Amnesty Hearings

TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

DAY 1 - 12 AUGUST 1996

AMNESTY APPLICATION

DAWID PETRUS BOTHA

CHAIRPERSON: Ladies and gentlemen, this is a sitting of the Amnesty Committee which comprises of myself as Chairman, Judge Andrew Wilson, on my right, Judge Ngoepe on my left, Mr Chris de Jager SC on his left, and attorney Ms Sisi Khampepe on the extreme right. You may begin.

MR BRINK:: Mr - may I sit, Mr Chairman, may I sit? This is the application of David Petrus Botha, Eugene Marais and Adriaan Smuts. I appear as the evidence presenter for the Committee. The applicants are all represented, and I’ll leave them to introduce themselves for the record.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I appear on behalf of Mr Dawid Petrus Botha.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I represent Mr Smuts.

MR WILKINSON:: Andrew Wilkinson, and I appear on behalf of Eugene Marais.

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, I understand that the first applicant to give evidence will be Dawid Petrus Botha.

What language do you wish to speak?

MS VAN DER WALT: Afrikaans.

DAWID PETRUS BOTHA: (sworn states)

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Botha you are currently in the Zonderwater Prison at Cullinan is that correct?

MR BOTHA: Yes that’s correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you were - on what date were you convicted?

MR BOTHA: On 13th of September 1991.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were convicted on what charges?

MR BOTHA: Seven Charges of murder, twenty-seven of attempted murder, and one for the illegal possession of firearms.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you were sentenced to death initially for the seven charges of murder?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: After that your sentence was commuted and you were given lifelong imprisonment.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Or a period of imprisonment?

MR BOTHA: I received a period of 30 years imprisonment.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you sketch your background to the Committee and then also place before the Committee what actually happened.

MR BOTHA: Yes. I was born on the 24th of September 1944. I was raised in an Afrikaans Christian home. When I was four years old, the National Party Government came to power, and I grew up under a National Party Government which looked after White interests in the country or the Boer nation’s interests. For a long period after the Anglo Boer War, there was a lot of discrimination against the Boers. If you spoke your own language you were discriminated against. We were humiliated.

The Afrikaner, or the Boer could not obtain good positions of employment and as a result of the policy which was followed by the British in those years and also Louis Botha and the Jan Smuts Government, my grandfather who fought in the Anglo-Boer War came to the realisation that if you cannot speak both languages that you would not be able to obtain any significant post. As a result of this, my grandfather sent his children, namely my father and his brothers and sisters, they were sent to English schools for their academic education in a foreign language, in other words, not their mother tongue, and that meant that I was also sent to an English school.

And as I grew up I realised that it was not right that I was forced to speak a different language to my home language to be able to become something in this world, and for that reason I was very proud of the National Party Government who espoused the cause of the Boer Nation.

In my years in an English school I had to endure lots of taunting, for instance when people called me a hairy-back and a rock-spider. That just strengthened my Boer pride. In the early 1980’s I realised that the then National Party Government were following a policy with which I couldn’t associate myself.

When the CP was founded in 1982 I became a supporter of the Conservative Party. I could identify with the ideals and policy of this party. In the 1983 referendum, when the issue to be voted on was whether there should be a change in the then political dispensation, I voted against it. I was not in favour of the change. I could see that the Boer in his own country would be alienated once again, and that everything which he had thus far brought about and established would be taken away from him. Everything which the Boer nation has established and achieved in the history of this country it achieved through struggle and humiliation, oppression and suffering.

For that reason I aligned myself very firmly with the Conservative Party and I supported it. In 1987 elections I voted for the CP, and that was the first election that the CP took part in and they were so well supported that they became the official opposition in Parliament. In this period I also became a member of the AWB - Afrikaner Weerstands Beweging because I felt that this movement supported the ideals of the Boer nation, and wanted to protect us. All that we asked was that which any nation asks, namely to govern itself in its own territory.

During that time there were independent Black states, namely Transkei, Venda, Bophuthatswana and so on, and we did not begrudge any nation the right to govern itself in its own sovereign] territory. We did not claim for ourselves anything which we did not allow any other nation. We believed that whether Zulu, Boer or Xhosa, that you have the right to live amongst your own people in your own territory and to govern yourself. And that is what the AWB requested from the then National Party Government but our requests were regarded with contempt. Although I was a member of the AWB at that stage, I was not an active member and with the election of 6 September 1989 election, in the period before this election, I started working for the Conservative Party. We put up posters, we registered voters, we canvassed and I became known to the Conservative Party and eventually I was elected as the chairperson of the management of the Conservative Party, that is the Empangeni branch for the Umfolozi constituency.

I devoted myself to the task at hand and I worked very hard . I was so intensely involved with the election campaign that I endured a lot of stress to the point where I actually suffered a heart-attack, and in 1990 I had to undergo a heart by-pass operation. The result of that election is now history today, and I realised that the political dispensation in this country had changed irrevocably; that the political dispensation as we had known it was something of the past, it was gone forever. I realised that the Boer nation would have to enter the fray again, to enter the struggle to regain that which had been taken away from it, namely our freedom and the right to govern ourselves in our own territory.

For that reason I contacted Mr Eugene Terreblanche, the leader of the AWB and we had a political meeting in Richards Bay, and due to the fact that I was very well known in right-wing circles in the Umfolozi area, I within a very short period of time, gained and recruited a whole group of new members for the AWB. At that stage the so-called Wenkommando of the AWB had not yet been established, but once it had been established, I got together a group, a commando group, and we started training them. Mr Eugene Terreblanche appointed me as Kommandant of the AWB in the Northern Zululand region. Whilst I served in the AWB I was also elected to deputy-chairperson of the financial Committee of the AWB, and in this capacity, I attended various meetings throughout the Free State and the Transvaal.

At one such meeting I was approached by members of the Orde Boerevolk. They wanted to recruit me to establish a cell of this Orde Boerevolk in Richards Bay. They explained to me what the motives and objectives of this cell would be, and I could identify with these objectives because they believed in what I believed in. I identified with their objectives because my beliefs were the same as their beliefs, namely that we would have to struggle to regain that which had been taken away from us. I had to swear an oath. They told me that if I could not identify myself with any particular item in this oath I should tell them that and then that meeting would be regarded as never having taken place and not be held against me and I could just leave.

I read through the oath and I agreed with each and every point contained in the oath. I took the oath and they then told me, and I indeed believed it at the time, that there was already a civil war existing in South Africa although it might have been a very low intensity civil war, but the violence was present

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Botha may I interrupt you at this point. You are referring here to an oath which you swore. I would like to show you a document with the permission of the Chairperson. I can then hand it in as exhibit A. I would like to show you the oath of the Orde Boerevolk and you could then just indicate whether that is the oath and then read it to us. Is that the oath?

MR BOTHA: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: The name here is Mr Eugene Marais, but that - is this a similar oath to the one you took?

MR BOTHA: It’s exactly the same.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you then please just read this into the record.

MR BOTHA: I think, Chairperson, I must just explain, that at the time that I was recruited, the Orde Boerevolk had already declared war officially against the National Party Government, and that they did by means of a video taken by the leader of the Orde Boerevolk, Piet Rudolf, after he stole weapons at the Air force headquarters in Pretoria.

MS VAN DER WALT: Excuse me, you are mentioning a video was that actually broadcast? Was it seen in South Africa?

MR BOTHA: Yes, it was broadcast on television, but selectively. The entire video wasn’t seen, wasn’t broadcast.

MS VAN DER WALT: But the citizens of this country took note of what Piet Rudolf had said?

MR BOTHA: Oh yes, most definitely. At the time that this video material was made available, it followed shortly after the incident when the weapons were stolen at the headquarters in Pretoria and it was quite a sensational issue at the time, so I think everybody realised that this was an official declaration of war. Would you .....

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, read the oath.

MR BOTHA: It says

"I hereby......"

and then my name

"DAVID PETRUS BOTHA,

and your date of birth.

I take an oath that I commit myself to the freedom struggle of

the Boer nation to:

1) to establish the independence of the Boer Republics in 1902;

2) the current, so-called Republic of South Africa to bring that to an end; and

3) the steps taken by the National Party Government and it’s associates who support it and the ANC and the SACP to combat these parties with everything at my disposal even if it means that I would have to sacrifice my life in the process.

I also swear that I will be faithful to this oath and carry out all orders issued to me in the furtherance in the above objectives. That I will ensure that all instructions which I might issue in the furtherance of the above objectives and I further declare under oath that I will not, in respect of an instruction by any body in respect of the ideals of the Orde Boerevolk and the old Boer Republics or the Republic of the Orange Free State that I will not infiltrate, commit espionage or report on their activities, whether orally, in writing or in whatever form, and furthermore I undertake to never, in respect of the activities of any member fighting the above struggle, to report the activities of such a member to anybody.

And lastly, that I never in any court of whatever nature, will

testify against any existing or former member, or in respect of

the activities of the Order or its supporting bodies will never

testify against it or these people.

So help me God."

And was signed in the presence of two witnesses.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you then took this oath on that particular day?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you believe everything mentioned in this oath?

MR BOTHA: Yes, absolutely. In the Orde Boerevolk I saw that the Boer nation had not yet surrendered and that it was willing to enter the struggle. The instructions I’d received to establish a cell in Richards Bay, I carried that out. And I must also mention that at that stage, the violence, or the civil war which reigned in the country at the time - it was mainly Black on Black violence. The Orde said that this violence would spread and that it would ultimately change to Black on White violence, and that it was only a matter of time before that happened. Especially the PAC, the PAC was very militant and they had various slogans like "one settler, one bullet".

