MR BRINK: Yes Mr Chairman.

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

MR MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Please do so.

CLIVE DERBY LEWIS: (s.u.a.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE: Thank you.

Mr Derby-Lewis I am going to take you back to your evidence-in-chief, just towards the beginning of your evidence on the 12th of August.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: And I'll quote to you what you said. You testified you said that,

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: I want you to explain to this Committee what you mean there by when you say "he was a military target".

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman out of his various involvement, his involvement as a soldier, as a member of Umkhonto weSizwe, as a senior member of Umkhonto weSizwe he would obviously be a military target as well as a political target.

MR MPSHE: Are you suggesting by saying "military target" that you have within your knowledge information that he was being targeted by other people other than yourselves?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I recall hearing on a TV programme which I watched while I was in prison where they had a summary of the late Mr Chris Hani and they mentioned that he had been targeted, if I remember correctly, the dates were 1980 by the SAP, 1982 by the SANDF and then there had been another unknown, an attempt of unknown origin on him I believe it was in August 1992.

MR MPSHE: Now further on in your evidence again you refer to Hani and you say Hani was trying to get rid of Nelson Mandela. I refer here to Operation Vula, you recall that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: This included certain members of the ANC leadership. Now I don't understand that statement when you say he wanted to assassinate Nelson Mandela and this included certain members of the ANC as meaning that other members within the ANC camp wanted to assassinate Mandela, or that Hani wanted to assassinate Mandela and other members?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, that in terms of Operation Vula President Mandela and other senior members of the ANC were targeted for elimination.

MR MPSHE: Could you mention their names?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't - I can give you a copy of the newspaper report ...(intervention)

MR MPSHE: Is it per hit-list that was handed in?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No it's per a newspaper report in the Rapport Newspaper which was talking about the exposé of a secret document which, I am not sure who had discovered it, I mean the details are in the clipping, but I believe it was either Military Intelligence or somebody like that had disclosed the details of this plot.

MR MPSHE: Now let's turn over to your application, that is Bundle A Mr Chairman, I am moving to page 17 thereof, page 17 paragraph 3 thereof under 9A(I).

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: I will quote it for you. You say -

Now my question is how long did it take you to plan the execution?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: We targeted, as I testified Mr Chairman, we targeted the late Mr Hani in February and he was executed in April. So it's approximately two months.

MR MPSHE: It's approximately two months.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR MPSHE: Now if it had taken you so long, two months to plan the assassination why did you now decide to delay what you had planned for two months?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I had testified previously it was still for me, in my very being, something which was very difficult to carry out although I had already made the decision. It wasn't easy.

MR MPSHE: Ja, I am interested in that which made it not easy for you, what are those things that motivated you to decide about the delay that made you not to accept it readily?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman, as I mentioned in my testimony I had had this dream which forebode, in fact in the process of the dream I saw myself being imprisoned, being cashiered as an officer and being imprisoned, and I thought that that had some sort-of connection to what we were planning to do.

MR MPSHE: And I want to believe, if I am right, that that particular dream made you realise that what you intend doing may be a wrong thing you want to do?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

MR MPSHE: And that caused the thought to delay, not so?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman even in war time it is not easy to kill somebody face-to-face.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is whether the dream caused you to delay the execution?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The dream caused me to want to think about it further Mr Chairman, yes.

MR MPSHE: Right. Which means then it has cast doubt on your plans and on your targeting of Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: It didn't do that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not really, because as I said when I heard that it had been done, and I heard that it had been performed by Walus I fully associated myself with that, with he deed.

MR MPSHE: Can't we again further say that the delay was caused perhaps by your conscience not agreeing with your intentions?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, I just wanted time to further consider the whole aspect of assassination.

MR MPSHE: Despite the two months, the obtaining of a firearm from Venter, obtaining of the silencer, travelling with the firearm from Krugersdorp to Cape Town, you still were not satisfied whether what you were doing is to be done?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I must repeat what I have already testified and that is that as far as the execution of the deed was concerned it was Walus' prerogative to decide the detail and when to do it.

MR MPSHE: Yes but Walus was in your hands, not so?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not really Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: You provided him with the gun, you told him who the target was.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR MPSHE: And if you wanted to stop this you could have stopped - told him that wait a bit I still have to think about this.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But I didn't do that Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Despite the intention to ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Despite my doubts I didn't do that. I ...(intervention)

MR MPSHE: I will tell you why you doubted, you doubted because you knew what you intended doing was not the right thing to be done.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No what I said Mr Chairman is that it wasn't an easy thing to do.

MS KHAMPEPE: Sorry Mr Mpshe, may I interpose. Mr Derby-Lewis, what I don't understand is why you didn't tell Mr Walus about the decision to delay?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well as I testified Mr Chairman I was responsible for supplying him with subsonic ammunition and I wasn't able to obtain the subsonic ammunition, so that in itself served to delay, I believed, I was not aware of the fact that Mr Walus had a 9mm pistol. When I saw him with a pistol which he used to carry on his ankle it was a much smaller calibre pistol and I didn't know he had a 9mm until I actually read in the newspaper that he'd gone and purchased his own 9mm ammunition, using his own licensed weapon as the justification or the access to that ammunition.

MS KHAMPEPE: But I still do not understand why you simply did not tell him that you had decided to delay the decision to assassinate Mr Hani or that you were now ambivalent to proceed with the assassination.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No I wasn't really ambivalent Mr Chairman, I was just giving myself time to consider something which was not easy to perform. We had made the decision.

MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Mpshe.

MR MPSHE: Thank you. Let's turn to page 18.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Line 12 of that long paragraph, line 12 starting with,

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

then you write in capital letters.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: I fail to understand this, where you say,

I think at this time when you did the planning and the assassination, the democratic process was taking place, negotiations were taking place.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, not as far as the CP was concerned. The CP had already CODESA because CODESA was talking about sharing power and the CP is very clear in its attitude in that regard. The CP says if you share power you lose power. When I referred to the democratic process here Mr Chairman there is only one democratic process available to unseat an illegitimate regime and that is to vote them out at the polls, and when the National Party under Mr de Klerk stopped Parliamentary by-elections it was then clear that it was no longer possible to unseat them out of the parliamentary control because how would we ever get a majority in Parliament without by-elections.

MR MPSHE: Yes Mr Derby-Lewis but it doesn't mean that the CP was excluded from the whole negotiations, you could have still been in there and you were actually in there as a member of an opposition that was formed by the rightwingers, and you the CP withdrew.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman the CP is very clearly on record that they would not participate in CODESA because of what CODESA was all about. The CP also objected to the fact, Mr Chairman, that in spite of the fact that the National Party regime at the time knew that they were not acting on a mandate from the majority of the people who supposedly elected them to power proceeded with that, and I mean we have already repeated and we have tendered evidence to the effect that even Mr de Klerk himself admitted that he was not acting in terms of the mandate he received.

MR MPSHE: At that time was the CP not a party or a member to the Volksfront that was formed by Constand Viljoen when negotiations were taking place?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman General Constand Viljoen, with all due respect, only joined the rightwing action after the assassination of the late Mr Chris Hani. He wasn't involved before that.

MR MPSHE: I see. But I am going to refer you to AC1.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: On the basis of what you said that he joined in later you may answer my question differently, but I still want to refer you to it.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Please Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman AC1 is given to Committee members, it is a one page thing which I gave the secretaries to give to Committee members. All parties do have a copy. It is an extract from the Vryheidsfront as delivered, as a submission by Constand Viljoen representing Vryheidsfront to the Truth Commission.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I assumed as much Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: On the 6th February 1997. And I want to refer you to paragraph C thereof and tell me if what he says there was applicable then to yourself, that is the CP.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Shall I read it Mr Chairman?

MR MPSHE: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The paragraph C starts off as follows Mr Chairman-

and it goes on to say - must I read the following paragraph as well?

MR MPSHE: No, no just the paragraph ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I would actually like to read the following paragraph ...(intervention)

MR MPSHE: Okay do so.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because I think it's important.

MR MPSHE: Do so.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: -

I wish to remind the Committee Mr Chairman that the assassination of the late Mr Chris Hani took place on the 10th of April 1993 and the establishment of the Volksfront, as I have already testified, and this Directorate of Generals only took place after the assassination of the late Mr Chris Hani.

