Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — 1998-03-18

UNKNOWN: When do you want to adjourn?

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished dealing with this particular 
aspect?

UNKNOWN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll adjourn at this stage and 
resume at 2 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.
	I finished on page 14.  The applicant undertook to execute 
the elimination of Mr Hani on his own and on that very same day 
when the order was given to him he requested of Mr Clive Derby-
Lewis to issue him an unlicensed firearm.  They also discussed it 
and it was decided that Mr Hani's home would be reconnoitred 
and early in March 1993 they reconnoitred the home of Mr Hani a 
number of times in order to establish the routine and movements 
of the home.  
	On the 6th of April 1993, he visited Mr Derby-Lewis at his 
home after an invitation from Mr Derby-Lewis to have breakfast 
there that morning.  On that day the unlicensed firearm was 
handed over to Mr Walus.  There was a discussion which involved 
that Mr Derby-Lewis would provide him with further ammunition 
and the silencer which was fitted to the firearm could not be used 
with regular ammunition.
	On the 7th of April, Mr Walus once again contacted Mr 
Derby-Lewis or visited him in order to determine whether any 
changes had been made to the plans and whether he had managed 
to gain ammunition for him.  At that point he had not received 
any ammunition.  According to Mr Walus' testimony the only 
further suggestion which was made to him was that the 
elimination be undertaken before the Easter weekend.
	On the 10th of April a Saturday, Mr Walus went, not with 
the purpose to shoot Mr Hani on that specific day, according to 
his testimony, he went for his regular exercise at a certain sports 
centre.  Thereafter he decided or the place or facility was closed 
because it was a public holiday and he decided that he would do 
further reconnaissance.  He had tested the weapon on his 
brother's small holding and found that the silencer could not fire 
automatically.
	He then decided that he would buy ammunition with his own 
firearm licence which would be the same ammunition as for the 
unlicensed weapon.  He took a drive to go and do further 
reconnaissance at Mr Hani's home.  From the testimony of Mr 
Walus you can see that it concurs with the testimony given in the 
Supreme Court.  And on that day he saw Mr Hani in front of his 
house where he was climbing into his vehicle and there were no 
bodyguards present.
	Initially he thought that it was Mr Hani but he wanted to 
make certain and he drove along behind the vehicle until it came 
to a shopping centre where Mr Hani
climbed out of the vehicle and was positively identified as Mr 
Hani.  Thereafter when Mr Hani departed, he took another road 
and stopped behind Mr Hani's vehicle whereupon he climbed out, 
called out his name, Mr Hani reacted to that, he turned around 
and Mr Walus shot Mr Hani.  He shot him four times.
	Thereafter he departed and from the Court case his vehicle 
was identified by Mrs Harmse and Mr Walus was arrested shortly 
after the events.  
	In terms of Section 21(c), that is on page 21, it is clear that 
it is required by law that the applicant provide a full disclosure of 
all the relevant facts regarding the events.  If there are certain 
small issues which might not have any bearing matters which were 
emphasised during the hearing, especially with regard to Mr 
Walus and his actions, his brother dead after the glass works were 
declared insolvent, these details are of minor import and not 
relevant.
	I would like to submit to the Honourable Committee that 
the applicant has made a full disclosure of all the relevant facts 
and the legal counsel of the family and the SACP have submitted 
the statements before the Committee. And the so-called 
statements which Mr Walus would have made to Captain Deetliefs 
and with the intention of the submission of these statements to 
the Committee, the intention is to make it clear that there are 
facts which the applicant did not disclose and there is a greater 
conspiracy.  
	The applicant was arrested and detained in the Benoni 
police cells and it would appear quite clearly from the 
documentation that he did not want to make any statement unless 
he had legal representation.  He was taken from the cells by 
various police officers and interviewed or questioned by various 
police officers until, on the 14th of April 1993, he fell into the 
hands of Captain Deetliefs.  
	He was once again taken out to his residence by Captain 
Deetliefs, taken back to his cell and on that day, the 14th of April 
the applicant said to Captain Deetliefs that he would like use his 
right to silence and did not wish to make any statements unless 
his legal representative was present.
	On the 15th of April 1993 until early morning hours of the 
16th of April, the applicant the applicant was questioned for 11 
hours and according to Captain Deetliefs notes were taken which 
are not available.  No statement was taken from the applicant on 
that particular evening.  
	In the early morning hours the applicant was placed back in 
his cells, that is on the 16th at twenty past five.  That very same 
afternoon, at 16H05 he was once again taken out of the cell and 
once again questioned for approximately 14 hours and yet again 
notes were not taken and no statement was taken either.  
	The early morning hours of 16 April 1993, approximately 
04H15 that morning the applicant began, according to Mr 
Deetliefs, to cooperate.  That is so, the applicant has confirmed 
this.  The applicant confirmed that he cooperated as a result of 
the fact that Captain Deetliefs caught him or tricked him and by 
means of lies he led him to believe, this is Deetliefs, that he had 
infiltrated the security police, that they were actually cooperating 
with Tienie Groenewaldt and that if he would cooperate it could 
result that Mr Holmes, who was the investigating officer in this 
case at that time, would not make any further arrests and that 
Deetliefs was actually working for the right-wingers.
	The applicant in his testimony stated that he was extremely 
naive and he realised this later, it was naive of him to believe 
Captain Deetliefs.  The only notes which are available from this 
questioning, from which point on the applicant would have been 
cooperating, would the hand-written notes - just a moment please, 
page 84, 85 and 86, that would be in R4.
	There are the only notes from all these hours of questioning 
which were provided by Captain Deetliefs and can be provided.  If 
the video cassettes are watched it is logical that there wouldn't be 
any notes, however in Captain Deetliefs' statement which is to be 
found in R4 continued he at several points mentions that notes 
were taken down by Mr Beetge.  
	That cannot be so because he could not make a statement to 
the Attorney General of the Witwatersrand, Mr Klaus von Leerus 
at that time, in which he would state, in terms of everything that 
had happened, that he was infiltrating the police and working 
along with Tinnie Groenewaldt and that is why there weren't any 
notes.  But what is shocking is that he says on numerous times in 
his statement that notes were taken.
	These are the only notes ...[intervention]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE WILSON: R4 continued, is that from the beginning of 
R4 continued?