CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to proceed?
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I am calling Mr Faan Venter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Wouldn't it be convenient for him to sit here please. Mr Venter are you prepared to take the oath - in other words you are prepared to affirm rather than take the oath.
MR VENTER: Yes.
FAAN VENTER: (affirms)
EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Venter you are entitled to speak Afrikaans.
MR VENTER: I would prefer to testify in Afrikaans.
MR PRINSLOO: If you can't hear properly you can make use of the headphones and there is also an interpreting service available.
MR VENTER: I would prefer to testify without using these headphones.
MR PRINSLOO: If questions are put to you in English and you want to hear the Afrikaans version you can then listen to the interpreting on the headphones.
Mr Venter do you know Mr Derby-Lewis, the applicant in this matter?
MR VENTER: Yes I do.
MR PRINSLOO: Since when have you known him?
MR VENTER: Since the early eighties, I think from 1984, I was at his wedding.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you know his wife, Mrs Derby-Lewis?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And do you know Mr Derby-Lewis well?
MR VENTER: Yes I do.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Venter when did you move to Krugersdorp in 1993?
MR VENTER: It was the 1st of March 1993, we moved into a new house.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you sometime during 1993 see Mr Derby-Lewis, after you moved in there?
MR VENTER: Yes, I saw him just after I moved in. I went to see him.
MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Honourable Committee what the date was when you saw him, can you remember?
MR VENTER: Yes I made an appointment for the 10th of March, when I went to see him.
MR PRINSLOO: On that day when you saw Mr Derby-Lewis did he ask you for anything or not?
MR VENTER: He asked me whether I knew where weapons were obtainable, preferably an unlicensed firearm.
MR PRINSLOO: Preferably unlicensed?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Did he tell you for what purpose he needed this weapon or weapons?
MR VENTER: Yes his words were more-or-less to the effect that - "we are needing it for the battle that lies ahead, we are stocking up".
MR PRINSLOO: "Stocking up". What did you understand by the statement "stocking up"?
MR VENTER: I suspected that they were stocking up on weapons so that when the time arrived they could hand it out to people to take part in the struggle.
MR PRINSLOO: Were you a member or sympathiser or supporter of the Conservative Party or not?
MR VENTER: I was a paid-up member, yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And did you then obtain a weapon, could you obtain a weapon?
MR VENTER: Yes I had a 9mm pistol which had been given to me. It was an unlicensed firearm and I gave that to Mr Derby-Lewis.
MR PRINSLOO: Where did you get that weapon from, from whom?
MR VENTER: From Jean Taylor in 1990 more-or-less.
MR PRINSLOO: And what did you then do with the weapon after Mr Derby-Lewis asked you for a firearm?
MR VENTER: I delivered where he asked me to go and deliver it. It was at Mr du Randt's house. I gave it to Mrs du Randt.
MR PRINSLOO: Now when was this, what day?
MR VENTER: It was the same day.
MR PRINSLOO: On the 10th of March?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Who did you give the firearm to?
MR VENTER: Mrs du Randt.
MR PRINSLOO: Was Mr du Randt at home?
MR VENTER: No, I understood that he wasn't at home.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Venter during the trial you also testified for the State, that was the trial where Mrs Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus were being prosecuted?
MR VENTER: Correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair the evidence appears in Volume 5 on page 405(2.6.5), that is where the evidence appears.
Mr Venter were you aware of the fact that at that stage Mr Derby-Lewis was attached to the President's Council?
MR VENTER: Yes I was.
MR PRINSLOO: At this stage Chairperson I would like to refer to certain documents which I propose handing in to the Committee. I have given you the original copy, the copy of the minutes of the President Council's sessions or a schedule of their sessions, but I would like to also give to you now the claim which Mr Derby-Lewis handed in which relates to his journey to Cape Town and back and also his claim form which relates to those events. This document was Exhibit AF.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that evidence the kind of thing that is going to be contested, claim forms by Mr Derby-Lewis?
MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman we take up the attitude that the roster of the President's Council is not evidence of the presence of Mr Derby-Lewis in Cape Town on those dates. We do not admit it. I don't know about the claim form, but I don't know whether this has anything to do with this witness Mr Chairman. Certainly this witness can't testify. Can we deal with the evidence of this witness and then we can deal with other matters by persons who may have knowledge about that. They can't be put in through this witness Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I agree with that.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, the reason why I want to make available this document to the Committee is due to the fact that there has been evidence during the trial that this handing-over of the weapon by Mrs du Randt, or to Mrs du Randt took place in February, whilst this witness said that it took place in March. And the roster, as indicated by Mr Bizos shows certain evidence and for that reason I obtained this information from the President's Council which indicates payments made to Mr Derby-Lewis, so it's actually in an effort to save time, because it proves that Mr Derby-Lewis was in Cape Town at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand. Maybe if Mr Bizos has a chance of looking at that document we might sort this out. But for the time being let's just proceed with this witness' evidence.
MR PRINSLOO: As the Committee pleases.
JUDGE WILSON: Have you checked in addition on the attendance register of the City Council, City Council that he was alleged to have been at on the day that Mrs du Randt got the weapon?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman I intend calling Mr du Randt to substantiate that and handing in the City Council's roster for that particular purpose.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
MR PRINSLOO: The 10th of March.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's carry on with this witness.
MR PRINSLOO: Sir, could you tell the Committee, at that stage when you talked to Mr Derby-Lewis what exactly was the political climate as you saw it?
MR VENTER: Well it was a very turbulent time. We heard about defence and "kill a farmer, kill a boer" - "one settler, one bullet", and it wasn't anything new, it was more-or-less in line with what was happening at the time.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Bizos.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Venter, the evidence before the Committee is that this gun was handed to Mrs du Randt before the 29th of February which was her daughter's birthday.
MR VENTER: No that is not correct at all. I only moved to my house in Krugersdorp on the 1st of March so it's impossible that it could have happened that way.
MR BIZOS: Where were you living before?
MR VENTER: In Delareyville.
MR BIZOS: Did you visit Krugersdorp during February either for business purposes or visits or possibly in furtherance of your - any political activity that you may have been involved in?
MR VENTER: I did visit Krugersdorp but it was for purely business reasons, dealing with the purchase of the residence and my visits were in no way politically related.
MR BIZOS: I see. So on how many occasions did you visit Krugersdorp for the purposes of transfer of the property into your name or delivery of your furniture before you moved in on the 1st of March or for the purposes of speaking to the seller or making other arrangements, how many times did you visit Krugersdorp in February?
MR VENTER: I can say five times or on ten occasions, but I can't recall. It's impossible for me to recall and it wasn't important enough for me to recall.
MR BIZOS: But what we do know is that although you may not have been living in Krugersdorp until the 1st of March, that you were in Krugersdorp on a number of occasions during February.
MR VENTER: I was in Krugersdorp.
MR BIZOS: Yes. And why do you choose the 10th of March as the date on which you said this happened?
MR VENTER: I made an appointment to see Mr Derby-Lewis.
MR BIZOS: Yes, but why do you remember it was the 10th of March and not in February?
