrikaner and the religious practice in general on every level of the Afrikaner, would have been diminished or affected and the aspirations of the Afrikaner, affected in this way.
	I want to argue before this Committee with respect, that in terms of Section 20(2) that the applicant does in fact meet the requirements, particularly paragraphs (a).  He was a member of the Boer Resistance Movement or BWB.  This was a widely known political Organisation.  He acted on behalf of this political Organisation and he acted in good faith in the struggle, the political struggle which he believed had existed.
	And then particularly with respect Mr Chairman, the applicant meets the requirement of paragraph (d), that this generally widely known political Organisation and that it was within the course of his duties and a very express duty in this particular case, that it was aimed particularly against a particular Organisation, in this case the then government as well as the ANC/SACP alliance.
	With regard to subparagraph (3), the motive has been indicated very clearly by the witness as well as the second applicant.  The context within which the act occurred, I want to argue with respect that at that time the election was very close.  There was great uncertainty in the country and it was clear in the view of these persons that there would be a majority government in due course.
	The purpose or goal of the act in particular, I want to argue with respect that the witness had indicated very
clearly that what the purpose and reason for the act had been.
	Paragraph (e) this was an act which was carried out with instructions, very clearly under instructions and on behalf of the BWB, or Boere Resistance Movement.  There is no doubt with regard to the membership, nor is this being argued against by Mr Black.
	With regard to the link between the act as in paragraph (f), the goal to be attained and the proportionality, I want to argue with respect that the applicant took the proportionality into account in view of his goal and in his plea, Exhibit D, this was also clearly argued.
	Under these circumstances, I want to argue with respect Mr Chairman, that the applicant meets all the requirements of the Act and that amnesty should be granted to him for the acts with regard to which he appeared before the Supreme court.  I thank you Mr Chairman.

INTERPRETER: The current speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV DE JAGER: The relative proportionality of the goal and the act, do you believe that there is proportionality?

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, that which the applicant wanted to achieve, that which the Organisation wanted to achieve, the act and the goal must be linked in terms of the motive.
	The motive was to change the mind of the then government, to commit an act which would gain the attention of government and of the ANC/SACP and those persons involved with these institutions, organisations.  It is a direct link between the motive.
	This was on the eve of the elections, the elections were to be in April 1994, the act occurred in September 1993, the CODESA negotiations were under way and in that
context, as testified by the applicant, the placing of the bomb, would have had the required effect.