Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-10

MR BOOYENS: Mr Snyman, this entry was made on the 8th?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Why was this only entered on the 8th?

MR SNYMAN: It was a late entry, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: With a view to prevent later uncertainty with regard to occurrence books and their role;  at a police station an occurrence book is kept?  Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: At the security branch office, would there at the branch have been an occurrence book where entries could be made?

MR SNYMAN: Is that at the security branch?

MR BOOYENS: At the security branch.

MR SNYMAN: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: When you had to make entries, would that have been made at a normal police station?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, the entries would have been made in the occurrences book at the complaints desk of a normal police station.

MR BOOYENS: You say that this was a late entry and you have already said that this was under the instructions of Goosen.  This entry is inaccurate?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: It is a blatant inaccuracy in that it indicates that Maj Snyman indicates that on the 7th of September 1979 at about 07:00 in the morning a certain incident occurred.  What is your comment on this?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour, these were not the true facts of the matter.  This incident in fact occurred on the 6th of September.  I questioned the instruction which I received from the commanding officer, Col Goosen, who instructed me to report the matter on the 8th and to indicate it under the date of the 7th of September.

MR BOOYENS: When did Goosen give you this instruction to make this entry?

MR SNYMAN: The instruction was given when I arrived in his office after I reported that the detainee had been injured.  It was not, however, on the same day.  It was on the following day, on the 8th.

MR BOOYENS: Maybe you could just repeat your answer.  On
what date did Goosen instruct you to make the entry.

MR SNYMAN: It was on the 8th.

MR BOOYENS: Fine then.  The fact that the date had to be indicated as the 7th, rather than the 6th which would have been the correct date, who gave this instruction?

MR SNYMAN: This was an instruction of Col Goosen.  I believed that the fact why it came from him was that the doctor had apparently only on the 7th or had been called in only on the 7th to examine the detainee.

MR BOOYENS: The entry, although cryptic in nature, attempt to sketch a picture of what had occurred.  Could you comment on the correctness, apart from the date which is apparently incorrect and also it would appear to me that time, namely of 07:00 in the morning, seven o'clock in the morning, would there be other untruths or inaccuracies?

MR SNYMAN: Most certainly, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What would these be?

MR SNYMAN: In the first place, it did not occur as it was entered.  It did not occur on the 7th.  It occurred on the 6th.  Also, it did not occur at seven in the morning, but at a later time between nine and half past nine in the morning.

MR BOOYENS: Would there be any further inaccuracies?

MR SNYMAN: The fact that he fell with his head against the wall
is in fact correct.

MR BOOYENS: I had in fact asked you whether there were any further intentional untruths in the entry?  I'm not asking you what is correct.

MR SNYMAN: With regard to the chairs having been picked up and thrown, that is also incorrect.

MR BOOYENS: So that the chair had been thrown at you or at whom?

MR SNYMAN: The chair was thrown at Siebert.

MR BOOYENS: Is there anything incorrect in addition to this?

MR BOOYENS: Within the context of the entry, the claim that the district surgeon was called to examine the detainee, would be incorrect, because it would appear as if he had been called in on the same day as the injury occurred.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.  That was not in fact contextually the case.

MR BOOYENS: Is there anything that you would want to indicate in addition to this?

MR SNYMAN: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Did you at a later stage - were you informed at a later stage that Mr Biko in fact died in Pretoria after having been transferred there?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: That would have been roughly on the 13th when you heard of this?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: What would have occurred subsequent to this?  I want you to tell us more about statement made by members of the branch, drafted by members of the branch, including yourself.

MR SNYMAN: The instruction from Col Goosen to all the members of the security branch who had been involved with Biko;  the Saturday after his death, he called all of these members into his office.

MR BOOYENS: Yes?

MR SNYMAN: During this meeting Col Goosen explained that the death of Biko was a great embarrassment to the security branch and the South African Government or could be a great embarrassment.
	It was clear that this event would have a negative impact on the image of South Africa abroad and that perhaps this could lose foreign investments for the country.

MR BOOYENS: Are you reading from your statement?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct. Col Goosen explained that it was in the interest of the Government of the day that the matter had to be managed in such a way that the interests of the security branch and the South African Government could be protected.	During this meeting there were instructions for everyone involved that the true facts with regard to this incident had to be adapted or simply not mentioned.
	At that time it was my personal opinion that in this process it was in the interest of the security branch and the South African Government and in fact necessary for the continued survival of the then Government system to act in this manner.

MR BOOYENS: All of you then made statements.  Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Were these statements true or false?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: No, I'm asking you whether they're true or false.  It can't simply be correct.

MR SNYMAN: The statements were false.

MR BOOYENS: We attempted to obtain a copy of your statement of that time, but we failed in this attempt.  Broadly, however, what would have been the lies contained in the statement?

MR SNYMAN: Your Honour, these would include the fact that the detainee had been injured on the 7th rather than on the 6th.  Further more, that a doctor only examined him on the 8th;  that he received medical attention a day after having been injured.

MR BOOYENS: I'm sorry, I'm not understanding what you are saying.  Would there have been a lie with regard to when the doctor saw him or would the lie have been that he was in fact injured on the 7th or what exactly?  I'm not following what you are saying with regard to the doctor.

MR SNYMAN: The lie would have been that he had been injured on the 7th, since he had already been injured on the 6th.

MR BOOYENS: To the best of what you can recall, what additional lies would have been contained in that statement?

MR SNYMAN: We were told by Col Goosen what to say in our statements.  The statements were not based on the true facts as we are now making clear in this application.

MR BOOYENS: Were all of you together when you prepared your statement?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, we were all together.

MR BOOYENS: Did Goosen take the statements down or let you write them out yourselves.

MR SNYMAN: No, he took the statements down from us.

MR BOOYENS: Were all of the statements cooked or were they all changed from the actual facts?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would these changes have been made under the direction of Goosen or under whose direction?

MR SNYMAN: No, it was under the direction of Goosen.

MR BOOYENS: Subsequently you also testified or made these into sworn statements as if they were in fact the truth and this was done
with the full knowledge that they were in fact not true?