MR MPSHE: Yes Mr Derby-Lewis, be it as it may, the paragraph that you have read about secret negotiations is that not an indication that even before the assassination of Chris Hani there was still room for negotiations and that it was even done by your own leader, Hartzenberg?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman that was after the assassination of Mr Hani.

MR MPSHE: Yes, what I am saying is that this is an indication that even before that it still could have been done, it could be done even after the assassination. So there was still room open for a democratic process for the CP.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I have testified the whole concept of the Volksfront and the Directorate of Generals was initiated as a result of what we expected the reaction would be after the assassination of the late Mr Chris Hani. So in fact this is testimony to - it actually confirms what we anticipated would happen, that there would be chaos, there would be a lot of uncertainty, there would be a gap, it would bring Afrikaner leaders together, which it did, the Generals and everyone came to this Volksfront and in fact they even went so far Mr Chairman as to elect a Volksraad which had representation like Mr Terreblanche and General Viljoen and Dr Hartzenberg and many others from the right serving as members of that Volksraad. But as I say this action, this total action here, secret talks, the Volksfront and so on, only - it followed only as a result of what had happened. At that stage there was no talk and I can assure you Mr Chairman there was no intention of the Conservative Party, to my knowledge, ever discussed in the caucus that we were entertaining the possibility of secret talks with the ANC.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis you are making a very sweeping statement to say that what the Directorate did was - their decision to go for example and see Mr Mandela was as a result of the killing of Mr Hani, it's a very sweeping statement.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No what I am saying Mr Chairman is that - I am not ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry were you part of the Directorate?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No I am not saying that the secret discussions, the decision about the secret discussions was initiated by us. What I am saying is that the coming together of Afrikaner leaders which led then to the formation of the Volksfront, and which then led further to secret talks with the ANC, which was an indirect follow-up, the most important point that I am trying to make Mr Chairman is that the Volksfront, which was a coming-together of Afrikaner leaders, or leaders on the right, only took place after the assassination of Mr Hani, and I believe it was as a direct result of the assassination of Mr Hani.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What do you mean by saying, "only took place after the assassination", are you implying that it was as a result of the assassination?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am saying it was one of the effects.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Or are you only referring to a sequence of events?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No I am actually saying it was, I see it as a direct result of the assassination.

JUDGE NGOEPE: But is - look at the first opening sentence there,

etc, etc. That decision was as a result of the fact that, or the fact of strategic thinking flowing from the negotiation process, not flowing from the killing of Mr Hani.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That may be Mr Chairman, but the formation of the Directorate was as a result of the killing of Mr Hani.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well is that in fact the case or is that you are thinking?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is the factual situation Mr Chairman. There was no talk of this before the assassination of Mr Hani.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Was there no Directorate of - what do you call that - of Generals before the killing of Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Why do you say it was as a result of that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman there is no other explanation for the formation of that Directorate. Because you see Mr Chairman when we finalised the whole mobilisation process the CP actually approached a retired General, General Bischoff to come in as the chief operator, to coordinate this mobilisation process, but he was the only general besides General Visser of the Police who was already a CP candidate and so on.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis we are entitled to know whether you are feeding us with your own opinion, which you are entitled to do, or you are giving us facts.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Is it your view that the Directorate was formed as a result of the killing of Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is your personal view?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is my personal view, yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can - sorry Mr Chairman, I am prepared to bring evidence that it is a fact as well, besides being my view. I am sure Mr Chairman that newspaper reports will confirm that and even the minutes of meetings held by the CP will confirm that.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I take your point.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Okay.

MR MPSHE: Mr Derby-Lewis, page 22.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: First paragraph on the ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: First paragraph from line no.5. I am not going to read this, you have said this many a times during your opening address and your evidence-in-chief that whatever you have done must be seen in the light of what the ANC and other liberation movements did.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Now I read from what you are saying here a tone of revenge ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr ...(intervention)

MR MPSHE: That you did this because the ANC and other liberation movements did the same thing, so you also had to do the same thing by killing Hani.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman that's not correct. What I was trying to do was to bring the whole act of the assassination of Mr Hani into its correct perspective. It was part of an existing war situation.

MR MPSHE: Is it not a justification by yourself as to why you did what you did?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, I don't see it as that. As I explained I am trying to bring it into perspective, the whole situation which reigned at the time, everyone was - because I know there was an outrage on the side of the supporters of Mr Hani for the deed, and I was just trying to point out that although I can understand the outrage there was also a lot of outrage over lots of deeds which occurred during the war situation.

MR MPSHE: Supposing I say to you, yes there was these disturbances, upheavals minus the killing of White women and children would you still justify the killing of Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It had nothing to do with the killing of White women and children specifically Mr Chairman, it was as a result of the war time climate which had been created, not only by the ANC but even by the National Party regime at the time.

MR MPSHE: Just turn to page 26.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: The first paragraph, line 3, I will read for you, or I will start from line 1.

Let us pause there a little bit. I know you've been questioned about this by my learned friend Advocate Bizos.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: As to the authority and the order by the Conservative Party, and you have said many a times that you were acting for and on behalf of the Conservative Party, but my question ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, and in support of.

MR MPSHE: And in support of.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR MPSHE: Now my question to you is, was this a directive of any form from the top echelon of the CP?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, I have made that clear because Mr Chairman I was part of the top echelon of the CP.

MR MPSHE: You were part of the top echelon of the CP?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: But if I recall well you did not discuss this with other top echelons of this, of the CP?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman. But I didn't see that I had to discuss it with them or even get their approval. I was in the top echelon and a decision like this, in view of what had preceded the action, I could take on my own.

MR MPSHE: But really if you are acting on behalf of and in support of and you were part of the top echelon wasn't it really necessary that you discuss this with the - with your colleagues in that forum?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As I testified Mr Chairman, I was concentrating on absolute confidentiality and security and Mr Walus and I had specifically decided that we would only involve the two of us, ourselves, only the two of us would know what was going on.

MR MPSHE: Are you saying this was the arrangement, the plan was confidential, you didn't want the other members of the CP to know about it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct, at that stage Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Why?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Although I intended informing them afterwards having seen how the plan progressed.

MR MPSHE: What made you not to want them to know this, did you suspect that they may stop you and say don't do this or it is not in keeping with the political climate?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was the furthest thought from my mind Mr Chairman. I was totally obsessed with confidentiality because I knew that we had been infiltrated and I didn't know who the infiltrators were. I had to be very careful, obviously in view of our decision to keep it confidential to the two of us.

MR MPSHE: Even from your very leader Hartzenberg?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct Mr Chairman, I couldn't - I had given Mr Walus the undertaking as well that it would be totally confidential and I couldn't break that undertaking either.

MR MPSHE: Do I have to accept that you do not even trust Hartzenberg?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman it's not a question of trusting Dr Hartzenberg, it was a question of total confidentiality. We had taken that decision as part of our discussion and I was not going to break that decision.

JUDGE WILSON: But if it was in the interests and on behalf of the CP why enter into total confidentiality with somebody who was not a member of the CP?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman the reason why I entered into confidentiality with Mr Walus was because the two of us were totally involved with it.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis why would you not discuss this with your leader? Your leader at that time was Dr Treurnicht.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Why didn't you discuss it with Dr Treurnicht? I think from the evidence that you have already led before us you have made it patently clear that you shared a very special relationship with your leader.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: In fact as I read the document that you ended up handing up to the Committee I became very envious of the relationship that you shared with your leader.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: And just to quote what you have said, you have stated that -

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr....

MS KHAMPEPE: -

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: Now why didn't you mention such an important decision that you were about to embark upon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman as I testified ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: Could you hear what was said there, because on my sound it was incredibly bad and someone was chipping in the whole time saying "not getting better, not getting better", could you hear Mr Derby-Lewis?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I heard, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman as I have previously testified I actually cleared he principle with Dr Treurnicht when I had the discussion regarding what is the duty of a Christian in terms of the struggle or the war against the Anti-Christ? I was always ever conscious Mr Chairman of not wanting to unnecessarily implicate anybody. I mean one always has to think in terms of the possibility that one will be arrested, that one will be caught because anything can happen, and as it turned out Mr Chairman it was a wise decision. But I could never have allowed myself to be put into the situation where I was cross-examined and then asked, "did you clear it with Dr Treurnicht?", and then I have to say "no" when in fact I did. But I cleared the principle very clearly of killing against the Anti-Christ Mr Chairman. In my mind I believed that that was sufficient.

