Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: Can I just refer you to paragraph 20 of your statement in your amnesty application on page 131 - by they way before I ask the question, were you still eating at the stage that Major du Plessis arrived?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I cannot remember that exactly but I can remember that the three deceased ate and that we also offered Major du Plessis some of the meat.

ADV LAMEY: Did you not eat together with Captain Venter and the Askaris and the three persons and then when the meal was over Venter and the Askaris left?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: The finer details in this regard I cannot recall them but I was under the impression that the deceased ate and Major du Plessis and that's how I can remember it.  I'd also eaten at that stage and that's how I remember it.

ADV LAMEY: I just want to take you to the point that I want to make and refer you to page 131 of paragraph 20, you say
"At that stage Major Herman du Plessis arrived alone in the vehicle, he asked questions concerning the interrogation and then departed"

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: That's not what you have just testified to, you testified that Major du Plessis merely came to say that the coast was clear.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He could have spoken to the detainees, I cannot remember correctly - he did not question them, this is as I recall it.

ADV LAMEY: But here it does not say that Major du Plessis questioned them, it says that he asked questions concerning the interrogation and thereafter he left.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: In other words, the impression is being created that Major du Plessis was interested in the interrogation which he excepted had taken place?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, this is the impression that's been created, I agree but nothing new arose from the - in the interrogation.

ADV LAMEY: That's not the point, I asked you clearly in cross-examination: "What did Major du Plessis come to do there" and you said he just came to say that the coast was clear and that he remained for a little while and then he left.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct, that is the main objective of that.

ADV LAMEY: Why do you not say in your testimony then that Major du Plessis also asked questions concerning the interrogation?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He could have discussed this with Captain van Zyl.

ADV LAMEY: You say this in this in your statement, in other words it must have been something that you knew about?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, it's obvious that he should be interested to know if we had obtained any information from the interrogation, surely that's a logical question that he would have asked but according to my - the main objective for his visit there was to come and inform us that everything was in order in Port Elizabeth, that no finger could be pointed at the security branch.

ADV LAMEY: But where do you mention the main purpose of his visit?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I did not mention it as such in my application.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the problem, it is this that Mr Lamey wants to know because according to the piece which has just been read, the impression is created that one can almost think that as far as Major du Plessis was concerned the objective was just to question these people.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is true, that is according to what I stated and one can make that deduction from this but that was the whole purpose of Major du Plessis's and that was to inform us that we could continue with the operation of elimination.

CHAIRPERSON: But that main purpose is not mentioned in your application.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: If that is so, then it must be an oversight on my part.

ADV LAMEY: Was it not true that the interrogation also formed a very important and integral part after the abduction of these people?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: It was just to create the impression amongst the Askaris.

ADV LAMEY: Just for that reason?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that's how I interpreted it - to mislead them.

ADV LAMEY: To mislead the Askaris but not to really obtain information from these three important leaders regarding any information which they might have?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I did question them in this regard.

ADV LAMEY: But I want some clarity now, do you say that the purpose of the interrogation was a dual one - on the one hand to create the impression amongst the Askaris that there was a specific reason for the abduction, and on the other hand that you also had an interest in potential information which these three Pebco members could provide you with?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is true.

ADV LAMEY: So, it's a dual purpose?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's true.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I see it is 4 o'clock, I do not know whether this is a suitable time to adjourn?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if it's a convenient stage for you then we can adjourn.  Can we start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning?  We are becoming concerned that we may not be able to finish on Friday, we are trying to expedite the hearing as to finish on Friday.  Well, we'll adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.  Please leave the earphones behind and don't take them out.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION - 11 NOVEMBER 1997  -  DAY 9

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nieuwoudt, you are still under oath, thank you.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, we finished with you yesterday?

ADV LAMEY: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: You finished cross-examining yesterday?

ADV LAMEY: No, Mr Chairman, I'm ...[indistinct]

CHAIRPERSON: All right, go on.

ADV LAMEY: (cont)
Thank you Mr Chairman.  Mr Nieuwoudt, can you hear me?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, I can.

ADV LAMEY: What was the initial purpose of Vlakplaas under the leadership of Captain Venter in Port Elizabeth before this operation was planned regarding the Pebco 3?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: The purpose was the identification and tracing or tracking down of insurgents.

ADV LAMEY: The identification ...[no sound] I'm referring specifically to terrorists, MK members?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You also testified that the creation of the alternative structures by Pebco of which these three specific persons formed the core, created a vacuum among others and a breeding ground for terrorist, is this correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Can one say that the revolutionary struggle at that stage - with the creation of this vacuum, adopted a very important dimension?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Correct.

ADV LAMEY: Because the ultimate objective of the revolutionary struggle was - by means of an armed struggle, to overthrow the Government, is that correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is.

ADV LAMEY: And is it also correct that in view of the fact that the three Pebco members formed the core of the unrest and in creating the vacuum, that they had a great deal of information regarding terrorists and insurgents?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nieuwoudt, isn't it so that you have been interested in questioning the deceased about the possibility of them accommodating or knowing about the presence of infiltrators?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in that regard, isn't it so that you have expected the Askaris to be of some assistance during the interrogation?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct, but in this case they were not involved in the questioning or the interrogation when I was present.  They were present during the interrogation ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, they were present?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they take part in any way?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Not when I was interrogating them.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the purpose of their presence then?