Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — 1997-09-08

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No. No, I can't remember him?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Do you remember Sipho Michael Gopela?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, the Rev Sipho Gopela?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes.  Did you assault him?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I did not assault him.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Do you remember Ernest Mzwanana?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Are you sure?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say Ernest Mzwarmama or Mzawanana?

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Ernest Mzwanana?  M-Z-W-A-N-A-N-A.
	Mr Nieuwoudt, I want you to help.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I will as far as I can.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: The Committee does not have the medical report of Mr Jack.  Now according to paragraph 6, you testified that
"I stopped the interrogation.  He was taken back to St Albans Prison where he received medical treatment and the Doctor was Dr Wendy Orr."
What was the extent of his injuries?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I remember he had a lot of pain and there were also then lashes.  I looked at it.  Those were the lashes of the sjambok.  There weren't any open wounds.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Did he bleed?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, they weren't open, but they were swollen.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And it was very painful?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: And on page 25 you testify that you decided to use other methods.  Which methods did you apply?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I refer to the assault as the method and
because his resistance was broken down.  I then had an interview with him to get the information and then also to get to the end of the consumer boycott.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Was that after the assault?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, after the assault.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Why didn't you use this method before the assault?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, it was, but because he was rebellious and stubborn, I went over to this action.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Page 27 ... (intervention).

ADV POTGIETER: Just before you continue, Mr Mpshe.   Mr Nieuwoudt, on page 24, paragraph 6, there you say that you gave him several lashes over his body and legs.  He then stopped, became quiet.  "I thought that he had a lot of pain" and then you stopped the interrogation. Did you interrogate him after this assault?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, that was at another instance when we negotiated to end the consumer boycott.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: How long did this assault take?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I don't think it was very long.  I think it might have been three, four, five minutes.  I only gave a few lashes.  It wasn't that long.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I refer you to page 27, paragraph 1.3
"By means of the above-mentioned objectives, the maintenance of a normal Western democracy as I know it, had to be ensured."
What do you refer to here as a "normal Western democracy" at that stage?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That was apartheid that was in existence at that time.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Was that democracy?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, democracy as we know it now.  No, it was not that.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Democracy, but there is only one democracy, isn't it?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That might be the case, but it was also a democracy.  It was the democratic right of the National Party at that stage.  That was the Government and the NP had to be maintained.

CHAIRPERSON: What he is really trying to say is that it was a democracy in so far as White people are concerned.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Thank you, Mr Chairman.  Point is taken, Mr Chairman, thank you.
	Page 28, paragraph 11.A.  I'm not going to read the question, but only the answer.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: Yes
"This action was done on behalf of the security branch to obtain information of national interest so that law and order in Black townships could be restored."
Then you refer to the emergency regulations.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: I am going to leave it there, because you have already answered this question and that is that the regulations didn't state that assaults could be correct.
I'm going to leave it there.  No further questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MPSHE

UNKNOWN: You say in your application form,  during the time in question you were a member of the National Party as well as the security police.  Is that correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, that is correct.

UNKNOWN: When did you become a member of the National Party?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That was in 1975.

UNKNOWN: Are you still a member of the National Party today?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No.

UNKNOWN: Can you explain something here?  As a member of the National Party, were you expected and required to do the things you have spoken like, for example assaulting someone like Mr Jack in detention?
	Was it required and expected of you to do that as a member of the National Party?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: It wasn't stated explicitly, but to ensure the maintenance of the National Party and to protect it.  That is how I understood it, to ensure the National Party's existence.

UNKNOWN: Is that - was that the understanding of all members of the security police who were members of the National Party;  that if you're a member of the National Party, you've got to assault people in detention, amongst the other things you have to do?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I cannot answer on behalf of other people, but I believe that you had to ensure, your objective was to maintain law and order and to ensure that the National Party is not overthrown and then you have to apply certain methods to ensure that so that you can in fact achieve your objectives.

UNKNOWN: We'll have to leave that one and proceed to talk about other issues, but one last question concerning your being a member of the National Party as well as a member of the security police at the same time. Where does one draw the line here?  Where do you draw the line here in the process of performing your duties as a policeman?  Are you always regarding yourself as a National Party?  Which one comes first.  Are you first a member of the National Party and then a policeman or a policeman first and then a member of the National Party?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: You are supposed to serve the Government of the day and that is your objective that is stated in the first instance, to protect the Government of the day. You were the first line of the so-called anarchy or the violence.  You are involved in combating that.  So you have to ensure that the Government of the day is not subverted.

UNKNOWN: Maybe one last question from me at this stage.	Why was Mr Jack not released when the Attorney-General said there was no evidence to convict this person?  You had made a report to the Attorney-General that Mr Jack was involved in certain criminal activities and that he should be charged in a court of law, but the Attorney-General refused to prosecute. Why was he not released?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He was released.  The Attorney-General took his time to come to a particular decision and when he then gave his decision, the emergency regulations were repealed.  	That was in 1986 in this particular situation.  In 1985 the regulations were repealed, they were released, after we had negotiated with him.  I can just refer you to my appendix and perhaps you will then understand that.
	If you can just give me a moment.  I would just like to point it to you. It's Appendix 4.  It's Sheshaba, April 1986.  It is on page 7 of my Appendix.

MOKOTEDI MPSHE: That would be page 70, Mr Chairman and members of the Committee.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Then we go to page 11.