Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR POTGIETER: Mr Erasmus, even in spite of his own testimony?   If we were to apply these subjective tests that you refer to, what weight should we attach to his own testimony, that what he was doing had nothing to do with a political objective?   He wasn't part of the interrogation team.   He was an occupant of an adjoining office, and he heard some noises, and he arrived on the scene and immediately acted to defend or protect one of his colleagues.   And he says it had nothing to do with the political objective.

UNKNOWN: I am glad that you are asking this question of me.   I don't want to involve my learned friend client Mr Marx in this regard, but Mr Reuben Marx finds himself in a similar situation.   My submission to you is that one cannot categorise this matter, in other words, now you're busy with a political objective, now you're  not busy with a political objective, now I'm again busy with a political objective, now I'm not busy with a political objective.
      The facts in this matter are, that there was an interrogation.   This interrogation had to do with the combating of the broader situation of unrest, and in the course of this interrogation with regard to the broader situation of unrest, Mr Beneke rushed into the room with the intention of inhibiting what he thought as an attack by Mr Biko, but one must consider the broader picture, rather than attempting to compartmentalise the events into little pieces, and that is why I say that you must look at the subjective occurrence, and the broader intentions of the gathering of that persons that morning.   
      You must recall that Mr Beneke was in fact a member of the Security Branch, even though not of that particular investigating team.   He was particularly involved in considering terrorist acts.   I will at a later point refer you to the case of Steyn, where I will link to this question again.

MR POTGIETER: So you are saying, regardless of Mr Beneke's subjective attitude or view, you must find that he was mistaken, that even though he himself says that he had not attempted to achieve any political goal, you must find him to have been mistaken, and that he had in fact been politically motivated, that what he had done was done with a political purpose?

UNKNOWN: No Chair, that is not what I'm saying.   There's a fine and subtle difference involved here.   I am saying that this part of the events must be considered as the whole, the broader whole of events.   The particular act of inhibiting that situation was not done with a political motive, it was simply intended to protect his colleague against what he considered to have been an attack, but it occurred within the context of a political interrogation.

UNKNOWN: But Mr Erasmus, when Mr Beneke rushed into this interrogation room, there were about three or four hefty men who could have been able to defend Mr Siebert if Mr Biko was posing any threat to Mr Siebert at all.

UNKNOWN: That is not a matter which has been properly explored at any point, during testimony or cross-examination   which of these other persons would have been able to contain this considered attack.   Testimony is that it occurred in a second, a matter of part of a second and in view of the training of police officers we are not looking at who should have reacted.   A person who sees something happen, must act regardless of the fact that four persons might be present.   If all of us took this "let's wait and see what happens" position, then it might have occurred that the attempted blow by Mr Biko might well have hit its object, that the situation might then have escalated beyond control.
	Considered the other way round, your question that the opposite of your question is just as important.   What would have happened if no-one acted?   Would it not then also have led to a situation of chaos!

UNKNOWN: I think that submission, and remembering his concession in the course of his evidence-in-chief, or whilst answering questions in re-examination, when he was specifically asked if his conduct right at that stage was influenced by his previous knowledge of an allegation or rumour that Mr Biko had previously assaulted a member of the Security Police, and his answer to that was, yes!

UNKNOWN: He most certainly in view of his trial, although this was not his personal experience, this was hearsay information which he had received, but he did act in view of that information to protect one of his colleagues.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems that he only comes into the picture and makes common cause with his colleagues at a time when a scuffle had broken out.   He had nothing to do prior to that incident, and he walked in there because he sees a physical development taking place and he joins in.   That is his evidence.  And I think that it is fair to put it this way that if the didn't see the threat of an assault on one of his colleagues, he might not have joined in.   So what motivated him in joining in, was a desire to protect a colleague.
     You invite us to look at his conduct in the broader context, that because he's a policeman,  when he joined in, he was joining in the fight against people in the Liberation Movement, that is what you are trying to say.   Is that not so?

UNKNOWN: He intervened in the scuffle where a member of the Liberation Movement in your words, was in fact assaulting or attempting to assault one of his colleagues.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the limit of his commitment, to participate in the physical assault, or to prevent an assault taking place.