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 It is the product of almost two decades of research and includes analyses, chronologies, historical documents, and interviews from the apartheid and post-apartheid eras.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: Mr Clive Derby-Lewis

1-12-1997: Day 4

Case No:

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman - thank you members of the Committee, we are ready to begin. Mr Chairman, we are still in the hands of my learned friends on the other side Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, the next witness will be Mrs Gaye, Derby-Lewis.

GAYE DERBY-LEWIS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, you are the wife of the applicant Mr Clive Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct that on the 21st of April 1993, you were arrested at your home in connection with the matter which is now being heard by the Committee?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it also correct that you were - on the 21st of April, you were detained in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And after your detention in terms of the Act, you were subsequently charged together with the two applicants, Mr Clive Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it also correct that you appeared in the Supreme Court in Johannesburg - together with the two applicants, on charges relating to the death of Mr Chris Hani as well as other related charges?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it also correct that you were subsequently acquitted by his Lordship Mr Justice Eloff - in this matter?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Clive Derby Lewis - your husband, was arrested prior to your detention on the 21st of April?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, is it correct that you were previously a member of the Nationalist Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Approximately when was this?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I joined the Nationalist Party in 1975, which was the time that I became a South African citizen.

MR PRINSLOO: For how long were you a member of the Nationalist Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was a member of the National Party until 1979 when I handed in my resignation because of the change of their policies.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you also - during the your membership of the Nationalist Party, employed by the Department of Information?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I worked for Doctor Connie Mulder for three and a half years in the information sector and I was sent around the world and I initiated a visitor's programme to this country.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage - the late Mr Connie Mulder, was he a member of the Nationalist Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he was a Cabinet Minister, he was the Minister of Information.

MR PRINSLOO: For how long were you employed by the Department of Information?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: For approximately three and a half years.

MR PRINSLOO: And after that, did you become involved in the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I remained outside politics since the time that I left the National Party and I was a founder member of the Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO: And your husband, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you meet him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I met him in the Conservative Party and we were married in 1986.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, in as far as your - what was your - did you occupy a particular office in the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I occupied statutory positions and I was also an employee. In the statutory side, I was member of the "Dag Bestuur", which is the Executive Council of the Transvaal, I was a member of the "Hoof Raad", which is the Head Council, I was a member of the Information Committee and various other Committees. All of these were - I was elected to these positions.

As far as employment was concerned, I was employed as a journalist and I edited the English pages of The Patriot, which was the Conservative Party's official mouthpiece.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you commence that position as the Editor of The Patriot?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 1987.

MR PRINSLOO: And since when were you a member of the "Dag Bestuur" - as you refer to it, of the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I was elected to that position - basically from the word go, every year from 1982, 1983 until the time that I was incarcerated. In other words, there were annual elections and I was elected just about every year to those positions.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you attend official meetings of the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you referring to public meetings or meetings of the Committee - meetings of the officials?

MR PRINSLOO: First of all, public meetings?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And meetings of the officials?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that on a regular basis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, will you describe to the Committee, what was the Conservative Party's policy - just in brief.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the Conservative Party's policy - as I saw it, was the continuation of the old National Party's policy and that was the reason why I left the National Party was because they changed their policy and the Conservative Party's policy was a confederation for the various peoples of South Africa.

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as the Conservative Party's policy is concerned, will you describe to the Committee how it developed and what was the climate that prevailed as from the late '80's?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The Conservative Party always believed in elections of course, there was a programme of principles and policy and these were ratified every year at various congresses. In 1987, the Conservative Party became the official opposition and we felt confident that by 1989 we would at least have some kind of power.

The prevailing thought at that time was that the 1989 election would produce what was known as a "hung parliament". When that didn't happen a lot of despair set in and that was culminated in the unbanning of the ANC and the Communist Party in 1990, which we believed Mr de Klerk didn't mandate for and from that time onwards the climate within the Conservative groupings became more and more one of despair and ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Will you just go a bit slower please?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry. Became one of despair and despite the fact that Mr de Klerk had promised to go back to the electorate before he brought in a new Constitution, he did do that and the climate in 1992 for example, was one of violence on both sides and an attitude within ourselves of: "What are we going to do to stop the treason".

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the Conservative Party's attitude and how were they going to stop?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the Conservative Party's attitude of course is articulated quite clearly in The Patriot. The Patriot was the mouthpiece of the Conservative party, no edition went out without the personal - you might say, signature of Doctor Treurnicht who was not the Executive Editor but was the Editor in Chief.

We handed in to the Committee a selection of quotes from The Patriot, where it was quite clear that some kind of drastic action would have to be done to stop what we saw coming and which eventually did come.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you see, what was coming - as you referred to?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, we saw the ANC and the Communist Party taking over.

MR PRINSLOO: Did the Conservative Party regard the ANC and the SACP as a threat or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that was manifested in the editorials and in the articles of The Patriot and also in numerous speeches made in parliament and it's all on hand for the record.

MR PRINSLOO: What was your relationship with the late Doctor Andries Treurnicht?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Both my husband and I had a fairly close relationship on a personal level. We were English speaking people and Clive had stood the 1984 election in Rosettenville and Doctor Treurnicht had asked him to stand there to test the urban English support and we got to know him fairly well. He represented to us the sort of person we wanted to follow.

MR PRINSLOO: At what level or to what extent was there any support for the Conservative Party at the time?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, in the early stages the English support wasn't very much, very high and it was for this reason that my husband and I were particularly active in trying to warn English speaker's of what we perceived to be a danger - obviously everything that I say here today is subjective, I know there are people here who do not agree with my politics but they will accept what I'm saying in the spirit in which it is said, and we formed various organisations and groups so that we could print information which we could distribute because there was really nothing in English in this country that would propagate a conservative point of view.

MR PRINSLOO: What position did you husband Mr Derby-Lewis, occupy in the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, my husband was on all of the Committees that I was on, he was also - after 1987, a caucus member and he was an official opposition shadow spokesman on economic affairs and was part of the policy making body.

MR PRINSLOO: How was he regarded and received or accepted by the public at large in as far as the Conservative Party was concerned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, unlike me, Clive was born and bred in this country, he's a third generation South African, he's completely bilingual and he is accepted in both Afrikaans and English speaking circles, so he was a person who straggled - as you might say, the cultural divide.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mrs Derby-Lewis, in this trial of the late Mr Chris Hani, there was reference made to a list that was drawn up and sent to a Mr Arthur Kemp.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And by whom was that list - that was sent to Mr Arthur Kemp, compiled?
MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I compiled that list.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, this particular list that you referred to which you compiled - I refer Mr Chairman, to the record - the transcript of the case record, volume two and the reference to page 82 where the list of names appear.

JUDGE WILSON: Which is the transcript, volume what?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, that's of the court transcript itself in the Supreme Court and it's volume two I'm referring to and at page 82 the names appear.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think it's R1.

MR PRINSLOO: ...[indistinct]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, it's R1 on the - that Mr Bizos submitted.

JUDGE WILSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: It is found in the large file.

MR PRINSLOO: At page 82 Mr Chairman - the file that Mr Justice Wilson's referring to, will that be page 82 - in the transcript itself and that's the typed page number.

JUDGE WILSON: On page 82, it's headed:

"Reply to the request for further and better particulars"

and then a list of names.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman. May I proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, in front of you now - at page 82 of the record, is a list of names.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you look at it please?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this the list of names which you compiled and submitted to Mr Arthur Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Will you please tell the Committee who is Mr Arthur Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Arthur Kemp is an old friend of mine, he is a journalist - a fellow journalist. I met him in the Conservative Party and he also worked for The Patriot.

He also helped me in the 1987 elections in Hillbrow and we were personal friends - he and his family. He also was a journalist of great perspicacity who was always willing to help me and he worked at The Citizen after leaving The Patriot.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it also correct that Mr Kemp was a former member of the South African Police - at that stage, the security branch?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I don't know, if he was - well, he was but I didn't know anything much about his background - he may have been. I think he was a member of the police, correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, when did you submit this list to Mr Arthur Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was sometime in - I think it was December, December 1992, or late December 1992, I'm not a 100% sure. I phoned him and I asked him if he had any information that he could give me on the type of houses these people lived in and their address and he said: "Yes, yes yes" and I faxed it to him and then I never got any reply.

MR PRINSLOO: And where did you fax it to - to his home?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I faxed it to The Citizen on an open fax - Citizen newspaper.

MR PRINSLOO: This particular list, was it hand-written or was it typed or ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it was typed on my computer and it was still on my computer when the police came to my house on the 17th of April and took the computers.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, for what reason did you send the list to Mr Kemp and what did you require - will you please tell the Committee?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I sent the list to Mr Kemp because he had access to a top newspaper library which I didn't have, although I had my own files and I had been writing a series of articles in The Patriot - which are on record, about the liberation gravy train and the people who were collecting money and who were getting funding and who were living in rather luxurious houses while they were working for the so-called: "oppressed".

I had written quite a few of them and at one stage I wrote an article about a Mr Nelson Mandela and Mrs Winnie Mandela - after information I had received from somebody in the Receiver of Revenue, that they were not being assessed for tax, which I considered to be something of public interest.

I checked out the documents that I had with somebody who was a tax expert and they confirmed the veracity of it and I wrote an article in The Patriot which was approved by the Conservative Party: Do Nelson and Winnie Pay Tax? - I have a copy of that here for the Committee if they wish.

I was contacted by the security police and asked where I got the information from and I said that: "As an journalist, I get a lot of information" and I was not prepared to tell them and that they should rather go and spend their time and energy finding out why people weren't paying tax rather than harassing people who report on people who are not paying tax.

They left me alone after that - and I do have a copy of the documentation here from the security police and also from the attorney who handled the matter at the time, so clearly the articles were having some kind of an effect. I had built up a series of files which I have also brought with me and during the trial I had those files to show Judge Eloff and I said to him I didn't want to burden the record but I wish I had burdened the record then perhaps he would have seen what I was about. However, he took my word for it but I do have these files here if the Committee would like to go through them.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the witness does available here a large amount of documents pertaining to newspaper reports etc., which was also presented to the Supreme Court at the time of the trial - it's referred to in the record but it's available but not copies have been made as it's a lot of volume, so I don't want to burden the record with it unless it's required by the Committee then it will be presented with copies.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you we'll decide at a later stage.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In the light of this, I had been on this - it wasn't only myself, other journalists were writing along the same lines and in fact there were articles in The New Nation, there was an article in the Sowetan, Ada Parker and various other people were talking about the so-called: "Gucci Revolutionaries" who are now becoming fat cats and so forth - it was a very important and current topic of conversation and so forth.

And then sometime in November 1992, I received a phone call from some friends of mine who's son was a computer expert and they said they had a computer which belonged to the ANC and there was a whole lot of documentation on it and would I be interested in seeing it - sorry, and I said: "Of course, what kind of information is it" and they said it's information from Shell House and how all these people are earning R2.500-00 a month and the shambles of trying to run everything and the inefficiency and all that sort of thing.

So I phoned up Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg and I said I had this information and would he like to see it because he was due to make a speech in Parliament at the opening of Parliament in 1993 and seeing that Mr de Klerk was going to hand over to the ANC, perhaps it would be of interest to the public to find out how they managed their own affairs because they were ultimately going to manage the affairs of South Africa.

He said: "Yes" and concomitant with that I got a whole lot of names, some journalists as well. The reason why I got the journalists is because there were at least three of them from the Afrikaans press that I could not believe that they could write what they wrote in terms of being Afrikaners and in terms of trying to protect their heritage. I bring this up because I now move on to another ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment Mrs Derby-Lewis ..[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, one thing is leading to another - you must lead me.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I would like to present to the Committee, a document referred to by Mrs Derby-Lewis.

Will you please identify this document which you referred to which was taken off a computer as you referred to in your evidence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, this is the document.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that the original document?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: This is the original document - this was taken off the computer and it was summarised for me and this was the document that I gave Doctor Hartzenberg - which I placed on his desk, in parliament.

MR PRINSLOO: It will be referred to as Exhibit R, with your permission Mr Chairman. The copies ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, it will go in as Exhibit R.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, in as far as your conversation with Mr Ferdie Hartzenberg is concerned, at the time - with regard to this information, did you diarise it in your diary?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I took it down with me to Cape Town and I gave it to him with the list and I put it on his desk in Parliament and he said that he would look at it and he would perhaps use it in his speech at the beginning of the parliamentary session. When he didn't use it because Mr de Klerk had come up with some other matters which he - which Doctor Hartzenberg found of greater interest, he returned it to me and I diarised in my diary February the 9th ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Can I show you an extract from the diary?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: We refer to it as Exhibit S Mr Chairman and with the Committee's permission, I will hand it up - copies for the Committee as well as Mr Mpshe and Mr Bizos ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: February the 9th ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: I'm wondering about R, haven't we got an awful lot of R's?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, to the best of my recollection, the last exhibit was P - I beg your pardon, Q.

CHAIRPERSON: Q.

MR PRINSLOO: Q was the last exhibit.

JUDGE WILSON: We've got R5: a statement by Mr Phosa, R6: Ferdie Hartzenberg News Interview, R7: Application Form, R8: Clive Derby-Lewis Application, R9 - are these not exhibits, they are part of the bundle R?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman. The last exhibit handed in on Wednesday by Mr Bizos is Exhibit Q. If I recall correctly, I think that was the document referred to as the application of Visser.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I suggest we skip R to avoid confusion with the bundle R - we don't mark the document R but S.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that we've already marked the diary as Exhibit S, could the document that was marked R, be marked T then Mr Chairman or S1?

CHAIRPERSON: Just to avoid any further confusion, the first document that you've handed in will now be Exhibit T.

MR PRINSLOO: T, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mrs Derby-Lewis - the extract of her diary will be Exhibit S.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mrs Derby-Lewis, Exhibit S which an extract from your diary, will you please indicate to the Committee the relevant entry which you referred to when - which you had to speak to Mr Hartzenberg again in order to remind him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, this diary was taken by the police and I haven't got the original, it still remains part of the record but this is a copy of my diary entry the 8th of February 1993, which was perhaps a week after the speech in Parliament whereby I said:

"Ferdie re ANC info - when needed"

MR PRINSLOO: That appears on the left side of the page.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: About five lines from the bottom.

MR PRINSLOO: Five lines of the written lines.

JUDGE WILSON: 4 o'clock - 16H00.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 4 o'clock, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, will you just please return to the list you originally compiled which was referred to earlier in your evidence. You've made mention of the gravy train etc., and will you please tell the Committee of the various names that appears on this list by making reference to the names, in what category did you place them and explain to the Committee why they were on the list, for what purpose and so on.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, they weren't particularly - there wasn't any particular single purpose for any of them but I had - for example, Mr Mandela's name was there because of the tax story that I had done, Mr Slovo, Mr Caserells, Mr Naidoo, Mr Maharaj - I had various files on all of those which are available for scrutiny. Some of them were involved in the: "Operation Vula" thing and they had been somehow exempted from prosecution - one wondered why.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mrs Derby-Lewis, when you say: "Operation Vula", what was that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, "Operation Vula" was the - I think it was a plan for an uprising which had been - was planned after the unbanning of the ANC, which was strange to many of us because after having being unbanned, clearly the path to power was open.

MR PRINSLOO: An uprising of what nature are you referring to?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it was a ...[indistinct] violent - oh, I can't think of the word, a violent uprising, it was to take power by force and it was ...[indistinct] by the security police and the whole thing was disbanded.

The point was that - the fact that these people were involved in "Operation Vula" wasn't necessarily the reason. The point was that they were given indemnity and why? Was there any money involved? What was behind - why were they not charged for example.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, will you please tell the Committee if any of the names of the people allegedly involved in "Operation Vula" appears on this list and if so, whose names?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, there's Mr Caserells I believe, Mr Maharaj, I think Mr Slovo was the brains behind it, Mr Hani - I think that's all.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Prinsloo, before you go on, I'm not so sure I understood the witness's answer to your question when you asked her what was the purpose, she said something like: "There was no one single reason" ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And from there I didn't follow what you were saying.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, there was - this was done for no other reason than to expand upon the backgrounds of these people, I mean I had no other plan with the names on this list. These were prominent people and I'm giving the background purely in terms of background, not as the reason why they're on the list.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, the name Mr Goldstone, who's Mr Goldstone?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That refers to Judge Goldstone, Judge Richard Goldstone. In 1984, the people of Hillbrow phoned my husband and I and asked us to come and see them because the Group Areas Act was not being properly applied and so forth. We went in although we didn't live there and there was a lot of dishonesty about the Hillbrow story, an ambiguity. And the National Party was saying one thing and doing another and I found the dishonesty rather than the actual policy a problem. And then a Miss Govender applied to remain in her flat and Justice Goldstone's judgement in effect changed the path of the Group Areas position in South Africa and Justice Goldstone was a particularly - a particular problem for the Conservative Party.

He was seen as a judicial activist and the attitude to many of the Conservatives was that - although this may not be shared by the Committee and so forth, was that a Judge is there to apply the law, not to make the law - the law is made in Parliament and this was a problem that we had and we saw Justice Goldstone as somebody who had basically quote: "opened up Hillbrow but wasn't living there to accept the consequences of his action."

He was a particularly active person and I went to listen to him once at Wits University and I found that this type of activism contrasted with my idea of what a Judge should be.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, the names that appear on the list, Ken Owen, Karen Bruinhard, Wepener, John Kwelane, Tim du Plessis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: They're all journalists.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr - the name Niehaus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's Karl Niehaus and Grosskopf were two Afrikaners who had basically turned their backs on their own people, which I found strange. And Mr Ramsamy was involved in ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: What sort of people were they? What did they do?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Niehaus and Mr Grosskopf - I see politics as one of nationalism and to actually actively work against the survival of your own people, I found strange. It may not be the kind of opinion that everybody agrees with but this is what I found strange.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Niehaus and Mr Grosskopf, were they members of any political party as far you know?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think they were members of the ANC, I'm not sure.

MR PRINSLOO: And in as far as the person Boesak is concerned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, well Mr Boesak - the suspicions that I had have been vindicated, I believe there's some alleged problems there and Mr Pik Botha of course was the ...[indistinct] in all of our lives and he had already - there had already been demonstrations outside his house. He was seen as probably a worst traitor than F W de Klerk and it was just simply impossible that a man like that could be working so actively against the survival of his own people - this is my attitude.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Pik Botha, is that the former Minister ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Minister of - yes, of Foreign Affairs.

MR PRINSLOO: And the person Jordan?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That Mr Pelo Jordan who was the information officer of the ANC and was also in the camps in Angola. And Mr Ramaphosa, he had a very important position and was very influential. Mr Ramsamy I mentioned and that's - Mr Naidoo was Chairman of COSATU at the time.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, what information did you require of these people? You've got the names of politicians, you've got the names of a prominent Judge - currently a Judge of the Constitutional Court and then you've got a Nationalist Party Member, Mr Pik Botha and all his journalists, what information did you require of these people?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I asked Mr Kemp if he knew - if he any information as to their addresses and the type of houses that they lived in.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you require their addresses and the type of houses they lived in - that information?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because as a journalist the first line of infiltration - as they say in the KGB, is the journalist and you can go to somebody's house and you can interview them and you can find out what kind of people they are. This happened on numerous occasions with my husband and I, journalist would interview us at our house and if I may refer to something which I would like to talk about ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Just before you refer to that - there's a document Mr Chairman, that's headed: "The KGB today", that will be Exhibit U Mr Chairman, which we have copies of.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] 6 in bundle B. May we ask that we are spared the expense and the volume.

CHAIRPERSON: They say this is a different document Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Oh, this is headed: JHB today?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, this is a different page.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment. Now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, Exhibit U which has now been presented to the Committee, what page are you referring to?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm referring to page 109 which is the first page of printing on the document and I would refer to the front page to Mr John Barren who wrote this.

In 1978 I visited Mr John Barren in Washington at the express direction of the Department of Information - Mr Barren was the and has become the World Editor of the Readers Digest, so he's not an obscure journalist and we had a discussion about this book that he was writing which subsequently was printed and we talked about journalists.

And I would refer the Committee to this particular page where he writes about how a Russian agent used a journalist for political means and he says:

"As Levchenko realised Thomas's potential as an agent of influence of limitless, he could cause stories to be admitted and public understanding of world events etc."

And on the following page 111, it's underlined ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: What paragraph are you referring to?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm referring to the fourth paragraph down which is underlined.

"While courting Thomas, Lefchenko searched for ways to arouse in him, one or more of the motivations of mice, money, ideology, compromise, ego"

And further down:

"The upkeep of his house photographed earlier on by a residency agent also cost him substantially".

In other words, if you go into a person's house you see his life and most journalists - myself included, if I interview anybody I try to interview them in their house and this of course was done by myself - by people who interviewed us.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, journalists at large, do they receive good salaries or what?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, journalists at large are poorly paid and are substantially susceptible to bribery and I refer to the submissions to the Truth Commission recently - within the last couple of months.

If the Amnesty Committee would like, I can give them documentation by journalists in the journalistic profession in general, where it was stated that more than half the journalists in South Africa were on the pay of somebody, some organisation and it was quite surprising to see who was.

A journalist is the sort of person who can ask more questions than even a policeman, so a journalist is quite influential and I think if I refer to the document that Mr Bizos handed in about Mr Kemp and his relationship with Mr Pieterse ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to a statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm referring to a statement by Mr Botha that Mr Bizos handed in as - I don't know whether he handed it in but he gave it to us. Mr Botha was a member of the Intelligence Service and he had - that's it yes. That was a report on Mr Kemp which I believe Mr Bizos had attained from a Mr Botha who was a member of NIS and ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Now, for the record Mr Chairman, we refer to the statement as a statement - it's an affidavit, it's headed:

"The Death of Chris Hani"

and we'll refer to it as Exhibit V Mr Chairman, with Commission's consent.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases Mr Chairman.

Exhibit V Mrs Derby-Lewis.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: You make mention to a Mr Pieterse, to what particular passage in this statement are you referring to?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Paragraph 3.

MR PRINSLOO: That's page one.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Page one.

MR PRINSLOO: Will you please read it to the Committee.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"Information corresponding to the so-called hit-list found in the flat of Walus was reported to division 052 by agent Z0066 (Jerry Pieterse who fronted as a freelance reporter) who received it from sub-source 46 (Arthur Kemp) who was not aware of his link to NIS through Pieterse, not was he a registered agent of NIS.

Pieterse was handled as a principal agent who ran his own network of sub-sources, mainly journalists or stringers for major national and international newspapers. The sub-sources communicated their newspaper type reports to Pieterse by computer"

The reason why I've handed it in - this illustrates the importance of journalists in intelligence and also the fact that Mr Kemp in a letter to me which - when I received this from Mr Bizos, I immediately E-mailed Mr Kemp and I said: "Who is this man Pieterse"? and he said that Pieterse had approached him and asked him to write about the right wing and that he would give him some money.

Kemp said that he was battling a bit financially at the time and he could use the money, he wasn't aware that Pieterse was an NIS agent. Pieterse said to him that he had some kind of an international press network and - well I won't go on anymore but the reason why I'm showing this is that journalists are well known as agents.

We have many journalists in this country who are agents. There's a journalist who at present works for Business Day, he used to be a KGB agent, he was quite openly one and the reason why Ken Owen wouldn't hire him - which was submitted to the TRC, was because this man was a KGB agent.

MR PRINSLOO: And who was this man?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Steven Laufer.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, for the purposes of the record, I am informed that this document was handed to us at the pre-trial conference by the representative of the Commission Mr Chairman and a copy was also handed to counsel for the witnesses.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about Exhibit V?

MR BIZOS: Exhibit V.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I would also like to mention - as an addendum to what I'm saying here, that apropos the list when my request was received by Arthur Kemp, he sent that - this list, to Pieterse as part of his general information gathering of what was going on the right. Pieterse simply threw it away, he saw no significance in it.

And I refer to the following page, paragraph 4.1 where this gentleman Mr Botha - who was obviously an agent, informed Major General Johan le Roux of the SAP on the 11th of April 1993, of the NIA members' contact with Walus.

Le Roux accepted this and indicated that he does not see it as relevant to the case and further they couldn't see any relevance of the fact that I had sent this list in as well. So, that's an ...[indistinct] - I'm trying to illustrate the importance of journalists in the political life of South Africa.

CHAIRPERSON: All this is in an endeavour to explain why your list had on it names of certain journalists?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct, yes. I won't go into any more ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Let's carry on please.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, Mr Arthur Kemp, is he still in South Africa?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Kemp is in England, he left with his wife and children, he immigrated.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Exhibit T you referred to earlier, that is the document that contains a lot of information as you indicated members of the ANC, what was the significance of Exhibit T to you at the time when you received it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the significance was that - as is stated on the front page, that the various projects that they had started had all run at a loss. There were membership figures here which didn't tie up with their publicised membership figures and it says:

"Far from being separate from the SACP, the ANC sells various communist literature as part of it's regular product line"

MR PRINSLOO: Was the salaries these people received, of any significance to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there was a list of salaries and there were people here who were getting R2.500-00 a month and living in rather luxurious houses.

MR PRINSLOO: The salaries which is reflected on this document, would you describe that as a good salary, a poor salary or what?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, for example, Mr Steve Twete was getting R3.500-00, Mr Chris Hani was getting R3.500-00, Mr Max Sesulu was getting R5.000-00 etc., to me these were market related salaries at the time.

MR PRINSLOO: These names that appear on the list of Exhibit T, do some of these names also appear on the list which you sent to Mr Kemp or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any relation between the list Exhibit T or this document and the list you requested information of from Mr Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there were some of the names. Joe Slovo was there, Ronnie Kasserels was there, Mr Hani was there, Mr Mandela was there - I think that was about all.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any connection between this list - this document, Exhibit T and the information you required?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Oh yes, sorry Mr Jordan was there, Mr Carl Niehaus was there. Yes, because there were salaries mentioned here and in the light of my continuing articles, I found this of great interest. I thought maybe I would gain something from finding out whether they were indeed living in fairly luxurious surrounding.

MR PRINSLOO: If you did find they were living in luxurious surroundings, what would you have done? - with the list and ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I would have continued writing in the vein that I had already been writing and I would have given the information to Doctor Hartzenberg along the line of what I had already here but of course I didn't get any - I didn't get enough time, didn't have enough time to do that because Mr Kemp only replied at the absolutely last minute to my request.

JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean: "At the last minute"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I continually phoned him because I had a deadline, I wanted to take this to Cape Town to give to Doctor Hartzenberg and I phoned him a couple of times - it was mentioned in the court case, it was in the trial, and then eventually I said to him: "I'm leaving in a couple of days, could you please fax me whatever information you've got" and he said: "No, I would rather meet you, I have something to tell you" and I said: "Well, I'm very busy, I'm going down to Cape Town, I have to take the bus because I have to take my computer down as I'm doing all the press work for the Conservative Party for the Parliamentary session and the computer in Cape Town is broken and I must take my own computer and Clive had already left a week before for the President's Council.

So, I couldn't go down in the car because he had taken the car, I couldn't go down by plane because what I was carrying was too heavy, so I booked a passage on the bus and that was on the 29th of January. And I asked Mr Kemp when could I see him and he said: "Well, what are your movements"? and I said: "I'm going down on the 29th of January and he said: "Well, I want to see you, I'll meet you at the bust station".

MR PRINSLOO: And that particular bus station, where is it situated?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That was the Rotunda.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that in Johannesburg?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you then meet Mr Kemp at the Rotunda bus station?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: And on that particular day, what transpired between you and Mr Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Edwin Clark, had driven me to the bus station because I couldn't get obviously a taxi all the way from Krugersdorp because it was quite expensive and I asked him to drive me and then take my car back to the house.

So the three of us met and Arthur handed me a brown paper envelope and said: "That's your information" and I put it in my handbag. And we had a cup of tea and then Edwin left to take the car back, it was raining on that day and Arthur and I chatted about his life, he said he was leaving the citizen, he was very unhappy, he wanted to leave the country. And then I boarded the bus and went to Cape Town.

MR PRINSLOO: I now refer you to Exhibit R4 continued Mr Chairman, page 411 which includes pages 409 to 411 but it's not in sequence.

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

MR PRINSLOO: Page 411 Mr Chairman. I'll have to refer to it in reverse Mr Chairman, as it starts on page 409 but the first page ought to be page 411 it looks a bit ...[indistinct] May I proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, I now show you page 411, 410 and 409, do you recognise these documents?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: What are these documents, these three pages?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: These are the pages of what Mr Kemp had given me in the envelope.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this what was referred to in the trial in the Supreme Court as the list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That is what is referred to as the list.

MR PRINSLOO: And if you look at page 411, what appears on this page?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There's a picture of a house, Mr Mandela's house and a description.

MR PRINSLOO: Then page 410 - I beg your pardon, let me go to page 409 first.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there's a description of a house, Mr Slovo's house but there's no address.

MR PRINSLOO: But is there a description?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There a description, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And then page 410 there's a number of names appearing thereon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, when you received this list from Mr Kemp, did the writing that appears on page 410 alongside the names, was it there on the list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: That's the handwriting.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And alongside - opposite the name of Mr Chris Hani, there's information BMW 525, PWY525T in brackets and writing alongside that, was that on the list when you received it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you write on this list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this your handwriting?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: From your personal knowledge, do you know who wrote this - from what you know personally, not what you heard - on this list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it emanated from the trial, is that what you're referring to?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that was Mr Walus's writing.

MR PRINSLOO: And after you received this list, what did you do with it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he gave it to me in an envelope and I just put it in my handbag and boarded the bus.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he wants to know what did you do with the list.

MR PRINSLOO: Where did you take it, what did you do with it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, I took it to Cape Town with me.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And my husband met me at the airport and we went back to Parliament because I had to unload the computer equipment ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Can we shorten ...[inaudible]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm trying to, I really am.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] what you did with the document in ...[inaudible] the steps you took to deal with the document.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly.

MR PRINSLOO: So you took the document ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I took the document to Cape Town and I put it on Doctor Hartzenberg's desk with the other information that I had - Exhibit T.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, and then?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I left it there for him to peruse and as he didn't use it, he gave it back to me and I took it back to Johannesburg - which was detailed in the trial, and when we got back we had learnt that my husband was to be a candidate in the local Government election and I dumped everything on the filing table in the study.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. According to the evidence, this list - Exhibit, landed up in the hands of Mr Walus and was found by the police at his flat?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: According to the evidence.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you give this list to Mr Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you give it to your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And as it emerged from the evidence now before the Committee, it was handed by your husband to Mr Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know about that at the time when it was handed over?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, on the 10th of April 1993 - correct, there was information on the radio etc., and information was received that Mr Hani was assassinated at his house.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And on that particular day, where were you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was at the house of Mr and Mrs Venter, we had arranged to meet sometime before that.

MR PRINSLOO: And was your husband present?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He was, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And was the information that was conveyed to you by Mrs Venter with regard to the assassination of Mr Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, she answered the phone.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, on the 12th of April, did you see Mr Kemp on that day?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Kemp had arranged to come over sometime before because he was placing a computer programme on my computer - I've got the file if the Committee would like to look at it, and he had arranged to come on the 12th because (a) it was a public holiday and (b) he was going to some German lesson, so I asked him to come for lunch.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, was there reference made to Mr Kemp with regard to this list or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, as we testified in the trial, we had - I had seen The Beeld that morning where they had mentioned the list and it seemed very, very familiar and I started to become concerned because I thought that Mr Kemp would be most upset, which he was and we discussed it over lunch - I won't go into all of that, that's in the trial - in the trial records, and ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Did it emerge - in your conversation, did the list that was referred to in The Beeld newspaper, was actually the list that you received from Mr Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it wasn't but it was very familiar.

MR PRINSLOO: But it later transpired to be the same list or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It did.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you discuss this matter with your husband - with regard to the list on the 12th of April?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did he say and what did you say?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I said to him: "How did it get into the hands of Mr Walus"?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And he told me that he had given it to him.

MR PRINSLOO: And at the trial, what was your evidence with regard to the handing over of the list to Mr - with regard to the list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I would like to mention that at the trial, I ...[inaudible] sorry, I prevaricated on that matter.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you mean by that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Prevaricated - I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Deviated from the truth.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct, yes, absolutely yes and Judge Eloff correctly perceived that and in his judgement he said I was not truthful, he said that I had prevaricated - "She was protecting somebody, probably her husband" and that is exactly what I was doing. On more than one occasion Justice Eloff asked me - sorry, not Justice Eloff, Mr van Leerus asked me: "How did that list get into the hands of Mr Walus"? and I prevaricated, I said: "Well, I don't know and so on" and in fact I lied to protect my husband.

MR PRINSLOO: When Mr Kemp compiled the short list that was referred to now in Exhibit R4, pages 409 to 411, did you in any way assist him or tell him what names to put on that list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Kemp testified, there are five statements that he made under Section 29 to the police - which are now part of the record which Mr Bizos has brought in, where he stated that he simply just grabbed whatever information he could, he didn't have much time and he faxed it or sent - no, I asked him to fax it and he said: "No, I'd rather meet you".

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: So he actually in effect compiled the list according to his - to the availability of the information.

MR PRINSLOO: So, you had not assisted him in any way or told as to how to compile that list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as Mr Kemp is concerned, is it correct that at the trial - and it's also stated in the request for particulars and further particulars, that Mr Kemp was not regarded as a co-conspirator?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you at any stage conspire with Mr Kemp in order to draw up a list to be used as a hit-list to kill Mr Hani or any other person appearing on that list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you - at the time when the list was received and left on the table prior to the death of Mr Hani, did you know that your husband and Mr Walus intended assassinating Mr Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know that your husband or Mr Walus intended using that list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Prior to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: If I understand your evidence correctly, this only came to your knowledge subsequent to the assassination of Mr Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, on the 12th of April.

MR PRINSLOO: The 12th of April. Now, in as far as the evidence is concerned, there was evidence made at the trial of a ZA8 pistol that was used by Mr Walus - the applicant in this matter, to assassinate Mr Hani with that weapon, did you know anything about that weapon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Absolutely nothing.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see that weapon prior to the trial?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Or any prior stage?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know that your husband Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, had acquired that particular weapon from a Mr Faan Venter or anybody?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you know that your husband had a silencer fitted to that weapon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I would like to ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Hang on just a moment. Did you know what a silencer is?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: At time I'm referring to? And - now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, at the time when your husband Mr Clive Derby-Lewis was arrested, was an inventory compiled of certain items which was taken from your home?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with the permission of the Commission, I would like to refer to this inventory as Exhibit W.

Now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, I'll show you Exhibit W, is this the inventory that was compiled on that particular day when your husband was arrested?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I refer you to page 3, third line from the top, would you look at that please?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: What is written there?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"Spare bedroom: Stepson - one written A4 document, 1.22 silencer"

MR PRINSLOO: Now, when that list was compiled, did you see this item?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, the position was that the police were busy taking out a lot of stuff from the house and I asked them if they could give me list of what they were taking because I didn't know what they were taking, so they sat on the table at the top of the stairs and they wrote out this inventory.

There was and Mr Gus Sunde - S-u-n-d-e, whose name appears as actually number one on the front page of the policeman attending and I spoke to him and I said: "What is that"? and he said: "That is a silencer".

I had never in my life seen a silencer before that moment, the silencer belonged to my son and it had been lying at the bottom of his cupboard downstairs and I indicate to you that I had never ever seen a silencer.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, prior to the assassination of Mr Hani on the 6th of April, is it correct that Mr Walus attended breakfast in your residence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, on the 6th of April.

MR PRINSLOO: And was this diarised in your diary that a breakfast had to be held or ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, my husband asked me to prepare breakfast, that Kuba who is Mr Walus was coming, so I diarised it because I have a very poor memory and I'm fairly organised person, I like to put something down in my diary if I have to do it.

MR PRINSLOO: So it was diarised and did Mr Walus then show up on that particular day for breakfast?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he did.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you attend this breakfast?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I cooked the breakfast I think, the maid helped me and then I went - I left the house.

MR PRINSLOO: So, were you present on that particular day when breakfast was served or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I may have sat down and had a cup of coffee with them but I didn't sit through the breakfast.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, according to the evidence of your housemaid Elizabeth, she testified that you were not present during that breakfast, would that be correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know what was discussed on that particular day between your husband and Mr Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Walus - at that stage, was he well known to you or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he was known to me, he had been our friend for years but we hadn't seen him very often because he lived in Qwa Qwa and when his business failed then he became a driver and he used to visit the various Southern African States, so occasionally he would come and see us.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Walus, was he well versed in the English language or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, it is alleged during this Commission that you were involved in a conspiracy to murder Mr Chris Hani, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: It's also alleged that other people were involved in this conspiracy, reference was made to Mr Faan Venter, do you know him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I know Mr Faan Venter, he and I were political chums and I knew his family and for years we hadn't seen each other and then he phoned one day and said he'd moved to Krugersdorp.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage - prior to the assassination of Mr Chris Hani, discuss with Mr Venter anything in order to assassinate Mr Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Or any person on that list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Keith Darrel, is he known to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Darrel is a friend that we knew in Cape Town, I didn't know him that well. I didn't see him often, obviously because he lived in Cape Town.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have any discussions or where you present or did you know about any discussions prior to the assassination of Mr Keith Darrel with regard to fitting a silencer or getting a silencer fitted or the assassination of Mr Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Lionel Durandt. did you know him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr and Mrs Durandt were political colleagues and friends from Krugersdorp.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you ever discuss anything with Mr Lionel Durandt or his wife with regard to obtaining a gun or the delivery of a gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have any knowledge or not that a gun was delivered by Mr Lionel Durandt or received and delivered to your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, - just a moment Mr Chairman.

Now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, Mr Edwin Clarke, could you please tell the Committee where did you meet him and how well did you know him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Edwin Clarke lived close by and we met - of course like all the other people, in politics. He was a member of the Conservative party, he was a computer fundi and he used to come to the house occasionally to fix our computers.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you know where Mr Clarke is at the moment?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I believe he lives on a plot and when you want to contact him, you can leave a message and in fact he came to my house four or five days ago and gave me a new screen for my computer. I did leave a message with him, he phoned back and I told him that I was having trouble with the screen and he brought the screen.

MR PRINSLOO: So, he could be contacted telephonically?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I can just leave a message.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you know a person by the name of Mr Visser?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Which Mr Visser?

MR PRINSLOO: Now, it's alleged here that a certain Mr Visser obtained money and he was to make money available via Mr Edwin Clarke.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't know anything about that whatsoever. I have read the application for amnesty which Mr Bizos gave us and it sounds a fairly fanciful story.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Now, his name is Johannes Nicholas Visser.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, well, I may have seen him when we were walking and canvassing in Krugersdorp, I can't unequivocally say I don't know him without seeing him, there are many Vissers in Krugersdorp.

But in terms of the context in which you have now brought him up, I don't know anything about any money and in fact during our opposition to the request to extend the or to postpone the hearing on the 23rd of June, we offered the Commission access to our financial affairs over the last 10 years, so it's quite obvious that we haven't ever received any money from anybody.

The only infusion of money that came into our account was in June 1993 when my husband pension was paid into it but otherwise it's simply a current account and we don't have any other money anywhere else.

MR PRINSLOO: It's also alleged that money that came via Mr Visser, Mr Clarke was utilised to pay for the defence of your husband as well as Mr Walus.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I know nothing about that.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know how - who paid for the defence of Mr Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: When we were arrested - the three of us, the Conservative Party immediately organised a defence fund. A list was drawn up and the wording of that list was drawn by Mr Tom Langley who was an Advocate and the Conservative Party list was distributed throughout the membership of the Party and they contributed to our legal funds.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Tom Langley, was he also at that stage a member of the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: What was his position in the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He was a spokesman on foreign affairs, he was a member of - the same level as Clive, a member of the General Council and so forth.

MR PRINSLOO: And Dillis van Straaten?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes?

MR PRINSLOO: Was she known to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Dillis van Straaten, yes, is known to me, she's a friend and she's also a member of the Conservative Party. I don't see her often because she lives in the Vaal Triangle - yes, she's a friend.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may this be a convenient stage to adjourn, it's almost a quarter past eleven?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll adjourn for 15 minutes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

GAY DERBY-LEWIS: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR PRINSLOO: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, just to return to one particular aspect - after you received the list from Mr Arthur Kemp and you'd taken it down to Cape Town, did you show it to your husband in Cape Town or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: The whole list or part of it or what?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, just the top page.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, as you've been told earlier there was allegations that there was a broad conspiracy - so it's alleged, did anyone - since your acquittal in the trial, approach you with regard to an investigation to enquire as to whether you were part of a conspiracy or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you aware there were people - foreigners, who also assisted in this investigation - a certain Mr Kooimans?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Which investigation are you referring to?

MR PRINSLOO: This recent investigation of the Committee.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you aware or first of all, can I put it to you this way - there was a report in The Report newspaper of an investigation that was conducted pertaining to a so-called broad conspiracy and other related matters?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And pursuant to that, did you enquire from The Report newspaper as to where that information emanated from and what it consisted of?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I phoned up the reporter - it was a Mr Meyer, I think and I phoned him and he wasn't there and I then phoned the Editor and he wasn't there, so I spoke to the Editor's secretary and I said that we have been trying to get hold of this report for some months now: "Could we please have a copy of whatever you have" because our efforts to get the reports from the TRC have been fruitless and the secretary said: "Would you kindly fax", which I did ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Fax a letter, is that what you're saying?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I faxed a letter to Mr Moolman of The Report newspaper and Mr Moolman wrote back - sorry, I'm just looking for it, Mr Moolman wrote back and he said because of the confidential nature of this report, he couldn't give it to me.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, since ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, that was on the 4th of November 1997:

"Dear Mrs Lewis,

I refer to your fax of 4th of November regarding certain information. Any information that report may have received on the Hani investigation is a confidential matter between the newspaper and the source, therefore we are unable to assist you in this matter"

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, subsequent to that, did you receive any documentation in the post?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did. I received three reports in the post addressed to my P.O. box.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Chairman, I propose to hand in certain documents which will be referred to as Exhibits X1, X2, X3 and X4 will be the reply which the witness has just read out to the Committee - of The Report newspaper, together with a letter accordingly written by her which will be referred to in evidence and then a further document, X5 which is dated the 10th of November, from the Amnesty Committee concerning this matter and also an extract from a newspaper, The Report - I beg your pardon, that will be referred to later - up to X5. Mr Chairman, X6 - it's already marked, will also be referred to ...[indistinct] directly related to this aspect.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, first of all, if you look at Exhibit X1, X2 and X3, are these the documents you received in the post or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, these documents, to what do they refer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Start off with Exhibit X1.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The first one is a memorandum to Advocate Koki Mpshe from a Wilson Magatla, subject: "Chris Hani Investigation".

MR PRINSLOO: Yes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Of course, when I got this I went through it and I would like to lay before the Committee some points that I have taken from this.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Now, continue.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The first point is of course, that on the face of it the TRC did have a report and the face of it - as I will refer to just now, it would appear that Mr Bizos's team had access to this report which we didn't because on Wednesday afternoon he asked certain questions and those questions seem to have emanated from this report and we have been ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I'd rather you concentrate on your evidence.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Instead of dealing with how counsel for the applicant did respond - did or did not deal with the matter. I'd rather that you make the point that you wish to make on this document.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as this documentation is concerned Mrs Derby-Lewis, is there any evidence which indicates that you were involved in this conspiracy?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Is there any evidence in this report - of what you've gleamed from, that any other persons - other than yourself, were involved in this conspiracy?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: You mean besides Mr Lewis and Mr Walus?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And does that refer - is that with reference to X1?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And as far as X2 is concerned?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] that I have not seen this document before and my attorney informs me that she has not and that's all we want to say about it at this stage.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I would like to apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: Just carry on.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm concerned with your views of the contents of the documents.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, my views of the contents of the documents of page 9 of Exhibit X1, the second last paragraph. They refer to the fact that the interrogation was secretly recorded on video tape and is available. I just want to place before the Committee that we battled to get these tapes and quite clearly, these tapes have been available to the TRC for some time.

JUDGE WILSON: Haven't we heard that from your counsel days ago? - it's not relevant now.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, with respect Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Haven't you dealt with the question of the video tapes and their availability?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, as far as the video tape is concerned, the witness is referring to the aspect that there was a recording made of the visit by the legal representative of these people.

JUDGE WILSON: She isn't, she's referring to the interrogation by Captain Deetleffs and Mr Beetge of Walus.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, that is correct, yes. Those tapes have been made available of Monday, that's correct - certain of the tapes, not all the tapes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'd be pleased you know - we have limited time, try and get to the ...[indistinct] of the point you wish to make on these documents.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, the point that is to be made at page 9, the second to last paragraph:

"The interrogation was secretly recorded on video tape and is available"

And Mr Chairman with respect, it ...[indistinct] the tapes were available to the Committee and yet they were only made available to us on Monday, that is the point that's made.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the whole purpose of this document?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Mr Chairman, it's part of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything else to be derived from this document?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes - no, not this - yes, this one page 13 - as Mr Prinsloo said about the conclusion arrived at.

MR PRINSLOO: The conclusion arrived at on page 13 of The Report Exhibit X1, it doesn't say anything that the witness Mrs Gay Derby-Lewis, was involved in this conspiracy - that is the point that is made here.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that's the relevance thereof Mr Chairman. Just a moment - and X2, at page 5 Mr Chairman, the third paragraph.

Will you please refer to that Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I just referred to it - I don't know who drew up this report but they mention that the right wing were preparing for a war against the ANC and this is part of the climate that we have been discussing during this hearing.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to the section that starts:

"Tinnie Groenewald and ...[indistinct] Bishoff were occupying offices in Hatfield Pretoria at the time, where they were preparing for a war against the ANC. The assassination of political leaders was high on their agenda" ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Where is it?

MR PRINSLOO: That's at page 5 Mr Chairman, third paragraph from the top, around the middle of the third paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR PRINSLOO:

"A war against the ANC. The assassination of political leaders was high on their agenda. De Kock had several meetings with Viljoen and also supplied 60 AK47's to Riaan van Rensburg"

Is that the passage you want to refer the Committee to Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, that's all.

MR PRINSLOO: And then the last page - I beg your pardon, the second to last page:

"In the TRC's schedule for June, I noted that the amnesty hearing for Derby-Lewis had been planned for June the 23rd ...[indistinct] Gauteng. I would like to report that the current status of investigations in this matter is such that the hearing on the dates mentioned would be too early and would therefore deny the Commission valuable information which we are in the process of collecting and which information may assist the Commission in reaching a finding which would be considered appropriate and just by all concerned"

Is there anything else you would like to refer to Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, not with those reports.

MR PRINSLOO: And the reports as handed in Exhibits X1, X2, and X3. The letter which was written to The Report newspaper ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Are you dealing with X3 now?

MR PRINSLOO: X4, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, there's nothing to be said about X3?

MR PRINSLOO: It's handed in for completeness Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

MR PRINSLOO: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on with X4.

MR PRINSLOO: X4 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: She's already ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: The letter written by yourself Mrs Derby-Lewis, is the letter which is part of X4?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the date of that letter?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The 4th of November 1997.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you request in the letter? Would you please read it out to the Committee?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"On Sunday, the 5th of October, Report carried a front page story concerning a TRC investigative report into the Hani case. This report had apparently been leaked to Report. Our legal team has been trying to get a copy of this report since early June, to no avail. Our attorney has again written to the TRC last week asking for copy. In the meantime, would it be possible for us to obtain a copy of the report in your possession.

Clearly this report is of relevance to my husband's amnesty hearing and the fact that the TRC will not give us a copy is very serious. We seem to be the only people who haven't seen this report, yet we are the people most closely affected. Our attorney's name is Jan Lubbe and he can be contacted at 9544000 if you wish to confirm the substance to the aforementioned. Your urgent help in this matter would be appreciated"

MR PRINSLOO: And X5 is the letter which was received from the Committee?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that was dated the 10th of November, in response to a letter to Mr Mpshe from our attorney's at our request and he says that - Mr Mpshe says, paragraph one:

"The report is not yet completed. I had a meeting with the Deputy Head of our Investigative Unit, Mr Wilson Magatla on the 5th of November, he told me that the conspiracy issue is still being investigated. He has actually left Cape Town to discuss/consult with certain person"

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, subsequent to your arrest, what was the Conservative Party's view and attitude towards you, your husband and Mr Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, they were supportive. During my interrogation with Mr Deetleffs, I asked a question of him:

"What was the Conservative Party doing"?

and his answer was:

"They're fighting for you"

Subsequently, they collected money and Mrs Treurnicht came to see us, Doctor Hartzenberg and his wife came to see me the following morning after Clive's arrest and they started collecting money.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage - subsequent to your release from prison before the trial or thereafter, did you attend meetings of the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, after I was granted bail in the middle of August, I attended various congresses of the Conservative Party. This did not infringe my bail conditions.

MR PRINSLOO: And how were you received by the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was received very well and after my acquittal and after Clive's conviction in October 1993, we were received by a crowd in - I was received by a crowd in Church Square in Pretoria - there was no animosity.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the Conservative Party's attitude towards Clive your husband, subsequent to his conviction and sentence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the attitude didn't change, Clive was a member of the Party, he was a founder member and nothing changed.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, you were arrested on the 21st of April 1993, at four in the morning, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you request the police or not, to contact an attorney at that stage?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: How did you do it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Deetleffs came into the living room at 4 o'clock and I said:

"Well, under what Act are you arresting me"?

and he mentioned something - I'm not very conversant with the law, and I said whatever it is and I said:

"Can I please contact an attorney"?

and he said:

"Well we haven't got much time"

There was somebody staying in the house at the time, and I asked them to contact Advocate Jeug Prinsloo who was the Conservative Party member of Parliament for Roodepoort.

And then I said to Mr Deetleffs:

"Where are you taking me"?

and he said:

"Krugersdorp"

So then I told Advocate Prinsloo that I would be going to Krugersdorp. As it subsequently turned out, they just dropped off a book or something in Krugersdorp and took me to Benoni, so there was a bit of a wild goose chase for attorneys to find out where I was after that.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you arrive during the morning at the Benoni Police Station?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: At the Benoni Police Station, would you please tell the Commission what transpired then, what took place?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I was taken to a room and I was left sitting there for a few hours and then Captain Nick Deetleffs came in and he said to me:

"You are guilty and you will get 15 years"

and I said:

"But you can't keep me here"

and he said:

"I can keep you here as long as I want and you will tell me the truth"

and quite a few other threats.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you afforded the opportunity - did you ask Captain Deetleffs or anyone there at that stage to contact your attorney or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I asked him if he would contact Advocate Prinsloo and I gave the number.

MR PRINSLOO: Did he contact Advocate Prinsloo?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, I don't think so. In the meantime the Conservative Party knew that I had been arrested and they had sent an attorney to come to the Benoni Police Station - Benoni - yes, Police Station.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage ask Captain Deetleffs or not, as to whether an attorney had arrived or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, continuously throughout the morning I asked him:

"Where was my attorney"

and he kept saying:

"He's coming".

MR PRINSLOO: And did your attorney arrive?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, subsequently I found out that they arrived at a few minutes before two but I wasn't told that.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage during that day, have access to your attorney?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: So, you were not assisted by an attorney at all?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And during the course of that morning, did Captain Deetleffs obtain a statement from you or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Captain Deetleffs said that he would write a statement which I should sign.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the same day?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that was in the morning some time.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, were you held under Section 29 or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: I'll now show you Exhibit R4 continued - I refer to page 395 Mr Chairman.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, at your residence at the time of your arrest or thereafter at your residence, did Captain Deetleffs warn you in terms of Judges Rules? - that is that you were not obliged to make a statement and whatever you would say would be taken down in writing etc.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, not that I can remember.

MR PRINSLOO: And at the police station, did Captain Deetleffs warn you in terms of Judges Rules before recording any statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, on the contrary, he threatened me, he was most abusive and he said that he would keep me there until I wrote the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mrs Deetleffs, at page 395 - I beg your pardon, Mrs Derby-Lewis, at page 395 of Exhibit R4 appears along the time 07H05, certain - it's a typed document where it's got alongside it: "Captain" and then it's recorded that:

"I sent a list of names by facsimile"

And then there's an answer to it, did you say that what is stated here?

MR PRINSLOO: Let me rephrase the question on this basis, did you state the answer:

"I say nothing"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: The information that's contained in this document, did you say that prior to your answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he wrote out a statement and I said I'm waiting for my attorney - it's on the video tapes:

"I want to see an attorney and therefore I cannot comment on what you are saying because I need some legal advice"

MR PRINSLOO: And was this procedure followed throughout the statement which comprises of page 395, 396 up to page 397?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And your replies to each of these questions which appear on page 395, 396, 397, are those the answers you gave in response to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I don't remember the exact wording but yes, that is correct:

"No comment"

or:

"I'm not saying anything"

MR PRINSLOO: Later on during that day, were you detained in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, who informed you as to the provisions of that particular Section?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Colonel van Niekerk.

MR PRINSLOO: What did he say to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He came to me at around 3 o'clock and he said that I was not co-operating with them and therefore I would be detained under Section 29 and I asked him:

"What does that mean"

and he said it's:

"Isolation and no access to attorneys"

which I objected to because I'd been asking for an attorney the whole morning.

MR PRINSLOO: And did he say anything else or what would be the purpose of this?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I think he asked me to sign something, I'm not sure but it was about 3 o'clock in the afternoon and then he told me - after he had put me under Section 29, that my attorneys had just arrived, so I sent a note down to the attorneys and said that:

"I've been waiting to you"

and I subsequently discovered that they had arrived an hour before.

MR PRINSLOO: Did your attorney then see you subsequent to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, after you were placed in detention in terms of Section 29, were you interrogated by any particular person or persons?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, after the Section 29 which was at 3 o'clock, I was left sitting in the office for hours - I can't remember, and it was Captain Deetleffs who interrogated me.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he assisted by anyone?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there was a Warrant Officer Beetge who came in and out.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, subsequent to you being released from the provisions of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act, did you compile a note or notes pertaining to your experience whilst being detained in terms of Section 29?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. While I was under Section 29, I kept notes on pieces of paper which the police had given me - the police sergeant had given me. I was very shocked at the system and I wanted to keep a note of it.

MR PRINSLOO: All I would like to know is - you made notes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Chairman, I would like to hand in as Exhibit Y as copies of the occurrence book which was kept at the Edenvale Police Station where the witness was detained.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the purpose of that?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the purpose will be that it will be referred to in evidence as to when she was detained, when she was taken out of the police station for the purpose of interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that in dispute Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I would have thought that if we were asked - if we were given a list to check it but ...[indistinct] make an admission on one page but far be it for us to suggest how they should run their case.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I put it this way, the occurrence book copies are available. If Mr Bizos would require that, then we'll hand them in, otherwise we won't burden the record, it's available.

CHAIRPERSON: I'd like you to try and avoid putting in documents, pages and pages, when very little of it appears now to be relevant for present purposes.

MR PRINSLOO: If Mr Bizos, during cross-examination will refer to that and if there's any dispute then it can be handed in but at this stage I won't hand it in.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may do so if it becomes relevant at that stage.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, the document which you - you said you wrote a document whilst you were still in custody, after you were released from your detention in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act.

I refer to you a document which will be referred to as Exhibit Y Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, are we going to have the original document - the notes that are said to have been done on pieces of paper?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Could we have the original as Exhibit Y please - handed in.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, there will be a document - it's an original, which we'll refer to as Exhibit Y1 and then there's another document which we'll refer to as Exhibit Y2.

CHAIRPERSON: Has it been handed in already?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, give us a description of these documents please.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, Exhibit Y1 which is the original which I will hand up to you Mr Chairman. This document - the original is now handed up to the Committee.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, this document Exhibit Y1, is it in your handwriting?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you write this document?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: On the 2nd of May 1993.

MR PRINSLOO: And where were you at that stage?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was in prison at Pretoria Women's Prison.

MR PRINSLOO: And that particular document, does that relate to your treatment whilst detained in terms of Section 29?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And then Exhibit Y2 will be the original notes, is that correct Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That's in this cellophane folder?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: The notes of Y2 Mr Chairman, they are photostatted on separate pieces - on pages of paper together and Exhibit Y2 has now been handed up to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: What is Y2?

MR PRINSLOO: Y2 is the pieces of notes - original notes Mr Chairman.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, would you please read from Exhibit Y1 to the Committee?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The whole matter - may I go ahead?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, you may.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"The whole matter has been highlighted by two elements as far as I can see, one to keep legal representation ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, are you going to ask your client to read this entire document?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Mr Chairman, there are certain are certain relevant portions I'll read. If the Committee will accept this as read, then I won't ask her to read it out.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it's left to you to find out what you would like to highlight. The document is before us and if there's anything that you would like to highlight and emphasise, you may refer us to those passages.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, for what purpose did you compile Exhibit Y1 - this document?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I compiled it because of the experience that I had under Section 29, I wanted to keep records of what had happened to me and I based this on what I could remember and I based it on the notes that I had written while I was incarcerated.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mrs Derby-Lewis, in as far as your detention was concerned in terms of Section 29, what did you experience?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I think my experience are highlighted in this letter but my main concern was lack of legal representation and the fact that I was basically told that if I didn't comply with what they wanted me to say, that I would stay there. These were the two, plus of course the isolation and the solitary confinement and fear and all of the other emotions which everybody knows about because there's a lot of documentation on Section 29 in this country.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, while you were detained in terms of Sections 29, did Captain Deetleffs or any other of the interrogators read your rights to you so to speak?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Inform you of Judges Rules and so on?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mrs Derby-Lewis, were you taken out of the cells on various occasions or not for the purposes of interrogation?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And were taken out only in the daytime or night-time?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: For the first couple of nights, I sat the whole night and after that I was taken out at various times during the day and sometimes left late at night and sometimes they collected me at night and I sat for hours at night and then came back quite late.

MR PRINSLOO: In Exhibit R4 continued at page 398, the statement of Captain Nick Deetleffs - it's part thereof, where it's stated the 24th of April in essence at 10H00, that he interrogated you in a particular room in Benoni in the presence of Warrant Office Beetge and he states that he warned you in terms of Judges Rules, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he didn't warn me in terms of Judges Rules.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, if Captain Deetleffs had told you that you were not obliged to say anything, would it have made sense to you or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, that was the impression that I got, that one was considered innocent until proved guilty but his attitude was exactly the opposite.

"You must say that you are guilty and then we will let you go"

MR PRINSLOO: Did he ask of you to supply information or to withhold information?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he asked me to supply information.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, on the 24th of April, there is a summary of notes which Captain Deetleffs made which is contained in 398 up till page 402 of Exhibit R4 continued, and that you had the opportunity since then to reconcile this with a video tape that was reportedly made on that particular day.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, what is recorded at page 398 up to 402, does it represent verbatim what you said on the video, or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No it doesn't represent verbatim, it's a very short ...[indistinct] sorry, a very short version of what went on. There are some things there that I don't remember saying and when I looked at the tape - the video tape, and compared it, there were a lot more things that I said that were not in here and that would have changed the tone and the context of what he has written.

MR PRINSLOO: But in essence what is revealed in this particular document, pages 398 to 402, is that true or untrue?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, in essence it is what I said, there are a few things that I don't agree with in comparison with the tape but in essence it is what I had said after three days of Mr Deetleffs interrogation and softening up and no sleep and so forth.

MR PRINSLOO: But this particular document, it was never signed by you was it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you - up till now, was any original notes made available by the police as far as this statement is concerned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as the list is concerned - during your interrogation by Mr Deetleffs, were you questioned about that as well?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, and I told him why I had drawn it up and he said:

"No, that's rubbish, you drew up this list to murder everybody"

and I said:

"Well, that's absolutely ridiculous, if I'm supposed to be this meticulous person, how could I have done something like that"

It is on the tape actually.

MR PRINSLOO: I refer you to page 398, paragraph 10, will you please read that to the Committee?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"I one day made a list of people for an article, it consisted of people named in the Vula investigation, reporters as well as Judge Richard Goldstone"

MR PRINSLOO: And is that particular paragraph, is that a complete ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it's not a complete ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: response to what you told?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no it's not. I went into greater detail about why I drew up the list.

MR PRINSLOO: And also with reference to His Lordship Mr Justice Goldstone?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: What you said to Mr Deetleffs in this particular passage, does it - in as far as the list is concerned in essence, does it differ from your version in court or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it doesn't differ from my version in court.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, without going through the statement with regard to each and every particular paragraph here, did you - after being interrogated by Captain Deetleffs for a number of days, were you then interrogated by another person known as Captain de Waal?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, in the beginning the statement was written out that I was supposed to sign, when I refused to sign that, then Mr Deetleffs interrogated me, interrogated being a euphemism for pressure and then on the 24th - as can be seen in the tapes, I agreed to write or to say what he had said here based on the questioning and the lack of sleep - which by the way is not on the tapes, in other words there's no record of that, that's disappeared.

And on the 24th I wrote what I thought he wanted me to write but in effect it was basically all I had to say and I had nothing more to say than that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, is it correct that the tape recordings - the video recordings were received which pertains to you, refers to - partially refers to pages 395 up till page 397 of R4 continued and 398 up till pages 402?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, the video tapes were of one or two hours in the morning of the 21st of April, then there was a blank and the video tape started again on the 24th, so the interrogatory period had been left out.

MR PRINSLOO: You referred to in your evidence that abuse was shouted at you by Captain Deetleffs and swearing, does that appear on the video tapes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And when you were interrogated by Captain de Waal, did you see any video recordings with regard to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, there was a three day lapse between when I had written - what I wrote for or what I had said to Mr Deetleffs and then on the 27th - I was left for three days and then on the 27th I was asked to come to the Edenvale police station where there was obviously no video set-up to record people there and I was asked to start writing my statement by Captain de Waal.

MR PRINSLOO: When you were interrogated by Captain Deetleffs, did you have an opportunity to read the Bible?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was given a Bible yes, by the police.

MR PRINSLOO: And did Captain Deetleffs pass any remarks with regard to reading the Bible or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he said it was - I can't actually say in public what he said. He was most derogatory about it and in fact his whole attitude is well encapsulated in the exhibit we've handed in now and ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Is that Y1 you're referring to?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And did - were you given reading material whilst detained ...[inaudible]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I was becoming quite paranoiac because I couldn't read anything and I was becoming ill and my heart was giving me trouble and I asked for something to read and they gave me two magazines.

MR PRINSLOO: And whilst you were detained in terms of Section 29 initially by - the interrogation by Captain Deetleffs, were you at some stage ill or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, the sleep depravation caused disorientation and my heart started to give me trouble and I asked to see a surgeon - a doctor and I saw my own doctor in the company of the district surgeon and I was given treatment for it and subsequently had to take pills.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, when Captain de Waal started his interrogation of you, did he inform you in terms of Judges Rules that you were not obliged to make a statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain de Waal made a statement which is contained in the police docket, is that correct? - which you have had access to, a statement by Captain de Waal.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, this statement has not been handed in, may I ask leave to hand it in as Exhibit Z, it's a statement by Captain de Waal?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling him as a witness?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, at this stage the statement should have formed part of what was presented by Mr Bizos but the statement will be referred to in case he is called as a witness - I don't propose to call him.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, why do you want to hand it in if he may not be called as a witness?

MR PRINSLOO: Because Mr Chairman, he refers to certain particular aspects that he warned her in terms of Judges Rules and as to how he interrogated her and what transpired.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, hasn't that ground been adequately covered already without having to hand in a statement?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it necessary to hand in the statement just for those purposes?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, Mr Chairman, at least the Committee will then have a document in front of it as to what Captain de Waal said transpired as opposed to the witness says.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, I don't understand. Were you not to give us this document, would we otherwise have it?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Sir?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Were you not to hand this document to us now, would we still have it or have we already had it?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, the Committee will not be informed as to what transpired. At least information is now placed before the Committee as to what Captain de Waal says took place as opposed to what the witness says.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Are you wanting to create an issue out of this statement?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, Mr Chairman, the issue is for the start, the witness has already testified that she was not warned in terms of Judges Rules as said by Captain de Waal in that particular statement and also the witness will also explain to the Committee as to what transpired between her and Captain de Waal when she wrote various statements as opposed to - for instance, her detention file Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, she's ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: She's given evidence of her version and you are not calling Captain de Waal, now of what evidential value is this statement?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, in view of the fact that we have to make a full disclosure, we make that disclosure of what Captain de Waal says.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, whatever Captain de Waal says in this statement, of what value is it without him coming to give that evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, this document was contained in the police docket. As Mr Bizos handed in the statement of Captain Deetleffs, it will have the same significance. If the Committee deem it appropriate to call Captain de Waal, it will be necessary then but if not - depending what the witness says.

The witness's evidence is Mr Chairman, - as it will transpire, that she was told what to say by Captain de Waal, that her statements which she made subsequent to the interrogation by Captain Deetleffs which was placed before the Committee by Mr Bizos, Mr Chairman. We'll have to refer to those statements and this will be read in conjunction with that.

JUDGE WILSON: I'm also having difficulty, does this conflict with what Deetleffs says?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: Does this statement that you want to hand in now, conflict with what Captain Deetleffs said.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the version of the witness conflicts as to what Deetleffs recorded in his statement.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, that's the version of the witness but we have that. You've called her, why discredit her by putting this in?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, ...[indistinct] in view of that ...[indistinct] was in the docket, for the matter of completeness I'll hand it in but if it's not necessary then I'll retract the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: There must be some limit please, to try and hand in documents unless you are going to call a witness.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in view of that I will not hand in the statements.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may take it back.

JUDGE WILSON: You will of course be at liberty to use this statement if Captain de Waal comes to give evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment Mr Chairman.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, you made five statements whilst you were detained in terms of Section 29, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: The first statement was made on the 27th of April and it appears at pages 149 to 163 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it, hold it.

MR PRINSLOO: That's is of Exhibit R4 Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Pages what?

MR PRINSLOO: Pages 149 and 163 and 196 to 210, that's a duplicate of the same statement - the wording there appears to be the same Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR PRINSLOO: And then also a statement dated 27th of April, page 269 to 276 and a statement ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Dated when?

MR PRINSLOO: 269 to 276 Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Date?

MR PRINSLOO: 27th of April.

CHAIRPERSON: The same date?

JUDGE WILSON: The same date?

MR PRINSLOO: The same date according to the statements Mr Chairman. And then the 28th of April is the date, page 240 to 259 and 29th of April '93, it's 279 to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it, I think you're going a bit too fast for us.

MR PRINSLOO: Sorry, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The third one really - 28th of April ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What pages are those?

MR PRINSLOO: Pages 240 to 259.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, and the fourth one?

MR PRINSLOO: The fourth one is page 279 to 280 dated the 29th of April and the 29th of April, it's page 287 to 289.

CHAIRPERSON: On the same day two statements?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman, those are all the typed documents as it appears in the record.

JUDGE WILSON: What was the last page?

MR PRINSLOO: 289 Mr Chairman.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, I refer you to paragraph 65 of the first statement. First of all, let me start me off with page 149 of the statement - that's your first statement, is this the statement you made to Captain de Waal?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And this was in your own handwriting?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: As it appears at page 164 onwards of the same statement which is hand-written and the introductory part of this statement at page 149 which follows, gives a background of your life and where you come from etc., is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And also information with regard to your involvement in the Department of Information and so on?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, at page 158, paragraph 65:

"Kuba and I and Clive discussed that something should be done to rid the country of the communists and terrorists, like many concerned people we saw no other option"

Is that correct, did you say that or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, we discussed like everybody else what we were going to do, I'm not sure if the wording:

"To rid the country of the communists and terrorists"

I remember in my taped recording which I saw the video tape of, after that when I was speaking to Mr de Waal - Mr Deetleffs, I said:

"Well, we must get a homeland or something"

In other words, it was simply a discussion of how we were going to avoid ANC rule.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, paragraph 66 of the same page, bottom of the page - bottom of the paragraph at least:

"Clive informed me that he and Kuba were discussing someone"

and over the page:

"on the list which I had obtained from Arthur Kemp. Clive said he and Kuba had discussed eliminating someone because of his communistic associations"

Now, is that true or not and if it was said, when was it said to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is not true.

MR PRINSLOO: And now, you wrote it, why did you write that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because Mr de Waal told me to write it.

MR PRINSLOO: And now, turning to paragraph 72 of page 159 - the typed statement, at the bottom of the paragraph:

"It was obvious to me that Kuba had possibly done the deed and Clive and I later confirmed that Kuba had used the gun which Clive showed me one day in the house with a silencer. Clive and I then left. We were both of course shocked and the news and then went shopping"

Now, is that true or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not true.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you write it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because Mr de Waal told me to write it.

CHAIRPERSON: Please, allow the witness to give evidence please.

How much of that paragraph is not true?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"It was obvious to me"

onwards, which is the second last line at the bottom of page 159.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MR PRINSLOO: If you look at paragraph 74 - 74, I beg your pardon, what part of that is correct or incorrect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The start:

"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"

That's correct. The next part is not correct:

"This was done after much serious thought and because Clive and I felt that unless something dramatic was done, the county would be controlled by communists. Clive and I therefore highlighted the names of people whom we believed to be the enemies of South Africa. Certain names were added to the list I sent to Arthur, such as Justice Goldstone and certain newspaper people"

and so forth. It basically - certain names were added to the list, I'm not quite sure what he means - what that means but it seems to be out of context but during the trial, Mr van Leerus said to me:

"You have created a core of names and you have added names to the list - satellite names, to give the impression that you're sort of looking for a general list of names"

but I think in that context, certain names were added to the list. What he means was that I composed a list of core names and then I just added some to pad it, that was how I read this particular statement.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is not correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, paragraph 74 on the same page, the last four lines:

"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"

What do you say to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is not correct, I didn't know anything about the planning of the deed.

MR PRINSLOO: Right, 75, did you write that - why did you say that, is it correct or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 76?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it says:

"I don't know what Clive and Kuba discussed about the other enemies"

The word: "enemies" was introduced by Mr Deetleffs during my first couple of days of interrogation, he basically - and it can be seen on the tapes, where he says:

"Are they your enemies"

And he introduced the word: "enemies" into the lexicon here, I didn't discuss other enemies.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, paragraph 75, is that correct:

"I don't know what Clive and Kuba discussed about the other enemies"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it implies that I knew that other enemies existed and they were planning something but that I don't know exactly what they were planning, which is not correct - this is how I read this paragraph - this sentence.

MR PRINSLOO: And paragraph 76, what do you say to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it basically is a repeat of previous paragraphs where it says:

"Conversation between Clive and I often got around to what could be done to rid South Africa of the communists and terrorists"

It's referred to in a previous paragraph - paragraph 65, it's similar in content.

CHAIRPERSON: So, that is correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, as I explained about paragraph 65, everybody was discussing what could be done but the way this is put, it's as if we were planning some kind of action to rid the country of people which is not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, page 208, paragraph 80, the last three lines which starts:

"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"

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, could you ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 161.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you reading from?

JUDGE WILSON: Paragraph 80.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: There's some mistake with the marking of my page Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: It should be 161.

What do you say to that paragraph that I've read?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, this refers to the afternoon of the crime which I testified to and I don't recall to Clive about - or Clive saying anything to me about somebody being set up and certainly not about number plates. I had nothing to do with number plates, I'm not interested in number plates.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, paragraph 81 starts:

"Clive and I both discussed how difficult it would be to actually go out and kill someone"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

MR PRINSLOO:

"I asked Clive why he had become involved and he said Kuba had asked me in because he, Kuba, felt that something had to be done to stop the Government sell-out to the communists"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the last three lines of the same paragraph:

"Maria, Kuba's girlfriend had phoned to tell us that the police had taken Kuba's photograph album from his flat and they had linked Kuba to Clive with that. Clive told me he did not expect Kuba to do the job"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I never spoke at all to Maria, Kuba's girlfriend, I never spoke to anybody about a photograph album, I know nothing about a photograph album, I did not speak to the girlfriend - that is incorrect. I don't know when she phoned, she may have phoned, she may have spoken to Clive but I didn't speak to her.

CHAIRPERSON: Just in case I want to - there be no misunderstanding, when you say that these statements are not correct, are you trying to convey that they were the words of somebody else?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: These are the words of de Waal?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All that is written here are de Waal's words imputed to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: If I may explain, while I was writing the five statements - the first statement started on the 27th, I handed to Mr de Waal because he said:

"Well, you will just be released, you will be a witness"

And when he came - he came back and he said:

"Colonel van Niekerk is not happy with this, it is not satisfactory, you must change this and this and this"

And I changed it, then he took it back again to Colonel van Niekerk and by that time he was trying to - he said he was trying to tally up and this is why this statement of Mr de Waal's is so important because he actually admits that he asked me to change it - in his statement.

So what has been broadcast throughout South Africa as being my words are in fact not correct and Mr de Waal actually states that clearly in his statement, that he actually asked me to change it.

CHAIRPERSON: So I'm now recording - as I understand you, that all that you've said that is incorrect in the statement reflects the words of de Waal to you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Or on instructions from Colonel van Niekerk, I'm not sure but Mr de Waal ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But van Niekerk did not instruct you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr van Niekerk wasn't there ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, de Waal is the guy ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But Mr de Waal came back and said:

"Colonel van Niekerk said: "This is not satisfactory"

and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so anyway, the way in which you ought to write it is what de Waal said you should write?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct. I may add that I kept notes of that as well, of what he told me to change but they got lost in the papers and so forth because I was under Section 29 then.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, I refer you to page 272 of Exhibit R4 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: 272?

MR PRINSLOO: 272 Mr Chairman, paragraph 65.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it. Paragraph what?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph?

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 65, page 272.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: It's a statement made by the witness on the 27th of April '93.

JUDGE WILSON: Same day?

MR PRINSLOO: That's the typed statement I have in front of me Mr Chairman.

Have you got it Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO:

"And when I say Kuba, Clive and I discussed that something should be done"

et., does this not refer to a specific time and it continues statement? This particular paragraph 65, does it refer to paragraph 65 of your previous statements?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he came in and he mentioned certain paragraphs and I had to elucidate on the those paragraphs and the statement 269, Exhibit A114 is the elucidation or the clearing up of certain queries and directions that he gave me in terms of writing the statement and 272 refers to the previous paragraph 65. And I say here - when I say:

"Kuba and Clive and I discussed that something should be done"

etc., this does not refer to a specific time. We, the three of us and others talked of what could happen if nothing was done to stop an ANC/SACP take-over. Many people talked about it, I do not refer to a specific time here - only as a background to our association. I should have perhaps said quote:

"Kuba and Clive and others sometimes discussed that something should be done"

Now, if I may add in that ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: So this alteration that you say was made at van Niekerk's request by de Waal telling you to, removes the words you objected to about:

"Rid the country of the communists"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: That was taken out?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. Well, he asked me to elaborate on it but by that time of course I must add that I was very tired and disorientated.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MR PRINSLOO: Now paragraph 66, this paragraph refers to 1993 while the previous paragraph refers to:

"The growth of our association with Kuba. Clive informed me in March 1993, that he and Kuba were planning something concerning someone on the list but I was not party to those discussions. I was however aware that discussions were taking place"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I wasn't aware that any discussions were taking place between Clive and Kuba.

