Truth Commission Special Report
Amnesty Hearing - 54643

Type: AMNESTY HEARINGS
Starting Date: 18 March 1998
Location: BOKSBURG
Day: 3
URL: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54643&t=&tab=hearings
Original File: https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/bok/bok2_3hani3.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------		
	

CHAIRPERSON:   Is counsel ready to address us?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairperson, before I begin with 

the argument, I would like to request that the Committee receive 

the video tapes which arrived from the Security Council, which 

were referred to.  It is necessary that these cassettes are watched 

in order to determine what the value of the statements are which 

were put before the Committee.

	The circumstances under which they were made, and which 

led to the accuracy of these statements, and specifically in terms 

of the conditions which prevailed and it will clearly be indicated 

in our arguments and for that reason, it would be submitted as 

evidence.

CHAIRPERSON:   These tapes have already been referred to in 

the evidence and if at the end of the hearing, we consider it 

necessary, we will view them unless your suggestion is that we 

should do that now, a suggestion which I am not particularly 

inclined to agree with at this stage.

MR PRINSLOO:   Our suggestion is Mr Chairman, with respect, 

that the Committee should receive them as an exhibit.  I am not 

saying that we should view them today.

CHAIRPERSON:   We will receive them, yes.  Mr Bizos, is there 

any objection to that?

MR BIZOS:   No Mr Chairman.  They should be, they are, I don't 

know precisely who is in possession of them now, but I would 

suggest that we identify them by the number of tapes and video's 

that there are, and that they remain in the possession of the 

Committee's secretariat, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Is there any indication as to where these are 

at the moment?

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, they are in my possession at the 

moment.  There are 21 tapes and may I suggest that during the 

adjournment, we can just take it up with Mr Mpshe, he can 

identify them, number them and then he will receive them.  Will 

that be in order?

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, that will be in order, thank you.

MR PRINSLOO:   Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Sorry, you spoke of us admitting them as 

exhibits.  I assumed those are the tapes that we haven't seen?

MR PRINSLOO:   Some were viewed partially Mr Chairman, and 

others were not viewed.  In respect of Mr Derby-Lewis for 

instance, that was never taken up with him, although they were 

made available after he testified.

	As you will recall with respect Mr Chairman, those tapes 

only became available after Mr Deetliefs arrived on the scene and 

Mr Brandt started his examinations.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Yes, do you have a problem if we at a 

convenient time, we just look at them without necessarily 

accepting them as exhibits?

MR PRINSLOO:   I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Do you have a problem if we just have a 

look at them in due course, without necessarily accepting them as 

exhibits, as part of the record?

MR PRINSLOO:   What my suggestion is Mr Chairman, receive 

them as exhibits, and it could be viewed by the Committee 

whenever it is convenient to the Committee, if it desires to do so.

CHAIRPERSON:   Please do carry on.

MR BIZOS:   Mr Chairman, I am rather concerned that this 

evidence has been in the possession of the applicants and their 

legal representatives over this long period of time.  I have no 

objection of them being put in as exhibits, but I submit that if 

there is anything specific which the applicants want to draw 

attention to, they must of necessity do so, they cannot put an 

onus on the Committee or on us, to say well, you know there 

maybe something there which was not referred to them in 

argument, that we've had no opportunity of checking whether it 

was there originally and without our being given an opportunity 

to make any submission in relation to it.

	That doesn't mean that I am objecting that they should go in 

as an exhibit, on the other hand, we cannot have a carte blanche 

that, or put an onus on the Committee to spend some 60 hours 

viewing things in order to try and pick something up either for 

the applicants or against the applicants.

	It is a task which I submit that the Committee cannot be 

asked to undertake.  If the applicants say that in tape number so 

and so, this is what appears and we ask you to take it into 

consideration, then we can deal with it.

	We can't leave it as a loose matter, it is no different to a 1 

000 page document, to say I hand it in but somehow or other 

there may be something in it that somebody may take into 

consideration at some time or another, it is not the way to run a 

case.

CHAIRPERSON:   I understand and I imagine you accept that as 

the position as well?

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, with respect, we have already 

referred to them in our heads of argument, we have already 

requested in our heads of argument that these tapes ought to be 

viewed.

CHAIRPERSON:   No, but you will refer specifically to the 

particular tapes that you want us to apply our minds to?

MR PRINSLOO:   That is correct Mr Chairman, and we also say 

that particular tape ought to be viewed in its context, pertaining 

to particular issues.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes.

MR PRINSLOO:   And Mr Chairman, just the other reason, the 

tapes were given to us, there was, at that stage the idea of having 

them transcribed.  It was taken up with the Department of Justice 

by our Attorney, and they said that the costs would be too great 

in order to have them transcribed, because they had to be re-

taped onto a tape cassette by the Broadcasting Corporation and 

there was a lot of problems involved and it could not be done Mr 

Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes.

MR PRINSLOO:   That is why we've got them back here now.  

Mr Chairman, those tapes were also in possession of Mr Bizos 

and his team as well, they viewed them as well, so it is no secret 

to no one.

CHAIRPERSON:   Do carry on.

MR BIZOS:   ... that this is the second or third time that it has 

been mentioned that the Department of Justice said that they will 

not authorise the expenditure.  The applicants have brought a 

case Mr Chairman.

	We do not know on what basis this is placed on record, and 

I will leave it at that Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON:   One other point, I have been trying to find it 

and I can't, I have a recollection that some tapes were in the 

possession of Mrs Derby-Lewis and there was a suggestion that 

she had erased portion of them?

MR BIZOS:   No, that was settled, that was settled Mr Chairman, 

in her favour, because what had happened was that we made that 

suggestion and in fact we apologised to her for it, because the 

tape had been copied in a wrong order.  What we expected to be 

at the end of the tape, was not there, but it did appear at another 

... And we may say Mr Chairman, I am reminded that I have been 

too generous to Mrs Derby-Lewis, I did not make the suggestion, 

Adv Brandt did.  We didn't have an opportunity of viewing it, he 

spent the whole night viewing them, and came back with this 

information which turned out to be wrong.

JUDGE WILSON:   Was this one of the same tapes as you are 

now referring to?

MR PRINSLOO:   That is correct Mr Chairman.  In pursuance of 

what Mr Bizos said, I suggested to the Committee that we will 

have it transcribed, and this developed subsequent to the 

adjournment period.

	Members of the Committee, we have already submitted 

heads of argument and subsequently heads of argument have been 

received from the members of the family.  These heads were 

received on the Thursday and unfortunately they were received 

late.  Mr Bizos had other obligations, but we will leave it at that.

	Honourable Chairperson, our heads have been discussed 

thoroughly under various topics.   I would like to refer to a 

number of aspects with reference to the testimony and in light of 

the fact that further new evidence was submitted, since the 

submission of the heads, and if preferred as such, we could submit 

written heads of argument in response to Mr Bizos' heads of 

argument to the Committee.

	I would like to argue with respect that the applicants firstly 

complies with the provisions of the relevant Section 21(c) and 

with specific reference to the applicant's action in support of the 

Conservative Party, that he believed on a bona fide basis that he 

was supporting the cause of the Conservative Party.  With 

reference to the aspect of his actions in support of the 

Conservative Party, I refer you to the judgment of the S v Maloi 

and others in SA Court Reports, 1987 1 (196) (A), judgment of 

Presiding Appeal Court, Judge Boshoff, and specifically on page 

210, H - I and also on page 211, and 212 H - I.

	With respect in this respect, I would like to argue that in 

that judgment it was necessary that the party had to have been 

aware of the actions which were undertaken by the applicants.

	It is my argument that under these circumstances the 

applicant who was an Executive Member of the Consecutive 

Party, acted in support of the Party.  There is no evidence to the 

contrary which supports that the applicant acted maliciously or 

acted in any way for his own interests or to promote his own 

interests.

	The Committee with respect, should consider what the 

political history of the country was, which preceded all these 

events, where the country was governed by a white government, 

which consisted of the National Party, later the Conservative 

Party and the National Party which devolved by following a 

different policy and had a vision of a unity State and the 

Conservative Party's vision was that of separate development and 

each nation governing itself.

	This was the strong policy of the Conservative Party which 

was not negotiable according to them, and in short, it took place 

that the party according to the evidence of Dr Hartzenberg, the 

leader of the Conservative Party, that the democratic process at a 

stage, was closed and that negotiations would serve no further 

purpose and that according to the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis, 

the Codesa negotiations were overwhelmed or dominated by 

members of the Communist Party and as seen by the Conservative 

Party, communist rule was at the order of the day and with 

respect, this fact was a fact according to the people and the party 

who believed that there was a threat which was eminent and that 

there was no other option but to mobilise on all fronts, there was 

talk of war.

	There was a climate of war.  Yesterday evidence was given 

about it again, Visser and Clark, Dr Hartzenberg have all testified 

in terms of this, the applicants have testified in terms of this, and 

at this stage there are applications for amnesty which indicate or 

which go as far as May 1994.

	I would like to argue with respect that it was not indicated 

to the contrary that it could be said that there was no state of 

undeclared war.  

ADV POTGIETER:   Mr Prinsloo, was the Conservative Party 

part of the negotiation process when this event occurred?

MR PRINSLOO:   It would appear that they were still involved 

with it, but for them it was an indisputable fact that it was futile 

to participate any further in the negotiation process.

	It would appear clearly even from discussions with the 

deceased, Mr Chris Hani who said on the John Robby show the 

objective was a unity State and that is what the Conservative 

Party opposed, therefore for any person on the street who 

supported the Conservative Party, these persons believed that if 

there was an election in which the entire country participated, 

that handful of people would not be able to put forward any other 

ideology.

	The policy of the National Party at that stage, was the unity 

State and it was the opinion of the Conservative Party that the 

National Party had thrown in the towel and that they had betrayed 

the nation, that was the perception which existed in the society 

among the white population and that is the society from which the 

applicant came.

	That was the basis upon which decisions were taken for 

mobilisations, that was the basis of various speeches which were 

made, referring to war and the use of other methods to prevent ...

CHAIRPERSON:   May I just interrupt.  If during Codesa, when 

the major role players had gathered to try and solve the problems, 

a group saw that Codesa would not serve their purpose and they 

regarded that their particular cause was lost in these negotiations, 

that belief in a group of the people that negotiations would not 

serve the purpose, that belief gave rise to unhappiness and 

aggressive talk on the part of such people, does that mean that we 

must come to the conclusion that there was a climate of war, just 

because one section of the community did not accept the 

proceedings at Codesa?  Does that mean that there was a climate 

of war just because one section of the community did not have 

faith in these negotiations?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chair, with respect at that stage 

many acts of aggression and violence were committed.  For 

example where Mr Botha blew up a school, many bomb explosions 

took place.

	Many people were killed, and the talk of war and 

mobilisation indicated a conflict between two groups.  On the one 

side, the ANC/SACP alliance which was mobilising for the 

takeover of the country, and one would have to look at what 

happened before that.

	The ANC by means of violence, which was its policy...

CHAIRPERSON:   No, I am considering that we have already 

passed that stage of the ANC's struggle, we are talking about a 

stage where there were these negotiations at Codesa.  At that 

stage where the major role players were involved in discussing 

what should happen to the future of this country, a group did not 

view the proceedings at Codesa as serving their purpose.

	That view of that group and the conduct of its members in 

resorting to violence, does that mean that we must come to the 

conclusion that there was a climate of war, when the majority of 

the people and the other groups were trying to negotiate and one 

group from outside, were not?  Does that mean there was a 

climate of war in the country?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, as it was understood there was a 

climate of war because a large proportion of the white population 

viewed this as a climate of war, and there was resistance against 

this and various groups made various statements which have 

already been submitted as evidence before you, and clearly there 

was a climate of war.

	It was carried over as a fact that a resistance would take 

place, that the deceased was bringing in weapons from Angola, 

there was talk of when the ANC would lay down their weapons, 

that history exists and with respect there was definitely a climate 

of war and it must be considered that a number of acts of violence 

took place.

	This proved it self until the elections had taken place, there 

were many acts of violence which were done in opposition to this 

ANC/SACP takeover.  Visser testified yesterday that the ballot 

boxes be blown up to prevent people from voting, there were all 

those explosions which were actually about something else, but 

the preceding history indicates that this climate did exist, and was 

promoted until the very last moment.

ADV POTGIETER:   What would be more relevant for our 

purposes, those deeds which he referred to, were those connected 

to the Conservative Party?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, Chairperson, connected to the 

Right Wing Parties.

ADV POTGIETER:   Your client's case if I understand correctly, 

is that he acted in support of the Conservative Party with regard 

to this incident, and I think it is of greater relevance for us to 

know to which degree this action was connected to the 

Conservative Party, this might assist you.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, you will remember that there 

were various fronts who along with the Conservative Party 

planned the same type of resistance in this country, and the 

Conservative Party stood in conjunction with that proportion of 

the population who were planning this resistance in order to 

prevent a government coming into power which they didn't want 

to come into power, a communist government.

	That is what they feared and it was a real and genuine fear 

for every person who had been born during the years of the total 

onslaught and had learnt the meaning of communist in that 

context.

	The National Party and a number of its allies and the 

Conservative Party, propagated this view and that is what was 

consistently portrayed and it could not be done away with 

overnight as a genuine fear.

CHAIRPERSON:   Do you draw any distinction in your mind 

between a communist government and a black majority 

government in the country?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairperson, as the witness 

viewed it, as the society viewed it and as it was put forward in 

many cases, the ANC was the majority and the communist 

government would be the minority.

	And upon those facts, it would appear that the control was 

placed in the hands of the Communist Party, although the ANC 

government would be the instrument whereby the government 

would be controlled and the country governed, and that is how I 

understood it.

	Honourable Chairperson, at various moments, the evidence 

of the applicant was attacked in terms of the Conservative Party's 

lack of policy in terms of violence.  None of the political parties 

who functioned in this country, including the South African 

Police or any instruments of the State, had a determined or 

particular policy of violence which was officially recognised.

	If such a policy had existed, and if it had been announced, 

that party would not have had any kind of survival.  It would have 

been regarded as a criminal party.

CHAIRPERSON:   Would the National Party in your belief, at 

that time, also believed in violence but did not want to disclose 

it?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairperson, with respect, the 

National Party was in power and by means of its various organs, 

which were involved in the conflict at that stage, the Police, the 

Defence Force and various other institutions, the Commando's, 

and other such organisations which were involved in the struggle 

against the ANC, used these instruments and it came to light in 

various instances that the Police community came forward and 

said that they acted upon orders, or that the climate indicated 

that they acted upon orders, and the answer therefore is that the 

National Party definitely maintained a policy of violence.  That it 

definitely existed.

	With respect, in various instances it appeared in the media 

that certain individuals were seen as targets, where members of 

the ANC were killed under various circumstances and this must 

have had a definite influence on this perception of war, because 

of the policy of violence.

	With respect, one cannot ignore the acts of violence which 

were committed by the ANC.  A milieu of violence existed and it 

promoted itself or continued to exist until at least after the 

election. This piece of history which occurred so swiftly, which 

perhaps in world history happened much quicker than what it 

would have happened in other countries, nonetheless remains a 

fact that it occurred.

ADV POTGIETER:   Do you say that we should find that the CP 

had an undeclared policy of violence?

MR PRINSLOO:   I would like to put it to you in this way that it 

was definitely so if one considers that the leaders and various 

other individuals said that other methods needed to be used, other 

than the democratic process, not by means of the ballot box.

	That they would not be subjected to a communist 

government, that they would not give their country up.  How 

should it be interpreted, how would one interpret or combat that 

resistance?

ADV POTGIETER:   You ask that we make the inference from 

the statements made by the leaders that the party indeed 

maintained an undeclared policy of violence?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, that is what I am asking because 

if one considers what the party said in terms of mobilising, 

therefore people were advised to go over to mobilisation.  Passive 

versus active are described, and then it was left to those who 

would put it into operation, they had to interpret these statements 

in the broader sense.

	It was said we will not give up our country, we will fight 

for it.  The leader of the Conservative Party, Dr Treurnicht, said 

that he would not serve under a communist government or under 

President Mandela.

	If it was as such, how could it then have been interpreted in 

the light of these statements.  Also in terms of the statements that 

the Conservative Party made that Codesa was a futile exercise.

CHAIRPERSON:   It was one thing for a leader to say I will not 

serve under Dr Mandela, it is perfectly reasonable for people of 

standing to say that they will not serve under a government, that 

is not the same as saying that I am going to go to war to see that 

I am in government in the place of him.  Isn't that so?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, we should not view this in terms 

of compartments, but in a holistic sense.  

	What these leaders said, what Dr Hartzenberg said, what 

various individuals such as Snyman said, for example, the 

mobilisation, the various acts which were committed, the stock 

piling of weapons and acts of violence were being committed, 

what would be the interpretation of these facts?

	Especially in light of a statement where someone says that 

he would not serve under such and such a government?  It is 

threatening, it is quite obviously eminent that the unity State 

would occur as envisioned by the ANC and the SACP, it wasn't 

something which was part of the further future.

	At that stage the elections took place, in April 1994, as we 

know.

ADV POTGIETER:   I am just trying to clear up this aspect, 

what must we make of the evidence of Dr Hartzenberg which was 

clearly indicating that the SACP or that the CP did not have a 

policy of violence?

	He could not have said that they had a policy of violence, if 

he had said so the CP would not have continued to exist.

ADV POTGIETER:   I understand the point that you are making, 

but here, under oath before us, he confirmed that the CP did not 

have such a policy and that it would have been understandable 

that some of the supporters might have believed that such a policy 

of violence existed, but he maintained that the CP did not have 

such a policy.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, he indeed said that there was a 

climate of violence which was created by the CP, that is a fact.  

He also maintained that the CP believed in the existence of a 

policy of violence, but then one would have to think about it 

objectively and I believe that the Committee will do so and ask 

the question what did exist if that scenario was sketched.

	Then one cannot say anything else but the fact that the CP 

did promote a policy of violence, that violence should be used.

	But how else would one prevent a party from coming into 

government if one couldn't prevent it at the ballot boxes?

	I do not like to make comparisons, but just how look at 

how successful the ANC was by using violence and forcing the 

government to give over the country.  Various voices in the world 

had said do away with apartheid, and still there was no success.  

Only until the ANC had used violence, did it actually bring about 

a measure of success.

ADV POTGIETER:   I would not like spend too much time on 

this point, yet I do understand what you are saying.  You have 

said that there was an undeclared state or policy of violence.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, these are not conflicting 

statements because there was not an officially declared policy of 

violence.

	But that climate coupled with the evidence in a holistic 

sense, compile a series of facts and it would be unfair to expect 

that parties within this country, according to this legislation, 

should have maintained a policy of violence while the ANC/SACP 

alliance from the outside, were untouchable and maintained and 

announced policy of violence, which they applied in every 

instance.

	In that respect one should look at the fairness of the 

application of the law.  There should be an equal application of 

the law, and on that basis it was stated.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Can you take that debate a little bit further? 

 I think you have made your point about that.  Suppose we do 

find that there was no such a policy, declared or undeclared, 

where does this leave your client's case?

MR PRINSLOO:   Do you mean that none of the evidence or the 

witnesses which I've sketched at this point, existed?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   The CP did not have such a policy?  The 

Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO:   A policy which said that one shouldn't, or that 

one should kill people?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   You - let's assume that we do find that the 

CP did not have the policy to kill people, to assassinate people.

MR PRINSLOO:   An announced policy?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Whether declared or undeclared, we do find 

that they didn't have any such policy at all.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect Mr Chairman, I want to argue 

that the climate was there, and that the client subjectively 

believed that there was such a climate.  The climate was created 

as I have already told the Honourable Committee.

