Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, it looks like it Mr Chairman.  The degree of Niewoudt's participation in the assault that you claim that he was involved in, because that is really what I am interested in, you didn't say so much in so many words although you suggested that he used the hosepipe, was basically that he did hit you with a hosepipe, is that correct?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I am only now dealing with incidents on the 25th.  He hit you with a hosepipe, is that all that Niewoudt did to you?

PETER JONES: That is all I can remember that he was in charge of a green hosepipe that was being applied to me in conjunction with four other people.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.  And did you notice this hosepipe at any time - did it cause any open injuries or anything like that?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Did he hit you on the head and on the body Mr Jones?

PETER JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Your hairstyle in those days, was it as modern as it is today, in other words in the 1970's you would have had long hair, or did you also have short hair then.

PETER JONES: It was very modern then, it was called the Afro then.

ADV BOOYENS: I see.  But you never sustained any open injuries.

PETER JONES: I had big welts that for many days later, was still visible, on the back, on the buttocks and my head was sensitive for days.

ADV BOOYENS: Sensitive?   Were there also contusions on your head, in other words was it swollen where he hit you on the head?

PETER JONES: Well, it was sensitive, I could obviously not see on my head, but it was sensitive to the touch for a long time.

ADV BOOYENS: But one can normally feel it you know, if you've got a big  bump on the head.

PETER JONES: No, no big bumps.

ADV BOOYENS: I see.  Was this the first time that you had seen this hosepipe Mr Jones?

PETER JONES: No, I had seen it the night before.

ADV BOOYENS: Was there anything significant about this hosepipe?

PETER JONES: It was short, it was laying on the table, it appeared as if there was something in the middle.

ADV BOOYENS: It looked like a filled hosepipe?

PETER JONES: It looked like a filled hosepipe and it felt like a filled hosepipe.

ADV BOOYENS: In other words it was substantially harder and heavier?

PETER JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: I see.  Would you say - it can at best be an opinion, I know - would you say that Niewoudt hit you with all of his power?

PETER JONES: No, I can't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: What does Niewoudt himself say?

ADV BOOYENS: Well, Niewoudt himself said certainly he hit him with all his power Mr Chairman.  But Niewoudt doesn't mention a filled hosepipe, remember.  That is what I am getting at.
	Mr Niewoudt himself said that when he hit you, although he talks about another incident, he hit you with his maximum power, do you recall hearing that?

PETER JONES: I recall that, I also recall that he spoke of a much longer hosepipe than what I recall.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, he talked about one of about a meter.  How long would you make the one that he hit you with?

PETER JONES: I would make it half a meter.

ADV BOOYENS: Half a meter.

PETER JONES: Short, good to handle.

ADV BOOYENS: And notwithstanding the fact that he apparently hit you with a metal filled hosepipe, you never lost consciousness as a result of the blows of your head?

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, I don't know if the witness has said it was filled with metal, he only said it was filled.

ADV BOOYENS: Filled with what Mr Jones, you are surely not suggesting it was filled ground, what did it appear like?

MR MTSHAULANA: He said it appeared filled.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I am asking the witness, not my learned friend.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, let's face it.  You are at fault in the first place.

PETER JONES: I don't know the substance.

ADV BOOYENS: What did it look like Mr Jones?

PETER JONES: It looked solid.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but solid like what?

PETER JONES: Not solid like metal, because it could still bend.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, the first statement that is Exhibit B, no assault perpetrated by the accused resulted in you writing out Exhibit B, is that correct?

PETER JONES: Are you referring to Niewoudt?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Niewoudt, the applicant?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: The assaults that were perpetrated, were perpetrated by Siebert?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Anybody else?

PETER JONES: When?

ADV BOOYENS: These assault at the night of the 24th.

CHAIRPERSON: We are talking about the assaults that resulted in you recording Exhibit B.

PETER JONES: All right, that was Siebert, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Was only Snyman present at that stage?

PETER JONES: No, they were all there.

ADV BOOYENS: I see, but none of the others did anything?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, then you say Exhibit B contains, basically contains fiction, is that correct?

PETER JONES: It contains fiction as far as the real purpose of the trip is concerned.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, no the fact of the trip and so on is obviously true.  The fact of the trip, that you and Mr Biko went to Cape Town, that is correct.

PETER JONES: The statement explains that the purpose of the trip was the problems of the Black Peoples' Convention.

ADV BOOYENS: Was it?

PETER JONES: No, it was not.

ADV BOOYENS: What was the purpose of the trip?

PETER JONES: The purpose of the trip was specifically to meet other principle leaders that have been engaged for a number of years, in the quest to explore and find unity between the liberation movements in South Africa.

ADV BOOYENS: I think no secrets about that any more, I think you mentioned it earlier on, including Dr Neville Alexander?

PETER JONES: Including Dr Neville Alexander.

ADV BOOYENS: And the principles of these other organisations, what were these other organisations?

PETER JONES: It was on the one side it was PAC, Pan Africanist Congress which was led at the time by Dr Robert Sobukwe, it was ANC, African National Congress who at the time internally liaised with us through at Attorney in Durban, called Mr Griffiths Mxenge.

ADV BOOYENS: These three organisations, is that correct?

PETER JONES: Four with the BPC.

ADV BOOYENS: No, it is ANC, PAC and?

PETER JONES: And the unity movement.

ADV BOOYENS: Oh, the unity movement as well.  It is correct also that - so was the purpose of the meeting to see if you could consolidate your actions?

PETER JONES: Yes, and take the process further.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.  So, in those days Umkonto We Sizwe was already in existence I think, the armed struggle had been declared?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: So you were indeed, you and Mr Biko were prepared to cooperate with people who were also involved in the violent, potentially violent overthrow of the government?

PETER JONES: And they were banned.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, no.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, the witness did not count Umkonto We Sizwe, he counted the ANC.  I do not know how the connection is made.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Mtshaulana that the question correctly pointed out that Umkonto We Sizwe was the military arm of the ANC.  I think the question is directed at finding out whether this meeting took cognisance of that.  Did I assume correctly?

ADV BOOYENS: Quite so Mr Chairman.  Well, just to make the record clear, the armed wing of the ANC was Umkonto We Sizwe, is that correct?

PETER JONES: Yes, we were aware of that.

ADV BOOYENS: And the ANC through its armed wing was involved in the armed struggle, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And you people were prepared to cooperate with people who were also involved in the potentially violent overthrow of the government, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Fine, so there was no absolute aversion to what you people perceived to be an illegal government, to the fact that if necessary it could be violently overthrown, is that right?