Amnesty Hearings

MR MPSHE: We are ready to continue. As the Chairman and the Honourable members of the Committee will recall, the second applicant Mr Janusz Walus was still on the stand and I am going to hand over to my learned friend to continue.

But Mr Chairman, before we commence with his further evidence, I just want to put it on record that the firm Nicholls, Cambanis and Associates, that is the firm appearing for the families as well as COSATU, had requested in writing to the Committee that certain persons be subpoenaed. I just want to put you on record that these persons have been subpoenaed. The subpoenas have been served on them, except one Mr Chairman, whom the Investigating Officers were not successful in serving the subpoena on and that is Mr Edwin John Clark, but the rest have been subpoenaed.

I have their returns thereto, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mpshe. Mr Walus, it has been a long time since you gave evidence, will you please stand and take the oath.

JANUSZ WALUS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, before we continue with the testimony, we have addressed a written request that the investigation unit's report be made available to us and that report to the present, have not been made available to us. In the media in the meanwhile information appeared in the newspaper Die Rapport, and Mr Mpshe said that that report had not been made available yet.

Mr Chairman, we contend that that report must be made available to us, there is no reason why this had not been done, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, if I need to respond to that, Mr Chairman, it is correct that my learned friend has requested the investigation unit report in this matter and I did indicate to them when we were in Pretoria, that the investigations were still in process and that as soon as it is available, it will be made available to them as well.

A week ago when I was in Cape Town Mr Chairman, I met with the Deputy Head of Investigation of the TRC, Mr Wilson Mgalhe and made the enquiries about this report, to which he informed that they are still busy investigating and that it is going to take time and this I did convey to my learned friend's Attorney in writing.

Mr Chairman, the fact that there have been reports or allegations in the media in the newspaper about our investigation, Mr Chairman, let's put things straight, this report that was leaked to the media, did not come from the TRC. The newspaper report was very clear, I read all the newspaper's reporting on this aspect. They made it very clear that the information that was reported, came from the ANC as well as COSATU and not the TRC, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, is there any indication as to when this report is likely to be available? To tell us that the report is not ready and it is a state of affairs that may continue for many, many months.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, when I spoke to Mr Mgalhe he said he needs at least one more month to complete.

JUDGE WILSON: Did he know the hearing was likely to be completed now, in the next two weeks?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, he is fully aware of what is happening in the hearings. He was actually there when we started there in Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Is he a man from Pretoria?

MR MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman, he is based in Cape Town, the Deputy Head of Investigations.

CHAIRPERSON: Where can he be, can he not be made available to members of the Amnesty Committee to discuss this matter with him?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I can try to trace him, but he left on Friday for France to do further investigation in France, but I would check with Cape Town whether he has returned and I will make him to come down to Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: The purpose of all this exercise is Mr Mpshe, that a lot of that information, if there is any information on that report, it might come too late and it might be valueless as evidence.

MR MPSHE: It is appreciated Mr Chairman, I will get Mr Wilson.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. We can't take the matter any further and I can't imagine anybody using the contents of any document which purports to be that report.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in the light of the fact that there is a broad conspiracy which is specifically being investigated by this Committee, it could cast light on the fact whether such a broad conspiracy does exist or not. Mr Mpshe has also informed me that the Investigating Unit Officer is in France on another matter which doesn't bear on this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am afraid at this stage, or the Committee is not in a position to make any sensible, take any sensible decision on this matter. We will just have to proceed as best we can in the meanwhile.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases the Committee.

JUDGE WILSON: Who is doing the investigation?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, it is done by Mr Wilson Mgalhe himself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, may we proceed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I would like to place on record that this morning 21 video cassettes were handed over to us by Captain Nick Deetliefs' Attorney, Mr Scholtz. You will remember Mr Chairman, that from the time that Mr Bizos made the Section 29 statements, placed them before the Commission, we had been attempting to get hold of these tapes. I am in possession of one video tape which I saw that my client was able to view and comment on it to me, but naturally he was not able to see all 21 which had been handed to us now.

I also wish to place on record that Mr Holmes of the Murder and Robbery Unit, did his utmost to make these tapes available to us. I am not blaming him, there was a meeting arranged with Mr Scholtz, the Attorney of Mr Deetliefs for last Friday at half past two at the Advocates Chambers in Pretoria to discuss this matter in particular. At that stage we heard that there was only one video tape but that morning at ten o'clock we were notified that Mr Scholtz, well rather Advocate Brand was going to the Bar dinner that evening and that he wasn't available to see us.

So I am going to lead Mr Walus in his testimony because I don't wish to waste the time of the Committee, but as you are aware and will understand my client is entitled to view these video tapes. He was not even aware that videos had been made of the interrogation. Thank you sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, you may proceed for the time being.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, on the 10th of April 1993 you were arrested as you had testified?

MR WALUS: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where were you taken directly after your arrest?

MR WALUS: I was taken to the Boksburg police station, Murder and Robbery Squad.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you at any stage handed over to Mr Holmes?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is correct. Sergeant Holmes at that time, Sergeant, was taking me in the first hours after arrest. It was after about 30 minutes, maybe one hour, after arrest.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you placed in the cells in Benoni?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I was placed in the cells in Benoni the same day, late afternoon or evening.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I would just like to make the Committee aware that I looked at the case books and photocopies were made of those at Benoni and I wish to make those available to the Committee, but I discovered this morning that the police had not made copies of some of them, after I had obtained the book - they are correcting the matter at the moment and I will hand the copy of the occurrences book pages to you as soon as the matter has been corrected.

Mr Walus, the occurrences book will show that at about seven o'clock that evening, you were placed in the cells?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it should be correct. As far as I know, it was late and dark.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, what happened after this?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, after I was locked up in the cell, I tried to rest, however, from the neighbouring cells it was quite a big noise and I tried but I could fell asleep, but I was woken up a couple of hours later and taken out from the cell. As far as I remember by this Sergeant Holmes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, was that during that same night?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I presume it was, but I am not sure if it was Saturday late night, or early in the morning at Sunday. I only remember it was dark and as I felt, as my body felt that I slept about two or three hours only. I am not exactly sure.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus where were you taken then?

MR WALUS: First I was taken to the office of the Sergeant, Mr Holmes or somebody else's office, I am not very sure whose office it was, but Sergeant Holmes tried to persuade me to speak, otherwise I will make trouble for myself and for my family and for my friends. If I will say nothing, he will take me to Pretoria to the no of my brother and wake up my friends, who were staying there so I shouldn't do that, so I should speak to him.

But I didn't want and I didn't intend to say anything and I was taken to Pretoria to the no of my brother.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened there on the no of your brother's?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember correctly but I know that I didn't have any contact with my friends. I was kept in the car, I don't know how long. And later, I was taken again to Benoni as far as my memory serves me right.

Because these events were quite long ago and I was not very conscious.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, the occurrence book of Benoni which will be submitted, will show in entry 928 of the relevant day, that on the morning, 3:45 in the morning, you were brought back to the cell, does that fit more or less with what you experienced?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it could be correct. I didn't check the time at that time, but it was still dark when I was brought back to the cells in Benoni.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, that was on Sunday the 11th of April, the day after your arrest. There is an indication that you were again removed from the cells, occurrences entry, shows that it was at 5:30 in the morning, can you remember that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. That is correct, except that I don't remember if it was exactly 5:30, but it was very early in the morning, it was quite dark.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where were you taken then?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember Mr Chairman, I was taken to one of the offices. As far as I remember on the fourth floor and I was interrogated by as far as I remember, by this Sergeant Beetge and somebody else.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to refer you to Bundle R4, page 89, there is an indication that this is an information document, Boksburg MR number on page 90, it continues regarding the personal particulars of you. It is your personal particulars which are mentioned there, you have seen this document, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I haven't seen this document because nobody show me this document. I saw during my interrogation that somebody made notes, but I haven't seen this document.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you saw this document after it had been bound into the bundle, is that correct?

MR WALUS: That is correct. Later on, yes, I viewed it.

MS VAN DER WALT: It was apparent from the document that you were interrogated by three persons, Gilmer, Beetge and Botha.

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. It was three persons. One of them was participating very little in the interrogation, that is why I remember it was three persons, interrogating me, but I remember clearly two of them.

MS VAN DER WALT: I also wish to submit to the Committee a document which I will submit just now, this document goes with this information document which appears on page 89. On the front page there is an enquiry, task number 4. The second page is an investigation diary, dated 11 April 1993, which is the Sunday from which it is clearly apparent that Mr Walus, on that day, was taken out to Murder and Robbery for interrogation and it is further apparent from the document that this information document which is indicated as R4, was prepared at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should give this document a number as an Exhibit.

MR MPSHE: It will be K Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, this will be Exhibit K.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed please.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, you were interrogated and you were also asked to give explanations. What was your reaction to this request?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, my reaction was that I would not give any answers for the questions concerning a deed for which I was accused for, without contacting my lawyer.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, that is also apparent from page 100 of the document, at the bottom, where you answered I cannot get to this matter without legal advice. Is that correct?

MR WALUS: It is absolutely correct Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: And on page 12 you also say, you can read it, but I won't explain content. Do you remember that?

MR WALUS: Yes, I do remember. I answer in that way.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you again taken out by Mr Holmes on the Sunday for further interrogation?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is correct. I was taken - I don't remember exactly the hour but it was more or less between ten and eleven o'clock that day.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you taken to Dawn Park?

MR WALUS: Yes, I was taken to Dawn Park, shopping centre and to Apex.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do there?

MR WALUS: Sergeant Holmes wanted to check the distances between Apex and Dawn Park shopping centre. He asked me questions only concerning that matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to the occurrences book, you were returned to the cells at two o'clock the afternoon, is that correct?

MR WALUS: I think it is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: On Monday, the 12th of April, can you remember whether you were taken out on that particular day from the cells?

MR WALUS: Monday, the 12th of April, I am not very sure at the moment but I think I was taken to the Murder and Robbery Squad in Boksburg.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you remember that you made a warning statement to Mr Holmes?

MR WALUS: Yes, I do remember that I made a statement in front of Mr Holmes.

MS VAN DER WALT: I am showing you a document on which it was noted that it was the 12th of April that the statement was made, approximately twelve o'clock in the morning. Is this your signature that appears on this document?

MR WALUS: Yes, that is my signature and on the second page is also my signature.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you here you only said to Mr Holmes, that you had been to Apex and that after that, you had gone to Dawn Park, where you bought cold drink is that correct?

MR WALUS: More or less it is correct, but I said that when I was driving from Apex, I was lost and that is why I found myself at the shopping centre, Dawn Park.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct. Then on page 4 there is a note made by Mr Holmes with regard to what would have happened on the 11th of April, that was the previous day where you had driven to Apex and to Dawn Park. You also signed that, is that correct?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman, that was my signature, I signed this document.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I ask permission from the Commission to submit that as Exhibit L.

MR MPSHE: May I suggest to you that when you deal with a document, just repeat it in advance before you deal with it, so that when you look at it, we shall be in a position to do so otherwise we are terribly disadvantaged.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, on that same day that is now the Monday - Mr Walus, on the day that you made the statement, Monday the 12th of April, you were also further interrogated by other police officers, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is correct. I do not remember by whom I was interrogated at that day.

MS VAN DER WALT: Exhibit N, with permission of the Commission it was submitted and the members of the Committee had an opportunity to look at this, there was this Sergeant Vorster according to the Exhibit M and according to the investigation diary, he questioned you about the Stellard Foundation and the AWB. Can you remember that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. The questions were about that matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you didn't make any statements to this Sergeant which you signed, is that correct?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman. I didn't sign any statements and I also didn't testify about anything else, except the statements concerning Stellard Foundation and the AWB.

MS VAN DER WALT: I have here a document which goes with Exhibit M, that is an enquiry in handwritten form by a certain Sergeant Vorster which deals with the Stellard Foundation and the AWB and then if we look at point 3, it is written that Mr Walus during interrogation on 11th April made the following statement.

Read between the lines, but don't ask me further about it because there is a lot at stake. Do you remember saying this?

MR WALUS: Yes Mr Chairman, probably I said something like that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did Sergeant Vorster ask you to make a statement in regard to the incident?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if I answer in such a way it means I asked for this events. At that moment I am not able to say exactly because I was interrogated by so many people and almost everyone of them was asking me questions, so that is possible that I gave such an answer.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, on the Tuesday the 13th of April, you were taken out to the Magistrate's court to appear there, is that correct?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman. Tuesday the 13th, I was taken to the Magistrate's court in Boksburg. MS VAN DER WALT: On Wednesday, the 14th of April, according to the occurrences book, entry 1181, you were taken out at 10:20 by a Mr Grimbeeck and handed over to Nick Deetliefs, do you remember that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I do remember that I was handed to Mr Deetliefs.

MS VAN DER WALT: This is then also confirmed in R4 (continued) on page 294 as handed in by Mr Bizos, a statement of Mr Nick Deetliefs, the third paragraph 14 April 1993, at approximately 10:30 the accused in this particular matter, Mr Janusz Walus was booked out of the cells by Mr Grimbeeck.

What happened on this day Mr Walus, that was the Wednesday at 10:20 after you had been removed from the cell?

MR WALUS: ... and hand it over to Captain Deetliefs, I was taken by Captain Deetliefs and I think Sergeant Grimbeeck and as far as I remember, there was another policemen, a third one with them. They usually travelled by two cars. I was taken to my place of living in Pretoria where Captain Deetliefs, he was looking and checking up in my flat, and took a lot of my documents and photographs and as far as I remember, one of the policemen also made photo's of my flat.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, I wanted to interrupt you. I am not so sure if my microphone is working, I will assume it does. I am told it is in fact working.

May I ask you Mr Walus, at that stage, had you already consulted with your legal representative?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember exactly but I think that it was like that, but I would like to ask the Commission to look at my notes which I tried to make during the arrest in the cells, and I would like to go back to those notes and find out if I already contacted my legal representative.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before you do that, I notice that on the last page of Exhibit M, there is a note there a date there, the second line from the top, the date is the 12th of April 1993 and on the second paragraph there, it is written in Afrikaans, it said that it is strange that you now say that you don't remember uttering the words which you had uttered previously, that I did not kill Chris Hani and so on and so forth.

Then they go on to say the reason I suspect is that he denies the allegations because had already spoken to his legal representative. When this note was made, it was on the 12th of April which would imply as I understand it, it would imply that you had by the 12th of April, at least already consulted with your legal representative?

And that would have been before you were taken to your flat on the 12th or so, is that in line with your recollection?

MR WALUS: As I said before, I am 80 percent sure that I already contacted, I was introduced by my lawyer. I didn't have a lawyer before but my lawyer was in the cells, in the Benoni, because my brother did it for me, but to be 100 percent sure, I must check my notes.

But as I say, I am 80 percent sure that it was after I contacted my lawyer.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Also if this note is correct, it would mean that when you went to court on the 13th, if you did go to court on the 13th, by then you had already in fact, consulted with a legal representative?

MR WALUS: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, when Captain Nick Deetliefs took you to your flat in Pretoria on the 14th of April, was that the second time that you had been to your flat, accompanied by policemen, is that correct?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman. First time I was taken to my flat after my arrest, the first day, it means the 10th of April.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was this with Mr Holmes the first time?

MR WALUS: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did Captain Nick Deetliefs asked you when he took you to your flat, whether you wished to be accompanied by your legal representative, should he ask you anything at the flat or point anything out to you?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, no, he never asked me that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you taken to your flat only or were you taken to other places as well?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember, I was lately taken to the firm where I was working shortly before, Despatch in Pretoria.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to the occurrences book, at 15:48 at occurrence book entry 1503, you were taken back to your cells, you were not interrogated that evening again, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I was brought back to my cell, but as far as I remember I was interrogated that evening and that night by Mr Deetliefs.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, was that not on Thursday the 15th of April, according to the OB entry, at Thursday at 18:40 you were taken out of the cells and returned on the 16th of April, at 5:20 in the morning?

MR WALUS: It could have been that, but again, I ask for forgiveness if I make any mistakes concerning the duration of interrogation and by whom I was interrogated, because it was a period I was not all myself.

But at that time now, I am 90 percent sure that I was interrogated every evening, if it wasn't Captain Deetliefs, it was somebody else.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, on the Thursday, 15th of April, when you were removed from the cells by Captain Deetliefs at twenty to seven that evening, were you interrogated by him right through that night? I mean that is confirmed in his statement R4 (continued) on page 300, paragraph 7? What happened during that night, that was the first time that they interrogated you during the night, what happened there?

MR WALUS: I would like to repeat the date, which night it was.

MS VAN DER WALT: It was Thursday, the 15th of April you were taken out of the cells, according to the occurrences book and Deetliefs' statement at 18:40 and you were interrogated and you were returned to the cells the next morning, the 16th, at twenty past five in the morning.

MR WALUS: Yes, that is correct. I was interrogated by the Captain Deetliefs and as far as I remember, by another Sergeant who was usually with him.

And this interrogation was like everyone before. I didn't want to speak on the subject of the murder of Mr Hani. I was discussing and speaking about anything else, but when the interrogating person asked me anything about the murder of Mr Hani, I asked to contact, to let me contact my lawyer.

And I told them that I can answer such a question concerning murder of Mr Hani, only in the presence of my legal advisor.

MS VAN DER WALT: During the relevant evening, were you asked to look at a photo album, during the interrogation?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember, that is correct. I was looking at the photo's and documents and they were questions concerning those documents and papers.

There were also many private questions. It was the interrogation rather unusual, because it was rather in the form of friendly chat.

MS VAN DER WALT: The photo album that you were asked to look at, whose photo album was this?

MR WALUS: It was my own album with the photo's.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you asked about the various photographs in the album?

MR WALUS: Yes, as far as I remember, I was asked who is who on this photo's. What are my connections with those persons on the photo's, who is the family, who are the friends and this type of questions.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, could you see whether the person accompanied Captain Deetliefs, Mr Beetge, whether he wrote down everything that was said there during that evening?

MR WALUS: May you repeat the question please. May I ask to repeat the question please.

MS VAN DER WALT: I am sorry, I am just following the Afrikaans, I don't know what happens if there is something wrong on the English.

Could you tell the Committee whether you saw that Mr Beetge noted down everything that took place during the interrogation that particular night?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I saw that all the time Mr Beetge was writing. I even told him that he is wasting his time because I am not prepared to sign anything.

But Captain Deetliefs told me that they are their private notes. That they had nothing to do with the matter or with the court case and I wanted to mention Mr Chairman, that Captain Deetliefs several times mentioned that he is from Security Police and that his tasks are absolutely different and that this matter is sort of side matter and he only wants to know for himself and for security.

He wants to know some facts.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, on the Friday morning at 5:20, you were returned to your cell, that was now on the 16th of April and on that same day, on the 16th of April, at 16h05, five minutes past four in the afternoon, you were again taken from the cells by Mr Beetge for interrogation, that is on Friday the 16th, can you remember that?

MR WALUS: I don't remember exactly the hour, but it is correct. But I would like to mention that somebody also interrogated me early in the morning, but I don't know if it was the office of Mr Holmes or Mr Vorster, but I know that it was not my first interrogation that day.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you were taken out by Mr Beetge from the cells, you were interrogated throughout the night and according to the occurrences book at 1476, you were returned to the cells only at twenty to six the following morning, is that correct?

MR WALUS: That is correct, Mr Chairman, except that I am not aware of the exact time, if it was six or seven o'clock in the morning.

MS VAN DER WALT: And is it also correct Mr Walus, that you looked at a video cassette, which related to this interrogation?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I viewed this cassette.

MS VAN DER WALT: The interrogation took more than 14 hours, do you remember that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I remember that more or less the interrogation took several hours, but I do not remember everything that was happening during this interrogation, because it was too many hours. I would try, I can try to recall a lot of facts but there could be also a lot of facts which I will not be able to recall immediately.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you please inform the Commission what happened that evening during that interrogation?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. I will try to recall in the best form I will be able to do that.

As I mentioned before, during those interrogations particularly with Captain Deetliefs and Sergeant Beetge, interrogations, if I can describe it in that way, were always in the very friendly atmosphere.

As I mentioned, we were talking about everything and nothing. Of course, I was manoeuvring not to discuss the matter of the murder of Mr Hani. I would like to add that this atmosphere was especially conducted by Mr Deetliefs, who underlined that he was from the Security Police and that this is a department of the police which combated terrorism and that he was always fighting with the ANC and he was interrogated all the ANC was doing, and in several times he underlined to me how good it was that Mr Hani was murdered.

That other policemen are feeling the same way, those policemen who are engaged in the fighting with the ANC, they feel the same way.

Mr Deetliefs tried all the time to underline that he is on my side and during this interrogation, on that Friday evening, up to Saturday morning, I don't remember exactly the hour, but he convinced me. I can say now only that I am ashamed that I was so naive and stupid.

He was able to convince me that he is one of the persons of General Groenewald, and that Sergeant Beetge is another person in this organisation. And that they consist a group which infiltrates Security Police. I want to mention that before Mr Deetliefs convinced me, he was doing such a moves before but before he convinced me completely, I was drinking with him and with Sergeant Beetge alcohol.

As far as I remember I was drinking beer, Captain Deetliefs drank brandy with Coke and I am not sure if it was just beer or it was mixed with other alcohol or even drugs, but I suspect that it was a main point which made me feel relaxed or even absent-minded that I believed in the story of Mr Deetliefs who said that this group of Sergeant Holmes' knows already who else is engaged in this whole matter because of the phones which were made to my flat and if I would not cooperate and I will not say then it means to Captain Deetliefs, who is engaged, then Mr Holmes and his group will arrest this person early in the morning.

That is why if I will say to Mr Deetliefs who is engaged, then he will be able to warn him before they will arrest this person in the morning.

Of course to convince me more that his friend, General Groenewald whom I also knew and his brother, that General Groenewald is already prepared to the fighting against the ANC and the government, he underlined to me that it is not very convenient that somebody must be arrested now from the right-wing because not everything is fixed to the last point where the armed struggle with the ANC and government is concerned.

And because of that, the time plays a big role. That is why I have to tell him now because he can go to this person who is engaged in this matter and (indistinct), but he is not able to find out from Sergeant Holmes who is engaged in this matter and he can find that only from me.

As I mentioned before, the whole week of intensive interrogation, lack of sleep, alcohol and quite possibly drugs, might that I was convinced and believed in all the stories that Mr Deetliefs told me and because of that, I told him the name of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis and also told him that in the murder of Mr Hani, it was engaged on myself and they mustn't be afraid of anything.

I would like to add that I was in such a state especially mental state, that I don't remember how I find myself in the cell, in my cell, after this interrogation. I don't know if I was accompanied there or I was dragged there, or - I don't remember.

The next day, I should say the same day because as it shows from the occurrence book, I was taken back to the cell about six or seven in the morning. A little bit later the same day, Captain Deetliefs appeared with Mr Beetge. He was in a good mood and he told me that everything is under control, that I mustn't be worried about anything, that everything is secured, and that I will be transferred to the Pretoria prison because he has some information that some members of the police in Benoni, they planned to kill me.

More or less, that is how this interrogation looked like.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, according to Mr Deetliefs' statement, R4 (continued), page 303, at approximately 4:30 that morning, when you were interrogated, you made a statement to him and you informed him how you had shot to death, Mr Chris Hani, is that correct?

You had seen the statement before, it is the typed one on page 304?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I could have made this statement.

MS VAN DER WALT: During the interrogation that night of the 16th through to the 17th, did you see whether Mr Beetge made notes while the interrogation or conversation was ongoing?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I saw but as I mentioned Sergeant Beetge always was writing something. I mentioned it already before that I told him that he is wasting his time, because I do not intend to sign anything.

MS VAN DER WALT: In R4, page 84 through to 86, there is a handwritten document which according to Captain Deetliefs, are the notes made by Mr Beetge and the typed version thereof then is also contained on pages 87 and 88.

It is also in his statement, the same portion, page 304. The note which I place before you now, page 84. Have you ever seen this note, that is now during the night of the interrogation or directly after that?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I haven't seen those notes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that you saw these notes for the first time when they were placed in R4 before you?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is correct. The first time I saw this notes in the R4. I saw them for the first time. I was acquainted with the contents of those notes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were these notes taken by Mr Beetge upon the instruction of Captain Deetliefs, were these notes shown to you at any stage during that evening or afterwards, was it read to you?

MR WALUS: I presume that these notes were made by Mr Beetge on the order of Mr Deetliefs, because he was - but those notes were never read to me or shown to me. Also from time to time, Sergeant Beetge stopped writing and he was also talking to me. It was rather irregular writing.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you also sign a written statement which you made to Captain Deetliefs?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, the only document which I signed during my ... (tape ends) ... this is the only statement where is my signature. I never signed and never it was read to me what Mr Deetliefs or Sergeant Beetge were noting.

MS VAN DER WALT: In the written notes of Mr Beetge, on page 84 at the bottom of the page, we see the words first shot in stomach, he screamed and fell down. This is in English.

Is that what you told Mr Deetliefs?

MR WALUS: This is not exactly correct with the situation. That is why I don't know what Sergeant Beetge noted. As I said, I made four shots, but here Sergeant Beetge says about three shots. Those are the discrepancies.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see, it strikes one that on page 87, which is supposed to be the typed version of the notes, there is not only reference to he screamed and fell down, but it also refers to the fact that he screamed and fell down, it was a scream of fear. It differs from the handwritten notes. You probably cannot comment on that, can you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, first what I can say is that is not consistent with the tape which I viewed because it will be to judge by the Commission, but it looks for me that it is, the story is made up just to make it more colourful and more dramatic - something like that.

I can go back to that moment on the video tape, however the quality of this tape is not very good, but on this tape when I was asked I say about the scream only after, when I was asked what sort of scream, I answered it could have been a scream of fear. So I see that as a writing down of my answer in such a way which will be more acceptable by the public, that is my feeling, but I am not sure if it was exactly like this. I am not here to decide about that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, when you started making this statement to Captain Deetliefs, that was now in the early hours of the morning of 17 April, just a few days after your arrest, were you aware of the fact that there was an empty Fanta cold drink can found at Mr Hani's house?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I wasn't aware about that. I found out about it only later from Captain Deetliefs that a Fanta can was found but he didn't tell me where it was found.

But the whole matter concerning this cold drink can, Captain Deetliefs just to show his friendliness towards me, he made everything, he did everything to belittle in front of me, the role of Sergeant Holmes and as a joke in his mind, the biggest problem in this matter, the bigger problem in this matter for Sergeant Holmes is if this can was the can of Coca Cola or the can of Fanta.

In front of Sergeant Holmes, I testified that I bought cold drink in the Dawn Park supermarket, but when I was asked what sort of cold drink, I told him it was Fanta orange or Coke, because they are the two cold drinks which I usually drink.

That is why I think Captain Deetliefs wanted to make a joke, that is why he told me that the can from Fanta orange was found at the place of murder, but he didn't tell me where exactly where it was found, only mentioned that it was found.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, after you had given your version to Captain Deetliefs, did he take the list of names which you had obtained from Mr Clive Derby-Lewis and showed it to you or showed you a copy of those names?

MR WALUS: Captain Deetliefs showed me the list of the names during several occasions.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you ever tell Captain Deetliefs which houses you had reconnoitred or which names on those list you had reconnoitred?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I told him as it was truth that I was surveilling the house of Mr Hani.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you mention any other persons whom you would have reconnoitred whose names had appeared on the list?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I could have in some moment. I didn't survey anybody else, so if I was asked for the first surname on the list, that was Nelson Mandela, then I told him that I saw the house of Mr Mandela, but I never told him that I was reconnoitring that house.

That is what I at the moment remember.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to the statement of Captain Deetliefs' at page 306 of R4 (continued), you were asked why the names on that list had been numbered and according to his statement, middle of the page Mr Chairman, we discussed the names on the list and I numbered them according to priority of elimination. This differs from the testimony which you had given to the Honourable Commission?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, because what I testified in front of the Commission is the truth. Because I underlined these surnames as I was instructed by Mr Clive and what is written here, I can see that is the version which will suit Mr Deetliefs.

Because we know that the police are supposed to find such a broad conspiracy as possible.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, what I would like to know is whether you had told him that the names had been numbered in the number of priority of elimination of the persons, or did you not tell him this?

MR WALUS: I think I didn't tell him anything on this subject, but if I did, it could be in the sense of priority of these persons.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you see the Honourable Committee does not have the privilege of having the specific notes in front of them, because Captain Deetliefs did not place these notes in the docket, you know about this, don't you?

MR WALUS: Can you please repeat the question? Could the question please be repeated.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, if the question is repeated, could counsel for the witness please refrain from leading him. We have remained silent, it isn't for counsel to even remind a witness what his evidence was when leading up to a contradiction.

I would appeal that she complies strictly by not leading the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Please endeavour to do that.

MS VAN DER WALT: I will do that Mr Chairman, but it is after all my right, because this document was placed before you by Mr Bizos and if this document contradicts what has been testified, I have to point this out to him so that he can explain it to the Commission.

With respect I cannot see any problem with that, because should I leave this, Mr Bizos will again under cross-examination say that your Advocate had done nothing about this.

We are here to resolve the problems which arose and to place the truth before the Honourable Commission. Will this then be a suitable time to take an adjournment Mr Chairman, I see that it is almost one o'clock?

CHAIRPERSON: I would just like to record an answer which he gave which I didn't maybe due to the translation, didn't understand correctly. He says that he did not tell Mr Deetliefs were numbered in order of priority for elimination, but if he did tell him, it was because of priority. I don't know what he was trying to say there, will you please just clear that part up?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, in the statement of Mr Deetliefs, he says that you had stated that you had numbered the names and I quote "according to priority of elimination". I would like to know from you, did you tell Mr Deetliefs this or did you not?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I think that Mr Deetliefs didn't understand me. I do not remember that I had ever said to him concerning that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there some other reason for putting these numbers to these names?

MR WALUS: As I said in my first statement, the names were numbered by me under the guidance of Mr Derby-Lewis. If there were any other reasons, I don't know about them.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, what was the reason? You have merely again told us the names were numbered. Why were they numbered?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned during my first statement, this names were numbered according to the persons, to their importance, according to the importance of the persons.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What was the relevance of their importance?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, important as their positions in the society.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How was that relevant to your plans? How was their importance in the society, relevant to your plans with Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it was no relevance with my plans. As I said the list was numbered, but we decided about the culprit during our first meeting with Mr Derby-Lewis.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did you find it necessary or why was it found necessary to do something which was not relevant to your plans? The numbering of the names?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I will go back again to my first statement. Clive presented me a list and told me right the number that and that and that before we were discussing anything concerning that matter.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what everybody is trying to get from you is, what was the reason, what was the purpose for numbering these people. Try and answer that.

MR WALUS: As I mentioned, Mr Chairman, I do not remember correctly. I didn't ask Clive if it was a court number or - but I didn't ask Mr Lewis about that.

JUDGE WILSON: Perhaps I could remind you Mr Walus, that you have already given evidence about this, and then you did say last time, you said as far as I remember Clive mentioned something about the order of the numbers were the enmity of people towards CP was concerned, the degree of enmity of these people towards the CP and also towards the right-wing as a whole. That is what I remember.

That is a completely different version from what you have been telling us lately?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I simply - where the numbering is concerned, if you take into consideration the enmity of the persons towards the Conservative Party, something like that probably Clive told me but forgive me please if at the moment, I forgot about that.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment at this stage and resume at two o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS - ON RESUMPTION

JANUSZ WALUS: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY MRS VAN DER WALT: (continued) Mr Walus, on page 309 of R4 (continued), I am referring to page 309 Mr Chairman of R4 (continued), and through the whole statement of Mr Deetliefs, he constantly warned you and told you that everything you said would be written down and used in a court against you later on, what do you say to this?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, this is not true. I was never warned, quite the opposite. Captain Deetliefs did everything to convince me that those are only his private notes and his tasks are completely different and that will be never shown in the court.