MR PRINSLOO: Was anything like this said by you on the video tapes during your interrogation by Mr Deetleffs?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't recall, I can go back to the tapes.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 72 which appears at page 273 ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Before you do that, this alteration as I understand it now, paragraph 66 on page 272, is a new paragraph that was also put in on de Waal's instructions?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: This is the new version?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: So, what has happened is, you have changed:

"Clive said he and Kuba had discussed eliminating somebody"

And it now reads:

"Clive informed me that he and Kuba were planning something concerning someone"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's paragraph 66.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is also not correct.

JUDGE WILSON: No, but it has removed the words: "eliminating".

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: ...[indistinct] your original version.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but he still wanted me to admit that I knew that they were planning to do something, which is not correct.

JUDGE WILSON: But it's now toned down?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It removes the word - it's toned down, correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, page 273, paragraph 72, that particular paragraph Mrs Derby-Lewis, what do you say to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No:

"I was not aware of his exact plans"

means that I was aware of some plans. That is what that implies, which is not correct and that night on TV we heard that a gun had been used which had - I had nothing to do with a gun, I'm not interested in guns, I know nothing about guns.

And during the taped - the video tapes which I viewed at the week-end recently, Mr Deetleffs continued to ask me about a gun and in the end I said to him quite vehemently:

"I know nothing about guns, why do you keep asking me about guns"

I never saw a gun.

MR PRINSLOO: So Mrs Derby-Lewis, why did you then write in paragraph 72 about the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because Mr Deetleffs ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] I didn't hear your question.

MR PRINSLOO: Sorry Mr Chairman, it's the noise coming from the audience, it's difficult ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm sorry about that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, you say you knew nothing about guns ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I'm just repeating the question. Why did you write in paragraph 72 with reference to the guns?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: You mean this paragraph?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, paragraph 72, why did you write that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because they were obsessed with my knowing about a gun, that was part of the plan to implicate me.

MR PRINSLOO: And you did mention - during your interrogation of Deetleffs, that there was continuously reference made to a gun. Did you ever admit to Deetleffs - during interrogation, that a gun was used?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: On the contrary, I became quite aggressive with him at one stage and I said:

"Why are you always talking about a gun? I know nothing about guns, at my age why would I sit here an lie to you"

It's on the tape.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, paragraph 73 - yes, yes, now if you read the first introductory part:

"Why did we get names on the list"

It's a question that's asked.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, we didn't get names, I got names - there was no we.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, who introduced this word:

"Why did we get names on the list"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I presume Mr de Waal because it was only me who requested those names, it was only me who received the names back. There was no ...[indistinct] on those names.

MR PRINSLOO: In addition, the rest of the paragraph:

"As I spoke to Arthur on the phone I obviously did not go into specifics. He's politically shrewd and there was no need to spell out why we needed the list when we met at the rotunda, he simply handed over the envelope and we discussed his ...[indistinct] citizen and his future plans"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's - I didn't consider Arthur Kemp's political shrewdness in any context at all, I didn't - there was nothing sinister in asking him for those names and he didn't think there was anything sinister as well and that was confirmed in his statements.

MR PRINSLOO: And then it continues - the last paragraph of paragraph 73:

"Clive and/or Kuba"

Clive and/or Kuba?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO:

"Wanted a description of the residences and I can only assume that this was to determine what sort of security surrounded the houses"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is totally incorrect.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, is that your style of writing:

"And/or"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO:

"I simply asked Arthur what was asked of me, I'm not a logistics person nor was I ever present at any discussion in '93 between Kuba and Clive about logistics. This does not mean to say I'm denying that discussions between the two of them were not going on"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That first sentence is incorrect but the last sentence is interesting because during my interrogation with Deetleffs, he said to me:

"Are you copying out"

and I said:

"No, I do not want to distance myself from those two men, I am - I don't want to leave them in the lurch"

And that was purely on a spiritual, emotional level, it had nothing to do with copying out from plans or anything and that was on the tape.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, if you turn over the page to page 274, paragraph 74:

"Clive told me sometime in March that he and Kuba had decided on Chris Hani to be eliminated"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's completely and utterly untrue.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you write it in your own writing Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because I was told to write it and if I may add I was told that nothing that I wrote under Section 29 could be used in court - that was an inducement, I was told on more than one occasion and I was told that if I hurried up and finished the statements by the Thursday night - because they were running to the Attorney General with these statements so that they could get some kind of a charge against me, I didn't know that but they kept saying:

"Hurry up, we must go to the Attorney General"

then he said I would be released on the 30th when my 10 days was up. And I said:

"And what is going to happen to me after that"?

He said:

"You will be a witness"

They were his words:

"You will be a witness"

CHAIRPERSON: That appears on the tapes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, there are no tapes of the Edenvale interrogation but I'm sure Mr de Waal will confirm that.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mrs Derby-Lewis, paragraph 74 as I read it ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Paragraph what?

JUDGE NGOEPE: 74.

MR PRINSLOO: 74.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Pertinently incriminates your husband.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I didn't know what my husband was doing and planning anything, I had no idea they were planning anything.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, I don't understand, why did you say you wrote that statement down in your own handwriting?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because Mr - may say something to the Committee, my feeling is that the police wanted to implicate me when I was first taken in and you will see it in that statement that I wrote in prison on the 2nd of May, down at the bottom of the first page. One of the journalists phoned me two days after my husband was taken and said:

"The police told them that I was in it up to my neck"

Now how they knew that, I don't know. After that of course, the public started and the ANC and the Communist Party started making remarks about my being the mastermind and the viper and the witch and all that sort of thing. Where they got that from, I don't know but the point was that I wasn't part of any discussion ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, if I may ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, Mr de Waal ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: You may have to realise that I was trying to get some information from you on something which is important.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I wanted to know, why did you falsely implicate your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, they told me to write it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And you agreed to write it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Of course I agreed to write it because he told me that it couldn't be used in court, both of them told me that. They said under South African Law no Section 29 statements can be used in court, so I presumed - and which was correct, it wasn't used in court.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What did you think they wanted it for - the police - Mr de Waal?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

JUDGE NGOEPE: What did you think Mr de Waal wanted this information for?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr de Waal - there were phases in the interrogation, the first was:

"Hurry up and sign this"

This was within the first three hours of being taken, I refused to that.

The second one occurred on the 24th of April, which was the end of Mr Deetleff's interrogation, then they needed a lot more of that because if you look what was on the 24th, it was rather innocuous, so then on the 27th when I started writing my final statements I believed that the police wanted to implicate me so that was why they told me:

"You do this and you do that"

And of course they wanted to implicate me because then I was charged with murder on the 30th of April.

So I could see - I see now in retrospect - now that this documentation is before me because I never saw it before, I see now what I believe to be their plan to implicate me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: When you implicated your husband, what did you think the police would want that information for?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: My attitude was that my husband was already a political football and I said that in - if you read my statement that I've handed in there, that we were both political footballs, that was the feeling of despair that I had.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you think he was already in it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I thought that he was going to be - Deetleffs told me that he wouldn't get bail, that he would get 15 years, that they basically already decided that he was guilty and this is in the tapes. He said to me:

"Neither of you will get bail, your husband will get 15 years"

So I immediately assumed that whatever I said wouldn't make any difference to their attitude to my husband.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: May this be a convenient stage to adjourn Mr Chairman since it's 1 o'clock?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll adjourn now and resume at 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

GAY DERBY-LEWIS: (s.u.o.)

MR PRINSLOO: ...[inaudible]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not correct, in Mr Kemp's five statements that he made under Section 29, he never once talked about seeing any implications in the list.

MR PRINSLOO: But in as far as you were concerned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you say that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, clearly I was advised to say that because it was part of the pattern to implicate me but there was no evidence at all of that in Mr Kemp's statements.

MR PRINSLOO: However, when ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] there being no evidence in Mr Kemp's statement irrespective of that, you chose the words when you say here:

"Because he clearly saw the implications of the list"

Now, you are saying ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon, I wrote the words, I didn't choose the words.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you wrote the words.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say that you wrote that because you were advised to say so.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And who advised you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr de Waal.

MR PRINSLOO:

"However when we met we did not discuss the list. After Hani's death, Arthur came on April the 12th to sort out the statements - computer programme, and he told me he had put two and two together and realised his list had been used. I never asked Arthur why there were descriptions of some houses and not others, I just assumed this was all the information he had"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct, I never really bothered with the list after I'd got it because I put it on the table and then we went canvassing and I left it, I never used it after that.

MR PRINSLOO: But this of putting two and two together ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, that was on the 12th of April when he came to see us and he was worried and asked us about whether the list that had been found in Mr Walus's flat was his, and we confirmed it.

MR PRINSLOO: Further down the page, the third paragraph, second line from the top:

"In Cape Town I put the envelope with my files in the office. I did not show the list to Clive in Cape Town"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not correct, I did show the list to Clive in Cape Town.

MR PRINSLOO: And then further down:

"There was no urgency to discuss the list nor any opportunity"

Was that correct or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct, there was no urgency to discuss the list because I didn't intend discussing the list with anybody.

MR PRINSLOO: Then we turn to page 276, that would be paragraph 81, the second line:

"This is not of course meant that one is to blame more than the others (but who am I to judge) but it's a fact that Clive told me that Kuba had come to him with the idea of liquidating someone from the revolutionary group"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is not true.

CHAIRPERSON: The whole of that paragraph or just the last sentence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The whole paragraph.

MR PRINSLOO: When you say the whole paragraph, is that from ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I am not trying to take the blame away from Clive - I mean, I never discussed blame with anyone.

JUDGE WILSON: Isn't it correct that this so-called second statement is not a statement at all, it is merely an answer to questions and it was never intended that it should be read on it's own but what one should do is read paragraph 81 of your original statement and then the changes brought about here?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And they - I gather from the heading of this statement that these are all replies to queries from Colonel van Niekerk, now the queries themselves do not appear ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: van der Walt.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Colonel van Niekerk.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it van Niekerk?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So, these are in reply to questions by Colonel van Niekerk but put to you by de Waal?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please Mr Chairman.

Now, the statement that starts at page 240 of R4, and I'm going to refer you to page 249 at the top - it starts actually at the bottom of the page 249 - it's paragraph ...[indistinct] Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 240, paragraph what?

MR PRINSLOO: It starts at page 248, paragraph 36 at the bottom and it goes over the page to page 249.

Now, at page 249 Mrs Derby-Lewis, it reads:

"Clive informed me that he and Kuba were discussing someone on the list which I had obtained from Arthur Kemp. Clive said he and Kuba had discussed eliminating someone because of his communistic learning's and associations"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Leanings, I think.

MR PRINSLOO: It's incorrectly spelt then, it should be leanings.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not true, that is a repeat of what we just discussed a minute ago - I think the wording was similar.

MR PRINSLOO: Page 250 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Hold it, just that sentence on page 249, is it?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Two sentences rather, you say they were not correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Page 250, paragraph 42, towards the first section of paragraph 42, the last three lines:

"It seemed obvious that Kuba had done the deed although I wasn't sure because I was not aware of his (Kuba's) exact plans - Clive and I then left"

That's now subsequent to the visit to the Venter's, is that correct Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's - well, the circumstances are correct but these lines are not correct, it wasn't obvious to me that Kuba had done the deed at all.

MR PRINSLOO: And with reference to the exact plans?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I knew nothing about Kuba's plans, exact or inexact - that is incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the one sentence in paragraph 42?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 42 yes, Mr Chairman.

The last two lines on that same page:

"That night on TV we heard that a gun had been used which had been stolen from the airforce armoury and this is how Clive and I confirmed that it must have been the same gun which Clive had given him and the gun which Clive had showed me one day in the house (with a silencer)"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: But that's what you wrote in your statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's what I wrote in my statement.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you write that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because Mr de Waal - as I mentioned before, was trying to implicate me as far as the gun is concerned and here he does.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, page 251, the second paragraph, that's still paragraph 42, the last two lines of that paragraph:

"Clive said he could not believe Kuba had been so amateurish driving around in a red car and not changing his number plates etc."

What do you say to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, I never discussed number plates with anybody.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there any subsequent discussion, subsequent to the assassination of Mr Hani between you and your husband with regard to that particular aspect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Which particular aspect?

MR PRINSLOO:

"Clive said he could not believe that Kuba had been so amateurish driving around in a red car and not changing his number plates etc."

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Clive said that he got a shock when he heard about Kuba, he never talked about being amateurish or driving around in a red car or changing any number plates.

MR PRINSLOO: The next paragraph, paragraph 43, the third line:

"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 people whom we believed to be the enemies of South Africa"

What do you say to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not true, that's a repeat of something we spoke of a minute ago. Certain names were added to the list, I already stated my position on that.

MR PRINSLOO: So you say that was not the discussion between yourself and your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, the last two lines of that same paragraph:

"The journalists' addresses were requested because I wanted to write to them about our attitude towards the CP"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you write that Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, again I was asked to write that, I was told to put it in.

MR PRINSLOO: Then ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't quite understand why but there it is. I never talked to anybody about writing to journalists about their attitudes towards the CP, I never ever brought that up.

MR PRINSLOO: Bottom of the page, fourth line from the bottom:

"When I spoke to Arthur on the phone about supplying the addresses I did not go into specifics, he's politically shrewd and I believe that he felt there was no need to spell out why we needed the names, after all we were on the phone"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't go into specifics because there were no specifics to tell him, it was just some information that I wanted from him as one journalist to another and the fact of him being politically shrewd is irrelevant because he had no reason to ask me why I wanted the information.

MR PRINSLOO: And was there any reason for secrecy?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, if there had been secrecy I wouldn't have phone him and asked him to fax it to me.

MR PRINSLOO: Over the page 252, paragraph 44:

"Certain of the names on the list we believed to be the enemies of South Africa. Clive and I had made plans at the beginning that some sort of arrangements should be made to liquidate one or perhaps more leaders of the ANC and the South African Communist Party"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I never had any - not true, I never had any plans ever involving myself to liquidate anybody.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, why did you say that Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because I was told to say it.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, the same paragraph 44 but the second paragraph of that paragraph, third line from the bottom:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I had no knowledge of Clive and Kuba deciding on anything.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you write that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: For the same reason as I have described, I was asked to write this by Mr de Waal.

MR PRINSLOO: The paragraph following on that:

"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. Somebody asked Arthur what was asked of me. I'm not a logistics person nor was I present at any discussions in 1993 between Kuba/Clive about the logistics"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Clive and Kuba never asked me to send a list Arthur Kemp, I did that on my own and I did not ask the security - anything about security with the houses, I just asked for the addresses and the photographs if possible.

MR PRINSLOO: With reference to Mr Hani's residence on the list which was supplied by Mr Kemp, was there any description furnished of his residence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: The next paragraph:

"This does not mean to say I'm denying that discussions between the two of them were not going on"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, that can be looked at in different ways, what sort of discussions? In the climate of 1992/1993, everybody was discussing what should be done. In this context, clearly they're talking about the specific discussions of which I had no knowledge.

MR PRINSLOO: Then the last paragraph of paragraph 44:

"Clive told me some time in March that he and Kuba had decided on Chris Hani as the person to be eliminated"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is not true.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 45:

"...[indistinct] there's reference made - I don't know what Clive and Kuba discussed about the other enemies mentioned on the list"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO:

"The other enemies"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is not true, I never talked about enemies. Mr Deetleffs introduced the word enemies during the cross-examination - during the interrogation at the beginning as I mentioned before.

MR PRINSLOO: With reference to Mr de Waal, has this statement ...[inaudible] to him, what do say about the words used here:

"Other enemies"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, clearly Mr de Waal got the word: "enemies" from Mr Deetleffs. Maybe they ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say that he got them from Deetleffs?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, because they must have colluded.

CHAIRPERSON: They must have?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because that was the whole point of the interrogation, was to come up with some kind of a story which could be presented to the Attorney General in order to justify charging me - this is how I see it.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there at any stage reference made by Captain de Waal who interrogated you, that your statement or version was in conflict of the version which was given by your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, on many occasions he came to me and he said:

"This doesn't tally with what Clive said"

MR PRINSLOO: Still at page 253, starting at the bottom of page 252, paragraph 46:

"Arthur Kemp phoned to say he had got some addresses I'd 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"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The first part of that is correct, he did say that he got some of the addresses. I asked for him to fact them to me but I didn't specify referring to the ANC/SACP people, I just said to him:

"Fax what you have"

and then he said:

"I'd rather meet you"

So, he didn't fax them, we met.

MR PRINSLOO: The paragraph following that, the date there is stated on the third line, 9 January '93, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it was the 29th of January 1993.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 47, the second paragraph:

"I presume Arthur wanted to see me rather than just faxing me the list because he saw the implications of the list and felt he should not fax it to me"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is totally incorrect, the reason why Arthur wanted to see me was because he - as he said told me, he was leaving The Citizen, he told me what he wanted to do with his life, we had a long discussion - as I testified in Court and he didn't say it was because of the implications of the list and that he should not fax it to me. I asked him to fax it to me and he said:

"No, I would rather give it to you because I want to see you"

That was the reason why we met.

MR PRINSLOO: And when you actually met Arthur Kemp, did he say anything to you with regard to implications on that list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Absolutely nothing, we never discussed it. He gave it to me in an envelope and I put it in my handbag and we had tea and discussed his life and what he was going to do.

MR PRINSLOO: Page 254, second paragraph of paragraph 48, fourth line from the top - I beg your pardon, from the bottom:

"I showed the list to Clive the next day and he took it, it 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 '93)"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is incorrect, I did show the list to Clive in Cape Town - only the top page, but he didn't take it, I just put it into the file and then I took it myself back in mid February when we came back from the President's Council. And this business about:

"Clive must have given the list to Kuba after that"

I have no idea when Clive gave Kuba the list.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, paragraph 50 at the bottom of the page:

"The next day it was confirmed in the press that Kuba had been arrested. Clive then said to me it looked as if Kuba had been set up because it was a rather amateurish job, Kuba had not for example changed the number plates and so forth"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, as I mentioned before, I don't recall ever talking about number plates, I wasn't interested. I knew nothing about their planning or who bought number plates or anything about number plates.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you ever have any opportunity to speak to Walus after he was arrested, before you made this statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there information in the press or anywhere where this information could have been conveyed that for instance, Kuba had not for example, changed the number plates and so forth?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I think there were reports of him being picked up if I recall but I think the police said something about they were keeping mum or they didn't want to say too much, they were busy questioning or - I don't think there was a lot of information in the press and certainly I don't think there was anything about number plates.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, paragraph 51, page 255:

"I asked Clive why he had become so involved and he said Kuba had asked him because he (Kuba) felt something had to be done to stop the Government's sell-out to the communists"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I did not ask Clive why he had become so involved, I didn't know my husband's involvement.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Until of course the trial and the - whatever, but at that stage when I wrote this, that was still - I hadn't seen my husband since he was picked up, this was I think the 26th of April and I didn't know his involvement or whether he was involved at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 51, the fourth line from the bottom of the last paragraph of 51:

"Maria, Kuba's girlfriend phoned to tell us that the police had taken Kuba's photograph album from his flat and they had linked Kuba to Clive of that. Clive told me he had not expected Kuba to do the job (the killing)"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I had nothing to do with Maria, I don't know anything about any phone calls that she made, I know nothing about a photograph album, I don't know anything about any link because - how could I know about a photograph album when I was still under Section 29. This business about:

"Clive told me he had not expected Kuba to do the job"

is also not true.

MR PRINSLOO: And if you look at page 256, paragraph 56, middle of the page:

"Clive, Arthur and I discussed the news of the day in brief and then Arthur and I sat at the computer in the afternoon trying to sort out a problem. Arthur left around 3 p.m. because his wife had a new baby and Arthur said he had to get home to help her. What was discussed at lunch is mentioned in paragraph 47. After Hani's death, Arthur came to our place on April the 12th"

and then there's dots, is that complete as it stands there?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't understand that, I don't know where paragraph 47 is - he did come to our place on the 12th of April.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 47 you've already referred to in your evidence at page 253. Now, page 259, second line:

'Then Clive said he believed Kuba would not talk"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't know anything about that. I believe that that came from Mr Kemp's statement - well, he was being held at the same time as me so I didn't know what he was saying, it was only afterwards that I saw that he had said that but I didn't discuss anything about:

"Kuba would not talk"

MR PRINSLOO: I will return to page 279, that's now a statement dated the 29th of April '93, consisting of two pages, paragraph number 3:

"When I gave the list to my husband there was no writing on it, now there is numbers next to the names and addresses and the registration number BMW525i, PWY525T written on page 13. The typed part of the pages is the same as I gave it to my husband. There is number 3 written next to the name of Chris Hani on page - it looks like, B now"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I never gave the list to my husband and as I have already testified, there was nothing on the list when I brought it home.

MR PRINSLOO: The next paragraph four:

"Captain Deetleffs showed me the same list on a previous date that I can't remember and I confirmed to him that it was the same list as what I gave to my husband"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't give the list to my husband.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you say that to Deetleffs - as was stated here or at least, did Deetleffs show you the list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think so, I can't remember.

MR PRINSLOO: And then the fifth statement is the one which appears from page 287 to 289, it's actually notes with reference to your diary, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, is it also correct that a detention file - referred to as a detention file on yourself, was kept by the police in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And this file you've perused?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And it contains information pertaining to your detention, treatment and complaints that you had or their observations?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: I ask leave to hand this in as Exhibit Z Mr Chairman, I will refer to it.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: That would be a detention file Mr Chairman, of Gabriella, Maverna Derby-Lewis. I will now lead certain evidence with regard to certain information in that file on the witness.

Now Mrs Derby-Lewis, the first pages - the subject matter of the detention file, the following page - a hand-written document, the date 23rd of April where it states that there were instructions given that you didn't have to have any literature apart from a Bible, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the paragraph following that also refers to reading material and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the first page is the file cover of the detention file, maybe we should number the pages Mr Chairman, I see they're not numbered. That will be the first page of the file in other words, the cover page being the subject matter or "onderwerp" - that will then be page one. Then at page 4, the date, 24th of April 1993 at the third paragraph it says:

"Visited Mrs Derby-Lewis, gave her supper, she only ate the fruit, she had no complaints"

Is that correct Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as Mr de Waal is concerned, what does he say as far this is concerned or don't you know?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr de Waal says in his statement throughout that I had no complaints and that isn't strictly true, I was feeling very, very bad and it is evidenced in this file but he didn't refer to that at all in his report.

MR PRINSLOO: On page 6 there's reference to you seeing your private doctor, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

"She's very ill and she's not feeling well"

That's the first two lines and I asked to see a doctor.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, what is the dates that you're referring to?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Page 6, you said?

MR PRINSLOO: I've marked it page 6 Mr Chairman. I beg your pardon, I think we've skipped - no, that's correct, it's page 6.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The date?

MR PRINSLOO: And the date is the 25th of April and right at the top of the page:

"Glass of milk, she was very upset, she didn't feel well"

And at the previous page - page 5 at the bottom, it's the 25th of April:

"Took Mrs Derby-Lewis to her cells - 08H40, she had half an egg and a glass of milk, she was very upset and she didn't feel well"

And the rest of that page then deals with her doctor - private doctor, is that correct Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Then page 7, 25th of April '93, 11H15 - the time Mr Chairman, towards the middle of that particular entry.

Can you read that Mrs Derby-Lewis?

"Mrs Derby-Lewis's"

there is something that is not clear.

"complained that she had a headache and that she had stomach ache and she wished to see Doctor Latsky"

MR PRINSLOO: Is that any mention made - as far as you know, by de Waal?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No. Oh, he mentions in clinical tones that I went to see the doctor as a report but he doesn't mention my condition, in fact he says exactly the opposite. Throughout his report he states:

"She has no complaints"

MR PRINSLOO: And the same page, the entry the 25th of April, 11H40:

"Visited Mrs Derby-Lewis, has several complaints according to her - would return with regard to other requests made by her. I tried to calm her but she was half hysterical and said that if we did not contact Sergeant Niemand and tell him that she would be - if she didn't see him she would bash her head against the wall and then they would probably help her"

Is that correct, did you say that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And this goes from page 7 to page 8 Mr Chairman. Page 10 Mr Chairman, the date 25th of April at 6p.m., the third line:

"She however asked for something to nibble on because she wasn't really hungry. I gave her a glass or milk, 4 slices of snackwiches and a banana. She was very happy and she didn't have any further complaints"

Mrs Derby-Lewis, during your detention - in terms of Section 29, is it correct that Captain de Waal requested you to point out a particular place where you allegedly received the list from Arthur Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he did.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Chairman, this appears - the reference to this which appears to be part of an occurrence book SAP10, it's the second page thereof of the same document - it's at 12H50p.m., it's part of the detention file. That will be page 22 around the middle of the page:

"During an interview with Mrs Derby-Lewis, she ...[indistinct] herself no longer prepared to point out the place - interview conducted by Captain Louw in his office"

Is it correct that Captain Louw was not attached to the security branch?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And when you saw Captain Louw, what did he say to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was told by Mr de Waal to go and point out something and that Captain Louw would go with me or send somebody from the Edenvale Police Station to accompany me. When I got to Captain Louw, he said to me:

"You have a choice, you need not go"

and I said:

"Well, do I now have a choice"?

and he said:

"Yes"

so I refused to go.

MR PRINSLOO: In each of your statements which were placed before the Commission, in none of the statements does it appear - from the statement itself, that you were ever warned in terms of the Judges Rules by Captain de Waal, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall.

MR PRINSLOO: But from the writing on your statement.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: It does not appear from in writing from your statements, that you were warned in terms of Judges Rules.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it was never given any options, only the option of:

"either write and do as you're told or you won't get out"

MR PRINSLOO: And if de Waal had given you that warning to say that you were not obliged to say anything but should you say anything, it would be taken down in writing and may be used as evidence, would you have exercised that option or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I would not have exercised that option.

MR PRINSLOO: Why not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because I continually asked them for legal help, I felt I deserved it. I was not in an environment that I understood, I'm not a legal person and it's the first court case I've ever been involved in.

MR PRINSLOO: Did de Waal give you an option to remain silent?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: What did he require?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he told me that I must simply write and that I must hurry up because they wanted to go to the Attorney General and that if I didn't write, they would make an application for a further 10 days and that 10 days deadline was coming up on the 30th of April.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, on the 30th of April when - I beg your pardon, before I proceed, the document Exhibit Y1 which you compiled with regard to the treatment meted out to you by the police whilst detained in terms of Section 29, you also made a note with reference to what transpired between you and Captain Louw - just a moment Mr Chairman, at page 8 of Exhibit Y1 Mr Chairman:

"30 April, I was told by de Waal that I must go and point out where I received the envelope from Arthur Kemp. I was told that a Captain Louw of Edenvale would accompany me. When I got to Louw's office, he told me I had a choice to go or not. De Waal did not tell me that when I confronted de Waal with the fact that I had a choice, he backed down and said I need not go"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, on the 30th of April 1993 you were exempted from the provisions of Section 29 and you were then interviewed by Detective Warrant Officer Holmes who was the investigating officer in this case.

I now show you a document which will be referred to as Exhibit AA Mr Chairman.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, in this statement Exhibit AA the Detective Warrant Officer - according to the document, informed you of your rights and asked you whether you understood it and at page three you said: "Yes" and then after your signature on page two the question is:

"What do you wish to do, make a statement, only answer questions or remain silent"?

and your reply was:

"Remain silent"

Is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you exercise that right at that stage whereas previously you made statements to the police?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I exercised the right because he gave me a choice and previously I had no choice.

MR PRINSLOO: And after you were exempted from the provisions of Section 29, you were then taken to court and you appeared in court, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: That is the Magistrates Court?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: You were then charged with the murder of Mr Chris Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, subsequent to your appearance in court, is it correct that the Attorney General - Mr van Leerus at the time, issued a certificate in which you were refused the right to make an application for bail, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In terms of the ...[indistinct] Act?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, during your detention in the prison, you wrote the document Y1 which you already testified to before the Commission and subsequent to the trial you wrote a document which is referred to as: "Ons Eie"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That's an article you wrote, and what is the purpose of this article?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: At the end of December 1993, an Afrikaans magazine called: "One Eie" asked me to write an article about my detention, which I wrote and then they translated into Afrikaans. This is another record of what happened to me in detention and it was done at a time when there was no thought of a Truth Commission or anything like that, it was even done before the ANC took over in April 1994.

MR PRINSLOO: I ask leave to hand this document in Mr Chairman, as Exhibit AB - the original is available.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the date of that document?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: What is the date?

MR PRINSLOO: The date of this document is February 1994.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was published in February 1994 but the article was written in December 1993.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, at your trial which followed, no statements made in terms of Section 29 were used by the State.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it also correct that at your trial the police docket at that stage, was not made available to defence at all?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the information which you compiled and put into Exhibits Y1 and 2 were done in custody without the statements which are now before the Commission?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, in as far as the articles are concerned which you intended writing pertaining to the list which was presented to Mr Kemp and the one you received thereupon, you said you wanted to write as to how people lived. Apart from those people on the list, did you have any other persons in mind whom you wanted to write about?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I was continually writing, I had many files about people that I was writing about. They were my next people on the list, they were the people that I considered writing about - particularly Mr Botha and a few of the others but of course I never got any further than that because when we came back from Cape Town we were advised that my husband was chosen as the candidate for the local Government Election and therefore we went canvassing from then on and I didn't proceed with anything further.

MR PRINSLOO: The public meetings which you attended of the Conservative Party subsequent to your release and after your acquittal till to date, was there ever any repudiation of the conduct of yourself, your husband or Walus, by the CP?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, on the contrary we were always well received by the Conservative Party. I still remained an active member of the Party, I rejoined the system as it was.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please Mr Chairman.

In as far as your husband Mr Derby-Lewis is concerned, during his detention - that's subsequent to his release or after he was exempt from the provisions of Section 29, did he ever complain in the press or to anyone with regard to the treatment that was meted out to him by the police whilst so detained?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'm not sure what he did while he was detained because I was also detained at the same time but subsequently I read press reports that he had complained quite vehemently about his treatment.

MR PRINSLOO: And in as far as your husband's position is concerned in the Conservative Party, subsequent or let me put it this way - first of all, prior to the assassination of Mr Hani, what was his position in the CP after people like Mr Kas Uys and Mr Thomas Langley who were senior members who left the CP?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: They didn't leave the CP, I believe at the end of 1992, my husband - I think was in The Beeld report - somewhere there, my husband was elected with Schalk Pienaar to the Dag Bestuur, the Executive Committee of the Conservative Party and it was the top structure.

He replaced Mr Tom Langley and Mr Schalk Pienaar replaced Mr Kas Uys, both of whom were senior members of the Party, so my husband was - then at that stage, at a very high level in the Party.

MR PRINSLOO: So, did he continue to hold an executive position in the CP?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he was part of a - there were seven committees set up to make a policy of the Party and he was made Chairman of one of those committee together Mr ...[indistinct] van der Merwe. May I read a small paragraph on this issue?

MR PRINSLOO: That's from The Beeld newspaper?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: From The Beeld.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, you may do so.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"In November last year together with Mr Schalk Pienaar, CPL MP for Potgietersrust was elected to the CP Executive in the place of Mr Thomas Langley and Mr Kas Uys, two founder members of the CP.

Mr Derby-Lewis in 1992, together with Mr Daan van der Merwe were appointed CP MP's members of seven committees of the CP who were appointed to investigate possible policy adaptations in the Party. The Committee had to investigate who the nation and who the burgers were citizens"

That's from The Beeld of the 19th of April 1993.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I undertake to make copies of this document, I only have one but I believe the actual report of The Beeld was handed in by Mr Bizos at some stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And there was some difficulty in reading that particular report, as I recollect correctly. There is a page Mr Chairman - of which I'll make copies, that was referred to by the witness of complaints which was received by the press with regard to treatment meted out to Mr Derby-Lewis and this particular page - I'll just show it to the witness and I'll make copies - which appears in the Sunday Times.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct. Yes, this is a summary of their complaints concerning their treatment under Section 29.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, as from the late '80's and the beginning of the '90's ...[indistinct] the assassination of Mr Hani, what was the political climate in this country as far as you understood it as a member of the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I was a journalist and I wrote articles in the newspaper, so I was very attuned to the way the Party felt and since the unbanning of the SACP and the ANC in 1990, the Party stepped up a campaign of alerting people as to what dangers lay ahead and that was handed in our bundle - I think it was Addendum C, whereby there were extracts from The Patriot.

The point was that the Party was becoming militant and every single article that appeared in The Patriot that referred to militancy - for example there was one that said: "We wish to take up arms" which was actually the front page, all of those articles were approved by Doctor Treurnicht who was in fact Editor in Chief of the Conservative Party's paper. So, the fact that we have submitted extracts from The Patriot is significant in that it represents the feelings and official policy of the Party.

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as the Conservative Party is concerned Mrs Derby-Lewis, was there at any stage - prior to the assassination of Mr Hani, the belief that the ANC and the Communist Party will take power in this country?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, very much so. The Editorials of The Patriot and the discussions amongst the people were - people were very afraid because - as I mentioned before, Mr de Klerk had gone ahead without a mandate, so the Party itself was militant and the people - the members, were also militant.

There were many discussions as to what should be done and there were discussions by people on the ground - in living rooms and at braaivleis's and so forth, as to what should be done and because there was a lot of infiltration of the right wing at that time, a lot of people said: "Well, if anything has to be done, you must do it on your own - there are no plans or anything to be discussed".

In terms of what Mr Bizos refers to as the: "brandy and coke brigade" who sit in the bars and talk about all the things that they were going to do, there were more serious discussions than that but it was generally agreed within the right that anything that would be discussed or planned would be kept to an absolute minimum need to know basis.

But there were definitely discussions, people were planning resistance, the climate was extremely tense and people were really afraid of what was coming - of what they knew was coming, it was a genuine fear.

MR PRINSLOO: The Conservative Party, did they spell out that they would oppose the ANC/SACP coming into power or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, on many occasions they said: "They must be stopped, we will stop them". It was discussed - not only in The Patriot, it was discussed at the various meetings and councils and congresses of the Party and in September 1992, it was decided that - a motion was passed that a freedom could not be attained through passive means, it would attained through active resistance.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the perception in the minds of the White electorate - particularly the right, with regard to the fact that the SACP/ANC would take power?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, there was great fear, at one stage we didn't believe it was happening. We simply couldn't believe that Mr de Klerk was capitulating so easily, in fact Mr Slovo said in one of his reports: "We got just about all we wanted", so the word negotiation was in fact a euphemism for capitulation in the minds of many us.

MR PRINSLOO: The fact that this country was ruled for a very long time by Whites and suddenly there was the fact that dawned upon the people that there was going to be majority rule - Black rule, did this affect the people at all or not as far as you're concerned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the point was, the Conservative Party's policy was to divide the country up so that there wouldn't be hegemony over all of the nations, it wasn't the fear of Black rule or Zulu rule because our policy was that everybody would rule themselves.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, in as far as Mr Arthur Kemp is concerned, did you at any stage learn from him why you were charged or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why what?

MR PRINSLOO: Why the witness Mr Chairman, was charged in this particular case.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, just after I was given bail I met Mr Kemp and he told me that he had discussed with Mr Holmes - Warrant Officer Holmes, he said: "Why did you arrest Gay"? and Warrant Officer Holmes said that the only reason he was charging me was that, quote: "So we can use her test ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Is Mr Kemp going to be called to corroborate this statement? - a serious allegation is being made against an officer, are we going to hear Mr Kemp or are we only going to have the hearsay evidence of the witness?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: We have been patient for a long time in the production of hearsay ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: But I think that the time has come that we should ask you to intervene and not allow the witness to make out a case for herself without primary evidence being led.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the position is - it's already testified to by the witness, that Mr Kemp is overseas.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you should allow your witness to talk about a conversation between Mr Kemp and somebody else.

MR PRINSLOO: I will retract that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a second please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We have had a lot of that, we've allowed you a great deal of latitude - allowed the witness a great deal of latitude.

MR PRINSLOO: As you please Mr Chairman. Just a moment please. Thank you Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to the witness?

MS VAN DER WALT: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, you said to your counsel that when giving evidence before the Judge President of the Transvaal - as it then was Justice Eloff, you prevaricated.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: The Chairman asked you whether that meant that you lied.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: Will you please enumerate the lies that you told the Judge President of the Transvaal?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: The first one?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm talking now - page 487 of the court record.

MR BIZOS: Yes, what was the lie there?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, page 515 of the court record.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the point?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: On what point did you lie?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I have made a note here ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't want you to read it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Can I just read that without you going through the record?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

I think that you want to know just precisely what points on which she ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Yes, on what points did you lie? Please tell us.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The lie that I told on two or three occasions during the testimony was:

"Did you give the list"

Sorry, just a minute - I'm sorry, just please hold on.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There were - these, yes sorry, it concerned the fact as to whether Clive had given Kuba the list.

MR BIZOS: And you lied about that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I did.

MR BIZOS: Did you lie in order to protect your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I did.

MR BIZOS: Are you not lying now - through your teeth, in order to get amnesty for your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Definitely not Mr Bizos, definitely not.

MR BIZOS: Well, let's examine it, what other lies did you tell?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't tell any other lies and I offered this evidence immediately to the court.

MR BIZOS: Did you lie about the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't lie about the gun.

MR BIZOS: Did you tell Judge President Eloff the whole truth about your discussions with your husband and Mr Walus about the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I never discussed a gun with Mr Walus or my husband.

MR BIZOS: Was that the truth?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That was the truth.

MR BIZOS: Did you lie to Judge President Eloff about the policy of the Conservative Party in relation to violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall talking about the policy of the Conservative Party to Judge Eloff, could you be more specific?

MR BIZOS: I will be and I will start right away. What is your evidence, in April 1993, was there a policy of the Conservative Party to use violence in order to achieve any of it's political aims?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In 1992, that was an option, it was decided upon at the Kimberly Congress.

MR BIZOS: Please answer the question.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I have answered the question.

MR BIZOS: In April 1993, was it the current policy of the Conservative Party to use violence and including that, murder in order to achieve it's political objectives?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was never the policy of the Conservative Party - it was never part of the policy, to use murder as a political objective.

MR BIZOS: Or violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Or violence.

MR BIZOS: Right. Let's have a look at your evidence today about this perception at discussions at braaivleis's and other places where you attempted to give your husband an opportunity to say that he was furthering the political objectives of the Conservative Party, was the evidence that you gave here correct or incorrect this afternoon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you talking about discussions amongst ordinary right-wingers at braaivleis's?

MR BIZOS: I am talking about the policy of the Conservative Party and it's members.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no that's not the ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: As it's members - as of the Conservative Party.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, that's not the evidence I gave, I gave the evidence that people were discussing amongst themselves - the people on the ground, as to what to do to stop the ANC and the SACP coming to power. I did not say that it was official Conservative Party discussions, I said it was people on the ground.

MR BIZOS: What was the policy of the Conservative Party, one of violence or non- violence in April 1993?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The policy of the Conservative Party in April 1993 was set by the Congress in September 1992, where active resistance was declared an option.

MR BIZOS: Who was to decide whether that option should come into force or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The Party.

MR BIZOS: Did the Party - before April 1993, decide that violence was now an option?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not that I know of.

MR BIZOS: Not that you know of.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not officially.

MR BIZOS: Well, knowledge is knowledge, what unofficial special knowledge did you have about the Conservative Party having a policy of violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I would like to mention that in November 1993, sorry, November 1992, there was a General Council Meeting in Pretoria where people were extremely upset and asked Doctor Hartzenberg: "What are we going to do, what about violence" and Doctor Hartzenberg said: "Of course it's not the Party's official policy but we do not put all our cards on the table.

MR BIZOS: Did you understand that - that the Conservative Party was speaking with two tongues?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: One at it's Council Meeting and the other to the public?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: did you consider that statement as a statement that the option that was mentioned in Kimberly in 1992 was to be exercised in April 1993?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I didn't decide upon any options Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: No, you were the information - well informed person of the Conservative Party, please give us a straight answer.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That is a straight answer.

MR BIZOS: Was the police - let me finish please, was the policy of the Conservative Party by April 1993, one of violence or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I answered that question a minute ago, I said no unequivocally.

MR BIZOS: No, absolutely not, but you added that you had the ear of the Deputy Leader of the Party.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't say that.

MR BIZOS: Well, I thought that you said that he said at a meeting that: "We do not put all our cards on the table", what did you understand by that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He said that to everybody at the meeting, he didn't say it ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He said that to everybody at the meeting, he didn't just say it to me.

MR BIZOS: Well, it's said to a small group of people - how many on this council?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He didn't say it to a small group of people, he said it to about 300 people.

MR BIZOS: He said to 300 people that: "We do not talk openly about or policy, is that what it is?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he did not say that.

MR BIZOS: What did he say?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He answered a request by somebody who said: "We have to do a lot more than we're doing now" and he said: "Well, we cannot put all our cards on the table".

MR BIZOS: How did you understand that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I understood that to mean that obviously we would have to look at some other options but it could not possibly be the policy of the Conservative Party to murder somebody, no policy of any political Party states in it's programme of principles, that it's going to murder somebody.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, when you gave evidence before Judge Eloff, did you tell the truth about the policy of the Conservative Party and your personal attitude to it in relation to violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I don't - you would have to be specific in terms of what I said, I don't recall ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I'm asking you whether you told the truth - before I become specific. Did you tell the truth or did you lie to Judge Eloff?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't lie to Judge Eloff, I told the court now on which specific point I lied.

MR BIZOS: Right.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And why I did so.

MR BIZOS: Can we accept that everything else that you told Judge Eloff, you will not accept as being true?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I would say so, he picked out that particular point and he said I prevaricated, he said I was not truthful: "She was protecting her husband probably" and he was 100% right.

MR BIZOS: Yes, you've already said that earlier, please try and answer the questions directly so that we can make some progress. Now will you please listen to what you said to Judge Eloff because it's of some importance to hear what you said about the Conservative Party and violence - at page 6, 7, 9 and subsequent pages of the record.

JUDGE WILSON: Can you say what Volume it is?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, will that be pages 6, 7 and 9 in brackets or the open numbers?

MR BIZOS: It's the pages in brackets.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] the others are found in the record.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: Should you not have the record Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: In brackets we have page - or I have, page (6), (7), (8) and it then goes to page 681. The other number given is page 538 and it jumps to 541.

MR BIZOS: Can I just read it to the witness, the applicant's got a copy Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: We have a copy Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Which has those pages?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: We have one copy Mr Chairman, which one member of the Committee can follow.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] propose reading out that passage to put your question to her?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] page (6), (7), (8), line 25 - we will make sure that those pages of photostatted and put in your records Mr Chairman.

"As far as the record is concerned, both Mr Faan Venter and Mr Darrel testified that it was discussed at Conservative Party Meetings where Mr Darrel was present and where your husband addressed the audience, that there is a possibility that licences that are - that had been issued might be recalled and that people will be left unarmed"

Are you aware of that? Oh, 1993, sorry, 1993.

I beg your pardon, no, I beg your pardon, sorry - (6), (7), (9), yes:

"The Conservative Party has even made public statements - our spokesman of Law and Order, Mr Schalk Pienaar expressed the possibility in public statements"

Is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, you mean ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Let's proceed, let's proceed please.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And then both Mr Venter and Mr Darrel also testified - or let's first take Mr Venter's evidence, that when your husband approached him for a firearm your husband said to him:

"That was in order to stockpile weapons"

Was that in accordance with the CP policy or with your personal, political intervenes?

"I would not say the CP had not ? view, the CP had not made a ruling on that, we had had a congress in September 1992 in Kimberly - a general congress and three resolutions were passed, the first was that the option of the election be the first sort, then second was negotiations.

If these two options failed, the third would be discussed and it would go from positive to active resistance - I'm sorry passive to active resistance. That was a Conservative Party decision, so the fact that people were stocking up on weapons - a lot of people were afraid that what had happened to the Whites in Angola would happen to the Whites here"

Is that your answer and is it true?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"So there was nothing sinister in the fact that people were stockpiling weapons"? - "No, not at all"

"It was not intended to go and - say for example, to murder Mr Hani"? - "No, everybody was talking about it - Mr de Vos, could you reach"

Anyway, let's go on to page 680 - there was just questions about an adjournment in-between Mr Chairman.

"The last ...[indistinct] aspect we dealt Mrs Derby-Lewis, is the question of stockpiling and you explained to the court what the decisions were at the CP Congress in Kimberly. According to your own knowledge, was there a general attitude amongst your supporters to obtain weapons and to stockpile that for some future event"? - Yes"

Is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"But that event was not a certain fact"? - "No, it was - what is the word, I cannot think of the word, it was a plan - contingency plan, in other words it was not a policy, the Party did not say: "Go out and stockpile weapons but the point was that they did not trust the Government.

There had been a record of lies over the last five years and they would say one thing and do another, so one felt that any guarantees that were given were not worth the paper they were written on. So, the general feeling amongst Conservatives was that we had to look after ourselves in the event of something happening".

Are you happy with that answer and is it true?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Good.

"But what course should be taken in future was still to be decided"? - "Yes, we are all members of a Party and we take instructions from the Party"

Are you happy with that answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is the way I feel.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

"Now at that stage, during the or before the 10th of April, was the Conservative Party still involved in negotiations at the World Trade Centre"? - "Yes, that is true".

Are you happy with that answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"And do you have any knowledge when did the Conservative Party withdraw from the negotiations" - "If I remember correctly it was last month or a month or two ago, I am not sure"

Was that your answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"So it was - intervenes - it was some months after April" - "Yes, yes" "1992"? - "Yes" - court - "993, Mr de Vos - Oh 1993, sorry, sorry, 1993"

You were giving evidence during October 1993, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And when you said that the Conservative Party was still negotiating until a month or a month or two ago, that would not take us further back than August 1993, would that be correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think it finished in July 1993.

MR BIZOS: Well after April anyway?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Good, you're happy with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: "

"Now you have read in the newspapers I suppose, what was said about murder, so-called conspiracy etc."? - "Yes"

"Did you" - "Yes, I read lots of things in lots of newspapers"

"And have you read more in the newspapers than what you have heard in court"? - "Yes, I have been convicted and tried by the newspapers"

"And does that also apply to accused number one and two"? - "Well, the three of us have"

"Now, if you were in fact involved in a conspiracy, would you have organised the murder of Mr Hani in the way it was described in court"? - "Well, I would not have organised any murder"

"But it seems to be to be as if the man who murdered Mr Hani virtually acted on his own on that day - there was no getaway car or anything to that effect, would you agree with that" - "Well on the face of it, yes"

Now can we please go on to page (682).

"Are you aware of any common purpose that was formed between accused number one to murder Mr Hani?" - "No"

"Are you aware of any conspiracy between accused number one and two and yourself, to murder Mr Hani or the people mentioned in Exhibit J? - "No"

"Now, on the 12th when the list was discussed, when Mr Kemp was at your premises, did you get the impression that accused number two was quite surprised when the question about the list came up and it was alleged that that was the same that was in Mr" - "Ja, actually we had - oh, sorry, we had discussed earlier.

When I went to buy the newspaper and I came back with The Beeld and I saw that they had specified in The Beeld that there were some journalists names and there were nine names and so forth and I discussed it and then my husband and I" - intervenes

"And was he surprised to hear about this"? - "Yes, we were shocked and -well, we were shocked"

Now, at that stage when you were giving evidence, were you holding forth that you had no knowledge whatsoever in relation to your husband's participation in this murder?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: And was it part of your case that you never asked your husband - either after the murder before your arrest or after your release from arrest or whilst preparing for trial, or whilst you were speaking to him during the court adjournments, that you never asked him anything about the list, anything about the gun and anything about the manner in which he was or may have been involved in this murder?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: That was your case?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: May I elaborate on that answer?

MR BIZOS: Yes, if you must.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: We were told by our attorneys that we were never to discuss the case at all with anyone.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and you observed that instruction?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I was in jail for three and a half months, so I never discussed it then and then when I came out on bail I used to visit my husband and he was always in the company of somebody at the prison and we subsequently found out that our visits were taped in any event.

And then when we were in court they were brought in and they were taken downstairs, there was very little time to discuss the case and in any event the attorney told us not to discuss the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: But, after the murder, no attorney told you not to discuss with your husband whether or not he had any involvement in this murder.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, the attorneys told us not to discuss the case with anybody and I was never in a position to discuss anything with my husband without anybody present.

MR BIZOS: Is this before your arrest?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Bizos, I think - sorry, there's a misunderstanding here, I think - to the extent that I understand Mr Bizos's question, he's referring to the period from the time we were told about the murder - you learnt about the murder from Mrs Venter, until the time of your husband's arrest - during that period.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, on the 12th when I went to buy the newspaper I saw the list and then I asked my husband: "What happened to it, did you give it to Kuba"? and he said yes, he gave it to Kuba. I never asked about a gun, I never discussed any plans. He refused to tell me, he wouldn't tell me anything and up until the time of the trial even, I wasn't aware of his full involvement in the case.

MR BIZOS:

"...[inaudible] so that is the first time you heard about the pistol and did you discuss this pistol with your husband - this issue of the firearm"? - "No"

Are you with me at 686?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. Sorry, 686?

MR BIZOS: Do you see line 20, I'm on line 20.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, yes, yes.

MR BIZOS:

"I discussed it with him later on when we were travelling in the police car going to the courts" - "Yes"

"When was this, before or after the charge sheet had been served on you"? - "No, we were already in jail - when you were - in jail and we just discussed the case"

"Now, well let's talk about the pistol, what was your nature of your conversation when you discussed this pistol when you were in the police car to and from the jail"? - "The first time that I was in the police car, I, when I got in I was very upset and I was crying and Kuba put his arm around me and said: "Not to worry, everything will be all right", he said: "I just had that pistol for target shooting"

"And what did your husband say about the pistol"? - "Nothing"

"Nothing"? - "No"

Is that the truth?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: You don't think that you were disbelieved among other reasons for the evidence that you gave in relation to the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos - through the Chair, I never discussed a pistol or a gun with anybody, I don't know anything about weapons.

MR BIZOS: No, the question was - whether in view of your answers, did it occur to you that one of the reasons that you must have been disbelieved by the Judge, was because of your answers in relation to the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, not at all, it never occurred to me whatsoever.

MR BIZOS:

"Not a word"? - "Well, we were in the car with eight policemen"

"You were having one car, eight policemen, that is quite a package. What type of car was this"? - "It was an Inyala"

"Oh, in that one of the police"? - "The police van yes"?

"The big one"? - "Yes"

"But you say accused number one found time to say something to you about the pistol but not your husband"? - "Correct"

"And did your husband ever say anything to you about the pistol"? - "No"

Then further on:

"Did you ask him about it"? - "No, no never"

"Never"? - "Since he was arrested it was always a piece of plastic between us at the jail - was sitting in the Inyala"

"Even here during court session, did you ever ask him about these allegations" - "No"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I wasn't - oh, I beg your pardon, sorry.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Were you asking me a question?

MR BIZOS: No, I'm reading now to you and - that it's your evidence, so that the Committee can find out how distant you were from your husband in relation to this conspiracy.

"But it was vital isn't it, if it is true that the State alleges that your husband had this ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Bizos, I've lost - where ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Bizos, whereabouts are you now?

MR BIZOS: Last line 687.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"But it was vital isn't it, if - it is a vital piece of evidence"? - "Well, he must handle that with his attorneys"

"I see, but you did not bother to ask about that"? - "No, I'm leaving it to his attorneys"

"And you also did not tell him anything about the list which had the names on"? - "Yes, I discussed it with him on the 12th"

"On the 12th, this was after it was published in the newspapers"? - "Correct"

"Yes, you drew your attention to it"? - "Pardon"?

"Did you draw his attention to it or what"? - "Yes, I drew his attention"

"So, throughout - I just want to have this quite clear, throughout since the day of prior to Mr Hani's shooting - subsequent to the shooting, you never once asked your husband about these allegations regarding his possession of the firearm, Exhibit 2 and the fitting of the silencer to it"? - "No, I left that to him and his attorney" (End of tape - Tape 4 Eng & Floor - no sound)

"...[inaudible] Smith testify that he fitted the silencer and gave it to Darrel"? - "No, I do not know Mr Smith at all, I was not in Cape Town, I know nothing about that part"

"And you heard the ballistics evidence by the ballistics expert that this particular weapon, Exhibit 2 was the one that killed - on his evidence, the deceased and did you ask your husband about the weapon then"? - "We discussed the evidence, yes - that it was highly technical nature, we could not understand it"

"I see, so at no stage did you talk to him about the weapon"? - "No"

"And he did not volunteer anything to you either"? - "No"

"Well, I have to put it to you that it is improbable that you never discussed this vital piece of information with him and that is what I am going to argue later, that you are not telling the truth, the truth when you say that you never discussed the question of his possession of the weapon that killed Mr Hani, with him"? - "No, I did not"

Were those your answers?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: They were correct, yes.

MR BIZOS: And you repeat them here?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I repeat them here.

MR BIZOS: And you have nothing further to add in relation to it and you want your credibility - you are happy to have your credibility on this issue, decided by the Committee on the questions and answers that I have read out to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: May I make a comment?

MR BIZOS: Well, if you consider it relevant and it isn't going to be a speech, of course.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, you know, I don't know whether I must go by Mr Bizos's definition of a speech, however at no stage did I discuss a weapon and if you will examine the tapes under Section 29, I also said that very vehemently to the security police - that I had never discussed a weapon. A weapon doesn't interest me, I'm not interested in weapons. What kind of weapon, I don't know, I don't understand weapons. It wasn't what the court calls a vital piece of information, it may have been vital to the court but it wasn't vital to me.

MR BIZOS: Finished?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: The pressure that you speak of - of Section 29 or the alleged trickery of the police or any other pressure that was put on you during your period of detention, could not persuade you to say anything about the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't know anything about the gun, I had never seen a gun, I had never seen a silencer in my life.

MR BIZOS: Is the answer that all the pressure did not induce you to make a - to even falsely say that you had some knowledge about this gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But even if I had falsely said it, they would have immediately known that it was false knowledge because I have no technical knowledge of a gun. There was simply no evidence at all that I had seen a gun or discussed a gun.

MR BIZOS: Now, let us ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Bizos, any questions relating to the gun, do you understand as being technical questions in relation to the operations of the gun or were they simply questions in relation to whether or not a gun was used in this particular case?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, you're correct, the questions were not technical, they were in relation to whether or not I had seen one but when they asked me whether I had seen one - they went on and talked about various types of guns and a Z88 and so forth, they mused over what type of a gun it was and I said to them well, I don't understand guns, I never saw a gun and I wasn't interested in guns - from a technical point of view as well. I know it may not be relevant but that is what I said.

JUDGE WILSON: But the question I find difficult is not whether you were interested in guns or not but whether you were interested in whether your husband had supplied a gun to murder someone.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't ask him that question. I was told by the attorneys not to speak about my case and I had no privacy with my husband, perhaps if we had had privacy I may have asked him that but to me it was not of real vital importance - a gun.

MR BIZOS: Didn't you have lunch together when you were a co-accused in court -in the cells downstairs, didn't you eat together at lunch time?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, in fact my husband was taken downstairs and we were not allowed into the cell, we used to stand outside but there were a group of us.

MR BIZOS: What group?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it was Kuba and the attorneys and one or two friends had come down but the police insisted that my husband and Mr Walus be placed in the cell, so we used to stand there with the people and have a sandwich.

MR BIZOS: In the long passages?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, there were cells down underneath the Johannesburg Supreme Court and we stood outside the cell, they were locked in the cell.

MR BIZOS: You were on bail and he was in the cell?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, correct.

MR BIZOS: And were you not concerned whether or not you were married to a murderer as alleged by the State or an innocent man that you believed him to be?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I left it to the attorneys and the courts to decide what had happened.

MR BIZOS: Were you or were you not interested whether or not your husband was a murderer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Of course I was interested and concerned.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did you not ask him? - such a loving couple that you were.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, Mr Bizos is being sarcastic about this, there's no need to be sarcastic.

CHAIRPERSON: No, please. Mr Bizos, please put your questions in a proper way.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] absolutely - were you not absolutely burning with a desire to find out whether or not the allegations in the indictment by your husband that - particularly that he supplied the gun, that he supplied a gun with a silencer, were you not interested in finding out?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not at all.

MR BIZOS: Not at all. And you are serious in that answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm absolutely serious - as I said in the court, I left it to the attorneys.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And what about the allegation that the list which was called the list - the hit-list in the court, it was alleged in the indictment specifically that your husband handed it over to the first applicant Mr Walus, didn't you ask him - as soon as you saw that allegation in the indictment, "Look what they say about the list, they say that you handed it over to him, did you or didn't you"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I asked him that on the 12th.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: This was before the indictment was handed to us.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Before we were even arrested. On the 12th when I bought The Beeld in the morning, I saw that they had mentioned the names of journalists in the list and I adduced that it was my list. And then when I came home I asked my husband: "Is this our list and how did this man get it" and he said: "I gave it to him".

MR BIZOS: I see, is that what your evidence before Judge Eloff was?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I've told you already that I prevaricated on that matter, I didn't know to what extend my husband was involved in this, so I tried to protect him and that is correct, I have already stated that.

MR BIZOS: But you knew that evidence from you that your husband had handed over the hit-list to Mr Walus, would have led to your husband's conviction.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly.

MR BIZOS: You were prepared to defeat the ends of justice in relation to the acquittal of - possible acquittal of your husband, by lying - deliberately lying?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the attorneys told us that the court would find out anyway what happened, that I was trying to protect him and I admitted to that to this Committee.

MR BIZOS: No, no, but we're going to take it a little bit further - that the purpose was to defeat the ends of justice.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't have that purpose in my mind, it may ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Well, ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sir, may I finish?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It may be defined like that by you but that wasn't my purpose, my purpose was a personal emotional purpose to protect my husband.

MR BIZOS: Now, you decided to go into the witness box when your husband decided not to go into the ...[inaudible]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That was his decision on the advice of his attorneys.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And not only did you lie about what your husband had said about the list but you also became very inventive during the course of your evidence, you made up a whole scenario as to how he probably picked it up from your glass table.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't, that case was put by Mr Jordaan who was the attorney for accused number one and he asked me that question and he asked me did I know about that and I said: "It was possible", I did not invent that story.

MR BIZOS: Well, whose decision was it to give evidence that you left it on the glass and that you never saw it again and you didn't know what had happened, was it Mr Jordaan's ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That was Mr Jordaan's ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Let me finish please, was it Mr Jordaan's inventiveness or yours?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It wasn't my inventiveness at all, Mr Jordaan is a Senior Advocate and that was his position, he dealt with his client without my being part of the discussions.

MR BIZOS: Where did you suggest he got the possible theory that Mr Walus picked up the list from the table by accident?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I have no idea.

MR BIZOS: Did the question come as a complete surprise to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Well, did you reflect on it before answering it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: And when you said that it was possible, you knew that in fact that had not happened?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: I want to take you to the bottom of page 693 of your evidence - before I do that, was Mr Kemp assured - in your presence, that he must not worry because Walus would not talk?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't recall that, he testified to that fact but I don't recall it.

MR BIZOS: Who testified to that fact?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Kemp.

MR BIZOS: Did you ask you husband to refresh your memory for the purposes of this hearing?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, I don't understand the question?

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you - what is the question?

MR BIZOS: If you do not recall, did you ask your husband - for the purposes of this hearing ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: If Mr Kemp's evidence was correct or incorrect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think - for the purpose of this hearing, no, but I think we discussed it and my husband said he didn't recall either but we didn't dispute Mr Kemp's statement.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Wasn't the defence planned by you and your husband and Mr Kemp on the 12th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Why not? We know that your husband was guilty of murder ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: On the 12th ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Let me finish. We know that you had drawn up the list, we know that Mr Kemp had something to do with the list and it all involved Mr Walus who had been arrested three days before, once three people involved in that way, why would you not have discussed your defence on the morning of the 12th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because there was nothing to defend, neither Arthur nor I had become involved in that list for any sinister purpose - there was nothing to defend.

MR BIZOS: But why would your husband not say to you and/or to Mr Kemp, that the police are going to come - that you agree with, you expected the police to come?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, because the list was in the newspaper and we were worried.

MR BIZOS: And did you not - didn't the three of you work out a story as to what Mr Kemp would say, he would say enough - that which could not be denied, but which was innocent, that you'd say enough but only that portion which was innocent and that your husband would say only that which was innocent and that is collecting arms with silencers for self defence. Wasn't that story worked out on the morning of the 12th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Definitely not.

MR BIZOS: Well, we know that two people now admit that they conspired to murder, why should conspirators or at least one of them - when a material witness is present like Mr Kemp, why would they loose the opportunity to try and work out a false defence for themselves?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because their attorneys told them not to testify, Mr Kemp - what he said was completely correct.

MR BIZOS: Did you consult attorneys before the 12th of April Madam?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: I'm talking about the 12th, forget about the attorneys.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about during the trial.

MR BIZOS: Well, do you mind answering the question then? Why, when an admitted member of the conspiracy to murder was present - your husband, you were present who at least admitted that you drew up a list on which Mr Hani's name was and Mr Kemp who had done some research about these homes, once the three of you were together on the 12th, why would you not discuss what each one of you was going to say if the police came to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It wasn't discussed at all, Mr Kemp was innocent, I was innocent and I didn't know at that stage, my husband's involvement.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and your husband was going to try and get away with it with your help and Mr Kemp's help?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not at all, that's a complete lie, that's absolutely untrue.

MR BIZOS: Well, you have admitted to telling lies under oath in respect of some matters.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I told one lie under oath and I admitted it and I said why I did it.

MR BIZOS: Well, that would have been even more so if you were prepared to lie under oath to Judge Eloff, you would have been in a - very keen on the 12th to cover your husband's tracks.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos, you make the mistake of imputing to somebody who tells one lie, that they are a perennial liar, that is not the case. I particularly brought this matter up before the Committee today so that they would see what I had done.

MR BIZOS: Well, we'll show you other documents where there are untruths in due course, so don't let's deal with it at this stage. Now, let's go back to 693, have a look at the bottom of the page:

"Yes, you are an experienced journalist -

Have the members of the Committee got this portion, 693 Mr Chairman?

"You are an experienced journalist and you had those insights and you knew that this would very easily lead to civil war or something like that in this country - the potential was there"? - "Correct"

"Yes, and obviously if you love this country so much, one would have expected you - as you profess, one would have expected you to have taken immediate steps to give whatever assistance you can to the police to try and unravel this particular murder"? - "But no, I repeat, we were apprehensive and very afraid"

"Well, I want to suggest to you that your conduct rather indicates the conduct of somebody who has got something to hide" - "Well, you entitled to your suggestions Sir"

Do you want to add anything in relation to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: No, very well. Now, can we please go to page 697:

"Are you one of those people who refuse to bow to the yoke of communism and ...[indistinct]"? - "Very definitely"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, what line is that?

MR BIZOS: It's line 21.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you.

MR BIZOS:

"So one could expect you if necessary to take serious note of the three options the Conservative Party spelt out at it's August meeting at Kimberly you told us about:? - "Correct"

"Those were negotiations, election, election and passive or active resistance"? - "Correct"

"And if it had come to active resistance, I take it in your mind said that you were such that you have participated in that"? - "If the Conservative Party had decided upon it, I am a follower and a believer and I would have done so"

Did you say that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Is that a clear statement of fact, that at that time the Conservative Party had not decided to go over to active resistance?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the question of Mr van Leerus was talking hypothetically, he wasn't talking about a fact and he said: "If the Conservative Party had decided upon it, would you have done it"? and I said: "Yes" because I was not part of the top structure of the Party, I was a follower - I didn't make the policy.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I know that this question was asked before the Act providing for amnesty was passed and this is why we will argue to the Committee that your answer there was the truth, can we accept it as a fact that at the time - in April, that the Conservative Party had not decided to go over to active resistance? Do you agree with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the Conservative Party had decided upon a mobilisation plan which was ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Answer the question please ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's my answer to the question.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, the witness has not been given the opportunity to answer the question ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I will answer the question as I see fit.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, it's long-winded questions.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, please allow me to answer the question - I apologise Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: "The Party had already embarked on a mobilisation campaign"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I apologise, we embarked on the mobilisation which - as I saw it, was part of the active resistance - I was part of it myself, and I believed that the Party was getting ready to defend it's principles otherwise why mobilise, mobilise for what?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] the suggestion of the word mobilisation?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, because it wasn't brought up.

MR BIZOS: Is the statement - as it stands question and answer, true or false?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Absolutely true.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean by mobilisation?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: After the September congress, the Party decided to mobilise, in other words to begin to prepare for active resistance and a mobilisation strategy was set in place and 17 or 18 categories were defined, some of which were defence and security and there was a policy of a homeland decided upon - where the homeland would be.

In other words, we were mobilising to stop the take-over of the ANC and the SACP, this was what the Party had continually said since 1990: "We will stop the ANC" - Doctor Treurnicht said it. So the mobilisation was - in terms of the Party's policy, to stop the ANC and the SACP.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the objective, the objective was to stop.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The objective was to stop, we were mobilising to protect ourselves from a communist take-over.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] we'll see how you were correct to say that the statement that you made on top of this page is correct and it doesn't mean mobilisation, let's continue.

"Well, it would have been quite in accordance with their attitude that you are not prepared to suffer the yoke of communism and tyranny" - "Correct"

"Right, so the answer is really: "Yes, I would have participated in active resistance" - "Correct"

"And these views of your of course, are entirely in conformity with the views of the first accused you have told us about"? - "Yes, these are the views of the Conservative Party"

"Well these views that you would actively participate to unyoke yourself from the yoke of communist tyranny - if called upon those views are also the views of the first accused ...[indistinct]" - "Yes, I presume it for him"

"Yes, you told us he is staunchly anti-Communist and so forth and that is the way you know him"? - "Yes, so if I may add, so would millions of others"

"Well, that may be so but they are not here now and you see you have also explained to your counsel when you gave evidence that look it is a mindset and you know the mindset is there, you do not have to reconfirm these things, you know it is there" - "Correct"

"And you know that accused number one has got a mindset as you"? - "Correct"

"Yes, and your husband too as far as the politics are concerned" - "Absolutely"

"Yes, so there is this communality between the three of you, that you all have the same political mindset that active resistance is something that you would grab too if necessary" - "Yes, as I repeat Sir, ourselves and everybody else in the Conservative Party"

Are you happy with those answers?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And at that time you were not trying to dissociate yourself from murder, were you or were you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I made no decision about associating myself or dissociating myself with murder, murder in prinicple or this particular crime.

MR BIZOS: Now, let's go further, let's go - you say that you wrote something but I want to go to line 11:

"Yes, now it seems to me Mrs Derby-Lewis, that you found yourself in a rather difficult position. I want to suggest to you that not only did you have to fight of the possible yoke of communism and tyranny but you also had to fight off the National Government which is you are - in the way it's put here in your paper ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, excuse me, where is Mr Bizos reading from now? What page Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] line 11.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you follow it or must I start again Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: If you wouldn't mind starting again.

MR BIZOS:

"Yes, now it seems to me Mrs Derby-Lewis, that you find yourself in a rather difficult position. I want to suggest to you that only did you have to fight off the possible yoke of communism and tyranny but you also had to fight off the National Government which in your - in the way it is put here in your papers, seems to promote the potential of the yoke and it seems to me you had a war on two fronts"

Is that fair?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"I would say that the first problem was the National Party" - "Yes"

"Without the National Party the communists would not be here today and it is with the release of the communists by the National Party" - "So"?

"So, my first line of attack will be the National Party" - "Ja, no, not the communists"

"In fact your organisation - people of your political mind said: "we're faced with a two front war", if I can put it that way - the one against the National Party and the one against the communists" - "Not necessarily, we felt that the National Party held the power to curb the communists and they were not doing so. The communists were only as effective as the National Party was weak"

Are you happy with those statements that you've made?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Right. Now, let us go to page 704, line 10:

"And of course one way of stopping people in their tracks, would be to take out the leadership" - "No, that is not my style"

"I'm not saying it is your style or not, I am putting to you as a realistic proposition that if you want to stop a movement in it's tracks, one way of going about it is to take out the leadership" - "No, one of way of going about it is to get rid of the National Party Government because they are the ones who allow the funds to come in to feed the revolution and that is my line of thinking and that is what I have written about the last two years"

"Yes" - "And it is evidenced in my articles, yes"

"Can you argue with somebody who reads this article of yours, especially your conclusion: "If not stopped in their tracks, that action against this particular organisation that you described here namely the ANC/SACP alliance's revolutionary plan (End of tape 4, side A - no follow on)

"...[no sound] it's the reason.

"How do you stop this in it's tracks"? - "You stop them by stopping the funding, this is my line of thinking. Yes, I have written numerous articles as I repeat, about that - not murdering people"

"Yes, but that is an option which has been used elsewhere"? - "Yes, but it is not my option, I am a member of the Conservative Party and this is their approach"

Was that your answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: So that - we were talking about the time of Mr Hani's murder, it was not the policy of the Conservative Party to murder people and that is loud and clear in your evidence here.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I would like to add that this is my opinion. This is my evidence, it's not the evidence of other people and this was my approach. This is how I saw the Conservative Party, I was a follower ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, you said it was their approach.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but this is how I saw their approach.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] what I am going to put to you is, that now you are telling another lie. Having told His Lordship Mr Justice Eloff that you would not associate yourself with murder because you are a disciplined member of the Conservative Party and Conservative Party members do not commit murder, you know find yourself wanting to change that categorical statement in order to accommodate your husband's and his partner in crime's application for amnesty.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Can I ask how I am changing that categorical statement, in which way?

MR BIZOS: Don't you understand Mrs Derby-Lewis, that there is a difference between stating that the policy of the Conservative Party as stated by it's information head in October 1994:

"Not murdering people" - "Yes, but it is not my option, I am a member of the Conservative Party and this their approach. Their approach is no murder, that is the Conservative Party's approach"

You now want to qualify that in order to bring your husband's and his partner in crimes actions within the ambit of the Act, that it has to be done on behalf of a known political party - that's why you're changing your evidence.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I haven't qualified my approach. If you recall, I said the Party's policy was not to murder anybody but no political party has a policy of murdering anybody and Doctor Hartzenberg had said - I can't remember what it was, what was it I just said? - yes, that we do not put our cards on the table, I explained that there were other options and that other people were taking action and I still stick to what I said.

It was not the Conservative Party's policy to murder anybody nor was it any other party's policy to murder anybody but murder occurred - it was a war, there was a war going on despite the fact that Party's didn't have policies which stated unequivocally that people would be murdered. And it is in that climate I submit to the Council, it is in that climate that I made these statements today.

MR BIZOS: So this statement should really have read:

"Save that the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party at a Council Meeting said that: "We do not declare our Policy publicly, therefore my Lord - to Judge Eloff, you must accept that there are elements in the Party such - possibly as my husband, Mr Walus and myself, who subscribe to violence but we are not prepared to speak openly about it"

Isn't that the difference between the two?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, you've added me to the two, I do not subscribe to violence but that's not the point. What you're saying is correct, what I have said to the Council but in the case of war the Party had one policy of not murdering anybody - no Party has a policy of murdering anybody.

And to put that question to any Party, they would say: "No, it's not our policy to murder anyone".

MR BIZOS: Except that honest Party's sometimes form military wings and they issue manifestos, have you heard of that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the ANC put out a book: "Forum on Mass Mobilisation", they never said: "Mass Murder", they never said: "Mass Killing, Mass Intimidation", they called it mobilisation and that was their policy, a path to power. And nowhere in that book do they decide or did they describe that they are going to murder anybody.

MR BIZOS: Have you heard of any Parties - when they go over to violence, adopting a manifesto and forming a separate wing in order separate the people who are prepared to commit violent acts and those who are not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Have you ever heard of anything like that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Of course I have.

MR BIZOS: Well, the Conservative Party didn't do that because their public statements were that they are against violence.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, if you look at the front page of The Patriot in the middle 1992 - it's in the evidence:

"We want to take up arms"

What do you take up arms for?

MR BIZOS: I am not interested in headlines in The Patriot ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, The Patriot ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I am interested in your evidence ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: May I finish please?

MR BIZOS: Please listen, please ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The Patriot is the spokes - is the mouthpiece of the Conservative Party and it is full of that kind of thing - urging the people to do something.

MR BIZOS: Do what, to kill people?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: We must stop, we must stop the ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Are you saying that The Patriot urges people to kill people?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: No". Thank you. Let's go on, just how important have you - you took of Mr Hani's association, is correctly reflected in your article you wrote:

"Hani, Communism and Negotiation"

It is part of Exhibit KK and I want to read the last paragraph to you:

"Hani's death removed an important role-player from the ranks of those who would see a communist Azania, it also released a devastating genie from the bottle. Who will be victor out of South Africa's current chaos is anyone's guess"

Did you write that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"Do you think"

the question by the Attorney General:

"Do you think the fact that he was assassinated Mrs Derby-Lewis, in fact had an effect of slowing down the take-over by the ANC/SACP in the way you have described the take-over"? - "No, not - no, because they are plenty of other Chris Hani's"

"I see" - "The fault lies - as I repeat, with the Government"

"Yes"? - "Yes.

"I think this is fair political comment" - "Yes"

"Well, I think Mrs Derby-Lewis, why I refer you to your writings is to show that you held very, very strong views" - "Well, these are and you had now the view of the Conservative - and you had no the views of the Conservative Party"

"Well, you wrote it" - "Yes, but they were approved by the Conservative Party and printed"

"Yes" - "If they did not like these views they would not have printed them"

"So, could I just summarise your political view as follows: It seems to me it is fair to put to you that it is your view or it seems to be your view, that sooner or later armed resistance would become a factor of life in this country if the negotiations carry on the way they were carrying at this stage"? - "Yes"

Are you happy with that answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

"And I think you have also made mention in on or other of your articles that APLA had already declared war on the Whites or against the Whites"? - "Correct"

"And that actually your attitude is that we're in a state of war in this country at this stage"? - "Yes. Yes, General Constant Viljoen said, Doctor Treurnicht said, Doctor Hartzenberg also said that"

"And you further believe I understand - if I may put it to you this way, that the Whites there is a psychosis of fear and helplessness"? - "Yes"

Are you happy with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"And it is also your attitude that if you are at war the rules don't count than when you are at peace"? - "Correct"

Are you happy with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"So whilst the taking of a person in peace may amount to murder, when you are at war it does not necessarily need to amount to murder"? - "No, I do not believe that"

Is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not correct.

MR BIZOS: You said it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, just hang on, I want to read it again if you don't mind.

"Who, whilst the taking of one person - when you are at war it does not necessarily need to amount to murder"

I think I'm agreeing with the negative tone of his last sentence because my feeling is that is war, war is different to peacetime and I think when I say: "No, I do not believe that I'm actually agreeing with the negative verb in the sentence:

"When you are at war it does not necessarily need to amount to murder" - "No, I do not believe that"

MR BIZOS: We don't have to argue semantics because the next two sentences make it clear.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: If you don't mind, if you don't mind, please may I explain myself, it is not semantics - if you don't mind.

MR BIZOS: Could you explain after we've read the next two questions and answers so that we can get a complete picture.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, the witness must be afforded the opportunity to explain what she understood by that.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] draw the line Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Let her do it.

