Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

ADV SIGODI: Did you know what he discussed with Mr Biko?

PETER JONES: No, I don't know what they discussed.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, Mr Biko was your friend, is that correct?

PETER JONES: And colleague, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, friend and colleague.  And the Security Police assaulted you really I am talking about the main assault, the one on the morning of the 25th, after the production of Exhibit B, prior to the production of Exhibit A.
	The purpose of that assault, would you say that was mainly to get you to admit that you and Mr Biko were instrumental in the preparation and distribution of this pamphlet, or that at least Mr Biko was involved in the production of the pamphlet, and that the two of you were involved in the distribution of the pamphlet?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: That is what they wanted?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And as far as you knew at that time, to your knowledge what they wanted you to say was an untruth?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And it is only because of what they said and the duress, this terrible duress that you were subjected to, that you eventually produced Exhibit A, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: At that stage you were broken down as a result of this assault to saying what these people wanted to hear, you didn't want to face that type of treatment again, which is quite understandable?

PETER JONES: Well, it is strategic, it is about making a judgement, it is about of certainly wanting to give an impression of reasonable cooperation with them without digging an absolute hole, because eventually these things may and would of course possibly get, or rather land up in court, where it has to be defended, either I may be called upon as a State witness or as somebody directly accused of an act and one then has to think through what one is going to be if one is no longer in a situation of absolute duress and overwhelming violence.

ADV BOOYENS: That was a long answer, the question is simply the following.  They wanted you to implicate Mr Biko, not so?

PETER JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: In so far as one can say looking at this statement alone, you ...

CHAIRPERSON: Which one is that Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: I will be referring to Exhibit A during the next number of questions Mr Chairman.  As far as this document is concerned, at page 7 thereof, you have heard a discussion between Messrs Biko and Titi which didn't really standing on its own, it didn't really make any sense to you, is that correct?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And the only thing you heard according to this, is you heard Titi speaking about busy with commemoration events.  Is that right?

PETER JONES: That is what the statement says, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, and then you the next time you deal with it, is at the bottom of page 8.  When you just give a synopsis of a pamphlet which if that was all the pamphlet said, nobody could ever be prosecuted on it, not so?
	Let's have a commemoration ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, let me ask a question of Mr Jones first before I ask you the question.
	Mr Jones, you said you attended university, are you a qualified lawyer?

PETER JONES: An accountant.

CHAIRPERSON: Really questions of whether somebody could be prosecuted to ask of a layman, I don't know if that is quite fair.  It may have been his own judgement wrongfully or rightfully.

ADV BOOYENS: I will put to him what I see in here Mr Chairman, and ask him to comment on that.
	Mr Jones, the synopsis of this pamphlet that you give here in my opinion, is that this was merely to remember the people who had been killed in the previous year's uprising.  That would not have amounted to an offence, to draw a pamphlet like that.  It was before the state of emergency, it wouldn't have amounted to an offence.
	What I want to ask you ...

PETER JONES: Excuse me, can I ask you, are you aware of the security legislation in 1977?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Jones, I was around.

PETER JONES: That you could be prosecuted for even a neutral pamphlet if it was not identified who the publisher were?

ADV BOOYENS: So is that the reason why you say ...

PETER JONES: No, I am not sure.  You could be convicted or be charged with a political pamphlet that is innocuous to anybody but if it did not identify who published it, it could be a contravention.

ADV BOOYENS: But you didn't know whether the document was identified?  The police never showed it to you?

PETER JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: It could have said it was issued by the BPC, so what sense does that answer make seeing that you know the security legislation better than I do.

PETER JONES: Sir, I was playing along and this is as far I went in my judgement, that is as far as I went.

ADV BOOYENS: All you said to implicate Mr Biko in this statement is he and Titi was speaking and in your office you saw a pamphlet advertising commemorative meeting for people that were killed?
	That is as far as you went into implicating Mr Biko, not so?

PETER JONES: That is what I said, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: This was given to the Security Police, they read that, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Then you say on the 26th you were assaulted again?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: About what?

PETER JONES: They were not happy.

ADV BOOYENS: What did they want?

PETER JONES: They wanted me to be physically involved in the pamphlet.  All that I described here was that I was walking along, I didn't see anybody do anything, I heard something, I saw a pamphlet, it was not good enough.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, so what did they want you to say then?

PETER JONES: Well, they sent in people like Marx to come and argue with me, that they have a system of informers in the township, we were seen.  We were seen at a school, I was not familiar enough with Port Elizabeth and the black townships in order to construct an acceptable story.
	I did construct some kind of story.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, but what did they want you to add?

PETER JONES: That we came to Port Elizabeth with the pamphlets, that we had produced, that we had handed it over to people, that these were distributed and that that led to unrest.

ADV BOOYENS: So they actually want you to admit that the pamphlet led to unrest?

PETER JONES: Yes, in the context of what happened in Port Elizabeth at that time.

ADV BOOYENS: No, the question is did the police specifically want you to say in your third statement, that this pamphlet led to unrest?  That is what I asked.

PETER JONES: No, they didn't tell me what to put in my statement, they were saying they were not happy with the statement.
	It didn't go far enough.

ADV BOOYENS: And said to you that okay, but I am trying to find out what they were trying to say to you if they say it didn't go far enough.
	Were they saying to you that we've got evidence that you and Mr Biko were in Port Elizabeth, handing out these pamphlets or distributing them?

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, I don't understand my learned friend's line of questioning.  I am not sure if he is questioning that this is what Mr Jones wrote, what is written here, or whether he has some other evidence apart from what we have, because we have here two pamphlets, statements which were made by him, and he has explained the context in which he wrote these statements.
	I don't know where this is leading us to, this line of questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know why the questions are asked, but I can tell you this is how I understand the questions.  It is to investigate whether what is contained in the statement, is something that was told to Mr Jones, or whether he made it up, or to find out exactly where the root of the contents of the statements come from.