CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, the next witness I intend calling will be Mr, the applicant, Mr Daniel Petrus Siebert. He will be testifying in Afrikaans.

MR POTGIETER: Mr Siebert, please provide your full names for the record.

MR SIEBERT: Daniel Petrus Siebert.

MR POTGIETER: Do you have any objection to taking the oath?

MR SIEBERT: No.

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: (Duly sworn, states).

MR POTGIETER: You may take your seat.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Mr Siebert, before we come or start with your amnesty application, I want to show you a sketch plan of Strand Street, 24, the sixth floor. Could you tell his Honour as what you identify this?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, this is a ground plan of the offices at the Sanlam Building.

MR BOOYENS: At what time?

MR SIEBERT: During the interrogation of the deceased.

MR BOOYENS: So, that would be during 1977?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Your Honour, with your permission, I want to ask permission to provide copies of this plan. This would be attached to Exhibit E. Could we mark this as Exhibit E?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, just hold it. We have Exhibit E, which was a drawing prepared by ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Oh, yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ... the objectors. Now, your document can go in, hand in as EXHIBIT F.

MR BOOYENS: Certainly, Mr Chairman. Your Honour, that would be Exhibit F. I am handing it to you with the necessary copies and also providing a copy to my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: In the top third of this plan there is an office marked by an "X". Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What office would this be?

MR SIEBERT: That is the office in which the interrogation took place.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, my learned friend thought that we had a copy. In fact, we sent it back. We have not got a copy of it.

MR BOOYENS: I thought somebody - if you were to look at the top of the sketch, there has been reference to a metal gate, in testimony we have heard this testimony.

MR SIEBERT: Yes, I did hear that.

MR BOOYENS: This grille or metal gate is not indicated on the plan. Could you, perhaps, indicate it by means of a drawn line to indicate to the Commission where this metal gate or grille would have been?

MR SIEBERT: I will do so, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: You have marked it with a red block on Exhibit F. Your Honour, perhaps, we should show this to the Commission. On the original plan it would appear as if there had been a door. Was this grille or gate in front of the door?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour, in front of the gate on the inside of the office.

MR BOOYENS: So, that door was not used?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, the metal grille or gate was permanently closed.

MR BOOYENS: Let us now move to your application. We will refer to the sketch plan at a later stage if necessary. Your identity number is as indicated on the application. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: And you were born on the 20th of September 1945 in Bloemfontein.

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: With regard to support of political organisations, you were a supporter of the National Party?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Were you a member or merely a supporter of the thinking of the party?

MR SIEBERT: I had been a member as well as a supporter.

MR BOOYENS: At the time of the incident, with regard to which you have applied for amnesty, you were a member of the South African Police, Security Branch in Port Elizabeth?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: You were attested in the police on the 25th of January 1962?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: At Uitenhage?

MR SIEBERT: That is also correct.

MR BOOYENS: You then provide, on page two of your application, that would be 13B of the bundle, an explanation of your career in the police?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: According to this, you joined the Security Branch in 1967?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What would your rank have been at that time?

MR SIEBERT: Sergeant.

MR BOOYENS: In what section of the Security Branch did you initially work?

MR SIEBERT: I worked in the section that dealt with White, Coloured and Asian affairs.

MR BOOYENS: As what?

MR SIEBERT: As a field worker.

MR BOOYENS: That would have been right from the beginning?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: I note, in addition, or rather, until when were you a member of the Security Branch?

MR SIEBERT: Until 1989.

MR BOOYENS: In 1989 what occurred? You became Regional Head of Crime Combating and Investigation which would previously have been the Detective Branch in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And in 1992 you retired with the rank of Brigadier or rather 1995, my apologies? In addition, you mention the various courses that you did while in service of the police?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Let us pay attention, now, to the personal overview and personal circumstances. You mention or rather, maybe, you can read from personal overview or "persoonlike oorsig".

MR SIEBERT: "I am currently 51 years in age, I was born

MR BOOYENS: Please first stop there, and to expand somewhat more comprehensively on your background. During the years in which you served in the Security Branch, in Port Elizabeth and also, particularly, during the time when the deceased, in this particular matter, died, would you also have dealt with VIP security?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have, personally, met with and become familiar with certain political leaders?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Whom?

MR SIEBERT: The then Prime Minister, John Vorster, as well as the then State President of the Republic, Mr C R Swart.

MR BOOYENS: How regularly did you have contact with Mr Vorster?

MR SIEBERT: Very regularly, your Honour, since he had a holiday house at Oubos and, as the occasion allowed, he would visit that holiday house.

MR BOOYENS: Would it then have been your responsibility to provide for his security at that house?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have many personal conversations with the then Prime Minister?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you, in addition, discuss politics?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you discuss the security situation in the country?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: And I want to ask you not to give us or repeat to us any political speeches, but in a nutshell, what did Mr Vorster communicate to you with regard to his beliefs regarding the security situation and so forth?

MR SIEBERT: That the security situation was becoming far more intense and that serious attention would have to be paid to it to control it and, perhaps, entirely to eliminate it, since this damaged the image of the Republic, particularly with the view to sanctions, which was operative at that time, with regard to development and foreign investment.

MR BOOYENS: Were you influenced by your contact with Mr Vorster? Did you believe what he said to you, did it have any influence on you?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have considered yourself a very loyal supporter?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: With a view to your role as a VIP security organiser, would you also have often heard political speeches by the then political leaders of the country?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would the theme of security, and I am referring here, particularly, about the time from 1976 and the problems in Soweto, and after that, also in 1976, the problems in the Eastern Cape, would these issues have been addressed by them in public?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: And also in private conversations?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: With a view to the value that one might attach to the public rhetoric of politicians, what would, generally, have been proclaimed with regard to the security situation and the methods to be used by Government?

MR SIEBERT: It was said that the security situation during that time damaged the image of the country and that, therefore, the necessary actions would have to be taken in terms of legislation available to us, to restrain the situation.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have heard or experienced similar pressure from your own police hierarchy with regard to the restraint and inhibition of these, of the situation?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What would the nature have been of this pressure and of the information conveyed to you?

MR SIEBERT: The regular national overviews of the situation in the country, which we received on a weekly basis, indicated, also in terms of instructions from head office, circular letters that we received, that very serious efforts had to be made to get to the core of the unrest and to control it.

MR BOOYENS: I am referring, particularly, to those days, was it ever pertinently put or pertinently authorised, let us put it like that, that it was allowable to assault people during detention?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: However, we do know that this did occur. What would your impression have been with regard to your direct Commanding Officer and so forth? Was such assault condoned or was there objection against it when it did occur?

MR SIEBERT: I would admit that such events did occur and the statement would then have been, if this was not damaging or to the disadvantage of the State and the Security Branch, then this would not be acted against.

MR BOOYENS: One of the popular methods of interrogation would have been to keep people awake for long periods of time. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would this have been a method to break down the resistance of people?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: This would have been contrary to police regulations?

MR SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: In terms of these regulations, detainees had to be given adequate time for rest and sleep?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Were these specific police regulations blatantly ignored with regard to security matters?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Colonel Goosen, your then Commanding Officer, at the time of the incident with regard to Mr Biko, what would your rank have been?

MR SIEBERT: Captain.

MR BOOYENS: You were in your early 30's, in terms of age?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Colonel Goosen, as we have heard, was the Commanding Officer of the branch, and had been the Commanding Officer since 1969?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Could you describe, for us, or give us a thumbnail sketch of the man, Colonel Goosen, his approach, his attitude towards his work and so forth?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, he was a very dedicated person with regard to his work circumstances. He believed in the politics of the day, with regard to the apartheid policy. At all times he would take the lead, even in very serious unrest and rioting situations. He would never stay back at the office and he was an example to us in this regard. In addition, he was a father figure for us, as younger people, particularly because we could see that he was willing to put himself in the firing line. In addition, he did not allow anyone to act in an undisciplined manner. He would deal with such a person and he would remove such a person from the Security Branch.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have considered him to have been a strong leader?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, he was a strong leader.

MR BOOYENS: Did he have any or did he allow any latitude to, for younger officers to oppose him with regard to his viewpoints?

MR SIEBERT: No.

MR BOOYENS: And did he enforce these viewpoints?

MR SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: The second paragraph, then, of your personal overview.

MR SIEBERT: "During my period of service in the South

MR BOOYENS: Let us just stop there. Now, while you were doing border duty, were you ever, personally, in a contact situation, in other words, involved in gunfight?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question.

MR BOOYENS: Were you there as a security branch officer?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What would the nature have been of the propaganda? What propaganda atmosphere existed on the border during 1976? What kind of propaganda was given through to you, what information did you receive as police officers?

MR SIEBERT: The propaganda had been that Swapo, supported by the ANC, the then South West and now Namibia, would be used as a base from which to penetrate or attack South Africa and that the war there had to be countered to prevent it from spreading to the, to South Africa.

MR BOOYENS: So, in your view, even a warfare outside the borders of this country was fought in order to maintain a White Government in South Africa?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour. When the South African Police also acted in Rhodesia to provide support there, that would have been the case.

MR BOOYENS: Subsequent to your service on the border or rather, for how long did you serve on the border?

MR SIEBERT: For about four months, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: After that border service did you return to Port Elizabeth?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: At the time of your return, which would have been during 1976.

MR SIEBERT: That is the case, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What would the situation have been upon your return to Port Elizabeth?

MR SIEBERT: While we were in Ovamboland the Soweto unrest broke out and in the middle of July I returned back here in The Bay in Port Elizabeth and then in August of 1976, the unrest broke out in Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage on a very large scale.

MR BOOYENS: Could you summarise for us the nature of this unrest, what happened, what was done?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, the schools, I am referring here to the Black communities, the townships, in New Brighton, in Kwasekela, in Uitenhage, but particularly in The Bay, the schools were burnt down, school children did not attend school, businesses were burnt down, prominent business people of these communities had their houses burnt down, vehicles were burnt out, buses, delivery vehicles were burnt out. There was murder and a murderous situation in the area.

MR BOOYENS: Would there have been strikes and marches and intimidation?

MR SIEBERT: Naturally, there would have been strikes, marches. In many cases marches were planned to the City Hall in Port Elizabeth. In every case this was prevented by early information provided and police counter-action.

MR BOOYENS: Would some of your colleagues, and if I refer to colleagues, not only security branch, but all the South African Police members, would any of these colleagues of yours have been killed during the unrest?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour. Often the policemen had their houses burnt down. Some of them were robbed or their firearms, some of them were murdered. Members of the security branch were also attacked, their houses were burnt down. Some of them were shot and wounded.

MR BOOYENS: What would the response of the security branch have been? How did you react to this unrest situation?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, with respect to the then riot squad of the police, they were not entirely up to the task of dealing with this situation on their own, also because of a lack of staff and vehicles and so forth. As a result, the security branch, who knew the area well and who worked with the information of the area, could obtain information to prevent and control further unrest. Security branch members, therefore, became fully involved in the unrest situation in order to control it.

MR BOOYENS: So, you were directly involved in riot control?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Also, the powers of security legislation at that time, to the security branch, for instance, detention without trial and so forth, did you make use of these means?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would there have been many detentions? Would many people have been interrogated?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, many people were detained and interrogated, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Particularly during the years 1976, 77, up unto the death of Mr Biko, the rioting continued?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour, until December of 1978.

MR BOOYENS: Out of these interrogations, out of police information available to you, which organisations would, in your view, have played a prominent role in fomulgating this unrest?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, the black power movements in that time would have been the most active since the ANC and the PAC would have been banned organisations, they would have been in exile and their front organisations, at that time, had not yet been well organised, not as well organised as the Black power movements. In addition, the deceased was a leader, a prominent figure in the Black power movements and his position as President of the Black Consciousness Movement, he would, in addition, he would also have had a tremendous influence on the Black youth and he was idolised as a leader. He was a very prominent leader, not only in the Eastern Cape, but nationally and also outside the country.

MR BOOYENS: I have asked a question to one of your colleagues, but if you were to place Mr Biko, if you were to place Mr Biko on a level, not taking into account those political leaders that were, at that time, in prison, where would you rank Mr Biko in the country?

MR SIEBERT: I would rank him as number one, as one of the most prominent leaders.

MR BOOYENS: During the interrogations, and I suppose you also received information and study material on the Black power movements?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What would your impression have been, what would the eventual goal or purpose of organisations such as the BPC had been, the organisation of which Mr Biko was the President?

MR SIEBERT: It was opposed to White people. If I understand the approach of the Black power movements, it was intended to combat the apartheid policy and, as such, White people, White power, White domination.

MR BOOYENS: What would their eventual goal have been? Were they able to, successfully, combat the apartheid Government?

MR SIEBERT: To bring about a Black power controlled Government.

MR BOOYENS: In your perception and in the perception of the security branch, as then described in study documents and so forth, did you consider this to be a threat?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have considered it to have been a serious threat?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour. The entire White population would be touched by this, would be affected by this. Also, the established western Government structure, which was then the status quo, and also the perception which would have, that a, the established capitalist system would be lost as a consequence. In comparison with other African countries, which had been under colonial Government and had, subsequently, obtained Black independent Governments and which, at that time, were deteriorating into poverty, that would have been our perception.

MR BOOYENS: Would these have been only your personal perceptions or would these perceptions have been brought about by information from your head office, documents on which, documents to which you had access or on what would you have based your perceptions?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, this was also part of the political statements and speeches by the political leaders of the day, the head office during security training courses also presented this to us, the security reports, the motivation by seniors and, also, ones own personal perceptions.

MR BOOYENS: Did you, therefore, believe that the Black power organisations had to be combated?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have instructions in this regard?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would some of the supporters of the Black power organisations have been arrested and detained in terms of the then security legislation?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Prior to the arrest of Mr Biko and Mr Jones, were any other persons arrested?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: And were they interrogated in terms of the determinations of Article 6 of the then Act against terrorism?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: You made mention of the struggle between the security forces and, particularly, the security branch on the one hand and the Black power liberation organisations on the other hand. Of course, there were other organisations also, but less important in the struggle?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What would the perceptions have been concerning the situation at that time?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, the general conception and interpretation, at that time, had been with reference already to the total onslaught against South Africa, at that time.

MR BOOYENS: You know this was the rhetoric of P W Botha at a later time, was that specific term used?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, in the intelligence community it was mentioned by name. We must remember that before this, the South African Police performed border service in Rhodesia, the now Zimbabwe, in order to support them as one of the last colonial powers adjoining South Africa, bordering on South Africa. I think of the support offered to or by liberation or freedom fighters from South Africa in that situation. The efforts of the South African Defence Force in Namibia into Angola at that time, the combating of terrorism by the South African Police in the then South West, now Namibia, since already 1962, the then attacks, terror, acts of terror of 1966, particularly during the month of November at the border gate when two MK members of the ANC were arrested and two police officers were injured. I believe they died but I am not sure whether they in fact died in consequence of that event. I think of the explosion at the Carlton Centre in Johannesburg, also during November and then in December, the Solomon Mahlangu attack in Johannesburg where people were, in fact, shot dead.

With this in the background and in view of the unrest, the foreign opposition already growing at that time, this would be considered to have been a total onslaught at that time and it was referred to as such from head office and in our ranks.

MR BOOYENS: Later on this became a little piece of political rhetoric?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: If you could look at the last two paragraphs of your personal overview and place this on record.

MR SIEBERT: "At that time I was of the opinion that the

and I would like to add to this the PAC and the Black power organisations,

MR BOOYENS: You used the phrase "undeclared war". Is this your own term or was this a term that was bandied about and generally and commonly used at the time.

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, this was a term which was often used in language in the intelligence community.

MR BOOYENS: This would also have been the language of your head office or would this have been only in the ranks?

MR SIEBERT: No, also from the head office and also during training courses and in information documents.

MR BOOYENS: Would you confirm the correctness as added to of your statement in the application of your own convictions and circumstances?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: This political background of yours, did this make you feel at home in the security community?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did this play any role in your actions as a security policeman? Did you experience coherence between your convictions and actions?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Was your personal convictions or faith also coherent with the instructions you received as a security police officer?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Okay, then you are applying for amnesty with view to the assault on and death of Steven Bantu Biko, is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: The date, sixth September, this was the date of assault. We know that he died at a slightly later date?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Namely on the 12th. The events occurred in Port Elizabeth. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: If we look at the particulars of the event, let us work through this. This is on page four of the application. During 1977 you had the rank of Captain. In which section of the South African Police did you then serve?

MR SIEBERT: I was then involved in the unit that dealt with Coloured and Asian affairs.

MR BOOYENS: As what?

MR SIEBERT: As a field worker and as the second-in-command of the unit.

MR BOOYENS: Major Snyman would have been your direct Commanding Officer?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: We are aware of the fact that Mr Biko was, in fact, a Black power man. He would have been dealt with, with the desk that dealt with Black affairs. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: How did it come about that you, as members of the so-called Coloured and Asian desk, became involved in the interrogation of Mr Biko?

MR SIEBERT: This was due to the fact that Mr Jones, who was a Coloured person, was arrested with Mr Biko and we had to deal with his arrest, detention and interrogation.

MR BOOYENS: Prior to this date, did you have any personal contact with Mr Biko?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you, to the best of your memory, ever meet with him before you collected him at New Brighton?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have anything to do, my apologies, this was Walmer Police Station where you collected him.

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have anything to do with his detention or the manner of his detention?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Just as a matter of interest, did you have anything to do with the detention of Mr Jones and the manner in which he was detained?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you give any instructions? We have heard that he was kept awake, that he did not have the opportunity to sleep well whilst at the police station.

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you take part in any interrogation of Mr Jones?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Was he interrogated before Mr Biko?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you, for the first time, meet the deceased on the sixth of September?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: As you have already said to us, you were well aware of his stature?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Briefly then, you had information available that Mr Biko had been arrested with Mr Jones at a roadblock during August. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: At the time when you all began to interrogate Mr Biko on the sixth of September, did you have any particular information available with regard to the activities of Mr Jones and Mr Biko?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: In particular, were you in possession of the statement of a certain Mandibi Patrick Titi?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: As a consequence of what had Mr Titi been detained? Why was he detained?

MR SIEBERT: A pamphlet had been distributed in the neighbourhoods of Kwasikele and New Brighton, in these townships, which celebrated or commemorated the unrest of 1976, the call to commemoration was by means of continued unrest, arson and from the information available or obtained, it was indicated that Mr Titi was or would have been involved in the drafting and, probably, the distribution of this pamphlet.

MR BOOYENS: You referred to a document. I want to show you a copy of Exhibit B which has already been handed in to the Commission. Was this the document?

MR SIEBERT: This was the pamphlet that was distributed, yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Titi would have been an Article 6 detainee. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Had he been interrogated?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did he eventually make a statement in terms of Article 6?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have a copy of that document in front of you?

MR SIEBERT: I have a photocopy of the original document in front of me, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Whose handwriting would that be?

MR SIEBERT: That would have been, that would be Mr Titi's own handwriting.

MR BOOYENS: Do you know where the original can be found?

MR SIEBERT: No, I do not know where the original would now be available.

MR BOOYENS: When was this statement made?

MR SIEBERT: On 26 of August 1977, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Could you identify this document as the statement of Mr Titi?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: This would then be EXHIBIT G. We do not want to burden the record, but in the document as written out by Mr Titi, would it have appeared from that, that Mr Biko played some role in the drafting of Exhibit B?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: You, therefore, had this information available to you when you confronted Mr Biko?

MR SIEBERT: Mr Jones.

MR BOOYENS: Oh, already when you confronted Mr Jones?

MR SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Did Mr Jones also draft a document in which, to some extent, he confirmed the statement by Mr Titi?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: I show you a photocopy, whose handwriting would this be?

MR SIEBERT: This is the handwriting of Mr Jones.

MR BOOYENS: This document appears incomplete, it ends halfway on page ten and it is not signed. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would you, however, confirm that this is the document and that it is in the handwriting of Mr Jones?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: And that in broad terms, without going into the detail, that it did appear that Mr Biko played a certain role?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Roughly speaking, this would indicate that Mr Jones knew of the pamphlet that he overheard or heard a discussion between Mr Titi and Mr Biko?

MR SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And did you also see the documents?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, at the offices in King William's Town.

MR BOOYENS: Would these have been the offices where Mr Biko found himself?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Is it a copy of this document in front of you?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: It is dated at the top, 25 August 1977. In whose handwriting would that be?

MR SIEBERT: In the handwriting of Mr Jones.

MR BOOYENS: Could you identify the document as the document drafted by Mr Jones?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: This would EXHIBIT H, my Lord.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, (speaker's microphone not switched on) pre-trial conference for the purposes of handing over and receiving relevant documents for the purpose of this, these proceedings. We are entitled, with respect, to an explanation why our documents were received, but we were not handed over the documents that the applicants intended to use in support of their application and, whilst I am addressing the court, may we ask our learned friend to please produce all the documents that they have which are relevant to these matters so that we may be on an even playing field in a relation to preparation.

MR BOOYENS: As far as the explanation is concerned, M'Lord, that was simply a situation, these are documents that became, I obtained subsequent to Sunday, Rule 37, during consultations.

CHAIRPERSON: You obtained it where?

MR BOOYENS: Subsequent to Sunday. We had the pre-trial on Sunday and during consultations subsequently, when we consulted in-depth about certain of the applications, it became available.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are there other documents you intend using?

MR BOOYENS: M'Lord, as presently advised, no. I can just make sure. Oh, yes, there is another, there was a, in so far as it may be worth, I will make it available to my learned friend. It is a warning statement of the said, Patrick Titi, as well, which he made to a police officer.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I do not want you to burden the documents unless they are worth putting in.

MR BOOYENS: In essence, it is the same as the other one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and there might be documents relating to your other clients too.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If you propose using those.

MR BOOYENS: M'Lord, as ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: If they are in your possession ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... you should make them available.

MR BOOYENS: As I have been advised by my client, Mr Niewoudt, those documents he wish to rely upon, has been attached to his amnesty application and, if I recall, I do not recall him handing me any other further documents during consultations and as far as my other client is concerned, he handed me nothing, M'Lord. I apologise if I embarrassed my learned, but, however, due to the fact that we will, obviously, be postponing this matter after today, I would submit that the, there is not really substantial prejudice as far as this is concerned. I will make a copy of the so-called warning statement of Mr Titi available to Mr Bizos as well, if he wants to make use of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, carry on.

MR BOOYENS: You have said that the statements which you have now handed in have been in your possession when you interrogated Mr Biko on the sixth?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Who would have been the commanding, in command of the investigation or interrogation team?

MR SIEBERT: Mr Snyman.

MR BOOYENS: The team consisted, in addition, of Marx and Detective Sergeant Niewoudt?

MR SIEBERT: That is the case.

MR BOOYENS: Would that have been the interrogation team?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Were you aware, and this is on page four of your application, were you aware of the arrest of Mr Biko?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

CHAIRPERSON: What page of the record is that? Page 13D, is it?

MR BOOYENS: Yes, M'Lord, it is at the fourth page. Unfortunately, my papers have not been paginated, but it is on paragraph four.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph four?

MR BOOYENS: Page four of his application ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, sorry, page four.

MR BOOYENS: ... paragraph four. For what reason did you interrogate Mr Jones first?

MR SIEBERT: Your honour, from the information obtained from Titi, from Mr Titi, that Mr Jones would have been aware of this, it was appropriate first to interrogate Mr Jones.

MR BOOYENS: From the information obtained from Mr Jones were you satisfied that there had been a certain amount of agreement between his statements and that of Mr Titi?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: I believe the pamphlet distributed is self-explanatory, this is Exhibit B. I do not believe that it is necessary to discuss that, but as you explain on the last paragraph of your application on page four, it requested the masses to show solidarity with exiles and so forth?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: By the sixth of September you were satisfied or were you satisfied that adequate and good information was available to start with the confrontation with Mr Biko?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Prior to your confrontation of Mr Biko, had there been any facts with regard to him personally made available to you. I am not talking about his personal background, but with regard to his character, his physical strength and so on?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour. On the morning before the interrogation we had final consultations with Colonel Goosen. He made, he brought it to our attention that Mr Biko would be a difficult chap, that from experience with prior detentions, apparently in Natal, he mentioned that during those periods of detention he offered no co-operation, that he would ignore one and that on a different occasion in King William's Town, he had beaten a security officer, a certain Mr Hattingh with a fist.

MR BOOYENS: Was this during detention in terms of security legislation?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, I believe so.

MR BOOYENS: How seriously did he beat Hattingh?

MR SIEBERT: From what we had heard, from what we were told, he broke his teeth with a fist.

MR BOOYENS: Were you given instruction, then, by Major Snyman on the morning of the sixth of September to collect him?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: You, yourself, Marx and Niewoudt would then have gone to Walmer Police Station. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: You collected him there?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would that have been the first occasion on which you met Mr Biko, personally?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, it was the first occasion on which I saw him.

MR BOOYENS: In the flesh?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you see photos of him before that?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Was he a large and strong man?

MR SIEBERT: He was tall and was big in posture, large in posture.

MR BOOYENS: Did he appear strong to you?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, he appeared like a physically strong man to me.

MR BOOYENS: You then collected him at Walmer Police Station and brought him to the security branch in the Sanlam Building?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: At the security branch offices you took him to the sixth floor?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: And he was taken to the office marked with an "X", by yourself, on Exhibit F?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: On what floor did you have your own office?

MR SIEBERT: My office had been on the fifth floor, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: To the best of your knowledge, was this particular office used only and exclusively for the purpose of interrogations?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, it was also the normal daily working office of certain other field workers. During detentions and interrogations this office was used as an interrogation office. Due to a lack of space or insufficient accommodation, there was no other place to use.

MR BOOYENS: So, you did not have a particular interrogation room?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Was this office sufficiently secured?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, it was sufficiently secured.

MR BOOYENS: So, you had bars in front of the window to prevent people from jumping out?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have any conversation with Mr Biko from Walmer on route to the Sanlam Building?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Was he shackled and cuffed?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Hand-cuffs and leg chains?

MR SIEBERT: To the best of my memory he had hand-cuffs or his hands were cuffed.

MR BOOYENS: When you brought him to the interrogation room, were all the members of the team present?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Was the fifth applicant, Mr Beneke, a part of your team?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Was he present?

MR SIEBERT: He was in one of the adjoining offices which would have been his normal place of work.

MR BOOYENS: With reference to Exhibit F, could you mention which office this would have been?

MR SIEBERT: It is the office marked "29m2".

MR BOOYENS: So, that would have been the large office as indicated to the left below on the map, on the left below the marked interrogation office?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour, we had to walk through his office to get to the interrogation office.

MR BOOYENS: Has your Lordship got it, M'Lord? Perhaps I could just ask the witness to mark it quickly with a "Y". The witness is marking the particular room with a "Y" on the plan. When you walked into the interrogation office was Major Snyman with you?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did the interrogation start immediately?

MR SIEBERT: We first removed the hand-cuffs, Sergeant Niewoudt.

MR BOOYENS: Yes and who started with the interrogation?

MR SIEBERT: Major Snyman introduced us to him as the interrogation team that would deal with his case and that of Peter Jones.

MR BOOYENS: I would prefer without my guiding or leading evidence from you, after you were introduced just tell us what happened next. Discuss the interrogation and then what happened subsequently.

MR SIEBERT: Upon our arrival in the office the hand-cuffs were removed from the deceased. We were all standing at that time. Mr Snyman introduced us to him as the interrogation team. The deceased, without any invitation, slammed himself down on a chair. I instructed to rise, I told him that this was our office, that we were in control of this office and that we would tell him when he was allowed to sit down.

MR BOOYENS: I apologise for interrupting you, but why this? Why was it so important that he had to sit when you were sitting and that he had to do what you told him and so forth?

MR SIEBERT: The general principle was that we were in control of the interrogation. As the interrogator you must maintain control. The person being interrogated could not decide on his own what he wanted to do.

MR BOOYENS: So he sat down and you then told him that you will instruct him to, with regard to his sitting and his standing?

MR SIEBERT: He then stood up. I then explained to him what the general course of the interrogation would be. Amongst others, why he breached his restraining order, what the purpose of his visit to the Cape would have been and, in addition, that we were investigating his part in the drafting and distribution or possible distribution of the pamphlet which would have commemorated the unrest and which would have fomulgated and instigated in additional unrest or incited people to riot and that we would attempt to determine, through the course of this interrogation, what part he played in the broader unrest in the Eastern Cape.

MR BOOYENS: That would have been a conversation coming from you?

MR SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: What response did you have from the deceased?

MR SIEBERT: Initially, very little, your Honour, but at a certain point he did mention that because of marital problems he was on his way to Cape Town and this was the pretended explanation for his visit to the Cape. We told him that this was not satisfactory, that this was not a sufficient excuse and that we, in fact, had different information with regard to this.

MR BOOYENS: When you refer to "us" and "we", who would this have been?

MR SIEBERT: The interrogation team.

MR BOOYENS: All of you or only one or two of you?

MR SIEBERT: I kept up the conversation in the main. Then at a certain stage when I saw that he kept to this version of the marital problems, I am convinced that he eventually saw that we were about to believe him. I then told him that we were aware of the fact that he was on his way to visit with Alexander of the non-European movement.

MR BOOYENS: This would be his visit to Cape Town?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, his visit to Cape Town.

MR BOOYENS: Who, exactly, would Mr Neville Alexander have been?

MR SIEBERT: Mr Neville Alexander was a member of the non-European unity movement. He was also a person who served ten years of prison, of a prison sentence as a consequence of the training of persons for military purposes internally in the Western Cape.

MR BOOYENS: What was the Non-European unity movement?

MR SIEBERT: The non-European unity movement was a marxist movement amongst the Coloured people. That was Mr Alexander's grouping as I understood it.

MR BOOYENS: Could you tell us some more about Mr Biko's behaviour or actions?

MR SIEBERT: As I interpreted it, it appeared to me that he knew or realised that we had information, that we knew something. I could see from his eyes that he was becoming disturbed, concerned, that he had been shocked, to an extent, that we had this information available to us. I then told him that we were aware of the distribution of the pamphlet and that we knew of his part in that. I then told him that we had already interrogated Peter Jones as well as other detainees and that they had indicated that he was responsible for authoring or drafting this pamphlet and, possibly, for its distribution. I could see that this increased his concern.

MR BOOYENS: Did he answer your claims or your statements?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, he was silent at that time. He remained silent and then he began to deny in his answers these claims. I could see that this was not with conviction and then the document drafted by Peter Jones, now handed to the Commission, I showed it to him. I said to him, you know the handwriting of Peter 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 had become very upset and, in fact, became angry.

The same chair on which he sat down earlier standing there, he then slammed himself down on this chair again. I lost my temper at him. I went towards him, I grabbed his clothes, his shirt, I pulled him up by these clothes and when I approached him I could see that he was already rising, partly rising.

MR BOOYENS: So, you were not lifting dead weight?

MR SIEBERT: I could not lift his dead-weight. He was too heavy and too large. He then stood up. The chair was partly to his side, to the right of him. He then took the chair and pushed it or shoved it away from himself, partly towards me and to where Major Snyman was standing, to my side.

MR BOOYENS: You are saying he threw away or shot away the chair? Could you describe this more clearly for us?

MR SIEBERT: This chair was one of the old steel State chairs, it was an office chair with artificial leather or vinyl.

MR BOOYENS: Did this chair go through the air or how did it move?

MR SIEBERT: If I say through the air, he slightly lifted it and slung it in front of me. It would have been about this high from the ground.

MR BOOYENS: You indicate that it might have been about 15cm from the ground, the movement ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: He had to lift the chair ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... in order to push it forward.

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour, he lifted the chair by its back and then he threw it as indicated.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

MR SIEBERT: I then, with my hands, prevented the chair from falling on my legs. I was crouched forward towards him. I saw a movement above my head. I blocked with my hand at, I blocked his, him and pushed it away.

MR BOOYENS: What kind of movement was it? You say a movement.

MR SIEBERT: It appeared to me that he might be slapping at me or aiming a punch at me.

MR BOOYENS: He did not manage to hit you, did he?

MR SIEBERT: No, he did not, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What did you do next?

MR SIEBERT: The next moment I noted that Mr Beneke came in from the side and bumped him with the shoulder into the wall.

MR BOOYENS: Sorry, let us just go a bit slower there. Mr Biko slapped at you and you pushed him or you bumped him. You bumped him away.

MR SIEBERT: I bumped away, him away, but in a movement of blocking, of defence.

MR BOOYENS: This push or shove, did it have any impact on him? Did anything happen as a consequence of your shoving motion?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour, my defensive shove had very little impact on his weight. He was a larger and heavier person than myself.

MR BOOYENS: Then Beneke entered the picture?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Apart from the throw of the chair, the slap above your head and your shoving his chest, did anything happen between yourself and the deceased before Beneke entered?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What did Beneke do next?

