Amnesty Hearings — White River — 2000-05-04

ADV SANDI: From what you have said it would appear that you gentlemen had a problem with the idea of integration, do I understand your evidence correctly?  Integration in schools, you had a problem with that.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, it was not my personal problem, that was the whole CP policy as you would know yourself, that the entire Conservative Party was against any government of national unity, or whatever had been tabled at that stage and they wanted to advocate separate development.

MR SNYDERS: Ja, but don't you have integration in schools today?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes, I accept that.

ADV SANDI: Has anything happened as a result of integration in schools?  Or to put it differently, have heavens fallen because of integration in schools?

MR SNYDERS: Definitely not, definitely not.

ADV SANDI: How would you - I'm not for a moment suggesting that this is the position, if one is suggesting to you that that operation you carried at that school and agricultural college, you were motivated by racism, how would you defend yourself against such a charge?  If such a charge were to be put against you, what would you say, how would you respond?

MR SNYDERS: I would not attach to racism solely, this was about two white groups who confronted each other with regard to the direction of certain policies.  It was about what the Conservative Party advocated at that stage, but I was not an MP or a cabinet member of the Conservative Party, I was just a common person on the ground, and you know how people are incited in politics with regard to certain issues.  So at that stage mixed schools were blown up as if it was the end of South Africa.  So it was only politics.  And if we look at the countries around ourselves today and how people are incited through politics, that is a daily occurrence.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.  Should I understand that to mean that you would not, for example today go and bomb a school only because this schools is integrated?  You would not do that today I suppose.

MR SNYDERS: No, definitely not.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, Chair.  Thank you, Mr Snyders.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Snyders, it would appear that you had contact with Mr Douw Steyn and he served as a type of channel as you comprehended the situation, with the Toekomsgesprek group, would that be correct?

MR SNYDERS: Commandant Douw Steyn was the Commander of the Toekomsgesprek group.  As you would see in my application, Toekomsgesprek was divided into various interest groups, amongst others, Education interest group, Defence Interest Group, and Mr Douw Steyn was the leader of the Toekomsgesprek Defence Group.  And the leader of each group had a direct channel with the leader of the party.

CHAIRPERSON: So you understood that the contact with Mr Douw Steyn was the channel to the Toekomsgesprek group.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, and also to the CP, because Toekomsgesprek was the CP, but this was just a secret group within the organisation.

CHAIRPERSON: That is how you understood it?

MR SNYDERS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You had no personal knowledge of the matters that this Toekomsgesprek group dealt with at their secret meetings and the decisions that they had taken.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, I did, I was a member of Toekomsgesprek, so I did attend meetings in this region, but Mr Douw Steyn served on the main Board.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is how I understood it.  The chief or main Board would be the ultimate authority.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And as you understood it, the channel to the main Board was through Mr Steyn?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you accepted that the conveyances which he made to you was what the overhead group, these were decisions that were made by them?

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not have any personal knowledge of such decisions, but you just followed what Mr Steyn told you.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You say that Mr Steyn had a personal interest in the Nelspruit High School, if I understand you correctly.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct, Mr Douw Steyn was the Chairperson of the Management Board of the high school and they were in confrontation with Mr Kon Booyens who was the principal of that school, because of mixed sport there, and then his own son wrote graffiti on the walls of the school and some other members son's, and then Mr Kon Booyens expelled them from the school.

CHAIRPERSON: So he had a personal situation with regard to Mr Booyens, because his son was expelled by Mr Booyens because of something he wrote on the walls?

MR SNYDERS: I don't know whether one could attach it to the personal differences there, I think it is something that happened there.  If it was anyone else's children, the same thing would have happened.  Nelspruit High School is a leadership school, any action that is launched from there.  And Mr Kon Booyens was a prominent figure in the National Party and in Education circles.

CHAIRPERSON: And was this after his son was expelled that Mr Steyn approached your group to ask you why are you not doing anything, why is nothing happening in Nelspruit, but in Western Transvaal all the bombs are exploding?

MR SNYDERS: No, when he approached me with regard to Nelspruit, that was with Lowveld High.  That was during December and Nelspruit High School was much later thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: So when he pressurised you, pressure was to attack which place?

MR SNYDERS: This was Lowveld High, where the mixed inter-school meeting would take place a few weeks later.

CHAIRPERSON: This Mr Steyn, where is he?

MR SNYDERS: He is in Nelspruit, he is the owner of Sasol Fertilisers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think your attention was drawn to this letter of the Conservative Party, and he put it to you that it would appear that the Conservative Party distances itself from any unlawful activities.  That's on page 70 of the documents.

MR SNYDERS: May I just refer you to another letter of the Conservative Party, it's on page 49, Annexure E1, where the Conservative Party sent me a personal letter and saying amongst others
"Geagte Strydgenoot - Volksberaad 6 April 1990"
And that is where the structures met there and he invited me on behalf of the leader and the Board of the CP.
"We wish to invite you to a summit on the 6th of April"
where he confirms that I am one of the limited leadership figures in the freedom struggle which was invited to this summit.  So I entirely refute and reject that other document.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is the point that Mr van der Bank wanted to make to you, that is why he drew your attention to it.  This invitation in 1990, this was written in 1997, where the Conservative Party specifically reacted to this application which serves before us, and they say that they did not undertake any planning outside the framework of the law.  That is the important part of the letter which Mr van der Bank has put to you for your comment.  But if I understand you correctly, Mr Douw Steyn is the channel who liaised with you on ground level and this overhead body which you understood to be the Conservative Party.

MR SNYDERS: That is correct.  I would just like to tell you that Mr Douw Steyn is a prominent member in the Conservative Party, he himself was a policy-maker in the Conservative Party.  So you have to accept that chiefly he knew what he was doing.  He at a stage would have been chosen as the MP was for Nelspruit, but he was a highly recognised leadership figure and he formulated the Defence policy of the Conservative Party.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, I understand that that is the effect of your evidence, that you had this certain image of Mr Steyn.

MR SNYDERS: Yes, he's on his toes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit?

MR SMIT: I have nothing further, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR SMIT

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the case for Mr Snyders?

MR SMIT: That is the case for Mr Snyders, correct.