We prepared ourselves for an onslaught against our people, and on the morning of the 9th of October 1980, I heard on SABC news that a group of about 30 Black people clad in PAC T-shirts had attacked Whites on the Durban beachfront using knives, and that various people had been wounded and taken to hospital and that an elderly man had died as a result of the wounds so sustained.

I was convinced that the PAC had started implementing its campaign of terror against White people, and - I’m sorry, I thought you wanted to ask a question.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, the date, you said 1990, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: When the attack took place?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR BOTHA: Yes that is when the attack took place.

JUDGE WILSON: Because it was interpreted I think as 1980. I may have misheard it, but I think the interpretation was wrong.

MR BOTHA: Thank you. I was under the impression that the campaign of terror by the PAC against Whites had now commenced, and since we had already declared war against the National Party, and as a result of this attack, I as cell leader felt that we should launch a counter-attack to prove to the government of the day, and to show to it that the road it was following was full of danger and that incidents of this kind would increase in frequency.

Our purpose was also to show to the PAC and its communist allies that attacks of this kind would not be tolerated, and that we would take counter-measures in a very forceful way.

And I also felt that the counter-attack should take place in Durban where the attack from the PAC had taken place in the morning and I felt that the attack by the PAC and the counter-attack should be seen in context, and I think we succeeded in this, because in the Sunday Tribune of the 14th of October 1990 in which interviews had been conducted with passengers in a bus from where the attack was launched, it said that they believed that the attack had been launched by Boers as a result of the PAC attack that morning on White people at the beach front.

We travelled by car from Richards Bay to Durban and it was late in the evening when we arrived here, it was about, I think about eight o’clock or nine o’clock maybe when we arrived here.

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not on, I, it’s impossible to interpret.

MR BOTHA: When I refer to "we", when I heard of the attack, I immediately contacted Adriaan Smuts and Mr Eugene Marais and asked them whether they had heard about the attack. I must say that both Mr Adriaan Smuts and Mr Eugene Marais were members of my cell, the cell that I had established, a cell of the Orde Boerevolk. I could not immediately get hold of Mr Smuts, but I spoke to Mr Marais about it and he also felt that if this attack should just be allowed to take place and nothing be done about it without any counter-attack that we would not succeed in our objective of making people realise that this kind of attack would not be tolerated in future, or be allowed to happen with impunity.

I told Mr Marais to come to my home that evening, and at about six o’clock that evening I contacted Mr Smuts by telephone and I also ordered him to come to my home. We there decided to travel to Durban by car and to launch a counter-attack, so that we could show the government and the PAC that the conduct by the PAC, the ANC and their communist allies and also the government’s policy that this would not be tolerated without any conduct by the Orde Boerevolk.

When we arrived in Durban, we drove in the vicinity of the bus ranks, but the area was very - quite quiet. The next day was the 10th of October, which would be a public holiday, Kruger Day, and perhaps that contributed to the fact that the streets of Durban were fairly quiet. We saw a minibus taxi driving past us, it was full of passengers, and we decided that we would attack this minibus.

We followed the bus from the central area of Durban and the bus moved in - along the freeway in the direction of KwaMashu. The bus turned off the freeway and entered a very densely populated area, and as a result of this, I aborted the attack.

We then returned to the freeway and at the Evoko off-ramp we turned off there and turned back towards Durban. Because it was quite late at that stage, and it was very quiet, we considered perhaps returning to Richard’s Bay. We stopped at a garage and we bought some coldrinks and drank these coldrinks. Whilst we were busy doing that, a Putco bus full of people drove past from Durban in the direction of KwaMashu.

I decided that we would attack this bus and gave the instruction. We then followed the bus in our car, and near the Duff Road off-ramp, I was driving the car, I should say that, and Mr Adriaan Smuts sat in the back of the car on the left-hand side, and Mr Eugene Marais was sitting in the passenger seat.

We overtook the bus and I told my colleagues to fire in the direction of the bus. We used automatic attack rifles to fire at the bus as we passed the bus - as we overtook it. Immediately after the attack we returned to Richards Bay.

The following day, that is the 10th of October, the very next day, I contacted the news office of the SABC and told them that I was a member of the Orde Boerevolk and that the Orde Boerevolk accepted responsibility for the attack the previous night on the Putco bus.

I don’t know whether the person I spoke to took me seriously, but he was fooling around and asked me to furnish my name and address. I then put down the phone and then contacted the news office of the Natal Mercury. I spoke to somebody in the news office there. I told them that I was a member of the Orde Boerevolk and that we accepted responsibility for the previous night’s attack and I also furnished the reasons why we launched the attack. There was no report in any of the papers the next day regarding this incident and I realised that there was a state of emergency at the time in Natal and I suspected that either the security police of the government or both had probably suppressed news of this kind.

I once again contacted the Natal Mercury offices, spoke to the same reporter and told him that I was aware of the fact that news of this kind would normally be suppressed by the government and I threatened that unless the news was published and unless they mentioned that the attack had been launched by the Orde Boerevolk and mentioned our reasons for doing so, unless this was published, I would launch a similar attack.

I later learned that at the time of the second call to the Natal Mercury , the security police were actually in the office and had spoken to the reporter during my phone call.

On the 17th of October 1990, I, Mr Smuts and Mr Marais were arrested by the police. We were detained in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act whilst the case against us was being investigated. After that we appeared in court where we were charged with murder, attempted murder and illegal possession of fire-arms.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Justice Galgut was the presiding judge?

MR BOTHA: That’s correct, Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: And before sentencing what did the judge say?

MR BOTHA: He summarised the entire court proceedings and he said that he and the two assessors had to decide whether they were going to impose lengthy prison sentences or whether the death penalty would be introduced. He also said that, although he believed that we would not launch such an attack again, our political convictions were so deeply ingrained that they decided to impose the death penalty.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Botha, when you went for trial did you plead guilty?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you and Mr Adriaan Smuts were tried together? There was a separation of the trials as far as Mr Marais was concerned?

MR BOTHA: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: In mitigation, you testified in mitigation?

MR BOTHA: Yes I did, Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also outlined the events for the court as you have done for us today?

MR BOTHA: I did, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: So from the beginning you have never tried to conceal anything?

MR BOTHA: No I didn’t.

MS VAN DER WALT: Listening to your evidence, it seems that you joined the Orde Boerevolk and then you established a cell in Richards Bay?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: That cell - did they operate openly -or what was the situation?

MR BOTHA: No. The composition of the Orde Boerevolk was like this. When I took my oath, I was instructed to establish a cell. They told me they did not want to know who I was recruiting as members of my cell. The reason for this is that what one doesn’t know about one cannot tell about - it was an underground movement. They also told me that each cell was independent of the others.

The purpose of this was that if something should happen as happened in my case, in which my cell was destroyed, I had no information which could endanger other cells which had been established throughout the country because I didn’t know of their existence. And when I recruited my members for my cell, Messrs. Smuts and Marais met each other for the first time on the evening - eve of the attack.

MS VAN DER WALT: It is quite clear from your evidence that you summoned the other two members of the cell and that you gave the instruction to shoot on this bus. Is this correct?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: You took the decision. Was it your personal decision, or did you do so on behalf of the organisation?

MR BOTHA: I did so on behalf of and in the name of the Orde Boerevolk. At the time that I had been sworn in, and considering the expectation that there was that violence was on the increase, and that violence would increasingly become not Black on Black, but Black on White. At that time they told me that I should hit back firmly and effectively so as to make it clear that such actions would not be tolerated.

Where attacks of this sort took place and where Whites lost their lives as a result of organised political violence we had to hit back firmly, to such an extent that ten Blacks should die for every White who lost his life.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Botha, did you give this instruction because you would get anything personally for it?

MR BOTHA: Certainly not. It was a military operation to bring home the point to the then government and the so-called liberation organisations that the Boer people would not again allow themselves to be suppressed and humiliated, that we were prepared to enter the struggle and that we would fight for our rights to continue to exist in our own territory.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when you were detained in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act, did this include people who were detained on account of political crimes?

MR BOTHA: That’s quite correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

JUDGE NGOEPE: Am I correct in assuming that there is no application for amnesty by this applicant in respect of illegal possession of firearms? By this particular applicant.

MS VAN DER WALT: No, there is such an application. It relates to all the charges on which he was convicted.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Have you really dealt with that, with the illegal possession of firearms?

MS VAN DER WALT: I’ll do that. You applied for amnesty initially in terms of the old legislation?

MR BOTHA: That’s quite correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you did so regarding all the charges of which you were convicted?

MR BOTHA: Quite correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: But at that stage the application couldn’t go through because you - this fell outside the specified time.

MR BOTHA: The old cut off date was the 8th of October 1990 and our attack took place on the 9th of October 1990 so we couldn’t be considered for indemnity because in terms of the old legislation we didn’t qualify.

MS VAN DER WALT: And now - and then you applied again in terms of the new law and you did that for murder, attempted murder and illegal possession of firearms?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the illegal possession of firearms - these firearms, what were they?

MR BOTHA: They were an FN automatic assault rifle and an AK47.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who owned which weapon?

MR BOTHA: I was in possession of the FN rifle and Mr Eugene Marais had the AK47.

MS VAN DER WALT: And these arms, did you have them in your possession in order to carry out work for the Orde Boerevolk?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: This firearm was unlicensed?

MR BOTHA: Yes, it was.

MS VAN DER WALT: That will be all.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

JUDGE WILSON: When did you get it?

MR BOTHA: The firearm? It was before the attack, probably about two months before I came into possession of the FN rifle.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?

MR BRINK: Yes, Mr Chairman, I don’t know what the procedure is, whether any of my colleagues would like to ask questions first or - I’m quite happy with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

EXAMINAION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Botha, Exhibit A - The Oath, it’s signed by your co-accused, Mr Marais, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: That’s right.

