Right-Wing Groups - South African Government Information

178. The Committee had no hesitation in rejecting Derby-Lewis’ evidence in this
re g a rd. His explanation for fitting a silencer to the unlicensed firearm was inhere n t l y
i m p robable and his explanation of the reason for obtaining the firearm was clearly
false. It was particularly significant that he obtained a weapon that was perfectly
suited for the purposes of the assassination fairly soon before the incident and
at about the time when the applicants agreed that Mr Hani should be shot. The
Z88 pistol was clearly obtained for the express purpose of assassinating Mr Hani.
179. The Committee gave its attention to whether Walus had acted on the instruction
of Derby-Lewis in executing the attack. Walus initially stated in his application that
he had acted alone in planning and executing the assassination. Subsequently,
his application was amended to indicate that he had acted on the instructions
of Derby-Lewis, but that they had jointly planned the assassination.
180. The Committee found that it was clear from the re c o rd that Walus was not
acting as a mere functionary. He had a clear understanding of the political situation
and was active in right-wing politics. He was clearly activated by his personal
d e s i re to stop the ‘Communists’ from taking over the country. He participated
fully in political discussions and in hatching the plot to assassinate Mr Hani. He
was under no duress or coercion and executed the plan as he deemed fit.
Indeed, Derby-Lewis indicated that he was taken by surprise by the timing of
the assassination.
181. In any event, Walus’ own testimony is contradictory on the issue of orders. It is
also contradicted by the testimony of Derby-Lewis, whose evidence was that
the applicants were acting as co-conspirators who had jointly taken the decision
to assassinate Mr Hani.
182. As an active CP member, Walus would have been aware that the CP has
constitutionally established decision-making structures and that Derby-Lewis
had no power to order him to commit murd e r, particularly in the light of the CP’s
policy of non-violence. There was no suggestion that he was ever pre v i o u s l y
o rd e red by the CP to commit any unlawful acts, let alone murd e r. More o v e r, he
failed to raise the alleged order to assassinate Mr Hani with any person in
authority or with any governing structure in the CP.
183. In the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that Walus was a coconspirator
and that he was not merely acting on orders from Derby-Lewis.
V O L U M E 6 S E C T I O N 3 C H A P T E R 6 P A G E 4 8 0