History Grade 12 P2 NSC November Prediction 2026 Addendum

Copyright reserved Please turn over Prediction hlayiso mock exams Practice Series: Grade 12 NSC Preparation WWW.HLAYISO.COM NATIONAL SENIOR CERTIFICATE GRADE 12 HISTORY P2 ADDENDUM PREDICTION EXAMINATION 2026 This addendum consists of 13 pages.

History/P2 2 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 QUESTION 1: HOW DID ANTI-APARTHEID ORGANISATIONS CHALLENGE THE APARTHEID STATE DURING THE STATES OF EMERGENCY IN THE 1980s? SOURCE 1A The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It focuses on the township uprisings of 1984 to 1986, the call for ‘people’s power’ and the declaration of the states of emergency. The United Democratic Front (UDF) was launched in August 1983 to oppose PW Botha’s reforms, especially the tricameral parliament and the system of black local authorities in the townships. Within a year hundreds of civic, student, youth, women’s, church and worker organisations had affiliated (joined) to the UDF. On 3 September 1984, the day on which the new tricameral constitution came into effect, residents of townships in the Vaal Triangle, such as Sebokeng, Sharpeville and Evaton, protested against rent increases announced by their local council. The protests turned violent and several councillors were killed. Black local councillors were regarded as ‘collaborators’ because they served in structures created by the apartheid government and were blamed for higher rents and corruption. The unrest spread rapidly to other parts of the country. From October 1984 soldiers of the South African Defence Force (SADF) were sent into the townships, starting with a large operation in Sebokeng. Anti-apartheid activists called on residents to make the townships ‘ungovernable*’ and to replace apartheid structures with ‘people’s power’. In many townships residents formed street committees and area committees and set up people’s courts. Communities organised rent boycotts, consumer boycotts of white-owned shops and school boycotts. Many councillors were forced to resign. On 21 July 1985 the government declared a partial state of emergency in 36 magisterial districts, mainly in the Eastern Cape and the Pretoria–Witwatersrand–Vereeniging area. The police and the army received wide powers to detain people without trial, to search homes and to impose curfews, and the reporting of unrest by the media was restricted. The emergency was lifted in March 1986, but on 12 June 1986 the government declared a nationwide state of emergency. Thousands of people, including children, were detained. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *ungovernable: a situation in which the authorities can no longer control an area Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 3 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 SOURCE 1B The poster below was designed by the examiner in the style of the posters that were used by the End Conscription Campaign (ECC) in the mid-1980s. The ECC was formed in 1983 by mainly young white South Africans who opposed conscription (compulsory military service). At the time, all white men had to complete two years of national service in the SADF. END CONSCRIPTION CAMPAIGN TROOPS OUT OF THE TOWNSHIPS! STOP THE CALL-UP Your country does not need you to fight your own people. WORK FOR A JUST PEACE [Poster designed by the examiner] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 4 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 SOURCE 1C The source below has been adapted from a history of the Black Sash. It explains how the Black Sash, an organisation of mainly white women, challenged apartheid. The Black Sash was founded in 1955 by a group of white women to protest against the government’s plan to remove coloured voters in the Cape from the common voters’ roll. Its members wore black sashes as a sign of mourning for the ‘death’ of the Constitution, which the government had changed to achieve this aim. From the late 1950s the Black Sash opened advice offices in Cape Town, Johannesburg and other cities. Volunteers in these offices helped thousands of black South Africans who suffered under the pass laws and influx control. They assisted people who had been arrested for pass offences, people who had lost the right to live and work in the cities, workers who had been unfairly dismissed and elderly people who struggled to obtain their pensions. They also supported communities that were threatened with forced removals. The Black Sash recorded these cases and published reports that exposed the hardships caused by apartheid laws. During the 1980s Black Sash members monitored political trials and forced removals, collected information about people who were detained without trial and supported the families of detainees. The emergency regulations banned most outdoor gatherings. Black Sash members therefore held ‘single-person stands’: one woman at a time stood silently in a public place with a placard protesting against detentions, conscription or forced removals, because a woman standing alone did not form a prohibited gathering. The Black Sash campaigned for the abolition of the pass laws, which were finally scrapped in 1986. [Adapted from a history of the Black Sash] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 5 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 SOURCE 1D The source below was compiled by the examiner from newspaper reports published in 1988. It focuses on the measures that the apartheid government took against anti-apartheid organisations in 1988 and the responses to these measures. On 24 February 1988 the Minister of Law and Order, Adriaan Vlok, used the emergency regulations to restrict 17 organisations, including the UDF, the Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO), the National Education Crisis Committee (NECC) and the South African Youth Congress (SAYCO). These organisations were not allowed to carry out any activities. The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) was prohibited from taking part in political activities, and several leaders were restricted to their homes. Within days church leaders, among them Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dr Allan Boesak and the Reverend Frank Chikane, led a march to Parliament in Cape Town to protest against the restrictions. They were briefly arrested. The churches declared that they would continue to speak out on behalf