MR BIZOS: Let the witness explain, we'll take it again.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I finished ...[indistinct], you interrupted me twice, I've finished now.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

"Where do you draw the line"? - "I do not have the ability or the capacity to make those kinds of decisions, I am a supporter of the Party"

Do you agree that in the context of those three answers you are giving out to the world that it is the Party that decides whether people should go to violence or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, in my position as a non-policy maker, yes - as a supporter, yes.

MR BIZOS: And was Mr Walus a policy maker?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Was your husband a policy maker?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Why was he a policy maker on his own?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: May I read something to you?

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Answer why?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Will you give me a moment, I wasn't prepared for this?

MR BIZOS: Do you want your husband's ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: The witness is looking for a particular document which is in her file.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, it's the - I think - I just read it 15 minutes ago.

CHAIRPERSON: No, just - the question was: "Why do you say your husband was a policy maker?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's exactly what I was ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It was because he was elected onto the Executive of the Party.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, there was a specific - I'm sorry, I just read it 15 minutes ago where it described my husbands position in the Party.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: On the next page I actually come to end to this line of cross-examination and you may find that to be a convenient stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: So, I would just like a simple answer: "How does one individual become a policy maker to make policy for the Conservative Party"? - that's the question.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I just read it a quarter of an hour ago and if you will give me three minutes to find - here it is. This is the extract from The Beeld which we promised to give copies to the:

"In November last year along with Mr Schalk Pienaar, was elected to the Potgietersrus Management Committee for the CP in place of Mr Tom Langley of Soutpansberg and Kas Uys of Barbeton, the two founder members of the KP.

Mr Derby-Lewis was in 1992 - along with Mr Daan van der Merwe, they were the elected CP MP's and the Chairperson of one of the seven caucus committees appointed after the referendum to address certain policy adjustments within the Party and to investigate that.

The particular committee had to investigate the matter of who the people and who the citizens were"

He was elected to form policy for the party.

MR BIZOS: In what respect, whether to go over to violence or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There's no respect, it's simply in the terms of a forming policy for the Party, they don't define there but he - I'm talking about him, I'm not talking about the Party, he was a member of the body that formed policy for the Party.

MR BIZOS: In what respect and could he change the resolution of the Kimberly Congress on his own, to go over from violence to - from non-violence to violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know.

MR BIZOS: You don't know. And did you see the video of what the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party said about murder after Mr Hani's murder?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think that was fair comment, Mr Hani's murder ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Not fair comment, a statement of fact.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, and fair comment as well. Mr Walus was unknown to him at the time and he was asked for a reaction which he made, he didn't know anything about Clive's involvement. He came to see me the day after Mr Hani was killed and asked me what was going on - the day after - sorry, Mr Derby-Lewis was arrested and it was only then that he realised that maybe he was involved and he never repudiated him.

MR BIZOS: Now, what I'm going to put to you is that your evidence that I have read out to you, was deliberately given in order to make out the Conservative Party a peaceful Party and that your husband and you as disciplined members of the Conservative Party were not capable of murder because your Party had not decided to go over to violence. Do you agree with that interpretation of the evidence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, n, I do not.

MR BIZOS: You don't, very well ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: May I elaborate?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In this is my evidence, it is not the evidence of my husband, it is my evidence and my attitude to the Party and the way I perceived the Party and the way I perceived my position in the Party, it is has nothing to do with my husband's attitude or position.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but you went into the witness box not only for yourself but to lie for your husband and to give evidence which would be favourable to him in the hope that he would be acquitted.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I did not go into the witness box to lie for my husband, I went into the witness box voluntarily. My attorneys asked me: "Would you like to testify and I said: "Yes, I have nothing to hide".

And it is now when I read through my testimony that I realised that I had and I said to my Advocate: "I would like to bring this up before the Committee immediately.

MR BIZOS: Yes, did you think that we might miss it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon?

MR BIZOS: Did you think that we might miss it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't think you would miss it.

MR BIZOS: You did think that.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's not the point, I brought it up because I wanted it brought forward to the Committee. I wasn't judging myself on your agenda, it was my agenda.

MR BIZOS: It may be a convenient stage to go onto another topic on another day Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, the Committee will now adjourn and resume at 09H30 tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

02-12-1997: Day 5

ON RESUMPTION

ADV MPSHE: Advocate Bizos, you are still cross-examining the witness Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Derby-Lewis, you are reminded you're still under your oath.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, have you got an address for Mr Clarke?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't but I can provide a telephone number where he can be contacted and I can provide a telephone number for Mr Faan Venter as well.

MR BIZOS: We don't want to make it public, would you please just write the telephone number of a piece of paper so that we can hand it to the representative of the Committee. Yes, if that could just be handed over to Mr Mpshe please.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. Mrs Derby-Lewis, the list with 19 names on which was found on your computer, when was that list made, give us a date please.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I can't remember exactly, I think it was towards the end of December.

MR BIZOS: The end of?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The end of December 1992, I'm not sure.

MR BIZOS: And by the time of Mr Hani's death more than three months had passed since you wrote that list of 19 names?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Did you write letter to any one of the 19, asking for an appointment?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Did you phone any of the 19 to ask for an appointment?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Did you take any other step other than asking Mr Kemp to find the addresses - for whatever purpose, in order to communicate with these persons for the purpose you stated you drew it up - because you wanted to have interviews with them, did you take any steps?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, and I testified as to why I didn't.

MR BIZOS: Because you were busy with an election?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: Now, when was that election declared?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think it was declared in January and the voter's role closed at the end of February but there was a change of tactic by the candidate who had resigned and I think they extended the time to register the voters, until March but when we came back from Cape Town we only had until the end of February to register voters.

MR BIZOS: Could it - how is it that you allowed what was going to be a scoop which you hoped would shake the ANC and the people who - and the editor's and the newspaper persons, how is it that throughout this period you didn't find five minutes to make a single telephone call in order to execute this plan of yours that you considered so important?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, first of all, it was a scoop in the sense that it was my story but it didn't have a time limit on it and that exhibit that I handed in yesterday which was taken from the ANC's computer - when I finished the trial, I gave that exhibit to one of the newspapers and they published it as a story. It didn't really have a time limit, it was published in October 1993 by Report and I have it here, I'd like to hand it in.

MR BIZOS: You had vital information on the ANC at the time and if you had the notion that you would obtain from these interviews with one or another or all the 19 people, how is it that you did absolutely nothing to execute that plan but the execution of the plan of eliminating one of the enemies actually was being discussed and serious steps were being taken in order to execute it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: One had no bearing on the other.

MR BIZOS: So you say.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I just said, I answered your question before.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was a background journalist, my column was called: "Review and Comment", I didn't write about current matters, I wrote about background matters. And I have here to hand in, a running list of those articles that I was writing about the gravy train so that the Committee can see that it wasn't just something that I sucked out of my thumb and from the air.

I had been writing and it was a continuous process and it was again written in October 1993 - the same subject. That subject: "The Gravy Train" has been the talk of the country for years, it's not a scoop that one writes about in five minutes.

MR BIZOS: You were a journalist on The Patriot which was a newspaper committed to the policies of the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR BIZOS: Did you believe that Mr Nelson Mandela would give you an exclusive interview in his home?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Why not?

MR BIZOS: Well, please answer the question, did you believe Mr Mandela would give you a private interview in his home?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I'm a journalist.

MR BIZOS: Did you phone the secretary of the ANC in Shell House in order to prepare the possibility of the interview with the number one person on the list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos, this is the third time that I have told you why I didn't proceed with my plan, we went immediately into registering voters, this is the third time I've said it.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Try and answer my questions and ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That is an answer to your question which you've asked me three times.

MR BIZOS: Yes. When did I ask you three times whether you phoned the secretary?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, you've asked me three times about the lack of urgency that I purportedly displayed by not getting stuck into what I ...[interview]

MR BIZOS: Please answer my questions without any comment.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Excuse me, may I finish?

MR BIZOS: Don't interrupt me please.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

JUDGE WILSON: She was talking, you interrupted her Mr Bizos.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Please allow me to finish, I'm explaining something - in fact, I've forgotten what I was saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Please!

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I've explained to you how I worked. My column was called: "Review and Comment", it was not the sort of thing you write about on a day to day basis - there's a difference between a journalist and a reporter.

MR BIZOS: Did you ...[interview]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I had been writing about this for a long, long time. My first article was March 1991, my second article was October 1992, this one was October 1993, so for three years I'd been writing about the same subject.

MR BIZOS: Did you expect Mr Justice Goldstone to give you a private interview in your - in his home?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, why shouldn't he? - to ask a rhetorical question, I'm a journalist, I'm a registered journalist, I represent The Patriot.

MR BIZOS: Do you know whether Justice Goldstone gave the Judgement alone or whether another Judge concurred in his Judgement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I just read that he had given the Judgement. Are you referring to the Hillbrow Judgement?

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you referring to the Hillbrow Judgement?

MR BIZOS: The Govender Judgement.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. No, I just knew it was his Judgement.

MR BIZOS: Did you read the Judgement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't, I read press reports about the Judgement.

MR BIZOS: Did you take the trouble to find out whether perhaps another Judge, Judge Myburgh, concurred in his Judgement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't.

MR BIZOS: And before putting him on the list, didn't you think that you should possibly try and find out something about this Judgement and how legally sound it was considered before you put him on the list as one of the persons to be exposed?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I didn't put him on the list to be exposed, I was going to see who he was - I had already seen him once at a public meeting, and the Conservative Party's newspaper had written many, many stories about Justice Goldstone. In fact the Conservative Party had issued statements against Justice Goldstone, so it wasn't a personal vendetta on my side.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Wasn't it perhaps an uninformed and prejudiced view which you were propagating?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I wasn't propagating any view.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I had written two or three stories on his Judgements as seen from the Conservative Party's point of view and the Afrikaans section of the paper had also commented and if the Committee would like to see those articles, I can present them.

MR BIZOS: Did you think that he was an activist Judge because he said that the courts - when they have a discretion, ought not to grant an ejectment order unless they are satisfied that the person has got another roof to go to? Did you consider that to be a Judgement which was so outrageous that it required a visit by you to his home to see what his standard of living was?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't think that was a Judgement so outrageous as to do that. It wasn't particularly that, it was the fact that Hillbrow is almost uninhabitable now as result of Justice Goldstone's Judgement and all of the people who were on the voters role in 1981 - 22.000 Whites, have all left there, so there must have been something in my reasoning - and he's not living there either.

MR BIZOS: The question was whether you considered it so out of the way that the courts should require a person to have other accommodation before they are ejected, so out of the way that you required a personal interview with Mr Justice Goldstone for the purposes of saying that he was an activist Judge and that he was living in the sort of way that he was living - to write an article about him, is that what you thought?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I considered that.

MR BIZOS: And you consider that a fair-minded journalistic purpose?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I consider that to be of interest to Conservative Party readers.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, your journalist or the journalists on the list, did you expect each one of them - having regard to your attitude to them and the purpose for which you were going to conduct the interview, did you expect them to give you interviews at their homes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, because I differed from many, many other journalists in South Africa and I gave them interviews in my house.

MR BIZOS: Wouldn't a simple telephone call to them whether they would be prepared to give an interview - before you handed the list over to Mr Kemp, have saved a lot of trouble?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, we're back to square one again, I wanted to get their addresses, Mr Kemp did give me some telephone numbers and I wanted to go and see them and for the reasons that I explained yesterday.

MR BIZOS: The question was: "They were journalists in well-known newspapers, why didn't - before worrying Mr Kemp to find out their home addresses, why didn't you phone them and ask them for an interview, even if you asked them to at their home? Why didn't you just pick up the phone, why did you give Mr Kemp so much trouble to find out the address if you did not know whether they would grant you an interview or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I intended to go and see them at their homes, it actually never occurred to me to phone them first, I wanted to know where they lived to get their addresses.

MR BIZOS: Did you think Mr Hani would ...[interview]

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, do you mean you would go to their homes with no prior arrangements?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, I would phone them but I would know where they lived, no, I had no intention of going a-cold to their homes.

MR BIZOS: Did you think that Mr Hani would give you a private interview in his home?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: So why did you want his address?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because I wanted to see the way he lived.

MR BIZOS: But I thought that the purpose of getting the address was in order to go and have interviews to see whether they have persian carpets on their walls and on their floors and such matters.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct, but I personally didn't think Mr Hani would give me an interview.

MR BIZOS: Why then was Mr Hani's address and name one of the names that you gave Mr Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, for a couple of reasons, one that his name was on that MME list which I handed in and which I've now got here, which was published in October 1993 as getting R2.500-00 a month and in one of the reports that I had it said that he went to Seheti - he sent his children to Seheti school - which you know is quite expensive, R11.000-00 or R12.000-00 per child and I mentioned that in a previous article which I would like to hand in. I picked that up from overseas newspapers which I quoted and he ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Would you confine yourself please to answering the questions.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm answering the questions as I see fit, as I see fit. If the Committee doesn't like the way I answer the question, I bow to their decisions.

MR BIZOS: The question was: "Why did you give Mr Kemp Mr Hani's name to find out his address if you did not expect him to agree to an interview or if you did not intend to even ask him for an interview because you knew he would not give it, why ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't say I knew he would not give it, I said I didn't expect him to give it - I may have asked Mr Kemp to go and visit him.

MR BIZOS: Did you intend asking Mr Hani whether or not he would give you an interview?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that was part of the overall plan, he was already mentioned in my article in 1992, I'd already written about this very specific subject.

MR BIZOS: Yes, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Had you asked him for an interview before you wrote that article?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I quoted a foreign newspaper and it was from that - from the foreign newspaper, that gave me the idea of pursuing the issue. I quoted here from one of the London papers.

MR BIZOS: Yes. In relation to Mr Mandela, why did you think Mr Mandela would give you an interview but you thought it unlikely that Mr Hani would give you an interview?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'm not quite sure, I didn't know Mr Hani - I didn't know much about him, he seemed to be less of a malleable person than Mr Mandela but that's simply my opinion off the cuff now.

MR BIZOS: Yes. This list of 19, were there any names there which were put as camouflage?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, during my interrogation by Mr Deetleffs, I think it was quite clear that that slant which was brought up in the court was never even discussed, I'm not quite sure where that came from. I stated quite clearly in the interrogation why I wanted these names, I never talked about any kind of a call with satellite or padding names.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever - were you ever reluctant to speak to Mr Kemp about the list or the contents of the list, on the telephone?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, not at all.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever say to anybody: "After all we were speaking on the telephone"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't understand your question, to anybody who? Who would I be speaking ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Did you say to anybody that you did anything in relation to the list or the names with Mr Kemp but not on the telephone?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I never discussed it with anybody.

MR BIZOS: All right. Now, what was your real complaint about the journalists - The Beeld and The Sunday Times Editors?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I would like to submit an article that was written by Karen Bruinhard in 1984 that actually ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just please answer the question.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: I think they want to know what was your complaint about ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: What was your complaint about them?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'm referring to my complaint.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, instead of referring and reading the article, tell us what your complaint was.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I have to look at this in order to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Look at it please, look at it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm trying to avoid the necessity of having long answers.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it's a quick answer, Karen Bruinhard wrote an article in 1984 about the Conservative Party which cost us an election and Doctor Treurnicht stated afterwards that this was the case and I wish to hand in evidence of that.

MR BIZOS: Well, ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And as far as the other journalists are concerned ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Just a moment please.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, you did ask me about journalists generally?

MR BIZOS: Just let me ask you - you're intervening questions, don't be so critical of my manner, let others decide about my manner. Please answer the questions Madam.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But you asked me specifically about journalists plural.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] Chairman of the Committee. This person had written an article in what year?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In 1984.

MR BIZOS: And you thought that he must have been bribed in order to write that article?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, considering the evidence that's come out afterwards - in terms of how many journalists are on payrolls of other people, I wouldn't say that that too fanciful an idea.

MR BIZOS: A simple: "Yes" would have done.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't think a simple: "Yes" would have done.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, Mr Bizos cannot prescribe to the witness how she must answer questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now, if he had written this article in the early '80's - which you thought cost you the election, did you not believe that he might actually have believed in good faith, that he was doing his duty as a journalist?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I could not understand the mentality of a liberal Afrikaans journalist.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And do you concede the possibility that some men and women who are Afrikaner journalists, don't understand your mentality?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Absolutely, but you asked me my opinion.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And Mr Ken Owen, did you consider that he had been bribed?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Ken Owen was named as a spy in one of the articles, he was named in two articles as an agent, so my suspicions in fact ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: As an agent of what?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I haven't got the full details here, I have to read it - if you want me to read it and the Chairman doesn't want me to waste any time but I would like to hand it in, where Mr Ken Owen and Mr Tertius Myburgh and various people are mentioned to the Truth Commission in September 1997.

MR BIZOS: September 19?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 1997, this year.

MR BIZOS: Oh, I see, now we're dealing with 1992, December 1992, why did you consider them to be agents who had to be accused of taking bribes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't accuse them of taking bribes, Mr Ken Owen was a particularly vituperative antagonist of the Conservative Movement and I wrote to him on more than one occasion, asking if they couldn't publish something about conservatism in his paper and he continually refused. And I just found him ...[indistinct] to our cause and I just simply couldn't understand it.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that why you thought you'd have an interview with him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that's a difficult explanation to understand.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But why?

CHAIRPERSON: You've come to the conclusion that he was particularly vituperative, he was antagonistic to the CP over a period of time and you had him on your list. And I understand the reason that you had him on your list was because you wanted to interview him.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but you see, he owned a national paper and he was perhaps more choosy about what he put in his paper than what I would put in mine - I was only too happy to talk to somebody.

JUDGE WILSON: But surely if you wanted to speak to somebody like Mr Ken Owen about what he put into his paper, you would have gone to see him at his office.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I faxed him, I faxed him.

ADV POTGIETER: Mrs Derby-Lewis, why did you wait until December '92 - in regard to Miss Bruinhard who had written an article in 1984, before ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, she had written many - sorry, sorry ...[intervention]

ADV POTGIETER: Just give me a minute - before you decided to write something about her or to interview her.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, she had written many articles since then, this was the only one that I could find in my files last night when I looked through. She had written many articles, this was The Vaderland and then she moved over to some other Afrikaans press newspapers.

ADV POTGIETER: But which article persuaded you to pay attention to her?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, this one highlighted her animosity.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, because it seems as if this was a particularly negative one from your perspective because it cost the Conservative Party an election.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, correct.

ADV POTGIETER: Now, I'm just trying to clarify why you didn't show an interest in her earlier than December '92.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, because this was when I decided to expand upon the theme that I had being doing about writing about the gravy train - everybody was talking about it then.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

Who is Mr Wepenaar?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Wepenaar was Editor of The Beeld, I think he's since deceased or retired.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think he has since deceased or retired.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And what did you have against him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it was The Beeld newspaper as a newspaper. The Beeld newspaper was considered and stated by Doctor Treurnicht - quote, unquote: "as the enemy of the Afrikaner nation"

MR BIZOS: Who said that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Doctor Treurnicht.

MR BIZOS: Oh, yes. And did you think that he was also bribed?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I couldn't understand his attitude as an Afrikaner, surely he wanted to secure the future of his people as a people.

CHAIRPERSON: Anybody who opposes your particular view, was either because intellectually he differed from your view or because he was bribed, is that how you look at it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I couldn't, I - to a certain degree yes, I couldn't understand particularly an Afrikaner who would cast aside the future of his people as a people - that is my opinion. I may be wrong and I admit that other people have other opinions, I'm simply giving my opinion.

MR BIZOS: And Mr Tim du Plessis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Time du Plessis yes, he was the Assistant Editor of The Beeld and he was a particularly vicious supporter against the Conservative Party.

MR BIZOS: And did you have any reason to believe that he was also bribed?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, well, from my point of view I couldn't understand his attitude.

MR BIZOS: Yes, now ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Your view of the matter, does that now seem irrational to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You still believe it is not irrational, just because ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I believe Judge, in nationalism as a force in world politics.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And I can't understand how for example - if I may expand, President Mandela stands up for his own people.

CHAIRPERSON: No, please, don't go into that.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but I'm giving it as an example and I can't understand why an Afrikaner would turn against his own people.

CHAIRPERSON: I believe you must concede that the Afrikaner people - over a period of 200 or 300 years, have produced people of varying political views. They don't all think - there was no homogeneity in their thinking, so why should people who hold different views be people who were necessarily bribed?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because he held the very important position of influence in the press. If he had been somebody who lived next door to me and held a diametrically different view, I wouldn't have bothered because that was his prerogative.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, thanks very much, I get your - I understand your approach to the problem.

Mr Bizos?

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, can I clarify my understanding? You are not suggesting all these people were bribed, as I understand it certain of these people you just couldn't understand their attitudes, what had caused them to adopt the attitude they did and you didn't necessarily believe that this was bribery or did you believe they had all been bribed?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, because of the preponderance of journalists being on payrolls, I was inclined to believe that of the journalists.

CHAIRPERSON: If they were not bribed then they were agents?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, on somebody's payroll as - for example, when you start off with asking for an article, I mean even Mr Kemp in his evidence - the evidence that Mr Bizos, Mr Kemp was on the payroll of Mr Pieterse although ...[End of tape 1, Day 5 - no follow on as English only tape broke]

JUDGE WILSON: You didn't necessarily mean bribed in the ordinary sense, you meant they were under somebody else's control - on their payroll?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: We know that Mr Kemp was on the payroll, did you investigate him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't know ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Because he wrote the right things.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't investigate him. I had no reason to investigate him because he wrote a conservative approach the way I did, he agreed with me and I thought that my approach to nationalism was a normal human approach and I never queried it, I didn't know he was on somebody's payroll.

MR BIZOS: Let us just remind ourselves that you said that the reason why you wanted to get in their homes in order to assess their income, that they could not have done these things on a journalist's salary, was that your purpose?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Were you going to ask them whether perhaps their wives were working or had money of their own or if they were women, whether their husbands were good earners, were you going to ask them that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I could have assessed perhaps as I saw how they lived. I went - I don't know, I couldn't go up to a man and ask him how much his wife earns.

MR BIZOS: Or whether she inherited money or anything like that or whether he inherited money, were you going to do that or were you just going to go on face value on the nature of the furniture and the nature of the carpets?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, if I may say that somebody I knew was a house friend of Dieter Gerhard who turned out to be a KGB spy and the reason - the house that he lived in was opulently furnished and the story was that his wife had inherited the money but in fact the money came from the KGB and that was some years ago and eventually he was found out and so forth - I'm giving that as an example that sometimes people give other reasons for living well.

MR BIZOS: Were you going to investigate as to whether - you did see any wealth, whence it came from?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I hadn't thought any further than that, I would have probably decided what to do had I moved forward.

MR BIZOS: Mr John Qwelani, did you expect him to give you a personal interview in his home?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr John Qwelani was a journalist of note, there's no reason why he shouldn't have given me an interview.

MR BIZOS: And Mr Pik Botha, would he give you an interview at his home?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think Mr Pik Botha would have given anyone an interview.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but did you have any connection at any time with the Information Department?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I worked for three and a half years for the Information Department.

MR BIZOS: And that may have given you an entrée to Mr Pik Botha's - the name.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, to a certain extent - when I worked for the Information Department, we didn't have much to do with him.

MR BIZOS: Did you continue working for the Information Department after your official connection with it ceased?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, definitely not.

MR BIZOS: I'm just going to go through it, did you expect Mr Casserells to give you a personal interview?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I had already been speaking to Mr Derek Hanekom on a personal basis so I can't see why - you see as a journalist, you can ask anybody for an interview.

MR BIZOS: I know ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And I didn't expect him to say no, after all we were the Conservative Party. Doctor Hartzenberg had asked me to go down to the ANC office and collect various documents on the ANC's White Paper on Agriculture and they were very courteous to me when I went there and we chatted.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And Mr Naidoo, did you expect him to give you a personal interview?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, all of them. I didn't expect to be rejected as a journalist, if I was rejected then I wouldn't have been shocked but most people will give a journalist an interview, they don't hold a personal grudge against somebody who belongs to a different paper - on a purely interviewing set-up.

MR BIZOS: Do you hold grudges against people?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

MR BIZOS: Do you hold grudges against people?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't hold grudges against anybody Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Good. Now, I am going to put to you - I won't put the rest of the names, I am going to put to you that your story that this was for the purposes you now say, is a fairy tale Madam and that the real purpose was the drawing of a shorter list, numbering the order of execution and executing one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: That is put to you as a question.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's - is that a question?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is ludicrous. First of all, if I had intended to get a shorter list then I would have done it myself, I wouldn't have gone to somebody else and secondly, I would never have written out a list of 19 people that I wanted murdered - I'm far too meticulous for that, I wouldn't even know where to start and thirdly, I wouldn't send it down on an open fax to The Citizen newspaper and fourthly, Mr Arthur Kemp drew up the list and it was found in court with no sinister motives. So, padding it was never ever revealed in the tapes of my interrogation, it was quite clear during the interrogation why I drew up the list. There was never ever ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: The finding ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There was never any - excuse me, there was never any other version.

MR BIZOS: The finding of the court that you quote, was partly based upon your untruthful evidence that you had no knowledge as to how the short-list came into the possession of Mr Walus.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but that's not what you're asking me about now - that's a separate issue, you're asking me about the names on the list and how the smaller list emanated from that, the other list is a separate issue.

MR BIZOS: Yes, you can separate it if you so wish. You made an application for bail, did you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: In your application for bail, did you want to be as frank as possible to the court?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, you said I must be as frank as ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Did you want to be as frank as possible to the court?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: When you made your affidavit?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: In R2, page 94 Mr Chairman, paragraph 4:

"Defence to Charges - I am charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, unlawful possession of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition. I confirm my instructions to my legal representatives that I would plead not guilty to each and every charge.

The nature of my defence will be fully disclosed on the 4th of October 1993, being the date on which the trial has been set out for hearing. I am however prepared to state that I categorically deny that I am guilty of the charges contained in the indictment as amplified by the summary of substantial facts and further particulars.

I respectfully submit that the State extensively relies on inferences to be drawn from facts to be proved. I categorically deny any involvement whatsoever to a conspiracy to kill the late Mr Hani or any other person.

I further specifically deny being the author of the so-called: ""hit-list"" Annxure A, to the indictment or that I caused same to be drawn with the purpose and intent alleged by the State. I again ...[indistinct] to iterate that the State is trying to link me with the assassination of the late Mr Chris Hani, mainly because it is alleged that Annexure A was found in the possession of accused number one.

If my involvement in this is related purely to the existence of Annexure A of the indictment and I were to be connected to the charges as a result of that, I could easily have absconded as suggested in paragraph two supra. I respectfully submit that the fact that I never made any effort to hide from the arrest or abscond, is indicative of my innocence.

It is further evident from the indictment ...[indistinct] amplify it by the fact of substantial facts and further particulars. I did not commit the murder which I am charged with. I finally deny having ever possessed a firearm or ammunition as alleged. I am confident that I will successfully defend all the charges against me"

Is that your affidavit?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"I further specifically deny being the author of the so-called: ""hit-list"".

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But I wasn't the author of the so-called: ""hit-list"", Mr Kemp was.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you better just wait for the question, the question hasn't been put to you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon.

MR BIZOS: If you were to have given a full and honest explanation on your present version, you would have said that:

"I did not draw up the "hit-list", Annexure A to the indictment, it was drawn - it's a shorter list of a list that I made with 19 names on it"

That would have been an honest and open way of dealing with it, would it not?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, the question that's posed ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: This application was drawn up by my attorney, they are the words of my attorney and I took his legal advice as to this being the correct wording of my application.

MR BIZOS: Had you told your attorney what you have told us now - that you had drawn up a list of 19 names from which the "hit-list" was extracted ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It wasn't a "hit-list".

MR BIZOS: The list described by the State as a "hit-list" annexed to the indictment.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, if the State described it as a "hit-list", it wasn't a "hit-list" in my estimation ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think that - please ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, I don't ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just let's not have anymore argument, there has been reference to this document as a "hit-list" in the evidence and let's leave it at that. You are disclaiming responsibility for that document, so you don't have to go around arguing whether it is a "hit-list" or not - you're disclaiming responsibility for that document aren't you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Which, the second one or ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The short-list.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The short list yes, Mr Kemp drew it up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well now, I don't want you to - when you answer the question, get carried away on whether it should be called a "hit-list" or not, just try and answer the question please.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But - I'm sorry, I - Mr Bizos has lost me, this application was made by my attorney and based on what he knew and what he discussed with me at the time. I - if there are any hypothetical things that should have been put into it then perhaps it was something that my attorney should have handled - I don't know, I was in his hands.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, yesterday an attempt was made to hand in the affidavit of Mr de Waal and it was not received by the Committee, we've had an opportunity of perusing it and we would ask the Committee to receive it because I intend asking questions on it and we consider that it contains relevant matter that I have to put to the witness.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is Mr Bizos going to call Mr de Waal - like it was posed to me yesterday?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, this is ...[inaudible] by the Commission, the Commission calls witnesses and not I. I - a document was tendered and I want to make use of the document, it was tendered yesterday - I don't know what the - I am told that Mr - I have asked Mr Mpshe and he's trying to get hold of Mr de Waal. If counsel for the applicant has any information about his whereabouts, we will welcome it Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] and may I ask questions on it.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, yesterday we retracted the document, so it was not handed in by myself, so if it's going to be handed in by Mr Bizos then we accept that he will call Mr de Waal as a witness - as was put to me yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: The document will not be handed in as evidence, I'm not going to admit that document as evidence. You may put questions arising from that document but it contents will not be evidence until Mr de Waal gives evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: As I recollect it, Mrs Derby-Lewis in fact quoted from part of the document yesterday, she said: 'He says this in his affidavit or in his statement"

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it was put to Mrs Derby-Lewis - if that would be said by Mr de Waal, in view of the fact that he was not called as a witness. So if - should you be called at least then Mrs Derby-Lewis's version will be on record, that was the only purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: Put the question but the document will not be regarded as evidence unless Mr de Waal comes and swears to it before us.

MR BIZOS: You have read this - will it be as Exhibit Z Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: The document will not be handed in as an exhibit because the moment it is handed in as an exhibit, it then becomes part of the record, so I'd rather you put your questions - she has a copy of the affidavit.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You may put questions from the document you have in front of you.

MR BIZOS: But I don't know how members of the Committee will follow Mr Chairman, it it's not before them.

JUDGE NGOEPE: We will need to have copies thereof - whether or not they're handed in as exhibits, surely we need to have copies thereof.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I do have a copy of Mr de Waal's statement yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please let's have copies thereof.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, yesterday we tendered the copies we had to the Committee, it was then withdrawn and was not returned to us.

MR BIZOS: It was.

CHAIRPERSON: It was.

JUDGE WILSON: They were.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, they were.

MR PRINSLOO: May I just ascertain from my colleague whether she received it Mr Chairman? Mr Chairman, I'm told that my colleague did receive them and I apologise for that.

CHAIRPERSON: I've consulted with my brethren and we've come to the conclusion that this document will be handed in as an exhibit but it's contents will not be regarded as evidence unless confirmed or otherwise proved, so this document will then go in as Exhibit A(c) . You may proceed Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: A(c).

MR BIZOS: A(c), thank you Mr Chairman.

Now, you spent a lot of time yesterday telling us of how badly you were treated by the police Mrs Derby-Lewis.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I didn't spend time, I handed in a document because the Chairman said that he wished that I shouldn't read it - I just handed it in.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Tell me, when did you say to any person - whilst you were in detention - I'll rephrase the question, did you tell any person - whilst you were in detention, that you were being compelled to make incriminating statements against yourself, against your husband and against Mr Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I was in the company only of policemen, so there was nobody to tell.

MR BIZOS: You were visited by your own doctor.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was visited by my doctor in the company of the district surgeon and I didn't discuss my case at all with him ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Was ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Except that I felt bad and there was something wrong with my heart - it was only on a medical basis.

MR BIZOS: You're anticipating a number of questions, please try and answer the questions one at a time. Were there any police officers present when you were consulted by your doctor in the presence of the district surgeon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I was in the surgery, I think the police officers were waiting outside.

MR BIZOS: Did you trust your personal doctor?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Did you have any reason to believe that the district surgeon was anything but an honourable man in an honourable profession?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I had no reason to believe that he was anything other than a professional person.

MR BIZOS: What was the date of the consultation?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think it was Monday the 26th or 25th, I'm not sure - 26th.

MR BIZOS: Had pressure been put on you in order to make false admissions against yourself and against your husband and against Mr Walus before that visit?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I - according to my memory I started writing on the 25th, although the statement produced was only dated the 27th and in that document that I handed in I remember writing:

"I must have written more than a 100 pages"

So, the pressure must have started on the 25th, although the statement wasn't produced until the 27th.

MR BIZOS: But wasn't the pressure of detention and the behaviour of Mr Deetleffs and the behaviour of Mr de Waal start almost from the beginning - according to what you told us yesterday?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I was under detention with Mr Deetleffs until the 24th and then Mr de Waal moved in and he was with me from the 25th to the 30th and occasionally Mr Deetleffs came in just to check on statements but I wasn't under ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: When do you say the pressure on you started?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The pressure on me started the first half an hour that I was in Mr Deetleffs office.

MR BIZOS: And it was made clear to you that you would not be released unless you made damaging admissions against yourself, your husband and Mr Walus right from the beginning?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I said: "What is to become of me"? and he said: "You will be here for - you will get 15 years jail" and then after he put me under Section 29 - which was at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, I said: "You can't keep me here" and he said: "I can keep you here as long as I like" and I would say that it was after the introduction of Section 29 at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, that I started to feel threatened and afraid.

MR BIZOS: And on what date was that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That was the date of my arrest, the 21st of April.

MR BIZOS: So, by the time you saw your doctor, how many days had you been in detention under Section 29?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Four days, four days.

MR BIZOS: And you had been interrogated by Mr Deetleffs in the meantime?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And he was the one who was suggesting to you that you should make false allegations against - false admissions against yourself and false allegations against the other two?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Deetleffs - it was simply his manner and the fact that I was very, very tired and afraid, it was a personal fear that I had of Mr Deetleffs - the actual statement about: "You will write this and you will write that", came from

Mr de Waal.

MR BIZOS: So let's deal with one police officer at a time, are you saying that Mr Deetleffs told you - at any time, to make false admissions against yourself and make false allegations against your husband and Mr Walus at any time?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, when I first arrived in his office he wrote out a statement - which is in the record, and he asked me to sign that statement and in that statement were allegations - I can't remember the full contents unless I look ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Which date did you sign that statement on?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't sign that statement, I asked for my attorney and I was still - I wasn't under Section 29.

MR BIZOS: Now, please tell us what pressure had been put on you before your doctor saw you - to say what? What the pressure was and what the purpose of the pressure was?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he told me that first of all, I wouldn't get out, secondly I was - well, his treatment was quite brutish and insulting and he told me that my husband would get 15 years and I didn't have any sleep and he asked me about the list was drawn up to kill people and various things like that. He suggested things, he brought in words like: "the enemies - your enemies" and so on and so forth.

MR BIZOS: Did he say to you, you must implicate yourself, your husband and Walus or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'm just ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Whether it's true or ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, I'm just looking at the statement that he asked me to sign. Yes, he did, on page 396 he said that I should say - that I should sign: "I know that Cuba Walus and my husband are involved in the murder of Chris Hani"

MR BIZOS: Just give us the page again please.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it's 396 or 346 - apparently this was photostatted twice.

MR BIZOS: 396, yes. What paragraph?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 396, paragraph 3 on page - well, on that page.

MR BIZOS: 396?

JUDGE WILSON: What numbered paragraph is it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It's the third paragraph down - sorry, paragraph 9, on the left is the number.

MR BIZOS: What date was this put to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: This was put to me when I first got into his office in the morning.

MR BIZOS: What date was that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 21st of April.

MR BIZOS: And he suggested to you that: "Cuba and Walus my husband, is involved in the murder of Chris Hani without getting to know it by reading it in the press or overheard it on the radio or television or mentioned by any other person but only know it from my own knowledge or what my husband told about his own and Cuba's involvement in it". This was a clear indication that you must lie against Walus and your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: A clear indication - I'm sorry, that he?

MR BIZOS: That you must lie about them.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he wanted me to sign something that was not true.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Weren't these the allegations that he was putting to you and you exercised the right to say: "Answer - No comment"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: So, he didn't force you to say anything untrue?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not at this stage.

MR BIZOS: The question was ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was because I didn't answer this that he put me under Section 29, they came in and told me that I wasn't co-operating.

MR BIZOS: The questions was: "When did Mr Deetleffs tell you to falsely admit that you were responsible or that your husband and Mr Walus were responsible? When ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He said that many times ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: When did Mr Deetleffs tell you that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He said that many times when he was interrogating me and ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: From the 21st onwards?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: From the 21st onwards - no, yes from the 21st onwards.

MR BIZOS: Please tell us the precise words that Mr Deetleffs used to indicate to you that you must lie about your husband and Mr Walus and you must lie about your own participation? What did he say?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos, if I could remember the precise words - I was under Section 29, I had no sleep, I was disorientated and ill, I can't remember the precise words.

JUDGE WILSON: Did he ever tell you that you must lie or did he tell you that you must agree with what he believed to be the truth?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he said to me ...[inaudible] the other leg and that sort of thing and: "You new about the gun" and various other statements and I just said: "No, that's not true".

JUDGE WILSON: Didn't this indicate he didn't believe you, that he was saying what he thought what was the truth? Mr Bizos is putting it that he was putting lies to you and it seems to me ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, maybe he did believe it but I - for me it wasn't the truth, maybe Mr Deetleffs believed it to be the truth - yes of course, maybe he did but from my point of view it wasn't the truth.

MR BIZOS: The question was - I'll rephrase the question and I'm indebted to Justice Wilson for the distinction, when did Mr Deetleffs put any pressure on you to admit as true, what he might have believed but you what you knew to be untrue?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he did that during the interrogation.

MR BIZOS: And what pressure did he put on you in interrogation on the 21st, in order to induce you to agree with what he believed to be the truth?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the 21st was just the first day, there were two or three days after that that I was under his interrogation.

MR BIZOS: Let's confine with the first date, did he say anything to you on the first day which induced you to tell what he believed to truth and you knew to be untrue?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I repeat, in the morning he wrote out a statement which I didn't believe to be true, then after that - 3 o'clock in the afternoon, he put me under Section 29 and then he left me sitting there until about 10 o'clock in the evening, so that day I don't think much went on - I'm not sure, I'll have to go over my notes again. And then the following day ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Now, let's stick with the first day please Madam, we want to know what it is that you are accusing Mr Deetleffs of and we are going to get certainty from your allegations are. On the first day, what did he say to you which pressurised you into or might have pressurised you to say what was not true?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, when I first got to his office he said that I would never get bail and that I would get 15 years and that I was guilty and that I must sign a statement and this was the statement that he wrote out.

MR BIZOS: Those are the things that he said?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Right.

JUDGE WILSON: Could you please - Mr Bizos you've been talking about 396, will you look at page 397, the paragraph 13 - I'm not satisfied with the wording, I'm going to change it slightly.

Did Captain Deetleffs say to you:

"I also believe that if I make a statement under oath which only consists of the truth in which nothing is stated which incriminates me or any other person mentioned in questions 1 - 13, there's a possibility that I can be released"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I don't remember him saying that, my attitude was that I would not sign anything or agree to anything unless I had an attorney with me, so whatever he said - whether it made sense or not, I said to him I'm not prepared to co-operate because I need to speak to an attorney.

JUDGE WILSON: So, he then went on to deal with that in paragraph 15?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Where again you said no comment?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But he kept telling me that the attorney was coming, needless to say the attorney never arrived.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] from what appears on page 395 to 397, will you please tell us what pressure - if any, Mr Deetleffs placed on you?

CHAIRPERSON: I think she said that one of the things that he did - which she regarded as pressure, was he told her that she was going to be detained under Section 29 - she said that as one of the factors.

MR BIZOS: Is there anything else other than the factors that you mentioned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, as I said, when I first got there he put a lot of pressure on me and I became very afraid and then I asked for my attorney and then he wrote this out in the - 8 o'clock or something, and I said: "Well, I can't sign anything until - he said: "Don't worry, your attorney will come.

MR BIZOS: Did you know for how long your detention under Section 29 was to last as a maximum?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I had no idea.

MR BIZOS: Well, I am going to put to you that you knew that this Section 29 was not the Section 29 that you knew from the days of the '60's and '70's and '80s, it had been sanitised to a very great extent in 1993, did you know that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, as you put it, human rights friendly - no, I didn't know that and I had no idea the time, I didn't know. He said to me: "I can keep you as long as I want" - they were his words, so if he said that I believed him.

MR BIZOS: Well, I'm going to put to you that you must have known and you were probably told and as a journalist you knew that one of the first things that was done when the 1991 speech was made, that there was a call for the repeal of the draconian provisions of Section 29.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not true - Mr Bizos, they were still using torture in November 1993, the police.

MR BIZOS: Didn't you and Mr Deetleffs discuss Section 29 or your detention?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I discussed it with Mr de Waal because I found Mr Deetleffs virtually impossible to talk to in terms of my legal right but when I got to Mr de Waal, I asked him what were my rights and what would happen to me and in my statement I said that, that I was trying to get from somebody where I placed myself legally. I didn't understand the legal process, I didn't know anything about courts.

MR BIZOS: Let us hear what you are saying, do you say there were no words exchanged between you and Mr Deetleffs in relation to Section 29 or detention or it's duration or the necessity for having it or anything else?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't remember.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't remember.

MR BIZOS: You don't remember?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't remember him giving me any advice whatsoever on my rights and one of those was how long I was supposed to be in detention - it's possible he did but I was in a very bad emotional state.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, there are people in the audience who keeps on calling the witness a liar.

CHAIRPERSON: I would not like you to go around making comments, this is not a performance, please. This is a serious matter and please everybody an opportunity to give their evidence fairly and reserve your comments until - when you've finished and you've walked out.

MR BIZOS: Did you ask him how long you could be detained under Section 29?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I said: ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: And what did he say to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I said: "How long are you going to keep me"? and he said: "I can keep you here as long as I want" - I didn't say: "How many days and what is the Law and what are the clauses in Section 29 of Act number 65 whatever", he just told me that: "I can keep you here as long as I want".

They were his words, he told me that when I got to his office in the morning of the 21st of April, I will never forget that and he set the pattern after that with those words.

MR BIZOS: Was the number of days mentioned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall - no, he said: "I can keep you here as long as I want"- only Mr de Waal told me that by the 30th of April they would make application to keep me another 10 days if I didn't - quote: "co-operate" - unquote, and then I realised that the 10 days were up. They kept telling me to hurry up because they wanted to finalise everything before the 30th - but that was Mr de Waal.

MR BIZOS: When were you told that after 10 days they could only hold you if the court sanctioned your detention?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: You mean by Mr de Waal?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think it was the middle of the week, a few days before the end of the detention period - 25th or 6th or something. You see, he had - he interrogated me or was with me in the Edenvale Police Station, I was no longer in the Benoni cell.

MR BIZOS: Are you saying that there was never any discussion between you and Mr Deetleffs about Section 29 or the detention laws or the period or anything like that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall at all.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever say to anyone: "I tell you this Section 29 is a brilliant Act"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but I meant that facetiously, I saw that on the tape ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: On the video?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In other words, it's a very clever Act because you are virtually a mental cripple and a prisoner there. I remember saying something - I saw it on the tape, and I followed it with some kind of facetious remark about: "You've got it all tied up - you people, with Section 29" or words to that effect.

MR BIZOS: Yes, yes. And you say that nobody has access to anything, least of all to a lawyer - this was a complaint of yours, that you wanted to see a lawyer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you then not continue with a discussion about the necessity of it and didn't you continue with a discussion that in it's present form it's no different to the British Detention Laws, do you recall that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think so, I can't recall exactly but I think somebody - yes, I think Mr Bizos said: "It happens in England as well" or something like that - sorry, Mr Deetleffs - "It happened in England as well".

MR BIZOS: You're not putting me in the interrogation room at the police station?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon?

MR BIZOS: Yes, it was Mr Deetleffs who said ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, could you repeat what you said, I didn't hear you?

MR BIZOS: It was Mr Deetleffs who said that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I'm not sure, either himself or - I don't remember.

MR BIZOS: Well, do you remember discussing that the detention law at the time was no different to that that the British had, do you remember that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think we talked about that.

MR BIZOS: And who said that, you or Mr Deetleffs or Mr de Waal ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't remember, I don't recall - I saw it on the video when I looked at the video but I don't now recall who said it or who brought it up.

MR BIZOS: As a high profile journalist, had you not concerned yourself about the draconian provisions of detention without trial during the apartheid era?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I have quite a lot of files on that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. So that - that there was a change, must have been of the utmost importance to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no there was no change as far as I was concerned, I was in a state of great fear and I've never felt like that in my whole life - whether it was 10 days or three months - well, I won't make any gratuitous comments about ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever compliment the South African Police whilst you were in detention?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I said something - if you can - you've probably got it written down there, I recall that: "I take my hat off to you", I said.

MR BIZOS: Well let's - you're quite right, I do have it down and we're going to show the Committee how comfortable you looked on video whilst you say that you were in such difficult circumstances. Did you say this: "All I know is that this has been quite a sobering experience for me. I have never had anything to do with the SAP but I want to tell you I take my hat off to you and I'd love to join the SAP. I'm a bit old now and an emphatic yes I will tell you.

And if those guys from United Nations or Scotland Yard come to see me then I'm going to tell them to take a running jump, I am not going to co-operate with them"

Now, are these the words that you used?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I remember the first part, I don't remember the second part but if I may explain - that was after the ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Will you please just - one moment please. The question was: "Did you use these words"? and you say that - what was your answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I was in the process of answering.

CHAIRPERSON: She says she remembers the first part but does not remember ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Which is the first part?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The first part was: "I take my hat off to you" and then I made some joke about: "I'd like to join the SAP but at my age I couldn't" or something and this was about the third or the fourth day - I think it was the 24th of the fourth, when I had already become quite passive and ready to do just about anything that Mr Deetleffs would have told me to do.

In the first that I was there and the second day I was aggressive and resistant and belligerent and then on the fourth day - on the 24th, I started to feel that I could do nothing against him and I was actually scared of him. And I think it was a light moment - I said: "I take my hat off to you", in other words: "You've got people in your power and you can do with them what you want, this is really quite a system".

I certainly wasn't complementing Mr Deetleffs in a personal way, I didn't like him, I was afraid of him but I do have a sense of humour - I was trying to break the tension within myself.

MR BIZOS: Finished? Do you want to add anything?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: "And if those guys from United Nations or Scotland Yard come to see me then I'm going to tell them to take a running jump, I'm not going to co-operate with them", did you say that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall saying that.

MR BIZOS: Well, we'll ask the Committee to see you on video.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, if you say that I said that, then I said that but I don't recall the significance of saying that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, tell me this, assuming that you said it ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes?

MR BIZOS: Aren't you really contrasting your attitude in relation to co-operation between what you were prepared to tell the SAP and what you were not prepared to tell these foreigners?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, exactly, when I was under the SAP I had no choice, I had to sit there and talk and do whatever they told me.

MR BIZOS: So that ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: So that the people - the so-called foreign observers who never visited me in any event - I don't quite know quite why I made that comment, maybe he said something about them but they didn't come to visit me at all. And in any event, would they have come to visit me under Section 29? - I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you mean what you said?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall saying it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but if you did say it - my questions was: "Did you mean ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Oh probably, probably said in - yes, in the tone that it was said.

MR BIZOS: You told us that by the 24th when you are recorded to have made this statement, you had felt in a position to tell jokes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Which jokes?

MR BIZOS: I think you used the word, didn't you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was trying to break the tension - I was in a very bad state, my heart was hurting. I went to the doctor because I had heart problems and I'm trying to break the tension, I'm trying to do something to make oneself human again.

MR BIZOS: Just bear with me. Mr Chairman, I have notes but I think that I will leave it until the video is put into position Mr Chairman, during the adjournment rather than speculating as to what the witness said or did not say.

CHAIRPERSON: How long is that likely to take Mr Bizos - the viewing of the video?

MR BIZOS: It's in another room.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: It's in another room.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And - I'm sorry, I am now informed that the one that was brought is not working.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the short adjournment now ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Shall we take the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: So that you can sort it out.

MR BIZOS: Shall we take the 11H15 adjournment now Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll take the short adjournment now.

MR BIZOS: In order to try and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You can sort things out in the meanwhile.

MR BIZOS: Sort these things out - in order to show the witness precisely what has been said.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will now adjourn for 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

GAY DERBY-LEWIS: (.s.u.o.)

MR BIZOS: The A(c) - this is the affidavit of Mr de Waal, have you read it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Is it correct or incorrect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it is incorrect insofar as he keeps saying:

"She doesn't have not complaints"

That wasn't the case, I wasn't feeling well but it is correct, yes.

MR BIZOS: Now, could you please draw our attention to what portions of this affidavit do you say are incorrect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I said it was incorrect insofar as the various remarks that he made about:

"No complaints"

but that is a technical point.

MR BIZOS: So, the only things that are wrong in the statement are where he says:

"No complaints"

Is that what you are saying to the Committee?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, yes, I have to read through it again carefully but on the face of it, yes.

MR BIZOS: When you read it, did any glaring untruths come to your mind in relation to what Mr de Waal said - other than:

"No complaints"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I think it's a fair reflection of what went on.

MR BIZOS: So, you agree then that what he says here is correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm just reading the third page, sorry. Oh no, sorry there are - yes, I'm sorry, at the bottom of page two of his statement he says:

"I said to her that I cannot understand that the list was in the possession of the murderer at the time of his arrest"

MR BIZOS: Just tell us which paragraph you're reading from please.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: At the bottom of page two - there's no number on the paragraph.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it that the last paragraph on page two?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The last paragraph on page two.

CHAIRPERSON: The last two lines?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The second last line:

"I state to her that I cannot understand that the list was in the possession of the murderer at the time of his arrest and how he had obtained the list". To this question she asked me whether Mr Kemp was still in detention, I replied in the negative and she said to me that she had not spoken the truth regarding the list and she hadn't written the truth either"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct.

MR BIZOS: Just tell us what is incorrect ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it's not correct.

MR BIZOS: Read everything that you say is incorrect.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"I say no, and she said to me that she had neither spoken nor written the truth regarding the list"

That is not correct, I did not say to him that I didn't tell the truth about the list.

MR BIZOS: Yes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"Because she did not want to cause trouble for Arthur Kemp unnecessarily because he had not known why she wanted the addresses"

MR BIZOS: Just tell us the portions that are incorrect and we will mark them and then we will ask you questions about it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"She said that she now wished to write the truth regarding the list and asked also to amend that portion. She continued writing her statement and changed the portion regarding the list"

MR BIZOS: Do you say that that is incorrect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, and page four, the third last paragraph from the bottom:

"Colonel van Niekerk requested me - today, 1993.4.29 at 09H00, to go and speak to Mrs Derby-Lewis and show her the "hit-list" found in Cuba's possession at the time of his arrest - after the murder Mr Chris Hani, and ask her whether she was prepared to state whether it was the list which she had compiled in co-operation with Mr Arthur Kemp"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: ...[inaudible] Arthur Kemp drew it up himself. And then page five, the first paragraph - I don't recall him saying this to me:

"I explained to her that the pointing out of the so-called "hit-list" which contained inter alias Mr Hani's name can be used as evidence against her in a possible trial should she be prosecuted. Mrs Derby-Lewis gave me the assurance that she had no problem with that, she had no problem looking at the list with the names and addresses and stated that she had already pointed this out voluntarily to Captain Deetleffs as the "hit-list" which her husband had handed over to Cuba"

That's incorrect. No, I can't on the face of it see anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Bizos?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry Mr Bizos, at the bottom of page two after the first sentence:

"On Monday, 26th of April, interrogation was temporarily stopped and I asked Mrs Derby-Lewis with regard to lack of clarity and contradiction in her statement which does not agree with that of her husband in his version during Captain Deetleffs's interrogation. She will state that she had never been shown her file by her husband whereas her husband - during his interrogation, had stated that he had indeed shown her a firearm.

She informed me that she couldn't remember but that she now remembered the black pistol with the silencer which her husband had shown her in their home"

...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: Is that all?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Let's start on what appears on page five, did Mr de Waal speak to you after you had told Captain Louw that you were not prepared to go and point anything out?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think he said: "Well, that's all right then"

MR BIZOS: It's all right with him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was all right with him.

MR BIZOS: Yes. So, the circumstances that prevailed on the 30th of April '93, were such that you could refuse a request from Captain de Waal without fearing any consequences?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Captain de Waal gave me the gap - so to speak, by taking me to Mr Louw who wasn't part of the security police and Mr Louw informed me that I had a choice.

MR BIZOS: The question was: "You felt that you could act against the will of Mr de Waal without fearing any consequences in relation to the investigation of the case"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, because Mr Louw gave me my rights in that particular instance. Mr ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Your answer is: "Yes".

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm answering the question - and Mr de Waal said: "All right, that's okay", he didn't make any objection.

MR BIZOS: Yes. So that - just listen to the question please, when Mr de Waal - or rather, let's start at the beginning, when Mr Louw asked you to go and point something out and gave you an option whether you had - you would do it or not, you were not afraid that you would upset Mr de Waal by refusing to do what he had asked you to do?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Is that because you were not afraid that he would do anything to you even though you did not obey his request or command?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, not at all, Mr de Waal told me that I would be a witness, he told me that anything that I wrote could not be used in court, he told me to hurry up so that everything could be taken to the Attorney General so that they could decide on what they would do with me before the 30th of April and I complied.

MR BIZOS: Do you remember what the question was? You did not fear any consequences from Mr de Waal by disobeying his request or command?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: You had nothing to fear from Mr de Waal at that stage and you could defy his will?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: What do these: "No's" mean?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because I was - well, if you'll let me explain, I was out of his will, I was now moved in to ordinary life up on the first floor of Edenvale Police Station where he was not present and Mr Louw said to me: "Do you realise that you have a choice"? I didn't voluntarily seek to irritate him, Mr Louw gave me a choice and I said: "Well, I'll take that choice" and when I came downstairs to see Mr de Waal, I told him that I have a choice and is it possible that I say: "No", and he said: "Yes, that's all right".

MR BIZOS: Did you expect Mr Louw to report to Mr de Waal that you had chosen not to accommodate Mr de Waal's wishes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I informed him myself, I'm not sure if Mr Louw didn't come down with me - I was always in the company of somebody, maybe he came down with me and explained it.

MR BIZOS: Can we get a straight answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That is a straight answer as I see it - I'm sitting here trying to be honest to you.

MR BIZOS: Can we please have a ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, it is a straight answer.

MR BIZOS: Can we please have a straight answer to the question, did you or did you not fear that any consequences would follow as a result of your disobeying the wishes of Mr de Waal.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos, for the fourth time, no.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, the witness did answer the question.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] it was muddled up with other things, I wanted a clear answer and I'm pleased to have it. Now, let ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: You have gone on Mr Bizos, suggesting that it was Mr de Waal's wishes, he'd ordered her to do things, that does not appear from his statement, have you other evidence to that effect?

MR BIZOS: He requested her to go and point out and what I am putting ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: He asked her if she was prepared to point certain things out.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] she agreed and then changed her mind. I think ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: You have put it far more strongly than that Mr Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Was your relationship with Mr de Waal that he - did he request you to do things or did he order you to do things?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr de Waal was a reasonably nice man.

MR BIZOS: Nice man?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I say that in all openness, he didn't terrorise me the way Mr Deetleffs did but he had his rules and he told me: "You will sit here until you finish" and so on and so forth, so ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You've got the answer to your question.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Is it correct that whilst you were with Mr de Waal, there was a female constable with him all the time?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: With him or with me?

MR BIZOS: With - when he interrogated you, was there a female constable present?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, most of the time.

MR BIZOS: Most of the time?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Were there times that you were alone with a female constable?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I can't - you mean Sergeant Strydom?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Was the female constable - I can't recall, maybe yes.

MR BIZOS: Did Mr de Waal perform or cause to be performed personal services in order to make your life easier whilst you were in detention?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr de Waal helped me - I bought some night-wear and I gave some money to my son and various other - yes, they were quite conciliatory.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The people at the Edenvale Police Station, I don't know whether they were part of the security police or whether they were the Edenvale Police Station.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And whenever you asked for anything, did you respond positively?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I asked to send some money out and I asked to buy some night-wear and that was about all I asked, the rest of my questions were about the legal process.

MR BIZOS: Did you choose - when it was suggested to you that you would take your statement, did you choose to write your own statement out?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he asked me to start writing out my life story - I wrote many statements, I can't remember how many pages I wrote.

MR BIZOS: Did you start writing on Saturday the 24th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm not sure, I think so - he says that I did, it was that week-end that I was ill, I can't remember. If he says that is correct then - he says on 537 that I started to write.

MR BIZOS: And did you - on Monday the 26th, say that you were prepared to continue writing your statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Did you - on the 26th of April, say that you were prepared to continue writing your own statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I wrote all my own statements in my own handwriting.

MR BIZOS: And did Mr de Waal cause members of the police force to take things to your home - like washing and pay out money and ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I've already said that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Was the female constable Strydom, asked to type your statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And did you say that you would prefer to type your own statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, because her English wasn't very good and she was battling a bit, so I took over from her.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I said I could do it quicker.

MR BIZOS: And you typed your statements?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I typed on her behalf because she was battling with the typewriter and I typed them.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And are the photostatic copies of the statements that you typed during this period your typing?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And would you agree with me that they are typed accurately and neatly?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, on the face of it, I can't remember every paragraph.

MR BIZOS: Well, we've read them and they are typing of high quality if I may say so.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, thank you.

MR BIZOS: And properly paragraphed, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And the paragraphs are not running at random, each paragraph contains a section - a proper section, as a good writer like yourself is expected to write - there is no confusion in the statements?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, there is, there are a lot of paragraphs that are out of context.

MR BIZOS: That are what?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There are paragraphs that are out of context in terms of a chronological progression of events.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry. Sorry, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything that you wish to add?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I was just going to give examples but I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you haven't ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: For example, I mentioned that paragraph 65 seemed - and 66 seemed out of order - it was when I was reading them, they seemed to be not the sort of progression that you would do if you were writing it normally.

MR BIZOS: But there may a paragraph or two but do you agree that these statements were typed out by a person who seemed to be able to do the job she had undertaken to do?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos, I wasn't crawling around the floor and I wasn't being beaten up.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Bizos, you've asked that question in different ways and she said that she typed her statement - it was reasonably well done, you paid a compliment to her.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So now, let's move from there Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

When the doctors came, what was the purpose of the visit?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I had asked the police to get me a doctor and they said: "Which doctor" and the first doctor that I thought of was my doctor in Krugersdorp, so I gave the name of Doctor van der Mesht and asked her to come and see me but it was a long way from Krugersdorp and when she came I was so upset and tired and disorientated that I passed her in the passage - I didn't recognise her, so she went back to Krugersdorp.

And then they asked me if: "Do you still want to see a doctor"? and I said: "Well, yes, what happened to Doctor van der Mesht"? and they said ...[End of tape 2, Day 5 - no follow on sound]

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] of the examination?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because my heart was playing up.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Is that as a result of you having been arrested or is this a - was there a pre-existent condition or was this a ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, I had chest pains and my heart was hurting and thumping and I couldn't sleep and I told Mr de Waal or somebody there that I wanted to see a doctor because I couldn't contain the thumping.

MR BIZOS: Do you remember that I asked you whether there were any untruths in this statement and originally you couldn't remember any except the:

"No complaints"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Hadn't you studied - let me finish my question please, hadn't you studied this document carefully before?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, but I'm now reading it again, I don't remember every paragraph.

MR BIZOS: Well, you didn't remember that Mr de Waal had recorded that you had made damaging admissions.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I did remember, I read them to you.

MR BIZOS: When I first asked you I meant. When had you last read this document before today?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but I recalling now reading through it, I can't remember reading every paragraph immediately.

MR BIZOS: The question was: "When you read this document before - last read this document before today"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, two or three days ago maybe.

MR BIZOS: And you had forgotten the blatant untruths you now say Mr de Waal recorded?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not true, I opened it now and I'm looking at it and I had to read through it in order to refresh my memory, I hadn't forgotten anything.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, Mr Bizos, isn't that the problem which usually arises when council puts a pregnant - a typical pregnant question to a witness in respect of a statement which contains several pages and just says: "Well, what is untrue"?

MR BIZOS: I accept that, I accept that she has a right to read it, I'm testing her credibility as to - if there were blatant untruths, why she didn't remember them if she had read it two or three days ago - for whatever that is worth.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's move on Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

Now the portion that you say is incorrect ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: Mr Bizos's microphone.

MR BIZOS: In the last paragraph on page two:

"She will state that her husband had never shown a firearm to her"

Is that what you said?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"She would state that her husband had never shown her a firearm while her husband - during interrogation, had stated that he had shown a firearm to her"

Yes, yes, Mr Beetge kept coming up - backwards and forwards all the time and saying to me: "You husband said he showed you the weapon" and I said: "Well that's not true" and then he said: "Well, your husband said he put it in the brown suitcase in the bedroom and I said we don't have any brown suitcases" and then he just left it.

MR BIZOS: And you never said that you had forgotten about it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Forgotten about what?

MR BIZOS: As to whether the gun had been shown to you or not? Did you ever say to Mr de Waal or to Mr Beetge or to anyone else that you did not remember whether or not your husband had shown you a gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall saying that, I was quite adamant about the fact that my husband didn't show me a gun, I don't recall if I said it in the interrogation but I remember being - emphasising to Mr Deetleffs on the tape, that I did not see a weapon, I think I emphasised it to such an extent that I said it about six times.

MR BIZOS: Whilst in detention, were you concerned about Mr Kemp being in detention?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Of course, yes.

MR BIZOS: Did you ask Mr de Waal as to whether Mr Kemp was still in detention?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Why did you ask him that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because I was worried about him.

MR BIZOS: Was it whilst you were being asked questions about the list, that you asked them about whether Mr Kemp was still in detention?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I asked whether he was still in detention when I was being asked questions about everything.

MR BIZOS: The question was ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall whether it was when he asked me questions about the list or about anything, I asked him what had happened to Arthur Kemp.

MR BIZOS: Are you able to admit or deny that your question about Mr Kemp was at the time that you were being asked questions about the list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I deny that, I asked him many times about Mr Kemp at various stages when we were sitting together in Edenvale, it wasn't at any specific time - I can't even remember when I asked about Mr Kemp.

MR BIZOS: A moment ago you said that you were asked questions about that list at various times and if I understood your answer correctly, you couldn't remember whether it was during the interrogation about the list or not.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think she said that: "She said on several occasions - on many occasions, she asked about Mr Kemp.

MR BIZOS: Why was not one of those occasions - thank you Mr Chairman - why was that not one of those occasions when you were being interrogated about the list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, now that's speculation, I don't know - I've already said ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, don't' ...[inaudible] during a lengthy taking of statement things are said and you are asking her: "Why didn't you say this at such and such a stage", now what is the purpose of a question like that?

MR BIZOS: Now, as to where - no, the purpose is clear Mr Chairman, as to whether the statement by Mr de Waal - at the top of page 3, is probable or not because she was only prepared to speak the truth about the list if she was satisfied that Mr de Waal had been released.

CHAIRPERSON: Put that to her in that form I think.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, not at all.

MR BIZOS: Well, were you not prepared to be more forthright about the list if you knew that Mr Kemp had been released from detention?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's absolutely untrue, I was asking about Mr Kemp in a personal capacity. I was worried about him because he had nothing to do with this, he had a wife and three children and he was being held at the police station, it had nothing to do with the timing of any other questions which Mr de Waal was asking me. It wasn't a consentry - a - I can't even think of the word, I can't understand the reasoning behind this.

I was asking about Mr Kemp in a personal capacity and I had no - I never mentioned anything to Mr de Waal about: "You will do this and then I will do something else", I just gave him my statement. And in the video's that were taken when I was under interrogation with Mr Deetleffs, there was never any question of changing my story about the list. In fact, what you see in Mr Deetleffs's statement of the 24th and what you see here, there are crucial points that have been changed in those three or four days.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well, one of the changes Mr de Waal give a reason for - and I will read it to you:

"To the question she asked me whether Mr Kemp was still in detention, I replied in the negative and she told me that she had not spoken the truth or written the truth regarding the list because she did not want to cause unnecessary trouble for Arthur Kemp because she did not know - she had not - he had not known why she wanted the addresses"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, one doesn't tie up with the other in my mind, it's - my questions about Mr Kemp - whether he was released or whether he was not released would never have changed my story about the list, why would it? You're implying that if I said this then Mr Kemp would be released and if I said something else he would be kept in detention.

MR BIZOS: Did you not have a feeling of - even on your own version or particularly on your own version, of protecting Mr Kemp from any involvement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Kemp wasn't involved and there was no need to protect him.

MR BIZOS: Did the police speak freely - during the course of the interrogation, about the "moord lys" or "hit-list"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Which police, Mr de Waal or Mr Deetleffs?

MR BIZOS: Either the one or the other or both.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall, I think they did - I've got notes here of video, I'd have to go through them. I think Mr Deetleffs talked about a "hit-list" at one stage:

"It was not" - Gay: "It was not originally intended as a "hit-list".

Mr Deetleffs: "When does it become a "hit-list"?

"When it has been used as a "hit-list".

And then the question was:

"Who is Eugene Taylor"?

And there were various remarks made like that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Tell me, the word: "enemy", did you use the word: "enemy" in your writings in The Patriot?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I suppose so, yes.

MR BIZOS: And who were you referring to as: "the enemy"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The other side I presume - I don't know, I can't unequivocally say that without checking The Patriot.

MR BIZOS: Which is the other side?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The ANC and the SACP, they were the: "enemies" of the Conservative Party, they weren't my personal enemies.

MR BIZOS: Were all the people on - all the 19 people on your list, the enemies of the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, that list was drawn up by Mr Kemp, I'd have to - what are the names again ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: No, I'm talking about the 19 persons that you drew up, were they all enemies of the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I think they consisted of three or four journalists, I wouldn't have termed them enemies, I would term them antagonists to the Party - Enemies, what - an enemy is something that occurs in a war.

MR BIZOS: Were some of them enemies and some antagonists?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: If you want to put it that way, yes.

MR BIZOS: And would Mr Mandela, Mr Hani, Mr Slovo, be the enemies?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, of the Conservative Party, yes. But it was interesting that it was Mr Deetleffs that introduced the word: "enemies" in the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think the question right now is that you yourself have freely used the word: "enemy" in your writing.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, yes.

MR BIZOS: Did Mr de Waal ever tell you that you were not obliged to give - to make any admissions against yourself?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, if he had told me, I wouldn't have said another word - he didn't tell me anything, he told me: "Hurry up and write the statements, I have to go to the Attorney General - it's coming up for the 30th and if you don't hurry up we will have to apply for another 10 days".

MR BIZOS: Will you please look at page one, the middle of the third paragraph:

"I told her that should she be prosecuted any statements made by her to us or anything which was put in writing now and at a later stage, could be used as evidence against her at a trial which may result" ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is absolutely incorrect, first of all he told me that I would be a witness, secondly he said that anything I wrote wouldn't be used in the court, so it's a complete falsity to say that. He did not warn me that anything that I wrote down could be used in a court, he told me exactly the opposite, he said anything that I wrote down wouldn't be used in a court.

MR BIZOS: How come that you didn't pick up this alleged untruth when you read this document - firstly two or three days ago, secondly ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Actually Mr ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Secondly, during the course of your examination?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Actually Mr Bizos, I have marked it myself quite some time ago as false but I didn't rule it through with a colour, so that's why I missed it now. If you would like to see the document you can see that I had already written false on it some time ago - if you'd like to see it.

MR BIZOS: No, if it's there - I don't know when it was written ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I just didn't rule through with a colour.

MR BIZOS: Yes, we hear what you say Mrs Derby-Lewis, but what I want to say to you about you being called as a witness, who were you going to be a witness against?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, I knew nothing about the court cases - you will - I knew nothing about the judicial process, absolutely nothing and during my interrogation with Mr Deetleffs and with Mr de Waal, you will see the record shows I continually asked: "What's going to happen to me, what about the Attorney General, can I see a lawyer"? - my questions were directed at the legal process, I had no idea what was going to happen to me.

If he said to me: "You will be a witness", I believed him. I wasn't even aware then that a husband and a wife couldn't testify against each other, that was - as I said at the beginning, I believe the reason why I was charged.

MR BIZOS: An experienced journalists such as yourself ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm not experience at all in court processes or the law.

MR BIZOS: Or the reading of literature?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I read literature but I don't know anything about the details of the law.

MR BIZOS: You never came across that you could not give evidence against your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

MR BIZOS: You never came across - in all your readings, that you couldn't be called to give evidence against your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, I only find out later.

MR BIZOS: Now, you were taken through a number of the statements that are attributed to you during the course of your evidence in chief by your counsel, will you please turn to page 398? Sorry, it's R4 continued.

MR PRINSLOO: R4 continued.

MR BIZOS: 398. Have you got it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: As far as we remember, your counsel didn't take you through this document.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the question?

MR BIZOS: Well, were you taken through this document by your counsel?

MR PRINSLOO: Is Mr - he wants to refer to this document Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Are the contents of this document correct or incorrect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There are some parts that I queried - yes, this is the summary by Mr Deetleffs of his interrogation of me. In essence it is correct, in essence.

MR BIZOS: In essence it is correct.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In essence there are some points that I queried, particularly paragraph 52 and 54 and paragraph 60.

"I asked Clive about the gun but he said he couldn't tell me where he had got it from"

I mean, clearly in the tapes it shows - on numerous occasions, I denied having anything to do with the gun, so there were a few errors but generally speaking it is a reasonable summary of the interrogation. It's quite short, there were a lot of other things spoken about as well but there were some paragraphs that I noticed were not correct.

MR BIZOS: And you mention the paragraphs as paragraphs ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Paragraph 52.

MR BIZOS: 52.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 54.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 60 and 59.

MR BIZOS: Is that it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, it would seem so - oh, paragraph 24 - sorry, paragraph 24 is an innocuous sort of statement that ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: So if it's innocuous you admit it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, if - it says:

"We never had any discussions"

The discussions - well, it's like saying:

"I do remember that they went into political discussions"

Well, everybody was into political discussions, it's a broad statement which is in essence correct.

MR BIZOS: In essence it is correct, so you know it's right? Did or did your husband not say - on the 10th, 11th - on the 10th, that he didn't think that Cuba would do such a thing at all, did he say that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, when we came back in the afternoon the phone rang and somebody spoke to my husband and said it was somebody from polish decent and we discussed the polish people that we knew but I don't recall him saying to me that he didn't Cuba would do something like that.

We didn't know it was Cuba, I didn't know it was Cuba until the following morning when I saw The Rapport newspaper.

MR BIZOS: Did you husband or did your husband not say ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I do not recall him saying that.

MR BIZOS: You do not recall him, so you can't deny it?

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, you've got to leave it at that, she said she can't recall and that is relating to the 10th only.

MR BIZOS: To the 10th?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Or at any other time?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, on the 11th - the following day, we saw his face in The Rapport newspaper.

MR BIZOS: Did he then say that he thought that Cuba would not do such a thing at all?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he didn't say that, he didn't talk about anything specific. He talked about the fact that it was - Cuba had done something like that and how could he have got involved in something like that - a sort of general discussion, he never ever told me that he was involved with Cuba in this.

MR BIZOS: Now, did he ever say that he couldn't understand why Cuba had been so stupid to drive around so obvious -

"Cuba was supposed to change the number plates. He did admit to me however, that they had discussed it"

Did he ever say anything like that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I said in my - during my interrogation, that I don't recall him ever talking to me about number plates.

MR BIZOS: Did your husband ever say that:

"It looked like a set-up seeing Cuba was caught so quickly"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think we talked about that on the Sunday, there was much speculation, we had a lot of phone calls, people were phoning and asking what had happened and I don't - I really don't 100% recall whether he said that but I cannot deny that - he may have said that.

MR BIZOS: Was there ever any talk about APLA at any stage, as the organisation that may have been responsible for Hani's death?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't - maybe it was a general discussion amongst the populists or amongst the conservatives but there was no reason to think that APLA was involved.

MR BIZOS: Did you say:

"Clive thought that either APLA, the Government or someone was behind it as it didn't sound like Cuba who would go into a situation head-on"

Did you say that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I didn't know Cuba well enough to know whether he would go into a situation like that or not.

MR BIZOS:

"I asked Clive about the gun but he said he couldn't tell me where he had got the gun from"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I never asked Clive about the gun, I never spoke to Clive about a weapon and I never saw a weapon.

MR BIZOS: Right. Do you agree that this interrogation which is said to have taken place on the 24th, shows that there was no pressure on you to admit anything that you did not want to admit?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I wasn't going to admit to anything that I didn't admit to in any event, it was only towards the end - when Mr de Waal informed that anything I wrote down couldn't be used in Parliament - couldn't be used in court, that I decided then - as my notes said yesterday:

"I'll write anything to get out"

That was what I wrote in those original notes that I wrote in the cell:

"I will write anything to get out"

And he said: "Well, you can't use it in court anyway", so I wrote it but at this stage I didn't know that, I didn't know that I was possibly going to get out on the 30th of April.

MR BIZOS: When did Mr Deetleffs fall out of the picture and Mr de Waal take over?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: About the - I think it was the 25th.

MR BIZOS: Did he - did Mr Deetleffs interrogate you after the 24th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't think so.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't think so, I don't recall, no.

MR BIZOS: I want to - I may say Mr Chairman, that we have not been able to locate Mr de Waal, we will have to take instructions from him and further cross-examination on the issue may have to be directed to the witness once he becomes available.

CHAIRPERSON: If he becomes available.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: If he becomes available.

MR BIZOS: If he becomes available.

I want to return to the question of the Conservative Party's attitude to violence. You were in court whilst your husband was being questioned, were you not - before this Committee?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: I don't want to have to go through it again unless I have to but do you recall that a number of public statements were read into the record from newspaper reports from leaders of the Conservative Party dissociating the Conservative Party from violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, who read them into the record, was it your side who read them into the record?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I remember we made a submission which was an exhibit - I haven't got it in front of me so I'm not sure what we did and what you did ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, the fact of the matter is that ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It exists or whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: Statements made by certain political parties was read into the record.

MR BIZOS: Now, you as the information officer of the Conservative Party, are you able to confirm that those were the public statements that were made at the time by the persons who were mentioned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well first of all, I'm not the information officer of the Party and secondly, I was in jail at the time so I really can't confirm whether they were correct or not.

MR BIZOS: Were you in jail during the week of the - from the 11th to the 18th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 11th to the 18th of what?

MR BIZOS: Of April 1993.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I was taken on the 21st of April.

MR BIZOS: Yes ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, are you talking about immediately afterwards?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. No, I remember that the Party was supportive of me and I don't recall the various statements made in the press.

MR BIZOS: We'll come to the supportive of you, please listen to the questions.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm listening to the question.

MR BIZOS: Shortly after the event and particularly during the week of the 11th to the 18th, did you become aware that various leaders of the Conservative Party dissociated the Conservative Party from the - from violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't take any particular notice of that, it was when perhaps you brought it to the court that I noticed it. I remember on the day of the 10th of April, Doctor Peter Mulder phoned and asked would we issue a statement - because I wasn't empowered to issued the statement but I was empowered to type it up and send it out, and I said to him: "Well what are we going to do"? and he said: "Well, we'll have to ask Doctor Treurnicht" but he didn't say to me: "Oh heavens, isn't this dreadful, we must immediately distance ourselves", he said: "I think we must be circumspect here because the Party's position on this is ambiguous". On the one hand the ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Yes, I didn't ask you about - Madam, I didn't ask you about the conversations with Doctor Mulder.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but I think that is relevant to ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I asked you about ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Please just try and answer the question, your counsel will come to your assistance when he re-examines you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: Were you aware of public statements made by leading members of the Conservative Party dissociating the Conservative Party from violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not particularly aware, no.

MR BIZOS: No? Mr Chairman, I must place on record that we asked whether the statements in R3 are going to be admitted as having been made, we were told in August last year - this year - in August, that they would revert but we have heard nothing Mr Chairman and it may be necessary for me to put these documents again to the witness in order to - I hope that it is not - are we going to have an answer some five months later or are we not Mr Chairman because it effects the examination that I have to direct to the witness?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, those documents were presented to the Commission by Mr Bizos and we did undertake to inspect some of those documents and to speak to certain of the persons - we were only able to speak to certain people and we intend at some stage to call evidence in this regard but at this stage I can't elaborate any further on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, are you able to say which statements are admitted by you?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Mr Chairman, I'm unable to say at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, shouldn't that be done because you had ample time to do that?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, Mr Chairman with respect, in view of the fact that people's names are mentioned, it would not be our duty to consult with those people as Mr Bizos placed those statements before the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that's an artificial attitude you're adopting here because this concerns the stand of a Party represented by your clients.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we intend calling a witness which will elaborate on those statements when he's called.

CHAIRPERSON: On all those statements?

MR PRINSLOO: On most of those statements.

MR BIZOS: Sorry, I didn't hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: They're calling a witness who's going to elaborate on all those statements - on most of those statements.

MR BIZOS: Well, could we know which the witnesses are going to be and what the elaboration is going to be - they are statements of public record and they were not denied afterwards. If this is going to be a never ending process, let it be Mr Chairman, but we must know what it is that we have to do.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Bizos, at an appropriate stage you and counsel on the other side must engage yourselves into an exercise like a Rule 37 conference on this issue, there might be some agreement between you two so that we can avoid a repetition.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well let me leave the question at least until after the adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you must endeavour to see that we can't allow this thing to drag on and on, try and see if you can arrive at some kind of an agreement as to whether these statements are admissible or not from your side, do you understand?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, we intend calling a witness, we can then explain as to the content of those statements.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm talking about the evidence of your witness, you know what your witness is going to say but I'm saying you'll have to look at these statements to find out what is the attitude towards these statements.

MR PRINSLOO: As you please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Prinsloo, I think the question really here is with regard to the authenticity of the statements, you see newspapers do attribute certain statements to certain people and surely we would hope that we are not going to have to call every such person as a witness to come and find out from that person whether in fact what he's reported to have said in the newspaper, he did say.

One would have thought that counsel would come together and agree whether or not - after due consultation with the respective constituencies, whether or not it is being admitted or not being admitted that so and so did in fact say so, so and so was correctly reported in the newspaper. Are we going to have to call every one such person or are counsel going to come together and try to eliminate that, I think that's what Mr Chairman is proposing.?

MR PRINSLOO: ...[inaudible]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Not - sorry, not the witness who's coming to explain the purpose behind the statements and the like, that's not our problem, our problem is proving the authenticity of those statements.

MR PRINSLOO: I understand the position of the Committee, we'll attend to that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: You said you were not the information officer of the Conservative Party, what were you in relation to the - what were you in the Conservative Party, did you have anything to do with the information or the press or what was it, how would you describe yourself?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I issued statements on behalf of the members of Parliament and the Caucus and the leader, I never issued a statement from myself and I was a parliamentary reporter and a journalist for The Patriot.

MR BIZOS: Yes, so you were involved with the dissemination of information from the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, from the English side.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, Mr Peter Mulder, did he phone you on the 10th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I believe he spoke to my husband, I'm not sure who he spoke to but he asked us to - "What should we do, should we issue a statement"? and I said: "Well, I think you must speak to Doctor Treurnicht and if I recall, a statement was issued eventually by Mr Jeug Prinsloo who was the MP for Roodepoort and the spokesman on Justice and I typed that and sent it out from the house myself on his behalf.

MR BIZOS: Did Mr Mulder speak to you or not?

CHAIRPERSON: The answer is: "Yes", Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: No, she said: "either I or my husband" Mr Chairman, I want certainty as to whether it was the witness or her husband Mr Chairman.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall, it may have been me, I don't remember. All I know is I was ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: You remember talking to him by telling him that ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think my husband answered the phone and called me - anyway the point was that I became involved in the discussion with him, so it must have - yes.

MR BIZOS: You became involved in a discussion with who?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: With Doctor Peter Mulder, as to what we should do in terms of the press.

MR BIZOS: Right. Did you make any suggestions to Doctor Mulder as to what should be said?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I had no right to make any suggestions to the Members of Parliament as to what should be said.

MR BIZOS: And do you recall anything that you said to Doctor Mulder?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I think he said something about: "We must get hold of Doctor Treurnicht" and then eventually he came back and he said that Mr Prinsloo would phone me and I think Mr Prinsloo phoned about 10 or 15 minutes later and he issued a statement of two or three lines which I typed.

MR BIZOS: Did you suggest to him that it should be said that there should be a commitment about violence not being the answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I'm not in a position to suggest anything to the Conservative Party's hierarchy in terms of policy.

MR BIZOS: And if anyone suggests that that is what you said, is that incorrect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's incorrect.

MR BIZOS: Did you suggest as to whether any sadness should be expressed about the death of Mr Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I think Doctor Mulder said: "We are not crying" or I remember Doctor Treurnicht said something about: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" or - a couple of days after that, but the Conservative Party obviously would appeared highly hypocritical if they had gone into a fit of weeping - I mean, clearly the Conservative Party was viewing it as an act of war and part of the violence in the country - I'm just saying that off the top of my head.

Doctor Treurnicht did say something in The Patriot - I think a week later, something about: "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" or words to that effect. There was certainly nothing insulting said, it was simply a political statement on the fact.

MR BIZOS: Did you or did you not say to Doctor Mulder that: "We can't say that we are sad because we are not sad", did you say that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I possibly did - I think he said that to me, I can't remember who said it first.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, do you recall the Member of Parliament, Mr Koos Botha who was charged with an offence arising out of a sabotage of a school in Pretoria?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I knew him, I remember that instance.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Do you remember that he complained that the Conservative Party did not support him and he was alone in Court K at the Pretoria Regional Court with no-one coming there to support him, do you recall that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there was an article in The Patriot about that.

MR BIZOS: And do you recall that Mr Koos Botha's statement was responded to in Parliament?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I remember it because you brought it up when you were questioning Mr Derby-Lewis but until then I hadn't recalled it.

MR BIZOS: But you being a person involved with the affairs of the Conservative Party, couldn't have failed to notice that Mr Koos Botha's reason for expecting help was said by him to be Doctor Treurnicht's speech at Voortrekkerhoogte and the Resolution passed and the Kimberly Congress?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I think the Kimberly Congress happened after the Koos Botha bomb thing, I'm not - when did the Koos Botha bomb thing - I'm not sure of the dates.

MR BIZOS: No, it's right - we checked the dates, it was after the Kimberly Conference and Mr Koos Botha relied on it, do you recall that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I recall from what you have said so far.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now you see, you were the parliamentary person concerned with the parliamentary affairs of the Conservative Party, the repudiation of Mr Koos Botha and his reasons for relying on the monument speech and the Kimberly Conference ...[End of side B, tape 3 - no follow on] Parliament as a result of a caucus decision or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I have no idea, I wasn't the parliamentary correspondent. There were two people down there, I was one of them and I only went to Parliament during the session of the President's Council, I wasn't a permanent member down there, so I missed a lot of parliamentary speeches and so forth. And the Koos Botha issue for me, was irrelevant until it was brought up by yourself during this hearing.

MR BIZOS: Irrelevant to what Madam?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it was irrelevant to me, he had been kicked out of the Party and anything that had occurred in Parliament - from what I've read and from what you've presented, was a bit of a spat between himself and Mr du Plessis, as I perceived it. I wouldn't say that it was a heavy political and policy problem.

MR BIZOS: Did you consider it an irrelevant fact or set of facts in order to determine what the attitude of the Conservative Party was to violence at the end of 1992 and the beginning of 1993?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I see it as a completely irrelevant incident in terms of Conservative Party policy, it was a spat between somebody who had been suspended or removed from the Party and somebody who was having a bit of a go at him in Parliament - I think that was how the whole Conservative Party saw that incident.

MR BIZOS: Is it your judgement that statements saying that: "There were 30.000 people at the monument and you Koos Botha was the only one to understand that there's an incitement to violence", an irrelevant statement made by the senior member of the Conservative Party in Parliament?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think it was a flippant statement meant to be flippant, I don't think it was a heavy period of debate, it was Koos Botha feeling a bit bitter and Mr Daan du Plessis having a go at him.

MR BIZOS: It was during a serious debate on the Indemnity Act on which presumably the Conservative Party - after a caucus meeting, was opposing.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't recall the context in which the spat occurred.

MR BIZOS: But surely you as such a high profile Conservative Party person, couldn't have ignored that evidence in formulating your attitude as to what your Party's police was in relation to violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I'm not a high profile Conservative Party person, I'm simply a member and an employee of the Party and it was of no consequence to me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, sorry, Mr Bizos, can I interrupt you just on this point, the response to Mr Botha's conduct which refers to 300 people or so at the Voortrekker monument - 3.000 people - that kind of response, did you not think that it constituted an important criteria to determine the possible direction of the policy of the CP with regard to the question of violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It just never occurred to me to think of Mr Botha's response as anything other than a personal disappointment in his attitude to the Party, it never occurred to me that it would constitute any or have any relevant or influence on policy.

CHAIRPERSON: But whatever Mr Daan du Plessis in Parliament - to your knowledge, was that inconsistent with your understanding of the Conservative Party policy?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't think so, I think he was having a personal go at Mr Botha.

CHAIRPERSON: No, my question is not that, my question is whether - to your knowledge, that statement of Daan du Plessis was consistent with your understanding of the Conservative Party policy.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, I feel incapable of assessing Mr Daan du Plessis's remarks in terms of myself, I can't make any judgement on what he says.

CHAIRPERSON: All right.

MR BIZOS: Was the widest possible publicity given to Mr Koos Botha's claims and the Conservative Party's response, both in the newspapers and on television and on the radio?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't recall much publicity given, there was something in The Patriot and I think that was where I read about it. I don't even think Mr Daan du Plessis's remarks were even reported in the press, the only place that I've read about his remarks is in the Hansard which you presented to Parliament - to the Committee. I can't recall Mr du Plessis's remarks even in The Patriot, although it may have appeared but I didn't see any significant publicity.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Well, we produced the Hansard for the case of completeness and accuracy but words to that effect, did you not see any of it in any newspapers?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps this might be a convenient stage to take the adjournment.

MR BIZOS: May I just round this off?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

MR BIZOS: That in R3 of - R3(f) Mr Chairman:

"Stop blaming our Party - CP tells Bomber Koos - Citizen, 22.10.92"

CHAIRPERSON: What is the question?

MR BIZOS: And on page four:

"Koos recounts why he bombed school"

And also whilst we are - well, I'll bring it up in another context in relation to the other cuttings.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn now and resume at 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

GAY DERBY-LEWIS: (s.u.o.)

MR PRINSLOO: ...[inaudible] leg-irons in order to handcuff - to put leg-irons onto the two applicants when they are taken to prison. Up till now - as from the time of the trial and during all these proceedings, they've never been put in leg-irons and we fail to see for what reason.

No-one could advance any reasons to us as to why they would put them in leg-irons, there's no information that they would attempt to escape or had misbehaved or anything like that, on the contrary Mr Chairman, they were well treated by the prison authorities till now and suddenly this has arised.

Our information is that there's some political interference as far as this is concerned. We would like to ask the Committee just to ask the prison authorities as to why they want to put these people into leg-irons.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know anything about it Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: No, we don't concern ourselves ...[inaudible] brought before the court.

CHAIRPERSON: I would like to see the prison authorities in my chambers now.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, I have discussed - my Committee has discussed or raised this matter with the representatives of the police authorities who have come here and we regret that somebody set in motion, steps to have chains and handcuffs put on the applicants before us - it is a pity that that has been done.

In the past we have had had hearings where people who had been serving long terms of imprisonment have appeared before the Amnesty Committee in support of their application and on no occasion was anybody brought to us in chains. Once again my Committee regrets that this has happened.

I think it is quite clear that such steps can only be taken if there is an assessment made by the authorities that the prisoners - or there is a threat, that the prisoners might escape or behave in some irregular way in which case it would be necessary to restrain them and only in those circumstances should the prison authorities consider taking steps as they were proposing to do here.

I think that this matter has now ended - I've been given an undertaking that nothing will be done in connection with chaining and putting leg-irons on the applicants, once again I'm sorry that it has happened. May we proceed?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, I'm indebted to you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee.

MR BIZOS: In the video machine there is a video which we were asked should be handed in as an exhibit and as it not a documentary exhibit, may we give it a numerical number as Exhibit 1 - I don't remember having had any other non-documentary exhibit, so Exhibit 1.

We are going to show portions of it and I understand that later my learned friend Mr Grant, will show other portions of it during his examination of Mrs Derby-Lewis but we will give the time reference number on the video and I will ask the operator to stop it and ask questions and then show the next portion and ask questions so there is some continuity on it. May we proceed on that basis Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may do so.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you watched the video - situated as it is now, from here? Why I'm asking this is I'm wondering how much those two lamps are going to interfere with our ability to see the video clearly and whether it would be possible to either turn them or turn them off - turn them away from us or turn them off.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible to turn these lights off? - if you can, please do so.

MR BIZOS: I am told by those who have watched it that it's probably in order Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: May we commence ...[inaudible] this video was made on the 24th of April '93 and the reference is 10:12:30, could we please have a look at that?

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...(sound indistinct)

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is off.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'm unable to see from here as the lady obscures my view, if she could just sit a little back please.

INTERPRETER: And if you could please switch on the microphone.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

...[inaudible] there Mrs Derby-Lewis, although the sound may not have been very clear, did you say there:

"Looks like they all slept, so did I. I did a bit of exercise and then I"

and you yawn.

"Then I must have slept for about 12 hours"

Is that what you said there?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I couldn't hear very well but if that is - that sounds like what it was, yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And do you accept that this was on the 24th of April '93?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I can't see the date properly but ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Yes. And were you telling the truth when you said that you had slept for 12 hours or about 12 hours?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I suppose so, yes.

MR BIZOS: So that whatever you may have said on the 24th could not have been as a result of sleep depravation?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, sleeping for 12 hours after not sleeping for a long time hardly allows you to catch up - sleep depravation was just one problem.

MR BIZOS: We'll deal with one problem at a time. If you've slept for 12 hours, can we exclude that sleep depravation did not play an important role in your answers during the 24th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. Can we now please go to 10:25:52?

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

Video sound: "So then we used to see Cuba on and off. I didn't see Cuba much - I never had really much to say to him, I found him a bit slow and when we used to have functions or anything, we used to ask him to come ...[indistinct] alone in his political fields and they wanted to get him involved.

And in December we had"...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: Okay, thank you. The sentence that I want to place on record there is:

"I never had much to say to Cuba, I found him a bit slow"

Do you agree with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the word: "slow" I meant in terms of his English and his communication skills.

MR BIZOS: Please don't anticipate the questions.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, you asked me what did I mean by that.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR BIZOS: I didn't ask you I just asked you ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Bizos, the witness has been under cross-examination for a long time, a minor transgression like that shouldn't raise a quarrel at this stage please.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

Now, did you say:

"I found him a bit slow"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: Now, did you mean in his movements or in his mental capacity?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't mean either, I explained to you that it was in terms of his communication skills.

MR BIZOS: Oh, communication skills.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And his English.

MR BIZOS: I see, yes. You didn't regard him as unintelligent or uncommitted to your cause?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: On the contrary, he's highly intelligent and a very committed person.

MR BIZOS: And a person with a mind of his own?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

MR BIZOS: And a person with a mind of his own?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And a person with a mind of his own.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In most matters, yes.

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In most matters - I didn't know him very closely, I wasn't intimate with his innermost thoughts.

MR BIZOS: Can we please go to 10:40:58?

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

MR BIZOS: Yes, can we stop there please?

This is where you say:

"I tell you this Section 29 is a brilliant Act because nobody has any access to anything, least of all the lawyer. I think that it is a terrible problem in the Law, people cannot have access to a lawyer"

Is that what you said"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And then Mr Deetleffs takes over and do you agree that there was a discussion about that sort of detention being practised elsewhere and particularly by the British?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And in fairness to you, were you cleaning your glasses or were you upset - on what we see there?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, my eyes were hurting - I was tired, so I think I just took them off to wipe them.

MR BIZOS: I see, yes.

Could we please go to 10:47:43?

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

MR BIZOS:

"There was some or other planning as well, they were talking about - I didn't know what they were talking about"

And there's something in this ...[indistinct]

"They didn't tell you"? - "No, I didn't ask because I wasn't really interested in what Cuba had to say actually - look they talked heavy politics"

Is that a correct ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, that is what I said, yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, does this not show that on the 24th you appeared to feel completely free to answer questions put you in a completely non-culpable manner?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, it may look like that but I was very afraid and it was after that that I became ill and asked to see the doctor.

MR BIZOS: Well, ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was trying to please Mr Deetleffs, he started off that tape - if I may comment:

"Now, let's take sensible notes, where do we start"? and I said: "You mean this is what you said we must do the other night - that is from the beginning to the end"?

In other words, I was complying with him now as opposed to being belligerent and aggressive in the beginning.

MR BIZOS: Would Mr Deetleffs not have been more pleased if you being compliant?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct, I was trying to please him.

MR BIZOS: Listen to my question please - that you had been more compliant if you said what the case was - that your husband and Walus had detailed discussions as to how to assassinate Mr Hani ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Isn't that what he would have been - listen please ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Listen please, isn't that what he would have wanted from you if he was going to get you to inculpate your husband, Mr Walus and yourself?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, you know there's a limit to what you're prepared to say if it's not the truth.

MR BIZOS: I don't know what you mean by that but let's proceed.

Can we go to 10:57:54?

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

MR BIZOS:

"You asked me why I didn't sit down and say this at the beginning"

and Mr Deetleffs's response is:

"It would have been much easier"

and you say:

"But you - hang on, you have never been brought into Section 29 and you work in an environment where you are familiar with the police and how things work, a stranger is brought in and feels - my personal feeling is that you must have access to Law"

Is that what you said?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now, you appear to have felt comfortable to argue with Mr Deetleffs.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I wasn't arguing.

MR BIZOS: Or let's say - to express views different to him and argue in the sense of supporting your point of view as to why you were not co-operating in the beginning.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: My notes here - I complain about Section 29: "Why didn't I say this - why didn't I co-operate in the beginning? - I was afraid of the Law, I didn't know what was happening". Now during ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: What notes are you referring to?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I made notes of the video, if you'd like them you can have them.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well at the end of the day it would be helpful I think, if we could have your notes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, and my complaints throughout my interrogation - as I mentioned before, was about the lack of access to legal help and it started at the beginning and it went right through to the end of the interrogation, it didn't change. And when Mr Deetleffs came to my house, he said: "I'm arresting you under Section something or other but he didn't say to me: "Anything that you will say can be taken down and used against you", he just said: "We're arresting you under something or other for questioning".

MR BIZOS: Let us just confine ourselves to this at the moment please. Do you agree that he does not sound to be speaking to you in an aggressive voice or being angry with you for not having co-operated with him in the beginning?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Chairman, on the other tape there's a whole five or six hours missing from the time that I was taken to Mr Deetleffs's office until - which was about 6 o'clock in the morning or 5 o'clock, until 13H00 and it was then that he softened me up to become reasonably compliant and conversational as I was there. Frankly - as I said before, I was trying to please him.

MR BIZOS: Now, you remember what the question was: "He does not appear to be angry with you - not to remonstrate with you, it sounds like a civilised question and answer with you participating fully"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Definitely, definitely.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, yes we can proceed.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But that wasn't the way it was in the beginning.

MR BIZOS: On the 14th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, when he took me in on the 21st.

MR BIZOS: No, this is on the 24th.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, well I'm referring to the 21st when he wasn't so nice and compliant and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway, the question to you was ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: "Studying this here, it is quite clear that your questioner was not aggressive to you in any way?" and your answer is: "Yes".

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: On this tape as we are seeing it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that's the answer Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Just carry on.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Can we please go to 11:11:40?

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

MR BIZOS:

"They said that he was from Polish decent and I thought now, who is this - a little thing working in the back of my mind - how many people of Polish decent are floating around who would do something like that and I said to Clive: "I wonder who that is"? Clive said: "Well, it could be anybody because that was just a story"

Now, we know - is that what you said?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: We know from the statements or the evidence of your husband and Mr Walus, that they conspired to kill and Mr Walus killed Mr Hani, do you accept that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: We've had enough evidence of all that, I think you should just put your questions Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Yes, thank you.

How could your husband possibly - in your mind, have had any doubt - if they had conspired to kill Hani and there was a news item of a person with a Polish decent said to have done it, how could he have dismissed it in this way?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, that is for him to answer.

MR BIZOS: The relationship between the two of you was one of trust at all times?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but we didn't discuss every single thing together.

MR BIZOS: Please let's go to 11:12:42.

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

MR BIZOS: Do you agree that you appear to be quite buoyant and in good disposition in that picture?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I was compliant, I wasn't crawling around or crying.

MR BIZOS: And did you say:

"Oh yes, Peter Mulder did phone about a press release - oh yes, that's right because I issued a press release" "What do you think, what should we do"?, so I said: "We can't say that we are sad because we are not sad, we would probably make a comment about violence not being the answer - which I think the CP ultimately did - some vague, but we certainly did not offer any sympathy but I didn't issue the press release, somebody else did"

Is that what you said?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: Now, was it your - were these your words that you said that:

"Make a comment about violence not being the answer"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I was surmising as to what sort of a general statement the Conservative Party might put out but as it turned out they didn't say that.

MR BIZOS: The question was: the words:

"Make a comment about violence not being the answer"

Were those words and your suggestions to Doctor Mulder:

"should be incorporated into any statement that may be made"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, could you just repeat that a little further back, not where it starts - exactly where you said, perhaps a few words ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS:

"What should we do"?, so I said: "We can't say that we are sad because we are not sad, we could probably make a comment about violence not being the answer"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

"Which I think the CP ultimately did - some vague indistinct, but we certainly did not offer any sympathy but I didn't issue the press release, somebody else did"

Now, the question is, were the words:

"Make a comment about violence not being the answer"

your words as they appear to be in what you are recorded as having said?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, they're my words.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And were you interpreting the policy of the Conservative Party at that time?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I wasn't interpreting the policy of the Conservative Party, I was thinking to myself what sort of vague, bland statement should they issue - that was what Peter Mulder phoned to ask me about: "What should we say"? and I said it in the context of being uncontroversial and being a bit bland and vague.

MR BIZOS: Well, ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And they were the words that I chose to impart to him, what I thought would represent bland and vague.

MR BIZOS: Is one of the ways of avoiding telling the truth by being vague and bland and did you intend that the truth should be told by the Conservative Party or that untruths or half-truths should be told by the Conservative Party in its public statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I don't think that came into the issue at all. It never occurred to me to think about truths or half-truths, I was discussing with Peter Mulder and he himself was going to issue the statement, so it wasn't a question - in my mind, as to how I should formulate a statement, I wasn't going to issue one.

MR BIZOS: Did the Conservative Party issue public statements in relation to it's policy which were not it's policy? ...[End of Tape 3, side A - Day 5 - no follow on sound}

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: ...[no follow on sound]

MR BIZOS: It would have been?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Their policy.

MR BIZOS: Their policy. You suggested that they should say that:

"Violence not being an answer"

and you were speaking the truth and you intended the truth to be spoken - if your advice was taken, by the Conservative party.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it wasn't a policy piece of advice, it was simply a conversation with Doctor Mulder as to what we should say in the meantime - it didn't have the heavy portense of a policy statement, I'm not a policy maker of the Party.

MR BIZOS: But Doctor Mulder asked you for advice as what to say.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he said in a conversational tone:

"What do you think we should say"

He didn't say: "Will you tell me what to say".

MR BIZOS: And you suggested to him that he should tell the truth, that the policy of the Conservative Party was that:

"Violence is not the answer"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I never talked about truth or anything to Doctor Mulder, I said to him ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I'm going to suggest to you that you are not answering the gravement of the question, I will not put it again and we will argue the matter.

Can we please proceed to 11:30:09?

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

MR BIZOS: Can we stop there?

Shall I read it out for clarity Mr Chairman, or is it clearly on the record - do you feel?

CHAIRPERSON: Is it quite clear to the witness, if it's clear to her you needn't read it out.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Actually I'm not quite sure in which context I referred to those people - what happened before, what was the precipitatory statement that would have ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I think I must read it out Mr Chairman, because there are questions that I want to ask along the way.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: You were asked about certain right-wing individuals, do you recall that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't recall that but ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Well the, perhaps we should go back from 11:30:09, you were asked about certain right-wing individuals.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but who were the right-wingers that I was asked about?

MR BIZOS: You refer to it in the passage, do you want to hear before or do you want me to deal with what has been shown up to now?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but you see, that reference that I make to crackpots doesn't necessarily refer to everybody in the right-wing, it could have referred to two or three people that Mr Deetleffs may have asked me whether I knew.

MR BIZOS: Well, let's do it on that basis because you mention the names or some of the names, let's - for the purpose of my question, let's take it at that, that is was a few people and not the right-wing as a whole.

"Now let me tell you, we have minimal contact with the right in terms of being involved with them. I personally - and that is not for the record, thought they were crackpots and an embarrassment to our cause. We did everything we did through the CP, we were completely involved with the CP and this took up all our time.

There were times when we would go to a function and there would be AWB people there but I found them to be - not that I was ashamed of militancy, but I just found them to be on the wrong track. You know, I said to them: "You talk about shooting but who are you going to shoot, you are going to go out and shoot six Blacks but while you shoot six Blacks another six are born at Baragwanath Hospital". "That Strydom bloke and the "Wit Wolwe" and all of them I think they are all nuts but I don't want to discredit them - that is not for the record, so we don't know any of these people"

Now, you said that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now, let us just say this, in the application for amnesty there is a statement and some evidence given by your husband, that he acted on behalf of the broad right-wing, who is the broad right-wing?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The broad right-wing consists of all of the right-wing organisations.

MR BIZOS: AWB?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: "Wit Wolwe"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Yes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know who the "Wit Wolwe" are, I've never met anybody from the "Wit Wolwe".

MR BIZOS: Yes. And what other organisations fall into the broad right-wing that your husband may have thought of acting on behalf of when he conspired to kill Mr Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The HNP and the ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Did you say the AWB?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The HNP, the Oranje Werkers, the - oh, there's dozens of them.

MR BIZOS: There's dozens of them?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Of which you appear to have a poor opinion?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Absolutely not Mr Bizos, you are completely twisting what I said, I talked about the crackpots that ran out and shot people in the street, I wasn't talking about the right-wing in general.

MR BIZOS: Well, ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was talking about people who just go and shoot in the street.

MR BIZOS: Which other people in the right-wing shot at people not in their - on the streets, but in their driveways for instance?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That was - as far as I'm concerned, a political act and that is why we're sitting here, it's not a senseless shooting of Black people.

MR BIZOS: Which of those right-wing organisations had ever publicly said or identified themselves with a policy of violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I don't know the constitution of all of them but there was a mobilisation campaign formed by the CP, which included many of those organisations in the right.

MR BIZOS: Which organisations called for the use of violence in order to achieve political objectives?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't think any of them do officially.

MR BIZOS: Well, are you suggesting that the right-wing has an official policy and an unofficial policy that they give out one thing publicly but it is a lie and they surreptitiously go about killing people, is that your evidence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the right-wing consists of a formal structure and it consists of leaders and followers, people on the ground and many people on the ground - and not only in the right-wing but in many organisation, interpreted combat and the war their own right and they did it on behalf of their organisations - as you know, with the AWB and so forth. No political party on the right had murder as it's official policy, not one.

MR BIZOS: Yes. We have some evidence that was put by Mr Mpshe to your husband about racist statements that he made about Blacks wanting to have babies, is that near - sort of, an allied statement to the one you made, that if it would kill six Hani's, six would be born in Baragwanath at the same time?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, my attitude was, what is the point of shooting people, for what reason? People are born and die every minute, it's not meant to be racist but of course racist today is the lexicon, anything to do with anything is racist today.

MR BIZOS: Now, can we please go 12:07:12?

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

MR BIZOS:

"So, what do you know of false registrations or whatever"?

you respond:

"No, nothing about that, only what Clive told me and he said it must have been a set-up. He didn't go into what he had planned, if he had I would have told you but I am not a logistics person. Oh yes, oh yes, hang on, he said he was meant to change the number plates or something and he didn't or something - something"

"Walus"? - "Yes"

Is that what you said?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Now, when you say he didn't go into what he had planned, who is the he that you're referring to?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'd like to refer to the previous period of interrogation where Mr Deetleffs asked me various questions and in those questions he talked to me about number plates and so forth and there was something that you said just before that, where I said:

"Oh yes, and I remember now"

and something to do with the number plates, in other words I'm recalling what we had spoken about before and I'm writing what I believe he would like me to write because I knew nothing about number plates and I knew nothing about planning. And my husband never ever discussed the planning with me and it never appeared in anybody's evidence.

MR BIZOS: I'll ask the question again:

"He didn't go into what he had planned"

Who is the he that you were referring to?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Who is the key?

MR BIZOS: Who is the he - h-e.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, he?

MR BIZOS: That you were referring to when you said:

"He didn't go into what he had planned"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I presume it's Mr Walus, he was the only one who planned something - by the look of it.

MR BIZOS:

"Only what Clive told me and he said it must have been a set-up, he didn't go into what he had planned"

How could that refer to Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, my husband never told me that he planned anything.

MR BIZOS: That's what you tell us but I am asking you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, that's what I'm telling you.

MR BIZOS: No, I'm asking you: "What did you say there"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's what I said there and you asked me: "Who was the he"?

MR BIZOS: And I am asking you - in the sentence:

"He said it must have a set-up, he didn't go into what he had planned"

Who is the person that you are referring to as having planned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Walus I presume.

MR BIZOS: How can that possibly be?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Walus committed the crime.

MR BIZOS: Let's examine your last answer, you say that you meant Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think so. Don't forget Mr Bizos, - may I talk about - there was a softening up process that is not on that machine ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: No, we're talking about your words ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I'm sorry, it's very relevant to this. I'm now in a compliant mood and I'm trying to give Mr Deetleffs what he wants and he may have suggested that to me. He brought in the word: "enemies", he talked about many, many things in that 48 hours before this tape started.

MR BIZOS: Madam, the question was:

"So, what do you know of false registrations or whatever"?

It seems to be an ordinary enquiring question that any reasonable detective would ask.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Deetleffs wasn't a reasonable detective when he took me in, he was a member of the security branch with a long history of softening up people.

MR BIZOS: Did you know that at the time of your arrest?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: So, it couldn't have had any effect on your thinking?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, his behaviour certainly did have an effect on my thinking.

MR BIZOS: No, his previous record of - whatever it may or may not have been, did not play any role in your thinking because that is what you learnt afterwards.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it played a role in his professionalism in terms of being able to soften up people, he knew what he was doing.

MR BIZOS: You did not know anything about Mr Deetleffs's previous history at the time when he was questioning you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Absolutely not.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. Now, he asks a simple question:

"So, what do you know of false registrations or whatever"? - "No, nothing about that, only what Clive told me and he said it must have been a set-up, he didn't go into what he had planned"

Isn't that a clear admission that your husband had told you that he and Walus were party to a plan to kill Hani before your arrest?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Definitely not.

MR BIZOS: Right then, what did it mean?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I wasn't very cogent in most of that - I don't know what it means Mr Bizos, it means that maybe he talked to me about Mr Walus's plan, I don't know - I don't know who he is.

MR BIZOS: Well, I'm going to suggest to you that you were being both cogent and coherent at the time that you spoke on the tape.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was very compliant and I wanted to give Mr Deetleffs what he wanted, I remember distinctly - I made that note on my notes, I was afraid of him.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And he suggested the changing of the number plates, I knew nothing about number plates, nothing at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, may I ask you a question? If you say that you were compliant - the question that is being asked of you: "Who was the he that you were referring to"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Walus.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, because you were compliant, was it not possible that the he that you mentioned was your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, because my husband never told me that he had planned anything, it wouldn't have made any sense to say that.

CHAIRPERSON: So then, all this business about you having been very compliant, has nothing to do with the answer, as far as you were concerned the he meant Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, on the face of it yes, I was particularly referring to the number plates when I said that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, are you saying that applying ordinary basic rules of grammar, on the face of it in that sentence the he in question refers to Walus? Is that what you're saying?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think so, yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It doesn't like ...[inaudible]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, what does it look like?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, Mr Bizos, read the sentence to her so that she can see what it looks like.

MR BIZOS: I'm sorry Mr Chairman, we didn't hear ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: That ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Read the sentence to her.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, thank you. May I read the question for the sake of clarity as well?

"So, what do you know of false registrations or whatever"? - "No, nothing about that, only what Clive told me and he said it must have been a set-up, he didn't go into what he had planned"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, on the face of it, it looks like a follow-up from the first he which referred to my husband, to the second he but I state unequivocally that my husband never discussed planning a murder with me, that's all I can say.

MR BIZOS: Thank you. Please let's have a look at 12:21:25.

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

MR BIZOS: Thank you, I'll just read that:

"One thing I don't want to think, is that I'm shying away from the political aspects of this thing, I am sure that it will be used in court"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. I presume that - I think he said something to me before that about:

"Are you going to let them take the rap"

MR BIZOS: Are they?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

"Are you going to let them take the rap"

That is what Mr Deetleffs ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Take you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Take the rap.

MR BIZOS: Oh!

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And I said: "No, I don't want to shy away from them, I don't want to distance myself from them, I sympathise with them - that was the notes that I made myself, that was the way I said that.

MR BIZOS: Well, we can leave your notes out for a moment until you've had the opportunity of looking at the copy which you will be good enough to offer us at the end of the proceedings of the day. The portion that I'm particularly interested in and I'm sure the Committee may be interested in, is your statement:

"I am sure it is going to be used in court"

What was going to be used in court?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I really don't know.

MR BIZOS: Well, they're your words.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but they're my words under Section 29, I wasn't having a tea party at the Carlton Court.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Section 29 or no Section 29, doesn't really have anything to do with the answer as to what you meant by those words.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know what I meant by those words.

MR BIZOS: Are you trying to suggest that although you appeared to be responding comfortably to questions and you were well kept and well dressed and responsive to questions, are you saying that these words were not intended to have any meaning whatsoever?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't know what the meaning is, I don't know what it means.

MR BIZOS: Let's just take the simple English meaning, it's a simple English words:

"That it will be used in court"

What will be used in court?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know.

MR BIZOS: Not your statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, he ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: What else might it be referring to whilst you are being used, whilst you are being busy interrogated about a serious murder and you say:

"One thing, I don't want you to think - that is I'm shying away from the political aspects of this thing, I am sure that it will be used in court"

What could it be other than your statement?

JUDGE WILSON: The political aspects of this thing Mr Bizos, isn't it equally capable of meaning that she's not shying away from the political aspects because she knows the political aspects will be used in court.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] examine this possible interpretation with you Madam. If you did not - if you were not guilty and if your husband was not guilty, the propaganda that was unleashed on your arrest - that you were being victimised by the police and the Nationalist Party Government, would have been successful political propaganda?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know what you're talking about, about propaganda being unleashed by the National Party after my arrest, I have no idea what you're saying and I'm sorry, I don't understand the background ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Well, perhaps you were not listening, I didn't say National Party propaganda, I said ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, you said National Party, you said National Party.

MR BIZOS: No, against the police and the National Party I said, your propaganda against the police and the National Party by accusing them of hounding innocent Conservative Party people, wasn't that the propaganda that was unleashed after your husband's arrest?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I know nothing about that, about - the Conservative Party may have issued some statements about that if I recall but I certainly didn't, it wasn't my view.

MR BIZOS: Yes, well, ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think there were remarks made ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I'm going to put to you that you were not given any undertaking that your statement will not be used in court and that you've said so - you expected it to be used and that is what it means.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's not true at all.

MR BIZOS: Right.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Deetleffs and Mr de Waal both told me that what I said and what I wrote was Section 29 and it could not be used in court, they both unequivocally told me that.

MR BIZOS: Can we please go 12:22:11 ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: First of all he said I wasn't going to get bail and he - they were talking to be about witnesses, I wasn't sure where I stood in the legal process, so I didn't know what was going to happen to me and throughout my interrogation I kept asking: "What is going to happen to me", so I wasn't sure whether I would appear in court as an accused, as a witness or not at all.

MR BIZOS: Well, if that bit of answer is correct, then the possible interpretation which was mentioned by Judge Wilson couldn't have been meant by you because you didn't know whether you would go to court at all, either as an accused or as a witness or anything else.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, Mr Bizos ought to also put to witness that nowhere on this tape of the 24th of April, does it anywhere appear that Captain Deetleffs warned this witness in terms of Judges Rules as it appears at page 398, the introduction to his statement.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] time for that, my counsel can argue the matter Mr Chairman, can we go to 12:22:11?

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

MR BIZOS: I've read this portion to you earlier, do you remember your answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think I said that:

"I take my hat off to you"

was correct, I didn't deny that and that I was passive and compliant and I don't recall the talk about the United Nations, I think that was my answer - whoever they were.

MR BIZOS: Do you recall what your answer was when asked: "Why did you say this and why were you prepared to take your cap off to the police"?, what was your answer, do you remember?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't recall.

MR BIZOS: Well, do you agree that you looked quite serious and articulate and cogent - to use your word, and quite comfortable whilst you were saying this?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, that's ridiculous, I was unhappy and ill, I went to hospital for the next two days and it was coming to the end of the evening - it was 12H20 and I wanted to go back, I wanted to go back to the cell, I was very, very tired and I was trying to please him. It's a piece of conversation:

"I take my hat off to you"

What else - trying to break the tension, it doesn't mean I want to join the police or I agree with their tactics, I didn't agree with their tactics and I said that right throughout the interrogation. I complained about Section 29 and he was instituting Section 29 against me, he wasn't just the broad police force.

MR BIZOS: This morning you said you were joking when you said it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I was trying to break the tension, that was the word - they were the words I used this morning.

MR BIZOS: I see.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was late and I was tired.

MR BIZOS: So, you say that: "To say that I was joking" which you said this morning and the serious complaints that you had against him and Section 29, are the same thing?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't say that at all.

MR BIZOS: Let us go on please.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, before you do, did I hear you correctly saying: "I was unhappy and ill and went to hospital for the next two days"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I went to - well, to hospital, I went to see the doctor.

JUDGE WILSON: Oh.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Can we please go to 12:22:47?

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO ...[sound indistinct]

MR BIZOS: Now, may I suggest Mr Chairman, the last passage that we want to put to this witness is - presently advised that it's 4 o'clock and that the Committee takes an adjournment until tomorrow and we hope - there's seems to be some progress though Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn after this attempt.

MR BIZOS: Yes, if it works then of course we can finish, if it doesn't then perhaps ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well. ...[inaudible] and we'll resume at 09H30 tomorrow morning.

03-12-1997: Day 6

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Derby-Lewis, you are reminded you're are still under oath.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

GAYE DERBY-LEWIS: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, yesterday you gave us a typed document headed:

"Rough Transcript G. Derby-Lewis - Interrogation by Deetleffs"

Could you please tell us when you typed this document?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think it was Wednesday night - when did we - when we got the tapes.

MR BIZOS: When you got the tape?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: I see, and where did you view the tape? Where were you when you viewed the ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I viewed the tape at my house.

MR BIZOS: Were tapes one and two handed over to you by your legal representatives?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: When were they handed over to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think it was Wednesday, I don't recall.

MR BIZOS: Anyway, you had it on Wednesday of last week?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Or this week?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Last week?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, last week.

MR BIZOS: Now, did you view them alone or in the company of some other person?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I viewed them alone.

MR BIZOS: You see Mrs Derby-Lewis, my learned friend Mr Brandt who took the tapes last night informs me that the portions of the tape that have the damaging admissions said to have been made by you and recorded on page - R4 continued, page 402, have been wiped off the tape. I would ask the witness to answer the question and not to consult with anyone please Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: You haven't yet asked a question, you merely told her something.

MR BIZOS: Do you know who may have wiped those portions out?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know what you're talking about, I'm sorry, I have no idea what portions you are talking about. I got two tapes and I ran them off and I gave them to my attorneys.

MR BIZOS: Why did you only make notes in relation to the - up to 12:49?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Which date?

MR BIZOS: No, 12:49 of the tape, if you look at page four of your document.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I said:

"Fell asleep, still asleep when tape closes"

and I just stopped - I just switched off the tape because I figured there was nothing else, I didn't look any further.

MR BIZOS: I'm informed by Mr Brandt ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Who's Mr Brandt? May I ask?

MR BIZOS: He's counsel for the police sitting behind me and who will have the pleasure of cross-examining you soon.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: That this tape even now goes beyond 12:49 but stops short of where the police evidence is going to be - the admissions that you made in paragraphs 52 to 60 were recorded, do you want to make any comment on it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos, the last thing that I would - I feel quite insulted frankly, that you would even consider the fact that I would wipe out the tape.

MR BIZOS: Well, ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Maybe it was wiped before it came to me, I simply ran it off. I have no technical knowledge at all of wiping out tapes, I wouldn't interfere with any evidence that has to do with my husband's life, it is simply ludicrous to suggest that. And ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Yes, I hear you say so but please answer the questions that I'm about to put to you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I have answered the question.

MR BIZOS: These admissions - if in fact they were on the record, would be completely destructive of your credibility.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you still suggesting that I wiped out tapes?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, whether a statement would be destructive of her credibility or so on, is a matter for argument and comment isn't it?

MR BIZOS: I'll change the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think you should ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Can you think who would have the greatest possible interest of wiping these admissions off the tape, if they were in fact wiped off?

MR PRINSLOO: To what is Mr Bizos referring Mr Chairman, what was wiped off?

JUDGE WILSON: As I understand, from paragraph 52 onwards.

CHAIRPERSON: On page 402.

JUDGE WILSON: Page 402, he's already referred to it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, what I saw on the tape ended at the time 11:27 on that particular tape, so if Mr Bizos can indicate to you the time.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] and I'd like the witness to answer it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you were about to put a question to her. I think you were about to put a question to her: "Who would be ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Who would have an interest in wiping out paragraphs - the contents of paragraphs 52 to 60 from the tape?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I received two tapes and which I've numbered one and two and I typed out and I gave you a copy of what I typed out in good faith - I have a copy for the - a rough assessment - tape one was timed from 2 o'clock in the afternoon - sorry, 2 o'clock in the morning of the 23rd of April and tape two was on the 21st of April - which was the day that I was arrested, and it starts at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, so if there's any wiping out been done, it would seem that it's been done before I got it.

And all of that section that I referred to in my notes that I wrote on the 2nd of April in the prison, referred to all of these things that happened during the time that I was arrested until the early morning of the 23rd and there's no records of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, I think the answer to the question is: you don't know who ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know who ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: was responsible for wiping out, that's the answer.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But the gravement of the question of the question that I asked you: "Who would possibly gain - out of the three parties in this Committee, by the deletion of these paragraphs, you, the police or the Hani family"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, I can't comment, it never occurred to me.

MR BIZOS: You can't say. Very well, we'll argue that and we'll argue the obvious but now ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know what's on there, you say that it is in the records but I - it never even occurred to me to think along those lines.

MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, these tapes that were handed to your legal representatives were documents in the possession of the Commission.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I got them from Mr Lubbe, my attorney.

MR BIZOS: I know, Mr Lubbe was given these documents by Mr Mpshe - counsel for the Commission, to the legal representatives. Did he not discuss with you his authority to hand these tapes over to you, one of the persons said to be a conspirator or alleged to be a conspirator in the Hani murder, did your attorney not tell you that these were handed to him and that you were not entitled to have them on your own once you were one of the people involved in this hearing?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he didn't.

MR BIZOS: I will leave the rest in relation to the tapes, to my learned friend Mr Brandt who has witnesses to - we will have to lead secondary evidence as to what was on the tape.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, how old was your son in April '93?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 32.

MR BIZOS: Did you ask him why he had a silencer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Why not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I never knew he had one.

MR BIZOS: But once you found out that he had one, did you ask him what he was doing with a silencer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't.

MR BIZOS: Why not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was taken to Section 29, then I went to jail and it went completely out of my head. I wasn't interested to ask why he had a silencer, I didn't find it important.

MR BIZOS: Some four years later you still haven't asked your son why he had a silencer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Why this wall of silence between you and your son in relation to an unusual object in his possession?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It's not a wall of silence at all, I considered it irrelevant and not worth even talking to him about it.

JUDGE WILSON: But you knew that part of the case against your husband was that he had obtained a silencer for the gun which was used to kill, surely when you heard your son was also in possession of a silencer you would know about it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I wasn't - I didn't have any idea that my son was in possession of a silencer until the 17th of April when they started taking the stuff out of my house and I asked one of the policemen: "Would you kindly write that down so that I know" and I said: "What is that"? and he said: "That's a silencer". I didn't ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, the question was: "You had a long time between then and now to enquire from your son how does it come about that he kept a silencer, didn't you ask him that"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, and he's overseas, he's been overseas for years.

CHAIRPERSON: No, the question was: "Why didn't you ask him"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't consider it relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that's it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: If I may say something Mr Chairman, - I can see the Judges look incredulous, I knew nothing - I beg your pardon, I knew nothing about a silencer from the word go, so why would my son having a silencer have anything to do with tying it up with the case?

CHAIRPERSON: The suggesting is that the silencer figures fairly largely in the killing of Mr Hani.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but I said in my evidence I had never seen the silencer ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, no ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Therefore I brought this evidence to show you that I hadn't in fact seen one because when it came up - while they were taking it out, I said: "What is that", I brought the evidence to you to show you that I hadn't seen - ever seen one and the only time that I got that evidence was from the police docket when I went through to Pretoria within the last month, to look through the police docket and I found the inventory. And then I thought maybe this is a good idea to present this to the court.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, I understand your answer, you are saying that you did not consider it irrelevant, in other words - you did not consider it relevant surely, in other words as far as you are concerned it seems that ordinary curiosity didn't compel you to ask him about it? - to ask you son about how ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry I didn't hear that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ordinary curiosity didn't drive you to ask him about it? You weren't curious to find out?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Right Mr Bizos, proceed now.

MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, just one more question on this issue, motherly instinct would surely have led you to ask the question lest your son was mixed up with assassins - the silencer is after all an instrument of great use to assassins, why did you ask him: "What are you involved in, where did you get it from, why did you get it, why did you put it in your draw"?, - all the questions that a mother would ask for the protection of her son.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't know that silencers were involved in anything to do with assassins, I didn't even know what a silencer looked like, I didn't know it's function.

JUDGE WILSON: You heard the evidence at your trial.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Where silencers were referred to.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Thereafter you knew perfectly well what silencers were used for.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but at the time - are you talking about - since the trial my son has been overseas, I haven't written to him and asked him why he had a silencer.

MR BIZOS: How long has your son been overseas?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I think he went overseas shortly after - I think it was even before the trial.

MR BIZOS: Did he visit you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He visited me in prison, yes.

MR BIZOS: Please tell us specifically, when did your son leave South Africa?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'll have to check.

MR BIZOS: Has he been back since?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he lives in Canada.

MR BIZOS: Now, you and your husband were not only man and wife but political colleagues and held important positions in the Conservative Party, both of you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Did your husband ever discuss the moral question with you whether - in the struggle of the Conservative Party, it would have been permissible to kill or morally acceptable to kill, did he ever discuss that question with you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't think we went into those kinds of specifics, I don't recall.

MR BIZOS: Did he ever discuss with you the possibility as to whether or not the time had arrived for the contingency plan that was alluded to at the Kimberly Conference, had arrived or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Despite your husband's untruthfulness in relation to the matter - before an application was made for amnesty, we know that he and Mr Walus planned the murder, do you accept that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: What was it that would have prompted him not to discuss this with you once you were so close?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know what prompted him not to discuss anything with me, I think that's for him to answer - with respect.

MR BIZOS: He has made statements and has given evidence - if he is to be believed, that he wrestled with the question as to whether or not murder should be committed, can you give us any reason - what there was in your relationship, that he was not prepared to speak to you about this moral dilemma that he was labouring in?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, that was his moral dilemma and I believe he testified that both he and Cuba said that they wouldn't involve their women folk.

MR BIZOS: How would he have involved you if he told you he was in a moral dilemma as to whether or not the third option at the Kimberly Conference should be put into operation or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He never discussed it with me.

MR BIZOS: The question was: "How would he have implicated you if he as a fellow politician and as a husband referred to the third option at the Kimberly Conference?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, my husband never discussed it with me.

MR BIZOS: What would have prevented him from discussing any of these things and why would there have been this wall of silence about such an important question that your husband was wrestling with, was there anything in your relationship which would have prevented him from discussing it with you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know, that's his decision and there wasn't a wall of silence - as you mentioned before, between us.

MR BIZOS: You were sufficiently prominent a member of the Conservative Party that you were selected by the Conservative Party in 1992, to appear in the television programme to debate the question of what was the rule of patriotic South African women to play in relation to the referendum that was about to be held.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think the SABC wanted women participants and it was in English so the Conservative Party to participate and I think Mrs Camera was there.

MR BIZOS: And you were sufficiently senior and sufficiently trusted by the Conservative Party to debate it's policy in public against a senior member of Parliament, Sheila Camera on behalf of the National Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And the suggestion that there may be in your evidence that you were a mere foot-soldier, is therefore to be looked at critically is it not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Absolutely not, to go onto a television interview in English where there were not very many women English speakers in the Executive of the Conservative Party, isn't unusual and it has nothing to do with the other matter that you mentioned in your second part of your sentence - I don't think one is contingent upon the other.

MR BIZOS: But the Conservative Party that appointed you to this must have felt sufficiently confident that you would represent it's policy correctly?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, on that point, I think we were debating a referendum.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

Mr Chairman, there are other matters which we have to take up with this witness as soon as Mr de Waal becomes available and as soon as the version of the police is put by my learned friend Mr Brandt. I would like to stop the cross-examination here with your leave and I will merely give a notice that I will apply in due course - when further facts emerge, to put them to the witness but for the time being that is the end of the cross-examination.

And I also Mr Chairman, want to place on record that matters that I have not put to her directly in relation to some of the issues, I would also like to reserve the right because one piece of information leads to other questions in relation to others.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, you will agree that this is not a particularly satisfactory way of conducting proceedings?

MR BIZOS: I agree fully Mr Chairman, but then on the other ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Now then, that being so, are there not other matters that arise from her evidence in chief that can be dealt with now and reserve to yourself the right to ask questions after your witness has arrived ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I will not ask for leave to ask any questions or claim any right to ask any questions that arise out of her evidence in chief, I reserve the right in relation to matters that will emerge as a result of the police evidence and particularly Mr de Waal whom we have not seen and this is what I particularly want to reserve.

And also Mr Chairman, we have given - Mrs Derby-Lewis was good enough to give us a contact number for Mr Edwin Clarke - counsel for the Commission is making arrangements to get him here, it may be that information may emerge from there that we have to put to her.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, at the beginning of this morning's questioning you referred to some notes that were given to you by Mrs Derby-Lewis, do those form part of the record, have they been handed in yet?

MR BIZOS: Not for my purposes, I merely wanted - I merely referred to them in order to establish that she had sole control of the video at a certain time Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR BIZOS: May we call back Mr Chairman, and allow Mr Brandt and his attorney to come forward?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please, do proceed.

MR BRANDT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I wish you'd get down here quickly with your cameras and equipment please.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRANDT: Mrs Derby-Lewis, I will try and be as brief with you as I've been with Mr Walus. Let me begin at your arrest, you were arrested - according to what I understand, at 4 o'clock in the morning on the 21st of April 1993, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR BRANDT: And you were arrested inter alias by Captain Deetleffs?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

MR BRANDT: Now, what exactly did he say to you when he arrested you, did he tell you what you were arrested for etc.?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he said I was arrested under - I think it was - I wrote it down, Section 50 or 60 of some Act - Section 50 and that was only when I asked him, I asked him under what Act - under what Law am I being arrested.

MR BRANDT: Did he tell you what you what you were arrested for?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BRANDT: Not at all?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BRANDT: So, he merely came in there and told you: "Mrs Derby-Lewis, I'm so and so, I am arresting you"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he said he wanted to take me for questioning.

MR BRANDT: In connection with what

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well obviously, in connection with the Hani matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Not obviously, the question is: "Did he tell you"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't recall, I assumed it was in connection with the Hani matter, maybe he said: "Yes, I'm arresting in connection with the Hani matter", I don't recall.

MR BRANDT: Yes, but Madam, he either did tell you or he didn't tell you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I don't recall, I assumed it was in connection with the Hani matter.

MR BRANDT: Well, can you seriously dispute it if I put it to you that Captain Deetleffs informed you that he was arresting you for - in connection with the murder of the late Mr Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I can't dispute that, I don't recall that. I remember him saying that he was arresting me under some Section and I wrote down a couple - 10 days later - Section 50, it could have been 60 or 70 or 30, I don't know.

MR BRANDT: Now, what prompted you to ask him: in terms of which Act or what Act he arrested you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because I had a friend staying there, Mr Kevin Ryan who had stayed in the house since my husband was arrested and I wanted him to get hold of Mr Jeug Prinsloo who was our member of Parliament for Florida and who was an advocate, so I wanted to convey some kind of legal terminology to Mr Ryan in order that he get hold of Mr Prinsloo.

MR BRANDT: Madam, you will forgive me if I put it to you that I find that very strange, if a person is arrested in connection with murder surely that suffices?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't recall that he said he was arresting me for murder?

MR BRANDT: Well, in connection with the murder of Mr Hani.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I don't know, I've told you. All I remember was that he said it was a certain Section because I asked him in order to convey this information to Mr Ryan who by then I think, was standing there.

MR BRANDT: Now, let's move on, you were then taken to the Benoni Police Station, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct. No, I wasn't taken there, I was taken to Krugersdorp and they stopped there and went in for some reason - the reason why I recall that was because I said to Mr Deetleffs: "Where are we going, so that the attorneys will know where to go"? and he said: "Krugersdorp", so Mr Ryan phoned Mr Prinsloo and - subsequently, and Mr Prinsloo sent an attorney Anton Wagenaar, to Krugersdorp Police Station thinking that I was there but they - a car went to Krugersdorp - I think there were three men in it and myself, and they dropped off something and then they went to Benoni.

MR BRANDT: Now, at Benoni you were then questioned by Deetleffs?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT: On the 21st of April 1993?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT: Now, Madam, did you know that the whole procedure, this interrogating or questioning was being filmed at that stage?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BRANDT: You were unaware of it, quite unaware?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I couldn't hear what Mr Brandt said.

CHAIRPERSON: The witness seems to have heard and that is that, she was unaware that the questioning was being taped.

MR BRANDT: Now, correct me if I understood it incorrectly Mrs Derby-Lewis, you initial reaction to the questioning was: "I have no comment"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it wasn't questioning, when I got in there he said to me - he made statements, he didn't question me. He said: "You will stay here for 15 years, your husband will get 15 years" ...[intervention]

MR BRANDT: We're coming to that ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I'm sorry, this happened before the questioning so ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, you will be asked those questions, please just try and answer.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: And try and make your answers pertinent to the point that you're being asked.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I know you've been here a long time answering questions ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, it's not that, I'm sorry, I do misinterpret the procedure, I apologise.

MR BRANDT: Mrs Derby-Lewis, the point I'm trying to make is, you were not afraid to respond to his statements/questioning by telling him: "I've got no comment" or: "I've got nothing to say"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's because he told me that my attorney was on the way and I was confident that I would have some legal advice within an hour or so.

MR BRANDT: May I suggest to you that your response was in line with what Captain Deetleffs will testify, namely that he warned you in terms of Judges Rules, that you weren't obliged to respond.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in fairness to the witness, could Mr Brandt indicate on this tape whether this appeared that she was warned in terms of Judges Rules?

CHAIRPERSON: You can re-examine her on that point.

MR PRINSLOO: As you please Mr Chairman.

MR BRANDT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

What is your reaction to that Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't recall being warned in terms of Judges Rules, I recall being threatened.

MR BRANDT: Now, let's just stand there for a moment, you initially - the portions in any event which I heard, vehemently denied ever having been warned in terms of Judges Rules and now you say you cannot recall having been warned, is it possible that you were warned but because of your state of mind, you now cannot recollect having been warned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's possible.

MR BRANDT: I put it to you that Captain Deetleffs and others if necessary, will testify - if need be, that you were not only warned at your arrest at home that you were not obliged to answer any questions etc., but also later at Benoni - before the questioning started, you were warned in terms of Judges Rules. You cannot dispute that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I can't recall a thing.

MR BRANDT: Mrs Derby-Lewis, I had the displeasure of viewing the two tapes in question last night - the displeasure being because it's an onerous task, my colleague already put it to you - Mr Bizos, that as regards tape two, some portions of that tape have been deleted and in fact the tape runs up to - Mr Chairman, I made a note and I put it on the tape, I don't know where the tape is ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, is tape two - what date is tape two?

MR BRANDT: I made a note on a little piece of paper and I put it on the tape.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you referring to the tape ...[intervention]

MR BRANDT: The tape that is tape is numbered number two.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I don't know, I'm just looking at the way I numbered them but are you referring to the tape that was ostentatiously made when I was first taken there, in other words the 21st of April?

MR BRANDT: Yes, Madam, that is in fact ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, well ...[intervention]

MR BRANDT: The tape ends at 12:56 - I think 12 seconds, according to your notes, it's a bit earlier.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I've got here: Time: 21st of April: 13:11:37 GDL sitting in Mr Deetleffs's office.

MR BRANDT: No.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And then it ends: 14:16 - end of tape.

MR BRANDT: No, I'm referring to the tape number two, it stops 12:56:13.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you talking about the 21st of April?

MR BRANDT: Madam, yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well I'm sorry, I don't know, this is what I wrote down and I gave it to my attorney and he saw exactly the same thing.

MR BRANDT: Because what perturbs me - and I'm making no allegations or insinuations Madam, is that if regard is had to page 492 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR BRANDT: The portions which you allege are incorrect - 402 - namely, paragraphs 52 to 60 - those four paragraphs inter alia, the tape stop just about there and it's been deleted - cleaned, wiped.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: How do you know that ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I interrupt at this stage? What's of reference from page 398 to 402 - which is the section I presume my learned friend is referring to - Mr Brandt, the tape which we viewed on Thursday when it was given back to us ends at the time 12:56:13.

And up to paragraph 60 was included there and thereafter was a lot of information which does not appear on this document, page 402 but it was on the tape on Thursday when it was received from the witness - I want to place that on the record.

MR BRANDT: Well, what ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: And thereafter it was handed back and it was returned to Mr Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: Put your question to Mrs Derby-Lewis please.

MR BRANDT: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

The point I'm trying to make Madam is, that I could not view the rest of the tape as it had been deleted from the place where it says 12:56:13.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, if you couldn't view that, how did you know what was on it?

MR BRANDT: Because Madam, evidence will be led - if need be, that the police made notes of the contents of that tape and I have those notes and those are inter alia what is contained in paragraphs 52, 54, 59 and 60, which you deny.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you alleging that I wiped it off?

MR BRANDT: No, Madam, I'm not alleging anything, I'm merely putting the position as it is at present.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I denied that I did it.

MR BRANDT: Yes, I take note of that. Now Madam, again returning to your ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, before you go on, you said it stops at 12:56:12?

MR BRANDT: 12:56:13 to be precise.

JUDGE WILSON: And is that the position now you say?

MR BRANDT: Mr Chairman, that is the present position.

JUDGE WILSON: But that ...[intervention]

MR BRANDT: I viewed it this morning in this tape and it's still the position as it is.

JUDGE WILSON: And you say that is at 52?

MR BRANDT: No, Mr Chairman, it's before 52.

JUDGE WILSON: But as I understand, we have just been told by counsel for the applicant that he saw the tape on Thursday, it went beyond paragraph 60 and stopped at 12:56:13.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: So, paragraph 60 is on the tape before 12:56:13 according to him.

MR BRANDT: Well, I'll be very much indebted if my learned friend could point it out at some stage because that's where it ended.

JUDGE WILSON: The tape is available now and we can see whether - before 12:56:13, these passages are on the tape. Did I understand you correctly, you say they were before 12:56:13?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, his Lordship Mr Justice Wilson is quite correct, to assist further Mr Chairman, paragraph 60 appears at the time 11:27 - that's on my notes what I saw, I made notes of important parts of it.

JUDGE WILSON: 11:27?

MR PRINSLOO: 11:27 Mr Chairman, and the actual tape ends at the time 12:56:13.

JUDGE WILSON: So that's an hour and a half before the end of the tape?

MR PRINSLOO: From ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: 11:27.

MR PRINSLOO: 11:27 ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: 11:27.

MR PRINSLOO: 11:27 up till 12:56 Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: And hour and a half.

MR PRINSLOO: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And the information beyond 11:27 does not appear on the document R4 continued, page 402 - there was a lot of detail. We made notes - my colleague and I made notes of all this detail.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brandt, will you and Mr Prinsloo finalise this matter among yourselves, it may well be that this matter can be resolved? This might be a technical difficulty and it may save a lot of time in further cross-examination and so on?

MR BRANDT: Indeed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And will you call us immediately you are ready? We will adjourn.

MR BRANDT: Thank you Mr Chairman, with regard to the tape, my learned colleague has indicated to me the times where he allegedly found them - if I can refer to page 402, paragraph 52?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BRANDT: That portion can be found on that particular tape at the number 11:19:32 on the tape, the paragraph there is correct except for the word: "Hani's", it does not appear there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR BRANDT: Then the rest of the paragraphs, 54, 59, and 60, I could not find on that tape.

CHAIRPERSON: 54, 59?

MR BRANDT: 54, 59 and 60. It would seem that these notes are not in time sequence or numerical sequence and I will have to view that tape again from the very beginning, so I suggest that I leave that questioning there at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I at this stage indicate that we viewed the tape together with my learned friend Mr Brandt and the information which they allege was wiped from this tape is not true, it's all on the tape - that must be placed on record.

There is no information missing and if Mr Brandt insists on that Mr Chairman, we'd request the Committee to view that complete tape to see that it's not tampered with.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't have to look at the entire tape, I suggest that you locate that tape when the time comes and show it to us.

JUDGE WILSON: We have just been told that he could not find paragraph 59 and 60 on the tape.

CHAIRPERSON: No, 54, 59 and 60.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, 59 and 60 are the relevant ones, that are part of the deleted - where the deletion took place, isn't it? You say you can't find them on the tape?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, if the Committee could listen to the tape and compare it, the Committee will then also notice that this note - the so-called statement, does not reflect - it's not a true reflection of what transpired, so how can Mr Brandt say it's not correct or it's wiped out or anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway you maintain that 54, 59 and 60 are on the tape.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: You maintain that they are on the tape, 54, 59 and 60?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the wording of 60 differs from what is stated here, that is what I'm saying. When the time comes Mr Chairman, we can view the tape - with reference to that particular aspect, and the Committee will then notice there's nothing wiped out but the notes are incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Brandt.

MR BRANDT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, let's move to the other thing, you were questioned extensively by Captain Deetleffs inter alia, correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT: What role did Colonel van Niekerk play, did he at any stage question you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Colonel van Niekerk saw me at 3 o'clock - around 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the 21st, when he advised me that I would be placed under Section 29.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he question you, did he participate in your interrogation?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BRANDT: So that was the sum total of his role?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He did come in a couple of times when I was in Edenvale and spoke to me and Mr de Waal but I don't recall what he said - of course it was obviously about the statements.

MR BRANDT: Now, Beetge, what was his role? Would I be fair if I summarise that he was actually the scribe?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes and no, he did ask questions which were on the tape and he was - I would say, he was the runner rather than the scribe because he seemed to be running backwards and forwards between somebody and me and saying Clive said this and Clive said that and what do you say to that, so he came in and out of the room and he sat with Mr Deetleffs at times and so forth.

MR BRANDT: He played a very, very small part in this whole questioning process as far as the act of physical questioning is concerned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I'd say so, yes.

MR BRANDT: So the bad guy in the scenery - as far as you are concerned, is Captain Deetleffs?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I don't want to make any personal remarks but ...[intervention]

MR BRANDT: No, you have made them Madam, that's why I'm going to take them up with you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I've made them in writing, I don't want to say it here on the microphone.

MR BRANDT: Madam, it ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm doing - I'm saying that out of deference, if you want me to say what I think then I'll say it but I'm trying to be polite.

MR BRANDT: Can I ask you this Madam, did the demeanour of Captain Deetleffs at any stage, force you or compel you or contribute towards you telling any untruths?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you talking in terms of my final statement to him?

MR BRANDT: At all, at any stage.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there were certain suggestions made and there were threats in the beginning that: "You must tell all" and: "We know everything" - if I look at this final statement on page 402, it doesn't reflect a lot of things that I did say and there are certain things there that I didn't.

MR BRANDT: Yes, but let's revert back to my question Madam - I'm trying to curtail the proceedings instead of going through each and every note I've made and just for clarity I'm going to repeat it, has Captain Deetleffs in any way ...[End of tape 1(A), day 6 - no follow-on sound]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it's difficult to say that - Mr Deetleffs didn't say to me: "You must write that" as the others did, perhaps it's correct that essentially - as I said in my testimony to Mr Bizos, essentially what is there is true - essentially ...[intervention]

MR BRANDT: So would I ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There were certain things that I brought out that I didn't agree with.

MR BRANDT: Yes. Madam, would I be fair to say then - please correct me if I'm wrong, that whatever your perception might have been or might be still with regards Captain Deetleffs, you stuck to your guns and you spoke the truth in essence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In essence, yes.

MR BRANDT: In fact, would I be fair to say that at the latter part of the questioning you became quite friendly with each other - obviously platonic, but you were civil, joking, friendly etc.?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I've looked at the tape yesterday which was shown and I looked at my notes and somewhere there was a carrot and then I looked at the detention file and I saw that Mr Deetleffs - I think it was on the Friday or the Saturday, had bought me some magazines so I was more amenable to him.

He also said to me that I may not be charged - it was just after 12 o'clock on the 24th of April when we were talking towards the end of the tape and he said - I said to him: "What are they going to charge me with"? and he said: "It is not certain that they are going to charge you".

And on reflection last night I thought maybe he had intimated that to me at the beginning of the question and that was - questioning, maybe that was why I was more pleasant and more amenable to him, I'm not sure of that because I haven't got the tape, I've only got the end of the tape where he says: "It is not certain that they're going to charge you" but when I first went in he told me I was going to get 15 years, so the difference between 15 years and no charge obviously would put me in a better mood towards him.

MR BRANDT: Madam, I would be very much obliged if you could point out any tape where Captain Deetleffs said to you, you would go to jail for 15 years.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He said that to me as I came in, he walked around the desk - I will never forget it, and he said: "You will get 15 years" or 10 years, I can't remember - 5 or 10 or 15 or whatever it was it was a horrendous statement.

MR BRANDT: Let me refresh your memory Mrs Derby-Lewis - and the court, if you would just grant me a moment to get that particular place, you asked Captain Deetleffs what was going to happen to your husband ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: When was that?

MR BRANDT: I'm trying to get the place now just to tell that - yes, it's on the first tape, the time is 2:16:49 ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And what ...[intervention]

MR BRANDT:

"What is going to happen"

...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, what date is that?

MR BRANDT: That's the 23rd of April.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT:

"What is going to happen to Clive"?

and this is not a verbatim summary I'm giving you now, that's my notes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, what time was it?

MR BRANDT: 2:16:49.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT: Question:

"What is going to happen to Clive"?

and this interjection then from you:

"Quickly, tell me before this man comes back"

I don't know who this man is ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think that was Mr Deetleffs - Mr Beetge.

MR BRANDT: Beetge?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT: Question:

"How long am I going to get"?

and he said:

"Well, it's not for me to say, perhaps 5, perhaps 6 years and a third off for good behaviour"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, 5 years in jail is 5 years in jail whether it's 5 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's been put to you - not the relative severity of the sentence, but it is being put to you that that is what was said.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all your answer should be.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, without wasting time, my learned friend ought to put also to the witness that at 2:35:24 - that same tape, she was told she will not get bail and she will get 5 years jail and her husband wouldn't get bail either.

MR BRANDT: Mr Chairman, I'm not going to be a jack in the box, perhaps Mr Prinsloo could just leave me to do my job and he'll do his afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think Mr Prinsloo, you have all the right to put this to your client and bring it out under re-examination.

Do carry on.

MR BRANDT: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Again Mrs Derby-Lewis, you asked a question and he replied to you in a very sympathetic way, what his views were.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: How do you know it was sympathetic?

MR BRANDT: Well Madam, look at the tape and you'll see it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But this was at 2:16, I'm talking about when I first came in at 5 o'clock in the morning, I'm talking about now.

MR BRANDT: Yes, Madam, I am talking about that. At 2 it's the very same thing - tape one 2:17:34, you asked him:

"Is Clive going to get bail"?

and he said to you quite honestly:

"No, Kuba isn't going to get bail, Clive isn't going to get bail and nor are you"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well?

MR BRANDT: He didn't threaten you Madam, he informed you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But he threatened me before which isn't on the tape.

MR BRANDT: Well, what is on the tape was not threatening.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, what is on the tape - there's a whole five - there's nine I think, seven or nine hours missing from what's on the tape. I mean, surely I'm at liberty to say what happened then - I wrote about it before there was any talk of a Truth Commission and I've submitted that document, so I wasn't cooking up something just for now.

MR BRANDT: Madam, what happened before that is none of my concern at this stage, what I put to you is that on tape one at the relevant times I placed on record, this happened namely, you asked him certain questions and he replied to them in a sympathetic, straightforward and honest manner, do you agree with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT: Right.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may we just enquire which is now tape one that my learned friend is referring to, what date?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 23rd of April.

MR PRINSLOO: Because we know now that the Mrs Derby-Lewis was arrested on the 21st, is it now the 23rd or the 24th? To what tape is he referring to?

MR BRANDT: As my colleague's client has just informed him, it's the 23rd.

CHAIRPERSON: 23rd.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I'm sorry, I mistook it for the 21st, I apologise.

MR BRANDT: Again, on that very same tape at 2:19:10, Mr Deetleffs said to you very sympathetic:

"Darling, you must be strong"

Those are the words.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't write that down.

MR BRANDT: Well, I did.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, ...[intervention]

MR BRANDT: And I put it to you, can you dispute it Madam?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BRANDT: Now is that the words of a person this ogre who threatens you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But he threatened me on the 21st, I didn't say he threatened me on the 23rd.

MR BRANDT: Yes. In fact, he went further on and he said in Afrikaans:

"I just want to cheer you up a bit"

Do you dispute that Madam?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BRANDT: Right. I'm going to summarise it because it's futile to go through each and everything, it's going to take ages. I'm putting it to you Mrs Derby-Lewis, that Captain Deetleffs - when he arrested you and subsequent, he warned you in terms of Judges Rules and as far as tape one and tape two are concerned, there is not one piece where I could find where Captain Deetleffs exhibited either a threatening attitude, domineering attitude or any threats of physical nature or otherwise, would you agree with me on that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. May I also say that there are huge gaps in the time that Mr Deetleffs interrogated me, so this isn't the full story.

MR BRANDT: Can I ask you this, according to - and again correct me if my impression is wrong, the person who really bugged you was Captain de Waal.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, because Captain de Waal told me to change certain statements, that's correct.

MR BRANDT: Yes, and not so much Captain Deetleffs?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, with respect, you are talking now about Mr Deetleffs's emotional behaviour and so on and so forth and that's what I'm talking about. In terms of the legalities of the thing, Mr de Waal did more damage by far than Mr Deetleffs.

MR BRANDT: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But you now - you set the agenda in terms of behaviour and treatment and so forth and that's what I'm discussing.

MR BRANDT: Correct, because the allegations were made that you were maltreated etc., etc., by Captain Deetleffs.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But I was in the beginning but it's not on the tape, there is no tape of that.

CHAIRPERSON: At any rate, as far as those portions of the tape that we see, you have admitted that there was no threatening or domineering attitude displayed by him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all.

MR BRANDT: Madam, I think it's Exhibit Y2 - that's the number, do you have that before you perhaps - it's a photostat copy of hand-written notes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT: Were these notes made by you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: These were made by me, yes.

MR BRANDT: Now, if you look at the second paragraph, the last sentence under the heading: 22 Thurs. ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Which page was that?

MR BRANDT: That's the very first page I think, it starts with - the paragraph starts:

"Doctor Treurnicht died - again problems"

etc., etc., do you have that before you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Oh I'm sorry, these are photostat copies of the notes that I made while I was in the Benoni Police Station.

MR BRANDT: Yes, correct.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. 22nd of Thursday:

"Doctor Treurnicht died"

MR BRANDT: That's right.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Right.

MR BRANDT: Now, the last sentence under that heading - 22 Thurs. says:

"6a.m. - Deetleffs drunk and swearing"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT: Now, could you tell me when on that particular day was he drunk or was that 6a.m. the time that he was drunk according to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he was drunk when he came in, in the evening and we went the evening before at about 11 o'clock and then we went through the whole night and I think:

"Deetleffs drunk and swearing"

just refers generally to the evening - I don't - the 6a.m. refers to Fani Jacobs because he came at that time to tell us that Doctor Treurnicht had died and Mr Deetleffs and company took us in to see Mr Jacobs.

MR BRANDT: Now, do I understand you correctly, that from 10p.m. right through to 6a.m. Deetleffs was drunk?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't ...[intervention]

MR BRANDT: Now, when was he drunk?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, when he came in at 10p.m. I could smell that he was drinking.

MR BRANDT: Now Madam, wait, wait, let's get this clear, I think you will agree with me if I have a single sip of some liquor you might smell it on my breath but that does not make me drunk.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I think if you listen to the tape you will hear that Mr Deetleffs words were slightly slurred but when he came in - he didn't drink in front of me, definitely not, no.

MR BRANDT: Now wait again, was he drunk or did his breath smell of liquor or what was the position?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he was, he was - I would say - well - I can't think of the word, he was a person who - to me, had been drinking fairly heavily.

MR BRANDT: Fairly heavily?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT: And from what did you make that deduction?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because I - it was from his speech and because I could smell drink - it was a small room.