MR PRINSLOO: On what date was it signed?

MR BOTHA: It was on the 24th of September 1990.

MR PRINSLOO: So that was before the attack?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: The other co-accused, Mr Smuts, did he sign a similar oath?

MR BOTHA: Yes he did. The evening before we left from Richards Bay on our way to Durban, he took the oath and he signed it, and I and Mr Marais acted as witnesses to his oath.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Botha, before the arrest on the 17th of October, where did you put Exhibit A and Mr Smut’s oath? Where did you put those?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairperson, the forms were in my possession and on the morning of the 17th of October I arose very early. I saw through my bedroom window that there was a vehicle parked outside my flat. I used my binoculars to take a closer look and I saw that there were security police there. I recognised them. I immediately became concerned, so I took the forms with the oaths with the signatures of Mr Marais and Mr Smuts and I put them in my refrigerator in the vegetable drawer. I hid them there under the vegetables.

Immediately thereafter I heard knocking on my door and 17 security policemen under a Brigadier came into my flat and informed me that they were detaining me and they searched my flat. They did not find the oath forms.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Botha, after that you were detained in terms of Section 29?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you tell the security police where Exhibits A and the other document relating to Mr Smuts were hidden?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I did, and then they returned to my flat, found the forms where I had left them.

MR PRINSLOO: And is that where exhibit A comes from, from your flat?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Botha if I understand your evidence correctly, you testified that this action of yours was aimed at convincing the National Party Government, the government of the day, to change its views. Did that also apply to the PAC and the ANC and it’s allies?

MR BOTHA: Most certainly.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage were you opposed to a take-over by a PAC/ANC majority government?

MR BOTHA: Most certainly, because I did not believe that either of these organisations would serve the interests of the Boerevolk and I believed that they would alienate us from our own fatherland and from that which had been built up for the Boerevolk, that would be taken over simply for their own gain.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Botha, presently, what do you feel now as opposed to what you felt at the time? How - what are your present feelings?

MR BOTHA: I still feel committed to the struggle of the Boerevolk. The struggle for their own territory and the right to be ruled by their own people.

MR PRINSLOO: And how do you envisage achieving that at the moment?

MR BOTHA: Considering the situation as it is at present in this country, everyone is negotiating. The right-wing parties have also entered this negotiating process. There is a Volkstaat Committee which is negotiating with the current government for the right to establish a Volkstaat, and I understand that this right is also entrenched in the new constitution.

So I believe that the struggle which we began and the declaration of war that we issued are no longer valid. That we are negotiating with these organs, with the government and that we should continue with these negotiations.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Botha, this action that you led, there was the loss of human life, there was mutilation, how do you feel about that?

MR BOTHA: It was unfortunate. I don’t feel good about that. No right thinking person would simply go and deprive another person of his life. But, in a situation of war, there is always a loss of life on both sides. We did not ask to be forced into the situation in which we found ourselves.

Our demand for territory, for an area, was a reasonable demand, and if one’s demands are not acceded to, then one has to fight for that in which one believes. Just as I am sorry that these people in the bus, that they were the victims and they had to lose their lives, I am also sorry about the war that was fought on our borders for so many years in which people who were performing their National Service had to lose their lives.

The progress of political developments in this country has brought about tremendous loss of life on both sides, that is on the ANC, the PAC, the Security Forces, and as I said earlier, the Boerevolk are not strangers to oppression, to humiliation, all that they have ever wanted is to live in peace in their own territory and to govern themselves. That is the evidence of our history.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Botha, this attack was in Durban, and not in Richards Bay where you resided?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the reason for that?

MR BOTHA: Oh yes, there certainly was a reason. If we had launched a counter-attack in Richards Bay, say, that it wouldn’t have been easily linked with the attack earlier that morning by the PAC in Durban and that would have neutralised the whole purpose of the attack. The purpose was that the two attacks should be linked so that both the government of the day and the PAC and other organisations should realise that the Boerevolk were prepared to fight and that we weren’t simply going to lie down and allow them to walk all over us.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Botha, if I understand your evidence correctly, this Orde Boerevolk cell operated underground in secret?

MR BOTHA: That is quite correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Smuts, one of your members, he was your subordinate?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage you were also a member of the AWB?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And that also applied to Smuts?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Was Smuts also your subordinate in the AWB?

MR BOTHA: That is correct. Yes, he was a Field-cornet.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

EXAMINATION BY MR WILKINSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Botha, you testified that you were instructed to establish a Orde Boerevolk cell in Richards Bay?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR WILKINSON: Do you think Mr Marais specifically had any doubt in your role as leader of the cell?

MR BOTHA: Absolutely not.

MR WILKINSON: You also testified that while you were moving past the bus that you gave the instruction to fire on the bus?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR WILKINSON: Given that time, do you think Mr Marais would have fired at the bus?

MR BOTHA: I didn’t hear you.

MR WILKINSON: Given that particular moment, if you hadn’t given the order, do you think Mr Marais would himself have fired without your command?

MR BOTHA: I doubt that, I don’t believe so.

MR WILKINSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILKINSON

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Mr Botha I intend to put my questions in English but of course you’re free to answer in Afrikaans.

MR BOTHA: I don’t have a problem with that Mr Chairperson.

MR BRINK: Can you tell the Committee - that’s if you know, the total number of Orde Boerevolk, in other words, the total membership throughout the country?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I can’t even remotely make an estimate, because the composition of the Orde Boerevolk was of such a nature that I didn’t know of the existence of any other cells. I wouldn’t know if there were thirty members, three hundred, three thousand, thirty thousand. I wouldn’t be able to say.

MR BRINK: Did you never discuss the matter with Mr Rudolf perhaps to ascertain the size of this group?

MR BOTHA: I must say that at the time of the attack, although I had seen Mr Rudolf, I had never spoken with him. And also at the time of the attack, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr Rudolf was already in detention in terms of Section 28 of the Internal Security Act.

MR BRINK: Can you tell the Committee how many members of the Orde Boerevolk there were in your particular group in Richards Bay?

MR BOTHA: I only recruited four members. My order was that a cell consisted of five, a leader and four members.

MR BRINK: You see, I ask these questions because you refer in your evidence to a declaration of war, and what I really want to know, is who declared war and on whom?

MR BOTHA: The leader, Mr Piet Rudolf, as I said in my evidence. He stole the firearms from the Airforce headquarters. Out of that, by way of a video which the movement made and released to the media, he, by means of this, declared war on the then government.

MR BRINK: So it wasn’t a declaration of war following upon any particular incident which happened, where lives were lost for example?

MR BOTHA: That‘s correct.

MR BRINK: After you had heard about the attack upon these White people at the beach front by allegedly PAC members, did you take advice from anyone more senior to you in the Orde Boerevolk, or were you not able to do so?

MR BOTHA: No, I did not.

MR BRINK: So this was a unilateral action, which you decided should be taken without consulting anyone at all?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I explained that this attack had to take place in Durban on the same day as the PAC attack so that the one attack could be related to the other. It was not an action that one could plan days before the time. Action had to be taken - and fast.

And as a cell leader I took my - I had to use my initiative in implementing the order that I had been given when I’d been sworn in of killing ten Black people for every one White person who died. I had to carry that order out as quickly as possible. I couldn’t postpone. If the attack had taken place a day after, or a week after, then that attack would not have been coupled to the attack by the PAC on the morning of the 9th of October.

MR BRINK: Well, you’d heard on the radio news that alleged PAC members had been responsible for the attack at the beach front, you’d heard that?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BRINK: Did you not think, perhaps it might be better to hold back and investigate the offices of the PAC, the whereabouts of the local offices of the PAC, because they were unbanned at that stage?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I must explain that I am not a politician, I’m a soldier and I carry out commands which are given to me. That is all that I was doing there.

MR BRINK: Well, what is your military experience, Mr Botha? Conventional military experience?

MR BOTHA: I did my national service, my military service in the South African Navy.

MR BRINK: For how long?

MR BOTHA: A year’s full-time training and then a year’s citizen force training. Then I was in the permanent force of the South African Airforce for a year.

MR BRINK: But wouldn’t it have been better to ascertain the whereabouts of the offices of the PAC and if you had a mind to, you could go into those PAC offices and possibly bomb them or burn them or whatever, rather than take the lives of innocent people who weren’t necessarily members of the PAC?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, as I explained, time was the factor. We didn’t have time to conduct investigations, to enquire. The rules of this attack were not written by us. The PAC had attacked Whites on the beach front that morning purely because they were White.

They weren’t interested in whether some of the Whites might perhaps have been PAC or ANC supporters, or whether they were members of the National Party. They were attacked simply because they were White, there was no other reason. No distinction was drawn between elderly men, women. They were attacked simply because they were White.

MR BRINK: Very well. When you got to - when you got to Durban that evening, you told the Committee that you saw a taxi and as I understand your evidence, you followed the taxi for some distance?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BRINK: And the taxi drove into what - built-up area consisting of so-called White houses?

MR BOTHA: No it was a non-White area.

MR BRINK: Why didn’t you then attack the taxi?

MR BOTHA: Probably for the same reason is that when we fired on the bus, I was driving behind the bus and as we drove into KwaMashu I did a U-turn, and then we found ourselves beside - behind the same bus. At the time I could have fired on the bus again, but that wasn’t the purpose. We weren’t there simply to commit mass-murder. I could have driven into KwaMashu and just mown people down. It was an attack in which we wanted to specifically draw the attention of the former government and the PAC to the fact that attacks of this kind were not going to be tolerated. It wasn’t simply bloodshed for the sake of bloodshed.

