TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 3

Chapter 6

Subsection 14

The Testimony of Janusz Walus

144. The Committee found that Mr Janusz Walus was a member of both the CP and the AWB at the time of the incident. He was born in Poland and emigrated to South Africa in 1982 to escape the Communist regime in Poland. He chose South Africa because he believed that the Afrikaner would never succumb to Communism.

145. The Committee heard that Walus had a keen interest in South African politics and met Derby-Lewis and his wife in 1985. He participated in many CP activities with Derby-Lewis and formally joined the CP that year. In the same year, Walus met AWB leader Eugene Terre’Blanche and subsequently joined the AWB. He attended various AWB meetings during 1985 and 1986 and learnt of their resistance to NP policies and their fear that the NP would hand the country over to ‘Communists’.

146. Walus was granted South African citizenship in 1988 and was able to vote in the 1989 elections. Although the NP gave voters the assurance that the ANC or SACP would not be unbanned before the election, it unbanned them in February 1990. It then became clear to him that negotiations would involve the NP and ANC to the exclusion of opposition parties.

147. After the 1992 referendum, the NP government reneged on its undertaking to consult the electorate before any constitutional amendments were effected. It then became clear to the CP that democratic channels were blocked. Walus feared that Mr Hani would take over the country as he was a popular leader in the SACP and saw himself being subjected to the Communist regime from which he had escaped in Poland. This made him apprehensive to the extent that ‘he vowed to do something to try and stop the handing over of his country to a Communist ruler’. It was at this stage that Walus began holding numerous detailed discussions with Derby-Lewis about solutions to the deteriorating political situation. Wa l u s regarded Derby-Lewis as one of the policy makers of the CP and relied on him to provide direction. In one of these discussions (February 1993) Derby-Lewis handed him the list of names and they decided that Mr Hani should be shot.

148. On 10 April 1993, after reconnoitring the Hani home, Walus saw Mr Hani get into a vehicle. He ascertained that Mr Hani had no bodyguards with him. He followed the vehicle to the local shopping centre. Mr Hani went inside and later returned with a newspaper. Walus decided that this was an ideal opportunity to execute the order and drove to the Hani home where he awaited Mr Hani’s return. After Mr Hani had pulled into the driveway, Walus approached and fire d two shots at him. After Mr Hani had fallen down, Walus shot him twice behind the ear at close range. Walus left the scene in his vehicle. He was stopped by the police soon after the incident and was found in possession of the Z88 pistol, whereupon he was arrested .

149. During his detention, Walus was at first not prepared to give any statements to the police. After prolonged interrogation and after being given alcohol by the police, he began co-operating. He was also misled into believing that some members of the interrogation team were members of right-wing political organisations who had infiltrated the security police. Walus disputed the contents of certain statements the police alleged he had made while in detention and which form part of the record. He denied having said some of the things ascribed to him in these statements and indicated that the police had amended the statements to suit their own purposes.

The Testimony of Gaye Derby-Lewis

150. Mrs Gaye Derby-Lewis’ testimony before the Committee concerning her role prior to the assassination coincided largely with that of her husband. She had not been involved in the plot to kill Mr Hani and was totally unaware of the plans. The list of names found in the possession of Walus was prepared at her instance by a journalist friend, Mr Arthur Kemp. She intended to use it to write a series of newspaper articles exposing the luxurious lifestyles of those identified on the list. This would have embarrassed them because it would expose their ‘gravy train’ lifestyles, which were at odds with the cause they repesented.

151. Mrs Derby-Lewis had also left the list in the Cape Town office of Dr Hartzenberg for his use in his speeches in Parliament. He never made use of it and the list was returned to her. She testified that she was unaware of the fact that her husband had given the list to Walus.

152. She confirmed having had breakfast with her husband and Walus at her home on 6 April 1993, but testified that she had left while her husband and Walus were still having a discussion.

153. She heard the news about Mr Hani’s assassination while she and her husband w e re visiting Mr Faan Venter on 10 April 1993. She was arrested on 21 April 1993 and placed under section 29 detention. She was subsequently charged and acquitted. She gave false testimony at the trial on the question as to whether her husband had told her on 12 April 1993 that he had given the list to Walus.

154. A substantial part of her testimony before the Amnesty Committee was devoted to her detention and treatment at the hands of the police.

155. While in police detention, Mrs Derby-Lewis wrote and signed a number of statements. She personally typed one of the hand-written statements to help the police sergeant who was charged with doing the typing. Despite this, she argued that she had been unduly influenced to make these statements and that they had not been freely and voluntarily made for the following reasons:

a She was not warned in terms of the Judges’ Rules. However, under cross examination on behalf of the police officers, she conceded that it was possible that she had been warned.

b She was denied access to a legal representative and was at times falsely told that her attorney was on his way.

c She was threatened with section 29 detention.

d She was badly treated by Captain Deetlefs who was insulting towards her and threatened her with long-term imprisonment. She had a personal fear of Deetlefs and complained that he was intoxicated.

e Sleep deprivation contributed towards her writing false statements.

f Mr de Waal made her change her statement and write various untruths. He would come to her after she had written a statement and inform her that Colonel Van Niekerk was not happy with what she had written. She would then amend her statement accordingly.

156. Under cross-examination on behalf of the police officers, Derby-Lewis conceded that those parts of the video recording of her questioning which were put to her showed that her conversation with Deetlefs was quite civilised. They also showed her fully participating in the discussion. She then indicated that Deetlefs had threatened her during those parts of the conversation that were not on the tape. She praised the police and said she would like to join the police force, but said this was meant as a joke.

157. She also confirmed that Deetlefs’ attitude did not, at any stage, lead to her telling an untruth and agreed that he did not compel her to tell any untruths. She said that she ‘stuck to her guns’ and spoke the truth.

158. When referred to a portion of the video recording where she says she had slept for twelve hours, she conceded that sleep deprivation did not play a role when she signed some of her statements on 24 April 1993.

159. Under cross-examination, she conceded that De Waal was reasonably civil towards her. On most occasions when he questioned her, there was a female police officer present. He helped her to obtain some personal items and to attend to other personal matters. On one occasion, she told De Waal that she did not wish to do a ‘pointing out’, which he accepted.

160. Mrs Derby-Lewis saw her personal doctor in April 1993, some days after Deetlefs had concluded his interrogation. Although only the District Surgeon was present, she failed to tell her doctor about her maltreatment or that she had been compelled to make false statements. When she was asked under cross examination to explain the meaning of, ‘I am sure it is going to be used in court’, words she uses on the video, she declined to do so. She testified that she really did not know what these words meant because she had used them while she was being held under section 29 detention.