Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

CHAIRPERSON: When you stopped the previous session of interrogation, you were still not satisfied?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct, because I had several other points that I had to clear up and clarify in view of the fact that the Askaris were present.

CHAIRPERSON: Notwithstanding the fact that you were not satisfied, you did not ill-treat them in any way?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Go on Mr Lamey.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.  The premises where they were detained, was it one of your secret premises?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: And you knew that Major du Plessis would at one stage come to give you the green light to go ahead with the elimination?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: So up to that stage the possibility still existed that you would not be able to continue with the elimination and that the persons could possibly be released?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: And then they would have knowledge of this safe area?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: And you say that they'd never been blindfolded?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

ADV LAMEY: So if they were later released - if they had not been blindfolded, they would surely be able to see the route as to how they had arrived at this place?  (transcriber's own translation)

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: Why did you not think it a good idea to blindfold them in such a case so that afterwards they would not be able to point out Post Chalmers?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: At that stage I did not think of it and I did not do it either.

ADV LAMEY: I put it to you that the evidence or testimony will be - of the two applicants Mr Mogoai and Koole, that at one stage underway to Post Chalmers they were blindfolded.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I don't know about this because I was not present.

ADV LAMEY: And that they arrived there being blindfolded.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: They were not blindfolded at Post Chalmers.

UNKNOWN: The question is whether the moment when they arrived at Post Chalmers, could you say whether they blindfolded then or not?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Not as far as I can recall.

ADV LAMEY: Their testimony will be further that it was during interrogation that - at the request of the Pebco 3, their blindfolds were removed.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is not correct.

ADV LAMEY: You activated the source that would lure the people to the airport, is that correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: And you said that it was a person who pretended to be a person from the British Embassy?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: Was it a person with an English accent?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: Was it a White person?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I'm not prepared to make known his identity.

ADV LAMEY: I'm not asking you to do that but I'm asking you whether it was a White person?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: With all respect, I'm not prepared to say this because his life could possibly be in danger.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't see the difference between the question - whether he had two legs, if he asked you whether he had two legs, would you answer that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I would.

CHAIRPERSON: How would mentioning whether he's White - how would that put his life in danger Mr Nieuwoudt, there are millions of White people in this country?  He won't be identified by anybody I can assure you if you just say he's White, amongst so many million White people in this country.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That may be true but  ...[intervention]

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Well, if I can ask you or rather if you were asked whether he was a male person, what would you say?  Would you say it might endanger the life of that person just to tell us whether he's a male or female?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nieuwoudt, I don't think that.  I don't think if you say he's White, I don't think we'll come one step close to recognising that person, really I don't think so.  You may have to take advice from your counsel and ...[intervention]

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Thank you for that.  He was not White.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Yes, Mr Lamey?

CHAIRPERSON: You see now that leaves us with - in the language of the past, at least three other racial groups - do you see how far we are from that person?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He could have been Indian, he could have been so-called Coloured, he could have been African you know?  Thank you.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Thank you.

ADV LAMEY: Seeing as this source had pretended to be a person from the British Embassy, it should have been somebody who could have spoken English with a convincing accent surely?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: You say that it was not a White person, correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: But would you think that the Pebco 3 - due to the particularly English accent of this person, had to be convinced that they would meet such a person at the airport?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: They were convinced.

ADV LAMEY: And they could most probably have thought that it was a White person who was to meet them there?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That might have been so.

ADV LAMEY: Did you know before the time where these people would stop at the airport - where the Pebco 3 would stop, is that correct?  (transcriber's own translation)

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: They could have stopped on any place in the parking area?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: They could have stopped a reasonable distance from where the minibus was parked with the Askaris?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: Let me just ask you, where was this person - what was arranged for the Pebco 3, where were they to meet this person from the British Embassy?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: At the airport, they had to meet him in the bar.

ADV LAMEY: So that means in the airport building itself?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: And we also heard testimony that there was a struggle between Pebco and AZAPO at that stage?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: Major du Plessis even went so far as to testify that this was part of the deception, that the impression could have been created that AZAPO could possibly have had something to do with the disappearance of these three people, is that correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: And now your testimony is that the three Askaris had to intercept these persons at the airport.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That was the instruction that was given to them and that is what happened.

ADV LAMEY: Under the circumstances, the three Pebco persons were expecting to meet someone else at the airport, not so?   (transcriber's own translation)

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: What did you think, surely you wanted this operation to be successful because a great deal of trouble was taken to get these three people to the airport?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: What would have happened if these three persons had parked further away in the parking area and the Askaris had gone to them, surely at some stage these three persons would have realised something strange was happening, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: And you should have expected that the three Pebco persons could have drawn the attention of the public because they would realise that something was wrong, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: It could have been but this is not what happened.

ADV LAMEY: What was the specific instructions given to the Askaris?