Special Hearings — Political Party Recalls — UNKNOWN

MR GOOSEN: Mr de Klerk by way of conclusion from my side, I'm sure that there are questions that the panel may wish to address to you as well, certainly indicated that they would want some time that I should leave to them, the evidence that has been collected thus far by the TRC, whether by way of human rights violations statements, I indicated the torture instances to you earlier, or by way of the amnesty provisions, amnesty applications that have been submitted, that evidence indicates that hundreds of incidents of serious criminal activity, authorised at the highest level of the security forces were perpetrated by members of the security forces. 
That systematic human rights abuse in the form of numerous and repeated instances of torture were the order of the day. 
That there is substantial evidence of systematic coverups authorised at the highest level. 
That there are indicators that at the level of the State Security Council and at the level of broad policy directives, directives were issued, which reasonably interpreted and reasonably acted upon constituted authorisation for the commission of unlawful activities. 
In the light of this, would you still argue that unlawful activity was only the work of a handful of individuals or operatives?
Would it not be more accurate to state that the National Party government presided over a period of systematic State-sanctioned criminal activity during the period which falls within the TRC's mandate?

MR DE KLERK: I reject that last formulation with every fibre of energy which I have. There was never State-sanctioned criminality aimed at serious violations of human rights such as murder, assassination and that which forms the subject matter of your investigations.
Secondly, I think I should refer to page 4 of my second submission, my replies, where I call upon the TRC, I would like to highlight this Mr Chairman, that the TRC should prepare an analysis that will, 
(a), indicate the scale of the conflict that occurred in South Africa compared with the conflict that has been experienced by other transitional societies and;
(b), provide an assessment of the total number of South Africans who died during the political conflict; 
who died or were seriously injured as a result of security force action; 
who died or who were tortured or were seriously injured as a result of illegal operations of the security forces; who died as a result of the actions of the armed wings of the ANC, the PAC and other guerilla organisations; 
who were killed by the ANC, the UD

<UNKNOWN>: , the Mass Democratic Movement, the Civics and other organisations because they were associated with or supportive of the former government; 
who were seriously injured or whose homes and properties were destroyed in the course of intimidation campaigns carried out by the ANC, the UD

<UNKNOWN>: , the Mass Democratic Movement, the Civics and other organisations; and, who died or were seriously injured or had their homes destroyed in the conflict in KwaZulu Natal, including an indication of the number of ANC, I

<UNKNOWN>: P and non-aligned victims. It is the essence of the Commission's task to determine in an even-handed fashion who was responsible for these deaths and gross violations. 
This is done, this is asked Mr Chairman and suggested because we think that only with that total picture can one achieve overall perspective to the events that occurred during our conflict. The comparative study, because without minimising it in any way whatsoever South Africa has to be thankful that there weren't ten times as many deaths. It could have happened so easily. And I think it's very important, in order to get a proper perspective, to know and to also quantify, what happened from which side. 
In the final analysis Mr Chairman I want to know the truth as much as anybody else, but I reject the insinuation that there was a clandestine, quiet position of the National Party, of the National Party government which said - anything goes. It simply isn't true. I was never part of it and I never experienced it that I was asked by anybody else to be part of it.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you. Mr de Klerk, just finally, I'm finished with the questions, questions that I have been putting to you formulated, I have captured them in a document you indicated you might well want an opportunity to respond to certain questions on reflection, so I would simply indicate to you that I would make available to you the notes on which I have based my questioning during the course of the day. There are one or two categories of questions set out in the document which I didn't canvass with you orally, some of them may relate to coverups. I've dealt with part of that. 
Others would relate to questions around some destabilisation actions which may have been contemplated in relation to neighbouring states as well as to support for guerilla or terrorist organisations inside and outside of the country. The questions are fairly clear from the document. You may wish to respond to them in due course. Thank you.

MR DE KLERK: Can I just make sure, having been given a second document now and I thank you for it, which I haven't had insight into, are the questions clearly put, or will I have to deduct what question you would have asked? In other words is there a heading to say against this background this is the question, will I exactly be able to discern what you want to do?

MR GOOSEN: I certainly hope so. If I am not that articulate on paper please give me a call.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Are there any further questions from the panel? Yasmin Sooka.

YASMINE SOOKA: Mr de Klerk earlier in your testimony this morning you mentioned the name - you said that you had called four generals when you asked questions about Vlakplaas, what were the names of those generals please?

MR DE KLERK: I mentioned the one and I don't have the permission of the others to disclose that I had discussions with them.

YASMINE SOOKA: Why not Mr de Klerk?

MR DE KLERK: Well I didn't ask them for permission. I asked them because I wanted to satisfy myself and on a one-on-one basis they gave me this assurance. I will canvass it with them whether I can disclose their names and if they allow me to I will let you have it.

YASMINE SOOKA: I have a second question. I think that our advocate has put very eloquently a proposition to you about State-sanctioned criminality and you of course have said you refute that with everything that you believe in, but I want to explore with you, what do you expect us to believe when you have a Minister applying for amnesty, you have a number of high-ranking officers who are applying for amnesty for their own involvement in the deaths of a number of victims, what are we expected to believe? 
How do we account for the fact - were you out of control at the time when you were head of government? 
I really wold like to understand you but I find it very, very difficult when most of the people who come to us say that they did all these acts in the furtherance of the National Party policy. 
You of course have very eloquently described for us differences in interpretation, where people were bona fide, where they were mala fide, where they were totally unauthorised. I think the difficulty we sit with is given the fact that you were the head of government, you sat as Minister of Education in the State Security Council, how could you not have been party to all of these dastardly acts that were committed? I really would like to understand you on this issue.