Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

UNKNOWN: There's no documentation regarding this 
matter.  I want to submit to you that this can be gathered from 
Mr Walus' evidence.  He believed that as a result of the position 
Mr Derby-Lewis held in the Conservative Party, that instruction 
was based on the authority of that position.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And according to you Mr Walus didn't have 
to look any higher up in the hierarchy than Mr Derby-Lewis?

UNKNOWN: That was also the way he saw that.  He 
regarded Mr Derby-Lewis as a leader.  And together with that, 
this instruction - looking at his evidence in its whole, it did not 
come out of the blue as something they've just decided on the 
spur of the moment, it was part of this political struggle which 
was going on since early '90's.  That was since the time the 
ANC/SACP Alliance was there.  This must not be seen in 
isolation, that the instruction was just given on the spur of the 
moment.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: In that case we here have to do with a 
conventional instruction, we have to do with the joint decision of 
Walus and Derby-Lewis?

UNKNOWN: A decision was made in respect - 
because you must take the evidence into consideration that 
something had to be done about the right wing but the 
instruction, they jointly decided that Hani was the target but the 
instruction according to Mr Walus, this instruction came from the 
Conservative Party by name, Mr Derby-Lewis.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, but I see no instruction, especially if 
you look at the amendment you've made on page 10.  It does not 
look like an instruction, it looks as if a decision had been made 
by two people.

UNKNOWN: Definitely that decision was made but 
Mr Walus gave evidence with reference to Mrs Khampepe also 
had said, he regarded it as an instruction and Mr Derby-Lewis 
confirmed that.  Why would Mr Walus -I want to call it a kind of 
a foot soldier, he would not take such a decision all by himself.  
He would not make such a decision together with another foot 
soldier because he did according to his beliefs.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: No, but Mr Prinsloo said - if you can accept 
what is written on page 33, he said - page 27, paragraph 9, the 
applicant and Walus decided that Hani had to be shot and Walus 
undertook to do this.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: And there is a reference to certain pages in 
the record.

UNKNOWN: I want to submit it to you that there are 
people sitting together and making a decision to execute the task. 
 For example, when a military operation has to be done, the 
people sit together and make a decision.  There is always a 
leader, a leader who takes the initiative.  
	These two people sit together, they make a joint decision to 
do something.  There are political discussions which have been 
held - I don't want to refer to all that again, in which it was said 
that something had to be done.  
	Now Mr Derby-Lewis comes and they have certain talks, he 
comes and he says "Here are people, we have to do something".  
On his instruction this murder list is prioritised and then the 
decision is made, like when you consider a decision, what will be 
the best target to serve our purposes.
	And jointly they decided that it would be Mr Hani,  then 
they had to go further.  Now the decision had to be made - as I 
understand Mr Prinsloo's heads, how this person had to be 
eliminated was to shoot him.  It's not that Mr Derby-Lewis 
decided all by himself that he should be shot and he gave the 
instruction.   
	I want to submit that during their discussions Mr Derby-
Lewis was the leader and that Mr Walus acted on his instructions 
and said "I will shoot him".

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: ...[No English translation] In principal it was 
decided to kill Mr Hani.  Whether he had to be shot or not, it's a 
question of detail.  The two of them together made a decision that 
he had to be eliminated.

UNKNOWN: I'm answering your question, that they 
had decided, it's in comparison to what I've said, Mr Walus acted 
on instruction.  They jointly decided that he had to be shot.  They 
decided he was the target but the joint decision that he had to be 
shot doesn't make a difference.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] at some stage during their 
conversations, when they had this list before them, if they came 
to the conclusion that Mr Hani is to be eliminated, is the position 
not that Mr Walus volunteered to carry out the deed rather than 
being ordered to do so?

UNKNOWN: He said that he would do it but what I 
want to put before the Commission, the whole decision making 
regarding this matter what was going to happen, that something 
had to be done, everything was inclusive of this instruction.  If 
Mr Walus said he would do it, somebody had to do it.  It does not 
change the fact that the decision making came from the leader, 
the person from the Conservative Party.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Sorry, Mrs van der Walt, can I get further 
clarification.  I think it is not in dispute that Mr Walus and Mr 
Derby-Lewis jointly decided on the target for the assassination 
which was Mr Hani.

UNKNOWN: That's correct.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Now, the instructions which subsequently 
followed with regard to the execution, was after the selection of 
the target had been made.

UNKNOWN: That's correct.

SISI KHAMPEPE: In what capacity did Mr Walus participate in 
the selection of the target with Mr Derby-Lewis?

UNKNOWN: As I understand the evidence, after this 
list had been obtained, they decided that they had to find a target 
which would receive the necessary effect.  They jointly discussed 
this matter but this whole principle and the reason why it 
happened, all this came from Mr Derby-Lewis because was the 
person who on that specific day came with the list and said "Now 
we have to do something".

SISI KHAMPEPE: But when the decision was taken to target Mr 
Hani for assassination, would you say that Mr Walus was not 
participating as a co-partner of Mr Derby-Lewis?

UNKNOWN: Not at all, that was the evidence.  They 
jointly decided about the target.  I've never argued otherwise, 
that was according to his evidence but it does not change.  And 
with respect, I want to argue, it does not change my argument 
that Mr Walus seen in the light of the executive person or 
executive politician by name, Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, that he was 
still acting under his instruction.

JUDGE WILSON: While you were leading Walus, at page 895 of 
the record, he said, and I read
		"After I numbered this list".
and he said he numbered it in accordance with Clive Derby-Lewis' 
instructions.
		"Clive Derby-Lewis told me that we would 
concentrate on elimination of number 3, surname 
Chris Hani and if for the CP and the right-wing will I 
agree to take this task on me.  I expressed my 
readiness and acceptance"
There's no suggestion there of a discussion.  He said that Derby-
Lewis told him that
		"We would concentrate on the elimination of Hani"

UNKNOWN: That is correct but if we look at Mr 
Clive Derby-Lewis' evidence there was a discussion and you'd 
accept - I don't want to speak to the detriment of my client, but 
we can accept that there was a discussion but Walus, according to 
his evidence, he did this on the instruction of Mr Clive Derby-
Lewis.

ADV POTGIETER: In other words Mr Clive Derby-Lewis took 
the initiative, he was the person who had that idea right from the 
beginning but at the end of the day what we have to do with are 
co-conspirators.

UNKNOWN: Definitely, that is so but my client has 
to fulfil the requirements of the Act and his application is 
different from Mr Clive Derby-Lewis' because Mr Walus, and 
according to his evidence, acted after the decision had been made. 
 He acted on instruction of a member of the Conservative Party 
and that was according to his evidence.

ADV POTGIETER: That is what I can't understand but I don't 
want to interrupt you further.