Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-08

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Yes. This was supposed to be an old school. I have never been there to see it.  Every time we went to this place we would have this, and the most of the people who made the application in the case of Wendy Orr, have been to that place, and actually everybody was detained during the 1986 state of emergency, was tortured there, with the same method, all of them, and that is what they were using it for.
	Yes, do carry on.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. Who took you to - is it Willowdene?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: I told you it is two policemen.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Unknown to you?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Black policemen. Ja, I can't remember them now.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Okay. So the first time you noticed Mr Nieuwoudt was after the torture had taken place already?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Yes. Ja.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Ja, my instructions are that you were removed from Bethelsdorp police station, because at that stage you were a problem to the police, and that you were intimidating people and acting in an activist matter and disrupting their procedures, but you wouldn't - would you dispute that?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: No, no, I don't have to dispute that. I think, I mean, I won't dispute that. The point that I was making about that, is that I am explaining what happened and I am saying that Nieuwoudt didn't say those things in his application.  And I think he is applying for amnesty. I am not applying for amnesty.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Let's get back to the committee that you served on or the membership of the bodies.  Is it true that you were the co-ordinator of the consumer boycott during the '85 time period?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Yes, I was, ja.

MR VAN DER MERWE: So you would agree that for the security establishment you were a very important role-player in the struggle?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Of course, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You would also agree with me that the - you would expect the security establishment to target you if they had any hope of bringing the consumer boycott to an end?  Surely you should be ... (intervention).

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: I do not quarrel with their methods. We are here just to tell what they have done, that's all.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Oh, I see.  And then subsequent to your negotiations after your detention or during your detention, when you managed to convince the security police that they should release the detained leaders, the consumer boycott was called off. Is that correct?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Let's come to that. Thank you for bringing this all back here, because I wanted to tell you something about this. You know, your client purports that he was involved in negotiations of any kind. Let me tell you this. Your client don't believe in prisoners talking with the police and that was his philosophy and he adhered to that; never ever has he discussed with me or any of my comrade community leaders ever anything to do with our actions. The only time he talks with us, it was - the only time he was involved, it was when he wants to torture and terrorise people. Never has he been involved in a meeting that discussed anything to do with the suspension of the boycott.  And I will tell you a little bit more about that, which you don't know. Mr Deon Nieuwoudt, he was so upset with Barend, with Du Plessis engaging and continuing those talks with us, because those talks we initiated them for the sole purpose of lifting the morale of our troops in the prison. It was always a good thing for us to yearning after of course the Wendy Orr thing, to go and engage the police to assess the mood, how far were they in terms of going to release us. And those talks were initiated by us and always for that purpose. And Nieuwoudt hated those talks. He hated them. He never wanted them.  As a result on the second state of emergency that was declared, Sir, Nieuwoudt worked carefully to get Roelofse get, who was not involved in the 1985, because of Du Plessis who made a mistake, of engaging in talks with us, when actually their job was just to lock us up, according to what he said, and Roelofse. And this I was told by Roelofse and Nieuwoudt was present, he knows that. They said the talking is over, and we will rot in prison until the situation is stabilised. He must not come here and pretend as if he was a negotiator of any kind. He hated the word negotiations.  (Applause).
	He hated the word negotiations, Sir. Don't please come up with that.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You, however, let's leave Mr Nieuwoudt for the time being.  Subsequent to your detention and assault in custody, you did enter into negotiations with the security police. Is that correct?  And subsequent to that people were released and the boycott was called off.

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Listen, the boycott, the release of the political prisoners had no impact. There is no way that we could have negotiated our release with the police.  Forget about that. What has happened is that ... (intervention).

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Jack, will you please answer the question. It is a simple question.

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: What is simple in your question?

MR VAN DER MERWE: There was an assault on you by Mr Nieuwoudt.  After that you were still detained. You entered into negotiations with other members of the security police, according to your version, and you as well as the other ring-leaders of the consumer boycott were released and the boycott was stopped. Is that correct?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: No, the point I am trying is not correct. Because what I am trying to say to you, the negotiations that were held between us and the police, were, had nothing to do with the torture, and which you are trying to bundle together.

MR VAN DER MERWE: That's not my question.

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Ja, but that's the implication you are creating.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think he is implicating - he said after the torture had all been over, at some stage there was negotiation, which negotiations resulted in the release of the leaders.

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: You see, what I do not agree with, is to tie this, the release and the boycott are two different things.  The police have been keeping us for a long time.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, say that.

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Now tell us about that. You say the release of the leaders and the ending of the boycott are not connected issues?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: They are not connected issues. It is just that the impression they - what he tries to, they try now to make a case about, having negotiated and us going to stop the boycott, is false.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I am merely talking about the sequence of events.

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: What sequence?

MR VAN DER MERWE: There was an assault on you.  There was negotiations after the assault. Is that correct?  While you were still in detention.

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Whilst - yes, of course, ja.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Right.  After the negotiations you as well as some of the other activists were set free by the security police?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Is that correct?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Yes, they were set free as a result of ... (intervention).

MR VAN DER MERWE: Then you went back to your people, at grassroots level and the boycott was called off. Is that correct?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Listen, the calling of the boycott was based on completely different circumstances. What I am very uncomfortable with, what you are saying is to try to link the release of the political prisoners and ... (intervention).

MR VAN DER MERWE: I think we will leave that for argument. I am not trying to link that. I will argue that later.

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: No, you are linking it. Okay, but anyway.

ADV POTGIETER: Just a minute, just a minute.  But, Mr Jack, the question is the assault or the torture, is that linked at all to the negotiations, the lifting of the consumer boycott or not?

MR JACK DEMONSTRATES: Not at all.