MR VENTER: No, I know for sure that it wasn't in February. I made no political visits in February, after I moved in and had organised my furniture and so forth, that is when my political activities in Krugersdorp started again.
MR BIZOS: When were you first asked to remember the date on which you had the meeting with Mr Derby-Lewis?
MR VENTER: That was during the trial of Mr Derby-Lewis.
MR BIZOS: And how did you fix the date, just from your memory?
MR VENTER: Yes, I was relying on my memory.
MR BIZOS: Well I am going to put to you that it happened during February when Mrs du Randt says it happened because she has a very special reason to know that it was before a particular date.
MR VENTER: I also have a particular reason to recall a specific date. I was reminded that my son's birthday was on the 7th of March and it was on a Sunday so we couldn't have a family meeting, but we had it on the next Wednesday and that was the 10th of March, and that was the same day that I handed the weapon to Mr Derby-Lewis. That night I received guests, namely my family, and we were celebrating my son's birthday.
MR BIZOS: I see. When did you first think of your - to connect your son's birthday with this?
MR VENTER: My wife reminded me, she remembers things like that far better than I do.
MR BIZOS: Why didn't you give that answer when I asked you whether you merely relied on your memory or anything else, why didn't you say that when I first asked you as to how you came to fix the 10th?
MR VENTER: I said that in court I relied on my memory, and I am saying again in court I did actually rely on my memory.
MR BIZOS: Now when Mr Derby-Lewis asked you for a gun for what reason did he give you for wanting a gun?
MR VENTER: He said that they were stockpiling for the battle that was ahead.
MR BIZOS: And he only asked you for one gun?
MR VENTER: No, no he asked for weapons. I only had one.
MR BIZOS: According to the note that we have, he asked for "a gun", if you said so is that incorrect?
MR VENTER: Well it's four years ago, whether there was an "s" or not, whether he added that I can't be a hundred percent certain, but I think he said weapons, but it's four years ago it's possible that I am making a mistake.
MR BIZOS: But now why would he think that you were a - you could supply him with an unlicensed gun or guns? What was the relationship between the two of you that made him confident to ask you for an unlicensed gun or guns, what was there between the two of you?
MR VENTER: I was very actively involved in politics in general, this could possibly be the reason for it.
MR BIZOS: Well the Conservative Party was a lawful organisation and Mr Derby-Lewis was one of its leaders, did the ordinary political activity of the Conservative Party include the gathering of unlicensed firearms or a firearm?
MR VENTER: Not as such, I don't think any legal organisation would do so legally, but there was a lot of talk at the time about the struggle that was looming and there was a Volksfront that was established for the defence of the people and so on. It was more-or-less in that time just before the establishment of - and it was a turbulent time and it was a very unstable period politically speaking.
MR BIZOS: Were you a member of the Volksfront?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MR BIZOS: In what cell of the Volksfront were you in?
MR VENTER: Krugersdorp.
MR BIZOS: Were all your meetings that you had of the Volksfront in February 1993 in Krugersdorp?
MR VENTER: No, that only took place quite a while after I moved to Krugersdorp, that's when I started attending those meetings, about three months after I moved to Krugersdorp.
MR BIZOS: Where did you attend meetings of the Volksfront before you attended them in Krugersdorp?
MR VENTER: I didn't attend any meetings before Krugersdorp.
MR BIZOS: So but you say that the gun was handed over shortly after you moved to Krugersdorp, but when did you become a member of the Volksfront?
MR VENTER: In the first place I didn't say it was shortly before I moved to Krugersdorp, I said it was after I moved to Krugersdorp and there was already talk of the establishment of a Volksfront, although I didn't immediately go along with that due to other obligations I had. It was only some time afterwards.
MR BIZOS: Who recruited you into the Volksfront?
MR VENTER: I can't remember the man's name.
MR BIZOS: Please be serious Sir. You were recruited into an organisation, who asked you to become a member of that organisation?
MR VENTER: As I said I can't remember the man's name. He was an employee of the Roodepoort Municipality but I can't recall his name. I haven't seen him for quite a long time, he made no particular impression on me so there is no reason why I would remember his name.
MR BIZOS: But surely the person that recruited you must have had meetings with you after he recruited you?
MR VENTER: No he didn't have any meetings with me. We went to general meetings, and he just sat there. He was just a face, if he was there, I don't know.
MR BIZOS: Oh. Was the Volksfront that you were working on an above ground or an underground organisation?
MR VENTER: It was an above ground organisation.
MR BIZOS: But could you explain why, if Mr Derby-Lewis asked you for a gun you delivered it to Mr du Randt's house?
MR VENTER: I think you must ask Mr Derby-Lewis that, I don't know.
MR BIZOS: Didn't you ask him, "why can't I bring it to you directly?"?
MR VENTER: No I didn't. I had my own suspicions, I thought Mr du Randt was the person who was actually stockpiling the weapons for him. I didn't ask.
JUDGE WILSON: Did you know him?
MR VENTER: Who?
JUDGE WILSON: Mr du Randt?
MR VENTER: No, no.
JUDGE WILSON: Weren't you somewhat hesitant about delivering an unlicensed firearm to somebody you didn't know? It was an offence to have it in your possession wasn't it?
MR VENTER: That is correct. But if Mr Derby-Lewis accepted Mr du Randt as a person to be trusted then I accepted the position as such, so I had ...(intervention)
JUDGE WILSON: And you didn't ask any questions?
MR VENTER: I asked "why?", and he just said, just go and deliver it there it's more convenient.
MR BIZOS: Can you please tell us precisely where you were when the request was made for a gun or guns by Mr Derby-Lewis?
MR VENTER: At Mr Derby-Lewis's house.
MR BIZOS: What was the purpose of the meeting?
MR VENTER: I made an appointment with him to try and become involved in the local branch of the Conservative Party.
MR BIZOS: Is this the first time that you met him or did you know him before that?
MR VENTER: I have already said that I have known Mr Derby-Lewis since 1984, but that was the first time that I had seen him since I had moved to Krugersdorp. I think it's about two years since I last saw Mr Derby-Lewis before moving to Krugersdorp.
MR BIZOS: So that if your version is correct, here is a person that you hadn't seen for two years and he has the confidence to ask you for a gun, what sort of gun did he want?
MR VENTER: Well I couldn't give him much of a choice, I only had one firearm and that's the one I gave him.
MR BIZOS: But didn't he - did he ask for a gun or a pistol or a revolver?
MR VENTER: I can't recall the specific words, it's difficult to recall at this stage, but I think he mentioned "weapons", "weapon/weapons".
MR BIZOS: Did he ask you for a pistol or revolver which could not be traced?
MR VENTER: Not as far as I can recall, not specifically, not as far as I can remember. It's possible. It's four years ago as I have said and if I ask anybody here what happened four years ago during a conversation they had they would find that it's very difficult to recall. It's very difficult to remember the specific words.
MR BIZOS: And did he or did he not mention that it must be unlicensed and not traceable?
MR VENTER: Preferably unlicensed, if I remember correctly.
MR BIZOS: Yes, and untraceable to anyone.
