Free Clive

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Clive Derby-Lewis and DCS

My comments on the parole refusal.
On 18 July, 2011 I was called to the office of the chairman of the Pretoria Central Case Management Committee, Mr. Matopa, who informed me that my application for parole had been refused. When I asked him why I was refused he showed me a document which originated from the D.C.S. Minister’s office on which the words ‘further profile July, 2013’ were written diagonally across the document and underlined with a single line. When I asked him why there were no reasons given he could not answer me.
I have, today, 3 November, three and a half months later, received from the Area Commissioner, gen. Zebilon Monama, a document, dated 3 November, 2011, containing the reasons given by the minister and wish to comment as follows:
What the minister is saying that regardless of the findings of the very people trained to and responsible for recommending, in the case of lifers, and granting parole  for those serving years, the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (CSPB), who are made fully aware by the Case Management Committee of my suitability for release on parole, she rather places her trust in political reasons provided by people obviously bent on revenge and having no current information whatsoever on which to base their objections.
What happened then is history. What has happened since then is only known to those responsible officials who work with offenders on a daily basis and observe them all day and every day, and only they are qualified to decide on suitability for release or otherwise.
My record in prison and my interaction with staff and other offenders should be the telling factors and are normally so. Why am I treated differently? Why am I not treated with the same administrative proves as all others.
Nature of the offence.
This section contains selected quotes from the judgement by Eloff JP. I have little to say regarding the judgements by either Eloff JP or the Supreme Court of Appeal except that I am not nor have I at any time been proud of what happened, and that had it not been for the political situation at the time the murder would never have happened. The court also referred to the political nature of the deed, and criticised us for not showing remorse. This comment was apparently based on the fact that we pleaded not guilty. Of course we felt remorse, as would any normal person considering the gravity of the crime.
Offenders attitude to the crime.
I made it clear at all times that were it not for what was seen by my colleagues in the top structures of the Conservative Party(CP), as well as the vast majority of our supporters, as a pending disaster with the handover of power to the ANC alliance the assassination would never have taken place. Dr. A.P. Treurnicht, the leader of the Party, had in May, 1990 called us, at a mass meeting held at the Voortrekker Monument, to the ‘third freedom struggle’ (derde vryheidsstryd). As the previous two ‘freedom struggles’ were in the form of war against the British, one resulting in victory and he second in defeat, and both concerning the retention of political power, I naturally assumed, as did many judging by the numerous acts of sabotage carried out from then on, it was a declaration of a war to ensure the retention of political power. I was not a criminal and had never been convicted of anything more serious than parking offences but was driven in desperation to prevent what we had promised our supporters we would never allow. I was a senior representative of the Party and it was my obligation and duty to do whatever could to ensure the objectives of the Party, accepting that if I did something that was in conflict with party objectives I would be subjected to disciplinary action. This was never done. On the contrary, the CP immediately launched a legal aid fund to cover my legal costs. In spite of this fact the Amnesty Committee refused to accept that I had done what I had done in support of the CP and that as a high official, I was a member of the highest body, the parliamentary caucus; I actually had a role in the creation of party policy.
For the crime I committed I was punished by the Court. For supposedly not making full isclosure I was punished with the refusal of amnesty. Now the SA Communist Party wants to punish me again although I am a changed person. Their accent is on revenge and not reconciliation or forgiveness.
2.3 Information relevant to supposed risks posed to society by me.
2.3.1. It will be seen here that in repeating Judge van der Merwe’s ruling,page 25, that I, the applicant, argued that Ms. Hani’s represntations will be of a political nature and nothing else. It is clear from the Minister’s decision that I was right as her total reasons as well as those of the SACPand Cosatu were only political.
Judge van der Merwe went further after granting her the right to make her submission,although the law introducing this was not in existence when I was sentenced, to state as follows:” Any person, including me, may put relevant information before a Board.” This was done by the SACP and Cosatu in my hearing but is not done in any other parole hearing nor are any political reasons given in objection to the granting of parole in any other instances.
2.3.2. States “the following victims’ statements and satements of opposition were placed before the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board and the Minister”:
Firstly let me state that these statements were not victims’ statements. The victim was mr Hani. The statements are from family members. How the SACP and Cosatu qualify in that category is beyond me.
a)      Decision of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) (AC/99/0172
How the Minister can also accept that the above decision can be relevant to parole also amazes me. How can it possibly be relevant to the consideration of parole, and as far as relevant matters are concerned the Amnesty Committee in refusing me amnesty took irrelevant issues such as the purpose of the list of names, the prioritising of the names, and the purpose of obtaining the pistol and silencer. How could this be relevant to my application for amnesty for the killing of Mr. Hani?
Point one. Clearly a political object aimed at stopping the handover process. This objective no longer exists.
Point 2. My parole profile clearly reflects that I show remorse and have no opportunity regarding showing appreciation for the “democratic dispensation in our country”. I fail to see the relevance of his comment.
Point 3. I have an excellent relationship with my fellow offenders as can be seen from the list of activities in which I have been involved in prison. I have no doubt that once I am on parole the community will quickly realise that they have no reason to fear me.
Point 4. This point contains a contradiction in that it is first stated that I had not apologised and then admits that I apologised at the amnesty hearing but that the family were not present. There were in a fully packed people from the SA communist Party, Cosatu, the CP and the general public who all heard me apologise. On being made aware of the fact that Mrs. Hani was not in the Hall at the time,I attempted through my advocate, Mr Harry Prinsloo, to arrange a personal meeting with Mrs. Hani, which approach was turned down by both Mr George Bizos, Mrs. Hani’s legal rep. and Mr Jeremy Cronin, deputy leader of the SACP on different occasions. I then assumed that my approaches would be pointless. I am totally prepared to publicly repeat my apology and condolences to the Hani family.
Point 5. The sitting of the Parole Board in June 2010 was specifically to allow Mrs. Hani to make her submission and I was not at any stage allowed to comment. I had already made my comments at the original Parole Board sitting when at the conclusion I was informed by the Board that they were recommending me for release on 15 October, 2008. The profile together with the recommendation was forwarded to the minister but was irregularly intercepted by Mr Balfour’s wife, ms. Mqobi who was regional commissioner at the time before she was suspended and subsequently fired from the Department. She sat on the documents until July, 2009. I went to Court to obtain the recommended parole and was informed by the Court that while I qualified for parole Mrs. Hani must first have the opportunity to make her submission. Eighteen months later she did so, hence the sitting held on June, 2010. The Minister considered the application in November,2010 and sent it back with a request for further documentation. The application was finally considered by the minister and her decision was made on 13 July, 2011, three years after the Parole Board recommended my release.
As far as the comments on the ANC I have no further interest in politics and theses comments are thus irrelevant.
Point 6. There can be no doubt that I accept the nature of the crime and that there is no legitimate reason to refuse to release me on parole.
Point one. I have received with the life sentence the severest sentence the law permits. The policy of the department states that all offenders, without exception, are entitled to be considered for parole and, if suitable for release, to be released on parole.
Point 2. I fail to see how my still viewing the crime as political poses a risk to the national security and public safety should I be paroled. The judgement clearly states the political content in that it stated that the assassination of a political leader was not an acceptable option. Many offenders were granted amnesty during the hearings for assassinating( murdering) political leaders throughout the country.

