amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS BOKSBURG 4 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54644&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/bok/bok2_3hani4.htm ARGUMENT BY MR BIZOS: (cont) ...[inaudible] .1.1.11 and ask you to please put a reference on top of Page 9 that this submission is supported by the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis in chief in the TRC 1, Page 339 - 341. C1 Page 339 to 341 and then Mr Chairman I would like to start at 6.1 through. MR WILSON TRC? MR BIZOS The TRC Record. MR NGOEPE Typed script? MR BIZOS The typed record. CHAIRPERSON The transcript? MR BIZOS The typed script. CHAIRPERSON Yes, just give us the page, sorry. MR WILSON Which transcript? MR BIZOS The first one. MR WILSON Which you referred to earlier as FR? MR BIZOS FR, I beg your pardon. MR WILSON Yes, not TRC. MR BIZOS CHAIRPERSON FR1 ...[inaudible] pages? MR BIZOS Then, I would like to go to Page 14 and this is the Applicants have lied about the scope of the conspiracy as to the number of people who were to be arrested. I have already dealt with that in general terms and, but here are the references which are both to the Record and to their statements and we set out verbatim answers given to members of the Committee which clearly show what we submitted yesterday that their answers are so inherently improbable that their evidence should be rejected and that what is contained in their statements is true and what the overwhelming probabilities indicate that this was a murder list. The untruthfulness of Mrs Derby-Lewis in the criminal court of course are of vital importance in relation to her credibility and on Page 18 we submit that the Applicants have lied about when the conspiracy to murder ANC SACP leaders was entered into and we submit in 6.4.1 on Page 18 that although Chris Hani was decided upon in February 1993 as the first target, the discussion as to what action should be taken started immediately after the referendum in March 1992 and intensified by the latter part of 1992 and we rely on that on the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis which we give the reference to. That was unacceptable for us and Clive and I started to discuss in the direction of eliminating selective members of the ANC, PAC Alliance. Clive asked if I was prepared to eliminate political opponents and I agreed to do so. Towards the end of February 1993 during the visit to Clive at his home, he showed me a list with nine names. We discussed the names on the list and I numbered them according to priority of elimination", accords with the probabilities and should be accepted without reservation and we submit that that is quite inconsistent with the denial. MR WILSON Mr Bizos can I go back for a moment. 6.4.1, you say that, you give us a reference and you say that, "discussions as to what action should be taken started immediately after the referendum and intensified by the latter part of 1992." MR BIZOS Yes. MR WILSON But in fact Derby-Lewis made it clear that his discussions with Walus did not commence then. At Page 777 MR BIZOS Yes. MR WILSON MR BIZOS A slight difference, but certainly not February/March. MR WILSON No. MR BIZOS CHAIRPERSON When you talk about the conspiracy being hatched, between whom, between himself? MR BIZOS Would you have not have gone against the others, No. 1 and No. 2 on the list or No. 4, 5 and 6. So we submit that the probabilities are overwhelming, that there has not been full disclosure on when the conspiracy was hatched, who, everyone that was a member has not been mentioned and they have not been truthful about it. MR NGOEPE MR BIZOS If she had not been associated with the list this may have been a defence available to her. MR NGOEPE MR BIZOS She may not have performed an executive act in the furtherance of the conspiracy. CHAIRPERSON MR BIZOS No, well if we take the bulk of it out and say that she had nothing to do with the list then that may be so. CHAIRPERSON MR BIZOS CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR BIZOS The nine she received from Arthur Kemp. CHAIRPERSON So she sent this list to Kemp in the first instance for particulars, the list of nineteen people? MR BIZOS Yes, to Kemp. CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR BIZOS And the evidence is both in the criminal record and here that Kemp gave her nine and that she then handed it over. CHAIRPERSON So now the list that she took to present to Mr Hartzenberg was the list of nine names and not nineteen, is that it? Which Mr Hartzenberg did not act on? MR BIZOS MR NGOEPE Now, would such a non-disclosure be a material one. The failure to disclose knowledge on the part of somebody who did no more than just merely knew about it. MR BIZOS Now, one cannot divorce that without taking into account that her husband with whom she has complete political and ideological identity and who also set herself up as one of the saviours of the country. One cannot take or ignore that evidence because that is an executive act. What she did with Kemp was not to give a list for the purposes of writing a journalistic article. MR WILSON MR BIZOS MS KHAMPEPE MR BIZOS ADV POTGIETER MR BIZOS No, this is why I submit that if in fact anything was given to Mr Hartzenberg, on the assumption that she was a