On Saturday, May 31, 2014, the Commission of Inquiry into Legitimate Constitutional Change in South Africa (KOGESA) met in connection with the conduct of the former State President FW de Klerk in Pretoria.
The day kicked off with a festive atmosphere during which the Westranders (ROD ladies and Paardekraal Scouts) offered their now popular Timeline Competition – this time, with the 100 – year anniversary of the 1914 Rebellion as a theme. All things traditional were available to buy at the various stalls.
From 11 O’clock, the atmosphere became more serious, and those present in the hall met for the KOGESA sitting. Having opened with singing, scripture reading and prayer by Rev. F. Van der Merwe, he confirmed that the Presiding Officers and the complainant should be guided by the law and their conscience in the course of the proceedings.
Acting as Presiding Officers were Mr. Marius Coertze (known lawyer from Pretoria); Mrs. Suze Buitendag (a former attorney currently practicing as a lawyer), and Adv. Jan van Zyl (known lawyer in folk circles). The complainant Mr. Paul Kruger (attorney) presented the case against FW de Klerk.
All lawyers who acted, have extensive qualifications and experience.
During his argument, Mr. Kruger submitted a large number of documents (including the 1983 Constitution which was applicable in De Klerk’s regime, and the Law on the Transitional Executive Council and the Electoral Act that he and the National Party (NP) presented for adoption by Parliament in 1993). Mr. Kruger showed how both these laws were in direct conflict with the then “current constitution”, similar to something which led to invalidation of Acts of Parliament in previous Appeal Court judgments like the “Harris” decisions of the 1950’s.
Furthermore, De Klerk and the NP’s deviations from their electoral mandate and their voluntary restriction of the “Free Mandate” theory, which they themselves ultimately did not like, were raised. It was also pointed out that De Klerk himself has admitted that the 1994 election results were so chaotic that there are legal grounds to dispute them. Nevertheless, he accepted them – so that the majority black takeover could not be put in jeopardy.
Mr. Kruger argued that De Klerk’s breach of the relevant Constitutional principles to perform such configuration is such that its actions complied with the elements of the offense of treason.
At the end of Kruger’s argument, the Presiding Officers issued the following findings:
“After the Presiding Officers heard the arguments on May 31, 2014 in the proceedings of the Commission of Folk Forensic Investigation of Constitutional Change in South Africa, from 1989 to 1994, we come to the following findings:
1. Fact that the former State President Frederik Willem de Klerk, broke his oath of office.
2. Fact that the former State President Frederik Willem de Klerk, broke the rules and principles of the relevant, current Constitution, by allowing legislation contrary to the relevant existing Constitutional Act 110 of 1983 to be enacted.
3. Fact that the former State President Frederik Willem de Klerk thus acted unlawfully.
4. The fact that former State President Frederik Willem de Klerk, committed the aforesaid wrongful acts with the intent of changing the constitutional structure of the Republic of South Africa.
5. Fact that the former State President Frederik Willem de Klerk’s actions meet the elements of the offense of High Treason.”