Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, so you've already said that you had - in terms of the stipulations of section 29, persons were compelled to answer questions?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well they could refuse.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, why would someone be detained in terms of section 29, and be honest about it?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I have said it before and I will repeat, in order to retrieve as much information as possible from the person.

MR PRINSLOO: And how would you retrieve this information if they refused to answer?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well then you would not retrieve it.

MR PRINSLOO: And then would you ask that he be detained for a further ten days?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, I would have requested that.

MR PRINSLOO: You would coerce the person into answering the questions by remaining there for a further ten days?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well, until the Minister of Law and Order had said no further detention, which would have happened at those times, he would be released and it would be out of my hands and...(tape ends)

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, you said that you warned Mrs Derby-Lewis in terms of judicial rules?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: At the beginning?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you told her that she should sketch a background of herself, a report?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, that is how I would commence with any investigation or questioning, I would like a complete report of the person's background.

MR PRINSLOO: And that she had to do in terms of the judicial rules?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell this, or show this committee, can you please show the honourable committee, in any of Mrs Derby-Lewis's statements, where you warned her in terms of judicial rules, judge's rules?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I have explained this in my statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you understand the question?   You were not a new constable, you knew that you had to put the judge's rules in writing and ask the person if they understood what these rules were?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: There are copied statements in terms of this issue which are held at the station.   I would have explained to her what I was going to ask, and you will see in my statement that all the elements of judge's rules were set out there, why are you attacking me personally?

MR PRINSLOO: I'll put the question to you once more, was this statement to be used for the purposes of evidence, is that what you're saying?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well, if the attorney-general thought that there would be prosecution, then this would have been used as evidence in prosecution, I would have testified in terms of this evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: In every case which is submitted to court, there is a clear and written document and I'm referring to the Security Branch, which was quite particular about it, the judge's rules would be set out clearly, where a person would sign and confirm that they understood those rules, do you agree?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Chairperson, it was not compulsory to use that form.   If you wished to set out the judge's rules in your statement, it would have been fine, it was not something which was issued by police regulations, it was something which we copied for ourselves in order to create more easier facilitation in dealing with suspects.   We did not have to use that form.

MR PRINSLOO: Nowhere in any of the statements of Mrs Derby-Lewis which is submitted to this committee, does it say that she understood exactly what the judge's rules entailed.

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I think I have explained to you that it was not necessary to use that form, that's why I didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm asking you the question, would you simply answer it.   Do you agree?

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on.   Is your contention, your client's contention, or Mrs Derby-Lewis's contention that she was never told about the judge's rules?   Is that your ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: Not by the captain, that's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter, was she aware of the judge's rules?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, she was not warned by the captain in terms of judge's rules.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then just put it to her that she wasn't warned, you see?   Otherwise we're going to have an argument here about the way he went about it and the way you are saying it ought to have been done.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, as it's done daily in every court case, a person is warned ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just put it to her ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: ...in writing ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: ...and he deny, he doesn't want to agree to that.

CHAIRPERSON: And he says no, it isn't always done that way, there is a form in which the judge's rules are set out and that he said to her ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you, Captain, that at no stage you warned Mrs Derby-Lewis regarding judge's rules?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: What I have written there is the truth.   I warned her in terms of judge's rules, I showed my appointment certificate to her, she read it herself and everything that I have testified here has been the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: And I put it further ...(intervention).

GEORGE BIZOS: No, Mr Chairman, in fairness to the witness, I must draw the committee's attention to page 211
"I, Gabriel Maroela Derby-Lewis, hereby voluntarily make a supplementary statement under oath in English."
So that I think that the witness is entitled to have his attention drawn, once this attack is made on him, that his client, or rather his witness, or the spouse of his client, in her own handwriting said that she voluntarily had made at least that one statement.   We will argue what the effect of it is.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, this section which Mr Bizos has just read makes no reference to judge's rules, is that correct, and I put it to you that in order to detain someone in terms of section 29, it would be contradictory to tell the person, "I'm warning you, you don't have to make a statement", while the colonel said, "You will talk".

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Where did you get the idea that the colonel told her that she would talk, I wasn't present when that happened?   No pressure was exercised on her.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, if section 29 was explained to her in such a way, you would not be able to argue that?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I've never heard of someone being told that they will talk.

MR PRINSLOO: And at this point I would also like to put it to you that before another commission where application was also being made for amnesty, that the Security Branch specifically in terms of section 29 made use of methods which would not normally be prescribed.

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: My procedures were those that were normally used.   You should not connect me with those elements, I was a professional police officer and I performed my duties in a professional manner.

MR PRINSLOO: You regarded her as a suspect, is that correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, I did regard her as a suspect and I'm surprised that she was never charged, I was surprised that she was never charged.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know that before the judge-president in the supreme court, with the two applicants, she appeared in the court, that she was found not guilty of all the charges?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That is my opinion, according to the statement that I received from her, she was lucky that she was never charged.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, will you answer the question please?  She was charged and she was found not guilty?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should know, maybe your memory is failing you, she was in fact charged, she was in the trial and she was found not guilty.   It might have escaped you, but that is what in fact happened.   Carry on.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you tell the committee that she was never charged?   Why are you misleading the committee?