Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

UNKNOWN: That a plan was being made that there would 
be an assassination?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, her evidence is that it was not 
like that.  The applicants said it was not so.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I'm saying that what stands in some of the 
things which she says in her statement.  She says she had 
knowledge of that before.

UNKNOWN: In her evidence she denied that she any 
knowledge but with respect, this refers to my argument 
...[intervention]

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Yes, yes, I appreciate that, that's why I put it 
on the hypothetical basis, that assuming we accept, 
notwithstanding your submissions, if we were to accept that she 
did say what stands in her statements, some of the things would 
indicate that she had foreknowledge.  And the implications 
thereof would be that the applicants did not make a full 
disclosure.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman with respect, according to the 
statements, if I understand you correctly, that she had 
foreknowledge of this and not that she was a co-conspirator, that 
she had foreknowledge about this, yes.
Mr Chairman, in which aspect would ...[indistinct] did she get 
this information with them knowing or without them knowing, 
that would be a different factor.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: With their knowledge.

UNKNOWN: With their knowledge, for example when she 
said
		"They did not show me the weapon"
while the statement said
		"They did show me the weapon"
is that what you mean?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: No, I think, if you look at R2 or look at the 
typed version - I don't know, I hope it's correct, R4 page 252 for 
example.  Yes, R4 page 252, the typed version ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: The last sentence in paragraph 44.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Can you also see where she says
		"Clive and Cuba decided on Chris Hani to be 
eliminated because of his particular brutal record" 
and so on and so forth and then she goes down to say that
		"This does not mean to say that discussions between 
the two of them were not going on.  Clive told me 
sometime in March that he and Cuba had decided 
upon Chris Hani as the person to be eliminated"
You see, that indicates foreknowledge.

UNKNOWN: Yes, it indicates that they had told her that 
there was a plan.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: If we were to accept that that is in fact what 
she said, it would mean that the applicants did not make a full 
disclosure.

UNKNOWN: In this aspect it would be so.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: With regard to Mrs Derby-Lewis' knowledge 
to the whole thing?

UNKNOWN: That would be correct if it would be accepted 
like that.  I want to refer you Mr Chairman, to this part
		"Clive and Cuba decided on Chris Hani to be 
eliminated because of his particularly brutal record 
and his position as Chairman of the SA Communist 
Party, which they believed never should have been 
unbanned".
	We have the problem now, did she say that?  Did she know 
that before the time or afterwards?

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Well that argument with not apply in respect 
to the last portion I read to you, it will not hold.

UNKNOWN: This is the problem we have with this 
statement, these parts which have been inserted.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: No, well, I don't know what you mean but 
what I'm saying to you is that the point that you are trying to 
raise will definitely assist you with regard to the last portion I 
read
		"Clive told me some time in March that he and Cuba 
had decided upon Chris Hani as the person to be 
eliminated"

UNKNOWN: Yes, that part is so.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: That one stands firm.

UNKNOWN: Yes, that is so on that basis.
	Just one moment please.  With respect, I want to argue that 
Arthur, there's no indication that he is a co-conspirator and the 
aspect I've referred to regarding Mr Derby-Lewis, I've already 
referred to in my argument regarding her statements.
	Then to come back to Mr Derby-Lewis himself.  With 
respect, I want to argue that if you look at the facts which are 
fixed in this matter, there was for example, a plan to eliminate Mr 
Hani.  A decision was made, a firearm was obtained, a firearm 
was used for this purpose by Mr Walus.  Mr Walus executed this 
with Mr Derby-Lewis' approval and knowledge and on instruction 
from him for the purpose as indicated.  
	There was no discussion at all of how the weapon was 
obtained, how it was given to Mr Walus.  It is supported by the 
evidence in the Supreme Court as well, that the person who 
worked in the house saw this.  We should look at the fixed facts 
of this case, taking into consideration that Mr Derby-Lewis was 
interrogated or cross-examined for days by Mr Bizos.
	I argue that he made a full disclosure in as far as his 
involvement and the reason why he committed this.  His whole 
activities or actions refer to this.  
	A further aspect is that it should be into consideration that 
Mr Derby-Lewis was initially responsible for his application and 
he had very little real representation.  As statements are made it 
could be inaccurate.  And he was politician who compiled this 
when he made this application.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't regard the fact that he was a politician 
in any way as a handicap, do you?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, they have a tendency to write a 
lot and to talk a lot.  I'm saying it with respect, I don't mean 
anything strange.
	Then I want to refer to when this conspiracy developed.  
Evidence was given by Mrs Beyers who said that she and saw Mr 
Walus in July 1992, he was sitting outside Mr Mandela's house.  
Mr Chairman, if Mrs Beyers' evidence was to be accepted as 
correct then this murder list is not necessary because Mr Walus in 
1992 already knew where he was living, it was not necessary for a 
murder list.   
	If Mrs Derby-Lewis was to be involved, if she knew about 
the conspiracy that then she had to put Doctor Mandela's name on 
that list.  That was unnecessary if that evidence is accepted as 
true.  Mrs Beyers with respect, if you look at her evidence and 
look at what she said, she say can't say in which newspaper she 
saw Mr Walus, from which point this - from which angle this 
photograph was taken, the time frame when it happened, why she 
did not go to the police with this information and under which 
circumstances she went to the police with this, except that she 
remembered that she conveyed it to Mr Mandela during a 
function.  	With respect Mr Chairman, if there was a bakkie like 
that, she made a wrong identification.
	If the Committee would accept this then it would support 
the versions of the applicants, that they did not have the murder 
list.  And then it would also support Mrs Derby-Lewis' version, if 
she had already known where Doctor Mandela was living and 
further details.
	Honourable Chairperson, while I am dealing with Mr Derby-
Lewis, there is also the testimony of the Mr Clark which cause 
quite a stir, which suggested that there was a plan that they 
would pay the defence Mr Derby-Lewis.  With respect, those 
allegations cannot be true and any possibility that it could be 
true.  With regard to this I would like to contend that he was a 
very open witness who was cross-examined by Mr Bizos 
...[intervention]