	The climate was there.  He in a bona fide way believed 

there was such a climate.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   A person in the position of Mr Derby-Lewis 

who was close to the leaders of the party, would you argue that 

subjectively he believed, even though the CP did not have such a 

policy, declared or otherwise, he himself, as an individual, despite 

his position in the party, despite his close relationship with the 

leaders, subjectively believed that there was such a policy?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairperson, with respect if you 

look at the judgment or the statements of the leaders, the climate, 

the happenings in the country, is that what he believed he was 

part of the leadership, he was involved in that.  

	They participated in various processes.  In Krugersdorp for 

example he committed some things, various things were done 

against the Conservative Party.  Koos Botha, there is a dispute 

about that, apart from him, nobody else was repudiated. 

	With respect Mr Chairman, the witness said that he had 

spoken about Dr Treurnicht and he said regarding the aspect of 

killing the anti-Christ, and he said he is not holding it against Mr 

Hani as a person, but against the Communist Party.

	And also the declared policy of the Conservative Party was 

that they would not tolerate a takeover and compare it Mr 

Chairman, with cases which have already served, for example 

cases from the ANC, for example in Messina.

	The ANC themselves decided they take out a leader in the 

name of Mr Lukela and other people.  They have done that with a 

political motive, they have done that to force this government to 

overthrow the government.

	And with respect, it worked, and here the Conservative 

Party said we are going to fight fire with fire, we are not going to 

use conventional methods and he forms part of this.

	They said we have to mobilise, we have to act in a resistant 

way and while this process is in the near future, how else could 

that be interpreted?  It could not have been otherwise, that there 

was a quiet to put it that way, policy that violence could be used.

	What form of violence, that could not be prescribed.  In any 

war situation, in any violence committed during war, in a bush 

war and underground activities, you cannot expect otherwise.  

Just as in the case of Police when they killed various people.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   I was talking about Mr Derby-Lewis who 

was a very senior person.  I am not talking about foot soldiers, 

who may not know what the policy of the organisation is.  I was 

referring to Mr Derby-Lewis, precisely because of his position in 

the party and I would have thought that he would know at any 

given time, exactly what the policy of the party was.

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairman, this is the problem I 

have with the legislation.  If you ask what is the policy of the 

party, if he said his co-leaders would go over to violence, that 

they said themselves, what more evidence could there be that 

there was violence?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Well, what you are saying is that there was a 

time when Dr Hartzenberg and Mr Derby-Lewis did not have a 

common understanding of the policy of the party?

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, I am not saying that.  I myself 

am saying that they would not have used conventional methods 

any more.  The debate is about what ...

JUDGE NGOEPE:   No, we are talking assassinations Mr 

Prinsloo.  The way Dr Hartzenberg understood the policy of the 

party, the assassination of people was never part of it and you are 

saying in the mind of Mr Derby-Lewis, assassinations would have 

been part of that policy.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect Mr Chairman, it has never been 

the ANC's policy to assassinate people, they have never said 

explicitly we are going to assassinate people, this shouldn't be 

viewed in isolation.

	It should be seen holistically.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Mr Prinsloo, I want to know from you 

whether you are saying, is your argument that there was, there 

must have been a time when Dr Hartzenberg understood the 

policy of the CP differently from Mr Derby-Lewis, when it came 

to killings or assassinations?  

	Are you saying Dr Hartzenberg and others' view was that 

the killing was not part of the policy whereas a person like Mr 

Derby-Lewis might have in his subjective mind, thought that that 

was the policy?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect Mr Chairman, at that stage it 

could not be said that Mr Hartzenberg in his mind, had the idea of 

assassination, but what was clear from his evidence was that there 

would be resistance, mobilisation and conventional methods 

would not be used any more.

	This is evident also in the case of Koos Botha who has also 

applied for amnesty, he committed violence.

ADV POTGIETER:   Mr Prinsloo, I am sorry.  Judge Ngoepe's 

point is actually how can a subjective belief in the case of Mr 

Derby-Lewis given his leadership position in the party, how can 

such a subjective belief be bona fide?

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, it cannot be argued that which 

method had to be used, that that subjective view is not correct.

	You cannot say we are going to blow up a house, we are 

going to shoot somebody, we are going to poison somebody, we 

are going to keep food from them, anything would be an efficient 

method.

ADV POTGIETER:   No, the question is about policy.  Judge 

Ngoepe asked you should the Committee find that there was no 

such declared or undeclared policy, where does it leave your 

client's case, then you said that he subjectively believed in a bona 

fide way that it was the policy of the party.

	Now, I am asking you how could it be bona fide in the case 

of Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Hartzenberg said that it, what he said 

indicated violence.  What he had in his mind was what he believed 

subjectively and he himself said Derby-Lewis could have believed 

that subjectively.   He himself thought that, how else?

ADV POTGIETER:   Is it bona fide for a person who had direct 

access to the Chief leader of the party, that he is there where 

things are happening, could that be bona fide for such a person, 

to think wrongly that a policy of violence existed?  That is my 

problem.

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, he could have never believed 

wrongly in the climate of that time.  As I have already said what 

they have stood for and what the threat was and what the state of 

war was in that climate, he subjectively believed.

	He was part of the party, he was in the top structure and 

then it cannot be expected that he would go to Hartzenberg and 

said listen, I am going to kill Mr Chris Hani, that would have 

been the end of the Conservative Party.

	It would have been ridiculous.

ADV POTGIETER:   It is not about a policy in such strong 

terms.

MR PRINSLOO:   It is about the climate which existed, and that 

forthcoming from that in which he subjectively believed would be 

in the interest of the party to promote this party and to prevent 

that a communist government, would come in to govern.

	And what else could we do if there were no other methods? 

 With respect, by taking out a leader this was an efficient method 

at that stage.  It was the same as to overthrow the whole country 

at the ballot box.

JUDGE WILSON:   But Mr Hartzenberg said that the policy of 

the Conservative Party was to act in a defensive capacity, so that 

they would be in a better moral position, they planned throughout 

to take up a defensive position.  That is why you are being asked 

these questions.

	That was the policy of the Conservative Party, to take up a 

defensive position, to mobilise themselves so that they could 

defend themselves.  How could someone have believed that it was 

in the interest of the party to sacrifice the moral position and go 

out and assassinate somebody?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect Mr Chairman, what I am trying 

to say is this is what Hartzenberg said, but it was also said that 

they would not subject themselves to the government under 

communist rule, how would it be done otherwise?	

	How could it be prevented?  How could it be defensive, 

how could you defend what, if the country is not being attacked? 

 What do you understand by that?

	With respect Mr Chairman, this mobilisation through 

resistance was to prevent that the country would be taken over 

and this was what happened afterwards.

	With respect, the leader could not say that he would have 

planned to kill people, or would have allowed people to be killed. 

 That would have been an offence.

MS KHAMPEPE:   But Mr Prinsloo, the idea of a whole 

mobilisation strategy, was to stage a visible demonstration of the 

CP people against the government with a view of achieving a 

political objective, which in a way is merely defensive and not 

pro-active?

MR PRINSLOO:   That would have been one method Mr 

Chairman, surely.  Just as the ANC had various structures and 

they said we would make the country ungovernable.  They 

mobilised the church for example and they mobilised, a pattern 

was created by the ANC how you mobilise and how the various 

structures were intruded or invaded.

	How do you prevent it otherwise?  A climate was created in 

the country, how violence was being practised.  How people 

interpreted it, how the CP said we will fight fire with fire, what is 

the fire?  It is the threat of an overthrow.

CHAIRPERSON:   Was part of the complaint or rather the 

grievance of the CP really directed at the NP, wasn't it?  That it 

believed that the NP was selling out the Afrikaner people and 

those who believed in the policy of the CP, isn't that so?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairman, it is stated in the 

applicant's evidence, but at that stage the National Party was not 

a factor any more.  The CP and the applicant believed that they 

were not in government any more, and that the takeover was 

(indistinct), it would have been without any purpose to kill the 

leader of the National Party, because according to the CP, he 

didn't mean anything.

	He had already thrown in the towel.  It was a question of 

the resistance, the conflict was between the ANC/SACP and the 

CP and the people wanted to prevent that the country ...

MS KHAMPEPE:   Mr Prinsloo, you have previously referred to 

a situation which was caused by the CP leaders, in that through 

their speeches they promoted the use of violence.  Is it not true 

that in fact the CP leaders were merely prognosticating about the 

possible use of violence in the future, in the event of all their 

options having become exhausted and that in fact could not have 

been reasonably interpreted even by Mr Derby-Lewis, to have 

been tantamount to a policy of violence by the CP?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairman, those methods that 

you've mentioned, they were said and according to Hartzenberg's 

evidence, it is clear that those other possibilities and other 

processes were non-existent at that stage.

	The democratic process did not exist any more and the 

climate at that stage, when that took place, and preceding that, it 

should be looked at all the Right Wing groups which had the same 

purpose, that is to remember that ANC/SACP would rule the 

country, and the history speaks for itself.

MS KHAMPEPE:   But I don't think that was the evidence of Mr 

Hartzenberg.  He conceded that the constitutional part was 

constantly being eroded at that time.  But that still remained an 

option and they were still party to the Codesa talks?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairperson, that is what he said, 

but he said the chances were few.

	According to the evidence by the applicant, it was that 

Codesa was ruled by the ANC/SACP alliance.

MS KHAMPEPE:   (speaker's microphone not on)

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, in those 

circumstances in that climate and the applicant considered the 

way how this takeover should be prevented on behalf of the party, 

because on behalf of whom did he have to do that?

	He did not belong to any other party, he did not support 

any other political party.  He supported the Conservative Party, 

he lived for the political party and that is proven by his history, 

and with respect the Conservative Party never repudiated him.

	I am not talking about the assassination, I am referring to 

his other actions.

ADV POTGIETER:   But Mr Prinsloo, why did he not clear out 

this intention regarding Hani with the CP leadership, he had 

access to the top leadership?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect Mr Chairman, a man in Mr Hani's 

position, who was loved by the greatest majority of the black 

population, they supported him, that was a fact, and there was a 

fact that there was going to be a takeover.  They would have 

given their lives to force this government to a takeover, how 

would they now turn around and say we are willing to give little 

bits and pieces of the country to this and that, and while John 

Robby said he wouldn't do that, how could that have happened?

	What purpose would it have served, what did he have to 

clear out?

ADV POTGIETER:   Why did he not clear it out with his own 

party?  Why did he not discuss it with the Conservative Party 

leadership to take this radical step to assassinate a political 

leader?

MR PRINSLOO:   As I have already said Mr Chairman, if he had 

gone to the top leadership in the Conservative Party and told 

them that he was going to kill Chris Hani, it with respect, would 

have meant that he and Treurnicht would have landed in jail, and 

then the Conservative Party would have been the end of the party. 

	If you take the leader away, the party would have been 

disbanded.  You would remember that Von Lieres and the 

Attorney General stated it to Mrs Derby-Lewis, that was 

effective, take the leader out and then the party falls apart.

	If you had to clear that out, he and other people 

compromised themselves to committing an offence.

	That is not logistics in a war situation.  I don't want to 

make a comparison but it worked very well in regard to the ANC.

ADV POTGIETER:   You see, you are reacting and you are 

based on a position that Treurnicht would have said go out and 

kill him and kill all the others, and if he said no, Derby-Lewis, 

this is not the policy of this party, then Treurnicht would have 

not been part of an offence.

MR PRINSLOO:   It could have been an option yes, but at the 

moment he did that, he became part of that and this leader of the 

party would have become part of this.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Could it not be argued that he did not do it 

because he knew it was not the policy?

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, without referring to the policy 

again at length, this would go against everything because then he 

would involve and this would be a conspiracy, it would have been 

a conspiracy with the Conservative Party to commit an offence, 

and the party would land in jail.

	Now, he would do it on his own, without involving other 

people.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   That would have been the consequence of 

the policy then.

MR PRINSLOO:   I beg your pardon?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   That would have been the consequence of 

their policy if they would have landed in jail.

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, if that policy was declared, they 

would have landed in jail, without even having done something.  

If they have said openly that they would commit violence.

JUDGE WILSON:   You said his leader Mr Treurnicht, would 

have landed in jail with him?

MR PRINSLOO:   That is correct Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE:   But Mr Prinsloo, I mean you say that it 

would have been impossible for him to clear that with the leader, 

Mr Treurnicht, because of a possible arrest with Mr Derby-Lewis, 

but he had previously cleared with Mr Treurnicht, the issue of the 

anti-Chris, the killing of an anti-Christ?

MR PRINSLOO:   He cleared with respect Mr Chairman, the 

principle of killing it, he didn't say he will kill somebody.

MS KHAMPEPE:   And couldn't he have done the same with 

regard to the killing of a political leader?  Clearing the principle 

and not the actual deed?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect Mr Chairman, if you say you will 

kill a leader, then you are committing yourself to killing a leader 

who is in existence.

MS KHAMPEPE:   We are dealing here with an issue which was 

not crystal clear, the killing, assassination of leaders of political 

organisations, wasn't a policy which was as crystal clear to the 

CP and why shouldn't he have done that, why couldn't he have 

cleared that principle with Mr Treurnicht?

	He had a very close association with Mr Treurnicht, he also 

had a very close association with Mr Hartzenberg?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairman, as soon as the killing 

of a leader was mentioned, people would put two and two 

together and compromise this person.  Why would he ask that?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   I think at the end of the day your problem is 

there was, you are saying there was a political party, it didn't 

have the courage of accepting the policy which would put them 

into jail, however, you are now constraint to argue in some way, 

that there was in fact a policy.

	When those people themselves, perhaps for sensible reasons 

I don't know, whereas those people themselves, because they 

didn't want to go to jail, they didn't have such a policy, they 

didn't have the courage of coming out and declaring it, because 

they didn't want to jail, they might have gone to jail, you are 

right.

	But now you find yourself in a situation where by reason of 

the fact that those political leaders did not have the courage to 

openly admit violence as a method for fear of going to jail, now 

you are at a disadvantage now, you are constraint to argue in 

some way, that oh, no, there must have been such a policy.

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, with respect, I am not limited 

to that.  The National Party up till today, will not agree that they 

had such a policy, but the evidence is clear that there was a 

policy like that, because they kept the National Party in 

government.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   All I am saying is that they are putting the 

applicants to some extent, in a difficult position.  They are 

making it a little bit difficult.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, it is so, but it goes back a far 

way.  They could not have had a declared policy of violence, 

because they would have then been incarcerated.  The National 

Party would have liked it to incarcerate the Conservative Party if 

they supported violence.

MS KHAMPEPE:   But for purposes of the present application, 

it wouldn't have been so difficult for the leaders of the CP to 

have come before this Committee to disclose that there was such 

a policy?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairman, I don't know whether 

one of them would admit that.  I don't know whether they had a 

policy like that, who would come here and say I have committed 

an offence without having applied for amnesty?

	Should a leader have done that and based on the argument 

that he could do it, it would mean that a question would be put 

behind that party.  Now, they agree that they were busy with 

violence and now the history has developed and there is quite a 

different approach at the moment.

	At the moment it has to do with reconciliation, we are not 

concerned with what had happened in the past.  The party at the 

moment has the same objectives, but they want to follow a 

peaceful road.

MS KHAMPEPE:   Mr Hartzenberg was quite emphatic on this 

issue, he stated that violence could not be used at that stage by 

the CP to achieve any of their political objections, that was his 

evidence.  That is my problem.

MR PRINSLOO:   The problem Mr Chairman, is viewed in 

isolation.  While this interview was held and said are you against 

violence, naturally he had to say yes, we were against violence.

	We were against violence in its broadest sense, but violence 

for a specific purpose is a different question.  We could see it in 

relation why was it committed, what was the motive, what caused 

it, we should all see this as one.

	With respect, according to Dr Hartzenberg, it was seen as a 

full scale war.  How does one wage war without violence, that 

amazes me.

JUDGE WILSON:   You defend yourself against the attack.  

Hartzenberg stressed that the attitude of the party would be 

defensive, to defend itself against attack, to have the moral high 

ground.

MR PRINSLOO:   He did say so, that is correct.  But in terms of 

the background of the climate, it must be considered.

CHAIRPERSON:   In the background of the climate you talk 

about, there was a statement by Dr Treurnicht at Paardekraal was 

it, where he said that we must prepare for the next war, words to 

that effect?

MR PRINSLOO:   That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Now, that statement about we must prepare 

for another war, rested there because at no stage did the party 

say we have now declared war.  Have the party said that we have 

now declared war?

MR PRINSLOO:   Nobody said we have declared war Mr 

Chairman, with respect, there was a war in existence.

CHAIRPERSON:   So now why they said that we must now 

prepare for war, we must arm ourselves and so on, that doesn't 

mean that we have now declared war?  It means that we are 

preparing for a war?

	In that situation without a war being declared, an attempt is 

made, or rather assassination is made of a high profile political 

figure, without a war being declared.

	That assassination cannot then be said to be part of the 

policy because the policy is prepare for war, when we declare the 

war, then we will take control.  All right, the war was never 

declared.

	An assassination is carried out and quite clearly that 

happened without the CP declaring a war, albeit it at that time 

there was evidence of violence of various sides in the country and 

so on, but that violence in the country had been carrying on for 

some time.

	But at this crucial time of the killing of Chris Hani, the 

Nationalist Party had never taken the decision to in fact declare 

war, had it, the CP?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairperson, there was never any 

declaration of war, but a war did exist.  With respect, if one 

compares this to the period when the ANC and the SACP waged 

their war, there was no expressed declaration of war, but there 

was a struggle and a fight, and a struggle consists of two sides, 

one shoot the other, one plant bombs towards the other, one kill 

the other, but there was killing on both sides, but the perception 

existed that a war existed and furthermore tat during this time, 

there was a particular war.

	And that is what the witnesses said yesterday, they were 

called here independently and the testified that they perceived it 

as a war.  In those circumstances it was regarded as a war, and 

the circumstances which had to be prevented would be the 

takeover of the ANC and SACP while the National Party had lost 

its course.

	That is what they were prepared to do in order to prevent 

this.  That is the objective that the applicant held.

	Honourable Chairperson, as I have already stated, the 

target which was set, was Mr Chris Hani to bring that particular 

party to its knees, to take out the leadership so to speak, and 

then further problems or to combat further problems that existed.

	I would like to argue with respect that the applicant, as we 

have already referred to in our heads, falls within the category of 

Section 20(2)(a) and (2)(d).  With reference to the criteria, I 

have ...

ADV POTGIETER:   I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo, before you 

move on from that point.  Section 20(2)(d), which of the 

possibilities does your client support for his case?  Does he 

maintain that he was a member of the CP, and he acted within the 

ambit of his duties or that he acted within the ambit of his 

express or sworn capacity?

MR PRINSLOO:   I would like to explain it as follows.  The 

applicant had certain duties which were explicit, that was 

mobilisation and the resistance to the ANC and SACP.  The 

resistance to the takeover of the SACP and ANC, in terms of his 

capacity, it involved the methods which he would apply in order 

to carry out this resistance.

	These duties of mobilisation for resistance and stock piling 

of weapons, were issued and that was within his sworn capacity.  

But as far as it involves 20(2)(c) ...

ADV POTGIETER:   I understand 20(2)(a) is quite obvious to 

follow, I am more interested in 20(2)(d).  You are saying that his 

case is that as part of his duties in the mobilisation campaign, he 

launched this action, this assassination of Mr Hani.

MR PRINSLOO:   As I have said, the resistance which was 

announced by the CP to prevent that the ANC and SACP come 

into power, seen in the broader sense, all the speeches the 

negotiations of the CP leadership, these were all methods of 

prevention.

	It was part of his duty, his sworn capacity and duties. 

ADV POTGIETER:   So this was part of his duties within the CP 

as an office bearer, a senior office bearer?

MR PRINSLOO:   That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER:   And he also had a sworn capacity to carry 

this out?

MR PRINSLOO:   That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER:   According to what did he have that 

capacity?

MR PRINSLOO:   In terms of what was said by the CP, what 

they announced that they would go forward into resistance to 

prevent the ANC and SACP from coming into power.

ADV POTGIETER:   Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO:   Then I want to say with respect, he acted in a 

bona fide capacity.