He told me I can trust him, but I was enough naive that I believed him.

MS VAN DER WALT: On page 310, you say that you met Clive Derby-Lewis on 7 April 1993 when you visited him, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I met Clive on the 7th of April.

MS VAN DER WALT: Captain Deetliefs continues to say that Clive's wife, Gaye on the evening concerned, that is the 7th, was not present but when the murder list was handed over, the list with nine names as well as at a later stage during the handing over of the murder weapon, the Z88, (9 mm pistol), was present at Clive's residence? What do you say to this statement?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it cannot be the truth simply because Mrs Derby-Lewis was never present when the list with the names was handed over to me or when the pistol was handed to me, she wasn't present.

I can recall from the previous statements that the maid of Mrs Derby-Lewis testified during the trial, that Mrs Derby-Lewis wasn't at home at that time when I received the pistol, Z88 from Mr Derby-Lewis.

MS VAN DER WALT: Captain Nick Deetliefs states in his statement on page 318, that you pointed out certain things to him, do you have any cognisance of this, this was on the 3rd of May 1993?

MR WALUS: Sorry Mr Chairman, I didn't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Repeat that question again please.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to Captain Deetliefs' statement, page 318, on the 3rd of May, on the Monday, you pointed out certain things to him, is that correct. He alleges that on your brother's farm Vittol, you pointed out certain places and also in a few other places did so?

MR WALUS: I would like to know if that concerns the testing of the weapon or something else because I don't understand. I still don't understand the question.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to Captain Deetliefs, you pointed out the place on your brother's farm where you had tested the Z88.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Where are you Ms Van der Walt?

JUDGE WILSON: Page 318 you referred us to.

MS VAN DER WALT: It starts on page 318, it is a very long section and covers the pages from page 316 through to page 321, where it all concerns what was pointed out.

It is R4 (continued), page 312, bottom of the page, that is where what was pointed out, starts. Can you remember going to the no with Captain Deetliefs?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I went with Mr Deetliefs to the no. Then I trusted him.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is did you point out the place where you had tested the firearm on the no?

MR WALUS: Yes, I did show him more or less the place where I tested the pistol Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, when you went to the no where you pointed out the place, did a photographer accompany you?

MR WALUS: No, it wasn't any photograph there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was the matter with regard to a photographer discussed with you by Captain Deetliefs?

MR WALUS: No, he never discussed with me the matter of photograph.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, Mr Chris Hani's house in Hakkia Street, did you point that out to Mr Deetliefs?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I didn't show to Captain Deetliefs a house of Mr Hani because I doubted and I didn't trusted Mr Deetliefs any more. I understood now that I was fooled out.

I understood finally that he just made these stories even when he showed me or when he asked me to show the place where I was practising shooting, he explained to me that he must find the cartridges first because otherwise Mike Holmes will look for these cartridges to find them first.

The moment when he found the empty cartridges, he didn't throw them away as I asked him, then I understood that he played with me and he took advantage of my naiveté.

So, I didn't want any more to cooperate with him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Well, according to the statement from page 312 further for a number of pages, Captain Deetliefs made notes of how you had driven to reach Chris Hani's house, did you drive that route or what was the situation?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I showed Mr Deetliefs the route to Apex. After that, Mr Deetliefs asked me, he took me to that Dawn Park centre and asked me to show him the house of Mr Hani, but I refused.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, according to a report which according to Mr Mpshe had been leaked to the press, and this is a report prepared by Mr Olson Mgalhe, Mr Chris Hani on the evening of the 9th would have been in a hotel at the airport with a friend of his, Cookie Nbongani, in a hotel room there, but according to the report, there was a certain Mr Abraham Karel Fourie, who was known as Abie, who had been involved with right-wing political circles, who worked as a security person at the hotel and the allegation was made in the report that he could possibly have been placed there to spy. Did you cooperate in any manner with such a person to assist you in reconnoitring or spying on Mr Chris Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I never co-operated with this person and I don't think I know this person. All reconnoitring I was doing by myself. And all the information, except the list with the names, I get that myself.

It was emphasised by Mr Lewis, that this subject is not to be discussed with anybody and discretion is of utmost importance. Nobody else must be engaged in this matter, so I do not know nothing about this allegations.

And I also didn't know where Mr Hani was immediately before the assassination.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, when you and Mr Clive Derby-Lewis made these plans, and you went to execute this deed, what did you believe was the intention of this action of yours? What did you believe in?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned Mr Chairman, I believed that I do that for the Conservative Party and I do that to stop the communists and radicals to gain the power in the country.

MS VAN DER WALT: And how did you regard Mr Chris Hani in the light of this belief of yours?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, in the light of my beliefs and out of that what I knew, Chris Hani was absolute communist and radical and he was a trained terrorist.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I would like to hand to you the occurrence book, which I have referred to, copies of this book. The original is available, I only extracted the relevant sections and I submit this as Exhibit N, and I have promised Mr Bizos that when Mr Walus started with his testimony, he read his background history from an original document which is in my possession and of which I have a copy here, which I according to my undertaking, will also be submitting to you.

That is then the testimony of Mr Walus.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to the witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: As you wish Honourable Chairman. Mr Walus, did Mrs Derby-Lewis at all and at any stage, attended any discussions between you and Mr Derby-Lewis as far as the killing of Mr Hani was concerned?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman. She was never when we discussed this matter, we were only two of us, she was never there with us.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did Mrs Derby-Lewis at any stage, participate in any planning of the killing of Mr Chris Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I never discussed with Mrs Derby-Lewis anything about the murder and I never heard that she discussed anything concerning that matter, when I was present.

ADV PRINSLOO: According to your knowledge, did Mrs Derby-Lewis know anything about what was planned to kill Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I am not able to answer this question. I only know that I never discussed that matter with Mrs Derby-Lewis. Everything concerning the matter of the murder, we discussed only eye to eye with Mr Lewis and I am of the opinion that he never discussed with her either such a matter.

ADV PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Honourable Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Walus, was Mr Chris Hani the first person you ever killed?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Do you agree that your description of the manner in which you killed him, was officer like style of execution?

MR WALUS: I do not know how to comment on that Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Was it a highly professional job?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, the fact that I am here in front of the Commission and the fact that I was tried for this murder, testifies that that was not professional execution.

ADV BIZOS: Now, the killing, not your escape or attempted escape, the killing with two shots at the back of the ear, was that a professional assassin's way of doing things?

MR WALUS: I think Mr Chairman, this deed was done in that way because the person who wants to kill somebody, must know something about the anatomy of the human being.

ADV BIZOS: Where did you learn how to kill a human being by shooting them twice behind the ear?

ADV PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairman, Mr Bizos is talking while we are still interpreting into Afrikaans and I cannot hear what is being said.

ADV BIZOS: What is your answer to the question? Where did you learn that the best way of killing a person, is by shooting him twice behind the ear?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned knowing anything about the anatomy and reading a little bit some books, I don't think this requires any specific learning or knowledge.

ADV BIZOS: What works did you read which enabled you to decide that the best way of making sure that you kill the victim, was to shoot him twice behind the ear?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember what I read exactly but as I mentioned, it is generally known what sort of shots causes the death, this is anatomical.

ADV BIZOS: You gave evidence that you were cool and calculated in pumping four shots into the body of Mr Chris Hani, do you recall that?

MR WALUS: I don't recall exactly what I testified on this subject.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let's just take elements of it in relation to your professionalism as a killer. First of all, you did not want to shoot him in the back, why not?

MR WALUS: Maybe because of that that I am not a professional killer.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ever tell anybody that you shot him in the stomach because it was an easier target to hit and you didn't want to initially try for the head, because you may miss and your intended victim may have lived. Did you tell anybody that?

MR WALUS: No, I do not recall that I spoke to anybody such words.

ADV BIZOS: If that is anywhere recorded, would it be your words or someone else's words?

MR WALUS: They could be the words of somebody else.

ADV BIZOS: Well, did you shoot him in the stomach because you thought that you might miss him if you aimed at the head whilst you were a few metres away from him?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, this is natural when one will think about the shooting, then you have to aim at the bigger target, bigger place.

ADV BIZOS: Have you had military training?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I didn't have a military training.

ADV BIZOS: Neither in Poland, nor in South Africa?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I was excused from the military training in Poland because of my health state. In South Africa, I applied to be admitted to the commander in Harrismith, but I never was trained.

This is all I can say about my military training.

ADV BIZOS: What was wrong with your health in Poland?

MR WALUS: There was a suspicion that there was an ulcer on the colon and my spine is damaged.

ADV BIZOS: You seem to have recovered from all that, judging by the gym that you attended?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I have to admit that Mr Bizos is right. The damaged spine is the best cured while you exercise in the gym.

ADV BIZOS: Were you in good health in the late 1980's, whilst you were in South Africa?

MR WALUS: Except a few problems with the spine problems, I never had any other problems.

ADV BIZOS: I want to take you back to the 26th of January, 1989, do you recall reading an advertisement in the Citizen requiring for dangerous assignment, approximately six months' duration, salary $5 000-00 per month, send resume to the Commodore, PO Box 207, Bergvlei, 2012, do you remember reading that advertisement?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I remember that.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, and tell me you applied to the South African organisation, calling itself the South African Institute of Maritime Research, do you recall that?

MR WALUS: I do not recall that I applied for that to be admitted to the Maritime Institute.

ADV BIZOS: But you did apply in answer to that advertisement? Did you?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And your name appears on a printout that you and a couple of hundred others like you, applied for this $5 000-00 a month job. What sort of job was it going to be Mr Walus?

MR WALUS: I have to disappoint you Mr Chairman, because I do not know what sort of job it is supposed to be.

ADV BIZOS: Well, you applied for it.

MR WALUS: I made this application but I never received any answer. Probably because I never had a military training. And I don't know till today what sort of work it is supposed to be.

ADV BIZOS: So you knew that it was a military job you wanted $5 000-00 for? Not so? You knew that it was a military job that you were volunteering for at $5 000-00 a month?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, how could I know that? Dangerous work can mean anything. It can mean even a professional diving on the platforms.

ADV BIZOS: I didn't use the word military in the sense, you volunteered the word military.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you must just get this straight. He didn't say it was military. He merely said he believes he was not accepted because he did not have a military training. That is his belief.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. I will clarify that. Now, why would you have been refused for this dangerous assignment because you didn't have military training?

MR WALUS: Now, it is implied to me that I wanted to join the military action. I explain again that I never got an answer from the firm, what sort of job it is supposed to be.

And if Mr Bizos implies to me that that is supposed to be some military action, so it is maybe because I in my curriculum vitae, I wrote that I never had military training, so I never got any answer.

ADV BIZOS: Required for dangerous assignment, what sort of dangerous assignment did you think you would have to perform for $5 000-00 a month in 1989?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned before Mr Chairman, it could have been a divers' job on the platforms. I heard about such a job and they paid very well, and I thought it would be something like that.

I just wanted to ask and I applied, but I never received an answer.

ADV BIZOS: Did the form that you were required to fill in, require you to give details of what military training you had?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman. Firstly there was no form to be filled, it was only the request to send the curriculum vitae and that I made.

ADV BIZOS: Did you say how many guns you had or how many guns you could use?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Well, what did you give your curriculum vitae as, as a seller of cut glass and that is all?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, I concentrated mainly on my diploma's of a diver, professional diver.

ADV BIZOS: When did you become a professional diver?

MR WALUS: I never attained the certificate of the professional diver, but I knew that I can become a professional diver any moment, because I had a second degree of the sport diver.

ADV BIZOS: When did you get that?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember, it was in 1982 or 1983.

ADV BIZOS: Where?

MR WALUS: It was in Pretoria, sub-aqua.

ADV BIZOS: Did you discuss with anyone, whether you were prepared to take part in a dangerous assignment? Did you ask anybody what sort of assignment is this that pays so well and which is dangerous, did you ask anybody?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I didn't ask anybody and I also did not discuss that with anybody.

ADV BIZOS: In 1989, were you very friendly with Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: In 1989 we were from 1987 in the friendship, we had a friendship.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't you ask him, being the man of the world and in influential person, to try and find out for you what sort of dangerous work this was?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman. Our contact with Clive were confined to the discussions about politics and I knew that he is enough busy to bother him with such a trivial thing.

ADV BIZOS: Did you know that in 1989 mercenaries were being recruited in order to commit themselves to dangerous assignments in various parts of Southern Africa?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I could have heard about such stories, but it was nothing to do with me, it has nothing to do with me.

ADV BIZOS: If you will bear with me for a moment Mr Chairman. Didn't you think that this was an advertisement for the recruitment of mercenaries?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I never thought about it and never such an idea came to my mind.

ADV BIZOS: Well, you told us that that idea didn't come to your mind. Do you mind explaining to us what idea came to your mind, that would fit in the phrase required for dangerous assignment, approximately six months duration. What sort of work did come to your mind, if it was not that mercenaries were being advertised for?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned Mr Chairman, I was thinking about the possibility of working as a diver in the dangerous circumstances and I was prepared for such a work.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to put to you that at the time it was generally known that Mr Mbotu Sese-Seko was trying to recruit mercenaries in South Africa.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I never heard that from Mr Mobotu Sese-Seko and I wasn't interested in such a subject.

ADV BIZOS: Well, we will return to this Mr Walus and what you were prepared to do for money. Your counsel drew attention to a number of passages in the notes of Captain Deetliefs which you disagreed with.

Can we assume that that with which you have not expressly disagreed, you find no fault with?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I can't answer on such a question because firstly some of the fault can be not intended, secondly in some instances as in the statement which I signed, for the officer Holmes, I didn't say the truth intentionally.

ADV BIZOS: Listen to the question please. You have told us and identified passages to which your attention was drawn by your counsel, that you disagreed with. Can we take it that the portions that you did not disagree with, you agree with?

I believe that counsel for the witness is writing on paper, which the witness is looking at.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to show this document to the Commission.

ADV BIZOS: It is not necessary Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Bizos, I don't think you should make accusations like that.

ADV BIZOS: No, I am not making accusations. She was writing and the witness was looking at it. I don't know what the witness was expecting. I am not suggesting that counsel did anything wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but the reason for your mentioning it, you are imputing something which you shouldn't be doing.

ADV BIZOS: Well, that the witness was trying to get some guidance, Mr Chairman, and nothing more than that. I wasn't alone in seeing it, my attention was drawn to it by those around me who are assisting me Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I think the whole hall as well as the Committee sees that I am sitting with a pen in my hand, that I am writing on a piece of paper. If Mr Bizos thinks I am doing anything dishonest, he must have the power of his convictions to get up and come across here.

I think he must continue with the cross-examination with regard to relevant matters.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I think you must appreciate that because of the arrangement in this hall, the witness is sitting next to his counsel. I wish the arrangement had been different. It might avoid any such imputations and so on. Please just proceed with your questions.

ADV BIZOS: Can we take it that those portions that you did not identify as being wrong, are correct?

MR WALUS: Because there was no question. It wasn't a question.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no interpretation.

ADV BIZOS: I will try and simplify it. You told the Committee which portions of the notes of Captain Deetliefs were incorrect. Can we take it that that which you did not refer to, is correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I am not of the opinion that all the portions are correct and the truth. We could omit something, any person can be mistaken.

ADV BIZOS: So you can't point to any further statements in the document which you disagree with?

MR WALUS: At least not at the moment, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Not at the moment, yes? Well, you may change your mind when we refer you to some, but let's proceed.

You have had full opportunity of having had this document for a number of months?

MR WALUS: Yes, of course. But I would describe that not as a few months, rather a few weeks.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, and you have had consultations on it from your counsel?

MR WALUS: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: You recall your evidence that as soon as the police officer that stopped you, smelt the gun with which you had killed Mr Hani, you knew that you were a goner?

MR WALUS: I do not recall the version with the gun powder.

ADV BIZOS: Don't you recall saying that when they asked you for a gun and you showed them the gun that you had not used, you sighed with relief, but then when they found the gun which you had actually used and they smelt it, you knew that you were in trouble?

MR WALUS: That is correct, that was my feeling at that time.

ADV BIZOS: Right, so when you were arrested you knew that whether you made a statement or not, the case against you was a strong one because you were found in possession of a gun which had been used to commit murder?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Is it also then correct that once you knew that your guilt would be proven, and the police started interrogating you, you said the following on page 303: "(indistinct) well guys, what would you like to know"? Page 303, approximately seven lines from the bottom of the page Mr Chairman and members of the Committee.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember but I am inclined to the statement now that it could have been uttered by me, such words, because then I still trusted Mr Deetliefs.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Let's just take it step by step and we will deal with your trust of Mr Deetliefs.

Did you say or were you asked do you know Jan and his brother, Tienie Groenewald, the General who is a member of COSA. The general is a friend of mine, did you say that?

I am sorry it is approximately seven lines from the top of 303 Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: It is marked as paragraph 6, isn't it?

ADV BIZOS: I beg your pardon, paragraph 6.

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, those are the words of Mr Deetliefs.

ADV BIZOS: Do you say that the general is not a friend of yours?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, if Mr Bizos will look fully, those are the words said by Mr Deetliefs, my answer is underneath.

ADV BIZOS: I know both. I met Jan Groenewald in Qwa Qwa, Harrismith during the time I was staying there. I believe that the COSA idea is the only solution for this country so what do you say Kuba about all that? Sir, about Chris, Chris Hani, I am the last to cry for him. Did you say that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, where my answer is concerned on the statement of Mr Deetliefs, that general Tienie Groenewald is his good friend, yes, I answered that I know both of the brothers Groenewald. General Groenewald which I met in Qwa Qwa, we can see here how Captain Deetliefs' writing is mistaken.

Because I said that I met general Tienie Groenewald in Qwa Qwa, which is the truth, but here is implied that I said that I met Jan Groenewald in Qwa Qwa.

ADV BIZOS: Let's confine ourselves to the general. Is the general your friend?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, and I never said that.

ADV BIZOS: You say you never said that? Very well, I met Jan Groenewald in Qwa Qwa, you say that that is wrong as well, you met the general, Tienie Groenewald in Qwa Qwa?

MR WALUS: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Right, and did he become a friend of yours, the general in Qwa Qwa?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, the word friend - we became acquaintance and I knew him, but we were never close because we never had time for that.

ADV BIZOS: Well, you are recorded as having said that the general is a friend of yours.

CHAIRPERSON: Where, where Mr Bizos?

ADV BIZOS: The general is a friend of mine, or does that mean that the Captain - I beg your pardon, I misunderstood, I misunderstood the position, I am sorry Mr Chairman.

What was the nature of your acquaintance with the general?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it was during the period when I had a factory of cut glass in Qwa Qwa and general Groenewald visited some factories around there. He was interested about somebody who was from Poland, he introduced himself and we were speaking for about 45 minutes.

That is how I can describe this acquaintance.

ADV BIZOS: You say I believe that the COSAC idea is the only solution for this country, did you say that?

MR WALUS: That is probably what I said. Maybe I didn't use the word that that is the only solution, but something like that.

ADV BIZOS: Did you believe what you are recorded as having said?

MR WALUS: Does it concern the portion concerning the COSAC?

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

MR WALUS: Yes, that is the truth. That is how I could say that.

ADV BIZOS: From the time that you started talking to Mr Derby-Lewis about assassinating Hani and others, was COSAC in operation?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, as far as I am aware, COSAC was operating about two or three months before. I am not a political expert.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, and it was still in operation when you killed Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Practically as far as I am aware, it was in operation to the moment when it converted into the freedom alliance, as far as I remember.

ADV BIZOS: During your discussions with Mr Derby-Lewis in the second half of 1992, right up to the beginning of April ... (tape ends)

MR WALUS: I cannot remember exactly Mr Chairman, but we could have discussed it.

ADV BIZOS: But it wasn't a sufficiently lengthy or important discussion that you would remember what you said and what Mr Derby-Lewis may have said about following the COSAC way?

MR WALUS: What I remember, it was not negative reaction but I do not recall a lot about the discussing such a subject.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, well, didn't you discuss it as a much better, peaceful and political alternative which the political leaders were involved in rather than you becoming murderers?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, from the referendum time in 1992, it was clearly seen that there was no peaceful solution to the problems of this country.

ADV BIZOS: You told us that, answer the question please. Did you during your discussions and decisions to become murderers, didn't you give serious consideration that there may have been another way to the country's problems, that is the political solution that COSAC and its leaders were trying to bring about?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned, I haven't seen any other way at that time.

ADV BIZOS: Is the answer to the question no, you did not consider it as a serious option? Is the answer to the question no?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I could have considered but I knew that nothing will change and nothing good will come out of that.

ADV BIZOS: On page 305, the fourth paragraph from the bottom, reconnoitring was also done on Mandela's house, did you say that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if Mr Mandela's house was reconnoitred, it was not by me, I do not recall such a deed.

ADV BIZOS: You say it was not done by you? Is that what you said?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I said that I didn't survey it, Mr Mandela's house and I don't know about anybody else who could have done it.

ADV BIZOS: During the second half of 1992, did you go to Mr Mandela's house in Houghton?

MR WALUS: Once only, I passed Mr Mandela's house being in Houghton, but I never reconnoitred this house and that is the truth.

ADV BIZOS: I will refer you to other passages where you said so, but let's take that for a moment. Do you agree that Mr Mandela's name is number 1 with the number 1 being written by you on the list of nine names?

MR WALUS: Yes, I do agree what is written there on this list.

ADV BIZOS: And was he the first person to be assassinated in accordance with the discussions that you and Mr Derby-Lewis had?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, we never discussed that with Clive about any assassination of Mr Mandela.

ADV BIZOS: Did you say I thought that the old goat was not worth it?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember if I said such words.

ADV BIZOS: You could hardly have forgotten what you might have said about the President of the country?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, firstly I would like to say that Mr Mandela at that time wasn't the President of this country.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let me change the question. You surely would not have forgotten what you said about the person that you and Derby-Lewis thought may become the President of the country and ruin it according to your thinking?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not pay such a big attention to such things, and I don't remember saying that. If I did say it, then it testifies that we were not discussing about the assassination of Mr Mandela.

ADV BIZOS: No, that is not what your words say. In bundle E, you wrote the number 1, Nelson Mandela, you wrote that as number 1, correct? You told us that is in your handwriting.

MR WALUS: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Number 1 for what?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we discussed the list before the lunch break and as I said the list was numbered under the guidance of Mr Clive.

ADV BIZOS: Number 1 is what, what was to happen to him or about him to be the first person to be dealt with? What was the number 1 for in your discussions?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as far as I remember I numbered these names as Clive told me to. It was according to the enmity degree towards the right-wing.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, but did you ever say to anyone that number 2, Mr Slovo, that there was no address. Did you ever say that about Mr Slovo?

MR WALUS: I do not remember Mr Chairman. I do not remember if I said that to anybody.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. You didn't need an address if you said so, in order to categorise him as to whether he would be number 1, number 2 or number 3 for the purposes of the degree of enmity to the Conservative Party?

MR WALUS: To find out how big enemy is somebody towards the Conservative Party, that was really not necessary to have this person's address.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. The second sentence on page 305, I thought the old goat was not worth it. If you said that and you meant it, does it not mean that you felt free to change the order at will?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Well, if that is what you said, if it is true and you can't deny that you said it, what else does it mean other than that you felt that you could drop Mr Mandela from the list and promote Mr Hani to number 1, once Mr Slovo's address was not available?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman. It wasn't any plan which were made with Clive and I do not remember that I ever said anything about that.

ADV BIZOS: Do you and Mr Derby-Lewis watch television in jail?

MR WALUS: From time to time, sometimes.

ADV BIZOS: Do you recall Mr Max du Preez discussing your case on television?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember, Mr du Preez discussed our matter, our case, several times. I do not know to which of those discussions Mr Bizos refers.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, I will remind you of it. Do you recall when he discussed the evidence given by Mr Derby-Lewis and expressed opinions of his prospects of getting amnesty or not? Do you recall that?

MR WALUS: Yes, I recall something like that.

ADV BIZOS: And he said something which made you change your story about you. He said that it is theoretically possible that if you acted under the instructions of Mr Derby-Lewis, you may be in a better position to get amnesty than Mr Derby-Lewis is, do you recall him saying that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I heard that but theoretically we can both receive the amnesty or not. Or maybe one of us will receive and visa versa. Maybe Clive, maybe me, and visa versa. This is just theory.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. No, but you took the theory to heart because as a result of hearing that, I am going to put to you that you changed your evidence and your answers that you had given to a member of the Commission, to the answers given by Mr Derby-Lewis to the Commission, that you were co-conspirators if I can summarise the situation and not in a situation of the one giving the orders unto the other.

MR WALUS: I cannot see that I changed my testimony.

ADV BIZOS: Would you please look at page 307, the second paragraph from the bottom Mr Chairman. After I received the list from Clive Derby-Lewis, I started to do reconnoitring, I started with number 1 on the list, Nelson Mandela and after I reconnoitred his house once, I thought that the old goat was not worth it.

Joe Slovo, priority number 2 on the list's address was not available and I decided to concentrate on priority number 3 on the list, Chris Hani. Did you say that?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, this is not correct.

ADV BIZOS: Now, you have had this document since the first day that the matter was called in Pretoria. Did you draw your counsel's attention to this incorrect statement that is recorded here?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember, I did draw the attention of my lawyers to this statement.

MS VAN DER WALT: I just want to place on record that just in the previous paragraph he was asked whether the persons had been numbered according to priority of elimination and that was when Mr Bizos objected, and then he said he couldn't remember saying this and it was stated to him again and he also did not have the privilege of studying the notes of Captain Deetliefs, to have possession of those and then Mr Bizos objected against that.

ADV BIZOS: I cannot understand the issue Mr Chairman. Can you explain why your counsel didn't draw the court's attention to the fact that this statement as recorded here, was never uttered by you and that Captain Deetliefs had no right to write it down the way that he did?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, then I think this question should be addressed to my lawyer.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. You see, if we go to page 306, bottom of the page, Kuba you said that Clive Derby-Lewis handed the weapon and list to you, where was it handed to you and who else except Clive Derby-Lewis was involved with that or know about it? Captain, please don't go and arrest Clive Derby-Lewis also now. He is a very big friend of mine, I will take everything on myself. I was alone when I shot Hani.

Clive and I only planned the murder together. Did you say that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember that I said such a thing.

ADV BIZOS: Are you able to deny that that is what was said and that it was correctly recorded?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned, I simply do not remember it.

ADV BIZOS: Is it correct?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned Mr Chairman, I simply do not remember that I made such a comment. But to the matter of that statement, I can agree.

ADV BIZOS: So it is correct? So it is correct, I was alone when I shot Hani. Clive and I only planned the murder together? That is correct, as a fact?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is the fact.

ADV BIZOS: Now, isn't that completely contrary to you being ordered by Mr Derby-Lewis to commit the murder?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before, and I repeat it again, I worked under the instructions of Mr Derby-Lewis, and Conservative Party providing that I agreed to take on me this task.

And that is why I planned this action together with Mr Clive.

ADV BIZOS: Don't you agree that there is a difference between planning together as friends or political colleagues and receiving an order to do something?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I think that on this certain stage of friendship and engagement in political matters, some suggestion can be treated as an order.

ADV BIZOS: Do you say I was alone when I shot Hani, Clive and I only planned the murder together, is the same as I was ordered by Clive to kill Chris Hani? Do you say that is the same thing?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it can come to the same meaning if the order is given or suggested and accepted by me. It doesn't mean that the person who has a higher position than me, doesn't plan with me this or doesn't help me to plan that.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to suggest to you that this is what happened, what is recorded at the bottom of 306 as far as you and Derby-Lewis are concerned, and that the variations that you gave in your evidence in chief, on the last occasion and now, was the free legal advice that you got from the broadcaster, Mr Max du Preez, and that is why you changed your story. Do you want to comment on that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would like to hear what I changed because where my person is concerned, I don't see any changes in the testimony.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Bizos, before some of us get confused may I ask you Mr Walus, what made you kill Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned I did that because I believed that that can stop taking over the power in this country by the ANC and by the Communist Party of South Africa.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was it your own decision that he be killed?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it was the decision of the Conservative Party, CP, but I accepted it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you ordered by anybody to go and kill Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned several times before, I was doing that under the instructions of Mr Clive and the Conservative Party.

I do not want to blame anybody else, because I agreed to do that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You said last time that you were driven by your immense hatred of the communist regime and your previous terrible experiences under it to go and commit this crime? Isn't that so?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I only show what the communist can be, but I do not remember that I said that the assassination of Mr Hani, that that was my revenge, that the assassination of Mr Hani was a revenge for that what I went through in Poland under the communism.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, I am not going to take this point any further with you, because we go through the record, but I must tell you that I was under the impression that the purpose of your going to put us through your experiences, unfortunate experiences under the communist system, was to try to explain to us as to how and why you came to be driven to doing what you did.

MR WALUS: That my experiences under the communism has some significance, because I wanted to prevent the same system will come in South Africa which was in Poland. So in this regard, it has some influence on my decision.

I wanted as I said, to prevent the communist system to take power into this country.

JUDGE NGOEPE: By killing Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. As a leader of communist party of South Africa.

JUDGE WILSON: Can you tell me, you have just been asked again about this programme of Max du Preez', when you saw it?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. The programme of Mr Du Preez and his speculation about my amnesty and maybe Derby-Lewis will not receive the amnesty, Mr Chairman, I saw all this media stories as all big speculation.

JUDGE WILSON: When, that is all I want to know Mr Walus. Was it after you gave evidence on the last occasion?

MR WALUS: I apologise Mr Chairman, it was a few days after our previous session in Pretoria City Hall.

JUDGE WILSON: And on that occasion you said Clive Derby-Lewis told me we would concentrate on elimination of number 3, so named Chris Hani and if for the CP, that is the Conservative Party and the right-wing, will I agree to take this task on me. I expressed my readiness and acceptance, is that still your version of what happened?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: We will prove the date My Lord, we do not accept the witness' evidence. I have a clear recollection when it was, we will get a date.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I want to read to you from page 777 of the record.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could we just get clarity are you referring to the record of the court case when you say page 777?

ADV BIZOS: Of the court case. I beg your pardon of this hearing, that is what I meant.

Page 777, Adv Potgieter, can I just deal with this Mr Derby-Lewis, you and Mr Walus started discussing what you've viewed as the deteriorating situation in about September 1992, is that correct? No, Mr Chairman, no we had discussions over the deteriorating situation in South African since 1989 already. This is the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis, do you agree with it?

MR WALUS: Yes, we discussed the deteriorating situation in South Africa, even from 1989.

ADV BIZOS: Adv Potgieter, was there any change in the nature of your discussions around September 1992? Yes, Mr Chairman, because after the referendum, that fraudulent exercise in futility had been held and it was then obvious to us that Mr De Klerk and his regime were acting totally dishonestly in terms of political approach. Do you agree with Mr Derby-Lewis in that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Adv Potgieter, that was about the time when you decided that you have to take some action? Mr Derby-Lewis, no, Mr Chairman, it was when everyone was discussing what action to take. Adv Potgieter, yes I am just talking about yourself and Mr Walus. Mr Derby-Lewis, no I said that we actually decided in the latter part of 1992 what action to take, do you agree with that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, not entirely. I can only say that Clive told me in the end of 1992 that now it is the time to do something serious. And then we decided we will meet in the next year to continue these discussions.

