Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

UNKNOWN: It's 310, I'm sorry, it's my fault.
	According to the evidence given in the Supreme Court and 
also the evidence given by the applicants, Mrs Derby-Lewis was 
not present when this person was handed over.  She was also not 
present when the list was handed over, once again it's Deetliefs 
fabrication.   
	At the bottom of the page reference is made by Deetliefs 
and he mentions at a various stage that the applicant watched 
Mandela's house and also Joe Slovo's house.  If one looks at the 
bottom ...[inaudible]

RECORDING EXTREMELY POOR: ...[inaudible] middle of the page, three quarters down the page
		"....and also watched Mandela's and Chris Hani's 
house during the night".
	On the 22nd of April 1993, Deetliefs and Beetge visited the 
applicants in prison.  According to page 311, Deetliefs quotes 
from Langenhoven and once again it's the Captain's question and 
Walus answering.  There Mr Deetliefs also mentions in his words, 
that this quotation from Langenhoven portrays the ...[indistinct] 
of the applicant at that time.
	Mr Chairman, according to Deetliefs statement on 211, that 
quotation does not appear on the tape made during that specific.  
This person listened for hours to these tapes and made up his own 
...[indistinct] and wrote his statement.  This quote does occur on 
tape number 9 on the 18th of April at 14H45 as you can see on 
page 133 where it's based on question and answer by Walus and 
Deetliefs but on the tape Deetliefs and Beetge are still busy with 
this clandestine operation they are going to execute to support 
the right wing.  ...[indistinct] had come and he said
		"...[indistinct] a quotation and he mentioned it to the 
applicant"
	The applicant sat still, according to the tape, and it's very 
clear that he did not really realise what the meaning of the 
quotation was.  He did not understand the meaning because he did 
not react, Beetge made the quotation and he did not react and 
then Deetliefs came and he explained to the applicant what the 
meaning of that quotation was.  Deetliefs explained it and he 
applied this ...[indistinct] to the "Wit Wolve".  	What is there, 
what is stated there what the applicant should have said is 
absolutely wrong.
	This is all regarding the quotation but there is a long 
statement made by Deetliefs(?) from page 312 to 321, regarding 
certain identifications which had been made which did not take 
place.  ...[indistinct] done by another officer and usually a 
photographer accompanies them.  Deetliefs said there was a 
photographer but the applicant said he went to the ...[indistinct] 
and the applicant said they had some beer there and a 
photographer was never present there and he never ...[indistinct] 
Mr Mandela's house.
	I wish to argue that the applicant did not make any 
statements apart from the statement where he said he did not want 
to make any statement and these written notes which is the 
applicants version and that the other so-called statements 
...[indistinct] are mentioned in Deetliefs statement have no value 
should be attached to those because they are absolutely wrong 
and Deetliefs is an absolutely unreliable person.  This is 
supported by the video tapes and by the statement.
	Mr Prinsloo has already ...[indistinct] regarding Mrs 
Beyers.  I refer to that in my heads, I'm not going to do it now.  
The applicant denies that during that time he went to Mr 
Mandela's house.  ...[indistinct] as mentioned by the family 
...[indistinct].  The fact that the applicant, it was said that the 
applicant - his evidence for amnesty was changed after Mr 
...[indistinct] programme.  	I want to submit to you that the 
changes had already been made on September in 1996, where he 
said he acted on instruction of Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.  I want to 
submit that there is no evidence at all that there was a 
...[indistinct] conspiracy.  
	I also want to submit to you that the applicant, that there's 
no evidence that it was found that there could have been a 
possible conspiracy in compiling the list or any other conspiracy, 
the applicant was not aware of that.
	Then I want to submit that the applicant complied with the 
requirement - and I've also presented my heads on the various 
requirements.  And ...[indistinct] and according to Section 
...[indistinct] 2(a) and ...[indistinct] that they are applicable to 
the ...[indistinct] and that he should get amnesty.

UNKNOWN: ...and I also want to submit that the 
criteria as put in a subsection 3 Act that I dealt with and that the 
applicant also complies with that, that is all.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Are there no objective facts which point out 
to a wider conspiracy? 
	What worries me, I think I raised this with Mr Walus, was 
that broad daylight he goes to Mr Hani's place, he shoots him, he 
walks away, gets into the car, drives away, the weapon is left in 
the car and he just normally joins the traffic as if nothing has 
happened. What assurance did he have, did he have some kind of 
assurance that don't you worry, you can do it, even if I do it you 
can be covered somehow, don't you worry?

UNKNOWN: I want to submit to you, it seems strange 
perhaps but the circumstances, and that is the only evidence 
which is before you, the circumstances lent to this offence being 
committed at that stage, the police took all these various aspects 
into consideration, investigated everything, he was on his way to 
go and practise, he drove by, the opportunity just arose when Mr 
Hani, according to the other report, he did not spend the Friday 
night at home, and his bodyguards got off for the night or the 
weekend, he was all by himself, the circumstances just lent it to 
this.  The firearm was in his togbag and he can't mention a 
coincidence if you're a Christian you don't believe in that, but 
Mrs Harmse saw the vehicle.
	I just want to bring these facts from the trial.  She saw this 
vehicle but the number being presented to the police from the red 
vehicle, that one number was wrong and the police officers, a du 
Toit and an Olivier, they gave evidence, they drove around the 
road and they  heard this over the police radio, they saw the red 
car but this number was wrong and they pulled him off the road.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: I would imagine if my recollection is correct 
with regard to his evidence, he was simply not worried at the 
time, even though he saw the police, the traffic police, I can't 
remember if it was traffic police.  The impression I got he was 
not unduly perturbed or he was not nervous, he didn't panic, he 
didn't try to change and drive to another direction to see whether 
they would follow him, he just drove like anybody as if he hadn't 
done anything wrong, which is rather strange, one wouldn't 
expect that kind of behaviour from somebody who has just 
committed murder.

UNKNOWN: With respect, according to his evidence 
he did say that he noticed that it was the police and he 
furthermore said that when he got out from his vehicle he couldn't 
drive away quickly, then he would have drawn more attention.  
He was in the traffic and then he also stated further, he was 
standing there and he thought he had to see how this whole thing 
would develop.  I did not think he thought he would be arrested 
at that stage.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Well it's not only Mr Walus' problem if it is a 
problem at all.  Their evidence that they had hoped that in the 
midst of all the crimes, certain things would happen, certain 
people would do certain things, in particular the right wing would 
step in.  I don't know on what basis they would have thought 
what happened if they had not made some kind of arrangements, 
some understanding with some other people.