amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS BOKSBURG TWO https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54642&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/bok/bok2_3hani2.htm CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, are we ready to carry on? MR MPSHE Yes, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, we are ready, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I'm going to lead the evidence of the witness, Captain Jonas Hendrik De Waal. The witness is sitting next to me, may he be made to take an oath? JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL (sworn states) EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE Mr De Waal, you were a captain during the year 1993 in the SAP? That is correct. MR MPSHE Do you know the witness by the name of Derby, Gaye Derby-Lewis? That's correct, Chairperson. MR MPSHE Is it correct that you knew her at the time when she was detained under section 29? That's correct, Chairperson. MR MPSHE And at that time you also had the opportunity of interrogating her? Correct. MR MPSHE Mr De Waal, will you please tell the committee as to what happened between yourself and Mrs Derby-Lewis during the interrogation? Chairperson, I was ordered by my commander, Colonel At van Niekerk, to question the detainee at Edenvale Police Station. I went to see her on the 24th, it was a Saturday, at 17:37 that afternoon. With me was female Constable Strydom and a Sergeant Human. We booked her out of her cells and took her to an office numbered 11. There I offered her a chair. She sat down and the rest of us also sat down and then I warned her according the rules of the law. I told her that I was Captain De Waal and that I was connected to the security police and I was stationed at John Vorster Square. I gave her the opportunity to read my certificate of appointment. She read it. She took her time to read all the particulars on the appointment certificate and she was satisfied that I was the person who I said I was. After that, I told her that I had been tasked to question her in the presence of the other members of the police services, and that what she would say would be put on record, and that any other admissions could be used as evidence against her if she were to be prosecuted. She said that she understood that. I began with the questioning. I told her that during the initial stages, I would like to have an historical report from her regarding her political involvement with right wing organisations, as well as that of her spouse, as well as an historical report regarding herself. She told me that she had been born in Australia. I said very well, that would be a good point to begin. CHAIRPERSON We don't want you to tell us everything that she said about her background and so on. I'm sorry, I'm telling you this in detail. CHAIRPERSON Yes. It was something which happened about five years ago, it's quite a long time ago. CHAIRPERSON Very well. Where particularly did this interrogation take place? The questioning or interrogation took place at the Edenvale Police Station buildings in office No 11. I was tasked for this purpose because I did not live very far from the Edenvale Police Station, it was easily accessible for me. How many times did you conduct interrogations with her? It was on the 24th of April and then again on the 26th of April, the Monday, I continued on the 26th, I'd just like to consult my dates, and the last time that I had anything to do with her was on the 30th of April, but during this period, I saw her practically every day, apart from the 25th, until we had taken her statement. Now, when you took her out for interrogation, was this recorded? Chairperson, the prescribed procedure was that a file would be opened, which would be in the charge office in every police station where section 29 detainees were being held, and in that sort of file there would be notes and you would record whether or not the detainee had any complaints, any other details about the detainee, where he would have taken them, whether or not they were visited by the magistrate or the station commander, any such details. Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I'm going to refer to Exhibit Z. The committee members do have the exhibit. I want you to have a look at Exhibit Z in front of you and turn particularly to page 4. At the end of page 5, there is a signature. Is that your signature? That is correct. Now I want you to go back to page 4 then and tell the committee whether what is written thereon was written by yourself? That's correct. Mr Chairman and members of the committee, it's the last paragraph on page 4. Is that your own handwriting? That is my handwriting. Correct. Do you mind reading what you have written thereon? "1993, 24th of April, 17:37, detainee Derby-Lewis booked out of her cell with Sergeant Human for questioning and statement. Had no complaints or requests and thanked me for the clothes which she received. Questioning took place in office 11, Edenvale Police Station. Present: myself, Sergeant Human and female Constable Strydom. Next time 18:55, questioning ceased at 18:55, detainee had no complaints and returned to cell. Prints and signatures taken." Now during this first interrogation, was there any ill-treatment of Mrs Derby-Lewis by yourself? No. Did you make any suggestions to her as to how to write her statement and what to say in her statement? No. Now I want you to turn now to page 22, still on Exhibit Z, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, or perhaps to make a better sequence, page 19 first, let's please start at page 19. Page 19, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. Do you see your handwriting on that page? Correct. Do you mind reading what is contained thereon? INTERPRETER Speaker's microphone is not on. MR BIZOS I'm afraid mine isn't - is this a typed, a printed page, "Bylae E"? That is correct. MR BIZOS And does it start on the top, the 29th of April 1993? That's right. Do you mind reading that for us, Mr De Waal? Yes. "1993.20.5, detainee Derby-Lewis booked out for further questioning by myself, Sergeant Miller and Investigating Officer Smit. She had no complaints." Now I want to believe that this is the second interrogation? Chairperson, the first was on the 24th, and if I'm not mistaken, the second took place on the 26th. Or no, this date would appear to be the 29th. Okay, let's concentrate on the very one you have just read on page 19, did she make any statement to you? MR BIZOS If you look at page 11, there's an entry there for the 26th made by this witness. That's correct, that is what I was referring to and that was my second date of questioning "Detainee Derby-Lewis booked out of police cell with female Constable Strydom. Had no complaints and was taken to office No 11 at Edenvale Police Station for questioning and for statement." Did she make any statement at the time, on the 26th of April? She made a statement. Did she voluntarily make that statement? Yes, she made a voluntary statement in her own handwriting. Did you suggest any statement or words to be included by her in her statement? No, that wasn't my style, and I had no particulars which I had to give her to put in her statement. Did you on this day, the 26th of April, subject her to any form of ill-treatment in order to induce her to make that statement? No, I treated her well. Let's turn now to page 19. You have already read page 19. That is correct, Mr Chairman. On the date mentioned on page 19, the 27th of April, did she make a statement as well there? Was she under any form of duress in making that statement? Not at all. Did you tell her what to write in her statement? Not at all. Now I want you to turn to page 22. Is that your handwriting on page 22? That is correct, the second entry, the long one. Is that the last time when you had an interrogation with her? That is correct, Mr Chairman. Would you mind reading that as well? "2.5.87, 12:50, report. Detainee, Mrs Derby-Lewis was booked out by a female officer and taken to be questioned. She had a bath and she had breakfast at the police station. At 9:10, a magistrate from Germiston visited her at Edenvale Police Station and a minister, Jooste, came round about 10:30 to visit her in room No 11, in the presence of Warrant-Officer Press of Benoni and female officer Strydom. Warrant-Officer Strydom took her photograph, took her fingerprints, as well as handwriting samples. Signature J A De Waal." What was your treatment of Mrs Derby-Lewis during this time? Mrs Lewis requested a lot of things, she required books to read, she gave me a list of the books, I bought these magazines out of my own pocket, I took them to her, she thanked me for those. When she was questioned, you would see during the first questioning, we were busy for one hour, she said she was feeling tired, it was a long day, I booked her back into her cells, I told her that she could have a rest, I would not bother her the next day, she could have a good rest. When she complained or asked that she wanted to have a bath, although it was time to eat, we obliged. We treated her very well, and she thanked us for the way in which we treated her. She did not expect to be handled so well during detainment. Mrs Derby-Lewis has told this committee that you treated her so much that even at the time when you approached her for the first time and subsequent thereto, you did not even warn her according to the judge's rules? In her own words she said that I acted very professionally. She said that she could see that we were trained very well, and she compared me to members of the Russian KGB, and she said the training we received was comparable to that training. Well, I felt very good about that. Now let's go back to the statement that she made. Did she talk and you did the writing, or what happened? Mr Chairman, I asked her whether she was willing to make a statement. She said she had no problem to make a statement and that she will start with the historical report and continue, and she started writing. She wrote that in her own handwriting. Female Officer Strydom typed the pages she completed in her own handwriting. This statement, did you tell her time and again what to write in the statement? No, I did not do that at all. Now the typed statement by your colleague, was this given back to her to check if that was the correct statement of what she had written? After it had been typed, it was presented to her again. She perused it and she indicated a few spelling errors, there were a few, typing errors rather, and that was corrected and she said if somebody wrote for the Patriot, she can't accept spelling errors and that was corrected. Afterwards she said she was not satisfied with the spelling errors in the statement, she was dissatisfied with the spelling errors and she wanted to retype it without spelling errors. We obliged, we gave a typewriter to her and it was retyped, and afterwards there were no spelling errors. Did you at any stage correct or attempt to correct her statement? Never ever, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, members of the committee, I'm going to refer to Exhibit AC. I want you to have a look at that document, merely at the last page, and tell the committee whether that is your signature? It is my signature, yes. Exhibit AC. Is this the statement made by yourself? I'm not going to ask you to read the statement, it is quite lengthy and members of the committee and all parties have the copy thereof. What is the gist of this statement? This statement indicates that should there be prosecution, I would know what was in this statement and could explain it in a supreme court. Do you align yourself with the contents of Exhibit AC, the statement? The statement is correct. That is all, Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE CHAIRPERSON Mr Bizos, are there any questions you wish to put to the witness? MR BIZOS Yes, there are a few questions that I would like to put to the witness. Mr De Waal, Exhibit Z, you told us that this is a file that was kept at the police station. Do you recognise it as a continuous record of the important events that occurred during Mrs Derby-Lewis's detention? That is correct, Mr Chairman, this file was not opened by me personally, it was opened by a member of the security police who detained her at Edenvale Police Station. These are according to precise procedures that such a file should be opened and handed to the commanding officer at the charge office. Whether she had a complaint at the charge office or at the magistrate, or any complaint, that was entered into that document. INTERPRETER The speaker's mike is not on. Although these entries are not in your handwriting, the committee has a copy of it and you've told us that it appears to be a continuous record. In it there are numerous entries of the comforts that were provided to Mrs Derby-Lewis, and also statements that she had no complaints. Did she ever complain to you about anyone else ill-treating her during her detention or compelling her in any way from making any statement? Sorry, apparently my mike goes off. Shall I repeat the question? Although these entries are not in your own handwriting, they set out what was done for her and how her requests were met, and on numerous occasions that she had no complaint. What I want to ask you is that the relationship that you had with her, which you say was a friendly one, did she herself complain about anyone having ill-treated her or had induced her in any way to make any false statements? She had no complaints at all. Now, were you a member of the investigation team in relation to the murder of Mr Hani in a full-time capacity, or had you been called in merely for the purposes of obtaining a statement from Mrs Derby-Lewis? Mr Chairman, no, I was part of the investigation team, right from the beginning to the end. I had various tasks and at that stage Colonel Van Niekerk tasked me to question her and obtain a statement from her, would she be willing to give one. Did you apprise Colonel Van Niekerk of any portions of the statement as it was being prepared by you and Mrs Derby-Lewis? That is correct, Mr Chairman. I was tasked that report should be provided to headquarters in Pretoria every day regarding the progress in our investigation, information which we could obtain from the statement by means of questioning would have to be provided to head office. At certain stages, on a daily basis, and sometimes every second day, I went to Benoni and took parts of her statement to the colonel. I presented it to him, he read it, and told me that he does not agree with certain parts of the statement, because her husband or Mr Janusz Walus made different, provided different information. I was unaware of what was contained in the statements of these two gentlemen. I just accepted that her statement was correct. He tasked me, I went back to her and said, "Mrs Lewis, certain parts of this statement differ from Derby-Lewis's and Walus's statements". She asked me what the differences were, and I told her, and then she would say yes, now she remembered, she had made a mistake. One incident I can remember, she told me that her husband had never showed her any firearm, and when I indicated that difference, she said yes, now she remembered, and she made the changes herself. Did you put any pressure on her to agree or disagree with the information that you had obtained from Colonel Van Niekerk? I did not put any pressure on her, I just told her that the colonel had said that some parts of her statements differed from those of Walus and Derby-Lewis, and if she said that was correct, I left it at that. Did she ever contradict the information that was given to you by the colonel, and say, "No, that information is incorrect", did she ever say that, did she feel free to say that? In all honesty, Mr Chairman, it could have been, but I can't remember. It could have been that at that part of the statement, she left it was it was and said that was what happened. Now, I want you to please have a look at R4, pages 149 to 163. JUDGE WILSON Mr Chairman, could we just get the page number again please? Yes, 149 to 163 of R4, Mr Chairman. I notice some difficulty with Judge Wilson's papers - as long as it's there, thank you. Now, is this a statement which was signed by Mrs Derby-Lewis? That's correct. And does your signature also appear on there? Yes, page 163, on the right-hand top side. Did you, at the time that you signed this, or before that, induce her in any way, or threaten her in any way, to sign this statement? I would never have done that. Would you please have a look at 164 to 195? In whose handwriting is this? That is the handwriting of Mrs Derby-Lewis. And does her signature appear at page 195? It's the last page of the handwritten... That's correct, at the bottom there is my signature, my details and my address. Did you at any time either threaten or induce her in any manner to write this statement out or to sign it? No. It was with her full co-operation and it was done voluntarily. There was never any kind of threat. Insofar as she may have complained about being tired or not entirely in her full and sober senses, do you consider this, looking at it, as a consequential and well-written statement in an excellent handwriting? I would have to agree with that. Could you please turn to page 211? Whose handwriting - 211 to page 239 - could we go to the bottom of 238, whose signature is that? That is my signature, with my details. That's on 239, go to 238, at the bottom of the page, 238, right at the bottom of the page, whose signature is that? That is the signature of Mrs Derby-Lewis. And who wrote this statement? Mrs Derby-Lewis. And there are, there is at least one alteration on that page, who is it initialled by? Mrs Derby-Lewis made these deletions herself, she signed there and it was police regulations that the officer present would also place his initials and his rank, as well as the date, there. Yes. Did you exercise any undue influence on her in any kind in order to sign this statement? Not at all. Please go to page 260 to 268. This is headed "Reply to queries on my statement for Colonel Van Niekerk, 27.4.93." Would this have been the response of Mrs Derby-Lewis to the queries of Colonel Van Niekerk? That's correct. In whose handwriting is this? Mrs Derby-Lewis's handwriting. And if you go to page 268, is there a signature there? That of Mrs Derby-Lewis. And did you exercise any influence on her to write this out and sign it? No. And finally, would you please turn to page 281. Who wrote this document out? This apparently is also a response to other queries that were made presumably by Colonel Van Niekerk? That's correct. Did you exercise any undue influence on her of any manner whatsoever in order to write this out and to sign it? Not at all. May I have a moment please, Mr Chairman, I want to confer with my colleague? Did you suggest to her what words she should use in referring to Mr Hani as the enemy, or suggesting to her how she should express herself, particularly in English? No. Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, we have no more questions. Captain, I noted that you worked under the command of Major General Du Toit, is that correct? That is correct, chairperson. And did you work directly under Colonel Van Niekerk, who was the commanding officer of John Vorster Square? That's correct. So you reported to Colonel Van Niekerk? That's correct. And Colonel Van Niekerk, on his turn, reported to Major General Du Toit? That is correct. And General Du Toit reported to head office? That is correct. And you were connected to the Security Branch? That's correct. In conjunction with Captain Deetliefs? That's correct. And he was also well-known to you? Yes, he was. As well as Warrant-Officer Beetge? Well I didn't undertake questionings or interrogations with him, but I did know him. He was also a member of the Security Branch? Not of my branch, but of another branch. But he was a member of the investigative unit of the Security Branch? That's correct. And Sergeant Strydom was also a member of the Security Branch, the lady? No, the lady was a constable and she was connected to the Uniform Branch at Edenvale Police Station. During this investigation Mrs Derby-Lewis was detained in terms of section 29 of Internal Security? That's correct. And those commands were issued by your commanding officer, Colonel Van Niekerk, is that correct? Well the arrest of, or the procedure by means of which Mrs Derby-Lewis was detained was not issued by myself, I simply undertook the investigations. You were aware that she was detained and questioned in terms of section 29 of Internal Security? That's correct. And surely you acted in terms of the orders from your commanding officer, Colonel Van Niekerk? Yes. And he issued orders to you with relation to the questioning of Mrs Derby-Lewis? Well I cannot agree with that. He was aware of my activities and he knew, or he stated that her version of the facts differed from that of her spouse and he mentioned that to me. You worked only under the orders of Colonel Van Niekerk, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And you had nothing to do with Murder and Robbery, that was not your branch? No, that was not my branch. I beg your pardon, I am speaking rather quickly, I will speak a little slower. Captain, Colonel Human was in charge of Murder and Robbery? Yes, that's correct. And those were two separate branches of the South African Police? That's correct. And your investigation was handled separately, correct? We were a co-operative team, or a joint team, but our orders came from our security officers to our security members. And during the questioning of Mrs Derby-Lewis, there is evidence which indicates that videotapes were made specifically while your colleague, Captain Van Niekerk, or at least Captain Deetliefs questioned her? I was not aware of that. I have no knowledge of that, it could be so. Captain, you and your colleagues who were involved with this investigation, which was quite an important investigation, surely must have consulted or had discussions regarding how this issue would be handled, especially in terms of your commanding officer, Captain Van Niekerk and Colonel Deetliefs? Colonel Deetliefs at that stage was busy with Janusz Walus's questioning, as well as that of Mrs Derby-Lewis. I had to take over because the pressure became too much for him, he had too much on his plate, and I had to take over so that he could proceed with Mr Janusz Walus, that is why it happened. Captain, it was your determined task to gather as much information as possible in terms of this case? That is correct. And Captain, surely it was the objective of section 29 that if someone were to be detained under the stipulations of that Act, that information should be collected? That is correct. And that information which was gathered had to be correlated to see whether or not it was true? That is correct. And that information would be expected to be gathered from the person who you were questioning? That is correct. You yourself would have possessed certain information in order to question such a person, is that correct? I had no information from other people, with all honesty. Therefore you had no information or other information regarding the case? The only information I had was that a murder was committed, that Mr Hani had been murdered, and I was connected with the investigative unit and I was ordered to be part of the investigation, that Mr Hani had been murdered and that the suspects had to be gathered and that they would be questioned and that we should undertake a complete investigation in order for the supreme court's prosecution of the suspects. That is all that happened. Captain, you were aware that your colleague, Colonel Deetliefs, had already questioned Mrs Derby-Lewis at various events? I had questioned her and Colonel Deetliefs before me. How many times exactly? I don't know. Did you see any of his notes, any of the questions that he had asked? No. Did you at any stage acquire any notes of Captain Deetliefs which he might have made while questions Mrs Gaye Derby-Lewis? No. Therefore how would you be able to perform a task, not knowing anything about the case, and then undertake questioning? I don't know how you can say that I knew nothing of the case. Well the most logical supposition would be that questioning had been undertaken by Captain Deetliefs for some or other purpose, he must have taken notes, and he must have reported to Colonel Van Niekerk what had surfaced during the questioning? Yes, I agree, he would have reported to Colonel Van Niekerk, but those notes were not at my disposal, I had no knowledge of what was contained in those notes, I did not see anything. Therefore, you didn't know anything? I was told to proceed with Mrs Derby-Lewis's questioning. Proceed to what, where did it end? Well I don't know how far Captain Deetliefs had come with her questioning. Well you were told to proceed, where did he stop? I don't know how far Captain Deetliefs managed to proceed with Mrs Derby-Lewis. I was tasked to proceed with Mrs Derby-Lewis as if it was the first time that I would be involved with her. Her admissions to Captain Deetliefs were none of my knowledge. Therefore it would have been a futile exercise, those couple of days? Well I wouldn't have known what she said to him.... I'll proceed to another point, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Yes, I think that you should not investigate, this is really not particularly relevant. It might be relevant in another tribunal, but certainly not here. Captain, so you've already said that you had - in terms of the stipulations of section 29, persons were compelled to answer questions? Well they could refuse. Captain, why would someone be detained in terms of section 29, and be honest about it? I have said it before and I will repeat, in order to retrieve as much information as possible from the person. And how would you retrieve this information if they refused to answer? Well then you would not retrieve it. And then would you ask that he be detained for a further ten days? Yes, I would have requested that. You would coerce the person into answering the questions by remaining there for a further ten days? Well, until the Minister of Law and Order had said no further detention, which would have happened at those times, he would be released and it would be out of my hands and...(tape ends) Captain, you said that you warned Mrs Derby-Lewis in terms of judicial rules? Yes, that's correct. At the beginning? Yes, that's correct. And you told her that she should sketch a background of herself, a report? Yes, that is how I would commence with any investigation or questioning, I would like a complete report of the person's background. And that she had to do in terms of the judicial rules? That is correct. I have explained this in my statement. Do you understand the question? You were not a new constable, you knew that you had to put the judge's rules in writing and ask the person if they understood what these rules were? There are copied statements in terms of this issue which are held at the station. I would have explained to her what I was going to ask, and you will see in my statement that all the elements of judge's rules were set out there, why are you attacking me personally? I'll put the question to you once more, was this statement to be used for the purposes of evidence, is that what you're saying? Well, if the attorney-general thought that there would be prosecution, then this would have been used as evidence in prosecution, I would have testified in terms of this evidence. In every case which is submitted to court, there is a clear and written document and I'm referring to the Security Branch, which was quite particular about it, the judge's rules would be set out clearly, where a person would sign and confirm that they understood those rules, do you agree? Chairperson, it was not compulsory to use that form. If you wished to set out the judge's rules in your statement, it would have been fine, it was not something which was issued by police regulations, it was something which we copied for ourselves in order to create more easier facilitation in dealing with suspects. We did not have to use that form. Nowhere in any of the statements of Mrs Derby-Lewis which is submitted to this committee, does it say that she understood exactly what the judge's rules entailed. I think I have explained to you that it was not necessary to use that form, that's why I didn't. I'm asking you the question, would you simply answer it. Do you agree? CHAIRPERSON Just hold on. Is your contention, your client's contention, or Mrs Derby-Lewis's contention that she was never told about the judge's rules? Is that your ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON It doesn't matter, was she aware of the judge's rules? Mr Chairman, she was not warned by the captain in terms of judge's rules. CHAIRPERSON Well then just put it to her that she wasn't warned, you see? Otherwise we're going to have an argument here about the way he went about it and the way you are saying it ought to have been done. With respect, Mr Chairman, as it's done daily in every court case, a person is warned ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON Yes, just put it to her ...(intervention). ...in writing ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON Yes. ...and he deny, he doesn't want to agree to that. CHAIRPERSON And he says no, it isn't always done that way, there is a form in which the judge's rules are set out and that he said to her ...(intervention). I put it to you, Captain, that at no stage you warned Mrs Derby-Lewis regarding judge's rules? What I have written there is the truth. I warned her in terms of judge's rules, I showed my appointment certificate to her, she read it herself and everything that I have testified here has been the truth. And I put it further ...(intervention). MR BIZOS No, Mr Chairman, in fairness to the witness, I must draw the committee's attention to page 211 "I, Gabriel Maroela Derby-Lewis, hereby voluntarily make a supplementary statement under oath in English." So that I think that the witness is entitled to have his attention drawn, once this attack is made on him, that his client, or rather his witness, or the spouse of his client, in her own handwriting said that she voluntarily had made at least that one statement. We will argue what the effect of it is. Captain, this section which Mr Bizos has just read makes no reference to judge's rules, is that correct, and I put it to you that in order to detain someone in terms of section 29, it would be contradictory to tell the person, "I'm warning you, you don't have to make a statement", while the colonel said, "You will talk". Where did you get the idea that the colonel told her that she would talk, I wasn't present when that happened? No pressure was exercised on her. Sir, if section 29 was explained to her in such a way, you would not be able to argue that? I've never heard of someone being told that they will talk. And at this point I would also like to put it to you that before another commission where application was also being made for amnesty, that the Security Branch specifically in terms of section 29 made use of methods which would not normally be prescribed. My procedures were those that were normally used. You should not connect me with those elements, I was a professional police officer and I performed my duties in a professional manner. You regarded her as a suspect, is that correct? Yes, I did regard her as a suspect and I'm surprised that she was never charged, I was surprised that she was never charged. Do you know that before the judge-president in the supreme court, with the two applicants, she appeared in the court, that she was found not guilty of all the charges? That is my opinion, according to the statement that I received from her, she was lucky that she was never charged. Captain, will you answer the question please? She was charged and she was found not guilty? CHAIRPERSON I think you should know, maybe your memory is failing you, she was in fact charged, she was in the trial and she was found not guilty. It might have escaped you, but that is what in fact happened. Carry on. Why did you tell the committee that she was never charged? Why are you misleading the committee? I'm not misleading anyone. This matter occurred five years ago. This was a very controversial issue in the media. Yes, it was very controversial, she was not, she's not in detention, her husband and his accomplice are in detention. You went on and said that she was a suspect and emphasised that you were surprised that she had not been charged. Since when does one take an affidavit from a suspect? I don't understand what you mean by that. You ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON Well, I think please, let's just move on. With respect, Mr Chairman, it's crucial, if a person is a suspect in a trial, you don't take a sworn statement from him. CHAIRPERSON Yes, well at any section 29 inquiry, she was detained under section 29 and a statement was in fact taken, these are the statements we've got before us. Now how much further can you take it? Mr Chairman, the only, what I'd like to ask the witness, why was a sworn statement taken from the witness? CHAIRPERSON Well it was in fact taken, isn't it? Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit it's not procedure ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON All right, then the procedure ...(intervention). ...and that's the point I want to make as to what is the case of the witness, Mrs Derby-Lewis? You took an affidavit and told Mrs Derby-Lewis that she would be used as a witness. I never said that. In terms of section 29, it would be an affidavit. That is why the judge's rules do not appear in this statement. But she was made aware of the judge's rules and the statement was written in her own handwriting, and that is why she didn't mention the judge's ...(intervention). MR BIZOS Could I just ask you something here? You've just told us the statement was in her own handwriting and she didn't mention the judge's rules, but, where is the first statement by her, 164 is it? Yes. At the end of that statement, she has written, at page 195 "I know and understand the contents of this statement. I have no objection to taking the prescribed oath. I consider the prescribed oath to be binding on my conscience." I take it she was told to write that? That is correct. those three sentences, this is the way of concluding a statement. That I've told her to write, those last three sentences are part of an affidavit. MR BIZOS You told her rights in the case of each one of them, but you've never told her to write that she had been warned in terms of the judge's rules? This form, she did not know this form of a sworn statement, that's why I told her how to do it. When you took the statement for the first time, you told her that she had to provide a historical background? That is correct. Why did she have to be warned according to judge's rules, what did that have to do with the allegations against her? Mr Chairman, that was just to get a complete statement from her, from the beginning to the end, I wanted to get a complete statement and that was how we went about in the Security Police with the historical statement, that was to get a full picture of this person. It was the practice in the Security Police, Captain, I want to put it to you, that every person who was detained according to section 29 who could write, was asked to write his background in his own writing, am I correct? I don't know about practice, but that was what I did. Do you agree that a practice like that existed? It was not used by all the Security Branch members, it differed from member to member. Where were you stationed? I was at Security Branch, Sandton, and I was attached to John Vorster. I was stationed at Morningside. "I told her that at that stage we would just take a background information from her regarding her political career and an historical history, and that on Monday I would provide a complete statement. The reason for that is that there are documentation found in her possession which I would like to study, and which I want more information about." That is correct. Captain, are you tell the honourable committee that she wrote her statement regarding her background and then she stopped, is that what you're saying? I'm not understanding your question. Are you telling the committee that she started writing a statement regarding her background and then she stopped until you had the time to study whatever you wanted to? Yes, I wanted to study the diary she had in her possession. Can you tell the committee where she stopped and where she started, can you indicate on her statement? She stopped where she had stopped writing. Can you indicate where on the statement? CHAIRPERSON Ja, just tell me, can you tell me now, please, I want you to assist me, what is the relevance of all this kind of cross-examination? I respectfully submit ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON You see, in another tribunal the value of her evidence and so on might be of grave concern, but here as to when she gave her history and when she gave the rest of her story and so on, precisely of what importance is it? I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, it's relevant to the credibility of this witness. CHAIRPERSON No, then I'm not interested in allowing you to proceed with the credibility of this evidence, if that is the only purpose. You have, her statements are here, she has not denied making those statements, so there's no point in challenging the credibility of witness on the question of procedure that he followed or did not follow. I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, that her version is she was told what to say by this witness. CHAIRPERSON Well then you put it to her and she wrote it voluntarily and her statement says that she wrote it voluntarily. I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that she was detained in terms of section 29, that she was in the hands of the Security Branch. CHAIRPERSON Well then that's, the value of her evidence and so on, that would be a matter for another tribunal, you understand? She could have said in a court of law, "My statement was a section 29 statement, it is inadmissible", and the Court would have said, "Yes, it's inadmissible". But, Mr Chairman, with respect, how do I dispute this witness' evidence? CHAIRPERSON You're not disputing his evidence, you are merely saying that he didn't follow certain procedure. Well I put the version of the witness to him as well, after I examined him, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Well I think that you'd better proceed further along the lines, but I don't think we can go on questioning along these lines to test his credibility on these issues. Only this, early this morning, yes. You said Colonel Van Niekerk was not satisfied with her statement, is that correct? I did not say that, I said parts, certain portions of these statements he did not agree with because it differed from that of her husband. And because there was a difference in the evidence, he wanted her to put it right? No, I questioned her and I told her that Van Niekerk had said, "These portions of your statements do not agree with your husband's". Did you tell her what her husband had said? you did not tell her? Yes, yes, I told her what her husband had said. What did you tell her exactly? What was contained in his statement. Did you ask her to write down what her husband had said? No, I told her that orally. Did you keep any notes regarding what you've just told the committee? It happened five years ago, but it could have been in the interrogation file. Where is this file kept? That interrogation file or the files are filed at Murder and Robbery, and the investigative officer was Mike Holmes. JUDGE WILSON Mr Chairman, with respect, the answer did not mean that, well perhaps I shouldn't say anything, but before putting that question, with respect, Mr Chairman, he should be asked how the final statement came into being? JUDGE WILSON Precisely. INTERPRETER The speaker's mike is not on. JUDGE WILSON Is this statement the corrected statement, not the statement she (indistinct). INTERPRETER The speaker's mike is not on. JUDGE WILSON Well, somebody could perhaps repair the mike. The statement, it's not the statement that she made on the date that appears at the end of the statement, is that the position? The wrong statement was corrected, this is the correct statement you have in front of you. JUDGE WILSON Yes, now when was, when was this statement made, the corrected statement? If I obtained a statement from her on the 24th and I saw her again on the 26th of April, I told her that the colonel did not agree with certain parts of her statement, and then she corrected that. JUDGE WILSON Yes, well now that's what I want to know about, because it is a long handwritten document that runs over the pages, how did she correct it? Did she carefully re-write three lines so she didn't have to re-write the whole statement? Mr Chairman, the parts which were not correct, she re-wrote the correct part, and she tore up the wrong part. JUDGE WILSON Did she re-write it in such a way that in each case of an alteration, it was only one page and the other pages could remain as they are, or did she have to re-write the whole document? No, Mr Chairman, there was very little where there was a difference, where there was a dispute, it was only small parts of the statement on which we differed. CHAIRPERSON We'll take the short adjournment at this stage and resume in 15 minutes. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS What is the question? Upon a question by His Honour Judge Wilson you said that there were certain changes that had been made and they were no longer available, they had been destroyed, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. So therefore it could never be shown to anyone ever again after that in order to determine its value? That is correct. So it could have been to her advantage or to her disadvantage, do you agree? Yes I do. And you are aware that when someone writes a statement or when a magistrate takes a confession, it may not be destroyed? Well if the person wishes to correct their statement, I do not see a problem with it. But you do know what she wrote? Well it was five years ago, I cannot remember anymore. At the time that she was writing it, you knew what she was writing? That is correct. But you could have put those pieces together? I wanted a correct version of the events, there were certain aspects where she said she wanted to protect and she wanted to correct that, and I wanted the correct version of the incident. Captain, at the end of the day, the Court would have been the arbitrator, not you, the Court would have had to decide what the value of it was, not you, what the truth was, not you? As I've said, I wanted the truth before me. Do you agree that if that part of the evidence was not before the Court, there was something missing, do you agree? According to me, the statement which she made was the truth. The versions which she gave and the clauses where she said she wanted to protect someone and she wanted to correct it, especially in terms of the weapon, were brought into my statement regarding those aspects which were changed. How did you know that that was the correct version? So the other sections ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON Mr Prinsloo please, no, Mr Prinsloo, please I don't think you should, I think you should ask this type of question within the context of your client's own version. As far as I can recall, she never said, "I did tell the truth, I was caused to discard the truth in favour of the untruth". So you are proceeding on the premise as if your client had said that what she had initially written was true and then later she was caused to throw it away and then accept something which was true. That was not her evidence, and you go on therefore to argue on the premise, you go on to argue that well, what she had, what was discarded could have been to her advantage, and that argument is based on the premise that she had told the truth initially, but that's not what she said. All she said was that she said certain things and then later she was confronted with other things, and as a result her statement was change. With respect, the way I understand it is that she was told what to say with regard to certain aspects and that the version which the captain presents here is that certain things were changed and they were destroyed and we don't what that was, that is what I'm aiming at, that that section of the evidence which had been destroyed can no longer be considered in terms of the evidence which appears in the statement, there is, there's some kind of empty space and that is what I'm aiming at. CHAIRPERSON But I mean don't you understand the point my brother is making, you see, if she maintained that the documents which you had thrown away were in fact the truth and her present statement is what she was told to say, now that is not what her version was, you understand? With respect, Mr Chairman, her version is that she was told what to say, where it didn't agree, she had to re-write it. CHAIRPERSON Yes, but she maintains it was the truth. Mr Chairman, she said, she indicated to the portions of the statement that was not true, she did indicate that in her evidence. CHAIRPERSON She said that, look at the end of the statement, each statement that she makes, where she affirms its contents as being the truth. With respect, Mr Chairman, she says she was told what to say. CHAIRPERSON Yes, well all right, you can use that in argument. And really what's the value of that statement? CHAIRPERSON You can use that as argument, it seems, because you can't cross-examine this witness on evidence that has been destroyed without us knowing. How are you going to discuss ...(intervention). MR BIZOS Can you give us the reference to what she said? I'll have to find it, Mr Chairman. What I've also got here, Mr Chairman, is what she said in A1, which was also handed in, a note she made as to what - for instance at page 6 of that Exhibit A1, which I can just find now, she wrote at paragraph 15 of A1 "He said I must re-write parts of my statement, that Clive had said that this and that, when I, for example told him I can't remember when he asked me when something had happened, if, as if something happened, then he would say, `Well, you'll sit here until you can remember' or `We'll detain you further'." That's with reference to De Waal. CHAIRPERSON Well all that really boils down to the value that we attach to her evidence, isn't it? That's correct, Mr Chairman ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON Yes. ...in conjunction of the captain's evidence. CHAIRPERSON Yes, well now carry on then, I think what evidential value there is in her statement is a factor which we'll take into account. I think my difficulty with your line of cross-examination is that it was based on the assumption that what the witness subsequently discarded was in fact the truth, my difficulty was that you base your cross-examination on the assumption or on the premise that what she had initially said, but subsequently changed, albeit at the instance of the police, was the truth, and I'm saying that you can't say that unless the witness herself had said to us, "What I initially said was the truth until the police came and caused me to change it". She never, that was not her evidence. In fact my impression was that she lied, that's what the general impression she conveyed, the impression she conveyed was that initially she lied, and then later when she was confronted with something else, then she changed, and you proceed on the premise which is based on the opposite. With respect, Mr Chairman, the purpose of my question was directed at the captain to indicate that by destroying the document, we are now not in a position to see - to evaluate what was said, that's my whole purpose. CHAIRPERSON But what was the point, why should we miss something which was untrue, why must we be bothered to evaluate something which was in any case untrue, how are we prejudiced? Mr Chairman, we don't know what was said in that context, whether it was true or untrue, I don't know. MR BIZOS Well what did she say about it, I don't care what you know, it's what did she say anywhere in her evidence, "I had the truth in my statement and I was compelled to change it to put in something untrue"? Her evidence is, Mr Chairman, with respect, that she was told what to say. She said in her evidence she never saw a weapon, and here it is stated she saw a weapon. It was added to the statement. CHAIRPERSON (Indistinct) attention was drawn to the fact that this is what her husband had said, and she says now, "Yes, I remember that this is what in fact happened, I did see the weapon". Now can you take it very much further than that? Well the point is, Mr Chairman, with respect, if she's told by the captain to write that, then it makes a big difference, because that's not her version then. CHAIRPERSON In other words, she was now compelled to write what was the truth, is that what you're saying? Well I'm not saying that's the truth what's written in the statement, Mr Chairman, with respect, she said it's untrue, she never saw a weapon, which is written in the statement. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Can we proceed to some other aspect of the case please? Captain ...(intervention). MR BIZOS Mr Chairman, if Judge Wilson is looking at the record, I have already reference of Mrs Derby-Lewis's evidence, it's set out on page 65 of our heads of argument, Mr Chairman, but it will just identify some of the references. In your statement you refer to a murder list, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. But nowhere in Mrs Derby-Lewis's statement is there mention made of a murder list? That's correct. So why do you mention a murder list? Well that is what was discussed at our conference. I beg your pardon? We spoke about the murder list amongst our members. So it became known as the murder list? That's correct. So your statement in that relation is not correct? I see it as murder list because various individuals were murdered. What you are saying in your statement is what Mrs Derby-Lewis should have said? What you are saying in your statement is that which Mrs Derby-Lewis had said to you, is that correct? In the statement she also mentioned the murder list. In her statement? No, not in her statement, but that is what she said to me, it was regarded as a murder list. Where did she record that in her statement? There was a section which was amended, she maintained a version that this list was compiled because she wanted to write an article about the names on the list, those persons, and after that I said that that was not the version of her spouse and she subsequently changed her opinion. So therefore after it was told to her what her spouse had said? Yes, that was one of the issues that Colonel Van Niekerk told me to take up with her, whether or not it was true that she wanted to write an article about these persons or whether her husband's version was true, she changed her opinion, she said that her husband's version was in fact the truth. The statement, the first statement which she wrote, was about background and then proceeded to cover aspects regarding the merits of the case? Yes, that is correct. Earlier I asked you where she had stopped after you told her to write and then you would discuss certain aspects with her after you had studied certain information? You addressed these aspects before, but I will answer again and that is that I cannot possibly remember that far back, that which is before me here is her complete statement and she is completely aware of everything contained in the statement, where she stopped and where she proceeded once more I would not be able to give you detailed information of. In terms of her statement, this was on the 24th of April, and it, or the first statement finished on the 27th of April, and she had written the statement in the office, is that correct? Yes. And the police, female police officer typed it? After she had written it, she went through it, she studied it again, I testified that she had admonished the female police officer regarding spelling mistakes, but there was nothing wrong with the statement itself, but that she did not approve of the spelling mistakes, she wanted to type it up herself. She did, there were no more spelling mistakes and she agreed with everything that was said in the statement. Why, when she studied the statement again, did she not point out certain facts which she was not satisfied with, why did she only point out spelling mistakes? A simple question, but what I would like to know is that from the 24th to the 27th, during the rendition of this statement, there was a certain point where she was not questioned, there was a break in the questioning? Yes, there was a certain break. I stopped on the Saturday and then continued on the Monday. It's a very long statement, it was written over quite a long period of time? Yes, that is correct. And it was re-written neatly, the final draft? Yes, it was typed, she typed it herself. Can you please point out to the committee which changes were brought to the statement? Initially, this morning, I testified that she made certain zig-zag patterns where she deleted certain things, and that is clearly indicated. I testified that it was police policy that certain deletions would have to be dated and initialised, I did so and she did so as well, that was police procedure. Mrs Strydom wasn't a very good typist, is that correct? Well, according to my opinion, there were a number of spelling mistakes. I think it was rather petty to admonish her regarding the spelling mistakes, but we wanted to keep Mrs Derby-Lewis satisfied, we didn't want her to have any problems with the statements at the end of the day and that is why we gave her permission to re-type the statement herself. We didn't want her to point out any errors or spelling mistakes afterwards, that's why we gave her the typewriter and allowed her to re-type it herself, after which she was satisfied with the final product, that there were no errors whatsoever. Various statements were made by her, is that correct? Yes. When were the statements typed? While she was busy, when she had written a page, she handed it over to the typist, who would sit there and type these pages next to her, page for page, she received the information from her. Perhaps you don't understand the question. When did Mrs Derby-Lewis type the final statement, on which day? It is mentioned here. The three statements, were they typed on the last day or as she had completed each and every one of them? No, when the statement had been finished and sworn and studied, she would type it. So that would have been on the 27th of April? No, that would be when the statements had been completed and the dates appear on the statements. But then with the second statement she had to record things that had already been mentioned in background, what was the relevance of that? Well that, for example, had to do with the list of names, the organisations which she belonged to, we wanted all these details, whether or not the Court would use it wasn't important, we wanted it for information purposes in the Security Branch and that is why the colonel asked that I question her specifically regarding organisations and the list, and that is why we received information regarding those issues, whether or not it was in the interests of the Court, it was valuable to us within the field where we were working. The State Advocate Von Lieres, who managed the case on behalf of the State, and his junior Advocate Nel, did they consult with you regarding that case? No. Were you ever called to testify? No. And I also put it to you that not one of the members of the Security Branch, Colonel Van Niekerk, yourself, Captain Deetliefs, ever testified during that trial? That is correct. Do you know why not? No. Were these statements made available to the State? These statements, according to me, had to have made up a certain part of the dossier which the presiding officer had compiled regarding the case. You are speaking of the section 29 statements? All the statements which were received. But your statements were specifically the section 29 statements, that is what you managed? Yes, but if I had managed the dossier or the file, it would definitely have appeared in that dossier. Just a moment please. Honourable Chairperson, the page 405 of Mrs Derby-Lewis's statement, you have mentioned that Mrs Derby-Lewis was warned by you in terms of her admissions? Yes, that was procedure, it had to be done that way. And once again you did not write out the judge's rules there for her to sign and confirm that she understood them? I think it's very clear that I was impartial in this respect. When she said that she didn't wish to make the admissions, we left it at that, because that was procedure, there were no irregulations, no undue pressure was placed upon her. You didn't want her to make the identification towards you? That is correct. Well that would be procedure, one had to warn her, "This could be used against you, are you prepared to do it?" She declared herself willing to me, and I took her to the captain and that is how it was done, and that is where she changed her mind and she was taken back the captain said that she didn't want to do it, and that was that. This is the first that I hear of it, that you warned someone who was asked to make an identification, because according to this version, Captain Louw had warned her in terms of judge's rules and she had refused then. That was Captain Louw's procedure. He didn't know her, it was the first time he was seeing her and it was his prerogative to warn her in terms of judge's rules, and I said to him, "This person is willing to make identifications, will you interview her?" After that she had changed her mind and she didn't want to. I put it to you that Mrs Derby-Lewis was warned by the captain in terms of judge's rules and that it was the first time that she learnt that she was actually involved a section 29 matter and that she actually had a choice which she didn't have before? Why would I then have taken her to Captain Louw and why didn't I take her through the identification myself, if that was the case? Is that not proof of my impartiality, that I chose an independent officer? Then she exercised her choice not to make an identification, while she said to you, according to your version, that she was willing. Isn't it strange? It's not strange, it has happened before, it has happened many times in the past where people change their minds. Someone says to you they would like to make a confession to a magistrate and as soon as they get to the magistrate, they have changed their mind and that they don't want to do it, this happens. And at the end, you knew, on the 27th or 26th of April, according to your version, that Mrs Derby-Lewis had made an application for her release? That's correct. And from that moment forward, you continued to question her and receive statements? Yes, it was my right. Did you inform her that this kind of application had been made? I can't remember, it's possible. But there is nothing in writing that you did inform her? Well she was a detainee, I cannot remember, I may or may not have informed her regarding this, according to me, she was a detainee, there was no document that had been issued saying that she should be released by the Minister, and if that had been so, I would have been compelled to release her, but until such a document had been issued, I would have continued with my work. And she never had any legal assistance or access to the law while she was detained? No, in terms of section 29, she had no right to that. And you are aware that during her interview with Captain Deetliefs before she was detained in terms of section 29, she repeatedly asked for legal assistance? I'm not aware of that, I was not present when Mr Deetliefs questioned her or when any arrangements were made between the two of them. Why did you not make use of a videotape, as with other cases, when you knew that allegations were always made about the Security Branch? I was not even aware that a videotape had been made with Mr Walus, I only knew which methods were used with his interviews. My instructions - in all the interviews that I had made during my years at the Security Branch, I never used a videotape. But some officers did? Yes, certain officers did use videotapes, it wasn't compulsory though. But it would have assisted you greatly today if you had material on video. Why? In order to determine exactly what happened, for example in cells, if there was 24 hour monitoring in John Vorster Square, there would be videotape material. CHAIRPERSON Yes, he didn't make himself a videotape, he has said so, neither do we have any reason to think that it was standard practice for the police to do that, to make use of ...(intervention). Captain, this detention file is compiled by the Security Police, is that correct? That is correct. It's for the purposes of the Security Police? Yes, we provide it to the charge office and also the persons, the magistrates, the district surgeons, the officers who were working during the weekends, and they make a note whether a person has any problems. All the, the charge office does not have such files and we provide it for this purpose. The charge office has an occurrence book which gives 100% report on what is happening? That is correct. Whether everything is reported I don't know, but they should keep up an occurrence book. This file regarding her detainment, has that been kept up to date? Yes. I looked at it this morning. If you look at Exhibit Z, page 5, are you on page 5, Mr Chairman? Right at the top there's an entry? That's correct. The 24th of April, it's just before six o'clock in the evening? 