ADV BIZOS: Adv Potgieter, right then I understand you, thank you Mr Chairman. Adv Potgieter, now you were discussion with Mr Walus as a friend, correct? Yes, Mr Chairman, is that evidence correct or not?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Adv Potgieter, a like-minded person in terms of politics, Mr Derby-Lewis, a supporter, a supporter yes, Mr Chairman, ja. Is that correct?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And in about February 1993 between the two of you jointly identified Mr Hani as the person to be assassinated, is that correct? Mr Derby-Lewis, no, I didn't say that Mr Chairman. I said I identified Mr Hani as the target for assassination after his statement regarding the regaining of the weaponry and arms and what have you, which belonged to the ANC in Angola. And I couldn't, and I also mention, I couldn't connect up this man of peace with a man wanting all of this weaponry in South Africa and for what purpose would he want it? Do you want to make any comment on the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis in relation to that?

MR WALUS: No, I agree with this statement of Mr Derby-Lewis.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Yes, well, be that as it may, Mr Derby-Lewis, yes, Adv Potgieter. At some stage in February if I understand your evidence correctly and perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong, in February of 1993, you and Mr Walus jointly agreed on that assassination? Do you agree with that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, yes Mr Chairman. You are still talking as friends, not so? You were still talking as friends not so? Mr Derby-Lewis, as colleagues, as co-supporters, yes in every aspect, yes. Do you agree with that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And you were talking privately between the two of you, do you agree with that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, that is correct Mr Chairman, at all times our discussions were privately between the two of us when we discussed matters which involved our personal approach. We had numerous, I had many discussions with many people from various organisations who used to come to my house and talk about what they thought should be done. You wouldn't know about that? Yes, and them Mr Walus volunteered to execute your joint decision? That is correct Mr Chairman. Is that correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, yes, I do agree in the sense that on the end of 1992 when Clive asked me if I would be able to do anything whatever will be required from me, I agreed.

Though I didn't know what would be required from me and I never backed out of that decision.

ADV BIZOS: That is correct Mr Chairman, he was not under any pressure to do that, not so? Well I mean no, Mr Chairman, certainly not. Do you agree with that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, of course I agreed with that. If I refused, then nor Clive nor the CP would try to liquidate me or punish me. So I wasn't under the pressure, but I was under pressure of my word that I agreed to do that in 1992.

ADV BIZOS: He was not under any pressure to do that, not so? Well, I mean no, Mr Chairman, certainly not. Do you agree with that?

MR WALUS: It is exactly how I explained this pressure, just before that I wasn't under the pressure that I will lose my life or any other serious problems, but I was under the pressure of my given, that I will not execute that what I promised to do before what was required from me.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, the insinuation that I paid him to do it, also is devoid of any truth. I suppose you will agree with that?

MR WALUS: We were never discussing even that, so of course I do agree.

ADV BIZOS: Adv Potgieter, in fact you said in answer to a question from Adv Mpshe, that you didn't really have any control over Mr Walus. Mr Derby-Lewis, in terms of the execution that is correct Mr Chairman, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Would you be so kind and repeat sir that quote?

ADV BIZOS: In fact you said in answer to a question from Advocate Mpshe that you didn't really have any control over Mr Walus. In terms of the execution, that is correct Mr Chairman. Do you agree with that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, from the moment when I received the order to assassinate, I had to do it in the proper time.

Of course if this order would be withdrawn, then I wouldn't do that.

ADV BIZOS: And of course Mr Walus was not acting under an instruction, he had volunteered to execute the joint plan which the two of you as friends, had decided upon? Mr Derby-Lewis, I would think that you would even see it as an instruction because of my position in the Conservative Party, Mr Chairman. Would you agree with that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I can agree that we planned that jointly, but I would like to mention that it is known that I was on the bottom of the line on the Conservative Party and I was convinced that I do that on the request of the Conservative Party and Clive was very prominent member of the Conservative Party.

And he was the policy making member and accept I saw during the many occasions at least three occasions, I saw Dr Treurnicht in Clive's house when they had private meetings. I wasn't, I didn't participate in these discussions, but I saw Mr Treurnicht there when he was visiting Clive privately. So, I see it in such a light this point.

I could have and I was sure that I was working under the order and in the interest of the Conservative Party.

ADV BIZOS: Adv Potgieter, but why, why would you see that as an instruction, you are friends? Why would you see anything in the context of that discussion as an instruction? Mr Derby-Lewis, because Mr Chairman, besides being friends, he was aware of my position within the party. Chairperson, I can't understand that you know, why should he be looking upon you for instructions when you just said that he volunteered to do it on his own? Well, Mr Chairman, he volunteered, yes, after we had decided on a target. Do you agree with that evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not agree entirely because I volunteered to do that after the target was established. When we discussed to do any action.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, but I mean it was quite clear that once he volunteered that I was going to hold him to it, he was acting under my command if I can put it that way, rather than acting under instructions, do you agree with that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I cannot see the difference between the command and instruction.

ADV BIZOS: Any other comment that you want to make on that?

MR WALUS: No, I think that is all.

ADV BIZOS: Chairperson, no, that is not what he meant you see, when you are going to hold him to it it means that you are going to insist in seeing that he carries out what he had volunteered to do. Mr Derby-Lewis, yes, Chairperson, yes. Do you agree with that? Do you agree with that.

MR WALUS: Please give me a moment to study. More or less, yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to put to you that at pages 899, 904 and 914, your evidence that you acted under instructions, is contradictory to that of Mr Derby-Lewis.

MS VAN DER WALT: From what page to what page please.

ADV BIZOS: From 899, 904 and 914. Could you please have a look at page 899, and tell me what you meant by this. Right at the top of the page, we discussed reconnoitring, how I have to do this reconnoitring on Mr Hani's house. As far as I remember I told him that I used stickers in my registration plate number to ask the registration, of course we discussed and instructions for me were very clear, that my task must be executed in that way that nobody, no other person must be involved or know about anything and will not be involved in any danger.

Simply the policy of the CP and the right-wing is directed to, it has one name, but not as a terrorist action, what did you mean by that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I meant that if we are talking about the action, then one have to concentrate on the target, and only the target is the subject of the action, not like in the terrorist action where the bombs are planted where innocent people are losing their lives.

ADV BIZOS: When you say simply the policy of the CP and the right-wing is directed, is directed towards what?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before, the target of the policy was Mr Hani. And that is how it was explained and I agreed with that policy of the CP that nobody else must be involved, any innocent and other people must suffer, except the target, it means Mr Hani.

ADV BIZOS: I don't understand you. Did Mr Derby-Lewis ever tell you that the CP changed its policy to one of violence?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it was obvious for me at that moment ...

ADV BIZOS: Did he tell you that the CP changed its policy to one of violence?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned before, Clive was a very prominent member of the CP and what Clive told me, it was the policy of the CP for me, because he was the co-creator of the policy of the CP.

If he set about the planning of the assassination that it is obvious that the policy of the CP was changed. We were mentioning the articles in the Patriot and we know that the CP didn't ...

ADV BIZOS: Did you know that the CP was a structured party? That it had an Executive, that it had a leader, it had a deputy leader, it had congresses?

MR WALUS: Yes, as far as I am aware and as far as I know, the structure of political parties, I think it was like that.

ADV BIZOS: Did Mr Derby-Lewis tell you whether or not any structure of the CP changed its policy from a non-violent one to a violent one?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I don't remember exactly if he said in that words, but what he suggested and what he said it was obvious that Conservative Party changed policy.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, what is it that he said which you say from it, it was obvious that the CP had changed its policy from non-violent to violent? What is it that Mr Derby-Lewis said?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I understand by that all the discussions which I had with Mr Derby-Lewis concerning the assassination of Mr Hani. As I said Clive was for me the man who was creating policy of the CP and very prominent member of this party.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am not sure you answered my question. I don't know, maybe the interpretation doesn't come out clearly, I don't know.

JUDGE WILSON: I think what you are saying isn't it, you didn't think that Derby-Lewis would have put forward anything that was contrary to the policy of the CP? That anything that he proposed, must agree with the policy of the CP?

MR WALUS: I never heard from Clive before something which was not consistent with the policy of the party and I presumed that what we discussed with Mr Clive, it was a changing of the policy. Of course we understand that this is not a change which will be publicly known.

ADV BIZOS: Have you not heard of people being members of a political party but acting independently of it and contrary to its policy?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, no at that time I didn't hear about such members and as I said, Clive was a very prominent member, creating the policy of the Conservative Party.

ADV BIZOS: Did you not hear about the Member of Parliament that blew up a school in Pretoria, and was disowned by the Conservative Party, why should Mr Derby-Lewis, who was not even a Member of Parliament, be in a better position to interpret Conservative Party policy than the Member of Parliament was?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if you refer to the things of Mr Botha, Koos Botha, then I do not think that we can compare the prominence of, or we can compare the policy making people of the Conservative Party.

ADV BIZOS: You mentioned the name Mr Koos Botha which I did not mention, does that mean that this was in the forefront of your mind that Mr Koos Botha who blew up the school, was repudiated by the Conservative Party, you knew this when you were having discussions with Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I knew about some controversies concerning Mr Koos Botha, but Mr Koos Botha at that time, wasn't a Member of Conservative Party during the time when we were discussing with Clive the assassination.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, because Mr Koos Botha had been kicked out of the Conservative Party for performing an act of violence which was not in accordance with the policy of the Conservative Party, you knew that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not think that he was kicked out from the Conservative Party for that deed. His relegating from the Conservative Party was due to other problems, but I am not a politician so I cannot comment that because I do not know this matter at all, one hundred percent.

ADV BIZOS: I thought that you were under political instruction?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, that explains the matter that I was the instructions and not given them, and I do not give them I was under instructions.

ADV BIZOS: Did you raise with Mr Derby-Lewis, the question of Mr Koos Botha at any stage that how come we are talking about murder and the Conservative Party dropped a person that destroyed a school? Did you raise that with him?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I didn't discuss that.

ADV BIZOS: Please turn to 311 of R4.

JUDGE WILSON: Is this R4, continued?

ADV BIZOS: I am sorry, yes it is the second volume, 311. Paragraph 1, I understand that Clive was also arrested, what was found at Derby-Lewis' house? Nothing strange, only the ordinary stuff like diaries, documentation and the computers which you know about.

What was Clive's reaction when the police arrested him, they say he passed out. Paragraph 3, Walus, you know what Langenhoven said, wave the flag and count the heroes, ask for volunteers and count the flags. That is how life is. I was the volunteer and also the flag, I was the only one who was prepared to shoot Hani. Now, all the Witwolwe and everyone claims they also would have done it, but the fact remains, who did it, only me.

Is that a sense of bravado on your part?

MR WALUS: I would like Mr Chairman, to ask Mr Bizos to address with this question Mr Deetliefs, because where I am concerned, the only thing I know about Langenhoven is that he wrote The Stem. So I do not know in which way I could quote him in English.

Further, you see Mr Chairman, this is not my personality and not my words. And I do not know why it was convenient for the Captain Deetliefs to put this words into, I do not remember it, I never said such words.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, my technical staff are having a bit of a difficulty, they are tired and I think this might be an appropriate stage to adjourn.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, of course Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now adjourn and resume at 09h30 tomorrow morning.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

JANUSZ WALUS: (still under oath)

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, before we start, I would like to request something. Before we start, we would just ask you to request something Mr Bizos is apparently going very much too fast for the Polish interpreter, particularly when he is quoting portions from the statement, which is difficult to follow, thank you.

ADV BIZOS: I will take note of that, and I actually spoke to the interpreters this morning, Mr Chairman, and indicated to them that I will keep an eye and if they raise their hand, I will repeat the questions for them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: (continued) We adjourned yesterday after I had read to you a passage on page 311 where you are recorded as having quoted Langenhoven and you said that you could not quote Langenhoven and therefore those were not your words.

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: You have been associated with Afrikaans speaking people ever since your arrival in South Africa?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, not exactly from the moment I came to South Africa. Secondly, I am not the linguist, the fact is I use the interpreter from English language and the Afrikaans language I know just a few words and sentences. And that is all that I know from the Afrikaans language.

ADV BIZOS: You have been living with an Afrikaans speaking, you had been living with an Afrikaans speaking companion?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, almost everyone Afrikaner speaker English as well, so it was easier for my companion to speak to me in English than for me to speak to her in Afrikaans.

ADV BIZOS: You mentioned in your evidence in chief matters such as the first and second freedom struggle of the Afrikaner people?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And you seem to be steeped in right-wing Afrikaner culture?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I stepped into the Afrikaans culture but you include into the culture language as well, but as I mentioned I am not talented in the languages and my friends in the right-wing had accepted me and my broken English as well and I converse with them in English.

ADV BIZOS: I want to ask you what your case is in relation to what has been recorded by Mr Beetge and Captain Struwig. Is it your case that because of anything that they did or said to you, you told them untruths?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before, some of the elements of this written statement, could be a truth because in some instances they had my trust, but I also mentioned that all so-called testimony, because I will never call that testimony, nothing was read to me and on this testimony there is no my signature.

So, because of that I can see that many of the words are put in to this statement for the convenience of both officers for their own purposes.

ADV BIZOS: Please listen to the question and try and answer it. Is it your case that as a result of anything that they said or did to you, did you tell them any untruths, yes or no?

MR WALUS: As I said, some elements could be a truth.

ADV BIZOS: Please answer the question sir.

JUDGE WILSON: I don't know if you understand the question Mr Walus. As I understand the question, Mr Bizos is not asking you if these statements are true or not, what he is asking you is did you tell them anything that was not true?

MR WALUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I understand better this question. I am sure that there were elements which were not truth, which I could say up to the moment when they had my trust.

ADV BIZOS: Please tell us what untruths you told them?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, during the three nights of interrogation, I told so many things and there was discussions on so many subjects, that I am not able to count it or remember it.

ADV BIZOS: Tell us one untruth that you told them, for starters?

MR WALUS: I cannot recall anything at that moment, but after a while maybe I will recall such an untruth.

ADV BIZOS: They must have been of such a minor nature, these untruths that you might have told, that you cannot remember any significant untruth that you told them?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, there are two statements here of Captain Deetliefs, the one statement covers a number of pages and these are so-called interrogations without any interrogation notes, there are 21 tapes, would it not perhaps be fairer if Mr Bizos would just give Mr Walus the opportunity to go through the statement and to say what he did say which was incorrect, because yesterday he testified regarding two certain aspects which weren't correct.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to be directed by Mr Walus' counsel, how to conduct this examination. I am entitled to ask the witness whether or not he told any untruths, I am not prepared to give him an opportunity in relation to a statement that he has had months to study, as to what he says is true in the statement, and what is untrue.

I am entitled on his version, what untruths he says he mentioned if any.

CHAIRPERSON: Try and think of the important aspects of your statement and of the important aspects of your case.

MR WALUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will try. Wherever something is told about the elimination of any persons, except Mr Hani, it must be a lie.

That is the one significant aspect which I remember, but I would like to ask Mr Chairman, to understand that I didn't have a chance to listen to tapes which as we know, they were delivered to us only yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Confined if you can't recall or if you don't remember what is on the tapes, give your answers based on the statements, the written statements, is there anything significant on an important point which you know was a purposely told untruth by you because you were misled or led to believe that they were particularly friendly to you?

ADV BIZOS: Let us take your answer that you never mentioned anything to them about the elimination of any other person than Mr Hani. You say that all references...

JUDGE WILSON: Did he say that Mr Bizos? He never mentioned, I understood what he said was that anything said about elimination of any other person, was a lie, not that he never mentioned it.

ADV BIZOS: I am sorry, yes, thank you very much, Mr Chairman, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: Did you say to them at any stage that persons other than Mr Hani were to be eliminated?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I cannot remember that correctly, but I see such a possibility and if I did that, I done it for the purpose to mislead the officers.

ADV BIZOS: Right. You say that as a result of what they said to you, you trusted them?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before, if we talk about lies, we talk about the lies before I started to trust them.

ADV BIZOS: Did you say to them or do you concede that you said to them, that your and Mr Derby-Lewis' plan was to kill persons other than Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned I cannot remember correctly if I told them that, but I could have.

ADV BIZOS: You could have?

MR WALUS: Because I done everything to mislead them.

ADV BIZOS: Did you try to mislead them in the beginning when you did not trust them, in the middle when you trusted them, or at the end when you did not trust them any more?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if I tried to mislead that was before I started to trust them.

ADV BIZOS: What did you have to gain when you were arrested for the murder of Mr Hani by being untruthful to them by falsely telling them that you also intended to kill persons other than Mr Hani on the list with your handwriting on it?

MR WALUS: If I said so, that my intention was that they must believe that this persons are threatened, that somebody else can eliminate them. Mainly I thought only about the misleading which will give me a time.

ADV BIZOS: Let's examine this answer. How would it have benefited you to warn the police about the plan to kill persons other than Mr Hani on the contrary, on your evidence the more that would have been killed, the nearer the achievement of your object?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned if somebody is after long hours of interrogation without sleep and practically without food, then such a person doesn't think correctly.

ADV BIZOS: But why whatever your condition may have been, would you have thought that it would be to your advantage to tell the police that there was a broader conspiracy to kill many more or a number of other people other than Mr Hani. How would that have benefited you in any way? So much so that you were prepared to tell an untruth about it?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned Mr Chairman, in such a state a person doesn't think logically. It could be that they could only concentrate on me and not about other matters because there is more policemen in the country than Beetge but in such a situation your mind can play tricks.

ADV BIZOS: Telling a lie in order to gain an advantage, usually is not told by a person who lost control of himself. Telling a deliberate lie to gain some advantage, is by a person who is crafty and wants to get some benefit for himself?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know if that what Mr Bizos told me is the question or a statement and how I must react on that.

ADV BIZOS: Did you tell them that other people on the list were in danger of being killed during the period that you trusted them?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, as I mentioned if, I repeat if, if I said so then I must have said that at the moment when I didn't trust them yet.

ADV BIZOS: When did you begin to trust them?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, that moment I explained yesterday. If I have to repeat that, and the Commission will require that, I will do that.

ADV BIZOS: Please tell us what I am asking you, when did you begin to trust them?

CHAIRPERSON: At what stage?

MR WALUS: Friday night or rather Saturday morning, on the 17th of April.

ADV BIZOS: So, you started trusting them you say on the 17th, a week after your detention, your arrest?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And you told us that you stopped trusting them when they didn't throw the cartridges away on your brother's farm?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And then you didn't trust them again, or did you?

MR WALUS: There was a noise, I couldn't hear.

ADV BIZOS: You stopped trusting them when they didn't throw the cartridges away and did your lack of trust continue right to the end or did you start trusting them again?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned before, I never trusted them again.

ADV BIZOS: You never trusted them again?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Did they ever ask you what your opinion was as to whether or not the other people on the list were in danger after your arrest?

MR WALUS: I would like to repeat the question Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Did the police officers ask you to express an opinion as to whether or not it was likely that the other people on the list were in danger after you had killed Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: I could have been asked for that, but I do not remember that exactly that such a question was put to me.

ADV BIZOS: What was your answer, do you recall?

MR WALUS: If I am even not sure if the question was asked ...

ADV BIZOS: Well, what would your answer have been if the question was asked?

MR WALUS: My answer would have been that many that is only the beginning.

ADV BIZOS: Maybe that that is only the beginning. And did you tell them that Mr Derby-Lewis was a strong man who would likely see to it that others on the list were killed after your arrest?

MR WALUS: I do not remember Mr Chairman, that I could have said such words.

ADV BIZOS: Would you have remembered it if you had said it?

MR WALUS: I think I would.

ADV BIZOS: Did you or did you not say it?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned, Mr Chairman, I do not remember that I said anything like that.

ADV BIZOS: Let me read to you on page 363.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this R4?

ADV BIZOS: R4, (continued), page 363, bottom of the page. Captain, Kuba, do you think that there is a possibility that others on the list could still be eliminated after your arrest? And you are recorded as having said, yes, they are all bastards, the one is only more dangerous than the other one. Clive is a guy with balls, he will know what to do. You must know we saw it as a war situation, a political issue. Did you say that?

MR WALUS: I do not remember that I could have said such things.

ADV BIZOS: Does it express your inner most feelings about the leadership of the African National Congress and the communist party?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, how can I comment on something which I didn't say.

ADV BIZOS: No, you didn't say you didn't say it, you said you don't remember whether you said it or not. And what I am asking you is does it represent your inner most feelings towards the leadership of the African National Congress and the communist party?

MR WALUS: When we talk about the feelings, they can be in that sense.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, so you were expressing your inner most feelings and your great hatred towards the leadership of the African National Congress and the South African communist party?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned Mr Chairman, I do not remember that I could have said anything like that, so it is difficult to accept that I expressed such a feelings and I used such words.

ADV BIZOS: Well, if they express your inner most feelings and you didn't remember whether you said it or not, and we have a document produced by two police officers who say this is what you said, can you deny that if they say wrote and if they say that these were your words, can you deny it?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. I can repeat again that I do not remember that I said such words.

ADV BIZOS: If you do not remember and they do and they recorded it, are you prepared to tell the Chairman and lady and gentlemen of the Committee that you, that you are telling the truth and that they will be untruthful? They are untruthful about the expression about your inner most feelings?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before, I do not call back the statement and in this statement there are written things which I do not remember and I can give an example that there are some sentences which were spoken by other policemen, interrogating me, but they are not in this. For instance when Captain Deetliefs hit Mr Ronnie Kasrils with the table on his head, when he also forced the wife of Mr Carl Niehaus to sing The Stem.

It wasn't a joke for me, but such words and sentences were told.

ADV BIZOS: Well, I am going to ignore for the time being what you said and continue with my questions on matters which we consider to be relevant.

JUDGE WILSON: Before you do that Mr Bizos, I would like you to look at the next page Mr Walus, it is written in Afrikaans, but what it says there is after this Mr Walus, at about 06h45 in the morning of Saturday, the 17th of April, was taken to Benoni by myself and Warrant Officer Beetge where he was detained in the cells, do you see that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Does that mean that the statement Mr Bizos has just been reading to you, was made at a time when you have told us you started trusting them? You told us that you started trusting them on Saturday morning the 17th, is that so?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not agree with that, firstly because I do not remember that at any stage I said such things. Secondly, ...

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Walus, I am not asking you about what you said, I am asking you simply is this the time that you said you started trusting them, Saturday morning after the questioning?

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

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

MS KHAMPEPE: May I interpose Mr Bizos. Mr Walus, at page 359 of the bundle you have been referred to, it is indicated that this statement was taken at about 04h30 on the morning of the Saturday that you have stated that you started trusting Captain Deetliefs, do you see that at page 359, right at the bottom?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I see that.

MS KHAMPEPE: Do you remember saying all that is contained in this statement on page 359, right until 364 as having been the conversation that you conducted with Captain Deetliefs on the morning of the 17th of April?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would like to ask you kindly to give me a chance to explain the whole interrogation and how this testimony of mine was given and all this testimony which Mr Deetliefs prepared, was done after the fact. Because of this, in my opinion, the facts were manoeuvred by Captain Deetliefs in such a way that in that statement could be matters and things which I said before I trusted them.

So, I am not able to answer Mr Chairman, that I agree with everything from the page 359 up to page 361 because from time to time, there could be inserts of the facts which were convenient to be put there by Mr Deetliefs.

ADV BIZOS: When asked to indicate what important untruths you had told the police officers, you did not include the fact that you believed that the other people on the list were in danger of being associated as one of the untruths. Do you agree with that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, they are not my words. I said that if I said any important untruth, then maybe such a lie could occur.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Please turn to page 362. The last paragraph, after the unbanning of the ANC, PAC and SACP on February 1992, we became very concerned. And then you give the reasons for the concern.

Please go to the last sentence of that paragraph, that was unacceptable for us and Clive and I started to discuss in the direction of eliminating selective members of the ANC/SACP alliance. Did you say that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember that. If you will see that testimony, it looks more like it was written with a Clive language and taken from his testimony. This is not the standard of my English.

ADV BIZOS: Did you or did you not say this?

MR WALUS: I could have told something to this effect.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you. Did you say this when you trusted them or when you didn't trust them?

MR WALUS: I must have said that at the moment when I trusted them.

ADV BIZOS: At the moment when you trusted them? Was it true or was it untrue?

MR WALUS: To the quite big degree, that is the truth.

ADV BIZOS: To quite a big degree, it is the truth? What little degree maybe untrue?

MR WALUS: We can say that that was the truth.

ADV BIZOS: That was the truth. Now if that was the truth, then your conspiracy with Mr Derby-Lewis, your co-applicant, started in the second half of at least in the second half of 1992 and it was going on right up to the time of the murder of Mr Hani on the 10th of April 1993? Do you agree?

MR WALUS: Not entirely. About the elimination, we started to discuss only at the beginning of 1993.

ADV BIZOS: This is inconsistent with the conspiracy having started in February 1993?

MR WALUS: Yes, that is correct, it is inconsistent. If we started to talk about the elimination that was the beginning of the year of 1993.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Walus, I would ask you to please be serious and truthful if you can, to the Committee. You have made serious allegations against the police officers that they wrote down things that you did not tell them for your own purposes. Is that a correct summary of your evidence?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: We now have an admission from you that the last paragraph on page 362 is the truth and not something that the police officers wrote there for their own purposes?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned before, Mr Chairman, some elements that those two policemen wrote, could be the truth.

ADV BIZOS: Let's deal with this please. Do you withdraw the allegation that you have made against the police officers in relation to this particular passage that these are your words and you intended to say that your conspiracy started in 1992 in order to eliminate selective members of the ANC/SACP alliance, do you acquit the police officers that you have accused of any wrong doing in relation to this passage?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned, except that I remember that the discussions took the place in 1993, more or less, this is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Now, you know Mr Walus, you will find that I cannot be diverted from getting an answer to my question. Do you acquit the police officers of what you accused them in general terms that this passage is correct, they were your words and you told them the truth?

Mr Walus, I want to place on record for your comment that for the last ten minutes, you take a very long period to respond to the question and you go into some form of contemplation as to what the answer should be. Would you agree with my description in relation to your giving of evidence in the last ten minutes?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I do not agree because I do not understand completely your question.

ADV BIZOS: I have put it to you on three occasions, and on each occasion you deliberately tried to evade it, what portion of the question did you not understand?

MR WALUS: I would like you to repeat the question please.

ADV BIZOS: Are you prepared to acquit the policemen of the allegation that you made against them that in relation to this passage, you spoke the truth when they wrote it down, because you said these are your words?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I didn't say that they are my words. I said that it could be correct, but I didn't say that I said that and that they are my words.

ADV BIZOS: It may have started off that way, but I am putting to you that you adopted this as the truth. And the record will show that.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to be clear, your words were and this is true to quite a large degree, to quite a big degree.

JUDGE WILSON: And you were then asked what portion was not true, and you said we can say that it is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that ...

ADV BIZOS: We can leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got such answers elicited, how can you just go on with it?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, well the obvious. I am going to put to you that the reason why you don't answer this question is because you know you have now realised that it is now completely destructive of your version and Mr Derby-Lewis' version that there was only a limited conspiracy merely to kill Mr Hani, that it only started in February, when in truth and in fact, it started in the second half of 1992 and that the elimination of selective members of the ANC/SACP alliance were to be eliminated.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Bizos, did he say, he never said it started in the second half of 1992. My recollection is when you read this passage to him, you started that was unacceptable for us. You did not read the passage at the second part of 1992 with him, and he has not said those were his words. He has consistently said they started discussing elimination in the beginning of 1993?

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, the 1992 appears in the first portion.

JUDGE WILSON: Which you didn't read to him, and which he didn't say were his words, and never has.

ADV BIZOS: Let me just, I read the 1992 out once Mr Chairman, I agree with that. You've had this passage in front of you and you've read that at least three or four times before you gave any answers, Mr Walus. Did you read that passage a number of times in open court whilst we were all watching you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, yes, I did read it twice. But I omit something. I do not agree with the date of 1992.

ADV BIZOS: Did you read the words especially during the second part of 1992, did you read those words?

MR WALUS: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: And when you said that it was true, did you refer to the whole passage that you had read twice?

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Bizos, he said when you put this to him specifically, I don't agree entirely, we started discussing elimination at the beginning of 1993. That is what he said when you questioned him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Bizos, from the beginning you actually started from the very beginning of the paragraph and when he said he qualified his answer by saying to a certain degree, to a lesser degree, you had obviously already read the entire paragraph to him, started from after the unbanning of the ANC?

ADV BIZOS: But may I just read another. Then the conspiracy i.e. with Derby-Lewis started in the second half of 1992 and was going right up to Mr Hani's murder in 1993, and then he said not entirely, about that we were only started in February 1993.

I put to him that the passages in conspiracy, that is inconsistent that the conspiracy had been started in 1993, I put that to him and then he said yes, it is inconsistent. Yes, it is inconsistent, so although in fairness to the witness, it may well have been unclear up to then, it became quite clear that we were talking about the second half of 1992 right up to Mr Hani's death.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but the point I am making Mr Bizos, is that he never agreed that he said it. He agrees it is inconsistent with what he is saying.

ADV BIZOS: Well, when the record becomes available, we will argue it Mr Chairman, but even if we assume that in your favour, for a moment, in 1993 on your own version now, there was still discussion of eliminating selective members of the ANC/SACP alliance.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman ...

ADV BIZOS: Are you waiting for a question, what about trying to answer the one that I asked you.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I understood that Mr Bizos asked me if that portion is true.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, some time ago, we are still waiting for an answer.

MR WALUS: I answered yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: That in 1993 you conspired together to kill or to eliminate selective members of the ANC/SACP alliance?

CHAIRPERSON: He has answered yes to that.

ADV BIZOS: Therefore your version that the conspiracy was only intended to kill Mr Hani, is untrue?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman. It is true because we discussed about the targets taking into consideration the prominent members of the ANC.

ADV BIZOS: Taking into consideration meaning making plans to kill them?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman. I said about the choosing the targets amongst those names one of the targets which we chose.

ADV BIZOS: Just listen to the words, Clive and I started to discuss in the direction of eliminating selective members of the ANC/SACP alliance.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I understand in such a way that expression that choosing not choosing, but discussing about the targets from those names on the list, I understood in that way.

ADV BIZOS: Now, let us just go back to the second half of 1992.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, before you do that, you had this discussion with Clive about eliminating selective members of the ANC, which you said is what you did talk about. You said that is true.

MR WALUS: When we speak about the year 1993, that is the truth.

JUDGE WILSON: And did Clive ask you if you were prepared to eliminate political opponents and did you agree to do so?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, yes, I did agree to do what was necessary in the opinion of Clive. What contains my agreement to eliminate, I want to mention that we always spoke about one target.

As is known, that after we eliminate this target, the protection for other members, prominent members of the ANC, would be impossible to eliminate them, because of the protection.

JUDGE WILSON: The point which I would like to clear up is that it seems to me reading this passage, that there was a general agreement at first that you would have to kill members of the ANC/SACP alliance and you agreed to do so. At that stage you hadn't settled on a target?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: It was agreed members of them, and you agreed to do it and only later you settled on your first target?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: The agreement was during 1992 and the target, the first target may have been set in 1993?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned before, in 1992, I didn't know yet about the elimination up to the end of 1992 we discussed very intensely what to do.

At the beginning of 1993 when I was introduced to the list, the target was chosen.

ADV BIZOS: Did you say that the other two were well guarded and that is why Hani was chosen?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, nothing like that. I didn't say anything like that.

ADV BIZOS: Did you say that it was impossible to eliminate other leaders because of their protection?

JUDGE WILSON: After the killing.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, he said that after the killing it would transpire the others would be very well guarded, it would not be possible to get them, that is what he is trying to convey.

ADV BIZOS: Did you agree that the passage at the bottom of page 362, Clive and I started to discuss in the direction of eliminating selective members of the ANC/SACP alliance that it was really in the spirit in which Mr Derby-Lewis answered Adv Potgieter in the passages that I read to you yesterday, that the two friends got together and conspired to kill selective members of the ANC/SACP alliance?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, again I would like to underline that my long friendship with Derby-Lewis, was mainly on the grounds of political basis, and most of the problems we discussed were problems of the country and problems of the Conservative Party.

