Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

ADV BOOYENS: I don't think it does.   Provided that the blow, of course, subject to this qualification; if Mr Biko, during the scuffle received four or  five blows, or one blow, but its still during the scuffle, it doesn't matter.   As long as the scuffle goes on its a "free for all."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Sir,

MR POTGIETER: Can I just come back to conclude this point I was trying to get some clarity on.   Are you then submitting that we must find that these acts which we have now identified are associated with a political objective as defined in the Act?

ADV BOOYENS: If I wasn't suggesting that, I wouldn't be here Mr  Chairman.   Yes, obviously.

MR POTGIETER: So, even on the version that what happened was possibly exceeding the bound of reasonable conduct in the circumstances, assuming that to be the act or omission that we are talking about in respect of the death of Mr Biko, because remember we must be satisfied that it is an offence or a deed in terms of the Act.   Assuming that your submission is that, that is an act associated with a political objective?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr  Chairman.

MR POTGIETER: Just in a word, or a sentence, what would be the political objective there?

ADV BOOYENS: Political objective:  security policeman resisting, in terms of the policy of the Government of the day, the efforts of the Liberation Movement, they interrogate.   The purpose of the interrogation gets out of hand.   It does not now all of a sudden, become a non-political event.   It's in the cause of this whole process:   it's not much different.   It starts with a man being told, "get up".   It starts with a fight.   It will be artificial to say that all of sudden why did the fight take place?   The fight took place to subdue him so that they could interrogate him further.

MR POTGIETER: Or to defend themselves, or to protect one of their colleagues against an unlawful attack.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr  Chairman, yes, one can look at it that way, but then you are introducing another artificial point because this would not have happened if Siebert did not act the way he did.   It may even be debatable whether it can be said that in the circumstances - remember if I act unlawfully, I cannot rely on self- defence, and so I do not think the self-defence issue really came in here.   The whole tenure of the evidence, was "we grabbed him to subdue him, not so much because he attacked Siebert."  - remember his attack on Siebert was still a chair pushed in his direction and a mis-swing, I think.   That cannot stand loose from what happened subsequently once the man -  I think Reuben Marx put it very well.   He said when he wiped his hand over his eyes he could see now he is okay now he is sort of chained to the grille.   The whole purpose obviously is to subdue him.
      That the coincidence, you see we must be cautious, with respect Mr Chairman, to take an armchair attitude here and to say "but it could have been only this, it could have been only that."   I think there are a number of factors here that play a role at the same time, and which one of these was also to subdue him from attacking Siebert, but to subdue him to continue the interrogation comes in at the same time.   So I think we are moving into a very dangerous area of artificial distinction if we start doing that.   It's not necessarily self-defence.

MR POTGIETER: No, no the difficulty is were does one draw the line.   You agreed with the point that Mr Sandi raised that not everything, not every act, not every incident that follows the detention of a high profile political activist would now suddenly become political.   Somewhere its conceivable that there are acts which would have nothing to do with the political nature of that incident.   For example, assume Mr Biko didn't like one of the interrogators, because they had some disagreement, unrelated to politics previously, and he attacked that person, and in defending their colleague they exceeded the bounds, and it could he said they have assaulted Mr Biko.   Obviously that didn't fall within the political context of the particular incident.   That is why I'm asking you , you know , it is a question of where does one draw the line?

ADV BOOYENS: I think as long as you are in the process of trying to establish dominance over a political opponent, or in the process of actually joining issue, or trying to actively oppose his political views as opposed to your political views or those that you protect,   I think that is the line.   I mentioned the example earlier on where the policeman on duty at the police station smacks him because he doesn't eat.   That has got nothing to do with establishing  political dominance over him , that is a
	Mr Chairman , I think that it is perhaps the example that one gets in the law of delict with the liability of a master for the acts of his servant could perhaps assist one here, with some qualification.   The moment it becomes a product of their own that's got nothing to do with their work as security policemen anymore, really.   Then I think you cannot say that it has a political motive, but as long as it is in an interrogation with the purpose of subduing a political 
opponent then it's clearly within that sphere of their doing their job as the protectors of the safety of the State.   I hope that has answered your question Mr Potgieter.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Erasmus.