Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

ADV BOOYENS: And the questioning on that occasion, did that centre around the pamphlet?

PETER JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: On the 25th Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, the next day.  Sorry My Lord, I should have made it clear.  The pamphlet was not produced?

PETER JONES: No, it was not produced.

ADV BOOYENS: It was also - were you told what the content of the pamphlet was?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Nothing about it?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: So in other words, you didn't - you knew that according to the SB, you and Mr Biko was supposed to have distributed a pamphlet the contents of which you had no clue what it was about?

PETER JONES: Except to say that it was a general contention from them all the time, that all the unrest, it doesn't matter where it was in the country, was the responsibility of our organisation.
	So pamphlets would have been about incitement and stuff like that.  That is what they meant by pamphlets.

ADV BOOYENS: I see.  But Mr Jones, I don't want the two of us to misunderstand each other, that is why I ask you specifically they never told you what this pamphlet was supposed to say?

PETER JONES: That's right.

ADV BOOYENS: They just said that you and Steve were distributing pamphlets in PE?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Or a specific pamphlet?

PETER JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jones, I think the question is to find out whether any details that is contained in the pamphlet that you now know, were any details mentioned to you during any of the interrogation periods?

PETER JONES: No sir.

ADV BOOYENS: So, what you then produced as a result of the assault Mr Jones, was you were really forced into writing fiction not so?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And so you had to sit down, think tell me where I am wrong, to think what - if we were to do a pamphlet like that, what we would have put into it and that is what you then put into your statement, is that correct?

PETER JONES: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: So, what we see on page 9 of Exhibit A, was just guess work?

PETER JONES: You are referring to ...

ADV BOOYENS: To the passage that you read already.

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, so that was just guess work on your side?

PETER JONES: That is right.

ADV BOOYENS: Some very lucky guess work, not so Mr Jones?

PETER JONES: Can I change your phraseology, to the word typical.  It would have been typical of us to commemorate people who were killed at the time.

ADV BOOYENS: So are you saying that without knowing that the pamphlet the police were referring to, was referring to the 18th of August, you put in the date of the 18th of August there?

PETER JONES: It was commonly known sir that there was something called June 16, that happened in Soweto.  It was commonly known that the next big region that exploded was Cape Town a little while later, and the 18th of August was when the Eastern Cape started blowing up with unrest.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

PETER JONES: So it was commonly known all over the country, that there would be on those particular dates, June 16, depending on the region or nationally, would be commemoration events.

ADV BOOYENS: And so, it was fortuitous knowledge that the synopsis that you give, is indeed not an incorrect synopsis of the third paragraph from the bottom of the document at page 135?

PETER JONES: Are you talking of the pamphlet?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, the 135 document.

PETER JONES: Not at all, not at all.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you agree with me that I would not be entirely wrong if I say that what is a synopsis of that third paragraph of what appears at page 135, and what you say after the word synopsis is, these two aspects are reconcilable with each other?

PETER JONES: It is not reconcilable, because inherent in what I am saying about the commemoration and where we were, is the values of dignity and respect of black people and for their lives, whereas this pamphlet that you are talking about, refers to destruction and disrespect.

ADV BOOYENS: I am not talking about the last two paragraphs, I am talking about the third paragraph from the bottom.  Let me read to you perhaps Mr Jones, what I see here.  To commemorate the death of all the martyrs and the people killed in the uprising last year.  Your statement, the 135 statement, third paragraph, this is an appeal to black people to show solidarity with the exiled and the jailed to show sympathy with those who lost their brother, sister, children and parents during this period last year.
	Do you see what I mean?

PETER JONES: I see what you mean, but that wasn't our language.

ADV BOOYENS: No, no, don't evade the question Mr Jones.  I am talking about the synopsis and the contents, that is all I am talking about.

PETER JONES: What is your question?

ADV BOOYENS: That what appears at page 9 of your statement, to commemorate the deaths of all the martyrs and people killed in the uprisings last year, to there, go to - have you got the page 135 document in front of you as well, the pamphlet?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: This is an appeal to all black people to show solidarity with the exiled and the jailed to show sympathy with those who lost their brother, sister, children and parents during this period last year by mourning.
	Really talking about the same thing, not so?

PETER JONES: More or less.

MR MTSHAULANA: Except Mr Chairman, there is a very fundamental difference.  The mentioning of solidarity with exiles in the context, makes it two documents.   As far as that is concerned, fundamentally different.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mtshaulana, isn't that a question of argument?

ADV BOOYENS: Do you want me to deal with the objection Mr Chairman, I don't think so.
	This paragraph also talks about a meeting, is that right, although on a different date.  The one is the 18th and the one is the 19th?

PETER JONES: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, where are you referring to?

ADV BOOYENS: Page 9 and call them finally to a meeting on the 18th of August in one of PE's black townships.  This is a stay at home and on the 19th of August a commemoration service, so maybe that is not exactly the same thing.
	A meeting and a commemoration service, or would that be the same thing?  I am asking you Mr Jones?

PETER JONES: It could be.

ADV BOOYENS: Could be the same thing.

ADV SIGODI: During your interrogation before you made the statement that is Exhibit A, were you ever asked about what Mr Titi had said, the contents of Mr Titi's statement, were they ever shown to you?

PETER JONES: It was never shown to me, but it was repeatedly said that my friends, including Patric Titi had long ago told the story and sold his friends out and they have the story, so it was of course indicated that there was no useful purpose being served by me not cooperating.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you told what Titi had written in his statement?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you told what Titi had said what the pamphlet contained?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you told that Titi mentioned a pamphlet?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Can you remember what was said Titi mentioned about the pamphlet?

PETER JONES: Well, it all started with them constructing an explanation for how this particular pamphlet had started off and how it was eventually produced.  That it started off with Patric Titi's visit to King William's Town to our offices, and to Steve Biko's house.

ADV BOOYENS: So they told you about that one?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And what else did they tell you about Titi?

PETER JONES: I can't remember the specifics, but what I put eventually in my statement, were all the loose images that I could gather around, to construct what I thought was a plausible story possibly acceptable to them.

ADV SIGODI: Did you know if Titi had ever gone to visit Mr Biko?

PETER JONES: Yes.  Yes, he at the time was a colleague of mine.  He worked in Uitenhage.