member of the conspiracy, she had to find a reason for the apparently conspiratorial meeting at the Rotunda, at the Johannesburg Station and having Mr Clark there adds to the probability and his evidence that it was done surreptitiously even for his eyes. So, we submit that a smoke screen has been created by Mrs Derby-Lewis about a book, about journalistic purposes, about Hartzenberg, the real purpose of the list is what is obvious and what she herself said in her statement, what Mr Derby-Lewis said in his statement and that it was a hit list. Subject to any other questions at this stage I will be coming back for the latter part of the argument and the admissibility of the statements, my learned friend Mr Malindi will take over Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Yes Mr Malindi. ARGUMENT BY MR MALINDI Thank you Chairperson and members of the Committee. Chairperson, I will start at paragraph 6.5 where we make the following submission. The Applicants have not disclosed various co-conspirators to the plot. They have not disclosed the names of other people in the CP who discussed and decided with them that violence had become an option for the CP. Chairperson, in the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis himself, he states that many discussions were held by people on the right concerning actions to stop the Nationalist political cause and he further states that actions were being planned and put into operation and that evidence is to be found in FR Page 109. MR NGOEPE Mr Malindi sorry, but if those actions and plans had nothing to do with the killing of Mr Hani. If those actions and plans were actions to go hold protest rallies throughout South Africa, in Cape Town, in Pietersburg, they would not be connected with the killing of Mr Hani and they would not be a non disclosure, unless you can connect, you can make that connection. MR MALINDI CHAIRPERSON What paragraph of your Heads are you dealing with? MR MALINDI Paragraph 6.5.2 Chairperson. An additional reference will be SR, Page 279. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. MR MALINDI Chairperson, the Applicants have relied on Exhibit A3, the Mobilisation Plan. As a CP document which was adopted in preparation of various forms of mobilisation, including armed resistance according to the witnesses, although we shall submit that that document does not go as far as mobilising for armed resistance. Mr Bizos has also dealt with the non disclosure of the involvement of people like Mr Van Venter who provided the firearm and that is 6.5.6 of the Heads. And further submissions are being made in 6.5.7 that we dispute that Mr Venter handed the weapon over to Mrs du Randt on the 10th March 1993 but that this weapon was handed over earlier than that date. MR WILSON MR MALINDI CHAIRPERSON MR MALINDI It is so Chairperson. Our submission is therefore that if he did provide this weapon before the 1st March or before the 10th March, he must have had knowledge at least of the reason for Mr Derby-Lewis wanting to acquire a weapon. So there was communication between the Applicant Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr Van Venter which were not disclosed to the Committee. ADV POTGIETER MR MALINDI Indeed Chairperson, we do make a submission that it was not coincidental that this weapon was passed on to Mr Walus, that it was specifically obtained for that purpose of assassination. Chairperson at 6.5.8 we deal with the difficulty in which Mr Venter found himself in trying to explain the various dates which appear on the statement he made to the police and we submit that his evidence that the weapon was discussed on the 10th March and provided on that date should not be accepted. And the submission has already MR WILSON MR MALINDI CHAIRPERSON MR MALINDI CHAIRPERSON As far as the register of attendance of the Krugersdorp Municipality Council meeting, I understand Mr Derby-Lewis was not a member of the Council. MR MALINDI Yes indeed Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON MR MALINDI CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR MALINDI Chairperson, in respect of Mr Clark, it is submitted that he withheld information as to what was on his hard drive of his computer. He did not disclose who were members of their fraternity and he specifically refused to associate Mr Derby-Lewis with any of the discussions of this fraternity which was plotting all these acts and we therefore submit that his evidence should not be accepted, in as far as it was tended to support Mr Derby-Lewis. The changes in November 1996 and in particular, the addition that Chris Hani was a military target for his role as a Senior Commander of MK, were after thoughts in order to improve his chances of obtaining amnesty. He knew that this was an exaggeration especially that in his first Application which is Exhibit R7, he had rightly stated that Hani was a former MK Commander. Whereas CHAIRPERSON MR MALINDI Chairperson, it shows that the Applicants have not been consistent. In April 1996 when they filled their Application forms, they were aware of the facts. CHAIRPERSON Well are they not entitled to correct it? MR MALINDI CHAIRPERSON MR MALINDI MR NGOEPE MR MALINDI The facts were in their knowledge Chairperson, except that in April when Mr Walus said he was acting