MR SIEBERT: He stormed into him, into his, the middle of his body with his shoulder, probably in an attempt to push him away from myself. At that point it was clear to me that we would be having a problem with the deceased and that he was becoming rebellious.

MR BOOYENS: So, you are saying that he shouldered him? Is that in rugby terms that he shouldered him in the middle of the torso with his shoulder?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What happened as a consequence of this shouldering?

MR SIEBERT: As a consequence he started aiming fist punches at us, he started shoving towards us to push us away from him. We attempted to take a hold of him and in that process we also hit punches towards him.

MR BOOYENS: Do you know if he managed to hit him?

MR SIEBERT: In the scuffle and the struggling we were so close together, so in each others way, that I do not believe, and this is my opinion, that anyone really could have hit him with a hard punch that would have had real impact.

MR BOOYENS: Not a hard fist punch, maybe other punches?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, there were punches to the body and the arms, necessarily.

MR BOOYENS: Could you slowly describe the picture for us? What happened next? At this point you, yourself, and Beneke were involved. What would Snyman have done?

MR SIEBERT: I could not see what Snyman did, but he did not take part. My attention was entirely focused on this scuffle and wrestling that was taking place.

MR BOOYENS: Could you just tell me whether Beneke was present in the office before this incident?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour, I did not see him.

MR BOOYENS: Could you describe for us what occurred next?

MR SIEBERT: At that stage I noticed that Sergeant Niewoudt had joined us and that he was assisting in attempting to restrain the man. I also saw that he had something in his hand with which to hit. Subsequently, I saw that this was a piece of hosepipe that had been cut off and I could see him hitting the accused and give him a couple of lashes with this in order to restrain him. I believe that one of the hosepipe lashes, this might have taken the attention of the deceased away from myself and Beneke, this allowed us to grab him by the body and arms, but it was still a wrestling match which, at that point, and at a, at the beginning of this wrestling, of this scuffle, I know we bumped against the table which was standing in the office.

From there we moved more towards the middle of the office floor and then when Mr Niewoudt joined in with the piece of hosepipe and started hitting him with the hosepipe, we were some distance from the wall.

MR BOOYENS: If you are saying "some distance"?

MR SIEBERT: I think we were in the middle of the floor of the office.

MR BOOYENS: It is a very small office?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, it is a small office.

MR BOOYENS: Would this be a meter, two meters?

MR SIEBERT: Possible a meter and a half, two meters away from the wall.

MR BOOYENS: And then?

MR SIEBERT: Our momentum then caused us to move in the direction of the wall.

MR BOOYENS: Who would "we" be?

MR SIEBERT: It would be myself, the deceased, Beneke and Niewoudt.

We then fell over one anothers feet and in this process we hit the wall with Mr Biko, the deceased, who then fell against the wall and we fell on top of him and against him.

MR BOOYENS: Referring to paragraph six, on page six of your statement, the second paragraph from the bottom. Could you read the paragraph starting,

You make the statement in that paragraph,

What are you trying to say with this statement?

MR SIEBERT: What I mean with the statement, your Honour, is that the momentum of this wrestling and the fact that we lost our balance brought about that we ran into the wall. It is not that we took the man, took a hold of him, said to each other, let us run into the wall with him. That is not what I intend with this statement.

MR BOOYENS: When you hit the wall, what do you know of that?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, his head definitely, in my opinion, bumped against the wall.

MR BOOYENS: On what grounds would you make this claim?

MR SIEBERT: I saw this happen, also his body? With the fall onto the ground, I feel that he or might well have also bumped his head against the ground.

MR BOOYENS: There were four of you, who all fell? We know the deceased fell.

MR SIEBERT: If I recall correctly, your Honour, all four of us fell down and were lying on the ground.

MR BOOYENS: Were you on top of each other or apart from each other?

MR SIEBERT: I cannot recall exactly. Some of us were on top of each other, some of us were apart. I cannot recall where we all were. I, myself, had fallen on the ground.

MR BOOYENS: After you had fallen what did you see?

MR SIEBERT: I noticed that the deceased was in a state of unconsciousness. He was disorientated, his eyes look confused.

MR BOOYENS: Did he stand up or what did he do?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour, he was lying on his side with his back and shoulders against the wall.

MR BOOYENS: Did the other three of you, the police officers, did you stand up?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What did you do next?

MR SIEBERT: We then waited to see how seriously or how serious his state was. After a while it appeared to me as if he was regaining his consciousness or regaining consciousness, that he achieved greater orientation, that he knew where he was again.

MR BOOYENS: And then what happened?

MR SIEBERT: After a short while I was of the opinion that he should be fully conscious again. I then told Sergeant Niewoudt that he should cuff him again.

MR BOOYENS: You say a little while, a short while after his fall and after you got up, could you just continue. You have instructed him to put the hand-cuffs again. How did he do this? What did he, exactly, do?

MR SIEBERT: He took the hand-cuffs and he cuffed him in the front.

MR BOOYENS: So he cuffed him in front of his body? Was the deceased still lying on the ground at that time?

MR SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Was he lying or was he sitting?

MR SIEBERT: He also put the ankle chains on again. Then after, possible, five minutes, maybe a little longer, I thought or believed that he had regained full consciousness. I told Sergeant Niewoudt to chain him to the security gate in that office in a standing position.

MR BOOYENS: I just want to be clear about this, of the lapse of time then. You fell and then at a certain stage while he was still lying on the ground, Niewoudt cuffed his hands. From when he fell on the ground until he was cuffed while he was lying on the ground, what would the lapse of time have been?

MR SIEBERT: From when he fell on the ground until we put on the foot chains or ankle chains, I believe that could have been a minute or less.

MR BOOYENS: So, it was shortly thereafter?

MR SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And then you said that it could have been five minutes or longer. Would that have been at that point when you gave instruction that he should be chained to the metal gate, the security gate?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, it could be five or ten minutes, but I did not keep or take note of the time.

MR BOOYENS: Your colleague, Snyman, has already given testimony that the manner in which he was chained was to spread his arms?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, at about the height indicated, he was chained to the security gate and also by his feet by means of a chain through the security gate.

MR BOOYENS: What was the length of the chain, roughly?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, it would be the normal length of foot or chains.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, but I am no expert on this.

MR SIEBERT: I have not seen these in a long time, but if I can recall correctly, they would have been of a considerable length. If a person walks with this, the person would normally hold the chain at their, at the middle of their body, at the middle. So, it was a long chain.

MR BOOYENS: The deceased was chained or is, now in your narrative, chained to the gate. What happened next?

MR SIEBERT: We then attempted to speak to him again, but there was no reaction and no co-operation on his part.

MR BOOYENS: Just let us get this clearly. Did he speak back to you or when you say there was no reaction, what do you mean?

MR SIEBERT: No, he did not speak to us. No, he simply did not speak to us. He just stared in front of him. To me it appeared as if he had completely switched off and was no longer at all willing to co-operate.

MR BOOYENS: Snyman said that he then went to Goosen?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: In order to explain the incident or at least report the incident to him. At that stage while Snyman was with or on his way to Goosen, what did the remaining three of you do?

MR SIEBERT: We stayed in the office.

MR BOOYENS: What, where was Beneke? Was he still in the office or he had left it already?

MR SIEBERT: I cannot remember where Sergeant Beneke was at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: Did Snyman return?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour, he returned with Colonel Goosen. Colonel Goosen attempted to communicate with him.

MR BOOYENS: With whom, with the deceased?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, with the deceased. My apologies. And the results were the same as I have indicated previously.

MR BOOYENS: Did Goosen have any comment on the fact and manner in which Mr Biko was chained to the gate?

MR SIEBERT: I do want to say, yes, he said that the man must stay standing like this in order to break down his resistance and to obtain his co-operation.

MR BOOYENS: What instructions did you then receive?

MR SIEBERT: Myself and Major Snyman, who served in a different unit, were excused. We were instructed to continue with our other activities and he was left in the care of Sergeant Niewoudt and them and as soon as the situation would change, we would be informed and then we had to resume the interrogation.

MR BOOYENS: Did you then leave the office?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Where did you go?

MR SIEBERT: I returned to my office on the fifth floor.

MR BOOYENS: And did you have anything to do with Mr Biko at any stage subsequently? I know that you, while he was at the security, I mean while he was at the security police offices?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: So, you did not have anything to do with continued interrogation?

MR SIEBERT: No, we did not continue with any interrogation.

MR BOOYENS: And when did you next have anything to do with him?

MR SIEBERT: It was on the eighth, on the Wednesday. You will note, your Honour, that I did not include this in my application. This was an oversight. When I was at the office in the afternoon on the eighth, Colonel Goosen informed me that the deceased was to be transferred to a Noordeinde prison for continued attention, medical attention and I was then present when he was transported by two Black members in a motor vehicle.

MR BOOYENS: Wait a moment, you are going too fast. Where did you find Mr Biko at that time?

MR SIEBERT: Later in the course of that afternoon in that office.

MR BOOYENS: Was this in the same office where you interrogated him?

MR SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: What was his state?

MR SIEBERT: At that time he was already chained again or cuffed again. When I arrived there he was being accompanied out towards the lift down the passage. He was slowly moving between the two Black members.

MR BOOYENS: Did he have foot chains on?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, if I can recall correctly.

MR BOOYENS: You say he was walking inbetween the two members. Did he walk independently or did they support him or hold him or what?

MR SIEBERT: He walked on his own. They were walking next to him on his sides, but without holding onto him physically. Which could indicate that they were not supporting him.

MR BOOYENS: And then they went down the lift into a police vehicle?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: He then went to Noordeinde?

MR SIEBERT: We went to the Noordeinde Prison.

MR BOOYENS: What time of day was this?

MR SIEBERT: This would have been about half past eight in the evening.

MR BOOYENS: Why in the evening?

MR SIEBERT: This was under the instructions of Colonel Goosen so as not to draw attention to the transport of the deceased to the prison.

MR BOOYENS: Why did you not want to draw attention?

MR SIEBERT: Because of his prominence and because information might have leaked that he was being transferred to the prison or people might have seen him move or walk very slowly.

MR BOOYENS: Did you accompany them to the prison?

MR SIEBERT: I rode in a different car, I did not drive with them.

MR BOOYENS: Upon arrival did you hand him over to the members of the prison service?

MR SIEBERT: I handed him to the members of the prison, Colonel Goosen and Colonel Fisher, the interpreter believes, was also present.

MR BOOYENS: Did you accompany him into the prison?

MR SIEBERT: Only to the reception area, if I can recall correctly. I did not move with them through into the cell.

MR BOOYENS: The reception would be at the entrance, at the gate?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you see Mr Biko get out of the car or were you not present?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, I held the door open for him. I assisted him by the elbow. He got out of the car and in a similar manner walked to the prison.

MR BOOYENS: Reception would be at the door. You then turned around and left?

MR SIEBERT: We entered through the prison door, the reception area is on the inside of the prison.

MR BOOYENS: Who accompanied him?

MR SIEBERT: Colonel Goosen and them then dealt with the prison authorities from then on.

MR BOOYENS: And the Black security branch members?

MR SIEBERT: I think they walked with him, they walked with him.

MR BOOYENS: So, they went into the prison with him?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have anything to do with Mr Biko subsequent to that?

MR SIEBERT: On the Sunday morning of the 11th, I was phoned by Colonel Goosen who told me that Mr Biko would be discharged, that he would be discharged from the hospital section of the prison at the Noordeinde Prison and that I had to arrange that he would be collected.

MR BOOYENS: Were you present at his collection from Noordeinde Prison?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour, myself and Sergeant Niewoudt as well as Lieutenant Wilken were present. This is not mentioned in my application.

MR BOOYENS: On page seven, the second paragraph from the bottom of the page, midway through,

... (intervention).

MR SIEBERT: Niewoudt.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, it should read that,

Could you tell us something about his state at that time?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, it was clear to me that there had been some regression, some deterioration, he was no longer in the same state as he had been when, on the Wednesday evening, we handed him over at the prison.

MR BOOYENS: Could you explain this?

MR SIEBERT: The or on this occasion we had to support him by the elbows. He was shuffling and it was clear from his speech that it was affected. He appeared clumsy to me.

MR BOOYENS: If you say his speech was affected, what do you mean?

MR SIEBERT: When one spoke to him he mumbled. I could not hear what he was saying.

MR BOOYENS: Did it appear to you that he would have been able to walk on his own on at that time or was it necessary to support him?

MR SIEBERT: I believe he might have been able to walk on his own, but we feared that he might fall and, as a result, we supported him. I do not believe that he could have walked the entire distance on his own.

MR BOOYENS: You were then supporting him into the police vehicle down to or back to Walmer Police Station?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: At what time would this have been about?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, this was on the 11th. It was during the course of the morning. I would estimate that it might have been around ten o' clock, half past ten.

MR BOOYENS: Through the course of the afternoon of the 11th of September you had another phone call from Colonel Goosen. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour, he called me to Walmer Police Station. There he instructed me to be on standby, that he was making arrangements to send the deceased to Pretoria Prison, which had better medical facilities.

MR BOOYENS: Was there any mention of him flying, of being sent by aeroplane?

MR SIEBERT: He said, amongst others, that he was arranging that the deceased would be transported with an aircraft to Pretoria. Should he fail, then I had to prepare myself to take him with a motor vehicle.

MR BOOYENS: Later that afternoon while at Walmer Police Station, apart from police officers, did you note or meet with anyone else? Did you make any enquiries with regard to his health?

MR SIEBERT: I met Dr Tucker there in the cell with Mr Biko. He was attending to Mr or inspecting Mr Biko. I noted that there was foam at the corners of Mr Biko's mouth, spit. Saliva, if I can, and he was being inspected or attended t by Dr Tucker. I asked Dr Tucker what was wrong with the deceased and he told me that he did not know, that he could not determine what was wrong with him. From the conversation that ensued between myself and Dr Tucker, I was satisfied that he was aware that the deceased were to be transported to Pretoria. The conversation had to do, in addition, with a request from his part and on my part, that the medical doctor who were going to attend to him the next day, would have to have the opportunity to phone Dr Tucker so that the medical report, as he, Dr Tucker, and the other medical doctors had seen in Port Elizabeth, could be communicated to the medical doctors in Pretoria.

MR BOOYENS: At the time, when you and Mr or Dr Tucker were negotiating, did it then appear that he would be transported by road if not by air?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you make any enquiries to determine or did the doctor say anything about this?

MR SIEBERT: He was aware that we would now transport him by road. Colonel Goosen had already, at that time, indicated that he failed to obtain an aircraft and that we would have to transport him by road.

MR BOOYENS: Did Dr Tucker say anything about this?

MR SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What vehicle did you use?

MR SIEBERT: The only vehicle available to the security branch in which a person could lie down was a Land Rover station wagon. This was not an open Land Rover, it had a cab on it, it was covered, and one of its seats had been removed. I requested Lieutenant Wilken to prepare this particular vehicle for us and to phone other members to accompany us.

MR BOOYENS: Who accompanied you in the end?

MR SIEBERT: It was Lieutenant Wilken, Warrant Officer Fouche and Sergeant Niewoudt as well as myself.

MR BOOYENS: When did you leave Port Elizabeth?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, it was about six o' clock in the evening.

CHAIRPERSON: Just, please, just mention those names again. I am sorry, I did not, please, I could not hear.

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, the persons who accompanied us was myself, Lieutenant Wilken, Warrant Officer Fouche and Sergeant Niewoudt.

MR BOOYENS: You would say that that was about six o' clock?

MR SIEBERT: About six o' clock, your Honour, it was already dusk.

MR BOOYENS: At what time did you arrive in Pretoria?

MR SIEBERT: The next morning at about nine o' clock.

MR BOOYENS: That would be Pretoria Central Prison. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: You then handed the deceased over to the prison service officials?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What was his state of health at that point?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, we had to assist him out of the vehicle. We had to use a stretcher which was made available to us.

MR BOOYENS: So you had to carry him?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Something that is relevant in this matter, was Mr Biko dressed in the back of the Land Rover?

MR SIEBERT: Your Honour, he was wearing only a pair of underpants. I asked the members who accompanied me, those members whom I had asked to prepare the vehicle and obtain the vehicle had also received instructions from me to process Mr Biko at the police station and to collect him. I joined them at a later stage since I had some other arrangements, personal arrangements to make. I had to collect clothes for myself, I had to purchase food for the road and just outside Blouwater Baai, outside Port Elizabeth we stopped to eat. When I got out of the car and looked back in the vehicle to see whether the deceased had any interest in food I noticed his right leg, I noticed that it was open and naked. I then determined that he was only wearing underpants.

I asked the members why this was the case, why he was not fully dressed and they informed me that it was very difficult to dress him since he was clumsy and stiff. I then realised that it would be even more difficult to dress him in the back of the Land Rover. I accept that I made no effort to dress him. I also accept that this was inhumane. However, I do want to mention at the same time, that there were a number of cell mats on which he was lying as well as a number of blankets and a pillow, that he was fully covered. It was not as if he was publicly naked or anything like that.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have any conversation with any of the prison staff with regard to Mr Biko when he was taken in?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour. If I recall correctly, it would have been a Colonel Dorflan, I believe that was his surname, he received us at the prison and informed us, I informed him that this was the person. I informed him that he had fallen during an incident at our offices and also that he had been attended to by a number of medical doctors, including two district surgeons and a specialist. I told him, as Colonel Goosen had instructed me to bring to their attention, that at a previous occasion he faked this and that, in fact, he practised yoga. This is what I told them.

MR BOOYENS: When you say that he "faked", what do you mean? That he faked illness?

MR SIEBERT: Yes, on a prior occasion of detention, according to Colonel Goosen.

MR BOOYENS: This is not your personal knowledge, this is information from Goosen which he instructed you to give to them?

MR SIEBERT: Yes. I then provided the particulars, including the telephone number of Dr Tucker, to Colonel Dorflan. At that time there was also a medical ordinance of the prison present or, sorry, a medical orderly. I requested them to phone Dr Tucker immediately since he was waiting for their call. That was our arrangement since from, his side, he had to give a medical narrative with regard to Mr Biko's state of health. In addition, I told them what the importance of this person was, that he was a very prominent figure in the Black power movement, that he had national and internationally a high profile.

MR BOOYENS: What was the intention of your intimation of his prominence to them?

MR SIEBERT: The reason was that it was necessary for them to give very real attention to him and that he had to receive the necessary treatment. His state of health and his person, I sketched it for them, broadly.

MR BOOYENS: Did you then return? Did you turn around and drive back to Port Elizabeth?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: On the 13th of September you heard that Mr Biko had died. Is that correct?

MR SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: M'Lord, I intend now dealing with the false statements and the false evidence and so. I do not think it is conceivable, because I have still got to deal with his, with the political aim that they were looking for. I do not think it is conceivable that I will be able to finish this before about, subject to your Lordship, I would suggest, approval, I would suggest that we adjourn now, because I am at a point where it will be convenient to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. This may be a convenient time to bring these proceedings to an end for the day. The resumed date or rather the date for the resumed hearing, as I understand, been agreed by counsel on both sides, to be the eighth of December?

MR BOOYENS: That is correct, M'Lord, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we arrange it in such a way that once we commence on the eighth of December, we will carry on until it is finalised? Mr Booyens.

MR BOOYENS: Just a moment, M'Lord. M'Lord, Monday the eighth, yes. Yes, M'Lord, Monday the eighth, that date suits us and I understand the arrangement that we will proceed until the conclusion of evidence and, I presume, argument as well. Mr Erasmus.

MR ERASMUS: I confirm this was arranged with me in this manner.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: I confirm as well, your Honour, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. The date.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, it suits us, thank you, and I confirm. CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much. These proceedings have now come to an end and the Committee will now adjourn and rise.

------------------------------