MR VENTER: I don't know, I suppose unlicensed does mean untraceable because it's not licensed in anybody's name, so I suppose I assumed that if it was unlicensed it wouldn't be able to be traced, yes.
MR BIZOS: Had you asked the person that you got the gun from where the gun came from?
MR VENTER: I knew where the weapons were obtained, or the weapon.
MR BIZOS: Where were the weapons or weapon from?
MR VENTER: They stole it from the Defence Force.
MR BIZOS: Yes. Who is they?
MR VENTER: Amongst others Mr Gene Taylor from whom I got the firearm. He was in detention for a week or two and during that period my wife and I looked after him and his wife's interests and that's, I think, there was a feeling of indebtedness and that's why he gave me the firearm. I wasn't very keen to take the firearm because I already had my own firearm and a firearm was really just a nuisance, it was in my way.
MR BIZOS: When you decided to see Mr Derby-Lewis in Krugersdorp did you just walk over to his house and announce yourself?
MR VENTER: No I phoned and made an appointment and the appointment was for that date.
MR BIZOS: And this discussion was it over tea or coffee or something else?
MR VENTER: Yes, if I remember correctly we had tea. I think his wife also served cake. That's something in the back of my mind, I am not entirely clear.
MR BIZOS: Yes. And was Mrs Derby-Lewis present when her husband asked you to provide him with a gun?
MR VENTER: No she wasn't present.
MR BIZOS: Where was she when you were talking to Mr Derby-Lewis about this gun?
MR VENTER: Somewhere else in the house Sir. I can't tell you exactly in which room but she wasn't present with us.
MR BIZOS: What room were you and Mr Derby-Lewis in while this discussion about the gun was taking place?
MR VENTER: I cannot remember Sir whether it was the lounge or whether it was on our way out to my vehicle, it's something like that which reminds me that it could have been on our way out to my vehicle, outside the house.
MR BIZOS: And you know if a high-ranking Conservative Party member wanted guns for the purposes of stockpiling for the struggle that was coming, one gun was hardly a big catch. Did he ask you where you got it from and what source there was in order to really stock up?
MR VENTER: Yes I think I told him from whom I had obtained it, but well whether it's one or more a few drops add up to a bucket and he started with one, I don't know whether he wanted a hundred, but one started with one to achieve a hundred in the end.
MR BIZOS: Did he ask you how to get hold of the person that you got it from so that he could take the matter further by going and getting properly stocked-up?
MR VENTER: Sir I cannot remember whether he had asked me whom I had gone to see and so on. It's four years ago and I can't remember.
MR BIZOS: And you are absolutely sure that it was in March that you had this discussion and it was in March that you delivered the gun?
MR VENTER: I am completely certain of that because I moved in on the 1st of March and from that house where I lived I travelled to Clive's house. There is no doubt in my mind about that, that is why I said so in my original evidence. I have no doubt that it was in March, it couldn't have been in February because I didn't live there in February. I drove there on business in February but I did not travel with pistols with me to give to Clive. I didn't have contact with him, I only made contact with him after I had moved in.
JUDGE WILSON: How far was his house from yours?
MR VENTER: At present, at the time, at the time it was about a kilometre and a half away.
MR BIZOS: I would like to show you a document marked A41 in Bundle A, oh I beg your pardon, coming out of the docket which is not part of the bundle yet Mr Chairman, please tell us whether that is your signature. Never mind the rest just tell us if that is your signature Sir.
MR VENTER: It is my signature, yes.
MR BIZOS: Please give it back to me. Please read paragraph 5 into the record. Please read it out aloud into the record.
"During the second half of February Mr Derby-Lewis and I had an appointment at his house, 18 Volkburg, Noordheuwel, Krugersdorp etc."
It's probably the 2nd of February but it is erroneous. It was later corrected. This is wrong, I made a mistake there. If you had gone through with the police that I had you wouldn't be astonished that something like this could happen.
MR BIZOS: Do not anticipate my questions. Please return the document to me because there are no copies available. The statement as written originally reads
"During the first half of February 1993...."
and "die eerste" is struck out and "tweede" has been inserted and it's initialled on the margin, is that correct?
MR VENTER: That is correct. As I said I wasn't certain at that time.
MR BIZOS: Perhaps it could go up to the Chairman please and shown around so that we are all satisfied that that is so.
MR VENTER: I would like to add that this was corrected at a later stage. I myself was confused with the dates but when I later reconsidered the whole case I knew that it was March and there is not even a chance that it could have been February.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair may we also see the document, we don't have it.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the date of that document?
MR BIZOS: I did not notice it. We will place it on record as soon as it comes back to us Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman we ask this statement which was signed on the 21st of April 1993 at 14:30 Mr Chairman, the Exhibit number will be Mr Chairman - Exhibit AH, may I put this on Mr Chairman and we will ask that copies be made to be distributed.
Now this statement was made under oath by you Sir or confirmation, I am not sure, but it does not matter, you either swore or affirmed that what you said in this statement is correct.
MR VENTER: Yes Sir, it wasn't the only statement that I made while I was in custody or while I was with the police ...(intervention)
MR BIZOS: Let's talk about this one. Was this one made on oath?
MR VENTER: Yes it was under oath but as I said I could make a mistake while under oath. It wasn't deliberate, it was a mistake. I didn't deliberately write it, I made a mistake under oath.
MR BIZOS: Well you see it seems to me from the fact that first it was the "first half" and then it was corrected to second half" and initialled by you minimises to a very large extent of the possibility that it was just a mistake which was made unwittingly and just on passing by, do you agree?
MR VENTER: Yes, deleting it does indicate that I was not entirely certain at this stage and that's why it was deleted and changed.
MR BIZOS: I see. You also said as soon as you were confronted by Exhibit AH that you said that you were with the police or in detention and this is why you came to make that statement, is that correct?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MR BIZOS: But now do you attribute this mistake to the fact that you were in detention at the time?
MR VENTER: Yes it contributed to that.
MR BIZOS: Yes. But now by the time that you were called to give evidence by the Attorney General of the Transvaal before the Judge President of the division you were no longer in custody?
MR VENTER: That's correct, but it had been enforced on me to such an extent and they had asked these questions so repetitively concerning February and I denied that as well that at first in court I also first stated erroneously February and then I corrected myself, I said no, it had been March.
MR BIZOS: If you look at page 407 of our one volume 5 you were asked,
"Who told you to do this?
Mr Derby-Lewis had said that the firearm had to go to Mr du Randt's house, had to be taken there and I had to tell them that it was Mr Derby-Lewis' jersey. Yes, and I did that. It was during the second half of February that I took the firearm to Mrs du Randt and handed it over to her".
You were not under any form of pressure were you at the time that you answered the Attorney General of the Transvaal?
MR VENTER: Mr Chairman with respect, Mr Bizos then has to continue reading further because it is immediately corrected.
MR BIZOS: Is that what you said?
MR VENTER: Yes as I said I stated erroneously because it had been drilled into me by the police that it was February, February and it must have been in my subconscious but I corrected it to March as I said.
JUDGE WILSON: The second half of March?
