Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

PETER JONES: We were standing for and fighting for a change in the government of this country.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

PETER JONES: It was called broadly a liberation struggle, freedom struggle, made up of various components.  All of those components collectively were acknowledged as belonging to the struggling people of this country.
	We had elected to operate an organisation and a movement within the parameters of the laws of the country.

ADV BOOYENS: I am not talking about your organisation, I am talking about your potential cooperation.  You were prepared to cooperate with organisations because I think I will be Mr Jones, I was never really involved in these things, but I think I would be correct if I say that in those days the PAC was also to some extent involved in a armed struggle, not so, it wasn't only Umkonto?

PETER JONES: Yes, I would say that.

ADV BOOYENS: Would you agree with that?

PETER JONES: Yes, I would say it is reasonable, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you.  I honestly didn't know.  Now, the question actually is on this, the BPC the legal organisation, the purpose of the Cape Town meeting was for the legal organisation to meet with two organisations that were actually involved in an armed struggle, and there was a preparedness to cooperate with them, because you had the same aim basically namely to overthrow the then government?

PETER JONES: Sir, we were very, very far from talking about an armed struggle.  We were at a particular point, and we have put in a number of years in that, to reach a basic position, an  in principle position, whether these organisations that have got very long histories of division and animosities and tensions whether they would agree in principle, to of course unification as a first stage.  We weren't even remotely talking of what you are talking about.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am not - Mr Jones, I think you are reading more into my questions than what there is really in them.
	The question is simply the following.  The idea was to see if the organisations could cooperate, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: The organisations that you wanted to cooperate with, two of them were also involved in their approach, or part of their approach was also the use of violence, is that correct?

PETER JONES: The organisations affected were all the liberation organisations of the people of South Africa.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, including those who made use of violence if necessary?

PETER JONES: Including those.

ADV BOOYENS: So it would be correct to say that the BPC was at least, and Mr Biko was at least prepared to start thinking about cooperation with people who were involved in that fashion, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Right.  Now, it is clear from Exhibit B, that you never told the SB about the real purpose of this meeting?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And in fact I seem to recall, that at the previous hearing, you indicated that in fact you were not going to inform them of, I think it was your phrase, life and death matters?  Is that correct?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And these life and death matters exactly being this intended cooperation?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well.  So there was no - you and Mr Biko were involved in politics, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And the SB's including the applicant, were interested in defeating your political objectives, obviously is that right?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And that is past and if I talk past, I talk prior to August 1977 and future and that is why they used these methods against you like detention and arresting you people, harassing you, visiting your offices, banning people, is that correct?

PETER JONES: We never blamed them for doing what they did.

ADV BOOYENS: No, no, but so you do accept Mr Jones, that these were policemen doing a job for their principle, who was the then government of the day, is that correct?

PETER JONES: Yes, they were representing their government.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, and they, the SB was really the political police, not so?

PETER JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: They were interested in people who were involved in liberation politics like you and that is why they harassed you?

PETER JONES: Okay.

ADV BOOYENS: So the entire period of what you were subjected to, the torture, the writing of the statements, everything, all that centred around political things, not so?

PETER JONES: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: They were not really interested in anything else about you or in so far as they asked about Mr Biko, in anything but your political activities?  Is that right?

PETER JONES: No, that is not right.

ADV BOOYENS: What other activities?

PETER JONES: On many occasions the inter-action between detainees and Security Police would far exceed the boundaries of what you would want to purport to be of course an almost professional relationship.
	It would become very, very personal, they would be very emotional about the fact that they believe that we were arrogant and "hardegat", we had no right to be the way we were.  It was way beyond the fact that we were people of integrity.  That together with the fact that there were many, many cases of excesses that no one can understand, and that is why we are here, I believe, because of all these excesses.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.  I am not saying that in this process, there were not clashes of personality, but the clashes of personality started because of you were two different political poles, not so?

PETER JONES: I am speaking of a culture that was inbred, it was there all the time, it was just not about us committing certain acts that were prohibited by the laws, however wrong these laws were, it was about a culture of hatred, it was a culture of resentment from white people against black people.
	Especially black people who had the nerve to get up and think and talk for themselves.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but in what you have told us in what happened to you, let us confine us to the specific case and not a generalisation.  In what happened in your case up to let's call it the 26th of August, that was a matter involved and information that they wanted from you involving your political activities and Mr Biko's political activities, not so?

PETER JONES: A lot of energy was spent, especially by Siebert, on how it could happen that a coloured person like me could be part of an organisation consisting of kaffirs.  I also wrote about that aspect.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I don't think we need to use that word.

PETER JONES: It is in my statement.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I've seen it, but exactly, but the point is you as a coloured person in an organisation of people of African origin, but their political organisation not so, that's what Siebert was querying?
	The organisation he was referring to was the BPC, not so?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Which was in their perception a political organisation, correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And he wasted his energy on arguing with you why you would get involved in that political organisation by the people emanating from African origin, is that correct?

PETER JONES: I thought he wasted his energy.  He thought he was part of a prophesy of a religion.  He didn't think he was wasting his energy.

ADV BOOYENS: No, no, I am talking about your perception.  But Siebert thought he was on a crusade in other words, to put it more correctly, to really try and suggest to you that he couldn't understand what you were doing in an organisation like that, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: A political organisation like that, is that correct?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Because at the end of the day, it still boiled down to politics?

PETER JONES: If you wish.

ADV BOOYENS: If you want to say it was not so.