Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-30

ADV FORD: No Mr Nieuwoudt, your reasoning behind why they 
should not have been transferred and why they should not have been 
detained, as I understood it, was that - or why they shouldn't have 
been transferred is that if they then walked over or went over to the 
ANC, they could end up in the hands of a trained interrogator and 
further information could be gathered from them?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV FORD: Other than for that, you had no reason to suspect that 
they hadn't given the ANC all the information that they had?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: As I have understood it, they had to have been 
on the ANC's side and somebody would then have had to debrief 
them over a couple of days to extract the information from them.

ADV FORD: But you could have stopped that immediately.  At the 
drop of a hat by detaining them in terms of Section 3 of the 
Emergency Regulations.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I couldn't, because then they would still pass 
on some of the information.

ADV FORD: Mr Nieuwoudt, you are evading the question.  You 
had no reason to suspect that they had not conveyed all the 
information available to them, save for that which would be obtained 
by a trained interrogator, that is what we are talking about?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is what I believed at that stage.  That is 
how I saw it and that is what I believed.

ADV FORD: Well, then what possible further harm could they have 
done to anybody if they had been detained in terms of the Emergency 
Regulations?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: They could give further information because 
what we are dealing with is the total concept with the Intelligence 
Network.  So there were other informers and Security members and 
policemen whose lives could have been in danger.  And their 
profiles.

ADV FORD: But Mr Nieuwoudt, you already know that they have 
disclosed at least one safe house, you already know that they have 
disclosed at least one informer, why do you think they hadn't 
disclosed all the rest?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: As I have said I believed that they could have 
given more information because they could have damaged the 
network pertaining to the other members of the Security Branch, and 
perhaps they could have identified more members of the Branch and 
other informers.

ADV DE JAGER: I think the question is they had given 
information.  On what basis did you assume or accept that they 
hadn't already given all the information which they possessed?  Why 
do you think they were holding something back which they would 
have given at a later stage and perhaps would have been able to 
smuggle from jail where they were not being debriefed?  If they had 
already passed on anything which they could without being debriefed 
by an expert, and in prison there would be no expert to debrief them, 
so there could be no further passing on of information.  If you 
perhaps understand it like that, I think that is what the Advocate is 
trying to put to you.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is so, but as I understood it at that stage, 
there was no guarantee to ensure that the information could not be 
leaked and ... (intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I understand that there was no guarantee that the 
information could not be leaked, but you are saying that you 
believed that they had already conveyed all the information which 
they had, so then the horse was already bolted and there was nothing 
more that they could do to cause damage?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: As I have said, I did not believe that all the 
information had been conveyed, that is what I am saying.  I didn't 
think they had already passed on all the information.

ADV FORD: I am sorry we are going in circles here Mr 
Nieuwoudt, because we get to your statement I believe.  You are 
talking about a decision to kill four people.  What I asked you 
before and which I will now ask you again is what led you to believe 
that they hadn't given all the information?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: As I have said, that is what I believed at that 
stage.  Because the ANC did not immediately extract all the 
information from them, they would do it on a gradual basis.
	They do it in stages, not all at once.  Because they also had to 
test his credibility, they don't just accept that the person was telling 
the truth.  He might have been a double agent.

CHAIRPERSON: What we are talking about here is the giving of 
information, not the extracting of the information.  Is that correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.  Yes, but at that stage I 
believed that they hadn't yet furnished all the information.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the question is why on what basis did 
you have that belief that they hadn't yet given all the information.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Because they would have had to be debriefed 
properly.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I think he is saying his sole reason for so 
believing is that they had not been debriefed.  I don't think we can 
take it further than that.

ADV FORD: Thank you Mr Chairman.  Just getting back to an 
aspect which I referred to earlier Mr Nieuwoudt, I am going to read 
to you from subsection 7 of subsection 3, or shall we say regulation 
3, sub-regulation 7 of the Security Emergency Regulations of the 
time.  No person other than the Minister or a person acting by virtue 
of his office in the service of the State or of the government of a 
self governing territory, shall have access to a person detained in 
terms of this regulation except with the consent of and subject to 
such conditions that may be determined by the Minister or a person 
authorised thereto by him.  Do you understand that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV FORD: Was that how you understood the Emergency 
Regulations at the time?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Which one are you referring to, is it 85 or 86?

ADV FORD: I am referring to Security Emergency Regulations, 
number R86 of 1989.  Which given under my hand signed P.W. 
Botha, 8th day of June 1989.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: As far as I know, if he has consent from the 
Minister for somebody to visit him, and his legal counsel, they were 
there daily involved with them.

ADV FORD: But we are talking about circumstances where you 
specifically don't want him to get permission to consult with his 
family or with his legal representatives and then you advise the 
Minister accordingly and he doesn't give the permission.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct, but as I have said that access 
to legal representation, you cannot prevent that.

ADV FORD: But isn't that precisely what that section says.  No 
person without the consent of the Minister shall have access to him?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is correct, but he approaches the Minister 
directly.

ADV FORD: Are you suggesting the Minister would not have 
conferred with those who had ensured the detainee's detention 
before granting such consent?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, what I am saying is that he will get the 
recommendation from the Commanding Officer.

ADV FORD: And how simple would it have been for you then to 
say no, sir, do not give the people consent, he is in possession of 
sensitive information which can lead to injury and death of other 
people.  He mustn't have contact with other people.  You could have 
done that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: It could have been like that.

ADV FORD: Then there was no need to kill these persons, was 
there?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I did not make that decision, I did not want to 
kill them.