MR VENTER: Yes it was a second mistake Sir because I have to be perfectly honest, I knew it was in March but I wasn't entirely sure. My memory was refreshed by my wife when she told me it had been on the birthday of my child and that is why it had been the 10th, and that's why I say the 10th is correct. But it was definitely not in February because if I look back, I have documentation, my house was registered and I took occupation on the 1st of March, it couldn't have been, it was simply a mistake.
MR BIZOS: I will just read what you said.
"No further questions..."
said the Attorney General. And you said -
"I wish to correct, it was the second half of March, not February, I beg your pardon".
Now when is your son's birthday?
MR VENTER: It's on the 7th of March.
MR BIZOS: But now when did your wife put you right?
MR VENTER: At a much later stage, after the court case, she corrected me and told me you know you had been wrong, it was on Frans' birthday and this and that happened and I had to agree with it, that that was the case. If I think back then she was entirely correct.
MR BIZOS: Well you see when I asked you right at the beginning whether you were sure and you relied on your memory why didn't you mention this whole story of having made a statement that it was in February that your wife corrected you after the trial, you thought about it, why didn't you come out with all this when I first asked you whether you merely relied on your memory in order to tell us that it was on the 10th of March?
MR VENTER: I thought that you were completely entitled to ask me these questions as you are doing now, I knew you were going to ask me these questions and the answers remain the same.
MR BIZOS: When you made, when you telephoned Mr Derby-Lewis did you speak to him personally before you went to his house?
MR VENTER: No I think I spoke to his wife.
MR BIZOS: And did you make an appointment with her?
MR VENTER: For Mr Derby-Lewis, yes, to see him.
MR BIZOS: And by the way did you tell the person that was to deliver it that it must be in Mr Derby-Lewis' jersey?
MR VENTER: That is correct.
MR BIZOS: Where had you got his jersey from ...(intervention)
MR VENTER: Your honour does Mr Bizos say in his jersey or that it was his jersey?
CHAIRPERSON: Put your question again because I was busy taking down and I didn't hear, sorry. Mr Bizos put your question again please.
MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you have Mr Derby-Lewis' jersey with you when you wrapped up the gun?
MR VENTER: No I didn't.
MR BIZOS: Whose jersey was it?
MR VENTER: I didn't have a jersey.
MR BIZOS: Did you give instructions to anyone to say that the gun was to be wrapped up in a jersey?
MR VENTER: No I hadn't.
MR BIZOS: Was the question of a jersey ever any part of any discussion in relation to the delivery of this gun?
MR VENTER: Mr Derby-Lewis said to me that I had to tell Du Randt that this was Clive's jersey and give him the pistol.
MR BIZOS: Oh I see. So this, Mr Derby-Lewis's jersey, was that a sort-of code word then and not to be taken in an innocent fashion in which I took it before I asked you the other question?
MR VENTER: Well I wouldn't know whether it was a code word between Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr du Randt but I was told to do so and I did it.
MR BIZOS: Well if there was not going to be a jersey involved in the transaction then the only thing that it would mean was that in handing it over Mr du Randt must have had made a previous arrangement for Mr du Randt to receive the gun and that a code word was going to be used.
MR VENTER: Well I wouldn't know.
MR BIZOS: Well just look at your words on page 2407.
"Mr Derby-Lewis said that the firearm had to be taken to Mr du Randt's house and I had to just say to them, 'this is Mr Derby-Lewis' jersey'".
Doesn't that sound as if this was a code word?
MR VENTER: Possibly, I don't know what the arrangement was. To me it was not a code word, to me it didn't mean anything. It was simply a matter of saying instead of this is a pistol there is his jersey. I think it was quite a joke.
MR BIZOS: A joke!
MR VENTER: Ja, I saw some humour in it, it was a pistol and I called it a jersey.
MR BIZOS: I see. If you bear with me for one moment please. Was it as like as a jersey?
MR VENTER: No it was a pistol in a pistol box in a white plastic bag.
MR BIZOS: Was there any other business that you wanted to discuss with Mr Derby-Lewis other than you joining the Conservative Party?
MR VENTER: Not necessarily, I simply went to report, tell him that if he needed workers I was available, that was it.
MR BIZOS: Did Mr Derby-Lewis ask you whether a silencer could be fitted on the gun that he asked you for?
MR VENTER: No, I don't know anything about silencers.
MR BIZOS: Mr Venter, did you know anything about Mr Hani?
MR VENTER: No Sir, only what I read in the newspapers. That's what I knew about him.
MR BIZOS: If you look at paragraph - I'll read to you what you said in the last sentence of paragraph 3 of AH.
"Mr Taylor said to me that I had to keep the firearm with a view to the possible struggle or battle that was ahead"
Did he tell you that?
MR VENTER: Well I suppose so, I can't remember specifically, it's quite possibly what he said, "massacre or battle", that was more-or-less the vein in which it was said.
MR BIZOS: What massacre was he referring to?
MR VENTER: I suspect that it was the one that was ahead of us according to the Conservative Party but which, thank heaven, didn't take place.
MR BIZOS: Yes. Who was going to start the "massacre"?
MR VENTER: Well I don't know. We were under the impression that the SACP/ANC would initiate this and we were taking defensive steps in the Volksfront. That is the massacre/battle which I thought of.
MR BIZOS: Did you not know of any offensive "battle" that sections of the Volksfront were planning at the time?
MR VENTER: No Sir. Mr Chair if Mr Bizos poses the question using the words "at the time", does he refer to the period before or after Mr Hani's death, because according to Mr Hartzenberg the Volksfront was only established after Mr Hani's death?
MR BIZOS: When I mean the period Mr Chairman I mean both before and after Mr Hani's death.
CHAIRPERSON: Well more particularly when Mr Taylor gave him the weapon.
MR BIZOS: Precisely Mr Chairman.
JUDGE WILSON: And there wasn't a Volksfront then was there?
MR BIZOS: There will be evidence to the contrary to that of Mr Derby-Lewis'.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes carry on.
MR BIZOS: No I beg your pardon, this was in 1990 that the - I beg your pardon, no I must apologise, this was said in 1990 and I will accept - and I withdraw the question, this is quite correct, I was thinking of the time of Mr Hani's death. But that is correct, I didn't realise that. I may say Mr Chairman that we had no notice that this witness would be called and I haven't - I have been looking at the documents cursorily whilst I am asking the questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr - well let me just put this. Mr Venter I am going to, we are going to submit to the Committee that you obviously know much more and had many more things to do with Mr Derby-Lewis than you are prepared to admit having regard to the contradictions in your evidence.
MR VENTER: That would be absolutely untrue.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman. Mr Venter you recall the Committee member, Justice Wilson, asked you as to how could you take a firearm to a person who was unknown to you and you said Clive Derby-Lewis had told you that he trusted that person and you took Clive's word. Do you remember that?
MR VENTER: No I don't. I didn't say that Clive trusted that person. I said I accepted that if Clive told me to take the pistol to a specific person that it was natural to me that he trusted the person. I didn't say Clive had said so.
MR MPSHE: Alright, I stand corrected. So it was natural that he trusted that person in such a way that you could even take the pistol to him without even having to hide to him that it was a pistol?
