Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I please be afforded to ask just one question, I neglected to ask my attorney and I scolded severely and so I would want the opportunity to ask that question.
	Mr Nieuwoudt, can you perhaps just explain to us, in this type of interrogation process where violence is not used, can you just give the Committee an indication as to how information is obtained from activists regarding this interrogation - what steps are taken, because I think that there might be a slight void regarding evidence in this regard.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Just briefly, it deals with methods of convincing the people, persuasion of the person that's being detained or the suspect and I can mention several cases where many detainees and accused are prepared to give evidence or to testify in front of a Magistrate and where they acknowledge all their crimes without any assaults - so it is not strange.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Just the last question Mr Nieuwoudt, - Mr Chairman, if you'll afford me that opportunity?
	That type of interrogation, is it effective in certain cases from time to time?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.  I can just refer you to an incident at the - during the Vula investigation where Minister Mac Maharaj - without any assaults or pressure being place on him, was prepared to identification regarding safe houses, weapons that were concealed etc., so this is not strange.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.
	Mr Nieuwoudt, what exactly did Major du Plessis come and do there?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He came to inform us that the coast was clear.

ADV LAMEY: Is that all?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Did you expect him to arrive there to come and tell you this news?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, I believe that to be true.

ADV LAMEY: Or did he arrived unexpectedly?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

ADV LAMEY: Had it been agreed upon previously that he would pop in there and when he would come?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

ADV LAMEY: How did you know that he would arrive there?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He would have inform us as to whether we were to continue with the operation.

ADV LAMEY: But I asked whether you had decided on this previously and you said no, now I can't understand how ...[intervention

MR BOOYENS: With respect, my learned friend asked two questions: "Was there an appointed made and how late he would arrive"? and he said: "No" - there were two questions asked. If you'll just ask one question at a time there won't be such confusion.

ADV LAMEY: I'll repeat the question: "Had you made a prior arrangement that Major du Plessis would arrive or make an appearance there"?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He was to come and inform us - after we had abducted or arrested the people at the airport, that no-one had pointed a finger at us - so we did expect him.

ADV LAMEY: But did you know according to a prior arrangement that he would appear?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: As I've already said, it had been discussed that he would inform us if we could go ahead with the elimination.

ADV LAMEY: Was an arrangement made as to when he would make an appearance?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

ADV LAMEY: Was there an indication given as to how many hours had to pass before it could be determined whether the coast was clear - if the coast was clear as you put it yourself.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I don't know.

ADV LAMEY: Don't you personally know of any period of time that had to elapse before the elimination had to take place?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: All that I can say and as I've already said, is that he was to inform us as to whether or not we could proceed with the elimination - the operation.

ADV LAMEY: So if he had arrived a day after, then you would not have found it strange?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: If I'm referring to a day later, that means still another day after the day that he actually arrived according to you.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: Instead of the 9th - if he had arrived only on the 10th, would you not have found that strange?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

ADV LAMEY: At that stage you were part of the information division under the command of Major du Plessis?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: As I understood correctly in your position - and you must tell me if I'm making a wrong deduction, you worked very closely with information matters - how to obtain information by means of informants or any other techniques?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: If that was your position, are you not able to tell us how much time had to lapse before you could determine whether the coast was clear because du Plessis said that there were methods that by which you could ascertain this.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: As I said I don't know, they would not liaise with me but with the commanding officer of the security branch.

ADV LAMEY: Who would they liaise with or contact?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: If there had been any enquiries - I'm just mentioning an example ...[intervention]

ADV LAMEY: If the people were under the impression for the initial period that they had an appointment with a British Diplomat, that they were on one or other secret mission and 24 hours later they realise that there's a problem that the people still haven't returned and that enquiries would only start arising then?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

ADV LAMEY: Could it not have happened like that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I believe that they would have enquired immediately at the security branch from the commanding officer and they would have said that they had seen so and so - such and such a person, that these people were arrested at the airport and they would have known in immediately.

ADV LAMEY: But you organised it so that it would be a British Diplomat who was to meet them and that the persons who were to arrest them would not be identifiable, in other words that they had left there under normal circumstances.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: In other words the family could have thought that these persons who would have arranged the funds for them had taken them somewhere?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct but it is also possible that someone else could have seen them or could of seen us, that's the risk that we ran and that is why the time was so important.

ADV LAMEY: Can I just clarify something, what did you understand under the message: "The coast is clear"? - that no-one had noticed the people had gone or that no-one saw what really happened?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct, that no-on saw what really happened that we actually intercepted and arrested them at the airport.

UNKNOWN: Because people should have seen or noticed that the people weren't coming back, that they had gone?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: But you want to know whether anybody realised as to how they disappeared?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct, and that no finger could be pointed at the security branch.

ADV LAMEY: You say that that is all that Major du Plessis came to do there, just to inform you of this?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: Major du Plessis previously - I'm saying that Captain Venter was under the impression that these arrests or the purpose of the arrest would be for interrogation purposes, is that correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: And at the stage when Major du Plessis arrived there, Captain Venter and the Askaris, had they already left?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: And Major du Plessis knew the real facts as to why the persons had been abducted, he knew that the main objective was not interrogation?