Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-08

UNKNOWN: Can I ask you to comment on the implications of his evidence this morning, when he said if you are a member of the National Party and being in the security police, you would not get any promotion if you were opposing actions like this, and I would like you to comment with particular reference to section 2(3)(i) where the Act specifically excludes personal gain.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Ja, well, what he basically said is it was common cause in police circles that if you did not support the government of the day, that you would not be promoted, you would be sidelined. You wouldn't lose your job, you wouldn't stand a chance of financial loss or anything, but obviously the people who will be promoted are the people who are sympathetic to the cause, who is sympathetic to the government of the day, and who does everything they can to promote the government of the day.
	I do not think that the contrary would be true, to say that any person who collaborated with the National Party, or not collaborated, was in the service of the police, and therefore supported the government, stood to make any financial gain out of his actions. It was merely a fact that he was doing his job and doing what he believed in.

UNKNOWN: In that kind of situation, as I understood his evidence, a member of the security police would have a choice between doing what he is expected to do or not to do it, and face a very bleak future in the force.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the bleak future that you talk about, my learned friend talks about, my learned colleague talks about, arises in the circumstances which are different. I understood the evidence of Mr Nieuwoudt to mean that if a member of the security police did anything which went against the interest of the National Party, he will then be sidelined and demoted or removed from the security branch and given some other job.  That is how I understood it.
	I also understood it to mean that if anybody did his job properly, as a member of the security police, whatever he did was not for any reward or gain, because he was normally performing his normal duties, under some terrible laws that were in existence at the time.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Yes, I must confirm it, because Mr Nieuwoudt during that stage was a warrant-officer, a lieutenant, and at that stage he was in the South African Police for more than 15 years already.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: So it was not that he was promoted before his time or anything like that and I agree with Judge Mall as far as his summary is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Now tell me, I understood your client to say that it was indeed government policy to use all measures to bring the situation under control, all measures meant legal and extra-legal, and that where there was torture and where there was assault, quite clearly that was illegal, but nevertheless in their eyes, justified.

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the position?

MR VAN DER MERWE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what section of the Act do you think that your client's conduct falls under?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I have left my Act, I haven't got it at the moment with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I would say it would definitely be section 20(2)(b).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: What are you saying, it was implied authority?

MR VAN DER MERWE: What I would say is the implied authority, I would also equate to a lack of control.  These things were happening and nothing was done about it. Instead, the powers of the security forces were increased, despite everything that happened. In my mind I would say that turning a blind eye, I would construe as implied authority at this stage.	And then I think that as far as subsection (2)(f) is concerned, it could also become relevant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, is there anything else you wish to add?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No, I have ... (intervention).

ADV POTGIETER: Or let me just ask you. Let me just ask you, just linking up with my colleague Sandi's question.  What are we to make of the testimony of Mr Jack concerning how the assault was sparked off?  Mr Jack says that at a stage when he referred to Mrs Blackburne, your client lost his cool and then assaulted him, because your client apparently didn't like the reference to Mrs Blackburne. Which of course is totally opposite to the version that your client is putting before us. What are we to make of that?  If that is in fact how this assault was sparked off, does that not put paid to the argument that the assault was linked to the political objective of stopping the consumer boycott and breaking down the resistance of Mr Jack?

MR VAN DER MERWE: It would definitely.  It would (indistinct) to the argument. I would, however, submit in the circumstances, that there is no reason - we obviously have conflicting versions here. There is no reason why the honourable Committee should not accept Mr Nieuwoudt's testimony. In the circumstances I think his version should be accepted and accordingly he should be able to qualify for amnesty as applied.

CHAIRPERSON: The Act also requires the applicant to make full disclosure. I would like to hear you on that.