UNKNOWN
That's correct Mr Chairman.  Just a moment 
please.  If you take into consideration that Mrs Derby-Lewis, 
initially during her incarceration while she was questioned by 
Deetliefs before she was under Section 29 but she did not have 
legal representation, under each question she said
		"No answer, no comment."
after that she was under Section 29 and van Niekerk said
		"She had to talk."
	Mr Chairman, then I want to submit that these statements of 
hers do not have any value for the Committee to use it against the 
applicant because they were taken under those circumstances.  
With respect Mr Chairman, this Committee is aware of what 
Section 29 entailed.  Today there is evidence of how people were 
handled to get the necessary information.  Today it's not a law 
anymore and today it could even be claimed to be 
unconstitutional.  
	There was an instance, I don't have the Judgment, where in 
a Civil Case they wanted to present a statement in a case of a 
witness being held under Section 29 and it was argued that that 
Section was unconstitutional and it could not be relied on because 
of that.  This also makes sense in this regard.
	Mr Chairman, if you look at the statement taken or made by 
Mr Derby-Lewis and under the circumstances - firstly on the 
video recording, I think it's video recording number 3, it is 
clearly indicated how Mr Derby-Lewis begged Mr Deetliefs that 
he needed a legal representative and he said he could not make a 
statement under those circumstances.  You could see on that 
video recording, it speaks for itself how he acted under those 
circumstances and Mr Derby-Lewis afterwards, how he was 
broken down and then he made a statement.  
	What is the value then of a statement made under those 
circumstances and furthermore where he is told
		"We are going to lock up your wife."
He said he was protecting his wife and that was just natural, 
while he knew that that list which was used was a list presented 
to his wife by Arthur Kemp.  That was a list from him to her and 
that had a certain connection with his wife.  With respect, it was 
just a natural thing to protect his wife.
	In his evidence he told us how he obtained the list.  He said 
he saw the list in Cape Town, he described the circumstances.  
Doctor Hartzenberg supports the fact that documents were placed 
on his desk by Mrs Derby-Lewis, he supports her evidence.  There 
is no reason why Doctor Hartzenberg would tell a lie about 
something like that.
	And shortly Mr Chairman without using anymore of your 
time, these statements have little if no value at all, these 
statements which were taken under Section 29.  And the 
Committee should rely on the evidence provided by Mrs Derby-
Lewis in this regard. 
	Mr Chairman, the evidence regarding the list.  We 
understand from the family that it is alleged that there was a big 
conspiracy, that apart from these two applicants it's also alleged 
that Mrs Derby-Lewis - and also regarding the way in which the 
firearm was obtained - I've already referred to du Randt and Mrs 
Venter, Mr Venter's evidence was that Mr Derby-Lewis asked for 
a weapon for stockpiling. 
	With respect, under the circumstances there is no evidence 
to the contrary and why would he tell Mr Venter that he was 
going to murder somebody with that weapon and then broaden a 
conspiracy which would have been unprofessional to do, to 
commit such a deed.  
	The same applies for Mr du Randt.  And it seems from his 
statement made to the police, that he is innocent.  Mr Derby-
Lewis could not tell him anything, he was in custody.  He could 
not tell Venter because he was in custody.  Mr Venter acted on 
his own behalf.  
	Regarding Mr Kemp, during the trial and receiving further 
particulars the State said that Mr Kemp was not a co-conspirator. 
 In the Court Judge Eloff also treated him likewise.  Mr 
Chairman, this list with 19 names was faxed to Mr Kemp from 
Mrs Derby-Lewis, it was an open fax line.  At that time, and it's 
no secret, telephones were tapped and faxes were intercepted so 
somebody would have been stupid, if it was a secret, to convey it 
in such a manner.
	She leaves those 19 names on her computer and the police 
had access to that computer.  She knew then that on the 12th of 
April that list would become involved and that would be damning 
evidence.  If she - why would she then leave that list on the 
computer, Mr Walus had already been arrested and there was a lot 
of fuss in the media?
	Honourable Chairman, Mrs Derby-Lewis was found innocent 
during the trial, why would she now here, she has no reason now 
to come and say "I was not a co-conspirator", there's nothing for 
her to lose.  If she comes here and says she was a co-conspirator 
she could have made an amnesty application, she knew her 
husband was applying for amnesty for perjury or anything like 
that.  She does not apply for amnesty because she believes she 
was not a co-conspirator.  
	If you look at these statements written by the police, they 
want to involve her, those parts which were put in.   And in the 
end it looks as if for the police that later on she could have heard 
about these things but she did not know it in the planning stages 
while planning an assassination.
	With respect Mr Chairman, Arthur Kemp was the author of 
this list, he is the person who decided about this list.  That was 
his evidence in the Supreme Court,  he compiled this list, she had 
no control over that.  And right from the beginning she said she 
required that list in order to obtain information to write certain 
things in the Patriot and a lot has been said about that.
	With respect, look at the list itself.  Should it be a murder 
list one would have expected that there would have been full 
particulars.  For example regarding Mr Chris Hani, all you find 
there is an address that says nothing, it's insignificant.  It can't be 
regarded as a murder list.  ...[intervention]