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

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

GAYE DERBY-LEWIS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that’s correct.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Approximately when was this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you meet him?

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 1987.

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: First of all, public meetings?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And meetings of the officials?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that on a regular basis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

JUDGE WILSON: Which is the transcript, volume what?

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think it’s R1.

MR PRINSLOO: ...[indistinct]

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

JUDGE WILSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: It is found in the large file.

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

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

"Reply to the request for further and better particulars"

and then a list of names.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you look at it please?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Is that the original document?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Q.

MR PRINSLOO: Q was the last exhibit.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: T, Mr Chairman.

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

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases.

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

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

"Ferdie re ANC info - when needed"

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Five lines of the written lines.

JUDGE WILSON: 4 o’clock - 16H00.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 4 o’clock, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Now, ...[intervention]

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: They’re all journalists.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr - the name Niehaus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: And the person Jordan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: What paragraph are you referring to?

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

And further down:

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to a statement?

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases Mr Chairman.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Paragraph 3.

MR PRINSLOO: That’s page one.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Page one.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: And who was this man?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Steven Laufer.

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

MR PRINSLOO: That’s correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about Exhibit V?

MR BIZOS: Exhibit V.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Let’s carry on please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That was the Rotunda.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that in Johannesburg?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did.

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: But is there a description?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There a description, yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: That’s the handwriting.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you write on this list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this your handwriting?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Yes?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Can we shorten ...[inaudible]

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, and then?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: According to the evidence.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you give it to your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: And was your husband present?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He was, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It did.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Yes?

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: What do you mean by that?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Deviated from the truth.

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Prior to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Absolutely nothing.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Or any prior stage?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: What is written there?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he did.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you attend this breakfast?

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Or any person on that list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: So, he could be contacted telephonically?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Which Mr Visser?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: And Dillis van Straaten?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes?

MR PRINSLOO: Was she known to you?

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR PRINSLOO: May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: This recent investigation of the Committee.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Start off with Exhibit X1.

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

MR PRINSLOO: Yes?

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

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Now, continue.

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: That’s correct.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And as far as X2 is concerned?

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Just carry on.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the whole purpose of this document?

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that.

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

Will you please refer to that Mrs Derby-Lewis?

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

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

JUDGE WILSON: Where is it?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

MR PRINSLOO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Are you dealing with X3 now?

MR PRINSLOO: X4, Mr Chairman.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

MR PRINSLOO: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on with X4.

MR PRINSLOO: X4 ...[intervention]

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the date of that letter?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

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

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

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

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

and his answer was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: How did you do it?

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

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

and he said:

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

And then I said to Mr Deetleffs:

and he said:

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

and I said:

and he said:

and quite a few other threats.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Did he contact Advocate Prinsloo?

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

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

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

and he kept saying:

MR PRINSLOO: And did your attorney arrive?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the same day?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

or:

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Colonel van Niekerk.

MR PRINSLOO: What did he say to you?

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

and he said it’s:

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Was he assisted by anyone?

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

CHAIRPERSON: What is the purpose of that?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Is that in dispute Mr Bizos?

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: As it pleases Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, the document which you - you said you wrote a

document whilst you were still in custody, after you were released from your detention in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act.

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Has it been handed in already?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Mr Chairman.

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you write this document?

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

MR PRINSLOO: And where were you at that stage?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That’s in this cellophane folder?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

CHAIRPERSON: What is Y2?

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, you may.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

and I said:

It is on the tape actually.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: response to what you told?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling him as a witness?

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Sir?

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may take it back.

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

MR PRINSLOO: ...[inaudible]

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment Mr Chairman.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it, hold it.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Pages what?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

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

JUDGE WILSON: Dated when?

MR PRINSLOO: 269 to 276 Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Date?

MR PRINSLOO: 27th of April.

CHAIRPERSON: The same date?

JUDGE WILSON: The same date?

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Sorry, Mr Chairman.

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

MR PRINSLOO: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What pages are those?

MR PRINSLOO: Pages 240 to 259.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, and the fourth one?

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

CHAIRPERSON: On the same day two statements?

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

JUDGE WILSON: What was the last page?

MR PRINSLOO: 289 Mr Chairman.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And this was in your own handwriting?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

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

Is that correct, did you say that or not?

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

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

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

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

and over the page:

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

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

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

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

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

Now, is that true or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that’s not true.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you write it?

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

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

How much of that paragraph is not true?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The start:

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: And that is not correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct.

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

What do you say to that?

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 76?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: So, that is correct?

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: 161.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you reading from?

JUDGE WILSON: Paragraph 80.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: It should be 161.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Now, paragraph 81 starts:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

MR PRINSLOO:

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: These are the words of de Waal?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: But van Niekerk did not instruct you?

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

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

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

and so forth.

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

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

CHAIRPERSON: 272?

MR PRINSLOO: 272 Mr Chairman, paragraph 65.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it. Paragraph what?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph?

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 65, page 272.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

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

JUDGE WILSON: Same day?

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

Have you got it Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO:

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: That was taken out?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: This is the new version?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

And it now reads:

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

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

JUDGE WILSON: But it’s now toned down?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No:

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

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

I never saw a gun.

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

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I’m sorry about that.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: ...[inaudible]

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: You mean this paragraph?

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

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

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

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

It’s on the tape.

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

It’s a question that’s asked.

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

MR PRINSLOO: Now, who introduced this word:

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

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

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

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

Clive and/or Kuba?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO:

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO:

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

and I said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said:

They were his words:

CHAIRPERSON: That appears on the tapes?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Paragraph what?

JUDGE NGOEPE: 74.

MR PRINSLOO: 74.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Pertinently incriminates your husband.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: And you agreed to write it?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: ...[inaudible]

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you say that?

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

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

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

Now, you are saying ...[intervention]

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

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you wrote the words.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And who advised you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr de Waal.

MR PRINSLOO:

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

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

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: And then further down:

Was that correct or not?

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

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The whole paragraph.

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

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

CHAIRPERSON: van der Walt.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

JUDGE WILSON: Colonel van Niekerk.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it van Niekerk?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please Mr Chairman.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Page 240, paragraph what?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Leanings, I think.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Page 250 ...[intervention]

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

MR PRINSLOO: That’s correct Mr Chairman.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: And with reference to the exact plans?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 42 yes, Mr Chairman.

The last two lines on that same page:

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

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you write that?

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

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

What do you say to that?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Which particular aspect?

MR PRINSLOO:

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

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

What do you say to that?

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

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

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no.

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

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

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you write that Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, again I was asked to write that, I was told to put it in.

MR PRINSLOO: Then ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don’t quite understand why but there it is. I never talked to anybody about writing to journalists about their attitudes towards the CP, I never ever brought that up.

MR PRINSLOO: Bottom of the page, fourth line from the bottom:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn’t go into specifics because there were no specifics to tell him, it was just some information that I wanted from him as one journalist to another and the fact of him being politically shrewd is irrelevant because he had no reason to ask me why I wanted the information.

MR PRINSLOO: And was there any reason for secrecy?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, if there had been secrecy I wouldn’t have phone him and asked him to fax it to me.

MR PRINSLOO: Over the page 252, paragraph 44:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I never had any - not true, I never had any plans ever involving myself to liquidate anybody.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, why did you say that Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because I was told to say it.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, the same paragraph 44 but the second paragraph of that paragraph, third line from the bottom:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I had no knowledge of Clive and Kuba deciding on anything.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you write that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: For the same reason as I have described, I was asked to write this by Mr de Waal.

MR PRINSLOO: The paragraph following on that:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, Clive and Kuba never asked me to send a list Arthur Kemp, I did that on my own and I did not ask the security - anything about security with the houses, I just asked for the addresses and the photographs if possible.

MR PRINSLOO: With reference to Mr Hani’s residence on the list which was supplied by Mr Kemp, was there any description furnished of his residence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: The next paragraph:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, that can be looked at in different ways, what sort of discussions? In the climate of 1992/1993, everybody was discussing what should be done. In this context, clearly they’re talking about the specific discussions of which I had no knowledge.

MR PRINSLOO: Then the last paragraph of paragraph 44:

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

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 45:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is not true, I never talked about enemies. Mr Deetleffs introduced the word enemies during the cross-examination - during the interrogation at the beginning as I mentioned before.

MR PRINSLOO: With reference to Mr de Waal, has this statement ...[inaudible] to him, what do say about the words used here:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, clearly Mr de Waal got the word: "enemies" from Mr Deetleffs. Maybe they ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say that he got them from Deetleffs?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, because they must have colluded.

CHAIRPERSON: They must have?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because that was the whole point of the interrogation, was to come up with some kind of a story which could be presented to the Attorney General in order to justify charging me - this is how I see it.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there at any stage reference made by Captain de Waal who interrogated you, that your statement or version was in conflict of the version which was given by your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, on many occasions he came to me and he said:

MR PRINSLOO: Still at page 253, starting at the bottom of page 252, paragraph 46:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The first part of that is correct, he did say that he got some of the addresses. I asked for him to fact them to me but I didn’t specify referring to the ANC/SACP people, I just said to him:

and then he said:

So, he didn’t fax them, we met.

MR PRINSLOO: The paragraph following that, the date there is stated on the third line, 9 January ‘93, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it was the 29th of January 1993.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 47, the second paragraph:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is totally incorrect, the reason why Arthur wanted to see me was because he - as he said told me, he was leaving The Citizen, he told me what he wanted to do with his life, we had a long discussion - as I testified in Court and he didn’t say it was because of the implications of the list and that he should not fax it to me. I asked him to fax it to me and he said:

That was the reason why we met.

MR PRINSLOO: And when you actually met Arthur Kemp, did he say anything to you with regard to implications on that list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Absolutely nothing, we never discussed it. He gave it to me in an envelope and I put it in my handbag and we had tea and discussed his life and what he was going to do.

MR PRINSLOO: Page 254, second paragraph of paragraph 48, fourth line from the top - I beg your pardon, from the bottom:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that is incorrect, I did show the list to Clive in Cape Town - only the top page, but he didn’t take it, I just put it into the file and then I took it myself back in mid February when we came back from the President’s Council. And this business about:

I have no idea when Clive gave Kuba the list.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, paragraph 50 at the bottom of the page:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, as I mentioned before, I don’t recall ever talking about number plates, I wasn’t interested. I knew nothing about their planning or who bought number plates or anything about number plates.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you ever have any opportunity to speak to Walus after he was arrested, before you made this statement?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there information in the press or anywhere where this information could have been conveyed that for instance, Kuba had not for example, changed the number plates and so forth?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I think there were reports of him being picked up if I recall but I think the police said something about they were keeping mum or they didn’t want to say too much, they were busy questioning or - I don’t think there was a lot of information in the press and certainly I don’t think there was anything about number plates.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, paragraph 51, page 255:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I did not ask Clive why he had become so involved, I didn’t know my husband’s involvement.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Until of course the trial and the - whatever, but at that stage when I wrote this, that was still - I hadn’t seen my husband since he was picked up, this was I think the 26th of April and I didn’t know his involvement or whether he was involved at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 51, the fourth line from the bottom of the last paragraph of 51:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I had nothing to do with Maria, I don’t know anything about any phone calls that she made, I know nothing about a photograph album, I don’t know anything about any link because - how could I know about a photograph album when I was still under Section 29. This business about:

is also not true.

MR PRINSLOO: And if you look at page 256, paragraph 56, middle of the page:

and then there’s dots, is that complete as it stands there?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don’t understand that, I don’t know where paragraph 47 is - he did come to our place on the 12th of April.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 47 you’ve already referred to in your evidence at page 253. Now, page 259, second line:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don’t know anything about that. I believe that that came from Mr Kemp’s statement - well, he was being held at the same time as me so I didn’t know what he was saying, it was only afterwards that I saw that he had said that but I didn’t discuss anything about:

MR PRINSLOO: I will return to page 279, that’s now a statement dated the 29th of April ‘93, consisting of two pages, paragraph number 3:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I never gave the list to my husband and as I have already testified, there was nothing on the list when I brought it home.

MR PRINSLOO: The next paragraph four:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn’t give the list to my husband.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you say that to Deetleffs - as was stated here or at least, did Deetleffs show you the list?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think so, I can’t remember.

MR PRINSLOO: And then the fifth statement is the one which appears from page 287 to 289, it’s actually notes with reference to your diary, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, is it also correct that a detention file - referred to as a detention file on yourself, was kept by the police in terms of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And this file you’ve perused?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And it contains information pertaining to your detention, treatment and complaints that you had or their observations?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: I ask leave to hand this in as Exhibit Z Mr Chairman, I will refer to it.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: That would be a detention file Mr Chairman, of Gabriella, Maverna Derby-Lewis. I will now lead certain evidence with regard to certain information in that file on the witness.

Now Mrs Derby-Lewis, the first pages - the subject matter of the detention file, the following page - a hand-written document, the date 23rd of April where it states that there were instructions given that you didn’t have to have any literature apart from a Bible, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the paragraph following that also refers to reading material and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the first page is the file cover of the detention file, maybe we should number the pages Mr Chairman, I see they’re not numbered. That will be the first page of the file in other words, the cover page being the subject matter or "onderwerp" - that will then be page one. Then at page 4, the date, 24th of April 1993 at the third paragraph it says:

Is that correct Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as Mr de Waal is concerned, what does he say as far this is concerned or don’t you know?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, Mr de Waal says in his statement throughout that I had no complaints and that isn’t strictly true, I was feeling very, very bad and it is evidenced in this file but he didn’t refer to that at all in his report.

MR PRINSLOO: On page 6 there’s reference to you seeing your private doctor, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

That’s the first two lines and I asked to see a doctor.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, what is the dates that you’re referring to?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Page 6, you said?

MR PRINSLOO: I’ve marked it page 6 Mr Chairman. I beg your pardon, I think we’ve skipped - no, that’s correct, it’s page 6.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The date?

MR PRINSLOO: And the date is the 25th of April and right at the top of the page:

And at the previous page - page 5 at the bottom, it’s the 25th of April:

And the rest of that page then deals with her doctor - private doctor, is that correct Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Then page 7, 25th of April ‘93, 11H15 - the time Mr Chairman, towards the middle of that particular entry.

Can you read that Mrs Derby-Lewis?

there is something that is not clear.

MR PRINSLOO: Is that any mention made - as far as you know, by de Waal?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No. Oh, he mentions in clinical tones that I went to see the doctor as a report but he doesn’t mention my condition, in fact he says exactly the opposite. Throughout his report he states:

MR PRINSLOO: And the same page, the entry the 25th of April, 11H40:

Is that correct, did you say that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And this goes from page 7 to page 8 Mr Chairman. Page 10 Mr Chairman, the date 25th of April at 6p.m., the third line:

Mrs Derby-Lewis, during your detention - in terms of Section 29, is it correct that Captain de Waal requested you to point out a particular place where you allegedly received the list from Arthur Kemp?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he did.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Chairman, this appears - the reference to this which appears to be part of an occurrence book SAP10, it’s the second page thereof of the same document - it’s at 12H50p.m., it’s part of the detention file. That will be page 22 around the middle of the page:

Is it correct that Captain Louw was not attached to the security branch?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And when you saw Captain Louw, what did he say to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I was told by Mr de Waal to go and point out something and that Captain Louw would go with me or send somebody from the Edenvale Police Station to accompany me. When I got to Captain Louw, he said to me:

and I said:

and he said:

so I refused to go.

MR PRINSLOO: In each of your statements which were placed before the Commission, in none of the statements does it appear - from the statement itself, that you were ever warned in terms of the Judges Rules by Captain de Waal, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don’t recall.

MR PRINSLOO: But from the writing on your statement.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: It does not appear from in writing from your statements, that you were warned in terms of Judges Rules.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, it was never given any options, only the option of:

MR PRINSLOO: And if de Waal had given you that warning to say that you were not obliged to say anything but should you say anything, it would be taken down in writing and may be used as evidence, would you have exercised that option or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I would not have exercised that option.

MR PRINSLOO: Why not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because I continually asked them for legal help, I felt I deserved it. I was not in an environment that I understood, I’m not a legal person and it’s the first court case I’ve ever been involved in.

MR PRINSLOO: Did de Waal give you an option to remain silent?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: What did he require?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, he told me that I must simply write and that I must hurry up because they wanted to go to the Attorney General and that if I didn’t write, they would make an application for a further 10 days and that 10 days deadline was coming up on the 30th of April.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, on the 30th of April when - I beg your pardon, before I proceed, the document Exhibit Y1 which you compiled with regard to the treatment meted out to you by the police whilst detained in terms of Section 29, you also made a note with reference to what transpired between you and Captain Louw - just a moment Mr Chairman, at page 8 of Exhibit Y1 Mr Chairman:

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, on the 30th of April 1993 you were exempted from the provisions of Section 29 and you were then interviewed by Detective Warrant Officer Holmes who was the investigating officer in this case.

I now show you a document which will be referred to as Exhibit AA Mr Chairman.

Mrs Derby-Lewis, in this statement Exhibit AA the Detective Warrant Officer - according to the document, informed you of your rights and asked you whether you understood it and at page three you said: "Yes" and then after your signature on page two the question is:

and your reply was:

Is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And why did you exercise that right at that stage whereas previously you made statements to the police?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I exercised the right because he gave me a choice and previously I had no choice.

MR PRINSLOO: And after you were exempted from the provisions of Section 29, you were then taken to court and you appeared in court, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: That is the Magistrates Court?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: You were then charged with the murder of Mr Chris Hani?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, subsequent to your appearance in court, is it correct that the Attorney General - Mr van Leerus at the time, issued a certificate in which you were refused the right to make an application for bail, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In terms of the ...[indistinct] Act?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, during your detention in the prison, you wrote the document Y1 which you already testified to before the Commission and subsequent to the trial you wrote a document which is referred to as: "Ons Eie"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That’s an article you wrote, and what is the purpose of this article?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: At the end of December 1993, an Afrikaans magazine called: "One Eie" asked me to write an article about my detention, which I wrote and then they translated into Afrikaans. This is another record of what happened to me in detention and it was done at a time when there was no thought of a Truth Commission or anything like that, it was even done before the ANC took over in April 1994.

MR PRINSLOO: I ask leave to hand this document in Mr Chairman, as Exhibit AB - the original is available.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the date of that document?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: What is the date?

MR PRINSLOO: The date of this document is February 1994.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was published in February 1994 but the article was written in December 1993.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, at your trial which followed, no statements made in terms of Section 29 were used by the State.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it also correct that at your trial the police docket at that stage, was not made available to defence at all?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the information which you compiled and put into Exhibits Y1 and 2 were done in custody without the statements which are now before the Commission?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, in as far as the articles are concerned which you intended writing pertaining to the list which was presented to Mr Kemp and the one you received thereupon, you said you wanted to write as to how people lived. Apart from those people on the list, did you have any other persons in mind whom you wanted to write about?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I was continually writing, I had many files about people that I was writing about. They were my next people on the list, they were the people that I considered writing about - particularly Mr Botha and a few of the others but of course I never got any further than that because when we came back from Cape Town we were advised that my husband was chosen as the candidate for the local Government Election and therefore we went canvassing from then on and I didn’t proceed with anything further.

MR PRINSLOO: The public meetings which you attended of the Conservative Party subsequent to your release and after your acquittal till to date, was there ever any repudiation of the conduct of yourself, your husband or Walus, by the CP?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, on the contrary we were always well received by the Conservative Party. I still remained an active member of the Party, I rejoined the system as it was.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please Mr Chairman.

In as far as your husband Mr Derby-Lewis is concerned, during his detention - that’s subsequent to his release or after he was exempt from the provisions of Section 29, did he ever complain in the press or to anyone with regard to the treatment that was meted out to him by the police whilst so detained?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I’m not sure what he did while he was detained because I was also detained at the same time but subsequently I read press reports that he had complained quite vehemently about his treatment.

MR PRINSLOO: And in as far as your husband’s position is concerned in the Conservative Party, subsequent or let me put it this way - first of all, prior to the assassination of Mr Hani, what was his position in the CP after people like Mr Kas Uys and Mr Thomas Langley who were senior members who left the CP?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: They didn’t leave the CP, I believe at the end of 1992, my husband - I think was in The Beeld report - somewhere there, my husband was elected with Schalk Pienaar to the Dag Bestuur, the Executive Committee of the Conservative Party and it was the top structure.

He replaced Mr Tom Langley and Mr Schalk Pienaar replaced Mr Kas Uys, both of whom were senior members of the Party, so my husband was - then at that stage, at a very high level in the Party.

MR PRINSLOO: So, did he continue to hold an executive position in the CP?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, he was part of a - there were seven committees set up to make a policy of the Party and he was made Chairman of one of those committee together Mr ...[indistinct] van der Merwe. May I read a small paragraph on this issue?

MR PRINSLOO: That’s from The Beeld newspaper?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: From The Beeld.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, you may do so.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS:

That’s from The Beeld of the 19th of April 1993.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I undertake to make copies of this document, I only have one but I believe the actual report of The Beeld was handed in by Mr Bizos at some stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And there was some difficulty in reading that particular report, as I recollect correctly. There is a page Mr Chairman - of which I’ll make copies, that was referred to by the witness of complaints which was received by the press with regard to treatment meted out to Mr Derby-Lewis and this particular page - I’ll just show it to the witness and I’ll make copies - which appears in the Sunday Times.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that’s correct. Yes, this is a summary of their complaints concerning their treatment under Section 29.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, as from the late ‘80’s and the beginning of the ‘90’s ...[indistinct] the assassination of Mr Hani, what was the political climate in this country as far as you understood it as a member of the Conservative Party?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I was a journalist and I wrote articles in the newspaper, so I was very attuned to the way the Party felt and since the unbanning of the SACP and the ANC in 1990, the Party stepped up a campaign of alerting people as to what dangers lay ahead and that was handed in our bundle - I think it was Addendum C, whereby there were extracts from The Patriot.

The point was that the Party was becoming militant and every single article that appeared in The Patriot that referred to militancy - for example there was one that said: "We wish to take up arms" which was actually the front page, all of those articles were approved by Doctor Treurnicht who was in fact Editor in Chief of the Conservative Party’s paper. So, the fact that we have submitted extracts from The Patriot is significant in that it represents the feelings and official policy of the Party.

MR PRINSLOO: In as far as the Conservative Party is concerned Mrs Derby-Lewis, was there at any stage - prior to the assassination of Mr Hani, the belief that the ANC and the Communist Party will take power in this country?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, very much so. The Editorials of The Patriot and the discussions amongst the people were - people were very afraid because - as I mentioned before, Mr de Klerk had gone ahead without a mandate, so the Party itself was militant and the people - the members, were also militant.

There were many discussions as to what should be done and there were discussions by people on the ground - in living rooms and at braaivleis’s and so forth, as to what should be done and because there was a lot of infiltration of the right wing at that time, a lot of people said: "Well, if anything has to be done, you must do it on your own - there are no plans or anything to be discussed".

In terms of what Mr Bizos refers to as the: "brandy and coke brigade" who sit in the bars and talk about all the things that they were going to do, there were more serious discussions than that but it was generally agreed within the right that anything that would be discussed or planned would be kept to an absolute minimum need to know basis.

But there were definitely discussions, people were planning resistance, the climate was extremely tense and people were really afraid of what was coming - of what they knew was coming, it was a genuine fear.

MR PRINSLOO: The Conservative Party, did they spell out that they would oppose the ANC/SACP coming into power or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, on many occasions they said: "They must be stopped, we will stop them". It was discussed - not only in The Patriot, it was discussed at the various meetings and councils and congresses of the Party and in September 1992, it was decided that - a motion was passed that a freedom could not be attained through passive means, it would attained through active resistance.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the perception in the minds of the White electorate - particularly the right, with regard to the fact that the SACP/ANC would take power?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, there was great fear, at one stage we didn’t believe it was happening. We simply couldn’t believe that Mr de Klerk was capitulating so easily, in fact Mr Slovo said in one of his reports: "We got just about all we wanted", so the word negotiation was in fact a euphemism for capitulation in the minds of many us.

MR PRINSLOO: The fact that this country was ruled for a very long time by Whites and suddenly there was the fact that dawned upon the people that there was going to be majority rule - Black rule, did this affect the people at all or not as far as you’re concerned?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the point was, the Conservative Party’s policy was to divide the country up so that there wouldn’t be hegemony over all of the nations, it wasn’t the fear of Black rule or Zulu rule because our policy was that everybody would rule themselves.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Derby-Lewis, in as far as Mr Arthur Kemp is concerned, did you at any stage learn from him why you were charged or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why what?

MR PRINSLOO: Why the witness Mr Chairman, was charged in this particular case.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, just after I was given bail I met Mr Kemp and he told me that he had discussed with Mr Holmes - Warrant Officer Holmes, he said: "Why did you arrest Gay"? and Warrant Officer Holmes said that the only reason he was charging me was that, quote: "So we can use her test ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Is Mr Kemp going to be called to corroborate this statement? - a serious allegation is being made against an officer, are we going to hear Mr Kemp or are we only going to have the hearsay evidence of the witness?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: We have been patient for a long time in the production of hearsay ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: But I think that the time has come that we should ask you to intervene and not allow the witness to make out a case for herself without primary evidence being led.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the position is - it’s already testified to by the witness, that Mr Kemp is overseas.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think you should allow your witness to talk about a conversation between Mr Kemp and somebody else.

MR PRINSLOO: I will retract that Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a second please Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We have had a lot of that, we’ve allowed you a great deal of latitude - allowed the witness a great deal of latitude.

MR PRINSLOO: As you please Mr Chairman. Just a moment please. Thank you Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any questions you wish to put to the witness?

MS VAN DER WALT: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, you said to your counsel that when giving evidence before the Judge President of the Transvaal - as it then was Justice Eloff, you prevaricated.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: The Chairman asked you whether that meant that you lied.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: Will you please enumerate the lies that you told the Judge President of the Transvaal?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: The first one?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I’m talking now - page 487 of the court record.

MR BIZOS: Yes, what was the lie there?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, page 515 of the court record.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the point?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: On what point did you lie?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I have made a note here ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don’t want you to read it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Can I just read that without you going through the record?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

I think that you want to know just precisely what points on which she ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Yes, on what points did you lie? Please tell us.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The lie that I told on two or three occasions during the testimony was:

Sorry, just a minute - I’m sorry, just please hold on.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There were - these, yes sorry, it concerned the fact as to whether Clive had given Kuba the list.

MR BIZOS: And you lied about that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I did.

MR BIZOS: Did you lie in order to protect your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I did.

MR BIZOS: Are you not lying now - through your teeth, in order to get amnesty for your husband?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Definitely not Mr Bizos, definitely not.

MR BIZOS: Well, let’s examine it, what other lies did you tell?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn’t tell any other lies and I offered this evidence immediately to the court.

MR BIZOS: Did you lie about the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn’t lie about the gun.

MR BIZOS: Did you tell Judge President Eloff the whole truth about your discussions with your husband and Mr Walus about the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I never discussed a gun with Mr Walus or my husband.

MR BIZOS: Was that the truth?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That was the truth.

MR BIZOS: Did you lie to Judge President Eloff about the policy of the Conservative Party in relation to violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don’t recall talking about the policy of the Conservative Party to Judge Eloff, could you be more specific?

MR BIZOS: I will be and I will start right away. What is your evidence, in April 1993, was there a policy of the Conservative Party to use violence in order to achieve any of it’s political aims?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In 1992, that was an option, it was decided upon at the Kimberly Congress.

MR BIZOS: Please answer the question.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I have answered the question.

MR BIZOS: In April 1993, was it the current policy of the Conservative Party to use violence and including that, murder in order to achieve it’s political objectives?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was never the policy of the Conservative Party - it was never part of the policy, to use murder as a political objective.

MR BIZOS: Or violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Or violence.

MR BIZOS: Right. Let’s have a look at your evidence today about this perception at discussions at braaivleis’s and other places where you attempted to give your husband an opportunity to say that he was furthering the political objectives of the Conservative Party, was the evidence that you gave here correct or incorrect this afternoon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Are you talking about discussions amongst ordinary right-wingers at braaivleis’s?

MR BIZOS: I am talking about the policy of the Conservative Party and it’s members.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no that’s not the ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: As it’s members - as of the Conservative Party.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, no, that’s not the evidence I gave, I gave the evidence that people were discussing amongst themselves - the people on the ground, as to what to do to stop the ANC and the SACP coming to power. I did not say that it was official Conservative Party discussions, I said it was people on the ground.

MR BIZOS: What was the policy of the Conservative Party, one of violence or non- violence in April 1993?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The policy of the Conservative Party in April 1993 was set by the Congress in September 1992, where active resistance was declared an option.

MR BIZOS: Who was to decide whether that option should come into force or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The Party.

MR BIZOS: Did the Party - before April 1993, decide that violence was now an option?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not that I know of.

MR BIZOS: Not that you know of.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not officially.

MR BIZOS: Well, knowledge is knowledge, what unofficial special knowledge did you have about the Conservative Party having a policy of violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I would like to mention that in November 1993, sorry, November 1992, there was a General Council Meeting in Pretoria where people were extremely upset and asked Doctor Hartzenberg: "What are we going to do, what about violence" and Doctor Hartzenberg said: "Of course it’s not the Party’s official policy but we do not put all our cards on the table.

MR BIZOS: Did you understand that - that the Conservative Party was speaking with two tongues?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: One at it’s Council Meeting and the other to the public?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: did you consider that statement as a statement that the option that was mentioned in Kimberly in 1992 was to be exercised in April 1993?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I didn’t decide upon any options Mr Bizos.

MR BIZOS: No, you were the information - well informed person of the Conservative Party, please give us a straight answer.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That is a straight answer.

MR BIZOS: Was the police - let me finish please, was the policy of the Conservative Party by April 1993, one of violence or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I answered that question a minute ago, I said no unequivocally.

MR BIZOS: No, absolutely not, but you added that you had the ear of the Deputy Leader of the Party.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn’t say that.

MR BIZOS: Well, I thought that you said that he said at a meeting that: "We do not put all our cards on the table", what did you understand by that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He said that to everybody at the meeting, he didn’t say it ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He said that to everybody at the meeting, he didn’t just say it to me.

MR BIZOS: Well, it’s said to a small group of people - how many on this council?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He didn’t say it to a small group of people, he said it to about 300 people.

MR BIZOS: He said to 300 people that: "We do not talk openly about or policy, is that what it is?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, he did not say that.

MR BIZOS: What did he say?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: He answered a request by somebody who said: "We have to do a lot more than we’re doing now" and he said: "Well, we cannot put all our cards on the table".

MR BIZOS: How did you understand that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I understood that to mean that obviously we would have to look at some other options but it could not possibly be the policy of the Conservative Party to murder somebody, no policy of any political Party states in it’s programme of principles, that it’s going to murder somebody.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, when you gave evidence before Judge Eloff, did you tell the truth about the policy of the Conservative Party and your personal attitude to it in relation to violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I don’t - you would have to be specific in terms of what I said, I don’t recall ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: I’m asking you whether you told the truth - before I become specific. Did you tell the truth or did you lie to Judge Eloff?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn’t lie to Judge Eloff, I told the court now on which specific point I lied.

MR BIZOS: Right.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And why I did so.

MR BIZOS: Can we accept that everything else that you told Judge Eloff, you will not accept as being true?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I would say so, he picked out that particular point and he said I prevaricated, he said I was not truthful: "She was protecting her husband probably" and he was 100% right.

MR BIZOS: Yes, you’ve already said that earlier, please try and answer the questions directly so that we can make some progress. Now will you please listen to what you said to Judge Eloff because it’s of some importance to hear what you said about the Conservative Party and violence - at page 6, 7, 9 and subsequent pages of the record.

JUDGE WILSON: Can you say what Volume it is?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, will that be pages 6, 7 and 9 in brackets or the open numbers?

MR BIZOS: It’s the pages in brackets.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] the others are found in the record.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: Should you not have the record Mr Chairman?

JUDGE WILSON: In brackets we have page - or I have, page (6), (7), (8) and it then goes to page 681. The other number given is page 538 and it jumps to 541.

MR BIZOS: Can I just read it to the witness, the applicant’s got a copy Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: We have a copy Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Which has those pages?

MR PRINSLOO: That’s correct.

MR BIZOS: We have one copy Mr Chairman, which one member of the Committee can follow.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] propose reading out that passage to put your question to her?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] page (6), (7), (8), line 25 - we will make sure that those pages of photostatted and put in your records Mr Chairman.

Are you aware of that? Oh, 1993, sorry, 1993.

I beg your pardon, no, I beg your pardon, sorry - (6), (7), (9), yes:

Is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, you mean ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Let’s proceed, let’s proceed please.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And then both Mr Venter and Mr Darrel also testified - or let’s first take Mr Venter’s evidence, that when your husband approached him for a firearm your husband said to him:

Was that in accordance with the CP policy or with your personal, political intervenes?

Is that your answer and is it true?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

• "So there was nothing sinister in the fact that people were stockpiling weapons"? - "No, not at all"
• "It was not intended to go and - say for example, to murder Mr Hani"? - "No, everybody was talking about it - Mr de Vos, could you reach"

Anyway, let’s go on to page 680 - there was just questions about an adjournment in-between Mr Chairman.

• "The last ...[indistinct] aspect we dealt Mrs Derby-Lewis, is the question of stockpiling and you explained to the court what the decisions were at the CP Congress in Kimberly. According to your own knowledge, was there a general attitude amongst your supporters to obtain weapons and to stockpile that for some future event"? - Yes"

Is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

• "But that event was not a certain fact"? - "No, it was - what is the word, I cannot think of the word, it was a plan - contingency plan, in other words it was not a policy, the Party did not say: "Go out and stockpile weapons but the point was that they did not trust the Government.

Are you happy with that answer and is it true?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Good.

• "But what course should be taken in future was still to be decided"? - "Yes, we are all members of a Party and we take instructions from the Party"

Are you happy with that answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, that is the way I feel.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

• "Now at that stage, during the or before the 10th of April, was the Conservative Party still involved in negotiations at the World Trade Centre"? - "Yes, that is true".

Are you happy with that answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

• "And do you have any knowledge when did the Conservative Party withdraw from the negotiations" - "If I remember correctly it was last month or a month or two ago, I am not sure"

Was that your answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

• "So it was - intervenes - it was some months after April" - "Yes, yes" "1992"? - "Yes" - court - "993, Mr de Vos - Oh 1993, sorry, sorry, 1993"

You were giving evidence during October 1993, is that correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And when you said that the Conservative Party was still negotiating until a month or a month or two ago, that would not take us further back than August 1993, would that be correct?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think it finished in July 1993.

MR BIZOS: Well after April anyway?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Good, you’re happy with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: "

• "Now you have read in the newspapers I suppose, what was said about murder, so-called conspiracy etc."? - "Yes"
• "Did you" - "Yes, I read lots of things in lots of newspapers"
• "And have you read more in the newspapers than what you have heard in court"? - "Yes, I have been convicted and tried by the newspapers"
• "And does that also apply to accused number one and two"? - "Well, the three of us have"
• "Now, if you were in fact involved in a conspiracy, would you have organised the murder of Mr Hani in the way it was described in court"? - "Well, I would not have organised any murder"
• "But it seems to be to be as if the man who murdered Mr Hani virtually acted on his own on that day - there was no getaway car or anything to that effect, would you agree with that" - "Well on the face of it, yes"

Now can we please go on to page (682).

• "Are you aware of any common purpose that was formed between accused number one to murder Mr Hani?" - "No"
• "Are you aware of any conspiracy between accused number one and two and yourself, to murder Mr Hani or the people mentioned in Exhibit J? - "No"
• "Now, on the 12th when the list was discussed, when Mr Kemp was at your premises, did you get the impression that accused number two was quite surprised when the question about the list came up and it was alleged that that was the same that was in Mr" - "Ja, actually we had - oh, sorry, we had discussed earlier.

• "And was he surprised to hear about this"? - "Yes, we were shocked and -well, we were shocked"

Now, at that stage when you were giving evidence, were you holding forth that you had no knowledge whatsoever in relation to your husband’s participation in this murder?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: And was it part of your case that you never asked your husband - either after the murder before your arrest or after your release from arrest or whilst preparing for trial, or whilst you were speaking to him during the court adjournments, that you never asked him anything about the list, anything about the gun and anything about the manner in which he was or may have been involved in this murder?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: That was your case?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: May I elaborate on that answer?

MR BIZOS: Yes, if you must.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: We were told by our attorneys that we were never to discuss the case at all with anyone.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and you observed that instruction?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I was in jail for three and a half months, so I never discussed it then and then when I came out on bail I used to visit my husband and he was always in the company of somebody at the prison and we subsequently found out that our visits were taped in any event.

And then when we were in court they were brought in and they were taken downstairs, there was very little time to discuss the case and in any event the attorney told us not to discuss the case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: But, after the murder, no attorney told you not to discuss with your husband whether or not he had any involvement in this murder.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, the attorneys told us not to discuss the case with anybody and I was never in a position to discuss anything with my husband without anybody present.

MR BIZOS: Is this before your arrest?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Bizos, I think - sorry, there’s a misunderstanding here, I think - to the extent that I understand Mr Bizos’s question, he’s referring to the period from the time we were told about the murder - you learnt about the murder from Mrs Venter, until the time of your husband’s arrest - during that period.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, I’m sorry. Yes, on the 12th when I went to buy the newspaper I saw the list and then I asked my husband: "What happened to it, did you give it to Kuba"? and he said yes, he gave it to Kuba. I never asked about a gun, I never discussed any plans. He refused to tell me, he wouldn’t tell me anything and up until the time of the trial even, I wasn’t aware of his full involvement in the case.

MR BIZOS:

• "...[inaudible] so that is the first time you heard about the pistol and did you discuss this pistol with your husband - this issue of the firearm"? - "No"

Are you with me at 686?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. Sorry, 686?

MR BIZOS: Do you see line 20, I’m on line 20.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, yes, yes.

MR BIZOS:

• "I discussed it with him later on when we were travelling in the police car going to the courts" - "Yes"
• "When was this, before or after the charge sheet had been served on you"? - "No, we were already in jail - when you were - in jail and we just discussed the case"
• "Now, well let’s talk about the pistol, what was your nature of your conversation when you discussed this pistol when you were in the police car to and from the jail"? - "The first time that I was in the police car, I, when I got in I was very upset and I was crying and Kuba put his arm around me and said: "Not to worry, everything will be all right", he said: "I just had that pistol for target shooting"
• "And what did your husband say about the pistol"? - "Nothing"
• "Nothing"? - "No"

Is that the truth?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: You don’t think that you were disbelieved among other reasons for the evidence that you gave in relation to the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos - through the Chair, I never discussed a pistol or a gun with anybody, I don’t know anything about weapons.

MR BIZOS: No, the question was - whether in view of your answers, did it occur to you that one of the reasons that you must have been disbelieved by the Judge, was because of your answers in relation to the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, not at all, it never occurred to me whatsoever.

MR BIZOS:

• "Not a word"? - "Well, we were in the car with eight policemen"
• "You were having one car, eight policemen, that is quite a package. What type of car was this"? - "It was an Inyala"
• "Oh, in that one of the police"? - "The police van yes"?
• "The big one"? - "Yes"
• "But you say accused number one found time to say something to you about the pistol but not your husband"? - "Correct"
• "And did your husband ever say anything to you about the pistol"? - "No"

Then further on:

• "Did you ask him about it"? - "No, no never"
• "Never"? - "Since he was arrested it was always a piece of plastic between us at the jail - was sitting in the Inyala"
• "Even here during court session, did you ever ask him about these allegations" - "No"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I wasn’t - oh, I beg your pardon, sorry.

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Were you asking me a question?

MR BIZOS: No, I’m reading now to you and - that it’s your evidence, so that the Committee can find out how distant you were from your husband in relation to this conspiracy.

• "But it was vital isn’t it, if it is true that the State alleges that your husband had this ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Bizos, I’ve lost - where ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Bizos, whereabouts are you now?

MR BIZOS: Last line 687.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

• "But it was vital isn’t it, if - it is a vital piece of evidence"? - "Well, he must handle that with his attorneys"
• "I see, but you did not bother to ask about that"? - "No, I’m leaving it to his attorneys"
• "And you also did not tell him anything about the list which had the names on"? - "Yes, I discussed it with him on the 12th"
• "On the 12th, this was after it was published in the newspapers"? - "Correct"
• "Yes, you drew your attention to it"? - "Pardon"?
• "Did you draw his attention to it or what"? - "Yes, I drew his attention"
• "So, throughout - I just want to have this quite clear, throughout since the day of prior to Mr Hani’s shooting - subsequent to the shooting, you never once asked your husband about these allegations regarding his possession of the firearm, Exhibit 2 and the fitting of the silencer to it"? - "No, I left that to him and his attorney" (End of tape - Tape 4 Eng & Floor - no sound)
• "...[inaudible] Smith testify that he fitted the silencer and gave it to Darrel"? - "No, I do not know Mr Smith at all, I was not in Cape Town, I know nothing about that part"
• "And you heard the ballistics evidence by the ballistics expert that this particular weapon, Exhibit 2 was the one that killed - on his evidence, the deceased and did you ask your husband about the weapon then"? - "We discussed the evidence, yes - that it was highly technical nature, we could not understand it"
• "I see, so at no stage did you talk to him about the weapon"? - "No"
• "And he did not volunteer anything to you either"? - "No"
• "Well, I have to put it to you that it is improbable that you never discussed this vital piece of information with him and that is what I am going to argue later, that you are not telling the truth, the truth when you say that you never discussed the question of his possession of the weapon that killed Mr Hani, with him"? - "No, I did not"

Were those your answers?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: They were correct, yes.

MR BIZOS: And you repeat them here?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I repeat them here.

MR BIZOS: And you have nothing further to add in relation to it and you want your credibility - you are happy to have your credibility on this issue, decided by the Committee on the questions and answers that I have read out to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: May I make a comment?

MR BIZOS: Well, if you consider it relevant and it isn’t going to be a speech, of course.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, you know, I don’t know whether I must go by Mr Bizos’s definition of a speech, however at no stage did I discuss a weapon and if you will examine the tapes under Section 29, I also said that very vehemently to the security police - that I had never discussed a weapon. A weapon doesn’t interest me, I’m not interested in weapons. What kind of weapon, I don’t know, I don’t understand weapons. It wasn’t what the court calls a vital piece of information, it may have been vital to the court but it wasn’t vital to me.

MR BIZOS: Finished?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: The pressure that you speak of - of Section 29 or the alleged trickery of the police or any other pressure that was put on you during your period of detention, could not persuade you to say anything about the gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn’t know anything about the gun, I had never seen a gun, I had never seen a silencer in my life.

MR BIZOS: Is the answer that all the pressure did not induce you to make a - to even falsely say that you had some knowledge about this gun?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: But even if I had falsely said it, they would have immediately known that it was false knowledge because I have no technical knowledge of a gun. There was simply no evidence at all that I had seen a gun or discussed a gun.

MR BIZOS: Now, let us ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry Mr Bizos, any questions relating to the gun, do you understand as being technical questions in relation to the operations of the gun or were they simply questions in relation to whether or not a gun was used in this particular case?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, you’re correct, the questions were not technical, they were in relation to whether or not I had seen one but when they asked me whether I had seen one - they went on and talked about various types of guns and a Z88 and so forth, they mused over what type of a gun it was and I said to them well, I don’t understand guns, I never saw a gun and I wasn’t interested in guns - from a technical point of view as well. I know it may not be relevant but that is what I said.

JUDGE WILSON: But the question I find difficult is not whether you were interested in guns or not but whether you were interested in whether your husband had supplied a gun to murder someone.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn’t ask him that question. I was told by the attorneys not to speak about my case and I had no privacy with my husband, perhaps if we had had privacy I may have asked him that but to me it was not of real vital importance - a gun.

MR BIZOS: Didn’t you have lunch together when you were a co-accused in court -in the cells downstairs, didn’t you eat together at lunch time?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, in fact my husband was taken downstairs and we were not allowed into the cell, we used to stand outside but there were a group of us.

MR BIZOS: What group?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, it was Kuba and the attorneys and one or two friends had come down but the police insisted that my husband and Mr Walus be placed in the cell, so we used to stand there with the people and have a sandwich.

MR BIZOS: In the long passages?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, there were cells down underneath the Johannesburg Supreme Court and we stood outside the cell, they were locked in the cell.

MR BIZOS: You were on bail and he was in the cell?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, correct.

MR BIZOS: And were you not concerned whether or not you were married to a murderer as alleged by the State or an innocent man that you believed him to be?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I left it to the attorneys and the courts to decide what had happened.

MR BIZOS: Were you or were you not interested whether or not your husband was a murderer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Of course I was interested and concerned.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why did you not ask him? - such a loving couple that you were.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, Mr Bizos is being sarcastic about this, there’s no need to be sarcastic.

CHAIRPERSON: No, please. Mr Bizos, please put your questions in a proper way.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] absolutely - were you not absolutely burning with a desire to find out whether or not the allegations in the indictment by your husband that - particularly that he supplied the gun, that he supplied a gun with a silencer, were you not interested in finding out?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not at all.

MR BIZOS: Not at all. And you are serious in that answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I’m absolutely serious - as I said in the court, I left it to the attorneys.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And what about the allegation that the list which was called the list - the hit-list in the court, it was alleged in the indictment specifically that your husband handed it over to the first applicant Mr Walus, didn’t you ask him - as soon as you saw that allegation in the indictment, "Look what they say about the list, they say that you handed it over to him, did you or didn’t you"?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I asked him that on the 12th.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: This was before the indictment was handed to us.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Before we were even arrested. On the 12th when I bought The Beeld in the morning, I saw that they had mentioned the names of journalists in the list and I adduced that it was my list. And then when I came home I asked my husband: "Is this our list and how did this man get it" and he said: "I gave it to him".

MR BIZOS: I see, is that what your evidence before Judge Eloff was?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I’ve told you already that I prevaricated on that matter, I didn’t know to what extend my husband was involved in this, so I tried to protect him and that is correct, I have already stated that.

MR BIZOS: But you knew that evidence from you that your husband had handed over the hit-list to Mr Walus, would have led to your husband’s conviction.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly.

MR BIZOS: You were prepared to defeat the ends of justice in relation to the acquittal of - possible acquittal of your husband, by lying - deliberately lying?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the attorneys told us that the court would find out anyway what happened, that I was trying to protect him and I admitted to that to this Committee.

MR BIZOS: No, no, but we’re going to take it a little bit further - that the purpose was to defeat the ends of justice.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn’t have that purpose in my mind, it may ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Well, ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sir, may I finish?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It may be defined like that by you but that wasn’t my purpose, my purpose was a personal emotional purpose to protect my husband.

MR BIZOS: Now, you decided to go into the witness box when your husband decided not to go into the ...[inaudible]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That was his decision on the advice of his attorneys.

MR BIZOS: Yes. And not only did you lie about what your husband had said about the list but you also became very inventive during the course of your evidence, you made up a whole scenario as to how he probably picked it up from your glass table.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I didn’t, that case was put by Mr Jordaan who was the attorney for accused number one and he asked me that question and he asked me did I know about that and I said: "It was possible", I did not invent that story.

MR BIZOS: Well, whose decision was it to give evidence that you left it on the glass and that you never saw it again and you didn’t know what had happened, was it Mr Jordaan’s ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That was Mr Jordaan’s ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Let me finish please, was it Mr Jordaan’s inventiveness or yours?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It wasn’t my inventiveness at all, Mr Jordaan is a Senior Advocate and that was his position, he dealt with his client without my being part of the discussions.

MR BIZOS: Where did you suggest he got the possible theory that Mr Walus picked up the list from the table by accident?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I have no idea.

MR BIZOS: Did the question come as a complete surprise to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Well, did you reflect on it before answering it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: And when you said that it was possible, you knew that in fact that had not happened?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: I want to take you to the bottom of page 693 of your evidence - before I do that, was Mr Kemp assured - in your presence, that he must not worry because Walus would not talk?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I don’t recall that, he testified to that fact but I don’t recall it.

MR BIZOS: Who testified to that fact?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Kemp.

MR BIZOS: Did you ask you husband to refresh your memory for the purposes of this hearing?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, I don’t understand the question?

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you - what is the question?

MR BIZOS: If you do not recall, did you ask your husband - for the purposes of this hearing ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: If Mr Kemp’s evidence was correct or incorrect?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I think - for the purpose of this hearing, no, but I think we discussed it and my husband said he didn’t recall either but we didn’t dispute Mr Kemp’s statement.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Wasn’t the defence planned by you and your husband and Mr Kemp on the 12th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Why not? We know that your husband was guilty of murder ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: On the 12th ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Let me finish. We know that you had drawn up the list, we know that Mr Kemp had something to do with the list and it all involved Mr Walus who had been arrested three days before, once three people involved in that way, why would you not have discussed your defence on the morning of the 12th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because there was nothing to defend, neither Arthur nor I had become involved in that list for any sinister purpose - there was nothing to defend.

MR BIZOS: But why would your husband not say to you and/or to Mr Kemp, that the police are going to come - that you agree with, you expected the police to come?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, because the list was in the newspaper and we were worried.

MR BIZOS: And did you not - didn’t the three of you work out a story as to what Mr Kemp would say, he would say enough - that which could not be denied, but which was innocent, that you’d say enough but only that portion which was innocent and that your husband would say only that which was innocent and that is collecting arms with silencers for self defence. Wasn’t that story worked out on the morning of the 12th?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Definitely not.

MR BIZOS: Well, we know that two people now admit that they conspired to murder, why should conspirators or at least one of them - when a material witness is present like Mr Kemp, why would they loose the opportunity to try and work out a false defence for themselves?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Because their attorneys told them not to testify, Mr Kemp - what he said was completely correct.

MR BIZOS: Did you consult attorneys before the 12th of April Madam?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: I’m talking about the 12th, forget about the attorneys.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I’m sorry, I thought you were talking about during the trial.

MR BIZOS: Well, do you mind answering the question then? Why, when an admitted member of the conspiracy to murder was present - your husband, you were present who at least admitted that you drew up a list on which Mr Hani’s name was and Mr Kemp who had done some research about these homes, once the three of you were together on the 12th, why would you not discuss what each one of you was going to say if the police came to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It wasn’t discussed at all, Mr Kemp was innocent, I was innocent and I didn’t know at that stage, my husband’s involvement.

MR BIZOS: Yes, and your husband was going to try and get away with it with your help and Mr Kemp’s help?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Not at all, that’s a complete lie, that’s absolutely untrue.

MR BIZOS: Well, you have admitted to telling lies under oath in respect of some matters.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I told one lie under oath and I admitted it and I said why I did it.

MR BIZOS: Well, that would have been even more so if you were prepared to lie under oath to Judge Eloff, you would have been in a - very keen on the 12th to cover your husband’s tracks.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos, you make the mistake of imputing to somebody who tells one lie, that they are a perennial liar, that is not the case. I particularly brought this matter up before the Committee today so that they would see what I had done.

MR BIZOS: Well, we’ll show you other documents where there are untruths in due course, so don’t let’s deal with it at this stage. Now, let’s go back to 693, have a look at the bottom of the page:

• "Yes, you are an experienced journalist -

Have the members of the Committee got this portion, 693 Mr Chairman?

• "You are an experienced journalist and you had those insights and you knew that this would very easily lead to civil war or something like that in this country - the potential was there"? - "Correct"
• "Yes, and obviously if you love this country so much, one would have expected you - as you profess, one would have expected you to have taken immediate steps to give whatever assistance you can to the police to try and unravel this particular murder"? - "But no, I repeat, we were apprehensive and very afraid"
• "Well, I want to suggest to you that your conduct rather indicates the conduct of somebody who has got something to hide" - "Well, you entitled to your suggestions Sir"

Do you want to add anything in relation to that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: No, very well. Now, can we please go to page 697:

• "Are you one of those people who refuse to bow to the yoke of communism and ...[indistinct]"? - "Very definitely"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, what line is that?

MR BIZOS: It’s line 21.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you.

MR BIZOS:

• "So one could expect you if necessary to take serious note of the three options the Conservative Party spelt out at it’s August meeting at Kimberly you told us about:? - "Correct"
• "Those were negotiations, election, election and passive or active resistance"? - "Correct"
• "And if it had come to active resistance, I take it in your mind said that you were such that you have participated in that"? - "If the Conservative Party had decided upon it, I am a follower and a believer and I would have done so"

Did you say that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Is that a clear statement of fact, that at that time the Conservative Party had not decided to go over to active resistance?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the question of Mr van Leerus was talking hypothetically, he wasn’t talking about a fact and he said: "If the Conservative Party had decided upon it, would you have done it"? and I said: "Yes" because I was not part of the top structure of the Party, I was a follower - I didn’t make the policy.

MR BIZOS: Yes, I know that this question was asked before the Act providing for amnesty was passed and this is why we will argue to the Committee that your answer there was the truth, can we accept it as a fact that at the time - in April, that the Conservative Party had not decided to go over to active resistance? Do you agree with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, the Conservative Party had decided upon a mobilisation plan which was ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Answer the question please ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s my answer to the question.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, the witness has not been given the opportunity to answer the question ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I will answer the question as I see fit.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, it’s long-winded questions.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I’m sorry, please allow me to answer the question - I apologise Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: "The Party had already embarked on a mobilisation campaign"

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I apologise, we embarked on the mobilisation which - as I saw it, was part of the active resistance - I was part of it myself, and I believed that the Party was getting ready to defend it’s principles otherwise why mobilise, mobilise for what?

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] the suggestion of the word mobilisation?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, because it wasn’t brought up.

MR BIZOS: Is the statement - as it stands question and answer, true or false?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Absolutely true.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: What do you mean by mobilisation?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: After the September congress, the Party decided to mobilise, in other words to begin to prepare for active resistance and a mobilisation strategy was set in place and 17 or 18 categories were defined, some of which were defence and security and there was a policy of a homeland decided upon - where the homeland would be.

In other words, we were mobilising to stop the take-over of the ANC and the SACP, this was what the Party had continually said since 1990: "We will stop the ANC" - Doctor Treurnicht said it. So the mobilisation was - in terms of the Party’s policy, to stop the ANC and the SACP.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the objective, the objective was to stop.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The objective was to stop, we were mobilising to protect ourselves from a communist take-over.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] we’ll see how you were correct to say that the statement that you made on top of this page is correct and it doesn’t mean mobilisation, let’s continue.

• "Well, it would have been quite in accordance with their attitude that you are not prepared to suffer the yoke of communism and tyranny" - "Correct"
• "Right, so the answer is really: "Yes, I would have participated in active resistance" - "Correct"
• "And these views of your of course, are entirely in conformity with the views of the first accused you have told us about"? - "Yes, these are the views of the Conservative Party"
• "Well these views that you would actively participate to unyoke yourself from the yoke of communist tyranny - if called upon those views are also the views of the first accused ...[indistinct]" - "Yes, I presume it for him"
• "Yes, you told us he is staunchly anti-Communist and so forth and that is the way you know him"? - "Yes, so if I may add, so would millions of others"
• "Well, that may be so but they are not here now and you see you have also explained to your counsel when you gave evidence that look it is a mindset and you know the mindset is there, you do not have to reconfirm these things, you know it is there" - "Correct"
• "And you know that accused number one has got a mindset as you"? - "Correct"
• "Yes, and your husband too as far as the politics are concerned" - "Absolutely"
• "Yes, so there is this communality between the three of you, that you all have the same political mindset that active resistance is something that you would grab too if necessary" - "Yes, as I repeat Sir, ourselves and everybody else in the Conservative Party"

Are you happy with those answers?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: And at that time you were not trying to dissociate yourself from murder, were you or were you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I made no decision about associating myself or dissociating myself with murder, murder in prinicple or this particular crime.

MR BIZOS: Now, let’s go further, let’s go - you say that you wrote something but I want to go to line 11:

• "Yes, now it seems to me Mrs Derby-Lewis, that you found yourself in a rather difficult position. I want to suggest to you that not only did you have to fight of the possible yoke of communism and tyranny but you also had to fight off the National Government which is you are - in the way it’s put here in your paper ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, excuse me, where is Mr Bizos reading from now? What page Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] line 11.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: Did you follow it or must I start again Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: If you wouldn’t mind starting again.

MR BIZOS:

Is that fair?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

• "I would say that the first problem was the National Party" - "Yes"
• "Without the National Party the communists would not be here today and it is with the release of the communists by the National Party" - "So"?
• "So, my first line of attack will be the National Party" - "Ja, no, not the communists"
• "In fact your organisation - people of your political mind said: "we’re faced with a two front war", if I can put it that way - the one against the National Party and the one against the communists" - "Not necessarily, we felt that the National Party held the power to curb the communists and they were not doing so. The communists were only as effective as the National Party was weak"

Are you happy with those statements that you’ve made?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Right. Now, let us go to page 704, line 10:

• "And of course one way of stopping people in their tracks, would be to take out the leadership" - "No, that is not my style"
• "I’m not saying it is your style or not, I am putting to you as a realistic proposition that if you want to stop a movement in it’s tracks, one way of going about it is to take out the leadership" - "No, one of way of going about it is to get rid of the National Party Government because they are the ones who allow the funds to come in to feed the revolution and that is my line of thinking and that is what I have written about the last two years"
• "Yes" - "And it is evidenced in my articles, yes"
• "Can you argue with somebody who reads this article of yours, especially your conclusion: "If not stopped in their tracks, that action against this particular organisation that you described here namely the ANC/SACP alliance’s revolutionary plan (End of tape 4, side A - no follow on)
• "...[no sound] it’s the reason.
• "How do you stop this in it’s tracks"? - "You stop them by stopping the funding, this is my line of thinking. Yes, I have written numerous articles as I repeat, about that - not murdering people"
• "Yes, but that is an option which has been used elsewhere"? - "Yes, but it is not my option, I am a member of the Conservative Party and this is their approach"

Was that your answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR BIZOS: So that - we were talking about the time of Mr Hani’s murder, it was not the policy of the Conservative Party to murder people and that is loud and clear in your evidence here.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I would like to add that this is my opinion. This is my evidence, it’s not the evidence of other people and this was my approach. This is how I saw the Conservative Party, I was a follower ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, you said it was their approach.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but this is how I saw their approach.

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] what I am going to put to you is, that now you are telling another lie. Having told His Lordship Mr Justice Eloff that you would not associate yourself with murder because you are a disciplined member of the Conservative Party and Conservative Party members do not commit murder, you know find yourself wanting to change that categorical statement in order to accommodate your husband’s and his partner in crime’s application for amnesty.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Can I ask how I am changing that categorical statement, in which way?

MR BIZOS: Don’t you understand Mrs Derby-Lewis, that there is a difference between stating that the policy of the Conservative Party as stated by it’s information head in October 1994:

• "Not murdering people" - "Yes, but it is not my option, I am a member of the Conservative Party and this their approach. Their approach is no murder, that is the Conservative Party’s approach"

You now want to qualify that in order to bring your husband’s and his partner in crimes actions within the ambit of the Act, that it has to be done on behalf of a known political party - that’s why you’re changing your evidence.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I haven’t qualified my approach. If you recall, I said the Party’s policy was not to murder anybody but no political party has a policy of murdering anybody and Doctor Hartzenberg had said - I can’t remember what it was, what was it I just said? - yes, that we do not put our cards on the table, I explained that there were other options and that other people were taking action and I still stick to what I said.

It was not the Conservative Party’s policy to murder anybody nor was it any other party’s policy to murder anybody but murder occurred - it was a war, there was a war going on despite the fact that Party’s didn’t have policies which stated unequivocally that people would be murdered. And it is in that climate I submit to the Council, it is in that climate that I made these statements today.

MR BIZOS: So this statement should really have read:

• "Save that the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party at a Council Meeting said that: "We do not declare our Policy publicly, therefore my Lord - to Judge Eloff, you must accept that there are elements in the Party such - possibly as my husband, Mr Walus and myself, who subscribe to violence but we are not prepared to speak openly about it"

Isn’t that the difference between the two?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, you’ve added me to the two, I do not subscribe to violence but that’s not the point. What you’re saying is correct, what I have said to the Council but in the case of war the Party had one policy of not murdering anybody - no Party has a policy of murdering anybody.

And to put that question to any Party, they would say: "No, it’s not our policy to murder anyone".

MR BIZOS: Except that honest Party’s sometimes form military wings and they issue manifestos, have you heard of that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the ANC put out a book: "Forum on Mass Mobilisation", they never said: "Mass Murder", they never said: "Mass Killing, Mass Intimidation", they called it mobilisation and that was their policy, a path to power. And nowhere in that book do they decide or did they describe that they are going to murder anybody.

MR BIZOS: Have you heard of any Parties - when they go over to violence, adopting a manifesto and forming a separate wing in order separate the people who are prepared to commit violent acts and those who are not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Have you ever heard of anything like that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Of course I have.

MR BIZOS: Well, the Conservative Party didn’t do that because their public statements were that they are against violence.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, if you look at the front page of The Patriot in the middle 1992 - it’s in the evidence:

What do you take up arms for?

MR BIZOS: I am not interested in headlines in The Patriot ...[intervention]

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

MR BIZOS: I am interested in your evidence ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: May I finish please?

MR BIZOS: Please listen, please ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: The Patriot is the spokes - is the mouthpiece of the Conservative Party and it is full of that kind of thing - urging the people to do something.

MR BIZOS: Do what, to kill people?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: We must stop, we must stop the ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Are you saying that The Patriot urges people to kill people?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: No". Thank you. Let’s go on, just how important have you - you took of Mr Hani’s association, is correctly reflected in your article you wrote:

It is part of Exhibit KK and I want to read the last paragraph to you:

Did you write that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

• "Do you think"

the question by the Attorney General:

• "Do you think the fact that he was assassinated Mrs Derby-Lewis, in fact had an effect of slowing down the take-over by the ANC/SACP in the way you have described the take-over"? - "No, not - no, because they are plenty of other Chris Hani’s"
• "I see" - "The fault lies - as I repeat, with the Government"
• "Yes"? - "Yes.
• "I think this is fair political comment" - "Yes"
• "Well, I think Mrs Derby-Lewis, why I refer you to your writings is to show that you held very, very strong views" - "Well, these are and you had now the view of the Conservative - and you had no the views of the Conservative Party"
• "Well, you wrote it" - "Yes, but they were approved by the Conservative Party and printed"
• "Yes" - "If they did not like these views they would not have printed them"
• "So, could I just summarise your political view as follows: It seems to me it is fair to put to you that it is your view or it seems to be your view, that sooner or later armed resistance would become a factor of life in this country if the negotiations carry on the way they were carrying at this stage"? - "Yes"

Are you happy with that answer?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

• "And I think you have also made mention in on or other of your articles that APLA had already declared war on the Whites or against the Whites"? - "Correct"
• "And that actually your attitude is that we’re in a state of war in this country at this stage"? - "Yes. Yes, General Constant Viljoen said, Doctor Treurnicht said, Doctor Hartzenberg also said that"
• "And you further believe I understand - if I may put it to you this way, that the Whites there is a psychosis of fear and helplessness"? - "Yes"

Are you happy with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

• "And it is also your attitude that if you are at war the rules don’t count than when you are at peace"? - "Correct"

Are you happy with that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS:

• "So whilst the taking of a person in peace may amount to murder, when you are at war it does not necessarily need to amount to murder"? - "No, I do not believe that"

Is that correct?

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

MR BIZOS: You said it.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, just hang on, I want to read it again if you don’t mind.

• "Who, whilst the taking of one person - when you are at war it does not necessarily need to amount to murder"

I think I’m agreeing with the negative tone of his last sentence because my feeling is that is war, war is different to peacetime and I think when I say: "No, I do not believe that I’m actually agreeing with the negative verb in the sentence:

• "When you are at war it does not necessarily need to amount to murder" - "No, I do not believe that"

MR BIZOS: We don’t have to argue semantics because the next two sentences make it clear.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: If you don’t mind, if you don’t mind, please may I explain myself, it is not semantics - if you don’t mind.

MR BIZOS: Could you explain after we’ve read the next two questions and answers so that we can get a complete picture.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, the witness must be afforded the opportunity to explain what she understood by that.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR BIZOS: ...[inaudible] draw the line Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Let her do it.

MR BIZOS: Let the witness explain, we’ll take it again.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I finished ...[indistinct], you interrupted me twice, I’ve finished now.

MR BIZOS: Thank you.

• "Where do you draw the line"? - "I do not have the ability or the capacity to make those kinds of decisions, I am a supporter of the Party"

Do you agree that in the context of those three answers you are giving out to the world that it is the Party that decides whether people should go to violence or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, in my position as a non-policy maker, yes - as a supporter, yes.

MR BIZOS: And was Mr Walus a policy maker?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR BIZOS: Was your husband a policy maker?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Why was he a policy maker on his own?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: May I read something to you?

MR BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Answer why?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Will you give me a moment, I wasn’t prepared for this?

MR BIZOS: Do you want your husband’s ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

MR PRINSLOO: The witness is looking for a particular document which is in her file.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I’m sorry, it’s the - I think - I just read it 15 minutes ago.

CHAIRPERSON: No, just - the question was: "Why do you say your husband was a policy maker?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s exactly what I was ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It was because he was elected onto the Executive of the Party.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, there was a specific - I’m sorry, I just read it 15 minutes ago where it described my husbands position in the Party.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

MR BIZOS: On the next page I actually come to end to this line of cross-examination and you may find that to be a convenient stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: So, I would just like a simple answer: "How does one individual become a policy maker to make policy for the Conservative Party"? - that’s the question.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I just read it a quarter of an hour ago and if you will give me three minutes to find - here it is. This is the extract from The Beeld which we promised to give copies to the:

He was elected to form policy for the party.

MR BIZOS: In what respect, whether to go over to violence or not?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: There’s no respect, it’s simply in the terms of a forming policy for the Party, they don’t define there but he - I’m talking about him, I’m not talking about the Party, he was a member of the body that formed policy for the Party.

MR BIZOS: In what respect and could he change the resolution of the Kimberly Congress on his own, to go over from violence to - from non-violence to violence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I don’t know.

MR BIZOS: You don’t know. And did you see the video of what the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party said about murder after Mr Hani’s murder?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, I think that was fair comment, Mr Hani’s murder ...[intervention]

MR BIZOS: Not fair comment, a statement of fact.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, and fair comment as well. Mr Walus was unknown to him at the time and he was asked for a reaction which he made, he didn’t know anything about Clive’s involvement. He came to see me the day after Mr Hani was killed and asked me what was going on - the day after - sorry, Mr Derby-Lewis was arrested and it was only then that he realised that maybe he was involved and he never repudiated him.

MR BIZOS: Now, what I’m going to put to you is that your evidence that I have read out to you, was deliberately given in order to make out the Conservative Party a peaceful Party and that your husband and you as disciplined members of the Conservative Party were not capable of murder because your Party had not decided to go over to violence. Do you agree with that interpretation of the evidence?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, n, I do not.

MR BIZOS: You don’t, very well ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: May I elaborate?

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: In this is my evidence, it is not the evidence of my husband, it is my evidence and my attitude to the Party and the way I perceived the Party and the way I perceived my position in the Party, it is has nothing to do with my husband’s attitude or position.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but you went into the witness box not only for yourself but to lie for your husband and to give evidence which would be favourable to him in the hope that he would be acquitted.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I did not go into the witness box to lie for my husband, I went into the witness box voluntarily. My attorneys asked me: "Would you like to testify and I said: "Yes, I have nothing to hide".

And it is now when I read through my testimony that I realised that I had and I said to my Advocate: "I would like to bring this up before the Committee immediately.

MR BIZOS: Yes, did you think that we might miss it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I beg your pardon?

MR BIZOS: Did you think that we might miss it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I didn’t think you would miss it.

MR BIZOS: You did think that.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: That’s not the point, I brought it up because I wanted it brought forward to the Committee. I wasn’t judging myself on your agenda, it was my agenda.

MR BIZOS: It may be a convenient stage to go onto another topic on another day Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, the Committee will now adjourn and resume at 09H30 tomorrow morning.