Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-08

MR NYOKA: You also said you could not remember who had instructed you to detain him?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

MR NYOKA: When was the order to detain him made or received by you before he was arrested on the 2nd of August or 3rd of August?  Do you remember?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That must have been during the morning.

MR NYOKA: The morning of what?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is of the 3rd.

MR NYOKA: Would it not have come from either of your directors, Mr Du Plessis or Mr Snyman, to detain him.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that could be quite possible.  That could be possible that I got the instruction from Du Plessis, but I can't really remember that he told me to detain him.

MR NYOKA: Okay.  You said that his detention was necessary, amongst other things, for the maintenance of public order, the security of the public and the termination of the state of emergency and that he was the leader of PEYCO and co-ordinator of the consumer boycott.
	Exactly what did you expect to achieve by his detention?  What did you expect to achieve by his detention?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: The emergency regulations was at that stage instituted by the Government of the day and we had to stabilise the situation within the townships.
	That was the aim and that was the opinion of that time and then to work towards the ending of the state of emergency.  There was unrest, there was anarchy in the Black townships.  These instructions came from the State Security Council.

MR NYOKA: Did you hope to get any information from him during his detention?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, I did.

MR NYOKA: What information was that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: In the first instance, the intimidation and campaign that was launched by Mr Jack and his collaborators and then also his contact with MK members who already infiltrated into South Africa, to get them and then also the violent actions, the necklace murders that was executed, held and who was responsible for that.

MR NYOKA: Before he was detained, you must have been anxious to cause him to be arrested, to be arrested and detained.  Not so, and to interrogated him?  Were you eager to do so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: All the leaders who were involved had to be detained.  That was an instruction from the State Security Council of the Government that the unrest situation must be stabilised and he was part of that scenario.

MR NYOKA: Were you not eager to have him arrested and to interrogate him?  Please answer the question, Mr Nieuwoudt.  Were you or were you not?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, all the people whom we arrested, we interrogated and it is so that we had to remove the leaders from the community.  They were responsible for the murders.

MR NYOKA: I see you don't want to answer my question.
	You said that on the 12th of August 1985, Mr Jack was brought to your office at your request.  Why did you wait for about 10 days from the time of his arrest on the 3rd of August, to only talk to him on the 12th of August?
	Why did you not talk to him on the very day he was arrested or the day after, since he was a troublemaker?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: There were many other people that I also had to interrogate.  That was the opportunity that I could actually see him.

MR NYOKA: Apparently he was not much of a troublemaker if he had to wait for 10 days.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't hear the question.  Apparently what?

MR NYOKA: Apparently he was not that of a troublemaker - that much of a troublemaker?

CHAIRPERSON: No, it may be that there were others who were bigger troublemakers.

MR NYOKA: Okay, bigger troublemakers.  (Laughter).

CHAIRPERSON: That is so, yes.

MR NYOKA: Thank you, thank you very much.
	Did you inform any of your commanders that you had - that you're going to interrogate Mr Jack that day?  Did you inform them?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I did not.  I really can't remember that I would have informed them.  I acted on my own initiative to actually have him for that day.  He had to be interrogated.  That was the initial instruction.

MR NYOKA: It was of interest to them what Mr Jack was going to tell you, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

MR NYOKA: What did you hope to achieve by the question you posed to him about intimidation during the consumer boycott and his link with MK members, because you had evidence to that effect, what did you hope to achieve by those questions?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: At that stage I was busy with the investigation of a case of high treason against these detainees and that is why they were detained again in 1986.

MR NYOKA: But you had reliable evidence regarding his involvement in those issues that you questioned him about, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is so.

MR NYOKA: Why did you then continue the interrogation in stead of charging him in terms of the Tenure Security Act for MK activities involvement and even in terms of intimidation or even murder?	Why did you just not charge him?  Why did you interrogate him?  I see, you're smiling.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.  That he has to be asked to the Attorney-General D'Oliviera, because he refused to prosecute at that stage.  There were statements taken, the case was prepared, the prosecution does not depend on me.

MR NYOKA: Mr Nieuwoudt, you had - you have 25 years experience as a policeman.  The first five years as an ordinary policeman.  The last 20 years as a security policeman.  Surely you know that if someone's committing an offence, you charge a person.  So you're charging him and then it's up to the Attorney-General to prosecute.
	There's a difference between charging and a prosecution, not so?  Not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, our security cases are first referred to the Attorney-General and then he has to judge.

MR NYOKA: I'll leave it at that.  Was it the very first time that you interrogated Mr Jack in his activist life before?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, I have previously interrogated him.

MR NYOKA: Alone or with other people.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: There could have been other people present.  I cannot remember precisely.  It's 20 years ago.
	I remember with his detention in 1980 with the school boycotts where he was transferred to Modder Bee and there he was detained under section 10 where you couldn't have interrogated him. 
	That's what I can remember off the cuff now and there must have been other instances as well where I could have interrogated him and where I also interviewed him.

MR NYOKA: In those other occasions, did you ever assault him or had to assault him?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

MR NYOKA: Why was it the case this time.  Was he not rebellious or stubborn in the other occasions?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No. In this particular instance he was and the reason why I assaulted him in this instance, was because the state of emergency regulations gave me wide protection in this regard.  That was why at this stage, I assaulted him.

MR NYOKA: Mr Jack will say that in the other occasions he has always been rebellious and stubborn to policemen.  So he must have been assaulted at other occasions.  He has always been rebellious.  Any comment?

CHAIRPERSON: No, is the question not there, the question is not whether Mr Jack was rebellious on other occasions ... (intervention).

MR NYOKA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Jack going to say that as a result of being rebellious on other occasions, he was also assaulted?

MR NYOKA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the question?

MR NYOKA: No, Your Honour, I'm saying that he has always been consistent in his rebelliousness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NYOKA: So he must have been assaulted before.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but I mean, is Jack going to say that he was assaulted on those occasions?

MR NYOKA: Yes, he was.  He's going to say so.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the question?