MS KHAMPEPE: But I understand that you had cleared previously with your leader the principle of killing with regard to issues of Anti-Christ, but this is not the same principle, I think ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

MS KHAMPEPE: This involved the killing or the elimination of a leader of a political organisation.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman who was also the leader of the Communist Party which was the vehicle of the Anti-Christ.

MS KHAMPEPE: Well then if that is so Mr Derby-Lewis I want to understand you clearly, if you had previously cleared that principle what would have prevented you from going back to him, you had this special relationship, and simply seeking direction or confirmation of what you were about to embark upon?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As I have explained with regards other people Mr Chairman, we took a decision that only the two of us would be implicated so that if anything went wrong it would only be the two of us who would be caught and there was no way that I was going to expose my leader, with the respect that I had for him, both as a friend and as a colleague, to that risk.

MR MPSHE: Then Mr Derby-Lewis I don't understand you again now if you say you wanted only the two of you to be implicated and you didn't want to implicate your leader, then it means that you wanted to take this happening to be your happening together with (...indistinct) and not to be the happening of the CP, because if you don't want to involve the leader of the CP you simply say you are keeping the CP out of the whole thing.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I didn't want to involve the leader in the risk of the deeds for obvious reasons I think I have made clear now Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Let us continue on page 26.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Okay Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: We stopped after the word "Conservative Party". I will continue.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: How really Mr Derby-Lewis, did you envisage a change in the country's direction if you yourself stated it clearly that you wanted to cause confusion and mayhem, how did you envisage a direction within a mayhem?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, as I have stated here, we believed that these acts, in other words what we did would bring about a change in the country's direction. We were aware of the direction in which the country was moving, it was very clear to us and it was very clear to us that the National Party regime were already planning to abdicate power to the ANC/SACP alliance. That was very clear to us on the right although it seemed other people had difficulty identifying the threat. But that is why we did it Mr Chairman, to try and change the direction. And then it goes on further to say -

So if I wasn't acting on behalf of the Conservative Party Mr Chairman when they were criticising at every opportunity that direction, and if I wasn't acting in support of the Conservative Party then I fail to see what the whole purpose of the thing was.

MR MPSHE: But the actual person who, if I may use the word "angered" the right, as De Klerk at that time, as you referred to him, sometime in your evidence-in-chief that "he betrayed your nation" and he did things that he was not mandated to do, was he not supposed to have been the actual target in order to direct the country's - to change the country's direction?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

MR MPSHE: As the person who was causing all this.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman as I testified earlier, can anyone imagine a reaction which was generated by the late Mr Chris Hani's assassination coming in reaction to the assassination of Mr de Klerk? I wonder if it would even have reached the newspapers Mr Chairman, with respect.

MR MPSHE: If my understanding of what you are saying is correct, you are saying to us, to this Committee, that Chris Hani was a more important target than de Klerk who was the then President causing all the changes?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I repeat, Mr de Klerk was not worth the (...indistinct), he was not worth the (...indistinct), whereas Mr Hani was the key, he was the ideal target. There wasn't a better target as a result of his involvement.

JUDGE WILSON: Can I clarify this, was the purpose of saying or of choosing Mr Hani, who held these very high offices and was in high regard as a target to provoke the ANC and the SACP into retaliation...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: To provoke them into stopping negotiations?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, what we were trying to do was to provoke a general situation of conflict and chaos in the country and we knew that the only direction from which this chaos would be initiated would be from the radicals whose support we knew was totally behind the late Mr Chris Hani.

JUDGE WILSON: Well isn't that just what I put to you, you were seeking to provoke ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: ...chaos and mayhem from that section of the community.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct Mr Chairman, I didn't understand the question in the.....

JUDGE WILSON: And if there had been a certain amount of disturbance after Mr Hani's death, but it had not been the chaos and mayhem that you wanted would you have then continued with further assassinations?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As I testified earlier Mr Chairman that was the plan. If it didn't have the desired effect then we would have to find another target and that's why I repudiated that address list as a hit list because there were some ridiculous people on there who would never, ever have been considered in terms of a target which would us to achieve our ends.

JUDGE WILSON: Yes but there are one or two people who would have made very good targets and the others may well have been there, as has been suggested, to cover up the fact that this was a hit list.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I have testified previously that I had nothing to do with the preparation of that list. I had nothing to do with the final nine names that appeared on that list.

CHAIRPERSON: But I thought that it was part of your plan that some names, some innocuous names should be on the list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's not correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the idea then?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman that was one of the stories that I fed the interrogators during the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To mislead them, as I testified.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, but that was not the intention, this is what you told your interrogators?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I have testified here that I had nothing to do with drawing up that list so how could I have done that?

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Ma'am.

MS KHAMPEPE: Just to make a follow-up on what you stated as having been one of your objectives for assassinating Mr Hani, and that is to plunge the country in a political chaos, now I want to know what exactly, what kind of chaos did you envisage would take place with Mr Hani's assassination?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman we anticipated that there would be a certain degree of unrest and we were hoping that before it escalated to too enormous proportions that the action would generate the coming together of Afrikaner leaders and that they would come in to fill the vacuum. As I testified also, I didn't anticipate being arrested and I was going to go back at a suitable time to my leaders, to the caucus in fact, not my leaders, to the caucus, my colleagues which I shared membership in the caucus, to motivate them to do something, but I had to give it a bit of time to see whether the action had the desired effect.

JUDGE WILSON: As I understand it, and correct me here, what you hoped was that once there was unrest and chaos the military and police would feel they had to take action. If they were not being given a strong lead by the Nationalist Party, which you didn't think they would get, there would be an opening there for the rightwing to step in, to combine with the army, combine with the police to bring about peace and sound government, is that what you were aiming at?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is quite correct Mr Chairman, and we considered that there were large elements within the generals ranks and the senior ranks, the brigadiers and the colonels of both the SAP and the Defence Force who would have rallied rather to our side than to the side of the de Klerk regime.

CHAIRPERSON: So it now seems that there was a colossal miscalculation on your part?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As it turned out Mr Chairman, as a result of the events of Bophutatswana, that was the time when it started going wrong, but up until then it was apparently quite an accurate calculation Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now leaving aside whatever happened in Bophutatswana I can't see it being directly connected with the killing of Hani.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman that followed as a result of a uniting of the people on the right.

CHAIRPERSON: No I am talking about the chaos. I am saying that this was a colossal miscalculation on your part in that the chaos did not result.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman chaos did result.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, there full of reports, in R3 it contains numerous references thereto.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I understand, but is that what you really thought was chaos which would entitle, or which would afford your party or your group an opportunity to step in and take control?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly Mr Chairman, yes. As I testified earlier we weren't looking for massive deaths, numerous deaths and what have you, we were looking for a climate of uncertainty ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But then you had a climate of uncertainty in this country for quite a long time.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, but not the sort of climate which could motivate people into coming together and taking armed action Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not think that people within the ANC, the leadership of the ANC would go out of their way to ensure that the negotiation process is not derailed as a result of the killing of Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman we did not. We actually thought that they would react and would almost give tacit support to the radicals who were causing the chaos.

CHAIRPERSON: And is that where your miscalculation came about?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's where it came about Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The ANC stepped in and made sure that their appeal to the people to maintain calm is something which you didn't expect?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman, and that coupled to the fact that I was arrested so quickly and then unable to motivate my caucus colleagues was where the plan went awry as far as I was concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Derby-Lewis I have some difficulty in accepting what you are putting forward. Is it not correct that your miscalculation really was the fact that Walus was arrested so shortly after the offence was committed? ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was also, sorry ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was that not the real miscalculation?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was also part of it Mr Chairman, I should have said perhaps the arrest of both he and I was not anticipated.

CHAIRPERSON: Because if he had not been arrested it is more than likely that you saw that there wasn't the chaos you expected and therefore you would then proceed to the next person on the list.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Not on that list Mr Chairman, but we would sit back and we would reconsider the situation and decide who would be the next target.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It would more likely be a target of people whose houses had already been reconnoitred by Walus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: It would probably be, the target would probably be persons whose houses had already been reconnoitred by Walus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I was not aware of Mr Walus reconnoitring any residence other than Mr Hani's.

