Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: This is the application of Mr Niewoudt in respect of the death of Mr Biko and an assault on Mr Jones. Yes, Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee, I appear on behalf of the applicant Mr Niewoudt, instructed by Van der Merwe and Bester. I call the applicant.

ADV BIZOS: May it please you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee. I appear on behalf of the Biko family, to oppose the application for amnesty, together with my learned friend, Mr Patric Mtshaulana and instructed by the Legal Resources Centre.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, please refer to your application. Do you confirm page 1?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 2?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 3?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 4.

ADV DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, are you referring to the bundle of documents, bundle 1 page 24, is that what you are referring to?

ADV BOOYENS: Chairperson, unfortunately we were never placed in possession of the official bundle, so that is why I am referring to Mr Niewoudt's application, when I refer to page numbers, I am referring to the typed page numbers at the top of his application.

On page 4 paragraph 7, there you are referring to John McEwan, something which was conveyed to you, can you please tell us where that was? That is page 4, paragraph 7 Chairperson.

MR NIEWOUDT: Chairperson, this was during lectures and training courses where this extract was conveyed to us.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you then confirm page 5?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, may I read it to you and I want you to tell us how it influenced you. Winning a revolutionary war will take mass organisation, dedication sacrifice and time. The government must decide early if it is willing to pay the price. Half measures lead only to protected costly defeats.

What did you understand by this and how did it affect or influence you?

MR NIEWOUDT: The way I understood it is the following that all measures should be used to protect the government of the Republic of South Africa and to keep them in power, and whatever methods would be used, would be justifiable, that is what I thought at that stage.

And that one could use all methods at one's disposal.

CHAIRPERSON: To do what?

MR NIEWOUDT: To protect the government especially in its fights against the total onslaught and the overthrow of the government which was a threat at the time.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Page 5, 6, 7 and 8 up to paragraph 9(a), do you confirm that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Just briefly, the incident that we are dealing with here, took place in 1977?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And what was your rank in 1977?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was a junior Sergeant at the Branch Mr Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: Just for the sake of completeness, in your application you said that your immediate superior or immediate Commanding Officer was Major Fisher, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And he was the Commanding Officer of the so-called black desk?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Could you please tell us what was the size of the Eastern Cape Security Police and where did you fit into the hierarchy of that Branch at the time?

MR NIEWOUDT: As far as my white colleagues are concerned, I was the lowest in rank in my particular section, and even as far as the Security Branch in Port Elizabeth as a whole is concerned, it was the Commanding Branch of the entire Eastern Cape, Cradock, Grahamstown and Uitenhage.

At that stage we didn't deal with the border area and our Commanding Officer was Colonel Goosen, he was the Divisional Commander. Major Fisher was in charge of the black affairs desk, he was the head of that desk.

Then there was the white affairs section or desk, a Captain was in charge of that section. Then there was the coloured and Asian desk. Major Snyman was in charge of that. And then there was also an administrative affairs section, it was a small branch.

ADV BOOYENS: You said that you were the lowest ranking Officer or member in the white component. Were there any white Constables in that Branch?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, only black colleagues.

ADV BOOYENS: So you were the lowest ranking white person at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Paragraph 9(a), there you give particulars of the acts for which you request amnesty?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: The paragraphs are numbered there as well. Some of the other applicants have already had their applications finalised, and you refer to Marx and Beneke who were Warrant Officers. Snyman and Siebert, where did they fit in?

MR NIEWOUDT: They were attached to the coloured and Asian desk and Snyman was in charge of that.

ADV BOOYENS: What was Snyman's rank at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was a Major.

ADV BOOYENS: Siebert?

MR NIEWOUDT: Siebert was a Captain.

ADV BOOYENS: Paragraph 2 on page 9 of your application, there you deal with the issue of unrest in the country. Please in your own words, sketch for us what the situation was on the ground as from 1976 onwards, and specifically referring to the situation in the Eastern Cape by 1977, that is more or less the time of the detention of the deceased, Mr Biko, that is August 1977?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, on the 16th of June 1976, that is the day when the unrest and the riots erupted as a result of the issue of Afrikaans as medium of instruction in the schools in Soweto.

On the 17th of August of 1976, the riots started in Port Elizabeth, and that led to total anarchy. Schools were burnt down, vehicles were burnt, police vehicles were burnt out and black police members had their homes attacked. Delivery vehicles entering the black areas were robbed, burnt and the beer halls belonging to the administration boards were totally burnt down and robbery took place there as well.

The riots started as a result of the fact that Afrikaans was the medium of instruction as part of the so-called Bantu Education policy, and it was a defiant action against the Education system of the State and it led to total anarchy. Everything was orientated towards black power at that stage, and the ANC and the SACP played a very minimal role at that stage.

Black power was at that stage the leading internal revolutionary organisation.

The situation escalated and people who had done certain building operations to their homes, found that their homes were also attacked and burnt because the inference was drawn that those people had to have received money from the State to be able to build and renovate their homes.

Innocent people were burnt, and their homes attacked, there was a total boycott and that spilt over right down to 1978 after the banning of all black power organisations, BPC, SASO and all related organisations.

ADV BOOYENS: For the record, BPC is Black Persons' Convention, and there is also the South African Students' Organisation, that you have referred to, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: The black power organisations that you have referred to, BBC and SASO etc, the deceased in this matter Mr Biko and the other affected person, to call him that, Mr Jones, did they play any role in those actions at all?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, in the riots, that was the information at our disposal.

ADV BOOYENS: Could you please tell us what the information was that was conveyed to you? What role did they play personally and what role did the organisations to which they were attached, play?

MR NIEWOUDT: On the 18th of August 1977, there was the commemoration of the breaking out of the riots and inflammatory pamphlets were distributed in the black townships.

The information at our disposal at that stage was that Mr Biko was responsible for the drafting of that pamphlet and that the BBC was responsible for the distribution of the pamphlet.

CHAIRPERSON: The contents of that pamphlet, did that give rise to the unrest and riots?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it further activated the riots because it started in 1976, and in 1977 there was the commemoration service and they once again conditioned to continue with the violence.

ADV BOOYENS: If I could refer you to my Annexure 7, Mr Chairman. In front of you you've got the document headed August 18, Commemoration Day.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, we are just looking for the particular page.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 135, Mr Chairman.

MR NIEWOUDT: Could I refer you Mr Chairman, to the last paragraph, wherever you are, organise yourself into groups to deal with those who do not heed this appeal, beat them, burn their books, burn their cars and shops, show no mercy to informers and other collaborators, they must be all killed.

CHAIRPERSON: You are saying that this came into your hands at some stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it was distributed in the black townships.

CHAIRPERSON: What year?

MR NIEWOUDT: 1977.

CHAIRPERSON: And your information was that the author of this document was Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that he had drafted it and his organisation was responsible for distributing it in Port Elizabeth.

CHAIRPERSON: What was his organisation?

MR NIEWOUDT: Black Peoples' Convention, BPC.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you give us a date when this document came into your hands?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was approximately the 12th, if I remember correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: The 12th?

MR NIEWOUDT: The 12th of August, it could have been later Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But it was before the 18th?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. It had already been distributed at that stage before the deceased, Mr Biko, was arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

ADV BOOYENS: I think we all know that Mr Biko was arrested on the 17th and he was detained in Port Elizabeth from the 18th.

So, the document on page 135 was in your possession before that date?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, I am now referring to the stage before you became involved in the interrogation of Mr Jones and Mr Biko.

The information which you got regarding the involvement in the drafting of the document, was that information which you got yourself or was it obtained by your colleagues and conveyed to the Branch?

MR NIEWOUDT: It came from our colleagues and it was conveyed to us.

ADV BOOYENS: If we can go back to your application, page 10, there you say in paragraph 3 that considerable pressure was exerted on the Security Branch. Please tell us in your own words what do you mean by that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Our Commanding Officers placed pressure on us, we who were actually in the field, to gather information and to identify the ring leaders who were involved in the riots and unrest, and we had to prioritise them. The deceased Mr Biko was the leading figure at the time responsible for fermenting the violence.

There was pressure from higher levels on us.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm paragraph 4?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And the definition which is given to drastic action, in other words it was drastic action within the framework of the security legislation then valid?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Paragraph 6, you were not present when Mr Biko and Mr Jones were arrested, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: In fact they were arrested by the Security Branch in Grahamstown and they were then transferred to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Booyens, are documents are differently numbered, Annexure 4, what is the heading of that?

ADV BOOYENS: That is a newspaper report Mr Chairman of the Sunday Times, of 05-01-1979, page 117 apparently.

ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR NIEWOUDT: What is important there, is the first paragraph, apparently that was obtained from the archives of the old State Security Council resolutions. I had no knowledge of those.

ADV BOOYENS: I think to some extent you have already dealt with the importance of Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: In paragraph 7 on page 11, you give further information that he went to Cape Town to have discussions with Dr Neville Alexander, to have contact with him. Did you know anything about Mr Neville Alexander?

MR NIEWOUDT: From reports which we received, I gathered something about Mr Neville Alexander's actions, and also as a result of Mr Jones' interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, how many pamphlets were confiscated and which were similar to the one appearing on page 135?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would like to help the Commission as far as that is concerned, but I have no independent recollection of that, but there were quite a few pamphlets which had been intercepted by informants and conveyed to us and which we also picked up in the black townships.

There were quite a few. If I had to wager a guess ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, before you do that, I am talking about pamphlets which according to your information had been written by Mr Biko, or had something to do with Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I understand you correctly, that is the pamphlet which I referred to in Annexure 7, on page 135.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the only one which you had at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. And as I said, if I had to estimate then number, well quite a few pamphlets were seized in the black townships.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that is a different kind of pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I am talking about this specific one.

ADV DE JAGER: So you are talking about copies of this particular pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, they were photocopied pamphlets.

ADV DE JAGER: Was there also another pamphlet with a different content of which you were aware or was it only this one pamphlet of which there were hundreds or thousands of copies?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it was only the one.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you, after his death, get hold of any pamphlet which allegedly had been drafted by Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, not as far as I know.

CHAIRPERSON: So the only pamphlet which you knew about and which had been allegedly drafted by Mr Biko, was this particular one headed 18th of August?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. If you can go back to page 11, paragraph 6, I know you weren't present at the arrest, but the information given to you was to the effect that there were pamphlets in the possession of Mr Biko and Mr Jones, similar to the pamphlet on page 135, that is when they were apprehended at the roadblock or what was the situation?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, as it said in my application, one could interpret it in that way, but it was in fact not that case. No pamphlets were found in their possession.

Those pamphlets had already been seized or confiscated.

ADV BOOYENS: So what you are actually saying is that upon their arrest the pamphlets had already been confiscated, that is correct.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 12, paragraph 8, there you refer to a special investigation team which was established by Dr Alexander.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And you were once again the junior member?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You then make the statement in the last sentence of paragraph 8, our instruction was to concentrate on Peter Jones. Initially from whom did this instruction come?

MR NIEWOUDT: From Goosen.

ADV BOOYENS: What did Goosen say to you, what was the actual idea behind this, what was your objective with the interrogation and detention of Mr Biko and Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: We had to obtain information with which to charge them in a court and thereby to neutralise the unrest.

ADV BOOYENS: In your own words please tell us, you do deal with it in paragraph 9 and 10, that is the incident relating to Mr Jones, but I would like you to tell us in your own words, what happened between yourself and Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, I unfortunately don't have the date when he was brought to our offices for interrogation. It was only afterwards when the documents were handed in, I have refreshed my memory, those are the Exhibits H and O that I am referring to.

ADV BOOYENS: Exhibits H and O handed in during the previous amnesty applications?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Chairperson, I don't know how you want to deal with this, perhaps you can give me an indication. These documents had already been handed in, I don't know whether it is necessary to once again burden the record with readmission into evidence of these documents, we could perhaps try and make copies of those documents?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, what is your attitude?

ADV BIZOS: We would submit that this is a Committee that has to come to an independent decision of the other Committee.

There would be nothing wrong in incorporating the contents of the documents by reference, but then it must be done properly. The Committee's attention must be brought to the document placed before the other Committee so that this Committee can take notice of it, but not necessarily to be read out and it is a matter on which I think my colleague must exercise his own discretion in relation to the matter, but I think that we should avoid any possibility of any irregularity by having regard to matters which have not been specifically drawn to this Committee's attention, which appear in the previous proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you feel uncomfortable with the following suggestion, that the documents referred to by Mr Booyens, be handed in, given annexure numbers, without being formally proved or whatever?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, we have taken the general attitude that unless a specific objection is raised, no formal proof is required, the documents are a matter of record, either particularly the 1977 inquest and we can accept that they are what they purport to be without necessarily admitting the truth contained in the document.

CHAIRPERSON: I thank you Mr Bizos.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman, my query was actually a lot simpler than this. It is simply, these documents had already been referred to and handed in under different numbers, in the other hearing. All I want to know is the witness is going to refer to the documents now, I would submit that it will be in order purely for the sake of not burdening the record unnecessarily, if we refer to them as the document handed in as Exhibit H in the other hearing and the document handed in as Exhibit O in the other hearing.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Booyens, the evidence leader kindly supplied us with copies of Exhibit H in the previous hearing, and Exhibit O. Is that the handwritten documents you are referring to?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, those are the two documents I am referring to Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it is going to be too cumbersome by marking it Exhibit A, after all it is a new hearing, a separate hearing, a new hearing.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well Mr Chairman, for identification purposes, can we then, may I then suggest that we mark for the purpose of this hearing as Exhibits A and B and I would suggest that the one that should be marked A, would be the one that has got on top Peter Jones, 15 Leipoldt Street, King William's Town, that is A, and the one to be marked as Exhibit B then, should be the one with 25/8/77 in the top corner, and Cape Town just below it.

You referred to the two documents Mr Niewoudt?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, it only refreshed my memory regarding the date.

ADV BOOYENS: There is a date on the top of the document, 25/8/77?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You were telling us that Mr Jones were at your offices. What was it that you wanted to say?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was the 24th and the 25th, he was taken to our offices for the two days, and he was interrogated there.

ADV BOOYENS: I asked you to tell us about the incident that happened on the 24th and 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: On the 25th. That is the same day as the document.

ADV BOOYENS: Continue please.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we come to that point, something else I wish to establish. You were instructed to gather evidence and because of this, they had to be charged criminally. Who gave this instruction?

MR NIEWOUDT: Goosen.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this Captain?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was then Colonel, at that time he was Colonel, he was the Divisional Commander.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to the question carefully, how did you interpret this? Did you have to gather that evidence or did you have to try to gather such information?

MR NIEWOUDT: I had to use all methods to gather such information.

CHAIRPERSON: And what did you have to do to gather such evidence?

MR NIEWOUDT: At that stage I understood it as that I had to use any and all methods to break down this person's resistance and to put him through a softening process so that he could give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Legally or illegally?

MR NIEWOUDT: Legally or illegally, as long as I did not embarrass the State or the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: This instruction, assume that Mr Jones had information that could lead to criminal prosecution, what would have happened if he did not have such information?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I wish to establish, where would you have stopped between using legal and illegal methods to gather this information?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, I just followed my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, I wish to know how did you understand this, where would it have stopped, or where would you have stopped?

MR NIEWOUDT: One would have used all channels to gather such evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Even if it was a fabrication?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is possible, it is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: I ask this because I do not understand what was your actual instruction.

MR NIEWOUDT: At that stage it was stated to us that we had to use any method to gather information and gather evidence, whether it was legally or illegally, and we had to use this, that is how I interpreted it.

ADV DE JAGER: Let's assume that this person had no information, he was innocent, and you assault him and he cannot give you any information, and you assault him again and he cannot give you any information, not because he doesn't want to, but because he doesn't have it. When do you decide that you have to stop?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would have decided myself, I would have decided if he gave me no information, I would have known it and then I would have stopped.

ADV DE JAGER: How do you come to this point, does it give you an indication that this man does not have any information? What indicates to you that he withholds information because he does not want to tell on his other colleagues?

MR NIEWOUDT: From other resources and informants.

ADV BOOYENS: Just to join what questions came from the Commission, was there any other person previously detained with regard to this document?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right. Patrick Titi was detained, this was on the 12th, and I can refer to Exhibit G in the previous amnesty application.

ADV BOOYENS: In other words, can you just identify the document, is that the document marked G in the previous application, it is a handwritten statement from one Patric Titi?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: This was dated 26 August 1977, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: That will be Exhibit C, Mr Chairman. From when was Titi detained?

MR NIEWOUDT: From about the 12th.

ADV BOOYENS: If you refer to a date, is it the 12th of August?

MR NIEWOUDT: The 12th of August 1977.

ADV BOOYENS: What information did you have already when you got to Mr Jones, that we have established was on the 24th, 25th? What information did you gather from Mr Titi?

MR NIEWOUDT: Who was responsible for the drafting of this pamphlet, my Annexure 7, page 135.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the same aspect as which you interrogated Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you state according to your statement that you hit him to get that information?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But you already had that information from Mr Titi?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, but he was a single person Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, and Mr Jones, would he have given evidence against Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: At that stage I believed it.

CHAIRPERSON: Was your instruction not to gather evidence that would incriminate him?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right, but he was not such a leaders' figure, if I could refer to the difference between Mr Biko and Mr Jones. It would have been better to build up a case against Mr Biko than against Mr Jones, that is how I interpreted it at that stage.

ADV BOOYENS: Just following on the Chairperson's question, the final decision to whom is to be charged, was that in your hands?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, this was the decision of the senior officer.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's start again, on the 25th or on the 24th of August, did you deal with Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Previously, before the 24th of August, did you deal with Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I did not.

ADV BOOYENS: Any other opportunity, did you visit or assault Mr Jones where he was held between 18th and 24th of August?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, the only time that I visited him at the cell was when I went to fetch him, fetched him and took him to the Security office.

ADV BOOYENS: Tell us, let's start with the interrogation on the 24th, who was doing the questioning, who is questioned, what happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: The interrogation team under leadership of Major Snyman, Captain Siebert, Warrant Officer Marx and myself were busy with Mr Jones.

The interrogation was done by Captain Siebert and Mr Jones did not cooperate, he was very arrogant, he did not want to answer our questions.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you feel about his arrogance?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was full of himself. I did not venture any opinion.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to know how did you feel about his arrogance? Were you angry?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I was not angry.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you question him yourself?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was just there, I did not ask any questions.

ADV BOOYENS: You were of junior rank?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: How long would you say was this interrogation session?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was the whole day, eight hours according to me.

ADV BOOYENS: On the 24th?

MR NIEWOUDT: We are still on the 24th, Your Worship. We are still coming to the 25th.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you there the whole day on the 24th, can you remember?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I moved in and out Mr Chairman, but most of the time I was there.

ADV BOOYENS: On the 24th, did you do anything physically to Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you have any knowledge of anybody else who did anything to Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: No Mr Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: The interrogation of the 24th, did you gather anything substantial from that?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Mr Jones spend the night at Sanlam Building?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he was taken back.

ADV BOOYENS: By whom?

MR NIEWOUDT: By myself and Captain Siebert.

ADV BOOYENS: Tell us about the 25th.

CHAIRPERSON: At the end of the 24th, the Security Police were not any further with their interrogation, with reference to Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Tell us about the 25th.

MR NIEWOUDT: On the 25th he was taken from Algoa Park by myself and Captain Siebert and taken to the interrogation office.

CHAIRPERSON: How long was he in the interrogation on the 24th?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have stated previously, approximately eight hours.

ADV BOOYENS: Continue on the 25th.

MR NIEWOUDT: The 25th was the same procedure, all of us were present.

ADV BOOYENS: Everybody meaning the interrogation team?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right, Major Snyman, Captain Siebert, Warrant Officer Marx and myself.

At some stage I was alone with him. I interrogated him.

CHAIRPERSON: What time of the day would that have been?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was about ten o'clock. I am guessing now.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that. How long would he have been at the offices?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was already there from eight o'clock the morning.

ADV DE JAGER: In which language did the interrogation take place on the 24th, and in which language did it take place on the 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was in English. Once in a while it would have been Afrikaans.

ADV DE JAGER: What was Mr Jones' language?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was English, but he can speak Afrikaans.

ADV BOOYENS: At about ten o'clock on the 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: I interrogated him and he was evasive, he gave evasive answers.

ADV BOOYENS: What do you mean evasive answers?

MR NIEWOUDT: He did not answer my questions directly.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, he gave evasive answers and then?

MR NIEWOUDT: There was a green hose that was in the office. I took it and I hit him several times with this hose on his back, and I hit him very hard. He even cried and according to me, it was painful, he was suffering from a lot of pain.

CHAIRPERSON: Approximately how many times did you hit him?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I have to guess, approximately between five and ten lashes. I am guessing again.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it only on his back?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mostly on his back because he was standing bent over and I assume most of the lashes were on his back.

CHAIRPERSON: At which stage in terms of the hitting, did he start to cry?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was about after five to six hits that I gave him.

CHAIRPERSON: And you hit him after he cried?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I still hit him.

ADV SIGODI: What was the purpose of the green hose to be there, why was it there?

MR NIEWOUDT: The hose was to remove fuel. The person was doing coast duty, coast patrolling and it was to take along extra fuel.

CHAIRPERSON: Is your evidence that this hose was there by accident in that office at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Do you still remember how long it was?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was approximately if I have to guess, it is about one meter.

ADV DE JAGER: Whose office was this?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was Warrant Officer Coetzee's office, he did coast patrol. After I hit him, Mr Jones was prepared to explain to me his part and what he had seen and heard and his visit to Cape Town with reference to a visit to Dr Neville Alexander of the unity movement, and also the unity that Mr Biko wanted to establish with the ANC military wing, Umkonto We Sizwe to establish that unity.

I gave him a piece of paper, several pages so that he could sketch his whole background and thereafter I explained to Mr Siebert and the others that he was prepared to talk and that he was busy writing.

Thereafter, after he gave us the information, we went through to King Williams' Town where we went to his office in Leipoldt Street in King Williams' Town, we searched the office and we confiscated typewriters and we arrested some other persons afterwards, and he was once again supplied by writing material by Siebert and he continued writing about the unity incident, and that was with regard to Mr Jones ...

ADV BOOYENS: Just for the record, these documents Mr Jones wrote on, that was Exhibit A and B, was that in his own handwriting?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Was this both on the 25th, they both dated the 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, both on the same day.

CHAIRPERSON: I haven't read through to documents yet, what is written in there, could this lead to criminal prosecution?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, I am sure it could have.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Jones criminally prosecuted?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, not with reference to the drafting of the pamphlet.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked the reason why you interrogated him and why you hit him is to gather information and evidence, that would lead to criminal prosecution. Isn't that so?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All that I want to know is after you hit him, he wrote two documents. Was he prosecuted?

MR NIEWOUDT: At that stage I believe that there was, because his liaison with Dr Neville Alexander and his activities, and because of that it wouldn't have been questioned.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he charged?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he was detained.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was he not charged?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV SIGODI: When Mr Jones was detained on the 24th, did you hit him on the 24th?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV SIGODI: You only started hitting him on the 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

ADV SIGODI: And what made you to decide to hit him on the 25th?

MR NIEWOUDT: To extract that information and to get him cooperation.

ADV SIGODI: But I mean you hadn't been getting any cooperation from him and what was the deciding point that you, I mean what caused you to decide to hit him in order to get the information?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have said previously, that as a result of the pressure that was placed on us from a higher level and to neutralise the unrest, and I used all methods legally or illegally, I used it to generate that information, and I used it as long as I did not embarrass the State.

ADV SIGODI: Were you angry with him when he was not giving you the information?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I was not angry.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's put it in a simple manner, before you assaulted Mr Jones, did he give you information that you could use?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BOOYENS: And after you assaulted him, he gave you the information?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You mentioned afterwards you went to his office in King Williams' Town?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you get any other information with regard to this pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You mention at the end of paragraph 10, that you received further information from Peter Jones and arrests followed. Who was arrested as far as you can remember?

MR NIEWOUDT: As far as I recall it was Mrs Nomhle Mohapi, Nozepo Kepi, Elizabeth Nkabeni. They were all typists who worked under Mr Jones in Leipoldt Street, with the Black Community Programmes.

Can I just explain with regard to that organisation, it was part of the black movement organisation. They dealt with all the administration, and the printing of pamphlets and the publication of Black Review where certain statements which was given to the publishers, other administrative matters with regard to the Council of Churches, and certain projects of the Zanapilo Hospital in King Williams' Town. It was a sub-division of the black movement, front organisation. That is just in short.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Niewoudt, can we just come back to the 25th. Snyman, Marx and Siebert are present during the morning when you initiated the interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: You are not successful?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: They leave the office, you continue with the interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they tell you where they were going, or why they left, did they leave any instructions with you when you stayed behind?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I think they went and did further research or went to drink tea, or had further discussions, I don't know. But someone had to be present with the detainee, you could not leave him alone. I was instructed just to be there and to question him.

ADV DE JAGER: And you questioned him further, for how long was this?

MR NIEWOUDT: For about 20 minutes I interrogated him.

ADV DE JAGER: And then you assaulted him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And he was prepared to start writing or give verbal statements?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. Basically he told me verbally and then I provided him with writing implements.

ADV DE JAGER: And you went back to your Commanding Officer?

MR NIEWOUDT: Well, they came back while he was busy writing.

ADV DE JAGER: What was their attitude about this "success" that you had achieved?

MR NIEWOUDT: They were, if I can recall, they were impressed.

ADV DE JAGER: Did they ask you how you went about this being successful?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot remember if they pertinently asked me, I could have mentioned it to them. I don't know, I cannot recall.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you have told them that you had assaulted him?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I would not admit to a senior officer.

ADV DE JAGER: So at that stage you did not tell them but I assaulted him because I wanted to get this information?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I did not mention the method, how I extracted the information. I cannot recall if I mentioned it.

CHAIRPERSON: How long after your assault did they return?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would, it was about half an hour, I am guessing again. It was a long time ago, if I could guess, approximately half an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: After you assaulted him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, after I hit him.

CHAIRPERSON: And when did he start writing, after they returned?

MR NIEWOUDT: Before they returned.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he stop crying at that time?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he had stopped crying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, that is the evidence which I intend leading with regard to Mr Jones. I want to now turn to the incident of Mr Biko. This is perhaps then a good chance to take the short adjournment.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman, page 14 of the application, paragraph 11. On Tuesday, the 6th of September 1977, you received instructions from Major Snyman to fetch Biko at the Walmer police station and to take him to the Sanlam Building for interrogation. Please continue from there, you were accompanied by Captain Siebert and Warrant Officer Marx?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Biko was then taken to the Sanlam Building, please take it from there and tell the Chairperson and the other members of the panel what happened there?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, he was handcuffed from Walmer police station. We accompanied him, myself, Captain Siebert and Warrant Officer Marx.

He was taken to the Sanlam Building to the interrogation room, and he immediately sat down on a chair in this office. At that stage, what I can recall is that Captain Siebert told him you will sit down when we tell you to do so, and you are here in our area, and I will tell you when to sit.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the same office or room where Mr Jones had been interrogated?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I wanted to ask you the same question, so please continue.

MR NIEWOUDT: Afterwards, Mr Biko got up, I removed his handcuffs on the instruction of Siebert and Major Snyman arrived there and the interrogation then took place conducted by Mr Siebert.

My observation at that stage was that Mr Biko was arrogant, aggressive and he didn't answer the questions at all, these were the questions put to him by Siebert.

And on my own observation I can say that the questions put to him, were in my view, not relevant. He immediately realised, Mr Biko immediately realised from the type of questions put to him, that Captain Siebert had absolutely no information about him.

My office was next to this interrogation room, and in the door, I saw Warrant Officer Beneke taking up position. Siebert then confronted him at some point with this pamphlet, this is the pamphlet in Annexure 7. Biko once again got down, sat down on the chair.

ADV BOOYENS: I think, please use the names Mr Niewoudt, who is the he who sat down?

MR NIEWOUDT: The deceased, Mr Biko, once again sat down on the chair. Mr Siebert actually got annoyed and grabbed him by the chest and pulled him to his feet. Mr Biko then grabbed the chair and pushed it forwards in the direction of Mr Siebert and he also lunged at Mr Siebert with his fist, but I don't think the blow actually hit.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was it necessary for all these people to be present during the interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Marx and myself had information about black power or black consciousness activities and Siebert and Snyman weren't quite so familiar with black affairs and that was the one reason Mr Chairperson.

And it was also to enable us to question him during a routine interrogation by people, there is no point in bringing in other people to start questioning him and so on. It was just a method.

CHAIRPERSON: To achieve what exactly?

MR NIEWOUDT: To gather the information from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

ADV BOOYENS: The purpose of confronting him with the issue of the pamphlet was to ultimately charge him with that and to neutralise his involvement in the unrest.

Siebert had to admonish him on several occasions, because he simply refused to answer any questions.

ADV BOOYENS: You said that Mr Biko pushed the chair in the direction of Mr Siebert, and aimed a blow at him, you are not sure if it actually hit. What happened then?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Beneke who was in the door leading to the next office, then came charging towards Mr Biko and he tackled him by means of a rugby tackle and he connected with him in the stomach area and they landed up against the wall. Mr Biko resisted quite severely and several blows were aimed at each other, and efforts were made to restrain him, but they weren't successful, nobody could actually grab hold of him.

CHAIRPERSON: How many policemen were present when this happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: May I just explain, at some stage Mr Marx had left the office and when Mr Beneke came in, it was only myself, Mr Beneke who had just joined in and Snyman and Siebert.