MR VENTER: Correct, yes.
MR MPSHE: Now why was it necessary then to use a code and to refer to the pistol as a jersey if he trusted that person?
MR VENTER: I wouldn't know that. As I said I didn't know and I don't know.
MR MPSHE: You don't know why you had to call it a jersey?
MR VENTER: No I don't.
JUDGE WILSON: But I think you have told us that you called it a jersey because Derby-Lewis told you to.
MR VENTER: That is correct, yes.
MR MPSHE: Well you remember because you have been reminded by the Judge now, okay.
Had Clive asked for a weapon from you before this particular incident?
MR VENTER: I don't understand the question.
MR MPSHE: Had he in the past asked for any other firearm, in the past before this particular firearm?
MR VENTER: No.
MR MPSHE: Now during the two year period when you had lost contact with him what were you doing then? Were you tactically involved in the CP activities or not?
MR VENTER: Yes I was involved in CP activities but in another ward, Mr Piet de la Rey's ward, in Delarey. I didn't have anything to do with Mr Derby-Lewis at this stage.
MR MPSHE: Now you told this Committee that he, Clive asked for this firearm at the very first meeting after two years when you had made an appointment with him, is that correct?
MR VENTER: Yes that is so, but he knows me well. Whether we hadn't seen each other for two years it doesn't matter.
MR MPSHE: Right. Besides talking about you wanting to know about the CP local activities what other things did you discuss with him?
MR VENTER: I can't remember that I discussed anything else with him, I specifically went there to report that I would be joining up with the CP there, perhaps see how things were, just small talk, but I can't remember specifically it's four years ago Sir.
MR MPSHE: But you can remember specifically four years ago that he asked for a firearm?
MR VENTER: That's very difficult to forget Sir.
MR MPSHE: I see. What had actually prompted him to talk to you about a firearm?
MR VENTER: I wouldn't know. It's quite possible that the general discussion regarding our problems, the slogans of "kill a farmer, kill a boer", etc gave rise and this is only human that it would reasonably be so. This is why perhaps it gave reason - to the discussion I can't remember the exact words. I can't repeat, as I say it's too long ago.
MR MPSHE: I see. For how long had this firearm been in your possession?
MR VENTER: From 1990.
MR MPSHE: Why did you have to keep this unlicensed firearm?
MR VENTER: Well I kept it for the same reason, with a view to the problems ahead, but the thing was actually just in my way and I was only too glad to get rid of it.
MR MPSHE: Did you disclose this to Clive that you are also keeping it for the same reasons?
MR VENTER: I probably did.
MR MPSHE: Was there any call by the CP to stockpile and to keep firearms?
MR VENTER: No the CP is a legal organisation and wouldn't have demanded things like that.
MR MPSHE: Yes, but what had made you then to start keeping an unlicensed firearm?
MR VENTER: As I said it was the general condition of the country, we all knew that problems were coming, we didn't know the scope and when, and it was quite simply that I thought it was obvious in the light of statements that had been made, threats that had been made etc, and I think it is quite reasonable that I expected problems in the future.
MR MPSHE: Mr Venter didn't you have your own licensed firearm?
MR VENTER: Yes I had a number of licensed firearms.
MR MPSHE: How many?
MR VENTER: At that stage I had three.
MR MPSHE: And you felt three licensed firearms were not enough, you had to get another one?
MR VENTER: Could the question perhaps be repeated.
MR MPSHE: You thought three licensed firearms were not sufficient to be used by you.
MR VENTER: Three were enough. The other one was given to me as a gift and I kept it in case I needed it.
MR MPSHE: Mr Venter do you want this Committee to believe that Clive just out of the blue, just when you were talking about the general problems in the area, just started asking you for a firearm without any prior discussions that led to that, any prior specific discussions that led to him asking for a firearm?
MR VENTER: I think he felt free to do so because I knew him well enough.
MR MPSHE: Did he know that you would be able to provide a firearm, an unlicensed firearm?
MR VENTER: No I don't think he knew. I think he was quite surprised when I told him I did have one.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE
MR BIZOS: May I be permitted to ask one or two questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it ground that you haven't covered already?
MR BIZOS: No I have not Mr Chairman. May I Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: When did you find out for the first time that the gun that you supplied was used to kill Mr Hani?
MR VENTER: When the police arrested me.
MR BIZOS: Was that after Mr Derby-Lewis' arrest?
MR VENTER: That is correct.
MR BIZOS: Have you seen Mr Derby-Lewis since?
MR VENTER: Since when Mr Chairman?
MR BIZOS: Well since you saw him at his trial when you learnt, or after you learnt that your gun had been used to kill Mr Hani, have you seen Mr Derby-Lewis?
MR VENTER: I visited him in jail, he's a friend of mine, numerous times.
MR BIZOS: Did you ever ask him why he lied to you about the purpose to which the gun was going to be put?
MR VENTER: No I suppose it was their part of stockpiling, the moment I gave them the firearm the matter was out of my control, I couldn't control what they were going to do with it.
MR BIZOS: Did you ask him whether at the time that he asked you and at the time that you provided the firearm whether that was his intention to use the gun for that purpose?
MR VENTER: No I didn't know that they would be doing so.
MR BIZOS: Why did you not ask him?
MR VENTER: Sir what is first, the chicken or the egg? I didn't know that person would die, I didn't know that that would be the firearm, I didn't know that Hani would be shot, it was impossible for me to ask him that.
JUDGE WILSON: The question was did you ask him afterwards as I understand Mr Bizos, not before, after you knew he had used your gun to kill Hani, did you then ask him about whether when he got the gun he intended to use it to kill Hani?
MR VENTER: No I didn't.
MR BIZOS: Well why not? You had suffered some disadvantage as a result of your request by your friend to supply the gun. You were detained and you had to make a public admission that you had in your possession a stolen and unlicensed firearm, why didn't you confront him, "why did you take this gun from me, used it for the murder of Mr Hani without telling me the true purpose for which you intended the gun to be used"?
MR VENTER: I didn't ask, I didn't meet Mr Derby-Lewis in a lounge after that, I visited him in jail and it was too late, it was too late to cry.
MR BIZOS: One of the reasons may well have been that you did not ask him because you knew what it was going to be used for.
MR VENTER: No Sir I didn't know.
MR BIZOS: Has there been an answer Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes he said he didn't know.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS
MS VAN DER WALT: May I also ask a few questions?
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Venter you were detained in terms of Section 29 is that correct?
MR VENTER: No the police lied to me and they told me that I was being arrested in terms of Section 29 but I wasn't detained under that.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you have also referred to the fact that you made more than one statement?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: In court when you testified Mr von Lieres, the Attorney General of the Witwatersrand asked the honourable Court to warn you in terms of Section 204 whereafter you testified and you were granted indemnity of by the court.
MR VENTER: Yes that's correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: I wish to refer you Mr Chair to volume 8. I am only going to read a small portion from that, page (607), it is the evidence of the then accused number 3, Mrs Derby-Lewis, top of the page this referred to the date on which Mr Hani was shot, the 10th of April, and page (670), the normal number 530. It's Volume 8.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the normal number and (...indistinct)
MS VAN DER WALT: 530.
CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean normal number and ...(intervention)
MS VAN DER WALT: There are two numbers Mr Chair, sorry....
CHAIRPERSON: Yes do carry on.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mrs Derby-Lewis was testifying regarding the 10th and then she says in the fourth line
"We had made arrangements to go to the Venter's house. Mr Venter had phoned me some time in March and said that he had moved into Krugersdorp".
Is that correct?
MR VENTER: Yes it is.
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chair, no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: It is AH, only a portion had been read, I'd like to read something, or refer to it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Prinsloo whilst you are thinking about it there might be questions members of the Committee might want to ask.
JUDGE WILSON: Mr Venter you were asked by Mr Bizos about what you said on page 267 of the record about this happening in the second half of February, if you remember?
MR VENTER: Yes.
JUDGE WILSON: Well if you look at the previous page, page 266 or (406) it is recorded here that you said, after having explained how you got the gun
"How did it happen that you gave it to Mr Derby-Lewis?
Well Mr Derby-Lewis during March, it must have been the beginning of March sometime asked me - is it this year, March this year? Yes this year".
So it would seem that you originally said that it was in March and then only a little later you said it was in February.
MR VENTER: That is correct.
JUDGE WILSON: One other point I'd like to deal with you, you said you had three "weapons", what sort?
MR VENTER: I had a shotgun, a .357 Magnum revolver and a .22 revolver.
JUDGE WILSON: Were you known as somebody who liked guns?
MR VENTER: Well yes I am quite enthusiastic about firearms, I have an eye for them.
JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Exhibit AH was it written by yourself?
MR VENTER: Is that the statement which I saw here?
JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.
MR VENTER: No it wasn't written by me.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I understand your evidence to be that you gave the - you delivered the firearm to Mrs du Rand on the 10th of March.
MR VENTER: That is correct.
JUDGE NGOEPE: And I notice that on your statement, paragraph 5, well your cancelled "first part" to "second part", you corrected that.
MR VENTER: What did I correct Sir, I am not with you?
JUDGE NGOEPE: Well the portion that you were shown earlier on during the "second part" which was "first half" and then you changed it to the "second half".
MR VENTER: Yes, in my statement yes.
JUDGE NGOEPE: And the same mistake was repeated in your evidence, during the trial, that it was during the second part of February.
MR VENTER: That's correct. The police insisted and they kept saying February, February and I think that is how I made the mistake. It was purely a slip of the tongue, it was an error.
JUDGE NGOEPE: But would you say that the 10th of March is the second half of the month?
MR VENTER: No, as I said after the trial my wife, who remembered my childrens' birthdays much better she said to me - "look Fanie it is wrong, it was the 10th of March", and when I reconstrued the whole thing in my mind it was in fact the 10th of March, it was correct.
JUDGE NGOEPE: No, what I am saying to you, please listen to my question carefully. I am referring to page 407 of the record. I appreciate you don't have a copy, but let me read it to you what your supposed self-correction reads like.
"I just want to correct it, it was the second half of March".
MR VENTER: Yes.
JUDGE NGOEPE: But that can't be correct.
MR VENTER: It isn't correct, it's the first half of March, and that's why I said I made a mistake.
JUDGE NGOEPE: No, you didn't say you made a mistake about this, you told us a short while ago that during the trial you corrected yourself from saying the second part of February, you corrected yourself and put it right to say the second part of March.
MR VENTER: That's correct.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Which is also incorrect.
MR VENTER: That's also incorrect, that's also incorrect.
JUDGE NGOEPE: So you are being incorrect in about three, four times.
MR VENTER: Yes I was wrong with the date. At that stage I really couldn't recall what the date was.
JUDGE NGOEPE: You were wrong in saying the first half of February; you were wrong, according to you, in saying the second part of February; and you were also wrong in saying the second part of March.
MR VENTER: That is correct, yes, unfortunately it is one of those things, I am sorry.
JUDGE NGOEPE: But when you made these two mistakes regarding February, that's the first part of February, and the second part of February, were you not tying this up with the fact that - that is were you not tying up the date of the delivery with the fact that as you say you delivered the weapon only after you had already arrived in Krugersdorp. Do you understand my question?
MR VENTER: No not really, please repeat that.
JUDGE NGOEPE: You told us that you arrived in Krugersdorp in March.
MR VENTER: Yes.
JUDGE NGOEPE: When you made this statement which you say is incorrect you knew that you had arrived in Krugersdorp in March, isn't it?
MR VENTER: Yes and no. I actually confused March and February totally. I am very sorry, it was simply a mistake.
JUDGE NGOEPE: I would never have thought that you could have forgotten as to when you had come to live in Krugersdorp.
MR VENTER: Yes I had a lot of business and I went to Krugersdorp a lot before then and I simply made a mistake.
JUDGE NGOEPE: After Mr Derby-Lewis had asked you to help collect weapons, and after you delivered this one, did you continue to look for some more weapons?
MR VENTER: No I wouldn't have known where to start looking. I didn't continue looking for weapons, I didn't know the right people who would be the right contacts for weapons at that stage.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: You know I hear you saying that the police insisted that it was during February and that is why you kept saying it was February. What interest did the police have that they should tell you it was February?
MR VENTER: I am not sure, but this February, February thing, it was constantly mentioned to me that it was February and that is I think what planted the seed in my mind that it was February. But I corrected it later and I am sorry about that. My wife pointed out to me that it was the 10th of March actually which was also the date of our child's birthday and I can't dispute that.
CHAIRPERSON: No I am now talking about the police. I couldn't understand what reason the police would have to tell you or to insist that it was February, what reason would they have?
MR VENTER: I don't know what purpose it could have served for them.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright. So now that mistake you attribute to the fact that the police were in some way reminding you to say that it was February, so you made that mistake.
Now then eventually when you changed to March the police had no say in the matter when you changed from the first half of March to the second half of March, is that so?
MR VENTER: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you must admit that your recollection is such that in this matter here that you must have considerable doubt in your mind as to whether it was in February or March?
MR VENTER: When I wrote those documents I did have doubt. I didn't actually draw together all these points. I moved in the 1st of March, child's birthday, I didn't actually bring together all these points. I had doubt, I corrected it, I said it couldn't have been February it must have been March. I was under the impression that it was in the second half of March. I was sincerely of that opinion but I was wrong, it couldn't have been then.
MISS KHAMPEPE: Mr Venter ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Hold it Sisi.
JUDGE WILSON: How old was your child?
MR VENTER: It was his 21st birthday.
JUDGE WILSON: So what sort of party was it?
MR VENTER: It wasn't a party, it was just a family gathering, brothers and sisters and so forth.
JUDGE WILSON: What time?
MR VENTER: Usually round about 7:00, 7:30.
JUDGE WILSON: In the evening?
MR VENTER: In the evening, yes.
MISS KHAMPEPE: Mr Venter at the time when you gave evidence before Justice Eloff on the 15th of October 1993 you knew then that the date on which you delivered the gun to Du Randt's house was an important piece of evidence?
