This resource is hosted by the Nelson Mandela Foundation, but was compiled and authored by Padraig O’Malley. It is the product of almost two decades of research and includes analyses, chronologies, historical documents, and interviews from the apartheid and post-apartheid eras.

To search the O'Malley archive please click here.

Name: Clive John Derby-Lewis

11-08-1997: Day 1

ADV MPSHE: Today is the 11th of August Mr Chairman, in the application of Janusz J. Walus, application number 270/96 and Clive J. Derby-Lewis, application number 271/96 Mr Chairman.

All the parties are here present as well as all the affected and interested parties, they are present. I will then hand over to the Chair to allow all members herein present representing people, to put themselves on record Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, for the applicant?

MR PRINSLOO: As Mr Chairman pleases, H.J. Prinsloo on behalf of the applicant, instructed by the firm of Attorneys Swart, Redelinghuys, Nel & Partners and Mr J. Lubbe is the Attorney present on my left Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: I appear on behalf of Mr Janusz Walus, I am Louisa van der Walt and I am under the instructions of the firm Swart, Redelinghuys, Nel & Partners, thank you.

MR BIZOS: May it please you Mr Chairman. I appear for Mrs Hani and the South African Communist Party, my name is Bizos, together with my learned friend Mr Malundi, instructed by Nicholson, Khampanis solicitors in Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. The Amnesty Committee comprises of myself as Chairman, Judge Andrew Wilson on my right, Judge Vernon Ngoepe on my left, Ms Sisi Khampepe, Attorney on the left, Adv Denzil Potgieter, senior counsel on the right of Judge Wilson.

I would like to make a short announcement for those of you who have these headphones. Channel 1 will give you the Afrikaans translation, interpretation. Channel 2 will be English. Channel 3, Tswana and channel 4 Polish.

Some of you will be hearing that language for the first time no doubt. Ms Van der Walt?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, this morning at quarter to ten we were served a bundle of documents comprising approximately 500 pages. Which documents we haven't been able to study. These documents were served upon us by the representatives of Mrs Hani and the South African Communist Party and the ANC.

At a glance of these documents, they appear to contain certain statements purportedly made by the applicant, Mr Derby-Lewis and which statements were not tendered at the trial of Mr Derby-Lewis and these statements were purportedly made whilst the applicant was detained in terms of Section 29.

We were not informed by my learned friend Mr Bizos or any of his representatives that such documents will be used and we would need time to study these documents. It may be that these documents will also be regarded as inadmissible having been obtained whilst the applicant was detained in terms of Section 29 and other reasons as far as the admissibility of statements are concerned.

At this stage, we would ask that the matter stands down until tomorrow morning to afford us the opportunity in order to study the documents and take instructions from Mr Derby-Lewis in this regard.

I must stress Mr Chairman, this is absolutely no fault on our part that this adjournment is sought, otherwise we would have been ready to proceed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Chair, it is correct and I want to affirm what Mr Prinsloo has said to you. I have had no access to certain of these documents. I have made an attempt in the 15 minutes prior to the beginning of these hearings to page through these documents.

It would appear that there really is matters that must be discussed urgently with my client and I would also ask for an extension, thank you. A postponement, my apologies.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Firstly let me indicate in relation to the size of the bundles. They are not as lengthy as their apparent number of pages may indicate.

They are statements, they are hand-written and we thought it necessary or rather the investigation when it was conducted, thought it necessary that those should be typed out so you will probably find that in the bundle there is a hand-written and a typed statement, which reduces it to less than half.

Also there are matters there which are of vital, we submit, importance on the issue as to whether full disclosure has been made or not. They are vital documents for the ascertaining of the truth.

It is correct that these statements were not tendered in evidence in the criminal trial, we do not know why they were not so tendered, but we submit that it is irrelevant for the purposes of this Committee as to why the Attorney General did or did not tender those statements.

There is authority which is supplied that statements made under Section 29 are in fact admissible once the authority of a person in the employ of the State has been obtained, the docket was obtained by us from the Attorney General of Gauteng who is the Officer mentioned in the Section.

They are therefore prima facie admissible. It is of course open to the applicants to say that those statements were not freely and voluntarily made.

I do not want to pre-empt such a statement by them, but we have the investigation diary which will of necessity be put in in order to show how well the applicants were treated whilst they were in detention.

We regret Mr Chairman, that we only gave them to them this morning. This is not the first time that the applicants' counsel have had notice of the fact that the contents of the docket would be made available. A pre-trial conference was held in which we disclosed that we had asked the Commission to issue subpoenas duces tecum, that is a subpoena to bring documents to court on the Attorney General's office and the Investigating Officer.

We were informed that generally speaking the Committee does not require original documents to be placed before them. We made the copy available that we had to counsel for the Commission. We were informed that the facilities of the Commission were not sufficient in order to make copies for members of the Committee and the other interested parties and at considerable trouble and expense to our clients, we made copies which we delivered to the Committee over the weekend and to the applicants' counsel this morning. I can understand that my learned friends want to take instructions, and they may well be entitled to ask you for time in order to take those instructions.

But I submit that it need not necessarily be a lengthy one, the statements are there and I am sure that clients know about them. But they are nevertheless entitled in our submission, to give instructions.

We are going to persist in our intention to place those statements before the court because in our respectful submission they contradict the case which the applicants are trying to put before the Amnesty Committee and above all they contradict the evidence of Mrs Derby-Lewis who gave evidence before the Judge President of the Transvaal in her own defence and part in defence of the applicants.

So it is an important matter and I would leave it to the discretion of the Committee how much time they may be entitled for the purpose of taking proper instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you off hand tell me whether this volume of documents that was served on us, does it have a special, has it been designated and numbered, can it be easily identified?

MR BIZOS: What we have done Mr Chairman, for the purposes of convenience is that we have marked by agreement A, B and C the applicants' documents, and what we have done as respondents is we have marked all the documents that emanate from our side, R1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and anything else that we tender we will asked to be marked R and the subsequent number.

The docket before you is in two volumes, R4, there is only one. R4 and R4 continuing. There was too much to put into one bundle, but those are the documents.

Not all of them are as relevant as the statements made by the two applicants and Mrs Derby-Lewis Mr Chairman, but we put in other documents for the sake of completeness in case certain side issues arise.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: May I say Mr Chairman, that we have the cases decided in our courts which make Section 29 statements admissible and we may say that the Section 29 that was in operation in 1993 when the statements were made, was a much more human rights friendly Section to the ones that the cases deal with.

We are prepared to make the cases available to our learned friends and to members of the Committee so that they may consider the situation.

And I have already indicated that the Attorney General handed us over the document.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Prinsloo and Ms Van der Walt, we have had a hurried look through these documents, bundle of R4 and continued bound separately in this bundle, we are of the view that you are entitled to time to consider these documents.

There are in all approximately a little under 100 typed pages. And we feel that if we allow you until two o'clock, that would be adequate time for you to read those documents and consider the matter.

I am now going to therefore, subject to what you may have to say, I am going to adjourn the Committee now, this sitting, until two o'clock this afternoon. Do you understand?

Mr Bizos, it is quite clear that an adjournment has become necessary and I have consulted my Committee members and it is our view that this matter should be adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon.

This matter is therefore adjourned, the Committee rises.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: ... called and they will give evidence and I appeal to you please to allow them their say so that everybody can hear what is being said, thank you very much.

Yes, are you ready?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair, Committee members, during the postponement granted until two o'clock this afternoon, we want to place on record first of all that R4 provided by Mr Bizos and his team to us, we do not recognise this document, it was not part of any of the discussions of the 4th of August, of Monday the 4th of August during the pre-hearing conference, secondly it would appear that there is reference to cassette tapes.

Mr Lubbe the attorney who has given us our instructions has approached Mr Bizos' team in this regard. This team has informed us or Mr Lubbe that the cassette tapes are not in their property. We would want to listen to these tapes, compare the tapes to the contents of the actual statements as transcribed.

Thirdly, with regard to the pre-hearing conference, Mr Bizos was only available very briefly since he had other responsibilities at the Supreme Court. It had been discussed whether the Supreme Court documents would be recognised and it was said during that meeting that this document would not be contested by ourselves and we do accept a copy as provided.

It was also mentioned by the team of Mr Bizos that consideration will be given to the judes tecum subpoena and it was pointed out that Mr Mpshe does not have the necessary powers. It was also clearly stated to Mr Mpshe and he responded that with regard to Section 29 testimony or that this would not be applied.

Furthermore, with regard to the statements in R4 we would like to address the Committee in full on this matter. In the first place Mr Bizos without prior consultation with us already on Friday, according to Mr Mpshe, made R4 available to the Committee. It would appear that the statements therein would appear to be documents contained in interviews during a Section 29 detention, as well as statements during such a detention.

It was not determined by us from Mr Bizos, or by Mr Bizos whether we would contest the acceptability of these documents. It was his responsibility as an experienced criminal advocate that the contents of a document containing statements such as these and in which the contents would be considered, that the acceptability or liability of this document, or admissibility would first have to be determined.

It would appear that the Committee already had access to the documents and it would appear that these statements were available to the Committee on Friday.

Furthermore Mr Chair, the documentation which had been made available to us consists of approximately and if you would grant me a moment, 337 pages. We were availed of a single set of these documents by Mr Bizos.

These documents will need to be studied very carefully by the clients. The clients would have to have opportunity to do so. Mr Bizos had been availed of a considerable amount of time when he objected against the volumes of documents in his words served on him at the airport on the 8th and we would ask that a similar amount of time be made available to us since the two hours availed to us, have not been sufficient.

We want to submit in the first place that with regard to the statements, in the first place, that these are not admissible. Furthermore, that we will argue and we want to be granted the opportunity to obtain the necessary authority that Mr Bizos who wants to place these statements before the Committee, must first prove the admissibility and the voluntary nature of these statements.

This will be his responsibility and duty. We must be granted sufficient opportunity to make the necessary research after the Honourable Committee has made the decision who has the responsibility for proving the admissibility and then we will address you with regard to our additional problems in this regard.

In summary, therefore, we want to request that the matter be postponed until tomorrow morning to allow us to prepare an appropriate legal argument and to present this to the Committee with regard to the documents now placed before the Honourable Committee. After this legal argument and after a decision by the Committee, we will then follow the decision of the Committee as it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand that you would like the application to be postponed at this stage without first hearing Mr Bizos arguing the admissibility of these documents?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, unless Mr Bizos has some answers to this as far as the admissibility of the documents are concerned, we respectfully submit that the onus is on Mr Bizos to show that the statements were freely and voluntarily made.

CHAIRPERSON: My question is do you wish to adjourn this matter without affording or hearing argument on the admissibility at this stage? Because if you are not, I am going to call upon Mr Bizos, if it is convenient, to argue this question of the admissibility of these documents.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, my submission is with respect that we must be afforded the opportunity to present legal argument why we say that these documents, that the onus is first of all on Mr Bizos to show that it was freely and voluntarily made.

Secondly that Mr Bizos will then be afforded the opportunity to reply thereupon. Unless Mr Bizos will be prepared to start at this stage to present his argument and we are going to reserve the right to reply thereto with regard to a proper argument which we will prepare to present to the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no doubt that you will have all the opportunity to reply to whatever arguments are raised and both sides will have all the opportunity that is required to deal with matters that are going to be placed before us.

Mr Bizos at this stage, it seems that apart from the fact that they have had inadequate time to consult with their clients on the contents of the documents labelled R4, the point is made that you have to satisfy the Committee about the admissibility of these documents.

Are you at this stage in a position to deal with that aspect of the matter?

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman. But there has to be, firstly that I want to place on record that it was intended to subpoena the police officers who took these statements to produce them duces tecum this morning and we were told that we could make copies available and that it was not necessary for subpoenas to be issued.

What I want to say is this, that we are entitled and the Committee is entitled to know from counsel of the applicants whether they contend that these statements are inadmissible because their clients, the two applicants, were held under Section 29 when these statements were made which we are ready to argue, because that is a matter of law.

And the authorities are clear that they are not inadmissible merely because the person concerned was held under Section 29. Or do they contend and we are entitled to know that, because my learned friend is correct in saying that the onus is on us to show that the statements were freely and voluntarily made, but although the onus is on us it is for them before that onus is placed on us, to tell the Committee and through the Committee, us, who was it who they say unduly influenced them to make these statements and how they did it so that we may consult with those persons and give them, call them in evidence, that in order to prove that they were freely and voluntarily made.

I want to place on record that we have had a consultation with Captain Holmes who was the Investigating Officer, who assured us that these statements were freely and voluntarily made. If the applicants contend that any undue influence, whether of whatever nature, such as would make an ordinary statement inadmissible, was imposed on them before any further steps are taken, they must please tell us who it was and in what manner do they suggest that they were unduly influenced to make these statements.

If they want to separate the two it would be inconvenient in my respectful submission, the question of admissibility should be decided on both issues, but if need be we are ready to argue that the mere fact that they were taken at the time that they were held under Section 29 does not render them inadmissible.

This is what we submit and we believe with respect, that it is for the applicants and their legal advisors to make a choice whether they want to place before the Committee the grounds upon which they say the statements are inadmissible so that we can be guided as to what evidence we have to call in order to prove that they were freely and voluntarily made Mr Chairman.

So that if we could have a précis or what it is that they contend makes the statements inadmissible, that would put us in a position to, although this Committee in our respectful submission does not appear as far as I know, to have detailed rules in relation to how this matter should be dealt with, I believe that the procedure that I have outlined is familiar to everyone of the persons on the Committee, particularly the three Judges, that is the way it is usually done in the superior courts of the country and I suggest that in fairness to the applicants and the victims, that that is a fair procedure that should be followed here.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we then clarify the position, is your objection two-fold? Are you objecting that the statement is inadmissible because it was taken at a time when they were under Section 29 detention? Is that one issue?

The second issue is, are you contending that the statements were not made freely and voluntarily?

MR PRINSLOO: That is the case Mr Chairman. These statements were taken while they were held under Section 29 and these statements were not voluntarily given as well as the interviews.

It would appear furthermore Mr Chairman, that there were persons present who were not Officers. Furthermore that the persons who took down these statements were part of the Investigative team. There would need to be a more complete consultation with the client to be able to state this fully to Mr Bizos.

Captain Holmes was not the Investigative Officer in the sense that he took part in the interviewing process. It would appear that he only carried the docket. There were persons involved in the Security Branch of the South African Police Service and it was these persons who took down the statements and it is these particular statements that are put in dispute as contained in R4.

INTERPRETER: The interpreter could not hear the speaker.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you did not come on the machine with your last sentence.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the persons involved in the investigation or the interviewing were persons, were members of the Security Branch. These were the interrogators as well as the persons who took down the statements.

With respect Mr Chairman, these statements were not presented by the then Attorney General Mr Klaus van Lieres and he must have had good reason for not presenting it. He was an experienced person.

Captain Holmes as I have mentioned, was the person who carried the docket, he was not the person who actually took care of the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is clear that your objection is on two grounds? (a) that because they were in custody at the time in terms of Section 29, that ground is a factor on which you say that the statement is inadmissible and as I understand you to say that the statement is also inadmissible because it was taken under interrogation by members of the Security Branch?

MR PRINSLOO: It was not made freely and voluntarily Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that there was any violence or any force used on them?

MR PRINSLOO: I am saying we will have to take full instructions to comprehend this fully to put it before the Commission. I am just sketching this briefly Mr Chairman. I am just sketching this briefly Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, I am sorry, I don't quite understand. Are you saying that you are not able to tell us now as to the nature of the undue influence?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we are not saying that violence was used, but we say that there was undue influence in the making of these statements.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, as my brother here says are you in a position to tell us what was the nature of this undue influence?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in as far as that is concerned, we will have to take full instructions from our clients. That is the brief instruction we were able to take because of the volume of documents before us, 339 pages which 267 comprises the docket, we are unable at this short time and looking at authority to be able to answer that in proper perspective at this stage.

We will need more time.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I would want to also put the position of Mr Walus on record. It differs from that of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, namely that Mr Walus was never held in detention under Section 29.

However there were certain statements received this morning. One of these statements comprises 56 typed pages of which three quarters of the statement was in Afrikaans which I would need to have translated into English for my client.

We have only obtained a single set of documents, although we are two distinctly separate legal representatives. I want to also take you back with regard to these statements to what was decided on Monday during the pre-hearing conference.

Mr Mpshe did have difficulties with the subpoena that had to be brought out and he informed us that he did not have the necessary powers. We informed Mr Bizos' team that normally in the Commission as from our previous experience, copies are used, copies of statements are used.

However, without doubt we did not thereby relinquish our right to contest a statement. In the brief time available to me I was able to look at a single so-called statement of Mr Walus. Then there is a similar statement in the same bundle, with a different wording.

This in itself is somewhat strange and what in addition is disturbing is that Mr Bizos claims that these statements are excerpts from the docket, however the statement on page 304 of R4, does not have any writing at the top as one would note in the other statements from the docket, there would normally be a MR number at the top of the statement as is commonly done by the Police.

On behalf of my client I would therefore without doubt need to see the original document to be able to consult. Since my client contests the voluntary nature of the statement that had been made and I would conclude from that this was a statement to a Captain Nicholas Johannes Deetliefs, it would appear to me as if this statement was made by means of questions and answers and that a junior officer was also present.

My client would contest the admissibility of this statement. In addition I would need to have access to the original to be able to determine the nature or the true nature of the statement. It would seem that words had been entered by this Captain Deetliefs at a stage after the original statement had been drafted.

In addition I want to confirm that Captain Holmes was without doubt only the Investigative Officer who carried the docket and that Captain Deetliefs if I were to look at the statement, in fact did the investigative work with regard to my client, Mr Walus.

I would also contest the voluntary nature and would also ask for a postponement and would therefore support the argument of Mr Prinsloo to you.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume in your consultation with your client, with reference to the first point you have made, or have you already done so, but I would assume that you are going to find out from him whether in fact and I appreciate the point that you are saying that the statement was not freely, possibly not freely and voluntarily made, but what I am asking you is whether at this stage you are or you are going to clear up with your client as to whether or not the statement that we have with all the defects that you have referred to and the possible queries you have raised, whether your client at any rate admits that in fact that is the statement that he made.

Be it through undue influence or not?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, that exactly is my problem. I would have to look at the original document. My client has exactly a problem with certain sections appearing in this statement.

As I have said, we have briefly glanced through the English sections.

CHAIRPERSON: All I wanted to say to you was is your argument that you challenge "die egtheid van die dokument", is this not presumptive? Would you not have to first consult with your client and then determine whether you can contest the legitimacy of the document, is that not presumptuous?

MS VAN DER WALT: With respect, it is exactly during the very brief period of time available to us and because of certain aspects pointed out by my client to me in this statement, it is not at all presumptuous on my part to say that I do need to see the original document.

Since under the circumstances in this very brief span of time, I may well, I have already determined that I may need to question the true nature of this document and this is in brief only some of the aspects that I would contest in addition to the voluntary nature of the statement.

JUDGE WILSON: May I ask you something. I am a little confused. We were given bundle R4 and that contains various headings. 1. Clive Derby-Lewis and a list of statements by him. 2. Janusz Walus and a list of statements by him. 3. Gaye Derby-Lewis. 4. Nicholas Johannes Deetliefs and 5. Arthur Benjamin Kemp. Now you have just referred us to a statement at page 304, that is found in a statement, that is indexed as being one by Deetliefs?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct Your Honour.

JUDGE WILSON: In the middle of his statement as far as I can see, I just glanced at it now when you drew our attention to the page numbering, he suddenly starts apparently quoting your client? Have you had a chance to see if he does it again anywhere in his statements?

MS VAN DER WALT: With respect, that is exactly the problem I have. It is this particular excerpt or quotation on page 305 which should be exactly the same as that on page 87 since it is a verbatim version of what is said on page 87. However, there are differences, there are words added.

Such as for instance I took the, I drove on, which does not appear in the original statement and with respect my client wants to know from me, why this difference?

On face value it would appear to be an excerpt and at first glance it would appear to be an excerpt to what is stated on page 87, but there are differences. There are things deleted, there are things added.

CHAIRPERSON: ... these documents being made available at short notice Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: We will have to approach the then Captain Holmes and the Attorney General in Johannesburg and I am sure that the originals will be made available fairly quickly Mr Chairman. May I be permitted to respond to one or two of the matters that have been mentioned?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Firstly, I don't want to be understood from anything that I have said that the principles applicable to a criminal trial, are applicable to a hearing under the Act because the rule against self incrimination on deciding guilt or innocence is one which is protected both by the constitution and our common law and all civilised states.

Here is not a question of guilt or innocence. Here the Committee is dealing with two convicted murderers. The issue is have they made full disclosure or not?

And we will in due course say that every bit of information that is available as to whether or not they have made full disclosure is admissible and relevant subject only to the obtaining of statements by coercion or trickery or the other matters which make statements inadmissible.

What we are entitled to with the greatest respect to our learned friends, before any indulgence is shown to them or any more time is given to be told, who is it that used methods which would render these statements inadmissible, the identity of the persons concerned and secondly what is it that they did or what is it that they did not do which makes the statements inadmissible?

And they are correct that there be an onus on us in order for us to be able to discharge that onus, the very least we are entitled to is the identity of the people that they say render these statements inadmissible and in the broadest outline, what is it that they allege against these persons in order to enable us to consult with them and to call them as witnesses in order to show that the statements were freely and voluntarily made?

JUDGE WILSON: Wouldn't it be sufficient Mr Bizos if they gave you the identity of these people? If they have nothing to hide, they will come here and tell us how they questioned them. They don't need to be warned in advance of things that are going to be put to them, are they?

MR BIZOS: No, not necessarily (indistinct) except possibly that if allegation A or B or C may be made, they may if they are forewarned of it be able to bring documents or corroborating witnesses in order to rebut the suggestion, but I do agree Judge with respect, that the very least we are entitled to is the identity of all the persons who had anything to do with the alleged misconduct by the persons concerned.

JUDGE WILSON: I think it is clear that you would be entitled not only to the name of the questioner, but if they are going to say somebody else standing outside the door, making threatening gestures or anything of that nature, you are entitled to have those people here so you can call them?

MR BIZOS: That is so. We do not want to do this piece- meal, this is why although they, our learned friends may be embarrassed, because they have not had sufficient time to delve very fully into their clients' alleged complaints with regard to the taking of the statements, we can understand that, but we are entitled to the identity and possibly some circumstance which will have the effect of curtailing the length of the proceedings.

But it is up to them and the Committee with the greatest respect, as to what particularity they would have to give if any. But the identity of all the persons concerned most certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: It is quite clear that the originals of these documents should be made available to you to enable you to verify whether there has been some tampering with them or what the cause was of the difference between the original and what is before us.

JUDGE WILSON: That includes tapes?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it is equally true that the applicant, Mr Bizos, if we are going to adjourn at this stage, that Mr Bizos should be told now by both of you as to precisely who it is that exerted undue influence on your clients and what the nature of that undue influence is so that tomorrow we don't have another adjournment to enable the calling of witnesses. If the identity of those persons are made known now, then we would like that to be placed on record.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, my client will claim that Captain Nicholas Johannes Deetliefs was the person who questioned him. My client will also claim that he had not placed a single word on paper and for this reason I would want to have access to the original hand-written document of Captain Deetliefs, not a typed version, since the questions and answers or the statement drafted had to be drafted in writing.

My client would claim furthermore that all questioning or interrogation had been done after 12 o'clock at night, in the early hours of the morning. My client will further claim that certain of the information written down by Captain Deetliefs cannot be recalled by my client as having been given to Captain Deetliefs, and that would be all, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the fact that he can't recall, by itself doesn't amount to undue influence. We wanted to know what was the nature of the undue influence and you mention the nature of the undue influence and that is that he was questioned after midnight.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could I just confirm with my Attorney?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, my client will claim in addition, or state in addition that after having been taken out at night, Captain Deetliefs continually used hard liquor.

That he made available hard liquor to my client, to the extent that at a particular time my client did not know how he was able to return to his cell. And under these circumstances, statements were taken from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you tell us who was responsible, as far as your client is concerned, of exerting undue influence?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, at this stage I ask for a brief adjournment of ten minutes in order to give the details to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: I will be pleased if you can.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for ten minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases you Mr Chairman and Honourable members of the Committee. The applicant Mr Derby-Lewis will submit that he was arrested on the Saturday and that he was kept awake up until the Monday, during which time information was drawn from a computer.

The person involved in this exercise, the names of the persons involved in this particular exercise, is not known to him. Colonel Van Niekerk, attached to the Security Branch at that time, threatened the applicant with detention in terms of Section 29 and also promised him that were he to make a statement, he as well as the other applicant Walus, would be granted amnesty and in this manner he was unduly influenced.

In addition it was promised to him that Mrs Derby-Lewis would not be arrested and would be protected. Captain Deetliefs as well as Warrant Officer Beetge interrogated the applicant while he was in detention under Section 29 of the Internal Security Act.

He was extensively interrogated, promises were made to him. He was kept awake irregularly for long periods of time for interrogation, for extended periods of time and in addition threatened with continued detention under Section 29.

Broadly speaking this would be submitted with the limited period of time made available to me. The names known to us therefore are Captain Van Niekerk, Captain Deetliefs, Warrant Officer Beetge and other persons whose names are unknown.

In addition Mr Chairman, the applicant would submit that on a particular occasion someone whom he thought would be a Black policeman not dressed in uniform, rushed in on him and told him that he would be arrested. There was an additional person whom he thought would have been a Black person who uttered threats against him outside his cell, but he does not know who this person would have been.

Furthermore Mr Chairman, I do not know what the position would be with regard to statements of Mrs Derby-Lewis, who also are a part of R4 and should my learned friend, Mr Bizos place these statements before the Commission, then there would be further consideration of the persons involved in that regard.

In that event names can be availed to Mr Bizos. I do not know whether the Chair could determine whether Mr Bizos would want these names?

CHAIRPERSON: You heard the last point, and that is ...

MR BIZOS: Yes, we will appreciate the names of the persons who Mrs Derby-Lewis alleges induced her to make a statement that she made. Their identity, and in what manner does she suggest that she was unduly influenced Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Which means that questions may be asked or will arise out of her statement, so you will tell us who are the people that would have exerted influence on her?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the persons mentioned are Van Niekerk, Colonel Van Niekerk, Captain Deetliefs, Captain De Waal, Warrant Officer Beetge.

JUDGE WILSON: Captain De Waal?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: The manner, and the manner for the sake of completeness Mr Chairman, please.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the nature of the influence on her?

MR PRINSLOO: Since Mrs Derby-Lewis is not an applicant I did not go into full detail with regard to this. I only obtained the names from her.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps at a convenient stage, before we move very much further, you will get the necessary information about the manner in which Mrs Derby-Lewis says that she was unduly influenced. But I think that between now and then we can proceed with the work of this Committee.

Mr Bizos you have before you the names of the people who it is said exerted undue influence. You have some idea of the nature of the undue influence, at least in respect of the two applicants. I want to know whether at this stage, in order to save a lot of time, whether it would not be appropriate for you to advance your argument at least on the admissibility of these statements, because despite the fact that they were in detention under Section 29, because it would then afford an opportunity to counsel on the other side, to be able to formulate legal argument in response to what you may have to say.

I would rather we do that now than postpone this part of your argument till tomorrow morning, only to find that at the end of your argument a further adjournment is requested.

So Mr Bizos, if it is convenient, we would like to hear you on that aspect of the matter.

MR BIZOS: ... that would become available. May I ask the Committee to issue subpoenas duces tecum and for the purposes also in so far as it may be necessary for them to give evidence.

My Attorney has already tried to get hold of the Investigating Officer who is not in, who will probably have knowledge as to where these people are at this stage. Could I ask the Committee to please authorise the issue of the subpoenas and because they would require a reasonable period of, I would suggest of not less than 24 or possibly 48 hours, but if the subpoenas could be issued on that basis, but our Attorney will in the mean time try her utmost to get those who may be available, here before the period so that we can proceed.

And in so far as I am sure that they will want to cooperate, then there needn't bee undue delay, but lest anybody stands on his rights in relation to reasonable notice, I would suggest with respect that the subpoena is issued that they come to the hearing on Thursday morning.

We will try our utmost to get them here before with their cooperation. This does not mean with respect, that the matter has to be adjourned until Thursday. There are other aspects of the case which the applicants are able, if they so choose, to give evidence. I will undertake not to cross-examine them on their own statements or the statement of Mrs Derby-Lewis during this period, until the Committee has made a finding as to whether the statements are admissible before the Committee or not.

And whilst we are talking about subpoenas, Mr Chairman, there is one other aspect and that is that we have information that the first applicant, and the late Chris Hani, appeared on the same public debate on the SABC on a certain matter and we will submit that having regard to what they have to say about him, in their application, it is relevant for the Committee to see how they interacted with one another a few months before his assassination.

We have been trying hard to get this tape from the SABC. We are being promised for the last six weeks or so that it will be made available, but it has not yet been done.

Could the Committee please issue a subpoena on the keeper of video's and we will cooperate with whoever draws up the subpoena to give a description of the video that we actually want?

And whilst I am about it, in order to avoid all these matters, one of the issues in the case is whether or not the applicants acted on behalf of the Conservative Party.

We as you will see from R3, Mr Chairman, have made available to the Committee and to the other side, public statements said to have been made by leaders of the Conservative Party, dissociating themselves from the act and clearly stating that it had nothing to do with the Conservative Party.

This is an important issue because they now say that they acted on behalf of the Conservative Party.

CHAIRPERSON: They haven't said that?

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: They haven't said that yet.

MR BIZOS: Yes, they have said that. Now, we would like to know whether the names that I am going to read out, are going to be called to deny their public statements or whether they are going to stand by their public statements that this was not Conservative Party policy and that they had nothing to do with it.

We would like our learned friends to go on record as to whether they are going to call their supposed erstwhile political friends to support them that they acted on the authority of the Conservative Party or whether they are going to stick to their public statements.

The names are Dr F. Hartzenberg, Dr W.J. Snyman, Daan du Plessis, Dr Willie J. Snyman, Mr Thomas Langley. We would like clarity on that because we want to know where we stand.

Are these gentlemen going to take the stand on behalf of their applicant to contradict their public statements at the time or are they going to stand by their public statements of the time that they made it?

The statements appear in R4 Mr Chairman. R3, I beg your pardon, R3.

JUDGE WILSON: Can you refer us to the numbers? My copy of R3 the index goes up to page 12, whereas the photographs seem to go up considerably longer, don't they, 43?

MR BIZOS: They are in three sections. In A, B and C. The bundle is divided and there is an index to each division.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you, I see that now. What pages are you referring us to?

MR BIZOS: Page 1.

JUDGE WILSON: A1?

MR BIZOS: A1, yes Mr Chairman. If you can bear with me for one moment. A8, A11. I will give you the others Mr Chairman. C1 Mr Chairman, and if you go to F, all those on the index in section F and H3. Those are the, Mr Chairman, it is important for us to be told whether they admit those statements or not because if they are not admitted, we want timeous notice to call the reporters under whose name those reports are made in reputable newspapers to confirm that those leaders made those statements at that time.

And that may take a little while and we hope that the proceedings will not be delayed as a result of any delay on the part of our learned friends, to let us know one way or the other.

CHAIRPERSON: This is not a performance or a theatre ladies and gentlemen. And as far as possible, I would like to avoid any applauding from the audience because of that.

Are you in a position at this stage to deal with this aspect of the matter?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you present at this stage to deal with this question raised by Mr Bizos?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I would like to consult with my client in this respect, more fully before I give my definite answer.

It may be that we don't call any of those persons until we have called the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And given his version. I don't know what Mr Bizos is going to put to them in cross-examination. I think in the other matters that we have dealt with, we didn't have this problem and I think at this stage it is not appropriate to reply to that particular problem. It can be bridged at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Bizos, we will cross the bridges as we reach them please.

MR BIZOS: No, except that crossing the bridges when we come to them and not being prepared to properly cross them, may lead to undue delays Mr Chairman. My learned friend says that I must put to them what I say, the public statements appear in published documents.

They don't have to wait for me to read them out to their clients, they have got notice of it. We have gone to a lot of trouble to collect the documents, to put them before the Committee and to give them a copy. They can easily tell us whether they will admit or deny that these public figures spoke the truth or not or whether they are going to call them to deny it, because they may say that the onus is on us to prove that the newspaper article doesn't prove anything, it is only viva voce evidence of the person who took the statement.

If we have to do that, we must have notice so that we can interview or subpoena or both the journalists that took the statements from these gentlemen.

They don't have to wait for me to put, what I am going to put to them is what appears on the document.

JUDGE WILSON: Do I understand Mr Bizos that what you want is an admission that the reports are, accurate and true?

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Nothing, and I don't think you can expect to be told more, but you want to be told whether they will contest the truth and accuracy if they are put to them?

MR BIZOS: That is what I am saying.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with regard to this particular aspect, it would at this particular time, particularly with reference to the bundle presented by Mr Bizos for us to be able to say whether we consider the contents to be true or not, we would need time to consider it. It might be necessary for us to consult with the particular persons to be able to determine whether it was in fact said as reported in the newspaper or not.

There is a particular instance with regard to Langley where the Afrikaans and English versions differ, which would be a single example and there would be additional time needed however, as soon as possible, we will convey the answer to this question to Mr Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand, we understand that counsel on both sides have sprung upon problems without having had adequate time to give considered answers one way or the other. Mr Bizos, it does seem that you may have to wait at least until tomorrow morning to get the answer to these questions. That might nevertheless afford you enough time to decide whether you wish to subpoena anybody, any newspaper reporters or any of the gentlemen concerned.

Now, that being so, may I ask you whether at this stage you are still in a position to deal with the point I raised earlier? Can you address us on the admissibility of that statement? Will you please, thank you.

MR BIZOS: The first submission that I want to make is that the mere fact that the statement has been taken by a person who is held under Section 29, does not per se make it inadmissible.

There is direct authority for that which I will refer the court to. But may I indicate to the Committee that the Section 29 was amended by Act 138 of 1991 in order to make it more human rights friendly as I indicated before, so that to remove all the excesses that were able to be perpetrated under Section 6 of the Terrorism Act and Section 29 of the 1981 Public Safety Act.

The period was reduced. A person could not be held indefinitely but only for a period of ten days and any extension would only be granted with judicial intervention to which the detainee was entitled to legal representation and had other rights.

I know that the amended statutes may not be readily available Mr Chairman, to the Committee, I have a copy of the Section as amended and I would hand it in so that you do not, the surroundings where there are no library, there is no law library, you may find it useful.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: We only have one copy, but it is the only copy we have, perhaps we can make copies for you and keep our own as well for the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Is this your copy or is this a spare copy?

MR BIZOS: This is our copy. This is why I appeal to have it back and we will cause copies to be made, five copies to be made and possibly a sixth one for our learned friends and we will keep one ourselves. But you may find it useful Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Then Mr Chairman, the next section that I want to refer to is Section 7 of the Act, which was not amended, subsection 7 of Section 29.

No person other than the Minister or a person acting by virtue of his office in the service of the State, a. shall have access to any person detained in terms of this provision of this Section, except with the consent of and subject to such conditions that may be determined by the Minister or the Commissioner, shall be entitled to any official information relating to or obtained from such person.

Now, mindful that the cases that I am going to refer the Committee to were prior to the watering down of the draconian powers conferred on Section 29, it was held that the mere fact that it is taken under Section 29, does not make it inadmissible and that of course it would be open to the person concerned, to prove that it was not freely and voluntarily made and of course the fact that the person could be detained indefinitely without the benefit of the advise of an Attorney or visitors or Doctor, or having food from home or other comforts, which according to the investigation diary appeared to have been afforded to the persons concerned, despite all that it was still admissible.

The authority for that is Mumbares(?) & Others, 1973 (3) 109 and I refer to the head note and more particularly at page 117(a) - (c).

I may say Mr Chairman that we have copies of the cases that I am going to be referring to, a copy of the cases that we are going to refer to. We ask counsel whether we shall make copies of the cases for each member of the Committee and which we could make with some difficulty, because we haven't got full facilities in Pretoria, we will make at least one copy available, but if you want more copies and if they are required, we will make them available.

CHAIRPERSON: One will be adequate Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. You will see there My Lord that a much younger and then inexperienced counsel wrongly submitted that evidence of a pointing out by a detainee, was not admissible because that was given a way official information. His Lordship was the Justice Boshoff, would have none of it My Lord.

Similarly, the decision was followed in S v Motopeng & Others 1979 (2) (T) particularly at 185C-F. S v Simpetha & Others 1982 (4) 536, particularly at 539E-F.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say 1982, 1980 volume 2?

MR BIZOS: 1982, volume 4 Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Volume 4, thank you.

MR BIZOS: An apt statement at 534E-F "if ex-detainees free to testify in court as to what happened during detention, it would indeed by strange if not absurd for there to be a prohibition on anyone else testifying about the very same matter."

And S v Mzo & Others 1984 (3) 935, and particularly at 948E - H where the ratio decidendi is that the subsection precluded ordinary citizens from claiming access to the information contained in such statements, it did not prevent State from divulging this information (indistinct) to tender them as evidence and to prove their admissibility.

I have already indicated and put on record that both the Attorney General in Johannesburg and Mr Holmes made these available and therefore they can be used.

The S v Mzo & Others 1985 (2) 170, which the Section as it stood Mr Chairman, entitled the person to have a copy of the statement he made under Section 6 and or Section 29, this our erstwhile a legislature did not like and passed Section 335 amending a provision which made statements made by accused persons generally available to their counsel and to them exempting statements under 335.

But that did not last. It was held in the Mzo case that the accused is entitled to a copy if the Prosecutor indicated or referred to any portion of it and the S v Tsewu, I hope that I don't mispronounce it, President of the Regional Court, 1987 (3) SA 476 and Nkayi & Another v Henn of the Security Branch of the South African Police Pretoria & Others 1993 (3) SA 244 A.

The question was whether the visiting Magistrate or the Doctor was entitled to divulge the information. The Magistrate, the District Surgeon is not precluded from disclosing personal information relating to the detainee or from giving evidence in that regard in any court proceedings.

Now, all these cases were decided before the adoption of the democratic constitution which came into being at the end of 1993 as an interim constitution and a constitution proper passed by the Constitutional Assembly later.

In which secrecy and withholding information by the State has been enshrined in our constitution and those decisions are to be read in our submission together with the provisions of the constitution. There is also another aspect, let me look at the Act please, which the court will take into consideration.

Having regard to what the purpose or excluding statements under Section 29 in the past. I have already branched on that matter Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee. The rule against self- incrimination is a very important one which is to be jealously guarded and nothing that we say is to be read that we want that rule in any way limited much less, abrogated.

But on the question of admissibility, both on the grounds of it being a Section 29 statement and on the materiality of any undue influences that may be proved or suspected, one has to bear in mind that we are not here dealing with innocence or guilt.

The two applicants have been convicted of murder. Mrs Derby-Lewis was acquitted of murder and nothing can happen to her, whatever she may have said to the police because she is entitled to enter a plea of (indistinct), she cannot be in double jeopardy even if her acquittal was obtained because of the lack of evidence which may possibly become available later.

This Committee does not deal with questions of innocence or guilt which do not admit any tainted evidence to prove guilt because of the grave danger. The issue before this Committee is another, altogether and that is that the applicants admit that they murdered the late Chris Hani. We will draw attention to some contradictions, but let those be by the way.

What the Committee has to decide is, have they made among other things, have they made full disclosure, on whose behalf did they do it, what was the political objective that they wanted to achieve?

It is really an enquiry as to whether there has been full disclosure. Are they telling the truth when they contend that they acted on behalf of the Conservative Party? Is the political objective which they say in their papers the one that they spoke about on their arrest and thereafter, their credibility is in issue. A wide scope has to be covered by the Committee as to whether or not they have made full disclosure or not.

Let u assume for argument sake that it is taken outside the confines of the dramatis personae in this case, other than the two applicants, that there was a statement there that I kept Chris Hani under observation and tipped the second applicant off that he was coming home.

Irrespective of how that statement may have been obtained, the counts, the legal representatives of the victims in our submission, are entitled to put to the second applicant here is a statement which says that you received a telephone call, nothing to prevent us however that statement may have been obtained, to put that information to him.

He may admit it, he may deny it. His credibility however, is going to be in issue. And if that person happens to be closely related to one or other of the applicants, we are entitled to ask the question are you going to call that person to say that that telephone call did not take place?

Simply part of the inquiry as to whether full disclosure was made or not, so that we would submit that if there are statements which indicate that a person other than the two before you Mr Chairman, were involved, and we will submit that they were, you are entitled to take into consideration what is in this docket and we are entitled to put to them this is what was said, what do you say about it?

And on that basis, we will submit that the objections to the admissibility of these statements should be decided in favour of the respondents, the victims and as somewhat indirect but cogent authority in relation to this, we want to refer to Section 31 (2) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, the Act that you are enjoying to administer Mr Chairman, and Members of the Committee, it reads

"a person referred to in subsection (1), that is any person questioned by the Commission, shall only be compelled to answer a question or to produce an article which may incriminate him or her, if the Commission has issued an order to that effect after the Commission has consulted with the Attorney General who has jurisdiction, has satisfied itself that to require such information from such a person is reasonably, necessary and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on freedom and equality, and (c) has satisfied itself that such a person has refused or is likely to refuse to answer a question or produce an article on the grounds that such an answer or article might incriminate him or her."

Now, self incrimination of Mrs Derby-Lewis cannot do her any harm, she has been acquitted. This Committee will not allow statements to be introduced if there has been violence or if there has been trickery or anything else was done which is not acceptable in a democratic society.

So that the test of admissibility in relation to a criminal trial is a much more stringent one than the one that this court may adopt in order to ascertain are these persons telling the truth? We will argue that having been told that your wife will not be detained, knowing that a visit of the wife is likely to take place, that a legal representative can be approached, that a medical practitioner will come in, that an appeal can be made to the Magistrate, will that induce one of the members of a loving couple to falsely implicate himself or herself or his or her partner, and that will be the test in terms of this situation.

So that I mention this because I hope that our learned friends before embarking upon trying to prove that there was undue influence, they don't have of course to accept the correctness of our submissions as to the test, they can advise themselves, but I hope that we don't have to have a trial within a trial of such length, duration as to the proceedings getting somewhat out of hand.

We will submit that the fact that in Section 29 does not make them admissible, and that at least some of the matters which were raised as elements of undue influence, are hardly likely to qualify as material which will exclude the statements, but of course I am not for one moment suggesting that the Committee should make a finding on the second leg if evidence has to be heard, it has to be heard.

But clearly that Section 29 simpliciter does not exclude the evidence, it is clear on the authorities that we have available. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos. Mrs Van der Walt and Mr Prinsloo, we are going to adjourn at this stage and resume at 09:30 and we trust that you have heard this argument and that gives you enough time to make legal submissions in reply tomorrow morning.

MS VAN DER WALT: As it pleases the Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. The Committee will now adjourn and resume at 09:30 tomorrow morning. I will please once again thank the people at the back who have behaved so well, and I hope they will continue to observe the same measure of decorum and balance when they come here to listen to these proceedings, thank you very much.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

12-08-1997: Day 2

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: In this matter I was approached by counsel for the applicants, to be allowed a little more time to prepare himself for the proceedings this morning.

He has suggested that we should start at half past ten, instead of the agreed time of half past nine. Counsel for the objectors raised no difficulties, they are agreeable that an extension of time should be given. My Committee has therefore decided to agree to the request of the counsel for the applicants which now means that we will not start as we were scheduled to start at half past nine, but we will commence at half past ten, thank you very much.

Are we ready to start?

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases the court.

Honourable Chairman and Members of the Committee, with regard to the statements which my learned friend, Mr Bizos made available to the Committee as set of documents R and our objection against this statement, would be in the first place that this testimony is not admissible and that the onus lies on the person who claims that these statements were made in a voluntarily manner.

COMMITTEE HAVE DIFFICULTIES WITH THE INTERPRETATION SERVICES INTO ENGLISH - DOING TESTING:

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair and Members of the Committee, in reply to the argument of my learned friend Mr Bizos, with regard to the statements contained in bundle R4 against which we object with regard to the admissibility of these statements, since these statements were not made in a voluntarily manner and since there had been undue influence.

Chair to start off I want to refer to volume 6, page 367 which would be the document before Judge Eloff, this could be in your volume R1, bundle R1 Chairman, the volume would be volume 6 and this would be typed page 367 of the document, of the public records, page 367, volume 6 in bundle R1.

It is page 367 Mr Chairman and in brackets page 507, also typed on the page.

CHAIRPERSON: Is in brackets page 367, is that the one?

MR PRINSLOO: Chair, it is page 367, typed 367 of the public record. It is contained in volume 6 of the public record which is in bundle R1 it would appear.

JUDGE WILSON: Can you read out the top line because my pages do not have any numbers on them?

MR PRINSLOO: I will rather begin on page 366 at the bottom "I, the undersigned Clive John Derby-Lewis states", the Committee might want to compare this in Afrikaans rather. Right at the top is the surname Holmes.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay Andrew? Yes, proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chair. Mr Chairman, on page 367 there appears the statement which during the court case was handed in on the merits of the case and the witness Holmes, read the statement into the public record as it appears on page 367.

This statement which had served as E1 in the court case and in this statement the applicant, Mr Derby-Lewis, states and in particular on page 368 in paragraph 7, subsequent to his arrest I want to place it on record that "I do not wish to many any statement." This was signed 18 April 1993, immediately after midnight, 20 minutes after midnight.

It is significant or it is clarifying to note in the first paragraph of the statement that the applicant was arrested on the 17th of April of that year, six o'clock at night or in the evening and that he made the statement immediately after midnight.

He was then warned by Captain Deetliefs as it would appear from paragraph 2. What is very important and very clear and which is clearly stated therein is that he does not or did not wish to make any statement if you refer to paragraph 7.

My learned friend, Mr Bizos, despite this wish expressed by the applicant on that evening, desires to place statements before this Committee claiming that these statements were made in a voluntarily manner.

I want to refer to honourable Committee also to S v Mqweta (2) 1993 1567 a decision in the Cape court, and a judgment of his Honoured Judge Williams. I want to refer to the heading thereof on page 577.

"Evidence, confessions and admissions. Accused after being cautioned, indicating that he does not want to say anything, decision already taken to charge accused, improper to direct further questions to him, statements so obtained not satisfying but purely for admissibility".

Honourable Chairman, in this instance after the applicant had made this decision he was held in terms of Section 29 and subsequently the claim of Mr Bizos is that further statements were taken which statements is claimed was being made to Captain Deetliefs and Warrant officer Beetge.

With respect Honourable Chairman, a statement made to a Warrant Officer who is a junior officer, in itself, is not admissible even if it is a statement. It cannot be placed before the Committee. It is clear that Beetge as well as Deetliefs acted together in taking down the statement.

It would appear very clearly in addition that on the appearance of the statement, if it can be called a statement under certain circumstances, no warning had been made in terms of the necessary rules, no such warning was presented to the applicant. It appears clearly if we pay attention only to the document that no court and no legal officer would be able to determine from the appearance of the document, what might have led to the making of this statement.

As we would want to present to you, these so-called statements by the applicant was taken during a detention under Section 29 of the Internal Security Act. It has already been argued to you or presented to you that these statements were not taken down or given voluntarily. My learned friend, Mr Bizos now has the problem that prior to this Committee being able to receive this document R4, the voluntary nature would have to be proven and the onus of proof would be with Mr Bizos.

In terms of the constitution of this country, the applicant does have the right to remain silent and we would argue that the applicant has the right ...

JUDGE WILSON: Are you saying he has the right to remain silent when he is applying for amnesty?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair this is not my argument. My argument is that on the day when the statements are claimed to have been given to the police, he had the right to silence, to remain silent.

JUDGE WILSON: But before us, he should make a full disclosure, shouldn't he? Before us he should make a full disclosure, shouldn't he, in terms of the Act?

MR PRINSLOO: In terms of the determinations of the Act, he must make full disclosure and that is what he has in fact done.

JUDGE WILSON: Which includes the fact that he may have made certain statements, is that not part of full disclosure?

MR PRINSLOO: The statements has to be proven to have been made in a voluntarily manner. The statements presented by Mr Bizos to the Committee ...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I think the question that is being directed really boils down to this - (a) we are not here to try the guilt or innocence of your client, (b) in terms of the Act he is required to make a full disclosure. Does that not place a burden on him to tell us all the statements he has made, now matter how contradictory they may be? He may give reasons and explanations as to why there are contradictions, but ought he not to tell us that on such and such a day he has signed a document, he made this statement, he made a statement which went contrary to his defence at the trial?

Ought he not to be the one to tell us and give an explanation as to why there were differences between these statements? That is really the point that concerns us.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Honourable Chair, it is unconstitutional when documents which cannot be allowed, which are not admissible are being placed before the Committee. The applicant can still explain that these statements were taken from him when he was being kept in detention in terms of Section 29, which the determination has been scrapped as being unconstitutional in this country.

How then can the Committee remove its thoughts from this if a document of this nature is placed before the Committee, without determining the manner in which the document was obtained and what the nature of the document in fact is?

With respect then Honourable Chair, one would then have to make an extensive investigation to determine what was in fact said and was recorded on the cassettes, whether this is in accord with what was in the typed statement and the applicant can then make a further statement in this regard.

The Committee must at this point decide whether these documents which Mr Bizos, not the applicant is placing before the Committee, is admissible or not.

JUDGE WILSON: Should the applicant not place these before the Committee if he is making full disclosure? Does full disclosure not include the fact that inadmissible statements were taken from me?

Not debating the contents of these statements at this time, but the fact that statements were taken? Should he not, is that not part of his full disclosure?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair, if this is required at this point, the applicant can mention this. The problem however is that Section 29 statements are privileged in the hands of the Commissioner and the Minister and the applicant did not have these documents available during his court case to him. If this is the only problem presented by the Honourable Chair that he should have mentioned that he had made statements, under certain circumstances, this can be made, but then a further problem emerges namely whether the documents are admissible or not?

My learned friend wants to place the documents before the Committee, before it is determined whether this statement was in fact made by the applicant. Are these the words of the applicant and what the circumstances are, were, under which the statement had been made.

Then the onus rests on the person who claims that the statement was made in a voluntarily manner, namely Mr Bizos. This argument cannot be bridged before the Honourable Committee has decided on whom the onus rests to show whether these statements were made in a voluntarily manner or not.

CHAIRPERSON: The Act says that the applicant must make a full disclosure of all relevant facts and those facts may be palatable or unpalatable. Indeed it may be that those facts includes facts which were extracted from him through duress or whatever.

Now, if those facts are relevant, if the contents of that statement, of those statements are relevant, then they must be disclosed to us. If however, an applicant feels that the contents were extracted improperly, the applicant is free to do so. He will explain to us, explain away, explain to us that look, those things were obtained from me through improper means.

But that is a different thing from admissibility, they must first be admitted, first. The contents must be admitted in as much as they are relevant, they must be admitted to us. As to what weight we will attach to that, is a different thing. We may decide that after the applicant has explained to us that look, this information was extracted from me through improper means, then we would decide what weight to attach to that. But that is a different thing.

MR PRINSLOO: Before a document can be relevant, it must be admissible. The contents of the document, if we look at the judgement in the S v Mkaba (A) 1985 476 in which the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go far, you say before it should be admissible, it must be relevant? Did you say that?

MR PRINSLOO: What I mean thereby Honourable Chair, the contents of the document - if the applicant contests the contents of the document, then this document cannot be placed before this Honourable Committee before it is decided whether it is admissible.

Once it has been decided that it is admissible, it becomes relevant to the investigation.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But admissibility for the purpose of proceedings ...

JUDGE WILSON: Is it not a relevant fact that he made the statement as part of what was going on? He can then explain how he made it and we can decide no value can be attached to it.

CHAIRPERSON: My brother had said for example it was suggested to us that in respect of one of the applicants, the statement was made at a time when he had been drinking, he had been given a lot to drink. We were told that.

That is a circumstance we take into account when we decide what value to attach to the contents of that document. We may come to the conclusion that we attach no value to the evidence contained in that document, but that doesn't affect the question of the admissibility of the document. Do you understand that?

MR PRINSLOO: May I just consult with my ...

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we would need a brief adjournment in view of the argument presented to us by you, we would request a brief adjournment.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before you do this, can I just put this a little bit bluntly, because it conveys, you know, it describes the problem very clearly.

At this point, what is admissible to us is anything which is relevant. If the contents are relevant, then that hurdle has been crossed, then it is admissible to us. Unless you say the contents are irrelevant.

Once they are relevant, they must be disclosed and as I said, the questions of assault and the like are related to what weight to attach to that.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't want you to understand that we are making a ruling on the point that you are arguing. We are merely testing our questions are testing the submissions you are making. Please understand, we haven't made up our minds as to the admissibility or otherwise.

We think we are entitled to ask you questions to test the validity of your submissions. But you wanted some time to consider your answer to that, to the points that have been raised, we will certainly afford you that opportunity.

You require a short adjournment?

MR PRINSLOO: We request a brief adjournment to consider this aspect.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, before the court adjourns and because our learned friends want to consider their position, may I be permitted to make two very short submissions for their consideration by referring to the Act, because I don't want - I want to try and avoid a even further adjournment after I have made the submission.

Firstly, I submit that our learned friends in equating the proceedings in a criminal trial to an investigation of this nature, they are misguided. There is not question of onus in inquiries. That is the first point that I want to make and in support of that submission I want to refer to two subsections of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act, 34 of 1995.

Firstly 19 (2), the Committee shall investigate the application and make such inquiries as it may deem necessary. That is not the function of a court in a criminal trial.

Subsection 8(a), subject to the provisions of Section 33, the applications, documentation in connection therewith further information and evidence obtained before and during an investigation by the Committee, the deliberations conducted in order to come to a decision or to conduct hearings (indistinct) shall be confidential, but that is subject to another Section.

What I am really contending for is that you've been told about the Mpeta case or any other criminal trial having regard to the admissibility of confessions which are in any event governed by a specific Section in the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act in relation to writing and to whom they may be made before they become admissible, are completely out of place in an investigation of this nature.

The other matter that I want to refer to Mr Chairman, is this, that I thought that we were going to hear from our learned friends a limited argument as to why the statements are inadmissible in terms of the provisions of Section 29.

It has not been limited to that. I take no objection to it, but it may well be as has been suggested by members of the Committee, that in referring to those statements, evidence may be led and I have already indicated that we intend call in the police officers in order to show that they were freely and voluntarily made, there is no reason in our respectful submission, on the reasoning adopted by our learned friends, from excluding them.

And I would appeal to them Mr Chairman, to continue with what we suggested yesterday, that they address the court in relation to Section 29. I am prepared to hold back any cross-examination on the contents of the statements until they have had a proper opportunity of doing whatever investigations they want to make.

But I submit that we should get on with the matter. The applicant has no right to remain silent before this Committee, he has to make full disclosure and I would submit that we should try and expedite the proceedings and get on with the substance of the matter, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We will afford you an opportunity to consider your position. You can call us as soon as you are ready, but we will adjourn until we are called.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairman, I thank you for the adjournment. Honourable Chair, with regard to the application of the applicant referred to by the Committee, with regard to full disclosure, with respect you have referred to this that during the court hearing now effort had been made to present these statements now before the Committee.

Since the applicant believed and was advised that these statements were in fact not admissible, the statement referred to is a single particular statement, found in Exhibit R4, it is a written statement on page 27, found on page 27.

This is the only statement of which the applicant is aware. Then Honourable Chair, in Exhibit R4 there appears what would seem to be interrogations of which tape recordings were made. No meaningful decisions could be made on the grounds of these, except if we were to listen to the cassette tapes themselves.

If we were to make a reasonable case on behalf of the applicant. The applicant does not have a very good memory of these interrogations, but his memory might be refreshed by listening to the tapes.

In addition in Exhibit R4, there is a document presented as a statement by a Deetliefs, found on page 375. I am told that this document does not appear in a docket kept by anyone. This is the instruction which I have received.

What the origin of this document might be, we do not know. It would also appear as if sections have been added to this which would have been part of the interrogations and so forth, which we have not thoroughly studied yet.

As previously stated to you, we would want to look at the original of this document to determine its origin. What I would like to present to you then in addition, is that we would continue with our argument that the statement and the interrogation material is not admissible since this was obtained in terms of Section 29 detention, that it was not presented voluntarily or made voluntarily.

In addition the applicant is willing, after a proper study of the documentation, to make a statement with regard to the documents presented by Mr Bizos with the proviso that we are availed of the originals, that we have access to the original and can have a full consultation with the applicant with regard to this material.

In addition we want to argue to the Committee that it would not make any sense to present this in a piece meal manner since these documents have bearing on the entirety of the case and it would therefore be not in any way to the advantage of the applicant to handle this in a piece meal manner. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as you response to the argument and the cases advanced by Mr Bizos about the admissibility of these documents, the fact that they were taken at a time when he was detained under Section 29, the authorities according to him show that these would be admissible.

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair, yet again with regard to the authorities regarding the admissibility will return us to the authority of the Criminal Procedure Act.

And then one would have to use all of the appropriate measures in that regard to see for instance whether the document was made with the purpose of prosecution. It was made while the person was in detention under Section 29, it was made to a member of the Investigative team, it was made to a Warrant Officer Beetge and such an admission may not be made to a Warrant Officer, that is not admissible.

In so far as it is with regard to the right to obtain such a document, as Mr Bizos has referred to the case of Mubaros(?) & Others, which had reference for instance to medical documents in terms of the Section 66 and Section 29, which were considered to have been official documents in the possession of the Commissioner or the Minister, that would be a different basis than a statement.

However, Mr Bizos has obtained the documentation. All that is at issue here is whether these documents are admissible. We want to say that these statements were not made in a voluntarily manner, it is therefore not admissible and further argument in terms of the content of the documents, would seem to appear that it does not meet the requirements with regard to the admissibility of documents.

We would therefore simply argue that the documents are not admissible.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything you wish to add?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I have pointed it out pertinently to Mr Bizos that my client, Mr Walus' case differs from that of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, namely that my client had not been detained in terms of Section 29.

You have already this morning mentioned our reasons. I am struck by the fact that Mr Bizos did not argue at all with regard to the case of my client. I simply would then assume that Mr Bizos accepts the argument of my client with regard to his statements.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I disabuse my learned friend's assumption that I accept her claim, her client's version of the facts or arguments. I dealt with them on the basis of even if the statement was under Section 29 and I dealt with them both at the same time, and I take this opportunity of disabusing her conclusion, which I don't know from which facts she has inferred that I do not ...

CHAIRPERSON: The issue of whether transcripts, documents which are transcripts taken from a tape, the issue of the genuineness of those documents still remains and quite clearly the other side would be entitled, if those tapes are available, to hear those tapes.

MR BIZOS: We have reason to believe that they are available and in the possession of either the Attorney General or the Investigating Officer. At the consultation we were told that they believed that they were available.

And they can be made available, but Mr Chairman, with respect, I have not heard what the proposal is. We have said that we will withhold cross-examination on the documents until such time as they are reasonably satisfied that they have all the information that they want.

Can we get on with this case or what is the proposal?

CHAIRPERSON: The proposal now is that we can get on with the case, we are anxious to get on with the case. It is quite clear that Mr Bizos has made the position clear.

He will not cross-examine witnesses on information contained on documents which are transcripts from tapes until you have had an opportunity to verify or check the contents of these transcripts that they are a proper transcript of what transpired and what is recorded on the tape.

But until that stage, he is prepared not to cross-examine your clients and we will then proceed with calling your witness. Can you now proceed with your witness please?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairman, no, we would argue against this. Our argument is that we want to be wholly prepared by investigating these documents, obtaining the cassette tapes, consulting conclusively with our client, with regard to R4 which was served on us because of Mr Bizos' responsibility, at a late stage on us, we want to check these various aspects, the information that was not contained in the docket. We want to make our argument as a whole and present our testimony as a whole, rather than a piece meal way so that Mr Bizos will then be able to cross-examine on the whole, the basis of the whole testimony, since the documents presented by Mr Bizos has reference to the entire case.

We would need to have this entire matter therefore be adjourned until we are able to provide the Committee with a written statement of our client in response to this set of documentation and the cassette tapes.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your answer, you have had chance to reconsider, what is your answer to the questions that are being put by members of the Committee, about the duty that is on your client to make full disclosure?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Honourable Chair, the clients have made a full disclosure with regard to the matter on which they have been charged.

Whether they have made statements while under detention or not, with respect, Chairman, the statements made during their detention, the clients are of the opinion that these statements are not admissible, the Committee seems to have a different view of this.

There are additional and further documents which have not been contained in the docket, which we have only been availed of now and we would need to present a further statement with regard to this information. It is not that we are not willing, we are willing to make such a further statement, we do however, need to be provided with an opportunity to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you say precisely what it is now that you require?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair, at this stage we request the cassette tapes, we request the original documents which are copied in R4 to be able to check these.

In addition we have not heard any information in regard to the source of the statement of Deetliefs which have not been contained in the docket, an extensive document, so that we are able to determine the authenticity and the source of this statement.

Then our client will present a further statement with regard to all of these matters, so that we are able to present our case as a whole and not on a piece meal basis.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am not sure I understand why you have problems with the suggestion by Mr Bizos that you could proceed with the matter, or we could proceed with the matter and he would refrain from cross-examining your clients in respect of the statements in issue.

It is so, isn't it, that in any trial whether civil or criminal, from time to time, even in the middle of a trial, documents may emerge which may be of some relevance, and which may be used and some adjournment may be given so that the party against whom documents may, are going to be used may be given the opportunity to have a look at them and respond appropriately.

Now, you seem to suggest that we shouldn't start the hearings at all simply because documents, Mr Bizos produced documents which in my view he could have produced them during the course of the trial, he could have allowed this proceedings to commence and in fact only produced them at a time when he wanted to cross-examine your clients, at which stage you would have been, perhaps quite properly, been entitled to say well, hold on, I want an adjournment to go and have a look at these documents.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Chairman, that is exactly what we are asking for at this stage. To be able to work through these documents, since the documents now presented have bearing on the entire hearing. They are not just relevant to certain pieces of the case.

If the client does not have a proper opportunity to be consulted with regard to this, we have only been availed of a single set of the documents, we are not asking for an indefinite adjournment, only for a reasonable period of time, if the cassette tapes are available now, we can go and listen to them now.

If the original documents are available, we can go and look at them now and we can cross-refer and we can continue with the case.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is the point, I am saying to you, you are appearing for the applicants. To start off, as far as I can recall, the applicants have not in their papers, in the application forms or in their papers, have not disclosed to anybody that they had made statements to the police.

Whether those statements were under duress or not, but they have not indicated in their papers that they made statements and nobody would have known had some people not gone out to go and look for those statements, nobody would have known that they had made such statements.

And here we come, you were ready to proceed with the trial, with the hearing, and somebody produces some documents and he is saying to you I undertake not to cross-examine in relation to those documents.

Let the hearing proceed. I just can't understand what problems that causes you.

CHAIRPERSON: It really boils down to a question of your convenience. You merely think that it is convenient for all this to be made available before we can proceed and the Committee is now left to decide whether we think it is convenient or not, whether your evidence in chief of your clients ought not to be led at this stage, is a matter which we have to now take a decision on.

Do you understand?

JUDGE WILSON: And who do you think should go and fetch the tapes for you? They are not available here, you have heard that Mr Bizos hasn't got them, we haven't got them, but you are demanding that they be produced.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Chairman, I am certain that it is easy to arrange for this. Our Attorney can collect it for us if we are told where these tapes are because apparently these cassette tapes were not in the docket, otherwise it would have been in the possession of Mr Bizos.

In all honesty, we believe and with respect, we believe that we will be put at a disadvantage if we are not given an opportunity to properly consult on this matter. A single set of the documents were availed to us and these are matters presented to us by Mr Bizos, we would need to check these before we are able to continue with testimony on behalf of our client, or with our client.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you never asked your clients if they had made any statements?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Honourable Chair, they were advised that these particular statements were not admissible.

With respect Chairman, I want to add to this that in previous cases which I have handled, no such further information had not been made available, and we consider this unfair under the circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you concede that this is not a criminal trial with the provisions of the Criminal Procedures Act don't govern an inquiry, do you concede that?

MR PRINSLOO: This may well not be a criminal court case, but we are simply in the dark with regard to what rules are followed with regard to admissibility. We are expecting of the Committee to give us a ruling to determine whether this or that document is admissible or not and who has the onus of presenting the document?

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Prinsloo, are you contending that your client should not have disclosed the fact that certain statements were taken from him, even albeit in circumstances which were improper, is that your contention?

Having regard to the fact that full disclosure is an important element to be satisfied by an applicant who is applying for amnesty?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairman, this would depend on the particulars of a particular case, to determine whether it is important to make this, to disclose this. We knew that the document was in the possession of the police, we knew that there was an Investigative team, we are still awaiting a report by the Investigative team.

We are completely in the dark, we cannot expect of a client to say what he said or what was asked of him, during an interrogation, if he does not have a copy of the document in his possession. The determinations of Section 29 could at that time imply that he could not obtain a copy of the interrogation transcript. If the police has a copy of the original cassette tape, one can honestly not, and with respect, not expect of a client to be able in detail, to say what he had been asked during interrogation in the absence of the transcript or the cassette tapes.

CHAIRPERSON: What you regard as inconvenience, are there any other reasons why you cannot proceed with the evidence in chief?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Your Honour, I want to argue that under the circumstances and because of the documents now made available to us, we want to go through this carefully, I want to properly consult with my client, to be able to present the case.

He will be disadvantaged if he is not availed of this opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: On the documents that he has made available and the statements that are before us in support of his application, can you not lead that evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to the original application? With respect, Your Honour, this can be presented. I do not want to argue with regard to that, however, because of the documents now presented in addition, we want to be able to present our case as a whole, rather than in parts.

I will not have an opportunity to consult with him while he is under cross-examination, that will not be proper.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, Mr Prinsloo and Mrs Van der Walt, my Committee is going to take a very short adjournment to arrive at a decision on whether we think it appropriate that you should start leading your evidence or not.

We are taking a short decision to consider that matter, we will give a ruling on that aspect of the matter.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I couldn't hear, there is a bit of noise.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand? We are going to take a short adjournment to consider this matter.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: ... has no bearing on the admissibility or otherwise of the documents that we have been talking about. Counsel for the applicants were presented statements, copies of statements contained in R4, they told us that they hadn't had enough time, there was short notice. We gave them additional time to consider the matter.

They are now aware of the contents of those documents, they are aware of the transcript of certain tapes and the position now is they would like more time (a) to look at the original documents, to listen to the tape, to find out whether the transcript is a correct transcript, to find out the source of the affidavit or statement taken by Mr Deetliefs and matters of that kind.

Mr Bizos has indicated that he is not going to cross-examine the applicants until the applicants' counsel have had time to listen to the tapes and to examine the original documents to see how they vary from the copies that have been made available to them.

A great deal of time has already been taken up in this matter, my Committee has come to the conclusion that we must now call upon counsel for the applicants to commence to lead the evidence of their clients in their evidence in chief and Mr Prinsloo, you must now begin.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in view of the decision of the Committee, I would ask for a brief adjournment to consult with my client and Attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it really necessary because you knew that this is going to happen one way or the other?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair, under the circumstances, I am not asking for an extended adjournment, only for a brief adjournment. Under the circumstances it is in fact necessary. Up till now the entire matter has been with regard to legal aspects, and now it has to do with the presentation of testimony and I would beg your indulgence and patience for a brief adjournment for such preparation.

CHAIRPERSON: I will afford you a short opportunity to consider this matter and if possible, we should make a beginning within the next ten minutes or so. You will call us as soon as you are ready.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR PRINSLOO: Before I present the testimony of the applicant, I want to place it on record in view of the fact that the Honourable Committee is forcing me to continue with testimony at this point, I want to make it very clear that under the circumstances I do not consider myself ready to continue. I will, however, submit myself to the instruction of the Committee. I do this with the proviso that I will not be willing to do this to the disadvantage of my client.

I also request the Committee to instruct that the cassette tapes as well as the original documents, referred to in R4 be availed to us as soon as possible and I will as the testimony proceed, ask for a adjournment to consult with my client when these matters arise.

With regard to the documents R4 made available to us at quarter to ten, on Monday morning, documents of an extent far beyond 100 pages, I want it noted that this is the case, thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Should it also be noted that you were given a three hour adjournment to consider them?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair, I want to place on record that the documents made available to us, had been a single set. My client, the applicant had not yet had the opportunity to read through this set of documents.

The larger part of the adjournment provided had been to consider the legal aspects, rather than the merit of the documents with respect, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, you may proceed. Mr Bizos will no doubt take the necessary steps to make sure that the originals that are required will be made available as soon as possible and so will the tape be made available as soon as possible?

MR BIZOS: Yes, we have taken steps together with the Commission's employees to try and get it as soon as possible. We had difficulty in communicating with (indistinct) - we are instructed that they are continuously trying to get in touch with the people responsible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you. Yes, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, may I commence the evidence?

CLIVE JOHN DERBY-LEWIS: (affirmed)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, you are the applicant in this matter in which you are applying for amnesty, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, your application relates to a charge of murder of which you were convicted in the Supreme Court, is that correct Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: The charges relate to that you murdered Mr Chris Hani, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And that your co-accused at the time, Mr Janusz Walus, is also an applicant in this matter?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You were also convicted for possession of an unlicensed firearm and ammunition?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct Mr Derby-Lewis that you were arrested on the 17th of April 1993 in connection with this particular case?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: This is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And after being detained you were subsequently detained in terms of the provisions of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: For how long were you detained in terms of the provisions of the Act, can you recall?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: 20 days Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: So in other words, after a period of detention of 10 days, there was a renewal for an additional period of 10 days, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman, and during those 10 days I wasn't asked a single question.

MR PRINSLOO: During the second period?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that your wife, Mrs Gaye Derby-Lewis was also at some stage arrested and detained in terms of the same provisions?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that she also appeared jointly with you and Mr Walus as a co-accused in this particular case?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when was your wife arrested, can you remember?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I think it was Tuesday or Wednesday which would make it the 20th or the 21st of April. Mr Chairman, I don't know whether you can hear me, it doesn't sound as though this thing is working. Can you hear me?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I can hear you clearly. Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct Mr Derby-Lewis, that since your arrest you were in detention until to date?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: You were at no stage released on bail?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not, in fact the Attorney General used a special legislation to make sure that I couldn't apply for bail for three months and then after that, my Advocate decided that it was not advisable.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that your wife, Mrs Gaye Derby-Lewis was after a period after the certificate issued by the Attorney General had lapsed, that she was released on bail?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: That was after a bail application?

CHAIRPERSON: Once again, can you tell us when that was?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us when she was released?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I think it was approximately three and a half months after her original detention, Mr Chairman. But I am not one hundred percent sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct the time the Presiding Judge was his Lordship, the Honourable Mr Justice Eloff, the Judge President and two assessors?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman. That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: That is at the trial, not at your wife's bail, is it?

MR PRINSLOO: No, the trial Mr President, sorry.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is right.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, is it correct, after you were convicted that you were sentenced to death?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: On a charge of murder?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And so was Mr Walus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And your wife was acquitted on all charges?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman and Mr Walus and I were acquitted on the conspiracy charge.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that you at present, that you lodged an appeal subsequent to the first of all, you made an application to lead new evidence, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct Mr Chairman. My application was refused.

MR PRINSLOO: And is it correct that you appealed against your conviction and sentence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And that was also refused?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that at present you are still under the death sentence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman. I don't know why certain elements of the media are conveying this misimpression that we have never been, although the death penalty has been ruled unconstitutional, our sentences have never at any time been replaced with any other sentence. We are still under sentence of death and we are detained at Maximum Prison under the strength of a death warrant.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, I now want to revert your background. Where did you grow up, where were you born and where did you grow up?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was born in Cape Town, Mr Chairman, on the 22 of January 1936. I subsequently moved to Kimberley as a result of my late father's ill-health and grew up in Kimberley, attended school in Kimberley. I matriculated from the Christian Brothers' College and also achieved the Hoër Taalbond Certificate at that time.

I then entered into articles with a firm of chartered accountants, where I remained for approximately three years. After this, I was offered a post by the then Vacuum Oil Company, subsequently Mobil and I think they are now Engen.

I joined them and served a period with them. All of this time I was in Kimberley. During that time also I was very active in youth matters and became very involved and interested in politics at a very early age. In fact I think it was, I was 16 when I won, I was part of the winning team of a debating competition held at Christian Brothers' College, but ever since I can remember I have had this driving ambition, to unlike the majority of my English speaking compatriots, to be involved in some way in the future of my country.

As I considered it my duty to do military service, while my peers were thanking their lucky stars that they had missed the ballot for compulsory military service, I served 19 years as a volunteer, ending my military career as Commanding Officer, one of South Africa's better fighting regiments, the Witwatersrand Rifles Regiment.

I held that post for 6 years of my 19 year period of service, during which time my regiment became the second Citizen Force Unit to do border duty. I was also awarded the John Chard(? medal for meritorious service.

Whilst on border duty I initiated a practice which was to become part of the system, namely to provide as a gesture of goodwill free medical treatment to the local population. As a lead up to our border duty I also introduced my own method of training to the Unit, which involved the use of ex-servicemen from other armies who had seen active service in places like the Far East, Rhodesia and the Congo, where bush warfare was waged as well as experts from Universities such as Zoologists and the like so that my men, who were all city dwellers would know how to handle situations like confronting snakes and scorpions and I can tell you that on the border of this country and Zimbabwe and Mozambique, we experienced scorpions twelve inches long, 300 mm long.

I see Judge Wilson also nods, he knows the story, it is quite an horrific experience, Mr Chairman. And how to live off the veld should such a situation arise. When I became Officer Commanding of the regiment, I was the youngest ever OC in the regiment's history, a distinction I hold to this day.

I also became actively involved in the affairs of the city of Germiston where the regiment was based. As the regiment was highly regarded by city fathers, it being the only regiment that at that stage had been granted the freedom of the city.

During my period with the regiment, I was to become quite close to a man with a formidable record of achievement in every field he entered. Colonel Charles Stallard EDDSO and (indistinct), who in his day was Chairman of the Johannesburg Bar Counsel, Minister of Mines in the Coalition Government of General Jan Smuts, leader of the Dominion Party, Member of Parliament for Roodepoort and Colonel of the Duke of Kent's own regiment in the United Kingdom before settling in South Africa.

He was also the Honorary Colonel of my regiment, who not too long after I took command of the regiment, and in view of the SADF policy of retiring Commanding Officers after a single term of command, regardless of age, advised me to enter politics as he felt that I had a contribution to make.

On his advice, I became involved in Ratepayer affairs in Bedfordview where I lived and was elected Secretary of the Association in 1970. In 1972 when local government elections were held, I was asked to stand and was elected unopposed to the Bedfordview Village Council.