CHAIRPERSON: So there were four of you?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. I couldn't manage to grab hold of him and I then grabbed the piece of hose, cut off hose and I hit Mr Biko several blows and that immediately stopped him in his tracks and he turned towards me.

And then Siebert and Beneke then had the opportunity to grab him. I then joined in and I think at that stage Mr Marx had also joined in. We then moved, we grabbed Mr Biko and we struggled and as a result of our momentum, Mr Biko's head hit the wall. He fell onto the floor, and at that stage he seemed to me to be confused and dazed.

He lay up against the wall.

ADV BOOYENS: I beg your pardon, please just give us a better description. You say he was laying against the wall, was he still on his feet?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he was sitting.

ADV BOOYENS: Continue.

MR NIEWOUDT: After a while Siebert gave me the order to handcuff him and also to cuff his feet.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that whilst he was sitting there against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, correct. After a while when he recovered, Siebert told me to chain him to the bars of the security gate with his hands in an outstretched position. Mr Beneke and I lifted him up from the floor, and we cuffed his hands by means of two sets of handcuffs and his hands were cuffed on either side of his body. The bars were horizontal and we cuffed him to these and the leg irons or footcuffs were also attached to these bars and that is the position in which we cuffed him, he was in a standing position.

ADV BOOYENS: What was the position of his arms, were the arms stretched on either side of his body?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: At what height?

MR NIEWOUDT: At shoulder height.

ADV BOOYENS: The leg irons were woven through the bars of the security gate?

MR NIEWOUDT: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: This banging of his head against the wall, was it a hard blow?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would say it was a hard blow, because if you take into consideration what his weight was, Mr Biko was a fairly well-built man and added to that, our weight and the momentum of that, that means it must have been a considerable impact.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not as a result of that surprised by the fact that he was possibly unconscious?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he seemed to me almost like a boxer that had been knocked out, but he was not totally unconscious to the point that he didn't know what was going on around him. CHAIRPERSON: He would have been counted out on his feet, it would have been a knock out?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he seemed very dazed, very confused.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the reason why you and somebody else had to actually lift him up onto his feet just before you cuffed him to the bars?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He couldn't get up himself?

MR NIEWOUDT: I think that he probably would have been able to get up himself, but we lifted him up to be able to hold him in that position.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you just ask him to get up?

MR NIEWOUDT: I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know you didn't, but I am asking you why not, isn't it because he was unconscious?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible, but I would rather have said that he had showed some reaction, that is how I interpreted it at that stage, and that he might once again resort to violence.

ADV BOOYENS: Perhaps just to complete the picture, more or less how long after falling down onto the ground, did Siebert give you the instruction to chain him to the bars, just approximately?

MR NIEWOUDT: Approximately 10 minutes, if I have to estimate it now.

ADV BOOYENS: So for 10 minutes he was on the floor in this half sitting and half laying position?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Siebert then gave you the instruction to cuff him as you described, please continue.

MR NIEWOUDT: Snyman then left the room after more questions had been put to him by Siebert and he not reacted in any way. Snyman then left and as far as I know, reported what had happened to Colonel Goosen.

I observed that his upper lip was swollen and that he had a sort of chafe mark above his left eye.

ADV BOOYENS: Was it on the eye itself?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, above the eye.

ADV BOOYENS: Please indicate where?

MR NIEWOUDT: The speaker is indicating on the forehead, just above the eyebrows.

ADV BOOYENS: Continue.

MR NIEWOUDT: Goosen later returned with Snyman and Goosen spoke to him, and Biko didn't answer him at all. Goosen then said that he should be left in that position to break down his resistance.

ADV BOOYENS: Goosen was then ...

MR NIEWOUDT: A Colonel. He told Beneke and myself to guard him.

ADV DE JAGER: That position in which he was cuffed to the bars, if one can describe it as such, he was virtually crucified against the bars?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, one could say that, but he was able to lift his hands and to move them up and down, because the bars were horizontal.

ADV DE JAGER: How far away were his feet from the ground?

MR NIEWOUDT: His feet were on the ground. We put leg irons on him to cuff his feet and this chain of the leg irons would be the same length as a person's entire leg, in other words you hold it in the middle of your body so that you can walk normally. So it would be about two metres, the chain itself.

ADV SIGODI: What was the room number where he was interrogated?

MR NIEWOUDT: I think it was 619 if I remember correctly. I think it was 619.

ADV SIGODI: And how big was this room?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was very small, a lot of the offices there were very small. It only contained a table and two chairs and a cabinet.

ADV SIGODI: But approximately what would be the length of the room and the width of the room?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would estimate about 2 x 10.

ADV SIGODI: Two meters wide and ten meters long?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I would say approximately 2 meters in width and approximately ten meters in length, but I may be wrong.

ADV SIGODI: Where was the table situated, was it in the middle of the room?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was in the middle, yes.

ADV SIGODI: So when you and your colleagues were dragging him from one point to the wall, from which side were you dragging him? Were you dragging him along the width of the room, or along the length of the room?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, it would have been the width.

ADV SIGODI: So you pulled him about two meters away to the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: He wasn't dragged. There was a struggle between us, and after we had grabbed hold of him, our momentum carried us in the direction of this wall on the north side of the room.

ADV BOOYENS: Goosen entered the room and gave the order that you should leave him there. Approximately what time was that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Once again if I have to estimate, it was about ten o'clock?

ADV BOOYENS: In the morning?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And Beneke and yourself were instructed to guard him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: To guard him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: What happened during the rest of the day?

MR NIEWOUDT: In the course of the afternoon, it became clear to me that there was something wrong with Mr Biko, because he asked me for some water at some point and he was speaking very incoherently, almost as if he was slurring his words, like a person under the influence of liquor.

I could see rather clearly that there was something wrong with Mr Biko.

CHAIRPERSON: How long after the banging of his head against the wall, was that?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was in the afternoon, and approximately three hours afterwards.

ADV DE JAGER: I still don't know what the time was, you say three hours afterwards?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, if I have to estimate it would have been between one and two o'clock Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew for a fact that his condition wasn't due to drunkenness?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I am trying to simply describe what my observations were in my layman's terms Mr Chairperson. I went and reported this to Colonel Goosen. He then came and told me that he would arrange for the necessary medical examination.

At approximately four o'clock, just before four that afternoon Mr Beneke and myself, untied Mr Biko from the bars and just before that I noticed that he had urinated, he had wet himself. I then untied him from the bars, I placed him on a mat, a cell mate. His feet were still attached to the grill.

CHAIRPERSON: When you realised that something drastic was wrong with this man, why didn't you remove him, untie him from these bars?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was simply following the instructions from Goosen. He told me that that man would stand there so that his resistance would be broken down, and I was simply following orders.

CHAIRPERSON: You never questioned that, that order?

MR NIEWOUDT: No I wouldn't have dared to question that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was only a Sergeant, a junior person. I wouldn't never have told a Colonel or questioned a Colonel, I would never have dared to do that.

ADV BOOYENS: At about four o'clock that afternoon, you untied his arms from the bars?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And you placed him on a mat?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: In that same office?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You then went the office, you went off duty?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I went of duty - the evening staff then came on duty.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you remove him from the bars?

MR NIEWOUDT: Because he was wet at that stage, and I could see that he was ill according to my observation, I wanted to give him a chance to rest.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the orders?

MR NIEWOUDT: I then handed it over to Wilken who was a Lieutenant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, I am not trying to trap you, I am simply trying to understand what happened. You said that when you realised that something was drastically wrong with Mr Biko, you still did not untie him from the bars, because your instructions were to keep him there?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Later on you however did so, without having the necessary orders to do so, and I am simply trying to find out why you did that if your instructions and orders were so important to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: I took it upon my shoulders, I assumed responsibility for that because he was tied to those bars from ten o'clock that morning, I was going off duty and a new team had arrived to guard him, they took over from me. I took him off from the bars so that he could rest. That is how I can explain it.

Beneke was the senior, he was my senior in any event, he was a Warrant Officer and he agreed. It is not as if I did it on my own initiative.

ADV BOOYENS: I can't recall whether you said that the afternoon when he was speaking in a slurred way, whether you mentioned this to anybody?

MR NIEWOUDT: I did, I mentioned it to Goosen yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I remember now, you reported that to Goosen. You then went off duty ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I think that is when Mr Goosen said leave him there to break down his resistance.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Niewoudt, the next morning, did you report for duty at about seven o'clock, seven thirty in the morning?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you go back to that office?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I went there directly.

ADV BOOYENS: Was Mr Biko still there?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he was still lying on the mat.

ADV BOOYENS: What happened there in the course of the day?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was the Wednesday, approximately nine thirty, between nine and ten o'clock when Dr Lang arrived there with Goosen.

ADV BOOYENS: Lang was the District Surgeon for Port Elizabeth?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. I can recall that Dr Lang offered Mr Biko some water and he instructed me to remove Mr Biko's clothes because they were wet.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, was that the first time that the Doctor had visited him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: From the time that he had his head banged against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. That was the Wednesday.

ADV BOOYENS: It was about twenty four hours later?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. I undressed Mr Biko and gave him some blankets.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Lang examine him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he did. On the 8th, I was guarding him again, Dr Lang had left.

ADV BOOYENS: Did he stay in the office all day?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I moved in and out of the office, and on the 8th ...

ADV BOOYENS: Is that the next day?

ADV DE JAGER: The Thursday?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is the Thursday, the 8th I reported for duty again on that morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go to the 8th, what did the Doctor say after he had examined Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: The Doctor and Colonel Goosen entered the room and I went to my office which was the one immediately adjoining, I wasn't present during the examination after Dr Lang told me to take off his clothes, I did that and left.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but as I understand your evidence, he was still detained there for interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did nobody tell you look, you may continue with the interrogation, or you must stop it immediately or whatever the position was?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I was given an order to guard him throughout the day.

ADV BOOYENS: By whom?

MR NIEWOUDT: By Colonel Goosen. Afterwards Dr Lang and Dr Tucker arrived there.

ADV BOOYENS: Was that on the third day, the Thursday?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Tucker is also a District Surgeon in Port Elizabeth?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he was the Senior District Surgeon.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, continue.

MR NIEWOUDT: I then went off duty. I went off duty at four o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you saying about Tucker?

MR NIEWOUDT: Dr Lang and Tucker visited him again that morning. I then went off duty at four o'clock and the next day I heard that Mr Biko had been taken to the North End Prison on the evening of the 8th, the Thursday evening for medical examination.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you have any further dealings with him?

CHAIRPERSON: What did the two Doctors say about Mr Biko that morning?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. They once again arrived there in the company of Goosen and they had a look at him, and then they left.

On Sunday, the 11th, on the instructions of Colonel Goosen, Lieutenant Wilken and myself and Captain Siebert went and fetched Mr Biko at the North End prison. I waited at the vehicle and Mr Siebert and Wilken went inside and they received him.

They came out, they supported him, helped him to get in the vehicle. We took him to Walmer police cells where he was further detained in terms of security legislation.

ADV BOOYENS: What was his condition like, according to you at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: According to me, he was ill.

ADV BOOYENS: Right, you took him to Walmer, what happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: At Walmer I removed his clothes on the instruction of Goosen. Detainees were not allowed to be detained wearing their clothes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That was an instruction which apparently came from Head Office to try and prevent suicides by political detainees at the time, that is how I understood it.

But there are other ways to commit suicide. I think the instruction per se is not a strong enough preventative measure.

CHAIRPERSON: We now know that there were very few suicides of political detainees, or am I wrong?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I can only think of Mr Mohapi actually, so that is one of which I am personally aware. I am talking about political detainees - there have have been others in the country.

CHAIRPERSON: What I would like to find out is this, there weren't so many political suicides to justify such a rule that their clothes should be taken away from them, is that not so?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so Chairperson, as I have already said, but I simply carried out the order, that is how I understood it. There were many other ways to commit suicide if the person really wanted to.

ADV BOOYENS: What you are actually trying to say to the Chairperson is that you personally don't think it was a very logical reason?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV BOOYENS: His clothes were removed on the instructions of Goosen at Walmer police station, that was the Sunday morning?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you leave Walmer police station?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, and late that afternoon I was contacted to go to Walmer police station and I had to take the necessary clothes because we were going to transfer Mr Biko to the Central Prison in Pretoria.

ADV BOOYENS: When you arrived at Walmer, tell us what happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: On my arrival at Walmer Captain Siebert was there already. I speak under correction, but I don't know whether Major Snyman was there, but I could imagine that he was. Dr Tucker was there, Colonel Goosen was there, Fouche was there.

ADV BOOYENS: We haven't heard about Fouche, who was he?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was a Warrant Officer who was at the Security Branch at that stage and he was with White Affairs, and Wilken was there too.

We placed Mr Biko on a cell mat, we carried him to a Land Rover, the back seats were removed, the cell mats were placed in the back of the Land Rover. Those were closed Land Rovers, not the opened one.

ADV BOOYENS: A station wagon type vehicle?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. He was carried to the vehicle on the cell mat, loaded in and he was covered in a blanket and we left for Pretoria.

ADV BOOYENS: Who was this?

MR NIEWOUDT: Captain Siebert, Lieutenant Wilken, Warrant Officer Fouche and myself.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he conscious or was he unconscious?

MR NIEWOUDT: According to my opinion he was not fully conscious. I don't know, I don't know any - I couldn't even hear what he was saying. It is difficult for me to say whether he was...

ADV BOOYENS: He did not give any indication that he was fully conscious?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: He did not move or anything like that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is right.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you see Tucker, was he worried?

MR NIEWOUDT: Again speculation Mr Chairperson, it did not seem like he was worried.

ADV BOOYENS: Let me ask you the following question. Was Tucker there when you loaded the deceased in the back of the vehicle? Did you hear Tucker say that it would be dangerous to take him to Pretoria in a Land Rover, you should not transport him?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he did not mention any of this. What I can remember was that Captain Siebert told Goosen is there no aeroplane available. Apparently there was no aircraft available to transfer him. Indication was that according to the medical people he could be transported by road.

ADV BOOYENS: You drove to Pretoria, to Central Prison?

MR NIEWOUDT: I remained at the vehicle and Warrant Officer Fouche, Wilken and Siebert handed Mr Biko over to the prison authorities.

CHAIRPERSON: How did he get from the vehicle to the Central Prison?

MR NIEWOUDT: It has changed now. At that time, at the entrance to reception we stopped there, and they supported him, and they carried him in.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of support?

MR NIEWOUDT: Meaning he was in between them, and he was leaning on them. The two of them on either side of him.

CHAIRPERSON: And his feet?

MR NIEWOUDT: Well, he was dragging his feet according to me.

ADV BOOYENS: He was taken inside. You remained at the vehicle, you did not go inside the prison and when they returned, you returned to Port Elizabeth?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And later you heard that Mr Biko had died?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: On your arrival at Port Elizabeth, on page 23, paragraph 28, what happened then?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was on a Saturday.

ADV BOOYENS: When did you hear Mr Biko had died?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was the following day.

ADV BOOYENS: When you had returned to PE?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, after our arrival because we left immediately for Port Elizabeth, and the following day when I arrived at the office, I heard the report that Mr Biko had died.

ADV BOOYENS: You mentioned something about a Saturday?

MR NIEWOUDT: On Saturday, not long after the death of Mr Biko, we were called together.

ADV BOOYENS: By whom?

MR NIEWOUDT: By Colonel Goosen. Where he stated that we cannot make public what had happened there, because it would put the government in a bad light. We must make our statements a day later of what happened.

ADV BOOYENS: I don't think you are putting it clearly. You had to change the date of the incident to a day later?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And these false statements were made, affidavits were made?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And this was perpetuated at the inquest?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: There is a gap of a day, it looked like the man was hurt a day later?

MR NIEWOUDT: It appeared that this incident happened on the 7th instead of the 6th.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, you made this false affidavit - why?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was on instruction of Goosen.

ADV BOOYENS: What was Goosen's motivation?

MR NIEWOUDT: His motivation was that the government of the day should not be embarrassed and they would - the recall of the security legislation would be effected by this.

ADV BOOYENS: And to cover up that the man did not receive medical attention?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm, you have given verbal evidence, but do you confirm what appears in your amnesty application regarding the Jones and Biko incidents?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, here are two incidents here. Firstly an assault and secondly an involvement with manslaughter and perjury?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: What was the motives behind this, why did these incidents happen?

MR NIEWOUDT: Firstly with regard to both the assaults with regard to myself, on Mr Jones and Mr Biko, this was in connection with interrogation of the person to gather information from the persons, to neutralise the unrest of the Black Power Movement, that was the main motivation.

ADV BOOYENS: You have dealt with it previously, but during 1977, your personal belief then with regard to the policy of apartheid, the whole policy of the security legislation, what was your personal belief with regard to this?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believe that it was justified. My Dutch Reformed minister held sermons with regard to this.

ADV BOOYENS: The policy of the government then, were approved of?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What did they say - just the policy of apartheid ...

MR NIEWOUDT: They identified with the policy of apartheid, they never said that it was wrong, that one should not do this, one should not do that.

CHAIRPERSON: But I am sure they did not mention that the methods of the apartheid policy had to be guarded, did they agree to that?

MR NIEWOUDT: As long as we did not embarrass them, they did not say that you must go about illegally.

ADV BOOYENS: What the Chairperson wants to ask you Mr Niewoudt is, are you saying that the Dutch Reformed Synod approved that people were to be assaulted? I think that was the question. The principle of the policy was approved, but the fact of assaults - we are just talking about the church now.

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Just to join up here, what was the attitude with what we called terrorism at that time?

MR NIEWOUDT: They were opposed to that, to the terrorism and they prayed for us spiritually to fight against this terrorism.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this terrorism in general or just black terrorism?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was terrorism, general terrorism against the State or the government of the day.

ADV DE JAGER: At that stage the attacks on the State it was mainly by black nationalists, so they did not speak out and say fight also white terrorism, they said fight terrorism?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. They were propagating the survival of the white State.

ADV BOOYENS: Just to continue with the political motivation that you mentioned before. Why does a country have Security Police?

MR NIEWOUDT: To protect the State.

CHAIRPERSON: Does this include the government of the day?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure, according to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: In the present circumstance he cannot survive if there was an attack on him, and he does not have the security network, it needed the security network to survive.

ADV BOOYENS: The Security Branch, the work that you did, was this directed to keep the National Party in government at that time?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: The intention of the Black Power Movement was amongst others to overthrow the government and put in place another government?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, with force.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, we are just coming back to what you mentioned about the Synod, the background how you were brought up, the political talks that you heard, propaganda and so forth.

Were you at peace with this that what you were doing was necessary, did you feel it was wrong or right?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believed it was correct to protect that order, and I was loyal to this cause.

ADV BOOYENS: At that stage you were a Sergeant, how do you feel with reference to the death of Mr Biko and the assault of Mr Jones, how do you feel about that today?

MR NIEWOUDT: I am sorry that it happened. I just wish to say further that I hope that in future it wouldn't happen again with any other Police instance, that it would not happen again - these incidents would not take place again and there would be reconciliation in the country and that everybody would work together to establish a beautiful South Africa.

ADV BOOYENS: At page 24 paragraph 10(a), you summarise your political objectives?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm this?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm the whole contents of your application?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Is there anything else you wish to add?

MR NIEWOUDT: No Mr Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: Just a moment Mr Chairperson. This is the evidence Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS: .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: Thank you Judge. I want to take you back to the Saturday morning after Mr Biko's death, at the meeting presided over by Colonel Goosen when it was decided that all of you would commit perjury in order to protect the State. Are you there?

MR NIEWOUDT: I am there.

ADV BIZOS: The fact that Mr Biko suffered a serious injury to his head by knocking his head against the wall, was that mentioned at this meeting where the perjury was planned?

MR NIEWOUDT: What I can remember is that we never mentioned any of this that Mr Biko had knocked his head against a wall, but at the OC it was mentioned that he knocked his head.

ADV BIZOS: Listen to the question please and don't anticipate the question and question thereafter. At the meeting on that Saturday morning where the perjury was planned, did anyone mention to Colonel Goosen that Mr Biko had smashed his head against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Why would that very simple explanation of the catastrophic position that the government and the country found themselves in, kept from Mr Goosen during that meeting at which the story was being fixed up?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you tell him?

MR NIEWOUDT: At that stage Mr Chairperson, I was lowest rank at that time, there were other persons - I don't know if Mr Snyman already mentioned this to him. All that I know is that not one of the affidavits at the inquest, at the death inquest that was handed in, mentioned that his head was knocked against the wall.

And nobody mentioned the mark above his left eyebrow. That is how I remember nobody mentioned it, we just omitted to mention it.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not asking you to answer for anybody else. My question is why did you not inform Mr Goosen that Mr Biko had knocked his head against the wall during the planning of this perjury?

MR NIEWOUDT: I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not, is there any reason?

MR NIEWOUDT: There is no specific reason, I just did not.

ADV BIZOS: You are correct that no one of the numerous affidavits that were filed at the 1977 inquest, mentioned that Mr Biko had knocked his head against the wall.

Do you agree that if in fact Mr Biko knocked his head against the wall, and if an innocent or less blameworthy explanation was being sought for the tragic results and the great embarrassment to the country, the self inflicted injury by Mr Biko against a wall, would have been if not a perfect explanation, most certainly one that would have gone a long way in letting the government and the Security Police off the hook?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I don't think my learned friend did it deliberately, I don't think it was the witness' evidence at any stage that Mr Biko's injury was self inflicted.

ADV BIZOS: I will change that, that the injury was as a result of his knocking his head against the wall. It would have been a much better explanation than anything that the Security Police had to offer to explain the tragic results?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct Mr Chairperson, I don't know but Goosen read through our affidavits.

ADV BIZOS: Would you not agree that the most likely explanation that we would urge the Committee to accept is that the reason why nobody mentioned that he knocked his head against the wall, was because it did not happen, and the inciters to perjury and conspirators to perjury didn't have enough sense at that time, to make it up.

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I deny this strongly. What happened in truth, and what I am explaining now, is what happened there truthfully Mr Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: Would you agree that - or rather let me put it this way, can you suggest to the Committee any other explanation for your failure and the failure of all your colleagues to mention anything about a knocking of the head against the wall at that meeting or in any affidavit, can you suggest any other explanation?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I think about it now, I can just draw the inference that we had to hide this in our initial affidavit. CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr Niewoudt, then there was no mechanism like we have now. At that time all police officers present or responsible for Mr Biko, you answer now that this is what Mr Goosen decided that you had to say, but I think the question, the objective of the question is what was your attitude, or what was your attitude supposed to be with regard to the death of Mr Biko, why did you yourself not take your future into your hands and say no, but this is what happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believed that I had the necessary protection from the government or from my Commanding Officers at that stage, I believed it. That is why the affidavit was changed and that we did not have to go to court and be charged, that is how I felt.

ADV BIZOS: I will try for the last time on this point. We were told that the reason for the purged version was in order not to embarrass the government. How did hiding the fact that Mr Biko knocked his head on the wall, help the government? Did it not in fact make its position worse because there was no reasonable explanation given out to the world as to how Mr Biko came to meet his death?

MR NIEWOUDT: Again as I have said previously, it was put to me that we should not embarrass the Security Branch or the government or that the security legislature would be repealed. We had to - that is how Mr Goosen decided, that is why we changed the date and it was not mentioned.

ADV DE JAGER: What the Advocate puts to you, here you had a nice explanation to the world, it could look like you did nothing, Biko knocked his head himself, you were not to blame for it, why at that stage, did you not use it as an excuse?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot tell you. I hear what you say, but at that stage I did not think of it in that manner. It is easy now when one thinks back, at that stage during the inquest, it was hammered upon that nobody mentioned the injury.

I am still under the impression that it was possibly Goosen that covered this up. I do not know what was his objective with this.

ADV BIZOS: Let's try another one. You saw Dr Lang coming to see the smashed up Mr Biko, yes, is that the answer, you saw him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Please repeat the question Mr Bizos?

ADV BIZOS: Did you see Dr Lang come to examine the smashed up Mr Biko on the morning of the 7th of September 1977?

MR NIEWOUDT: Could you just explain Mr Bizos, with regard to smashed up?

ADV BIZOS: Injured, seriously injured. He had become semi-unconscious, he was incoherent, he was incontinent, he was wetting his pants as a result of his injuries. Did you see Dr Lang examining Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, they visited him.

ADV BIZOS: In your presence?

MR NIEWOUDT: In my presence they were there as I said, and afterwards I left the room.

ADV BIZOS: Just listen to me for a moment please. Don't say they were there, was Dr Lang there, was the injured Mr Biko there and you there?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct and Goosen.

ADV BIZOS: Right. Did Dr Lang ask you and Goosen why did you call me, what has happened to this man?

MR NIEWOUDT: Lang did not speak to me.

ADV BIZOS: Did he speak to Goosen or did he ask Biko what had happened to him, you know like Doctors always do - if you call them in, they say what is the matter? They ask.

MR NIEWOUDT: Possibly he could have asked, I did not hear this.

ADV BIZOS: Well, did you tell Dr Lang that Mr Biko knocked his head against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: I didn't. I didn't tell Dr Lang that.

ADV BIZOS: Was the injury to his lip and the injury on his forehead visible when Dr Lang came there?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believe he would have seen it.

ADV BIZOS: Did he ask you as the person who was guarding the detainee, the injured detainee how did these injuries come about?

MR NIEWOUDT: He didn't.

ADV BIZOS: Did you volunteer, were you concerned about Mr Biko's well-being at that time?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I wasn't.

ADV BIZOS: Were you not concerned that an adult appeared to be confused and incoherent and incontinent, was it not a matter of concern to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, because the Doctor was there and the Officer was there, they were dealing with the situation. I actually ...

ADV BIZOS: Why didn't you tell the Doctor that this person wet his pants, he appears not to be able to control himself?

MR NIEWOUDT: He could see it.

ADV BIZOS: He is confused, why didn't you tell him he knocked his head against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: He saw that his trousers were wet, but I didn't tell him that his head had banged against the wall. I am disciplined - I don't speak out of turn. Who am I?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what is a stethoscope?

MR NIEWOUDT: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember whether the Doctor had a stethoscope, do you know what it is?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Dr Lang have a stethoscope?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he examine Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he examined him but I then left the office.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am talking about the time when you were present.

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't he ask anybody there what had happened to this man?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't he ask why is this man in such a condition or what have you done to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. He left me with Goosen, what the two of them discussed, I really don't know.

ADV BIZOS: Goosen who got promoted after this event, is no longer with us, he has passed away, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was only promoted much later.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, but he is dead?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Now, were you present when Dr Lang gave a piece of paper to Mr Goosen to the effect that there was nothing wrong with Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: I know nothing about that.

ADV BIZOS: Do you know that Dr Lang gave Mr Goosen a piece of paper which said that there was nothing wrong with Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: When did it come to your notice that such a note had been extracted from Dr Lang?

MR NIEWOUDT: During the inquest.

ADV BIZOS: Did you try to find out why Dr Lang gave a false certificate to Mr Goosen, when to your knowledge, there was plenty wrong with Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I didn't.

ADV BIZOS: When did you for the first time learn that it was given out and pretended that there was nothing wrong with Biko, but that he was not ill or injured, but that he was feigning illness or disability, when did you learn that?

MR NIEWOUDT: During the inquest.

ADV BIZOS: You must have learnt long before that, because your minister, Mr Kruger had made that publicly known. Firstly that there was nothing wrong with him, he was on a hunger strike and alternatively he was feigning illness. Didn't you hear your Minister say that on a matter on which you were so vitally involved?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct yes.

ADV BIZOS: No, where did your Minister get the information that Mr Biko was feigning illness, that there was nothing wrong with him, or that he was on a hunger strike?

MR NIEWOUDT: Probably from the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch.

ADV BIZOS: Or probably he got the information from you, because Mr Goosen was not there in the room to see what had happened?

MR NIEWOUDT: He didn't hear it from me. I had no channel of communication to the Minister. I was only a Sergeant, it is ridiculous.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, but I am talking about Mr Goosen. Mr Goosen wasn't in the room, he must have got the information from you and your colleagues in order to pass it on to his Minister, to your Minister and his Minister?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have said in my evidence in chief, Mr Snyman went to Goosen. Siebert spoke to him, they were senior officers. He also came to visit him himself, that is Goosen.

I also went to Goosen and told him what Mr Biko's condition was, how his condition was that afternoon.

ADV BIZOS: Did you tell Mr Goosen that you had beaten up Mr Biko with a hosepipe?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't think I mentioned it to him. But I could have done so, I am not sure. I have no recollection of doing that.

CHAIRPERSON: If you had mentioned it to him, when would you have done so?

MR NIEWOUDT: It could have been on the Saturday, if I had done so, but I don't think I did. It would have been the Saturday when we were all together.

CHAIRPERSON: So you discussed the whole matter?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't you discuss on the Saturday morning you know tram lines imposed with a hosepipe on the back of a person's body, are visible when he is dead to the District Surgeon who does the post-mortem examination, didn't you discuss that on Saturday morning?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible, but I have no independent recollection of that.

ADV BIZOS: How come, how come or perhaps I should ask you another question first before I put this one. Do you feel or believe that you personally contributed to Mr Biko's death?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believe that by not giving him the necessary medical care immediately, I suppose that contributed to it.

ADV BIZOS: Is that all that you feel any responsibility for?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. I think that if he had been given immediate medical attention, then Mr Biko might have been alive today.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were sufficiently ranked, you would have obtained that medical assistance for him?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I was in charge at that stage, I think I would have done that.