17:35, just after half past six. It's actually five - it's five to seven, but in any case, on the 25th of April at 7:50 it has an entry by Strydom saying "Visit Mrs Derby-Lewis, she complains of stomach ache and heart ache. I took her to have breakfast and to have a bath." Do you see that? I see that, yes. This is a serious complaint if you have a heart ache? The procedures if such a complaint was made is that the uniform people should get a doctor to examine this person. They all know those procedures and they have to do that. Well, Captain, you had a... (tape ends) No, I did not have a look at all these entries. But you've said she had no complaints, but here is a complaint. When I've asked her, she did not mention any complaints. If she complained to me and at some stages she said she was tired, she wanted to have a rest, I stopped, and she said she wanted clean clothes, she obtained clean clothes. If she said her son had to obtain money for her, I made certain arrangements. People from Benoni summoned her son and the money was handed over in her presence. I provided magazines for her, every small complaint I paid attention to, Mr Chairman, and if she had complained about illnesses or a heart complaint, I would have reacted to that. And do you see further on, there's another entry on the same page, on the same day, she had half an egg and she drank a glass of milk and she's not feeling well, do you see that? I see that, yes. You knew that you had to do with a person who was possibly ill, because this dossier, you had insight in this dossier? This file was held in the charge office. We who did the questioning had his own file. And in that, when you've questioned them regarding whether you're ill, do you need anything, and those entries were made? All the entries made by the other members of the police force, I did not read, because that was for the purposes of to be used in the charge office. If she did not complain to me, I was satisfied, Mr Chairman. And then, further on, on page 7, at the bottom, 14:40 on the 13th of April, she starts with a request and it's said on the next page, on page 8 "Tried to calm her down, she was hysterical and said if she could not contact Human, she was going to bang her head against the wall." And it continues like that. And that was ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON You're asking him to comment on something that somebody else wrote down of which he's not aware. Now how does it take this matter further? With respect, Mr Chairman, this is contradictory to what he said, that there were no complaints. This woman was hysterical. CHAIRPERSON He did not say that there were no complaints, he says there were no complaints as far as he was concerned. I've said enough, but the instructions are fine, if she had any complaints, if those complaints were serious, the people in charge had to contact me or anybody else, or had to summon a doctor to pay attention toward these complaints. If they did not do their duty, what could I have done about it? I'm putting it to you, because she was in the hand of the Security Police, how could she complain to you, because you were handling her, she was going to complain to the uniformed policemen, do you agree to that? What I don't understand, this woman at various instances told me that she was happy with her treatment. She had her meals at the mess, she got good meals, all the section 29's had their meals in the mess, this is evidence how well they were treated. Food does not set everything right. JUDGE WILSON Mr Chairman, Mrs Derby-Lewis's evidence in relation to these complaints of illness was that there was an arrangement to bring both the district surgeon and her personal physician to attend to her. (Indistinct) to Mrs Derby-Lewis what she had to say and then what was said there was thrown away, it was re-written until you were satisfied? This is a lie. And then furthermore you are saying did she eat in the office or in the mess? Well I know at certain instances she had her meals in the office, at certain instances she ate in the mess. At a certain stage food was brought from the mess and she was served in the office. As far as she can recollect, she had her meals in the kitchen. What do you mean by the kitchen? If the kitchen and the mess is one, I don't know. What do you want from this question? She got her food. You go all the way and you are so involved in what she had to eat, this is the old style, I'm so concerned about what she had to eat, she had no reasons to complain because she was treated well. While you were questioning her, did you tell her that Arthur Kemp had been detained? I told her, yes. Why did you tell her that? Well why not? I told her that. I don't know what you see in that, I told her that Arthur Kemp had been detained. Please, you know that there were allegations that he had written that murder list, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. That he had compiled the list? That is correct. It was an important key? CHAIRPERSON That Arthur Kemp had been detained? Arthur Kemp was arrested by me personally, and I questioned him personally. CHAIRPERSON And you told Mrs Derby-Lewis that he's been detained? Yes, I told her that. Did you first spoke to Kemp and then to her, or how did it work? After I had detained Kemp, I took his statement, and then I spoke to her. Did you confronted her with Kemp's information? Yes, she told me that she'd obtained a list from Kemp regarding a certain story she had to write of the people who lived in those places, and I assumed, or rather I told her exactly what he had said. And did he confirm what she had said? He did not know what she had said. Did Kemp confirm what she had said regarding the story she had to write? I believe that Mr Kemp's statement is here, and from that we can see what he had said, I can't remember what Mr Kemp had said in his statement. And then with reference to this list you've shown to her, which you'd already indicated to Deetliefs, is that correct? What is your question? Did you tell her, as I can gather from your version, that Deetliefs said that she showed a murder list to him? Well if she had said that, if that was explained in my statement, if you can just refer me to the specific paragraph, it was like that. On page 4 of your statement, the fourth paragraph from the bottom, or rather the third one. It's Colonel Van Niekerk who told me to show her that list. Did you tell her that Colonel Van Niekerk was not happy with her statement regarding this respect? No, he did not say this, he just told me to show the murder list. She's mentioned this list previously? Yes, I told her that what she had said is a contradiction of what her husband had said in his statement and what is the truth, what is the truth, what was she saying, according to her was that the truth? She said, her version to me was that she wanted to protect Kemp and if Kemp gave his full co-operation regarding that list, she would also give her full co-operation and she would tell us what the purpose was. Where in this statement, or in any statement, did she say that she wanted to protect Kemp? She said it somewhere in one of these statements, I've noticed it this morning. On page 3 at the top, page 3 at the top "On that question she asked me whether Mr Kemp was still being detained. I said no and she told me she had not spoken the truth about the list, because she did not want to cause troubles unnecessarily for Kemp, because he did not know why she wanted to obtain the addresses. She said that she now wanted to tell the truth regarding this list, and she said, `Change this part about the list'." This is what I'm referring to. And she told you, initially she said that she wanted to write stories about these people? Yes, this is also mentioned here in this statement. And you've accepted that as correct? Yes, I've accepted that as the truth, until I presented it to Van Niekerk and he said this was a contra-diction of her husband's statement. A contradiction regarding what? A contradiction regarding the purpose of this list. Did she mention anything regarding the purpose of the list, apart from wanting to write about it? She said she wanted to write stories about the people. I presented it to the commanding officer and he said, "Somebody is not telling the truth. Take it up further with her". Did you do anything about the fact that she wanted to write about people? But it seemed that she really did want to write something about those people. Mr Chairman, what she said about the list is contained in her statement, it's mentioned in my statement, there's nothing more about that. Mr Chairman, an hour or two ago you said I was acting like a student constable, I was a captain in the police, I wrote my exams, I completed a three year diploma, I completed a few subjects in a legal direction at UNISA, I know what I was doing. I warned her according judge's rules. I have the qualifications, I have background, I knew what I was doing. And I put it to you that you've told her what to say. I'm putting it to you that you've prescribed her and if she had legal assistance, she would have not made the statements like she did, when she was warned by Captain Louw and Captain Holmes? According to the provisions of section 29, she was not justified to have a legal representative, that was according to the law at that time. No further questions, Your Honour. CHAIRPERSON On behalf of Mr Walus, are there ...(intervention). Captain, you have just presented your qualifications to the committee, you were also a captain at that point? That is correct, I was not a student constable. What is noticeable to me regarding your testimony is that there was a very serious case which caused a lot of controversy nationwide, this was regarding the death of Mr Hani, and there was quite a large team of police officers involved? That is correct. And there was even a number of foreign investigators who were here to assist with the investigation? Yes, there were a number who were in a monitoring capacity. What I find interesting is that you, as a captain, and not a captain of the detectives, but a captain from the Security Branch, you arrived there and you began questioning Mrs Derby-Lewis without any background regarding her previous questionings. Is or was anything like that ever possible? Yes, it was. Then I don't understand, I really don't know why Captain Deetliefs questioned Mrs Derby-Lewis, because then he was wasting the time and money of the State if he did not tell you or convey to you what he had found out from Mrs Derby-Lewis? Well I don't know why you're putting it to me. I would like to put it further that when the advocate representing the family of Mr Hani, there were certain statements that were made and the police who were involved, that is Colonel Van Niekerk and Captain Deetliefs and Captain Beukes were notified that they would be called as witnesses, and in terms of section 4 they sat here during the evidence with an attorney present, are you aware of that? Yes, I was aware of that, I read it in the newspaper. Whether or not they were legally represented, I do not know. So they heard the testimony of Mrs Derby-Lewis and I would like to put it to you, according to the testimony that was given here by her, that she never accused you of assaulting her in any way or inappropriately influencing her by threatening her, that was her testimony. I am very glad to hear this. But her testimony in fact, and this is the interesting aspect, was that she said that you told her that you would use her as a State witness. I did not say that. And that is why you took an affidavit, you told her, you must just bear in mind here that Colonel Van Niekerk is sitting here, as well as Captain Deetliefs, with their legal teams, the complaint was that if she had made a statement, then you would have taken the statement to Colonel Van Niekerk, who expressed his dissatisfaction, and then it was changed? I delivered a long testimony regarding that issue, I said what the point was behind it, I said that we had to convey information to head office, it was quite an important case, and he, as my commanding officer, if he was not satisfied with certain aspects or clauses, would say to me, "You, as the interrogator, would have to return to her and clear up certain issues". Could you repeat? He did not testify. Colonel Van Niekerk did not testify. So he accepted that what she said did happen? I do not know the reasons why he didn't testify. Now I would like to put it to you that something must have happened, because when Mrs Derby-Lewis was arrested, and that would have been on the 21st of April 1993, that is in R4, 395, she was questioned in depth, and you know Captain Deetliefs, he is the type of person who was used by the Security Branch for this express purpose, he had very good experience, and then, on various pages, in single line space typing, she claims that when she was questioned, her answer was, unfortunately there are no notes or a video available, it continues, she is again questioned on the 24th of April, and she says, or gives her version of what happened. Now the two important aspects here are the list and the tape, and that is what Colonel Van Niekerk was not happy with, because the police wanted her to write what they wanted her to write? No. Because here, where Captain Deetliefs is questioning her, it is clearly stated, "Who is being questioned by Captain Deetliefs? - Gaye Derby-Lewis". That's news to me. She says that she never saw a weapon, and she continues to give her version regarding the list, why it was compiled and so forth, and then on page 202, it is on the tape on 1172, that is tape number, well the number doesn't appear here, let us just look, okay it is tape 2, she says, that is after the arrest, if one reads this in context, after the arrest of Mr Walus "Tell me where he got the gun from?" And now suddenly, my question is, suddenly she makes a completely different statement to you. How is that possible? How can this lady be asking me regarding statements which a person made during another series of questioning? I was not present, I don't know what she said at that stage. I can only testify regarding what she said to me and what occurred between us, I cannot answer regarding questions which occurred between that captain and the lady. Why did she change her mind so suddenly? CHAIRPERSON I think that please, what is the point in putting questions to this witness when he wasn't present? Chairperson, I would like to know why she changed her story so suddenly. CHAIRPERSON How will he know why she changed? That is the argument, exactly. Chair-person, this is a very serious case, and I think that the opportunity should be granted to determine exactly what happened. JUDGE NGOEPE Mr Chairman, I would like ...(intervention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. JUDGE NGOEPE ...this is not a trial, your questions have to be relevant to what he did. What she said to others would not be something to which he's answerable, isn't it? How can you ask him to speculate on why she said this to somebody else? I am not asking why she said it, I am asking why she changed from one day to another and therefore changed her statement, in his hands. JUDGE NGOEPE How would this witness know unless you put to him the reason? I am saying that you received instructions from Colonel Van Niekerk and you acted accordingly, and she was told to change her testimony? She was not told to change her testimony and I have said that at various occasions on this very day. No further questions. CHAIRPERSON Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you wish to put to the witness? MR MPSHE No questions, Mr Chairman, thank you. NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE MR BIZOS Sorry, could I just clear up one point? FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS Is it correct, it seems that on the 26th, that's on the Monday, you took her, 26th of April, you took, or you were responsible for arranging for Mrs Derby-Lewis to go to the district surgeon, where she would be seen by her own doctor? Chairperson, the detainees at that stage were usually seen or examined by the district surgeon. I cannot remember any other request, and whether it was therefore granted, it would have been done that way. May I read the section please "Detainee, Mrs Derby-Lewis, taken to district surgeon's consulting rooms by Sergeant Miller from the Information Department for a medical examination by her private physicians. She had no complaints." That was not policy, that was an exceptional situation. It just shows the preferential treatment that she received. And she returned at half past three that afternoon, it's on the next page? That's correct. CHAIRPERSON Thank you very much, you're excused from further attendance. WITNESS EXCUSED CHAIRPERSON What is the nature of these threats? Mr Chairman, my information is to the effect that he was told in the past that if he testifies at this hearing, he will be dealt with in the same fashion as the late, as it was dealt with inasfar as the late Chris Hani is concerned, and this was repeated last night, and therefore, Mr Chairperson, members of the committee ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON (Indistinct) mention his name? ...I am therefore making that application that his evidence be heard in camera, for the reasons advanced. I may mention that I have requested that witness protection be arranged for the witness as well. CHAIRPERSON Yes please, will you hold over. You can go outside and sing if you wish to. This committee is still in session. The committee has the power, in appropriate cases, to hear the evidence of witness or witnesses in camera. We haven't decided whether we are going to accede to that request. The proper procedure is for us to be satisfied whether we should accede to that request, and in order for us to be satisfied, we will have to hear evidence on this aspect of the matter, to evaluate for ourselves how serious the threat is and so on. For that purpose, it would be necessary to clear the hall, so that we can hear the evidence, the application rather, in camera. If we decide that there is no need to hear the evidence in camera, you will then be allowed into the hall while the witness is giving evidence, so you are please requested to leave the hall. ...to be present, but I don't think she's entitled to be present, because if she is, the any other witness who's given evidence. MR PRINSLOO Because, Mr Chairman, there are people now in the hall, like Mrs Hani, for instance, and Mr Kroenig. He's not an attorney. CHAIRPERSON I've only agreed for Mrs Hani to be present. MR PRINSLOO Thank you. CHAIRPERSON The cameras will be switched off. Can the witness please come forward? He's disappeared. MR VISSER ...(Indistinct) You've been asked to come and give evidence this morning at this hearing. That is correct. CHAIRPERSON And are you willing to give evidence? Yes. CHAIRPERSON Yes? INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Why it is that you wish to give evidence in camera? CHAIRPERSON The sound has been cut off, not to go to the media, so it may not go through the earphones. Okay, I'm told the earphones can be used, I just directed they cut it, it shouldn't go out to the media. On the Saturday, on that cut-off date for the amnesty applications, 12 o'clock midnight, Mr Roodt contacted me on the Sunday and asked me to come to his home urgently. He told me that four persons on that particular afternoon had paid a visit to him at his home. He could not identify them or tell me who they were, but these persons informed him that they were aware that we had applied for amnesty and they already possessed our amnesty applications. At that point, I informed my advocate, Herman Kriel, thereof, and after that, with the first appearance in Pretoria, for which I was subpoenaed, he made it known to Mr Mpshe, and after that from time to time, as soon as the specific case would come to the fore, I would receive calls saying that I should be very careful regarding that which I would disclose, that I should not place anybody at a disadvantage, or violence would be used. And even last night, I have told the police another call was made to me, and I feel that I cannot testify properly under these circumstances in which I have been placed, and I don't know what the objective of these calls to my home are, and that is why I'm requesting of the committee, I will, I'm willing to deliver testimony, but I would like for provision to be made that I testify in camera and that is why I'm making this request to the committee. CHAIRPERSON You mentioned the name of Mr Roodts, who is he? Mr Roodt is also a person who has applied for amnesty. I do not have his relevant information, but my legal representative's advice to him was to apply for amnesty as well and his application is also being heard currently in Cape Town. MR BIZOS Is he connected in any way with the troubles that you had? Yes, at that stage he was in command of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging in the West Rand, he was one of the leaders there. CHAIRPERSON And the case that you talk about, when did that case commence? I can't hear. CHAIRPERSON The case against you, you were talking about the case in which you're involved, when did that commence? Chairperson, it began in April 1993. CHAIRPERSON When did it end? It ended last year in October, on the 28th of October. CHAIRPERSON Did you indicate this to the people who asked you to give evidence or who've enquired from you whether you're prepared to give evidence, that you've received threats? Yes. CHAIRPERSON Was that on the occasion when you were here with your Advocate Kriel? That's correct. CHAIRPERSON And when were these threats made for the first time? The first time was on the Sunday after we had handed in our applications in Johannesburg. CHAIRPERSON What month are you talking about? April 1996. CHAIRPERSON And when next was a certain threat made. The next one was when the first hearing took place in Pretoria, that was in, I'm not sure of the dates, but I think it was last year, October. And after that in December again and now once again. CHAIRPERSON I have difficulty understanding why such a threat was made to you in April 1996? Chairperson ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON That was at the time when you had lodged an application for amnesty? Yes. The point that I wish to make is that my amnesty application, well according to the law it is confidential, it's clearly stipulated in the law that it is confidential ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON No, I understand that. ...and it fell into the hands of those who were not authorised access to it the day after these documents had been served in the TRC's offices. CHAIRPERSON Any questions you wish to put? Perhaps I'm moving a little bit ahead, but Mr Bizos, am I right in thinking that the witness is coming at your instance? MR BIZOS Yes, Mr Chairman. Perhaps I should place the following on record, that our information in relation to this witness comes from the commission drawing our attention to Exhibit Q before you, which is his application for amnesty. CHAIRPERSON Yes, I'll have a look at it, but I was trying to, you know, to be able to assess, well to decide the application one must, of course, know what the relevance, possible relevance of his evidence is, how important it is before, and then one can weigh it against possible harm to himself and so on and so forth. What I wanted to know was, the thrust of his evidence, what is the core of his evidence. MR BIZOS It appears on page 7 of his application for amnesty, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Exhibit Q. My exhibits are so "deurmekaar". Sorry, is there a particular page that you ...(intervention). MR BIZOS 7. CHAIRPERSON Page 7. INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. MR BIZOS It's only the one page and one sentence of it. CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR BIZOS The effect of it is, Mr Chairman ...(intervention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. MR BIZOS CHAIRPERSON Suggested by who? MR BIZOS CHAIRPERSON In that case, Mr Bizos, is the primary source of information not Mr Clark, assuming that we are going to have Mr Clark, I was told this morning, we were told this morning that we are likely to have Mr Clark as a witness? Now looking at page 7, it would seem that the primary source of the information that you seek would be Mr Clark himself, and ...(intervention). MR BIZOS Well, with one ...(intervention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone. MR BIZOS With one difficulty, judge, and that is this, that we have reason to believe that the friendship between Mr Clark and Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis continues, and we do have no reason to believe that we will get any information from Mr Clark. What we would like to put to Mr Clark is what we have been told by Mr Visser. If that evidence is not placed on record, then it's theoretically possible to put it to Mr Clark first. If we are correct in our assessment that he's likely to deny the allegations, then we would have to, or ask the committee to call Mr Visser in order to confirm the things that we have to put to Mr Clark, and this is why we thought that the order would be then more appropriate to have Mr Visser's evidence and then put whatever he may have said to Mr Clark. CHAIRPERSON ...to shelve Mr Visser, I'm just thinking aloud, if we were to shelve Mr Visser and then call Mr Clark, and then possibly Mr Clark does not deny these things, where perhaps you think he may, you may find no need to call Mr Visser. MR BIZOS That is a possibility, but ...(intervention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. MR BIZOS ...on the information that I have received, it seems to be a hypothetical and theoretical one, but if the committee feels that we should hear Mr Clark first, I have no strong objection to it. I merely draw attention to the fact that it would only be postponing the problem rather than solving it. CHAIRPERSON Yes, I'm sure we'll bear that in mind as and when we deliberate over the application itself. Thank you. Is there anything you wish to say? Nothing. MR PRINSLOO Nothing, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Is there anything else you wish to say? No. CHAIRPERSON Sorry, may I ask, Mr Visser, it seems to me we had some difficulties in the past to get you here to the hearing. Assuming that we are not to hear you today, maybe tomorrow morning, would you be available? Yes, yes. CHAIRPERSON You hear this request that is being made by this witness, or by this potential witness, and is there a view you wish to express on the matter? MRS VAN DER WALT Nothing. CHAIRPERSON (Indistinct) to hear this witness, we will make a, I have come to the conclusion, from the little bit I've heard, that Mrs Derby-Lewis should then be allowed to be present, as a result of what I have heard. The committee will now adjourn and make its decision known immediately after the lunch interval. Mr Visser, the committee will adjourn to consider your application. We will resume at two o'clock and we will then notify you what our decision is. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON The committee will adjourn and when it resumes, it will still resume in camera. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS RULING CHAIRPERSON: My committee has considered the application made by Mr Visser that he be allowed to give evidence in camera, and, on the information placed before us, we have come to the conclusion that we should allow him to do so. However, he is an applicant in his own right for amnesty. Bearing that in mind, we have come to the conclusion that his evidence here must be strictly limited to the extent that it has any direct bearing on the issues that we are seized with. In other words, any evidence relating to other matters will be regarded as extraneous and there ought not to be any question, evidence or cross-examination of those matters. Such questions as are put to him should be limited directly to the point for which, or the point on which he is going to give evidence. I had, before the adjournment, indicated my personal view that Mrs Derby-Lewis may be allowed in these proceedings in camera. My committee has considered that matter and has come to the conclusion that nobody, except for Mrs Hani, should be allowed to be present here. MR VISSER (sworn states) CHAIRPERSON Perhaps I should start, Mr Visser, just a few personal details. What are you by occupation? Sir, currently I am a transport manager for a company here in Johannesburg. CHAIRPERSON You live in Johannesburg? I stay in Krugersdorp, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Krugersdorp. And the questions that are going to be put to you will be confined to the issues that we are concerned with in this inquiry, do you understand? I understand, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON And you're expected to give us an honest and truthful and full account ...(intervention). Yes, I will. CHAIRPERSON ...of that. Yes, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Mr Mpshe? Thank you, Mr Chairman, I think my learned friend, Advocate Bizos, is leading the witness. CHAIRPERSON (indistinct) put to this witness? MR BIZOS Yes, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Please do so. EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS Mr Visser, we are concerned only with that portion of your affidavit and application for amnesty before the committee with item No 8 on page 7, have you got that document in front of you, Exhibit Q? Mr Chairman, yes I have the document in front of me. CHAIRPERSON Give me the page number again. Page 7, Mr Chairman, item 8, headed "diefstal". That's correct. Now I'd like you to read that out to members of the committee and tell us whether you confirm the contents of this? Yes, Mr Chairman, I will read it into the record, paragraph No 8 of page 7 "Robbery - JCI Pension Fund A cheque to the amount of R36 900 000,00. Account opened by Colonel Roodt. Clark provided the cheque and received it from a person working at JCI. This fund originally was intended for the Volksfront to purchase two-way radios and that was decided to use that for the legal costs of Derby-Lewis. I personally was against Mr Hani's murder, because we had information that Hani and Mandela wanted to establish a party. I reported that to Roodt, and Roodt took control of this operation and saw to it that this would not go to Clark. This cheque was banked on the 3rd of March 1993. Hani was murdered on the 10th of April 1993. I and Roodt came to hear of the murder on the 10th of April 1993. There was no conspiracy with the AWB, the Volksfront, to murder Mr Hani. We suspect that Mr Clive Derby-Lewis himself orchestrated this attack on Mr Hani." Have you had any training in the police force or any such body, Mr Visser? I can't hear that question? Have you had any training in the police force? Yes, I have. For when were you in the police force? I was in the police force from 1980 - sorry, from 1977 until 1986. What rank did you reach? I was a detective-sergeant. Were you in any particular branch? I was first, my first few years I was in the police Dog Unit, then Commercial Branch and then later, the latter part of the police force, before I left, I was a member of the Security Police. And you mentioned the name of Mr Roodt. Who was Mr Roodt? Mr Roodt was a commandant of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, he was one of the leaders, at that stage, prior to the elections in April 1994, of certain cells in the West Rand, Krugersdorp, Roodeport, Western Area sections. How do you know that? Because I was also a member under him at that stage. Were you a member in '83 - I beg your pardon, '93? That's correct, I was a member in 1993. And you mentioned the name of Mr Clark. Have you seen Mr Clark here today? Yes, just briefly. Is that Mr Edwin Clark? That's correct. And how did you come to know him and what dealings, if any, did you have with him during '/93? I met Mr Clark, I cannot say approximately when, it must have been in early 1992, Mr Clark wrote certain computer programmes for my business at that stage, and that is how I got acquainted with him. Did you discuss political or other activities with him? I would say in the period of the beginning when I met him, I was not very much, reluctant to get involved with the political situation. I must admit that during the latter part of 1992, Mr Clark influenced me to join the right wing. At that stage, the right wing was in a bit of a turmoil regarding all the different organisations that took part in the so-called struggle at that stage. So therefore we joined as many of these organisations as possible, in the hope of being brought into one arm and at that stage when General Constand Viljoen took over the management of these systems and we obviously, also as an ex-military person, I joined under him also. What was your function in this right wing thing that you were involved with? Basically, in the beginning, due to my experience from the police, I did a lot of information gathering. Fortunately at that stage I still had a lot of my ex-informers from the Security Police days who advised us on certain information that we needed on the African National Congress, the South African Communist Party, so our information that we got from them were then evaluated, sifted and then tested, and then if necessary we passed it on to the correct persons in the structure. During 1983, you and Mr Clark and Mr Roodt and other persons, were you involved in ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON '93. '93. '93. During '93, were you, Mr Clark, Mr Roodt and others concerned with getting money? Yes, at that stage we were advised through the structures that certain actions would be taking place from the evening of the election, 1994, and we were advised to start a building up of arms and ammunition, the purchase of two-way radios, the setting up of structures, collecting information on military armaments, and if necessary, to collect funds on any possible way that the funds could be raised to buy these arms, ammunition, and for the object of preparing for an armed struggle in this country on the evening of the election, April 1994. And was money collected by unlawful means? Yes, in certain cases, yes, they were obtained, and indeed explosives were bought and these explosives were sent down into the structures. Did you, Mr Clark and Mr Roodt have anything to do with that, with the collecting of money, or stealing of money? Not indirectly, directly yes, we took part in the initial meetings that we had, certain persons were used. Referring to the cheque of JCI, Mr Clark obtained this cheque through a, I'm not sure of the person's name, I might be wrong there, by the name of Dillis, from JCI Pension Fund. Initially this cheque would have been used for the purchase of two-way radios for the cause. As I've said in my paragraph 8, that this cheque was banked on the 30th of March, prior to the murder of Mr Hani, and I must also just make a small correction here, is that at that stage that we were not aware of the fact that there was such an action going to take place. Nowhere in the structure, especially on the side of Constand Viljoen, were we aware that such an action are going to take place. You say that this cheque, do you know who it was made out to? The cheque, I'm not sure, I can't remember if it was a cheque made out to a Mr Goldman, I think, I'm not sure, I'm not 100% correct now if I do mention a name, but it was made out to somebody. But who actually took it and made use of it in order to get the money? At that stage, Commandant Roodt went, he opened the account and the cheque was then deposited into the account. And what happened to the money? After, in that period between the 30th of March to the 10th of April, it was the Easter weekend and I went on holiday for that period, because we have already booked a caravan stand at Badplaas in the Eastern Transvaal. I was actually, the evening of the 10th of April, I heard it on the radio that Mr Hani was shot. And did you discuss this with Commandant Roodt and with Mr Clark? At that stage, I immediately phoned Commandant Roodt to inquire from him whether he was aware of this, because at that stage, as I've said earlier on that we were not aware of it, that any such action would take place. And what did Commandant Roodt say to you? Did you eventually speak to Mr Clark about this matter? I spoke to Mr Clark after our return from holiday, and at that stage, what I can still remember is that he didn't tell me anything regrading any meetings that he had regarding, or that he was implicated himself. All that he told me at that stage is that he was arrested, he was detained, he was questioned, and that was it. He didn't convey to me any implication or any hint that he was involved with this whole operation. Did you talk to him about his request to Mr Roodt for the money to be used? Did he ask you to be of any assistance in relation to getting the money? Yes, as I've said earlier on, there was meetings that we had prior to, I would say in January of '93, January, February, March, there were a lot of the people involved in the right wing at that stage that needed arms and ammunition. We were also instructed from the people in charge of these and even in meetings with General Constand Viljoen, open meetings, where they openly stated that we should arm ourselves and even prepare for food shortages, as electrical cuts and that type of thing can and might be occurred at that stage. Did Mr Clark ask you to try and persuade Mr Roodt to get money, to get the money for Mr Derby-Lewis's defence? As I can remember, he did, but I think at that stage Mr Roodt was adamant that the money will not be used and it must be left where it was. Did he give you any reason why he wanted the money to be used for Mr Derby-Lewis's defence? No, he didn't gave me any reason why. He only said that he wanted it at that stage, wanted to use the money for his legal fees. Did you ask him why? No, I didn't ask him why. In your conversations with Mr Clark about this matter, did he appear to you to be forthcoming and open, or was he answering your questions quickly and fairly, or did he try to avoid your questions? I would say Mr Clark, at that stage, as a result that he was more involved with the right wing, he, in certain aspects he never conveyed to me, I would say more, if I would say important matters, he never conveyed that to me, and I've learnt him to be such a person that if you would ask him a question then he wouldn't tell you. I respected his viewpoint, and certain aspects I did sometimes ask him and he would say to me, no, it's classified, it's top secret and he cannot divulge any information to me. In this structure, this right wing structure that you speak of, was there a ranking, and if so, who was, among the three of you, who was the top man, so to speak? And where did Mr Roodt fit? Mr Roodt fitted in, from the AWB side, he was, as I said earlier on, he was the commandant of certain of the cells in the West Rand. Why the cell structure, is that at that stage the Security Police used to frequently infiltrate into the activities of the AWB, and that was the reason, I can remember back on a meeting with, that we had in Ventersdorp with Mr Eugene Terreblanche, that he advised us that we start a cell structure to prevent any infiltration from the Security Police. Did you ask Mr Clark what was the basis of his friendship between himself, on the one hand, and Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis on the other? I never asked him, I was aware at that stage that he would visit Mr Clive Derby-Lewis and Mrs Clive Derby-Lewis, he used to often tell me that he was preparing their VC's and he would go and eat there and they would invite him over and that's basically all I knew about their friendship. I never asked him why was he friends with them. Obviously at that stage Mr Clive Derby-Lewis was a member of the CP, he was one of the leaders of the CP, so I assumed, due to the structure that Mr Clark was in in the area that he operated that, and due to the background of the political events in that time, that it was important for him to be associated with Mr Clive Derby-Lewis. Was Radio Pretoria or information gathering mentioned in any way in relation to Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis on the one hand and Mr Clark on the other? Yes, I remember on quite a few occasions that he had to go through to Radio Pretoria to repair, I think at one stage he had written a computer programme for them, and that's what I can remember from that time at that stage. Did Mr Clark ever tell you, after his release from arrest, what was in his computer? No, he only told me that, after his arrest, that they did confiscate his computer and that they tried to, how can I say, the computer language that he brought up, they tried to brought up the information from the hard disks, but they were not successful, I think he told me at that stage that the sergeant in charge of this operation didn't had so much technical knowledge to bring up the information on his computer. Did he tell you what might have been his position if the police did have sufficient knowledge to unlock the information in his computer? Ja, he did tell me that he would have been in quite, he could have been in trouble if they brought it up. I didn't ask him at that stage what information he had on the computer. If it was linked to the Hani matter I cannot say, as he didn't tell me at that stage. Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. May I put my questions first? Mr Visser, you have said that you were involved with right wing groups. To which groups are you referring? I am referring to the Freedom Front, the AWB and the Freedom Front. And the period of time when you were involved, when did it begin? I began with them in, or actively, from I would say January 1993, yet passively I would say from about June, July 1992. The Freedom Front was established in March 1995? That is correct. And you have said, or you've spoken of "we", I am not clear on who you are referring to, is this the Goldman to whom the cheque was made out, was that one of your people? No. As far as I could understand, Mr Clark said to me that the cheque, and I only found this out subsequently, after the police had visited me, that allegedly it was pension money which was paid out to this person. But Mr Roodt, the commander, he used the name of Helgut when he used those cheques. That is the cheque. So Mr Roodt made, frauded the cheque, he filled in his name? No, as I can recall, Mr Chairman, the cheque was in the name of Calcott, I'm just ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON Calcroft? Calcott, that was the correct name. Earlier on, I did mention another name, I wasn't sure, but it was the cheque of Calcott. Mr Chairman, Mr Roodt took the cheque with a forged ID document in the name of Calcott, and then the cheque account was, I mean an account was opened at Standard Bank, Rosebank, and the cheque was then deposited into that account. You referred to a matter where Mr Edwin Clark would have gone to Radio Pretoria? Yes. In which year was this? I cannot say which period of time this took place in, but I knew that he sometimes went there. So there was nothing strange about the fact that he was going to Radio Pretoria? No, not at all. You have said that Mr Edwin Clark worked for the accounts of Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis? I wouldn't say both, I wouldn't say that he worked with both of their computers, he just said that he was going to work with their computers. Mr Edwin Clark is a computer expert, is that correct? Yes. He also presents classes in computers? Yes. And the hard disk which you mentioned, where the police could not find all the information, you would not be able to argue that in the case of Mr Derby-Lewis in the supreme court in Johannesburg, police officers testified, who were computer experts, who pointed out all the information on the hard disk, and it was all in the hands of the police, you cannot argue that? Let me put it this way, I think in the case of Mr Clark, he told me clearly that they could not life his information. But there were experts who could retrieve all the information? I would say so. No further questions, thank you. Mr Visser, if I No, I phoned him that evening after the news flash on the radio, and I was quite surprised, it was a prominent figure, I also, from the Security Police days, read a lot of information on Mr Hani, I knew who Mr Hani was, and I was quite shocked, I was really shocked. Mr Visser, you know that Mr Derby-Lewis was arrested only on the 17th of April?, He was arrested on the 17th of April, that's correct, I am aware of that. And Mrs Derby-Lewis on the 21st of April? Yes, I am aware of that. And at that point, there was no mention of a cheque for the payment of the legal, because they had not been arrested yet? At that point, I might be confusing my times, I remember, after I was arrested, or at least not arrested, but after I was approached by the police regarding the cheque, it could have been that I may have given my dates and times incorrectly, because Mr Clark, at that point, asked that we use the cheque for Mr Derby-Lewis's legal costs. But you said that this only came to the fore after Mr Derby-Lewis's arrest? That is after his arrest and his release? Yes. I cannot respond to that, I don't remember specifically. As I understood it, Mr Clark, I cannot remember whether or not he was arrested before or after them, or at which point, that I cannot remember. So therefore Mr Clark, if he approached you, must have done so in his own capacity? If Mr Clark had approached you, it would have been in his own capacity, because Mr Derby-Lewis, as well as Mrs Derby-Lewis were detained in terms of section 29? I am aware of that. And you know what that means, they had no access to anyone, so Mr Derby-Lewis could not have made the request? No. Just one moment please? Just to understand it correctly, on the 30th of March, there was no talk of legal costs for Mr Derby-Lewis? Not at all. Just one moment please? Because of the noise, I would just like to re-establish something, the Freedom Front was established in May 1993, is that correct? I cannot remember exactly when the Freedom Front was established, that I cannot remember, it must have been -General Constand Viljoen's party was established on the evening of the election, that was in 1994. Personally you did not deposit the cheque, the stolen cheque? No. And that is the reason why I have applied for amnesty, not because or for the deposit of the cheque, I was charged with the theft of the cheque, and at that point, I said that, I went to my peers and I said, "I am being charged with this and you need to sort this out, because otherwise I will have no other alternative but to apply for amnesty", in other words I would go to the authorities and tell them, "Look, this is what happened", and I did so, I went to Mr Clark before April 19..., before I submitted my application, I went to all the interested parties and told them what the situation was and what I was going to do, and that is what I did. Just a moment please? Mr Visser, I think that you are making a mistake with your dates if you say that you became involved with the Freedom Front in 1993, because this organisation didn't exist then? Yes, I might be making a mistake with the dates, because I submitted my application approximately four years after this incident occurred, and I also put it like this to the amnesty committee in Cape Town, by means of my attorney, that if there would be some lack of clarity or if there would be any kind of queries regarding this aspect, we would rectify it with the greatest willingness, because I might make a mistake with certain aspects, but that I entered the struggle at that stage, was passively in the middle of 1993, and then more actively afterwards. Didn't you say passively in the middle of 1992? Yes, I did say that, Mr ...(intervention). But you just said now 1993? Actively 1993, Mr Chairman. May I just ask two questions in relation to place the events in time space, two questions? RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS When did you see Mr Clark about you applying for amnesty and you felt a duty to inform him, when did you do that? Mr Chairman, that was, if I can recall back, it was, I would say in about two to three weeks before I lodged my application. Okay, we've got the date of the application on the application ...(intervention). That's correct. ...I think that's enough. The other thing is this, the struggle that you became passively involved in and the struggle that you became actively involved in, was your association with what is called... (tape ends) ...information and the announcement of the formation of the Freedom Front? It was before that, Mr Chairman. So that before General Viljoen made any statement about the Freedom Front, you had been involved in these activities? Yes. Yes, I was involved. Both actively and passively? Yes. I'm sorry that I exceeded by thirty three and a third percent, Mr Chairman. That's all, thank you. Just two questions, Mr Chairman. Mr Visser, you testified that you collected ammunition to prepare for the struggle? Yes. Now in what way was this ammunition to be used, did you have particular targets? The instruction at that stage were that, from General Constand Viljoen, and it's also part of his amnesty application, is that on the evening of the election of April 1994, the instructions were clear that at that stage that the voting locals must be bombed, electrical power lines must be sabotaged, all roads towards the election voting stations must be possible be closed, also the, if the command was given, that the police stations must be attacked, command structures at that stage that were already in place would then operate from those places, and basically the country would have been brought into a state of war. Was there any mention made of individuals ...(intervention). At that stage ...(intervention). ...(indistinct) in this ...(intervention). At that stage the involved was given that after the night of the election ...(intervention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. Thank you, Mr Chairman, no questions then. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON Thank you very much, you are excused. Thank you, Chairman. WITNESS EXCUSED CHAIRPERSON Unless there are any other applications for the hearing of evidence in camera, I propose to allow the public in to the hearing. Before I take an adjournment to enable that to be done, are you calling any further witnesses? CHAIRPERSON You're calling Mr Clark? Yes. To try and save some time, can you send a message to whoever controls the doors that they may open them? CHAIRPERSON: Penny's going to do that? Very well, let's proceed with the next witness then. EDWIN JOHN CLARK (affirms to speak truth) Where do you live, Mr Clark? I live in Pretoria, Mr Chairman. Is today the first day on which you've come to a hearing of this committee? No sir, I have been here on a number of occasions previously. When you knew that the counsel for the commission and the families' attorneys were looking for you? That's correct, Mr Chairman. Why didn't you volunteer to the counsel for the commission that you were at the commission and taking photographs and taking a vital interest in the proceedings, why didn't you do that? I beg your pardon, would you repeat the question please? Why didn't you, if you knew that counsel for the commission and the attorneys for the family were looking for you, why did you surreptitiously come to the meetings of the committee and not identify yourself to counsel for the commission? That's not correct, Mr Chairman, from the time I became aware that you were looking for me, I simply stayed away. Why? Because I did not wish to testify, Mr Chairman. Why? Mr Chairman, I have a moral problem with the functioning of the TRC, that is the truth of the matter. Oh. And what made you change your mind? I got a request from certain people to appear over here, people whose wishes I respect, and on the basis of that request, I decided to come. Who requested you to come and on whose behalf did you change your mind about the commission? The legal counsel for Mr Derby-Lewis sent me a request that I do appear, I got this request yesterday afternoon, and on their request I will do it with pleasure. Constant contact, no sir, I stay quite far away from them. There was occasional contact however. Didn't Mrs Derby-Lewis tell you right at the beginning of the hearing in Mamelodi that you were required by the family in order to give evidence? A number of people informed me of this, I cannot remember whether Mrs Derby-Lewis specifically told me or not. Did you come to Mamelodi? I did not, sir. Did you come to Johannesburg? Before today, no. When did you then attend meetings of the committee? It was in Pretoria Town Hall, which is close to where I live. Did you know at that time that your name had been mentioned and that Mrs Derby-Lewis said that she could get through to you with some difficulty on some plot or other? No sir, that was before that time. In Pretoria, I would sit in the audience and you mentioned my name on occasion. At that point, you did not require my presence. When did you hear that counsel for the commission was leaving messages for you all over the place? CHAIRPERSON Mr , will you get down to the purpose of the questioning instead of ...(intervention). Yes. Did you ask the previous witness, or rather did the previous witness ask you or tell you that he was applying for amnesty? You are referring now to Mr Visser? Yes. Yes, he did tell me he was going to apply for amnesty. Did he tell you what for? Yes he did. What did he tell you? It's a long time ago. What I do remember is that he wanted to apply for amnesty. I do remember him telling me that he'd been found guilty on various charges and that he wanted to apply for amnesty because they were politically motivated. And why was this a concern of yours? I don't know why he should have made it a concern of mine at the time. Prior to that, we had dealings with one another, I was doing computer work for him. Is that all? That is all. That would not have been any reason for him to come and tell you that he was applying for amnesty? We discussed many things and many things political. I have been involved in a minor capacity in the political field for many years, I have an interest in this, and he did come and discuss this with me. He approached me at that time and he wanted me to apply for amnesty as well. For what? He wanted me to try and cover up for him, and I told him I was not interested. Cover up for what? He wanted me to say that I had done certain acts. What acts? Stealing cheques I don't know. He gave me a, he showed me various things on a paper, and I told him I'm not interested in that. Mr Clark, the previous witness told us that you, he and Mr Roodt were involved in stealing money and gathering arms in preparation for a state of war that you expected to start. Is that evidence incorrect? Let me answer you this way, you've mentioned a few things in the same breath, that I was in any way doing anything with Mr Visser as regarding any sort of fraudulent activities, that is incorrect. The same goes for Mr Roodt, whom I do know, I was involved in no way with any fraudulent activities with him. As regards the two, any dealings with arms is also incorrect. As regards anything else to do with arms, I'm not prepared to state. Let me see if I understand you correctly, that in respect of arms gathering, you do not want to incriminate yourself? Well, he told us that you had knowledge of the theft of R369 082,56 from JCI, which was put into an account by Mr Roodt, did you know that? Mr Chairman, I did not know that, I cannot see how I could possibly have had knowledge about that. And it was further said that you asked him to divert that money from, for the purpose of collecting arms and two-way radios to be used for the then ensuing war, and diverted to the defence of Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis? MS VAN DER WALT Mr Chairman, I don't know whether my record is wrong, but it's never been mentioned that this money was meant for weapons, it was meant for two-way radios for the Volksfront, but not for weapons. CHAIRPERSON Your understanding is right, he didn't mention weapons. Two-way radios for the struggle, yes, for the struggle, for the struggle. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Well, what do you say to that? Mr Chairman, as regards the Volksfront, I was a member in those days, as you correctly state there was an undeclared war ensuing, however I have never collaborated with Mr Visser or Mr Roodt on buying any two-way radios or buying any arms or ammunition, whether from any fraudulently gained money or any other way. Now, the gravamen of the question was not what the money was going to be used for, the gravamen of the question, Mr Clark, was that you suggested that that money should be used for the defence of Mr and Mr Derby-Lewis? Mr Chairman, I have seen this accusation, I have also had a look at various dates concerned, and I fail to see how it is possible, because that cheque is supposed to have been stolen even before Mr Hani was shot, that's my understanding. So how I can ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON I think the first question you put to him hasn't even been answered, you see, have you any knowledge in the first place of the fact that money had been stolen and fraudulently deposited into an account by Mr Roodt? No knowledge whatsoever, sir. CHAIRPERSON You didn't have any knowledge of that? None. Did you try to persuade Mr Roodt to use any money that had been collected in that structure that you and he were working on ...(intervention). No. ...for the purposes of Mr Derby-Lewis's defence? No sir. Did you interest yourself at all at any time in relation to the financing of the Derby-Lewis defence? Not at all. When Mr Derby-Lewis was arrested, it was a matter of concern for us, but legal expenses were not even an issue at that stage, because he was held under section 29, he was not even allowed access to a lawyer, so for quite a long time the legal issue could not have existed. Well you seem to be familiar with the ways of these matters, Mr Clark, did you expect him to be under section 29 for a long time, or to remain there forever and never to be brought before a Court? Mr Chairman, the notorious section 29 Act makes allowance that you can extend it again and again and again. I have acquaintances who were held for a long time under this Act, in one case three months, and I cannot say what I expected at that time, except that for him to be released after ten days would have been a miracle indeed, I did not expect that. You didn't know that the Act had been amended, and that judicial intervention had to come into being after ten days? Mr Chairman, I'm not a legal expert. To my knowledge the Act was amended in some such way that you could extend it after ten days for another ten days, but the minister could refuse at ...(intervention). Not the minister, the Court. Let me not express an opinion then, sir, I don't know. Yes. But be that as it may, whether it was going to be ten days or 20 days or a month, were you concerned about the defence of the Derby-Lewis's? When finally it became an issue, obviously yes. When did you join the structure that you call the Freedom Front? Mr Chairman, in the newspapers I've been accused of being a member of the Freedom Front quite a number of times, and this has caused me no little amount of distress. I have in my hands a letter from the Freedom Front, which I would like to read For Colonel P D Uys from the Freedom Front" Could we have someone please to send these around? I'm glad to see ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON Only if it is relevant, Mr Bizos, is that ...(intervention). I beg your pardon? CHAIRPERSON Is that document relevant from your point of view? No, and I'm going to make it appear quite irrelevant from the next question, Mr..., can we just reserve that for a moment please? Certainly, Mr Chairman. When was the Freedom Front formed, sir? I do not know, sir, I was never a member. Because the evidence of Mr Visser is that some time before the Freedom Front was formed, which we were told was formed in 1994 by Mr Visser, if I remember correctly, he and you and Mr Roodt were members of this informal structure that stole money for the purposes of gathering arms, long before the public pronouncement of the formation of the Freedom Front. What do you say to that? I say to that, it is untrue, Mr Visser has told an outrageous lie. Well, did you discuss the contents of your computer with Mr Visser after Mr Derby-Lewis's arrest? I'm not sure of the nature of your question. I was doing computer work for Mr Visser, and obviously I did discuss that in depth with him, yes. The contents of your hard disks in your computer you discussed with him because you were doing computer work for him? Correct. Why would you do that? Because he approached me with a project to investigate bank interest rates, a fairly large project, which is an investigation of clients at banks who have overdrawn accounts, where banks make errors in their favour and the client is charged too much. If you can then process the client's account with a computer, you can then calculate by how much their client overpaid and then reclaim that money from the bank. Well let's come directly to the point. You told the committee that there was uncompromising information in your computer hard disks, but fortunately the police did not have a sufficiently competent expert to dig it out, otherwise you would have been trouble? I do not remember telling him this, but as a matter of fact, Mr Chairman, that part is true. Well, what was there on your hard disks that would have put you into a compromising position that would get you into trouble? Mr Chairman, I'm not prepared to tell you that. Is that because you feel that if you answer the question truthfully, you may incriminate yourself? Possibly, Mr Chairman. I will state this though, for the record, that whatever I have on my computer, or had on my computer, had nothing, but nothing, to do with fraud or to do with stealing weapons, or to do with selling two-way radios or buying two-way radios. Or your relationship with Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis? I cannot say yes or no, I may have had a letter or to so them on the computer, I cannot say. Or the Hani assassination? That is not true, I have nothing on the computer, or had nothing on the computer related to the Hani assassination. What happened to those compromising hard disks? I still have them, Mr Chairman. Well we would only have your word that they were the ones that you spoke to Mr Visser about? You have my word for that, Mr Chairman. That would be correct, Mr Chairman. What were all these appointments about? I was helping Mr Derby-Lewis and Mrs Derby-Lewis on a regular basis. At that time we were preparing for a bye-election in Krugersdorp, and I was there on many occasions helping with this, also helping Mr Derby-Lewis with computer work related to that bye-election. It wasn't just friendship that you, if I recall Mrs Derby-Lewis's evidence correctly, you were living alone and you would pop in once in a while for tea and ...