I was elected Deputy Mayor in 1973 and Mayor in 1974, becoming in the process the youngest Mayor in the history of the Village. During my Mayoral term I initiated many new activities involving the citizens of the community and was instrumental in raising a record amount for charity, a record that has not to my knowledge, been bettered.

During that year, I had the privilege of inaugurating the Seheti School, the fire station and the new post office. I will never forget the patriotic manner in which I was welcomed to the inauguration ceremony of the Seheti School.

It was one of the highlights of my Mayoral year and I think that Mr Bizos played a major role in that, in his capacity as Chairman of the Governing Body of the school at the time.

At the beginning of each Mayoral year, the Mayors of the Reef used to elect one among them as a kind of PRO, whose function was to introduce all of the visiting Mayors to the VIP's of each, whichever municipality they happened to be visiting.

In my Mayoral year that distinction befell me. Besides my involvement as Mayor, I also served as a councillor from 1972 to 1977 and introduced into Bedfordview the Civil Defence System, that was the first to be granted an A-category in the Transvaal.

I also was part of the council that succeeded in attracting the Eastgate Shopping Centre to Bedfordview in spite of strong competition from the Johannesburg City Council.

This success with Eastgate having the distinction of being the largest project of its kind undertaken in the southern hemisphere, was to be used by the liberals to unseat the whole council in 1977.

Their justification Mr Chairman, was that in bringing Eastgate to our Village, although it was located on the border between Bedfordview and Johannesburg and would ensure a rates income that would be of tremendous benefit to all residents, we had destroyed the Village atmosphere.

In September 1977, I see you also appreciate that Mr Chairman, in September 1977, a general election was called and I was approached by the National Party to be their Provincial Council candidate in the strong PFP constituency in which I lived, Edenvale.

This was one of the PFP strongest, held by Professor Nick Olivier, I think with a majority of 3 500 votes at the previous election. And as my running candidate, Senator Piet van Vuuren, as a Senator had nothing to loose and did not believe that we could win, I found myself having to run the election on my own.

I decided to do something that had not been done by the National Party up to then and involved an advertising agency in our campaign. When the dust settled on the 1st of December 1977, Edenvale had a National Party MP and Provincial Councillor and I became one of the few Provincial running mates to obtain a larger majority vote than my Parliamentary colleague.

We also became the only National Party candidates, to take a PFP seat at that election. In quick time I became one of the MP spokesman on education and hospital services in the Provincial Council and spearheaded the attack against the decision by private schools to open the schools to children of other ethnic groups, as all available information indicated at that time, that this would, if not properly handled, lead to a lowering of standards and the subsequent destruction of the schools concerned.

I must also state that it was quite strange that the Catholic Church which was mainly behind the integration of the schools, apparently suddenly had qualms of conscience after operating private schools in the country for something like 80 odd years, without ever once trying to integrate them either before or after the assumption to power of the National Party.

In retrospect, my opposition was justified by the subsequent closure of many of those schools and to a dramatic lowering of standards in those that remained. At a caucus meeting attended by the then Minister of Education, Minister Piet Jansen, I proposed that the National Party should instead of permitting the integration and destruction of those fine schools, support the erection in Soweto where the need for something better existed, of a superior private school, staffed by the best teachers available, to be paid for by those parents who could afford the fees they were already paying at private schools far distant from their homes.

My suggestion was vetoed on the basis that the erection of such a school could not be afforded by the State. It was becoming then more and more obvious to me that the National Party was not what it presented itself to be.

But I and many others had already decided to fight the battle from within, when after the confrontation arranged by Mr P.W. Botha and his henchmen, demonstrated that the majority feared the loss of their salaries and their positions, more than they feared the consequences of P.W. Botha's disastrous leadership, it was decided there was no longer any purpose to remain part of the treachery.

The break came and I decided to leave and aligned myself with Dr Treurnicht in February 1982 and became a founder member of the Conservative Party.

It did not take me long to become part of the top structure of the Party. I was almost immediately elected Chairman of the Johannesburg region of the CP and was also elected to the first General Council of the Party. In 1984, when the party, after winning its first two by-elections in the platteland, wanted to test its impact on English speakers, I was asked to by the Party's candidate in a Provincial by-election in Rosettenville in 1984.

This constituency was the last stronghold of the old New Republic Party and we succeeded, we, the CP, succeeded in polling more than 30 percent of the vote in spite of the fact Mr Chairman, that we started the campaign with only one enrolled member of the Conservative Party in the area.

In the process, we forced the NRP into third place forcing the Party in the Transvaal, to make way for the Conservative Party.

Around that time, I arranged a press function to introduce Dr Treurnicht and the CP to the media. The success of that function which took the form of a champagne breakfast, for which the media accorded us the title of the Party with the most panache, the success of that function, which took the form of a champagne breakfast, held at the Johannesburg Country Club, led to my becoming the PR of the CP for South Africa. A function I performed until 1989.

Shortly after, I arranged an international press conference for Dr Treurnicht, which was transmitted to a reported 750 million TV viewers world wide.

I also served on the Information Committee of the Conservative Party, the Finance Committee and was a member of the Transvaal Executive at the time of my arrest in 1993.

After my entry into Parliament in 1987 when the CP became the official opposition and its first Parliamentary election, I was elected as the Party's spokesman on Economic Affairs and in the process also became the spokesman for the official opposition in that respect.

During this period, I served on a number of Parliamentary Committees, as well as Party study groups on Defence, Foreign Affairs, Economic Affairs, Finance and others.

In my second year of Parliamentary service, I set a record by submitting more than 500 questions to Ministers in a single Parliamentary session. I can assure you Judge Wilson, that gave them such headaches and the Chief Whip I see, of the Conservative Party, Mr Frank le Roux is also in the audience, for which I am very grateful.

My leader is also there, and he will tell you how tricky it became in Parliament as a result of that whole question. This caused so much concern to the NP regime, that they changed the system to the system presently used in order to restrict the number of questions any single member could ask.

As well as restricting dramatically the number of questions that had to be answered orally or in written form by any Minister on a single day.

What I considered to have been my three major achievements during this period, were the focus I managed to place on the world's and particularly America's dependence upon South Africa for a supply of strategic minerals. My persistent calling for more intensive beneficiation of minerals in South Africa which finally saw JCI launch a factory to make automotive catalytic converters locally and which reportedly achieved a turnover of R900 million in its first year of operation, and in the process provided additional employment for more than 30 000 people.

And the overseas visit was the final accolade which I give myself, I arranged for Dr Treurnicht, during which he met some of the world's leading bankers who assured him that what they required for them to invest in any country, particularly a country with as much potential for investment as South Africa, was not a certain political policy or philosophy, but stability.

All of these projects Mr Chairman, I initiated and carried through in the interest of the Party, only going back to the caucus once all had been finalised. The overseas visit I cleared first with Dr Treurnicht as he was physically involved, and his agreement was all that I required.

The rest I did on my own, with the knowledge that what I was doing, was in the best interest of what we stood for in my capacity as a senior member of the Party. Throughout my time with the CP until my arrest, I was an elected member of the top body of the Party, namely the General Council which consisted of plus minus 35 people representing the four Provinces plus MP's and President's Councillors.

During this 11 year period, I was never in a position where I did anything that was not in the best interest of the Party and my loyalty to South Africa, its people, and the Party, has never been in question.

My political involvement has at times been at what some would call, great cost to myself. And certainly at times also to my family. But our Almighty Father has provided me with certain talents Mr Chairman and I consider it my responsibility to use these where and when I can.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may this be an appropriate stage to adjourn?

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment at this stage and resume at two o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CLIVE JOHN DERBY-LEWIS: (still affirmed)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, where you left off before the adjournment, will you proceed with the background?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you. Thank you Mr Chairman. I believe that we have arrived at an appropriate moment Mr Chairman, to mention something which has worried me since my sentencing.

It will be remembered that the Presiding Judge used the alleged lack of remorse displayed by us during the trial in partial justification of his imposing the maximum sentence, namely the death penalty.

A sentence that has been hanging over our heads ever since, so to speak. I am sorry that the Judge interpreted what I believed to be a display of respect towards the court, which I believed to be appropriate behaviour, as indicating that I had no feelings of remorse regarding the assassination.

I wish to make it clear that I at all times, and even to today, feel remorse towards Mrs Hani and her children. Also with regards the innocent people who died or who were injured or suffered in any way as a result of actions following the attack.

It is unfortunately so that during every war there are casualties. And the ones who suffer, are those who remain. I have feelings of remorse towards my own and (indistinct) family, Mr Walus' family as well.

They have also suffered as a result of our action and I hope that they too will understand that what we did, we did because we felt a deep obligation towards them and our and their countrymen.

The difference in this procedure Mr Chairman, and it is this difference which makes it so difficult is that in a normal war the next of kin of combatants killed in action, would never know the identity of whoever it was who pulled the trigger or planted the mine or dropped the bomb.

Perhaps this makes it easier to bear. But even in that case, I am sure there is no forgiveness for the deed and so I do not expect the Hani family to forgive me. I want them to understand that there was nothing personal in our attack against Chris Hani.

In fact Mr Chairman, if anything, it was an indication of the importance, the status of the man, that he was chosen as the target for our attack.

If he had just been one of the ordinary members of the Communist Party and MK, he would in all probability have still been alive today. I sincerely hope that the purpose of the legislation that resulted in the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that of reconciliation, is realised and that time will heal the wounds.

I can understand Mr Chairman, the anger towards us from the family of Chris Hani and from his friends, and I sincerely wish to repeat my regrets to especially his wife and family.

It must be remembered that I too as was the case with thousands of others Mr Chairman, have lost people dear to me. One of them, a man who was almost a brother to me, who was shot down in cold blood during the struggle period.

I, Mr Chairman, can say that I have no bitterness towards his killers, only a deep regret for his wife and children, the real victims of the act.

In addition, and let me state Mr Chairman, I am not looking for sympathy, nor do I expect to receive it, but I certainly expect understanding on my position and I am sure here I speak the voice, the sentiment of Janusz Walus as well.

In addition I too have been punished as much as was the case with many of the freedom fighters on the other side. And perhaps even more than many. Like them, I was and in fact still am, under the death sentence and lived for almost four years within a stone's throw of the gallows.

Both my mother and sister and two brothers-in-law passed away during the time of my imprisonment and I was not able to greet them. We have all suffered Mr Chairman, as a result of this conflict period.

And it is therefore essential that this period become a closed episode so that we can move forward from there. And it is in that spirit Mr Chairman that I am here today and that I tender this evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, the leader of the Conservative Party, Dr Andries Treurnicht, will you please tell the Honourable Committee Members, what was your relationship with Mr Treurnicht, Dr Treurnicht, the late Dr Treurnicht?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman. As was the case with the vast majority of Conservatives in South Africa, I had an extremely high regard for the late Dr Andries Treurnicht and would have done anything he asked of me in the interests of the cause of our people and their freedom.

My personal association with him began with my election to the Transvaal head committee of the National Party in 1978. He was the kind of person who noticed everyone, including one such as I, a relative newcomer at that time to the representative ranks of the National Party after my election to the Transvaal Provincial Council the previous year.

I only realised to what extent I had been noticed when he agreed to support me in what was to prove to be an unsuccessful bid by myself to secure one of the nominated Parliamentary seats after a bad re-delimitation of my constituency led to my defeat as a Parliamentary candidate in May 1981.

The confrontation between Dr Treurnicht as Transvaal leader and Mr P.W. Botha, came to a head at a special head committee meeting called in February 1982 and what was before that meeting a comfortable majority support for Dr Treurnicht, was manipulated into a defeat for Dr Treurnicht by Mr Botha and his henchmen.

A reason was concocted for Mr Botha's presence at what was strictly a Provincial matter, was used to wangle Mr Botha into the meeting, where he sat and glared at everybody from his throne and actually challenged people to defy him to his face. When issue of support for Mr Botha's interpretation of National Party's policy was put to the vote only 33 members of the head committee, myself included, voted by a show of hands, against Mr Botha. In spite of the opposition of my first wife to the move, I decided I could no longer remain in a Party led by people as politically dishonest as I had witnessed at that vote.

And I contacted Dr Treurnicht in Cape Town the following Monday and offered him my support. He invited me to bring 4 key people from the National Party, Edenvale structure, who felt the same way with me to a meeting due to be held at the Pretoria Afrikaans Boys' High School hall the following Saturday.

At that meeting I became part of the decision to call an urgent meeting of the people to discuss the formation of a new political party, truly representative of the interests of the people. In the process, I became one of the original 600 odd people who were to be seen as founder members of the Conservative Party.

During those initial years we together, shared the joy of victories and near victories as well as the sorrow of defeats. In the all important by-elections referred to as the "battle van die berge", I was regularly given the honour of sharing a platform with Dr Treurnicht at meetings held in support of our candidates in those by-elections.

This honour Mr Chairman, normally was only accorded to members of Parliament or Parliamentary candidates in their own constituencies. Provincial leaders of the Conservative Party were the only other members of the Party who addressed meetings together with Dr Treurnicht and then mainly to introduce him to the audience and to talk briefly on specific Provincial matters.

At the meetings I addressed with him, I would concentrate on economic and financial matters, while he covered philosophical and policy matters. I like to believe that we made a really successful combination after the tremendously successful international press conference I arranged for Dr Treurnicht in 1984 for which I wrote his entire speech.

I was given more and more opportunity to perform this most important function. In the process I became a confidant of his and it was obvious to me that we had built up a wonderful relationship of trust between us.

When I entered Parliament in 1987, he and his wife, Engela, also sought my and Gaye, my wife's assistance with certain personal problems with which he was confronted and which we were able to resolve.

He trusted me implicitly and I never, ever gave him reason to regret this. I am not aware of any of my colleagues in the caucus except perhaps the present leader, Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg, enjoying a similar relationship with Dr Treurnicht and subsequently also between his wife and mine.

We were more, Mr Chairman, than colleagues and I was proud to have been able to consider him also to be a friend. When I arranged an overseas visit for Dr Treurnicht in 1989, to meet with senior bankers and politicians from Britain, France, Germany and Switzerland, I experienced opposition from certain senior colleagues of mine in the Parliamentary caucus.

Dr Hartzenberg, of course excluded, who were not prepared to allow me to take Dr Treurnicht overseas without disclosing the itinerary. I was on the other hand, not willing to do this as I was sure that the itinerary which should have been discussed with the Department of Foreign Affairs, that I was sure that between the Department of Foreign Affairs under Mr Pik Botha and the media, many of the confidential meetings I had arranged, would have been aborted. Because that is the sort of opposition which we received from the National Party regime who abused everything they had at their power to try and shipwreck whatever the Conservative Party was doing.

And after explaining this to Dr Treurnicht, he demonstrated the extent of his trust in me by overruling any objections. Fortunately the successes we achieved only served to confirm to him that his trust was not misplaced. From the CP point of view, Dr Treurnicht himself underwent a transformation, once he had had the opportunity to see for himself that the Conservative Party's policy was accepted by the real role players overseas as a realistic alternative for South Africa in the event of the CP coming to power at a subsequent election.

That overseas baptism of fire, Mr Chairman, for both of us in the real power circles overseas, further cemented us together in our special relationship.

Mr Chairman, I think it is opportune at this stage to draw certain comparisons between the combatants of the various camps and the war which waged within and without our borders.

It is quite obvious to me from the information available, that all Parties which were involved in the conflict of the past, were equally honourable or dishonourable in their conducting of the conflict.

There can be no preference given to anyone. We all committed real sins, bad ones. The slogan of the ANC every patriot a combatant, every combatant patriot applies equally to all Parties involved.

We in the CP and others on the right, truly believed themselves Mr Chairman, to be involved in the same freedom struggle professed by the ANC. We were not trying to perpetuate so-called Apartheid, but only trying to secure our rightful place in the sun earned for us so dearly through the blood, sweat and tears of our forbears as well as through our own efforts.

It is equally clear that all sides carried out assassinations, be it through the use of bullets, car bombs, land mines or cross-border raids. All Parties had supporters who carried out tasks at their own initiative, according to their assessment of the situation and the need which they identified for certain action.

The ANC have agreed with the statement I have just made and have accepted responsibility for the actions of their supporters, whether ordered by them or not.

So too have the PAC and various other organisations which participated in the struggle. The CP has already come out in support of their supporters in prison, this is on record and it is a tragedy that the National Party regime or the former National Party regime, but the National Party of today, will not accept responsibility for actions resulting from their approach to the problem as it is clear that the members of the Security Forces, who perpetrated certain questionable deeds, were doing what they believed to be best all things considered, right or wrong.

Senior elements of the ANC Mr Chairman, we know planned the assassination of the entire National Party Cabinet. A project that was subsequently rejected, not because Cabinet Ministers or civilians were involved, but because there was concern expressed that the action could change the accent of the struggle in a negative way.

The NP regime failed to repudiate or reject any Security Force attacks on prominent ANC leaders in exile creating clearly the impression of tacit approval for those attacks.

All Parties were involved in actions that resulted in the deaths of civilians. So no fingers can be pointed in this regard. The ANC and "die Orde Boerevolk", by their own admission, were involved also in revenge attacks. The purpose of the Tambo authorised Pretoria car bomb attack, being to avenge the cross-border raid into Lesotho against ANC cadres by the Security Forces and "die Orde Boerevolk" attack on a bus load of people in Durban to avenge the attack on Whites on the Durban beach by elements of the ANC/SACP/PAC alliance.

It is also patently clear that in spite of the unbanning of the ANC/SACP alliance, that the ANC, the IFP, the Security Forces and the Right were still involved in that undeclared, by some, war up until the time of the April 1994 elections.

Just as it is clear that the ANC alliance, the IFP and elements of the AWB were still fighting this war, even till today as we sit here, Mr Chairman, the war continues.

There is no doubt that the ANC seem to believe that their methods of waging the freedom struggle were exclusive to themselves. When these tactics were used by opponents, they suddenly became atrocities.

However, Mr Chairman, there can be no difference drawn between the use of a car bomb, a land mine, a letter bomb or a bullet when an assassination is carried out.

The only distinction that exists, exists between the method used and not the deed itself. The following information which I quote Mr Chairman, has been extracted regarding the ANC and its tactics have been extracted from various documents which I think are also in the possession of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission unless otherwise stated, however, the information set out hereunder comes mainly from their statement to the TRC.

It will also give some indication of their thought process.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I interrupt you at this stage?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly.

JUDGE WILSON: Is all this written out?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not totally Mr Chairman, sorry. I can if you like, redraft it and submit it to you at a later date.

JUDGE WILSON: If you could just let us have a copy of what you have been reading from, it means we don't have to keep such an exact note.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, fine.

JUDGE WILSON: Thanks.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you. For example, when referring to the assassination of the late Chris Hani, it is clear that they actually believe press reports to be factual when it is patently obvious to the informed observer that the press reports concerned, were mere press speculation without a basis of fact.

"There have been press reports indicating that there are grounds for suspicion that Janusz Walus convicted of this murder, was in some way linked to this network where they were referring to the Orde Boerevolk with which organisation Janusz Walus has no connection whatsoever", page 43 of their submission.

Further on Mr Chairman, they call on the TRC to reopen investigations into the Hani assassination "in the light of information which was not available at the time and which could come to light in the course of the hearings of the Commission or through applications for amnesty."

It is clear from this statement that they are hoping that something will come out, but have no evidence whatsoever on which to base their suspicions and yet Mr Walus and I, Mr Chairman, found ourselves sitting in prison, not permitted to make statements refuting all of these terrible smoke screen allegations without any basis of truth, whatsoever.

The ANC statement Mr Chairman, contains views that equally apply to others waging a freedom struggle. For example they say "the time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices - submit or fight." They also say "the government has interpreted the peacefulness of the movement as weakness".

These statements Mr Chairman, I submit apply equally well to the Afrikaner.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, are you in a position to tell us where we would find that ... (intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is on page 46 of their submission Mr Chairman. These statements apply equally well to the Afrikaner whose inherent desire for peace was used to compel them to surrender their rights in the belief that they would not resist, no matter what.

While strongly condemning the assassinations directed at themselves, as unacceptable, they admitted as I said earlier, that they were planning in 1981 already to assassinate the whole National Party Cabinet in Bloemfontein.

That is according to their report page 51. At the Kabwe conference held in 1985, the late Mr Oliver Tambo, however, said that "I think the distinction between hard and soft targets is being erased by the development of the conflict."

The ANC's 1986 slogan which I mentioned "every patriot a combatant, every combatant a patriot", page 53 was also equally applicable to Afrikaner patriots and judging from the acts of violent resistance that were carried out from 1990 to 1993, as per our addendum A submitted, as part of our documentation Mr Chairman, rightwingers were far more active than had been the case for the ANC and their allies even at the height of their revolutionary campaign.

The only difference being the revolutionary struggle was played up by large sections of the leftwing media whereas little or no prominence was given to acts of resistance perpetrated in support of the freedom struggle of the Afrikaner.

Equally so Mr Chairman, claims by the ANC to having been engaged in a just cause applied to the freedom struggle in which we the Afrikaners, were engaged.

After all, what more just cause than waging a war to prevent a treacherous regime from betraying its mandate received from the Afrikaner and in the process signing away everything the Afrikaner holds dear.

And I do not mean Apartheid a la the NP regime, which by their own admission Mr Chairman, meant the maintenance of White supremacy. What they in reality meant was maintaining at all costs the power base of the NP regime.

No freedom loving Afrikaner would be prepared to fight for that. Unfortunately for us the regime finally succeeded in convincing most of the Generals, both in the SADF and the SAP that their duty was not to the State, the State being of course the people, but to the NP government.

Of course in the process they did to the senior State officials what they had previously done to National Party politicians. During the P.W. Botha era Mr Chairman, salaries of politicians rose to such an extent that there was a sudden emergence of professional politicians, mostly in the case of the NP regime.

Party hacks were no longer needed to earn a living outside of politics as they could as a result, survive quite comfortably on a Parliamentary salary. In the process Mr Chairman, Parliament lost many of those really sincere people who entered politics to serve their community and their people.

The result was a dramatic drop in the standard of NP politicians in particular. This was in fact confirmed when the break came from the NP in 1982. After the first general election which was held in 1987 after the formation of the CP, in which the CP became the official opposition, it was discovered that the CP had on average the highest and best qualified team of members of Parliament in Parliament.

In the process Mr P.W. Botha used taxpayers' money to surround himself with the largest group of yes men in Parliamentary history. He bought their loyalty. This technique proved so successful that the obvious next step was to do the same with State officials, the results we see here before the TRC Mr Chairman where it is already quite obvious that the vast majority of the atrocities being disclosed were perpetrated during the P.W. Botha/F.W. de Klerk era.

In fact things became so bad in South Africa that it was obvious to us that we were living in a State so aptly described by Lord Acton when he stated that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". And even today Mr Chairman, I express the hope that we never get to the stage again in this region where we have governments with so much power that they don't even see corruption as a sin any longer.

The things that were done Mr Chairman, were done on the basis of doing whatever was necessary to ensure the continuance of power and I am sure that most of those actions were carried out by senior members of our Security Forces in a genuine belief that what they were doing was what they were duty bound to do.

It is therefore extremely dismaying to see that while the ANC, the PAC, the CP, the Freedom Front, certain Generals and others who were involved in the freedom struggle in some way or another while perhaps not taking responsibility for issuing the orders in some cases, still acknowledge that the deeds perpetrated were carried out by their people genuinely and sincerely believing they were doing what was required of them and then accepting responsibility for them, the NP have left their people high and dry.

And have in fact Mr Chairman, condemned the actions in the face of the facts that never were these actions such as cross-border raids or assassinations either publicly refuted or the people repudiated, I personally cannot believe that the NP leadership can now try to present themselves as the lily white's of the past conflict.

What the NP regime forgets with its majority absence of real patriots, is that when we were, and I was an elected representative of the National Party Mr Chairman, that we all cheered our Security Force people on when they scored certain successes. We were in a war time situation and as even the ANC have declared, almost anything goes in a war.

Of course Mr Chairman, some really horrific things were perpetrated on all sides. And I, in my capacity as a former public representative of the National Party, before I helped to found the CP, am quite prepared to accept responsibility for those actions and to apologise for the times that mistakes were made and civilians and in particular women and children, were killed.

I invite any of the present National Party public representatives however, to repudiate me if they re not prepared to share the responsibility for what has happened.

I do this Mr Chairman, once again in a spirit of reconciliation as I know that there are serving and past representatives of the NP who are not in agreement with the attitude of the leadership towards those Security Force personnel now seeking amnesty for deeds perpetrated through their desire to serve the government by keeping them in power against those whom they considered to be revolutionaries.

At that same Kabwe Conference in 1985 "a resolution was adopted which acknowledged that there would be unavoidable civilian casualties as warfare escalated", page 56. This applies to all sides in a conflict Mr Chairman and I trust all parties concerned will accept that.

The Act which established the TRC states categorically and I say unfortunately, that no acts of revenge can qualify for amnesty where gross violations of human rights or more specifically deaths, occurred.

Yet the ANC acknowledges that acts such as the Pretoria Church Street bomb was an act of vengeance, as was the Amanzimtoti bomb and so also the attack by the SADF on Maputo in 1983. But Mr Chairman, there can be no doubt that these were acts of war carried out during a period of conflict, or warfare and should therefore be accepted as such with respect, as in the interest of reconciliation.

We should, I believe Mr Chairman, and once again with respect tendered, we should at this time not be looking for reasons to refuse amnesty, but rather be looking in the broadest sense as defined in the Geneva Convention, for reasons why amnesty should be granted. I think that the TRC has been handled well-intended legislation, but with all of the qualifications Mr Chairman, I think the main direction that of unity and reconciliation has been sidelined in sacrifice of the addition of a lot of qualifications why people shouldn't get amnesty.

It is also clear that the war was still raging Mr Chairman, still raging, at the end of 1992, page 66 of that same report of the ANC and judging from the fact that the highest number of political death occurred during 1993, then people tell me we were at peace from 1990 Mr Chairman, in fact almost 4 000 political deaths, the highest in the history of the conflict, occurred in 1993. That was when the was at its highest.

The war continued unabated for that year and for the year thereafter as well. In fact Mr Chairman, it is my humble opinion that the war between the ANC and the IFP specifically rages on even today.

Mr Chairman, I would like now to come to the war situation in South Africa.

MR PRINSLOO: May you continue Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you. May I continue Mr Chairman? Thank you. For most of my life Mr Chairman and for years before the ANC declared itself to the armed struggle, I can remember South Africa being in a wartime situation during which time many people died.

During 1952 I can remember at the age of 16, a particularly gory period in my life when many were killed, mostly apparently by members of the SAP during an outbreak of violent resistance in Kimberley my old home town.

As a result of the fact that my then girlfriend was the daughter of the local district Commandant of Police, I was privy to the real horror of that period at the age of 16.

When according to press reports, 12 people were killed and many more were wounded. I can remember hearing it being related that not 12 but so many people were killed that the SAP were compelled to load the bodies of the dead onto the back of bakkies. Because there were so many dead, the mortuary could not accommodate the bodies and the SAP were forced to take them to the abattoirs prior to them being buried.

I remember vividly the stories of how the blood poured from the back of those trucks as the bodies of the dead as well as those injured, were taken away to the abattoir and the hospital respectively. I recall also at that time a nun being burnt to death in her Volkswagen in the Eastern Cape.

I think it was East London Mr Chairman and at the same time, people being killed in Soweto, including a Doctor who had dedicated his life to the people who subsequently killed him.

Then Mr Chairman in 1960 there was the uprising which took place at Sharpeville with again many dead and even more injured. During May 1960 when I was serving in the Kimberley regiment, it was obvious that things were even more serious than most people realised at the time. When the regiment was mobilised, and we were called up for active service, the year 1960 I repeat Mr Chairman, this happened again in May 1961.

And an indication which particularly came home to us in the Kimberley regiment of just how serious things were, occurred when our Commanding Officer Commandant Ken Soederland(?), was summarily relieved of command of the regiment.

Shortly after we were informed that it was as a result of his membership of an organisation whose name I am unable to remember, that his loyalty to South Africa was placed under doubt.

In 1963 I transferred to the Witwatersrand Rifles Regiment in Germiston as I had earlier moved to the Transvaal. And Mr Chairman, with the intensifying of our training, due to the escalation of the war situation in South Africa, I wanted to be more actively involved.

After the assassination of Dr Verwoerd, which we believed to be the work of the enemies of South Africa, tensions built up on the border between South Africa and Zambia and South Africa was actively involved in the Rhodesian war.

In 1970 I, as Commanding Officer of the Witwatersrand Rifles' Regiment led my Unit on the second term of border duty ever undertaken by a Citizen Force Regiment.

Although we were based in the Northern Transvaal, we were ready at very short notice to be moved to the Caprivi Strip in the event of a blow up there.

That area had already previously come under fire from a mortar attack launched from inside Zambia. As the defence of the Caprivi Strip would be the responsibility of my Regiment in the event of a flare up, I and my key personnel spent a week on the Caprivi Strip to recce the area to enable us to familiarise ourselves with the conditions in the area.

It was during this period Mr Chairman, that I experienced the positive effect of the political policy of separate development through a close contact with the local tribe in the area headed by Chief Jack Motale.

What really impressed me was the proud way in which these people carried themselves, the way they conducted themselves. When comparing them, and perhaps comparisons are odious in this situation Mr Chairman, to the people living in the urban areas on the Witwatersrand.

They had a degree of self-respect which I hadn't experienced amongst many of the people living in the urban areas. It was a great pleasure working with them and it was this period that finally convinced me to enter politics in support of the National Party having prior to that been A-political as a result of my military involvement.

And Mr Chairman, let me also here categorically state that neither I, nor anyone that I know in the positions that matter in the Conservative Party, have ever been interested in perpetrating a situation of White supremacy in South Africa.

We have always believed that each of the peoples and there are clearly without any possibility of dispute Mr Chairman, there are clearly identifiable peoples resident in Southern Africa and we were of the opinion and are still of the opinion Mr Chairman, today, that the only way to accord dignity, self-respect, the power of self-determination to people, is through the bringing together of the power structures of each people in a clearly identifiable territory where the leaders of those people can then act on behalf of the people that they know first of all, and the people that they represent, second of all.

I have been in politics serving my people Mr Chairman, for a long period, more than 25 years and I can assure you that I have been labelled in that period as a racist, I have been labelled anti-Semitic, I have been given every possible negative label which is difficult to refute. I believe for a very simple reason.

I believe it has been for the reason that nobody can doubt the sincerity of my belief in the real policy of self-determination for all peoples in their own territories.

Mr Chairman, after my military involvement in 1972, I was elected unopposed to the Bedfordview Council. And when I was placed on the SADF reserve of Officers in December 1973, I was already serving a term on the Council as Deputy Mayor.

I had also to facilitate my political involvement, opened my own business and as a result was not able to volunteer for service at the outbreak of hostilities in Angola.

Had my circumstances been different at that time, I would undoubtedly have served in Angola when the SADF was sent in 1976. While I was involved in the political conflicts from 1977, the war raged on. It did not take me long to realise that the NP I had joined and the real NP were two different things.

The betrayal first of Rhodesia followed by the betrayal of South West Africa and the betrayal of the mandate they had of the policy of separate development, was finally capped by the total betrayal of any mandate which the NP had received from the voter when in spite of assurances to the contrary, they unbanned the ANC and the SA Communist Party.

In spite Mr Chairman, of the unbanning the war escalated in South Africa with an ever increasing number of casualties. And with it, our concern grew.

We consoled ourselves with the fact that our support, that is the support of the CP was growing in leaps and bounds and that after the trouncing we handed out to the NATS in Virginia and Potchefstroom as well as the close loss we experienced in the National Party's strongest constituency in that last outpost, Natal, and in various Cape constituencies, it was just a matter of time before we would assume power in parliament.

I will talk in further detail on that Mr Chairman, this is purely in terms of an introduction, instead of the democratic process of a general election which Mr de Klerk knew was due after Potchefstroom, when the large CP majority showed clearly that he no longer represented the majority of the electorate that had voted him into power, Mr de Klerk called a referendum.

I think it is appropriate at this stage Mr Chairman, to mention that we subsequently had our attention drawn to a report which appeared in the Washington Times in the United States of America, in April 1990 which indicated and we up to this day, I personally and I don't know, I am sure my colleagues as well, are unable to understand why this information only appeared in an American newspaper and was not released to the South African media, but the subject of the report Mr Chairman was an opinion poll carried out by the National Party regime at the time, which indicated that in April 1990 the National Party had the support of fewer than 52 percent of the White population of South Africa whom they purported to represent.

And in fact represented illegitimately at any negotiations which they held with the ANC/SACP alliance, because they knew that they were no longer speaking on behalf of the majority.

But instead of an election which he knew he was going to lose, Mr de Klerk called a referendum with a vague question as the basis, assisted by allies planted within the CP to cause the dissension over participation, the NP aided and abetted by obvious gerrymandering in the more liberal areas, where massive voter turnouts, like 105 percent of voters in the George region for example and I will never be able to understand as a man who has been in politics for that period, how 105 percent of 100 percent can vote, and 95 percent in the Constantia region, while in conservative regions the control by the CP made these kinds of tricks difficult or even impossible, the yes vote drew 66 percent of the votes cast.

There was a stowaway vote of 25 percent of the total voters' role, which meant that in actual terms the yes vote represented two thirds of 75 percent, namely 50 percent of the total voters' role supported it.

I am sure you will agree with me Mr Chairman, that was very close indeed and certainly could not be considered to be a mandate from the people to do what Mr de Klerk finally did.

No problem to De Klerk however, as he now had the opportunity to interpret the vote to suit himself. And that he did. Once again in contravention of his mandate, he put a total stop to all Parliamentary by-elections and when he saw that even in the strongest Municipal wards and with the full support of the DP, he could still not beat the CP, he stopped those too.

When he stopped Parliamentary by-elections Mr Chairman, he effectively denied us the constitutional means of ridding the country of his government and change the course of action on the Right.

CP leadership had repeatedly stated that they were committed to the democratic process of elections until that process was denied us. And I believe it was in August 1992, that that finally happened when the first MP was nominated to Parliament without having to fight a by-election.

He was coincidentally a Conservative Party Member of Parliament. Other patriots have already after the unbanning of the ANC/SACP alliance to which I have referred in appendix A, started resorting to violence in their response to the unbanning. In the CP we started in 1992 a mobilisation process which culminated in the finalisation of full mobilisation structures in 1993.

We now had the structures for war, we were ready for war. The actual reason as I saw it, for the call to the third freedom struggle, made by Dr Treurnicht on the 26th of May 1990, in response to the unbanning of the ANC/SACP alliance and it was in this climate Mr Chairman, that the attack upon the late Chris Hani was launched.

It must be clearly remembered that Chris Hani was first and foremost a soldier of his people. It was in the military sense that he became one of the first to join the armed struggle. And it was his success in this field that led to his being appointed Commander of MK.

In this position, he was in the ANC's own parameters a military target. And we treated him as such. I can assure you Mr Chairman, there were many, many people on the Right who saw the late Chris Hani as the real target, political, militarily, psychologically, whatever you care to name as a result of his status, as a result of the man himself, he became the natural target.

The fact that he was also the leader of the SACP and also the man most likely to succeed as President, in the event of a take-over by the ANC/SACP alliance, made him also a priority political target.

A target that, if successfully attacked, would most likely cause our objective to be realised and that was to plunge the country into a situation of chaos that could be used to advantage by the Right to effect a take-over.

The events subsequent to the attack up until the aborted defence of Bophutatswana showed that the objectives we anticipated, were in fact in the process of being realised in spite of the fact that I was as a result of my conviction and incarceration, unable to further participate.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, you belonged to various other organisations is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis you belonged to various other political organisations, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as the other organisations are concerned, you were also involved with other organisations on the Right?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I think it is correct to say that I was involved in whatever I could become involved in to ensure the furtherance of the objectives of our cause and I was in the process involved in many organisations.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, in as far as the organisations are concerned to which you belonged to, the Stallard Foundation, will you please tell the Honourable Members as far as that particular organisation is concerned?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman if I may, I would like to first give an overview of the development of my career in terms of those organisations are concerned, including the Stallard Foundation.

I have in fact produced sufficient copies to supply you with copies of these after I have presented it so it won't be necessary to take comprehensive notes.

MR PRINSLOO: You may proceed Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Is that all right Mr Chairman? Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Organised resistance, or resistance of a sort Mr Chairman, began with the formation of Die Herstigte Nasionale Party in 1969. Subsequently the AWB, the Afrikaner Resistance Movement was called into being some years subsequent to this.

During the 1980's other groups were founded to counter the direction of the National Party and to attempt to halt this. The reason why I have now changed Mr Chair to Afrikaans, is not to make things more difficult for members of the Committee, however, I am an Afrikaner who believes that an Afrikaner should in fact, or has two languages in their background, both Afrikaans and English.

I do this and I will do this only briefly, because I know that certain of the members will find it difficult to understand Afrikaans, but I want to make the point that the reason why I do not do half of my testimony in Afrikaans, is only because of the difficulties that would be experienced by members of the Committee and for no other reason.

Thank you Mr Chairman. During the 1980's other groups were formed to resist the direction already been made clear by the National Party. Mr P.W. Botha's reforms towards what he called "healthy power sharing" triggered the formation of the Conservative Party in 1982 whose policy was self-determination for the various peoples.

The policy which the National Party was self-determination for the various peoples, the policy which the National Party was clearly (indistinct). I was a founder member of that Party as I had said earlier.

Shortly afterwards I was asked to leave the National Party dominated Senior Rapportryers Corps and I can tell you that I think, I must have become the first person in South Africa with English as a home language to be accepted as a fully fledged member of the Senior Rapportryers, which for the uninformed will indicate to you that I was already on my way to become a member of the Broederbond possibly, but the Senior Rapportryers was the step before.

And I mention this to give you an indication of to what extent my fellow Afrikaners accepted me as an Afrikaner. But I was asked to leave that organisation because of my politics. In fact I caused a confrontation at a meeting, and this is not in here, I caused a confrontation at a meeting one evening when shortly after Mr P.W. Botha as the leader of the National Party had declared himself State President, the Rapportryers had a tradition of toasting the State President, and I had no problems with that while the State President was not actively involved in politics, but when they made P.W. Botha the State President, he became a President who was the leader of my opposition.

And I explained to them that I find it very difficult in fact impossible, to join in the toast of loyalty or allegiance to the State President and that I would therefore be forced, if they forced the issue, to refuse to rise and when the toast was raised, I was going to upturn my glass of wine on the table, which in terms of Scottish tradition, is probably the most severe insult one can pay in terms of an action like that.

So, that was why suddenly there was something wrong with my money and they wouldn't accept my payment of subs and of course, because I hadn't been paying subs, I was booted out. Which is quite an interesting experience.

After that Mr Chairman, I attended on invitation the founding meeting of the Afrikaner Volkswag of which I remained a member for many years thereafter and in fact, until the time of my arrest, I was still able to afford the subscriptions and carried on after I became a, what do they call it Mr Chairman, something of the State, when they incarcerated me, it was a little bit difficult to meet all of these expenses.

During the mid-1980's the violence campaign and the ANC's proxy, the UDF, escalated while visits to the ANC in Lusaka and other points overseas by liberal Whites and in particular, by leading Afrikaner Leftists occurred. Righters could see the writing on the wall.

I must tell you that I was at one stage invited to attend the conference at Lusaka which I refused. While the National Party consistently told its White voters that it would never hand over to the ANC and that it would never sacrifice the members rights' to self-determination without consultation, it was conducting behind the scenes talks with the ANC.

In fact Mr Chairman, I am on record in 1988 and this was I think what contributed towards the changing of the whole question system, I received interesting information that the National Party in the form of various Cabinet Ministers, had been holding negotiations with Mr Nelson Mandela, both within and outside the confines of prison.

Now, I am sure you will understand Mr Chairman, that if that information had been available in 1988, the National Party would have received the biggest thumping in its history at the 1989 election. Instead they used that, the DP's association with the ANC, to ensure that the DP never, ever figured in Parliament again while the Conservative Party was there.

But, that is another ball game. I actually when I saw Mr Kobie Coetzee's admission recently, I think the last 18 months, where he admitted he had been negotiating with Mr Mandela, I realised then that the so-called sin for which P.W. Botha, Pik Botha and company had claimed the resignation of the late Dr Connie Mulder, a more honourable man than the whole bunch of them together, the deed that he perpetrated namely so-called lying to Parliament, that was carried out in 1988 by at least four Cabinet Ministers who continued to serve with impunity.

Righters, however, as a result of these developments could see the writing on the wall. While the NP consistently told its White voters it would never hand over, sorry, it was during this period that it had become obvious to the Right, that a sell-out had physically begun or be it surreptitiously.

Numerous Rightest organisations were formed and all had the same goal - resistance to the NP's abdication to the ANC. Noisy and in many cases violent disruptions of NP public meetings increased. Two of the more vociferous were the Rights break up of Minister Pik Botha's meeting in Pietersburg and the violence and death which occurred when Mr F.W. de Klerk tried to hold a public meeting in Ventersdorp.

I was one among those who stopped Pik Botha's meeting in Pietersburg. He challenged us to stop his meeting and so we took up his challenge Mr Chairman and when Mr Botha was due to depart for a meeting in the Pietersburg Civic Centre, he found himself confronted by at least 8 000 rightwingers.

He then chickened out, huddled in a back room in somebody's house in Pietersburg, drinking Whisky while the other Party hacks had to come and confront the Right. My National Party opponent Mr Chairman, in the 1987 election, Leon Wessels, printed a picture of myself being carried on AWB members' shoulders during that meeting.

I also attended the rightest Ventersdorp protest against De Klerk and I was teargassed on both occasions.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, what was your relationship with the AWB in particular?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, the record is here, but I appeared many times on public platforms with the leader of the AWB. Because the AWB had a similar attitude towards the problem as we in the CP did.

The AWB in fact, at one stage was almost, was certainly unofficially considered to be the military wing of the Right and as far as I was concerned, I was prepared to do anything to further the cause of justice in terms of the Right, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: You may proceed Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. In fact, I go on to say here, I shared many public meeting platforms with Mr Terreblanche including New Castle and Durban and I can tell you Mr Chairman, in Durban it was one of the biggest political meetings ever held in that City Hall. The City Hall was jam-packed.

Also in Krugersdorp and Swartruggens, the Eastern Cape and the Transvaal Low Veld. At the same time Eugene Terre'Blanche and other Rightest leaders spoke at meetings of the Stallard Foundation, which I will mention to you.

Which was an information forum for English speakers which I helped to found in 1986. At election time, the AWB called upon its members to vote for the CP and after the 1987 election, and in fact I have documentary evidence of that an advertisement which was placed by the AWB Mr Chairman, and after the 1987 election, the AWB contacted CP Members of Parliament of which I was one, with a view to utilising CP MP's as a forum of communication with the government.

I was also involved in other Rightest organisations. I shared platforms with Mr Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Party, with Andrew Ford of the Boere Weerstandsbeweging, whom I believe is familiar to this Committee.

I spoke at Durban's Conservative Civic Action League meetings. The Chairman of the Stallard League, sorry the chairman of the Civic Action League and some other members were members of the Durban City Council. I was an active member of the Durban based S.A. First organisation which I addressed on many occasions in the mid-1980's.

Resistance to the past taken by Catholic Church of which I was a member including having served as a member of the Catholic Order of the Knights of Da Gama, led to my being expelled from the Order.

I formed the, in fact helped to form the Christian Resistance Group to protest against the Catholic Church's actions in Namibia. They intervened, published a book The Truth on Namibia and after reading that booklet, to me it appeared that that truth was as far from the truth as anything could be.

Be that as it may, I jointly published a booklet called Is this the Truth on Namibia, where I exposed Bishop Dennis Hurley's deep involvement in revolutionary politics in that country.

The Christian Resistance Group then became a member of United Christian Action, an organisation which may be familiar to you, a loose alliance of anti-Communist and anti-liberation theology church groups, set up in the 1980's to combat the growing politicisation of the churches in South Africa.

During this period I was contacted by the Polish Association of South Africa, which was highly concerned at communist infiltration of South Africa's Christian churches.

They had of course first hand experience of communism. I was personally instrumental in bringing the South American Christian group, the Society for Tradition, Family and Property, TFP, to South Africa during the late 1970's. A bureau was set up in South Africa where information on religious subversion in South America as it applied to the Southern African situation, was published.

This organisation was profoundly anti-Communist. I was also a founder member of the Johannesburg based University Freedom of Speech Association formed in the mid 1980's.

I also as I mentioned earlier, helped to found the Stallard Foundation at that time and in 1991 formed the Republican Unity Movement of South Africa whose goal was to encourage English speakers to become actively involved in politics.

And I can say here, Mr Chairman, that we had a particularly from the Stallard Foundation side, we had quite a degree of success in motivating English speakers into political participation in that we provided a number of Parliamentary candidates particularly in Durban constituencies and Natal constituencies.

I spoke on numerous platforms within the broad Rightest movements. My message was always anti-Communist and obviously anti-ANC. They were our opposition. In early 1992, I was invited to attend a formation committee meeting of an "Afrikaner beraad" in Pretoria to consolidate resistance to the National Party's sell-out. Resistance Mr Chairman, to the National Party's sell-out.

This organisation became the unity committee of 25 under the Chairmanship of Dr Andriaan Pont. I was instrumental in bringing the then General Secretary of the Mine Workers' Union, Mr Ari Paulus, into CP politics. Mr Paulus subsequently became the CP member of Parliament for Carltonville. This led to the launch of a giant White super union in 1991.

Also in 1991 Mr Chairman, while I was a member of the Presidents Council, I actively stopped a proposed ANC march through Krugersdorp. I did this by mobilising CP and AWB members and members of other Rightest organisations, we armed ourselves and we then stood at the City Hall of Krugersdorp and we refused to let the ANC march.

Just details of that situation, the ANC had applied for permission to march. The City Council of Krugersdorp refused that permission. The Magistrate also refused the permission. The Chief of Police then suddenly took it upon himself to make a political position, and he granted permission for the march to take place.

I was then approached by members, residents of the town to do something, what are we going to do and so I in terms of the wishes of the residents of Krugersdorp, who were represented on the Council who had refused, who were represented by the Magistrate, who had refused and who had approached me, we stopped that march and it was quite obvious we were serious, Mr Chairman, we weren't running around the town, brandishing firearms on our fingers and that sort of thing, but they knew we were armed and they knew that we were serious about stopping an invasion of our privacy and we stopped it.

Because of the increasing violence in the country after the unbanning of the ANC/SACP I started self-defence training for anyone interested, in conjunction with a Cape based firm. In 1991 and 1992 I was invited to become a founder member of two Rightwing fronts formed to counter the NP's abdication.

These consisted of all major political parties and numerous other Rightest groups. The 1992 group was formed as a political leaders' action organisation. I also led a combined protest outside CODESA in Kempton Park.

This group consisted of all major conservative political parties and groups and was in conjunction with the United Christian Action. As I said at the commencement Mr Chairman, I was therefore involved in any and all organisations which could contribute in some way to stopping the NP's abdication to the ANC and the betrayal of the mandate which they had received from the voter.

I tried every route Mr Chairman. Meetings, printed propaganda, the formation of organisations to inform my people what was coming. I was deeply involved in the broad Right, hence the invitations sent to me by almost every Rightest organisation or newly formed grouping.

I believed in the mobilisation of like-minded forces to prevent what ultimately became a reality, an ANC/SACP government.

During all of this time, I was an active leading figure and public representative of the Conservative Party which has never once repudiated me, Mr Chairman.

On the contrary, I believe I was seen as a fighter for the cause of self-determination for my people.

Mr Chairman, I would like to read a letter which I received from the Afrikaner Volkswag regarding my association there and it is in Afrikaans so I will read it in Afrikaans because ...

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt. It is just that we didn't hear precisely what the witness said. And it may be important for our preparation - never once did something or other? Could you just make a careful note ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I will repeat it for the benefit of Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: During all of this time, I was an active leading figure and public representative of the Conservative Party which never once repudiated me.

MR BIZOS: Never once repudiated me?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is right.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Never repudiated me once, in that order.

MR BIZOS: No, I am not concerned with the word order Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Okay, may I proceed Mr Chairman? Thank you. I am sorry Mr Chairman, in the interest of clarity, they didn't repudiate me twice or three times either, they never repudiated me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the letter I received from the Afrikaner Volkswag -

your letter of the 20th of December has been received and I am astounded in the way in which you have mastered Afrikaans.

I presume that should one have to cooperate with conservative Afrikaners in a daily way, this would probably bring one to this. Thank you for the nice words with regard to Donkerhoek, this was a very successful occasion which they had organised. If it is true that you place your trust or that this restored your trust in the Afrikaner, we will have to build together to make these things strong and healthy.

In the meanwhile we often think of you who must keep up the front in Parliament and which you the best for the sitting of this year.

This letter is dated the 1st of February 1989.

We hope that in one or another way we will be able to make a contribution with regard to our research pamphlets possibly, or in whatever way we will be able to give you our support.

This is a letter then from the AWB to confirm that I had addressed meetings with them, dated the 2nd of October 1986.

Dear Clive, in the first place, I want to thank you sincerely that you were willing to make a speech at our meeting of the 10th of October 1986.

The speech has been planned..

and then there is detail which I believe we can simply disregard.

We have spoken to a member of the Conservative Party who agreed that on that day we can advertise the day as a Rightwing gathering.

And then they invite me to remain after the - then we had on occasion we to invite, we, being the Stallard Foundation at that stage, had the occasion to invite the leader of the AWB to address one of our meetings, which he addressed and which he addressed to the great delight of everyone present, in English and so I wrote to him and the letter reads and I will translate this.

Dear Eugene, I am writing on behalf of the Foundation to heartily thank you for your participation at our recent members' meeting in Johannesburg.

The general reaction amongst our members was one of great appreciation for your presence, and I can tell you that they were most impressed with both your presentation and your sincere approach.

Also Jan,

that is Jan Groenewald the Secretary, who answered questions,

Jan's contribution was exceptional and everyone was impressed with the manner in which he answered their many questions.

I personally think that it was worth the trouble we went to.

I go on to say I know how difficult it was for him to find the time and I then look forward to meeting him again when he shares a platform with me as guest speaker at a public meeting in Durban on the 28th of July.

I must say that that meeting was not uneventful Mr Chairman. We had a rather vociferous leftwing minority present in the hall and they really exercised their vocal cords for almost half of the evening, but eventually they ran out of steam and then Terreblanche was able to have a peaceful meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: It is unusual to expect him to run out of steam.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: It is unusual to expect Terreblanche to run out of steam.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, no. But I think Mr Chairman, it would have been rather difficult for him because most of the interjections were coming in English and to hold a speech, to make a speech and then have to react to interjections as well in another language, it is quite difficult I think.

Then Mr Chairman, an example of the activities of the Stallard Foundation, a letter to all members, dated 27th of May 1986.

JUDGE WILSON: Are all these part of the thing which you are making available?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Sir.

As the country slides ever further into chaos and as the government moves further towards a situation where Whites will loose power over their own affairs,

and let me say here Mr Chairman, that the only reason why I use the word Whites is because we have no ethnic title to refer to that population group.

We can refer to the Tswanas, the Zulus, to the Pedis and Mr Chairman with respect, everyone knows what we are saying. I in fact, should be referring to the Afrikaner, but then in the English speaking community there are people who don't see themselves as Afrikaners, they see themselves on the other hand as members of the White tribe of Africa, the Abelungu, Mr Chairman, of which I am proud, of which I Mr Chairman, am proud to be a member and the reason why I mention that is because I want to make it quite clear that we are as much indigenous to South Africa as are the Zulus or the Xhosas or anybody else.

Mr Chairman the letter that we wrote reads as follows:

... where Whites will loose power over their own affairs. Thinking people are asking themselves what are the options for me, my family and the country?

For most of us, there was always the comforting realisation that we could at least show our disapproval of the government through the ballot box, that too has been denied us.

A point of clarification here Mr Chairman, in 1986 we should have had a general election as a follow up to the general election of 1981, but absolute power and so on, Mr P.W. Botha decided he wasn't going to give an election. So at this stage we were under the impression that there were going to be no further elections.

It is obvious that the National Party can see its constituency base crumbling and is in no hurry to call any elections. Indeed, the longer they cling to power, the less chance there is of an election.

A dilemma has been reached in South African politics. With no election in sight, with the printed media well in the grip of the left, with the SABC now the personal fiefdom of Minister Pik Botha and his leftist ideologies, and with parts of the country under the control of the UDF, it is now time to unite the Right and to consider what options are open to us in the very short term. For we have little time left.

Sorry Mr Chairman, I am trying to gauge the speed here because I believe they are having trouble catching up with me, when I get a bit carried away, but I think you can understand my enthusiasm Mr Chairman.

In order Mr Chairman, in order to mobilise every element of the Right, the Stallard Foundation has requested Mr Eugene Terre'Blanche and his Deputy, Mr Jan Groenewald, to address members and friends on the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging, its policies, attitudes and plans for the future of Whites in South Africa. You will be free to ask questions, blah, blah, blah...

Then Mr Chairman, on June 1988, published in Die Volkstem, there is an advertisement which says on the 26th of October,

you can, by using your CP vote, make things happen,

and it is placed by the AWB in their local newspaper.

Then the copy of the letter which we got from the AWB to each caucus member of the Conservative Party in Parliament.

Dear compatriot, this is in Afrikaans, I am translating as I go Mr Chairman. Dear compatriot, please receive on my and the AWB's behalf, our hearty best wishes with your election to Parliament.

Congratulations also on the CP's elevated status in Parliament, that is when we became the official opposition, where you are now in the frontline of defence, where you stand in the frontline of defence of our people in the Parliament, we wish you strength, wisdom, courage and determination.

May the victory also not be excluded from that battle field.

MR PRINSLOO: For the record Mr Derby-Lewis, the letter was written in Afrikaans and you translated it into English?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I mentioned it. And it is dated the 25th of May 1987.

Your battle, your struggle, is not going unnoticed or without great appreciation. The command of the AWB has sent you the following for information, and it was a press release which was that advertisement and then also the programme of principles and policy.

And then they say as far as the programme of principles and policy is concerned, you will notice that the document is marked confidential, however, the general council of the AWB has in the meantime approved this design and it is ready for publication. So the confidentiality falls away.

Then Mr Chairman, there are photographs here of myself at various functions, an AWB dinner in 1986. Then another one in Johannesburg, another one in July 1986, August 1987, then in May 1988, and then extracts from the South African First Campaign publication which I am not going to read. Then pamphlets publicising the CRD's publication of the booklet Is this the Truth on Namibia.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I appeal to the Committee to exercise some control in relation to the material that is being placed before it, to matters which are relevant to the issues as defined by Section 20 of the Act. Must we be presented with Mr Derby Lewis' album - ( gap in recording)

to what end, to what portion the matters defined by the Section, is he really addressing the Committee on? I know that he says that he is enthusiastic about that, he didn't explain what he was enthusiastic about, but I would submit with the greatest respect, that the Committee has listened as we have, very patiently to these lengthy memoirs of Mr Derby-Lewis, but can we please get down to one or other of the issues with which the Committee is concerned with and may I appeal to my learned friend who is an officer of the court, he has a better understanding of what is expected, that he should try and exercise some control over his witness' narrative so that we can get down to the issues of the case?

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit Mr Chairman, that Mr Derby-Lewis is disclosing fully what his relationship is with the Right, Rightwing. In order to understand this and for the purpose of this application which is relying upon it is necessary and relevant to the issues.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you will appreciate that we have afforded you all the opportunity and I will continue to afford you all the opportunity to make the points that you wish to make in the course of your evidence. If it is at all possible for you to leave out what is strictly speaking, might not be directly relevant, I will be pleased if you do that.

MR DERBY LEWIS: Certainly Mr Chairman. Thank you and I think you have already seen that I have paged over some (indistinct) ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR DERBY LEWIS: ...publicity documents which I don't consider essential. I am also trying to do my bit.

I can understand Mr Bizos' difficulty though Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I did not stop you earlier simply because I thought that I will afford you an opportunity and I hope that at some stage you will deal with facts that are now really relevant to his application.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. As an indication also Mr Chairman, regarding the effect which certain publications had on the general population in South Africa, this booklet which I mentioned, Is this the truth on Namibia, we had numerous orders placed for it. I have included a letter here from the South African Institute of International Affairs who in fact have submitted their R2-00 and requested a copy, just as an example of the interest we generated.

Then there is also an open letter to the Commission for Justice and Reconciliation of the Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference from the Polish Association in South Africa, where they outline their concern regarding the direction in which the church was going. I don't think that is relevant to me, because I am not responsible to the Polish Association.

Then there is also, Mr Chairman, a TFP newsletter included to give you an indication of the activities of the TFP and why I brought them to South Africa. Then there is a press release from both the Stallard Foundation and Mr Eugene Terre'Blanche on allegations by the Minister of Law and Order, Mr Le Grange at Ellisras.

Mr Le Grange made certain allegations against the Right which I think is relevant. They accused the Right of being violent Mr Chairman. I just want to quote out of one paragraph in this letter for you. As I mentioned earlier Mr Pik Botha had challenged us to stop his meeting, the National Party brought professional boxers, wrestlers, karate experts and students from Johannesburg armed with pick-handles, sjamboks and dye canisters, they in fact were the ones who were armed. The Right was not, we went there with empty hands Mr Chairman.

Then I have a letter here from Mr D. Varkevisser, the Chairman of "die Blanke Regse Volksfront", which was a volksfront which was formed in 1992 with an idea of uniting actions of the Right. The motivation is in the letter Mr Chairman.

I think that it is important to read a paragraph from that as well and this is in Afrikaans -

I believe that we have now succeeded in creating a mechanism by which we can allow White Rightwing leaders to consult with each other without bringing the autonomy of any organisation under threat and without having to submerge the existing difference of principle, prior to engaging into discussions.

As I invite you for participation as one of the leaders, who had not been present on the 14th of March 1992, I would like to say to you that although I belong to a particular political party, the efforts towards this action did not start with me and that you should consider this action free from any existing political party.

This was a genuine attempt Mr Chairman to effect a combined action on the Right and as you can see, I was invited to be there as a leadership figure.

Then we've got also all of the people who attended and so on. Then also we have the concept manifesto and 2.2 is relevant Mr Chairman,

that the Afrikaner Boer nation is faced with a simple choice, either to be swamped by the Black masses or to continue to exist as a sovereign White people.

Should these evil powers attempt to subject us with violence, we will not hesitate with every means available to us, to protect our ideals of freedom, to maintain these ideals and to extend our nation as a Christian people.

I don't think I have to talk about the coordination of Committees Mr Chairman. I also have got a press clipping confirming the CP MP's involvement in the launch of a giant White super union, the fact that there were CP MP's indicated approval for that.

I have an example of a letter I received from somebody offering his services, in terms of the self-defence unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Those details you can really leave out.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon? Time to adjourn?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I am at the end of this particular section Mr Chairman, with an advert we placed condemning CODESA and showing all of the organisations which associated themselves with that statement. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, I think we have reached a convenient stage where we can stop for the day.

We will now adjourn and resume at 09:30 tomorrow morning.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

13-08-1997: Day 3

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to proceed?

ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, the first applicant was still proceeding with the evidence-in-chief to my learned friend once more.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, are you ready?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair, before the applicant will continue testimony, I want to present the following to the Committee with regard to bundle R4, documents presented by my learned friend, Mr Bizos, on behalf of the family and the SACP.

It is our attitude at this moment, in view of the attitude of the Committee, particularly as mentioned by Judge Ngoepe, Honourable Judge Ngoepe, that the detention and the events during detention, appears to be important. This would appear to be the attitude of the Committee.

It is our attitude, the documents therein contained is not admissible. Our client had been counselled thus, but in view of the attitude of the Committee, our client has given us instructions that it is his intention to present testimony in chief with regard to his detention under Section 29 and what this involves.

It is our view that the contents of R4 is integrally woven into the testimony in chief, which will be presented by the applicant and it is our opinion that it should be presented as a whole. We foresee that there might be a potential disadvantage, should his testimony be interrupted and should he be cross-examined despite the undertaking of my learned friend, Mr Bizos, that there will be no such cross-examination.

Since it remains integral, we therefore are of the opinion that there is a potential disadvantage, should this opportunity not be granted. I want to bring it to the attention of the Committee that I have spoken telephonically to Captain Holmes, who had been the Investigative Officer in the investigation, and he has informed me that the documents in his possession had prior to the 1st of June, this year, been handed to the team of Mr Bizos. He could not give me the exact date, however.

This information was not made to us during the pre pre-Conference and it would appear that Mr Bizos has had these documents in his possession for a considerable length of time already.

In addition, it would appear that the documents made available, or which will be made available by Captain Holmes, as well as the related cassette tapes, we are expecting that this would be made available today as we are informed by Captain Holmes.

Thank you Chair.

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I just come in here in as far as Captain Holmes giving the documents today, is concerned. It may not be today, because he has been served with a subpoena to be present tomorrow, on Thursday, so if there are any documents that he is to table before this Committee, it will only be tomorrow as per his subpoena. Thank you Chair.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Prinsloo, how do you foresee proceedings unfolding if your client finishes, or rather let me say, if it comes to a point where you feel your client, it would be an appropriate stage for your client to deal with the contents of R4 and if at that stage, you had not yet gotten possession of the tapes and the original documents, how do you propose to deal with the situation?

Are you nonetheless going to proceed to deal with the contents of R4 without having gotten the tapes or what do you propose to do?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, insofar as R4 is concerned, we will get up to a stage where we will ask for an adjournment in order to consult with our client, with those documents at our disposal, and then to present all the evidence. And because the evidence itself in as far as R4 is concerned, to a great extent overlaps the evidence in this particular case, and to the extent that we have to consult with our client, which is the important part of this matter, we will ask the indulgence of the Committee to grant us a postponement for that purpose.

But it was indicated to me by Captain Holmes that the tapes, documents in his possession as well as a docket which is in the possession of the Attorney General, will be obtained by him and he will take it to his office in Pretoria and he expected it to be in his office before lunch time. This is what he told me, Mr Chairman.

So that will facilitate and that will also give us the opportunity to listen to the tapes, go through the documents and I will expect it will also maybe necessary to consult with people who obtained statements from these people, if necessary. As you please, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Just let us proceed with the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis and let us see how far we can get.

MR PRINSLOO: We will do so Mr Chairman, we will proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: And we will consider a request for a postponement at that stage.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I be permitted at this stage to throw some light on some of the matters that have not been reported to you by our learned friends.

I want to hand in a copy of a pre-trial minute which was held on the 5th of August 1997 in which a letter written to the Commission on the 25th of July 1997, was tabled in which we requested the Commission to subpoena the undermentioned persons at the hearing of the Amnesty Committee on the 11th of August 1997 in the aforementioned matter.

I want to bring these to the attention of the Commission because to say that we did not do everything possible in order to facilitate the orderly hearing by keeping documents back, is quite incorrect. In the letter to the Commission we set out that we wanted Adv Gerhard Nel from the Attorney General's office in Johannesburg to produce the docket with all the relevant documents, record of the trial, application for leave to appeal, application to the Chief Justice for leave to appeal on the merits, application to open the trial, any report that may have been made by the Attorney General with regard to sentence, application to State to extend the period of detention under Section 29 of the Security Act and the responses made by the detainees

Captain Holmes, the Investigating Officer, kindly request Captain Holmes to produce the undermentioned documents: docket, investigation diary, all statements and transcripts thereto, any other information he may have.

Captain Nicholas Johannes Deetliefs, kindly request Captain Deetliefs to produce whatever documents he may have in his possession.

This letter was not kept a secret from the counsel of the applicants, because I want to hand in a copy of the minutes of a pre-trial conference which was held at our insistence in order that the matter should proceed orderly. It has been signed by our attorney, it has not been signed by the applicants' attorney, but I am instructed that it was faxed on the day on which it was held or thereabouts and no response has been - it was faxed on the 5th, I am instructed, on the same day, and no response was received that the minutes do not correctly reflect what happened there.

May I refer to paragraph 3, we were concerned in having a proper hearing and not a mishmash, Mr Chairman, paragraph 3 says "status of documents - the parties agree that the documents are what they purport to be, it is recorded that Adv Mpshe advised that the Commission will not question the authenticity of the documents. There was no objection on the part of the legal representatives of the applicant. 4 - witnesses. The applicants record that they will call Mr Clive Derby-Lewis respectively and then paragraph 5, Adv Mpshe advised that he has been advised by Judge Mall that subpoenas will not be issued, but that letters requesting documents from Adv Nel, Captain Holmes and Captain Deetliefs, could be sent if necessary."

We did our best. They knew that we had called for the docket, they could have done whatever was necessary. We are not obliged to be, to supply documents to the applicants. We thought it fair however, that we should give them due notice of what documents we were going to use. They raised no objections or they did nothing and I submit that now to come along and try and place the blame on us for their not being able to present their case, is hardly fair, Mr Chairman.

May I hand in the pre-trial minutes?

CHAIRPERSON: Please do.

MR BIZOS: Has the Chair got the pre-trial minutes?

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the one?

MR BIZOS: Oh, I see apparently Mr Mpshe has actually furnished a copy of the ...

JUDGE WILSON: It was the 1st of August, not the 5th Mr Bizos. The one we've got is the 4th of August, which is the one you've handed in.

CHAIRPERSON: The letter written to the Commission, Mr Mpshe, is there a copy of that letter?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I can check it in my file. I want to believe I have it.

MR BIZOS: I would like to hand it in together, together with the fax, with the evidence of the fax that it was sent to them Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, for the sake of completeness that fax proof is in relation to the Commission. I want to hand in the fax proof in relation to the applicants' Attorneys.

And I may say also that the suggestion that we should have handed any documents over the time we got some of them from Captain Holmes, is hardly necessary. We were waiting for the documents, a proper set of documents from the applicant which we only got on the 4th, at the pre-trial conference. So please, I would appeal that no blame be suggested on our part in relation to the applicant's apparent inability to present his case.

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I hand up a letter written by the Truth Commission, responding to the letter that has been handed up now from Judge Bizos team in as far as the issuing and the writing of a letter is concerned. I want to believe they do have a copy thereof, dated the 6th of August, 1997.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see it. I want to try and avoid us reaching a stage where parties are going to blame each other for not having done or left undone certain things.

Mr Prinsloo, you were aware of the minutes I have no doubt of the pre-trial conference and you had some indication as to what documents were going to be sought by the objectors and you could yourself have taken steps to get copies of those documents in the interest of your client's case.

There is nothing to prevent you from doing so, isn't it?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman. The documents that are referred to by my learned friend Mr Bizos, pertains to documents that were in existence at that stage. What I reported to the Commission this morning, at this stage, Mr Chairman with respect, is that Captain Holmes, this is what he told me, I am not casting any blame or anything of the kind, it is not the suggestion, is that that documents were handed over by Captain Holmes to Mr Bizos and Captain Holmes indicated that he will be able to obtain the exact date that the pocket book, presently in his possession indicated on the 1st of June, and he says it was prior to the 1st of June, that he handed the documents in his possession, to Mr Bizos and with respect Mr Chairman, without going into the merits of that particular issue, we don't know what documents they handed to him, that we will have to ascertain from Captain Holmes.

Whether it is the docket, whether it is part of the docket, whether it is part of the documents contained in Exhibit R4 which appears as it had been indicated at the initial stage of this hearing, that it doesn't appear to form part of the original docket.

That could be resolved when we see Captain Holmes, when we get the dockets, the documents, but at this stage what is important is that there were documents handed over. We don't know under what circumstances, who waived what privilege, or what happened on the issue as far as that is concerned.

That is another matter which we will deal with once we have had the opportunity to speak to Captain Holmes and get sight of the documents. I merely report to you, the Committee, as what I spoke to Captain Holmes about Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think this observation has got to be made in particular with regards to what Mr Bizos says in all fairness to all the parties. It is often not realised by legal practitioners appearing before the Amnesty Committee, that the Amnesty Committee has issued some guidelines as we were indeed required to do so by, and empowered to do so, by the Act, to issue some guidelines which would govern the proceedings.

And amongst the guidelines that we issued, was that any party which needs to make use of any document would be obliged to supply the other side with copies thereof. And I think that if Mr Bizos would like to use any documents, and I am not saying that you have or you don't have any documents in your possession, but I think a point has got to be made that if you do have some documents and you would like to use them, you are obliged to furnish copies thereof.

In fact the guidelines say that you would furnish a copy of every document you want to use, furnish a copy thereof to your opponent and also to the Committee.

MR BIZOS: In pursuance of that ruling Judge, we at considerable expense made sufficient number of copies of R4, which are the documents that we intend to be using and we gave them to the applicant's legal representatives and made copies of them .

JUDGE NGOEPE: I appreciate that, but I just thought that this remark which I made, would not be altogether amiss.

CHAIRPERSON: Before Mr Derby-Lewis resumes his evidence, are you in a position to tell the Committee whether apart from the documents you handed in as forming part of R4 and apart from the originals which the other side seek, because they want to compare the contents of the originals with the copy, and apart from the tapes, are there any other documents that are outstanding which you are seeking to obtain or that you have?

MR BIZOS: First of all, let me make one preliminary observation Mr Chairman. I personally never take possession of any documents belonging to any one else, other than copies. My instructing Attorneys are the persons who took copies from Captain Holmes.

I am informed that there are indeed other documents which in our view have no bearing on the proceedings. But if our learned friends want to see them, they are at liberty to do so. I believe that - there are some documents here which were handed to us by Captain Holmes. We sifted through them, they deal primarily with administrative matters and addresses of witnesses and such matters that we didn't think necessary to put before the Committee.

But whatever there is, can be made available to our learned friends, and they can have a look at that at their leisure.

CHAIRPERSON: You have no intention of using those documents?

MR BIZOS: That is correct. I have no intention of using that. One knows that in the conduct of an inquiry having regard to what admissions or denials there may be made, it maybe necessary to dig into the documents, in order to prove or disprove something that has been said, and I don't want to tie ourselves down, but we will not use any documents, it depends how things develop.

But we are satisfied that we have served on the other side, the vital documents that we are going to use on the issues before the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, during the adjournment it might be appropriate if you wish to, to look through those other documents which at present Mr Bizos says he has no intention to use.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you proceed with your witness?

CLIVE JOHN DERBY-LEWIS: (still under affirmation)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I understand Mr Chairman.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: (cont.)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Derby-Lewis, yesterday you made mention of a meeting that took place in Pietersburg, if I recall correctly you said 1986?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman, and that is the date that I believe the active resistance of the Right was initiated, that is when it started.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, in as far as that particular meeting is concerned, Mr Derby-Lewis, the people that attended the meeting, were they from the AWB or from what political dispensation were they, are you able to tell the Committee?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, there were approximately 8 000 people present, representing a very broad spectrum of what people referred to as the Rightwing. There were AWB people, there were CP people, there were Orde Boerevolk people, there were Boere Weerstandsbeweging people, in fact there were HNP people, virtually it was broadly representative of the Right.

MR PRINSLOO: The people there present, in as far as you know, did they support the CP or the National Party, who did they support? Are you able to tell the Committee?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, it is very difficult to say when somebody goes into the vote, but I think that it was quite clear that the vast majority possibly with the exception of the HNP, would have been supporters of the Conservative Party in terms of elections.

In fact Mr Chairman, I think maybe I should mention at this stage that the year after that incident took place, I was the candidate for the Conservative Party in the general election in Krugersdorp constituency and the man who was actually the director of my whole election campaign was actually the leader of the AWB in Krugersdorp.

And of course I had a large support from active AWB members in terms of canvassing support for me, as well as Conservative Party, and I am very happy to say that I was one of possibly the few candidates in that election who managed to effect even a cooperation, sorry I am going too fast I believe.

CHAIRPERSON: I think some of the details, whilst they are maybe very interesting and maybe relevant, at some other stage, maybe in some publication and so on, I think for present purposes, if you confine yourself to the important issues, I would be pleased.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, why do you say that you believe that the resistance started in 1986, that meeting from the broad Rightwing?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, excluding the incident at Rustenburg when the local Rightwing stopped Adv Louis Nel who was an NP from holding a meeting, that was actually the first time in my recollection, that the Right used violence to achieve an objective.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis in as far as your overseas contacts are concerned, will you please tell the Committee what contacts did you have, if any overseas, in what capacity and so deal with that please.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I became more and more actively involved in Rightwing affairs, I was invited to appear on overseas television and in fact was invited to proceed to those countries to represent the Conservative Party on panel discussions regarding the political situation in South Africa.

In the process of these activities and as a result possibly of the fact that there was a reasonable international focus on my activities at that stage, I received certain approaches from organisations overseas. One of the organisations was the Western Goals Institute, which was a strongly ...

CHAIRPERSON: What was the name again?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The Western Goals Institute, which was strongly anti-Communist and strongly concentrated on the preservation of Western norms and values. In fact we built up quite a close association and as a result of their activities, I was also personally introduced to the Monday Club, the British Conservative Party's Monday Club which was a lobbying organisation within the Conservative Party which enjoyed the support of many Conservative Party MP's.

I must say at this stage that this was not the first time that I became aware of the Monday Club. As a result of my interest in the economic situation in South Africa and particularly in terms of mineral beneficiation and so on, I managed to acquire a report which was published I believe, in 1982 by the Monday Club of the Conservative Party and in this report, I received a very strong clarification on the extent to which the Western World was dependant upon South Africa's strategic minerals, such as the platinum group of metals, titanium, gold and so on. Just to name a couple.

There were apparently something like 10 or 12 in total. So I already knew who the Monday Club was, I knew what their activities involved and I was then personally introduced to them in 1986. In fact I was even invited to a dinner of theirs and I was invited by the Chairman present at the dinner, who if I remember correctly, was a British Conservative Party member of Parliament, to address the meeting on Conservative Party policy.

CHAIRPERSON: Which were the other groups beside the two you mentioned?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, then I also established contact as a result of my contact with the Western Goals Institute, with an organisation called the World Anti-Communist League, which was from, obviously from the name of the organisation, it was clear as to what their principles were and in that involvement of that organisation, I was actually asked, invited as a representative from South Africa, to attend the World Anti-Communist League Congress which was held in Brussels in 1990, at which Congress I was given ample opportunity to inform those people of what really was happening in South Africa at that stage.

They were very concerned over the fact for example, that the National Party regime, had unbanned the South African Communist Party. They saw this as a retrogressive step. I also had the opportunity to speak personally with people from the Ukraine and Hungary and other Eastern block countries and basically their story was the same, it was very strongly anti-Communist.

I think from that point of view Mr Chairman, the reorganisations were those on the Right, but then I also had individual contact with members of Parliament from the West German Bundestadt, from the Swiss Parliament, all people who indicated their sympathy for CP policy and attitudes once I had explained to them our principles and approach.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Derby-Lewis, just a moment Mr Chairman, I have the wrong document here, in as far as the Western Goals Institute is concerned, who was the President of that organisation at the time?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was the most recent President of the organisation Mr Chairman, but before me was, just let me make sure that I've got his gentleman's name correctly on record, my predecessor was Roberto Dobesohn, the charismatic leader of El Salvador's anti-Communists.

