Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: With regard to the Eastern Cape, that is the case but in Port Elizabeth their was a decrease in the activities of Pebco and I observed that there was a measure of a decrease.

MR BRINK: But there was a so-called State of Emergency declared in June that year?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: But perhaps I can refer to a specific incident - why it flared up again.  It was after the funeral of the Goniwe case and then escalated and that is why the month after that on the 21st of July, the State of Emergency was declared again.

MR BRINK: But the fact remains that the ability or rather the fact that the Pebco 3 had been killed was in no way a solution?
MO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: If I look at it now, that is the case yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nieuwoudt, you say that throughout you or rather the idea was to mislead Captain Venter and Mr Beeslaar and the Askaris as to the purpose why those people were apprehended.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you really think that you fooled them into believing that only interrogation is to take place?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I believe that to be the case.

CHAIRPERSON: It will be only interrogation without assaulting the people?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But were they not aware that the deceased's vehicle had been destroyed?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Not that I can recall that they were aware of that, they weren't present.   They could have heard about it but I believe that I spoke with Captain van Zyl alone and told him that we couldn't drive this vehicle because it wasn't mechanically functioning very well and I don't think they heard anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you think that by firstly abducting these people
and then taking them some 380 kilometres or so away to an isolated spot, did you really think that you were successfully fooling Captain Venter into thinking - and/or the Askaris, into thinking that these people are not going to be assaulted at all?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.  Why I can draw this conclusion now is because I know that Mr Venter is a security policeman with good experience - we arrested the person, he could possibly be recruited and then be sent out for military training.  I think that I misled him according to me because he didn't know what happened to them or we should - would have prosecuted them, that is all that he could have thought.

CHAIRPERSON: Another thing that I would like to ask you - perhaps I should clear this with Mr Nyoka.  Mr Nyoka, did you say that your instructions from your client is that as at the time in question, Mr Hashe's house did not have a telephone?

ADV NYOKA: That is correct.  Sorry, Mrs Hashe says at that time it was not present, it had been present before but it was cut off.

CHAIRPERSON: Disconnected?

ADV NYOKA: Disconnected.

CHAIRPERSON: Or suspended.  One wouldn't know when that was done but nevertheless let me find out from the witness.

ADV NYOKA: You referred us in that respect, to Annexure A3 or rather Exhibit A3, I'm sorry.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The last page?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that this message was conveyed by telephone to Lusaka and secondly how do you know that he was phoning from his house?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Firstly, we applied to technically monitor his telephone, listening to the conversations and when you make such an application, then you have to give the particulars of the telephone number as well as the address, as well as the activities of the person.
	And the telephone is then tapped by an informer at the Post Office or at the Post Office and then at the security branch we then tape it with - and it's at that specific telephone number.  That is why we technically taped this conversation and therefore I know that he could not have phoned from a different telephone otherwise I could have not received that information.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not tap the telephone of the UDF or Pebco?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Could he not have phoned from either of those offices?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He could have but then it would have been in a different book, then we would have known from which telephone.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but here you are reporting the content of the conversation and not the transaction.  This is not ...[intervention]

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: But that is because I have personal knowledge of this because I had the task - instructed by Mr du Plessis, to take these three people - to lure them to a specific place.

CHAIRPERSON: What I'm saying is - let's try to understand what this document is, this is not a record of transactions from Mr Hashe's telephone, this is an information which was fed into a computer as to what Mr Hashe did on a certain day.  Do you understand me?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, it's a short history.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, whether or not he had phoned from the offices of Pebco or UDF, the information would have been exactly the same thing because you are recording what he said - what he did.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, but I had personal knowledge of the fact that he actually phone out, I personally monitored it and that is why I know.  And that is why I refer you to this particular paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he make any other calls from the offices of Pebco or UDF as far as you can remember?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, he did but that was before this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Were some of them of interest to you - to the security branch?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, beforehand we knew what they planned - when the next meeting would be and also the planning thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they reflected in here?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.  Sorry, I can just point you to 84.11.06.

CHAIRPERSON: What page is that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: It's page 9 Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 9?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, 26.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I have it, I have the relevant page.  Which item are you referring to?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: 84.11.06.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Where Mrs Molly Blackburn was contacted by him and that was from the offices.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Because that was in a different book - it was written up in a different book and that is why I know of it because each telephone had it's own book in which the conversations were taken down.

UNKNOWN: I see at the bottom there is NLJ and then = and then abbreviation for Blackburn.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: And on the other page, the 3.05.85 discussion TSNL = BT.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: What does that mean?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's an abbreviation for Btusmele Botha and Molly Blackburn.

CHAIRPERSON: But on these pages as these records stand, one can't tell from merely looking at this page that this was made from the house, that was made from the office?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, you can't.

UNKNOWN: I don't know if any of the legal representatives can help me but I think it was put to one of the witness that one of the Vlakplaas people - if I can refer to them in this way because I don't think it was necessarily the Askaris, Venter or Beeslaar, who made a remark that these people don't know how to interrogate or don't know how to do it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I can then just say it is from the applicants whom I represent that one Officer Beeslaar would have said that and that Captain Venter at a stage when the black bag or wet bag was put on the head of the person - I think it was Godolozi, that Captain Venter requested that this wet bag should be removed.

UNKNOWN: Could you perhaps just help, what is implied by the fact that these people did not know how to do an interrogation?