Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: We have not given answer to that, we did not have them,  Mr Chairman.  The Commission had them, the police officers had them, the Commission had it.  They say they handed everything over.  We did not have the tape.  I am entitled, with respect, in the absence of the tape, to lead the person who transcribed those tapes, that person may or may not be believed or the person that actually put this document together, whether this is what is said or not.  I am entitled to use the document at this stage and, as you indicated, Mr Chairman, the weight to be placed upon the document will depend up on what evidence follows.

JUDGE WILSON: Who took ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, ...

JUDGE WILSON: Who took this statement.  Is this Captain Deeltlief's one?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: But I understood, Mr Bizos, that you said at the beginning of proceedings today that Captain Holmes was on the way here and he would be able to say what happened to the tape and could it stand over till then.

UNKNOWN: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, where is he?

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, according to my, he is in the vicinity, Mr Chairman.  He says that everything that he had, he handed over, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Mpshe, can you tell us what has happened to these tapes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, the tapes referred to are tapes number three and four and Captain Holmes indicated to me last week Thursday, that he was going to look for them and when he came back to me today he indicated that these tapes were used by a Mr Deetliefs and he is going to look for Mr Deetliefs to come and explain as to what happened to the tapes, as well as to explain the statement and he has not come back to me.

CHAIRPERSON: So, it is not correct that they are in the possession of the Commission?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: It is not correct.  I have got a note which...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: ... Sergeant Holmes wrote to me that he is going to look for them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, you are entitled to put your questions and you heard that these tapes are not being held back from you for some other purpose.  So, you either agree to the questions that are put to you or reserve your right to answer questions if you have some doubt about them.  Let us proceed.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I wish to reserve my right to answer any questions in connection with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe there are questions in certain paragraphs which might correctly reflect the position.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that will then be used to give credibility, possibly, to this document and I cannot, under those circumstances, answer.  I wish to reserve my right regarding answering any of these questions at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not a question of giving credibility to this document.  We are not concerned about this document, we are concerned about the evidence you are going to give as what you think is the right answer to the questions that are put.  That is all.  This document and its validity will depend upon how it was transcribed by whom and from what source, but until then questions are put fairly to you.  You can answer those questions or if you have no recollection of the details then you may so, but to say that I am not going to answer any questions arising from this document, that is not permissible.

JUDGE WILSON: One of the problems, as I see it, Mr Chairman, is that Mr Bizos has been putting these questions as does this correctly record what you say, but the point the witness has made is, it does not purport to record what he says.  This is a summary of what was said and I think, in fairness to the witness, it should be made clear he is not been asked to confirm the wording, but whether the context reflects what he said, not that it is something that he himself said.

UNKNOWN: Very well.  Did you say to Captain Deetliefs that it was decided at the end of 1992 that Kuba would do the shooting?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Right.  Did you say to the, to Captain Deetliefs that that was only decided at the end of March?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Can you suggest any possible reason that Mr, Captain Deetliefs would have written "at the end of 1992" if you had told him that it was in March?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not prepared to suggest anything in this ...

UNKNOWN: No comments.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... connection, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Right.  Then can we go to paragraph 22,
"A person, Faan Venter, as far as my knowledge goes, moved to Krugersdorp.".
Is that right?  Did you say that or words to that effect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I have already testified that it was a fact that Mr Venter moved to ...

UNKNOWN: Is the answer yes,

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Krugersdorp on ...

UNKNOWN: You said words to that effect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... on other occasions.  I have said that.

UNKNOWN: Yes, let us try and make progress by answering the questions directly, please.  "During 1992 or early January 1993 he, Faan Venter, contacted Lewis and went to see him at home.  He informed Lewis that he had moved to Krugersdorp and wished to become involved with the CP.".
Did you say words to that effect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, Mr Chairman, this information in this paragraph is totally incorrect.  Mr Venter only moved to Krugersdorp sometime in February and contacted my wife late in February to tell him that he was in Krugersdorp.

UNKNOWN: So, you say that the time is wrong?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am saying this statement is not correct, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: The whole of it or is just the January 1993 that is incorrect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am saying I do not know where Captain Deetliefs got this information from, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: You did not know that he came from Maritzburg?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did not know until he informed me in March when he came to see me.

UNKNOWN: And is it correct that he came to you and told you that he wanted to be involved in the Conservative Party affairs?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not in this paragraph.

UNKNOWN: In paragraph 22.

JUDGE WILSON: The last sentence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Oh, "by die KP betrokke was".  When he saw me in March he did indicate that.

UNKNOWN: I see.  So, again, it is just the time that is wrong.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, I think I have replied to the question...

UNKNOWN: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... sufficiently well.

UNKNOWN: "During February 1993, Lewis contacted Faan
Venter telephonically and requested him to come and visit him at home.".
Did you say that or words to that effect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: "Later in the day if, Lewis' memory does not fail him,          Venter visited Lewis at home.".
Did you say words to that effect or not?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is not correct, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: Did Mr Venter not visit you at home?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, that statement is not correct.

UNKNOWN: I am asking you, as a matter of fact, did Mr Venter not visit you at home?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, the details, in terms of this, are incorrect.  Mr Chairman, ...

UNKNOWN: Please answer the question.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... I have already testified that Mr Venter visited me at home ...

UNKNOWN: Thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ... during March.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  You say that he did visit you, but it was not in February, but you say that it was in March?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Nor did I ...

JUDGE WILSON: He also says it was not as a result of a telephone call...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

JUDGE WILSON: ... asking him to come and visit, Mr Bizos.  It is a big difference.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: Not as a result of a telephone call?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: So, did he, when he did come and visit you, did he not first telephone you ...

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, ...