Amnesty Hearings

JUDGE WILSON: ... applicant, through no fault of his and I apologise for the fact that some of you may have been sitting here, waiting for some time.

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, we are ready to commence proceedings in the matter of Mr Froneman and Mr Harmse.

Mr Froneman's application number is 0395/96 and Mr Harmse's application number is 3275/96. Mr Chairman these two matters will be heard together as they relate to essentially the same facts and not one, but the main incident is similar in both cases.

The effected parties in this matter, by that I mean both the victims and the persons who suffered damage to their property, have all been notified. I, this morning received a telephone call from Mrs Labushachne who is the widow of the deceased party. She has indicated to me that she would prefer not to attend the hearing as she still feels very emotionally upset about the fact that she has lost her husband as a result of the incidents which are going to be heard today.

And she feels that it would simply rake up the past and serve no purpose for her to attend. She is not formally opposing the granting or otherwise of the application. As far as the other persons concerned, there are Police Officers who worked with the deceased. They have also indicated to me that they do not wish to attend the hearing. They are aware of the fact that it is to be heard, but they

too feel, still feel very emotional about the issue.

They are not happy about the fact that application has been made for amnesty, but they are not opposing the application, formally opposing the application.

The owner of the property, whose property was damaged, Mr Mayet and his son have both been notified of the hearing, the date, time and venue has been conveyed to them. I have received communication this morning at about half past nine or quarter to ten that Mr Mayet, one of the Mayets will be attending, will be in attendance during the course of the hearing. It has been explained to them that we need to proceed.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you got acknowledgement of service on Mr Mayet?

MR BLACK: Yes, on both him and his son.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

MR BLACK: And I've confirmed with the Superintendent at the Bronkhorst Police station that none of the policemen wish to attend the hearing. I also have acknowledgements of receipt on them.

In this matter Mr Froneman is being represented by Adv Louisa van der Walt and Mr Harmse is being represented by Adv H. Prinsloo. And I understand that they have supplemented their written applications for amnesty and copies of the supplemented papers will be handed down to the panel, thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, I confirm that I appear on behalf of Mr Harmse in this matter. Supplementary declarations and documentation have been prepared and submitted to the Committee.

I will therefor request the Committee to hand in these

documents as proof and that which is referred to as Appendix A, as evidence A, B as B, then evidence tagged C will be the Boere Weerstandsbeweging document, D will be the plea that was delivered in the Supreme court of South Africa with relation to Harmse. That is the documentation on which we depend in this matter.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry can I say something there. On the papers put before us, the first Annexure A is at page 10 of FA, Annexure B is at page 11, which was the next one?

ADV PRINSLOO: Exhibit C is the one titled Boere Weerstandsbeweging.

JUDGE WILSON: Page 22 and then another Annexure A from Mr Froneman.

ADV VAN DER WALT: That's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: At page 25.

ADV PRINSLOO: That's correct. Exhibit D, Mr Chairman, what page will that be?

JUDGE WILSON: Which is D?

ADV PRINSLOO: D is a plea tendered by Harmse. Is that before you Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: It is in the bundle ...

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, that is not, that does not form part of the original bundle which was handed to you. As a matter of clarity, the plea does not form part of the bound bundle Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: That's a bundle of papers that had been put before us and that starts Verklaring en Gevolge, Pieter Johannes Harmse, is that Exhibit D? Right.

ADV VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I represent Mr Froneman in this matter and I would like to submit Exhibit E, which you have in your bundle, on page 25 as the further, or the rest

of the statement of his initial amnesty application.

He also depends on Exhibit B, which is Appendix B on your page 11. Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, from where was Mr Harmse brought, which prison?

MR BLACK: From Pretoria Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: And was there any reason advanced why he was so late?

MR BLACK: Not to me, Mr Chairman, no reason was given. Perhaps my learned friend, Mr Prinsloo might be able to shed some light on that.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you perhaps find out from the prison authorities what is the problem and whether anything could be done to it?

MR BLACK: Yes, I'll do so. They are present and I will make enquiries.

JUDGE WILSON: I haven't had a chance of checking the bundle that is now being handed in. Does it contain all the pages that are not in the original bound copy?

ADV PRINSLOO: ; Mr Chairman, it contains all the pages.

JUDGE WILSON: Now where do we find the affidavit from Froneman which appears on page 21 of the bound copy, the first page of it appears on page 21 and it then stops?

ADV VAN DER WALT: I've got a copy for you and it is ...

JUDGE WILSON: Is it in the bundle?

ADV VAN DER WALT: No, it is not in the bundle. Could I ...

MR BLACK: In the bundle, Mr Froneman's affidavit is on page 25, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Of the bundle we were handed today?

MR BLACK: Oh, no, I am talking about the bound bundle.

JUDGE WILSON: Page 25 is Annexure A, or Annexure E.

MR BLACK: Yes and what has been handed up by my learned friend, Mrs van der Walt, is also referred to as Annexure A, Aanhangsel A.

JUDGE WILSON: It is page 21, if you look at page 21 of the bound copy, it contains the first page of his affidavit and not the second page.

MR BLACK: ; Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Which she is now handing up as the second page. Well, she is handing up both pages.

ADV PRINSLOO: If one pages to page 25 of the bound bundle ...

JUDGE WILSON: That is Annexure A, that is not his affidavit.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Black, we do not have pages with Mr Froneman's attestation clause. We only have page 1 of his affidavit, which appears to be an incomplete affidavit.

JUDGE WILSON: That's what I've just been handed, the complete affidavit which will be, should be on page 21 and 21(a) of the bound bundle.

ADV VAN DER WALT: Yes, the Affidavit refers to Appendix A and to Appendix B, and these actually belong together, it was just a brief sworn statement that he had seen both Appendices.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you. Right, Mr Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I call the applicant in the matter Mr Harmse, as first witness.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Harmse, will you please stand.

PIETER JOHANNES HARMSE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: As you wish Mr Chairman. Mr Harmse you were arrested and charged in the Supreme court

regarding this matter, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: The main charge inter alia was one of murder and various other charges, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: During your court case you offered a plea of guilty to the State, guilty of culpable homicide and various other pleas that are set out in Appendix D, serving before the Commission, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is it also correct that the State did not accept your plea regarding guilty on charges of culpable homicide?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: However, at the beginning of the trial you pleaded guilty of murder?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I did plea guilty to murder.

ADV PRINSLOO: And Exhibit D the plea as set out there, was also accepted by the State except for the culpable homicide charge?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, the case served before Judge Els, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: What was the total sentence that you have to serve?

MR HARMSE: 18 years effectively.

ADV PRINSLOO: And when were you sentenced?

MR HARMSE: 8th of May 1996.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, to return and to start with your background. You were born on the 20th of February 1952, is

that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Just for record purposes, that will then be Exhibit A to which you are referring, is that correct, regarding the background?

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes, it is correct Mr Chairman. We are now referring to Exhibit A, page 10 as numbered for you. You also have page 10, Exhibit A in front of you Mr Harmse?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is.

ADV PRINSLOO: Will you please tell the Honourable Committee where your political involvement started?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, my political career started at a very early age. My father regularly participated in voting and in 1960, I remember there was the old Vierkleur, the four coloured flag, to show that the Boers wanted a republic as it used to be before.

ADV PRINSLOO: And did you or your father attend any political meetings?

MR HARMSE: Yes, my father regularly attended meetings and I went with him.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you undergo any military training?

MR HARMSE: In 1970 I was called up for service in the SA Defence Force and I received training there.

ADV PRINSLOO: What age were you at that stage?

MR HARMSE: I was 17 when I joined the SADF.

ADV PRINSLOO: In the Defence Force, were you informed regarding who the enemy was at that stage in the country or not?

MR HARMSE: We were told that the ANC/SACP formed our enemy and we had to fight against them and against terrorists.

ADV PRINSLOO: And were you told at that stage what the plans of the ANC/SACP were, as you stated it, what they wanted to do?

MR HARMSE: The ANC/SACP's plans were to conduct a revolutionary war against the then government to make the country ungovernable. We were also told that they are trained in communist countries and that they could thus return and commit acts of terror by attacking Black council members, the South African Police, security forces and officials of the State and eliminate them.

ADV PRINSLOO: You personally, were you against the SACP/ANC as they were known?

MR HARMSE: I was totally against that kind of statements to take over the country.

ADV PRINSLOO: In addition to the fact that you had been called up by the Defence Force, did you personally feel that you had an obligation to defend the country, or not?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I personally felt I had to defend my country against the enemy.

ADV PRINSLOO: The then government, in what light did they regard the ANC/SACP alliance and their words and statements against the country?

MR HARMSE: No, they weren't friendly, the then government accepted the ANC/SACP declarations as a declaration of war.

ADV PRINSLOO: And in that light, you were then called up for border duty?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I served twice on the border and this was in the combatting of terrorism inter alia communism.

ADV PRINSLOO: And where did you serve on the border?

MR HARMSE: It was on the Angola border.

ADV PRINSLOO: And were you involved in the war there?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I was part of the war there.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, during 1990 did you attend any meetings of any specific political parties?

MR HARMSE: Yes, during 1990 I myself as rightwinger started attending rightwing political parties.

ADV PRINSLOO: Which meetings did you attend, which party's?

MR HARMSE: Some of the AWB and the BWB, Boere Weerstandsbeweging meetings.

ADV PRINSLOO: What does BWB stand for?

MR HARMSE: BWB stands for Boere Weerstandsbeweging, Boere Resistance Movement.

ADV PRINSLOO: What are the objectives of this organisation, briefly?

MR HARMSE: The aims and objectives are briefly to fight for God, the nation and the father land, to resist against any other people who don't want to allow us our own country, to fight against them.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did the BWB at any stage strive like other organisations to obtain a Volkstaat?

MR HARMSE: Yes, they did strive for a Volkstaat, their own state, or national state.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where would this national state be situated?

MR HARMSE: The national state would be the original Boer Republics, Transvaal, Free State and Northern Natal.

ADV PRINSLOO: And the principles of the BWB, Boere Weerstandsbeweging as set out in Exhibit C, which is serving before the Honourable Committee, is that correct? Do you have it in front of you? It is the document Programme of Principles, Boere Weerstandsbeweging.

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: It is page 22, Mr Chairman, chapter C. Now if we refer to the second page of Appendix C, with the title Boere Weerstandsbeweging, Programme of Principles, Foundation, was their objective as set out in the first paragraph?

MR HARMSE: The first paragraph is very clearly the objectives of the BWB, the foundation on which the organisation rested and the guidelines according to which they acted on that stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: To return then to Exhibit A, page 3 as typed at the top there, you referred to meetings that you've attended and you've referred to the aims and objectives, what was your impression around these objectives of the BWB?

Was it a weak set of goals or were they pure?

MR HARMSE: They were very pure to me, they were the purest of those of all the organisations and I decided to join them.

ADV PRINSLOO: The meetings which you've attended, those of the BWB, what emphasis was place on these goals by the speakers?

MR HARMSE: Well the emphasis was always on the fact that we had to combat communism, in other words the ANC/SACP alliance. We had to fight to preserve our country, our language, our religion and to keep it pure.

ADV PRINSLOO: The speakers at these meetings, can you remember whom they were by there names if possible?

MR HARMSE: The main speaker was also the Chief Leader, Mr Andrew Ford and then at various meetings, there were different other speakers, inter alia Barend Strydom's wife and his mother-in-law.

ADV PRINSLOO: Who were the other people in the top

structure of the BWB whom you could mention, members?

MR HARMSE: There was a Combat General, Mr Vaughn Bands.

ADV PRINSLOO: And Mr Vaughn Bands, where did he live at that stage?

MR HARMSE: Mr Vaughn Bands lived in Cullinan, just outside Cullinan on a small holding.

ADV PRINSLOO: And where did you live?

MR HARMSE: I also lived in Cullinan.

ADV PRINSLOO: To continue with Appendix A, paragraph 7, do you have that in front of you? The National Party in 1990 and thence onwards, what impression did it leave on you? What was their plan according to your interpretation?

MR HARMSE: At that stage, the National Party had decided to give over the country to the ANC/SACP alliance. Mr de Klerk at that stage also mentioned that all religions would become equal and that was something that was totally against the BWB and against my own objectives because we believe that there is only one God.

ADV PRINSLOO: So is your testimony that the BWB was against this?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And that which you mention here is also the view of the BWB?

MR HARMSE: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: The BWB itself, did it also consist of a military wing, a section of it which was known as the BRL, the Boere Republican Army? Die BRL, die Boere Republikeinse Leër.

MR HARMSE: Dit is korrek.

ADV PRINSLOO: To which could you equate that, to which organisation was it similar?

MR HARMSE: The BRL was to the BWB, as Umkonto We Sizwe was to the ANC.

ADV PRINSLOO: In order to become a member of this Boere Republican Army, did they set rules, did they lay down rules?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: What were those requirements?

MR HARMSE: To carry out special instructions, tasks and one could be included for this purpose with the BRL.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did they look at a person's background, dependability etc?

MR HARMSE: Yes, they did. The person had to be dependable and wished to fight for the BWB.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you become a member of the BRL and what rank did you have?

MR HARMSE: I was a member of the BRL and I was a Commandant in the BWB.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you become a member of the BRL as a Commandant in 1993?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Just a moment Mr Prinsloo, was he a Commandant in the BRL or the BWB, that wasn't clear.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is it correct that you were a Commandant in the BRL?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, I was a Commandant in the BWB, but a member of the BRL.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you have the same rank in the BRL?

MR HARMSE: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, you are aware of the meetings held at Kempton Park, known as CODESA?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you are also aware that certain negotiations were taking place at that stage at CODESA?

MR HARMSE: Yes, those negotiations at the time were aimed at handing over the country to the ANC/SACP alliance by negotiations.

ADV PRINSLOO: I refer you to paragraph 10 of Exhibit A ... (tape ends) ...

MR HARMSE: The BWB were against negotiations with communists as such and they also at various meetings stated that they would not negotiate, but that they would rather fight for their country.

ADV PRINSLOO: Let me state it this way, was there any reference to a specific race group?

MR HARMSE: Yes, it is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: By the BWB?

MR HARMSE: Yes. There was specific reference also to our religion, because there were many Muslims in the ANC who were of high rank in the ANC and once they had taken over, our religion would be totally under threat.

ADV PRINSLOO: During your membership of the BWB, meetings were held, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Specific meetings were held by the BWB, let me state it that way. Is it correct that there was a meeting held at Cullinan in 1993?

MR HARMSE: Yes, there was a meeting in Cullinan.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was that in May 1993?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Now what happened at that meeting?

MR HARMSE: At that meeting a video recording was made where the BWB would declare war against the then government

because they wanted to hand over the country to the ANC/SACP alliance. During the recording BWB members wore masks and they had a show of force by carrying arms, firearms and firing off tear gas.

ADV PRINSLOO: After this meeting at Cullinan and the show of force there, there was another meeting held at Belfast, a rally?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Once again by the BWB?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that was also held on a farm in a shed where the BWB members once again wore masks and a variety of flags were pinned up against the walls - the Vierkleur, four coloured flag and the BWB flag and war was declared against the then government.

ADV PRINSLOO: And was there a video recording made at all?

MR HARMSE: Yes, a video recording was made of this.

ADV PRINSLOO: What became of these video recordings, do you know?

MR HARMSE: I kept the copies of the videos with me and when I was arrested, this was confiscated by the South African Police Force.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you hand these to them?

MR HARMSE: No, they confiscated them - it themselves.

ADV PRINSLOO: After the meeting at Belfast, there was a further meeting in Rustenburg, is that correct?.

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: At whose place was this meeting held?

MR HARMSE: This was on the farm of Mr Andrew Ford.

ADV PRINSLOO: That would be the leader of the BWB?

MR HARMSE: That is the case.

ADV PRINSLOO: And was he present?

MR HARMSE: Yes, he was also present at this meeting.

ADV PRINSLOO: Persons attending this meeting, who were these? Were these officers, general public?

MR HARMSE: These were the officers of the Boer Resistance Army.

ADV PRINSLOO: Exclusively officers?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Were any decisions made at this particular meeting at Rustenburg?

MR HARMSE: At this particular meeting it was mentioned that we had to prepare for war and that there would be a coup d'etat since there were Boer Resistance Army staff at several at the electrical power stations who were staff at these power stations and who could then switch off the power supply.

ADV PRINSLOO: What other instructions were given at this meeting?

MR HARMSE: There was the additional instruction that everyone in their own area, had to generate chaos. We were supposed to identify our own targets and advance the aims and goals of the Boer Resistance Army with our own initiative and we could decide on our own, what methods we wanted to use. At that time I had already obtained explosives, which we had been instructed to collect.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you have knowledge with regard to the use of explosives?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct. I worked on the mines where I had seen how explosives were used.

ADV PRINSLOO: Were the members of the Boer Resistance Army trained in any way with regard to the use of explosives?

MR HARMSE: ; Yes, I provided training with regard to the

use of explosives to members of the Boer Resistance Army.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where did this training take place?

MR HARMSE: The training took place on the farm of Mr Andrew Ford.

ADV PRINSLOO: Could you tell us roughly when this occurred? You've already referred to meetings.

MR HARMSE: Yes, such training normally took place during meetings. During the course of meetings.

ADV PRINSLOO: If you look at Exhibit A, paragraph 14, during September 1993, were you in hospital?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: I want to state it to you further, was the person next to you, Mr Froneman, known to you?

MR HARMSE: Yes, he is known to me. I chose him, or selected him as a member of my cell since we worked with a cell structure in the Boer Resistance Army. I chose him to work with me.

ADV PRINSLOO: To return to these cell groups. Did every cell consist of a leader and members or troops?

MR HARMSE: Yes, every cell consisted of two or more persons, normally an officer and someone whom he could select as a trustworthy person.

ADV PRINSLOO: This would then have been Mr Froneman whom you trusted?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is the case.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you in any way give instructions to Mr Froneman?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I instructed Mr Froneman to experiment with a wide range of explosive devices which he then did.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you in any way train Mr Froneman with regard to the operation of the explosive devices?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I did.

ADV PRINSLOO: During September of 1993, did you receive any instructions from anybody?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I received a telephonic call from an unknown person who instructed me that it was from the Boer Resistance Army and that the war had started.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any prior arrangement that such instructions would be given from any person?

MR HARMSE: Yes, we were told at meetings that such instructions would be received, either telephonically or personally.

ADV PRINSLOO: Because of this instruction which you've received, did you give any further instructions to any other person?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I instructed Mr Froneman to identify a target.

ADV PRINSLOO: Before we pay any attention to the target, did you make any preparations with the regard to the devices or the components of the devices which were to be used?

MR HARMSE: Yes, since I worked on the mines I had access to a range of explosive devices and trigger devices.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you have any other materials with which to build the explosive devices?

MR HARMSE: Yes, apart from the detonators I also had fertilizer which could be used in the explosive devices and I instructed Mr Froneman to obtain diesel which could be used in the explosive devices.

ADV PRINSLOO: I have taken you away from the topic - you had said Mr Froneman was instructed to pay attention to the targets. Did Mr Froneman know what manner of target had to be selected?

MR HARMSE: At that time I instructed Mr Froneman that since the Boer Resistance Army was apposed to the onslaught on our religion, I instructed Mr Froneman to select a target which would involve Muslims.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was it possible for Mr Froneman to identify a target.

MR HARMSE: Mr Froneman approached me and informed me that he had selected a target, we discussed the target and decided together that it would have been a good target.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where would this target have been?

MR HARMSE: It was an Indian complex in Bronkhorstspruit, a commercial centre.

ADV PRINSLOO: What additional planning did you make with regard to carrying out this instruction and with regard to the target?

MR HARMSE: I instructed Mr Froneman to prepare the electrical part of the bomb and that we would depart the next morning at three o'clock to plant the bomb.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was Mr Froneman resident with you at that time or somewhere else?

MR HARMSE: No, he lived with his father and I told him to come to my house at about three o'clock the morning.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was this in Cullinan?

MR HARMSE: Yes and I also told him to bring fake number plates which we could then use on the motor vehicle.

ADV PRINSLOO: On the 18th of September 1993, did Mr Froneman indeed come to you house?

MR HARMSE: Yes, but without the number plates.

ADV PRINSLOO: What did you do with regard to the number plates or did you do nothing in this regard?

MR HARMSE: We placed the bomb in the car, we drove to

the police barracks where Mr Froneman removed number plates from a police bus.

ADV PRINSLOO: What did you do with these number plates after you removed this from the bus, could you tell the Committee?

MR HARMSE: On our way to Bronkhorstspruit, we placed the number plates on the vehicle which we were driving in.

ADV PRINSLOO: Please continue.

MR HARMSE: We drove passed the business centre, or commercial centre to check whether there were any persons present there. When we noted that there was no one around, we parked the vehicle at the centre, we carried the bomb to the place where we set it, in front of the door. He returned to the motor vehicle and I attempted to arm the device.

After some difficulty, I experienced some difficulty and I was not able to arm the device, Mr Froneman returned and assisted me in arming the device. Eventually I told him that we should rather leave the bomb, since we were not able to arm it, but he told me that it would be a waste of time and it would be of no use if we did not arm the bomb. Eventually we succeeded in arming the bomb.

We returned to our motor vehicle and we then returned home. Just outside Bronkhorstspruit we stopped, removed the number plates. One of the number plates was damaged. On our way back to Cullinan, we threw one of these number plates out of the window, the damaged number plate.

ADV PRINSLOO: You may continue.

MR HARMSE: I then dropped Mr Froneman and he returned to replace the one number plate on the police bus and we both returned to our houses.

ADV PRINSLOO: During the remainder of this particular Saturday, what did you do?

MR HARMSE: Later during the course of the Saturday morning, myself and Mr Vaughn Bans went through to Rustenburg for a meeting of the Boer Resistance Movement.

ADV PRINSLOO: The section which the witness is referring to, is not contained in the affidavit and I apologise for this omission.

ADV DE JAGER: Could we just get some additional clarity. You armed and placed the bomb, when was this supposed to explode, could you in any way control it?

MR HARMSE: No, the explosion of the bomb could not be controlled. It would have been set off by some movement.

ADV DE JAGER: The bomb could therefor explode say at twelve o'clock in the day when there were a lot of people around?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Was there no electrical mechanism which was able to control the device?

MR HARMSE: It had a switch which would have been a release device.

INTERPRETER: The interpreter unfortunately did not get the last sentence.

ADV PRINSLOO: At the place where you set the bomb, by your calculation and taking into account the fact that you set the bomb very early in the morning, when did you think would there have been contact with this bomb and by whom?

MR HARMSE: At that time, I did not know who would have set off the device. I thought initially that at the unlocking of the shops, the bomb would be moved.

JUDGE WILSON: What did the bomb look like?

MR HARMSE: The bomb was contained in a 25 litre plastic

container.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was the bomb placed inside something? Was the plastic container in anything else?

MR HARMSE: No, the plastic container was placed on its own in front of the particular shop.

ADV PRINSLOO: Should this bomb have exploded and should there have been damage, or if persons were to be injured or killed, would there have been any reaction from the side of the Boer Resistance Movement?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I would have contacted with the media to inform them that the Boer Resistance Movement would have taken the responsibility for the bombing.

ADV PRINSLOO: To continue with the events of the Saturday - after the bomb had been placed, you informed the Committee that you travelled with Mr Vaughn Bands to Rustenburg to the farm of the leader of the Boer Resistance Movement, Mr Andrew Ford. Is that correct?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: At this particular meeting of the Boer Resistance Movement at Rustenburg, was anything handed to you, any award?

MR HARMSE: During this meeting I was made a General and I was given wings to hand to Mr Froneman.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you then return to Cullinan?

MR HARMSE: Yes, after this meeting we returned to Cullinan to our homes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you make this reward to Mr Froneman, did you hand these wings to him or not?

MR HARMSE: Yes, during the course of the next day.

JUDGE WILSON: Apologies Mr Chairman, the interpreter gave it up as Mr Cullinan.

INTERPRETER: My apologies.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, it would have been Mr Froneman and it was at Cullinan, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, it would have been Mr Froneman at Cullinan. During the next day I congratulated Mr Froneman on behalf of the Boer Resistance Movement and I handed over the wings.

ADV PRINSLOO: What would this handing over of the wings have implied?

MR HARMSE: It would have implied that he became a full member of the Boer Republican Army.

ADV PRINSLOO: This action of yours, was this something that you did for yourself or on whose behalf did you do it?

MR HARMSE: I planted the bomb on behalf of the Boer Resistance Movement so that we could make the declaration or could show that the country could not simply hand over the country.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any personal gain out of this bomb for yourself?

MR HARMSE: No, I gained nothing from this, no profit.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you have any personal grudge against anyone at the shop that caused you to plant this particular bomb?

MR HARMSE: No, I had no personal grudge against anyone.

ADV PRINSLOO: When did you hear that there was in fact an explosion?

MR HARMSE: This was on our way to the meeting at Rustenburg where we heard over the radio that a police officer was killed and that another police officer had been injured.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was it your intention that a police officer

should be injured or killed by the explosion?

MR HARMSE: It was not the intention particularly to kill a police officer.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you keep in mind that if you were to plant a bomb, that a person or persons might be injured or killed?

MR HARMSE: I did not plant the bomb with the intention of killing any particular persons, but as in any war there would be innocent persons in cross-fire.

ADV PRINSLOO: So you did keep in mind that someone might be injured or killed?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I did keep this in mind.

ADV PRINSLOO: During the presentation of this case in the Supreme court, the State attorney Adv Regal du Toit, was this referred to as a political event or what was the case?

MR HARMSE: Mr du Toit did present the case as a political case.

ADV PRINSLOO: Can you remember in the judgement of His Honour Judge Els, whether he referred to the political ground?

MR HARMSE: In his judgement, Judge Els did say that he could see that this was a political act.

ADV PRINSLOO: In Annexure B which is before you- in front of you ...

JUDGE WILSON: Are you moving on to something new now? We will take a short adjournment at this stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: As it pleases Mr Chairman.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION: .

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: I apologise Mr Chairman, I tried to attract my

learned friend's attention. I simply wish to inform the Committee that Mr and Mrs Mayet are present, that is the owner of the shop in - commercial centre in question and they are quite satisfied that the hearings have proceeded in their absence, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I am still referring to Exhibit A, the last page, page 10. It is also your numbered page 10, Mr Chairman. Mr Harmse, after you had heard over the radio that a policeman had been killed in this particular bomb explosion, how did you feel about this?

MR HARMSE: I felt very bad when I heard the news that a policeman had been killed in the bomb explosion.

ADV PRINSLOO: The particular bomb, when you set it, would it go off very easily or would it be difficult, could you please tell the Committee what could set off the bomb?

MR HARMSE: With any movement, as soon as the bomb was moved or the vibration of a large truck, would trigger the bomb.

JUDGE WILSON: As a matter of interest, what sort of detonator did you have? I've heard of something I think, a B4?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, I am not entire sure what type of detonator we used or what it is called.

MS KHAMPEPE: Was that Sir, also obtained from the mine?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct. We obtained the detonators from the mine.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, did you obtain any reading matter regarding how to make a bomb and how to act in this regard?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I did obtain reading matter from Mr

Vaughn Bands at that time. It was called How to be a Good Terrorist, one of these books. It explains exactly how a bomb can be made from various substances.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you have any other books or obtained any other books?

MR HARMSE: Yes, there were others, I can't remember the exact names, it was something like Recipes for Bombs.

ADV PRINSLOO: These books, particular this book How to be a Good Terrorist, did it belong to the Organisation or how did you obtain this?

MR HARMSE: That is the book issued by the ANC to their people in order to make bombs easily and cheaply.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Harmse, I wish to refer now to Exhibit B, Appendix B, page 11, Mr Chairman. Do you have it in front of you Mr Harmse? In the original application which you submitted to the Committee, paragraph 10(A) where the question is "state the political objective you wish to achieve", is it correct that - and I refer to Exhibit B, you set it out in that Exhibit B?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And it is also cross-referred to in certain respects in Exhibit A to which you have already referred?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: As far as question 10(b) is concerned, your motivation, the reason why such deeds or miscarriages were done and the deeds with relation to which you committed these deeds, it is question 10(b), Exhibit B, again. Were that had as a political objective if I refer to your original application question 11(a), do you have it in front of you? Was the deed the mission, miscarriage, etc, done or carried out with the approval of the particular

organisation,liberation movement, government body, etc, you answered no. Why did you answer no?

MR HARMSE: Because at that stage I had not obtained legal council and I didn't want to mention people's names at that stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you affirm the correctness of Exhibits A and B and then also your plea Exhibit D, submitted to the Committee?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I do.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO: .

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, with the permission of the Committee, my learned friends and I have discussed the presentation of evidence and we have agreed that Mr Froneman's evidence will now also be presented, prior to my asking any questions.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, before we come to you, I wondered if Mrs van der Walt wanted to ask any questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MRS VAN DER WALT: There is just a single question which I would like to gain clarity on. Mr Harmse in your testimony you stated that when you attended the meeting in Rustenburg where various instructions were given to you, that meeting was only for officers, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: But according to Mr Froneman, he was also at that meeting. Is that so?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Can you please explain, he was not an officer at that stage, what happened there?

MR HARMSE: Quite a number of the Boer Resistance Movement members attended the meeting, but this particular

meeting was intended for officers although other members were also present, who did not join in the meeting itself.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Then it is correct if Mr Froneman would say that he was there but that he was not in the meeting itself, that he did not sit in the meeting? ... (tape ends)

JUDGE WILSON: Do you agree that we reserve any questioning by Mr Black till after ...

MRS VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Right, very well.

LEO HENDRIK FRONEMAN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Froneman, when were you born?

MR FRONEMAN: I was born 19 June 1974 in Pretoria.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell us your home, parental home in which you grew up, what sort of politics were there?

MR FRONEMAN: I grew up in a conservative environment. My parents were members of the Herstigte Nasionale Party, the Reformed National Party. My standard five teacher was also a member of the HNP. I also attended meetings of the AWB with my father and I started collecting badges.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Would you please speak slower, the interpreters would like to keep up. Okay, Mr Froneman, did you also join a political organisation at that stage?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct in 1991 I did so. I joined the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Afrikaner Resistance Movement?

MR FRONEMAN: That's correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And that is a rightwing political party?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And after joining them, did you attend courses?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I regularly attended meetings. We

joined training camps where we were taught how to act in a military manner, we underwent military training, we did firearm training, arms training, ammunition training, training to teach us how to act when, or react when we drove into a trap with vehicles, how to escape from such a situation.

ADV DE JAGER: Perhaps you should just change seats.

MRS VAN DER WALT: If I understand correctly from what you said Mr Froneman, what you experienced at the AWB was that you were trained to make war?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, we were trained as soldiers to carry on a war.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And why did you have to make war, what did you AWB tell you?

MR FRONEMAN: The AWB told us that the then government was in the process of giving over the government to the SACP/ANC alliance, that they were not going to insure that we were to be given our own ethnic state, Volkstaat, they would simply hand over the country.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And did you also at the AWB undergo specific courses, special courses?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I was also trained by the Iron Guard and I was selected to the Scorpion Unit.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The Iron Guard, that is a section of the AWB, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct, it is a wing of the AWB.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What is their objective?

MR FRONEMAN: Their main function is to protect the leader, Mr Eugene Terreblanche, they protect him and his property, and they also give training to our other members.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You referred to the Scorpion Unit? What was their purpose?

MR FRONEMAN: Our purpose was to protect the smallholdings, farms, houses of people around Cullinan.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did you think when the AWB told you that the then government was going to give over the country, hand over the country to the ANC/SACP alliance, how did you feel about it?

MR FRONEMAN: I knew that should the government hand over the country to the alliance, then we as a Boer nation would disappear, we would not be able to continue with our own culture, our religion would be contaminated and everything as we knew it, would disappear.

MRS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, at such a young age, could you understand it?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I did understand it as such, yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Okay, you say in your application that on 16 December 1991 you were at a meeting, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What was that meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: We were with the AWB, we went to Barnard Stadium in Kempton Park and we had a rally and Mr Eugene Terreblanche, the leader of the AWB spoke to us, addressed us and he said it would be the last day of the covenant before the country would be handed over.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So Mr Terreblanche was also making war talk throughout?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct, they said that they were definitely committed to war.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And you later met the daughter of Mr Harmse and you became friends, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, did you come into contact with the Boer Resistance Movement?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct, I met Mr Harmse and together with him, I went to meetings of the Boer Resistance Movement.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What were you taught there?

MR FRONEMAN: I saw that their objects were much purer that those of the AWB. The AWB weren't so much concerned, they were more against Blacks, they said the enemy were the Blacks they were going to take over the country, but then I saw that the BWB were not just against the Blacks, they would like the Blacks also to have their own land, but used the Blacks as chess pieces, were the people whom we should attack.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Whom are these chess pieces you refer to, the people who then manipulated the chess pieces? Sorry, I want to restate my question, who are the people who used the Blacks as chess pieces?

MR FRONEMAN: That was the ANC/SACP alliance, the top structure.

MRS VAN DER WALT: I see that the Boer Resistance Movement refer to the Boere volk, the Boer nation and not as the AWB which refers to the Afrikaner Boer nation.

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct. The BWB said that inter alia the Afrikaner could be anybody who spoke Afrikaans, where as we are the Boers, that is one nation, the Boer nation.

MRS VAN DER WALT: But Mr Vaughn Bans is an Englishman, isn't he? Is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Andrew Ford?

MR FRONEMAN: Also probably English.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So people who spoke other languages could also be members of the BWB, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: After ...

MS KHAMPEPE: Excuse me, if you say people who also spoke other languages, could be members of the BWB, did that include White people only or Black people who could also speak a particular language akin to that spoken by the BWB, could also be members of that Organisation?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, I would like to have the question restated, I didn't follow from the beginning.

MS KHAMPEPE: Could members or communities who spoke the same language as the ones predominantly spoken by BWB members also belong to that Organisation and in this instance could you have Black people who spoke Afrikaans, belonging to BWB?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, no, my reply to that is no, not anybody could join the BWB. You had to be somebody who believed in the same faith, you had to be - how should I say - you had to be a member of the Boer nation to join the movement. The language didn't matter but the main language was Afrikaans, but you had to be a member of the Boer nation to join them.

MS KHAMPEPE: But the English were not of the Boer stock, were they?

MR FRONEMAN: No, I would say no, but there are still some of them who, in their hearts, were on our side and would assist us in our struggle for a Volkstaat.

MRS VAN DER WALT: If I understood correctly and I just

wish to perhaps repeat the question of the Committee member to you. Is it correct if I understand correctly, that it doesn't matter what language you speak, but the people that were members of the BWB were Whites only? Is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Whites only?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you then join the BWB?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: When did you join the BWB?

MR FRONEMAN: In May 1993 I joined the BWB.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you attend any meetings?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, on the day that I became a member, we went to Mr Vaughn Bands' plot, Mr Harmse and I and we were sworn in as members of the BWB.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And who was the leader at that particular meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: The main speaker was the leader, Mr Andrew Ford and Mr Vaughn Bands was also one of the speakers.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were there also other speakers who specifically conveyed messages at the meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: No, not that I can remember.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And at all the meetings which you attended, what was the message that every time was carried across to you?

MR FRONEMAN: The message was that the government was not going to comply with our demands for a Volkstaat and it was stated that we would have to fight for that which was ours and our forefathers if we wanted to retain that.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were the BWB members proponents of a Volkstaat?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, they were very strongly in favour of a Volkstaat.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Where would it be situated?

MR FRONEMAN: The command was that it would be the old Transvaal, Northern Natal, Natal and the Orange Free State.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Is it Northern Natal?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, Northern Natal.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Okay, there was a meeting that Mr Harmse testified about which took place at Cullinan and where he stated that the BWB had a show of force, did you also attend that meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Court what happened at that meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: We met on the smallholding on that particular day, we all wore masks. We wore our different uniforms, we all carried firearms and we lined up in one long row and the camera focused on all of us to show how many we were, our full strength. We then drove to Belfast, we met there in a hall decorated with flags on the walls, Boer flags and at the tables there were various BWB officers wearing masks as well and they declared war against the government.

MRS VAN DER WALT: If I understand you correctly, the BWB at the meetings also encouraged everybody at the meetings to make war?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I might also add that they distributed pamphlets to incite people to prepare for war.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Is that under the BWB members?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And if you say to prepare, what do you mean by that?

MR FRONEMAN: The people had to collect adequate medical supplies, food supplies so that if the war were to break out, we had the necessary stock.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you also attend a meeting where Barend Strydom's wife and her mother addressed the meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that was also just outside Cullinan.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did they say to the meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: Okay, Barend Strydom's mother-in-law was called, Trudy and his wife Karin Strydom addressed the meeting and they told the meeting that the men, that the woman should assist the wives in making war.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So it was just not aimed at men, everybody had to make war?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were you at the meeting that Mr Harmse referred to in Rustenburg?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were you involved in the meeting?

MR FRONEMAN: No, I was not in the meeting itself, I was on guard outside. Mr Harmse later on informed me what had been said in the meeting.

MRS VAN DER WALT: On whose smallholding was this?

MR FRONEMAN: It was just outside Rustenburg, Mr Andrew Ford's smallholding.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you see Mr Andrew Ford there?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, he was there.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Could you please inform the Committee what Mr Harmse had said to you had to take place or did take place there?

MR FRONEMAN: Mr Harmse told me that the BWB had told him that they would have a coup d'etat and that at various power

stations they had people on duty who were ready to cut the power and he told me that the officers had also been instructed in their own towns areas to create chaos.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were you a member of Mr Harmse's cell?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you have to carry out his instructions?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I acted directly on his instructions.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Do you have any knowledge of the Boer Republican Army?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I do.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What is it?

MR FRONEMAN: It was the military wing of the BWB, like Umkonto We Sizwe would be the military wing of the ANC.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you want to belong to the BRM?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I felt that I would like to join them because I could serve my nation and my country better in their ranks.

MRS VAN DER WALT: In your application you stated the previous State President, Mr F.W. de Klerk's announcement regarding religious groups. Could you please tell us what you meant by that?

MR FRONEMAN: Mr de Klerk, F.W. de Klerk, had said that all religious groups would be equal and at that stage I was still at school and even then, religious instruction was taken away at our school.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Was that at your school?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: ; How did you feel about this?

MR FRONEMAN: They took our whole existence away from us, we stand by our religion. To me it was totally wrong.

MRS VAN DER WALT: In the negotiations of CODESA, at that time you were also a member of the BWB?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And there something occurred at CODESA where a large group of people met and drove an armed vehicle through the windows at the conference centre.

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Do you know anything about it?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I was instructed to go along.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Who instructed you?

MR FRONEMAN: Mr Harmse, I also went with him and we went to stop the negotiations.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did you have to do there?

MR FRONEMAN: We just had to protest.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Were other BWB members also present?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, there were other members of the BWB.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Why did you have to protest there?

MR FRONEMAN: Well, we had to protest against the negotiations of the then government in order to hand over our country to the ANC/SACP alliance.

MRS VAN DER WALT: During September 1993 when Mr Harmse was in hospital, did he give any instructions to you?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, Mr Harmse instructed me to act in accordance with the training I had received from him by building hand grenades, smoke bombs and other bombs, test them and come and report back to him about the results.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You say the training that he had already given you, what type of training had you undergone?

MR FRONEMAN: It was explosives training and various other things. I may also add that the book to which he referred, the name he couldn't remember, members of the BWB called it

the James Bond Bible. That's the other one, the one with the recipes which he couldn't remember.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Froneman, could you perhaps go slightly slower, both for the interpreters and for us who are taking notes here.

MR FRONEMAN: I beg your pardon, Your Honour, I will slow down.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You say the BWB called it the James Bond Bible?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So more members of the BWB had access to such a book that just the two of you?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I saw this book at a meeting, I don't know whose book it was.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And then did you carry out Mr Harmse's instructions and yourself manufacture hand grenades?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I did so.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And later on when Mr Harmse left hospital, was released from hospital, what did you do at that stage?

MR FRONEMAN: Well, I was at Mr Harmse's house and he told me that he had received instruction and I received instruction to help him carry out his instructions.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Well, what did you do?

MR FRONEMAN: He told me that when I returned home on 16 September I had to obtain false number plates and then three o'clock the next morning I had to join him at his house.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Harmse testified that he had instructed you to go and look for a target, select a target.

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What happened then?

MR FRONEMAN: I proposed to him then that this particular Indian trade centre had to be attacked because I believed that at that stage the Muslim community in particular were the majority ANC supporters and he agreed with me that we go and attack that particular centre.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did you do then, did you go and select a target?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I did. I told him that the ideal spot would be the Indian trade centre.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you know the business centre?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I did.

MRS VAN DER WALT: In Bronkhorstspruit.

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: According to you, the next morning at three o'clock on the 18th of September 1993, you went to his house, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: It is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What then happened there?

MR FRONEMAN: I went home quite quickly that evening and because of that I was not able to obtain the number plates as he had given me instructions, I then went to his house, he was already waiting for me. We packed the bomb into the car and I had to hold it because it was unstable.

We drove to the police barracks and removed two number plates from the police bus, we got into the car and drove to Bronkhorstspruit.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you help in constructing the bomb?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What was your task?

MR FRONEMAN: Mr Harmse gave me the instruction to put

together the electrical component of the bomb.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Is that in terms of the training which he had previously given you?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Upon arrival, on your arrival at Bronkhorstspruit what happened?

MR FRONEMAN: We stopped just outside of Bronkhorstspruit and attached the number plates to the vehicle, we drove through Bronkhorstspruit. We drove passed the business centre to see whether there were any people around, there were no people around so we drove passed and planted the bomb.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You may go on.

MR FRONEMAN: Mr Harmse left the car ...

MRS VAN DER WALT: There will be an attempt to regulate the speed of testimony. It appears that the witness is somewhat nervous, but we will slow down somewhat.

MR FRONEMAN: We parked in front of the shopping centre. Mr Harmse got out of the car, we placed the bomb on the stoep, or the front verandah of the shopping centre. I noticed that Mr Harmse was having trouble with the arming of the bomb. I approached him again. He told me to leave the bomb alone, but I then said to him that it would be of no use if we just left the bomb there without it detonating.

After some additional difficulties we armed the bomb and left.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did you do once you had returned to Cullinan?

MR FRONEMAN: On our way back to Cullinan, we removed the number plates from the vehicle. We were cleaning the number plates and then damaged one of the number plates, which we

threw out of the window. We returned to the police barracks where the remaining number plate was attached to the police bus again.

Mr Harmse left me at the police barracks and I went home from there.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You mentioned that you cleaned the number plates, was this to remove the finger prints?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, it was with a view to remove the finger prints.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The next day, on the Sunday, did you return to Mr Harmse's home?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct, I went to his house.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Harmse has given testimony that on that Saturday he had been to a meeting at Mr Ford's home, you did not go along did you?

MR FRONEMAN: No.

MRS VAN DER WALT: During the Sunday, did he have any conversation with you, that is Mr Harmse?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, he approached me and handed the BWB, Boer Resistance Movement wings, he congratulated me for our achievement on behalf of the Boer Resistance Movement and I was then handed the wings.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What was the purpose with regard to handing over the wings on that day?

MR FRONEMAN: These wings imply that I was selected to be a full member of the Boer Republican Army.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Why then on the day immediately after the bombing?

MR FRONEMAN: To become a member of the Boer Republican Army, you had to carry out a special order which would indicate your level of commitment.

MRS VAN DER WALT: It appears quite clearly from your testimony, that you acted under instructions from Mr Harmse, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: In carrying out this instruction or these instructions, did you do this simply to please Mr Harmse or did you carry out the deed to promote the goals of the Boer Resistance Movement?

MR FRONEMAN: Having looked at the situation in South Africa and where things were going, I acted in this manner on behalf of the Boer Resistance Movement.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Was there any personal gain on your part from this act?

MR FRONEMAN: No.

MRS VAN DER WALT: How did you feel when you realised that someone had died?

MR FRONEMAN: I was shocked. It was not my intention to go and kill someone and it touched me deeply, especially when I realised that I had killed an innocent person and that I have robbed a wife of her husband and the children of their father.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Froneman, when one plants a bomb in a town in a business area, surely one must keep in mind that people might die?

MR FRONEMAN: In any war people come in the cross fire and they do die.

MRS VAN DER WALT: During the court case you also pleaded guilty to culpable homicide and several other charges of possession of explosions and so forth. You were also heard in the regional court, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What is the length of your sentence?

MR FRONEMAN: 16 years, which was reduced to 9 years and this was on the 25th of April 1994, in which judgement was given.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So you've been in prison for three years, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: During your court case a Dr Labuschagne, a criminologist brought testimony on your behalf, can you remember this?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I can.

MRS VAN DER WALT: I note in that part of the court documents that is available on page 13, Dr Labuschagne mentions that you did not really have political insight, but now you are appearing before this Honourable Committee and you want to claim, or you want to express your feelings with regard to these two Organisations. I want to hear from you, if this Doctor speaks of politics, would it not be true that you are not interested in the politics as practised by a government, but what you understand with the term of politics, it has to do with that which touches you personally, your ethnic community, your people, your religion and your language, is that what you understand under politics?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is what I understand under politics.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You are not however, interested in the broader politics?

MR FRONEMAN: No. As it says in one of the ... (tape ends) MRS VAN DER WALT: ... remain our property, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is how I understood it even though being at school.

MRS VAN DER WALT: On page 13 of your testimony the same Dr Labuschagne mentions and I will read to you from the 21st line "at all the meetings of the Boer Resistance Movement, where he was allowed, there was considerable war talk and talk of taking up arms and of the time having arrived. This kind of talk never gave him the impression that people were to be killed".

ADV DE JAGER: My apologies, you are referring to page 13 as typed at the top of the page, is that correct. That would be paged at page 14 in the bundle?

MRS VAN DER WALT: That is correct, we have the documents, but our documents are not bound, so I must apologise that I referred to this in such a weak way, but this is the typed document and on page 13 thereof.

ADV DE JAGER: You have just referred to about line 20, or between lines 20 and 30 of the typed page 13, and the indexed page 14, is that correct?

MRS VAN DER WALT: That is correct. If one looks at this piece of testimony, it would appear as if there are some contradictions, two contradictions. Did you say to her that the Boer Resistance Movement stood on stage and said we don't want to kill people?

MR FRONEMAN: No, the Boer Resistance Movement did not say this, they declared war. I had no personal inclination to kill people, but the Boer Resistance Movement had declared war.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What you actually meant when you said this to her was the Boer Resistance Movement said that there was going to be war, but personally you did not feel that

you want necessarily to kill people?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Is it not true Mr Froneman, that in war people die?

MR FRONEMAN: I realise now, that in - yes people die in war, yes people die in cross fire.

MRS VAN DER WALT: I would like to refer you to Appendix B, that is also Exhibit B, on page 11 of the bundle. Do you have it there in front of you? In paragraph 1 you indicated the main purpose or goal of the Boer Resistance Movement. There is an additional document, Exhibit C, in the bundle this would be on page 22 - have you previously seen the programme of principles of the Boer Resistance Movement?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I have seen it before.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Is it from this programme, that you withdrew the main goal of the Boer Resistance Movement, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You explain the principles of the Boer Resistance Movement in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 up and including paragraph 11. I want to take you to question 10(b), which would be on page 4.

You explain in that paragraph that during 1960, the PAC and the ANC were banned Organisations. This was long before your birth. Did you have knowledge of this?

ADV DE JAGER: Could you just assist us again. You are referring to ...

MRS VAN DER WALT: We are referring to Exhibit B, which has reference also to Mr Froneman.

MS KHAMPEPE: That would be page 15 of the original bundle, the paginated number.

MRS VAN DER WALT: It would be page 14. Is it (b). This would be Annexure B, also Exhibit B. Mr Prinsloo handed this in on behalf of Mr Harmse and this morning I also handed an Exhibit B to you.

INTERPRETER: Adv de Jager, is not using the microphone.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Annexure B.

ADV DE JAGER: In our bundle, in the bound set, I think we are talking passed each other with the annexures. What does the document look like, what is the title?

MRS VAN DER WALT: Exhibit B, Annexure B. This is ...

ADV DE JAGER: The document with regard to question 10(a), it seems to be understood which document is referred to.

MRS VAN DER WALT: It continues 10(b) on typed page 4. You have made reference in your answer to question 10(b), to the time when the ANC was banned, but at that time you had not yet been born, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you have knowledge of the ANC having become a banned Organisation in earlier years?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, that is so.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Where did you obtain this knowledge, from AWB meetings?

MR FRONEMAN: No, this is from the news media. The National Party had banned them because of their terrorism.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You also had knowledge of their unbanning when they became legal Organisations, and what then happened?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you also have knowledge through the media and from the Organisations to which you belonged, that the expatriate members of these Organisations had returned

to the country?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did they do when they returned to the country?

MR FRONEMAN: They had been trained outside of the country, in countries like Russia, they were provided with arms and they returned secretly to our country. There were training camps in Angola and places like that and they used guerrilla tactics, tactics of guerrilla warfare to advance their goals.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The then government, the National Party government, you have spoken of some things which you heard from the news media, when the National Party was still the government, what did they say to you ordinary people in the street, what the ANC onslaught was like, whether it was a serious or a less serious onslaught?

MR FRONEMAN: The government of the time considered that to be a declaration of war against this country and that government.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You confirm therefore the content of Exhibit B, Annexure B with regard to the answers on questions 10(a) or (b). In your original application, you had also said that you acted on behalf of the Boer Resistance Movement, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Froneman, as a young man - as it also appears from the statement of Dr Labuschagne you had a very high view of the Boer Republican Army and you wanted to be a soldier, you wanted to fight and be in war, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: This inspired you to join these two

Organisations, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Nonetheless, you are still a very young man, a very very young man. How would you at this time feel about the Volkstaat, have you abandoned the notion of a Volkstaat, what are your feelings?

MR FRONEMAN: I do not think I would ever abandon the notion of the Volkstaat, I have strong feelings for the Volkstaat. I have been raised to believe that we should be governed by our own people.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The most important thing I want to ask you, I have sketched for you how badly you wanted to join, how badly you wanted to be at war, how now, how at this time, do you believe should this Volkstaat be attained?

MR FRONEMAN: Making war is not right, it cannot be done. What we did was merely a drop in the ocean, it was of no value, but my means of negotiations and possibly by showing government that there is a real need for a Volkstaat, we may well one day achieve this ideal.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Froneman, on the Sunday immediately after the incident, you went to a church service, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: After the church service, you went to speak to a minister of religion.

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: What did you say to him?

MR FRONEMAN: I went to the minister of religion, I was crying terribly and I asked him to help me because my life was in a real mess.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You did not tell him what you did, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: No, I did not tell him.

MRS VAN DER WALT: However, you did feel the need to speak to him, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you feel real remorse at that time?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I felt considerable remorse and still today I feel great remorse particularly with regard to the man's wife and children. It was not right what I did to them.

Also with regard to the Indian community, I did not have the right to damage their property.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any grudge against the persons involved, Mr Mayet and the other persons damaged?

MR FRONEMAN: I did not know these people personally, I had no grudge against them.

MRS VAN DER WALT: In the court case, you made the case on the same basis as you are doing today. You said at that time that you acted under the instructions of the Boer Resistance Movement, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: The same State Attorney which dealt with the case of Mr Harmse much later, also acted on your behalf is that correct? How did he handle the case in court?

MR FRONEMAN: He presented the case to court and that the motive was political, it was a political motive.

MRS VAN DER WALT: You are therefore asking this Honourable Committee to grant you amnesty with regard to the charges on which you have been found guilty, the culpable homicide and other, is that the case?

MR FRONEMAN: That is the case.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MRS VAN DER WALT: .

JUDGE WILSON: Any further witness you intend to call?

MRS VAN DER WALT: No.

JUDGE WILSON: Now, I am not quite sure what the arrangement is which is being arrived at between council. Do we start with cross-examination of this applicant or do we revert to Mr Harmse?

MRS VAN DER WALT: I think Mr Black has got a certain way. He said he is going to ask them together, I am not sure.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black?

MR BLACK: For record purposes, perhaps as a matter of convenience we could commence with Mr Froneman and then clarify issues with Mr Harmse.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you have any objections to that?

MRS VAN DER WALT: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: No objection, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Mr Froneman, what I don't find entirely clear, at the time this act was committed who was the enemy as it were. War had been declared as far as you were concerned and who did you regard to be the enemy?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, the enemy at that time was the government which wanted to hand our country over to the ANC/SACP alliance.

MR BLACK: But you testified that you selected the target and you chose a commercial shopping complex in the Indian, situated I presume in the Indian community

Bronkhorstspruit? Why did you choose that target, it is not a government building and there are not government officials who occupy that building, I assume?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, yes, we did also act

against he ANC, or we did fight against the ANC and other forces who were against our faith and so forth, and that is why I selected the Indian shopping complex. Since the Muslim community were - I would say that the Muslim community at that time were majority of ANC supporters. Or a majority of the members of the Indian community were ANC supporters.

MR BLACK: I just want to expand a little bit on that. In selecting the target, did you have any personal knowledge as to whether or not the people who occupied that complex were either Muslim or ANC supporters or possibly supporters of the government of the day?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, no, I did not have such personal knowledge but in my view, most Indians were Muslims. The Indian community in general in my view, were Muslims.

MR BLACK: What did you hope to achieve by assisting with the planting of the bomb at that complex?

MR FRONEMAN: We wanted to show the government and other enemy forces that we were intent on taking back our country by armed force, with violence if they did not want to give our original republics back to us.

MR BLACK: But what I am trying to get at is, why plant a bomb at a commercial shopping complex? What did you think was going to happen?

MR FRONEMAN: It was my impression that we would damage the buildings, and having damaged the buildings that we would show that we are continuing with the war.

MR BLACK: Did you at the time have knowledge of what Mr Harmse has informed the Committee that a bomb, that bomb

which was manufactured, it could be detonated or could

explode should somebody shake it or move it or if a heavy vehicle had to drive past? Did you know that that bomb could have just gone off in that manner or with that type of disturbance?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct, Honourable Chairman, and that is why I held the bomb while we were driving to Bronkhorstspruit, since it was so highly unstable.

MR BLACK: So you knew that if any person or body had to touch or disturb the bomb sufficiently, it could be exploded, it wasn't a controlled detonation, it would have to be disturbed by somebody or some movement, is that so?

MR FRONEMAN: That is correct, Honourable Chairman.

MR BLACK: Did you think or consider rather, that people would be opening the shop and would be coming to that complex in the morning?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, at that time I was still very young. I was given instructions and as we were told by the Boer Resistance Movement, if you get an instruction as a troop, then you were not supposed to argue with the officer who had given you the instruction, you just had to carry out the instruction.

MR BLACK: But, then what were your instructions?

MR FRONEMAN: The instruction which I had received was to assist Mr Harmse in carrying out his orders.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black would there be any difference between this bomb and say a landmine planted in a farm road?

MR BLACK: With respect, no, there is no difference in that sense. The difference between a controlled explosion or a non-controlled explosion and a landmine would be similar to this type of bomb which could injure people

indiscriminately. Perhaps I could just make it quite clear, I understand from your evidence that although a war had been declared in your mind, you didn't want to kill anybody, is that what you are saying? Or you didn't think people would be killed?

MR FRONEMAN: At that time I had not thought of this, no, Honourable Chairman.

MR BLACK: But had you been ordered to insure that somebody got killed, you would carry out those orders?

MR FRONEMAN: I would have had to carry it out, Honourable Chairman.

MR BLACK: Did you think, consider, selecting a government building or a semi-government building as one of the targets?

MR FRONEMAN: No Honourable Chairman, we did not in particular consider a government building.

MR BLACK: But the government was your enemy?

MR FRONEMAN: The government was our enemy yes. But our most serious enemy at that time was the emerging parties who would have eventually oppressed us were they to become the government.

MR BLACK: So, I just want to sum up correctly, this was a building occupied by civilians, a bomb was - which was selected by yourselves, the building was selected by yourself only because you thought that it was perhaps occupied or frequented by and owned by an Indian community who you thought may well be Muslim? Is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: I was under the impression that the Muslim community were great supporters of the ANC. I also believed that the Indian community were Muslims.

MS KHAMPEPE: In that case Mr Froneman, did you know the

political affiliation of the Indians who were conducting

business in that shopping centre?

MR FRONEMAN: No, I did not particularly know their political views.

MS KHAMPEPE: So, how do you then reconcile that with the fact that you had to select a target and associate it with the ANC which posed a threat to your political ideals? Why choose a target which, in your evidence, has no association at all to your political opponent?

JUDGE WILSON: Before you answer that question, I would like to ask my co-committee member whether that is a fair question when you said you believed Indians were Muslims and Muslims were keen supporters of the ANC? You cannot therefor say there was no connection with your political opponent, can you?

MS KHAMPEPE: But you do know that the Indian community consist of both Muslims and Hindus? There are quite a number of faiths within the Indian community and your interest was in targeting the Muslim faith and not the other faiths within the Indian community?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, I don't understand what the question is. What is the question?

MS KHAMPEPE: To your knowledge, a large percentage of the Muslim community belong to the ANC and that was the reason why you selected that particular shopping centre, because you believed that the majority of the people who were conducting business in that shopping centre, were Muslims.

MR FRONEMAN: That is what I believed, yes, Honourable Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you know that within the Indian community there were also other faiths, other than the Muslim faith?

MR FRONEMAN: There are other faiths other than Muslims

such as Hindus, but also of them - many of them are in the top structures of the ANC.

MS KHAMPEPE: Oh, it wasn't necessarily the Muslim faith?

MR FRONEMAN: How can I say this, it wasn't the faith as such that we wanted to oppose, to a small measure, yes, since if they were to become the government they would privilege their religion over our religion, but that is what I believed at that time.

MS KHAMPEPE: So your intention in selecting that particular target, was to launch and direct your launch of that attack against the ANC? Why did you have to choose this particular centre? Were there no other centres that you could have selected next to Cullinan?

MR FRONEMAN: We did not have a particular instruction to attack these shops, but it was my view that it was a good target.

MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want to ask you Mr Froneman, was this not a racially motivated attack, purely on race against the Indian community as such?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, as I have given testimony earlier, the Boer Resistance Movement wants to grant all races their own self rule, just as we wanted ourselves have that granted.

MR BLACK: And just a last question Mr Froneman, perhaps it might be two. I gathered from your evidence which was led, that you were friendly with Mr Harmse's daughter at the time, is that correct?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, that is correct.

MR BLACK: Was this action on your part not committed to simply to please Mr Harmse and to win his favour? Sorry,

not only with his daughter, I didn't want to - but you were

friendly with the Harmse family, let's put it that way.

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, it is correct, I was a friend of the family, but even before I in any way met his daughter or got to know her, I already joined the AWB and I had these political convictions.

MR BLACK: Yes, but to carry out this act, this particular act, was that not done for the sake of pleasing Mr Harmse? ... (tape ends)

MR FRONEMAN: ... clearly that our Volk, our ethnic community, were involved in a struggle against enemy forces, that we had to take up arms to take back that which properly belongs to us.

MR BLACK: Be absolutely clear, or perhaps Mr Harmse could give us more clarity on it, but in your mind, the enemy forces were the government, the ANC alliance. Any other groups or persons you could add to that?

MR FRONEMAN: Honourable Chairman, our enemies were those people, any organisation or party who did not want to grant us the right to self rule or self government.

MR BLACK: Okay, thank you, that makes it a bit clearer. I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK: .

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Froneman, were there any shopping centres next to Cullinan that were owned by the Indian community?

MR FRONEMAN: Not to my knowledge, Honourable Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you make any enquiries in that regard?

MR FRONEMAN: I had no time to make extensive enquiries with regard to a particular target. On that day I was given instruction to assist, I had to make a quick decision with regard to a target to attack.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did Mr Harmse indicate to you but you had to

select a target by a particular period? Did he indicate any

urgency in the selection of such a target?

MR FRONEMAN: Mr Harmse told me that he had already received the materials for preparing the bomb, that he had been given the instructions to go and plant a bomb and I understood by this, that this had to be done immediately.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you want to re-examine now, or do you want to rather wait till after Mr Harmse has finished his evidence?

MRS VAN DER WALT: I'll wait till after Mr Harmse is finished.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, we will take the adjournment at this stage until two o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK - ON RESUMPTION

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black, are you ready to continue?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Harmse, a similar question which I put to Mr Froneman is who did you regard to be the enemy in this war which was allegedly declared?

MR HARMSE: The enemy at that stage Mr Chairman, was the then government, the ANC/SACP alliance as well as the money powers.

MR BLACK: Sorry, what do you mean by the money powers?

MR HARMSE: The money powers in government circles, rule government and say what should be done and what should not be done.

MR BLACK: Could you just be a bit more specific about that.

MR HARMSE: The big financial powers with all that they own, if we should try and get along without them, like De Beers and Anglo American, that type of Institution, the

government listens to what they are saying and if they tell the government to do something, then it happens normally.

MR BLACK: Are you suggesting that any people associated with those Organisations that you've mentioned, that is the government, the ANC alliance and these large financial institutions such as Anglo American etc, they would constitute legitimate targets as far as you were concerned?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Now, you instructed Mr Froneman, I understand, to select a target after you had received a telephone message from an anonymous party that the war had started?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Did you give Mr Froneman any instructions as to the nature of the target he must select?

MR HARMSE: Yes, at that stage after Mr de Klerk had announced that all religions are the same or would be the same, and I knew for a fact that Muslims had held high positions in the ANC, and that the financial powers played a large role, I instructed him to go to an Indian community as such.

MR BLACK: Did you tell him the nature of the target he must select or give him guidance on the nature of the target he should select?

MR HARMSE: Yes, I told him to go for the Muslims because if we took them on, we could achieve, and better achieve our aims to the government.

INTERPRETER: That was not clearly stated.

MR BLACK: Did you give him, when I am saying guidance, as to what type of target or the nature of the target he should select or look out for?

MR HARMSE: Not specifically, no.

MR BLACK: When you said to him we must go for the Muslims, what did you mean by that?

MR HARMSE: I told him that because when the government, once it has been handed over to the ANC/SACP alliance, I knew there would be many Muslims in the high structures. Then our religion would be totally taken over by the fact that they took over and we would have no religion whatsoever.

MR BLACK: Yes, but what I am getting at is what did you mean by going for the Muslims? Must they be targeted as enemies?

MR HARMSE: At that stage, yes, because Indians are Muslims.

MR BLACK: And this was after war had been declared?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, yes.

MR BLACK: And therefore did you realise that by instructing a person to go for the Muslims, Muslims would be killed?

MR HARMSE: We did plant the bomb in such a manner that people would, or could be killed if it went off, yes.

MR BLACK: So when you planted that bomb, you knew full well that there was a real possibility if not a probability that ordinary bypassers or civilians could be killed, irrespective - whoever it was?

MR HARMSE: At that stage I did know that, I knew that people could be killed because in a war innocent people could always be killed in the cross fire.

MR BLACK: But I put it to you that you deliberately wanted to kill Muslims as it were, by planting that bomb.

MR HARMSE: As I've already stated, we planted the bomb amongst the Muslims because many of them were in high structures in the ANC, they held high positions.

MR BLACK: What I am trying to get at is, you see it relates

to the gravity of this offence. And what I am getting at is when you planted the bomb of that nature, you intended to kill Muslims. It wasn't that they may or may not, it was your intention actually to kill them.

MR HARMSE: That is correct, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: You pleaded guilty to murder and murder is the killing of a person with the intent to kill him.

MR BLACK: So, I just want to understand your evidence then. When you were asked about the nature of the bomb, the sensitivity of it etc, you replied at one stage that you did not know who could have, would have been able to set off the device and you thought it would go off when the shops were unlocked in the morning.

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: As far as Mr Froneman was concerned, was he aware of the seriousness of this issue, did you discuss it with him that people were going to be killed, Muslims were going to be killed?

MR HARMSE: Mr Froneman was completely au fait with the fact that people would die.

MR BLACK: Your instructions, am I fair in understanding that you were told at a meeting that you would receive an order to the effect that was has been declared? You would receive an instruction that war has been declared, that instruction would come either by person, personally delivered to you or telephonically? Is that correct?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: You carried out this act after you had received an instruction that war had been declared?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Am I also correct that you were given carte

blanche as it were, as to how to carry out or to give effect, you were given no specific orders how to carry out or conduct this war?

MR HARMSE: At these meetings we were told to use our initiative and select and identify our own targets in order to promote the BWB's case.

MR BLACK: How much time did you give Mr Froneman to select a target?

MR HARMSE: I think it was approximately a day or two that he had to look for a target and come back to me with a specific target.

JUDGE WILSON: What day was it that you actually put the bomb there?

MR HARMSE: It was the Saturday at four o'clock the morning.

JUDGE WILSON: So it would have been the Friday, perhaps the Thursday that he could look for a target?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: You were satisfied with the target that was selected, you had to approve of it?

MR HARMSE: Yes, Mr Chairman, I was satisfied with the target.

MR BLACK: You had satisfied yourself that Mr Froneman would also, was fully aware of the consequences as to what would occur if a bomb of that nature was placed at that target, you satisfied yourself with that as his Commanding Officer?

MR HARMSE: I knew that great damage would occur and that people would die and I believed Mr Froneman also realised this.

MR BLACK: I know it has been asked, but again, could you just - what was the objective, the political objective you

hoped to achieve by placing a bomb of this nature at a civilian target?

MR HARMSE: The reason was to show the then government that negotiations were not going to help us in achieving our free ethnic state, Volkstaat and also that our religion was very important to us.

MR BLACK: So it was primarily aimed at making a statement as it were, to the government?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MR BLACK: Then surely a bomb over a weekend or whenever this took place, placed at a government building causing considerable damages, I am sure this bomb could cause, would that not have been a more appropriate target, a government institution which would not be frequented or be used by civilians over a weekend?

MR HARMSE: After the target had been identified, we were satisfied with it and we did not even think of another government institution where we could have placed the bomb.

MR BLACK: But did you make attempts, did you enquire where - what steps did you take to - did you consider attacking or planting a bomb at a government institution which wouldn't be so densely occupied?

MR HARMSE: Well, after the target had been identified, Mr Chairman, we didn't even think of looking for another target or going to another target, because at that stage this target would best convey our message to the government.

MR BLACK: Okay, so when identifying this target, did you

make enquiries as to what other targets had been considered before settling on this particular target?

MR HARMSE: We did consider other targets, but they were not considered further because this target was regarded as

the best target to convey our message to the government.

MR BLACK: The other targets which you considered, did they include government buildings and institutions?

MR HARMSE: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: So were you just considering civilian targets?

MR HARMSE: Not specifically civilian targets, but a target that could convey a true message.

MR BLACK: Can you just inform us as to what was some of the other targets which you considered, which were not - other than civilians targets?

MR HARMSE: Targets that were specifically against our religion Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: But what are they? What other targets did you consider before saying I will plant a bomb which is highly sensitive, uncontrolled bomb, in a densely well frequented commercial shopping complex?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, we also considered targets in Pretoria, but we in die end ignored them.

MR BLACK: When you say we, who are you talking about?

MR HARMSE: It was myself and Mr Froneman after he had identified the target which we had together accepted would be the best.

MR BLACK: Again I must ask you, can you - what targets did you consider? Give us an example of the nature of the targets in Pretoria that you considered.

MR HARMSE: It was also specifically where Muslims mostly would meet.

MR BLACK: So again it was aimed specifically at Muslims?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: And again aimed specifically with a view, with the knowledge rather, that Muslims would be killed?

MR HARMSE: It could have been so Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: Now, you have testified that subsequent to this act of yours, your actions were approved of by the AWB?

JUDGE WILSON: He didn't say the AWB, Mr Black.

MR BLACK: After this matter, after this incident, did you say you received promotion to that of a General?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: Now, who approved of this action, were you congratulated on your actions?

MR HARMSE: No, Mr Chairman I was not directly congratulated with planting the bomb, but at the meeting I was told that I would become a General from that date.

MR BLACK: And this was a meeting of - was this the meeting of the ..., which meeting was this?

MR HARMSE: That Mr Chairman, was a meeting of the Boere Resistance Movement.

MR BLACK: So did any one in the AWB or the Boere Resistance Movement condemn your actions?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, as far as I know nobody had any negative comments on the deed.

MR BLACK: Do you consider that this bombing of civilians in any way whatsoever, contributed towards achieving your political objectives?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, I believe that with this deed that I had committed, it could perhaps have the former government think second thoughts before handing over to the SACP/ANC alliance.

MR BLACK: Because at that stage CODESA had already commenced, is that correct?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BLACK: And looking back, did anyone at any stage come to

you and say listen this has been effective, it has had some effect on the negotiations?

MR HARMSE: No Mr Chairman, nobody came to me with such a proposal.

MR BLACK: Thank you Mr Chairman, I don't have any further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK: .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MRS VAN DER WALT: Mr Harmse, a lot of emphasis is placed on the fact, or on the question of why you didn't attack ...

JUDGE WILSON: This is re-examination, isn't it? You haven't had an opportunity to question ...

MRS VAN DER WALT: Oh, yes, that is right, I am sorry.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you wish to put further questions to him?

MRS VAN DER WALT: I would like to.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, you have leave to do so. You have no objection I take it.

ADV PRINSLOO: I have no objection Mr Chairman.

MRS VAN DER WALT: A lot of emphasis was placed on the question of why you didn't attack a government institution, but if I listen to your testimony and I would like you to correct me if I am wrong, you throughout said that the enemy was the government and the ANC/SACP alliance, is that your testimony?

MR HARMSE: Yes, that was correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: And then you replied that the target which you had selected, you regarded that to be a target that would convey the correct message. The message which had to be conveyed, to whom would that be conveyed?

MR HARMSE: It would be to the then government.

MRS VAN DER WALT: To the government, okay, so then you

continue and you said that the government would hand over the country to the ANC/SACP alliance. When according to you, would this hand over take place?

MR HARMSE: That would take place in April 1994 with the elections.

MRS VAN DER WALT: So what you are saying, or do you say then that this message or deed was committed in order to prevent the country from being handed over at the elections?

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MRS VAN DER WALT: It was furthermore asked whether anybody had congratulated you in that case. Would you had become a General if you hadn't committed this act?

MR HARMSE: No, I would definitely not have become a General at that stage.

MRS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MRS VAN DER WALT: .

ADV PRINSLOO: I have no re-examination of Harmse, Mr Chairman, I have one question directed at Froneman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Froneman, if I understand your testimony correctly, you gave testimony that the target which was Muslim people and which would have involved your own religion should the ANC have taken over, because of the considerable Muslim support for the ANC,is that how you believed this? Did you believe that your faith would be threatened by the take over of the ANC in lieu of the strong Muslim support?

MR FRONEMAN: Yes, I believed that at that time, since while I was still at school they removed religious instruction from schooling as a school subject.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO: .

JUDGE WILSON: Re-examination?

MRS VAN DER WALT: No.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MRS VAN DER WALT: .

JUDGE WILSON: I can't remember whether I asked you if you had any further witnesses you wish to call?

MRS VAN DER WALT: No further witnesses.

ADV PRINSLOO: No further witnesses Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Harmse, you were a voluntary organisation. In a voluntary movement, there is no need for one to follow orders, is that not the case?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, this was a movement which one joined voluntarily, nonetheless it was in a certain manner a military movement. We wore uniforms, there was discipline and if one was given a command, you had to carry it out

ADV DE JAGER: What would have happened to Mr Froneman if he defied an order?

MR HARMSE: Then one could be thrown out of the movement and he could be suspended and to be suspended from a movement like this, would mean that for a Boer that there would be no further possibility for one to show your face in front of another Boer, it would have been a great shame.

ADV DE JAGER: What would you have done had Mr Froneman not listened to your instruction?

MR HARMSE: Mr Chairman, at that time I would have suspended him ... (tape ends)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Froneman, what would have happened to you had you ignored this or defied the orders?

MR FRONEMAN: On several occasions in the Boer Resistance Movement, they spoke of a six pack, then you would have been defined or classified as a traitor, if you defied orders,

then you would have sold out your people. You would have been a traitor to your people. You would then have appeared before a court martial order who could have given you this six pack, namely they would shoot you through the knees.

ADV DE JAGER: Where did you hear this?

MR FRONEMAN: This was at a meeting of the Organisation.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Harmse, did you really believe that the majority of the Muslim community were members of the ANC?

MR HARMSE: That is correct, Mr Chairman. Until now in government, there are high positions filled by Indians who are Muslims and at that time they were also highly regarded in the ANC/SACP alliance.

MS KHAMPEPE: At that time, on what grounds was your believe based?

MR HARMSE: At that time it was my faith, my conviction that for my God, my people and my country.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now what was the basis of your believe that the majority of the Muslim community were members of the ANC?

MR HARMSE: I believed this since most Indians are Muslims. At that time many of them held senior positions in the ANC and the SACP.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did your Organisation at any stage during that period conduct any survey to determine whether the people who were holding such key positions within the ANC and were of Indian origin, whether those people were in fact of the Muslim faith?

MR HARMSE: The Boer Resistance Movement at that time told me that most Muslims ...

INTERPRETER: It appears that the witness is saying that most Indians are Muslims, that most of the people with high

positions are Muslims.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now you launched this attack pursuant to the decision which was taken at the Rustenburg meeting and at that meeting you were told that you were to select your own targets, but you were nevertheless advised that in the selection of your targets, you were to ensure that the objectives of the BWB were advanced?

MR HARMSE: That is the case. We were instructed to carefully identify our own targets with the intention of meeting the goals of the BWB, and that is why we selected this target.

MS KHAMPEPE: Why did you not select a target immediately after that Rustenburg meeting, why did you have to wait until the telephone call which you received around the 17th of September?

MR HARMSE: We wanted to wait before selecting a target since we had not yet received instructions to continue with the war. Only once I received the telephonic instruction to continue since the war had started, that we identified the target and continued with our actions.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, I would imagine that you took those instructions seriously of selecting a target that would enable the objectives of your movement to be advances. What qualified Mr Froneman to be able to select such a target?

MR HARMSE: I gave Mr Froneman the instruction to select the target since we worked in cells as I had already mentioned. He was immediately under my command and it was his duty to identify the target.

MS KHAMPEPE: Could you not have selected the target yourself?

MR HARMSE: At that time I had just come out of hospital, I had neck trouble and I was not able to drive around on my own to look for a target, that is why I gave this instruction to Mr Froneman.

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

MR HARMSE: That is correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you, you may return.

WITNESSES EXCUSED: .

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

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

MRS VAN DER WALT: The same with me.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Black.

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

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

ADV PRINSLOO ADDRESSES THE COMMITTEE: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, the testimony of the applicant Mr Harmse, is supported by that of the second applicant Mr Froneman. The requirements in the Act which must be met is that there must be full disclosure and I want to argue with respect, that with regard to Mr Harmse, this requirement has been met entirely.

There has not been any suggestion from the side of Mr Black that there is any lack of disclosure. There is no evidence to the contrary either. To determine whether the act in fact meets the requirements that this was in fact an

act linked to a political motive and this is the crime

committed by the applicant, I want to argue with respect that this application also meets this particular requirement.

The applicant was a member of the Boer Resistance Movement, he acted on behalf of and under the instructions of the BWB and the purpose of his act was aimed against the then government as well as the ANC/SACP alliance in his words.

The target determined by the applicant, he has given testimony, was one linked to members of the Muslim community which in his view and in the view of the BWB, were members of the ANC, members and supporters of the ANC.

He believed that by placing a bomb at this particular target, this would bring the then government to other views, would convince the then government and would also the persons directly involved, the ANC/SACP alliance.

He believed, and he has been brought under cross-examination by my learned colleague, Mr Black that by placing a bomb at such a property of the Muslim community, this would make a difference with the then government as well as the great financial powers.

I want to argue there was no racial hatred, no personal gain, that this was a political motive which was in the mind of the applicant and which he wanted to achieve.

Furthermore his actions prior to and subsequent to the act, supports this argument. The testimony as in Annexures A and B as well as in the verbal testimony, as well as the principles held by the Boer Resistance Movement, as well as those in his plea to the court and that is Exhibit D and in particular paragraph 4.7 which reads "I decided that as an

Afrikaner it was my duty to defend my country against

communism and Black domination. I decided to use a home made explosive device and to explode it in an area which would create tremendous publicity for the Afrikaner and the Afrikaner cause. At a later point an area was identified by myself, namely the Indian business centre in Bronkhorstspruit. The purpose was through the damage done there, to indicate to the government that it was the aspiration of the Afrikaner to be free of Black and communist domination."

This was the argument of the applicant at his court case and in his application today, he stands by this claim.

In the charge against the applicant, it was also indicated that this was an act with a political motive and we want to argue with respect that at no point during his hearing, court hearing nor at any time, there is any reason to believe that this act was not committed with a political motive.

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

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect religion plays the key and core role amongst Afrikaners. If you look at Exhibit C you will see in the first paragraph what role religion plays amongst the Afrikaner.

The religion of the Afrikaner, as given testimony by both Froneman and Harmse, both witnesses, would be taken away from them, it was their believe that were there to be an ANC/SACP alliance government and if the Muslim faith would then take preeminence, that then they would by oppressed and that the faith of the Afrikaner would be lost.

With respect it would appear that the faith of the Afrikaner was very strongly held and it was embodied in the previous constitution. The churches attended in the past by the Afrikaner and the religious practice in general on every level of the Afrikaner, would have been diminished or affected and the aspirations of the Afrikaner, affected in this way.

I want to argue before this Committee with respect, that in terms of Section 20(2) that the applicant does in fact meet the requirements, particularly paragraphs (a). He was a member of the Boer Resistance Movement or BWB. This was a widely known political Organisation. He acted on behalf of this political Organisation and he acted in good faith in the struggle, the political struggle which he believed had existed.

And then particularly with respect Mr Chairman, the applicant meets the requirement of paragraph (d), that this generally widely known political Organisation and that it was within the course of his duties and a very express duty in this particular case, that it was aimed particularly against a particular Organisation, in this case the then government as well as the ANC/SACP alliance.

With regard to subparagraph (3), the motive has been indicated very clearly by the witness as well as the second applicant. The context within which the act occurred, I want to argue with respect that at that time the election was very close. There was great uncertainty in the country and it was clear in the view of these persons that there would be a majority government in due course.

The purpose or goal of the act in particular, I want to argue with respect that the witness had indicated very

clearly that what the purpose and reason for the act had been.

Paragraph (e) this was an act which was carried out with instructions, very clearly under instructions and on behalf of the BWB, or Boere Resistance Movement. There is no doubt with regard to the membership, nor is this being argued against by Mr Black.

With regard to the link between the act as in paragraph (f), the goal to be attained and the proportionality, I want to argue with respect that the applicant took the proportionality into account in view of his goal and in his plea, Exhibit D, this was also clearly argued.

Under these circumstances, I want to argue with respect Mr Chairman, that the applicant meets all the requirements of the Act and that amnesty should be granted to him for the acts with regard to which he appeared before the Supreme court. I thank you Mr Chairman.

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

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

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, that which the applicant wanted to achieve, that which the Organisation wanted to achieve, the act and the goal must be linked in terms of the motive.

The motive was to change the mind of the then government, to commit an act which would gain the attention of government and of the ANC/SACP and those persons involved with these institutions, organisations. It is a direct link between the motive.

This was on the eve of the elections, the elections were to be in April 1994, the act occurred in September 1993, the CODESA negotiations were under way and in that

context, as testified by the applicant, the placing of the bomb, would have had the required effect.

ADV DE JAGER: I can understand the use of explosives and the public nature of the place would have gained some attention, that there was a link with the political situation, explosives were seldom used by common criminals. It was most often used in political contexts at that time, however, the killing of an innocent civilian who would not have a political profile, how do we link such a killing with a political struggle?

ADV PRINSLOO: I want with respect, to argue to you Your Honour, that this bomb was placed at four o'clock in the morning, at a place used by people of a particular community in this case the Muslim community and that under these circumstances, it is not extraordinary to imagine that a person of that community would use this shop, enter the shop, unlock the shop and that in fact, that person would then be in the cross fire.

With respect Your Honour, as given in the testimony during the course of the case, an innocent person, a member of the police then acted because of a telephone call and the witness testified that there had not been anyone in the area when the bomb was placed, in fact an innocent person did die, but the testimony was that during a war situation, innocent persons may well come in the cross fire.

And I want to argue with respect Mr Chairman, that this manner of action has appeared in many cases involving the ANC, where the ANC was the accused party. That it had occurred that innocent persons were in the cross fire, very similar to this particular case as in the case of the Pretoria bomb, the Silverton bank bombing.

With farm cases as at Darville where a landmine was placed, where innocent persons died. Where this was probably aimed against the farming community in that area.

The extend of this act was within the limits and was proportional if compared to other acts under these circumstances.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Prinsloo, again on the question of proportionality. How could at attack on the Muslim community, how could it have dissuaded the government of the day from continuing with the negotiations with the political Organisations it was negotiating with?

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect Honourable Chairman, it is clear that the use of bombs in explosions, that an explosion amongst the Muslim community in particular, that the majority of members of this community would have supported the ANC and the intention was that this would change the mind of the government. As it would indicate that many people disagreed with the route taken by the then government.

As stated in the documents presented by the applicant, this would create circumstances of chaos and circumstances would arise which would change the route. This would touch the ANC by touching the Muslim community, which in view of the applicant, were supporters of the ANC.

This was also the case when the ANC acted in many cases, the intention was to generate chaos, to bring about revolution, to take over the country, to force the country in fact to that which was achieved by the ANC.

And there were many persons, with respect, and many communities, who were attacked and who were killed or who were injured under these circumstances. With respect, the

government of that day, did in fact change their minds because of these acts of the ANC and handed over to the ANC, had an election. If we look for instance at the McBride case, and the Amanzimtoti bombing, as well as the Pretoria bomb, which was admittedly aimed against the Army, the Silverton incident, there was action against innocent bank staff, the Messina case where an innocent person, an ex-Minister of Kangwane was killed in cold blood, shot in cold blood, other innocent persons, as well as police who were assassinated and with respect, those acts in fact gained the goal.

Persons now in key positions of the ANC are Muslim people. It cannot be argued against, that this act was done in good faith in terms of the actual convictions of the applicant.

MRS VAN DER WALT ADDRESSES THE COMMISSION: Mr Chairman, I will not repeat what Mr Prinsloo said, I support his argument with regard to the requirements of the Act. I want to present to you that it is my argument that Mr Froneman does in fact meet the requirements of the Act as particularly mentioned in Section 22(a) and (d).

Your Honour, Mr Froneman was if I can say this with respect, he was a young boy when he committed this crime. However, he did not waste anyone's time. He has been in jail now for three years.

Immediately after his arrest, he appeared in court and he pleaded guilty and already at that time he said to the court why he committed this act.

Your Honour, there had been and you are in possession of the testimony of the criminologist. There are some aspects which differ from that which he presented to you

today in his testimony.

With respect I want to argue that at that time, he attempted to move away. You will note that he does not mention the names of the individuals. The idea, as he has given testimony that he does not want to be a traitor, he does not want people to consider him to be a traitor.

Adv de Jager asked Mr Prinsloo why - what the role of religion is amongst the Afrikaner. Mr Froneman in his application said that for him, there is only one God. With the statement of F.W. de Klerk that all religions will be considered equal, this created fear amongst Afrikaner people.

One has to pay attention particularly to the Boer Resistance Movement and what they said with regard to religion. Again Mr Froneman said that he left the AWB to join the BWB, particularly because they had a more pure position.

If you would grant me the opportunity I want to read to you the first three paragraphs of the programme of principles of the Boer Resistance Movement, and this is Exhibit C, Your Honour.

The foundation of the Boer Resistance Movement is, the Boer Resistance Movement acknowledges the sovereignty of the Trinity, the God of Blood River and of the vow there, who determined that the Boer people under the leadership of Hendrik Potgieter and Andries Pretorius and Paul Kruger, were led to freedom, were liberated

and achieve their own free Volkstaat or ethnic state.

Our guidance comes from this God only. We will continue in our liberation struggle with the gun in the one hand and the Bible in the other.

This Your Honour is the foundation. The very foundation of the Boer Resistance Movement is centred around their God. This one God whom they worshipped.

Then with regard to the purpose or goal of the movement.

To bring honour to the sacrifices of our ancestors and in memory of their sacrifices, to on route to the freedom of our people, so that we can continue under their legacy in our own state under our own flag.

With this in mind, the Boer Resistance Movement wants to hand over the heritage of freedom to our children.

Again, Your Honour, exactly that which was testified by Mr Froneman in his childlike simplicity, he understood these matters in this way when he attended the meetings of the BWB.

Here it is in black on white what the position of the Boer Resistance Movement in fact was.

Finally guidelines,

the goals of the Boer Resistance Movement is to motivate our people again, to bring our people back to an armed readiness against the onslaught on our people, to prepare our people to be ready for battle, to be battle ready for the third liberation struggle.

Your Honour, this is exactly what occurred with Mr Froneman when he joined Boer Resistance Movement. He has said to the Honourable Committee, that whilst still a school child, religious instruction was removed from the school curriculum.

He was told that it is necessary to fight for, to make war so that the ethnic state, the Volkstaat and the Boer people could remain free. And that this should be done with the Bible in the one hand and the rifle in the other. Then at meetings he is told that the ANC/SACP and the then

government is in fact the enemy.

It was also said at these meetings that Muslims have high positions in the ANC and that it is in fact the Muslim community, in particular, the Muslim community who should the ANC take over the government, that Muslims would have senior positions and this in fact occurred.

If we look at senior positions, many many of the senior positions are in fact held by Muslim Indians, except for Mr Naidoo who is a Hindu.

These fears in fact came true. The most serious fear in fact, the most serious fear of this young man was that he would lose his country and his religion.

He then carried out the goals of this movement as it was communicated to him. I want to hold to Your Honours that Mr Froneman does in fact meet the requirements, he act under the instructions of Mr Harmse.

Mr Harmse acted under the instructions of the Movement and I want to present to Your Honours that he has made totally clear what it was and there is no reason why he should not be granted amnesty for the act. ... (tape ends)

MR BLACK ADDRESSES THE COMMISSION: A great deal of evidence has been placed before the Committee, relating to the political education, indoctrination and motivation of the applicants.

The aims and objectives of the AWB and the BWB. Excepting which, should the Commission accept that the act for which the applicants seek amnesty were in deed motivated by reason of this indoctrination, and with a view to obtaining a political, or making a political statement, that is as far as I can say as opposed to obtaining an objective.

I respectfully submit that when one coldly analyses some details relating to the actions taken, the actions are in my submission grossly out of proportion to the objective sought by the applicants.

I say that for a number of reasons. Mr Harmse was not acting under orders as such to commit or to target a particular community. He was given carte blanche to use his discretion how to achieve the broad aims and objectives of his Organisation.

He appointed a young man of some 17 years to reconnoitre the area and with his, Harmse's, approval, a target in a fairly isolated part of South Africa, I say that with all due respect with Bronkhorstspruit, was selected.

They had in fact considered targets in Pretoria. Now at no stage did either Mr Harmse or Mr Froneman indicate that they even considered placing a bomb in a government building or government institution which would not be occupied by people at the time of the detonation.

We are told that after war had allegedly been declared by their Organisation, the enemy was government. The enemy was the ANC/SACP alliance. The enemy was at one stage the large, it included large financial corporations.

The names of the likes of Anglo American were mentioned. Now, my submission as to why the acts are out of all proportion to this objective are first of all the nature of the target which was selected, a easily accessible commercial centre which was to be frequented by ordinary civilians.

It was submitted by Mr Prinsloo for Mr Harmse that the bomb was placed there at about 4 am in the morning, but Mr Harmse in his evidence, when asked as to when he thought or

when he expected the bomb to explode, he said when the shops were opened.

Obviously targeting at life, not simply to allow a bomb to explode in a uninhabited shopping complex and thereby make a statement and gain the publicity, but he clearly foresaw that people would be killed.

Mr Froneman on the other hand says that he thought property would simply be damaged. Mr Harmse on the other hand said that as his Commanding Officer, he was satisfied that Froneman was aware of the fact that people would be killed.

So first of all it is the place and the target selected, then if one has a look and studies the nature of the device used, as a Committee member, Mr de Jager quite correctly points out, it was tantamount to laying a landmine.

That nature, the device was an uncontrolled explosive, it could kill anybody indiscriminately, it could be set off by a heavy truck or the vibrations of a truck just driving by. So it was an indiscriminate killer similar to landmines.

I submit that that is another fact that contributes to the proportionality and considering the act. Why I say that is if it was a controlled device, deliberately set to go off at a time when no civilians would be about, it may put a different light on the issue.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I have a difficulty I have to you in this regard which I would like to hear you on. We are told by the applicants that they now felt that war had broken out, that they were fighting against the government and to avoid takeover by the ANC, the SACP and others.

This was - they had now joined the war. All of us who had lived in this country, know what happened during that war, we know about bombs in shopping centres, we know - we have been told by Mr Prinsloo about many instances where innocent people were killed. If one has to have regard to proportionality, does one say that when these people do it, it is disproportionate, although the other people have been doing it for years?

MR BLACK: In reply to that Mr Chairman, I would submit that one should be careful in making a sweeping deduction perhaps from other instances which have occurred.

My submission is that this particular instance, the Committee or myself, I am certainly not aware of what orders were given for example in respect of any particular instance which may be generally be referred to in the past.

But when looking at this particular act of selecting a civilian target, my understanding - or it does not appear from the evidence placed before us that the Organisation to which Mr Harmse belonged, either authorised him or ordered him to target civilian targets.

JUDGE WILSON: It is my problem. You are trying to make this an orthodox war. He says as I understand his evidence, this was the war against those people and that war would be fought in the same way surely. Orders were not binding quite clearly on members of this Organisation, they were not in the military, they were not binding on members of the ANC.

The point that causes me concern is can one distinguish the type of targets and say that if you - you are being disproportionate if you choose the same sort of target as have been chosen in the past.

MR BLACK: I think the Organisation such as the ANC is on record as saying that they do not target, civilians were not targets. In this particular instance ...

JUDGE WILSON: Well then I am afraid that a lot of the convictions that have taken place in our courts, must have been totally wrong, because there are cases where civilians were targeted and were killed in bars in Durban, for example.

MR BLACK: Yes. In this particular instance Mr Harmse was given to understand that the government and members of the ANC alliance together with big business, if one wants to call it that, were the enemy. What I am trying to say is I find it difficult to understand why the Muslim community civilians were targeted without there being any evidence or any evidence whatsoever that, first of all no government institution was involved, no attempt was made to find government institutions and secondly there is no evidence that the Muslim community as such in Bronkhorstspruit are all predominantly ANC supporters.

And I do not think that a shopping complex of that nature would, or there is no evidence rather, that it belonged to any big business organisation.

And my submission is that this act should, which was committed, is out of proportion therefor to the political objectives sought by the applicants.

And clearly ...

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, would I be wrong in saying that the leadership of the BWB approved of what they had done?

MR BLACK: This was specifically asked of Mr Harmse and he avoided saying, he said that he didn't receive any specific congratulations, but he assumes that it was approved of,

would image, because first of all he was promoted to the rank of General, Mr Froneman was awarded wings and he put it in a negative way saying that no one disapproved of ...

ADV DE JAGER: What would you say, is that an approval or a disapproval?

MR BLACK: It can either be, I would assume it was an approval or it could have been an opt-out in many ways, because I should imagine in my submission, that there must, as Mr Harmse says, it so happens that this act brought about tragic consequences for some person who ...

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, at least we could accept that there was no demotion?

MR BLACK: That is so Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: And the wings were produced and given and I gather, I may be incorrect in this but the statement was made to the media, that this was an act performed by the Boer - BWB and never challenged by anybody.

MR BLACK: Even if that is the case, the point I am getting at is, even if it was done with political motives, even if it was done with political approval of the Organisation, it was - the approval appear to be after, subsequent to the event. And I am submitting that that still does not attract from the fact that the act committed, the gravity of the act is out of proportion to the objectives sought to be achieved.

That is the point that I am trying to make and in doing so, one should, in my submission, take into account the target, the nature of the target, the nature of the device used, the fact that - I would submit - both parties, applicants knew that civilians were going to be killed and the fact that it had tragic, as was proved, objectively it

was proved that the policeman, Mr Labushachne, who investigated the incident or the object, was killed because the nature of the object was such that it was a lethal device which could be detonated by simply shaking it.

And it was a totally uncontrolled, cowardly form of device that was used. I know it may well be so, but if the objective was to be obtained of publicity, of indicating or making a statement to the government or to parties who were regarded as the enemy, that the AWB or Mr Harmse's Organisation was not going to just sit by, a device, a controlled, a properly controlled device or an explosive could have been used in a building, at a government building, unoccupied by persons and the equal amount of publicity would have been resulted.

What has happened here, is the publicity and tragic loss of life and nothing achieved.

JUDGE WILSON: You keep coming back to government building, government building, but doesn't the position throughout the world that these terrorist organisations strike at all sorts of building and places as for example, Aintree Race Course, last Saturday, hardly a government building, but nobody has disputed that it was the act of the IRA in furtherance of their objects?

MR BLACK: I am not able to comment on that, and I don't know if the IRA have claimed responsibility, but my submission is that that still does not detract from the proportionality business or two wrongs do not make a right.

And I submit therefor that had Mr Harmse or his Organisation wanted to achieve the objective as he says, to demonstrate to affected parties, or the enemy as he calls it, that they were just not sitting by and allowing CODESA

to proceed, there was no need to deliberately go out and plant a lethal device, uncontrolled explosive, in a shopping complex which both Mr Harmse knew or he expected would be occupied by Muslim people and he, Mr Harmse, knew or thought that the bomb would actually go off when the doors were, attempts were made to open the doors and therefor he deliberately went out to kill people and my submission is that that is out of all proportion to the objective which was allegedly being sought, to further and to publicise the aims and objectives of his Organisation.

I have, there is no evidence that his Organisation's policy was to murder and to maim innocent people.

I have nothing further, Mr Chairman, thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in my argument I have already dealt with many of the aspects to which Mr Black has referred. With regard to the proportionality I have also dealt with this matter and I want to argue with respect that one could make a very long list of acts of the ANC where innocent persons were involved, but I am sure that you are aware of this list.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black's argument is that two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that they did this, makes this just as wrong as the fact that Mr Harmse did so.

ADV PRINSLOO: The ANC believed that they would reach their goal and in my argument I have in fact stated that they have met their goal. Similarly the applicant believed that he would reach his goal.

The argument is not that he believed that it was a wrong act at that time, he considered it an act of war. In the context of a war declared against the ANC/SACP alliance

and the then government, and with respect, that is what occurred.

One could never, ever consider any person for amnesty if you were to consider what other persons did and this person believed in a specific ideal and he acted in terms of that ideal. His Organisation was structured in a particular way, there was a military wing, the Boer Republican Army, similarly to the military wing of the ANC.

The difference then is in terms of the goals and ideals, but my argument is with respect that there was no lack of proportionality between the act and the ideal or goal.

With regard to big business or the so called large financial institutions, it was his testimony that the Muslim Indian, members of the Muslim Indian community had in fact the particular financial means to contribute to the aims of the ANC.

With regard to State institutions and the difference drawn. With respect I want to argue that the testimony of the witness is that by placing the bomb at the commercial centre, he believed that this would make a difference.

A State or a government building was therefor not considered. A further aspect that the - it would have been better to use a controlled device, with respect Mr Chairman, you have pointed out to Mr Black the fact that landmines have been used in many cases. This was a situation of war.

A further aspect is that it is clear that the applicant Mr Harmse, was promoted in the Boer Republican Army because of this act, there was no other reason for his promotion.

Thank you Honourable Chairman.

MRS VAN DER WALT: I have nothing to add.

JUDGE WILSON: The Committee will take time to arrive at its decision. That concludes today's hearing, we will adjourn till what time tomorrow morning Mr Black?

MR BLACK: Mr Chairman, I hope nine o'clock. That is the scheduled time, I did make enquiries that you raised. The Prison authorities had some difficulty in locating the venue, but they tell me they were here at ten past nine, this morning.

JUDGE WILSON: Very well, we will adjourn till nine o'clock tomorrow morning.