ADV BIZOS: Did you drive a white bakkie with bullet holes on it at any stage?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, yes, I drove so many cars and bakkies in my life, that is difficult for me to answer this question. Maybe it is possible that I drove once at some stage one white bakkie, but I don't remember if I was driving a bakkie with holes from bullets.

As I mentioned my brother have a business with the selling and buying cars. Also at my work, I also was driving white bakkie, Toyota Hi-Lux as far as I remember, but no one of them as far as I remember had holes from the bullets.

ADV BIZOS: Now, you say that it is quite possible that the white bakkie that you drove, may have had bullets in it?

MS VAN DER WALT: I am very sorry, Mr Chairman, that was not what was said.

MR WALUS: I have driven the white bakkie and I did drive the white bakkie, but I do not remember any holes from the bullets. If they were holes from the bullets, I didn't know about that, but I doubt it that I wouldn't see them because I always check the state of the vehicle whenever I drive.

ADV BIZOS: Your brother, did your brother have a white bakkie?

MR WALUS: I do not know Mr Chairman, if at the moment he has a white bakkie, but I remember that a few years ago he had a white bakkie.

It could have been in 1992 or 1991. As far as I remember it was a white Isuzu bakkie with the blue strip.

ADV BIZOS: Which you borrowed from him from time to time?

MR WALUS: Yes, occasionally I did.

ADV BIZOS: Where did your brother get that white bakkie from, do you know?

MR WALUS: I never asked him for that.

ADV BIZOS: Did you drive that white bakkie in Krugersdorp and Fochville and the other mining towns?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as far as I remember I could have drove to Krugersdorp. About other places which was mentioned, I don't think so because I didn't have any purpose to go there. My work or my business didn't have nothing to do with the mines.

ADV BIZOS: No, not the mines, the mining towns, where your friend Mr Derby-Lewis lived in Krugersdorp and you had other friends in those mining towns. Did you go with that white bakkie?

MR WALUS: I do not recall that Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, did you ever go into those towns in the company of the police acting as a volunteer in order to assist them in their work?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: More importantly, on the 20th of July 1992, did you park that white bakkie across the road from Mr Mandela's house?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, probably at that time my brother didn't have already that bakkie.

ADV BIZOS: Well, I thought you said that he had it in 1991/1992, why don't you answer the question directly. Did you or did you not park that white bakkie or any other vehicle of a similar nature, opposite Mr Mandela's house, on the 12th of July 1992?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Have you ever been to the pavement opposite Mr Mandela's house in a white bakkie?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Without number plates? Did the white bakkie have number plates wherever you used it?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before, I usually, not usually, always, I check up the technical state of the vehicle which I use.

And if the registration plates were missing, I would have not used that so when I drive any bakkie, be it from the firm of my brother or the firm where I was working, they always had registration plates.

ADV BIZOS: It was your custom to mask number plates when you reconnoitred?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I reconnoitred the residence of Mr Hani, and yes, that was my custom that I masked registration plates number with a false numbers.

ADV BIZOS: When if ever, did you go to Mr Mandela's house or in the vicinity of Mr Mandela's house?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, in the vicinity of the house of Mr Mandela, I passed only once the house of Mr Mandela and that was at the end of 1992, or at the beginning of 1993.

ADV BIZOS: What time of the day or night did you pass Mr Mandela's house?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember Mr Chairman, it was about noon.

ADV BIZOS: Why did you go there?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I had some business but I don't remember what in Houghton and I was just anxious, I wanted to know how the house of Mr Mandela looked like.

ADV BIZOS: Who told you what street it was in?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, address and picture of the house was in the newspapers and this house was on the first page of the list which I had.

ADV BIZOS: When did you get the list?

MR WALUS: This list Mr Chairman, I received in 1993.

ADV BIZOS: But you said that you went there at the end of 1992/1993, why did you say that it may have been 1992?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I simply could make a mistake. I know it was summer time. I don't remember the date because this event was insignificant for me. That is why I mentioned the date not correctly maybe.

MS KHAMPEPE: But I thought Mr Walus you are more or less explicit with regard to the period. You said you were there once and that it was either at the end of 1992 or at the beginning of 1993, which dates are both in summer.

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. I say that because I don't remember exactly if it was 1992 or 1993, I only remembered that it was summer.

That is why I give the version of two dates. Probably it could have been as Mr Bizos says, in 1993.

JUDGE WILSON: But you know you got this list in February 1993 and yet you mentioned the list as one of the sources, as I understood your evidence, as one of the sources of the address?

MR WALUS: That is why Mr Chairman, I say that it is possible that I could have made a mistake saying it was in 1992.

ADV BIZOS: Did you stop there or did you do it at a high speed, just have a glimpse of it?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember Mr Chairman, I didn't stop, I only passed slowly, viewing the house.

ADV BIZOS: Where were you going to?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I am not able to remember exactly. I had some business in Houghton, I was in this vicinity.

ADV BIZOS: What business and precisely where in Houghton was your business at the time that you had the list with you and you checked on the address?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, working in the transport firm I was working also after hours by selling crystals which I still had in stock, and I was visiting from time to time shops, chemists and antique (indistinct) to sell this glasses and make some money.

ADV BIZOS: When did your father's business close down and go insolvent?

MR WALUS: It was Mr Chairman, in 1988 or 1989.

ADV BIZOS: The stock belonged to the creditors, not to you but I don't want to turn this into an insolvency inquiry. Did you still have stock, three or four years later that didn't belong to you or shouldn't belong to you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, one matter is the stock and another matter is the matter of my private collection of crystals and glasses.

ADV BIZOS: Please name me one shop in or around Houghton to which you delivered glass in 1992 or 1993, anywhere near Mr Mandela's house?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I can't mention any of the shops because I didn't sell anything there. I tried but it was unsuccessful.

ADV BIZOS: Which shops did you call on, anyone of them that you called on that you attempted to sell glass?

MR WALUS: At the moment I am not able to recall the name of the shop.

ADV BIZOS: Now, you see I am going to put to you that you were seen by neighbours of Mr Mandela's during the evening of the 12th of July 1992 in a white bakkie. When they came out of their driveway, they turned back which must have made you suspicious and you sped off in this white bakkie. Do you remember that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, how I can remember an event where I wasn't there.

ADV BIZOS: You had a two way radio, you should remember that?

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment. Are the neighbours also, the question wasn't quite clear, if we could just have it again please.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I haven't got a radio.

ADV BIZOS: For your reconnoitring purposes of these houses, didn't you need a two way radio?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, I didn't have.

CHAIRPERSON: This might be a convenient stage to take the adjournment.

ADV BIZOS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

 

JANUSZ WALUS: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: (cont)

The neighbours will tell the Committee that during the evening when you were parked opposite Mr Mandela's house, you became alarmed by their return, tracing their steps, retracing their steps and you sped off with this white bakkie and went down to the corner of Central Street where it meets the bridge and you there stopped at a robot.

And they had a good look at you and a good look at the bakkie with the bullet holes and that they recognised you when your picture appeared after Mr Hani's assassination. Do you want to make any comment about that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I have nothing to comment. I didn't do such a thing, so I cannot comment on that.

ADV BIZOS: I am sorry Mr Chairman. I have forgotten that I have to listen, could the interpreter repeat the answer please. I am sorry. Could the interpreter repeat the answer please.

INTERPRETER: About this I didn't do that?

ADV BIZOS: You didn't do it?

MR WALUS: I wasn't there.

ADV BIZOS: You were not there?

MR WALUS: Correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Of course having regard to what you told us, you said that this could not have been the time you went there, because you were there in the afternoon?

JUDGE WILSON: At noon.

ADV BIZOS: At noon? At midday? It therefore couldn't have been correct, is that right?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, what I mentioned I passed Mr Mandela's house in the middle of the day.

ADV BIZOS: And not at night?

MR WALUS: No.

ADV BIZOS: Never at night?

MR WALUS: No. Not that I remember.

ADV BIZOS: Well, is it possible that you did it at night and you have forgotten?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I wouldn't like to interpret it that way, but my answer is no.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry Mr Bizos, from there.

ADV BIZOS: Please have a look at page 310 of R4 (continued). Just passed half way, the second dash that all the other reconnoitring of the house of Nelson Mandela and that of Chris Hani were done at night.

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, I do not remember that I said anything like that.

ADV BIZOS: Well, can you advance any possible reason why somebody should have written down the wrong thing that you said about a matter such as this?

MR WALUS: I think Mr Chairman, that this question should be asked the person who wrote that.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, I am sure that that person is going to say that he wrote down what you said. What I am asking you is that on the assumption that he says that ... (tape ends) night, if you said day.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I can't comment on that because I don't know why. Maybe it was convenient for them to any story which they tried to show.

ADV BIZOS: But how would it advance anything that the police were called upon to do on any basis, to change the information furnished by you as to when it was during the day or during the night?

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Bizos, he has given you an indirect answer to that. He says they will know why they did that. Now how and why, I think we can't push that any further with this witness.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. You see you are recorded as having said it was at night, the neighbour say that it was at night, do you say that was a mere coincidence?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, again I repeat that I pass Mr Mandela's house during the midday. And as far as I remember I used at that time, a red Ford Laser.

MS VAN DER WALT: How many identity documents did you have?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I had three, two or three identity documents.

ADV BIZOS: All under the same name or in different names?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, they were all on the same name.

ADV BIZOS: Why did you have three identity documents in the same name?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, because I sent my identity document to endorse in this document my driving licence. Some times it happened that at the Home Affairs something was done wrong, and they send me a new identity document and they sent it back, the first ID document.

And after a while, I don't know why, they sent me another identity document.

ADV BIZOS: All with the same number?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember the number of my ID. I am not very good at numbers, but I suspect that the number could differ in one of the ID documents because when I received the citizenship the numbers are changed.

ADV BIZOS: How many passports did you have?

MR WALUS: I haven't got at the moment no one passport, I have a copy of the South African passport at the moment.

ADV BIZOS: How many passports did you have before your arrest?

MR WALUS: Before my arrest Mr Chairman, I had South African passport and a Polish passport, I had two of them altogether.

ADV BIZOS: And you could move out of the country with either the one or the other of them at will?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, when I move out from the country, I used only the South African passport.

ADV BIZOS: Would you please turn to R4, page 143. You will see there that there are recorded a number of trips that you did to and from Botswana and to and from Zimbabwe.

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Why were all these trips made?

MR WALUS: We were still living in the free country, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, for some of us it was a free country but why did you take these trips?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, some of these trips were connected with my work, because I was working in the transport firm. Some of them could have been strictly touristic, but I think that most of them were connected to my work.

ADV BIZOS: What work of yours were they connected with?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, last two years before my arrest I was working as a driver, a truck driver.

ADV BIZOS: For whom?

MR WALUS: I was working for the firm named Boplast in Bophutatswana which had affiliates in Pretoria and this firm was later on merged with Plastic Despatch in Pretoria.

ADV BIZOS: Who was the owner of the firm that you were working for?

MR WALUS: I do know Mr Chairman, if he was the owner, but the main person was Peter Jackson.

ADV BIZOS: Did all these trips that you take, were they taken on Mr Jackson's behalf?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. All these trips were on the instructions of Mr Jackson.

ADV BIZOS: Both to Botswana and Zimbabwe?

MR WALUS: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And was it in order to transport his goods that you took these trips?

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

ADV BIZOS: You didn't transport any goods for any person other than Mr Jackson?

MR WALUS: I transported the goods for other persons, but all the trips were under the instructions and he knew about those trips, we talk about Mr Jackson.

ADV BIZOS: You did these trips as an employee of Mr Jackson?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Were you paid a salary by Mr Jackson?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: How much?

MR WALUS: It depends. Basically it was about R2 000-00 plus return for the petrol and sometimes I received the money even for my private trips.

ADV BIZOS: Were you paid R2 000-00 or whatever by Mr Jackson in cash or by cheque?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, most often it was paid by cheque.

ADV BIZOS: Payable in your name?

MR WALUS: I am not sure if it was on my name or if it was cash cheque.

ADV BIZOS: Why are you not sure whether any cheques that you received from Mr Jackson were in your name or not?

MR WALUS: Let's turn the question, why I must be sure?

ADV BIZOS: I don't understand your last answer, please explain it?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I explained that this is a fact which can be easily forgotten or a fact which one cannot be sure and I ask why I must be sure if the cheque was in my name or a cash cheque. Sometimes it could be that way, sometimes the other.

ADV BIZOS: How many trips do you say you made which you call private trips?

MR WALUS: Well, the private trips are concerned with the truck. It could be two trips connected with my removal or removal of my sister.

ADV BIZOS: So all the others were on behalf of Mr Jackson?

MR WALUS: Yes. The other trips with the truck, they were on behalf of Mr Jackson.

ADV BIZOS: From whom you were getting R2 000-00 a month?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: What is the average wage of a driver of a big truck such as the one that you were driving?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, what is the relevance of these questions. It after all has nothing to do with the murder of Mr Chris Hani?

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, it has much to do with the person and the connections of this person, that killed Mr Hani, the relevance will become apparent in three or four questions' time.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, the average salary paid to truck drivers, is that relevant?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, because in order to show that the witness is not being truthful when he says that he is not being truthful at all in relation to the whole of this arrangement, Mr Chairman. And that there may be sinister relationships between this person and some of the persons that I will put to this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, now there must be some ambit within which your questions must be framed. If you are going to ask him the average salary paid by truck drivers and so on, as things stand without knowing the purpose of it, I would say that you should move on and get to something more relevant.

ADV BIZOS: Let me ask you this.

CHAIRPERSON: You better put it to him if you say that.

ADV BIZOS: Let me put it in a negative way that R2 000-00 a month is not a proper salary and that you are not telling the truth in relation to your relationship with Mr Jackson.

MR WALUS: Do I have to answer this question?

CHAIRPERSON: You can admit or deny whether that is a fair salary or not for that kind of work.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I am in the opinion that the salary which I received was correct because usually big trucks have routes, usually the same and they are always on the way.

Because of that the salaries of the drivers are higher because they work more hours, but my work was sort of part time. And because of that, I worked not always on the 32 ton truck, I also worked on the 5 ton truck, on the bakkies. I did the work which was required from me.

Except that from time to time I received from Mr Jackson some other bonuses up to R500-00, so totally with the money refund for the petrol, I didn't feel that I wasn't paid enough.

ADV BIZOS: Was the truck that you were driving, a Mac tank transporter?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it was Mac but it wasn't a tank transporter because what is transported by such a truck, depends on the trailer, not on the horse.

ADV BIZOS: Was the vehicle that you were driving designed to transport tanks?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, at some time, probably yes because this truck came from the army. It had a special differential for carrying heavy equipment.

ADV BIZOS: When was it obtained from the army?

MR WALUS: In 1991, or 1992.

ADV BIZOS: What mileage had it done and how did you come to be in possession of it?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know what was the mileage of this vehicle. I do know that the history of this vehicle is that it was in the army and after that, was purchased by my brother or by my brother with his colleagues and then it was bought by Mr Jackson from my brother or from my brother and his colleagues.

And I worked at that time for Mr Jackson and I had a licence for such a vehicle. That is how I got the job.

ADV BIZOS: What contacts or relationship did your brother have with the South African Defence Force from the 1980's right up to 1993?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I think if I can say anything about his contacts, because I do not know about his contacts, but I think that his contacts were strictly administrative. When the army get rid of something and private firms were ready to buy the equipment the army was selling this equipment and private people or other companies bought them.

ADV BIZOS: Did your brother specialise in buying trucks from the military?

MR WALUS: My brother specialised in buying off trucks and occasionally normal passenger vehicles from any possible auctions where it was goods for his business.

ADV BIZOS: Did you know whether Mr Jackson had any contacts with Military Intelligence?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know about Mr Jackson's connections, about his contacts with the Military Intelligence.

ADV BIZOS: If there is going to be evidence before the Committee that of all these trips that were traced and set out on pages 143 to 144, there were only two on behalf of Mr Jackson and the rest not on his behalf, what would you say?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I wouldn't say nothing because this is impossible. I know that all those trips I made under the instruction of Mr Jackson.

ADV BIZOS: He is the one who will tell the Committee that only two trips were on his behalf and the rest were on your own account. What do you say to that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it could be my own idea but the truck was belonging to Mr Jackson and he was informed about any trip and he agreed about that. Otherwise I couldn't use the truck which I am not the owner of.

ADV BIZOS: Perhaps you can explain to us if you turn to page 144 and let us take the item on the 25-02-1993. Have you got that? It is the fifth item from the top?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman ...

ADV BIZOS: You see it says Willowpark departure, (indistinct) departure, (indistinct) entry, Pioneer gate entry, (indistinct) entry. What were you doing coming backwards and forwards through the border on five occasions on the same day?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I think that Mr Bizos refers to the events, border crossing where you have to cross firstly the border of Bophutatswana, former Bophutatswana and lately after that the border of Botswana when one is gong to Botswana.

And I think that during one of these trips I was stopped on the border of Botswana because I didn't have a certificate which allow me to enter with the truck with the semi-trailer into Botswana.

Such a certificate one can buy on the border of Botswana as far as I remember, for plus minus R700-00.

If it was that day, we can check that in the calendar and if it was Saturday, then it was the day when I was turned from the border post in Bophutatswana and I had to go back to Bophutatswana, then again to South Africa. It was enough time to draw the money from the bank and then I came back through both these borders and I paid for the entering to Botswana, R700-00.

ADV BIZOS: What I am going to put to you in relation to all this that taken together with the evidence of Mr Jackson about your transactions with him, in relation to the stock of your father's business being transferred to Mr Jackson, did that happen?

Did a substantial portion of your father's stock, was it handed over to Mr Jackson?

MR WALUS: That was between my late father and Mr Jackson.

ADV BIZOS: What I am going to put to you without giving any details of it in order to save time, that your relationship with Mr Jackson and your relationship with Mr Jackson, in relation to the ownership of vehicles, the hiding of assets and your coming and going in and out of the country, can't possibly be a true version and we are going to ask the Committee to draw an inference about your credibility and that you are actually being untruthful about yourself during this period.

That you were at a loose end and you were doing things which you cannot speak of and this is why you cannot give a truthful account.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I told and I answered on all the questions and I have nothing to hide.

ADV BIZOS: After your arrest, did you fear that you may be eliminated?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, this is possible even today.

ADV BIZOS: Did you fear that you would be eliminated after your arrest?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I was thinking about such a possibility, things like that are always possible and one has to be careful.

ADV BIZOS: Who did you think would eliminate you whilst you were in the safe custody of the police?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, in 1993 the degree of the infiltration of South African police by ANC and other organisations from the left, we cannot deny that as ANC was infiltrated by South African Police the same ANC did everything to infiltrate South African Police.

ADV BIZOS: Did you feel after your arrest that you may have been betrayed?

MR WALUS: I do not understand the relation of the word betrayed at that moment.

ADV BIZOS: That somebody gave information about you and this is why you were arrested?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, I didn't feel that.

ADV BIZOS: Did you fear that you may be eliminated by one or other persons from the right-wing that may have felt that they were in danger if you spoke the whole truth?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I didn't have such feelings.

ADV BIZOS: I want to return to what I asked you yesterday. Do you recall that I asked you whether your evidence was in any way influenced by what you saw and heard Mr Max du Preez say? Do you recall that?

MR WALUS: Yes, I recall that question.

ADV BIZOS: You said that you heard that after you had given a portion of your evidence in chief on the 21st of August 1997? Do you recall that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: You gave your evidence in chief on a Thursday, the 21st of August 1997, on page 871 the date appears?

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

ADV BIZOS: Do you see that? I think he wants to satisfy himself Mr Chairman.

MR WALUS: A moment.

ADV BIZOS: Now how many days after that do you say you heard Mr Max du Preez saying that there was a possibility that you may get amnesty because you acted, you may say that you acted on the instructions of Mr Derby-Lewis, how many days after that day did you see that programme showing Mr Max du Preez, saying that to South Africa, not to you, but which you heard.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I must have seen that programme on the day when it was broadcast. I am not able to say exactly.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, I know that you must have seen it on the day it was broadcast and you have told us that it was after you had given your evidence on the 21st and I am asking you how many days after the 21st, do you say you saw it?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I said I do not remember how many days after it was. I must have a check in the records of the SABC when it was broadcast.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, but you recall that you were asked by Mr Justice Wilson whether it was before or after you gave your evidence and you assured the Judge that it was after you gave your evidence that you saw the programme, do you recall that?

MR WALUS: Yes, I do recall that.

ADV BIZOS: Was that true?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I cannot say if it was the truth. I can only say that I said what I remembered.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Well, let me tell you that you made up that it was after you gave your evidence because you well knew that you saw that on the Sunday evening before the Thursday when you gave your evidence and the video will be here tomorrow in order to prove it that it was Sunday the 17th. Now, if that be the case, why were you untruthful to Judge Wilson?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I simply answered as I remembered. There is a difference between a lie and between a mistake. I answered as I remembered.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Let us have a look, do you recall that Judge Ngoepe asked you yesterday about your feelings in relation to communism and particularly your experiences in Poland?

MR WALUS: Yes, I do recall that Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ever say that the communist dictatorship in Poland forced you to emigrate to South Africa and that in part that explains your act of assassination of Chris Hani, a leader of the South African Communist Party? Is that correct or an incorrect summary of your evidence?

MR WALUS: The answer was in the sense, it is correct. Of course those things depended on each other.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. You left Poland in 1981 prior to the military coup of General Jaruzelski, is that right?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And that was the time when there was open organising against Polish communism, you left Poland when solidarity and other democratic forces were making tremendous strides against totalitarianism in Poland, not so?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And any notion of a link between Polish communism and the communism in South Africa in the 1990's is also completely inaccurate, is it not? Let me explain, by the time you assassinated Chris Hani, the Polish communist party ... (tape ends)

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And you knew that democratic parliamentary elections were held in Poland in 1989, 1992 and 1993. Is that correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I knew what would be the result of these elections if they will be and as the situation shows, I wasn't mistaken.

ADV BIZOS: Do you believe that this enquiry is being held under this totalitarian circumstances that you say you so despised in Poland before the establishment of democracy in Poland, is that what you mean?

MR WALUS: I am not sure to what Mr Bizos is referring.

ADV BIZOS: Well, didn't you know that in December 1990, when Mr (indistinct) replaced (indistinct) as the Polish President?

MR WALUS: I knew about it Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, you left Poland when the majority of the Polish people realised that the military rule of the past, would not last?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as Mr Bizos mentioned himself, I left Poland before that happened.

ADV BIZOS: And tell me, this terrible communism that you lived under, did any of your friends kill any of the Polish leaders?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I didn't see that but this is a historical fact which is acknowledged by the then authorities, Polish authorities that in 1970 workers, they were protesting and the leaders of these workers were shot dead by the police.

I am not able to say how many of them, but these facts can be checked up.

ADV BIZOS: I am not talking about the victims, I am talking whether you or any one of your friends conspired and successfully succeeded in assassinating any of the leaders?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it was too late then because communism was prevailing.

ADV BIZOS: By the time you and your friends started conspiring to kill Mr Hani, the communism that you spoke about prevailing in the post-war years, had for all practical purposes disappeared in Europe, not so?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, this is to be questioned if it disappeared. Does it disappear in China? It is generally known that the communism is practically only one.

ADV BIZOS: Oh, I see, so you were worried about the Chinese, were you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the reference was Europe, in European countries.

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. In the majority of so-called communist countries in Europe the communist fell.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, and I don't want to enter into many details, but you found it necessary that the poor Polish people could only get three and a half kilograms of meat per month in Poland, did you bother to find out when you came here, how much meat the average South African had?

MR WALUS: ... that, I never checked up on that subject.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, well I will take that no further. I am reminded Mr Chairman, that it may be a convenient stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this may be a convenient stage to adjourn. Will it be convenient if we resumed at quarter to two, Mr Bizos?

ADV BIZOS: We would have no problem, we have something very light here.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We will now adjourn and resume at quarter to two.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

JANUSZ WALUS: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Bizos.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: (cont)

Will you please look at bundle A, paragraph 5. Bundle A, page 5. Middle of the page, acts, omissions or offences, do you see that? On 15 October 1993, the applicant was found guilty of the murder of Mr Chris Hani and possession of an illegal weapon. The applicant acted alone in the planning and commission of this deed.

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Is that what you said in your application which was signed, if you have a look at page 3, on the 24th of April 1996.

MR WALUS: Yes, this is my signature Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And what you said the applicant acted alone in the planning and commission of this deed, was that correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I was doing that by myself where the assassination is concerned.

ADV BIZOS: No you said acted alone in the planning and the commission of this deed, is that true or false?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, part about the planning is not the truth.

ADV BIZOS: It is not the truth. How did you come to tell a half truth?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it happened because my application was filled out with the help of Clive because I am not a lawyer and I am not a politician and I didn't have at that time, any lawyer who will represent me.

That is why some discrepancies could occur which are corrected in the point, in the additional page which I included to the application after the advice of my lawyer who represents me now.

ADV BIZOS: I see. Are you saying that those words, although you signed the application on page 5, are not really your words, they are Clive's words?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned Mr Chairman, I took the help of Clive to fill out the form and I probably omit that point and my lawyer told me about that later on.

ADV BIZOS: What did your lawyer tell you?

MR WALUS: My lawyer advised me to fill out the addition

to this application where I explained the points where there were mistakes.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. At the time that you made this application, you never mentioned anything about an instruction from Mr Derby-Lewis when you signed it in April?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Now, but you changed that after you spoke to your lawyer?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: What were you told by your lawyer which made you unhappy with what you had said on page 5?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, my lawyer explained to me that that which I wrote in the application, is not a full disclosure.

ADV BIZOS: Why was it not a full disclosure?

MR WALUS: As later was mentioned here, the planning of the act I do together with Clive.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. So the planning was together with Clive and if there was to be any change according to that discussion, it should have changed by the applicant together with Derby-Lewis planned the commission of this deed, that is how it should have read, on the basis of what you told your Attorney and what your Attorney told you?

MR WALUS: Would you be so kind and repeat what you said?

ADV BIZOS: Yes. The applicant acted together with Mr Derby-Lewis in the commission of this deed, that is how it should have been changed, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Yes, it could be more correct.

ADV BIZOS: It would be more correct? Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think in fairness you must draw a distinction. You see, you are talking to somebody whose language is not English and you are saying that he ought to have said that he together with Mr Derby-Lewis planned the commission of the offence?

ADV BIZOS: Of this deed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, I think he is, as I understand his evidence, he and Derby-Lewis planned it.

ADV BIZOS: Oh yes, that is what I meant, but to simplify it, thank you Mr Chairman, what it should have said not that you acted alone, but that you planned it together with Mr Derby-Lewis?

JUDGE WILSON: Well, isn't that what he says on page 10?

ADV BIZOS: I am going to come to that. I am going to come to the precise terms of that amendment Mr Chairman.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if I can I would like to ask for the page 10 of the same document where there is paragraph explaining and correcting the omission in original application.

ADV BIZOS: Which paragraph are you referring to?

MR WALUS: Paragraph (i).

ADV BIZOS: (i)? Yes, please read it out.

MR WALUS: Can I read page 10?

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

MR WALUS: I have been advised that I did not provide sufficient particulars with regards to paragraph 9(a)(i) in addition to my application the following particulars are provided: Should I continue?

ADV BIZOS: No, let me start asking you the questions now that we can see that you can read English.

When did this sentence come into being in pursuance of the instructions of Clive John Derby-Lewis, a senior member of the Conservative Party prior to the 6th of April 1993, Clive John Derby-Lewis and I jointly planned to assassinate Chris Hani, where did the words in pursuance on the instructions, whose words are those?

MR WALUS: Those words are mine under the advice of my lawyer.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, by the time of the 30th of November 1996 a number of rulings had been given by this Committee in relation to instructions helping applicants to get amnesty.

Did you and or your lawyer know this?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I presumed that the lawyer knew about it, but I am not sure.

ADV BIZOS: Well, were you as potential applicants for amnesty not keeping a very careful watch on what the rulings of the Committee were and what the discussions were in the newspapers as to when you would be entitled to amnesty and when you would not be entitled to amnesty?

MR WALUS: Yes, I was watching for that new rules.

ADV BIZOS: And isn't that when you decided to change your version from one of joint planning to one of instruction in order to improve your chances of getting amnesty?

JUDGE WILSON: Where is the verdict of joint planning, Mr Bizos? You said to change your version from one of joint planning?

ADV BIZOS: From acting alone, I beg your pardon. From acting alone, I beg your pardon. From acting alone to in pursuance of the instructions.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Bizos, you should decide when Mr Walus had changed his version. Before the adjournment for lunch you said that he had changed his version the Sunday evening, on the 17th of August 1997, now you are putting it to him that he has changed his version based on instructions and that was signed on the 30th of November 1997.

Now that he has changed his version to instructions then, it means he did not change his version after he had heard what was broadcast on the SABC.

ADV BIZOS: I don't feel that I am obliged to answer questions by counsel, I will take them as an address to the court Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: But this should be fair to my client, and I think the Chairman must decide.

ADV BIZOS: I would appreciate it if counsel addresses the Committee rather than me.

CHAIRPERSON: Please I think that you should address your remarks not to your opponent, you should address your remarks to the members of the Committee.

MS VAN DER WALT: Well, then I will repeat them to the Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, there can be no doubt as to when these documents were signed. Your cross-examination of this man relates around the word instructions, is that not?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, that is right.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are saying that the introduction of the work instructions came about at a later stage as a result of having read judgements of the Amnesty Committee?

ADV BIZOS: And newspaper commentary.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now, perhaps that question can be put in that way. You see Mr Walus, it is one thing to plan with somebody to do something, it is another thing to do something on the instructions of somebody.

It is being suggested to you that you have used the work instructions to show that you acted on the instructions of somebody because you read in the paper or heard decisions of the Amnesty Committee that people who claimed to have acted on instructions of their superiors were sometimes granted amnesty.

It is being suggested that that is why you have changed to introduce the word instructions, do you understand? Mr Bizos, I don't want to take it away from you, but if I have said anything which is wrong, please put it right.

ADV BIZOS: No, I am indebted to the Chairman for clarifying the question and I would be happy if the witness attempted to answer.

MR WALUS: I am also very grateful to Judge Mall. Mr Chairman, I changed in my first version where there was no mentioning about jointly planning, now I say about the additional paragraph where I say about the instructions. Because I discussed that with my lawyer and that is the truth.

ADV BIZOS: Did Mr Derby-Lewis ever suggest or propose to you that the actual execution of the assassination of Chris Hani be given further thought before you did it?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman. No, I didn't hear such a suggestion. But I was told that I have to do everything carefully.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. You were never at any stage told by Mr Derby-Lewis that you should delay until he thought it over some more?

MR WALUS: No, I do not remember such things.

ADV BIZOS: Well, surely you would have remembered it if he said anything like that to you?

MR WALUS: Yes, I should have.

ADV BIZOS: And if he had given you, if he had expressed that thought, you would never have done it?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: You mean yes, you would not have done it?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, if I was told that I have to wait, or to give more thought or he must think more about it, then of course I would have done what he said.

ADV BIZOS: I want to ask you to please look at page 17 above Mr Clive John Derby-Lewis' signature, the second last paragraph where he amended his application.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I have never seen this document before.

ADV BIZOS: Well take it from me that this is what Mr Derby-Lewis said under oath to the Commission in his application. Although I proposed to delay the actual execution of the assassination of Chris Hani until I had given it further thought, I however, accepted and associated myself with its execution on the day in question.

