CHAIRPERSON
Thank you, you may continue.
MR RUDOLPH
"With the visit of Mr de Klerk to Ventersdorp, tension was brought about and there was great interest, not only about Mr de Klerk's address but also regarding the standpoint of the so-called right-wingers regarding an incident regarding squatters at Goedgevonden, in which some Boers were shot at and some were injured.
		Secondly, discussions between the government and members of the black liberation movements, which had reached a critical stage.  It was then already clear that these changes, or that the changes would not leave South Africa unchanged.  Seen against that background the AWB decided to go to Mr de Klerk's meeting with the objective of putting the demands of the Boere people.  Media speculation and public interest created a climate for confrontation.
		On the 8th of August 1991 -(excuse me for a moment, I want to make sure about a point.  Thank you, Your Honour.  I am not sure but in my application it says the 8th of August 1991).  Late the afternoon a message was received by the applicant personally that a cabinet minister would address members of the AWB, with the objective of allowing them admission to the meeting.  The applicant conveyed the message to the leader of the AWB.  (And just allow me to tell you that Mr Terre'blanche was away at that moment and that that message was only conveyed to him quite late.  We will refer to that later again).
		As a result of that, a march took place to the hall where the meeting was to be held and a confrontation with the police, which opposed the invitation to speak to the Cabinet Minister.  The applicant tried to get past a police cordon but was arrested at the hall where the meeting took place and held in a police van until he was charged later that evening.
		Although there was a shooting incident and people were killed, the magistrate found that the applicant had already been arrested and therefore could not have had any part in the events.
		With that I want to tell you that my involvement or responsibility, that I am not trying to get away from my responsibility with that statement.  The applicant was charged with conspiracy and public violence and found guilty.  The crime which the applicant was found guilty of which the applicant still denies was a crime had political objectives and was the main reason for the application for amnesty.
		The applicant appealed against the sentence because reconsideration did not exist.  The applicant keeps to his conviction that he had a meeting with the Cabinet Minister and was illegally prevented by the former SAP to attend this meeting.  The appeal has since been rejected."
	At the hearing, Your Honour, I used, made use of my right to give an explanation to the court.  As I had said that I was not guilty, I will use my civil right to explain this to the court.  And at this stage I also want to say to you that perhaps it is not in such legal terms as preferable but this is the attempt of a lay person.  If the charge sheet includes a crime then the person who has incited the crime is absent at this hearing.  His name is FW de Klerk.
	If I was involved in anything which is referred to as common purpose on the charge sheet, then that purpose was to appeal for a place in the sun for my people and my religion and for the reinstatement of my peoples' freedom on the land which was taken from our forefathers by Britain.  Such action I do not regard as illegal, even less so that it was done with criminal intentions.
	If I had a common purpose with anyone, then it was not to commit a crime, but in order to protect our people against the criminality of the government, led by its chief leader who used the police illegally to further its political purpose and objective, namely the destruction of any opposition against its policy of abdication.   Mr de Klerk's purpose and objective was so big that he did not want to allow any political opponents at his meetings but he was prepared to have his own people killed in the streets and he directly or indirectly gave such an instruction.
	To anyone who has the experience of the Goedgevonden incident in Ventersdorp and what happened in Ventersdorp before this and who shares in this experience, it should have been clear that Mr de Klerk has before him too, Jan Smuts, will have no doubt to have his people, people who oppose him, to have been killed.
	In opposition to this I tried to warn and tried to take precautions by suggesting specific action.  The public life sets high demands to those who are called to act on behalf of a cause.  Those demands require personal safety, position and status to be placed on the alter of the nation.  One cannot say that you are a leader and then doubt when the struggle, when faced with the struggle.
	When one is in the position of leadership and when not only the honour of your people but also its continued existence is being threatened and you are moving to a place where you have to act on behalf of your people and your religion, where you have a meeting, not only with a Cabinet Minister, but also with the future of your people, you do not allow yourself to be interrupted by misleading ... (end of tape) ... for the continued existence sets a high price.
	Therefore, I could not disrupt public calm.  I am a registered voter in the constituency of Ventersdorp - at that stage I was.  At the time of the event I was an inhabitant of Ventersdorp.  During my stay in Ventersdorp, the town was, had peace and calm while I was present there, which was most of the time.  FW de Klerk is not a registered voter in the constituency of Ventersdorp, nor was he a resident of Ventersdorp.
	During his visit to the town, accompanied by a large contingency of policemen, there was no peace and calm in the town.  The unrest is then therefore clearly to be placed in front of his door than in front of mine.  I did not disrupt the members of the community.  As a matter of fact, if the history of this time is one day seen in perspective, it can be said of me that I protected those specific rights.
	I am not the one who did not acknowledge the rights of the  members of the community by refusing them attendance to the public meeting.  I was not the one who denied the rights of the public community by trying to prevent them by means of violence, from keeping a meeting with Minister Amie Venter in front of the town hall.  I was not the one who made, who disrupted the lives of the people of the community by placing barbed wire there and using police dogs to attack them.  In this regard it would have been much more suitable to use the commander of the SAP during the Ventersdorp incident and to call him before court.
	I did not affect the authority of the South African Police.  The SAP has no other authority than to restore and to maintain law and order.  It does not fall within that authority to erect barbed wire, use teargas, bullets and vicious dogs and to take a stand against people who, for peaceful reasons, want to state a civil case.  Such action is tyranny at the highest level and it calls against, it shouts against everything that is democratic and civilised and such a State deserves absolutely no continued existence and I am very glad that that State has been destroyed.
	What is said to me in this statement is therefore not true at all.  If the State is to say that it is a crime that it is a - to fight for the survival of the Boer people and to be counted for those people and stand up for them, it is proof of only one thing which is that that State is rotten in its core.
	With regard to the charge sheet, the following:  I did nothing which could substantiate me firing at the police with a firearm.  During the incident I did have a firearm on me but I never fired at anything or anybody, not even when I was provoked twice and I was assaulted by the police.
	I did not fire with a firearm at members of the public, I did not fire at anybody or anything, but I do know that members of the South African Police did fire at members of the general public and some of the members of the public were shot dead by the South African Police.  So in this matter the court implicated the wrong person.
	I did not assault members of the general public, on the contrary, I can say that members of the general public during this incident were assaulted by members of the South African Police.  In fact I myself am one of the members of the general public who was assaulted by the South African Police.  I still bear the consequences of that in that since this incident I suffer from headaches and my right arm was injured.  I have not assaulted members of the South African Police.
	Also with regard to this charge, the wrong person again is in the, is being accused.  They have attacked me, I have not attacked them.  I honestly must tell you I cannot understand why the investigating officer wants to prosecute me.  I never - I find it senseless to fight vehicles in any way.  I haven't damaged property.  I did not want to break through a police cordon.  In my official capacity as Secretary General at the time I had an appointment to meet Mr Amie Venter in front of the hall.
	Any person who wants to avoid a member of the public to make an appointment, is acting irregularly.  I see the police cordon as nothing but an infringement on my right as a member of the public.  I haven't in any way damaged police dogs.  I have the right to protect myself if somebody instigates a vicious dog to attack me.
	I deny that I have worked together with anybody to commit a crime.  In the Ventersdorp episode I did see signs of conspiracy but on the side of Mr de Klerk and the South African Police and on their side Mr de Klerk, the South African Police, the South African Defence Force without conspiracy taking place beforehand, we would not have a very unpopular political personality.  	A Police Force with barbed wire, an armed Police Force with infantry and vehicles, we would not have that simultaneously at the same place.  I am not guilty of an offence as is being made out in terms of Section 3.  I was on my way to the meeting of one FW de Klerk, to exercise my civilian right and responsibility and I also had an appointment to meet a Cabinet Minister in front of the hall.
	Despite the efforts of the police not to allow me to my right I did move up to the hall where I was assaulted for a second time by the police.  I was not allowed to attend the meeting, I was arrested and I was illegally detained.
	I am, as I have already said, a registered voter in the Ventersdorp constituency and at the time I was living in Ventersdorp.  I have a democratic right to attend a meeting as a leader of a registered political party and to listen to the abdicating State President.  Mr de Klerk was at Ventersdorp in his capacity as State President and if that was not the case I would have liked to have questioned him about that if the State was to call him as witness.
	Your Honour, could I then at this stage just ask, there are certain exhibits then which will not be relevant.  I would nevertheless like to hand in the document so that you could then later use it or do you expect me to rather go through the total document?