MR BRANDT: What about his speech?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, his speech was slurred and it was different, it was more rolling and sort of slack than when he had taken me in the morning to the room at Benoni Police Station.

MR BRANDT: Well Madam, I beg to differ from you as far as your interpretation of the tape is concerned, I couldn't ...[indistinct] of those allegations on the tape - his speech sounded very normal to me.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I picked up that the speech was slightly slurred but that's a matter of interpretation, it would have to be listed to again.

MR BRANDT: Yes. Now Madam, you were in fact afforded the opportunity - at your request, to see your husband at 3 o'clock in the morning?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BRANDT: That again I submit, is not consistent with a person who is trying to threaten and pressurise you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that's correct but apparently he had received word that Mr Jacobs was coming or something because when I saw my husband it was with Mr Jacobs who had come to tell us about Doctor Treurnicht.

MR BRANDT: Nevertheless, he was not obliged to allow you to see your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, absolutely correct, yes. Actually, if I may say, the - I repeat, the discussion we're now talking about is Mr Deetleffs's approach - personal approach and so forth.

MR BRANDT: Madam, let's make it clear, Captain Deetleffs had to get information from you and he used anything admissible to get it from you and by being the nice guy - if that succeeded, so be it and he was the nice guy.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but there were other times when he wasn't the nice guy and it's not recorded.

MR BRANDT: Yes, but that still did not force you to say anything untruthful as you testified?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BRANDT: Thank you.

Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRANDT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, is there anything that has transpired now which puts you in a position to wish to put questions - on ground that has not already been covered?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I wouldn't like to put any questions now in view of what appears to be the confusion in relation to what is and what is not on the tape. I understand that counsel for the witness is going to show portions of it, may I reserve the position until that has been done and then we will inform the court whether we want to ask any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Right you are.

MR BIZOS: If given an opportunity to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, would you like to put questions at this stage or would you like to reserve questions until the cross-examination has been over?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I will choose to put questions after everything has been done under cross-examination, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well now, there will be no point in asking you whether you wish to re-examine your witness at this stage, you'd rather reserve that until all the questioning is over.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman, what we'd like to clear up at this stage is just with regard to the tape itself, to ensure at this stage - before this stands down, that this tape is intact and not tampered with as appears on page 402 or Exhibit R4 continued - from 50 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No, my question is that you don't want to re-examine your witness at this stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Not at this stage Mr Chairman, that is quite correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

It's the view of the Committee that we should adjourn at this stage, once more in the hope that whilst we have adjourned, this whole question about whether the tapes correctly reflect what is transcribed and whether paragraph 54, 59 and 60 are still on the tape or not - this should be sorted out once and for all and I trust that that will be done during the adjournment. If it takes a little longer than the usual 15 minutes break please devote your time and energy to get it done as soon as possible.

MR PRINSLOO: As you please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: May I raise one other matter?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: I want to move an application that the Committee puts the applicants on terms as to whether or not they admit or deny the statements made by senior Conservative Party persons, we have not had any approach at this stage and unless the Committee puts them on terms, I don't think that we will get anywhere Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I thought we sorted that out yesterday when Mr Prinsloo, you and Mr Bizos were going to apply your minds to that aspect of the matter.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, after the adjournment I will speak to Mr Bizos - now during the adjournment, and tell him what we've established and we'll put it on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you will save a lot time I hope.

MR PRINSLOO: We'll do so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn at this stage.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MRS GAY DERBY-LEWIS: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, gentlemen?

MR BRANDT: Mr Chairman, I had the opportunity to go through the video again with my colleagues and as far as the relevant paragraphs are concerned, I wish to place the following on record:

Page 402, paragraph 52 - as previously indicated, that paragraph does appear there except for the word: "Hani's" - that does not appear on the video.

With regard to paragraph 54 - it does appear there except the third sentence: "Kuba was supposed to change the number plates" - that does not appear there on the video.

As regards paragraph ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Is that paragraph 54?

MR BRANDT: Paragraph 54.

Paragraph 59 - this is not a verbatim transcript, it reads something like the following: Clive said: "Maybe it was APLA, the Government" etc.

CHAIRPERSON: So the transcript does not coincide with the video on that point ...[intervention]

MR BRANDT: It does not verbatimly coincide.

And as regards paragraph 60 - the import thereof is: "I asked Clive about the gun but he never told me"

JUDGE WILSON: It is there though?

MR BRANDT: It is there.

JUDGE WILSON: It hasn't been deleted?

MR BRANDT: No, Mr Chairman. With regard to the deletion, it would seem that I'm the skunk in this scenario in that the notes end at paragraph 60 and obviously I looked at the end tape to find it and I couldn't find it and as the tape ended - had it been there, it stands to reason that it would have been deleted because it isn't there at the end of the tape. The tape does end at 12:56:13 but these portions which I've now referred to appears at 11:19 to 11:27, so my apologies if somebody was misled on my omission to pick that up at 11.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Mr Prinsloo, Ms van der Walt...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I - before the re-examination, merely place something on record and ask one or two question in relation to these passages Mr Chairman - now that they have been clarified?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I thought before I allow you to cross-examine witnesses, I just want to know what the attitude of Mr Prinsloo and Ms van der Walt ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon, yes of course.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it is correct, the tape was replayed as far this is concerned and it does appear on the tape as indicated by Mr Brandt - that is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And there are differences between the transcript and the tape on certain matters?

MR PRINSLOO: That is ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: That has been pointed out.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, it appears that the person writing it differed from it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Now then, before you start cross-examining - Mr Bizos, on this aspect of the matter have anything to say?

MR BIZOS: Yes, I've already indicated that I want to say something to Mrs Derby-Lewis in relation to this Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, the suggestion that you may have interfered with the tape was obviously an unfounded suggestion and I want to apologise to you for it but you have heard my learned friend as to where I got the information from and from where I drew the inference, I hope that you will accept that apology.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you very much Mr Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, now that we have an accepted version of the what is on the tape, I'd like to ask you one or two questions ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Are you serious when you say one or two?

MR BIZOS: Well, it's a way of speaking Mr Chairman.

In relation to paragraph 52, the absence of the word: "Hani's" on the tape, would you agree that - in the context of what is admitted to be on the tape, that this was an obvious reference to Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Right. Now, so that:

"He said that during the discussions with Kuba they had mentioned such a thing like Hani's death, he said that he hadn't thought that Kuba would do such a thing at all"

is something that you said?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, or words to that effect.

MR BIZOS: Or words to that effect. Now, the other in paragraph 54:

"He did say that he couldn't understand why Kuba had been so stupid to drive around so obvious"

We leave out the words that are not there:

"He did admit to me however, they had discussed it"

Do you agree that if we take out the words that do not appear on the tape, it is still a statement of your husband having told you that they had discussed it and that he expressed the view that he was stupid to drive around so obvious, do you agree with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, there are two sections to that paragraph.

MR BIZOS: Yes?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The first is just discussing about what he did with the driving around and then the second section says:

"He did admit to me however, they had discussed it"

In other words, that I knew that they had planned it, that is not correct.

MR BIZOS: Well:

"He did admit to me however, that they had discussed it"

What were you speaking about when you said it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'm not sure but it's definitely not to say that I was involved or I knew that they were involved in the planning of it.

MR BIZOS: Well:

"He did admit to me however, they had discussed it"

Discussed what?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, on the face of it, it looks like discussing the murder - the plans, that's what it looks like.

MR BIZOS: Well, what looks like usually is.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'm now denying that I knew anything about the planning of it.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was not whether you knew anything about it but whether you were told about it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Told about it by who Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: By your husband.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, everybody knew about it, it had been in the newspapers.

CHAIRPERSON: I wish you'd answer the question.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, I don't understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Told about it?

CHAIRPERSON: The words as they read, what do they convey to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it conveys to me that Clive was discussing about Kuba in the car and then the number plates thing is out and then:

"He did admit to however, they had discussed it"

On the face of it, it looks as if he told me that they had planned the murder and I - he did not tell me that he had planned the murder.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you think that those words - as far as you are concerned, what do they mean?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, on the ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What do they mean to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: On the face of it, it looks as if that's exactly what I said and the only explanation that I can have from that is that - I'm now trying to please a little bit, maybe it was suggested to me, maybe Mr Beetge came up and said: "This is what Clive said, I don't know, it's a long time ago and I have no explanation for it.

CHAIRPERSON: You have no explanation for that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, I'll carry on. In paragraph 59:

"Clive said: "Maybe it was the Government or someone was behind it as it didn't sound like Kuba who would go into a situation head on"

Now, do you agree that:

"Said: "Maybe it was"

is a simile for the word:

"Clive thought"

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, just for the record - as Mr Brandt indicated, he said: "It's more or less what was said, it is not the same words used".

MR BIZOS: Well, ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The sense of it.

MR BIZOS: The sense of it.

Is there anything that you quarrel with in the sense of it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it seems to me that we were discussing it and he said: "I can't understand how a man like Kuba could do something like that", I think that was basically what this is about.

MR BIZOS: And 60:

"I asked Clive about the gun but he never told me"

You ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: You aid that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: This a point of trouble with me. During the interrogation they asked me at least 10 times about a gun and the only explanation that I have for this is that I've now reached the end of my questioning, I have been told by Mr Deetleffs that I may not be charged - just after 12 midnight on the 24th of the 4th and he says: "It is not certain that they are going to charge you".

And I'm now saying that I'm now agreeing with them because perhaps Mr Deetleffs - Mr Beetge had told me: "This is what Clive said and this can't be used against you" but if you see in my testimony in both tapes, on numerous occasions - in fact I even emphasised that: "I never talked to him about a gun" and: "Why do you keep asking me". I admit that I said it, I can't deny it, it's on the tape.

MR BIZOS: Now, the four paragraphs which you denied when I first referred you to 402, were paragraph 54 - sorry, 52, 54, 59 and 60 - we made a careful note, these were the paragraphs which - the contents of which you denied, 52, 54, 59 and 60, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I disputed the contents.

MR BIZOS: You denied that you said that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: She says she disputed it.

MR BIZOS: You dispute it. Now, the one common factor amongst these paragraphs - with or without the amendments, is that they tend to show that you had knowledge of the planning of the murder of Mr Hani, do you agree with my ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't, they tend to show that I had been softened up, that I was promised a carrot and I was told that what I wrote couldn't be used in court, so I was prepared to compromise. I remember distinctly - Mr Beetge for example, asking me on numerous occasions about the gun.

MR BIZOS: You are now dealing with the question that may be asked of you later - either by me or a member of the court, as to why you said it. The question was that what you are recorded to have said as amended, those four paragraphs have one factor in common, they tend to show that you had knowledge of the fact that the murder of Mr Hani was being planned by your husband and Mr Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I agree they tend to show that and I agree that they were meant to tend to show that.

MR BIZOS: Now, when you were asked whether you had said the matters recorded in this paragraph, why did you deny it? Why did you deny that you said that or anything of the sort? - there was just a denial, you did not say it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I think I disputed it, I disputed the contents and they've now been cleared up - I couldn't remember the exact words.

MR BIZOS: No, please come to terms with the question, why did you deny that you said anything like that when in truth and in fact you now admit that with the amendments you did say - in substance, what is contained in these paragraphs.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos, as far as I recall I disputed the contents, I had already seen this tape and I had already put down notes and I had already said - written down various things and they - it differed from what was here.

MR BIZOS: No, the honest answer - especially if you had notes of it which - they were not the notes that you gave me yesterday were they?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR BIZOS: Were they?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, a very rough - very rough notes. I only ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: The ones you gave me yesterday were neatly typed.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but they're rough, they don't contain the spectrum of this.

MR BIZOS: Let me repeat the question for the last time and then we can proceed if - whatever your answer may be, why didn't you say: "I did say this but not in those precise words in a couple of instances" and why did you deny that you said it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos, I didn't deny, I disputed the contents, I said: "I have doubts about the contents of these paragraphs".

MR BIZOS: No, no, what you had doubts about and you are very careful to draw the distinction, you had doubts - I think, about paragraph 24 on page 400, that's where you expressed doubt but about these four paragraphs you denied that you said it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it was also stated during her evidence - if I recall correctly, that what is stated in this particular statement contained in these pages, that's page 398 to 402, that it does not reflect verbatim as was said by the witness, so Mr Chairman, I would respect when the opportunity avails itself, this whole tape ought to be transcribed - that pertains to this section, in fairness to the witness.

JUDGE WILSON: She has just agreed that she said substantially what appears on page 402, hasn't she?

CHAIRPERSON: A question now is being asked.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, what's recorded here or was taken out, we agree to that but with respect Mr Chairman, it does not contain all the detail that was said during the discussion between Captain Deetleffs and the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: The question really ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: And it makes a big difference as to the interpretation as to what is stated here, that's why Mr Chairman with respect, we'll submit to the Committee that this section ought to be transcribed in order to compare what was exactly stated by Deetleffs and by the witness at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about transcribing everything or just that portion that deals with paragraphs 52, 59 and 60?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, transcribing the section which is in dispute and particularly what Mr Bizos is now referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos - as I understand his question, is saying that: "Today you have admitted certain things which you did not admit or which you disputed previously. His question now is: "Why did you dispute or why did you deny this previously"? Am I right?

MR BIZOS: Yes, that is so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the question, now she has to answer if she can, why in the first place - either because of faulty recollection or whatever may be her explanation, but that's the question that she has to answer.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Bizos, I'm trying to check my notes, have you got any record of when this was put to her?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] it was in the afternoon Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Yesterday afternoon?

MR BIZOS: Yesterday afternoon, yes. It was one of the matters that I dealt with yesterday afternoon at a time when we were dealing with the passages in the - before we started dealing with the passages on the video that we were shown.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] the afternoon, that was in the morning yesterday.

MR BIZOS: It may have been late morning Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: My learned friend Mr Malindi has a similar difficulty by the way, ...[indistinct] keeping record about finding it but if we can find 402 - may I suggest Mr Chairman, I have a clear recollection that I put it on a hypothetical basis and close it off, I don't know that we want to take - if she did deny it, could I put it on that basis?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, what I want to put to you is a simple proposition, that you denied - you went through the statement and you saw that which may be damaging to you, you denied and because you thought 52, 54, 59 and 60 may be damaging to your husband's case and to you as a witness, you denied it, when in truth and in fact they are substantially correct - that's what I

want to put to you, do you want to make any comment on that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, my comment is that obviously what I said is on the tape, what I denied was the content of it, I denied that I knew that I knew about the planning, I denied that I asked Clive about a gun as an essence of the part of my - of the truth - I mean, the fact that I was under Section 29 and asked 100 times about a gun, obviously it has now come into the thing here that I asked Clive about a gun. The question is: "Why did I say that"?

I'm sorry, this is not court procedure but I'm saying what I feel in my heard now. Now, I denied that this was true but I'm not denying that I said it on the tape because I was under Section 29, that's as I say to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Bizos, I don't think you can take it any further.

MR BIZOS: Any further, other than to say that it's typical of your evidence ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that's a comment Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not a question. Yes, is that the end of your questions Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: That is the end of the questioning.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

Mr Mpshe?

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Bizos, I have a note here which indeed reflects that I think you referred her to page 398 up to page 402 which deals with a statement which she made on the 24th of April and my note says that Mrs Derby-Lewis's response was that: "In essence the whole document was correct, save for specifically paragraph 52, 54, 59 and 60.

CHAIRPERSON: All right.

Mr Mpshe, have you any questions to put to this witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, on Monday certain documentation was handed up to the Committee as Exhibits X1, 2, 3 and 5 and you said you received these by post, do you remember that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

ADV MPSHE: How did you receive them, were they registered post or ordinary post?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, they came to my box number in Krugersdorp.

ADV MPSHE: They were put in your ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, they were posted.

ADV MPSHE: Posted to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: To my box number, yes.

ADV MPSHE: So, it was by ordinary post?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

ADV MPSHE: Was there any covering letter therein?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

ADV MPSHE: It was just these documents put into an envelope?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, it came after I had received a letter back by fax from Mr Moolman.

ADV MPSHE: I see.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And it was about a week after that.

ADV MPSHE: Do you still have the envelope that contained those documents?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I ...[intervention]

ADV MPSHE: Because we want to investigate that.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I just threw it away.

ADV MPSHE: Did you check outside where did it come from - on the stamp, the postal stamp on the envelope?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I suppose it was Johannesburg.

ADV MPSHE: Sorry?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I suppose it was Johannesburg, I don't know.

ADV MPSHE: What made you suppose it was Johannesburg, did you ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, you've asked me the question ...[intervention]

ADV MPSHE: Did you expect the documents to come from Johannesburg?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, you've asked me the question and I'm saying as an answer rather than saying nothing, that I presume it was from Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, she doesn't say it was from Johannesburg, she says she thinks it was from Johannesburg.

ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that's I asked why does she think it was Johannesburg, is it because she expected documents to come from Johannesburg Mr Chairman.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't expect documents to come from anywhere, I'm just surmising that it was from Johannesburg, I don't know - it may have come from Cape Town, I don't know.

ADV MPSHE: Okay. When did you receive these documents, was it before your attorney could write me a letter enquiring about the report or after?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you referring a letter that has been already written or a letter that could have been written?

ADV MPSHE: You handed up a document - a letter, which was my response to your lawyer's letter.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

ADV MPSHE: Was it before your lawyer's letter or after your lawyer's letter?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, what date was that - that letter, I haven't got it with me now.

ADV MPSHE: I think it was around the 7th of November - 7th or 10th of November.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think it was about a week after I got that letter from Mr Moolman, which was - I believe, on the 4th, so it was the 11th or the 12th I think.

ADV MPSHE: The 11th of November?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Something like that, yes. His letter to fax to me was the 4th of November and my letter faxed to him was the 4th of November.

ADV MPSHE: Now my question is, did you receive these documents before your attorneys, Swart Redlinghuis, Nel en Venote could write me a letter asking me about the report?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the attorneys had been writing and asking about this report for months ...[intervention]

ADV MPSHE: I'm not bothered about months Mrs Derby-Lewis.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about, I've got a letter here ...[intervention]

ADV MPSHE: I'll tell you what I'm talking about, I'll tell you ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Excuse me, may I just finish ...[intervention]

ADV MPSHE: Look at Exhibit X5 ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, may I just finish, there's a letter on my file dated the 10th of November from Mr Mpshe to Swart Redlinghuis - I got that from Mr Lubbe, I don't know when I got that, he just gave it to me for the file. I asked him whether he had received anything about the case because the case was coming up and ...[intervention]

ADV MPSHE: Did he give you a letter which he had written to me to which I was responding in Exhibit X5?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he did.

ADV MPSHE: Now look at the date on his letter and tell the Committee as to whether the documents were received by yourself before or after that letter could be written to me.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I've got a copy of your letter to him, I don't have a copy of his letter to you, I'm sorry. What date is that?

ADV MPSHE: I don't have it either, you only submitted the response.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't know when he wrote to you, he wrote to you on more than one occasion, so I don't know which - oh, sorry, it says here: "With reference to our response we would like to apologise" - I'm sorry, I don't know - I've got your letter to him dated ...[End of tape 1B, day 6 - no follow-on sound]

What one is that?

ADV MPSHE: Exhibit X5, the letter you've referring to now.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: From you to Mr Lubbe?

ADV MPSHE: Yes, yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes?

ADV MPSHE: And try and recall when did you receive those documents by post.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I received them about a week after the 4th of November, I suppose that was the 11th or the 12th - around there.

ADV MPSHE: Could it have been before?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't ...[intervention]

ADV MPSHE: Swart could write me a letter asking about the report?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don't think so, I didn't take any notice of it when I got it, I think it was about - I don't know, I wasn't tying this up with letters and correspondence between you and Mr Lubbe.

ADV MPSHE: All right. When Mr Lubbe gave you the copy of my letter to him - this Exhibit 5, you were already in possession of the documents you've just given to the Committee, not so?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm not sure, I don't know - I didn't take note of it in relation to this letter.

ADV MPSHE: Yes, you didn't then but I'm asking you now.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry about that.

ADV MPSHE: When you ...[indistinct] this, were you in possession of those documents?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know.

ADV MPSHE: When did you get in possession of those documents?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I've just mentioned, about a week after I got the letter back from Report.

ADV MPSHE: I take it that you don't want to respond to the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it important to know the exact date Mr Mpshe, because she says it was about a week after the letter of the 4th from Mr Moolman.

ADV MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, that may be so but I'm putting such a simple question - when her attorney gave her the copy of my letter, Exhibit 5, was she already in possession of the documents? I mean Mr Chairman, if she was in possession of the documents she should say: "Yes, when I saw this letter I recalled that I've got these documents already with me"

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV MPSHE: That is all I want to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What is the importance of the point?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the importance of the point is to show the Committee that it means then - it would mean, if this letter from her lawyer was written to me before or after - it was written to me after they got the reports, that there was no honesty in them asking me about the reports when they had the documents already - that's the point I'm trying to make.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's the import of the question, you might formulate it and put it to her.

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, it would serve no purpose because she keeps on saying: "I don't know, I can't remember". I will proceed to the next question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe, she says it's about a week from the 4th of November, can't we deduce from there that it could have been around the 11th of November?

CHAIRPERSON: About.

MS KHAMPEPE: About the 11th of November?

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Madam, but I will leave the point there.

Do you recall when my learned friend, Advocate Bizos was cross-examining you, you admitted having said the following statement that:

"You kill six and six are born at Baragwanath"

Do you recall that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

ADV MPSHE: What had prompted such a statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr Bizos asked me: "Was it racist" and I said: "No".

ADV MPSHE: No, I'm asking you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, there were - nothing prompted it, it was an off the cuff remark when I was concerned about people going out and shooting people and I made an off the cuff remark, it wasn't meant to be insulting and on the other - on the contrary, in the context that it was said the tape shows clearly that I didn't agree with that kind of thing.

ADV MPSHE: Are you saying to ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There was no sinister reason for saying it.

ADV MPSHE: Yes, but are you saying to this Committee that it just came into your mind when you learnt about people going around shooting people, that you said: "Kill six and six is born"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but ...[intervention]

ADV MPSHE: Without any meaning behind that statement.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but that meaning is that it has not significance whatsoever - political significance, to go out and shoot people because six more are born, for what reason would you go and shoot people.

ADV MPSHE: Couldn't it still have meant that you kill six, six is borne, why don't you kill thousands at a go - you're wasting time at six?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, no, really ...[intervention]

ADV MPSHE: Or go for the important ones and leave alone the six?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, you're now trying to put words into my mouth and that is not true.

ADV MPSHE: All right, let me ask you directly now, what were you insinuating with this statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No insinuation whatsoever.

ADV MPSHE: What were you trying to convey to the listener?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I just told you.

ADV MPSHE: What?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I told you that it was pointless shooting people - we said it in a political context of people going out and shooting people in politics on the street, that was an off the cuff remark in that context and you saw it clearly that I disapproved of that kind of thing - on the tap.

ADV MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is all.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MPSHE

JUDGE WILSON: Mrs Derby-Lewis, I wonder if you can help me, at some stage during these proceedings - and I regret I can't tell you now when, I was given a list and I would like you to have a look at it please. My copy is marked E12 and above that is a B44.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Do you know the list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it looks like it's in my husband's handwriting.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, it looks like?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: My husband's handwriting - my husband's printing.

JUDGE WILSON: You can't say when it was drawn up?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

JUDGE WILSON: You don't know?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you, can I have it back?

MR BIZOS: We can be of assistance Mr Chairman, because we have a recollection of what mention was made of this list, if it's going to be of any assistance.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MR BIZOS: It was taken from Mr Derby-Lewis's pocket book.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I've listen carefully to your evidence and from time to time you said that you made statements at a time when you were under Section 29 and you were led to believe that statements made by people under Section 29 cannot be used in a trial against them, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You also said that from time to time, you were led to believe that you might be a state witness and that you won't be charged as an accused.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What effect did these statements have on you and the knowledge that you were being held under Section 29, what effect did all that have on the answers that you gave to the questions that were put to you during the interrogation?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the effect was that I was going to get out.

CHAIRPERSON: What is that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The effect was that I was going to get out, he told me that I was going to get out.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, - that you're going to get out?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he was going to release me so ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not talking about the consequences are, I'm talking about what effect did these two aspects have on the answers you gave to the questions that were put to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I didn't think that they would be used in a court, therefore I didn't believe that I would be questioned on the content of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Any other effect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not more likely that because you knew that you were no longer in danger or that you may no longer be in danger, that you were prepared to speak the truth? You were put at ease that you were not going to be charged, Section 29 statements can't be used against you and that led you into a frame of mind where you spoke the truth.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you referring to the statements that I made with Captain de Waal? No, no, I was told to write certain things and he said: "You will stay here until you're finished writing them", so I wrote them in order to get out.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I understand all that, I'm talking about the contents of what you wrote - that the contents of what you wrote, they are likely to be true because you yourself now felt that you were no longer in danger of being prosecuted and therefore there was a good reason why you should be telling the truth.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, they were not true and that wasn't a reason why I should tell the truth, I simply wrote what he told me to write, whether it was the truth or not.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mrs Derby-Lewis, apart from whatever he asked you in response to your answers or rather your answers to Deetleffs, were they not influenced by the fact that you were no longer going to be charged and that your statements under Section 29 couldn't be used against you? Were you not influenced by those considerations?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In regards to writing what I wrote?

CHAIRPERSON: In regard to answering whatever questions were put to you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, I don't - I really don't understand what you're saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, I'm not drawing a distinction between what you wrote and the answers you may have give verbally. You see, when a person is under threat there's a likelihood that such a person would lie in the belief that they will come out of the difficulty they have, when a person is under no threat they're likely to tell the truth because they're not fearing anything.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That's correct, isn't it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, that's the purpose of my questions to you, you see. That the likelihood is that when you realised that you were no longer under a personal threat of prosecution, that whatever you said was more likely to be true, is that not so?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You mean that there'd be a need to lie even when you know you are not in danger?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't know I was not in danger, he promised to take me - to let me out if I wrote XYZ and I had to write XYZ in order to make that promise a realisation, I didn't completely trust him or anybody there. From what I could see, they were intent on implicating me and when they - they had now - when I see Section 29, when I see all the police dockets, I realise that they were rushing off to the Attorney General to charge me with murder, which they didn't tell me they were going to do, it was exactly the opposite.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, if they told you they were going to charge you with murder and put questions to you, there's a likelihood that you would say: "I have nothing to say" ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but I didn't ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Alternatively you will say something which you might regard to be an answer which might help you in the case against you but when you are told that you are facing no threat, you're not going to be charged, the statement you made cannot be used against you, that puts you in a frame of mind when you are likely to speak the truth, is that not so?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I was in the frame of mind where I had already written and he said: "No, that doesn't tally up and that's not correct" and "You must write this" and I simply wrote what he wrote - it wasn't a matter of telling the truth or anything, it was a mechanical reaction to what he told me to do.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And he did tell me to do it, I - there's no question about it, I kept notes myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand your evidence.

JUDGE NGOEPE: On some of the tapes that I saw yesterday during the interrogation, my impression was that on occasions you appeared to be tired or exhausted.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And you have a different view, my impression is that your hair was not even well kept?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I didn't have any toiletries except soap and I washed my hair and I didn't have a chance to blow-dry it or anything like that - it's interesting that you noticed that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: With regard to page 402 of R4, paragraph 51 or to put it in proper context, we can look at 48:

"I was very shocked but in my heart not at all surprised"

I think 48 describes your reaction to the news that Mr Hani was killed and or perhaps also the involvement of Kuba.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, actually it referred to paragraph 47:

"I saw Kuba's photograph in the newspaper and recognised him at once. I was very shocked but in my heart not at all surprised"

I think I was not surprised that it was him, rather than I was not surprised at Mr Hani's death.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, now that is a description of your personal attitude to the events described in 47, now 51 seems to be a description of your husband's reaction:

"Clive was upset and I asked him what he was going to do"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What upset him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he was upset, we were both upset.

JUDGE NGOEPE: By what?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: By the fact that Mr Hani was dead and Kuba was - well, it was a political thing and Kuba was now being picked up by the police.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I would have thought that you would not really be upset by Hani's death but rather by the fact that Kuba was arrested?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And then you asked Clive:

"What are you going to do"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I don't ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: You asked him what he was going to do, to do what about what?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know. I'm sorry, this is a - this is not - I don't know if this is verbatim or not, I don't know, I'm sorry.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, were you not asking him as to what he was going to do about what had upset him, namely the arrest of Kuba?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think I recall somewhere in my evidence or somewhere, that we got him an attorney, maybe that was what I was talking about.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did you expect of your husband to be sufficiently worried about the arrest of Kuba as to ask him as to what he was going to do?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'm not sure about what I was asking him, about going to do what, in which respect, legally, politically, going and visiting him, getting him an attorney, I don't know what this sentence refers to.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But what we do know though is that it is in relation to paragraph 47 - the arrest of Kuba, he's upset about the arrest of Kuba.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Then you ask him:

"What are you going to do about Kuba's arrest"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but I don't know in which context of: "to do", to do what, to get an attorney, to go and visit him, to - I don't know what ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did you think your husband should be sufficiently worried about Kuba's arrest?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Kuba was a friend of ours, we knew him, his picture was on the front page of the paper.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, he could have had relatives and families and brothers and a girlfriend who would - being relatives, especially his brother, would primarily be concerned about Kuba his younger brother.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's true.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, with regard to paragraphs 52, 54, 59 and 60, - well, Mr Bizos is free to argue that, my impression of them is that they do not necessarily indicate that you had fore knowledge of the planning to kill Mr Hani, rather - as I look at them, at least they indicate that before your husband was arrested he did at least tell you or disclose to you that he was involved with the plan to kill Mr Hani.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he told me that they were discussing something but then the whole country was discussing something, there wasn't anybody who wasn't talking about doing something and I took it in that context He never ever discussed planning to kill Mr Hani with me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But paragraph 52, 54, 59 and 60 are not about something, they are pertinently about - if what stands there is the truth, he's pertinently telling you about the killing of Mr Hani.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he never ever discussed the killing of Mr Hani with me, ever.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Not even after the incident but prior to his arrest?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: After the incident?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he told me that they were discussing something but he never told me that they had planned it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well, assuming that - well, 60:

"I asked Clive about the gun"

Which gun are you referring to?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I still dispute that because in my testimony I said on numerous occasions: "I know nothing about a gun".

JUDGE NGOEPE: Oh, I see.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry, I said it and I said to Mr Bizos I said it but if you look at the testimony on both tapes, I continually - in fact there was once - if I might just say this, there was once I said - on the 23rd which was the day before the tape that was shown there:

"Can you remember seeing a gun"

This was at a quarter to three in the morning, and my answer was:

"Do you want me to prejudice myself, you have asked me three times about a gun. At this stage of the game - sitting here with you saying I have a jail sentence over my head, do you think I'm going to lie about something, I don't recall seeing a gun, I don't know what it looks like"

And throughout the testimony it seemed to me that the police were obsessed with trying to tie me up with the gun.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Just to sum up this point, I'm looking at 54 where you are reported as having said:

"He did say that he couldn't understand why Kuba had been so stupid to drive around so obvious. He did admit to me however they had discussed it"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, they discussed - they discussed doing something, as everybody did but discussing it - the plans to kill Mr Hani, were never ever known to me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I'm not saying that they were made known to you prior to the incident ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Oh.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I'm saying that it would seem that your husband told you about that before he was arrested.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he didn't tell me that he was involved in the planning of this, he ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I come in at this stage and just try to clarify something, when you were being questioned by Mr Bizos about paragraph 60, you said - as I noted down:

"They asked me about 10 times about the gun, I had now reached the end of the questioning and I was told I might not be charged and I was perhaps agreeing with them because Beetge may have said something that Clive had told him"

Do you remember saying that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Beetge did say that.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you say that you made this statement about the gun at the end of your questioning because that's what you told Mr Bizos, you said:

"I had now reached the end of the questioning"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, if I said that yes, that's correct, I don't recall now when I said it but ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Your counsel told us you mentioned the gun about an hour and a half before the end of the questioning.

That is so, isn't it Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman, up to 11:27 and from there it proceeds to totally something else where she gives her background and stories like that and ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: It went on for an hour and a half after that?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mrs Derby-Lewis, did your husband - at any stage, tell you why he had handed the list over to Mr Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I asked him on the 12th: "Did you give it to Kuba"? and he said: "Yes" and then he wouldn't tell me any more.

MS KHAMPEPE: Did you ask him why he had given that list to Kuba?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MS KHAMPEPE: Why didn't you ask him? - I mean, it was such a relevant question because he then would have involved Mr Arthur Kemp who had compiled that list for you.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: And you had read in the newspaper that it was an important piece of evidence in relation to the murder which was being reported.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: So, why didn't you ask him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Why didn't I ask him why he gave it to Kuba?

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, perhaps I was too scared to ask him, I don't know no.

MS KHAMPEPE: Scared of what?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm sorry - pardon?

MS KHAMPEPE: Why were you scared to ask that question?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because Kuba was our friend and he had the list and now we had a murder on our hands.

MS KHAMPEPE: Were you not concerned about Mr Arthur Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon?

MS KHAMPEPE: Were you not concerned about Mr Arthur Kemp as well?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I was very - yes, I was concerned about Mr Kemp.

MS KHAMPEPE: And you didn't want to pursue that matter in relation to Mr Arthur Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I think when we were having lunch on the 12th, we discussed what we would do and Mr Kemp said something about: "Well, if the police come, I will deny everything", I think he said that in one of his - and I said: "Well, there's nothing to deny because you're not involved in anything, all I - I'm sorry that the list that you drew up is now been involved in this".

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, were you a member or owner of a company or business called Sportron?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Sportron is a network marketing company and I was a member and not an owner.

MS KHAMPEPE: And when did you first become involved with Sportron?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think it was three or four months - maybe the end of December 1992 or November, I'm not sure.

MS KHAMPEPE: When did you first sign Mrs Venter as a member also?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I signed up Mrs Venter sometime in early 1993 or March 1993, I think it was after - yes, Mr Venter phoned me and said he was moving to Krugersdorp and they moved to Krugersdorp on the 1st of March and sometime - I think he came to see us on the 10th and then after that I went to see his wife and asked her if she would like to become involved.

And then I had to go and collect samples or something and then I went to her place and showed her the samples and then she ordered something and we discussed when I would deliver it and I think that was the reason why we went over on the 10th of April.

MS KHAMPEPE: So, you first signed her up around March?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think so, I'm not sure, it must have been after the 1st of March because that was when they moved to Krugersdorp.

MS KHAMPEPE: And when did you sign up Mrs Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't sign up Mrs Kemp, I never had a chance to go to her. I asked Arthur whether he thought his wife would be interested but she had just had a baby and she couldn't travel, so I was going to go over there one day with the goods.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, during your criminal trial you testified that there were two reasons for compiling the list with 19 names.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: Was that information correct that you gave before?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there was a bit of ambiguity about that, I think the Judge came in and said he tried to define that there were - the reason was because of the MME marketing that came onto the computer and the second was to carry on the stories that I had already started and then the third reason which came in some time during the testimony was that Aida Parker and I were going to write a book but that wasn't emphasised too much, it was just given as testimony.

MS KHAMPEPE: But you gave - you personally gave evidence to that effect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: That the list was compiled for purposes of writing a book together with Mrs Parker?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that was one of the reasons.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, you've also testified that you were unable to proceed with the interviews because you didn't get time as your husband was a candidate in the by-election?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that's correct.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, if that is so, how were you able to get time to sign up Mrs Venter?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because Mrs Venter's business was to make some money and I needed money and to sign up Mrs Venter was important to me, I needed the money.

MS KHAMPEPE: But wasn't this supposed to be a scoop - these interviews?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but as I mentioned before, it was a long period that I was writing those articles, it wasn't something that was of immediate interest to the public, it was an on-going subject.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, if you didn't get time to conduct the interviews with the people on the list, why did you not pass over that information to Mrs Parker?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because Mrs Parker doesn't drive and that was also a long-term project, I would have to have gone to see her, she lives in Auckland Park and I didn't really have the time.

MS KHAMPEPE: But did you tell Mrs Parker that you were now in the possession of the information?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, actually I asked her first if she had that information, she was the first person that I phoned and she said that she was a member of the S.A. Institution of Race Relations and that was where she got most of her information from but because she didn't drive she couldn't get it fairly quickly, so I said: "Well never mind, I'll phone up and ask Arthur Kemp and then I asked him.

MS KHAMPEPE: Yes, when you obtained the necessary information which you knew that Mrs Parker was also looking for, did you phone her up to say: "I now have the information that you've been looking for"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, she and I were doing it together, she was collecting her side and I was collecting my side - we hadn't even had a meeting on it, we were just discussing the idea of a book because she and I think fairly much the same.

MS KHAMPEPE: But I thought the evidence that you gave during your criminal trial was to the effect that she had actually gone out to look for this information and had not been able to locate it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I mentioned that she wanted to get it from the S.A. Institute of Race Relations. I did not mention in the evidence that she couldn't drive, therefore she had to get transport to go there and she had a problem.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, what is that you had against the journalist Mr Qwelani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I found Mr Qwelani a very vicious person, very anti-White and that I think that is shared - if you look at The Star and you see the letters that still keep coming in about Mr John Qwelani, I just couldn't believe somebody like that could be so consumed with hatred that he is.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, did you expect him - you've already stated that you expected him to give you an interview.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, actually I saw Mr Qwelani at a place down in Newtown one day, he was sitting with the two journalists that I knew and - it was at the Market Theatre, and we were having lunch and somebody introduced me to him and he was quite pleasant so I don't imagine that he would have said no - one journalist to another.

Everybody has their different personal opinion and journalists I suppose like attorneys, have sort of a code - you don't close the door to another journalist, you don't close the door to an interview - I've been interviewed by people from the liberal press so ...[intervention]

MS KHAMPEPE: Do you know whether he stayed in a Black township?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn't know where he stayed.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now, if it had been found that he was staying in a Black township, would you still have gone there to interview him?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, of course, why not? - yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: Notwithstanding the fact that during the period under review - that's about '93, Black townships were engulfed with serious violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, in 1976 which was when the Black townships completely exploded, my husband and I took a meat processing machine into one of our Black friends who opened up a butcher shop and we took it there - we gave it to him as gift to start his business, so I wasn't particularly afraid of that.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: Mrs Derby-Lewis, on the 10th of April when you heard the news of Mr Hani's death, how did your husband react to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: We heard the news at Mr Venter's place, I don't recall any specific emotion - we were with other people, we had to go, we went shopping but in the afternoon we were - my husband was noticeably upset.

ADV POTGIETER: On the afternoon of the 10th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: But you wouldn't say that he was shocked when you heard that news whilst you were at the Venters?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, we were shocked in terms of it being a very shocking piece of news in the history of South Africa, of course it would be. Any important person that is assassinated is a shock whether ...[intervention]

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you. But specifically your husband - you say you were shocked?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, we were shocked, it was like Mr Kennedy being shot or any political person being shot, it's a shock, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Has your husband ever at any stage told you that he had ordered Mr Walus to assassinate Mr Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you talking about within the last - well, I learnt about it during the trial.

ADV POTGIETER: Was that ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not the trial, the amnesty ...[intervention]

ADV POTGIETER: The Amnesty Hearing?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: When your husband testified?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, then I actually heard about the full story of their involvement.

ADV POTGIETER: That was the first time that you ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, sorry, sorry, it was when they asked me to type their amnesty applications.

ADV POTGIETER: So, it was really in the context of this amnesty application where you heard for the first time that your husband ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the full involvement, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And that your husband had ordered Walus to do the execution?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And did your husband at any stage tell you that he was acting on behalf of the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Never?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No - well, it was in the amnesty application that I typed.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, so that was the first time that you learnt about that issue as well?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Could I ask something arising from that, was it - in the afternoon after you came back from shopping, that you got a telephone call from somebody who told you that a Pole had been arrested or a Pole had been involved?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, yes, yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And did you tell your husband? I can't remember ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I'm not sure if he took the message or I spoke but we discussed the fact that it was somebody Polish.

JUDGE WILSON: And did your husband at that stage mention that it might be Walus?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, but I started to wonder whether it was perhaps him because he was the only Pole that we knew, he was - well, the only Pole that we knew as a close friend and secondly, that he was involved with us in terms of talking - over the years, of what we were going to do.

He was not just somebody who was a landscape gardener somewhere, he was very much involved in worrying about what was happening in South Africa. So it was - there were a few key people that used to come to our house who were what I would call activists and who said that they were going to do something, so there was quite a group of people who - if you had heard that something had happened, you would probably think well, maybe that's him because they were prone to talking about something to stop the take-over.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take the adjournment now and resume at 2 o'clock.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to proceed?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, a copy of the notes of tapes which Mrs Derby-Lewis compiled while she listened to the tapes, was handed to Mr Bizos and I would like to hand up to the members of the Committee also a copy of the same note, it will be referred to as Exhibit A(d)1 Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: A(b)?

MR PRINSLOO: A(d).

MR BIZOS: Is it being handed in as a document which was made by Mrs Derby-Lewis? We certainly do not admit that the transcript is a - that the document is a correct transcript, it has both what Mrs Derby-Lewis says and comment on it and I don't know the basis on which this document is being handed up Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the basis is that Mrs Derby-Lewis made reference to this particular document and the document was then made available to Mr Bizos in order to cross-examine her from that document and the Committee did not have a copy of that document - have the same advantage.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we didn't have a copy of that document Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: But I merely wish to place on record that we do not accept that it is a correct reflection of the tapes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, that will be placed on record. This document will form part of the exhibits as A(d)1.

Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman? Mr Chairman, there's a portion on the tape we intend referring the Committee to but due to the noise in the hall I couldn't hear and Mr Chairman, I think what I'll do, I'll have the relevant section transcribed for the Committee for that purpose and hand them up to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, also in order to same time, with reference to Exhibit R4, that is the second statement made by the witness to Captain Deetleffs which is in Captain Deetleffs's statement, pages 398 to 402 Mr Chairman, that part will also have to be transcribed and made available to the Committee in order to reconcile the statement with what's on the tape recording.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR PRINSLOO: And also to save time that way Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: 402?

MR PRINSLOO: It ends at page 402 Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, page 398 to 402 is not a transcript of anything.

MR PRINSLOO: ...[inaudible]

JUDGE WILSON: It's just notes made by Beetge. So what you want to do is transcribe from the tape to compare with it?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Now Mrs Derby-Lewis, during your detention - whilst you were detained by Captain Deetleffs, was there any reference made by him to you as to how he treated other people in custody such as Helena Pastoors?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he discussed that and it was in the context of her not having her children and he said that he visited on occasion and took his children to see her and it was somewhat disturbing because of the fact that I had said to him just previously: "Will I ever see my family again".

MR PRINSLOO: Was that on the 23rd of April?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And this interrogation, did that take place during the course of the night, after midnight?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, it was very late.

MR PRINSLOO: And how long did the interrogation last, are you able to tell the Committee or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, the interrogation lasted from 10 o'clock in the evening - although I was left most of the day, from 10 o'clock in the evening till 10 o'clock the next evening.

MR PRINSLOO: The next evening?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: In the morning?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Next evening.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Next evening.

JUDGE WILSON: 26 hours?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was from 10 o'clock in the evening until 10 or 12 o'clock the next evening yes, and then I was taken back. What I'm trying to say is about the lack of sleep and - yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there an occasion - during that night of the 23rd of April, that you were taken out from the interrogation room and your husband was brought to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, it was 6a.m. on the morning of the 23rd.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there an occasion when there was a discussion between Warrant Officer Beetge and another lady - a female police officer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And that discussion, is that recorded on the video?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: To what Mr Beetge allegedly said to this lady police officer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, it is recorded on the video, right at the end of the video and it says in Afrikaans - well, the English translation is:

"We know how to break them"

or words to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON: Those words were alleged to be uttered by who?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, they were actually uttered in Afrikaans by Warrant Officer Beetge at a distance from the camera and the camera was focusing on the desk on which there was a handbag of mine and I had been taken to see my husband and Mr Fanie Jacobs of the Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO: And on this same tape recording, is there any version recorded that pertains to what your husband told you as to what he experienced in his cells in the presence of the police officer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, on that tape as well he's talking to me in the passage and there's a long period of where the camera focuses simply on the table and one is inclined to just switch off because you think it's the end of the tape but in fact somebody comes in - a lady in a White jacket, and then we go out and then you can hear my husband and I talking and he's explaining what was happening to him in the cells. I found Mr Beetge's words exactly, they were:

"Everyone has his own method of how to break them"

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, you also testified under cross-examination with reference to a journalist and you described in one respect that they were bribed and then upon a question of His Lordship Mr Justice Wilson ...[End of tape 2A, day 6 - no follow-on sound]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: ...[no sound] bribery - I think Justice Wilson put it correctly, that I was referring to them as agents of influence. If I may just read a few names that were given to me by an organisation called USELEP which is the United States/South Africa Leadership Exchange Programme, where journalists are taken overseas for a year to the Neeman Fellowship at Harvard University and then they come back and normally when they come back they have obviously been under some kind of influence, otherwise this University wouldn't be doing this sort of thing.

And we found that many of them who did go over came back with a different frame of mind towards South Africa and in that list is Mr Tim du Plessis's name and quite a few others, I won't read them out because it would simply burden the record but some of them are very well know, for example Mr Pakendorf, Mr Tom Vosloo, Mr Alf Reece, Mr Brian Potinger. All of these people are influential in the journalistic profession in this country and they have all been to the same place that Mr Tim du Plessis has been to.

CHAIRPERSON: You call them as agents of influence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, yes. I want to correct the word: "bribery" which has an unpleasant connotation of money being passed over in a back street somewhere and: "You will write this", it's a much more subtle process than that.

CHAIRPERSON: What you're saying is that you want to withdraw allegations of bribery?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: You're trying to withdraw allegations of bribery?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, I want - when I used the word bribery, it was yesterday afternoon and I was very tired and Mr Justice Wilson I thought, put it in a better light and I simple want to confirm that.

MS KHAMPEPE: But Mrs Derby-Lewis, are those not the words you used during your criminal trial - bribery? You referred to people as having been bribed?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes, but I would like to correct that in the light of what Mr Justice Wilson said.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, subsequent to the assassination of Mr Hani, was there or was there not a lot of reports in the newspapers as to what purportedly occurred as to what the press perceived before your and your husband's arrest?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Perceived about what?

MR PRINSLOO: Was there reporting in the newspapers as to what took place with regard to Mr Hani's assassination? Was there a press reporting about it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: You mean after the assassination?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: You also made reference in your evidence with regard to the documents which you relied upon and in particular The Patriot and other papers and we've told the Commission that it's available - Mr Chairman, we've made copies, if the Committee requires them they are available for each Committee member but we won't burden the record unnecessarily just for that purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: If the Committee feels the need for it, we will ask you for them.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I think Mr Lubbe told me yesterday - he's not here today, that somebody requested The Patriots - the 1993 selection of them and a selection of 1997 Patriots, I'm not sure who it was who requested them but they are here and they confirm our article submitted under our Addendum B, so I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if the Committee needs them, we'll ask you for them.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And similarly Mrs Derby-Lewis, you have copies of reporting that pertains to your writings and what you said about journalists, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, there's something particular - I won't hand everything in, but there's something in particular that I would very much like the Commission to see - it was written on October the 30th, 1992 and it's called the Revolutionary Gravy Train - it's a small article, and in that it mentions many of the names that appeared on the list and I think in terms of my evidence, I would like to produce the proof of the fact that I did write this article and that these names were in my mind in terms of what I wanted to do.

MR PRINSLOO: Then Mr Chairman, The Revolutionary Gravy Train - copies are made of it and it's available and we could hand them in as Exhibit A(e) Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: A(e) Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: A(e)?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, it has two sections, the one will be A(e)1 and A(e)2, headed: The Liberation Gravy Train - the following one. Just a moment Mr Chairman.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, may I interrupt - while Mr Prinsloo is busy, I would like to make a correction on a date that I gave you. I said that in 1976 my husband and I went to Soweto but we hadn't met then, it was 1986.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BRANDT: Mr Chairman, at this stage I would request permission to ask directions from this Committee in the following respects: As the Committee is aware, I'm appearing on behalf of Colonel van Niekerk, Captain Deetleffs and Warrant Officer Beetge.

We weren't involved initially in these proceedings but nevertheless the three people I've mentioned were subpoenaed by this Committee to be present and to testify if need be. I have studied the record and I've been present - in either form of my attorney or myself, during these proceedings and I've been very brief in my cross-examination of the relevant witnesses with regard to their allegations as that is the sum total of my brief.

It is my respectful opinion Mr Chairman, that in view of the replies in cross-examination and the nature of the allegations, I do not intend calling either of these three gentlemen as witnesses, I don't see any necessity for that. Obviously, as they have been subpoenaed by this Commission and this Committee, the Committee may or may not decide to call them.

In view of the fact that Colonel van Niekerk is currently a practising attorney and Warrant Officer Beetge is involved in business transactions, it is the situation that they are sitting here and they are losing money - I would in the aforementioned - I would in the aforementioned...[indistinct], request this Committee to give directions as to whether it is still necessary for these three witnesses or potential witnesses to remain here and ...[indistinct] myself and my attorney. My request is that the witnesses and myself and my instructing attorney be excused from further attendance.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, if I recollect clearly, these witnesses were subpoenaed at the request of your client.

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is so because the allegations were made against them by Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus at the end of his evidence in the August sitting and we thought it advisable that they should be here.

The decision as to whether they should be called or not, is not ours - this is not a trial on whom we have any onus to discharge, the Committee we submit has the task of being satisfied that they have heard all the evidence that is necessary to give a proper judgement.

And the applicants are the people primarily concerned, if they want to call them, of course they may be called or if the Committee wants to call them, they may be called, we do not feel that it is incumbent upon us to assume any onus on ourselves and call any witnesses Mr Chairman. That is our attitude and we do not wish to say anything further in relation to the application made by my learned friend Mr Brandt.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, Ms van der Walt, what is your attitude by this request by Mr Brandt?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it's correct that the applicants put their version for the Committee and the witnesses were subpoenaed by Mr Bizos and we have nothing further to add to that.

MR BIZOS: There is an incorrect statement of fact Mr Chairman, we did not subpoena ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: We requested.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the subpoena was done by the Committee at their request.

MR PRINSLOO: The request of Mr Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: At any rate, the point of the matter is that these gentlemen are asking to be excused and as far as you are concerned, you have no objection to that?

MR PRINSLOO: We have no objection Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: I also have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe?

ADV MPSHE: No objection Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, I would imagine that the views expressed by your colleague is the same?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chair, yes, I also confirmed that I have no objection, the testimony is on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Denzil?

These gentlemen - are they here?

MR BRANDT: They are indeed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Brandt, certainly you and your attorney are excused from further attendance. The Committee has come to the conclusion that they do not require the three gentlemen whom we have subpoenaed, to be here and that they are excused from further attendance as well and we thank them for having taken the trouble to be here.

MR BRANDT: I'm indebted to you, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, in relation to Exhibit A(e), I would like to put one question and one question only, to Mrs Derby-Lewis.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say Mr Derby-Lewis?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, the person who produced the document.

CHAIRPERSON: A(e)1?

MR BIZOS: A(e)1.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Derby-Lewis, do you have a copy of this document?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, yes.

MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, it would appear to us that your great scoop about the gravy train and the reason why you wanted to visit the houses was pre-empted by your scoop of the 30th of October 1992, you'd already come to a conclusion and published your scoop without any visits to any of the people that you mentioned in that article.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, this is simple a re-print of an overseas newspaper report - as I mentioned before, there was no investigation done in South Africa. A recent report in the London Sun - it starts off at, brought into focus something which South African ...[indistinct] and so forth.

MR BIZOS: Who was the local correspondent that had pre-empted this scoop of yours?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was the London Sun, it was a clipping from the London Sun.

MR BIZOS:

"A recent report in the London Sun brought into focus something of the South African liberalists seemed to ...[indistinct]"

Who wrote that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'll have to check the record - I can produce it, it's at home and I wrote this for The Patriot - obviously Patriot readers wouldn't have had access to the London Sun.

MR BIZOS: Is this quoting the London Sun or your ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No is paraphrasing the London Sun.

MR BIZOS: It's your article?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It's my article.

MR BIZOS: Yes, that's what I wanted, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Yes, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we propose to call Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg as the next witness, may we just adjourn briefly in order to get our documents ready - it will be a brief adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right, we'll adjourn very briefly.

Please try and be as quiet as possible and try and avoid disturbing the proceedings during the short adjournment whilst we are away, thank you very much.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you for your indulgence Mr Chairman, members of the Committee.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Prinsloo, can't we again like we suggested last time - we have difficulties in looking at a witness or maintaining visual contact with a witness who is in a straight line with us, can't we have Doctor Hartzenberg on the other side please?

MR PRINSLOO: I will arrange that.

Chairperson, the next witness is Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg.

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: (sworn states)

MR PRINSLOO: May I continue?

Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg, you are the leader of the Conservative Party, is that correct?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor, in 1993 during the murder of Mr Chris Hani, Doctor Andries Treurnicht who is now deceased, was the leader of the Conservative Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you at that stage, the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: The applicant on the left, Mr Clive-Derby Lewis, was he at that stage a member of the Conservative Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, he was and he was also a member of the Executive Committee for Transvaal of the Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor Hartzenberg, did you at that stage also know Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, I knew her well, she was a member of the Conservative Party and she also served on various committees and did a lot of work for the Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO: The second applicant, Mr Walus, was he known to you at that stage?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, he wasn't.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor, the Conservative Party's existence - let us look at that, when was it founded?

MR HARTZENBERG: It was founded in 1982, 20th of March 1982.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage, was Mr Derby-Lewis a member of the Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, he was a founder member of the CP.

MR PRINSLOO: How would you describe his contribution to the Party from the time the Party was founded until the time of his arrest?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Derby-Lewis was a very committed member of the Conservative Party and he served the cause of the Party with enthusiasm and commitment and I was under the impression that Mr Derby-Lewis believed in the cause of the Conservative Party and he worked for the cause with zeal.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, according to your opinion, was he popular amongst the members of the public or not?

MR HARTZENBERG: He was very popular amongst members of the public and especially popular amongst the English speaking supporters of the CP.

MR PRINSLOO: And in the Party itself, in the caucus?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Clive Derby-Lewis was a respected and valued member of the Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you tell the Honourable Committee something about the events surrounding the Conservative Party from it's inception in 1982?

MR HARTZENBERG: In respect of what?

MR PRINSLOO: In respect of the fact of the Party's - any change in police, did it change or not?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, the Conservative Party's policies did not change. The Conservative Party was founded because it believed in freedom of the various nations in South Africa and it realised that we, the Afrikaner people, were already free. And we realised that we didn't want to surrender our freedom, we wanted to retain our freedom but it was also important that all the other nations and peoples in the country be liberated.

We came to the conclusion in 1982, that the way in which the National Party was meeting the future would lead to our nation losing our freedom, that no nation or people would be free and that one would have a one Party Government which would be a majority Party Government and that is how it worked out and it was for that reason that we founded the Conservative Party.

From 1989 onwards, we realised that he course which the National Party of the day and the Government of the day was following, was actually forcing things to a head and that we were on the point of losing our liberty and for that reason we became more serious in the propagating of our cause.

MR PRINSLOO: At what stage did you realise this in the Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: Well, we actually realised this right from the outset, we realised what the implications were of the National Party's course but we realised we had already passed this irrevocable cross-roads when the Record of Understanding was signed by the National Party and the ANC. We realised that we'd reached a point of no return and it was a very serious situation and the National Party actually surrendered.

MR PRINSLOO: When was this?

MR HARTZENBERG: The Record of Understanding was signed in August/September of '92.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Honourable Committee what the Conservative Party's attitude was during the beginning of 1989 when the ANC was unbanned?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, we objected most strenuously, it wasn't only the ANC which was unbanned it was also the SACP. And people against whom there were charges and investigations pending, these investigations and charges were suspended and we realised we were now heading towards a situation where our people would actually lose our freedom.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage Doctor, did it influence or effect the policies or the approach of the CP - this is now the unbanning of the ANC and the SACP, did it have an effect?

MR HARTZENBERG: Now, policy-wise and as far as our basic points of departure was concerned, that remained constant but we started realising that we would simply have to act in a more serious manner. We confronted the Government on an ongoing basis and we told the Government that it had no mandate to act as it was acting, that it would actually have to go back to it's voters which put it power and that is what we did.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, after the ANC and the SACP were unbanned and were actually allowed in the country and members of the leadership were allowed into the country, what were - in your view, what were the consequences?

MR HARTZENBERG: Well, negotiations then commenced and one got the situation that there was the Pretoria Minute - and that was the result of negotiations, where certain things had been agreed upon, for instance, that the armed struggle would be given up, that weapons would be handed over.

There was the Groote Schuur Minute, the DF Malan Minute, and not one of those agreements were actually enforced. We realised that there was a situation where the Government could no longer stand it's ground and we would lose our freedom.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor, do you know why these agreements weren't complied with, could you tell the Committee?

MR HARTZENBERG: Well, the ANC did not actually surrender their arms, I think it is known that at that stage Mr Chris Hani also strove to establish a force of about 10.000 troops who could be a back-up in case negotiations failed so that that force could then act and then negotiations would be decided in favour of the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, that particular information to which you've now referred of Mr Chris Hani, was that conveyed to you by a member of the Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Who was this member?

MR HARTZENBERG: It was Mr Pienaar of the Conservative Party, he was a member for Potgietersrus.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this Mr Schalk Pienaar?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Were any of these aspects to which you've just referred, raised in parliament by Mr Pienaar?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, it was raised by Mr Pienaar.

MR PRINSLOO: And this announcement in Parliament by Mr Schalk Pienaar, was this reported in the press?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, it was.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm now showing you a document to which we will refer, it's an extract from Die Patriot of the 7th of May 1993 and the heading is:

"Hani's Secret "South African People's Party" and then on the first page on the left-hand column it says: "Mr Schalk Pienaar, CP MP for Soutpansberg Revealed the Existence of Hani's Secret Revolutionary Army"

And he announced this in Parliament?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I ask leave to hand this in as Exhibit A(f).

Doctor Hartzenberg, this information which was so received and revealed in Parliament, what were the consequences of this? How was it received in Parliament and the country as a whole?

MR HARTZENBERG: In the country as a whole it was quite a revelation, some people denied it and said it wasn't true and others were upset about it but the fact is that that information - and this was reliable information which Mr Pienaar revealed, that as a result of the signing of the Groote Schuur and other Minutes there was a truce and APLA and MK could no longer operate under their own banner.

And therefore Mr Hani went and founded The People's Party which was in fact a militant organisation consisting of APLA and MK members, in other words he circumvented these agreements.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor, after the unbanning of the SACP and the ANC and the developments which followed after that - this is before April 1993, was the constitutional option still an option for the CP?

MR HARTZENBERG: Well, it was eroded constantly, especially after the signing of the Record of Understanding and the fact that by-elections were abolished and throughout it was the CP's stand that we were a political Party and we gave preference to the Democratic political option but those options were gradually eroded and scaled down.

MR PRINSLOO: Did the Conservative Party then start looking at other options and did they implement these or not?

MR HARTZENBERG: In the course of 1992, we realised that because those options were diminishing, we would have to mobilise our people to demonstrate in a visible manner that we were quite serious for the preservation of our liberty.

And in March 1993, we - in respect of the talks and the discussions and the planning which took place in '92, this all led to the mobilisation action which was launched in March of 1993.

The mobilisation action amounted to us - in respect of our own people and 18 interest groups which included Education, Agriculture, Local Government et., and also security and safety, we mobilised our people on 18 different fronts to in fact take steps and plan how we would actually maintain our freedom.

MR PRINSLOO: What did this mean for members of the Conservative Party to maintain your freedom, how was it seen by them?

MR HARTZENBERG: Well, we realised that the country was heading towards a certain dispensation which we didn't agree with, we thought we would lose our freedom and we wanted to retain our freedom. And we had to act in such a way that if the country was headed for such a direction, that we would not go along with that, that we would walk our own road of freedom.

MR PRINSLOO: Did the Conservative Party see as a probability that the SACP/ANC alliance would take power in the country?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, it was very clear to us.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it acceptable to the Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, we were in no way in favour of surrendering our freedom voluntarily. I may remind you that the beginning of the century our forefathers were similarly not prepared to give up the liberty to Great Britain, so we were not prepared for that and we are still striving for freedom.

And furthermore we realised that there was more to it, there was also the issue of a take-over by the South African Communist Party or a Party which would be dominated by the SACP. And at that stage it was already clear that communism was a failure, globally it brought only misery and death world-wide, it brought no economic prosperity and we were not prepared to go in that direction and especially to accept it voluntarily, we wanted to avoid living in such a dispensation.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, in what light did your party - the CP, view the Communist Party of South Africa?

MR HARTZENBERG: We saw the SACP for what it was, namely, it was a part of world communism. The SACP - according to our information, had links with the Communist Party in the Soviet Union and it didn't have an own independent policy which differed from the Soviet Union's Communist Party and the results of the Soviet Union's policies were clear for all to see and we knew that the South African Communist Party's results would be exactly the same for South Africa.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor, in what light did your Party view Chris Hani?

MR HARTZENBERG: We actually didn't regard him as a patron or a champion of the Afrikaner and also not of the Conservative Party, we realised that Mr Chris Hani was the Commanding Officer of Umkhonto weSizwe. That Mr Chris Hani had on occasion said that the Whites had to be maimed so that - when they were visited by their next of kin, the people would say: "The price is too high" and they would surrender.

And that members of Parliament had to be killed, that certain members of the judiciary had to be killed, that the country had to be turned into a wasteland. And we in fact regarded him as more or less enemy number one of the Afrikaner.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Doctor, how did you view his position - especially as a possible successor in the SACP or as a possible leader of the Party or as President of the country?

MR HARTZENBERG: At that stage Mr Hani was the Secretary General of the SACP, he was Mr Slovo's successor and previously he had been the commanding officer - or whatever it was called, of Umkhonto but he still played an important role in the MK and he was the leader of the Communist Party.

He obtained the most votes on the ANC Executive Committee election which too place not long before that. He actually obtained more votes than Mr Mbeki, so we just assumed that he would be Mr Mandela's successor.

MR PRINSLOO: The Party learnt of Mr Hani's death on the 10th of April or sometime thereafter, what was the CP's attitude immediately when this news broke?

MR HARTZENBERG: We took note of the death of Mr Hani and it is true that even though we saw Mr Hani as enemy number one, that loss of life - it doesn't matter who the person involved is, is simply not a pleasant thing to hear about.

We heard that Mr Hani had been killed, we didn't know who it was and where it came from - there was a lot of speculation obviously immediately afterwards.

MR PRINSLOO: On the 19th of April, there were reports - this was 1993, reports in The Beeld: "Clive's Taking into Custody - A Great Shock for CP leaders".

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, that's true. Mr Derby-Lewis is a friend of mine, so if I walk out of hear and I hear that he's being arrested it would be a great shock and that is why I was shocked when I heard that he'd been arrested. He was a personal friend, he was a colleague and we learnt that he'd been arrested, so obviously we were shocked.

MR PRINSLOO: At the stage that Mr Derby-Lewis was taken into custody, did the Party distance itself from Mr Derby-Lewis or what did they do?

MR HARTZENBERG: The Conservative Party never - in any circumstances, distanced itself from Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, after Mr Derby-Lewis had been charged and found guilty of the murder of Mr Hani - along with the second applicant Mr Walus, what was the Party's attitude then?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, we didn't distance ourselves from Mr Derby-Lewis, on the contrary at our first conference or congress which took place after this incident, we established a fund to support Mr Clive Derby-Lewis as far as his representation was concerned and the Party supported him throughout.

And perhaps Chairperson, I should mention now how the Conservative Party feel about this matter and I think I must take you to the submission of the ANC made to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

"African National Congress Statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission"

And there on page 62, an incident is described which I think is similar to the situation of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis and that is the case of Mr Andrew Zondo. I'm not going to read out the whole story, I'll just tell you very briefly - you are probably quite familiar with this case.

Mr Zondo was had been trained in Angola and he came to Natal to plant bombs and to incite terror and Amanzimtoti he learnt that there'd been a raid in Lesotho and that people had died. He went to a restaurant, bought a paper, he saw the photographs of the people, he was very worked up about it and he decided he was going to do something.

He went to the police station and he realised that he couldn't actually tackle the police station all by himself, so he then went and he thought about it and he decided to plant a bomb in a restaurant. On the Monday he went and planted the bomb and if I remember correctly, nine people died and 40 were injured.

Afterwards, they asked Mr Oliver Tambo what his view was on this matter and Mr Tambo said:

"Massacres have been perpetrated against civilians - Mamelodi - a massacre, Utenhage - a massacre, Botswana - a massacre, Queenstown - a massacre. Certainly we are beginning to see South Africans of all races burying their loved ones who have died in the South African situation, the whole of South Africa is beginning to bleed.

If I had been approached by an ANC unit and asked whether they should go and plant a bomb at the supermarket, I would have said: "of course not" but when our units are faced with what is happening all around them, it is understandable that some of them should say: "Well I may have to face being disciplined but I'm going to do this"

Now Sir, in exactly the same way the Conservative Party viewed the act of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, we realised that the country was in a situation of murder and mayhem. Political murders in 1993 were higher than in any other period before that and the people had been incited.

Mr Hani had said that Whites should be maimed, members of Parliament should be killed, an army should be established and people died, there were necklace murders. Leaders in Kwa Zulu Natal were killed and we realised that at some or other point the focus would be on the Afrikaners and we had to plan to protect ourselves against attacks such as these.

We realised that a climate had been created in South Africa and there was a situation of high tension. And we realised that Mr Clive Derby-Lewis had subjectively thought that he was acting in the cause of the Conservative Party and for the cause of the Afrikaner people and for that we had sympathy and that is why we supported him right from the outset because we accepted that he was acting on behalf of our cause.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Doctor, just to return to another aspect, after Mr Derby-Lewis's arrest and whilst he was being detained in terms of Section 29, were any questions asked in Parliament regarding his detention, by yourself or other members of your Party as far as you are aware?

MR HARTZENBERG: If I can recall correctly, I think in a speech one day I asked the Minister why Mr Derby-Lewis was being detained because there were reports which said that he'd been arrested, other reports said he'd only been kept for questioning and other reports said that he was being detained in terms of Section 29 and I wanted to know what the real position was in respect of Mr Derby-Lewis.

And we also wanted to know whether the statements being made amongst others by Mrs Winnie Mandela, that there was a faction - it was a faction of the ANC - it appeared in a London newspaper, she said that an ANC faction had been involved in the murder of Mr Hani and we wanted to know whether this was being investigated.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, did you have certainty in your own mind or in the Conservative Party, that whilst Mr Derby-Lewis was being detained in terms of Sections 29, how did you feel about his involvement? Was it simply based on speculation and reports in the media?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Evidence was also referred to, which indicated that the CP had distanced itself from murder and didn't condone murder.

MR HARTZENBERG: No, of course not, the Conservative Party would not - no Party, no person can say that they condone murder but we can also understand that if somebody acts in desperation and in a situation of extreme tension where people are being killed all around you and where a person's own life is being threatened, in those circumstances we can understand if a person then takes action. We can understand why it happens although we don't approve of it but it is so that we realised that he had done it for our cause.

MR HARTZENBERG: Doctor, what was the climate existing at the time in the country - especially in right-wing circles, in respect of violence or non-violence and take-over?

MR HARTZENBERG: Well, we realised we were living in a violent society and our point of departure was that we had to plan so that - if we could avoid it, that we would not be part of the new South Africa and we realised that that would lead to action against us, violent action against us and we realised that we had to prepare ourselves for that.

We also realised that that would be a situation where we would not be the aggressors, we never planned to be the aggressors but that we would have to act in a defensive capacity and that we also would have been in a far better moral position. That the defence force and the people who would be used against us, that they wouldn't act with the same dedication and enthusiasm against us, as would be the case if we were the aggressors. And that is why we planned throughout, to take up a defensive position so that if we were attacked, that we would then - could have the right to defend ourselves for our liberty.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chris Hani's death, did that in any way contribute - could it contribute to the objectives and the cause of the SACP or rather the CP? Mr Hani was killed by Mr Derby-Lewis and Walus, did it serve any purpose or could it serve any purpose?

MR HARTZENBERG: That is a subjective question, it's the applicant's subjective judgement which is in issue here and I think that is what the Commission must actually look at but I would say that it could be argued that it could serve the cause because Mr Hani ...[End of tape 2B, day 6 - no follow-on sound] party or organisation, if he falls away, then that organisation is destabilised for some time and can't continue with the same commitment as before. It's absolutely logical that one can argue along those lines that it served our cause.

MR PRINSLOO: If I could put it this way - no, I withdraw the question. Mr Koos Botha, was he known to you?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, Mr Koos Botha was a CP member for Wonderboom.

MR PRINSLOO: In what capacity did he serve in the CP?

MR HARTZENBERG: He was an MP.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it so that Mr Botha was prosecuted on one particular occasion?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Or he was about to be prosecuted?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And he received amnesty for the planting of a bomb at Hillview School?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, Mr Botha was involved in the planting of a bomb at Hillview School and Mr Botha received amnesty for the act which he committed because it was a political act. The school - if I remember correct, was to be used by the ANC or was about to be allocated to the ANC and that is why the bombs were planted and Mr Botha received amnesty.

But perhaps I should just point out that Mr Koos Botha actually was defiant towards the CP in respect of policy at some point and we had discussions with him and we told him that there were certain channels within the Party which he could use to address these matters but Mr Botha didn't want to listen to us.

He made a speech in Parliament in which he attacked the Party and we actually suspended Mr Botha or expelled him from the Party. During the trial, Mr Botha was no longer a member of the Conservative Party and we didn't support him because he was no longer a member of our Party, on the contrary, he attacked us but the fact is, without our support Mr Botha received amnesty.

MR PRINSLOO: Now in Parliament, Mr Botha made certain statements relating to the Conservative Party, he said that he'd committed certain acts based on certain things which had been said by Doctor Andries Treurnicht?

MR HARTZENBERG: That's correct, that's what he said. That was after he had been expelled from the Party and he then continued to attack the Party and he - for instance, referred to a speech made by Mr Treurnicht at the monument.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Prinsloo, let me interrupt here. At the time when Mr Botha committed the offence in respect of which he got amnesty, was he still a member of the CP?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, when he committed the act he was a member of the CP and afterwards he became in revolt against the CP on policy grounds and then he was expelled and then the court case took place.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So in all probability, he must have - in his papers for amnesty, he must have said that at the time when he committed the offence he was a member of a publicly known political organisation.

MR HARTZENBERG: I think that would have been correct if he had said that and I assume that he also said that he did that to further the cause of the Conservative Party and I think it is correct that he received amnesty.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may we intervene at this stage because it apparently considered a matter of some importance, we haven't got the documents before us but we have reason to believe that Mr Botha was granted indemnity by the then President, rather than amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I was going to allow the witness to carry on and then put this matter correct.

MR BIZOS: Yes, this is our impression but it's a matter of - that something that should be investigated.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, perhaps it might be clear.

Mr Hartzenberg, when you use the word amnesty, what you really mean is indemnity in terms of the Indemnity Act, is that not so?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, I mean amnesty, amnesty granted by this Committee. This happened at a previous session at the City Hall in Pretoria and the matter was clarified when the Chairperson of the Committee indicated that Mr Botha had been heard in chambers and had been granted amnesty, so as far as I'm concerned, I learnt that he'd been granted amnesty from this Committee.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I remember correctly, the Honourable Committee member, Mrs Khampepe confirmed that at the Committee hearing in the City Council, the matter was raised there as well.

Doctor Hartzenberg, the expelling of Mr Botha, did that relate to the policy of the Conservative Party at all?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, it dealt only with policy, he wasn't expelled because he'd committed the act, he was expelled because he differed on policy grounds.

MR PRINSLOO: Now during the session in Parliament, one of the CP members Mr Daan du Plessis, actually tackled Mr Botha?

MR HARTZENBERG: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, what was the context, how did it happen?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Botha made a speech in which he attacked the CP and the next speaker was Mr Daan du Plessis and the whips of the Party told Mr Daan du Plessis: "Tackle Koos Botha, he's attacked us" and that is exactly what happened.

MR PRINSLOO: Did it have anything to do with the CP policy - that attack?

MR HARTZENBERG: That attack dealt with the fact that Mr Botha then resented our Party for the fact that we weren't present during his court sessions.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment Chairperson.

Just in conclusion Doctor Hartzenberg, to the present, how does the CP regard the deed of Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus who also says he's a member of the Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, I already referred to this quotation from the submission and we are in exactly the same situation, we understand and we have sympathy that in the time of high tension and during times where people lost their lives on a very large scale in South Africa, people could have argued that the time was ripe to act and to carry into effect a deed which could perhaps steer the situation in a different direction.

That was our attitude, that we believed that Mr Clive Derby-Lewis as well as Mr Walus, had subjectively argued that they were acting on behalf of the cause of the Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor, in 1993 - early on in '93, approximately January/February, did Mrs Derby-Lewis attend that sitting?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, I can remember - on the basis of what she stated here during these proceedings, that while the distrust or while the opening address of the President was discussed - as it was referred to at that time, she came to me with a very or rather thick file and stated to me that it contained very good material for a speech, inter alia material which indicated the luxury in which with so-called champions of the poor were living and I said to her: "Okay, leave the file with me". But Mr Chair, there were other things happening at the time, we were trying to get an organisation off the ground known as COSAC, Concerned South Africans Group, consisting of representatives of various Parties from various population groups. COSAC was attacked in Parliament, we were the only Party who were part of COSAC who were included in Parliament. The Pretoria Minutes, the Groote Schuur Minutes were raised and these hadn't been honoured and these were discussed and therefore there were many important things which I had to react to. After a day or two I said to Mrs Derby-Lewis that I wouldn't have the time to study this file, after all there were many other things that I had to talk about and I couldn't cover those topics as well in the relevant speech and therefore there was plenty of time to deal with it.

I could do that in a month or so but the topics which I had to deal with at that stage, had to be dealt with urgently and I said she could perhaps see if somebody else could in the meanwhile make a speech on those topics because it didn't have the same priority and I couldn't give attention to it, I had other interests I had to pay attention to.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor Hartzenberg, during 92/93 - even from as early as 1990, just to refer to certain topics without burdening the record too much, many statements were made in The Patriot - first of all, is it the voice-piece of the CP?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: For example, in June '91 it said: "Whites Would Take Up Arms", then on 10 January '92, there was reference to: "Bombings", then in The Patriot of 8.5.92, there was reference to: "The Basks of South Africa", then 18.9.92, reference to" The Army of the Nation Reacting to F.W.'s Treason" and the many other articles, does this material provide good proof of what the CP stood for?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, Mr Chair, we used strong language, it was a serious situation and we were serious and these quotations are all a good reflection of the climate that existed at the time.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you say or would you disagree that this rhetoric - all these contributions and the things that were discussed in Parliament etc., in any way contributed to decisions taken by the applicants?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, I think so, the reply is positive.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Derby-Lewis himself, do you know him as a military person?

MR HARTZENBERG: Well, we knew that he was a military person who for many years did military service, we knew him as such - he was Commandant Clive Derby-Lewis in his time.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor, could you please tell the Committee what the relationship was between Mr Clive Derby-Lewis and the late Doctor Andries Treurnicht?

