GEORGE BIZOS
Mr Chairman, I now want to turn to the question of the admissibility of the R4 statements.  The submissions are set out in full.  Their references to the statements and to the evidence that has been given and the responses of the witnesses that gave evidence and whose statements were put to them.
	The net result of it Mr Chairman is, that between Pages 50 and 68 of the Heads of Argument we set this out.  Counsel for the Applicants had these Heads of Argument from Wednesday morning, certainly their Attorney by Wednesday morning, they say that they got it on Thursday.  Be that as it may, we have heard no argument or submission in relation to the Law or the correctness of the fact that we have set out on these pages.
	Unless the members of the Committee have any questions to put to us in relation to this, I do not propose dealing with it on the basis that no issue has been joined on it and above all there was a ruling in relation to the admissibility when the matter was argued which we quote in the Heads of Argument for the convenience of the Committee and the effect of the ruling was that it's not a question of admissibility but a question of weight.
	Now, what we submit, that on the matters upon which we rely on these statements, there have been answers from Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis and Mr Walus to the effect, and the references are there, that they did not tell any, they were not forced to tell any untruths, either as a result of violence, threats or trickery.  On the contrary, most of the evidence relates to how sympathetic the police were to them, how, if they were bluffed, they say that they were bluffed, they said that they actually have sympathy for them and for the Afrikaner cause and that one of them at least had some contact with someone else and that he was an agent for an organisation.  But all that means nothing more than this, that if they did get their confidence it was because of how good they were to them.  There has been, and we deal with each one of the original complaints, which are negative by other evidence, for instance that the police who treated Mr Derby-Lewis, but he wrote a letter thanking them, how wonderful they are, they were and how wonderful they had treated them.
	Mrs Derby-Lewis expressing a desire that when she comes out and she would want to join the police on the basis that there would of course not be substantial changes.  Now, and Mr Walus, when asked, before the adjournment you will recall Mr Chairman, what was his real complaint about the conduct of the police and did they force him to make any of the statements, he said he never made any statements, they were just friendly chats that he had with the police.
	Well these friendly chats have been reduced into an Affidavit by Mr Deetliefs, they have been, tapes have been made available.  There were 21 of them, they have been in the possession of the legal representatives of the Applicant for a very long time.  You heard Mr Chairman the complaints, the complaints relate as to who mentioned Langenhoven and one or two other comparatively minor matters.
	There has been no attempt to dispel the suggestions coming from their own clients that they spoke the truth in their statements, that they did so because they trusted the police.  It is perhaps unfortunate from their point of view that the docket was made available to us in order to expose their lack of honesty and their full disclosure in this.  But that's no ground for excluding the evidence.
	Mr Chairman, we have not had an opportunity of viewing the snippets of the tapes that were mentioned by Counsel for the First Applicant.  We would like, we didn't want to ask for adjournments and to add to the troubles of the Committee and ourselves in relation to this Application.  We would like leave Mr Chairman, upon adjournment to view those three matters because it may be nothing more than what happened in relation to Mrs Derby-Lewis' statements, that they did not appear in the correct section of the tape but we found them somewhere else.  So we would like to do that.
	In relation to Mrs Derby-Lewis, the matter is much more strengthened in favour of our contention that her statements are admissible, that they were freely and voluntarily made and we ask the Committee to accept, unreservedly the evidence of Mr  De Waal who angrily denied any suggestion that he had  used any undue influence.  The evidence admitted by Mrs Derby-Lewis, that arrangements were made to get her own doctor in, every one of her requests was complied with, including going to get money for her son and clothes and magazines and everything else.
	We know that detention without trial, with a great amount of justification has a very bad name in this country and many of us spent the better part of their lives condemning it.  But the other factor to be taken into consideration is that by the time Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis were put under Section 29 of the Security Act, it was a completely sanitised Act, which provided for judicial intervention before, after the period of ten days in which, at a time when fundamental human rights were being promoted in the country by the large political parties and liberation movements and that it was a completely different atmosphere.
	The fact that they could not point to a single untruth, that they have told because of being held under interrogation.  Of course, sleep deprivation, lengthy interrogation are matters upon which Judges and those involved with the Human Rights culture cannot approve of or condone and the country has set it's face against that sort of practise.
	But, the treatment metered out to these three persons was salutary in the circumstances.  Having regard to what they were suspected of at the time, of committing an act which almost brought the country to the brink of war.
	In conclusion, on Page 68, Mr Chairman, is that, we submit that the version by Mr and Mrs Derby-Lewis in evidence is both contradictory and improbable in material respects and should not be accepted.  This is irrespective of the admissibility of their statements to the police.  Derby-Lewis who did not give evidence in his trial, perjured himself in an Application to re-open the trial to prove his innocence.  He relies on the support expressed to him when he was falsely holding out, that he was innocent and claimed that his arrest was a pretext to embarrass the Conservative Party.  Without any apology to anyone, he now admits that he lied in that Application and he was indeed guilty of the murder that he committed.
	His wife admits that she lied at the trial about how Walus obtained the list.  She says that she did it to protect her husband.  I don't have to remind you that she said it must have been taken by mistake with piles of Die Patriot on their coffee table.  If she was prepared to be deliberately untruthful on one of the main issues at the trial to protect her husband, why should she not lie to get him out of prison.
	The improbability that the list was compiled for journalistic purposes could not be sustained during cross examination.  She could not sustain the fanciful story in many respects.  The contradictions between the two Applicants that were serious and too near the main issue to be ignored as suggested by their Counsel.  
	The attempt to make out a case  of implied authority on the numerous articles and editorials in Die Patriot to which Mrs Derby-Lewis regularly contributed is a last ditch effort by those responsible for disseminating McCarthy-like propaganda, asking to be believed when they say they were influenced by that propaganda.
	Derby-Lewis reducing his role to a minimum, that he still wanted to think it over and Walus belatedly saying that he was ordered when elsewhere they state that they acted as co-conspirators makes their evidence suspect and not worthy of belief.  The criteria of their act are clear, they have not made full disclosure, they were not authorised, their object was to bring about a savage civil war of black against white for their poorly articulated purposes.  
	They were guided partly by religious bigotry, they make reference, the two of them and Mr Clark of Mr Hani being the anti Christ, hatred for blacks and democracy and in the case of Walus, hatred for Communism as a result of what happened in Poland, where he did nothing to put right but murdered in South Africa to cause chaos, to bring the right into power.
	The life of a charismatic leader was cut short Mr Chairman, we do not contend that his life was more precious than any unlettered peasant nor worker in a factory nor indeed any other human being, whatever his or her position in the community.  But as was pointed out by ...[inaudible] of JP in his Judgment on sentence, the accused performed an act of assassination on a person who had attained prominence in public affairs in South Africa, whose killing was likely to the knowledge of the accused, to cause far reaching, highly emotive reactions with very damaging serious consequences and extremely harmful effects for the entire society of South Africa.
	The accused was a mature person with experience in public affairs, who must have realised what widespread reactions would follow on the assassination.  We are here concerned with a case of assassination of a person prominent in public life by reason of the ideologies which he endorsed and because of the perception that his track record was unacceptable.  
	That sort of perception should be sought, I suppose Mr Chairman, might be entertained by thousands of people in this country for a variety of reasons, of many personages who have obtained prominence in public life.  If assassination of that sort is perceived to be an acceptable option in this country the consequences may well be disastrous, chaos, anarchy, widespread bloodshed and damage to property is likely to result.  The political consequences may also be fundamental.
	I have given careful thought to the experiences of the Accused No. 1 in relation to Communism and the perception of both the accused in the role of the deceased.  This factor may render the act of all accused understandable if it were not the killing, would have been utterly senseless.
	Mr Chairman, I want to pause here for a moment.  You are asked to let loose the two Applicants.  You have seen and heard Mr Clark, one of the close disciples of Mr Derby-Lewis, completely lacking in judgment, a fanaticism which our country can do without.  Having regard to the gravity of their offence, having regard to the fact that they wanted to create chaos in South Africa, having regard to the fact that neither of them expressly and by clear implication has shown that they have no respect for the provisions of the Constitution, that Mr Clark very clearly stated that he will never accept a unitary state in South Africa, which is a rejection of the Constitution.
	We do not have before you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee people who have in the words of the preamble of the Act, that calls for democracy and peaceful co-existence for all South Africans irrespective of colour, race, class, belief or sex.  Mr Derby-Lewis tells us, yes, let the blacks go to their homelands and they can exercise those rights, it would give us the better part of South Africa as our own Volkstad.  
	They do not believe in national unity or the reconstruction of a common society.  The overall purpose of the Act is to reconcile the people of South Africa and for people to come and make full disclosure and although they are not obliged to say sorry, they must at least show that they have come to terms with the sort of society that the vast majority of the people in South Africa want.
	The release of these two men will probably lead to another little clique and cabal being established somewhere in Krugersdorp and elsewhere, where the freedom of expression, freedom of movement and freedom of association given to even them, in terms of the Constitution will probably be abused in order to pursue their irrational and fanatical ideas that lead them to the assassination.  
	For all these reasons Mr Chairman we ask that the Committee refuse the Applications for Amnesty.  Thank you Mr Chairman.