Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking including the other witness?

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, it will not be primarily in our hands, but in the hands of my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: I have learnt from my short stint on the bench, it is difficult and rather dangerous to ask for counsel's promises.  I am willing to take the chance.

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you very much, will we start at nine then?

CHAIRPERSON: At nine o'clock then.  Is that in agreement?

GEORGE BIZOS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (still under oath)

GEORGE BIZOS: (continued)   I just want to get clarity on some of the issues that you gave evidence on yesterday.
	You said that the pamphlet of the 18th of August was shown to Mr Biko?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was any other document shown to him?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I can't recall if they confronted him with statements, I can't recall independently.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you remember specifically this pamphlet?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I can remember this because he was confronted with this pamphlet initially, that is why I remember it so clearly.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, I would have thought that you would remember whether or not the statements that you had knocked out of Mr Jones, had been shown to him, you would have remembered that, because that would have been part of your handiwork, you would have been proud of that, that here you are, here is a document which we can confront him with.  Do you remember Mr Jones' statements being shown to him?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: It is possible Mr Chairman.  It is 20 years back, I can't remember every detail of the incident.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, I am going to suggest to you that this business of it being possible, is a refuge on your part so that you don't contradict your colleagues in any way.  You see, I am going to suggest to you that the Committee is not interested in possibilities, it is interested on affirmative evidence or negative evidence in relation to the happenings, and I want you to please try and remember and say categorically whether or not the Jones notes were shown to him?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, as I said previously I cannot recall.  There were many documents shown to him, so I cannot recall, or I cannot say independently, it is possible, I don't know.

GEORGE BIZOS: You see you now added another bit of evidence which you hope to be a window of escape.  Once I put to you other documents, you cover yourself by saying that there were many documents shown to him.  Why did your evidence in chief and throughout yesterday, did you say that only one document was shown to him?

CHAIRPERSON: More correctly, you could only remember that this one document being shown to him?

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is all that I can remember because I know that Mr Marx went out at some point, to do some research.  I don't know if he came back with a file or if he was confronted with it.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Niewoudt, the last question was pointed or was asked because you had just said that there were many documents?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I said it is possible, I made this inference.  I do not have independent recollection of this.

GEORGE BIZOS: But you see this trying to excuse yourself with Mr Marx going to do research is hardly a probable thing in relation to your, to the statements of Jones, that you yourself got out of him, the ink was hardly dry, it didn't require researchers into archives?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I don't know Mr Chairperson, but as I have said previously, the pamphlet was shown to him, he was confronted with it.  He was confronted with many other facts.  I do not have independent recollection of that.

GEORGE BIZOS: And what about the first version of Mr Titi's affidavit, was that shown to him?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I don't know, I cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, I just want to clear something up.  Here you have, you are party to an interrogation team interrogating the person held responsible for all the unrest in the country, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: One would have thought that having this big pimpernel if I may call him that, here in front of you, you would have had all these relevant factors on your fingertips?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Yes, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was it necessary then for people to leave the interrogation room to make enquiries and do research?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: As I have said previously, initially when Mr Biko realised that he was under the questioning of Captain Siebert, it was clear that Captain Siebert had no background on Mr Biko and then Mr Marx left the office to do further research and to consult the files, to confront him with that.
	Mr Chairman, it is about 20 years ago.  I cannot remember every detail of this incident.  All that I know is that he was confronted with the facts we had available to us.  That is how I remember it.

GEORGE BIZOS: According to the evidence, Mr Marx came in after the scuffle that you and your colleagues speak about, had started, so that he couldn't have brought any documents that he had been confronted with prior to the "scuffle", if Mr Marx's evidence is correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: No, I think Mr Bizos is wrong.  Mr Marx accompanied me to fetch Mr Biko and we went into the office together, and he was present during the initial stages of the interrogation.
	After the interrogation by Siebert, he left the office to do further research.  Then he came back after the struggle took place.

GEORGE BIZOS: It was you who introduced the removal of Mr Marx, Mr Marx removing himself in order to go and do research as a reason why you thought that there were lots of documents, so whose got the story wrong, you or me?  Can you reconcile your statement of yours with what I am putting to you?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is correct.  I do not have any independent recollection whether he was confronted with these statements.  I stand at this point.

GEORGE BIZOS: Do you agree with Mr Siebert that this whole transaction of bringing Mr Biko there, interrogating him, asking him questions, having the quarrel about the chair, the scuffle or beating up that took place, all took place within 20 to 30 minutes?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is correct, it could be so.  What the time period is, yes, it could be so.

GEORGE BIZOS: So I am going to suggest to you that on the versions as a whole put before the prior Committee and this Committee, there was hardly any time for any intensive interrogation and that it is highly probable that there was hardly anything more than the quarrel about the chair and the beating up or scramble that you speak about, there was no time for any meaningful interrogation?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: If the whole thing was over within 20 minutes to half an hour, and having regard to the extent to which the injuries indicate a beating up, most of the time, must have been taken up not with meaningful interrogation, but the infliction of punishment in order to soften him up?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: No, I won't put it in that manner Mr Chairperson, initially he was interrogated.   Just later  the struggle took place, there was enough time to confront him.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was he asked any questions about his trip to Cape Town?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Yes, I can remember.  Of what I can remember it was his visit to Dr Alexander.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did he answer those questions?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: No, not that I can remember.  If I can recall correctly, his answer was no, he had marital problems, that was what his visit to Cape Town was about, this is what I can remember Mr Biko ...

CHAIRPERSON: How long was Mr Biko questioned before he had the accident?