UNKNOWN
Dr Hartzenberg gave evidence 
regarding the question "What was the CP's view regarding Mr 
Hani"?  I've already indicated to you that he said that Mr Hani 
was regarded as enemy number one of the Afrikaner people and if 
Hani should be in control of the country the Afrikaner people 
would be destroyed.
	And then I want to come back to what Mr Potgieter has 
said.  The policy of the Conservative Party was to ensure the 
freedom of the Afrikaner people and if Mr Hani, if he was in 
control of the country, then the Conservative Party believed that 
the Afrikaner people's liberty would be destroyed.  Then, as a 
result of that point of view of the CP and the right-right, the 
right-wing together with the CP because they were part of the 
CP, then they became involved in a political struggle and then 
they propagated violence. 
	The Conservative Party and Mr Hartzenberg cannot get 
away from that fact.  Their followers heard about violence and 
that they had to use to protect their liberty.
	It was also clear from his evidence that the political 
struggle was, and he said "The National Party betrayed the 
Afrikaner people and the struggle after the legalisation of the 
ANC/SACP and the struggle was then against those 
organisations".
	Mr Chairman, in my heads I also referred to 22(d) and I 
want to submit that in order to qualify for amnesty, the applicant 
he had to make full disclosure of the offence and according to 
which - this article, he is applying for amnesty.
	A lot has been said about the fact that there was wider 
conspiracy than only that between these two applicants and then 
because of the application there was not full disclosure.  I want 
to put it to you that the applicant's evidence indicates that at the 
end of 1992  he was in Europe and after his return in December 
1992 he made contact with Mr Clive Derby-Lewis.  
	Before he had left for Europe this struggle in the country 
was already going on and when he returned in December this 
political situation in the country was discussed further.
	His evidence is, and there's no other evidence contradicting 
that, that at that stage the political situation in the country was 
discussed and not at any stage that they then decided that 
anybody had to be eliminated.
	In February 1993, the applicants visited Mr Clive Derby-
Lewis again and then received the instruction and the planning 
was made to murder Mr Hani.  It is evident from the first 
applicant's evidence that Mr Derby-Lewis provided a list to him.  
 I want to argue that should the Committee find that Mrs Derby-
Lewis, based on her statements based on Section 29, as Ngoepe 
pointed out to Mr Prinsloo, if the Committee finds that Mrs 
Derby-Lewis knew beforehand that there was planning being done 
to murder Mr Hani, I want to submit that the applicant, Mr 
Walus, had no knowledge of this whatsoever.   He did not know 
that which Mrs Derby-Lewis knew, there is no indication.
	Even in the Section 29 statements or any other evidence, 
there is any indication that Mr Walus knew that Mrs Derby-Lewis 
knew what her husband - Mr Walus did not have any knowledge 
that he discussed it with her.