Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

UNKNOWN: That is correct, I agree with you.  But 
it goes further than this
		"to mobilise and prepare for the security of the 
Afrikaner people.  This meant one thing, and that was 
to fight with weapons"
His evidence goes further in saying that the leaders - and he's not 
referring only to himself and Treurnicht, he's referring to other 
leaders and he refers to the other speakers from the platform, 
they proclaimed that is was war now.  
	It was said that the people had to obtain weapons, not only 
for self-defence ...[intervention]  Just a moment please. ...[no 
sound]  Page 758, I don't know whether the quotation is correct, 
I don't have it in front of me.  He discusses it where he says
		"Mr Chris Hani is regarded as enemy number one.  If 
Hani would be the leader of the country the Afrikaner 
nation would be destroyed"

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, carry on.

UNKNOWN: Pages 772 to 774 he makes statements 
and on 782 where Hartzenberg concedes like the other leaders, 
strongly worded things were said to convince  people to commit 
acts of violence.  The CP regarded the situation in the country as 
a full blown war situation.

ADV POTGIETER: In one word, what was the policy of the CP 
regarding violence?

UNKNOWN: It's the same problem that Advocate 
Prinsloo had.  The CP's written policy was not about violence but 
what they talk about, what they proclaimed from platforms at 
Paardekraal, at the Voortrekker monument, there they said
		"We should fight"
and what else should the members of the CP and the right-wing 
have thought if their leaders tell them "You have to begin the 
struggle and you have to fight for your freedom".

ADV POTGIETER: I understand that, that is a different 
argument.  According to your submission, what should we find 
regarding the policy of the CP regarding violence?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, the policy was not 
violence but in respect of the application, and if you look at 
section 22(a) this is not about what the police was but it was also 
not the National Party's policy but it was about a political 
struggle and that was what the leaders of the Conservative Party 
said.

ADV POTGIETER: But you said the policy was not violence?

UNKNOWN: ...[No English translation]

ADV POTGIETER: That helps.

UNKNOWN: Dr Hartzenberg gave evidence 
regarding the question "What was the CP's view regarding Mr 
Hani"?  I've already indicated to you that he said that Mr Hani 
was regarded as enemy number one of the Afrikaner people and if 
Hani should be in control of the country the Afrikaner people 
would be destroyed.
	And then I want to come back to what Mr Potgieter has 
said.  The policy of the Conservative Party was to ensure the 
freedom of the Afrikaner people and if Mr Hani, if he was in 
control of the country, then the Conservative Party believed that 
the Afrikaner people's liberty would be destroyed.  Then, as a 
result of that point of view of the CP and the right-right, the 
right-wing together with the CP because they were part of the 
CP, then they became involved in a political struggle and then 
they propagated violence. 
	The Conservative Party and Mr Hartzenberg cannot get 
away from that fact.  Their followers heard about violence and 
that they had to use to protect their liberty.
	It was also clear from his evidence that the political 
struggle was, and he said "The National Party betrayed the 
Afrikaner people and the struggle after the legalisation of the 
ANC/SACP and the struggle was then against those 
organisations".
	Mr Chairman, in my heads I also referred to 22(d) and I 
want to submit that in order to qualify for amnesty, the applicant 
he had to make full disclosure of the offence and according to 
which - this article, he is applying for amnesty.
	A lot has been said about the fact that there was wider 
conspiracy than only that between these two applicants and then 
because of the application there was not full disclosure.  I want 
to put it to you that the applicant's evidence indicates that at the 
end of 1992  he was in Europe and after his return in December 
1992 he made contact with Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.  
	Before he had left for Europe this struggle in the country 
was already going on and when he returned in December this 
political situation in the country was discussed further.
	His evidence is, and there's no other evidence contradicting 
that, that at that stage the political situation in the country was 
discussed and not at any stage that they then decided that 
anybody had to be eliminated.
	In February 1993, the applicants visited Mr Clive Derby-
Lewis again and then received the instruction and the planning 
was made to murder Mr Hani.  It is evident from the first 
applicant's evidence that Mr Derby-Lewis provided a list to him.  
 I want to argue that should the Committee find that Mrs Derby-
Lewis, based on her statements based on Section 29, as Ngoepe 
pointed out to Mr Prinsloo, if the Committee finds that Mrs 
Derby-Lewis knew beforehand that there was planning being done 
to murder Mr Hani, I want to submit that the applicant, Mr 
Walus, had no knowledge of this whatsoever.   He did not know 
that which Mrs Derby-Lewis knew, there is no indication.
	Even in the Section 29 statements or any other evidence, 
there is any indication that Mr Walus knew that Mrs Derby-Lewis 
knew what her husband - Mr Walus did not have any knowledge 
that he discussed it with her.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: She did not implicate him? [Transcriber's 
translation]

UNKNOWN: She did not implicate him.
	And then I want to go further.  This list, according to Mr 
Walus, he received this list in February, that was the first time he 
saw that.  He has no knowledge whatsoever or he had no 
knowledge at that stage of how that list was obtained, he had no 
knowledge of this list with the 19 names which was dispatched by 
Mr Kemp.  He did not know how Mrs Derby-Lewis obtained the 
list with the 19 names.  He received the list from Mr Derby-Lewis 
and on Mr Derby-Lewis' instruction the list was prioritised, based 
on the basis of hostility against the CP.
	Mr Walus said that some of the names were known to him, 
for example, Mandela and Slovo but the other people were 
unknown to him.  He heard about them but he did not know 
anything about them.
	Mr Walus gave evidence that during February, after this list 
had been numbered and Mr Hani was identified as a target 
because of the fact that he was the Secretary General of the ANC 
and he was involved in MK and he was being seen as Mandela's 
successor, it was decided that he was the target for their offence.

ADV POTGIETER: Who decided that?  Who made this decision?

UNKNOWN: This decision, together they decided 
about the target.

ADV POTGIETER: Derby-Lewis and Walus?

UNKNOWN: Yes, they decided about that jointly.  
But it is very clear and it was confirmed by Mr Derby-Lewis that 
Mr Derby-Lewis instructed Mr Walus to execute that decision 
they had made.

ADV POTGIETER: On which authority was that made?

UNKNOWN: According to the evidence of Mr Walus, 
he believed that because he regarded Mr Derby-Lewis as a CP 
policy maker, as a leader of the Conservative Party, he did not 
only regard him as a politician, he believed that this was decided 
by the Conservative Party and that this instruction was given in 
the name of the Conservative Party.

ADV POTGIETER: But on which authority - apart from what 
Mr Walus believed, on which authority did Mr Derby-Lewis, after 
they jointly decided, on whose authority did Mr Derby-Lewis give 
an instruction to Mr Walus to execute this joint decision?  Can 
you assist us in this respect?

UNKNOWN: I want to submit that according to Mr 
Walus' evidence and the way in which he regarded, he regarded 
Mr Clive Derby-Lewis' instruction based on his position as an 
executive member of the Conservative Party.

ADV POTGIETER: Where is there any documentation regarding 
this authority?