Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR POTGIETER: But Mr Booyens, I have a difficulty, was it all that profound, wasn't it a very simple question of Mr Biko having been regarded as breached the banning order, in other words he had breached the law, and the Police arrested him!   That's how their paths crossed!

ADV BOOYENS: Well, I said that's how their paths crossed, I said that the collision occurred at Sanlam Building Mr Chairman.

MR POTGIETER: You know the point is that when he was stopped at the road block, he was obviously in breach of his banning order and that is how his contact with the Police came about.   They thought he was committing an offence.   They were not out to engage in a political battle with him, not so?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, why was he banned in the first place?   Surely he was not banned because, at least the theory is, he would have been banned because of his political beliefs.   When he ended in that road block, obviously that created an opportunity.   If it was just for a breach of the road block, of his banning order, remember he wasn't even caught in Port Elizabeth, he was caught at Grahamstown, but listen to the evidence of Mr Jones.
	Mr Jones was questioned at length about other activities; about other political activities; about why the visit to Cape Town, we cannot - it will be a complete over simplification and a serious misdirection to say that the only reason why the clash occurred is because Mr Biko broke his banning orders.   Because then there was no need to interrogate him, or for that matter no need to interrogate Mr Jones.   
      We could have charged Mr Biko under that section that said that you have to stay in the district and you could in all probability I presume, and it's been some time since I prosecuted, but you could in all probability charge Mr Jones as an accomplice to aiding and abetting him in breaking his banning order, but it is clear from the evidence of  Mr Jones that that was not all that they were interested in.

MR POTGIETER: What about the pamphlet?

ADV BOOYENS: What about it Mr Chairman?   The evidence clearly was Mr Jones says that they had nothing to do with the pamphlet.   The test I would submit with respect is not whether or not Mr Biko indeed had something to do with the pamphlet, the test is, did the Police believe that Mr Biko had something to do with the pamphlet.   Mr Jones's evidence somewhere says, if I recall correctly that it was in fact in some stage put to him that Marx; assist me Mr Commissioner, I think he says in fact somewhere that it was said that Marx - some policeman, I think it was Marx had seen them at a school in the PE District off-loading the pamphlets.

MR POTGIETER: Yes, can I Mr Booyens just explain.   You see, I understand the applicants to have said that they never intended to cause the death of Mr Biko.   What they wanted to do was to get a criminal charge to stick against him and to get him dealt with by the courts, possibly imprisoned and neutralise his influence in that way.   So I understand them to say that obviously the breach of the banning order is cut and dry - I mean he was guilty of that one, there's no question about that.   But they were also interested in the pamphlet because they obviously believe that he had some critical role to play either as the author or somehow distributing the pamphlet, so they could possibly make that charge stick against him as well.  Because I mean look, the wording of that pamphlet had opened up quite a few serious charges, you could think of sedition, you could think of all sorts of serious charges.
	So I had thought what they were trying to tell us was that that was really what they were all about.   They were going to use the law against him; they were going to throw the book against him; get him convicted and take him out of circulation or am I mistaken in that impression?

ADV BOOYENS: I think the pamphlet was only part of it.   There was also interrogation about the purpose of the visit to Cape Town according to Mr Jones.   So yes, they were interrogating him about his political activities.

CHAIRPERSON: Apart from Mr Jones's explanation as to why, what is the evidence of the applicants as to why Biko was arrested?

ADV BOOYENS: As to the why he was arrested, it's simple!   He was arrested by another branch because he breached his banning orders.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and then that gave rise to an interrogation of him.

ADV BOOYENS: On issues clearly outside the breach of the banning order it doesn't sound if the breach of the banning order was at all considered.   That was cut and dry.

CHAIRPERSON: So then the next question was that because he breached his banning order and was known to have gone to Cape Town, they wanted to know why was he in Cape Town?

ADV BOOYENS: That's it.

CHAIRPERSON: So they interrogate him in why were you in Cape Town?   Is that the interrogation?

ADV BOOYENS: Well, the intended, just remember with respect Mr Chairman that the intended interrogation never really took place.   But yes, he would ....(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: .....what the purpose they had in mind

ADV BOOYENS: The purpose they had in mind would be to questioning about his political activities, determine whether his political activities which could include his visit to Cape Town, which could include distribution or whatever he had to do with the pamphlet and to determine whether he indeed - those political activities indeed amounted to a breach of the plethora of the security legislation at the time, but also to obtain information, because I think there was some questioning of Mr Siebert if I am not mistaken as to what the purpose was, and he said it was twofold.   First of all you see what information you can get and you use that information, you question me under, I think it was Section 6 in those days  ... (intervention)

UNKNOWN: Can I just ask ....(intervention)

ADV BOOYENS: Can I just complete my answer please Mr Sandi, then I'll deal with your question through you Mr Chairman.
	You're detained under Section 6, they obtain certain information from you, they used that information then to go and confront other people; in other words they would question me under Section 6; they can't use that against me in court, but during my interrogation I say that Pete and Paul were with me.   Now they go to Pete and Paul and they get statements from them.   
	Mr Chairman through you Mr Sandi has indicated that he has a question for me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand.

UNKNOWN: Mr Booyens when you say the Security Police wanted to interrogate Mr Biko about his political activities, as I understand not all political activities will amount to the breach of the law.   What exactly did they want to find out about his political activities?   Didn't they know that he was a politically active person?  Weren't they monitoring his movements?   What crime were they investigating in relation to his visit in Cape Town?