CHAIRPERSON: I want to understand your evidence correctly that the only reason you never obtained this assistance for him, was because you were so lowly ranked and you didn't think it your place to dictate to your superiors?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Is that the only contribution that you think that you might have made to Mr Biko's death?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: Nothing else?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: You never felt that the half a dozen or so blows with your hosepipe had anything to do with contributing to Mr Biko's death?

MR NIEWOUDT: No. If I recall the inquest report by Dr Laubscher or the post-mortem report by Dr Laubscher, there were not there many blows from the hosepipe. I may be wrong, but those blows would not have caused any damage. That is according to my opinion.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, we will accept that for the purposes of my next question.

Did you see anybody throwing punches in the room in which Mr Biko was being interrogated?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, yes. Blows were aimed backwards and forwards and that is why I at that stage took the initiative of hitting him with the hosepipe, to distract him.

Yes, there were. Whether the blows actually found their target I don't know. It is like in a rugby scrum.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, without a referee. Did you see Mr Siebert throwing punches?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he did.

ADV BIZOS: How many punches did you see him throw?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is impossible for me to say, it is impossible for me to say.

ADV BIZOS: Did you see Mr Snyman throwing punches?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I don't think Mr Snyman was part of that struggle when we were trying to restrain Mr Biko.

ADV BIZOS: Did you see Mr Beneke throwing punches?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible, but I have no independent recollection of that.

ADV BIZOS: Did you see Mr Marx throwing punches?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: Now, we know how Mr Biko died and why he died, because a tremendous blow was administered, was what the leader of your Branch used in a telegram, that force was applied to one side of his head of such intensity that it threw the head back, so that the soft matter of the brain smashed on the opposite side of his skull.

Can you tell us whether one or other of the punches thrown by Mr Siebert, may have caused that injury that led to Mr Biko's death?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, from what I can remember of the post-mortem or the inquest, even the two Doctors, Dr Laubscher and I think Dr Procter could not agree on what exactly caused Mr Biko's death.

It is difficult for me who is a layman, to try and explain what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is, is it possible that Mr Biko's head was injured as a result of his head slapping back with great force because he had been hit by a fist?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible, but from a layman's point of view I would rather say that it was more probable when he fell against the wall.

I didn't see anybody who did that, because in any case if anybody planted a blow like that, his hand would have been terribly swollen.

ADV BIZOS: Well, we don't know whether Mr Siebert's hand was in fact swollen or not, and having regard to the degree of perjury that you all indulged in after the event, hiding that fact would have been a matter of not great concern, would it?

MR NIEWOUDT: Chairperson, I am here to tell the truth. I believe or I can remember that I actually hit Mr Beneke by mistake and he mentioned this afterwards.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

MR NIEWOUDT: So, one would immediately have noticed that, so no, I don't think so.

ADV BIZOS: We will deal with Mr Beneke and how you hit him and we will argue who might have gone bezerk there, you or Mr Biko, having regard that you finished up beating your colleague.

Let's leave that aside for the moment. You made an affidavit in your application. Where can we find anywhere in your application that punches were thrown? Show us where you mentioned that punches were thrown in your affidavit, you've come here to tell the truth.

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, may I please have a moment to look for the particular place? Page 17, I don't know how your bundle of documents has been paginated. It says there that blows were exchanged backwards and forwards, and people were shunted around.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is page 17, paragraph 17.

ADV BIZOS: That is the passage that we put to your colleagues who didn't speak about it in their applications.

Now what was the purpose of the punches being thrown?

MR NIEWOUDT: According to my observation, it was to defend themselves and to restrain Mr Biko, because Mr Biko was also dishing out blows.

ADV BIZOS: There were four of you, at least four and possibly five. How do you restrain a person by throwing punches at him when there are four or five of you?

Let me put the question that I put to your colleagues. Each one takes a hand or a foot and you've got one to spare - that is how to restrain a person. Not to throw punches, nor to beat him with a hosepipe? Do you agree with the general proposition that I have made to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is not that simple, it is not as simple as Mr Bizos has put it now. Mr Biko was a fairly well-built man, and to just restrain him by grabbing hold of him would have been a totally different matter. If wouldn't then have been necessary to trade blows or to restrain him, but nobody actually could succeed in grabbing hold of him, after he got to his feet after the incident at the wall.

There was a whole struggle and how do you then grab hold of somebody and when blows are exchanged and in that struggle it is very difficult to actually restrain somebody. I am not exactly sure, but that is how I saw it at the time.

ADV BIZOS: Even if we were to confine ourselves to the evidence that you have given in this case, having regard to the fact that you beat up Mr Jones with a hosepipe and you used a hosepipe on Mr Biko, it would appear that the hosepipe was an instrument of choice for your torturing people?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, not as far as Mr Biko was concerned. It was to distract him because I was scared that this struggle would become out of control - and it actually worked.

ADV BIZOS: Do you think that your beating Mr Biko with a hosepipe on a number of occasions, actually helped the situation?

MR NIEWOUDT: I think so because my other colleague immediately got the chance to grab hold of him, that is how I saw it.

ADV BIZOS: You and your colleagues were in what we may describe as a self defence situation?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: So that the infliction of the blows by the hosepipe is nothing that you have to apologise for, or feel responsible for?

MR NIEWOUDT: It may be.

ADV BIZOS: It is more than may be. It is a logical conclusion from your own evidence.

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it is a method which I used to try to restrain Mr Biko.

ADV BIZOS: You used no unlawful force whatsoever on Mr Biko on your version?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was only during this struggle, this was the violence which I applied then, and whether I exceeded my limits, I don't know, that is debateable.

ADV BIZOS: I am talking about whether it is your case that you were entitled in the circumstances, to attempt to subdue Mr Biko together with your colleagues and that you acted in self defence and that you had done nothing wrong, in that regard?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, but Chairperson what about when we handcuffed him to the bars. That was also part of the assault.

ADV BIZOS: We will deal with your putting him up crucifixion style in due course. The question was whether you feel any responsibility whatsoever for having beaten him up with a hosepipe?

MR NIEWOUDT: I hit him with this hosepipe.

ADV BIZOS: We know that, but do you persist that you were in the circumstances, entitled to do that because you were really associating yourself with your colleagues in order to subdue him, because he had gone bezerk?

MR NIEWOUDT: Once again, interpretation was important here, maybe we exceeded our bounds.

ADV BIZOS: But you don't feel that you have exceeded your bounds?

MR NIEWOUDT: Maybe I did.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If it wasn't for this rugby scrum as you put it, that took place there, I don't know how many rugby scrums we still have left in the country, but that is irrelevant, if it hadn't been for this rugby scrum situation you wouldn't have taken up the hosepipe?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BIZOS: If in fact you acted in self defence and leaving aside now the hanging up of Mr Biko, even though his feet may have been on the ground, leaving that aside for the moment, you actually believe that you did no wrong?

MR NIEWOUDT: I wouldn't say that. Once again, I must say that interpretation is important. Maybe I exceeded the limits of restraining a person, but that is a debateable point. According to me, I might have exceeded my limit and then I did do something wrong.

ADV BIZOS: How many blows did you strike on Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Approximately three to five blows, not many.

ADV BIZOS: And we know that two of the blows landed on Mr Beneke, if he is to be believed?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, or I think one blow. I am not aware that two blows landed on Mr Beneke's body.

ADV BIZOS: One? Yes. Why three to five on Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have already said, I did it because nobody was succeeding in restraining him, and that is why I grabbed the hose and hit him with it, and he immediately reacted to that.

His attack was halted. We thereby succeeded in grabbing hold of him.

ADV BIZOS: You see I am going to put to you that your version, and your colleagues' version of what happened there, is a fabrication which was first offered at the inquest and now amended because it was shown at the 1977 inquest that your version as then told, was false because it did not fit with the medical evidence. Do you agree with that?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let's take it in two parts. Do you agree that the evidence of the Doctors was that there must have been unconsciousness or very low level of consciousness and that your story as told to the inquest court, that Mr Biko struggled to the end and it took you some time after he knocked his head on the wall, for you to subdue him, that that evidence was shown to be false at the inquest on the evidence of Dr Procter, Dr Jonathan Gluckman and Professor Laubscher, that this blow was like a knockout blow by a heavy weight in the boxing ring, and that the person would have been out for at least ten minutes to half an hour. Do you recall that evidence?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: And is that the reason why in making the new version for the purposes of this new application, the amendment to the version was made that he was confused and possibly unconscious and that he wasn't able to put up the continued struggle that you had spoken about previously. Wasn't that the reason why it was amended?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: What was the reason because it was amended?

MR NIEWOUDT: The date is one point. I am referring only to myself. The date on which the incident was supposed to have occurred, that was an issue, it happened on the 6th.

Secondly nowhere in my affidavit which was submitted to the inquest, did I refer to his injuries which was sustained after his contact with the wall.

ADV DE JAGER: That was not the question. The question was why, not in which aspects, but why was there an amended evidence or amended story of how he came to these injuries?

MR NIEWOUDT: We just came to tell the actual truth now Mr Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: You see, people tell lies for a purpose, do you agree?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: The fact that evidence was given by your colleagues that there was this struggle to contain him which took place over quite a long time, and no mention of unconsciousness, why was that lie told?

MR NIEWOUDT: When was this, in the inquest or do you mean the amnesty hearing?

ADV BIZOS: In the inquest, why was this there this false version given that there was this struggle after the knock of the head on the wall, and that it took you a long time to subdue him, why was that lie told?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know Mr Chairman. I have already submitted my statement, I never gave evidence to that effect.

What my colleagues and my Commanding Officer said during the death inquest, I do not know.

ADV BIZOS: But wasn't it discussed at the Saturday meeting where the perjury was planned that you were going to say that there was a struggle and he had gone bezerk and it took you quite some time to subdue him, and that you would keep out that there was any confusion or semi-consciousness or unconsciousness or low level of consciousness?

Why was that fact left out at the Saturday morning meeting, how would that in any way have embarrassed the government?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I said previously, I don't know what Goosen's objective was. It was discussed that the blow of his head was mentioned. In later statements, if I can remember correctly, Lieutenant Wilken was the only one who saw the mark above his eyebrow, he was the only one.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, when you made this statement, you didn't know that you were not going to testify at the inquest?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were called to testify, is it wrong if I said that your version would have fitted with the other versions?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you not give Mr Bizos an answer to his question. Why would this version by so?

MR NIEWOUDT: Because Mr Chairperson, it was to hide all of it, what happened there, not to put the government of the day in a bad light. The date was changed, there was no mention ...

ADV DE JAGER: If he did not knock his head, what did he die of, why was he unconscious? What would you have told at the inquest, how did it come about that this man was unconscious if nothing happened to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. If I think about it now, I could probably give an explanation, but at that stage the statement was put that way.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Niewoudt, the question of my colleague is during the planning of this perjury, what did you plan, what would be said at the inquest about this unconscious man?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was about the injury to his head. We had to hide that.

CHAIRPERSON: How would the injury be explained then according to your plans?

You must remember you were a possible witness at the inquest, and you had to prepare during the planning what would be said about this injury. How would we as policemen explain this.

MR NIEWOUDT: That he was himself responsible for this injury.

ADV BIZOS: Let us turn to the question of the date?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to a new point Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we take our half an hour's break now?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, thank you.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: (continued) On the morning of the 6th, did Mr Biko make any admissions of having committed any unlawful acts?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Was he shown any documents or confronted with any documents?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he was.

ADV BIZOS: Which document was he confronted with?

MR NIEWOUDT: The pamphlet.

ADV BIZOS: Could you identify the pamphlet that he was shown or he was confronted with?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was the pamphlet that was confiscated.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, and he did he deny that he had anything to do with it?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: (Speaker's microphone is not on)

MR NIEWOUDT: Annexure 7, it is so.

ADV BIZOS: Did he say that he had absolutely nothing to do with it?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Was he confronted with anything else?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot remember, it is possible.

ADV BIZOS: Try and think.

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know if he was confronted with statements from other detainees.

ADV BIZOS: Was there any discussion at the Saturday morning meeting where the perjered version was discussed as to whether Mr Biko made any damaging admissions or not?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot remember that.

ADV BIZOS: Try and remember, it is rather important, was it or wasn't it?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: If you have a look at page 136 of your affidavit, paragraph 5, the middle of the paragraph.

MR NIEWOUDT: Excuse me is that page 10?

ADV BIZOS: Page 136.

MR NIEWOUDT: Of my application Mr Chairman, is it page 10?

ADV DE JAGER: It is your affidavit dated 17 September 1997.

ADV BIZOS: That is so Mr Chairman.

MR NIEWOUDT: I have it in front of me Mr Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: If you have a look in the middle of paragraph 5, (own translation - he also admitted to another detainee, one Patric Titi, was directly involved with the compiling of an undermining pamphlet that was on the night of the 17/18-08-1977 in Port Elizabeth distributed.

Now, you put up your right hand and you swore that that was the truth when you made this affidavit.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: This was false?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Therefore it must have been discussed on the Saturday morning gathering to commit perjury, not so, otherwise it wouldn't have, a false statement like this wouldn't have found itself in your affidavit?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, but as I sit here I do not have any independent recollection of that, but it is possible.

ADV BIZOS: Well, on your own version, you wouldn't have made up this lie on your own, you must have heard it at the conspiratorial meeting to commit perjury and this is how it comes to be in your affidavit?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: But you see, I am going to put to you that there was more than one reason for having that meeting and in order to change the date.

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, I am sorry I cannot hear, there is something wrong with this earphones. Sorry Mr Bizos. Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: You see, you had to, you thought that you had to change the date to the 7th, because you wanted - you and your colleagues, and it must have been discussed at this meeting - you needed a whole day and a whole night in order to make up a credible story that Mr Biko had condemned himself into admissions that he was planning violence?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV BIZOS: Is that so?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, so it wasn't a simple thing of just avoiding the criticism of the Doctor. You and your colleagues decided to make the injuries on the morning of the 7th, so that you and your colleagues could describe at great length in their attempts to defeat the ends of justice, that during the period, a full day of interrogation on the 6th, and a full night's interrogation during the night of the 6th and 7th, Mr Biko was confronted with affidavits and with documents and with real evidence and he went bezerk the next day because he had admitted his complicity in violence. Isn't that what was worked out at that meeting?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BIZOS: You see there you are, even though none of us were there, we can work things out.

An attempt was made at the inquest to persuade the court that Mr Biko had admitted that he had committed violence, and then he decided to go bezerk the next morning, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. As I have said previously, it is all false which is stated there.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, but then your counsel, Mr Van Rooyen, produced a batch of affidavits that was supposed to have been shown to Mr Biko, that made him collapse to the power of the Security Police, that here they had him, because they had affidavits from other people to show that he had taken part in violence, do you remember that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Unfortunately neither your counsel, nor your colleagues checked the dates of the affidavits. They were executed after Mr Biko's death, do you recall that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct. I think it was put to Mr Snyman. That was the typed version, not the written version. The written version was already on the 12th or the 26th or the 25th, this was made of Exhibit C, it was already made on the 26th of August.

Exhibit A and B was already drawn up on the 25th.

ADV BIZOS: Well, you know that is an explanation that was attempted to be given at the inquest, but we now know that that explanation is nonsense, because you told us that in truth and in fact, Mr Biko never admitted anything and he was not confronted with any affidavits, because he was seriously injured on the morning of the 6th?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: So even the purported explanation to explain the dates of the affidavits, was part of the perjered version?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. So that we now have it from you sir, that it was not contrary to your and your colleagues' nature to fabricate evidence against the living and the dead, in order to convict Mr Biko after his death, of being guilty of planning violence?

Have I put it correctly?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV BIZOS: So that you didn't even have any respect for the dead, you went and took affidavits and made affidavits and typed them after his death, and said that he was confronted with them, and he admitted the correctness of the content, well knowing that you and your colleagues were lying?

MR NIEWOUDT: That was the typed version, but the written version was already in our possession. I just want to draw that distinction.

ADV BIZOS: But that doesn't matter, you never showed it to him on your own evidence. You never showed him, you never had the chance to show him anything, there was a quarrel about a chair and he got a fatal injury.

He was shown nothing of any import and he certainly didn't admit anything?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was shown the pamphlet.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, let's deal with the affidavits. He was not shown any affidavits, so that whether they were written or whether they were typed, doesn't really matter tuppence.

What I am putting to you is that you and your colleagues were prepared to sign affidavits and tell the Magistrate deliberate lies in order to defame Mr Biko's integrity and reputation after his death?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have said in my evidence, yes, we did fabricate false statements.

ADV BIZOS: Now you know, I want to go back to where we started, where your counsel asked you to read this quotation from McEwan because I want to have some details from you about it. Do you say winning a revolutionary war will take massive organisation, dedication, sacrifice and time - the government must decide early if it is willing to pay the price, half measures lead only to protracted costly defeats. Having read that to you, I want to ask you this. Do you say that this gave you authority to assault people with hosepipes?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Do you say that this gave you authorities to hang up, crucifixion style people against grill doors?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Did it give you the authority to commit perjury?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Did it give you authority to falsely accuse people in public life like Mr Biko, of being guilty of terrorism when you knew that your statement was false?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Then sir, who in the name of patriotism gave you the idea that Langenhoven might have written "we would assault, we would lie and we would defame for you, South Africa." Where did you get that idea from?

MR NIEWOUDT: This was the silent approval of the politicians, and to take no action against this treatment of detainees.

ADV BIZOS: That can't be right sir, because your politicians shouted from the rooftops that detainees were well treated, they were not assaulted. Is that correct, do you recall that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: That we had inquest courts where we would hear the truth from the worthy policemen that gave evidence before them, who would dispel the propaganda that the leftists and their lawyers put out, do you remember that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: You knew all those things that your Minister was saying, to be false if your evidence is correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: So that, you didn't - you couldn't accept that you were doing this on their instructions or on their behalf?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I believed it then, I was protected by them and I believed that a person could do it in that manner as long as you did not embarrass them.

ADV BIZOS: Well, you know that can't be right if a portion of your evidence this morning, is correct.

You were asked this morning by one of the members of the Committee whether you told your colleagues that you had assaulted Mr Jones, do you recall that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: And you said no.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV BIZOS: And you were asked why not and your answer was, I would never tell a senior officer that I had assaulted somebody. Do you recall saying that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV BIZOS: Doesn't that indicate if your answer was true, that you were not authorised by your senior officers to assault Mr Jones, or for that matter, anyone else?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so. No senior gave an instruction that it should be done, but it is methods that was used to gather this information.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, I am confused now. Your evidence this morning was that you must do what was necessary and this included illegal?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Surely your government had to know of this?

MR NIEWOUDT: They were not there on the platform or the revolutionary organisation did not propagate violence in public meetings.

It was seldom the case with the government.

CHAIRPERSON: It does not fit in with your answer that those who were senior in rank to you, that you wouldn't have told them that you assaulted someone with a hosepipe, it does not make sense. Why would you not tell them?

MR NIEWOUDT: I do not recall this particular incident that I did, but I don't think that I did.

CHAIRPERSON: You have said that you never told anyone?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is how I remember Mr Chairperson. It is possible.

ADV BIZOS: The similar matter, you know you and your colleagues say in your applications that you were influenced by your church. Did any minister or any elder or any member of the church council ever tell you that it was expected of you to defend your country by assaulting helpless detainees and you would defend your country be committing perjury? Did any religious leader tell you that?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ever discuss the interpretation of this statement from McEwan that you make so much of in your written application?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that was a psychological war. The definition of psychological war Mr Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. It doesn't talk about psychological war, he was talking about revolutionary war.

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, but it was part of psychological warfare.

ADV BIZOS: What I want to ask you is, did you discuss the interpretation of this passage with anyone of your superiors?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was put to us during lectures and where we received training during my police and there had to be discussion with each other that we had to discuss this.

ADV BIZOS: Did you discuss with anyone of a higher rank than yourself, that this was an injunction, a direction, advise for you to use assault and perjury in order to defend your country?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I can't recall that.

ADV BIZOS: Were you aware of standing order number 316 (18)?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I can recall this was the handling of detainees.

ADV BIZOS: No, it doesn't - well, it is not specific to a detainee, but let me read it to you. You should perhaps have known it off by heart if you wanted to be a good policeman and not a torturer.

As a rule there should be no necessity for the use of force, and in any case only such force as is absolutely necessary to overcome resistance to the arrest, shall be used. No justification whatsoever exists for beating, kicking or otherwise ill-treating a person in custody. There is no excuse whatsoever for a member to act in this manner.

Any member found guilty of such conduct must expect to be severely dealt with. Was this order not applicable to the Security Police in Port Elizabeth?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so, that is a regulation.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Is that why you wouldn't tell a senior officer that you had assaulted Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is possible, but I did not mention it. Nobody asked me about this, and I didn't do it. I cannot recall it, I don't believe that I was covering this up, because Siebert would have noticed it, and he would have confronted me.

ADV BIZOS: I don't understand what you mean. You say Siebert would have noticed and he would have confronted you - about what?

MR NIEWOUDT: If he observed this, or had seen it. In the same regulation I referred to that I went over my limits of force and that is why I hit Mr Biko with a garden hose. If I think about it now.

ADV BIZOS: Did you think that if you had told any of your superiors that you had beaten up Mr Jones with a hosepipe, that you may have been either criminally or departmentally charged?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't believe so.

ADV BIZOS: Why not?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believe they would have given me the necessary protection.

ADV BIZOS: They would have lied for you?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: They would have lied for you even if you did it to someone who was charged with theft?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I don't believe so.

ADV BIZOS: Why not? If they were prepared to lie for you in one respect, why wouldn't they have been prepared to lie for you in another?

MR NIEWOUDT: You are speaking of several branchings.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

MR NIEWOUDT: I am speaking of security.

ADV BIZOS: Let us return to the morning on which Mr Biko was injured that led to his death.

What was your and your colleagues' function, in relation to Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was to interrogate him, and to get information from him, and charge him.

ADV BIZOS: Was there any urgency about this interrogation and the rate of its progress?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, there was because there was pressure from the higher levels at that stage to as quickly as possible, to neutralise the unrest situation.

CHAIRPERSON: What was your interrogation directed at, what criminal charge were you intending?

MR NIEWOUDT: It could have been sabotage and subversion and terrorism. That is put very broadly.

ADV BIZOS: You say that it was a matter of urgency and I assume that you are going to tell us that you had orders to get on with it and get some results?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: But you know, you must be careful to try, at least try to tell the truth. For how many days after his arrest, was Mr Biko allowed to stay in a cell alone without a single question being asked of him?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was for a long time, because the other detainees had to give information first.

ADV BIZOS: Oh, I see, so at the time that you detained him, you didn't have any information to put to him, and he was - and you left him in the cell to rot, until such time as you might have obtained some information from somebody, is that what you are saying?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, we had information. We had information - Mr Titi was already detained, and we just needed some supporting evidence to challenge Mr Biko as a leadership figure and we needed the necessary information to confront him.

One could not just go and interrogate him and you know nothing of him, or what the circumstances are.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this interrogation not done to get a confession from him?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Why else did you interrogate him?

MR NIEWOUDT: To gather information about his involvement. Because Mr Chairman, he was under the Security Act, it was a further problem to get a confession from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, I don't understand. Your instruction was to obtain evidence which would cause him to run certain risks and could end up with him in prison?

MR NIEWOUDT: Correct?

CHAIRPERSON: According to your evidence you already had some evidence against him, all that you needed was some corroborating evidence?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The possible or probable corroborating evidence would have been the confession?

MR NIEWOUDT: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also testified that there were certain other people from whom you could have extracted other information?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So the question is why did you continue with the interrogation of Biko, if there was other corroboration, corroborating evidence possible?

MR NIEWOUDT: Once again, I don't know. You must see it in the context of what was happening at that time, I was only a Sergeant and I was ordered to help with the investigation.

The next moment we were busy with Mr Jones, and we had to generate certain information from our questioning of him. The next thing I heard from Snyman was that we had to now turn our attention to Biko.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, what type of charge were you actually investigating?

MR NIEWOUDT: It related to the unrest and it could have related to acts of subversion, sabotage and inflammatory pamphlets that were distributed. All of which amounted to subversion if I look at it now, but that was for the Attorney General to decide.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, but you would have to submit certain evidence to the Attorney General?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: I want to return to the question of urgency. He was arrested on the 18th, he was left in the cell alone until the morning of the 6th so that whatever interrogation you had to direct towards him, didn't have to produce results on the morning of the 6th? 18 days or 19 days of 20 days, would not have made any substantial difference?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is true. Once again I don't know. I was carrying out orders for Mr Biko for purposes of interrogation.

I don't know whether my Commanding Officers thought that they had enough facts to confront Mr Biko or not.

ADV BIZOS: Now, please tell us how you felt in relation to Mr Biko's attitude to the senior white policemen who couldn't not bear the thought of a black man sitting on chair in his presence, how did you feel about that?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is clear that there was a conflict between the two of them. I associated myself with Mr Siebert's decision.

ADV BIZOS: That a black man can't sit on a chair in the presence of a white Security Officer?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I wouldn't put it like that. That is not what it was about, not as far as I was concerned in any event. The issue was that when he was in our presence at the Branch, he shouldn't try and enforce his dominance.

He should not dictate to us what to do, it wasn't a conflict between black and white, although the ideology at the time was aimed at conflict between black and white.

ADV BIZOS: So that this argument was really about status, was it as to who had the right to sit on a chair at a Security Police office and who hasn't?

MR NIEWOUDT: It wasn't about status. What it was about was that we wanted him to understand that he couldn't just do as he pleased in our presence, that is a short definition.

ADV BIZOS: And the insistence that he should get up from the chair and the leading up the quarrel, was it in order to show that your authority at least there if not everywhere in South Africa, was much greater than his?

MR NIEWOUDT: If you put it like that, yes.

ADV BIZOS: Right. Well, I will use the word status if you don't mind as a short cut in my future questions, in relation to this.

So that this quarrel was about the status of a white Security Policeman and a black man who had a leading position in the black community in the country, this was what it was about?

MR NIEWOUDT: Whether he was black or white, the detainee, I don't think that was the issue. It would have been the same.

I don't think it is quite correct the way Mr Bizos puts it. The issue was not that he was black. The issue was the fact that he was a detainee per se.

ADV BIZOS: Now, what political objective did you hope to achieve by hitting Mr Biko with a hosepipe on his back?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I said, at that stage it was necessary to generate information to protect the government, to ensure its survival and we had to use all methods at our disposal to try to neutralise the conflict which existed at the time, and to try and neutralise and control the unrest, Mr Biko.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you testified that you hit him to actually get him out of the scrum so to speak, and for no other reason?

MR NIEWOUDT: But I am talking about my political objective. That is the reason why I wanted to interrogate him.

As far as my assault on Mr Biko is concerned, I perhaps exceeded my limits, it is possible, it is a debateable point.

ADV BIZOS: I am not talking about exceeding the limits. When a person commits an act for the purposes of the application of this legislation and the function of the Committee if we understand it correctly, is that the wrongful act must be committed in order to achieve a certain political objective.

What I want to know from you is what political objective did you hope to achieve by hitting Mr Biko on his back with a hosepipe, what political objective would you have achieved?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I interpret the Act, you have to place your act or offence in a certain context, you can't actually just judge it in isolation, you can't separate it from the political objective.

He was under my control, I was there to protect the State within that milieu of the Security Police. What I did there was in the furtherance of my political objective, because we were dealing with a total onslaught.

What it was about was protecting the political order, that is how I interpret it.

ADV BIZOS: How - what would you have prevented from happening, or what would you have induced to happen by hitting Mr Biko with a hosepipe on his back?

MR NIEWOUDT: I repeat, you have to see it in context Mr Chairman. His interrogation was a method of trying to protect the State that in itself was a political objective. Then the struggle ensued and once again, I acted in the interest of the State.

So, I believe that in respect of the violation of human rights' that I committed it.

ADV BIZOS: I will try one last time and perhaps you could think of a political objective which you might have achieved by using a hosepipe.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, really are we not moving into argument now at this stage? These questions are really argumentative I think, isn't this a matter for argument?

CHAIRPERSON: From the one view point it may be so, but I think it is only fair to give the applicant a chance to deal with the matter.

If he chooses not to or can't, then that is the end of the matter.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. You see, I am going to put to you that assaulting a detainee, assaulting a detainee or committing any delict against a detainee, cannot possibly be an act which brings about any political objective. What do you say to that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, in my interpretation that is the case. I can produce a political motive, I believe that because I was interrogating him in the context of the conflict of the past.

He was under our control and in detention, we were interrogating him and we used those methods to generate information which would lead to the neutralising of the unrest and also would serve to protect my government which was facing the threat of a violent overthrow at the time.

That is what I believed at the time.

ADV BIZOS: Let me try and explain to you ...

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, could I just enquire. The Act requires that the act should be, or the offence should be associated with a political objective.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: It doesn't say that the offence itself should have a political objective.

ADV BIZOS: Well, I was using the shorthand, I accept that, but what I want to make clear, and I don't want to take my learned friend by surprise in argument, and I am going to put to the witness as a concrete example, I can understand that if you have information that a bomb is going to go out at twelve o'clock at a shopping centre and that you loose your temper and you assault a person in your custody in order to avoid the bomb - getting information in order that the bomb should be identified, or found, I can understand that that may be associated with the achieving of the immediate political objective of saving lives in the shopping centre.

This is what I mean, could you tell us once you had him in your custody for 18 days, you didn't ask him a single question, you bring him in and he finds himself being injured in a manner which leads to his death, what political objective did you hope to gain under these circumstances by the acts of assault that you committed?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, he was interrogated. It is not as Mr Bizos put it that no questions were put to him. Questions were indeed put to him, he was confronted for instance with the inflammatory pamphlets.

The pamphlet doesn't say how people were killed, but reference were made to people being killed, and that was all part of the conflict of the past. So, you can't argue in the way that Mr Bizos is, to say that just because there was a bomb, there was no conflict in the past. No, what about acts of sabotage?

The people had not yet left the country at that stage, they hadn't yet had the opportunity to complete their training and come back and plant bombs. What could they use, they had to manufacture petrol bombs, and they used stones and sticks and kieries. People were killed, it doesn't matter what the method was.

I don't think the Act requires of me to have or to prove that I followed a certain method before it can be said to have had a political objective. I was there to suppress and neutralise that which Mr Biko's organisation was responsible for propagating in the country at that stage.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. What was the BPC propagating, not the police propaganda or the statements made by politicians at the time. In fact what was the BPC doing at the time of which Mr Biko was a leading office bearer?

MR NIEWOUDT: Chairperson, everything which happened was connected to Black Power, it was shouted in the streets. I was there, I heard it.

Everything was done under the auspices and under the banner of the BPC, that is what it was about, Black Power.

ADV BIZOS: Did they claim the right of all the people of South Africa, to vote?

MR NIEWOUDT: Repeat the question please.

ADV BIZOS: Did it claim the right for all black people in South Africa, to vote?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: It didn't? Let's see how much of your propaganda you believe.

MR NIEWOUDT: I did not preach propaganda, that is what actually happened.

ADV BIZOS: But you didn't know that the BPC wanted the franchise for everybody in the country?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is why I am saying, I am not a politician. You must look at the conflict of the past and the conflict was caused by the fact that they had no rights.

ADV BIZOS: Let's deal with the facts. Did you consider that the BPC calling for democratic rights of the people, was an act of subversion or Black Power that you want to talk about?

MR NIEWOUDT: Why didn't they negotiate Mr Chairman, there were other methods. It wasn't necessary to burn down the schools, and it wasn't necessary to use violence.

They could have negotiated with the politicians.

CHAIRPERSON: A simple answer to the question would be better.

MR NIEWOUDT: I am sorry Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you repeat the question Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: Did you consider the call by the BPC for democratic rights of all the people in South Africa, a subversion?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: When you wanted to call Mr Biko a terrorist, it was because he was in the forefront of calling for the right to vote by all the people in South Africa in a unitary State?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is so.

ADV BIZOS: And you considered that equivalent to terrorism?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, because it had a military wing as well.

ADV BIZOS: Did the BPC have a military wing?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: When was that formed?

MR NIEWOUDT: In 1974, when Harry Gwenkoeloe en Bokwe Mafoena went to Botswana and founded the Black Consciousness Movement with a military objective.

ADV BIZOS: Was Black Consciousness the same as the organisation BPC in your view?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is the same, there was no difference.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ever hear anybody describing that Black Consciousness was merely an expression of a philosophical concept and an awareness of black people of their worth, did you ever hear about that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, that is from the days of SASO, that is why they broke away from NUSAS.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. And you knew that much which we appreciate, but you did not distinguish between the organisations that had adopted violence as a means to bring about change and an organisation like BPC that was running community programmes in the Eastern Cape and which was trying to consultise people, rather than recruiting them to commit acts of violence, did you know that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, but it was a front organisation.

ADV BIZOS: And this idea of Black Power was a Security Police description of all organisational efforts by black organisations and Black Power was equated to terrorism?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, that was a concept which reached us from America which was accepted there, that is not our propaganda. Every scene where violence was committed, Black Consciousness and Black Power were the order of the day.

ADV DE JAGER: How did the government of the day see the Black Consciousness Movement, did it see it as an enemy, a friend or a neutral body?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was an enemy, because it was only a year afterwards in October, they were banned, all these Black Power organisations were banned.

ADV BIZOS: So was the Christian institute?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, they had input on all social fields and terrains.

ADV BIZOS: That made them enemy organisations?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is true, at that stage, it is a fact.

ADV BOOYENS: This was not the Prime Minister of the National Party. My learned friend is really now moving into a terrain expecting him to answer questions, it was the Nationalist government that banned these organisations, not Sergeant Niewoudt.

ADV BIZOS: Well, perhaps my learned friend will consider calling one of them as witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: I will appreciate that.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. This hosepipe, it seems to have had the tendency to appear on the basis that it was just there, when needed. How did it happen to be there when you assaulted Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have explained, the office which was used was used by Mr Coetzee, he was on coastal patrol, that was his job, and he used this hosepipe to syphon off fuel, and it was there, and I used it.

ADV BIZOS: Where was it in the room?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was on the window sill at the entrance to the office.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, this instruction to use all means at your disposal in order to protect the political order of the day, you testified that that included illegal activities such as assault, etc? I am assuming that Mr Biko and Mr Jones were not the only people who were assaulted in that office in the name of insuring the survival of the State?

MR NIEWOUDT: I did assault another person, and I applied for amnesty for that case.

CHAIRPERSON: That is not what I am referring to. I am not going to ask you at all who the other people were that you assaulted. What I want to find out, the procedure at the offices of the Security Branch at the time, in the exercise of their duty to protect the State, did they bring in certain instruments to hit people with and beat them with?

MR NIEWOUDT: Not as far as I am aware, I didn't use any such instruments.

ADV DE JAGER: Apart from any instruments brought in, certain methods were used?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I heard about those methods

ADV DE JAGER: Methods to, by means of force, extract information from people?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And it was known that illegal methods were used to extract information?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Did your seniors or the Minister or the then government, did they admonish you in any way about this?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, there was this tacit approval. They didn't say anything about it. I got an instruction Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: If you didn't report to them that you had hit Mr Jones in this case, with a piece of hosepipe, how would they have known that you had done this, and how could they have either approved or disapproved of it if they hadn't known about it?

MR NIEWOUDT: May I speculate on that point once again or perhaps give an example. What if this man went to court and he made those allegations in court, it would have come out then, and then it would have been investigated.

ADV DE JAGER: Was it investigated?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know, nobody ever approached me and afterwards Mr Jones wrote about these methods in his publications, these methods of assault used on him.

ADV BIZOS: Let's just take it a bit further. Mr Jones published a statement of what happened to him. Did anybody ask you whether this was true or not?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't recall that anybody ever asked me.

ADV BIZOS: Well, you have seen Mr Jones' public statements. They were substantially true, were they not?

MR NIEWOUDT: Some of it, I wouldn't say all of it.

ADV BIZOS: Well getting beatings with a hosepipe was true?

MR NIEWOUDT: Where I did it, it is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, well I am going to suggest to you that he is also correct when he says that your colleagues did it, but that you are protecting your colleagues here because of this conspiracy of silence amongst Security Policemen, that you don't blame one another for what the other is not prepared to admit.

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I deny that strongly Mr Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: We will examine you more carefully in relation to Mr Jones' evidence later.

ADV SIGODI: Mr Niewoudt, in which room was Mr Jones interrogated?

MR NIEWOUDT: In the same room.

ADV SIGODI: In the same room?

ADV BIZOS: Separated by what period?

MR NIEWOUDT: Please repeat the question?

ADV BIZOS: Separated by what period of time, when Mr Jones was interrogated and when Mr Biko was interrogated?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was about a week I would say.

ADV BIZOS: A week to ten days?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: And was this hosepipe on both occasions on the window sill?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: In room number what?

MR NIEWOUDT: 619 if I am correct.

ADV BIZOS: Now, we had the sad experience of going to that room. Do you agree that - did you say that it was ten metres by what?

MR NIEWOUDT: I mentioned two by ten.

ADV BIZOS: How much? Two by ten? It is more rectangular than that, isn't it. It is a very small room. At most four, four and a half by six or six and a half? Isn't that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it could be. I said I was speculating.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

MR NIEWOUDT: Plans were handed in.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take five square metres Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, and also it is a room which is isolated, you can scream as long as you like in that room, the people in front and around won't hear a thing?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, there are windows that show to the centre area of the building. And below us, floors five and six, and there is the janitor on the 7th floor.

ADV BIZOS: Who had control of that small, inner courtyard?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was open.

ADV BIZOS: You could drive into that small courtyard, when Sanlam was the Headquarters, or portion of Sanlam was the Headquarters of the Security Police?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: What floor was it on - this room?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was on the 6th floor.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: (Speaker's microphone is not on)

ADV BIZOS: I think that it was the 6th floor, if we remember correctly.

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it is correct.

ADV BIZOS: It was the 6th floor. Everybody agrees that it was the 6th floor.

ADV BOOYENS: I think in fairness to my learned friend, I don't know whether it is still the case, I think when we wanted to hand this in, my learned friend indicated at some stage that they do not necessarily accept the correctness of this.

ADV BIZOS: Of the subdivisions.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: At the time that we saw it at any rate. This was used regularly as an interrogation room, was it not?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: And during this period of a week or thereabouts, to ten days, how many people would you consider were interrogated in that room during this period of a week to ten days?

MR NIEWOUDT: Is this after Mr Jones?

ADV BIZOS: Between Mr Jones' interrogation and Mr Biko's interrogation? How many people were interrogated in that room?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I can recall, six persons.

ADV BIZOS: About six persons?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: And each one of them who came to that room, must have seen this hosepipe on the window sill?

MR NIEWOUDT: They could have seen it.

ADV BIZOS: Did it occur to you or your senior officers, that seeing a piece of hosepipe on the window sill at the Headquarters of the Security Police may have possibly been misinterpreted, not to be used to fill motor cars, but rather intended for their backs?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible, I don't know whether anybody...

ADV BIZOS: Didn't anybody say you know, we are going to give people the wrong impression here, what is this piece of decoration doing in this room?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. Nobody ...

ADV BIZOS: Why didn't you think about it?

MR NIEWOUDT: I did not.

ADV BIZOS: I mean you would react very badly if anyone had a piece of hosepipe on the table here, wouldn't you?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so Mr Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: Well, may I suggest to you that what we are going to submit to the Committee has substance, that this was an instrument of choice for beating up people, prominently kept in this room.

MR NIEWOUDT: I have no knowledge of this.

ADV BIZOS: Was there only one piece of hosepipe or were there two different colours?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, what I observed was the green hosepipe.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, and the sense of humour of the Security Police was that you could have a choice between the green hosepipe and the black hosepipe?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I don't know this.

ADV BIZOS: Was there a filing cabinet there?

MR NIEWOUDT: I have mentioned there was a filing cabinet.

ADV BIZOS: Why was Mr Coetzee's private property for the purposes of filling motor cars, why wasn't it put in the cupboard?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: You found it convenient to have it ready for whenever the need arose on the window sill?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: How many people, never mind these two, how many people complained of the green hosepipe and the black hosepipe being used during the period 1976, 1977, 1978 in the courts and elsewhere?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: But you did hear it that it was an instrument of choice by people speaking generally about it. If you went into this room, you were going to be beaten up?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV BIZOS: Where did all the people get this idea from?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to put to you that this whole argument about the black man's right to sit on a chair was about your and your colleagues' warped view that you were superior people and you could not bear the thought of a man who would stand up for what he considered to be his rights?

MR NIEWOUDT: No. Our objective was to interrogate him. I did not have any other objective.

ADV BIZOS: We know that it had become part of the folk law in the Eastern Cape that when if I remember correctly, Mr Hattingh tried to hit Mr Biko during his previous detention in King William's Town, Mr Biko hit him back with fairly strong force, that Mr Hattingh finished up on the floor, you knew that?

MR NIEWOUDT: I heard this during the death inquest.

ADV BIZOS: Well, you surely must have known the person that you had arrested and interrogated?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, from reports and information that I gathered, I had a background of Mr Biko.

ADV BIZOS: And hadn't you heard before he was interrogated at Sanlam, that this incident had occurred with Mr Hattingh?

MR NIEWOUDT: Not that I can recall. What I could recall is during the death inquest.

ADV BIZOS: Well, did you ask your colleagues whether what was said in the inquest, was true or not that Mr Hattingh had come off second best?

MR NIEWOUDT: I did not.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to suggest to you that partly because of that, partly because of your upbringing and a great believer in apartheid and the superiority of the white man, that was at least one of the reasons why you and your colleagues behaved in that way.

MR NIEWOUDT: No. It was purely - with me it was purely the protection of the State. That is how I saw it. I did not hate him per se. The objective of his organisation was an enemy of mine.

ADV BIZOS: I want to read to you from page 270 of the record of your colleagues from which your hearing was separated and this is not brought out by me, but by your own counsel and their counsels, the same person.

We will start at the bottom of page 269 Mr Chairman. This is the record in the other proceedings.

Mr Booyens - prior to your confrontation of Mr Biko, had there been any facts with regard to him personally made available to you? I am not talking about his personal background, but with regard to his character, his physical strength and so on? Mr Siebert - yes, Your Honour. On the morning before the interrogation we had final consultations with Colonel Goosen. He made - he brought it to our attention that Mr Biko would be a difficult chap, that from experience with prior detentions apparently in Natal, he mentioned that during those periods of detention, he offered no cooperation and that he would ignore one, and that on a different occasion in King William's Town, he had beaten a Security Officer, a certain Mr Hattingh with a fist.

Mr Booyens - was this during detention in terms of the security legislation? Yes, I believe so. How seriously did he beat Mr Hattingh? From what we heard, from what we were told he broke his teeth with his fist.

Were you given instruction then by Major Snyman on the morning of the 6th of September to collect him?

Now, you were going to be a member of this interrogation team, were you not?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Well, you must either have been present at the time that Mr Goosen gave this instruction or gave this information?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Or your colleagues must have told you about it?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot recall that.

ADV BIZOS: Now, Mr Biko had written had he not, of how as a result of the experience of one detention, he was going to behave if ever he was detained again. Did you know about that?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot recall this.

ADV BIZOS: Well, we can give you the precise words which were published, but let me just - I am sure you will recognise them. That in detention I am going to be polite to them if they are polite to me. If they are going to try and force me to do anything, I will not cooperate with them at all and that I will not allow my dignity to be insulted even in detention. That was a public statement made by him after his previous detention. Did that not come to your notice and the notice of your colleagues?

MR NIEWOUDT: It may be so, but I don't have independent recollection of this. I do not know which publication you are referring to, I do not know when it was drafted, can I just have some insight into this.

ADV BIZOS: Well, I will read you if need be the very words which - his own very words, but don't you recall something like that, that he was not prepared to be treated as an inferior even though he may have been in detention. Have you not heard of that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That was their ideology, it was the black man's ideology that they were deemed inferior to the white. That was part of their ideology.

ADV BIZOS: And their ideology was anathema to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I mentioned previously, I did not hate Mr Biko per se.

ADV BIZOS: You hated what he stood for?

MR NIEWOUDT: I hated his ideology. It was in conflict with what I was supposed to protect.

ADV BIZOS: So whether he was involved in violence or not, his ideology was a threat to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: And if he insisted sitting on a chair, that was his making a point of his ideology and you will not allow his ideology to take the upper hand as against your ideology?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so, that is how I understood it.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't you think that possibly having a polite discussion with him about your two ideologies, might have got better results than blowing his brain, or his finishing up with a serious injury in his brain?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, we did not blow out his brain like Mr Bizos mentioned.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, I amended that, I said he finished up with an injury.

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, I did not deal with him. I do not believe - it was not his ideology to deal with us. There was conflict, he hated me for what I stood for, the SB's.

ADV BIZOS: You do agree that Mr Biko's death far from advancing the cause of the apartheid government that you wanted to support, it had exactly the opposite effect?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't it occur to you and ...

CHAIRPERSON: This was foreseeable, wasn't it?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: I am sorry, was there an answer?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: You said yes, I am sorry.

ADV DE JAGER: Did the government at the time foresee this?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't believe so, because then they would have done it in the bench.

ADV DE JAGER: Do you know what Mr Kruger's reaction was to this?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he left me cold.

ADV BIZOS: His death left him cold?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Did he regret it shortly thereafter when the world turned against us, against the government that you were supporting?

MR NIEWOUDT: Please repeat the question.

ADV BIZOS: Did Mr Kruger regret his remark when the world turned against the government you were supporting?

ADV BOOYENS: Unless my learned friend could show that the Sergeant was a confidant of the Minister, I don't think that is a proper question.

ADV BIZOS: I am talking about public statements Mr Chairman, I am not talking about the private thoughts of Mr Kruger.

CHAIRPERSON: Of the nature that he was cold.

ADV BIZOS: No, I was never privy to his private thoughts, but I am asking whether shortly thereafter, he persisted in it or whether he realised that he had been wrong?

MR NIEWOUDT: I do not have independent recollection but it is possible. He was probably wrongly quoted.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Wrongly quoted, I see?

MR NIEWOUDT: I will assume, that is what the politicians say in general.

ADV BIZOS: Oh, you mean that Mr Kruger said that he was wrongly quoted when he was reported to having said that it leaves me cold? Is that what you meant?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is true.

ADV BIZOS: Well, actually you are not far wrong, it says that we who don't speak Afrikaans properly, don't understand the term it leaves me cold. That was his first excuse which Afrikaner writers took exception to, that it means just that, but anyway don't let's become too involved in that.

MR NIEWOUDT: Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: Let us come to the assault on Mr Jones. Why did you hit Mr Jones?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would say more out of frustration because he did not want to cooperate.

ADV BIZOS: I thought you were a disciplined officer you told us?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was.

ADV BIZOS: What I do not understand, is this. You didn't need Mr Jones' evidence or anyone else for a charge against Mr Biko that he had broken his banning order, did you? He was arrested outside the area where he was supposed to be?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Did anybody suggest that he should be charged with the offence in respect of which there was evidence against him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. I want to speculate again, I do not have independent recollection what the decision was by Siebert, but because there was no offence we had to attempt to use him as a witness to give evidence against Mr Biko - something which I don't believe would have happened.

ADV BIZOS: No, but on a charge of contravening his banning order, you didn't really need his evidence? The only thing that you had two good police witnesses that he was arrested outside Grahamstown?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is so, but I think this was the Attorney General who decided whether there would be a further charge.

ADV BIZOS: No, what I am asking you is why did you bother to interrogate Mr Jones about an offence so easily provable against Mr Biko by the calling of the two policemen that had arrested him outside Grahamstown Magisterial district?

MR NIEWOUDT: The experience at that time was that it was an inferior charge and usually they would get a suspended sentence. I don't think this was the objective of my seniors. Anyway we could not just detain him because of that in terms of the Security Act.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. So you - to question Mr Jones about the breech of the banning order was not really worthwhile your time?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so, but his visit - the places that they visited and the people that they came into contact with personally, the activists at that time.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Did you have any information at the time that there was anything illegal done or discussed either by Mr Jones or Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: No. There was no information available with regard to Mr Jones, but afterwards we generated information from him.

ADV BIZOS: So when you started interrogating Mr Jones, specifically what questions of yours did he not answer when you decided to start hitting him with a hosepipe?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was about the establishment of the inflammatory pamphlet and that he had any knowledge of the drafting of this inflammatory pamphlet and his involvement with it.

ADV BIZOS: Right, did he say to you that he knew nothing? In the beginning did he say to you that he knew nothing about this?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he denied it right from the start.

ADV BIZOS: From the start?

MR NIEWOUDT: And the visit to Cape Town.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let us take them one at a time in relation to the pamphlet.

He said that he had nothing to do with the pamphlet, either with the drawing up of the pamphlet or its distribution, he had no knowledge of it at all?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he denied it. The distribution, that he knew of the distribution.

ADV BIZOS: And after great pain had been inflicted on him, which reduced him to tears and the other treatment which he speaks of which you do not admit, but let us deal on your basis only on what you admit, did he admit that he had something to do with this pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, he mentioned that he had seen it and that he was in the room where Mr Titi and the deceased, Mr Biko was present and the contents of the pamphlet was discussed, and at a later stage he, in his office and kitchen and the typists ...

ADV BIZOS: Were you in court, or before the Committee in Port Elizabeth where he dissociated himself completely with this pamphlet and particularly his statement that Mr Biko and he would not associate themselves with the type of English that this pamphlet is written in?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Now, at the time when you started beating up Mr Jones, what did you hope to achieve by torturing him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believed that he would give me the information, his resistance was broken down and then later make him a witness. That is what I believed.

ADV BIZOS: Did it occur to you what is the value of the information given by a person under torture and what sort of a witness would he be if he got to the witness box and said that he did make a statement to you after being beaten up with a hosepipe, what did you think the Court would have done with that evidence?

MR NIEWOUDT: He would not have accepted that.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Unless of course you could convince the Court by means of lies that you never assaulted him, and that he did so voluntarily?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And there were cases in which the Police, or Security Police or some of them, actually succeeded in misleading the Court in this way?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Were you prepared to start a chain of events which would - might, might - have led to Mr Jones taking the stand against Mr Biko, Mr Biko being convicted of terrorism and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 years?

MR NIEWOUDT: That was possible.

ADV BIZOS: And you were prepared, presumably, to take a clean statement from Mr Jones under threat of further violence and put him in the witness box and as Adv De Jager says, warn Mr Jones before he goes into court, that if he deviates by one word from this - sorry, he didn't say it so, but suggested it - because as a practising Advocate, I think we all live, Advocates, we live through this, you would say that if you depart from this statement, you will get five years, and if Mr Jones was weak enough, you would have compelled him to betray his closest friend and send him to prison for 15 years?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is possible.

ADV BIZOS: And you considered that as a thing which you could and should do in the interest of your country?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, at that stage.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, yes, at that stage. But, before you went off, before you went off into this potentially dangerous exercise where the ends of justice might have been defeated, would you mind telling us what police work you did, you know other than beating people to give you information true or false?

What police work did you do in relation to your investigation in relation to this pamphlet in order to get to its origin?

MR NIEWOUDT: What I can recall is that we went to King William's Town and we seized the typewriters. I was present during the interrogation of some of these typists. I was not present when a statement was taken because the inquest was already underway and we withdrew from it.

ADV BIZOS: These typists were detained for how long?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. I think for the duration of those six months. I don't know whether some of them were detained after that under Section 10, but I know that Mr Jones was further detained in terms of Section 10.

ADV BIZOS: Was any charge brought against anybody in relation to this pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: Not as far as I know.

ADV BIZOS: But hadn't these typists also made incriminating statements under duress?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I don't think so. Not the statement which was taken by Lieutenant Hattingh. I don't know, I wasn't present. But I was present during the initial ...

CHAIRPERSON: Who was the Investigating Officer in this case?

MR NIEWOUDT: Could I just explain something here Chairperson. Major Snyman was in charge of the investigation.

ADV BIZOS: If he says the one or the other, how do you take it further?

MR NIEWOUDT: I and Captain Siebert and Warrant Officer Marx, and after Mr Biko died, we were withdrawn and Lieutenant Hattingh took over to continue with the investigation. People were already detained, and he was responsible for their interrogation, I was no longer part of the team then.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I understand all of that, but what I want to know is if Mr Jones cooperated with you, and if Mr Biko had cooperated and made confessions, etc who would have carried the docket?

MR NIEWOUDT: Captain Siebert.

CHAIRPERSON: Captain Siebert?

ADV BIZOS: You see, the method that you chose to use even if one in retrospect might be able to say well, you felt under a duty to do it, surely it must have occurred to you when you set on this very dangerous course of obtaining statements from Mr Jones, that would not have the dangers of possibly innocent people being convicted and sentenced to prison for a long time?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is possible, I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: Well, what about trying to get people to whom this pamphlet you say was given, was given out, as to who gave it out and where they got it from, and the possibility of calling them as witnesses?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have said there were several people who were detained after Mr Jones gave us information. People who were allegedly involved.

ADV BIZOS: Now, would it be beyond the imagination of ability of the Security Police to make up their own pamphlets in order to frame people?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know about that. I know it was done afterwards, but I don't know what the position was at that stage.

ADV BIZOS: Well, when afterwards were forged pamphlets given out by the Security Police?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was actually drafted by the JMC's and distributed, that is all I know about. That was in the late 1980's.

ADV BIZOS: Purporting to have been issued by either one of the liberation movements or a community organisation for the purposes of discrediting them?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: You have referred to the JMC's. I don't think all the members have previously heard of the JMC's, could you perhaps just give the full name for the record?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was the Joint Management Centre where all the Security Forces got together. It was a division of the State Security Council which functioned on a regional basis and the Defence Force Component had Joffel van der Westhuizen as Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you. But even before that, seven or eight years before, if you were prepared to defeat the ends of justice in the manner in which you had described, what would have prevented you from putting up a false pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: Well, I didn't do it at that stage. I don't know whether we had the capacity to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say that similar pamphlets were not distributed falsely, or false distributed in the 1977 period, not necessarily originated from yourself, but perhaps originating from some other source?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know, it is possible that it was done, but I just wasn't aware of it, and I don't know whether we actually had the capacity at that time to draft and publish and distribute such a pamphlet.

ADV BIZOS: Well, it only needed a typewriter and possibly one taken from the organisation earlier on, reasonably competent typist, someone familiar with the jargon of the period, and a ronio machine, all of which the Security Police picked up at random from time to time. What other facilities did you need for that?

MR NIEWOUDT: I am talking about ronio machines or photocopiers.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know, it just wasn't done and you must also bear in mind that the distribution could have been a problem, who would have done that. There were riots in the country, I don't know who would have been able to do that.

ADV BIZOS: Well, you just had to give a few to the informers and they would bring them back to you and that would have been sufficient for you to file them and try and frame people with them.

MR NIEWOUDT: I suppose it is possible, I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, because if Mr Jones' evidence is accepted, it would appear that this is the English and the phraseology and the style is so foreign to his and Mr Biko's and so close to the, to what the Security Police believed Black Consciousness was, that the inference may well be drawn that this was a self-serving pamphlet in an attempt to get Mr Biko into prison?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't want to speculate as to what Mr Jones said, but that is not how I understood it. I am not aware that we distributed it, that it was our propaganda.

He said it, he saw the pamphlets in Leipoldt Street and he also mentioned to me the certain pamphlets which had been distributed in East London in that same period.

ADV BIZOS: He said all that after you had mercilessly beaten him up with a hosepipe?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. That is why I am telling you he gave that information afterwards, I didn't know about that. I didn't know anything about Zuki Skoiya, those were things that he told me. I didn't tell him anything, that is what he told us.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let's just take it a little bit further. You say that you only assaulted him once?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Do you know whether anyone else assaulted him?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I don't know. I didn't see it, it didn't take place in my presence, I didn't see it.

ADV BIZOS: He says that he was assaulted more than once and this is why he wrote out two statements. Why should he have written out two statements, on your version, if he was only beaten up once? Those two statements have been put in as Exhibits A and B, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I just want to check something.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, to whom would he have made the second statement, or on whose request would he have written out the second statement?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman, I will ask the witness. At which instances do you say that these statements were made?

MR NIEWOUDT: Siebert also told him.

ADV DE JAGER: Let us deal with Exhibit A, to whose insistence was Exhibit A written?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was on my request.

ADV DE JAGER: And Exhibit B?

MR NIEWOUDT: Exhibit B was written at the request, if I remember correctly, of Siebert.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the period of time that elapsed between these two statements?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, if I understand you correctly, is it the period of time after he wrote it?

CHAIRPERSON: The statement which he wrote out when you asked him, what happened to that statement? Did you give it to Siebert?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, while he was busy writing it, Siebert literally confiscated it.

CHAIRPERSON: The one that he made to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes. When Siebert came in about after about half an hour and he, Jones was still writing about his involvement with the pamphlet and Siebert then asked him to also write about his visit to Cape Town, and the new unity movement, that is what I can recall.

ADV BIZOS: What do you say to the suggestion that the interrogator was really Siebert, you were there as the man of violence to do some of the beating up?

MR NIEWOUDT: If you interpret it in that way, it is possible, but it is not true. I wasn't there to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Niewoudt, then you mustn't talk about interpretation, either it was so or it wasn't.

MR NIEWOUDT: I received no instruction to commit violence.

CHAIRPERSON: Please listen to the statement again.

ADV BIZOS: The interrogation was done by Siebert, you were there as the man to do the physical punishment?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Let's come back to the other question which I don't think has yet been answered.

If he was beaten up only once, why did he make more than one statement?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have said already, after I assaulted him, he was prepared to write out the statements, and when Siebert asked him, he also gave his version of his visit to Cape Town and the unity movement.

ADV BIZOS: What is your evidence, was Siebert aware of the fact that you had beaten Jones up or not?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. I can't remember, can't recall having told him that I had beaten Mr Jones. Nobody asked me about it, I can't remember.

ADV BIZOS: How long after you had finished your beating, did Siebert come in?

MR NIEWOUDT: I am speculating, it could have been half an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, I wanted to ask you this question later on, but let me ask it right now. Here was a person being questioned for ten hours and he refused to cooperate. Suddenly you found yourself alone with him, you beat him and as a result of that beating, he starts to cooperate.

Then your colleagues came in and you say that they didn't ask you why this man suddenly changed his mind, why is he suddenly prepared to talk?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would like to help the Commission on this point, but I can't remember them asking me anything about that, I can't recall whether they asked me how I had managed to obtain his cooperation, and I didn't walk around boasting about the fact.

Whether they told Goosen anything or whether they boasted about the cooperation that I had obtained, I really don't know.

ADV BIZOS: When Siebert came in, was it obvious that Mr Jones was uncomfortable as a result of the beating and the pain?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible. I can't really remember, but it is possible, and I think that he must have been because I hit him hard.

ADV BIZOS: Did you tell Mr Jones that he was not to complain about this to anybody?

MR NIEWOUDT: I might have.

ADV BIZOS: Did you or didn't you?

MR NIEWOUDT: I can't remember that I told him that.

ADV BIZOS: When Siebert came, being your senior, if Mr Jones thought that Mr Siebert didn't know anything about this, can you explain why he didn't, he Mr Jones, did not complain to your senior and say, what is your Sergeant doing here beating me up with a hosepipe, this very hosepipe that was there?

MR NIEWOUDT: He didn't do it, that is not the way it happened.

ADV BIZOS: After you had finished, I assume that you put the hosepipe back where it had been before, on the window sill?

MR NIEWOUDT: I put it down there.

ADV BIZOS: You know for a person who had shed bitter tears of pain, he could hardly have recovered after half an hour, could he?

MR NIEWOUDT: Well, he did. He did suffer pain, but he didn't show it, not after half an hour. He was prepared to write the statement.

ADV BIZOS: Have you finished the statement that you had asked him to write out by the time Siebert came in?

MR NIEWOUDT: No. I don't think he had finished, because he gave me an oral explanation as to the pamphlets and the visit. I can't recall exactly at which stage he was in the statement when Siebert entered, that I really cannot recall, but I don't think he had finished.

ADV BIZOS: Did you tell Mr Jones that you needed the statement in order to call him as a witness against Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: No. I did not.

ADV BIZOS: Did you discuss with Mr Siebert as to whether or not you would use Mr Jones as a witness against Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: No. I didn't.

ADV BIZOS: When did you get the idea that he might be used as a witness against Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was my inference which I made when I questioned him when he was prepared to tell me about certain things, that is when the possibility presented itself to use him as a witness.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, I am not going to be very much longer with this witness, but I think we would like an opportunity to consult with Mr Jones in relation to some of the matters that were raised with the witness.

I am reasonably certain that we will finish comfortably tomorrow, but perhaps, if you do grant an adjournment now, we could possibly start earlier tomorrow morning in order to ...

CHAIRPERSON: If we do so Mr Bizos, would you finish by lunch time?

ADV BIZOS: Oh, long before. With this witness, but then there will be another witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking including the other witness?

ADV BIZOS: Well, it will not be primarily in our hands, but in the hands of my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: I have learnt from my short stint on the bench, it is difficult and rather dangerous to ask for counsel's promises. I am willing to take the chance.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you very much, will we start at nine then?

CHAIRPERSON: At nine o'clock then. Is that in agreement?

ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: (continued) I just want to get clarity on some of the issues that you gave evidence on yesterday.

You said that the pamphlet of the 18th of August was shown to Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Was any other document shown to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I can't recall if they confronted him with statements, I can't recall independently.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you remember specifically this pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: I can remember this because he was confronted with this pamphlet initially, that is why I remember it so clearly.

ADV BIZOS: Well, I would have thought that you would remember whether or not the statements that you had knocked out of Mr Jones, had been shown to him, you would have remembered that, because that would have been part of your handiwork, you would have been proud of that, that here you are, here is a document which we can confront him with. Do you remember Mr Jones' statements being shown to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is possible Mr Chairman. It is 20 years back, I can't remember every detail of the incident.

ADV BIZOS: Well, I am going to suggest to you that this business of it being possible, is a refuge on your part so that you don't contradict your colleagues in any way. You see, I am going to suggest to you that the Committee is not interested in possibilities, it is interested on affirmative evidence or negative evidence in relation to the happenings, and I want you to please try and remember and say categorically whether or not the Jones notes were shown to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, as I said previously I cannot recall. There were many documents shown to him, so I cannot recall, or I cannot say independently, it is possible, I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: You see you now added another bit of evidence which you hope to be a window of escape. Once I put to you other documents, you cover yourself by saying that there were many documents shown to him. Why did your evidence in chief and throughout yesterday, did you say that only one document was shown to him?

CHAIRPERSON: More correctly, you could only remember that this one document being shown to him?

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is all that I can remember because I know that Mr Marx went out at some point, to do some research. I don't know if he came back with a file or if he was confronted with it.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Niewoudt, the last question was pointed or was asked because you had just said that there were many documents?

MR NIEWOUDT: I said it is possible, I made this inference. I do not have independent recollection of this.

ADV BIZOS: But you see this trying to excuse yourself with Mr Marx going to do research is hardly a probable thing in relation to your, to the statements of Jones, that you yourself got out of him, the ink was hardly dry, it didn't require researchers into archives?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know Mr Chairperson, but as I have said previously, the pamphlet was shown to him, he was confronted with it. He was confronted with many other facts. I do not have independent recollection of that.

ADV BIZOS: And what about the first version of Mr Titi's affidavit, was that shown to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know, I cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, I just want to clear something up. Here you have, you are party to an interrogation team interrogating the person held responsible for all the unrest in the country, not so?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: One would have thought that having this big pimpernel if I may call him that, here in front of you, you would have had all these relevant factors on your fingertips?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was it necessary then for people to leave the interrogation room to make enquiries and do research?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have said previously, initially when Mr Biko realised that he was under the questioning of Captain Siebert, it was clear that Captain Siebert had no background on Mr Biko and then Mr Marx left the office to do further research and to consult the files, to confront him with that.

Mr Chairman, it is about 20 years ago. I cannot remember every detail of this incident. All that I know is that he was confronted with the facts we had available to us. That is how I remember it.

ADV BIZOS: According to the evidence, Mr Marx came in after the scuffle that you and your colleagues speak about, had started, so that he couldn't have brought any documents that he had been confronted with prior to the "scuffle", if Mr Marx's evidence is correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I think Mr Bizos is wrong. Mr Marx accompanied me to fetch Mr Biko and we went into the office together, and he was present during the initial stages of the interrogation.

After the interrogation by Siebert, he left the office to do further research. Then he came back after the struggle took place.

ADV BIZOS: It was you who introduced the removal of Mr Marx, Mr Marx removing himself in order to go and do research as a reason why you thought that there were lots of documents, so whose got the story wrong, you or me? Can you reconcile your statement of yours with what I am putting to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. I do not have any independent recollection whether he was confronted with these statements. I stand at this point.

ADV BIZOS: Do you agree with Mr Siebert that this whole transaction of bringing Mr Biko there, interrogating him, asking him questions, having the quarrel about the chair, the scuffle or beating up that took place, all took place within 20 to 30 minutes?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, it could be so. What the time period is, yes, it could be so.

ADV BIZOS: So I am going to suggest to you that on the versions as a whole put before the prior Committee and this Committee, there was hardly any time for any intensive interrogation and that it is highly probable that there was hardly anything more than the quarrel about the chair and the beating up or scramble that you speak about, there was no time for any meaningful interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: If the whole thing was over within 20 minutes to half an hour, and having regard to the extent to which the injuries indicate a beating up, most of the time, must have been taken up not with meaningful interrogation, but the infliction of punishment in order to soften him up?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I won't put it in that manner Mr Chairperson, initially he was interrogated. Just later the struggle took place, there was enough time to confront him.

ADV BIZOS: Was he asked any questions about his trip to Cape Town?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I can remember. Of what I can remember it was his visit to Dr Alexander.

ADV BIZOS: Did he answer those questions?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, not that I can remember. If I can recall correctly, his answer was no, he had marital problems, that was what his visit to Cape Town was about, this is what I can remember Mr Biko ...

CHAIRPERSON: How long was Mr Biko questioned before he had the accident?

MR NIEWOUDT: If I could guess again Mr Chairperson, approximately half an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it within the first half an hour of interrogation that he knocked his head against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would say half an hour to 45 minutes.

ADV BIZOS: And during that time, he refused to give any meaningful answer to any of the questions?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: You see, you have now extended the period to three quarters of an hour, what do you say to Mr Marx's version that it was only ten minutes, and that the only meaningful thing that must have happened there, was the quarrel about the chair?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, as I have said the interrogation was half an hour and I would guess about 15 minutes for the struggling. That is what I would guess.

ADV BIZOS: Were the questions that were put to him and the reluctant answers that he gave, was at that stage, was he sitting on the chair or had Mr Siebert's will prevailed, and was he standing?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have said previously, initially he sat down and then Mr Siebert spoke to him and the questioning resumed and he went and sat again, and then Captain Siebert grabbed him and he pushed the chair forward in the direction of Mr Siebert, and he was hit.

ADV BIZOS: Let me just understand this, your version is that he sat, he was persuaded to stand, and he stood and then he sat down and then he was manhandled by Mr Siebert to stop sitting on the chair, is that what you are telling us?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: And if the versions of your colleagues are different, who do you ask the Committee to believe, you or your colleagues?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is what I saw and that is my version.

ADV BIZOS: Now, let me ...

CHAIRPERSON: No Mr Niewoudt, only one thing happened, not two things. The question is who do we believe, you or your colleagues? It doesn't help to say this is what I saw.

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, that is so, but Mr Bizos' statement makes a general statement, is he talking about Snyman or Siebert - I don't know now. He is confronting me with ...

ADV BIZOS: Well, let's take Marx as an example. Marx says that this whole thing was over within ten minutes and on his version, the whole quarrel really was about whether the man had the right to sit on a chair or not. Are you saying that Mr Marx's version is incorrect?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would guess the time 15 minutes that the struggling happened. That is his guess, his guess is ten.

ADV BIZOS: No, he says that the whole ...

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, he is not guessing, his guess was not ten, his guess of the struggling and the interrogation, the whole episode is ten, if I understand it correctly.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Your guess of the whole episode, the interrogation of approximately 30 minutes and the struggling taking 15 minutes, you bring it to 45 minutes, and he brings it to ten minutes. Now the question put to you is, who should we believe, Marx's version or your total of 45?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is difficult for me. As I can recall it was approximately 45 minutes, that the whole incident took place.

ADV DE JAGER: It is your recollection that it was 45 minutes. Let's assume that this is a guess, it could be 40 or even a little less?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV DE JAGER: But could it be as little as ten?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV DE JAGER: So your version would be that Marx is wrong in his guess?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believe Marx is, may be wrong in his guess. That is possible.

ADV BIZOS: Was anybody making notes whilst this interrogation was taking place?

MR NIEWOUDT: I can remember that Major Snyman sat there with a clipboard. If he took notes or not, I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: What happened to those notes, or whatever was on the board that Mr Snyman had paper on?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't it be in his file?

MR NIEWOUDT: This is possible. His main file was in King William's Town.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairperson, I wish to point out the witness said he doesn't know if Snyman took notes.

ADV BIZOS: Well, if Mr Marx said that he was making notes, are you able to deny that?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I say again, I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to put to you that Mr Marx says that the maximum period was 12 minutes, ten minutes of talking and two minutes when he - yes, there was interrogation for two minutes, he went out for ten minutes and when he came, there was this scrum around Mr Biko, so the maximum period that he was there, was 12 minutes. Pages 130 and 131 of the record Mr Chairman. Would that be wrong?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, you said initial ten minutes questioning?

ADV BIZOS: No, two minutes questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: And ten minutes ...

ADV BIZOS: And he left and came back ten minutes later, and then he saw the scrum. That is on page 130 to 131.

You see, I am going to put to you that experienced interrogators with or without torture, like Mr Siebert, Snyman would not enter upon an interrogation of particularly Mr Biko, without preparing themselves.

Just like Attorneys and counsel do, or should do. What do you say to that.

ADV DE JAGER: They can make one like you've made one now Mr Bizos, about the time.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, well, I corrected myself once I looked at the document, that is why I added should do, in order to cover myself.

And we have it from Mr Siebert, that there was a briefing by Colonel Goosen. Is the Committee not entitled to infer that they were well prepared as to what they were going to put to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know if they prepared themselves, but it was clear to me from the questions that Siebert asked, and thereby Mr Biko drew the inference from the questions which were put to him, that these persons were according to me, not prepared properly, or they had no background on Mr Biko. This is my opinion.

ADV BIZOS: You see, Mr Biko was a person who wrote about his position, what his ideas were in books, which were published, and I am sure that a complete collection of whatever he had written, was in the library of the Security Police, otherwise they would not have been doing their job properly.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Had you read anything that he had written?

MR NIEWOUDT: I have read, I have seen some of his articles Mr Chairperson.

ADV BIZOS: And more particularly, what his attitude to interrogation under detention was.

MR NIEWOUDT: I can't remember if I've ever read that.

ADV BIZOS: He had been detained for 101 days a short while before this particular detention, and he was allowed to go because 101 days couldn't produce any evidence against him, do you recall that?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is possible, I don't know. I did not detain him.

ADV BIZOS: We are not interested ...

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, his arrest near Grahamstown was put into operation, or succeeded with because of a roadblock as I understand, not so?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that roadblock set up specifically to effect that arrest?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. Unfortunately I can't help you there, I doubt it. I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems strange to me that as soon as he was arrested, the roadblock was stopped as it seems, I don't know, maybe I am wrong.

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know what the circumstances in Grahamstown was at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, in any event, it seems to me that the Security Police in Port Elizabeth, wanted Mr Biko in custody or in detention at the time, not so?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why they interrogated him, otherwise they would not have taken him to Port Elizabeth?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct. Grahamstown is in our division.

CHAIRPERSON: Then why was he arrested?

MR NIEWOUDT: Because he exceeded his banning order. And afterwards we had the information that he was involved ...

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me he surely had a file prior to that arrest?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Where would that file have been kept?

MR NIEWOUDT: In East London.

CHAIRPERSON: And if Port Elizabeth Security Police were interested in Mr Biko, would they not have got copies of the contents of that file from East London?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, we only open a file where he is involved in the particular area of ours, but the main file would be kept in East London, it is a sub file that is kept with us.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as the Security Police in Port Elizabeth was concerned, they were looking for the author of that damaging document, not so?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: They wanted him in detention, they wanted to question him etc?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And probably to obtain evidence so that he could be criminally prosecuted?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, would the Security Police in Port Elizabeth not have obtained copies of the documents in that file in East London in preparation for this task of obtaining evidence and interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believe they would have.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not particularly sure of that?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I am not sure, but they would surely have done so if Mr Biko was arrested. Let's assume that he was in King William's Town and his case was proven and we found that Mr Biko was responsible for the drafting of the pamphlet, this would have surely gone through to East London, there would have been a discussion with members of the Security Branch there, and the necessary information would have been given out.

They would have arrested him. That is what I believe would have happened, because after Mr Biko was arrested and members of East London arrived there, and had discussions with Goosen, I was not present.

ADV BIZOS: In answer to the Judge's question, I want to ask you was there any difference between the file arrangements between Port Elizabeth, the Headquarters of the Security Police and Cradock and the Security Police in Port Elizabeth and East London, was there any difference in procedure?

MR NIEWOUDT: Why Cradock, where does Cradock fit in?

ADV BIZOS: You are uncomfortable with it, but please try to answer the question, because I am going to suggest to you that the procedure must have been the same. Mr Goniwe's file in Port Elizabeth was a duplicate of what had transpired in Cradock?

MR NIEWOUDT: Oh, I understand now. Cradock is part of Port Elizabeth's Branch and the suspects are in Port Elizabeth's area. The file that was in Cradock, would also be in Port Elizabeth.

But now we have two divisions that we are talking about. East London is a division on its own and Port Elizabeth is a division on its own. The suspects of East London would have their own files and we would just keep a sub file if the suspect is active in Port Elizabeth. That was the administration.

ADV BIZOS: We understand, now I understand that.

ADV DE JAGER: Any copies would be freely available to you from the one division to the other division?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BIZOS: You had already from the 18th of August to the 6th of September, enough time to get any information that you wanted on Mr Biko from East London?

MR NIEWOUDT: I would believe they did. I did not, I don't know if Siebert had asked.

ADV BIZOS: It raises another question, if you didn't know - what were you doing in the interrogation room?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I was saying previously, because I was responsible for black affairs, and I was instructed by Goosen to be present at the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Biko, I am sure, was formerly classified as Black, isn't it. He would have fallen under your category?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is true. His organisation, the Black Power organisation.

ADV BIZOS: In your application, you listed the organisations that you were concerned with on page 6?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV BIZOS: And in the trials that emerged in this area?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: And BPC and SASM and SASO appear on a number of occasions?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to suggest to you that the Security Police well knew the attitude of Mr Biko to interrogation and I am going to read to you something that he had written and which was published and ask you whether you knew about this before you dealt with him on the morning of the 6th?

He wrote: You are either alive and proud or you are dead, and when you are dead, you don't care anyway. Your method of death can be a politicising thing, so if you can overcome the personal fear of death, which is highly irrational thing you know, then you are on your way. In interrogation the same sort of thing applies.

I was talking to this policeman and I told him, if you want us to make any progress, the best thing is for us to talk. Don't try any form of rough stuff because it just won't work. If they talk to me well, I am bound to be effected by them as human beings, but the moment they adopt rough stuff, they are imprinting on my mind that they are police and I only understand one form of dealing with police, and that is to be as unhelpful as possible. So I button up.

Did you read that before you dealt with Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, may I just have a look at what publication is it?

ADV BIZOS: I will give a reference to the Committee in due course, I just have this passage without a footnote at the moment, but assume for a moment that it was published, and the source will be given. Did you read anything like that?

MR NIEWOUDT: I cannot remember if I read anything like that.

ADV BIZOS: But does it accord with the picture that you had of Mr Biko's attitude to interrogation?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is so.

ADV BIZOS: Does it accord with what we have in Mr Siebert's evidence, that Mr Biko would be a tough nut to crack?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, yes.

ADV BIZOS: And didn't this whole incident that lasted no more than 12 minutes, was it not anything more than to for the Security Police to establish who was boss, right at the outset?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, that is not the way I interpret it.

ADV BIZOS: Well, will you agree that not affording him the simple courtesy of allowing him to sit on a chair, fits in with this spirit of the Security Police to Mr Biko if not to black people generally?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: I want to deal without referring to the details again, with a meeting on the Saturday morning. You and your colleagues at the time, felt that you had not done anything wrongful ...

CHAIRPERSON: Meeting on the Saturday morning where ...

ADV BIZOS: Where the perjered version was established. At that stage, you felt that you hadn't beaten Mr Biko up, you had done him no wrong, that you were not really responsible for the miserable condition he was in, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BIZOS: You know, we must assume that the ordinary laws of logic apply even to the conduct of Security Policemen and senior ones at that.

If you felt that you had done nothing wrong, why did you bother to hold such a extensive meeting in order to make up a perjered version?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know Mr Chairperson, I don't know what Mr Goosen had in mind, I don't know what his reasons were why we were supposed to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: You are now asked or rather let us assume that what you are saying is correct, that Mr Goosen said to you what you should say and write. He actually asked you to contravene the law and to commit perjury?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you question that?

MR NIEWOUDT: I repeat, you must go and look at the culture and the background of the Security Police of the time. We can't today judge the incident in isolation and seen in that context, it would have been impossible for me as a Sergeant, to question a superior. A Colonel was quite a superior rank and had to be treated with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I can understand that.

MR NIEWOUDT: That kind of milieu that we were operating in, you couldn't question orders.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that if something wrong had been done, and Mr Goosen came and fabricated a version which would get you out of trouble, but on your version now, it appears that you were not of the opinion that the Security Police had contributed in any way to Mr Biko's death.

In other words is your version is that it was virtually an accident, so in those circumstances why didn't you say to Goosen, why should we tell these lies, if the truth would be good enough?

MR NIEWOUDT: The date had been changed. No medical attention had been given to the detainee, those are the things that were issues Chairperson, which we had to consider.

ADV BIZOS: But, you see Colonel Goosen had a letter in his file from the Doctor, that there was nothing wrong with him, there was nothing wrong with Mr Biko, so he had already covered himself in relation to this. Why was it necessary, not only to lie about the date, which may be a part of - if perjury can be categorised, would have been a lie within narrow limits, why the other lies?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. I wasn't present when Goosen and Lang spoke to each other.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, but we have it from the evidence of Mr Snyman, that the composite story was given by Colonel Goosen and then parrot like the whole lot of you repeated that false story.

Is the Committee not entitled to infer from your evidence, that once a web of lies was made up, there must have been very serious things that you had to hide?

MR NIEWOUDT: No. What I have been saying here today, is the truth and nothing but the truth. There is nothing else.

ADV BIZOS: You haven't perhaps thought overnight how all of you managed, and the reason why in this parrot version, no mention whatsoever is made of Mr Biko having banged his head against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to put to you that that fact alone shows that you and your colleagues have not come clean to this and the other Committee that heard the applications.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, may I just - my learned friend says he makes no mention of Mr Biko anywhere. Is my learned friend perhaps, are you referring to the application or to the earlier statements?

ADV BIZOS: No, I specifically said Mr Chairman, the parrot version.

ADV BOOYENS: No, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, will you repeat the question please.

ADV BIZOS: The problem that I have, that I have a short memory for short ...

ADV BOOYENS: My learned friend's question My Lord, and I will take responsibility for it, is why did none of them in fact in the parrot fasion questions, in other words the questions induced by Goosen, make the statement that Mr Biko bumped his head against the wall. I think that ...

ADV BIZOS: That was the question.

ADV BOOYENS: I don't know whether that was a parrot version of my learned friend's question.

ADV BIZOS: (Indistinct) and I am indebted to him for his assistance, Mr Chairman. Would you mind answering the question?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is why I said what I said here today is the truth, and that is why I included that, because we omitted to mention all of that, to mislead the inquest court, and that is the perjury which was committed.

That was my view, to mislead the inquest court and the Doctors.

ADV BIZOS: You see, were your statements taken by anybody or were you allowed to write your own in accordance with Goosen's story telling ability?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was Goosen who told us what to do, and we signed the statements, and it was sent up to Pretoria.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the question is who drafted the document which you signed?

MR NIEWOUDT: Each one of us wrote out our own statements, Goosen checked it.

ADV BIZOS: Did you, Mr Snyman, Mr Siebert, Mr Marx, Mr Beneke, once you were going to write a false story, surely you must have consulted amongst yourselves to make sure that you didn't get the fairy tale dictated by Mr Goosen, was misrepresented along the way.

You checked each other's versions, did you?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: In checking these versions, surely each one of you or at least one of the five, must have said - hey, there is a true fact that we can incorporate in this version which will be of great help to us, he knocked his head against the wall. In this consultation process amongst the five of you that knew the facts, didn't one of them think that this was self-serving fact which if it did happen, would help the cause of both the Security Police, yourselves, and the country?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I think so. If I think back to the matter now, but we didn't do it in that way. It was specifically omitted.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying it was specifically omitted?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The fact that he knocked his head against the wall, who told you that it should be omitted?

MR NIEWOUDT: Mr Goosen.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say that that specific fact should be omitted from the statement?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: Are you now telling us that at the meeting of Saturday morning, Colonel Goosen said don't make any mention of the fact that Mr Biko knocked his head against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: That is something new I think from the whole lot of you, all five of you, but let's examine it.

If he said that, how many people were at this meeting by the way?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was the five of us and Goosen. It was myself, Siebert, Snyman, Marx, Beneke.

ADV BIZOS: Who else was there?

MR NIEWOUDT: And Goosen, that is as far as I can remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Who discussed this fact with Mr Goosen which led him to say leave this fact out?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know, it must have been decided beforehand amongst the Officers, I wasn't present when that was decided.

Why I am saying that is the fact that two weeks afterwards, Mr Goosen called us in again and asked us whether any one of us had seen any marks on Mr Biko, any wounds. He then also said that apparently Mr Biko had injured himself in the prison and Wilken then said, yes, he had noticed the mark when he was guarding him.

So as far as I can recall, he was the only one who made a statement to that effect. That is why none of us made a statement saying that we had seen that scar.

CHAIRPERSON: When did Mr Goosen say that this fact, the fact of Mr Biko's head knocking against the wall, should be omitted from the statement?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was on the first Saturday.

CHAIRPERSON: How long after the incident did that meeting on the Saturday take place?

MR NIEWOUDT: I think it was about two weeks afterwards, a week or two weeks, I am not exactly sure.

CHAIRPERSON: How did the issue of Mr Biko's head knocking against the wall, how did that arise on that meeting of the Saturday?

MR NIEWOUDT: I think how it happened, the post-mortem was in issue, if I remember correctly and make an inference, I am not hundred percent sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Did nobody at that meeting say look Mr Goosen, it is a fact that this happened, it is the truth that Mr Biko knocked his head against the wall, by accident?

MR NIEWOUDT: I can't recall that. I don't think that is how it happened.

ADV BIZOS: A senior officer came, an officer of high rank whom your Minister said was a crack Detective and he would leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of it, and we must have confidence in the judicial system to unearth the truth and we have in evidence at the inquest, 1977 inquest, that he actually roneoed out a form with yes or no on it, did you assault Biko, yes/no and you had a choice to strike out the inappropriate word, do you recall that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: Well, would you say that that was an insult to the administration of justice for a matter such as this to be "investigated" in that manner?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Did this General that was appointed to investigate the circumstances of the death, ask you whether or not you knew how a head injury was suffered by Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he didn't.

ADV BIZOS: Are you suggesting that a senior officer, a General who had the post-mortem report and who knew that Mr Biko's head had been smashed up, didn't bother to ask you who was present in the interrogation room, as to how that head injury might have been inflicted?

MR NIEWOUDT: All I can recall is that he asked a question about the mark to the left eye, that is all that he asked about.

ADV BIZOS: And you falsely told him that you didn't see it?

MR NIEWOUDT: I did, yes.

ADV BIZOS: You told him a lie?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV BIZOS: Did he show you a colour photograph on which that was clear for everyone to see?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: And what did you say to that?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was at the same time that he asked the question, and we said no, it was only Wilken. After Goosen spoke to Wilken, Wilken made a statement to that effect that he had seen the mark.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't he ask you whether you were seated or standing, how come you didn't see the obvious, didn't he interrogate you?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he didn't.

ADV BIZOS: Interrogation was reserved for people like Mr Biko, not Security Policemen? The answer must be yes?

MR NIEWOUDT: He didn't question me. I was not a suspect.

ADV BIZOS: What made a person a suspect?

MR NIEWOUDT: When there is a suspicion that he has committed an offence.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't anyone suspect you of having done anything wrong?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know. He was the Investigating Officer, nobody regarded me as a suspect.

ADV BIZOS: Where was the hosepipe when the General came down?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was there in the office.

ADV BIZOS: Did he go to the interrogation room, this General?

MR NIEWOUDT: I think he did, because he had to go through my office, I think he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were you interrogated or questioned?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was called to Goosen's office.

ADV BIZOS: You say he went to this room, and the hosepipe was still on the window sill?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, it was there.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't he ask you or anyone else that there seems to be a correlation between the tram lines on Mr Biko's body of which he had the post-mortem report, and this thing that happened to be on the window sill weeks after his death when the General came down?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, he didn't ask me anything about it.

ADV BIZOS: Now, as a person who rose to be a Colonel in the Security Police such as yourself, didn't it occur to you to put this hosepipe away just in case there was an honest investigation in the matter, and they might connect it with the tram lines on Mr Biko's body?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, it didn't.

ADV BIZOS: You were confident that your perjury would prevail and nobody would ask any meaningful questions?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is what I believed.

ADV BIZOS: During the time that you were there, and when Mr Biko refused to give any meaningful answers to your questions, was he cool and calm?

MR NIEWOUDT: Initially yes.

ADV BIZOS: Before the scuffle, was he cool and calm?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I wouldn't say that. According to me his attitude is one of arrogance and that is how I saw it.

ADV BIZOS: Well, he certainly wasn't submissive?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is true.

ADV BIZOS: Nor was he a person likely to show any fear?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is true.

ADV BIZOS: It would have been the very antitheses of the arrogance that you speak of?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, yes.

ADV BIZOS: Nor was he a person that was likely to panic under any sort of pressure that you may have put on him?

MR NIEWOUDT: That was the first time that I had any dealings with Mr Biko, and those were my impressions of him.

ADV BIZOS: You certainly didn't get any impression that he panicked?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, that is true.

ADV BIZOS: If your colleague, Mr Siebert, tried to persuade the other Committee that Mr Biko panicked when he was shown a document, would that be incorrect?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is his observation, but I can't comment on Mr Siebert's observation.

ADV BIZOS: Let us confine ourselves to your positive statement that you certainly did not see Mr Biko panicking at any stage.

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Did you, can you recall whether or not Mr Siebert read a passage out of the notes made by Mr Jones implicating Mr Biko on the pamphlet?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is possible, I can't remember that.

ADV BIZOS: Well, if it did happen, it isn't something that you would have been likely to forget, because this was a piece of your handiwork and you would have taken even more notice of it if Mr Biko had panicked as a result of anything being shown to him. Would you agree with that?

MR NIEWOUDT: It may be, but I can't remember that. I was present at many interrogations, and it is really difficult after 20 years, to recall what happened sentence by sentence, it is practically impossible, no person can do that.

ADV BIZOS: You see, if you speak the truth about dramatic events, I am going to suggest to you, it is easy to remember. If you take part in making up stories, it is then that you have to resort to your answer that I cannot remember, because you begin to become confused with a perjered versions that you have profit with the truth?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, that is not the truth.

ADV BIZOS: Have you read Prof Laubscher's findings on the post-mortem report?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I did.

ADV BIZOS: Did you study them?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: Well, didn't you want to study them in order to be able to cut your cloth so to speak accordingly so that you may have a more coherent version for the Committee?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I consulted with my legal representative about that, after having put my version to the Truth Commission, or having sent my version to the Truth Commission.

I didn't read Mr Laubscher's findings before that.

ADV BIZOS: If we were to put to you that neither on your version, or the version of your colleagues, are all the injuries noted by Prof Laubscher accounted for, what would you say?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is probably correct.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to put ...

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, I have lost your question, did you put it to him that they accounted for all the ...

ADV BIZOS: No, did not.

ADV DE JAGER: They did not?

