Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

ADV BOOYENS: You then make the statement in the last sentence of paragraph 8, our instruction was to concentrate on Peter Jones.  Initially from whom did this instruction come?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: From Goosen.

ADV BOOYENS: What did Goosen say to you, what was the actual idea behind this, what was your objective with the interrogation and detention of Mr Biko and Mr Jones?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: We had to obtain information with which to charge them in a court and thereby to neutralise the unrest.

ADV BOOYENS: In your own words please tell us, you do deal with it in paragraph 9 and 10, that is the incident relating to Mr Jones, but I would like you to tell us in your own words, what happened between yourself and Mr Jones?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairman, I unfortunately don't have the date when he was brought to our offices for interrogation.  It was only afterwards when the documents were handed in, I have refreshed my memory, those are the Exhibits H and O that I am referring to.

ADV BOOYENS: Exhibits H and O handed in during the previous amnesty applications?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Chairperson, I don't know how you want to deal with this, perhaps you can give me an indication.  These documents had already been handed in, I don't know whether it is necessary to once again burden the record with readmission into evidence of these documents, we could perhaps try and make copies of those documents?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, what is your attitude?

GEORGE BIZOS: We would submit that this is a Committee that has to come to an independent decision of the other Committee.
	There would be nothing wrong in incorporating the contents of the documents by reference, but then it must be done properly.  The Committee's attention must be brought to the document placed before the other Committee so that this Committee can take notice of it, but not necessarily to be read out and it is a matter on which I think my colleague must exercise his own discretion in relation to the matter, but I think that we should avoid any possibility of any irregularity by having regard to matters which have not been specifically drawn to this Committee's attention, which appear in the previous proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you feel uncomfortable with the following suggestion, that the documents referred to by Mr Booyens, be handed in, given annexure numbers, without being formally proved or whatever?

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, we have taken the general attitude that unless a specific objection is raised, no formal proof is required, the documents are a matter of record, either particularly the 1977 inquest and we can accept that they are what they purport to be without necessarily admitting the truth contained in the document.

CHAIRPERSON: I thank you Mr Bizos.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman, my query was actually a lot simpler than this.  It is simply, these documents had already been referred to and handed in under different numbers, in the other hearing.  All I want to know is the witness is going to refer to the documents now, I would submit that it will be in order purely for the sake of not burdening the record unnecessarily, if we refer to them as the document handed in as Exhibit H in the other hearing and the document handed in as Exhibit O in the other hearing.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Booyens, the evidence leader kindly supplied us with copies of Exhibit H in the previous hearing, and Exhibit O.  Is that the handwritten documents you are referring to?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, those are the two documents I am referring to Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it is going to be too cumbersome by marking it Exhibit A, after all it is a new hearing, a separate hearing, a new hearing.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well Mr Chairman, for identification purposes, can we then, may I then suggest that we mark for the purpose of this hearing as Exhibits A and B and I would suggest that the one that should be marked A, would be the one that has got on top Peter Jones, 15 Leipoldt Street, King William's Town, that is A, and the one to be marked as Exhibit B then, should be the one with 25/8/77 in the top corner, and Cape Town just below it.
	You referred to the two documents Mr Niewoudt?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is correct, it only refreshed my memory regarding the date.

ADV BOOYENS: There is a date on the top of the document, 25/8/77?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You were telling us that Mr Jones were at your offices.  What was it that you wanted to say?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: This was the 24th and the 25th, he was taken to our offices for the two days, and he was interrogated there.

ADV BOOYENS: I asked you to tell us about the incident that happened on the 24th and 25th?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: On the 25th.  That is the same day as the document.

ADV BOOYENS: Continue please.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we come to that point, something else I wish to establish.  You were instructed to gather evidence and because of this, they had to be charged criminally.  Who gave this instruction?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Goosen.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this Captain?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: He was then Colonel, at that time he was Colonel, he was the Divisional Commander.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to the question carefully, how did you interpret this?  Did you have to gather that evidence or did you have to try to gather such information?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I had to use all methods to gather such information.

CHAIRPERSON: And what did you have to do to gather such evidence?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: At that stage I understood it as that I had to use any and all methods to break down this person's resistance and to put him through a softening process so that he could give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Legally or illegally?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Legally or illegally, as long as I did not embarrass the State or the Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: This instruction, assume that Mr Jones had information that could lead to criminal prosecution, what would have happened if he did not have such information?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I wish to establish, where would you have stopped between using legal and illegal methods to gather this information?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Mr Chairperson, I just followed my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, I wish to know how did you understand this, where would it have stopped, or where would you have stopped?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: One would have used all channels to gather such evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Even if it was a fabrication?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is possible, it is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: I ask this because I do not understand what was your actual instruction.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: At that stage it was stated to us that we had to use any method to gather information and gather evidence, whether it was legally or illegally, and we had to use this, that is how I interpreted it.

ADV DE JAGER: Let's assume that this person had no information, he was innocent, and you assault him and he cannot give you any information, and you assault him again and he cannot give you any information, not because he doesn't want to, but because he doesn't have it.  When do you decide that you have to stop?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I would have decided myself, I would have decided if he gave me no information, I would have known it and then I would have stopped.

ADV DE JAGER: How do you come to this point, does it give you an indication that this man does not have any information?  What indicates to you that he withholds information because he does not want to tell on his other colleagues?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: From other resources and informants.

ADV BOOYENS: Just to join what questions came from the Commission, was there any other person previously detained with regard to this document?