MR HARTZENBERG: The relationship was very good, very good.

MR PRINSLOO: Could it have been possible that the late Doctor Treurnicht could have discussed intimate matters with Mr Derby-Lewis with regard to policy etc.?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, quite possibly.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Doctor Hartzenberg, did the Conservative Party - before the 10th of April 1993, do or say anything to induce any one of it's members to commit any particular act in order to bring about chaos in South Africa?

MR HARTZENBERG: I would reply as follows Mr Chair, statements made by leaders could have been interpreted by people that they had to take action, for example statements like: "The third freedom struggle had started" and a whole series of other statements. I myself made very strong statements and it's quite possible that people could read that as that they had to commit certain deeds.

MR BIZOS: The question of not to take action or to commit certain deeds, the question was: "Whether anyone in the Conservative Party leadership did or said anything prior to the 10th, which could reasonably be interpreted by any one of the Conservative Party members as a licence to commit any act which would bring about chaos in South Africa"?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, you say did or said, apart from Mr Koos Botha, I don't think there was anybody whom I'm aware of, who did anything but there were many statements - many things were said. Mr Koos Botha in own application said "The third freedom struggle had started" and that this had actually induced him to do what he did and it could have had a similar effect on other people.

MR BIZOS: You told us of the action of Mr Koos Botha, Mr Koos Botha's action can hardly be described - can it, as an act calculated to incite others to bring about chaos in South Africa?

MR HARTZENBERG: That is your judgement, I don't know how Mr Koos Botha judged things - that is the applicants' subjective opinion, not yours or mine but the applicants'.

MR BIZOS: You were asked for an opinion and you expressed it towards the end of your evidence about the subjective feelings of the two applicants, I am asking you whether blowing up a school is calculated to bring about chaos in South Africa which was described by one of the applicants as: "The killing of a couple of hundred White people as a result of the action, which in turn must have resulted in the killing of hundreds of other and the eventual civil war between - particularly between Black and White, can you please tell us whether either the action of Mr Koos Botha or any statement that has been made by any leader of the Conservative Party could be interpreted as leading to that chaos?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, isn't ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, I think I've replied more than once to the matter of whether anybody had said anything. As far as blowing up the school is concerned, the school had been promised to people and suddenly this school was blown up and people could get cross, they could do certain things and this could set off a whole chain reaction - it's a theoretical question, anything is possible. It's not a question for which there exists proof or in connection with which something else had happened, it is a theoretical question, it could have led to it.

MR BIZOS: I am not asking you about a theoretical question, I am asking you - quoting the evidence of the first applicant in this case, and for you to please tell us as the leader of the Conservative Party, which member of the Conservative Party and when, made any statement which could have been interpreted as a licence to commit the act that I have described?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, I'm stating again, Mr Koos Botha in his defence in Parliament, stated that the term: "The third freedom struggle had started" had him go into action - similar statements had been made, I don't have them all in writing. I myself said serious things and it is possible that people could have interpreted it as their right or duty to do something.

MR BIZOS: In relation to Mr Koos Botha, your colleague in Parliament, Mr Prinsloo said that Mr Botha was alone of - in the 30.000 people at the Voortrekker Monument which put that interpretation - his, Botha's interpretation, into effect, is that correct? - I'm sorry, it was du Plessis.

MR HARTZENBERG: He said it and I think you also have to regard that against the background of the attack which Mr Koos Botha had made on the Conservative Party. Mr du Plessis then said to him: "But we didn't give you the instruction, you committed the deed, in the meanwhile you turned your back on us and now you expect of us to protect you", that is a natural reaction on the spur of the moment.

He had to get up immediately after this person and that was the point of view that he expressed, that is entirely correct but the fact is that regardless of that Mr Koos Botha received amnesty and Mr du Plessis drafted a motion in this case which he submitted to the CP Congress on the 3rd of October, in which he asked the Congress to support Mr Clive Derby-Lewis in his application for amnesty.

MR BIZOS: Can we please confine ourselves to answering the question Doctor Hartzenberg?

MR HARTZENBERG: I attempted to reply to your question.

MR BIZOS: Well, let me put it to you again, if anything that was said at the Voortrekker Monument is relied upon by the applicants or you here, how consistent is that with a statement of Mr du Plessis in Parliament representing the Conservative Party, that out of the 30.000 people that were at the monument he, Koos Botha was the only one to interpret it as a licence to damage a school, is it consistent or is it inconsistent?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, it is exactly consistent with the statement made by Mr Oliver Tambo in the submission of the ANC, where he says: "If I were approached to give permission, I would naturally say: "Not" or: "No" but I would understand that somebody would act in that way"

MR BIZOS: Can we leave Mr Tambo's statement to another question?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, it's the same principle that applies, it's exactly the same principle.

MR BIZOS: Doctor Hartzenberg, you have not been called to do an analysis of principles, you have been asked to give evidence on facts from which the Committee may make a decision. Please listen to the questions and answer them ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Please do not interrupt me and you can leave the argument and the other facts and answer of other questions in their turn, please answer my question which is a simple one. Is what Mr du Plessis said in Parliament, consistent with an understanding that there was a licence to commit acts of violence by the CP, is it consistent or is it inconsistent Doctor Hartzenberg?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, may I just gain clarity on a point of order?

CHAIRPERSON: Just say yes or no to this question.

MR HARTZENBERG: No, Sir, I cannot, it is not a simple matter of saying yes or no.

CHAIRPERSON: Because this question has been put in different forms, so there can't be much confusion.

MR HARTZENBERG: No. He put this question in various ways and I tried to the best of my ability to reply and this is matter of: "Is Mr Bizos still hitting his wife", it's not a matter of yes or no only. In a similar way as Mr Tambo had not said that he had given permission to that deed in Amanzimtoti, in the same way it applies here.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I respectfully apply that the witness be ordered to answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Is your answer - do you have any answer other than the one you've given now?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, the answer is that Mr du Plessis and the Conservative Party - despite the fact that the Conservative Party had not instructed him to commit the deed, the CP and Mr du Plessis accepted that Mr Clive Derby-Lewis acted on behalf of the Conservative Party and it's cause.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman with respect, that is not an answer to the question, I have asked a clear and precise question - is it consistent with Mr du Plessis saying that the interpretation of the speech of Doctor Treurnicht at the monument could not possibly have been interpreted as a licence to commit violence because 30.000 other people there present did not interpret it that way, is there a contradiction in what Mr Prinsloo said or not?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr du Plessis.

MR BIZOS: du Plessis, I beg your pardon.

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, that was also Mr du Plessis's subject of point of view which he expressed, it was his subject of point of view - any other person could have expressed another point of view.

MR BIZOS: Were you in Parliament when Mr du Plessis expressed that interpretation of your leader's statement?

MR HARTZENBERG: I was there.

MR BIZOS: At the monument?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, I was also at the monument.

MR BIZOS: Did you in any way contradict what Mr du Plessis said in Parliament?

MR HARTZENBERG: No.

MR BIZOS: Why not?

MR HARTZENBERG: Because I did not regard it or I regarded it as Mr du Plessis's point of view, it's possible that other people could maintain other points of view and at the moment - in the debate, he did his job and it was over and done with.

MR BIZOS: Surely it is not the job of a parliamentarian when speaking of a colleague, to misinterpret facts?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, it is definitely not a policy matter, it is a practical situation which cropped up and occurred. Mr du Plessis took a certain point of view, it is possible that other people could express other points of view and I had no problem with what Mr du Plessis said.

MR BIZOS: Was the policy ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: And I also don't have any problem with what Mr Botha stated when he said - he interpreted it differently, he could have done so.

MR BIZOS: Was the question of what the policy of the Conservative Party was in relation to violence, a policy matter or not?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, naturally - violence, there's nothing in a constitution, in a programme of principles or in our programme of principles which refers to violence, we are a political party, we have a political viewpoint and a political goal that we strive for and we didn't take a point of view with regard to this because we accepted that we had to use other means to achieve our goals and our point of view was that violence could not be used to achieve political objectives.

MR BIZOS: So, the answer to the question is a short: "Yes, the policy of the Conservative Party in relation to violence is an important matter and it is a policy matter and not a subjective matter"?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, if you talk about policy but with reference to a specific situation like this which had arose and where a person could interpret - persons could interpret it differently. Here two member of Parliament of the CP - and you are referring to policy here but the question that is really concerned is: "What is this reference to the third freedom struggle and how was it interpreted" and the two members interpreted it differently.

MR BIZOS: I'll try for the last time Doctor Hartzenberg ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, ...[inaudible] ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Was the question ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, the witness did answer the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let's move on Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: With respect, there was no answer Mr Chairman. To be told the question is: "How was the third - the second or the third war of liberation fought", is not an answer to the question as to whether or not the question of the policy of the CP in relation to violence, is a policy matter or not? Was it a matter of policy when the debate in Parliament was taking place or not?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that as I understand the evidence, violence as a matter of policy did not form part of the policy of the CP. The emphasis seems to be that the interpretation of the policy of the CP is what has led to the present problem, members of the CP have interpreted to mean that they could resort to violence - that is how I understand that evidence.

MR BIZOS: Let us ask you this on the basis of the Chairman's interpretation of your answer Mr Hartzenberg, who was interpreting the policy correctly, Mr Botha or Mr du Plessis? In your view as a leader of Deputy Leader of the Party, who was interpreting the policy correctly? It's no good smiling at me, answer the question.

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, perhaps I have a third viewpoint and do not agree with either of the two points of view. I think my point of view is that a political party's work is - in political manner, to achieve it's objectives and under those circumstances which we found ourselves, we said politically we would do everything in our capacity to achieve our liberty in a certain portion of South Africa and maintain it there and if we are attacked we have the right to defend ourselves - that's my point of view.

MR BIZOS: Let me ask you question on the basis of your answer, you say that ...[intervention]

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon Mr Chair, I have not objected to any noise, the people in hall can shout and make any kind of noise that they wish to when we adjourn - I don't even hear it but that lady, Mrs Hani and the lady with the green dress, they perform to such an extent that I honestly cannot hear the Afrikaans in my earphones. May I please request, can't they just keep quiet while the sitting is continuing?

CHAIRPERSON: If this is a Truth Commission, - whether a witness is lying or not lying, is to be decided by the people who are sitting here and not the audience. Please, you can hold whatever views you want but you're not allowed to shout your vies in such a way that you disturb the people giving evidence, please, please.

May we proceed where we left off, I'm sorry.

MR BIZOS: Doctor Hartzenberg, you said that it may be that neither Mr du Plessis nor Mr Botha's interpretation of the policy be correct, that there may be a third view, are you speaking on a speculative basis or are you able to advance a third view of the CP's policy at the time?

MR HARTZENBERG: I've just told Mr Bizos and the Committee what my personal point of view is, I just told you that. I just told you what my personal point of view is, must I repeat it to you again?

MR BIZOS: No, you said that they neither may have been correct and there may have been a third point of view of the policy, could you please tell us ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, and I told you ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Let me finish my question please Sir. Can you please tell us the third view of the CP policy that may have existed at the time, which is not that of Mr Botha nor that of Mr du Plessis?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hartzenberg, I understood or rather heard part of your answer, it is possible that the rest of your answer was not heard completely, will you please restate that - as to what your view was not the third view was?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, my point of view is that it is the job and the duty and the sphere within which a political party should work in a political manner to achieve it's objectives. Under those particular circumstances which existed at the time, we said that we had to retain and maintain our freedom in a certain portion of South Africa and if we were to be attacked we had the right to defend ourselves.

MR BIZOS: So, to summarise the third option is that you were not to take active - be pro-active in violence but you could use violence in self-defence, that was the third version of the policy.

MR HARTZENBERG: There are circumstances Sir, where one could react violently or go over to violent action where it is justified.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I am prepared to go on but I see that it's 4 o'clock, I'm merely drawing attention to it, I don't know if you want me to go on or not.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will now adjourn and we'll resume at 9H30 tomorrow morning.

Mr Hartzenberg, please see that you're here at 9H30 tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

04-12-1997: Day 7

ON RESUMPTION

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, thank you.

Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Doctor Hartzenberg, when did you become the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: From he time of the founding of the Conservative Party in 1982 Mr Chair.

MR BIZOS: When did Doctor Treurnicht become seriously ill?

MR HARTZENBERG: That happened in April 1993.

MR BIZOS: That's when he became bed-ridden but before that he suffered quite a bit nevertheless carried out some of his duties.

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, if I remember correctly, the last duty he fulfilled before he became ill, was that he was involved in discussion of KOSAG and after that he went down to the Cape, starting feeling bad.

MR BIZOS: Just give us a month when he had to ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: That was in April.

MR BIZOS: In April. Did he attend Parliament regularly at the end of 1992 and beginning of '93?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, as far as I can remember, he regularly attended Parliament.

MR BIZOS: The relationship between you and Mr Derby-Lewis, was that a friendly one?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, it was a friendly relationship.

MR BIZOS: Was there complete trust between the two of you?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And if he approached you on any confidential basis and imputed any information to you, you would no doubt respected the confidentiality?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And vice-versa, if you spoke to him and conveyed any confidential matter to him, you would expect him to respect the confidentiality?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, I had no reason to expect anything else.

MR BIZOS: And not only were you political colleagues but you were also personal friends?

MR HARTZENBERG: That is entirely correct.

MR BIZOS: And did you visit one another at the end of '92, beginning of '93?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, we did not visit each other at home because we lived too far apart, we saw each other in our capacity as parliamentarians and Presidential Council Members and as Executive Council Members of the Conservative Party and on that basis we saw each other regularly.

MR BIZOS: And inevitably parliamentary life consists - to a certain extent, in social intercourse between or amongst political colleagues when in Cape Town - drinks, parties and braaivleis's and dinners, that sort of thing - as part of life - social life of parliamentarians, is that correct?

MR HARTZENBERG: That is entirely correct Mr Chair, Mr Derby-Lewis was also a member of the Presidential Council at the time and they did not sit continuously, if I remember correctly they sat two weeks per month, in other words we did not see each other as regularly as parliamentarians normally did.

MR BIZOS: But there were overlapping periods?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, we saw each other regularly and everything was in order.

MR BIZOS: Now, did he at any time at the end of '92 or beginning of '93, come to you and say to you that he was planning the murder of Mr Hani?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, Sir.

MR BIZOS: Did he come to you and ask you what the policy of the Conservative Party was in relation to the elimination of Mr Hani?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, Mr Chair.

MR BIZOS: Did he come to you and ask you whether the policy of the Conservative Party as stated publicly up to then, that it was a political party and above board and against violence, did he ask you during end of '92 beginning '93 whether the policy of the Conservative Party had changed?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, Mr Chair.

MR BIZOS: Did he come and discuss with you any moral question that was - concerning him, about the taking of human life by way of murder on behalf of the Conservative Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, Mr Chair.

MR BIZOS: And from what you have already told us, the relationship between you and him was such and the opportunities were available for him to ask you those matters if he wanted to?

MR HARTZENBERG: That is possible.

MR BIZOS: Have you viewed the television programme in which you were interviewed by Mr Lester Venter on the 20th of April 1993? Have you seen that video?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, I never saw that video.

MR BIZOS: You've never seen it?

MR HARTZENBERG: No.

MR BIZOS: Had you been shown a transcript R6?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, Sir, that is correct.

MR BIZOS: Have you had an opportunity to read it and to study it?

MR HARTZENBERG: I read through it.

MR BIZOS: And does it correctly report what you said to Mr Lester Venter on television?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, that is correct Mr Chair. I think that perhaps with regard to that I have to state Mr Chair, that the Conservative Party is a Democratic Party and in it's programme of principles - since 1982, there has been no single chapter or portion that dealt with violence and that stipulated a policy with regard to violence because we did not regard violence as an instrument and that is the difference between a Democratic Party, Sir and a Communist Party.

Communist Parties may use violence and it probably has policy with regard to violence because they are kept in power by violence but not a Democratic Party and therefore nothing of that nature is stated in the policy. And during that period end '92, beginning '93, we became aware that there was - that an attack could come against Afrikaners and for that reason we started to mobilise in order - under certain circumstances, to be able to defend ourselves.

MR BIZOS: Doctor Hartzenberg, I merely asked you whether you agree that what has been transcribed is correct, please ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: I said yes, ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Could you please wait for the questions that I want to ask you and if you want to add something which I have left out, I am sure that counsel that called you will ask you any questions that I have left out. Just answer the questions please Sir.

MR HARTZENBERG: I would like to point out that that is exactly what I did.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I didn't ask you any questions Doctor Hartzenberg, other than if you agree that this is a correct statement made by you? Please wait for the questions Sir.

MR HARTZENBERG: I think Mr Chair, Mr Bizos also has to accept that I have the freedom to answer the questions in the way that I wish to and have to and not the way in which he wishes me to answer the questions.

MR BIZOS: Listen to the question please and we will get on quicker Doctor Hartzenberg. Will you please look at the transcript, Exhibit R6, have you got it in front of you?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, I don't have it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, we just wish to get the copy of the document. [Transcriber's own translation] Mr Chairman, we don't have R6.

CHAIRPERSON: It must have been handed in Mr Prinsloo, because we all have it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, is that the document which refers to: "Ferdie Hartzenberg, 20 April '93"?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Agenda - News Interview, is that the document that Mr Bizos is referring to?

MR BIZOS: R6.

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?

MR BIZOS: R6.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just one paragraph?

JUDGE WILSON: No.

MR BIZOS: The paragraph Mr Chairman, LV - Doctor Hartzenberg in the Recent Past.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: Now, you have this document before you:

"Doctor Hartzenberg in the Recent Past - A Member of the Conservative Party, Koos Botha Involved in Bombing"

...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: This is page two - for people who are looking for it.

MR BIZOS: Shall I start again:

"Doctor Hartzenberg in the Recent Past - A Member of the Conservative Party, Koos Botha Involved in Bombing in Pretoria, now Mr Derby-Lewis is implicated in the Hani assassination. The question is, is there a culture of violence developing in the Conservative Party?

FH is your initials?

"No, not at all Mr Venter, the Conservative Party has never - since it's inception, planned acts of violence. Actually the planning of the Conservative Party has as it's aim to prevent violence in the country, by offering a political solution that will create peace and stability and prosperity in South Africa"

Was that your answer to the question?

MR HARTZENBERG: That is my reply and if you look further you will see that ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Please listen for the next question Doctor Hartzenberg ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: And it was outside the Conservative Party.

MR BIZOS: Please listen to the questions that I'm asking ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just answer, that is your answer isn't it? I think we'll move on quickly if you just say: yes, it is your answer.

MR BIZOS: Now, in this answer ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, the answer goes further than Mr Bizos has allowed him to go.

JUDGE WILSON: As I read it, the answer to the question that you put to him Mr Bizos, is set out in three paragraphs there.

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Not just the one you read.

MR BIZOS: Is the paragraph that I have read part of your answer?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And particularly:

"Actually the planning of the Conservative Party has as it's aim to prevent violence in the country, by offering a political solution that will create peace and stability and prosperity in South Africa"

Is there any ambiguity in that portion of your answer?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, that is the Conservative Party's point of view from the beginning, it is still so and at that stage we also started planning for possible attacks on ourselves and we were in the early stage of doing planning there and we said that circumstances may arise where the use of violence will be justified to defend oneself.

MR BIZOS: Doctor Hartzenberg, the question was: "Is there any ambiguity in that part of your answer"?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, there isn't.

MR BIZOS: If there was no ambiguity in that part of your answer, why was it an ambiguous policy that you gave us three alternatives of yesterday afternoon?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, it concerned interpretation of the third freedom struggle - that term, it did not concern Conservative Party policy. The Conservative Party does not have a policy - even now, regarding the use of violence because it is a Democratic Party but when violence is implemented against you, you have to decide what you're going to do about it.

That was the stage we were approaching in '92/'93 and we decided not to go on the offensive mode but to be defensive and at that stage people interpreted things differently.

MR BIZOS: When you were asked yesterday what the policy of the Conservative Party was in April 1993, why didn't you make as clear a statement as you made in the paragraph that I read out to you?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, if you now go back and you go and listen to what I said, you will realise that it's exactly the same that I am saying today, I said we do not have a policy and I expanded on that today and I said no Democratic Party as far as I know, used violence as a method, only Communist Parties.

MR BIZOS: Well, I will not repeat my question Doctor Hartzenberg, let's go on -

"The violence is not in the Conservative Party, it is outside theConservative Party"

"The violence is not in the Conservative Party"

Is that a clear and unambiguous statement that there is no element of violence in the policy of the Conservative Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, that is correct, I said there is no violence in the Conservative Party, it is outside. And that violence had increased to such an extent that in 1989 there were 1.400 political murders, in 1990 after the unbanning, there were 3.600, in 1993, there were 3.700 and that is the way things increased and it was occurring right around us.

And I would like to state to Mr Bizos that 3.700 murders in one year is more than the number of people of South Africa who died in one single year in the Second World War - in a full scale war, not a low intensity war, but it was the equal of a full scale war.

MR BIZOS:

"The violence is not in the Conservative Party"

Is that an unambiguous statement of what the Conservative Party policy is?

MR HARTZENBERG: Naturally Sir, if 3.700 murder occurred in 1993 ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hartzenberg, I know you would like to expand on your answers but you will save yourself a lot of time if you said: "Yes, that statement is unambiguous" and leave it at that.

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You're being asked whether that question - that sentence is unambiguous ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, the violence was not in the Conservative Party because during 1992 there were 3.600 outside the Conservative Party.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] that is not the question that has been put to you, if that question is put to you then you can say so but right now you should just say: "Yes, that sentence is unambiguous"

MR HARTZENBERG: It was unambiguous.

MR BIZOS: Now, I want to go next to the final paragraph on that page - Lester Venter:

"Forgive him for interrupting you there, I hear what you say - that the Conservative Party is not involved in the planning of violence"

Is that another clear indication - an unambiguous statement as to the policy of the Conservative Party in relation to violence?

MR HARTZENBERG: Correct.

MR BIZOS: Is that correct?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Unambiguous, right. Then the first paragraph on page three:

"It is not the Party, it is not. The Party did not plan any acts, actually the Party said on all it's members - I beg your pardon, on all it's meetings at it's congresses: "That our aim is create a political situation in South Africa where there will be peace and stability"

Is that also an unambiguous statement of CP policy in relation to violence?

MR HARTZENBERG: That is correct Sir.

MR BIZOS: And then, if we could go to the paragraph that starts:

"So your point is that there isn't a pattern developing" - interjection FH - "No, there isn't a culture of violence" - interjection

"Not in the Conservative Party"

Is that an unambiguous statement of what the policy of the Conservative Party is?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, in the Conservative Party - no violence, the violence was outside and we had to start preparing for when the violence came our way.

MR BIZOS: Right, now can we go on?

"If one looks"

That's the next one:

"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've looked through the files, there is a pile of press cuttings, all of the same direction. Now, admittedly none of those are direct calls to arms but is not the open ended nature of this sort of threatening talk amounting to a tacit approval of violence"? - "No, no, not at all"

Is that a clear and unambiguous statement by you in relation to the policy of the Conservative Party to violence?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes. I repeat Sir, the Conservation now and nor in the past never planned to commit violent deeds on an offensive basis but we had to look at how we were going to defend ourselves against the violence taking place.

MR BIZOS: Mr Derby-Lewis - I beg your pardon, Doctor Hartzenberg, do you say at the end of that paragraph:

"And that is why the Conservative put out case, we made the statement and we propose a policy just to prevent that situation. The situation referred to means the use of violence"

Is that correct?

MR HARTZENBERG: That's correct Mr Chair, and we said that quite often. If provision was not made ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Let's confine ourselves to the document for the time being, please Doctor Hartzenberg.

MR HARTZENBERG: I said: "Yes" Sir, and I am saying to Mr Bizos what the circumstances were which existed at the time.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: Microphone.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] the unambiguous statements made by you in relation to the policy of the Conservative Party, then the question by Mr Lester Venter:

"So you are saying if this take-over that you are talking about - then a violence resistance to it, so it's a situation that hasn't arisen yet" - "Look Mr Venter, we have looked - 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"

The question was: "So it is a situation that hasn't arisen yet"? Is your answer confirmation by clear implication that the situation has not arisen yet but you warn that this may come about in the future if the plan to hand to hand over the country to the Communists comes into being.

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, I wouldn't have made such a statement if we hadn't seen - if we had seen that it was already starting.

MR BIZOS: Do you agree that the statement of the policy at the time that you were giving this in interview, that that time had not yet arrived?

MR HARTZENBERG: It was in the process of developing and that is why we were planning, that is why we were mobilising.

MR BIZOS: Now, if we could - may we go to the second last paragraph on page five:

"We have only one point on our agenda and whether we fight elections or participate in Parliament in any forum or in mobilisation and that the freedom and self determination of our nation. And if it becomes clear that negotiations will not deliver that, then it would be meaningless to participate, then we will sign our own funeral arrangements and we are going to do that ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON:

"we are not going to do that"

MR BIZOS: Sorry, yes:

"not going to do that, we are not prepared to do that"

Is that what you said?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, correct.

MR BIZOS: Now, at the time that you made this statement your Party was taking part in part in the negotiations in CODESSA.

MR HARTZENBERG: CODESSA was dead at that time Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: No, it was a multi-party continuation of CODESSA - I'm sorry that I used the wrong word, the negotiations at Kempton Park were going on?

MR HARTZENBERG: That's right.

MR BIZOS: On your Party was taking part in those negotiations?

MR HARTZENBERG: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: And your Party was publicly committed to a policy of persuading the other parties that were there that they must concede to the Conservative Party and other Afrikaner groups, the right to self determination?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And pressure was being put by the right-wing parties - I'm using it in a general sense, you understand what I mean, pressure was being exercised by the right-wing parties including the Conservative Party at the multi-party conference in Kempton Park, for the acceptance of that principle of self determination in the proposed constitution, is that correct?

MR HARTZENBERG: We were there Mr Chair, and from the first day - the first vote, we refrained from voting because the agreed pre-conditions were not agreed to - were not complied with, namely that we were coming together to plan because no planning was taking place and from the very first day we realised that we were dealing with a situation where there were prejudices and we continued - we stated our case, and later on in the year it was decided that we could not look at ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: We are talking about April 1993 ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, but the first ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: You were negotiating, you were hoping for a political solution to the problems of the country and the non-negotiable part of your attitude was that the other parties had to agree to a form of self-determination?

MR HARTZENBERG: That's right.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR HARTZENBERG: The first negotiations took place on 1 April and that's where we refrained from voting.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I merely want to establish as a fact, that in April you were party to the negotiations of the multi-party conference, is that correct.

MR HARTZENBERG: That's entirely correct.

MR BIZOS: And you continued until July?

MR HARTZENBERG: I cannot remember exactly, it was slightly later.

MR BIZOS: It's recorded somewhere.

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And of course being - but it was certainly there in April, I can assure you - I think it was July - we'll find a day. Now, Doctor Hartzenberg, that the last thing that your Party would have wanted is any form of unbridled violence to break out in the country?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, in our participation in those negotiations at Kempton Park, we clearly demonstrated that we preferred a peaceful solution and not a violent one and that is still our preference.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and nobody ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: But the point is, we never got a settlement.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, Mr Hartzenberg is not given the opportunity to reply properly.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] because - let him complete is answer please.

MR BIZOS: Did you want to complete your answer?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Bizos, we gave preference to negotiations above violence and when it became clear that there was not going to be a peaceful solution, we withdrew and we consistently spelt out the consequences - that the needs of South Africa were not being met and we are experiencing it at present where 20.000 people are being killed.

MR BIZOS: Let us just confine ourselves to April 1993 Sir. At the time, you and other right-wing Parties hoped for a peaceful solution to the constitutional negotiations that were going on at Kempton Park, correct?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, correct.

MR BIZOS: And sometime after April, you and other - when I say you I mean the Conservative Party, and other parties formed various alliances in order to strengthen your demand for self-determination, is that correct?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, that is correct Sir, perhaps I would also like to say to Mr Bizos that from the first day we noted that there were many prejudices against self-determination and I can accept that Mr Clive Derby-Lewis was entitled - from the beginning, to draw the conclusion that we were not going to succeed and that is eventually what was proven.

MR BIZOS: You were not asked about that opinion ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, but I give you that - if is necessary for the record to also put it on the record.

MR BIZOS: Yes. We will deal with Mr Derby-Lewis and his possible understanding of the policy that you ...[indistinct] enunciated on the 20th of April. Please be patient with me Doctor Hartzenberg, and answer the question and we - you will be re-examined by your counsel in order to tell us your views about Mr Derby-Lewis if I omit it, please answer the questions Sir.

Now, COSAC was formed, were you party to it?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And was that an attempt at putting pressure on the negotiation process?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, COSAC was formed in 1992, directly after the signing of the Record of Understanding and it was clear then that the Government - the National Party Government of the time and the ANC, had already reached an agreement with the exclusion all other parties and for that reason we formed COSAC in order to exert pressure to see if we couldn't influence the process, yes.

MR BIZOS: Was COSAC in existence in April?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, it existed.

MR BIZOS: And was a further alliance formed thereafter, in order to try and get a political solution to which the Conservative Party was a member? What was that alliance called?

MR HARTZENBERG: It was the freedom alliance which arose from COSAC.

MR BIZOS: Were you in court when Mr Walus gave evidence as to why he killed Mr Hani and what he hoped to achieve, were you in court, were you here?

CHAIRPERSON: When you say here, do you mean ...[inaudible]

MR HARTZENBERG: ...[inaudible]

JUDGE WILSON: ...[inaudible] weren't here.

MR BIZOS: Oh.

CHAIRPERSON: Just formulate your question, what you really mean to say is that was he ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Were you here when - were you at the Committee meeting - which I think was here when these questions were asked Mr Chairman, when Mr Walus gave evidence as to what he hoped to achieve by killing Mr Hani?

MR HARTZENBERG: I couldn't attend all the hearings, I think Mr Bizos must specify what he's referring to.

MR BIZOS: Yes, let me tell you what I'm making reference to. In cross-examination Mr Walus said that the political objective that he hoped to achieve by killing Mr Hani, was that Black people - because of high leadership profile, would create chaos by particularly directing their anger at White people and according to his evidence he expected at least 100 to 200 White people to be killed in order to have the beginning of the chaos.

He further went on and said that he realised that if Black people killed White people, White people would retaliate and there would be real chaos in the country and that the army and the police and the security forces would be forced to put down the - put an end to the chaos that had been created and then the army, police - in the situation that arose, would persuade Afrikaners to take part in a revolt and that the Government would come into the hands of the Conservative Party and other right-wing parties, in order to prevent the take-over. Now, this is what he said, did any portion of that form the policy of the Conservative Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: Chairperson, Mr Walus gave his evidence under oath and I accept that when he said that he meant it and that he thought that it was possible.

MR BIZOS: No, I am asking you Sir, as the leader of the Conservative Party, whether it was any part of the Conservative policy to create chaos and bloodshed and uncontrolled revolution in the country by killing Mr Hani, was that a part of CP policy - according to you it's leader?

MR HARTZENBERG: I think it must be clear to the Committee and Mr Bizos, that the Conservative Party wasn't involved in the planning of this incident.

MR BIZOS: That was not the question Sir.

MR HARTZENBERG: We were not involved in the planning and because we weren't involved it's impossible for me to say, we didn't plan it at all, we weren't involved in the planning, so that is the answer.

JUDGE WILSON: The question was not the planning as I understood it, the question was: "Was that the policy of the Party"?

MR HARTZENBERG: If it was the policy of the Party, we would have planned it but we didn't plan it.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, this wasn't the policy of the Party because ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] I will take that as an answer, thank you Mr Chairman.

Can you please tell me - point specifically to any statement or act performed by the Conservative Party or made by the Conservative Party that my have given Mr Walus this idea?

MR HARTZENBERG: I think I must point out to you once again, that at that stage - in the previous year 3.000 odd people were killed and in the year - we are talking about 3.700 were killed, violence was rampant in South Africa and we lived in a very explosive situation.

The Conservative Party was busy mobilising and we said expressly that we would not voluntarily surrender our freedom and that we were trying to retain it and if we were then forced, we would defend ourselves.

I told you yesterday, that from the outset we accepted that Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus had - they were reasoning from their own subjective views and opinions and that they thought that they were acting in the furtherance of the CP's cause.

And I would like to say once again that the two applicants and Mr Andrew Zondo's case are identical. They did not act - either of them did not or not one of them acted on specific instructions, they all say they were acting for the cause, they all received the death penalty and I think they all should be treated equally and receive equal treatment now because the cases are similar and identical.

MR BIZOS: Can you please indicate to us any particular statement of the CP or any act committed by the CP, which would have given Mr Walus the idea that he was carrying out Conservative Party policy by committing an act which would throw the country into chaos? Please do not tell us what other people did - was any statement made by the CP or was there any act committed by the CP that it may have given Mr Walus the idea that he was carrying out Conservative Party policy by killing Mr Hani for the consequences that I have put to you?

MR HARTZENBERG: We indicated to you yesterday that the slogan: "The Third Freedom Struggle", that that had already started and that was interpreted differently by different people and not only Mr Clive Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus but also Mr Koos Botha, they all interpreted that in their own way and they interpreted it as justification for proceeding to action.

MR BIZOS: Other than those two, is there any other statement or act of the Conservative Party - that you can refer the Committee to, which might have enabled Mr Walus to interpret the CP policy in the manner I described to you?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] Bizos.

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, if you give me a chance ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it, this is apart from his answer that they had come to formulate this slogan called: "The Third Freedom Struggle".

MR BIZOS: Yes, other than that - that's what - other than that ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Now, I understand your answer that the slogan: "The Third Freedom Struggle", may have been interpreted by people in their own way, the question is: "Apart from that slogan, was there any other statement made by the CP which would lead Mr Walus to believe that he was carrying out policy"?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, very strongly worded speeches and addresses were made, I don't have them all in front of me but I mentioned one example. Is it necessary to refer to more than one example? Would they be less guilty if there were five examples than if for instance, there was only one example? - but there was more than just that.

MR BIZOS: Well, if that was so, why did you give the answer that you gave on top of page three of R6?

MR HARTZENBERG: Because the CP had not been involved in planning for violence but the CP did say that if certain requirements weren't met - and that was a true statement, then there would be chaos in South Africa and that is what we actually see now.

450 farmers gather the other day and the CP didn't plan that and the reason for the meeting is because farmers are being killed every day and that was the case in those days, people were being killed and there was a reaction.

And I want to say to you that I'm going to issue a statement after this, in which I say that I support the farmers when they say that they are going to defend themselves against these attacks.

MR BIZOS: May I appeal to you that we confine ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: But if you ask me if I did any planning, the answer has to be: "No, the CP didn't do anything as far as support to the farmers to defend themselves is concerned" - the process is running and I'm going to issue a statement in which I'm going to say that we support them.

MR BIZOS: Can we please confine ourselves to the facts of this case as they existed at April 1993, Doctor Hartzenberg?

MR HARTZENBERG: If you don't want me to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interrupt please, this is not going to take you very much further Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You've got an answer which says that the announcement of a slogan plus strong speeches by people, may have led Mr Walus to do what he did believing that he was acting ...[indistinct] That's as far as it can go, otherwise there's going to be a repetition of questions and answers.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will abide by that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: Now, Mr Derby-Lewis was on the Transvaal Executive of the Conservative Party, correct?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: The Conservative Party had proper structures in which it's policy was formulated and amended if need be.

MR HARTZENBERG: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: Did he - to your knowledge at any structure, raise the questions as to whether the Conservative Party's policy had changed to one of violence?

MR HARTZENBERG: I can't remember what happened in each and every meeting but what I can say is, that as far the worsening situation was concerned - well, this was discussed at every meeting and that period was the time when we were actually busy with the mobilisation.

MR BIZOS: Now, in connection with the mobilisation, the option of resistance was set out - according to Mrs Derby-Lewis who was there, as a contingency plan and not something that was decided to go into, do you agree with that interpretation?

MR HARTZENBERG: The whole purpose of the mobilisation was so that we could retain our freedom, that's was what is was about and that was the case for all these 18 fronts on which we mobilised.

MR BIZOS: The question was: "Was it a contingency plan which could only be put into operation by the decision of the Party"?

MR HARTZENBERG: If an extraordinary step had to be taken, then it probably would have necessitated a decision by the Party.

MR BIZOS: In relation to the policy of the Conservative Party, you as the acting leader - immediately after the 10th of April, must have taken notice of the statement made by Mr Thomas Langley?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: The effect of which was: "We must minimise violence whatever side of the political spectrum it hits"?

MR HARTZENBERG: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: "If there is one thing that must arise from Mr Hani's death, it is further emphasis on the said senselessness of violence", did that come to your notice at the time as a public statement published in the newspapers?

MR HARTZENBERG: I saw it and I also saw that Mr Langley had rejected violence from whichever part of the spectrum it happened but Mr Langley was not a spokesman - he's not the Law and Order spokesman for the CP, that was Jeug Prinsloo and at that stage he also issued a statement and the statement which he issued can be regarded as the Conservative Party's official statement.

MR BIZOS: Was it Mr Langley's interpretation of the Conservative Party's policy?

MR HARTZENBERG: He wasn't the spokesman, he issued a statement because he had been approached and when he was asked what his views were, he actually gave his views but the official statement by the Party was done by Advocate Prinsloo.

MR BIZOS: And did it come to your notice that in the Sowetan of the 15th of the fourth '93, Doctor Andries Treurnicht said that the Conservative Party rejected murder as a political tool and disapproved of the killing?

MR HARTZENBERG: I probably didn't read the Sowetan but I accept that Doctor Treurnicht said that and that was his view.

MR BIZOS: And did it come to your notice that on the 19th of April '93, Doctor Willie Snyman, CP Member of Pietersburg said that everyone was very upset to hear about Mr Derby-Lewis's arrest - "Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg, Deputy Leader of the CP said that the news had come out of the blue and had caught them unawares". You said that?

MR HARTZENBERG: I said that yesterday, yes, that is what I said and Doctor Snyman also said what he is quoted as having said.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, all these are in R3 but they have been read into the record, I merely want to draw the witnesses attention that it came to his notice and I don't want to have repetition.

Did it come to your notice - well, perhaps I should - because these come in a different period after the conviction, I should just deal with - at the time of the arrest of Mr Derby-Lewis, did you go on record that you believed in his innocence in relation to Mr Hani's death and accused the National Party and the police of merely wanting to besmirch the good name of the Conservative Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, that's correct. Is that not the norm in South Africa, that a man is innocent until proved guilty?

MR BIZOS: But you found the National Party and the police guilty of accusing an innocent man of a crime that you believed he had not committed?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, and I'll tell you why I said that, if you read further you'll see why I said that because Mrs Mandela in London had made the statement that is was a faction of the ANC and she mentioned two names in this regard which weren't published here, that these people were responsible for Mr Hani's death and I said: "Why are you investigating the CP and it's people but you're not investigating the ANC in the light of Mrs Mandela's statement"?

MR BIZOS: You did say that as well but let's concern ourselves about what you said about Mr Derby-Lewis. Now, when Mr ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: It is actually relevant Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: His evidence is on the record.

Do carry on.

MR BIZOS: Doctor Hartzenberg, at the time that the Conservative Party expressed it's support for Mr Derby-Lewis - in particular by implication of Mr Walus, did you believe Mr Derby-Lewis to be innocent?

MR HARTZENBERG: It wasn't possible, I can't tell you now what I thought at that stage. It's possible that I thought he was innocent, it's possible that I thought that perhaps there was a possibility - I can't remember exactly how I was thinking at the time.

MR BIZOS: And the support that was expressed by the Conservative Party at the time of applauding Mrs Derby-Lewis when she was released on bail and at Conservative Party meetings, was that on the basis that the people that were applauding him were led to believe that he was an innocent victim and that he was expected to be freed and that he as a politician - and the Conservative Party to which he belonged, would be vindicated?

MR HARTZENBERG: We stood by Mr Clive Derby-Lewis when we thought that he was innocent, when he was convicted by the court we still stood by him and we're still standing by Mr Clive Derby-Lewis because we accept that Mr Clive Derby-Lewis in his subjective judgement, had thought that he was acting for the Conservative Party's cause - we have no doubt about that and that's why we stand by him.

MR BIZOS: I hear your answer but I may indicate to you that the opinions you expressed are matters which - you're supposed to give evidence of facts and not to express opinions about the result of these proceedings and what you think about it. Please answer ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: You've been asking him for opinions, you've been asking him whether he believed in Derby-Lewis's innocence - that's his opinion.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] asked Mr Chairman is: "When you expressed those opinions, did you believe him to be innocent"? and the only answer I expected was that Mr Chairman - that was the only answer that was called for.

CHAIRPERSON: Now Mr Bizos, sometimes your question inordinately long and occasionally the answers are long and these things cancel each other out, please.

MR BIZOS: Yes, let's proceed, let us proceed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Did you criticise the Judge President of the Gauteng division of the Supreme Court for refusing to re-open Mr Derby-Lewis's case?

MR HARTZENBERG: It's a question which comes out of the blue, it's possible but I can't actually say just off the top of my head.

MR BIZOS: Are you aware of the fact or were you in court when that application made by Mr Derby-Lewis was discussed, in which he said under oath that he had nothing to do with the planning or with inciting or anything to do with the murder of Mr Hani?

MR HARTZENBERG: I didn't attend the court case.

MR BIZOS: If I may have a moment Mr Chairman.

I will find that passage but will you please have a look at H3 for a start - H3 of R3?

CHAIRPERSON: Just for my information, can you tell me what document this is please?

MR BIZOS: It's a ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: R3.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what document is that, I can't find it.

MR BIZOS: H3 Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Oh, press cuttings, I'm sorry.

MR BIZOS: It's the green inner folder: "Beeld, 20.4.93"

CHAIRPERSON: Anyway it is The Beeld of 20.4.93?

MR BIZOS: Have you got no - H3, The Beeld.

Have you got it Doctor Hartzenberg?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Did you say what appears there?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes. Mr Chair, the CP can be investigated with regard to the murder of Mr Hani because nothing will be found amongst it's ranks, it is not involved in murder. The ANC should rather be investigated and I would say you could have found a better document because these things are quoted from Hansard - it's authentic, my exact words will be recorded in Hansard and I agree with the general drift of this.

MR BIZOS: But what about the first paragraph:

"Here in the Conservative Party ...[intervention]

INTERPRETER: I cannot follow the speaker, I'm very sorry.

MR HARTZENBERG: That is entirely correct.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: Could I just give the interpreter the effect for Mr Walus's benefit - that Mr Derby-Lewis said that the Government wanted to involve the Conservative Party in the murder of Mr Hani, do you agree that you made the whole of that statement as reported?

JUDGE WILSON: ...[inaudible] said Mr Derby-Lewis said.

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, it was not Mr Derby-Lewis who made the statement, it was me.

MR BIZOS: No, no, you know - when one is looking at documents and that sort of thing - you know what I meant, I meant you Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg and I'm sorry that I slipped in that regard - it happens.

Do you know the circumstances of Mr Zondo's case, Doctor Hartzenberg?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, I read in the submission of the ANC in this regard.

MR BIZOS: How old was he?

MR HARTZENBERG: They said he was 19 years of age.

MR BIZOS: And was he a member of MK?

MR HARTZENBERG: I think so.

MR BIZOS: And had he been trained as a fighter by MK?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, he was trained.

MR BIZOS: And was MK the organisation which made it's policy publicly known by a declaration on the 16th of December 1961? - that it would use selective violence for the purpose of achieving a political objective of achieving the freedom of the oppressed people in South Africa, did you know that? - about Mr Zondo.

MR HARTZENBERG: I accept what you say.

MR BIZOS: And did you know that the ANC defined permissible actions that should be performed and should not be performed?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, and in this specific submission, both Mr Tambo and Mr Zondo say that this was not an acceptable or allowable deed and he also says that it was a racist deed.

MR BIZOS: Do you know whether Mr Zondo had access to any more experienced or senior cadre of MK - when he committed this act, to whom he could refer for advice, do you know that?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, I think it is an unreasonable question posed by Mr Bizos, Mr Tromp could perhaps reply.

MR BIZOS: Yes, you have chosen to make a comparison for the Committee's benefit and I merely want to know what facts you knew or did not know. Now, do you know whether he had access to any more senior or more mature person that he could go to when faced with the problem that he was faced with on the day that he put that bomb at the shopping centre, do you know whether he had this facility?

MR HARTZENBERG: Naturally, I won't know Sir but in the submission he said that he thought about the matter for the whole week-end.

MR BIZOS: Did you know whether he acted outside an explicit direction of his organisation?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, I can deduce that from the submission, I deduce that from the submission.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Bizos, I don't know how far you want to go with this Zondo thing but sure it's a collateral issue.

MR BIZOS: It is Mr Chairman, it is, I agree that it's a completely collateral issue but the witness has made two or three references to it and trying to compare the situation there with the situation that Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus found and what I am busy doing is - in order to try and test the witnesses credibility and fair-mindedness in the introduction of the Zondo case into these proceedings.

I merely want to place the facts on the record for the purposes of argument because I believe with respect, that he actually is harping on this in order that the Committee should possibly be influenced but different cases have different facts and I think that one he relies on it in that manner, I am entitled to ask the questions.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, I appreciate that but there may have to be a limit somewhere. I appreciate that because surely you don't expect us - when we consider the merits of this case, to delve into Zondo's case or to allow it to have some bearing on us?

MR BIZOS: Well, I'll be happy ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: We don't know it, we'll never get the full facts of that case before us.

MR BIZOS: No, I'm sure not, I ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Well, that's what causes me difficulty and I disagree with respect, with my brother because if one accepts what Mr Hartzenberg has said, we granted amnesty in the Zondo case.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible]

JUDGE WILSON: Well, I don't think we did but that was what Mr Hartzenberg said.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: He actually was executed Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, he was referring to a different case.

JUDGE WILSON: ...[inaudible] another case that he referred to.

MR BIZOS: He was actually convicted, sentenced to death and executed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Bizos, you can rest assured that as far as this Committee is concerned, it is going to judge the facts of this case on the facts ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I will leave it, I will leave it ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We will not take into account ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I will leave it on that basis. I very briefly want to make reference Mr Chairman, to Mr Chris Botha's case in Pretoria - Koos Botha in Pretoria, do you know how much damage Mr Koos Botha's act caused?

MR HARTZENBERG: I can't tell you precisely but it apparently was substantial damage. [Transcriber's own translation]

MR BIZOS: Well, you don't know how much it was?

MR HARTZENBERG: No.

MR BIZOS: And do you know whether anybody was injured?

MR HARTZENBERG: Not as far as I know.

MR BIZOS: Do you know whether - before he was granted amnesty, whether he had been granted indemnity in terms of the Further Indemnity Act of 1992?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, if you say so, I accept it but the fact is that it is from the proceedings of this Committee that it became clear that he had obtained amnesty and if you say he received indemnity, I accept that.

MR BIZOS: Well, I am not sure - we are checking it, but I merely asked you whether you knew. We will look at the gazettes as to whether indemnity had been granted to Mr Botha.

You got a file from Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR HARTZENBERG: That's correct, I told you that yesterday.

MR BIZOS: If I may have a moment with the exhibits file.

Was Exhibit A(e)1 amongst the papers that she handed to you?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, I didn't open the file, Mrs Derby-Lewis gave me a file and told me that in the file there was much material for a speech regarding a topic which would deal with the champions for the poor who were living in the lap of luxury.

That was during a week where a debate was taking place regarding the opening speech of the State President and I told you yesterday, at that stage there were agreements entered into by the ANC and the Government which were not upheld and which were discussed in that debate - COSAC was discussed in that debate and I had to reply to those cases and matters.

Those were the events of the day and therefore I told Mrs Derby-Lewis I couldn't study the file on this other topic and talk about it in this debate because it was not relevant at the time and it was not a current issue - I returned to file to Mrs Derby-Lewis, I did not study the file.

MR BIZOS: You did not even open it?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, I never opened it.

MR BIZOS: Was there anything on top of the file?

MR HARTZENBERG: I cannot remember at all.

MR BIZOS: Did she leave anything on your desk?

MR HARTZENBERG: Except for the file?

MR BIZOS: Besides that file?

MR HARTZENBERG: Except for the file, I can't remember anything - I cannot reply to this in the affirmative or in the negative.

MR BIZOS: She did not show you or put on your desk a list of names?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, she told me that there was the file, I could find information regarding the luxury in which the people of the Communist Party and so-called champions were living.

MR BIZOS: She did not give you nor did she leave on your desk - for your special attention, a list of names?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, I cannot remember that Sir.

MR BIZOS: I'm going to put to you Doctor Hartzenberg, that people speak the truth about these matters, when they speak the first time and the policy of your Party was well and truly described by you in very clear terms in April '93, as it was also clearly described by other leading members of your Party.

MR HARTZENBERG: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?

ADV MPSHE: Mr Chairman, there are no questions thank you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Doctor Hartzenberg, I appreciate your statement that you supported and indeed even now, you still support Mr Derby-Lewis because you feel that he might have subjectively interpreted the policy and the events in the way that he did, you sympathise with him in that regard, what is not clear to me is whether your support and understanding of his subjective interpretation of the events goes so far as to cause the CP to approve of what the applicants did - please tell me if you don't understand my question.

MR HARTZENBERG: No, I think I do understand it clearly and I think yes, that I actually applied to it but could I use an example to explain this? If my child gives me a Xmas present and it is a present which I don't like but I know that it comes with the best and good intentions - that this gift is given, I do not return the gift and tell him that I don't want it, I accept it and I express my appreciation for the good spirit in which the gift was given.

I said yesterday that we did not approve of what happened but we accept that it was done in a certain spirit and a certain attitude which the applicants thought would serve the cause of the CP and that I accept unequivocally, in the same way that I would accept my child's good spirit in which a gift would be given.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So the core of your reply - the essence, is that the CP did not approve the deed?

MR HARTZENBERG: I said that yesterday and I maintain that we did not approve of the deed but we accept unconditionally that the applicant had thought to be acting for the CP, as far as I'm concerned he's not a murderer, he didn't do it for money, it was for no other purpose than a political purpose - the cause of the CP.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Hartzenberg, I just want to get your opinion. If it can be accepted that indeed Mr Derby-Lewis believed that by killing Mr Hani, he was furthering the cause of the CP, would you not have expected him - as a prominent member of the CP and quite a senior and found member of the CP, to have advised you - the Deputy Leader of the CP, of what he was about to embark upon?

MR HARTZENBERG: That one would expect, that it could happen but with such a serious matter on could also - I could also understand that Mr Clive Derby-Lewis felt that he was involving himself in this matter but he wouldn't involve anybody else.

MS KHAMPEPE: Why would he not involve anyone else if he believed - bona fides believed, that what he was about to do was in the cause - was in the interest of the Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: I there could be various reasons for doing so, it could have brought his operation into - it could have placed a risk on the carrying out of his operation but as I've said the CP did not approve of this but if - through the deed of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, we could maintain our liberty we wouldn't have said: "No thanks, we don't want to be free", we would have accepted it.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Hartzenberg, what ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: Microphone?

JUDGE WILSON: ...[inaudible] look at Mr Walus's evidence, is that he says what they anticipated was chaos and civil war breaking out, an almost immediate intervention by the army and the police and thereafter right-wing Afrikaner elements seeking power. Now, surely if he envisaged something of that nature, he would have discussed it with you so that you and other persons were ready to take action.

MR HARTZENBERG: Well, that didn't happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr ...[intervention]

ADV POTGIETER: Sorry, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Derby-Lewis, you talked about the slogan - my apologies, Doctor Hartzenberg, you talked about the slogan of: "The Third Freedom Struggle" and you talked the mobilisation plan which had begun, now in that mobilisation plan was there specific reference to the fact that part of the plan was to murder the political opponents of the Conservative Party?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, Sir.

ADV POTGIETER: Doctor Hartzenberg, just to take the point that Ms Khampepe made a bit further, if Mr Derby-Lewis had approached you before this incident, you or the leadership of the CP would have told him quite clearly that the CP doesn't approve of this kind of conduct and it certainly does not fall within the policy of the Party, would that be correct?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, we would probably have acted in the way that Mr Tambo had acted and said: "No, don't do it".

ADV POTGIETER: So in other words I a not talking ex-post facto after having received the gift, I'm talking about beforehand.

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, I'm saying we would probably have maintained the same point of view, if he'd come to ask we would have taken the same point of view that Mr Tambo had taken with regard to Mr Zondo.

ADV POTGIETER: And under those circumstances - if he had done so, you wouldn't have received that gift which wouldn't been acceptable but which you had to accept?

MR HARTZENBERG: Well, if he had to come and asked us and we had said: "No" and he had done that regardless - which I don't think he would have done, but for his own subjective reasons he preferred not to do it and we accepted - and this often happens in politics, that somebody does something in the heat of the battle, which is contrary to the policy of the Party but we accept that sometimes somebody there involved in what is happening still does this, then you do not reject this person, you accept that he still stands for the same cause and you continue on the road with that person.

ADV POTGIETER: I accept that, thank you.

MS KHAMPEPE: Just to make a follow-up Doctor Hartzenberg, one can also accept that no member of the CP - particularly because Mr Derby-Lewis was a member of the CP caucus, could make a decision on his own which impinges on issues of policy without the approval of the Executive Committee of the Party, can we accept that?

MR HARTZENBERG: I would accept that but I would like to say that in a situation where tension runs high, where people are killed around you, where people say - like Mr Hani, that Whites should be killed, where it says parliamentarians should be - where there has been more than one assault on the life of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, I can understand that he had said: "Now I have to go over to action" to steer this situation on a new course.

CHAIRPERSON: Doctor Hartzenberg, around April 1993 when this had happened, Mr Hani had long ceased engaging in the activities that he had, he was now openly propagating to solve the problems by peaceful means, is that not so?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, Chair, I deny that very strongly, I dispute that strongly because Mr Hani at that stage was busy establishing this army which had to serve as a backdoor - that should negotiations not go according to plan, those 10.000 people would be deployed.

And if Mr Hani had come to new insights, then it was in such a way that the world was not aware of this because Mr Tambo repudiated him shortly before regarding statements he had made which actually jeopardised the negotiation process and if one were to consider all these facts, then Mr Hani was still dedicated to a violent take-over.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any re-examination?

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chair, I haven't had the opportunity - if I could just ask a question or two?

Doctor Hartzenberg, you testified yesterday or gave evidence with regard to a motion of the Conservative Party which was accepted regarding the case of Mr Derby-Lewis, this motion which you referred to, was that accepted on 4 October 1997 or which was started then?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, this motion was accepted by a CP Congress on that date, I have a copy of the motion here.

MS VAN DER WALT: I am showing a signed motion, is that it?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, this is the signed version, that is the correct motion.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chair, I would like permission to hand this up as A(f), it is signed by the Secretary of the CP as dated and this is the motion referred to by the witness. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, I have a copy which I would like to discuss with the applicant - to which my attention had been drawn, could we ask for a short adjournment as it is time for tea, then I can take up this issue with him?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it isn't actually time for tea but I want to know whether you can't proceed with whatever else you have to deal with in re-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, I have to clarify this matter, there is no other matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this some matter that arose as a result of the questioning by Mr Bizos?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I haven't spoken to him, he just given me an indication that he wants to say something to me.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll take an adjournment at this stage and resume in 15 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hartzenberg, you're still under oath.

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: (s.u.o.)

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Honourable Chair, for you your patience and the adjournment.

Doctor Hartzenberg, you testified under cross-examination by Mr Bizos, that the negotiations at Kempton Park - from the word go,

was to doomed to failure as far as your Party saw it.

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, I said that for a careful observer, it would be clear that it was actually a farce but we gave negotiations a chance and we gave it the benefit of the doubt because a careful observer would - from the word go, have noticed that it wouldn't be successful for us.

MR PRINSLOO: Did any of the parties who were involved in the negotiations have a double agenda, one of negotiation and on the other hand violence?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, we accepted that and we realised that if we looked at the violence that occurred and the people who were killed during that period, this is proof that parties who were involved in the negotiations also used other actions - mass actions and violence, to achieve their goals.

And I think it is clear that after the ANC had failed in CODESSA, it said it would go over to violence - it would start with violence, and this actually led to the Record of Understanding and this is where the final negotiations were contained.

MR PRINSLOO: Could there have been people in the CP who might have thought that there were two options, one of violence and one of negotiation - in the light of the circumstances and the climate which prevailed at the time?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, Sir, I think it is possible that there were people in the CP who thought we were naive, we just negotiated, we were not availing ourselves of this other option to add ...[indistinct] to our cause and that this had to be done and they went to do this on their own.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair, there is a question that I would like to put to the witness which did not arise in evidence in chief and during cross-examination, could I put it as single question Honourable Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may put it.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Honourable Chair.

Mr Derby-Lewis testified that it also - that one of his reason for murdering Mr Chris Hani, was to unite the Afrikaner leaders, was such a reason achievable?

MR HARTZENBERG: Mr Chair, I did not do an analysis of the causes which brought together Afrikaner leaders, that is something that happened after the death of Mr Hani - during the first discussions of Afrikaner leaders which took place at the end of April.

The Volksfront was established at the beginning of May, it could have contributed, it did not make the uniting of the Afrikaner leaders fail or not but it could have played a role.

MR PRINSLOO: I have no further questions Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: In fairness to you Mr Bizos ...[intervention]

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Yes, there are one or two questions that I would like to ask in connection with the answers that were given to the Committee and to answers in re-examination.

Doctor Hartzenberg, you were asked by the Chairman of the Committee where or not Mr Hani was advocating negotiations in peace at the time of his death, did you ever bother to read any of the documents or any of the speeches of Mr Hani made from the end of '92 to April '93?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, all the documents which were made available to me I read, and these documents actually showed exactly the opposite.

MR BIZOS: No documents were ever placed before you - before you gave evidence here, which were proved in this hearing as to what Mr Hani's role in negotiations were?

MR HARTZENBERG: I knew that Mr Kronen submitted a document which attempted to prove the opposite but I didn't read it.

MR BIZOS: I want to put to you that this document of which you know about and which was produced in Parliament, that that document saying that there was going to be a secret army of 10.000 and that sort of thing, that that was a document produced in Parliament of suspect origins - I don't want to go into the merits and demerits of it, of suspect origins, do you agree with that? Did people in Parliament - in which the ANC was not at the time, refute that document?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, we accepted it as an authoritive source of information, the other information which we had was for example, the Douglas Report, other Reports of the Freedom Foundation and newspaper reports regarding a trial in America which took - that was in the House of Parliament in front of Jeremaiha Denton and these all confirmed and this testimony was under oath.

So the evidence that we had at our disposal which I think was at the disposal of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, was information which indicated that Mr Hani is a self-confessed murderer and that he had been linked - that he was committed to achieving Communist take-over and if it had to be through violence, he would do so.

MR BIZOS: Do you know whether or not the document that you were relying on was discredited at any time as a STRATCOM document?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, we didn't know that.

MR BIZOS: And did you know that - perporting to come from the Intelligence Department, the National Party did not take it all seriously, did you know that - because they possibly knew of it's doubtful authentic origins?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, I wasn't aware.

MR BIZOS: Now, Mr Derby-Lewis, I found your - sorry, Doctor Hartzenberg, I found your Xmas present statement a little confusing, if Mr Walus's evidence is to be believed, the Xmas present that you were delivered was the murder of Mr Chris Hani which he hoped would lead to revolution in which hundreds if not thousands of people would die for the purposes of the right-wing taking over power - as was pointed out to you by Justice Wilson, is that the Xmas or Easter present that you wanted or is it just an unfortunate way in which you expressed yoursef?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, I tried to attempt by that means to say that I accepted the spirit, that the attitude with which the two gentlemen did what they did, it was one in which they used the point of departure that they served the cause of the Conservative Party.

MR BIZOS: But what about the meaning of the present and the purpose of the present and ...[intervention]

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, I didn't attach any further meaning to it, all that meant was that it was done in good spirit in the cause that they stood for.

MR BIZOS: Well, for a Party with a non-violent policy to regard murder as a present, is hardly appropriate language.

MR HARTZENBERG: I didn't say I regarded it as a present, I said it in order to show the spirit in which it took place and that is the reason why we are standing with them, I told you from the beginning that I accepted that these gentlemen had acted for the sake of the cause of the Conservative Party.

JUDGE WILSON: And having accepted that, did it not matter what they had done? Is that the position that you've adopted, that once you accept they did it for the cause of the Conservative Party, it does not matter what they did?

MR HARTZENBERG: No, Judge, I think I stated that the Conservative Party did not approve what had happened.

MR BIZOS: Arising out of your re-examination I want to ask you one question, you took part in the negotiations in April, May, June and a portion of July, did you intend to convey - by your answers to your counsel in re-examination, that you were there for mere appearances sake or were you serious about participating in the negotiations?

MR HARTZENBERG: We were seriously participating in negotiations, we said from the beginning things happened - from the first day, that things had been worked out beforehand but we gave the benefit of the doubt to negotiations, we said: "Let's do our best, let's state our case to the best of our ability, we would not be prejudice and not allow things to happen" but everyday things happened that confirmed that this thing had bee pre-agreed.

MR BIZOS: Do you regard mass action as violent action?

MR HARTZENBERG: Yes, Sir, if I look at how many cars were damamged, how many shop windows were broken, how many properties were damaged and even people were injured, then I think mass action is - by implication, violent action.

MR BIZOS: Did it ever come to your notice that many marches and other mass action organised by the ANC and it's partners went of peacefully?

MR HARTZENBERG: My impression was that most did not take place peacefully.

MR BIZOS: Finally I want to put to you this - perhaps with the permission of the Committee because it doesn't actually arise.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: Yes, the final question Mr Chairman.

Doctor Hartzenberg, would you accept that had it not been for Mr Mandela's and Mr Segwale's intervention after the murder of Mr Hani, calling upon the people not to go over to violence and relying particularly on the fact that an Afrkaner women actually pointed out Walus and was responsible for his immediate arrest, helped quite considerably in order to avoid the disasterous consequences of the plan that Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus put into effect, will you accept that?

MR HARTZENBERG: Sir, I cannot express an authoritative opinion but it is possible.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much.

MR HARTZENBERG: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we've reached the stage now - up to the last witness, there's only one problem we have and that is with Mr Arthur Kemp. We are informed - and that's always been the position, that he's in England and we can't get him here, so if the Committee wishes to call him at some stage but it's not an indication that we don't want to call him and we're not - but if it's necessary to call him, we'll call him but his evidence is on record as far as the trial is concerned, so we have the difficulty that he's in England Mr Chairman and we havn't got the funds to bring him here, that's another problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm going to switch my machine off, don't ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: That's an excellent suggestion Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Apart from that, is the position that you're calling no further witnesses?

MR PRINSLOO: Apart from that, we're not calling any further witnesses but certain witnesses are on the list of the Committee in any event Mr Chairman, so we're not calling them.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Over to you Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: We have a witness who is waiting to be called ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: Microphone?

MR BIZOS: A witness to be called by us is Mrs Theresa Beyers. Perhaps we could get her to sit on that side of the table there Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] be convenient.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Bizos, if the chair is put there for her, couldn't this other table be put in front of her and you could put the microphone on it?

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Beyers, are you prepared to take the oath?

THERESA BEYERS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mrs Beyers, where do you live Madam?

MRS BEYERS: In 3-13th Avenue, Houghton.

MR BIZOS: And where does President Mandela live?

MRS BEYERS: At number 4-13th Avenue, Houghton.

MR BIZOS: Your house must have acquired quite a lot of value?

MRS BEYERS: Hopefully.

MR BIZOS: For how long have you been living there Mrs Beyers?

MRS BEYERS: 17 years.

MR BIZOS: Speak up towards the Committee because we must all hear, the Committee and the applicants and the counsel on the other side, so please speak up.

When did Mr Mandela move over the road from you?

MRS BEYERS: In May - I can't remember, May '91 - May '92.

MR BIZOS: May '92?

MRS BEYERS: May '92.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And is his house under guard?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, it is.

MR BIZOS: And on a particular day, do you recall the day that you saw something unusual on your street?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, it was the 12th of July 1992.

MR BIZOS: Now, how do you fix this date Mrs Beyers?

MRS BEYERS: We were going to an engagement party, so that's how I remembered it.

MR BIZOS: And what time did you decide to set off for the engagement party?

MRS BEYERS: It was probably about 5 o'clock - 5H00/5H30.

MR BIZOS: This would be in winter, was it already dark or was there light?

MRS BEYERS: No, it was still light.

MR BIZOS: And you say that you intended going to an engagement party, who were - you or ...[intervention]

MRS BEYERS: It was me, my husband and my daughter and her boyfriend.

MR BIZOS: What did you see when you emerged from your driveway?

MRS BEYERS: My husband came out the drive and turned left and made an error, he should have turned right to go onto the motor-way, so he did a U-turn in the road and we saw a white bakkie parked on the pavement - our pavement, over the road from Mr Mandela's house. We then drove down to Central Avenue, turned right and this ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: What did this bakkie do when you made the U-turn?

MRS BEYERS: The bakkie pulled off straight away - as soon as we'd made a U-turn, the bakkie pulled off and drove down the road towards Central Avenue - drove down 13th Avenue, towards Central Avenue.

MR BIZOS: Drove westwards?

MRS BEYERS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Towards Central Avenue.

MRS BEYERS: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: And how far is your house and Mr Mandela's house from the corner of ...[intervention]

MRS BEYERS: Two houses.

MR BIZOS: Two houses?

MRS BEYERS: Two houses from Central.

MR BIZOS: From the corner of Central and ...[intervention]

MRS BEYERS: From the corner of Central and 13th Avenue.

MR BIZOS: Did he drive off in a leisurely fashion?

MRS BEYERS: No, he wasn't in a leisurely - he didn't drive off in a leisurely fashion, it was quite quick. We then turned right into Central Avenue where this car was in front of us and we caught up with him again on the bridge - on the motor-way, the Glenhove Road bridge where - because of the strange behaviour, we had a look at the car and the occupants - there were three of us and my husband was obviously driving, he couldn't see, we saw a white bakkie with a man in the bakkie talking obviously on - I presume, on a two-way radio. He had - there were no number plates at the back of the bakkie and there were bullet holes in the side - the driver's side of the bakkie.

MR BIZOS: Did you consider this a usual or an unusual event - having regard to Mr Mandela's position?

MRS BEYERS: We were a bit suspicious because President Mandela was living over the road and because he'd driven away - we hadn't noticed him to start with, but because he drove away so quickly, we were suspicious and when we got to the function I phone the President's security to say: "Please be on the alert".

MR BIZOS: When you stopped on the Central Street and...[intervention]

MRS BEYERS: Glenhove Road bridge.

MR BIZOS: Glenhove Road bridge, did you have a look at the driver?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, I did.

MR BIZOS: Did you have a good look at him?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, I did.

MR BIZOS: Is he anywhere here?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, it's Mr Walus.

MR BIZOS: When did you connect what you saw on the 12th of July ...[intervention]

MRS BEYERS: After Mr Hani was assassinated and we saw the photographs in the newspaper, that was when we connected.

MR BIZOS: Did you report this to anyone?

MRS BEYERS: No, we just mentioned it - in passing, to the President when he came for lunch one day.

MR BIZOS: You say, from the party you telephoned ...[intervention]

MRS BEYERS: We telephoned the President's house to alert his housekeeper and the security.

MR BIZOS: That was on the 12th of July?

MRS BEYERS: That was on the 12th of July.

MR BIZOS: Is there any doubt in your mind that the driver of that White bakkie was Mr Walus?

MRS BEYERS: No.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Any cross-examination?

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to just have my microphone seen to, it's not working properly.

Mrs Beyers, on the 12th of July ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] give the witness.

MS VAN DER WALT: On the 12th of July 1992, you allegedly saw Mr Walus in this bakkie, when did you then see the photograph?

MRS BEYERS: After Mr Hani was assassinated.

MS VAN DER WALT: So, that was after the 10th of April 1993?

MRS BEYERS: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now, can you give a description of the bakkie?

MRS BEYERS: It was a white bakkie.

MS VAN DER WALT: What kind?

MRS BEYERS: I've no idea.

MS VAN DER WALT: But then how can you recall the finer details of Mr Walus but you can't tell the Committee what type of bakkie it was?

MRS BEYERS: As I said, when the President moved over the road from us we were aware of a security risk, so when the bakkie pulled away, we didn't see the type but we did notice it had no number plates at the back and there were bullet holes in the side but I'm afraid I didn't get the make.

MS VAN DER WALT: It seems rather strange to me that you can recall all those other details but a statement was made by Mr Bizos that it was a Hi-Lux bakkie.

MRS BEYERS: I don't think to here - I didn't say it was a Hi-Lux.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: Microphone?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mrs Beyers, you say that your husband made a wrong turn as he exited your gates?

MRS BEYERS: ...[inaudible]

MS VAN DER WALT: Is your house opposite Mr Mandela's house?

MRS BEYERS: ...[inaudible]

MS VAN DER WALT: Where exactly was the bakkie parked?

MRS BEYERS: ...[inaudible]

MS VAN DER WALT: Is it immediately in front of your house?

MRS BEYERS: No, where the bakkie was parked is part of my property, it was in front of my tennis court and the President's house is over the road from my tennis court, it's a sub-division.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you left your property, did you immediately see the bakkie?

MRS BEYERS: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why not?

MRS BEYERS: We weren't looking for it, it was only we did - came out of the drive, turned left, did a U-turn, we were aware of the bakkie pulling off the road. If the bakkie hadn't have moved we would have noticed it and it could have been friends of the staff.

MS VAN DER WALT: In your evidence you said that he didn't drive off in a slow way but he actually had quite a bit of speed as he pulled away.

MRS BEYERS: It wasn't speed but it was fast.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did your husband immediately pursue the bakkie?

MRS BEYERS: No, not at all, not at all, the bakkie happened to have been going to same way as we did and when we came upon the bakkie - when we drove next to the bakkie on the motor-way, that's when we looked at all the details.

MS VAN DER WALT: So, you weren't giving chase, so it would seem as if the bakkie was also not in any great hurry, it wasn't speeding?

MRS BEYERS: It wasn't speeding but it was going fast.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you just followed, according to your evidence?

MRS BEYERS: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: In a normal manner?

MRS BEYERS: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you give a description of the bullet holes that you saw, where exactly were these holes?

MRS BEYERS: The bullet holes were on the driver's side and no, I can't give you a description of the bullet holes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Pardon me, you can't do what? You can't give any further description?

MRS BEYERS: The bullet holes were on the driver's side - I mean, there were bullet holes in the - on the driver's side of the door - bullet holes in the door of the bakkie.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, but where exactly and how many bullet holes and were they all together or were they spread out - you observed these things?

MRS BEYERS: There were more than one - I don't know how many and - no, I don't know where they were but there were quite a few and the bullet holes were noticed by my daughter and her boyfriend.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you didn't even see it?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: How do you know that these were bullet holes?

MRS BEYERS: Because I've seen pictures of cars with bullet holes in them.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, but you didn't stop, you drove past - past the bakkie.

MRS BEYERS: No, we were - the robot was red, we were parked side by side.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then - according to your evidence, you observed Mr Walus and you then phone the President's home just to inform them?

MRS BEYERS: Correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you receive any further feedback from the President's staff or guards afterwards?

MRS BEYERS: No, we didn't.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mrs Beyers, when you saw the photograph of Mr Walus for the first time in the newspaper, why didn't you immediately go to the police?

MRS BEYERS: I've no idea.

MS VAN DER WALT: Surely it was a very important matter that was being investigated, it received wide media coverage, a lot was written about a so-called greater or bigger conspiracy and to this day you never went to the police to tell them this - according to you, important information, is that correct?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, it is but I didn't - I don't know, I don't know why I didn't go to the police.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because if it was so important and it was a bakkie with bullet holes in the door and you saw this man who had killed Mr Hani, then surely you could have prevented further problems by going to the police because you were acting as somebody who was protecting the State President?

MRS BEYERS: I don't know why I didn't - I don't know why I didn't go to the police.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then, why did you come forward now?

MRS BEYERS: The President spoke to Mr Bizos and Mr Bizos asked me to come through.

MS VAN DER WALT: So the President got in touch with Mr Bizos? - I didn't hear the answer?

MRS BEYERS: I think that's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So, Mr Mandela, the President, he would also have known from the 12th of July 1992, and the whole cabinet I think or Parliament ought to have known that the Commission was investigating a bigger conspiracy but right up until this minute, no mention is made of your evidence.

MRS BEYERS: I don't think that is correct at all, it was a while after that Mr Mandela knew and it certainly - I don't think, was a conspiracy thing.

MS VAN DER WALT: You said it was sometimes afterwards, after what that Mr Mandela did something?

MRS BEYERS: No, I spoke to Mr Mandela a couple of months after Mr Hani had been assassinated, I don't think Mr Mandela would have talked to - you say - I think you said cabinet or whatever, I think he just probably stored it away, I don't know.

MS VAN DER WALT: But Mr Mandela only contacted Mr Bizos now?

MRS BEYERS: I don't know, I've no idea.

MR BIZOS: I don't know that the witness would know when the President spoke to me Mr Chairman. If counsel wants me to make a statement as to when the President spoke to me, I'm prepared to make it but I don't think that I should ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think we just suffice because she would obviously say she doesn't know when Mr Mandela spoke to Mr Bizos.

MS VAN DER WALT: What kind of clothing was Mr Walus wearing on that particular day?

MRS BEYERS: A camouflage top.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what else, was he wearing something on his head, was he trying to conceal his face?

MRS BEYERS: No, he was driving and as I say, he was talking on what appeared to be a two-way radio.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why do you say: "It appeared as if he was speaking on a two-way radio"?

MRS BEYERS: Well, if it was today, I would have said he was talking on a cell phone.

MS VAN DER WALT: So, you're not even sure what exactly he was doing?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, I am, he was talking with something in his hand - he was talking into something in his hand.

MS VAN DER WALT: You're saying: "As if it appeared"?

MRS BEYERS: It could have been a microphone, it could have been a two-way radio.

MS VAN DER WALT: You aren't even sure?

MRS BEYERS: I am sure that he was talking on something he was - I am sure, he was holding something in his hand - I am sure and he was talking into something he was holding in his hand.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was his hairstyle like at the time?

MRS BEYERS: It was longer than it is now.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment Chairperson. Thank you Chair.

You said that his hair was longer than it is today?

MRS BEYERS: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: How long, can you estimate for the Committee?

MRS BEYERS: No, I can't.

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon, I couldn't hear.

MRS BEYERS: No, I can't.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

MRS BEYERS: Was there anything else which he was wearing which you could perhaps point out for the Committee's benefit? You say he was wearing a camouflage top and his hair was longer, was there anything else?

MRS BEYERS: No, I didn't see anything else.

MS VAN DER WALT: You've thought carefully about this?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, I have.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because Mr Walus wears glasses, he cannot drive without wearing his spectacles.

MRS BEYERS: I didn't notice.

MS VAN DER WALT: But I'm putting it to you that that is the case.

MRS BEYERS: I accept that.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you didn't tell the Commission that he was wearing glasses on that day?

