Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

MR BOOYENS: He didn't say he was doing it Mr Chairman, he referred - if my learned friend looks to the previous page she will see that was done by the GBS and this paragraph follows on the previous one, it wasn't him personally unless I misunderstand the question.

MS HARTLE: My question will flow from that part of the submission.
	Were the Pebco 3 specifically identified as persons who were the cause of the uprising?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: By whom?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: By the JSMC and our commanding officers.

MS HARTLE: Did you personally hold the view that those particular three persons were problematic?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I did.

MS HARTLE: Now, at page 125 of your submissions just before paragraph 9, it reads
"That is was of fundamental importance that the leadership of Pebco be neutralised in order to take away the leaders from the organisation and to frighten the remaining leader element"

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: Was it your intention - how would it act as a deterrent, what was the intention behind the decision?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Just as I stated.

MS HARTLE: How would it deter other leaders if - your operation was going to be a clandestine one, how would it deter other leaders?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Because they did not know what had happened to their leaders and that would have possibly have limited the activities.

MS HARTLE: Mr Nieuwoudt, I want to point to an oddity in your submissions at page 126 in leading up to the political motivation and the decisions which were taken.  You say
"At this stage there was no reason for Colonel Snyman to question the submission and motivation of Major du Plessis"
I'm reading from the 1st paragraph.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's hearsay.

MS HARTLE: Why do you mention hearsay in your submissions?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: My attorney stated it as this and these were deductions that I had made when I mentioned this to him and during our consultations.

MS HARTLE: And then further in paragraph 11 you say
"After I struggled with my conscience"
For whom?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Once again this is hearsay, I was not there but I know Colonel Snyman.

MS HARTLE: You see, I fail to appreciate why you should mention in your application how they must have felt or how they must have perceived the situation.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: This is just a mere deduction and my attorney included this - these whole deductions and hearsay.

MS HARTLE: And in paragraph 12 you say
"Colonel Snyman had no further part in the planning or execution of this operation"
How do you know that?  (transcriber's own translation)

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Because he was not there.

MS HARTLE: How do you know that he didn't ...[intervention]

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He wasn't there.

MS HARTLE: What about subsequently?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Because the planning and execution, he was not involved in this at all.

MS HARTLE: You don't know what conversations he had, I want to know how you can speak for him?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I'm telling you that he was not present at the execution of our  plan.

MS HARTLE: Mr Nieuwoudt, you've heard the submissions being - you've heard me put to the previous applicants that Mr de Klerk mentioned that the Pebco operation was mala fides and unauthorised?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: And you disagree with that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: Now I want to refer you to page 244 of your bundle of documents, it's a letter addressed by the Secretary of the State Security Council to all members of the Security Council regarding the revolutionary climate in the Republic of South Africa and
"possible combating measures".
And by way of introduction:
"During it's meeting of 4 March 1985, the State Security Council decided that a report had to be submitted regarding the revolutionary climate"
in respect of a meeting which was to take place on the 19th of March.  Now I want to refer you in particular to paragraph 24 of that document, it begins and the foot of page 245 and carries on 246.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: Roman numeral III, could you please read that out?
MR NIEUWOUDT
"The SA police must use the full means at their disposal to suppress unrest but they still - their actions must lead to the minimum loss of life"?

MS HARTLE: And an instruction to eliminate the Pebco 3 would be inconsistent with that, do you agree?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: And then further in C - now, this paragraph was accepted in an amended form and I refer you now to page 242.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: Now, this would be the minutes of the meeting of the Security Council held at Tuinhuys on the 18th of March 1985.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: At which - if I can just digress briefly, was attended by Mr P W Botha, Mr F W de Klerk and Mr Louis le Grange.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: And paragraph C was adopted in an amended form and will you please read what was accepted at that meeting?
MR NIEUWOUDT
"Agitator leaders, must be removed from the community in a selective way"

MS HARTLE: Please carry on.
MR NIEUWOUDT
"It is preferable to act against identified individuals from all racial groups where it can possibly in the interest of security, these people must be [no translation]
The negative publicity which originates from mass arrests must be weighed up against the benefit which is gained from that"

MS HARTLE: Now Mr Nieuwoudt, one would get the impression from the Minutes of that meeting that there was a decision to steer away from taking people's lives in order to quell the unrest, would you agree with that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct, but it was put very poorly because how do you remove a person out of the community?

UNKNOWN: Sorry, on page 246 and that was the first document, is that correct - dated the 13th of March?

MS HARTLE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

UNKNOWN: The one on page 242 is dated the 18th of March, is that correct?

MS HARTLE: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: And there is a change in paragraph C
"Agitator leaders must be removed selectively out of the community and be prosecuted as soon as possible"

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: On page 244, there's no mention of them being - that they have to be prosecuted as soon as possible, it is said that they must be removed out of society but the words: "and be prosecuted as soon as possible" have been omitted.

MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, perhaps if you read paragraph F, the introduction to the amendment to that sub-paragraph C, it might explain the motivation for the change.

UNKNOWN: The point I wanted to make is the matter of the instruction to prosecute has been changed.

MS HARTLE: That's correct.
	And then further Mr Nieuwoudt, at that meeting - we're still looking at page 242, the Chairman comments that:
"He is concerned about the image of the Government with the public who want proper law and order maintained and who wants - has the impression that the State's authority is being undermined and they do not act effectively"
Now, all of these things were said at this meeting and I want to know how it is that Mr Louis le Grange could have come away from that meeting and had an informal discussion with Mr du Plessis and he could have gained the impression - or rather with Colonel Snyman, that he could have gained the impression that the instruction was to eliminate?