(intervention). Let me say usually there would be a reason why I would drop in, but I'm not ashamed to say that I'm proud to call Clive Derby-Lewis and Gaye Derby-Lewis my friends. Are you proud of the fact that they killed, that he, at least, admits to having killed Mr Hani? Did you discuss, during these various occasions, on these various occasions when you and Mr Derby-Lewis and Mrs Derby-Lewis spoke, about the local election and the other minutiae about the state of war that the country was in in March/April 1993? Sorry, sir, was that a question? Yes. Did you discuss with them that there was a state of war during March/April '93? I cannot remember a specific incident, but the topic was very widely discussed at the time, I'm convinced that we must have discussed it, yes. And what was the nature of the war that you and Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis thought that was going on at the time? There's no doubt of what the nature of the war was, Mr Chairman. We have an atheist, communist, terrorist organisation, which was in the process of taking over the country, and the consequences for us would be pretty severe. Some of the consequences we are seeing today. Yes. Did you regard Mr Chris Hani as the anti-Christ? I don't remember actually saying that, but I would not argue with the definition. Did not, in your discussions with Mr Derby-Lewis, possibly refer to Mr Hani as the anti-Christ? Not that I can specifically recall, though it is possible. And if there was this war, and if you regarded him as the anti-Christ, what was your feeling at the time, would his death have served your cause? I was not in a position to make any decisions of that nature, I can only say that in a state of undeclared war such as we were in, the modus operandi of most concerned people was to sit and do nothing. When someone does something, I'm not prepared to condemn it, even if they make a mistake. In every war you find occasions where they kill their own soldiers. It's a matter of someone has to do something. If it's wrong, that is very sad, try not to repeat your mistakes. That is in a time of war. You know that your evidence is almost a carbon copy of some of the things, on this issue, a carbon copy of what Mr Derby-Lewis has told this committee, Mr Clark? Maybe sir, that is because I look up to Mr Derby-Lewis with great respect and I respect his point of view, and perhaps unconsciously I've adopted some of those points of view and I'm not ashamed of it. And we understand that Mr Derby-Lewis's home was a place where braaivleis and other entertainments were held by persons sharing his and your view about Mr Hani being the anti-Christ and an enemy? That is certainly correct, sir, and there are, yes, a vast number of people who share this view. Who were at Mr Derby-Lewis's braaivleises? There were a number of occasions there, and some of them were braaivleises, indeed, as you say. And one of the persons that attended those braaivleises was Mr Walus, the first applicant in this case? That is correct, sir. On how many occasions did you meet him at the Derby-Lewis home? I could not say how many times, but several times indeed. Several times. During what period, would you say from the middle of 1992 up to and including his arrest on the 10th of April 1993? I cannot confirm your first date, sir, I cannot remember, but it may be so. Yes. But you met him at Derby-Lewis's home regularly before the 10th of April 1993 where these discussions about the undeclared war and saving Christianity and saving South Africa were loudly and clearly declared? Not correct, Mr Chairman, you stated there that I met him regularly, that is not true, I met him on a few occasions and they were not shortly after one another, and at such a nature, it is usually a jolly occasion and to discuss such serious matters there was not usually done. That may have been done in corners, but that is certainly not the nature or the reason for the braaivleis. Well, did Mr Derby-Lewis ever express to you how he thought the country could be saved? We had several discussions, many of which were not in private, I don't recall exactly what Mr Derby-Lewis told me, perhaps if you ask in more detail, I could confirm. Well, we must rely on you and Mr Derby-Lewis on that for the time being, but did you have private discussions with Mr Derby-Lewis as to how the problems of the country could be solved? Let me explain this way, at that time the main focus was still on elections and fighting an election, and that is where most of my efforts went. If we had other discussions, I cannot remember at this point. It is possible. Well let me see if I understand you correctly, that the overall purpose of your discussions was during 1992 and the first third of '93 was how the country could be saved by elections? And was Mr Derby-Lewis enthusiastic about this, as to how the country could be saved by election? Mr Derby-Lewis is a very positive person, I'm sure he was always enthusiastic, yes. About saving the country by participating in elections? You are taking me over a long period of time. Earlier on, most certainly there was that chance. Later on, it became obvious to even those who cannot see that an election was no longer an option, and at some point in between, discussions must have taken place, I cannot remember specifically between myself and Mr Derby-Lewis, but discussions of that nature were widely held amongst our entire fraternity. Who, give us a few names of your entire fraternity, let's have this fraternity make itself known that so proudly wanted to save the country, give us a few names please? That discussed it with me in private? No. Give us the names of the people that you say were discussing the fact that elections were no longer an option and that anyone who had eyes to see knew that elections were no longer an option, give us a few names of those people? Certainly. Let's start with Dr Andries Treurnicht. Yes, in public meetings? Yes, at public meetings. Yes, we have a record of what Dr Treurnicht said. Talk to us about the braaivleis talk? The braaivleis talk went about sunny skies and Chevrolet, Mr Chairman, I can't remember discussing other issues there. Oh. So you're not, when you spoke about fraternity, did you mean Dr Treurnicht and who else? We can look at other leadership figures who in the public ...(intervention). No, fraternity, fraternity means brothers, the people that you meet regularly. You use the word fraternity, you use English particularly carefully and well, Mr Clark, who was in this fraternity that thought that elections were no longer an answer? Friends of mine whom I regularly met with, is that what you're saying? Who are your friends that you regularly met with that thought that elections were no longer an answer? Do you wish me to list an entire list of all my friends so that they can be victimised as I was victimised after I was arrested, Mr Chairman? Are you not prepared to give us the names of the people who were saying in March/April 1993, at braaivleises held at Mr Derby-Lewis's home or elsewhere, that election holding is no longer an answer to the country's problems? Please give us the names of the fraternity that was saying that? MS VAN DER WALT Mr Chairman, does Mr Bizos want to know who went to braaivleises in April 1994? He mentioned specifically a specific month? Mr Chairman, I did specify the period and the intervention is unnecessary. INTERPRETER The speaker's mike is not on. CHAIRPERSON Sorry. I was listening to the translation of her remark, so I can't pay attention, I didn't pay attention to what you were saying. Yes. I'll repeat the question, which I submit there may be (indistinct). CHAIRPERSON Yes. You're not required to answer ...(intervention). In March/April ...(intervention). (inaudible) Yes. INTERPRETER Mike please. CHAIRPERSON ...use the word fraternity, you and - who talked about the fact that elections were no longer an option? Yes. CHAIRPERSON Mr Bizos would like to know whether you are prepared to disclose what that fraternity was? Let me first define my fraternity, as such, was not only the people who attended Mr Derby-Lewis's braaivleis, I have a far wider circle of friends than that. I do not feel that disclosing the names of every single one of my friend with whom I may have discussed this, and there are a great many, would serve any positive purpose. I can tell you this, that there's a possibility I discussed it with Mr Derby-Lewis, Mr Walus I do not know well, and I am quite sure I did not discuss it with him. Did you discuss it with Mrs Derby-Lewis? It is possible, though I cannot remember a specific instance. Now, the relationship between you and Mr Derby-Lewis and Mrs Derby-Lewis, politically speaking, was a very close one? I would agree to that. You also had a common objective, you wanted to save South Africa? Naturally, sir. You have already told us that there were too many people that were prepared to do nothing, and that action was called for? That is correct, sir. Elections were no longer the way forward? Can I put it this way, it's a matter of changing priorities. Elections were showing less and less chance of promise to redeem the matter, and therefore alternatives had to be looked at, yes. Right. Just let's confine the matter amongst the three of you, Mr Derby-Lewis, Mrs Derby-Lewis and yourself, once there was this consensus amongst the three of you, what alternatives to elections were discussed by the three of you? Mr Chairman, I have a wide circle of friends. Mr Derby-Lewis, my help to him went primarily around the elections. Whatever other businesses I may have, I wouldn't have even considered really involving Mr Derby-Lewis, he's too busy. Did you hear the question, sir? I discussed, I cannot remember discussing things of that nature with them, though it is possible, but certainly not any sort of planning, though it is possible that it was discussed. Now, it's possible that the three of you discussed what? Remember what the question was, there was consensus among you that elections are no good, you want to save the country, other steps have to be taken, whilst the three of you were there at their home, what other options did you discuss? I cannot remember specifically discussing another option with them. Most of what I discussed there went around the elections, that was why I was there. But surely, if you felt so strongly that a by-election in Krugersdorp wouldn't matter tuppence in relation to the future of the country, why would you not have discussed the other options available? That is not correct, Mr Chairman, I did not state that by-elections did not matter tuppence. If by-elections did not matter at all at that time, I would not have wasted my time walking down streets and knocking on doors and fighting with dogs. By-elections then were still a possibility. At any stage, any responsible person would prefer to avoid bloodshed ...(intervention). Was that ...(intervention). ...and by-elections is a peaceful means of achieving change, and I support peaceful means of achieving change if possible. Did Mr Derby-Lewis share your view about elections at that time? I believe he did. Did he say so? I cannot remember him specifically saying so, but if he did not believe that, why would he stand in a by-election? Well, did you discuss how important elections were in order to show the feeling of the people? Mr Chairman, I think it's important to realise that no responsible person would throw by-elections out as an avenue if it was still available. Mr Derby-Lewis, at that point, I am sure, was well aware of the diminishing chances of the ballot box, but nevertheless, being the upright Christian man that he is, he's prepared to give it a last shot, and in that sense I was prepared to help him. Yes. So that if he or anyone else told us by that time he had come to the conclusion that the elections were a waste of time and that the only way to solve the country's problems was to kill the anti-Christ Hani, and we are going to submit, although he does not admit it at this stage, the other leadership of the SACP and the ANC, that he was either not being frank with you or he did not say? Mr Chairman, let me put something in perspective, things are not quite as black and white and as simplistic as you are stating. Even when it regards the by-elections, the by-elections that were being fought were fraudulent on their own. The National Party, on many occasions, used less than upright and honest means to gain victories, and the diminishing chance in the ballot box was really one that is being pushed for its own sake, but I do not believe that anyone who was active and concerned in those days, would have ignored other options and just pushed for the ballot box. You hope for a miracle, go for the ballot box, that is fine, but to ignore other options would be very foolish indeed. You say that you were discriminated or treated unfairly by the police, do you, Mr Clark? Most definitely, sir. Your name was found in the diary of the wife of the man that was apparently correctly suspected of having killed Mr Hani? My name was found in the diary of Mrs Derby-Lewis? Yes. In regard to? Well to being a regular visitor to that house. That would be correct, sir. Were you asked to make a statement? By the police, yes sir, I was indeed. Did you resist in the beginning? No, I was quite happy to make a statement. And did you make a statement? Yes, I did. And you were released within what period? I was released before the day was over. What is your complaint against the police? The police deny that I was arrested. I fail to bring that together with the fact that they knocked me up before five o'clock in the morning, told me I was not allowed to use my telephone, because this was section 29, drove me all over the place, refused me the facility to contact my lawyer, and basically I was incarcerated for a period until roughly the middle of the day, before things started to change. And you made a statement? I made a statement during that morning, yes. No, not at the end of the end of the ordeal. By mid-afternoon I knew what was going on. What was going on? My advocate at that time had found out that the police in fact had no warrant for my arrest, had no authority whatsoever to arrest me, to confiscate my computer equipment, my computer disks, to search my premises, they had no authority whatsoever, and he informed me of this, he managed to get a telephone call through to the police station where I was being held. When he informed me of this, I walked to where they were looking at my computer, I uncoupled the power and I informed them that I objected in the strongest terms to them looking at my computer equipment. And they succumbed to your request? They did not. They informed me in very strong terms that I would sit down at a place, the words I remember very clearly, "Sit Edwin, or else", and I had to sit, and I've got these big policemen standing over me, you've got no choice whatsoever but sit, while they switch your computer equipment back on and carry on with their devious deeds. Yes. There may have been information, in their view, in your computer that you may have been involved in the murder of Mr Hani. I cannot tell what they thought, I can only tell that they were operating against the law and I object in the strongest possible terms. Now I am going to put to you, Mr Clark, that you, together with a small clique of close friends of the Derby-Lewis's, must of necessity have been in some way involved, or at least had knowledge of the plans to kill Mr Hani? I would not know, sir, because I had no knowledge of such a plan, and I would not have anticipated at that point that Mr Derby-Lewis would have knowledge of such a plan, because he was fighting an election. And I'm going to put to you that the evidence of Mr Visser, the whole of it, in relation to you and the other person that he mentioned, Roodt, is true and that your evidence is false? I would deny such an allegation, sir. And in this co-operation that you were taking part in with Mr Roodt, who was senior, you or he? Well, Mr Visser said that there were structures, that there were cells of sorts, and one of them consisted of him, yourself and Mr Roodt, and that money was being stolen for arms and two-way radios ...(intervention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. ...for the war that was coming ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON Did he say that was a cell, Mr Bizos? I understood that the cells were something completely different that Mr Roodt was in charge of in Western Transvaal, they were AWB cells. Yes. No I used the word, I used the word ...(intervention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. ...loosely and not, that it was a small group, that's all, Mr Chairman, not a formalised group, I've made it quite clear that it was not a formalised group in 1992 on the evidence of Mr Visser. That you, Mr Visser, leave out the question of cell, you, Mr Visser and Mr Roodt were busy stealing money to be used for the purposes of the war that you now say was inevitable? Mr Chairman, I never knew Mr Visser was interested enough in politics to do such a thing. I deny the allegation, I deny that Mr Visser and I did anything of any nature, of any political nature. Mr Roodt, I am aware was involved with the AWB, as the chairman correctly states, I am not aware that Mr Roodt did anything politically with Mr Visser, though you perhaps have to ask him that. He certainly had nothing to do with me directly. Well can you advance any reason why Mr Visser should go to the trouble of applying for amnesty, involving you and Mr Roodt in it, when you say that you had nothing else than business dealings with Mr Visser? Yes, Mr Chairman, I can. Yes, what do you suggest? And what about Mr Roodt? I have no knowledge of Mr Roodt doing anything of that nature. I do know him, but I really don't know anything else about him. Well we have been informed that he too applied for amnesty for the same thing, as far as I know. You would have to ask Mr Roodt, I really have no knowledge of that. But there would be other reasons, if Mr Roodt has implicated you in any way, there would have to be other reasons for it? Yes sir, but in his case I have no idea why. If you were consistent with yourself, all those would have been minutiae in order to save the country by killing the anti-Christ? Let me state that Mr Derby-Lewis was the morally correct option which should also be followed, so that at the end of the day I can say I tried every peaceful avenue. You wouldn't have, if he had mentioned it to you, you would have thought that the stage had not been reached to kill him? No, I did not say that, it's in the hands of God, Mr Chairman, providence places certain events before you and possibly, had someone approached me instead of Mr Walus, then possibly I might have been that person, I don't know. The point is, I was not approached, and I did not know anything of the matter. Let me see if I understand you correctly. You say that if Mr Derby-Lewis approached you to do it, you would have done it? I looked up very much to Mr Derby-Lewis and I respect him as a person, I respect him as a leadership figure, and ...(intervention). What is the answer to the question? The answer is that I would seriously have considered it and quite possibly I would have said yes. Well, with that frame of mind, why should - which frame of mind was well known to Mr Derby-Lewis, why should he have kept it a secret from you? Mr Chairman, I was not then in any position of leadership. Perhaps that is a question you should rather ask Mr Derby-Lewis, I did not discuss that nature of strategy with him. Yes. Did you have anything to do with the list? With which list, Mr Chairman? A list containing the names of the leadership of the African National Congress, the Communist Party, a few journalists, Mr Justice Goldstone and a few others. You're referring to the infamous list which was reported in the newspapers in those days, no, I was totally unaware of that particular list. Did you ever go to Rotunda with anybody? Yes I did. With whom? Now why did you go to the Rotunda with Mrs Derby-Lewis? She had to take a bus down, I cannot remember to where, to a far away location, and I was basically her taxi service for the day. Weren't you too busy to be a mere taxi driver? For Mrs Derby-Lewis, not at all, sir. Oh, so great was your affection for the Derby-Lewis's? Sir, when people sacrifice everything they have for a greater cause, who am I, who is much smaller and do far less than they, to refuse a small request like that? Not correct, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Mr Bizos, I don't know whether all this has anything to do with the present application. As it pleases you, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON There should be some limit to the kind of questions you put to this witness. Well, it was in response to an answer which - now, you see, did Mrs Derby-Lewis on the way tell you that she was giving Mr Kemp a list in order to reconnoitre their houses? No sir, she did not. Or to do, that's a list which she required for the purposes, for journalistic purposes, for Mr Kemp to find out how these people were living? No sir, she did not. Did she speak to Mr Kemp in your presence? As far as I can recall, they had a private conversation, I do not remember if they asked me to leave or not, I cannot recall that, but certainly nothing of a confidential nature was discussed in my presence. If this was an innocent list, there would have been no need to discuss it in a confidential manner? I cannot remember anything being discussed in a confidential manner, I did not, at the time, think anything strange at all. I remember Mr Kemp coming, either to collect something or to give something, I cannot remember. Why did you call the list an infamous list? Because of the way it was treated by the newspapers, sir. Well how did they treat it? The newspapers treated it as a list which had been drawn up as though it was an assassination list, and from what I gathered about the list, the allegations that that list was for that particular purpose seemed ridiculous to me. Some of the names on it may have been suitable for that particular purpose, but some of the other names are patently ridiculous. Well I'm going to suggest to you that you are well versed with the Derby-Lewis's defence, both in their trial and their story that they told this committee, judging by your last answer, Mr Clark. That's not a question. Are you well aware of what the nature of their defence was at the trial and what the story is that they are putting up before the committee? Certain parts. I attended for a brief few days in Pretoria. Other than in the Pretoria Town Hall, I did not attend any of the hearings at all, so I wouldn't know what was said there. And the trial in the High Court? Unfortunately, I could not attend any of the days at the trial. Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON Mr Mpshe, are there any questions... No questions, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON ...you wish to put to this witness? NO QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE CHAIRPERSON On behalf of Mr Walus, have you any questions? Thank you. He's busy taking out something, Mr Chairman, back, Mr Chairman, the witness. CHAIRPERSON Pardon? I'm about to ask him questions, but the witness was busy with something else at this stage. I'm going to ask him a question. The witness has been taking things out of a bag. CHAIRPERSON I'm sorry. Mr Clark, during 1993, were you a member of the Conservative Party? Yes, I was. And did you support the Conservative Party? Yes, I did, definitely. In any way, at that stage, during 1993, as you have already testified, you perceived a state of undeclared war, is that correct? Undeclared, yes. As Dr Treurnicht appeared under a large banner which stated that the third struggle for freedom had begun. You said that you had a large group of friends and in your society which you experienced, everybody was experiencing the same feelings that you were experiencing. Did you think in any way that anything noticeable would emerge with the CODESA negotiations, at that stage? Chairperson, there was a small chance, but if one had to think about it realistically, the chances were pretty much zero, one could only have hoped that someone more sensible, or meaningful would come to the fore, but that is not what happened. There was testimony from those who experienced it, that CODESA was ruled by members of the Communist Party? Mr Chairman, where was that from, where was this evidence? That's the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis. It is apparent to me that the counsel for the applicants has consulted with this witness. If that be so, if that be so, because, okay, they're the ones that requested him, he answered their request, I'm assuming that they consulted, he is a person who is particularly friendly ...(intervention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. Chairperson, yesterday morning in your chambers ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON This is not a trial, this is a committee of inquiry, and if questions exceed the bounds of reasonableness, we will stop. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, for the record, at no stage did I consult with Mr Clark with regard to calling him in this commission, at no stage. So where Mr ...(intervention). CHAIRPERSON Very well, proceed with your question. Try and make it as relevant as possible. I'll do that, Mr Chairman. Did you, at that point in time, as you have said there was a state of war and there was testimony from Dr Hartzenberg and others who said that they would have fought for this territory ...(inter-vention). That is correct. ...at that stage did you think that any election would help to prevent a takeover of the country, to be realistic? CHAIRPERSON You know, I think that we've got all that evidence. (Inaudible), he's not being correctly ...(inter-vention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. CHAIRPERSON I think that we have evidence about Mr Derby-Lewis's and others that there was some kind of a state of war as far as they were concerned. I don't know whether there's any need to repeat all that. Mr Chairman, in view of the fact of the questions that was put by Mr Bizos to this witness, and his perceptions, that's what I'm asking him about. CHAIRPERSON Well his perceptions were that there was, as far as he's concerned, a state of war, an undeclared war. I'll accept that, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON He's gone to the extent of saying that had he been asked by Mr Derby-Lewis to take part in any assassi-nation, he may have considered joining Mr Derby-Lewis, he's gone to that extent. I'll pose another question, Mr Chairman, I'll leave it at that. Mr Clark, did you see that there would be a definite takeover by a majority government, the ANC/ SACP alliance? Just to correct you, not a majority government, the South African Communist Party was a very small minority, they controlled the ANC as a minority within the majority of the ANC party, and in that sense it would be as in all other communist governments worldwide, that a minority would rule and not the majority, and that the majority would remain the victims. Did you see that there would be such a takeover? Yes. Did you feel that that kind of takeover would be able to be stopped by an election? One, to the largest degree, should not remove passivism, but in that stage we tried to keep the passive road open, one should never close a door behind one that one cannot open again, and that is why one should proceed along those channels, although it would appear to be futile, and if the Almighty opened another door for you, then one should go through that door. No further questions, thank you, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON On behalf of Mr Walus, do you have any questions? The questions which Mr Bizos asked emphasised that it was not only about the anti-Christ and the struggle, was that all that it was about? The anti-Christ probably is quite a large element, because religious freedom does not exist within a communist government, it is, or religion is oppressed, but it was about communism, communism was the major issue in this case. At an earlier stage ...(intervention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. At an earlier stage you produced and sought to hand in a letter you received from the Freedom Front? That is correct, sir, I have two documents here. Well did that letter say that Mr Visser, who gave evidence before us today, had never been a member of the Freedom Front? That is correct, sir. Could I have a look at it please? With pleasure, sir. May I also submit another letter which states that the money I'm supposed to have stolen, after an internal investigation by JCI, was in fact found to have been stolen from the postal service and not from the building JCI itself? I have five documents here which will attest to that fact, that that letter was stolen from the post and not from JCI itself. INAUDIBLE DISCUSSION REGARDING DOCUMENTS CHAIRPERSON INAUDIBLE DISCUSSION This letter will be AM. LETTER REGARDING MEMBERSHIP OF FREEDOM FRONT HANDED IN AS EXHIBIT AM I'm told that there may be ...(intervention). INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. ...a difference between Volksfront and Vryheidsfront, that the one was the official and the other was the earlier ...(intervention). JUDGE NGOEPE Mr Clark ...(intervention). Sir? JUDGE NGOEPE The question I'm going to ask you is solely from the point of view that unfortunately you have experienced some inconveniences due to the non-appearances of some witnesses, including yourself ...(intervention). Yes. ...for therefore various reasons ...(inter-vention). Yes. JUDGE NGOEPE ...and in that context, I recall that you said, notwithstanding the fact that you knew that counsel for the committee wanted to talk to you, or wanted you to testify, you chose to stay away and not to make yourselves available? That is correct, sir, I will give you a truthful reason if you want a reason. JUDGE NGOEPE Yes, I want it. Mr Chairman, the TRC is not impartial enough in its affairs, in fact it is quite understandable that some people refer to the TRC as a farce. The TRC was not only wrongly structured since its inception, but is also not representative of the population as the law requires. I'm quoting, as you may recall, words spoken by Advocate Chris de Jager. One could reasonably presume that a TRC advocate should know. I do not recognise the TRC as a properly constructed legal body. In the public eye the TRC is political biased against opponents of the ANC, and is not part of the solution, but forms a significant part of the problem in our troubled land. In a nutshell, Mr Chairman, the TRC has no moral credibility. Nevertheless, I'm prepared, quite prepared, to answer all questions relevant to this inquiry. JUDGE NGOEPE You very nearly didn't have the opportunity to say all those things that you have been saying. I answered the question truthfully, as requested, sir. JUDGE NGOEPE It seems to me, from what you are reading, you have considerable difficulties with the TRC? I do indeed. JUDGE NGOEPE And I assume that includes the amnesty hearing before which you were sought to come and testify by counsel for the committee? Mr Chairman, it's a strange contradiction, because the TRC, yourself, have to look at each case independently, and in most cases I can see that you actually try your level best to give a sound and welcome sort of judgment. However, to quote Mr Chris de Jager, it is not structured correctly, and he has a particular problem, and I'd like to quote Mr Chris de Jager for exactly the reason why he has a problem, and I support what he says, he says, I'll read it in Afrikaans ...(intervention). JUDGE NGOEPE Sir, are we on the same wave length? Yes, I think so. JUDGE NGOEPE You are talking about the commission? Yes. JUDGE NGOEPE I was talking about the committee. You don't have to go further in your answer, you don't have to go further in your ...(intervention). I'm then ignorant, I don't know the difference between the two. JUDGE NGOEPE Yes, yes. Do you persist you want to go further with your answer, or do you want to stop there, because for my part I think you have answered my question, but if you want to go on, you can. JUDGE NGOEPE Well why I stopped you is because you're going to read something which is irrelevant, you're going to read ...(intervention). I don't think so, sir, I don't think so. JUDGE NGOEPE Well you are going to read Mr De Jager's statement with regard to the commission. The TRC as a whole, yes. JUDGE NGOEPE Are you aware Mr De Jager is still aware of the Amnesty Committee, are you aware of that? He apparently wanted to leave and then I don't know whether he changed his mind or he came back. JUDGE NGOEPE No, not this committee. So you are in a wrong direction altogether. I'm talking about the TRC as a whole, of which you form a part, sir. JUDGE NGOEPE I'm not talking about the TRC. I am. CHAIRPERSON Let me just clear it up, Mr Chris de Jager is very much a member of the Amnesty Committee. Yes. CHAIRPERSON He was a member of the TRC and asked to be excused, he is no longer a member of the TRC, of the commission. No, my problem then is not with the Amnesty Committee, as such, my problem is that certain cases are put before you and you yourselves do not apparently have power, or do not exercise the power to unbiasly bring people before this court, as it should be. For example, we look at the ignored 500 IFP assassinations. These assassinations will never be discussed here, so is the public perception. We look at the ANC blanket amnesties. Now, this may not have appeared in front of your particular group, but the fact is that in the public eye, these things matter, and ...(inter-vention). JUDGE NGOEPE Mr Clark ...(intervention). ...and we are discredited, just because we appear here. JUDGE NGOEPE ...can I retain the direction to which I was trying to steer the proceedings? Yes sir. JUDGE NGOEPE I don't want to seem to be engaging in a self-cleansing exercise as a member of the Amnesty Committee, let's leave that point ...(intervention). Thank you, sir. JUDGE NGOEPE Now I just wanted to accept that you have said that you had some difficulties in coming to offer your evidence at the request of certain people, and I got the impression that once asked by counsel for the applicants, you did not have any difficulties anymore? For them I will do it, for no-one else. Why? Is it as a result of the strong relationship between you and the applicants, or why? Yes sir. And by the way, what is the source of this strong bond between you and the applicants? Mr Derby-Lewis and I go back a long way. In which respect? We fight the same fight, we were friends, we visited one another, and in that sense, for me to refuse to come, if his legal counsel would request that I come, I feel I would be letting him down. If he did not request me to come, then certainly I would not come, because I do have moral problems with appearing here. The public perception is that I'm co-operating fully with the TRC, and I do not want to really have that. Yes. I will try to maintain the course that I was on. Is this bond between you and the applicants of a political nature? I would say both, primarily political, but I have the highest respect for the persons of Mr Derby-Lewis and Mrs Derby-Lewis. Would you say that you're a political confidante of Mr Derby-Lewis? No, I would not, I would not say that, because he didn't confide in me about the Hani assassination. Well until then, did you think you were his confidante? Not really, sir. He is a leader in his own field. I was performing small tasks for him, I was walking streets, I was working on his computer, I could assume he was doing other things that I don't know about, though I would not have guessed exactly what he was involved in, I would more have thought other people were doing those activities, because he was busy with an election. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Clark, speaking about relationships, what is your relationship with Mr Visser? Once I thought it was a friendly relationship, then I ...(intervention). When was that? That was before Mr Visser refused to pay me my money after I wrote the computer programme. When about was that? It would have been round about, I guess the same time, March '83 (sic) or thereabouts, I'm not too sure, but at the time that Mr Hani was shot, Mr Visser and I were still on talking, speaking terms, and some time after that I didn't get the money that was due to me, and he had various reasons, and I have sympathy for him, he had legal problems, he explained to me that he had these legal problems and that it was all a big misunderstanding, I believed him, and I was reluctant to take him to court for the monies he owed me, because I was on a friendly footing with him and his wife, his children, and I could see the wife and children having very difficult times, so I basically let it be, and it, before that time we were on a friendly footing and I thought everything was fine. Subsequent to that, customers started paying out money, and I never received my fair share of the money. I spent months writing a computer programme, for which I received not a cent. Can you think of any reason why he is drawing you into this business around the JCI cheque? Yes indeed I can, sir. He was sentenced to go and spend a term in prison. If he can get amnesty, clearly he doesn't have to spend time in prison, and who is the only political contact he has, because he himself was never involved politically, his only political contact is me, and through me, Mr Clive Derby-Lewis. One of the fraud cases happens to be slightly before Mr Hani's assassination, and this seems to have been terribly convenient. I do have proof here in front of me, if I may just bring that into it as well, proof of this particular money that was stolen just before Mr Hani was assassinated ...(intervention). I've heard you said that ...(intervention). ...and this particular ...(intervention). ...it was stolen ...(intervention). ...shows that it was stolen in the post. Ja, in the post. That's why I ...(inter-vention). Now he mentioned ...(intervention). Ja? ...that I got it from a certain person at JCI, and that person's name has been mentioned in newspapers as well ...(intervention). Yes. ...and this offends me. I was on friendly terms with him. I'm aware he was a member of the AWB. We went out on a few AWB things, get-togethers, I was not an AWB member myself, but I am aware Mr Roodt was, but he's quite a lot older than myself, our dealings were polite and cordial, more friendly, but nothing more to it than that. But Mr Roodt was also, if I understood the evidence correctly, he seems to also have been involved in politics at that stage, in '93? He was a member of the AWB and he was certainly very concerned at events in the country, yes. Would he have been in a position to present Mr Visser with a political cover for his amnesty application? I presume Mr Visser needs witnesses and possibly he can, but really you should call Mr Roodt, I don't really know enough. Yes, I'm trying to understand why he pulled you into this thing, I mean you say that he's obviously looking ...(intervention). Well, Mr Visser ...(intervention). Ja, he's obviously looking for a political cover? Why Mr Visser would do it is obvious to me, why Mr Roodt would do it, I don't know, that, to me, is a total mystery. Ja. Well I don't know what Roodt, I believe that, I've heard there was reference to an amnesty application, but I'm more concerned about Visser, because you say that he actually approached you and he wanted you to apply? He wanted me to apply, and he gave me really a cock and bull story, and I just distanced myself from this rubbish, I'm not prepared to go and lie like this for the man, I'm prepared to help him in various ways, but I'm certainly not prepared to do that. And that was after doing you in with your money ...(intervention). Yes, it was after that. ...(indistinct)? It was after that. So he had the nerve to actually come back to you and say ...(intervention). Well he was promising he would pay eventually, it's one of those things, but yes, I regard it as a nerve to ask, yes. To ask, on top of what he had done, to ask you to falsely in fact involve yourself, first of all, in an amnesty application ...(intervention). Yes. ...and to cover him, who has done you in? That is correct. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you very much. Mr Chairman, may I say something in the witness' presence, just in case he has an explanation, because we are going to argue that the Vryheidsfront is a different organisation from the Volksfront. The Vryheidsfront was as a result of a political break-up of the Volksfront, and the Vryheidsfront took part in the election, the Vryheidsfront took part in the election, the Volksfront remained behind, and the Volksfront was in existence during 1992 (indistinct). If that is the case, Mr Chairman, then why did you accuse me of spying for the Freedom Front? Well I made, I, because I thought that Volksfront and Vryheid ...(intervention). INTERPRETER Mike please. ...Volksfront and Vryheidsfront were the same thing, but I have good people around me, who advised me that that was a mistake. But not just a mistake, Mr Chairman, because in Mr Visser's amnesty application, where I did see a copy, Vryheidsfront is mentioned. Well just point that out to us please, because we read Volksfront in his application. Have a look on the front page, earlier, and if you'd give us the application, we will draw attention to the Volksfront. I know Volksfront was mentioned there, I would like to look for the occurrence of Vryheidsfront. If I am mistaken, it is possibly, Mr Chairman, because Mr Bizos used the word Vryheidsfront so often, even in Pretoria, when I was sitting there, where I was being accused of being a spy for them. Thank you. Well, here on page, is that page 1? MS VAN DER WALT And on page 2. At the bottom of page 1, the very last word on the last line, Vryheidsfront. Three organisations are mentioned, Volksfront, Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging and Vryheidsfront. Of which I provided proof that neither he nor I were members. You say it's on page 2 as well. Yes, (b), sub-section 2 "Information officer in the Volksfront/Freedom Front under Edwin Clark." I deny it. I did have dealings with the Volksfront. At no time was Mr Visser under me or did he do anything with me in any way whatsoever. I regarded him as basically apolitical. Thank you, Mr Chair. CHAIRPERSON Yes. We're about to adjourn for the day. Mr Mpshe, are there witnesses available for tomorrow morning, or ...(intervention). Mr Chairman, we've come to the end of the witnesses, there are no witnesses to be called further. CHAIRPERSON We'll resume at 9:30 tomorrow morning and we expect counsel to commence to address us. I want to say at this stage that we have received comprehensive argument already in writing from counsel, that covers the early part of the proceedings, except for what has happened in the last two days. I trust that we will proceed promptly tomorrow morning at 9:30. The committee adjourns until then. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS