Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Are we ready to proceed?

ADV ERASMUS: I am ready to proceed, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BENEKE: (sworn states)

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, may I ask for indulgence before my colleague starts. I just want to put on record that the evidence leader for the day in this matter will be my colleague, Ms Tanya Hosking for record purposes. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY ADV ERASMUS: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Beneke, you are the applicant for amnesty and your statement and your application, have you checked that?

MR BENEKE: Yes.

ADV ERASMUS: Do you confirm the contents as true and correct?

MR BENEKE: Yes, I confirm it.

ADV ERASMUS: Can you please look at page 7 of this amnesty application. The first paragraph on this page, the date is the 6th of September 1976, is that the correct date?

MR BENEKE: It is not correct, it should read 1977.

ADV ERASMUS: So apart from that error, the rest of the allegations and statements there, that is correct?

MR BENEKE: Yes.

ADV ERASMUS: It is common cause in these proceedings that you at all relevant times, were attached to the Security Branch of the then South African Police, stationed at Strand Street at Port Elizabeth. What Department did you serve?

MR BENEKE: I was in the C-Section of the Security Branch and I was involved in the investigation of terrorist activities.

ADV ERASMUS: There was also an A and B and C Sections in the Police. Could you please briefly define their activities?

MR BENEKE: A Section dealt with white matters and B Section, with coloured affairs and the C Section where I was involved, that dealt with black affairs.

ADV ERASMUS: When did you first meet Mr Biko, the deceased?

MR BENEKE: The first time that I had anything to do with Mr Biko, was on that particular day on which the incident took place.

ADV ERASMUS: What was your prior knowledge of Mr Biko as far as his political activities were concerned?

MR BENEKE: I was aware of Mr Biko's political activities as a result of certain circulars that had been sent out and there were also rumours amongst the members, that he previously assaulted another member of the Security Branch.

ADV ERASMUS: Did you know that he was the leader of the black peoples' convention?

MR BENEKE: Yes.

ADV ERASMUS: Did you have anything to do with the interrogation of Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: I had nothing to do with that.

ADV ERASMUS: At this relevant time, the second half of 1977, what was the security situation in Port Elizabeth?

MR BENEKE: There was general unrest in the townships of Port Elizabeth, murders took place, buildings were burnt down and we had to investigate these matters.

ADV ERASMUS: Were you aware of any previous incidents if any, which Mr Biko and the Security Police were involved?

MR BENEKE: I was aware of his activities. As I said there was one occasion on which apparently he assaulted a member of the Security Branch in King Williams Town.

ADV ERASMUS: Can you recall the person's name?

MR BENEKE: I think it was a Sergeant Hattingh.

ADV ERASMUS: You didn't witness this incident?

MR BENEKE: No, I wasn't anywhere near.

ADV ERASMUS: Let us now move to the events of the 6th of September 1977. How did you become involved in the Steve Biko incident?

MR BENEKE: On the morning of the 6th of September, after we reported for duty, I was present when Warrant Officer Marx and Sergeant Niewoudt were told, instructed, to go and fetch Steve Biko at Walmer. I continued with my own duties and I left the office and I went to Mount Road police station, where I did certain duties. After that I came back.

I came back to my office and upon my arrival there, I heard that persons were busy in the back office.

ADV ERASMUS: Let us just stop here and let's look at Exhibit F. You are talking about the office at the back, please just give us a bit of orientation here so we can all understand where this office at the back is that you are referring to. Do you see Exhibit F?

MR BENEKE: Yes.

ADV ERASMUS: Now using Exhibit F, as a point of reference, can you please just tell us where this back office was?

MR BENEKE: This back office is marked "x" on the Exhibit.

ADV ERASMUS: Is that the office of which the size is about 14 square metres?

MR BENEKE: Yes.

ADV ERASMUS: Whose office was that?

MR BENEKE: At the time it was the office of Warrant Officer Coetzee.

ADV ERASMUS: What was that office normally used for?

MR BENEKE: It was normally used as just an ordinary normal office.

ADV ERASMUS: Where was your office, if "x" was the back office where Mr Biko was interrogated, where was your office?

MR BENEKE: My office was the one indicated as 29 square metres in size.

ADV ERASMUS: So it is just below this two cabinets or safes?

MR BENEKE: That is correct, yes.

ADV ERASMUS: You were busy telling the Committee that your office was then the 29 square meter office and on this particular morning of the 6th of September 1977, how did you become involved in the Biko incident?

MR BENEKE: I heard loud talking in this back office and I went closer and in the door which gave access to this office, I stood there, I stopped there.

ADV ERASMUS: Could you also just get some orientation on Exhibit F. Place that for us on the Exhibit.

MR BENEKE: That is the door between these virtually, these offices which are virtually equal size.

ADV ERASMUS: Yes?

MR BENEKE: I noticed at some point that Mr Biko threw a chair forwards and that he tried to throw a punch at Captain Siebert.

ADV ERASMUS: Continue.

MR BENEKE: I moved forward very quickly and I grabbed Mr Biko's right arm with which he was performing this swinging motion or movement. And I bumped him on the shoulder with my shoulder.

ADV ERASMUS: Why did you do that?

MR BENEKE: I wanted to prevent him assaulting Captain Siebert, or attacking him.

ADV ERASMUS: From the time that you appeared in the doorway, the doorway between these two offices, how long afterwards did this incident take place, this one which you have just referred to?

MR BENEKE: It was virtually immediately.

ADV ERASMUS: Could you further describe this incident in your own words, after you grabbed Mr Biko's hand as you testified?

MR BENEKE: Mr Biko and I fell towards the wall.

ADV ERASMUS: What wall are you referring to?

MR BENEKE: It would be the northern wall. It was the wall furthest away from the door.

ADV ERASMUS: Yes?

MR BENEKE: I also tried to grab hold of his left arm. Other members who were in the office at that stage, also arrived at the scene. Several punches were planted. Sergeant Niewoudt had a hose pipe and he hit Mr Biko on the back. I was also hit twice and in the process of the scuffle that took place, we landed up on the floor.

Mr Biko was restrained and he was picked up from me and was sitting with his back partly against this particular wall.

ADV ERASMUS: In what condition was Mr Biko immediately after the skirmish?

MR BENEKE: He seemed dazed.

ADV ERASMUS: And what was your condition after the skirmish?

MR BENEKE: I had hurt my elbow and my clothes were torn at this stage.

ADV ERASMUS: What type of clothes were you wearing?

MR BENEKE: I was wearing a safari suit.

ADV ERASMUS: Can you identify the members of the police who were also involved in the skirmish with you?

MR BENEKE: Present were Captain Siebert, Sergeant Niewoudt, Major Snyman and Warrant Officer Marx.

ADV ERASMUS: After Mr Biko sat against the wall with his back, leaning up against the wall and seemed to be dazed as you have testified, what happened then?

MR BENEKE: We pulled Mr Biko to his feet.

ADV ERASMUS: Who are the we that you are referring to?

MR BENEKE: Myself, Sergeant Niewoudt and Captain Siebert.

ADV ERASMUS: Yes?

MR BENEKE: Whereupon we took him to this bar grill in front of one of the doors and we handcuffed him to this grill.

ADV ERASMUS: Now, once again, could we look at Exhibit F. This grill, could you please indicate where it is?

MR BENEKE: It was against the western wall of this room.

ADV ERASMUS: Is that the opening on the left side of the room, if you look at the plan in front of you?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV ERASMUS: Could you please explain to us how Mr Biko was handcuffed to this barred gate or grill?

MR BENEKE: Mr Biko was cuffed to the bars with handcuffs on each wrist.

ADV ERASMUS: Can you explain or demonstrate exactly how?

MR BENEKE: One of these arm handcuffs were put around a bar and the other one was around his wrist and then his legs were also handcuffed by means of leg irons to the bottom part of this grill.

ADV ERASMUS: Could you demonstrate what position his body was in during this handcuffing?

MR BENEKE: He was leaning back with his back against the grill and his arms were outstretched on either side of him.

ADV ERASMUS: Above or below his shoulders?

MR BENEKE: It was below his shoulders.

ADV ERASMUS: And in what condition was Mr Biko during this handcuffing?

MR BENEKE: It seemed to me as if he was dazed.

ADV ERASMUS: What time was it on the 6th of September 1977?

MR BENEKE: I can't give an exact time, but it was between ten and eleven o'clock in the morning.

ADV ERASMUS: What was your further involvement in this incident, after you and Sergeant Niewoudt tied him up or handcuffed him to the grill?

MR BENEKE: I had nothing more to do there and I left the office and the building to go and change my clothes.

ADV ERASMUS: Were you part of the interrogation team?

MR BENEKE: No, I wasn't.

ADV ERASMUS: Can I show you Exhibit C, that is a typed version of the note made in the occurrence book and it purports to be signed by Major H. Snyman. Did you check that inscription?

MR BENEKE: I did check that entry.

ADV ERASMUS: Is that entry factually correct?

MR BENEKE: The entry is not entirely correct.

ADV ERASMUS: Could you point out those portions with which you don't agree? Continue.

MR BENEKE: The entry implies that I was a member of the interrogation team and that I was involved with his interrogation, that is not correct.

ADV ERASMUS: The date, 7 September 1977?

MR BENEKE: The date is also not correct. It took place on the 6th of September and the time was also after ten o'clock.

ADV ERASMUS: How are you able to remember the fact that it was past ten o'clock. What events can you specifically remember or the event can you remember?

MR BENEKE: It was the exact time at which it happened, and that is the time after which I returned to the office.

ADV ERASMUS: There is also a statement included in Exhibit C, the detainee took up a very aggressive attitude, went bezerk, and grabbed one of the chairs in the office and threw it at Major Snyman, is that correct?

MR BENEKE: The chair was aimed in the direction of Captain Siebert, in a general direction.

ADV ERASMUS: Are the other allegations in that entry correct?

MR BENEKE: That is correct, yes.

ADV ERASMUS: After this skirmish, did you notice any injuries or marks on Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: I noticed that his mouth was bloody and that he also had a mark above his eye.

ADV ERASMUS: What is your explanation as to how those injuries was sustained?

MR BENEKE: I can't explain how he injured his mouth, but I think that after we collided with the wall, Mr Biko fell forwards and banged his head against the corner of a table.

ADV ERASMUS: How many tables were there in that office?

MR BENEKE: On that day, there was only one table in the room.

ADV ERASMUS: When you intervened in the proceedings which took place there, what was your motive, purpose for doing so?

MR BENEKE: My only reason was to help to restrain Mr Biko and to prevent him assaulting or attacking Captain Siebert.

ADV ERASMUS: According to your amnesty application, you are applying for the assault on and the killing of Mr Biko. Could you explain that?

MR BENEKE: It is so that a court could possibly hold that I assaulted Mr Biko, although at that stage I believed that I was acting correctly.

ADV ERASMUS: Did you in any way assault Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: Apart from butting him with the shoulder, I did not assault him.

ADV ERASMUS: Did you aim any punches at him?

MR BENEKE: No, I couldn't.

ADV ERASMUS: You were present during the testimony of Captain Siebert and you also read the statement which is the Exhibit or the Annexure to his amnesty application.

Chairperson, I am referring specifically to page 6 of Captain Siebert's application. Page 6, the second last paragraph and I am specifically quoting the term "after this we all three grabbed hold of Biko, whereafter we moved with him, in the direction of the corner of this room and actually ran into the wall with him." Can you give us an explanation about this statement, is it true?

MR BENEKE: It is not entirely clear. The only time that we actually rammed into the wall, was after I had shoulder butted him and after that, we fell forwards and we didn't land up against the wall again.

ADV ERASMUS: After Mr Biko had been cuffed to this grill, what was your involvement in respect of Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: After I returned to the office at about one o'clock, I was instructed by Captain Siebert to guard Mr Biko along with Mr Niewoudt.

I then went to the back office where Mr Biko was, and I found Sergeant Niewoudt there. I saw that Mr Biko was standing there with open, staring eyes and that he seemed not to be entirely aware of what was going on around him.

I immediately requested Sergeant Niewoudt to arrange for medical treatment for Mr Biko.

ADV ERASMUS: At that stage, what was your rank?

MR BENEKE: I was a Warrant Officer.

ADV ERASMUS: And Niewoudt was a Sergeant?

MR BENEKE: Yes.

ADV ERASMUS: Continue.

MR BENEKE: I can't remember whom he spoke to, but upon his return, we unfastened Mr Biko from this grill and we got him to lie down on a mat on the floor, with his one hand still cuffed to the grill.

ADV ERASMUS: How was he clad at that time?

MR BENEKE: He was fully clothed as he had arrived there that morning, when I saw him the first time.

ADV ERASMUS: Can you sketch the rest of the events for us on the 6th of September 1977?

MR BENEKE: Sergeant Niewoudt and I guarded Mr Biko in the office and we continued with our normal administrative duties. And after four o'clock, we were relieved by another team and that ended my involvement with Mr Biko.

ADV ERASMUS: Did you in any way after four o'clock of the 6th of September 1977, have any further dealings with Mr Biko in any way whatsoever?

MR BENEKE: No.

ADV ERASMUS: My learned friend, Mr Bizos indicated that he wants to call Mr Jones as a witness. There are allegations in a book which Mr Jones wrote that you were supposed to have attacked or assaulted Mr Jones. Can you comment on this?

MR BENEKE: The allegations in the book, are lies. The first time that I saw Mr Jones, was the morning of the previous sitting here in this building.

ADV ERASMUS: Was Mr Jones a person who was part of your activities?

MR BENEKE: Not at all.

ADV ERASMUS: Did you ever have anything to do with any interrogation by Mr Jones?

MR BENEKE: I never interrogated Mr Jones.

ADV ERASMUS: Were you ever involved in any interrogation of Mr Jones?

MR BENEKE: No, I was not involved at all.

ADV ERASMUS: In your work as an official in the Security Police, which political objective did you serve during your activities?

MR BENEKE: The nature of my service, my objective was at that stage to curb the infiltration of terrorists as well as attacks on the lives of human beings and State property and to attempt to prevent anarchy.

ADV ERASMUS: If we bring things closer to the events on 6 September 1977, in this specific office in Strand Street, what political objective was served there?

Can I repeat the question? If we tighten the net to the morning of the 6th of September 1977, the incident which took place in the specific office in Strand Street, which political objective was served there?

MR BENEKE: Mr Biko was to be interrogated regarding his political activities.

ADV ERASMUS: This is more than 20 years after the incident, how do you feel about the events on that specific day, 6 September 1977, how do you feel about those events today?

MR BENEKE: I believed that at that stage, I did what I was supposed to. It was however an unfortunate incident which has now resulted in this, 20 years after, I was involved in the death of a person.

The death of any person is an extremely unfortunate incident and there was no intention from my side, to cause Mr Biko's death.

ADV ERASMUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV ERASMUS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, are there any questions you would like to put?

ADV BOOYENS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Beneke, when one reads the applications for amnesty in this case, there seems to be repetition of, in many instances, of the very same words to describe what happened on the day, why it happened, what the political motive was and practically all other matters.

Could you please tell the Committee who drew this application up for you and how come there is such convergence of almost the same words right through, how did that come about?

MR BENEKE: My representative, Mr Erasmus, drew up the statement. The last statement I have made and that is precisely what happened, that is the truth.

ADV BIZOS: Can you explain why the same words were used about Mr Biko's attitude, about the background on which you were brought up and the things that influenced you? Is it a coincidence that they are almost in the same words?

MR BENEKE: That could be possible.

ADV BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it the same person that drew up the other statements?

MR BENEKE: No, Your Honour.

ADV BIZOS: Because it would seem to me that you were a pack of close friends when Mr Biko was injured and died, and you still are the same closely knit group of friends, with the exception of Mr Marx. Isn't that so that you identify yourself fully with Mr Siebert, Mr Niewoudt, Mr Snyman because you couched your application for amnesty in substantially similar terms to the others?

MR BENEKE: We worked for many years together, and obviously there will be friendship Your Honour.

ADV BIZOS: To the extent of covering up for one another?

MR BENEKE: Not in this case, we are talking the truth.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let's just examine that. You made an affidavit which was handed in as Exhibit A30 at the inquest and the supplementary affidavit you made to General Kleinhaus, shortly thereafter. Do you admit you made that affidavit?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: How many lies are there in that affidavit?

MR BENEKE: After the gathering with Colonel Goosen on that Saturday morning, after which I became suddenly a member of the interrogation team, and that I indeed questioned Mr Biko, that is the two differences.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let us examine the contents of your affidavit. First of all, you admitted that you were part of the interrogation team. What advantage was there to either you or to the fabricated story, as to how Mr Biko came to die by joining you into the interrogation team, what was there to gain? Why was that lie told?

MR BENEKE: I cannot say, that was after Colonel Goosen spoke to us, that I made the statement and prior to this it was noted in the occurrence book and this probably made him decide to make me part of this interrogation team.

ADV BIZOS: Well, then the lie started before the Saturday morning meeting, the lie started when Mr Snyman went and made the false entry int he occurrences book?

MR BENEKE: That is correct, that is what I referred to.

ADV BIZOS: Did he write that lie down in the occurrences book with or without your concurrence?

MR BENEKE: I didn't know about the entry Your Honour.

ADV BIZOS: But now, why could you suggest to the Committee Colonel Snyman would have deliberately falsified the facts a day after the assaults on Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: Perhaps I can just explain that when a person was injured in the Police, there was an injury council and an entry had to be made into the occurrence book.

In my case, I hurt my elbow and there had to be an entry made into the occurrence book which was done.

ADV BIZOS: The question was, what was there to be gained by making a false entry a day after the event, long before the intervention of Colonel Snyman on Saturday morning?

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are talking about Goosen on Saturday.

ADV BIZOS: Goosen, I beg your pardon, Goosen.

MR BENEKE: I cannot explain why Major Snyman made that specific entry on that specific day.

ADV BIZOS: Now, that is not the only untruth. The untruth also was that you said in your statement that the injuries to Mr Biko were inflicted on the 7th and not on the 6th, was that also a deliberate lie?

MR BENEKE: That was also a lie Your Honour.

ADV BIZOS: What was to be gained by that lie?

MR BENEKE: I do not know.

ADV BIZOS: Now, tell me, you saw injuries on Mr Biko's face?

MR BENEKE: Yes, Your Honour.

ADV BIZOS: He was bleeding in the mouth?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Was there a first aid kit at the Security Branch Headquarters at Sanlam Buildings?

MR BENEKE: Not that I know of.

ADV BIZOS: Was there a pharmacy near by at which mouth wash, plaster or any or the emergency treatment that an injured person may comfort with, did you make any effort after these injuries to either look around for a first aid kit or go to the pharmacy in order to do something in relation to his injuries?

MR BENEKE: No, I did not.

ADV BIZOS: Why not?

MR BENEKE: I left immediately after the incident.

ADV BIZOS: No, you told us that you were left there to watch him, grilled, crucifixion style against the grill. Whilst you were looking after him at that initial stage or thereafter, while you were carrying on your ordinary duties until four o'clock that you went into the office from time to time, did you render him any assistance whatsoever?

MR BENEKE: When I entered that afternoon, when I entered that office I immediately requested Sergeant Niewoudt to go and ask for help.

ADV BIZOS: We are not talking about the afternoon sir. According to your new version, it happened at about quarter past ten in the morning, it was over very quickly, he was shackled against the grill fairly soon thereafter, he remained on the grill for a while, thereafter he was put on a mat as you told us and you stayed nearby and you were asked to look after him and you told us that you went into the room from time to time. Throughout that period, from say 10h30 to four o'clock in the afternoon, did you render any assistance to him whatsoever?

MR BENEKE: Can I just correct you. Between ten and immediately after the incident, and one o'clock, I was not near Mr Biko. Immediately after the incident, I left the room and I only returned after one o'clock, when I received instructions to guard Mr Biko.

ADV BIZOS: Well, from one to four o'clock.

MR BENEKE: On my return, the blood had been wiped from Mr Biko's face, I do not know how it was done, or who did it and there was no more blood on his face.

ADV BIZOS: Did you render him any assistance in the afternoon?

MR BENEKE: Except for putting him down on the mattress, I didn't render him assistance.

ADV BIZOS: Now, according to the Doctors at the inquest, his head injuries had caused him to become incontinent, that he couldn't control his urine. During that afternoon, was he taken to the toilet at any stage?

MR BENEKE: He was not fully conscious and he was not taken.

ADV BIZOS: So he remained semi-conscious for the whole afternoon?

MR BENEKE: That is correct, Your Honour.

ADV BIZOS: There was then another lie told in your affidavit and the affidavits of your colleagues, that after the injury he was still aggressive and it took all four of you in order to subdue him after the injury?

That was another deliberate lie?

MR BENEKE: No. When we restrained him, we fastened him to the iron grill.

ADV BIZOS: When the Doctor did come on the 7th, his clothes and his blankets were soaked with urine. Did anybody take the trouble to see how it came about that an adult urinated so often from the time that he was smashed up on the morning of the 6th until the Doctor arrived and saw the urine soaked clothes, why didn't you or anyone of your colleagues do anything to at least change the blankets or the clothes so that he would not be in a semi-conscious condition on urine soaked clothes?

MR BENEKE: I cannot comment on that. The afternoon that I left him, after four o'clock, it was the last time that I saw him. The next day I had other work to do and I only returned to the office very late.

I heard later on that Doctors had been to see Mr Biko.

ADV BIZOS: This situation that was not attended by either you or any of your colleagues in relation to his condition, you tell us you don't know why it happened. May I suggest to you that it is evidence of utter contempt of Mr Biko as a human being and clear hatred?

MR BENEKE: That is not true. I saw Mr Biko that morning for the first time in my life, so I do not know where the hatred which Mr Bizos is referring to, would come from.

It is the first time that I saw him, I only saw him that day and never again.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't you consider him a danger of the white structures that you were prepared to do anything at any cost in order to preserve them?

MR BENEKE: He was busy with political activities, but I was not investigating that.

ADV BIZOS: I have suggested the reason for this inhuman conduct, that it was contempt and hatred for him as a person. Can you suggest any other reason why the four of you, the other members of the Force that looked after him supposedly during the night, nor those that came to work early on the morning of the 7th, did not bother at any stage to see to the simple comfort of a human being not in a semi-conscious condition, not resting on urine soaked clothes and blankets, can you suggest any other reason than contempt and hatred?

MR BENEKE: I cannot comment on this. At that stage I was a junior member of the Security Branch. I did what I was told. Other members were in control of Mr Biko, I had nothing to do with that.

All that I did was to assist Captain Siebert.

ADV BIZOS: Well, were you prepared to defend the then existing order at all costs as you have said in your application?

MR BENEKE: At all costs, I meant that I would do everything in my power to curb these activities as a police officer.

ADV BIZOS: You make reference to religion playing a part in your life, in your application Mr Beneke?

MR BENEKE: Can you repeat the question please.

ADV BIZOS: You claim in your application that you are a religious man or that your church played a role in your conduct?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Did any of your church leaders tell you that you must commit purgery for your country?

MR BENEKE: No.

ADV BIZOS: Did any of your political leaders tell you that you must commit purgery for your country?

MR BENEKE: No.

ADV BIZOS: Did any of your police seniors other than Colonel Goosen tell you that you must commit purgery for the benefit of your country?

MR BENEKE: It was only in this case.

ADV BIZOS: Well, is that a mitigating factor that it was only in this case, why was it done in this case?

MR BENEKE: At that stage Colonel Goosen decided that it had to be done, he gave me the orders and out of loyalty towards my colleagues, I did this.

ADV BIZOS: What about assaulting people, wasn't that something that you would be prepared to do for your country?

MR BENEKE: No, every month we had to sign the relevant standing orders on which everything was made known.

ADV BIZOS: Included in the standing order is that you must not restrain people unnecessarily?

MR BENEKE: That is correct, provision was also made for the restraining of persons who offered resistance.

ADV BIZOS: The manner in which you restrain a half-conscious man, was that in terms of the standing orders that you signed every month, that you acted in accordance with?

MR BENEKE: The relevant standing orders do not have specific prescriptions for that, at that stage that was all we could do.

ADV BIZOS: Why was it necessary to restrain him in the manner that you did, having regard to the standing orders if he was semi-conscious?

MR BENEKE: The possibility was there that he could start again.

ADV BIZOS: In his semi-conscious condition?

MR BENEKE: He could have regained his consciousness and become aggressive again.

ADV BIZOS: Well, then wouldn't one handcuff against the grill have been enough? Why did it have to be both arms and leg irons in his injured and semi-conscious condition, pinned up in that way? Wouldn't the harm of his possibly starting again, be avoided if you had just used one handcuff?

MR BENEKE: It is possible, it is possible that we overreacted.

ADV BIZOS: Overreacted? Now, you had heard that Mr Biko had punched a Security Officer in a previous detention?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Who was the aggressor in that incident, the Security Officer or Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: I do not know. I only heard that he punched the Security Officer.

ADV BIZOS: Did you also hear that Mr Biko was a very proud man, proud of his negritude as it was called at the time, or of his blackness and that he wouldn't allow anyone to do him wrong or harm if he, Biko, could possibly avoid it? Isn't that the picture that you had of him?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: That he was the leader of the Black Consciousness Movement and he asked black people to liberate themselves by not feeling in any way, inferior to anyone else?

MR BENEKE: That is possible.

ADV BIZOS: And was that attitude of his well known to you and to your colleagues in the Security Police?

MR BENEKE: I didn't know him that well.

ADV BIZOS: Well, isn't that the reason why you and your colleagues decided on the morning of the 6th, at the beginning of his interrogation, that you were going to teach him a lesson and you were going to punch out of him this what you considered arrogance that a black man should have the cheek to want to be treated on equal footing with other human beings, isn't that what your attitude was at the time?

MR BENEKE: No, there is no grounds for it, it doesn't exist.

ADV BIZOS: How did you treat black people that you considered cheeky?

MR BENEKE: I usually worked on evidence Your Honour.

ADV BIZOS: I am sorry, I didn't hear your answer.

MR BENEKE: I usually worked on evidence.

ADV BIZOS: Well, the question was how did you treat people, black people that you considered cheeky? What is the relevance of your saying that you worked on evidence?

MR BENEKE: It did not matter to me what the behaviour of a person was, I worked according to evidence that I had.

ADV BIZOS: Now, you in your application equate Mr Biko with terrorists.

MR BENEKE: Can you repeat the question please.

ADV BIZOS: You equate Mr Biko in your application for amnesty, with terrorists, is that correct?

MR BENEKE: I cannot recollect that.

ADV BIZOS: I beg your pardon?

MR BENEKE: I cannot recollect that in my statement.

ADV BIZOS: Did you think, well let's make it simple, it may be a linguistic problem. Did you regard Mr Biko as a terrorist?

MR BENEKE: No.

ADV BIZOS: Did you regard him as a person who incited terrorism?

MR BENEKE: No. I had nothing to do with Mr Biko. I investigated terrorist activities. Mr Biko's activities were completely outside of my ambit of work.

ADV BIZOS: Was that a view shared by your colleagues whilst Mr Biko was being detained under the Terrorism Act?

MR BENEKE: I only heard that he was detained for the possession of pamphlets and documents. I didn't know he was detained for anything else.

ADV BIZOS: Well, what was the allegation against him, what were the contents or what was the contents of the pamphlets that he was alleged to have been involved in?

MR BENEKE: I never saw them. I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't your colleagues tell you that they suspected him of contravening the Terrorism Act by allegedly producing pamphlets inciting violence?

MR BENEKE: I don't know anything about that.

ADV BIZOS: Didn't anybody tell you that the reason why Mr Jones was detained and assaulted and made to rite a number of statements in order to connect Mr Biko, both before his death and after his death with terrorist activities?

MR BENEKE: I didn't know what Sergeant Niewoudt and them did. As I have already said, it wasn't part of my job and activity.

ADV BIZOS: Will you please have a look at 10(a)(i) on page 20(l) of your application, on page 12 of your application, paginated page 20(l), your page 12.

Don't you there say that clearly Mr Biko was connected in a conspiracy to overthrow the State by violence and you mentioned the organisations, Umkonto We Sizwe, APLA and BCM, do you see that?

MR BENEKE: That is right, yes.

ADV BIZOS: And you really want, you really associated the leader of the Black Consciousness Movement, Mr Biko, with violence according to your own statement?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Why then did you deny that you didn't consider him as a terrorist?

MR BENEKE: A terrorist was seen as somebody who came from abroad, where he had been trained, and came here to further armed violence. Mr Biko as far as I knew, incited violence and propagated it.

ADV BIZOS: Just look at the fourth line of what you said. The combatting of terrorism, you used the very word in the context that it was the political objective that you wanted to achieve by assaulting and causing the death of Mr Biko, to fight terrorism, those are your own words?

MR BENEKE: That is correct, that is what I said here, but I also said in the first line that that was the objective of the Security Branch and I had my section in which I worked, and I had my particular activities at work.

This was the overall objective of the Security Branch.

ADV BIZOS: Are you saying that you did not make yourself a party to that objective of the Security Police?

MR BENEKE: I was a member of the Security Police and if commanded, I would have done other work.

ADV BIZOS: I am going to put to you that the reason why you denied that you regarded him as a terrorist, contrary to your own application, was in order to avoid the inference being drawn that you had contempt and hatred towards Mr Biko.

MR BENEKE: That is not true.

ADV BIZOS: Now, we have spoken about what the Security Police and you may have thought about Mr Biko. Do you know whether in fact he was the leader of an organisation who in his writings, in his speeches, in his actions, was concerned in gaining liberation for all the people in this country by giving self esteem and self respect to black people who he hoped would unite together with such white people as may have wanted to join them in order to bring about democracy in this country?

MR BENEKE: That was possibly their objective, yes.

ADV BIZOS: Well, why did you and your colleagues in the Security Police put blinkers on and regard him as a terrorist and treated him in a manner which led to his death?

MR BENEKE: That is possibly what the general perception of him was in the Security Police, I can't comment on that.

ADV BIZOS: Well, we can talk about people who are outside a particular structure, can talk about perceptions. You were within it at Sanlam Building in Port Elizabeth, the most feared branch of the Security Police in the country - don't talk about perceptions. Tell us what the reality was in the body of people you were working with.

MR BENEKE: That is correct. I carried out the instructions given to me.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Now, if your evidence is correct, you intervened in order to assist a fellow Officer or Officers against Mr Biko's aggression?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: And that you did nothing more than was absolutely necessary in order to restrain Mr Biko, if your version is true?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: And you know that an assault is the unlawful infliction of hurt, you did nothing unlawful? You helped colleagues whom you had a duty to assist and you assisted them?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Therefore you did no wrong?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Then why on earth did you apply for amnesty for an assault which you did not commit?

MR BENEKE: As I have already said, I used violence by shoulder butting him and if a court has to decide on those facts, and decides that it is unlawful, it is for that reason that I have asked for amnesty.

ADV BIZOS: Well, but you told us that you did nothing wrong, you didn't use more force than was necessary. Why did you have any doubt that somebody may think that your act was unlawful?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that we have dealt with that question already.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman, then I will proceed.

You also claim amnesty for Mr Biko's death. What did you do to contribute to Mr Biko's death that you are asking for amnesty?

MR BENEKE: The fact that I was present and that an incident took place which led to the death of Mr Biko, that places me on the scene and I was involved.

ADV BIZOS: Now, in your application - may I have a moment Mr Chairman - will you please look at page 13, paragraph 2.1 of your application.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, did you say page 13?

ADV BIZOS: Page, typed 14, but 13 written in ink Mr Chairman, 20(n) of the paginated, bottom of the page.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: The detentions, interrogations and accompanying assaults, were essential to avert the total onslaught against the government of the day. You tell us that the detentions, the interrogations and the accompanying assaults were necessary in order to prevent the total onslaught on the government, is that what you wrote and is that what you signed under oath?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Why did you believe that assaults could accompany detentions and interrogations?

MR BENEKE: I am aware that some members took the law into their own hands and in some cases they did that to expedite the interrogations, to extract information quicker from certain persons.

ADV BIZOS: You didn't make an application for amnesty on behalf of some members, this is your application for amnesty and it is one of the reasons why you advance, why you should get amnesty, because you considered accompanying assaults as necessary, why did you consider that and why do you exclude yourself from it and say other members did it?

Let's start off with one question at a time, sorry. Who told you that assaults were necessary for this purpose?

MR BENEKE: I did hear the members talking about it, Your Honour.

ADV BIZOS: Who was talking about it?

MR BENEKE: Some of the members.

ADV BIZOS: Which members?

MR BENEKE: It was the general trend at that stage. I can't give you specific names.

ADV BIZOS: I can't accept an answer with respect, and I would suggest that if you want to be fully honest and open with the Committee, you would tell the Committee who it was that told you that assaults were necessary, a necessary part of detention and interrogation. Who told you, please tell us.

MR BENEKE: Nobody told me.

ADV BIZOS: But I thought that you said that you were told, but you couldn't give us the names, why did you change your story from I was told by persons I can't remember to nobody told me, which of the two statements are true?

MR BENEKE: It is difficult to say. I left the Security Branch in 1988, so that is quite some time ago. I am aware that some people were assaulted on certain occasions, and that is what I based my statement on.

ADV BIZOS: Please, although it may have happened 20 years ago, when did you sign your application for amnesty, when you made this statement?

MR BENEKE: Yes, I did.

ADV BIZOS: What date was it?

MR BENEKE: I can't recall, it wasn't long ago.

ADV BIZOS: Well, it wasn't 20 years ago, let's just get the date on record Mr Chairman. It was apparently, we have a date - we just want to get the date on the printed form, Mr Chairman, 6th of May 1997. You remembered it in May this year.

If you remembered it in May this year, to put it in your application, how come you forgot about it by November?

MR BENEKE: As I said, shortly before the previous hearing I signed my affidavit.

ADV BIZOS: You have already told us that no political, religious or police Officer or leader or Officer told you that assaults could accompany detention and interrogation, is that correct?

MR BENEKE: That is correct, Your Honour.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Now, were you present at any stage when Mr Biko was interrogated? Never mind your going in in order to assist the supposed attack that he took part in, were you there at any time whilst he was being interrogated?

MR BENEKE: No, I was never present.

ADV BIZOS: Were you present when he was asked any questions?

MR BENEKE: No.

ADV BIZOS: Were you present when he gave any, made any statement or answered or said anything?

MR BENEKE: No.

ADV BIZOS: Will you please turn to 20(g) of your application. It is page 7 written in ink, page 8 typed. From my observation, it seemed as if Biko at this stage of his interrogation was refractory, he was contemptuous and aggressive and he refused to answer certain questions.

I was not involved in the interrogation of Biko and initially I was only a spectator. At a particular stage, Biko lost his temper and grabbed a chair in the room and hurled it in the direction of Captain Siebert. The first part of what I read out to you, clearly says that you must have been present whilst he was being interrogated otherwise you would have not known that during his interrogation he was aggressive, contemptuous and I heard the interpreter give the translation of pompous or perhaps refractory is apparently the correct word.

How could you have said that, how could you have said that if you were not present at his interrogation?

MR BENEKE: When I arrived at my office, I heard that there was a verbal argument going on in the back office. I recognised Captain Siebert's voice and I heard a voice which I assumed to be Mr Biko's voice.

Now this refractoriness, when people shout at each other, that can amount to this refractoriness which I refer to and it was from sheer curiosity that I went closer and when I arrived at the doorway, I noticed that Mr Biko threw or shoved the chair away and aimed a blow at Captain Siebert. I immediately went forward, it was two to three paces that I moved forward.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand your evidence, from the room in which you were, you gathered loud voices coming from the other room which indicated that there were questions being put and the reactions from Mr Biko to that?

MR BENEKE: That is correct, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: It isn't what you heard while you were in the room, is that what you are saying? You were not in the room where the interrogation was taking place when you heard that?

MR BENEKE: No, the distance is approximately not further than there.

CHAIRPERSON: Five paces, six paces?

MR BENEKE: Yes, the one room is three metres wide, the room between and my desk is next to the door, so it is very close.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: You know that explanation may have carried some possible weight, how do you reconcile that with describing yourself on top of page 20(h) that I was not involved in the interrogation of Biko and I was initially only a spectator or bystander.

A spectator is going to complain if he can't see, a spectator sees. On your explanation you couldn't see what was happening, you could only hear noises.

MR BENEKE: That is correct, that is what I said I heard that there were loud noises and I went closer to find out what was going on. Upon my arrival there, we are talking about seconds, not minutes, it was literally a question of seconds, and I immediately acted or reacted.

ADV BIZOS: Could you make out what anyone was saying in this noise that you heard?

MR BENEKE: What it was about was the sitting on the chair at that stage.

ADV BIZOS: Is that all you could make out?

MR BENEKE: Yes, in such a short period of time, not a lot can be said.

ADV BIZOS: But, again, this explanation of yours doesn't fit in because you said at the bottom of page (g), that Mr Biko refused to answer certain questions. Now, if you only heard loud noises about the chair, how did you come to the conclusion that he was refusing to answer certain questions, unless of course your explanation is a false one?

MR BENEKE: My observation was that Captain Siebert would not have been so agitated if Mr Biko had cooperated. That was the inference that I drew.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to argue that in fact he was there during the interrogations?

ADV BIZOS: What I am going to submit Mr Chairman, what we will argue is that we have not been told the truth. It may be either the one or the other, but certainly on the evidence of the affidavit, of what is in the occurrence book and also this application contradicting the witness' evidence, we are going to say that he must not be believed, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that point have now been covered sufficiently.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, you might take the adjournment at this stage and resume in 15 minutes.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MR BENEKE: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Bizos.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BIZOS: (cont) Did you see anyone beating Mr Biko with a hose pipe?

MR BENEKE: Yes, I saw Sergeant Niewoudt with a hose pipe.

ADV BIZOS: Where were you when that happened?

MR BENEKE: I was against Mr Biko, my shoulder was on his chest and I was holding his right hand with my left hand and trying to grab his left hand with my right hand.

ADV BIZOS: If what you are telling us is true, you were trying to restrain Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: Who else was trying to restrain Mr Biko at that stage?

MR BENEKE: I couldn't see properly, but I was aware that there were other people around me. Captain Siebert was with us, he also tried to restrain Mr Biko. Mr Marx and Deon Niewoudt were also present.

ADV BIZOS: How many were actually involved in the process of trying to restrain?

MR BENEKE: I think it was everyone, I couldn't see very well, because my head was more or less under his arm.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just enquire Mr Bizos, whether the word restraint is an assimilate of the word assault?

ADV BIZOS: No, I am using it on his version Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The word restraint is being used, you were trying to restrain. Does that imply that in that in that process of trying to restrain violence was used on Mr Biko, he was being assaulted in order to restrain him, is that correct?

MR BENEKE: That is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV BIZOS: And now, you, Snyman, Siebert, Niewoudt, possibly Marx - if each one of you went for the holding of an arm or a leg, there were enough of you to restrain him without actually assaulting him?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: You say at the bottom of 20(h) of your application for amnesty, everything happened very quickly and Detective Sergeant Niewoudt regularly hit Biko with a cut off piece of hose pipe over his back. Now, on how many occasions did Mr Niewoudt strike Mr Biko with the hose pipe?

MR BENEKE: I cannot say exactly, because after the medical testimony it seems that he had two, he was hit twice on the back.

ADV BIZOS: You see, is there a difference between occasions and (no translation)

MR BENEKE: It can be synonymous.

ADV BIZOS: Well, they can be but are they in this context? Occasions and a number of times?

MR BENEKE: The occasions which have been referred to is every time he hit him, that means he was hit more than once or the times that he was hit happened on an occasion, or the blows.

ADV BIZOS: Can you please explain to us how you made an attempt to restrain someone by hitting him with a hose pipe on the back so hard that it actually left tramlines on his skin?

MR BENEKE: I did not hit him with the hose pipe. Sergeant Niewoudt did. He also hit me in the process and I had similar marks. I cannot take responsibility for his actions.

ADV BIZOS: Well, on how many occasions were you hit with the hose pipe?

MR BENEKE: Twice.

ADV BIZOS: Well, far from the correctness of the suggestion that Mr Biko had gone bezerk, it would appear that the person that had really gone bezerk in that room, was Mr Niewoudt?

MR BENEKE: I do not know.

ADV BIZOS: Where were your injuries sustained, on what part of your body as a result of you being hit by Mr Niewoudt?

MR BENEKE: It was on my back.

ADV BIZOS: How hard were the blows?

MR BENEKE: It is difficult to describe, they were reasonably hard.

ADV BIZOS: Did they leave tramline like injuries on your skin?

MR BENEKE: Yes, it did.

ADV BIZOS: Did you have a shirt and a jacket on?

MR BENEKE: Can you repeat the question please.

ADV BIZOS: Did you have a shirt and a jacket on?

CHAIRPERSON: He had a safari suit on.

ADV BIZOS: He had a safari suit on? Did you have a safari suit on?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: With a top and a vest underneath?

MR BENEKE: No.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ask Mr Niewoudt what had gone wrong with him that he managed to strike at least two blows on you and possibly a number of blows on Mr Biko, what had gone wrong with him, did you ask him?

MR BENEKE: I did not speak to him about that.

ADV BIZOS: Why not?

MR BENEKE: I accepted this as part of the incident that took place.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words you assumed that the blows were not meant for you, they were meant for Mr Biko? You got hurt accidentally?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: For how long did you work in the office near this interrogation room, for how many years?

MR BENEKE: I was working in the office next door since 1970.

ADV BIZOS: For seven years?

MR BENEKE: That is correct, yes.

ADV BIZOS: Did you ever see a hose pipe or more than one piece of hose pipe laying about there?

MR BENEKE: This piece of hose pipe was part, we had a Landrover which we used and always carried the extra fuel, the same Landrover which transported Mr Biko to Pretoria, now that specific hose pipe was used for that purpose to syphon the fuel from the extra canister into the tank.

ADV BIZOS: That is a very useful purpose for a piece of hose pipe, but why was it taken to the high floor of Sanlam Buildings and the particular office in which interrogation was taking place? Why was the hose pipe there on that and on other days?

MR BENEKE: That was the office of Mr Coetzee who was in possession of the Landrover and he used the Landrover. He kept it there.

ADV BIZOS: But the place of the hose pipe must surely have been next to the can in the vehicle and not in the interrogation room for its proper use?

MR BENEKE: On that specific day I noticed that of the normal furniture, a table that was there before, was not there and I accept that some of the things that were in the room had been taken out.

ADV BIZOS: You see, let it suffice that Mr Jones will tell the Committee that there were at least two pieces of hose pipe around and the one was called green power and the other black power. A sense of humour of those who used them as instruments of torture.

MR BENEKE: This is once again what Mr Jones is saying. I am only aware of that specific piece of hose pipe which was there which was used to syphon fuel into the vehicle.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, whilst we are on this Mr Jones will tell the Committee that he spent many hours in that office being interrogated on a number of days and nights. How is it that you can say that you never saw him before?

MR BENEKE: The fact of the matter is that I never saw him previously.

ADV BIZOS: How many detainees did you see in your period of as Security Policeman at Sanlam Building?

MR BENEKE: There were many people who came in there. I can only mention that Captain Siebert dealt with coloured affairs and he would have been involved and Mr Jones would probably have been taken to his office.

ADV BIZOS: Well, he will say that he was interrogated in the same room. How can you say that you didn't in the manner in which you became an observer that you didn't become an observer at one or other of the times that Mr Jones was interrogated and ill-treated?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I don't know where this kind of questioning will get you as to? How would he know when Jones was, where he was, on what date we are talking about? This is a vague general question. Let Mr Jones give that evidence.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. May I just clarify Mr Chairman, that the detention, Mr Jones and Mr Biko were detained at the same time and it was understood that it was during this period, but I merely thought that I would not leave unchallenged the witness' statement that he never saw Mr Jones.

Yes, well I have done enough in order to indicate what Mr Jones' version is.

CHAIRPERSON: Quite right.

ADV BIZOS: To give him an opportunity to deal with it Mr Chairman. Now, you saw the two cuts on his lip?

MR BENEKE: No, I only saw blood on his mouth.

ADV BIZOS: Did you see any swelling on his lip?

MR BENEKE: There could have been swelling, but I can't recall.

ADV BIZOS: How do you say those two injuries to the lip was caused? Can you say?

MR BENEKE: I cannot.

ADV BIZOS: Would you agree that the falling on a wall is most unlikely to cause injuries on the lips without any injury to the nose? To the upper lip without any injury to the nose?

MR BENEKE: As far as I know, he stumbled against the wall once and not thereafter again. Only once again, that was with his back to the wall.

ADV BIZOS: Are you aware that Mr Biko's injury was a contra (indistinct), do you know what that means, that if you hit a person on one side, his brain smashes against the skull on the opposite side, do you know that that was the nature of the injury?

MR BENEKE: No.

ADV BIZOS: Well, if the Committee is persuaded on the evidence available at the inquest, that that was the type of injury, can you explain, can you explain how for lesions in the brain in the description of the incident by you, can you explain that?

MR BENEKE: I am aware of the fact that he could possibly have hit his head against the wall, from there we fell forwards, he could have fallen against the floor or he could have fallen against one of us. I actually suspect that the injury above the eye on his forehead, could be due to the fact that he fell against the side of the table. That is the only possible explanation or conclusion that I can draw from this.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the possibility of a punch being directed at his face, the front of his face? Is that not a possibility?

MR BENEKE: It is a possibility yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't mention it.

MR BENEKE: It could have happened.

ADV BIZOS: Who was throwing punches that may have caused that injury above the left eye?

MR BENEKE: In that second or two as I have already said, I looked downwards, I tried to push him against the wall and tried to take hold of his arms. I cannot say exactly who did the hitting.

ADV BIZOS: Was there any punching taking place whilst you were moving into that room that Mr Biko was in?

MR BENEKE: Not immediately before I entered the room. Captain Siebert pushed him away, upon which I hit him.

ADV BIZOS: You hit him? How did you hit him?

MR BENEKE: What I meant by hit or struck is I struck him against the shoulder and grabbed hold of his hands, upon which we stumbled into the wall.

ADV BIZOS: Was the word hit, did the word hit come out by mistake?

MR BENEKE: Whether you hit somebody or strike him with the fist or with the shoulder, it is one and the same thing. It is a point upon which two objects collide with one another.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's move on Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: Can you exclude the possibility that Mr Niewoudt was actually hitting Mr Biko with the hose pipe before you got there?

MR BENEKE: I cannot say, it could be so. But when I entered the room, he was not hitting Mr Biko.

ADV BIZOS: Did he have a piece of hose pipe in his hand?

MR BENEKE: No, only when everything was over, did I see that he had the hose pipe in his hand.

ADV BIZOS: Well, that can't be right because you must have seen and felt the two strokes that you got whilst things were happening.

MR BENEKE: I repeatedly said that my shoulder was onto his chest and my head under his arm, so I couldn't see because Mr Niewoudt was above me.

ADV BIZOS: You must have become aware that Mr Niewoudt had a hose pipe in his hand before things were over, because you yourself felt two blows on your own back?

MR BENEKE: I was aware that somebody was hitting with something because I felt the blows.

ADV BIZOS: You got the blows within seconds of you putting your shoulder to Mr Biko's body?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: And at the same time, Mr Niewoudt was involved in the process of restraining Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: It follows therefore that he must have had this hope pipe in his hand before you rushed Mr Biko with your shoulder?

MR BENEKE: It is possible, Mr Niewoudt stood a pace or two away from Mr Biko, I was focused on Mr Biko and I was not looking at what any of the other members were doing because I did not expect an attack from them. My focus was on Mr Biko, so I cannot say exactly what each one of them was doing.

ADV BIZOS: Was Mr Siebert in danger as soon as you entered the room and charged Mr Biko with your shoulder?

MR BENEKE: That is what I believed, yes.

ADV BIZOS: Why did you believe that?

MR BENEKE: At first he threw the chair and secondly he started taking a swipe at Mr Siebert.

ADV BIZOS: If Mr Siebert's evidence in answer to Adv Potgieter on the Committee was to the contrary that if you had not charged Mr Biko, he answered the member of the court, he Siebert, would have solved the problem by talking to Mr Biko and that it was not necessary in his opinion for any charge. If that is Mr Siebert's evidence, can you explain why your evidence is different?

MR BENEKE: It can be that if I had not entered, Mr Biko would have calmed down, but it can also be that he would have continued with his attack on Captain Siebert.

I believed that he would continue with the attack. I had a millisecond in which I had to decide what to do. I acted, years thereafter we can discuss whether another action wouldn't have been better.

ADV BIZOS: Here is a complete outsider, with four other people on the Security Police in the room, and you decide to charge?

CHAIRPERSON: I think that ground has been covered already Mr Bizos.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman. What political objective did you think the assaults that you speak of in paragraph 2.1 of your application would have achieved?

MR BENEKE: May I ask what is being referred to here? Is it the Biko case or other cases?

CHAIRPERSON: I think just formulate your question again please.

ADV BIZOS: You speak in an application that you make for amnesty for Mr Biko's death that the political objective including assaults, were done in order to repulse the attacks on the government. The question is, how would an assault on Mr Biko whilst he was a prisoner, have prevented attacks against the government and the apartheid order?

How could that bring about the objective, any political objective to the advantage of either the State or the National Party or the Police?

MR BENEKE: As far as Mr Biko's case is concerned, I have already said that I wasn't the Investigating Officer. I don't know what the purpose was behind that, if there was an assault, I wasn't present.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Beneke, try and come to terms with the question. You have applied for amnesty and you say that detention, interrogation and accompanying assaults were necessary in order to bring to an end the attacks on the government of the day. How would an assault of a prisoner have that effect, can you answer the question?

MR BENEKE: It is possible where in the case of people who were abducted and killed, I am generalising now, but for instance where you could perhaps obtain information as to where this person or persons were being held. When time is of the essence and in order the possibly save that person's life.

Violence would possibly have helped to extract information from a person far quicker to be able to arrive at a certain scene. If we are talking about the objectives and we are talking about the interest of the government, we can look at State property such as schools that were burnt down, that is an attack against the government.

A school is government property.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Beneke, let us just restrict ourselves to the Biko case, just try and clarify this matter. Let us assume that what you did was an assault on Mr Biko, your conduct. Let us assume that for the moment.

Did you want to achieve any political objective by your conduct?

MR BENEKE: This specific action or conduct was done to actually prevent an attack on Captain Siebert, I wanted to help him.

ADV POTGIETER: So the only purpose which you had was to protect your colleague against an attack?

MR BENEKE: Yes. I had no other involvement, that was my only reason.

ADV POTGIETER: No political objective whatsoever?

MR BENEKE: In this case, no. No political objective, it was an individual action, conduct. It had nothing to do with my work.

ADV SANDI: But Mr Beneke, yesterday Mr Siebert said you came there as an uninvited participant. The whole thing would never have happened, if you had not burst into the room and shoulder butted Mr Biko.

MR BENEKE: With respect sir, I don't think he actually said that if I did not enter. As I have said previously it is possible that if I didn't enter, nothing would have happened, but looking back that at a stage, he did assault a police officer, I was aware of that.

So when an attack was imminent, I went in. I had to make a decision in a split second. It is also possible that if I didn't go in, he could have attacked Mr Siebert.

ADV SANDI: Are you briefly suggested that your knowledge that Mr Biko had previously assaulted a policeman in one way influenced your conduct? Were you influenced by that knowledge, the way you acted?

MR BENEKE: In a sense, yes sir.

ADV BIZOS: In paragraph 10, where you were asked mention the political objectives sought to be achieved, this is your application and not other people's application, in 2.2 you say "information had to be obtained at all costs to combat and avert the revolutionary struggle by arresting and detaining people and also to prosecute them."

Now, that of course is just copied from someone else's amnesty application, your evidence is clear that that didn't play any part in your thinking, particularly in view of the answers that you have just given to the members of the court?

MR BENEKE: What is the question?

ADV BIZOS: You gave your reasons to members of the court. I read to you what your application said. Your application what you said in your application has no bearing upon the reasons. It is merely a copy from someone else's application?

MR BENEKE: The preamble to the statement is obviously stereotyped. With regards to the actual events of the day, that is my statement and that is what I said, and that is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON: The preamble as you call it, is something with which you generally agreed?

MR BENEKE: Precisely sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Even if it was the words of others, you adopt them as part of your case?

MR BENEKE: It could be in a sense, I was part of the Security Police, it should have been my point of view at that time, then.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

ADV BIZOS: Well, let's take it then a little further. You say you had nothing to do with Mr Peter Jones?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV BIZOS: How do you come to make an affidavit in terms of 2.4 "Peter Jones and Steven Bantu Biko were in possession of valuable information which would have enabled the Security Branch to effectively neutralise the BMC and the BPC and to restrict them and thereby to stabilise the situation of unrest.

Well, how did this, if you knew nothing about Mr Jones and you had nothing to do with him, how did you come to make a statement of this nature?

MR BENEKE: Once again, I was aware that Mr Biko and Mr Jones had been arrested together and that they were in possession of pamphlets.

ADV BIZOS: Will you agree that the BMC and the BPC were organisations, not a single leader of which was ever charged with incitement to violence?

MR BENEKE: It is possible.

ADV BIZOS: Do you agree that the BMC actually came into being after Mr Biko's death? BCM and not BMC, but leave it aside, this small detail that we got the initials mixed up?

The BCM came into being only after October 1977 when BPC was declared an unlawful organisation on the 19th of October together with 18 other organisations? Did you know that?

MR BENEKE: No, I didn't. I am not an expert in the field of the organisations at that stage.

ADV BIZOS: Then how did you come to make an affidavit in relation to matters that not only you are not an expert on, but didn't know anything about?

CHAIRPERSON: It is obvious Mr Bizos, that they charged, they got together and prepared their affidavits together and collaborated with each other. That seems to be obvious.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, the point of the question was that he mentions an organisation which was not in existence at the time that Mr Biko died.

CHAIRPERSON: The affidavit has not been drawn up with the same care as it ought to have been.

ADV BIZOS: Yes, thank you. I want to put to you Mr Beneke that you and your colleagues had an attitude towards Mr Biko that you believed that he had no right to be a leader of the black people and exercise any political influence in the country. Is that correct?

MR BENEKE: That is not correct.

ADV BIZOS: Well, did you have respect for his political philosophy, what he was trying to do to put an end to the apartheid form of government which discriminated against him as an individual and the black people of the country as a whole, did you have respect for that point of view?

MR BENEKE: We were in directly opposing camps and I had never met Mr Biko. Maybe had I met him at a later stage, I might have immediately have liked him or immediately took a dislike to him.

What it is about is a personal attitude.

ADV BIZOS: Did you believe that he was responsible for school boycotts, arson, murders, did you believe that?

MR BENEKE: That is what the Security reports said what was happening, and I had reason to believe that.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. And also to cap it all that he was not prepared to be pushed around by members of the Security Police?

MR BENEKE: That is possible.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. And that it was because of your personal dislike of this man who stood up for his rights, that really led to his being assaulted in a manner which caused his death?

MR BENEKE: I wouldn't know, I didn't know him.

ADV BIZOS: This belief about his being responsible for the crimes that you say you believed he might have committed, was there any attempt as far as you know, to charge him with any of these offences in order that he may defend himself or did you merely rely on your internal Security Police reports?

MR BENEKE: What I knew is what I read in the reports. It wasn't said that Mr Biko had committed the crimes himself, but it was implied that his actions encouraged other people to commit the crimes.

In that case people were charged.

ADV BIZOS: Yes. Were there any reports about his evidence at the (indistinct) trial or any reports about his books or any reports about the projects that he was running for the benefit of the community, were there any such favourable reports ever put before you?

MR BENEKE: It is possible, I don't know.

ADV BIZOS: Is it also possible that the Security Police had blinkers on and only looked at what it wanted to see in order to to deal with its enemies?

MR BENEKE: That is possibly the case.

ADV BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe? I am sorry, Ms Hosking, any questions?

MS HOSKING: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

MS HOSKING: Can I take you back to your initial testimony delivered when you were examined by your Attorney this morning, you refer here to the security situation in Port Elizabeth at the time, you say there was lots of unrest and murders and that it was your duty to investigate these matters.

Now, referring to the murders, to whom were you referring, murders of Security Policemen or other murders?

MR BENEKE: That is people in general, not only policemen. Policemen were murdered and other people also.

MS HOSKING: And yet you were with the Security Branch for a period of nine years, is that correct?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MS HOSKING: And I am sure that during that time you must have seen lots of unrest, lots of incidents that sort of warped your mind against the freedom fighters?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MS HOSKING: And I see, I refer you to page 20(d) of your testimony, the top of the paragraph in which you say these experiences left a very definite bias against the liberation movements in my mind and the people who purported to be fighting against an unjust system of government.

Are we to understand by bias, intense distrust, hatred? How would you interpret that?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MS HOSKING: So that brings me to wouldn't you then admit that it brings us to an element of bias against freedom fighters?

MR BENEKE: Not really.

MS HOSKING: But if you are admitting to bias as being hatred of freedom fighters, doesn't it amount to that? You are just contradicting yourself now, Mr Beneke, not so?

MR BENEKE: You can't generalise animosity would be towards the people who committed such crimes. Now, to take the life of a person I don't personally see as political, it is a criminal act to kill a person.

MS HOSKING: Yes.

MR BENEKE: Where people are killed, there should be natural animosity.

MS HOSKING: But yet this was a time in (indistinct), it wasn't purely criminal crimes, there were lots of political unrest in Port Elizabeth and surrounding areas, wasn't there?

MR BENEKE: I can't hear you properly.

CHAIRPERSON: There is a danger that we might be moving from general questions to specific questions. I am not clearing in my mind, whether you are talking about the overall crime situation or whether you are talking about the activities of certain individuals.

MS HOSKING: It is probably more an indication of more just the general background info as to where the applicant is coming from.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on, we have had enough evidence on that.

MS HOSKING: You refer also to that Mr Biko assaulted a member of the Security Branch, namely Sergeant Hattingh.

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MS HOSKING: Was Sergeant Hattingh a personal friend?

MR BENEKE: No, I hardly knew Mr Hattingh.

MS HOSKING: You did not know him?

MR BENEKE: I did not know him, I met him later.

MS HOSKING: Okay, all right, can I take you now to the day, the 6th of September. Were you at the Sanlam Building in Port Elizabeth? In your first comment when you were first examined was that you were present when Marx and Siebert were instructed to collect Mr Biko from Walmer cells? Yet, at page 20(g) you say that you were coincidentally on the 6th of September 1977, I was just coincidentally present at the offices of the Security Branch on that date. To my mind Mr Beneke, that means that you knew prior to this that Mr Biko would be there and you were not there accidentally?

MR BENEKE: When we came on duty the morning just after half past seven, I was present when Mr Marx and Sergeant Niewoudt were given instructions to go and fetch Mr Biko.

They went their way and I went my way and I eventually returned just after ten o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MS HOSKING: When you returned, you were sitting in your office?

MR BENEKE: I went to my table, yes.

MS HOSKING: And your desk was in position, where was your desk?

MR BENEKE: When you look at the first big office, it is measured 29 square metres, just next to the door entering to the next room.

MS HOSKING: Next to the door with measuring 15 square metres, the desk was there?

MR BENEKE: Yes, now if you look at that, that is approximately four metres away from the door entering the last room.

MS HOSKING: And the doors were open right through to the next offices?

MR BENEKE: They were open, yes.

MS HOSKING: And you heard noises you said?

MR BENEKE: I beg your pardon?

MS HOSKING: You heard noises?

MR BENEKE: I heard the argument going on, that is correct.

MS HOSKING: And you heard Mr Siebert's voice in particular?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MS HOSKING: Telling Mr Biko that he could not sit down, that Mr Siebert would tell him when he could sit?

MR BENEKE: I couldn't, I presumed it was about the sitting on the chair, but I couldn't understand or hear properly from there, so I went closer. That is the reason I went closer.

MS HOSKING: And then you were standing in the doorway?

MR BENEKE: I was standing in the doorway, yes.

MS HOSKING: Is that when you went closer, and so you could see who was in the room at that time?

MR BENEKE: Yes, that is correct.

MS HOSKING: And when you got to the doorway, you saw Mr Biko pushing the chair towards Mr Siebert?

MR BENEKE: That is correct Your Honour.

MS HOSKING: So you didn't see Mr Siebert pushing Mr Biko on his chest prior to that?

MR BENEKE: That happened immediately after the chair was pushed and Mr Biko took a swipe at Captain Siebert, he pushed him away. It happened at once.

MS HOSKING: According to, I will take you back to page 13(f) of Siebert's testimony. According to Mr Siebert, I shouted to him that I had already explained to him that he was not allowed to make use of the chair whilst I actually pulled him up from the chair. He then stood up.

And then he stood up from the chair.

MR BENEKE: That is possible.

MS HOSKING: But you weren't there at that time, you only saw Mr Siebert punching Mr Biko afterwards? That is what you said earlier on.

MR BENEKE: I actually didn't see Captain Siebert punching Mr Biko.

MS HOSKING: So what were you explaining to me earlier on when you said this happened after you had come in the room?

MR BENEKE: Yes, Your Honour, it practically happened at once, the pushing of the chair, Captain Siebert's reaction, the hitting out by Mr Biko and me coming in, it is a small space. It happened practically at once.

At this stage to tell what happened precisely in a micro second, it is impossible.

CHAIRPERSON: It was a fast moving scene in which things were happening very, very fast and it happened many years ago.

MR BENEKE: That is correct Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: I think one must understand and make allowances for looking at the view microscopically at this stage.

MS HOSKING: From your desk to the entrance of the room, what could you see?

MR BENEKE: Repeat please.

MS HOSKING: If you were sitting at your desk and sitting towards the room, what could you see in that room?

MR BENEKE: I came into the room, went to my desk and on the way I heard the noises, so I heard straight through.

MS HOSKING: And then you saw Mr Biko pushing the chair?

MR BENEKE: This is when I saw what happened and I reacted.

MS HOSKING: But you also heard Mr Siebert provoking Mr Biko, shouting at him?

MR BENEKE: No, Mr Siebert was standing still. They were standing together.

MS HOSKING: That is right, but he was shouting at Mr Biko that he couldn't sit on the chair?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MS HOSKING: Doesn't that amount to provocation?

CHAIRPERSON: Whether it is provocation or not, please that is a matter for argument.

MS HOSKING: When you went into the room, who else was in the room besides Mr Siebert and Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: Pardon, again?

MS HOSKING: When you heard the noise and you stood in the doorway, Mr Siebert was standing there with Mr Biko. Who else was in that room?

MR BENEKE: Sergeant Niewoudt was present.

MS HOSKING: And Mr Snyman?

MR BENEKE: Yes, he was standing half way behind the door. The door is opening to the left, so I couldn't directly look at him.

MS HOSKING: Okay, but you responded to the threat, you said earlier on in your testimony that you heard the noises and you ran to the room to try and protect Mr Siebert?

MR BENEKE: That is correct Your Honour.

MS HOSKING: But with the other men standing in the room, surely there wasn't any threat to Mr Siebert at all? Mr Niewoudt was there.

MR BENEKE: Pardon again please.

MS HOSKING: Pardon? With the other men also in the room, what threat would Mr Biko himself pose to Mr Siebert?

MR BENEKE: I can't understand the question please.

MS HOSKING: The question is that you heard the noises, you heard noises and you ran because you wanted to protect Mr Siebert because Mr Biko was going to assault Mr Siebert.

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MS HOSKING: Yet, there were other men in the room at the same time? What threat would that pose to Mr Siebert? Mr Biko was one person, the others were all Security Force members in that room at the same time?

MR BENEKE: Well, it is possible that I could react before then, that is the main reason.

MS HOSKING: But surely they were closer to Mr Siebert than what you were, you were coming from a different passage, from a room two, three metres away?

CHAIRPERSON: Is the purpose of your cross-examination that he wasn't there? Is that the purpose of your cross-examination?

MS HOSKING: That he was there at the time, but ...

CHAIRPERSON: And that he didn't take part?

MS HOSKING: No the purpose is that he wasn't there to protect Mr Siebert, there was a different motive there.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, put the motive to him please.

MS HOSKING: Carry on then. So you saw Mr Biko pushing the chair towards Mr Siebert.

MR BENEKE: I said that already yes.

MS HOSKING: Then you saw Mr Biko trying to punch Mr Siebert?

MR BENEKE: He made an attempt yes.

MS HOSKING: Yes, and that is when you intervened and you knocked against Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MS HOSKING: You tackled him?

MR BENEKE: You can't describe it as a tackle?

MS HOSKING: But you had your shoulder in his stomach?

MR BENEKE: I moved into him, yes, that is correct.

MS HOSKING: And in that motion, did he fall against the wall?

MR BENEKE: That is correct Your Honour.

MS HOSKING: And were you aware that he had hit his head at that time?

MR BENEKE: That could have been the only stage when he could have hit the wall with his head, the back of his head.

MS HOSKING: The back of his head? Okay. And then Mr Siebert and the other gentlemen tried to remove you or did they assist you at that time, what happened after that?

MR BENEKE: As I said several times, I couldn't see properly. At that short stage I hadn't proper vision of what is happening there. I presume the other people came to assist. Mr Siebert and Sergeant Niewoudt.

MS HOSKING: And then a fight ensued? There was an intense struggle?

MR BENEKE: There was an intense struggle for a very short period.

MS HOSKING: Was Mr Biko retaliating, Mr Biko himself was defending himself?

MR BENEKE: Pardon?

MS HOSKING: In the struggle, when you had Mr Biko, pushed him aside?

MR BENEKE: I tried to grab his arms, both his arms.

MS HOSKING: And you approached him from the side, that was your testimony? When you had him with your shoulder?

MR BENEKE: I pushed him towards the wall.

MS HOSKING: And his head hit the wall?

MR BENEKE: Yes.

MS HOSKING: And then how did Mr Siebert and Mr Snyman get involved?

MR BENEKE: At that stage Mr Siebert and Niewoudt was involved. I do not know when Mr Marx and Major Snyman came into this.

MS HOSKING: Is this when Mr Niewoudt started beating him with the hose pipe?

MR BENEKE: I presume Mr Niewoudt started beating him with the hose pipe immediately when I went into Mr Biko.

MS HOSKING: And then you pushed, the three of you, did you all fall towards, against the wall again, or did you push Mr Biko against the wall?

MR BENEKE: I pushed Mr Biko against the wall and immediately after that, he fell forward over me.

MS HOSKING: And Mr Niewoudt and Mr Siebert were also falling all over you?

MR BENEKE: Yes, the four of us went down.

MS HOSKING: So it was the three of you, Mr Niewoudt, Mr Siebert and yourself?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MS HOSKING: Tackled him? Now, Mr Beneke, you say you also carry out orders that were given to you? Yet, in this situation, there is nothing in your testimony that indicates that somebody had told you to come and assist. Isn't it a case where you had gone on your own initiative to assist and become involved in the struggle?

MR BENEKE: I already said I did that, that was my own initiative.

MS HOSKING: No orders were given to you to carry out any attack on Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: No. I see this as an incident where I had to help a colleague of mine, which I did.

MS HOSKING: And yet, there were also three other colleagues in the room, who could also have assisted him? You say after Biko was laying on the floor, he might have knocked his head against the table, you said earlier in your testimony?

MR BENEKE: I said it was possible that he might have knocked his head against the table when falling forward.

MS HOSKING: How many tables were there in that room?

MR BENEKE: There was only the one small table.

MS HOSKING: But yet you said earlier in your testimony that the table that was there, wasn't there? When Adv Bizos had questioned you ...

MR BENEKE: Usually there is a desk in the office, and I said that some of the furniture was removed. I don't know when, but it was removed.

MS HOSKING: Yes, you said specifically the table that was there, wasn't there. Was the table there in the room Mr Beneke?

MR BENEKE: There was one small table to the right of the door against the window and there was nothing except for a cupboard, a filing cabinet and one chair in the office.

MS HOSKING: So that was the table against which Mr Biko could have hit his head?

MR BENEKE: Yes.

MS HOSKING: After you said you left at eleven o'clock or was it earlier than that when you left the room while Mr Biko was laying on the floor?

MR BENEKE: It was after the incident between ten and eleven o'clock, which I left the room.

MS HOSKING: And is it at this time that you noticed blood on his lip and a cut above his eye?

MR BENEKE: Immediately after the struggle, yes.

MS HOSKING: And was Mr Biko conscious at that time?

MR BENEKE: He wasn't completely unconscious, but he wasn't fully conscious.

MS HOSKING: He was laying quietly on the floor, he wasn't moving much?

MR BENEKE: He was quiet yes, he tried to move, but he was quiet.

MS HOSKING: And you returned at one o'clock, you say?

MR BENEKE: After one o'clock, yes.

MS HOSKING: When you were given orders to guard Mr Biko?

MR BENEKE: That is correct Your Honour.

MS HOSKING: Is this the time when you had strung him up on the grill or did this occur before?

MR BENEKE: He was handcuffed to the grill just after ten o'clock.

MS HOSKING: After ten o'clock?

MR BENEKE: When I came back after one o'clock, I requested Sergeant Niewoudt to get medical assistance because when I looked at him, I thought something was wrong with him and when he came back, we untied him from the grill and put him on a mattress.

MS HOSKING: At what time was this approximately?

MR BENEKE: That was about two o'clock.

MS HOSKING: Two o'clock?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MS HOSKING: That you put him on the mat? Was he still unconscious at this time?

MR BENEKE: He was trying to talk, but we couldn't understand him.

MS HOSKING: And you didn't call for him for medical assistance at that time?

MR BENEKE: I already did call for medical assistance.

MS HOSKING: You called for medical assistance?

MR BENEKE: I asked Sergeant Niewoudt to go and talk to somebody to get a Doctor to come and see him. I requested a Doctor.

MS HOSKING: And when Niewoudt returned, what did he say?

MR BENEKE: He said they will arrange, which I accepted and as I have said, then we carried on with ordinary tasks.

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Ms Hosking, can I just ask a question just on this. Mr Beneke, according to the testimony of Colonel Snyman, it is him who went to report what had happened to Mr Goosen and Mr Goosen took over. Are you aware about that?

MR BENEKE: I was told later on, yes sir. But I presume Mr Niewoudt went to Major Snyman at that day.

MS HOSKING: The last time that you saw Mr Niewoudt, Mr Biko, was at four o'clock when you left, when your watched had finished?

MR BENEKE: That is correct, yes.

MS HOSKING: That is it, thank you. I will hand over to my colleague.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS HOSKING

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, with your permission, just one aspect to be clarified. Just one, Mr Chairman.

It is on record that you were not a member of the Investigative team, you were only a spectator and furthermore you admitted that you only acted or you acted without instructions, am I correct?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MR MPSHE: Look at your application form on page 17, paginated 20(o). Page 16, 20(o), paragraph 11(a). I will read this. Are the deed or deeds omitted and the execution of, can you see that and underneath your answer is yes.

Furthermore, paragraph 11(b), the name or names and addresses, etc and the answer underneath is the interrogation was on the instruction of Colonel Goosen and Major Snyman.

Do you agree with what is standing here that this is wrong?

MR BENEKE: It can be wrong, but we are looking at a broader context here, a more general context, we are talking about the whole case, not just as one context.

MR MPSHE: I am referring specifically to the instruction, you admitted that you were only a spectator?

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

MR MPSHE: You admitted that you were not a member of the Investigative team and you admitted as a result of my learned friend's question, that you acted on your own initiative?

ADV ERASMUS: Mr Chairman, I want to object to this question, because this question is not a correct rendition of 11(a). The objection rests on the following, is the deed or deeds, omissions or crimes executed in the execution of or on behalf of or with the approval of the specific organisation, institution, body, liberation movement, State department, Security Force? The deed which Mr Beneke is testifying about, can be brought in is the deed, omission, crime on behalf of someone, so my objection is that the full 11(a) was not put to the witness and I think that the full 11(a) is that which he has to reply to and not the evidence leader's interpretation of this.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I do not want to argue about this. The reference to on behalf of a person is very clear or with the approval of the specific organisation, institution, body, liberation movement, State department or Security Force. The witness did testify under cross-examination by my learned friend, that he acted in order to assist Captain Siebert and the others who were inside.

This paragraph does not make any reference to a person. He acted in order to assist Mr Siebert, so my question is in order and I would request that the witness reply to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand what is being sought from you in that question? All right, what is your answer?

MR BENEKE: At that stage I was in the service of the South African Police. All actions, when you are on duty is on behalf of the South African Police or for the sake of the South African Police.

And whoever was the Commanding Officer, it would have been expected of me to assist a colleague, and I acted in that context. I was on duty at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: That will be a matter for legal argument, Mr Mpshe.

MR MPSHE: Yes, Mr Chairman, but I still have a follow up on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR MPSHE: With your permission.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MR MPSHE: Thank you. How do you then explain paragraph 11(b) because it is very clearly on record that Colonel Goosen and Major Snyman did not give instructions, and furthermore that you were not a member of the Investigative team, is that not wrong?

MR BENEKE: It can be seen, the statement was made a long time after the incident, but when I entered that room in order to assist Captain Siebert, I became involved. Colonel Goosen did give instructions previously that he had to be interrogated, but not to me to Captain Siebert and Major Snyman.

MR MPSHE: Mr Beneke, my learned friend Adv Bizos asked you the question and you said specifically after the incident, we were all called by Colonel Goosen where I made a statement and at that time I became involved.

This was after the incident, I am talking about before the incident or during the incident.

MR BENEKE: In that case, then it is wrong, I was not given instructions prior to this, to assist. After the incident, after we made the statements, I became involved and it is in this context or in that context, that I made my present statement, that is what happened.

MR MPSHE: That is all.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I trust you have no questions to put to this witness?

ADV BOOYENS: I have got no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

ADV ERASMUS: No re-examination thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV ERASMUS

ADV SANDI: Mr Beneke, I am not sure if you've got the bundle in front of you, I want you to have a look at page 15 of the bundle.

ADV ERASMUS: We do not have a bundle sir, we were never furnished with a bundle.

ADV SANDI: Page 15, that is your application for amnesty in terms of form 1. Do you have that Mr Beneke?

MR BENEKE: That is correct Your Honour.

ADV SANDI: I noticed that paragraph A1, you talk about murder and assault on activist Steve Biko?

MR BENEKE: That is correct Your Honour.

ADV SANDI: In your testimony here, you have not said you commit murder against Mr Biko, is that correct?

MR BENEKE: I did not commit what?

ADV SANDI: Murder.

MR BENEKE: Murder?

ADV SANDI: I understand murder.

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Would you like to explain that, because I understand that in your evidence this killing or the death of Mr Biko happened accidentally or it was unfortunate.

MR BENEKE: That is correct.

ADV SANDI: Did you complete this form?

MR BENEKE: No, I did not.

ADV SANDI: Who completed the form for you?

MR BENEKE: Mr Erasmus completed the form.

ADV SANDI: Would you like to explain this Mr Erasmus.

ADV ERASMUS: What is the question sir?

ADV SANDI: He refers to murder in the application forms, but his evidence does not say he intentionally killed Mr Biko?

ADV ERASMUS: Are you referring to paragraph 9(a)(i) - acts, offences or omissions, assault and death of Steven Bantu Biko? Perhaps if Mr Mpshe can furnish us with a document bundle, then we can have this.

ADV SANDI: It is page 15 of the bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that paginated page 15?

ADV ERASMUS: Chairperson, it would seem as if there is a difference in the versions here. The document which I prepared is a typed version and this version which you have, is a handwritten one.

ADV SANDI: The document I am referring to was signed on the 6th of May 1997 in Pretoria. Is that your signature Mr Beneke? That is on page 20?

ADV ERASMUS: May I just complete what I was going to say. He asked me for an explanation, and I want to explain that I had nothing to do with the filled in version, the written version in the bundle, that was not completed by me and therefore I can't help you.

ADV SANDI: I thought your client had just said that you assisted him with that form?

Mr Beneke, who assisted you to complete this form which Mr Erasmus says he has no knowledge of?

MR BENEKE: May I explain please? Just before the closure of the applications for amnesty, I was approached by Warrant Officer Strydom at my place of work and on advice of Mr Van der Merwe, who at that time represented me, he said I must sign the forms, they will complete it and submit it because time was a problem at that stage.

After that, I immediately approached Mr Erasmus which completed the application and I believe that is where the mistake slipped in.

ADV SANDI: Yes, but the gist of my question is that when you completed this form, at that paragraph 9(a)(i), you talk about murder, but throughout your testimony you have not said anything about it?

MR BENEKE: The actual application implicates the assault and the death of Steve Biko. The word is death not murder.

ADV SANDI: Okay, maybe we can leave it as a matter for argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. Are you calling any other witnesses?

ADV ERASMUS: No, that is my case Mr Chairman, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Bizos?

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, my learned friend, Mr Mtshaulana will call the next witness.

MR MPSHE: Mr Chairman, upon request by the technicians that before Mr Jones testifies, they would like to have a short adjournment to switch over the microphones, so that he can use a specific microphone.

It won't be more than five minutes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a very short adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are we ready to begin?

MR MPSHE: Thank you Mr Chairman, may the witness take an oath?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

PETER CYRIL JONES: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

EXAMINATION BY ADV MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Jones, on the 18th of August 1977 you were arrested together with Mr Biko, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: At the time of your arrest, you were travelling from Cape Town to King William's Town?

MR JONES: That is so.

ADV MTSHAULANA: You were arrested in a roadblock in Grahamstown?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: You spent a night in the police station in Grahamstown?

MR JONES: That is so.

ADV MTSHAULANA: From Grahamstown you were transported by the Police to Port Elizabeth to Sanlam Building, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: You spent a few hours with Mr Biko, tied to the grill in Sanlam Building, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Thereafter you were separated and you were taken to Algoa police station, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When were you separated?

ADV MTSHAULANA: After a few hours of being tied, you were separated after being tied for a few hours?

MR JONES: After a few hours it was confirmed that me and Mr Biko was going to be detained from that moment, in terms of Section 6 of the Terrorism Act and soon after that, we were taken down the building and separated.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And that was on the 19th of August 1977?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Thereafter you never saw Mr Biko?

MR JONES: No.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Later you heard that he had died in detention?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Now, Mr Jones, I would like you to very briefly describe to the Committee your own experiences in detention, after you were separated from Mr Biko.

MR JONES: Upon my arrival at Algoa police station, I was confronted by Niewoudt who accosted me in the charge office. He verbally abused me, pulled me around and threatened me.

I was then taken to the cell and in the courtyard of the cell, I was instructed to strip - which I did. I was beaten by hand and kicked and pulled into the shower. It was turned on. This particular treatment continued for a few days. At approximately six hourly intervals, where a group of Security Police, normally led by Niewoudt, would barge into my cell, screaming, pulling me, beating me and taking me outside to the courtyard of the cell, and forcing me into a cold shower.

I was kept in the shower with one mat and one blanket.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And it was in August, in winter months?

MR JONES: And it was very, very cold.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Now, you say that the group of policemen who assaulted you were led by Mr Niewoudt?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Are there any other policemen of that group who are applying for amnesty here, who were present in that group?

MR JONES: I do not recall them.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Now, how long did you remain at Algoa police station?

MR JONES: I remained there from the day when I arrived, the 19th of August, until approximately October the 31st, when I was transferred to a remote police station, called Kinkelbos police station.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Except the harassment, howling and beating by the group of policemen led by Mr Niewoudt, did you - were you ever interviewed of interrogated by other groups of policemen?

MR JONES: Yes. On the night before my formal interrogation started, Siebert and Snyman entered my cell very late at night.

ADV MTSHAULANA: When was this? The day before your formal interrogation, when did your formal interrogation start?

MR JONES: It started on the night of the 24th of August, so that would have happened on the 23rd of August. Siebert and Snyman entered.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Yes.

MR JONES: Their very first question to me was who I was or who I thought I was to which I responded, I by then stood up, naked with a blanket around me and told them that I was a man and that I was a black man.

ADV MTSHAULANA: What was the reaction of these two Security Policemen to this answer?

MR JONES: They looked at me coldly, very viciously and then gave me a long lecture on the conditions of detention, that I was there at their mercy, that anything that happened or that may happen, will happen at their behest, that a number of people that have been arrested, have already spoken, that I have had the benefit of a few days of treatment, I have a further few hours to think and that it was up to me to decide how I responded.

That I took as a clear threat.

ADV MTSHAULANA: At this moment, you were still in Algoa police station?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Were you ever taken away from Algoa police station for a formal interview?

MR JONES: The next evening, I was collected also in the evening, late in the evening by Siebert and other Security Police and I remember one of them was a coloured Security Policeman, and taken to Sanlam.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Yes. What happened at your formal interrogation started at Sanlam on the evening of the 24th?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Now, during your stay can you very briefly describe to the Committee your interrogation?

MR JONES: I arrived at Sanlam, having been given a jeans and a T-shirt, no shoes. And upon entry to the room in which I was interrogated, these clothes were removed. I was seated in the middle of the room on a chair with my left hand handcuffed to the chair.

On my left and on my right, respectively was Siebert and Snyman behind a desk on the one side and a table on the other side. They commenced talking and questioning me.

ADV MTSHAULANA: They wanted information from you?

MR JONES: Yes. The questions covered a very wide variety of subjects ranging from my own political history, where I came from, to my official position in various organisations and also eventually what was the purpose of my and Steve Biko's travel to Cape Town.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Did you give the Police the information they wanted?

MR JONES: We were talking, I was responding and at some stage they were telling me that this was not the kind of responses that they wanted, that in particular they were interested in a pamphlet in which me and Steve and Patrick Titi were involved.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And did you give them the information about this pamphlet?

MR JONES: I told them that the pamphlet did not exist. I told them that they knew that it did not exist and that there was no way me and Steve could have been in Port Elizabeth as they alleged to deliver and distribute a pamphlet, that was not the purpose of the travel and we were not involved in that at all.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Were the Police satisfied with this information?

MR JONES: No, they were not satisfied.

ADV MTSHAULANA: What did they do to show their dissatisfaction?

MR JONES: This was a continuation of remarks that had been made throughout the week or the days before about a pamphlet, about the fact that we were alleged to have been seen in Port Elizabeth and that we were involved in a pamphlet.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Yes, but did you finally write the information for them?

MR JONES: Later in the evening, Siebert responded to me reactions to them, by hitting me through the face with his right hand. He continued his specific line of question and described to me in lengthy detail, what it is that we are alleged to have done.

He then asked me whether I was prepared to make a statement and I indicated yes. And he then told me that I now knew what it was that they wanted and that I would be beaten to death if I even attempt to write nonsense.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Yes.

MR JONES: Him and the other Police Officers in the room, which included Snyman, Niewoudt and Marx then left. I was then left for the rest of the evening in a sitting position with two other Police Officers while I was writing these statements.

ADV MTSHAULANA: When did they return?

MR JONES: This would now be in the morning of the 25th.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened in the morning, is that when they returned or is that when they left?

MR JONES: They left late at night and they returned early in the morning of the 25th.

ADV MTSHAULANA: When you say they?

MR JONES: Siebert and company. Siebert and Snyman and Niewoudt.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Siebert, Snyman and Niewoudt returned the following morning.

MR JONES: And Marx?

ADV MTSHAULANA: And Marx, returned the following morning?

MR JONES: Returned the following morning.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And when they returned, had you prepared the statement which you had to prepare?

MR JONES: I had prepared two basic elementary statements. The first statement was on my political history which as I can remember was about three or four pages.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Yes.

MR JONES: And a second statement was on my work in the BPC and the BCP and also on the purpose of the travel to Cape Town of myself and Steve Biko.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And you gave these two statements to the Security Police?

MR JONES: It did not take long to write these statements. When I finished, the two Security Police that were watching over me in the course of the night read it and laughed at me and indicated that this was certainly not going to satisfy the requirements of Siebert.

ADV MTSHAULANA: The following morning when Siebert arrived, you gave the statements to the Security Police?

MR JONES: He took it from the table where it was.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Yes and was he satisfied with what you had written?

MR JONES: He was very angry.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And what did he do to show his anger?

MR JONES: Later on when him and his team of people which included Snyman, Niewoudt, Marx and Beneke were of course in the room, I was formally interrogated again. I was made to stand bare feet on two half bricks, with two steel chairs, one turned upon the other, raised above my shoulder, and I had to remain in that standing position for a very long time.

Eventually I was assaulted by Siebert.

ADV MTSHAULANA: How did he assault you?

MR JONES: With his open hands to the face for a very long time and I was also hit, assaulted by the others with two hose pipes and kicked and fists.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Who was assaulting you with hose pipes?

MR JONES: It was Niewoudt and Beneke.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Niewoudt and Beneke? And all this was because they were not happy with your statement?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Did you later write another statement to satisfy them?

MR JONES: After the assaults, and the assaults were very intense, very long, we were all panting, I was groaning, moaning. They then asked me if I was now ready to change my statements and I indicated yes and the second formal statement was then written by me.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Did you write one or two statements?

MR JONES: Two.

ADV MTSHAULANA: You wrote two statements? Do you confirm that the statement submitted by my learned friend on behalf of the applicants, in the hearing in September, is the statement you wrote for the Police?

MR JONES: Are you speaking of the handwritten one?

ADV MTSHAULANA: Yes.

MR JONES: Yes, I confirm that.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Do you confirm that this statement here is the second statement which deals with the trip to Cape Town which you wrote on that day?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: With your permission, Mr Chairman, can I hand in copies of this statement as an Exhibit?

CHAIRPERSON: Please do.

ADV MTSHAULANA: We hand in this statement as an Exhibit in this case.

ADV BOOYENS: I think it is P, Mr Chairman.

ADV MTSHAULANA: What number is it?

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is going to be Exhibit O.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Yes, Mr Chairperson. In this statement submitted by the applicants, you make mention of a pamphlet?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Was there in fact a pamphlet?

MR JONES: There was no pamphlet. It did not exist.

ADV MTSHAULANA: In any way, you and Steve Biko were not involved in any pamphlet?

MR JONES: Not at all.

ADV MTSHAULANA: That pamphlet which was distributed last time, I think it is attached to Mr Niewoudt's application, and that pamphlet calls for streets, a border line on streets for bruising, bleeding, basically it is a pamphlet calling people to violence, is that correct?

MR JONES: I have seen the pamphlet.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Was the BPC or any organisation with which Steve Biko was associated involved in any violence?

MR JONES: No.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Did the Black Consciousness Movement at that time, have any military wing?

MR JONES: No.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Did it have any external wing?

MR JONES: No.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Am I correct to say that the Black Consciousness Organisations were organisations which were struggling for the liberation of black people?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: That these organisations had chosen to fight for the liberation of black people within the framework of the law?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Am I correct in saying that Mr Steve Biko and all of you in the leadership of the Black Consciousness Movement, were aware of the fact that as an organisation working within the framework of the law, you had to be careful in what you did?

MR JONES: We were all very, very aware that whatever we did, or said, or wrote, could land us in detention, in a court of law being charged or whatever.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And you were always conscious of the need to protect yourselves and members of the Black Consciousness Movement's interests?

MR JONES: Very conscious.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Now, your experiences of torture, beatings in detention is graphically described by you in a statement attached as an epilogue in a book written by Mr Donald Woods, is that correct, it was published in 1986?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, can I hand in that statement to avoid a long leading of evidence as a further Exhibit?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do. Perhaps this might be a convenient stage to take the adjournment. This statement will now go in as Exhibit P.

We will adjourn now and resume at two o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ADV BOOYENS: My Lord, with Your Lordship's permission I want to raise an issue at this stage before this evidence proceeds any further and that is the issue of relevance of the greater part of this evidence.

The evidence about the involvement of Niewoudt, this witness is giving, cannot perceivably be relevant in this application. The evidence about the assaults perpetrated I have now read this document again, that statement from the book that was handed in, as far as the evidence of the assaults perpetrated by Siebert, Marx, Beneke for that matter and Snyman is concerned, is also not relevant for any of the purposes envisaged by the Act.

The party applying to this Committee is required to make a full disclosure and - but that surely involves a full disclosure on events relating to that event in which he was involved. Now as far as the assaults on Mr Jones are concerned, none of these other applicants, or none of the applicants in this application now, as it now stands, have in fact applied for amnesty as far as Mr Jones is concerned.

That follows that in so far as it is possible, the law can take its course against them. Quite frankly to burden the record in this matter and to waste already valuable time by placing us in a position where you've got to test and challenge all these allegations about assaults, which are now before Your Lordship, it is tantamount to saying that if a man has assaulted any detainee at the same time, which was detained at the same time's evidence must now be considered by this Committee, to decide whether the present applicants have made a full disclosure.

And with respect, all that evidence about the assaults and about the doings of Niewoudt, I would submit is not relevant and should be struck out at this stage. The Committee should not look at it. So I would like the Committee to make a ruling at this at this stage, now, so that we can try and shorten and finish these proceedings now, because we are heading for a day of cross-examination.

ADV ERASMUS: Chairperson, on behalf of Mr Beneke who is also one of the applicants of this matter, I support this application wholeheartedly. I don't want to address you any further on any further aspects than have been raised by my learned friend. I agree wholeheartedly and I also ask you to make a ruling as to the relevance of Mr Jones' evidence.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may I deal with this?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes please.

ADV BIZOS: Mr Chairman, the general rule is that evidence of res inter alios acta is not admissible, but a very important exception to that rule is that similar evidence is admissible in order to prove one of the matters in issue if it is done by the same persons or group of persons at or about the same time, the same methods were used and for the purposes of achieving a common object.

That is the rule and it is well supported by well-known authority. We have here a situation that Mr Biko and Mr Jones were arrested at the same time, they were both interrogated during the same period, they were both interrogated in relation to the production of the same pamphlet, the objective which the interrogators of both wanted to achieve was on their own evidence, substantially similar and the evidence of Mr Jones is particularly relevant to the issue.

The question that will have to be asked at the end if this is how Mr Jones was treated who has lived and is able to give his story, why should the court not weigh up as to whether or not their behaviour would have been any different in relation to Mr Biko and on the basis of the authorities and the proximity of the events and the actions, we submit that the evidence is admissible.

In relation to the pamphlet Mr Chairman, the evidence of Mr Siebert in particular was that they wanted to obtain evidence of both Mr Jones and Mr Biko in relation to the pamphlet for the purposes of charging them.

So the identity of interest is completely proven and one could never get a case so closely connected in relation to both these individuals in order to operate the, to put into application the exception to the raised inter alios acta rule and we would urge that this is particularly relevant. There is also another worrying aspect in this matter Mr Chairman with this objection.

They made common cause in relation to their applications for amnesty, they brought them together, they agreed that they should be heard together. Of course it was open to Mr Niewoudt who applied for a separation, and that was granted.

But that cannot make any material difference Mr Chairman, whether Mr Niewoudt is still before the court or not. And he of course has made an application for amnesty.

We are not for one moment suggesting that it was necessary for the other persons who made an application for amnesty in these proceedings in relation to Mr Jones, that is their concern Mr Chairman, and the law must take its course in that regard. But it can have no real relevance to the question of the admissibility of the evidence of Mr Jones on the matters in issue in the applications for amnesty for Mr Biko.

I can give you Mr Chairman, references to the cases, it was fully argued in the Agget inquest matter where no less than 17 affidavits were received and about 8 people gave evidence as to how they were treated in detention, for the purposes of determining what must have happened to Dr Agget in the hands of the Security Police, so there is precedent for what I am submitting and we ask that the objection be dismissed.

And Mr Chairman, also Mr Chairman, a statement was submitted by Mr Jones by the other side, through Mr Siebert which is one of the Exhibits before you. He put that in Mr Chairman. If that statement was relevant in these proceedings, surely Mr Jones is entitled to tell the Committee in opposition of their application, the circumstances under which his statement was made. Which is an additional ground Mr Chairman.

In so far there may have been any grounds of irrelevance, they have made it relevant Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, is there anything that you wish to say?

MR MPSHE: Nothing to say Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I will take a short adjournment to consider this.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, may I just in reply to my learned friend mention two aspects?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly Mr Booyens.

ADV BOOYENS: Of course we are not dealing with a criminal trial at this stage, we are dealing with a unique procedure. A procedure where Your Lordship for example could limit my right to cross-examination within limits and we are dealing with a unique procedure here so we are not really in exactly the same situation as one would been in a trial as far as similar fact evidence is concerned.

And my objection has centred around specifically the allegations of the assaults and so on and whether they are relevant. It is of course true that the statement was handed in. I am not suggesting that all the evidence of Mr Jones is irrelevant, what I am suggesting is that only those evidence which directly links back to Mr Biko and that is where the allegation is made that he was confronted, and that was the only basis on which the document was used, Exhibit H, was used to say he was confronted with this.

That may be relevant, but the other aspects I would submit are relevant. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I would not like to take up too much time on this issue. The fact that Jones' name was mentioned by the applicants, the fact that there was cross-examination put to the applicants by Mr Bizos about what Jones will say was done to him and questions were asked of applicants as to whether they assaulted Jones or not, unfortunately all that now already forms part of the evidence.

A great deal of the details of the evidence given by Mr Jones except in so far as it relates to the denials by the applicants concerning Mr Jones, may be irrelevant. For that matter, at the end of a long hearing, it is our experience that when you get a record for appeal that is several inches high, when you look for what is relevant and what is not relevant, your record shrinks.

It may be very well be that in the end, that is very much likely to happen in this case, that a great deal, apart from just Mr Jones' evidence or portion of his evidence, a great deal of the other evidence may turn out to be not so relevant.

I am going to allow Mr Jones' evidence. I believe we are nearly about finished with his evidence in chief and I think it would be unrealistic at this stage for me to stop. I do not know whether he has any other relevant evidence to give, but I am going to permit it. If in counsel's opinion, his evidence does not merit cross-examination, it will be justified and entitled to adopt that attitude.

Can we just proceed and I trust that you will bear in mind that Mr Jones is not the subject of an application for amnesty. What the others have done or not done to Mr Jones, is of no concern or relevance to us directly in this application.

Will you proceed with your evidence in chief and confine it to what you consider to be really relevant.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

PETER CYRIL JONES: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY ADV MTSHAULANA: (continued) Thank you Mr Chairman. Before we adjourned for lunch, you handed in a statement which I said had been published in Mr Wood's book, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes, that is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: When was this statement made?

MR JONES: It was made in April and May of 1979, soon after I was released from that detention which lasted until February 1979.

ADV MTSHAULANA: So it was not made for the purposes of the publication of the book?

MR JONES: No, it was made specifically to give to my Attorney at the time, who is now Minister of Justice of this country and he gave it to counsel who is the same counsel in this matter now, George Bizos and Kentridge, to examine how we could get around the limitation of six months to charge these Police and the Minister of South Africa at the time, Jimmy Kruger.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Mr Jones, I would like to refer you to some statement by Mr Niewoudt and I will ask you questions which may be relevant in relation to the application of the other applicants.

I want to read to you at page 37, paginated pages of Mr Niewoudt's application which is page 13, paragraph 10. During this interrogation Peter Jones was not at all prepared to cooperate. All attempts made by myself to persuade him to cooperate, failed.

As a last way out, I at some stage used a cut off piece of hose pipe, I took it and I hit him a couple of blows across his back. Immediately after this assault, he without any further resistance gave information about amongst other things the distribution of the pamphlet and Steve Biko's movements during his period of banning.

He also gave me the necessary information relating to the whole distribution network of this inflammatory pamphlet. I want to ask you a few questions.

The first question I want to ask you, did you refuse in the beginning to cooperate with the Security Police?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Did Mr Niewoudt indeed beat you with a hose pipe?

MR JONES: He was one of the people who assaulted me.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Who else assaulted you?

MR JONES: Siebert, Snyman.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Did they also assault you with a hose pipe?

MR JONES: Yes, there was another hose pipe used which was a black one.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And who assaulted you of these two?

MR JONES: No, there was a further Officer, which is Beneke and Mr Marx was also in the room.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Did they also assault you?

MR JONES: All of them, all five of them, assaulted me.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And then Mr Niewoudt says immediately afterwards he had been beating you, he says you wrote the statement? Now, am I correct in understanding that the aim of the Security Police in assaulting you was to extract a confession from you?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Now, the information that he is referring to is that the statement that was handed in earlier on?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Now, how can you characterise that pamphlet? Is that pamphlet in line with the aims and objectives for which Steve Biko stood? I would like you to look at the pamphlet.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you referring to, Exhibit O or Exhibit P?

ADV MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman. The pamphlet I am referring to Mr Chairman, is pamphlet which was referred to by my learned friend earlier in the examination of Mr Snyman. It appears at page 135, paginated pages of Niewoudt's application.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it, let's find it.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you we have found it.

ADV MTSHAULANA: How can you characterise that pamphlet in relation to what Steve Biko stood for?

MR JONES: It is not conceivable that it could have been us. We as a movement and as individuals and as leaders did not instigate violence and anarchy, it was not in our interest as a movement. Our focus was to (indistinct) black people and to organise black people.

If you look at the pamphlet, and I've had an opportunity of reading through it, it is amateurish, it is childish, it is in language which is very elementary. We as leaders were very experienced, we had been in the business of publishing books and writing extensive text and the pamphlet could either have been written by a scholar who has just converted to politics or by Police who was trying to of course incriminate somebody.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Now, I would like to refer you to Mr Siebert's evidence, at page 277 Mr Chairman. Page 277 of Mr Siebert's. Now Mr Siebert in his evidence, at page 277 says that after in the course of the interrogation of Mr Biko and I want to read I could see that, he says, Your Honour, he was silent at that time.

That is after he had been given the pamphlet. He remained silent and then he began to deny in his answers this claims. I could see that this was not with conviction. And then the document drafted by Mr Jones, now handed into the Commission, I showed it to him, I said to him, you know the handwriting of Mr Jones, here it is.

I paged to the particular page where Peter Jones discussed the commemoration pamphlet. I showed this paragraph to him, I could then see that he became very upset and in fact became angry.

Now, did you write anything in the statement handed into the Commission, which could have made Mr Biko upset, feel that you had sold or betrayed him?

MR JONES: There is nothing in the statement that links Steve Biko or myself with the actual production or writing of a pamphlet or the transportation and the actual distribution of the pamphlet.

Secondly, me and Steve had discussed of course before we were arrested, what our reactions may be if we did get arrested and if we did get interrogated.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Now, the statement therefore that you admitted your involvement in distributing the pamphlet, which I read earlier, is actually not true?

MR JONES: Not true at all.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Now, I would like to ask you just one further question. That is except for Mr Marx, Mr Snyman and Mr Siebert described Mr Biko as a man who was aggressive, is that your experience? Is that how you know Mr Biko?

MR JONES: No. If I should describe Steve Biko in a word, I would describe him as calm, as mature and as a leader. An outstanding visionary who always were cooperative unless treated in an uncivil and disrespectful or violent way.

In my own story that I wrote afterwards, it is illustrated very clearly once in Grahamstown when we were searched in the Grahamstown police station and someone tried to pull his belt from his trousers in a violent manner, that he made it very clear that there was no need for it, he will cooperate if they left him alone, which they did, and he then cooperated.

The second time was in Sanlam Building when they were taking photographs of our faces and they were moving us and slamming us around the room into position. He also made it very clear that we will not cooperate if they were uncivil or violent or disrespectful.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And when Mr Siebert gave his evidence, he informed the Commission that when Mr Biko was told to stand up in an earlier occasion, he did exactly that, he stood up.

MR JONES: I can't speak to that.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, that is my evidence in chief.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MTSHAULANA: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, are there any questions you would like to put to this witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman. I will try to keep this as brief as possible. Mr Jones, I just want to put to you that you have heard what Niewoudt says in his amnesty application, how he assaulted you.

And I want to put to you that apart from that Niewoudt admits that he did give you a hiding with a piece of hose pipe, which lasted some ten minutes on one occasion, and in fact which caused you to cry, he did nothing else to you. That is Niewoudt, as far as assaulting you is concerned.

MR JONES: Can I respond to that?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, certainly.

MR JONES: It is not possible that Niewoudt alone would have been able to assault me. I am as big as he is, if not bigger and I have had many occasions where I resisted any assault and the only times when I did not resist, was when the violence was so intense and so overwhelming by virtue of the numbers of people that were involved.

ADV BOOYENS: I am not going to go into any detail specifically in so far as Niewoudt is concerned. I do that deliberately because we will deal with that at a later stage in another application.

So, don't accept that if I don't ask you any questions about Niewoudt's further involvement, that indicates that we accept what you say.

Now, you have heard the evidence of Marx yesterday, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Now tell me what did Marx do to you during all the occasions that he allegedly assaulted you, what did Marx do to you?

MR JONES: Marx I saw as a very old man at the time, very antiquated, old fashioned. He made a lot of silly remarks, a lot of jokes, a lot of noise, nothing substantial and he does not stand ...

ADV BOOYENS: Do you mean his jokes were unsubstantial?

MR JONES: The jokes were also unsubstantial.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is what did he do to you.

MR JONES: He was in the same room where the assaults took place and he assisted in of course holding me up, pushing me around. I do not recall that he was responsible for any big violence against me.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, tell me about the small violence. We are talking about Marx, that is the only way we can try and shorten these things. What did Marx do to you?

MR JONES: He would push me and kick me with his foot. There were five of them around me, we were falling all over the room, because I was being hit on many places on my body, on my head, on my back, shoulders.

CHAIRPERSON: Marx?

MR JONES: No, I am speaking of the violence of the five.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am talking about Marx, the question that is put to you is please tell them what did Marx do to you.

MR JONES: All I can remember from him is being pushed and a kick and warning to stay in line.

ADV BOOYENS: You yourself said your English is very good and I appreciate that. Push, a kick and a warning to stay in line, that is what you recall Marx doing to you?

Let us deal with what - so as far as a warning to stay in line is not an assault and you don't allege that either, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, let us deal with what did Snyman do to you?

MR JONES: Major Snyman, Harold Snyman?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. Harold Snyman, I am talking about assaults.

MR JONES: When the assault started with the five of them, he took up position on my right and he also hit me with his open hand and with a closed fist.

CHAIRPERSON: You say he hit you with his open hand, is that the same as saying he slapped you?

MR JONES: Slapped, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So he slapped and punched you?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Can you assist us, how many times?

MR JONES: I can't.

ADV BOOYENS: You can't? Okay, can you assist us on how many occasions did Snyman assault you?

MR JONES: Only on that occasion.

ADV BOOYENS: So Snyman assaulted you on, I just want to make sure you say when the interrogation started, I think you said ...

MR JONES: On the 25th of August.

ADV BOOYENS: That is on the 25th of August?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: So on that occasion Snyman hit you with an open hand?

MR JONES: And fists.

ADV BOOYENS: And hit you with fists. Can you remember where Mr Jones?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: You can't. Right, let us deal with Siebert. How did Siebert assault you?

MR JONES: Siebert took up position in front of me when I was seated and he started hitting me with his open hand, with his right and his left hands. I immediately grabbed his hands and pulled him down in reaction to which he then told me that I was trying to fight and I will get a fight.

He pulled away, he took off his watch, he rolled up his sleeve and he returned and he continued hitting me prolonged, in a very prolonged manner with open hands to the face. By this time I was standing and I was able to observe my face in a mirror at the back of him, a very small mirror. My face was taking on proportions that I almost could not recognise. The swelling of the lip and general swelling of the face.

During this time, the others joined with the hose pipes, with kicks and with blows to the body.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, okay. We will deal with the various applicants one by one. That is what I am trying to do. So, would I be correct if I say that what Siebert did to you was it sounds, correct me if I am wrong please Mr Jones, it sounds as if you say that Siebert slapped you many times with his open hands on your face?

MR JONES: That is correct. Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Was that Siebert's total contribution to the assault? Let's leave the other people aside for the time being?

MR JONES: Yes, there were of course other occasions. Are you referring to that occasion?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, of course I am interested in them. Snyman, we have dealt with Snyman and with Marx. They were only involved in the one occasion each, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. Now let us deal with Siebert's other assaults on you, if any.

MR JONES: Yes, on the night before when I arrived there, on the 24th, prior to him leaving, he had attacked me with a green hose pipe which was laying on the desk which I presume is the same hose pipe which was used the next day.

He hit me on my head and on my back and across my chest.

ADV BOOYENS: Are you trying to indicate by that that he hit you three blows or many blows?

MR JONES: I can't recall, but it was a few blows.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. That is the night before the interrogation?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Right, so we've got an assault on the 24th then, the night of the 24th, would that be correct?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Siebert hitting you with a hose pipe on the night of the 25th, we've got Siebert hitting you with his open hands?

MR JONES: Not in the night, in the morning.

ADV BOOYENS: In the morning, my mistake, I stand corrected, thank you Mr Jones. Tell me about other assaults, if any, committed by Siebert upon you.

MR JONES: You mean later?

ADV BOOYENS: Later, any time. I am interested in everything he did to you.

MR JONES: All right, after the 25th, there were no major assaults. I can only recall a few slaps and months later, in December after the team that was interrogating me had been changed in the meanwhile, I had another opportunity of being interrogated by Siebert. This is now in Kinkelbos, outside of Port Elizabeth.

At that occasion he once again hit me in the face.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, you are going a bit fast for me. So after the 24th/25th incident, you say there were a few slaps by Siebert?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: On one occasion or more than one occasion?

MR JONES: More than one occasion.

ADV BOOYENS: More than one occasion, but these were always slaps with the open hand?

MR JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this in December?

MR JONES: No, we are now talking in August and September.

