Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: And if the vast majority of the people of South Africa have decided that we are going to be a united country and not a fragmented country, which you call self-determination, and you are free, will you take steps to render inoperative the words of the preamble of the Constitution, Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the Constitution is a reality and it is quite correct, as Mr Bizos says, that the majority of the people have indicated their approval of that and how can I then want to force my will on those people over their own affairs.  They are perfectly entitled to that, Mr Chairman.  But surely, Mr Chairman, if one looks at world history, surely, Mr Chairman, if, even if one looks at South African history, recent and in the long term, it is clear, for example, that when the British compelled the Afrikaner to come into the Union of South Africa, we know the history of that, it was written into the Constitution at the time, categorically, that the Union of South Africa was the land of White South Africans.
	And, Mr Chairman, in the process of drawing up that Constitution and doing what they did with the boundaries of the country and remembering that certain trust lands were not part of, part and parcel of the Union of South Africa, they were recognised as belonging to the various peoples who were still located within the boundaries.  
	And considering, Mr Chairman, that the British Government established Lesotho as the independent territory for the South Sotho people and considering that the Swazis got the territory of Swaziland and that the Tswanas were accorded Bophuthatswana, Mr Chairman, I do not think it was unreasonable at that time, I do not think it was unreasonable at that time for White South Africa also to be accorded a territory and I think that in the interests of peace and reconciliation, that was done.  
	Mr Chairman, we in the Conservative Party, have always questioned, we've always questioned, Mr Chairman, whether the people who were allowed to vote in 1994 were actually entitled to vote in view of the perfidy of the total political dishonesty perpetrated by Mr de Klerk whom, as I testified, was aware of the fact in 1990 already, that he no longer represented the people that he entered into negotiations on behalf of, and he was using the military and the SAP to protect his position in spite of the fact that he broke a mandate.  We had a rotten Constitution at the time.  We were not able, in terms of our Constitution, to take Mr de Klerk to court.  Otherwise I can assure you, Mr Chairman, had that possibility been contained in the Constitution at that time, Mr F W de Klerk would have been impeached for what he did, because he, by his own admission, betrayed the mandate given to him by the voter.  
	So, that is the background, Mr Chairman, and I think that makes it clear how I feel on that and why I still believe that we Afrikaners are entitled to a territory of our own where we can exercise self-determination over our own affairs in Southern Africa, wherever it may be.

UNKNOWN: Having listened to you, Mr Derby-Lewis, can I summarise it by saying that you do not accept the legitimacy of the present Government?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, we made it very clear when the election was about to be held that we in the Conservative Party were not going to participate in that election, because participation would give legitimacy to the election result.  We ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: I did not ask you what your parties attitude was.  The question was, do you accept the legitimacy of the present Government?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, whether we accept it or not, it is a legitimate Government.

UNKNOWN: I am asking you ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I accept, yes, Mr Chairman, yes, I accept the legitimacy of the Government as it is, because, in any case ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: As a democratically elected Government?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

UNKNOWN: The long speech that you made did not sound as coming from a person who told the Committee that he has given up politics.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have this knowledge.  Am I now expected to withhold this from the Committee, because I am leaving the political arena?  Mr Bizos invited those, that reply that I gave him.  He actually looked for it and I gave it to him, Mr Chairman.  Now he criticises me and tries to use that as the basis for a statement that I am going to, not going to leave politics.  If I sound like a politician, Mr Chairman, I am sorry.  I am a man of my people and that is all that I have ever tried to be and I have already assured this Committee that my plans are to now enjoy some of my life, because I have been involved solely in politics and everyone knows that, Mr Chairman, and that is why people outside are saying that this is the classical example of a political crime, because those people who know me, Mr Chairman, my opponents included, know that I would have no other motivation to perpetrate something as bad as that ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... for me.

UNKNOWN: Mr Derby-Lewis, I am going to put to you that you are not a representative of the Afrikaner people.  The vast majority of Afrikaners disassociate themselves from you altogether.  Would you accept that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I would challenge Mr Bizos to use his good offices with President Mandela and to invite a referendum on the question from him.  I think he would be very surprised at the outcome.

UNKNOWN: You have tried, on a number of occasions, to make a, to make personal references to me.  I have ignored them all, I will ignore this one as well, Mr Derby-Lewis.  Just answer my questions please.  Did the vast majority of the Afrikaners vote, despite your parties call not to vote?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is debatable, Mr Chairman.  It depends on how you interpret the election result.

UNKNOWN: Well ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I, ...

UNKNOWN: Well, ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: My interpretation, Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: You do not accept it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I do not accept that the vast majority of the Afrikaners ...

UNKNOWN: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... voted in favour of ...

UNKNOWN: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... participation, no.

UNKNOWN: Yes, and, Mr Derby-Lewis, the time has come for me to put to you what we will submit to the Committee you did and why we will argue you did it.
	Firstly, you did it, because you have a sense of self-importance which is not justified by the facts.  That you had no authority from any political party, liberation movement or organ of State to commit the murder that you committed.  Do you agree with me so far?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to comment on this, because these statements are so ridiculous that they do not deserve comment.

UNKNOWN: Well, you say no comment.  Very well, we, I can carry on.  Secondly, ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thirdly, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Thirdly, thank you, ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, pleasure.

UNKNOWN: That you did not act alone with Mr Walus and that you acted together with your wife and a number of people, including those who or those who reconnoitred the houses of the people on the list, supplied you with a gun and a silencer and, probably, others that neither you nor Mr  Walus chose to disclose.
	That your act is completely out of proportion to any harm done to you or to anyone else and that you committed this murder when you saw that your racist policies had no chance of success, because the country was about to enter into a historical settlement in which racism would play no part.

CHAIRPERSON: You are telling him that that is what you will submit?

UNKNOWN: This is what - do you want to make any comment?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, may I consult with my advocate?  I think that then indicates the end of the cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you made all the points that you were going to submit, Mr Bizos?