Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-11

MR BOOYENS: Did you discuss the security situation in the country?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: And I want to ask you not to give us or repeat to us any political speeches, but in a nutshell, what did Mr Vorster communicate to you with regard to his beliefs regarding the security situation and so forth?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: That the security situation was becoming far more intense and that serious attention would have to be paid to it to control it and, perhaps, entirely to eliminate it, since this damaged the image of the Republic, particularly with the view to sanctions, which was operative at that time, with regard to development and foreign investment.

MR BOOYENS: Were you influenced by your contact with Mr Vorster?  Did you believe what he said to you, did it have any influence on you?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have considered yourself a very loyal supporter?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: With a view to your role as a VIP security organiser, would you also have often heard political speeches by the then political leaders of the country?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would the theme of security, and I am referring here, particularly, about the time from 1976 and the problems in Soweto, and after that, also in 1976, the problems in the Eastern Cape, would these issues have been addressed by them in public?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: And also in private conversations?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: With a view to the value that one might attach to the public rhetoric of politicians, what would, generally, have been proclaimed with regard to the security situation and the methods to be used by Government?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: It was said that the security situation during that time damaged the image of the country and that, therefore, the necessary actions would have to be taken in terms of legislation available to us, to restrain the situation.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have heard or experienced similar pressure from your own police hierarchy with regard to the restraint and inhibition of these, of the situation?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What would the nature have been of this pressure and of the information conveyed to you?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: The regular national overviews of the situation in the country, which we received on a weekly basis, indicated, also in terms of instructions from head office, circular letters that we received, that very serious efforts had to be made to get to the core of the unrest and to control it.

MR BOOYENS: I am referring, particularly, to those days, was it ever pertinently put or pertinently authorised, let us put it like that, that it was allowable to assault people during detention?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: However, we do know that this did occur.  What would your impression have been with regard to your direct Commanding Officer and so forth?  Was such assault condoned or was there objection against it when it did occur?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: I would admit that such events did occur and the statement would then have been, if this was not damaging or to the disadvantage of the State and the Security Branch, then this would not be acted against.

MR BOOYENS: One of the popular methods of interrogation would have been to keep people awake for long periods of time.  Is that correct?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Would this have been a method to break down the resistance of people?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: This would have been contrary to police regulations?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: In terms of these regulations, detainees had to be given adequate time for rest and sleep?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Were these specific police regulations blatantly ignored with regard to security matters?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Colonel Goosen, your then Commanding Officer, at the time of the incident with regard to Mr Biko, what would your rank have been?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Captain.

MR BOOYENS: You were in your early 30's, in terms of age?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Colonel Goosen, as we have heard, was the Commanding Officer of the branch, and had been the Commanding Officer since 1969?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: That is correct, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: Could you describe, for us, or give us a thumbnail sketch of the man, Colonel Goosen, his approach, his attitude towards his work and so forth?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Your Honour, he was a very dedicated person with regard to his work circumstances.  He believed in the politics of the day, with regard to the apartheid policy.  At all times he would take the lead, even in very serious unrest and rioting situations.  He would never stay back at the office and he was an example to us in this regard.  In addition, he was a father figure for us, as younger people, particularly because we could see that he was willing to put himself in the firing line.  In addition, he did not allow anyone to act in an undisciplined manner.  He would deal with such a person and he would remove such a person from the Security Branch.

MR BOOYENS: Would you have considered him to have been a strong leader?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, he was a strong leader.

MR BOOYENS: Did he have any or did he allow any latitude to, for younger officers to oppose him with regard to his viewpoints?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: No.

MR BOOYENS: And did he enforce these viewpoints?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: The second paragraph, then, of your personal overview.

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: "During my period of service in the South
African Police, I, at all times, acted in good faith in the service of the South African or in the interest of the South African Police and the Government of the day.  I served on the border in Ovamboland during 1976 during which time I was exposed to guerrilla warfare and terrorism.
	During my service on the border I visited a variety of scenes and did investigations where members of the local population were robbed, kidnapped, murdered or mutilated by members of the Swapo Liberation Movement.  These persons also experienced the loss or destruction of their property and I visited several scenes where members of the security forces were shot and killed or injured in traps.  I was present when the bodies of these people had to be removed and I was also present in a particular incident when five members of the defence force were shot dead and another incident where seven members of the defence force were seriously injured and mutilated in similar incidents in ambushes.  
	These experiences created in me, a very deep horror of the so-called freedom fighters and persons who pretended that they were fighting against an unjust Government system.  At the same time I was of the opinion that the situation required of us that I would be the first to act, otherwise I would experience the same fate."

MR BOOYENS: Let us just stop there.  Now, while you were doing border duty, were you ever, personally, in a contact situation, in other words, involved in gunfight?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: No, your Honour.

INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the question.

MR BOOYENS: Were you there as a security branch officer?

DANIEL PETRUS SIEBERT: Yes, your Honour.

MR BOOYENS: What would the nature have been of the propaganda?  What propaganda atmosphere existed on the border during 1976?  What kind of propaganda was given through to you, what information did you receive as police officers?