ADV BOOYENS: August/September? And then apparently August/September were you then left alone for approximately October/November?

MR JONES: I was never left alone.

ADV BOOYENS: No, by Siebert?

MR JONES: The end of September the team that was dealing with me, changed and a new team took over, led by a Lieutenant Hattingh.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am not interested in Hattingh and his doings or undoings, or whatever he did. We are talking about Siebert please. Let's try and keep this short.

Siebert assaulted you with a hose pipe, assaulted you by slapping you and then on a few occasions, he slapped you. Was there ever again by Siebert an assault as serious as that time when he hit you until your whole face had swollen up?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Not? And then in December again, you say Mr Siebert assaulted you again?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: That was also a few slaps?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Is that the sum total of what Siebert did to you?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: So, how many times would you say you had actually been assaulted in such a way that you had visible marks on you, in other words where I am talking about myself as a layman, where I would have noticed that this man had been beaten up?

MR JONES: It would have been the assaults that happened during the period of 20 hours which was how long that first formal interrogation session lasted.

ADV BOOYENS: We are talking about in other words, the 25th going onto the 26th?

MR JONES: The 24th going into the 25th.

ADV BOOYENS: The 24th going into the 25th? That is the occasion when your face was swollen up and so on?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Subsequent to that, they were obviously more cautious and did not ...

MR JONES: Can I just explain properly?

ADV BOOYENS: Certainly Mr Jones, I just want to - I hear somebody else had forgotten his cellphone on or left his cellphone on as well.

MR JONES: It was not only my face, it was my entire body, my shoulders, my chest, my arms were full of welts and the story that I related many months later when I was released, I explained that that evening I was unable to find any position on my body except my knees and the palms of my hands and the forehead, that was not burning.

That is how I tried to fall asleep.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I have read what you said here. But, the question is - really it revolves only around one thing at this stage. That was the only occasion that you were so badly assaulted that as a layman I would have seen this man had received a beating?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: On the other occasions, subsequent to the 20th were you at all assaulted by the SB's, apart from slaps and so on? It doesn't sound as if there were serious assaults subsequent to that 24th/25th period, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: So such assaults as did take place, were assaults mainly involving you being slapped around and so?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: And these were also the occasions when you wrote these documents that were handed in, the one that you now handed in is Exhibit O, I think and the one I handed in earlier on as Exhibit H? Is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes, there are also several others which are not before the Commission, I don't know where they are.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. Now, Mr Jones, you know what I talk about when I talk about Exhibit H, that is the one that has got 25/8/77 in the top corner and Exhibit O is the one that your, I am not sure if my learned friend is counsel or an Attorney.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Counsel.

ADV BOOYENS: Counsel - sorry colleague - that your learned counsel has handed in, these were both written, they are dated the 25th, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Is this in fact when they were completed?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And were these written after this ordeal of yours of some 20 hours running from the 24th into the 25th?

MR JONES: One would have been written before.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, which one?

MR JONES: It would be the first one.

ADV BOOYENS: I don't know which the first one is. The one starting, the one has got 25/8 on the left hand corner and the one has got 25/8 in the right hand corner.

MR JONES: Well, the one that is 25/8, can I just check.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what you've called Exhibit O.

MR JONES: The one where I have written on the right hand side would be the first one, and the one on the left hand side, would be the second one.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay now let us deal with the one on the right hand side is Exhibit H? Is yours marked as well Mr Jones?

MR JONES: It is not marked.

ADV BOOYENS: Has your counsel marked it for you now? Let's refer to the Exhibits then we all know what we are talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now Mr Jones, so Exhibit H just to get it in context, that is the first document that you wrote?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And this was also written on the 25th, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Starting when on the 25th?

MR JONES: That would have been in the late, in the early morning hours of the 25th after Siebert left.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, that is during the night?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And so at that stage that was actually in so far as one can call them assaults, there were the incidents at the police station that you described, where they harassed you during the night, Niewoudt and his team which I am not going to deal with at this stage? Siebert himself has virtually not done anything to you, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And so this document, Exhibit H, were you finished writing by the next morning Siebert came back and he, you handed him Exhibit H is that correct?

MR JONES: That is true.

ADV BOOYENS: As it is here?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, and then Siebert read this Exhibit H and thereafter this lengthy and very violent period in your life which lasted over a period of some 20 hours started, is that correct? Now, on the morning of the 25th?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You were very severely assaulted as you told us by all of these people Mr Jones, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And they assaulted you so badly that you have already described to us that you could only, you must have been completely weak as well, not so? I mean I can just imagine it must be a horrible experience to be subjected to an assault like that after that 20 hours?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And then - so what time did this terrible assault on you eventually stop on the 25th?

MR JONES: I don't have an idea.

ADV BOOYENS: No, after dark?

MR JONES: Excuse me?

ADV BOOYENS: Was it after dark?

MR JONES: When it stopped?

ADV BOOYENS: Stopped?

MR JONES: No, it was before dark.

ADV BOOYENS: Before dark?

MR JONES: I was returned to my cell and I estimated the time at about six o'clock.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, that was August so it was dusk I would presume?

MR JONES: Towards dusk yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. And you were then told that you must now start writing again?

MR JONES: Before six o'clock in the afternoon of that day I had to make my second statement and I had agreed that I was willing to change the story that I had given them on the purpose of my and Steve's travelling to Cape Town.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. And so the whole purpose of, yes and you obviously agreed to that only as I understand you, due to the fact that you had been so badly assaulted Mr Jones, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And you then were returned to your cells with pen and paper I presume and started writing?

MR JONES: No, I had already given that second statement on the 25th. I was returned to my cell, I was collected again the next morning early and upon my arrival at Sanlam, it resumed again an interrogation, with some beatings and then a further statement. That statement I do not see before this Commission.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, so there must be a third statement of the 26th then in other words, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Which we don't seem to have?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: What was that statement about, the 26th's statement?

MR JONES: Well, the argument was only as far as they were concerned that I was not admitting fully to the existence of the pamphlet and that me and Steve Biko were responsible for the pamphlet in its entirety including its transportation and its distribution.

ADV BOOYENS: I want to go back. I think if one reads the stories about the Second World War this softening up period, you know when you told us about this period when you were woken at all ungodly hours of the night and so on at the police station, at that stage, that was just gratuitous assault, would I take it correctly that was just basically to soften you up and to break down your resistance?

MR JONES: That is what I assumed it was.

ADV BOOYENS: Because they didn't ask you any questions then?

MR JONES: No, I couldn't understand what was happening because there was a lot of suggestions and accusations by Niewoudt and other police about a pamphlet, about Port Elizabeth that I didn't know what to make of it until much later when I realised that they wanted an admission on a pamphlet that I knew nothing about.

ADV BOOYENS: I see, that is now Niewoudt and company?

MR JONES: No, I am speaking about when I got interrogated.

ADV BOOYENS: No, sorry we are at cross-purposes, I am talking about that softening up period, you know when they were waking you up at night and so Mr Jones.

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: During that period, were you questioned at all during that period or were they just beating you up and terrorising you?

MR JONES: I was not formally questioned, I was being terrorised, I was being harassed and the shouting and the accusations was about the existence of the pamphlet and that we did something in Port Elizabeth.

ADV BOOYENS: I see and you knew nothing about it?

MR JONES: Well, I was constantly arguing with Niewoudt and shouting back at him that is nonsense and if he had information, then there was something wrong with the information.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. And so then on the 24th, in the evening, you got taken to Sanlam Building, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And then you had that interview with Harold Snyman and Siebert, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: But on that occasion, I mean, compared to what you had been through with Niewoudt and his crew, that was rather mild wasn't it?

MR JONES: This was now the first time that formal interrogation started. It was another dimension.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, no but I am talking about the assault, how would you compare that assault on the 24th?

MR JONES: It was of a lesser nature.

ADV BOOYENS: It was of a lesser nature than what Niewoudt and company put you through?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: And what instructions, apparently the strategy was that they would give you pen and paper and say write your story, is that what they did at this time as well? Write your story during the night?

MR JONES: That is right, in front of them.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but the two juniors were left there, not so?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: And you had to sit down and basically write your story?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: But at that stage, it was still sort of your story, you had to write your story, not yet their story, is that correct?

MR JONES: Well, I had incorporated a particular element, there is a section where I actually speak of the pamphlet. But the story I constructed, or the concession that I was willing to make was mere knowledge of a pamphlet. I did not incriminate myself or Steve Biko.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, that is so. So you basically just said that you knew about this Port Elizabeth pamphlet and so on, but no one of you were incriminated in this, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And that is of course the thing they were dissatisfied about on the next morning, one of the things they were dissatisfied about because they wanted you people linked with this pamphlet, not so?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: If the court will just bear with me, if the Commission will just bear with me Mr Chairman.

So the next day, did they then come back to you, they read this Exhibit H, and because you didn't implicate yourself and Mr Biko, that also of course gave rise to that fairly vicious assault on you, is that right?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And you had to improve the pamphlet version, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Which you did?

MR JONES: Which I did.

ADV BOOYENS: Obviously at their prodding, they said you put Steve Biko in there and you put yourself in there, is that right?

MR JONES: Well, no it wasn't as direct as that. They merely suggested that they were aware and more and more they were giving me information that they were aware of. For example that we were seen at some school, that they know that we had stopped and that we met with some people and that they had spoken to these people. So it was very clear that they wanted me to create a situation that we stopped in Port Elizabeth, which I then did.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, no I understand, but they were basically this was a made up story, not so?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Completely, it was utter nonsense?

MR JONES: Completely.

ADV BOOYENS: And so then that fuller detail about the pamphlets, must then be in the statement which we don't have or is that in the subsequent statement, is that right?

MR JONES: In the subsequent statement, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: But that is the one that we don't have?

MR JONES: We don't have that.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. And in that subsequent statement and as a result of the fact that you were so maltreated so you introduced the name of Mr Biko as being involved in the statement and so on, is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: So you didn't on the 25th because the suggestion wasn't so powerful, you didn't yet introduce it, you in fact told me you didn't introduce the statement.

MR JONES: I have been conditioned for a whole week into a pamphlet.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but you didn't introduce Mr Biko at that stage, is that right?

MR JONES: No, except that if you read through my section I explain my knowledge as hearsay, that I heard Steve Biko and Patrick Titi speaking about a commemoration pamphlet.

ADV BOOYENS: But what more did they want in the subsequent statement, the missing statement to involve Mr Biko?

MR JONES: I couldn't understand, they wanted this pamphlet and the more I was concerned that they should not question me about the real purpose of my and Steve Biko's travel to Cape Town, the more they were wanting to know about a pamphlet.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I understand that, but what I am really interested in is what after you made Exhibit H, you wrote Exhibit H, what more did they want from you about this pamphlet?

MR JONES: Well, they wanted us to admit that we were responsible in King William's Town where we had an office and other infrastructure that we had actually produced it, that we had cyclostyled it, that we had it...

ADV BOOYENS: I have never been in the printing business, cyclostyle?

MR JONES: Copied.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you.

MR JONES: That we had it in the car when we travelled and that we in cahoots with people and with Mandizi Titi that was from Uitenhage in Port Elizabeth, that we then brought these pamphlets to Port Elizabeth to incite people or cause actions in Port Elizabeth.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. And this is now what they wanted you to put into your statement of the 26th, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You see I've looked at page 7 of Exhibit H and you do go quite far there already to implicate Mr Biko, Mr Jones. You say that you heard them talking about it, not so?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Then you go further and you say that you went away, I think you went to Durban to the BPC regional congress, came back, you found two huge stacks of pamphlets. Each plus minus two feet high, took a quick glimpse at the one, I don't know this must be the typing up that Titi was speaking about, called on the people to commemorate the deaths of all the martyrs, 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 and fully understood to do a quick printing press, etc, etc.

So you've already gone quite far here to implicate Mr Biko?

MR JONES: He is not implicated in that story at all, except for the hearsay discussion between him and Titi that I heard them talking of a commemoration pamphlet. The whole issue of seeing all these things in the office, I created the story in a way that I thought that may satisfy them. There is no other third party involved, these are my offices.

I was responsible for these offices. Steve didn't work in these offices at all. It is a story that I created.

ADV BOOYENS: But during the earlier on interrogation, they were gunning for Mr Biko, not so?

MR JONES: When and how?

ADV BOOYENS: Even during this initial period, they were gunning for Mr Biko in connection with this pamphlet, not so?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And even Niewoudt and his crowd, they were suggesting to you and shouting at you that Biko was involved in the drafting of the pamphlet and so on, is that correct?

MR JONES: Well, they were saying that they knew everything and it was up to me to out of my own of course, concede or agree that these things happened.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, knew everything Mr Jones, in what sense - did they tell you what they knew?

MR JONES: Well, it came out in little bits and pieces.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, what did they tell you what did they know?

MR JONES: Well, things that they knew that Mandizi Titi was in King William's Town a few days before we departed for Cape Town. Which was true.

ADV BOOYENS: Which was true?

MR JONES: Which was true. But Mandizi didn't come for little talks of a pamphlet, he had come there for other business. But he was in King William's Town to come and see us and discuss matters with Steve Biko. That they were aware that the pamphlet was distributed in Port Elizabeth, that me and Steve had been seen and as time went on, they even suggested where we had been seen and at what school we had stopped and so on.

ADV BOOYENS: That is now Niewoudt and his crew beforehand, is that correct?

MR JONES: Well, not only Niewoudt, it was also Marx, it was also Siebert, it was also Snyman.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, no Mr Jones, I don't want us to be at cross-purposes, I am talking about before you wrote Exhibit H.

MR JONES: I am speaking of before I wrote, that is what I am talking about.

ADV BOOYENS: Is that what you are talking about as well?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you.

MR JONES: All of them.

ADV BOOYENS: Right. So, before then they were confronting you with a situation that they knew that you and Mr Biko had been delivering pamphlets in PE?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And they were making allegations that they knew you he was involved in the pamphlet? In the drafting of the pamphlet really and that type of thing, is that correct? That is now what the Police alleged? That is now Niewoudt and company?

MR JONES: Well, they didn't suggest exactly what Steve did, except that he was involved in some way. I created the story.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, and also that you were involved in the delivering of the pamphlets in PE?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you put this in here when you wrote this false story?

MR JONES: No, I didn't write about the delivery.

ADV BOOYENS: Why not, that is what they wanted?

MR JONES: Well, that is where I stopped for the first time.

ADV BOOYENS: No, but the question is I know that is where you stopped, but what I want to know is why not? Because that is what they wanted, they wanted to connect you and Mr Biko with the pamphlet and they were suggesting that you two were seen at a school in PE, that is obviously what they wanted, that is why they were beating you up?

MR JONES: Yes, but it was in truth and in fact and non-existent action and occasion at all, completely.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, Mr Jones, this is also a lie. Now a small lie or a big lie, what is the difference?

MR JONES: Because it was Police fighting against us, that is why I was prepared to lie against them.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I heard what you said when you said this whole story was a lie, all I am getting at here what you have written at page 7 of Exhibit H, page 7, page 8 and page - well I think page 9 not so, that is as far as you go with the pamphlets. That is a lot of nonsense you tell me. I mean there was never such an event?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: But you knew that the Police, this non-event they wanted you to talk about, included you and Mr Steve Biko at a school in Port Elizabeth delivering the pamphlets? Right?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And at that stage, understandably Mr Jones, you were already you were threatened, you had been badly assaulted, you had been badly treated, otherwise you would never have written this, not so?

MR JONES: Can I also tell you we were also not inexperienced in our inter-action with Security Police. We had an understood strategy that we would in interrogation, especially in the way that we operated in those days, within the legal framework, we would assume that they knew certain things and we would normally agree with what we thought they knew and concede to that extent.

Even to the extent of making a statement about what they already knew.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, no, but that strategy didn't come into it with the pamphlet, because the Police were talking nonsense about this pamphlet. You and Steve were not involved, they were talking nonsense when they said they saw you in PE because you and Steve were not involved. You were never in PE.

They were talking nonsense when they suggested to you that Patrick Titi and Steve were involved in in, not so?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: I mean this is pure fiction we are talking about?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Now all right, now you know one of the fictions they wanted was you and Steve Biko in PE, the reason why you wrote this against Mr Biko is obviously because you had been assaulted by the Police? Not so?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that so?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, Mr Jones, why then not put in the one thing that they really wanted? The one thing that you could escape the assaults by saying to them yes, Biko and I did deliver the pamphlets in PE.

MR JONES: I was not aware exactly to what extent they were willing to go to extract concessions out of me, because in my mind I always had to cater for the possibility of a legal trial that we might have been charged, and in the trial I would have been faced with a statement which I then had to deny.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, you know as well as I do that what you had written here, could never have been used in court against you. The confession, it wasn't made to a Magistrate.

MR JONES: That is true, I didn't know what they were going to do with this eventually.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, well they couldn't use it against you in a trial, you knew that.

MR JONES: I am speaking at the time when I made it, I didn't know what they were going to do with it.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, exactly. But the reason why you made it is because you had been assaulted by the Police? And the one thing the Police wanted was you and Steve Biko delivering these pamphlets?

MR JONES: That was my first concession to them.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, why not make the one that they want and stop the assaults?

MR JONES: I wasn't willing to do that.

ADV BOOYENS: Right. Why not?

MR JONES: I thought that I could drag it out further.

ADV BOOYENS: Why? Surely you couldn't have enjoyed being assaulted?

MR JONES: Well, I wasn't aware of the strategy of what was happening, because they were not concentrating on the real purpose of my and Steve Biko's trip to Cape Town, which if they had focused on it properly and were able to extract that information, would have been of far greater importance than a pamphlet.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but irrespective of what you thought, you knew what they had in their minds. Their minds were focused on a pamphlet and on a piece of fiction, which they wanted you to write. Right?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: But you didn't write the desired piece of fiction?

MR JONES: That was my reaction.

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Mr Booyens, if I can come in for a moment here. Perhaps I have a different understanding what the witness has said. I think what he is trying to say here is that because of the pressure and the torture to which he was subjected, he decided to make this statement that he had heard Mr Biko and Mr Titi talking about some commemoration events, but he did not want to go too far in this admission.

He was entertaining a hope, that is the way I understand it, he will correct me, he was entertaining a hope that the Police will perhaps be satisfied with that and stop torturing him. Am I correct to understand you that way Mr Jones?

MR JONES: Thank you sir.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you agree with that answer?

MR JONES: Yes, thank you.

ADV BOOYENS: I am indebted to you Mr Commissioner. So you thought this would go far enough?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: The one on the 25th?

MR JONES: I was hoping that.

ADV BOOYENS: That would be enough fiction for them? Very well, let's go to Exhibit O please. Exhibit O in essence seem to be, am I right, a history of and I am trying to paraphrase it Mr Jones, correct me where I am wrong, a history of the organisation the Black Peoples' Convention and their activities, it dealt basically with that, not so?

CHAIRPERSON: Problems of that organisation more than the history of it, is that?

MR JONES: In the Western Cape?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JONES: In the Western Cape.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, it is the history of the BPC?

MR JONES: No, it is about the Western Cape, BPC in the Western Cape.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, yes, I heard you say that Mr Jones. So this is really probably information that it is a history and it tells of your travels, it tells of the dissatisfaction in some minds that Mr Biko was living too close to the Americans and that story, is that correct?

MR JONES: No, can I please explain?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR JONES: That statement creates my version of the reason why Steve Biko as a banned person in King William's Town, that as a very senior person as BPC accompanying me to Cape Town. And the reason that I then gave which was in response to the first reason I gave, was that it was a political purpose. He was to go and mend a rift in Cape Town.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but it is a bit of political history to a large extent, it is political history and political activity, this one, Exhibit O?

CHAIRPERSON: It is about problems that resulted in an envoy to Cape Town.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: What is written in here, is this true?

MR JONES: It is reasonably true.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, is any reasonably true in this sense, are there perhaps things that you didn't mention, but what is written is true?

MR JONES: Well, I haven't examined the entire statement, if you will give me an opportunity, I will do that.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time that you wrote it, did you think you were writing what was true?

MR JONES: The activities and the problems we had in the Western Cape, yes that was true.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR JONES: But further in the statement, where I speak of the reasons why we went down, that was not true. We did not go down to look at these problems, as a major reason, it was not the real purpose of the trip.

ADV BOOYENS: What was the real purpose of the trip?

MR JONES: The real purpose of the trip was to attend a meeting that had been set up covertly over a period of three months by myself, to speak to leading people in the country on the issue of unification of all the liberation organisations.

ADV BOOYENS: If the Commission would just bear with me. Who did you go and speak to, who were the people that you went to speak to in Cape Town?

MR JONES: One of the principals that we were going to see, was a Doctor Neville Alexander who was a leading connection, or the person that we spoke to in order to speak to a group of people in an organisation called the Unity Movement, and we were also received by someone called Fikhile Bam who is now Justice, who was part of the reception in Cape Town.

ADV BOOYENS: Dr Alexander, I understand, had been on Robben Island by then, is that correct?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Not so, subsequent to that?

MR JONES: He was already released from Robben Island.

ADV BOOYENS: No, that is what I suggested to you. By the time you spoke to him, he had been released?

MR JONES: Oh, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And just as a matter of interest, it was alleged if my information is correct, at the time of his trial, that he in fact received military training, is that correct? That is one of the reasons he was outside of the country?

