Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-11

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: He then stood up.  I then explained to him what the general course of the interrogation would be.  Amongst others, why he breached his restraining order, what the purpose of his visit to the Cape would have been and, in addition, that we were investigating his part in the drafting and distribution or possible distribution of the pamphlet which would have commemorated the unrest and which would have fomulgated and instigated in additional unrest or incited people to riot and that we would attempt to determine, through the course of this interrogation, what part he played in the broader unrest in the Eastern Cape.

MR BOOYENS: That would have been a conversation coming from you?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: What response did you have from the deceased?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Initially, very little, your Honour, but at a certain point he did mention that because of marital problems he was on his way to Cape Town and this was the pretended explanation for his visit to the Cape.  We told him that this was not satisfactory, that this was not a sufficient excuse and that we, in fact, had different information with regard to this.

MR BOOYENS: When you refer to "us" and "we", who would this have been?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: The interrogation team.

MR BOOYENS: All of you or only one or two of you?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: I kept up the conversation in the main.  Then at a certain stage when I saw that he kept to this version of the marital problems, I am convinced that he eventually saw that we were about to believe him.  I then told him that we were aware of the fact that he was on his way to visit with Alexander of the non-European movement.

MR BOOYENS: This would be his visit to Cape Town?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, his visit to Cape Town.

MR BOOYENS: Who, exactly, would Mr Neville Alexander have been?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Mr Neville Alexander was a member of the non-European unity movement.  He was also a person who served ten years of prison, of a prison sentence as a consequence of the training of persons for military purposes internally in the Western Cape.

MR BOOYENS: What was the Non-European unity movement?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: The non-European unity movement was a marxist movement amongst the Coloured people.  That was Mr Alexander's grouping as I understood it.

MR BOOYENS: Could you tell us some more about Mr Biko's behaviour or actions?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: As I interpreted it, it appeared to me that he knew or realised that we had information, that we knew something.  I could see from his eyes that he was becoming disturbed, concerned, that he had been shocked, to an extent, that we had this information available to us.  I then told him that we were aware of the distribution of the pamphlet and that we knew of his part in that.  I then told him that we had already interrogated Peter Jones as well as other detainees and that they had indicated that he was responsible for authoring or drafting this pamphlet and, possibly, for its distribution.  I could see that this increased his concern.

MR BOOYENS: Did he answer your claims or your statements?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Your Honour, he was silent at that time.  He remained silent and then he began to deny in his answers these claims.  I could see that this was not with conviction and then the document drafted by Peter Jones, now handed to the Commission, I showed it to him.  I said to him, you know the handwriting of Peter Jones, here it is.  I paged to the particular page where Peter Jones discussed the commemoration pamphlet, I showed this paragraph to him.  I could then see that he had become very upset and, in fact, became angry.
	The same chair on which he sat down earlier standing there, he then slammed himself down on this chair again.  I lost my temper at him.  I went towards him, I grabbed his clothes, his shirt, I pulled him up by these clothes and when I approached him I could see that he was already rising, partly rising.

MR BOOYENS: So, you were not lifting dead weight?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: I could not lift his dead-weight.  He was too heavy and too large.  He then stood up.  The chair was partly to his side, to the right of him.  He then took the chair and pushed it or shoved it away from himself, partly towards me and to where Major Snyman was standing, to my side.

MR BOOYENS: You are saying he threw away or shot away the chair?  Could you describe this more clearly for us?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: This chair was one of the old steel State chairs, it was an office chair with artificial leather or vinyl.

MR BOOYENS: Did this chair go through the air or how did it move?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: If I say through the air, he slightly lifted it and slung it in front of me.  It would have been about this high from the ground.

MR BOOYENS: You indicate that it might have been about 15cm from the ground, the movement ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: He had to lift the chair ... (intervention).

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... in order to push it forward.

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour, he lifted the chair by its back and then he threw it as indicated.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: I then, with my hands, prevented the chair from falling on my legs.  I was crouched forward towards him.  I saw a movement above my head.  I blocked with my hand at, I blocked his, him and pushed it away.

MR BOOYENS: What kind of movement was it?  You say a movement.

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: It appeared to me that he might be slapping at me or aiming a punch at me.

MR BOOYENS: He did not manage to hit you, did he?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: No, he did not, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What did you do next?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: The next moment I noted that Mr Beneke came in from the side and bumped him with the shoulder into the wall.

MR BOOYENS: Sorry, let us just go a bit slower there.  Mr Biko slapped at you and you pushed him or you bumped him.  You bumped him away.

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: I bumped away, him away, but in a movement of blocking, of defence.

MR BOOYENS: This push or shove, did it have any impact on him?  Did anything happen as a consequence of your shoving motion?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: No, your Honour, my defensive shove had very little impact on his weight.  He was a larger and heavier person than myself.

MR BOOYENS: Then Beneke entered the picture?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Apart from the throw of the chair, the slap above your head and your shoving his chest, did anything happen between yourself and the deceased before Beneke entered?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What did Beneke do next?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: He stormed into him, into his, the middle of his body with his shoulder, probably in an attempt to push him away from myself.  At that point it was clear to me that we would be having a problem with the deceased and that he was becoming rebellious.

MR BOOYENS: So, you are saying that he shouldered him?  Is that in rugby terms that he shouldered him in the middle of the torso with his shoulder?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What happened as a consequence of this shouldering?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: As a consequence he started aiming fist punches at us, he started shoving towards us to push us away from him.  We attempted to take a hold of him and in that process we also hit punches towards him.

MR BOOYENS: Do you know if he managed to hit him?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: In the scuffle and the struggling we were so close together, so in each others way, that I do not believe, and this is my opinion, that anyone really could have hit him with a hard punch that would have had real impact.

MR BOOYENS: Not a hard fist punch, maybe other punches?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, there were punches to the body and the arms, necessarily.