Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I'm not misleading anyone.   This matter occurred five years ago.

MR PRINSLOO: This was a very controversial issue in the media.

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, it was very controversial, she was not, she's not in detention, her husband and his accomplice are in detention.

MR PRINSLOO: You went on and said that she was a suspect and emphasised that you were surprised that she had not been charged.   Since when does one take an affidavit from a suspect?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I don't understand what you mean by that.

MR PRINSLOO: You ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think please, let's just move on.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, it's crucial, if a person is a suspect in a trial, you don't take a sworn statement from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well at any section 29 inquiry, she was detained under section 29 and a statement was in fact taken, these are the statements we've got before us.   Now how much further can you take it?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the only, what I'd like to ask the witness, why was a sworn statement taken from the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Well it was in fact taken, isn't it?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit it's not procedure ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: All right, then the procedure ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: ...and that's the point I want to make as to what is the case of the witness, Mrs Derby-Lewis?    You took an affidavit and told Mrs Derby-Lewis that she would be used as a witness.

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I never said that.   In terms of section 29, it would be an affidavit.

MR PRINSLOO: That is why the judge's rules do not appear in this statement.

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: But she was made aware of the judge's rules and the statement was written in her own handwriting, and that is why she didn't mention the judge's ...(intervention).

GEORGE BIZOS: Could I just ask you something here?   You've just told us the statement was in her own handwriting and she didn't mention the judge's rules, but, where is the first statement by her, 164 is it?   Yes.   At the end of that statement, she has written, at page 195
"I know and understand the contents of this statement.   I have no objection to taking the prescribed oath.   I consider the prescribed oath to be binding on my conscience."
I take it she was told to write that?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That is correct. those three sentences, this is the way of concluding a statement.   That I've told her to write, those last three sentences are part of an affidavit.

GEORGE BIZOS: You told her rights in the case of each one of them, but you've never told her to write that she had been warned in terms of the judge's rules?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: This form, she did not know this form of a sworn statement, that's why I told her how to do it.

MR PRINSLOO: When you took the statement for the first time, you told her that she had to provide a historical background?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did she have to be warned according to judge's rules, what did that have to do with the allegations against her?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Mr Chairman, that was just to get a complete statement from her, from the beginning to the end, I wanted to get a complete statement and that was how we went about in the Security Police with the historical statement, that was to get a full picture of this person.

MR PRINSLOO: It was the practice in the Security Police, Captain, I want to put it to you, that every person who was detained according to section 29 who could write, was asked to write his background in his own writing, am I correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I don't know about practice, but that was what I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you agree that a practice like that existed?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: It was not used by all the Security Branch members, it differed from member to member.

MR PRINSLOO: Where were you stationed?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I was at Security Branch, Sandton, and I was attached to John Vorster.   I was stationed at Morningside.

MR PRINSLOO: In your own statement, AC, you say one page 1
"I told her that at that stage we would just take a background information from her regarding her political career and an historical history, and that on Monday I would provide a complete statement.    The reason for that is that there are documentation found in her possession which I would like to study, and which I want more information about."

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, are you tell the honourable committee that she wrote her statement regarding her background and then she stopped, is that what you're saying?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I'm not understanding your question.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you telling the committee that she started writing a statement regarding her background and then she stopped until you had the time to study whatever you wanted to?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, I wanted to study the diary she had in her possession.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the committee where she stopped and where she started, can you indicate on her statement?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: She stopped where she had stopped writing.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you indicate where on the statement?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, just tell me, can you tell me now, please, I want you to assist me, what is the relevance of all this kind of cross-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You see, in another tribunal the value of her evidence and so on might be of grave concern, but here as to when she gave her history and when she gave the rest of her story and so on, precisely of what importance is it?

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, it's relevant to the credibility of this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: No, then I'm not interested in allowing you to proceed with the credibility of this evidence, if that is the only purpose.    You have, her statements are here, she has not denied making those statements, so there's no point in challenging the credibility of witness on the question of procedure that he followed or did not follow.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, that her version is she was told what to say by this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then you put it to her and she wrote it voluntarily and her statement says that she wrote it voluntarily.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that she was detained in terms of section 29, that she was in the hands of the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then that's, the value of her evidence and so on, that would be a matter for another tribunal, you understand?   She could have said in a court of law, "My statement was a section 29 statement, it is inadmissible", and the Court would have said, "Yes, it's inadmissible".

MR PRINSLOO: But, Mr Chairman, with respect, how do I dispute this witness' evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: You're not disputing his evidence, you are merely saying that he didn't follow certain procedure.

MR PRINSLOO: Well I put the version of the witness to him as well, after I examined him, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think that you'd better proceed further along the lines, but I don't think we can go on questioning along these lines to test his credibility on these issues.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, is it correct that Mr Mpshe and Mr Bizos consulted with you, is that correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Only this, early this morning, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: You said Colonel Van Niekerk was not satisfied with her statement, is that correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I did not say that, I said parts, certain portions of these statements he did not agree with because it differed from that of her husband.

MR PRINSLOO: And because there was a difference in the evidence, he wanted her to put it right?