Right-Wing Groups - South African Government Information

A c c o rd i n g l y, the Committee rejected the argument raised on behalf of Walus in
this respect. The Committee judged that this was an afterthought and was
resorted to in an attempt to enhance Walus’ chances of receiving amnesty by
curing deficiencies in the original application, and to bring the application within
the ambit of the provisions of the Act, particularly section 20(3)(e).
184 . In summary, the Committee found that the applicants had failed to make a full
d i s c l o s u re in respect of any of the relevant and material issues and was not
satisfied that they had complied with the re q u i rements of the Act, in particular
the provisions of section 20(2)(a) thereof. Amnesty was refused [AC/1999/0172].
Legal challenge
185. A full bench of the High Court sat to review an application from the applicants
challenging the decision of the Amnesty Committee. The Court considered all
the evidence that had been presented before the Committee, as well as the
a rguments by all the parties, and analysed the various provisions of section 20
of the Act in detail.
186. In summary, the Court’s main findings were that the Amnesty Committee had
c o r rectly rejected the applicants’ contention that they had acted on behalf of
the CP, subjectively believing that their conduct would advance the cause of
their party. Further, the Court endorsed the finding of the Committee that the
applicants had not acted in the course and scope of their duties as members of
the CP, as is re q u i red by section 20(2)(d) of the Act, as assassination was never
one of Derby-Lewis’ duties as a senior member of the CP. It followed that
Derby-Lewis could not have shared a non-existent duty with Walus; nor could
he have delegated part of it to Walus. It followed that assassination never
formed part of Walus’ duties either.
187. The Court found that Walus was in a diff e rent position as a rank and file
member and was entitled to assume that Derby-Lewis had authority to speak
on behalf of the CP. In his original application, Walus stated that, ‘he had acted
alone in the planning and commission of the deed’. Under cro s s - e x a m i n a t i o n ,
he said that this was not true. Walus later amended his amnesty application to
incorporate Derby-Lewis as his accomplice, which he then insisted was the
truth. Walus’ version was that he believed that his assignment was an ord e r
f rom Derby-Lewis, given as a result of his senior position in the CP. This claim,
the Court found, lacked objective cre d i b i l i t y.
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 1