alone, he was wrong at that stage, so although he MR NGOEPE But could that have been a genuine mistake? MR MALINDI MR NGOEPE MS KHAMPEPE MR MALINDI And Mr Bizos has dealt already with those submissions of and statements made by various political leaders of the Conservative Party. Chairperson, at 7.4, I would like to add the following references, Second Record 791, 796, 799 and 811. And at 7.5 I would like to add the reference Second Record 805 - 806 which is a reference to where Dr Hartzenberg said the CP was in 1993 committed to peaceful solutions and the CP is still committed to peaceful solutions. We submit that the options that were still available to the CP were participating in elections or in elections in negotiations with other parties at that time. Still on Page 34 at 7.3.17, Chairperson I would like to correct the reference there where it says 9 Record, that will be Second Record of this hearing. MR NGOEPE MR MALINDI Chairperson MR NGOEPE MR MALINDI Chairperson, Dr Hartzenberg has admitted before this Committee and I will find a reference that they were involved in multi party forum negotiations, the Applicant Mr Derby-Lewis has considered that point and Mrs Derby-Lewis has also considered that point. That they were involved in negotiations at the time. At Page 26 Chairperson, 7.5, Dr Hartzenberg was giving this interview on the 20th April 1993, the day after Chris Hani had been, the day after the funeral and he said that the CP was still involved in negotiations, the multi party conference negotiations which were being held and reference is at the paragraph itself. Chairperson at Page 36 which is acting in the course and scope of duties and within the scope or express or implied authority, Chairperson if our submission is correct that the Applicants did not act on behalf of the CP, then this submission becomes superfluous but in their Heads they do contend that they were acting within the course and scope of their duties and Mr Bizos has already made a submission that in order for the Applicants to rely on course and scope they should be able to state what duties, what tasks had been given to them by the CP within which they claim to have assassinated Chris Hani. At Page 38 Chairperson, paragraph 9, we have been alerted to the fact that Section 20, Sub 2, Paragraph F now excludes any person who is mentioned in Section 20 Sub 2(a). Chairperson, our submission therefore is that it is clear that a person who is a member of an organisation as the Applicants claim, as Mr Derby-Lewis clearly is and as Mr Walus claims he is, can no longer rely on Paragraph F to say there were reasonable grounds which made them believe that they were acting within their express or implied authority. ADV POTGIETER So it seems to me as if that is the sort of situation that is catered for in F, only those kind of members. MR MALINDI Chairperson, at Page 40, Paragraph 10, the question whether the act committed by the Applicants is an act associated with a political objective, Chairperson, the act envisages that if an act is committed, it will be for the benefit of a political organisation or liberation movement. MR NGOEPE Why should we determine that only through the eyes of the CP? MR MALINDI CHAIRPERSON Not sanction it prior to the commission of the offence? MR MALINDI And did not approve it after the commission of the offence as well. MR NGOEPE Yes, but a political party could have approved of something which we would nevertheless possibly could still find that it is not an act associated with political objective. But you see, the criteria, your argument come, ventures close to adding a further criteria under Sub 3, Sub Section 3, that the act as such must be viewed by the political party, in the eyes of the political party concerned, it must be seen as an act associated with a political objective. MR MALINDI Chairperson, my submission is that the act envisages that an act to be associated with a political objective, it must be an act committed with a view of achieving that political objective. CHAIRPERSON Correct. MR MALINDI And in this instance we have MR NGOEPE The political objective as seen by the perpetrator? MR MALINDI It may have been a political objective as seen by the perpetrator but was it for the benefit of the political party and the political party says no. Although Dr Hartzenberg tried to say that if a Christmas gift was presented to him like that he would have accepted it and so on, he was MR NGOEPE That could be a different requirement. That touches on the area of authorisation and the like. But you see, we determine from, objectively speaking, we are to apply the criteria here as set out under 3. We look at a particular conduct objectively. Leave aside other requirements, leave aside the question whether they had authority from the party, we leave that aside. We look at the nature of the incident and we look at it objectively and decide whether or not it is an act associated with the political objective. MR MALINDI Except that Chairperson if I may read Sub paragraph 2, "That act, in order to be associated with a political objective must have been advised, planned directed, commanded, ordered by a political organisation, publicly known political organisation." This was an act planned and executed by a group of individuals, the