	In so far as it affects Section 20(3) the motive is discussed 

in our heads and I have already referred to that.  I would like to 

argue with respect, that the context within which this offence was 

committed, it was committed during a time when a political 

struggle existed between the CP and the ANC and SACP alliance, 

and their allies.

CHAIRPERSON:   Where are you in your heads of argument, can 

you just tell me please?

MR PRINSLOO:   I was just going according to the Section now 

Mr Chairman.  I will just let my colleague find it in the meantime.

	Just a moment please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, quite all right.

MR PRINSLOO:   It appears on page 53 of the heads of 

argument.  It begins at paragraph 2 and proceeds to page 54, 

which refers to other aspects as well.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, thank you.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, the only other aspect which I 

would like to deal with, which is also referred to, is paragraph 

23(f), the relation between the action and the political objective, 

specifically the proportionality.  In terms of the evidence of the 

witnesses who maintained that the leaders had to be killed and 

what the consequences of such deeds would be. 

	With respect one must specifically consider the time, point 

in time when the action was taken and what the objective was.  

The objective was to prevent that there would be an ANC/SACP 

takeover, which was an eminent threat at that point.

	And that takeover which was a threat, must be weighed up 

in conjunction with the policy of the party that they were opposed 

to it, the feelings created amongst the followers, these two 

aspects must be balanced.  If there would be an ANC/SACP 

overthrow, it would be over, it would be like a death sentence, 

there was a great feeling of finality regarding that, within that 

context.

	Therefore within that context, to take out a leader would be 

an act of prevention and within the context of war, which they 

believed existed, to take out the leader would prevent that 

alliance from coming into power and prevent the disadvantages 

and the threat which existed for the CP as a party.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   I was wondering whether you are comparing 

correct situations because I thought when you speak of 

proportionality, you would compare the ultimate objective not 

with the assassination per se, as an event, but with what they told 

us in so many words, was what they wanted to achieve, namely to 

create chaos.

	To create a chaotic situation during which possibly 

thousands of innocent people would be killed during that 

confusion, because they said they wanted to create a confusion 

during which the Right Wing would take over.

	Now, I think maybe you should, when you speak of 

proportionality, you should compare the ultimate objective with 

the scenario that they wanted to bring about, the chaotic situation 

that they could have brought about, that they wanted to bring 

about.

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chair, I understand what you are 

referring to that chaos was the objective, and that various people 

would be killed in the process.

	That a racial war would occur and as I also understand it in 

this aspect, during that time period when this killing would take 

place, the Police and the Army would take over and they would 

recreate order, and that that takeover would be intercepted, that 

is how I understood it.

	What I would like to propose is that the objective which 

they held, in comparison to the actions that they took, as well as 

the consequences which it held, in conjunction with the idea that 

the Army and the Police would take over, and that the system 

would be reinstated, and that the parties and the leadership on the 

Right Wing, would be reconciled and take over, it would result in 

a greater level of reconciliation and cooperation between the 

Right Wing leadership, that would have been the objective as 

well.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Well, I thought I understood your evidence 

to be that a situation would in consequence develop, a situation 

of chaos, and the Police and the Army, there would be a situation 

when they would not be in control, and in that milieu, then the 

Right Wing would then grab power or something to that effect?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairperson, that is how the 

testimony devolved, but the leadership would also come together 

again, the Right Wing leaders and they would utilise the situation 

and reinstate order and prevent any further ANC/SACP takeover.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Well, if the Police and the Army came in and 

restored the order, that would have been prevailing before the 

assassination, what would they have benefitted then, what would 

the Right Wing have benefitted, except that people would just 

have been killed?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect Honourable Chairperson, if a 

leader would be taken out from the SACP, the objective was to 

make the party disintegrate.

	Mr Hani as a leader was seen as a successor to Mr Mandela, 

he was a strong leader who had a lot of supporters and to take 

him out, would create confusion and chaos.  It would have the 

same influence of blowing up the ballot boxes and bringing about 

chaos, in order to make people afraid of voting.

	It would create that kind of situation, it would bring the 

National Party to another type of insight, where they would 

realise that there were elements who did not want this process to 

take place, that certain things had to be reconsidered.

JUDGE WILSON:   Are you suggesting the Nationalist Party did 

not know that there were certain elements who did not want this 

to take place, weren't they told that time and again by the Right 

Wing?

MR PRINSLOO:   That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON:   Are you also suggesting that if the Police 

and the Army and the Right Wing took over, there would have 

been peace in our land?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairman ...

JUDGE WILSON:   Do you think Mr Derby-Lewis could have 

believed that?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairman, what he believed under 

the circumstances was that it should be prevented that the ANC 

and SACP take over and that is why those methods had to be 

used.

	Whether or not there would have been peace, is a matter of 

speculation.

ADV POTGIETER:   Mr Prinsloo, I think that is exactly the 

problem which is emerging here.  All these situations and 

scenario's which you have sketched, are supposition, very loose 

suppositions, and let us assume that after Mr Hani was murdered, 

and that this chaos had ensued, or that the chaos had not ensued.

MR PRINSLOO:   Well, then another decision would have to be 

taken regarding further steps.

ADV POTGIETER:   Was there any contingency plan which was 

suggested?  

MR PRINSLOO:   If I understand the evidence correctly, the 

applicant would have consulted certain actions within his party 

but that went wrong, because Walus was arrested.

ADV POTGIETER:   The question was it not a very reckless 

form of behaviour to unleash something so loosely, something 

which could so easily move out of control, without any definite 

structures?

	Was that not out of proportion?

MR PRINSLOO:   If one considers that even members of the 

Police have planned to kill Mr Hani in the past, that this surely 

must have exercised some kind of influence that it would have 

some kind of consequence to take out such a leader.

	To take out a leader, would definitely have the consequence 

of disbanding the party, so regrouping would be necessary and 

reorganisation would be necessary, and such an action would 

definitely have had this sort of effect.

CHAIRPERSON:   May I just ask you, are you telling me that I 

must accept that an acute, trained, experienced politician, 

seriously believed that the killing of Chris Hani was going to 

cause chaos in the country?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, that is what he believed.  That 

is what he maintains in his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON:   I understand that that is the evidence, I 

understand that that is the case you are making out, but isn't it 

more likely that the chaos was not going to be caused by the 

single death of one man, but the plan went very much further, that 

to cause chaos effective chaos, to enable the CP and others to 

take control, would mean eliminating a whole group of leaders 

and only then would there be chaos?

	As things stand, if he believed that the killing of Chris Hani 

itself would cause such chaos, then quite clearly he has 

miscalculated the position terribly, isn't it?

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairperson, with respect, during 

the 1976 unrest, by shooting one single student by the name of 

Petersen, total chaos was unleashed in Soweto.

CHAIRPERSON:   I can understand something happening in 

Soweto at this time, I am not talking about an experienced 

parliamentarian, a politician of considerable experience.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, by killing someone like Mr 

Hani, with respect it would have then - one could have assumed 

that this would have taken place.

CHAIRPERSON:   Are you really saying that he genuinely 

believed that the killing of Hani would produce the necessary 

chaos in the country?

MR PRINSLOO:   Subjectively he believed it, and with respect, 

according to the circumstances, that belief was bona fide.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   I suppose you could say particularly if the 

murderer had not been apprehended, I suppose you could argue 

that there could very well have been serious consequences?  I am 

trying to help you, I am not against you.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, I appreciate that, but one must 

consider both sides of the circumstances.  If the murderer had not 

been caught, what would the people have said, our leader has 

been killed, it is the National Party who are in power, who did 

this, they are allowing it, that is what Mr Mandela said at one 

point.

	He said that the National Party had criminalised the 

deceased, Mr Hani, that they had marked him as a target.  If one 

considers that, then that argument of yours could be extremely 

valid.

CHAIRPERSON:   We will take a short adjournment at this 

stage.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR PRINSLOO:   On behalf of and in support of such an 

organisation, to support a political struggle in a bona fide way, 

which is waged against the State.  Here is referred to a political 

struggle, not a policy and there was a political struggle between 

the CP and the SACP and the applicant's evidence is that he 

committed this act to promote that political struggle, which 

existed.

	By eliminating a leader of a party, it could be interpreted to 

be to the benefit of that party, the CP because the opponent's 

leader was eliminated, it is to their detriment.

	This would then promote this political struggle, or had this 

purpose in mind apart from a policy, but it depends on the nature 

of the political struggle.

	With respect the political struggle which existed, was of the 

nature that the SACP/ANC would not give in.  They wanted to 

take over, there were threats of violence.  There were even 

threats in the past, that leaders of the Conservative Party would 

be eliminated and other things.

ADV POTGIETER:   In other words, you can't have a non-

violent political struggle by means of violence, that is the point.  

The nature of that political struggle, that is the importance of the 

policy of the Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect Mr Chairman, there was a 

political struggle and that struggle, violence was part of that 

struggle in that milieu.

ADV POTGIETER:   That is a different point.  I wanted to draw 

your attention to the nature of the political struggle.

MR PRINSLOO:   The rest I have already submitted to the 

Honourable Committee, what the struggle was, and what the 

objectives of the party were.

CHAIRPERSON:   Do carry on.

JUDGE WILSON:   Sorry, do you say that the application is 

under 20(2)(a)?

MR PRINSLOO:   Correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON:   So (f) does not apply?

ADV PRINSLOO:   Yes, (f) does apply as well Mr Chairman, 

because it covers 22(a) and (d).

JUDGE WILSON:   My copy of the Act which I was given, was 

told was completely up to date says any person referred to in 

paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) ...

MR PRINSLOO:   (a), (b), (c) and (d), according to mine, Mr 

Chairman.  I don't know, mine might be a wrong one.

CHAIRPERSON:   We will clear that up, do carry on.

MR PRINSLOO:   Thank you.  Mr Chairman, the other aspect is 

about full disclosure, and here I am referring to various 

witnesses.  The applicant and others, but specifically I want to 

refer to later witnesses.

	Mrs Venter was called here, and with respect I want to 

argue that Mrs Venter was a very good witness.

	Her evidence was clear that on the 10th of March, that 

firearm had been taken out of her house to Mr Derby-Lewis, and 

she moved into the house at the beginning of March.  On the 10th 

of April, she saw Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis. 

	Mrs Derby-Lewis' evidence regarding her products, the 

Sportron products is indisputable and she did not remember a 

previous statement she made, and she gave a very good 

explanation of what happened.

	As you can see from her evidence, I could not see it myself, 

 you asked whether she had signed and it was taken away, she 

supported this evidence and she was a very good witness and she 

supported Mrs Derby-Lewis' evidence.

	Mr du Randt with respect, I wanted to argue he is not an 

intelligent person you expected.  The documentary facts supports 

his evidence that there was an election for a Mayor, that was also 

his election in the Supreme Court.

	On that day, and according to the programme it took place 

on the 10th of March 1993, and a jersey would have been 

delivered and with respect, I want to say under the circumstances, 

it cannot be said that Mr du Randt was part of a conspiracy.  He 

or Mrs du Randt regarding this aspect.

	A jersey was delivered, in his innocence he came here and 

he gave evidence here, he gave evidence in the Supreme Court, he 

was not regarded as a co-conspirator.

	The same applies to Mrs Venter.  She did not testify in the 

Supreme Court case, but it is clear from her statement provided 

to the State, that they had to accept with respect, that the 

evidence of her husband, Mr Faan Venter is supported by hers.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Sorry, I don't want to hold you up unduly, 

but with regard to Mr du Randt, what is his  evidence?  Was the 

weapon handed over to Mr Derby-Lewis before his daughter's 

birthday or after or is it just a confused aspect in his evidence?

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, it is very clear if you look at 

this evidence in the Supreme Court, that he was led, he was led 

by Mr Von Lieres, he also gave this evidence here, and in that he 

said the witness is not sure, he was referred to the 25th of 

February, then he referred to the election of the Mayor, that is a 

fixed date.

	That date is fixed and that is also ...

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Except that he was not even consistent here 

before us, he would go backwards and forwards on that point.

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, he had a problem with this, but 

he was led, it should be taken into consideration, he was led by 

the fact that this election took place on the 10th of March and 

therefore he was convinced.

	Mrs du Randt, in her evidence under cross-examination she 

agreed that she could have made a mistake regarding the date, she 

conceded to that.  And furthermore the programme of the 

President's Council as presented by Mr Derby-Lewis, shows that 

he was not here then, but in Cape Town and that evidence is 

supported by Mr du Randt's testimony.

	With respect I want to say under these circumstances, the 

only thing which is a fixed date, is the 10th of March.  Mrs 

Venter furthermore says that according to her husband, Mr 

Derby-Lewis asked this weapon for stock piling.

MS KHAMPEPE:   Mr Prinsloo, Mrs du Randt was cocksure that 

the parcel was delivered at Mr Derby-Lewis' house before her 

daughter's birthday.

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, under cross-examination she 

conceded after I indicated to her that Mr Derby-Lewis was not 

here at that time, and she conceded that she could have made a 

mistake.

	Taken into consideration the fact that the du Randts have 

apparently according to their evidence, regularly on a Thursday, 

visited their daughter in Pretoria.

	And then if you look at Mr du Randt's statement to the 

Police, he said that he made this statement under difficult 

circumstances.  The policeman first wrote the date as the 31st of 

March, then they changed it.

	With respect Mr Chairman, this Committee fortunately has 

the advantage of fixed dates where it could indicate to a specific 

event, this could be seen from the programme and also as being 

said by Mrs Venter.

	She is a very intelligent witness and not at all - and she 

gave clear evidence regardless in depth cross-examination by Mr 

Bizos.

	Chairperson, then we had the evidence of Captain de Waal 

regarding the statements of Mrs Derby-Lewis.  Captain de Waal 

says he warned the witness according to Judge's Rules.  If you 

look at the evidence that Colonel Van Niekerk told the witness, 

you are going to stay here until you speak, and he is a Captain, he 

came here, and he said that he did not warn her according to 

Judge's Rules, because it is not clear from her statement, I am not 

a witness, but during my whole career, I have never seen that a 

suspect makes a statement in detention, Section 29 detention, and 

I can understand if she was taken to another Officer, that she had 

to be warned according to Judge's Rules, and then make her 

statement.

	But here Mrs Derby-Lewis gave evidence that the statement 

was made and that she would be used as a witness.  This is 

supported by the fact that this was the purpose of Captain de 

Waal.

	Captain de Waal's evidence was unacceptable when he said 

that Colonel Van Niekerk told him that a team, apart from the 

Security Police, would blindly question a person without knowing 

anything about the matters of that case, things which he already 

told Deetliefs.

	Taking into consideration that she had mentioned certain 

things to Deetliefs, which is available on video tapes, you can 

have a look at that, and then he also said that she wrote a 

statement in her own handwriting, and then she is told that what 

you have just said now, according to information, is not true.

	Your husband said something else.  If you have a look at 

that and you look at her handwritten statement, volume R4, just 

one minute please, specifically regarding the firearm and the list 

Mr Kemp provided, if you look at the statement of Captain de 

Waal in Exhibit AC page 2 where he says at the bottom regarding 

things which are unclear and there are things which do not 

coincide with her husband's statement.  In other words he knew 

what Deetliefs had said and he said he did not know.  

	Furthermore he said she stated that her husband never 

indicated a firearm, while her husband during questioning did 

indicate a firearm.  She went further, saying that she now 

remembered.

	If we look at the statement, her handwritten statement, 

paragraph 66 on page 158 of the typed version, it's page 159, 

paragraph 72:

		"then that Cuba had possibly done the deed and Clive 

and I later confirmed that Cuba had used the gun 

which Clive showed me one day in the house (with a 

silencer).  Clive and I then left.  We were both of 

course shocked at the news and then we went 

shopping"

If you look at the handwritten document at page 66, paragraph 

72, you will see where it all fits in.  Not on the bottom part of the 

page, two thirds down the page.  There it's written: 

		"It was obvious to me"

that's what is written there.  It's very clear that she had written 

something else, where's that page?  There's more written on this 

page, it's evident here that she had written more on this page.  It 

is very clear that she had to re-write this and had to fit this into 

this page. 

	If you look at the time when he questioned her on the 26th 

of April she had already completed her statement to fit it into 

this.  If you have a look at the list - the argument regarding the 

list, when he said that Mrs - it's paragraph 72 and not 66, I made 

a mistake.

JUDGE WILSON:   What page?

MR PRINSLOO:   I think it's 186, it's not very clear on my page 

as it's marked.  

JUDGE WILSON:   ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO:   Paragraph 72 Mr Chairman, that's correct.  

Thank you Mr Justice Wilson.

	If you look at the time when these things were said on the 

26th of April according to Captain de Waal, if you look at what 

he said about the list which is referred to just previously and 

which was obtained from Arthur Kemp, where she asked him:

		"Was Arthus Kemp taken into custody?"

It's a continuation of these pages, and you will see that Arthur 

Kemp, on the 21st of April already made his statement and there 

he conceded that he had provided a list, compiled a list and 

provided it to Mrs Derby-Lewis.  This was a known fact to 

Captain de Waal at that stage because he himself said he arrested 

him, at least he arrested Kemp.  Now to come and say that he 

then first wanted to establish certain facts, does not make any 

sense.

	From paragraph 66 in that same statement you see the part, 

the handwritten part regarding Kemp matter and furthermore 

reference is also made to Kemp in the other paragraphs.  Mrs 

Derby-Lewis testifies that Captain de Waal told her what to say.  

If you take this fact into consideration, that none of these 

statements made according to Section 29 formed part of the trial, 

was never presented, on the contrary at that stage it was not a 

legal requirement in any case that statements and a dossier be 

made available.

	At that time when Mrs Derby-Lewis was in custody she kept 

notes and after she was released according to Section 29, she 

specifically said what her experiences were in custody in terms of 

Section 29.  Exhibit 1A was what she wrote and furthermore she 

also wrote an article which appeared in the document: "Ons eie". 

  In Exhibit A1 she said that she wrote hundreds of pages.

CHAIRPERSON:   Is it Exhibit 1A or Exhibit A1?

MR PRINSLOO:   Y1 Mr Chairman, it starts at Y1.

CHAIRPERSON:   Y1?

MR PRINSLOO:   That's correct Mr Chairman.  It appears at page 

7 of Exhibit Y Mr Chairman, at the bottom of the page.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, carry on.

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chairman, it's not clear according 

to Captain de Waal why she's written contradictory statements.  

Now the Committee has the problem of what was said and what 

was not said.  The other problem is, with respect, that you should 

look at what the value is of these statements taken under these 

circumstances.  With respect, the value of these statements is to 

cause confusion and because of that reason these cannot be used 

to evaluate Mr Derby-Lewis, the applicant.

	It's also clear where the insertions were made 

...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON:   ...[inaudible] on which we mustn't consider 

these statements was because some of what is in that statement, 

she claims was what she was told to say by Mr de Waal, is that 

the reason?

MR PRINSLOO:   That's the one reason Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Are there any other reasons?

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, she said that she was forced, she 

was under Section 29 and she did not want to make a statement.  

If you look at the video recordings, it is clear that she did not act 

voluntarily without legal assistance.  And also, in here detention 

file it is indicated that she was ill at a certain time while de Waal 

said she was fine.  She had heart problems, she received 

medication.  What then with respect, is the value of a statement 

made under these circumstances and ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON:   Mr de Waal said he himself made 

arrangements to take her to be seen by her own doctor, that's 

hardly saying she was fine is it?

MR PRINSLOO:   That's correct Mr Chairman.  Just a moment 

please.  If you take into consideration that Mrs Derby-Lewis, 

initially during her incarceration while she was questioned by 

Deetliefs before she was under Section 29 but she did not have 

legal representation, under each question she said:

		"No answer, no comment."

after that she was under Section 29 and van Niekerk said:

		"She had to talk."

	Mr Chairman, then I want to submit that these statements of 

hers do not have any value for the Committee to use it against the 

applicant because they were taken under those circumstances.  

With respect Mr Chairman, this Committee is aware of what 

Section 29 entailed.  Today there is evidence of how people were 

handled to get the necessary information.  Today it's not a law 

anymore and today it could even be claimed to be 

unconstitutional.  

	There was an instance, I don't have the Judgment, where in 

a Civil Case they wanted to present a statement in a case of a 

witness being held under Section 29 and it was argued that that 

Section was unconstitutional and it could not be relied on because 

of that.  This also makes sense in this regard.

	Mr Chairman, if you look at the statement taken or made by 

Mr Derby-Lewis and under the circumstances - firstly on the 

video recording, I think it's video recording number 3, it is 

clearly indicated how Mr Derby-Lewis begged Mr Deetliefs that 

he needed a legal representative and he said he could not make a 

statement under those circumstances.  You could see on that 

video recording, it speaks for itself how he acted under those 

circumstances and Mr Derby-Lewis afterwards, how he was 

broken down and then he made a statement.  

	What is the value then of a statement made under those 

circumstances and furthermore where he is told:

		"We are going to lock up your wife."

He said he was protecting his wife and that was just natural, 

while he knew that that list which was used was a list presented 

to his wife by Arthur Kemp.  That was a list from him to her and 

that had a certain connection with his wife.  With respect, it was 

just a natural thing to protect his wife.

	In his evidence he told us how he obtained the list.  He said 

he saw the list in Cape Town, he described the circumstances.  

Doctor Hartzenberg supports the fact that documents were placed 

on his desk by Mrs Derby-Lewis, he supports her evidence.  There 

is no reason why Doctor Hartzenberg would tell a lie about 

something like that.

	And shortly Mr Chairman without using anymore of your 

time, these statements have little if no value at all, these 

statements which were taken under Section 29.  And the 

Committee should rely on the evidence provided by Mrs Derby-

Lewis in this regard. 

	Mr Chairman, the evidence regarding the list.  We 

understand from the family that it is alleged that there was a big 

conspiracy, that apart from these two applicants it's also alleged 

that Mrs Derby-Lewis - and also regarding the way in which the 

firearm was obtained - I've already referred to du Randt and Mrs 

Venter, Mr Venter's evidence was that Mr Derby-Lewis asked for 

a weapon for stockpiling. 

	With respect, under the circumstances there is no evidence 

to the contrary and why would he tell Mr Venter that he was 

going to murder somebody with that weapon and then broaden a 

conspiracy which would have been unprofessional to do, to 

commit such a deed.  

	The same applies for Mr du Randt.  And it seems from his 

statement made to the police, that he is innocent.  Mr Derby-

Lewis could not tell him anything, he was in custody.  He could 

not tell Venter because he was in custody.  Mr Venter acted on 

his own behalf.  

	Regarding Mr Kemp, during the trial and receiving further 

particulars the State said that Mr Kemp was not a co-conspirator. 

 In the Court Judge Eloff also treated him likewise.  Mr 

Chairman, this list with 19 names was faxed to Mr Kemp from 

Mrs Derby-Lewis, it was an open fax line.  At that time, and it's 

no secret, telephones were tapped and faxes were intercepted so 

somebody would have been stupid, if it was a secret, to convey it 

in such a manner.

	She leaves those 19 names on her computer and the police 

had access to that computer.  She knew then that on the 12th of 

April that list would become involved and that would be damning 

evidence.  If she - why would she then leave that list on the 

computer, Mr Walus had already been arrested and there was a lot 

of fuss in the media?

	Honourable Chairman, Mrs Derby-Lewis was found innocent 

during the trial, why would she now here, she has no reason now 

to come and say: "I was not a co-conspirator", there's nothing for 

her to lose.  If she comes here and says she was a co-conspirator 

she could have made an amnesty application, she knew her 

husband was applying for amnesty for perjury or anything like 

that.  She does not apply for amnesty because she believes she 

was not a co-conspirator.  

	If you look at these statements written by the police, they 

want to involve her, those parts which were put in.   And in the 

end it looks as if for the police that later on she could have heard 

about these things but she did not know it in the planning stages 

while planning an assassination.

	With respect Mr Chairman, Arthur Kemp was the author of 

this list, he is the person who decided about this list.  That was 

his evidence in the Supreme Court,  he compiled this list, she had 

no control over that.  And right from the beginning she said she 

required that list in order to obtain information to write certain 

things in the Patriot and a lot has been said about that.

	With respect, look at the list itself.  Should it be a murder 

list one would have expected that there would have been full 

particulars.  For example regarding Mr Chris Hani, all you find 

there is an address that says nothing, it's insignificant.  It can't be 

regarded as a murder list.  ...[intervention]

ADV POTGIETER:   Why are there ...[No English translation]

MR PRINSLOO:   I will refer to the indications made next to the 

other names.  Mr Chairman, apart from these two people, Mr 

Mandela and the late Mr Joe Slovo, the other person - the only 

person where there - these are the only persons where there were 

descriptions of their houses.

	In the newspapers Mr Mandela's house was described.  This 

was the same information contained on this list and the same is 

applicable to Mr Joe Slovo.  On itself this was a public fact or 

public knowledge.  If you take into consideration the wider public 

which read various newspapers, they knew the descriptions of 

those houses because we found it in the newspapers.  He obtained 

that information from a newspaper.  That was also according to 

his statement.

	With respect, those descriptions regarding certain security 

measures or not cannot be ascribed to the applicants.  This was 

absolutely Mr Kemp's decision and here is no suggestion that Mr 

Kemp under the circumstances, was a co-conspirator or anyhow 

involved in committing this crime.

	As far as it concerns Mr Kemp, we've tried to get him here 

and we've already placed it on record but it was out of our 

control.  Should you deem it necessary we have to make another 

plan.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   You have argued that - you have made certain 

submissions in relation to statements by Mrs Derby-Lewis but you 

do appreciate that should we accept some of the things she says 

in her statement it could very well mean that she was aware of the 

plan and that in turn would mean that the applicants did not tell 

this to us.

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, Judge Ngoepe, do you mean 

after the time or before the time?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Excuse me?

MR PRINSLOO:   That she knew beforehand or afterwards?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Before.

MR PRINSLOO:   Before the time?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Some of the things she says in her statement 

indicates she had foreknowledge.

MR PRINSLOO:   That a plan was being made that there would 

be an assassination?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Yes.

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, her evidence is that it was not 

like that.  The applicants said it was not so.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   I'm saying that what stands in some of the 

things which she says in her statement.  She says she had 

knowledge of that before.

MR PRINSLOO:   In her evidence she denied that she any 

knowledge but with respect, this refers to my argument 

...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Yes, yes, I appreciate that, that's why I put it 

on the hypothetical basis, that assuming we accept, 

notwithstanding your submissions, if we were to accept that she 

did say what stands in her statements, some of the things would 

indicate that she had foreknowledge.  And the implications 

thereof would be that the applicants did not make a full 

disclosure.

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman with respect, according to the 

statements, if I understand you correctly, that she had 

foreknowledge of this and not that she was a co-conspirator, that 

she had foreknowledge about this, yes.

Mr Chairman, in which aspect would ...[indistinct] did she get 

this information with them knowing or without them knowing, 

that would be a different factor.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   With their knowledge.

MR PRINSLOO:   With their knowledge, for example when she 

said:

		"They did not show me the weapon"

while the statement said:

		"They did show me the weapon"

is that what you mean?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   No, I think, if you look at R2 or look at the 

typed version - I don't know, I hope it's correct, R4 page 252 for 

example.  Yes, R4 page 252, the typed version ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON:   The last sentence in paragraph 44.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Can you also see where she says:

		"Clive and Cuba decided on Chris Hani to be 

eliminated because of his particular brutal record" 

and so on and so forth and then she goes down to say that:

		"This does not mean to say that discussions between 

the two of them were not going on.  Clive told me 

sometime in March that he and Cuba had decided 

upon Chris Hani as the person to be eliminated"

You see, that indicates foreknowledge.

MR PRINSLOO:   Yes, it indicates that they had told her that 

there was a plan.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   If we were to accept that that is in fact what 

she said, it would mean that the applicants did not make a full 

disclosure.

MR PRINSLOO:   In this aspect it would be so.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   With regard to Mrs Derby-Lewis' knowledge 

to the whole thing?

MR PRINSLOO:   That would be correct if it would be accepted 

like that.  I want to refer you Mr Chairman, to this part:

		"Clive and Cuba decided on Chris Hani to be 

eliminated because of his particularly brutal record 

and his position as Chairman of the SA Communist 

Party, which they believed never should have been 

unbanned".

	We have the problem now, did she say that?  Did she know 

that before the time or afterwards?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Well that argument with not apply in respect 

to the last portion I read to you, it will not hold.

MR PRINSLOO:   This is the problem we have with this 

statement, these parts which have been inserted.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   No, well, I don't know what you mean but 

what I'm saying to you is that the point that you are trying to 

raise will definitely assist you with regard to the last portion I 

read:

		"Clive told me some time in March that he and Cuba 

had decided upon Chris Hani as the person to be 

eliminated"

MR PRINSLOO:   Yes, that part is so.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   That one stands firm.

MR PRINSLOO:   Yes, that is so on that basis.

	Just one moment please.  With respect, I want to argue that 

Arthur, there's no indication that he is a co-conspirator and the 

aspect I've referred to regarding Mr Derby-Lewis, I've already 

referred to in my argument regarding her statements.

	Then to come back to Mr Derby-Lewis himself.  With 

respect, I want to argue that if you look at the facts which are 

fixed in this matter, there was for example, a plan to eliminate Mr 

Hani.  A decision was made, a firearm was obtained, a firearm 

was used for this purpose by Mr Walus.  Mr Walus executed this 

with Mr Derby-Lewis' approval and knowledge and on instruction 

from him for the purpose as indicated.  

	There was no discussion at all of how the weapon was 

obtained, how it was given to Mr Walus.  It is supported by the 

evidence in the Supreme Court as well, that the person who 

worked in the house saw this.  We should look at the fixed facts 

of this case, taking into consideration that Mr Derby-Lewis was 

interrogated or cross-examined for days by Mr Bizos.

	I argue that he made a full disclosure in as far as his 

involvement and the reason why he committed this.  His whole 

activities or actions refer to this.  

	A further aspect is that it should be into consideration that 

Mr Derby-Lewis was initially responsible for his application and 

he had very little real representation.  As statements are made it 

could be inaccurate.  And he was politician who compiled this 

when he made this application.

CHAIRPERSON:   I don't regard the fact that he was a politician 

in any way as a handicap, do you?

MR PRINSLOO:   Mr Chairman, they have a tendency to write a 

lot and to talk a lot.  I'm saying it with respect, I don't mean 

anything strange.

	Then I want to refer to when this conspiracy developed.  

Evidence was given by Mrs Beyers who said that she and saw Mr 

Walus in July 1992, he was sitting outside Mr Mandela's house.  

Mr Chairman, if Mrs Beyers' evidence was to be accepted as 

correct then this murder list is not necessary because Mr Walus in 

1992 already knew where he was living, it was not necessary for a 

murder list.   

	If Mrs Derby-Lewis was to be involved, if she knew about 

the conspiracy that then she had to put Doctor Mandela's name on 

that list.  That was unnecessary if that evidence is accepted as 

true.  Mrs Beyers with respect, if you look at her evidence and 

look at what she said, she say can't say in which newspaper she 

saw Mr Walus, from which point this - from which angle this 

photograph was taken, the time frame when it happened, why she 

did not go to the police with this information and under which 

circumstances she went to the police with this, except that she 

remembered that she conveyed it to Mr Mandela during a 

function.  	With respect Mr Chairman, if there was a bakkie like 

that, she made a wrong identification.

	If the Committee would accept this then it would support 

the versions of the applicants, that they did not have the murder 

list.  And then it would also support Mrs Derby-Lewis' version, if 

she had already known where Doctor Mandela was living and 

further details.

	Honourable Chairperson, while I am dealing with Mr Derby-

Lewis, there is also the testimony of the Mr Clark which cause 

quite a stir, which suggested that there was a plan that they 

would pay the defence Mr Derby-Lewis.  With respect, those 

allegations cannot be true and any possibility that it could be 

true.  With regard to this I would like to contend that he was a 

very open witness who was cross-examined by Mr Bizos 

...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Just hold it there.  When you describe him in 

the way that you are describing him, I'm not necessarily saying 

that there is evidence or there is no evidence of wider conspiracy 

but when you begin to describe to Mr Clark that way as a witness, 

I think I would have some problem because you see I think Mr 

Clark did not make any attempt to hide the fact the he was not 

impartial, he was not to be impartial in this case.  

	He has demonstrated that and he indicated that he would 

not be coming here before us - if we wanted him, to he would 

only do at the instance of the applicants and I'm not so sure how 

helpful that kind of evidence is.  And another thing is, well, as 

I've said to you it indicates some partiality of sorts, some 

partiality.  It could indicate some partiality.

	And anther thing is, it's all very well for a witness to come 

and say: "Well these proceedings are part of a circus and the like, 

it is his right to say so.   But when I have to come to a point 

where I must consider the credibility of such a witness, I have got 

to ask myself whether a witness who adopts that kind of attitude 

in giving evidence could be prompted, let alone feeling obliged in 

telling the truth and being honest.

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chair with respect, as far as his 

attitude is concerned, whether or not he wanted to testify and his 

reasons for not appearing, that would involve his attitude.  But 

respect, regarding his factual evidence I would like to argue that 

his factual evidence in indisputable and Mr Bizos with respect, 

cross-examined him thoroughly and there is no aspect in his 

evidence which would indicate partiality.  He said that there were 

even possibility for negotiation.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   On this aspect of impartiality or partiality, 

are you saying that he was the kind of witness who would have 

been prepared to say or concede anything even if that thing would 

have been prejudicial to the applicant's case?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, he said very plainly that he had 

information on his computer which did not belong there, as an 

example ...[indistinct]

JUDGE NGOEPE:   So you are saying he is the kind of witness 

who would have been - who was so impartial that he would have 

been in a position to say or concede anything even if that thing 

would have been prejudicial to the applicant's case?  Can he be 

described to be that kind of witness?

MR PRINSLOO:   I would argue that it would be so and that it 

did appear so.  I regarded him as a very good witness.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Did he regard these proceedings as a serious 

exercise or as a platform where you could just come and say what 

you want to say?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect Honourable Chair, he appeared to 

be a person who had certain complaints or reservations.  There 

are people in the media who have the same type of complaints but 

nonetheless he appeared here and testified open-heartedly without 

knowing what they would ask him, apart from the Visser issue. 

	And Mr Bizos' cross-examination went much further than 

that.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   But ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON:   He's the first witness that I can recollect, 

who arrived here on his own with documents he wanted to hand 

in, with prepared speeches he wanted to make, isn't it?

MR PRINSLOO:   That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON:   That's not surprising because he had been 

consulted with and he was asked and he had agreed to comply 

with the requests of applicant's counsel.  He had prepared himself 

to come and give that evidence.

MR PRINSLOO:   If he - during the trial at Pretoria he knew that 

he would be called in, it's generally known and at no stage did we 

have any reason to consult him and he was not consulted with.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   He might have told the truth at the end of the 

day but would it be unreasonable of a trier of facts in determining 

his credibility to take into account the points that I have 

mentioned to you?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect Honourable Chair, the same 

decision can be delivered regarding Mr Kronen.  He testified for 

the Communist party.  Not once did Mrs Beyers ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE:   The points that I mentioned to you had 

nothing to do with the documents.  I told you that his attitude, he 

has a certain perception about these proceedings and I said 

specifically to you that: under those circumstances, one should 

ask oneself the questions: "This kind of witness, could he have 

felt prompted or obliged to tell the truth and be open and frank to 

what he says is part of a circus".  No witness is tainted with that 

kind of question mark.

MR PRINSLOO:   Honourable Chair with respect, with such an 

attitude he could not have arrived here with the purpose to place 

the applicants at an advantage.  If he had come forward with that 

purpose in mind, he would not have adopted that attitude and he 

would have then have been partial in his evidence.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   My question pertinently to you was, do you 

think it as unreasonable for a trier of facts in determining the 

credibility of such a witness, to take those things into account, 

would you or would you not?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, it should not be viewed in 

isolation but be seen in terms of his testimony as an entirety and 

then be judged but one should not look at singular aspects.   I 

would like to maintain that his entire testimony should be 

weighed up.

CHAIRPERSON:   Well, it became quite clear that he had very 

strong views on his political beliefs.  He had strong views of the 

Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  He did not think it 

necessary to hide or conceal his views about that.  He felt very, 

very strongly in favour of Mr Derby-Lewis and Mrs Derby-Lewis 

and his commitment to the cause of Mr Derby-Lewis became quite 

clear in his evidence.  

	What is being asked by my learned friend here, my brother 

here, is that quite clearly, can this witness be described as 

impartial?

MR PRINSLOO:   With respect, in terms of his evidence there is 

nothing which indicates to the contradictory, that he was partial.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on.

MR PRINSLOO:   ...[No English translation] apart from the fact 

that funds would be applied for the defence of Mr Derby-Lewis.  

When were the Freedom Front and the Volksfront established, 

when was the money stolen.  Look at the facts surrounding the 

issue.  

	There's nothing in his testimony which indicates facts which 

can be used in this relation and I am surprised that he was needed 

as a witness.  His testimony was anything but satisfactory and it 

contributed absolutely nothing to the case.  Just a moment please. 

	Honourable Chairperson, another aspect which should be 

studied closely is the time period when this deed was committed.  

I would like to argue that this deed was committed at a time when 

there was definite conflict and a struggle between various groups 

and parties and it cannot be argued that peace prevailed.  

	I would like argue with respect, that no possibility existed 

other than to accept as a fact that there would be a takeover by

the ANC/SACP Alliance at that point and that under those 

circumstances it would have been beneficial for the party to which 

Mr Derby-Lewis belonged.  And under the circumstances, Mr 

Derby-Lewis fulfilled all the requirements regarding this Act and 

if amnesty would be granted to Mr Derby-Lewis, reconciliation 

would be further promoted in this country.  

	I would argue with respect, there is nothing which Mr 

Derby-Lewis at this point, which indicates that he would not 

promote reconciliation, he is no longer involved in politics.  At 

this point in this country the CP is promoted to negotiations.  

And at this point with respect, no violence is being committed by 

members of the CP.

	And in that respect, with respect Mr Chairperson, especially 

where various people particularly white males in this country are 

feeling neglected yet they are well treated otherwise to take a 

place in society, that is the endeavour of Mr Derby-Lewis.  There 

is no violence on his behalf, no violence in mind.  

	And I argue with respect, that amnesty be granted to him 

and that this will help to promote and establish reconciliation 

within this country.

CHAIRPERSON:   Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON:   Can I let you have the 1995 amendment to the 

Act, Section 9.  I don't know if there has been a subsequent 

amendment ...[no sound]

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes Mrs van der Walt?  Yes Mrs van der Walt?

MRS VAN DER WALT IN ARGUMENT:   Thank you 

Chairperson.  I will attempt not to repeat what Mr Prinsloo has 

stated.  There are certain aspects which I wish to highlight in my 

argument.  Firstly it is the applicant who in terms of Section 

19(1) provided further details with regard to the question 9(a)1 

which is read together with question IV.   

	The applicant was honest towards the Committee by saying 

that he compiled his application with the assistance of Mr Clive 

Derby-Lewis and that also in paragraph 11(b) he did not state 

that he had received an order.  

	I would like to put it to the Honourable Committee that the 

Committee should accept his testimony in that regard, that he 

indeed did attempt to make the burden or the issue lighter for Mr 

Clive Derby-Lewis.

ADV POTGIETER:   Was he not aware of the danger?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Yes, he was aware of the danger, but 

only after he had been consulted.

ADV POTGIETER:  ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER:   The speaker's microphone is not on.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   ...[inaudible]

ADV POTGIETER:   Didn't he know that he should submit the 

entire truth to the Commission with his application?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Yes, he did know that he must make a 

full disclosure but as he has stated, in his testimony he attempted 

- he did make a full disclosure but when he had to speak of the 

order he didn't specifically mention it.

ADV POTGIETER:   So, in other words he told a lie in his initial 

application?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Not, a lie as such but he did not 

express it as strongly I would like to argue.  But on the 30th of 

November 1996, he did indeed say that he received an order and 

they had planned it together but that he himself had acted alone in 

committing the deed.

	Then my heads proceed ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE:   I beg your pardon Madam, did he do this in 

writing?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Yes.  The amendment?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Yes.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Where does that appear?

MR PRINSLOO:   I will just find it for you.  

JUDGE WILSON:   Page 10 of bundle A I think:

		"I have been advised I did not provide sufficient 

particulars with regard to paragraph 9(a)1.  In 

addition to my application the following particulars 

are provided"

Is that what you're referring to?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Correct.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Then I would like to deal with Section 

22(a) which I would present to the Committee.  This is the 

section which reads that the offence for which the applicant is 

applying should be a deed which is related a political objective.  

	I would like to present to the Honourable Committee that 

the applicant was a member of the Conservative Party.  It is 

argued that after the deed the Conservative Party apparently said 

in the media that he was not a member of the Conservative Party. 

 I would like to argue to you that that indeed was his testimony.  

Mr Hartzenberg testified and he made no mention that he was not 

a member of the Conservative Party.

	The applicant presented his background, his birth in Poland 

to the Committee and his experience of the Communist Party.   I 

would like to present to the Committee that his background in 

Poland and his experience of the Communist Party was not 

presented to the Committee in order to say that he had developed 

a hatred towards Communists on that basis and that is why the 

deed was committed, but if one studies his testimony it is not 

indicated in any other way.  He did this in order to say to the 

Committee that he knew what would happen if the country would 

be ruled by a communist dispensation.

	The applicant immigrated to South Africa and because he 

came to South Africa he became involved in politics, although at 

that stage he was not a citizen of our country and could not 

participate in elections.  From the initial stages he realised that 

changes were taking place in the country and he became closely 

involved with the Conservative Party's breaking away.  

	At that point he was quite aware of South African politics 

and he realised, as it is set out, that the policy which prevailed at 

that point was about change and that there might be a possible 

communist dispensation in government.

	He met Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis during 1995 and became 

further involved in politics and assisted the Conservative Party 

with elections and by-elections.  And after he was granted 

citizenship in 1988, before that time in 1985 he also became a 

member of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging and when he was 

granted citizenship in 1989 he participated in his first election in 

South Africa.

	He also testified that he realised in 1990, when the 

ANC/SACP was legalised, that there was a definite problem which 

was developing in South Africa and he believed that there would 

be  an ANC/SACP rule in the government.

	He was also present when Dr Andries Treurnicht delivered a 

speech at the Voortrekker Monument in May 1990 where the third 

struggle for freedom was mentioned.  And he testified that during 

that meeting Dr Andries Treurnicht swept or called the masses of 

people who attended the meeting, called them to battle.  And 

after that he attended negotiations where the Conservative Party 

decided that they should ready themselves for a possible war.

	In 1992 he was also further involved, and he testified 

regarding that, he was involved in the referendum which was to 

take place and it was decided afterwards that the democratic road 

was most definitely for the Afrikaner, as definitely closed for the 

Afrikaner nation of which he regarded himself to be a member.

	The applicant who was involved in politics as I have just 

argued, was more involved with the second applicant, Mr Clive 

Derby-Lewis, and his politics. What appears very strongly within 

his testimony is that he as an immigrant from Poland.  He came to 

be under the influence of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, that he regarded 

him as a political leader and not just a politician and he also 

regarded him as one of the policy makers of the Conservative 

Party.

	After the referendum in 1992 it was very clear to the 

applicant that the CP and the other right-wing groups - and I wish 

 to argue that it should be considered that he was also involved in 

AWB meetings.  AWB was one of the right-wing groups and the 

AWB was not and is not a political party.  The members of the CP 

belonged to the CP as a political party and to the AWB as a right-

wing organisation.  It is not to say that the members of the AWB 

could not have been Conservative Party members.

	Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg testified - and I'm still dealing with 

this under the fact that this offence occurred within a political 

struggle as Section 22(a) determines, Dr Ferdie Hartzenburg 

testified that it was not the policy of the CP, the written policy 

which they as a political party expressed or carried out.  Violence 

was not their policy.

	However Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg's testimony must be seen 

very thoroughly as an entirety.  He testified that during 

August/September 1992, after the signing of the Record of 

Understanding that was between the National Party and the ANC, 

the CP realised that it was now involved in a political struggle. 

	Up until that point the CP had achieved quite a level of 

support in politics.  They won a number of by-elections and it 

became very clear that the Conservative Party which at that point 

had already become the opposition, if there were to be a general 

election the voters - that would be before it was an open election 

for all population groups, the CP realised that it might able to 

defeat the National Party.  But with the undersigning of the 

Record of Understanding the CP realised, and this was made clear 

from every platform from their supporters, that now there was an 

overwhelming struggle and that the Afrikaner nation's freedom 

was in danger because if the ANC/SACP Alliance came into 

power, the Afrikaner nation would lose it's freedom.

	And the policy - this is his testimony, the CP's policy was 

to strive for the freedom of the Afrikaner nation and it did not 

change since the establishment of the Conservative Party.  Now 

with the signing of the Record of Understanding, this freedom of 

the Afrikaner was put in danger and that is how the CP regarded 

it and it was also expressed as such.

	He also testified that it was very clear to the Conservative 

Party that the ANC and especially the SACP under the leadership 

of Mr Chris Hani would not grant the Afrikaner nation it's own 

territory, they wanted a unity state.  And he also testified about 

an army which Mr Hani had ready, with 10 000 troops if the vote 

did not swing in favour of the ANC and the negotiations for the 

unity state would be enforced with violence.

	The testimony of Dr Hartzenberg continued and said that as 

a result of this political struggle which existed or ruled the 

country at that point - it cannot be seen as anything else, the CP 

decided to mobilise in all areas, not only religiously or in the 

educational sphere, on all levels.

	The CP mobilised to resist the ANC/SACP Alliance in terms 

of the threat towards the Afrikaner nation.

JUDGE WILSON:   When ...[inaudible] in the sense that 

...[intervention]

INTERPRETER:   The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE WILSON:   ...[inaudible] in the sense that we would have 

to activate our people, not in any military sense of mobilisation.  

If you look at page 755 of the record he says there:

		"In the course of 1992 we realised that because those 

opinions were diminishing we would have to mobilise 

our people to demonstrate in a visible manner that we 

were quite serious for the preservation of our liberty"

and he goes on over the next page to say that:

		"We would have 18 interest groups including 

education, agriculture, local government etc., and 

also security and safety"

MRS VAN DER WALT:   That is correct, I agree with you.  But 

it goes further than this:

		"to mobilise and prepare for the security of the 

Afrikaner people.  This meant one thing, and that was 

to fight with weapons"

His evidence goes further in saying that the leaders - and he's not 

referring only to himself and Treurnicht, he's referring to other 

leaders and he refers to the other speakers from the platform, 

they proclaimed that is was war now.  

	It was said that the people had to obtain weapons, not only 

for self-defence ...[intervention]  Just a moment please. ...[no 

sound]  Page 758, I don't know whether the quotation is correct, 

I don't have it in front of me.  He discusses it where he says:

		"Mr Chris Hani is regarded as enemy number one.  If 

Hani would be the leader of the country the Afrikaner 

nation would be destroyed"

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes, carry on.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Pages 772 to 774 he makes statements 

and on 782 where Hartzenberg concedes like the other leaders, 

strongly worded things were said to convince  people to commit 

acts of violence.  The CP regarded the situation in the country as 

a full blown war situation.

ADV POTGIETER:   In one word, what was the policy of the CP 

regarding violence?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   It's the same problem that Advocate 

Prinsloo had.  The CP's written policy was not about violence but 

what they talk about, what they proclaimed from platforms at 

Paardekraal, at the Voortrekker monument, there they said:

		"We should fight"

and what else should the members of the CP and the right-wing 

have thought if their leaders tell them: "You have to begin the 

struggle and you have to fight for your freedom".

ADV POTGIETER:  I understand that, that is a different 

argument.  According to your submission, what should we find 

regarding the policy of the CP regarding violence?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Mr Chairman, the policy was not 

violence but in respect of the application, and if you look at 

section 22(a) this is not about what the police was but it was also 

not the National Party's policy but it was about a political 

struggle and that was what the leaders of the Conservative Party 

said.

ADV POTGIETER:   But you said the policy was not violence?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   ...[No English translation]

ADV POTGIETER:   That helps.	

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Dr Hartzenberg gave evidence 

regarding the question: "What was the CP's view regarding Mr 

Hani"?  I've already indicated to you that he said that Mr Hani 

was regarded as enemy number one of the Afrikaner people and if 

Hani should be in control of the country the Afrikaner people 

would be destroyed.

	And then I want to come back to what Mr Potgieter has 

said.  The policy of the Conservative Party was to ensure the 

freedom of the Afrikaner people and if Mr Hani, if he was in 

control of the country, then the Conservative Party believed that 

the Afrikaner people's liberty would be destroyed.  Then, as a 

result of that point of view of the CP and the right-right, the 

right-wing together with the CP because they were part of the 

CP, then they became involved in a political struggle and then 

they propagated violence. 

	The Conservative Party and Mr Hartzenberg cannot get 

away from that fact.  Their followers heard about violence and 

that they had to use to protect their liberty.

	It was also clear from his evidence that the political 

struggle was, and he said: "The National Party betrayed the 

Afrikaner people and the struggle after the legalisation of the 

ANC/SACP and the struggle was then against those 

organisations".

	Mr Chairman, in my heads I also referred to 22(d) and I 

want to submit that in order to qualify for amnesty, the applicant 

he had to make full disclosure of the offence and according to 

which - this article, he is applying for amnesty.

	A lot has been said about the fact that there was wider 

conspiracy than only that between these two applicants and then 

because of the application there was not full disclosure.  I want 

to put it to you that the applicant's evidence indicates that at the 

end of 1992  he was in Europe and after his return in December 

1992 he made contact with Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.  

	Before he had left for Europe this struggle in the country 

was already going on and when he returned in December this 

political situation in the country was discussed further.

	His evidence is, and there's no other evidence contradicting 

that, that at that stage the political situation in the country was 

discussed and not at any stage that they then decided that 

anybody had to be eliminated.

	In February 1993, the applicants visited Mr Clive Derby-

Lewis again and then received the instruction and the planning 

was made to murder Mr Hani.  It is evident from the first 

applicant's evidence that Mr Derby-Lewis provided a list to him.  

 I want to argue that should the Committee find that Mrs Derby-

Lewis, based on her statements based on Section 29, as Ngoepe 

pointed out to Mr Prinsloo, if the Committee finds that Mrs 

Derby-Lewis knew beforehand that there was planning being done 

to murder Mr Hani, I want to submit that the applicant, Mr 

Walus, had no knowledge of this whatsoever.   He did not know 

that which Mrs Derby-Lewis knew, there is no indication.

	Even in the Section 29 statements or any other evidence, 

there is any indication that Mr Walus knew that Mrs Derby-Lewis 

knew what her husband - Mr Walus did not have any knowledge 

that he discussed it with her.  

JUDGE NGOEPE:   She did not implicate him? [Transcriber's 

translation]

MRS VAN DER WALT:   She did not implicate him.

	And then I want to go further.  This list, according to Mr 

Walus, he received this list in February, that was the first time he 

saw that.  He has no knowledge whatsoever or he had no 

knowledge at that stage of how that list was obtained, he had no 

knowledge of this list with the 19 names which was dispatched by 

Mr Kemp.  He did not know how Mrs Derby-Lewis obtained the 

list with the 19 names.  He received the list from Mr Derby-Lewis 

and on Mr Derby-Lewis' instruction the list was prioritised, based 

on the basis of hostility against the CP.

	Mr Walus said that some of the names were known to him, 

for example, Mandela and Slovo but the other people were 

unknown to him.  He heard about them but he did not know 

anything about them.

	Mr Walus gave evidence that during February, after this list 

had been numbered and Mr Hani was identified as a target 

because of the fact that he was the Secretary General of the ANC 

and he was involved in MK and he was being seen as Mandela's 

successor, it was decided that he was the target for their offence.

ADV POTGIETER:   Who decided that?  Who made this decision?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   This decision, together they decided 

about the target.

ADV POTGIETER:   Derby-Lewis and Walus?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Yes, they decided about that jointly.  

But it is very clear and it was confirmed by Mr Derby-Lewis that 

Mr Derby-Lewis instructed Mr Walus to execute that decision 

they had made.

ADV POTGIETER:   On which authority was that made?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   According to the evidence of Mr Walus, 

he believed that because he regarded Mr Derby-Lewis as a CP 

policy maker, as a leader of the Conservative Party, he did not 

only regard him as a politician, he believed that this was decided 

by the Conservative Party and that this instruction was given in 

the name of the Conservative Party.

ADV POTGIETER:   But on which authority - apart from what 

Mr Walus believed, on which authority did Mr Derby-Lewis, after 

they jointly decided, on whose authority did Mr Derby-Lewis give 

an instruction to Mr Walus to execute this joint decision?  Can 

you assist us in this respect?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   I want to submit that according to Mr 

Walus' evidence and the way in which he regarded, he regarded 

Mr Clive Derby-Lewis' instruction based on his position as an 

executive member of the Conservative Party.

ADV POTGIETER:   Where is there any documentation regarding 

this authority?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   There's no documentation regarding this 

matter.  I want to submit to you that this can be gathered from 

Mr Walus' evidence.  He believed that as a result of the position 

Mr Derby-Lewis held in the Conservative Party, that instruction 

was based on the authority of that position.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   And according to you Mr Walus didn't have 

to look any higher up in the hierarchy than Mr Derby-Lewis?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   That was also the way he saw that.  He 

regarded Mr Derby-Lewis as a leader.  And together with that, 

this instruction - looking at his evidence in its whole, it did not 

come out of the blue as something they've just decided on the 

spur of the moment, it was part of this political struggle which 

was going on since early '90's.  That was since the time the 

ANC/SACP Alliance was there.  This must not be seen in 

isolation, that the instruction was just given on the spur of the 

moment.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   In that case we here have to do with a 

conventional instruction, we have to do with the joint decision of 

Walus and Derby-Lewis?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   A decision was made in respect - 

because you must take the evidence into consideration that 

something had to be done about the right wing but the 

instruction, they jointly decided that Hani was the target but the 

instruction according to Mr Walus, this instruction came from the 

Conservative Party by name, Mr Derby-Lewis.

ADV POTGIETER:   Yes, but I see no instruction, especially if 

you look at the amendment you've made on page 10.  It does not 

look like an instruction, it looks as if a decision had been made 

by two people.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Definitely that decision was made but 

Mr Walus gave evidence with reference to Mrs Khampepe also 

had said, he regarded it as an instruction and Mr Derby-Lewis 

confirmed that.  Why would Mr Walus -I want to call it a kind of 

a foot soldier, he would not take such a decision all by himself.  

He would not make such a decision together with another foot 

soldier because he did according to his beliefs.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   No, but Mr Prinsloo said - if you can accept 

what is written on page 33, he said - page 27, paragraph 9, the 

applicant and Walus decided that Hani had to be shot and Walus 

undertook to do this.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   And there is a reference to certain pages in 

the record.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   I want to submit it to you that there are 

people sitting together and making a decision to execute the task. 

 For example, when a military operation has to be done, the 

people sit together and make a decision.  There is always a 

leader, a leader who takes the initiative.  

	These two people sit together, they make a joint decision to 

do something.  There are political discussions which have been 

held - I don't want to refer to all that again, in which it was said 

that something had to be done.  

	Now Mr Derby-Lewis comes and they have certain talks, he 

comes and he says: "Here are people, we have to do something".  

On his instruction this murder list is prioritised and then the 

decision is made, like when you consider a decision, what will be 

the best target to serve our purposes.

	And jointly they decided that it would be Mr Hani,  then 

they had to go further.  Now the decision had to be made - as I 

understand Mr Prinsloo's heads, how this person had to be 

eliminated was to shoot him.  It's not that Mr Derby-Lewis 

decided all by himself that he should be shot and he gave the 

instruction.   

	I want to submit that during their discussions Mr Derby-

Lewis was the leader and that Mr Walus acted on his instructions 

and said: "I will shoot him".

JUDGE NGOEPE:  ...[No English translation] In principal it was 

decided to kill Mr Hani.  Whether he had to be shot or not, it's a 

question of detail.  The two of them together made a decision that 

he had to be eliminated.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   I'm answering your question, that they 

had decided, it's in comparison to what I've said, Mr Walus acted 

on instruction.  They jointly decided that he had to be shot.  They 

decided he was the target but the joint decision that he had to be 

shot doesn't make a difference.

CHAIRPERSON:   ...[inaudible] at some stage during their 

conversations, when they had this list before them, if they came 

to the conclusion that Mr Hani is to be eliminated, is the position 

not that Mr Walus volunteered to carry out the deed rather than 

being ordered to do so?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   He said that he would do it but what I 

want to put before the Commission, the whole decision making 

regarding this matter what was going to happen, that something 

had to be done, everything was inclusive of this instruction.  If 

Mr Walus said he would do it, somebody had to do it.  It does not 

change the fact that the decision making came from the leader, 

the person from the Conservative Party.

CHAIRPERSON:   Carry on.

MS KHAMPEPE:   Sorry, Mrs van der Walt, can I get further 

clarification.  I think it is not in dispute that Mr Walus and Mr 

Derby-Lewis jointly decided on the target for the assassination 

which was Mr Hani.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   That's correct.

MS KHAMPEPE:   Now, the instructions which subsequently 

followed with regard to the execution, was after the selection of 

the target had been made.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   That's correct.

MS KHAMPEPE:   In what capacity did Mr Walus participate in 

the selection of the target with Mr Derby-Lewis?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   As I understand the evidence, after this 

list had been obtained, they decided that they had to find a target 

which would receive the necessary effect.  They jointly discussed 

this matter but this whole principle and the reason why it 

happened, all this came from Mr Derby-Lewis because was the 

person who on that specific day came with the list and said: "Now 

we have to do something".

MS KHAMPEPE:   But when the decision was taken to target Mr 

Hani for assassination, would you say that Mr Walus was not 

participating as a co-partner of Mr Derby-Lewis?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Not at all, that was the evidence.  They 

jointly decided about the target.  I've never argued otherwise, 

that was according to his evidence but it does not change.  And 

with respect, I want to argue, it does not change my argument 

that Mr Walus seen in the light of the executive person or 

executive politician by name, Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, that he was 

still acting under his instruction.

JUDGE WILSON:   While you were leading Walus, at page 895 of 

the record, he said, and I read:

		"After I numbered this list".

and he said he numbered it in accordance with Clive Derby-Lewis' 

instructions.

		"Clive Derby-Lewis told me that we would 

concentrate on elimination of number 3, surname: 

Chris Hani and if for the CP and the right-wing will I 

agree to take this task on me.  I expressed my 

readiness and acceptance"

There's no suggestion there of a discussion.  He said that Derby-

Lewis told him that:

		"We would concentrate on the elimination of Hani"

MRS VAN DER WALT:   That is correct but if we look at Mr 

Clive Derby-Lewis' evidence there was a discussion and you'd 

accept - I don't want to speak to the detriment of my client, but 

we can accept that there was a discussion but Walus, according to 

his evidence, he did this on the instruction of Mr Clive Derby-

Lewis.

ADV POTGIETER:   In other words Mr Clive Derby-Lewis took 

the initiative, he was the person who had that idea right from the 

beginning but at the end of the day what we have to do with are 

co-conspirators.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Definitely, that is so but my client has 

to fulfil the requirements of the Act and his application is 

different from Mr Clive Derby-Lewis' because Mr Walus, and 

according to his evidence, acted after the decision had been made. 

