Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

MR MTSHAULANA: What would you say to the Commission, are the differences?  I understand that the statement you wrote, you wrote it under pressure, under torture to remove pressure from you, but I just want you to describe to the Committee the difference between your synopsis of what you wrote and what is in that pamphlet?

PETER JONES: My synopsis of what would have gone into a typical pamphlet if it was produced by us, is consistent with who we were, with our organisation, with our principles and our philosophies.  We were part of a movement that invested in developing the consciousness and the organisation of people, that was the focus.
	So, it would have been typical and logical for us to remind people of their experiences of the history and therefore in relation to riots, we would have called them to commemorations, those were the words that we would have used.
	We would never have, also because we were a legal organisation, have incited people to complete anarchy.

MR MTSHAULANA: But anyway the statement you wrote, both statements, A and B, were written by you because of the pressure, they did not reflect the truth, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now going back to the applicant, the applicant said that when he - that he extracted the statement from you in the absence of the other officers.  Do you have anything to say about that?

PETER JONES: It is a lie, it is a fabrication.

MR MTSHAULANA: Were you ever interrogated by one policeman?

PETER JONES: I was never interrogated by Niewoudt.  The people who specifically interrogated me was Siebert and to a lesser extent Snyman.  Snyman at the time was the Major in charge, and Siebert was the captain.

CHAIRPERSON: To be fair to the applicant, I don't think that he ever said that he was charged with having to interrogate you.  What he said is that some time fortuitous, if you want, he was left alone with you, at which time he tried to elicit information from you and it is on that occasion that he assaulted you with a green hosepipe.

PETER JONES: Can I respond to that?  That incident never happened.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, we have covered the events of the 24th and the 25th.  Had you ever before met the applicant?

PETER JONES: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you describe the circumstances under which you met the applicant before the 24th very briefly Mr Jones?

PETER JONES: On the day of our arrival in Port Elizabeth, I was eventually taken separately from Steve Biko to Algoa police station.  Soon after my arrival, I was still in the charge office, Niewoudt arrived with a few officers, I can't remember who they were and he started of course manhandling and clapping me around in the charge office.
	I was eventually taken to the back to one of the cells, whereafter they opened it, they stripped me naked, started beating me, shouting at me, making accusations of what we were trying to do in Port Elizabeth and put me in a cold shower.  This particular treatment continued for the next few days until about the 22nd, whereafter ...

CHAIRPERSON: By Niewoudt and his colleagues?

PETER JONES: Niewoudt and a gang of police would come in, shouting, screaming, pushing me out, hitting me, putting me in the cold shower, turning the taps on.  I had initially resisted and pulled him into the shower with me.  After that I didn't think it was the wisest thing to do and I stopped.

MR MTSHAULANA: When you say with a gang of policemen, do you know the names of the policemen that were involved?

PETER JONES: Only Marx is the one that I remember particularly, because of the loudness of his voice.

MR MTSHAULANA: After the 25th, after you wrote Exhibit A, were you ever thereafter interrogated?

PETER JONES: I was interrogated the next day, I was taken back to Algoa at about six o'clock on the 25th.  Although they were not happy, I think it was accepted there was nothing more that could be done that day.
	The next morning I was again collected, back in the same room, there was then a Major Hansen also, who was in charge of King William's Town Security Police.   I then realised that some of my colleagues must have been arrested in King William's Town also.
	On that day there were further assaults of a lesser nature and a further statement, which is not before us, which then took responsibility for the actual transportation and the delivery of the pamphlet.

MR MTSHAULANA: Was that your last interrogation?

PETER JONES: There were numerous other engagements and interrogations of a much lesser nature.  It carried on into September when suddenly the group of people that were interrogating me, changed and a new team took over.

MR MTSHAULANA: On the 25th, that was the last time that you had contact with the applicant?

PETER JONES: And the 26th.

MR MTSHAULANA: And the 26th, that was the last time that you had contact with the applicant?  In the last hearing you heard Mr Booyens ask you about the order of the statements, do you remember that?

PETER JONES: I remember that.

MR MTSHAULANA: Do you have anything to say about that?

PETER JONES: Yes, I had insisted that the way in which I saw the order of the two statements was the way that I gave the evidence at the time.  I subsequently had an opportunity of studying of course all the documentation and the events, and refreshing myself and I have to concede that Adv Booyens was correct, that the sequence of the two statements, these the ones that I have now given, that Exhibit B is the statement that was extracted first, and Exhibit A is the statement that was extracted second, on the same day.

MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman.  That is the evidence for Mr Jones Mr Chairman.

MR MTSHAULANA: .

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any questions?

MS PATEL: No, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I see it is already half past eleven.  Do you want to take the short adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to have a break?
COMMISSION ADJOURNS

PETER JONES: (still under oath)

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, your evidence is in fact that the applicant in so far as you are concerned, is applying for amnesty for a completely fictional event?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And for some reason he choose not to apply for that which he really did to you, but applies for something that he never did to you?

PETER JONES: He assaulted me, but he was in the company and I suppose under the command, of others.  He never assaulted me when he was on his own.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.  But this individual assault that he claims took place, that just never happened?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I don't know if it is quite correct to say that it is a fictional event.  I think it is common cause that Mr Jones was assaulted, circumstances under which the assault occurred, is being disputed.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman, perhaps the word fiction is not the correct description, but the incident that Mr Niewoudt describes, that is pure fiction as I understand it because that never happened according to Mr Jones.
	Mr Jones says yes, I was assaulted but that is about the only similarity between their evidence.  Really in so far as you have heard to His Lordship just now, really in so far as your evidence is concerned Mr Jones, the only aspect that you agree with Mr Niewoudt, as far as this is concerned, is to say yes, he assaulted me but not in the way he described?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: With a green hosepipe.  I think they've got that in common too.

MR MTSHAULANA: And the interrogation room.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, we are coming closer.