Applicants and their co-conspirators. ADV POTGIETER MR MALINDI Well Chairperson also under Sub paragraph 3(e), the act or mission must have been in the execution of an order of or on behalf of or with the approval of the organisation. MS KHAMPEPE But Mr Malindi I think, my problem is, does the fact that the organisation is not aware of what an Applicant was about to do render that not as an act which is associated with a political objective if according to the Applicant, that act was seen as furthering the cause of that political organisation? MR MALINDI CHAIRPERSON MR MALINDI Chairperson, in this instance, firstly, with the Second Applicant, Mr Derby-Lewis, we are dealing with a person who was an executive member of the organisation. We will submit that he was not the kind of person or the person of his standing within the political organisation would not have sat and contemplated what act would have been to the benefit of his organisation. He should known what he ought to do as a leader of the CP to advance his political objectives. MR NGOEPE I think you have helped me Mr Malindi. MR MALINDI Chairperson MR NGOEPE No, I was about to say that you have helped me with regards to the point that I raised because as particularly when you look at 33(e), that you have just referred to. MR MALINDI Yes. MR NGOEPE It would seem that, no matter on the face of it, how political the act may be, if it was not done on the order or on behalf of a political organisation, no matter how objectively you may look at it, it will never qualify to be an act associated with political objective. MR MALINDI Yes, indeed Chairperson, that is the submission that we have been attempting to put across to the Committee. That an individual may totally believe that their act is an advancement of a political objective. It may be so but in this instance we submit that there has to be separation where an act is a publicly known political organisation is not aware that such a person is purporting to be acting on his behalf. And then Chairperson, the submission therefore on this paragraph is already made and some of the Sections under Paragraph F are dealt with separately like proportionality which Mr Bizos is going to deal with and acting under orders which follows thereafter which is Paragraph 11. But Sub Paragraph 3, taken as a whole and taking into account Paragraph 11 and the proportionality submission which my learned friend Mr Bizos is going to make is such that, and that submission is made on Page 42 that when the criteria in terms of Section 20 Sub Paragraph 3 are taken as a whole, there is doubt that the act is associated with a political objective and therefore the Applicants have failed to satisfy the Committee as such. Under these paragraphs Chairperson, our submission is that there are so many things that make it difficult to conclude that they have satisfied Sub Paragraph 3. There are elements of the anti Christ and other elements which should be taken into account, elements of gravity of the act and so on and even though one of those topics in itself does not go to the extent of excluding a political association, we would submit that, taken together, they will indicate that this act was not associated with a political objective. MR WILSON MR MALINDI Chairperson there may have been death threats against Mr Derby-Lewis and if he acted, if that has motivated him, then he was acting on his own accord and not on behalf of the Conservative Party, for personal reasons. MS KHAMPEPE MR MALINDI Yes, they are separated from the execution of this act in time and place. CHAIRPERSON Yes, carry on. MR MALINDI Chairperson, under Paragraph 11, Mr Walus contends that he was acting under orders and my learned friend Mr Bizos has already made submissions that Mr Walus essentially changed the manner in which he is going to conduct his evidence in his Application for Amnesty after he had seen the Max Du Preez TRC Special Report and decided that he would now consistently claim that he was acting under orders. Chairperson at 11.1, if I may read this section out. In his Application Mr Walus initially stated that, "The Applicant acted alone in the planning and the commission of this deed." His answer under this paragraph was subsequently changed on 13 November 1996 to read as follows, "In pursuance of the instructions of Clive John Derby-Lewis, a senior member of the Conservative Party, prior to 6 April 1993 we, Clive John Derby-Lewis and I jointly planned to assassinate Chris Hani. On 6 April 1993 Clive John Derby-Lewis handed me an unlicensed firearm for the purpose of assassinating Chris Hani." Chairperson, at 11.4, we make the submission that by the above statement Walus is trying to marry the suggestion that he was acting under instructions and that they acted jointly. There obviously is a contradiction in these statements, especially in view of the fact that Derby-Lewis in his amended response to Paragraph 9(a)(i) does not mention having given instructions to Walus. And Chairperson, in November both of them had access to legal representation and therefore if one looks at the body of the Application of Mr Derby-Lewis one will observe that even after the lawyers had come in to assist him, he consistently indicated in his Application that he was a co-conspirator, he was