GEORGE BIZOS
Yes Dr Verwoerd was but not at the instance of a 
political party, by a madman.  The two applicants do not contend 
that they were mad. I can think of no assassination of a political 
leader in the country at the instance of another political party Mr 
Chairman, but it may be that I had missed something along the 
way, I don't think I have.
	We then go on Mr Chairman on 4.5, the applicants can not 
rely on any implied authority or perception that violence and 
more particularly a high ranking political leader, was one of the 
means of struggle in view of the standing within the CP of the 
second applicant and the close association between the two 
applicants who are clearly on their evidence co-conspirators 
rather than inciter and incite.  
	Now again Mr Chairman, where did they get this authority 
from, we have and particularly on the section of the argument 
that is going to be dealt with by my learned colleague, Mr 
Malindi, we will give the Committee the references Mr Chairman 
where this is documented, we believe that there can be no real 
answer to the evidence that came to Dr Hartzenberg himself, from 
the other leaders of the Conservative Party and we will submit Mr 
Chairman in so far as credibility is concerned that Dr 
Hartzenberg's responses in relation to violence to Mr Venter, is 
what the Committee should accept as the truth and not the 
pathetic figure that Mr Hartzenberg cut when he gave evidence 
before the Committee trying to explain this.  
	Let me just say briefly Mr Chairman that for him to have 
said that -
 "I as the deputy leader said a few days after the 
murder that we were the people with the moral high 
ground, we did not use violence, nor assassination..."
to come here and try and excuse it on the basis that political 
leaders would not come out with it openly, is a pathetic attempt 
by a discredited politician to help one of his fellow party members 
of a discredited political party out of the difficulty in getting 
amnesty.  
	And what we submit in 4.6 Mr Chairman or 4.5, we will 
refer to the passages and there isn't only one, such passage, but 
particularly one of the  passages in answer to the committee 
member Advocate Potgieter which makes it quite clear on the 
evidence of both of them that they were co-conspirators planning 
this together and there was no element of inciter and incitee. 
	We draw attention Mr Chairman that the word order was 
introduced into Mr Derby-Lewis' vocabulary after the Max du 
Preez show was shown to him where Mr du Preez offered some 
legal advice which he took with both hands, not legal advice - 
offered the possibility that Walus may have an additional defence, 
that it was taken with both hands and Counsel for the applicants 
used the word order intermittently in the heads of argument 
without having regard to the evidence that there was this co-
conspiratorial relationship rather than the one of inciter and 
incitee.  
	And we say in 4.6 that there are no reasonable grounds 
upon which the applicants can claim that they believed themselves 
to be acting in the course and scope of their duties, and within 
the scope of their express or implied authority, we will rely 
heavily upon the position of Mr Derby-Lewis' in the Conservative 
Party and if Mr Walus was a co-conspirator and not an incitee 
then it would follow in his case as well.
	But there is an overwhelming probability that people as 
close to one another as this, and we submit that Mr Walus would 
not have given the Committee an impression that he's a weakling 
or a yes-man to anybody's will.  He bragged about his prowess in 
the statement recorded by Mr Deetliefs and Mr Beetge and 
nothing in his demeanour or in his actions or his absence of any 
remorse on his part and the manner in which he dealt with himself 
in this court, that before this Committee, thus could not have 
given the impression that he's a weak person that was mislead by 
Mr Derby-Lewis.