Boeremag trial 'not Rivonia'
2003-07-25 14:28
Pretoria - For former state president FW de Klerk, a comparison of the treason trial of 22 alleged members of the rightwing Boeremag to the Rivonia trial went against the grain, the Pretoria High Court heard on Friday.
The Boeremag accused enjoyed rights under the Constitution that the Rivonia trialists never did, said Jan Heunis, De Klerk's senior counsel.
These included the right to equality, freedom and dignity; freedom of religion, expression and association; and the right to belong to a specific cultural group.
"What goes against the grain is an attempt to draw a comparison between this trial and the Rivonia trial," Heunis said.
"Except for the venue of the trial and the nature of the charges, there is no resemblance."
The courtroom where the Boeremag trial is taking place is the same one where former president Nelson Mandela and the other so-called Rivonia trialists were prosecuted for crimes against the State, including sabotage, in the 1960s.
It was there where the former president famously declared in 1964 he was prepared to die for the ideal of a democratic society in which all persons lived in harmony.
Politicking
De Klerk is asking the court to set aside a subpoena issued by defence counsel for some of the Boeremag accused to testify in their treason trial resuming on August 4.
In a sworn statement handed up to the court, the former president said attempts to have him testify for the defence in the Boeremag trial amounted to nothing more than politicking.
"I can come to no other conclusion... that the subpoena is an attempt to use the trial court as a political stage."
"I am not inclined to get involved in a political debate on the witness stand with political opponents who blame me for starting a reform process which resulted in majority government in South Africa."
He accused the Boeremag trialists of abusing the legal process for an impermissible purpose.
Thirteen of the 22 accused entered a special plea contesting the jurisdiction of the court and disputing the legitimacy of the current government, its institutions and the Constitution.
They contend voters in the 1992 referendum on a new political order were never asked to approve the new Constitution. This, they say, is in violation of an undertaking by the government of the day not to approve any constitutional legislation without a mandate from voters.
In his statement, De Klerk said no such undertaking was ever given.
Heunis told the court that even if the process leading up to the election of the current government could be proven invalid, the government had become the de facto and de jure government through the passage of time.
Riddled with irregularities
Another bone of contention is a statement the former president allegedly made that the 1994 general elections were riddled with irregularities.
De Klerk said this might be the case, but nothing could change the fact that the African National Congress had won the majority vote.
"The balance of power would not have been influenced and the election results as such would not have been invalid," his statement says.
He also contended that many of the issues on which the Boeremag defence wanted him to testify, were legal matters on which he could give no expert evidence.
Heunis said De Klerk was just an ordinary "Joe Citizen". Asking him to testify would be like taking someone from the street to tell a court whether he thought the government was legitimate, Heunis said.
The accused face 42 charges including high treason, terrorism, sabotage, murder, attempted murder and the illegal possession of explosives, firearms and ammunition.
The State alleges they plotted to overthrow the government.
- SAPA