And I must also say that contrary to what the media have tried to convey to South Africans, that the Western Goals Institute for example, was not a one-man telephone operation, it was in fact an organisation which boasted patrons such as General Sir Walter Walker, one time Commander in Chief of the NATO Forces and Major General John K. Singler, who served with the OSS CIA and Commanded US covert operations in the Vietnamese war. They also had the most senior member of the house of Lords on their board of patrons, namely the Right Honourable the Lord Sudley, who personally entertained me at one of my visits to lunch or I can't remember whether it was lunch or dinner, at the House of Lords.

CHAIRPERSON: We will accept if you say that there were prominent members that formed part of this association, without having to give us a list and biographical details.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I just wanted to clear the attitude that they may be a penny ha'pennny organisation.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis an organisation which abbreviated WAM, do you know anything about that organisation?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I know of them Mr Chairman, I read of their activities in the newspaper and I must say that at one meeting where it was tried to get as many of the leaders of every Rightwing organisation in South Africa together, Mr Koos Vermeulen, who is the leader of the WAM was actually present and I met him personally.

CHAIRPERSON: What does it stand for, WAM?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The World Apartheid Movement, I think Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: World?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Apartheid Movement.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, in as far as the political climate in this country is concerned, when you started politics, started becoming involved in politics, as a result of which person, or how did you become involved in politics?

CHAIRPERSON: He has already covered that ground adequately.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, it was at the instigation of Colonel Stallard and I don't think I need to expand on that. I can also mention that ever since I can remember from the age of 16, that South Africa had been in a conflict situation.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any connection with the Stallard Foundation in overseas contacts, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, obviously we used to send the Stallard Foundation's publications and we published an occasional journal as well as a very successful pamphlet called the Stallard Foundation Presents the Accelerating Revolution in South Africa, in which we quoted extensively from a report by one Donald MacIllvanney from the United States of America, who compared the situation in South Africa with the situation which was happening elsewhere in the world, and which also had happened elsewhere in the world, and he actually used the Iranian conflict to illustrate what he meant and he went through the stages of the revolution.

We produced this little booklet, we also then put the Stallard Foundation's point of view, included with it to tell South Africans there was another alternative and we very successfully distributed something like 65 000 copies of this booklet throughout South Africa, so it was very broadly read.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman I don't wish to burden the record, but the booklet referred to is available if Mr Bizos or the Committee would like to have sight of it, it could be made available. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Derby Lewis, now returning to the political climate in this country?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I think I extensively covered what I saw to be the development of the war time situation in South Africa. What I did not mention during that discussion was of course the fact that we are all aware of the fact that the National Party made a big issue of the total onslaught over the years and they really worked people up, emotions up in terms of this whole total onslaught, they committed us in fact to a war outside of the borders of South Africa, even as part of this combating of the total onslaught, so I think it was quite clear that the political climate was building up even more and more to a real crescendo and I think that the figures that I mentioned regarding the number of political murders which took place in 1993, bears testimony to this.

Also Mr Chairman, if I can refer you to Addendum A which I submitted, I do not intend enumerating the three pages or four pages of incidents quoted here, suffice it to say that this incident was compiled by the AWB, and it was compiled on the basis of Rightwing attacks over the period starting the 8th of February 1990 after Mr De Klerk announced the unbanning of the SA Communist Party.

It is page 1 in bundle A2, Mr Chairman. Page 1 to 4.

CHAIRPERSON: Bundle A, is it Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Bundle A, Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Isn't it bundle B?

JUDGE WILSON: Addendum A and Addendum B are in bundle B.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Old bundle B, sorry Mr Chairman, sorry. As you can see Mr Chairman, there are four pages quite concentrated in terms of reports of violent incidents, which took place, bombing, of bombs planted, bombs on railway lines, pylons blasted and so on and I don't think that there can be any doubt as to what was going on from the period from the 8th of February 1990 to the 28th of April 1994, when the new constitution was introduced.

Then I would also Mr Chairman, like to refer you to Addendum B of the same bundle, from page 5, which contains a chronological list of reports contained in the Conservative Party's official mouthpiece, the Patriot, from the date of the unbanning of the ANC and the SA Communist Party in February 1990 to the 9th of April 1993, obviously for the purpose of our application.

Sorry Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: This is where, where do we find this?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 5, it is directly after Addendum A, Mr Chairman. Page 5. These reports Mr Chairman, covered many subjects, but they unambiguously showed the Conservative Party's consternation at the unbanning of the ANC, its growing fear of a National Party handover to an ANC/SACP government without a mandate from White voters and its commitment to resisting that handover with violence if necessary.

Themes recurring time and time again throughout these pages, include the Conservative Party's belief that the introduction of an interim Government was tantamount to a declaration of war.

That the NP had no mandate to bring the ANC/SACP into a co-governing position with them, thus making the NP government illegitimate. Self-determination was the only route to peace in South Africa. In a survey conducted by Dr Lawrence Schlemmer, I am sure someone who is familiar to everyone on the Committee, more than 80 percent of the Whites rejected an interim government.

The CP on many occasions demanded a White election from the NP on the issue of an interim government with the ANC/SACP and the eventual handover of power to these organisations. Despite NP promises to go back to the White electorate, with a new constitution on power sharing, this election was denied.

I think it is important to mention Mr Chairman, the other positions which were frequently stressed and I am not going to then continue with this document, it is on record, the banning of the NP of by-elections, the destabilisation of Bophutatswana, Ciskei and KwaZulu by the ANC, where it was declared that the CP would be next.

The National Party's treason and its lies to the electorate, including its secret talks with the ANC while telling voters that it would never negotiate with the ANC/SACP. At the signing of the record of understanding, in 1992, and the Pretoria Minute of 1990, were done without the consent of White voters and that the CP will not accept the legitimacy of these agreements.

The gradual infiltration and changing of ethos of both the SA Police and the SA Defence Force, moves seen as very dangerous by the CP, it was clear that the CP would never accept a ANC/SACP government Mr Chairman, from this, and they would never share power with them.

Mr Chairman, in referring to the extracts from the Patriot, I think I must make it very clear here that although all of these extracts have been translated, they were translated for the benefit of the Committee as we understood the language problem, but a lot of these reports actually appeared in the Patriot in Afrikaans and we are in a position Mr Chairman, to at tea break maybe, to show you, we have brought the whole batch of the newspapers for the perusal of the Committee if necessary, to show you that in fact these were Afrikaans reports.

So allegations made from various quarters that these reports were all written by my good lady, my wife, are not correct Mr Chairman. In fact, if you go through, you will see that some of these consist of editorial comment in Afrikaans, because there was never an English editorial comment and it was certainly not written by Mrs Gaye Derby-Lewis.

One of the Afrikaans statements surrounded Dr Willie Snyman, a report on the CP member for Pietersburg at that time, who said that the release of the ANC/SACP was treason by De Klerk. He said that Mr De Klerk would soon witness the growth of resistance within the Afrikaner community.

Page 8 that is, sorry Mr Chairman, and it is paragraph 4 on that page. Directly after that Mr Chairman, is a reference from the Patriot dated 16-02-1990, also reported in Afrikaans which said that the CP has a comprehensive plan against an ANC take-over.

This statement was made by Andries Beyers, the then Secretary-General of the Conservative Party "our freedom is of more value than life itself" he declared.

Then the one directly after that Mr Chairman, resistance march to be held in Pretoria, that was a headline. No form of alien government is acceptable to the volk, declared Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg, the present leader of the Conservative Party. He described that the totalitarian history of communism in the Eastern block.

Then further down the page, two up from the bottom Mr Chairman, once again another report in Afrikaans, the CP will resist a Black take-over, said CP MP for Delmas, Mr Daan Lotter, the CP will not allow it to happen he said.

Mr Chairman, if we turn the page to page 9 and I must also mention at this stage Mr Chairman, that this is a sampling as well, not all of the extracts have been marked as you will see from page 13 and page 12 and so on, and I am going to concentrate on only the ones which appeared in Afrikaans, to clarify the position.

The second paragraph on page 9, sorry also reporting on the 23.02, at the bottom of page 8, we will mobilise whites, said Dr Hartzenberg during the same march. We are prepared to sacrifice everything for our people's freedom. There will be no peace without our freedom.

Then the next statement Mr Chairman, and this is already in 1990 Mr Chairman, and I think you will agree with me, that was pretty strong talk. That was in fact fighting talk.

We have only one goal and that is the mobilisation of our people to attain their freedom, said Dr F. Hartzenberg. The ANC is the surrogate of the world's communists, and the CP is not prepared to allow the handing over of South Africa to the ANC, he said.

He referred to promises made by both Messrs P.W. Botha and F.W. de Klerk, that they would make no political moves without consulting the White voters. Because they have not kept their promises he said, they then must be responsible for what will now happen and you will remember Mr Chairman, I earlier also stated that I believed the National Party was responsible for all of the problems, from whatever direction they originated.

Then we go further on Mr Chairman, and we have a report regarding Dr Treurnicht who placed special emphasis on the "self-erkende moordenaar", Chris Hani, when he asked the NP in Parliament whether they would allow Hani to return to South Africa to sit at the Conference table to discuss the future of South Africa. He declared the CP's total rejection of such a plan, calling it shocking.

And then the next story Mr Chairman with a headline "vermoor die Regses", murder the Rightists, is the headline. The story details an ANC decision known to the National Party to murder Rightist leaders. The CP leader, Dr Treurnicht, asked why the NP hadn't warned Rightist leaders of this plan and why the NP was negotiating with the ANC which had planned assassinations against the CP and Mr Chairman, I refer you to a statement made by the same late Chris Hani, in London in 1988, I will give full details of that at another occasion where he actually identified on record, to the media in London, that he identified National Party and CP members of Parliament as legitimate targets in the struggle. And I had at least two noted attempts against my life and another two which we didn't even bother to follow up.

Then we go to page 10 Mr Chairman, and there is confirmation. Once again in Afrikaans. A National Intelligence document revealing an ANC plan to assassinate Rightist leaders is confirmed as authentic by the State President, Mr F.W. de Klerk.

He calls for the CP to name its source within the NI, he doesn't call for action against that Mr Chairman, he calls for the CP to actually tell him where he got the information from, because obviously that was a naughty boy telling us of this danger, which the CP refuses to do so.

Chief Secretary Andries Beyers goes to jail for two weeks for concealing his source, Mr Chairman, it is clear from this that it wasn't only ANC and SACP people who had been badly treated by the National Party regime, that we in the Conservative Party received the same sort of treatment for the very same reason, we were also involved in a freedom struggle against an illegitimate regime.

Mr Chairman, then we go to the next statement, violence in many cases is justified, and is a Christian responsibility and a universally accepted norm. This is when a people takes up weapons to defend their freedom against deceitfulness or when they want to take back the freedom they have lost.

Especially during the present circumstances, in South Africa, nobody would deny any people that right. The Afrikaner has the right to maintain his freedom with violence. 1990, the 4th of May 1990, page 10 Mr Chairman.

Then we go down to the third paragraph from the bottom of the page, a report contained in the Patriot on the 1st of the 6th 1990, and the last paragraph, I don't want to go through all of the others, the CP will have no other choice than to use the same methods as any suppressed peoples would do when they are denied elections said Mr Andries Beyers, General Secretary of the CP.

On to page 11 Mr Chairman, a report on the 29th of June 1990, without Mr De Klerk's, once again all of these Mr Chairman, I am not going to repeat, are in Afrikaans. Without Mr De Klerk's policy of abdication, Piet Rudolf's violence would not be possible.

And the following item Mr Chairman, the 13th of July 1990 also, violent acts which have been perpetrated over the past few weeks by Whites send a message to the government, South Africa is not Rhodesia or South West Africa.

In South Africa these violent deeds reveal the first unmistakable flashes of a violent struggle and resistance. The government's behaviour makes violence justified. If it carries on with its policies, more and more Whites will go over to violence, even a culture of violence will be created in the White community.

Once again Mr Chairman, that was an editorial item. I think that I have covered maybe we should go onto page 14 Mr Chairman, once again another Afrikaans report. Whites will increase mobilisation, was the headline. This statement was contained in a letter from the CP to the State President, Mr F.W. de Klerk.

If an election is refused Whites, said the letter, then all that is left to us, is to increase the struggle for self-determination and to use every possible means to strengthen our party for its greatest struggle, a struggle for its principles and ideals.

Over the page, on page 16 Mr Chairman, fourth from the bottom, this is now in March 1991, Dr Treurnicht again confirms that resistance is a right if one's fatherland is under threat.

The government gives us no other choice, than to use everything at our disposal in the struggle for freedom. The government's revolutionary changes have made this resistance necessary, he said. People all over the world give their lives for the freedom of their fatherland, he declared.

It was Dr Treurnicht Mr Chairman, I repeat. Then further down is an editorial dated 29th of March 1991. The Vryheidstryd, the freedom struggle of the Afrikaner, shall be much more intensive than that already tried by Umkhonto weSizwe.

The ANC has the responsibility to bring to the attention of their revolutionaries the Afrikaner potential for destruction and devastation in the struggle for a homeland.

The ANC knows that the Afrikaner has rights and that those rights justify even bloodshed, Mr Chairman. Further down, about half way down the page, at a Republic Day meeting on the 7th of June, reported in the Patriot of the 7th of June, 1991, Dr Treurnicht again asserted that the CP would use all the means at its disposal to defend the Afrikaner's freedom.

Two further down, the 1st of the 6th 1991, headline, "Whites will seize weapons". If the government refuses a general election for Whites, the golden thread Mr Chairman, if the government refuses a general election for Whites, it will create for the CP a moral basis for an armed struggle against the government said the CP General Secretary.

This armed struggle will take weeks, months, even years. The only way to neutralise the CP is to defeat them in an election, he said.

Then two down, the Patriot of the 5th of July 1991 "is violence permissible", is the headline? This article says violence is justified when a people's freedom is at stake and goes back into the history of the Afrikaner's freedom struggles and rebellions. The moral basis for an armed struggle is discussed and it is declared that if there is no other option, then this must happen, not can Mr Chairman, this must happen if passive resistance doesn't work, then the guns must be oiled says the article.

Then we go to page 19 Mr Chairman, the top of the page, the 30th of August, 1991. CP MP, S..(indistinct) Pienaar says he foresees a civil war if the Afrikaner's right to self-determination is not given. A guerrilla war, even against NP supporters who have thrown in their weight with the ANC, was not excluded he said.

If an election is not granted by the government, strong resistance from the Afrikaner can be expected. The government will stop Rightist violence if it calls an election, he declared.

Fourth from the bottom on the same page, Mr Chairman. The Patriot, 18th of October, the headline "government will limit weapons after ANC demand", it says at the same time, the ANC refused to disband Umkhonto weSizwe or to reveal where their numerous arms cachets were.

A recent confidential police circular, was reported as stating that licences would be granted to people who were politically correct and who rejected violence as a weapon. This was rejected by the CP.

The bottom of the page, extract again Mr Chairman from the editorial of that, I think it is that same day, the moral right to self-determination must be backed by power which can include violence. The Afrikaner is compared to other minorities throughout the world who fight for their freedom.

The Curds, the Croatians, the Slovenes and so forth, they have used violence and bloodshed to attain their aims. Thus we are surprised that certain church members are surprised when the CP and other Rightist leaders refuse to condemn violent resistance within their own circles, Mr Chairman.

The next item, directly below that, in a freedom struggle for the self-determination of the Whites, the CP will focus on the leaders and Mr Nelson Mandela, President of the ANC, will be the first said Dr Hartzenberg, Deputy leader of the CP.

Three up from the bottom Mr Chairman, the referendum bill closes the constitutional road for Whites and is a recipe for terrible conflict in South Africa, said Dr Treurnicht. Asked what the CP will do to fight the bill, CP MP, Mr Chris de Jager, said that the resistance will grow, because on the Right, nobody is prepared to accept Black majority rule.

Over the page, page 21 Mr Chairman, the top of the page, Mandela, this is in January 1992, Mandela threatens Rightists and the Conservative Party. Mr Nelson Mandela told Mr F.W. de Klerk that if the CP won a referendum, there would be violence from his people and that they would go "back to the bush", to continue their war.

There would be strikes and stay-aways and mass action. He said that asking for a Boerestaat was "impractical". The editorial of the same day Mr Chairman, with the headline "bombs". Rebellion and resistance are in the nature of things justified and necessary against any power which tries to force an illegitimate order on others.

Therefore, Mr Nelson Mandela, Mr F.W. de Klerk and CODESA take full responsibility for the bombs (which caused damage to several buildings the previous week).

They have laid the groundwork for a full blown freedom struggle, which is clearly just in its early stages.

Bottom of the page Mr Chairman, the last Patriot, 24th of January 1992. "Academics speak a war", is the headline.

A violent struggle and a possible terrorist war is the last resort for the Afrikaner, to retain sovereignty and the people who are creating the new constitution, should realise this.

These remarks were made at an Afrikaner Volkswag which I mentioned yesterday Mr Chairman/SABRA, that is "Suid-Afrikaanse Buro vir Rasseaangeleenthede" Congress held in Pretoria to discuss new constitutional moves.

The jails will never be big enough to hold all those Afrikaners who will partake in the freedom struggle said Dries Kriel who was recently arrested for explosives possession and bomb explosions in the Transvaal.

Editorial again, 1992, Mr Chairman, will be a year of resistance, physical resistance and the political party formed two facets of the same struggle. In the future more sophisticated and intelligent people shall appear in the court's docks charged with so-called terror.

Their defence will have the most moral basis existing.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, where are you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, page 22, just over the page Mr Chairman. Their defence, page 22, sorry.

MR PRINSLOO: That is page 23.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is page 23, it is just before that.

MR PRINSLOO: It is the preceding page, Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: At the top of the page, 1992 will be a year of resistance.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't appear ...

MS KHAMPEPE: What paragraph is that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

MS KHAMPEPE: What paragraph is it on page 23?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is the second paragraph Mr Chairman, 1992 will be a year of resistance.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, could I hand my page up to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am afraid we don't have ... Page 22 have about two paragraphs only and it is different.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I will read it fully in any case Mr Chairman, and I think I better start from the beginning again. The headline for the editorial which states "1992 will be a year of resistance:

physical resistance and the political party form two facets of the same struggle. In the future more sophisticated and intelligence people shall appear in the court's dock charged with so-called terror. Their defence will have the most moral basis existing, the freedom and self-determination of their Volk.

As the drama unfolds, the government appears more and more immoral and is acquiring the image of an immoral regime which throws Afrikaners, who are actively resisting them, into jail and charges them."

Then we go half way down the page Mr Chairman, a continuation of what the Patriot said 31st of January 1992,

"why doesn't Hani chose to live with his brothers in Hillbrow", says Beyers. This was the question asked by a former Boksburg Mayor, Mr Beyers de Klerk when it became known that the leader of the SA Communist Party and Chief of the ANC's armed wing, MK,"

you will see from that report also Mr Chairman, that even in 1992, the CP were under the impression that Mr Hani was still the Chief of the ANC's armed wing, MK,

"Mr Chris Hani had purchased a house in Dawnpark, Boksburg."

The following paragraph,

"interim government within six months or ..."

is the headline.

"Mr Chris Hani, Head of the ANC's armed wing, MK, gave this warning to Mr F.W. de Klerk.

He threatened the NP with country wide mass action."

The editorial on that same day,

" Mr F.W. de Klerk's foolish moves towards an undivided South Africa, will bring about the beginning of a full blown freedom struggle with conflict and bloodshed."

MR BIZOS: ... to follow Mr Chairman. We haven't been able to follow for the last ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 22 Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We are having copies made. That is the document that was just handed to us. Copies are being made.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: We don't know what has happened there. There is only one more quotation from that page Mr Chairman, and that is the Patriot dated the 14th of February 1992,

"the Afrikaner volk will never accept Mr Nelson Mandela and the ANC/Communist click",

said Dr A.P. Treurnicht at a public meeting in Kraaifontein.

"We will never beg for our future, from a revolutionary Nelson Mandela",

he declared,

"the ANC has become an indispensable partner of Mr De Klerk."

Then we move to page 24 Mr Chairman, the second paragraph, relating to the Patriot of the 20th of February 1992. Do you have page 24?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Does Mr Bizos also have it Mr Chairman? Okay, it starts off with if a "yes" vote is brought out?

JUDGE WILSON: That is our page 23.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: 23? Okay, then 22 will be your 21 for some reason Mr Chairman, and I don't know why, because up until ...

JUDGE WILSON: No, you read from our 21. Our 21 starts, "on the 10th of January 1992 ..."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: So you don't have 22?

JUDGE WILSON: We have a two paragraph page 22, which starts with, the first page starts with the word "armed struggle" and then Patriot, 21st February 1992.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is page 24, that is the one that I am onto now. So it is your page 23, Mr Chairman. The second paragraph, if a "yes" vote is brought out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

"If a yes vote is brought out, the CP predicts an accelerated handing over process and a one man, one vote election towards the end of 1993. 'White voters will have their last chance to prevent an ANC government', said Dr Pieter Mulder, the CP's Information Head.

Dr Mulder stated that a referendum win would not give the NP a mandate for a new constitution. He reminded readers that Mr De Klerk had, as recently as the opening of Parliament, promised that any new constitution would not be introduced until a referendum was held for White voters."

Then the bottom of the page Mr Chairman, continuation of a report which appeared on the 13th of March 1992. Headline was,

"the red coup against Mr F.W. de Klerk. A yes vote will mean the domination of South Africa by the ANC and the SA Communist Party",

over the page Mr Chairman. The article then goes on to reveal how the ANC is dominated by communists.

"The National Executive Committee consists of 55 members of whom 40 had been identified as communists. The first name mentioned is Mr Chris Hani, who received the most votes in the election for the NEC.

Mr Thabo Mbeki, member of the SACP Central Committee, received the second highest number of votes. Other names mentioned are Mr Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils, Jeremy Cronin, Raymond Sutner and Albie Sacks."

The following paragraph,

"the ANC also announced its shadow cabinet (for when it comes into power). Of the 26 members mentioned, 20 are SA Communist Party members. CODESA is also communist dominated",

says the article.

"The SA Communist Party is in control of the ANC representation at CODESA. Only two members are not communists. All of the CODESA work groups are controlled by communists."

Carry on the next paragraph Mr Chairman,

"thus the NP's assurances that they are not handing the country over to the SACP are ridiculous. The NP has had secret meetings with the ANC/SACP alliance about an interim government.

And then, the next page Mr Chairman, the second paragraph, the editorial again.

"The ANC has now become the Afrikaner's principle opposition. It is against the ANC/SACP that the Afrikaner must win his struggle."

Then page 28 Mr Chairman, I think it may be your page 27, the first paragraph starts with "terror and revolution", the headline, page 27, right.

"Terror and revolution, the headline",

this is in English incidentally Mr Chairman. I mention this, but I mention it because I want to bring it to your attention specifically.

The article describes how political violence is an intrinsic part of a Marxist/Leninist revolution. And how the ANC/SACP alliance is at the root of most of the violence in South Africa. Crime and terrorism have increased seven fold since the unbanning of the ANC/SACP and the government has released, I see it is R75-00 worth of terrorists, Mr Chairman, I think it must be

57 000 terrorists at the behest of the ANC.

Whites are coming increasingly, under attack. And then miss one paragraph, well we can read this next one, but I think the one after that is important, because once again it is the editorial and it is in Afrikaans.

And the headline was "The Basque of Africa".

"The bombs which partially destroyed the Hillview School and were placed there by CP MP Koos Botha, are a sign of things to come."

The editorial goes on to chronicle the sell-out by the NP and its refusal to have a Whites only election based on its plans for a new constitution and the emerging certainty of an ANC government.

The following paragraph,

"the ANC and the NP have thus created the situation for violence in South Africa. Afrikaner nationalist demands to the NP government, have been denied. Moderate Afrikaner moves towards violence, can now be expected.

The CP says no peace without freedom.

And then the next page Mr Chairman, half way down the page, commencing with "communism lives in South Africa", said Dr Treurnicht.

"It is everything except dead, he said. And one only had to look at the CODESA circus where Mr Chris Hani is acting on behalf of the SA Communist Party. Mr Hani had impudently demanded that the government should go. If communism is dead, how can the government negotiate with communists like Mr Hani?, asked Dr Treurnicht".

And over the page, the second paragraph, Patriot 5th of June 1992,

"A declaration of war against Whites, says Dr Treurnicht. CP leader, Dr A.P. Treurnicht, slams Mr Nelson Mandela's threats that Whites and White areas will be the targets of Black anger and violence.

Even Leftwing Whites see his remarks as not only a blatant threat, but as an incitement to violence. 'In practice, this is a declaration of war against Whites', said Dr Treurnicht".

Over the page Mr Chairman, the fifth paragraph Patriot 26th of June, 1992. The headline here, Mr Chairman, "Hani involve in ANC atrocities".

"Allegations of torture against their own people have been made by the Chairman of the Returned Exiles Coordinating Committee, Mr Mwesi Twala, who said that Mr Chris Hani, leader of the SA Communist Party did nothing about the torture of ANC prisoners in ANC camps outside South Africa, even though he saw it happening".

Next paragraph,

"In a letter to a Johannesburg paper, Mr Twala said Hani took pleasure in the inmates' pain and jeered and mocked them while they lay in prison cells.

According to Mr Twala, Hani was also present when seven people were executed in 1984. Twala accused the ANC leadership of collective responsibility for these deeds".

And over the page Mr Chairman, the third paragraph, Patriot 21st of August 1992 headline "take our ground, and we will fight", Hartzenberg.

"Dr Hartzenberg said that there is little hope that the ANC/SACP alliance solution for South Africa, will work. On the contrary the CP will strive to see that they don't come to power".

The next paragraph, the headline "we must mobilise on all fronts - Treurnicht." He said that -

"We were now in a revolution and that all possible provisions should be made in case an ANC/SACP alliance takes any unprecedented actions. Whites cannot wait until the revolution has come into power and then hope that they will protect our rights".

We must mobilise now, said Dr Treurnicht. Over two pages Mr Chairman, top of the page, the headline -

"Mandela will long for Robben Island - Hartzenberg.

Mr Nelson Mandela will long for Robben Island if he becomes the leader of a so-called unitary South Africa. 'You and your ANC/SACP terrorists, against our soft targets, our women and children, we will take you' said Dr Hartzenberg."

And then the third paragraph Mr Chairman, and I am really sorry that certain people find this amusing, because the whole war was a tragedy. Mr Chairman, the third paragraph "People's army", Mr Chairman,

"....is necessary to protect our people from an ANC take-over, said delegates at the CP Cape Congress. Dr Willie Snyman, MP for Pietersburg said that all over South Africa it was known that the NP had thrown in the towel to the terrorists."

Then a report in English ...

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may this be an appropriate time to adjourn, I see it is eleven o'clock at this stage, take a tea adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn at quarter past eleven.

MR PRINSLOO: Quarter past, I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Then the next paragraph, paragraph 4 on that same page. The headline "other methods of struggle", this was in English as I mentioned.

"Dr T addressing the Cape meeting, Dr Treurnicht said that the CP was not limited to only Parliamentary or ordinary party organisational activities but would have to think of other methods of struggle",

this was September 1992, Mr Chairman.

"Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg said that the day would come when the CP would have to use any method to maintain the freedom of its people. A regular political process was a thing of the past, he said.

He declared war on the ANC".

Then the next two paragraphs down, the editorial again Mr Chairman.

"The CP is on record as stating through the words of Dr Hartzenberg that the Party will disrupt a unitary State if it comes into being.

Whites will not have a chance in a countrywide election. The CP will go ahead to mobilise Whites, to fight for their own country".

Over the page, another page Mr Chairman, two pages, sorry, Patriot, 9th of October, 1992, is the reference on the top of the page, but then I am coming down to the middle and the report is in English again.

"In answer to a question at the recent CP Transvaal Congress, as to when the cut off point, the point when the constitutional option was closed and when other methods would be used to regain our freedom, would arrive, Dr Hartzenberg said that the introduction of an interim government is tantamount to a declaration of war against us.

When our Parliament is taken away from us, when there is no constitutional vehicle through which we can demand our freedom, then we must turn to other methods of resistance."

He said the CP was not going to put all its cards on the public table.

Over the page, two pages Mr Chairman, the second paragraph, the initial sentence on that page is and it is only a small portion of the page used, "for us shall be a power grab by way of war".

The paragraph, the second paragraph,

"The CP cannot give an undertaking that the party will not go over to an armed struggle," - Dr Hartzenberg. The CP will never serve under Mandela, he said. The ANC offers communism and socialism which is not acceptable".

Then the next page Mr Chairman, under an article with the headline "F.W.'s red conspiracy". The second paragraph, it was reporting Dr Treurnicht's speech in Parliament.

"Mr De Klerk's capitulation by way of an interim government or a transitional Executive Council is in line with communist revolutionary practices".

He compared the loss of power of Tsar Nicholas II in Russia through the formation of an interim government formed solely as a temporary government.

That interim government then allowed people like Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin to return to Russia.

Then the bottom page, point 7, second from the bottom.

"The power block is on the rise against the government, Dr Treurnicht, headline",

this was dated the 12th of February 1993, Mr Chairman.

And then the following paragraph,

"Armed struggle would come if elections not held",

headline.

"The Conservative Party will have no option but to call its people to an armed struggle of resistance if the ANC is going to play a dominant role in creating a new constitution without White voters having an election on this matter, said Dr Willie Snyman",

over the page, MP for Pietersburg in Parliament.

"This armed struggle could even eventuate in a military type struggle. Dr Snyman said he was speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party of South Africa."

Then paragraph 10, the third paragraph in English, this article shows how the government's Intelligence Service revealed the existence of a revolutionary war plan of the ANC which planned to bring down the SA government by 1994, Mr Chairman, after so-called peace was declared in 1990.

The article refers to various ANC documents and congress decisions where the transfer of power to themselves is outlined and the methods to obtain this, are noted.

Then point 13, the Patriot of the 26th of February, the headline "comrades in the cabinet". This article discusses members of the SA Communist Party who are likely to be part of the new cabinet.

And then point 15, articles on two pages outlining how the SA Communist Party and MK will take over the SA Defence Force.

And point 16, the full page editorial states that it is time all conservatives mobilised against the enemy. This I think was indicative of the fear which existed in the ranks of the Conservative Party and the Right, Mr Chairman.

And then the bottom, the Patriot of the 5th of march 1993, "self-determination for the Afrikaner people otherwise a civil war", this was the front page headline of the newspaper. Over the page, continued, this was said in Parliament by CP MP for Rosberg, Prof Fanie Jacobs.

"He reacted on behalf of the CP to the NP's coming negotiations with the ANC. The CP will never endorse the secret negotiations between the NP and the ANC, he said."

He referred to the war in Yugoslavia which has occurred because people were not given ethnic self-determination.

Then the following paragraph Mr Chairman, headline "Hani to follow Mandela".

"The SA Communist Party says in its policy document that Mr Nelson Mandela must be kept in the foreground until the time is ripe to 'get rid of him'.

He must be replaced by Mr Chris Hani, who will become the first Black President of South Africa. "

And then point 22, just further down on the page Mr Chairman, "a Volks army for the CP", headline, a people's army for the CP.

"Dr Willie Snyman, CP MP for Pietersburg, who Mr Chairman was the spokesman on defence at that stage, said that a volks army would be created if the government allowed communists to take over the South African Defence Force."

And then the second last paragraph, headline "the CP will stop an open election".

"Last Saturday the Conservative Party brought its mobilisation action onto a national level and chose the Executive leaders of its freedom council. Dr Hartzenberg outlined how the government had agreed to an interim government with the ANC and that this is not acceptable to the CP and to the majority of Whites.

The CP by way of its mobilisation action, will make sure that a one man, one vote election is stopped."

The next paragraph,

"The idea of a Volksfront against the ANC is being discussed between conservative leaders. A concerted people's action must be built up."

Next paragraph, headline "it is now war". This describes an article, and that was the 19th of March still, Mr Chairman. This describes an article from the conservative publication "Bybel en Volk",

"The De Klerk administration has declared war on the Afrikaner volk.

This year we must face some hard charges."

And then Mr Chairman, I wish to draw your attention to a typing error on the fourth paragraph, it refers to a report in the Patriot of the 26th of March 1993, not 1996, and it says, reads as follows the headline "mobilise against NP/ANC/SACP".

"The CP this week put its mobilisation action into gear in order that the ANC/SACP's revolutionary plans to make the country ungovernable, can be resisted.

Dr Treurnicht said without ambiguity that communism in South Africa is very much alive and that the CP's mobilisation against the ANC/SACP/APLA challenge, will be coordinated and will involve resistance where necessary for freedom, volk and fatherland".

He quoted an ANC spokesman who said "for communists, even peace is war. Negotiations is war." Continue the next quote:-

"Do the Mandelas, Hanis, Tambos, Ronnie Kasrils and the Ramaphosas think that they can continue with their plans without resistance, said Dr Treurnicht."

Further on Mr Chairman at the bottom of the page, headline "war threatens, where will it end?", that is the 2nd of April 1993.

"The SA Defence Force and the SA Police are now being mobilised to confront the murder, violence and threats of war against Whites by APLA and the ANC's military wing, MK."

Mr Chairman, I think that I have quoted sufficiently from that document and I think I have proved my point that there was a lot which created the climate in which the deed which we are discussing, took place, which was reported not by my wife as is alleged, but was reported by various members of the journalistic staff employed by the Patriot newspaper which was in fact the mouthpiece of the Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may this be an appropriate stage to adjourn?

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a short adjournment now, and we will resume in 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to carry on?

MR PRINSLOO: I ask for a moment's indulgence Mr Chair. Mr Chairman, this is the document that the applicant left in the consulting rooms. The Attorney is just going to get it. It will be relevant to what I am going to put to the Committee, thank you for your indulgence Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Derby-Lewis, have you finished with this Exhibit B, the bundle B?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may the applicant just fetch the documents, he knows where it is, thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Excuse me.

CHAIRPERSON: We want to start again.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, you have already testified with regard to the CP, that is the Conservative Party's mobilisation plan. Is that right?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, when was this announced Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, this was announced in August 1992 and I think if we can just have a moment's adjournment for you, we can supply the Committee with the documentation so that they have it before them.

MR PRINSLOO: We can just distribute the document Mr Chairman, if someone could just pick it up. There is seven copies which the applicant will refer to.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there a particular heading that you wish to put on this document Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it is marked here Bundle C and the heading is "Mobilisation", Mr Chairman, which is on the front page.

CHAIRPERSON: ... so many bundles.

JUDGE WILSON: We've got another bundle C, the one we were given yesterday.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, this is CA, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, it is bundle C, and marked A, I beg your pardon.

JUDGE WILSON: CA?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Because somebody has put A3 onto it, when it was given to us..

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that would make it easier for record purposes Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: It would make it more simplistic, I think refer to it as A3.

JUDGE WILSON: A3?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Derby-Lewis, I will just repeat the question again. The Conservative Party issued a plan which is referred to as a mobilisation plan?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Who announced or initiated this idea?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it was initiated by the Conservative Party itself Mr Chairman and it was discussed and confirmed at a special congress which was held in Kimberley in August 1982.

As you will see, the first, ...

MR PRINSLOO: The date was?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: August 1982, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: 1992 or 1982?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, 1992, sorry. And you will see from the bundle which we have provided Mr Chairman, that the first newspaper from the Patriot refers to CP to mobilise on all fronts after unanimous decision to ratify the CP proposals on territory and stated at last week's special Kimberley congress, the Party has set out guidelines to mobilise our people to fight for their freedom and the right to govern themselves.

Then they go on to say in the third paragraph Mr Chairman, there are only three courses open to a people who wish to retain their freedom. The polling booth, through negotiations or by way of a freedom struggle which includes both passive and active resistance.

Then it reports further Mr Chairman that there were various functions and rallies planned and the purpose of the rallies was to mobilise our people and to inspire them to fight for their heritage and their traditions.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, what did you understand by the term "mobilisation" and this decision taken by the Conservative Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, as a military man and I was very deeply involved in the military, mobilisation only means one thing, and that is you get ready for war.

I had already seen the situation develop Mr Chairman, as I motivated earlier, that the constitutional route had been closed, the CP refused to negotiate with the ANC and the SACP and my assessment of the situation was that now we were actually ready for war, to carry out the objectives set by the late Dr Treurnicht when he called us up to the third freedom struggle on the 26th of May 1990.

MR PRINSLOO: Continue Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the second clipping the headline was "mobilise now for survival", Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg. Then there was a report in the Citizen, CP mobilisation could include armed forces and then it quoted CP sources yesterday saying the Party had been planning its own armed group for some time.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, in as far as this mobilisation was concerned, what groups or groupings if any, would it comprise?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I think I must first of all refer to the information provided on page 5 of the bundle, which is actually entitled "mobilisation manual".

Five paragraphs down, it is stated in this manual that there are only three ways in which a people can obtain its freedom. One, at the polls, as I mentioned, two by negotiation or three, by a freedom struggle.

And as I have already confirmed Mr Chairman, those first two options were no longer available to us, even at the time when we entered this mobilisation period.

Mr Chairman, I think that it is also apt to mention at this time that although you will see nothing in this mobilisation manual itself, specifically committing the mobilisation to war, I want to just focus your attention on a previous extract from the newspaper which I quoted, which reported Dr Hartzenberg as saying that the introduction of an interim government, is tantamount to a declaration of war against us, and then he further said the CP was not going to put all its cards on the public table.

There was no doubt in my mind Mr Chairman, that the approval of this mobilisation programme although it didn't spell it out, was certainly preparation for warfare.

I think that I must also mention after those three ways, the second paragraph, the last sentence Mr Chairman, where congress, the members who attended the congress were told or asked to remember the prize which victory brings is freedom in our own fatherland.

If one looks, if one examines the various structures Mr Chairman, it is quite clear that the Party was calling on its members and its supporters to mobilise in all aspects of samelewing, the co-existence. It refers to religion, agriculture, education, trade unions, and then a whole list factories, building industry, mines, transport, electricity supply, local government matters, post and telecommunications, security, local government, the youth, culture and the arts, the ladies, health, media, central State departments, academics, engineers and scientists, the legal profession, pensioners, sport, and business.

Mr Chairman, broader than that in terms of mobilisation, I don't think you will ever find. I don't want to unnecessarily stress various things, and I don't want to burden the Committee with a lot of waffle, I know that we have already given a lot of information Mr Chairman, which we considered necessary, but even part of the mobilisation council, we had a freedom council, the leader of the mobilisation council was a military General, a retired military General, and this to me accentuated the fact that this was going to be a military operation, no matter what it looked like on paper.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis, do I understand you to say that this document itself, if you go through it, it does not say so in so many words, that this was to be a military operation of some kind and you come to that conclusion firstly on the basis of your personal assessment of the plan as a military person and secondly with reference to the speeches that from time to time, had been made by people like Dr Hartzenberg?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman. In fact that is why I unfortunately had to burden the Committee with so many references to speeches, because it was from these speeches, I was trying to make clear the fact that the climate was building up to a situation of warfare, and in a wartime situation people act differently from what they act under normal circumstances.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It is clearly your personal assessment of this plan to say that it was to be a military operation?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, besides my own personal assessment, many people within the Conservative Party with whom I discussed this whole mobilisation, were under a similar perception. They believed that we were getting ready to fight.

Dr Treurnicht had called us up to the third freedom struggle, Mr Chairman, which in terms of Afrikaner history only means one thing. The first freedom struggle took place in 1881 when the Afrikaners, the boere rose up against the British after they had illegally occupied the country in 1877 and they defeated them at the battle in Majuba, an actual war action. That was the first freedom struggle.

The second freedom struggle in Afrikaner history Mr Chairman, refers to the 1899/1902 conflict. That was a war.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I appreciate that, but at the same time you have gone far outside the parameters of this document as I look at it, on the face of it. On the face of it, it does not give any indication that this was to be a military operation. On the face of it.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I draw my learned friend's attention to the last paragraph, main paragraph 1 on page 5 which starts off "meanwhile all Right-minded patriots have to urgently mobilise to favourably influence negotiations for our freedom and if necessary to conduct a freedom struggle."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman, I think that clarifies it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Are you saying that a freedom struggle in this context invariably and can only mean a military operation, is that what you are saying?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is what I am saying Mr Chairman. The first freedom struggle was a military operation, the second freedom struggle was a military operation.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But you aren't suggesting that throughout your evidence, whenever you speak of freedom struggle you are referring to military operations, are you saying that? Are you saying that at all times, through your evidence, whenever you refer to a freedom struggle, we must at all times understand you to be referring to a military operation, is that what you are saying?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, what I tried to do, to achieve with my presentation before this, was to create the climate of a military situation developing, a wartime situation developing.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am concerned, Mr Derby-Lewis, I am concerned about, I am not worried about that, I am just worried about whether you are giving a fair evaluation of this document by simply looking at it and saying well, this was a military operation.

I am trying to find out whether that is a fair assessment and construction of this document.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. Well, as I explained Mr Chairman, with my military background, I only see this document as a mobilisation for war, which is indirectly a military operation. When you mobilise for war, it is military.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And somebody may see it differently?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Somebody may see it differently.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But in view of the climate which existed, may people saw it the same way as I do.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Proceed, I appreciate your point.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: But in addition Mr Derby-Lewis, just before you continue, how are we to understand the penultimate paragraph on page 3 "additional mobilisation structure"?

CHAIRPERSON: I have it Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: It says it has to be stressed that obtaining another White election or success at the negotiating table will largely depend on the effective functioning of this additional structure.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, it says that Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, now how are we to understand, how are we to interpret this section in the light of your suggestion that what this manual really calls for is military action?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I believe Mr Chairman, that a possible reason for this and I, you know this is only my personal opinion, but a possible reason for the inclusion of this was to ensure that not everybody just goes off on their own thing and start shooting at people. I think they were trying to introduce an element of control to avoid that situation happening.

ADV POTGIETER: No, but you see, doesn't this indicate that obtaining a general election for Whites or being successful at the negotiating table is still very much still envisaged in this manual?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, let me tell you that at this stage we knew that there was no possibility of a White general election.

ADV POTGIETER: But what was the sense of putting this into the document then?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, that is why I say I think it was done to make sure that people didn't start operating like loose canons and doing their own thing all over. Because already you had a situation, if I can just refresh, return your attention to Addendum A, Mr Chairman, where we had all of those incidents of violence and bombing and so on, in spite of the fact that the CP hadn't officially declared war on anybody at that stage.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, in as far as this mobilisation plan is concerned, what role did you play in it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Chairman, as can be seen from document on page 10, Derby-Lewis Municipal by-election visiting cards, I was busy with a municipal by-election, but in addition to this, if you go to page 4 Mr Chairman, you will see that I actually sent out a circular to everyone in Krugersdorp as the mobilisation leader of the Krugersdorp mobilisation action, which was my capacity in this case, where I state that our future will depend on the extent to which we achieve a state of readiness for any eventuality over the next few months.

Besides being prepared as far as security is concerned, we must also be prepared politically and with this in mind, we must ensure that each resident is registered as a voter at his/her present place of residence. And then it goes on to motivate that.

Because besides this Mr Chairman, I had information of a pending municipal by-election. I included registration cards so that the people could use this as a part of the mobilisation action and prepare themselves politically.

If you go to the, Mr Chairman, to the last two pages, the attachment these were forms which had to be completed by people in respect of the mobilisation in Krugersdorp, the second one, the very back page, is one which is in English for your convenience and it is addressed to everybody in Krugersdorp, regardless of their political affiliations or whatever and it states the moment of truth is upon us.

APLA terrorists have openly declared war against Whites. The armed wing of the ANC, Umkhonto weSizwe, has been waging a mau-mau type of warfare against the elderly, women and children, since the unbanning of ANC/SACP and the PAC on the 2nd of February 1990.

Since the release of tens of thousands of criminals, the return of thousands of trained ANC/SACP/PAC terrorists and the suspension of the death penalty, the crime rate has escalated to almost anarchical proportions.

In November 1990 at a seminar organised by the Human Sciences Research Council, alarm was expressed over the fact that South Africa's crime rate was approaching a crime a minute level with 400 000 crimes committed every year. And it goes on with the offences Mr Chairman, I don't intend repeating that.

And then it says here in a judgement on the 28th of February 1992 Justice Therion had the following to say "at the last election Minnie Mouse politicians promised a new South Africa, instead they have taken the old South Africa with all of its faults and have turned it into an incubator of political intrigue, violence and lawlessness."

Then it goes on to say Mr Chairman, the time has come for us to organise our own security at local level. To facilitate the matter, I have enclosed herewith a form for your urgent completion. And this was distributed by the particular homeguard coordinator, whose name and address is provided on the form, Mr Chairman, and I can assure you I have received hundreds of these forms completed and if you have a look at the questionnaire itself, after the personal details, regarding the family residence at a certain place, the first question is "weaponry - is your family armed? Yes/No - delete where necessary".

"Are all familiar with the use?" No. "Are any members interested in receiving self-defence training?" Yes. "If so, please give their names, so and so". Then the next question Mr Chairman, "do any members of the family have a military or emergency service obligations?"

I think it was clear from that form as to what the general trend of the mobilisation was. And this was an approved form which was produced by the CP in Krugersdorp Mr Chairman. Those telephone numbers which are reflected there, were actually the CP's numbers as well as my own, personal number and the personal telephone number of the Chairman of the Conservative Party in the Krugersdorp constituency.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, were people trained as far as military is concerned?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I personally assisted in terms of the training of people in self-defence. In Krugersdorp when I was there, because at this stage Mr Chairman, I was a member of the President's Council and I found myself in the situation where I was spending two weeks of my life in Krugersdorp and then having to go down to Cape Town, to spend two weeks of my life down there.

So instead of standing idle down in the Cape, I also introduced and effected self-defence training in Cape Town, so that on the weekends, when I had a bit of spare time, this was what people were assisted with.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, were any use made of people from the AWB in as far as providing training was concerned?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman. In Cape Town, the man who coordinated the training and gave us an excellent form of training, was a gentleman by the name of Keith Conroy who was a prominent member of the, I think it was the Ystergarde of (indistinct), one of their military organisations within the AWB.

MR PRINSLOO: Did members of the AWB and other Right organisations take part in this mobilisation?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, certainly Mr Chairman and this is borne out by the fact and I want to refer back to the incident which occurred in Krugersdorp when we stopped the ANC from marching through the town.

We used mobilisation structures to contact all of these people and they came very quickly, at very short notice.

MR PRINSLOO: The organisation "Boere Krisis Aksie", did they take part in this plan or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, members of all organisations on the Right, were involved. In our grouping there were farmers who I assume were members of the Boere Krisis Aksie as well, because that was an organisation which was as far as I know, aimed at militarily protecting the farms and residences of the farming community and people will remember that the Boere Krisis Aksie was already in operation in 1992 when they carried out the siege of Pretoria and caused a lot of attention to be focused on their activities.

MR PRINSLOO: And as far as the BWB is concerned, the Boere Weerstandsbeweging?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I can assure you that there were members from a broad spectrum. But we didn't ask people what organisations they belonged to.

We were grateful for everybody's help.

MR PRINSLOO: Is there anything else you would want to refer the Commission to as far as this document A2 is concerned?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, yes, certainly Mr Chairman. I think if you have a look at item 12, the Natal mobilisation action, they were also actively involved.

And there were various actions which were running concurrently with this mobilisation. For example Mr Chairman, on item 11, which is a copy of a memorandum which I sent to the CP planning committee on Natal in September 1992, I actually drew their attention to the fact that the Transvaal Congress the following motion was put before the Congress: Congress discussed ways and means of determining the wishes of Whites outside the constituencies which the CP now holds in terms of Article 27, paragraph (n) of the General Council's Recommendations which were accepted at the Kimberley special congress.

This was in terms of constitutional development Mr Chairman, and my suggestion was that in urban constituencies where we have no member of Parliament, we undertake a survey of say every fifth house along the lines of the attached survey sheet which is used there and which was used in Natal Mr Chairman, which you will see from the next item, now being used in parts of Durban.

The rural areas of Natal have already been surveyed along other lines and a copy of the survey sheet will be faxed to us tomorrow. That survey sheet Mr Chairman, is item - well it is part of item 12, which is all of the various documentation from for example J.H. Mushman, who was Chairman of the (indistinct) CP branch, he was also a member of the Natal Executive.

Then there was this form that had to be completed, then the one about the land for White freedom, the land for KwaZulu, the land for the new South Africa, in other words, they were asking farmers to indicate that should we be able to negotiate a territory or organise a territory for the Afrikaner self-determination to be exercised, that they must indicate whether they wanted their farms included in that territory.

The OFS had decided on their own to undertake referenda to determine the opinion of people and the leader of the CP in the Free State was involved with that. During 1990, the Transvaal rural areas were surveyed by the farming community and the result was that 96 percent of those farmers said they wanted to be in a White State.

In the Cape, certain towns have already held referenda under the auspices of the CP and the results can be ascertained through Mr Jan Hoon. The Cape farming community should be polled individually on the same basis as is now being done in Natal.

So, what we were doing Mr Chairman, besides preparing for war and besides organising our people and mobilising them in every area, we were also starting to identify the territory which we were going to claim as the territory which belonged to the Afrikaner.

I think Mr Chairman, that I must go back to item 7 which was the address by Dr Treurnicht at the launching of the CP's mobilisation campaign which states as follows:

communism in South Africa is alive and well and the mobilisation will oppose the blatant challenge of the ANC/SACP/APLA through coordinated action and resistance where necessary in the interest of our freedom, our people and our country.

He quoted the quotation which I mentioned earlier for communists even peace is war, negotiations is a site for the struggle, negotiations is war and of course, war is war.

Dr Treurnicht's reaction to this statement was as follows:

"Do the Mandelas, Hanis, Tambos, Ronnie Kasrils, and the Ramaphosas think they will be able to carry out their plans without resistance? If they believe that they can paralyse this country and make it ungovernable, do they think that there is no possibility of a counter strategy?"

We can also say the following "those who live by the sword, must beware that they do not die by the sword".

In my opinion Mr Chairman, this statement clearly encourages an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth type of resistance to the ANC/SACP alliance.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, insofar as the reference pertaining to the CP recreation is concerned, will you address the meeting as far as that is concerned?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly Mr Chairman. I wish to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the CP is not individuals, the CP is an organisation which is governed by a programme of principles and a constitution which initially was composed and was confirmed and approved at a full congress of the Conservative Party.

Unfortunately Mr Chairman, I do not have a copy of the programme of Principles and Constitution for everyone, I only have this one which I had with me in prison, but I would just like to quote an extract from here as far as disciplinary action is concerned, in terms of how the CP would then repudiate somebody with whom they disagreed.

The following people and instances have the authority to apply discipline and punishment measures. The first one is the leader of the Conservative Party. He is in fact Mr Chairman, the only individual who can profess to speak on behalf of the CP in matters of this nature.

And otherwise a General Congress has to do it, the General Council can do it in certain areas, the Executive of the General Council can do it in certain areas, the Provincial Congress under certain conditions, the Provincial Party Councils under certain conditions. The Executives of Party Councils in certain circumstances. Constituency Councils in certain circumstances. The Executive of a Constituency Council, branch Executives, but as I mentioned first of all Mr Chairman, no individual other than the Conservative Party, can take any type of disciplinary action against another member of the Conservative Party on his own without it being confirmed by one of these bodies, and that is why I said yesterday that I have not been repudiated by the CP in any situation.

I think that it is also necessary Mr Chairman, to draw your attention to the statements which were issued officially on behalf of the CP. On the 10th of April 1993, it is very brief Mr Chairman, and I don't think, if you want a copy, we can make the copy available, but you will see it is very brief - the subject the death of Chris Hani.

"I have been advised this afternoon of the death of Mr Chris Hani this morning, in a shooting incident. At this stage I do not have full information regarding the incident and it is unclear what the motive of the incident was. We will be watching the investigation with interest." That was the Conservative Party's spokesman on Justice on behalf of the Conservative Party and in his capacity.

MR PRINSLOO: The name of the member?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Chairman, the name of the Conservative Party was the Member of Parliament for Roodepoort at that stage, Mr J.J.S. Prinsloo.

As I said it was issued on the 10th of April and it was issued in his capacity on behalf of the CP, MP of the CP and spokesman on Justice.

Then Mr Chairman, there is a quotation here in the Rapport newspaper, the 18th of the 4th, '93, that was the day after my arrest.

"Dr Pieter Mulder, Member of Parliament for Schweizer-Reneke and the CP's official spokesman as Chief of Information, yesterday said that he cannot yet react because he doesn't know whether Mr Derby-Lewis has been taken into custody on a charge or not, or whether he is just being held for questioning."

Then it is very interesting Mr Chairman, we have two versions of a statement, credited to Mr Tom Langley. The first version was reported in English and which says the following. This is the journalist now saying the Conservative Party also condemned the killing.

"We must renounce violence, whatever side of the political spectrum it hits".

said CP spokesman Thomas Langley.

"If there is one thing that must arise from Mr Hani's death, it is a further emphasis on the consequences of violence."

But the Afrikaans version, reported on the 11th of the 4th in the Rapport Mr Chairman, and I am quite sure that Mr Langley would have issued the statement in Afrikaans, there is no comment here about the CP condemning the killing. All that it says is -

"The Conservative Party's Chief negotiator, which gives him no capacity to speak on behalf of the CP, Mr Tom Langley has said that he is convinced that he would speak on behalf of his Party and his leader if he indicates that the position of the CP with regard to violence, is widely known. There should be stronger action against it".

That was his statement Mr Chairman. And as I said, if you recall the information I provided you from the constitution and the programme of Principles of the Conservative Party, no individual has the right to present himself as speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party in terms of disciplinary actions which would be necessary in a situation like this, and I can tell you Mr Chairman, that it is now 1997, I have never, at any time, received notification of any disciplinary action that was taken against me by the Conservative Party, either at branch or a constituency or a Province or the General Council Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis, may I interpose. Has that document been discovered the one dealing with the disciplinary actions?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Has the document dealing with the disciplinary action been discovered, is it forming part of your bundles?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, it hasn't been discovered Mr Chairman, as I explained before I started quoting from this, I only have the one copy, but if you wish, I can provide you with a copy of the relevant information regarding the carrying out of disciplinary measures, if you desire so.

MS KHAMPEPE: We would appreciate one.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, with pleasure. Then Mr Chairman, and I must tell you that after I was arrested, I received so many visits, so many letters, so many messages of support, that I was overwhelmed.

I couldn't reply to the volume of letters which I received, and I am sincerely sorry, even to this day, that I couldn't, I tried at the beginning to write back and thank the people, but eventually it became impossible Mr Chairman.

The support which I received from the Conservative Party was most gratifying. I want to refer you to a report which will indicate what I am saying, is true. On the 3rd of October 1993, Mr Chairman, where it was reported here, sorry in the Rapport newspaper I think, yes Rapport, the journalist Z.B. du Toit and the paragraph reads as follows, and I will read it particularly slowly so that the translation can come through Mr Chairman:

"The Rightwing has thus far made no secret of their strong sympathy with the accused. In an unprecedented step legal costs are also being raised, funding for legal costs are being raised. Calls to contribute to this Trust Fund or this Fund, has been made on regular occasions during past moths at Rightwing gatherings, amongst others at congresses of... (tape ends) ... people on the Right already, after it had become clear that the Derby-Lewis couple would not have sufficient funds for the legal costs. The CP MP for Roodeplaat, Mr Daan du Plessis, is the Chair of the efforts to raise this funding."

Does that sound like repudiation or does that sound like it was obvious to these people that I was acting on behalf of the CP when it happened and that I was acting in support of the CP when it happened?

Very clearly Mr Chairman, and even until today Mr Chairman, had it not been for restrictions placed on my visits after the death penalty was abolished and we were all left in limbo in which we still are in today, where we are not sentenced to death anymore, but we are not sentenced to anything else, so we can't do anything constructive while we are in prison, we have to sit and try and occupy ourselves with keeping busy with studies or hobbies or something like that, instead of making a constructive contribution towards our own well-being through generating some form of income in the prison, we are still sentenced to death Mr Chairman, but what happened was when the death penalty was removed, at that stage, we were as people condemned to death, entitled to unlimited visits and I had visits, and visits, and visits.

Then the constitutional court declared that the death penalty was no longer constitutional so they removed the death penalty and with the removal of the death penalty, they removed our benefits but gave us nothing in return. We then went to a situation where we were allowed 48 visits each of a duration of 40 minutes per year.

Which doesn't even work out Mr Chairman, to one visit per month and in those 40 minutes, yes Mr Chairman ..

JUDGE WILSON: 48 a year you say doesn't work out to one a month?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No sir.

JUDGE WILSON: One a week?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Chairman, sorry, sorry. Sorry Mr Chairman, I stand corrected, that is what I wanted to say. I feel so strongly about this Mr Chairman, and fortunately the situation is now being remedied, but it took us a long time to effect that.

And I found myself in the situation then Mr Chairman, where I had numerous people who wanted to come and visit me, but had to be included in that 40 minute visit, less than one a week.

And I was allowed a maximum of 5 people for 40 minutes. And I can assure you Mr Chairman, that to visit with your loved ones and I have a wife and I have two children and a son-in-law and his fiancée, that takes up the five people Mr Chairman, and that gives me less than one visit a week with them, in order to continue meaningful contact only with my family.

But now as I said, that situation has from the 1st of August been remedied by the present Head of the Prison, Mr Saletwa, and I want to say here Mr Chairman, that we were extremely grateful to him and will always be grateful to him for that. That is really a meaningful improvement in our conditions in prison.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before you go on, do you know whether the Conservative Party reacted to the remarks attributed to Mr Tom Langley, do you know whether they repudiated him or in any way responded to his remarks?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't think, to the best of my knowledge, Mr Chairman, there was no response to his remarks, but then I must also say that I am not really in a position to comment on that, because I was placed under Article 29 detention, I had no access to newspapers, or radio reports or anything like that, I was totally isolated from outside.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Though it appears from the material that you submitted to us subsequently you did make some quite extensive research or collection of newspaper articles?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is correct to motivate my application, but to the best of my knowledge, he wasn't repudiated, but then why would they find it necessary to repudiate him? He didn't criticise me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I thought you criticised him.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't criticise him Mr Chairman. I just said he was making a statement which he intimated was on behalf of the CP, which he had in terms of the constitution ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: You said he didn't have the authority to.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

JUDGE NGOEPE: You said he didn't have the authority to do that statement.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I said he didn't have the authority yes, but that is a comment, that is not, I am stating a fact.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, that is what I mean. I wanted to know whether they repudiated him for having made a statement which you say he didn't have the authority to do.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't see any reason for the CP repudiating him for making that statement because it was a harmless statement and it wasn't criticising me personally. If Mr Chairman, he had criticised me personally and I became aware of that, I would then have lodged a complaint against him at the Council, but there was no need for that because he didn't personally criticise me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why do you say that, why do you say you don't see any reason for them to do that, if you say that he didn't have any authority to speak on their behalf? That is an organisation, it has got a constitution, you have told us the various authorities with certain powers and then somebody goes to speak on the press and you say he didn't have any authority, why do you say you don't see any reason why they would not repudiate him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, as I said, if it is decided that no harm was done, then it is such a minor matter that there was no reason to publicly repudiate him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It doesn't seem to be that minor. Any way, go on.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Then Mr Chairman, I also have a clipping here from, I am not sure what newspaper it is, the Sunday Star of the 17th of October 1993, shortly, less than 24 hours after my wife had been acquitted of the late Chris Hani's murder, the report says in the Sunday Star

"Gaye Derby-Lewis acquitted this week of Chris Hani's murder, was the idol of the Right yesterday at an emotional rally in Pretoria".

She is photographed on a platform together with the leader, the new leader of the CP at that stage, Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg and also by General Constand Viljoen, who was a co-leader with Dr Hartzenberg of the Afrikaner Volksfront.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you seen, we have been given a volume of press cuttings, have you seen it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Because I see that at the time it was alleged that the leader of the Conservative Party, Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg, said that the CP did not kill people.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, at the time of the late Mr Chris Hani's assassination, Dr Hartzenberg was not the leader of the CP. Dr Treurnicht was the leader of the CP at that stage.

JUDGE WILSON: Deputy, he was the Deputy leader.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman, but remember I drew your attention to the constitution that says only the leader can speak on his own on behalf of the CP and it be considered to be CP policy.

And then, sorry, if I can also say Mr Chairman, at that stage, there was doubt regarding the involvement of myself as well.

ADV POTGIETER: But was there a CP statement directly in support of you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the actions of the CP were all I needed to indicate their support of me.

ADV POTGIETER: So was there no report directly supporting you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, I have already mentioned the fact that they launched a special fund to support my case in court. That was official CP action that was approved at CP congresses as laid down by the constitution.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, but apart from the press release of Mr Knoetze, that you spoke about and Mr Tom Langley, apart from those two, one said that they are watching the investigation with interest, that is non-committal and Tom Langley said that the, taking the Rapport's article it says that the CP's view on violence is clear, stronger action should be taken against that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is right.

ADV POTGIETER: Now, apart from that, has there been any article where the CP in fact directly supported you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, at that time I wasn't, there was no charge laid against me, I was arrested and nobody knew what the details were, but when the Party became aware of the fact that I was charged for murder, they launched these actions.

I can go back and refer to all of the newspapers and the Congress documents and bring those to you where people called for support for me, if it is necessary, but I believe that the fact that they raised R100 000 in such a short time, Mr Chairman, I can assure you that the CP doesn't have access to big business for funds, then that Sir, what more indication of support does one need.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, but in the context of statements, that is the context that we speak about here? There has been none, or what?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, to me, deeds are more important than statements. Actions are more important then statements.

CHAIRPERSON: We have heard, you have been referring us to numerous extracts from press reports and so on and I think for the purpose of this question is, are you aware of a report in any article in any paper, which said that the CP condones or supports your action?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't say that Mr Chairman, I haven't launched such an investigation.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that is what ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And I haven't taken particular note of that either, I was only interested in what I experienced.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I think that it is then necessary if the Committee needs documentary proof of the support of the CP for me, then I am prepared to hand in this document which is under the official letterhead of the Conservative Party of South Africa, and it is headed "regshulpsfonds/legal aid fund - collection list/kollektelys".

"This list is for contributions towards the legal aid fund which has been created by the CP for Mr & Mrs Clive Derby-Lewis and other CP supporters who, for whatever reason may be charged and/or convicted in the defence of their fatherland."

And then underneath Mr Chairman, it is signed by my good friend, Councillor Willie Horn who was the Trustee of the legal aid fund and once again the official motto of the CP to show the reliability of the document was also included, mobilise for freedom, so it was an official document.

And as I say, if you require it Mr Chairman, I am prepared to let you have it, thank you.

And now Mr Chairman, I have a clipping here from the Citizen from the 19th of April 1993.

"Acting Conservative Party leader, Mr Ferdie Hartzenberg would not comment on Mr Derby-Lewis' arrest. He said it would be inappropriate as the matter was sub-judice. He was not in a position to respond to any questions as it was still unclear whether Mr Derby-Lewis had been arrested on a charge or just taken in for questioning."

Does the Committee require this document Mr Chairman? Then the Citizen clipping again, the 24th of the 4th, 1993. Headed "the struggle goes on, says Ferdie." It said here,

"In political circles yesterday it was said the CP faced three major issues at present, a new leader to succeed Dr Treurnicht, the negotiation process and the detention of Rightwingers following the assassination of ANC Secretary General,"

ANC, oh that is the media again,

"Mr Chris Hani. Asked if this did not cause a crisis within the CP, Dr Hartzenberg said he saw no tensions or problems arising within the Party on these issues. 'We are fighting for a cause and there are not differences within the Party on that cause or on the methods we are using in our struggle for self-determination. There is no semblance of a crisis within the CP', said Dr Hartzenberg".

I am quite prepared to make this document available if it is required Mr Chairman.

Then on 16th of May 1993 Mr Chairman, a report from the Rapport newspaper with the headline "It is Ferdie, KP verras met Snyman", announcement of the new leadership and then it says here,

"A combative Dr Hartzenberg was elected unanimously in place of Dr Andries Treurnicht and immediately gave this message to the world. He would rather lose his life, than to mar the freedom of his people. He will sacrifice all material things and if necessary and unavoidably blood."

Mr Chairman, I think I have covered the question of the CP support as fully as I can. If the Committee needs further information, I am quite happy to provide it and I will make these documents available to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, I have listened very, very carefully to all that has been said about what happened from 1990 onwards, what happened after the arrest. When are we going to deal with precisely what occurred at the time of the killing of Mr Hani and the role your client played in that? When are we going to deal with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, as we indicated this morning, we will require an adjournment in order to get the documentation and tapes which has already been referred to earlier. We want to put that as a whole in evidence of our client as we have indicated this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand you requiring your tapes, but surely Mr Derby-Lewis is he not prepared, is he not in a position to tell us what he did and what his participation was apart from whatever others may say?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he is prepared Mr Chairman, but the situation is the statements made available by Mr Bizos, which is apparent from what is indicated to us by the Committee, that it is relevant at this stage, the statements during the Section 29 detention, that we want to put that to the Commission as a whole, instead of him putting his evidence pertaining to that piece meal, because there is prejudice involved, and that is why we will ask the indulgence of the Committee.

JUDGE WILSON: He was asked, you were asked by the Chairman about how he came to kill Mr Hani. That he doesn't have to look at statements and things, does he?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct Mr Chairman, I am not suggesting that he must look at statements. We are saying that we want to present the case of the client, the applicant at least, as a whole and that pertains to those statements. He will make reference to those statements, because that is what appears from what the Committee has indicated, what is relevant, we have already indicated to the Committee earlier, the client was advised to the contrary and for that reason we will ask the Committee's indulgence. That is what we addressed the Committee about this morning, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other aspect of the matter on which Mr Derby-Lewis can give evidence at this stage?

MR PRINSLOO: It is one o'clock at this stage. We will ask for an adjournment and then we will ask your indulgence if he approached you in Chambers, and after we have consulted with our client in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: I know it is nearly one o'clock, but my question is are there no other matter or any other aspect of the matter on which he can give evidence at this stage?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I say something in relation to the matter?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: An application for amnesty has been filed. It is before you. Mr Derby-Lewis has set out in that application how he came to be involved in the murder of Mr Hani. Is he not prepared to say to the Committee at this stage, what he himself has said in that application, what is the problem about that?

He was quite happy to take us through the long history on the basis of what he had put to the Committee and introduced new material, he has put a document before this Committee which deals with the vital issues that the Committee is concerned with.

Is he not prepared to tell us that, or is he going to repudiate that? Are we not entitled to know whether this application for amnesty was an honest application or not and whether he is going to proceed with it? And if he is going to proceed with it, why can't he deal with that portion of the form in the application that he has made?

CHAIRPERSON: How would it prejudice your client Mr Prinsloo if that aspect of the evidence is led?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it will indeed, with respect, prejudice our client as the statements which the Committee is of the view, is relevant, contains the information fully described certain events in this issue, and our client has instructed us that he will deal with those statements and our problem is ...

CHAIRPERSON: I will like to take this down. Your client has instructed you to do what?

JUDGE WILSON: He will deal with those statements.

MR PRINSLOO: He will deal with the statements once we have had the statements Mr Chairman, and he will give his evidence as far as that is concerned. But in complete Mr Chairman and not in piece meal.

JUDGE WILSON: But you've had those statements since nine o'clock on Monday morning.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, if one looks, there is one statement which purports to be written by our client, the other documents there refers to tape recordings which is indeed with respect, not complete Mr Chairman. There are other documents which does not form part of the docket which you have indicated at various times to the Committee, with respect.

And it would appear that those documents were in possession of Mr Bizos, it doesn't form part of the docket and we are unable to make an assessment without going through those documents and then decide properly how to present them Mr Chairman, that is the problem that is presented to us.

We have advised our client at that stage, that the Section 29 detention period, is not relevant to this as we regarded it as being inadmissible. We have at this stage, up till now Mr Chairman, our client not prepared to make a statement with regard to Mr Hani's death. It is a matter of consulting him properly with regard to this documents. They are not complete.

And that is why I have taken the trouble to speak to Captain Holmes in order to obtain those tapes, I have asked Mr Bizos yesterday and he said he did not have them, that is why I went to the trouble this morning, to obtain them and Captain Holmes indicated he will have them at his office before lunch, which is today, together with the docket and other documents.

So I would respectfully request the Honourable Committee, to grant us the indulgence in order for us to approach Captain Holmes, which is now at the lunch adjournment and see what we can get from him and then report back to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, for how long do you want this adjournment Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, at this stage, it is about the lunch adjournment at one o'clock, we will approach Captain Holmes, if I can find him as soon as I can, it is difficult for me to say how long it will take to go through the documents and what he has got.

That is why I would like to suggest Mr Chairman, if we could get hold of Captain Holmes with the documents that he has got and tapes and then we will report back to the Committee at two o'clock.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am sure the Chairman will apply his mind to your request, but perhaps it should be stated Mr Prinsloo, that one would have thought that because your client is applying for amnesty in respect of a particular incident, he knows better than anyone else what the truth is, irrespective of what stands in the documents that you are complaining about, and secondly it must be remembered Mr Prinsloo that last time, two months ago, the family of the deceased made an application for a postponement.

That application was strenuously opposed by the applicants, and one would have thought that the implication was that you were prepared to proceed with the matter then and it is not easy to understand some of the problems that you have now.

If two months ago you were so prepared as to strenuously oppose an application for a postponement. I understand you with regard to the tapes and whatever, but it becomes difficult to understand if your client, as I say, better than anyone else knows exactly what happened with regard to the incident, irrespective of what stands in those cassettes.

The shadow of which in any event, you have in bundle R4?

JUDGE WILSON: If you do not want your client to commit himself in any way till you've seen the documents and you can advise him about it, surely he knows what happened, he can tell us.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, we are going to take, I realise the importance of all this to your client and to everybody else, we are going to take the adjournment at this stage and I hope when we resume, we will be able to make much more progress and I hope without too much delay.

I am now going to adjourn until two o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR PRINSLOO: As you please Mr Chairman, we are ready to proceed with our evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

CLIVE JOHN DERBY-LEWIS: (still under affirmation)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: (cont.)

Mr Derby-Lewis, in as far as the incident itself is concerned, pertaining to the application that you are making, the killing of Mr Hani, I would refer you to your application, will you please commence from what you've stated and what ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, if I may just before I do this. I wish to place something on record Mr Chairman, and that is that it will be recalled that when we tried to have the hearing some time back, I placed on record the fact that I was here for the truth.

During the course of preparation for this hearing, I was advised by my legal team that anything that occurred under Article 29 was in fact irrelevant and inadmissible.

Mr Chairman, the legislation as we all know, says that all relevant facts must be disclosed, it specifically states relevant facts. Yesterday Mr Chairman, I must admit, I got a terrible shock when I heard one of the members of the Committee indicate that the fact that I hadn't said anything about what had happened under Article 29 in my application, could render my application incomplete, in other words I wasn't making a full disclosure.

I realised then that I had been incorrectly advised and I really was in doubt regarding my position before the Committee. I want to state categorically Mr Chairman, that I have no hesitation whatsoever, in presenting my evidence. I apologise to the Committee for any misunderstanding or any wrong impression that may have been made that I was trying to avoid putting my case because of the appearance of Mr Bizos' documentation.

Nothing Mr Chairman, has changed since the 23rd of June 1997 and in fact nothing has changed since the date that I submitted my application. But I want to say again that this technical point raised by one of the members of the Committee really confused me, and I now have discussed the matter with my legal team and I have told them that I want to proceed with this application as quickly as possible. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Sorry Mr Chairman, could I just ask for that last question to be repeated?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, will you now please revert to your application in as far as the commencement of the planning with regard to the killing of Mr Hani? (laughter by the audience) My apologies to the applicant.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can share that amusement Mr Chairman. Do I understand that we are now commencing on page 15 of my application with the various questions?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right Mr Chairman, the first question asks whether I was or am an office bearer, member, supporter of any political organisation or liberation movement, yes, I am, I am a member of the Conservative Party of South Africa.

The capacity in which I serve the organisation Mr Chairman, I was a founder member of the Conservative Party and served on the General, the National Council, on the Transvaal Executive and on the Information and Finance Committees.

If I was an officer, employer of the State or any former State, Mr Chairman, to make sure that there is no confusion, I state the following: I represented the National Party in the Provincial Council from the 30th of November 1977 to the 26th of April 1981.

I was nominated by the Conservative Party as a member of Parliament after the May 1987 General Election. I remained a member of Parliament for two years plus, two and a half years in fact, until September 1989 when I was appointed to the President's Council as a CP representative.

I remained a CP representative on the President's Council until its disbandment on the 30th of June 1993, from the 6th of May 1987 to the 30th of June 1993 I was paid by the State. I was a member of the Citizen Force form the 1st of January 1955 to the 31st of December 1973, attaining the rank of Commandant or the present nomination Mr Chairman, Lieutenant Colonel. This was a voluntarily service for which I was not paid.

As far as 8(b) is concerned, I have already covered that question Mr Chairman. 9(a), the particulars of the act, on the 15th of October 1993 I was found guilty on charges of murder and of possession of an illegal firearm and ammunition.

The dates, the commission of the assassination at which I was not present, took place on the 10th of April, 1993. From the 17th of March 1993 to the 6th of April 1993, I was in possession of an illegal firearm and from the 24th of March 1993 to the 6th of April 1993, I was in possession of a silencer and subsonic ammunition.

I understand Mr Chairman, that the possession of a silencer is not illegal. The place Mr Chairman where the illegal firearm was stored, between the above dates, at 18 Wolkberg Street, Krugersdorp, apart from a period of two weeks when I was in Cape Town, attending a session of the President's Council.

Nature and particulars Mr Chairman. With his speech on the 2nd of February 1990, when he announced the unbanning of not only the ANC but also the SA Communist Party, it became obvious to many people, myself included, that Mr F.W. de Klerk and his colleagues, were preparing to betray us all.

Although alarmed at the prospect, excuse me, we on the Right of the political spectrum in South Africa, were not too concerned as we knew that we were rapidly approaching the point where we would be in a position to take over the control of the government and could then stop the betrayal.

Each and every by-election held Mr Chairman, after the General Election in September 1989, confirmed the fact that it would only be a matter of time, before the National Party would have to call another General Election, at which time the Conservative Party would become the majority Party in Parliament and would then be in a position to reverse the process of betrayal commenced by the Nats.

We in the CP had been committed to the non-violent option for as long as the democratic process remained open to us.

And our chances of gaining power through the democratic process were growing by the day. De Klerk promised repeatedly that he would not do anything to change the power status quo without first consulting the electorate and we were stupid enough to have believed him.

Then came early 1992 after a series of embarrassing by-election results, reflected an increasing decline in the fortunes of the NP throughout South Africa, when the NP regime suffered two disastrous defeats. One in Virginia in the OFS, a seat incidentally Mr Chairman which was held by one of the senior members of the National Party, Mr Piet Claase, who was also a Cabinet Minister, which we won with a majority in the almost

4 000 votes.