Do you say that the first part of that sentence signed by Mr Derby-Lewis as far as you are concerned, is false?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I cannot comment how Mr Derby-Lewis saw that.

ADV BIZOS: If Mr Derby-Lewis and you were the only people that spoke about this, he could not possibly have made this proposal to anyone else, could he?

JUDGE WILSON: Does it mean a proposal Mr Bizos? Reading it, doesn't it mean I intended - although I intended to delay the, isn't that what proposed means there? Aren't you reading something into it?

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, to propose is to put forward to someone else, with respect.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, in fact wasn't that Mr Lewis' evidence at any rate? It was also his evidence that he did in fact propose to ...

ADV BIZOS: Thank you, I recall that and I have a note of that. Was there any discussion between you and Mr Derby-Lewis about the Easter weekend?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. As far as I remember Clive suggested that it would be a good time to do it before the Easter weekend.

ADV BIZOS: That was not a suggestion that there should be a delay, was that a suggestion that that should be done as soon as possible?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I saw that as a suggestion of speeding up. However, I can add that Mr Derby-Lewis didn't say that it must be done before the Easter weekend, but he said it wouldn't be the worst time as far as I remember the version.

ADV BIZOS: I want to read to you paragraph 73 of Mr Derby-Lewis' statement on page 72, R4 first part, Mr Chairman. R4 first part, page 72.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

ADV BIZOS: I want to read the whole paragraph to you: All precautions such as disguise, disposal of the weapon, wearing gloves, getting away from the scene by the quickest route were ignored. Something obviously went radically wrong with Kuba on Saturday, 10 April, as I had also still not supplied any of the ammunition required as I was determined to use the delay to enable me to give a matter as important as this, further thought. I was at that stage, not yet fully convinced that I was indeed prepared to compel myself to the armed struggle, to the extent of attacking the enemies with the intention of his destruction. I sincerely hoped that what happened, was not as a result of Kuba and I being set up by other persons, but that it was rather as a result or very intervention of some higher hand.

I may say Mr Chairman, that this paragraph may with respect, add weight to Judge Wilson's interpretation of the statement, but we will argue whatever the meaning may be, we want to ask questions about this particular paragraph.

Now, did Mr Derby-Lewis ever express any doubt that the time had come for himself to commit himself to the armed struggle, to the extent of attacking enemies with the intention of his destruction? Did he ever convey to you any doubt about that?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, I do not remember such things. He never conveyed to me any doubts.

ADV BIZOS: And would you please have a look at page 21, bundle A, the last paragraph when he asked me whether I was in a position to obtain a firearm that could not be traced back to me, I handed him the firearm that I just brought back from Cape Town, together with the rounds of ammunition for test purposes. I undertook to supply him with the necessary ammunition, but had difficulty in obtaining this ammunition as I did not have a licence to purchase 9 mm ammunition.

Although I handed Mr Walus the firearm on 6 April, I decided to delay the whole process as I was determined to give a matter that was as important and as significant as this one was, further thought. Did Mr Derby-Lewis express to you the reservation that he says he had in his application for amnesty at page 21?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I never heard about such doubts.

ADV BIZOS: If the contents of the paragraph on page 21, you could not possibly have had an instruction to assassinate Mr Hani on the 10th of April 1993?

MR WALUS: Excuse me Mr Chairman, something must be wrong with the microphone of the interpreter, I can hear the voice not clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you check that please?

MR WALUS: Thank you and I apologise for the delay. I would like the question to be repeated.

ADV BIZOS: If this paragraph that I read to you from page 21, then you had no instruction from Mr Derby-Lewis to kill Mr Hani on the 10th of April?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I think that I explained enough that such instructions were given to me and I was doing that on this instructions and in this paragraph we discuss if ever, Mr Lewis told me that he has any doubts in that matter.

ADV BIZOS: On the contrary, you are recorded on page 307 of R4, continued, the last paragraph, do you have it? During a visit to Mr Clive's house of Founders Day, that was the 6th wasn't it, he handed a Z88, 9 mm pistol for elimination purposes to me. This pistol was in its original box together with a silencer and three special rounds.

Clive already knew that I reconnoitred Chris Hani's house on various occasions and he told me that Chris Hani must be eliminated during the week of Easter, is that correct?

MR WALUS: I understood that it was before Easter weekend.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Well, I will come to that but please turn to page 308. After practising with the Z88 pistol and silencer on my brother, Vittol's smallholding outside Pretoria. I returned to Clive's house on the evening of the 7th of April. I told Clive that the silencer wasn't working properly and it was decided that I must go ahead with the eliminating and Clive again told me that Chris Hani must be shot dead still during the same week of Easter. Is that correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, all the time I am for the version that it was a week before Easter except that the decision to use the pistol without the silencer, it was my decision not my joint decision with Clive.

ADV BIZOS: I don't know why you try to draw this distinction but just for the sake of clarity, if the Catholic church the Sunday before Easter Sunday is known as Palm Sunday. You must remember that from Poland?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, and don't the priest almost invariably on Palm Sunday say that we are entering Easter week and we have to fast and we have to pray until the rising of the Lord on midnight on ... (tape ends) ... Isn't that so in the Catholic tradition?

MR WALUS: It is not a holiday week. The Easter week, the Easter holiday starts on Sunday. That is how we celebrate.

ADV BIZOS: Now you say that your application was done with the assistance of Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: I said Mr Chairman, that in some moment I accept help of Mr Lewis while I was filling out the application, because my language knowledge is not sufficient and I don't know the legal aspects of this amnesty.

ADV BIZOS: He read your application? Did Mr Derby-Lewis read your application?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember, yes, he gave me that to read.

ADV BIZOS: And did you read his application?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I don't remember that I read his application.

ADV BIZOS: What would your reaction have been if he had brought to your attention the paragraph, page 21, particularly the last sentence that he was determined to give a matter that was important and as significant as this one was, further thought? What would your reaction have been about associating with him in your application for amnesty if he had put something down which you knew to be incorrect?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I wouldn't be even able to say if it was correct and truthful or not, because this is not clearly said here that he expressed his doubts in his own decision which he conveyed to me, I understand that inside he had his doubts and I believe that he said the truth.

ADV BIZOS: Did Mrs Derby-Lewis assist you with your application?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I filled this application with Clive.

ADV BIZOS: Did she bring the material from the Patriot and from the Citizen to the prison and helped you to formulate the grounds of the application?

MR WALUS: She brought some materials yes, that is true.

ADV BIZOS: And did she type out the applications?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know if it was her who typed that, I only see that this application is typed.

ADV BIZOS: Did Mrs Derby-Lewis take away any documents that you and or Mr Derby-Lewis wrote and bring them back, typed?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And did she contribute to the reasons that had to be advanced for the purposes of your applying for amnesty?

MR WALUS: No, I do not remember that.

ADV BIZOS: And when you had consultations with your lawyer for the purposes of amending the applications for amnesty, was Mrs Derby-Lewis there?

MR WALUS: No, no, I do not remember that she was there. It could have been a visit of my lawyer at the prison and only the lawyer would be allowed to visit me at that time.

ADV BIZOS: When did you ask for the unlicensed firearm for the first time?

MR WALUS: It could have been in the beginning of 1993.

ADV BIZOS: That would have been January 1993?

MR WALUS: It could have been January, it could have been March.

ADV BIZOS: Try and be a little helpful. You know that we are dealing with an event that happened in the first third of April, when did you ask for a gun for the first time?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I help as I am able to, but I can say only that what I remember.

ADV BIZOS: How long, was it days, months, weeks before you shot Mr Hani with a Z88, how long before that did you ask for a gun?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before it must have been a period after I received the list so between January, let's say so, up to March as I said before.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ask for a gun at the same time as you received the list?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it must have been some time after I received the list as far as I remember.

ADV BIZOS: Well, please tell us when did you receive the list.

MR WALUS: I received this list or on the end of February or at the beginning of March.

ADV BIZOS: When you asked for a gun, what did Mr Derby-Lewis say?

MR WALUS: Mr Lewis answered positively that he will try to find something.

ADV BIZOS: Did he give you any indication that he had already had a gun which could be used for this purpose when you first asked for it?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember, he said something like that that he will try to find something and most probably he would be able to give me such a gun.

ADV BIZOS: When you first asked for the gun, did he tell you that he was busy gathering guns for the purposes of having them, lest the government prohibited whites from getting new licensed guns?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, unlicensed firearms that was the subject which was discussed in the right-wing quite a lot and I wouldn't ask him even from where would the firearm or how he get it. This was not necessary for me to know.

It was not relevant for me. I didn't want to know about it.

ADV BIZOS: You see I am going to suggest to you that this lapse of memory in relation to the time when you asked for the gun and when it was given, was because neither you nor Mr Derby-Lewis have told the Commission as to precisely when this list was prepared, when it was handed over, when the gun was acquired and when a silencer was asked for. And that you are being deliberately vague because you do not want to contradict the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis, which we are going to say was in some respects contradictory and confused, and this is why you say you don't remember, what do you say to that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it is known that the list was conveyed to me as it is in my application and my previous testimonies, and it was given to me by Mr Clive Derby-Lewis and also the firearm Z88, was also given to me by Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.

We know that on the 10th of April the assassination of Mr Hani took place with this weapon and in my flat, this was found. What could I gain and in which way and why would I like to change or to show any discrepancies between my version and Mr Clive's. It can be some truth in this version of Mr Bizos, but I can count on that that Mr Derby-Lewis remembered the dates better.

If I don't remember them correctly, I wouldn't speculate on that. The same as Mr Bizos used against me as a lie towards the Judge Wilson that I apparently said about the TV programme that I saw it after my testifying or maybe I said it before. In reality I really didn't know when I saw it.

I also would like to ask to apologise to Mr Wilson that I didn't want to mislead him or lie, but I explained the situation if I don't remember something exactly, I rather say that I cannot remember exactly, than to guess.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is it possible sometimes to be a little bit short with your answers? If you can Mr Walus?

MR WALUS: I apologise Mr Chairman, I just wanted to underline why such discrepancies can occur where the dates are concerned.

ADV BIZOS: This question of the gun is of some importance, please try and give crisp answers. How much time passed between your receiving the list and the request of the gun? Days, weeks how long between that period? How long was that period between obtaining of the list and the requesting of the gun?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I think that it was between two weeks and one month.

ADV BIZOS: We know that you told us that you had the list when you visited Mr Mandela's house, that it was either and the end of 1992 or the beginning of 1993, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, firstly I didn't visit Mr Mandela's house. I just passed near the house and I viewed it.

Secondly, I mentioned that earlier that I made mistake when I said I could have made a mistake when it was 1992. It could have been or it must have been 1993.

ADV BIZOS: You see, I am going to suggest to you that you are not telling the truth, and I will stop asking you to estimate any more, because you do not make any honest attempt to estimate correctly, but that this gun was obtained long before Mr Derby-Lewis would have us believe that it was obtained.

That it was obtained specifically for the purpose of assassinating people and not for the purposes of self-defence.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know when Mr Derby-Lewis acquired this firearm and for what purpose. I know only for what purpose this firearm was given to me.

ADV BIZOS: Do you agree that a silencer on a gun is the assassin's weapon and not a self-defence weapon?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I know numerous occasions where people keep silencers and use the silencer during the training of shooting and we cannot say that everyone who has a pistol with a silencer, plans assassinations or any political assassination.

ADV BIZOS: I don't know that I understand your answer, but let me try and get a clearer one. If anybody wants to use a gun in self-defence, he doesn't want to prevent his neighbours from hearing that he is shooting, he would want his neighbours to hear it so that they can come and help him maybe.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, there is always two sides of the matter. One would like to want that the neighbours must listen, but if the intruder or the group of the intruders can hear or see or hear the direction from where the shots are done, then it gives them the advantage.

So that is questionable, everybody decides about self-defence by himself.

ADV BIZOS: Please tell us where you saw many people practising with silencers.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I saw it on the training, shooting training place in Arcadia and in other training for shooting places, I saw them practising with silencers.

ADV BIZOS: What sort of people would they be who would want to practise with silencers?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether we should really go into that Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: As it pleases the Chairman. Mr Chairman, I must just go back to my notes.

Were you asked during your interrogation about the involvement of Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I do not remember if I was asked about it.

ADV BIZOS: Did you say anything to the police officers implicating her?

MR WALUS: No, I do not remember Mr Chairman, that I said anything like that.

ADV BIZOS: At your trial, do you remember her giving evidence?

INTERPRETER: The applicant would like to repeat the question.

ADV BIZOS: Did you hear Mrs Derby-Lewis give evidence at the trial where you were convicted?

MR WALUS: Yes, the trial was in Johannesburg, and I heard Mrs Derby-Lewis giving her testimony.

ADV BIZOS: Do you recall her evidence that as far as she was concerned, the list was an innocent document which she had caused to be drawn up for journalistic purposes?

MS VAN DER WALT: Could Mr Bizos just tell us which list he is referring to because there were two lists which were submitted during the trial?

ADV BIZOS: Any of the lists. Do you recall her speaking about a list which she had drawn up for journalistic purposes?

MR WALUS: Yes, I remember something like that.

ADV BIZOS: And do you recall that she said that she had left it laying about on a coffee table and that you must have taken it from the coffee table, because you were in the habit of taking literature from her coffee table, do you recall that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I do recall that something like this was said.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were these the statements made by Mr Jordaan on behalf of Mr Walus or is this now the testimony of Mrs Derby-Lewis, because if it is the testimony of Mrs Derby-Lewis, we would like the page number of the case.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he is referring to the evidence of Mrs Derby-Lewis at the trial.

ADV BIZOS: I am asking the witness, I don't have to give the witness references Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, it has to be stated correctly to Mr Walus or corrected, because I know that statements were made by Mr Jordaan in this regard, but I don't know whether Mrs Derby-Lewis gave that testimony and that is why I asked the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You've got to accept counsel who is saying to the witness, do you recall Mrs Derby-Lewis saying this, and his answer was he has some such recollection.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I remember that something like that was said but I am not sure if it was said by Mrs Derby-Lewis or if it was said by somebody else or my lawyer.

ADV BIZOS: Did you take any list by accident from the Derby-Lewis home?

MR WALUS: I do not remember. I don't think if I took something accidentally, then I even don't know about it because I never found something like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to make some sense, and just let's talk about the documents. You are concerned with the list Mr Bizos, isn't it?

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is did you take this list perhaps by accident or was it given to you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, no I didn't take this list accidentally.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, let's proceed. Let's finish that, my colleague here wants to know was it given to you? The list was given to you?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. As I testified before, this list was given to me by Clive Derby-Lewis.

MS KHAMPEPE: May I interpose Mr Bizos. Mr Walus, did you at any stage ask Mr Derby-Lewis for that list?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not recall that I asked him for this list.

MS KHAMPEPE: So it is your evidence that this list was presented to you by Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: And you stand by that version?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: We know that Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis came back together from Cape Town early in 1993. Did they phone you or did you phone them or did you meet accidentally after they returned from Cape Town?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember Mr Chairman, it was me who phoned them.

ADV BIZOS: And was it then that they gave you the list?

CHAIRPERSON: Be a little more precise when you say they gave you that list - Mr Derby-Lewis?

ADV BIZOS: I beg your pardon. Did they give you the list shortly after their return from Cape Town, did Mr Derby-Lewis give you the list shortly after his return from Cape Town?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know when Mr Derby-Lewis was back from Cape Town. I knew that I had to phone in February for that we had to meet. But again, I underline that I don't remember exact dates.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ever ask Mr Derby-Lewis what his wife's attitude was in relation to what the two of you were planning?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I never would have asked him for such things, because I do not think that he ever spoke to his wife about, he ever mentioned such a subject to his wife.

ADV BIZOS: I want to read from page 252, which is Mrs Derby-Lewis' signed statement. Page 252 of R4.

Please look at paragraph 44. Certain of the names on the list, we believed to be the enemies of South Africa. Clive and I had vague plans at the beginning that some sort of arrangement should be made to liquidate one or perhaps more leaders of the ANC and the South African Communist Party.

Were those discussions between husband and wife ever reported to you?

MR WALUS: I do know nothing about that, and I can't comment on that.

ADV BIZOS: The people on this list whom I believed to be the enemies of South Africa, were the participants in Operation Vula who were never prosecuted by the government and members of the ANC and SA Communist Party. Some of the names were Mac Maharaj, Hani, Mandela, Kasrils, Naidoo, Ramaphosa and Slovo.

Clive and Kuba decided on Chris Hani to be eliminated because of his particularly brutal record and his position as Chairman of the South African Communist Party, which they believed never should have been unbanned.

How would Mrs Derby-Lewis know about your decision which she records there, yours and Clive's decision?

MR WALUS: Once again, I can say that I cannot comment because this is alleged statement of Mrs Derby-Lewis when she was detained under the Section 29 in which way I can comment that?

ADV BIZOS: Clive and Kuba wanted a description of the residences and I can only assume that this was to determine what sort of security surrounded the houses? Is that what you and Clive wanted to know?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, again I can't comment on that. This is that what allegedly Mrs Derby-Lewis said.

ADV BIZOS: No, what I am asking you is whether the statement of fact, what she records is Clive and Kuba wanted a description of the residences and I only assumed that that was to determine what sort of security surrounded the houses, is that what you and Derby-Lewis wanted?

MR WALUS: Sorry Mr Chairman, I am not able to comment on this because I received a list and from that list only the address was important for me. I didn't know where was the list originated from because it is difficult to answer this question Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Did you or did you not want to know a description of what sort of security surrounded the houses?

CHAIRPERSON: The question is did he want to know from Mrs Derby-Lewis?

ADV BIZOS: Or from anyone else, was this information which you yourself wanted?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I said to do this assassination, I agreed only after received the list. So, such informations I already have, where Mr Hani's house is concerned, only the address was important for me.

ADV BIZOS: Did you or did you not want to know even before you started reconnoitring, what sort of security was surrounded the houses?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, once again I answer that I knew what is my task, only after I received the list. So how could I say that I wanted anything or I didn't want anything before. If I didn't know what would be my task?

ADV BIZOS: When you got the list, did you ask from who such information that there was about security, came from so that you could possibly get more information about security?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I didn't ask that.

ADV BIZOS: Were you ever told what the real purpose of the list that you were handed, was?

MR WALUS: The reasons for which the list was given to me or the reasons for which the list was made?

ADV BIZOS: Both? Why was the list made and why was it given to you, what did Mr Derby-Lewis say to you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember that anything was said why this list was made up, nobody told me about that.

And the list was given to me for the purpose to conduct my task to eliminate Mr Hani.

ADV BIZOS: I am sorry, I was reading the record, I didn't get the full import of the answer, could you please repeat it?

MR WALUS: Nothing was said to me why this list was made up, nobody told me about that and the list was given to me for the purpose to conduct my task of eliminating Mr Hani.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ask why a list with so many names was given to you if the only purpose was for you to eliminate Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before Clive told me something about the degree of enmity of those persons which were on the list, the degree of enmity towards the Conservative Party.

And the list was numbered and as a target, it was Mr Hani.

ADV BIZOS: What was the importance of the degree of enmity to you? Of what purpose would such a classification be to you? I would have thought on the evidence that we've heard from Mr Derby-Lewis, that Mr F.W. de Klerk's name should have been there, judging by how much we heard from him.

What purpose was it to serve for you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we numbered this list and for me practically it was irrelevant because as I mentioned during my first testimonies, many of these persons I didn't know. Their names didn't tell me anything.

ADV BIZOS: If the purpose was the degree of enmity, why wasn't it typed by whoever prepared it in that order and why was it necessary for you to write the order on the list?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, this is obvious that somebody who made this list or who typed this list, simply didn't know for what purpose was this list made.

ADV BIZOS: Did anybody tell you that the list or its first edition was made for journalistic purposes?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember this. I only know about one list, about this one which I had in my possession.

ADV BIZOS: I just, Mr Chairman, I have to reorganise my notes and do an audit. I wonder whether it would be a convenient stage to take the adjournment now. It will have the effect of saving time tomorrow morning and I have been informed any way that the next scheduled witness is not here today, so is that, oh, I am told that she is here, but be that as it may, it may be a convenient stage to take the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it likely to take you long to do what you have to do Mr Bizos?

JUDGE WILSON: He said until tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. We will adjourn now and resume at 09h30 tomorrow morning.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

JANUSZ WALUS: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: (cont)

Mr Walus, in your discussions with Mr Derby-Lewis, did you consider what you and he would gain by murdering Mr Chris Hani?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. We discussed that subject.

ADV BIZOS: If you very briefly could tell us, what was the objective that you would have achieved in accordance with your discussions if you killed Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, the main object was to cause the chaos in the country, and because of this chaos the right-wing could unite and prevented to take the power by ANC.

ADV BIZOS: You say that you wanted to create chaos, what did you understand when you and Mr Derby-Lewis decided that the purpose of this murder was to create chaos? What did you expect to happen?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I said I expected mainly the unity of the right-wing and all the right elements in South African Army and Police.

ADV BIZOS: That is not chaos, unity among the right is law and order, what chaos did you expect to occur?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as it happened I expected that there would be a chaos because of the sort of insurgencies.

ADV BIZOS: Please tell us what did you expect to happen which could be described as chaos?

MR WALUS: As I answered, that people would be revolting.

ADV BIZOS: So you expected a revolution to start?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as we know revolution started much earlier, but in silence.

ADV BIZOS: Who would revolt, who did you expect to revolt that would create what your desired objective of chaos, what did you hope to happen and who would do what so that this chaos that you and your partner in the murder wanted accomplished?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned I expected that more radical elements in ANC and elements connected with the Communist Party of South Africa will begin maybe even revolt. As I said the revolution started much earlier.

That could cause the necessity of intervention of the Army and the Police and most probably and possibility to enter the higher positions of more right-wingers in this institutions and people who are more right for these positions.

Except that the unity of right-wing of Conservative Party, AWB, HNP and BWB.

ADV BIZOS: Did you not expect any reaction from the supporters of Mr Chris Hani, that you were planning to murder?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned at the beginning, yes, I did expect reaction from the elements who supported Mr Hani, that they will start all this upsurgance.

ADV BIZOS: So you expected the murder of Mr Hani to start an insurgence by his supporters?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you expect violence from them? You talked about maybe even revolt, you have talked about insurgence, did you think they would commit acts of violence and kill people?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, mainly I expected violence from them.

ADV BIZOS: Against whom did you expect that violence to be directed?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as we know with the act of violence and spontaneity of this acts, as we saw in Bophutatswana, such acts quite often were confined to the looting of the shops and to the general house in which case the army has to take a stand.

ADV BIZOS: Let us see whether we can clarify what your intention was. You have told Justice Wilson that you expected violence to break out. Against whom would this violence be directed?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I said in such cases the acts of violence begin not precisely and not decisively without any, they could be against the whites, they could be against the police and the army, the could have been against Inkatha.

ADV BIZOS: So you expected indiscriminate violence by the supporters of Mr Hani, indiscriminate violence by members of the ANC, indiscriminate violence by members of the Communist Party against the sections of the population which you perceived to be against them?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would like to repeat the question, because I am not sure if I understood properly.

ADV BIZOS: You expected the violence of the supporters of Mr Hani and the organisations he belonged to, to be directed to all the people in South Africa that you thought were against Mr Hani and the organisations that he belonged to?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, yes. I could foresee that, but I have to underline that without expecting many victims because I expected that there would be immediate action, contra action from the army and the police.

ADV BIZOS: When one section of the population is expected to act against another section or sections of the population, we usually call it a civil war.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, the country was in a state of the war from the middle of the 80's, but it wasn't publicly declared. We call that as a martial law or there was some negotiations concerning that, but it was avoided to name it.

ADV BIZOS: Never mind the avoidance to name it, please answer my question. Did you understand by killing Mr Hani and creating chaos amongst, and that his supporters would in a state of chaos turn against other sections of the population, did you expect a real civil war to break out?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I said I expected chaos which will be pressed down by the army and the police and more radical elements in the police and army.

ADV BIZOS: Did you expect them to intervene in order to put down the civil war which you hoped to see come about as a result of the murder of Mr Hani?

INTERPRETER: Excuse me Mr Bizos, Mr Walus didn't have an earphone and he couldn't hear the - can you repeat please.

ADV BIZOS: Did you expect the army and the police to intervene in order to stop the civil war which would come about as a result of your murdering Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Did you discuss with Mr Derby-Lewis or did yourself contemplate whether hundreds, thousands or many thousands of people could possibly have died in that civil war which you hoped to start?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, with Clive Derby-Lewis I discussed it superficially what could have happened after the assassination of Mr Hani, and where my thoughts are concerned, yes, I was thinking about that and as I know from the history, against that what the propaganda tried to imply, South African police and the South African army was suppressing any active violence in such a way that there should be as little victims as possible.

ADV BIZOS: Let us just take this. Did you expect the supporters of Mr Hani to create the chaos that you wanted created?

MR WALUS: Excuse me Mr Chairman, this question is not clear for me.

ADV BIZOS: How many people did you expect might die in the chaos that would have been created if the civil war that you wanted, broke out, before the army had an opportunity of putting down the revolt or the chaos. How many people did you consider might possibly die in South Africa?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, those are not the calculations which you can estimate.

ADV BIZOS: Have you finished?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Were you and your partner in crime, Mr Derby-Lewis, not concerned about how many South Africans would die to bring about the chaos that would have enabled the army and the police to put it down? Didn't you consider that sufficiently important to discuss and to foresee the consequences of your acts?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before, those are the calculations like in the crystal ball, you can't estimate there could be a few hundred victims, or there would be few or maybe no one would die.

JUDGE WILSON: Can you seriously say Mr Walus, that you thought chaos would break out to such an extent that the army and the police would have to intervene, and that no one would die?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I agree that what I said that nobody could have, it is exaggeration, however, we cannot exclude that as I said, this is a calculation of something about which we don't know. As we know as police actions as I saw that and I knew about that, was confined to the interventions and arrests of the leaders of the act of violence.

There were victims and I have to foresee that there will be victims.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you or did you not expect that many people could die?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I expected that there will be victims, but I wouldn't name that, I wouldn't call that there will be thousands or hundreds or tens of thousands.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, sorry Mr Walus, I am asking you did you or did you not expect that many people would die?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would like you to give me a number about which you think, to be precise?

JUDGE NGOEPE: I wasn't there when the planning was made, you were there. I can't give you any number. During this time when this was planned, did you or did you not expect that many people would die?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I wouldn't like you to misunderstand me, but I would like to ask you what is your estimation when you ask me about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Walus please.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you or - do you want to answer my question or don't you want to answer my question because I will leave it if you do not want to answer? It doesn't matter to me how you understand.

MR WALUS: I would like, absolutely I would like to answer this question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Walus, I don't care what you understand by many, I am just asking you in the way that you understand many, did you or did you not expect that many people would die? It is a very simple question, I am asking it for the last time, if you don't answer it, I will leave it.

MR WALUS: Yes, I expected that such a possibility existed.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did you then take so long, why did you make me struggle so much to answer such a simple question?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we are talking about human life. If Mr Bizos say many thinking about thousands, or tens of thousands, I didn't expect such an amount of victims. That is why I underline this point what we think saying many.

Where I am concerned, I would have seen that as a few hundred people. I apologise if I cause any misunderstanding.

ADV BIZOS: Let us take your figure of about 100 people, a few hundred people. Among them there must, once there is chaos there would have been innocent men, women and children because when there is chaos you don't choose your targets like you chose Mr Hani. When there is chaos, innocent men, women and children get killed.

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, such a possibility always exist.

ADV BIZOS: And you and your co-applicant realised this when you decided to murder Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we were discussing about chaos and what we want to cause, but we didn't discuss with Mr Derby-Lewis and I didn't calculate how many people can lose their lives and what it can cause.

We didn't have such discussions, we didn't discuss this matter to such a degree.

ADV BIZOS: But if you in fact discussed chaos and you did not discuss the degree of violence or the number of deaths or the amount of damage to property that may be caused by your act, would it be correct to say that you did not discuss it and also you did not care?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I think that this is more a statement of Mr Bizos than a question.

ADV BIZOS: No, treat it as a question and answer it. Did you or did you not care how many people, innocent people died and how much property was destroyed?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, of course it was important for me.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you ever discuss it? You had various meetings with Mr Derby-Lewis where you planned this action that you were going to take, to bring about chaos. Did you ever discuss with him the result?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember about discussing the victims of this chaos.

CHAIRPERSON: May I ask you a question please. Chris Hani would be killed, it would make many thousands of black people very angry, is that right?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So now the few hundreds of people who might die, would be white people who would be killed by angry black people, is that right?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, my estimation when we talk about a few hundred people, I understood that totally as the victims of the angry black people against whites and also interventions of police and the army and that is why I estimate this number quite long because police, South African Police and Army were still effective at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the question was you must have anticipated that the killing of Mr Hani would make the black people very angry, they would cause chaos, they would kill white people in retaliation, do you realise that that was a possibility and that you are prepared to sacrifice white lives?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I must have think about such a possibility, however, we know that whites must have defend themselves. As I mentioned before, I was counting for the quick intervention of the Army.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you thought about maybe a few hundred lives would be lost, in your mind those few hundred lives, would be black lives killed as a result of the action of the Army or the Police, is that how you thought?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, this amount, this number of victims as I said before, this amount describes totally whites attacked by blacks and blacks losing their lives because of white people defending themselves and action of the Police and Army.

As a total number, so this few hundred people I give as an example, nothing correctly.

ADV BIZOS: In this chaos in which the supporters of Mr Hani would direct violence against persons and property, and the retaliation of the Army in order to bring order out of the chaos, did you expect the supporters of Mr Hani not to resist the Army, putting down or putting an end to this chaos?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I think we talk about that already.

ADV BIZOS: Just answer the question please. Did you expect the people that would create the chaos you speak of, to resist the Army and the Police if they tried to put an end to their involvement?

MR WALUS: Probably there would be a reaction from the other side.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, and you know and you and your co-applicant have told us that MK still had arms, there was Operation Vula, you knew that APLA was armed, you knew that at least some of the neighbouring states were in favour of the liberation movements, did you and your co-applicant discuss all this and say if we kill Hani, we will have a real civil war between the armed forces, security forces and the armies of the liberation movements.

You wouldn't have called them that, but did you discuss that subject, that after in attempts to bring an end to the chaos, there would have been a shooting war between the opposite sides?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I didn't discuss that with Mr Derby-Lewis, but I realised that it could have happened and such a war was a fact of life from the middle of the 1980's.

ADV BIZOS: Well, but the fact of life or part of the fact of life is that very serious negotiations were taking place by some 22 political parties, not far away from where you killed Mr Chris Hani seeking a solution, did you take that into consideration instead of plunging the country into civil war?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, there were negotiations. 22 Political parties from only 2 parties have voice, it means ANC and NP, and the results of these negotiations could be foreseen long before.

ADV BIZOS: You told us that the police was infiltrated by the ANC.

MR WALUS: Probably it was a fact.

ADV BIZOS: No, you stated it as a fact yesterday.

MR WALUS: Yes, I say it is a fact.

ADV BIZOS: It is a fact? You also drew attention to what had happened in Bophutatswana shortly before you killed Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, if we talk about Bophutatswana, what happened in Bophutatswana happened after the assassination of Mr Hani.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let us use the knowledge that we have of what happened in Bophutatswana afterwards. Did you know that the AWB with its inverted 7's badge, was an undisciplined organisation which might commit (indistinct) acts of terror in any situation where there was chaos?

MR WALUS: Do you speak all the time about Bophutatswana?

