Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-08

MR NYOKA: Yes, Mr Jack will say that he was assaulted on other occasions and that involved you.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

MR NYOKA: This particular interrogation;  how was it organised?  When he came in; were you sitting down and preparing to charge or what?  What exactly was the scenario in the room?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He stood and my objective was to determine his involvement in a bona fide way, regarding the intimidation, his responsibilities there, linking him with MK as well as his direct or indirect activities within the organising of these people who then were involved with the execution of violence, necklace murders and so forth.

MR NYOKA: As that was your office,  can we assume that the sjambok was yours or you were aware of its presence.  The sjambok that you used on Mr Jack, was it yours?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.  In 1985, that was during the state of emergency and we were issued with sjamboks;  that's the police so that we could suppress the unrest.  That one was in my possession.

MR NYOKA: So it was in your possession.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that's correct.

MR NYOKA: How long was it in your possession.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I can't remember.  It was after three months, the sjamboks were then taken in again.

MR NYOKA: Was it ever used before, the sjambok?

CHAIRPERSON: You say before, before the 12th of August?

MR NYOKA: Yes, Mr Chairman.  Was it ever used during his stay in your office before the 12th of August?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.  When I used it was during an action at a school where the students got together. It was then used to disperse the crowds.  If I can remember it was at Sondele High School.

MR NYOKA: Before using the sjambok, did you know that you'll have to use it at any stage that day against Mr Jack?  Did you know that at the back of your mind I will have to use this sjambok when Mr Jack comes, did you know that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

MR NYOKA: Why did you use it instead of wrestling with him about the concerns - concerning of - concerns around him, because you stopped the assault immediately after he was rebellious.  You didn't achieve anything, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is so.  Why I used it at that stage,  there are two reasons.  It was on the one way to diminish his resistance and also it would have been very bad for him, because I was treating him like a child.  I was giving him a hiding.

MR NYOKA: Yes.  In your background which was handed in as an exhibit, you said you used a sjambok?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is true and that was the aim.

MR NYOKA: Did you not think that being alone with him, he would have fought back against you when you had no other people with you in the office?  Did you not think at all that he would fight back?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, not at this stage.  I would not have expected it from him.  It could have been possible.

MR NYOKA: Did you report this assault to your two seniors,  Mr Du Plessis and Mr Snyman?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

MR NYOKA: Why not?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: It wasn't necessary for me to report that to them.

MR NYOKA: Under general, did you understand the emergency regulations as a licence, not only to detain activists indefinitely, but to assault them as you did that against Mr Jack? Was that your understanding?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is how I understood it.  Can I just refer you to a publication.  That would be Annexure 18.  That was with the state of emergency.  That's on page 7.

CHAIRPERSON: If you're referring to Annexure 18, it would appear that there's page 132 to 134.  I don't see a page 7 there.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is Annexure 18.

MR NYOKA: Mr Chairman, page 133 of the bundle starts on page 7.  That's the page he his referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry.

MR NYOKA: That very first page.

CHAIRPERSON: So you're referring in fact to page 133 of the papers.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Unfortunately, I don't have the bundle in front of me.  My apology.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, yes.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Paragraph two.
"The second distinctive future ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes
"... of the emergency regulation,
		was the attempt to exclude legal process and legal supervision from the exercise of the emergency powers, particularly the exercise of these powers by the police. 
		In both states of emergency the State President saw fit to promulgate three provisions seeking to maintain law and order without law.
		The first regulation contains an ulster(?) clause, which sought to exclude Supreme Court supervision of the emergency powers."
Then he refers to the regulation -
" In this way the security force would escape accountability to legal standards in an exercise of their powers."
That is what I am referring to, your Honour.

MR NYOKA: Are you saying that implied assault on detainees?  Are you saying that what you read implied that you as security policemen could assault detainees?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, those are the wide powers that were stated.

MR NYOKA: I put it to you that you misunderstood what was written there then.  Okay.
	Let's go to - I'm going to finish with you - you said that you thought it was in the national interest and that of stability and peace in the Eastern Cape;  that the consumer boycotts came to an end.  
	As you know the consumer boycott effected the White business community, not so?  As you've said, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is true.

MR NYOKA: Did the White business community invite you to be involved in stopping this consumer boycotts?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

MR NYOKA: Why did you not leave it to them to sort the matter out with the consumer boycott committee?  Why did you get involved?  It was an economic issue.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: From our side we took the initiative where at a stage we consulted with Mr Jack and other leaders in an effort to end the consumer boycott and it was in my commander's office;  I was present when we had the negotiations.  We continued with it to end the consumer boycott.  They had agreed with one request, that all leaders should be released and then secondly that they should have to go back and they would have to have a meeting at the Nkeke stadium, where they would have to inform the wide masses and on that basis they would then be able to then end the boycott.
	We released them.  They went back on the Sunday.  It was late in the year and they then also then ended the boycott.  So we did achieve our goal.

MR NYOKA: My instruction is that you were never involved directly in the negotiations to end the consumers boycott of any kind;  that you were hostile towards any negotiations with detainees.  What do you say about that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I was present.  Rev Soka was there and many of the religious leaders were involved, Mr Fazi was involved, Edgar Ngoi was present as well as Mr Jack.

MR NYOKA: You said that he instituted a civil the same claim against the State.  Did that relate to the assault that you perpetrated against him, the civil claim, to your knowledge?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I think that it had to do with the Wendy Orr issue.

MR NYOKA: My client never said, he will say that he was never treated by Wendy Orr, but by a male doctor after he was assaulted by you.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I refer to 1985.  That was the first instance where Wendy Orr is involved and that is what I refer to.