Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-10

GEORGE BIZOS: You can't tell us whether Mr Beneke or Mr Niewoudt or Mr Marx punched Mr Biko after he was rugby tackled?  Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: It's possible, your Honour, that punches would have been administered to bring him under restraint.

GEORGE BIZOS: Punches on his face?

MR SNYMAN: I cannot say that it was on the face or on what part of the body, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: Although you cannot mention specifically which person may have punched at that stage, you do recall that punches were thrown at Mr Biko by one or other of them?  Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: The punches were being thrown for the purposes of restraining him, you say?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: Isn't it a strange way to try and restrain a person when you - to punch him when he is so heavily outnumbered?

MR SNYMAN: Your Honour, he would have offered resistance and in order to restrain him it was necessary for these people in order to shackle or cuff him again  ... (intervention).

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, you ...

MR SNYMAN: ... and it's possible that people were pushed around or bumped.

GEORGE BIZOS: You're trying too hard to give an innocent explanation for the serious injuries.  Just listen to the question and answer it, please.

MR SNYMAN: Would you not agree that it's a strange way when you have a five against one situation and the objective is to restrain a person, punching him unless you intend to knock him out, is the least effective way of subduing him.  Would you not agree with that?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: If you want - if you have a person so outnumbered as five to one;  the one can take the one arm, the other the other arm, the other the one leg and another the other leg and you've got one to spare and you are in complete control.  Not so?

MR SNYMAN: All five did not take part in the fight, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: What I'm saying to you;  that to punch a person for the purposes of restraining him when he's outnumbered five to one, is laughable.  Do you agree with that?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, if it's so laughable, can you explain why your colleagues were punching him if the intention was to restrain him?

MR SNYMAN: Your Honour, Mr Biko was a strong man and force had to be applied to restrain him in order to shackle him again.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say force had to be applied;  are you really saying that in addition to punching him, he was kicked.  They grappled with him, they held him.  Was all that done or was he merely punched?

MR SNYMAN: There was no kicking, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: Now, don't you agree that punching would only add to the fury of a man who was aggressive, unless the punch rendered him unconscious?  Then you would have had an opportunity to subdue him effectively.  Do you understand the question.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: Do you agree with the proposition;  that unless you knock a man out, you do not restrain him by punching him?  It's as simple as that.

MR SNYMAN: Your Honour, he was not knocked out.  It was in the scuffle that he fell and bumped his head against the wall.

GEORGE BIZOS: The question was, your colleagues that were punching him would only have infuriated him by continuing to punch him and not to subdue him.  They would only have subdued him by punching him if they knocked him out?

MR SNYMAN: Your Honour, this was not a continuing fight of several minutes.  It was a very brief event.  Then everyone fell on top of each other and in that process it is clear that Mr Biko bumped his head against the wall.

GEORGE BIZOS: I won't ask the question again, but we will submit that you do not want to answer it. Now, you told us that he knocked his head on the northern wall.  Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: He never really moved away from the northern wall?

MR SNYMAN: It is possible that in the scuffle he might have moved away from the wall, but when he fell, he bumped against that wall.

GEORGE BIZOS: If he was against the northern wall when he was being punched and then he was, in some way or another, dropped down, he must have been facing his assailants?
Correct?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: Just to make it doubly clear;  he didn't turn to put his head against the northern wall against which he had his back when his assailants were punching him when he fell.  He was still facing his assailants?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: So that when he fell, he fell back onto the northern wall?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: If his condition was as a result of a fall and an injury to the head, it must have been an injury to the back of his head?

MR SNYMAN: Your Honour, I cannot say exactly where his head touched the wall, but his head did touch the wall.

GEORGE BIZOS: At the time when he had in front of him his assailants against whom he tried to protect himself?  Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: It was in order to restrain him, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, but we're only dealing with the positions now.  He was facing into the room.  He was against the wall and his assailants brought him down against the wall, his head to the back of the wall and facing his assailants.  Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: Therefore, if he did injure his head in this fall, he injured the back of his head?

MR SNYMAN: That is possible, your Honour.  I am not able to say.

GEORGE BIZOS: Whether he injured his head or not, but you know that a logic tell us from what, if what you told us, is correct, that he must have knocked the back of his head against the wall.

MR SNYMAN: That is possible, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: But you saw this fight.  We're not interested in possibilities.  On the basis of the positions that you had given us, he must have knocked the back of his head?
	Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: It is correct that he bumped his head, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: But from the positions that you gave us when that happened, was that he could only have bumped the back of his head.

MR SNYMAN: That might well be the case, your Honour.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I have some difficulty in understanding all this.  Please help him.  We all know there was medical evidence that Mr Biko received an injury to his head. My question to you is, did you actually see Mr Biko's head bump against the wall or is that a conclusion you draw from what you had heard?

MR SNYMAN: Your Honour, I could deduce out of the fight that he bumped his head against the wall.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words you didn't see the head bumping against the wall.  It's a conclusion you drew?

MR SNYMAN: I had heard it.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the position. You'd "hoor" what?  The sound of the head bumping against the wall or you had heard that he had hurt his head?

MR SNYMAN: Ek het gehoor dat hy sy - oh sorry - I heard that he bumped his head against the wall.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't see how the head bumped the wall?  That's correct, isn't it?

MR SNYMAN: (Ek se ook nie dat dit is korrek nie.) That would be correct, your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: And you won't know whether Mr Biko was standing at the time that he bumped his head or he was kneeling or whether he was on the ground when his head bumped the wall?  You wouldn't know that either?

MR SNYMAN: It would be my opinion that he was on the ground when he bumped his head.

CHAIRPERSON: That's an opinion, but you didn't see?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well now, Mr Bizos, this question of whether the back of the wall hit him;  the back of his head hit against the wall or the front or his head hit the wall, is irrelevant, really.

GEORGE BIZOS: I'm indebted to the clarification and I will proceed further, Mr Chairman.