And one in their Transvaal stronghold of Potchefstroom. Potchefstroom was until the time of his death, Mr Chairman, just as a point of elaboration, was the seat of the Speaker, the late Mr Louis le Grange, who was also previous to that, the Minister of Police.

De Klerk confident of victory, stated prior to the Potchefstroom result, that a defeat would mean that the NP were no longer in the majority and that a General Election would then have to be called. I would like to remind the Committee Mr Chairman, that I previously mentioned the result of that survey done by the National Party themselves in 1990, which already told them that they were illegitimate in that they were no longer representative of the majority of the people.

The National Party lost the Potchefstroom seat once again by almost 4 000 votes. The swing I believe Mr Chairman, was in the region of 17 percent, which was a dramatic swing in a stronghold of a political party.

But it was very truly indicative of the mood of the people at that time. And when I talk of the people, obviously I am talking about my people, the Afrikaner.

In conjunction with his cronies in big business, sorry, they lost the seat by 4 000 votes, it was then generally accepted that there was no stopping the growth of the CP and that a General Election would have to be held.

And a number or political pundits are on record as having stated that Mr Chairman. Instead, in conjunction with his cronies in big business De Klerk called a referendum, tricked even his own supporters with a vaguely worded question for the vote, orchestrated a propaganda campaign which I haven't seen the equal of in world history Mr Chairman, which even involved foreign governments poking their noses into South Africa's internal affairs in terms of a referendum, to ensure victory.

We in the CP in order to accommodate a minority feeling within the Party, foolishly decided to participate in that referendum.

What happened, is now part of history. Once again, placing his own interpretation on the result, De Klerk then proceeded with the final betrayal in which it became clear that the NP regime were going to hand over the government to the ANC/SACP alliance and they were almost indecent in their haste to do this Mr Chairman.

At the same time, it was announced that by-elections would no longer be held to fill vacancies in Parliament. The door had finally been closed on us and access to the democratic process denied.

We were now at the stage where other methods would have to be used to ensure the freedom of our people. Although we in the CP, had waited for the democratic process to be denied us, before taking any further action, others on the Right had been less patient as can be seen from the list of incidents of sabotage that had taken place since the 2nd of February 1990, see Addendum A, I don't intend referring to that again Mr Chairman.

On the 26th of May 1990 the late Dr Andries Treurnicht had made his and the CP's feelings and intentions clear when he, addressing the largest political rally ever held at the Voortrekker Monument, I believe that in the region of 150 000 people were there Mr Chairman, and it was really a large rally, I was there myself, called the people up to the third freedom struggle.

As the two previous freedom struggles were wars, this was clearly a call to arms for Afrikaners. At various times thereafter we were advised to accumulate arms and were then also told that acts of violence could no longer be excluded as we the Afrikaner people, were now at war and would have to act accordingly.

In compliance with the call on weapons, and also to ensure my and my family's safety, as I Mr Chairman, had been informed by both the ANC and APLA that my name had been entered on their respective death lists, the ANC went so far Mr Chairman, as to write to me from Sydney, Australia, to tell me that it wouldn't even help if I ran away from South Africa, because my name was on their list internationally and unless I changed my name, unless I changed my name Mr Chairman, they would find me wherever I was in the world.

That was Mr Chairman, in 1986, not 1993, 1986 that that happened. And so Mr Chairman, as there had already also been three attempts on my life, two of them recorded Mr Chairman, and I believe the TRC is aware of my request for an investigation into the two which were recorded by the Police, one where a man was sentenced to three years imprisonment for the attempted murder of myself, the other one I have heard nothing further, was when a limpet mine was placed at a building in Cape Town where I was to address a public meeting, and I can tell you that unfortunately I was struck down with a severe dose of Yuppie Flu that day, I couldn't even move my fingers, never mind my lips to talk, and so Mr Chairman, I sent a colleague of mine in my place to that meeting, Adv J.J.S. Prinsloo, the MP for Roodepoort and I also sent my wife to attend the meeting in my stead as a Derby-Lewis and the limpet mine exploded, causing extensive damage to the building.

And no damage to any people, thank heavens. In fact Mr Chairman at that explosion, something happened which made me really proud of people on the Right. Instead of panicking and stampeding out of that hall, when the limpet mine exploded, they sat calmly and waited for the SAP to sweep the hall to ensure that there was no longer a bomb on the premises which could explode in the normal procedure of one bomb going off and the other one goes off when everyone is mulling around.

And the Police present then, turned around to the people and said right, you can go. They stood up Mr Chairman, they sang the National Anthem and then walked out of the hall in a very orderly manner.

Mr Chairman, as these attempts and I mentioned the two that are on record, the other two relate to my motor vehicle which I didn't even worry about reporting. The wheel nuts on my back wheel were loosened ... (tape ends) ... the SAP were the people who were involved in the acquisition of the weapon, because I didn't want them to be unnecessarily harassed by the SAP for their involvement, unwitting involvement in this whole matter.

When I went down to Cape Town Mr Chairman, for a session of the President's Council, on the 19th of March, I took the weapon with me in order to have a silencer fitted through a friend of mine, Mr Keith Darrel, who had a silencer on his own weapon.

The reason for the silencer was primarily to allow me to practice with it at home, without disturbing the neighbours and also to supply me with some element of surprise in the event of an MK or APLA attempt on my home.

The details concerning the acquisition of the firearm and the fitting of the silencer appear on trial records. After the SAP had subpoenaed the people concerned, as witnesses, after I had supplied the SAP with their names, I don't know whether I must talk about what was on the trial record Mr Chairman, I assume that that is already available.

MR PRINSLOO: You may proceed, don't refer to the record, it is not necessary. I will deal with that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I did not want anyone whom I had involved without explanation, to suffer on my behalf. When the firearm was returned, I also received few subsonic rounds of ammunition, the special ammunition required for use when a silencer is attached to the weapon.

I think it is important maybe to even elaborate on my relationship with Janusz Walus, my co-accused because I don't think that this little piece that I put in here, and I didn't know exactly how much to put in this for the application Mr Chairman and so if you will grant me that indulgence, I will expand where I believe it is necessary to do so, thank you.

We have a strange situation in South Africa. Rightwingers, particularly English speaking Rightwingers build up a special sort of a relationship because in the initial stages of the development of the Conservative Party, militant English speaking Rightwingers, were like hens' teeth, they were so scarce and so we started these organisations which I mentioned earlier Mr Chairman. Amongst others the Stallard Foundation in an effort to inform the English speaking community of South Africa as to what was really going on in the country as opposed to what the liberal media kept on telling us was going on in the country.

And as a result of my activities in the Stallard Foundation, a lot of conservative, very , very steady English speaking Rightwingers made contact with me where they may have been even reluctant or not able to make contact with the Conservative Party as a result of the language difficulty.

I must say that before the formation of the Stallard Foundation, I had met Janusz Walus and his brother during a by-election which was held in the Harrismith constituency in the Orange Free State.

Something that I may have omitted to mention in the previous motivation was that I was very active in terms of participation in elections and by-elections on behalf of the CP and I also addressed meetings right throughout the country. I once sat back with little else to do and discovered that I had addressed public meetings in more than 130 towns and cities in South Africa, Mr Chairman. Some of them obviously more often than once, but more than 130 times at least once.

And so I met Kuba, as we called him and that led to some confusion at the time of his arrest as well. Which led the media to say I was trying to avoid contact with him because some idiot from the Afrikaans press phoned me and asked me if I knew a Jan Wallace.

Now I mean Jan Wallace to me is Jan Wallace and I said no, I don't know a Jan Wallace and then I realised who I was talking to and I said in any case I don't want to continue this discussion with you and I put the phone down.

But we knew him as Kuba and we started having contact with one another. When I launched the, helped to launch the Stallard Foundation because it wasn't a one man effort Mr Chairman, we had a very efficient Board of Trustees, including people like Prof Perry Leary of the Medical School of the University of Natal, the Rev Lieutenant Colonel Dick Bigley of the Anglican Church, to name a couple of them, and the Chairman of the Civic Action League in Durban was a member, and I can give you all of those details if you find them relevant Mr Chairman.

It was activated in conjunction with these people and we started informing the English speaking community and we discovered subsequently that even the Afrikaans speaking community were looking forward to the publication of the Stallard Foundation Journal because it contained information which was not contained in other publications which were available in ...

MR BIZOS: I am sorry Mr Chairman, I didn't intend to do it in order to create a disturbance, I merely wanted to be heard. May I appeal Mr Chairman, to my learned friend who is counsel, to take charge of leading the evidence. We were told that we were going to hear about his relationship with Mr Janusz in relation to the happening of this event. We are getting My Lord, a lengthy account of who were in the Stallard Foundation.

May I appeal to my learned friend or through you Mr Chairman, to take control of the proceedings so that we do not waste time as we have done up to now. (Noisy response by the audience)

CHAIRPERSON: I will appeal once again, please to try and avoid applauding and making a noise whilst we are proceeding with this matter, please!

Mr Derby-Lewis, a great deal of what you are saying just now is something which we have already heard and I think there is merit in the suggestion made by counsel that you should spare us the details that have already been dealt with and get down to your association with Mr Walus relating to the events about which we are concerned. Can you please do that and Mr Prinsloo will you assist your client in ensuring that we can get, we can make progress in this regard?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman, we will do so, but with respect it was with regard to the relationship between the co-applicant Mr Walus and Mr Derby-Lewis, that is how it started with the Stallard Foundation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: We will proceed from there Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, you have met Mr Walus as already indicated, through the Stallard Foundation which was established, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And from there onwards, did a close relationship develop between the two of you or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman. In fact whenever we could get together, we would discuss the ever deteriorating situation in our country as it became more and more clear that we were being tricked into a classic communist style take-over of the country.

JUDGE WILSON: You say whenever we could get together, where did you, you met Mr Walus at Harrismith you said, where was he living at the time?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He was living at Qua-Qua Mr Chairman, but in fact he used to commute up to the Transvaal because his father and mother were resident in Pretoria as was his sister.

And so he used to come up to visit them and of course when he came to visit them, I used to see him as well.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it also correct Mr Derby-Lewis, that Mr Walus was from Poland and experienced communism in his country, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, that was one of the matters that really seriously concerned him and was part of the discussions every time we had discussions. He couldn't believe that South Africa would be that stupid or South Africans would be that stupid, to allow that sort of thing to happen in this country.

As time passed it became clear that De Klerk was determined to hand over to a communist dominated ANC alliance in spite of the fact that his government were not empowered to do so by the electorate.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, is it correct that you and Mr Walus discussed various options or discussed the matter with regard to the situation in this country, and what did you decide to do?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Chairman, as the De Klerk treachery became more and more obvious, or should I maybe say the De Klerk regime, the National Party regime treachery became more and more obvious and as it was just as obvious to us that the armed struggle was the only option now open to us, we discussed how best we could strike a crippling blow against the communist leadership as the real enemy.

It was obvious to us that the late Chris Hani as the leader of the Communist Party was the real threat to our future and that of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I think that I have to mention what I am going to mention now, although I may be accused of providing superfluous information but this information which I am now going to mention, I think is essential.

As I mentioned earlier, I had a particularly special relationship with the late Dr Treurnicht. I also had an extremely high regard for him and for his opinions. Mr Chairman, I am also a practising Christian and Mr Chairman, as you may or may not be aware, Dr Treurnicht was a Doctor of Theology and so eventually when we got together, I used to discuss really deep theological matters with him.

One of the things that worried me, was the fact that in terms of the Bible teachings, the Holy Bible, in terms of those teachings Mr Chairman, we as Christians are told that it is our duty to fight the anti-Christ in whichever way we can.

And Mr Chairman, as I said I was a practising Christian and I had to clear in my own mind that the act of war which I finally was prompted into doing, as a result of the situation, that it could also be justifiable in terms of my Christian beliefs.

And I discussed these matters at length with Dr Treurnicht and without mentioning names or intentions, the impression that I got from Dr Treurnicht was that under certain circumstances it would be permissible to even kill in the battle against the anti-Christ.

Mr Chairman, the view that the late Chris Hani was the real threat to our future, was clearly shared by the Conservative Party and I remind you of the extractions that I provided regarding the CP's build up of the climate and their attitude towards the late Mr Chris Hani in terms of those reports.

In fact, this view wasn't only shared by the Conservative Party, but it was I believe, shared by all conservative political parties and organisations. He was seen Mr Chairman, as the successor to Mr Mandela and was also as the Senior Commander of MK, a prime military target besides being a political target in the capacity of his leadership of the Communist Party.

And Mr Chairman, to say that Mr Hani was a man of peace in view of what he was doing, I find absolutely mind boggling. To say Mr Chairman, that he resigned from MK when I have documentary proof of the fact that at least until late 1992 he was still the Commander of MK, the Chief of Staff of MK, to say that he was a man of peace Mr Chairman, to say that he was a man of peace when even in February 1993 Mr Chairman, he was agitating for the return of ANC/SACP weaponry from Angola.

Perhaps somebody could tell me Mr Chairman, what regaining weaponry has to do with the furtherance of peace. And Mr Chairman, it is said that Mr Hani had dissociated himself from MK. I was listening to the SABC 3 broadcast last night, I don't know whether any of the members of the Committee were listening to the same broadcast, but on that broadcast, even the reporter, the journalist on SABC 3 referred to the late Chris Hani as the Commander of MK and the leader of the SA Communist Party.

So even they, Mr Chairman, were under the impression that he was still the Commander of MK.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, you and your co-accused the other applicant, Mr Walus, had discussed this matter with regard to Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And will you explain to the Honourable Committee how this developed and what did you do about it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: With his own experiences under communism, this whole period is a particularly traumatic period and as a result, I believe, of his concern over a communist take-over, plus his desire to make his contribution to the freedom struggle announced on the 26th of May 1990, he decided that he would deal with the late Chris Hani and set about planning his campaign.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, in as far as this is concerned was this a suggestion on your part as well or how did it come about?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I would say that it was a joint decision, we discussed various options, we tried to identify a target which would cause the minimum of violence. We had to find a target that would enable us, with the absolute minimum of force, to achieve what we believed was the objective, not only of ourselves, but also of the broad Right in South Africa.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you choose Mr Hani as a target Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, he was as I mentioned earlier he was the leader of the SA Communist Party and he was as far as our knowledge extended, the Chief of Staff of MK. He was also a man which we knew was very popular with particularly the more radical elements of the ANC/SACP alliance.

And we knew that in fact, we even believed that there was a possibility that he could have become the first President after the elections in 1994.

We had heard reports that he was planning to get rid of Mr Nelson Mandela and other leaders. Mr Chairman, in this regard, I would like to refer to the circumstances surrounding Operation Vula, where it came out in the press that in fact there was also a plot from Operation Vula's side that Mr Mandela and other leaders of the ANC, had been targeted for elimination.

Mr Chairman, it is also no secret that the TRC itself has heard evidence from various people to the extent that the late Mr Chris Hani was planning to eliminate, to assassinate certain members of the leadership element in the ANC. And I believe that one of the cases reported to the TRC Mr Chairman, was the case of one Derrick Skosana, where he testified that in fact two people who are presently on the Executive Committee of the Eastern Transvaal Provincial Government, Mpumalanga, my legal representative reminds me, that they were targeted for assassination.

And whether it is true or not Mr Chairman, it is reported. And I don't believe that a man who is looking for amnesty, will come along with a hair brain story like that if it is not true.

But I can't ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Derby-Lewis, just for correction Mr Skosana did testify before us and that is not what he said. He testified before us in his application for amnesty in Nelspruit, not so long ago.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is not what he said on that aspect.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I accept that Mr Chairman, thank you. Which just goes to show Mr Chairman, that one mustn't always believe everything that appears in the press.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, what did you and Mr Walus discuss with regard to this particular assassination of Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, I was aware of a list of addresses that my wife had obtained for journalistic reasons and when we started talking about the identification of targets, I got hold of this list sometime in the latter part of February if my memory serves me correctly.

And we went over this list. Of course the list was eventually released to the media by malicious elements within the South African Police and it was described as a hit-list Mr Chairman, when in fact it was an address list, with a number of addresses of senior ANC people, senior SA Communist Party people, there was one senior National Party member, there was a few journalists and then there was a member of the Judiciary.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they all people regarded as inimical to the Conservative Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, they were all people that at some time or another had done something which was in opposition to the Conservative Party's philosophies. I mean for example Justice Goldstone was the man who delivered that signal ruling in Hillbrow where somebody had contravened the Group Areas Act and had been prosecuted for that and as a result of the prosecution, this person was found guilty and then Justice Goldstone added a rider to his sentence and said but she can't be expelled from the premises until the government provides alternative accommodation for her.

And of course that set a precedent which put an end to any further prosecutions under the Group Areas Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Who decided whose names were to be on that list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I said the list was requested by my wife for journalistic purposes and this address list in fact did not consist of all of the people's names that she submitted in terms of obtaining addresses for it.

In fact I think there were 17 or 19 names on the list, and only 19 addresses came back. I have a copy of the list here Mr Chairman in bundle A and it is Annexure A, it commences on Annexure A, page 33.

And as you will see Mr Chairman, the first address on the list is ...

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, in our bundle it will be page 30 of bundle A. Page 30 to page 32 of the bundle A.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Bundle A, yes. Page 30 on the new numbers, okay. Right, thank you Mr Chairman. The first address given is that of Mr Nelson Mandela and then there are some notes, the house so and so is deliberately not numbered, but it is easily recognisable by blah, blah, it is obvious why this description is there Mr Chairman, to me, and that is because the house was not numbered, there had to be another way of identifying the house for further follow up purposes.

The second address Mr Chairman was that of ...

MS KHAMPEPE: Excuse me Mr Derby-Lewis, if that is so, why was it necessary for that list to have specific information with regard to the hi-tech electronic surveillance system which was in that house?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have no idea Mr Chairman, in fact that has really puzzled me about this whole thing and I will tell you very simply why Mr Chairman, because on the late Chris Hani's house there were clear security attachments or measures. In the introduction that wasn't mentioned at all under his address on this list.

So as I say, I am puzzled to explain it, I can't.

CHAIRPERSON: On the face of it, that kind of detail it appears, I find it difficult that it served some journalistic purpose.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, it was never requested and what it would do is it would assist anyone who is in that neighbourhood to identify the property properly.

And Mr Chairman, as far as the journalistic purposes are concerned, the reason why this whole thing was being done was because my wife was busy with articles, a series of articles on people jumping onto the gravy train and Mr Chairman, it was rather difficult to understand at that stage, quite honestly, with our knowledge of the salaries that members of the ANC/SACP alliance were earning from their own organisation, how they could afford the type of houses in which they were living and what my wife was trying to establish was that all of these people who were so critical of us, were in some way benefiting financially as a result of their criticism or so she surmised.

And decided to investigate and then to expose the whole thing and say right, here you've got this man who professes to be a representative of the downtrodden, but he lives in a R2 million is Houghton and in that direction. Mr Chairman, in terms of the Joe Slovo address as well, it is very clear here, unable to establish the precise address, but the following should be sufficient.

Sorry Mr Chairman, as far as the Joe Slovo details are concerned, it says clearly here,

"Unable to establish the precise address, but the following should be sufficient with a bit of legwork. He lives on the Observatory/Yeoville border in a medium-sized tin-roofed three bedroom, study, small kitchen, sitting and dining room, with an old garden with huge trees and no access from the front.

The back area faces onto the road and has heavy duty metal bars covering all open areas. There is also a double garage facing onto the road".

Mr Chairman, that description appeared in the newspaper, number 1, so it was common cause to journalists who had access to those records, and without this description nobody could have found that house.

Then if we go onto the next page Mr Chairman, of Annexure A, with some more addresses, you will see the third address on that page is Chris Hani, 2 Hathia Crescent, Dawn Park Boksburg, but no mention made of any security arrangements, although they were clearly there for all to see according to discussions I had with Mr Walus subsequently.

So to me, I am surprised that people fell for the SAP propaganda they should have known better Mr Chairman, and on the subject of SAP propaganda and treatment of ANC people and SACP the alliance people in terms of treatment of them, and the way we were treated Mr Chairman, there is very little difference.

JUDGE WILSON: If this was a list of gravy train people, why is Richard Goldstone, Ken Owen on it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, Ken Owen was the editor of the Sunday Times and we know what sort of salaries people who are editors of newspapers receive, receive and the intention was to try and ascertain from the house that he lived in, whether he was perhaps living a bit higher than his means because Mr Chairman, if you are aware of the classical communist modus operandi you will find that they actually employ journalists as agents and informers on their behalf and then they compensate those journalists.

JUDGE WILSON: Was he suspected of being a communist agent, is that why his name appeared on the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, he was suspected of being motivated by motives other than his concern over the oppressed when it came to his attacks on the CP.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis, why was Mr Pik Botha singled out from all the NP ministers?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, it is well-known in Rightwing circles that Mr Pik Botha is not what he presents himself to be.

We suspect him of being an agent of the Americans and I will tell you why Mr Chairman. There were very strong reports at the time that Major du Toit and his recce patrol went into Angola to destroy the Cabinda Oil Fields, that the reason why the attack was aborted and led to the capture of those people, was that Mr Pik Botha in his wisdom had informed the Americans that it was going to happen in confidence maybe, Mr Chairman, but nevertheless they walked into an ambush and they walked into an ambush because the information came from within South Africa.

So Mr Chairman, we assumed from that sort of behaviour and other things that Mr Pik Botha has done over his political career, that he was motivated by reasons other than sincere concern for what was going on and what was wrong in the country because Mr Chairman, otherwise there is no way that he can explain why he was an active member of the National Party for so many years.

ADV POTGIETER: Is Tim du Plessis, is that the journalist?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Chairman?

ADV POTGIETER: Tim du Plessis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Tim du Plessis was a journalist, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: He worked for the Beeld?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: From the Beeld, that is right, Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER; Have you got any idea how he fits into this list? Have you got any idea how he fits into the gravy train?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the same thing Mr Chairman. In fact Mr Tim du Plessis is a well-known fact that he was taken over to America as a Neman scholar and those people, when they come back from America, are totally different people as a result of the suspected brainwashing which they received.

MS KHAMPEPE: Are you saying, Mr Derby-Lewis that you that you are the only ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, let me qualify what I am saying, by saying that these are the perceptions of people on the Right. And when one looks at the vitriolic manner in which these people attack their fellow Afrikaners, Mr Chairman, it's very, very difficult to explain other than that there could be financial considerations, other than that these people were actually being paid on the side to write the sort of drivel that they wrote.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis you and Mr Walus then had the list in your possession and how did it come about with regard to deciding upon Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Hani ...

MR PRINSLOO: You already said the motivation as far as the list is concerned. What is the purpose of that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: His address was on the list. That is what we needed that address list for.

MR PRINSLOO: And once you had the address of Mr Hani, what happened then Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, then Mr Walus agreed to recce the place and he agreed to handle all of the logistics of the operation.

All that he then requested of me, excuse me, was that I furnish him with a unlicensed or an unknown or an untraceable weapon and he also believed that with a silencer, that I had already decided upon for my own purposes, that that would be an essential part of what he required any way.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you hand Mr Walus a pistol?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did Mr Chairman. But I first, before I did that, I went down to Cape Town because I first of all had to get a silencer fitted onto the thing which I had required, onto that pistol which I acquired, which as I said I was going to do in any case earlier for my own personal security reasons.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Derby-Lewis, the pistol you refer to is that the one you got from Mr Faan Venter?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is the one I got from Mr Faan Venter.

MR PRINSLOO: And is that the pistol you took down to Cape Town?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman, and that is the pistol that I handed to Mr Keith Darrel who then took it, I thought he was going to fit the silencer himself, but he then took it to a gunsmith who was unknown to me, had the silencer fitted and then brought it back to me. So that when Mr Walus asked me for the untraceable weapon, I was able to give him that and I handed that weapon to him on the 6th of April.

MR PRINSLOO: The weapon at that stage, when you handed it over to Mr Walus, was the silencer fitted to it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The silencer was fitted yes, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you hand him any ammunition?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, the rounds that I had received for test purposes, I also handed to him.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that the subsonic rounds?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Subsonic rounds for use with a silencer Mr Chairman. Normal ammunition cannot really be used.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Derby-Lewis, where did you hand this pistol over to Mr Walus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I handed it to him at my home. Mr Chairman, whenever we used to get together, my wife gave us coffee and hello, organised tea or bring us a beer or whatever, and then she would disappear and then we would carry on chatting.

So, it was on actually, wait a minute, yes, it was on that morning, because we invited him over for breakfast that morning. He had breakfast, we had a general sort of chat and then my wife Gaye had to go off somewhere for some errand or another, and she left the house and we then, I then went through to the bedroom to bring through the pistol which I had hidden away in a case in the top of my wardrobe and gave it to him.

MR PRINSLOO: That is now to Mr Walus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is right Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that on the 6th of April?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was on the 6th of April, Mr Chairman yes.

ADV POTGIETER: I am sorry Mr Derby-Lewis, and when did he first request the untraceable weapon from you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: When I came back from Cape Town.

ADV POTGIETER: What stage was that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was after I had had the silencer fitted and, yes, after I had the silencer fitted.

ADV POTGIETER: So he requested the untraceable weapon for the first time after you had obtained the weapon from this friend of yours?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, which I saw as some sort of a message.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because I mean, to come that close, there is no other way to explain it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, when you gave that pistol to Mr Walus, did you know he would use that to assassinate Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that was his intention.

MR PRINSLOO: And you agreed and approved of that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I supported it, Mr Chairman, yes. I also must say Mr Chairman, as far as that is concerned, with the silencer I only had those few rounds which I had obtained from the gunsmith for test purposes and so I undertook to supply him with whatever ammunition he needed, but I had difficulty in obtaining this ammunition, as I did not have a license to purchase 9 mm ammunition.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you in possession of a licensed firearm of similar nature?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I have my own 38 Special which I mention Mr Chairman, but that is not sufficient to - a licence for that cannot facilitate your obtaining 9 mm ammunition.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that that pistol, that is now the one you handed to Mr Walus, cannot fire with a silencer fitted with ordinary ammunition, it has to be subsonic ammunition?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Actually the whole concept of a silencer Mr Chairman, is that the weapon cannot be used with normal ammunition, because it will apparently blow up. So it has to have subsonic ammunition. The subsonic ammunition apparently is of a lower charge type of ammunition which then enables you to fire a silent shot, but then it doesn't come back all the way, which Mr Walus discovered after he tested it and he told me about it.

But I mean he told me about it after the event. I think I didn't know at that stage what was going to happen.

MR PRINSLOO: So on the 6th you handed the pistol to Mr Walus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, and I decided to delay the process because I was determined to give a matter that was really important and as significant as this one, further thought.

MR PRINSLOO: Why was that Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, whether you are at war or not, taking a man's life is not something you do lightly. And I think that Mr Chairman, the freedom fighters of the ANC and APLA, experienced those feelings as well. I don't think they found it easy to take a life. But war is war and you can't win wars Mr Chairman, without taking lives.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Derby-Lewis, Mr Walus had the weapon, did he have any instructions what he had to do after he got the weapon and so on?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, his arrangements were his. That was his responsibility. After I handed him the firearm, I had fulfilled whatever I needed to do and he was in a position where he could then continue.

We discussed the question of when it should be done and as I said, I had a bit of reluctance and in any case, I ruled out an attempt over the Eastern weekend Mr Chairman, because to me that was the time when most people was going to be at their homes and in their gardens maybe, and it would cause a dangerous situation. And we didn't want to unnecessarily involve innocent people in the whole story, but I am sure that Mr Walus will explain why he decided to carry on on that day.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, are you aware that surveillance was carried out on the home of Mr Hani himself?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Of Mr Hani? Yes, Mr Chairman, because Kuba told me that that was what he was going to do because he had to ascertain the situation regarding bodyguards, the situation, the locality, the access roads, the exit route, all of that, he wanted to take into consideration.

MR PRINSLOO: And was surveillance indeed carried out?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To the best of my knowledge Mr Chairman, yes. In fact he had been carrying out surveillance on a couple of houses as a result of receiving that list.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Derby-Lewis, after the 6th of April when you handed the firearm to Mr Walus, did you on the 10th of April, go to the house of Mr Faan Venter?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: For what purpose did you go to his house?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, we went over to have tea with them. As far as I can remember, and this is now a long time ago, we were invited over for tea and if I remember correctly my wife, Gaye took a cake along as well.

So we went for tea. And also I must recall that that was the first time that we had been in their new home.

MR PRINSLOO: The detail is in your application, what happened whilst you were at Mr Venter's house?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, while we were, in fact we were just about finished the tea when suddenly the telephone rang, we were out in the garden and Mr Venter's wife went inside to answer the telephone and then she let out a shriek and shouted something like, in Afrikaans Hani is dead, or he is shot dead or something like that and then we all rushed in and apparently her son had phoned to tell her that it had come over the news that the late Chris Hani had been shot.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you do after that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, we finished off our tea story and then we left and then we went to go and do some shopping.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you return home at a later stage?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman we did.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, at that stage did you know or suspect that Mr Walus had carried out the shooting?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, because at that stage to the best of my knowledge, he didn't have the ammunition to do it with and it wasn't planned to occur on the Saturday, on the Easter weekend. I specifically suggested that the Easter weekend would be a bad time because of the mulling around with people there.

So I must say I got a terrible shock and I couldn't believe it. I actually thought, well has something happened that has actually almost come to our rescue where we don't have to do what we planned to do and then of course the next day when I saw the newspaper then I knew what had happened.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you then aware that indeed Mr Walus carried this out?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, the previous evening a lot of garbled stuff came through to us. Somebody I don't remember the chronology any more, but journalists phoned, one my colleagues phoned, Pieter Mulder to find out whether we should issue a statement, and I said well I don't know, maybe we must try and contact Dr Treurnicht and see if he wants to issue a statement, because it is an important matter and then Jurg Prinsloo, the MP for Roodepoort subsequently phoned and asked, asked us to send out on our fax a statement which he had composed and that fellow from the - no, I don't think that was the Saturday, I think that was the Sunday, that man from the Beeld phoned and asked me whether I knew, no it wasn't Sunday, it was Saturday, because at that stage I didn't know who had done it. And then he asked me whether I knew Jan Wallace and I said no, I know nobody at that name and in any case, I wasn't talking to anybody from the Beeld, because they had showed themselves to be so dishonest, journalistically speaking at that stage Mr Chairman, that I wanted nothing whatsoever to do with them.

MR PRINSLOO: So on Sunday Mr Derby-Lewis, from the newspapers you were satisfied it was indeed your friend Mr Walus, who carried out the assassination?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, to my surprise his photograph was on the front page of the Afrikaans newspaper.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, did you at any stage on the Saturday attempt to contact Mr Walus telephonically?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman. Yes, if my memory serves me correctly, I tried before we went to the Venters the first time to get hold of him, because he had phoned me earlier, asking me whether I had managed to get the ammunition that he needed and I undertook to phone him back as soon as I had inquired.

I didn't have anyone to inquire to at that stage.

MR PRINSLOO: But after you had learnt about Hani that was shot?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, then I phoned again and I got through to, the first time I phoned I spoke to his lady friend, Maria, and she said that he was at karate training. And I said, okay, as soon as he gets back, let him give me a ring and then of course after the Venter thing and we finished our shopping and we went back, I tried to phone again you know, to speak to Kuba to find out what his opinion was of this whole thing.

At that stage Maria, his lady friend, said to me no, she hasn't heard anything from him and now she is worried. And then as I say, when Pieter Mulder phoned, he said look I have heard a name Walus, do you know anyone by that name?

I said yes, I do. I said in fact I know two people by that name Janusz Walus, although I didn't know his name was Janusz at that stage, I said Kuba Walus and his brother Vitold.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, after you knew it was indeed Mr Walus that carried out the assassination, and were you then satisfied this would serve the object you intended to achieve?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, first of all Mr Chairman, I must be quite honest to say that I was in a state of shock. As I said it wasn't a matter which can easily be carried out and really it, I really was and I had terrible thoughts about you know, the whole thing.

I really felt bad about it and of course then I decided to wait and see what happened because I knew there was nothing to connect me outside of our friendship, to what he had done. I mean there was nothing to connect me to the weapon or anything like that and so I decided to wait and see what happened.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, what object did you hope to achieve by killing Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the whole objective was to plunge the country into a situation where as a result of the chaos which we anticipated would occur as a result of the assassination, that people on the Right, would be inspired to mobilise and use this vacuum caused by the chaos to effect a counter-revolution and to take over power of the country, that was the whole object and I mean that is why a man like the late Chris Hani had to be the target.

Because I mean, imagine if we targeted anyone else, anyone else, there was no one that had the sort of following that the late Chris Hani had and as I said earlier, I said perhaps it was even a tribute to the status of Chris Hani that he was selected as a target.

Because we knew it would have the desired effect and Mr Chairman, let me say that if one studies the events which occurred after what we planned to occur, in fact unfolded as it was planned. Everyone was running around. The Generals suddenly got together, the Right got together with the Generals and then they formed the Afrikaner Volksfront and we already read in the newspapers of the subsequent plans to prevent the destruction of the State of Bophutatswana.

The idea of that before the election there was going to be counter revolution in South Africa, and that the Right would take over the country in an armed conflict. I am sure, I don't know what the details were because I wasn't there, but the impression that I get from reports and the information which I have gleaned from people visiting me it is quite clear that the intention of the Right was to effect a take-over of the country.

And unfortunately we know what happened subsequently, the dissension which caused the watering down of the whole thing and that didn't happen, but that was what was desired and Mr Chairman, let me say that I planned to call an urgent meeting of the caucus of the Conservative Party to tell them what I had done.

And do motivate them into initiating what I believed needed to be initiated after that time. And I was quite confident that I would have got support for that, but unfortunately for me I was arrested before that could be done.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, you were arrested on the 17th of April, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And after your arrest you were then taken to the Benoni police station?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, it was quite funny Mr Chairman. I had the rather strange experience of sitting in my family room at home, surrounded by police officers, watching the news on which the announcement was made that I had been arrested.

At that stage I had not been arrested, I was still assisting the police in their investigation, prior to their deciding whether they should arrest me or not. And as I say you can imagine, it was quite a strange experience to hear about news of an event concerning yourself, that you knew hadn't taken place yet.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, were you then detained at the police station in Benoni?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, after a thorough search of my residence, in fact what happened was, I had just come back from canvassing the ward which I was going to oppose in the municipal election, and my wife and I were sitting with our feet up. She had also been doing canvassing and I can assure you Mr Chairman, that is really a strenuous job, it is particularly hard on the feet.

And we were sitting in the family room, watching the six o'clock news and suddenly I heard a lot of car doors slamming outside in the street. I thought, that is strange, the neighbours across the road must be having a party and boom, boom, boom, and I mean it was, it sounded like a fleet of vehicles which had arrived.

So I thought I would go out and take a look and see what it was all about and as I came out from the one entrance of my home, to go up the garden to the driveway, here was this guy in my garden. And I mean he looked like a CP supporter, so I went over and said Derby-Lewis, how are you, and he then introduced himself as Sergeant somebody, it was quite a strange name which I can't remember, but he was one of the investigating team.

And then suddenly then Colonel Human descended on me from the front side of the house and suddenly I was surrounded by about 25 policemen. That alone was quite a nerve-jarring experience Mr Chairman. I said, well, I didn't know what was going on, I said, well look, come inside gentlemen. And so I took them into the family room which was fortunately large enough to hold them.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question was were you taken to the Benoni police station?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: I think the question was were you taken to the Benoni police station?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but there are a lot of things which developed Mr Chairman, which were actually used in an attempt to discredit me.

As a result of this incident I am relating now and that prompts me to draw to the attention of the Committee, the SAP that night, started on their own negative campaign against me to brand me as all sorts of things and actually informed the media that I have fainted from shock.

Mr Chairman, what in fact happened was I got a terrible shock, I can tell you when they told me they were going to arrest me, but I went white, I didn't faint.

And it was Captain Deetliefs who was subsequently one of the investigating team, who took me by the arm and said look, you better lie down on the couch for a minute and bring us some sugar water.

It is just a minor difference, but that was what was conveyed to the media and that was what was broadcast over South Africa. I was then taken ...

CHAIRPERSON: I want to assure you that this details really is not going to influence the outcome of this application.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I appreciate that. Mr Chairman, after the full search of the house, I think we must have left by about 9:30, they loaded me into a kombi, made me lie on the floor so that nobody could see I was in the kombi, and they shot me off to Benoni police station, after I had asked to be able to contact my lawyer and they took me to yes, the Benoni police station, where I was then subsequently allowed contact with my legal representatives and I was then locked up.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It took us quite a long time to get to Benoni Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Chairman. The Chairman has drawn my attention to the fact that - I have apologised for that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, at the police station in Benoni, did you then make a statement which was subsequently handed in to court Exhibit E, appears in volume 6, page 367, Mr Chairman. Volume 6, page 367. It actually commences at the bottom of page 366, Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: In that particular statement, I am referring you to paragraph 3, and in paragraph 3 you stated, not paragraph 3 I beg your pardon, I am sorry Mr Chairman, you haven't got that page yet - I am referring to paragraph 3 of the statement on page 367. Mr Derby-Lewis, I refused to say anything except that I didn't know a certain Walus, that I had last seen him in December 1992, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, is it correct that you had last seen Mr Walus in December 1992 or was that incorrect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No that was not correct Mr Chairman. I had seen him several times subsequently. Amongst others on the 6th of April when I gave him the firearm. I did therefore see him on several other occasions as I have already testified.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, why did you claim to have seen Mr Walus only in December?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was concerned with regard to what might have happened if they could link me with Kuba for a very simple reason Sir, at that time I was still engaged in the liberation struggle and the last thing which I wanted to do, was to cooperate with elements, or the last thing I wanted to do was to work with elements in the enemy. The National Party represented by the Security Branch in Benoni.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, without going into any detail, you were then subsequently, on Monday detained in terms of the provisions of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am a bit vague about how this thing worked, because I was arrested on Saturday night. As one of the Honourable Members of the Committee pointed out, I took a long time to get to Benoni, it took me from six o'clock until 10:30 in fact Mr Chairman, but ...

MR PRINSLOO: You were then detained in terms of the provisions of Section 29?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, and I was arrested and I was detained. I was under arrest as far as I knew on Saturday night. Then I was informed on Monday that I am under arrest in terms of Article 29 of the Internal Security Act and at no time did I ever leave the premises of the Benoni police cells Mr Chairman. I didn't escape or anything like that.

So I found that strange at that stage, I couldn't understand what was going on.

MR PRINSLOO: Then, Mr Derby-Lewis, there was an application for the extension of your detention in terms of the provisions of Section 29, and you were indeed detained for a further 10 days, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman. The pretence or the motivation which was offered by General le Roux of the SAP at that stage, or the Security Branch I believe, was that they wanted me for further questioning.

But I can assure the Committee that for the next 10 days, I was not asked a single question.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, were you then released from the provisions of Section 29 and then charged on the murder of Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was Mr Chairman, after 20 days I was, I was after 20 days, yes Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: You then appeared in the Supreme Court together with Mr Walus and your wife?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman. Finally on the 4th of October after numerous court appearances and various other courts.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, after your - you also made an application for the reopening of the trial, is that correct, after your conviction and sentence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman, because at the time of my trial my then legal representative, had advised me that I should not testify at all because there was no evidence against me and because of that situation, I must remain silent.

I only realised the implications afterwards and as a result of that Mr Chairman, my new legal representative then submitted an application for the reopening of the trial which was heard I think on the 6th of December 1993.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, the application for the reopening of the trial, that was dated, the application it appears on page 102 it appears to be Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: 107 Mr Chairman, 108.

MR PRINSLOO: 108, it is not clearly marked. And then as far as the statement itself is concerned Mr Derby-Lewis, without going into any detail of it, you made a statement which relate to certain facts which you said if it had been placed before the Honourable Court, would have had a different result, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Now certain of the facts contained in there, were they true or were they false?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, I had my own opinion regarding the severity of the sentence that I had received and believed that evidence would have been provided which would have led to a different sentence.

I also believed that there were certain discrepancies in the State's case which could lead to reasonable doubt and over all Mr Chairman, whatever I was doing, was in terms of my participation in the freedom struggle, and I was determined to make it as difficult as possible for the regime to keep me in prison.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, if you look at page 117, that is paragraph 3.37 ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: 3.37.

MR BIZOS: Page 107 of R2.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, what appears on page 114 paragraph 3.3.8, I will read it to you,

"apart from the 6th of April there were no other opportunities during 1993 when myself and the mentioned Walus saw each other. And at no time did I see the list or give instructions to Mr Walus to commit the assassination."

Is this true or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was a false statement. I want to draw the attention of the Committee thereto that I was still involved in the struggle, the struggle for freedom and that I did everything in my power to make the procedure more difficult.

I did this because I felt it was my duty to do so. I want to also mention that I was not in the situation on my own. I understand that this had become practice amongst a variety of freedom fighters to abuse the truth, to lie, as a part of their contribution to the struggle.

It was in this light that everything which I did, must be understood up to and until the end of the year 1994 and in fact I would say that under the current system as this was developing.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis without going into any detail into the statement, you have already told the Committee that it contains certain false information and you explained as to why you submitted that application.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, at this stage I request for an adjournment at this stage. I was informed by Captain Holmes that he has got certain documents in his possession and that the tapes were taken by a member of the Committee, the member has telephoned to ascertain that they have been taken, it is 10 tapes, 12 videos and I would like to use this opportunity at this stage to go through them, in order to proceed with the evidence.

I have also informed Mr Chairman that Mr Bizos in possession of certain original documents which I was told was obtained on the 5th of June this year. We would like to go through those, we haven't had the opportunity yet, then we can complete our evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the outcome of that application to reopen the case?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was refused Mr Chairman. I found the whole proceeding rather strange and in fact so did members of my party and Adv J.J.S. Prinsloo who was the CP MP for Roodepoort at that stage and was also the Chief spokesman on Justice, expressed his concern over the way the whole matter had been handled by the Honourable Judge Justice Eloff.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Just before we adjourn, did I understand your evidence that Mr Walus asked you for the address of Chris Hani, is that what actually happened?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, what I said was that I remembered that we had addresses of certain ANC personnel and I acquired them. Mr Hani's address was on there and Mr Walus undertook to, yes, he said that he would accept Hani as a target.

But we mutually agreed on Hani as a target any way.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, my question was really why was the list given to him, why wasn't just Hani's address given to him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, I didn't hear you?

CHAIRPERSON: Why was the list given to him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Why was the list given to Walus?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: So that he had the address with him Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Why couldn't Hani's address be given to him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, on the list you will see there were numbers and those numbers were put on there for the purpose of concealing who our target was with discussions which we would hold over the telephone because I didn't want my wife to know what was going on when we discussed this.

And he didn't want his lady friend to know what he was discussing, so we numbered the people in terms of a sort of a priority, in terms of their enmity towards the Conservative Party and we used that number then and Walus asked whether he could take, Janusz, Kuba asked whether he could take the list with him and I said yes, as long as he gave it back to me, because I was sure that my wife would be wanting to use it at some date possibly in the future.

JUDGE WILSON: Didn't you both have copies of the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you remember the numbers with that certainty that you could discuss it over the telephone?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have no problem with remembering numbers.

JUDGE WILSON: And names that go with them?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Telephone numbers, seven figure telephone numbers Mr Chairman, and it must be recorded Mr Chairman, that the only target we were discussing was one, so it was all a matter of remembering the number 3.

JUDGE WILSON: Why did you have to have numbers for the others, if you were just discussing one person, you never had to mention the others, did you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned, we listed them in terms of priority, in terms of their degree of enmity towards the Conservative Party and the Right.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they all potential targets?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Were they all potential targets?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not at that stage Mr Chairman, because obviously if we didn't succeed in what we had done initially, we would have looked at other targets, but I can think of far better potential targets than the majority of people who were put on that list.

JUDGE WILSON: And Chris Hani was listed as number 3?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is right, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, it is a quarter to four, there is a request at this stage for an adjournment to tomorrow morning.

MR BIZOS: Well, it is ten to four, and I have no objection to that, but Mr Chairman, may I say that I don't keep documents in my possession.

I have no documents in my possession, and never had, other than copies on which I work. I don't work with original documents. The documents that the applicant's counsel is seeking, were handed over to counsel for the Commission by my instructing Attorney. I do not take responsibility ever for original documents, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will now adjourn and resume at 09:30 tomorrow morning.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

14-08-1997: Day 4

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to begin Mr Mpshe?

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, yes Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, before we continue with the evidence of the applicant, I just want to put this on record pertaining to the subpoenas that were issued as directed by the Committee on Monday.

Mr Chairman, the people subpoenaed are present today. That is Mr Andre Beetge, Mr Nick Deetliefs and Mr Adriaan Pieter van Niekerk as well as Captain Holmes. Mr Chairman, what I am going to say excludes Captain Holmes, it applies to the first three I have mentioned.

I have had a talk with the three gentlemen and they indicated to me that they are not in a position to can testify today for the following two reasons: One - that this matter took place four or five years ago. They are no more in the Police Force and they did not have access to the documents nor the contents of the police docket. And that they were given a very short time within which they were to be at the Commission, indeed they were given only one day to be present at this hearing.

Two - they state that they needed their legal representative because certain allegations have been made by the applicant's team and they feel that is disparaging allegations done against them. And they did consult with their two Attorneys last night who unfortunately are unavailable to can be present at this forum today.

But they feel strongly that they need their legal representative because of things that have been said about them particularly Mr Nick Deetliefs and Andre Beetge.

As pertaining to the video cassettes Mr Chairman, I caused the Cape Town office to courier them down to me, they have since arrived, they are on the table. It is a total of 12 video cassettes that must be looked at by the applicants and Mr Bizos' team. And I received again this morning three video cassettes from SABC, these are the ones that I had requested for a subpoena once more and there are other audio cassettes that were referred to by Mr Prinsloo.

The audio cassettes are not yet available, but are surely to be here by this morning at about ten o'clock, eleven o'clock because I could only make arrangements yesterday at five to five with the Cape Town office and Cape Town office promised me that they would courier them down with the first flight from Cape Town to here and they will deliver to me today between ten and eleven o'clock.

That is the position Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, the calling of certain witnesses who have been subpoenaed to some extent, that is a matter in your hands as to when you would require them, whether they are required merely to produce documents, whether they are required to give evidence, those are matters that are in your hands.

MR BIZOS: Yes, they are matters partly in our hands Mr Chairman, but whether they are going to give evidence or not, will depend to a very large extent whether the applicant persists and gives at least some prima facie evidence that the statements in the R4 were not freely and voluntarily made.

I would respect the witness' request that they have been called upon on short notice and that they are entitled to have the advice of their legal representatives in view of the allegations made by the applicants' counsel against them.

In relation to the tapes, and the original documents, they are there. I suggest Mr Chairman, that the witnesses have the documents made available to them by the Commission in the immediate vicinity of the court for them to look at it and if their lawyers want to look at the documents as well, they should come along to the place near the hearing to look at the documents.

We will have no objection to the statements, to the documents being made available to the witnesses and to our learned friends. The same with the tapes in so far as they may be relevant or, well they can't really decide what is relevant until they have examined them.

But Mr Chairman, we respectfully submit that the preparation process by the applicants and the possible witnesses should run parallel to the proceedings before the Committee. It isn't, with the greatest respect, necessary for - we have to look at them as well, but it isn't necessary for us to have the whole team in court in order to examine documents and videos. Our learned friends have an instructing Attorney whose presence may or may not be necessary, they have to make a choice that the Attorney possibly could look at them.

I say this Mr Chairman, because the indication was given to me by our learned friend, that he is going to ask for a postponement whilst these preparatory matters are being dealt with. We will strenuously oppose such an application if it is made because we have set the period of time available, I have already given an undertaking that I do not intend examining the applicant on any matter related to the statements in R4 or refer to those documents in examining, or in the videos and the tapes or the original documents.

I will confine myself to testing the evidence that he has already given without reference to the documents in R4. There is sufficient material that I have to put to him which appears in documents others than those documents, and I would submit that we cannot afford, neither the Committee nor we, can afford to loose the two days, that is today and tomorrow, I understand that the application for a postponement is going to be until Monday, we will strenuously oppose that, we want to carry on.

There will be no prejudice to the applicant because when his legal representatives have had a look at the material that is now being produced, they can be granted leave to lead him in evidence before any questions are asked and may I remind the Committee of the obvious, that this is not a trial, but an inquiry and as invariably happens in an inquiry, there is no onus, witnesses may come and go or they may be interposed and I would suggest that we would proceed with my examining the applicant, both in his interest and in the interest of finality on the proceedings and in the interest of the Committee and ourselves.

I may place on record that the earliest possible opportunity that we have set this week and next week aside in order to deal with this matter as has the Committee and I may indicate that if we do not proceed during this period, then certainly we will not finish if we do not proceed during these two days, it may take a long time to be able to assemble the Committee and the legal representatives again in order to continue the matter.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, as far as people who have been subpoenaed and who are here, before I decide whether they should be excused from further attendance until they are required, if they are required, do you have any objection to my excusing them from further attendance at present?

MR PRINSLOO: I have no objection to that Mr Chairman. As Mr Chairman indicated, they are entitled to legal representation and to the indulgence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Well, will these gentlemen who are here, Mr Beetge, Mr Deetliefs and Mr Van Niekerk, they are here are they?

ADV MPSHE: They are present Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, you have responded to subpoenas that have been served on you, it does appear that your presence will not be required for the proceedings at present.

It is likely that you may be called to give evidence at a later stage in these proceedings. I am prepared to excuse you from attendance this morning, on the understanding that you will appear here again on Monday morning, and it may be that we will be in a better position to tell you on Monday morning as to precisely on what date you should present yourself for the purposes of giving evidence if required to do so.

The documents that you might want to refer to, you will contact Mr Mpshe, the leader of evidence, your Attorneys can contact him and examine such documents as they think relevant to assist you in refreshing your memories. Gentlemen is there any question that you wish to ask or is that clear to you?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, Mr Van Niekerk has just indicated that he is not available on Monday, he will be attending court somewhere else again on Monday.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he be occupied the whole of Monday?

ADV MPSHE: He can be available at two o'clock on Monday.

CHAIRPERSON: Will he please do so at two o'clock, and we can tell him then when we will require him. In the meanwhile you will remember that you are still under subpoena. Is it clear? Thank you. What about the other gentlemen?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the indication is that the other gentlemen that are sitting with him, they also understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you ensure that such documents as they may require, will be made available to them and their Attorneys?

ADV MPSHE: That will be done Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I just mention further that there may be a need for them to have the legal assistance of the State Attorney because this was done when they were still in the duty of the SAPS and I will have to go and see the State Attorney today in order to discuss the matter with him, but that will be done. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, thank you. Thank you gentlemen.

Now, Mr Derby-Lewis, are we ready to proceed with your evidence?

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just address the Committee Mr Chairman. I did not have the opportunity at all to ask the Committee questions with regard to the documentation because Mr Bizos, it appears to me, is the person who takes the lead. He has taken it upon himself to tell the Committee that we would like to ask for a postponement.

What I would like to state to the Committee is that on Monday, as you are aware, and I am not going to repeat the whole story, we received the documents at quarter to ten and as far as my client is concerned, we really had to go on face value. In the copies that I have, and we detected irregularities, my client and I and we have been trying to clarify this since Monday, but it is impossible to clarify these matters without the original documents and access thereto. Mr Bizos, yesterday with many words, handed in documents from a pre-trial conference as well as the document addressed to Mr Mpshe regarding the documents which he had required.

On the 4th of August in the pre-trial conference, he also played on words and requested the original documents, but Your Honour, it is to me absolutely hair raising yesterday when I heard that the original documents and apparently the one in particular, Captain Deetliefs' which is the most problematic, from the 5th of June and I have to pick my words very carefully because Mr Bizos will lift up his hands again, and these documents have been in the hands of Mr Bizos' attorney since then, but the firm of Attorneys is misleading the Committee, because if on Monday they had submitted the documents in all honesty when I had stated my case, then there would have been no problems, and it would have been resolved.

But now the applicants' legal representatives are embarrassed every day because we have to ask every day for a postponement. Mr Bizos is the one who opposes everything, but Your Honour, it is these two applicants' right and their only opportunity afforded by this Act, and they have to avail themselves to the best of their ability, of this opportunity.

I have had insight into the docket and I have prepared myself for Mr Walus, but it is that document in particular which now covers a number of documents, which had not been contained in the docket. These are documents which Captain Holmes had handed to Mr Bizos. Apparently documents which the Police had kept in other files. Why were the Attorneys of Mr Bizos dishonest and hid this fact from us?

A further thing that was really scary yesterday afternoon at four o'clock, we first heard that the video tapes and the sound cassettes were in the possession of the Committee and Mr Mpshe, never disclosed this.

Can you think how much time has been wasted since Monday because these things have not been told to us? And I take with respect, what Judge Wilson has said. Why don't we just go and fetch these things? But since Monday we have been trying to find out where these things are and in the mean while these things are laying under our noses.

And then Mr Bizos comes and uses long speeches before the applicants, not the respondents, before the applicants, had asked for a postponement. He comes and he opposes this. Perhaps I don't understand it clearly, perhaps I don't understand clearly the procedure of the Committee, but this is very strange to me.

And before Mr Prinsloo addresses you because it is his client who is still testifying, I would like to state to you that I do not feel able to place this case of Mr Walus before this Honourable Committee if I don't have the original documents so that I can consult with him fully on this matter, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give me the precise description of the original document that you are talking about?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, it is a set of documents, it is a problem to me to describe exactly but these are documents that were used, cross-questioning, investigations of the Police contained in these documents, the statements were prepared by Captain Deetliefs.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on. I would like you to - I want to tabulate the documents that you want please.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to receive the notes from the questioning and the statements, I mean the written notes of the Police Officers as well as the typed statements made by my client, those are the documents that I require. Because portions of the handwritten notes are contained in the R4 volume, but a number of pages of the original handwritten copies are missing.

But there are typed versions of those handwritten pages.

CHAIRPERSON: Are these the documents or statements made by your client to Mr Deetliefs?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct. Together with that I noted that there were tapes, cassette tapes that accompanied these questioning sessions, documents and I saw one marked number 6.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am sorry, we don't quite follow, some of us. Are you able to speak with reference to R4 and the pages thereof, please?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, if you will allow me some time I will be able to give you page references in R4.

84, from 84.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And what is that? What is this document? Is it interrogation by ...

JUDGE WILSON: Is it page 84 to 86 and then apparently the typed version at 87 and 88?

MS VAN DER WALT: Then you will see that it continues in R4 from 294 through to, it continues and it is really a bit in disarray here, I can't follow exactly what is happening here, but it is a very long statement of which I require the handwritten notes.

The statement which I referred to now, 294, continues into interrogation as well. It continued over quite a long period, it also includes statements of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.

JUDGE NGOEPE: 294 is Deetliefs' own statement, not your client's statement.

MS VAN DER WALT: Included we also have from page 301 onwards which also contains interrogation and if you were to look at the statement on page 296, you would see that at 301 it just starts with the word "correctly", it doesn't start with a sentence proper. It doesn't start at the beginning of a paragraph or anything like that.

JUDGE WILSON: That correctly is the end of the sentence on the previous page. You are not exclusive ...

MS VAN DER WALT: My bundle doesn't have those two pages. My bundle doesn't have those two pages.

JUDGE WILSON: You haven't got page 300?

MS VAN DER WALT: No, it seems to me there is two pages missing.

JUDGE WILSON: I thought you made a copy from the bundle I lent you?

MS VAN DER WALT: I will carry on using Mr Prinsloo's bundle now. But this whole statement and the interrogation that accompanies the statement of Captain Deetliefs, I want the handwritten notes, the original handwritten notes preceding this typed version, because I can't follow that at all.

JUDGE WILSON: Were there handwritten ...

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, Judge, I will tell you why I refer to this. If you look at page 304, let me just find the other bundle, if you look at page 87 it is the same document, I have pointed this out before, but 87 has a handwritten interrogation, that is contained in the first three pages before 87.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What about them? What about the two pages 87 and 301?

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to point out to you that the handwritten portion that you have in front of you, that is the set of interrogation notes of the Police. Page 84, 85 and 86, this was retyped, page 87 and 88.

You will see that the handwritten portion ends with the words "is possible". And that is also the end of the typed version, but then if we look at page 304, which is exactly the same set of data, it has the same heading as in Mr Deetliefs' statement and continues 304, then you will see if you look at 305, the last sentence ends on the words "is possible", but if you turn to the next page, the interrogation continues and now I would like to know where is that handwritten portion of the rest of that interrogation.

JUDGE WILSON: But it makes it clear if you look at the top of page 304, he refers to that particular piece having been written. "Mr Walus after that said the following which was also written down by Warrant Officer Beetge upon my request, namely -" and then what was written down was pages 304 and 305. The written copy of that is at page 86. The rest then goes onto tape again.

MS VAN DER WALT: But if you look at page 87, it is something which was tape recorded, that same thing was tape recorded.

JUDGE WILSON: But they've got that one written out, so they referred to it here. There is nothing to indicate, you may be right, I am just saying there is nothing to indicate to me, it appears if you look at the rest of this long document that it was all tape recorded, it is question and answer tape recorded, I (Walus) and then what he says. The next one (Captain), which would appear somebody was taking down this from a tape.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now you could perhaps see my problem. I have two documents and it appears to be one document but page 306 continues in the one case, but on page 87 it does not continue and therefore there is something missing.

And I either have to have the original handwritten version from 306 onwards or the tape. Because my client can for example, that which is written on page 307, which is written in the first person, that is in English, that my client cannot even speak. That is on page 307.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Van der Walt, it would appear that even from page 84 to 86, including page 304 onwards, all these are recorded statements from cassette number 6.

Are these not all recorded statements from page 84 to 86, continuing from page 304 onwards? The handwritten notes were also recorded?

MS VAN DER WALT: The handwritten copies are only those three pages.

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes, but it would appear to form part of the recordings in tape number 6.

MS VAN DER WALT: If I could receive that tape, perhaps I could understand this and then perhaps I can make out what is going on here, but I cannot understand at this stage and this is what I told the Committee on Monday. I consulted with my client and he knows nothing about these interrogations.

CHAIRPERSON: Your client has made a statement to you about the evidence he is going to lead before this Commission, hasn't he?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you lead that evidence and if he is cross-examined on any documents which you do not have, we will deal with the problem at that stage. Your client is making an application for amnesty, he sets out the details as fully as you think he should set them out, you have a statement and you can lead that evidence.

If he is cross-examined on documents which you do not have, if that matter requires clarification, at that stage, we can clarify it. Otherwise this might just be a discussion about pages which might ultimately have no relevance to the issue.

MS VAN DER WALT: With respect Mr Chairman, it is relevant. Allegations are really made in these statements which do not appear in my client's application and my client will be prejudiced if I cannot consult with him in this regard.

I cannot allow my client to testify and throw him to the wolves. I am here to protect his interests and act in his interest. The documents are in the possession of the Mr Bizos' Attorneys, why can't we receive these documents?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, is there anything that you wish to add that can throw more light on the problem we are confronted with?

MR BIZOS: Yes, I am instructed by my Instructing Attorney that we made available what we had to the Commission and took the trouble, at considerable expense, to make copies of those documents which we thought relevant and which we gave to the representatives of the applicants.

My Instructing Attorney resents the suggestion that she has in any way behaved improperly and we are really surprised at the manner in which that address was delivered and the content of it.

Mr Chairman, we did more than we were obliged to do by making those statements, copies of those statements, available. We could have put those statements to the applicants without notice, but because we wanted to be fair in these proceedings, we served on them copies of statements which we thought relevant to the issues before the Committee.

We are not obliged to prepare the applicant's case. We heard from counsel for the second applicant that she had sight of the docket if I understood her correctly. Well, the documents that we had were copied from the Attorney General's file which was made available to us and it was made clear to us that we had to return the Attorney General's file as soon as we have made copies.

So it is quite incorrect for it to be suggested that we had original documents which we did not disclose. We thought of not only giving the typed copies of the statements, but also the handwritten statements which in some instances are signed by the applicants, I would submit with respect that it is open to them to say that those statements, it is not their signatures, they were not freely and voluntarily made, they can deal with it in whatever manner their conscience and their legal representatives may advise them to do. But to put the blame on us is not going to be of any assistance.

The other matter Mr Chairman is, yes I did tell the Committee that I was informed that there would be an application for a statement. I thought that once the Committee asked me the matters related to the witnesses, that that matter of the witnesses could not be divorced from the notice that I had that there would be an application for a postponement.

And in conclusion I would appeal to counsel for the second applicant, to refrain from making statements which impinge up on the manner in which our Attorney and we ourselves, are conducting ourselves in this inquiry, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I come in here Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I just want to respond to the insinuation that I may have behaved unprofessionally by not disclosing to the Committee the presence of the audio cassettes.

Mr Chairman, I want to dispel that in that on Monday, this Monday, I was approached by the Instructing Attorney to Adv Bizos about the video cassettes only. And I indicated to her that I have in possession video cassettes which she was looking for, and I immediately caused them to be sent down to Pretoria.

Nothing was said to me about the audio tapes, neither did I know before or even at the time when the pre-trial meeting took place, that the audio tapes were in the Commission's possession.

I learnt about this only yesterday at twenty past four Mr Chairman. If the Chairman will recall, the Chair called me together with Adv Prinsloo when Adv Prinsloo approached the Chair and told the Chair that he learns from Captain Holmes that the audio tapes are with our Investigative Team.

And only at twenty past four pm I called our Investigative Officer, Mr Wilson Magadla, to confirm this because I was not aware of their presence in our possession, and only at that time did Mr Magadla confirmed that yes, we do have the audio tapes and then I caused them to be couriered yesterday at five to five pm.

Now, it is incorrect that I knew and they were under our noses all the time when this was the subject of a dispute. I want that to be dispelled Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, before the Committee takes a little time to consider what to do in this matter, and to avoid unnecessary interruptions, are there any points that you wish to make at this stage relating to this matter?

MR PRINSLOO: First of all, in as far as the sequence of events are concerned, Captain Holmes informed me ...

CHAIRPERSON: You told us that already.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, but I just want to, with regard to the tapes Mr Chairman, that it was in possession of the Committee and I want to place on record that I did speak to Mr Chairman at the adjournment yesterday in order to ascertain where this gentleman Magadla could be located and that is when Mr Chairman approached Mr Mpshe and Mr Mpshe did communicate with Mr Magadla and Mr Magadla informed him that the tapes, that is now the audio tapes, were in Cape Town.

And it is correct that Mr Mpshe informed me that he had possession of video tapes which he told me this morning, are available here in the Committee chambers.

Mr Chairman, in as far as the documents are concerned, that was obtained by my learned friend's legal attorneys, which were obtained on the 5th of June, and Mr Holmes informed us that certain of the documents in the file which is in the possession of our learned friends, were removed from a docket, certain of them, and from what he informed us it would appear that is the same statement under discussion, so that statement as from the 5th of June, were no longer in possession of the Attorney General's docket and apparently that is the original docket in possession of the Attorney General.

So no one could have had sight of that statement in any event because it is in possession of our learned friends.

CHAIRPERSON: What document are you talking about?

MR PRINSLOO: I am referring to Captain Deetliefs lengthy statement Mr Chairman. At a glance, just at a quick glance at the file, that is what I referred Mr Holmes to this morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Chairman, there are other documents in the files which is now in possession of Captain Holmes. Those are the files which the Attorneys for the family had in their possession.

I had a discussion with Mr Mpshe with regard to this, that we will have to examine those documents in order to see which of those documents we require to use in this regard, because as Mr Bizos indicated, certain of the documents were removed from there and forms part of R4, which he deemed relevant.

I haven't had the opportunity to examine those documents at all. There are a number of files. Mr Chairman, I would also require the Section 29 detention files. What I quickly looked at this morning, it was at a glance, I didn't peruse them thoroughly, they do not appear to be part of that.

I was under the impression that documents such as the occurrence book, cell registers which pertains to Mr Derby-Lewis and Mrs Derby-Lewis would also be made available. I was informed that Mr Holmes had been subpoenaed for that purpose and he was to gather that information. It does not appear to be available at this stage.

Mr Chairman, the tape recordings are essential. If one looks at the documents, it is apparent some of it is transcribed to notes and does not give a verbatim conversation with the applicant. That is the applicant as well as Mrs Derby-Lewis where it is relevant and I respectfully submit it is essential for me to listen to those tapes, with the applicant, in order for him to at least refresh his memory to what took place four and a half years ago.

And also to go through the documents in the files in order to prepare the applicant properly to present his case. He is entitled to a fair hearing and a fair trial.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that he hasn't had that?

MR PRINSLOO: I am not suggesting Mr Chairman. I am not suggesting that he hasn't had a fair hearing, what I am saying Mr Chairman, he must be afforded the opportunity to proceed presenting his case on a fair basis.

JUDGE WILSON: Could I interrupt you for a moment. I had misunderstood the position. Mr Bizos, I understood that your Attorney got the docket or the papers on the 5th of June, copied them and returned them to the Attorney General. When were they returned?

MR BIZOS: There is a qualification in relation to page 353, the whole document Mr Deetliefs' document, it starts at 299 and finishes at 353 and which appears to be ... (tape ends) ... I beg your pardon, it is signed by Mr Deetliefs on 353 and goes on.

What I am instructed is that that is the document that we got from Captain Holmes. This is the document that we got on the 5th of June and it has the, appears to have the signature of Mr Deetliefs in its original form.

JUDGE WILSON: Was it returned or did you keep it? Your Attorney I mean, not you?

MR BIZOS: I am instructed that it remained in the possession of our Attorneys.

JUDGE WILSON: So the applicant could not have got hold of it?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Mr Chairman. That is the point we are trying to make.

MR BIZOS: That is correct. May I just indicate Mr Chairman, that when this was disclosed to the applicant's Attorneys, I am instructed that they wanted the handwritten notes, that is really what they were interested in, which we have never had, which we have never had.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, it is in answer to your question.

MR PRINSLOO: I would also like to just place on record Mr Chairman, that I did speak to the Attorney, Miss Nicholas and it was at the adjournment yesterday and she did show me the particular statement which is a signed one in the possession of the Attorney and that was the first time I had sight of that particular statement in a signed form.

It is a typed statement Mr Chairman, and it appeared to me from looking at it, I am not an expert, that the signature thereon appeared to be an original signature on a typed document. It also appeared to be an original document.

There is another document which could be a copy of it, it looked similar, I haven't compared the two of them. It was also purportedly made by the same person, Captain Deetliefs. But in addition Mr Chairman, there are numerous other documents which doesn't form part of the document R4 before the Committee Mr Chairman, which was until yesterday, in the possession of, or today rather, in the possession of the Attorneys, which is now in the possession of Captain Holmes and that apparently doesn't form part of the docket.

But from my experience Mr Chairman, the Section 29 detention files and that doesn't form part of the docket either and is normally kept separate from that.

I haven't had sight of that and numerous other documents and tapes. Mr Mpshe, for the Committee, I spoke to him this morning. In informed him that I would be seeking an adjournment at this stage and I explained my situation to him and Mr Mpshe indicated that he would support such an application and that he understood my situation.

That is merely what I debated with Mr Mpshe and I would like to place it fully on record as to what transpired Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, at this stage I am making an application for a postponement in order for me to obtain the documents, study the documents and the tape recordings, video recordings and to consult fully with my client in order to further present his case and to finalise his case.

I respectfully submit Mr Chairman, this would indeed save time, it is fair to the applicant so that this opportunity be availed and also in the light of, as my colleague already pointed out, the same Captain Deetliefs is also the person concerned in questioning the applicant.

Mr Chairman, I have up till now presented evidence as far as I could and I respectfully submit I am not in a position to further present evidence without that opportunity being available to me. It is essential that I be granted that opportunity.

JUDGE WILSON: Were any attempts made to get any of these documents from the Attorney General or from anyone else before Mr Bizos produced R4?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in as far as these Deetliefs documents are concerned, they were not in possession of the Attorney General. The documents were obtained from the Attorney General, but those documents doesn't form part of certain of the documents which was under discussion this morning, Mr Chairman.

So subsequent to the 5th of June, they were not longer at least in the possession of the Attorney General if they were in his possession at any stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not consider it proper to get whatever documents you wanted, before the previous hearing?

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit Mr Chairman, as we indicated in our presentation to the Committee, that we regarded Section 29 proceedings not to be relevant and not to be admissible. It was also the advise given to our client at the time Mr Chairman.

And the Section 29 statements, documents I am told, were in the possession in any event, of the Police, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Prinsloo, for my part, I would like to have a clear picture of the documents that you want. I don't think it is good enough to say numerous other documents, because we wouldn't like to have the matter postponed with a vague request as to some documents which may or may not even exist.

And then we come back again for the same problem. I would suggest if you can, that you give us a neat list of the precise documents that you would like to have.

If you want a short adjournment, the Chairman tells me that he would be inclined to do that, and if you could write, perhaps write them out and specify precisely what documents you want and then we can take it further from there.

CHAIRPERSON: That applies to Mrs Van der Walt as well. I am going to adjourn for a short while. I would like you to present a document to us in which you will set out precisely what documents you have not got which you want.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I clarify something first of the apparent confusion as to what we got from the Attorney General and what we got from elsewhere.

R4, first part, this is the part that we intended particularly to use and you will see on the first and second pages, and the third page and the fourth page, the first three pages of the index are the documents that are contained in the first R4 file.

All those documents were obtained from the Attorney General. We submit that the documents that we want to use are the statements that are set out on pages 1, 2 and 3 of R4 of the index. Those are the statements that we want to use.

The second part of R4 which is indexed on pages 4 and 5, those were documents which were obtained from Captain Holmes which deal with the manner in which the statements in the first part of the people concerned, were obtained.

So, I hope that that is clear that it is primarily the statements of the two applicants and Mrs Derby-Lewis that we are concerned with and we submit that we did our bit to inform them of what it was that we wanted to use.

JUDGE NGOEPE: May we, if you don't mind, impose the same obligation on you. You see this cross-references, there have been so many cross-references and at the end of the day one is not quite clear which documents and up to what page, were found in the docket or remained in the possession.

Would you be able to itemise the documents? I see your Attorney is nodding her head and I am sure she agrees with me in advance. I think that would help us a lot just for us to have a clear picture.

MR BIZOS: The other documents that we may use, of course depend upon what allegations are made against the Police Officers with whom we had a brief discussion, with Captain Holmes who assures us that these statements were freely and voluntarily made and that there are certain documents which may have to be produced in order to rebut anything that Mr Derby-Lewis and Walus say about their treatment.

It is very difficult to tie ourselves down until we hear what these two gentlemen, what allegations they want to make about the manner in which their statements that we want to prove, really came into being.

But in so far as we are now able to do, we will give a list but we will not, we cannot promise that this will be a complete list because it may well be that there may be other documents in order to ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry to interrupt, not a list of the documents you intend to use. There have been some accusations or to put it lower, there have been some suggestions that your Attorney has been in possession of some documents from a certain period. That is the list that I am talking about.

If you were to write out a list and say that the following documents were in our possession from the 5th of August, then give us a list of those documents. So that we could have a clear picture at the end of the day.

Not a list of the documents that you intend to use.

MR BIZOS: We will do that. But may I just make one submission that whether we had certain documents or not, it isn't our possession of any documents that really prevented the applicant from not being, or the applicants from not being ready.

The reason why they are not ready is not because we were in possession of any documents, but because as stated, they took up the attitude that the statements that they made to the Police and surrounding circumstances were not relevant to these proceedings. And if there is any blame, that is where the blame lies and not with us with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think to put it fairly the contention on their part was that they were inadmissible. They thought that all the documents contained relating to Section 29 detentions were inadmissible in evidence and therefore they didn't have to concern themselves with it.

It now transpires and they now find themselves in a position where that evidence will have to be adduced if it is relevant before this Commission. And they haven't had sight of those documents.

MR BIZOS: If that is, with respect, if it is a correct summary of the situation, we are hardly to blame for their mis-advising themselves on the admissibility and the relevance of the documents. That is all I want to say.

CHAIRPERSON: That is so, yes. Yes, I think we will afford the parties an opportunity to do this and I am hoping that at the end of it we will be in a position to carry on with the evidence.

We will take an adjournment, will you tell us as soon as you are ready and call us please.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: ... a list of documents?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we have prepared a list of documents and cassette and video recordings required. Would you like me to read this to you or may I just submit the list to you?

Mr Chair, it is a list and then there is a list on two pages of documents and cassettes taken by the Investigative Members of the Commission which I would also require. May I submit this to you?

Mr Chairman, in as far as the typed documents are concerned, those documents are in possession of the Committee, the gentleman mentioned this morning, Mr Magadla.

CHAIRPERSON: These are not documents, these are cassettes and videos?

MR PRINSLOO: Cassettes and documents, that is correct, Mr Chairman.

That is cassettes as well as - video tapes as well as documents, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, have you had a chance of looking at these documents?

MR BIZOS: The list that you have was not tendered to us. CHAIRPERSON: Have you a list of yours?

MR BIZOS: Well, we have written out precisely what we got from whom and when we tendered it. I don't know if you want me to read it out, but I am prepared to hand it in.

CHAIRPERSON: Please hand it in to me.

MR BIZOS: The only matter that I wish to place on record is that we have never had sight of any audio or video cassettes. For the rest, the document sets out which documents were in the Attorney General's docket and which documents were in the docket of Captain Holmes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: And where they are to be found in R4.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that at some stage you should have a copy of the list prepared by counsel for the applicants and likewise you should have a copy of the document that has been handed in by Mr Bizos.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What is this typed ...

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, that particular list, those are documents and video and tape recordings which were taken from Captain Holmes. That is a receipt given by Captain Holmes to, at least Mr Magadla gave the receipt to Captain Holmes, Mr Chairman.

Those tapes, videos and statements are no longer in possession of Captain Holmes, that is why they are on a separate list Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, have you seen the list of documents which are supposed to be in the possession of Mr Magadla? Do you know anything about them?

ADV MPSHE: No Mr Chairman, I haven't seen the list Mr Chairman. But what I can say is that the audio tapes are in the possession of Mr Magadla, as well as the videos.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you told us that.

ADV MPSHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you would have a look at the documents as well that are in the list, in the possession of Mr Magadla.

ADV MPSHE: I will do so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr Prinsloo, what is the next step?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, as you were told in Chambers, Captain Holmes, he's got the certain tapes, videos and certain documents in his possession which pertains to the list handed in list, the first list Mr Chairman. What I respectfully submit and suggest to the Committee that we be given the opportunity to go to the offices of Captain Holmes which is in Pretoria and examine those documents he's got and then obtain copies from those documents.

And at least Mr Chairman, it will expedite the matter. The documents will be obtained. The other documents on the list are in the possession of Mr Magadla which I am sure will be easily obtainable.

Mr Chairman, and then as I already addressed with regard to my earlier request for the matter to be adjourned in order for us to prepare the case, as already suggested.

CHAIRPERSON: We do not know how many of these documents will prove to be relevant for the purposes of the present hearing. It may be that counsel for the applicants themselves may find that some of these documents are not relevant.

There may be some that are. Our prima facie view is that it is important for them to listen to what is recorded on those cassettes whilst their clients were being questioned or interrogated and primarily for that purpose, it does seem that some latitude should be allowed for counsel for the applicants to have an opportunity to listen to those cassettes. To what extent the videos assist them, or not, is something that I am not aware of but at any rate, if they are available, and I understand that they will be available, they should be afforded an opportunity to do that.

Now, you have indicated earlier that you are going to oppose an application for a postponement which you got wind of early this morning. The Committee is extremely unhappy that its work is interrupted almost on a daily basis, sometimes twice and thrice a day for short adjournments and postponements and this is not how we visualised that our work should be done.

However, these are matters of great concern to the two applicants. They are indeed matters of considerable importance to them - far more important than anybody else that might be involved in these matters and we are of the view that they should be afforded this opportunity so that they can better prepare themselves.

It does seem that despite your undertaking that you will not cross-examine them on the documents contained in R4, there might be other material in the cassettes which they might want to adduce in evidence in chief rather than allow it to be brought out in cross-examination or questioning by you.

And that is a matter of importance because it ought not to be said at some stage, that they didn't freely and voluntarily make a full disclosure and that this was merely extracted from them under questioning and cross-examination.

And we would like to avoid finding ourselves in the position of having to decide at some stage when we will have to decide this question of whether there has been a full disclosure or not. It is a matter of some importance in all these cases and my Committee is of the view that we ought to afford them this opportunity so that they can be better prepared.

We are prepared to grant their request. If it is within my power I would like to say that I am earnestly hoping that this is going to be the last request for a postponement.

JUDGE WILSON: One comment I would like to make and that is that this list has obviously been prepared in some hurry, but that there should be some attempt made to specify what documents are required.

For example, to merely asked for the cell register from Benoni and Edenvale, does that relate to the last 97 years? These documents are put away by the Police and by the Prisons and everybody else they are filed. I would suggest that you put the date, the precise dates you want the documents rather than just a general request of that nature.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I just respond to that. The list was compiled with the knowledge of Captain Holmes and he said that particular cell register and occurrence book is indeed in his possession. I ought to have specified a date Mr Chairman, but it is with that knowledge that he has got it available, I did not specify a date.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: There is no date, it is correct Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Before I take a decision as to the length of the adjournment, what do you have to say in the matter?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit the time that we require would be tomorrow, the rest of today and tomorrow and by the weekend we will have it finalised Mr Chairman.

Tomorrow is Friday. We will have to look at tapes, video recordings Mr Chairman and tapes and documents.

CHAIRPERSON: You know that burden can be shared. You don't all have to do that, somebody has to listen to the tapes and check them against the documents whilst others read through other documents.

And I think that we have to be a little more expeditious in matters of this kind. We have lost a great deal of time in this matter and seeing videos and so on, can't take a great deal of time, apart from whatever entertainment value they have.

JUDGE WILSON: None of the videos are Police, they are all SABC.

CHAIRPERSON: So I think Mr Prinsloo and Mrs Van der Walt, I am constrained to grant your application for an adjournment, but I would like to fix a time tomorrow by which we can commence.

Would it be convenient if we commenced at eleven o'clock tomorrow?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with the qualification, I don't know how much time is going to be required. I haven't listened to those tapes, what length they are and with the videos as such Mr Chairman, and documents.

CHAIRPERSON: I think your Attorney can listen to those whilst you are doing the other things you know.

JUDGE WILSON: The videos are mainly SABC news, Agenda, matters of that nature. What conceivable interest can they be?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, Captain Holmes informed me that he is in possession of certain other videos. Those I don't know to what they pertain, that is why they are on the list Mr Chairman. The others are there on the list which are in the possession of Mr Magadla.

Those have been discussed Mr Chairman. There are two lots of tapes Mr Chairman, one in Mr Magadla's possession, the other in Mr Holmes' and then the videos Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The list that I saw of the tapes supposed to be in the possession of Magadla, they refer to people like Maria Ras and oh, no, these are the audio tapes and to all this type of people.

You see, one doesn't really know how these sort of things become relevant and we don't even know what the contents thereof is. And whether you propose that you are going to listen to every tape that is there on earth, as long as it relates to this incident, it is really problematic Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, we will indeed sort them out as soon as possible. No doubt, what is irrelevant, we will leave out.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But you must also remember that you are actually, strictly speaking, you are asking for an indulgence, these things you ought to have done a long time ago. And we are trying to balance the interest as best as we can, to assist you, but surely there must be some limit somewhere along the line.

We need to deal with this matter. We said this before, earlier on and we are saying it again, the Amnesty Committee does not have an indefinite lifetime, by statute by law, we must wind up our business by a certain period.

And you know, all these factors must come into consideration. You are asking for an indulgence and we are trying to lean backwards to accommodate you as far as we can.

But it seems to me, looking at the list one can't help getting the impression that here you seem to be engaging in some kind of fishing expedition as well.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, the benefit of that is to speak to Captain Holmes and there is reference made to tapes which were retained with regard to the questions in terms of Section 29.

JUDGE WILSON: It is not the video tapes that my brother is talking about.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it is not clear to us. Mr Chairman, I have been informed by, with respect Mr Chairman, I have been informed by Mr Mpshe, although it appears on the list as such, that as for instance he mentioned a video tape which refers to the questioning of Mr Walus, which is amongst that, it doesn't appear on the list so specified.

That is the difficulty we have. Mr Chairman, it is mainly to safeguard that we don't say we didn't ask for tapes, but it pertains to the Section 29 issues exclusively.

We won't refer to any other issues.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should also remember the point that has been made and that is that the Act imposes no obligation on people who object to the granting of amnesty, to be furnishing you with any documents.

MR PRINSLOO: We appreciate the situation Mr Chairman, but indeed, and we also appreciate the Commission's indulgence in this regard, this was unforeseen circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well now, I am going to grant you an adjournment Mr Prinsloo and Mrs Van der Walt, but we are going to begin tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.

MR PRINSLOO: As you please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And I want you to seriously consider the matter and work on the basis that you will think very, very hard before you make a further request for adjournments during the hearing.

I would like to avoid any delays once we have commenced at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am indebted to your indulgence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I mention something in view of the indication that there is going to be an adjournment in order to get these documents which we fully accept in the circumstances.

We would be the last to stand in the way of the applicants having every opportunity to try and prove their case with in reason. I want to revert to a matter in which the question of onus on the statements that we want to use, having been freely and voluntarily made and without undue influence.

Our learned friend said that the onus is on us to prove that they were. In an inquiry there are no questions of onus and why I raise it now is could our learned friends please prepare their clients and lead evidence in the evidence in chief of the first applicant, as to why he says these statements are not admissible, so that we can canvass that issue as well as part and parcel of the whole inquiry.

Otherwise I hope that it is not going to be contended that we must have a trial within a trial before we can make use of these statements in cross-examination.

JUDGE WILSON: What do you say Mr Bizos, where the statement says "sir, I do not think I can answer without speaking to a lawyer. I am tired and could leave out something. You understand Sir, I cannot answer."

MR BIZOS: That will be taken into consideration in way the validity of the answer. It doesn't make it inadmissible.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't place an onus on anybody either.

MR BIZOS: It doesn't place an onus and I may also say with respect that the mere fact that there may be matter in there which may appear to have been uncomfortable for the applicants, the final issue is going to be, are they going to be able to persuade the court that their treatment was such that their statements are false?

All those factors have got to be taken into consideration, even in cases of confessions. I don't want to argue the matter now. What I am appealing Mr Chairman is that we mustn't come back tomorrow and say well, we cannot make use of the statements of the applicants in determining firstly whether they were freely and voluntarily made, having regard to what they have to say about it and whether or not they are admissible.

That will be the question at the end of the proceedings, I submit, and this is not the sort of criminal trial where we have to have a trial within a trial. Let them say what they have to say. They can be cross-examined on it and the Police Officers will be called in order to confirm or negate their complaints.

This is what I suggest ought to happen because I foresee another trick for touch in relation to it and because I indicated originally that I will accept the onus, or that we will accept the onus of proving that they are freely and voluntarily made, I thought it opportune to make this clarification in order that the work of the Committee may proceed in a more orderly fashion.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to hear any further argument on this matter. I think Mr Prinsloo and Mrs Van der Walt, it is quite clear that when the representatives of the family of a deceased come here to oppose the granting of amnesty, there is no onus on them to prove or disprove anything. They are here to point out that an applicant's case does not meet the requirements of the Act, they have not made a full disclosure or they are concealing facts, arguments of that kind.

There is no onus under the Act on them to prove or disprove anything. So, I think you should bear in mind that whatever documents are going to be used, maybe used, we are concerned with how much weight we are going to attach to any evidence which has been extracted unfairly or evidence which did not correctly reflect what was said by the witness and so on, we will after hearing the evidence, decide how much weight to attach.

It does not involve the question of onus. This is not a criminal litigation or a civil litigation. I think one should bear that in mind.

Very regrettably I now adjourn this hearing until tomorrow morning eleven o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

15-08-1997: Day 5

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to begin Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, so far the Police or any other people have not been able to transcribe or to make available the tapes that are described to us.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, before Mr Prinsloo states what he has not received, I just want to put on record inasfar as the tapes are concerned, as to what happened yesterday.

Mr Chairman, ...

CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you let Mr Prinsloo finish what he has to say?

ADV MPSHE: I can do that.

CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't finished, have you finished?

MR PRINSLOO: (No English translation - own translation) Mr Chairman, what I would like to place on record as far as the tape recordings are concerned, that are referred to on page 19 and the following pages, have not been delivered. At this stage it cannot be made available to us. This morning during a discussion between Captain Holmes and Mr Mpshe, Captain Holmes undertook to launch a further search for these cassettes.

Further Mr Chairman, yesterday at four o'clock the cassette recordings were received from Mr Mpshe, they consisted of a number of ten. Then further Mr Chairman, we also had the opportunity to make copies of documents in possession of the Police and we also gained possession of video recordings.

At this stage Mr Chairman, we would like to continue with our evidence with the proviso that should the tapes with regard to numbers 3 and 4 are obtained, we will refer to those. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Those are cassette tapes numbered 3 and 4 if you look on page 19, those are the cassettes we are referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, is there anything you wish to say?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I have been covered by Adv Prinsloo, I have nothing to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr Prinsloo.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, there is something that I wish to place on record which happened outside these proceedings.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, Mr Chairman, who is a person mentioned in the evidence saw fit yesterday to hold a press conference in which she made a number of statements which affect our professional conduct and also affect the reputations of witnesses who may give evidence here.

I do not want Mr Chairman, to become involved in a war of words with Mrs Derby-Lewis, but I am going to ask you Mr Chairman, to say to her that it is considered improper for her to comment outside this court as to the manner in which we do our work and her opinions about witnesses.

One of the most damaging things that she said was that we were going to lead evidence of known torturers which evidence we scraped from the bottom of the barrel. In defence of our professional integrity and for the credibility of the witnesses that may be called, I want to read firstly to hand in, copies of a letter on President Council letterheads, written by Mr Derby-Lewis to the Colonel in charge of the investigation on 16th of May 1993 in order to show that if we did get this from the bottom of the barrel, it was a statement which completely contradicts her statement that we are relying on evidence obtained under torture.

The letter reads

"President's Council, P.O. Box 1462, Klerksdorp, 1749.

Dear Colonel, just a brief letter to you and your staff in order to thank you for the decent way in which you had treated me during my time spent in detention in Benoni.

I also wish to congratulate you with a very good team and I would like to request you to give my good wishes to one and all and wish them luck for the future. Once again, thank you very much.

I shall remember you all with positive thoughts.

Kind regards, Clive Derby-Lewis.

When this is all over, I shall once again one day go and visit you."

Now Mr Chairman, when we tendered the statements made under Section 6 by the two applicants and Mrs Derby-Lewis who on the face of them, appear to be particularly relevant to these proceedings, the Committee was told that they were coerced in making those statements and that they will consider them to be inadmissible. Mrs Derby-Lewis, outside these proceedings, added colour to those statements and the widest possible publicity was given to her remarks.

I am applying Mr Chairman, that Mrs Derby-Lewis be told that purporting to be a journalist, she is of course free to say whatever she pleases, provided she does not say things which are improper in relation to those who are participating in these proceedings and in relation to witnesses who may come.

I placed on record Mr Chairman, that we believe that the statements were freely and voluntarily made. It was not a statement which was made without proper information and the letter that I have just produced, may go to show that the claim that they were not freely and voluntarily made, were false and that most certainly the allegations made by Mrs Derby-Lewis outside this room, were false. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I do not know whether Mrs Derby-Lewis is going to be a witness is these proceedings or not at this stage. It may be that she is exercising her rights of free speech in making a political statement, but I want to assure you that whatever she has said or is reported to have said, has not affected members of this Committee and will in no way influence us.

Any extraneous matter apart from what we hear here, will not have any influence on us. Because I do not know whether she is going to give evidence in this matter at this stage, I do not think that I should call upon her, I do not think that I have authority to call upon her not to make statements.

I prefer to leave the matter as it is, but I want to give you the assurance that whatever she or anybody else says, in press interviews, will have no affect on the proceedings before us.

MR BIZOS: That will be the case, but may I ask that this letter be incorporated into her record, because we believe that it is very material evidence as to whether or not those statements were freely and voluntarily made and could it go into the "R" file as the next page please, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I just assist you. There is a bundle of documents which we intend referring to in testimony this morning and the particular document which Mr Bizos has submitted to you, forms part of this bundle of documents.

I have prepared it and with your permission, if I could receive a reference number for marking this bundle, then we shall submit this to you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think your bundle of documents should be numbered differently. Your bundle of documents were A, B and C and D.

MR PRINSLOO: Bundle D?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I am indebted to you.

CHAIRPERSON: So you will be now handing in fresh documents. We will regard these documents as forming part of bundle D?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chair. In this particular document, the letter which my learned friend Mr Bizos has referred to, is numbered as number 3. May I submit them to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

JUDGE WILSON: Am I right in saying that bundle D is also volume 13 in the volumes of the proceedings?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chair, but this is a new document. This is a document which we obtained yesterday from the files, Police files that we looked at.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that we are saying that this will form part of bundle D?

MR PRINSLOO: As you wish Mr Chairman. They are already numbered the pages now, that is from 1 through to 11.

MR MALUNDI: Mr Chairman, with respect shouldn't the bundle form a new bundle E, because D is something different from what my learned friend wants to hand over?

CHAIRPERSON: I think this will now be called bundle E. May we proceed please, thank you. So Mr Bizos, there will be no need for you to hand in this letter, we have received this.

Please do carry on.

MR PRINSLOO: May we then proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: It's some time since we last sat Mr Derby-Lewis, may I remind you that you are still under oath?

CLIVE- DERBY LEWIS: (still under affirmation)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: (cont)

Mr Derby-Lewis, you wanted to submit something before we recommence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there are two matters. The first concerns my concern about that which I expressed earlier regarding the effect that our action has had on Mrs Hani and her children and I talked about that. It was then brought to my attention that during my argument Mrs Hani was not present, had not been present.

On Monday I also requested Mr Mpshe, Adv Mpshe that I be afforded the opportunity personally to meet Mrs Hani and her children in the spirit of reconciliation, which is the real purpose of this Committee.

I wish to place that on record as an official request that I be given the opportunity to meet Mrs Hani where I will then personally express my sympathy to her and her children.

The second item which I wish to offer Mr Chairman, is also in a spirit of cooperation and also to confirm that we on this side have no intention of unnecessarily delaying this Committee's proceedings. I personally would like to see them finalised as quickly as is possible, and in that spirit Mr Chairman, I refer you to bundle B which contains all of the documentation after Addendum C which we have already covered and I wish to request that without my being led in evidence in regard to these documents, it is in the region of something like 200 pages, that the documents as they stand, be written into the record of the Committee so that I don't have to be led in official evidence. If that will meet with the Committee's approval.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should refer us specifically to which documents would form part of your evidence because then they will have to be confirmed under oath, unless they are already in the form of affidavits.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly Mr Chairman, I refer here to Bundle B, the index to political background documents, from item 3 which is a history of communism in South Africa, commencing with page 57 of the bundle and continuing through to item 10 which ends with other media coverage and it ends with page 186.

I don't know Mr Chairman, whether perhaps you can lead me or advise me whether I can take an oath regarding this documentation when I wasn't actually the writer of these various publications, I am not sure of that position.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you must decide what it is that you would like your client to talk about and if there are documents which have not been compiled by him, which are handed in in support of his application, he can refer to those documents and say I rely on those documents without having to read those documents into the record.

But where documents are compiled by him, he must confirm the truth and correctness of those documents.

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairman, I was given to be understood by my client that he wishes those documents to be regarded as read and not waste the Committee's time with this and that he will depend on those documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, have you any objection to this procedure?

MR BIZOS: No Mr Chairman, let them present the case the way they want to. Our contention will be that these documents are to a very large extent irrelevant.

CHAIRPERSON: When you address us, you will deal with that?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo, you may proceed with Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Derby-Lewis I just want to take you back in your evidence, when did you for the first time discuss with your co-accused, the other applicant, Mr Walus, what action to be taken with regard to what prevailed in the country at that particular time?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, we started talking about it Mr Chairman, after the mobilisation congress had been held because I personally was convinced at that stage, that the CP and I knew it was going to be extended to the broad Right in South Africa, was really now getting down to business.

MR PRINSLOO: When was that Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The congress was held in August of 1992 Mr Chairman. So this would be from September onwards.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, did you decide upon the nature of what action you should take?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, we discussed various options including the possibility of effecting an assassination which I believed would have been part of the modus operandi with which we could reach the objective.

MR PRINSLOO: And when did you decide for the first time to assassinate the late Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that decision I made in February after it was clear to me from the agitation that the late Mr Hani was busy with regarding the return of weapons from Angola, it was obvious to me that he also meant business from his side, and that was when I decided to identify him as a specific target.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be February 1993?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: February 1993, correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, the document now before the Commission, bundle E, the first two pages is a list. Mr Chairman, I must apologise, this is the best copy I could obtain from the Police docket, there is a typed one in the court record, but it is not a copy of the original, and in order to explain this, we made a copy Mr Chairman.

There are certain evidence on this that we would like to present to the Commission. Mr Derby-Lewis, before you bundle E, pages 1 and 2, is that the list you made mention of in your evidence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it didn't exactly have this appearance Mr Chairman, it was in three pages, but I think its been photostatted like this for convenience sake, but on the front page was the information regarding the residence of Mr Nelson Mandela, with a photograph of his residence.

On the second page was the description of how to find the residence of the late Mr Joe Slovo and then on the third page, was the list of 7 names.

MR PRINSLOO: So what you are saying Mr Derby-Lewis, on the front page was what appears on page 2 of this document, on the left of it, although it is not a complete photo of it, a more clear one would appear in the court record, and then the second one is the one of the late Mr Joe Slovo which is page 1 on the document and then it follows on page 2 of the present document, numbered starting at the top B and then proceeding from the number 4.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Which was page 4 of the actual document, yes Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Derby-Lewis, when did you for the first time, and where, did you see this document now referred to?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the first time I saw this document was in Cape Town in my Parliamentary office. No, not in my Parliamentary office, in the office which the Conservative Party had made available to my wife when I collected her from the bus terminus to bring her back to Parliament as I had come down earlier and it was in Cape Town in the office at her disposal where she took this envelope out of her bag, took the document out of the envelope and showed it to me and made some remark about this is how the representatives of the oppressed lives, with reference to Mr Mandela's residence and then I saw the list.

MR PRINSLOO: Did your wife make any mention of this list at that stage?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, she mentioned that she was busy with a big project on gravy train matters and that she was going to make this information available together with other information, to Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg for use in a speech which he was due to deliver in Parliament.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, if you look at the document, if you look at the first page, there is a figure 2 appearing and then on the second page, there is a figure 1 appearing and then it is above the name of President Nelson Mandela and then there are other numbers appearing on the same second page, starting from 4, written in ink?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, by whom was it recorded and when was it recorded, those numbers?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was recorded by Mr Walus, it is his handwriting, it is quite clearly so and it was recorded after I went to fetch the list which was laying on a table in the study in our home, together with a lot of other documentation. After I had told Mr Walus that I had identified Mr Hani as the ideal target and that we must now go ahead with the execution of our task.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, in your evidence the day before yesterday, when we made reference to the list which was in typed form in the court record, which does not have the same appearance as it have now before the Commission, it didn't have the handwritten part on it, is that what you explained?

What is the reason for recording the numbers alongside the names?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The numbers were recorded Mr Chairman, because we decided to record them in priority in respect of their enmity towards the cause of the Right and particularly the Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, on the list again appears on the second page which is the full script of it is not very visible due to the condition of the photostat at our disposal ...

JUDGE WILSON: Could you tell me where the other list is?

MR PRINSLOO: May I just get hold of the court record Mr Chairman? I think it is in the bundle as well.

On the second page appears Mr Derby-Lewis, the words BM and then PWY, did you record that there?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't Mr Chairman. It must have been recorded after I handed Mr Walus the list, Kuba.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, is it correct that you saw the second applicant, Mr Walus, on the 6th of April?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman, when I handed him the firearm.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you see him subsequent to that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did Mr Chairman, I saw him on the following day, the following evening, the 7th of February.

MR PRINSLOO: You mean April.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, April Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: For what purpose did you see him on that date, 7th of April?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I saw him because I had undertaken to endeavour to obtain the subsonic ammunition necessary for use in this firearm fitted with the silencer.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, did you give Mr Walus any instructions with regard to the assassination of Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the only instruction I gave him was that he must carry out the execution. The detail of the arrangement he was to do himself.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, on the 12th of April 1993, that was subsequent to the arrest of Mr Walus, did you have occasion to see Mr Arthur Kemp?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And was this at your residence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: This was at my residence, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know why he came to your residence, at whose instance?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he came at the invitation of my wife because she and he were busy with a specific business project and he was going to bring some information which was going to be put onto the computer with relation to that business transaction of theirs.

MR PRINSLOO: And was there any mention made by yourself or anyone with regard to the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mention was made by Mr Arthur Kemp himself Mr Chairman, who during the course of my conversation, expressed his concern that the list referred to in the Beeld of that morning, could possibly be referring to the list which he, Arthur Kemp, drew up.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, you were arrested on the 17th of April and at the time of your arrest, you made a statement at the police station which is contained in bundle E, page 4, Mr Chairman, and 5.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And in that document and the last paragraph, it is stated "I place on record herewith that I do not wish to make any statement" and that was done in pursuance of a warning you received from Captain Deetliefs in terms of Judges' Rules, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, subsequent to making this statement, you were placed in detention in the Benoni police cells, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, whilst you were in detention at the Benoni police station, you were removed from the police cells for the purpose of being present when certain information was extracted from a computer which was your property?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, not quite correct. There were two computers involved because both my wife and I had computers and both of those computers were present and information was extracted from both of them.

MR PRINSLOO: When were you taken out of the cells, can you recall or can you refresh your memory from what is before the Commission, it is an extract from an occurrence book which was obtained from the records of the Police, Mr Chairman, page 6?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, this record indicates that I was arrested on the 17th of April by Colonel Human and another 20 odd people. It also indicates that the arrest was effected at my residence in Krugersdorp. It indicates further that at 00H35 on the 18th of April, that was 35 minutes past midnight, I was detained by Sergeant Slingerland in the cells at Benoni police station.

It indicates further that at 01H50 I was booked out for an investigation by one Inspector Els, whom I don't recall, but it could have been somebody who is connected with the computer function.

It says further that I was then at 04H45 I was brought back to the cells.

CHAIRPERSON: What date was that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was on the 18th of the 4th Mr Chairman. It indicates further that on the 18th of the 4th at 08H15, I was once again booked out by Colonel Human. It indicates further on the 18th of April, at 11H50, I was placed back in the cells by a Sergeant Breedt. It indicates that on the 18th of April at 18H00 I was once again booked out for investigation by Sergeant Slingerland.

It indicates that on the 18th of April 1993, at 13H30 I was booked back into the cells by Sergeant Slingerland. It indicates that on the 18th of the 4th, at 23H26 ...

MR PRINSLOO: Will you just pause there Mr Derby-Lewis. You were taken out of the cells, was that for the purpose to be present at the time when they extracted the information from these computers?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman. The SAP people doing it, insisted that I be present at all times when they worked on the computers and I had to certify as they took information off, that the discs that they had used, were contained in a certain container and I actually had to sign that container.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, at that stage, were you handcuffed and your legs were also (indistinct)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was in both handcuffs and in foot irons, leg irons.

MR PRINSLOO: And without going into detail of the time, were you present there for a considerable time?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Nearly day and night?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was and I can remember being very tired as a result.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you had a chance of looking at the original Mr Derby-Lewis? I ask this because I see entry number 8 says you were taken out, or you read it as if you were taken out at 18H00?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Entry number 9 says you were brought back at 13H30? Is it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: 13H30, that is quite right, was that 18H30 maybe? It is 13H30 Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: I wonder if it was 8, 13H00 not 18H00?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, sorry I stand corrected Mr Chairman, it is actually 13H00, I have such a bad copy here that it actually looked like 18H00.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, the following entry it appears that - which you commenced to refer to, at 23H26 you were booked out on the 18th of April by Captain Deetliefs, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And were you interrogated by Captain Deetliefs?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was interrogated by Captain Deetliefs until the time indicated on the next entry Mr Chairman, which was the 19th of the 4th at 18H54.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, on the 19th of April 1993, did Colonel Van Niekerk speak to you? It does not appear on this document, I want to refer you to the Section 29 proceedings. I don't have a copy right now Mr Chairman, it is dated the 19th of April 1993.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, I was interviewed by Colonel Van Niekerk Mr Chairman, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did he say to you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, he indicated to me that they intended placing me under Section 29 detention and they could keep me under that Section 29 detention for as long as they liked with various manipulations and that unless I cooperated with them, I would be placed under Section 29 detention.

After that he indicated to me that if he placed me under Article 29 detention, he could force me to say whatever I wanted them to say and that until I had done that, I would have been detained under Article, Section 29 of the Act.

He also said Mr Chairman, that should I be willing to cooperate with them, they would first of all ensure, they would give me the assurance that both Mr Janusz Walus and myself would be granted, he first said indemnity and then when I corrected him because I knew there was no longer a facility for indemnity as a result of the expiry of that particular legislation, he then corrected himself and said no amnesty.

He then reassured me that the two of us would be granted amnesty. He also reassured me with the statement that he would not bother my wife in any way, but that if I decided not to cooperate I would be totally isolated, they would arrest my wife, they would prevent me from any contact with people, with radio, with television, with newspapers, until such time as I had given my cooperation which satisfied them.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, were you indeed on that day, the 19th of April arrested by Colonel van Niekerk and placed in detention in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Derby-Lewis, in the cell where you were detained, were you sleeping on a bed, or how were sleeping?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, I was detained in a cell on my own with a cement floor which had a single covering about the size of a mattress, but it was actually a covering of felt which was about that thick, sorry about 75 mm, is that three quarters of an inch.

JUDGE WILSON: Three centimetres.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Three centimetres Mr Chairman, about 3 cm thick, it was obvious from the appearance of the cell Mr Chairman, that there had been considerable water leakage on the floor from the toilet which had been recently repaired, there was still wet plaster on the walls when I came in and there were still pools of water on the floor.

The only other item of furniture in the room was a brick type of table with a concrete slab and although it was at that stage April, it was already extremely cold in that cell.

The cell Mr Chairman, was located next to a cell which contained I don't know how many occupants, and I gathered subsequently that they were members of APLA and they proceeded to kick up a racket 24 hours a day, making sleep impossible.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, whilst you were detained in terms of Section 29, were you interrogated by Captain Deetliefs and Warrant Officer Beetge?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And were they including Colonel Van Niekerk members of the Security Branch?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment Mr Chairman. If you look at page 7 Mr Derby-Lewis, bundle E, Mr Chairman, you were booked out is it correct, for an investigation? Have a look at it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, on the 20th of April 1993 I was booked at 04H30 by a certain Warrant Officer Beukes whom I don't recall.

MR PRINSLOO: When were you again returned to the cells?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was returned to the cells on that same day Mr Chairman, at 09H50.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that the same day or the following day? You were booked out at 04H30, is that in the morning?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was 4:30 in the morning, yes Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, yes, and you returned to the cells at 09h50. ... (tape ends) ... Mr Derby-Lewis, during that interrogation of Warrant Officer Beetge and Captain Deetliefs, did you make any notes, were you allowed to make any notes at that stage or what was the position?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I made no notes Mr Chairman at that stage.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, again (indistinct) occasion I will refer you to bundle R4 Mr Chairman, page 54.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Just before I refer to the document I mentioned, Mr Derby-Lewis, did you receive information during your detention that your wife, Mrs Gaye Derby-Lewis, was arrested?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, after I had been compelled to cooperate as I mentioned, one of the conditions for my cooperation was that my wife would not be bothered. During the process of interrogation, the subsequent process of interrogation, while it was backwards and forwards where I was told about certain things that had to be included in the statement otherwise it wouldn't be complete, and I was busy correcting and rewriting and drawing up, I was informed by a member of the Security Branch that my wife had been arrested.

It then became obvious to me that I had been totally mislead by someone that I expected to be someone of integrity, who if he says something, then obviously you must accept it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, if you look at the document referred to at page 54 which is the typed document, and if you look at the page 27 Mr Chairman, which is a written document, that is the same document?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is the same document.

MR PRINSLOO: The one is just a typed version and the one is a written document?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, the written document starting from page 27 is that in your handwriting?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: I will refer you to the typed document, it is more legible, for the convenience of the Committee Mr Chairman, Mr Derby-Lewis, you have gone through the document and I am not going to labour the document, if you look at paragraph 1 onwards, to page 65 Mr Chairman, so ending at page 64 the last paragraph 43 on page 64.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: The information from paragraph 1 up to there, is that correct the information contained therein?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: With many typing errors and spelling errors excluded, it is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That means paragraph 43?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Paragraph 43 Mr Chairman, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now starting at page 65, paragraph 44, it is over the page, will you read to the Committee this paragraph?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Paragraph 45?

MR PRINSLOO: 44.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: 44? Certainly Mr Chairman.

"In order to achieve this, we needed this as our objective role, our participation in the armed struggle, we needed to know where they lived and so I drew up a list of names which included other names which are not important in this regard, so that it would not be clear as to the intention behind the list as far as the person we asked for the addresses, was concerned.

The intention was to avoid involving innocent people whom we needed to do certain things for us and this is also the reason why we decided to cooperate with the SAP in this regard as we used a number of people to assist us with various things without telling them or their questioning of our intentions."

MR PRINSLOO: Is this information contained in this paragraph correct Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is partially correct from the intention to avoid involving innocent people Mr Chairman. As far as the drawing up of the list is concerned, I did not draw up the list of names.

MR PRINSLOO: And the next paragraph 45.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman. The list of names were placed on computer. I cannot remember for sure how I got the list to Arthur Kemp, a former journalist of both the Citizen and the Patriot, but asked him because I believed his journalistic background would put him in state to acquire such information.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this paragraph correct or incorrect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is incorrect Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Now turning to paragraph 46?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, paragraph 46 reads as follows

"I am not sure when the addresses were returned to me, but it was either at the end of 1992 or the beginning of 1993 and could have come xxx my wife, it must be via as I remember saying at one time that I needed the addresses for some or other vague purpose.

I would not have mentioned Kuba Walus in this regard as both he and I had previously agreed not to involve our women folk, the less they knew the better. Some of the names submitted were not returned and I assumed that Kemp had not been able to obtain the addresses."

MR PRINSLOO: Is that correct or not Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is not correct Mr Chairman, other than the sentence that refers to the fact that we agreed not to involve our women folk.

MR PRINSLOO: We are turning now to the next paragraph, I beg your pardon, you haven't gone through the bottom part?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I haven't read that yet.

MR PRINSLOO: Read that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Must I read that.

"Kuba and I subsequently discussed the list and listed the names in order of importance. During the discussions which Kuba and I held alone, Kuba was not aware that other names were listed to cause confusion. He did not know nor ask why they were there."

MR PRINSLOO: Is that part correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, it is not correct Mr Chairman, except for the statement we listed the names in order of importance.

"He took the list and undertook to recce Hani's address to see whether the attack was possible. During our discussion Kuba undertook to do the attack. I was responsible for the provision of the weapon and the ammunition."

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, why did you supply that information?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, I was trying to protect my wife from any possible harassment by the SAP.

MR PRINSLOO: At what stage did you decide to do that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I decided to do that Mr Chairman, after I had been informed that she had been arrested under Article 29.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, I will now refer you to bundle E again. You have already told the Committee with reference to bundle E, page 6 and 7 indicating to times, without labouring the record, times you were taken into interrogation, kept awake, your sleeping conditions and what had been said to you.

Would you have made any statement or answered any questions had you been given a choice which you have today in terms of the constitution?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I would have said not a word Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, is it correct that your term of detention was indeed continued after expiration of the first 10 days?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: For a further 10 days?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: When were your detention in terms of Section 29 of the Act, suspended? Do you recall or don't you? Are you not sure of the date?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was after 20 days from the 19th Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Now after you were released from detention in terms of Section 29 of the Act, is it correct that a member of the Criminal Investigation Department, who was then Captain Holmes, obtained a statement from you which is referred to in page 9 Mr Chairman and 10 of bundle E, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that Captain Holmes informed you of your rights which appears on page 9 and you responded at page 10? Correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Will you please read out to the Committee?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly Mr Chairman, and as it is in Afrikaans, I will read it slowly.

"After consultation with my legal advisers, I prefer not to make any statement and I further wish to state that I was being forced under duress while I was in detention and that my rights as a private individual were affected to such an extent that I would not receive a fair trial because even on the night of my arrest, I stated in writing that I did not wish to make any statement, and that I also did not wish to reply to any questions.

This right of mine was affected by immediately after making the statement, on 1993-04-17 I against my wish and my will, was interrogated without my legal advisers being present which action makes us entitled to a special note in terms of Act 51 of 1977, which later affected my right to silence being affected to my detriment. Signed at Benoni on the 7th day of May 1993 and I did sign it Mr Chairman, at 14H37."

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, what was your state of mind during your detention, whilst you were detained?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I haven't really given it much thought because I tried to drive that part of my life out of my memory.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it a pleasant experience?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was the worst experience I've ever had in my life including anything I had during my military service Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Why do you say that Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, I have never felt as insecure in my life before as I did then. Besides the fact that I wasn't allowed to sleep, I was also subjected to all sorts of, I would name them tricks, because that was what they were Mr Chairman.

Like two people in civilian clothes, suddenly rushing into my cell area in possession of a key when I could see no identity, nothing to identify them as policemen, in fact they looked like two real gangsters, came rushing in with a key in their hands and they shouted out they were here to come and fetch me.

They would be outside my cell window and say that I would not be able to sleep even when I was in bed. As part of my military training, in my young days, I was trained to stay awake, but then I was in my 20's.

There at the age of 57, it was expected of me not to sleep for as long as possible, days and days on end. And never before in my life had I been as tired as then.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, what did you feel like during detention in terms of Section 29?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sir, I was constantly nervous because I never knew what was coming next. One reads about the atrocities that are committed under Section 29 detention, and one constantly has at the back of one's mind the question when is this going to start happening to me.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, you were questioned by Captain Deetliefs and that appears in bundle R4, page 19, that is where it starts, as indicated before.

You testified that you were removed from the cells at 04H30 that morning and which is apparent from the document of which we don't have the tape recordings, your name appears on this with a summary of the events?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give us the page again please.

MR PRINSLOO: Page 20 Mr Chairman. The first page is 19. Mr Chairman it starts at page 19 of bundle R4.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, if you look at paragraph 14 on page 20, it is explained or there is a list of names, could you explain the names?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman. Those are names which I drafted in the form of a list during one of the many boring moments that I experienced while I was serving in the President's Council.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you supply those names, or to whom did you supply those names?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To Deetliefs and Beetge because they had come to me Mr Chairman, with a list of names which had been extracted from a notebook of mine and they asked me whether I had prepared that list and I acknowledged that I had.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I have in my possession ...

JUDGE WILSON: Is that this list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we have in our possession a list of names, at this stage I don't have a copy of this list, I undertake to make the list available in a copy form, but I would just like to show him this list and ask him what he knows about this list.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, this is one of the lists that I drafted and it is in my printed handwriting.

MR PRINSLOO: For the purposes of the record, Mr Chairman, this list, this document as it exists was taken from the docket yesterday.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is off.

MR BIZOS: ... when Judge Wilson asked was this the list and he said yes, was that the list of paragraph 14 on page 20 or was it the other list that was in the A bundle? I just want that for purposes of clarity?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, this list is the list on paragraph 14 on page 20, that is not anything to do with the so-called, with the other address list.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, the list that you refer to as being in your handwriting, do you know where the police got this list from?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, they got it in my house after they had searched the house. And that is not the only list of names, they found numerous lists of names.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, may I refer you to paragraph 15 on page 20. Mr Chairman, I will submit this list. May I just make copies or do you wish me to hand it in now?

CHAIRPERSON: If it is just in his handwriting and it reflects the same names, then there is no point in handing it in, unless ...

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it is not the same list of names, I would like to submit in the next page in bundle E, E12 thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: The only reason I mention this ... (intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, if you look at the names in E12 and paragraph 14 on page 20 of R4, the bundle, if you could just compare those names?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sure Mr Chairman, I will compare them quickly with your permission.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, Mr Derby-Lewis unfortunately drew a circle around the name which doesn't appear in the other list. Please don't make any marks.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, I have now compared the list and I have realised that it is not the same list, because in the list which I had prepared the name appears of Roelf Meyer, Ronnie Kasrils, Maharaj and Naidoo and they do not appear in the list on page 20.

And then there are names on the list on page 20 which have been inserted there, which do not appear on my list for example Palo Jordan, Steve Tswete, Sam Ramsamy, Hein Groskopff and then there is also a difference, there is a name on page 20 Barnie Disak, which on my list is Desai, which is a totally different name.

And then there also appears the name of Steve Hofmeyer on the list for some reason or other. Steve Hofmeyer as far as I am concerned, is a famous singer.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any reason why you would have given Mr Steve Hofmeyer's name to Captain Deetliefs

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, not at all, even if I am not a great fan of Steve Hofmeyer's.

MR PRINSLOO: Okay, could we turn to paragraph 15 on page 20 for the sake of the record. Page 20 paragraph 15 for the sake of the record, could you read it to the Committee Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sure Mr Chairman.

"From the time that Lewis prepared the above list, he also prepared a list of the most important persons whom were important for them in order to obtain their addresses.

Among them names have been included which were unimportant so that for the person who would obtain the information, is should not have been clear why he had wanted to obtain the information.

This included names such as Karin Breynardt, Ken Owen, Tim du Plessis and Richard Goldstone."

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, it is so that we haven't had the privilege of listening to the tapes and to determine whose words they were, but were these your words?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, this information is not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you provide such information to Captain Deetliefs?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't remember Mr Chairman. I cannot remember, but I wish to repeat that the information is not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Could we turn to paragraph 16 on the same page?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I read Mr Chairman. Paragraph 16,

"The list was placed on computer. Lewis cannot remember whether Arthur Kemp an old journalist, an ex-journalist of both the Citizen and the Patriot, had been contacted telephonically and the names put through to him or whether it had been faxed to him. The reason why Arthur Kemp had been decided upon, was because Lewis had reckoned that with his journalistic background, he would have access to the people and their addresses."

It continues on page 21 Mr Chairman,

"Lewis was astonished when the addresses were returned in the form of an observation report even with a photograph of Mandela's house."

MR PRINSLOO: Would you like to comment on that paragraph Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, yes, I was still involved in the struggle. I was busy with stories, it is not the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, if we could look at page 21 paragraph 17?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Paragraph 17 reads as follows

"Lewis was not at home when Kemp returned the list. He is of the opinion that Kemp delivered it to his house personally.

Kemp gave it to his wife Gabriella. I don't know what this funny little thing after Gabriella is, but it is not my mark, who in her turn gave it to him, Lewis.

If Lewis remembers correctly, he asked his wife about the contents of the list whereupon he said that he/they were busy with something and that they needed the list.

Lewis cannot remember whether he had mentioned Kuba",

that is a repetition of the previous paragraph and the thoughts contained in the previous paragraph.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that information correct or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was incorrect and it was deliberately given to them incorrectly.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 18, same page Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I will read paragraph 18.

"The handing-over of the list plus receiving it back from Arthur Kemp took place at the end of 1992. The list had to be abridged and Lewis assumed that Kemp had been unable to trace the others.

As far as Lewis is able to remember, he and Kuba at the end of 1992 discussed the list. They together discussed the importance of the people contained in the list and they prioritised the list of people. The discussions were held over a period and only where Lewis and Kuba were together, alone, Kuba was not aware of the fact that names such as inter alia Karin Breynardt had been included with the rest in order to mislead people in the process of tracing addresses.

According to Lewis, they did not know why they were there and who they were."

MR PRINSLOO: Comment on that information Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, it is not correct except for one sentence where it was mentioned that the discussions were held over a period and only where Lewis and Kuba were alone and that we had held any discussions on our own so that we would not inform our wives of what was going on.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, you refer to the typed version of this document. Now if you refer to the handwritten document, Mr Chairman, this starts on page 1 and continues through to page 17, is it correct that you did not at all sign this document or had it for inspection?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, this document is not even in my handwriting.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know whose handwriting it is?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't have any idea and I see there is another list.

MR PRINSLOO: It is the same list. You had a look at the list in the written document which is also contained in the typed document?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but this document I have never seen.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know when this document was prepared?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Sir, I don't know. I don't know this document.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, with reference to your handwritten document which you have already looked at, it is in bundle R4 Honourable Chair, page 27 onwards. If you look at page 27 onwards, did you sign it Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the note at the bottom of the page says "no alterations" and then there is my signature and the indication is that on this page no changes had been made. It doesn't concern the correctness or genuineness of the document, just that there were no corrections and this was made specifically on each page except where changes had been made. And there I signed next to the changes.

MR PRINSLOO: If we could refer to the handwritten pages.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman. Page 53 confirmed again no alterations and my signature. My signature is affirmation of the words "no alterations".

MR PRINSLOO: Is that correct Mr Derby-Lewis that the document starting on page 1 of bundle R4 handwritten up to the one which we referred to now, you had not been warned in terms of Judges' Rules at all in regard to these documents?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, were you not detained in terms of Section 29, would you have provided this information or made this statement?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I would not have cooperated with the South African Police, I was involved in an armed struggle, a freedom struggle and they were part of the enemy.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, if you look at R4 continuation thereof on page 380 Mr Chairman, I would like to refer you to a document which pretends to be the statement of Captain Deetliefs, is that the same list or isn't it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, on page 380 it appears as if the list is the same, except for the fact that I can immediately note that where in the other list, the name Groskopff is written as Hein Groskopff it is not stated as such in this list and then at the name of the singer Steve Hofmeyer is now inserted in "Spokesman Agriculture, ANC".

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry can you just give us the page again, please.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 380 of the R4 continued.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know whether the singer Steve Hofmeyer was ever a spokesman on agriculture of the ANC?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as far as I know, he was never involved in politics at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you pass on such information or provide such information to Mr Deetliefs?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Concerning Steve Hofmeyer, definitely not Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you voluntarily provide Captain Deetliefs with this information?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I repeat, nothing was given voluntarily and I wouldn't have given him a single sentence except to convince him of my political views, if I had been voluntarily allowed to testify.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, could you please tell the Committee who was the Station Commander in Benoni, in other words the member of the Uniformed Staff when you were in detention?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the Station Commander of Benoni police station, was a certain Colonel Roos.

MR PRINSLOO: He was a member of the Uniformed Branch, right?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct and I was in his custody during my detention at Benoni.

MR PRINSLOO: The members of the Uniformed Branch, were they at all involved in the interrogation?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No not at all Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And the treatment that you received from Colonel Roos and his members during your detention?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that is the letter that I sent. That is the treatment that I received from Colonel Roos and his people while I was in their care.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment Mr Derby-Lewis, before you continue. You are referring to a letter which appears on page 3 Mr Chairman, that is the same letter that my learned friend Mr Bizos, at the commencement of these proceedings, referred to this morning.

Mr Derby-Lewis, Honourable Chairman, it is bundle E, page 3. Could you please read this letter and tell us whom you referred to.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sure Mr Chairman. The letter is dated 16 May 1993. I am not going to repeat the address this has been submitted, read to the Committee, and that is the letter that reads as follows:

"Dear Colonel, just a brief letter to thank you and your staff for the decent manner in which you had treated me during my detention at Benoni.

I would also like to congratulate you with an excellent team and ask that you kindly pass on to all of them my good wishes and best luck for the future. Thank you once again.

I will remember you all positively, kind regards, Clive Derby-Lewis.

PS. At the end of this all, I will one day come and visit you again."

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, if you look at this letter and you say that you also wish to congratulate him on an excellent team, whom are you referring to?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am referring to the Uniformed Branch at Benoni police station, I was in their care all the time, and I was just handed over to the Security Branch for interrogation.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, this excellent team that you are referring to, did they interrogate you at any stage?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Never, at no stage.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, while you were in detention, I would like to put it like this, Mr Chairman, I refer you to E11, if you look at that Mr Derby-Lewis, do you have it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I have it.

MR PRINSLOO: In whose handwriting is this document?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is my handwriting Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: When was this document written?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: On the 30th of April 1993, during my detention under Section 29.

MR PRINSLOO: For what purpose did you write the letter?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I wanted the letter to be sent to a journalist of the Citizen to be able to accept responsibility for the attack that was executed.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you please read this letter to the Committee?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly Mr Chairman. It is actually more in the form of an affidavit or a statement and it reads as follows:

"The objects of the attack:

1. To strike a blow for Almighty God and Christianity against the anti-Christ communism in the form of the leader of the SA Communist Party.

2. To destroy the military leader of Umkhonto weSizwe who by his own acknowledgement was responsible for the cold-blooded murders of elderly Whites, women and children and attacks on them and on our Security Force personnel.

3. To focus attention on the fact that the future of my people was being betrayed through concocted forums such as the MPF, an abbreviation for the Multi-Party Forum and that we were aware of these plans and that we would oppose them with everything in our power.

4. To focus attention on the fact that my people are entitled to a territory of their own in Southern Africa wherever it may be, but that this is indisputable.

5. In the hope that the attack would activate Afrikaner leaders into united action to save their fatherland and their people."

I did not sign it because I did not want to provide a problem for the journalist concerned, but I closed the statement with the following:

"For God, my people and my country."

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, at the top of this document it says the Citizen and then Miss Chris Steyn.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: This document, E11 to which you have referred, you wrote this document during your detention, what did you do with it then?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In one way or another I smuggled it out. I was in Section 29 detention and I did not have any access to other people. I do not remember how I got it out, but I smuggled it out Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, this letter or this statement as you called it, E11, was it ever published or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, in the process it was lost somehow.

MR PRINSLOO: After your release, did you manage to trace the letter?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, it was handed to me by my wife long after the sentence and the detention, she visited me. She then brought this envelope and she asked me what it was. I then became aware of the fact that it had not reached the journalist to whom I have sent it.

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairman, may I ask your indulgence so that we can ...

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't hear what you said.

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairman, I would ask you indulgence for a short adjournment. I am about to close the evidence of the applicant. I would just like to make very sure that we have not left out certain aspects. It is a rather long version and all the documents that we did not have to read into the record and so forth.

If you could grant me that indulgence I would appreciate it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will stop these proceedings for a very short while.

MR PRINSLOO: As the Committee pleases.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, are we ready to proceed?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairman and Committee members, I thank you for your patience with the adjournment. I would like to refer to no.12, I'd like to hand it up, that is then Exhibit 12 that I would like to hand up, and Mr Derby-Lewis testified to that as you can remember. We had photocopies made during the adjournment, and with your leave I would hand it up to the Honourable Committee members. This is the list in Mr Derby-Lewis' handwriting that he testified to that as you can remember.

JUDGE WILSON: E12?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, it is E12.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I would like to continue. Mr Derby-Lewis, besides the differences in the statements, are you speaking the truth here today?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Have you made full disclosure?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: How do you feel today with regard to reconciliation in the country, specifically reconciliation? Mr Derby-Lewis, how do you feel about the law with regard to disclosure, the relevant Act and what the Committee is doing here today?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, since October 1993 I am a sentenced incarcerated person in a maximum prison.

During that period I have achieved reconciliation with myself and also with other political prisoners and I have reconciled myself with their political involvement and in this case, Mr Chairman, I refer to members of the ANC, members of the PAC, of the IFP and all the other political prisoners who are at present in maximum security prisons.

We achieved such a good relationship Sir, that eventually we started a political prisoner forum in the prison to look after the political interests of all persons involved.

I also Mr Chairman, during my sojourn at maximum prison became the first Chairman of the newly established recreation club of the committee of the newly established recreation club and I can assure you Mr Chairman, that I was unanimously elected to that position in a prison where, I am sure everyone knows the vast majority of prisoners, are prisoners of other racial groups.

I think Mr Chairman, that I will always be grateful for what the TRC has provided for me, an opportunity to purge myself of something out of which I gained no pleasure doing and I think that my record at maximum prison actually confirms to what extent I found myself and also my relationship with others.

MR PRINSLOO: Carry on Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to say in conclusion that my involvement in all that I have done had nothing to do with the support for, nor was it aimed at ensuring the continuance of apartheid. Whatever I had done Mr Chairman, over the past more than 25 years, has been aimed at the preservation of the freedom I and my people so treasure and for which so much has been sacrificed in the past.

If what I have done is wrong, then let it judged in conjunction with far worse atrocities committed in the name of various struggles against totally innocent and guiltless civilians of all races.

Let it be judged Mr Chairman against the bomb set against innocent victims of all races on all sides. Let it be judged against the slaughter of innocent civilian victims of landmines set on farm roads, never used by the military.

Let it be judged against the hundreds of victims of assassination by burning tyres so nicely referred to as "necklaces".

Let it be judged against the horrendous slaughters of Black town councillors whose only crime was that they tried to use the system for the benefit of their people.

Let us rather accept that these people were all victims of war Mr Chairman, a war in which there was no victory, only victims. A war in which all of us were victims in some way or another, every single one of us Mr Chairman. There can be no fingers pointed, only deep sympathy for those bereaved of loved ones and hopefully forgiveness all round.

The war is over and it is time we turned to peaceful methods for the resolution of our problems and differences. Let us learn from the lessons of the past, rather than to cause that those who have died, did so in vain. Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis, the political struggle of the Afrikaner, Conservative Party, the broad Rightwing forum of which you are part, you described that in detail is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I had.

MR PRINSLOO: Now this deed, according to your testimony if I understand it correctly, you committed this deed from a political point of view?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Now at the time of the commitment of this act, were you a member of the Conservative Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Sir, I was as well as of the Afrikaner Front, as such.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that your testimony that what you and your fellow-accused did, was done in good faith and for the sake of and in support of the Conservative Party and the broad Rightwing front, the Afrikaner, whose struggle you were struggling?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you still believe that you planned and carried out this deed to promote the Conservative Party and the broad Rightwing forum to which you were committed in the struggle?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did Mr Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Derby-Lewis you used the word "let us" quite often in your peroration, let us try and find out whether you are a man who is prepared to commit perjury without any qualms, shall we try that?

Will you please have a look at R2, page 107. I beg your pardon, it is page 117. Have you got it Mr Derby-Lewis, R2, page 117?

CHAIRPERSON: That is the notice of motion?

MR BIZOS: That is so Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Chairman, the top of my numbers are cut off and I am having difficulty reading them with the photocopying.

MR BIZOS: Page 117, that is your application to reopen your trial?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Turn to page 129.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Was the oath administered to you by an Commissioner of Oaths and did you swear that what you said from page 120 to 128 was true?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Does your signature appear at the bottom of page 128?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It does Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: There you attempted to persuade the court that you were innocent of the killing of Hani. Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You put the blame on your lawyers for not explaining to you properly what your rights were in asking for a reopening of the trial?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was part of the story Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: We will come to all the parts. Answer the question that I put to you. Did you put the blame on your lawyers for not advising you of your rights?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Were you defended by a senior member of the Pretoria Bar?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Were you telling the truth when you were putting the blame on him or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As far as his advice was concerned Mr Chairman, I was telling the truth.

MR BIZOS: Oh, so you are saying that he actually didn't perform his duty properly towards you in informing you of what your rights are and that he really advised you not to give evidence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I stated that I was advised to remain silent at all costs and not to testify.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well let's leave that out for a moment. But if we look at the application, you said that you were innocent and if you were given an opportunity to reopen your trial you would give evidence claiming your innocence. Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I testified earlier ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Answer the question please Sir, and then you can explain.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Would Counsel mind then repeating the question Mr Chairman, I am trying to answer the question.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Was the gravamen of your application that if your trial was reopened, you would give evidence that you were innocent of any wrongdoing?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You went on oath to say that you would, if your trial was reopened, that you would go into the witness box and plead that you were innocent and say under oath again that you were innocent?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Who was acting for you when you made this application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the Advocate was an Advocate Bruwer.

MR BIZOS: And the attorney?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The attorney was the attorney on my left hand.

MR BIZOS: Your present attorney?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: My present attorneys, correct.

MR BIZOS: Did you lie to your attorney?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Nobody compelled you to lie to your attorney?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No one compelled me Mr Chairman, except for the fact that I was busy with an armed struggle and I was determined to give as much opposition as possible under any circumstances.

MR BIZOS: By the time you came to this application, you told your Attorney that you lied to him when he prepared this application for you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Didn't he ask you but you told me when I, when you instructed me to apply for the reopening of your trial, you told me that you were innocent, here you are now telling me that you are guilty and you want me to act for you in your amnesty application, did that not happen?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: We have not have that discussion Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Do you mean to say, Sir, that an honourable member of our profession did not ask you about your perjury and your attempt to defeat the ends of justice when you applied for the reopening of your trial?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, my attorney and my advocate asked me why I perjured and I told them that I was busy with the armed struggle and I was prepared to offer whatever resistance I could in any form whatsoever, even if it mean lying.

MR BIZOS: I see. Now then we have it from you Sir, that your legal representatives knew that as part of the armed struggle your committed perjury and you attempted to defeat the ends of justice?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman, as did many other freedom fighters.

MR BIZOS: As what?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As did many other freedom fighters.

MR BIZOS: Please leave the other freedom fighters, we are dealing with your case today Mr Derby-Lewis.

(Very loud clapping and cheering)

CHAIRPERSON: You are going to delay these proceedings, please, we would not like any delays. Allow the witness to give evidence.

MR BIZOS: Do we understand that your legal representatives, your present legal representatives knew that you had attempted to defeat the ends of justice and committed perjury and they did not advise you to apply for amnesty for committing perjury and attempting to defeat the ends of justice?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: They did not advise me that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, why knowing that you had to make full disclosure, why did you not in your application say by the way, in furtherance of the armed struggle I as a freedom fighter also committed perjury and attempted to defeat the ends of justice, why didn't you disclose that fact in your application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I testified to that extent now in front of the Committee Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes, after we served papers on you containing a copy of your application. The question is why didn't you in your application disclose that you had committed perjury and attempted to defeat the ends of justice?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the first statement is not correct and the second statement was, I was unaware of the fact that I had to ask amnesty for that because I was told that I had to apply for amnesty for crimes for which I had been found guilty.

MR BIZOS: I see. So you have, you didn't think that you had to disclose all the crimes that you had committed in furtherance of the struggle?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, because I was not aware of a single applicant asking for amnesty for having committed perjury in the past.

MR BIZOS: Now, also this application shows that you have quite an inventive mind. Will you agree with that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Let us take a couple of examples of how you tried to mislead the court. You say on page 101 that you will set out, 111 I beg your pardon, your version.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Can I ask Mr Chairman, to what bundle Mr Bizos is referring?

MR BIZOS: R2, we are still on this bundle until I give you notice of a change. In 3.3.1 you say that during February 1993 the witness Venter contacted you when he came to Krugersdorp.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am sorry Mr Chairman, it is not my 111.

MR BIZOS: 112.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is not my 111.

MR BIZOS: 112, paragraph 3.3.1. You say there that Venter came to Krugersdorp and you tried to establish some political contact.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He tried to establish contact Mr Chairman, correct.

MR BIZOS: He tried, yes.

"On this occasion when the said Venter visited me I jokingly asked him if he could get or if he could organise how I could get a firearm".

is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Please explain the joke Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was not certain of Mr Venter's loyalties and therefore to test him, jokingly requested whether he knew of anything to see what his reaction was.

MR BIZOS: Did you laugh when you made this joke?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You did?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And did he laugh?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, he immediately answered that he could find one for me.

MR BIZOS: Precisely. So not only were you going to tell the court that this is correct, but you are trying now to say to the Committee that this whole affair started as a joke?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not saying that for one minute Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, you were holding out at your trial and when you made this application, and the good people of the Conservative Party were collecting money for you, that you were innocent and that you were being framed up by the pariah FW de Klerk's government into being implicated in this case, have I summarised the position correctly?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What source is Mr Bizos quoting here Mr Chairman, because when I was in prison I wasn't allowed to say anything in public.

MR BIZOS: No, was it not held out on your behalf that the places where money was being collected for your defence, that one of our innocent members is being wrongly accused of the murder of Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know what happened at those fundraising functions Mr Chairman, I was not present.

MR BIZOS: I see. You have also told us that your wife was received as an idol when she was acquitted at a Conservative Party meeting. Were you contending at that time by making this application to set your conviction and sentence aside, that you were innocent?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that reference that I made was to indicate the support of the Conservative Party.

MR BIZOS: Yes. I want to cut this short Mr Derby-Lewis. What support did you think that the honourable people in the Conservative Party would have given you if they knew that you were in fact guilty at the time when you were contending you were not guilty, that you had committed perjury and that you were attempting to defeat the ends of justice?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, my impression of the support I obtained was that my supporters believed that the end, the cause deserved the end used.

MR BIZOS: You claim throughout your evidence at a number of occasions that you are a religious man Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And that you punctuated your evidence from time to time that some of the things that happened, appeared to you to be the Will of the Almighty?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You also went so far as to suggest that the late Dr Treurnicht's religious background influenced you in some way. Are you going to tell the Committee that your religion and your depth of belief in the Almighty, gives you the right to commit perjury and to attempt to defeat the ends of justice?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, in an armed struggle, all tactics are fair and I have already expressed my regret over certain actions which I had to take. Nobody comfortably, willingly contravenes the law, no matter whose law it is.

MR BIZOS: Yes. You were going to be the leader of a glorious counter-revolution if I can summarise your evidence correctly?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, we will come to that. We will come to that a little later, but isn't it correct that those who act out of their depth of feeling and who commit wrongs acknowledge what they have done and try to justify their legally wrongful act on moral grounds?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is not correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: That is not correct according to you. And that people who really want to perform unlawful acts for a noble cause, don't lie under oath and do not commit perjury nor do they try to defeat the ends of justice, you disagree of course?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I disagree with that Mr Chairman, yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, Mr Derby-Lewis, let's see this letter of the 16th of May 1993 which you wrote to Dear Colonel.

Let us for the time being pending further instructions that we accept your evidence that it was to Colonel Roos. It is Exhibit E3 Mr Chairman. Now Mr Roos, or Colonel Roos you told us was the person in charge of the Benoni police station where you were held.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He was the Station Commander.

MR BIZOS: Station Commander.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And he had an excellent team that you congratulated in your letter?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Was it that team that prevented you from sleeping by putting you in a cell next to a group of APLA people that kept you awake the whole night?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, it wasn't Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, wasn't he in charge of his police station?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't believe that he had any say over where I had to be placed because it was obviously a tactic to intimidate me under a circumstance like that.

MR BIZOS: Was he not the Head of the police station where you say you were given a wet mat to sleep on?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He was the Station Commander under instructions obviously of his superior who was the Commander of the East Rand Murder and Robbery Squad and I assume he was carrying out the instructions as to how somebody that they want to interrogate had to be intimidated.

MR BIZOS: How have you come to congratulate a Colonel who hasn't got the backbone to run his own police station?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't believe he willingly submitted me to that treatment.

MR BIZOS: But if he didn't, the people that you praise as an excellent team, isn't this another example of fabrication on your part?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No it is not Mr Chairman, because the people that I referred to as an excellent team were the people who were caring for me, they were not the people who were interrogating me and subjecting me to all forms of mental torture, that was the Security Branch people, the Security Police.

MR BIZOS: They were the people who allowed you to be interfered with for gangster like looking policemen to come and wake you up. Isn't this yet another example in which you might possibly be lying in furtherance of the struggle?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No it is not Mr Chairman, and it can be verified by a report which appeared in a newspaper in which the reason for my being eventually transferred to the maximum prison before I was found guilty, was for my own personal safety because of these incidents which had taken place and in fact as a result of those incidents, I had very quick action from the Uniformed people to try and investigate what was going on.

MR BIZOS: If you were prepared to lie under oath once and attempted to defeat the ends of justice, can you give the Committee any yardstick in terms of which they could judge that you are possibly not lying during these proceedings as part of the armed struggle?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, anyone attending a hearing like this where truth is of the essence, would be an absolute idiot to even endeavour to lie to this Committee.

MR BIZOS: How much wiser were you when you falsely tried to reopen your trial?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't understand the insinuation in that question Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: The insinuation is a simple one Mr Derby-Lewis, that you say that anyone who tries to mislead this Committee would be very foolish because the truth has to be told. Didn't the truth have to be told to the Judge President of this Division when you tried to bluff your way through in setting aside your conviction and sentence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I explained and I repeat again, it was part of the struggle and any tactic was suitable. To now lie before this Committee, what would I gain out of lying Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: To go free in order to continue the struggle.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, anyone knowing the accent on the truth as observed by this Committee and I have seen it, I watch its operations very closely, would not go along with something like that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Mr Derby-Lewis, I want to put a number of questions to you before the court adjourns today so that we can plan the cross-examination over the weekend.

Will you please turn to R4 page 251 because I want to know how much of this you admit and how much you deny.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have page R4, 251.

MR BIZOS: 251, this is a statement by your wife. Please look at paragraph 43.

"In January 1993 I telephoned Arthur Kemp at the Citizen in Johannesburg and said I was going to send him a list of names and that I wanted a description of their houses and addresses."

That is by way of introduction - I only want to know insofar as you are concerned, whether what is said is true or untrue?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is not true, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Right. Well, you can't really say whether your wife telephoned Mr Kemp or not.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: Leave that aside for the moment, but I said that was by way of introduction.

"This was done..."

this is your wife speaking,

"This was done after much serious thought and because Clive and I felt that unless something dramatic was done, the country would be controlled by communists".

True or false?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I cannot comment on my wife's evidence Mr Chairman. I am unable to make myself aware of the circumstances under which it was given and whether these are correct or not.

MR BIZOS: No, Mr Derby-Lewis, please listen to the question carefully. This says that there was-

".... after much serious thought and because Clive and I felt that unless something dramatic was done, the country would be controlled by communists, Clive and I therefore highlighted the names of people whom we believed to be the enemies of South Africa".

This is what your wife is recorded as having said, it reflects you, is it true or is it false?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is false, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: It is false? We will come back to it.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As far as I am concerned.

MR BIZOS: Then your wife says that -

"The journalists addresses...."

the last sentence,

"....were requested because I wanted to write to them about their attitudes towards the CP".

As far as you know, was it necessary for your wife to employ an agent, like Mr Kemp in order to find any journalists addresses?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know.

MR BIZOS: She purports to be a journalist herself. Doesn't she?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: She does Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And why would Mr Kemp be employed to find journalists addresses by another journalist?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, your wife gives the answer as we go along.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But I can't answer it Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

"When I spoke to Arthur on the phone about supplying the addresses and I did not go into specifics, he is politically shrewd and I believe that he felt that there was no need to spell out why we needed the names, after all we were on the phone".

Do you know anything about that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: If those statements by your wife are true, would they tend to show that your wife was party to the conspiracy to murder Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't comment on what my wife said or what she was thinking or whatever Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And the other people on the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't comment on anything like that.

MR BIZOS: You can't comment?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Paragraph 44 -

"Certain of the names of the list we ..."

"we" and the we in the statement is you and she,

"Certain of the names on the list, we believed to be the enemies of South Africa".

is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Oh come Mr - you have already told us that these people were the enemies of South Africa, why do you deny it now?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, Adv Bizos is trying to get me to confirm something which was given in so-called evidence by my wife under Section 29, and he wants me to confirm it. I cannot do it.

MR BIZOS: No, what I am asking you ...

CHAIRPERSON: Even though it is said by your wife, she is expressing views in which she says that you held similar views to her. Now the question is really certain names on the list we believed to be the enemies of South Africa.

As I have understood your evidence, you have said that it is so that some people on that list you did regard as enemies of South Africa. So to that extent you have to concede that what is said by your wife, is correct.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, if I testified that I drew up lists of people I considered to be our enemies and our opponents, I admitted that in previous evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: ... in the first sentence is something with which you don't disagree?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As far as I am concerned?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Was that not also your wife's view? After all you were married to one another and on good terms apparently.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, whether she agreed with my views or not, I cannot express an opinion on her testimony or her so-called evidence, I cannot do that.

MR BIZOS: If you listened to the preamble to my question ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Your wife is recorded as having said, what I am asking you is whether as far as you are concerned and insofar as she make references, she makes references to you, is what is recorded correct or incorrect? Do you understand what I am saying?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, as long as I am not being asked to confirm her testimony. If I am being asked to confirm her opinion, it is correct.

MR BIZOS: Just listen again, I will repeat to confirm. I will repeat it. You are a man in public life and you have shown great understanding of the English language and particularly articulate. I will repeat my question so that there is no misunderstanding.

I will read out to you what your wife is recorded to have said. Insofar as it related to you, I want to ask you whether what is recorded is true or untrue, is that clear?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As regards to me, it is true.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Didn't you know whether your wife regarded the people on the list as enemies of the State?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: On which list Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: The list that your wife is referring to, the list that is before the court in various, any list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, there are already three lists before the court.

MR BIZOS: Any one of the three lists?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: She didn't know about two of those three lists that I ...

MR BIZOS: Any list.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: She knew about a list which she had submitted to Arthur Kemp for information, yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes, let's confine ourselves to that list.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right, correct.

MR BIZOS: "Certain of the names on the list we believed to be the enemies of South Africa"

is that correct or incorrect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I share that opinion, but she cannot speak on my behalf. I am an independent person.

MR BIZOS: No.

JUDGE WILSON: Surely Mr Derby-Lewis, if you and your wife discuss things together as most families do, you can say whether you regarded it, you in the plural regarded it as that or not. That is all that you have been asked.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well in that respect we did, yes. In that respect we did, yes.

MR BIZOS: "Clive and I had vague plans at the beginning that some sort of arrangement should be made to liquidate one or perhaps more leaders of the ANC and the SA Communist Party".

Do you want me to read it again, you have got it in front of you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have it in front of me Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, you know what the question is, it says that you and your wife -

"...had vague plans at the beginning that some sort of arrangement should be made to liquidate one or perhaps more leaders of the ANC and the SA Communist Party".

is that correct or incorrect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not, that is incorrect Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Are we to understand Mr Derby-Lewis that your wife, a particularly active political person, who had a column of her own in the Patriot, written in English up to a certain stage, who wrote speeches for the leaders of the Conservative Party and who was politically active, that you conspired with Mr Walus the first applicant in this case, without giving her any hint of what your thoughts on the matter were, ever?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman, and I explained in evidence why we did not want to involve our women folk, it was too dangerous.

MR BIZOS: Yes. "We did not want to involve our wives", was a statement made at the time when you were protecting her and I am going to suggest to you that one of the reasons why you didn't give evidence is that you knew that if you gave evidence in all probability your wife may have been convicted on the strength of your evidence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Very well. Then you say in the last sentence of the second part of this paragraph.

"Clive and Kuba decided on Chris Hani to be eliminated because of his particularly brutal record and his position as Chairman of the South African Communist Party which they believed should never have been unbanned."

Now, did your wife have any knowledge whatsoever from you or from Kuba?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, she didn't Mr Chairman because I did not say what Mr Bizos has said I said. I did not say this, my wife said this.

MR BIZOS: Yes. No, what I said was that your wife had no knowledge from you and as far as you know, from the first applicant that you and Kuba decided on Chris Hani to be eliminated. If this is true, she must have known of your plan?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: She did not know of our plans.

MR BIZOS: If this is true, she must have known of your plans?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't believe it to be true Mr Chairman, in fact I suspect this whole statement.

MR BIZOS: Yes. The Committee will decide whether it is to be suspected or not, but what I am asking you is this, that if in fact this is the truth, which your wife by the way swore to be the truth in a handwritten statement on page 238 to 239, Mr Chairman, before Johannes Hendrik de Waal, a Commissioner of Oaths at John Vorster Square, she swore this to be true.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Under Section 29 detention Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well we will hear from her possibly of how she came to take an oath. Possibly she will also tell us in furtherance of the struggle.

"Clive and Kuba wanted a description of the residences and I can only assume that this was to determine what sort of security surrounded the houses. I simply asked Arthur what was asked of me, I am not a logistics person, nor was I present at any discussions in 1993 between Kuba and Clive about logistics".

Now, if this is true your wife had an active part in getting the names and addresses of enemies of South Africa for the purposes of being eliminated by you and the first applicant, Kuba Walus. Would that be correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is not true Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: She goes on to say -

"This does not mean to say I am denying that discussions between the two of them were not going on.

Clive told me some time in March that he and Kuba had decided upon Chris Hani as the person to be eliminated ... (tape ends) ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: (no recorded reply)

MR BIZOS: Yes. Was there, paragraph 46 on page 232, paragraph 46.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: 252, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: 252, I beg your pardon, 252.

"Arthur Kemp phoned me to say he had gotten some of the addresses I had asked for, so I asked him to fax them to me. I asked him to fax me the street addresses and a description of the residences referring to the ANC/SACP people".

Do you know anything about that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know Mr Chairman, no.

MR BIZOS: And in paragraph 47 -

"Arthur and I met at Rotunda where Arthur gave me the names and a few other clippings for which I had asked, and Arthur told me that he was resigning from the Citizen and that he felt tired and was sick of the long hours especially because of the disruption to his family life.

Arthur said he would be doing other things with his life, not connected with journalism such as the "statements business" and other projects. I presumed Arthur wanted to see me rather than just faxing the list, because he saw the implications of the list and felt he should not fax it to me. However, when we met, we did not discuss the list.

After Hani's death, Arthur came to our place on 12 April for another matter, the computer programme, for which he had made an appointment during the previous week and he told Clive and I he had put two and two together and realised his list may have been used in the Hani assassination".

Did Mr Kemp say that to you and your wife?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: When he came to visit us Mr Chairman, yes, he did. I testified that he queried whether the list was his.

MR BIZOS: That the list was his?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Very well. And on page 254 -

"When Clive and I came back together from Cape Town in the car, I unloaded all the papers and brought them into the house. I showed the list to Clive the next day, and he took it. This was around the middle of February when we arrived back from Cape Town. Clive must have given the list to Kuba after that (February late or March 1993)".

Is that correct insofar as it refers to you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I testified that I saw the list in Cape Town in the latter part of January, in fact almost the end of January.

MR BIZOS: Naturally you were in court in the dock together with your wife, during the trial, and your wife went into the witness box in her own defence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And you had a vital interest to listen to her evidence very carefully. What is the problem, can't you answer the question?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't know what the question is. I have answered the question, I said that I have already testified that I saw the list in Cape Town at the end of January.

MR BIZOS: No, you are one question behind. You were sitting in the dock next to your wife.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, there was no question put. I didn't even record a question, we are still waiting for the question.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And the Committee also.

MR BIZOS: My voice was not in question form. You were in the dock and did you watch and listen, watch your wife giving evidence in her own defence and listened to her evidence particularly carefully?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, I did Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You heard her evidence. Did she tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as she took the oath to do?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, with regard to what Mr Chairman, can Mr Bizos indicate with regard to what, it is a very broad, wide statement, she gave lengthy evidence.

MR BIZOS: And I would like an answer to the broad question from the witness, Mr Chairman. Did your wife tell the trial court the truth or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not able to answer that question Mr Chairman, because I believe that there is too much encompassed in, pages and pages of testimony and I actually don't remember what she testified.

MR BIZOS: No, but you see when you were sitting there and your wife was giving evidence, and she was giving evidence what passed between you and her, did it not occur to you in any particular occasion that she was possibly not telling the whole truth?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that took place in October 1993, I can't be expected to remember everything that happened during that time and during the interrogation to me, even. It is a long time ago.

MR BIZOS: I will make a request to you please Mr Derby-Lewis, whether you would be good enough during the weekend, you are not obliged to do it, it is a request, if you would read through your wife's evidence and tell us which portions were true and which portions were not true, if any.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Would you do that? You can even discuss it with your wife if she visits you on a daily basis, if you like, but please tell us which portions of the evidence you agree with and which portions of the evidence given by your wife, before the Judge President, may have been incorrect. Will you do that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am prepared to read through the testimony and I am prepared then to come back and say which evidence I am aware of to be the truth and which I am totally unaware of.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Let me just refer to a portion of Mr Walus' statement on page 88 of R4. There is a statement by the accused 1 and now the first applicant,

"Weapon and the list was handed over by Clive Derby-Lewis"

Is that a correct statement?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is a correct statement Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, first of all it doesn't appear to me to be a statement signed by Mr Walus.

MR BIZOS: ... is said to have been made, but in any event it doesn't matter because you say it is correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I am quite happy to say that.

MR BIZOS: Now can't you remember being in court and your wife giving complicated evidence of how the list must have got mixed up with newspaper cuttings and accused 1 must have taken it away by mistake?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I remember that Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You remember that evidence. And whilst you sat there you knew that she was not telling the truth?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I knew that she didn't know how Mr Walus got the list Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Didn't you tell her?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, we were afforded virtually, actually no opportunity of private communication during all the time of our detention. We were listened to with each visit. I have been informed by members of Correctional Services staff that they even taped confidential, legal discussions when I was consulting with my lawyer.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: So we said very little to one another about this case.

MR BIZOS: Let us forget about what happened after your and/or her arrest. When you heard that Chris Hani had been murdered, and you knew that you had given the list to the first applicant, and didn't you from the time you heard of the murder of Hani and the time that you were arrested, didn't your wife ask you what had happened to the list or didn't you say to her that you had given the list to Walus, the first applicant?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Is this when I was detained in prison that Advocate Bizos is talking about Mr Chairman, I am sorry I am having a bit of problems focusing because I am very tired.

JUDGE WILSON: He said from the time of the murder till the time of your arrest.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: From the time of the murder to the time of my arrest, yes, okay, can Advocate Bizos please just repeat that question Mr Chairman? I've got the timeframe now.