 He acted on instruction of a member of the Conservative Party 

and that was according to his evidence.

ADV POTGIETER:   That is what I can't understand but I don't 

want to interrupt you further.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   When do you want to adjourn?

CHAIRPERSON:   Have you finished dealing with this particular 

aspect?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Yes.

CHAIRPERSON:   Very well, we'll adjourn at this stage and 

resume at 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON:   Please proceed.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   Thank you.

	I finished on page 14.  The applicant undertook to execute 

the elimination of Mr Hani on his own and on that very same day 

when the order was given to him he requested of Mr Clive Derby-

Lewis to issue him an unlicensed firearm.  They also discussed it 

and it was decided that Mr Hani's home would be reconnoitred 

and early in March 1993 they reconnoitred the home of Mr Hani a 

number of times in order to establish the routine and movements 

of the home.  

	On the 6th of April 1993, he visited Mr Derby-Lewis at his 

home after an invitation from Mr Derby-Lewis to have breakfast 

there that morning.  On that day the unlicensed firearm was 

handed over to Mr Walus.  There was a discussion which involved 

that Mr Derby-Lewis would provide him with further ammunition 

and the silencer which was fitted to the firearm could not be used 

with regular ammunition.

	On the 7th of April, Mr Walus once again contacted Mr 

Derby-Lewis or visited him in order to determine whether any 

changes had been made to the plans and whether he had managed 

to gain ammunition for him.  At that point he had not received 

any ammunition.  According to Mr Walus' testimony the only 

further suggestion which was made to him was that the 

elimination be undertaken before the Easter weekend.

	On the 10th of April a Saturday, Mr Walus went, not with 

the purpose to shoot Mr Hani on that specific day, according to 

his testimony, he went for his regular exercise at a certain sports 

centre.  Thereafter he decided or the place or facility was closed 

because it was a public holiday and he decided that he would do 

further reconnaissance.  He had tested the weapon on his 

brother's small holding and found that the silencer could not fire 

automatically.

	He then decided that he would buy ammunition with his own 

firearm licence which would be the same ammunition as for the 

unlicensed weapon.  He took a drive to go and do further 

reconnaissance at Mr Hani's home.  From the testimony of Mr 

Walus you can see that it concurs with the testimony given in the 

Supreme Court.  And on that day he saw Mr Hani in front of his 

house where he was climbing into his vehicle and there were no 

bodyguards present.

	Initially he thought that it was Mr Hani but he wanted to 

make certain and he drove along behind the vehicle until it came 

to a shopping centre where Mr Hani

climbed out of the vehicle and was positively identified as Mr 

Hani.  Thereafter when Mr Hani departed, he took another road 

and stopped behind Mr Hani's vehicle whereupon he climbed out, 

called out his name, Mr Hani reacted to that, he turned around 

and Mr Walus shot Mr Hani.  He shot him four times.

	Thereafter he departed and from the Court case his vehicle 

was identified by Mrs Harmse and Mr Walus was arrested shortly 

after the events.  

	In terms of Section 21(c), that is on page 21, it is clear that 

it is required by law that the applicant provide a full disclosure of 

all the relevant facts regarding the events.  If there are certain 

small issues which might not have any bearing matters which were 

emphasised during the hearing, especially with regard to Mr 

Walus and his actions, his brother dead after the glass works were 

declared insolvent, these details are of minor import and not 

relevant.

	I would like to submit to the Honourable Committee that 

the applicant has made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts 

and the legal counsel of the family and the SACP have submitted 

the statements before the Committee. And the so-called 

statements which Mr Walus would have made to Captain Deetliefs 

and with the intention of the submission of these statements to 

the Committee, the intention is to make it clear that there are 

facts which the applicant did not disclose and there is a greater 

conspiracy.  

	The applicant was arrested and detained in the Benoni 

police cells and it would appear quite clearly from the 

documentation that he did not want to make any statement unless 

he had legal representation.  He was taken from the cells by 

various police officers and interviewed or questioned by various 

police officers until, on the 14th of April 1993, he fell into the 

hands of Captain Deetliefs.  

	He was once again taken out to his residence by Captain 

Deetliefs, taken back to his cell and on that day, the 14th of April 

the applicant said to Captain Deetliefs that he would like use his 

right to silence and did not wish to make any statements unless 

his legal representative was present.

	On the 15th of April 1993 until early morning hours of the 

16th of April, the applicant the applicant was questioned for 11 

hours and according to Captain Deetliefs notes were taken which 

are not available.  No statement was taken from the applicant on 

that particular evening.  

	In the early morning hours the applicant was placed back in 

his cells, that is on the 16th at twenty past five.  That very same 

afternoon, at 16H05 he was once again taken out of the cell and 

once again questioned for approximately 14 hours and yet again 

notes were not taken and no statement was taken either.  

	The early morning hours of 16 April 1993, approximately 

04H15 that morning the applicant began, according to Mr 

Deetliefs, to cooperate.  That is so, the applicant has confirmed 

this.  The applicant confirmed that he cooperated as a result of 

the fact that Captain Deetliefs caught him or tricked him and by 

means of lies he led him to believe, this is Deetliefs, that he had 

infiltrated the security police, that they were actually cooperating 

with Tienie Groenewaldt and that if he would cooperate it could 

result that Mr Holmes, who was the investigating officer in this 

case at that time, would not make any further arrests and that 

Deetliefs was actually working for the right-wingers.

	The applicant in his testimony stated that he was extremely 

naive and he realised this later, it was naive of him to believe 

Captain Deetliefs.  The only notes which are available from this 

questioning, from which point on the applicant would have been 

cooperating, would the hand-written notes - just a moment please, 

page 84, 85 and 86, that would be in R4.

	There are the only notes from all these hours of questioning 

which were provided by Captain Deetliefs and can be provided.  If 

the video cassettes are watched it is logical that there wouldn't be 

any notes, however in Captain Deetliefs' statement which is to be 

found in R4 continued he at several points mentions that notes 

were taken down by Mr Beetge.  

	That cannot be so because he could not make a statement to 

the Attorney General of the Witwatersrand, Mr Klaus von Leerus 

at that time, in which he would state, in terms of everything that 

had happened, that he was infiltrating the police and working 

along with Tinnie Groenewaldt and that is why there weren't any 

notes.  But what is shocking is that he says on numerous times in 

his statement that notes were taken.

	These are the only notes ...[intervention]

INTERPRETER:   The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE WILSON:   R4 continued, is that from the beginning of 

R4 continued?

MRS VAN DER WALT:   His first statement is in the first pages, 

page 299 and then it is placed again at a later point in the same 

bundle but I will refer you to these statements.

	The applicants has also mentioned that during those long 

hours of questioning, alcohol was given to him.  That was 

confirmed.  One can also see on one of the video cassettes that he 

is drinking beer.  The applicant said that he could have been given 

sedatives because the alcohol effected him quite severely.  

	But the most important aspect is that Captain Deetliefs 

tricked the applicant with his lies.  The applicant then provided 

these details as appears in the hand-written documents but the 

applicant testifies that Deetliefs always, with everything that he 

said, sketched it or sketched the applicant's words to be more 

sensational in order to qualify what Deetliefs was actually looking 

for.

	The applicants was continuously questioned by Mr Bizos 

and especially as I understand, it was to prove this larger 

conspiracy and that the applicant was not making a full disclosure 

and so it was put to the applicant that he had reconnoitred 

Mandela's home and that is why Mrs Beyers was called, in order 

to prove that the applicant was telling lies when he said that he 

had reconnoitred Mr Mandela's home.

	According to the statement of Mr Deetliefs he said, and 

that is R4, 306 continued and 361, where he says especially on 

page 361 in the middle, that would be the statement which 

Deetliefs had written but it was written as if it was the words of 

the applicant:

		"Rekkies was also done on Mandela's house.  I 

thought the old goat was not worth it"

But nowhere, on one of those cassettes, there are 10 cassettes 

which have bearing on Mr Walus, this does not appear on one of 

those cassettes.  

	As it appears in this statement from page 306, the 

Honourable Committee will note that 301 or 304 and 305 are the 

typed versions of the hand-written notes.  From page 306, 

Captain Deetliefs went to a lot of effort, he wrote his statement 

and then there's a question:

		"Captain"

and the question follows, then it says:

		"Walus"

and then there's an answer that follows.  Where are those notes 

from which he would have retrieved this information? 

	He could not submit this to the Honourable Committee 

because what was said there never was said in fact.  And it is also 

said in various places in the statement that the applicant was 

warned according to Judges' rules.   It does not appear on the 

cassettes and it won't, it cannot because the Honourable 

Committee must understand and it was conceded by Advocate 

Brand, that the applicant had been misled.  Captain Deetliefs 

could not have warned him because they were busy with 

clandestine discussions where Deetliefs would be assisting the 

right-wingers, why would he warn them then?

	In my heads I submitted to the Honourable Committee that 

Captain Deetliefs was a liar and that he's nothing else but that 

and that the video cassettes and the statement are proof of that.

	The applicant told the Committee that at a stage he had 

driven past Mr Mandela's home at that point and the translation it 

would appear, the English of the applicant in the statement is 

quite clumsy, one does not know how the translation came 

through from the Polish to the English but he said that it was put 

to him - I don't have it here at the moment, it was asked of him 

how he managed to obtain the address of Mr Mandela and he said 

- and he continues, I must concede, but as, and there is such 

proof, the home of Mr Mandela appeared in the Citizen 

Newspaper and according to the applicant he drove past simply 

out of curiosity.

	I submit to the Honourable Committee that the target which 

they had discussed and which was pointed out by Mr Clive Derby-

Lewis was only Mr Hani and not Mr Mandela.

	It was also put to the applicant during cross-examination 

and it is also supported, that there was a conspiracy to murder 

the others whose names appeared on the list - and I refer to R4 

on page 308, where Captain Deetliefs once again - this is point 2 

on page 308, once again it is:

		"Captain"

I have never seen a policeman make this kind of statement, 

nonetheless:

		"Captain: Cuba, do you think there is a 

possibility that others on the list could 

still be eliminated after your arrest"?

then it is:

		"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"

EXTREMELY BAD RECORDING FROM THIS POINT ON

It is absolutely frightening Mr Chairperson, if one would watch 

the tape, that is tape number 8 - and I mentioned that in my heads 

of the 22nd of April 1993 and the time is 12H25, what appears on 

the tape and if one would watch the entire tape it would still be 

this Deetliefs and Beetge, no notes are being taken.  One can see 

Beetge's hand, they are planning to help the right-wingers.  

	And Deetliefs will say: "They don't want to discuss it too 

openly because it's supposed to be a secret".  Then Deetliefs says, 

while they are discussing who will be the successor of Hani, 

Deetliefs says, and this is not the applicant, Deetliefs proposes 

that Sexwale would be the possible successor.  Then Deetliefs 

says that: "Sexwale is a bastard", upon which the applicant 

answers -he's sitting there and this was recorded within the 

prison, he's sitting at the table with his head turned and he says:

		"They're all bastards".

	On the same tape further on, the typed 1301, Deetliefs is 

still in discussion with the applicant and he expresses great praise 

of Clive Derby-Lewis, that he is such a wonderful man, that 

people trust him - this is Deetliefs speaking, and then they discuss 

the fact that Clive Derby-Lewis was involved with the 

Witwatersrand ...[indistinct] and then the applicant makes the 

following remark:

		"Clive Derby-Lewis is a good man, he is a man of 

balls - he's a guy of balls".

excuse me.

	What is contained there on page 308 does not exist. It is 

not that it was interpreted incorrectly, it simply doesn't exist at 

all.  That which Deetliefs had written here was his own story.  He 

had taken discussions with the applicants, written it down to suit 

his own purposes.  

	He also wanted to try to prove that there was a greater 

conspiracy at hand because already from that point when the case 

was being investigated, foreign investigators were called in to 

assist with the investigation but it doesn't end there.  I have 

simply highlighted those sections with regard to which the 

applicant was cross-examined, but it is absolutely frightening to 

watch those tapes.

	On page 301 - I'd like to refer the Committee to this, 

Deetliefs here makes a very long statement and it is here where 

his style changes - I don't know if he became tired, but now 

assumes a sort of discussion form of what the applicant had said 

to him.  What appears on page 301 certainly does not appear on 

the video tapes.  He refers, himself, to the video tape.  He also 

states  that is was the 18th of April at 11H02 in Pretoria 

Maximum and all these details are given, for example that - this in 

the middle of that page, that Clive's wife Gay, was not present on 

that particular evening but at the handing over of the weapon and 

the murder list, that is not on the video tape and it does not 

compare with the testimony delivered in the Supreme Court.

JUDGE WILSON:   ...[inaudible]

MRS VAN DER WALT:   310, I'm sorry, I'm so sorry.

MS KHAMPEPE:   ...[indistinct] Miss van der Walt, your head 

refers to ...[indistinct] to be amended should be

amended.

MRS VAN DER WALT:   It's 310, I'm sorry, it's my fault.

	According to the evidence given in the Supreme Court and 

also the evidence given by the applicants, Mrs Derby-Lewis was 

not present when this person was handed over.  She was also not 

present when the list was handed over, once again it's Deetliefs 

fabrication.   

	At the bottom of the page reference is made by Deetliefs 

and he mentions at a various stage that the applicant watched 

Mandela's house and also Joe Slovo's house.  If one looks at the 

bottom ...[inaudible]

RECORDING EXTREMELY POOR

...[inaudible] middle of the page, three quarters down the page:

		"....and also watched Mandela's and Chris Hani's 

house during the night".

	On the 22nd of April 1993, Deetliefs and Beetge visited the 

applicants in prison.  According to page 311, Deetliefs quotes 

from Langenhoven and once again it's the Captain's question and 

Walus answering.  There Mr Deetliefs also mentions in his words, 

that this quotation from Langenhoven portrays the ...[indistinct] 

of the applicant at that time.

	Mr Chairman, according to Deetliefs statement on 211, that 

quotation does not appear on the tape made during that specific.  

This person listened for hours to these tapes and made up his own 

...[indistinct] and wrote his statement.  This quote does occur on 

tape number 9 on the 18th of April at 14H45 as you can see on 

page 133 where it's based on question and answer by Walus and 

Deetliefs but on the tape Deetliefs and Beetge are still busy with 

this clandestine operation they are going to execute to support 

the right wing.  ...[indistinct] had come and he said:

		"...[indistinct] a quotation and he mentioned it to the 

applicant"

	The applicant sat still, according to the tape, and it's very 

clear that he did not really realise what the meaning of the 

quotation was.  He did not understand the meaning because he did 

not react, Beetge made the quotation and he did not react and 

then Deetliefs came and he explained to the applicant what the 

meaning of that quotation was.  Deetliefs explained it and he 

applied this ...[indistinct] to the "Wit Wolve".  	What is there, 

what is stated there what the applicant should have said is 

absolutely wrong.

	This is all regarding the quotation but there is a long 

statement made by Deetliefs(?) from page 312 to 321, regarding 

certain identifications which had been made which did not take 

place.  ...[indistinct] done by another officer and usually a 

photographer accompanies them.  Deetliefs said there was a 

photographer but the applicant said he went to the ...[indistinct] 

and the applicant said they had some beer there and a 

photographer was never present there and he never ...[indistinct] 

Mr Mandela's house.

	I wish to argue that the applicant did not make any 

statements apart from the statement where he said he did not want 

to make any statement and these written notes which is the 

applicants version and that the other so-called statements 

...[indistinct] are mentioned in Deetliefs statement have no value 

should be attached to those because they are absolutely wrong 

and Deetliefs is an absolutely unreliable person.  This is 

supported by the video tapes and by the statement.

	Mr Prinsloo has already ...[indistinct] regarding Mrs 

Beyers.  I refer to that in my heads, I'm not going to do it now.  

The applicant denies that during that time he went to Mr 

Mandela's house.  ...[indistinct] as mentioned by the family 

...[indistinct].  The fact that the applicant, it was said that the 

applicant - his evidence for amnesty was changed after Mr 

...[indistinct] programme.  	I want to submit to you that the 

changes had already been made on September in 1996, where he 

said he acted on instruction of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.  I want to 

submit that there is no evidence at all that there was a 

...[indistinct] conspiracy.  

	I also want to submit to you that the applicant, that there's 

no evidence that it was found that there could have been a 

possible conspiracy in compiling the list or any other conspiracy, 

the applicant was not aware of that.

	Then I want to submit that the applicant complied with the 

requirement - and I've also presented my heads on the various 

requirements.  And ...[indistinct] and according to Section 

...[indistinct] 2(a) and ...[indistinct] that they are applicable to 

the ...[indistinct] and that he should get amnesty. 

END OF TAPE DUE TO POOR RECORDING

MS VAN DER WALT:   ...and I also want to submit that the 

criteria as put in a subsection 3 Act that I dealt with and that the 

applicant also complies with that, that is all.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Are there no objective facts which point out 

to a wider conspiracy? 

	What worries me, I think I raised this with Mr Walus, was 

that broad daylight he goes to Mr Hani's place, he shoots him, he 

walks away, gets into the car, drives away, the weapon is left in 

the car and he just normally joins the traffic as if nothing has 

happened. What assurance did he have, did he have some kind of 

assurance that don't you worry, you can do it, even if I do it you 

can be covered somehow, don't you worry?

MS VAN DER WALT:   I want to submit to you, it seems strange 

perhaps but the circumstances, and that is the only evidence 

which is before you, the circumstances lent to this offence being 

committed at that stage, the police took all these various aspects 

into consideration, investigated everything, he was on his way to 

go and practise, he drove by, the opportunity just arose when Mr 

Hani, according to the other report, he did not spend the Friday 

night at home, and his bodyguards got off for the night or the 

weekend, he was all by himself, the circumstances just lent it to 

this.  The firearm was in his togbag and he can't mention a 

coincidence if you're a Christian you don't believe in that, but 

Mrs Harmse saw the vehicle.

	I just want to bring these facts from the trial.  She saw this 

vehicle but the number being presented to the police from the red 

vehicle, that one number was wrong and the police officers, a du 

Toit and an Olivier, they gave evidence, they drove around the 

road and they  heard this over the police radio, they saw the red 

car but this number was wrong and they pulled him off the road.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   I would imagine if my recollection is correct 

with regard to his evidence, he was simply not worried at the 

time, even though he saw the police, the traffic police, I can't 

remember if it was traffic police.  The impression I got he was 

not unduly perturbed or he was not nervous, he didn't panic, he 

didn't try to change and drive to another direction to see whether 

they would follow him, he just drove like anybody as if he hadn't 

done anything wrong, which is rather strange, one wouldn't 

expect that kind of behaviour from somebody who has just 

committed murder.

MS VAN DER WALT:   With respect, according to his evidence 

he did say that he noticed that it was the police and he 

furthermore said that when he got out from his vehicle he couldn't 

drive away quickly, then he would have drawn more attention.  

He was in the traffic and then he also stated further, he was 

standing there and he thought he had to see how this whole thing 

would develop.  I did not think he thought he would be arrested 

at that stage.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Well it's not only Mr Walus' problem if it is a 

problem at all.  Their evidence that they had hoped that in the 

midst of all the crimes, certain things would happen, certain 

people would do certain things, in particular the right wing would 

step in.  I don't know on what basis they would have thought 

what happened if they had not made some kind of arrangements, 

some understanding with some other people.

MS VAN DER WALT:   As I've understood Mr Derby-Lewis' 

evidence and if Mr Walus was not arrested so quickly who would 

have gone to clear this out with the Caucus and if chaos had 

developed, they believed, and if I understand his evidence 

correctly, after this incident the Volksfront was established and 

here all the right wing groups joined forces.  The Volksfront was 

established and later on the Freedom Front, it was a political 

party was established but according to the evidence, if I 

understand that correctly, this incident led to the establishment of 

the Volksfront.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   It would have been an assumption bordering 

on naivety to just assume that well he killed somebody and well 

the two of us, just the two of us agreed to kill him without telling 

anybody, the two of us would kill him and even though we have 

not canvassed this thing, we have not made any contingent 

arrangements with anybody, the Right Wing will step in and take 

over.

