Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-30

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Gordhan, if I could just follow up on something here?
	Were you involved in the decision yourself personally for Mr Gordhan and Lalla to be sent to Bethlehem?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you are telling us now is what you think the reason was?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Yes Chairperson, that is why I only answered the first part of the question with regard to 1981 and then generally how many people could be detained in one cell.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes but if you don't know what the reason or if you weren't part of the decision to send the two gentlemen to Bethlehem, you don't know what the real reason is then.  It may be that they wanted these particular detainees far apart or separate from their colleagues?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: It may be so, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just ask a question, Chairperson?
	Did you have any indication why Bethlehem was decided upon which was so remote from Natal?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, if I recall correctly all the other places where there were Section 29 cells all fall within the detentions in Natal.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Gordhan, you may continue.

MR GORDHAN: Chairperson, for the information of the Committee and I put it to Mr Botha as well, that when I was taken on the evening of the 13th July out of Durban I was eventually taken to Newcastle and spent two or three nights in Newcastle.  Were the cells in Newcastle destined to be Section 29 detention cells?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: As far I know Newcastle does have Section 29 cells.

MR GORDHAN: So why wasn't I left in Newcastle?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I don't know why, Chairperson.

MR GORDHAN: Let me tell you why and I put this to you, Mr Botha, that the real reason goes back to our racist past and that in the Free State, Mr Botha, Indians haven't been allowed for many, many decades and that this was the mindset which dictated that you or your colleagues decided that these so-called Indians must actually be taken to Bethlehem?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I cannot comment on that, Chairperson.

MR GORDHAN: Mr Botha, the assault on myself relative to the murder of Ndaba and Shabalala amongst many others is a relatively minor assault.  Why do you see fit in this context to disclose your role in this assault?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I have applied because the other members have applied.  If you look at the date of my application it was on the last day otherwise I would never have applied for this assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it correct you have applied in respect of other various matters?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson.  I applied, after then my other three colleagues applied.

MR GORDHAN: So if they had not applied you would not have applied?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR GORDHAN: And therefore your inclination was not to make a full disclosure and breast of all the offences you were guilty of in terms of the Act under which we sit here?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, I think it's a matter of argument this, my own legal team differ from me, I know I feel that I have already received indemnity for matters of assault.

MR GORDHAN: Chairperson, the question is, is this confirmation of your inclination not to make full disclosure?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No Chairperson, I've already explained, in my opinion I have already had indemnity for assault and it was not necessary to apply for amnesty.  When my colleagues applied they informed me and consequently I supported them in their amnesty applications and I submitted a supplementary document.

MR GORDHAN: Mr Botha, I heard your evidence on a previous occasion in respect of Ndaba and Shabalala and I heard your explanation of your long background and security related activities in Namibia and South Africa.  What is your personal philosophy and on the question of assaulting person in detention?  Is it something that you think about carefully, is it something that you weigh up very carefully, taking into account the individual concerned, the circumstances and in particular the law which applies to these detentions?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, a stage arose during the activities of the security branch where we worked outside the law but believed that we were acting correctly and that it was necessary that we had to do what we had to do and consequently the use of violence with interrogation and in some instances it was necessary.

MR GORDHAN: My question is about whether is this a matter -I'll make it easier for you, some of you sometimes try to do when I was at the receiving end of the questions, is this a matter that you acted upon impulsively, in other words if the mood struck you, you went ahead and you assaulted the detainee concerned or is it something that you weighed up very carefully and only on the rare occasion did you use assault as a detention or interrogation technique?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, the assault of a detainee or the coercion of a detainee would not necessarily be planned.  The circumstances could determine if such a decision would be taken to use coercion to let them speak.

MR GORDHAN: How often in your experience which is a vast one in interrogating detainees did this kind of circumstance arise and I suggest to you that it arose fairly frequently?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, I cannot attach a number to it but it was many cases.

MR GORDHAN: I put it to you, Mr Botha, that your inclination given your history and training is in fact to at the first instance to attempt to assault a detainee?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No Chairperson, I cannot accord with that.

MR GORDHAN: You made reference earlier on when we talked about the availability of cells for detention of Section 29 detainees, you made mention of the fact that an Act of parliament, be it an undemocratic parliament at that point in time, was one which prescribed the conditions under which a detainee needed to be kept.  You also made mention of the fact that magistrates and sometimes district surgeons had access to detainees.  Now I've been visited by many magistrates in my time, I have laid many complaints in my time and I put it to you that the security branch and you in particular actually never took magistrates seriously.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, we worked within that framework and if we manipulated the system to our advantage then it was so.

MR GORDHAN: So you admit, Mr Botha, that magistrates were normal and a sop and a cover up for what were essentially elicit activities on the part of the security branch then?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No Chairperson, that is not what I testified.  What I say is the visiting magistrate will put a question to the detainee which he will put in writing and when there is an allegation of an assault the magistrate will react that such an assault be investigated and the place of detention was visited by the magistrate so he will physically make an observation.  So what I am saying is what I saw from the magistrates' reports was that they fulfilled their function.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think what Mr Gordhan, one of the aspects of Mr Gordhan's question is that you as members of the security police who had dealings with Section 29 detainees didn't let the visits of the magistrates hinder you in acting unlawfully towards the detainees, in other words it didn't in any way stop you from assaulting them.  Instead of beating them over the head with a stick you would use the suffocation method or some other method where there wouldn't be any physical marks left?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is very well described, Chairperson.