of those who had been silenced. In August 1988 the government also banned the End Conscription Campaign. The ECC had organised campaigns against the presence of troops in the townships and had encouraged young white men to question whether they should serve in the SADF. In the same month 143 young white men publicly announced that they would refuse to serve in the SADF. Some objectors, such as David Bruce, were sentenced to six years in prison for refusing to do military service. The restrictions did not end resistance. The leaders of the restricted organisations worked together with COSATU and the churches, and in 1989 the struggle continued under the banner of the Mass Democratic Movement (MDM). [Compiled by the examiner from newspaper reports, 1988] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 6 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 QUESTION 2: HOW DID THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION’S (TRC’S) DECISION TO GRANT AMNESTY TO THE KILLERS OF AMY BIEHL CONTRIBUTE TO RECONCILIATION IN SOUTH AFRICA? SOURCE 2A The source below was compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts. It explains who Amy Biehl was and how she was killed in August 1993. Amy Biehl was a 26-year-old American student from California. In 1993 she was in South Africa on a Fulbright scholarship. She worked with the Community Law Centre at the University of the Western Cape (UWC) on research about the rights of women, and she helped with voter-education programmes for South Africa’s first democratic elections, which were to be held in April 1994. On the afternoon of 25 August 1993 Amy Biehl drove three black friends home to Gugulethu, a township near Cape Town. Earlier that day young members of the Pan Africanist Students’ Organisation (PASO) had attended a political meeting at a local school. Some of them were chanting the slogan ‘One settler*, one bullet’, which was used by supporters of the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA), the armed wing of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). When a group of youths saw a white woman in the car, they began to stone it. Amy Biehl was pulled from the car, stoned and stabbed. Her friends tried to protect her and shouted that she was a ‘comrade’, but she died of her injuries. In 1994 four young men – Mongezi Manqina, Vusumzi Ntamo, Ntobeko Peni and Easy Nofemela – were convicted of the murder of Amy Biehl and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Her death shocked many South Africans and people around the world, because she had come to South Africa to support the transition to democracy. [Compiled by the examiner from various historical accounts] *settler: a term used by the PAC and APLA to describe white people as colonisers of Africa Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 7 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 SOURCE 2B The source below has been adapted from the decision of the Amnesty Committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) on the amnesty applications of the four men convicted of the murder of Amy Biehl, announced in Cape Town on 28 July 1998. In terms of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act of 1995, amnesty could only be granted for acts that were committed between 1 March 1960 and 10 May 1994 and that were associated with a political objective. The applicant also had to make a full disclosure of all the relevant facts. The four men convicted of the murder of Amy Biehl applied for amnesty. At the hearing they told the Amnesty Committee that they had been active members of PASO, the student wing of the PAC, which supported the armed struggle of APLA. They explained that they had regarded all white people as ‘settlers’ who benefited from apartheid, and that the political meeting they had attended had stirred them into action. They described what each of them had done during the attack and asked the Biehl family for forgiveness. Amy Biehl’s parents, Peter and Linda Biehl, travelled from the United States to attend the hearing. They did not oppose the applications. They told the Committee that they supported the process of truth and reconciliation in which their daughter had believed, and that they did not wish to stand in the way of amnesty. The Amnesty Committee found that the applicants had acted as supporters of a political organisation during a political struggle, and that they had not been motivated by personal gain or by personal hatred of Amy Biehl. It was satisfied that they had made a full disclosure. In July 1998 the four men were granted amnesty and were released from prison. [Adapted from the decision of the TRC Amnesty Committee, Cape Town, 28 July 1998] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 8 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 SOURCE 2C The cartoon below was drawn by the examiner. It comments on the amnesty process of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). THE PRICE OF PEACE AMNESTY FULL DISCLOSURE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION JUSTICE TRC A VICTIM’S FAMILY And justice? [Cartoon drawn by the examiner] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 9 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 SOURCE 2D The source below was compiled by the examiner from various accounts. It focuses on the work of the Amy Biehl Foundation and on some of the criticism of the TRC’s amnesty process. After the death of their daughter, Peter and Linda Biehl decided to continue the work that Amy had started in South Africa. They set up the Amy Biehl Foundation, which developed programmes for children and young people in Gugulethu and other townships around Cape Town. The foundation ran after-school programmes, sport, music and arts activities, and literacy and health-education projects, to keep young people away from crime and violence. After their release, Easy Nofemela and Ntobeko Peni were employed by the foundation. They worked with young people in the townships and spoke at schools and public events about the dangers of violence and the importance of reconciliation, sometimes together with Linda Biehl. Peter Biehl died in 2002, but Linda Biehl continued the work of the foundation for many years. Not all South Africans were as willing to forgive as the Biehl family. Some victims and their families argued that amnesty allowed killers to go free without punishment and took away their right to justice in the courts. Many victims of apartheid violence never discovered who had killed or tortured their loved ones, because many perpetrators, including senior politicians and security force commanders, never applied for amnesty. Victims also waited years for reparations: in 2003 the government announced a once-off payment of R30 000 to each victim identified by the TRC, which many regarded as too little. [Compiled by the examiner from various accounts] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 10 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 QUESTION 3: HOW DID SOUTH AFRICA USE ITS PRESIDENCY OF THE GROUP OF TWENTY (G20) IN 2025 TO ADVANCE THE INTERESTS OF AFRICA IN A GLOBALISED WORLD? SOURCE 3A The source below was compiled by the examiner from various sources. It explains what the Group of Twenty (G20) is and how South Africa came to hold its presidency. The Group of Twenty (G20) was established in 1999, after the Asian financial crisis of 1997–1998, as a forum where the finance ministers and central bank governors of the world’s major economies could discuss the stability of the global economy. After the global financial crisis of 2008 the meetings were raised to the level of heads of state and government. The first G20 Leaders’ Summit was held in Washington DC in November 2008. The G20 consists of 19 countries, the European Union (EU) and, since 2023, the African Union (AU). The table below shows the share of the world total that its members account for. G20 share of the world total Approximate share Gross domestic product (GDP) about 85% International trade about 75% Population about two-thirds Until the African Union was admitted as a permanent member, South Africa was the only African member of the G20. The presidency of the G20 rotates among its members every year. South Africa held the presidency from 1 December 2024 to 30 November 2025. It was the first time that an African country led the G20. South Africa followed Indonesia (2022), India (2023) and Brazil (2024), which meant that four countries of the Global South* in a row had led the group. South Africa chose the theme ‘Solidarity, Equality, Sustainability’ for its presidency. [Compiled by the examiner from various sources] *Global South: developing countries, mainly in Africa, Latin America and Asia Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 11 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 SOURCE 3B The source below was compiled by the examiner from various sources. It outlines the priorities that South Africa set for its G20 presidency. South Africa set four priorities for its G20 presidency: strengthening disaster resilience and response, ensuring debt sustainability for low-income countries, mobilising finance for a just energy transition, and harnessing critical minerals for inclusive growth and development. Many African countries spend a large share of their government income on paying interest on foreign loans, which leaves less money for health care, education and infrastructure. Poor countries are also hit hardest by climate-related disasters such as floods, droughts and cyclones, even though they have contributed least to global greenhouse-gas emissions. South Africa argued that these countries needed affordable finance to move from coal and other fossil fuels to renewable energy in a way that protects the workers and communities who depend on the old industries. Africa holds large reserves of critical minerals, such as platinum-group metals, manganese, cobalt and lithium, which are needed for batteries, solar panels and electric vehicles. For many years these minerals were exported as raw materials and processed in other countries, where most of the jobs and profits were created. South Africa urged that more minerals should be processed (beneficiated) in the countries where they are mined. It also called for the reform of global financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, to give developing countries a greater say in decisions that affect them. [Compiled by the examiner from various sources] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 12 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 SOURCE 3C The cartoon below was drawn by the examiner. It comments on the G20 Leaders’ Summit held in Johannesburg on 22–23 November 2025. G20 LEADERS’ SUMMIT JOHANNESBURG 2025 BRAZIL INDIA AFRICAN UNION CHINA EU USA AGENDA: DEBT • CLIMATE • CRITICAL MINERALS SOUTH AFRICA (HOST) We will carry on without them – the problems of the world cannot wait! [Cartoon drawn by the examiner] Copyright reserved Please turn over

History/P2 13 NSC – Addendum Prediction Hlayiso/Prediction 2026 SOURCE 3D The source below was compiled by the examiner from news reports published in 2025. It focuses on the tense relations between the United States of America (USA) and South Africa during South Africa’s G20 presidency. Relations between the USA and South Africa became tense during 2025. In August 2025 the USA imposed a tariff of 30% on many goods imported from South Africa, and motor vehicles already faced a 25% US tariff. Exporters of citrus fruit, motor vehicles and wine warned that thousands of jobs could be lost. Many of these goods had previously entered the USA without import duties under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a law passed by the United States Congress in 2000 to promote trade with countries in sub-Saharan Africa. AGOA was due to expire in September 2025, and its future was uncertain. In November 2025 the US government announced that it would not send a delegation to the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Johannesburg. US President Donald Trump repeated claims that white farmers in South Africa were being persecuted, claims that the South African government rejected as false. The summit went ahead on 22–23 November 2025 without the USA. Despite objections from the US government, the leaders who attended adopted a declaration that called for action on climate change, debt relief for poor countries and fairer benefits from critical minerals. South African officials described the summit as a success for multilateralism* and for Africa. The USA was due to take over the presidency of the G20 for 2026. [Compiled by the examiner from news reports, 2025] *multilateralism: co-operation among many countries to solve common problems Copyright reserved