Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

MR BRANDT: Mr Chairman, at this stage I would request permission to ask directions from this Committee in the following respects:  As the Committee is aware, I'm appearing on behalf of Colonel van Niekerk, Captain Deetleffs and Warrant Officer Beetge.
	We weren't involved initially in these proceedings but nevertheless the three people I've mentioned were subpoenaed by this Committee to be present and to testify if need be.  I have studied the record and I've been present - in either form of my attorney or myself, during these proceedings and I've been very brief in my cross-examination of the relevant witnesses with regard to their allegations as that is the sum total of my brief.
	It is my respectful opinion Mr Chairman, that in view of the replies in cross-examination and the nature of the allegations, I do not intend calling either of these three gentlemen as witnesses, I don't see any necessity for that.  Obviously, as they have been subpoenaed by this Commission and this Committee, the Committee may or may not decide to call them.   
	In view of the fact that Colonel van Niekerk is currently a practising attorney and Warrant Officer Beetge is involved in business transactions, it is the situation that they are sitting here and they are losing money - I would in the aforementioned - I would in the aforementioned...[indistinct], request this Committee to give directions as to whether it is still necessary for these three witnesses or potential witnesses to remain here and ...[indistinct] myself and my attorney.   My request is that the witnesses and myself and my instructing attorney be excused from further attendance.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, if I recollect clearly, these witnesses were subpoenaed at the request of your client.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is so because the allegations were made against them by Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus at the end of his evidence in the August sitting and we thought it advisable that they should be here.
	The decision as to whether they should be called or not, is not ours - this is not a trial on whom we have any onus to discharge, the Committee we submit has the task of being satisfied that they have heard all the evidence that is necessary to give a proper judgement.  
	And the applicants are the people primarily concerned, if they want to call them, of course they may be called or if the Committee wants to call them, they may be called, we do not feel that it is incumbent upon us to assume any onus on ourselves and call any witnesses Mr Chairman.   That is our attitude and we do not wish to say anything further in relation to the application made by my learned friend Mr Brandt.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, Ms van der Walt, what is your attitude by this request by Mr Brandt?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it's correct that the applicants put their version for the Committee and the witnesses were subpoenaed by Mr Bizos and we have nothing  further to add to that.

GEORGE BIZOS: There is an incorrect statement of fact Mr Chairman, we did not subpoena ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand ...[intervention]

GEORGE BIZOS: We requested.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the subpoena was done by the Committee at their request.

MR PRINSLOO: The request of Mr Bizos.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: At any rate, the point of the matter is that these gentlemen are asking to be excused and as far as you are concerned, you have no objection to that?

MR PRINSLOO: We have no objection Mr Chairman.

MS VAN DER WALT: I also have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe?

UNKNOWN: No objection Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, I would imagine that the views expressed by your colleague is the same?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chair, yes, I also confirmed that I have no objection, the testimony is on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Denzil?
	These gentlemen - are they here?

MR BRANDT: They are indeed Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Brandt, certainly you and your attorney are excused from further attendance.  The Committee has come to the conclusion that they do not require the three gentlemen whom we have subpoenaed, to be here and that they are excused from further attendance as well and we thank them for having taken the trouble to be here.

MR BRANDT: I'm indebted to you, thank you Mr Chairman.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, in relation to Exhibit A(e), I would like to put one question and one question only, to Mrs Derby-Lewis.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say Mr Derby-Lewis?

GEORGE BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, the person who produced the document.

CHAIRPERSON: A(e)1?

GEORGE BIZOS: A(e)1.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Derby-Lewis, do you have a copy of this document?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you, yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, it would appear to us that your great scoop about the gravy train and the reason why you wanted to visit the houses was pre-empted by your scoop of the 30th of October 1992, you'd already come to a conclusion and published your scoop without any visits to any of the people that you mentioned in that article.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, this is simple a re-print of an overseas newspaper report - as I mentioned before, there was no investigation done in South Africa.  A recent report in the London Sun - it starts off at, brought into focus something which South African ...[indistinct] and so forth.

GEORGE BIZOS: Who was the local correspondent that had pre-empted this scoop of yours?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It was the London Sun, it was a clipping from the London Sun.
MR BIZOS
"A recent report in the London Sun brought into focus something of the South African liberalists seemed to ...[indistinct]"
Who wrote that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, I'll have to check the record - I can produce it, it's at home and I wrote this for The Patriot - obviously Patriot readers wouldn't have had access to the London Sun.

GEORGE BIZOS: Is this quoting the London Sun or your ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No is paraphrasing the London Sun.

GEORGE BIZOS: It's your article?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: It's my article.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, that's what I wanted, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
	Yes, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we propose to call Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg as the next witness, may we just adjourn briefly in order to get our documents ready - it will be a brief adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right, we'll adjourn very briefly.
	Please try and be as quiet as possible and try and avoid disturbing the proceedings during the short adjournment whilst we are away, thank you very much.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
WITNESS EXCUSED

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you for your indulgence Mr Chairman, members of the Committee.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Sorry, Mr Prinsloo, can't we again like we suggested last time - we have difficulties in looking at a witness or maintaining visual contact with a witness who is in a straight line with us, can't we have Doctor Hartzenberg on the other side please?

MR PRINSLOO: I will arrange that.
	Chairperson, the next witness is Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg.

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: (sworn states)

MR PRINSLOO: May I continue?
	Doctor Ferdie Hartzenberg, you are the leader of the Conservative Party, is that correct?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor, in 1993 during the murder of Mr Chris Hani, Doctor Andries Treurnicht who is now deceased, was the leader of the Conservative Party?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you at that stage, the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: The applicant on the left, Mr Clive-Derby Lewis, was he at that stage a member of the Conservative Party?

FERDIE HARTZENBERG: Yes, he was and he was also a member of the Executive Committee for Transvaal of the Conservative Party.

MR PRINSLOO: Doctor Hartzenberg, did you at that stage also know Mrs Derby-Lewis?