Amnesty Hearings — Boksburg — UNKNOWN

MR MALINDI: Except Chairperson that in their evidence these were their actions and plans which motivated them to ultimately assassinate Chris Hani.  They were actions and plans of preparation.  They were preparing for war.  Later in our submission we will be quoting Mr Derby-Lewis where he says, "the structures for war were in place", and from those preparations it follows then that they took a decision that Mr Hani should be assassinated is our submission.  Chairperson, Mr Walus who claims to have been acting under orders failed to disclose that fact in his Amnesty Application under Clause 11(a) where it was relevant for him to state that he was acting under Mr Derby-Lewis' orders and when asked by a member of the Committee Ms Khampepe why he omitted to mention that Mr Derby-Lewis ordered him to assassinate Mr Hani, he stated that he was not prepared to make a full disclosure in that regard in order to make it easier for Mr Derby-Lewis and the reference thereto is SR, Second Record, Page 279 which is not on our Heads.

CHAIRPERSON: What paragraph of your Heads are you dealing with?

MR MALINDI: Paragraph 6.5.2 Chairperson.  An additional reference will be SR, Page 279.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the Applicants have relied on Exhibit A3, the Mobilisation Plan.  As a CP document which was adopted in preparation of various forms of mobilisation, including armed resistance according to the witnesses, although we shall submit that that document does not go as far as mobilising for armed resistance.
	And if it is their evidence that that was a document for preparation of war, then they ought to disclose members who belonged to various structures as stated in that document.  And that is paragraph 6.5.3.  Mr Bizos has already submitted the failure of the Applicants to disclose Mrs Derby-Lewis' involvement and there are further references if they have not yet appeared in the section that Mr Bizos dealt with at 6.5.4 and 6.5.5.
	Mr Bizos has also dealt with the non disclosure of the involvement of people like Mr Van Venter who provided the firearm and that is 6.5.6 of the Heads.  And further submissions are being made in 6.5.7 that we dispute that Mr Venter handed the weapon over to Mrs du Randt on the 10th March 1993 but that this weapon was  handed over earlier than that date.  
	If we are right in our submission that the weapon was obtained earlier than that date, then this will tend to show that Mr Van Venter's involvement suggests knowledge that the weapon was being obtained for this purpose.

MR WILSON: Sorry, I don't quite understand that.  Why does it indicate merely that he handed it over three weeks before?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, Mr Venter's evidence is that he moved into Krugersdorp on the 1st March and therefore he could not have provided a weapon to Mr Derby-Lewis earlier than that date.  If we are right that indeed he did provide the weapon earlier than that date then he was running weapons and guns into Krugersdorp.  The question is why was Mr Venter running guns into Krugersdorp earlier than the 1st March?

CHAIRPERSON: You must clearly only be confining yourself, I understand, to this particular weapon, isn't it?

MR MALINDI: It is so Chairperson.  Our submission is therefore that if he did provide this weapon before the 1st March or before the 10th March, he must have had knowledge at least of the reason for Mr Derby-Lewis wanting to acquire a weapon.  So there was communication between the Applicant Mr Derby-Lewis and Mr Van Venter which were not disclosed to the Committee.

ADV POTGIETER: That's if the gun was delivered in February.  That would indicate that there was communication and it was not only because of the fact that Mr Venter now happens to be in Krugersdorp and he meets by chance, or not by chance but he meets because of now living in Krugersdorp, he meets with Mr Derby-Lewis and this conversation starts up quite spontaneously.

MR MALINDI: Indeed Chairperson, we do make a submission that it was not coincidental that this weapon was passed on to Mr Walus, that it was specifically obtained for that purpose of assassination.  Chairperson at 6.5.8 we deal with the difficulty in which Mr Venter found himself in trying to explain the various dates which appear on the statement he made to the police and we submit that his evidence that the weapon was discussed on the 10th March and provided on that date should not be accepted.  And the submission has already

MR WILSON: What value do you think that we should give to the documents as to Mr Derby-Lewis' extensions, his claims which would show that he was absent at the earlier date?

MR MALINDI: Chairperson if I remember well, at the last hearing, Mr Bizos did indicate that documents which will be of value to the Committee will be the register of the attendance at the meetings of the President's Council and we might add that the
register of attendance at the meetings of the City Council in Krugersdorp will be of more value than the claim forms that are before the Committee because they do not indicate attendance, they indicate that the President's Council or the City Council may have been in session and the claims form for travel, Chairperson need to be corroborated by proof of attendance.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but there's no evidence against it.  There's a document which says that he made these claims.  On the face of it, the document appears to be an official document and there are no other documents which throw any light or which were contrary to what he said in these documents.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, the documents were filled in by Mr Derby-Lewis and there's evidence by witnesses who came before the Committee to support him and they have given unsatisfactory evidence as to when this weapon or the discussions took place.  It casts a shadow of doubt as to Mr Derby-Lewis' attendance of the President's Council between the 22nd February 1993 and early March, if I remember the dates well.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as the register of attendance of the Krugersdorp Municipality Council meeting, I understand Mr Derby-Lewis was not a member of the Council.

MR MALINDI: Yes indeed Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He merely attended as an interested ratepayer or citizen and he wouldn't be expected to sign a register, as Councillors would.

MR MALINDI: Yes indeed Chairperson.  I made a mistake, I assumed that he would sign a register but he would have attended and being in the public gallery with Mr Du Randt, they wouldn't have signed the register.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALINDI: Chairperson, in respect of Mr Clark, it is submitted that he withheld information as to what was on his hard drive of his computer.  He did not disclose who were members of their fraternity and he specifically refused to associate Mr Derby-Lewis with any of the discussions of this fraternity which was plotting all these acts and we therefore submit that his evidence should not be accepted, in as far as it was tended to support Mr Derby-Lewis.
	At 6.5., 6.6 Chairperson, we make the point that Mr Derby-Lewis attempted to minimise his role in the planning and the execution of the assassination.  Chairperson, at 6.6.1, we state that ...[inaudible] on 24 April 1996 Walus had filled in Clause 9(a)(i) of his Application to read, "The Applicant acted alone in the planning and commission of this deed."  Both Derby-Lewis and Walus' amended responses to this Clause were changed in November 1996, to read that they jointly planned the assassination of Hani.
	The changes in November 1996 and in particular, the addition that Chris Hani was a military target for his role as a Senior Commander of MK, were after thoughts in order to improve his chances of obtaining amnesty.  He knew that this was an exaggeration especially that in his first Application which is Exhibit R7, he had rightly stated that Hani was a former MK Commander.  Whereas