ADV BIZOS: Leave Bophutatswana out of it for a moment, we know what happened shortly afterwards, but at the time that you were discussing it, did you know that the AWB was an undisciplined armed organisation imitating the Nazi's who were likely in any chaotic situation to commit (indistinct) acts of terror?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, from my side I do not see AWB as an undisciplined organisation and I didn't see it as an organisation semi-Nazi. There could be similarities of the emblem, but their ideology is not the same and it is not the Nazi ideology.

ADV BIZOS: We know that shortly after you killed Mr Hani, they indiscriminately killed dozens of people in the streets of Mafikeng, did you know that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as far as I can see you are going back to Bophutatswana again and where these facts are concerned, Mr Bizos describes them from his side, from his ideology side.

CHAIRPERSON: You say as far as you are concerned you don't see any connection between what happened in Bophutatswana and your act killing Mr Hani, you see no connection between the two? Is that what you are saying?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. I would like to say that it has no connection with the assassination of Mr Hani, but I would like also to mention that Mr Bizos gives the version of an event in Bophutatswana in such a way as it is convenient for him and inconsistent with his ideology and inconsistent with that what at that time, media was talking about that event.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, would you tell us what the killings were on the streets of Mafikeng?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, till today this event is not explained till today. As far as I know, ANC did everything to undermine the credibility of the government of President Mangope in Bophutatswana and that AWB and Volkstaat were invited to Bophutatswana by President Mangope. If it was AWB which indiscriminately shot and just for the pleasure of killing people, or the victims were because of other elements and what exactly really happened there, I am still not sure.

ADV BIZOS: Do you not know that the AWB indiscriminately killed people in the Bophutatswana situation on the streets of Mafikeng? Did you know that or don't you know that?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, I do not know about that.

ADV BIZOS: Did you have newspapers whilst you were in prison, awaiting trial?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not subscribe this newspapers but sometimes I get a newspaper from Clive and except that I keep myself far to believe in everything that is written in the newspapers.

ADV BIZOS: Let me ask you this, did you have any reason to believe that the policy of the AWB was any different in April 1993 when you killed Mr Hani and February/March 1994 when people were indiscriminately killed by the AWB on the streets of Mafikeng. Did you think that there was any change of policy or tactic of the AWB during this period?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I can't answer that question because I was in detention at that time.

ADV BIZOS: In relation to the attitude of the army and the police, if they were infiltrated in the manner in which you say they were, how sure could you and Mr Derby-Lewis be that the army would turn against the people of South Africa as a whole when the chaos that you wanted, emerged?

JUDGE WILSON: You started off asking him about the police and then you went on to say how sure can you be that the army?

ADV BIZOS: How sure are you that the police would have shot against the people of South Africa indiscriminately if they had in fact been infiltrated by the ANC as you told us?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, firstly I would like to mention that the degree of infiltration of the South African Police, infiltration by the ANC, I knew about it only after I was detained. That is the first reason.

So, I am not in the opinion that we have to waste time to discuss that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos, I think you better move on.

ADV BIZOS: I will move on. What would you have done after you killed Mr Hani and if you had not been identified by the brave neighbour of Mr Hani, who got hold of the Police? What would you have done, what was the plan, what would you and Mr Derby-Lewis do immediately after you murdered Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it could have been to the decision of Mr Derby-Lewis. I had to execute the task, that is all.

ADV BIZOS: Let me put the question, had you not discussed what the likely results, immediate results would be and how you the, in the forefront of this heroic struggle, that you say you represented, would have done immediately afterwards?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, no we didn't discuss that. I didn't discuss that.

ADV BIZOS: Why didn't you discuss the prospects for instance of whether or not the government of Mr F.W. de Klerk would allow or would not allow the Security Forces to take over for the benefit of the right-wing?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, more or less we discussed it up to that degree. We saw that it will result in that.

CHAIRPERSON: ... understand your question again please, can I put this. If the chaos which you and Derby-Lewis saw happening, if that chaos did not result after the killing of Hani, what were you going to do?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, then I would have waited what Clive would have instructed me what to do.

CHAIRPERSON: What were your thoughts since you were bent on causing chaos and chaos did not result, what were your thoughts about what you would do?

MR WALUS: As I said Mr Chairman, I would have asked Clive for advice what we have to do further, what is the further way.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Does that mean you did not have any thoughts of your own?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would have tried probably but before I will take any action, I will consult with Clive who is more mature politically and he is more military trained person and I wouldn't take the decision just by myself.

JUDGE NGOEPE: As I understand the Chairman's question is in terms of your plans, with regard to what would have happened had chaos not erupted, apart from telling us that you would have waited for Clive, did you not yourself have anything in mind?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, to be honest, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that an honest answer?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, because I knew that the chaos to some degree must happen and something must happen and further than that, I didn't discuss what we will do after that. Or if nothing will happen, if there will - and it is difficult for me to discuss or to say anything about my thoughts.

If I ever had any, I do not remember them now.

CHAIRPERSON: The other names on the list, would you not go for the other victims in order to ensure that there would be chaos?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if we would have the next discussion, and such suggestions would emerge from Clive, most probably I would have done that.

ADV BIZOS: You give praise to Mr Derby-Lewis for his military and political experience. If that be so, don't military and political leaders make contingency plans that if the first step fails, what is the second step?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, yes absolutely yes, but nobody say that the second point of the plan must be shared with the other person.

ADV BIZOS: This lack of planning and lack of memory as to whether or not there was a contingency plan, is contradicted by your statement as recorded by Captain Deetliefs on page 363, continued which we read to you yesterday. Do you want me to read it to you again?

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is sufficient to just put it that it is contrary to what he said.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't want to traverse the whole ground again.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, you contradict yourself today with what was recorded. Have you any explanation for this contradiction?

MS VAN DER WALT: I don't want Mr Bizos to repeat everything, but I don't think it is fair just to refer to just one page, he can perhaps just mention which specific part he is referring to. He needn't refer to the whole page.

CHAIRPERSON: Or rather the gist of the evidence that appears on the pages.

ADV BIZOS: You said in answer to the question as to whether there was any danger, you said yes, they are all bastards, the one is only more dangerous than the other one. Clive is a guy with balls, he will know what to do. You must know we saw it as a war situation, a political issue.

That is contradictory to your not having any view as to what would happen after the murder of Mr Hani.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, where the statements from my interrogations are concerned, we were talking about that already and maybe something was said but the portion of this statement cannot be used as a truth because I am not sure if it was said.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Bizos, I am not so sure whether reading this portion, I am not so sure whether it comes out strongly to say that there was in fact an alternative plan, he doesn't seem relatively saying that there was an alternative plan. I would have thought that he is almost saying exactly what he is telling us now, that it would be up to Clive to decide what next to do?

ADV BIZOS: I do agree with the first statement, Justice, but when he claims that he had not idea what would happen in answer to the Chairman, I point to this as contradicting that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I see, not so much whether there was a plan?

ADV BIZOS: ... was as to what would happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Bizos, your next point.

ADV BIZOS: Now, do you know whether or not there was chaos after Mr Hani's death?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do know from the newspapers, I know that there was some unrest but at that time I was not allowed to use the media, but a little bit later I read the copies of the articles which were in the documents files.

ADV BIZOS: What is your present feeling Mr Walus, did you achieve anything by murdering Mr Hani either politically, personally or for your cause or was it a wasted life? The waste having been caused by you, which of the two do you feel?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I can't answer this question because history can show, further history, what happened as also we cannot foresee what could have happened if Mr Hani would be still alive. We also cannot foresee that what would be, so it is difficult to say anything.

Surely the feelings of killing are not pleasant and nothing positive comes from that.

ADV BIZOS: I would have expected you to show some remorse in answer to that question and not leaving it for history to possibly justify your act.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would like to ask Mr Bizos why he expects from me remorse?

MR WALUS: I don't expect it, I asked you.

JUDGE WILSON: You said I would have expected, Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: I would have expected, thank you Mr Chairman, I would have expected some remorse and not a sense of bravado still in your answer that history will judge the act.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's carry on Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. You wish to say nothing more about this matter of remorse?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I only wanted to mention that this is not a bravado, but this is like in everything, like the history that shows what happened.

I cannot say if that was only a wasted human life or it can have any historical meaning or if it does have any meaning now, because we cannot say how the events can take place in future, if Mr Hani would be alive.

ADV BIZOS: What did you expect the Conservative Party to do after you killed Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, in what sense, what sense? In what sense Mr Bizos?

ADV BIZOS: What did you expect them to do as a Party after you killed Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I could have only expected that in the result of the chaos, by the Conservative members of the army, Conservative Party will gain the control over the army.

ADV BIZOS: What did you expect the Conservative Party to do?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, what the Conservative Party will do when already will gain the control over the army and the police.

ADV BIZOS: Did you expect it to approve or disapprove of your killing of Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I didn't expect that my surname ever will be mentioned, because I didn't do that in any reason to gain the money or fame, because I believed that it is necessary to do at that time and that is why I can't say that I expected anything from the Conservative Party for myself.

ADV BIZOS: Perhaps it is the ambiguity of the word expect. Did you expect them to approve or disapprove of your actions?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, where the deed is concerned I would like to clarify if Mr Bizos think about after the assassination, how I was caught or if I wouldn't be arrested then something else would happen?

ADV BIZOS: Let me try and get some clarity. Did you expect the Conservative Party to approve of your action or did you expect the Conservative party to disapprove of your action?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if my surname would be revealed, I would have expected that they will approve because I knew that I was doing that deed, I was executing, I was doing the deed on behalf of the Conservative Party.

JUDGE WILSON: Do I understand from that that you didn't think they would ever know your name, that they will ever know that you had done that? You said twice now if my surname was revealed?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would like to say yes, I said that. If the assassination would be done and I would have never been caught, then I wouldn't be interested to be prized for that action from the Conservative Party's side as Clive told that was the action from the Conservative Party and I don't know if he has, he wanted to say who decide about it, but for me it was insignificant.

ADV BIZOS: Whether your name was mentioned or not, did you expect the murder of Mr Hani to be approved or disapproved of by the Conservative Party?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I expected that it wouldn't be disapproved.

ADV BIZOS: Well, that is somewhere in between. Would it be approved or disapproved?

MR WALUS: I would have expected that it would be approved.

ADV BIZOS: When a video was shown Mr Hartzenberg saying that murder was not the way of the Conservative Party and disapproving of the act, it must have come as a shock to you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, what can be shocking after a few months of detention, it was a shock for me and not understanding what is happening and that is more or less all that I can say on that subject.

ADV BIZOS: Well, Mr Hartzenberg wasn't alone. You recall that we presented a number of newspaper, or a number of statements published in newspapers when Mr Derby-Lewis was giving evidence that other leaders of the Conservative Party dissociated themselves from murder and dissociated themselves from your action and said that it was not Conservative Party policy, do you recall all that?

MR WALUS: Yes, it could have been like that.

ADV BIZOS: It was like that, that is how you understood it as what they said, correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: Did you go to Mr Derby-Lewis when you heard that evidence and you saw that video and accused him of misleading you about Conservative Party policy?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember when this video appeared, I saw this video only during the hearing of the Commission. I did not know about this video when I was in prison.

ADV BIZOS: The question was, when you saw that video and when you heard the statements made by other Conservative Party leaders during the course of these proceedings, did you go to Mr Derby-Lewis and accused him of having misled you in relation to Conservative Party policy in relation to murder?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I didn't accuse Clive Derby-Lewis and I still wait for the explanation of the stand of Conservative Party in this matter. For me just one video tape is not enough explanation.

We know now we can say many things about the politics for different reasons, maybe that happened also in the Conservative Party.

ADV BIZOS: Let me see if I understand what you are saying. You did not accuse Mr Derby-Lewis of misrepresenting Conservative policy to you?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Is that because you rejected the evidence on the video and on the statements and you did not believe them as being the true policy of the Conservative Party, is that what you are saying?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not believe that the policy of violence was the policy of the Conservative Party at that time, and if Dr Hartzenberg said something like that, then he must have said that for the reasons known for himself. I cannot comment on that why he said so.

ADV BIZOS: Well, the other possibility of course is that he and the other leaders were telling the truth, but that you, Mr Derby-Lewis, Mrs Derby-Lewis and other right-wingers took it up on yourselves to do it?

MR WALUS: I cannot see such a possibility.

ADV BIZOS: You can't? On the morning of the murder, were you visited by three persons at your apartment?

CHAIRPERSON: After the murder or before the murder?

ADV BIZOS: No before, in the morning?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, I do not remember that anybody visited me that morning.

ADV BIZOS: I want to ask you a number of questions in relation to the allegations that you make against the Police. Whatever promises or other conduct of the Police may have indulged in according to your evidence, did that persuade you to tell any untruths about yourself?

MR WALUS: I do not understand the question Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Did you tell Captain Deetliefs and his colleagues any untruths about yourself as a result of any threats, inducements or drinks or liquor or drugs or anything like that? Did you say any untruths to them about yourself?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember Mr Chairman, what I told them during the period after they convinced me that they want to help me and Clive, I told them mainly the truth.

ADV BIZOS: Did you tell them any untruths about yourself?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I cannot recall that at the moment, it is possible, but I cannot categorically state it.

ADV BIZOS: Did you tell them any untruths in relation to Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: I do not think so.

ADV BIZOS: Did you tell them any untruths in relation to Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Not that I will remember, not that I remember.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. So that the Committee can assume that what you told them was the truth and they didn't influence you to tell any lies about yourself or the other two persons mentioned?

CHAIRPERSON: I think his answer was he didn't remember telling untruths.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He may have told them untruths, but at present, he doesn't remember.

ADV BIZOS: He doesn't remember, I will leave it at that.

JUDGE WILSON: And he also said as I recollect it, that he told them the truth after they had convinced me that they wanted to help us, that is after he was induced in some way.

ADV BIZOS: Sorry, the inducements really were to tell the truth and you told them the truth rather than to tell lies?

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, can you repeat the question.

ADV BIZOS: If there were any inducements, they induced you to tell the truth because you trusted them and not to tell lies?

MR WALUS: After the time when I trusted them, it don't need to be induced, anything, but I would like to mention again that all this recordings of the interrogations, I do not know in which moment and from which moment I trusted them or not, because everything is mixed and the typed version from this alleged interrogation and some elements are intertwined as it was convenient for Mr Deetliefs.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, we won't traverse that again. You were not held under Section 29?

MR WALUS: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BIZOS: And also it appears in the narrative, that you were treated with consideration, you were allowed to see your brother whilst under arrest, the Police waited around whilst he and your friend sliced biltong for you to take with you, they allowed your brother to telephoned your Attorney, all consistent with a friendly Police Force? Is that correct?

MR WALUS: That is correct yes, I was treated with consideration, but I would like to mention that I lacked sleep and food and I was under the intensive interrogation.

ADV BIZOS: You also had an Attorney from the earliest times arranged by your brother?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I had and I didn't have. I had a lawyer which I was allowed to see only once, but whenever I asked questions of some nature, that I can answer this questions only in the presence of my lawyer, practically never I was given that chance to have this presence of this lawyer.

ADV BIZOS: You appeared on a number of occasions in the Magistrate's court?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: You were represented by a lawyer?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Did he ever register any complaint with the Presiding Officer of the court of any ill-treatment that was meted out to you?

MR WALUS: If it is not in the court records, then it means he did not mention that to the court.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let's deal with your presence. He never mentioned any complaint that you had in relation to the conditions of your detention or interrogation at any time when you were in court?

MR WALUS: No, I do not remember.

JUDGE WILSON: When was your Attorney appointed?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it was about two or three days after my arrest.

JUDGE WILSON: Would that be before Captain Deetliefs started interrogating you for on one occasion, 14 hours during the night?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Was your Attorney ever there during these interrogations?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman. Though I asked a couple of times that some of the questions I can answer only in the presence of my lawyer, but I never got one.

ADV BIZOS: Did you mention all the complaints that you mentioned on the 21st of August and on Monday of this week, to your Attorney ever?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I did mention.

ADV BIZOS: To which Attorney did you mention it?

MR WALUS: It was Attorney Sieberhagen, Advocate or Attorney.

ADV BIZOS: You remember that when the court was about to adjourn in August, members of the court asked you to record what ill-treatment had been meted out to you so that an opportunity could be given to those that you mention, to deal with your allegations, do you recall that?

MR WALUS: I do not remember that Mr Chairman, but I believe it must have been like that if Mr Bizos have a record of that.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Now, did you mention the trickery that you now accuse the police officers of at that time or not?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I didn't mention it.

ADV BIZOS: Any reason why not?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, there were basically two reasons. Firstly, the ill-treatment as I understood it because I was from Poland, being from Poland we understand the treatment as a beating and tortures and no one will mention that as ill-treatment or when the policemen tricked somebody. As I mentioned it in my statement, I was ashamed that I was so naive and stupid that I could have believed those two officers, this is the one aspect of this matter and the second, as we know I didn't want to put any burden on Derby-Lewis' arms and simply I was thinking that it will be never used by the general Prosecutor, by the Attorney General.

ADV BIZOS: What was your personal relationship with Mrs Derby-Lewis, were you friendly?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, usually it is like that that any companion of my friend, is automatically my friend as well.

ADV BIZOS: And did you freely discuss your political views with her?

MR WALUS: My political view, yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And did you mention to her the hatred that you had for the communists and the African National Congress?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I think it was obvious for her, but I don't know if I ever mentioned it. But that I belonged to the Conservative Party and that during some period I was a member of the AWB, she knew that. Probably she knew.

ADV BIZOS: And did you ever discuss with her the order of hatred of the leaders of the Communist Party and the African National Congress, who the biggest enemies of the Conservative Party and you and her husband were?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I do not recall such discussions.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ever discuss with her what was to be done, what the solution to your problems were?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking in general terms, the solution to the problems of South Africa as they saw it? Or his personal problems?

MR WALUS: As they saw it. No, no, how the country could be put right and not be rested away by the communists and the African National Congress. Did you discuss that with her?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we discussed ... (tape ends)

CHAIRPERSON: ... discussed.

ADV BIZOS: Oh yes, no I understand. And did you discuss whether you and her husband should do something about it other than the ordinary political activity? I have not had any feedback?

INTERPRETER: Sorry, the applicant asks to repeat the question please.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ever discuss with her what you and her husband might possibly do in order to save South Africa?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we didn't discuss with Mrs Derby-Lewis about the policy of the Conservative Party, or what could be done. What sort of action we can take or what politically is possible to do, we never discussed what Clive and me should have done. I do not remember about such discussions.

CHAIRPERSON: This might be a convenient stage to take an adjournment?

ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will adjourn for 15 minutes.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: ... ladies and gentlemen we apologise for any inconvenience that may have been caused to you. There has been a development affecting one of the Judges on this Committee, a family matter that has occupied the time of the members of the Committee and that is why we are starting late again. Mr Bizos, you may carry on please.

JANUSZ WALUS: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. I want to refer you to page 288 of R4, to merely draw your attention to the signature of a document. You will see there a signature...

MS VAN DER WALT: Excuse me is it 288?

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

ADV BIZOS: Do you see the signature G. Derby-Lewis there, do you see that at the bottom?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I can see the signature.

ADV BIZOS: On page 239, there is a certificate by Mr Johannes Hendrik de Waal, that it was signed and sworn to before him. Do you see that?

MR WALUS: Yes, I see that Mr Chairman, I see the signature.

ADV BIZOS: I want to assure you that that handwritten document has been typed and it is the typed version that I want to refer you to which is the statement of Mrs Derby-Lewis. I will read portions of it to you and I want to ask you what you know about the statements made by Mrs Derby-Lewis.

MR WALUS: I would like to know if we talk about the testimony of Mr Derby-Lewis or Mrs Derby-Lewis where I was given the version by the interpreter as Mr Derby-Lewis.

ADV BIZOS: No, that I am sure was just a mistake, it is Mrs Derby-Lewis.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we all got Mr Derby-Lewis.

ADV BIZOS: Mr? I am sorry, Mrs. Did I say Mr, I beg your pardon, Mrs Derby-Lewis. On page 252, paragraph 44, certain of the names on the list we believed to be the enemies of South Africa. Was she speaking the truth when she said that? Just the first sentence, I will read the rest to you later.

JUDGE WILSON: Shouldn't you identify the list Mr Bizos?

ADV BIZOS: (Indistinct). The sentence as it stands. Certain of the names on the list, we believed to be the enemies of South Africa, is that correct as far as you are concerned?

MS VAN DER WALT: To which list are you referring? It is not fair to ask that from Mr Walus. He should comment on one sentence referring to something, but he doesn't know to what.

CHAIRPERSON: I think let's just put the matter beyond doubt. Refer him to the list that you have in mind Mr Bizos, please.

ADV BIZOS: Let me rephrase the question because Mr Chairman, I don't want to interpret the document for him, it is a statement which I am reading to him and he can make whatever qualifications he wants to make.

CHAIRPERSON: The difficulty is the names, there might be different names on different lists.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, I will come to that as to which ...

JUDGE WILSON: He wasn't present, that is clear from the statement, isn't that. She is discussing a list with her husband, surely if you are asking him to comment on the list, you must indicate some certainty as to the list.

ADV BIZOS: Let me take it because I merely want the statement as it is, and I will qualify it so that there can be no misunderstanding in the mind of the witness.

We have had two lists in this case, Mr Walus? Were there any names on either one or other or both of the lists which you, Mr Derby-Lewis and Mrs Derby-Lewis considered to be enemies of South Africa?

MR WALUS: I can only comment Mr Chairman, on the subject of one list only which was in my possession, and on the subject of what I was discussing with Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.

ADV BIZOS: Was the list that you had, did it contain the names of the people considered as enemies of South Africa?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Who were the enemies of South Africa, all nine people on the list that you got?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I testified during the first session of this Commission, for me only some of the surnames were familiar, so I agree that some of the surnames could signify enemies of South Africa as I saw South Africa.

ADV BIZOS: So was Mr Mandela an enemy of South Africa?

MR WALUS: In my opinion, yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Was Mr Slovo an enemy of South Africa?

MR WALUS: In my opinion, yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And was Mr Hani an enemy of South Africa?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And Mr Maharaj, was he an enemy of South Africa?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, at the moment when I had the list and before the assassination of Mr Hani, the surname of Maharaj was not known to me.

ADV BIZOS: Was Mr Chris Hani of course an enemy of South Africa?

MR WALUS: As I before said.

ADV BIZOS: Was Mr Pik Botha an enemy of South Africa?

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on. I know how strong your feelings may be in matters of this kind, but please I appeal to you, this is not a performance and I would like you to refrain from expressing your feelings by clapping. This is a serious enquiry and please, try and avoid that. Answer the question about Mr Botha?

MR WALUS: Yes, in my opinion, yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And was Justice Richard Goldstone an enemy of South Africa?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I am not sure if at that time the surname meant anything for me.

ADV BIZOS: Was Mr Ken Owen an enemy of South Africa?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, the surname of Ken Owen didn't mean anything for me when I had the list.

ADV BIZOS: And Mr Tim du Plessis, was he an enemy of South Africa?

MR WALUS: Also the surname doesn't mean anything for me, so I can't comment on that.

ADV BIZOS: Right, can we go back to the second sentence of paragraph 44 please, on page 252? Clive and I, this is Mrs Derby-Lewis, Clive and I had vague plans at the beginning that some sort of arrangement should be made to liquidate one or perhaps more of the leaders of the ANC and the SA Communist Party. Have you any personal knowledge of that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know nothing about this.

ADV BIZOS: Well, do you say that, well does this correspond to your arrangements with Mr Derby-Lewis, leave out Mrs Derby-Lewis for the moment because you tell us you don't have personal knowledge of it, but does this correspond with your discussions and agreements between you and Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I said up to the 1993 the discussions were about this that we have to do something. From the beginning of 1993, these discussions were mainly about the liquidating from the moment when I received the list, and then when I knew that I had to liquidate Mr Hani.

ADV BIZOS: Now, your evidence has been that it was never discussed between you and Mr Derby-Lewis, as to whether you should assassinate anyone other than or in addition to Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I do not remember that we discussed that.

ADV BIZOS: Well, if this statement is true, can you explain why the discussions between you and Mr Derby-Lewis should be different in relation to the discussions between Mr Derby-Lewis and Mrs Derby-Lewis as to who should be assassinated and more particularly, whether it was one or more persons, can you explain that?

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Bizos, is that a proper question in the circumstances to ask him why is there a difference between what transpired between him on the one hand and between Mr Derby-Lewis and Mrs Derby-Lewis, is that a fair question or a proper question?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, it is I submit with respect a proper question because where it is sought to establish the existence of a conspiracy, statements made by one supposed conspirator, it doesn't have to be proved, a supposed conspirator, in the execution and not in an narrative form, in execution of the conspiracy are admissible in order to prove the conspiracy itself.

You will remember the judgements in the case of Mombaris and others, where the matter is dealt with. We are entitled to put whatever statements are made, by one or other conspirator in order to both test the credibility of the person who is giving evidence and also in order to establish the nature and extent of the conspiracy.

JUDGE WILSON: But this Mr Bizos, said Clive and I had vague plans at the beginning, that some sort of arrangement should be made to liquidate one or perhaps more leaders. Can you seriously argue that that is the same conspiracy as that that Mr Walus and Mr Derby-Lewis entered into.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I will answer it. Standing alone, not, but the whole of paragraph 44, portions of paragraph 46, portions of paragraph 47 and 48 clearly show knowledge by Mrs Derby-Lewis of the conspiracy that you have heard of up to now.

I am going to for the sake of completeness, I start at the beginning and I am going to finish on page 254, at the end of paragraph 258 and that Mr Chairman, with respect, shows that one of the alleged conspirators knew about the conspiracy between Mr Derby-Lewis and the witness, and I am entitled to put that for his comment once one of the conspirators has said so and what he knew about it.

CHAIRPERSON: You are asking him why is there a difference?

ADV BIZOS: No, no.

CHAIRPERSON: His version and the version that is given in that statement by Mrs Derby-Lewis?

ADV BIZOS: Can you explain why one of the alleged co-conspirators speak of more than one would be victim?

JUDGE WILSON: Had vague plans at the beginning, he speaks of it not when he was there?

ADV BIZOS: No, I do not for one moment suggest that this was the end of the conspiracy, we will come to a paragraph where she actually says what was said by Mrs Derby-Lewis about the conspiracy that she obviously knew about between the witness and Mr Derby-Lewis.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Bizos, sorry, I understand you to, and to me it looks like it is a legitimate question, I understand you to be saying to this witness, assuming that what stands here is correct, and so on and then you proceed on that premises because you would not wait for Mrs Derby-Lewis to come and testify and then later recall this witness to come and ask him questions about this.

ADV BIZOS: Precisely, if I am going to allege that there was a conspiracy among the three of them, I must of necessity put the material that we have at our disposal, as what Mrs Derby-Lewis went on record as, to put it to him for his comment, and if I don't, then it will be suggested in argument well, you didn't even put to Mr Walus any information that you had that there was a third conspirator in the case.

CHAIRPERSON: If you are asking him to make a comment, that is one thing, but asking him to explain why there is a difference between his evidence and what Mrs Derby-Lewis is going to say, then that is different.

ADV BIZOS: I will accept that and I will amend the question accordingly Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what I would like you to do.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, right. Now, have you any comment as to why Mrs Derby-Lewis spoke the truth in this paragraph? Can you explain why their original thoughts were in relation to Mr Hani and or other persons? Can you make any comment about it?

JUDGE WILSON: Their original thoughts did not relate to Hani, according to that paragraph. You are putting things there that are not there, Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you for drawing my attention, Mr Chairman, I put it correctly and then I read out the passage and he has it in front of him, please tell us whether the original intention was to kill one or more leaders or enemies of South Africa, according to you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I am not able to say what was her intentions and I can't comment on that what Mrs Derby-Lewis allegedly said being arrested under Section 29.

ADV BIZOS: Please go to the last sentence of the next paragraph.

MS VAN DER WALT: I just want to place on record that Mr Walus was cross-examined yesterday regarding this question.

ADV BIZOS: I do not remember, in fact I am certain I did not put this specific allegations contained in this statement to the witness yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you. Clive and Kuba decided on Chris Hani to be eliminated because of his particularly brutal record and his position as Chairman of the South African Communist Party which they believed never should have been unbanned. Have you any personal knowledge of that?

MR WALUS: Sorry, the microphone is not working by the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: His microphone is not working, is it?

MR WALUS: Sorry the microphone of the applicant is not working, I can't hear. It is all right now.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Walus, you were about to answer.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, in what sense I don't know what, I am lost when I have to comment about the alleged testimonies which are not mine.

ADV BIZOS: Clive and Kuba decided on Chris Hani to be eliminated because of his particularly brutal record and his position as Chairman of the South African Communist Party which they believed never should have been unbanned. Is that a correct statement of fact of the decision between you and Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: I do understand Mr Chairman, this is more or less what we decided with Clive, but the opinion that the Party should never be unbanned, it was not only our opinion.

ADV BIZOS: It was your opinion, so the sentence as it stands is correct, it correctly reflects the agreement between you and Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, part about the decision about Mr Hani, but I do not remember that we discussed if South Africa Communist Party should be unbanned or not because everybody from the right-wing agreed and other right elements from the National Party agreed that never that Party should be unbanned.

We didn't discuss that.

ADV BIZOS: Although you didn't discuss that, you shared that view with Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Let's go on. Clive and Kuba wanted a description of their residences, is that true as a fact or not?

CHAIRPERSON: Is this still paragraph 44?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, it is paragraph, the next sub-paragraph, Clive and Kuba wanted a description of their residences, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it is not entirely correct because I didn't want any description. The moment when I received the list and I had the description, it means address, I knew what was my task.

ADV BIZOS: And I can only assume that this was to determine what sort of security surrounded the houses, is that a correct statement of fact about your and Mr Derby-Lewis' requirements?

MR WALUS: As I said, at the moment when I received the letter, I only then knew what is my task and before that, I didn't discuss any security systems surrounding houses with Clive. It wasn't necessary for me. I didn't need it.

ADV BIZOS: In fairness I will put the next sentence to you for your comment. I simply asked Arthur, that is Mr Kemp, what was asked of me. I am not a logistics person, nor was I present at any discussions in 1993 between Kuba and Clive about logistics, is that a correct statement?

MR WALUS: I do not understand at the moment what is correct. As I mentioned, Mrs Derby-Lewis was never present while we discussed with Clive.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. That is what you say but she says she was never present about logistics, but let's leave that out, I have your comment, thank you.

She goes on to say this does not mean to say I am denying that discussions between the two of them were not going on. That is a negative thing, we can pass.

Clive told me some time in March that he and Kuba had decided upon Chris Hani as the person to be eliminated. Is it correct that you and Mr Derby-Lewis decided in March that Hani was the person to be eliminated?

INTERPRETER: Excuse me Mr Bizos, can you repeat the last sentence please.

ADV BIZOS: Is it correct that in March you and Mr Derby-Lewis decided that Hani is the person to be eliminated?

MR WALUS: More or less, because such a decision was taken most probably at the end of February.

ADV BIZOS: The decision was taken at the end of February according to you, yes, very well?

MR WALUS: Such a decision was taken most probably at the end of February.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. I am going to read on page 254 ...

JUDGE WILSON: Before you go on Mr Bizos, is it correct that the list we have been talking about, which you have been talking about, is the list which I have marked Exhibit E12?

ADV BIZOS: The one that I have referred to, is marked in my papers from the court record Annexure A, Mr Chairman. That is the list that I used.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I have a look at that?

ADV BIZOS: Their application, they annexed it next to their application, Bundle A.

MS VAN DER WALT: Page 33 of Bundle A.

JUDGE WILSON: The list she was talking about is clearly the list E12, not the list you have referred to?

ADV BIZOS: There is another one.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: I referred to the other one because the witness' evidence is that that is the one that was found in his possession.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but the list Mrs Derby-Lewis is talking about in paragraph 44 on page 252, is not that list, it is the longer list E12?

