Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, a very rough - very rough notes.  I only ...[intervention]

GEORGE BIZOS: The ones you gave me yesterday were neatly typed.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but they're rough, they don't contain the spectrum of this.

GEORGE BIZOS: Let me repeat the question for the last time and then we can proceed if - whatever your answer may be, why didn't you say: "I did say this but not in those precise words in a couple of instances" and why did you deny that you said it?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Bizos, I didn't deny, I disputed the contents, I said: "I have doubts about the contents of these paragraphs".

GEORGE BIZOS: No, no, what you had doubts about and you are very careful to draw the distinction, you had doubts - I think, about paragraph 24 on page 400, that's where you expressed doubt but about these four paragraphs you denied that you said it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it was also stated during her evidence - if I recall correctly, that what is stated in this particular statement contained in these pages, that's page 398 to 402, that it does not reflect verbatim as was said by the witness, so Mr Chairman, I would respect when the opportunity avails itself, this whole tape ought to be transcribed - that pertains to this section, in fairness to the witness.

JUDGE WILSON: She has just agreed that she said substantially what appears on page 402, hasn't she?

CHAIRPERSON: A question now is being asked.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman with respect, what's recorded here or was taken out, we agree to that but with respect Mr Chairman, it does not contain all the detail that was said during the discussion between Captain Deetleffs and the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: The question really ...[intervention]

MR PRINSLOO: And it makes a big difference as to the interpretation as to what is stated here, that's why Mr Chairman with respect, we'll submit to the Committee that this section ought to be transcribed in order to compare what was exactly stated by Deetleffs and by the witness at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about transcribing everything or just that portion that deals with paragraphs 52, 59 and 60?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, transcribing the section which is in dispute and particularly what Mr Bizos is now referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos - as I understand his question, is saying that: "Today you have admitted certain things which you did not admit or which you disputed previously.  His question now is: "Why did you dispute or why did you deny this previously"?  Am I right?

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, that is so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the question, now she has to answer if she can, why in the first place - either because of faulty recollection or whatever may be her explanation, but that's the question that she has to answer.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Bizos, I'm trying to check my notes, have you got any record of when this was put to her?

GEORGE BIZOS: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone?

GEORGE BIZOS: ...[inaudible] it was in the afternoon Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Yesterday afternoon?

GEORGE BIZOS: Yesterday afternoon, yes.  It was one of the matters that I dealt with yesterday afternoon at a time when we were dealing with the passages in the - before we started dealing with the passages on the video that we were shown.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible] the afternoon, that was in the morning yesterday.

GEORGE BIZOS: It may have been late morning Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: My learned friend Mr Malindi has a similar difficulty by the way, ...[indistinct] keeping record about finding it but if we can find 402 - may I suggest Mr Chairman, I have a clear recollection that I put it on a hypothetical basis and close it off, I don't know that we want to take - if she did deny it, could I put it on that basis?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mrs Derby-Lewis, what I want to put to you is a simple proposition, that you denied - you went through the statement and you saw that which may be damaging to you, you denied and because you thought 52, 54, 59 and 60 may be damaging to your husband's case and to you as a witness, you denied it, when in truth and in fact they are substantially correct - that's what I
want to put to you, do you want to make any comment on that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, my comment is that obviously what I said is on the tape, what I denied was the content of it, I denied that I knew that I knew about the planning, I denied that I asked Clive about a gun as an essence of the part of my - of the truth - I mean, the fact that I was under Section 29 and asked 100 times about a gun, obviously it has now come into the thing here that I asked Clive about a gun.  The question is: "Why did I say that"?
	I'm sorry, this is not court procedure but I'm saying what I feel in my heard now.  Now, I denied that this was true but I'm not denying that I said it on the tape because I was under Section 29, that's as I say to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Bizos, I don't think you can take it any further.

GEORGE BIZOS: Any further, other than to say that it's typical of your evidence ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that's a comment Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not a question.  Yes, is that the end of your questions Mr Bizos?

GEORGE BIZOS: That is the end of the questioning.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
	Mr Mpshe?

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Bizos, I have a note here which indeed reflects that I think you referred her to page 398 up to page 402 which deals with a statement which she made on the 24th of April and my note says that Mrs Derby-Lewis's response was that: "In essence the whole document was correct, save for specifically paragraph 52, 54, 59 and 60.

CHAIRPERSON: All right.
	Mr Mpshe, have you any questions to put to this witness?

UNKNOWN: Yes, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee.
	Mrs Derby-Lewis, on Monday certain documentation was handed up to the Committee as Exhibits X1, 2, 3 and 5 and you said you received these by post, do you remember that?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

UNKNOWN: How did you receive them, were they registered post or ordinary post?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, they came to my box number in Krugersdorp.

UNKNOWN: They were put in your ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, they were posted.

UNKNOWN: Posted to you?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: To my box number, yes.

UNKNOWN: So, it was by ordinary post?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

UNKNOWN: Was there any covering letter therein?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No.

UNKNOWN: It was just these documents put into an envelope?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, it came after I had received a letter back by fax from Mr Moolman.

UNKNOWN: I see.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: And it was about a week after that.

UNKNOWN: Do you still have the envelope that contained those documents?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I ...[intervention]

UNKNOWN: Because we want to investigate that.

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I just threw it away.

UNKNOWN: Did you check outside where did it come from - on the stamp, the postal stamp on the envelope?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, I suppose it was Johannesburg.

UNKNOWN: Sorry?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: I suppose it was Johannesburg, I don't know.

UNKNOWN: What made you suppose it was Johannesburg, did you ...[intervention]

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: Well, you've asked me the question ...[intervention]

UNKNOWN: Did you expect the documents to come from Johannesburg?

MRS DERBY-LEWIS: No, you've asked me the question and I'm saying as an answer rather than saying nothing, that I presume it was from Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, she doesn't say it was from Johannesburg, she says she thinks it was from Johannesburg.

UNKNOWN: Yes, Mr Chairman, that's I asked why does she think it was Johannesburg, is it because she expected documents to come from Johannesburg Mr Chairman.