Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I cannot comment on that, I was not there but it is clear that there was pressure - as you have pointed out to me from the amendment, that there was pressure from the side of the Government that the image that we could not control the unrest and perhaps that motivated him to say that to Snyman after Snyman had made a submission that legal options served no purpose.

MS HARTLE: When did you first have access to this document - the minutes of that meeting?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: 1993.

MS HARTLE: Sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, am I under some kind of miscomprehension here, was the meeting with the late Mr le Grange, did it not take place in February?

MR BOOYENS: That was the evidence Mr Chairman, I think in fact he said something like the 24th of February or something like that - that was Snyman's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: That is correct, I'm just raising this because I thought you said to the witness: "How would Mr le Grange have come out of this meeting of 18 March and then come and recommend etc., etc"?

MS HARTLE: I see the gist of what you're putting to me Mr Chairman, even more so if ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Even more so yes, I thought you'd put it that way, yes.  Well, are you not dealing with that?  I think you should.

MS HARTLE: Yes, as the Committee pleases.
	If the instruction was given in February even more so after this meeting at Tuynhuys, Mr le Grange would not I submit, have given an instruction to eliminate because that would have been entirely inconsistent with the feelings of that meeting at Tuynhuys.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Well indeed, you may not know because you were not there to meet Mr le Grange but the point that is being put to you is, how could Mr le Grange have authorised that sort of action and subsequently - how could he have possibly authorised the killing or elimination of people in February and then find himself party to Minutes of this kind of meetings and your comment is that you don't know.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I have no comment, the only deduction - I can only speculate in this regard, that pressure had possibly been placed on him by the Cabinet that he had to speak to the police and ensure that they combat the unrest.  That is all that I can say in this regard because we had pressure placed on us.

MS HARTLE: When for the first time were you given the instruction to eliminate the three?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: It was approximately a week before the abduction or perhaps even two weeks before, I cannot recall exactly.

MS HARTLE: Was it communicated to you in clear and unequivocal terms that your instruction was to kill?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is true, I had instructions and I want to put it clearly once again, in all my applications I stated that I was the junior, I did everything on instruction, I did nothing on my own - I only acted on instruction and I want to emphasise this.

MS HARTLE: And what was the exact instruction given to you?  How was it communicated to you?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That the three deceased were to be eliminated.

MS HARTLE: Those three were named specifically.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: And where were you informed of this instruction?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: By Major du Plessis in his office.

MS HARTLE: Who was present?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: It can possibly be that Captain van Zyl was also there but I'm not sure.

MS HARTLE: Did you discuss the finer details of the plan - how it was to be implemented etc?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: What I can recall is the method in which it had to be executed, where it had to be done and to create the impression that they had left the country, that is basically what was discussed.  And I was given the instruction to get the three together and the occasion arose on the 3rd of May.

MS HARTLE: Do I understand correctly that you through your source managed to contrive that the three persons - connive rather, that the three persons would be together at one place and thus you would be afforded an opportunity to abduct them?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: Was there ever any question of any other of the leadership being involved?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

MS HARTLE: Was there any discussion regarding why the three persons were named - you must have appreciated that it was a drastic instruction?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is so.

MS HARTLE: Was there a discussion around that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is so, we gave daily reports to Major du Plessis.

MS HARTLE: Was there a specific discussion concerning those three persons in order to justify your decision - the decision that had been given to you - the order that had been given to you?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: It was discussed often - actually on a daily basis, regarding the activities of those three people.

MS HARTLE: Did you question the order at all?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I did not.

MS HARTLE: Why not?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Because I was on the ground, I realised that we were in a war situation and there was no other actions that we could take in order to curtail the unrest, so I made peace with the instructions that I had received from du Plessis.

MS HARTLE: You'd previously been involved in the Mthimkhulu operation at which the activists were also removed to Post Chalmers, were you familiar with the surrounds - obviously you'd been there before?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: And I think you said you'd gone there previously?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: For other reasons, other than Mthimkhulu and the Pebco 3 operation?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: Now, you were at the airport when the three were abducted?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: Why did you go to the airport if it was intended to - if your intention in involving the Askaris was to keep a low profile?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I cannot remember specifically except to ensure that the actions were or that the operations were successful and I know the three persons personally or I knew them personally.

MS HARTLE: The yellow bakkie in which the three had arrived, who removed that from the airport - who drove it from the airport?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I did.

MS HARTLE: Mr Joe Mamasela in his submissions in terms of Sections 29, said that he drove the vehicle away from the airport.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's not correct.

MS HARTLE: Did he see the vehicle at all?  Did he get close to it?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I drove the vehicle.

MS HARTLE: Did Mamasela get close to the vehicle?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He drove it from where Mr Hashe had parked it to the point - the path where we met - one of them drove it to there.

MS HARTLE: He says in his submissions that he drove the vehicle to a place which was a private yard and that point somebody else took over - somebody took the keys from him and he said that in this yard he noticed that the owners had boats on the premises which were being built or repaired.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I have no knowledge of that.

MS HARTLE: Did you not go to such a place?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: As I've already said, from where Mr Hashe parked the vehicle near the airport, there's a little path and where we met I took over the vehicle from him.

MS HARTLE: Now you stated that there wasn't electricity at Post Chalmers and obviously the fire was necessary to cook your meals?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

MS HARTLE: Was a fire kept going the entire day that you were there on the 10th of May?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I don't know but it's possible.

MS HARTLE: You stated that you were coming in and out of the interrogation to get some coffee etc., so I assume that you must have required hot water to make coffee?