MR VENTER: Yes, but nobody actually pushed me on that particular issue or cross-examined me on it. I had testified as to that and that was that. Nobody actually cross-examined me.
MISS KHAMPEPE: But the police had before that day tried to induce you to agree to the second part of February as being the date around which the gun was delivered to Mrs du Randt, and you had, before the 15th of October, corrected yourself with regard to both particular periods.
MR VENTER: Yes, not as the police put pressure on me about February, they just kept saying it was February, February, so I think that just made me think that it was February. I didn't actually realise it was that important.
MISS KHAMPEPE: But didn't your wife at that stage speak to you to try and enable your recollection to be accurate and remind you about the birthday that had taken place about a few days before the delivery of the gun to Mr du Randt?
MR VENTER: She did, but it only happened after the trial. The first that she heard regarding the particulars of the case was at the trial and that was when she told me, "look Fanie, it wasn't the second half of February, it was the 10th of March to be exact, because it was Fanie's birthday", but it was only after the trial that she said this.
MISS KHAMPEPE: During the meeting with Mr Derby-Lewis which took place on the 10th of March did you apprise him then that the weapon that he was asking you to look for that you had at least one weapon immediately available, that you could give him to contribute to his stockpiling?
MR VENTER: When he asked me I said yes I did have a weapon, but he was quite surprised when I told him I had a weapon. I don't think he expected that from me. I was quite keen to get rid of the weapon because really it was just a nuisance for me.
MISS KHAMPEPE: So he still insisted that the weapon should be delivered to the du Randt's house?
MR VENTER: He asked that I do that, yes.
MISS KHAMPEPE: And he gave an explanation why it had to be delivered to the du Randt's house?
MR VENTER: No he didn't give me an explanation.
MISS KHAMPEPE: Did you ask him for an explanation?
MR VENTER: No I assumed that the du Randt's were probably the people who were involved in the stockpiling of the weapons. I didn't know the exact circumstances.
MISS KHAMPEPE: Was the request by Mr Derby-Lewis to the effect that the gun had to be delivered to the du Randt's house or to Mr du Randt?
MR VENTER: No Mr du Randt's house. He gave me the address and everything.
MISS KHAMPEPE: So it was to be delivered to anyone who was in the house, not specifically to Mr du Randt, is that your evidence?
MR VENTER: Yes well he said to Mr du Randt, but then I found Mrs du Randt so I gave her the parcel.
MISS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
ADV POTGIETER: And you told Mrs du Randt that it was a jersey, but it was actually a firearm?
MR VENTER: Yes that's correct.
ADV POTGIETER: Which had not been wrapped in a jersey?
MR VENTER: No. It wasn't in a jersey, I think it was in a plastic bag and there was a box, a firearm box and that had been put into the plastic bag.
ADV POTGIETER: So she told us the firearm had been wrapped in a jersey and it was put in an OK Bazaars plastic bag.
MR VENTER: It was probably an OK Bazaars bag but there was no jersey.
ADV POTGIETER: Well as I am putting it to you she says it was wrapped in a jersey.
MR VENTER: No.
ADV POTGIETER: Is she making a mistake?
MR VENTER: Well she must be making a mistake because I didn't put the firearm in a jersey. I put the box in a plastic bag and I put it down on her table, I said "there is Clive's jersey, please give it to your husband".
ADV POTGIETER: You said that it was a jersey for Clive and you told that to a woman that you didn't know at all?
MR VENTER: Yes.
ADV POTGIETER: And actually the parcel contained a firearm in a box?
MR VENTER: Yes.
ADV POTGIETER: So it must have been quite clear to the person receiving it that you weren't actually telling the truth, that it wasn't a jersey?
MR VENTER: Yes. Well that is why I said I found it quite funny to say that it's a jersey when it wasn't.
ADV POTGIETER: Did you find it humorous?
MR VENTER: Yes, yes I did, because it wasn't a jersey, it was a firearm.
JUDGE WILSON: And what would have happened if she had panicked and phoned the police and said some strange man has just come here, said he was leaving a jersey here and he's left a gun?
MR VENTER: No I didn't expect that to happen. I expected that Mr Derby-Lewis would have told them that it was on its way, the firearm was on its way so why, you know why would I have had to tell them as if they had no prior knowledge of the firearm. So I don't think that it was just a matter of delivering a firearm to strangers. Mr Derby-Lewis said take it there and just tell Mr du Randt that this is the jersey, Clive's jersey and they would know what to do with it.
ADV POTGIETER: The improbability, the strangeness of the situation which I am trying to put to you is that according to her it was indeed a jersey, but when she later peeped into this parcel, probably from sheer curiosity she then realised that it was a firearm.
MR VENTER: No it wasn't wrapped in a jersey, it was just in a plastic bag. I definitely didn't wrap it in a jersey, I didn't have jersey belonging to Clive, I had only seen him once, so I didn't have a jersey that belonged to Clive.
ADV POTGIETER: One other aspect, when did your wife correct you after the trial?
MR VENTER: When - virtually immediately after the trial.
ADV POTGIETER: Immediately after you testified?
MR VENTER: No she wasn't present at the court hearing but when she heard what the exact evidence was she told me, "look Fanie it wasn't that day, it was the 10th". She also pointed out certain times and dates and I had to agree with her that that's the way it happened.
ADV POTGIETER: Did you then try to correct your testimony?
MR VENTER: No I - well how could I correct it? After Mrs Derby-Lewis had been released from prison I told her that I had made a mistake and she said, "ja I know it was the first half of March".
ADV POTGIETER: You didn't tell the State advocate that?
MR VENTER: I only realised that after I Clive had been convicted and I don't know whether it was something he relied on for his appeal.
MISS KHAMPEPE: Mr Venter you have stated that you expected Mr Derby-Lewis to have phoned the du Randts to apprise them that you would be coming to deliver this jersey, what time was your meeting with Mr Derby-Lewis?
MR VENTER: It was before 12 in the morning, it was during the morning.
MISS KHAMPEPE: And when was the jersey delivered to Mrs du Randt?
MR VENTER: I didn't deliver a jersey to Mrs du Randt, it was only a firearm that I took there.
MISS KHAMPEPE: Yes, well that was the code name of the firearm.
MR VENTER: It was early evening, round about five o'clock, maybe six o'clock.
MISS KHAMPEPE: And did you tell Mr Derby-Lewis that you would be delivering the firearm to the du Randts on that day, did you tell him that?
MR VENTER: No he told me that I should deliver it on that - he told me to go and deliver it there.
MISS KHAMPEPE: Did he tell you when to deliver the firearm to the du Randt's house? That is my question.
MR VENTER: I can't recall that he gave me an exact date, he just said, go and give it to them.
MISS KHAMPEPE: When you went in the evening, had he told you whether he would be phoning the du Randt's?
MR VENTER: No he didn't. He didn't tell me when he was going to phone them. I got the impression that - I was under the impression that the du Randt's were actually waiting for it - "they say I am going to stock up, I am stocking up" and I expected that they were the people who were actually doing the stockpiling of weapons, that's how I thought at the time.
MISS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
JUDGE WILSON: How far was the du Randt's house from yours?
MR VENTER: Approximately two kilometres.
JUDGE WILSON: So it was further than Mr Derby-Lewis' house, it was a house you didn't know and yet it was supposed to be more convenient to drop it there. How could that possibly be?
MR VENTER: I wouldn't know. I simply carried out the instruction.
JUDGE WILSON: Because I gather, I am not certain of this but my recollection of the evidence was that you had trouble finding the du Randt's house.
MR VENTER: Yes I had to drive around a bit looking for it, but I found it.
JUDGE WILSON: While you were arranging for your son's 21st birthday party?
MR VENTER: My wife made these preparations, not me.
JUDGE WILSON: You were driving around looking for strangers.
MR VENTER: Well if I did drive around it was only for about five minutes, it didn't last hours, but I did actually look for the house. I was looking for the du Randt's whom I had never met before.
MISS KHAMPEPE: If I gather your evidence properly then Mr Venter is that you suspected that something sinister was going on?
MR VENTER: What do you mean exactly?
MISS KHAMPEPE: Requested by Mr Derby-Lewis to deliver the firearm to the du Randts, you didn't ask further questions because you suspected something sinister was going on?
MR VENTER: I assumed that the weapons were being stockpiled because of the general conditions in the country and I wasn't surprised because at that stage the right-wing organisations or people had been arrested for illegal possession of firearms and there was a trend towards stockpiling of weapons although I wasn't involved in that myself.
MISS KHAMPEPE: And you thought the du Randt's were involved in that group of stockpiling?
MR VENTER: That was what I thought, yes, and that's why I thought I had to go there to go and deliver it.
MISS KHAMPEPE: When you came in did you ascertain whether that person you were speaking to was Mrs du Randt?
MR VENTER: I just asked, who lives here, are you Mrs du Randt? She said yes. I said I've brought Clive's jersey and I put it down and I left.
MISS KHAMPEPE: Did you give her instructions to ensure that the jersey was delivered by them to Clive?
MR VENTER: Yes I said please see to it that your husband delivers it safely or receives it safely.
JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Prinsloo you made reference to a document with regard to claims which are made by Mr Derby-Lewis, that is the document Mr Chairman said you could talk to Mr Bizos about like during the adjournment, but I am curious about that document and the nature of it precisely. Will that document tend to show that Mr Derby-Lewis, during the say the first or second half of February was in Cape Town and therefore he could not have met with the witness in Krugersdorp?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman the document I've got here, the President's Council document, it will indicate that Mr Derby-Lewis was in the President's Council from the 21st of February until the 5th of March. That's the document I've got here. The documents here are the payments etc, claim for payment, travelling expenses and so on, for that period.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo we will just come to that. Have you any re-examination of this witness?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Venter when the police were questioning you in relation to the statement that you made do you know whether Mrs du Randt had already made a statement at that stage or not?
MR VENTER: I think that she had already made a statement because I only made a statement the next day and she'd already gone home, so I think she had already made a statement.
MR PRINSLOO: So if she had already made a statement in which she said that (the Interpreter is unable to hear, there is a strange noise on the equipment)
CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it there's seems to be a bit of trouble, we can't hear clearly. Let's just have it again, maybe....
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Venter I will repeat. When you were being questioned by the police do you know whether at that stage Mrs du Randt had already made a statement to the police?
MR VENTER: I assumed that she had because she had already gone home before I made my statement so I assume they wouldn't have released her until she'd made a statement and that's why I make that assumption.
MR PRINSLOO: Now if she had stated that it was in February, could it have been put to the police, to you like that?
MR VENTER: That's what I think happened.
MR PRINSLOO: You said that you were in detention but not Section 29 detention?
MR VENTER: No.
MR PRINSLOO: Now were you in custody?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: For how long had you been in custody?
MR VENTER: Two days.
MR PRINSLOO: Two days?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: And what was the allegation against you, why you were being arrested?
MR VENTER: They told me I was being - I was told that I was arrested under Section 29.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you make this statement whilst you were in detention?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you make more than one statement?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you make a statement to an attorney?
MR VENTER: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you very much. You are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson I believe that Mr Visser, Mr Bizos' witness has arrived and he is available. Mr Bizos has indicated that he is going to call Mr Visser as a witness, he has now arrived. I don't know what Mr Bizos intends doing with Mr Visser.
MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, is Mr du Randt not going to be called by the applicants?
CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling Mr du Randt?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair I first wish to go and fetch some statements from my car before I call Mr du Randt and also some documents.
CHAIRPERSON: Well now I am so, I am unhappy that we have to adjourn for such things as having to stop to go and fetch documents you know. We have very limited time today as you well knew beforehand. Now is it your intention to call Mr du Randt?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair this decision only arose last night and Mr Bizos indicated that today he will be calling Mr Visser as witness and this morning ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No I am not talking about Mr Visser, I am talking about you. Is it not your intention to call Mr du Randt?
MR PRINSLOO: I will call Mr du Randt but I first have to speak to him.
CHAIRPERSON: Can we carry on Mr Bizos whether Mr du Randt is called or not?
MR BIZOS: Mr Visser is in the hall, we have consulted with him and we have a statement and we want to call him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR BIZOS: But in view of his absence yesterday he waved to me that he wants to speak to Mr Mpshe is the way I understood the communication. In the circumstances could we have a very short adjournment just in case he wants to say anything to Mr Mpshe which is of any relevance to his being called or not.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes very well we will take a very short adjournment and you will during that time get the documents you want.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Because of the constraints imposed upon us and which are beyond our control we were going to adjourn by 12 o'clock today in any case. Although there is a little time left between now and then I think it is impractical to start a new witness' evidence at this stage even though we may finish a part of his evidence. And it now seems that the evidence of that witness and other witnesses who are likely to be called and who have not turned up they will have to be heard on another occasion. Unfortunately it is not possible for us to say at this stage when the Committee, constituted as it is, will be able to sit, but the earliest available date will be obtained and I'm not in a position now to tell you even when that is going to be.
However, the Committee is now going to adjourn these hearings and we will resume on a date to be arranged. Interested parties no doubt will be consulted in finalising the date of the resume hearing.
It is important that I should place on record an agreement that has been reached by counsel and that is counsel for the applicants will hand in their written argument on or before the 23rd of February 1998, and that counsel for the objectors will thereafter hand in theirs by not later than 9th of March 1998. It is hoped that if these arguments are handed in we may yet save a little time at the resumed hearing. I would just like to confirm with counsel, it quite clear Mr Prinsloo and Mrs van der Walt that 23rd February is the date for you to do that?
MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, and we will reply to Mr Bizos' arguments if necessary.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Bizos the 9th of March is the date by which ...(intervention)
MR BIZOS: Yes we accept that and will do so accordingly.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Obviously it means that the adjournment of this matter to another date will only be after these documents have reached the Committee.
We have reached the stage where all that is left to say is that this matter is now adjourned to a date that will be arranged in the future. This Committee adjourns.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS TO A DATE TO BE ARRANGED