MRS BEYERS: I didn't see him wearing glasses.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Walus also has always worn his hair as short as it is now and that is also how it appeared on the photograph in the newspaper, he was depicted with short hair as he is now. I put it to you that Mr Walus has never driven a bakkie with bullet holes in the side and he was most definitely not - on the 12th of July 1992, at Mr Mandela's residence, at a later stage he was there but definitely not on the 12th of July.

MRS BEYERS: I saw Mr Walus on the 12th of July.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions to put?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs Beyers, what time did you say you saw this bakkie opposite the road from you?

MRS BEYERS: About 5H00 - just after 5H00, I can't give you an exact time because I don't know but it was after 5H00, we were going to a cocktail party.

MR PRINSLOO: You said in your evidence ...[inaudible] between half past 5H00 and 6H00.

CHAIRPERSON: No.

JUDGE WILSON: That's not what she said, she said 5H00 to 5H30.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, thank you Mr Chairman.

You say between 5H00 and 5H30, is that correct?

MRS BEYERS: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: For what distance did you follow that vehicle that you saw - this bakkie?

MRS BEYERS: From Central Avenue to the motor-way.

MR PRINSLOO: How far is that?

MRS BEYERS: I've no idea, a couple of blocks.

MR PRINSLOO: And if I put it to you that this year - on the 12th of July 1997, the sun set at 17H32, would it be more or less the time that the sun was setting at that stage?

MRS BEYERS: I have no idea, but it was light.

MR PRINSLOO: So, if the sun did set at approximately that time on the 12th of July 1992, then would it have been just before sunset or after sunset?

MRS BEYERS: It was before sunset.

MR PRINSLOO: If you say: "Just before sunset", can you be more specific, where was the sun at that stage?

MRS BEYERS: I really have no idea, I have no idea, but it was light.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have your vehicle lights on at that stage?

MRS BEYERS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: You do remember that?

MRS BEYERS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: How come you remember such detail?

MRS BEYERS: Because when it's light, I don't put my car lights on.

CHAIRPERSON: Please.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mrs Beyers, you are aware that when Mr Walus and Mr Derby-Lewis and his wife were charged with the murder of Mr Chris Hani, there was also allegations made of a list of people which included the President, Mr Mandela, are you aware of that?

MRS BEYERS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And despite that, you didn't go to the police and tell them you saw Mr Walus at the President's house?

MRS BEYERS: I've already said that.

MR PRINSLOO: But why didn't you go, you knew that was vital evidence?

MRS BEYERS: I don't know why I didn't go to the police.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Beyers, who did you speak to at the President's house, to whom did you report?

MRS BEYERS: I spoke to his housekeeper who alerted the guards.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

MRS BEYERS: To the housekeeper who alerted the guards.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the name of the housekeeper?

MRS BEYERS: Mrs Chrissie Fortuin.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you give her a description of the person you saw?

MRS BEYERS: No, I didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you give a description of the vehicle you saw?

MRS BEYERS: No, I didn't - yes, I did, I said there was a white bakkie.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that all you said?

MRS BEYERS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: No other description other than being a white bakkie?

MRS BEYERS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Nothing about no number plates?

MRS BEYERS: It wasn't relevant at the time, it was just a suspicious vehicle that was on the pavement.

MR PRINSLOO: The question is Mrs Beyers: "No other detail besides the fact that it was a white bakkie"?

MRS BEYERS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say you identified Mr Walus in a newspaper, is that correct?

MRS BEYERS: That's correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Which newspaper was that?

MRS BEYERS: I can't remember.

MR PRINSLOO: You cannot recall that

MRS BEYERS: It could have been The Star, Citizen, I have no idea.

MR PRINSLOO: Did somebody point it out to you or did you see it of your accord or did you ...[intervention]

MRS BEYERS: I saw it of my own accord.

MR PRINSLOO: When was that Mrs Beyers?

MRS BEYERS: I also can't remember a date but it was soon after Mr Hani was assassinated.

MR PRINSLOO: And have you still got that newspaper?

MRS BEYERS: No, I haven't.

MR PRINSLOO: But you can't - can you say what photo of Mr Walus you saw?

MRS BEYERS: No, I can't.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it a full photo, just a face or what?

MRS BEYERS: I really can't remember, it must have been a face for me to have recognised him.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you recognise it from the side or from the front or what Mrs Beyers?

MRS BEYERS: I really can't remember.

MR PRINSLOO: Are there any outstanding features by which you were able to identify Mr Walus when you saw him on that particular which you allege you saw him?

MRS BEYERS: I think Mr Walus has a distinctive face.

MR PRINSLOO: Distinctive in what sense Mrs Beyers?

MRS BEYERS: ...[indistinct]

MR PRINSLOO: You're now looking at him, at that stage ...[intervention]

MRS BEYERS: I am looking at him, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, tell the Committee please.

MRS BEYERS: Possibly his profile which is what I saw his face on - profile.

MR PRINSLOO: What you saw on the 12th of July 1992 and then you were able - in a newspaper after the 10th of April 1993, to identify the same person?

MRS BEYERS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say you spoke to the President, Mr Mandela a couple of months after Mr Hani's death?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, I'm not exactly sure when it was but it was after Mr Hani's death.

MR PRINSLOO: But if I recall correctly - I don't want to misquote you, did you say it was a couple of months after Mr Hani's death?

MRS BEYERS: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: When you say: "It's a couple of months", what do you mean by that?

MRS BEYERS: Six weeks, eight weeks, five weeks - a couple of months.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you say to Mr Mandela?

MRS BEYERS: It was in passing that ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: No, but what did you say to him?

MRS BEYERS: That there was a bakkie that was parked on his - our pavement, watching his house on the 12th of July.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that all you said to him?

MRS BEYERS: No, probably a lot more but that was the basis of the thing and that we - it was with Mr Walus.

MR PRINSLOO: Pardon?

MRS BEYERS: That it was Mr Walus.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Walus?

MRS BEYERS: In the bakkie, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the President's reaction to you with regard to that?

MRS BEYERS: He didn't say - oh, I see.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that all?

MRS BEYERS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: He didn't ask you where the bakkie was precisely parked or what the bakkie did?

MRS BEYERS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Nothing of the sort?

MRS BEYERS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mrs Beyers, you are aware that the trial of these three accused - at the time, took in October 1993?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, I am.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it prior or subsequent to the trial that you told the President, Mr Mandela - with regard to this incident?

MRS BEYERS: It must have been before.

MR PRINSLOO: Beforehand?

MRS BEYERS: No, no, no, I don't know - no, it was before, it was before the trial.

MR PRINSLOO: You appear to be unsure of yourself Mrs Beyers?

MRS BEYERS: It was before the trial.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

MRS BEYERS: It was before the trial.

MR PRINSLOO: But why were you hesitant about this now?

MRS BEYERS: Because I had to think.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there anything that caused you not to be sure?

JUDGE WILSON: Well, is there anything that causes you to be sure it was before the trial?

...[Tape blank]

MRS BEYERS: ...[inaudible] after the trial obviously we read a lot - I read a lot more about Mr Hani and Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR PRINSLOO: ...[inaudible] - I beg your pardon, subsequent to the trial Mrs Beyers that you read a lot about them or before?

MRS BEYERS: I read about both of them before the trial and then after the trial but it certainly was before the trial that I spoke to the President.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you - for the first time, become aware that Mr Mandela's name was linked to this particular trial of Mr Hani?

MRS BEYERS: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please Mr Chairman, just one second please. Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?

ADV MPSHE: ...[inaudible]

NO QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS

JUDGE NGOEPE: If I may ask, I assume your husband was driving?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, that's correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And I would assume that you were sitting next to him, at the time when the traffic light was red and both vehicles were stationery, were you behind the bakkie?

MRS BEYERS: No, we were next to the bakkie.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Which side?

MRS BEYERS: We were going onto the motor-way and the bakkie was in the middle lane, so were turning right onto the motor-way and the bakkie was going up towards Glenhove.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I'm not sure I have the picture, but on which side would the bakkie be - on which side?

MRS BEYERS: On my left.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I see. And how close were you to - was there another lane - empty lane in-between the two vehicles?

MRS BEYERS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was there another vehicle in-between the two vehicles?

MRS BEYERS: No.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you .

JUDGE WILSON: I'm not quite sure if I understand you, you've just said there was an empty lane between you but I thought you said before that you were in the turning right lane and he was in the centre lane?

MRS BEYERS: Yes, when I say there was an empty lane - there was nothing in-between, we were going right onto the motor-way and he was in the ...[inaudible]

JUDGE WILSON: Was he in the lane next to you?

MRS BEYERS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR BIZOS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Thanks very much.

MR BIZOS: May the ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly, she's excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, we have another witness ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Please! Yes, Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] yesterday Mr Chairman, the witness hasn't arrived yet but he did telephone this morning Mr Chairman, to say that he would be late because he wanted to see his counsel in Johannesburg and we said that we would be waiting for him - he isn't here ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Can we not proceed with any of your other witnesses?

MR BIZOS: There is one other witness here with whom I have not consulted and I don't particularly want to consult with her but we can possibly take up the time because I - it's Mrs du Randt, Mr Chairman and I want to make it clear that she's not our witness in a sense but there are certain questions that we want to put to her for the record. And I would ask you to call her at this stage Mr Chairman, she has been in court for some time.

CHAIRPERSON: No, what am I to call her for?

MR BIZOS: We're going to call her about the delivery of the gun and more particularly the date on which the gun was delivered Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mrs du Randt - will she come forward, is she here?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you prepared to take the oath?

MRS DU RANDT: Yes.

MR BIZOS: She's Afrikaans speaking Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MRS DU RANDT: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mrs du Randt, you have given evidence before the Judge President in the case in which Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus and Mrs Derby-Lewis were the accused, can you remember this?

MRS DU RANDT: Yes, that's correct.

MR BIZOS: Will you please speak a bit more loudly, the members of the Committee, the applicants and their counsellors - legal counsel, would like to hear what you are saying.

You and your husband, did you deliver a pistol at the home of Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DU RANDT: Yes, that is correct.

MR BIZOS: You made a statement - didn't you, which was in the possession of the Attorney General and you testified on page ...[inaudible] that the date on which you and your husband went to the house, was the 24th of February 1993?

MRS DU RANDT: The 24th of February '93 was the meeting of the City Council, so it was the 25th that we went to his house.

MR BIZOS: What did you and your husband deliver there on the 25th of February?

MRS DU RANDT: It was a parcel - an OK parcel, in which I had a jersey with some mail and I gave it to Mr Clive Derby-Lewis personally in his hands.

MR BIZOS: What was in the jersey?

MRS DU RANDT: Well, after I had peeped in there, I saw that is was a gun or a pistol or whatever they call it.

MR BIZOS: Will you please describe the pistol?

MRS DU RANDT: What I had seen in the box at the police, there was something that was in the front of the drawer and I saw that it was a gun or a revolver or whatever they call it.

MR BIZOS: Now, what did the jersey have to do with the firearm which you saw or that you handed over on the 25th of February?

MRS DU RANDT: Sorry, I don't understand you.

MR BIZOS: Why was the jersey there?

MRS DU RANDT: Well, it was the afternoon when my husband went through to the City Council meeting when a certain Mr Venter came to my house, he asked me whether Mr Durandt was there and I told him: "No, he had been in a meeting for two hours".

He said that he had a jersey to deliver to Mr Clive and I said to him: "You may give it to me, my husband isn't here" but I invited him into the house and I twice phoned Mr Derby's house, there was no reply but I knew they were also in the meeting and then he came into the kitchen with me after we had phoned but as I'd said there was no reply.

MR BIZOS: Was there any reason why the firearm was in the jersey?

MRS DU RANDT: At that stage I didn't know that it was a revolver or a gun in the jersey but when he walked over to his car and he had said to me had driven up and down five times but that he couldn't find my house number, then he came and knocked at the door and I told him that it is 022 and I asked him who he was looking for and he said he was looking for Mr Durandt, I told him he wasn't there because he was in a meeting, then he returned to his car and he told me that he had a jersey to deliver to Clive and them or for Clive and them ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Sorry, have you finished?

MRS DU RANDT: And then he walked to his car and opened the boot at the back and he took out this leather bag and I thought to myself: "A jersey"?, it was a men's jersey.

MR BIZOS: Was there any reason given to you why the firearm was not delivered directly to Mr Derby-Lewis and why it was taken to your husband?

MRS DU RANDT: Well, as I said to you, I knew that Clive and Gay were also in the City Council meeting and I phoned there twice but there was no reply, the phone just rang.

MR BIZOS: Was any reason given to you why the firearm was not delivered directly to Mr Derby-Lewis?

MRS DU RANDT: No, I don't know.

MR BIZOS: When did you discover that it was a firearm that had been handed over to you?

MRS DU RANDT: That night after I had peeped, I saw - this was after my son had been there, he opened the thing because he thought that his dad - what do they call that now, something which you use to work with cars and he said: "Oh, had my dad got it for me"? and I said: "No, it's not yours, it's Clive's" but by that time he'd already opened and that was when I saw that it was a gun.

The next morning - after we had met Clive, my husband had rang the bell and he had come out and I said to him: "I thought it was a men's jersey but I see now it is a gun" and he said no, he had it serviced but I assumed that it was Clive's revolver or gun which he had repaired.

MR BIZOS: Did you ask your husband why the firearm had been brought to you?

MRS DU RANDT: No.

MR BIZOS: Did your husband say anything concerning the firearm?

MRS DU RANDT: No, that night when he returned from the meeting I told him that he had to phone Clive and inform him that a jersey had been delivered for him because I'm taken it off my table and I'd put it in the laundry because my grandchildren and my son had come to have coffee with us after church that evening.

MR BIZOS: At that stage you did know that it was not just a matter of a jersey but that the more important thing that had to be handed over was the firearm and not the jersey?

MRS DU RANDT: No, I just assumed that it was Clive's and that he had it repaired.

MR BIZOS: Did your husband have any knowledge that the firearm would be delivered at your place?

MRS DU RANDT: No, not that I'm aware of.

MR BIZOS: When the parcel was handed over to you, didn't it feel too heavy to be just a jersey?

MRS DU RANDT: Well, it looked like a box like this and I put it on the table.

MR BIZOS: And why are you sure that it was the 25th of February?

MRS DU RANDT: Because the 29th of February was my daughter's birthday and that Thursday morning very early we would drive through to her.

MR BIZOS: So, we can accept that you are entirely certain that this took place on the 25th of February?

MRS DU RANDT: Yes, because normally on Thursdays we go through to her because this is the first time that my daughter had moved away from us.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mrs du Randt, when did you make a statement to the police with regard to this matter?

MRS DU RANDT: I was on the day of the 21st of April, I went to my attorney after I had heard that the police were looking for me.

MR PRINSLOO: And did the police speak to you before you went to your attorney?

MRS DU RANDT: I went to Advocate Jeug Prinsloo very early that morning and he phoned around and he spoke to a Colonel van

Niekerk who told him to keep me there and then I said to my daughter: "Let's go, I'm not looking forward to this matter, let me go and see my attorney".

MR PRINSLOO: Did the police arrest you or keep you with regard to this matter?

MRS DU RANDT: They told Mr Wessel Cronje to keep me there and that they would come through to Benoni to come and pick me up because they told me that they would keep my husband locked up there until I came and made a statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Was your husband under arrest at that stage?

MRS DU RANDT: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did your husband say anything to you with regard to what other people had said or so and so?

MRS DU RANDT: No, nothing at all.

MR PRINSLOO: This date of the 25th of February - on which date the weapon was taken to Mr Derby-Lewis's house, I would like to state to you that from the 22nd of February until the 4th of March, Mr Derby Lewis was at the President's Council in Cape Town - and his programme I will submit to the Committee, and it is clear from the programme that on the 25th of February he was not at his house, are you mistaken about this date?

MRS DU RANDT: I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it possible that you are mistaken, that it could have been in March?

MRS DU RANDT: No, I could have perhaps been in error.

MR PRINSLOO: I would further like to state to you that Mr Faan Venter - the person that you state had delivered the firearm at your house, only moved into Krugersdorp area after the end of February or at the end of February, you didn't know about this?

MRS DU RANDT: No, I didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman.

Madam, did your husband hand the firearm to Mr Derby-Lewis?

MRS DU RANDT: No, we drove up - the gates were always closed, so he opened the gate and we drove into the driveway, he got out, knocked on the door and then Clive came out. I opened my door and I gave the parcel to him because there was also mail in this because my husband is the only person who has to post box key and normally Clive or Gay come and collect the mail or we go and deliver it to them.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's patience.

Madam, you would perhaps not be aware of this - I assume that that you won't be aware but Mr Faan Venter only saw Mr Derby-Lewis on the 10th of March and then he asked him about the firearm, you cannot dispute this - you are not aware of it?

MRS DU RANDT: No, I'm not aware.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Derby-Lewis returned to the President's Council on the 22nd of March for a sitting on the 1st of April - according to the programme which I will submit to the Committee.

MRS DU RANDT: No, I'm not aware of it.

MR PRINSLOO: You're not aware.

Thank you Your Honour, I just wish to make copies of this document as they made copies of the wrong one but I can show you the original and then I will have copies made. Unfortunately, I had the 1992 programme copied but I think this is the copy that Ms Khampepe asked for earlier as was raised during testimony. It will be Exhibit A(g) - I undertake to have copies made during the adjournment and make these available to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any further questions for this witness?

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you would like to put to this witness?

ADV MPSHE: No, questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Madam, when is the birthday of your daughter?

MRS DU RANDT: The 29th of February - that would have been the Sunday.

MR BIZOS: And are you sure that it was before your daughter's birthday that this event occurred?

MRS DU RANDT: Well, I know that on the 25th we went through to her.

JUDGE WILSON: You say that you know that on the 25th you went through to her?

MRS DU RANDT: Yes.

MR BIZOS: You stated the date of the 25th of February in the High Court in Johannesburg.

MRS DU RANDT: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And after you had testified to that effect - and this appears on page 305, that neither Mr Jordaan nor Mr de Vos nor Mrs van der Walt posed any questions to you during that hearing?

MRS DU RANDT: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: We have no further questions of the witness Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, are there any questions you wish to put to this witness?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR BIZOS: We want to make a decision about Mr du Randt, in view of one or two of the matters that have been raised, we may ask him to consult with us - if you will, which will have the effect of shortening - well, first of all, I'm deciding whether to call him or not and also whether we can limit the questioning and may we ask you to the adjournment now?

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the adjournment now and resume at 2 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: Before calling the next witness, you will recall that we put to Mr Walus that he saw a programme on the 17th of August - three or four days before he gave his evidence in chief in August, and we have the video and we would like to show the portion of the video in which Mr Max du Preez deals with a question which we say influenced Mr Walus to give the evidence that he gave - it's very brief, it's on three quarters of a page.

CHAIRPERSON: If you say it's very brief, then ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: It is - no, we don't want the whole programme, just that bit of advice Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Then, let us proceed.

COMMITTEE WATCHES VIDEO

"At this point it seems as if Walus has a better chance of getting amnesty, than Derby-Lewis, even Walus pulled the trigger. He has a good chance of convincing the Amnesty Committee that he thought he was acting within the mandate of the Conservative Party because he thought ...[indistinct] with Derby-Lewis, represented the Party.

Derby-Lewis will have no difficulty proving that the Conservative Party sanctioned the assassination and he cannot claim ignorance because he was on the Party's Executive. The Amnesty Committee has indicated in earlier findings that an amnesty applicant should do more than show a political motive, he has to prove that he acted under orders of a recognised political grouping or ...[indistinct] but this is just our speculation. This week, Walus will give evidence. Join us next Sunday evening ...[indistinct]"

MR BIZOS: I have a transcript Mr Chairman, which we can make a copy of for the ...[indistinct] and hand it to members of the Committee if it is wanted. We will ask for copies to be made and handed in, I don't - shall we give it an exhibit number Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, it seems that the Committee members are quite content to deal with this matter without the transcript.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I may place on record that I informed Mr du Preez not to give free advice, lest he runs foul of the Bar Counsel or the Attorneys Association.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, we are going to call Mr Jeremy Cronin who has submitted a statement - which is R5, we do not intend that you should read the whole of it but merely to highlight certain matters and deal with some of the matters that have been dealt with by other witnesses. We call Mr Jeremy Cronin.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cronin, are you prepared to take the oath?

MR CRONIN: I prefer to affirm.

CHAIRPERSON: You refer to affirm?

JEREMY CRONIN: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Cronin, you are the Deputy General Secretary of the South African Communist Party?

MR CRONIN: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: For how long have you held that position?

MR CRONIN: Since April 1993.

MR BIZOS: Shortly after the death of Mr Chris Hani?

MR CRONIN: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: You signed a statement on the 7th of August 1997, which together with annexures runs to 12 pages and which is part of the record before the Committee, marked R5?

MR CRONIN: That's correct, yes.

MR BIZOS: Please tell the Chairman and the members of the Committee, Mr Cronin, when did you first meet Mr Chris Hani?

MR CRONIN: Well, I briefly met Mr Chris Hani in exile in Lusaka in late 1988 but became more closely associated with him after he became the full time General Secretary of the Communist Party.

MR BIZOS: When did he become the General Secretary of the Communist Party?

MR CRONIN: He was elected to that position in December of '91 and from that period onwards he worked full-time out of the South African Communist Party head office in Johannesburg and my office was adjoining his office so we had a close association.

MR BIZOS: What was your position in the Communist Party at that time?

MR CRONIN: At that time I was with the Central Committee and the Political Bureau of the South African Communist Party and those were the senior leadership collectives of the Communist Party.

MR BIZOS: Did you work in close association with the late Mr Hani?

MR CRONIN: Yes, from the time of December '92, we worked very closely together.

MR BIZOS: You prepared the statement and you signed it, do you affirm the correctness of the contents of this document?

MR CRONIN: Yes, I do.

MR BIZOS: In view of the numerous documents that were put in by the applicants in relation to the Soviet style communism in East Europe, can you please tell us what Mr Chris Hani's attitude was and indeed that of the Communist Party, in relation to that Soviet style communism?

MR CRONIN: Perhaps, Mr Bizos, the best way or doing that would be to quote directly the words of Mr Hani on this matter and I would refer the Committee to page two of R5, towards the middle of that page. This would be one of countless examples giving us some sense of what Chris Hani and indeed the Communist Party thought about East European Communism at this period.

"This particular set of quotations comes from a radio show and I remember being with Chris Hani on this particular show, it was a phone in show and members of the public were free to phone in and ask either Chris or myself what our views were on a number of matters.

One particular caller Steven, said: "I would like to ask Mr Chris Hani if, by calling himself a communist he aligns himself with world communists - communists world-wide and Chris Hani says: "By calling myself a communist, I align myself with the South African Communist Party with it's own history, a history of struggle against apartheid and oppression in this country. The Communist Party - as far back as the 20's, was the only non-racial formation.

And then he goes on, he says - he admits that: "It is true that in the past we aligned ourselves with international communism because international communism then, was the only force which came to the assistance of the oppressed people in the world.

And then he adds a bit later: "Now I admit that there are problems with the International Communist Movement, it's in disarray. There are serious problems, economic stagnation and only a few countries remain today which call themselves communist.

We've analysed those problems, we have criticised the communist movement and we have said that the South African Communist Party's path to socialism is going to be democratic, it believes in multi-partism" ...[indistinct]

And he means socialism is not going to be prescribed to the people of South Africa. And I think he goes on and on in this vein and the interview continues in the same gist.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the date of that?

MR CRONIN: It was March 1992.

MR BIZOS: 5th of March 1992.

This was on a popular radio programme, was this a theme which Mr Hani addressed regularly?

MR CRONIN: Yes, and I think that's implied fairly explicitly on page three. John Robby who is hosting this particular radio programme says to him - about the fourth line at the top of page three, he says:

"Are you fed up answering the same questions - going to the issue of the failure of the Soviet Union and the failure of Soviet Socialism, would you like to move the debate further"? and Hani says: "Well, we certainly are not fed up, I think that the questions are typical and we must accept we are moving from a situation of rabid anti-communism in this country and there's a lot of ignorance about communism, a lot of prejudices"

And he goes on in that vein, saying that:

"Far from being impatient, I think it is very important for us to account for our communism, to be self-critical about our past associations and to reassure the public"

And in this case the callers were White voices, judging from their accents.

"To reassure a broad public and not just one's own constituencies of our agenda"

MR BIZOS: It has been suggested that Mr Hani continued with the armed struggle after the two important minutes that were signed between the liberation movements and the National Party Government, can you tell us what you know of Mr Hani's activities and whether or not - as has been suggested in some document of unknown origin, that he was building up a private army and was not a bona fides participant in the negotiation and reconciliation process?

MR CRONIN: Well, I think that the first point to be made in that regard is that Chris Hani had certainly served actively and auspiciously in the ranks of Umkhonto weSizwe, he was very proud of his track record and many people in South Africa admired him for his military record in the ranks of Umkhonto weSizwe and as a consequence of that he rose to the rank of Chief of Staff.

He was the number effectively, not the number - well, number three because the President of ANC was head of MK. So, he was not actually number one in MK but he was certainly a very senior member of Umkhonto weSizwe, the armed wing of the ANC.

But he was also a very loyal member of Umkhonto weSizwe and with the opening up of the negotiations process - with the unbanning of the ANC and the South African Communist Party, the armed struggle - there was a cease-fire almost immediately. And then in August of 1990 with the signing of the Pretoria Minute, the ANC formally suspended the armed struggle and Chris Hani was part and parcel of that process.

After August 1990, he remained on - within the command structures of MK, as the Chief of Staff and his role was to assist with the integration process or the impending integration process to regularise the situation in South Africa, so his role - far from launching some separate army in exile, was to see the well-being of the returning MK cadres who were returning from exile or who were emerging from prison or exile - or from underground, and to ensure that they were readied for an integration process which we knew would come as a result of the negotiations process.

In December 1991 - as I mentioned earlier, he was elected as General Secretary of the Communist Party and this then becomes his full-time deployment within the broader ANC alliance and so from that point he ceased to be the Chief of Staff of MK. And I think again this gives an indication that his priorities at this point were not military or be it even military on route to demobilisation or reintegration into a regularised Government force.

As for the story about some new fangled notion of a new People's Party or whatever which we heard about or some kind of renegade army, we were aware of disinformation stories circulating - as I recall, some of those stories emerged in about 1992, Chris Hani himself immediately denied them. And as far as we can tell, they were part of a STRATCOM disinformation campaign directed at Hani and other leaders within the ANC alliance.

MR BIZOS: Did everyone in the liberation movements embrace the idea of a negotiated settlement or were there groups that were sceptical about it Mr Cronin?

MR CRONIN: No, I think it would be fair to say that the broader constituency on the ground of the ANC and of the South African Communist Party - certainly large sections of them, were often extremely sceptical about the negotiations process.

I think that the scepticism had a great deal to do with the low-intensity conflict that was going on with townships in particular - many townships. I remember personally addressing meetings - SACP branch meetings of COSATU shop steward locals.

I was one of the people involved in the negotiations process and I remember having to answer repeatedly, questions from this base constituency. People would say: "You are having tea and biscuits with FW de Klerk, we are dying like flies in the townships, how can you suspend the armed struggle, how can you negotiate with the enemy" and so a great deal of our time was spent on persuading our constituency of the importance of the negotiations process.

And I think that probably the leading personality in this process of trying to win over the ANC constituency to the negotiations process, was Chris Hani himself. He came with impeccable credentials as a militant, as someone that - when the armed struggle had been under way, had fought very courageously and so he used those credentials precisely to say - and there's documentary evidence in the submission that we've made, to show that he's saying to many, many audiences - diverse audiences but not least to township audiences, that we must give peace a chance, that we must take the negotiations very seriously.

And above all he kept repeating: "Do not fall into the provocation trap, those who don't want to see majority rule - a non-racial dispensation in our country, are trying to provoke us into restarting an armed struggle, we must not allow that to happen". So, I think that was the general position of the leadership but in the face certainly, of scepticism from rank and file members.

MR BIZOS: Do you know how much of his time Mr Chris Hani spent in trying to persuade the constituencies to support the negotiation process?

MR CRONIN: I would say that this is what he spent the last three years of his life essentially doing. I mentioned that his office adjoined in the Johannesburg head office of the Communist Party but he was rarely there, he was out on the road, he was addressing village meetings, rallies, branch meetings and so on, throughout the length and breadth of the country. He was indefatigable in this respect, he was one of the most energetic leaders that we've had.

MR BIZOS: What was his attitude to the peace process that was being organised at the time throughout the country - ...[indistinct] to the National Peace Accord?

MR CRONIN: Well, I think he puts that rather clearly on page six, towards the bottom, the last two paragraphs of page 6 of this submission. This is the week before his assassination and he's talking to an ANC alliance East Rand Summit of Peace and Political Tolerance and that already give a sense of the purpose of this particular meeting. And he says to his audience - I refer to the second last paragraph at page six:

"With all it's limitations, the National Peace Accord and the structures that have emerged from it have played a role in escalating the political costs of low-intensity warfare strategy. The National Peace Accord and associated structures have opened a few windows on the South African Defence Force and SAP actions and that has been crucially important"

What he's trying to get across is that while we are negotiating we are dealing with other people across the table who have a twin track strategy, who are talking to us over the top of the table but are kicking us underneath.

And he's arguing that the best way of countering this low-intensity conflict of disinformation, of STRATCOM operations that have been directed against him personally, of assassinations, of random violence in trains and taxis, the best way of addressing it is not to meet it with counter violence but to expose it - to open the windows and doors on what was happening.

And so he's arguing that with it's limitations, this is what the National Peace Accord has helped us to do, it's given us some idea of what the SADF and SACP are doing or were doing in Boipatong and places like this.

"The limited success"

as he goes on:

"of the National Peace Accord and the introduction of international monitors and good work on the ground, have all contributed to the success of some important but still tentative steps in the last period. In particular I'm thing of the resolution dispute structures which have acquired a new impotence in Northern and Southern Natal and the Midlands and I'm also thinking of the very important hostels initiative here in the PWV.

It's imperative that the ANC and it's allies become ever bolder and more creative in building a major momentum for peace. We must draw in new forces across the political spectrum and in every sector, youth, women, religious formations, into the process.

We must relate energetically to Nkatha members on the ground, we must spearhead the peace process and we must ensure that no momentum is lost"

And he's making all of these points literally a week before his assassination.

MR BIZOS: And in relation to the low-intensity conflict that was going on, did he have any views in relation to the self-defence units that were being formed?

MR CRONIN: Yes, that was a vexed issue, it was a complicated issue. The ANC led alliance had suspended the armed struggle, we were not waging an armed struggle.

But as I've said already, there was violence happening - a great deal of violence happening and in our perception the victims were either - or very often, ANC aligned people or just citizens you know, catching a train or catching a mini-bus.

And in the face of that violence that was being visited in that period on largely the Black community, there was a major demand from our constituency that people should be able to defend themselves and this was one of their arguments for unsuspending the armed struggle, they felt that it had been - many people felt it was wrong to have suspended the armed struggle.

And our answer to this was that we were serious about suspending the armed struggle, it remained suspended, there was no Umkhonto weSizwe functioning as an army waging an armed struggle. But clearly individuals, families, communities, congregations, had the right to self-defence and we felt as an ANC alliance, that we also had to assume some responsibility for assisting people to defend themselves.

The problem was of course, that when you help people to defend themselves there are dangers and that this can sometimes contribute to escalating the violence rather than to solving it and Chris Hani was well aware of this difficulty and again he was the leader most frequently deployed by the ANC alliance to try to instil discipline, to try to get across the political agenda that we had two self-defence units - some of which sometimes went off the rails.

And he explains why again - I think it's - yes, it's at this Peace Summit on the East Rand in the week before his death, where he helpfully gives us a sense of his analysis of the problems of the SDU's. He says:

"The record of SDU's has been uneven"

I'm quoting from the bottom of the fourth last paragraph on page seven.

CHAIRPERSON: Page seven?

MR CRONIN: Yes, it's the paragraph that begins:

"Does our Peace Campaign mean that we need to renounce the need to defence"

Somewhere in the middle he says"

"But the record of SDU's has been uneven. It's essential hereto that the ANC and it's allies take the lead. It is we who must take the lead in critically examining the track record of SDU's"

He's saying: "We mustn't fudge the issue, if there's ill-discipline, we must deal with it - we've got responsibility for these SDU's, we've encouraged their development in the face of provocation and we must also not also walk away now from our responsibility and just say: "Well, there's some generalised violence happening", we must deal with it effectively and just say: "Well, there's some generalised violence happening", we must deal with it effectively.

He then lists some of the reasons why there has been weakness in the SDU's, he says:

"There's been heavy infiltration by the enemy"

meaning the police and defence force of the time.

"We've often been guilty of poor selection of cadres, there's a lack of accountability"

presumably to political structures.

"There's an absence of a cohesive strategy on the part of the ANC allies and community organisations around this area and also because they're unable"

he says:

"the inability to obtain legal firearms makes our SDU's vulnerable to constant SAP harassment"

He means that because they can't get legal firearms - licensed firearms, there's a tendency to try and acquire them by other means and this often exposed them to infiltration - gun runners would present themselves and make guns available and so forth and this was often the route through which they were infiltrated by other forces.

MR BIZOS: Were the views of Mr Chris Hani covered throughout South African media, both print and electronic?

MR CRONIN: Well, absolutely, I mean he was one of the most high profile political leaders of the time, he was continuously talking and I think there was hardly a day that went by in this period - this three year period prior to his death, in which he was not addressing some public gathering, some public meeting of one kind or another.

Some of those meetings - because he was not a limelight seeker, some of those meetings would have happened in remote rural villages in which there would not have been public coverage but there was certainly a great deal of public coverage of Chris Hani's views, statements and speeches.

And I remember in particular - in the month before his assassination, an initiative that he led onto the East Rand where there were problems with self defence units and this was very widely covered on the television news at the time ...[indistinct] these kinds of views which I've been quoting.

MR BIZOS: Did he give talks to various interest groups in the country, not only to - did he confine himself to dwellers in the townships or in the country districts or was he invited to universities and business organisations?

MR CRONIN: The range of audiences he was addressing was very wide indeed. Again, in the weeks before his assassination I remember him addressing here in Pretoria, a group of Afrikaans speaking White business people who'd invited him to come and explain his views and perspectives for South Africa.

We quote in this particular document form speeches that he gave to the Black business community and he also appeared regularly on radio news programmes and television programmes watched presumably, by the ...[indistinct] audience.

MR BIZOS: Were those sufficiently widely published for at least those having a genuine interest in the political constitutional problems of the country, to be aware of them?

MR CRONIN: Well, I can imagine that there would be people in our country whose minds were so incredibly narrow that their reading might not have gone beyond The Patriot, but I think that anyone vaguely interested in what was happening in South Africa would have engaged in reading a range of newspapers, watching news, listening to radio programmes.

This was a time of heightened political activity in South Africa and anyone with a remote interest in politics would have been overwhelmed in any case by the amount of information that was flowing through the mass media.

MR BIZOS: Was the President's Council at this time, still in existence as part of the legislative process in the country?

MR CRONIN: I personally didn't confess to ...[indistinct] following the career of the President's Council too closely but my impression is that it was functioning at this time.

MR BIZOS: We have been told that next to Mr Mandela, he was probably the most popular person in the country, would you agree with that?

MR CRONIN: Well, some of the poles certainly suggested that - opinion poles suggested that Chris Hani was - after Nelson Mandela, the second most popular political figure in our country - obviously with his support drawn overwhelmingly from he Black community, one can debate the accuracy of poles but I think no-one can debate the huge popularity that he enjoyed.

MR BIZOS: We have also been told that he was assassinated in order to bring about chaos in the country -he was assassinated, do you know any steps that may have been taken to avoid the intended chaos from coming into being?

MR CRONIN: Well, the leaderships of the South African Communist Party, the ANC, COSATU and the broader mass democratic movement - apart from being hugely saddened and aghast at what had happened with the assassination, were incredibly worried about what might eventuate as a result of this assassination. There was a deep concern that those who were seeking precisely to derail the negotiations process and therefore delay the advent of non-racial democracy in our country, might succeed. The popular outcry within our constituency was huge and I think one gets some sense of it - if I could quote briefly from page eight of the document that I've submitted, it's the last paragraph ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Just before you quote it, is this a letter which was received from a member of your Party who resigned because of your efforts to avoid the chaos?

MR CRONIN: That's right, this is a quotation, in fact it's - yes, it's a quotation from a letter by a certain Theo Malherbe who - until May of 1993, had been the Secretary of the South African Communist Party's Cape Town branch and he was one of thousand's of people Chris Hani's funeral here in Johannesburg and he was outraged that the leadership of the ANC led alliance, had not used this opportunity of mass anger to call for an insurrection and he wrote us this letter - I won't read all of it, I'll read parts of it. Theo Malherbe writes"

"In the night vigil at Hani's funeral, all the regions were calling for revolutionary mass actions/wall with the exception of one of two regions. The leadership is out of touch with these sentiments, who are they representing, how can national ignore regions"?

And then towards - about the seventh last line:

"Chris Hani's funeral was an occasion to prepare for insurrection but our leadership failed. Their demand for arms is not a political response but a political response to low-intensity warfare. I will not be a member of the Communist Party that sees negotiation as the only option"

We actually published this letter later in the year - in our official Party organ, the African Communist. We felt we should be should do so because it reflected - at the time we felt we should do so, open up this debate because it reflected a powerful feeling that existed within the ranks of active Party members and we believe also active ANC members as well.

We disagreed with the sentiment and the individual left the Party as a result but it was a barometer of popular feeling and I think, gives an indication of how much the work of the leadership of the alliance was cut out in this period - in the days and weeks that followed the assassination, to get control of the situation to ensure that our mass base did not give in to the provocation and that this assassination was intended to be and was in fact but it was a difficult battle.

MR BIZOS: Was Mr Mandela and Mr ...[indistinct] Sekwale given access to the electronic media to constantly call for calm and not to succumb to the provocation as a result of the murder of Mr Hani?

MR CRONIN: That's correct, I remember hearing a comment two weeks later - not a comment, it was published in the newspaper, saying that in that period - with our country literally on the brink of spiralling back into a situation of civil war, that is was only the ANC leadership and the alliance leadership that was able to rescue the country from the calamity that was staring us all collectively in the face.

And sadly - ironically but for the first time in that period, the ANC and alliance leadership had more access to the media - to the so-called then public broadcast of the SATV, than we'd had before. And I think that was a testament to the recognition that unless the leadership of the alliance stepped into that dangerous void, the situation could indeed spin out of control.

MR BIZOS: Have you any personal knowledge as to what extent the leadership of the ANC and it's allies put all other business aside immediately after the murder, in order to avoid the intended result of chaos?

MR CRONIN: Well, I suppose I could speak from personal experience. In the days and week following the assassination, there were spontaneous strikes throughout the country, stay-at-home's and mass meetings in virtually every township.

And at that period I was not particularly regarded as a speaker at mass rallies as your ideal speaker Chris Hani and others were more adept to doing that but we were so stretched by the occasion that someone like myself was deployed into an unlikely place like Sebokeng township and I found myself addressing an audience of - well, I don't know how large it was but it appeared to be some 20 or 30.000 strong and they were calling for armed action, they were calling for revenge on Whites and I was deployed into this situation.

There was - I remember, a PAC speaker agreeing with the mass sentiments at the time and it was my job as part of the collective of the ANC/SACP leadership, to tell people not to fall into this provocation, to focus attention on the demand for one person one vote elections and to say that this needed to be the battlefield on which we fought this matter out. It was on the battlefield of elections of democracy and that we must not fall into the trap of those who were seeking to prevent and to delay that.

And indeed I think that in doing this - in making this appeal, one of the things that helped us was to precisely to be able to quote what Chris Hani himself had been saying so eloquently in the three years before his death and indeed in the days -literally, before his assassination. We were able to say: "It's not just us making a ...[indistinct], Chris Hani himself was asking you to take this attitude and not to fall into provocation.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, the last paragraph - the conclusion, is argumentative and I do not intend asking the witness to deal with it as it's matters that were more dealt with - more properly dealt with by us in argument ...[indistinct] rather a witness. Those are all the questions we have to put to the witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS EXAMINATION MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, from what you've told the Commission - as I understand it, there were people - even in the ranks of the ANC and the SACP, who were sceptical as to a negotiative settlement, is that correct?

MR CRONIN: Yes, that's absolutely true.

MR PRINSLOO: And so, would it also be true - on the other side, people supporting the right-wing or Nationalist Party people were also sceptical with regard to a negotiated settlement in the country?

MR CRONIN: Yes, I accept that.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Hani - as you told the Committee, was a very popular person and the most likely person to succeed President Nelson Mandela, would it be fair comment?

MR CRONIN: I don't want to speculate about the succession to Mandela, I think that's pure speculation but he was certainly a very popular political leader. He himself always said that he had no interest in going anywhere near Government and that he wanted continue to be an activist on the ground - that was his self image. Whether popular pressure and the pressure of his organisations would have seen him moving into Government, is a matter of speculation - he was a strong willed person too.

MR PRINSLOO: In the minds of the people on the ground - the public at large, they perceived that Mr Hani would indeed be the successor to Mr Mandela, would that be unfair?

MR CRONIN: I'm not sure.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. And you've heard the evidence of Doctor Hartzenberg this morning?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And yesterday, as to what he told the Committee as to how the viewed Mr Hani?

MR CRONIN: Yes, I did hear.

MR PRINSLOO: And the views, that was not disputed - as to how those people viewed Mr Hani, do you agree to that?

MR CRONIN: I can accept that those may be the perceptions of Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, in the past there's been a lot in the media and that there was at times - prior to the assassination of Mr Hani, attempted assassinations on the life of Mr Hani?

MR CRONIN: That's correct, there were at least three assassination attempts on him during his exile period and in our view there was also an assassination attempt against him the year before - in 1992.

MR PRINSLOO: And would it be fair to say Mr Cronin, that the people accused of that would be people that supported the Nationalist Party at the time - the Government, the police force etc., that supported the Nationalist Party?

MR CRONIN: Yes, that was certainly our conviction, we've not been able to - in the case of the earlier assassinations in the exile period, those were by and large defence force operations into neighbouring countries. In the case of the assassination in 1992 - assassination attempt, we've never been able to determine precisely who was behind it but our suspicions were and remain that it had something to do with the apartheid security forces.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Hani was viewed and regarded by many people from that side, as an enemy?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the reasons behind it - although it's not public, we don't know but the speculation is - as to why they wanted to assassinate Mr Hani in the past, it's because of his track record?

MR CRONIN: Yes, certainly during the armed struggle he was a leader of that - he was a leading figure in that armed struggle and he made no bones about that, and accepted that he was - in that period he accepted that he was a target of military action. After the ending of the armed struggle in 1990, our attitude was that he was no longer a legitimate target - there was no longer an armed struggle being waged, but that there were elements seeking to assassination him, I don't dispute.

MR PRINSLOO: What I'm referring to Mr Cronin, - that's now prior to the unbanning of the ANC, you are referring to subsequent to the events of the unbanning of the ANC and what developed thereafter, is that what you're referring to?

MR CRONIN: I'm saying, prior to the unbanning of the ANC - between 1961 and 1990, there was an armed struggle, Chris Hani was an active participant in that armed struggle and would have seen himself as a military target within that armed struggle. After 1990 - he was an active leader within the negotiations and peace process in our country, there were still elements in our country seeking to assassinate him.

MR PRINSLOO: Up till when was Mr Hani still the leader of Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR CRONIN: He was not the leader of Umkhonto weSizwe, I think he would have ranked as number three within Umkhonto weSizwe and that was up until December 1991.

MR PRINSLOO: 1991?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: December 1991?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: When was it publicised that Mr Hani was no longer involved in Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR CRONIN: In December 1992, it was very, very widely publicised because that was the point at which he accepted election as General Secretary of the South African Communist Party and many political commentators put to him: "Why are you choosing this route, isn't the fast track to ministerial office - to becoming a Minister of Defence or whatever in the future of South Africa, isn't the fast to that particular ambition remaining on within the ANC"? and he said: "Well you know, I remain committed to the ANC but I'm choosing a different career track and that is that I'm taking on the leading position within the SACP".

So for those who were trying to watch - as you seem to imply in your ...[indistinct], where Chris Hani were heading and whether he was going to be number two or number three or whatever in a future South Africa or a future President, this was certainly of a great - there was a great deal of public speculation around this matter in December 1991 and many people said they couldn't understand Chris Hani taking on this role, he was sidelining himself.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Hani had support on the ground from the young people and radical people, would that be a correct assumption?

MR CRONIN: He had very wide-ranging support, from old people, from young people, from White people - although not so many, and from Black people, from rural people and urban people - he had a very, very wide-ranging support.

MR PRINSLOO: But in the majority Mr Cronin, who supported Mr Hani?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, I think the poles suggested that he was very widely supported by Black people in our country, working people, rural people, poor people.

MR PRINSLOO: Would that - when you say Black people, was that young people or elderly people or what?

MR CRONIN: As far as I know - although the life expectancy of Black people in country is much lower than White people, it would also have included ageing Black people.

MR PRINSLOO: And the assumption that radical people supported Mr Hani by and large?

MR CRONIN: Well, it depends what you would mean by radicalism, certainly people who were in favour of massive transformation in our country, who saw the struggle in our country as not just replacing Black faces with White faces but saw the struggle as one for thorough going transformation in our country, including supplying water to poor rural communities from which Chris Hani had emerged, if that's what you mean by radical then certainly, he was supported by that kind of constituency.

MR PRINSLOO: Well, people that were not in favour of a negotiated settlement, - let's put it that way, that supported Mr Hani?

MR CRONIN: Well, those who were sceptical about the armed struggle - the suspension of the armed struggle in our country, would not fail to note that Chris Hani had had a very important and prestigious armed struggle career from the late '60s and through the '70's and '80's and therefore certainly had a credibility with those who thought that we should go back to the armed struggle because he could speak as someone who had fought that armed struggle.

And what he'd said is: "Don't romanticise the armed struggle, the armed is a tough business, it's not a decision to be taken lightly and we are now on a political and negotiations track" - yes, certainly he was able to reach that kind of constituency more effectively than many of us could have.

MR PRINSLOO: As I understood your evidence Mr Cronin, it was that Mr Hani attempted to persuade the people to rather follow a negotiated settlement as opposed to a revolutionary one or otherwise.

MR CRONIN: He tried to and by and large succeeded in doing this, yes. So he was able successfully to carry the mass constituency that the ANC enjoyed, into this path but it was political work that he had to do, it was against people's inclinations often and in the face of their scepticism but that was certainly what he was doing, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That's the point I want to make Mr Cronin, that was his political work and he was at that stage - according to your version, trying to persuade the people.

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage he didn't have that support and that's why I'm asking you, did the radical people support him because you're saying at that stage those people were still sceptical as to a negotiated settlement?

MR CRONIN: They were sceptical about a negotiated settlement and for good reason, they were suffering - they were getting killed in violence, in low intensity conflict, so they were sceptical about the path but they trusted Chris Hani and turned to him and looked to him for guidance and leadership.

And because he was tireless in doing this work, by and large he was able to succeed in persuading them. I'm sure there were cases of people who said: "He's sold out or his forgotten", but by and large he was very, very widely respected and was therefore able - as I say in the face of people's reluctance, to accept this - he was able to persuade people.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, you said it was widely publicised in the media with regard to Mr Hani's position in MK, is that correct?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: To what media are you referring to?

MR CRONIN: Well, I'm referring certainly to the print media - the major dailies all covered the SACP Congress, it was open congress and it was the first legal congress that we'd had for 41 years, so there was quite a lot of local and indeed, international attention on this congress - I remember newspapers ranging in political opinion from The Citizen to The Star, covering this kind of issue.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you refer to any particular newspaper coverage with regard to this - The Citizen for instance, that carried such a coverage?

MR CRONIN: Mr Prinsloo, we can dig up that information, I don't have it in front of me but I certainly have a distinct recollection of there being public coverage of this matter. And as I say, the reason why I remember it is because people said: "Chris Hani seems to have moved out of the fast lane by accepting this election as General Secretary to the Communist Party", so there was quite a lot of editorial comment as well on the matter.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm asking this Mr Cronin, because you said earlier when you were asked by Mr Bizos - when you were led in chief, with regard to the President's Counsel, you said you didn't follow that and that's why the media is important as to people seem read selectively - particular people support a particular view and will read certain newspapers, that's why it's important how it was publicised.

MR CRONIN: Yes, if I was planning to assassinate someone one, I would certainly - if I was planning to blow up the President's Council - let's say, I would certainly be following very closely - (1) whether - information in the press media, whether it was still in existence of not, it's elementary. And therefore if my preoccupation was leaders whom I regarded as enemies of the volk or enemies of my political cause, I would certainly be looking at them very closely.

My attitude towards the President's - I mean, I was neither planning to - I wasn't planning to assassinate or blow up anyone but the political relevance of the President's Council at the time struck me as being of pretty low importance. And indeed, I think one of the applicants also seemed to have a similar regard, he seemed to say most of the time: "doodling" in the President's Council and drawing up "hit-lists" while he was sitting there, so his attitude towards the President's Council seems to be pretty close to mine.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, you've heard the evidence as to what the perceptions of certain people are?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And what they perceived.

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And that's why I put to you that those people that read the newspapers with regard to certain events which you referred to what Mr Hani's function was in certain areas, did not necessarily follow that they read that information.

MR CRONIN: Yes, I accept that they may well not have read the information but I mean, that tells us what kind of people they are and how serious they were in their political motivation and how serious their politics was but I accept that it is possible that they acted out of a high degree of ignorance, in fact it's almost certain that they acted out a high degree of ignorance.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please Mr Chairman.

Mr Bizos, - beg your pardon, Mr Cronin - I beg your pardon Mr Bizos ...[intervention]

MR CRONIN: It's me that you should be apologising to.

MR PRINSLOO: R5 at page 42 in the John Robby show ...[intervention]

MR CRONIN: Sorry, I missed the reference.

MR PRINSLOO: Page 42.

MR CRONIN: 42 of?

MR PRINSLOO: R5, the last paragraph and the third line from the bottom:

"I've been and still am a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, I have not resigned from Umkhonto weSizwe, nor from the ANC and I still play an active part in both organisations"

MR CRONIN: That's correct, he was no longer the Chief of Staff of Umkhonto weSizwe from which he'd resigned. He says he was no longer in the leadership of Umkhonto weSizwe but he regarded himself as a rank and file member of Umkhonto weSizwe, along with all of those who'd been trained in MK and where called upon he offered his service to assist in the process the impending reintegration or integration of MK forces.

He was an MK member and he was certainly an ANC member as are most SACP members, but he no longer was a ranking member of Umkhonto weSizwe.

MR PRINSLOO: So he didn't resign from Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR CRONIN: No, he resigned from his leadership position.

MR PRINSLOO: I may have misunderstood your evidence, didn't you say he resigned from Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR CRONIN: Well, if I said that - what I intended to say - and I don't think I did but if I did, what I was saying or was intending to say was that he resigned as Chief of Staff of Umkhonto weSizwe.

MR PRINSLOO: So, if that's the position Mr Cronin, then Mr Hani was still active in the ranks of Umkhonto weSizwe?

MR CRONIN: No, he was not. Well, he contender to be an MK member but his activism was not particularly in this area after December 1991.

MR PRINSLOO: So Mr Cronin, it would be unfair for you to say that the other people viewed it differently - if that was the case, they perceived he was still involved with MK?

MR CRONIN: Well, I can't answer for other people's perceptions, I'm telling you the facts.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, what you told the Commission in your evidence - there was a low-intensity warfare going on and what you said is:

"Negotiations were taking place over the table and underneath they were kicking you"

Is that correct - that's now the Communist Party and the ANC?

MR CRONIN: Absolutely correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. And the people you referred to were in fact the Nationalist Party at the time?

MR CRONIN: Yes, but in particular the intelligence and security structures of the apartheid State.

MR PRINSLOO: So at that stage the Nationalist Party was governing the country and this was their organs that had to keep them in Government?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Now, at that stage there was a lot of violence taking place - as you set out, violence perpetrated by various people on the trains, hostels, etc.?

MR CRONIN: Yes, I agree.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. So, in the minds of the people at large, there was not peace at that stage?

MR CRONIN: No, there was certainly no peace, there was peace process, there was National Peace Accord and there was a negotiations process but parallel with those, was a twin track policy - strategy, which ultimately a political strategy - in our view, led by the National Party Government, designed to destabilise it's opposition while at the same time negotiating with it.

MR PRINSLOO: So, it was indeed - if I may put it that way, as far as you perceived it then, it was false negotiated settlement at that stage - that it was perceived in the minds of the Nationalist Party?

MR CRONIN: No, they were serious about negotiating but they wanted to get the best deal possible across the table and felt that the best way of doing this was to weaken their principal negotiating partner, which was clearly the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: According to your version Mr Cronin, Mr Hani was aware that the Nationalist Party was speaking to them over the table and yet kicking them under the table by killing people and derailing the process that way, is that correct?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: So, at that stage you knew that the Government was not sincere in a settlement?

MR CRONIN: No, we believed that they were sincerely committed to a settlement but they wanted a settlement on their terms as much as possible and the only way in which they could bring about such a settlement was to try and weaken the ANC. The principal strength of the ANC was not State power - we were not in Government, our principal strength was our mass support and therefore this low-intensity conflict was principally directed at cutting the links between negotiators and the mass constituency of the ANC and the means of doing that was one, to sow confusion and terror in Black townships through random violence, to assassinate key leaders at the community level and also to assassinate key links between the negotiation process and that mass constituency and I would regard Chris Hani as one of those key links.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, this particular view that prevailed at that stage - as you summed it up on page five is:

"To assassinate key ANC and alliance, second and third layer leaders"?

MR CRONIN: Yes, that's what Chris Hani said, correctly so, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: If Mr Hani perceived that, that same perception could have prevailed among the people at large, would that be correct to say that?

MR CRONIN: Well we were trying to get that across, we were trying to say that this is a twin track policy, it's not the old war that we were fighting up until 1991. What we've got now is a complicated situation, we are in a negotiations process, the regime realises it cannot continue to rule in the old way, so it's sincere in that sense. These are not dummy talks, they are real talks and they are real negotiations but in the process of those negotiations they are seeking to bring pressure to bear upon us - to weaken our demands, to make us back down, to qualify, to moderate and to modify our demands just as we were.

We were using the weapon of mass mobilisation, of mass organisation, of protests, of demands, to bring to bear on the negotiations process our perspectives. And what Chris Hani was saying and what we were saying was: "For heaven's sake, don't fall into the trap of violence - that is their strong card, they've got an army, we have an MK that is much smaller - tiny, that has returned from exile - don't fall into the trap.

Our strength is politics, our strength is our moral position and our moral perspective, let us play to that strength. We have to somehow deal with the violence that's being visited against us and therefore we have the right to defend ourselves but that isn't our strong card, so for heavens sake, don't make the political error of thinking that a return to the bush - a return to armed struggle, is going to carry our cause forward, it's not going to", so that was his position - that was our position.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, you believed and so did Mr Hani believe - at that stage, that they intended assassinating key leaders and members of the ANC?

MR CRONIN: He was deeply concerned about that and had escaped - narrowly escaped an assassination attempt the year before on his own life.

MR PRINSLOO: And for you to say that, you must have had good reason to believe that?

MR CRONIN: Sorry?

MR PRINSLOO: There must have been reason for you to believe this in order for you to say this?

MR CRONIN: Well, we knew ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: ...[indistinct] key leaders?

MR CRONIN: Our reasons for believing this was that we knew what those apartheid dirty tricks departments were capable of and everything that we've heard of since - in the TRC process and other processes, confirms absolutely that view - that there were very nasty networks in operation seeking to destabilise the negotiated settlement or to bring pressure on the ANC and it's alliance, so yes, we had very good reason for fearing that this might happen.

MR PRINSLOO: The point you're also making in your statement is that - ...[indistinct] describe nowadays as a kind of a third force activity that prevailed at that stage?

MR CRONIN: Yes, indeed, there're third force activities - as we know now today even better than we did then, third force activities were rife in this period.

MR PRINSLOO: But at the time of the negotiations that was prevailing Mr Cronin?

MR CRONIN: Yes, we said that at the time and we think we've been confirmed in that view.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Cronin, if the Nationalist Party - their supporters, believed in that, why do you disbelieve the applicants? If they believe that by taking out a key leader, it will also bring about what the Nationalist Party believed?

MR CRONIN: I accept that they believed that they would - as they have told us, that they would unleash chaos in South Africa by assassinating Chris Hani - I completely believe that and they came damn close to achieving that objective, so I have no reason to doubt that.

I think that they could not have chosen a better assassination target - if they wanted to plunge our country into a spiral of violence out of which we may not have emerged intact as a country, they could not have chose a better target. And I have no reason to doubt that that is why they chose Chris Hani, they saw how critical he was to the peace and negotiation process and by taking him out they came very close to destroying that process, so I don't doubt that.

MR PRINSLOO: So, the climate that prevailed at the time Mr Cronin, was created not only by the Conservative Party - what they believed, but also by the Government itself at the time?

MR CRONIN: Yes, I think - I would imagine - and we need to find our more and I think we are finding out more day by day through the TRC process, but I believe that there were possibly two schools of thought, there were those - and I would imagine that the two applicants and the third person whom I believe was involved in this conspiracy, were of the view that they should try to stop at all costs the negotiated settlement - they should try to shipwreck it.

I think others were deploying violence into the situation - not in order to stop the negotiations process, but to transform the quality of it and therefore to achieve a settlement but more on their terms, so I think there would have been two schools of thought operating amongst those on the right who were involved in violence.

And I would think that the applicants would have belonged to the school of thought that believed that through using violence, they could actually shipwreck the negotiations process and prevent the evil day of non-racial democracy ever dawning on South Africa.

MR PRINSLOO: So those were very turbulent times that prevailed at that stage Mr Cronin?

MR CRONIN: Absolutely, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And for that reason, if members of the - or let me put it this way, if agents of the then Government - the Nationalist Party, had assassinated Mr Hani, would it have achieved the same purpose or what purpose would they have achieved seeing - in view of the fact that you are saying: "To assassinate key ANC alliance and second and third layer leaders" - if they had succeeded in doing that?

MR CRONIN: Well, if they'd succeeded in doing it the outcome would have been the same, Chris Hani would have been dead, the country would have been brought to the brink of crisis but hopefully we would have succeeded - despite that crisis, in rescuing the country which I think that we have.

But the assassination of Chris Hani was the assassination of Chris Hani and the hands that pulled the gun and their motivations are a matter of speculation but we've heard from these applicants what their motivation was and I have no reason to doubt that motivation which was to - as they said quite explicitly, to bring about large scale violence, death and a right-wing coup-de-ta - effectively, in the face of that situation - that was their agenda.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, you will bear in mind that that was evidence given by Mr Walus and not Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR CRONIN: Yes, Mr Derby-Lewis told us that he wanted to plunge the country into crisis, he didn't put a number - a figure on - a statistic on the number of deaths, that's true.

MR PRINSLOO: Well, likewise, at that stage the ANC was not governing the country, the Nationalist Party was governing the country.

MR CRONIN: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And if the Nationalists had that view in mind - as what you set out in this paragraph on page 5, then surely the result would have been the same - it would have served the same cause and same purpose for the Nationalists as well as the Conservative Party?

MR CRONIN: Yes, I mean - but perhaps that's why the National Party - in this case, shrunk from doing this at that particular time, I don't know - you need to ask them not me, why they were trying at one point to assassinate Chris Hani and why - as far as we're concerned, and why in this particular case.

And our minds - let me be quite frank, remain open as to the scope of this conspiracy and the depth of it, so I don't want to confine myself to speculating as to ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: So, Mr Cronin, will you concede to what the Nationalist Party had in mind at that stage - to assassinate key ANC alliance and second and third layer leaders, would have been a political motive to do that?

MR CRONIN: Absolutely, it was entirely for political reasons but it was - they've not applied for amnesty as far as I'm aware - the National Party, for Chris Hani's assassination and nor has the Conservative Party as far as I'm aware, applied for amnesty for the assassination of Chris Hani.

So, if we're talking to political motive, there's no doubt that the applicants had political motive - in my view, and that this low-intensity conflict was politically motivated - the question is, was it part of formal political policy of the CP - since we're talking about the CP.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm not asking for any legal argument on that Mr Cronin.

MR CRONIN: No, I'm telling you.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please Mr Chairman.

If you look at page 43 of R5 Mr Cronin - the second paragraph:

"John Robby: Chris, the armed struggle, so often it's held up in this referendum debate - the ANC communist alliance, they've still got Umkhonto, they've still got an armed struggle - again in the interest of moving forward, wouldn't it be better to disband to finally declare the armed struggle over"?

Have you got that?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Chris Hani's response to that:

"Ultimately the objectives of the ANC and the Communist Party, are to disband Umkhonto weSizwe and I want to proceed by saying that it is a question of time - we must a reach a period in our negotiations where we are satisfied that there will never be a reversal, there will be no going back"

What do you say to that Mr Cronin?

MR CRONIN: This very accurately and unambiguously reflects ANC and ANC alliance policy at the time, which was a staged approach towards the negotiated settlement. The first stage began at the beginning of 1990 with the unbanning of our organisations and a cease-fire, indeed after November 1989, there were no further MK actions - official MK actions whatsoever, after '89.

In August of 1990, we then suspended - officially suspended, the armed struggle so that - not only was there a cease-fire but there was a suspension of the armed struggle. At this point in time, when Hani is speaking we're in a situation where Umkhonto weSizwe still exists, we've suspended the armed struggle but we've not said that we've renounced armed struggle for all time - we've suspended it because we're uncertain about the outcome of the negotiations process.

"We dearly wanted to succeed"

Chris Hani is saying that quite explicitly:

"We wanted to succeed, we hope it will, we'll give it our best shot but we've had a cease-fire, we've suspended the armed struggle, we've got a whole lot of returning MK soldiers coming back from exile or emerging from underground - they exist as an MK formation. We will assemble them, keep then in good order so that if the negotiations process goes as we hope it will, they can be integrated into a future armed force and that is exactly what has happened"

So he's accurately reflecting both our policy and indeed what has happened in this period, so he's saying that: "We can't simply disband MK and leave 10.000 - whatever, MK soldiers to their own devices, we have to assume responsibility for them" - that indeed is also part of finding an effective and durable - sustainable, negotiations and peace process.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Cronin, ...[indistinct] what's stated here on page 43?

MR CRONIN: Yes, let me read it to you, it says:

"Ultimately"

...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Here, right ...[intervention]

MR CRONIN: Let me read it very clearly and slowly so that you understand, it's very important that you should understand Mr Prinsloo, what ...[inaudible] - he's asked by Robby:

"But why don't you - Chris, the armed struggle"

he says:

"So often it's held up in this referendum debate. The ANC communist alliance, they've still got Umkhonto weSizwe, they've still got an armed struggle - again in the interest of moving forward, wouldn't it be better to disband to finally declare the armed struggle over"

Ultimately yes, he's saying:

"The objective of the ANC and the Communist Party are to disband Umkhonto weSizwe"

He's right and that's what we've done.

"But I want to proceed by saying that it's a question to time"

In other words:

"That's where we're going - we're moving there, we're not preparing some army in exile for some other renegade actions - we've got an MK, we are moving towards disbanding it. We must reach a period in our negotiations where we are satisfied that there will never be a reversal - there will be no going back, and then we shall sit down and discuss the whole issue of a future security force to serve a democratic South Africa.

That's a correct description of our policy at the time and that in fact is a very prescient description of what has happened as well over the last period.

MR PRINSLOO: So at that stage Mr Cronin, the armed struggle in 1992 was not disbanded - according to what is stated here and nor suspended?

MR CRONIN: No, it was suspended, the armed struggle was suspended - you're reading too much into what John Robby asking him and you're dealing with a live radio programme - we're not dealing with legal proceedings here and maybe John Robby - who's not a lawyer as far as I know, might have formulated the question. What Chris is saying quite clearly is:

"We retain an Umkhonto weSizwe"

That exists yes, at this point in time.

MR PRINSLOO: But how was the public to interpret what was stated here by Mr Hani and Mr Robby at the time Mr Cronin?

MR CRONIN: Well, I think that ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: You say it's not legal proceedings, but how would the public interpret it?

MR CRONIN: The public should have noted that in August of 1990, the ANC officially suspended the armed struggle - that's the position, that's the position that Hani's reflecting and any member of the public who had half an interest in trying to understand what was happening, should have understood that - it was certainly for want of trying from the side of Chris Hani.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please. Now, Mr Cronin, as you told the Commission that Mr Hani - he said what his perceptions are with regard to communism is what took place in the Soviet Union wasn't the correct approach, is that correct?

MR CRONIN: Yes, he was saying that even self-critically I would add, that he felt that the South African Communist Party - although it's principal focus had been South Africa, had indeed - and we've said this both as Chris but as the Party, that we had illusions about some of the aspects of communism in the Eastern European countries.

MR PRINSLOO: What did the Communist Party in South Africa have in mind at that stage as to policy?

MR CRONIN: We had in mind exactly what we've got now in South Africa, which is that we as a Communist Party stand for a socialist perspective but within the context of an unfolding democratic non-racial and non-sexist dispensation - and in the case of the CP, one should have a united South Africa - on other words, not one with Volkstaats and so on.

So, we believe - as a Communist Party and we believed then, that there was only way of securing an advance to socialism and that had to be democratic and there was only one - the great lesson, the overwhelming lesson of Poland, of Tjekoslavakia, of the former Soviet Union, was that unless there is deep thorough going democracy, that socialism isn't going to work.

So if Janus Walus - as he approach Chris Hani down the driveway, had asked him what he thought about Poland, Walus might have found a willing interlocutor. Chris would have been interested to hear what Walus's experience were in Poland and ...[indistinct] that Walus might have found that Hani was prepared to agree with some of his perspectives - not all of them, but he would certainly have engaged him in an rational and civilised discussion about the failures of so-called communism in Poland. So, it's one of the great tragedies of this - one of the many tragedies of this assassination, that Walus chose to pull a trigger rather than to engage in discussion.

MR PRINSLOO: That's not the question I asked you Mr Cronin. ...[intervention]

MR CRONIN: I'm sure it wasn't.

MR PRINSLOO: But be that as it may, at page 44 of R5 - first of all I'll put it to you this way - before I'll be reading it to you, that ...[intervention]

MR CRONIN: I've lost you ...[indistinct]

MR PRINSLOO: Before reading this to you, Mr Hani was a dedicated communist, is that correct?

MR CRONIN: Absolutely.

MR PRINSLOO: He was totally opposed to any other form of Government?

MR CRONIN: No, no, that's a false conclusion, he was a dedicated communist and he wanted to see a socialist dispensation in our country but he was certainly not so undemocratic that he was not prepared to work with and to perceive huge advances in dispensations and societies which were not necessarily socialist.

He was not a dogmatist and was someone who was prepared to live and let live and I mean that not just in an individual sense but politically. He'd lived in exile, he had a wide experience of a variety of political dispensations and saw many civilised societies outside there - outside of South Africa, so it was not that he was intolerant of alternative views but he believed that - given the kinds of poverty, the kinds of problems that we've got in South Africa, that the best system for South Africa would be a democratic communist dispensation, yes but he was not intolerant of alternatives.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Cronin, I refer you to page 44.

At the bottom of the page Mr Chairman:

"John Robby - Again in the interest of saying a civil war"

...[intervention]

MR CRONIN: Saving.

MR PRINSLOO:

"We had - Doctor Korne Mulder on Friday, sounded like a very nice reasonable educated Afrikaner man talking about Afrikaner nationalism, talking about this deep-seated desire to have their own country and yet every time we speak to someone from the ANC and we mention the possibility of a Boerestaat - immediately no, is that something that you would be prepared to negotiate at any circumstances Chris?

The reply:

"Well, I think we should discuss it but it is something that I would never support, I think that those who are hankering after a Boerestaat should come to CODESA and place that issue before the players at CODESA. Let me discuss the merits of it but let me elaborate what would be the cost of a Boerestaat in this country, where would it be situated, where in the country did you get an Afrikaner majority? The implications of a Boerestaat would mean the removal of people in their millions"

And so it carries on. So, it's clear that Mr Hani was directly opposed to anything with regard to a Boerestaat.

MR CRONIN: Yes, but what you are leaving out in your question - if that was a question, is that he was opposed - he politically thought it was absolutely unworkable and it was an irrational proposal. But what he's very clearly saying is: "But let's discuss it for heaven's sake, let's not fight a war about it, come to CODESA, place your concerns on the table and let's discuss them.

I, for one - he is saying, don't believe it's workable but let's hear, maybe there's a rational argument for it, maybe there's some workability in it". So, that's his position, he's not saying: "I'm declaring war on those who imagine that there should be a Volkstaat, they me deluded - they are deluded, but let's discuss the matter" - that's his position.

MR PRINSLOO: But what is clear Mr Cronin, is that Mr Hani would not agree to a Boerestaat - should they negotiate for a Boerestaat, they wouldn't agree to that - and this what ...[inaudible]?

MR CRONIN: I think it's highly unlikely that he would - or any rational South African, would agree to a Boerestaat because I think it's an irrational idea but he was certainly prepared and willing - as he is saying here, to discuss it - he's not saying: "Over my dead body" ...[End of tape 3A, day 7 - no follow-on sound] certainly not saying that.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, Mr Cronin, Mr Hani - you've heard what Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg said about him today as to how the Conservative Party viewed him, what about the Vula incident that was publicised widely in the country? - and there's evidence that Mr Hani was involved in Vula.

MR CRONIN: What about the Vula incident, you ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is what I'm asking you, what about Vula - that's what the people believe - that Vula had in mind insurrection in the country, was that correct or not?

MR CRONIN: No, it was completely incorrect, Vula was an underground structure established in the late 1980's by the ANC, not the SACP. On the eve of the December 1991 conference - no, no, sorry, on the eve of the July 1990 rally of the SACP at which the SACP announced it's interim leadership group, there was a flurry of disinformation propaganda from the National Party regime trying to connect Vula to the South African Communist Party and trying to suggest in 1990 that Vula was a communist plot - which was denied by Joe Slovo at the time - he was the General Secretary at that point, it was denied by Chris Hani and it was denied by all of as it still is today.

It was an underground structure along with other underground structures of the ANC and people like Joe Slovo were involved in that along with Oliver Tambo and other non-communists but under the discipline and instructions of the ANC, so that's Vula.

MR PRINSLOO: But why was it an underground structure Mr Cronin?

MR CRONIN: Because the organisations were banned, it was launched in the late 1980's - the Communist Party you will remember, had been banned in 1950, so in order to operate inside South Africa, we had to operate in the underground.

The ANC as you will remember, was banned in 1960 - it had two choices, it either could disappear or it had to operate illegally and that meant operating in the underground, so Vula was one of many endeavours to set up underground - in this case, political structures - there were underground military structures, Vula was essentially a political structure.

MR PRINSLOO: What happened to Vula after 1990 when the ANC and the SACP was disbanned?

MR CRONIN: Well, Vula began to emerge - just as with the process of Umkhonto weSizwe, we weren't sure in February 1990, that the unbanning was for real and again we had good reason and so, as we were beginning to emerge leaders from the underground - we were testing the waters, we didn't know what to expect, we immediately had a cease-fire - we took it that seriously, but we weren't sure if we could show - surface all of our leadership, those that had been in underground, those that we still in exile - we had to be careful, we had to be cautious.

There were also lunatics roaming in South Africa, who were aiming to take pot-shots at leaders - as happened in April 1993 in the case of Chris Hani, so we were quite cautious about revealing exactly - precisely in 1990, who was our leadership. As we became more assured that it was till dangerous to operate but the chances of an effect negotiated settlement were on - so those disappeared, so by 1991/1992 and certainly by April 1993, there were no longer any underground structures.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, at the time of the arrest of certain of the Vula members, were they still underground at that stage?

MR CRONIN: One or two of them were in underground, others were prominent political figures like Mac Maharaj and Ronnie Casserells - some of whom were not arrested but who had been involved in the Vula structures and who were not underground, so there'd been a partial surfacing of some but others were still - as it were, uncertain as to whether - awaiting orders from the ANC, as to whether they should fully surface or not but I stress again that this was not a military operation, it was a political structure.

MR PRINSLOO: Why were they uncertain Mr Cronin?

MR CRONIN: Well, because after 40 years of being banned in the case of the Communist Party, 30 years of being banned in the case of the ANC, massive persecution, the execution of many of our leaders, the assassination of many of our leaders, we weren't sure whether we could take - at face value, our unbanning, we weren't sure whether the unbanning would not be used as a way to flush out the leadership and then arrest them, so we had to naturally be cautious. But we took the negotiations seriously but at the same time we were uncertain about the safety of our leadership. In the case of Chris Hani, he was being pursued, he sheltered for a time in the Transkei because he was being pursued by the security forces.

In the end all of that pursuit - one should add, turned into nothing - I mean, there were attempts to bring people to court, trials and so on, none of it turned out to be anything more that legitimate political underground structures which had been carried through from the underground period and which in the process of surfacing. There were no trials, there was no - there's was a great deal of disinformation and STRATCOM operations in the period of 1990/1991, but it all came to nothing.

MR PRINSLOO: But why was there any need for an underground political structure, one can understand if it's a military structure but a political structure?

MR CRONIN: Because we were banned as - long before the Communist Party had got involved in an armed struggle, we were banned. We were banned in 1950, so being banned and therefore having to operate underground, had nothing to do with violence, it had everything to do with the distaste that the apartheid regime had for the kind of politics that we had.

And the attempt - therefore, to outlaw any legitimate opposition particularly that of expressing the views of the majority of Black people in our country. That's why we had to operate in the - we didn't choose to operate in the underground - it's not pleasant operating in the underground, it's much better being out in the open but we were forced into the circumstance - that is the short answer to your questions.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, my questions is actually directed at the time after the ANC was unbanned in 1990.

MR CRONIN: Well, as I say, we were in the process of coming - surfacing but we didn't do it all at once - for the reasons that I've tried to explain, but we did it very rapidly. If you consider that we're talking about a 40 and a 30 year period of underground - within a matter of 18 months roughly, I don't think there were any underground structures left, so it was a pretty rapid process of surfacing and of returning people from exile and so forth.

But there was a degree of caution and perhaps we weren't cautious enough, I mean we exposed leaders like Chris Hani to assassination, so perhaps we were not sufficiently cautious.

MR PRINSLOO: Wasn't the ANC leadership at that stage - in particular members of Vula, already at that stage in the country?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Operating openly?

MR CRONIN: Yes, as I say, it was a process.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, but why was the necessity then - if they were operating openly in the country, to operate underground - on the other hand?

MR CRONIN: Because - one, we were trying to move into an above ground situation, we had to seek amnesties, we had to get - there was an attempt to exclude some of us from the - we were coming back into the country - those who were in exile, in order to engage in the negotiations process.

There was an attempt for instance, to exclude Joe Slovo from that negotiations process and it was the instance of Mandela and Tambo that said: "The ANC is not going to negotiate with you unless you allow Slovo into the country", so it wasn't as if we were free citizens in the post-February 1990 South Africa.