an equal to Clive Derby-Lewis and not a foot soldier acting under orders. The reading of Paragraph 11(a) of his Application clearly shows an understanding of Conservative Party politics and his association therewith. In his evidence he did not try to limit his knowledge of the Conservative Party politics but confirmed such understanding. His understanding of these politics and the objectives of the CP are those of Mr Derby-Lewis is not that of a person whose interest is only to carry out orders or instructions of the leadership. Mr Walus told the investigation officer that he and Clive planned the murder together. To a question by Judge Ngoepe, Walus conceded or agreed that he participated in the killing of Hani because he was driven by his immense hatred of the communist regime and his previous terrible experiences under communism in Poland. "That he and Derby-Lewis were discussing as friends, they were discussing as like-minded persons in terms of politics that in February 1993 they jointly agreed on the assassination. That they talked as colleagues, and as co-supporters in every aspect. That they were talking privately between the two of them, that he, Walus volunteered to execute their joint decision. That he, Walus was not under any pressure to do that and that Derby-Lewis had no control over him in terms of the execution." And at this point Chairperson, the evidence is that Mr Walus was alone when he executed this act and if he was under any compulsion it did not apply for a very long period he was conducting reconnaisances by himself. Derby-Lewis was not standing by to see that he does execute his orders and therefore his claim that he was acting under orders should not be accepted. He could have withdrawn from this plot at any stage. He was not under pressure from Mr Derby-Lewis nor from the CP. MR WILSON I understood, we were told that we should look at the disks and it would show that it was not him who referred to Langenhoven, is that so? MR MALINDI Chairperson, Mr Derby-Lewis testified MR WILSON Before you go on, can I ask you, you refer in Paragraph 11.12, when the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis was read to Walus TRC FR, he admitted the following, now are these quotations from Mr Walus? MR MALINDI Chairperson, those are not quotations, they are points that I extracted from his admissions. What Mr Bizos did MR WILSON Well my problem is that in my Record Page 777 is the evidence of Derby-Lewis. MR MALINDI Yes Chairperson and the evidence of Mr Walus, I think would be in Second Record, Page 71 to 78, at the bottom of 11.12.8, the references. MR WILSON So these are references to what Derby-Lewis said at those pages? CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR WILSON Right, thank you. MR MALINDI Chairperson, finally, on my section, Mr Derby-Lewis stated in his Application and in his evidence that after he had had a dream, he thought it better to delay the execution of Chris Hani and Mr Walus, in his evidence says that was not conveyed to him and he went ahead with the execution and Mr Walus was always prepared and ready to go ahead with the execution although Mr Derby-Lewis claims to have had reservations at another stage. And therefore Chairperson my submission is that Mr Walus was not acting under orders, he was acting as a co-conspirator, as an equal. Chairperson I will handover back to Mr Bizos. CHAIRPERSON Mr Bizos will it be convenient if we take a short adjournment at this stage? MR BIZOS Yes Mr Chairman. Let me assure you Mr Chairman that, not only will I finish but I will leave approximately half an hour for a reply if need be. The main issues have been canvassed and I will not be very long. CHAIRPERSON You may in addressing us, consider, if you have not already done it, in relation to the criteria laid down in Sub Section 3, whether each of these criteria have to be satisfied or whether they have to be treated collectively. If one of the criteria is not satisfied, does that mean that there has been non compliance with the entire Sub Section? MR BIZOS CHAIRPERSON We will take a short adjournment. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION CHAIRPERSON Yes Mr Bizos? ARGUMENT BY MR BIZOS (cont) Thank you. Mr Chairman, Counsel for the Applicants were asked whether they brought their Application under 22(a) and it was said by one them, yes, and I assume that the other agreed. Now, and then attention was drawn to the fact that (a), 2(a) is not referred to in 2(f). We are concerned Mr Chairman as to whether an Applicant has to confine him or herself to a particular Sub Section and we are anxious that the Committee, with respect should view the matter with due consideration without relying on the apparent concession of Counsel for the Applicants. CHAIRPERSON Take into account the Act as a whole? MR BIZOS And what we want to submit on the facts in relation to that, that a position of a leader such as the Second Applicant, Mr Derby-Lewis, the position of reasonable grounds of belief, surely must be different where one has a cadre in the bush who has to make a decision, who is operating underground, that has no lines of communication with his leadership. He may say well, I was given an order to infiltrate into the country, a policeman stood in front of me and I decided