Amnesty Hearings

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

ON RESUMPTION - 4 DECEMBER 1997

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