ADV BIZOS: Their versions do not account for all. Let's take an example. There was a cut lip.

MR NIEWOUDT: My explanation is that it could possibly be as a result of a blow and his top lip was swollen.

ADV BIZOS: And bleeding?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I wouldn't say that it was bleeding, it was just swollen. It was slightly bloody, but it wasn't bleeding.

It could also have been as a result of the fall.

ADV BIZOS: Why don't you also say that it could also have been as a result of a punch landed?

MR NIEWOUDT: Well, that is also possible.

ADV BIZOS: Why are you so shy to say it?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I am not. It is difficult to say because I didn't observe it. I am speculating, you are asking me to speculate Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to put to you that neither the injury above the eye, nor on the lip, came about as a result of the wall, but rather as a result of violent punches thrown at Mr Biko which you and your colleagues have decided on the Saturday and persist in denying?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I didn't hit Mr Biko with a fist, and there were even on medical grounds, there were differences as far as that was concerned. I am only a layman, so my only inference is that it could possibly have happened when he knocked his head against the wall.

ADV BIZOS: In relation to Mr Jones, is your version that you were the only one who assaulted him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I assaulted him.

ADV BIZOS: Alone?

MR NIEWOUDT: I was alone.

ADV BIZOS: And you know of no other assault by your colleagues?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is true.

ADV BIZOS: And you heard Mr Jones telling a completely different version?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, yes.

ADV BIZOS: Do you deny that, I don't intend putting it, you were present when he gave the evidence?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: You know what it was, you don't want to explain any of the evidence that he gave then, and which he is going to repeat before this Committee?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I don't know. All I am saying is that I assaulted him.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BIZOS: .

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I for personal reasons, ask for a five minute adjournment please? Thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (still under oath)

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, there are just one or two aspects I would like to clarify.

Mr Niewoudt, perhaps if you could just refresh my memory, during the scuffle, how many times according to your recollection, was Mr Biko thrown against the wall, or in terms of the momentum, did he make contact with the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: Two occasions.

MS PATEL: The first occasion would have been when Mr Beneke moved in, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

MS PATEL: Right, could you perhaps explain or clarify the impact that that would have made, the first one, yes, when Mr Beneke knocked him against the wall?

MR NIEWOUDT: With his weight, considering his weight and Mr Beneke's weight, it was quite hard.

MS PATEL: This Committee and I included have not had the advantage of seeing Mr Beneke, could you perhaps just describe Mr Beneke to us?

MR NIEWOUDT: He is approximately my length, 6"1vt, he is approximately 80 kg in weight, he is reasonably well built.

MS PATEL: And according to your recollection at the time, did Mr Beneke come charging in when he made impact with Mr Biko?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct, yes.

MS PATEL: What injuries do you think Mr Biko would have sustained at that point?

MR NIEWOUDT: I believe he could have injured his back, and probably his head from behind, it is possible.

MS PATEL: So, he wouldn't have knocked the front of his head at that stage?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

MS PATEL: All right, fine let's leave that. Then just to move on to the last aspect that I want clarity on. You say that after the scuffle had ended, Mr Siebert gave instructions that Mr Biko then be handcuffed and his legs also be cuffed, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

MS PATEL: He was still laying on the floor at that time?

MR NIEWOUDT: He was leaning against the wall, half on the floor, half against the wall.

MS PATEL: Yes, all right, but he wasn't standing at the time.

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

MS PATEL: And if I remember your evidence correctly yesterday you say that he was there for about five to ten minutes is that correct, before he was then chained to the gate?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is approximately.

MS PATEL: Okay. The condition of Mr Biko when he was half sitting on the floor, you said he was disorientated?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Okay, your other colleagues have used the word his speech was slurred at that time, can you confirm that?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, I also said that he spoke with a dragging tongue, he dragged his tongue, with a slur.

MS PATEL: At the stage though when he was on the floor, did he speak to you, did he speak to anyone?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't have independent recollection if he spoke to anyone.

MS PATEL: Okay. You then state further that Mr Siebert then questioned him once he was tied to the gate, is that correct?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Would Mr Biko have recovered completely by this stage bearing in mind it was just ten minutes, it was quite a heavy impact against his head? He also needed assistance to the gate before he was cuffed?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so, it is difficult as a layman for me to say whether he was fully conscious or if he recovered sufficiently, I don't know.

MS PATEL: All right, if I could then just take you to paragraph 21 of your application. It is on page 42 of the bundle Mr Chairperson.

You say here at this stage Captain Siebert once again attempted putting questions to Biko without success. Biko simply did not want to answer any questions. What do you mean by he refused?

MR NIEWOUDT: He did not answer him.

MS PATEL: So it is not a question of having refused, it could also possibly be that he wasn't in a position to respond to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is so.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions to this witness.

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Just one aspect, my learned colleague Mr Bizos asked you with reference to Mr Jones' evidence previously stated, that according to his testimony that at more instances, you assaulted him. What is your comment about this?

MR NIEWOUDT: If it is so, then I would have applied as such and I would have said so, but it didn't happen.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, tell me how long from the time when Mr Biko was injured, was he detained in Port Elizabeth before he was transferred to Pretoria?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was the 6th Mr Chairperson, the 7th, the 8th, the evening of the 8th, three days he was at the offices at Sanlam Building.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is approximately three days?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, three days, and then he was removed to North End prison, that is on the evening of the 8th, so it was the 9th, the 10th and the 11th, the Sunday, six days.

CHAIRPERSON: How long was he in detention before he was injured?

MR NIEWOUDT: That was approximately from the 17th to the 6th before he was interrogated, three weeks, 21 days approximately.

CHAIRPERSON: Before anyone spoke to him, he had been in detention for 21 days?

MR NIEWOUDT: In terms of the Security Act.

ADV DE JAGER: The question is before anyone spoke to him. Do you know whether any other person spoke to him?

MR NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV DE JAGER: But before you were involved?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: After he was injured, he was at some stage visited by Dr Tucker and Dr Lang?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But he did not receive medical assistance?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And you were at times with him during that period?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any specific reason why you did not arrange medical assistance for him?

MR NIEWOUDT: As I have previously stated, I was the junior. I cannot give instructions and orders. I left it in the judgement of my senior officers, my Commanding Officers, and I do not know what the Doctor told them.

CHAIRPERSON: Those bars that Mr Biko hung from, what was in the room, why was it there?

MR NIEWOUDT: It is burglar bar. In front of the windows, there were burglar bars, and this is a door that was not used that exits into the passage of that particular floor, and it was welded to the bars so that no one could move through there.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that in that specific room?

MR NIEWOUDT: In that particular room.

CHAIRPERSON: When you look through those bars, what can one see?

MR NIEWOUDT: The bars that he was handcuffed to, just has the door behind it. It is an inside door from the passage. The building is in an L-shape.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the reason for cuffing him there?

MR NIEWOUDT: The reason was to break down his resistance.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there no other method?

MR NIEWOUDT: Yes, there were other methods.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR NIEWOUDT: Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: May I be permitted to ask two questions in relation to the matters that arose from the examination of Ms Patel and members of the court?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: You told us that the first injury to the head may have been inflicted at the time that Mr Beneke pushed Mr Biko?

ADV BOOYENS: No, Mr Chairman, he didn't.

ADV BIZOS: I understood that to be the answer Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say was the answer?

ADV BOOYENS: The answer was on the question by my learned friend, the answer of the witness was he hit his, I think he hit his back against the wall and he might have hit the back of his head against the wall, but he didn't say anything about an injury.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, thank you yes, that is correct. Did he hit his head against the wall on more than one occasion?

MR NIEWOUDT: No.

ADV BIZOS: That deals with the one matter. The other matter Mr Chairman, doesn't arise out of particularly out of anything that was specifically put, except indirectly by you.

The question of the trip to Pretoria, the circumstances under which it was made and the condition in which you delivered Mr Biko to Pretoria prison. You heard the evidence of Mr Siebert and what was put to him, do you agree with the answers that he gave?

MR NIEWOUDT: Can you specify it for me please, it is broad?

ADV BIZOS: That he was naked, that he was disorientated, he was taken out of the vehicle on a stretcher, questions were asked by the prison people as to what had happened to him, and certain answers were given by Mr Siebert. Do you agree with Mr Siebert with all that?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I was not present when they handed him over, I was in the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: At least you would be able to say whether he was carried?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is what I said in my evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: That is a little different.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he carried on a stretcher?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, on the cell mat. If you want to use the terminology as a stretcher, one could. From Walmer police cells he was on a cell mat when he was taken to the vehicle.

ADV DE JAGER: He was taken from Walmer on the cell mat, and what happened at Pretoria?

MR NIEWOUDT: Exactly the same. I think I said he was supported, but he was carried.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he carried on a stretcher or on the cell mat?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, not as I can recall Mr Chairman.

ADV BIZOS: Well, did you read the affidavits of the prison authorities that described the miserable condition that Mr Biko was delivered to them, in?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I didn't read it.

ADV BIZOS: And was false information given to the prison authorities about his condition, there were suggestions made that he was feigning illness?

MR NIEWOUDT: I heard about this, but I was not present.

ADV BIZOS: You have no reason to deny the affidavits of the prison officials that were put in in the 1977 inquest?

MR NIEWOUDT: No, I can't.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, well, what I am going to put to you that on the evidence which will be incorporated by reference to the Committee, that you had as little regard for the humanity of Mr Biko when he was near death, as you had at the time that you interrogated him.

MR NIEWOUDT: No, that is not so.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you for the opportunity Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BIZOS: .

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, my learned friend has asked one question right at the beginning that I would just like to get clarity on with the Commission's permission.

FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt, Mr Bizos asked whether Mr Biko knocked his head more than once. When you speak of he knocked his head, when did he knock his head according to you?

MR NIEWOUDT: It was when we fell against the wall that he knocked his head in front, that I know of.

ADV BOOYENS: Your answer regarding Beneke was speculative, you are not sure?

MR NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. That is the evidence I intend calling in the application Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS: .

 

DATE: 31-03-1998

NAME: PETER JONES

DAY: 2

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, have you got any witnesses?

ADV BIZOS: Yes, we are calling Peter Jones as my (indistinct). Where shall we have him sitting Mr Chairman? Yes, perhaps at the end of the table.

MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as Mr Bizos has said, I will call Mr Peter Jones as a witness.

PETER JONES: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Jones, on the 18th of August 1977 you were arrested in a roadblock in Grahamstown, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: You were arrested together with Mr Biko who had been travelling with you in the car?

MR JONES: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: You were arrested from the 18th of August and you remained in detention until February 1979, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes, that was a total of 533 days.

MR MTSHAULANA: 17 and a half months?

MR JONES: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Before you were arrested, what were you...

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, 533 days in detention?

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: That is more than a year?

MR JONES: 17 and a half months?

ADV DE JAGER: Oh, 17, not 7? 17 and a half months?

MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you Chairperson. Before you were arrested, what was your work?

MR JONES: I had several positions. I was a Director and the Branch Executive of the Black Community programmes. I had an office in King William's Town and I was responsible for community development projects in the entire Eastern Cape and the border and Transkei areas.

I was also the National Secretary for Finance and Economics of the Black Peoples' Convention.

MR MTSHAULANA: When you were released from detention in 1979, could you go back to your - or did you go back to your work to do what you had been doing before your detention?

MR JONES: No, that was not possible. On the night that I was released, I was served with a banning order that restricted me to Somerset West in Cape Town for a further five years.

MR MTSHAULANA: And therefore it was impossible for you to go back to work in King William's Town and the BPC?

MR JONES: Also you must remember that the organisation I worked for at the time, was banned, it no longer existed over and above the fact that its national leader had also died in detention.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Jones, Mr Biko you say died in detention or whilst he was detained?

I would like you to tell the Committee very briefly about your own experiences whilst you were detained. It is not the aim that we write memoirs, I would like us to restrict ourselves to in particular, around what the evidence of Mr Niewoudt was. In the first place Mr Niewoudt told the Committee that you were interrogated in the same room where Mr Biko was interrogated. Are you able to confirm that?

MR JONES: I was interrogated in a small room, on the 6th floor. It is a room that you could only reach by going through other rooms, it was an isolated room. I did not know at the time that other people were also interrogated in the same room, but I did come to the same conclusion afterwards.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Niewoudt said that you were interrogated or brought to Sanlam on the 24th of August, can you confirm that?

MR JONES: That is correct. It was in the evening, at about ten o'clock at night.

MR MTSHAULANA: Very briefly Mr Jones, can you tell the Committee what happened that evening after you were brought to Sanlam building?

MR JONES: Upon entering the room, I was of course handcuffed by that time, I had a jeans on, no shoes, and a T-shirt, a polo neck T-shirt. I was unhandcuffed, all my clothes were removed, I was made to sit in the middle of the room on a steel chair, my left hand was handcuffed to the chair, and diagonally opposite me, at the two opposite ends were two desks.

One desk and one table, behind which on my left was Siebert and on my right was Snyman.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes.

MR JONES: They then commenced questioning me. The questioning covered a very wide range of topics because of my own position in the Black Consciousness Movement and also because it was very clear that these Officers were not well orientated on the history and the activities of the Black Consciousness Movement.

Very soon however, the questions became very specific and they asked me what I was doing with Steve Biko on that particular trip.

MR MTSHAULANA: About how long - did it last the whole night?

MR JONES: No, it was not the whole night. I repeated a story that I had told them earlier on that I had gone to Cape Town on business and Steve Biko just ambled along, he just casually went along. That was the story that was agreed upon as a first version between me and Steve Biko if ever we got arrested in the course of that trip.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, but you say that you told them a story which you had told them earlier on. Had you been cross-examined before you were brought to Sanlam on the 24th?

MR JONES: I was questioned the night before in my cell, when Siebert and Snyman visited me and they asked me the same question.

MR MTSHAULANA: So now on the night of the 24th ...

CHAIRPERSON: Where would that cell have been?

MR JONES: At Algoa Park police station.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did the two officers accept your story and leave you in peace?

MR JONES: No, when I repeated the story, Siebert jumped up and started hitting me with his open hand, followed by a hosepipe, he hit me over my face and my chest and my back. Then he resumed his seat and the questioning restarted.

Eventually I told them that the story that I had indicated that Steve just casually went along while I had formal work to do in Cape Town, was not accurate and that in fact, that our trip had a political objective. I then briefly gave him an overview of the kind of internal problems we had in the Black Peoples' Convention in the Western Cape and that it had been decided that someone of Steve Biko's seniority should go down with me, to see if we could sort out these particular issues.

At that stage Siebert and Snyman got up, they indicated that I now knew what they wanted and they were going to leave me for the rest of the night to do a statement on my history, on what we were doing in Cape Town on the trip, what happened in Port Elizabeth. He indicated that they knew of a pamphlet, there was sufficient people that had given them information and I was required to speak on all of these things.

They then left me in the company of two new Security Police Officers who spent the rest of the night with me while I wrote a statement which I finished later on and the next morning Siebert and Snyman and the other Officers Niewoudt, Marx and Beneke returned to where I was still seated.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, two statements were handed in yesterday by the applicant which were supposed to have been written by you, Exhibit A and B. Did you see those statements? Exhibit A is a document which starts with your name and Leipoldt Street and Exhibit B is a statement which starts with Cape Town, did you see those two statements?

MR JONES: Yes, I have it in front of me.

MR MTSHAULANA: Is any one of those two statements, the statement you wrote on the night of the 24th or the 25th?

MR JONES: The statement referred as B is the one I wrote in the morning of the 25th.

MR MTSHAULANA: That is after Mr Siebert and Mr Snyman had given you - to write?

MR JONES: That is right.

MR MTSHAULANA: In that statement you basically write about this trip what you have just told the Commission now?

MR JONES: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you write anything in that statement about - or let me put it this way was the statement you wrote, reflecting the true purpose of the Cape Town trip?

MR JONES: It was not true. It was an agreed second strategy should our first story not be accepted by the Police.

MR MTSHAULANA: Why had you gone to Cape Town, just very briefly?

MR JONES: We had gone to Cape Town so that Steve Biko as the leader of the Black Consciousness Movement could further continue his work as the Principle initiator inside the country to explore the possibility of unification amongst all the liberation movements in South Africa and one of the key people that we were going to consult in Cape Town was going to be Dr Neville Alexander.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you in any way indicate to the Police in the statement you wrote, that you were actually going to meet Dr Alexander or that you met him?

MR JONES: No, that information was not given at that stage.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, when the Security Police came the following morning you said, I suppose they were interested to read what you had written in the statement. Were they interested?

MR JONES: Yes, very interested. Siebert came in, he took the statement from the table where I had left it, he left the room and he came back after a little while, he was infuriated and he threw the statements on the table.

ADV DE JAGER: You said he threw the statements on the table?

MR JONES: On the table.

ADV DE JAGER: How many statements?

MR JONES: The statements had two parts, one was on my own personal information, just about who I was, where I came from because they didn't really have a lot of information. I don't have those pages in front of me, and then the other section of the statement is the one that starts with Cape Town, which was the purpose of the Cape Town trip.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you then tell me, tell the Committee what happened when the Officers came back with Siebert fuming?

MR JONES: Well, he started shouting to two coloured Security Police that were then in the room, that I must be put on the bricks, he spoke Afrikaans. At that stage he didn't know that I also spoke Afrikaans, "sit hom op die stene", he left the room again fuming, and I was just standing around and asking these coloured Security Police if this was going to be the start. Are they the ones who beat us up?

CHAIRPERSON: Who would they be?

MR JONES: These were two junior coloured Security Police.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you not know the names?

MR JONES: I don't know the names. They didn't do anything to me until such time as Siebert, Niewoudt, Snyman, Marx and Beneke returned.

CHAIRPERSON: You say nothing happened until?

MR JONES: Until they came back, the five?

CHAIRPERSON: No, who are they?

MR JONES: Officers Siebert, Snyman, Niewoudt, Marx and Beneke.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR JONES: They asked the two coloured Security Police to leave the room and I was instructed to stand on two half bricks that was then put next to each other. I was pulled by some of them, we had a bit of a struggle, eventually I stood on the two half bricks and I was made to lift two steel chairs, one was put in reverse on top of the other, two of them lifted it and I was made to hold it above my head.

CHAIRPERSON: These half bricks on which you had to stand, I imagine a brick broken into half, it has a smooth side and a cerated edge. On which edge would you have ...

MR JONES: On the smooth side, narrow side.

CHAIRPERSON: You would have stood on the smooth side?

MR JONES: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, continue.

MR JONES: I was warned that if these chairs should come down or if I should let it fall, I would get it, which I interpreted as a threat and the questioning them resumed between Siebert and Snyman.

MR MTSHAULANA: In other words the two officers were asking you questions, or questioning you?

MR JONES: The two officers continued questioning me.

MR MTSHAULANA: Were they questioning you about your statement or about something else?

MR JONES: They were questioning me specifically about the pamphlet that they knew they had sufficient acknowledgement and evidence from independent sources, but I was required to independently confirm these things and when I continued denying that we were not involved in any pamphlet, we were in Cape Town, we had nothing to do with any pamphlet, they got very angry.

Siebert got up and kicked me on my leg. By that stage, the chairs have long ago come down to the level of my shoulders, because I couldn't keep it up.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jones, the pamphlet that you refer to, is that an Exhibit here? Have you seen the pamphlet that we were speaking about earlier?

MR JONES: I have seen the pamphlet only when the amnesty applications started, I have never seen it before in my life.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but are you referring to the pamphlet about which you were questioned, is it the same pamphlet?

MR JONES: Yes, it is the same pamphlet.

MR MTSHAULANA: You say ...

ADV DE JAGER: They never confronted you with a pamphlet?

MR JONES: No, I never saw the pamphlet.

ADV DE JAGER: How would you know it is the same pamphlet?

MR JONES: Well, they had conditioned me over a number of days to the existence of a pamphlet, and that I should know about it. It was never shown, it was never of course indicated where this pamphlet was.

ADV DE JAGER: I understand that, but I couldn't understand your answer that it is the same pamphlet that is now being shown to you.

MR JONES: Well, that is as far as the evidence is of the Police that it is the same, the specific pamphlet that Steve Biko was confronted with and it was the purpose of my interrogation.

MR MTSHAULANA: But at the time that you were asked about, questioned about it, you were questioned about a pamphlet?

MR JONES: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: The document which is attached to Mr Niewoudt's application, was not shown to you?

MR JONES: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: Your saying that it was the same pamphlet is merely a conclusion?

MR JONES: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: You say that at that time Mr Siebert started kicking you?

MR JONES: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: The chairs had fallen?

MR JONES: It fell down, one fell right to the other side and it struck Snyman and one also struck Siebert, he then started shouting, that did I want to fight, and I will get a fight.

He started hitting me, I grabbed his hands and pulled it down and I told him that there was no need for this. I was cooperating, I was answering their specific questions. He then called the others, and they grabbed me. This is now Niewoudt and Beneke, he shouted to them to again handcuff me. I was handcuffed.

Siebert then removed his watch, rolled up his sleeves, he approached me and started hitting me with heavy blows with open hands, left and right for a very long period, for a prolonged period.

That very rapidly led to a most vicious assault by all five people in the room. We had Siebert standing in front of me, and hitting my face. We had Niewoudt on the left of me attacking my head and my back. There was Beneke with a black hosepipe hitting me on the back and the bottom, and to the left and right of Siebert respectively ...

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry Mr Jones, could you go a bit slower - I am trying to write down what you are saying.

MR MTSHAULANA: Start again, you said Mr Siebert was hitting you with open hands on the face.

MR JONES: To the face.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes.

MR JONES: Siebert was to the left - sorry Niewoudt was to the left and rear of me, attacking my head and my back.

MR MTSHAULANA: With what?

MR JONES: With a green hosepipe. Beneke was to the right rear, attacking my back and bottom with a black hosepipe. And to the left and right of Siebert respectively, was Snyman and Marx who were basically delivering blows and kicking to keep me aligned, in position.

During this massive assault, we were moving all over the room and falling all over the room and eventually I just ended up with my back turned to them, facing the wall and everybody panting and me moaning and groaning on the one side as a result.

MR MTSHAULANA: And, at the end of this assault, did you then give them the information they wanted?

MR JONES: They asked if I was then ready to give them a statement, a satisfactory statement. I indicated yes, they gave me paper and a pen and for the rest of that day, which was then several hours that I had, I then prepared the second statement.

MR MTSHAULANA: Would that statement be one of the statements handed in yesterday as Exhibit A?

MR JONES: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: In that statement, amongst others you write something about the pamphlet?

MR JONES: that is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: It was alleged by the applicant that in the statements which you wrote, or one of the statements, you implicated Mr Biko as having been the person who drew up the pamphlet or distributed it, did you hear that evidence?

MR JONES: I heard that evidence.

MR MTSHAULANA: I would like you to take Exhibit, I would like to repeat that question, it was alleged that you and MR Titi implicated Mr Biko, did you hear that evidence, especially about Mr Titi as well?

MR JONES: I heard the evidence.

MR MTSHAULANA: With your permission Mr Chairman, I would like to make the witness to read a passage on Exhibit I, which was handed in in the other hearing, that being the statement of Mr Titi.

ADV BOOYENS: I think it is Exhibit C in this matter Mr Chairman, it has been handed in here as well.

MR MTSHAULANA: I beg your pardon?

ADV BOOYENS: It has been handed in here as exhibit C I think.

MR MTSHAULANA: I specifically want to refer to Exhibit I Mr Chairman. It is not the same as I, I specifically want to refer to a statement by Mr Titi, Exhibit I of the last hearing, and I would like to hand it in as Exhibit D of this hearing.

Do you have that statement, on the face of it is typed and as it begins (indistinct)?

MR JONES: I have it in front of me.

MR MTSHAULANA: On page 2.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, have you got copies for us please?

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, I thought that you had copies. I didn't make.

ADV DE JAGER: Unfortunately it seems as though ...

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we are talking passed each other. We have a statement here, which has been handed in as Exhibit C. There is a what appears to be the letter I right on top of that page. It is I think intended to be page 1. Is that what we are talking about?

MR MTSHAULANA: No, it is not Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it a different statement?

MR MTSHAULANA: This one, I think Mr Booyens said when he was handing it in as something about the Judge's rules, warn him according to the Judge's rules, that is how he handed it in as Exhibit I in the last inquest.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I am afraid we haven't got such a statement.

MR MTSHAULANA: I am sorry Mr Chairman, I had assumed that you had all the Exhibits. May I suggest Mr Chairman, that we take a tea break and then I can have the statement because it is not long.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, maybe we can continue and we can receive that Exhibit later.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can I make the witness to read Mr Chairman? Sorry Mr Chairman. I would like you to read for me on page 2, paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of that statement, very short paragraphs.

Mr Chairman, this is a statement by Mr Titi.

MR JONES: On the 26th of July 1977, I hitchhiked to King William's Town and proceeded directly to Biko's residential address where he has an office in his bedroom. The two of us were alone in his office, bedroom with the door closed.

Biko reminded me that the 18th of August 1976 was the date that riots took place in Port Elizabeth and proposed that the two of us should draw up a pamphlet for distribution in Port Elizabeth to commemorate the date. I agreed with his proposal.

Biko took a sheet of paper and said that we should express a few ideas in writing, but we agreed on my proposal that the actual drawing up of the text should be left to him.

ADV BOOYENS: I think that reads the final drawing, not the actual drawing up.

MR JONES: The final, okay, thank you, final drawing.

MR MTSHAULANA: I would like you to turn to page 10 and read paragraph 20 and 21.

MR JONES: I never saw Biko again after the 2nd of August. I phoned him on the 10th of August in connection with Madaka's case and he said something to the effect of he is letting me know when the job is ready. This had no bearing whatsoever on our telephonic discussions and I accepted that he was referring to the pamphlets.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, next paragraph 21.

MR JONES: I was detained on the 12th of August, without Biko having contacted me again.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes. I will leave Mr Titi's statement, but before I leave it, I just want to ask you if you can recall that the applicants said that Mr Biko was confronted with the statements - your statement and Mr Titi's statement, can you recall that?

MR JONES: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: When was this statement made, the one we have just read now, that was submitted by the applicant?

MR JONES: This statement is dated the 6th of September at three o'clock in the afternoon.

MR MTSHAULANA: So if the version of the applicant is to be accepted, Mr Biko was confronted at ten o'clock by a statement made at three o'clock?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, the evidence was never that Mr Biko was confronted with this. This is a matter for argument. If my learned friend would be so kind to look at the date on Exhibit C, he may see a different one, that is also a statement made by Mr Titi, 26th of August.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, my learned friend is correct, this is a matter for argument. On the record Mr Siebert's evidence, I will refer to it on my argument. I don't want to take that matter further.

Mr Jones, I would like you to take your own statement and I want you to turn to page, Exhibit A Mr Chairman, and I would like you to turn to page 7, the last paragraph and I would like you to read that paragraph for the Committee.

MR JONES: The one that is numbered 4?

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, the last one.

MR JONES: PE Commemoration pamphlet?

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, but the last paragraph.

MR JONES: Okay, the following night, after closing my office at 5 pm, I went home and after supper went to Steve's house. On my arrival there, I found Steve Biko and Patric Titi in his, Steve's bedroom apparently intensely involved in conversation.

At this point Titi holding an open file, was speaking to Steve who was listening intentively. As I entered the bedroom I heard Titi speaking about "busy with commemoration events". The meaning of which I did not fully appreciate until I actually saw the pamphlets.

As I stepped into the room, Titi ...

MR MTSHAULANA: Okay, just stop there. I would like you to read at the end of the page 8, from the seventh line from the bottom.

MR JONES: I arrived at the office just after 6 pm, and went in in order to leave all my accounting books in the cabinet in my office. I then took a walk through the whole office, especially to check the door locks and when I came to our small kitchenette where our duplicator is kept and used, I found it in such a mess with paper laying all over the show, which meant that the machine must have been used either on Friday or during the weekend.

On the shelf behind me, I found two huge stacks of pamphlets, each plus minus two feet high. On taking a quick glimpse at the one, I realised that this must be tying up in some way with what Titi was speaking about. It called on people to commemorate the deaths of all the martyrs and people killed in the uprisings last year and calling them finally to a meeting on the 18th of August in one of PE's black townships.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, I would like you to stop there. This is supposedly the paragraph which you are supposed to have implicated Mr Biko as having been the author of the pamphlet which was handed in, attached to Mr Niewoudt's application.

MR JONES: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, having read your synopsis of what the pamphlet which you are supposed to have known at the time, I would like you to read for the Commission because I am going to ask you the difference between your synopsis and the pamphlet, the last paragraph of the pamphlet of Mr Niewoudt. Just from there ...

MR JONES: Is that the paragraph that starts wherever you are...

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, the witness is now reading the pamphlet which was attached, I think it is page 135 of Mr Niewoudt's application.

MR JONES: Wherever you are, organise yourselves into groups and deal with those who do not heed this appeal, beat them, burn their books, burn their cars and shops, show no mercy to informers and other collaborators. They must all be killed, there must be cries, burning houses, people with clenched fists, bodies laying on streets, bruised and bleeding people, then there will be freedom, yes freedom. The black people are going to get their freedom, there is not enough power on earth to stop them, long live the revolution, power to the people.

MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Jones. Is there any similarities between your synopsis and this part of the pamphlet?

MR JONES: No, not at all.

MR MTSHAULANA: What would you say to the Commission, are the differences? I understand that the statement you wrote, you wrote it under pressure, under torture to remove pressure from you, but I just want you to describe to the Committee the difference between your synopsis of what you wrote and what is in that pamphlet?

MR JONES: My synopsis of what would have gone into a typical pamphlet if it was produced by us, is consistent with who we were, with our organisation, with our principles and our philosophies. We were part of a movement that invested in developing the consciousness and the organisation of people, that was the focus.

So, it would have been typical and logical for us to remind people of their experiences of the history and therefore in relation to riots, we would have called them to commemorations, those were the words that we would have used.

We would never have, also because we were a legal organisation, have incited people to complete anarchy.

MR MTSHAULANA: But anyway the statement you wrote, both statements, A and B, were written by you because of the pressure, they did not reflect the truth, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now going back to the applicant, the applicant said that when he - that he extracted the statement from you in the absence of the other officers. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR JONES: It is a lie, it is a fabrication.

MR MTSHAULANA: Were you ever interrogated by one policeman?

MR JONES: I was never interrogated by Niewoudt. The people who specifically interrogated me was Siebert and to a lesser extent Snyman. Snyman at the time was the Major in charge, and Siebert was the captain.

CHAIRPERSON: To be fair to the applicant, I don't think that he ever said that he was charged with having to interrogate you. What he said is that some time fortuitous, if you want, he was left alone with you, at which time he tried to elicit information from you and it is on that occasion that he assaulted you with a green hosepipe.

MR JONES: Can I respond to that? That incident never happened.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, we have covered the events of the 24th and the 25th. Had you ever before met the applicant?

MR JONES: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you describe the circumstances under which you met the applicant before the 24th very briefly Mr Jones?

MR JONES: On the day of our arrival in Port Elizabeth, I was eventually taken separately from Steve Biko to Algoa police station. Soon after my arrival, I was still in the charge office, Niewoudt arrived with a few officers, I can't remember who they were and he started of course manhandling and clapping me around in the charge office.

I was eventually taken to the back to one of the cells, whereafter they opened it, they stripped me naked, started beating me, shouting at me, making accusations of what we were trying to do in Port Elizabeth and put me in a cold shower. This particular treatment continued for the next few days until about the 22nd, whereafter ...

CHAIRPERSON: By Niewoudt and his colleagues?

MR JONES: Niewoudt and a gang of police would come in, shouting, screaming, pushing me out, hitting me, putting me in the cold shower, turning the taps on. I had initially resisted and pulled him into the shower with me. After that I didn't think it was the wisest thing to do and I stopped.

MR MTSHAULANA: When you say with a gang of policemen, do you know the names of the policemen that were involved?

MR JONES: Only Marx is the one that I remember particularly, because of the loudness of his voice.

MR MTSHAULANA: After the 25th, after you wrote Exhibit A, were you ever thereafter interrogated?

MR JONES: I was interrogated the next day, I was taken back to Algoa at about six o'clock on the 25th. Although they were not happy, I think it was accepted there was nothing more that could be done that day.

The next morning I was again collected, back in the same room, there was then a Major Hansen also, who was in charge of King William's Town Security Police. I then realised that some of my colleagues must have been arrested in King William's Town also.

On that day there were further assaults of a lesser nature and a further statement, which is not before us, which then took responsibility for the actual transportation and the delivery of the pamphlet.

MR MTSHAULANA: Was that your last interrogation?

MR JONES: There were numerous other engagements and interrogations of a much lesser nature. It carried on into September when suddenly the group of people that were interrogating me, changed and a new team took over.

MR MTSHAULANA: On the 25th, that was the last time that you had contact with the applicant?

MR JONES: And the 26th.

MR MTSHAULANA: And the 26th, that was the last time that you had contact with the applicant? In the last hearing you heard Mr Booyens ask you about the order of the statements, do you remember that?

MR JONES: I remember that.

MR MTSHAULANA: Do you have anything to say about that?

MR JONES: Yes, I had insisted that the way in which I saw the order of the two statements was the way that I gave the evidence at the time. I subsequently had an opportunity of studying of course all the documentation and the events, and refreshing myself and I have to concede that Adv Booyens was correct, that the sequence of the two statements, these the ones that I have now given, that Exhibit B is the statement that was extracted first, and Exhibit A is the statement that was extracted second, on the same day.

MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman. That is the evidence for Mr Jones Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MTSHAULANA: .

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any questions?

MS PATEL: No, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I see it is already half past eleven. Do you want to take the short adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to have a break?

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

PETER JONES: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, your evidence is in fact that the applicant in so far as you are concerned, is applying for amnesty for a completely fictional event?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And for some reason he choose not to apply for that which he really did to you, but applies for something that he never did to you?

MR JONES: He assaulted me, but he was in the company and I suppose under the command, of others. He never assaulted me when he was on his own.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. But this individual assault that he claims took place, that just never happened?

MR JONES: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I don't know if it is quite correct to say that it is a fictional event. I think it is common cause that Mr Jones was assaulted, circumstances under which the assault occurred, is being disputed.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman, perhaps the word fiction is not the correct description, but the incident that Mr Niewoudt describes, that is pure fiction as I understand it because that never happened according to Mr Jones.

Mr Jones says yes, I was assaulted but that is about the only similarity between their evidence. Really in so far as you have heard to His Lordship just now, really in so far as your evidence is concerned Mr Jones, the only aspect that you agree with Mr Niewoudt, as far as this is concerned, is to say yes, he assaulted me but not in the way he described?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: With a green hosepipe. I think they've got that in common too.

MR MTSHAULANA: And the interrogation room.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, we are coming closer.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, it looks like it Mr Chairman. The degree of Niewoudt's participation in the assault that you claim that he was involved in, because that is really what I am interested in, you didn't say so much in so many words although you suggested that he used the hosepipe, was basically that he did hit you with a hosepipe, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I am only now dealing with incidents on the 25th. He hit you with a hosepipe, is that all that Niewoudt did to you?

MR JONES: That is all I can remember that he was in charge of a green hosepipe that was being applied to me in conjunction with four other people.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. And did you notice this hosepipe at any time - did it cause any open injuries or anything like that?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Did he hit you on the head and on the body Mr Jones?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Your hairstyle in those days, was it as modern as it is today, in other words in the 1970's you would have had long hair, or did you also have short hair then.

MR JONES: It was very modern then, it was called the Afro then.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. But you never sustained any open injuries.

MR JONES: I had big welts that for many days later, was still visible, on the back, on the buttocks and my head was sensitive for days.

ADV BOOYENS: Sensitive? Were there also contusions on your head, in other words was it swollen where he hit you on the head?

MR JONES: Well, it was sensitive, I could obviously not see on my head, but it was sensitive to the touch for a long time.

ADV BOOYENS: But one can normally feel it you know, if you've got a big bump on the head.

MR JONES: No, no big bumps.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. Was this the first time that you had seen this hosepipe Mr Jones?

MR JONES: No, I had seen it the night before.

ADV BOOYENS: Was there anything significant about this hosepipe?

MR JONES: It was short, it was laying on the table, it appeared as if there was something in the middle.

ADV BOOYENS: It looked like a filled hosepipe?

MR JONES: It looked like a filled hosepipe and it felt like a filled hosepipe.

ADV BOOYENS: In other words it was substantially harder and heavier?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. Would you say - it can at best be an opinion, I know - would you say that Niewoudt hit you with all of his power?

MR JONES: No, I can't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: What does Niewoudt himself say?

ADV BOOYENS: Well, Niewoudt himself said certainly he hit him with all his power Mr Chairman. But Niewoudt doesn't mention a filled hosepipe, remember. That is what I am getting at.

Mr Niewoudt himself said that when he hit you, although he talks about another incident, he hit you with his maximum power, do you recall hearing that?

MR JONES: I recall that, I also recall that he spoke of a much longer hosepipe than what I recall.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, he talked about one of about a meter. How long would you make the one that he hit you with?

MR JONES: I would make it half a meter.

ADV BOOYENS: Half a meter.

MR JONES: Short, good to handle.

ADV BOOYENS: And notwithstanding the fact that he apparently hit you with a metal filled hosepipe, you never lost consciousness as a result of the blows of your head?

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, I don't know if the witness has said it was filled with metal, he only said it was filled.

ADV BOOYENS: Filled with what Mr Jones, you are surely not suggesting it was filled ground, what did it appear like?

MR MTSHAULANA: He said it appeared filled.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I am asking the witness, not my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, let's face it. You are at fault in the first place.

MR JONES: I don't know the substance.

ADV BOOYENS: What did it look like Mr Jones?

MR JONES: It looked solid.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but solid like what?

MR JONES: Not solid like metal, because it could still bend.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, the first statement that is Exhibit B, no assault perpetrated by the accused resulted in you writing out Exhibit B, is that correct?

MR JONES: Are you referring to Niewoudt?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Niewoudt, the applicant?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: The assaults that were perpetrated, were perpetrated by Siebert?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Anybody else?

MR JONES: When?

ADV BOOYENS: These assault at the night of the 24th.

CHAIRPERSON: We are talking about the assaults that resulted in you recording Exhibit B.

MR JONES: All right, that was Siebert, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Was only Snyman present at that stage?

MR JONES: No, they were all there.

ADV BOOYENS: I see, but none of the others did anything?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, then you say Exhibit B contains, basically contains fiction, is that correct?

MR JONES: It contains fiction as far as the real purpose of the trip is concerned.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, no the fact of the trip and so on is obviously true. The fact of the trip, that you and Mr Biko went to Cape Town, that is correct.

MR JONES: The statement explains that the purpose of the trip was the problems of the Black Peoples' Convention.

ADV BOOYENS: Was it?

MR JONES: No, it was not.

ADV BOOYENS: What was the purpose of the trip?

MR JONES: The purpose of the trip was specifically to meet other principle leaders that have been engaged for a number of years, in the quest to explore and find unity between the liberation movements in South Africa.

ADV BOOYENS: I think no secrets about that any more, I think you mentioned it earlier on, including Dr Neville Alexander?

MR JONES: Including Dr Neville Alexander.

ADV BOOYENS: And the principles of these other organisations, what were these other organisations?

MR JONES: It was on the one side it was PAC, Pan Africanist Congress which was led at the time by Dr Robert Sobukwe, it was ANC, African National Congress who at the time internally liaised with us through at Attorney in Durban, called Mr Griffiths Mxenge.

ADV BOOYENS: These three organisations, is that correct?

MR JONES: Four with the BPC.

ADV BOOYENS: No, it is ANC, PAC and?

MR JONES: And the unity movement.

ADV BOOYENS: Oh, the unity movement as well. It is correct also that - so was the purpose of the meeting to see if you could consolidate your actions?

MR JONES: Yes, and take the process further.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. So, in those days Umkonto We Sizwe was already in existence I think, the armed struggle had been declared?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: So you were indeed, you and Mr Biko were prepared to cooperate with people who were also involved in the violent, potentially violent overthrow of the government?

MR JONES: And they were banned.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, no.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, the witness did not count Umkonto We Sizwe, he counted the ANC. I do not know how the connection is made.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Mtshaulana that the question correctly pointed out that Umkonto We Sizwe was the military arm of the ANC. I think the question is directed at finding out whether this meeting took cognisance of that. Did I assume correctly?

ADV BOOYENS: Quite so Mr Chairman. Well, just to make the record clear, the armed wing of the ANC was Umkonto We Sizwe, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes, we were aware of that.

ADV BOOYENS: And the ANC through its armed wing was involved in the armed struggle, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And you people were prepared to cooperate with people who were also involved in the potentially violent overthrow of the government, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Fine, so there was no absolute aversion to what you people perceived to be an illegal government, to the fact that if necessary it could be violently overthrown, is that right?

MR JONES: We were standing for and fighting for a change in the government of this country.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR JONES: It was called broadly a liberation struggle, freedom struggle, made up of various components. All of those components collectively were acknowledged as belonging to the struggling people of this country.

We had elected to operate an organisation and a movement within the parameters of the laws of the country.

ADV BOOYENS: I am not talking about your organisation, I am talking about your potential cooperation. You were prepared to cooperate with organisations because I think I will be Mr Jones, I was never really involved in these things, but I think I would be correct if I say that in those days the PAC was also to some extent involved in a armed struggle, not so, it wasn't only Umkonto?

MR JONES: Yes, I would say that.

ADV BOOYENS: Would you agree with that?

MR JONES: Yes, I would say it is reasonable, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you. I honestly didn't know. Now, the question actually is on this, the BPC the legal organisation, the purpose of the Cape Town meeting was for the legal organisation to meet with two organisations that were actually involved in an armed struggle, and there was a preparedness to cooperate with them, because you had the same aim basically namely to overthrow the then government?

MR JONES: Sir, we were very, very far from talking about an armed struggle. We were at a particular point, and we have put in a number of years in that, to reach a basic position, an in principle position, whether these organisations that have got very long histories of division and animosities and tensions whether they would agree in principle, to of course unification as a first stage. We weren't even remotely talking of what you are talking about.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am not - Mr Jones, I think you are reading more into my questions than what there is really in them.

The question is simply the following. The idea was to see if the organisations could cooperate, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: The organisations that you wanted to cooperate with, two of them were also involved in their approach, or part of their approach was also the use of violence, is that correct?

MR JONES: The organisations affected were all the liberation organisations of the people of South Africa.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, including those who made use of violence if necessary?

MR JONES: Including those.

ADV BOOYENS: So it would be correct to say that the BPC was at least, and Mr Biko was at least prepared to start thinking about cooperation with people who were involved in that fashion, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Right. Now, it is clear from Exhibit B, that you never told the SB about the real purpose of this meeting?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And in fact I seem to recall, that at the previous hearing, you indicated that in fact you were not going to inform them of, I think it was your phrase, life and death matters? Is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And these life and death matters exactly being this intended cooperation?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well. So there was no - you and Mr Biko were involved in politics, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And the SB's including the applicant, were interested in defeating your political objectives, obviously is that right?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And that is past and if I talk past, I talk prior to August 1977 and future and that is why they used these methods against you like detention and arresting you people, harassing you, visiting your offices, banning people, is that correct?

MR JONES: We never blamed them for doing what they did.

ADV BOOYENS: No, no, but so you do accept Mr Jones, that these were policemen doing a job for their principle, who was the then government of the day, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes, they were representing their government.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, and they, the SB was really the political police, not so?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: They were interested in people who were involved in liberation politics like you and that is why they harassed you?

MR JONES: Okay.

ADV BOOYENS: So the entire period of what you were subjected to, the torture, the writing of the statements, everything, all that centred around political things, not so?

MR JONES: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: They were not really interested in anything else about you or in so far as they asked about Mr Biko, in anything but your political activities? Is that right?

MR JONES: No, that is not right.

ADV BOOYENS: What other activities?

MR JONES: On many occasions the inter-action between detainees and Security Police would far exceed the boundaries of what you would want to purport to be of course an almost professional relationship.

It would become very, very personal, they would be very emotional about the fact that they believe that we were arrogant and "hardegat", we had no right to be the way we were. It was way beyond the fact that we were people of integrity. That together with the fact that there were many, many cases of excesses that no one can understand, and that is why we are here, I believe, because of all these excesses.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. I am not saying that in this process, there were not clashes of personality, but the clashes of personality started because of you were two different political poles, not so?

MR JONES: I am speaking of a culture that was inbred, it was there all the time, it was just not about us committing certain acts that were prohibited by the laws, however wrong these laws were, it was about a culture of hatred, it was a culture of resentment from white people against black people.

Especially black people who had the nerve to get up and think and talk for themselves.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but in what you have told us in what happened to you, let us confine us to the specific case and not a generalisation. In what happened in your case up to let's call it the 26th of August, that was a matter involved and information that they wanted from you involving your political activities and Mr Biko's political activities, not so?

MR JONES: A lot of energy was spent, especially by Siebert, on how it could happen that a coloured person like me could be part of an organisation consisting of kaffirs. I also wrote about that aspect.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I don't think we need to use that word.

MR JONES: It is in my statement.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I've seen it, but exactly, but the point is you as a coloured person in an organisation of people of African origin, but their political organisation not so, that's what Siebert was querying?

The organisation he was referring to was the BPC, not so?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Which was in their perception a political organisation, correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And he wasted his energy on arguing with you why you would get involved in that political organisation by the people emanating from African origin, is that correct?

MR JONES: I thought he wasted his energy. He thought he was part of a prophesy of a religion. He didn't think he was wasting his energy.

ADV BOOYENS: No, no, I am talking about your perception. But Siebert thought he was on a crusade in other words, to put it more correctly, to really try and suggest to you that he couldn't understand what you were doing in an organisation like that, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: A political organisation like that, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Because at the end of the day, it still boiled down to politics?

MR JONES: If you wish.

ADV BOOYENS: If you want to say it was not so.

MR JONES: I don't know whether you and me understand politics the same way.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones I think you know a lot more about politics than I do, I must confess.

MR JONES: That is exactly why I say I don't think we are agreed.

ADV BOOYENS: But it was based in a broader sense, if one used the word politics in its broadest sense, it was based on a political conflict, not so?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: I think one could, and Mr Jones could comment on it, wasn't our politics based on a racial basis all along in the past and wasn't the government run on a racial basis and wasn't politics as such, run on a racial basis which brought about conflict between whites and blacks?

MR JONES: Mr co-chair that is commonly accepted, that is our history, yes, there is no dispute about that.

ADV DE JAGER: All right.

ADV BOOYENS: And it would then follow from that that the battle lines that were drawn in a manner of speaking, between the Security Branch on the one hand, and the liberation movements on the other hand, was exactly as a result of this policy racial separation?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: That is what in Siebert's discussions with you, the racial thing came back, in other words that is really what you are saying?

MR JONES: All the time, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. This what you have written about here in Exhibit B Mr Jones, are these just the accounts of what the meeting was for and the why's and the how's and so, that was just pure fiction, is that correct? These meetings never took place?

The BPC and the talk about the BPC's problems, or did that happen as well during your Cape Town visit?

MR JONES: Some of these visits did happen. If I can elaborate, at the time there were a number of problems around leadership individuals in the Black Peoples' Convention, these were friends of ours, comrades of ours.

That was not the reason why Steve would have travelled in excess of 1 000 kilometres and put his life on risk to mend that rift, it could have been done by the organisation in its normal course of operation. However, because we were going to be in Cape Town, and because we had members, senior members who were banned and prohibited from fully participating at national level, we of course made it known that we were willing to see some of these people, and we had made those arrangements.

ADV BOOYENS: So in fact what you described here was to some extent, the results of the secondary purpose, simply put it was to deflect the attention of the Security Police unto the secondary purpose of the visit, whereas the primary purpose was really not to settle BPC differences?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Fine. Now, you say that during the night of the 24th, on the 25th you also wrote some other documentation which basically just gives a personal background of you, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: What did that basically contain Mr Jones, just give us a synopsis?

MR JONES: In my statement which I made after my release in 1979, I referred to it as three to four pages, or three to five pages on my personal political history, which are very concise points of where I went to school, where I grew up, university, membership of organisations, what work I was doing and so on.

Those notes and pages are not here.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. Siebert's main thrust of his questioning during the night of the 24th, what would you say was the main thrust of his questioning?

MR JONES: It started off generally, then it started focusing on relationships with white people, he couldn't accept that we could be an independent black organisation, for example that there were people in the ecumenical sector, in the church, like Aldridge Stubbs who was constantly seen with us, moving internationally, that according to him must have had a much bigger role.

I was questioned extensively on how we linked internationally in relation to money and so on. As time went on, it became much more specific.

ADV BOOYENS: That is what I actually asked you Mr Jones. What was the main thrust, what did he really want to know?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, before we carry on, what is the main thrust of your cross-examination?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I've got a statement that was written on the night as a result of that questioning.

That statement contains nothing about the pamphlet, that is what I want to know from the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I really thought that this enquiry entailed an enquiry into whether there was an assault on Mr Jones and the circumstances under which the assault occurred in terms of the Act of course.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, exactly Mr Chairman. Very well, if the question is disallowed, I will leave it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I am just trying to find out where we are going to.

ADV BOOYENS: Let me ask the question directly.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, if our learned friend has this additional statement, I am just wondering why we were not provided with this statement and if it is not possible to provide us with that statement?

Unless my learned friend's line of questioning is that Mr Jones is telling lies, that he was assaulted and the statement that is going to be produced is going to disprove what he has said, I don't understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, are you talking about an Exhibit.

ADV BOOYENS: I am talking about Exhibit B My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's get directly to the crux.

ADV BOOYENS: Did Siebert on the 24th, did Siebert ask you about the page 135 pamphlet?

MR JONES: Yes. About the pamphlet, I wasn't aware at the time it was the page 135 pamphlet.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, he asked about a pamphlet that you said that did certain things, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes, it was not specifically, if I can explain, specifically an interrogation about a pamphlet. They maintained that we were in Port Elizabeth and the more I insisted that we were in Cape Town on another matter, the more they insisted that there were many, many confirmations independently obtained, that we had been in Port Elizabeth.

ADV BOOYENS: Had been in Port Elizabeth, doing what?

MR JONES: Eventually it came out in bits and pieces, eventually it was about a pamphlet that we had come to deliver, that we were seen all kinds of bits and pieces, which I denied.

ADV BOOYENS: Did they say to you - I know you said they didn't show it to you - did they say to you what this pamphlet was supposed to have said?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: So it was just a pamphlet hanging in the air?

MR JONES: That is right. They were telling me that they have the information, which I knew could not exist, it did not exist.

In relation to our knowledge and experience of Police, we also know that it is normal habit of them, to suggest that they know what you have done, but they require you to admit it independently. We've also come to accept that that is another method of them to admit that they in fact do not know, that they say that they know, but they don't know.

Therefore they will try to extract the story from you and if they do not get it voluntarily, they will beat you up for it. That means fabrication of a story, which many times led to people being convicted. That is the truth.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's stay away from the generalisations, let's try to get to the specifics.

MR JONES: That is the truth.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's try to get to the specifics of this matter. So, am I right as far as the pamphlet is concerned, Siebert and company said to you that you and Biko were in PE, distributing a pamphlet? They didn't tell you what the pamphlet said or what it was about or anything?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: And the next day when you produced Exhibit B and the other document, which we haven't got, this assault that you have described to us, followed?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And the questioning on that occasion, did that centre around the pamphlet?

MR JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: On the 25th Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, the next day. Sorry My Lord, I should have made it clear. The pamphlet was not produced?

MR JONES: No, it was not produced.

ADV BOOYENS: It was also - were you told what the content of the pamphlet was?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Nothing about it?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: So in other words, you didn't - you knew that according to the SB, you and Mr Biko was supposed to have distributed a pamphlet the contents of which you had no clue what it was about?

MR JONES: Except to say that it was a general contention from them all the time, that all the unrest, it doesn't matter where it was in the country, was the responsibility of our organisation.

So pamphlets would have been about incitement and stuff like that. That is what they meant by pamphlets.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. But Mr Jones, I don't want the two of us to misunderstand each other, that is why I ask you specifically they never told you what this pamphlet was supposed to say?

MR JONES: That's right.

ADV BOOYENS: They just said that you and Steve were distributing pamphlets in PE?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Or a specific pamphlet?

MR JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jones, I think the question is to find out whether any details that is contained in the pamphlet that you now know, were any details mentioned to you during any of the interrogation periods?

MR JONES: No sir.

ADV BOOYENS: So, what you then produced as a result of the assault Mr Jones, was you were really forced into writing fiction not so?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And so you had to sit down, think tell me where I am wrong, to think what - if we were to do a pamphlet like that, what we would have put into it and that is what you then put into your statement, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: So, what we see on page 9 of Exhibit A, was just guess work?

MR JONES: You are referring to ...

ADV BOOYENS: To the passage that you read already.

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, so that was just guess work on your side?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Some very lucky guess work, not so Mr Jones?

MR JONES: Can I change your phraseology, to the word typical. It would have been typical of us to commemorate people who were killed at the time.

ADV BOOYENS: So are you saying that without knowing that the pamphlet the police were referring to, was referring to the 18th of August, you put in the date of the 18th of August there?

MR JONES: It was commonly known sir that there was something called June 16, that happened in Soweto. It was commonly known that the next big region that exploded was Cape Town a little while later, and the 18th of August was when the Eastern Cape started blowing up with unrest.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR JONES: So it was commonly known all over the country, that there would be on those particular dates, June 16, depending on the region or nationally, would be commemoration events.

ADV BOOYENS: And so, it was fortuitous knowledge that the synopsis that you give, is indeed not an incorrect synopsis of the third paragraph from the bottom of the document at page 135?

MR JONES: Are you talking of the pamphlet?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, the 135 document.

MR JONES: Not at all, not at all.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you agree with me that I would not be entirely wrong if I say that what is a synopsis of that third paragraph of what appears at page 135, and what you say after the word synopsis is, these two aspects are reconcilable with each other?

MR JONES: It is not reconcilable, because inherent in what I am saying about the commemoration and where we were, is the values of dignity and respect of black people and for their lives, whereas this pamphlet that you are talking about, refers to destruction and disrespect.

ADV BOOYENS: I am not talking about the last two paragraphs, I am talking about the third paragraph from the bottom. Let me read to you perhaps Mr Jones, what I see here. To commemorate the death of all the martyrs and the people killed in the uprising last year. Your statement, the 135 statement, third paragraph, this is an appeal to black people to show solidarity with the exiled and the jailed to show sympathy with those who lost their brother, sister, children and parents during this period last year.

Do you see what I mean?

MR JONES: I see what you mean, but that wasn't our language.

ADV BOOYENS: No, no, don't evade the question Mr Jones. I am talking about the synopsis and the contents, that is all I am talking about.

MR JONES: What is your question?

ADV BOOYENS: That what appears at page 9 of your statement, to commemorate the deaths of all the martyrs and people killed in the uprisings last year, to there, go to - have you got the page 135 document in front of you as well, the pamphlet?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: This is an appeal to all black people to show solidarity with the exiled and the jailed to show sympathy with those who lost their brother, sister, children and parents during this period last year by mourning.

Really talking about the same thing, not so?

MR JONES: More or less.

MR MTSHAULANA: Except Mr Chairman, there is a very fundamental difference. The mentioning of solidarity with exiles in the context, makes it two documents. As far as that is concerned, fundamentally different.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mtshaulana, isn't that a question of argument?

ADV BOOYENS: Do you want me to deal with the objection Mr Chairman, I don't think so.

This paragraph also talks about a meeting, is that right, although on a different date. The one is the 18th and the one is the 19th?

MR JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, where are you referring to?

ADV BOOYENS: Page 9 and call them finally to a meeting on the 18th of August in one of PE's black townships. This is a stay at home and on the 19th of August a commemoration service, so maybe that is not exactly the same thing.

A meeting and a commemoration service, or would that be the same thing? I am asking you Mr Jones?

MR JONES: It could be.

ADV BOOYENS: Could be the same thing.

ADV SIGODI: During your interrogation before you made the statement that is Exhibit A, were you ever asked about what Mr Titi had said, the contents of Mr Titi's statement, were they ever shown to you?

MR JONES: It was never shown to me, but it was repeatedly said that my friends, including Patric Titi had long ago told the story and sold his friends out and they have the story, so it was of course indicated that there was no useful purpose being served by me not cooperating.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you told what Titi had written in his statement?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you told what Titi had said what the pamphlet contained?

MR JONES: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you told that Titi mentioned a pamphlet?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Can you remember what was said Titi mentioned about the pamphlet?

MR JONES: Well, it all started with them constructing an explanation for how this particular pamphlet had started off and how it was eventually produced. That it started off with Patric Titi's visit to King William's Town to our offices, and to Steve Biko's house.

ADV BOOYENS: So they told you about that one?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And what else did they tell you about Titi?

MR JONES: I can't remember the specifics, but what I put eventually in my statement, were all the loose images that I could gather around, to construct what I thought was a plausible story possibly acceptable to them.

ADV SIGODI: Did you know if Titi had ever gone to visit Mr Biko?

MR JONES: Yes. Yes, he at the time was a colleague of mine. He worked in Uitenhage.

ADV SIGODI: Did you know what he discussed with Mr Biko?

MR JONES: No, I don't know what they discussed.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, Mr Biko was your friend, is that correct?

MR JONES: And colleague, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, friend and colleague. And the Security Police assaulted you really I am talking about the main assault, the one on the morning of the 25th, after the production of Exhibit B, prior to the production of Exhibit A.

The purpose of that assault, would you say that was mainly to get you to admit that you and Mr Biko were instrumental in the preparation and distribution of this pamphlet, or that at least Mr Biko was involved in the production of the pamphlet, and that the two of you were involved in the distribution of the pamphlet?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: That is what they wanted?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And as far as you knew at that time, to your knowledge what they wanted you to say was an untruth?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And it is only because of what they said and the duress, this terrible duress that you were subjected to, that you eventually produced Exhibit A, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: At that stage you were broken down as a result of this assault to saying what these people wanted to hear, you didn't want to face that type of treatment again, which is quite understandable?

MR JONES: Well, it is strategic, it is about making a judgement, it is about of certainly wanting to give an impression of reasonable cooperation with them without digging an absolute hole, because eventually these things may and would of course possibly get, or rather land up in court, where it has to be defended, either I may be called upon as a State witness or as somebody directly accused of an act and one then has to think through what one is going to be if one is no longer in a situation of absolute duress and overwhelming violence.

ADV BOOYENS: That was a long answer, the question is simply the following. They wanted you to implicate Mr Biko, not so?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: In so far as one can say looking at this statement alone, you ...

CHAIRPERSON: Which one is that Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: I will be referring to Exhibit A during the next number of questions Mr Chairman. As far as this document is concerned, at page 7 thereof, you have heard a discussion between Messrs Biko and Titi which didn't really standing on its own, it didn't really make any sense to you, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And the only thing you heard according to this, is you heard Titi speaking about busy with commemoration events. Is that right?

MR JONES: That is what the statement says, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, and then you the next time you deal with it, is at the bottom of page 8. When you just give a synopsis of a pamphlet which if that was all the pamphlet said, nobody could ever be prosecuted on it, not so?

Let's have a commemoration ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, let me ask a question of Mr Jones first before I ask you the question.

Mr Jones, you said you attended university, are you a qualified lawyer?

MR JONES: An accountant.

CHAIRPERSON: Really questions of whether somebody could be prosecuted to ask of a layman, I don't know if that is quite fair. It may have been his own judgement wrongfully or rightfully.

ADV BOOYENS: I will put to him what I see in here Mr Chairman, and ask him to comment on that.

Mr Jones, the synopsis of this pamphlet that you give here in my opinion, is that this was merely to remember the people who had been killed in the previous year's uprising. That would not have amounted to an offence, to draw a pamphlet like that. It was before the state of emergency, it wouldn't have amounted to an offence.

What I want to ask you ...

MR JONES: Excuse me, can I ask you, are you aware of the security legislation in 1977?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Jones, I was around.

MR JONES: That you could be prosecuted for even a neutral pamphlet if it was not identified who the publisher were?

ADV BOOYENS: So is that the reason why you say ...

MR JONES: No, I am not sure. You could be convicted or be charged with a political pamphlet that is innocuous to anybody but if it did not identify who published it, it could be a contravention.

ADV BOOYENS: But you didn't know whether the document was identified? The police never showed it to you?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: It could have said it was issued by the BPC, so what sense does that answer make seeing that you know the security legislation better than I do.

MR JONES: Sir, I was playing along and this is as far I went in my judgement, that is as far as I went.

ADV BOOYENS: All you said to implicate Mr Biko in this statement is he and Titi was speaking and in your office you saw a pamphlet advertising commemorative meeting for people that were killed?

That is as far as you went into implicating Mr Biko, not so?

MR JONES: That is what I said, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: This was given to the Security Police, they read that, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Then you say on the 26th you were assaulted again?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: About what?

MR JONES: They were not happy.

ADV BOOYENS: What did they want?

MR JONES: They wanted me to be physically involved in the pamphlet. All that I described here was that I was walking along, I didn't see anybody do anything, I heard something, I saw a pamphlet, it was not good enough.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, so what did they want you to say then?

MR JONES: Well, they sent in people like Marx to come and argue with me, that they have a system of informers in the township, we were seen. We were seen at a school, I was not familiar enough with Port Elizabeth and the black townships in order to construct an acceptable story.

I did construct some kind of story.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, but what did they want you to add?

MR JONES: That we came to Port Elizabeth with the pamphlets, that we had produced, that we had handed it over to people, that these were distributed and that that led to unrest.

ADV BOOYENS: So they actually want you to admit that the pamphlet led to unrest?

MR JONES: Yes, in the context of what happened in Port Elizabeth at that time.

ADV BOOYENS: No, the question is did the police specifically want you to say in your third statement, that this pamphlet led to unrest? That is what I asked.

MR JONES: No, they didn't tell me what to put in my statement, they were saying they were not happy with the statement.

It didn't go far enough.

ADV BOOYENS: And said to you that okay, but I am trying to find out what they were trying to say to you if they say it didn't go far enough.

Were they saying to you that we've got evidence that you and Mr Biko were in Port Elizabeth, handing out these pamphlets or distributing them?

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, I don't understand my learned friend's line of questioning. I am not sure if he is questioning that this is what Mr Jones wrote, what is written here, or whether he has some other evidence apart from what we have, because we have here two pamphlets, statements which were made by him, and he has explained the context in which he wrote these statements.

I don't know where this is leading us to, this line of questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know why the questions are asked, but I can tell you this is how I understand the questions. It is to investigate whether what is contained in the statement, is something that was told to Mr Jones, or whether he made it up, or to find out exactly where the root of the contents of the statements come from.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, if that is the goal of the question, I think the witness has answered the question because he has said several times now, that he constructed a story out of the bits and pieces that had emerged from the questioning.

If that is the questions, I think that the question had been answered.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to deal with that Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, the witness went further in his testimony and he talked about a missing statement, a statement that he made on the 26th because the police were not satisfied with it.

I am trying to find out what that was contained in this statement, were they not satisfied with and what they wanted changed, that is what I am trying to find out.

Mr Jones, in having answered ...

MR JONES: I can't construct a statement that was made 20 years ago, in the same way that I only discovered these statements. All that I can say is with reference to a statement I made 18 years ago when I was released, was that it went a little bit further in the sense that it took responsibility for the transportation of the pamphlets from King William's Town to Port Elizabeth and the delivery thereof.

ADV BOOYENS: Fine. And once you said that in the third statement, the one that we haven't got, once you have said that, were you then left alone as far as this aspect is concerned, the question of the pamphlets?

MR JONES: No, there were several other engagements of a lesser nature. I remember it as events where they were trying to fine tune things in relation to the accuracy and so on. You all notice that these statements are not signed.

Eventually, later, they came to me and the constructed in Afrikaans a new version, incorporating all the things that I have agreed can go into that statement, that statement is also not here.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you sign that one?

MR JONES: I think I signed that one, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Was that typed?

MR JONES: It was handwritten.

ADV BOOYENS: Handwritten as well? So the bottom line is ...

ADV DE JAGER: Not handwritten by you, it wasn't your handwriting?

MR JONES: No.

ADV DE JAGER: You don't know who wrote it?

MR JONES: I think it was Wilken if I can refer to my notes. I will come back to it as soon as I get it.

CHAIRPERSON: But in any event you say that you signed the statement that was drafted?

MR JONES: Yes, it was going to be a formal sworn statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Confession.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, then it was fine tuned and so on, but ultimately when you made the additional admission in the third written statement that you distributed the pamphlet, were they then more or less satisfied?

MR JONES: Yes, I think they accepted that was as far as they could take the matter at that stage.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. During all these assaults perpetrated on you and so on, did you tell the SB initially obviously, that you knew nothing about this?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And you gave them - after you gave them Exhibit A such assault as there was after that, was relatively minor in comparison with what happened to you on the 25th, not so?

MR JONES: On the 26th, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I am talking about the assault on the 26th?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Who were the parties involved in that?

MR JONES: On the 26th?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR JONES: The people I remember was Niewoudt, Siebert, I am not sure whether Marx was there, and I think I mentioned Hattingh.

ADV BOOYENS: If you say that was comparatively mild in comparison with the 25th, what do you mean?

MR JONES: Well, it was not as intense, it was not as overwhelming, it was quite a number of blows, but nothing that absolutely of course broke me down.

CHAIRPERSON: You say it was not as intense as?

MR JONES: As the day before, the 25th. I was sensitive, I was very swollen from the day before, but in terms of the force applied, it was not the same, that is what I meant.

ADV BOOYENS: And was the reason for the assault explained to you as being that your Exhibit A statement didn't go far enough or what did they say why were they beating you up?

MR JONES: Yes, roughly that would be it.

ADV BOOYENS: And obviously then the questioning at the time would have centred around how did the pamphlets get to PE and allegations you and Biko were involved, that type of thing?

MR JONES: Yes. Also another dimension started that particular morning, because there was a new officer in the room called Major Hansen from King William's Town and he laughed firstly at my state and mentioned how the great had fallen and then after watching them interrogating me, asked them why do they speak to me in English, that I come from Cape Town and that I was quite conversant in Afrikaans.

ADV BOOYENS: I don't think that is really important.

MR JONES: It was very important because up till then, I was quite able to complicate them with my English and with my intellect and with things like that, and thereafter it just became plain "moer" and "donner".

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, so they changed into Afrikaans Mr Jones, is that what you are saying, it sounds like it?

MR JONES: Is that a question?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR JONES: It was one of attitude.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am talking about the language, did they switch language then or not?

MR JONES: Yes, they must have.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. But in any case, whether they spoke in Afrikaans or in English, they were still insisting at that stage then, that you add the further aspects that we had spoken about, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes, as far as my recollection goes, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, Niewoudt hasn't applied for that assault either. Neither has he applied for the assaults during your period of detention, now this group of policemen that you referred to that visited you in the cells, prior to your first interrogation, how many of them were there approximately? Can you remember that story of waking you up and assaulting you, pushing you under the shower and so on, that is what I am talking about?

MR JONES: I would say an average of four, three or four people.

ADV BOOYENS: Consisting of Niewoudt and Marx as far as you are concerned?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Were the others also white cops?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: White policemen, I shouldn't use words like that. Security Policemen as far as you are concerned?

MR JONES: Always Security Police.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. Although you don't know their names, did you subsequently see some of them there?

MR JONES: No, I can't recall, they are not standing out.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I have heard them called other names as well.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but I don't think one should call them other names in court. Was Niewoudt in charge of this group in your impression, I am just talking as far as your impression was?

MR JONES: My impression was that he was the noisiest and the most violent.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, when it came to giving instructions or something like that?

MR JONES: He never gave instructions, he was like the permanent rouge, always harassing.

I knew eventually that he was one of the most junior people around, that is why he never interrogated me.

ADV BOOYENS: Niewoudt never asked you a question?

MR JONES: He never interrogated me.

ADV BOOYENS: No, listen to the question, there may be a subtle difference. Did Niewoudt ever ask you a question that you can recall?

MR JONES: In the week of harassment, in the context of the fighting, there were many accusations and questions, and me fighting with them, and me arguing with them, but no formal questioning.

ADV BOOYENS: All right, and once the formal questioning process started?

MR JONES: Not a single question from him.

ADV BOOYENS: Not a single question from him. You mentioned something, you said that when about the interrogation, that when Siebert and Snyman set off with their questioning, your impression was that they were a bit out of their depth, is that correct?

MR JONES: That they didn't know much about the Black Consciousness Movement, they certainly had a serious attitude problem about themselves as the Headquarters of Security Police. They couldn't understand how we could operate a national organisation in King William's Town, they found it absolutely disgusting that we could do what we were doing and why could the police not do what they would do to people as they would normally treat people in Port Elizabeth. That is basically beat their brains out.

ADV BOOYENS: Let's confine ourselves to my questions Mr Jones, I am trying to finish this.

I am talking about their knowledge of the Black Consciousness Movement, these two Snyman and Siebert?

MR JONES: Not extensive.

ADV BOOYENS: Not extensive? So you heard Mr Niewoudt's evidence that at a later stage when they were busy with Mr Biko, Siebert specifically was busy with Mr Biko, and he, that is Niewoudt got the impression that Mr Biko realised that they didn't exactly know what they were talking about, that is also consistent with what you thought was the case?

MR JONES: Are you referring to the evidence? I can't recall that evidence.

ADV BOOYENS: He basically said and I am trying to telescope it, he basically said that he got the impression that Mr Biko realised that Siebert didn't really know what he was talking about, he didn't have an indepth knowledge of the Black Consciousness Movement. That is also consistent with what you found with the knowledge of Siebert and Snyman, not so?

MR JONES: Yes, but that was also a general phenomena in Port Elizabeth.

ADV BOOYENS: So they really didn't know what was going on?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: So your impression certainly was not, Mr Jones, that prior to questioning you, that they have made a study of the whole philosophy of Black Power and what was behind it and who the main people behind it was, and so on?

MR JONES: I think they had a general understanding as was normal for most Security Police at the time.

ADV BOOYENS: But what was that general understanding, here is a Black Power Movement, it is a threat to the government, that is it?

MR JONES: That is right. And even silly things like why do we prefer white sugar to black sugar.

ADV BOOYENS: If the Commission would just bear with me. Mr Chairman, it is one o'clock, may I suggest that we perhaps just take a short break. I won't be long with this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any particular reason why you need the break?

ADV BOOYENS: I just want to first of all consider a few further aspects, like I say, I won't be long.

CHAIRPERSON: How long do you think you need to consider that aspects?

ADV BOOYENS: 15 to 20 minutes.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

PETER JONES: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Jones, the night of the 24th when Siebert and Snyman were asking you these questions that we were dealing with, how were you assaulted and by whom?

MR JONES: Siebert who jumped up very briefly, he clapped me and he also took into his hand the green hosepipe, with which he hit me a few blows.

ADV BOOYENS: You said earlier on that the hosepipe was filled, but you don't know whether it was with something metallic? Is that right?

MR JONES

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: In what was handed in as Exhibit P in the previous hearing, which is really - it is called the testimony of Mr Peter Jones and (indistinct), you know what document I am referring to?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You handed - it is correct, you handed that document in at the time, not so?

MR JONES: Right.

ADV BOOYENS: It was Exhibit P in the previous hearing. Mr Chairman, I don't know the Committee should probably have it, it is a photocopy of this printed thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit P is with us, I am asking whether we should mark it Exhibit E.

ADV BOOYENS: Page 304 Mr Jones, go to the paragraph counting from the top ...

MR JONES: I have it, I have it in front of me.

ADV BOOYENS: Right, counting from the top excluding the first, which is part of the - the third paragraph, the one in the desk in front of Siebert. Do you see that?

MR JONES: Yes, I have that, I have that paragraph.

ADV BOOYENS: With what the hell it was filled, I cannot say but it was something metallic.

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you want to comment in the light of what you ...

MR JONES: Yes, it was completely subjective, it was more a reference to the weight that I felt when I of course eventually became entangled with these hosepipes. That is why I said eventually something metallic. But I can't tell you that it was metal.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well. Snyman I understood, merely - it seems that the assaults that he perpetrated I am talking about the 24th, 25th, the assaults that Snyman perpetrated on you was once this mass assault took place, he was sort kicking and hitting you from the side as you put it, to hold you in line or keep you in line, or something like that?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Is that all Snyman did?

MR JONES: Yes, he also did, I can't remember exactly when, also independently hit me at one or other occasion, I can't remember the occasions.

ADV BOOYENS: Go to page 387 please, the fourth paragraph, "when I repeated", have you got that?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Snyman started calling me names and calling me a liar. He got up from the chair and kicked me on the left leg, stumbled, the chairs came tumbling down, hitting him on the head and the other one landing on Siebert. You see there you say it was Snyman, in your evidence here you said it was Siebert who did that. Which one is it?

MR JONES: It is as it is in the statement.

ADV BOOYENS: So your evidence here was wrong?

MR JONES: If I said Siebert, it would have been a mistake.

ADV BOOYENS: When was this written?

MR JONES: This was written, I was released in February of 1979. I prepared this statement around April and May of 1979, the purpose of the statement was to explore whether we could get around the limitation at the time, or the restriction that you had to charge a police within six months of an incident and we were going to seek a legal opinion, so that statement was handed to my lawyer, who is now the Minister of Justice to this country, Dullah Omar and it was handed for opinion to Adv George Bizos and Kentridge, who was involved in the inquest, and as you know, Adv Bizos is still involved.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, the evidence of Mr Niewoudt specifically, was that he do admit assaulting you and assaulting you quite seriously, but he denies as you have heard the assault described by you.

I think we have dealt with that, your explanation is that he must be trying to protect somebody else.

MR JONES: Indeed.

ADV BOOYENS: Oh yes, there is just one more aspect I want to deal with. If we can just go through a few other aspects, page 382 - you say the group of Security Policemen that attacked you at the cells, were four in here. At the top of page 382 you say there were six of them. Which is the correct one?

MR JONES: Can I just correct you, that was when I arrived, on the day I arrived.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, very well. Later on I say the Security Police, never less than four, would rush into my cell at any time, day or night.

ADV BOOYENS: Niewoudt present all the time?

MR JONES: I can't accurately recollect, but he stands out as the brut of the lot.

ADV BOOYENS: You don't like Mr Niewoudt, Mr Jones is that correct?

MR JONES: I have been asked many times over many years, what my feelings are, and I have made it very clear, I have got no feelings for these people.

ADV BOOYENS: Sorry, does that mean either hostile or not hostile? If you say you've got no feelings for these people, don't understand what that phrase actually means?

MR JONES: It is about how one copes with the situation as terrible as the one that I went through, whether I choose to live in the past and constantly of course remember these things and these people and continue resenting them, or whether I am able to have the ability of growing beyond that and focusing on better things in the future. In that context I have long ago, I've almost forgotten about these people.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jones, did you ever lay charges of assault with the applicant's colleagues?

MR JONES: When I was released, after 17 and a half months, that is exactly the statement that you have in front of me, it was given to our legal team to investigate whether we can lay charges against the Policemen concerned, as well as the Minister of Justice at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was the result?

MR JONES: And the opinion came back from Adv Bizos and Adv Kentridge, that unless I had of course visible marks from all those many months before, it would be almost impossible because of the fact that there was this six months prescription on action against Police at the time.

ADV BOOYENS: Criminal charges Mr Jones?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You were not interested in those, because you never lay a criminal charge?

MR JONES: Pardon?

ADV BOOYENS: You never lay a criminal charge, or did you?

MR JONES: Well, we wanted to.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but the six months period doesn't apply to that?

MR JONES: It does apply.

ADV BOOYENS: No, it does not Mr Jones, but in any case.

CHAIRPERSON: In any case, you were under the impression it did?

MR JONES: Well, I am not a lawyer, I accept that.

ADV BIZOS: May I be permitted a personal statement, because I was involved Mr Chairman? If nobody has any objection, I am prepared to say why we did not advise that a criminal prosecution should be instituted?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I don't think that is really important, the fact of the matter is that it was not.

MR JONES: On the advice of the Attorneys, we did not lay charges.

ADV BOOYENS: I just want to make sure I fully understand Niewoudt's involvement in assaulting you. Let's forget the incident at the police cells, I am not talking about that.

On the 24th you have told me that Siebert alone assaulted you, is that right?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: On the 25th, let's just deal with Niewoudt's activities. Forget the notes Mr Jones, tell me what you remember please.

Niewoudt's first involvement on the 25th, what was that?

MR JONES: The first involvement was when Siebert engaged me and he clapped me in my face, I grabbed him by the hands and I pulled it down. I am of course much bigger than him. Niewoudt and Beneke rushed forward and attacked me and I released my grip on Siebert, that was the start of the big fight.

ADV BOOYENS: How did Niewoudt attack you?

MR JONES: I can't remember specifically, but I was manhandled, I was hit by fists, who did what, I don't know. I can't recall.

ADV BOOYENS: So you are not really in a position to say that Niewoudt hit you with a fist or didn't hit you with a fist on that occasion?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Right. Now, after this, you have now grabbed Siebert, were you forced back on the chair, or what was the position? Did you sit again? Remember you told us how Siebert slapped you on that occasion, that is what I want to know.

MR JONES: I was seated when he slapped me.

ADV BOOYENS: When that lengthy period of slapping ...

MR JONES: When he started slapping me, and thereafter I got up and I stood and the fighting with the five happened, while I was standing.

ADV BOOYENS: I want to make sure I understand, did Siebert stop slapping you by the time you got up from the chair?

MR JONES: When I grabbed him, he had to stop.

ADV BOOYENS: No, you grabbed him and then he started slapping you, that is when he removed his watch?

MR JONES: Well, he first hit me.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, when he removed his watch and he started slapping you with an open hand through the face, that was a lot of slaps if I understand you correctly?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you on the chair?

MR JONES: I think I started off on the chair.

ADV BOOYENS: You got up while he was still slapping you?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And at the stage when he was slapping you, were the others assaulting you as well?

MR JONES: Well, that was almost like a signal and everybody became involved.

ADV BOOYENS: All right. You see, once again you have told me just now that you don't know whether Niewoudt hit you with a fist, your statement at page 587, right at the bottom, two fist blows followed delivered by Niewoudt and Beneke, that is what was said here, and here you say you can't remember. Which is it Mr Jones?

MR JONES: What are you referring to, to the evidence?

ADV BOOYENS: Page 587, this the bottom of 587. Sorry, 387, my mistake.

MR JONES: Yes, that is what the statement says.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, that is not what you say here. I asked you ...

MR JONES: Well, if I can refer to my notes, I will repeat the notes, these notes were written in 1979.

ADV BOOYENS: Are you really saying Mr Jones, if I understand you correctly, that wherever your evidence differs today from what was written in 1979, we must look at what you wrote in 1979?

MR JONES: The statement was written at a time when I had fresh recollection of these events and that is why I recorded it.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, you are not answering my question. Where there is a difference between what you say today and what you said in 1979 when Exhibit E was produced, where there is a difference today and what is written in Exhibit E, which one is correct?

MR JONES: This would be the one.

ADV BOOYENS: So your evidence today in this court, under oath, could be incorrect?

MR JONES: I am not aware what you are talking about.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, you have admitted already that about the metal which you wrote here, which was metal, which ...

MR JONES: I am sorry, I did not, I said metallic.

ADV BOOYENS: Metallic, let's not play with words, metallic in 1979, today you don't know what it was.

ADV SIGODI: Excuse me, in all fairness to the witness, the record says I was able to look right into the hole of the pipe and notice that the hole was filled, with what, I cannot say, but it was something metallic. He stated that he could not say what it was.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I am fully aware of that Mr Chairman, that is what the 1979 statement said, that is what I put to the witness earlier on. But earlier today, he didn't know what it was filled with.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, but he also said that in the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: How is that destructive of his 1979 statement?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I will leave that. You've also got a contradiction between go kicked you Siebert or Snyman, do you remember that one, it was put to you just after we came back? Do you recall that?

MR JONES: That is an honest mistake.

ADV BOOYENS: Honest mistake. In fact my Attorney's note is that you said the hosepipe was filled with something solid, not like metal. I don't know if it was metallic.

CHAIRPERSON: What he said was he didn't think it was metal because it was flexible.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Jones, in fact what you've told us your memory was fresh when you made the statement in Exhibit E, and therefore what you have said in Exhibit E would reflect what you remembered at that time while your memory was still fresh, and you would prefer that to what you have said today while your memory is not fresh?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You see Mr Jones, my only problem with that is where there are contradictions between Exhibit E and your evidence today, you have been prepared to state certain things today under oath, that you are not certain of in other words? You have admitted that you've made mistakes. I am just mentioning too the fact whether Niewoudt hit you with a fist or not, you couldn't remember that today. It is in your 1979 statement. The fact whether it was Siebert or Snyman that hit you.

ADV DE JAGER: If that is so, and if he has said that which I have put to him today, isn't that a matter for argument?

ADV BOOYENS: Certainly Mr Chairman. Mr Jones, just dealing in general with Exhibit E, Exhibit E was drafted shortly after you came from what you and I think understandably putting myself in your shoes at the time, would have regarded as a very lengthy and a very unnecessary and unfair confinement to jail, is that correct?

MR JONES: Thank you.

ADV BOOYENS: Is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I am saying if I put myself in your boots, I understand how you felt?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: At that stage, you must have been embittered against the system, I would have been?

MR JONES: I am not you sir, I don't think that anything happened to me accidentally.

ADV BOOYENS: No, it was done to you deliberately by the system. I am talking about the time when you came out of jail?

MR JONES: But there is a difference, it wasn't an accident that happened to me and people like me, we were on a deliberate path, it was a life and a path that we had chosen deliberately and we understood the consequences.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, is the answer that you were not embittered against the system?

MR JONES: I was more preoccupied with my ongoing responsibility in the liberation of this country.

ADV BOOYENS: All I am going to suggest to you is that at that time, it would have been reasonable for you to exaggerate the role played by the Security Policemen and that in fact, that the only time that Niewoudt was involved in an assault on you, and that is as far as I can take it, was when he was alone. There may have been other assaults that he doesn't know about, but when he was involved in an assault on you, which he freely admits, was when he was alone.

MR JONES: Sir, if I can respond, my attendance at these hearings, I believe are completely incidental of a minor nature. This entire hearing is about the fact that a very important person in the life of this country, died and lost his life. My show is a side show, I would never have even bothered to come here and talk about this, if it was not for the fact that there was blatant lies and inaccuracies by these people.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, just one aspect, obviously you stayed involved in politics after that, would that be correct?

MR JONES: Yes, and I had several board detentions.

ADV BOOYENS: Are you still involved as a matter of interest?

MR JONES: In what?

ADV BOOYENS: In politics?

MR JONES: What is your definition of politics?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, I told you you know more about politics than I do. Are you still involved in political organisations?

MR JONES: I am involved in the future of this country.

ADV BOOYENS: You know, that can be also as a bank manager.

MR JONES: Okay, can I come back to your level, I am not involved in any political organisation at this time, I am not in political office, I am not serving government, but I am involved in this country.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, I think we understand what you are talking about. Mr Jones, if you in fact did betray Mr Biko, in other words if Niewoudt assaulted you and you then wrote this statement, and it wasn't pure fiction, put yourself in that hypothetical position, you would feel bad about it today, not so?

MR JONES: Oh yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mtshaulana?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MTSHAULANA: Just one question Mr Chairman. Earlier in your evidence you mentioned that Mr Siebert made remarks like you should not associate with kaffirs, those type of derogatory remarks relating to the racism at the time, referring to your colleagues as kaffirs, yourself as a hotnot or coloured. Was Mr Niewoudt present when these remarks were made?

MR JONES: Yes, he was.

MR MTSHAULANA: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MTSHAULANA: .

ADV SIGODI: Mr Jones, at the time that you made this statement that is Exhibit E, in 1979, did you know that there would be a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1998?

MR JONES: No, not at all.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jones. Mr Bizos?

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, we have no more witnesses to call, but we would like to place on record that we intend putting before you the record of the inquest proceedings in 1977 and the record of the proceedings where the four other applicants applied for amnesty, the hearing held in Port Elizabeth.

We are going to propose that we should file written heads of argument and we will identify the passages in the evidence and the Exhibits that we rely on in the inquest proceedings in Pretoria in November 1977, and in the record and Exhibits produced in Port Elizabeth.

We would of course concede to our learned friend the same would apply to anything that they would want to refer to in these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: They could refer to anything in that record that they feel like?

ADV BIZOS: Yes. What we will do is we will arrange with the Commission for the sufficient number of copies to be handed to you together with the heads of argument.

CHAIRPERSON: I am thankful for that.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, could I just - could you pay attention in your heads of argument, to the question as whether we could use that as evidence against anybody here or contrary against Mr Jones or Niewoudt, or whoever, if that was not put to them, the specific passages while they gave evidence.

Would it be regular for us to use it?

ADV BIZOS: I submit that it would be regular and I will take an example. There may be some matter which may not be admissible, but for instance that nobody in those affidavits mentioned the banging on the head and reference to how many people made affidavits without mentioning that, that has already been put to the witness, we merely want to - that is obstruction.

The medical reports and medical evidence was put, let us take the example of that the evidence of Dr Procter, Prof Laubscher and Jonathan Gluckman was that there would have been unconsciousness. What we would like is not for you to rely on the admission made by the witness, but rather that we would like to refer you to the specific evidence and the reports made by the Doctors so that you can have chapter and verse that what we put, was correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I am happy with that, but I only wanted you to keep that in mind and deal with it in the heads of argument, we will appreciate that.

ADV BIZOS: We will deal with that, and also for instance, the condition under which Mr Biko was in when he arrived in Pretoria. That was the evidence of the prison officers was accepted at the inquest, we put to this person what it was, he said well, he was outside and he didn't see it.

But we, for the purposes of arguing the probabilities, we will want to refer to what the Colonel's evidence was to Siebert, why did you bring me a person on death's door to put into my prison, so that I can possibly take the responsibility for him.

Those are the sort of things that we would like to refer to in order to assess the probabilities. Anything of course which has not been touched upon with the witness, we would be very careful to submit that and also of course, that he actually heard all the evidence which was given by his colleagues, we submit that this is a separated hearing - in so far as we can draw attention to contradictions of what his colleagues, between his evidence and his colleagues' at the other hearing, we will submit that that is admissible to be taken into account in relation to his credibility.

We do not want to loose the advantage that he may gain by having separated the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Deal with that in your heads.

ADV BIZOS: We will deal with that, we will deal with that with chapter and verse in our heads in order to show whether there has in fact been full disclosure by all five applicants who are represented by the same parties, and who had made common cause in their applications where we will actually draw attention to the fact that much of what they had to say in their applications, was carbon copy material.

CHAIRPERSON: We will await those heads. Will both counsel for both parties then pay attention to the following please. With respect of the application that relates to Mr Jones, that quite apart from the question of credibility, what the position of the applicant would be in terms of his version, there is not victim because they've got mutually destructive versions.

We need an argument on that, what we should do and what approach we should adopt. That is quite apart from the credibility factor.

Secondly, in respect of Mr Biko, this applicant says he assaulted Mr Biko with a piece of hosepipe, he doesn't think that it contributed to Mr Biko's death. The question is was there a crime in that?

The third question, the applicant's version amounts in common terms to an accident, infliction of the wound led to his death. Does that in fact comply with the political requirements of the Act?

Fourthly, the omission relating to medical assistance or timeous medical assistance, in the applicant's own version he said he did not do so because he only followed orders. (a) has a crime been committed, (b) if so, does it comply with the political requirements of the Act, (c) can the applicant rely on the political motivation with such omission and such omission and political motivation being that of another?

If his superiors had political reasons for not affording Mr Biko medical assistance, would this applicant be able to rely on that political motivation?

Mr Booyens, as Mr Bizos will deal with the value of the co-applicants' evidence in the other application, we would like you to deal with the value of that evidence as well.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman I would also like to point out that we obviously reserve our rights as far as evidence that were given in different hearings, and if I talk about different hearings, I am talking about the inquest.

What value you can attach to that.

CHAIRPERSON: That is precisely why I asked you to deal with that. That seems to bring this matter to an end.

ADV BOOYENS: May we see you perhaps in Chambers to discuss when we should file the heads Mr Chairman.