MR BRINK: What I really want to know is why the attack on the taxi was aborted?

MR BOTHA: Because the attack in this densely populated area would have meant that the attack wouldn’t have been simply against the taxi. The houses were very close to one another, people in the houses would also have been hurt. Our target was the taxi, and when we changed the target to the bus, our target was the bus. And when we fired on the bus it was in an area which wasn’t a built-up area and we would just be attacking the target that we had selected.

MR BRINK: It wasn’t - was it not because you were perhaps frightened of being captured - caught that you aborted the attack on the taxi?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, when one is waging a war, you do so in such a way that one can fight again the next day. We are not like the Japanese Kamikaze pilots. We are waging war so that we can continue to wage that war the next day and for years.

MR BRINK: But - you talk about war. These were innocent people, these were innocent people going home from work.

MR BOTHA: That is true, Mr Chairman, but the people who were attacked on the beach front were also innocent people. As I said, we didn’t write the rules of the game, the PAC did. And we paid them back in their own coin according to the rules which they had set up.

MR BRINK: Mr Botha wasn’t this a revenge attack?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, how could it be revenge? They didn’t act against me personally. If somebody perpetrates an injustice against me and I hit back, then it’s personal, and I can say that is vengeance, that’s revenge but this was an attack by a Black political organisation against Whites. And they attacked them simply because they were White.

And in the prevailing climate of that time, one of political violence and increasing crime, it was my aim to bring home the point that attacks of this kind in which the simple factor was that a Black organisations attacked Whites because they were White hat such attacks should not be allowed. And the whole aim of my attack was to bring that point home to both the PAC and the government against whom we had declared war.

JUDGE WILSON: So you say it wasn’t revenge?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, no not in the sense that I felt that I had been acted against personally.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you remember that in your application you wrote about medium B and you said

"I immediately approached - contacted Smuts and Marais who were both members of the Orde Boerevolk and we decided that we should take vengeance".

MR BOTHA: Yes I remember that I wrote that but it depends how one defines revenge and I’m trying to define it for that word. It wasn’t a personal thing, I hadn’t personally been attacked.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink perhaps before you proceed. I’m reminded that this might be a convenient stage to take a short adjournment. We’ll adjourn for (no sound).

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR DAWID PETRUS BOTHA: (s.u.o).

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: (cont)

Just before the adjournment you were talking about this having been a war, it was imperative that you had to do what you did. My question is this, did you not think that it would have been better to have left the investigation of the assaults upon the White people at the beach front to the South African Police?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, you must understand, we had declared war against the National Party Government and any other organisations striving to take away our rights from us, those are our rights to self-determination.

INTERPRETER: There’s some problem with the sound.

MR BOTHA: You don’t just sit back in a situation of war and trust the judicial system of that country to sort out your problems and to achieve your objectives for you.

You must act and in some cases such as this, you don’t always have the time at your disposal to plan things better than you actually did. I very much would have wanted to have launched the attack against those persons responsible for the attack at the beach front that morning. I would have liked to have directed my attack against them but circumstances were such that I couldn’t do that.

Perhaps here I can give you an example, give you a comparison with something that happened during the second world war. The Germans dropped bombs on London. Those weren’t military targets, those were civilian targets. The British also dropped bombs on Berlin. The American dropped two atom bombs on two Japanese cities. Those weren’t military targets.

MR BRINK: You will agree with me, I think, that violence breeds violence, do you agree with that?

MR BOTHA: Unfortunately, history has proved that to be the case, yes.

MR BRINK: Did you not consider the possible repercussions of your activities, that there could have been enormous, enormous follow-up violence, Black on White, White on Black, whatever?

MR BOTHA: That is so, that it could have led to violence. On the contrary, I was sitting at my home quite peacefully, I did not have any idea of attacking Black people. I don’t hate Black people. My attack was the direct result of the attack by the PAC. Their attack elicited the kind of response which you are talking about.

MR BRINK: Is it your belief today, as you sit there, that what you did was the right thing to have done?

MR BOTHA: At that stage, yes, that is what I believed. Let me put it this way. If you look at it with hindsight, yes, I suppose it didn’t achieve much. It did not alter the course of political history in this country.

MR BRINK: What I really want to know is if whether you today regret what you did and have remorse for what you did?

MR BOTHA: Yes, yes, Mr Chairman. It didn’t change anything, it changed absolutely nothing. And everything which happened subsequently as a result of the PAC attack and our attack, it cost and affected a lot of people’s lives very negatively. And we didn’t achieve anything by this attack other than to make the point which we wanted to put across.

MR BRINK: Thank you Sir.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

JUDGE WILSON:: You made an application, a very long application - do you remember that? In which you asked for indemnity, release ... [intervention]

MR BOTHA: Are you referring to the new application which I made?

JUDGE WILSON : No, the old application.

MR BOTHA: Yes, yes, that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: In this application you also said on page 31

"Without the applicant having any specific plan, the applicant walked to Eugene Marais and asked him whether he had heard. After Eugene Marais denied having heard, the applicant told him the news, and added, that vengeance had to be taken".

Do you remember that?

MR BOTHA: I am a bit confused here Chairperson, I don’t think that is the application from which the Commissioner is reading. I think that is a summary by a Judge in our trial. Whether the trial or the appeal I am not sure. That did not appear in my application.

JUDGE WILSON: Application for indemnity or release - applicant DP Botha.

MR BOTHA: No, those - those are not my words.

JUDGE WILSON: No, I think it’s the attorney’s formulation.

MR BOTHA: Sir, it was not ... [intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: 36 pages? And on page [intervention]

MR BOTHA: They are referring to me in the third person, it’s not me referring to myself. If I’d said I had spoken to Mr Marais, I would have said I was speaking to him, but they are referring to the applicant, Mr Botha, so they are referring to me in the third person, so that wasn’t my application, my personal application.

JUDGE WILSON: Maybe your attorney can explain to me what is going on here?

MS VAN DER WALT: Your Honour that application was not in my possession. It was obviously an earlier application. This morning my learned friend told - showed me the documents. I did not actually draft the documents as such.

JUDGE WILSON: There’s no doubt they were drafted on behalf of the applicant.

MS VAN DER WALT: I believe so.

JUDGE WILSON: And on page [indistinct]

INTERPRETER: The microphone is not on.

JUDGE WILSON: On page 32 it says

"The applicant then took the oath forms and they walked out of the flat, after which he told Adriaan about the incident. Between the three of them they decided that a vengeance attack should be launched. The applicant told both men that it should take place under the auspices of the Orde Boerevolk and not the AWB."

You say you don’t know anything about this?

MR BOTHA: Let me put it this way, Chairperson, the content is correct but I didn’t actually draft it in those terms.

JUDGE WILSON: It also says that you also took his false number plates.

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Where did you obtain these number plates, and when?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, false number plates are easily obtainable at a scrap-metal yard from old cars. I took them on the evening of the attack to use them to conceal the identity of the car.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Botha, to follow up on the question that was put to you by my brother. From the Judgment by the Appellate Division, one finds the following on page 29 of the bundle of documents - the second page 29.

"The first appellant testified that the attack on the bus was an action of the Orde Boerevolk with which the AWB had nothing to do".

Is that in fact how you in fact testified during your trial before - before the trial court?

MR BOTHA: I remember that in my trial before Judge Galgut, I made it clear that, although I was a member of the AWB, the AWB had not been involved in the attack in any way, and that it was an Orde Boerevolk action. Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why do you say it was from the OB, Orde Boerevolk? You yourself took the decision, isn’t it?

MR BOTHA: As a cell leader of the Orde Boerevolk I took the decision, yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you think it would be in line with the policy and instructions of the Boerevolk?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I did think that, since at the time of my swearing in as a member of the Orde Boerevolk it was said to me that if a White person should lose his life as a result of Black organised political violence, ten lives must be taken. Ten Black lives should be taken for each White life lost in this kind of attack. That was our policy. Those were instructions given to me and I carried out these instructions.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was that aimed at achieving any political purpose, the killing of ten Blacks for every White killed?

MR BOTHA: The objective behind that instruction was to demonstrate to the then government and to the PAC to persuade them that they should change their views and to show that if they continued with their objectives, that would lead to great confrontation.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I have difficulties in understanding you because what you are really saying according to your evidence is that - if the following day, after the attack of the bus, if one White person was killed, you would go on and kill another ten and so on and so on and so forth.

MR BOTHA: Yes, that was the instruction that we received.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Until apparently we’d all be finished.

MR BOTHA: Or until I was killed.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How do you manage to achieve any political objective by so doing?

MR BOTHA: You must understand that the Orde Boerevolk did not exist only - I was not the only cell, my cell was not the only one. I did not know what the extent and size of the Orde Boerevolk was. It wasn’t for me to question any of the instructions which I received but only to carry it out. For instance a similar attack could have been launched in Cape Town or wherever and a cell in Port Elizabeth for instance, would have acted in the same way as I did here in Natal.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I accept that it was not for you to question the policy or instructions of the OB, but why do you seek to justify the instructions of one White per ten Black in terms of political achievement?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, if you look back at what happened in history, like for instance when America dropped the two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, hundreds of thousands of people were killed after the dropping of one bomb. That was not done to commit mass murder, but to compel the Japanese government to stop the war, to prevent further loss of human life, to bring an end to the aggression on the part of the Japanese people.

And those were my objectives - to stop the aggression of the PAC, to change their views. As far as I was concerned at the time, the only way in which that could be done was not by means of half-hearted conduct but to act in a very forceful manner to bring that message across.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You see the same judge on page 34 says the following

"As already indicated, the motive was revenge and nothing else. In fact, the first appellant admitted this in his testimony."