There was continuous persecution of leaders and the Vula - the anti-Vula measures, the forcing of Ronnie Casserells and others again into the - Ronnie Casserells was above ground, he was operating in the negotiations process and he was then pursued by the apartheid police because of the Vula connection and so he was forced back into the underground.

We weren't lurking in the underground by choice, it was persecution that was - the fear of persecution and actual persecution, that led to people operating in the underground for some 18 months roughly, after the unbanning of our organisations. They were not properly unbanned - the organisations, in February 1990. That too was a process and a popular process, people in the streets unbanned those organisations.

In parts of our country - like Bisho, Ciskei, Bophutatswana, it was still not possible to operate above ground.

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the self-defence units Mr Cronin, would it be fair to say that the self-defence units at that stage were totally undisciplined?

MR CRONIN: No, it would be very unfair to say that, as Chris Hani correctly reflects in the passages that I've read, there was a mixed track record with the self-defence units. In our estimation, in many situations without the self-defence units, many, many more lives in townships would have been lost. It was precisely because there were self-defence units present in townships that we were able one, to prevent huge massacres of our people and we were also able then to expose the third force activities of others.

So, they played a role but there were certainly cases, serious cases of deviation and of some self-defence units getting out of control and Chris Hani was the first to say so and was certainly the one that got deployed frequently into those situations to instil discipline, to expel people who were simply criminals posing to be self-defence members and so forth.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, in the media and the press, isn't it correct that the self-defence units were described as being out of hand and not being properly controlled?

MR CRONIN: There were occasions in which self-defence units were so described by the press, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: So, if that was perceived by the public like that, it would have been not - on their part, as far as the media is concerned, a correct reflection?

MR CRONIN: Who is this public?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

MR CRONIN: You keep talking about: "The public", are you talking about White conservative opinion?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR CRONIN: Well, that's not my definition of public but if you mean White conservative - a small White conservative public view, then it's certainly possibly that they would have self-defence units as a distasteful reality and out of control - out of instinct, if for no other reason.

MR PRINSLOO: And members of the Black community, were they satisfied with self-defence units or were they afraid of them?

MR CRONIN: Well, as I'm saying, in many townships I believe that they saw them as their line of defence in the face of some horrific attacks but in other cases the communities themselves were - and our own structures, were deeply concerned about the role that some self-defence units were playing and asked us to intervene to sort the matter out, so there was a mixed record certainly.

MR PRINSLOO: And the self-defence units, were they introduced by the ANC?

MR CRONIN: They were - the alliance - so it was not just the ANC, the South African Communist Party also accepted full responsibility and involvement in helping communities to set up self-defence units. Our approach was that they must not be partisan structures, they were there to defend the community, they were not there to attack alternative political formations - people with different political views, they were there to defend communities in the face of attack.

But we felt - being an alliance, that we believed - and as the elections were to prove later, being a movement that represented an overwhelming majority of Black people, that we had a responsibility to facilitate the development of those self-defence units and also in the framework of the National Peace Accord, to legitimate that formation.

So within the National Peace Accord - if you take the trouble to read it, you will see that there was an agreement that communities should have the right to - there was an understanding within the National Peace Agreement agreed upon by a range of Political Parties - I forget if the Conservative Party was there or not, that the right to self-defence was part and parcel of bringing peace to South Africa.

So it was within that National Peace Accord framework, that we - as the South African Communist Party and the ANC, helped to facilitate self-defence units.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, what you told the Committee - that Mr Hani said - in order to defend the low-intensity warfare which prevailed at the time, would rather engage in negotiations as opposed to reacting by violence, is that correct? Will that be correct - as what you said?

MR CRONIN: Yes, he said it would be wrong to go - what he was saying was that it would be wrong to go over into offensive violence, to deploy violence for strategic purposes - that we did in 1961 without - openly, with no fudging and confusion as to whether there was a subjective view or whether there were three different views as to whether we were involved in armed violence or not.

We were involved in armed struggle from 1961, we deployed armed struggle for political purposes, it was a strategic political option we took and from 1990 we stopped that, there was no strategic deployment violence for political ends. But that people had the right to self-defence is in any case as I understand - I'm not a lawyer, but it is a common-law right that people have and therefore it was - yes, people had the right to defend ...[indistinct]

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as the targets were concerned - what the people believed, the perception of the public, the White public of South Africa, that the targets at the time was indiscriminate - whether it was soft targets or hard targets.

MR CRONIN: The targets of whom?

MR PRINSLOO: Of the ANC, they targeted soft as well as hard targets.

MR CRONIN: Again this public that you're talking about?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR CRONIN: Well, let's clarify that.

MR PRINSLOO: The public in South Africa - the White public.

MR CRONIN: Okay, that's not the public Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: And a lot of the Black public as well. I can give you an examples where people were killed in land mines, for instance an incident near Davel in the Eastern Transvaal.

MR CRONIN: Yes, okay.

MR PRINSLOO: There was a land mine placed and there were people killed - Black people, only Black people.

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: They were travelling in a car.

MR CRONIN: In the course of the armed struggle which as I say lasted from 1961 to 1990, the ANC moved through a variety of strategies - it was the ANC with Umkhonto weSizwe operating under the political guidance of the ANC.

The original targets of the ANC - when it launched it's armed struggle in 1961, were purely buildings, facilities - unoccupied buildings, unoccupied facilities and pylons. So the original wave of sabotage action launched in 1961, was directed at those targets and there were strict instructions not to injure or hurt anyone including security forces - the belief at that time was that there was a possibility still of a negotiated settlement in the early 1960's.

Through the period of the 1970 and '80's strategies changed, they were always publicly announced and cadres were always carefully instructed in those changing tactics and strategies. By the - in the course of the 1980's the ANC, Umkhonto weSizwe, used - amongst other things, land mines which by their nature can be indiscriminate - the idea was to prevent military and security organisation on White farms particularly on the border are, that was the strategic and political objective and that had ceased by 1990.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Cronin, in Davel in the Eastern Transvaal - which is very far from the border, where the St Danie family members were killed - that's very far from the border?

MR CRONIN: Well, it's in a border - I mean, it's the route - it was along an infiltration route but - the ANC has in it's amnesty application and it's submissions, has said that: "We're involved in armed struggle, we chose that in all political seriousness and not easily, it took us many, many decades to come to that conclusion that we should launch armed struggle.

In the course of prosecuting that armed struggle people lost their lives, it was not only our own people that lost their lives but other people lost their lives as well and we regret that - I would certainly have no difficulty in reasserting that, one deeply regrets the loss of life.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, during that time - in the '80's, Mr Hani was an Executive Member of MK, correct?

MR CRONIN: He was Chief of Staff of Umkhonto weSizwe in the later half of the 1980's, correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So, the soldiers would have operated under his command at that stage?

MR CRONIN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: So, he would have been responsible for the actions of his soldiers in his command?

MR CRONIN: Yes, yes and unlike certain other political leaders he would assume full responsibility, he would have had no - he did not delight in warfare, he did not delight in violence but as a leader he assumed full political responsibility for actions carried out under his command and would done his best to ensure that they had a political objective at all times.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, in order for you to say that Mr Hani accepted full responsibility, is that what he told you?

MR CRONIN: Did he tell me?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR CRONIN: Yes, of course - I mean, we all - as a collective leadership, we accepted responsibility for what we're doing and that is why we treated the matter of peace and of violence very, very seriously, unlike some political leaders who feel that rhetoric is the order of the day and that you can cover up responsibility and lines of command through suggestiveness and rhetoric and creating illusions in people's minds. We assumed responsibility for what we were doing and therefore selected our words as carefully as possible at all times.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, could I ask the Committee's indulgence at this stage as it's nearly 4 o'clock - a certain - there's just certain documents I'd like to get hold of Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'll give you a short adjournment to look for those documents but we are going to carry on.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I would like to get these documents - I haven't got them here, that's the only problem - unless my colleague Ms van der Walt can then commence here cross-examination and I can then take over from her tomorrow on that basis.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we'd like to finish with this witness Mr Prinsloo, we'd like to sit - we've been losing a lot of time and I'd like us to carry on and see how much we can get done.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I don't want to be obstructive but we've been co-operating, I didn't waste any time today at all Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not blaming you for the wasting of time, I'm just saying that we have lost a lot of time and so let's see how far we can go, let's see how much we can do.

MR PRINSLOO: Can we just have a brief adjournment then Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR CRONIN: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Cronin, people involved in Vula - there were certain members of Vula arrested by the police, is that correct?- like Sepiwe Njanda, Mr Mac Maharaj and there were other members arrested as well, is that correct?

MR CRONIN: Some were arrested yes, and some died in that detention process.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, some did what?

MR CRONIN: Some actually died while in detention as has been revealed recently in the TRC process.

MR PRINSLOO: And is it correct that the police unravelled the secret code they used and brought to the fore as to what they were supposed to do and the police alleged they wanted to cause insurrection in the country, is that correct?

MR CRONIN: I was not directly involved in Vula but I certainly remember press reports at the time.

MR PRINSLOO: Those were the allegation, is that correct Mr Cronin?

MR CRONIN: There were certainly allegations to that effect in - I think, 1991, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: So, in the minds of the public, it was - as far as they were concerned, these people were not sincere in negotiations as they were planning insurrection?

MR CRONIN: In the minds of which public Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: And this arrest of ...[intervention]

MR CRONIN: Sorry, I'm not clear as to your question, you continuously refer to: "the public" and I have a problem with that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, the public that reads the media.

MR CRONIN: Well, I would say that many members of the public who read the media, would have dismissed this as disinformation as they were asked to by the leadership of the ANC and SACP - who immediately reacted to these so-called police revelations by saying that: "Here again we have an example of disinformation" that: "Yes, there was and underground structure, yes it was called Vula" but that it was involved in planning insurrection was completely wrong.

That information was available to the public as well and I would say that a large number of the public - certainly those who would follow the leadership of ANC ...[indistinct], would have given credence to that interpretation and that others would have given different interpretations is of course eminently possible.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Cronin, the arrest of these people took place in July 1990, is that correct?

MR CRONIN: I haven't come prepared for - but if you say it was in July 1990, then that is possible, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: But if that's the date, you will not dispute it - July 1990?

MR CRONIN: No, I'm not going to dispute that.

MR PRINSLOO: So that was well after the unbanning of the ANC?

MR CRONIN: Well after the unbanning of the ANC, the police arrested elements of Vula including some people who were functioning openly in the negotiations process, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

MS VAN DER WALT: I'm not sure Mr Chair, whether the audience wish to make further contributions but if that is not so then I have a further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Just try and ignore them.

MS VAN DER WALT: I tried very hard.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on please.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Cronin, you were referred to page 43 of R5, the last paragraph I think - if I could just get the document, I just wish to ascertain whether I have the right document - paragraph.

Just a moment please Mr Chair.

It is page 43, the second paragraph. Mr Prinsloo dealt with this paragraph with you and you have it, is that correct? - page 43. I would like to put it to you that you make a statement that during the negotiations there were negotiations above the table while under the table people were kicking at you, is that correct?

MR CRONIN: Yes, absolutely.

MS VAN DER WALT: And if one were to look at Mr Hani's record of serving in the military wing of the ANC, a great leader who gave many instructions and commands to kill people here in the Republic or South Africa and who was trained in Russia and who even just before his death was still a member of MK - in other words, a military man, not an ordinary man in the street and with his knowledge of what could happen - you said that yourself, over 40 years the struggle was waged, how then is it possible that a man like Mr Hani who knows that they are being kicked under the table, would go and lay down arms while this is happening - that isn't possible Mr Cronin?

MR CRONIN: Well, it might be difficult for you to get your mind around that concept but the fact is that Chris Hani joined the political struggle first and foremost, - the struggle didn't last for 40 years, it lasted for several centuries in this country against colonial occupation - people like Chris Hani understood that it was essentially a political struggle. He took up - as he explain quite carefully in the document that I've submitted - and I'll refer you so that we're clear about this matter, he says on the bottom of page four:

"When we finally launched an armed struggle we were not abandoning our quest for peace, we were pursuing that quest in the most effective way left to us by an ...[indistinct] and brutal regime. Over the decades deploying mass struggle, armed struggle, underground work and building international solidarity, we finally forced the White minority regime to negotiate with our liberation movement and that was our victory.

In the interests of speeding up the negotiations process, in August 1990 we announced that we were suspending our armed struggle. Our strategic deployment of violence was put on hold"

That I think, helps to explain to you - as difficult as you may find it to be believe, why Chris Hani had laid up his arms. The fact that he was able to be assassinated in the middle of what was basically a White suburb on a Saturday morning, I think is another indication that this was not someone pursuing a military career or a military offensive - he was engaged in normal political activity seeking a peaceful solution to our country. That may be difficult for you to imagine but that was certainly what he was doing.

MS VAN DER WALT: While he knew that he was being kicked under the table, I would like to state to you that a man like Mr Chris Hani did not lay down arms and history - since 1990 until 1994, proved that the arms of Umkhonto weSizwe had not been laid down because there was much violence which had been caused by Umkhonto weSizwe and not just by the security forces.

CHAIRPERSON: That is a political statement, it's not a question is it?

MS VAN DER WALT: I am stating it to the witness in the same way that he made certain utterances which were also of a political nature but history proved that there was violence but I will leave my political statement there.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not stopping you, I didn't see what your question was that is why I asked you, I was expecting you to now put a question to him.

MS VAN DER WALT: I stated to Mr Cronin, Mr Chair, that Mr Hani did not lay down arms and I'm saying it on Mr Cronin's own evidence that they were kicked under the table and I wish to state to him that arms had not been laid down as he submits to the Commission.

MR CRONIN: I'll do my best to try and turn that into a question and then answer it and I think the answer lies in Hani's own words and I refer Ms van der Walt, to the top of page six where he says that:

"Until we began to understand clearly what we were up against, it was impossible"

And he's referring to the kicking under the table if you like - the low-intensity conflict that was launched against Black communities.

"Until we understood what we were up against, it was impossible to develop an adequate counter-strategy to this low intensity warfare. It's essentially a political strategy"

he said.

"And our counter-strategy has therefore also to be essentially political"

Now, you might think that he was a military man case in a military mould, he was a political activist, he was a communist, he was a socialist and his aspirations were moral and political. He was only secondarily a military person and I think that this quotation underlines that point as many other do as well.

"Our counter-strategy has therefore also to be essentially political, not rushing back to arms, not getting into military ...[indistinct] The key to countering low-intensity warfare in our specific situation, is to uncover it publicly, to smoke it out and in so doing raise the political price that the regime pays for deploying this strategy"

In other words, not to allow it to happen under cover, under the - ...[indistinct] to appear to be Nkatha or faction fighting or White on Black violence but to smoke it out and to show it for what it is, namely a fairly cynical strategy deployed by the regime at the time.

That was his attitude and that was why precisely he was not rushing off to arm himself or to launch an army, he was deeply committed and understood - he had the intelligence to understand that the kind of provocation that your applicants sought to unleash, was precisely to fall into the hands of those who didn't want to see a non-racial democracy in our country - he had the intelligence to understand that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Cronin, you testified and said that in particular with regard to the questions in respect of Vula, there was an uncertainty among the members of your Party regarding the unbanning of the ANC and the SACP and that is why certain people remained underground, is that correct?

MR CRONIN: For a brief period, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also could not comment when you were asked regarding how the Conservative Party could - what their feelings were regarding communism and the unbanning of the SACP and ANC because you didn't have any knowledge thereof, is that correct.

MR CRONIN: Yes, I certainly don't claim to be able to put myself in the shoes of the Conservative Party, so I have no ambitions to answer on behalf of the Conservative Party.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also do not expect the broad public - and that includes everybody, to read what the Communist Party writes but you do not read what is said about the Conservative Party?

MR CRONIN: No, no, I certainly read what I've said about the Conservative Party, believe it or not and I from time to time read Die Patriot as punishment but the - because I accept that not everyone in South Africa reads the African Communist - the official organ of the Communist Party.

It's for that reason that Chris Hani and other leaders of the Communist Party go out of their way to address public meetings, to address small groups of people, to address White business people, to appear on public radio, on public television, because we understand that people are often confined to ethnic and ideological kraals in our country and it's very important to reach out beyond those.

And that's why Chris Hani spent so much of his time doing that in his last years, he wanted to break out of these and to get his message across. As in the Robby interview - and this is one of many, many examples, he patiently listens to the questions of White listeners, seeks to answer them and Robby says: "Gosh you must be getting bored and tired with answering the same questions" and he says: "No, no, I understand why people are asking these questions". No, I accept that people live in their delusions and it's very important to cut across them and to reach out beyond them.

MS VAN DER WALT: But don't you think Mr Cronin, that in the same way that the Communist Party was careful with regard to the unbanning of the Party and the start of negotiations, that in a similar manner the Conservative Party was also circumspect about - and the right-wing people in this country, with regard to the negotiations or the so-called negotiations which were still in an early phase, to deal with these circumspectly because they knew that from 1961 when the ANC and SACP took the military course there were many people who were killed by that Party in South Africa - just a few Whites but many Blacks and if a Party kills it's own people, shouldn't they then be dealt with circumspectly?

MR CRONIN: The intelligent politicians are circumspect, my problem with politicians who confuse circumspection with principal is the chief problem that I would have.

That certainly we were concerned and uncertain as a Communist Party - I don't want to speak for the Conservative Party, I'm not here to do that but I can speak for the South African Communist Party, certainly in a complicated transition period it's understandable that different components of the political spectrum are going to be circumspect in their approach.

But circumspection is one thing, change of policy - unannounced, fudged, confused, is certainly a whole different matter. When the ANC and it's alliance suspended the armed struggle, we suspended the armed struggle, there was not circumspection about that, we were clear, we were suspending it.

There was no confusion, there was no rhetoric which gave our followers - you know, a nudge and wink that they might be at liberty to do what they like and that they could then claim that they were under some illusion that they'd been ordered to do so by Chris Hani or whosoever.

So, yes, we were circumspect, yes, we were uncertain about our safety, yes, we were not sure if the negotiations would produce peace but as we changed our policy in regard - for instance to violence, we said it very clearly and we committed ourselves as a leadership to that.

When we were engaged in armed struggle, we were clear that we were engaged in armed struggle and we assumed full political responsibility for that, so if in this area of circumspection which you are trying to introduce into the question, you're trying to fudge a number of different things then I'd advise you not to because I'm very clear in my own mind what our attitude ..[inaudible]

We were circumspect about - we were concerned about people who were in the underground who might be arrested, our circumspection proved correct. They were not waging an armed struggle - those people in that underground, they were not preparing an insurrection but they were survivors from an underground.

Some of them had not survived, some of their fellow members had died in detention - we were circumspect absolutely, we were concerned about their safety but in time and quite rapidly we were able to surface them as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: The ANC/SACP alliance - according to you, suspended the armed struggle but according to your own evidence I wish to state to you that the armed struggle continued in the self-defence unit which - as you had stated, went off the rails.

MR CRONIN: The self-defence units were self-defence units, they were there to defend people, they were not there to launch offensive violence. It is possible that renegade - in fact it's not possible, it's a fact that in some instances renegade self-defence units often infiltrated by a third force - in fact, in every instance that we know of it was a case of infiltration but self defence units which were not ANC but were certainly aligned to or proclaimed an alliance towards the ANC.

There were cases where these things went off the rails and took the initiative to launch offensive violence against other members of the community, something that we deeply regret, something which we don't just deeply regret now in retrospect but which we were deeply concerned about at the time and which Chris Hani amongst others, intervened into actively in order to prevent.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, any questions?

ADV MPSHE: No questions Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Andrew?

JUDGE WILSON: ...[inaudible] I can't speak for the rest of the country but certainly in Natal in certain instances, the SDU's just became local gangsters and terrorised the whole community, is that one of your problems?

MR CRONIN: Absolutely, I accept that and it was certainly one of our problems at the time and remains a matter of concern - deep concern.

MS KHAMPEPE: But Mr Cronin, as you have stated - but just in passing, shouldn't you be emphasising that the SDU's were never an ANC formation?

MR CRONIN: Yes, no they weren't, they were - we took responsibility as the ANC and as the alliance, to help communities where requested to launch SDU's, so we assumed some political responsibility but you will see again in the quotations that we've used from Chris Hani, that in the week before his assassination he was proposing - let me just find the appropriate quotation on that issue - on page eight, the second paragraph. That follows the other paragraphs from this speech that he gave on April the 2nd on the East Rand where he says:

"Look there's this mixed track record and some have gone off the rails, it's a huge problem"

And he lists the reasons and he says:

"We now need to debate the merits and possible problems of formally locating the township SDU's within the structure of the National Peace Accord. We need at least to think and to debate this possibility"

In other words, what he's saying is: "We've had some responsibility for their launching, we must continue to have responsibility for problems but they're not ANC structures, they're community defence structures and isn't therefore the appropriate home for them - the National Peace Accord".

He was floating that idea and obviously the process overtook us but you can see where his thinking was travelling and that was in line with our conception of self-defence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

Mr Bizos, before we adjourn, can you indicate what is going to happen tomorrow?

MR BIZOS: The intention is to call Mr Visser whom we asked to be here at 8H30 tomorrow morning and we hope that he will be here Mr Chairman and the other is Mr Clarke. Neither our attorney nor Mr Mpshe have been able to communicate with him at the telephone number that was given to us by Mrs Derby-Lewis, we don't know what we're going to do but it seems unlikely that we will establish contact with him between now and then and even if we do or the information that we have that he isn't likely to rush to the Commission tomorrow even if we get hold of him. So we will have to have some discussion in relation to that but as presently advised those are the two persons that are still outstanding as far as we are concerned Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, are you likely to call any witnesses?

ADV MPSHE: No, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Is de Waal no longer a potential witness?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] even the contact number. We have asked the police officers to help us but we have not had any response back. We've asked Mr Mpshe to ask the Commissioner's office, on the assumption that they have names - they keep contact with the people that were in the force and I'm sure that they do but don't think that Mr Mpshe has had any response from those quarters.

It's a matter which came to our notice - Mrs Derby-Lewis's allegations were only made in the beginning of this week, so we couldn't have done anything about that before.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, I'm now going to adjourn this meeting and the Committee will now resume at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and not at 9H30, we adjourn.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

05-12-1997: Day 8

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to proceed?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I am calling Mr Faan Venter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Wouldn't it be convenient for him to sit here please. Mr Venter are you prepared to take the oath - in other words you are prepared to affirm rather than take the oath.

MR VENTER: Yes.

FAAN VENTER: (affirms)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Venter you are entitled to speak Afrikaans.

MR VENTER: I would prefer to testify in Afrikaans.

MR PRINSLOO: If you can't hear properly you can make use of the headphones and there is also an interpreting service available.

MR VENTER: I would prefer to testify without using these headphones.

MR PRINSLOO: If questions are put to you in English and you want to hear the Afrikaans version you can then listen to the interpreting on the headphones.

Mr Venter do you know Mr Derby-Lewis, the applicant in this matter?

MR VENTER: Yes I do.

MR PRINSLOO: Since when have you known him?

MR VENTER: Since the early eighties, I think from 1984, I was at his wedding.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know his wife, Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you know Mr Derby-Lewis well?

MR VENTER: Yes I do.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Venter when did you move to Krugersdorp in 1993?

MR VENTER: It was the 1st of March 1993, we moved into a new house.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you sometime during 1993 see Mr Derby-Lewis, after you moved in there?

MR VENTER: Yes, I saw him just after I moved in. I went to see him.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Honourable Committee what the date was when you saw him, can you remember?

MR VENTER: Yes I made an appointment for the 10th of March, when I went to see him.

MR PRINSLOO: On that day when you saw Mr Derby-Lewis did he ask you for anything or not?

MR VENTER: He asked me whether I knew where weapons were obtainable, preferably an unlicensed firearm.

MR PRINSLOO: Preferably unlicensed?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did he tell you for what purpose he needed this weapon or weapons?

MR VENTER: Yes his words were more-or-less to the effect that - "we are needing it for the battle that lies ahead, we are stocking up".

MR PRINSLOO: "Stocking up". What did you understand by the statement "stocking up"?

MR VENTER: I suspected that they were stocking up on weapons so that when the time arrived they could hand it out to people to take part in the struggle.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you a member or sympathiser or supporter of the Conservative Party or not?

MR VENTER: I was a paid-up member, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you then obtain a weapon, could you obtain a weapon?

MR VENTER: Yes I had a 9mm pistol which had been given to me. It was an unlicensed firearm and I gave that to Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR PRINSLOO: Where did you get that weapon from, from whom?

MR VENTER: From Jean Taylor in 1990 more-or-less.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you then do with the weapon after Mr Derby-Lewis asked you for a firearm?

MR VENTER: I delivered where he asked me to go and deliver it. It was at Mr du Randt's house. I gave it to Mrs du Randt.

MR PRINSLOO: Now when was this, what day?

MR VENTER: It was the same day.

MR PRINSLOO: On the 10th of March?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Who did you give the firearm to?

MR VENTER: Mrs du Randt.

MR PRINSLOO: Was Mr du Randt at home?

MR VENTER: No, I understood that he wasn't at home.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Venter during the trial you also testified for the State, that was the trial where Mrs Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus were being prosecuted?

MR VENTER: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chair the evidence appears in Volume 5 on page 405(2.6.5), that is where the evidence appears.

Mr Venter were you aware of the fact that at that stage Mr Derby-Lewis was attached to the President's Council?

MR VENTER: Yes I was.

MR PRINSLOO: At this stage Chairperson I would like to refer to certain documents which I propose handing in to the Committee. I have given you the original copy, the copy of the minutes of the President Council's sessions or a schedule of their sessions, but I would like to also give to you now the claim which Mr Derby-Lewis handed in which relates to his journey to Cape Town and back and also his claim form which relates to those events. This document was Exhibit AF.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that evidence the kind of thing that is going to be contested, claim forms by Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman we take up the attitude that the roster of the President's Council is not evidence of the presence of Mr Derby-Lewis in Cape Town on those dates. We do not admit it. I don't know about the claim form, but I don't know whether this has anything to do with this witness Mr Chairman. Certainly this witness can't testify. Can we deal with the evidence of this witness and then we can deal with other matters by persons who may have knowledge about that. They can't be put in through this witness Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I agree with that.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, the reason why I want to make available this document to the Committee is due to the fact that there has been evidence during the trial that this handing-over of the weapon by Mrs du Randt, or to Mrs du Randt took place in February, whilst this witness said that it took place in March. And the roster, as indicated by Mr Bizos shows certain evidence and for that reason I obtained this information from the President's Council which indicates payments made to Mr Derby-Lewis, so it's actually in an effort to save time, because it proves that Mr Derby-Lewis was in Cape Town at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand. Maybe if Mr Bizos has a chance of looking at that document we might sort this out. But for the time being let's just proceed with this witness' evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: As the Committee pleases.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you checked in addition on the attendance register of the City Council, City Council that he was alleged to have been at on the day that Mrs du Randt got the weapon?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman I intend calling Mr du Randt to substantiate that and handing in the City Council's roster for that particular purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR PRINSLOO: The 10th of March.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's carry on with this witness.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, could you tell the Committee, at that stage when you talked to Mr Derby-Lewis what exactly was the political climate as you saw it?

MR VENTER: Well it was a very turbulent time. We heard about defence and "kill a farmer, kill a boer" - "one settler, one bullet", and it wasn't anything new, it was more-or-less in line with what was happening at the time.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Bizos.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Venter, the evidence before the Committee is that this gun was handed to Mrs du Randt before the 29th of February which was her daughter's birthday.

MR VENTER: No that is not correct at all. I only moved to my house in Krugersdorp on the 1st of March so it's impossible that it could have happened that way.

MR BIZOS: Where were you living before?

MR VENTER: In Delareyville.

MR BIZOS: Did you visit Krugersdorp during February either for business purposes or visits or possibly in furtherance of your - any political activity that you may have been involved in?

MR VENTER: I did visit Krugersdorp but it was for purely business reasons, dealing with the purchase of the residence and my visits were in no way politically related.

MR BIZOS: I see. So on how many occasions did you visit Krugersdorp for the purposes of transfer of the property into your name or delivery of your furniture before you moved in on the 1st of March or for the purposes of speaking to the seller or making other arrangements, how many times did you visit Krugersdorp in February?

MR VENTER: I can say five times or on ten occasions, but I can't recall. It's impossible for me to recall and it wasn't important enough for me to recall.

MR BIZOS: But what we do know is that although you may not have been living in Krugersdorp until the 1st of March, that you were in Krugersdorp on a number of occasions during February.

MR VENTER: I was in Krugersdorp.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And why do you choose the 10th of March as the date on which you said this happened?

MR VENTER: I made an appointment to see Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but why do you remember it was the 10th of March and not in February?

MR VENTER: No, I know for sure that it wasn't in February. I made no political visits in February, after I moved in and had organised my furniture and so forth, that is when my political activities in Krugersdorp started again.

MR BIZOS: When were you first asked to remember the date on which you had the meeting with Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR VENTER: That was during the trial of Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR BIZOS: And how did you fix the date, just from your memory?

MR VENTER: Yes, I was relying on my memory.

MR BIZOS: Well I am going to put to you that it happened during February when Mrs du Randt says it happened because she has a very special reason to know that it was before a particular date.

MR VENTER: I also have a particular reason to recall a specific date. I was reminded that my son's birthday was on the 7th of March and it was on a Sunday so we couldn't have a family meeting, but we had it on the next Wednesday and that was the 10th of March, and that was the same day that I handed the weapon to Mr Derby-Lewis. That night I received guests, namely my family, and we were celebrating my son's birthday.

MR BIZOS: I see. When did you first think of your - to connect your son's birthday with this?

MR VENTER: My wife reminded me, she remembers things like that far better than I do.

MR BIZOS: Why didn't you give that answer when I asked you whether you merely relied on your memory or anything else, why didn't you say that when I first asked you as to how you came to fix the 10th?

MR VENTER: I said that in court I relied on my memory, and I am saying again in court I did actually rely on my memory.

MR BIZOS: Now when Mr Derby-Lewis asked you for a gun for what reason did he give you for wanting a gun?

MR VENTER: He said that they were stockpiling for the battle that was ahead.

MR BIZOS: And he only asked you for one gun?

MR VENTER: No, no he asked for weapons. I only had one.

MR BIZOS: According to the note that we have, he asked for "a gun", if you said so is that incorrect?

MR VENTER: Well it's four years ago, whether there was an "s" or not, whether he added that I can't be a hundred percent certain, but I think he said weapons, but it's four years ago it's possible that I am making a mistake.

MR BIZOS: But now why would he think that you were a - you could supply him with an unlicensed gun or guns? What was the relationship between the two of you that made him confident to ask you for an unlicensed gun or guns, what was there between the two of you?

MR VENTER: I was very actively involved in politics in general, this could possibly be the reason for it.

MR BIZOS: Well the Conservative Party was a lawful organisation and Mr Derby-Lewis was one of its leaders, did the ordinary political activity of the Conservative Party include the gathering of unlicensed firearms or a firearm?

MR VENTER: Not as such, I don't think any legal organisation would do so legally, but there was a lot of talk at the time about the struggle that was looming and there was a Volksfront that was established for the defence of the people and so on. It was more-or-less in that time just before the establishment of - and it was a turbulent time and it was a very unstable period politically speaking.

MR BIZOS: Were you a member of the Volksfront?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MR BIZOS: In what cell of the Volksfront were you in?

MR VENTER: Krugersdorp.

MR BIZOS: Were all your meetings that you had of the Volksfront in February 1993 in Krugersdorp?

MR VENTER: No, that only took place quite a while after I moved to Krugersdorp, that's when I started attending those meetings, about three months after I moved to Krugersdorp.

MR BIZOS: Where did you attend meetings of the Volksfront before you attended them in Krugersdorp?

MR VENTER: I didn't attend any meetings before Krugersdorp.

MR BIZOS: So but you say that the gun was handed over shortly after you moved to Krugersdorp, but when did you become a member of the Volksfront?

MR VENTER: In the first place I didn't say it was shortly before I moved to Krugersdorp, I said it was after I moved to Krugersdorp and there was already talk of the establishment of a Volksfront, although I didn't immediately go along with that due to other obligations I had. It was only some time afterwards.

MR BIZOS: Who recruited you into the Volksfront?

MR VENTER: I can't remember the man's name.

MR BIZOS: Please be serious Sir. You were recruited into an organisation, who asked you to become a member of that organisation?

MR VENTER: As I said I can't remember the man's name. He was an employee of the Roodepoort Municipality but I can't recall his name. I haven't seen him for quite a long time, he made no particular impression on me so there is no reason why I would remember his name.

MR BIZOS: But surely the person that recruited you must have had meetings with you after he recruited you?

MR VENTER: No he didn't have any meetings with me. We went to general meetings, and he just sat there. He was just a face, if he was there, I don't know.

MR BIZOS: Oh. Was the Volksfront that you were working on an above ground or an underground organisation?

MR VENTER: It was an above ground organisation.

MR BIZOS: But could you explain why, if Mr Derby-Lewis asked you for a gun you delivered it to Mr du Randt's house?

MR VENTER: I think you must ask Mr Derby-Lewis that, I don't know.

MR BIZOS: Didn't you ask him, "why can't I bring it to you directly?"?

MR VENTER: No I didn't. I had my own suspicions, I thought Mr du Randt was the person who was actually stockpiling the weapons for him. I didn't ask.

JUDGE WILSON: Did you know him?

MR VENTER: Who?

JUDGE WILSON: Mr du Randt?

MR VENTER: No, no.

JUDGE WILSON: Weren't you somewhat hesitant about delivering an unlicensed firearm to somebody you didn't know? It was an offence to have it in your possession wasn't it?

MR VENTER: That is correct. But if Mr Derby-Lewis accepted Mr du Randt as a person to be trusted then I accepted the position as such, so I had ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: And you didn't ask any questions?

MR VENTER: I asked "why?", and he just said, just go and deliver it there it's more convenient.

MR BIZOS: Can you please tell us precisely where you were when the request was made for a gun or guns by Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR VENTER: At Mr Derby-Lewis's house.

MR BIZOS: What was the purpose of the meeting?

MR VENTER: I made an appointment with him to try and become involved in the local branch of the Conservative Party.

MR BIZOS: Is this the first time that you met him or did you know him before that?

MR VENTER: I have already said that I have known Mr Derby-Lewis since 1984, but that was the first time that I had seen him since I had moved to Krugersdorp. I think it's about two years since I last saw Mr Derby-Lewis before moving to Krugersdorp.

MR BIZOS: So that if your version is correct, here is a person that you hadn't seen for two years and he has the confidence to ask you for a gun, what sort of gun did he want?

MR VENTER: Well I couldn't give him much of a choice, I only had one firearm and that's the one I gave him.

MR BIZOS: But didn't he - did he ask for a gun or a pistol or a revolver?

MR VENTER: I can't recall the specific words, it's difficult to recall at this stage, but I think he mentioned "weapons", "weapon/weapons".

MR BIZOS: Did he ask you for a pistol or revolver which could not be traced?

MR VENTER: Not as far as I can recall, not specifically, not as far as I can remember. It's possible. It's four years ago as I have said and if I ask anybody here what happened four years ago during a conversation they had they would find that it's very difficult to recall. It's very difficult to remember the specific words.

MR BIZOS: And did he or did he not mention that it must be unlicensed and not traceable?

MR VENTER: Preferably unlicensed, if I remember correctly.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and untraceable to anyone.

MR VENTER: I don't know, I suppose unlicensed does mean untraceable because it's not licensed in anybody's name, so I suppose I assumed that if it was unlicensed it wouldn't be able to be traced, yes.

MR BIZOS: Had you asked the person that you got the gun from where the gun came from?

MR VENTER: I knew where the weapons were obtained, or the weapon.

MR BIZOS: Where were the weapons or weapon from?

MR VENTER: They stole it from the Defence Force.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Who is they?

MR VENTER: Amongst others Mr Gene Taylor from whom I got the firearm. He was in detention for a week or two and during that period my wife and I looked after him and his wife's interests and that's, I think, there was a feeling of indebtedness and that's why he gave me the firearm. I wasn't very keen to take the firearm because I already had my own firearm and a firearm was really just a nuisance, it was in my way.

MR BIZOS: When you decided to see Mr Derby-Lewis in Krugersdorp did you just walk over to his house and announce yourself?

MR VENTER: No I phoned and made an appointment and the appointment was for that date.

MR BIZOS: And this discussion was it over tea or coffee or something else?

MR VENTER: Yes, if I remember correctly we had tea. I think his wife also served cake. That's something in the back of my mind, I am not entirely clear.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And was Mrs Derby-Lewis present when her husband asked you to provide him with a gun?

MR VENTER: No she wasn't present.

MR BIZOS: Where was she when you were talking to Mr Derby-Lewis about this gun?

MR VENTER: Somewhere else in the house Sir. I can't tell you exactly in which room but she wasn't present with us.

MR BIZOS: What room were you and Mr Derby-Lewis in while this discussion about the gun was taking place?

MR VENTER: I cannot remember Sir whether it was the lounge or whether it was on our way out to my vehicle, it's something like that which reminds me that it could have been on our way out to my vehicle, outside the house.

MR BIZOS: And you know if a high-ranking Conservative Party member wanted guns for the purposes of stockpiling for the struggle that was coming, one gun was hardly a big catch. Did he ask you where you got it from and what source there was in order to really stock up?

MR VENTER: Yes I think I told him from whom I had obtained it, but well whether it's one or more a few drops add up to a bucket and he started with one, I don't know whether he wanted a hundred, but one started with one to achieve a hundred in the end.

MR BIZOS: Did he ask you how to get hold of the person that you got it from so that he could take the matter further by going and getting properly stocked-up?

MR VENTER: Sir I cannot remember whether he had asked me whom I had gone to see and so on. It's four years ago and I can't remember.

MR BIZOS: And you are absolutely sure that it was in March that you had this discussion and it was in March that you delivered the gun?

MR VENTER: I am completely certain of that because I moved in on the 1st of March and from that house where I lived I travelled to Clive's house. There is no doubt in my mind about that, that is why I said so in my original evidence. I have no doubt that it was in March, it couldn't have been in February because I didn't live there in February. I drove there on business in February but I did not travel with pistols with me to give to Clive. I didn't have contact with him, I only made contact with him after I had moved in.

JUDGE WILSON: How far was his house from yours?

MR VENTER: At present, at the time, at the time it was about a kilometre and a half away.

MR BIZOS: I would like to show you a document marked A41 in Bundle A, oh I beg your pardon, coming out of the docket which is not part of the bundle yet Mr Chairman, please tell us whether that is your signature. Never mind the rest just tell us if that is your signature Sir.

MR VENTER: It is my signature, yes.

MR BIZOS: Please give it back to me. Please read paragraph 5 into the record. Please read it out aloud into the record.

"During the second half of February Mr Derby-Lewis and I had an appointment at his house, 18 Volkburg, Noordheuwel, Krugersdorp etc."

It's probably the 2nd of February but it is erroneous. It was later corrected. This is wrong, I made a mistake there. If you had gone through with the police that I had you wouldn't be astonished that something like this could happen.

MR BIZOS: Do not anticipate my questions. Please return the document to me because there are no copies available. The statement as written originally reads -

"During the first half of February 1993...."

and "die eerste" is struck out and "tweede" has been inserted and it's initialled on the margin, is that correct?

MR VENTER: That is correct. As I said I wasn't certain at that time.

MR BIZOS: Perhaps it could go up to the Chairman please and shown around so that we are all satisfied that that is so.

MR VENTER: I would like to add that this was corrected at a later stage. I myself was confused with the dates but when I later reconsidered the whole case I knew that it was March and there is not even a chance that it could have been February.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair may we also see the document, we don't have it.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the date of that document?

MR BIZOS: I did not notice it. We will place it on record as soon as it comes back to us Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman we ask this statement which was signed on the 21st of April 1993 at 14:30 Mr Chairman, the Exhibit number will be Mr Chairman - Exhibit AH, may I put this on Mr Chairman and we will ask that copies be made to be distributed.

Now this statement was made under oath by you Sir or confirmation, I am not sure, but it does not matter, you either swore or affirmed that what you said in this statement is correct.

MR VENTER: Yes Sir, it wasn't the only statement that I made while I was in custody or while I was with the police ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Let's talk about this one. Was this one made on oath?

MR VENTER: Yes it was under oath but as I said I could make a mistake while under oath. It wasn't deliberate, it was a mistake. I didn't deliberately write it, I made a mistake under oath.

MR BIZOS: Well you see it seems to me from the fact that first it was the "first half" and then it was corrected to second half" and initialled by you minimises to a very large extent of the possibility that it was just a mistake which was made unwittingly and just on passing by, do you agree?

MR VENTER: Yes, deleting it does indicate that I was not entirely certain at this stage and that's why it was deleted and changed.

MR BIZOS: I see. You also said as soon as you were confronted by Exhibit AH that you said that you were with the police or in detention and this is why you came to make that statement, is that correct?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MR BIZOS: But now do you attribute this mistake to the fact that you were in detention at the time?

MR VENTER: Yes it contributed to that.

MR BIZOS: Yes. But now by the time that you were called to give evidence by the Attorney General of the Transvaal before the Judge President of the division you were no longer in custody?

MR VENTER: That's correct, but it had been enforced on me to such an extent and they had asked these questions so repetitively concerning February and I denied that as well that at first in court I also first stated erroneously February and then I corrected myself, I said no, it had been March.

MR BIZOS: If you look at page 407 of our one volume 5 you were asked,

"Who told you to do this?

Mr Derby-Lewis had said that the firearm had to go to Mr du Randt's house, had to be taken there and I had to tell them that it was Mr Derby-Lewis' jersey. Yes, and I did that. It was during the second half of February that I took the firearm to Mrs du Randt and handed it over to her".

You were not under any form of pressure were you at the time that you answered the Attorney General of the Transvaal?

MR VENTER: Mr Chairman with respect, Mr Bizos then has to continue reading further because it is immediately corrected.

MR BIZOS: Is that what you said?

MR VENTER: Yes as I said I stated erroneously because it had been drilled into me by the police that it was February, February and it must have been in my subconscious but I corrected it to March as I said.

JUDGE WILSON: The second half of March?

MR VENTER: Yes it was a second mistake Sir because I have to be perfectly honest, I knew it was in March but I wasn't entirely sure. My memory was refreshed by my wife when she told me it had been on the birthday of my child and that is why it had been the 10th, and that's why I say the 10th is correct. But it was definitely not in February because if I look back, I have documentation, my house was registered and I took occupation on the 1st of March, it couldn't have been, it was simply a mistake.

MR BIZOS: I will just read what you said.

"No further questions..."

said the Attorney General. And you said -

"I wish to correct, it was the second half of March, not February, I beg your pardon".

Now when is your son's birthday?

MR VENTER: It's on the 7th of March.

MR BIZOS: But now when did your wife put you right?

MR VENTER: At a much later stage, after the court case, she corrected me and told me you know you had been wrong, it was on Frans' birthday and this and that happened and I had to agree with it, that that was the case. If I think back then she was entirely correct.

MR BIZOS: Well you see when I asked you right at the beginning whether you were sure and you relied on your memory why didn't you mention this whole story of having made a statement that it was in February that your wife corrected you after the trial, you thought about it, why didn't you come out with all this when I first asked you whether you merely relied on your memory in order to tell us that it was on the 10th of March?

MR VENTER: I thought that you were completely entitled to ask me these questions as you are doing now, I knew you were going to ask me these questions and the answers remain the same.

MR BIZOS: When you made, when you telephoned Mr Derby-Lewis did you speak to him personally before you went to his house?

MR VENTER: No I think I spoke to his wife.

MR BIZOS: And did you make an appointment with her?

MR VENTER: For Mr Derby-Lewis, yes, to see him.

MR BIZOS: And by the way did you tell the person that was to deliver it that it must be in Mr Derby-Lewis' jersey?

MR VENTER: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Where had you got his jersey from ...(intervention)

MR VENTER: Your honour does Mr Bizos say in his jersey or that it was his jersey?

CHAIRPERSON: Put your question again because I was busy taking down and I didn't hear, sorry. Mr Bizos put your question again please.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you have Mr Derby-Lewis' jersey with you when you wrapped up the gun?

MR VENTER: No I didn't.

MR BIZOS: Whose jersey was it?

MR VENTER: I didn't have a jersey.

MR BIZOS: Did you give instructions to anyone to say that the gun was to be wrapped up in a jersey?

MR VENTER: No I hadn't.

MR BIZOS: Was the question of a jersey ever any part of any discussion in relation to the delivery of this gun?

MR VENTER: Mr Derby-Lewis said to me that I had to tell Du Randt that this was Clive's jersey and give him the pistol.

MR BIZOS: Oh I see. So this, Mr Derby-Lewis's jersey, was that a sort-of code word then and not to be taken in an innocent fashion in which I took it before I asked you the other question?

MR VENTER: Well I wouldn't know whether it was a code word between Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr du Randt but I was told to do so and I did it.

MR BIZOS: Well if there was not going to be a jersey involved in the transaction then the only thing that it would mean was that in handing it over Mr du Randt must have had made a previous arrangement for Mr du Randt to receive the gun and that a code word was going to be used.

MR VENTER: Well I wouldn't know.

MR BIZOS: Well just look at your words on page 2407.

"Mr Derby-Lewis said that the firearm had to be taken to Mr du Randt's house and I had to just say to them, 'this is Mr Derby-Lewis' jersey'".

Doesn't that sound as if this was a code word?

MR VENTER: Possibly, I don't know what the arrangement was. To me it was not a code word, to me it didn't mean anything. It was simply a matter of saying instead of this is a pistol there is his jersey. I think it was quite a joke.

MR BIZOS: A joke!

MR VENTER: Ja, I saw some humour in it, it was a pistol and I called it a jersey.

MR BIZOS: I see. If you bear with me for one moment please. Was it as like as a jersey?

MR VENTER: No it was a pistol in a pistol box in a white plastic bag.

MR BIZOS: Was there any other business that you wanted to discuss with Mr Derby-Lewis other than you joining the Conservative Party?

MR VENTER: Not necessarily, I simply went to report, tell him that if he needed workers I was available, that was it.

MR BIZOS: Did Mr Derby-Lewis ask you whether a silencer could be fitted on the gun that he asked you for?

MR VENTER: No, I don't know anything about silencers.

MR BIZOS: Mr Venter, did you know anything about Mr Hani?

MR VENTER: No Sir, only what I read in the newspapers. That's what I knew about him.

MR BIZOS: If you look at paragraph - I'll read to you what you said in the last sentence of paragraph 3 of AH.

"Mr Taylor said to me that I had to keep the firearm with a view to the possible struggle or battle that was ahead"

Did he tell you that?

MR VENTER: Well I suppose so, I can't remember specifically, it's quite possibly what he said, "massacre or battle", that was more-or-less the vein in which it was said.

MR BIZOS: What massacre was he referring to?

MR VENTER: I suspect that it was the one that was ahead of us according to the Conservative Party but which, thank heaven, didn't take place.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Who was going to start the "massacre"?

MR VENTER: Well I don't know. We were under the impression that the SACP/ANC would initiate this and we were taking defensive steps in the Volksfront. That is the massacre/battle which I thought of.

MR BIZOS: Did you not know of any offensive "battle" that sections of the Volksfront were planning at the time?

MR VENTER: No Sir. Mr Chair if Mr Bizos poses the question using the words "at the time", does he refer to the period before or after Mr Hani's death, because according to Mr Hartzenberg the Volksfront was only established after Mr Hani's death?

MR BIZOS: When I mean the period Mr Chairman I mean both before and after Mr Hani's death.

CHAIRPERSON: Well more particularly when Mr Taylor gave him the weapon.

MR BIZOS: Precisely Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: And there wasn't a Volksfront then was there?

MR BIZOS: There will be evidence to the contrary to that of Mr Derby-Lewis'.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes carry on.

MR BIZOS: No I beg your pardon, this was in 1990 that the - I beg your pardon, no I must apologise, this was said in 1990 and I will accept - and I withdraw the question, this is quite correct, I was thinking of the time of Mr Hani's death. But that is correct, I didn't realise that. I may say Mr Chairman that we had no notice that this witness would be called and I haven't - I have been looking at the documents cursorily whilst I am asking the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Thank you Mr - well let me just put this. Mr Venter I am going to, we are going to submit to the Committee that you obviously know much more and had many more things to do with Mr Derby-Lewis than you are prepared to admit having regard to the contradictions in your evidence.

MR VENTER: That would be absolutely untrue.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman. Mr Venter you recall the Committee member, Justice Wilson, asked you as to how could you take a firearm to a person who was unknown to you and you said Clive Derby-Lewis had told you that he trusted that person and you took Clive's word. Do you remember that?

MR VENTER: No I don't. I didn't say that Clive trusted that person. I said I accepted that if Clive told me to take the pistol to a specific person that it was natural to me that he trusted the person. I didn't say Clive had said so.

MR MPSHE: Alright, I stand corrected. So it was natural that he trusted that person in such a way that you could even take the pistol to him without even having to hide to him that it was a pistol?

MR VENTER: Correct, yes.

MR MPSHE: Now why was it necessary then to use a code and to refer to the pistol as a jersey if he trusted that person?

MR VENTER: I wouldn't know that. As I said I didn't know and I don't know.

MR MPSHE: You don't know why you had to call it a jersey?

MR VENTER: No I don't.

JUDGE WILSON: But I think you have told us that you called it a jersey because Derby-Lewis told you to.

MR VENTER: That is correct, yes.

MR MPSHE: Well you remember because you have been reminded by the Judge now, okay.

Had Clive asked for a weapon from you before this particular incident?

MR VENTER: I don't understand the question.

MR MPSHE: Had he in the past asked for any other firearm, in the past before this particular firearm?

MR VENTER: No.

MR MPSHE: Now during the two year period when you had lost contact with him what were you doing then? Were you tactically involved in the CP activities or not?

MR VENTER: Yes I was involved in CP activities but in another ward, Mr Piet de la Rey's ward, in Delarey. I didn't have anything to do with Mr Derby-Lewis at this stage.

MR MPSHE: Now you told this Committee that he, Clive asked for this firearm at the very first meeting after two years when you had made an appointment with him, is that correct?

MR VENTER: Yes that is so, but he knows me well. Whether we hadn't seen each other for two years it doesn't matter.

MR MPSHE: Right. Besides talking about you wanting to know about the CP local activities what other things did you discuss with him?

MR VENTER: I can't remember that I discussed anything else with him, I specifically went there to report that I would be joining up with the CP there, perhaps see how things were, just small talk, but I can't remember specifically it's four years ago Sir.

MR MPSHE: But you can remember specifically four years ago that he asked for a firearm?

MR VENTER: That's very difficult to forget Sir.

MR MPSHE: I see. What had actually prompted him to talk to you about a firearm?

MR VENTER: I wouldn't know. It's quite possible that the general discussion regarding our problems, the slogans of "kill a farmer, kill a boer", etc gave rise and this is only human that it would reasonably be so. This is why perhaps it gave reason - to the discussion I can't remember the exact words. I can't repeat, as I say it's too long ago.

MR MPSHE: I see. For how long had this firearm been in your possession?

MR VENTER: From 1990.

MR MPSHE: Why did you have to keep this unlicensed firearm?

MR VENTER: Well I kept it for the same reason, with a view to the problems ahead, but the thing was actually just in my way and I was only too glad to get rid of it.

MR MPSHE: Did you disclose this to Clive that you are also keeping it for the same reasons?

MR VENTER: I probably did.

MR MPSHE: Was there any call by the CP to stockpile and to keep firearms?

MR VENTER: No the CP is a legal organisation and wouldn't have demanded things like that.

MR MPSHE: Yes, but what had made you then to start keeping an unlicensed firearm?

MR VENTER: As I said it was the general condition of the country, we all knew that problems were coming, we didn't know the scope and when, and it was quite simply that I thought it was obvious in the light of statements that had been made, threats that had been made etc, and I think it is quite reasonable that I expected problems in the future.

MR MPSHE: Mr Venter didn't you have your own licensed firearm?

MR VENTER: Yes I had a number of licensed firearms.

MR MPSHE: How many?

MR VENTER: At that stage I had three.

MR MPSHE: And you felt three licensed firearms were not enough, you had to get another one?

MR VENTER: Could the question perhaps be repeated.

MR MPSHE: You thought three licensed firearms were not sufficient to be used by you.

MR VENTER: Three were enough. The other one was given to me as a gift and I kept it in case I needed it.

MR MPSHE: Mr Venter do you want this Committee to believe that Clive just out of the blue, just when you were talking about the general problems in the area, just started asking you for a firearm without any prior discussions that led to that, any prior specific discussions that led to him asking for a firearm?

MR VENTER: I think he felt free to do so because I knew him well enough.

MR MPSHE: Did he know that you would be able to provide a firearm, an unlicensed firearm?

MR VENTER: No I don't think he knew. I think he was quite surprised when I told him I did have one.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE

MR BIZOS: May I be permitted to ask one or two questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it ground that you haven't covered already?

MR BIZOS: No I have not Mr Chairman. May I Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: When did you find out for the first time that the gun that you supplied was used to kill Mr Hani?

MR VENTER: When the police arrested me.

MR BIZOS: Was that after Mr Derby-Lewis' arrest?

MR VENTER: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: Have you seen Mr Derby-Lewis since?

MR VENTER: Since when Mr Chairman?

MR BIZOS: Well since you saw him at his trial when you learnt, or after you learnt that your gun had been used to kill Mr Hani, have you seen Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR VENTER: I visited him in jail, he's a friend of mine, numerous times.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever ask him why he lied to you about the purpose to which the gun was going to be put?

MR VENTER: No I suppose it was their part of stockpiling, the moment I gave them the firearm the matter was out of my control, I couldn't control what they were going to do with it.

MR BIZOS: Did you ask him whether at the time that he asked you and at the time that you provided the firearm whether that was his intention to use the gun for that purpose?

MR VENTER: No I didn't know that they would be doing so.

MR BIZOS: Why did you not ask him?

MR VENTER: Sir what is first, the chicken or the egg? I didn't know that person would die, I didn't know that that would be the firearm, I didn't know that Hani would be shot, it was impossible for me to ask him that.

JUDGE WILSON: The question was did you ask him afterwards as I understand Mr Bizos, not before, after you knew he had used your gun to kill Hani, did you then ask him about whether when he got the gun he intended to use it to kill Hani?

MR VENTER: No I didn't.

MR BIZOS: Well why not? You had suffered some disadvantage as a result of your request by your friend to supply the gun. You were detained and you had to make a public admission that you had in your possession a stolen and unlicensed firearm, why didn't you confront him, "why did you take this gun from me, used it for the murder of Mr Hani without telling me the true purpose for which you intended the gun to be used"?

MR VENTER: I didn't ask, I didn't meet Mr Derby-Lewis in a lounge after that, I visited him in jail and it was too late, it was too late to cry.

MR BIZOS: One of the reasons may well have been that you did not ask him because you knew what it was going to be used for.

MR VENTER: No Sir I didn't know.

MR BIZOS: Has there been an answer Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes he said he didn't know.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

MS VAN DER WALT: May I also ask a few questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Venter you were detained in terms of Section 29 is that correct?

MR VENTER: No the police lied to me and they told me that I was being arrested in terms of Section 29 but I wasn't detained under that.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you have also referred to the fact that you made more than one statement?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: In court when you testified Mr von Lieres, the Attorney General of the Witwatersrand asked the honourable Court to warn you in terms of Section 204 whereafter you testified and you were granted indemnity of by the court.

MR VENTER: Yes that's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: I wish to refer you Mr Chair to volume 8. I am only going to read a small portion from that, page (607), it is the evidence of the then accused number 3, Mrs Derby-Lewis, top of the page this referred to the date on which Mr Hani was shot, the 10th of April, and page (670), the normal number 530. It's Volume 8.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the normal number and (...indistinct)

MS VAN DER WALT: 530.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean normal number and ...(intervention)

MS VAN DER WALT: There are two numbers Mr Chair, sorry....

CHAIRPERSON: Yes do carry on.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mrs Derby-Lewis was testifying regarding the 10th and then she says in the fourth line -

"We had made arrangements to go to the Venter's house. Mr Venter had phoned me some time in March and said that he had moved into Krugersdorp".

Is that correct?

MR VENTER: Yes it is.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Mr Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: It is AH, only a portion had been read, I'd like to read something, or refer to it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Prinsloo whilst you are thinking about it there might be questions members of the Committee might want to ask.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Venter you were asked by Mr Bizos about what you said on page 267 of the record about this happening in the second half of February, if you remember?

MR VENTER: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Well if you look at the previous page, page 266 or (406) it is recorded here that you said, after having explained how you got the gun -

"How did it happen that you gave it to Mr Derby-Lewis?

Well Mr Derby-Lewis during March, it must have been the beginning of March sometime asked me - is it this year, March this year? Yes this year".

So it would seem that you originally said that it was in March and then only a little later you said it was in February.

MR VENTER: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: One other point I'd like to deal with you, you said you had three "weapons", what sort?

MR VENTER: I had a shotgun, a .357 Magnum revolver and a .22 revolver.

JUDGE WILSON: Were you known as somebody who liked guns?

MR VENTER: Well yes I am quite enthusiastic about firearms, I have an eye for them.

JUDGE WILSON: Thank you.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Exhibit AH was it written by yourself?

MR VENTER: Is that the statement which I saw here?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR VENTER: No it wasn't written by me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I understand your evidence to be that you gave the - you delivered the firearm to Mrs du Rand on the 10th of March.

MR VENTER: That is correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And I notice that on your statement, paragraph 5, well your cancelled "first part" to "second part", you corrected that.

MR VENTER: What did I correct Sir, I am not with you?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well the portion that you were shown earlier on during the "second part" which was "first half" and then you changed it to the "second half".

MR VENTER: Yes, in my statement yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And the same mistake was repeated in your evidence, during the trial, that it was during the second part of February.

MR VENTER: That's correct. The police insisted and they kept saying February, February and I think that is how I made the mistake. It was purely a slip of the tongue, it was an error.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But would you say that the 10th of March is the second half of the month?

MR VENTER: No, as I said after the trial my wife, who remembered my childrens' birthdays much better she said to me - "look Fanie it is wrong, it was the 10th of March", and when I reconstrued the whole thing in my mind it was in fact the 10th of March, it was correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, what I am saying to you, please listen to my question carefully. I am referring to page 407 of the record. I appreciate you don't have a copy, but let me read it to you what your supposed self-correction reads like.

"I just want to correct it, it was the second half of March".

MR VENTER: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But that can't be correct.

MR VENTER: It isn't correct, it's the first half of March, and that's why I said I made a mistake.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, you didn't say you made a mistake about this, you told us a short while ago that during the trial you corrected yourself from saying the second part of February, you corrected yourself and put it right to say the second part of March.

MR VENTER: That's correct.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Which is also incorrect.

MR VENTER: That's also incorrect, that's also incorrect.

JUDGE NGOEPE: So you are being incorrect in about three, four times.

MR VENTER: Yes I was wrong with the date. At that stage I really couldn't recall what the date was.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You were wrong in saying the first half of February; you were wrong, according to you, in saying the second part of February; and you were also wrong in saying the second part of March.

MR VENTER: That is correct, yes, unfortunately it is one of those things, I am sorry.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But when you made these two mistakes regarding February, that's the first part of February, and the second part of February, were you not tying this up with the fact that - that is were you not tying up the date of the delivery with the fact that as you say you delivered the weapon only after you had already arrived in Krugersdorp. Do you understand my question?

MR VENTER: No not really, please repeat that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You told us that you arrived in Krugersdorp in March.

MR VENTER: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: When you made this statement which you say is incorrect you knew that you had arrived in Krugersdorp in March, isn't it?

MR VENTER: Yes and no. I actually confused March and February totally. I am very sorry, it was simply a mistake.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I would never have thought that you could have forgotten as to when you had come to live in Krugersdorp.

MR VENTER: Yes I had a lot of business and I went to Krugersdorp a lot before then and I simply made a mistake.

JUDGE NGOEPE: After Mr Derby-Lewis had asked you to help collect weapons, and after you delivered this one, did you continue to look for some more weapons?

MR VENTER: No I wouldn't have known where to start looking. I didn't continue looking for weapons, I didn't know the right people who would be the right contacts for weapons at that stage.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You know I hear you saying that the police insisted that it was during February and that is why you kept saying it was February. What interest did the police have that they should tell you it was February?

MR VENTER: I am not sure, but this February, February thing, it was constantly mentioned to me that it was February and that is I think what planted the seed in my mind that it was February. But I corrected it later and I am sorry about that. My wife pointed out to me that it was the 10th of March actually which was also the date of our child's birthday and I can't dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: No I am now talking about the police. I couldn't understand what reason the police would have to tell you or to insist that it was February, what reason would they have?

MR VENTER: I don't know what purpose it could have served for them.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright. So now that mistake you attribute to the fact that the police were in some way reminding you to say that it was February, so you made that mistake.

Now then eventually when you changed to March the police had no say in the matter when you changed from the first half of March to the second half of March, is that so?

MR VENTER: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you must admit that your recollection is such that in this matter here that you must have considerable doubt in your mind as to whether it was in February or March?

MR VENTER: When I wrote those documents I did have doubt. I didn't actually draw together all these points. I moved in the 1st of March, child's birthday, I didn't actually bring together all these points. I had doubt, I corrected it, I said it couldn't have been February it must have been March. I was under the impression that it was in the second half of March. I was sincerely of that opinion but I was wrong, it couldn't have been then.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Mr Venter ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Hold it Sisi.

JUDGE WILSON: How old was your child?

MR VENTER: It was his 21st birthday.

JUDGE WILSON: So what sort of party was it?

MR VENTER: It wasn't a party, it was just a family gathering, brothers and sisters and so forth.

JUDGE WILSON: What time?

MR VENTER: Usually round about 7:00, 7:30.

JUDGE WILSON: In the evening?

MR VENTER: In the evening, yes.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Mr Venter at the time when you gave evidence before Justice Eloff on the 15th of October 1993 you knew then that the date on which you delivered the gun to Du Randt's house was an important piece of evidence?

MR VENTER: Yes, but nobody actually pushed me on that particular issue or cross-examined me on it. I had testified as to that and that was that. Nobody actually cross-examined me.

MISS KHAMPEPE: But the police had before that day tried to induce you to agree to the second part of February as being the date around which the gun was delivered to Mrs du Randt, and you had, before the 15th of October, corrected yourself with regard to both particular periods.

MR VENTER: Yes, not as the police put pressure on me about February, they just kept saying it was February, February, so I think that just made me think that it was February. I didn't actually realise it was that important.

MISS KHAMPEPE: But didn't your wife at that stage speak to you to try and enable your recollection to be accurate and remind you about the birthday that had taken place about a few days before the delivery of the gun to Mr du Randt?

MR VENTER: She did, but it only happened after the trial. The first that she heard regarding the particulars of the case was at the trial and that was when she told me, "look Fanie, it wasn't the second half of February, it was the 10th of March to be exact, because it was Fanie's birthday", but it was only after the trial that she said this.

MISS KHAMPEPE: During the meeting with Mr Derby-Lewis which took place on the 10th of March did you apprise him then that the weapon that he was asking you to look for that you had at least one weapon immediately available, that you could give him to contribute to his stockpiling?

MR VENTER: When he asked me I said yes I did have a weapon, but he was quite surprised when I told him I had a weapon. I don't think he expected that from me. I was quite keen to get rid of the weapon because really it was just a nuisance for me.

MISS KHAMPEPE: So he still insisted that the weapon should be delivered to the du Randt's house?

MR VENTER: He asked that I do that, yes.

MISS KHAMPEPE: And he gave an explanation why it had to be delivered to the du Randt's house?

MR VENTER: No he didn't give me an explanation.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Did you ask him for an explanation?

MR VENTER: No I assumed that the du Randt's were probably the people who were involved in the stockpiling of the weapons. I didn't know the exact circumstances.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Was the request by Mr Derby-Lewis to the effect that the gun had to be delivered to the du Randt's house or to Mr du Randt?

MR VENTER: No Mr du Randt's house. He gave me the address and everything.

MISS KHAMPEPE: So it was to be delivered to anyone who was in the house, not specifically to Mr du Randt, is that your evidence?

MR VENTER: Yes well he said to Mr du Randt, but then I found Mrs du Randt so I gave her the parcel.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: And you told Mrs du Randt that it was a jersey, but it was actually a firearm?

MR VENTER: Yes that's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: Which had not been wrapped in a jersey?

MR VENTER: No. It wasn't in a jersey, I think it was in a plastic bag and there was a box, a firearm box and that had been put into the plastic bag.

ADV POTGIETER: So she told us the firearm had been wrapped in a jersey and it was put in an OK Bazaars plastic bag.

MR VENTER: It was probably an OK Bazaars bag but there was no jersey.

ADV POTGIETER: Well as I am putting it to you she says it was wrapped in a jersey.

MR VENTER: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Is she making a mistake?

MR VENTER: Well she must be making a mistake because I didn't put the firearm in a jersey. I put the box in a plastic bag and I put it down on her table, I said "there is Clive's jersey, please give it to your husband".

ADV POTGIETER: You said that it was a jersey for Clive and you told that to a woman that you didn't know at all?

MR VENTER: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And actually the parcel contained a firearm in a box?

MR VENTER: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: So it must have been quite clear to the person receiving it that you weren't actually telling the truth, that it wasn't a jersey?

MR VENTER: Yes. Well that is why I said I found it quite funny to say that it's a jersey when it wasn't.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you find it humorous?

MR VENTER: Yes, yes I did, because it wasn't a jersey, it was a firearm.

JUDGE WILSON: And what would have happened if she had panicked and phoned the police and said some strange man has just come here, said he was leaving a jersey here and he's left a gun?

MR VENTER: No I didn't expect that to happen. I expected that Mr Derby-Lewis would have told them that it was on its way, the firearm was on its way so why, you know why would I have had to tell them as if they had no prior knowledge of the firearm. So I don't think that it was just a matter of delivering a firearm to strangers. Mr Derby-Lewis said take it there and just tell Mr du Randt that this is the jersey, Clive's jersey and they would know what to do with it.

ADV POTGIETER: The improbability, the strangeness of the situation which I am trying to put to you is that according to her it was indeed a jersey, but when she later peeped into this parcel, probably from sheer curiosity she then realised that it was a firearm.

MR VENTER: No it wasn't wrapped in a jersey, it was just in a plastic bag. I definitely didn't wrap it in a jersey, I didn't have jersey belonging to Clive, I had only seen him once, so I didn't have a jersey that belonged to Clive.

ADV POTGIETER: One other aspect, when did your wife correct you after the trial?

MR VENTER: When - virtually immediately after the trial.

ADV POTGIETER: Immediately after you testified?

MR VENTER: No she wasn't present at the court hearing but when she heard what the exact evidence was she told me, "look Fanie it wasn't that day, it was the 10th". She also pointed out certain times and dates and I had to agree with her that that's the way it happened.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you then try to correct your testimony?

MR VENTER: No I - well how could I correct it? After Mrs Derby-Lewis had been released from prison I told her that I had made a mistake and she said, "ja I know it was the first half of March".

ADV POTGIETER: You didn't tell the State advocate that?

MR VENTER: I only realised that after I Clive had been convicted and I don't know whether it was something he relied on for his appeal.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Mr Venter you have stated that you expected Mr Derby-Lewis to have phoned the du Randts to apprise them that you would be coming to deliver this jersey, what time was your meeting with Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR VENTER: It was before 12 in the morning, it was during the morning.

MISS KHAMPEPE: And when was the jersey delivered to Mrs du Randt?

MR VENTER: I didn't deliver a jersey to Mrs du Randt, it was only a firearm that I took there.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Yes, well that was the code name of the firearm.

MR VENTER: It was early evening, round about five o'clock, maybe six o'clock.

MISS KHAMPEPE: And did you tell Mr Derby-Lewis that you would be delivering the firearm to the du Randts on that day, did you tell him that?

MR VENTER: No he told me that I should deliver it on that - he told me to go and deliver it there.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Did he tell you when to deliver the firearm to the du Randt's house? That is my question.

MR VENTER: I can't recall that he gave me an exact date, he just said, go and give it to them.

MISS KHAMPEPE: When you went in the evening, had he told you whether he would be phoning the du Randt's?

MR VENTER: No he didn't. He didn't tell me when he was going to phone them. I got the impression that - I was under the impression that the du Randt's were actually waiting for it - "they say I am going to stock up, I am stocking up" and I expected that they were the people who were actually doing the stockpiling of weapons, that's how I thought at the time.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: How far was the du Randt's house from yours?

MR VENTER: Approximately two kilometres.

JUDGE WILSON: So it was further than Mr Derby-Lewis' house, it was a house you didn't know and yet it was supposed to be more convenient to drop it there. How could that possibly be?

MR VENTER: I wouldn't know. I simply carried out the instruction.

JUDGE WILSON: Because I gather, I am not certain of this but my recollection of the evidence was that you had trouble finding the du Randt's house.

MR VENTER: Yes I had to drive around a bit looking for it, but I found it.

JUDGE WILSON: While you were arranging for your son's 21st birthday party?

MR VENTER: My wife made these preparations, not me.

JUDGE WILSON: You were driving around looking for strangers.

MR VENTER: Well if I did drive around it was only for about five minutes, it didn't last hours, but I did actually look for the house. I was looking for the du Randt's whom I had never met before.

MISS KHAMPEPE: If I gather your evidence properly then Mr Venter is that you suspected that something sinister was going on?

MR VENTER: What do you mean exactly?

MISS KHAMPEPE: Requested by Mr Derby-Lewis to deliver the firearm to the du Randts, you didn't ask further questions because you suspected something sinister was going on?

MR VENTER: I assumed that the weapons were being stockpiled because of the general conditions in the country and I wasn't surprised because at that stage the right-wing organisations or people had been arrested for illegal possession of firearms and there was a trend towards stockpiling of weapons although I wasn't involved in that myself.

MISS KHAMPEPE: And you thought the du Randt's were involved in that group of stockpiling?

MR VENTER: That was what I thought, yes, and that's why I thought I had to go there to go and deliver it.

MISS KHAMPEPE: When you came in did you ascertain whether that person you were speaking to was Mrs du Randt?

MR VENTER: I just asked, who lives here, are you Mrs du Randt? She said yes. I said I've brought Clive's jersey and I put it down and I left.

MISS KHAMPEPE: Did you give her instructions to ensure that the jersey was delivered by them to Clive?

MR VENTER: Yes I said please see to it that your husband delivers it safely or receives it safely.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Prinsloo you made reference to a document with regard to claims which are made by Mr Derby-Lewis, that is the document Mr Chairman said you could talk to Mr Bizos about like during the adjournment, but I am curious about that document and the nature of it precisely. Will that document tend to show that Mr Derby-Lewis, during the say the first or second half of February was in Cape Town and therefore he could not have met with the witness in Krugersdorp?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman the document I've got here, the President's Council document, it will indicate that Mr Derby-Lewis was in the President's Council from the 21st of February until the 5th of March. That's the document I've got here. The documents here are the payments etc, claim for payment, travelling expenses and so on, for that period.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo we will just come to that. Have you any re-examination of this witness?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Venter when the police were questioning you in relation to the statement that you made do you know whether Mrs du Randt had already made a statement at that stage or not?

MR VENTER: I think that she had already made a statement because I only made a statement the next day and she'd already gone home, so I think she had already made a statement.

MR PRINSLOO: So if she had already made a statement in which she said that (the Interpreter is unable to hear, there is a strange noise on the equipment)

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it there's seems to be a bit of trouble, we can't hear clearly. Let's just have it again, maybe....

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Venter I will repeat. When you were being questioned by the police do you know whether at that stage Mrs du Randt had already made a statement to the police?

MR VENTER: I assumed that she had because she had already gone home before I made my statement so I assume they wouldn't have released her until she'd made a statement and that's why I make that assumption.

MR PRINSLOO: Now if she had stated that it was in February, could it have been put to the police, to you like that?

MR VENTER: That's what I think happened.

MR PRINSLOO: You said that you were in detention but not Section 29 detention?

MR VENTER: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Now were you in custody?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: For how long had you been in custody?

MR VENTER: Two days.

MR PRINSLOO: Two days?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the allegation against you, why you were being arrested?

MR VENTER: They told me I was being - I was told that I was arrested under Section 29.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you make this statement whilst you were in detention?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you make more than one statement?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you make a statement to an attorney?

MR VENTER: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you very much. You are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson I believe that Mr Visser, Mr Bizos' witness has arrived and he is available. Mr Bizos has indicated that he is going to call Mr Visser as a witness, he has now arrived. I don't know what Mr Bizos intends doing with Mr Visser.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, is Mr du Randt not going to be called by the applicants?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling Mr du Randt?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair I first wish to go and fetch some statements from my car before I call Mr du Randt and also some documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now I am so, I am unhappy that we have to adjourn for such things as having to stop to go and fetch documents you know. We have very limited time today as you well knew beforehand. Now is it your intention to call Mr du Randt?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chair this decision only arose last night and Mr Bizos indicated that today he will be calling Mr Visser as witness and this morning ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No I am not talking about Mr Visser, I am talking about you. Is it not your intention to call Mr du Randt?

MR PRINSLOO: I will call Mr du Randt but I first have to speak to him.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we carry on Mr Bizos whether Mr du Randt is called or not?

MR BIZOS: Mr Visser is in the hall, we have consulted with him and we have a statement and we want to call him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: But in view of his absence yesterday he waved to me that he wants to speak to Mr Mpshe is the way I understood the communication. In the circumstances could we have a very short adjournment just in case he wants to say anything to Mr Mpshe which is of any relevance to his being called or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes very well we will take a very short adjournment and you will during that time get the documents you want.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Because of the constraints imposed upon us and which are beyond our control we were going to adjourn by 12 o'clock today in any case. Although there is a little time left between now and then I think it is impractical to start a new witness' evidence at this stage even though we may finish a part of his evidence. And it now seems that the evidence of that witness and other witnesses who are likely to be called and who have not turned up they will have to be heard on another occasion. Unfortunately it is not possible for us to say at this stage when the Committee, constituted as it is, will be able to sit, but the earliest available date will be obtained and I'm not in a position now to tell you even when that is going to be.

However, the Committee is now going to adjourn these hearings and we will resume on a date to be arranged. Interested parties no doubt will be consulted in finalising the date of the resume hearing.

It is important that I should place on record an agreement that has been reached by counsel and that is counsel for the applicants will hand in their written argument on or before the 23rd of February 1998, and that counsel for the objectors will thereafter hand in theirs by not later than 9th of March 1998. It is hoped that if these arguments are handed in we may yet save a little time at the resumed hearing. I would just like to confirm with counsel, it quite clear Mr Prinsloo and Mrs van der Walt that 23rd February is the date for you to do that?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, and we will reply to Mr Bizos' arguments if necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Bizos the 9th of March is the date by which ...(intervention)

MR BIZOS: Yes we accept that and will do so accordingly.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Obviously it means that the adjournment of this matter to another date will only be after these documents have reached the Committee.

We have reached the stage where all that is left to say is that this matter is now adjourned to a date that will be arranged in the future. This Committee adjourns.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS TO A DATE TO BE ARRANGED

The O’Malley Archives

Name: Mr Clive Derby-Lewis