Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-11

MR BOOYENS: Briefly then, you had information available that Mr Biko had been arrested with Mr Jones at a roadblock during August.  Is that correct?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: At the time when you all began to interrogate Mr Biko on the sixth of September, did you have any particular information available with regard to the activities of Mr Jones and Mr Biko?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: In particular, were you in possession of the statement of a certain Mandibi Patrick Titi?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: As a consequence of what had Mr Titi been detained?  Why was he detained?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: A pamphlet had been distributed in the neighbourhoods of Kwasikele and New Brighton, in these townships, which celebrated or commemorated the unrest of 1976, the call to commemoration was by means of continued unrest, arson and from the information available or obtained, it was indicated that Mr Titi was or would have been involved in the drafting and, probably, the distribution of this pamphlet.

MR BOOYENS: You referred to a document.  I want to show you a copy of Exhibit B which has already been handed in to the Commission.  Was this the document?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: This was the pamphlet that was distributed, yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Titi would have been an Article 6 detainee.  Is that correct?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Had he been interrogated?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did he eventually make a statement in terms of Article 6?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have a copy of that document in front of you?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: I have a photocopy of the original document in front of me, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Whose handwriting would that be?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: That would have been, that would be Mr Titi's own handwriting.

MR BOOYENS: Do you know where the original can be found?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: No, I do not know where the original would now be available.

MR BOOYENS: When was this statement made?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: On 26 of August 1977, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Could you identify this document as the statement of Mr Titi?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: This would then be EXHIBIT G.  We do not want to burden the record, but in the document as written out by Mr Titi, would it have appeared from that, that Mr Biko played some role in the drafting of Exhibit B?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: You, therefore, had this information available to you when you confronted Mr Biko?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Mr Jones.

MR BOOYENS: Oh, already when you confronted Mr Jones?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Did Mr Jones also draft a document in which, to some extent, he confirmed the statement by Mr Titi?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: I show you a photocopy, whose handwriting would this be?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: This is the handwriting of Mr Jones.

MR BOOYENS: This document appears incomplete, it ends halfway on page ten and it is not signed.  Is that correct?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would you, however, confirm that this is the document and that it is in the handwriting of Mr Jones?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: And that in broad terms, without going into the detail, that it did appear that Mr Biko played a certain role?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Roughly speaking, this would indicate that Mr Jones knew of the pamphlet that he overheard or heard a discussion between Mr Titi and Mr Biko?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And did you also see the documents?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, at the offices in King William's Town.

MR BOOYENS: Would these have been the offices where Mr Biko found himself?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Is it a copy of this document in front of you?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: It is dated at the top, 25 August 1977.  In whose handwriting would that be?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: In the handwriting of Mr Jones.

MR BOOYENS: Could you identify the document as the document drafted by Mr Jones?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: This would EXHIBIT H, my Lord.

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, (speaker's microphone not switched on) pre-trial conference for the purposes of handing over and receiving relevant documents for the purpose of this, these proceedings.  We are entitled, with respect, to an explanation why our documents were received, but we were not handed over the documents that the applicants intended to use in support of their application and, whilst I am  addressing the court, may we ask our learned friend to please produce all the documents that they have which are relevant to these matters so that we may be on an even playing field in a relation to preparation.

MR BOOYENS: As far as the explanation is concerned, M'Lord, that was simply a situation, these are documents that became, I obtained subsequent to Sunday, Rule 37, during consultations.

CHAIRPERSON: You obtained it where?

MR BOOYENS: Subsequent to Sunday.  We had the pre-trial on Sunday and during consultations subsequently, when we consulted in-depth about certain of the applications, it became available.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are there other documents you intend using?

MR BOOYENS: M'Lord, as presently advised, no.  I can just make sure.  Oh, yes, there is another, there was a, in so far as it may be worth, I will make it available to my learned friend.  It is a warning statement of the said, Patrick Titi, as well, which he made to a police officer.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I do not want you to burden the documents unless they are worth putting in.

MR BOOYENS: In essence, it is the same as the other one.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and there might be documents relating to your other clients too.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If you propose using those.

MR BOOYENS: M'Lord, as ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: If they are in your possession ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... you should make them available.

MR BOOYENS: As I have been advised by my client, Mr Niewoudt, those documents he wish to rely upon, has been attached to his amnesty application and, if I recall, I do not recall him handing me any other further documents during consultations and as far as my other client is concerned, he handed me nothing, M'Lord.  I apologise if I embarrassed my learned, but, however, due to the fact that we will, obviously, be postponing this matter after today, I would submit that the, there is not really substantial prejudice as far as this is concerned.  I will make a copy of the so-called warning statement of Mr Titi available to Mr Bizos as well, if he wants to make use of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, carry on.

MR BOOYENS: You have said that the statements which you have now handed in have been in your possession when you interrogated Mr Biko on the sixth?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Who would have been the commanding, in command of the investigation or interrogation team?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Mr Snyman.

MR BOOYENS: The team consisted, in addition, of Marx and Detective Sergeant Niewoudt?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: That is the case.

MR BOOYENS: Would that have been the interrogation team?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Were you aware, and this is on page four of your application, were you aware of the arrest of Mr Biko?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not activated.

CHAIRPERSON: What page of the record is that?  Page 13D, is it?

MR BOOYENS: Yes, M'Lord, it is at the fourth page.  Unfortunately, my papers have not been paginated, but it is on paragraph four.