By eerste applikant he is actually referring to yourself, am I right?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you in fact say so because that is what the learned Judge says here. He says you yourself actually said so, that the motive was weerwraak (revenge). Did you in fact say so during the trial?

MR BOTHA: Yes, but let me put this into context. I also there drew a comparison that in the war in Israel - for instance if a Palestinian crossed the border into Israel and killed an Israeli citizen, he would then be acting against the Israeli Defence force, and the Defence force would then act in a cross-border operation and they would eradicate a whole town in one attack - a whole Palestinian village.

I don’t know any other word to describe this as an act of vengeance, of revenge, to show the Palestinians that, that type of conduct would not be tolerated and that we would hit you very hard if you did it. So in that way, if you use the word revenge, I think that is the idea I am trying to convey. It wasn’t a personal thing, nobody did me any personal injustice. But an injustice had been done against my people and that is why I retaliated. Maybe the word vengeance or revenge is a bad choice of words. What I tried to convey was a certain feeling which I had.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You are not saying that the Judge misunderstood you, are you?

MR BOTHA: I think maybe the Judge incorrectly understood the word in the context in which I used it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well maybe that should have been pointed out to him.

The firearms, or rather the FN of which you were convicted, where did you get it from?

MR BOTHA: It was a Defence force issue rifle.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Had it been regularly or properly issued to you?

MR BOTHA: No, it hadn’t issued to me and that is why I was charged with illegal possession of this firearm.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How did you manage to get hold of it?

MR BOTHA: It had been in the possession of a fellow AWB member.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, come again?

MR BOTHA: It had been in the possession - it had been issued - it had been issued to a person who had been a member of the AWB and I was friendly with this person.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And then he gave it to you?

MR BOTHA: And he gave it to me to use.

JUDGE NGOEPE: With ammunition?

MR BOTHA: With?

JUDGE NGOEPE: With the ammunition?

MR BOTHA: With the ammunition, yes, that is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you tell him what you wanted it for?

MR BOTHA: Let me put it this way. The objectives of the AWB and the Orde Boerevolk at that stage, was to prepare for the struggle that had already commenced, according to us, and we wanted to arm ourselves. It did not matter where we obtained the weapons from, we simply had to find weapons - to collect arms because you can’t fight a war without arms and ammunition.

And we, and by that I mean members of the AWB and the Orde Boerevolk, our aim was to collect weapons so that we could wage a war. We couldn’t wage a war by words alone, we needed weapons. And we must bear in mind that we had declared war against the then National Party government. They were in control of the Defence force, the Police, and all the arms and ammunition. We didn’t have funds at our disposal and we simply had to obtain weapons in whatever way we could.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Botha, when you drove into Durban for the purpose of launching an attack, your intention was throughout that the people to be killed should be Black, am I right?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Irrespective of whether they supported the PAC or the members of the PAC.

MR BOTHA: That is correct because the attack which had been launched that morning by the PAC, had been launched on exactly the same basis. They did not first ask the White people they attacked whether they were members or supporters of the National Party, the Democratic Party, the ANC or whatever. They were simply attacked because they were White.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And you thought the attack that you had always been fearful of by Blacks on Whites had now ... [intervention]

MR BOTHA: Commenced?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Had now commenced?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: With a few knives in the streets of Durban?

MR BOTHA: That attack was the beginning and if you look back from that attack to today, how many other attacks there have been by the PAC on Whites, it has increased. That which we expected materialised, it was real, it was not just our imagination.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You referred to a training of some kind which members of - which you received, I think, as members of the AWB.

MR BOTHA: No, the training to which I referred was training which I received when I was doing my military training.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, I thought you recruited a few people and then the training started?

MR BOTHA: That is correct, that is so but where I referred to training which I’d received, it was training which I’d received in the Air force and the Navy. That is training I received. That other training to which you are now referring, is training not undertaken by the government or government forces, but by the AWB.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is that military training?

MR BOTHA: Yes, yes that is military training.

JUDGE NGOEPE: For what purpose?

MR BOTHA: To prepare us for the struggle ahead.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha I would like to ask you some questions about the decision that was taken that for every one White man that would be killed, there must be ten Blacks who should be killed. When was that decision taken?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, when the Orde Boerevolk declared war against the government by means of the video, it was also the aim of the Orde Boerevolk by means of this declaration to make the government realise that the policy that they were pursuing was fraught with danger and as I have said, in right-wing circles attacks of this kind ... [intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand the reasons, I want to know, when was that decision taken that, that should be the policy and where was that decision taken?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I don’t know. I wasn’t a party to decisions taken by the management of the Orde Boerevolk, I can’t give you the date and where the decision had been taken. I can only tell when the decision was conveyed to me and that was at the time when I swore the oath. That was when the decision was conveyed to me but when and where it was taken, I can’t tell you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there a document which records that, that was an official decision being taken? Is there some such paper?

MR BOTHA: No, Mr Chairman. When you are in a situation and you are underground, you don’t keep minutes of meetings because should the security police confiscate these documents, it would be very dangerous. So for safety reasons, no minutes were kept of meetings and decisions.

CHAIRPERSON: And to your knowledge there is no document which records this as a decision?

MR BOTHA: As far as I know yes, that is the case. Nothing other than the video recording which was released by the Orde Boerevolk.

CHAIRPERSON: And so how was this decision communicated to you personally?

MR BOTHA: This happened at the time when I was recruited, when the objectives of the Orde Boerevolk were explained to me and when I was sworn in as a member. That was when the instruction was conveyed.

CHAIRPERSON: All that happened one day, the same day, the day you took the oath?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: You realise that if you want to be given amnesty, it is a requirement of the Act you must make a full disclosure of what your participation was and what you have done and where you received your instructions from?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I am fully aware of that.

ADV DE JAGER: Now in the light of that could you tell the Committee where were you sworn in, who undertook the swearing-in ceremony, and who conveyed these instructions to you?

MR BOTHA: I was recruited as a member of the Orde Boerevolk by an AWB training camp at Theunissen in the Orange Free State. I was notified that a meeting would take place of the Financial Committee of the AWB and that I should attend this meeting.

I went to the training camp premises and there, as I said, I was recruited by the Orde Boerevolk. When I arrived at the camp, I don’t think I knew even five people present there, and I think there must have been about between - this past weekend there was a training camp and of the four hundred, five hundred people present I only knew about five people.

I drove there all the way from Richards Bay so it was round about lunch time when the Financial Committee - the Financial Committee meeting hadn’t yet taken place then, and I started becoming impatient because I had to return to Richards Bay on the same day.

An unknown person came to me and asked me whether I was Kommandant Piet Botha from Richards Bay, and I answered in the affirmative. He then took me into a building and said I had to walk down the passage and enter the second door on the right as there were people there who wanted to see me. I walked down the passage. I thought that maybe this was the start of the meeting. When I got to the door, the door was closed. I knocked, but it was locked.

The question was asked "Who are you?" and I told them. They asked me to wait for a moment. The door was opened and I entered. Two people were sitting inside the room dressed in khaki clothes, not in the uniform of the AWB, they simply wore khaki clothes without any insignia. Both of these persons wore Balaclavas, and when I entered the room they locked the door behind me, and then they told me that they were members of the Orde Boerevolk and that they had been watching me for quite a considerable time, and that they wanted to appoint me as a member of the Orde Boerevolk. They wanted me to establish a cell of the Orde Boerevolk in Richards Bay.

As I said earlier in my evidence, they then explained all the objectives of the Orde Boerevolk to me. They showed me this oath form and asked me whether I agreed with each point in the statement and whether I was prepared to take the oath. I read it through and said "yes" I told them that I identified with the objectives and I then took the oath. But who these persons were, I don’t know.

Whether I had seen them before I could not tell you because I could not identify them as a result of the fact that they were wearing Balaclavas. We also discussed ways of communicating with each other. For instance, code names, telephone numbers etc. I could contact them and they would be able to contact me.

They also said that they were not interested in who I would recruit as members of my cell. They operated, as the English say "on a need to know basis". You only know what you really need to know. That which you don’t need to know about you don’t ask questions about. And I was sworn in, in that way.

ADV DE JAGER: At that stage, were there no channels of communication you could use to negotiate matters? What was the attitude of the CP, the AWB and the Orde Boerevolk about negotiation?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I can’t say whether the CP or the AWB or whatever, what their attitudes were but within conservative right-wing circles there had been requests or demands, call it what you like directed at the government to demarcate a territory for the Boer nation where we could govern ourselves. This is a demand which is internationally recognised for any nation, but the then National Party Government refused our demands.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Botha, what I am trying to get at, is, was the AWB prepared to negotiate at Kempton Park?

MR BOTHA: No, they weren’t.

ADV DE JAGER: Was the Orde Boerevolk prepared to do that?

MR BOTHA: No, they weren’t.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Botha, would you please just explain to us how Mr Marais came to be recruited into your cell?

MR BOTHA: Mr Marais was - I was well aquatinted with Mr Marais, he was a member of the AWB. He had his own business in Richards Bay. He had recently moved from the Transvaal to Richards Bay - I’m talking about the time that I got to know him. Because he was running his own business, he didn’t want it to be generally known that he was a member of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement.

At that stage it suited me to keep it like that and when I founded the cell of the Orde Boerevolk I discussed it with him. Just as I had been recruited, I recruited him and submitted the oath form to him and asked him if he would be able to associate himself with the provisions in the oath and whether he was prepared to take that oath. He answered in the affirmative, and that is how I recruited him as a member of the Orde Boerevolk.

MS KHAMPEPE: Was he not introduced to you by a person who was also a member of the AWB?