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Which is not the list that this witness had.

ADV BIZOS: We are concerned with the list that this witness had Mr Chairman, which is a shorter version of the previous one.

CHAIRMAN: A very different version?

ADV BIZOS: The one is shorter than the other.

JUDGE WILSON: And different people?

ADV BIZOS: He told us who the enemies of South Africa is, that is the one. I want to refer to page 254, when Clive and I came back together from Cape Town in the car, I unloaded all the papers and brought them into the house.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment please, you are going too fast and we haven't got the right page, 254, what paragraph?

ADV BIZOS: The second paragraph from the top.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: When Clive and I came back together from Cape Town in the car, I unloaded all the papers and brought them into the house. I showed the list to Clive the next day and he took it. This was around the middle of February when we arrived back from Cape Town.

Clive must have given the list to Kuba after that February late or March 1993. In so far as this paragraph concerns you, was a list or the list that was given to you, given to you in February late or March 1993?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, how can I know what list Mrs Derby-Lewis showed to Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.

ADV BIZOS: The question is was the list given to you during the period mentioned by Mrs Derby-Lewis in the statement, that is all I am asking you.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, we are still struggling with the same problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, there are two lists. He says that the list that was given to him, he doesn't know whether that was the list Mrs Derby-Lewis is talking about.

ADV BIZOS: I accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, then if you are asking him did you receive the list in February, without saying the list which Mrs Derby-Lewis gave to Mr Derby-Lewis, (indistinct)

ADV BIZOS: I will amend the question Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please.

ADV BIZOS: The list that you received from Mr Derby-Lewis, was that a list that you received at the end of February or beginning of March 1993?

MR WALUS: I received a list from Clive Derby-Lewis end of February, beginning of March 1993.

ADV BIZOS: Would you please turn to page 255, paragraph 51.

I will read it to you. Clive and I discussed how difficult it would be to actually go up and kill someone. I asked Clive why he had become so involved and he said Kuba had asked him, because he, Kuba felt something had to be done to stop the government's sell-out to the communists. Now, is the latter part of that paragraph true or false?

MR WALUS: The part that something must be done to stop the country to the communism, yes, we discussed that, that is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: The question as I understood it Mr Walus, is not if you discussed it but if you asked him because you felt that something had to be done?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I apologise. I also asked him many times what can be done that is something we have to do to prevent selling the country to the communists.

ADV BIZOS: The question is this that far from you being influenced by Mr Derby-Lewis, Mrs Derby-Lewis says that she was told by her husband that he became involved because you felt that something had to be done to stop the government's sell-out to the communists?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, yes, I discussed many times with Mr Derby-Lewis and underlined that something must be done. I agree with that.

ADV BIZOS: Well, if you agree with this paragraph, then your evidence that Mr Derby-Lewis was the dominant force, is incorrect.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we can talk about that in that way that yes, I spoke about it and we talked about it, and suggestions were also given by me that something must be done, but I must admit that never I suggested what must be done.

In the moment when Clive gave me a list, from that moment, I was under his instruction because he held the high position in the Conservative Party and also he had a military background, so automatically he was for me my superior.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Bizos, I for my part and perhaps in all fairness to the witness, I would like to satisfy myself that the witness actually understands as you say the (indistinct) of paragraph 51.

Mr Walus, the gist of paragraph 51 is that you are the one who suggested to Mr Derby-Lewis that somebody be killed, you are the one who came with the idea of elimination. Is that so?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, I do not agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: You see, you have said that that is true. If that is true, then all your evidence about being led by Mr Derby-Lewis can't be correct, because you've got to make a choice. Either what Mrs Derby-Lewis said about the report from her husband is true, and you said it was, or what you said about acting under instructions.

Make up your mind which of the two answers is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I think it is very unjust towards Mr Walus, because this last sentence of the first paragraph was read by him and with a simple, honest reply to the Committee he said there were discussions, and the agreement was that something had to be done, and that has been his testimony throughout, that there were many discussions that something had to be done, and then when His Honourable Judge Ngoepe asked him, he changed his opinion. Now Mr Bizos wants to go back and repose the question.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Bizos, clearly the witness had not grasped the (indistinct) of paragraph 51, and I am afraid Ms Van der Walt is right and that is why I felt we needed to get some clarity because I got the impression that the witness concentrated on and agreed with you, with regard to the last portion relating to stopping communists, and he had not clearly applied his mind to the most important aspect of paragraph 51, which is that the killing came from you and I really think that in all fairness to the witness, I really think when he agreed, he was doing so with reference to the last portion.

ADV BIZOS: Let me try and get clarity. I want a specific denial if that be his case, if that is his evidence, I would like to ask him whether he denies that that was ...

JUDGE WILSON: Shouldn't you go to the next paragraph Mr Bizos, line 3 and 4?

ADV BIZOS: Perhaps we should go to that paragraph, because I think it does throw light on the whole subject matter Mr Chairman. I am not trying to take the blame away from Clive, but this is in fact what Clive told me. This does not of course mean that one is to blame more than the other.

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, Mr Bizos is a bit too fast.

ADV BIZOS: I beg your pardon. Shall I start again - I am not trying to take the blame away from Clive, but this is in fact what Clive told me. This does not of course mean that one is to blame more than the other, who is to judge but it is a fact that Clive told me that Kuba had come to him with the idea of liquidation someone from the revolutionary camp.

Clive and I naturally felt bad about Kuba and expected the police to come around sooner or later for questioning etc, but I think I will stop from the revolutionary camp. Now is that clarification by Mrs Derby-Lewis correct or incorrect?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: It is not correct that Kuba had come to him with the idea of liquidation of someone from the revolutionary camp, that evidence is false? That statement is false?

MR WALUS: I can't comment Mr Chairman, on her statements. I only can say that I never came to Clive with such a proposition, suggestion.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, well, we will take the obvious that you say that that is incorrect, but now, in relation to the last words of 51, that you felt that something had to be done to stop the government's sell-out to the communists, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before, I said that something must be done. We must try to do something, but I didn't give a solid suggestion.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, now whose idea was it in your application for amnesty to annex all this theoretical discussion about Marxism and communism and you know those heavy documents that were filed with your application, whose idea was it? Was it yours? It is Bundle B, Mr Chairman.

MR WALUS: As far as I remember, it was Clive's idea.

ADV BIZOS: Clive's idea? And Mrs Derby-Lewis' idea?

MR WALUS: Probably Mrs Derby-Lewis helped to compile together such materials because Mr Derby-Lewis was confined and he couldn't freely to gather such documents.

ADV BIZOS: That concludes my questions to the witness Mr Chairman. May I just indicate on the matter raised by Judge Wilson, that it would appear from the statement Mr Chairman, that from page 252 paragraph 46 onwards, it is the shorter list that Mrs Derby-Lewis refers to.

JUDGE WILSON: It appears she brought the shorter list back from Cape Town and prior to that, she had the long list?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: I believe that my learned friend Mr Brand, on behalf of the Police, wants to put a number of matters to this witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BIZOS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brand, you are entitled to put your questions to the applicant.

CROSS-EXAMINATION ADV BRAND: Mr Chairman, may I suggest that it now being close to lunch, that we start with the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we just get going now? Let's make a beginning now. We lose too much time in between, unfortunately, so let's get as much done as we can. We will adjourn for lunch at a quarter past one and resume at two o'clock.

ADV BRAND: May I proceed sir?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, with regard to the role of the Police who interrogated you after your arrest, am I correct in saying that Warrant Officer Beetge, as his rank then was, now Inspector, he played a very minor role?

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, the microphone stands too far, I can't hear properly.

CHAIRPERSON: Just get closer to the microphone please. That is much better.

ADV BRAND: I will repeat my question.

CHAIRPERSON: Please.

ADV BRAND: With regard to the people who undertook the interrogation, Warrant Officer Beetge, will I be correct in saying that he did not actively take part in the interrogation, he was actually the scribe that took the notes of the interrogation?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as far as I remember he also questioned me and almost every time, he accompanied Officer Deetliefs, so it is difficult to say that he wasn't active.

ADV BRAND: Would you then agree with me that his role as far as the interrogation was concerned, was a very minor role?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would describe that his role was more minor than the role of Captain Deetliefs.

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, the interrogation was filmed on a video film at all times, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I cannot know about it because I never was informed about that. Only now I found it out that there are video tapes. I could have viewed some of them.

And only now I know that I was filmed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, is it being alleged that the witness when he was interrogated, saw that a video film was being made or was it a hidden camera because if that was the case, Mr Walus would not be able to answer if it was a continuous filming that took place?

CHAIRPERSON: I understand the question to mean whether you know that a video was made of your interrogation and his answer is plain and simple, he did not know, he only learnt later that he had been.

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, I put it to you that the complete interrogation was filmed. Would you have any reason to deny that or not?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know how all interrogation could have been filmed if part of this interrogation was for instance on the farm of my brother, part in the prison and except that I cannot comment and I cannot agree or not agree, I only say that I was never informed that I was filmed at any moment of the interrogation.

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, let met put it to you that a total of 21 video tapes had been supplied to your legal representative, are you aware of that?

MR WALUS: Yes, I am aware, but I find out about that only during the first session of this Commission.

ADV BRAND: Yes, indeed. And the length of those films differ between two and a half to four and a half hours each?

CHAIRPERSON: That may well be so, but how would he know whether everything was recorded or not?

ADV BRAND: Well, Mr Chairman, my next question is whether his legal representatives of somebody representing them, have looked at those video tapes and whether they informed him as to what transpired and what the findings are.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I was informed about the existence of the tapes during the first session of this Amnesty Committee.

ADV BRAND: Do you know whether your legal representatives viewed those tapes or whether they had any other person viewing those tapes for them?

MR WALUS: I am not sure, I must ask my lawyer.

ADV BRAND: Will you please do so?

MS VAN DER WALT: We are busy looking at that.

MR WALUS: My lawyer is looking at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, in what language were you interrogated?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I was interrogated in English.

ADV BRAND: Did you at all times understand English during your interrogation?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, there were probably asking from my side that sometimes I asked to repeat, but the general sense of interrogation I understood.

ADV BRAND: Yes, now Mr Walus, as you have testified previously, earlier this day in fact, that the whole atmosphere in which this interrogation took place as I gather, was rather friendly, it was not a threatening atmosphere? Am I fair in that statement?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. Yes, there were moments where they were more aggressive about some aspects of the matter, but always I managed to turn to talk about other matters.

ADV BRAND: Can I ask you this Mr Walus, at no stage were you in fear of your life during these interrogations, were you on the part now of the interrogators?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not think, I do not remember that I was afraid that I could fear that I will lose my life. Though anything can happen but it didn't look like it that I must fear about my life.

ADV BRAND: Did you have any fear for Warrant Officer Deetliefs? Were you afraid of him?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I lost track it concerns Officer Deetliefs or Officer Beetge?

ADV BRAND: Beetge?

MR WALUS: Beetge? No, Mr Chairman, I had no reason to be afraid of them and treated them with respect and they treated me with respect, except some moments when they were more aggressive. But I manoeuvred the discussion or they wanted to let me think that I manoeuvred the discussion in other fields.

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, when you say at some stages they were more aggressive, do you mean by the tone of their voices or otherwise?

MR WALUS: It is possible that their voices were a little bit louder, but I simply ignored that.

ADV BRAND: They didn't shout at you and make physical threats or threatened you with any harm?

CHAIRPERSON: He has already said that he was not threatened.

ADV BRAND: Neither verbally or otherwise?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as far as I remember only once Captain Deetliefs mentioned about the tortures and from time to time as I said, they shouted at me, but it was for moments, and they could see that shouting didn't make any effects and maybe it is only that I think like that.

ADV BRAND: So Mr Walus, as I gather from your evidence, although they might have shouted at you, you coped with the situation very nicely, very calmly? You weren't threatened and you didn't feel threatened? You handled the situation?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I didn't feel threatened and honestly it didn't mean much for me. I said that when I was caught my life is not very precious or doesn't have any perspective.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he is trying to convey that he wasn't even intimidated, he didn't feel intimidated.

ADV BRAND: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, Mr Walus, was that the same feeling that you had with regard to Colonel Van Niekerk, namely that you didn't feel threatened and you weren't afraid of him?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, with Colonel Van Niekerk, I didn't have much to do as far as I remember. It was Mr Van Niekerk who told me that I can get a mattress so I don't need to lay in the water in the cell. It is difficult to say, I didn't feel threatened.

ADV BRAND: Can I put this to you Mr Walus, Colonel Van Niekerk never threatened you, he treated you humanely and you weren't in fear of him? Is that a fair summation?

MR WALUS: I would agree where the good treatment is concerned and I didn't fear. I had reasons to be afraid, but if the person is afraid of everyone, what is the value of the fear?

ADV BRAND: Is it correct Mr Walus, that during these periods of interrogation, you were provided ample time whenever requested to go to the toilet, you were supplied with beverages, etc, when requested?

MR WALUS: Yes, I do agree with that Mr Chairman.

ADV BRAND: And the beverages that were supplied, were sometimes soft drinks and sometimes coffee?

MR WALUS: Yes, sometimes it was coffee, sometimes they were cold drinks. At two occasions it was a beer.

ADV BRAND: Yes. Now, my Attorney had the onerous task of viewing all these tapes, these video tapes and my instructions are that the tapes convey one occasion where a beer was supplied to you?

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, can you repeat the last phrase?

ADV BRAND: The video tapes, tape number 5, shows that at one occasion a beer was supplied to you? A glass of beer. Do you recall that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember if it was a glass or two or three, glasses of beer. It was early in the morning, I was very tired.

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, Captain Deetliefs will say that the beer was actually intended for him, he in an amicable mood shared the beer with you?

MR WALUS: I do not remember that.

ADV BRAND: Well, I put it to you Mr Walus, that nowhere on that tape could my Attorney find any other occasion where anything else but coffee or soft drinks were supplied to you, except the one occasion where a beer was shared between yourself and Captain Deetliefs? Have you any comment to that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, my comment is that I do not remember if that beer was for Mr Deetliefs, but I remember that I drank that and I remember that I got beer when I was not filmed.

JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean by that please?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I mean by that that I do not agree that all the occasions where I was given alcohol, were filmed.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Walus, I thought you didn't know when the filming was going on? How can you now allege that the beer that you drank on the second occasion, was when the video recording was not on?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I remember that I drank beer but if it was filmed ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed.

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, apart from the Officers of the police stations and the prison where you were interrogated, did you get any liquor, hard liquor, alcoholic beverages, from any person except at the prison or the police stations where you were interrogated?

MR WALUS: I am not sure if I understand the question, if the interpretation is correct.

ADV BRAND: Will you agree with me Mr Walus, that by supplying a person with beverages, inter alia a beer or according to you, more, this evidences an attitude which is not threatening, do you agree with that?

MR WALUS: Yes, I do agree Mr Chairman.

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, will I be correct in saying that at the first occasion when you met Captain Deetliefs, he tried to appear as a person who sympathised with you personally and perhaps with the cause, your cause?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, not from the first meeting.

ADV BRAND: From when?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, more or less up to the night interrogation from Thursday to Friday.

ADV BRAND: Is that now Thursday the 15th of April 1993? That is the first Thursday after you arrest?

MR WALUS: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BRAND: So two days, you were arrested on Tuesday the 13th of April, is that correct or was it earlier?

MS VAN DER WALT: It is not correct.

ADV BRAND: The first time you met with Captain Deetliefs was on Wednesday, the 14th of April, is that correct?

MR WALUS: That Wednesday morning, the 15th of April?

ADV BRAND: The 14th of April 1993?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember, it should be correct.

ADV BRAND: You say from the Wednesday up to the Thursday, that was a preliminary session from approximately the Thursday you got the impression that he was in sympathy with you?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. Yes, he sympathised with me, he made a couple of jokes, but it wasn't very clear.

ADV BRAND: Would you agree with me, that is a very - as I might put it, intelligent and humane way of interrogating a person, by creating the impression that you are in sympathy with him and try and win his trust?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I will agree taking into consideration what is behind this friendly atmosphere.

ADV BRAND: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe this might be a convenient stage to adjourn? We will resume at two o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brand, you may proceed.

JANUSZ WALUS:: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BRAND: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Walus, I realise that you have been under cross-examination for a number or days, I am going to try and finish very quickly.

This morning you testified that as far as the demeanour of the police is concerned, you cannot recall that you told them any untruths?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, it was not any untruths, it was untruths regarding certain persons, he himself, Mr Derby-Lewis and Mrs Derby-Lewis.

CHAIRPERSON: Those are untruths nevertheless?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Wasn't it also limited to from the time when they had his trust, the Thursday?

ADV BRAND: That is correct, from the Thursday. From the time they had his trust or he had their trust.

CHAIRPERSON: That is right.

ADV BRAND: Is that correct, do you recall that Mr Walus?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I recall that at some moment yes, they had my trust. It was during the night interrogation from Friday to Saturday and on that occasion, I got coffee and after that I felt very strange and after that, I received alcohol and as I said, Captain Deetliefs and Sergeant Beetge convinced me they want to help me and that they want to warn others who are engaged.

CHAIRPERSON: From that moment onwards, he didn't consciously told them a lie?

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, according to you did you at any stage tell any untruths to the police, did you lie to them at any stage?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, is the question about the stage when I started to trust them or about the entire interrogation?

CHAIRPERSON: The entire interrogation.

MR WALUS: Thank you. I said many things which were not the truth.

ADV BRAND: Why did you tell them untruths, or let me rephrase the question. Were you forced by any person, with any means or by any means, to tell untruths or did you tell them voluntarily, the lies?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I said that voluntarily. I said not truths, just to not to put myself in the wrong light and Clive's as well, as it happened.

ADV BRAND: Good. Now, would I then be fair to say that you do not allege or you do not, it is not your contention that the police forced you by any means whatsoever, to tell something against your will, you did that freely and voluntarily?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, do you ask me if the police forced me to lie? Do you ask me if the police forced me to lie?

ADV BRAND: I will repeat my question. Everything which you said and did, you did voluntarily. You did not do anything because of any force, inducement or promise or threat by the police?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, where the threatening is concerned, you probably realise that the whole procedure of detaining a person, has an aim to threaten people. However, that didn't cause that some of the news were given by me to Mr Deetliefs. Maybe it was the additional element, but as I say when I told him some news, because I trusted him.

ADV BRAND: Is my conclusion then correct that you were not forced, nor induced to do anything you did not want to do, or tell anything you did not want to tell, or say anything you did not want to say?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, maybe I wasn't threatened, but I was provoked by the methods of tricks.

ADV BRAND: Provoked? Could you elaborate on that please?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I explained in front of the Commission, Captain Deetliefs convinced me that he is the agent inside the police. He is a man of General Groenewald and he co-operates with the right-wing and the AWB and Conservative Party and he had to free people from the prison, people about the same political beliefs.

ADV BRAND: Yes, Mr Walus, the very same reason people go to their priests and they confess, because they trust them and that is the reason why you co-operated with Deetliefs, you trusted him?

INTERPRETER: The applicant doesn't understand the question, can you repeat it?

CHAIRPERSON: The question is there was a stage when you began to trust him and you told him everything freely and voluntarily?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know if we can use the phrase because alcohol and drugs in coffee and the whole atmosphere of intimidation in the police cells, had a big influence on that.

ADV BRAND: Mr Walus, with regard to the drugs, could you be a bit more specific because I will tell you now my instructions from the police are that they will deny ever having provided drugs, not even a headache tablet or something, to you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, when I was in their place I would also deny that, but I would like to mention that on the Friday evening, I received coffee after which I felt very strange and with the sort of light head and then you say yourself, that if I was drunk after one or three glasses of beer, I felt drunk that it means that something worked together with this beer.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words he had a suspicion that something was put in his coffee, he can't prove it and he doesn't say that he saw them putting anything into the coffee.

ADV BRAND: Nevertheless, I repeat that the police will deny ever having drugged any of your beverages or supplied drugs whatsoever to you.

CHAIRPERSON: All right.

ADV BRAND: Now, just to end off Mr Walus, the police will say that at all times they acted very proper because you co-operated, they never did anything illegal, they never induced ... (tape ends) ...

CHAIRPERSON: All that has been put to you, is being summed up. You are being told that that is what the police is going to say.

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BRAND: And that is not only with regard to the innuendo or suspicion of drugs, but their demeanour throughout the interrogation.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would like to mention here that denying me a meeting with the lawyer, is already sort of pressure for the detainee and I would like to mention also that Captain Deetliefs was giving me alcohol during the other occasions because I do not think that I could be filmed in the car with which I was driven and I don't think I could be filmed on the farm of my brother, and there I received alcohol as well.

JUDGE WILSON: What sort of alcohol?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it was beer.

ADV BRAND: Did the alcohol have any detrimental influence on your ability, your mental ability? Were you affected by the alcohol?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, for sure it didn't damage me, but it didn't better the state of my mind and my feelings.

ADV BRAND: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BRAND: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I do have questions, but I was going to request whether I can carry on with my questions on Monday Mr Chairman, so that I don't do a redundancy.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we would like to avoid that Mr Mpshe, because we have an interpreter who has come down especially for the evidence of Mr Walus and we want to try and avoid that.

MR MPSHE: I can commence, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Please.

MR MPSHE: Mr Walus, let us look at your application, Bundle A on page 5. You recall you were asked questions by Adv Bizos about the correctness of paragraph 9(a)(i) and you said that is not correct because this application was not filled out by yourself, do you recall that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Now, on page 10 of the application, the one that you signed on the 30th of November 1996, you stated further under cross-examination that this is now the correct version, am I still correct?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Now I want you to have a look at the second paragraph under 9(a)(i).

CHAIRPERSON: I would like to resist from taking photographs and lights flashing whilst evidence is being given please. Whoever is responsible for that, must stop. Yes, Mr Mpshe?

MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. On that page 10, you say now what is reflected there is the correct version? Paragraph 2 of 9(a)(i), I am going to read it out for you. It starts with on 10 April 1993 I executed the assassination, I acted alone on the 10th of April 1993, in the execution of the assassination. Therein comes the important part.

INTERPRETER: Excuse me Mr Mpshe, it was too fast.

MR MPSHE: Oh, I am sorry. Do you see that paragraph Mr Walus?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Good, then you continue. Clive John Derby-Lewis associated himself with the planning and the execution. Do you see that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Now what do you mean when you say he associated himself with the planning?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I think Mr Mpshe should read the whole sentence. I don't think he should break the sentence off there, because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't give the effect of the whole sentence.

MR MPSHE: I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Just finish off that sentence.

MR MPSHE: I will do so Mr Chairman. Clive John Derby-Lewis associated himself with the planning and execution of the eventual assassination of Chris Hani. Does it make sense? Now, what do you mean by associating himself with the planning?

MR WALUS: It was association to such a degree that some facts I told him how I planned this assassination, about the false number plates and about the reconnoitring the house of Mr Hani.

MR MPSHE: So the whole planning was not done jointly by yourself and him?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman. I was quite free to execute this task.

MR MPSHE: I am not talking about the execution, I am talking of the planning.

CHAIRPERSON: He has given the answer, hasn't he, up to now that he discussed what he thought might be done for example that there would be false number plates, that he would reconnoitre and Derby-Lewis and he finally decided after he had raised these matters.

MR MPSHE: I will take your point Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MPSHE: Go to page 6 then.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, before you leave that. I think that in reading this sentence, when you say he associated himself with, an impression is created as though you are the principle and he is the subordinate? It carries that kind of impression, do I understand that incorrectly?

If he merely associates himself, it may very well mean that you were dominant and he was your subordinate, in other words he just went along with you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not agree with this type of interpretation. Plan of eliminating Mr Hani, the order of elimination of Mr Hani, I received as I mentioned, I was quite free in that how to carry out this execution, however, Clive Derby-Lewis mentioned that he cooperate with the planning of this assassination.

But it doesn't change the fact where the instructions come from.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Mpshe.

MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I was referring to page 6 of your application, the third, and the fourth and the fifth paragraph, but I will sum this up for you to save time.

In those three paragraphs you stated that you asked Clive Derby-Lewis to provide you with a firearm that cannot be traced and this was done by him. But on the 10th of April 1993, you did not use that firearm, you used your own firearm, do you see that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not agree with that. I used weapon which I received from Derby-Lewis. I didn't use the silencer which was given to me with this gun for the reasons which I explained in the previous session in front of this Commission.

MR MPSHE: You testified that there was communism in Poland and you were not happy, that is why you left and you came down to South Africa? When you were in Poland, were you a member of any political organisation in Poland, that was against communism?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I wasn't a member of any organisation. But I sympathised and helped people from the organisation named as a Confederation of an Independent Poland.

MR MPSHE: You sympathised with them?

MR WALUS: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Now, if you were that unhappy about that communism in Poland, why did you chose to come and eradicate in South Africa, not do it in the country of your own birth, in Poland? Why not fight it in Poland?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned the same day, because to fight communism in Poland, it was too late. All the positions were, the communists were on the high positions in Poland and I came to South Africa because you must agree with me that at that time this country, it didn't look that this country would ever be in the hands of communists.

I came to South Africa in 1981.

MR MPSHE: Mr Walus, but when communism started in Poland, let me put it in a form of a question, when it started in Poland, were you already in Poland?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, when the communism started in Poland, I wasn't even born yet because it started in 1945.

MR MPSHE: When were you born?

MR WALUS: In 1953.

MR MPSHE: Turn to page 8 of your application. You remember yesterday you were asked by Adv Bizos, as to whether you were told the reason for the list and you said you were never told why the list?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, yes, it wasn't a question of Mr Bizos, as far as I remember, it was a question of Mrs Khampepe.

MR MPSHE: Yes, but you responded that you were never told the reason why the list ...

MR WALUS: Yes, my response was that I haven't been told the purpose of the list.

MR MPSHE: That is correct. How do you explain the fourth paragraph on that page, the fourth sentence in that paragraph, can you read it or have a look at it to save time? Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, the sentence starting with the applicant asked ...

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. This is discrepancy, this is my omission. As I mentioned, I had to use the help of Clive Derby-Lewis to fill up this application and simply I had missed this point before my consultation with my lawyer.

Providing that the right version as far as I remember, is the version that nobody, I was never told for what was this list and who made this list and also I also find out about the whole history of this list, during the trial.

Yes, I saw a mistake in this point of application, but I didn't want to mislead anybody, I decided that that is a fact of minor meaning because the most important fact in that was that the list I received from Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR MPSHE: Okay, let's accept that for now. Now, let's talk about the receiving of this list. Were you given this list by Mr Derby-Lewis, or did you ask for the list yourself?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as far as I remember I received this list from Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is did you ask for it?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, I didn't ask for this list.

MR MPSHE: Let's have a look at the same page, paragraph 5. It may be another mistake by yourself. The applicant asked if he could take the list and Mr Derby-Lewis said he could, as long as he brought it back, how do you explain that?

MR WALUS: This point is correct Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: How can it be correct when you say you didn't ask for the list? Do you want me to read the sentence again?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I didn't ask for this list, but I received it.

MR MPSHE: So the statement in your application is wrong?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would like you to ask me to let me explain it in that way that when Clive Derby-Lewis showed me that list, as I testified previously and when we numbered, when I wrote the numbers under his instructions on this list, I asked him if I can take this list with me and then I received the answer yes, I can, but I have to bring it back.

MR MPSHE: All right, just to make my point further, let's to a little bit up on the same point, paragraph 3, the last sentence, I will read it to you.

Sorry Mr Chairman, it is not the last sentence, it is the second sentence, it is a very long sentence. He asked Mr Derby-Lewis to obtain a weapon which couldn't be traced and during February 1993, while visiting the home of Mr Derby-Lewis, that is where I am coming, he saw a list of names and addresses of political figures and journalists on a table in Mr Derby-Lewis' filing room.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, the same like I mentioned it must have been a point of misunderstanding. As far as I remember, the list was brought by Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, and as far as I remember it was in the dining, it was given to me in the dining room.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I am just checking so that I don't ask that which has been asked.

CHAIRPERSON: Take your time, Mr Mpshe.

MR MPSHE: In your evidence in chief, that was last time, you testified that you were discussing all the time with Clive Derby-Lewis and you said the following. By us I mean me and Clive.

INTERPRETER: Excuse me Mr Mpshe, can you repeat the last few words?

MR MPSHE: By us I mean me and Clive. Our friendship was on political beliefs. Then you say, I believed even today that there were instructions given by the CP of which Clive was the member. Instructions given by the CP, do you hear that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: What instructions were these that were given by the CP?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, they were instructions to eliminate Mr Chris Hani.

MR MPSHE: Now, when were these instructions given by the CP to Clive, because if I remember well, your evidence right through was to the effect that this was discussed by only the two of you and nobody else knew about this, including Clive Derby-Lewis' wife. When did the CP know about this?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I underline Clive Derby-Lewis was a prominent member of the CP and the member which was creating the policy of the CP and I knew about the degree of friendship with Dr Treurnicht.

So for me it was obvious that if anything is conveyed for me from Clive, it is connected with the Conservative Party.

MR MPSHE: So the evidence given by yourself as well as Clive Derby-Lewis to the effect that this never went out to anybody, it was only the two of you, is not correct then? That is what Clive also said in his evidence.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I knew things from Clive. If anybody gave Clive instructions or didn't give them, I know that Clive was prominent of CP and members were creating the policy of the CP.

So, whatever I could do under the instructions of Clive, I understood that I do that also under the instructions of the CP.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you think that there was someone else above or beyond Mr Derby-Lewis who could have given such instructions?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I didn't exclude such a thought, but I would never ask Clive for that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am asking you whether you did have such a thought? Did you have such a thought?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I had such thoughts.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, then the question precisely as asked by Mr Mpshe was, if you did have such a thought that there was somebody beyond or above Mr Derby-Lewis that could have given instructions, that Mr Hani be killed, how could you then possibly come and testify that the elimination of Mr Hani was a matter known only between you and Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I just mentioned that the discussions were between the two of us, but I thought that there is quite a big possibility that somebody else from the CP is engaged, but I would never ask Clive about that.

MS KHAMPEPE: With regard to that Mr Walus, you were here when Mr Derby-Lewis gave testimony and he gave evidence to the effect that there was total confidentiality with regard to both the selection and the execution of Mr Hani? Do you recall that evidence?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I recall that.

MS KHAMPEPE: And what would be your comment to his testimony if you believe that instructions came from somebody higher up, how would you comment on his part of the testimony?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if such instructions were given by somebody above Mr Clive, I would never ask Mr Clive from whom he received such instructions.

My connections were only with Clive and I acknowledge him as my superior and I would never ask him if anybody else is engaged in that.

MS KHAMPEPE: You see, at page 738 of the record, right on top, his evidence was that he had given you an undertaking that there would be total confidentiality.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman ...

MS KHAMPEPE: And whilst you are reading, Mr Mpshe went on to ask a question, do I have to accept that you do not even trust Hartzenberg and Mr Derby-Lewis' response was, and I want to read it for you, Mr Chairman, it is not a question of trusting Dr Hartzenberg, it was a question of total confidentiality. We had taken that decision as part of our discussions and our ...

INTERPRETER: Excuse me, it is a bit too fast.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe asked a question do I have to accept that you do not even trust Hartzenberg and Mr Derby-Lewis' response was to this effect Mr Chairman, it is not a question of trusting Dr Hartzenberg, it was a question of total confidentiality. We had taken that decision as part of our discussion and I was not going to break that decision.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, yes, it is testimony of Mr Derby-Lewis. Yes, we were talking and we were talking about the high confidentiality of this, but this that the action must be very confidential and that I mustn't say about this to anybody, it was not the same that Clive couldn't talk about this with anybody else.

My version is that he could have spoken to somebody else and if he took such a decision as a prominent member of the CP, and I believed that he could take such a decision, that didn't change anything for me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mpshe?

MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. On Monday you continued with your evidence, this week on Monday, and you testified that after the arrest you were taken to the Boksburg police station where you did not sign a statement, and you said at the end I said to them they should not ask me about it, because there is a lot at stake. Do you remember this?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I could have said such words.

MR MPSHE: What was at stake then, what lot was at stake?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, it was a lot at stake because it was my freedom and Clive's freedom as well, so I didn't want to answer any questions concerning this case.

MR MPSHE: By freedom, are you referring to political freedom or the fact that you don't want Clive to be arrested, which freedom are you talking about?

MR WALUS: I refer about my personal freedom.

MR MPSHE: So you wanted not to be questioned because you wanted to be free?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, of course I didn't want to put myself in the worst situation and I didn't want to put Clive in the situation.

MR MPSHE: A question of protection, okay. Later on when you were questioned, reference was made to page 363 and 362 of the Bundle. I won't refer you, but I will tell you what it was about, where you said you were prepared to eliminate when you were asked by Clive Derby-Lewis whether you are willing to do so. Do you remember that? That would be on Bundle 4. R4, page 363 and 362. R4, continued, page 363 in particular, second paragraph, Clive asked me if I was prepared to eliminate political opponents, and I agreed to do so. Do you see that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Now, how many people were you prepared to eliminate?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we were talking about only one target and it is difficult for me to answer how many political opponents I would be prepared to eliminate.

MR MPSHE: Let me put it this way, had he said to you are you prepared to eliminate four political opponents, would you have answered in the affirmative?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, nothing like that was said.

MR MPSHE: How can you say that because you have agreed, you have responded to him in the affirmative when he said political opponents?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, it is supposed that what is said in the statement, the witness had already said because this was done during interrogation by Captain Deetliefs.

CHAIRPERSON: ... the difference is only whether the word opponent or opponents is correct? That is the question being directed at.

INTERPRETER: Can the question be repeated please?

MR MPSHE: If he had asked you to eliminate four political opponents, would you have responded in the affirmative?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I testified here and mentioned here, I couldn't answer affirmatively because it could be impossible, because after elimination of the first opponent, security around the other opponents will be very strong and possibility of elimination is very small.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Walus please, Mr Mpshe is asking you about your attitude, not as to whether you could have in fact be in a position to do that. He wants to know whether you were of such a state of mind as to have been willing and prepared if asked to eliminate more than one political opponent, you will be willing to do so?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if I was convinced that this is necessary for our cause, I would be prepared to do that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Good.

MR MPSHE: Will it then be correct of me to consider you a mercenary, if you are prepared to eliminate people in that fashion when asked to do so?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if we say about the hired person, then we say about the person who takes the money for the killing.

MR MPSHE: That is what I am saying to you, will I be correct to say you were just that?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Mpshe, that is not a fair question. Mercenaries as we understand it in the conventional sense, are hired and paid for killing and this witness has never said to us that he was, he agreed to be a hired killer or to be paid for any killing. I don't think it is fair to try and categorise him as a mercenary.

MR MPSHE: I take the point, thank you. This morning, when you were asked about the results of your action, the killing of Hani, and whether you didn't expect anything to happen thereafter, you said I expected contra-action from the army and the police, do you recall that?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Now, I just want clarity. The contra-action expected from the army and the police, was it going to be an action directed against the blacks who would have stood up to retaliate or against the general unrest?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, of course it was against the general unrest. As we know, Mr Hani had also white followers.

MR MPSHE: Let's leave it and continue. You know or you knew Mr Walus, that a person in the stature of Hani had body guards, wherever he moved, not so? Did you know that?

JUDGE WILSON: Hasn't this case shown that he didn't Mr Mpshe on that day, he didn't have a body guard, did he?

MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is the evidence, but what I am asking of the witness is whether he knew that Hani moved around with body guards. I am coming to the particular day Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I wasn't sure but I was thinking about it, I was speculating about it.

MR MPSHE: I am lost, speculated about him having body guards or what?

CHAIRPERSON: He was not sure whether he had body guards or not, he speculated about it.

MR WALUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Speculate probably means he had given it some thought.

MR MPSHE: I see, thank you Mr Chairman. But the probability of him having body guards around, was strong, not so?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: On the day of the assassination, were you given any information that he would not be with his body guards by any other person?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned I never received any information and all information except the address which I received from Mr Derby-Lewis on the list, I gathered myself.

MR MPSHE: Mr Walus, can you just tell this Committee on the day of the killing, at Dawn Park, were you all by yourself there?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I was completely alone.

MR MPSHE: When you met or when you saw Hani at the shop buying the newspaper and leave, you testified that you proceeded straight to his house, how did you know he was going home directly from the shop? Was there no other person there with you?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman. No, there was no one else with me and when I saw Mr Hani going towards his house, I went towards his house with another route, not to follow him immediately just after him.

MR MPSHE: Let's go a little bit back, to the question of body guards. If you had found him to have been with body guards, what would you have done? Would you have shot them as well?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would have tried not to do that because I know that I shoot the body guards as well or be shot by them.

MR MPSHE: When you were arrested on the day, the two pistols and the four magazines, a silencer were found and they were not hidden, they were just on the back seat of your car, why is it really that you did not do anything to do any arrest?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as far as I remember the pistol and the spare ammunition, they were not on the back seat, but they were in my bag on the floor of the car behind the passenger seat.

As far as I remember, if the testimonies of the police officers are different, then I don't know who is right.

MR MPSHE: You see the thing is I find it so funny to me that you go and shoot, you kill a person and you do nothing to, you take no precaution to avoid the arrest, you put even the tools you are using in the car and you just cruise along?

Were you being given any assurance that you wouldn't be arrested on that day?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman. I didn't have such assurance from nobody and the worst point for me was the weapon, but my instructions were that the weapon must be given back to Clive. Of course, I shouldn't blindly such execute such instructions, but I did that.

MR MPSHE: Were you aware that on that day of the execution, that there were road blocks and patrolling in the area, in the Dawn Park area?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I didn't know about that and I didn't see any road blockades.

MR MPSHE: I see. Do you know any person, a woman by the name of Maria Felicity de Wit, does it make any sense to you?

MR WALUS: No, I do not recall Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Do you know a person by the name of Koos Vermeulen, the founder of the World Apartheid Movement?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Right, this woman Maria de Wit was his secretary, didn't you know that? Don't you recall that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I know only that and remember that I only remember the name of Koos Vermeulen, because Mr Vermeulen declared to help me with the cost of my defence and he sent his lawyer, Mr Bishop but I already had my own lawyer.

But the surname of Mrs de Wit, I do not recall because I never met Mr Vermeulen personally.

MR MPSHE: Good. Was Mr Koos Vermeulen a member of the CP then?

MR WALUS: I am not sure Mr Chairman. He could have been a member except the word apartheid movement, he could also have been a member of the CP, but I do not know about that.

MR MPSHE: Do you know a woman by the name of Valerie Burger?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I do not recall.

MR MPSHE: Finally Mr Walus, on the aspect of other people being involved, what is being referred to as the wider conspiracy, do you know as to whether the planning of the assassination of Hani was being communicated to the South African Military Intelligence?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know nothing about such a thing.

MR MPSHE: Perhaps I need to tell you why I put this to you. It is because there is a newspaper cutting that circulated in Germany which revealed four days before the assassination, that there was going to be an ANC high profile person assassinated. Do you have any idea about this?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not recall such an excerpt from the newspapers, and I do not know nothing about that.

MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is all.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, just before the re-examination, there is an issue that I would like to have clarified. If it had come to your attention before the 10th of April, that the Conservative Party had not in fact changed it's party, would you still have proceeded to kill Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if I would be convinced that Conservative Party didn't change its policy, concerning the armed struggle, I wouldn't proceed with that just by myself.

ADV PRINSLOO: Are you saying that if it had come to your attention that there was no change in policy, you would not have proceeded to do the assassination?

MR WALUS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you presently have some doubt about whether or not the CP in fact changed their policy?

MR WALUS: Does it mean Mr Chairman, if the Conservative Party changed their policy now?

ADV PRINSLOO: No, no, at the stage when this incident happened, and I will tell you why, when it was put to you with reference to the video recording of Dr Hartzenberg, which appears to indicate that there has not been a change of CP policy from non-violence to violence, you seemed to have expressed some doubts and you said well, you are not sure. That is why I am asking you do you now have doubts whether there was indeed ever such a change in policy?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, that what Mr Hartzenberg said in the Patriot, differs very much with that what is on the video tape. This video tape I never saw it before it was shown in front of the Commission here during the previous session and as we know, as far as I am not mistaken, this video was made after the assassination of Mr Hani.

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes, now, let's forget about all of that. Do you have doubt in your mind as you sit there now as to whether there was indeed a change in policy?

MR WALUS: I believed Mr Chairman, that from 1992 from the referendum Conservative Party, doesn't exclude armed struggle and violence.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do I understand your evidence correctly that the only reason why you assumed that there was a change of policy, was because Mr Derby-Lewis had asked you to assassinate Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: It was Mr Chairman, as a confirmation of that what I read earlier in the Patriot and heard on the meetings of the Conservative Party.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was there ever any stage when anybody expressly told you, conveyed to you that the CP had now changed its policy officially from non-violence to violence?

MR WALUS: As I told the Commission before, Mr Chairman, I didn't hear about that, I didn't hear that from nobody personally but, sorry, I heard that personally from Dr Treurnicht in 1990 when it was said that the third armed struggle began. Then I was watching, reading the Patriot whatever I could read in English or with the help of my then girlfriend, Maria, or with the help of Clive Derby-Lewis, in the articles which were written in Afrikaans.

Then I followed these articles and I saw how gradually the speeches and the expressions of the politicians from the Conservative Party were changed, including Dr Treurnicht and also Dr Hartzenberg.

So, the changing of the policy was obvious and what it came out from our discussions with Clive after the year 1993, it was for me simply the confirmation of the changing of this policy. It was how I saw that.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did Mr Derby-Lewis tell you when you had this discussion about the assassination that we are doing this on the instructions or on behalf of the Conservative Party?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember that he said about any instructions but that we do that on behalf of Conservative Party, that was obvious for me. I could never think that he was speaking to me from any other position.

ADV PRINSLOO: So you simply assumed that? You simply accepted that was the position?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. And till today I accept that.

ADV PRINSLOO: You didn't ask him specifically are we now acting, is this now on behalf of the Party, the Conservative Party?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned I didn't ask because it was for me completely obvious.

ADV PRINSLOO: In other words, what you are telling us is that you never took any steps to verify whether or not what as you say, Mr Derby-Lewis instructed you to do, was on behalf of the Conservative Party?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any questions to put to this witness?

UNKNOWN PERSON: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I would ask for permission to ask a number of questions which came to the fore partly as a result of Mr Mpshe's questions to the witness. May I do that Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: Mr Walus, do you know Mr Johannes Andreas Fourie?

MR WALUS: As far as I remember, Mr Chairman, I know Mr Johan Fourie, but I do not know if his first name is Andries.

ADV BIZOS: Is he a person known to you as a member of the National Intelligence?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I must be sure now if we talk about the same person.

ADV BIZOS: Did you know a Fourie who was a member of the National Intelligence? How many Fourie's in National Intelligence might you have known so that you want the first names?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I just check because I mentioned it that I do not know if the names are, as far as I know and as it was said to me by Mr Johan Fourie, I know him only under such a name, Johan Fourie, he was the member of the Military Intelligence.

ADV BIZOS: For how long had you known him?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, from 1984 or 1985.

ADV BIZOS: Up to when?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we lost contact in the 1990's, if it was 1991 or 1992 or 1990, I am not sure.

ADV BIZOS: Have you not been given a copy of his affidavit and haven't your lawyers read his affidavit to you?

MR WALUS: I do not remember that it was read to me.

ADV BIZOS: Did Mr Fourie ever receive any intelligence information from you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, Mr Fourie from time to time asked me if I know anybody in Polish community in South Africa who can have connections with Polish government, not with the Polish government, but with the intelligence of Polish then communist government.

ADV BIZOS: Did he give you any money?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I never received any money and I never wanted any money.

ADV BIZOS: Did he offer you any money, ever?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I remember he offered me money in I don't remember, 1986 or 1987, but I never agreed to take this money.

ADV BIZOS: You told us that you knew General Groenewald.

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: What Intelligence Department was he in?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I don't know in which Department he was working. I met him only when he visited or factory in Qwa Qwa and he never introduced himself as where he is working.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't you know him to be in Military Intelligence?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, later on, after I was - I heard that he was working in the Military Intelligence, but it was insignificant for me.

ADV BIZOS: Well, he was the Head of Military Intelligence?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: And is it a coincidence that you knew an operative in Military or National Intelligence, as he says a Mr Fourie, and also the Head of Military Intelligence in South Africa? Is it a coincidence?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, from my side it was definitely a coincidence, how it was from their side, I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: Did you feel confident in expressing your inner most thoughts to Mr Fourie?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we were quite friendly and we were discussing often many subjects. So, if I have to answer completely, I would like to know precisely on what subject.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, of course, you are a very careful person. Did you tell him about the plans that you were hatching with Mr Derby-Lewis in order to murder the enemies of South Africa, or one or other of the enemies of South Africa, in particularly Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman, for sure I wouldn't tell him that.

ADV BIZOS: Why not, he was in Intelligence, you knew that there were people in the army and in the police force who favoured your point of view, didn't you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, there were such people and there were many of them, but I didn't know Johan enough from that side to trust him. And as we said and we make sure with Clive, I didn't speak about that with anybody.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, now did you phone Mr Fourie on the 13th of March 1993?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember that I phoned, but I cannot exclude such a possibility, because I had his telephone number since he moved from Pretoria, and we didn't have contact to meet like before, but from time to time, one of us was phoning and asking what is going on, how is it and that is all.

ADV BIZOS: Well, was it a coincidence that you telephoned him if you did, during the week of the 8th to the 13th of March 1993, at or about the time that you were hatching a plan to kill Mr Hani, would that also have been a coincidence?

MR WALUS: No Mr Chairman. As I said, I didn't say and I didn't phone. I didn't convey such information to anyone and definitely I didn't do such a phone to Mr Fourie.

ADV BIZOS: Now, are you denying that you telephoned Mr Fourie in March?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I can't deny that I didn't phone, because I do not remember if I phoned. Categorically I can deny that I conveyed to Mr Fourie any information concerning the assassination of Mr Hani.

ADV BIZOS: Do you remember that amongst other things, you told Mr Fourie that your brother had recently bought four Bosbok aeroplanes and one other, probably a Shackleton, did you tell him that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, we could have talked about my brother and his business, but as far as I remember, something must have been twisted because at that time, my brother could buy two Kudu aeroplanes, I am not sure if it was Kudu and Bosbok is the same, because I am not a pilot, but for sure he didn't buy a Shackleton, but he got (indistinct) Albatross, together with somebody else.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, can Mr Bizos tell the Committee what the relevancy of these questions are. He has Mr Fourie's statement in front of him and I know in that whole statement, there is no indication that Mr Fourie, knows anything about Mr Hani's death or anything which was conveyed by Mr Walus.

What has the business of Mr Walus' brother to do with this investigation?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You had lengthy cross-examination of this witness, you are being given a second opportunity and you are raising brand new matter.

ADV BIZOS: Well, because the documents that I am using, come from the possession of the Commission, I anticipated Mr Chairman, that these matters would be raised by counsel for the Commission. Once they were not, I want to raise them in relation to the brother, I merely raise it in order to confirm that there must have been this telephone call in March, otherwise where would Mr Fourie have got the information from.

In relation to the affidavit, I am going to ask for it to be handed in because I am going to try and tie it up with other documents, also in the Commission's possession, one of which I want to put at this stage Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, Mr Bizos said that these were questions he wanted to ask relating to Mr Mpshe's questions. I can't remember whether Mr Mpshe ever mentioned Mr Fourie's statement. Mr Walus does not have Mr Fourie's statement, I would like him to get a copy of that as well.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, Mr Mpshe raised the question of the witness' connection with National and or Military Intelligence, that is why it arises, but in any event.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)

ADV BIZOS: No, no, that I explained Mr Chairman, the witness says I cannot remember whether there was a telephone call. I cannot remember whether there was a telephone call and I merely read that out in order to show that there must have been a telephone call in March Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: But he is not denying it, he is just saying that he can't remember it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: Do you know, may I hand in the Fourie affidavit as an Exhibit Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this will now go in as Exhibit P.

ADV BIZOS: Did you know Mr Johannes Nicholas Visser?

MS VAN DER WALT: Can Mr Bizos give an indication what is the relevance to any of Mr Mpshe's questions?

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, an extract of this affidavit has been handed in as R9, but I would like to hand in the full affidavit. May we call it R9A, Mr Chairman. If you want Mr Chairman, to give it another number, the next exhibit number if it is going to be easier.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Exhibit Q. What is this Mr Bizos?

ADV BIZOS: It is an affidavit, an application for amnesty from Mr Visser, Mr Chairman.

Do you know him?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, you have to tell me something more about Mr Visser, because this is the surname quite popular among Afrikaners. I know one Visser which was doing business with my brother, then I met another Mr Visser.

ADV BIZOS: He was in the Security Police, did you know him?

MR WALUS: I cannot recall Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ever meet him at the home of Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis, any person by the name of Visser at the home of Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not remember.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ever see a Visser in the company of Mr Edwin Clark?

MR WALUS: As I mentioned, I know Mr Edwin Clark very little. I saw him maybe three or four times before I was detained. So it is difficult for me to say if I remember him in his company.

ADV BIZOS: Did it ever come to your notice that Mr Clark was in the Intelligence Department of the, an Intelligence Officer in the Volksfront and in the Vryheidsfront, did that ever come to your notice?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, no, that never came to my notice.

ADV BIZOS: Now, do you know whether Mr Clark took any steps to use any portion or approximately R12 million stolen from various firms in Johannesburg, to pay for your legal costs?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I do not know nothing about that.

ADV BIZOS: Did you know anything about the Volksfront or the Vryheidsfront? Do you know anything about those organisations?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, about Volksfront practically I find out shortly after my arrest, where the Vryheidsfront is concerned, I do not recall. I could have had, but it was insignificant for me and I never bothered about that.

ADV BIZOS: May I just have one moment please. May I just have one moment, there is one passage that I had marked, but I have been given another copy Mr Chairman, and I do not see it.

Paragraph, of Mr Visser's application, on page 7, where he is asking for amnesty against the crime of theft from the JCI pension fund, of R369 082-56, do you know anything about that?

MR WALUS: No, nothing is know about this, for me.

ADV BIZOS: And do you know whether any of this money was intended, originally intended for two-way radio's for the Volksfront, but that Mr Clark decided to use this monies for the legal costs of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, do you know anything about that?

MR WALUS: No, nothing is known about that for me.

ADV BIZOS: You have heard nothing about this, ever?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I heard something about a Mr Visser and money which were intended to be given for the defence of Mr Derby-Lewis, but I heard it on the previous session of this Commission.

ADV BIZOS: Did Mr Edwin Clark ever take any part in any of the discussions of a political or conspiratorial nature at the home of the Derby-Lewis'?

MR WALUS: I never discussed with him on this subject Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I will ask Mr Mpshe to make a clean copy of the affidavit of Mr Visser in order that it may become an Exhibit, Mr Chairman.

May we call it Exhibit R, and then it can be handed in.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) Q as well? Exhibit Q is the affidavit of Visser, we've got that.

ADV BIZOS: I intended to hand in Fourie's affidavit and for that to be given a number and I think that is Q, Mr Chairman. Is it P, then Q, thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BIZOS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Do you propose re-examining your applicant, is that correct?

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a few questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, now very well, just hold it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before you re-examine, Mrs Van der Walt, I want to put one or two questions to the witness. I am trying to get his application.

Page 5 of Bundle A, you have been referred to this passage before, paragraph 9(a)(i). The sentence, the applicant acted alone in the planning and commission of this deed. Now, I do know that you have told us that this has since been amended and I think you referred us to page 10, but you told us that when this application form was completed initially, you were being assisted by Mr Derby-Lewis and that this words or this sentence was a mistake. Am I right?

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: These words, the applicant acted alone, from whom did they come? Did they come initially from you or from Mr Derby-Lewis or from both of you?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, such proposition came from Mr Derby-Lewis and I accepted it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did you accept it, why did you accept it if it wasn't correct?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned before, I didn't have at that moment, a lawyer who could help me in this application and I didn't see such a significance of this point. I was acting during the assassination alone and I thought that in some how such a building of the sentence will, that that will help Mr Derby-Lewis whose application I didn't see and didn't read and I decided that it is not - I made it because I wanted to help him and I didn't think that it is such a significant mistake.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Walus, I wouldn't mind if you were to, in answering my questions, you would choose to be short.

MR WALUS: Excuse me?

JUDGE NGOEPE: I wouldn't mind if you could in answering my questions, give short answers. From what you are saying then, it seems to me that these words were not put in by mistake?

MR WALUS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I thought yesterday you said that this was a mistake and you also mentioned the fact that you were not good in English?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. This is also a truth.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now, which one now eventually is the truth? Is it because you deliberately put them in or is it because they were put in by mistake by reason of the fact amongst others, that your English was not very good?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, yes, I didn't have a lawyer as I mentioned. I wasn't fluent in English and I used the help of Mr Derby-Lewis and thirdly I accepted everything that Mr Derby-Lewis wanted to place in this application.

MS KHAMPEPE: If that is what you are now saying Mr Walus, you must have been aware when you took a decision to apply for amnesty that one of the cardinal requirements for such an application, was full disclosure?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is correct. Because I didn't have legal advice, I didn't know that this point is of such significance and then my lawyer drew my attention to that and I agreed that that is a mistake and I apologise for that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Something else, you said in your evidence earlier on that the idea to eliminate did not come from you, that is the idea to eliminate for the purpose of stopping a take-over from the communists, what was your idea of stopping a take-over by the communists if the elimination was never your idea?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as a person not engaged to such a degree in politics as Clive was, I was waiting for his advice in this matter. I just asked that we must think about what we can do.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What did you come up when you engaged in the process of thinking as to what to do?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I didn't give any project or any proposition in the end of 1992, Clive told me that he has some idea and we will talk about it on the beginning of 1993.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Something else, this collection of identity documents which you said you had, I think you said you had about two or three, why did you keep so many identity documents with you? What was the idea behind that?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I explained why I was in the possession of those documents, some strange misunderstandings occurred with the Department of Home Affairs, I was afraid that when I sent them back, these documents, that they will keep sending them back again to me and plus they will send me some other documents and ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: You have explained as to how they came into your possession, my question is why did you keep them with you, for what purpose?

MR WALUS: I kept them because that I saw that it will be much simpler that I will keep them in the safe because they were all on the same surname and I will use only one and I will keep another two in the safe and if I start to send them back and explain to the Home Affairs Department, then maybe I will get some new additional documents.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did you not throw them away?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, if I have a document which I use and it will be used or damaged or I will lose it, then I have a spare document. I only treated it in that way, it was not for any purpose.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You needed them as spare?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: (Indistinct) the registration plate numbers on the vehicle that you used that morning, were they genuine or were they false, I cannot remember any more?

MR WALUS: Do you speak about the registration plates number which I had in the day of my arrest? Yes, Mr Chairman, they were original registration plate numbers.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And perhaps I should ask you, Mr Mpshe asked you but I want to put it in full, according to your evidence Mr Derby-Lewis had warned you not to do that on an Easter holiday because people would be home, but it turns out that you did it on a day like that, on a public holiday when people were at home, you did it during the day using genuine number plates, from there you just proceeded to drive into town, were you not worried that you would be easily arrested? It is a little bit puzzling to me how you could use broad daylight, when people would be at home, you shoot somebody, you use genuine registration plates, you leave the weapons in the car, you simply drive?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman. You are a hundred percent right, it was maybe irrational and strange and I shouldn't do like that, but as I mentioned I was acting on the impulse.

JUDGE NGOEPE: (Indistinct), did you any assurance that you would not be arrested?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman, I never had such an assurance.

JUDGE WILSON: Do I understand that you, when you went to the house that morning, you were not - you hadn't a plan as to how you were going to kill Mr Hani?

MR WALUS: I planned Mr Chairman, that I will use the pistol which I supposed to use for that purpose.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but you only got the opportunity to kill him because he went out to buy a morning paper? You didn't know he was going to do that, did you or did you?

MR WALUS: No, I didn't know Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: So what was your plan, were you going to walk into his house?

MR WALUS: No, Mr Chairman. My plan was to wait for such an occasion that nobody from his people except his body guards, that no one of them will be a victim.

If we talk about entering his house, it could end with the shooting spree and that was not the way I wanted to do or I was told to do.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Walus, in your testimony you have stated that you were convinced that the instructions to kill Mr Hani, or to execute the assassination came from Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I was convinced they were from Mr Derby-Lewis and the Conservative Party.

MS KHAMPEPE: You also just alluded to the fact that some of the mistakes which are in your application, are because you didn't have legal representation to assist you in the completion of the application form, that is what you have just stated, is it not so?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, in your response to paragraph 11(b), which required you to state the name of the person who had given you instructions, why did you not include Mr Derby-Lewis, that surely wouldn't have required legal representation?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned I didn't have legal advice and I wanted to make easier the whole matter for Clive before I was warned by my lawyer what consequences it can have.

MS KHAMPEPE: What do you mean when you say you wanted to make easier the whole matter for Clive, are you saying that you were prepared not to fully disclose the actual commission of the act in respect of which you were seeking amnesty, in order to protect Clive?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I must agree with this what you say.

MS KHAMPEPE: Would I also be correct therefore, from what you have just stated if I were to say that you then stated how the list was obtained, how you came to be in possession of the list, in the way that you stated here at page 6 of your affidavit, for the same reason that you have just stated?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: It is not page 6, it is page 8. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR WALUS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus, you replied to a number of questions with regard to the information which you had provided to the police, that was now Captain Deetliefs. Questions were posed in this regard and you were asked what were lies and what were truths. Can you remember this?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman I do remember.

MS VAN DER WALT: If we refer you to Bundle R4, page 84 through to 86, they are written notes and you are aware of the contents thereof.

JUDGE WILSON: Page 84, is that the handwritten statement (indistinct) top right hand corner?

MS VAN DER WALT: These are notes which were taken by Captain Deetliefs on the morning of the 17th. I just wish to confirm the date Mr Chairman, that was the Saturday morning at 04h15 in the morning when you described to him the events on the day of Mr Hani's death, is that correct, did he make notes of this, can you remember this?

MR WALUS: Yes, that is true.

MS VAN DER WALT: This statement of yours on pages 84 through to 86, is this the truth?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have already testified to the sentence on page 84 with regard to the can of Fanta, you said that you couldn't remember this?

MR WALUS: Yes, that is correct. Do we talk about the cold drink, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: This is the only set of written notes which had been handed in by Mr Bizos, you are also aware of this and you are also aware that your legal representatives enquired from the police regarding further notes and there were no further notes available, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: In R4, continued, on page 304 there is a typed or an alleged typed version of those notes and then from page 306 onwards, there are certain questions and answers which according to the testimony of Captain Deetliefs were your replies to questions stated by him, are you aware of these pages from page 306 onwards? We went through these with you, is that correct? You are aware of this, your legal representative went through these with you, is that correct?

MR WALUS: Yes, yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Of these questions and answers from page 306 onwards, were any notes made available to you in written form?

MR WALUS: Mr Chairman, I would like my lawyer to repeat the question for the interpreter.

MS VAN DER WALT: The questions and answers from page 306 onwards by Captain Deetliefs, there are no written notes with regard to these questions and answers?

MR WALUS: I couldn't hear? Yes, there are not notes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also said to the Commission in reply to some of the questions asked you with regard to these questions for which there are no notes, that you couldn't remember some of these answers, is that correct?

MR WALUS: (No audible answer)

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, then I would just like to ask Mr Bizos certain statements were made by Mr Bizos to Mr Walus with regard to a visit that he would have made, or that he is alleged to have made on the 12th of July 1992 to Mr Mandela's house and there will be witnesses who will come and testify that they had indeed seen Mr Walus there. I would ask Mr Chairman, that Mr Bizos will provide us with the name of the witnesses so that it can be determined whether statements had been made to the police by these witnesses please.

CHAIRPERSON: If you haven't already disclosed the names of the neighbours, Mr Bizos, could you just once again tell us who it is that will be coming to give evidence in that regard?

ADV BIZOS: We will file an affidavit by early next week Mr Chairman. I am reluctant to disclose the names in open court Mr Chairman, these are people who are unconnected with any of these issues. I don't know why the names are required at this stage. As far as I know they did not make any statement to the police.

My Attorney confirms that, so if that is the purpose for which the names are required now, it is going to be a fruitless search.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I cannot see why this should be secret.

CHAIRPERSON: Any way the purpose for which you wanted them, the answer is that those people did not make a report to the police, so you don't have to go around investigating that.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would nevertheless like to be provided with their names sir.

ADV BIZOS: (Indistinct) Mr Chairman, they reported the matter to Mr Mandela's guards. Mr Mandela has both private and police guards, but as far as we know, no written statement was made.

CHAIRPERSON: yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: All the more reason then sir, if they had reported this, I would like to have their names.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, is the stand that you are not prepared to disclose at this stage?

ADV BIZOS: Not without their permission Mr Chairman, publicly. They are prepared to come, there are three persons involved, I don't know if it is necessary to call all three, they will come here, but I don't know why I am being asked to make the names publicly known now Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I can't take the matter any further. If you are going to be handicapped in any way as a result, please, if when the witnesses are called and you are handicapped in any way, not knowing beforehand, if it handicaps you in the dealing with your case, then you will raise the issue and we will deal with it then.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I will not behave like the audience, I accept with respect your decision, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished?

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, just before I conclude, may I ask Mr Mpshe, whether the newspaper report which alleges that a few days before Mr Chris Hani's death, it was announced in the foreign countries that a high ANC member would be killed, could be made available to us. I don't know whether it is part of Mr Mgalhe's report, thank you very much sir, then I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, you will be able to make that available?

MR MPSHE: Certainly Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. Is that the end of your re-examination?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is the end, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: We have a request in relation to the tapes. There has been talk of these tapes ever since these proceedings started, despite numerous requests other people have had access to them, the police and the applicant, we have not. We would like the tapes between now and the recommencement on Monday in order to prepare Mr Chairman.

They are in the possession of the Attorneys of the applicants and we would like them handed over please.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know why you are telling me this, your Attorney must contact the other side and get them.

ADV BIZOS: We have met with some resistance Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should that be so?

ADV BIZOS: Perhaps an order by the Commission might have the desired result.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the difficulty?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I really think there has to be some justice here. We received these 21 tapes on Monday which are up to four hours long, we are sitting in the Commission the whole day long, we have to look at these tapes and I will see to it that I will bring them to Mr Bizos on Monday and he is not speaking the truth if he says there had been resistance. That lady there asked me this morning whether I had viewed the tapes and she said to me that there were 21 tapes that they were going to take approximately 84 hours to view.

CHAIRPERSON: Those that you have already viewed, you can pass those on.

MS VAN DER WALT: I said I am busy with them, I will be able to give it to them on Monday.

ADV BIZOS: The tapes in relation to Mrs Derby-Lewis' interrogation, she is going to be the next witness, we would like to view those tapes before she gives evidence so that we can be ready to cross-examine her.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I will make an arrangement with the Attorney of Mr Bizos, so that we can give them the tapes before the weekend.

CHAIRPERSON: My thanks and our thanks are due to the interpreter, the Polish interpreter, who have been working under difficult circumstances. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, for the time being, we have come to the end of these proceedings. The Committee now adjourns and will resume at 09h30 on Monday morning, we adjourn.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS: .