Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-25

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, lest we forget - while you're on the subject of documentation, I'm just wondering - just to prevent us forgetting about this issue, we were asked yesterday whether we would be prepared to make some concessions - admissions in regard to medical reports.  Do you wish to deal with that now and get it done with?

MR PHOSA: Yes please, we would like that done.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, it appears to us that the reference would be to bundle B, page 34 to page - well there's one document at page 34, the next document which is presumably a medical report, starts at page 35 and ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: What about page 31?

MR VISSER: 31?  But that's a statement of Mr Mthimkhulu Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not, it's a statement of Adrian Dawid Marais.

MR VISSER: Oh I see, yes of course.

CHAIRPERSON: It's about ...[inaudible]

MR VISSER: Yes, indeed.  Page 31 through to page 33, page 34, then page 35 it would appear through to page 39, page 40 to 41 and then at 42 there's a similar statement by two doctors.  I don't know whether you wish to include page 44 - the article, we certainly have no objection to that going in as well through to page 46 Mr Chairman, on the basis that the admission does not extend to admitting the correctness or truthfulness of the contents.

CHAIRPERSON: It is an admission that that is a case report by them, a statement by them, an affidavit by them.

MR VISSER: Indeed Mr Chairman, that admission we're prepared to make on behalf of Mr Erasmus.

MR BOOYENS: I make similar admissions on behalf of those applicants that I represent Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that assist you Mr Phosa?

MR PHOSA: Before I answer that aspect, there's also at page 26 to 30.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I'm sorry, we're quite happy if that goes in on the same basis, no problem.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that does cover all medical reports and other similar documents doesn't it?

MR PHOSA: Yes, it does.  Just to clear the technical way in which it's admitted - which is of course one I know, I understand this to say, if the families want to rely on these documents as being proof of what they alleged, then that would be a problem.

MR VISSER: Well it won't be a problem, they'll just have to lead the evidence Mr Chairman.

MR PHOSA: The evidence of the doctors?  Well, that doesn't help us Mr Chairman, we don't want an academic inclusion of the documents, we want this as evidence.  It appears to us we shall have to call these witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: I think would think rather Mr Visser, that it is evidence but you have a right of cross-examination if you wish to challenge any - that this is evidence in chief so to speak.  If they wish to challenge you can then say we want to cross-examine those people.  If you don't want to - because it seems to me gentlemen that this is a largely academic discussion.  On the evidence - information available it appears quite clear this man was poisoned, how and in what manner, we don't know but the evidence really - none of these doctors seeks to point a finger at any particular person, they merely relate the symptoms they found at certain times and I don't think that they are really in dispute are they?

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman, it may be a little more complicated than that, you would have observed from a reading of these documents that it's not altogether clear, in fact there's great confusion as to when - if the poison was administered through the mouth, when it could have happened and there are all sorts of theories about that.

CHAIRPERSON: But they are theories, none of them purport to say it happened on such and such a time.  They say, as I recollect it: "Depending on the quantity administered it can either be one large dosage, it could be a series of dosages over a period" and I don't think you dispute that do you?  That is one of the symptoms of this poison.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, on the basis that no inferences will be drawn obviously then we can accept it on a basis which you put it to us namely, that this is evidence - prima-facie evidence and if there's anything in particular which we wish to dispute, we would have to give you notice that we wish to cross-examine these people.  We'll have to consider that then after today Mr Chairman.

MR PHOSA: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: A further matter that I think I should refer to is - I did not comment on it yesterday but it seems to have spread, I do not think it desirable that people should be sitting in the front row of the hall facing the applicants and potential witnesses, carrying posters.  Would they please roll them up or take them down.  Thank you.
	I'm not quite sure who is going to start questioning this morning, I gather we might change horses.

MR PHOSA: I remain precisely so as to continue.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on them Mr Phosa.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, your instruction is not being followed, I'm not sure whether it's been interpreted.

ADV SANDI: We would like to make a request that our posters be turned over or rolled up.  The reason for this is that we do not want the witness to be distracted, he has to answer a lot of questions.  We do not want the witness to be distracted because of the posters.  If they could do the same please from the top - upstairs, they could turn their posters around.  Thank you very much, we may proceed.

MR PHOSA: (cont)
	Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Nieuwoudt, you told the Committee that you were - you had two positions in which you acted, one you acted in your position as a security policeman and secondly as a supporter of the Nationalist Party ruling Government, is that so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, that was so.

MR PHOSA: In your position as a security policeman, you will be bound by the laws that govern you as a policeman, isn't it?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is so Mr Chairperson.

MR PHOSA: And in your position as an individual you would surely not have been doing so at all as a policeman you'd be just a Mr X, a Nationalist Party member?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is so Mr Chairperson.

MR PHOSA: Now clearly Mr Nieuwoudt, at all times on the face of everything else you were acting in cahoots, that is jointly with your security policemen - the four - three, the four of you?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That was so Mr Chairperson.

MR PHOSA: Quite clearly you did not discuss with your colleagues any aspects that said: "Look, let's forget about our being policemen now, let's doing this as being Nationalist Party supporters"?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I did not Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Phosa, did you say four of them?  Weren't there only three that he acted with?

MR PHOSA: Yes, I say four of them in all.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he was only with - there were three in the group he was in, wasn't there?  He didn't have contact with Erasmus.

MR PHOSA: Perhaps let's just clear that.
	I know that you didn't have contact with Mr Erasmus but did you believe him to be part of the group?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He was not part of the group where we did the planning, where they involved me but they informed me that General Erasmus had given permission.

MR PHOSA: Since this incident took place - let me not say since, after it took place, did you communicate, you personally communicate or talk to - communicate with or talk to Mr Erasmus?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR PHOSA: Is the position that until you began preparing for this application, you had no direct communication with Mr Erasmus so as to find out what he was saying about this?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, is that now if I understand correctly, during or before I submitted my application, is it just before or just after?  It's not clear to which period Mr Phosa is referring.

MR PHOSA: When did you speak to him for the first time about this matter, if you did?