MR BOTHA: That is quite correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: And what was the name of that person?

MR BOTHA: It was a Mr van Wyk.

MS KHAMPEPE: And was Mr van Wyk also a member of your cell?

MR BOTHA: No, he wasn’t.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you not think of recruiting him as well?

MR BOTHA: I did, but when I showed him the oath form, he felt that at that stage he wasn’t ready to take the oath. And so that is why he wasn’t recruited as a member.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now you obviously took your job seriously as a cell leader, that you had to establish a cell?

MR BOTHA: Most definitely.

MS KHAMPEPE: Particularly in view of the fact that you had declared war against the Nationalist Party?

MR BOTHA: Absolutely correct, that is quite right.

MS KHAMPEPE: What recruitment measures did you employ to get more members into your cell?

MR BOTHA: People who were well known to me as members of the AWB, those were the people I approached, people who I felt were just as committed to the struggle as I was.

MS KHAMPEPE: And how many members did you ultimately succeed to recruit?

MR BOTHA: I recruited four members for the Orde Boerevolk.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now why did you choose only Mr Smuts and Mr Marais for the attack in Durban and not the other members?

MR BOTHA: I thought at that stage that those two individuals were the most suitable out of the four members that I had recruited.

MS KHAMPEPE: Why were they more suitable, was it because Mr Marais possessed an AK47?

MR BOTHA: That was one of the main motivating reasons, yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: And how did you know that he owned an AK47?

MR BOTHA: When one is amongst one’s own people and belongs to the same organisations, one obviously does discuss the war that perhaps was being waged at a low intensity at that stage - a struggle that was still to come - one would, of course talk about arms, accumulation of weapons, training and so on. And so, in a discussion, it came out - he admitted that he was in possession of an AK47 rifle, and that’s how I knew that he had it. Again here, I made it clear to him that the fact that I knew he had an AK47 was enough for me. I never asked him - I never wanted to find out where he had got it, because again, what I did not know, I could not tell other people about.

MS KHAMPEPE: What kind of training did your cell members receive?

MR BOTHA: As members of the Orde Boerevolk there wasn’t any specific training which the Orde as such offered. Each of us received military training, for instance, when we did our national service - government training - and then at the training camps of the AWB we received further training.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now Mr Botha, you obviously feared that there was going to be an attack from an organisation like the PAC because it had received extensive military training and that was a well known fact.

MR BOTHA: That’s quite correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: And training pertaining to automatic weaponry?

MR BOTHA: Certainly - of course. We all know that members of the PAC, ANC, Swapo at the time, all of them had received military training. Some in Russia, some in other African States and we knew that they were in possession of very advanced modern equipment.

MS KHAMPEPE: On this occasion, that is, the knife killing of the Whites at the beach front, was it not strange to you that the youth involved had used only knives and not a single firearm had been used?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, an attack is an attack, whether you use a club, a knife or an AK47. The weapon that one uses isn’t what matters, it’s the intention you have when you launch the attack and your objective, and it was clear that their intention was to kill people. Now whether one did so with a bayonet, a knife or an AK47, the aim was the same. To me it does not matter what weapon a man uses. If a man attacks me I have to defend myself and it doesn’t matter what the weapon is that he uses.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, you heard in the news that the people who launched that attack had, according to your statement, red PAC T-shirts?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you know the colour used by the PAC for their T-shirts?

MR BOTHA: No, I didn’t know.

MS KHAMPEPE: And you didn’t know that they actually wore green, Black and yellow?

MR BOTHA: I don’t know. As far as I know I didn’t know what colours they used. Every organisation has its colours.

MS KHAMPEPE: You did not think it reasonably important for you to consult with the other cell leaders in order to confirm that indeed, or to verify that indeed the attack was an attack by a political organisation?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I didn’t know any other the other cell leaders or if I knew them I certainly was not aware that they were cell leaders and that was a result of our structure. I could, though - what is the word that I’m looking for - the staff, the chiefs of staff in the Orde Boerevolk, I could consult with them, but in the time constraints I could not do that.

Perhaps I could mention that the following day, that is the 10th of October, I did report back to the chiefs of staff of the Orde Boerevolk and I informed them that I had launched that attack and they expressed their approval.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now in your evidence given today, you stated that you could have consulted with other cell leaders, but you did not have time, you had to carry out the counter-attack immediately.

MR BOTHA: I don’t think that’s quite correct that I said that because I couldn’t talk to other cell leaders because I didn’t know who the other cell leaders were. As far as I knew, the only members of the Orde Boerevolk that I knew - Piet Rudolf was already under arrest, the two people that I had recruited and I, myself. Those were the only ones that I knew of.

MS KHAMPEPE: Well I could be mistaken, but you have stated that you could have consulted, but you didn’t have time.

CHAIRPERSON: Chiefs of staff.

MS KHAMPEPE: Chief of staff.

MR BOTHA: That is correct. We had to hit back on the same day. You must understand that it was a weekday, it wasn’t a public holiday, people were at work. And the method I had of communicating with the chiefs of staff of the Orde Boerevolk was to ring at certain times using certain public telephones and code names. It wasn’t a matter of picking up a phone and dialing. The people that I wanted to talk to - I had no idea who these people were, what their identities were, we just had code names.

MS KHAMPEPE: Why was the attack particularly in Durban, why could you not have sent your message by attacking nearby in Richards Bay?

MR BOTHA: I have already said in my evidence, if I had attacked people in Richards Bay, then that attack would not have been linked to the attack which had taken place that morning in Durban. The PAC attacked in Durban. The counter-attack also had to happen in Durban so that one would be linked to the other.

MS KHAMPEPE: And your attention was to attack Black people?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: What were the names of the members of your cell?

MR BOTHA: They were Mr Adriaan Smuts, Mr Eugene Marais, Mr David Tennant ... [intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: David?

MR BOTHA: Dawid Tennant.

JUDGE WILSON: Tennant?

MR BOTHA: Yes, Tennant. And, I’m trying to think - there was a Mr Kleynhans. I think it was Mr Kleynhans, but I can’t remember anymore. It was either Kleynhans or Kleinsmit, I can’t remember any longer.

JUDGE WILSON: Let’s look at Exhibit A, do you have it? Who were the witnesses there?

MR BOTHA: The other one was Mr Smuts.

JUDGE WILSON: Is that Smuts’ signature?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that’s what it looks like, yes, that is his signature.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. And the name of the man who had the FN?

MR BOTHA: That was Mr Smith. S-M-I-T-H.

JUDGE WILSON: Smith. Did he have many rifles?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, not as far as I know. This was his official weapon which had been issued to him by the defence force. He did tell me that it was possible that he could get more. I said I would like to have those weapons, but as far as I know that was his official military-issue rifle and it was the only one in his possession.

JUDGE WILSON: And as a member of the AWB - you said that the members of the AWB and OB had to collect weapons.

MR BOTHA: That’s quite right.

JUDGE WILSON: But Smith gave his away?

MR BOTHA: That is so. I don’t know what was in his mind, whether he felt that he could report it as stolen, but he gave it to me, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Botha, just relating to a question which you were asked a moment ago about revenge and your intentions. On page 32 of the court record, under addendum C, it was put to you,

"But Mr Botha even in war I don’t think people are simply going to say, let’s go into a town and shoot all of the children just to kill. It must have purpose.

MR BOTHA: Your Honour, I don’t agree. In Israel under the Palestinians revenge is taken if there is an attack. The Israelis will launch a counter-attack and they will level a whole town, and they don’t look to see whether there are men, women or children involved."

Now if you refer to revenge, in what sense were you referring to revenge?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, when one uses a word, one tries to convey to the other person what was going on in your mind at that particular time. I would say that what I was trying to illustrate at the time was that when an attack came against oneself or against one’s people and one hit back, this was an action that is initiated to try to bring the person who had launched the original attack to new understanding so that he knew not to launch such an attack in future.

He would have to be convinced that if he should launch such an attack, there would be a very severe counter-attack. I can’t think of the Afrikaans word, retaliation is the word - it’s hitting back.

ADV DE JAGER: For the sake of clarity, this Mr Piet Rudolf that you have been referring to, was he involved in the arms theft from the Air force, the defence force?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is so.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you just say what arms were stolen? Did he escape? Was he caught? What happened?

MR BOTHA: At the time of this attack, he’d already been arrested, detained in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act. The arms that he stole, as far I know, I can’t remember the numbers but there were R4 rifles, shotguns, 9mm pistols, an SMG and ammunition.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Mr Botha when you were recruited to be a cell leader, were you provided with any weaponry by the OB?

MR BOTHA: No, no Mr Chairman, they did not provide me with any weapons, any arms.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, I’m given to understand ...[intervention]

INTERPRETER: The microphone isn’t on.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m given to understand that a representative of one or other of the victims or relatives of victims is present and would like, on behalf of his client, to ask questions and to lead evidence. Are you aware of that?

MR BRINK: Yes I am, I am Mr Chairman. It’s a Mr Purshotam from the Legal Resources Center here in Durban. He is present. I wonder if possibly Mr Wilkson wouldn’t mind just moving down ... [intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Purshotam ?

MR BRINK: Just moving down just a ... [intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Will you step forward, please? Would you place on record who you represent, the name of the person that you represent.

MR PURSHOTAM: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I represent the victims and their families who were the target of the attack which has been the subject of the proceedings this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Which of the victims? Because I understand that there are some who are present here who have an attitude which might be different from others in connection with this application.

MR PURSHOTAM: Mr Chairman, the Legal Resources Center discovered almost by accident that these proceedings were going to be heard today. Most of the victims and their families live in the outlying rural areas of this province, and it has been less than a week in which attempts have been made to make contact with them, but from the mandate which we did receive to commence civil proceedings it would be clear in my view that they would oppose any application for amnesty by the applicants.

And therefore I am here today to represent their interests. There are a few victims and their families present this morning and I would submit and ask that these proceedings not be concluded until all the victims, at least the living victims, and their families are heard on the applications which are before your Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you in a position to tell us who the victims are that you represent here today?

MR PURSHOTAM: Do you want me to tell you the names of the people who are here today?

CHAIRPERSON: Those whom you represent here today.

MR PURSHOTAM: Well, I can give you a list of all the people who we are representing in the civil proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: No I’m talking about here in these proceedings.

MR PURSHOTAM: [Indistinct] there’s two individuals [Indistinct] - there’s two individuals who I have already come across who are here this morning and their names are Sipho Jeremiah Mabaso and David Pele and I would respectfully ask that the Legal Resources Center be given an opportunity to make contact with the other victims and their families, in order for them to come before this Committee and tell the Committee about their attitude as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not possible to get a representative view instead of getting all of them coming to express the same view?

MR PURSHOTAM: Mr Chairman I’m sure it is possible to get a representative view except that one has to put all the victims and their families together in one room before one can reach consensus on that aspect. And that’s the opportunity which we are asking for this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you then in a position to proceed with putting questions this morning to witnesses who might be giving evidence.

MR PURSHOTAM: Yes I can, I can lead the witnesses who are present this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: And are you in a position to question witnesses who are in fact - or applicants who are giving evidence?

MR PURSHOTAM: Well, I have been making notes this morning and I would like to put questions to Mr Botha.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible] what you’re really saying. I think you should put the Committee on a proper footing with regard to these proceedings. I think the Chairman asked you whether you are now representing people who are in opposition to the applicant’s application for amnesty.

It should be understood that the basis on which you could - you could possibly - the only basis on which you could ask questions of this witness, would be on the basis that you represent people who oppose the applicant’s application for amnesty. I cannot conceive of any other basis on which you - you could be putting questions to the witness. Are you in fact saying to us that you are representing these two people, and that these two people oppose the applicant’s application for amnesty, is that what you are saying?

MR PURSHOTAM: Well the victims who I have spoken to this morning do oppose the applications for amnesty, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In that case, on behalf of your clients you may ask questions of the applicant.

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Boha, you outlined in your evidence the problems which the Afrikaner people and the suffering which they underwent in the early parts of the century, and you mentioned that you had to go to an English language school and obviously you were not very keen on engaging in that language in your education.

And you felt that you had to engage in a struggle. And as you grew up you saw that the National Party, the PAC and the ANC were going against the wishes of the Afrikaner people of whom you were a member. And that is how you decided that you had to ... [intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We have had all this on oath. I think if it is possible for you to formulate your question, it will save a great deal of time.

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I put it to you, Mr Botha that the only reason why you did not attack the minibus taxi was that there were too few people in that taxi and that you wanted a target such as a big bus in which there were a lot of people involved and that is why you shot up the Putco bus.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, that is not correct. If one approaches it logically, the minibus taxi was full. I can’t say there might have been fifteen or twenty, I didn’t count, but let’s assume that a minibus taxi fully laden, is fully laden, let’s say there were fifteen people in sight in a relatively small vehicle compared with a Putco bus.

If we’d fired at that with two automatic assault rifles, then I am quite sure all fifteen people would have died. If one shoots at a larger vehicle with the same number of weapons, although there were more people in the bus, there would also be more room to miss. I believe that if we’d attacked that minibus taxi, the death figures would have been much higher than seven.

MR PURSHOTAM: Well it’s strange that you talk about logic. There wasn’t - there wasn’t anything logical about killing people in a bus. And you mentioned yourself that if it’s a larger target there’s greater ability - or there’s a greater chance of your killing people if there’s a bigger target, isn’t that logical since you are a follower of logical thinking?

MR BOTHA: Could you please explain to me again what the question is that you’re putting to me?

MR PURSHOTAM: Well I mentioned that since you were going for a bigger target, and since the Putco bus was fully lit at that time, you saw that it was fully occupied and there were more chances of you killing Black people in the Putco bus rather than killing people in the minibus taxi.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, when I followed the taxi, the bus was not in view. It was after, after we had abandoned the attack that we had planned against the taxi, after we’d already decided to go home, that we happened upon the bus while we were drinking a cold drink. It’s not as if we made a choice of alternatives between the taxi and the bus, I used the target that was available to me.

MR PURSHOTAM: You mentioned that you underwent military training. Wasn’t it part of your curriculum during that training to teach you about the principles of the Geneva Convention?

MR BOTHA: I had never received instruction about those Conventions and I also believe that that particular Convention, as far as I know, only deals with prisoners of war and the waging of war in general. There are three types of war - a conventional war, a guerrilla war and counter- insurgency war.

We were involved in the guerrilla war. Something that was unprecedented as far as those - the people who put together that Convention were concerned, so I don’t think it was applicable.

MR PURSHOTAM: Well if, if it is true that you were engaged in a Guerrilla war, I put it to you that guerrillas select their targets and select their enemy. Who was your enemy in this case?

MR BOTHA: Our enemies at that stage were the National Party Government and any other organisation which opposed the right of the Boerevolk to their own self-determination.

MR PURSHOTAM: But the bus wasn’t a PAC bus, the people were not wearing PAC badges. The bus wasn’t owned by the government. How - how did you select that target if the enemy who you’ve identified had nothing to do with the people you were about to kill?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman I indicated in my evidence that waging war is not like a game of chess. And I referred to the Second World War in which the Germans bombed London and the Britons bombed Berlin and the Americans bombed the Japanese. And these were soft, civilian targets, people who perhaps had nothing to do with the war, but in hundreds and thousands they were blotted out.

The object of any military action regarding the people who orchestrate or organise an attack, in a counter-attack they have got to be shown that if they sustain this dangerous policy that there is going to be - people are going to hit back. That was our aim. I had nothing against the people in the bus, nothing personal. It was a military strategy.

JUDGE WILSON: Well why didn’t you attack your enemy, the Nationalist Government?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I just have to add, that at the time of the attack I don’t think my cell - let me put it to you this way - I only began to recruit my members three weeks before the attack. It was probably hardly a month before the attack that I had been sworn in. We were still at the stage at which we were getting a cell together.

There was not yet any official communication between the chiefs of staff of the Orde Boerevolk and me at that stage, that apart from the instructions that I received when I was sworn in. Neither do I know what actions the Orde Boerevolk were planning in the future against the government. I was just waiting. I established my cell, I was preparing myself for the eminent war and I was waiting for orders.

JUDGE WILSON: But you got no orders. You have just told us that you regarded your enemy as the Nationalist Government and other organisations which opposed the aims of the Orde Boerevolk, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: Not the Orde Boerevolk, not the Orde Boerevolk, the Boer people - Boerevolk as a whole.

JUDGE WILSON: Boerevolk, sorry. That is what you’ve just told us.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Now when I asked you why you didn’t lodge an attack against your enemies, the Nationalist Party and the other organisations, you start telling me a story about not having been given instructions. But you did launch an attack on some innocent people, can you explain why?

MR BOTHA: Because when I was sworn in, I did in fact receive instructions in that where a structure perpetrating organised political violence, in such a case ten Blacks had to be killed for every White who died.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Botha, I get a little bit confused about this piece of your evidence, particularly when you refer to - when you give two examples of Americans and the police and the like. I thought the Americans attacked the Japanese because they regarded the Japanese as their enemy. And the Germans attacked or bombed Britain because they regarded the British as their enemy. Now, who in the bus did you regard as your enemy?

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, to make this point clear about these parallels, is that when the Germans bombed London, it wasn’t only against Government institutions, but against innocent civilians many of them were children. And the reverse also happened when the British did the same to the Germans and the Americans to the Japanese. It wasn’t necessarily always against military targets or strategic key points. In the same way the attacks by the ANC in the past were not directed only at military staff or security forces. Here I could refer to the Church Street bomb, the Mongoose Bar bomb.... [intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: We’ll still come to that but let us deal with the Durban incident. We must still deal with those incidents, if and should they be here before us. Now I, I would have understood you better if you would have said to us you regarded the Black people as your enemy and you went to the bus, you realised that it had Black people and you, opened fire.

It would make sense, not necessarily that I agree with you, but it would make sense. But what you are trying to say to us etcetera is that you regarded the PAC as your enemy, and the Government, et cetera, et cetera as your enemies and the ANC. But then you attacked a bus which of - you don’t know whether PAC was in there, whoever PAC is. Is it not true that really you simply regarded your enemy as Black people and that is why you looked for a bus with Black people and shoot them.

MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I did say in my evidence that I did not hate the Black nation or any nation. Since I gained any consciousness, we, I grew up in this country and we grew up next to one another, why should I suddenly develop hate to the degree that I wanted to attack a bus full of innocent people?

The point I am trying to highlight is that the attack wasn’t personal. It wasn’t because I felt hatred towards any persons. It was a military strategy to make a point vis-à-vis the National Party Government and the ANC. Remember that at the time of the incident, I also said that I was of the opinion that already there was a civil war in the country, perhaps at a very low intensity ... [intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Botha, did you regard the people in the bus as your enemy or did you not?

MR BOTHA: No I didn’t. This was to make a military point. I did not attack them purely because they were Black because I hated Blacks. I did attack them because they were Blacks but because the PAC had attacked Whites that morning purely because they were White.

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Botha your parallels between what happened in the Second World War and what you were engaged in, are to put it mildly, very far-fetched, because you, by your own admission mentioned that you were involved in a guerrilla war, whereas I put it to you that what happened in the Second World War was conventional warfare. So how can you draw the parallel between what happened then and what you were engaged in a few years ago?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that - I don’t think there’s any need for us to go into the differences between a guerrilla war and the conventional war that we all know about. I think I’d rather you directed your questions in the interests of your client to the points or the grounds on which you which to oppose amnesty.

MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you Mr Chairman. You mentioned in your evidence in chief that your enemies were the government, the National Party, the ANC, and PAC and that you did not have enough time on that particular day to select a particular target, but if, if it is true that your enemies were the National Party and the government, surely you should have gone to any Government building and blown it up. Why did you select this group of people who were going home after work as your target?

MR BOTHA: I selected the group all for the same reason that the PAC had selected the Whites on the beach. As I said in my evidence, I did not write the rules, the PAC wrote those rules.

Everybody is asking me why did I do that, no, ask the PAC why they acted as they did. There is an idiom in English, you fight fire with fire, and that’s exactly what I did.

MR PURSHOTAM: Why should there be any obligation on you to follow the rules of the PAC?MR BOTHA: There is no obligation on me to follow any rules. One wages war as the situation presents itself.MR PURSHOTAM: Why do you bring the rules of the PAC here?MR BOTHA: For the same reason that you’re asking me about my reasons. You can’t understand my reasons, and ... [intervention]MR PURSHOTAM: I put it to you that in 1990, negotiations between the relevant political parties and the Government had already commenced, but you mentioned that negotiation wasn’t an option in 1990.MR BOTHA: About what should the Boerevolk go and negotiate about, t their own demise? One isn’t going to negotiate the demise of oneself and one’s people. ADV DE JAGER: Could you explain to us, did the CP take part in any negotiations in 1990? Did the AWB take, took any part in negotiations or any right-wing party?MR PURSHOTAM: It is my knowledge that the right-wing parties and the AWB and the CP refused to take part in negotiations.CHAIRPERSON: That might be the answer to the question you’re posing to this witness.MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you Mr Chairman. I won’t be long, I just have a few more questions. Isn’t it true that you were indiscriminate in the selection of your target because you felt that the attack which had occurred that morning on the Durban beach front had also been indiscriminate?MR BOTHA: The word "discrimination" should not be used in this conversation. There wasn’t any discrimination, it was military strategy to bring a message home.CHAIRPERSON: I think the word "discriminate" is being misunderstood. The word "indiscriminate" is what was intended, wasn’t it?MR PURSHOTAM: That’s correct, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps the question is that, just as the attack by the PAC was indiscriminate, was your attack not also indiscriminate?MR BOTHA: I don’t agree with the statement of that gentleman. My attack had a specific purpose ... [intervention]CHAIRPERSON: I think it is not the purpose, it is the target.MR BOTHA: So therefore, I looked for a particular target, for example I could have planted a bomb, but that would have been indiscriminate. Because a bomb does not mind what it hits. I shot at the target that I wanted to hit. MR PURSHOTAM: You’ve mentioned frequently this morning the struggle of the Afrikaner people and your resolve to vindicate the problems which the Afrikaner people were experiencing. How were - how did you think that you would further the struggle of the Afrikaner people by shooting up this bus?MR BOTHA: To make the Government and the PAC realise that they couldn’t simply act against the Boer without expecting the Boer to take up arms and fight back. There was no other goal.MR PURSHOTAM

One more question, Mr Chairman. Would you have achieved your purpose if there was a bus of English speaking Whites traveling past there on that day?MR BOTHA: No, it wouldn’t have served the same purpose because it wasn’t English speaking Whites who attacked Whites on the beach front. The thing always has to be brought into a linkage with the cause. It wasn’t White English speakers who attacked people on the beach front, it was Black PAC members.MR PURSHOTAM: So what you are telling the Committee is that innocent workers who were going home after their late shift had to pay for the actions of the PAC, or allegedly the PAC that morning, is that what you are saying?MR BOTHA: No that’s not at all what I am saying. This person wants to make out that I acted from bitterness and vengeance. It wasn’t bitterness. I wanted to hit back, to point out to the government and to the PAC, the ANC, whoever, to show them that these attacks would not be tolerated and that we would hit back.MR PURSHOTAM: Last question, Mr Chairman.CHAIRPERSON: The previous one was your second-last one?MR PURSHOTAM: Thank you, Mr Chairman for your indulgence. Could I put it to you that for you to sit there in support of your application and tell the Committee it wasn’t your intention to claim revenge. At the trial we heard that according to you and your co-accused Black people were diere van die veld and that Black people had no souls. And that it wasn’t murder to shoot them. MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I don’t know where he gets his information, but everything he said there is completely untrue. Those words never crossed my lips - or those of Mr Smuts.MR PURSHOTAM: I would refer the Committee to page 157 of the record at the criminal trial. That is all, Mr Chairman, please may I be excused?NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PURSHOTAM

MR PURSHOTAM IS EXCUSED

JUDGE NGOEPE: According to the records the, Mr Marais told the court that when you approached him, in preparing this attack, he asked why should we carry out this attack, and you said to him, it was to take revenge for the knife attack. What I want to find out is, to confirm, is it the case that you said that to Mr Marais. Did he tell the truth when he testified to that effect?MR BOTHA: Quite possibly that’s true, but as I tried to explain, the word revenge was perhaps just an unfortunate choice of words to express a certain feeling. Revenge wasn’t revenge in the sense, as I said, that I felt hard-done-by and that I therefore wanted to take revenge. That wasn’t intended.CHAIRPERSON: Would it be convenient if we take a short adjournment, or rather the mid-day adjournment?COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

DAWID PETRUS BOTHA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may re-examine your witness.MS VAN DER WALT: I have no further questions.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman may I put a question to the witness? It concerns a document which is not before the Commission yet. I must apologise. We have tried to make copies and currently we only have two copies. May I hand one in to the Commission, and I will try and make further copies before the adjournment. That will be Exhibit B.CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, do you have any questions for the witness?

MR BRINK: No thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha, thank you very much.MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman may I ask two - may I ask the witness two questions in the light of this document which was just handed in?CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Has he had a chance of looking at the document?MR PRINSLOO: I will lead him on that, Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Botha, Exhibit B in front of you at the moment. You have already had a look at this document?MR BOTHA: That is correct, Mr Chairman.MR PRINSLOO: Now that document comes from the Legal Resources Centre, is that correct?MR BOTHA: Yes.MR PRINSLOO: And on page two of the document you will see it is signed on behalf of the Legal Resources Centre by a Mr Purshotam, is that correct?MR BOTHA: That is correct.MR PRINSLOO: Will you please read the last paragraph on page two?MR BOTHA: Yes, Mr Chairman, it’s paragraph four, and it’s typed in capital letters and it is also underlined - the entire paragraph, and it reads as follows

"If you sign the documents then we do not undertake not to oppose your application for amnesty."

and it is signed by a Mr Purshotam.

MR PRINSLOO: And these documents which you would have signed, what are these?MR BOTHA: I don’t - I’m not that familiar with the terminology in Afrikaans, but it was a consent to Judgment.MR PRINSLOO: And did you sign it?MR BOTHA: I did not, no, Mr Chairman.MR PRINSLOO: And a further question. If you look at Exhibit A for a moment Mr Botha this is the oath to which we have already referred in your evidence.MR BOTHA: Yes, I have it here, Mr Chairman.MR PRINSLOO: The two witnesses who signed Exhibit A - what is the date on which they signed this?MR BOTHA: It was on the day of this attack, the 9th of October 1990.MR PRINSLOO: What was the reason for the document being signed on the 24th of September by Eugene Marais, but the witnesses only signed on the 9th of October, what was the reason?MR BOTHA: The reason was that I had recruited my members so that I could see who would be available to be recruited as members and I then discussed this form and the policies of the Orde Boerevolk on the 24th of September with Mr Marais. I could not allow him to swear the oath on that day because it has to be done before two witnesses and obviously the witness must all be members of the Orde Boerevolk.

I could not bring in a stranger to sign as a witness because the document had to remain secret. Mr Marais, on the 24th, filled in his name and his particulars and he signed, but he hadn’t yet actually sworn the oath. The oath was sworn on the 9th of October, and it was - I then signed as a witness as well as Mr Smuts. We were both members of the Orde Boerevolk and we could then sign as witnesses.MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

JUDGE WILSON: Who signed as a witness for your first recruit?MR BOTHA: Mr Chairman, I must just say, that although I recruited my four members, the only two members who actually swore the oath were Smuts and Marais and myself. The other two members recruited by myself were prepared to take the oath, but once again because there were no witnesses present, I could not actually administer the oath to them, so up until this day they have never actually signed the oath.JUDGE WILSON: My problem is you said you had to have two witnesses. How did you get that? Who were the two witnesses for the first person you recruited?MR BOTHA: Well, here Mr Smuts and myself signed as witnesses. Those were the only two witnesses.JUDGE WILSON: And who signed for Smuts?MR BOTHA: Mr Marais and myself signed for Mr Smuts.JUDGE WILSON: Although he was not, he had not been recruited at the time that Smuts was. He only signed in October, how could he have witnessed Smuts’?MR BOTHA: No, I don’t think you quite understand what I mean. What I am trying to say - this form - Mr Marais - was filled in on the 24th, but the oath was not actually taken. That only happened on the evening of the 9th of October, that’s when he swore the oath. And on the evening of the 9th, Mr Smuts filled in this form and also took the oath and myself and Mr Marais then signed as witnesses. Mr Smuts did not take the oath on the 24th or filled in the document before the 9th of October although Mr Marais did do that. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Botha.MR BOTHA: Thank you, Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED