CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, are we ready to carry on?

MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, we are ready, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I'm going to lead the evidence of the witness, Captain Jonas Hendrik De Waal. The witness is sitting next to me, may he be made to take an oath?

JONAS HENDRIK DE WAAL: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE: Mr De Waal, you were a captain during the year 1993 in the SAP? 

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR MPSHE: Do you know the witness by the name of Derby, Gaye Derby-Lewis?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MPSHE: Is it correct that you knew her at the time when she was detained under section 29?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MPSHE: And at that time you also had the opportunity of interrogating her?

MR DE WAAL: Correct.

MR MPSHE: Mr De Waal, will you please tell the committee as to what happened between yourself and Mrs Derby-Lewis during the interrogation?

MR DE WAAL: Chairperson, I was ordered by my commander, Colonel At van Niekerk, to question the detainee at Edenvale Police Station.

I went to see her on the 24th, it was a Saturday, at 17:37 that afternoon. With me was female Constable Strydom and a Sergeant Human.

We booked her out of her cells and took her to an office numbered 11. There I offered her a chair. She sat down and the rest of us also sat down and then I warned her according the rules of the law. I told her that I was Captain De Waal and that I was connected to the security police and I was stationed at John Vorster Square. I gave her the opportunity to read my certificate of appointment. She read it. She took her time to read all the particulars on the appointment certificate and she was satisfied that I was the person who I said I was. After that, I told her that I had been tasked to question her in the presence of the other members of the police services, and that what she would say would be put on record, and that any other admissions could be used as evidence against her if she were to be prosecuted. She said that she understood that.

I began with the questioning. I told her that during the initial stages, I would like to have an historical report from her regarding her political involvement with right wing organisations, as well as that of her spouse, as well as an historical report regarding herself.

She told me that she had been born in Australia. I said very well, that would be a good point to begin.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't want you to tell us everything that she said about her background and so on.

MR DE WAAL: I'm sorry, I'm telling you this in detail.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DE WAAL: It was something which happened about five years ago, it's quite a long time ago.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that I would be interested in knowing whether the interrogation or the questioning of Mrs Derby-Lewis was done in the ordinary course of questioning and interrogation of people, or was there something unusual about it?

MR DE WAAL: Very well.

MR MPSHE: Where particularly did this interrogation take place?

MR DE WAAL: The questioning or interrogation took place at the Edenvale Police Station buildings in office No 11. I was tasked for this purpose because I did not live very far from the Edenvale Police Station, it was easily accessible for me.

MR MPSHE: How many times did you conduct interrogations with her?

MR DE WAAL: It was on the 24th of April and then again on the 26th of April, the Monday, I continued on the 26th, I'd just like to consult my dates, and the last time that I had anything to do with her was on the 30th of April, but during this period, I saw her practically every day, apart from the 25th, until we had taken her statement.

MR MPSHE: Now, when you took her out for interrogation, was this recorded?

MR DE WAAL: Chairperson, the prescribed procedure was that a file would be opened, which would be in the charge office in every police station where section 29 detainees were being held, and in that sort of file there would be notes and you would record whether or not the detainee had any complaints, any other details about the detainee, where he would have taken them, whether or not they were visited by the magistrate or the station commander, any such details.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I'm going to refer to Exhibit Z. The committee members do have the exhibit. I want you to have a look at Exhibit Z in front of you and turn particularly to page 4. At the end of page 5, there is a signature. Is that your signature?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR MPSHE: Now I want you to go back to page 4 then and tell the committee whether what is written thereon was written by yourself?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, it's the last paragraph on page 4. Is that your own handwriting?

MR DE WAAL: That is my handwriting.

MR MPSHE: Was that the first interrogation you had with Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR DE WAAL: Correct.

MR MPSHE: Do you mind reading what you have written thereon?

MR DE WAAL:

MR MPSHE: Now during this first interrogation, was there any ill-treatment of Mrs Derby-Lewis by yourself?

MR DE WAAL: No.

MR MPSHE: Did you make any suggestions to her as to how to write her statement and what to say in her statement?

MR DE WAAL: No.

MR MPSHE: Now I want you to turn now to page 22, still on Exhibit Z, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, or perhaps to make a better sequence, page 19 first, let's please start at page 19. Page 19, Mr Chairman and members of the committee. Do you see your handwriting on that page?

MR DE WAAL: Correct.

MR MPSHE: Do you mind reading what is contained thereon?

INTERPRETER: Speaker's microphone is not on.

MR BIZOS: I'm afraid mine isn't - is this a typed, a printed page, "Bylae E"?

MR MPSHE: That is correct.

MR BIZOS: And does it start on the top, the 29th of April 1993?

MR MPSHE: That's right. Do you mind reading that for us, Mr De Waal?

MR DE WAAL: Yes.

MR MPSHE: Now I want to believe that this is the second interrogation?

MR DE WAAL: Chairperson, the first was on the 24th, and if I'm not mistaken, the second took place on the 26th. Or no, this date would appear to be the 29th.

MR MPSHE: Okay, let's concentrate on the very one you have just read on page 19, did she make any statement to you?

MR BIZOS: If you look at page 11, there's an entry there for the 26th made by this witness.

MR DE WAAL: That's correct, that is what I was referring to and that was my second date of questioning:-

MR MPSHE: Did she make any statement at the time, on the 26th of April?

MR DE WAAL: She made a statement.

MR MPSHE: Did she voluntarily make that statement?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, she made a voluntary statement in her own handwriting.

MR MPSHE: Did you suggest any statement or words to be included by her in her statement?

MR DE WAAL: No, that wasn't my style, and I had no particulars which I had to give her to put in her statement.

MR MPSHE: Did you on this day, the 26th of April, subject her to any form of ill-treatment in order to induce her to make that statement?

MR DE WAAL: No, I treated her well.

MR MPSHE: Let's turn now to page 19. You have already read page 19.

MR DE WAAL: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: On the date mentioned on page 19, the 27th of April, did she make a statement as well there?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, she continued with her statement, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Was she under any form of duress in making that statement?

MR DE WAAL: Not at all.

MR MPSHE: Did you tell her what to write in her statement?

MR DE WAAL: Not at all.

MR MPSHE: Now I want you to turn to page 22. Is that your handwriting on page 22?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct, the second entry, the long one.

MR MPSHE: Is that the last time when you had an interrogation with her?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Would you mind reading that as well?

MR DE WAAL:

MR MPSHE: What was your treatment of Mrs Derby-Lewis during this time?

MR DE WAAL: Mrs Lewis requested a lot of things, she required books to read, she gave me a list of the books, I bought these magazines out of my own pocket, I took them to her, she thanked me for those. When she was questioned, you would see during the first questioning, we were busy for one hour, she said she was feeling tired, it was a long day, I booked her back into her cells, I told her that she could have a rest, I would not bother her the next day, she could have a good rest. When she complained or asked that she wanted to have a bath, although it was time to eat, we obliged. We treated her very well, and she thanked us for the way in which we treated her. She did not expect to be handled so well during detainment.

MR MPSHE: Mrs Derby-Lewis has told this committee that you treated her so much that even at the time when you approached her for the first time and subsequent thereto, you did not even warn her according to the judge's rules?

MR DE WAAL: In her own words she said that I acted very professionally. She said that she could see that we were trained very well, and she compared me to members of the Russian KGB, and she said the training we received was comparable to that training. Well, I felt very good about that.

MR MPSHE: Now let's go back to the statement that she made. Did she talk and you did the writing, or what happened?

MR DE WAAL: Mr Chairman, I asked her whether she was willing to make a statement. She said she had no problem to make a statement and that she will start with the historical report and continue, and she started writing. She wrote that in her own handwriting. Female Officer Strydom typed the pages she completed in her own handwriting.

MR MPSHE: This statement, did you tell her time and again what to write in the statement?

MR DE WAAL: No, I did not do that at all.

MR MPSHE: Now the typed statement by your colleague, was this given back to her to check if that was the correct statement of what she had written?

MR DE WAAL: After it had been typed, it was presented to her again. She perused it and she indicated a few spelling errors, there were a few, typing errors rather, and that was corrected and she said if somebody wrote for the Patriot, she can't accept spelling errors and that was corrected. Afterwards she said she was not satisfied with the spelling errors in the statement, she was dissatisfied with the spelling errors and she wanted to retype it without spelling errors. We obliged, we gave a typewriter to her and it was retyped, and afterwards there were no spelling errors.

MR MPSHE: Did you at any stage correct or attempt to correct her statement?

MR DE WAAL: Never ever, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, I'm going to refer to Exhibit AC. I want you to have a look at that document, merely at the last page, and tell the committee whether that is your signature?

MR DE WAAL: It is my signature, yes.

MR MPSHE: Exhibit AC. Is this the statement made by yourself?

MR DE WAAL: That was the statement made by myself, Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: I'm not going to ask you to read the statement, it is quite lengthy and members of the committee and all parties have the copy thereof. What is the gist of this statement?

MR DE WAAL: This statement indicates that should there be prosecution, I would know what was in this statement and could explain it in a supreme court.

MR MPSHE: Do you align yourself with the contents of Exhibit AC, the statement?

MR DE WAAL: The statement is correct.

MR MPSHE: That is all, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, are there any questions you wish to put to the witness?

MR BIZOS: Yes, there are a few questions that I would like to put to the witness.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr De Waal, Exhibit Z, you told us that this is a file that was kept at the police station. Do you recognise it as a continuous record of the important events that occurred during Mrs Derby-Lewis's detention?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct, Mr Chairman, this file was not opened by me personally, it was opened by a member of the security police who detained her at Edenvale Police Station. These are according to precise procedures that such a file should be opened and handed to the commanding officer at the charge office. Whether she had a complaint at the charge office or at the magistrate, or any complaint, that was entered into that document.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

MR BIZOS: Although these entries are not in your handwriting, the committee has a copy of it and you've told us that it appears to be a continuous record. In it there are numerous entries of the comforts that were provided to Mrs Derby-Lewis, and also statements that she had no complaints. Did she ever complain to you about anyone else ill-treating her during her detention or compelling her in any way from making any statement? Sorry, apparently my mike goes off. Shall I repeat the question? Although these entries are not in your own handwriting, they set out what was done for her and how her requests were met, and on numerous occasions that she had no complaint. What I want to ask you is that the relationship that you had with her, which you say was a friendly one, did she herself complain about anyone having ill-treated her or had induced her in any way to make any false statements?

MR DE WAAL: She had no complaints at all.

MR BIZOS: Now, were you a member of the investigation team in relation to the murder of Mr Hani in a full-time capacity, or had you been called in merely for the purposes of obtaining a statement from Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR DE WAAL: Mr Chairman, no, I was part of the investigation team, right from the beginning to the end. I had various tasks and at that stage Colonel Van Niekerk tasked me to question her and obtain a statement from her, would she be willing to give one.

MR BIZOS: Did you apprise Colonel Van Niekerk of any portions of the statement as it was being prepared by you and Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct, Mr Chairman. I was tasked that report should be provided to headquarters in Pretoria every day regarding the progress in our investigation, information which we could obtain from the statement by means of questioning would have to be provided to head office. At certain stages, on a daily basis, and sometimes every second day, I went to Benoni and took parts of her statement to the colonel. I presented it to him, he read it, and told me that he does not agree with certain parts of the statement, because her husband or Mr Janusz Walus made different, provided different information. I was unaware of what was contained in the statements of these two gentlemen. I just accepted that her statement was correct. He tasked me, I went back to her and said,

She asked me what the differences were, and I told her, and then she would say yes, now she remembered, she had made a mistake.

One incident I can remember, she told me that her husband had never showed her any firearm, and when I indicated that difference, she said yes, now she remembered, and she made the changes herself.

MR BIZOS: Did you put any pressure on her to agree or disagree with the information that you had obtained from Colonel Van Niekerk?

MR DE WAAL: I did not put any pressure on her, I just told her that the colonel had said that some parts of her statements differed from those of Walus and Derby-Lewis, and if she said that was correct, I left it at that.

MR BIZOS: Did she ever contradict the information that was given to you by the colonel, and say, "No, that information is incorrect", did she ever say that, did she feel free to say that?

MR DE WAAL: In all honesty, Mr Chairman, it could have been, but I can't remember. It could have been that at that part of the statement, she left it was it was and said that was what happened.

MR BIZOS: Now, I want you to please have a look at R4, pages 149 to 163.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Chairman, could we just get the page number again please?

MR BIZOS: Yes, 149 to 163 of R4, Mr Chairman. I notice some difficulty with Judge Wilson's papers - as long as it's there, thank you.

Now, is this a statement which was signed by Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: And does your signature also appear on there?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, page 163, on the right-hand top side.

MR BIZOS: Did you, at the time that you signed this, or before that, induce her in any way, or threaten her in any way, to sign this statement?

MR DE WAAL: I would never have done that.

MR BIZOS: Would you please have a look at 164 to 195? In whose handwriting is this?

MR DE WAAL: That is the handwriting of Mrs Derby-Lewis.

MR BIZOS: And does her signature appear at page 195? It's the last page of the handwritten...

MR DE WAAL: That's correct, at the bottom there is my signature, my details and my address.

MR BIZOS: Did you at any time either threaten or induce her in any manner to write this statement out or to sign it?

MR DE WAAL: No. It was with her full co-operation and it was done voluntarily. There was never any kind of threat.

MR BIZOS: Insofar as she may have complained about being tired or not entirely in her full and sober senses, do you consider this, looking at it, as a consequential and well-written statement in an excellent handwriting?

MR DE WAAL: I would have to agree with that.

MR BIZOS: Could you please turn to page 211? Whose handwriting - 211 to page 239 - could we go to the bottom of 238, whose signature is that?

MR DE WAAL: That is my signature, with my details.

MR BIZOS: That's on 239, go to 238, at the bottom of the page, 238, right at the bottom of the page, whose signature is that?

MR DE WAAL: That is the signature of Mrs Derby-Lewis.

MR BIZOS: And who wrote this statement?

MR DE WAAL: Mrs Derby-Lewis.

MR BIZOS: And there are, there is at least one alteration on that page, who is it initialled by?

MR DE WAAL: Mrs Derby-Lewis made these deletions herself, she signed there and it was police regulations that the officer present would also place his initials and his rank, as well as the date, there.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did you exercise any undue influence on her in any kind in order to sign this statement?

MR DE WAAL: Not at all.

MR BIZOS: Please go to page 260 to 268. This is headed:-

Would this have been the response of Mrs Derby-Lewis to the queries of Colonel Van Niekerk?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: In whose handwriting is this?

MR DE WAAL: Mrs Derby-Lewis's handwriting.

MR BIZOS: And if you go to page 268, is there a signature there?

MR DE WAAL: That of Mrs Derby-Lewis.

MR BIZOS: And did you exercise any influence on her to write this out and sign it?

MR DE WAAL: No.

MR BIZOS: And finally, would you please turn to page 281. Who wrote this document out?

MR DE WAAL: That is her handwriting, the handwriting of Mrs Derby-Lewis.

MR BIZOS: This apparently is also a response to other queries that were made presumably by Colonel Van Niekerk?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR BIZOS: Did you exercise any undue influence on her of any manner whatsoever in order to write this out and to sign it?

MR DE WAAL: Not at all.

MR BIZOS: May I have a moment please, Mr Chairman, I want to confer with my colleague? Did you suggest to her what words she should use in referring to Mr Hani as the enemy, or suggesting to her how she should express herself, particularly in English?

MR DE WAAL: No.

MR BIZOS: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, we have no more questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Captain, I noted that you worked under the command of Major General Du Toit, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct, chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you work directly under Colonel Van Niekerk, who was the commanding officer of John Vorster Square?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you reported to Colonel Van Niekerk?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Colonel Van Niekerk, on his turn, reported to Major General Du Toit?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And General Du Toit reported to head office?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were connected to the Security Branch?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In conjunction with Captain Deetliefs?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And he was also well-known to you?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, he was.

MR PRINSLOO: As well as Warrant-Officer Beetge?

MR DE WAAL: Well I didn't undertake questionings or interrogations with him, but I did know him.

MR PRINSLOO: He was also a member of the Security Branch?

MR DE WAAL: Not of my branch, but of another branch.

MR PRINSLOO: But he was a member of the investigative unit of the Security Branch?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Sergeant Strydom was also a member of the Security Branch, the lady?

MR DE WAAL: No, the lady was a constable and she was connected to the Uniform Branch at Edenvale Police Station.

MR PRINSLOO: During this investigation Mrs Derby-Lewis was detained in terms of section 29 of Internal Security?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And those commands were issued by your commanding officer, Colonel Van Niekerk, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: Well the arrest of, or the procedure by means of which Mrs Derby-Lewis was detained was not issued by myself, I simply undertook the investigations.

MR PRINSLOO: You were aware that she was detained and questioned in terms of section 29 of Internal Security?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And surely you acted in terms of the orders from your commanding officer, Colonel Van Niekerk? 

MR DE WAAL: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And he issued orders to you with relation to the questioning of Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR DE WAAL: Well I cannot agree with that. He was aware of my activities and he knew, or he stated that her version of the facts differed from that of her spouse and he mentioned that to me.

MR PRINSLOO: You worked only under the orders of Colonel Van Niekerk, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you had nothing to do with Murder and Robbery, that was not your branch?

MR DE WAAL: No, that was not my branch.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, I am speaking rather quickly, I will speak a little slower. Captain, Colonel Human was in charge of Murder and Robbery?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And those were two separate branches of the South African Police?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And your investigation was handled separately, correct?

MR DE WAAL: We were a co-operative team, or a joint team, but our orders came from our security officers to our security members.

MR PRINSLOO: And during the questioning of Mrs Derby-Lewis, there is evidence which indicates that videotapes were made specifically while your colleague, Captain Van Niekerk, or at least Captain Deetliefs questioned her?

MR DE WAAL: I was not aware of that. I have no knowledge of that, it could be so.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, you and your colleagues who were involved with this investigation, which was quite an important investigation, surely must have consulted or had discussions regarding how this issue would be handled, especially in terms of your commanding officer, Captain Van Niekerk and Colonel Deetliefs?

MR DE WAAL: Colonel Deetliefs at that stage was busy with Janusz Walus's questioning, as well as that of Mrs Derby-Lewis. I had to take over because the pressure became too much for him, he had too much on his plate, and I had to take over so that he could proceed with Mr Janusz Walus, that is why it happened.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, it was your determined task to gather as much information as possible in terms of this case?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Captain, surely it was the objective of section 29 that if someone were to be detained under the stipulations of that Act, that information should be collected?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And that information which was gathered had to be correlated to see whether or not it was true?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And that information would be expected to be gathered from the person who you were questioning?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You yourself would have possessed certain information in order to question such a person, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: I had no information from other people, with all honesty.

MR PRINSLOO: Therefore you had no information or other information regarding the case?

MR DE WAAL: The only information I had was that a murder was committed, that Mr Hani had been murdered, and I was connected with the investigative unit and I was ordered to be part of the investigation, that Mr Hani had been murdered and that the suspects had to be gathered and that they would be questioned and that we should undertake a complete investigation in order for the supreme court's prosecution of the suspects. That is all that happened.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, you were aware that your colleague, Colonel Deetliefs, had already questioned Mrs Derby-Lewis at various events?

MR DE WAAL: I had questioned her and Colonel Deetliefs before me.

MR PRINSLOO: How many times exactly?

MR DE WAAL: I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see any of his notes, any of the questions that he had asked?

MR DE WAAL: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage acquire any notes of Captain Deetliefs which he might have made while questions Mrs Gaye Derby-Lewis?

MR DE WAAL: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Therefore how would you be able to perform a task, not knowing anything about the case, and then undertake questioning?

MR DE WAAL: I don't know how you can say that I knew nothing of the case.

MR PRINSLOO: Well the most logical supposition would be that questioning had been undertaken by Captain Deetliefs for some or other purpose, he must have taken notes, and he must have reported to Colonel Van Niekerk what had surfaced during the questioning?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, I agree, he would have reported to Colonel Van Niekerk, but those notes were not at my disposal, I had no knowledge of what was contained in those notes, I did not see anything.

MR PRINSLOO: Therefore, you didn't know anything?

MR DE WAAL: I was told to proceed with Mrs Derby-Lewis's questioning.

MR PRINSLOO: Proceed to what, where did it end?

MR DE WAAL: Well I don't know how far Captain Deetliefs had come with her questioning.

MR PRINSLOO: Well you were told to proceed, where did he stop?

MR DE WAAL: I don't know how far Captain Deetliefs managed to proceed with Mrs Derby-Lewis. I was tasked to proceed with Mrs Derby-Lewis as if it was the first time that I would be involved with her. Her admissions to Captain Deetliefs were none of my knowledge.

MR PRINSLOO: Therefore it would have been a futile exercise, those couple of days?

MR DE WAAL: Well I wouldn't have known what she said to him....

MR PRINSLOO: I'll proceed to another point, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that you should not investigate, this is really not particularly relevant. It might be relevant in another tribunal, but certainly not here.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, so you've already said that you had - in terms of the stipulations of section 29, persons were compelled to answer questions?

MR DE WAAL: Well they could refuse.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, why would someone be detained in terms of section 29, and be honest about it?

MR DE WAAL: I have said it before and I will repeat, in order to retrieve as much information as possible from the person.

MR PRINSLOO: And how would you retrieve this information if they refused to answer?

MR DE WAAL: Well then you would not retrieve it.

MR PRINSLOO: And then would you ask that he be detained for a further ten days?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, I would have requested that.

MR PRINSLOO: You would coerce the person into answering the questions by remaining there for a further ten days?

MR DE WAAL: Well, until the Minister of Law and Order had said no further detention, which would have happened at those times, he would be released and it would be out of my hands and...(tape ends)

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, you said that you warned Mrs Derby-Lewis in terms of judicial rules?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: At the beginning? 

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you told her that she should sketch a background of herself, a report?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that is how I would commence with any investigation or questioning, I would like a complete report of the person's background.

MR PRINSLOO: And that she had to do in terms of the judicial rules?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell this, or show this committee, can you please show the honourable committee, in any of Mrs Derby-Lewis's statements, where you warned her in terms of judicial rules, judge's rules?

MR DE WAAL: I have explained this in my statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you understand the question? You were not a new constable, you knew that you had to put the judge's rules in writing and ask the person if they understood what these rules were?

MR DE WAAL: There are copied statements in terms of this issue which are held at the station. I would have explained to her what I was going to ask, and you will see in my statement that all the elements of judge's rules were set out there, why are you attacking me personally?

MR PRINSLOO: I'll put the question to you once more, was this statement to be used for the purposes of evidence, is that what you're saying?

MR DE WAAL: Well, if the attorney-general thought that there would be prosecution, then this would have been used as evidence in prosecution, I would have testified in terms of this evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: In every case which is submitted to court, there is a clear and written document and I'm referring to the Security Branch, which was quite particular about it, the judge's rules would be set out clearly, where a person would sign and confirm that they understood those rules, do you agree?

MR DE WAAL: Chairperson, it was not compulsory to use that form. If you wished to set out the judge's rules in your statement, it would have been fine, it was not something which was issued by police regulations, it was something which we copied for ourselves in order to create more easier facilitation in dealing with suspects. We did not have to use that form.

MR PRINSLOO: Nowhere in any of the statements of Mrs Derby-Lewis which is submitted to this committee, does it say that she understood exactly what the judge's rules entailed.

MR DE WAAL: I think I have explained to you that it was not necessary to use that form, that's why I didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm asking you the question, would you simply answer it. Do you agree?

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on. Is your contention, your client's contention, or Mrs Derby-Lewis's contention that she was never told about the judge's rules? Is that your ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: Not by the captain, that's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't matter, was she aware of the judge's rules?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, she was not warned by the captain in terms of judge's rules.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then just put it to her that she wasn't warned, you see? Otherwise we're going to have an argument here about the way he went about it and the way you are saying it ought to have been done.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, as it's done daily in every court case, a person is warned ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, just put it to her ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: ...in writing ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: ...and he deny, he doesn't want to agree to that.

CHAIRPERSON: And he says no, it isn't always done that way, there is a form in which the judge's rules are set out and that he said to her ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you, Captain, that at no stage you warned Mrs Derby-Lewis regarding judge's rules?

MR DE WAAL: What I have written there is the truth. I warned her in terms of judge's rules, I showed my appointment certificate to her, she read it herself and everything that I have testified here has been the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: And I put it further ...(intervention).

MR BIZOS: No, Mr Chairman, in fairness to the witness, I must draw the committee's attention to page 211:-

So that I think that the witness is entitled to have his attention drawn, once this attack is made on him, that his client, or rather his witness, or the spouse of his client, in her own handwriting said that she voluntarily had made at least that one statement. We will argue what the effect of it is.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, this section which Mr Bizos has just read makes no reference to judge's rules, is that correct, and I put it to you that in order to detain someone in terms of section 29, it would be contradictory to tell the person, "I'm warning you, you don't have to make a statement", while the colonel said, "You will talk".

MR DE WAAL: Where did you get the idea that the colonel told her that she would talk, I wasn't present when that happened? No pressure was exercised on her.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, if section 29 was explained to her in such a way, you would not be able to argue that?

MR DE WAAL: I've never heard of someone being told that they will talk.

MR PRINSLOO: And at this point I would also like to put it to you that before another commission where application was also being made for amnesty, that the Security Branch specifically in terms of section 29 made use of methods which would not normally be prescribed.

MR DE WAAL: My procedures were those that were normally used. You should not connect me with those elements, I was a professional police officer and I performed my duties in a professional manner.

MR PRINSLOO: You regarded her as a suspect, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, I did regard her as a suspect and I'm surprised that she was never charged, I was surprised that she was never charged.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know that before the judge-president in the supreme court, with the two applicants, she appeared in the court, that she was found not guilty of all the charges?

MR DE WAAL: That is my opinion, according to the statement that I received from her, she was lucky that she was never charged.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, will you answer the question please? She was charged and she was found not guilty?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should know, maybe your memory is failing you, she was in fact charged, she was in the trial and she was found not guilty. It might have escaped you, but that is what in fact happened. Carry on.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you tell the committee that she was never charged? Why are you misleading the committee?

MR DE WAAL: I'm not misleading anyone. This matter occurred five years ago.

MR PRINSLOO: This was a very controversial issue in the media.

MR DE WAAL: Yes, it was very controversial, she was not, she's not in detention, her husband and his accomplice are in detention.

MR PRINSLOO: You went on and said that she was a suspect and emphasised that you were surprised that she had not been charged. Since when does one take an affidavit from a suspect?

MR DE WAAL: I don't understand what you mean by that.

MR PRINSLOO: You ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think please, let's just move on.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, it's crucial, if a person is a suspect in a trial, you don't take a sworn statement from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well at any section 29 inquiry, she was detained under section 29 and a statement was in fact taken, these are the statements we've got before us. Now how much further can you take it?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the only, what I'd like to ask the witness, why was a sworn statement taken from the witness?

CHAIRPERSON: Well it was in fact taken, isn't it?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I respectfully submit it's not procedure ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: All right, then the procedure ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: ...and that's the point I want to make as to what is the case of the witness, Mrs Derby-Lewis? You took an affidavit and told Mrs Derby-Lewis that she would be used as a witness.

MR DE WAAL: I never said that. In terms of section 29, it would be an affidavit.

MR PRINSLOO: That is why the judge's rules do not appear in this statement.

MR DE WAAL: But she was made aware of the judge's rules and the statement was written in her own handwriting, and that is why she didn't mention the judge's ...(intervention).

MR BIZOS: Could I just ask you something here? You've just told us the statement was in her own handwriting and she didn't mention the judge's rules, but, where is the first statement by her, 164 is it? Yes. At the end of that statement, she has written, at page 195:-

I take it she was told to write that?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct. those three sentences, this is the way of concluding a statement. That I've told her to write, those last three sentences are part of an affidavit.

MR BIZOS: You told her rights in the case of each one of them, but you've never told her to write that she had been warned in terms of the judge's rules?

MR DE WAAL: This form, she did not know this form of a sworn statement, that's why I told her how to do it.

MR PRINSLOO: When you took the statement for the first time, you told her that she had to provide a historical background?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did she have to be warned according to judge's rules, what did that have to do with the allegations against her?

MR DE WAAL: Mr Chairman, that was just to get a complete statement from her, from the beginning to the end, I wanted to get a complete statement and that was how we went about in the Security Police with the historical statement, that was to get a full picture of this person.

MR PRINSLOO: It was the practice in the Security Police, Captain, I want to put it to you, that every person who was detained according to section 29 who could write, was asked to write his background in his own writing, am I correct?

MR DE WAAL: I don't know about practice, but that was what I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you agree that a practice like that existed?

MR DE WAAL: It was not used by all the Security Branch members, it differed from member to member.

MR PRINSLOO: Where were you stationed?

MR DE WAAL: I was at Security Branch, Sandton, and I was attached to John Vorster. I was stationed at Morningside.

MR PRINSLOO: In your own statement, AC, you say one page 1:-

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, are you tell the honourable committee that she wrote her statement regarding her background and then she stopped, is that what you're saying?

MR DE WAAL: I'm not understanding your question.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you telling the committee that she started writing a statement regarding her background and then she stopped until you had the time to study whatever you wanted to?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, I wanted to study the diary she had in her possession.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the committee where she stopped and where she started, can you indicate on her statement?

MR DE WAAL: She stopped where she had stopped writing.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you indicate where on the statement?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, just tell me, can you tell me now, please, I want you to assist me, what is the relevance of all this kind of cross-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You see, in another tribunal the value of her evidence and so on might be of grave concern, but here as to when she gave her history and when she gave the rest of her story and so on, precisely of what importance is it?

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, it's relevant to the credibility of this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: No, then I'm not interested in allowing you to proceed with the credibility of this evidence, if that is the only purpose. You have, her statements are here, she has not denied making those statements, so there's no point in challenging the credibility of witness on the question of procedure that he followed or did not follow.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, that her version is she was told what to say by this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then you put it to her and she wrote it voluntarily and her statement says that she wrote it voluntarily.

MR PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that she was detained in terms of section 29, that she was in the hands of the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Well then that's, the value of her evidence and so on, that would be a matter for another tribunal, you understand? She could have said in a court of law, "My statement was a section 29 statement, it is inadmissible", and the Court would have said, "Yes, it's inadmissible".

MR PRINSLOO: But, Mr Chairman, with respect, how do I dispute this witness' evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: You're not disputing his evidence, you are merely saying that he didn't follow certain procedure.

MR PRINSLOO: Well I put the version of the witness to him as well, after I examined him, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I think that you'd better proceed further along the lines, but I don't think we can go on questioning along these lines to test his credibility on these issues.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, is it correct that Mr Mpshe and Mr Bizos consulted with you, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: Only this, early this morning, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: You said Colonel Van Niekerk was not satisfied with her statement, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: I did not say that, I said parts, certain portions of these statements he did not agree with because it differed from that of her husband.

MR PRINSLOO: And because there was a difference in the evidence, he wanted her to put it right?

MR DE WAAL: No, I questioned her and I told her that Van Niekerk had said, "These portions of your statements do not agree with your husband's".

MR PRINSLOO: Did you tell her what her husband had said? you did not tell her?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, yes, I told her what her husband had said.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you tell her exactly?

MR DE WAAL: What was contained in his statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you ask her to write down what her husband had said?

MR DE WAAL: No, I told her that orally.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you keep any notes regarding what you've just told the committee?

MR DE WAAL: It happened five years ago, but it could have been in the interrogation file.

MR PRINSLOO: Where is this file kept?

MR DE WAAL: That interrogation file or the files are filed at Murder and Robbery, and the investigative officer was Mike Holmes.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I come in here again please? As I understood your evidence when you were questioned by Mr Bizos, you said you would go back to her and tell her what Colonel Van Niekerk had told you, and in some cases she would say yes, now she remembered it, and would correct it herself. Now is this statement we have before us a corrected statement, because I don't see any corrections on it?

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, with respect, the answer did not mean that, well perhaps I shouldn't say anything, but before putting that question, with respect, Mr Chairman, he should be asked how the final statement came into being?

JUDGE WILSON: Precisely.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE WILSON: Is this statement the corrected statement, not the statement she (indistinct).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, somebody could perhaps repair the mike. The statement, it's not the statement that she made on the date that appears at the end of the statement, is that the position?

MR DE WAAL: The wrong statement was corrected, this is the correct statement you have in front of you.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, now when was, when was this statement made, the corrected statement?

MR DE WAAL: If I obtained a statement from her on the 24th and I saw her again on the 26th of April, I told her that the colonel did not agree with certain parts of her statement, and then she corrected that.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes, well now that's what I want to know about, because it is a long handwritten document that runs over the pages, how did she correct it? Did she carefully re-write three lines so she didn't have to re-write the whole statement?

MR DE WAAL: Mr Chairman, the parts which were not correct, she re-wrote the correct part, and she tore up the wrong part.

JUDGE WILSON: Did she re-write it in such a way that in each case of an alteration, it was only one page and the other pages could remain as they are, or did she have to re-write the whole document?

MR DE WAAL: No, Mr Chairman, there was very little where there was a difference, where there was a dispute, it was only small parts of the statement on which we differed.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the short adjournment at this stage and resume in 15 minutes.

ON RESUMPTION:

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, these sections which you say that Mrs Derby-Lewis had written and then were subsequently destroyed, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: What is the question?

MR PRINSLOO: Upon a question by His Honour Judge Wilson you said that there were certain changes that had been made and they were no longer available, they had been destroyed, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So therefore it could never be shown to anyone ever again after that in order to determine its value?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So it could have been to her advantage or to her disadvantage, do you agree?

MR DE WAAL: Yes I do.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are aware that when someone writes a statement or when a magistrate takes a confession, it may not be destroyed?

MR DE WAAL: Well if the person wishes to correct their statement, I do not see a problem with it.

MR PRINSLOO: But you do know what she wrote?

MR DE WAAL: Well it was five years ago, I cannot remember anymore.

MR PRINSLOO: At the time that she was writing it, you knew what she was writing?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: But you could have put those pieces together?

MR DE WAAL: I wanted a correct version of the events, there were certain aspects where she said she wanted to protect and she wanted to correct that, and I wanted the correct version of the incident.

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, at the end of the day, the Court would have been the arbitrator, not you, the Court would have had to decide what the value of it was, not you, what the truth was, not you?

MR DE WAAL: As I've said, I wanted the truth before me.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you agree that if that part of the evidence was not before the Court, there was something missing, do you agree?

MR DE WAAL: According to me, the statement which she made was the truth. The versions which she gave and the clauses where she said she wanted to protect someone and she wanted to correct it, especially in terms of the weapon, were brought into my statement regarding those aspects which were changed.

MR PRINSLOO: How did you know that that was the correct version?

MR DE WAAL: Well, Colonel Van Niekerk told me that Mr Derby-Lewis had made a statement such as that in his statement, I went back and questioned her regarding this and she told me that she had told a lie, that she had made a mistake and that she wanted to rectify it.

MR PRINSLOO: So the other sections ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo please, no, Mr Prinsloo, please I don't think you should, I think you should ask this type of question within the context of your client's own version. As far as I can recall, she never said, "I did tell the truth, I was caused to discard the truth in favour of the untruth". So you are proceeding on the premise as if your client had said that what she had initially written was true and then later she was caused to throw it away and then accept something which was true. That was not her evidence, and you go on therefore to argue on the premise, you go on to argue that well, what she had, what was discarded could have been to her advantage, and that argument is based on the premise that she had told the truth initially, but that's not what she said. All she said was that she said certain things and then later she was confronted with other things, and as a result her statement was change.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, the way I understand it is that she was told what to say with regard to certain aspects and that the version which the captain presents here is that certain things were changed and they were destroyed and we don't what that was, that is what I'm aiming at, that that section of the evidence which had been destroyed can no longer be considered in terms of the evidence which appears in the statement, there is, there's some kind of empty space and that is what I'm aiming at.