MR JONES: I am not aware, I am not aware of what he did.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. And was he one of the people that, was he one of your BPC contacts, or wasn't he involved in the BPC?

MR JONES: Steve Biko as a person and as a leader was leading an initiative that sought to bring the internal leadership of all the liberation movements in this country together. In that context we had a number of people around the country, that were interfacing for their organisations, for example in Durban we had Griffiths Mxenge, the late Griffiths Mxenge acting for ANC, Robert Subuke for the PAC and people like Neville Alexander for the Unity Movement.

ADV BOOYENS: The purpose on the 26th of August, did you then write a further document?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And I am only dealing now with that pamphlet, what did you in essence, I know it is a long time ago Mr Jones, but in essence, what did you say in the document of the 26th?

MR JONES: In essence I went a little bit further than the story on the 25th.

ADV BOOYENS: In Exhibit H?

MR JONES: Yes, that we then also took responsibility for having transported the pamphlets from King William's Town to Port Elizabeth.

ADV BOOYENS: To transport and deliver I take it?

MR JONES: Transport and delivering.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, is that all that you in essence added?

MR JONES: In essence that is what I conceded.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. So you didn't involve the late Mr Biko any further in any authorship or anything of that nature, is that correct?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: But isn't that really what they wanted?

MR JONES: No, I don't think so, they merely wanted us to incriminate ourselves, connect us to the pamphlet.

ADV BOOYENS: So they were not at all suggesting that you people were the authors of the pamphlet?

MR JONES: I can't remember whether they suggested that. I never agreed to that, that we actually wrote the pamphlet.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, let me just make sure I understand your answer Mr Jones. Did you - were you - was cohesion exerted upon you to say that you and or Mr Biko were the authors of the pamphlet? In other words did the Police want you to say that, but you wouldn't?

MR JONES: No, I can't remember that, but I don't think that they suggested as simply as that that we had to say that we wrote it.

ADV BOOYENS: But what did they want to do with your involvement with the pamphlet?

MR JONES: I don't know, I didn't know what they wanted to do with these statements.

CHAIRPERSON: What did they say that you should say in your statement?

MR JONES: I think I've covered that, that they wanted us to simply take responsibility of knowledge of the pamphlet, that we had assisted somehow, either in the production of the pamphlet, in the copying and so on and that we in fact was party to the transportation and delivery of the pamphlet.

CHAIRPERSON: The distribution?

MR JONES: That I never agreed to.

ADV BOOYENS: Why not?

MR JONES: I would have had difficulty creating a substantial story about distribution, because I was not familiar in great length to the whole situation in Port Elizabeth, the knowledge of the people, the places and so on. And I was not going to even entertain that.

ADV BOOYENS: But Mr Jones, the creation of this story was basically at Police suggestion, they are the ones that said to you this pamphlet, they showed you the pamphlet. In other words why not say to them well, if you guys are accusing me, where do you say I delivered these pamphlets?

I mean we know it is a piece of fiction created by the Police in reality.

MR JONES: I did not, I merely of course mentioned rough places like a school in New Brighton.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, you know, something that bothers me when you wrote Exhibit O by then did you write Exhibit O after this terrible assault on you?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Was that at the SB offices here in Sanlam Building still?

MR JONES: In Sanlam Building, on the sixth floor.

ADV BOOYENS: On the sixth floor, how long did it take to write this?

MR JONES: A few hours.

ADV BOOYENS: A few hours? It is about, I think it is about ten pages, not so?

MR JONES: It is.

ADV BOOYENS: I can't remember how long would it take you to write ten pages about, an hour or maybe two, not so?

MR JONES: Yes, a few hours.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. Probably not more than two hours?

MR JONES: Well, it depends if you had to take time off to think and reconstruct things and so on.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. But remember there was this very lengthy and serious assault that morning perpetrated upon you before you started writing.

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, how long did that last?

MR JONES: I would say that that lasted just beyond midday.

ADV BOOYENS: Beyond midday? So you started writing this document after midday, after lunch time approximately?

MR JONES: Yes, after midday.

ADV BOOYENS: And you wrote this out, you felt that you have now written what they wanted and you gave it to Siebert obviously?

MR JONES: Yes, he took it.

ADV BOOYENS: And did he read it there and then while he was still there?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And did he appear to be satisfied with it?

MR JONES: No, he was not happy at all.

ADV BOOYENS: So, then the assault started again?

MR JONES: No, he started talking to me again, but I was no longer responding.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. You were not afraid that they might assault you again?

MR JONES: I was not responding, I was at a position where I was not going to respond any more. I was in quite a state, I was in pain, I was trembling and I wasn't interested in responding.

ADV BOOYENS: So, do I understand you correctly Mr Jones, that what you are really trying to convey to me is that your physical condition, was such at this stage, that you couldn't really respond any further as a result of the assault?

MR JONES: No, I could speak if I wanted to. I even walked although I didn't walk properly. I stumbled a lot because my legs were lame, but I could talk, I could write, I could do those things.

ADV BOOYENS: Because you see for a man that had been subjected to such a serious assault as you have, you've got remarkable steady handwriting in Exhibit O.

MR JONES: Thank you.

ADV BOOYENS: I would suggest to you this certainly doesn't convey and I am not saying that I am an expert, but this doesn't look to me like a man that had been nearly as badly assaulted as you. I can hardly see any difference between your handwriting in Exhibit O and your handwriting in Exhibit H.

MR JONES: That is your opinion.

ADV BOOYENS: And I would have expected after that cruel exercising of forcing you to lift chairs above your head, being kicked, being hit with all sorts of things and so on, that I would have expected your handwriting to be far more shaky than it appears to be here.

MR JONES: I see.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you want to comment about that?

MR JONES: No, there was nothing wrong with my handwriting at all, there was nothing wrong with me being able to write something. I was in a seated position, I was at the table, I wrote the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: The pain that you had suffered, did not affect your handwriting?

MR JONES: I don't think so, there is the handwriting in front of you.

ADV BOOYENS: It didn't affect, so would you agree with me that if I make the general statement that looking at your handwriting, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with your handwriting here?

MR JONES: Not with the handwriting.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, I am not sure if my learned friend is questioning the fact that this statement was written on the 25th and I also want to make a remark that this statement was submitted by the Police at the inquest as Q1, Annexure Q1, so I am not very sure exactly where this line of questioning about his handwriting is leading to.

And therefore, without clarification back to us Mr Chairman, to have some clarification as to the direction in which we are moving with this line of questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand the suggestion that his handwriting indicates that he couldn't have been as badly beaten up as he claims he was.

ADV BOOYENS: That is indeed the case Mr Chairman.

MR JONES: That is the view of a lay person?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, as a lay person, but you also know your own handwriting and would you agree with me that there is no substantial difference between your pre-serious assault and post-serious assault handwriting on the 25th?

MR JONES: That is true.

ADV BOOYENS: The answer was that is true, sorry I had my reception set covered up. But that night, you were so sore as a result of this terrible assault, that you actually had to sleep on your hand palms and your forehead you told us and your knees?

MR JONES: Yes. The nature of the injuries were basically welts caused by blows.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. Now, you say you've told us what Mr Marx had done to you, you obviously told your counsel about that as well, that he kicked you?

MR JONES: It is in my statement.

ADV BOOYENS: And, now if the court will just bear with me Mr Chairman. This hose pipe that you claim Siebert hit you with, which he of course denied, I understand it wasn't a normal hosepipe, it was a weight filled hosepipe. Is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes, I think that is a correct description, it was weight filled, there was something about it that made it heavy, I assumed that there was something in the hole, in the opening.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, you actually said in your statement that you noticed that there was something there.

MR JONES: Something filled it, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, it seemed to be filled. Now, did Siebert hit you with all his strength there?

MR JONES: No, I don't think it was with all his strength.

ADV BOOYENS: Not? And who actually used the hose pipe on you on the 25th?

MR JONES: On the 25th it was Niewoudt, that started hitting me with the green hose pipe, he was on my left and walking, moving around the back and within a very short while, there was general pandemonium and someone shouted give him both, green power and black power.

And a black hose pipe was removed from the top drawer of the filing cabinet in the room. Similar in length and I was assaulted by Beneke who was now on my right towards the back, so they were standing like this. Siebert was standing in front.

ADV BOOYENS: You say someone shouted black power and green power?

MR JONES: And green power, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Why did you say in your statement it was Marx whereas he was the silly old man that made incipit little jokes?

MR JONES: Yes, I recall that it was him.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, just now you said someone, now it is Marx, take your pick?

MR JONES: Well, it was Marx.

ADV BOOYENS: Why didn't you say so earlier on?

MR JONES: No apparent reason.

ADV BOOYENS: No, there is no apparent reason. Why call Marx someone?

MR JONES: If I am prodded for detail, I would want to have an opportunity of referring to my notes. You are referring to a statement of mine which is very extensive. And I will confirm any of the details.

ADV BOOYENS: You mean you will read the statement to us? So, you see I have asked you what Marx did to you. You said he kicked you once. He shoved you, kicked you once and told you to stay in line, which is not an assault. But once again in your statement, Marx seems to play a far more serious role at page 388? Kick you several times, he and Snyman, Snyman and Marx delivered kicks to my shins whenever I moved out of the way, this continued for a very long time.

So what is the position with Marx?

MR JONES: I can't quantify the blows.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, why did you do so earlier on?

MR JONES: Well I said what I remembered about him was the kick, was the shouting and the pushing.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, what you said earlier on when I specifically asked you is that you remembered one kick from Marx?

MR JONES: I don't think I said one.

ADV BOOYENS: You said kick Mr Jones, your English is very good.

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Kick to me is one. Kicks are more than one.

MR JONES: I see.

ADV BOOYENS: So you told us about one kick from Marx, now it seems that there are more kicks from Marx.

MR JONES: It was a general assault, there were five people. His role in particular was a minor role, he was standing on my right, in front of me was Siebert. At the back were the two people with the pipes and on my left was a further Officer and together they assaulted me in various ways and we were moving all over the room.

ADV BOOYENS: So, okay tell me again what Marx did to you.

MR JONES: Marx was responsible to of course basically keep me aligned in a position where I could be assaulted by the people who really assaulted me.

ADV BOOYENS: Sorry, he was kicking you, I just didn't hear what you were saying. Keeping you in line, how did he keep you in line?

MR JONES: Keep me in line.

ADV BOOYENS: How did he do that?

MR JONES: Warning, shouting, there was a lot of shouting happening, stand up, come this way and there were kicks between him and Snyman, they were standing on the same side.

ADV BOOYENS: So both of them were kicking you several times?

MR JONES: Yes. Who kicked how many times, I will be unable to tell you.

ADV BOOYENS: No, but Marx kicked you several times at least? Is that correct?

MR JONES: I would not be able to quantify it.

ADV BOOYENS: Several means more than once?

MR JONES: I would not be able to quantify any detailed blows.

CHAIRPERSON: It is not a question of quantifying, he is not asking you how many blows, was it more than one blow, that is what he is asking you?

MR JONES: I would think so.

CHAIRPERSON: That is all.

ADV BOOYENS: You see if you look at, you've now told me that you wrote the statement, Exhibit Q after this assault, is this correct? The next statement, when did you write that, the addendum to, let's call it that, the addendum to Exhibit H?

MR JONES: During the morning of the 26th of August.

ADV BOOYENS: So, but that must have been a brief statement, not so because you just implicated you and Steve in the delivery of the pamphlets?

MR JONES: No, no, it was more extensive, I don't exactly know what it all dealt with. There could have been other matters that they wanted me to also speak about.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: We are talking about a statement which we haven't seen, is that it?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, that is the mystery statement I think we should call it Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The missing, the missing rather than the mystery.

ADV BOOYENS: Or missing, Mr Chairman, yes. You see, because if I read at page 389, from the second paragraph, I get the impression that what you are saying in this statement of yours, is that in fact Exhibit H was written after this severe assault was perpetrated upon you and not in the early hours of the morning.

And I started writing a statement implicating myself, Patrick Titi and Steve Biko in the drawing of a pamphlet to commemorate 1976 unrest in the Port Elizabeth townships. If you read further back, it becomes apparent that this was, that statement that you are referring to is clearly not Exhibit O. If anything, it is Exhibit H, because they were not satisfied with it.

MR JONES: Excuse me what is the question?

ADV BOOYENS: The question is ...

CHAIRPERSON: We are talking about the missing statement, was that missing statement written after your Exhibit O or after you wrote Exhibit H?

MR JONES: It was after both these statements.

ADV BOOYENS: No, what I am actually referring to I think His Lordship perhaps misunderstood me, Mr Jones, I apologise My Lord, if I look at page 389.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 389 of what?

ADV BOOYENS: Page 389 of the witness' statement that my learned friend handed in Mr Chairman, it is Exhibit P.

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit P, the printed document?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sorry, I didn't know you were referring to it.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, sorry. You see, Mr Jones, let us just look at the history you tell here. You say at page 385 at the bottom, they left with me with two junior ranked policemen. I wrote two statements as requested by them. One my political history about three pages, and one of five or six pages of the trip Biko and I had made. Both statements were dated the 25th of August 1977.

So that is during the night before the assaults of the next morning started? 385 to 386 Mr Jones?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Then the next morning you start with the story about how you were forced to stand on the bricks and so on. You tell us that Marx is the one, at 387, that told you that you and Steve had visited the school. Then you start describing this very serious assault perpetrated by Siebert at page 388, Marx shouting that they must hit you with both hose pipes and then at the end of this assault, early do you write the statement and it seems to me that is Exhibit H because what you summarise here, is exactly what is in Exhibit H about the pamphlet?

CHAIRPERSON: Where on page 388?

ADV BOOYENS: Actually page 389, the second. You have to read it in context, just behind Siebert was a mirror hanging, at page 388, do you see that?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Right, here you describe, it is not necessary to read it, you describe this very serious assault upon you. Then you go to 389, the second paragraph, during all this time I wasn't given nourishment and then you start writing your statement implicating yourself, Patrick Titi and Steve in the drawing up of a pamphlet to commemorate 1977.

Siebert and his men became very angry when they read the statement as I only went so far as to claim knowledge but no active role in the pamphlet. I was told I was not being cooperative at all and much more was expected from me. At this stage, I was incapable of any kind of response, other than cold stares. My head was (indistinct), etc and then Siebert appeared and said you were going to be taken back to the cell. Do you see that?

MR JONES: Yes, I see that.

ADV BOOYENS: And then we go to page 390 and at page 390, you tell of yet another assault after you spent that night in the cell by Siebert which you haven't told us about. You said Siebert assaulted you once with a hosepipe? How do you explain that Mr Jones?

MR JONES: Yes, that happened.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, I gave you the opportunity Mr Jones, to tell us what happened, and you didn't tell us about that. You said Siebert assaulted you once with a hose pipe and that was on the night of the 24th?

MR JONES: It did happen, I didn't refer to my notes, but it did happen. It was not a major assault and it certainly does not stand out in my mind as anything major.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, Siebert had by now grabbed green power hose pipe and applied it viciously to my abdomen and buttocks and twice kicked me with his knee in my genitals. My hands were still handcuffed at the back and I was standing naked.

In my book, a rather major assault?

MR JONES: It is not, it was not even comparable to the day before.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, in fact you said after the 25th no major assaults took place, is that right?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You said that in your evidence in chief. I suggest to you that what you described here is what most other people would describe as a major assault in fact you suggest that Siebert shouted that you will be killed at the top of page 391?

MR JONES: No major assault on the same scale as the 25th, occurred after the 25th.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, in fact you went further. You said all that Siebert done to you after that, was he hit you with an open hand after the 25th? Do you want to retract that?

MR JONES: No, I don't want to. The information in my statement is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am talking about your evidence Mr Jones, that is what we are interested in.

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: And your evidence under cross-examination. Do you want to retract that earlier statement of yours, that after the 25th the only thing Siebert did to you was to smack you a few times?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You want to retract that?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: So you were wrong about that?

MR JONES: Because there was the incident of the next morning, it did not stand out in my mind and because it was not a major assault.

ADV BOOYENS: You see, if one goes to page 391 at the bottom of 391, and now we are dealing with the 26th it must be, because it is after you spent the night in the cell. Yes, you were taken on 389 at six o'clock on the 25th of August, you describe an assault here and I am just going to suggest to you without going into detail, at page 390 to page 392 first paragraph, you in fact once again bring in Marx and Hattingh this time, with kicks to the shins and blows to the face and abdomen. Your body flashed afire with pain and you were beaten by both hose pipes and so you say you didn't regard that as a major assault?

MR JONES: It was not major and it was not prolonged.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, and in fact you say here, it was only after the second assault on the 26th, after you were assaulted again, that you agreed to elaborate on what must be Exhibit H?

MR JONES: No, that was a different statement, that statement is not before us.

ADV BOOYENS: I know. I know that, that is the missing statement we are talking about. But that you only agreed, they got hold of Exhibit H, they assaulted you again the next morning wanting you to elaborate and then you elaborated on the morning of the 26th, after the second assault? That is not what your evidence in chief was or under cross-examination this far, is that correct?

MR JONES: No, can you remind me.

ADV BOOYENS: Pardon?

MR JONES: Can you please remind me what you are talking about?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, if I read your statement from page 390 onwards, to page - the top of page 392, it is rather apparent that the missing statement on this was made only after that second assault which may not have been as serious as the previous day, but because of the state you were in, it completely broke down your resistance as I understand you correctly.

But that is not what you said earlier on under cross-examination.

MR JONES: No, that is completely in line with what I said. The second statement did happen on the 26th, or the missing statement.

ADV BOOYENS: The missing statement.

MR JONES: On the 26th.

ADV BOOYENS: The missing statement, let's call it that to keep them apart. Now, by then your resistance had been completely broken down, is that correct?

MR JONES: No, not completely broken down.

ADV BOOYENS: Not?

MR JONES: I was conscious, I was thinking.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, you were visited by a Magistrate on the 2nd of September is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: There must have still been clear evidence of the assault perpetrated upon you?

MR JONES: Yes, there was.

ADV BOOYENS: He didn't take a note of that?

MR JONES: No, he didn't.

ADV BOOYENS: Would you have expected him bearing in mind he is lay person, not a Doctor, to have seen it?

MR JONES: I would have expected him, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you tell him that you were assaulted?

MR JONES: I was very bitter about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Were your injuries visible, despite the fact that you were clothed?

MR JONES: I was not clothed in my cell, I was naked in my cell.

CHAIRPERSON: You were naked when he saw you?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: So he must have seen the injuries?

MR JONES: He must have seen the injuries. Our understanding then, you must remember that we have had a lot of experience of Security Police and conditions, of Security Laws, that the Magistrates were supposed to come and observe your condition were not fulfilling that function at all.

ADV BOOYENS: So your answer why you didn't complain is basically, your answer to the question why you didn't complain...

MR JONES: That he was part of the system and the conspiracy.

ADV BOOYENS: Of the system.

MR JONES: It wouldn't help.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, Mr Jones, I suggest to you that this vicious assaults that you have described never happened, except the fact that you were in fact assaulted by Niewoudt. But none of the present applicants assaulted you. Comment?

MR JONES: I see.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I think I don't want to mislead you, you must agree or disagree, I think.

MR JONES: Well, you are talking nonsense.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well.

MR JONES: You are absolute nonsense.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, that is a very firm disagree. I suggest to you further that if in fact the statements had been cohersed out of you, containing a lot of absolute fiction, if the cohesion was then really as bad as you say, then the fiction would have gone as far as the Police wanted you to go and not only part of the way.

MR JONES: I disagree, there was a level beyond which any senior person in the organisation, or other organisation, would never have gone, and that level or that limit would have been to betray a comrade or a colleague. That was always in the front of our mind all the time.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you understand the (indistinct) of the question. It is being suggested to you that what you said to them as a result of the cohesion, was not true, it was fiction.

MR JONES: That is right.

CHAIRPERSON: Now then, if it was fiction, whatever you said, how would that affect your friends and your comrades, they wouldn't be affected because it it all fiction?

MR JONES: This country has got a long, long history and records of many, many people having gone to jail on the basis of fiction, on the basis of manufactured statements and admissions on non-existent activities.

CHAIRPERSON: Please allow these proceedings to carry on. You can clap outside when the meeting is finished.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, but I still fail to understand what producing fiction, because in the end, you did produce the fiction that they wanted you to produce, not so? Because you did eventually according to yourself, said that you and Mr Biko had distributed the pamphlet, not so?

MR JONES: Yes, I did. I went to that extent, I went to the extent that I have explained.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, exactly, so you did go to the extent despite of the speech that you have made just now, you went to the extent of betraying a comrade, even if it was with fiction.

MR JONES: I did not betray him, I had considered it and it was a considered response.

ADV BOOYENS: A considered response to say that you and Mr Biko had been distributing a highly inflammatory pamphlet which incited people to commit murder, that is as far as your considered non-betrayal went is that right?

MR JONES: Thank you, can I tell you that Steve Biko and his generation of leadership which included me and many other people, did not have to resort to silly pamphlets to mobilise this country. They were very, very good in mobilising and organising black people.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, and you can answer my question. And you can answer my question Mr Jones, don't try to avoid.

MR JONES: We did not do the pamphlet, that is nonsense.

ADV BOOYENS: I know you did not do the pamphlet, I know you say it but I am saying to you that you in your missing statement, in fact went so far to betray Steve Biko in the sense that you did manufacture that very risk that you were guarding against, that could send him to jail. You did manufacture it because you made that statement, that false statement, that fiction, that you told us just now when you made your speech you were guarding against, not so?

MR JONES: That is your opinion.

ADV BOOYENS: No, Mr Jones, it is your evidence, not my opinion.

MR JONES: May I please explain. I had made various concessions on the basis of my experience of the Police and the violence to the extent and the bottom line was and has always been that at the earliest opportunity when I could, I would refute all of those statements.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, obviously you would.

MR JONES: And I did attempt to do that, I actually did that.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, no, I hear what you say Mr Jones, but then if you were going to dispute all those statements in any case, then why not tell the cops exactly what they wanted to hear the very first time, and then retract the statement and say I dispute that, it was forced, it was a fiction that the Police told me. Why did they have to beat it out of you if you were going to retract it in any case, because that is what I would have thought your reaction would have been in any case?

MR JONES: I would not have made a statement exactly as they dictated. I was responding and I thought that I could negotiate with them, that I was responding generally in terms of what they wanted, because they could not have constructed a story about what me and Steve and Titi would typically have done. I would have had to construct it. They merely focused on the outcome.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well Mr Jones.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I would just like to we were only in possession of this piece of the book as far as Mr Jones' evidence is concerned. There are a few other things that he has now mentioned. I see it is ten to, I don't think I will be long with my cross-examination, but may I ask an indulgence that I may just take instructions from my two clients here and I may also consider whether it is necessary to phone Mr Snyman because I've got to take instructions from him.

I know it is an indulgence that I am asking, but it is only a ten minute one My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, the Committee will now adjourn and resume at 9h30 tomorrow morning.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION ON 10-12-1997 - DAY 3

PETER CYRIL JONES: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Booyens.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: (cont) Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Jones, you have told us about three statements that you have made, that is Exhibit H, O and the missing statement as we have been referring to them.

Did you make any other written statement or did you write any other documents or information, anything of that nature?

MR JONES: Several statements.

ADV BOOYENS: About what? I think just give us a brief summary, we don't need great detail.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just enquire, are these for the purpose - statements for the Police?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, certainly Mr Chairman. That was the intention Mr Jones.

MR JONES: After the 26th, there was at least one more statement that I recall which was a formal statement which was signed. I do not recall the date.

ADV BOOYENS: Sorry to interrupt you Mr Jones. Was that a typed written statement that you signed, that is the one that figured later on in the inquest, is that right?

MR JONES: No, I do not recall signing a typed statement.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. If you say a formal statement?

MR JONES: A statement in the sense that I had to sign it.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. Just give me a synopses, what was that about?

MR JONES: I can't give you a synopses. Even with the statements before this Commission, it is the first time in 20 years that I now see it again and then when my interrogation continued with the different team, there were more statements.

ADV BOOYENS: Can you remember the nature of those statements? Very basically, I don't want detail. It is 20 years ago.

MR JONES: Well, I can't give you the detail. What happened was after the end of September the team that interrogated me, changed as I mentioned. Lieutenant Hattingh took over and his official excuse was that it has become clear to them that I was unable or unwilling to cooperate with Siebert and his group. They conceded it was probably because of the use of force in my interrogation and they, Hattingh wanted to assure me that they will not be using force. It was not their strategy and that they would deal with me decently and we would be talking.

In the context of that talking, here and there going through my statements that I had already made or the documents I had already made, I agreed to certain changes. Largely things that I was not really bothered about.

ADV BOOYENS: You also narrate in your statement before this Commission, that is the one that was handed in that comes from Mr Wood's book, you narrate an incident where on the 15th of September - in the statement that emanated from Mr Wood's book that had been handed in here at court, you narrate an incident round about the 15th of September, I think it is round about the 15th of September, I think it is at page 395, 396 where you wrote to Siebert and company telling them what you told them about the involvement with the pamphlets, basically that is the synopses was as a result of the assaults. Do you recall that?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, Mr Jones, what was the intention of that? I've got difficulty understanding why you would write something like that, I mean you could just as well have told Siebert that, why write it, that is what I don't understand?

MR JONES: Something very strange happened in the days before and particularly the night before. I was once again visited in my cell, very late at night by Siebert and some of the other officials, it was raining and there was something about them, that was very cold.

My clothes that was the jeans and the T-shirt or the jersey I wore was laying outside in the water and they just told me to of course wear it, put it on which I did. When we then came outside the police station in the parking area, there were three cars, three groups of Security Police which I recognised all of them very serious.

ADV BOOYENS: Sorry to interrupt you Mr Jones, can you mention some of the characters that were there if it is possible?

MR JONES: Siebert, Snyman. I do not recall the other names I think there is a Wilkins and some others. There was about six of them.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay.

MR JONES: I was immediately starting to tense up because this was very unusual. All my previous collections from the cell was of a routine nature, there was nothing funny about it. Here I was confronted by the senior officers of the Eastern Cape Security Police, all of them waiting for me to accompany me from Algoa to Sanlam.

When I got into the car, it became clear that each of the cars of course travelled with a different route to Sanlam and when we got to Sanlam, all the cars arrived there at about the same time. I was handcuffed at the back and we entered the building and entered the lift.

When we got to the sixth floor, there was an incident when I pulled the people and we stumbled out to the floor because I was convinced that something was going to happen at the sixth floor, at the stair well. Nothing did happen, except that I was pushed through the gate, there was a gate with a controlled lock that worked with a telephone dialling system, through the security gate to the back room where I normally was interrogated.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, I am sorry, I don't want to unnecessarily interrupt your narrative, but you are talking a bit in riddles to me and I am certain you know, this something that you expected to happen and the pulling down to the ground and so, can you just elaborate on that? What are you really talking about?

MR JONES: Well, over those days, the 12th, the 13th and the 14th, I had the feeling, I being alone in my cell and certain of course inter-actions between me and the Police, I had the vague feeling that something happened to one of my colleagues.

ADV BOOYENS: An intuition basically?

MR JONES: An intuition. And everything that happened after that, strengthened this. When we then entered this room where I normally was interrogated, I could see that they were at a loss. I was asked by Siebert a range of very curious questions. He asked me who talks to me at the cell or at the police station, who do I talk to.

He was asking me whether some of the uniform police people talk to me. He was basically asking me if I was able to get information about things and I told him no, I've got nobody that talks to me, I don't know what you are talking about. It went on in that vein and he then eventually asked or rather told me that if I played open cards with him, he will play open cards with me.

He was asking me why I was behaving in the way that I was behaving which was according to him similar to the time when they started interrogating me weeks before that. But because nothing substantially was confirmed or conveyed, I merely had the increasing suspicion that something drastically occurred.

CHAIRPERSON: To whom?

MR JONES: I don't know, I was thinking of a number of the people that I was aware that had been arrested as a result of my and Steve Biko's arrest. For example my staff in King William's Town which were women were arrested, there was a female called Asharambeli, there was a woman called Mrs Mohapi who was my secretary, these people were all arrested.

I thought it was very possible that one of these people were harmed or something very bad happened.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, thank you for that, but what I am still trying this incident at the stair well, where you I think you said if I recall correctly, I am not suggesting it is your, but you conveyed the impression that you pulled this lot down with you at some stage at the stair well?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: That is what I am really interested in.

MR JONES: That was an absolute panic reaction, it lasted for a moment.

ADV BOOYENS: Why?

MR JONES: I thought they were going to do something, I thought they were going to chuck me down the stair well.

ADV BOOYENS: What gave you that idea?

MR JONES: I didn't, I had up till that day not had the suspicion that they had any devious plan for my person. I never had the fear that they would kill me or do something like that, except for that day.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, okay.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that you had a strange feeling that on that day something serious might happen to you, they might try to stage an event?

MR JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: To terminate your life?

MR JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the kind of feeling that went through you?

MR JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And is that what you are trying to explain here?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Nothing physically was actually done?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: It was just a feeling in other words?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I see. Now Mr Jones, very well then, there was this question, this session of silly question, let's call it that just for the sake of briefety and then you were returned to the police station, is that correct?

MR JONES: No, I was then I don't think anything substantial happened further on that night. I was then handcuffed to the grill and from previous testimony at this Commission, it certainly appears to have been the same grill that Steve Biko was handcuffed and legcuffed to. I was handcuffed to this grill, this door and left there for the duration of the night until the next morning.

ADV BOOYENS: Handcuffed in a seated position or standing?

MR JONES: In a seated position.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. Very well, did anything of substance, I am trying to finish the evidence Mr Jones please.

MR JONES: Okay, can I finish it for you. The next morning they came in and spoke to me again, Siebert and company. And mentioned all sorts of things for example he did say and I don't know exactly when the night before or that morning, that he had returned from Pretoria, he gave the impression that he was in Pretoria for a huge Security Conference, he now knew what we were busy with. He now knew of linkages between us and me with things like arms and guns and all that sort of stuff. He conveyed to me and I would now have another opportunity to do a serious story.

I agreed with him. I was basically playing for time.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR JONES: I then told him that I am willing to do a statement, I know what he wants and give me the paper and the pen, which he then did he gave me a paper and a pen and they returned me to the cell at Algoa.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, that is where I have been trying to get. At the cell in Algoa am I right, I am telescoping, I have read your evidence, you actually didn't do the statement, what you wrote is you wrote to Siebert and Snyman stating that what you have told them about the pamphlets and so on was as a result of duress, you said it was untrue?

MR JONES: Can I just tell you what happened, I started writing a statement once again as I did in the past, trying to satisfy them half way if not fully. And as I wrote it, I came to a stage where I realised that I probably got to the end of the road of trying to fool and play with these people, it was not working, I was not feeling well about this at all.

I didn't think it was a game I could sustain and I then flipped a few pages and I then started writing a direct statement or a message to Siebert and Goosen to explain to them why I will not proceed and why I had in the past made these statements and why I no longer was prepared to work with them.

ADV BOOYENS: You said Goosen, was that deliberate or was that a mistake? You said Siebert and Goosen?

MR JONES: No, sorry that is a mistake, that is Snyman.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. So what you basically said to him, look I am sorry the past is fiction, and it was because you assaulted me that I said these things?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: But surely they must have known that that was fiction because they basically suggested that to you, not so?

MR JONES: I cannot tell you what went on in their brains. All I can tell you is what they wanted from me and what responses I made on the basis of discretion that I exercised.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, your statement goes further and state that the next day Siebert came back, read this, stared at you coldly I think is the description you give in your statement, but you were not assaulted by him or anybody else at that stage, is that correct?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, in light of the previous rather unpleasant treatment you suffered at the hands of these people as you allege, were you not afraid of doing this. Of in fact saying to them, I told you a pack of lies about these pamphlets, it is only because you assaulted me that I said it, it is lies? Were you not afraid that this may in fact precipitate another very serious assault on you as you have suffered at their hands in the past?

MR JONES: I did not know what was going to happen after that. All I can say to you that I took a rational, conscious decision and I was prepared to take the consequences.

ADV BOOYENS: And the consequences, basically there were none, is that correct?

MR JONES: Basically there were none.

ADV BOOYENS: I am talking about assaults and that type of thing.

MR JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Except that your detention continued?

MR JONES: My detention continued. Very soon after that, the team of interrogators changed from Siebert to Hattingh.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you at any stage during any of the times give the Police information that they didn't have, in other words something that was new to them? I am talking about your impression?

MR JONES: Information of a crucial security nature, is that what you mean, because ...

ADV BOOYENS: Of your organisation in other words, yes. Of your activities, your political activities?

MR JONES: Well, I gave them, this took a lot of time, in our inter-action I gave them extensive information about what I was doing, because I assumed that it was in the domain of the public and I didn't have a problem speaking about it. If I can give an illustration, things like of course international liaison, money that we got internationally, what mechanisms we put on. Although we did not advertise this freely, it was not something that we would hide if we were questioned on it.

So that sort of information I did not have a problem with, but the real serious life threatening information, no.

ADV BOOYENS: So there was in fact serious life threatening information which you withheld from them?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, it is 20 years down the line Mr Jones, what was that serious life threatening information?

MR JONES: It was the political campaign that was led by Steve Biko and a few of us that had to do with the unification of the broad liberation movement into a cohesive force in this country.

ADV BOOYENS: But why did you regard that as serious and life threatening? I understood you to say that your perception was that your activities were legal?

MR JONES: In the context of the security environment, the security environment consisted of laws. Laws under which you could be charged for things that you did or things that you appeared to have done. You could also be charged in the security laws for doing nothing, for example for having books on you.

You could be charged and you could go to jail. There was a whole range and plethora of security legislation that could put people behind bars for extended periods, for many, many years for activities which to a lot of ordinary people, to a lot of people, were not of course crimes at all.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. Well, let's put it correctly, at that stage it was perceived to be crimes, it is a debate, but there were laws prohibiting it. They were unpopular as it may be, but there were laws which could get you into trouble, that is really what you are trying to say?

MR JONES: That is right. We also knew that the security apparatus was capable of removing people from society, that is killing people. Killing people either in the context of formal detention or killing people by way of detention.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, so be that as it may, there were your answer really is the following. We were busy with certain activities that if the Security Branch found out about it, they could have prosecuted us under one or more of the then existing security legislations?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Is that correct?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And so it will be correct to say that in the minds of the Security Police at least, you and Mr Biko were busy with activities which were against the law, which posed a political threat to the regime at the time, is that correct?

MR JONES: No, it is not correct. They did not know of the real nature of the trip, at no stage in my interrogation at all, and that is in excess of five months, five and a half months, did they question me on the real nature of the trip. They never found out, so they couldn't have known that we constituted some kind of threat or that we could have been charged.

ADV BOOYENS: The real nature of the Cape Town trip?

MR JONES: The real nature of the trip, there was only one trip and there was only one intent.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but are we talking about the Cape Town trip?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, now but all I am getting at it is more simple than that. The way in which they questioned you and the information they wanted from you, was it apparent to you that they were of the view that you and Mr Biko were in the process of contravening or conspiring to contravene some security legislation?

MR JONES: No, in my own mind I was clear that they knew that we had not committed an act and in particular we did not commit the act that they wanted me to confirm, and that was the pamphlet act and that they were in the process of really fabricating a case or an act which they knew did not exist.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but obviously for some or other dark purpose such as prosecuting you people, getting you into jail, removing you from, curtailing your political activities, something like that?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. So I am not, in other words what I am suggesting to you, in your mind they were busy cooking up a case to politically do harm to the BPC and the Black Power Movement at the time, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: You talked about your visit, did you tell them that you visited Neville Alexander?

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: How do I know it, that you did?

MR JONES: From what I recall, I never told them the real purpose of the trip?

CHAIRPERSON: The name was mentioned during his evidence yesterday.

ADV BOOYENS: Just a moment Mr Chairman, I just want to see something. Did you at any stage mention the fact that there were unification moves going on?

MR JONES: I cannot recall how I explained it, if it ever came up, but I would probably have wanted to couch it and as neutral as possible terms. I can certainly tell you that it was never, not raised substantially during the time that I was questioned around the 24th and the 25th and the 26th.

ADV BOOYENS: The question was specifically at any time Mr Jones, in other words during the period of your detention to any team?

CHAIRPERSON: In your statement which was handed in, you have a fairly lengthy account of the organisational problems that you faced in Cape Town. You mentioned names of people whom you had contacted, with whom you were hoping to organise a meeting and details of that are set out in your statement.

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, are you referring to the statement, the printed statement?

CHAIRPERSON: Exhibit O.

ADV BOOYENS: If the Commission would just bear with me. Very well, Mr Jones, did you ever mention a man called Malusi - I hope my pronunciation is correct.

MR JONES: Pumwana?

ADV BOOYENS: Is Pumwana Malusi?

MR JONES: Malusi Pumwana.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, did you ever mention him to the Police during the period?

MR JONES: I could have. I don't recall, I could have.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you mention Kenny Rachedi? Once again I hope it is a correct pronunciation. Did you mention that ...

CHAIRPERSON: Could I ask you Mr Booyens, what is the purpose of all this cross-examination?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, the witness said that he failed to mention ...

CHAIRPERSON: I thought yesterday I got the impression that you thought that this witness' evidence was not relevant?

ADV BOOYENS: No. My Lord, no.

CHAIRPERSON: The degree of detail to which you are now going in your cross-examination, makes me wonder and I am puzzled about the purpose of your cross-examination.

ADV BOOYENS: My Lord, if I can just explain. The witness have just said that he in fact never gave the Police certain life threatening information. I am just going on that very briefly.

Is it correct that Malusi and (indistinct), actually travelled around and were involved in efforts for the Unity Movement?

MR JONES: For the unity?

ADV BOOYENS: For this whole unification movement?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay. You see I've got notes to the effect that you in fact did tell the Police that and that was life threatening information we spoke about.

MR JONES: No, that is your opinion, it is not. In my mind, I did not tell them what the real nature of the trip was and Steve Biko's involvement.

ADV BOOYENS: If the Commission would just bear with me. Just one aspect, when you were at Kinkelbos, I don't know whether you knew he was from National Intelligence, but a man called Gogh came there and specifically questioned you about your involvement with Neville Alexander, do you remember that?

MR JONES: I don't know what the man's name was, someone flew from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth, is that the person you are referring to?

So I am told, and he was accompanied to Kinkelbos by Siebert and they spent the day questioning me.

ADV BOOYENS: The question is simply, did they talk about Neville Alexander?

MR JONES: I can't remember, I do know that the day turned out to be a big disappointment for them, because this man held himself up as the expert on me, on Peter Jones.

CHAIRPERSON: Just answer the question please.

MR JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: No?

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked whether he questioned you on Neville Alexander?

MR JONES: I can't remember.

ADV BOOYENS: I've got no further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, have you finished?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I have indicated that I have no further questions.

ADV ERASMUS: Mr Chairman, I have no questions to this witness. My client's version has already been put and I just want to place on record that the first time he saw Mr Jones, at the first Commission hearing during September 1998 and that he never assaulted Mr Jones or was present during any interrogation of Mr Jones. Thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV ERASMUS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mpshe, are there any questions you wish to put?

MS HOSKING: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Jones, you submitted a statement which is Exhibit P and you told the Committee the purpose for which this statement was made, is that correct?

MR JONES: Yes, are you referring to this statement?

ADV MTSHAULANA: The statement which was published with Mr Wood's book?

MR JONES: Oh, yes.

ADV MTSHAULANA: You said it was for purposes of legal opinion.

MR JONES: Yes, in 1979 soon after my release after 533 days in detention.

ADV MTSHAULANA: At the time, your memory was still fresh of the events that had taken place?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And if a civil claim would have started, you would have relied on this statement?

MR JONES: Yes, we were actually trying to do criminal prosecution for assault and torture against the people mentioned in the statement, as well as the Minister of Police then.

ADV MTSHAULANA: So you were careful in drawing up this statement?

MR JONES: That is right.

ADV MTSHAULANA: You told my learned friend in reply to a question that when you were round about the 14th of September, when you were in Sanlam, you had an intuition?

MR JONES: That is correct.

ADV MTSHAULANA: And that you also had a panic reaction?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Had anything happened in this days in Sanlam before that time?

MR JONES: Yes.

ADV MTSHAULANA: What had happened?

MR JONES: A person that I had know, an erstwhile colleague was killed there in almost exactly the same circumstances. He reportedly fell down the stair well and the stair well is just outside the lifts on the sixth floor of Sanlam. His name was George Botha.

ADV MTSHAULANA: You mentioned the names of Neville Alexander, Griffiths, Subuke. Were these people banned people at the time?

MR JONES: No. In the case of Robert Subuke he was restricted to Kimberley. In the case of Griffiths Mxenge, he was not restricted person, he was an Attorney. He did a lot of legal work for us as the Black Consciousness Movement, we were acquainted with him, we had other relationships with him and Neville Alexander, I think was banned still at that time.

ADV MTSHAULANA: No further questioning Mr Chairman, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV MTSHAULANA: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jones, thank you very much.

MR JONES: Thank you.

ADV MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, we don't intend calling any further witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you propose calling any witnesses?

MS HOSKING: No, we don't intend calling any witnesses Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems that we have come to the conclusion of the oral evidence in this matter. Yesterday certain views were expressed to me by counsel about their addresses to us.

I would like to know whether there have been any changes in their views since then.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I think practically speaking we could be ready to address the Commission, we could certainly be ready to address the Commission by tomorrow morning and the alternative is one which will take even longer. I would not venture to address now, I still have to work through the record.

The alternative will take even longer, and that is that we submit written argument. I would actually prefer in this matter to address tomorrow and perhaps during the course of the afternoon, even if I do very brief heads, just to do a few heads of argument as well, and subject to the attitude of my learned friends, I would suggest that we adjourn till sometime tomorrow morning, whatever is convenient to the Commission.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, I think we investigated the possibly or rather mentioned the possibility of starting earlier tomorrow in the hope of finishing the addresses, if we commence at nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

ADV BIZOS: That would be in order with us Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Will that be convenient Mr Erasmus?

ADV ERASMUS: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is in order. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, the Committee will now adjourn. The evidence is over. Counsel on both sides will be addressing us tomorrow morning and we will commence at nine o'clock. I adjourn.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS