Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

UNKNOWN: With respect, under cross-examination she 
conceded after I indicated to her that Mr Derby-Lewis was not 
here at that time, and she conceded that she could have made a 
mistake.
	Taken into consideration the fact that the du Randts have 
apparently according to their evidence, regularly on a Thursday, 
visited their daughter in Pretoria.
	And then if you look at Mr du Randt's statement to the 
Police, he said that he made this statement under difficult 
circumstances.  The policeman first wrote the date as the 31st of 
March, then they changed it.
	With respect Mr Chairman, this Committee fortunately has 
the advantage of fixed dates where it could indicate to a specific 
event, this could be seen from the programme and also as being 
said by Mrs Venter.
	She is a very intelligent witness and not at all - and she 
gave clear evidence regardless in depth cross-examination by Mr 
Bizos.
	Chairperson, then we had the evidence of Captain de Waal 
regarding the statements of Mrs Derby-Lewis.  Captain de Waal 
says he warned the witness according to Judge's Rules.  If you 
look at the evidence that Colonel Van Niekerk told the witness, 
you are going to stay here until you speak, and he is a Captain, he 
came here, and he said that he did not warn her according to 
Judge's Rules, because it is not clear from her statement, I am not 
a witness, but during my whole career, I have never seen that a 
suspect makes a statement in detention, Section 29 detention, and 
I can understand if she was taken to another Officer, that she had 
to be warned according to Judge's Rules, and then make her 
statement.
	But here Mrs Derby-Lewis gave evidence that the statement 
was made and that she would be used as a witness.  This is 
supported by the fact that this was the purpose of Captain de 
Waal.
	Captain de Waal's evidence was unacceptable when he said 
that Colonel Van Niekerk told him that a team, apart from the 
Security Police, would blindly question a person without knowing 
anything about the matters of that case, things which he already 
told Deetliefs.
	Taking into consideration that she had mentioned certain 
things to Deetliefs, which is available on video tapes, you can 
have a look at that, and then he also said that she wrote a 
statement in her own handwriting, and then she is told that what 
you have just said now, according to information, is not true.
	Your husband said something else.  If you have a look at 
that and you look at her handwritten statement, volume R4, just 
one minute please, specifically regarding the firearm and the list 
Mr Kemp provided, if you look at the statement of Captain de 
Waal in Exhibit AC page 2 where he says at the bottom regarding 
things which are unclear and there are things which do not 
coincide with her husband's statement.  In other words he knew 
what Deetliefs had said and he said he did not know.  
	Furthermore he said she stated that her husband never 
indicated a firearm, while her husband during questioning did 
indicate a firearm.  She went further, saying that she now 
remembered.
	If we look at the statement, her handwritten statement, 
paragraph 66 on page 158 of the typed version, it's page 159, 
paragraph 72
		"then that Cuba had possibly done the deed and Clive 
and I later confirmed that Cuba had used the gun 
which Clive showed me one day in the house (with a 
silencer).  Clive and I then left.  We were both of 
course shocked at the news and then we went 
shopping"
If you look at the handwritten document at page 66, paragraph 
72, you will see where it all fits in.  Not on the bottom part of the 
page, two thirds down the page.  There it's written 
		"It was obvious to me"
that's what is written there.  It's very clear that she had written 
something else, where's that page?  There's more written on this 
page, it's evident here that she had written more on this page.  It 
is very clear that she had to re-write this and had to fit this into 
this page. 
	If you look at the time when he questioned her on the 26th 
of April she had already completed her statement to fit it into 
this.  If you have a look at the list - the argument regarding the 
list, when he said that Mrs - it's paragraph 72 and not 66, I made 
a mistake.

JUDGE WILSON: What page?

UNKNOWN: I think it's 186, it's not very clear on my page 
as it's marked.

JUDGE WILSON: ...[inaudible]

UNKNOWN: Paragraph 72 Mr Chairman, that's correct.  
Thank you Mr Justice Wilson.
	If you look at the time when these things were said on the 
26th of April according to Captain de Waal, if you look at what 
he said about the list which is referred to just previously and 
which was obtained from Arthur Kemp, where she asked him
		"Was Arthus Kemp taken into custody?"
It's a continuation of these pages, and you will see that Arthur 
Kemp, on the 21st of April already made his statement and there 
he conceded that he had provided a list, compiled a list and 
provided it to Mrs Derby-Lewis.  This was a known fact to 
Captain de Waal at that stage because he himself said he arrested 
him, at least he arrested Kemp.  Now to come and say that he 
then first wanted to establish certain facts, does not make any 
sense.
	From paragraph 66 in that same statement you see the part, 
the handwritten part regarding Kemp matter and furthermore 
reference is also made to Kemp in the other paragraphs.  Mrs 
Derby-Lewis testifies that Captain de Waal told her what to say.  
If you take this fact into consideration, that none of these 
statements made according to Section 29 formed part of the trial, 
was never presented, on the contrary at that stage it was not a 
legal requirement in any case that statements and a dossier be 
made available.
	At that time when Mrs Derby-Lewis was in custody she kept 
notes and after she was released according to Section 29, she 
specifically said what her experiences were in custody in terms of 
Section 29.  Exhibit 1A was what she wrote and furthermore she 
also wrote an article which appeared in the document "Ons eie". 
  In Exhibit A1 she said that she wrote hundreds of pages.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Exhibit 1A or Exhibit A1?

UNKNOWN: Y1 Mr Chairman, it starts at Y1.

CHAIRPERSON: Y1?

UNKNOWN: That's correct Mr Chairman.  It appears at page 
7 of Exhibit Y Mr Chairman, at the bottom of the page.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

UNKNOWN: Honourable Chairman, it's not clear according 
to Captain de Waal why she's written contradictory statements.  
Now the Committee has the problem of what was said and what 
was not said.  The other problem is, with respect, that you should 
look at what the value is of these statements taken under these 
circumstances.  With respect, the value of these statements is to 
cause confusion and because of that reason these cannot be used 
to evaluate Mr Derby-Lewis, the applicant.
	It's also clear where the insertions were made 
...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] on which we mustn't consider 
these statements was because some of what is in that statement, 
she claims was what she was told to say by Mr de Waal, is that 
the reason?

UNKNOWN: That's the one reason Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there any other reasons?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, she said that she was forced, she 
was under Section 29 and she did not want to make a statement.  
If you look at the video recordings, it is clear that she did not act 
voluntarily without legal assistance.  And also, in here detention 
file it is indicated that she was ill at a certain time while de Waal 
said she was fine.  She had heart problems, she received 
medication.  What then with respect, is the value of a statement 
made under these circumstances and ...[intervention]

JUDGE WILSON: Mr de Waal said he himself made 
arrangements to take her to be seen by her own doctor, that's 
hardly saying she was fine is it?