CHAIRPERSON: But I mean don't you understand the point my brother is making, you see, if she maintained that the documents which you had thrown away were in fact the truth and her present statement is what she was told to say, now that is not what her version was, you understand?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, her version is that she was told what to say, where it didn't agree, she had to re-write it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but she maintains it was the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, she said, she indicated to the portions of the statement that was not true, she did indicate that in her evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: She said that, look at the end of the statement, each statement that she makes, where she affirms its contents as being the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, she says she was told what to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well all right, you can use that in argument.

MR PRINSLOO: And really what's the value of that statement?

CHAIRPERSON: You can use that as argument, it seems, because you can't cross-examine this witness on evidence that has been destroyed without us knowing. How are you going to discuss ...(intervention).

MR BIZOS: Can you give us the reference to what she said?

MR PRINSLOO: I'll have to find it, Mr Chairman. What I've also got here, Mr Chairman, is what she said in A1, which was also handed in, a note she made as to what - for instance at page 6 of that Exhibit A1, which I can just find now, she wrote at paragraph 15 of A1:-

That's with reference to De Waal.

CHAIRPERSON: Well all that really boils down to the value that we attach to her evidence, isn't it?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Mr Chairman ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: ...in conjunction of the captain's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well now carry on then, I think what evidential value there is in her statement is a factor which we'll take into account. I think my difficulty with your line of cross-examination is that it was based on the assumption that what the witness subsequently discarded was in fact the truth, my difficulty was that you base your cross-examination on the assumption or on the premise that what she had initially said, but subsequently changed, albeit at the instance of the police, was the truth, and I'm saying that you can't say that unless the witness herself had said to us, "What I initially said was the truth until the police came and caused me to change it". She never, that was not her evidence. In fact my impression was that she lied, that's what the general impression she conveyed, the impression she conveyed was that initially she lied, and then later when she was confronted with something else, then she changed, and you proceed on the premise which is based on the opposite.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, the purpose of my question was directed at the captain to indicate that by destroying the document, we are now not in a position to see - to evaluate what was said, that's my whole purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: But what was the point, why should we miss something which was untrue, why must we be bothered to evaluate something which was in any case untrue, how are we prejudiced?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we don't know what was said in that context, whether it was true or untrue, I don't know.

MR BIZOS: Well what did she say about it, I don't care what you know, it's what did she say anywhere in her evidence, "I had the truth in my statement and I was compelled to change it to put in something untrue"?

MR PRINSLOO: Her evidence is, Mr Chairman, with respect, that she was told what to say. She said in her evidence she never saw a weapon, and here it is stated she saw a weapon. It was added to the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) attention was drawn to the fact that this is what her husband had said, and she says now, "Yes, I remember that this is what in fact happened, I did see the weapon". Now can you take it very much further than that?

MR PRINSLOO: Well the point is, Mr Chairman, with respect, if she's told by the captain to write that, then it makes a big difference, because that's not her version then.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, she was now compelled to write what was the truth, is that what you're saying?

MR PRINSLOO: Well I'm not saying that's the truth what's written in the statement, Mr Chairman, with respect, she said it's untrue, she never saw a weapon, which is written in the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Can we proceed to some other aspect of the case please?

MR PRINSLOO: Captain ...(intervention).

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, if Judge Wilson is looking at the record, I have already reference of Mrs Derby-Lewis's evidence, it's set out on page 65 of our heads of argument, Mr Chairman, but it will just identify some of the references.

MR PRINSLOO: In your statement you refer to a murder list, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: But nowhere in Mrs Derby-Lewis's statement is there mention made of a murder list?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So why do you mention a murder list?

MR DE WAAL: Well that is what was discussed at our conference.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

MR DE WAAL: We spoke about the murder list amongst our members.

MR PRINSLOO: So it became known as the murder list?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So your statement in that relation is not correct?

MR DE WAAL: I see it as murder list because various individuals were murdered.

MR PRINSLOO: What you are saying in your statement is what Mrs Derby-Lewis should have said? What you are saying in your statement is that which Mrs Derby-Lewis had said to you, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: In the statement she also mentioned the murder list.

MR PRINSLOO: In her statement?

MR DE WAAL: No, not in her statement, but that is what she said to me, it was regarded as a murder list.

MR PRINSLOO: Where did she record that in her statement?

MR DE WAAL: There was a section which was amended, she maintained a version that this list was compiled because she wanted to write an article about the names on the list, those persons, and after that I said that that was not the version of her spouse and she subsequently changed her opinion.

MR PRINSLOO: So therefore after it was told to her what her spouse had said?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that was one of the issues that Colonel Van Niekerk told me to take up with her, whether or not it was true that she wanted to write an article about these persons or whether her husband's version was true, she changed her opinion, she said that her husband's version was in fact the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: The statement, the first statement which she wrote, was about background and then proceeded to cover aspects regarding the merits of the case?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Earlier I asked you where she had stopped after you told her to write and then you would discuss certain aspects with her after you had studied certain information?

MR DE WAAL: You addressed these aspects before, but I will answer again and that is that I cannot possibly remember that far back, that which is before me here is her complete statement and she is completely aware of everything contained in the statement, where she stopped and where she proceeded once more I would not be able to give you detailed information of.

MR PRINSLOO: In terms of her statement, this was on the 24th of April, and it, or the first statement finished on the 27th of April, and she had written the statement in the office, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the police, female police officer typed it?

MR DE WAAL: After she had written it, she went through it, she studied it again, I testified that she had admonished the female police officer regarding spelling mistakes, but there was nothing wrong with the statement itself, but that she did not approve of the spelling mistakes, she wanted to type it up herself. She did, there were no more spelling mistakes and she agreed with everything that was said in the statement. Why, when she studied the statement again, did she not point out certain facts which she was not satisfied with, why did she only point out spelling mistakes?

MR PRINSLOO: A simple question, but what I would like to know is that from the 24th to the 27th, during the rendition of this statement, there was a certain point where she was not questioned, there was a break in the questioning?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, there was a certain break. I stopped on the Saturday and then continued on the Monday.

MR PRINSLOO: It's a very long statement, it was written over quite a long period of time?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And it was re-written neatly, the final draft?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, it was typed, she typed it herself.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you please point out to the committee which changes were brought to the statement?

MR DE WAAL: Initially, this morning, I testified that she made certain zig-zag patterns where she deleted certain things, and that is clearly indicated. I testified that it was police policy that certain deletions would have to be dated and initialised, I did so and she did so as well, that was police procedure.

MR PRINSLOO: Mrs Strydom wasn't a very good typist, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: Well, according to my opinion, there were a number of spelling mistakes. I think it was rather petty to admonish her regarding the spelling mistakes, but we wanted to keep Mrs Derby-Lewis satisfied, we didn't want her to have any problems with the statements at the end of the day and that is why we gave her permission to re-type the statement herself. We didn't want her to point out any errors or spelling mistakes afterwards, that's why we gave her the typewriter and allowed her to re-type it herself, after which she was satisfied with the final product, that there were no errors whatsoever.

MR PRINSLOO: Various statements were made by her, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: When were the statements typed?

MR DE WAAL: While she was busy, when she had written a page, she handed it over to the typist, who would sit there and type these pages next to her, page for page, she received the information from her.

MR PRINSLOO: Perhaps you don't understand the question. When did Mrs Derby-Lewis type the final statement, on which day?

MR DE WAAL: It is mentioned here.

MR PRINSLOO: The three statements, were they typed on the last day or as she had completed each and every one of them?

MR DE WAAL: No, when the statement had been finished and sworn and studied, she would type it.

MR PRINSLOO: So that would have been on the 27th of April?

MR DE WAAL: No, that would be when the statements had been completed and the dates appear on the statements.

MR PRINSLOO: But then with the second statement she had to record things that had already been mentioned in background, what was the relevance of that?

MR DE WAAL: Well that, for example, had to do with the list of names, the organisations which she belonged to, we wanted all these details, whether or not the Court would use it wasn't important, we wanted it for information purposes in the Security Branch and that is why the colonel asked that I question her specifically regarding organisations and the list, and that is why we received information regarding those issues, whether or not it was in the interests of the Court, it was valuable to us within the field where we were working.

MR PRINSLOO: The State Advocate Von Lieres, who managed the case on behalf of the State, and his junior Advocate Nel, did they consult with you regarding that case?

MR DE WAAL: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you ever called to testify?

MR DE WAAL: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And I also put it to you that not one of the members of the Security Branch, Colonel Van Niekerk, yourself, Captain Deetliefs, ever testified during that trial?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know why not?

MR DE WAAL: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Were these statements made available to the State?

MR DE WAAL: These statements, according to me, had to have made up a certain part of the dossier which the presiding officer had compiled regarding the case.

MR PRINSLOO: You are speaking of the section 29 statements?

MR DE WAAL: All the statements which were received.

MR PRINSLOO: But your statements were specifically the section 29 statements, that is what you managed?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, but if I had managed the dossier or the file, it would definitely have appeared in that dossier.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please.

Honourable Chairperson, the page 405 of Mrs Derby-Lewis's statement, you have mentioned that Mrs Derby-Lewis was warned by you in terms of her admissions?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that was procedure, it had to be done that way.

MR PRINSLOO: And once again you did not write out the judge's rules there for her to sign and confirm that she understood them?

MR DE WAAL: I think it's very clear that I was impartial in this respect. When she said that she didn't wish to make the admissions, we left it at that, because that was procedure, there were no irregulations, no undue pressure was placed upon her.

MR PRINSLOO: You didn't want her to make the identification towards you?

MR DE WAAL: No, it had to be done by an impartial officer. MR PRINSLOO: And that would have been managed by Captain Louw?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So what was the necessity for you to warn Mrs Derby-Lewis regarding judge's rules, if that wasn't necessary?

MR DE WAAL: Well that would be procedure, one had to warn her, "This could be used against you, are you prepared to do it?" She declared herself willing to me, and I took her to the captain and that is how it was done, and that is where she changed her mind and she was taken back the captain said that she didn't want to do it, and that was that.

MR PRINSLOO: This is the first that I hear of it, that you warned someone who was asked to make an identification, because according to this version, Captain Louw had warned her in terms of judge's rules and she had refused then.

MR DE WAAL: That was Captain Louw's procedure. He didn't know her, it was the first time he was seeing her and it was his prerogative to warn her in terms of judge's rules, and I said to him, "This person is willing to make identifications, will you interview her?" After that she had changed her mind and she didn't want to.

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you that Mrs Derby-Lewis was warned by the captain in terms of judge's rules and that it was the first time that she learnt that she was actually involved a section 29 matter and that she actually had a choice which she didn't have before?

MR DE WAAL: Why would I then have taken her to Captain Louw and why didn't I take her through the identification myself, if that was the case? Is that not proof of my impartiality, that I chose an independent officer?

MR PRINSLOO: Then she exercised her choice not to make an identification, while she said to you, according to your version, that she was willing. Isn't it strange?

MR DE WAAL: It's not strange, it has happened before, it has happened many times in the past where people change their minds. Someone says to you they would like to make a confession to a magistrate and as soon as they get to the magistrate, they have changed their mind and that they don't want to do it, this happens.

MR PRINSLOO: And at the end, you knew, on the 27th or 26th of April, according to your version, that Mrs Derby-Lewis had made an application for her release?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And from that moment forward, you continued to question her and receive statements?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, it was my right.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you inform her that this kind of application had been made?

MR DE WAAL: I can't remember, it's possible.

MR PRINSLOO: But there is nothing in writing that you did inform her?

MR DE WAAL: Well she was a detainee, I cannot remember, I may or may not have informed her regarding this, according to me, she was a detainee, there was no document that had been issued saying that she should be released by the Minister, and if that had been so, I would have been compelled to release her, but until such a document had been issued, I would have continued with my work.

MR PRINSLOO: And she never had any legal assistance or access to the law while she was detained?

MR DE WAAL: No, in terms of section 29, she had no right to that.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are aware that during her interview with Captain Deetliefs before she was detained in terms of section 29, she repeatedly asked for legal assistance?

MR DE WAAL: I'm not aware of that, I was not present when Mr Deetliefs questioned her or when any arrangements were made between the two of them.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you not make use of a videotape, as with other cases, when you knew that allegations were always made about the Security Branch?

MR DE WAAL: I was not even aware that a videotape had been made with Mr Walus, I only knew which methods were used with his interviews. My instructions - in all the interviews that I had made during my years at the Security Branch, I never used a videotape.

MR PRINSLOO: But some officers did?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, certain officers did use videotapes, it wasn't compulsory though.

MR PRINSLOO: But it would have assisted you greatly today if you had material on video.

MR DE WAAL: Why?

MR PRINSLOO: In order to determine exactly what happened, for example in cells, if there was 24 hour monitoring in John Vorster Square, there would be videotape material.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he didn't make himself a videotape, he has said so, neither do we have any reason to think that it was standard practice for the police to do that, to make use of ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: Captain, this detention file is compiled by the Security Police, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: It's for the purposes of the Security Police?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, we provide it to the charge office and also the persons, the magistrates, the district surgeons, the officers who were working during the weekends, and they make a note whether a person has any problems. All the, the charge office does not have such files and we provide it for this purpose.

MR PRINSLOO: The charge office has an occurrence book which gives 100% report on what is happening?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct. Whether everything is reported I don't know, but they should keep up an occurrence book.

MR PRINSLOO: This file regarding her detainment, has that been kept up to date?

MR DE WAAL: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I looked at it this morning. If you look at Exhibit Z, page 5, are you on page 5, Mr Chairman? Right at the top there's an entry?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: The 24th of April, it's just before six o'clock in the evening?

MR DE WAAL: 17:35, just after half past six.

MR PRINSLOO: It's actually five - it's five to seven, but in any case, on the 25th of April at 7:50 it has an entry by Strydom saying:-

Do you see that?

MR DE WAAL: I see that, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: This is a serious complaint if you have a heart ache?

MR DE WAAL: The procedures if such a complaint was made is that the uniform people should get a doctor to examine this person. They all know those procedures and they have to do that.

MR PRINSLOO: Well, Captain, you had a... (tape ends)

MR DE WAAL: No, I did not have a look at all these entries.

MR PRINSLOO: But you've said she had no complaints, but here is a complaint.

MR DE WAAL: When I've asked her, she did not mention any complaints. If she complained to me and at some stages she said she was tired, she wanted to have a rest, I stopped, and she said she wanted clean clothes, she obtained clean clothes. If she said her son had to obtain money for her, I made certain arrangements. People from Benoni summoned her son and the money was handed over in her presence. I provided magazines for her, every small complaint I paid attention to, Mr Chairman, and if she had complained about illnesses or a heart complaint, I would have reacted to that.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you see further on, there's another entry on the same page, on the same day, she had half an egg and she drank a glass of milk and she's not feeling well, do you see that?

MR DE WAAL: I see that, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: You knew that you had to do with a person who was possibly ill, because this dossier, you had insight in this dossier?

MR DE WAAL: This file was held in the charge office. We who did the questioning had his own file.

MR PRINSLOO: And in that, when you've questioned them regarding whether you're ill, do you need anything, and those entries were made?

MR DE WAAL: All the entries made by the other members of the police force, I did not read, because that was for the purposes of to be used in the charge office. If she did not complain to me, I was satisfied, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And then, further on, on page 7, at the bottom, 14:40 on the 13th of April, she starts with a request and it's said on the next page, on page 8:-

And it continues like that. And that was ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: You're asking him to comment on something that somebody else wrote down of which he's not aware. Now how does it take this matter further?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Mr Chairman, this is contradictory to what he said, that there were no complaints. This woman was hysterical.

CHAIRPERSON: He did not say that there were no complaints, he says there were no complaints as far as he was concerned.

MR PRINSLOO: I've said enough, but the instructions are fine, if she had any complaints, if those complaints were serious, the people in charge had to contact me or anybody else, or had to summon a doctor to pay attention toward these complaints. If they did not do their duty, what could I have done about it?

MR PRINSLOO: I'm putting it to you, because she was in the hand of the Security Police, how could she complain to you, because you were handling her, she was going to complain to the uniformed policemen, do you agree to that?

MR DE WAAL: What I don't understand, this woman at various instances told me that she was happy with her treatment. She had her meals at the mess, she got good meals, all the section 29's had their meals in the mess, this is evidence how well they were treated.

MR PRINSLOO: Food does not set everything right.

JUDGE WILSON: Mr Chairman, Mrs Derby-Lewis's evidence in relation to these complaints of illness was that there was an arrangement to bring both the district surgeon and her personal physician to attend to her.

MR PRINSLOO: (Indistinct) to Mrs Derby-Lewis what she had to say and then what was said there was thrown away, it was re-written until you were satisfied?

MR DE WAAL: This is a lie.

MR PRINSLOO: And then furthermore you are saying did she eat in the office or in the mess?

MR DE WAAL: Well I know at certain instances she had her meals in the office, at certain instances she ate in the mess. At a certain stage food was brought from the mess and she was served in the office.

MR PRINSLOO: As far as she can recollect, she had her meals in the kitchen.

MR DE WAAL: What do you mean by the kitchen?

MR PRINSLOO: If the kitchen and the mess is one, I don't know.

MR DE WAAL: What do you want from this question? She got her food. You go all the way and you are so involved in what she had to eat, this is the old style, I'm so concerned about what she had to eat, she had no reasons to complain because she was treated well.

MR PRINSLOO: While you were questioning her, did you tell her that Arthur Kemp had been detained?

MR DE WAAL: I told her, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you tell her that?

MR DE WAAL: Well why not? I told her that. I don't know what you see in that, I told her that Arthur Kemp had been detained.

MR PRINSLOO: Please, you know that there were allegations that he had written that murder list, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: That he had compiled the list?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: It was an important key?

CHAIRPERSON: That Arthur Kemp had been detained?

MR DE WAAL: Arthur Kemp was arrested by me personally, and I questioned him personally.

CHAIRPERSON: And you told Mrs Derby-Lewis that he's been detained?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, I told her that.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you first spoke to Kemp and then to her, or how did it work?

MR DE WAAL: After I had detained Kemp, I took his statement, and then I spoke to her.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you confronted her with Kemp's information?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, she told me that she'd obtained a list from Kemp regarding a certain story she had to write of the people who lived in those places, and I assumed, or rather I told her exactly what he had said.

MR PRINSLOO: And did he confirm what she had said?

MR DE WAAL: He did not know what she had said.

MR PRINSLOO: Did Kemp confirm what she had said regarding the story she had to write?

MR DE WAAL: I believe that Mr Kemp's statement is here, and from that we can see what he had said, I can't remember what Mr Kemp had said in his statement.

MR PRINSLOO: And then with reference to this list you've shown to her, which you'd already indicated to Deetliefs, is that correct?

MR DE WAAL: What is your question?

MR PRINSLOO: Did you tell her, as I can gather from your version, that Deetliefs said that she showed a murder list to him?

MR DE WAAL: Well if she had said that, if that was explained in my statement, if you can just refer me to the specific paragraph, it was like that.

MR PRINSLOO: On page 4 of your statement, the fourth paragraph from the bottom, or rather the third one.

MR DE WAAL: It's Colonel Van Niekerk who told me to show her that list.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you tell her that Colonel Van Niekerk was not happy with her statement regarding this respect?

MR DE WAAL: No, he did not say this, he just told me to show the murder list.

MR PRINSLOO: She's mentioned this list previously?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, I told her that what she had said is a contradiction of what her husband had said in his statement and what is the truth, what is the truth, what was she saying, according to her was that the truth? She said, her version to me was that she wanted to protect Kemp and if Kemp gave his full co-operation regarding that list, she would also give her full co-operation and she would tell us what the purpose was.

MR PRINSLOO: Where in this statement, or in any statement, did she say that she wanted to protect Kemp?

MR DE WAAL: She said it somewhere in one of these statements, I've noticed it this morning. On page 3 at the top, page 3 at the top:-

This is what I'm referring to.

MR PRINSLOO: And she told you, initially she said that she wanted to write stories about these people?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, this is also mentioned here in this statement.

MR PRINSLOO: And you've accepted that as correct?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, I've accepted that as the truth, until I presented it to Van Niekerk and he said this was a contra-diction of her husband's statement.

MR PRINSLOO: A contradiction regarding what?

MR DE WAAL: A contradiction regarding the purpose of this list.

MR PRINSLOO: Did she mention anything regarding the purpose of the list, apart from wanting to write about it?

MR DE WAAL: She said she wanted to write stories about the people. I presented it to the commanding officer and he said, "Somebody is not telling the truth. Take it up further with her".

MR PRINSLOO: Did you do anything about the fact that she wanted to write about people?

MR DE WAAL: But it seemed that she really did want to write something about those people. Mr Chairman, what she said about the list is contained in her statement, it's mentioned in my statement, there's nothing more about that.

MR PRINSLOO: I finally want to put it to you that Mrs Derby-Lewis was never warned, according to judge's rules. You've already answered to that. And furthermore you told her that she would be used as a witness. What are you saying about that?

MR DE WAAL: Mr Chairman, an hour or two ago you said I was acting like a student constable, I was a captain in the police, I wrote my exams, I completed a three year diploma, I completed a few subjects in a legal direction at UNISA, I know what I was doing. I warned her according judge's rules. I have the qualifications, I have background, I knew what I was doing.

MR PRINSLOO: And I put it to you that you've told her what to say. I'm putting it to you that you've prescribed her and if she had legal assistance, she would have not made the statements like she did, when she was warned by Captain Louw and Captain Holmes?

MR DE WAAL: According to the provisions of section 29, she was not justified to have a legal representative, that was according to the law at that time.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: On behalf of Mr Walus, are there ...(intervention). 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Captain, you have just presented your qualifications to the committee, you were also a captain at that point?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct, I was not a student constable.

MS VAN DER WALT: What is noticeable to me regarding your testimony is that there was a very serious case which caused a lot of controversy nationwide, this was regarding the death of Mr Hani, and there was quite a large team of police officers involved?

MR DE WAAL: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And there was even a number of foreign investigators who were here to assist with the investigation?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, there were a number who were in a monitoring capacity.

MS VAN DER WALT: What I find interesting is that you, as a captain, and not a captain of the detectives, but a captain from the Security Branch, you arrived there and you began questioning Mrs Derby-Lewis without any background regarding her previous questionings. Is or was anything like that ever possible?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, it was.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I don't understand, I really don't know why Captain Deetliefs questioned Mrs Derby-Lewis, because then he was wasting the time and money of the State if he did not tell you or convey to you what he had found out from Mrs Derby-Lewis?

MR DE WAAL: Well I don't know why you're putting it to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to put it further that when the advocate representing the family of Mr Hani, there were certain statements that were made and the police who were involved, that is Colonel Van Niekerk and Captain Deetliefs and Captain Beukes were notified that they would be called as witnesses, and in terms of section 4 they sat here during the evidence with an attorney present, are you aware of that?

MR DE WAAL: Yes, I was aware of that, I read it in the newspaper.

MS VAN DER WALT: Whether or not they were legally represented, I do not know. So they heard the testimony of Mrs Derby-Lewis and I would like to put it to you, according to the testimony that was given here by her, that she never accused you of assaulting her in any way or inappropriately influencing her by threatening her, that was her testimony.

MR DE WAAL: I am very glad to hear this.

MS VAN DER WALT: But her testimony in fact, and this is the interesting aspect, was that she said that you told her that you would use her as a State witness.

MR DE WAAL: I did not say that.

MS VAN DER WALT: And that is why you took an affidavit, you told her, you must just bear in mind here that Colonel Van Niekerk is sitting here, as well as Captain Deetliefs, with their legal teams, the complaint was that if she had made a statement, then you would have taken the statement to Colonel Van Niekerk, who expressed his dissatisfaction, and then it was changed?

MR DE WAAL: I delivered a long testimony regarding that issue, I said what the point was behind it, I said that we had to convey information to head office, it was quite an important case, and he, as my commanding officer, if he was not satisfied with certain aspects or clauses, would say to me, "You, as the interrogator, would have to return to her and clear up certain issues". Could you repeat?

MS VAN DER WALT: He did not testify. Colonel Van Niekerk did not testify. So he accepted that what she said did happen?

MR DE WAAL: I do not know the reasons why he didn't testify.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now I would like to put it to you that something must have happened, because when Mrs Derby-Lewis was arrested, and that would have been on the 21st of April 1993, that is in R4, 395, she was questioned in depth, and you know Captain Deetliefs, he is the type of person who was used by the Security Branch for this express purpose, he had very good experience, and then, on various pages, in single line space typing, she claims that when she was questioned, her answer was, unfortunately there are no notes or a video available, it continues, she is again questioned on the 24th of April, and she says, or gives her version of what happened. Now the two important aspects here are the list and the tape, and that is what Colonel Van Niekerk was not happy with, because the police wanted her to write what they wanted her to write?

MR DE WAAL: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because here, where Captain Deetliefs is questioning her, it is clearly stated,

MR DE WAAL: That's news to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: She says that she never saw a weapon, and she continues to give her version regarding the list, why it was compiled and so forth, and then on page 202, it is on the tape on 1172, that is tape number, well the number doesn't appear here, let us just look, okay it is tape 2, she says, that is after the arrest, if one reads this in context, after the arrest of Mr Walus:-

And now suddenly, my question is, suddenly she makes a completely different statement to you. How is that possible?

MS VAN DER WALT: How can this lady be asking me regarding statements which a person made during another series of questioning? I was not present, I don't know what she said at that stage. I can only testify regarding what she said to me and what occurred between us, I cannot answer regarding questions which occurred between that captain and the lady.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did she change her mind so suddenly?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that please, what is the point in putting questions to this witness when he wasn't present?

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, I would like to know why she changed her story so suddenly.

CHAIRPERSON: How will he know why she changed?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is the argument, exactly. Chair-person, this is a very serious case, and I think that the opportunity should be granted to determine exactly what happened.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Chairman, I would like ...(intervention).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

JUDGE NGOEPE: ...this is not a trial, your questions have to be relevant to what he did. What she said to others would not be something to which he's answerable, isn't it? How can you ask him to speculate on why she said this to somebody else?

MS VAN DER WALT: I am not asking why she said it, I am asking why she changed from one day to another and therefore changed her statement, in his hands.

JUDGE NGOEPE: How would this witness know unless you put to him the reason?

MS VAN DER WALT: I am saying that you received instructions from Colonel Van Niekerk and you acted accordingly, and she was told to change her testimony?

MR DE WAAL: She was not told to change her testimony and I have said that at various occasions on this very day.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you wish to put to the witness?

MR MPSHE: No questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR BIZOS: Sorry, could I just clear up one point?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Is it correct, it seems that on the 26th, that's on the Monday, you took her, 26th of April, you took, or you were responsible for arranging for Mrs Derby-Lewis to go to the district surgeon, where she would be seen by her own doctor?

MR DE WAAL: Chairperson, the detainees at that stage were usually seen or examined by the district surgeon. I cannot remember any other request, and whether it was therefore granted, it would have been done that way. May I read the section please:-

That was not policy, that was an exceptional situation. It just shows the preferential treatment that she received.

MR BIZOS: And she returned at half past three that afternoon, it's on the next page?

MR DE WAAL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, you're excused from further attendance.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairperson and members of the committee, the next witness is Mr Visser, who is present. Mr Chairman, Mr Visser has indicated that he is willing to testify, but he's made an application that he testifies in camera because of threats he received in the past, as well as last night.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the nature of these threats?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, my information is to the effect that he was told in the past that if he testifies at this hearing, he will be dealt with in the same fashion as the late, as it was dealt with inasfar as the late Chris Hani is concerned, and this was repeated last night, and therefore, Mr Chairperson, members of the committee ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct) mention his name?

MR MPSHE: ...I am therefore making that application that his evidence be heard in camera, for the reasons advanced. I may mention that I have requested that witness protection be arranged for the witness as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please, will you hold over. You can go outside and sing if you wish to. This committee is still in session.

The committee has the power, in appropriate cases, to hear the evidence of witness or witnesses in camera. We haven't decided whether we are going to accede to that request. The proper procedure is for us to be satisfied whether we should accede to that request, and in order for us to be satisfied, we will have to hear evidence on this aspect of the matter, to evaluate for ourselves how serious the threat is and so on. For that purpose, it would be necessary to clear the hall, so that we can hear the evidence, the application rather, in camera. If we decide that there is no need to hear the evidence in camera, you will then be allowed into the hall while the witness is giving evidence, so you are please requested to leave the hall.

...to be present, but I don't think she's entitled to be present, because if she is, the any other witness who's given evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: Because, Mr Chairman, there are people now in the hall, like Mrs Hani, for instance, and Mr Kroenig. He's not an attorney.

CHAIRPERSON: I've only agreed for Mrs Hani to be present.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The cameras will be switched off. Can the witness please come forward? He's disappeared.

MR VISSER: ...(Indistinct)

MR MPSHE: You've been asked to come and give evidence this morning at this hearing.

MR VISSER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And are you willing to give evidence?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why it is that you wish to give evidence in camera?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I can explain to the committee in a broad sense that my case began in 1993, in April 1993. I applied for amnesty in April 1995. During my application during 1995, the first copy of my amnesty application was faxed to Cape Town. With the second application, it was requested of us to hand in the original at the offices here in Johannesburg, that was on the Saturday, and on the cut-off date for the amnesty applications, me and Mr Roodt, at that stage, went to hand in our applications.

CHAIRPERSON: The sound has been cut off, not to go to the media, so it may not go through the earphones. Okay, I'm told the earphones can be used, I just directed they cut it, it shouldn't go out to the media.

MR VISSER: On the Saturday, on that cut-off date for the amnesty applications, 12 o'clock midnight, Mr Roodt contacted me on the Sunday and asked me to come to his home urgently. He told me that four persons on that particular afternoon had paid a visit to him at his home. He could not identify them or tell me who they were, but these persons informed him that they were aware that we had applied for amnesty and they already possessed our amnesty applications. At that point, I informed my advocate, Herman Kriel, thereof, and after that, with the first appearance in Pretoria, for which I was subpoenaed, he made it known to Mr Mpshe, and after that from time to time, as soon as the specific case would come to the fore, I would receive calls saying that I should be very careful regarding that which I would disclose, that I should not place anybody at a disadvantage, or violence would be used. And even last night, I have told the police another call was made to me, and I feel that I cannot testify properly under these circumstances in which I have been placed, and I don't know what the objective of these calls to my home are, and that is why I'm requesting of the committee, I will, I'm willing to deliver testimony, but I would like for provision to be made that I testify in camera and that is why I'm making this request to the committee.

CHAIRPERSON: You mentioned the name of Mr Roodts, who is he?

MR VISSER: Mr Roodt is also a person who has applied for amnesty. I do not have his relevant information, but my legal representative's advice to him was to apply for amnesty as well and his application is also being heard currently in Cape Town.

MR BIZOS: Is he connected in any way with the troubles that you had?

MR VISSER: Yes, at that stage he was in command of the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging in the West Rand, he was one of the leaders there.

CHAIRPERSON: And the case that you talk about, when did that case commence?

MR VISSER: I can't hear.

CHAIRPERSON: The case against you, you were talking about the case in which you're involved, when did that commence?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, it began in April 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: When did it end?

MR VISSER: It ended last year in October, on the 28th of October.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you indicate this to the people who asked you to give evidence or who've enquired from you whether you're prepared to give evidence, that you've received threats?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that on the occasion when you were here with your Advocate Kriel?

MR VISSER: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And when were these threats made for the first time?

MR VISSER: The first time was on the Sunday after we had handed in our applications in Johannesburg.

CHAIRPERSON: What month are you talking about?

MR VISSER: April 1996.

CHAIRPERSON: And when next was a certain threat made.

MR VISSER: The next one was when the first hearing took place in Pretoria, that was in, I'm not sure of the dates, but I think it was last year, October. And after that in December again and now once again.

CHAIRPERSON: I have difficulty understanding why such a threat was made to you in April 1996?

MR VISSER: Chairperson ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: That was at the time when you had lodged an application for amnesty? 

MR VISSER: Yes. The point that I wish to make is that my amnesty application, well according to the law it is confidential, it's clearly stipulated in the law that it is confidential ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand that.

MR VISSER: ...and it fell into the hands of those who were not authorised access to it the day after these documents had been served in the TRC's offices.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions you wish to put? Perhaps I'm moving a little bit ahead, but Mr Bizos, am I right in thinking that the witness is coming at your instance?

MR BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman. Perhaps I should place the following on record, that our information in relation to this witness comes from the commission drawing our attention to Exhibit Q before you, which is his application for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'll have a look at it, but I was trying to, you know, to be able to assess, well to decide the application one must, of course, know what the relevance, possible relevance of his evidence is, how important it is before, and then one can weigh it against possible harm to himself and so on and so forth. What I wanted to know was, the thrust of his evidence, what is the core of his evidence.

MR BIZOS: It appears on page 7 of his application for amnesty, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit Q. My exhibits are so "deurmekaar". Sorry, is there a particular page that you ...(intervention).

MR BIZOS: 7.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 7.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR BIZOS: It's only the one page and one sentence of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BIZOS: The effect of it is, Mr Chairman ...(intervention).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR BIZOS: ...if what the witness says on page 7, is amplified whilst in consultation, it tends to show that Mr Clark, who was held out to be nothing more than a person who was interested in Mrs Derby-Lewis's computer, was involved in unlawful activities, particularly stealing large sums of money and it was suggested by Mr Clark that a portion of that money that was stolen from the JCI should be used for Mr Derby-Lewis's defence.

CHAIRPERSON: Suggested by who?

MR BIZOS: By Mr Clark. Now, in further consultation with the witness, further information has been made known to us about the relationship between Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis and Mr Clark. We would contend that if the evidence is true, then Mr Clark is most likely to have known about the plans, Mr Chairman, and we may say that Mrs Derby-Lewis' statement, sorry diary, is punctuated with Mr Clark's name at or about the time that the murder took place, and this is the basis upon which we thought the evidence relevant and it might carry the matter further.

CHAIRPERSON: In that case, Mr Bizos, is the primary source of information not Mr Clark, assuming that we are going to have Mr Clark, I was told this morning, we were told this morning that we are likely to have Mr Clark as a witness? Now looking at page 7, it would seem that the primary source of the information that you seek would be Mr Clark himself, and ...(intervention).

MR BIZOS: Well, with one ...(intervention).

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MR BIZOS: With one difficulty, judge, and that is this, that we have reason to believe that the friendship between Mr Clark and Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis continues, and we do have no reason to believe that we will get any information from Mr Clark. What we would like to put to Mr Clark is what we have been told by Mr Visser. If that evidence is not placed on record, then it's theoretically possible to put it to Mr Clark first. If we are correct in our assessment that he's likely to deny the allegations, then we would have to, or ask the committee to call Mr Visser in order to confirm the things that we have to put to Mr Clark, and this is why we thought that the order would be then more appropriate to have Mr Visser's evidence and then put whatever he may have said to Mr Clark.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, you see that's the point I was trying to grapple with, because, well one must bear in mind that Mr Visser is first, I mean he's also an applicant himself, he's applying for amnesty. If we have to hear his evidence, we'll hear it, but normally we're not very keen to hear somebody who is himself an applicant in the case, if that can be avoided, but I'm not saying that that would be one of the reasons why he shouldn't, but what I'm saying is, you want to have Mr Visser now on the premise that, well...(tape ends)

...to shelve Mr Visser, I'm just thinking aloud, if we were to shelve Mr Visser and then call Mr Clark, and then possibly Mr Clark does not deny these things, where perhaps you think he may, you may find no need to call Mr Visser.