MS VAN DER WALT:  Well I believe that during that time in the 

country there was chaos. If you look at the evidence of Mr 

Hartzenberg and the exhibit, one or other research where the 

political violence of those times, if you look at that I believe that 

Mr Derby-Lewis who was well acquainted with the politics could 

have believed that through that chaos the right wing groups 

would have become one united group, and they could have taken 

over the government of the day without any further arrangement 

with other people.  This just followed naturally, yes if things did 

not go wrong, they could have approached the right wing in this 

regard. 	

	But regarding your initial question that Mr Walus just 

drove away and he did not panic, there is no evidence, and it's 

also no other person assisted him.  Mr Mpshe asked him whether 

there were any road blocks, he said no he didn't see any road 

blocks. I don't know what the intention of that question was, 

whether the police or somebody else would have helped him, 

there were no road blocks.

...(tape ends  - no further argument by Ms van der Walt

CHAIRPERSON:   Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS:   May I first give  members of the Committee an 

overview Mr Chair before I start to argue the matter in detail?  

Firstly I would like to indicate to the Committee that my learned 

friend Mr Malindi and I have agreed to share the argument that is 

to be advanced with the Committee.  Generally I will deal with 

pages 1 to 20, my learned friend will deal with pages 20 to 45, 

and I will deal with the rest of the argument.  But having with 

respect listened to the argument of Counsel for the applicants and 

the questions that were posed by the Committee and some of the 

answers have been given, we would like to make certain 

preliminary submissions.

	Firstly that before we can try to apply the facts to the 

provisions of Section 20, the committees onerous duty is to try 

and determine the facts and the facts obviously cannot be 

determined without meaningful submissions having been made to 

the committee about the credibility of the witnesses that have 

given evidence before you. And before we get to the application 

of the facts to the provisions of the Act we would like to make 

certain general submissions.

	Firstly for the purposes of these preliminary submissions, 

we submit that the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis, Mr Walus and 

Mrs Derby-Lewis can be grouped together and what I am about to 

say about each one of them as witnesses applies although not 

squarely in general terms to each one of them.  

	Firstly that they are witnesses who on their own version 

have admitted that they are not strangers to lies.

	We start with Mr Derby-Lewis.  Although he did not give 

evidence at his trial, he thereafter made an affidavit in which, not 

only did he say that he was innocent of his crimes, but he also 

tried to hold himself out as a most unfortunate victim of the 

administration of justice; he not only lied about his participation 

in this murder, he lied about having been not properly defended 

and complaining about his attorney and counsel, and when this 

untruthfulness is drawn to his attention, he says well I committed 

perjury because I considered that it was still part of the struggle. 

We'll examine that a little later but for the purposes as to whether 

he is to be believed as a witness on his own, we would submit 

that that is sufficient to approach his evidence with considerable 

caution.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Sorry Mr Bizos, I'm going to say something 

here at this stage, an observation.  We in all, almost all and 

perhaps all applications for amnesty, we deal with people who 

were convicted and who would have said, oh I didn't commit this 

offence, under oath and then he's obviously disbelieved and 

convicted.  When they make applications for amnesty we expect 

that they would say now I'm telling the truth, last time I lied 

under oath.

MR BIZOS:   I am not unmindful of the point made judge.  What I 

am saying is that like in the case of accomplices, we don't reject 

the evidence of an accomplice because he originally made the 

statement to the police that he didn't know anything about it, but 

when the matter came nearer home to him, he made to confess to 

the crime, but what we do require in relation to the evidence of 

accomplices is that because by nature they are unsatisfactory 

persons who were prepared to lie, we do not accept their 

evidence unless there are cogent reasons to do so, bearing in mind 

that the oath at times doesn't mean much or anything to them 

when their own purposes are to be served.  I do not want to take 

it further than that, and I would certainly not make myself guilty 

of submitting that because he lied nothing that he said here 

should be believed.  

	What I am submitting is having regard to the fact that he is 

a person who was prepared to lie under oath, who said that his 

legal representatives were responsible for his being found guilty 

because they did not give him proper advice and they did not give 

him any reasons.  I don't want to repeat everything that he said in 

the application, I want to take it now further than that and most 

certainly do not submit that as you have indicated judged, most if 

not all of the people have denied it in the past particularly if they 

have been tried, but tremendous caution has got to be exercised 

in accepting the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis so that when a 

member of the Committee asks a question of Counsel, where is 

this, merely to be pointed to a statement made by Mr Derby-Lewis 

without comparing that statement to what he said in his 

application for amnesty, to what other witness have said and what 

the probabilities in the case are, it is not enough to merely say Mr 

Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus said.  That's as far as I want to take it 

and I will deal specifically in relation to some of the self-serving 

statements made by Mr Derby-Lewis which we will submit can not 

be relied upon in order to apply it as a fact and in turn apply the 

law.

	Let me deal with Mrs Derby-Lewis.  She too admitted that 

she lied to the Judge President of the Transvaal Provincial 

Division in relation to the circumstances under which the list was 

handed out, which is a matter on the very core of the matter.  

Again we cannot accept the evidence of Mrs Derby-Lewis merely 

because she has said so, we will have to have regard that she is a 

person who is capable of lying under oath and who obviously has 

a very strong desire to get her husband's release under amnesty.

	Now as far as Mr Walus is concerned, he too has 

contradicted himself in relation to vital matters between the notes 

that appear in R4 and particularly pages 362 and not the pages 

that have been quoted by Counsel for the applicants and also, Mr 

Chairman, the issue here is not what may or may not be on the 

tape, the vital passages that we rely on were read to Mr Walus 

and if you have a look at pages 98 and subsequent pages of the 

second record, you will see that he has for all practical purposes 

admitted to have said the things that were recorded, but we will 

come to that in much greater detail.  So that again what we would 

appeal to the Committee to have regard to, that the matter is to 

be decided on with a more, with respect to Counsel for the 

applicants, a thorough examination of the facts than they have set 

out in their written heads of argument and have made submissions 

here.

	The other matter Mr Chairman that we want to say about 

these three witnesses and in this regard I would join Mr Clarke as 

the fourth, because he falls into the same category that there 

attitude to the fundamental changes that were taking place after 

1990 and more particularly the preparatory changes to have a new 

constitution from 1993 onwards which was being prepared at 

CODESA was absolute anathema to them.  I do not think that we 

will be overstating the case Mr Chairman, if they are described as 

a clique or small cabal of fanatics who irrespective of what the 

policy of their political party may have been, partly as a result of 

what may or may not have happened in Poland as far as Mr Walus 

is concerned, partly because of deeply felt and fanatical religious 

beliefs, they set themselves up as saviours purporting to be 

motivated by a religion for the vast majority of the people in the 

world preaches peace, is an excuse to commit murder by trying to 

persuade the committee that they were really after the Antichrist 

rather than the person described in evidence by Mr Jeremy Cronen 

as the person that had done so much in order to bring 

reconciliation to the country.

	With those preliminary remarks I now want to turn Mr 

Chairman to page 1 of our written heads and there we submit at 

4.1 that the assassination of Mr Hani was not committed on behalf 

of, or in support of the Conservative Party.  And we submit that 

the CP had not adopted violence and most certainly not murder as 

one of their means to wage its political or ideological struggle 

against the African National Congress, its allied organisations or 

any other organisation.  And more particularly, and this I would 

like to add having listened to the questions by members of the 

committee, and particularly there was no policy of assassination 

of a political leader with a high profile, if you would add that on 

point 4.2 Mr Chairman.  With all the difficulties that we have had 

in our violent past, Mr Chairman, the political assassination of 

high profile political leaders, if not entirely unknown, was almost 

unknown on the South African scene.

	It has never been suggested Mr Chairman that the killing of 

the President or the leader of a political party, or someone, 

whatever one's views may have been about their actions, the 

country's problems would be solved by killing them.  When I say 

never, we of course have the notable example in this case where 

are going to submit it was proved that it was not only Mr Hani 

that was on the list for elimination but also Mr Mandela, Mr 

Slovo and other political figures in the country in order to create 

the chaos that the two applicants have spoken of.  We submit that 

their act could not have been permitted in the course and scope of 

their duties because the CP had not advised, planned, directed, 

commanded or ordered assassinations as one of it's means of 

waging political struggle.  Mr Derby-Lewis told us what his 

duties were, Mr Walus hardly had any duties to perform in regard 

to the Conservative Party except to possibly help with elections.  

So that in the course and scope of their duties, advised, planned, 

directed or commanded or ordered by the political party.

	In order to answer this question we have to say, what were 

their duties and was it within the purview of their duty and were 

they ordered to do it?  One can understand Mr Chairman the 

security policeman who said that I was given the duty of 

safeguarding the security of South Africa, the politicians made 

the decisions that this is the society that they wanted, I was a 

servant, my duty was to protect people.  The politicians 

identified, or my superiors identified Mr Goniwe to be 

assassinated, in the furtherance of my duty, I did it.  How do 

these two applicants bring themselves, having regard to the duties 

that they had to perform, vis a vis the Conservative party into 

saying that it was in the course and scope of their duties as 

members of the CP  Mr Chairman?  There is no such evidence and 

in our submission the applicants haven't even applied their minds 

to that question and therefore on that ground amnesty should be 

refused.

	But let's go further Mr Chairman; 4.4, the CP had not given 

any express or implied authority that assassinations of political 

opponents was sanctioned and you may notice Mr Chairman that 

we actually draw a distinction between the assassination of 

political opponents of high ranking and I would ask high ranking 

political opponents in Section 4.4 because it is in the South 

African context a most unusual thing.  Which national leaders of 

any political party have been assassinated in South Africa? 

CHAIRPERSON:   Dr Verwoerd was wasn't he?

MR BIZOS:   Yes Dr Verwoerd was but not at the instance of a 

political party, by a madman.  The two applicants do not contend 

that they were mad. I can think of no assassination of a political 

leader in the country at the instance of another political party Mr 

Chairman, but it may be that I had missed something along the 

way, I don't think I have.

	We then go on Mr Chairman on 4.5, the applicants can not 

rely on any implied authority or perception that violence and 

more particularly a high ranking political leader, was one of the 

means of struggle in view of the standing within the CP of the 

second applicant and the close association between the two 

applicants who are clearly on their evidence co-conspirators 

rather than inciter and incite.  

	Now again Mr Chairman, where did they get this authority 

from, we have and particularly on the section of the argument 

that is going to be dealt with by my learned colleague, Mr 

Malindi, we will give the Committee the references Mr Chairman 

where this is documented, we believe that there can be no real 

answer to the evidence that came to Dr Hartzenberg himself, from 

the other leaders of the Conservative Party and we will submit Mr 

Chairman in so far as credibility is concerned that Dr 

Hartzenberg's responses in relation to violence to Mr Venter, is 

what the Committee should accept as the truth and not the 

pathetic figure that Mr Hartzenberg cut when he gave evidence 

before the Committee trying to explain this.  

	Let me just say briefly Mr Chairman that for him to have 

said that -

 "I as the deputy leader said a few days after the 

murder that we were the people with the moral high 

ground, we did not use violence, nor assassination..."

to come here and try and excuse it on the basis that political 

leaders would not come out with it openly, is a pathetic attempt 

by a discredited politician to help one of his fellow party members 

of a discredited political party out of the difficulty in getting 

amnesty.  

	And what we submit in 4.6 Mr Chairman or 4.5, we will 

refer to the passages and there isn't only one, such passage, but 

particularly one of the  passages in answer to the committee 

member Advocate Potgieter which makes it quite clear on the 

evidence of both of them that they were co-conspirators planning 

this together and there was no element of inciter and incitee. 

	We draw attention Mr Chairman that the word order was 

introduced into Mr Derby-Lewis' vocabulary after the Max du 

Preez show was shown to him where Mr du Preez offered some 

legal advice which he took with both hands, not legal advice - 

offered the possibility that Walus may have an additional defence, 

that it was taken with both hands and Counsel for the applicants 

used the word order intermittently in the heads of argument 

without having regard to the evidence that there was this co-

conspiratorial relationship rather than the one of inciter and 

incitee.  

	And we say in 4.6 that there are no reasonable grounds 

upon which the applicants can claim that they believed themselves 

to be acting in the course and scope of their duties, and within 

the scope of their express or implied authority, we will rely 

heavily upon the position of Mr Derby-Lewis' in the Conservative 

Party and if Mr Walus was a co-conspirator and not an incitee 

then it would follow in his case as well.

	But there is an overwhelming probability that people as 

close to one another as this, and we submit that Mr Walus would 

not have given the Committee an impression that he's a weakling 

or a yes-man to anybody's will.  He bragged about his prowess in 

the statement recorded by Mr Deetliefs and Mr Beetge and 

nothing in his demeanour or in his actions or his absence of any 

remorse on his part and the manner in which he dealt with himself 

in this court, that before this Committee, thus could not have 

given the impression that he's a weak person that was mislead by 

Mr Derby-Lewis.

JUDGE WILSON:   Mr Bizos, has the Act been amended.

MR BIZOS:   Yes it has Mr Chairman and I have a note at the 

bottom of it by my attorney who's copy I have but she obviously 

checked it that a. deleted by the - I may say Mr Chairman that 

once Judge Wilson raises it, I hadn't looked at it before until 

Judge Wilson read it, I have not made up my mind finally and we 

have to do something tonight in order to make what we hope to 

be meaningful submissions or as to what it's effect may or may 

not be on this application and we are indebted that it was drawn 

to our attention so that we can deal with it.

	Then we say in paragraph 4.7. the offence was not 

committed in the course of or as part of a political uprising, 

disturbance or event or in reaction thereto as that the time of the 

negotiations had reached and advanced stage and a peaceful 

solution to the country's problems was in sight.  Now I want to 

make clear Mr Chairman that we submit that the conflicts of the 

past were coming to an end.  Counsel for the applicants said but 

look what Mr Visser told us that Gen Viljoen was planning, that 

was, we submit, clearly a conditional possibility, if there was not 

a settlement.  As it turned out, General Viljoen himself subscribed 

to the settlement, therefore what might have happened according 

to the plans of the Volksfront at that stage which were not 

publicly known for which the applicants do not purport to have 

been acting on behalf of, can be left out of account, we submit.

	What is relevant and the evidence stands uncontradicted, it 

was put down in a written statement supported by annexures 

which are before you as Exhibit, it's Bundle B which contains, it's 

a carefully prepared statement and practically all the statements 

in it are supported by  what Mr Jeremy Cronin now says Mr Chris 

Hani said at the time, but we were careful to go to the public 

record as to what Mr Hani was saying at the time and what he 

was saying was obviously gaining ground and obviously not to the 

liking of the fanatics like the two applicants, Mrs Derby-Lewis 

and Mr Clarke.  

	And it is that, and when their party in April 1993 was party 

to those negotiations, Mr Chairman, how could they believe that 

killing one of the negotiators and the general secretary of one of 

the negotiating parties at that process where their own party was 

participating be in the course and scope of their duties or that 

they had the express or implied authority?

	It can be tested in this way Mr Chairman, there was Mr 

Langley there if I remember correctly, there was Mr Hartzenberg 

there, pride of place for the television cameras of the world 

negotiating for a settlement, these applicants say that whilst they 

were in CODESA negotiating a settlement, these two gentlemen 

believed that they had express or implied authority from them to 

kill on of the top leaders of the alliance working to bring about 

democratic changes.

	Again Mr Chairman, I must refer to these four, and I 

include Mr Clarke, to this day Mr Chairman they speak about a 

communist party take-over.  They do not accept that we had a 

democratic election.  To them democracy means something else 

entirely.  I mention this because we will make some references to 

it in greater detail as to whether reconciliation is about to take 

place by people who still speak about a communist take-over 

when 62 or 63% of the population of this county voted for the 

government that is in power.  They may be fanatics, they may be 

unreasonable, they may be beyond the pale, but none of those 

entitle them to say that they believed that they had express or 

implied authority.  There was nothing happening at the time to 

which they had to react by killing a top leader.

	Then we say in 4.8 Mr Chairman that the Act was not 

proportional to the objective pursued in their own version and on 

their own version they sought to create chaos, expecting hundreds 

if not thousands of people to be killed during a race war in the 

hope that the riot would stage a coup.  This has been canvassed, I 

do not want to take up very much more time on it at this stage, it 

was very important for the proportionality.  But I was actually 

somewhat surprised by the Counsel for the applicant, Mr 

Chairman that the killing of Pieterse led to chaos.  I don't know 

why he said that, I would have thought that that would have been 

a warning to his client about irrational killing of people because 

we know that hundreds if not thousands died as a direct or 

indirect result of the wanton killing of Master Petersen on the 

16th of June 1976.

	And in 4.9 Mr Chairman the relationship between the 

objective pursued and the act is director or proximate, 

particularly as on their own version they had not planned or even 

informed the CP who they claim to have represented or any 

elements, to any elements of the right.  I think that the members 

of the Committee are aware to what we are referring to in this 

regard and I will take it no further at this stage.

	Now in relation to full disclosure Mr Chairman, we submit 

that the applicants have not made a full disclosure of all the 

relevant facts and have been untruthful relating to when the 

conspiracy to kill Chris Hani was first mooted or entered into; 

who were the victims of the conspiracy; who had become members 

of the conspiracy and more particularly Mrs Gaye Derby-Lewis 

and others who had procured the murder weapon; who procured 

the murder weapon and the reasons thereof.  Details of this are 

given in the rest of the heads of argument.  

	It is further submitted that the grant of amnesty to the 

applicants would be inappropriate and not in accordance with the 

objective of the Commission to promote national unity and 

reconciliation in that the act or offence was committed during the 

time when the country was at its most sensitive stage towards 

building peace, reconciliation and democracy.  The offence was of 

such gravity that the chaos envisaged to result from the 

assassination could have led to the death of many innocent 

civilians.  

	Well may I pause here and again refer to the evidence of Mr 

Jeremy Cronin as to how near we were to a civil war and the real 

chaos that had been envisaged and the evidence that had it not 

been for the leadership of Mr Mandela then as President of the 

ANC and Mr Tokyo Sexwale as the Transvaal Chairman of the 

ANC, there would so easily have been a blood bath and a race war 

in South Africa.

JUDGE NGOEPE:  Mr Bizos I do not understand the first 

sentence in that sub paragraph.  The second one I would 

understand provided it still deals with the question of 

proportionality and therefore that it's not a new argument.

MR BIZOS:  Yes the sentences should have been the other way 

around, it's not an argument, it's a fact supporting the argument 

appearing in the second sentence.  Or have I misunderstood the 

question?  Are we talking about the first sentence of 5.1

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Correct yes.

MR BIZOS:   And is that compared to some other sentence?

JUDGE NGOEPE:   No reading it on it's own, it somewhat 

surprises me because well in conjunction with the introductory 

part which is 5.5, and if you read 5 and then you say 5.1, you say 

that the grant of amnesty to the applicants will be inappropriate 

and not in accordance with objectives of the Commission to 

promote national unity and reconciliation in that the act or 

offence was committed...(intervention)

MR BIZOS:   I can see that, it's confused thinking with respect 

and I'm sorry for it.  There are really two separate issues; when 

was it committed, and under what circumstances and that is a 

proportionality argument, the other is should it be granted 

because of - and they are really separate points, I agree.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   And them being separate points, why would 

they - if requirements are met, if prescribed requirements for 

amnesty are met, why should we refuse the applicants amnesty 

simply because at that stage, simply because the offence was 

committed at the time when the country was at a sensitive stage?

MR BIZOS:  That is why I say it's not a separate ground, it's 

ground supporting the proportionality argument.

