Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, if that is the goal of the question, I think the witness has answered the question because he has said several times now, that he constructed a story out of the bits and pieces that had emerged from the questioning.
	If that is the questions, I think that the question had been answered.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to deal with that Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, the witness went further in his testimony and he talked about a missing statement, a statement that he made on the 26th because the police were not satisfied with it.
	I am trying to find out what that was contained in this statement, were they not satisfied with and what they wanted changed, that is what I am trying to find out.
	Mr Jones, in having answered ...

PETER JONES: I can't construct a statement that was made 20 years ago, in the same way that I only discovered these statements.  All that I can say is with reference to a statement I made 18 years ago when I was released, was that it went a little bit further in the sense that it took responsibility for the transportation of the pamphlets from King William's Town to Port Elizabeth and the delivery thereof.

ADV BOOYENS: Fine.  And once you said that in the third statement, the one that we haven't got, once you have said that, were you then left alone as far as this aspect is concerned, the question of the pamphlets?

PETER JONES: No, there were several other engagements of a lesser nature.  I remember it as events where they were trying to fine tune things in relation to the accuracy and so on.  You all notice that these statements are not signed.
	Eventually, later, they came to me and the constructed in Afrikaans a new version, incorporating all the things that I have agreed can go into that statement, that statement is also not here.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you sign that one?

PETER JONES: I think I signed that one, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Was that typed?

PETER JONES: It was handwritten.

ADV BOOYENS: Handwritten as well?  So the bottom line is ...

ADV DE JAGER: Not handwritten by you, it wasn't your handwriting?

PETER JONES: No.

ADV DE JAGER: You don't know who wrote it?

PETER JONES: I think it was Wilken if I can refer to my notes.  I will come back to it as soon as I get it.

CHAIRPERSON: But in any event you say that you signed the statement that was drafted?

PETER JONES: Yes, it was going to be a formal sworn statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Confession.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, then it was fine tuned and so on, but ultimately when you made the additional admission in the third written statement that you distributed the pamphlet, were they then more or less satisfied?

PETER JONES: Yes, I think they accepted that was as far as they could take the matter at that stage.

ADV BOOYENS: I see.  During all these assaults perpetrated on you and so on, did you tell the SB initially obviously, that you knew nothing about this?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And you gave them - after you gave them Exhibit A such assault as there was after that, was relatively minor in comparison with what happened to you on the 25th, not so?

PETER JONES: On the 26th, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I am talking about the assault on the 26th?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Who were the parties involved in that?

PETER JONES: On the 26th?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

PETER JONES: The people I remember was Niewoudt, Siebert, I am not sure whether Marx was there, and I think I mentioned Hattingh.

ADV BOOYENS: If you say that was comparatively mild in comparison with the 25th, what do you mean?

PETER JONES: Well, it was not as intense, it was not as overwhelming, it was quite a number of blows, but nothing that absolutely of course broke me down.

CHAIRPERSON: You say it was not as intense as?

PETER JONES: As the day before, the 25th.  I was sensitive, I was very swollen from the day before, but in terms of the force applied, it was not the same, that is what I meant.

ADV BOOYENS: And was the reason for the assault explained to you as being that your Exhibit A statement didn't go far enough or what did they say why were they beating you up?

PETER JONES: Yes, roughly that would be it.

ADV BOOYENS: And obviously then the questioning at the time would have centred around how did the pamphlets get to PE and allegations you and Biko were involved, that type of thing?

PETER JONES: Yes.  Also another dimension started that particular morning, because there was a new officer in the room called Major Hansen from King William's Town and he laughed firstly at my state and mentioned how the great had fallen and then after watching them interrogating me, asked them why do they speak to me in English, that I come from Cape Town and that I was quite conversant in Afrikaans.

ADV BOOYENS: I don't think that is really important.

PETER JONES: It was very important because up till then, I was quite able to complicate them with my English and with my intellect and with things like that, and thereafter it just became plain "moer" and "donner".

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, so they changed into Afrikaans Mr Jones, is that what you are saying, it sounds like it?

PETER JONES: Is that a question?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

PETER JONES: It was one of attitude.

ADV BOOYENS: No, I am talking about the language, did they switch language then or not?

PETER JONES: Yes, they must have.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay.  But in any case, whether they spoke in Afrikaans or in English, they were still insisting at that stage then, that you add the further aspects that we had spoken about, is that correct?

PETER JONES: Yes, as far as my recollection goes, yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, Niewoudt hasn't applied for that assault either.  Neither has he applied for the assaults during your period of detention, now this group of policemen that you referred to that visited you in the cells, prior to your first interrogation, how many of them were there approximately?  Can you remember that story of waking you up and assaulting you, pushing you under the shower and so on, that is what I am talking about?

PETER JONES: I would say an average of four, three or four people.

ADV BOOYENS: Consisting of Niewoudt and Marx as far as you are concerned?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Were the others also white cops?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: White policemen, I shouldn't use words like that.  Security Policemen as far as you are concerned?

PETER JONES: Always Security Police.

ADV BOOYENS: I see.  Although you don't know their names, did you subsequently see some of them there?

PETER JONES: No, I can't recall, they are not standing out.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I have heard them called other names as well.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but I don't think one should call them other names in court.  Was Niewoudt in charge of this group in your impression, I am just talking as far as your impression was?

PETER JONES: My impression was that he was the noisiest and the most violent.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, when it came to giving instructions or something like that?

PETER JONES: He never gave instructions, he was like the permanent rouge, always harassing.
	I knew eventually that he was one of the most junior people around, that is why he never interrogated me.

ADV BOOYENS: Niewoudt never asked you a question?

PETER JONES: He never interrogated me.

ADV BOOYENS: No, listen to the question, there may be a subtle difference.  Did Niewoudt ever ask you a question that you can recall?

PETER JONES: In the week of harassment, in the context of the fighting, there were many accusations and questions, and me fighting with them, and me arguing with them, but no formal questioning.

ADV BOOYENS: All right, and once the formal questioning process started?

PETER JONES: Not a single question from him.