Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: After she had written it, she went through it, she studied it again, I testified that she had admonished the female police officer regarding spelling mistakes, but there was nothing wrong with the statement itself, but that she did not approve of the spelling mistakes, she wanted to type it up herself.   She did, there were no more spelling mistakes and she agreed with everything that was said in the statement.   Why, when she studied the statement again, did she not point out certain facts which she was not satisfied with, why did she only point out spelling mistakes?

MR PRINSLOO: A simple question, but what I would like to know is that from the 24th to the 27th, during the rendition of this statement, there was a certain point where she was not questioned, there was a break in the questioning?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, there was a certain break.   I stopped on the Saturday and then continued on the Monday.

MR PRINSLOO: It's a very long statement, it was written over quite a long period of time?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And it was re-written neatly, the final draft?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, it was typed, she typed it herself.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you please point out to the committee which changes were brought to the statement?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Initially, this morning, I testified that she made certain zig-zag patterns where she deleted certain things, and that is clearly indicated.   I testified that it was police policy that certain deletions would have to be dated and initialised, I did so and she did so as well, that was police procedure.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Strydom wasn't a very good typist, is that correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well, according to my opinion, there were a number of spelling mistakes.   I think it was rather petty to admonish her regarding the spelling mistakes, but we wanted to keep Mrs Derby-Lewis satisfied, we didn't want her to have any problems with the statements at the end of the day and that is why we gave her permission to re-type the statement herself.   We didn't want her to point out any errors or spelling mistakes afterwards, that's why we gave her the typewriter and allowed her to re-type it herself, after which she was satisfied with the final product, that there were no errors whatsoever.

MR PRINSLOO: Various statements were made by her, is that correct?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: When were the statements typed?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: While she was busy, when she had written a page, she handed it over to the typist, who would sit there and type these pages next to her, page for page, she received the information from her.

MR PRINSLOO: Perhaps you don't understand the question.   When did Mrs Derby-Lewis type the final statement, on which day?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: It is mentioned here.

MR PRINSLOO: The three statements, were they typed on the last day or as she had completed each and every one of them?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: No, when the statement had been finished and sworn and studied, she would type it.

MR PRINSLOO: So that would have been on the 27th of April?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: No, that would be when the statements had been completed and the dates appear on the statements.

MR PRINSLOO: But then with the second statement she had to record things that had already been mentioned in background, what was the relevance of that?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well that, for example, had to do with the list of names, the organisations which she belonged to, we wanted all these details, whether or not the Court would use it wasn't important, we wanted it for information purposes in the Security Branch and that is why the colonel asked that I question her specifically regarding organisations and the list, and that is why we received information regarding those issues, whether or not it was in the interests of the Court, it was valuable to us within the field where we were working.

MR PRINSLOO: The State Advocate Von Lieres, who managed the case on behalf of the State, and his junior Advocate Nel, did they consult with you regarding that case?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you ever called to testify?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And I also put it to you that not one of the members of the Security Branch, Colonel Van Niekerk, yourself, Captain Deetliefs, ever testified during that trial?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know why not?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Were these statements made available to the State?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: These statements, according to me, had to have made up a certain part of the dossier which the presiding officer had compiled regarding the case.

MR PRINSLOO: You are speaking of the section 29 statements?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: All the statements which were received.

MR PRINSLOO: But your statements were specifically the section 29 statements, that is what you managed?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, but if I had managed the dossier or the file, it would definitely have appeared in that dossier.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please.
	Honourable Chairperson, the page 405 of Mrs Derby-Lewis's statement, you have mentioned that Mrs Derby-Lewis was warned by you in terms of her admissions?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Yes, that was procedure, it had to be done that way.

MR PRINSLOO: And once again you did not write out the judge's rules there for her to sign and confirm that she understood them?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: I think it's very clear that I was impartial in this respect.    When she said that she didn't wish to make the admissions, we left it at that, because that was procedure, there were no irregulations, no undue pressure was placed upon her.

MR PRINSLOO: You didn't want her to make the identification towards you?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: No, it had to be done by an impartial officer.

MR PRINSLOO: And that would have been managed by Captain Louw?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So what was the necessity for you to warn Mrs Derby-Lewis regarding judge's rules, if that wasn't necessary?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Well that would be procedure, one had to warn her, "This could be used against you, are you prepared to do it?"   She declared herself willing to me, and I took her to the captain and that is how it was done, and that is where she changed her mind and she was taken back the captain said that she didn't want to do it, and that was that.

MR PRINSLOO: This is the first that I hear of it, that you warned someone who was asked to make an identification, because according to this version, Captain Louw had warned her in terms of judge's rules and she had refused then.

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: That was Captain Louw's procedure.   He didn't know her, it was the first time he was seeing her and it was his prerogative to warn her in terms of judge's rules, and I said to him, "This person is willing to make identifications, will you interview her?"   After that she had changed her mind and she didn't want to.

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you that Mrs Derby-Lewis was warned by the captain in terms of judge's rules and that it was the first time that she learnt that she was actually involved a section 29 matter and that she actually had a choice which she didn't have before?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: Why would I then have taken her to Captain Louw and why didn't I take her through the identification myself, if that was the case?   Is that not proof of my impartiality, that I chose an independent officer?

MR PRINSLOO: Then she exercised her choice not to make an identification, while she said to you, according to your version, that she was willing.   Isn't it strange?