that, in the furtherance of my liberation movements actions I had to shoot him otherwise I would be shot or I would be arrested and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. But if they reasonably believe that that was within their mandate, then they would be entitled to amnesty but they start off on a different premise. They had a mandate to commit acts of violence by their organisations, given to them by their leaders who have taken responsibility, who had publicly stated that violence, there comes a time in the life of any nation where there is no option left but violence and then publicly declare that this is the policy of the organisation. Now, a person that commits that act, there may be an enquiry as to whether or not, even though it may have fallen outside the policy of the organisation whether he may reasonably have believed that it was within the scope, course and scope of his, the task that had been appointed to him or her. Here we have no policy of violence by the CP, no task bestowed upon either of the Applicants to perform any act of violence and most certainly not assassination of a high profile political leader. As we submitted yesterday, is a, makes a difference. Let me not be misunderstood Mr Chairman, we are not saying that the life of a leader is less or more dear to the people involved than the most lowly and unlettered individual who finds himself in the struggle. But what we do say is that the consequences of eliminating a high profile leader are so materially different to any other act and where we have a case where they say that they intended to create chaos when we have the leader of their party saying to Mr Venter that they had a policy of non violence, we submit that that is a different situation all together. Now in relation to the question put to me by the Judge presiding sir, what I want to say is that clearly, Sub Paragraph 3 of Section 20 must be cumulatively read. In our submission what it means is this, that even if an Applicant might satisfy one of the requirements, that does not entitle him to amnesty is he or she does not satisfy the other requirements. And it can be illustrated in a very simple way. That there was full disclosure. Well, even though his act may be proportional or it may have been with an objective within the ambit of the act, that person must be refused amnesty in our respectful submission because he has not complied with one of the essential elements. Similarly, if he does not show that he did not have authority, we believe that that is the end of the matter, even though he may have satisfied other requirements. If we go to (A), the motive, can one in a country which has so many hues of colour, so many religious denominations, so many cultural and linguistic groups, think of anything worse that any human being could commit in order to induce a race war in South Africa. That black people must first kill white people and white people must go out and kill lots of black people so that law and order is not there and a crises is created. On top of Page 48 Mr Chairman TRC SR Page 832 to 833. CHAIRPERSON That reference does appear at Paragraph 12.6? MR BIZOS CHAIRPERSON Thank you. MR BIZOS Mr Chairman, I now want to turn to the question of the admissibility of the R4 statements. The submissions are set out in full. Their references to the statements and to the evidence that has been given and the responses of the witnesses that gave evidence and whose statements were put to them. The net result of it Mr Chairman is, that between Pages 50 and 68 of the Heads of Argument we set this out. Counsel for the Applicants had these Heads of Argument from Wednesday morning, certainly their Attorney by Wednesday morning, they say that they got it on Thursday. Be that as it may, we have heard no argument or submission in relation to the Law or the correctness of the fact that we have set out on these pages. Now, what we submit, that on the matters upon which we rely on these statements, there have been answers from Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus to the effect, and the references are there, that they did not tell any, they were not forced to tell any untruths, either as a result of violence, threats or trickery. On the contrary, most of the evidence relates to how sympathetic the police were to them, how, if they were bluffed, they say that they were bluffed, they said that they actually have sympathy for them and for the Afrikaner cause and that one of them at least had some contact with someone else and that he was an agent for an organisation. But all that means nothing more than this, that if they did get their confidence it was because of how good they were to them. There has been, and we deal with each one of the original complaints, which are negative by other evidence, for instance that the police who treated Mr Derby-Lewis, but he wrote a letter thanking them, how wonderful they are, they were and how wonderful they had treated them. Mrs Derby-Lewis expressing a desire that when she comes out and she would want to join the police on the basis that there would of course not be substantial changes. Now, and Mr Walus, when asked, before the adjournment you will recall Mr Chairman, what was his real complaint about the conduct of the police and did they force