Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-08

ADV POTGIETER: Page 74, in the middle of the page under the heading "Unity in Action".
"The boycott in Port Elizabeth was finally suspended in early December at a rally, attended by 50 000 people, but only after the boycott leaders' release from detention in November, had conducted in negotiations."

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is, because of that with the negotiation with Mr Jack, the leaders, because he was chairperson of the consumer boycott, the meeting was arranged, he was released and the boycott was suspended.

UNKNOWN: I will not pursue that one.  Just to show that I understand your subjective thinking correctly during the given time.  	Let us say we have the law here.  The law, "die reg"; on the other hand you have the police.  Who is superior?  Who is above the other?  Is it the law above the police or the police above the law?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Is it now in these circumstances or then?

UNKNOWN: During the time we're talking about here today?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I believe that the objective at that stage, specifically during the state of emergency at that time, we actually acted above the law.

UNKNOWN: You were above the law as the police?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: Thank you very much for that.  No further questions from me.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV SANDI

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Nieuwoudt, one issue before your legal adviser cross-examines you.  Was your objective during the assaults on Mr Jack to restore law and order.  You said if law and order was restored, then at the same time it also protects the constitutional order.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: So what you did your ordinary function as a policeman and that is to maintain law and order?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: It doesn't matter whether you were a policeman that was also a member of the National Party or a policeman who was a member of the Conservative Party or any other party.  That was your duty as police officer.  That's what the law states.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is to serve the Government of the day.

ADV POTGIETER: And to maintain law and order.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, this may be the opportune time for an adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: This may be the opportune time for a break.

CHAIRPERSON: The Committee will now adjourn and resume at two o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: (Still under oath).

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van der Merwe, any re-examination?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Commissioner.
	Mr Nieuwoudt, at the stage that you decided to apply for amnesty in this instance, you already testified that there was a civil claim that was settled?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: There was also no criminal case made by Mr Jack.  There is also no charge of assault against you at this stage pending?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Despite the fact that this incident took place 12 years ago?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is so.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You heard the counsel for Mr Jack said that he will allege that you assaulted him on more than one occasion.  Is that so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, it is.

MR VAN DER MERWE: What is your opinion in this regard; did you assault him on more than one occasion?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I did not. If I had assaulted him, I would have mentioned it in my application, because the Truth and Reconciliation Act requires me to make a full disclosure.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Can we quickly go back to the members of the South African Police under the old Government system.  Were people assigned to the security branch?  How did it happen that they got to the security branch?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: You were recruited for the security branch.  You could never apply for the security branch.  They then took you, they recruited you, they looked at your background and then they screened and selected you.

MR VAN DER MERWE: During the time that you were at the security branch in the 20 years, are you aware of any of your other officers, juniors, other members who were not members of the National Party?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Not that I have any knowledge of.

MR VAN DER MERWE: In your experience, what would have happened if a person was stationed at the security branch, if he criticised the Government of the day, that is the National Party?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He would have been transferred from the security branch to another division and I think that would have meant the end of his career.

MR VAN DER MERWE: What do you imply?  What do you mean  end of his career?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He would never have been promoted again.

MR VAN DER MERWE: A lot has been said about security legislation and the emergency regulations.  Can I ask you;  do the regulations and the Act give you any permission to assault a person?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, not per se.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Did it ever happen during your time that you were at the security branch that irregularities came to the fore later on where senior officers were then cognisant expo facto and where these things were then covered up in the interest of the security branch and the National Party?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I think without linking with other things, you were also aware of situations that are also going to serve in front of this Commission; an instance would be Biko?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is true.

MR VAN DER MERWE: At the stage when you were in the security police in 1985 and this incident took place, the State President at that stage was P W Botha.  Is that correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, it is.

MR VAN DER MERWE: With the new Government in South Africa there are efforts to establish a human rights culture.  Do you think that during that time, in the 80s, that there was really a human rights culture in South Africa?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

MR VAN DER MERWE: On the question of Adv Van Rooyen (sic) you answered that it was the duty of the South African Police to maintain law and order during that era.
	If I would ask what would have happened if you were placed before the choice to contravene laws of the Government in order to protect the interest of the National Party, would you have chosen to abide the law or would you have chosen to support the National Party?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Mr Chairman, I'm sorry for disturbing or interrupting.  May I just be given an opportunity to address the Commotion on what is going on down here, please, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mpshe.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I am appealing to people who are giving out the headphones, please stop doing that.  They are causing commotion, please.  Stop handing them out right now.  Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Proceed.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Commissioner.
	What I was trying to get to is if you had a choice between breaking the law with, say, for instance, with the breaking an entering to obtain or evidence or assaulting someone to get information out of a person or not doing that and therefore not succeeding in protecting the National Party Government at that stage. What option would you have taken at that stage?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: To benefit the National Party, to protect the Government or the party.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Would you then say that at that stage, as long as it served the interest of the National Party and the Government of the day, it would have been excusable to break the law.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is how I understood it.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Am I also correct in saying that you never had a direct instruction from anyone to assault Mr Jack?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.