Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

ADV NYOKA: Mr Mamasela stated that all the Pebco leaders starting with Mr Hashe and then Mr Galela - both on the same day and then finally Mr Godolozi, were assaulted by being hit, kicked and struck with an iron pipe and a stick.
	And that Mr Galela's testicles were squeezed, that you in particular - during the first assault on Mr Hashe, you took an iron pipe and hit him over the head, that blood came out of his ears and he became limp, that this iron pipe was used again on Mr Galela and Mr Godolozi - though Mr Mamasela does not specify that you had used it in those instances, that is the Galela and Godolozi one.  
	Mr Mamasela stated that the reason for this first assault was because Mr Hashe was - you were not happy with the answers that he was giving you, he provoked anger in you, any comment about that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Once again I was confronted by Mamasela's statements, he gave four different versions - at that stage already he had given four different versions, and I strongly deny it with regard to any of these four different versions, number one where he would have alleged that I would have beaten him to death.
	His second version was that I also beat him to death with the handle of an implement and then the third one that I beat him to death with a pipe and then the fourth one that I shot him.  That is nonsense, even the family criticised him in '94 in relation to his rendition.  I strongly deny it.

ADV NYOKA: Before the operation was launched, how were the relations between you and him and even during the operation?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I didn't know him.

ADV NYOKA: Then why would he pick you out of four people as being the one who used an iron pipe, why you if there no bad relations before?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: It didn't happen.  He gave four different versions, which one is correct?

ADV NYOKA: All right.  Is it not correct that during the first amnesty application here in Port Elizabeth or Kuzile Jack, you admitted having assaulted him not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I did.  (transcriber's own translation)

ADV NYOKA: With a sjambock?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I did.

ADV NYOKA: Because he was rebellious or stubborn, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, because I wanted to get information from him, that was my instruction.

ADV NYOKA: No, I've got your application here.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is so.

ADV NYOKA: You said because he was rebellious you took this sjambock and hit him - I cross-examined you.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, it is the case.

ADV NYOKA: In other words, you were not happy with his responses, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

ADV NYOKA: Is it furthermore not correct that in the same hearing you admitted having assaulted township students with that sjambock, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, it is the case.

ADV NYOKA: You see, I find this very strange that you used a sjambock with Mr Jack, you used a sjambock with the students and here Mr Mamasela who doesn't know you accuses you of having used an instrument - in this case an iron pipe, if that did not occur.  Any comment?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I deny it strongly, there is a perception with regard to me and it's quite easy to blame me.

ADV NYOKA: You see, in that Jack case it's very relevant in the sense that it occurred on the 12th of August 1985 only three months after the Pebco people who alleged they've been assaulted with an iron pipe.  It seemed to me that you used an instrument during that year but that in the Jack case you used a sjambock because you didn't want to kill him, you just wanted to wipe him and in the Pebco you wanted to kill him, that's why the ...[indistinct] pipe was used.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, in the same case where refer to the sjambock, I also used it in 1980 with school boycotts, so I cannot see how you can make that assumption.

ADV NYOKA: And you admitted yesterday that you did assault other people before but in that application you said you only assaulted Mr Jack and the school children.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I applied for the fact that I assaulted Mr Jack and I also admitted that.

ADV NYOKA: You said yesterday, there were other people that you assaulted, you said: "Other people" - plural, to singular.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct and then also the late Mr Biko.

ADV NYOKA: And both applicants, Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole stated that the Pebco leaders were assaulted by everyone including themselves and yet you said there was no assault.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Not in my presence and I didn't.

ADV NYOKA: Are you saying that there was a possibility whilst you were busy interrogating, there could have been an assault with regard to the other two that remained behind?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I didn't see it and I also didn't see any marks.

ADV NYOKA: You do understand that as applicants you are not accused - you are not accusing each other, not so - you are co-applicants?  Have you not taken the opportunity of seeing them off the record and say: "Hey Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai, why are you saying that you saying that he assaulted people when he didn't"?  Have you not used that opportunity - we're now in the second week, since we started?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I didn't.

ADV NYOKA: Why not?  Just off the record, why not - why did you not confront them about these strange and wild allegations - off the record?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that have been the right thing to do?

ADV NYOKA: I think so because they are not co-accused, they ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Well, one could also subsequently come and say you were trying to influence them.

ADV NYOKA: But Mr Chairperson, Mr van Zyl could ask from Mr Nieuwoudt who he shot, I don't see any reason why they can't talk to each other - he asked to ascertain who he shot.

CHAIRPERSON: I have some severe misgivings about the validity of your criticism because when people have got two such divergent versions and he goes to one of them - well, he might have done that but he could just as well later be criticised and it be said: "Why did you speak to them, were you trying to influence them" and so on.

ADV NYOKA: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: It could be a problematic situation.

ADV NYOKA: All right.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Thank you Chairperson.

ADV NYOKA: You mentioned yesterday - I just want to finish on the assault, you mentioned yesterday about "Operation Vula".

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: Is it not correct that the context in which "Operation Vula" occurred was different to the one of the apartheid era in the sense that it occurred in 1990 during the Groote Schuur discussions on the cessation of hostilities, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that was while negotiations were continuing, they continued with the liberation struggle.

ADV NYOKA: One of the issues being discussed was the release of political prisoners, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: The reason why Mr Maharaj was not arrested despite his confession was because there was discussion about the releasing of people doing what he did.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He was arrested, Mr Mac Maharaj and in terms of Security Legislation he was detained and President Mandela personally came to visit him in my presence.

ADV NYOKA: The reasons why he volunteered the information was because he had nothing to loose because there were discussions about the release of political prisoners.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

ADV NYOKA: And he was never convicted and sentenced, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, because Mr de Klerk stopped the whole court process that was part of the negotiations because it dealt with the Groote Schuur Minute, the Pretoria Minute that the MK would not cease their armed struggle - that was what the negotiations were all about.