him to make any of the statements, he said he never made any statements, they were just friendly chats that he had with the police. Well these friendly chats have been reduced into an Affidavit by Mr Deetliefs, they have been, tapes have been made available. There were 21 of them, they have been in the possession of the legal representatives of the Applicant for a very long time. You heard Mr Chairman the complaints, the complaints relate as to who mentioned Langenhoven and one or two other comparatively minor matters. In relation to Mrs Derby-Lewis, the matter is much more strengthened in favour of our contention that her statements are admissible, that they were freely and voluntarily made and we ask the Committee to accept, unreservedly the evidence of Mr De Waal who angrily denied any suggestion that he had used any undue influence. The evidence admitted by Mrs Derby-Lewis, that arrangements were made to get her own doctor in, every one of her requests was complied with, including going to get money for her son and clothes and magazines and everything else. We know that detention without trial, with a great amount of justification has a very bad name in this country and many of us spent the better part of their lives condemning it. But the other factor to be taken into consideration is that by the time Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis were put under Section 29 of the Security Act, it was a completely sanitised Act, which provided for judicial intervention before, after the period of ten days in which, at a time when fundamental human rights were being promoted in the country by the large political parties and liberation movements and that it was a completely different atmosphere. But, the treatment metered out to these three persons was salutary in the circumstances. Having regard to what they were suspected of at the time, of committing an act which almost brought the country to the brink of war. In conclusion, on Page 68, Mr Chairman, is that, we submit that the version by Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis in evidence is both contradictory and improbable in material respects and should not be accepted. This is irrespective of the admissibility of their statements to the police. Derby-Lewis who did not give evidence in his trial, perjured himself in an Application to re-open the trial to prove his innocence. He relies on the support expressed to him when he was falsely holding out, that he was innocent and claimed that his arrest was a pretext to embarrass the Conservative Party. Without any apology to anyone, he now admits that he lied in that Application and he was indeed guilty of the murder that he committed. The improbability that the list was compiled for journalistic purposes could not be sustained during cross examination. She could not sustain the fanciful story in many respects. The contradictions between the two Applicants that were serious and too near the main issue to be ignored as suggested by their Counsel. The attempt to make out a case of implied authority on the numerous articles and editorials in Die Patriot to which Mrs Derby-Lewis regularly contributed is a last ditch effort by those responsible for disseminating McCarthy-like propaganda, asking to be believed when they say they were influenced by that propaganda. Derby-Lewis reducing his role to a minimum, that he still wanted to think it over and Walus belatedly saying that he was ordered when elsewhere they state that they acted as co-conspirators makes their evidence suspect and not worthy of belief. The criteria of their act are clear, they have not made full disclosure, they were not authorised, their object was to bring about a savage civil war of black against white for their poorly articulated purposes. They were guided partly by religious bigotry, they make reference, the two of them and Mr Clark of Mr Hani being the anti Christ, hatred for blacks and democracy and in the case of Walus, hatred for Communism as a result of what happened in Poland, where he did nothing to put right but murdered in South Africa to cause chaos, to bring the right into power. The life of a charismatic leader was cut short Mr Chairman, we do not contend that his life was more precious than any unlettered peasant nor worker in a factory nor indeed any other human being, whatever his or her position in the community. But as was pointed out by ...[inaudible] of JP in his Judgment on sentence, the accused performed an act of assassination on a person who had attained prominence in public affairs in South Africa, whose killing was likely to the knowledge of the accused, to cause far reaching, highly emotive reactions with very damaging serious consequences and extremely harmful effects for the entire society of South Africa. The accused was a mature person with experience in public affairs, who must have realised what widespread reactions would follow on the assassination. We are here concerned with a case of assassination of a person prominent in public life by reason of the ideologies which he endorsed and because of the perception that his track record was unacceptable. That sort of perception should be sought, I suppose Mr Chairman, might be entertained by thousands of people in this country for a variety of reasons, of