MR BIZOS: Did you, between the time of the murder and the time of your arrest, didn't you and your wife discuss what happened to the list that you had and your wife had for whatever purpose she may have had it and whether or not it had been handed over to Walus or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Why not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because it wasn't, it was a minor detail.

MR BIZOS: What was a minor detail?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The list itself Mr Chairman, it was not a hitlist as was released by the police, it was an address list, it wasn't an important factor. The factor, the most important factor was the fact that a man had been assassinated.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And that was the thing that occupied our minds.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but you know that the man which had been assassinated was on a list which you and your fellow applicant had discussed and had even decided on the order of assassination.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Order of priority, Mr Chairman, as I testified.

MR BIZOS: Oh, don't let's quibble with such niceties about murder Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, to suggest that we were going to murder somebody like Ken Owen or people like that, it is ridiculous.

MR BIZOS: Don't let's talk about Ken Owen, let's talk about the person that was actually murdered.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, Ken Owen was on the list.

MR BIZOS: Let us talk about the person that was actually murdered. His name was on the list which you and your wife had discussed. Not so?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Which she had shown to me in Cape Town.

MR BIZOS: And it was a list on which Hani's name was, which you had handed over to the man that you knew had pulled the trigger?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman, but it was pure coincidence, in terms of that list, that Hani's address was on the list because there were far more names than nine submitted for that information.

MR BIZOS: When you heard that Hani had been murdered and you knew his name on the list, and you knew that Walus had killed Hani, didn't you and your wife ask one another where was the list, particularly as there was a disclosure that the list had been found with Walus upon his arrest, didn't you and your wife discuss the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: We discussed it on Monday as I testified Mr Chairman, on the 12th of April with Arthur Kemp who questioned whether the list mentioned was anything to do with the list that he had drawn up on her behalf.

MR BIZOS: Now, you were clear in your mind that you had given the list to Walus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you tell your wife that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: On the 12th of April, yes Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: On the 12th, so your wife knew that you had given the list to Walus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Don't you recall her giving evidence, your wife was accused 3, wasn't she?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, she was.

MR BIZOS: Will you please have a look at page 527 of the record of her evidence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have already given Advocate Bizos the undertaking that I will go over the evidence ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: It is R1, R1 on page 667.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bizos, I think your R1 has got volume 1 until volume 5, would you please indicate what volume the page number you have referred us to, is?

MR BIZOS: R1, volume 6.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: I am sorry. Page 667.

JUDGE WILSON: What is the first line on the page Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: On the page, "after you returned from Cape Town."

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is Mr Bizos referring to page 667 in brackets or what page number? In brackets, page 667?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have it, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "Now, it has already been put to a State witness and I want to put it to you as well that accused 1 does not know how that exhibit came into his possession, but in all probability it was with the Patriot or picked up with the Patriot at your house, do you say that that is possible, impossible, what is your comment thereon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is possible Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "No, it is possible, every week I get extra Patriots, I have a mailing list etc.

But I thought that you told us that you told your wife that you had given the list to Kuba?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't explain that Mr Chairman, this is my wife's testimony, not mine.

MR BIZOS: So whilst you sat there, you knew that your wife was not speaking the truth to the Judge President and the assessors?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was in a state where I sat in that court room totally bewildered by everything that was happening around me. If my wife testified to this extent, I know that I gave the list to Kuba Walus and I am before this Committee Mr Chairman, not my wife. I am the amnesty applicant and I am telling this Committee that I gave Walus the statement, the address list.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But you see Mr Derby-Lewis, I want to ask you a general question first. These R documents were not disclosed by you, R1, 2, 3, 4 were not disclosed by you but by us. I want to ask you this, have you changed your evidence in any way as a result of the documents becoming available which tend to show that your previous statements were false?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have explained where there are discrepancies in the evidence Mr Chairman, and I am here to tell the truth because I realise that without telling the truth I am not going to get amnesty.

MR BIZOS: Right. Let us see whether you are telling the truth about what happened in court. You know that you handed the list over to Walus, you hear your wife in her evidence saying that he must have got it by mistake, mixed up with Patriots. Surely that thing isn't the sort of detail that one would forget, is it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I can't answer that question.

MR BIZOS: I am sure not. Let's go on to other matters.

JUDGE WILSON: Isn't it fair Mr Bizos, to make it clear, as I understand the evidence that the evidence had already been given by Walus to this effect and this was counsel putting to Mrs Derby-Lewis Walus' version?

MR BIZOS: (microphone not switched on)

JUDGE WILSON: Well, wasn't this put on his behalf? The question seems to be -

"Now it has already been put to State witness and I want to put it to you as well, that accused 1, that is Walus, doesn't know how the exhibit came into his possession."

MR BIZOS: Derby-Lewis knows how it came to be in his possession Mr Chairman, and the question is, if he knew how it came to his possession, how did he come to sit there when his wife, whom he had told that he had given it to Walus, was saying that it must have been by mistake, mixed up with Patriots?

That is really the ground of my ...

JUDGE WILSON: She was saying that it was possible that Walus'- the version put on Walus' behalf, was correct. Does it go any further than that Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: I will take that point and rephrase the question.

JUDGE WILSON: It was put by Mr Jordaan, was he not counsel for Mr Walus?

MR BIZOS: Yes, but what I am going to put to you Mr Derby-Lewis, is this, that at the trial for the protection of your wife, false evidence was given as to how Walus came to get the list when you knew that you had handed it over to him. Have you any comment on that?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it is not understood, who gave the false evidence?

MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis. Mrs Derby-Lewis, knowing as a result of what you told her, that you had given the list to Walus, was saying that he must have got it by mistake amongst the Patriots. Have you any explanation in relation to that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I have not Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Very well.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not give the evidence.

MR BIZOS: Now let me give you an opportunity to go through the record so that we do not have any misunderstandings over the weekend and we will come, we will revert to how your trial was conducted and how much of the truth came out there and how much of that untruth is being transferred into this hearing. But we will postpone that until Monday Mr Derby-Lewis.

What I want to say to you in the next 15 minutes is the following - that you say that you acted on behalf of the Conservative Party, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And in support of Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: On behalf of and in support of.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And of not only the Conservative Party, but also the broad Right, the Afrikaner.

MR BIZOS: Let's deal with the Conservative Party and if there were other people that you want to make responsible, we can deal with them individually.

Now, are you aware of the fact that Mr Hartzenberg sitting there in front, made a statement after your arrest in a television programme specifically distancing the Conservative Party from any assassination and that it was not the policy of the Conservative Party to kill people. Did you see that tape?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, I have never seen it.

MR BIZOS: An opportunity will be given to you to see it, but take it as a given. What I also want you to take as a given is the following. Your congress was in November 1992 in Kimberley was it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, it wasn't Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: August, I beg your pardon.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was in August.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon, you will see why I thought November, in August, yes, and the speech at the Monument was made when?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In October Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: In October of what year?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Of the same year.

MR BIZOS: Now, do you recall, do you know the man who is a member of Parliament called Botha?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Are you referring to Mr Koos Botha?

MR BIZOS: Koos Botha, that is the one.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I know him.

MR BIZOS: He is the one who blew up a school here in Pretoria.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: He too relied on those two documents as having been the source of his belief that he was acting on behalf of the Conservative Party, do you recall that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: What was your political office when he committed that crime?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't remember when the crime was, if you will just refresh my memory Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: We will give you the precise date in a moment because it was recorded. Where were you in 1992, were you in the house or in the President's Council?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, I was a member of the President's Council.

MR BIZOS: Were members of the President's Council members of the caucus of the Conservative Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: They were Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you attend caucus meetings regularly?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not all of them Mr Chairman, because by the very nature of my President's Council membership I only, the President's Council only used to sit for two weeks of every month.

MR BIZOS: Do you recall being party to a decision whether to support or oppose the Indemnity Bill, not the Act that the Committee is dealing with, but with the Indemnity Bill?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't recall whether I was part of it or not Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, that would have been an important decision for your party in which you held office as to whether to oppose it or to support it. It would have been an important decision?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It would have been one of many decisions the party makes Mr Chairman, in respect of all legislation.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And you as a leading member must have been party to the decision to oppose the Indemnity Bill as the Conservative Party did.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I wasn't a member of Parliament then Mr Chairman, and as I said I can't recall - you were going to give me the date.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I will come to the dates, just answer my question in the mean time.

Do you recall whether Mr Koos Botha complained bitterly in Parliament that he stood alone in K-court in Pretoria and the Conservative Party didn't come anywhere near him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was aware of the Mr Chairman, yes.

MR BIZOS: And do you recall of his complaint that the Conservative Party hierarchy was full of bluster, words, but when it came to action, they did nothing?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am aware of that statement Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And do you remember that your colleagues in the Conservative Party attacked him in strong terms in Parliament for suggesting that his act of blowing up a school which was going to be used partly for Black pupils, was in furtherance of the Conservative Party policy was an act with which the CP would not associate with because they did not believe in violence at all, but that they had a political programme to put into operation, do you recall that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall those exact details Mr Chairman, but I do recall that that speech was held after Mr Koos Botha had been expelled from the Conservative Party for bringing embarrassment upon the Party.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well I am going to hand in Hansard in order to show that from October 1992 you had the clearest possible notice that the leadership of the Conservative Party and those who were responsible for its policy, disapproved of violence and they rejected Mr JJC Botha's statements that he acted on behalf of the Conservative Party.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I recall them criticising them because he kept on blaming the Conservative Party Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Let me read the words that you would no doubt have come into your notice Mr Derby-Lewis, when you committed this murder as to the policy of the Conservative Party on whose behalf you claim to have acted.

I am reading Mr Chairman, I thought that copies have been made, they have not. We will see to it that copies will be made for the Committee, but may I read out the relevant passage. Listen carefully Mr Derby-Lewis, what your colleague Mr DP du Plessis said. Who is Mr DP du Plessis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He was the member of Parliament for Wonderboom Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: A senior member of the CP?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: A member of the CP, a member of the CP caucus.

MR BIZOS: A member of the CP caucus.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right.

MR BIZOS: And in caucus is it decided that the person that is going to speak on a specific issue, carries with it the approval of the caucus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Unless he is repudiated Mr Chairman, yes.

MR BIZOS: Unless he is repudiated. But important things are discussed in the caucus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I wasn't aware of a discussion surrounding Mr Du Plessis' speech and I am quite sure Mr Chairman that his speech would not be discussed as such in the caucus.

MR BIZOS: But the line, the caucus would give the line which was to be followed?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not necessarily Mr Chairman, the members of Parliament had a large degree of independence in terms of what they said in speeches as long as it didn't contravene Conservative Party policy.

MR BIZOS: That is good enough for my purpose, just listen to what he said Sir. It is Wednesday, the 21st of October 1992, at page 12806 Mr Chairman on the right- hand column.

"The Honourable member said that he was at the Voortrekker Monument at 26th of May 1990. At the Voortrekker Monument it was said that the third liberation struggle had begun. Of course the third liberation struggle has begun [Interjections]

The fact that I say that the Honourable members here today does not imply that they should go out and plant bombs tomorrow [Interjections]

There were 130 000 people present at the occasion. How many of them have gone out and planted bombs?

My Honourable leader...."

that would be Dr Treurnicht, wouldn't it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "My Honourable leader has said repeatedly that nothing gives an individual the right to commit crimes or misdeeds. If he does commit them, he does so at his own peril, he should know that there are laws in this country and if he breaks them, he should take the blame and punishment for it.

Now, surely such an important statement must have come to the notice of an important leader of the Conservative Party such as yourself?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as a member of the President's Council I was not a recipient of the Hansard, and unless I was in Cape Town and in the House at that time I wouldn't have heard about it.

But Mr Chairman, let me also say that I could quite easily understand from a political point of view, Mr Du Plessis repudiating Mr Koos Botha, because Mr Koos Botha was no longer a member of the Conservative Party when he was repudiated. He had been fired.

MR BIZOS: Before or after the bomb?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am not sure of those dates but I know that by the time Mr Du Plessis made the speech he had been fired.

MR BIZOS: You will not divert me in my questions Mr Derby-Lewis, the question is a simple one. Would an important member representing the Conservative Party at the President's Council, not be aware of what Mr Du Plessis said on behalf of the Conservative Party in Parliament on the 21st of October 1992?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. I would have been.

MR BIZOS: You would have been aware of it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not of all of the details, but certainly that it had been said.

MR BIZOS: Certainly that the leader says don't commit crimes? Is that right?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, then you must describe a crime. When is a crime a crime, when you are involved with a freedom struggle, is a crime a crime? When you are involved in a wartime situation...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Murder is a crime Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But then Mr Chairman, then you must refuse to accept the ANC's crimes as well, because they also murdered.

MR BIZOS: No, Mr Derby-Lewis, you missed the point entirely, let's leave the ANC cases for another hearing Mr Derby-Lewis, let's deal with yours.

(Loud clapping and laughing)

The issue is not whether, the issue that I am questioning you on is whether you acted on behalf of the Conservative Party or not and I am asking you and the Committee with respect, is entitled to a straight answer. Did you or did you not know that your leader said do not commit crimes through the mouth of Mr Du Plessis on the 21st of October 1992?

Do you want me to repeat the question?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was aware of that newspaper report.

MR BIZOS: To the effect, correctly reporting what is in the Hansard?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In the Hansard, when I have a look at the Hansard I will be able to answer the question Mr Chairman. Mr Bizos has said he will provide us with that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. This particular page is actually attached to the bundle, I have a fuller - it is at page R3 F, pages 1 and 2 Mr Chairman, 1, 2 and 3.

CHAIRPERSON: What page Mr Bizos, please.

MR BIZOS: R3, Section F, 1 to 3.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have it Mr Chairman, there are no page numbers on this Hansard or dates.

MR BIZOS: Page 1 - 3.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, 21st of October, okay, I have got it Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: The Hansard is on page 2 - "Mr du Plessis"

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What portion of the speech are you referring to?

MR BIZOS: Right-hand corner.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right-hand corner, yes?

MR BIZOS: Right-hand bottom section, the Honourable member said that he was at the Voortrekker Monument like apparently you were.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I have that paragraph Mr Chairman, third from the bottom.

MR BIZOS: Do you want me to read it again or do you want to read it to yourself. Have the Committee members got it?

MR BIZOS: R3 and it has inner divisions and it is in division F, and each division is numbered and I am looking at page 2, Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have it Mr Chairman. It says here -"My Honourable leader has said repeatedly that nothing gives an individual the right to commit crimes or misdeed".

But I wasn't acting ...

MR BIZOS: You are reading the second paragraph, please read the first paragraph. I have read it into the record, you can read it aloud or to yourself, please yourself.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Can Mr Bizos repeat the question now Mr Chairman. I have the ...

MR BIZOS: Could there have been any doubt in your mind after this statement in Parliament, which was both after the Voortrekker Monument speech and after the Kimberley congress document that you produced in evidence, came into being?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there could have Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: There could have. If you look at Appendix A which we submitted with all of those acts of sabotage from the 8th of February 1990, other people also got the same message I got regardless of what is said here.

MR BIZOS: No, just one moment please. We will come to that exhibit and I will ask you questions there. There is a difference between acts of violence committed by unknown people and the statement in Parliament of the leader of a political party saying that our party is not for violence.

Deal with the question on the basis of that you knew that your leader in 1992, October, said that despite the speech at the Voortrekker Hoogte and despite the document of the Kimberley resolution, our party is against violence. Deal with that please.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, this paragraph -

"My Honourable leader has said repeatedly that nothing gives an individual the right to commit crimes or misdeeds"

he is saying he said repeatedly, he didn't say when he said it. Mr Du Plessis was now referring to what had been said in the past by the leader of the CP.

MR BIZOS: You don't seem to come to terms with my question. Either you do not understand it or you do not want to answer it, I will try again Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: There is no reason not to answer.

MR BIZOS: A member of the President's Council in relation to the policy of his party, doesn't have to rely on snippets in the Patriot, either in English or Afrikaans, doesn't have to rely on loose statements made by your wife or other contributors to the Patriot, you are a senior office bearer of the Conservative Party and a senior colleague of your says in Parliament this is our policy against violence.

Could there have been any doubt in your mind that the CP was against violence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: At the time that Mr Du Plessis made the speech?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: There was still doubt. But in 1993 Mr Chairman, there was very little doubt when one considers what my leader said then.

MR BIZOS: No, please, please Mr Derby-Lewis. In your documents, and I will refer you to chapter and verse if need be, you said that what inspired you to believe that your party was for violence was, and you repeated it often, the third freedom struggle speech of Dr Treurnicht at the Voortrekker Monument and the Kimberley document, both those events occurred prior to the speech of Mr Du Plessis in Parliament.

Question - could there have been any doubt in the mind of any responsible leader of the Conservative Party such as yourself, that the Conservative Party ... (tape ends) ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Dr Treurnicht held a speech at the Paardekraal Monument, 10th of October 1992, where he clearly expressed war sentiments.

MR BIZOS: Where is that speech?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I do have a copy of the report on that ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: We can have it thank you. You say that it was the 10th of October what year?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Of 1992.

MR BIZOS: This was on the 21st of October 1992?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman, that is why I say there could have been confusion.

MR BIZOS: Are you not going to say that the leader of the Conservative Party talks of war on the 10th of October at the Paardekraal Monument and a senior member of the Conservative Party talks with a different tongue in Parliament, 11 days later, is that what you are saying?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What I am saying Mr Chairman, is that Mr Du Plessis was referring to violence, Dr Treurnicht was talking war.

MR BIZOS: Oh, I see, there is a difference is there, between killing people in war and killing people by assassins?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: There is, Mr Chairman, there is.

MR BIZOS: Is that a form of your Conservative Party logic Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, assassination is an act of war, it can occur during a war situation.

MR BIZOS: I see.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Clearly so.

MR BIZOS: So what you are saying is that Conservative Party policy, as at the 21st of October, was different in relation to destroying property, they mustn't do that, but they can go and kill people?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, what I am saying is that in a war-time situation, and I was convinced that the Conservative Party was preparing for war, then acts of that nature could have been committed.

MR BIZOS: I will merely give you a final opportunity for today to say anything else that you may want to say but briefly if you can, how could you possibly have said in your applications as you did that what prompted you to do this was primarily the Monument speech and the Kimberley congress, how could you have said that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I said that the Monument speech in 1990 called the people up to the third freedom struggle. By 1992 it was quite clear that Mr De Klerk had closed the constitutional door to us, so no matter what was being said, the criteria which had been established by the Conservative Party for participation in the democratic process and a constitutional route, had been closed and the Conservative Party had said on numerous occasions that violence would be justifiable in a situation where the Constitutional path was closed.

MR BIZOS: Yes, that is a condition or threat of going over to violence in the future at some time. Look at the last sentence of the previous paragraph Mr Derby-Lewis.

"There were 130 000 people present on that occasion, how many of them have gone out and planted bombs?"

as a rhetorical question, as reproof of Mr Botha that he was alone and that is why he stood alone at K-court in Pretoria and nobody went there to give him any moral or other support.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have already referred to appendix A in which it is quite clear how many people went out and planted bombs.

MR BIZOS: On behalf of the Conservative Party, do you say Sir?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am saying in response to what Dr Treurnicht initially said on the 26th of May 1990, it set the thought process in motion ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Do you say that the acts enumerated in that annexure were done on behalf of the Conservative Party Sir, yes or no?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I say I did it on behalf of the Conservative Party and in support of the Conservative Party and in support of the Afrikaner's freedom struggle.

MR BIZOS: Please answer the question Sir.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have answered the question, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Do you say that the acts enumerated in the annexure that you referred to, were committed on behalf of the Conservative Party, yes or no?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: We will examine them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, maybe at an appropriate time.

MR BIZOS: That will be so.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be convenient at this stage, for reasons explained ...

MR BIZOS: We accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will now adjourn until ten o'clock on Monday morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

18-08-1997: Day 6

ON RESUMPTION

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, we are ready to begin, but my learned friend, Adv Bizos has indicated that he has a request to make to the Committee about some videos.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I tendered to ask you to view a video of Mr Hartzenberg being interviewed by Mr Lester Venter on the SABC. I am told that the equipment is not here. Arrangements are being made to try and get some equipment here. I don't want to take up time. I will proceed, with your leave, with my examination of Mr Derby-Lewis.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

CLIVE DERBY-LEWIS: (Still under affirmation).

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS (cont): Mr Derby-Lewis, I read to you a portion of Hansard in which Mr Koos Botha was repudiated for contending that the speech at Voortrekker Hoogte and the resolution of or the adoption of a programme of action in Kimberley was said not to be concerned with violence. What I want to do, Mr Chairman, for the sake of completeness, is to hand in a fuller section of Hansard, commencing on page 12738 and finishing at 12838. We, having regard to our limited resources, we have made one copy for the Commission and one copy for counsel for the applicants. I do not intend referring to it at this stage, but it may be necessary during the course of argument to refer to portions of what was said, in order to explain what the debate was about.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: The relevant passage that I read out is before you, each one of you have a copy in R4, I beg your pardon, in R3, in section F, together with the newspaper cuttings that summarise the debate from pages F1 to 5; clearly indicated to the world at large that the CP was against the use of violence. Having explained that, Mr Chairman, I would like to proceed with the examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Please do.

MR BIZOS: Would you please turn ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, can I request that I be given an opportunity to go through this document before Mr Bizos starts referring to it because I am not familiar with it?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it the pages from Hansard?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The pages from Hansard, yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, are you going to be questioning him on the contents of this document?

MR BIZOS: Not on any portion. What I wanted to put to Mr Derby-Lewis, I put on Friday afternoon, Mr Chairman. If - I am sure that Mr Derby-Lewis has time during the adjournments and after court, if - and he is represented by counsel, I have made the document available they will, no doubt, have an opportunity to re-examine the witness and if there is anything that they want to draw attention to, which either explains or deals for any matter, the matter can be clarified then. We are anxious not to take up court time for Mr Lewis to peruse documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lewis, if you have any difficulty as a result of questions being put to you, which taxes your memory about these documents, we will then consider it at that stage.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, I still have a problem, because Mr Bizos may ask me questions which are referred to in other speeches by my colleagues of which I am not aware and I don't know whether ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: He will put that to you, you can reserve your answer. But let's proceed with the rest of the evidence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. Will you please look at R3, page, section F, page 1.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. Yes, Mr Chairman, I have got it.

MR BIZOS: This is a newspaper report in The Citizen. Did you and your wife regularly read The Citizen, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And it would appear that your wife was a regular contributor to The Citizen, not as regular as Die Patriot, but she was a contributor to this ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: If Mr Bizos is referring, Mr Chairman, to the occasional letter which my wife used to submit to the editor, that is correct.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And please try and remember whether this report came to your notice, which is a summary of the debate in Parliament.

"Hillview bomber, Mr Koos Botha, should stop blaming the Conservative Party and its leaders for his actions, and he would then find that they had sympathy for him, Mr Daan du Plessis, CP Roodeplaat said yesterday.

Speaking in debate on the further Indemnity Bill he said Mr Botha had blamed a speech by CP leader, Dr Andries Treurnicht in which he said the third war of freedom had begun for inciting him to violence. Naturally, the third war of freedom has begun, said Mr Du Plessis, but the fact that I say this here today, does not oblige you to go out tomorrow and plant bombs.

There had been 30 000 people at the Voortrekkerhoogte meeting where Dr Treurnicht made the statement. How many of those people went and planted bombs? Dr Treurnicht had said that anyone who planted bombs did so at his own risk, knowing that he was contravening the laws of the land, and that he would have to bear the blame and the punishment. If Mr Botha had indeed blown up Hillview School, the question arose whether he had not known the consequences. Mr Botha had naturally been alone when he was finally brought to court. At that stage he had already kicked his colleagues in the face and cut himself off from them."

Did this report come to your notice?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, in all probability.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now before you decided to make yourself guilty of murder, did you go to your leader and say, ask specifically, leader, what is our party's policy in relation to killing people or doing damage to property or using violence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I testified previously that I had already discussed the moral basis of killing in the ongoing struggle against the anti-Christ and I have testified as to what my leader said.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But will you leave anti-Christ out for a moment and can we have a direct answer to the question. When you heard or read of this, did you go to your leader and ask him what is our policy in relation to acts of violence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I did not, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: When you were discussing with your friend, Mr Walus, the plans in order to murder Chris Hani, did you say to him that there are public statements which clearly indicate that the Conservative Party is against violence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, because that was not so.

MR BIZOS: Well, are you saying that Mr Prinsloo, who made these statements, was lying to the public of South Africa?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, Mr Prinsloo didn't make those statements.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon, Du Plessis, I beg your pardon.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Du Plessis made the statement.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon, yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The second point I wish to make, Mr Chairman, is that if you have a look at the clipping, you will see at the bottom there, the last paragraph in that clipping, there is a quote:

"At that stage he had already kicked his colleagues in the face."

I am not sure to which, to whom this is attributed, the report doesn't say that.

Then thirdly, Mr Chairman, I want to say here that the report says Dr Treurnicht had said that-

"Anyone who planted bombs did so at his own risk, knowing that he was contravening the laws...."

as Mr Bizos correctly read out,

"....the laws of the land, and that he would have to bear the blame and punishment".

This was done by all freedom fighters, they all contravened the law in terms of the war which is being waged. Mr Chairman, and they all committed crimes. So how can I be ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: Do you mindanwering my question my question, Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have answered the question, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I will repeat it and I will ask the Chairman to direct you to answer it. Whilst you were discussing the manner in which you and Mr Walus were going to murder Chris Hani, did you tell Mr Walus that the record showed that the Conservative Party was against violence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not tell him that, Mr Chairman, no.

MR BIZOS: Why did you not tell him that if you knew the policy clearly? Did you not want to inform Mr Walus that he was about - you were discussing the commission of an act of murder, contrary to the policy of the body of which you were a senior member?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, we were clearly in a war-time climate, and that wasn't even necessary, according to my assessment, because it was quite obvious that we were in a war situation.

MR BIZOS: I didn't ask you whether you thought that we were or were not in a war situation. The question is why did you not tell Mr Walus that statements had been made by leading CP people that CP was against violence? Why did you not tell him that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because, Mr Chairman, at the time that we discussed the act of war, the policy had changed completely, and according to statements by various leaders it was clear that it was a different situation.

MR BIZOS: In your application, Mr Derby-Lewis, you said that the statements that influenced you to conspire and assist in the commission of the murder of Chris Hani, it was - were the monument speech and the Kimberley resolution. Can you point to a single public statement anywhere, after this disassociation of the Conservative Party from violence, can you show any other public statement by the CP that they had changed their policy as enunciated by Mr Du Plessis in Hansard at the time? Can you show a single statement? Can you show us in your application where a single statement was made saying that Mr Du Plessis was wrong?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: He may have been correct when he said that in Parliament, but the policy has changed. Can you show a single statement?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now who were you, after the office-bearers of the CP had clearly indicated that violence was not the policy of the CP, to second-guess their public statements, that the policy may have changed?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I did not have to guess, and I refer you to a report in the Rapport newspaper, dated the 11th of October 1992, and it is a report of the speech held by the late Dr Treurnicht at Paardekraal Monument in Krugersdorp. And Mr Chairman, the headline is very clear, and I will be submitting this bundle, Mr Chairman. The headline is clear -

"Treurnicht praat oorlog."

(Treurnicht discusses war).

that was the perception of the journalist who wrote the story. And Mr Chairman, what this report tells us of Dr Treurnicht's speech, the first paragraph reads as follows -

"The time is almost there that the Afrikaner volk will exclaim that they cannot do anything else than to go into war."

Sorry, Mr Chairman, the sound seems to go off and on while I am talking, I'm sorry, I have nothing to do with that.

Mr Chairman, then this report goes further and Dr Treurnicht spoke about how the "Boerekrygers 'n klipstapel "by Paardekraal opgerig het", that would (...indistinct) on the 12th of December 1880, as a symbol that they were going to fight to the end.

Now Mr Chairman, I can tell you that at this function held at Paardekraal Monument on the 10th of October, "ons het ook klippe gestapel". That was a part of the ceremony.

Further, Mr Chairman ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: What was the date?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was the 11th of October, is the report, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: The 11th of October?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, I don't want to interrupt you, but may I draw your attention that the document on which I have referred you to in The Citizen, was after that. The debate in Parliament was after Paardekraal.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't mind when the debate was held, but if one looks at the contents of Mr Du Plessis' speech, it is clear that he is actually repeating statements which were said in the past.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, I asked you and I will ask you again, can you refer us to a single public utterance by anyone in the leadership of the CP which contradicted what was said by Mr Du Plessis as reported in The Citizen of the 22nd of October 1992,can you or can't you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have already answered that question. I said ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: You haven't answered that question.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: My answer was no.

MR BIZOS: Oh, I see. So your reference to the Paardekraal statement was not in answer to that question?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, my reference to the Paardekraal report was in elucidation of the situation which prevailed at the time.

MR BIZOS: The caucus of the CP, and Mr Du Plessis that spoke in its name in Parliament, obviously didn't know or did not interpret the Paardekraal speech that you speak about in the manner in which you do?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was an equal member of the caucus to the status of Mr Du Plessis.

MR BIZOS: And did you go ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And that was his perception. Sorry, can I finish, please?

MR BIZOS: Yes, please do.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And that was his perception at the time and he was in the speech clearly getting stuck into Mr Koos Botha, because of the fact that he had already been expelled from the party and that he was obviously in Mr Du Plessis' statements, creating an embarrassment for the party by continually blaming Dr Treurnicht for something that was said in 1990. I am not blaming Dr Treurnicht, Mr Chairman, for something that was said in 1990. The 1990 statement was the beginning, but this 1992 statement, Mr Chairman, was clearly a completely different ball-game.

MR BIZOS: The different ball-game was on the 12th of October. The caucus, your caucus member of equal rank to you on the 21st of October, said that the policy was still one of peace.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, obviously I can't speak for my colleague.

MR BIZOS: Right.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And I think it would be necessary for him to be examined in this respect.

MR BIZOS: No, he is not applying for amnesty, you are.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But Mr Chairman, it is clear that the statement has caused confusion, and I think that he must be called.

MR BIZOS: Has it caused confusion or is it the truth?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It hasn't caused confusion in my mind, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I see.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because I am clearly aware of the situation which prevailed at that time.

MR BIZOS: You were a member of that caucus. After the 21st of October, did you attend the next caucus meeting and say how dare Du Plessis misinterpret our policy?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't even know whether I was in a position to attend the caucus meeting, the next caucus meeting, because as I explained earlier, I attended the President's Council and we sat for two weeks, and then we were away for two weeks and I am not sure of the timeframe in which this speech was said.

MR BIZOS: Are you suggesting that you did not attend a single caucus meeting between the 21st of October 1992 and the 7th or the 10th of April 1993, when you in association with Walus, Mr Walus, killed Chris Hani, that you didn't attend a single caucus meeting?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not suggesting that, Mr Chairman, but I most certainly ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: Does that mean that you did?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not certain on which occasions I attended caucus meetings.

MR BIZOS: Never mind which occasion. Did you attend one or more caucus meetings after the 21st of October, yes or no?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not able to say, Mr Chairman, because I am not sure of the timeframe.

MR BIZOS: I have given you the timeframe, Sir.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry.

MR BIZOS: Between the 21st of October 1992 and the 10th of April 1993, did you ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...

MR BIZOS: Please listen to the question. Did you or did you not attend a caucus meeting of the Conservative Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not able to answer that question, Mr Chairman, for the simple reason that people who are aware of the procedures in Parliament, in any case, Mr Chairman, will be aware of the fact that to have a Parliamentary session in October of the year, would be an extraordinary session. It wouldn't be the normal operation of Parliament. Parliament then only once again, Mr Chairman, is prorogued in January or February, I believe, the opening of Parliament took place, and after that, Mr Chairman, there could have been a possibility of one meeting that I could have attended. But there is also a possibility that I didn't, I couldn't attend a meeting because I wasn't there when Parliament was in session. I am not sure of those dates.

MR BIZOS: Let's try another way. Did you attend any meetings of the executive of which you were a member of the Conservative Party between the 21st of October 1992 and the 10th of April 1993?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Once again, Mr Chairman, I can't recall, because of the overlap in President's Council's sessions and Parliamentary sessions, and if my memory serves me correctly, I was elected to the executive of the Transvaal some time towards the end of 1992.

MR BIZOS: Well, here was a wonderful opportunity to make a maiden speech on the executive, by saying how could - how could my colleague, Du Plessis, mislead Parliament and mislead the people of the country when in truth and in fact, the war has begun, how dare he insult Koos Botha in that manner and how dare he deny that we are in a war situation and that we can permit acts of violence? Was that part of your maiden speech at the executive towards the end of 1992?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, to the best of my memory at no time have I heard Mr Du Plessis saying that we weren't in a war situation. There is nothing in his speech which indicates that.

MR BIZOS: So you choose to place your own interpretation on the word, the clear words of Hansard and say that it was not a condemnation of violence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, it was a reference to speeches in the past by Dr Treurnicht. It was not referring to a current statement of Dr Treurnicht and I don't know when the statement that he is referring to in his speech, was made, but I am quite sure that it was made before October 1992.

MR BIZOS: Now has it not come ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just for my own information, after October 1992 were there sessions of the President's Council, and if so, could you tell me when the President's Council normally met, please?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not sure, Mr Chairman, because there was no normal dates.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: They would set the programme and then we would know that we would be sitting from this day to that day, for two weeks. That was the only thing that we knew that we would be there for a period of two weeks.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no calendar, no prearranged calendar of the sitting of the President's Council?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there was, Mr Chairman, but it was never run in conjunction with the sittings of Parliament. It was, the President's Council was seen as a separate entity.

CHAIRPERSON: So then, if there was a calendar of the President's Council, you would be able to tell us when the sittings were?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly, Mr Chairman, I would.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have that information with you now?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Unfortunately not, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry to interrupt you.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we will make arrangements, we will research that if Mr Derby-Lewis and his legal representatives don't.

Mr Derby-Lewis - no, you can talk to your counsel before I put my next question. I don't want to stop you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Do you want to talk to him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, my thing is going on and off, I just want to ... Mr Chairman, it is highly difficult to concentrate on what one is doing when these - the volume goes on and off all the time.

CHAIRPERSON: That is extremely unsatisfactory. I realise that Mr Derby-Lewis, and I think that it should be put right. It isn't fair that you have to wrestle and juggle with this and at the same time pay attention to what is being asked.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now may I ask this, why are you wearing the earphones, Mr Derby-Lewis, don't you understand my English? (Laughter).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have difficulty hearing what Mr Bizos is saying at times, because he doesn't talk out of his mouth, he talks within his mouth, and it comes over to me very blurred. (Laughter). It is only when he speaks for the audience that he seems to be very clear in his statements. (Laughter).

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, this is the first complaint I had of people not being able to hear me in 43 years. (Laughter andloud applause).

JUDGE WILSON: Well, Mr Bizos, I have never known you to speak with your hand in front of your mouth, so often, for 40 years, as you have been doing this morning. (Laughter).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. (Applause).

CHAIRPERSON: Can that be put right, Mr Derby-Lewis' earphone, can that be put right please.

JUDGE WILSON: Hasn't he got a new one?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, I didn't hear that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I am told that you have got a replacement. Is it correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have now, Mr Chairman, and it seems to be in order.

CHAIRPERSON: Just stop immediately there are any difficulties.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I am just trying to locate the actual Hansard page where Mr Du Plessis spoke, amongst this batch that Mr Bizos gave us. Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have the, I have now the reference, it is on page 12806.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed, Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: What is it that you want to draw the Committee's attention to?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It has gone off again. Pardon?

MR BIZOS: What is it that you want to draw the Committee's attention to?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I want to draw the Committee's attention, Mr Chairman, to the following paragraph, where Mr Du Plessis is now speaking and he says that the reason why Koos Botha blames the CP, is because Koos Botha was at the Voortrekker Monument on the 26th of May 1990. He then goes further to say -

"My honourable leader has said repeatedly...."

Obviously, Mr Chairman, that is a reference to past statements, and in my opinion the statement by Dr Treurnicht at Paardekraal overrules anything that he may have said in terms of Mr Du Plessis' reference regarding violence.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, just repeat that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, where Mr Du Plessis in his speech was attacking Mr Koos Botha, he attacked him on the basis that Mr Botha used as justification for his deeds the speech by Dr Treurnicht at the Voortrekker Monument on the 26th of May 1990. And he said here -

"My honourable leader ..."

He said further -

"My honourable leader has said repeatedly that nothing gives an individual the right to commit crimes or misdeeds."

But he is obviously, Mr Chairman, referring to statements that my late leader had said, at earlier dates, and as far as I am concerned, the speech at Paardekraal on the 10th of October overruled any repeated statements that the individual doesn't have the right to commit crimes or misdeeds, because Treurnicht was clearly speaking war.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I think I am going to, Mr Bizos, if you don't mind, I think with regard to this aspect, I think I must ask the witness a question. You seem to say that in his speech at the Monument - at the Monument, Dr Treurnicht did not call for violence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: May I answer, Mr Chairman?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What I said, was that that speech launched the third freedom struggle, which already at that stage ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am talking violence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, but the freedom struggle was a violent struggle, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So you are saying already on the - at the Monument, with his speech at the Monument, he was already calling for violence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He was already calling, declaring the third freedom struggle - freedom struggle number one ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: I am sorry, I am talking violence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry. No, not at that stage, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not in 1990.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Correct, yes. So ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He launched the freedom struggle.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Correct.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's right.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And please, I am talking about violence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I have no problems with the struggle.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: As such. I understand his speech to be saying that, but you are saying, as I understand you, that he did call for a struggle, but at that stage he had not as yet called for violence to be used?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now you are saying at some stage you came to understand that the CP did call for violence to be used?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now my question is, normally when there is such a major shift in policy, the issue is debated, and if need be, vigorously, within any party. Now did such a debate take place within the Conservative Party between these two periods, between the speech at the Monument and the ultimate speech that you think called clearly for violence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, there were no official discussions held by the Conservative Party, but if one looks at the overall climate, where the Conservative Party had already in August drawn up their plans for mobilisation, it was clear that they were preparing for a war.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis, being an experienced politician yourself, would you not have - would you not expect that if the party makes such a major shift in policy, it would have to officially formally debate the issue?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, not necessarily, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Oh, I see.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And I can say, just in further expansion, Mr Chairman, I can say that the debate about the war was going on virtually in all CP circles. People were talking, they were asking how can they now participate, what can they do, and you will see already from 1990, as I refer to in Appendix A, Mr Chairman, many people had already interpreted what was going on, even before it was even discussed, and they started blowing things up and performing acts of war.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So should I understand, us understand you to say that because there had not been an official, as you put it, official formal discussion, there had in fact been no official stance taken?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman. As I mentioned in earlier testimony, the only person in the Conservative Party who is allowed to commit the Conservative Party to anything, without obtaining the approval of anyone within the party, is the leader of the Conservative Party, and Dr Treurnicht had done that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you. I just wanted to clear that aspect.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Are you suggesting, Mr Derby-Lewis, that Dr Treurnicht committed the Conservative Party to violence without discussing it with anyone?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't know what discussions Dr Treurnicht had, I wasn't fixed to him.

MR BIZOS: But ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But this speech held at Paardekraal and I have been given the whole speech, Mr Chairman, and what happened at Paardekraal has to be seen in the correct context. It was very clear that the venue of Paardekraal was even chosen for this - the closest that Dr Andries Treurnicht could come to a declaration of war without actually declaring the war, it was clear from this, and, Mr Chairman, it was clear that it wasn't only my perception, it was the perception of many other people, including the media.

MR BIZOS: Let us ask you this. Dr Treurnicht never told you that there was a change of policy to go over to violence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Dr Treurnicht told me, Mr Chairman, in terms of the first paragraph of this clipping -

"Die tyd is amper daar ..." (The time is nearly there ...)

That was in October already, Mr Chairman -

"... dat die Afrikanervolk gaan uitroep ..." (That the Afrikaner Volk will call out ..."

The Afrikaner nation. He wasn't talking about the CP - can I please just finish. That the Afrikaner Volk or nation is going to cry out that it cannot do anything else but to declare war.

Mr Chairman, who is the Afrikaner volk, the Afrikaner nation? I am the Afrikaner volk. Those people sitting there are the Afrikaner volk, they are here in support of myself. The Afrikaner volk launched a fund to pay my legal costs, my legal expenses. It was not Dr Treurnicht. Dr Treurnicht only verified what was in everybody's heads in any case, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I will ask you the question again. Did Dr Treurnicht tell you personally that there was a change of CP policy from non-violence to violence? Yes or no.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am unable to answer all of these ridiculous questions in a straight yes or no context, because yes or no is not a satisfactory way of answering it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it may be possible to say Dr Treurnicht never told me or he told me.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, he is saying that did Dr Treurnicht tell me personally. In other words, he is insinuating that he expects Dr Treurnicht to take me one side and say there is a war.

CHAIRPERSON: Just answer that, just tell him that then.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But I also want to say no, Mr Chairman, but I was present when he made the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And he was talking to me as a member of the Afrikaner volk.

CHAIRPERSON: Quite right. We understand the answer.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Right. Did Dr Hartzenberg ever tell you personally that the CP policy had changed from non-violence to violence? Yes or no.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, Dr Hartzenberg's statements are on the record of this court, of this Committee.

MR BIZOS: Please answer my question.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He did not tell me personally, once again.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: Did any other leader of the Conservative Party tell you personally that there was a change of policy by the CP from non-violence to violence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. Now can we go to the next statement in The Citizen?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Is this page 3?

MR BIZOS: Page 4R. It is the same section, R3 - I beg your pardon, did I say R4 again? R3, a Citizen article on page 4, subsection (a), page 3.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Subsection (a), page 3?

MR BIZOS: (a), yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Subsection (a), page 3, Mr Chairman, is a Citizen report regarding a reference by the AWB leader to Walus. Is that the one?

MR BIZOS: Yes. Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 3, right.

MR BIZOS: Now ...

CHAIRPERSON: There are two articles on page 3, which one are you referring to, Mr Bizos?

JUDGE WILSON: They run on.

MR BIZOS: Yes, Sir, they have to be ...

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I beg your pardon.

MR BIZOS: You see there Walus is AWB member, ET, but then if you have a look at the paragraph on the right-hand side.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I see, so the bottom half is a continuation.

MR BIZOS: Is a continuation.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

"Mr Terreblanche said he condemned the assassination but that he understood the motive, the motive any White would have for killing Mr Hani. He disapproved of the attack because it was an assassination and not a kill in a real war, adding, 'if it had been a proper battle, I would have killed Mr Hani myself'."

And then he goes on.

Now did the leader of the AWB whose meetings you attended, or with whom you associated, ever tell you that assassination was part and parcel of the AWB's policy?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, my thing has acted up again, I only got half of the question. Can Mr Bizos please repeat.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, unfortunately, we will just have to be patient. We will just have to be patient, Mr Bizos, and ...

MR BIZOS: I am that and I will try my best not to ... (Laughter). Did the man with whom you appeared on the same platform, with whom you marched and with whom you were praised, ever tell you that before the murder, ever tell you that the AWB policy was in favour of assassination of political leaders, yes or no?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Good. I also want to ask you something. Did you as an officer and a gentleman to which you went to tremendous lengths to persuade us on in your lengthy evidence, Mr Derby-Lewis, isn't an assassination abhorrent to an army officer and a gentleman?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, in certain circumstances, anything is acceptable. If one studies the war there were very numerous cases where assassinations were planned by military men in terms of the war which was being waged.

MR BIZOS: Isn't the ethic to which apparently Mr Terreblanche was brought up on, that you kill in war, but you do not - you do not go about assassinating people, is that a distinction which never occurred to you as an officer and a gentleman?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as far as Mr Terreblanche's ethics are concerned, I am not able to comment. As far as I am concerned, we were in a war-time situation, which justified any action for the defence and protection of your people's rights. Any action whatsoever.

MR BIZOS: You said, Mr Derby-Lewis, that Mr Terreblanche never told you that assassination was permissible. Is there any other leader of any other rightwing political party or organisation, that told you that assassination was in order for his or her organisation?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, because I would never discuss that with anyone else, because of the extent to which the right had been infiltrated by the State.

MR BIZOS: So that no political organisation on the right ever told you that assassination was its policy?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, but they obviously carried out their own assassinations.

MR BIZOS: Please confine yourself to answers of my question, please.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...

MR BIZOS: So that we do not have to go off on a tangent. If you want to add anything, you have counsel sitting next to you who is making careful notes who can make them in due course. Please try and confine yourself to the answering the question, if you can.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was directed at you about a leader or leaders of rightwing organisations.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I understood that.

CHAIRPERSON: And I think you should just confine yourself whether any leaders told you that it was their policy.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. I said no, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand followers of organisations doing things.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question is now directed as to leaders of the organisation.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And I answered that question in the negative, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now if we could have a look at page 11 of the same bundle, 3(a).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 11 of 3(a)?

MR BIZOS: Of R3, section A, page 11.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 11. I think I have it, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

"Clive's arrest was a great shock to CP leaders in Cape Town. The arrest of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, member of the President's Council of the Conservative Party, in connection with the murder of Mr Chris Hani, was a great shock to the CP leaders."

And then -

"The CP at this stage does not consider any actions or steps to be taken against him."

And then the next paragraph says:

"Dr Andries Treurnicht, CP leader, who is convalescing in hospital after having a heart attack, only heard the shocking news yesterday morning. It was kept away from Dr Treurnicht until Dr Willie Snyman, CP MP for Pietersburg and a medical doctor, told him in hospital yesterday that he is somebody who was his confidante is a suspect in the sensational murder case and is being detained. Dr Snyman also said that everybody in the CP were shocked to hear about Mr Derby-Lewis' arrest. He was, however, not of the opinion that Treurnicht was very shocked because there is nothing in politics that upsets one to a greater extent. There is also nothing more known of the case against Mr Derby-Lewis. Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg, deputy leader of the CP, said yesterday it came out of the blue and it caught the CP off-guard."

Now the gentleman referred to in this (...indistinct)?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did they speak the truth, and more particularly, Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg, that your "possible involvement came out of the blue", and that the Conservative Party was taken by surprise that one of its leading members was alleged to have committed a murder?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't know what Dr Hartzenberg said, but from what appears here, that is reported as to what he said, particularly as far as the quotation is concerned, and that is "uit die bloute" (out of the blue) and in other words it came out of the blue. But -"en het die KP onverhoeds betrap" (caught the CP offguard), doesn't appear to be his words, so I don't know what he said in the full context.

MR BIZOS: Well, in order not to delay these proceedings, at the commencement, Mr Derby-Lewis, we requested by drawing attention to all the statements said to have been made by leaders of the Conservative Party, whether they will be admitted or denied, that they were correctly reported or not. Have you and your legal representatives taken any steps to ask these honourable leaders whether they were correctly reported or not during the course of last week?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I think Mr Chairman, I will let my legal representative answer that question because he would have a much closer contact with them, because it is very difficult for me to converse with anybody in this situation.

MR BIZOS: I accept that. Could the counsel for the applicant please respond to the request that we made in the beginning of last week, Mr Chairman?

MR PRINSLOO: The reply to that is no, Mr Chairman, we have not yet consulted with the leaders or people referred to.

MR BIZOS: May I request, Mr Chairman, that the Committee directs the applicant and his legal representatives to let us know as soon as possible, because this cross-examination cannot really be pressed home by Mr Derby-Lewis saying that he doesn't know whether they were correctly reported or not, and he may have to be recalled later. So can we please know, Mr Chairman, when we will be told whether the statements that we referred to on the first day, were made by the leaders of the Conservative Party or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible to attend to this matter as expeditiously as possible, during the proceedings some time?

MR PRINSLOO: We will do so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: We will respond to this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can we move on to some other aspect, if it is not convenient to carry on questioning on these Press statements?

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I will have to reorganise my examination.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue putting these questions and in re-examination, maybe he will be able to clear it up.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I will put it on the basis that they have not been denied, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And then my learned friend, counsel for the applicant can choose to let us know. If they dispute them I am assuming that they will call the friends of the applicant to dispute it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright. At any rate they will have the opportunity of re-examining their witness.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: After consulting whoever they wish to.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Then may we have a look at R3, Section H, page 3. You see this is from Beeld -

"The Government is trying to link the CP to the murder of Mr Chris Hani by arresting a member of the CP and Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg, deputy leader said that yesterday. That was on the ..."

(...indistinct) Now at that stage it would appear that Dr Hartzenberg believed that you were innocent and that your arrest was a "komplot" of the Government. Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Apparently, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes, that would be because you had kept your planning and execution of Chris Hani's murder from the acting leader of the Conservative Party.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, he was not the acting leader of the Conservative Party. This report says clearly "onder-leier van die KP", not acting leader.

MR BIZOS: Well, thank you for that correction. At that time Dr Treurnicht was hardly in a position to make any Press statements, and the "onder-leier" made that on his behalf. In any event, the question is, that Dr Hartzenberg, never mind his correct designation, thought that you were innocent and the victim of a National Party Government "komplot" to falsely implicate you in the murder. Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: From this report, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: As far as you are concerned, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party knew nothing about your involvement in it even after your arrest.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman, because in terms of Section 29 I had no access to him to tell him anything about it, and as I testified earlier, I actually read out a copy of a statement which I eventually had to smuggle out of the Section 29 detention, in order to claim responsibility for the deed.

MR BIZOS: Now the gravamen of my question, Mr Derby-Lewis, is that he obviously knew nothing about your involvement.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I replied to that in the affirmative, Mr Chairman, already.

CHAIRPERSON: By that, I think I would like clarity, whether your involvement prior, in other words, Dr Hartzenberg knew nothing about the fact that you were planning to do what had happened?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: He ... (intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Bizos, are you going on with what happens thereafter on this article?

MR BIZOS: "He said in the debate about the State President's budget, he asked whether Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, the CP member of the President's Council who was this weekend arrested in connection with the murder of Mr Hani, whether he was going to be charged, and what he is going to be charged for."

Further evidence that he knew nothing about it and he cast aspersions about the integrity of the persons who arrested or caused his arrest. Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And then he goes on to say that -

"Dr Hartzenberg had said that Mrs Winnie Mandela ..."

He mentioned two names in the London Times of two ANC members who allegedly were involved with the murder of Mr Chris Hani, but the Government is too scared to arrest them. Tell me, you didn't co-operate with two ANC members in killing Mr Chris Hani, did you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, I did not.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well, we can disregard that report then.

"The Government will not also arrest Mr Mokaba, the leader of the ANC Youth League, who said that Boere must be murdered. The CP can be investigated concerning the murder of Mr Hani, because nothing will be found there, because he is not involved with murders; the ANC should be investigated."

Well, that's a false statement that was made by Mr Hartzenberg, false in fact, he - I am not saying for one moment that he knew of your involvement, but it was false in fact, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but understandable in the circumstances, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I see, yes. What is understandable? That Dr Hartzenberg should blame the ANC and the National Party Government and not you? Is that what's understandable?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't say that, Mr Chairman, because he wasn't talking about me, he was talking about the ANC.

MR BIZOS: Yes, he said that the ANC and the Government were responsible when you knew - when you know that you and Walus did it alone.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He didn't say the ANC and the Government were responsible, Mr Chairman. It is clear from this statement that he was pointing fingers at the ANC only.

MR BIZOS: Oh, and that the Government was too afraid to investigate it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes, very well. Now let's - can we please go to the next one. Section C, page 1, in The Citizen. R3, page 1.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have it, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS:"CP Derby-Lewis Smokescreen.

The arrest of Conservative Party President councillor, Mr Clive Derby-Lewis ..."

It is the same speech, but reported in another paper -

"....CP Deputy Leader, Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg said yesterday. Speaking during the debate on the State President's Vote he said that the CP did not kill people and that the Government would not find anything out which it could hold against the party."

That too turned out to be incorrect.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's right, Mr Chairman, because he was not aware of the details.

MR BIZOS: He was - not of the details, he didn't know that one, and he was shocked, that one of its leading members had made himself guilty of murder.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, he wasn't shocked at that. He was shocked that I was arrested on suspicion of having committed the murder. Because he didn't know at that time whether I had committed a murder or not.

MR BIZOS: Oh. Are you going to say that if he knew that you had committed a murder, he would have sent you a congratulatory telegram? (Laughter).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not saying anything, Mr Chairman, because that would be pure speculation.

MR BIZOS: Now what I want to put to you, Mr Derby-Lewis, that you are denying the obvious and that you are denial is false. Not only are there these cuttings, but also we will show a full interview with the leader of the Conservative Party, of an interview between Mr Lester Venter and him on the SABC, in which your leader in the Conservative Party, dissociates himself and the Conservative Party completely from the policy of violence and from you, if in fact you were shown to be guilty. Have you any comment to make if those - if the facts as I've put to you up to now are correctly reported, and if that interview with Mr Lester Venter is shown to the Committee?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, could Mr Bizos, before I answer that question, tell me what date the interview was carried out?

MR BIZOS: Shortly after your arrest.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What date, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: The tape, Mr Chairman, is in the possession of the Commission. From the content it is clear that it was shortly after the funeral of Mr Chris Hani, but we will establish the precise date.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Why I ask the question, Mr Chairman, is because in his introduction of this question, Mr Bizos once again referred to Dr Hartzenberg as the leader of the Conservative Party.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And it would depend on the date of that interview as to confirm the veracity or otherwise of that statement.

MR BIZOS: Well, let me just change my question and say the deputy-leader of the Conservative Party. (Laughter). If it makes so much difference to you. Don't become involved with minutiae, Mr Derby-Lewis, please answer the gravamen of the question.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Bizos he is entitled to have an idea...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: ... of the date...

CHAIRPERSON: ...about when that statement was made.

MR BIZOS: Shortly after the day.

CHAIRPERSON: It can be cleared up.

MR BIZOS: We will give him the precise date.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well.

MR BIZOS: After the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because as I testified, Mr Chairman, only the leader of the Conservative Party is allowed to make policy statements without first going to an executive and getting their approval. So it is very relevant that date.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Are you saying that the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, if he is recorded as having said,

that the Conservative Party would have nothing to do with violence, and it was not its policy, that he is not an authorised person to speak on behalf of the party, whilst the leader is in hospital with a heart attack? Is that what you are saying?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What I am saying is, Mr Chairman, is that the constitution clearly states what the procedure is, and I have explained that procedure.

MR BIZOS: Please answer the question.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And that is that the leader alone can make statements without first going back to an executive and clearing it with them.

MR BIZOS: Are you saying that the deputy leader of the Conservative Party can not, has no authority to say what the policy of the party is in relation to violence whilst the leader is in hospital with a serious heart attack?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I said, I am not aware of the date. I don't know whether Dr Treurnicht in fact was in hospital at that time.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Can we wait until we have the date of the interview, then I can answer that question.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well, it is readily available, it is just not with the Commission, it is not ...

JUDGE WILSON: As I understand what Mr Bizos is saying, is not that the deputy leader is creating new policy, but the deputy leader is merely stating what the policy of the party is. He is not making any new rulings, he is not making any new decisions.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: That is your question isn't it Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And that is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: If you are going to move on to something else, perhaps we might consider that to be this an appropriate stage to take the adjournment.

MR BIZOS: I don't know what time you intend taking the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry ... The Committee will take an adjournment for 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CLIVE DERBY-LEWIS: (Still under affirmation).

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

Will you please turn to page R3, page 20 to page 21? This would be the sections, all of them. I am going to put a general question. R3 is in - I just want to see the section, Mr Chairman. The index is not in any particular section, Mr Chairman. If you have a look at page 20, statements by Conservative Party contradicting. It is - oh, I beg your pardon. I am looking at my notes in cross-examination rather than R3 proper. I beg your pardon. Give me R3, please, and the index.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, whilst Mr Bizos is going through his documents, may I request the Committee to release the gentlemen who were warned to be here today, that is the policemen, Mr Deetliefs, Pieters and Beegman, with the rider that we shall keep in touch with their lawyers whenever they are needed. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, are you in a position to give some indication as to when you may require these witnesses?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, certainly not today. What I would suggest, with respect, that they be excused. They have a legal representative at Brakpan. The Commission counsel has his number, and that we will give them reasonable notice when they would be required by the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Has this been conveyed, Mr Mpshe, to the gentlemen concerned?

MR MPSHE: It has been conveyed, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let it be placed on record, that those who have been subpoenaed to attend these hearings and who are here this morning, that you will not be required this morning and that your attorney will inform you and give you adequate notice as to when you will be required. Until then you are excused from further attendance.

MR MPSHE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. What section are we now going to deal with? R3, section what?

MR BIZOS: I am trying to save time and I do not want to put all the statements that have been placed before the Committee to the witness at this stage, because many of them are repetitions of a widely reported statement made in Parliament. So it would be repetitive for me to read them out. I merely want to ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you don't have to read them out. You can just give the reference.

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman. The further ones are to be found at R3, Section F, page 1 of The Citizen, in the - in Section ...

JUDGE WILSON: Haven't you asked him a great many questions about F1 already, Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: I want to leave them out for the time-being, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you may proceed.

MR BIZOS: And we will come back because we are now in a position to really - to really get down to indisputable evidence in relation to CP policy. Although the video-machine is not here, we have a transcript of what is said and we want to hand that in, and I am going to put the contents of that to the witness as to whether he agrees or disagrees with it and what the position was.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you rather not to do that after he has had a chance of seeing the video?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Please, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: There is no machinery now available to show it, but the video has been given to the other side, I understand. It will be made available to the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, they have seen the video?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Mr Chairman, we have not seen the video.

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?

MR PRINSLOO: We have not seen the video, it is still in possession of the other side.

CHAIRPERSON: You were given it?

MR PRINSLOO: We were given it, we did not look at that, at a very brief time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: It was given and taken back again, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I am instructed, Mr Chairman, that two copies were available, we took one and they took one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Anyway, let's not quibble about whether you were given and taken away, the fact of the matter is that you haven't had a chance of seeing it.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Now if you wish to put questions on the statement on the transcript, they have got a copy of that, have they?

MR BIZOS: I am going to give it to them now, Mr Chairman, it has just arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: Once again, Mr Derby-Lewis, you are going to be questioned on a transcript of a document.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Which I haven't seen, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand. If questions are put which you are able to answer, you will answer. Where you can't answer, then you will say so. The reason for that obviously being that you would like to see the video or the transcript itself.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: There is internal contents in the video as to when the date was, Mr Chairman. You will see that there are references to events. It is an Agenda programme and Penny Smythe says:

"Good evening and welcome to Agenda on Tuesday."

On what day were you arrested, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: On Saturday, the 17th of April, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, you may be able to infer the date from the contents, Mr Chairman.

"The assassination of Chris Hani and the subsequent arrest of senior Conservative Party MP, Clive Derby-Lewis, has rocked the CP. To discuss the implications of these and other events, our political correspondent, Lester Venter, is joined by the CP's deputy leader, Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg in Cape Town."

Apparently, Mr Chairman, the set is now here, so we may be able to run it contemporaneously. Is that so, Mr Chairman, can the video person put it on?

CHAIRPERSON: Is there somebody who can answer?

LADY: You will be able to see it, ja.

CHAIRPERSON: How long will it take for you to put it right?

LADY: Five, 10 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Call us immediately you are ready to do so.

JUDGE WILSON: Before we do that, Mr Bizos, are you giving this a number?

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman. I think the (indistinct - not speaking into microphone) the Commission is the keeper of the index of the documents, I hope, Mr Chairman, I don't know what the next number is going to be.

CHAIRPERSON: R6 perhaps.

MR BIZOS: So this would be R6.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, you can refer to it as R6. R6.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, call us as soon as you are ready.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

VIDEO APPARATUS BEING INSTALLED

ON RESUMPTION:

CLIVE DERBY-LEWIS: (Still under affirmation).

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

Yes, Mr Chairman, I am instructed that - you will see on the screen the first page, where it is a little jumpy apparently but once you have -there is nothing wrong with the sound, and once we have the transcript, which I am sure is a correct one, we will - may just have to suffer the bad picture, and then we will go on to the Agenda programme. If there is any jumping there as well, it will not be prejudicial because of the transcript we have, I submit, and I will ask them to carry on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

VIDEO OF AGENDA:

ELLEN ERASMUS:

"... has again voiced his party's disapproval of the arrest of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis in connection with the Hani assassination, a standpoint which brought a response today from the Police:

MR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

We are upset about the whole situation because the Government has changed their attitude three times now. In the first instance they said they arrested Mr Clive Derby-Lewis as a suspect. Then they said they are detaining him to question him, and now he is being detained in terms of Section 29 of the Act. We don't know what the position is, because it seems to us that they can't build up a case against him and we think that they should rather investigate the allegations of Mrs Winnie Mandela, who said that the ANC was responsible for the murder on Mr Hani."

MR BIZOS: That was part of the news section. We will now move on to the Agenda. It is not necessary really to confirm it, but will you agree that that was Dr Hartzenberg speaking, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Yes?

VIDEO CONTINUES:

PRESENTER - PENNY SMYTHE:

"On Agenda tonight the Conservative Party (indistinct - voice fades ...) following the Hani assassination. (Indistinct ...)." (Recording cannot be heard to transcribe)

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

"(Indistinct ....) in South Africa, because the government and the ANC has already agreed on a constitution-making body on a transitional government, but now the ANC announced that they are going with a mass action until the government has promised the date of the election. And the fact is that they create the violence. Because their leaders, they made statements and acts, they killed people at the funeral yesterday, nine people were killed; 19 before the time, and they regard it as a success, and we think it was a total failure from a point of view of law and order and maintenance and stability.

MR VENTER:

Forgive me for interrupting you. I hear what you say that the Conservative Party is not involved in planning the violence, but how do you account for the fact then that two of your members have been associated, and these are members of the party, these are public representatives, these are not people elsewhere in local (indistinct). of supporters.

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

(Indistinct) It is not - the party didn't plan any act, actually the party said in all its meetings, at its congresses, that our aim is to create a political situation in South Africa where there will be peace and stability.

MR VENTER:

But if it is not the party, how does it happen, Dr Hartzenberg?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

Well, it happens all over the world.

MR VENTER: Political parties?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

Political parties all over the world. Well, a member of the National Party killed a labourer on his farm the other day. Is that the National Party, means that the National Party is involved in violence and killings? It happens all over the world and all over this country.

MR VENTER:

So your point is that there isn't a pattern developing, that there isn't a culture of violence?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG

No, not in the Conservative Party.

MR VENTER:

If one looks at the sort of statements that are made by the leadership of the party, yourself included, is the statements the talk repeatedly about the need for resistance, armed resistance - I had a look through the files there is a file of Press cuttings, all of the same direction. Now admittedly none of those are a direct call to arms, but is not the open-ended nature of this sort of threatening talk, amounting to a tacit approval of violence?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

No, no, not at all. You know, our nation, the Afrikaner nation has a history of protest and sometimes they used weapons to protest, but that is not to make a war, but to make sure that the people know that we are serious and the fact is, that we has a right as a nation to freedom and self-determination. And what is happening at the moment in the country, points to a situation where the Communist is going to take over this country, and that we will never accept. And therefore, we say if that happens in South Africa, it will not be accepted by our nation, and therefore, we say at the beginning of this century we fought a war against the biggest country in the world, for our freedom. And don't push us too far because if you take that risk, that might happen again and that is why the Conservative Party put our case, we made the statement and we propose the policy just to prevent that situation.

MR VENTER:

So you are saying if, if this takeover that you are talking about, then a violent resistance to it. So it is a situation that hasn't arisen yet?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

Look, Mr Venter, we have watched the news tonight and we have seen the violence in Yugoslavia. It is being created as a result of a political situation, and the Government and the ANC want to create the same situation in South Africa. And we will not be responsible for what is going to happen if that situation is created in South Africa. We warned them, but we are not going to accept a Communist government over our nation.

MR VENTER:

I would like to return to that point, but talking about the news, the item relevant there was that the European Parliament is going to investigate rightwing connections between Europe and South Africa. Now this flows from the connections of members such as Mr Derby-Lewis and the various organisations.

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

Ja.

MR VENTER:

Any comments on this investigation, that will touch your party?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

If you will allow me I will answer this one in Afrikaans.

MR VENTER:

Please.

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

Dit is vir my 'n groot verrassing dat hulle nou die konneksie tussen mnr Derby-Lewis en sekere regse groepe in Europa wil ondersoek. Hoekom ondersoek hulle nie die konneksies tussen politieke leiers in Afrika met Kommunistiese Partye in Europa nie? Hoekom ondersoek die Europese Parlement nie die uitlatings wat mev Winnie Mandela gemaak het, naamlik dat die ANC verantwoordelik is vir hierdie moord en dat sy twee name genoem het, en dat hulle nou daaroor begaan is. Ek dink hierdie hele poging is daarop gemik om die aandag af te trek van die geweld wat veroorsaak is deur die Regering en die ANC. Hulle is verantwoordelik daarvoor. Nou word daar 'n sondebok gesoek.

MNR VENTER:

Maar die Europese Parlement (onduidelik) en hulle sameswering (onduidelik).

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

Die Europese Parlement wil graag hê dit wat die Regering en die ANC voorstel moet plaasvind in Suid-Afrika, en hulle weet net so goed soos ons weet, hier is te veel weerstand daarteen, nie net van ons nie, maar van baie ander partye, nasies, state in Suid-Afrika wat nie die situasie wil hê nie.

MR VENTER:

Talking about resistance, Dr Hartzenberg, and before you leave the Afrikaans ...(intervention)

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

Ja.

MR VENTER:

You said yesterday in Parliament "die volk sal in opstand moet kom teen oorname". The nation will have to come, a rising resistance against the take-over of the ANC and the SACP. Do you accept that such a take-over might be the logical democratic outcome of an open election in South Africa?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

Well, I don't think there will be an open election in South Africa.

MR VENTER:

Why not?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

In the first instance because as I have said just now, the Government and the ANC already agreed on the election of a constituent assembly and on a transitional executive council.

MR VENTER:

Is that not an election?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

That is not an election if now they must negotiate it and they must determine whether other parties also support it. But now the ANC announced that they are going with mass action to determine these things. In other words, they are not interested in negotiations.

MR VENTER:

Does that mean that you are opposed to an open free election in the country?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

Of course, we believe that there must be elections for the nations and the states who prefer to be free and have self-determination.

MR VENTER:

If the drive towards negotiations which it clearly is at the moment, is to the creation of such an election, what is the CP doing in those negotiations?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

Laat ek net vir jou een ding vertel, en dit is, minstens ons volk is nie te vinde vir 'n oorheersing deur die ANC en die Kommunistiese Party of enigiemand anders nie. Ons is nie die enigste nie. Daar is ander state en ander volke wat dieselfde wil hê en ons doel is om juis dit by die onderhandelingstafel duidelik te stel, sodat daar voorsiening voor gemaak kan word. En as daarvoor voorsiening gemaak word, dit is wat ons voorstel, dat state en volke wat vry wil wees en selfbeskikking wil hê en onafhanklik self wil wees, dat hulle moet toegelaat word om te doen. Alleen dan kan jy vrede in Suid-Afrika hê, maar as 'n meerderheid 'n klomp volke wil oorheers, sal jy nooit vrede in Suid-Afrika hê nie. En dit is presies wat ons by die onderhandelingstafel voor gesorg het dat selfbeskikking op die lys kom.

MR VENTER:

Granted. But if the negotiations carry on the track that they are at the moment, and that is the end goal being immediate, end goal being an open election, are you saying that the Conservative Party will pull out of those negotiations?

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

We have only one point on our agenda, and whether we fight elections or we participate in Parliament or in any form or in mobilisation, we have only one point on our agenda, and that is the freedom and self-determination of our nation.

MR VENTER:

Dr Hartzenberg ... (intervention).

DR FERDIE HARTZENBERG:

And if it becomes clear that negotiations will not deliver that, then it will be meaningless to participate, then we will sign our own funeral arrangements and we are not going to do that, we are not prepared to do that.

MR VENTER:

Dr Hartzenberg, thank you very much. That is from us in Parliament in Cape Town, back to you, Penny."

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, to date this interview you will see that on the first page, "that the funeral yesterday", it is well-known and it will be shown on another video that the funeral was on the 19th. So please assume that this interview was on the 20th of April 1993. Now I want to read to you on page 1 of the transcript, I beg your pardon, it is page 2. Page 1 of the Agenda interview.

"Is there a culture of violence developing in the Conservative Party?"

And the answer is:

"No, not at all, Mr Venter, the Conservative Party has never since its inception planned acts of violence. Actually the planning of the Conservative Party has at its aim to prevent violence in the country by offering a political solution that we would create peace and stability and prosperity in South Africa."

Do you agree or disagree with that policy formulation of the Conservative Party, spoken by Dr Hartzenberg?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You agree with that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now and the - on the third page of the transcript -

"If one looks at the sort of statements that are made by the leadership of the party, yourself included, these are statements that talk repeatedly about the need for resistance, armed resistance. I have looked through the files, there is a pile of Press cuttings, all to the same, of the same direction. Now admittedly none of those are direct calls to arms, but it is not an open-ended nature of the sort of threatening talk amounting to tacit approval?

No, not at all".

Do you agree with that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, no political leader would go on record as stating that he supports violence. I agree with that statement.

MR BIZOS: No, the question was ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As put by Dr Treurnicht, I agree.

MR BIZOS: Are you saying - are you saying that Dr Hartzenberg was lying?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am not saying anything of the sort and Mr Bizos knows that. I am saying that no matter what the circumstance, no political party leader would go on record as propagating violence, even if the objective was violence.

MR BIZOS: Let's us examine that. Let us examine that, Mr Derby-Lewis. First of all, the statement on the first page -

"No, not at all, Mr Venter ..."

That paragraph deals with the questions of whether there was a policy of violence, and he says for a culture of violence and he says "no". Then it is put to him -

"Well, you may say no but there are threats of resistance and armed resistance and threatening talk.Does that not mean that the party has a policy of violence".

He says -

"No, not at all."

You say that you accept that this is what Dr Hartzenberg said, correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The official policy of the party, yes.

MR BIZOS: I see. So did - are you now saying that Dr Hartzenberg gave the policy that the CP was giving out, but he was being untruthful to the people of South Africa by saying that there was no culture of violence and that this talk did not mean that the CP was for violence, was just for the benefit of misleading the public?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, it is clear from what Dr Treurnicht says here that he was responding to the statement by Venter which reads as follows:

"But is not the open-ended nature of this sort of threatening talk amounting to tacit approval of violence?

No, no, not at all."

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well, is that true or is it untrue?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I fail to understand why Mr Bizos didn't continue on the first page with Dr Treurnicht's words, because there I think he categorises it.

MR BIZOS: No, please, let me ask the questions that I want to ask the way I want to ask them. You have counsel and he can ask you questions the way that may be more suitable to you. Please answer my questions as I put them to you.

JUDGE WILSON: Can't he answer them the way he wants to answer them, Mr Bizos? (Laughter).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Apparently not, Mr Chairman. (Applause).

MR BIZOS: He can answer them but provided it is an answer, and what I am suggesting is that it is not an answer. The statements are categorical statements that there was no culture of violence. I want to know whether that is true or untrue. He said that it is true. Now does that mean that what Dr Hartzenberg said in those two passages is incorrect, and was he telling or misleading the public of South Africa, yes or no?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not at all, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Not at all?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Right. If you say that he was not misleading them, then the statements can't be true. A leader cannot both say that there was no culture of violence and you tell us that it is the truth, if you - and yet say that there was a hidden policy.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, Dr Hartzenberg says in his second paragraph after the paragraph that Mr Bizos quoted -

"The violence is not in the Conservative Party, it is outside the Conservative Party."

So the Conservative Party didn't need to have a policy of violence, it was already there, Mr Chairman. And I want to remind this Committee that I have testified earlier, and it looks as though I will have to repeat what I said during my testimony, I testified earlier that at a speech held at the finalisation of the CP's mobilisation campaign in Pretoria on the 19th of March, Dr Treurnicht said the following:

"Communism ..."

And this is bundle A3, Mr Chairman, and it is item, page 7, and it states the following ...

CHAIRPERSON: The reference which bundle, you said A3?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: A3, Mr Chairman, it is actually titled by us bundle C and it is to do with CP mobilisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, it reads as follows:

"Communism in South Africa is alive and well and the mobilisation will oppose the blatant challenge of the ANC, SACP, APLA, through coordinated action and resistance, where necessary, in the interests of our people, our freedom and our country."

He quoted an ANC spokesman as saying the following:

"For Communists even peace is war, negotiations is a site for the struggle. Negotiations is war and of course, war is war."

Then it says further, Mr Chairman -

"Dr Treurnicht's reaction to this statement was as follows: do the Mandelas, Hanis, Tambos, Ronnie Kasrils and the Ramaphosas think they will be able to carry out their plans without resistance? If they believe that they can paralyse this country and make it ungovernable, do they think that there is no possibility of a counter-strategy? We can also say the following: 'those who live by the sword must beware that they do not die by the sword'."

I think it is clear, Mr Chairman, from that statement that Dr Treurnicht wasn't talking about a garden party where everyone was going to sit around and chat and have tea and what-have-you.

Mr Chairman, I ask the indulgence of this Committee because I am going to also submit to the Committee - I don't know whether it has already been distributed, another series of clippings, also regarding the whole aspect of CP support for myself as a result of this action. If we can just ask Mr Mpshe to give us a series number for it.

MR MPSHE: F.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It will be F according to Mr, to my ...

MR PRINSLOO: The last time it was E, Mr Chairman, so I think it will be allocated F.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Bundle F. And in this bundle, Mr Chairman, and this is page number 11, of the bundle. Sorry, Mr Chairman, if I can just organise that you receive a copy of that. Would you prefer that before I quote of this let you have the bundle, Mr Chairman, because it is ready.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's try and proceed as fast as we can and let's ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, let's carry on, and let you have it. If somebody can just collect it and distribute it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. On page 11 which is continuation of page 10, which is the report in the Rapport of the 18th of the 4th 1997, no, sorry, Rapport, can't be 1997, must be 1993. If I can just correct that page 2 of that report is on page 11, Mr Chairman, and this is a statement by the official spokesman for the Conservative Party, Dr Pieter Mulder - and it reads as follows:

"Dr Pieter Mulder, MP of Schweizer-Reneke, and the CP's official spokesman, yesterday evening said he cannot react at this stage because he does not know whether or not Mr Derby-Lewis was arrested on a charge and whether he was only detained for questioning. He said he questioned Mr Derby-Lewis with regards to rumoured connections with the Walus brothers and he gained the impression that there had been such an association in the past."

I think it is also material to mention, Mr Chairman, seeing that the whole question of the period ...(intervention).

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I have patiently listened to the handing-in of documents, which they didn't even have the courtesy to give us a copy of. In answer to a simple question and I would appeal to the Committee, Mr Chairman, not to give this witness his head from time to time to avoid answering questions, by quoting at length from documents.

The question was a simple one. We are on page 1 of the transcript of the report of Agenda and the question was, is the statement by Dr Hartzenberg correct that there was no violence in the Conservative Party, and we have reached the stage that violence is not in the Conservative Party, it is outside the Conservative Party. The question was a simple one: did Dr Hartzenberg in that paragraph and the two sentences in the next paragraph correctly represent Conservative Party policy at the time of Mr Chris Hani's murder or not? That is the question that I am sure that the Committee wants an answer to. And not what Dr Treurnicht said in Kimberly some time before that or what anyone else may have said, which is subject to interpretation, can we have a simple answer to that question? And may I appeal to the witness to please listen to the question and answer it, and not regard it as a licence to read at his pleasure from various documents.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, may I ask a question before I answer that question?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Now is it permissible for Mr Bizos to tell me how I must answer questions? I am trying to present the whole circumstance here and he is preventing me from doing this.

CHAIRPERSON: No I think that as far as possible your counsel can ask you all the questions he thinks is appropriate to clarify anything which he thinks ought to be clarified, if he thinks you have omitted something, he will have the right to elicit that evidence from you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I understand that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think that for the time being if you are asked a direct question and if there is an answer to that, you should answer that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I understand that, Mr Chairman, but with those specific two sentences referred to by Mr Bizos, where Dr Hartzenberg clearly said the violence is not in the Conservative Party, it is outside the Conservative Party.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you must ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have been trying to illustrate that it is broader than that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you have answered that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. Can I now ask Mr Bizos to repeat his question so that I can try again.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Does the previous paragraph and those two sentences correctly represent the Conservative Party policy towards violence at the time that you killed Chris Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The official policy, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Right. Are you saying that at that time there was an official Conservative Party policy in relation to violence and an unofficial policy of the Conservative Party in relation to violence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What I am saying or trying to say, Mr Chairman, is that while the official policy of the Conservative Party was against violence, and I also qualified it earlier by saying that no political leader would put anything like that on paper, I am also saying that the interpretation, the perception was that the Conservative Party was already involved in violence, with the mobilisation plans and the statement by Dr Treurnicht.

MR BIZOS: But Dr Hartzenberg said precisely the opposite, that violence is outside the Conservative Party. Was he telling the truth or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He was telling the truth as confirmed by Dr Treurnicht, when Dr Treurnicht was talking to the mobilisation process which was outside the CP.

MR BIZOS: Please confine yourself to the statements of Dr Hartzenberg. When he said that violence was outside the Conservative Party, was he telling the truth or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He was telling the truth, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have already said that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now you say that there was an unofficial policy of the Conservative Party. What was - what was the unofficial policy of the Conservative Party in relation to violence? It must be violence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I did not say there was an unofficial policy within the Conservative Party, I said it was outside, it was bigger than the Conservative Party.

MR BIZOS: We are not concerned whether there was violence in the ANC or the Communist Party or the National Party or the security forces, we are concerned with a policy of the Conservative Party which you say in your application, moved you to commit murder. I am asking you, was there an unofficial or an unexpressed policy of violence in the Conservative Party, a policy which the leaders did not speak about, that you didn't speak about and that you actually misled the people of South Africa when you say that there was a policy of non-violence in the Conservative Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: No. Now you say that no leader - that no leader will openly say that his party is for violence. Is that what you said?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I said no leader of a political party, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: No leader of a political party would say it.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: So that there was no leader of any political party or any political organisation purporting to represent the Afrikaner volk that was publicly advocating violence at that time?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No political party, is what I said, Mr Chairman, and I repeat it.

MR BIZOS: Was there any political, known political organisation which was advocating violence at that time?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As far as I know, there was, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Who?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: There was an organisation by the name of the Boere Weerstandsbeweging who were advertising war.

MR BIZOS: Boere Weerstandsbeweging?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you have anything to do with that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I had to do with them, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you do it on their behalf, perhaps? (Laughter).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I did not, Mr Chairman.

(Applause).

CHAIRPERSON: Try and avoid interrupting these proceedings, please!

MR BIZOS: Right. So we can leave them out. The reason why I am asking you these questions, Mr Derby-Lewis, is because I want to refer to a document in your own handwriting E11. You have got it in front of you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: This is a document which you tried to smuggle out to Miss Chris Steyn. Is that right?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Who was she?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: She was a journalist with The Citizen.

MR BIZOS: A friend of your wife's?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, just somebody I had met during the course of my political duties.

MR BIZOS: To whom was she married?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: She was Miss Chris Steyn, it is clear on this letter.

MR BIZOS: Was she married or have any association with a person in the security police at the time?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr Chairman, no.

MR BIZOS: Whatever she may have been, at the time that you wrote this on the 30th of the 4th 1993, did you intend pleading not guilty to the charges that you were going to face?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was clearly stating that I was taking responsibility for the attack. That was my only intention.

MR BIZOS: What was the question? Did you intend pleading guilty ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The question was if I intended pleading guilty.

MR BIZOS: Did you intend pleading guilty to the charges on which you were arrested?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I said when I sent this out I only had one intention, and that was to claim responsibility.

MR BIZOS: Did you intend pleading guilty in court?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have answered this to the best of my ability. At that stage I wasn't even in court, the whole thing was still being investigated.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: There wasn't even finality as to whether I was going to be brought before the Court. I was still held under Section 29.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, this is an admission of liability, is it not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Freely and voluntarily made.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Nobody forced you to write to Miss Steyn that you were - that you were guilty.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That I accepted responsibility, yes.

MR BIZOS: Now why did you think that she would keep this highly prejudicial statement on your part a secret from the police?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the media have certain codes of ethics, and I was kind of relying on that.

MR BIZOS: Well ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But I didn't send this to her directly, I didn't give it to her directly. In fact, I can't, I mentioned earlier in my testimony that I couldn't remember how I got it out of my Section 29 detention.

MR BIZOS: Let me just get clarity on your understanding of journalistic ethics. Did you expect Miss Steyn, as a journalist and the editor of The Citizen, that if they got a written confession, such as this appears to be, that you had killed Mr Chris Hani, to keep quiet about it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, there was no signature on this document to indicate that it came from me, only my handwriting.

MR BIZOS: Well, how would she have known that it came from you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was hoping that with her journalistic knowledge that she would be able to put two and two together and accept it came from me.

MR BIZOS: But why did you trust Miss Steyn to keep this secret of yours when you realised that she could put two and two together and you must have had some respect for the police handwriting expert, why did you take this chance? Unless you trusted her that she would keep your secret.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I identified her as one of the few journalists who exist, whose ethics and integrity are more important than anything else.

MR BIZOS: Keeping quiet about murder is good journalistic ethics?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, we have even - we have even witnessed people shooting scenes of people being murdered without intervening. What is the difference?

MR BIZOS: Just answer my question, please. Did you consider receiving a document admitting to murder good journalistic ethics to keep quiet about it and not hand it over to the police?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I believed that she would not disclose this, because she was a person of integrity.

MR BIZOS: But ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry. The question is: did you consider thAT - would you consider that as good journalistic ethics to keep quiet about a document admitting to murder?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not necessarily, no, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Why did you send that to her?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because I wanted responsibility for the act, actually I wanted to more motivate why the attack was carried out.

MR BIZOS: We will come to that. What did you hope she would do with it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I hoped that she would do a story on it, and say that she has received a statement with the following information.

MR BIZOS: Did you not expect that the police would pounce on her and say give us the document that you got?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't, no, Mr Chairman. I don't know to what extent the Press is protected in terms of confidentiality.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Derby-Lewis, correct me. Do I gather the impression that what you are really trying to do by sending this statement was to make a political statement?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You were declaring a political statement in which you were claiming responsibility for what had happened.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the purpose of it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: May I interpose, Mr Bizos? Mr Derby-Lewis, how would Miss Steyn have been able to put two and two together that you were the author of that document?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Chairman, I was in detention as she knew and once she read the contents of this, it would have been patently obvious.

CHAIRPERSON: Or it might become clear to her, depending upon who handed it to her.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As well, Mr Chairman, although as I mentioned, it couldn't remember who I tried to get it through to her.

MR BIZOS: Are you telling the Committee the truth that you smuggled out a highly incriminating document whilst you were alone in a cell and you can't remember who you gave it to? Whom are you protecting?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am honestly telling this Committee and I have no reason to protect anybody, because as far as I know that's not an offence under the amnesty legislation. I really honestly do not remember. It was four and a half years ago, and I wasn't only detained in a cell, Mr Chairman, I was moved all around the building. I was moved from the Uniform branch section of the building to the Murder and Robbery squad section of the building. I was moved into a separate building where the security police were located and I don't know. Somebody may, I may have contacted someone, but I really don't know who it was. Otherwise I would have stated it, Mr Chairman. I have no reason to withhold that information.

MR BIZOS: Now if your answer to the Chairman of the Committee, Judge Mall, is correct, can you please explain why you didn't seek the opportunity when you were asked to plead, to make the political statement that you did it for the reasons that you set out in E11?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because I was advised by my legal representative to plead not guilty.

MR BIZOS: But surely, if you killed for the purposes of starting a counter-revolution, Mr Derby-Lewis, as you have told us, you are not so weakly minded that you would listen to a legal representative who would deny you the moment of glory in open court, with the world Press to listen to you, that I did this for my God, for my people, for my country, as you say at the end of E11. Why didn't you take that opportunity if you were prepared to take the opportunity of smuggling the document out?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because I didn't see any glory of what I have done, Mr Chairman and I didn't seek any glory for what I have done.

MR BIZOS: You see if any political objective was being sought to be achieved by trying to smuggle this document out, Mr Derby-Lewis, was because you must have known that your anonymity would have been protected by this person that you sent it to, and that it was really for propaganda purposes that you put it out.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Is that a question, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Everything I ask is a question. (Laughter). (Applause).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the reason why I tried to get it out, was to convey the message as to why the deed had been perpetrated as a part of achieving the objective which I planned to achieve with the deed.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now I want to deal with the objective that you set out immediately before you wrote "For God, my people, my country". It is headed "The Objectives of the Attack" and if we can down to paragraph 5.

"The objectives of the attack: in the hope that the attack would activate Afrikaner leaders into united action, to save their fatherland and their people."

Did you write that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I wrote that, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR BIZOS: Implicit in this objective is your knowledge that the leaders of the Afrikaners needed to be shown the way as to how they were to save their people. Is it not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was the suggestion, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR BIZOS: So that you committed murder in order that the Afrikaner leaders may wake up in order to save their people?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You therefore knew that the Afrikaner leaders, including your own Dr Treurnicht, Dr Hartzenberg and all the other Afrikaner leaders, were asleep and were not prepared to use assassination for the purposes of saving their people?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, if they woke up, what did you expect them to do as a result of you murdering Chris Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It wasn't to do with waking up, Mr Chairman, it was to bring the seriousness of the situation home as hard as possible and Mr Chairman, the sequence of events which occurred after the assassination, confirmed that my assessment of the situation was right.

MR BIZOS: We will come to that, but please answer the question fully. What did you expect them to do as a result of the example taken by you, by murdering Chris Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I expected them ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: The direction, what did you expect the leaders, not the rank and file or others.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes. I expected the leaders to forget about the divisions of the past, which were so prevalent in Afrikaner circles, and to come together as a result of the seriousness of the situation, to see what their future action would be, and that happened.

MR BIZOS: Now let us deal with the Afrikaner leaders. I think that you missed the point made by the Chairman, with respect. What did you expect the leaders to do, and you told us that you would have hoped that they would unite and see how - what did you expect the leaders to do as a result of your giving them an example by murdering Chris Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I expected them, Mr Chairman to mobilise the people and to step into the vacuum which was created by this chaos.

MR BIZOS: Let me see. First of all, can you please tell us on what page of your amnesty application we can find the, you disclosing that this as formulated in paragraph 5, was one of the objectives? Is it in you - is it in your application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, it is not in my application, but it became very clear to me after the comments by a member of the Committee regarding the admissibility or the usability of Section 29 evidence, that I was in a situation where I had to declare whatever I could and I had to bring everything - everything possible to the attention of this Committee. And I must apologise, Mr Chairman. I can understand that I may have even done it too extensively, but this matter to me, Mr Chairman, is of so serious a nature, and I am so really ignorant and was ignorant up to the time that Judge Ngoepe brought that to my attention, that I realised then that if - I must now come up - give every detail regarding the whole thing. I was not under that impression for the - in terms of the application that it had to be on that application, because I knew I was going to be given a hearing, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, Mr Derby-Lewis, the heading of your document "The objectives of the attack", are a summary in effect of the direct question on the form, are they not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: If I can just get the ...

MR BIZOS: Yes, have a look at page 23.

(Laughter) - of Bundle A - page 23, Bundle A, question 10(a). Will you read out the heading, please?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Which heading, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Page 23, let me - let's get on.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I have got it.

MR BIZOS: I will read it. 10(a):

"State political objectives sought to be achieved: go back to E11.

The objective of the attack: ..."

So you applied your mind at the time that you wrote Exhibit E11, what the objective is, is that correct? That you were called upon to - not called upon, you decided to say what the objective is, is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Chairman, I believe that in putting the last sentence in -

"Thus my obtaining an illegal weapon and passing it on to Mr Walus, was a deed committed within the counter-revolutionary and resistance climate at the time. We all wanted to stop the coming into power of an ANC/SACP government"

MR BIZOS: Please, Mr ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: "...and that would help us."

MR BIZOS: Please, Mr Derby-Lewis. The question is that the form asked you to state the political objective.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: You state the political objective under the heading of the objective of the attack on the 30th of the 4th 1993, paragraph 5, you state the political objective.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: That political objective does not appear in your application although in answer to it, you give us a long story from page 23, right up to page 26. Why was that political objective not disclosed to the Amnesty Committee when you filled in your form?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because I, that document ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry to interrupt. Mr Bizos, is this really a fair question? The - what appears in E11, paragraph 5, is a method of achieving a political objective, and can't it be said that by framing in broad terms, the political objective in the application form, that already encompasses almost everything, and I mean, in an application form an applicant can hardly be expected to set out every method he will employ to achieve the political objective. (Applause).

MR BIZOS: Thanks, Judge, but this is not a person who just fills in a form. He wrote from page 23 to page 26 the reasons why he did it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I appreciate that, but I have difficulties in understanding E11, paragraph 5 as a totally new and independent objective, so new and objective that it can be said that it is not encompassed under the general objective, political objective.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: To me, just one of the methods.

MR BIZOS: Of achieving the political objective, but the question is:

"State political objectives sought to be achieved."

The political objective to be achieved, one of the political objectives is to induce the leaders of Afrikanerdom to do something to save their people.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, he does not have more than one political objective. He had only one political objective, and that is in his own way, to achieve politically what he wanted to achieve for the Afrikaners. That's just one political objective. How he goes about achieving that, that is a matter of detail and method and perhaps strategy, but the political objective I would have thought, is always one.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, with respect, if one has a look what he says on page 23, on page 24, particularly 10(b)-

"Your justification for regarding such acts, omissions and/or offences, associated with a political objective ..."

which is the other heading, which he has to answer. And "Were they acts or ommissions or offences committed in the execution ..."

etc. And on page 26 that he did it on behalf of the Conservative Party. An objective is; what do you want to achieve? And he says in E5 that that was one of the objectives, and if you have a look, although it is a matter of interpretation, and I will agree that it is capable of that interpretation, but if we have a look at the heading of E5 - E11, he says the objectives of the attack; what I wanted to achieve by this attack, and one of the enquiries that this Committee has to make, what was it that the person was hoping to achieve. It is in that sense that objective is ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: I see that, I don't want to let us get entangled into things, but all I can say to you is that the heading that you are referring to on E11 is simply the objectives of the attack. It doesn't say the political objectives of the attack. Whereas in the application form we talk of political objectives.

MR BIZOS: I concede the point, Mr ... Did you consider the murder a political act or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Did you consider the murder you committed a political act or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, a total political act.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

Did you consider that that political act would gain one or other of your objectives?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I considered that would have gained the whole idea, the whole motive behind this thing, in every respect.

MR BIZOS: One of your objectives to wake up the Afrikaner leaders?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But there are other objectives as well.

MR BIZOS: Let's deal with this one.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right.

MR BIZOS: We will deal with the others.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right, right, ja, okay, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now I want to ask you this - I am sorry I didn't realise that we had gone past the - the interruption with the video thing has put my feeling of time out of place.

CHAIRPERSON: Has taken up time. Yes. We will take the usual adjournment and resume within an hour. What is the time now? Quarter past one. We will resume at quarter past two.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CLIVE DERBY-LEWIS: (Still under affirmation).

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

Mr Derby-Lewis, when you heard of Mr Chris Hani's death, you told us that you went and had some coffee and you and your wife went shopping. Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: We had finished, we had actually finished tea, Mr Chairman, and we then went shopping, yes.

MR BIZOS: You went shopping. Now did you phone any of the rightwing leaders that you referred to in paragraph 5 of E11 on Saturday or on Sunday?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Or on Monday?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: But now if you spoke the truth when you wrote paragraph 5, one would have expected you to get to the phone immediately or use couriers or use whatever means could you communicate with the leaders of the right, to say fellow Afrikaners, leaders of the Afrikaner people, this is the moment, anti-Christ is dead, let's do what we have to do. Did you phone anybody to tell them that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not at that stage. Not at that stage, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, you couldn't have done it from prison presumably, so we can assume that the purpose for which you did it in order to bring about unity among the Afrikaner leaders, to start a counter-revolution, you allowed the opportunity to slip by.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's not correct, Mr Chairman. In fact, I waited to see whether it would have had the desired effect, before committing myself to going to the caucus and then explaining to them what I had done, my motivation and asking them to join me in the action.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, can I just clarify, please. Mr Bizos asked you about that day or the next day or Monday or Tuesday, did you in fact make contact with anyone before you were arrested on the Saturday?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman. Sorry, maybe I should qualify that. I was contacted by the chief spokesman, regarding the issuing of a statement and so on.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But I didn't initiate any contact, no.

MR BIZOS: The purpose of committing murder was for chaos to result, so that the White leaders of Afrikanerdom could seize the opportunity to have a counter-revolution. Why did you allow that opportunity to slip by?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As I have stated Mr Chairman, I had been caught unawares because in my terms the assassination was not to occur on the Easter weekend. And although, Walus - Kuba had an 'nth degree of independence, when we discussed it I suggested to him that it do not happen then.

JUDGE WILSON: But I can understand that on the Saturday or the Sunday, but surely by the Monday you could have been making contact?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was still trying - let me explain, Mr Chairman, I was really in a state of shock, as a result of the occurrence, because as I explained, it was not something which one does lightly. And as a result of that, I was totally demobilised at that stage - I was totally demotivated. I was in the situation where I sort of was standing back and waiting for something to happen and I didn't know what.

MR BIZOS: You knew, did you not, from newspaper reports on the Sunday and on Monday, that what you partly helped to happen, for people to go berserk, was in fact happening. Did you not know that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And did you not know that the leadership of Mr Nelson Mandela, Mr Tokyo Sexwale, Mr Mbeki and others for calm and not to allow themselves to be provoked by a senseless act of murder to derail the negotiation process was being made. Did you realise that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: All the more reason for you to say to your fellow Afrikaner leaders, with whom you claimed such a special relationship, this is the time, awake, let us take over!

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, there was no haste in that regard.

MR BIZOS: There was no?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: There was no haste in that regard. Haste.

MR BIZOS: There was no haste?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's right, because there was nothing to connect me to the assassination.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, have you lost touch with reality, Sir? The question is directed to that you wanted to achieve an objective to bring chaos to the country, to unite the White leaders, so that they can - your counter-revolution could succeed and you sit there Saturday, Sunday, Monday and you do nothing. Isn't that inconsistent with your claimed objective, that you wanted chaos to take place and for your likes to move into the gap in order to take the country over?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You did nothing?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did nothing, Mr Chairman. I waiting for, as I said, for an opportune moment.

JUDGE WILSON: You said there was nothing to tie you to the killing. I find that a little difficult to understand. You had planned the killing with Mr Walus, who had been arrested a matter of a few minutes after the killing. You had supplied him with the list of addresses so he could find the place. You had supplied him with the gun that he had used.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Wasn't there an awful lot to tie you to the killing, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, no, there was no evidence of that. Although I had done that.

JUDGE WILSON: And that Mr Walus told the police yes, Mr Derby-Lewis told me to, he gave me the gun.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was convinced that Mr Walus would in fact not to do that, and that I will have ample opportunity to plan the next step.

JUDGE WILSON: But you did nothing for a week to plan the next step.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you tell Mr Walus that you hoped chaos would result as a result of your and his murder of Chris Hani and that the objective was to take advantage of the chaos in order to take over the government? Did you tell him that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you tell him that you thought that the murder would awaken the leadership of Afrikanerdom?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did, Mr Chairman. In fact, that was during our discussions the whole objective, he was fully aware of that.

MR BIZOS: I want to ask you a question, Mr Derby-Lewis. How is it that you and Mr Walus took it upon yourselves to be the saviours of Afrikanerdom if their leaders of the various political parties of Afrikaners, were not prepared to do anything about it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I believed that the other leaders were reading the situation incorrectly. That they were allowing themselves to be misled by Mr De Klerk and his regime, when it was patently obvious to me that De Klerk was busy with the betrayal of the Afrikaner people. It was clear to me at all times, long before many other people became aware of this.

MR BIZOS: You saw yourself as a prophet of sorts?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not, I did not, Mr Chairman. I just saw myself as being someone able to assess the situation, all things taken into consideration.

MR BIZOS: Now this business of waking up the Afrikaner leaders in order that there should be chaos and to fill the gap created by the chaos, Mr FW de Klerk was the President of the country, was he not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: The commander in chief of the Army.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: In charge of the police?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And you have throughout your evidence told us how much contempt, if not hatred, you had for Mr FW de Klerk?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: For his behaviour, yes, Mr Chairman, not for him as a person.

MR BIZOS: If you wanted a power vacuum to come about, for you and like-minded Afrikaners that you purport to speak on behalf of, the natural target would have been Mr FW de Klerk and not Hani.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...

MR BIZOS: Power was in De Klerk's hands at the time.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, nobody would have gone to the trouble of causing chaos to avenge Mr FW de Klerk's death. Who in his wildest dreams could ever picture that? I certainly couldn't.

MR BIZOS: Well, he was in power, he controlled the Army, he controlled the Police, he controlled the structures of State and you were looking for a gap to take power, wasn't he the natural victim?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, because we knew with the very make-up of the man, that he wouldn't be able to handle a chaotic situation in the country. And ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: No, you don't understand my question.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Maybe I don't, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: If you wanted to create a power vacuum, you should have gone for the man that was in power. And he wasn't even on your list.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman - Mr Chairman, it was patently obvious to me and to many informed people, that the real power was being transferred over to this power-sharing experiment which De Klerk had dreamed up. He was no longer in power.

MR BIZOS: Well, let's take it from another aspect, Mr Derby-Lewis. Do you agree that you intended to kill Mr Mandela?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You say so in your statement, don't you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't say so in my statement, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: When the list was drawn, wasn't he number one?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I didn't draw that list, and I have stated categorically that I have never drawn that list.

MR BIZOS: Who drew the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Arthur Kemp, as was testified in the trial, and he drew it out of a much larger list, Mr Chairman, and I had nothing to do with the selection of the names. It was in fact, a coincidence that Hani's address was on that list.

JUDGE WILSON: Who numbered the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Walus, as I mentioned in my earlier testimony, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Who was number one on the basis of his numbering? I'm sorry, if you finished, Judge.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Chairman, if you have a look at the list it states clearly that page 1 is A1, page 2 ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: Who was number one to be eliminated?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the name of Mr Nelson Mandela appeared on the page marked A1.

MR BIZOS: On the list Mr Mandela was number one for elimination, correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I repeat, Mr Chairman, Mr Mandela's name was on that list and the list is clearly marked A1.

MR BIZOS: Right. Why was his name on that list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I think you must ask somebody else, I didn't draw up that list, Mr Chairman. (Laughter).

Mr Chairman, with respect, how many times do I have to repeat the fact that I did not draw up that list of addresses? And it was obvious from the testimony in the trial it was not done.

MR BIZOS: How did Mr Hani come to be number three? If number one was not Mr Mandela and number two Mr Slovo?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I explained that we numbered these people in terms of priority and in terms of their enmity, their degree of enmity to this Conservative Party and the cause of the Afrikaner. Mr Chairman, let me also go further then say that I also testified earlier that if I had anything to do with drawing up that list, and it was going to be a hit list and not an address list, I can assure you there would have been other names on this list other than the majority of names which were included in that list. I did not compose this list.

MR BIZOS: Mr Walus says in his statement -

"Weapon and the list was handed over by Clive Derby-Lewis."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You knew that Mr Mandela's name was on it when you handed over the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: The next sentence is:

"Reconnaissance was also done on Mandela's house."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I knew nothing about that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "I thought that the old goat was not worth it."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's certainly not my statement, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did Mr Walus have any reason to lie to the police immediately after his arrest?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, I can't speak for Mr Walus.

MR BIZOS: "All writing on the list was done by myself on the list. Clive only said to work sensibly."

Did you tell him that he must work sensibly?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He had the full responsibility, Mr Chairman, for ...

MR BIZOS: Full responsibility for what?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: For the attack and I could probably have said to him act sensibly. I assumed he was going to act sensibly anyway.

MR BIZOS: But now ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, can Mr Bizos just tell me to which document he is actually referring in which bundle?

MR BIZOS: Yes. R4, page 88.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: R4, page 88. Okay. Yes, I have it, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You see that I have read it correctly?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I see that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You can't furnish an explanation as to why he should have made any wrong statements in relation to you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I can't, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now will you please have a look at the list that has Mr Mandela's house's picture on?

JUDGE WILSON: Which one are you referring to, Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: (Indistinct - speaker's mike not on)

"... Clive Derby-Lewis. Reconnaissance was also done on Mandela's house".

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, about the list, yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes, where were ...

JUDGE WILSON: (Indistinct).

MR BIZOS: No, Mr Chairman, what I ...

JUDGE WILSON: You referred the witness to the list, to the picture of Mandela's house on it.

MR BIZOS: After I asked the question, the witness asked what document was I reading from ...

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: ... previously and I understood him to want that reference.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, you told us that.

MR BIZOS: That's why ...

JUDGE WILSON: I am now asking you for the reference to the list.

MR BIZOS: Yes. It is Bundle A, page 30. Now is this the list that you and Kuba had?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Please have a look at page 65 of R4 and page 30 of Bundle A. Will you please look at the last paragraph on page 65?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: This is the typed version of your statement.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "Kuba and I subsequently discussed the list and listed the names in order of importance."

Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I just want to check when the statement was made, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I have no objection to the instructing attorney of Mr Derby-Lewis showing him documents, but I would appeal that he does not talk to him when a question is being asked.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, he is indicating documents to me.

MR BIZOS: I have no objection to that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And where you are referring to on the documents.

MR BIZOS: I have no objection. The last paragraph, page 65.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: "Kuba and I subsequently then discussed the list and listed the names in order of importance."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Is that a correct statement or a false statement?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman, I said this and also in terms of priority.

MR BIZOS: Importance for what?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As regards their enmity towards us, towards the Conservative Party and its cause.

MR BIZOS: Oh, was this an anti-popularity list or a murder list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, it was not a murder list, it was an address list drawn up by somebody else.

MR BIZOS: So the person which, the person who was the most against you and the most unpopular amongst you, was Mr Mandela, because he is A1.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He was the most important, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: "Now during the discussions which Kuba and I held alone, Kuba was not aware that other names were listed to cause confusion. He did not know nor ask why they were there."

Now if it was merely a list in order to show enmity, why were other names put there in order to cause confusion?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned in my explanation for paragraphs 44, 45 and 46, that was also portion of where I was talking to protect my wife.

MR BIZOS: Yes?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That statement was also aimed at that.

MR BIZOS: Please just give me a direct simple answer.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's the answer.

MR BIZOS: What was the ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... Mr Chairman, I can't ...

MR BIZOS: What was the purpose of confusing people about names on the list if it was not a murder list? You would not be concerned about listing people whom you did not like? There was no need to confuse anybody about the order in which you didn't like people.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I have already stated, that sentence was there to mislead the security branch personnel and it was part of my effort to protect my wife. It had nothing to do with the actual situation.

MR BIZOS: It begs the question, Mr Derby-Lewis, what did your wife need protection from?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have already testified to that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: What did your wife need protection from?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: From the actions of ruthless people in the security branch who ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: What ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Who were determined to use her to get me to make a full confession, even if it meant persecuting her.

MR BIZOS: Now please, try and come to terms with the question, Mr Derby-Lewis. If the list was not a murder list, what did your wife need protection from?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: She needed protection, Mr Chairman, in spite of the fact that it wasn't a murder list and in spite of the fact that I didn't draw it up, she needed protection from the fact that she was the person who asked Mr Kemp to get these addresses.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, you are an experienced politician. Please answer the question.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...

MR BIZOS: During the discussions - just listen for a moment, please.

"During the discussions which Kuba and I held alone, Kuba was not aware that other names were listed to cause confusion."

You have already told us that that is correct.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I did not, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Oh, you didn't?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I said that that was part of the protection of my wife, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I see.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And I think Mr Bizos is an experienced, sufficiently experienced advocate to understand what I am saying.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I accept your criticism. (Applause). I accept your criticism.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't hear you.

MR BIZOS: Why did you say that -

"During the discussions which Kuba and I held alone, Kuba was not aware that other names were listed to cause confusion."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To mislead ...

MR BIZOS: "He did not know or ask why they were there."

Why did you say that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To mislead the security police who were interrogating me.

MR BIZOS: How were you misleading them and how were you protecting your wife by saying that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was misleading them into believing that there were other reasons behind the preparation of the list, and that's why those names were on there and it was clearly those names were not part of a hit list because there was never an intention to murder the nine people who were on that list. There was never that intention, Mr Chairman, and no evidence even was produced in the trial to that effect.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In fact, as I explained in my testimony earlier the police, when they discovered this address list in Kuba's flat, released - they leaked the information to the media, and they dubbed it a hit list.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Derby-Lewis, what is the confusion that - what is the confusion that was supposed to be caused?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, there wasn't confusion that was supposed to be caused. The statement during the discussions which Kuba and I held alone, Kuba was not aware that other names were listed to cause confusion. I mentioned that to confuse the security branch in an attempt to protect my wife.

JUDGE NGOEPE: In which way do you confuse, that's what I want to know, what is the confusion that you are talking about?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was just something that I latched onto, Mr Chairman, for inclusion in this, to give it a feasible explanation for not - for the names that were on the list, that were not political targets, in other words. You know, there were a lot of names on this list who were not political targets in - beyond anyone's wildest imagination. They could never have been classified as political targets.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Derby-Lewis, if you had wanted to protect your wife, why did you mention Mr Kemp so frequently? That was a direct contact to your wife, wasn't it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, but I knew that my wife had a legitimate reason for getting the list.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, but once you mentioned Kemp, the police go to Kemp and Kemp says but I gave the list to Mrs Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, but Mr Chairman, they were aware of Kemp's involvement in any case, because it was recorded in my wife's diary which the security branch showed to me during the interrogation.

JUDGE WILSON: So they were aware when they were interrogating you, that the list had come from your wife, they had seen that in her diary.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

JUDGE WILSON: But you told a story about how you put the names on computer?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was part of the - that was part of the sparring, Mr Chairman, as I said, to protect her.

JUDGE WILSON: You have just told us that they knew that she gave you the list. How were you protecting her, from what?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, at the time that I was interrogated they didn't know that.

JUDGE WILSON: I thought you have just told me that they showed you her diary which showed that the list, she had got the list from Kemp?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No.

JUDGE WILSON: And that is why you mentioned Kemp's name?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, they didn't indicate that, they just showed me the diary and one of the items in the diary was "A Kemp - list."

JUDGE WILSON: So you knew they had a diary from your wife saying "A Kemp - list."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And you still thought you were going to protect her?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Chairman, I had to try.

JUDGE WILSON: Why not tell the truth? Once you start making it look like this they would be very suspicious. If you simply said my wife is a reporter, I made use of a list she had of addresses.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, let me say that this statement which we are referring to, is the statement which was finalised as a result of many days of interrogation by the security branch and this was the statement which the security branch were prepared to accept, in terms of obtaining a confession from me and having it signed by a magistrate, which they were going to use against me. There was obviously sufficient in this, this statement, to convict both Kuba Walus and myself. And when I finally presented this in the form that they wanted it, because they came with information themselves during the interrogation that they wanted included, which I included, when we came to this situation, that was the last statement. And in fact, this was the only statement I was aware of in terms of the security police investigation was concerned, but I was assured that it was irrelevant and could never be used against me as evidence. But this was sufficiently satisfactory to the security branch that they were prepared to accept it, have it signed in front of a magistrate and to use it as a confession from me.

MR BIZOS: Your answer to a question by one of the learned Judges, that by saying that -

"Kuba was not aware that other names was written to cause confusion, he did not know nor ask why they were there".

Once it was known that your wife had anything whatsoever to do with the list, far from protecting your wife, you were really arousing the suspicions of the security police, on an ordinary reading.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not competent to answer the question, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: But of course, we do not have to rely really on your word or let us remind you of what your wife said in paragraph 73 in R4, page 160. Do you see paragraph 73?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I do.

MR BIZOS: "In January 1993 I telephoned Arthur Kemp at The Citizen in Johannesburg and said I was going to send him a list of names and I wanted a description of their houses and their addresses."

Do you see that she says that she asked for a description of their houses and the addresses -

"This was done after much serious thought and because Clive and I felt that unless something dramatic was done the country would be controlled by Communists. Clive and I therefore highlighted the names of the people whom we believed to be the enemies of South Africa. Certain names were added to the list I sent to Arthur, such as Justice Goldstone and certain newspaper people. Goldstone's address was needed to determine where he lived, because I wanted to do an article as to how he, who helped to break down the Group Areas Act, was now living in a White area far away from the results of his 1984 Govender judgment. The journalists' addresses were requested because I wanted to write to them about their attitude towards this (indistinct). I asked for Mr Pik Botha's address because there was strong rumours that he owned property overseas and this had been reported in the Afrikaner newspaper and perhaps the company which owned his property, if indeed it was the case, would be the same company. The people on the list whom I believed to be the enemies of South Africa, were the participants in Operation Vula, who were never prosecuted by the government and members of the ANC and South African Communist Party. Some of the names were Maharaj, Hani, Mandela, Kasrils, Naidoo, Ramaphosa, Slovo. Clive and Kuba decided on Chris Hani to be eliminated because of his particularly brutal record and his position as chairman of the South African Communist Party, which they believed never should have been unbanned."

This is what your wife wrote down and signed and took an oath that it was correct.

Now I am not asking you to pass judgment on the correctness or other, or anything else about your wife's statement. But I want you to please look at Annexure, page 30, the description of Mr Mandela's house and the contents of your wife's statement. Does Mr Mandela - inclusion of Mr Mandela's name on the list, is it there because in order to confuse people or because he was one of the intended victims to be eliminated?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, you are asking me to comment on why this information was included?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't answer that, Mr Chairman, because I didn't draw up the list.

MR BIZOS: Well ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And I didn't put that information in there or ask for it.

MR BIZOS: Do you agree that you and Walus made Hani number three?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I agree that we numbered him three, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Therefore, there must have been a one and a two. (Laughter).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: Who was number one?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am quite sure that I have already explained this in previous testimony, but as I said ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: Who was number one to be eliminated, Mr Derby-Lewis, it is a simple question?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Number one on this list, Mr Chairman, on the page marked A1, which is not clear from this document which Mr Bizos has, the pages marked, according to the original document A1, was Nelson Mandela.

MR BIZOS: I am going to repeat the question and ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I heard the question.

MR BIZOS: ... I think that it would be in your interests to try and come to terms with the question, Mr Derby-Lewis. If Hani was the number three choice for assassination, who was number one choice for assassination?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have already testified that Hani was not number three choice for assassination, he was number one choice for assassination, for the mere fact that we knew that he would be the target, the elimination whereof would lead to our achieving our objectives, and I said that on previous testimony.

MR BIZOS: Your wife mentioned Mr Mandela's name in paragraph 74 of her statement. Is he to be included as the names that were included in order to confuse anyone or because he was one to be eliminated?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I can't be expected to stand responsible for what my wife has allegedly said.

MR BIZOS: Well, I drew attention to this earlier on, presumably you asked here at some time or another why Mr Mandela's name was incorporated. Was it in order to confuse people?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't ask her that question, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Nor in relation to Mr Slovo?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, she was doing her own journalistic job.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Why should I ask her those questions?

JUDGE WILSON: While we are looking at this list, I notice and I haven't noticed till now, that Chris Hani is the only one, that's on page 32, who has - have you got it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 35, I think, Mr Chairman. On the list?

JUDGE WILSON: On the list, yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have the list anyway, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: He is the only one who has got a description of the make of his motor car and apparently the registration number.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't know anything about that.

JUDGE WILSON: You don't know?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Sir.

MR BIZOS: Did you not say in your evidence in chief that you were aware that Walus was reconnoitring in other houses as well?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't say that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Didn't you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't say that.

MR BIZOS: Well ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I wasn't aware of that.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I wasn't aware that he was reconnoitring other houses. I never said that in my ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall saying in my main evidence that Walus was reconnoitring other houses, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Right. When this list was shown to you after the - after it was brought back by Mr Kemp, did you see the description of Mr Mandela's house in Lower Houghton?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I did.

MR BIZOS: Now it is number 4, 13th Avenue, Lower Houghton, Why is the description necessary?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't fill in this description, Mr Chairman. Can I just read what the note says and perhaps that will indicate why the description was necessary?

MR BIZOS: Yes. Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Note:

"The house situated in an oak-lined road is deliberately not numbered, but is easily recognisable by the wrought-iron black fence."

But I don't know, I didn't ask for that and I didn't put it in.

MR BIZOS: Yes -

"Which has had black metal sheeting placed behind it to limit the view from the road."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: "It has a hi-tech electronic surveillance systems throughout, including a television camera mounted at the gate behind a glass panel. The gates are electronically controlled."

Are you saying that all this was necessary because the house didn't have a house number on? Is that what you are telling the Committee?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am saying that I don't know the reason for this.

MR BIZOS: Right.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But I believe that ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: But you have suggested a reason?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That the fact that the house was deliberately not numbered, could have been the reason.

MR BIZOS: It could quite - if the purpose was an innocent one, was it necessary to give the security arrangements? Couldn't you say that it is between houses six and eight, which presumably were numbered and two houses away from 13th Avenue and Central Street on the southern side of the street. It wouldn't have been necessary to have all these security arrangements noted, unless someone wanted to get into it in a "skelm" manner.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't know the motivation, how many times do I have to repeat it? Mr Bizos is now asking me to speculate over various things which appear on this form, and I am not in a position to do so.

MR BIZOS: When you and your wife saw it, did you not query Kemp and say hey, Kemp, we are not going to break in there, we are not house-breakers, we are honourable politicians and honourable journalists, we are going to knock on the door?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, Kemp wasn't in the picture when I saw this list. I saw this list in Cape Town.

MR BIZOS: But when you saw it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: So how can I question Kemp in Cape Town?

MR BIZOS: When you saw it, did it not strike you that this was a strange way of identifying the house?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, when I saw this in Cape Town, I was on my way to a session of the President's Council, to an actual meeting of the President's Council. And I gave a passing glance at the top page and that was that, and we made some mundane comment about how the fat cats live in luxury or something to that effect, not anything important, and then I rushed to be at the meeting of the President's Council in time, after seeing it.

MR BIZOS: Have a look at page 31, Joe Slovo -

"Unable to establish the precise address but the following should be sufficient with a bit of leg-work."

A simple statement that it is the house next to house number so-and-do on the northern side and so-and-so on the southern side, number so-and-so. That would have been sufficient, wouldn't it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Or the colour ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know where the house is, I have never been there.

MR BIZOS: Or the colour of the walls?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Or the type of hedge there was.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Once again, I don't know, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And if it was intended for gravy train purposes, it was quite negative, wasn't it?

"A medium-sized tin-roof, three bedrooms, study, small kitchen, sitting and dining rooms, with an old garden with huge trees and no access from the front. The back area faces onto the road and has heavy duty metal bars covering all open areas. There is also a double garage facing onto the road."

What was the necessity for that other than for the purposes of breaking-in or lying in wait in order to kill him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't know. Mr Bizos is asking me to comment on something with which I had nothing to do.

MR BIZOS: Well, you see, when you say that your wife - you don't know why your wife said that this was for the purposes of eliminating people, I am going to suggest that the evidence is overwhelming, having regard to these descriptions, that she was speaking the truth when she said that you and she drew up a list in order to eliminate people?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, how then do you explain the fact that only those two houses have any information, other than the actual address?

MR BIZOS: Well, you knew how to deal with the top three ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Richard Goldstone ranks as well.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, with respect. Under, on the page on which Judge Goldstone - Goldstone's address appears, it says -

"Pinelands Townhouse Complex, entrance in First Avenue, Hyde Park. Very near to Hyde Park Shopping Centre. Number not known, but it is one of the townhouses at the end of the complex."

But Mr Chairman, the most important house on that list was the residence of Chris Hani, and Mr Chairman, it is a fact that it was obvious for everyone to see, according to Mr Walus when we discussed it afterwards, that there were security measures in place at Mr Hani's residence, and yet, there is not a word mentioned, although it is clearly visible from the street. And I am quite sure, Mr Chairman, that the same applies to other houses on this list. So I can't be expected to explain that and I don't understand why Mr Bizos is harping on this.

MR BIZOS: Do you know who put the car numbers there and whose cars they were?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is typed here, Mr Chairman, no, I don't know whose, what car numbers they are and it looks like a BMW with a car registration, not two cars. It looks like one car.

MR BIZOS: One. Now was this a car which was used by Mr Hani from time to time?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have no idea, Mr Chairman, how should I know.

MR BIZOS: Didn't you ask when you saw the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, because it wasn't on the list.

MR BIZOS: Now you see, you ... (intervention).

JUDGE WILSON: I think perhaps we could record at this stage that it does not appear to have been the car he was driving when he was killed. That car can be seen in Volume 12, and the number of it is RDG692T.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, but I know nothing about these car details in any case, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: There will be evidence that this was a car which Mr Hani used, it belonged to one of his friends. Now, Mr Derby-Lewis, may we return to 11, page E11?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, okay, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "The objectives of the attack." Please read your own handwriting in relation to number one.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Number one, Mr Chairman -

"To strike a blow for Almighty God and Christianity against the anti-Christ Communism in the form of the leader of the SA Communist Party."

MR BIZOS: Can we please look at your application to - will you show us where you said that this was for a strike, to strike a blow for Almighty God, by killing the anti-Christ?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is not in there, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Not in there?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, as we mention with point 5 on the same document.

MR BIZOS: Now I don't want, generally speaking, I refrain from asking people about their religious beliefs, but because of your evidence and because of what you wrote, in 11.1 of Exhibit E, I must ask you this. You were born into the Catholic Church?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Does the notion of the anti-Christ play any role in the Catholic Church in modern times, since the time of the Inquisition?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the Catholic Church also observes the holy Bible and the holy Bible is quite clear in its teachings regarding the anti-Christ.

MR BIZOS: Do you believe that cataclysmic events would overtake the world at the instance of the anti-Christ?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not qualified to answer that question, I have never had thoughts on that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, you thought about the anti-Christ and you said that you struck a blow for God. I would have thought that you are the best person to ask as to what the notion of the anti-Christ is.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I think I made it quite clear in my previous testimony, that before Mr Hani was even selected as a target, I was aware of the fact that we were fighting against Communism. It was quite obvious the National Party regime also propagated the concept of fighting against Communism. And Communism, Mr Chairman, is the vehicle of the anti-Christ.

MR BIZOS: And apartheid isn't? (Laughter).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that is another point.

(Loud laughter and cheering)

But, Mr Chairman, while Mr Bizos raises the aspect of apartheid, I am sure that he raises it ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: No, just say yes or no and we can proceed.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, please, grant me an indulgence here. Mr Bizos has made a very, very snide remark, as though I am a defender of apartheid, and Mr Chairman, I have categorically stated on numerous occasions, I am not a defender or a propagator of apartheid. I detested apartheid because in terms of Mr De Klerk's own admission, apartheid was a policy of White supremacy and the Conservative Party's policy has never propagated White supremacy, Mr Chairman. We propagated equal - equal opportunities and equal self-determination ...(tape ends)

MR BIZOS: ... that they could not live with the statement of the DRC that apartheid is a sin.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, because at that stage the National Party Government had said that they are breaking with separate development as a policy, and that was the motivation, and you must call members of the Afrikaanse Protestantse Kerk to come and testify on that, Mr Chairman, if you want more details. Don't ask me what was behind their statement.

MR BIZOS: I don't want this to descend into a religious debate either. I merely want to test your credibility, Mr Derby-Lewis. If the church that you joined was formed - one of the reasons, that the DRC declared apartheid a sin, how did you join it, not believing in apartheid at any stage?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because apartheid in their terms, Mr Chairman, was the policy of separate development, and I could see no sin in that policy. (Applause).

MR BIZOS: Yes, I think that you are a little confused, but I am not going to try and clarify it. You say they saw apartheid as separate development or did you see separate development as non-apartheid? Is that what you want to really say?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I see. Well, never mind, you have said what it was.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right, thank you.

MR BIZOS: Now you were never in favour of apartheid?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have never been in favour of apartheid.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever renounce ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, White supremacy apartheid, never.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever renounce forced removals?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, by the time I became actively involved in politics ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: The answer is no. Is it no or is it yes?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: There were no longer forced removals when I was a public representative.

MR BIZOS: Well, very well, you never protested, you never protested against forced removals because there were none whilst you were in politics.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Quite so.

MR BIZOS: When did you start in politics?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In 1977, Mr Chairman. (Laughter).

MR BIZOS: Are you saying to the Committee that there were no forced removals after 1970?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...

MR BIZOS: 1977, when did you say?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Ja, Mr Chairman, I am saying that when Mr PW Botha took leadership of the National Party, in 1978, he stopped separate development and he stated that the whole policy was a failure and it had to be abandoned. But in fact ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: But ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Please let me finish, because this is relevant. In fact, Mr Chairman, at that stage in 1978, it was common cause that in terms of the ethnic orientation of territories in South Africa, that an average of 70 - these are the figures that are at my disposal, and I have never had them questioned in any political arena anywhere in this country or outside, that in terms of those figures, Mr Chairman, that something like a percentage of 72% of all of the peoples of the different ethnic groups, were either resident within or in the immediate surrounds of their traditional territories. That was the information to my, available to me. And Mr Chairman, that told me something. We could never ever have effected forced removals to the extent that would be required to effect such a massive move of people from one place to another. They must be moved voluntarily and I believe they moved in that area because industrial development was taking place, Mr Chairman, and if I can use Bophuthatswana as an example, that is proof of that. Bophuthatswana was the economic success story of the policy of separate development.

MR BIZOS: Well, I am not going to debate with you the heresy of indebtedness that the leader of that country left to South Africa, but never mind, Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't do that, Sir, and I can't be responsible for that.

MR BIZOS: Let us get on, let us get on with more relevant matters. You say you never heard of a forced removal after 1977?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: It's a collateral issued I am not going to -but let's deal with the main issue.

"After the largest Afrikaans church, the NG Kerk, Dutch Reformed Church decided to open its doors to all races and to renounce apartheid, a group of right-wingers formed their own church, the APK, under Duminy Nico van Rensburg."

Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And according to the compilers of this report,

"The church is unashamedly racist and only Whites are allowed to be members".

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that's the opinion of the writer of that report.

MR BIZOS: Well, let's take the opinion away from the fact. Has it got any Black members?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, it does not, Mr Chairman. (Laughter). (Applause).

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, to the best of my knowledge it doesn't have English-speaking Whites there either.

MR BIZOS: I don't know that that makes it any better. (Laughter/booing).

If it doesn't take Englishmen, what are you doing there?

(Laughter/Applause).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos - Mr Bizos, Mr Bizos, please, I would just like once again to appeal to the people, they are in fact disturbing these proceedings, by making the noise they are making. Please try and restrain yourself. I said a few days ago we are not in a theatre, this is a serious matter. So please allow these proceedings to carry on in a dignified way.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I enquire from Mr Bizos what is the relevance of this question?

MR BIZOS: I can just say, Mr Chairman, he claims to have done it for God and Christianity, Mr Chairman. I am entitled to test the sincerity of his feelings, once he claims to be a Christian. And I want to ask him, I will want to go on to ask him if there is a Christianity for Blacks and a Christianity for Whites, and such other questions in order to show that his written and verbal statements are a lot of humbug, Mr Chairman. That is the relevance of it.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, permit me to answer Mr Bizos' questions.

MR BIZOS: No, I will ask the questions, I was addressing the Court. Wait for the questions, please.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...

JUDGE WILSON: You did ask him a question Mr Bizos and you complained that he hadn't answered it yet.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: May I answer the question, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Please.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I wish to remind the Committee that the question Mr Bizos addressed to me, which he wouldn't allow me to answer, was what was I as an Englishman doing as a member of the Afrikaanse Protestantse Kerk. I want to answer that question. For Mr Bizos to call me an Englishman, Mr Chairman, is actually an insult, because I am - Mr Chairman, I am of both Scots and German descent, and if anyone, and I think possibly one of the members of the Committee will understand our problem with being called Englishman, Mr Chairman. Because if there are two nations in the world who are more at loggerheads with the English than the Germans and the Scots, I would like to know. And the fact that I use English here, as I explained to you, Mr Chairman, I was prepared to use both English and Afrikaans. I am speaking mainly English to assist the Committee, because I appreciate the language problem, but if Mr Bizos carries on in this trend, Mr Chairman, I will be forced to assert my Afrikaner identity and speak Afrikaans. And I don't want to do that. (Applause).

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

MR BIZOS: Now Mr Derby-Lewis this church that you belong to, did you go to it the day after the murder?

MR PRINSLOO OBJECTS: Mr Chairman, what is the relevance of that question?

CHAIRPERSON: He can just answer yes or no.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am quite happy to answer that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am quite happy to answer that. I did not go to church on that particular Sunday.

MR BIZOS: You didn't go to church?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Wasn't it a wonderful opportunity to go and give praise to the Lord for the death of the anti-Christ?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't have to go to church to practise my religion. I practise my religion every minute of the day. (Laughter).

MR BIZOS: Including when you conspired to kill Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: So that can we then say that the first reason that you give why Mr Hani was killed by you, was because you wanted to kill the anti-Christ and save South Africa?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The first paragraph reads as follows, Mr Chairman:

"To strike a blow for Almighty God and Christianity against the anti-Christ Communism in the form of the leader of the SA Communist Party."

Nothing about South Africa.

MR BIZOS: Well, so that it was an entirely religious and not a political motive?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, I think I have answered that trend of question so completely. If I must re-read this question of the objectives and then re-read the chapter in my form which is relevant, is that necessary, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: I didn't ask you about that, I merely asked you this; that you say, when I added that in order to save South Africa, you denied it. And you said you didn't say anything about saving South Africa. You only did it for God and Christianity.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, when I said that, Mr Chairman, I wanted to make sure that the record was correct.

MR BIZOS: Yes, good.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right.

MR BIZOS: And then once the record is correct, and this quote and we deduct what I said, and what I added, this is a very deeply felt religious conviction, is it not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: This first paragraph?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And as you put it in as the first attitude of the first objective, it must have been the predominant motive?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As a practising Christian, Mr Chairman, my priority is to Almighty God before all else.

MR BIZOS: Your first, your first duty is to God and Christ and that's why you took part in the murder?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: My duty is to Almighty God.

MR BIZOS: To Almighty God?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: To Christ?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To Christ and to Almighty God.

MR BIZOS: Particularly to kill the anti-Christ.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Do I have to read this again, Mr Chairman to answer that question.

CHAIRPERSON: You have asked that question already, Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. Now ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, before you leave that paragraph one. It is not clear to me, I don't know as yet how relevant the whole question of Christianity is going to be. It may appear later to be much more relevant than one thinks, I don't know. But, are you saying that what you have done, the killing of Hani, would have been something that your church would have gone along with?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I believe so, Mr Chairman, yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Your church, you are of the view that your church approved of that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am of that view, yes, Mr Chairman, having discussed it with the late Dr Treurnicht on a theological basis and receiving his assurance that in certain circumstances it would be permissible to kill the anti-Christ.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But Dr Treurnicht was not a member of that church, was he?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't know - no, I don't think he transferred over but he was very sympathetic towards that church and he was very disillusioned with the hypocrisy within the Dutch Reformed Church at the time of his death.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you have with members of your church, did you have a discussion of - or perhaps let me start it after the event. After the murder of Chris Hani did you discuss the incident with your church?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, I didn't have the opportunity. Only, as I testified earlier ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: Before the killing, did you discuss the question of ... (intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: ... killing somebody, an anti-Christ?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I discussed it with Dr Treurnicht, because to me he epitomised everything that I believed in.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, I am asking about people in your church.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You said Dr Treurnicht was not in your church.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, but I couldn't go to people within my church, Mr Chairman, and discuss this, because I was then spreading the net of potential informants against me and ... (intervention).

JUDGE NGOEPE: On what basis do you think that your church would have approved of this?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Chairman, it was the anti-Christ. The church sees Communism as the "bose magte in die wêreld".

JUDGE NGOEPE: That's the basis on which you come to that conclusion?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR BIZOS: (Indistinct - speaker's mike not on) ... from the same - I am going to read out from the same report that I have been reading up to now, in furtherance to the learned Judge's question.

"The APK is totally opposed to violence in any form and believes in missionary work amongst Blacks, whom they view with their patronising paternalistic outlook."

Does that correctly describe the policy of your church?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, Mr Chairman, but I am sure that wasn't written by somebody from the AP Kerk, was it?

MR BIZOS: I am asking whether you agree with it or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not aware of that. I am not aware of that ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Are you able to deny that this is the attitude of your church?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not able to comment, because I have no detail ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: You are a member of this ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have no deals whatsoever about their missionary activities, no deals, no details.

MR BIZOS: Well ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis, I think this is a legitimate question, because it flows from what you said to me that your church would have approved the killing of Chris Hani.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And I think this question is a legitimate one, in that they read you the stance, what appears to be the stance of the church, which seems to contradict what you say.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And I think you should apply your mind to that aspect.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am trying to do that, Mr Chairman, but that - that statement there, it was clearly produced not by somebody in the AP Kerk, and the question was whether I was aware of the AP Kerk having missionary ideals amongst Africans. And my answer was I don't know. I am not aware of their missionary activities.

MR BIZOS: Can you refer us to any statement made by the founder of the church or anyone in authority of the church or anyone who is capable of interpreting the doctrine of the church which says that your church would have approved of your murdering Mr Hani in April 1993?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, without the necessary research facilities I find that it impossible to answer at this stage.

MR BIZOS: Why did you tell the learned Judge that your church would approve of it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because, Mr Chairman, I have subsequently discussed it with ministers of religion and not have at any stage received any criticism from them, on the contrary, I have had maximum support from them.

MR BIZOS: Now when you say prior to the action, they may be you know, they may be ministers of religion who are very forgiving and maybe they want to comfort you, but prior to your - prior to your doing this, did your church or anybody in your church suggest that a solution for South Africa's problems was killing people like Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: No.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, can I just ask my learned friend a question? Thank you, Mr Chairman. Procedural query which I have, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes, you asked me who - what was the source of the matter that I - the information about your church came. There is a report, partly based on research, and partly based on interviews, by the Independent Board of Inquiry on the Rightwing Organisations.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, I have been in prison four and a half years, I don't even know the existence of that body mentioned.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: So I can't comment on it.

MR BIZOS: Well, anyway ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The validity.

MR BIZOS: You can't deny that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But I can't confirm that either.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Have you studied Catholicism or Protestantism or their views on who may be branded the anti-Christ, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, I have been too busy with politics.

MR BIZOS: And yet you performed this act for religious reasons.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have already explained the justification which I sought.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, alright.

MR BIZOS: Would you read out the second objective, please?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: On 11, E11.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's number two, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

"To destroy the military leader of Umkhonto weSizwe, who, by his own acknowledgements were responsible for the cold-blooded murders of elderly Whites, women and children and attacks on them and on our security force personnel."

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you discuss this with anybody, your party, your church or anybody else?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have already said I haven't, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And you never advanced that as any reason to any of the people - you didn't seek anybody's opinion in relation to this?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman. As a leader of the party I ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: Would you read the next one, please?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly, Mr Chairman, item number three, I repeat again -

"To focus attention on the fact that the future of my people was being betrayed through concocted forums such as the Multi-party Forum and that we were aware of those plans and that we would oppose them with everything in our power."

MR BIZOS: Yes. You didn't seek anybody's advice whether this was a valid reason or not, before you committed the murder?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't have to, Mr Chairman, there were sufficient statements ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: And in the fourth, the fourth paragraph?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Number four:

"To focus attention on the fact that my people are entitled to a territory of their own in Southern Africa, wherever it may be, but that this is indisputable."

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now at the time that this murder was committed there were negotiations at Codesa.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Which we were not a part of, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR BIZOS: Some of the time you were and some of the time you were not.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: At the time that this occurred we were not, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: When was your party party to the negotiations at Codesa and when was it not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I don't remember the exact dates. I'm sorry.

MR BIZOS: Did they take part in Codesa before this?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did they take part in Codesa after this?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: My details on... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: For a person - I'm sorry. For a person who was so vitally concerned for the future of the country, you seem to have taken very little notice of the political process that was taking place at the time?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, for my people Codesa was totally irrelevant.

MR BIZOS: Why did your party join them from, I think twice if not - at least once if not twice?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Chairman, I can assure you I had nothing to do with that decision and opposed Codesa all the time. In fact, I led a demonstration of rightwing organisations against Codesa at one stage.

MR BIZOS: Contrary to the policy of your party ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: My party ...

MR BIZOS: ... which we know on an occasion joined it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: My party were not there when it happened, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Oh, I see.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now I want to pay some attention to what Mr Walus said. Would you please turn to R4, part 2, at page 306?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, the page number, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: 306.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's - 306. Yes, I have it, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Please let us ask you what you say about what Mr Walus said to the police:

"After this I saw a copy of the list to which is referred in the document. He identified a list of nine names to me as the list that he had used, and on which he had also written down Chris Hani's motor vehicle's registration number. Mr Walus' version was as follows."

Now listen to it carefully and let us see whether you agree with this possibly.

"Do you know this typed lists with the nine names on it which is numbered by hand? I see the following BMW 525i - BWY5253. It is also written by hand next to the name Chris Hani.

Walus: Yes, this is a photocopy of the list which I used during my reconnoitring of Chris Hani and Nelson Mandela. I numbered it myself. During one of my reconnoitring of Chris Hani, I noticed the BMW 525i at his house and wrote down the registration number on the car next to his name."

Now do you, did you ask Mr Walus to reconnoitre Mr Mandela's house?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I did not, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: If what he says here is correct, do you say that he did it on his own account?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I think you must direct that question to Mr Walus, Mr Chairman, I am not competent to reply to that.

MR BIZOS: Do you know whether your wife asked him to do it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have no idea, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Was Mr Walus to be just the puller of the trigger or was he also responsible for decisions of who should live and die in the ANC and SACP?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, when Mr Walus and I discussed it, we identified Mr Chris Hani as the target.

MR BIZOS: Did you give him any authority at any stage to reconnoitre anyone else?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Do you know whether your wife gave him any authority to go and reconnoitre anyone else?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: In view of your great friendship with him, can you advance any possible reason why he should have reconnoitred Mr Mandela's house without his being requested either by you or by your wife?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, my friendship with Mr Walus does not make me a mind-reader, and as I suggested earlier, perhaps if Mr Bizos would be better advised to direct the question to Mr Walus.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, did you ask him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He asked me that question, Mr Chairman, and I said no.

JUDGE WILSON: Because I have a note of your evidence-in-chief on Wednesday afternoon, when you said, and I read from my notes, that -

"You had ruled out Easter weekend as innocent people might be at home and get injured. I don't know why he chose that day. Walus told me that he had to reconnoitre and surveillance the routes, for bodyguards, et cetera. He said he had been doing this to a couple of houses".

Did you ask him, Mr Derby-Lewis, who the other houses were?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't, Mr Chairman, because there was no need to, because I had identified Mr Chris Hani as the target and what Walus chose to do in his free time, was his choice.

MR BIZOS: Well, I want to suggest to you, Mr Derby-Lewis, that that is not the only point on which you have contradicted the evidence on the record. I will come back to it once we have checked our notes, in order to show you that there are a number of other instances where you actually contradict your evidence, but let us proceed.

He says:

"I numbered it myself ..."

Did I read the whole of it, I can't remember? No, okay. Yes, this -

"I numbered it myself. During one of my reconnoitring of Mr Chris Hani I noticed the BMW 525i at his house and wrote down the registration number of the car next to his name. The number plates were false and it was mentioned and I put it the next day to Mr Walus that it was false -

"How was it false?

One day when I was driving in Lindenvale, Kempton Park area, I saw a red Laser, the same like the ones I am driving. I wrote down that registration number and bought stick-on numbers at a hardware shop to fit the same registration number that the other red Laser which I wrote down. I used the stick-on numbers on my red Laser number plates the first time I reconnoitred Hani's home, that was for security reasons."

Did you discuss with him how he was reconnoitring and that he was using false number plates?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, those arrangements were his own.

MR BIZOS: Please look at page 307? The second paragraph towards the end -

"Clive and I started to discuss in the direction of eliminating selected members of the ANC/SACP Alliance."

Is that true or false?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What, where are you? Oh, halfway down the second paragraph?

MR BIZOS: Halfway down the second paragraph, ja, "Clive and I". Is that true?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, we discussed how to achieve the objective of stopping this in a very general manner, and as I mentioned in my testimony earlier, that if this attack on the late Chris Hani had not had the desired effect, then obviously we would have had to target a further member of the enemy.

MR BIZOS: Please read that statement and tell me whether it is true or false?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

"That was unacceptable for us and Clive and I started to discuss in the direction of eliminating selective members of the ANC/SACP Alliance."

MR BIZOS: Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: And is the date correct that this started in February 1992?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, because you will see that he actually, he says there -

"Especially during the second part of 1992 when Clive and I discussed the worsening of the security situation."

And I have already testified that after the mobilisation story we started discussing plans of how to achieve and how to stop the rot.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well, was - during the second part of 1992, is that date correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: So your discussion about eliminating people started with Walus in the second part of 1992. Would you like to give us a month when that started?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, I don't recall exactly when, but I know it would be after September.

MR BIZOS: After?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The latter part of September.

MR BIZOS: Late September?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And after that, after the mobilisation congress had been held.

MR BIZOS: Late September. Very well. You say after the Kimberley ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It would have been after the mobilisation congress.

MR BIZOS: Yes, very well, thank you, that's near enough for my purposes, thank you.

"Clive asked me if I was prepared to eliminate political opponents and I agreed to do so."

Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, that was part of our discussions, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And when was that discussion?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was also in that period, it was an ongoing discussion.

MR BIZOS: September, September 1992?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, that would have been - it was part of our ongoing discussions, Mr Chairman, we didn't have one discussion. We were having ongoing discussions. Every time we had an opportunity to come together we had these discussions. This would probably have been towards the end of October.

MR BIZOS: Yes, this October?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I would say October.

MR BIZOS: Very well.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Even November maybe.

MR BIZOS: Well, thank you, maybe October, November. Let's go on.

"Towards the end of February 1993, during a visit to Clive at his home, he showed me a list with nine names."

Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, yes.

MR BIZOS: "We discussed the names on the list and I numbered them according to priority of elimination."

Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not correct, Mr Chairman, I think he must have misunderstood. It was in order of priority of enmity towards the Conservative Party, which I stated on a number of occasions.

MR BIZOS: How could a person misunderstand order of priority to do what or not to do, I don't know what to do, what's supposed to do, the priority, with elimination?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, this question must be directed to Mr Walus, I can't answer for his statements.

MR BIZOS: "At that stage no date was set when to begin with the eliminations."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: "Clive only said that I must work sensibly."

What did that mean?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: Well, first of all did you say that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but ... (intervention).

MR BIZOS: You did say it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... the time-frame is a bit different, Mr Chairman. What I testified earlier is that I decided - we decided in February that Hani was going to be the target, and he then got the address list. He then went on to do the recce and it carried on from there.

MR BIZOS: "At that stage no date was set when to begin with eliminations, only said that I must work sensibly."

Work at what?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, with the planning of the assassination of Mr Chris Hani.

MR BIZOS: You say that the only person envisaged was Chris Hani? Is that your evidence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR BIZOS: And if this was said by Mr Walus to the police, it's wrong?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I think that perhaps the language problem could have been responsible for that, but I don't know, you must direct that question to Mr Walus.

MR BIZOS: Do you speak Polish, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't, Mr Chairman, but Mr Walus battles with English.

MR BIZOS: What language did you speak to him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I spoke to him in English, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever have any trouble communicating with him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't, Mr Chairman, no.

MR BIZOS: Why do you say that he may have had communication problems with the police?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I suggested that as a possibility and then I also said direct the question to Mr Walus, don't direct it at me.

MR BIZOS: I see, yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because I can't explain it.

MR BIZOS: "After I ..."

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Bizos, sorry to interrupt here. The word "elimination" here has been used more than once.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And with regard to the first one you said that as far as you are concerned this had to - all you were doing with him, with Mr Walus, was to set the names in order of enmity?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, I testified earlier that in February, shortly after the statement by Mr Hani that the weapons must come back from Angola, that I identified Mr Hani as a target and that's when we actually started talking about the elimination of Hani.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Ja, but I am reading from here, the sentence,

"...and I numbered them according to priority of elimination."

and you told us that that was not the - that was not the purpose. When the names were set out in...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I said we numbered them in a priority order in terms of their enmity ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is correct.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ....towards the - I don't know why Mr Walus said this, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, and my question is, was the discussion between yourself and him such that it could possibly have caused Mr Walus to misunderstand the discussion between you and him? To think that they were being listed for in priority of elimination instead of understanding that this was - they are being listed in order of enmity?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, we were clear, that only Hani had to be eliminated, but then during our discussions we also had discussed that if this doesn't succeed then obviously we will - may have to target somebody else to achieve the desired objective.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It would have had to have been a major misunderstanding between him, between you and Mr Walus. If he thinks this - I list these people in this order for purposes of elimination, while you on the other hand think that these people are being listed in order of enmity?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: There would have to be quite a huge misunderstanding between you two.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It could be with the two concepts, Mr Chairman, the elimination of Hani and the fact that if it didn't achieve the desired effect the elimination of others could have caused that confusion.

JUDGE WILSON: Why should you want to list them in a list of enmity to the Conservative Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, Mr Chairman, quite honestly. We needed a code, as I mentioned in my earlier testimony, we needed a code so that we could discuss the question of the assassination over the telephone without triggering off suspicion to either of our womenfolk or anyone else who may be in the vicinity and the numbers suited it, suited that purpose.

JUDGE WILSON: But if there was only one person who was going to be assassinated you would never have had to mention anybody else. You wouldn't need a selection of numbers, would you? You could just talk about our friend.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, but Mr Walus insisted he be given the list to take with him with a number on it.

JUDGE WILSON: He insisted on the numbers?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, and he actually numbered, I think he testified somewhere in this or given a statement that he numbered the list.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Bizos, I interrupted you while you were to move on to the next paragraph.

MR BIZOS: But you see, would you not have to speculate in relation to the questions put to you by the learned Judges, Mr Derby-Lewis, because Mr Walus says in the next paragraph -

"After I received the list from Clive Derby-Lewis, I started to do reconnoitring."

Am I doing wrong in using the word "reconnoitring"? I don't know what, I think this is military - reconnaissance. So if you don't mind, I will use the English word.

"After I received the list from Clive Derby-Lewis I started to reconnoitre. I started with number one on the list, Nelson Mandela."

Is that false?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that question I ask you to direct to Mr Walus.

MR BIZOS: No, the statement is ... (intervention).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is, Nelson Mandela was not a target.

MR BIZOS: And he certainly didn't do that on your instructions?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Or with your knowledge?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Or the instructions or knowledge of your wife?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, as far as I know, and I can't speak once again for my wife.

MR BIZOS: So if your evidence is correct then presumably the Committee is entitled to deduce that Mr Walus is his own man, he doesn't need a Derby-Lewis to do things for him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, whatever Mr Bizos's speculation, I instructed Mr Walus to target Mr Chris Hani.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Whatever else he did he must be asked why he did it.

MR BIZOS: "And after I reconnoitred his house once, I thought the old goat was not worth it. Joe Slovo, priority number two on the list, address was not available, and I decided to concentrate on priority number three on the list, Chris Hani."

This, of course, is completely inconsistent with your evidence and the answer to the question posed by the learned Judges?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It could have been prompted by a volume intake of alcohol as was testified, Mr Chairman. (Laughter).

MR BIZOS: Oh, I see. (Laughter). You are prepared to speculate about that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am just offering it as a suggestion, I am not speculating. He will, he will answer the question, I understand.

MR BIZOS: Incidentally, did he ever utter any complaints against the police to you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he told me how he had been treated, Mr Chairman, and he told me that at one stage he couldn't remember how he got back to his cell, and he told me that he made no statements to them.

MR BIZOS: He told you that he made no statements to them?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: He didn't tell you what is recorded on page 306 -"Captain ..."

Bottom of the page -

"Captain, please don't go and arrest Clive Derby-Lewis also now. He is a very big friend of mine, I will take everything on myself. I was alone when I shot Hani. Clive and I only planned the murder together."

He is a great friend of yours?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He didn't tell me that, Mr Chairman. But I appreciate his friendship.

MR BIZOS: Especially if he was going to cover up for you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that is speculation, sorry.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, for record purposes, that is not Mr Walus' statements, that is Capt Deetliefs, and I took it up with my learned friend, Mr Mpshe, that there are cassettes that refers to interviews with Mr Derby-Lewis and it also refers to the specific statement, but up to this point we have not received it. It is part of the questioning. Just to test the accuracy of this, we will have to look at that. So it is not accepted that if you remain quiet that it is correct.

MR BIZOS: It's reported in the first person as if it were a statement made, but we will prove the circumstances under which -and once you raised, this is raised on your behalf, what did you say the name of the colonel was that you sent it to? That you sent the letter of thanks to?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The letter I directed to the head of the uniform branch of Benoni Police Station, Mr Chairman, and that was to the best of my knowledge, was a gentleman by the name of Colonel Roos - R-O-O-S.

MR BIZOS: Thank you for that clarification. Did you - were you regularly asked by the people in charge of the cells and of the police station, whether you had any complaints?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can't recall them asking me once, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You can't?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No. And I wasn't bothered about it either.

MR BIZOS: If there are references in the Occurrences Book, contemporaneously written whilst you were there, that you specifically said that you had no complaints, will you say that those entries are false?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I will say they are false, most definitely, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And we will produce the original letter tomorrow, and you may have to rethink as to who you wrote it to and how you sent it, Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not possible, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well, don't anticipate it.

Now I want to deal with your wife's statement in relation to this list, please. Firstly, in R4, page 161, the second part of paragraph 80.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 161, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: 161.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The second part of paragraph 80.

MR BIZOS: "The next day it was confirmed in the Press that Kuba had been arrested. Clive then said that it appeared to him as if Kuba had been set-up because it was a rather amateurish job and Kuba had not, for example, changed the number plates and so forth."

Did you say that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon, did you say what your wife says you said?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to comment on anything contained in my wife's statement, because I have in my possession here a statement by one Johannes Hendrik de Waal. I don't know whether it has been discovered to the Committee. But this statement, Mr Chairman, from the information on this statement it is obvious to me that Captain De Waal was lying about certain aspects of his treatment of my wife during her detention. One of the points that I picked up clearly, was a point that she had no complaints, according to him, any day. And suddenly, there was a problem where he said and my wife had to take her medication. Now if my wife had no complaints about illness, I don't understand what she had medication for, and in fact, she told me later that she had had, what she believed to be a minor heart attack in hospital, and as a result had to take medication, but there is nothing in this statement which says anything about that incident.

MR BIZOS: We will look at that statement in due course, Mr Derby-Lewis. Will you please listen to the question? Your wife has written and signed a statement -

"The next day it was confirmed in the Press that Kuba had been arrested. Clive then said that it appeared to him as if Kuba had been set-up because it was a rather amateurish job and Kuba had not, for example, changed the number plates and so forth."

I am only asking you to admit or deny the statement attributed to you by your wife.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That information is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: It is correct? Oh, now we are getting somewhere, yes. (Laughter).

Now let us go to other - have you forgotten that you said that you never discussed changing number plates or anything like that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't say that, Mr Chairman. I said that Mr Walus was responsible for his own arrangements.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It came out in the court case.

MR BIZOS: No, you said, very well, we will leave it at that. I am going on to a new point, I don't know whether you want to continue, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. If you are going to embark on another line at this stage, this might be an appropriate time to adjourn. We will adjourn now and resume at 09:30 tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

19-08-1997: Day 7

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON Mr Mpshe, are we ready to start?

MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you, we are still in the hands of Adv Bizos, Mr Chairman, we are ready to start.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you please excuse me Adv Bizos, I would just like to place something on record. With regard to the video cassettes made available to us, one of these cassettes, tape number six, very clearly dealing with the interrogation of Mr Walus by Captain Deetliefs, I know that Adv Bizos' attorney also looked at this cassette, watched it and the person in control of the sound system was asked this morning whether he could possibly test the cassette for me as well, because his apparatus is much stronger than the type that one has at home, but the sound does not come through at all in this particular interrogation. Captain Holmes, yesterday was requested by me to see if there were, perhaps, other tapes relating to the interrogation and he informed me that Captain Nick Deetliefs, the person who did the interrogation, was in possession of the same tape, but with the sound being of a better quality. I would like to request the Committee that Captain Holmes be instructed to place us in possession of that cassette, because it is absolutely essential before Mr Walus can testify to look at this tape and I would not like a delay at a later stage. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: What can you tell us about that Adv Bizos?

MR BIZOS: About those tapes?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, about the tapes.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, we are not clear precisely what the position is. May I ask that this question be left over until Captain Holmes arrives. I have asked him to be here this morning. We need not take up more time in relation to it. Could we wait until Mr, Captain, the then, he is promoted now, but the then Captain Holmes...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Comes?

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs van der Walt, we will deal with that matter at an appropriate stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Derby-Lewis, you are reminded that you are still under your former oath.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CLIVE DERBY-LEWIS: (Still under affirmation).

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: (cont)

Mr Derby-Lewis, you signed two application forms for amnesty. Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, I am not clear, Mr Chairman, on whether the first form I signed was for amnesty or indemnity. Is that what Mr Bizos is referring to?

MR BIZOS: No, I did not use the word "indemnity". I asked you whether you signed two applications for amnesty?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not ...

MR BIZOS: Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not sure, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not sure.

MR BIZOS: You are not sure?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Well, ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Can I just have a minute to ...

MR BIZOS: ... let me try and help you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Please.

MR BIZOS: Have a look at the document which you signed on the 24th of April 1996 and tell us whether that is an application that you signed. You can have my copy or you may, your attorney may also have it.

JUDGE WILSON: It is in the bundle A at page 11, is it not?

MR BIZOS: The ...

JUDGE WILSON: The application signed on the 24th of April 1996.

MR BIZOS: Yes, that is so. And then ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, that is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And then there was a subsequent application which is dated later, is it not or they are both dated the same time, but they are different. I would just like you to explain why there are two applications with the same date and why they are different.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are these to be found Mr Bizos? All in bundle A?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, there is one on the 24th of April which appears on page 13 and then there are substitute pages on a different application. Yes, we got two from the Committee Secretary, Mr Chairman, and they are different.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, that was what caused the confusion at the last hearing and I believe it was explained to the Committee what happened. That, somehow or another, an incorrect document had arrived at the Committee and that it was then included in the application and we have another document and then we said, well, that documents which were submitted to the Committee, is the document which we had, but there was not a second application. It was, as far as I remember, it was only in the, in relation to 9(4), nature and particulars, the motivation explanation. Is that what Mr Bizos is referring to?

MR BIZOS: Yes, in November new, in November last year new pages were put in which were not in the original application. Do you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: To which pages are, Mr Bizos referring to, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: If you have a look at the application of Mr Walus has the date of the 30th day of November, but what I am concerned with is that there are applications with different, there are pages with different allegations and I want to know how that came about?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, perhaps, before you ask him questions of that kind, I would like to know where these two applications are? I have an application in manuscript, the form filled in in manuscript, attached to that are answers to certain paragraphs of the application form in a typed form.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, are you referring to those?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, we have the application which we have called the first application which appears, which we have marked 1 to 15. May I just hand this up for you to have a look at, please?

JUDGE WILSON: Because the original application you have referred to, which is at page 11 of bundle A, when it comes to paragraph seven, eight, nine and says see attached, see attached, see attached, see attached. All of it says that and then there are the attached pages, the typed pages.

MR BIZOS: We have been given two different versions and I do not think that the one version is before you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will have to sort that out. Mr Mpshe, what can you tell us about this?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, thank you, there was, the applicant submitted only one application, Mr Chairman. The one that is on, from page 11 to page ...

CHAIRPERSON: 13.

MR MPSHE: ... as it goes on up to page 13.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MPSHE: That is the only application filed by the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR MPSHE: The only thing that was done by the applicant, Mr Chairman, is that they changed or amended the annexure to their application.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, from page 15 onwards?

MR MPSHE: From page 15 onwards and, particularly, Mr Chairman, just for an example, page 17 thereof makes it clear what happened, page 17.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MPSHE: It makes it clear that letters were written to the applicant that certain information has not been forthcoming or has not been given and they had to supply extra information to the original application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MPSHE: So the only change, Mr Chairman, is not on the application itself, but is on the annexure responding to questions as clarified by page 17.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: While we are talking about this, I think I would like to draw attention to the fact that, as far as I have been able to see, my paragraph, pages 15 and 16 are identical.

MR MPSHE: That is so, that is a duplication. 15 And 16 is one and the same.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, it is a typing error. Then we go on to 17 and then 94 at page 18 goes on to the end.

CHAIRPERSON: So what has happened then, Mr Bizos, it seems that the original application has been supplemented by additional information.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, there are not two separate applications.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that correct?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I just indicate that we have the differences between the old and the new application. There were the application and, when I speak about application I speak about the filling in of the form and the typed addition to the form, there are difference which we have put together on the basis of the old and the new on an analysis. In order to save time, may I hand that, may I hand up a document which shows the differences so that when I examine Mr Derby-Lewis on it, we can have, we do not have enough copies, but we can make them available. I will, whilst they are being made I can just ask some preparatory questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well, Mr Derby-Lewis, in fairness, should have before you whatever documents you use to supplement your original application which, I take it, is in typed form.

JUDGE WILSON: Would you make copies?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And if you have all the documents then we can proceed. Do you have them?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, I do not have the documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Though your own application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have my own application.

CHAIRPERSON: Supplemented by a number of ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: By the annexures.

CHAIRPERSON: That is right.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I have them, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: May we have a copy from Mr Bizos, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Yes, this was a document which I did not intend handing in, but they are my notes to put to the witness, but I have given it in as an assistance, because the witness and, apparently, his legal representatives are not aware of the differences or may not be aware of the differences and some of them are of a material nature. This is why copies are being made and we will hand them to the witness and to each member of the Committee and to the legal representatives.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I just come in just for convenience, Mr Chairman, the document handed in first by Mr Bizos, the alleged another application be numbered R7, please, and the document allegedly containing the difference between the first and the second application be referred to as R8.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, it is all part of the one bundle.

MR MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman, two separate documents were handed up just now. Only one copy was given to the Chair, that would be R8, the one outlining the differences. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but at some stage, I would like to know about this, which you conveniently wish to call R7, because R7 has the original application form which is in manuscript, which is already in bundle A. Bundle A, as we have said, up to page 14, they were already annexed, they form part of R7 and then the rest are what appear in bundle A as pages 15 and then there are different pages.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, could we perhaps, while the Chairman is talking, give the page numbers. Page five of the bundle handed in by Mr Bizos is page 15 of bundle A. Page six, seven, eight and nine of Mr Bizos' number, Mr Bizos' bundle does not appear to be part of bundle A. Page ten of Mr Bizos' bundle appears to be page 23 of bundle A. Page 11 of Mr Bizos' bundle appears to be page 24 of bundle A and it goes on, 24, 25 and 26.

CHAIRPERSON: So, there are some pages now which have been handed in by Mr Bizos that do not form part of bundle A?

MR BIZOS: Yes, the drive of what we are saying is that although the pages appear to be the same, the contents differs.

JUDGE WILSON: Not of the ones I have given you, Mr Bizos, those are identical.

MR BIZOS: Well, that may be, but there are differences between the composite application, which we call first application, and the composite second application which finds itself in bundle A and the document that we are making a copy of draws attention to those differences.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, where does the composite first application come from? Mr Mpshe says the application in application A is the application lodged with the Committee. Where does yours come from?

MR BIZOS: Well, it came to us, Mr Chairman, when we asked for a copy of the application. We first received the first one and then we were given the second one, as amended.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Mpshe?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I will have to put this again on record. The copy that Adv Bizos has ended up as R7, intended to be another application, is incorrect. It is the original application filed by the applicant. It is repeated that on my copy it does not show exactly when, correctly when this was filed. This application was filed, I am trying to make it up here, on the fourth of May 1996. So, it is still the original application. The only change that was made by the application is in as far as answering of questions are concerned. I can refer the Chair again to page ten, page ten of bundle A. It is just an amendment to the answering of questions and not a new application. Page ten is also a clarification to that. The application still remains the same.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But Mr Mpshe, I, whereabouts page 18 and so on of the, of bundle A, how does it relate to page six of the bundle which Mr Bizos has just given us, because both, they have a commonality. Paragraph, they all purport to be paragraph 9(4), nature and particulars, but the contents differ. Now, I do not know whether what you are saying is that pages 18 and so on replaced pages six of Mr Bizos' documents and so on.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chair, as it can be noted, page five is an amendment filed by Janusz Walus and page 18 is amendment filed by Clive Derby-Lewis. These are amendments from two different applicants. Page five is that of Janusz Walus.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, but page 18 is an amendment by Mr Derby-Lewis, but you see amending paragraph 9(4) as given to us by Mr Bizos.

MR MPSHE: I have not seen what Mr Bizos has given you, I was never given a copy. If I can just be allowed.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, please have a look at that, because it is confusing to us.

CHAIRPERSON: It is, indeed, at this stage in the proceedings.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, it is true that the same application form may cover both. What we are concerned with that between May and November the applications of both applicants were amended in certain respects. That is the whole purpose and I want to ask questions as to how these amendments came to be made and why. That is really the ...

JUDGE WILSON: Well, I want to get clarity as to how and when, have you got the papers now, Mr Mpshe?

MR MPSHE: I do have the papers, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: If you will look at Mr Bizos' page six, that is nature and particulars and starts,

"After the speech of F W de Klerk ...",

in relation to paragraph 9(4). Correct?

MR MPSHE: I do have it.

JUDGE WILSON: Now, in bundle A at page 18 ...

MR MPSHE: 18.

JUDGE WILSON: ... we have another answer to 9(4).

CHAIRPERSON: The heading is the same.

MR MPSHE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The document ...

JUDGE WILSON: No, the heading is from Prinsloo and van der Walt, phone number 0157-308, April the 14th, 1997. That is along the top of my page.

CHAIRPERSON: That is a fax.

MR MPSHE: That is a fax.

JUDGE WILSON: So, this ...

MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE WILSON: So, this was faxed to you on the 14th of April 1997, it would appear?

MR MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, page ...

JUDGE WILSON: And was it substituted then for the one that Mr Bizos has put forward?

MR MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, page 18 in bundle A is amendment of page six on Mr Bizos' documents. That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: And it was done on the 14th of April of this year?

MR MPSHE: Of this year.

JUDGE WILSON: The original ...

MR MPSHE: I ...

JUDGE WILSON: ... application that was filed ...

MR MPSHE: On the fourth of May 96.

JUDGE WILSON: ... of 1996, contained the 9(4) set out at page six ...

MR MPSHE: Six.

JUDGE WILSON: .. of Mr Bizos' bundle?

MR MPSHE: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: So, he is correct in saying there has been a substantial change to 9(4)?

MR MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Mpshe will probably be able to confirm this, the fact raised by Judge Wilson, that it was faxed, I think he will have a letter, Mr Mpshe, will have a letter on his files in which the original document which was sent in November, apparently, somehow or other got lost at the Committee's offices and Mr Mpshe and I had a telephonic discussion and then it was faxed to him. I think he will be able to confirm this and it will be in his files.

MR MPSHE: That is correct, Mr Chairman, I can confirm that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it now appears, Mr Derby-Lewis, that there have been certain additional pages that were not part of your original application, you are aware of those?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are about to be questioned on the difference between the contents of those pages and your original application.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Now, Mr Chairman, I believe I am being questioned, but I would appreciate a short time just to peruse this document, because, you know, because, as Mr Bizos says, it differs from the other.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. How many pages are there that have to be perused?

JUDGE WILSON: Four.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Four, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Four pages.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Four pages.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And on the other one it is five.

MR BIZOS: These are my notes from cross-examination. I am entitled to put these questions to Mr Derby-Lewis. I am merely handing it in, in order to assist the Committee in order to solve the riddle of the different documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR BIZOS: I do not know, I am entitled to put the questions cold, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, we have not received the notes of Mr Bizos. What we have received is the bundle, which is now referred as R7, and that is what the witness is asking the Committee's indulgence, he wants to peruse R7, which he did not have in his possession, and then compare it with the documents referred to which were submitted at a later stage, which comprises pages 17 to page 22. That is what the witness asked.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, R7 comes from their file, Mr Chairman, ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: ... but the, let us, I will withdraw my objection, Mr Chairman, ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: ... for his looking at the document. I do not know what he can do about it. It may be quicker rather than having long arguments.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, because otherwise each time you put a question he will start paging through the documents to find ...

MR BIZOS: Let him look at it. I do not know what he can do with it, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Walus, Mr Prinsloo, without wasting too much time, can you quickly look through it, because I am sure a lot of this is very familiar to you. It should not take you too long.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I will do it as quickly as ...

CHAIRPERSON: These are part of your papers.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... possible, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I will certainly do it as quickly as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. We will stand down just for a few minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CLIVE DERBY-LEWIS: (Still under oath).

CHAIRPERSON: I trust that we are ready to proceed now. Mr Bizos, you may proceed with your cross-examination.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Derby-Lewis, the short adjournment was (speaker's microphone not on) did your wife join you and your legal representatives in consultation.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did your wife join you in the consultation that you had during the adjournment that was granted by the Committee?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: My wife was present in the room. She came to greet me, Mr Chairman, because she did not have time before the commencement of the session.

MR BIZOS: Who drew your application for amnesty, your attorneys or your wife?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the document which is under question was the document which I sent in as part of my application before I had access to legal advice. So, ...

MR BIZOS: Who drew the application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Not your wife?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, my wife filled in some of the questions as far as the attachment was concerned, but I drew the information up and provided it. I had no access to the facilities, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You did not have an access to The Patriot and the other documents that quoted there? Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am not aware of quotations out of The Patriot in my application.

MR BIZOS: The annexure to your application is full of quotations from The Patriot.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Those were drawn up at my request, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: At your request by?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon?

MR BIZOS: Who drew them up?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: By my wife.

MR BIZOS: By your wife?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, at my request. Who else would do it for me?

MR BIZOS: Was it your wife here before the original commencement of the proceedings?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Before the commencement of these proceedings?

MR BIZOS: This morning, yes, was it your wife up on the stage in order to see you before the proceedings commenced this morning?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Very briefly, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But very briefly.

MR BIZOS: No, but what you said that she came up, because she did not have time to see you in the morning, that was not quite correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, but I qualified my statement by saying that it was, she only was able to see me very briefly before the ...

MR BIZOS: You qualified that when I put it to you that your wife did, in fact, see you this morning.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not, Mr Chairman, I qualified it when I spoke to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr Bizos, let us get down to the real ...

MR BIZOS: To the substance.

CHAIRPERSON: ... issues.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now, I am going to put to you that the amendments to the application were made in order to bring them, to bring your application into line, possibly some of the decisions given by the Committee, that you became aware of after you filed your original application. What do you say to that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I say that that amendment was submitted on the advice of my attorneys who were responsible for the submissions from page 17 onwards on my behalf.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, let us just go through some of them, the more important ones. I will refer to the summary, Mr Chairman, for the sake of...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: ... R8.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Will you please look at the third last one from the bottom.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What page? Sorry, Mr Chairman, what page is that?

MR BIZOS: R8, page two.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page two. Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "We were now at the stage where other methods would have to be used to ensure our freedom from a communist dominated regime."

Now that was in the old application and it does not appear in the amended application. Do you agree?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What was in the amended application was,

"... simply to ensure the freedom of our people.".

MR BIZOS: Do you agree that what I read out on the left-hand column does not appear ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That ...

MR BIZOS: ... in the amended application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, when you wrote in the original application,

"We were now at the stage ...",

who is the "we" that you were referring to.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: We on the right, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: We of the right, not any particular individuals?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, name one or two individuals of "we" on the right. Name one or two of the "we" on the right when you wrote the word "we" there.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Robert van Tonder of the Boerestaat Party, Mr Eugene Terre'Blanche of the Afrikaner Weerstand Beweeging. It was general consensus in the Conservative Party as well, Mr Chairman, that attitude.

MR BIZOS: No, no, you mentioned two individuals outside the Conservative Party. Would you please favour us with a couple names from the Conservative Party that you referred to as "we"?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, it will be clear from the congress records which I submitted in terms of the mobilisation application, that it was patently obvious that there were three options open to us. The one was elections, which had already been stopped, the other was negotiations and that was the time of CODESA, which we refused to participate in and the third one was passive or active resistance. So, that ...

MR MPSHE: Mr Derby-Lewis, they are asking you for the names of people from the right, from the Conservative Party, just the names of individuals.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: My colleagues in the caucus, Mr Chairman,

MR MPSHE: They have got names, do they not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Schalk Pienaar, the former MP for Potgietersrus, Mr Heug Prinsloo, the former MP for Roodepoort, my colleagues on the caucus, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Why did the AWB and Mr van Tonder come in, come to your mind and why did we have difficulty and to have to have judicial intervention before you could mention any name of a person in the Conservative Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I thought that by broadly referring to the Conservative Party it was clear who it was and as far as van Tonder and Terreblanche are concerned, I have attended meetings of theirs where these sentiments had been expressed.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Let us, I think we have made that point. Thank you Mr Derby-Lewis. Let us turn to the next one. The final paragraph on the right-hand column,

"The reason for the silencer was allowed me to practice with it at home without disturbing the neighbours.".

There is no similar paragraph in the old. Do you agree with that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, is this true, Mr Derby-Lewis, in your second application, is it true?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is true, Mr Chairman, and it came out ...

MR BIZOS: Now, ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... during consultations with my legal representatives and they advised me to include it.

MR BIZOS: I see, but now, is it true, as a matter of fact, that you, a person with military training, licensed firearm holder for many years, needed training with the stolen gun that you had obtained?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, the silencer is a special bit of equipment to be used particularly by assassins.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It has been used by assassins, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Particularly by assassins.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: For anyone to pertain that a silencer was obtained for the purposes of taking your, protecting yourself from any attackers is hardly believable, is it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, it is quite clear that in the event of a night time attack, for example, the presence of a silencer at the end of the barrel would conceal the flashes and would then make it very difficult for anyone attacking to identify where I was returning fire from.

MR BIZOS: Oh I see.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Very clear.

MR BIZOS: But I thought that you were concerned about the neighbours. You did not want any noise to be made for the benefit of the neighbours?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I ...

JUDGE WILSON: Is that fair, Mr Bizos, on what is written there? Are there not two reasons given?

MR BIZOS: Allow him to practise with it ...

JUDGE WILSON: Allow him to practise without disturbing the neighbours and also to supply me with some element of surprise in the event of an attack from ...

MR BIZOS: Yes, I am sorry, I only read the précis on the, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Some element of surprise. Now, surely, attackers do not, well let me put it this way. Have you or have you ever heard anybody having a silencer for the purposes of using it for better self-defence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was not interested in anybody, I was interested in my own circumstances and in view of the fact that there had been attempts on my life in the past and that I had been officially notified by both the ANC and APLA that I was on their death list, I think it would be reasonable to expect something like that and to take the necessary precautions to protect my family and myself.

MR BIZOS: Let us go on to page three. You describe Mr Hani in the first application, the first version of the application as a,

"... former MK commander.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And that is amended to,

" ... was a senior commander of MK.".

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Why did you decide to change that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because, once again, during consultation, Mr Chairman, my legal advisers believed that it was not correct to say that and they advised me to amend it.

MR BIZOS: But surely your legal advisers were there not, were not there to advise you to "change former MK commander" to "the senior commander of MK" if those were not the facts as you knew them when you first made, you made the first application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, when we consulted it actually came out that I was not referring to the late Chris Hani as a former commander, I was referring to him as the commander of MK and my legal team then advised me to change it.

MR BIZOS: But you described him as the "former commander". What information did your legal representatives give you that made you change the allegation of fact, from a "former commander" as the, "was the senior commander of MK", why was that change made?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have explained that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You have, you think you have. Very well. Now, there was no allegation in the original application,

"... a prime military target.".

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, by the time this change was made did you know that in numerous applications for amnesty before the Committee, members of the security forces identified the people that they killed as military targets?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not know that, Mr Chairman. As far as my memory serves me, there was no mention of that in any of the communications or the publications to which I had access in prison and I was not present at the hearings of the Committee.

MR BIZOS: I see. Were not the decisions of the Committee in the possession of your attorneys or your wife or your both?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly not, Mr Chairman, in the possession of my wife and, to the best of my knowledge, not in the possession of my attorneys, because this was only requested very recently.

MR BIZOS: On the bottom of page three,

"Mr Hani said that he would regard White MP's of the ruling National Party and the far right Conservative Party as legitimate targets for attack".

That is not repeated in the application.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was, once again, on the advice of my legal representatives, Mr Chairman, and I think that I clarified that during evidence to the Committee last week.

MR BIZOS: Why was that allegation left out of the application in its final form?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was left out on the advise of my legal people, Mr Chairman. You must ask them that question.

MR BIZOS: I see. Well, did you not ask them whether they considered it irrelevant or is it, perhaps, because you had no evidence of Mr Hani saying that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I may be a strange person, but I take the advice of my legal representatives without querying. I place ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: What ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... absolute confidence in them.

MR BIZOS: What evidence did you have that Mr Hani said this when you made your original application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I knew about it, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: How did you know about it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because I was affected by it.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was affected by it.

MR BIZOS: How did you know that Mr Hani had said that,

"... far right Conservative Party as legitimate targets ...",

where did you see that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I could not remember, Mr Chairman, ...

MR BIZOS: You could not remember.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... and that could be why my legal team advised me to take it out, but I subsequently became aware of a report in the London Times in 1988 in the United Kingdom which actually was, broadly, the same statement.

JUDGE WILSON: But in your, as I understand it, what was your original application, you gave all this information, did you not? Page eight was your original application, was it not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page eight.

MR BIZOS: 15 To 21. Although they are not marked, it will give you some idea where on the page, Mr.

JUDGE WILSON: Page 19 says,

"According to the London Times, 08/06/88."

MR BIZOS: Would you like to think of another explanation in view of Judge Wilson's ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: ... bringing to our attention that what you have said immediately before was not correct.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 18, page 18?

JUDGE WILSON: Page eight, paragraph 18.

MR PRINSLOO: Page eight, paragraph 19.

MR BIZOS: 19, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Is it 19, sorry.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Then it could have been because I did not have access to the documentation at the time, Mr Chairman, but I cannot remember everything what I, what, but I want to stipulate that everything that I submitted was on the advice of my legal team. That is why we submitted that application.

MR PRINSLOO: Just show me the full text of this.

MR BIZOS: Page eight, paragraph 22, yes. Please look at the bottom of page eight of R7.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page eight.

MR BIZOS: "We decided that we would try to prevent this take-over and we set about planning how to do this.".

Who is the "we" that you are referring to there?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Is it this page?

MR PRINSLOO: I do not know.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am not clear which page eight Mr Bizos is referring to. Page eight ...

MR BIZOS: Of ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... of ...

MR BIZOS: ... of R7.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... R7. The last sentence, right.

"We decided we would try to prevent this take-over and we set about planning to do this."

Yes.

MR BIZOS: Who is the "we"?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Walus and I.

MR BIZOS: Just the two of you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: If you have a look at bundle A, page 21, paragraph eight ...

JUDGE WILSON: Where is paragraph eight? My page 21 has got three paragraphs on it.

MR BIZOS: Could I refer to the middle paragraph.

JUDGE WILSON: Where is that?

MR MPSHE: It is page 21.

MR BIZOS: You see the middle of the paragraph, of the middle paragraph of page 21, you actually place, you only mention that Mr,

"He decided that he would deal with Chris Hani and set about planning his campaign.".

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was after I identified Mr Hani as the target, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, but why ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He still had to make the decision to ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Why did the "we" become "he" in the second application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Once again, on the advice of my legal team, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And again, in the old application you say,

"We decided that Mr Walus would reconnoitre Mr Hani's place of residence.".

Do you see that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: But that changes in,

"He set out reconnoitring Hani's address.".

Why did the "we" become "he".

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because during our discussions it was clear to my legal representative that, in fact, Walus had said he would carry the recces, I did not decide that with him and that is why they advised me to change it.

MR BIZOS: And then you say in the old,

"I handed the firearm to Mr Walus on the sixth April in order to execute the plan.",

but in the new application you say,

"Although I handed Mr Walus the firearm on 6 April ... as I was determined to give as a matter that was as important and as significant as this one further thought.".

Why was it decided to change that aspect of the application?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was, once again, the advice of my legal representative, Mr Chairman, after consultation.

MR BIZOS: But, do you take advice from your legal advisers as to what the facts were or do you take advice as to what the Law or practice is?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I take advice from my legal advisers who advise me once they have heard what the facts were.

MR BIZOS: And then you see the other two inconsistencies which are, I do not want to read out, but what I want to put to you is that there were material changes of fact between the two applications, both under oath, in order to assist yourself in the success of the application without any regard to the truth, particularly in relation to the matters to which I have drawn your attention.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: That is not correct. Now, I want to turn to your application. The list, the list of facts. In bundle A, I beg your pardon, the list is actually in bundle B, Mr Chairman. Will you please have a look at bundle B, page two. Okay. Have you got it on page two of bundle B or one and two ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Again ...

MR BIZOS: ... in which annexure A is contained with a list of acts of violence committed.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have it, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: I want to confine myself from page one right up to the 10th of April 1993 in which your murder of Chris Hani is recorded and I want to ask you some questions of a general nature in relation to any one, to all of these acts. Do you say that any of the acts listed in annexure A was done for or on behalf of the Conservative Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I testified, Mr Chairman, that this list was drawn up by the Afrikaner Weerstand Beweeging and it was, according to them, an accurate record of all acts of violence or attack which had been carried out by people on the right.

MR BIZOS: Please answer my question.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not say anything about the CP, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I asked you whether you pertain that anyone of these acts was committed for and on behalf of the Conservative Party, yes or no?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: No. Right. We can proceed from there. Would you agree that, except for your act on the 10th of April 1993, with one exception which I will draw your, possible exception that I will draw your attention to, that these acts of violence were directed at property rather than individuals?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am not aware of when these acts were perpetrated, but I look at one on the 21st of December 1991 which says a bomb explodes at a beer-hall in Costa, I am not aware of the time that that was carried out. It could have been full of people. There is no further details on that.

MR BIZOS: Well, let us leave that with a question mark. Have a look at the others and tell us that before your assassination of Mr Hani, whether or not there was any violence against human life?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is quite possible that there were acts of violence here against human rights which are not given in the detail, Mr Chairman. I, without going through each one and without knowing the full details, I am not qualified to comment on that.

MR BIZOS: No, well, you see, if I were to suggest to you that in the main, these acts were symbolic acts of opposition to the, primarily to the National Party in which we do not know, except in one or two instances, whether they were intended that there should be loss of human life, but even in cases where there was human life lost, it appeared to be of an unfortunate result of the main act of actually attacking the property. With one or two exceptions, would you agree with that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I do not agree with that, Mr Chairman. In fact, it is not true to state that. I am of, just while you are talking I have been going through this thing quickly and I pick up immediately on the 6th of July 1990, a bomb explodes at a taxi rank in Central Johannesburg. I am sure that the Committee will agree with me that that has nothing to do with the National Party, number one.

MR BIZOS: Yes. I said ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It says further 27 people injured, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I, remember my words, in the main. I will draw attention to the exceptions. In the main ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, ...

MR BIZOS: ... do you agree?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... without going through each of these individual cases ...

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... and getting, having the full details, I am not qualified to reply to that question.

MR BIZOS: This was an annexure to your own application. Did you not apply your mind when you annexed it in support of your application, what its meaning and effect was?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I took it at face value.

MR BIZOS: And what is its face value that you took it at?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well, its face value is, Mr Chairman, that the right perpetrated many deeds of violence in which people were killed. Deed number, 14th of July 1990, a hand grenade attack on a hotel in Roodepoort kills two men and injures 21. There are many of those and it could be that those details are not included in the other reports as well.

MR BIZOS: I see. Now, do you know, once it was not the Conservative Party, do you know of any known political organisation that was responsible for any of these acts?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was assured that the AWB had done research on this and they had found that these acts had been perpetrated by the right.

MR BIZOS: The question was, did anybody from the AWB tell you that these were acts committed with the authority of the Afrikaner Weerstand Beweeging?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: They did not tell you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, they did not tell me.

MR BIZOS: Very well. Now, you annexed this and you are relying on it and you talk about the right, the rightwingers or whatever. The question is that you are unable to tell the Committee whether any known political organisation or liberal, liberation movement or people in the employ of the security services were responsible for any of these acts.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman, I took it at face value.

MR BIZOS: Did you know when you did this application that there were people moving around in the 90's who were referred to as the "Brandy and Coke Brigades", people who sat around bars and got drunk and then went out and committed some act of violence or other supposedly in furtherance of some object or other. Had you ever heard of those people?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I have not, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, the Committee will hear about them in due course. You, did you enquire as to whether the act where people were actually killed on the 9th of October, that a bus full of commuters is attacked outside Durban, six people are killed in the attack, which is in relation for an attack on White pedestrians in Durban the day before.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: A retaliation.

MR BIZOS: Retaliation by a group of, well let us first of all. Wanton acts of violence committed against White people on the one day and wanton acts of violence committed against Black people the next day on a bus. That can hardly be on behalf of a political organisation.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I was personally aware of the circumstances regarding this specific case, because...

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... I was detained at maximum prison together with the three men who were sentenced to death for their part in this ...

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... attack and they assured me they were AWB and they were acting on behalf of the AWB.

MR BIZOS: Is that what they told you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is what they told me, yes.

MR BIZOS: I see and you cannot tell us whether they were telling you the truth or not, of course?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have no idea, ...

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: .. Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And I am going to put to you that when you, Walus and we will submit together with others committed this there was no precedent of assassination of a top political leader in the country.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that is not correct. I am aware of an assassination carried out by the ANC on a member of the KwaNdebele, sorry the Kangwane Government.

MR BIZOS: Well, you may have regarded him a high profile leader, but, well, let us, is that the example you followed?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is the example that I ...

MR BIZOS: Or was it an attack of revenge?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is the example I followed, I am aware of, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: When was he killed?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I do not have the details, but I can provide them, because I have information regarding that.

MR BIZOS: Well, did you follow that example?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon.

MR BIZOS: Did you follow that example, is that it? Is that a new reason why you tell us you killed Chris Hani, because ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, no that is ...

MR BIZOS: ... someone was killed in KwaNdebele?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct, Mr Chairman, I am just contradicting what Mr Bizos has said about no other...

MR BIZOS: I see.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... leading people being assassinated and, also, Mr Chairman, I have testified in my testimony last week, that the ANC, themselves, were even planning to assassinate the whole National Party cabinet.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis, I think this should be mentioned to you that if you are referring to the assassination of a former Cabinet Minister of KwaNdebele, Mr ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Kangwane.

CHAIRPERSON: Kangwane.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ... Kangwane.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I think it was Kangwane, but I know there was a Cabinet Minister of one of the self-governing territories.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Maybe we should leave it there, because you are not sure which one. I was going to, I thought you were possibly referring to KwaNdebele, but if you are not very sure then we should leave it there.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It could be that I am confused between the names of the two ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... territories, but I know that a Cabinet Minister was attacked and assassinated.

MR BIZOS: In relation to any ANC decision, was it not scotched by the leadership of the ANC?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The plan itself?

MR BIZOS: The proposal, if there was one, was it not scotched by the leadership of the ANC?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was, Mr Chairman, but not on moral grounds.

MR BIZOS: Well, this was during the 80's, was it not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: But you knew that they did not, well, that they scotched that particular plan. Let us just leave it at that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: On, but not on moral grounds.

MR BIZOS: Oh, I see, yes. You say that they had other grounds? Very well.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: They say so themselves, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And I think I testified to that ...

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... effect. They say themselves that they were afraid that the struggle would then be taken in another direction.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Nothing to do ...

MR BIZOS: Because ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... with moral grounds.

MR BIZOS: Because, presumably, they were concerned that chaos and a race war should not come about as you intended.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not able to presume that on their behalf, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you anticipate that there would be a race war in the vacuum that was created with Mr Derby-Lewis', Mr, I beg your pardon, Mr Hani's assassination?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I did not, Mr Chairman, particularly, when one recalls that when one of our former Prime Ministers, Dr Hendrik Verwoerd, was assassinated, every Greek in the country did not pick up arms and start shooting Afrikaners or every Afrikaner did not pick up arms and start shooting every Greek in the country.

MR BIZOS: To the credit of the Afrikaner people.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But the fact remains that there was no idea of a potential race war, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. What did you mean by chaos?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: General mayhem, Mr Chairman, and, obviously, ...

MR BIZOS: What is general mayhem?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: People killing one another, but Mr Chairman ...

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: People killing one another, but ...

MR BIZOS: How many people did you expect to be killed for the purposes of the success of your objective?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was hoping that it would be kept to a minimum. I think, Mr Chairman, it has been clear in our planning, that we wanted to avoid harming as many innocent people as possible and our hope was that it would happen quickly, there would be a minimum of casualties, but it would be obvious that there is total lack of control, because de Klerk would not act anyway and that the people would be, could then be motivated into filling the gap.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, are chaos, mayhem and minimum synonyms?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am not here on a language discussion.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not here on a language discussion, I am ...

MR BIZOS: I am sorry, I am not hearing, what sort of discussion?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not here with, busy with a language discussion.

MR BIZOS: Language is very important in communicating your thoughts and you used those three words in relation to your objective. How could there be chaos and mayhem as your stated objectives in one hand and minimum number of people being killed on the other?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the fact that we only targeted one person shows that our intention was to keep it down to a minimum. We could have gone out and targeted a whole lot of people if we wanted to do what you are insinuating.

MR BIZOS: Well, if that answer is correct, either you have not disclosed the real objective of creating chaos and mayhem or your objective failed. Which of the two do you say was the case?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, our objective was reached up until the time of the problems experienced at Bophuthatswana. In fact, Mr Chairman, to my knowledge as well, there was not that much, in terms of deaths, during the aftermath of the late Chris Hani's assassination. In fact, I have figures which I can provide for the Committee which are produced by the Human Rights Monitor which indicate, in fact, that there were more people killed the week before Mr Hani's assassination than during the week of his assassination.

MR BIZOS: Do you agree that the country was thrown into a crisis as a result of the assassination?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I agree it was, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you agree or do you agree that not only did people die, but that the confidence in the future of the country was severely effected?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, may I ask Mr Bizos from what document on record he is quoting so that ...

MR BIZOS: Well ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... I can see the context in which statement was made.

MR BIZOS: I am asking you whether, what your state of mind was and your information. Do not worry about the documents I am looking at.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am aware of press reports, but I am also aware that certain people published these alarmist opinions when, in fact, there are other reasons which are causing certain lacks of confidence and so on.

MR BIZOS: You see, let me just read to you, as an example, once, you will not admit something unless I refer you to a document. Business Day, Friday, April the 16th 1993 in R3, Section D, page 24.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Section D. It is not in my bundle.

MR BIZOS: You got it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is not in my bundle.

JUDGE WILSON: R3, Section B?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, yes.

MR BIZOS: at "... consumer confidence had taken a near mortal blow since the assassination last Saturday ...".

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: R3, Section B.

MR BIZOS: D, D for Danny.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, D.

MR BIZOS: D.

CHAIRPERSON: I am so sorry.

MR BIZOS: Page 34, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR BIZOS: "Business and consumer confidence had taken a near mortal blow since the assassination last Saturday of SACP leader, Chris Hani, economists said yesterday. Econometrics economist, Tony Twine, said confidence had been edging up since the beginning of the year. However, it had taken a dive since last weekend and it would plunge further if any of this weeks activities got out of hand. We are only halfway through the minefield. We need a clear demonstration that the authorities are in control and that rage and anger have cooled Twine said.".

and then statements from Stellenbosch University, Mr de Klerk and everyone else and there are, there is a whole section, the whole of section D deals with the chaos that was caused and the attempts made by the Government and, particularly, the leadership of the ANC and the South African Communist Party to quieten people down, that you wanted to cause chaos and mayhem.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I have stated, and Mr Bizos has referred to this press report, it was one economist who made that statement. His statement was semi-supported by somebody from the University of Stellenbosch, but then that same person made a strange statement, Mr Chairman. He said further,

"Until a new Government was in place and South Africans had a clear picture of the future, confidence would remain low.".

That confirms the point I was making, Mr Chairman, that it is not these incidents that caused a big hiccup, it is a general situation and here, according to him, the situation was that people would not settle down until there was a new Government and it was not so much the Hani assassination. Then the further statement here, the Durban Regional Chamber of Business, Mr Chairman, said nothing about business confidence, it said that,

"Rampages in Durban on Wednesday by ANC supporters were inexcusable.".

Then, Mr Chairman, the Southern Natal ANC Alliance said,

"Disciplinary steps would be taken against the unruly elements once they had been identified.".

Nothing to do with business confidence and I am submitting, Mr Chairman, that always under situations like this journalists use people to exaggerate the situation and if you look at these other statements that Mr Bizos is referring to, Mr Chairman, there are a number of repeats. I did a quick spot check to see whether information connected in one clipping was, perhaps, also repeated in another clipping and that is so, Mr Chairman, and this is not the only section that this has been done. There are other sections where they have used up to six statements regarding the same incident to prove their point or to try to prove their point.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis, you say that your act was a successful act until the setback at Bophuthatswana.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What I said, Mr Chairman, was what happened after confirmed that we were right in our assessment and that it would mobilise the Afrikaner leaders to act and to come together and to forget their differences and to try and stop the rot.

MR BIZOS: And the intention was to create chaos and mayhem?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Which would result, which would cause that effect, yes.

MR BIZOS: Therefore, it is not the journalists that are misinterpreting the situation, you yourself say you succeeded, you created chaos and mayhem?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, but I said the extent of the chaos, because we wanted the minimum of problems to take place, the extent of the chaos has been exaggerated by journalists.

MR BIZOS: But you yourself say that it was a success and if the final success had come about at Bophuthatswana, then it would have been a 100% success.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I was referring to the reaction amongst right wing leaders, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because it was, in that respect, a success.

MR BIZOS: Was the CP ...

CHAIRPERSON: How, sorry.

MR BIZOS: Was the CP involved in Bophuthatswana?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, they were, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Who, by who?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To the best of my knowledge, Dr Hartzenberg, himself was present.

MR BIZOS: Oh, let us hear about that. What role did Mr Hartzenberg play in the attempt to ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Prevent ...

MR BIZOS: ... use violence ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To ...

MR BIZOS: ... against Bophuthatswana.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, I did not say he was there to use violence against Bophuthatswana, I said he was there to prevent violence being perpetrated against Bophuthatswana.

MR BIZOS: The Government of the day was the National Party.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The Government of Bophuthatswana, Mr Chairman, was the Government under President Mangope.

MR BIZOS: The Government of South Africa was under the control of the National Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman, but Bophuthatswana was an independent ...

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... state

MR BIZOS: Yes. Let us work on the premise that you are working on, that it was, indeed, an independent state.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is a constitutional fact, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes, let us even work on that premise. I do not want to argue the situation on a political basis as to whether it was a legitimate state or not. Let us work on your premise. The South African Government and Mr Derby-Lewis is a South African, of course, I beg your pardon, Mr Hartzenberg, is a South African citizen and a political leader in South Africa not in Bophuthatswana?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Was an attempt made by certain sections of the community to buttress up Mr Mangope's regime and to take over in order to avoid the process that had started for a united South Africa?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman, in Mr Bizos' ...

MR BIZOS: Did Mr Hartzenberg take part in the events and was he in any way responsible for the shooting that there was done in Bophuthatswana during that attempt?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I was not present on the ground, I am not qualified to comment on that.

MR BIZOS: Was it policy of the Conservative Party to have heavily armed people in bakkies, on bakkies, on their motor cars to go in with arms and kill innocent people in Bambatha and in Mafekeng? Did he make himself party to this?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I testified earlier, Mr Chairman, that there was no written policy ever, from the CP's part, regarding violence, but that the status quo, the facts of the situation was different.

MR BIZOS: Was he party to any act which the Bophuthatswana army had to repel?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I said, Mr Chairman, I am not aware of what happened on the ground ...

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... and I am not qualified to comment on that.

MR BIZOS: You see, have you been called a racist, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Many times, Mr Chairman. I have discovered that when liberals have no other criticism, they resort to this hoary old chestnut, because it is very difficult to dispute something like that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you regret that an Air Zimbabwe pilot put his brakes on so hard as to brake, as to have a tyre burst in order to avoid a Black person on the runway at Jan Smuts Airport?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not express regret over that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, we will prove what your statement was.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: You think so, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you ever say that the solution to South Africa's problems was compulsory sterilisation of Black people?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, it is interesting that Mr Bizos raises that point, because that whole issue was the subject of a court case where I sued the then member of Parliament for Krugersdorp for lying in a propaganda piece of his and the lie was contained in that very statement which I took, it was an allegation by a journalist, that I had made that statement and I took the matter, Mr Chairman, to the Media Council, because I could not, at that stage, afford legal representative otherwise I would have really taken more serious action. I took the matter to the Media Council and at the Media Council, ruled in my favour that, in fact, I had not made that statement and when the journalist concerned was asked to produce the tape, because I insisted with journalists, because by that stage I had learnt what devious means these liberal journalists used to mislead the public, Mr Chairman, I insisted on the journalist concerned sitting there with a tape recorder to record every word we said. Mr Chairman, when the Media Council called for the production of that tape, as is now the case, apparently, with these tapes here, they were untraceable and then the story came back from the Editor that it had been taped over. Very conveniently taped over so that they could not produce the tape which would support what I had said, because I took that precaution. So, what Mr Bizos is now propagating there, Mr Chairman, is a blatant lie.

MR BIZOS: Well, let us see, I do not want to give you too, to take up too much time on this. You actually sued Mr Wessels and the Nationalist Party for calling you a racist?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I sued Mr ...

MR BIZOS: Just answer the question.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, not for calling me a racist. I sued him for lying about me in a propaganda document.

MR BIZOS: Yes, which said that you were a racist?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Which said that I said that statement that you ...

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... produced.

MR BIZOS: I know about that case and I am going to put it to you and I will put it briefly and, I believe, accurately and just give me an opportunity so that we can get on with it. You sued and they asked for absolution and absolution was granted. Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: And they appealed and the court in the Transvaal said that absolution should not be granted, should not have been granted?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Which gave you an opportunity to set the matter down in plain damages against Mr Wessels and the National Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What Mr Bizos omits to mention, Mr Chairman, was that in the judgement by Judges Kriegler and Joffe, I think it was, they actually took an unprecedented step and they awarded interim costs in my favour because of the circumstances surrounding the case.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And it cost the National Party, in my estimation, something like R45 000,00 in those interim costs. I had no costs, I had no money available, Mr Chairman, to once again go back to the process and to find myself in front of the same magistrate who had perpetrated that dastardly deed and I had no reason to expect, Mr Chairman, that I was going to receive justice from him again, because he had already perpetrated an open injustice.

MR BIZOS: Yes. What you say about the costs may be correct, but what you omit to say is that the magistrate recused himself and that the case had to start over again, but you forgot about it and you gave up your action.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What I also omitted to say, Mr Chairman, was that the magistrate concerned was very shortly after that promoted to Regional Magistrate and he was a known member of the Broederbond operating in Krugersdorp and I believe it was due to his Broederbond connections that I was subjected to these disgraceful tactics.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Mr Derby-Lewis, do you still believe in separate development?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I do, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR BIZOS: Does it follow that you do not accept a united South Africa with a common citizenship if you are a believer in separate development?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I do not believe that a united South Africa is the solution for what is a problem which was resolved elsewhere in the world through separate development.

MR BIZOS: Do you not believe that the problems of the country can be solved with, in a united South Africa with a common citizenship?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, it is not only that I do not believe it, but it is quite obvious to me, if one looks at what is happening in KwaZulu Natal, that it is a problem, it, and I do not think it will be resolved. It is ...

MR BIZOS: So that as you are sitting there now you think that the war is still going on. Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I believe it is still going on and is there, in KwaZulu Natal certainly, and is there anything to prove me wrong.

MR BIZOS: And that the attempts to have a united South Africa with a common citizenship, certainly, are not consistent with separate development that you believe in?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman

MR BIZOS: And if you have an opportunity, presumably, you will feel obliged, will you not, to try and change the preamble of the countries Constitution?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I believe that I have done my bit as far as the freedom struggle of my people is concerned. I have been detained in prison for almost four and a half years, I have been able to see my grandchildren once in that time, because I did not want to subject them to the, sorry, Mr Chairman, there is somebody else talking on the line here, I cannot.

CHAIRPERSON: I appeal again, please, do not make your comments whilst the witness is giving evidence. We cannot hear properly what he is saying.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I was explaining, that in the four and a half years, approximately, that I have been detained I have had access to my grandchildren once, because I do not believe that the prison environment is a suitable environment for them to be exposed to. I have been isolated from my friends and family. I explained the problem with the visits which has only recently been remedied, Mr Chairman, and I, quite honestly, must say, in addition, that I really do not know what the peoples' reaction will be to what I have done. I do not know, because I have not discussed it with them, because I think that it would be presumptuous of me in the first instance.

Mr Chairman, I have already, should my application be successful, I have already decided that I am going to confine myself to my family and my friends who have stood by me so loyally during this period and I think I owe them something. Besides that, I owe it to myself. I love my children, I love my grandchildren and that is one of the things that I regret about this whole situation and that is that I have not been able to effect this love. I have even compensated with, sorry Mr Chairman, did you want to say something.

CHAIRPERSON: I do not know whether this answer you are giving is an answer to the question, as to whether, as far as you are concerned, the war in which you considered yourself engaged, whether in your mind, that war is still carrying on, ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But ...

CHAIRPERSON: ... as far as you are concerned.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am trying to explain this, Mr Chairman, and ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, you have told us that you have been in prison ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and your personal difficulties while you were in prison.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right and ...

CHAIRPERSON: Now, that does not answer, pointedly, the question. In your mind, are you committed to the ongoing war in which you were involved?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am no longer committed to any arms struggle.

CHAIRPERSON: That is all.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In fact, I must qualify that and say also, Mr Chairman, that I see a ray of sunshine in the present Constitution of this country which purports to uphold the self-determined, self-determination rights of peoples and I believe that that could be peacefully resolved and I am sure that my party is already discussing along those lines, but as far as I am concerned, the arms struggle is over and, as far as I am concerned, it would appear even that my political career is over, that I have no further purpose as far as my people are concerned.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby- ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, might this be a convenient stage to take the adjournment?

MR BIZOS: Chair, if I may finish just ...

CHAIRPERSON: Please do.

MR BIZOS: ... the point ...

CHAIRPERSON: Please do.

MR BIZOS: ... Mr Chairman. Listen, Mr Derby-Lewis, please.

"We, the people of South Africa, believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.".

Do you accept that or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I believe that my people are entitled to a territory where they are able to exercise their right of self-determination.

MR BIZOS: You, therefore, disagree with the first, one of the first principles of the Constitution,

"that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our ...",

you do not believe in that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am not totally familiar with the new Constitution, but I would interpret the clause relating to the self-determination right of peoples as in conflict with that.

MR BIZOS: And also that there must be a common citizenship? Do you believe in that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as far as my people are concerned, as far as I am concerned, I acknowledge what appears, I take note of what appears in the preamble, but I also say that I have finished with a political role ...

MR BIZOS: The question ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... and I am sure that my people, the leaders of my people will not leave it at that.

MR BIZOS: The question was do you believe in a common citizenship which is inconsistent with your policy of separate development?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I do not believe in that, Mr Chairman, no.

MR BIZOS: I did not hear the answer, Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I said I do not believe in that, but I ...

MR BIZOS: You do not believe in that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: It may be a convenient stage, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will take a short adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION:

CLIVE DERBY-LEWIS: (Still under oath).

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Derby-Lewis, I want to turn to your acquisition of the gun which you handed over to Mr Walus in order that he may kill Chris Hani. Firstly, let us start with your reason for acquiring this gun. In your statements you have said that you acquired this gun primarily for self protection. Is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. You also told us that you understood the Kimberley resolution as a call to collect arms so that if the de Klerk Government or any other Government prohibited people from acquiring firearms, there would be a stockpile available to the right for self-protection?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I cannot recall that I said that that was decided at the actual congress, but this was common cause and there were already stories floating around that weapons ...

MR BIZOS: I see.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... were going to be confiscated.

MR BIZOS: Even before the August 1992 Kimberley Conference?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I know that people have been talking about this for quite a while, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Before August 1992?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As far as I know as well, yes.

MR BIZOS: You set yourself up as one of the Voorbokke, so to speak, of doing something about the cause of the right?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, nothing that I did was in terms of setting myself up as one of the Voorbokke. I did it because I believed it to be necessary and part of, in terms of the climate which existed.

MR BIZOS: Well, I called you a Voorbok, because you were ahead even of Dr Ferdi Hartzenberg and other Conservative Party leaders. You were, apparently, a person who just did not talk, but you made, took practical steps in order to further the cause?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Right, now, how serious is, are you in giving evidence that this gun was acquired for that purpose and not for the purposes of assassination. If it is the only gun that you obtained for this purpose of a period of at least nine months, from the time of the conference at Kimberley, and on your present evidence even longer, because you told us that they were stored even before. One gun with a silencer for the purposes of arming the Volk.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, if everyone participated, all I needed was one weapon.

MR BIZOS: But you already had two, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is not correct, Mr Chairman, I only had one pistol.

MR BIZOS: Only one pistol?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Oh, and was this ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And that was ...

MR BIZOS: ... acquired so that you could shoot with both hands?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was a 38 revolver, Mr Chairman, and I, while I can appreciate something like that appealing to Mr Bizos, that was not anything to do with the intentions behind the acquiring of the weapon.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, if you were serious about this mobilisation, surely you would have tried to do an arms stockpile for the benefit of the rights of the Volk?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, my perception was that that was not necessary, that the Volk would do that side of it themselves and that my responsibility was to prepare them for that.

MR BIZOS: And you were rather fortunate and in a better position in order to stockpile these arms, if your evidence is true, ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not ...

MR BIZOS: ... because you have, you had ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Excuse me.

MR BIZOS: ... come across a person that had, apparently, a stockpile of arms which were stolen from the army, according to the evidence?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not know that, Mr Chairman. I did not know where he was going to get the weapons from and I did not ask him either.

MR BIZOS: Yes. In relation to the reason and manner in which you acquired this gun, when was it agreed that you would get the gun for Mr Walus to do the shooting?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He asked me for the gun in the latter part of March, Mr Chairman. Up to that stage I had thought he was going to use his own weapon, because I knew he had a weapon.

MR BIZOS: And if anyone said that there was agreement between you about securing a gun at the end of 1992, would that be false?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That would be false, Mr Chairman, yes.

MR BIZOS: Will you please turn to R4, page 51, paragraph 21.

MR PRINSLOO: What page number, Mr Bizos?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 21, not 51, 21.

MR PRINSLOO: 21.

MR BIZOS: According to the notes made at the time, it would appear that, - I just want to get the correct - of your interrogation on the 20th of April, which appears on page 19, 93, it is noted that you said,

"During the end of 1992, a decision was taken that Kuba would do the shooting and would be responsible for obtaining the firearm.".

Were you correctly recorded there or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, this statement is totally devoid of any factual basis and, in fact, this statement to which Mr Bizos is referring is not in my words and I have called for the tape to try and compare this with what is on the tape and I have been told that the tape is not available, but, Mr Chairman, it must be clear and we, I am sure Mr Bizos will ask me out about certain other details here, that this could not have been correct.

MR BIZOS: You say that you never said anything of the sort?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You are not saying that you were in any way compelled to say something like this?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am saying that I was under a general air of compulsion throughout my Section 29 interrogation, under a general air of compulsion.

MR BIZOS: Please make up your mind, if you can, whether if you said this, you said it, because you were compelled to say something which was not true?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I said that I did not say that, I could not remember saying that and I wanted to check what had been on the tape in order to refresh my memory as this interrogation was taken under extremely adverse conditions, as it will be apparent from here, it was on the 20th at 04H45 after I had been in detention since the 17th of April with very little sleep and with a lot of discomfort and pressure and harassment, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: No, please try and answer the question directly. Are you saying that you did not say it or that if you did say it, it was some form of compulsion that led you to say it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am saying that I did not say it.

MR BIZOS: You did not say it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And if I was and there was a possibility that I was compelled to say this, but I would not have made this statement in my right mind, because I knew that that statement was incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that, you know, you are a sufficiently experienced man to know the difference between making a statement under compulsion and not making a statement at all. Now, either you made this statement or you did not make it. There may be some statements which you may have made under compulsion with which you do not agree now. Is this one of those, that you made a statement, but you disagree with it now or did you not make that statement at all?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I could not have made this statement in my right mind, because it was not factual.

MR BIZOS: The section at the, Section 20 before, did you make that statement?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, this whole document is not in my words.

MR BIZOS: Please ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I would not have made statements which appear here.

MR BIZOS: Please tell us whether you said what is contained in the short paragraph 20, whether you said that or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I could have said that in, but not in this context, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You could have said it, but?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In another context, at another, discussing something else.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this paragraph 22, Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: 20, We will come to 22, Mr Chairman. What is the problem? In what context other than that within the paragraph itself was it being said?

MR PRINSLOO OBJECTS:

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, in as far as this statement is concerned, we have asked on numerous occasions for the tapes to be made available. As is clearly, from reading this document, not in the words of the first person making a statement and up till now nobody produced those tapes, nobody has come forward to explain where they are and, secondly, Mr Chairman, this is not the original document. We asked for the original document and so far it has not been produced.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will bear that in mind when it decides on what value to give to all this evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: Right. With respect, Mr Chairman, the difficulty is how can the applicant refresh his memory from a document which is not in his words whereas there is a document, a tape available, which will reveal his precise words. That is the objection we made from the instance of this particular enquiry, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: For once and for all, Mr Bizos, can we put to rest this whole question of what has happened to these tapes and why they are not made available.

MR BIZOS: We have not given answer to that, we did not have them, Mr Chairman. The Commission had them, the police officers had them, the Commission had it. They say they handed everything over. We did not have the tape. I am entitled, with respect, in the absence of the tape, to lead the person who transcribed those tapes, that person may or may not be believed or the person that actually put this document together, whether this is what is said or not. I am entitled to use the document at this stage and, as you indicated, Mr Chairman, the weight to be placed upon the document will depend up on what evidence follows.

JUDGE WILSON: Who took ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, ...

JUDGE WILSON: Who took this statement. Is this Captain Deeltlief's one?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: But I understood, Mr Bizos, that you said at the beginning of proceedings today that Captain Holmes was on the way here and he would be able to say what happened to the tape and could it stand over till then.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, where is he?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, according to my, he is in the vicinity, Mr Chairman. He says that everything that he had, he handed over, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Mpshe, can you tell us what has happened to these tapes.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the tapes referred to are tapes number three and four and Captain Holmes indicated to me last week Thursday, that he was going to look for them and when he came back to me today he indicated that these tapes were used by a Mr Deetliefs and he is going to look for Mr Deetliefs to come and explain as to what happened to the tapes, as well as to explain the statement and he has not come back to me.

CHAIRPERSON: So, it is not correct that they are in the possession of the Commission?

MR MPSHE: It is not correct. I have got a note which...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand.

MR MPSHE: ... Sergeant Holmes wrote to me that he is going to look for them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, you are entitled to put your questions and you heard that these tapes are not being held back from you for some other purpose. So, you either agree to the questions that are put to you or reserve your right to answer questions if you have some doubt about them. Let us proceed.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I wish to reserve my right to answer any questions in connection with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe there are questions in certain paragraphs which might correctly reflect the position.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that will then be used to give credibility, possibly, to this document and I cannot, under those circumstances, answer. I wish to reserve my right regarding answering any of these questions at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not a question of giving credibility to this document. We are not concerned about this document, we are concerned about the evidence you are going to give as what you think is the right answer to the questions that are put. That is all. This document and its validity will depend upon how it was transcribed by whom and from what source, but until then questions are put fairly to you. You can answer those questions or if you have no recollection of the details then you may so, but to say that I am not going to answer any questions arising from this document, that is not permissible.

JUDGE WILSON: One of the problems, as I see it, Mr Chairman, is that Mr Bizos has been putting these questions as does this correctly record what you say, but the point the witness has made is, it does not purport to record what he says. This is a summary of what was said and I think, in fairness to the witness, it should be made clear he is not been asked to confirm the wording, but whether the context reflects what he said, not that it is something that he himself said.

MR BIZOS: Very well. Did you say to Captain Deetliefs that it was decided at the end of 1992 that Kuba would do the shooting?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Right. Did you say to the, to Captain Deetliefs that that was only decided at the end of March?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Can you suggest any possible reason that Mr, Captain Deetliefs would have written "at the end of 1992" if you had told him that it was in March?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not prepared to suggest anything in this ...

MR BIZOS: No comments.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... connection, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Right. Then can we go to paragraph 22,

"A person, Faan Venter, as far as my knowledge goes, moved to Krugersdorp.".

Is that right? Did you say that or words to that effect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have already testified that it was a fact that Mr Venter moved to ...

MR BIZOS: Is the answer yes,

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Krugersdorp on ...

MR BIZOS: You said words to that effect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... on other occasions. I have said that.

MR BIZOS: Yes, let us try and make progress by answering the questions directly, please. "During 1992 or early January 1993 he, Faan Venter, contacted Lewis and went to see him at home. He informed Lewis that he had moved to Krugersdorp and wished to become involved with the CP.".

Did you say words to that effect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, this information in this paragraph is totally incorrect. Mr Venter only moved to Krugersdorp sometime in February and contacted my wife late in February to tell him that he was in Krugersdorp.

MR BIZOS: So, you say that the time is wrong?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am saying this statement is not correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: The whole of it or is just the January 1993 that is incorrect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am saying I do not know where Captain Deetliefs got this information from, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You did not know that he came from Maritzburg?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not know until he informed me in March when he came to see me.

MR BIZOS: And is it correct that he came to you and told you that he wanted to be involved in the Conservative Party affairs?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not in this paragraph.

MR BIZOS: In paragraph 22.

JUDGE WILSON: The last sentence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, "by die KP betrokke was". When he saw me in March he did indicate that.

MR BIZOS: I see. So, again, it is just the time that is wrong.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I think I have replied to the question...

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... sufficiently well.

MR BIZOS: "During February 1993, Lewis contacted Faan

Venter telephonically and requested him to come and visit him at home.".

Did you say that or words to that effect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "Later in the day if, Lewis' memory does not fail him, Venter visited Lewis at home.".

Did you say words to that effect or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did Mr Venter not visit you at home?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that statement is not correct.

MR BIZOS: I am asking you, as a matter of fact, did Mr Venter not visit you at home?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the details, in terms of this, are incorrect. Mr Chairman, ...

MR BIZOS: Please answer the question.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... I have already testified that Mr Venter visited me at home ...

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... during March.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. You say that he did visit you, but it was not in February, but you say that it was in March?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Nor did I ...

JUDGE WILSON: He also says it was not as a result of a telephone call...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: ... asking him to come and visit, Mr Bizos. It is a big difference.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Not as a result of a telephone call?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: So, did he, when he did come and visit you, did he not first telephone you ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, ...

MR BIZOS: ... telephone him? You did not telephone him and you did not, he did not telephone you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have already indicated that when he contacted my residence, he got hold of my wife. My wife invited him over. He came in March.

MR BIZOS: Right. Let us carry on. Did you say words to the effect that,

"Lewis had discussed with Venter where he, Lewis, could obtain a pistol"?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have already testified that when he visited I jokingly requested, because I was not sure of him, I jokingly requested of him as to whether he knew where I could get a weapon and he indicated that he did.

MR BIZOS: "And the reason why Venter was specifically approached was because he was the most recent person who launched political activities in the area.".

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is rubbish, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, could you please help me, because I have some difficulty in understanding precisely what it means. What does it mean to you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: This statement says clearly, Mr Chairman,

"The reason why Venter specifically was approached was because he was the most recent person who launched political activities in the area.".

This means nothing to me, Mr Chairman, and it is a lot of rubbish.

MR BIZOS: Do you not understand it, like me?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, this is rubbish. I have said, ...

MR BIZOS: So, ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... how many times do I have to say that?

CHAIRPERSON: Let us get on, Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

"Lewis was specifically asked for an unlicensed firearm."

When he came to me in March, I testified already, that is so, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: What reason did you have to believe that he was a person who was capable of supplying you with arms?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not believe it, Mr Chairman. As I said, I ...

CHAIRPERSON: He said he cracked a joke.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... I, out of the blue, I asked him that.

MR BIZOS: Out of?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Out of the blue, I jokingly asked him to see whether he perhaps was such a person.

MR BIZOS: For how long had you known him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I had not seen him prior to this for some years. I think something like four years.

MR BIZOS: Despite that, you could trust him fully?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have already stated that I was very cautious and that is why I put it like that, so that if he started getting serious I could say it was only a joke I made.

MR BIZOS: I am going to put to you that as in connection with the list, both you and your wife, are not telling the truth in relation to the circumstances of the purpose for which this gun was obtained.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That, Mr Chairman, is an untruth.

MR BIZOS: It is an untruth. Let us just test that. On page R, in pile R4, page 334.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: First or second portion of R4, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: R4, page 334. It is the second.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. You are there recorded as saying,

"I took the firearm for the first time out after arriving from the Cape. I think it was the Saturday, the 3rd of April, the Saturday before the 10th of April. Let me just be sure. I showed it to my wife. She knew I was looking for weapons in case the Government should withdraw the licensed weapons. She just looked and said that it was interesting. I said to my wife that it was an unlicensed firearm. Yes, I said here is an unlicensed firearm. Here I have now made a start.".

Did you say that to your wife?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, I did not. That is not correct.

MR BIZOS: That is not correct. You also give, gave evidence and you say how this gun was delivered to you on the, by innocent people on the pretence that it was a jersey or pullover.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That information was included in my application, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. What does this gun weigh?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not sure, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: More or less. It is a fairly heavy firearm, is it not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, it is not, Mr Chairman, it was a pistol. Something which one can carry in the hand.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but there are light ones and there are heavy ones. Which category did this one fall into?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as far as pistols are concerned, this was a 9mm pistol and did not weigh any more than other 9mm pistols that I know of, except, perhaps, for the pistol I have read about, and that is the Glock one which is constructed out of some composite material.

MR BIZOS: By all accounts, it could hardly be compared to the weight of a jersey?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was nothing to do with the weight of a jersey, Mr Chairman. The idea was that it had to be wrapped in a jersey.

MR BIZOS: Yes. You see, I am going to suggest to you, for a number of reasons which may emerge in the evidence more fully later, that you and your wife did not implicate Mr Venter and you tell a highly improbable story of how he came to give you this gun without knowing for what purpose it was going to be used.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that testimony was delivered by Mr Venter when he was called as a witness to our trial and, in fact, it was on the basis of his testimony that the Judge President of the Witwatersrand decided to indemnify him from any prosecution. So, I assume, he must have believed him.

MR BIZOS: If we may turn to the application of Mr Walus. He says ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, what bundle, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: It is at bundle A.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Bundle A.

MR BIZOS: His application, paragraph, page seven, paragraph eight.

Yes, Chair, not number, it is the third last from the bottom, Mr Chairman. We numbered ours for my easy identification, Mr Chairman. You take the one line as a paragraph at the bottom of page seven and go back.

"Like many others ...",

on the right.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I have it. Excuse me.

MR BIZOS: "Like many others on the right, he discussed what would be done to stop the de Klerk handover and like many others he laboured, harboured at the time vague plans to halt the de Klerk handover. Some of these discussions occurred with Mr Derby-Lewis and with others in the Conservative Party.".

Now, were you aware of any discussions between Mr Derby-Lewis, between yourself - I beg your pardon - between Mr Walus and others in the Conservative Party? I will repeat it for the sake of clarity. Were you aware of any discussions between Mr Walus and with others in the Conservative Party?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I was not, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did, do you remember saying that when you heard of the murder you thought that he may have been set up?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did say that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Who did you think might have set him up?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was a knee-jerk reaction, because I could not...

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It was a knee-jerk reaction on my behalf, Mr Chairman, because I could not believe what I was reading in the media.

MR BIZOS: But what went through your mind? Who could possibly have set him up if your case is that he and you jointly decided to have Mr Hani killed? Who could have set him up?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I had no idea, Mr Chairman. I only expressed that sentiment, because the circumstances surrounding his actions were very strange to me.

MR BIZOS: But what was so strange when you and he had agreed that you, Hani should be killed? What was strange and what was it that you gave an idea that he was set up?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, when we were planning and discussing the whole matter, during the discussions certain security precautions were discussed. I mean, Walus said he was going to recce Mr Hani's house and he was going to make sure that his car was not seen there too often with false number plates. He was also considering whether he would camouflage himself, because he has a very prominently coloured hair and that would have made him very easily identifiable. So, these were part of the details which he was mentioning to me as part of his planning and that is why, when I saw what happened, that he had not camouflaged his car and that he had not disguised himself and he went in in broad daylight, it was really strange to me.

MR BIZOS: The circumstances that you mentioned would indicate to you that he did it not in accordance with a plan?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not in accordance with the indications that I had of the way ...

MR BIZOS: That you had in mind?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... he was going to operate. No, no, that he was going to operate. He had

MR BIZOS: He was going to ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... carte blanche on the arrangements, yes.

MR BIZOS: But now, he may have been negligent in his conduct, but why should that have given you the idea that he was set up by anybody.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I could never believe that, with my knowledge of Mr Walus, that he would be negligent in his conduct, ...

MR BIZOS: Because he is a ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... because ...

MR BIZOS: Because he is a professional killer or because he had special qualities in relation to the performance of this act?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, because it was totally out of character.

MR BIZOS: What portion of his character was it out of?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: He was not a reckless sort of a person, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: He was not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: A reckless sort of a person and to me the whole thing ...

MR BIZOS: How did you know that he would not be reckless about an assassination?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not know, Mr Chairman, but I still felt that that was strange as to what happened.

MR BIZOS: Did you, perhaps, ask him whether he had killed anybody before in order to satisfy yourself that he was a fit and proper person chosen to perform the act?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: On no occasion, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you have confidence that he would do a professional job?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I identified him as a steady sort of a person and he was calm and he came across as being competent.

MR BIZOS: Did you discuss with him whether he had had any military training?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not, Mr Chairman, but I knew that he was involved with weapons.

MR BIZOS: He was involved?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: With weapons. That he had his own weapon and that people use to take their weapons to him on a plot which, I believe, the family owned outside Pretoria, where they actually use to test them and ...

MR BIZOS: Which persons' weapons were tested on his brother's farm?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I do not know, Mr Chairman, ...

MR BIZOS: Where ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... but I knew that they were tested, because ...

MR BIZOS: How ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... he told me he had done these tests.

MR BIZOS: In what context did he tell you that he had tested other peoples' weapons at his brother's farm?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, ...

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To the best of my knowledge, a very good friend of his testified to that effect in the trial.

MR BIZOS: No, I asked you what knowledge you had of his ability to carry out this important, to you, important task before he was chosen to commit the deed?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I had no reason to doubt him, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Bizos, sorry to interrupt you. Mr Derby-Lewis, the, once you use the words "set up", does that not suggest involvement of other people beyond the two of you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I agree that it suggests that, Mr Chairman, but I had no knowledge of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it is an amazing term to use in the context of what has happened, is it not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, it was my immediate reaction upon hearing of the circumstances.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But on what basis, I think that was the question, to which I am not sure we got an answer. It is one thing to say somebody acted negligently, but it is quite a different thing to suggest the possible involvement of other people, because inherent in the use of the words "set up", as I have already indicated to you, there is a suggestion of involvement by some other people.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman, and I can assure you that on the right, we were almost paranoiac, eventually, in our suspicion of people, because of the extent to which the de Klerk regime had infiltrated the various right wing organisations and perpetrated all sorts of treachery from within those organisations. So, that was, my immediate reaction was, yes, it must be a set up, he would not have done that the way he did it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You, did you feel that somebody or some other people might have come to know about the plan or the plot?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not know, Mr Chairman. I did not know, but I...

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, I am asking, did you think that somebody could have come to know about that plan?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: When I saw his ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... behaviour, I thought it was a possibility, but I knew it was not from my side. That is why I believed that he had been set up.

MR BIZOS: Did it occur to you that it might have been Mr Faan Venter who knew something?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, Mr Faan Venter knew nothing.

MR BIZOS: Or Mr Kemp who knew something about the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Kemp knew nothing about anything planned between Mr Walus and myself, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Or Mrs Durant or, possibly, her husband that delivered the gun saying that they thought it was a jersey?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, they knew nothing about that.

MR BIZOS: Or Mr Clarke?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, Mr Clarke was totally not involved. I have testified to the fact that Walus and I planned and did the whole thing together and nobody else knew, Mr Chairman. I specifically protected everybody that I had to approach for assistance, because of the danger of their being arrested and being involved.

MR BIZOS: Or ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I protected them from by excluding the knowledge from them.

MR BIZOS: Or a Mr Visser?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Visser?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Who is Mr Visser, Mr Chairman? Sorry, is this this chap who is going to testify here about some ridiculous story about a cheque for my legal costs?

MR BIZOS: Well, once you raise it, perhaps we should look at it. (Disruptive clapping by the audience)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Victory, victory George.

MR BIZOS: He says ...

CHAIRPERSON: Who are we talking about?

MR BIZOS: It is a document which was handed to us by the Commission under cover of a letter of the 6th of August 1997, Mr Chairman, with an extract from an application for amnesty by one ...

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the copy of, the copy is on its way.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, we have no copy.

MR BIZOS: A copy, Mr Derby-Lewis. Apparently, Mr Visser, is applying for amnesty, among other things, the, number eight, "doelwit diefstal",

"JCI pension fund cheque to the value of R3 68/9 182, 65 cent. Account opened by Commandant Roodt and committed by the members.".

Who is Commandant Roodt?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not sure, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Do you know a Commandant Roodt?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not sure. I have met many people in Krugersdorp and I cannot remember, specifically, this gentleman, but it is possible that I had met him.

MR BIZOS: Well, try and think how many Roodts' do you know who would have the title of Commandant?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As I said, Mr Chairman, I cannot place the gentleman, but it is quite possible that I have met him during the course of my activities in Krugersdorp.

CHAIRPERSON: You are talking about Commandant Roodt or the man Visser?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: About Commandant Roodt, yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Well, do you know J M Visser, A J?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not sure, Mr Chairman. The name does not press a face before me, ...

MR BIZOS: Well, ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... but, as I say, once again, I may know him when I see him.

MR BIZOS: Well, he will apparently appear in support of this and you will see him and we can, perhaps, take it up then?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is fine, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: But let us concentrate on Commandant Roodt. Do you know a person called Roodt or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As I said, Mr Chairman, ...

CHAIRPERSON: He said he knows several people by that name.

MR BIZOS: Well, tell us who the Roodts are that you know?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Fine, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: How many Roodts do you know?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I ...

MR BIZOS: Let us start with number one.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I do not even ...

MR BIZOS: Which Roodt do you know?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, please. I have already stated that I am not even sure if I know this Commandant Roodt. I did not talk about the Roodts, I spoke about this Commandant Roodt.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I do not know whether I know him.

MR BIZOS: Do you know anybody who prides himself in the name of Roodt?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I cannot remember offhand, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: You cannot remember?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: You cannot remember coupling the name Roodt with any person that you can think of at the moment?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: We will look into that ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Good.

MR BIZOS: ... a little further later. Edwin Clarke, who is Edwin Clarke?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Edwin Clarke, Mr Chairman, I know from his willingness to come along to my home and to repair my computer and my wife's computed whenever it developed some sort of a bug or another.

MR BIZOS: And the person who regularly appears, whose name regularly appears in your wife's diary?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is right, Mr Chairman, in connection with computer matters.

MR BIZOS: And, at any rate, we hear that he is a bachelor and he use to come for breakfast and other little ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman, ...

MR BIZOS: ... conveniences.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... and he was not the only bachelor who use to come for breakfast.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well, let us confine ourselves to him and we will look into the others later.

"Edwin Clarke received the cheque for the person by the name of Dillus and who worked at JCI.".

Now, you see, if this statement is correct, Clarke was not a, just an ordinary person coming for breakfast and looking after the computers, he received a stolen cheque from JCI for the sum of R369 182,56. Have you got any knowledge about that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, I have not, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did nobody ever mention this to you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Never, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: We will deal with it later.

JUDGE WILSON: Was it a stolen cheque, Mr Bizos, or did he ...

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

JUDGE WILSON: Was it a stolen cheque or did Mr Clarke steal it?

MR BIZOS: No, it was a ...

JUDGE WILSON: "Mr Clarke then decided to use the funds.". It appears Mr Clarke decided not to pay the money to where it should have gone, but to use it for some other purpose.

MR BIZOS: The rest of it shows that, well, I take the point, but for my purposes either interpretation is correct, but thank you Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have no objection, whatsoever, to Mr Bizos producing this document and questioning me regarding this, what appears in this document. No objection whatsoever.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Derby-Lewis. Now, he is a person who either received a cheque or the proceeds of the cheque. You know nothing about that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Nothing at all, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "These funds would originally go to the

Volksvront for the purchase of two-way radios.".

Did you know anything about that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, if my memory serves me correctly, the Volksvront was formed after my arrest. So, I do not know how that could possibly be true and I certainly have no knowledge of it.

MR BIZOS: You did not know about anybody wanting to use stolen money for two-way radios?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "Mr Clarke then decided to utilise the funds for the legal costs of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.".

You do not know anything about that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Nothing, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "As already known to the Committee, he applies for amnesty for the murder on Mr Chris Hani of the ANC."

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes, that is correct.

"I personally was against the murder of Mr Hani, because we had positive information that Mr Hani and Mrs Winnie Mandela wished to establish together a political party.".

Now, if this is correct, it would appear that this Mr Visser knew about the talk or plans to kill Mr Hani.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Visser knew nothing about plans to kill Mr Hani, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: I see and he says that he was against it. Did anybody, did you get knowledge of anybody in the, among the rightists that they were against the murder of Hani for the reasons stated by Mr Visser?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, he said "ek, persoonlik", Mr Chairman. He did not say anything about the right.

MR BIZOS: And that there were, at least, it is clear that there were discussions?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Would he discuss this matter with himself. Is that what Mr Bizos is suggesting, Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Oh, no, what I am suggesting is that the statement clearly indicates that there may have been, there must have been discussions if he expressed that he was against this for the reasons that he states.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I cannot comment on that, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "It would have the effect that particularly the youth would vote for them. I reported to Commandant Roodt to this effect. Roodt then also, himself, took control of this operation and saw to it that the funds would not go to Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.".

Do you know anything about that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Now, do you say that this, was it generally known that Mr Clarke was a regular visitor to your house to persons such as Mr Visser and others in right wing circles?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I had no idea of any connection that Mr Clarke had with anybody, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: "Mr Chris Hani was murdered on 10 April 1992.".

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I would like to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that Mr Bizos has conveniently missed one sentence here. After the sentence which says,

"Roodt himself took control of this operation and saw to it that the funds did not go to Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.",

and then the next sentence is,

"the cheque was originally banked on 30 March 1993."

MR BIZOS: I am sorry, please assure, let me assure you that I am going to ask you lots of questions about that and I did not leave it out deliberately. I had a mark and I thought that I had read it, but let me ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: ... let me come.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Clive-Derby Lewis,

"The cheque was originally banked on 30 March 1993.".

You know nothing about that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I, my question is that if this cheque was supposed to cover my legal costs and it was banked on the 30th of March 1993, how would they know I was going to incur any legal costs?

MR BIZOS: Well, you may, well let me ask you this, did you not think of the possibility that Mr Walus may be arrested?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, because ...

MR BIZOS: And did you not think of the possibility that you may be arrested?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, that was the reason for restricting the information to two people, Walus and myself.

MR BIZOS: Yes and what was Mr Walus' financial position at that time?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have no idea, Mr Chairman. I never discussed it with him.

MR BIZOS: Was he going to be compensated in any way for his successful act?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: By me, Mr Chairman? I had nothing to compensate him with. Everyone knows my financial position quite well.

MR BIZOS: But people who stole money for the cause might have made some available?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But, Mr Chairman, that has not been proved and there is no connection, whatsoever, been proved between this money and myself.

MR BIZOS: Well, do not let us anticipate the proof at this stage.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It is outrageous.

MR BIZOS: Was it a coincidence, was it if, in fact, Mr Clarke was in some way involved in this and he was the person who had something to do with this l

The O’Malley Archives

Name: Clive John Derby-Lewis