CHAIRPERSON: Are there names on this list that you think would have been the next persons to be attacked?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman. As I mentioned we would have to get the radical element mobilised.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't Joe Slovo, the killing of Joe Slovo be another act of attacking the Anti-Christ?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes but I don't believe it would have had the desired effect Mr Chairman and it wasn't targeting the Anti-Christ that was the whole crux of the issue.

CHAIRPERSON: No I mean the killing of Hani did not produce the kind of chaos, and of course Walus was arrested, had he not been arrested then it may well have been that the next person on the list would have been Joe Slovo?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman because he wouldn't qualify in terms of what we anticipated as the desired effect. We couldn't see people rising up to avenge the death of the late Mr Joe Slovo.

JUDGE WILSON: Wouldn't Mr Mandela have been the obvious target, the man who had stepped forward to preserve the peace, the man who had managed to quieten down his people, wasn't he the obvious person for you to remove?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman on the contrary because of that he wasn't ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: But he had prevented you achieving what you wanted to.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But our information Mr Chairman was that it was the radical elements within the ANC/SACP alliance who were opposing Mr Mandela. So for us to assassinate Mr Mandela would actually have been right in their kraal, as the Afrikaner says.

JUDGE WILSON: Why, they would then have been able to indulge in the violence they wanted to?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But they would have, at the same time, Mr Chairman, been rid of the man of peace?

JUDGE WILSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And then ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: And that's what you have told us you wanted. You have told, as I understand you, that you wanted chaos and mayhem so the generals, the colonels would rally around to your support to prevent it.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I am saying that we did not consider Mr Mandela as a target at that stage, but it's quite possible that with our discussions it may have turned out that Mr Mandela would then be a suitable target. But at that stage we only had one target in mind, and as I testified, Mr Hani.

JUDGE WILSON: No my friend Judge Mall was asking you what would have happened after this, if Mr Walus had not been arrested, that you would have then selected other targets and he's asking you who they would be.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes well let me then say Mr Chairman it is possible that Mr Mandela could have been a target as a result of our further discussions, but at that stage he was not a target.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe have you finished?

MR MPSHE: I've still got ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You carry on.

MR MPSHE: Thank you. Mr Derby-Lewis you agreed yesterday when you were told that you were referred to as a racist, do you remember that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: And certainly if people refer to you as a racist it means it is because of certain acts or behaviour on your part that you are labelled a racist, not so?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I see a racist as somebody who hates other people and I have never been found guilty or even proven to be hateful towards other people.

MR MPSHE: Yes but what I am saying is in order to be labelled a racist it means certain events had taken place, were made to take place by yourself to earn yourself the word racist, that's what I am saying.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman what my reply to that is, is that that aspect is the interpretation of people in the media, it is not necessarily the truth. I will give you one example Mr Chairman. To accuse me of making a racist statement by saying that African people are not as technologically as advanced as Western people I don't see that as a racist statement, I see that as a statement of fact, and I think we just have to look around us to receive confirmation of that Mr Chairman. But I think the problem, my problem was, as far as the media was concerned Mr Chairman, was that I didn't try and duck and dive when it came to identifying the existing and real differences amongst the various peoples and I didn't criticise the differences Mr Chairman. What I did was I went further even and I complemented for example a difference, and I saw as a difference between Western man and African man the fact that African man had a far greater loyalty and a love and a concern about his whole family structure as did Western man and I admired that Mr Chairman in the African people's.

MR MPSHE: Mr Derby-Lewis if you could just respond to my questioning then we'll have a lot of progress. My statement to you was simply if you are labelled a racist or whatever it is because of your track record, yes or no?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And I said Mr Chairman it is as a result of the perception of my track record by the media.

MR MPSHE: Alright. Let us see if you can explain some of the perceptions then that you mention ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To what document are you referring? ...(intervention)

MR MPSHE: ...by the media. I am going to refer you. Bundle R3, Section B page 6 thereof.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 6.

MR MPSHE: R3 Mr Chairman and members of the Committee.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 6 Mr Chairman?

MR MPSHE: Yes. It reads " A contentious person with a long list of racist remarks behind him", page 6, Section B.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman let me state that I have Section R3 and on my documentation here I've made a note that that statement was actually not included in this bundle when it was handed to us, so I don't know the contents.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Mpshe we don't have a page 6 in our bundle.

JUDGE WILSON: I have (...indistinct) 6.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's confirmation of what I've just said Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: In my bundle Mr Chairman, members of the Committee, given to us by George Bizos' team and they have it ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: I have not got it in my papers, I have got a blank page where 6 ought to be.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman may I state further that actually it's not only no.6 that's missing, it's no.5, no.6 and no.7 which I do not have and I am sure that applies to the bundle of the Committee as well. You've got 5?

JUDGE WILSON: We've got 5 but not 7.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry, sorry I have got 5 but I haven't got 6 and 7 and the same applies to the Committee. For some reason they've been excluded from our bundles.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I want to make use of this page, may I hand this page to the Chair and copies will be made thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: They become page no.6?

MR MPSHE: The page no.6 I am told the Committee members don't have page no.6.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we don't have them, but do carry on.

JUDGE WILSON: But nor does the witness Mr Mpshe.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No I don't have it either Mr Chairman so I can't react on it.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman with indulgence can I cause copies to be made quickly?

CHAIRPERSON: Read it to Mr Derby-Lewis unless it's a very lengthy document.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman it is lengthy.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's have copies made then.

MR MPSHE: Copies will be made. I will move to the next question, I will revert when the copies are provided.

Mr Derby-Lewis I want you to have a look at Bundle C from page 933. Bundle C consists of photos.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Bundle C of R3?

MR MPSHE: Bundle C of the AC Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Chairman it consists of photos from page 933.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MPSHE: At page 933 I want to have a look ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I haven't got that yet Mr Chairman, if I can just be granted an opportunity to obtain the document, it's apparently the court record Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: It's volume 12 of the court records.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: I think this is the third.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. Thank you Mr Chairman. Bundle C I have a copy of Bundle C before me Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Page 933.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Page 933, yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman and members of the Committee the showing of these pictures is not intended to provoke any emotions but just to lead him to what I want to ask Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I accept that Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Thank you. I want you to have a look at photos on page 933 up till 936, just look at them.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman I have examined them, 933 to 936.

MR MPSHE: Thank you. Mr Derby-Lewis you testified the other time that you compiled your own application, am I correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, before I had legal representation, that's correct Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: And that would mean that the questions were asked on the application you understood what they were actually seeking to achieve from yourself?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To the best of my knowledge, yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Good. And further that you had to have insight into our enabling Act, that is the Promotion of National Unity Act?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: You looked at that one as well?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

MR MPSHE: And you are acquainted with the provisions thereof?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: I am going to refer you particularly to Section 20 of the Act. I will read it for convenience. Section 20 subsection 3 paragraph F thereof. It is one of the guidelines. It is the last of the guidelines.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: I will read it for convenience.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

and then I am quoting that criteria, F.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

We stop there.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Having seen the photos in Bundle C would you regard yourself to have satisfied the provisions of paragraph F?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I believe that if there was one act that qualifies in terms of that section it was the assassination of Mr Chris Hani.

MR MPSHE: What about the proportionality thereof?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Exactly that Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: The manner in which it was being done.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman I don't ...(intervention)

JUDGE WILSON: That is not the proportionality test here, he was shot Mr Mpshe. The fact that the photographs you have referred to are singularly gory does not make it other than a shooting does it?

MR MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman it does not make it anything other than the shooting but it makes it a shooting that was done in a brutal manner, that is the point I am trying to make.

JUDGE WILSON: Why do you say it was done in a brutal manner as compared with other shootings? Are not all shootings brutal, whether you shoot a man in the head or the body which happens in almost all killings?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman that may be so and I take the point.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Mr Derby-Lewis, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee we now have copies of R3.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman if I may with respect say this is a copy which has been reduced in size from the original thing and it's very difficult to read. I am 61 years of age, as you see I wear glasses and it's really difficult to read this. I think other members may also have that problem. I don't know why it was reduced.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe there is just no doubt that some of us will find it very, very difficult, the print is very small.

MR MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman I am aware thereof, perhaps I will refer to it by means of question and check whether ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please put your questions ...(intervention)

MR MPSHE: ....the witness will recall what is contained therein.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I have no objection to that I just pray your indulgence if I take a bit of time to read this before I reply to the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's listen to the question first it may not be necessary to read it.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you.

MR MPSHE: Do you recall an instance wherein you were being reprimanded because you had said it was a pity that a Black man was not run down on the runway at the airport by the Zimbabwe lines, do you recall that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am aware of that report Mr Chairman, yes.

MR MPSHE: Do you recall further that you were referred to as the racist by a magistrate who actually said that you qualify to the meaning of a racist in the dictionary?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: You mean a National Party Cabinet Minister's statement Mr Chairman?

MR MPSHE: A magistrate, a Landros.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: A magistrate, yes I am aware of that Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: That appears quite clearly and in large print on B5, the page before the one you have referred to, R3, B5 there's a great deal of comment on this airport incident as there is in B4. We don't have to look at this tiny print.

MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman unfortunately I didn't look into B5 I went directly to this one but I will try to make use of what I have here by way of questions. I just ask for indulgence to read so that I could quote to him.

JUDGE WILSON: I think if you look Mr Mpshe the whole, almost all the B sections relates to this airport incident.

MR MPSHE: Yes Mr Chairman that may be so but page 6 I am referring to is not only the airport incident it is the airport incident, the incident where the magistrate made that remark and other incidents quoted wherein Mr Derby-Lewis has been quoted as a racist.

Mr Chairman it may be difficult to go through this type of print but Derby-Lewis has already agreed to two questions that I have put to him and the intention is to endorse him being a - the fact that he's been referred to as a racist and I will continue with my questioning.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman if I may just interrupt and say that I am at this stage confirming what you have stated in your question, but I expect to have an opportunity at the end of your question to motivate why this happened. And so if we can just take these instances slowly because there is a perfectly understandable explanation for each one of these so-called racist statements.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman with a bit of indulgence and it means we must go to each and every one of them because it is more than two in this article.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

MR MPSHE: There are more than two Mr Chairman, I will have to read them one-by-one.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Chairman. If one studies this whole question of "what a pity", under B, "racist remarks made by Clive Derby-Lewis", it must be apparent to the Committee that the first five statements all refer to exactly the same incident and are not five separate incidents.

As far as this other document is concerned, with the small print, it refers to other statements and I have perfectly legitimate explanations regarding these instances. For example Mr Chairman it is true that a magistrate declared me a racist at a trial, but it is also true that when the Appeal Court to which I went to get the decision reversed and they granted me absolution, the Court actually in their judgment stated that there was nothing in the testimony offered to support the magistrate's remarks. So I mean how can I accept Mr Chairman that I am a racist on the basis of a Broederbond magistrate, who served in the same Broederbond organisation as my opponent in Krugersdorp and who were in cahoots together to discredit me in the eyes of the electorate of the Krugersdorp constituency. And Mr Chairman this is supported by a publication which the National Party issued in 1989 as a result of manipulating of the date of the hearing to make the date of the hearing coincide with just before the September '89 elections and in their propaganda document, issued by the National Party regime and my opponent that was the whole crux, "Magistrate declares Clive a racist", and that cost me votes Mr Chairman and it was a blatant lie as far as the detail was concerned. So Mr Chairman I must be given an opportunity to defend myself against these allegations. It's not a simple matter of, is that statement on this - I think it is here, but it's not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. Mr Mpshe are you going to traverse the ground that Mr Bizos already raised in cross-examination on the issue of whether Mr Derby-Lewis is a racist or not, or are you raising fresh material?

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I am raising fresh material.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please do. Carry on.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman I will just refer to the other three incidents in the article. I will read for convenience, they are not so long and pause to get a comment from Mr Derby-Lewis for convenience of Committee members and those who can't read.

I will read Mr Derby-Lewis ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry Mr Chairman, can I just get this correct. The first incident was the airport and the second was the magistrate?

MR MPSHE: That's it.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: The third, the fourth and the fifth are coming.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Right, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: This is paragraph 7, I am just counting the paragraphs but I will read.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Now Mr Chairman I would like to respond to that immediately. That statement is not correct as it stands in this newspaper. What I acknowledged during the court case, because the magistrate wanted to know whether I ever communicated with Blacks, and in the process of the cross-examination I stated to him yes I had. In act I had spoken to more than 50 radical Blacks. And I can tell you Mr Chairman that I was speaking to people in the UDF when nobody else wanted anything to do with them including the National Party, because I was trying to find opportunities to put the CP's policy of separate development to as many people as possible. But Mr Chairman the context in which the 50 radicals and the toilet episode was concerned is totally out of context in terms of this report.

MR MPSHE: You have been misquoted?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have been, definitely. And I haven't been misquoted, this is not a quote of mine Mr Chairman, this is a report by a journalist stating what he says I said.

MR MPSHE: Alright, let us continue.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Is it not a racist remark again?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman let me repeat what has been read. I also, and I am going to say it in English,

is that racist? Or that's not the part you are talking about?

MR MPSHE: No.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: You are talking about the further part. And it is a fact that Black people like to have babies. Mr Chairman is that not a fact? Mr Chairman with respect I don't see anything wrong with that fact. In fact I would like to have many more babies.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Derby-Lewis admits that he makes that statement, but disagrees with you that it was a racist remark.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct.

MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well why didn't you add and say so yourself and say I too want to make children? The sting would have been taken out of the sentence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman we weren't talking about that, we were talking about my relationship with Blacks and I said earlier in that testimony that I admired the cultural difference of Blacks, between Blacks and Whites in that they were more family oriented ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis don't pretend that you don't see the sting in this thing. The sting in this thing, the suggestion in this is that as compared to Whites Blacks want to make babies ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now you are coming with a statement to try and introduce some ambiguity in this sentence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman the point I am trying to make is that to use the word "om babas te maak" as my quotation why didn't they put my full quotation in?

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is not what I am asking you about.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman you are saying Mr Chairman that this has a sting in it and I am saying that using that small portion of what I said may quite correctly, as you say, have a sting in it ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But Mr Chairman to understand in what context that was said it must have the full sentence ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: No we understand the context, we understand the context, you actually compare, you say there are differences between Whites and Blacks and then at the end thereof, in the context thereof, you say Blacks want to have babies.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman that's the point I am making, that second statement was not in the context of the first statement. It was probably even days apart, because I want to tell you Mr Chairman I sued Mr Wessels ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well that is not what you said to the question, you only bring that up when I tell you that you are introducing something, try to introduce some ambiguity in the sentence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman I am trying to refute this whole allegation that I am a racist with the use of selective quotations.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well that's a strange way of refuting evidence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman it's not there in the context in which it was said and I must mention to this Committee that in spite of the fact that I was the person who brought a damages claim against Mr Wessels, Mr Wessels had three teams of advocates present at the trial and they were allowed by the magistrate to cross-examine me for four days and before even allowing my advocate then to call witnesses in my defence Mr Chairman the magistrate stopped the case and he said "I find Derby-Lewis is a racist" and that's that.

MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis I must say I fail to understand what you are explaining. May I try and understand what you want to say to us.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Please Mr Chairman.

MS KHAMPEPE: In what context did you allude to the fact that Blacks like to have babies?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't remember Mr Chairman but it wasn't in the context of the cultural difference.

MS KHAMPEPE: If Mr Mpshe put his interpretation to what you stated therein how can you refute it if you can't remember in what context ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman in a case like this where it is quite obvious that they are not quoting my full sentence I expected the understanding of the Committee in terms of that this would be used out of the context in which I stated it. I don't remember the details, as I said, I was under cross-examination for four days in a case which I initiated. And in fairness I think that if the Committee wants to carry on with this then I must be given the opportunity to go back, to take the testimony which was offered in court and to produce the whole statement I made before I can be judged a racist on a portion of what I said. That is my point Mr Chairman, with respect.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well I did not hear you, I did not understand you as saying that you deny having said that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: What I am saying Mr Chairman is it's out of context ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: You are saying - you said the words were uttered in a context that you are today not able to remember.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman. But it's with - Mr Chairman I am not a racist, I do not hate Black people, I don't hate yellow people, I don't hate Greeks, I don't anybody, but I am very proud of the fact Mr Chairman that I am an Afrikaner and I love my people.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes we hear you thank you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MPSHE: The final question Mr Derby-Lewis then we will conclude. I will read again.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: With respect Mr Chairman it must be patently obvious that that whole statement is out of context with what I said. Nobody would make a statement in that context, certainly not I Mr Chairman. And I once again request that if this is accepted as the truth Mr Chairman that I then be permitted to obtain the court record of the evidence and then be allowed to submit that at a later date to the Committee, if it is considered as evidence that I am a racist because I deny that categorically.

MR MPSHE: Mr Derby-Lewis in conclusion then I want to put it to you that you killed Chris Hani not for the reasons that you have stated to this Committee but you killed him because you saw this Black man who has the potential of a leader and who is going to take up government. That is all Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I have already testified why Mr Hani was targeted and that is my testimony.

MR MPSHE: That concludes my questioning Mr Chairman. Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Derby-Lewis just to try and complete this catalogue of references to your apparent attitude. In volume R4, page 82, have you got that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Volume R4.

ADV POTGIETER: Page 82. It purports to be a profile sketch, it's a document in Afrikaans.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman I have it.

ADV POTGIETER: And this is a typed version of a handwritten document and this particular paragraph that I want to refer you to on page 82 is paragraph 3.7, that purports to be a typed version of paragraph 3.7 on page 75 of the handwritten document.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Have you got that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well I haven't got the handwritten document.

ADV POTGIETER: Won't you just page back to ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: This was not my handwritten document.

ADV POTGIETER: I assume that, yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, I just want to ask you about the content of that paragraph.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Of 3,7?

ADV POTGIETER: Yes. If you go to 75 you will see that 75 is the handwritten version of 3.7 on 82.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And in 3.7 on 82 there are some words which are left out and there seem to be some typographical errors which one can actually pick up from the handwritten version. But in effect what this says it purports to refer to the Sunday Star of the 18th of April 1993 and it seems to be a paraphrasing of what apparently appeared in that newspaper. And it say that, referring to yourself,

and then the word should be "verkondig", there's a typing error there,

The word left out where the "XX" indicate is CP Government. Have you got that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Have you got any comment on that one?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, may I first as a follow-up of what I requested after Mr Mpshe came with various statements, may I just draw the Committee's attention to the "What a pity" statement. And I want to draw specifically the attention of the Committee to a statement which I made in Parliament regarding the whole incident. Because as a result of the possible misinterpretation of what had been said and whether what had been said as a result of the National Party regime's political antics Mr Chairman, I requested the opportunity to present a statement of clarification and it reads as follows:

Oh no this was my original speech, sorry I won't - I will read the reference to my actual, where I made the statement in the speech and it will be clear that what I said after "What a pity" was drowned out by hysterical interjections on the part of the National Party regime and other people.

ADV POTGIETER: Has this got to do with this paragraph 3.7?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No it has to do with the whole concept of racism Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

ADV POTGIETER: Oh it's something else, okay.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I actually asked the Chairman to grant me the indulgence of explaining each of them because ...(intervention)

ADV POTGIETER: And you'll come back to 3.7?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I'll come back certainly ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can't you just deal with 3.7 please because we might just get - go off on a tangent again, just answer the question here please.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman may I then have your permission to answer the question and then explain the "What a pity" statement?

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's first see the answer.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. As I say Mr Chairman this is a report in the Sunday Star which I don't have, I don't have the full report but if I look at this then what I am doing here is categorically stating Conservative Party policy, not my own personal opinion. Because it was Conservative Party policy that, because of the cultural differences that people should be educated within their cultural context, and I think Mr Chairman that will also be confirmed if one looks at the whole aspect of the different universities. There was the University of Venda, there was the University of KwaZulu, the University of Fort Hare and so on, they were all in a cultural context. And what we were saying here, what is being said here is that it is CP policy that Whites go to a White university, that Vendas go to a Venda University, that Zulus go to a Zulu University and so on.

Then the next question Mr Chairman, it is quite clear also from CP policy, and remember Mr Chairman when I announced CP policy whilst I support it it's not my personal sentiment. I think I make that clear. It says further that,

That is Conservative Party policy Mr Chairman in terms of the citizenship regulations which will be enforced when a Conservative Party government rules its country, when it is the government of the country, and that's the policy. So as I say I haven't seen the statement but I was quoting official Conservative Party policy and nothing else.

Then Mr Chairman to go back to the "What a pity". I am just trying to find the reference to that Mr Chairman. Here is my explanation Mr Chairman and I will submit this document. It's on page 2040 of the Parliamentary Hansard dated Friday the 3rd of March 1989. That was the first opportunity that I could obtain to present a personal explanation to the House. It starts off, the Chairman of the House of Assembly,

already the hysteria was there once again.

And this is my explanation Mr Chairman.

implied, because I didn't say it,

that's the Minister of Transport, Mr Eli Louw, the one who made the statement also about my being a racist, from the honourable minister which I quoted in full Mr Chairman.

and you will notice on my original speech that it was (interjections).

and that is what I was trying to explain,

And I think you will agree with me Mr Chairman that for something like that to happen, and the ramifications that could have happened if that aircraft had, for some reason, gone out of control as a result of the collision and the passengers had been killed, an Air Zimbabwe aircraft in the racist apartheid South African territory it would have caused an international incident of which we aren't able even to speculate over the ramifications of that. That was the basis Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Derby-Lewis whilst I am busy can I just try and clarify some other issues that I am not quite sure about.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Certainly Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, sorry, can I interrupt my colleague here just to sum up this question. Perhaps in all fairness to the witness Mr Mpshe when you read that newspaper you stopped at a certain point but in all fairness to the witness perhaps you should also have read further on to say that,

I just thought that in fairness to the witness perhaps that portion, you stopped immediately before that portion and I think it is only fair that that should also be put in.

MR MPSHE: I take your point.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I wasn't aware of that because as I said it's difficult to read the document. Thank you.

ADV POTGIETER: Can I just deal with this Mr Derby-Lewis. You and Mr Walus started discussing what you viewed as the deteriorating situation in about September of 1992 is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, no, we had discussions over the deteriorating situation in South Africa from 1989 already.

ADV POTGIETER: Was there any change in the nature of your discussions around September 1992?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, because after that the referendum, that fraudulent exercise in futility had been held and it was then obvious to us that Mr de Klerk and his regime were acting totally dishonestly in terms of political approach.

ADV POTGIETER: That was about the time when you decided that you have to take some action?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman it was when everyone was discussing what action to take.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes I am just talking about yourself and Mr Walus.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No I said that we actually decided in the latter part of 1992 what action to take.

ADV POTGIETER: Right, then I understand you.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Now you were discussing with Mr Walus as a friend, correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: A like-minded person in terms of politics ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: A supporter, a supporter yes Mr Chairman, ja.

ADV POTGIETER: And in about February of 1993 between the two of you you jointly identified Mr Hani as the person to be assassinated is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No I didn't say that Mr Chairman. I said I identified Mr Hani as the target for assassination after his statement regarding the regaining the weaponry and arms and what have you which belonged to the ANC in Angola, and I couldn't - and I also mentioned I couldn't connect up this man of peace with a man wanting all of this weaponry in South Africa and for what purpose would he want it.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, well be that as it may.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: At some stage in February, if I understood your evidence correctly and perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong, in February of 1993 you and Mr Walus jointly agreed on that assassination?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: You were still talking as friends, not so?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: As colleagues, as co-supporters, ja, in every aspect, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And you were talking privately between the two of you?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman. At all times our discussions were privately between the two of us when we discussed matters which involved our personal approach. We had numerous, I had many discussions with many people from various organisations who used to come to my house and talk about what they thought should be done.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes. And then Mr Walus volunteered to execute your joint decision?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: He was not under any pressure to do that, not so?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well I mean no Mr Chairman, certainly not.

ADV POTGIETER: He volunteered.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes. The insinuation that I paid him to do it also is devoid from the truth.

ADV POTGIETER: In fact you said in answer to a question from Advocate Mpshe that you didn't really have any control over Mr Walus.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In terms of the execution that's correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: And of course ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Once we had decided on that target the execution was his.

ADV POTGIETER: And of course Mr Walus was not acting under an instruction, he had volunteered to execute a joint plan which the two of you as friends had decided upon.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I would think that he would even see it as an instruction because of my position in the Conservative Party Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: But why, why, why would he see that as an instruction, you are friends why would he see anything in the context of that discussion as an instruction?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because Mr Chairman, besides being friends he was aware of my position within the party ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I can't understand that you know, why should he be looking upon you for instructions when you have just said that he volunteered to do it of his own?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman he volunteered yes after we had decided on a target.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But I mean it was quite clear that once he volunteered that I was going to hold him to it. He was acting under my command if I can put it that way rather than acting under instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: No that's not what he meant you see. When you are going to hold him to it means you are going to insist on seeing that he carries out what he had volunteered to do.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Now when you decided jointly did you also decide that the execution is going to be by means of shooting?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman at that stage we hadn't discussed any of the detail, that was only at a subsequent discussion in March some time.

ADV POTGIETER: So you didn't discuss the means of executing your agreement?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman. No he obviously had to go and think about what he was going to do now and I believe he recced the Hani residence and then we started getting down to the finer detail.

ADV POTGIETER: But what did you have in mind and how was he going to effect the assassination, what means?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I don't know Mr Chairman I think that that is a question that perhaps the Committee can put to Mr Walus himself.

ADV POTGIETER: No, no, no, no ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I thought it was abundantly clear that you and he discussed that a weapon would be used, he asked you for a weapon and you undertook to give it to him?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That was in March Mr Chairman, not in February.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

ADV POTGIETER: But apart from that we will ask Mr Walus, hopefully he can explain, but I am asking you now, in your mind how did you think this assassination was going to be effected?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I didn't have an idea of really what he was going to do. He may have decided to do what was attempted with me Mr Chairman where somebody attempted to put plastic explosive on the front wheel of my motor car. That would have assassinated me just as quickly as a bullet. I think it would have blown me into pieces. So I mean, as I say that was his responsibility to decide in terms of the execution of the deed.

ADV POTGIETER: Very well. Now all this in February, are you with me?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: All this in February was prior to your discussion with Mr Faan Venter in regard to the firearm, correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No I said the firearm was not in February Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes the firearm was subsequent.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes. And that was subsequent to my discussion with Mr Venter.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: No, no, no, no, no, you misunderstand me, listen very carefully. In February you and Mr Walus had agreed, we know that now. As I understand it in March, that is subsequent to your agreement you had this discussion with Mr Venter in regard to the firearm?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes that's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: So in other words when you spoke with Mr Venter you knew that Mr Hani was going to be assassinated is that correct?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: And you then requested a firearm from Mr Venter?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: But Mr Chairman I didn't know I was going to see Mr Venter in March.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, be that as it may, you did then request a firearm from Mr Venter?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes as part of the accumulation of weaponry and for personal defence as I have already testified.

ADV POTGIETER: Why was it necessary for that firearm to be untraceable?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman from my own personal point of view and I've already testified to that extent that it had to be untraceable so that if the government decided to withdraw weapons they wouldn't know about that.

ADV POTGIETER: So that was the only reason?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Do you have a silencer for any one - well you said you had one other licensed firearm, a revolver?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Do you have a silencer for that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman it is not possible to fit a silencer to a revolving chamber because the whole objective of the silencer is to stop the sound, and with a revolving chamber the sound emanates from the chamber itself and not from the barrel.

ADV POTGIETER: One other thing the list that was referred to as the "gravy train list".

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: When did that come into the picture between yourself and Mr Walus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In February Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: In February.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: That's before you got the firearm?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct. There was no question of a firearm at that stage Mr Chairman. And I mean I knew Mr Walus had his own firearm.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you present the list to Mr Walus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I did, Mr Chairman, yes, correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And you also explained to us that there was some grading done on that list in terms of enmity towards the right or towards the CP ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: The degree of opposition towards our call, correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Why was it necessary to do that on that list?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman obviously we were looking at a target. We had decided on Hani. We decided then to list the whole lot in terms of priority so that we would have a code number which we could use to discuss the target to avoid our wives and girlfriends becoming aware of what we were planning, for security reasons.

ADV POTGIETER: So if you wanted to discuss anybody on the list you would simply refer to the number of that person?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: In the context of assassination?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: And if I understood you correctly there were no, on that list, there were no names which were to act as a decoy, as a sort of a - superfluous names?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman as I testified I had nothing to do with ...(intervention)

ADV POTGIETER: You had nothing to do with that?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you very much.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: This might be a convenient stage to take the adjournment. We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

CLIVE DERBY-LEWIS: (sworn states)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Mr Derby-Lewis if you could refer to that document AC1 which was given to you this morning.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: If I can just have a moment to locate it again Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The one-page document.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, AC1. Thank you Mr Chairman I have it in front of me, yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I left this point hanging with you because at the time I was really interrupting Mr Mpshe's questioning.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I understand your evidence to be that the Conservative Party had already pulled out of negotiations at the time of the killing of Mr Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No I didn't say that Mr Chairman, I said that the Conservative Party had rejected CODESA.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Ja they were not part of it.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And you said that the Directorate of Generals was formed after the killing of Chris Hani?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: This would not be in accord with what appears in paragraph C of AC1. Paragraph C reads,

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: This implies that a the time when the Conservative Party left the multi-party talks the Directorate of Generals was already in existence.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman, but I think I must clarify what I said. I said the Conservative Party was not in CODESA. I believe the multi-party talks they are referring to here were in terms of what they referred to as the Multi-party Forum which I mentioned in my statement which was functioning at the time of the late Chris Hani's death and of which the CP was part. There was CODESA and the Multi-party Forum. CODESA the CP rejected and this is talking about when the CP left the Multi-party Forum which I believe was some time in July of 1993 Mr Chairman, and that's what they are referring to here.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I see.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That it was a unilateral CP decision, it wasn't a decision of the Directorate.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I see. Alright, we will leave it at that point. You must understand I am just jumping around because I am just picking up points on which I need some clarity.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I understand.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The person to whom you gave that note which you wanted to be smuggled out of prison.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yesterday you were asked as to who that person was.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And you said that you could not remember that person.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Today are you still not able to remember it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I am not able to remember it Mr Chairman, and I can tell you Mr Chairman that when my wife brought me the envelope she didn't know where it came from either and she actually asked me during this visit where does this come from and she showed me the envelope and I took it out and that was in the envelope. And then I explained to her the circumstances. But I have no idea who took it out and I don't know how it got to my wife either because it wasn't supposed to get to her.

JUDGE NGOEPE: To your knowledge it never landed into the hands of the police?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: To the best of my knowledge, yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: This is in implicating document isn't it?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes I would say it is Mr Chairman, yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: It must have been somebody you trusted?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Probably yes, I agree with that Mr Chairman, yes it must have been someone I trusted.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well it's more than just probable. I mean if you didn't trust that person you would not have given that person the document.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sometimes Mr Chairman when one is in a difficult situation one has to take risks.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I would have thought you would have been cautious especially if the document was implicating you, if you are implicating yourself.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman if I look at the date on the document it could possibly have been my legal representative, and that could also be the reason why it never got out to the media because they then read it and saw the contents and said this is dynamite, we will hold onto it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Are you saying that if you had in fact given that document to your legal representatives you would not have been in a position to can so remember?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I am saying that because remember I was under Section 29 Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes I know that ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: And I was very concerned about things and I've actually forgotten in fact that I'd even drawn that up. If you look at the handwriting on that document also Mr Chairman you will see that that's not my normal handwriting.

JUDGE NGOEPE: What do you remember about this person? What is it that you remember about this person?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No when you asked the question now you have generated a thought process Mr Chairman ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Which leads me to believe that it could only have been my legal representative, particularly in terms of the question of trust and so on. And as I said that could also explain why it didn't get to the source, but I couldn't remember at the time who I had given it to. And even when my wife asked me in prison I couldn't remember.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well yesterday you could not even remember whether it could have been your legal representative.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman. You triggered off a reaction Mr Chairman when you said obviously it must have been someone you trusted and then I looked at the date and worked it out in terms of my initial detention in terms of Section 29 and the 30th of April was 10 days, roughly speaking, after that. And that was the time when they would consult with me regarding the application to oppose the Security Branch's application to detain me for a further ten days. I can't - Mr Chairman I think you can understand it's four and a half years ago I can't expect, I can't be expected to remember everything.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you. Now you told us that you thought that from even among the ranks of members of the police force and the defence force some of them might come onto your side and take advantage of the situation.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct Mr Chairman, I said that. That was my perception.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Had there been some kind of plan with them or some other people?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, no Mr Chairman I can't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: When you prepared - or when that document of mobilisation was prepared, were generals and top-ranking policemen not taken into account?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Only General Bischoff in his capacity as a paid employee of the Party was present Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now they wouldn't have known who would have killed Mr Hani would they?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: They wouldn't have known?

JUDGE NGOEPE: No.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman, not at that stage.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now on what basis would you just expect that in the absence of any previous planning with yourselves and other people, members of the police, the defence force would just get themselves in that kind of situation?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman I stated that they weren't aware of who had killed Mr Hani at the time. I don't believe that statement is correct and I shouldn't have answered you in the affirmative. I think everyone knew who was involved with the assassination of the late Chris Hani when the generals, the Directorate of Generals was initiated.

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, no....

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry is that - sorry I am misunderstanding the ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: At the time of the murder.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Or in fact in terms of your plan, you did not plan to go public as to who the murderers would be?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No, except I was going to go back to the caucus and tell them and then generate their support.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Only after the killing would you go to the caucus?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Correct, because I would have to first see Mr Chairman whether the planned objective was achieved.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And they could have rejected your suggestion?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: They could have Mr Chairman, but I don't believe that would have been very likely.

JUDGE NGOEPE: In which case the killing would have been in vain, particularly with regard to the objective that you sought to achieve?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In the unlikely event of them rejecting me, yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well to me this looks like this killing was just in vain. Nothing had been arranged in advance to make sure that things would fall into plan after the killing.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman my assessment of the situation in the country which prevailed at that time was taken into consideration when it was planned and I believed that it would have a natural result, a natural sequence of events without even having to precipitate it.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, but taking away the life of the kind of person that have described was it just enough to rely on your personal assessment? Didn't you have to make sure that things are planned so that you know the plan should materialise?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman, as I mentioned there was nothing personal in the assassination of the late Mr Chris Hani, but my assessment and I can assure you Mr Chairman that I gave this matter a lot of thought and I had many informal non-committal discussions with many, many people across a very broad spectrum and obviously Mr Chairman I took a calculated risk because I had no idea of really knowing whether what our objective was would have been achieved. But I had to take that calculated risk and as it turned out it was the correct decision. It had the desired effect.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well the police and the generals didn't join you did they?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: You mean talking about the people in the permanent army, no. But Mr Chairman that what did happen was a whole sequence of events, the Afrikaner Volksfront was formed, the Directorate of Generals was formed, why Mr Chairman would they form a Directorate of Generals if they weren't intending something? If the reports which I followed in the media are correct even General Viljoen, whom I believe has also applied for amnesty, made some very strong statements after that to the farmers, mobilising them to joint the struggle.

JUDGE NGOEPE: You may have to be careful not to impute certain things to other people.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I mentioned, when I mentioned it Mr Chairman that I am going according to reports which I read in the press.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And in the mayhem how would you have been able to keep, as you said, casualties to a minimum?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Well Mr Chairman obviously the quicker one gets the take-over accomplished and completed, and I believed that if the Generals saw that there was a determined effort by the united rightwing leaders to really cooperate together in terms of taking over control of the country I believe the generals would have come forward. They were just waiting for a lead from the politicians.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And there was no plan in advance?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: In terms of the generals, no Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: In terms of your plan as well.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Sir.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Now the letter which - I am talking about something else now, the letter which your wife wrote in which she said you had not been given the chance at a meeting which I believe was going to talk about or debate about the question of referendum.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Well on the face of it does it not express a complaint?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman in fact it expresses to me confirmation of what I believed and that is that there had been so much tension within the Conservative Party as a result of the decision to participate in the referendum and there had been a lot of dissenting opinions expressed from the floor including one expressed by my wife, that I think that the late Dr Treurnicht wanted to end that debate, and although I wasn't standing up to talk in connection with the referendum decision I had actually been asked by Dr Pieter Mulder to present his Information Committee report to the Congress, because I was also a member of that Information Committee and Dr Pieter Mulder was not able to be present. He thought, when I wanted to present that report I wanted to, after he had already made a decision to close the debate on the referendum participation that I wanted to overrule that and I think he was a bit irritated and I can understand his irritation Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I don't have a copy of that letter because I don't intend to ask you questions about it, but my recollection is that it opens by saying that Clive had not been given the chance ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: ...to present your information report.

JUDGE NGOEPE: And you say that's not an expression of complaint?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: It's certainly an expression of refusal to let me speak Mr Chairman, but in view of the circumstances it's not an expression of rebuttal or rejection of me.

JUDGE NGOEPE: The other thing is the statement, the speech which was made by I believe Dr Treurnicht in Krugersdorp.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: In that hall, Skilpad's Saal?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No it wasn't in a hall Mr Chairman, it was at the Paardekraal Monument itself.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Whatever yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Do you have a copy thereof?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Of the speech?

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman. In fact I intend making it available to the Committee, we just haven't had time to photocopy it because it's a large number of pages and in view of the timeframe which we had to prepare for today we were not able to ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: I see. Are you having it at hand now?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have, yes Mr Chairman, yes. I will actually make it available to the Committee ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Ja, can you just read the opening sentence thereof.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I have it here Mr Chairman. The opening sentence ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: It's the original Mr Chairman.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Sorry it's the original in Dr Treurnicht's handwriting with a little message on the top corner, "With Compliments - A P Treurnicht" and his personal signature. Now you wish me to read the first page Mr Chairman, or just the first statement?

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, no, I think the opening sentence, I tried to catch up with you when you read it but I couldn't, you said something like,

or something like it.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No Mr Chairman the opening statement reads as follows:

...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry I don't want to take you through that. If you are not able to get that sentence which says,

we can leave it.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No I can get it Mr Chairman but it's within the body of the speech, it wasn't the opening statement.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, yes, where may it be?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Is this the statement that you are referring to Mr Chairman, quote -

is that the statement Mr Chairman?

JUDGE NGOEPE: No that sentence says, "Die tyd het amper gekom". I think it was referring to ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes, yes okay, now I know exactly Mr Chairman. Just give me an opportunity to find it because I was actually quoting broadly from the speech because I was actually quoting from a newspaper report referring to this I believe when I made that statement. It was in fact out of the newspaper report, not out of the speech I believe Mr Chairman and it reads as follows:

Is that the statement Mr Chairman?

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is the statement but it doesn't get to the portion which I was referring to, but it doesn't matter you will make a copy for us later on.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: I can read the last paragraph because I think that that may be get to it.

But Mr Chairman I intend presenting the whole speech ...(intervention)

JUDGE NGOEPE: Yes, yes please do that.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Because the whole speech actually presents a complete, in my opinion, theological, philosophical, political motivation for what has happened.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Ja please.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I'd like to take you back to something else. When did you cease being a member of the President's Council?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: On the 30th of June 1993 Mr Chairman. But I believe that my membership of the Council was actually, in terms of some arrangement made by Parliament, it actually on ended on the 31st of December 1993 when I was in prison.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And can you remember when last you attended a meeting of the President's Council?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman it was the - I came home from a session of the President's Council on the weekend before the 6th of April.

CHAIRPERSON: And had you been attending meetings of the President's Council regularly?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Am I to understand that at some stage you had come to the conclusion that your people were at war with your enemies in South Africa?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And at that time you were still a member of the President's Council ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Attending its meetings.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you declare this war in the President's Council, did you notify the people in the President's Council that your people are at war and have declared war?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: No I didn't Mr Chairman. In fact I think it was a given that the country was at war, but the climate of war was permeating through our whole society.

CHAIRPERSON: No I wasn't thinking about the country at war because there were all kinds of people in the country, different factions ...(intervention)

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: .... in conflict. I am more concerned about your position.

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Yes correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So you continued to be a member of the President's Council taking part in all its decisions when you had already in your mind declared war?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: Mr Chairman I cannot remember supporting a single President's Council decision that was made while I was a member, and the reason why I was on the President's Council is because I had been appointed to the President's Council by the Conservative Party and there was no way that I could leave the President's Council.

CHAIRPERSON: No, my question was that in your heart and mind you had already declared war and yet you continued to be in the President's Council?

MR DERBY-LEWIS: That's correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Now wasn't that an anomalous position, unless you didn't think of this as