TRC Final Report

Volume 6

Section 3

Chapter 6

Subsection 13

The testimony of Clive Derby-Lewis

132. The Committee found that Mr Clive Derby-Lewis was a seasoned politician steeped in conservative politics who had been popular in Afrikaner right-wing circles at the time of the incident. He was an English-speaking South African with a distinguished military background. He had been one of the founder members of the Conservative Party (CP) which had been launched in February 1982, had represented the party in Parliament during the period May 1987 to September 1989 and had served on the President’s Council from September 1989 until the assassination.

133. Right-wing organisations were convinced that the political reforms of the early 1990s would result in the destruction of the Afrikaner’s culture, values and way of life. It was in this context that Derby-Lewis and Walus plotted the assassination of Mr Hani. Their hope was that the followers of Mr Hani, many of them young people, would react to his assassination by causing widespread mayhem. This would create an opportunity for the security forces and the right wing to step in to restore order and take over the government of the country.

134. They never obtained the express authority of the CP for the assassination, nor were they acting upon the instructions or orders of the CP. Derby-Lewis had engaged in a discussion with Dr Treurnicht who indicated that it would be justified to kill the anti-Christina situation of war. Derby-Lewis contended that his senior position in the CP gave him the necessary authority to take the decision to assassinate Mr Hani on behalf of the CP.

135. In the course of their discussions about the assassination, Derby-Lewis handed Walus a list of names and addresses. The evidence led was that Mrs Derby-Lewis had prepared it for the purpose of exposing the luxurious lifestyles of those on the list for newspaper articles she intended writing. Her intention was to embarrass those concerned because their lifestyles conflicted with the cause for which they stood.

136. Derby-Lewis instructed Walus to number the names on the list in sequence of their enmity towards the CP. In other words, he contended that the list was not numbered for the purpose of eliminations; Mr Hani, the third on the list, was the only person identified for elimination.

137. It was agreed that Walus would shoot Mr Hani and that he would reconnoitre the Hani home and determine the logistics for the execution of the plan. Derby-Lewis would obtain an unlicensed firearm with a silencer to be used in the assassination.

138. During March 1993, Derby-Lewis obtained an unlicensed firearm from an old acquaintance, Mr Faan Venter, and arranged for a silencer to be fitted to the firearm through a friend in Cape Town, Mr Keith Darrel.

139. On 6 April 1993, Walus had breakfast with Derby-Lewis and his wife. After breakfast, Mrs Derby-Lewis left the house. Derby-Lewis handed the murder weapon, a Z88 pistol with a silencer and subsonic ammunition, to Walus.

140. On 7 April 1993, Walus called again at Derby-Lewis’ house to enquire about the ammunition Derby-Lewis had said he would obtain for the pistol. Derby-Lewis had not yet managed to obtain the ammunition but instructed Walus to proceed with the assassination, repeating that he would leave the detailed execution of the plan to Walus.

141. Derby-Lewis testified that he was shocked when he heard about the assassination on 10 April 1993. He had not planned to assassinate Mr Hani over the Easter weekend and had indeed decided to postpone the assassination in order to give the matter further careful thought. Besides, he had not yet given Walus the ammunition. He concluded, therefore, that someone other than Walus had been responsible for the assassination. However, he saw from the media reports the next day that it was indeed Walus who had killed Mr Hani. Derby-Lewis was arrested at home on 17 April 1993.

142. At first, Derby-Lewis refused to co-operate with the police. It was only after he was detained in terms of section 29 of the Internal Security Act that, under prolonged interrogation and pressure, he made certain statements. He gave false information, notably about the list of names, in order to protect innocent people including his wife. He was also untruthful when he told the police that he had last seen Walus in December 1992.

143. He also gave false information in the affidavit he made (dated 29 October 1993) in support of the application to reopen his case in the criminal trial. He testified that he did so because he believed that the political struggle was still continuing at that stage and that he had to explore every avenue to secure his release.