Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, under Paragraph 11, Mr Walus contends that he was acting under orders and my learned friend Mr Bizos has already made submissions that Mr Walus essentially changed the manner in which he is going to conduct his evidence in his Application for Amnesty after he had seen the Max Du Preez TRC Special Report and decided that he would now consistently claim that he was acting under orders.
	Chairperson at 11.1, if I may read this section out.  In his Application Mr Walus initially stated that,
"The Applicant acted alone in the planning and the commission of this deed."
.2, when Walus made this statement he was fully aware of the facts surrounding the assassination of Chris Hani.  He was trying to minimise the role played by Derby-Lewis, also evidenced in Derby-Lewis' Application and his evidence on Record.  His preparedness to protect Mr Derby-Lewis is also recorded in R4, Page 306.
	His answer under this paragraph was subsequently changed on 13 November 1996 to read as follows,
"In pursuance of the instructions of Clive John Derby-Lewis, a senior member of the Conservative Party, prior to 6 April 1993 we, Clive John Derby-Lewis and I jointly planned to assassinate Chris Hani.  On 6 April 1993 Clive John Derby-Lewis handed me an unlicensed firearm for the purpose of assassinating Chris Hani."
Chairperson, at 11.4, we make the submission that by the above statement Walus is trying to marry the suggestion that he was acting under instructions and that they acted jointly.  There obviously is a contradiction in these statements, especially in view of the fact that Derby-Lewis in his  amended response to Paragraph 9(a)(i) does not mention having given instructions to Walus.
	And Chairperson, in November both of them had access to legal representation and therefore if one looks at the body of the Application of Mr Derby-Lewis one will observe that even after the lawyers had come in to assist him, he consistently indicated in his Application that he was a co-conspirator, he was an equal to Clive Derby-Lewis and not a foot soldier acting under orders.
	And that submission is made at 11.5.  The Applicant was moved by his personal understanding of what was happening in the country and he "vowed to do something to try and stop the handover to communist rule", and there's a reference.  Under paragraph 10(b) of his Application, Walus clearly shows an understanding of the political developments in the country and clearly identifies himself with the political objective of the CP or that of Derby-Lewis, to hold the coming to power of the communists.
	The reading of Paragraph 11(a) of his Application clearly shows an understanding of Conservative Party politics and his association therewith.  In his evidence he did not try to limit his knowledge of the Conservative Party politics but confirmed such understanding.  His understanding of these politics and the objectives of the CP are those of Mr Derby-Lewis is not that of a person whose interest is only to carry out orders or instructions of the leadership.
	Mr Walus told the investigation officer that he and Clive planned the murder together.  To a question by Judge Ngoepe, Walus conceded or agreed that he participated in the killing of Hani because he was driven by his immense hatred of the communist regime and his previous terrible experiences under communism in Poland.
	After it had been put to Walus that he was tailoring his evidence to accord with that, that submission has already been made Chairperson.  At 11.12, when the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis was read to Walus and there's a reference, he admitted the following:
"That he and Derby-Lewis were discussing as friends, they were discussing as like-minded persons in terms of politics that in February 1993 they jointly agreed on the assassination.  That they talked as colleagues, and as co-supporters in every aspect.  That they were talking privately between the two of them, that he, Walus volunteered to execute their joint decision.  That he, Walus was not under any pressure to do that and that Derby-Lewis had no control over him in terms of the execution."
	And at this point Chairperson, the evidence is that Mr Walus was alone when he executed this act and if he was under any compulsion it did not apply for a very long period he was conducting reconnaisances by himself.  Derby-Lewis was not standing by to see that he does execute his orders and therefore his claim that he was acting under orders should not be accepted.  He could have withdrawn from this plot at any stage.  He was not under pressure from Mr Derby-Lewis nor from the CP.
	It is submitted that Walus' evidence at Page 899, 904 and 914 of the First Record that he acted under instructions is contradictory to that of Mr Derby-Lewis and to what he says in his own Application and has testified to at Pages 71 to 78 of the Second Record.
	Mr Walus disputes that he could have quoted Langenhoven during the interrogation but what he admits in his evidence or what he states in his evidence it's that he knows that Langenhoven wrote Die Stem which tends to show that Mr Walus is a person who has deep knowledge of the Afrikaner history, the struggle of the CP and he was not an ordinary person acting under orders but was a person committed to the cause of the CP.

MR WILSON: I understood, we were told that we should look at the disks and it would show that it was not him who referred to Langenhoven, is that so?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson it is so and Mr Bizos will deal with admissibility separately of these statements, but what I'm, the point I'm making is that in his evidence, he does say all he knows about Langenhoven is that he wrote Die Stem and I'm saying his knowledge of that mere fact that Langenhoven wrote Die Stem indicates that he may have read Langenhoven or knows the Afrikaner history.
	Chairperson, Mr Derby-Lewis testified

MR WILSON: Before you go on, can I ask you, you refer in Paragraph 11.12, when the evidence of Mr Derby-Lewis was read to Walus TRC FR, he admitted the following, now are these quotations from Mr Walus?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, those are not quotations, they are points that I extracted from his admissions.  What Mr Bizos did

MR WILSON: Well my problem is that in my Record Page 777 is the evidence of Derby-Lewis.

MR MALINDI: Yes Chairperson and the evidence of Mr Walus, I think would be in Second Record, Page 71 to 78, at the bottom of 11.12.8, the references.

MR WILSON: So these are references to what Derby-Lewis said at those pages?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WILSON: Right, thank you.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, finally, on my section, Mr Derby-Lewis stated in his Application and in his evidence that after he had had a dream, he thought it better to delay the execution of Chris Hani and Mr Walus, in his evidence says that was not conveyed to him and he went ahead with the execution and Mr Walus was always
 prepared and ready to go ahead with the execution although Mr Derby-Lewis claims to have had reservations at another stage. 
	And therefore Chairperson my submission is that Mr Walus was not acting under orders, he was acting as a co-conspirator, as an equal.  Chairperson I will handover back to Mr Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos will it be convenient if we take a short adjournment at this stage?

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes Mr Chairman.  Let me assure you Mr Chairman that, not only will I finish but I will leave approximately half an hour for a reply if need be.  The main issues have been canvassed and I will not be very long.

CHAIRPERSON: You may in addressing us, consider, if you have not already done it, in relation to the criteria laid down in Sub Section 3, whether each of these criteria have to be satisfied or whether they have to be treated collectively.  If one of the criteria is not satisfied, does that mean that there has been non compliance with the entire Sub Section?