JUDGE NGOEPE:   Thank you that's understandable, yes.

MR BIZOS:   Probably if it had been more fully drafted it would 

have been more - it's more appropriate to the proportionality 

argument.

	And in 5.2 according to the applicants, the struggle 

continues and it cannot be discounted that they remain committed 

to the objective of creating large scale chaos which will create 

conditions for a coup d'état and this is what it was Mr Chairman, 

this was an attempt on their own version, and attempt at coup 

d'état and may I add here that nobody articulated more practically 

than Mr Clarke that we had here yesterday.  

	Perhaps if the Committee would allow me a personal 

observation, the applicants and their counsel thought the world of 

Mr Clarke as a witness, we submit that he is so besotted by 

hatred purporting to be a fundamentalist Christian, so besotted 

with hatred and admiration for the two murderers applying for 

amnesty that I would suggest that there is very ....(tape ends)

.. it doesn't appear in the heads of argument elsewhere,  I might 

as well deal with it at this stage Mr Chairman even though I'm on 

an overview.

	Counsel for the applicants dismiss the evidence of Mr 

Visser as fanciful and self-serving.  Yes it may well be but there 

are two inherent improbabilities in Mr Clarke's evidence who 

denies that anything like that happened. 

	Firstly why should Mr Visser have gone to Mr Clarke and 

asked Mr Clarke and Mr Roodt to apply for amnesty?  

	Secondly, if Mr Clarke is telling the truth that Mr Visser 

was, he's the fault ..(indistinct) and that the relationship between 

the two of them had soured by the time of the commission of the 

murder, why Mr Clarke on his own version disclosed to Mr Visser 

that there was compromising information in his computer's hard 

disks?  Since when on the general and particular probabilities 

does a witness confide that sort of information?

	 If we turn to paragraph 5 of page 3 Mr Chairman: 

	"It is further submitted that the grant of amnesty to the 

applicants will be inappropriate and not in accordance with 

the objective of the Commission to promote National unity 

and reconciliation in that the offence was committed during 

the time when the country was at the most sensitive stage 

with the building of peace, reconciliation and democracy, 

the offence was of such a gravity that the chaos envisaged 

to result from the assassination would have led to the death 

of many innocent civilians.  According to the applicants the 

struggle continues and it cannot be discounted that they 

remain committed with the objective of creating large scale 

chaos which will create conditions for a coup d'état".

	But now Mr Chairman, amnesty is provided in relation in 

relation to coup d'état in paragraph E and by the usual argument 

of that which included excludes other possibilities.  It was only 

amnesty to be given any person in the performance of a coup 

d'état to take over the government of any former state or any 

attempt thereto.  So this was a coup d'état, it was not for the 

purposes of preserving law and order.

	We turn in paragraph 6 to  6.1:  The failure to make full 

disclosures.  We submit that Mr Derby-Lewis has lied about the 

involvement of Mrs Derby-Lewis in the compilation of the hit list 

and the reasons therefor.  

	Derby-Lewis testified that he first saw the list of the nine 

names in Cape Town when Mrs Derby-Lewis showed it to him as 

part of the gravy train story which was to be used by Dr 

Hartzenberg in Parliament. We submit that that's false Mr 

Chairman. This could not be true because in January 1993 when 

Mrs Derby-Lewis telephoned Arthur Kemp and sent him a list of 

90 names it was after she and Derby-Lewis had discussed it and 

decided that unless something dramatic was done the country 

would be controlled by a communist.  

"Clive and I therefore highlighted the names of 

people whom we believed to be the enemies of South 

Africa".  

	This comes in R4.251, paragraph 43.1, we are going to 

argue Mr Chairman in due course that their statements are 

admissible as the ruling of the Committee indicated and that 

weight should be attached to it.  We will refer you, not to 

generalities or the cross-examination put to Mr De Waal, but to 

her own statements that she is unable to deny that this is what she 

said and that she made that freely and voluntarily despite certain 

discomforts that she says she suffered under. If that statement of 

Mrs Derby-Lewis is admitted and what we say is that we must 

take it together with the probabilities; the probabilities of this 

close union between these two persons and having regard to the 

character of Mrs Derby-Lewis, we are not dealing here with a 

compliant housewife, we are dealing with a high profile 

propagandist in the Patriot who in her exaggerations and fanatical 

statements probably has no equal and who has a mind of her own. 

 No serious step in relation to the preparation of this list would 

have been without her consent, and what we say at the bottom of 

page 4, 'on 29 April 1993 whilst in detention, Mrs Derby-Lewis 

was shown three pages compiled as the hit list and recognised 

them as the list of names and addresses that she had given to her 

husband.  This is evidence that Mrs Derby-Lewis knew of what 

purpose Mr Derby-Lewis needed the list.  

	Of course Mr Chairman, I'll remind you at this stage that 

she denied flatly before the Judge President of the Transvaal as it 

was then known, that she had given the list to anyone, she made 

up a fabric of lies about it being left on her coffee table with 

copies of the Patriot which Mr Walus may have mistakenly taken.

	When Mrs Derby-Lewis compiled the original list of 19 

names, she knew that the people whom she and Derby-Lewis 

considered to be enemies of South Africa were to be murdered, 

that after she had received the list of 9 names, Chris Hani was 

targeted for elimination, that the houses of the people identified 

for elimination would be reconnoitred and that Walus the one who 

was going to assassinate Chris Hani and we give you the passages 

in R4 Mr Chairman.  When cross-examined on why she needed 

addresses of certain people that she could either telephone or 

visit their offices, Mrs Derby-Lewis gave some preposterous 

answers.  Although she didn't think Hani would give her a private 

interview in his home, she still wanted the address so that she 

could see the way he lived.  The answer is absurd, if she was not 

going to be allowed into the house in the first place.  

	Mrs Derby-Lewis gave totally unsatisfactory and evasive 

answers to members of the Committee Mr Chairman about why 

she would have wanted to interview certain people who appear on 

the list and as to why she didn't visit certain journalists or 

telephoned them at their homes instead of seeking their addresses 

through Mr Kemp.  

	We give you the references; it was a long exchange Mr 

Chairman and we submit that it bristles with improbabilities.  It is 

submitted that the reason she has for compiling the list be 

rejected and that it be found that the list was compiled as a hit 

list.

CHAIRPERSON:   The one thing that sometimes worries me 

about this is, why if people are busy carefully planning the 

assassination of others, why would they make a list and in fact 

bandy it around.

MR BIZOS:   Well I can venture a number of reasonable 

possibilities as to why they would do that.  

	First of all, either at the time that they were doing the list 

or before that they had hoped that more people would come into 

the conspiracy and it may be that they wanted to show them, 

these are the enemies of the Afrikaner Volk, these are the people 

that we must eliminate.  They wanted an order and in answer to 

Judge Wilson as to why Walus marked it 1 to 9, is a ridiculous 

answer, with respect.  You'll recall that it was in order to speak 

on the telephone by number, and I think it was the chairperson 

that asked well if there was only going to be one, why talk in 

numbers anyway? So that a list is some evidence that this was or 

was intended to be a wider conspiracy than we have heard of 

here.

	The other of course is, criminal investigators in the 

administration of justice thrive on it.  Many of the people that 

plan similar crimes are just stupid.  In the Goniwe matter they 

dropped a name plate, otherwise the Goniwe people would just 

have disappeared for ever.  It is the sort of thing, the sort of 

oversight or the sort of conduct which makes investigation 

possible.  But certainly what it is not, is a list for journalistic 

purposes because we have the evidence of  Mrs Derby-Lewis in 

the criminal trial.  

	We will refer you to the passage Mr Chairman where His 

Lordship Mr Justice Eloff holds the evidence to be highly 

improbable.  However in that criminal trial there was an onus 

which had to be discharged and probabilities were not enough.  

The Committee here, and this is why she could not be convicted 

on the second count of conspiring to kill the people on the list, 

but here we had the additional evidence, their own statements, we 

have the evidence here of what Mr Derby-Lewis admits to doing 

which was not before His Lordship Mr Justice Eloff and I would 

submit that although the Committee will accept the learned 

Judge's view that it was highly improbable, what has come forth 

since, that Mr Derby-Lewis indeed had this list, that he did get it 

from his wife, that he did give it to Walus, that he and Walus, on 

their own version had planned the assassination, so that claiming 

that this was an innocent list on the probabilities was unlikely for 

Judge Eloff correctly, for this Committee it is beyond reasonable 

doubt.  

	That is the submission that we make in relation to the list 

and Mr Derby-Lewis lied about it, Mr Walus lied about the 

purpose of the list, Mrs Derby-Lewis lied in relation to the 

purposes of the list.  Therefore in relation to lack of full 

disclosure, if our submission is well-founded that all three of 

them knew that there were to be more than one victim and at least 

another appears in the list of nine, then each one of them has 

failed to disclose the truth.

	Let us take it on the probabilities.  After all we only have 

the wrong-doers testimony to work on and it may well be that 

none of them was expressly prepared to say or Walus was not 

prepared to say that I knew that this was drawn up by Mrs Derby-

Lewis and I knew that it was a hit list for the nine, if the 

inference can be drawn, and we submit clearly that it can, that all 

three of them knew what they were doing and what they were 

saying about the nine people on the list, there has not been full 

disclosure, that neither of them is entitled to amnesty and it is a 

pity that the safeguards of double jeopardy, Mrs Derby-Lewis 

does not have to answer any more to Mr Hani's death in a court 

of law.

CHAIRPERSON:   Another possibility could well be is that 

initially the list was sought for the purpose that we are told it 

was sought for and then later however, certain names were 

identified from it for purposes of elimination, which does not 

destroy the original purpose for which the list was sought.

MR BIZOS:   Although that is a theoretical possibility, the 

admissions of Mrs Derby-Lewis in R4 exclude it 

because she says, I can read the passages now - 251 

of R4 Mr Chairman.

"In January 1963 I telephoned Arthur Kemp at the

Citizen in Johannesburg and said I was going to send

him a list of names and that I wanted a description of

their houses and addresses.  This was done after much 

serious thought and because Clive and I felt that 

unless something dramatic was done the country 

would be controlled by the communists".

		Now may I just for one moment deal with the 

question of admissibility and weight at this stage?  This is 

completely consistent with what all of them said.  So how 

does it help the applicants to say that words were put into 

the mouths of Mrs Derby-Lewis or Walus or Mr Derby-

Lewis? 

"Clive and I therefore highlighted the names of people 

whom we believed to be the enemies of South Africa. 

 Certain names were added to the list I sent to Arthur 

such as Justice Goldstone and certain newspaper 

people.  Goldstone's address was needed to determine 

where he lived because I wanted to do an article on 

how he who helped to break down the Group Areas 

Act was now living in a white are far away from the 

results of his 1984 Govender Judgment'.

Now it also says something about Mrs Derby-Lewis Mr Chairman, 

not an unformed person, she knows the name of the case.  

	'The journalists address were requested because I wanted to 

write about them about their attitudes towards the CP.  I 

asked Mr Pik Botha's address because there strong rumours 

that he owned property overseas.  This has been reported in 

the in the Afrikaner newspaper and perhaps the company 

which owned his property here, if a company owned it, 

would be the same company which owned the overseas 

properties.  When I asked Arthur on the phone about 

supplying the addresses, I did not go into specifics.  He is 

politically shrewd and I believe that he felt that there was 

no need to spell out why we needed the names.  After all we 

were on the phone'.

Now is not that the statement of a conspirator, is that the 

statement of a person who wanted to write about the gravy train, 

about which she had already written before and had shouted it 

from the roof tops?  Why would she not want to discuss it on the 

telephone now.  I'm reminded the clandestine way in which Mr 

Clarke has bothered to take it to the Rotunda and to hand it over 

to him in his absence or out of his hearing on his evidence if he is 

to be believed.  	That's not a list but we go further.  On page 

252, paragraph 44, certain of the names on the list we believe to 

be the enemies of South Africa.  

	'Clive and I had vague plans in the beginning that some sort 

of arrangement should be made to liquidate one or perhaps 

more leaders of the ANC and the SACP Communist Party.  

The people on this list whom I believe to be the enemies of 

South Africa were the participants in 'Operation Vula'.  

You've heard the echo yesterday from Mr Clarke who were never 

prosecuted by the government and member of the ANC and SACP 

Communist Party.  Some of the names were 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 SA Communist Party which they believed 

never should have been unbanned.  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.  I simply asked Arthur what was asked of me; I'm 

not a logistics person, nor was I present at any discussions 

in '93 between Kuba and Clive about logistics', 

not about the conspiracy, just the logistics.  

	'It does not  mean to say I am denying that discussions 

between the two of them were not going on.  Clive told me 

sometime in March that he and Kuba had decided about 

Chris Hani as the person to be eliminated.  I don't know 

what Clive and Kuba discussed about the other enemies 

mentioned on the list, Arthur Kemp phoned ..' 

may I pause here.  

	Her previous statements make it quite clear that Hani was 

not alone, there was a whole list, what she says here,

	'Arthur Kemp phoned me to say that he had got some of the 

addresses I had asked for and I asked him to fax them to 

me.  I asked  him to fax the street address and the 

description of the residence referring to the ANC/SAC 

people and the description of the residences referring to the 

ANC/SAC people'.  

I suppose she didn't want a description of Mr Justice Goldstones 

if she's telling the truth about the article and not if he was not on 

the hit list, it's possible. And the reporters that she wanted to - it 

may be that there may have been people there as a camouflage, 

possibly but there is no doubt about the description of the 

residences referring to the ANC/SAC people and if we look at the 

exhibit with the nine names on, I can't remember whether 

everyone was an ANC/SACP person but certainly the majority, 

but with these fanatics Mr Chairman, who is an ANC/SACP 

person isn't a matter of nice distinction as far as they are 

concerned on the evidence I would submit, but anyone who is not 

fanatically preoccupied with herrenvolk ideas is a communist or 

an ANC person.

	Then on page 253 that, 

	'Arthur and I met at the Rotunda where Arthur gave me the 

names and the few other clippings for which I had asked 

him and Arthur told me that he was resigning from the 

Citizen and that he felt tired and was sick of ...(indistinct), 

Arthur said that he would be doing other things with his life 

not connected with this, generally such as statements, 

business and other...(indistinct).  I presume Arthur wanted 

to seem me rather than just faxing the list because he saw 

the implications of the list and felt he should not fax it to 

me.'

Now isn't that a conspiratorial way of dealing with things? I will 

deal with it in due course but what I want to emphasise at this 

stage, that where we have an improbable story told in the 

Supreme Court where ridiculous explanations are given by the 

witness in the witness box and where we do know that the 

handwriting on the list is that of Walus, we know that Mr Derby-

Lewis and Mr Walus had discussion on the list, that they were the 

ones that planned the murder, it becomes proof beyond reasonable 

doubt on Mrs Derby-Lewis' false evidence, coupled with the 

statements that she made which have not been shown to have been 

made under any sort of pressure, not only that what the applicants 

have to show that her treatment was such that she was in due 

course to lie about herself, about Walus and about her husband, 

she specifically disavowed any such happening in relation to her. 

She was specifically asked and we will further commit it to the 

passage by a member of the committee, and I have a graphic 

recollection of it, 

	'Despite all these things that happened to you..', 

if I remember correctly, it was the Chairman but I may be 

mistaken.

	'Did you tell them anything which was untrue?'

and the answer was no.  And let us remind ourselves how 

untruthful she was in relation to the portions that she learned 

were not on the video which was available.  She blue hot and cold 

and we refer to the cross-examination and these are the passages 

which are - if I could refer you to page 402 of R4, it's the 

continued portion, R4 continued, 402.  Well could we start with 

Item number 47.

	'On the Sunday I saw Kuba's photograph in the newspaper 

and recognised him at once.  I was very shocked but in my 

heart not at all surprised.  There had been a lot of talk 

between right wingers of solutions to the problems in the 

country'.    

This is the evidence her.

	'Clive said that he had discussed these things with Kuba'.  

Well that's true as a fact and of overwhelming probability that her 

loving husband would have told his loving wife.  

	'Clive was upset and I asked him what he was going to do'. 

A highly probable conversation after the wife party to a 

conspiracies was speaking to her husband after they found out 

that the one of the victims of their conspiracy had been murdered.

	'He said that during the discussions with Kuba they had 

mentioned such a thing like Hani's death, he said that he 

hadn't thought that Kuba would do such a thing at all'.

Well it's partly true but certainly not the statement of a person 

who is being coerced to give evidence against her husband or for 

any other purpose.  

	'He did say that he couldn't understand why Kuba had been 

so stupid to drive around so obvious, Kuba was supposed to 

change the number plates.  He did admit to me however 

they had discussed it.  Clive did however say it looked like 

a set-up, seeing Kuba was caught so quickly.  We suspected 

APLA, we talked about Hani suddenly talking peace when 

he was the manifestation of the resistance.  Hani criticised 

the PAC in the week or two prior to the killing.  Clive 

thought that either APLA, the government or someone was 

behind it, as it didn't should like Kuba who would go into a 

situation head-on.  I asked Clive about the gun but he did 

say he couldn't tell me where he had got the gun from'.

Now one does not dismiss that sort of evidence corroborative of 

the overwhelming probability found by Judge Eloff even without 

this.

	Then on top of page 6, during the criminal trial, Mrs Derby-

Lewis had given one other reason for the list to be the purpose to 

write a book with Mrs Ida Parker in addition to the list being for 

the purposes of conducting interviews or for use by Dr 

Hartzenberg.  The court held that Mrs Derby-Lewis was not 

truthful about the list and that here explanations were far fetched 

and that is the reference Mr Chairman to the criminal record.

	In her statement during detention Mrs Derby-Lewis says she 

did not show the list to anyone in Cape Town including Mr 

Derby-Lewis, that is in the statement and we give  you the 

reference, I submit that it's a correct reference, I don't want to 

read them unless members of the Committee want me to.  Her 

evidence before the Committee that she placed this list on Dr 

Hartzenberg's table and the evidence of Dr Hartzenberg that you 

saw documents on his table in Parliament, placed there by Mrs 

Derby-Lewis must be regarded as false.  Derby-Lewis is correct 

when he says that he took responsibility for compiling the list 

when he made his statement in detention in order to protect his 

wife.  His wife needed protection because the list was a hit list 

and he and Walus had already been arrested.

JUDGE WILSON:   Can I interrupt you for a moment Mr Bizos? 

For the assistance of my fellow  members, the reference at page 8 

to the judgment R1 Volume 9, you can also find it in Bundle A at 

page 59.  We're indebted to you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Yes because there are a couple of blanks there 

which we have to fill in.

MR BIZOZ:   Mr Derby-Lewis lied about Mrs Derby-Lewis' 

knowledge that Chris Hani was targeted for assassination.  He 

had told her sometime in March 1993, if not earlier that he and 

Walus had decided upon Chris Hani as the person to be eliminated 

and I give the R4 reference.  Mr Derby-Lewis has lied about Mrs 

Derby-Lewis' knowledge that he had obtained the firearm for the 

purpose of eliminating some of the people whose names appear on 

the list, Mrs Derby-Lewis says the following in the statement:

	'It was obvious to me that Kuba had already done the deed 

and Clive and I later confirmed that Kuba had used the gun 

which Clive showed me one day in the house with a 

silencer'.

Now Mr Derby-Lewis of course saying that he had a gun with a 

silencer for self protection and for practice for the neighbours not 

to hear, is something so far fetched which we submit will not be 

believed.  

CHAIRPERSON:   Perhaps this might be a convenient stage to 

take a break Mr Bizos.  Is there a whole likelihood if your 

finishing this afternoon.

MR BIZOS:   No Mr Chairman, unfortunately not, but we should 

finish in the morning Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON:   Very well adjourn now and resume at 9H30 

tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

270

MR PRINSLOO		ARGUMENT

BOKSBURG HEARING	AMNESTY/GAUTENG

MRS VAN DER WALT	379	ARGUMENT

MR BIZOS	412	ARGUMENT