many personages who have obtained prominence in public life. If assassination of that sort is perceived to be an acceptable option in this country the consequences may well be disastrous, chaos, anarchy, widespread bloodshed and damage to property is likely to result. The political consequences may also be fundamental. I have given careful thought to the experiences of the Accused No. 1 in relation to Communism and the perception of both the accused in the role of the deceased. This factor may render the act of all accused understandable if it were not the killing, would have been utterly senseless. Mr Chairman, I want to pause here for a moment. You are asked to let loose the two Applicants. You have seen and heard Mr Clark, one of the close disciples of Mr Derby-Lewis, completely lacking in judgment, a fanaticism which our country can do without. Having regard to the gravity of their offence, having regard to the fact that they wanted to create chaos in South Africa, having regard to the fact that neither of them expressly and by clear implication has shown that they have no respect for the provisions of the Constitution, that Mr Clark very clearly stated that he will never accept a unitary state in South Africa, which is a rejection of the Constitution. We do not have before you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee people who have in the words of the preamble of the Act, that calls for democracy and peaceful co-existence for all South Africans irrespective of colour, race, class, belief or sex. Mr Derby-Lewis tells us, yes, let the blacks go to their homelands and they can exercise those rights, it would give us the better part of South Africa as our own Volkstad. They do not believe in national unity or the reconstruction of a common society. The overall purpose of the Act is to reconcile the people of South Africa and for people to come and make full disclosure and although they are not obliged to say sorry, they must at least show that they have come to terms with the sort of society that the vast majority of the people in South Africa want. The release of these two men will probably lead to another little clique and cabal being established somewhere in Krugersdorp and elsewhere, where the freedom of expression, freedom of movement and freedom of association given to even them, in terms of the Constitution will probably be abused in order to pursue their irrational and fanatical ideas that lead them to the assassination. For all these reasons Mr Chairman we ask that the Committee refuse the Applications for Amnesty. Thank you Mr Chairman. MR NGOEPE Surely if we find that they have met requirements, surely we must let them loose, even though we may feel that they may form a clique somewhere in Krugersdorp, we must. MR BIZOS MR NGOEPE MR BIZOS MR NGOEPE Because it is important for us to dispel any notion that even though the Applicants may meet requirements for Amnesty, this Committee would have refused them Amnesty because of this and that and that, it is important to dispel that notion. MR BIZOS No, I would associate myself Mr Chairman fully with that and particularly, particularly about certain misconceptions that there are certain acts that no amnesty should be given at all. We do not subscribe to that, we do not make this submission but what we do say is that the character of the people that you have before you and the attitude which they have shown to the conduct of these proceedings throws light of what they were thinking about then. MR NGOEPE Thank you. MR BIZOS Thank you Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON These tapes that you mentioned in passing that you would like to view. Is that some arrangement that you will make as soon as we have adjourned here? MR BIZOS I beg your pardon? CHAIRPERSON The tapes, or those portions of the tapes that you would like to view. MR BIZOS Yes. CHAIRPERSON MR BIZOS No Mr Chairman. We will arrange with Counsel for the Committee, for the Commission to make them available to our instructing attorney and she can have the pleasure of looking at them and if there is anything there, we will submit a note within, is two weeks too much to ask for Mr Chairman? CHAIRPERSON MR BIZOS We will submit it by Friday of next week Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Mr Prinsloo? MR PRINSLOO Honourable Chairperson that would be in order by the following Friday we will have submitted it as well. CHAIRPERSON MR WILSON Counsel for the Applicant? CHAIRPERSON MR WILSON I have spoken to one, well to both of the Counsels for the Applicants and indicated that it would assist us if there are any other portions of the tapes that they think we should have regard to, that they should also notify us. So far we have been told, I think only a portion of Tapes 8 and 9 but if there are any other tapes, we would invite both parties, both Counsels to draw our attention to them. I gather it takes quite a long time to look at all 21 of them. CHAIRPERSON I would like to place on Record that Mr Mpshe, you will take possession and control of all these tapes and if the need arises that any portion of those tapes is to be viewed by members of the Committee, you will make the necessary arrangements. The Committee now adjourns. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS