Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

UNKNOWN: On behalf of and in support of such an 
organisation, to support a political struggle in a bona fide way, 
which is waged against the State.  Here is referred to a political 
struggle, not a policy and there was a political struggle between 
the CP and the SACP and the applicant's evidence is that he 
committed this act to promote that political struggle, which 
existed.
	By eliminating a leader of a party, it could be interpreted to 
be to the benefit of that party, the CP because the opponent's 
leader was eliminated, it is to their detriment.
	This would then promote this political struggle, or had this 
purpose in mind apart from a policy, but it depends on the nature 
of the political struggle.
	With respect the political struggle which existed, was of the 
nature that the SACP/ANC would not give in.  They wanted to 
take over, there were threats of violence.  There were even 
threats in the past, that leaders of the Conservative Party would 
be eliminated and other things.

ADV POTGIETER: In other words, you can't have a non-
violent political struggle by means of violence, that is the point.  
The nature of that political struggle, that is the importance of the 
policy of the Conservative Party.

UNKNOWN: With respect Mr Chairman, there was a 
political struggle and that struggle, violence was part of that 
struggle in that milieu.

ADV POTGIETER: That is a different point.  I wanted to draw 
your attention to the nature of the political struggle.

UNKNOWN: The rest I have already submitted to the 
Honourable Committee, what the struggle was, and what the 
objectives of the party were.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, do you say that the application is 
under 20(2)(a)?

UNKNOWN: Correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: So (f) does not apply?

UNKNOWN: Yes, (f) does apply as well Mr Chairman, 
because it covers 22(a) and (d).

JUDGE WILSON: My copy of the Act which I was given, was 
told was completely up to date says any person referred to in 
paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) ...

UNKNOWN: (a), (b), (c) and (d), according to mine, Mr 
Chairman.  I don't know, mine might be a wrong one.

CHAIRPERSON: We will clear that up, do carry on.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  Mr Chairman, the other aspect is 
about full disclosure, and here I am referring to various 
witnesses.  The applicant and others, but specifically I want to 
refer to later witnesses.
	Mrs Venter was called here, and with respect I want to 
argue that Mrs Venter was a very good witness.
	Her evidence was clear that on the 10th of March, that 
firearm had been taken out of her house to Mr Derby-Lewis, and 
she moved into the house at the beginning of March.  On the 10th 
of April, she saw Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis. 
	Mrs Derby-Lewis' evidence regarding her products, the 
Sportron products is indisputable and she did not remember a 
previous statement she made, and she gave a very good 
explanation of what happened.
	As you can see from her evidence, I could not see it myself, 
 you asked whether she had signed and it was taken away, she 
supported this evidence and she was a very good witness and she 
supported Mrs Derby-Lewis' evidence.
	Mr du Randt with respect, I wanted to argue he is not an 
intelligent person you expected.  The documentary facts supports 
his evidence that there was an election for a Mayor, that was also 
his election in the Supreme Court.
	On that day, and according to the programme it took place 
on the 10th of March 1993, and a jersey would have been 
delivered and with respect, I want to say under the circumstances, 
it cannot be said that Mr du Randt was part of a conspiracy.  He 
or Mrs du Randt regarding this aspect.
	A jersey was delivered, in his innocence he came here and 
he gave evidence here, he gave evidence in the Supreme Court, he 
was not regarded as a co-conspirator.
	The same applies to Mrs Venter.  She did not testify in the 
Supreme Court case, but it is clear from her statement provided 
to the State, that they had to accept with respect, that the 
evidence of her husband, Mr Faan Venter is supported by hers.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, I don't want to hold you up unduly, 
but with regard to Mr du Randt, what is his  evidence?  Was the 
weapon handed over to Mr Derby-Lewis before his daughter's 
birthday or after or is it just a confused aspect in his evidence?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, it is very clear if you look at 
this evidence in the Supreme Court, that he was led, he was led 
by Mr Von Lieres, he also gave this evidence here, and in that he 
said the witness is not sure, he was referred to the 25th of 
February, then he referred to the election of the Mayor, that is a 
fixed date.
	That date is fixed and that is also ...

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Except that he was not even consistent here 
before us, he would go backwards and forwards on that point.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, he had a problem with this, but 
he was led, it should be taken into consideration, he was led by 
the fact that this election took place on the 10th of March and 
therefore he was convinced.
	Mrs du Randt, in her evidence under cross-examination she 
agreed that she could have made a mistake regarding the date, she 
conceded to that.  And furthermore the programme of the 
President's Council as presented by Mr Derby-Lewis, shows that 
he was not here then, but in Cape Town and that evidence is 
supported by Mr du Randt's testimony.
	With respect I want to say under these circumstances, the 
only thing which is a fixed date, is the 10th of March.  Mrs 
Venter furthermore says that according to her husband, Mr 
Derby-Lewis asked this weapon for stock piling.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Prinsloo, Mrs du Randt was cocksure that 
the parcel was delivered at Mr Derby-Lewis' house before her 
daughter's birthday.