I am not nor have I been involved in political activities for the past 18 years and recently had occasion to distance myself from attempts to involve me in politics. This fact can be confirmed by my lawyer, Mr. Marius Coertze who released the repudiation on my behalf.

the Central Soccer Association, a body organising all league activities of twenty soccer clubs in the Centre.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Fonds ter ondersteuning van Clive Derby-Lewis

'n Clive Derby-Lewis ondersteunersfonds is gestig wat ten doel het om Clive finansieel te ondersteun.

Bydraes tot hierdie fonds is welkom en kan gemaak word deur inbetalings in die volgende rekening nr:

Naam: Oranjekas
Bank: Standard
Rekening nr: 271240490
Tak kode: 010545
Verw: 0134387464               (NB Baie belangrik!)

Friday, October 8, 2010

Letter tot Helen Zille of the DA

Dear Madam,
It has come to our attention that the DA is apposed to the parole of Clive Derby-Lewis. It is now two years since Clive qualified for parole and as a matter of fact was granted parole in Oktober 2008, but as a result of politcal medeling is still behind bars.
Please explain to us why the DA believe the rules do not apply to Clive Derby-Lewis.
Does the DA not believe that we are all equal before the law? From your statement it would appear that the DA holds a kind of "Animal farm" view of equality: "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".
Freedom for Clive Derby-Lewis Committee

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Clive Derby-Lewis, slagoffer van Kommunisme

Clive Derby-Lewis is ’n blanke slagoffer van die stryd van terrorisme wat Rusland, China en in ’n minder mate, Kuba, in die laaste drie dekades van die vorige eeu met behulp van Zionistiese finansierders in Suider-Afrika ontketen het. Wat hy gedoen het wil ’n mens nie noodwendig goedpraat nie, maar as Nelson Mandela ondanks die bloed aan sy hande as ’n held uit daardie bloedige periode kon getree het, kan Derby-Lewis ook.
Hy het inderwaarheid die slagoffer geword van ’n onverklaarde oorlog waarin die blanke se politieke vyand feitlik elke reël van die Geneefse Konvensie verbreek het, soos wat genl-maj. Herman Stadler dit in sy trefferboek “The Other Side of the Coin” uitgebeeld het.
Die verhaal van die man se siekte, wat die afgelope aantal dae in die media ontvou het, vertel die verhaal van ’n man wat aan die verkeerde kant van die politiek van die dag, in ’n tronk beland het wat ná sewentien jaar vir hom ’n heltronk geword het. G’n wonder sy politieke vyande het ná ’n vorige mislukte paroolaansoek van Derby-Lewis gesê: “Let the man rot in jail!”
Die feit dat hy in ’n bedenklike toestand in die hospitaal opgeneem is nadat sy familie en regsverteenwoordiger moes ingryp, spreek boekdele oor die  onmenslikheid van die ANC se tronkowerheid.
Dit herinner ’n mens aan die onmenslikheid wat in die ANC se “struggle” kop uitgesteek het, en waarin Nelson Mandela ook ’n beduidende rol gespeel het. Hierdie onmenslikheid het weer eens kop uitgesteek toe Derby-Lewis enkele dae gelede ’n noodoperasie moes ondergaan as gevolg van die gangreen
wat hy opgedoen het nadat hy in die tronk oor ’n bed geval het. Twee tronkamptenare het in die operasieteater rondgestaan en die mediese personeel in die wiele gery. Nadat sy regsverteenwoordiger daaroor beswaar gemaak het, het hulle die operasieprosedure deur ’n venster dopgehou. Sy prokureur het dié optrede as onnodig bestempel. 
“Clive is 74 en hy sal nie vlug nie. Die hofbevel ingevolge waarvan hy in die hospitaal opgeneem is, het gelui dat hy onverhinderde behandeling moet ontvang. ’n Groeisel aan sy voorkop het ook gedui op moontlike velkanker.
Met ons ter perse gaan was dit nie duidelik hoe Derby-Lewis op die behandeling gereageer het nie.

- Ray Wagner

SAPA took notice

Clive Derby Lewis seriously ill

JOHANNESBURG (Sapa) - Medical staff caring for Clive Derby-Lewis were still monitoring his gangrenous leg to prevent an amputation, his lawyer said on Monday.
"The right leg was inflamed and still swollen. It is red right up to his hip and it's obvious that he still has some inflammation in the leg," said Marius Coertze of the man serving a 25-year sentence for his part in the murder of SA Communist Party secretary general Chris Hani.
The 74-year-old Derby-Lewis had to undergo two operations after a bump against an iron bed base caused a severe infection in his leg.
While being examined, doctors also found that Derby-Lewis, who has served 17 years, needed treatment for skin cancer and to his prostate.
Coertze said that a second course of antibiotics, "which his doctor said was so strong that it would kill the bugs around the bed too", did not have the result hoped for.
His blood pressure was also high.
According to the department of correctional services, a final decision on whether Derby-Lewis gets parole should be taken by the National Council on Correctional Services at the end of October.
Coertze said the doctor's primary concern was to save his leg, and as soon as his leg was out of danger, they would focus on treatment for the skin cancer and the prostate.
Derby-Lewis had initially been shackled to his hospital bed in a private facility, but the department intervened and had the shackles taken off to help improve his circulation.
Hani was shot dead on April 10, 1993, a year before the first democratic elections in South Africa.
Hani was shot in the head as he climbed out of his car outside his home in Dawn Park, Boksburg, by Polish immigrant Janusz Walus, using a pistol lent to him by Derby-Lewis, a Conservative Party MP at the time.
They were convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, and were sentenced to death.
However, this was commuted to life imprisonment in 1995, when capital punishment was abolished.
Their application for amnesty to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was rejected on grounds that could not prove it was political and had not made a full disclosure.
An email signed "The Free Derby-Lewis committee" said that if Derby-Lewis was not a political prisoner before, he was now because of what they believe was political meddling in whether he gets parole.
The Free Derby-Lewis committee plan to launch a campaign to get him freed starting with a street braai in Potgieter street in Pretoria on Monday, and then on Wednesday they will send a letter to President Jacob Zuma to have him freed.
The Congress of SA Trade Unions, the Democratic Alliance and the SACP Party are among those opposed to his parole.
Walus was also still serving his 25-year term.

Dit is nou genoeg

Die minister van korrektiewe dienste, die nasionale paroolraad, die SAKP en sy napraters, asook die Demokratiese Alliansie wat almal al in die verlede verskillende vlakke van wraaksugtigheid teenoor mnr Clive Derby-Lewis getoon het, moet maar kennis neem van die groeiende gevoel van teenstand onder Afrikaners.

Mnr Clive Derby-Lewis se mense wil hom by die huis hê. Selfs mense wat tevore huiwerig was om hulle steun toe te sê aan iemand wat bereid was om ‘n pad van geweld te loop, word nou deel van die stroom wat sê: dit is nou genoeg. Laat hom vry!

Die feit dat Radio Pretoria in ‘n program van net 45 minute, 73 boodskappe van ondersteuning deur inbellers kon uitsaai, sê nogal iets. ‘n Mens sal nooit weet hoeveel mense nie kon deurkom nie en hoeveel nog sou skakel as die tyd langer was nie, maar dit is genoeg om die algemene gevoel te bepaal.

Dit word ondersteun deur die suksesvolle straatbraai oorkant die tronk wat binne ‘n kwessie van ‘n paar uur gereël is.

Die vrylating van mnr Derby-Lewis is uiteindelik besig om ‘n volksaak te raak. En die volk se boodskap aan die besluitnemers wat glo teen die einde van die maand oor sy parool-aansoek gaan besin, is duidelik: laat hom vry! Hou op om die regsproses te verdraai om ‘n man van 74 wat in werklikheid nie eers fisies betrokke was by enige daad van geweld nie, agter tralies te hou. Hou op met julle belaglike wreedaardigheid om iemand wat ‘n kans staan om sy been te verloor aan sy hospitaalbed vas te ketting. Hou op om politieke speletjies te speel met ‘n man se lewe.

Selfs mnr Chris Hani se dogter het al in die openbaar gesê, dit is genoeg. Niks wat verder aan Clive Derby-Lewis of Janus Walusz gedoen word, gaan haar pa terugbring nie.

Die feit dat haar ma en ander lede van die SAKP en die ekstremistiese Jeugliga daarop aandring dat hulle nie vrygelaat word nie, het waarskynlik veel meer met hulle eie politieke aspirasies as enige iets anders te doen.

Dit is miskien tyd dat hulle ook die gevoel van die bevolking begin lees. Mnr Derby-Lewis se swart mede-gevangenes ondersteun hom deur die bank. Die algemene publiek is baie meer bekommerd oor dienslewering en werk en misdaad, as oor ‘n politieke gevangene.

Net so moet die Demokratiese Alliansie ook maar begin besef dat sy haatdraende houding oor mnr Clive Derby-Lewis hom nog verder van die Afrikaner gaan vervreem. Of is daar nou genoeg swartes wat vir die DA stem, dat die Afrikaner se stem nie meer tel nie?

Selfs koerante uit die Naspers-stal het al in hoofartikels en nuusberigte die saak simpatiek benader. Dit is waarskynlik ook ‘n goeie aanduiding van die openbare mening.

In die dae wat kom gaan die Bevry Derby-Lewis Komitee nog verskeie aksies hê rondom die eis vir vrylating. As daar ooit ‘n tyd was om aan openbare optrede deel te neem, dan is dit nou. Want genoeg is genoeg.

Nuus van die komitee

Die bevry Clive Derby-Lewis Komitee, het op die 1ste Oktober 2010 'n uitgebreide veldtog geloods om steun te werf vir die bevryding van Mnr. Clive Derby-Lewis.

'n Suksesvolle betoging is reeds gehou op Maandagaand die 4de Oktober 2010 voor die gevangenis in Pretoria in die vorm van 'n Protesbraai. 'n Vyftagtal volksgenote het aan hierdie protes deelgeneem. Die tronk owerhede het duidelik kennis geneem van hierdie protes aangesien die tronk die polisie ontbied het. Die polisie moes egter die organiseerders gelyk gee dat daar niks onordelik aan die byeenkoms was nie en het gevolglik die protesteerders met rus gelaat om voort te gaan.

Die inbelprogram op Radio Pretoria, waar luisteraars die geleentheid gegun word om groeteboodskappe aan Clive te stuur, is 'n belangrikke faset van die veldtog, aangesien dit aan Clive toon dat daar wel steun is vir sy vrylating.

Dit het ook bekend geword dat dit Clive 'n paar honderd Rand per maand kos vir basiese lewensmiddelde soos toiletpapier, tandepaste ens in die gevangenis. Daarmee saam beloop Clive se regskostes ook reeds etlike duisende Rande. Gevolglik het die Bevry Clive Derby-Lewis komitee besluit om die Clive Derby-Lewis ondersteuningsfonds te skep. Ondersteuners word aangemoedig om bydraes tot hierdie fonds te maak, om so ook die finansiele las van Clive te help verlig.

Die Bevry Clive Derby-lewis veldtog het heelwat steun ontvang van organisasies, o.a Radio Pretoria, Die Verkenners en die Afrikanerfront.

Die veldtog sal op die 7de Oktober 2010 'n hoogtepunt bereik, met 'n eis wat aan Jacob Zuma oorhandig sal word vir die vrylating van Clive Derby-lewis. 'n Afskrif van hierdie eis sal ook aan al die ambesades in Suid-Afrika gestuur word.

Ben Geldenhuys
Bevry Clive Derby-Lewis Komitee


Freedom for Clive Derby-Lewis Committee
P.O. Box 690
Fax: 086 577 3041
7 October 2010

The President of the Republic of South-Africa
Mr. Jacob Zuma
Fax: 012 323 3231
cc. Embassies of other nations to South-Africa
cc. The media

Dear President Zuma,


1.       In May 1994, Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the first President of “ a new South Africa” which would supposedly be “non-racial”, “non-sexist” and free of any discrimination of any kind whatsoever. Few, if any, new governments took office in such a spirit of international euphoria.
2.       The very first section of it’s Constitution states that South Africa is “a democracy founded on…human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms…
3.       Sixteen years down the line under ANC-rule, South Africa is a country plagued by murder; rape; corruption; incompetent administration; unemployment; poverty; disease and a host of other evils. An objective observer cannot but label the hypocritic utterances in the Constitution as tragic jokes.
4.       The very different destinies of two South African men making news-headlines is a case in point.
5.       On the one hand there is Shabir Shaik; during Apartheid an engineering-student (so much for the despised system of “Bantu education”) and, in later years, the businessman closely involved with the ANC. In 2005, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison on counts of fraud and corruption for his role in the multi-billion Rand deal to procure arms for poverty-stricken South Africa. After a mere two years of incarceration, the public learned that Shaik is free again; being released as a “terminally ill” man. Shortly afterwards, this same “terminally ill” man was photographed with his luxurious BMW doing shopping; playing golf; and indulging in other niceties of life. The applicable denial, followed by “settling of the dust and forever-after-hold-your-peace”, was the only result.
6.       On the other hand we have Clive Derby-Lewis, during Apartheid a Member of Parliament for the Conservative Party and jailed since 1993 as an accomplice in the murder of Chris Hani (the erstwhile Secretary-General of the South African Communist Party). During his 17 years in prison (and counting), Derby-Lewis has seen countless criminals who were convicted of the most serious crimes - including murder - walk out of prison as free men; either released during the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”-proceedings; released by Presidential Pardon; or released on parole.
7.       Each and every one of these countless freed men seems to be “more equal” than Prisoner Derby-Lewis who, sick and impoverished at the age of 74, must rely on an attorney who would work free of charge; bringing urgent High Court-applications just to get Derby-Lewis in hospital for life-saving operations.
8.       Derby-Lewis’s own application for release at the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” failed during the 90’s, on the pretext that he “did not act with a political motive nor made a full disclosure”. The hypocricy and malicious intent of this so-called “Truth- and Reconciliation Commission” could not be demonstrated more clearly than by it’s absurd ruling that Derby-Lewis did not have a “political motive” for his involvement in the Hani-matter.
9.       What else could the motive be? A personal feud? Definitely not, as the two - one a black Communist and the other a white Conservative - did not even know each other on a personal level.
10.    What else? Material gain? Negative again - not even a needle was stolen from the murder-scene.
11.    Fact of the matter is that both these men were professional politicians in a state closely resembling civil war; and without Hani’s political profile, Derby-Lewis would not even have been aware of his existence. Only seriously malicious minds could have come to the “non-political motive” conclusion.
12.    As for the so-called “lack of a full disclosure”, the only “revelation” this has led to is the recent (somewhat embarrassing) explanation for the absence of Hani’s guards on the day of his murder: Hani himself wanted them out of the way in order to be private with his mistress. With all fairness and respect - what could be so important for Derby-Lewis to be kept hidden, that he would rot away in prison during the twilight years of his life rather than making a “disclosure”? It is just as RIDICULOUS an assumption, as the “non-political motive” allegation.
13.    In 2003, Derby-Lewis applied for Presidential Pardon. HE WAS NOT EVEN GRANTED THE COURTESY OF AN ANSWER in this “democracy founded on human dignity, equality and human rights and freedoms”.
14.    In terms of Sections 73 and 78 of the Correctional Services Act, No. 111 of 1998, a person sentenced to life imprisonment may be placed on parole on reaching the age of 65 years if he has served 15 years of such sentence. During 2008, Derby-Lewis qualified and duly applied; and even though his parole was recommended by the Parole Board, he was turned down yet again during the final stages of the parole-process in this “democracy founded on human dignity, equality and human rights and freedoms”.
15.    Currently, Clive Derby-Lewis suffers from gangrene which was neglected by prison-officials to such an extent that he may lose his leg.
16.    Derby-Lewis also suffers from critically high blood-pressure. Furthermore, the sores on his face were medically examined and found to be aggressively cancerous; so deep that it bleeds spontaneously after having been neglected for years.
17.    WE, THE PEOPLE whom Clive Derby-Lewis served during his whole life and for whom he sacrificed everything – WE CAN NOT AND WILL NOT TURN OUR HEADS AWAY WHILE HE IS BEING TRAMPLED UPON in this so-called “democracy founded on human dignity, equality and human rights and freedoms”. If Clive Derby-Lewis should die in prison, his martyrdom shall stand with thousands of other martyrdoms as a symbol of our oppression, and it shall reverberate through decades to come.                      
18.    In terms of Section 82 of the Correctional Services Act, the President of South Africa may at any time authorise the placement on…parole of any sentenced prisoner and he also may remit any part of a prisoner’s sentence.

                                     WE DEMAND THAT FOR CLIVE - NOW!!!

- Freedom for Clive Derby-Lewis Committee (FCC)

Steun vir die bevryding van Clive Derby-Lewis groei!

Op die 7de Oktober 2010 is bostaande foto geneem oorkant die gevangenis in Pretoria. Dit is duidelik dat publieke steun vir die bevryding van Clive Derby-Lewis groei en spontane aksies soos hierdie tot gevolg het.