Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

ADV BOOYENS: You see Mr Jones, my only problem with that is where there are contradictions between Exhibit E and your evidence today, you have been prepared to state certain things today under oath, that you are not certain of in other words?  You have admitted that you've made mistakes.  I am just mentioning too the fact whether Niewoudt hit you with a fist or not, you couldn't remember that today.  It is in your 1979 statement.  The fact whether it was Siebert or Snyman that hit you.

ADV DE JAGER: If that is so, and if he has said that which I have put to him today, isn't that a matter for argument?

ADV BOOYENS: Certainly Mr Chairman.  Mr Jones, just dealing in general with Exhibit E, Exhibit E was drafted shortly after you came from what you and I think understandably putting myself in your shoes at the time, would have regarded as a very lengthy and a very unnecessary and unfair confinement to jail, is that correct?

PETER JONES: Thank you.

ADV BOOYENS: Is that correct?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I am saying if I put myself in your boots, I understand how you felt?

PETER JONES: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: At that stage, you must have been embittered against the system, I would have been?

PETER JONES: I am not you sir, I don't think that anything happened to me accidentally.

ADV BOOYENS: No, it was done to you deliberately by the system.  I am talking about the time when you came out of jail?

PETER JONES: But there is a difference, it wasn't an accident that happened to me and people like me, we were on a deliberate path, it was a life and a path that we had chosen deliberately and we understood the consequences.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, is the answer that you were not embittered against the system?

PETER JONES: I was more preoccupied with my ongoing responsibility in the liberation of this country.

ADV BOOYENS: All I am going to suggest to you is that at that time, it would have been reasonable for you to exaggerate the role played by the Security Policemen and that in fact, that the only time that Niewoudt was involved in an assault on you, and that is as far as I can take it, was when he was alone.  There may have been other assaults that he doesn't know about, but when he was involved in an assault on you, which he freely admits, was when he was alone.

PETER JONES: Sir, if I can respond, my attendance at these hearings, I believe are completely incidental of a minor nature.  This entire hearing is about the fact that a very important person in the life of this country, died and lost his life.  My show is a side show, I would never have even bothered to come here and talk about this, if it was not for the fact that there was blatant lies and inaccuracies  by these people.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, just one aspect, obviously you stayed involved in politics after that, would that be correct?

PETER JONES: Yes, and I had several board detentions.

ADV BOOYENS: Are you still involved as a matter of interest?

PETER JONES: In what?

ADV BOOYENS: In politics?

PETER JONES: What is your definition of politics?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Jones, I told you you know more about politics than I do.  Are you still involved in political organisations?

PETER JONES: I am involved in the future of this country.

ADV BOOYENS: You know, that can be also as a bank manager.

PETER JONES: Okay, can I come back to your level, I am not involved in any political organisation at this time, I am not in political office, I am not serving government, but I am involved in this country.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, I think we understand what you are talking about.   Mr Jones, if you in fact did betray Mr Biko, in other words if Niewoudt assaulted you and you then wrote this statement, and it wasn't pure fiction, put yourself in that hypothetical position, you would feel bad about it today, not so?

PETER JONES: Oh yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

ADV BOOYENS: .

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Mtshaulana?

MR MTSHAULANA: Just one question Mr Chairman.  Earlier in your evidence you mentioned that Mr Siebert made remarks like you should not associate with kaffirs, those type of derogatory remarks relating to the racism at the time, referring to your colleagues as kaffirs, yourself as a hotnot or coloured.  Was Mr Niewoudt present when these remarks were made?

PETER JONES: Yes, he was.

MR MTSHAULANA: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.

MR MTSHAULANA: .

ADV SIGODI: Mr Jones, at the time that you made this statement that is Exhibit E, in 1979, did you know that there would be a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1998?

PETER JONES: No, not at all.

ADV SIGODI: Thank you.  No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jones.  Mr Bizos?

GEORGE BIZOS: Mr Chairman, we have no more witnesses to call, but we would like to place on record that we intend putting before you the record of the inquest proceedings in 1977 and the record of the proceedings where the four other applicants applied for amnesty, the hearing held in Port Elizabeth.
	We are going to propose that we should file written heads of argument and we will identify the passages in the evidence and the Exhibits that we rely on in the inquest proceedings in Pretoria in November 1977, and in the record and Exhibits produced in Port Elizabeth.
	We would of course concede to our learned friend the same would apply to anything that they would want to refer to in these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: They could refer to anything in that record that they feel like?

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes.  What we will do is we will arrange with the Commission for the sufficient number of copies to be handed to you together with the heads of argument.

CHAIRPERSON: I am thankful for that.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Bizos, could I just - could you pay attention in your heads of argument, to the question as whether we could use that as evidence against anybody here or contrary against Mr Jones or Niewoudt, or whoever, if that was not put to them, the specific passages while they gave evidence.
	Would it be regular for us to use it?

GEORGE BIZOS: I submit that it would be regular and I will take an example.  There may be some matter which may not be admissible, but for instance that nobody in those affidavits mentioned the banging on the head and reference to how many people made affidavits without mentioning that, that has already been put to the witness, we merely want to - that is obstruction.
	The medical reports and medical evidence was put, let us take the example of that the evidence of Dr Procter, Prof Laubscher and Jonathan Gluckman was that there would have been unconsciousness.  What we would like is not for you to rely on the admission made by the witness, but rather that we would like to refer you to the specific evidence and the reports made by the Doctors so that you can have chapter and verse that what we put, was correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, I am happy with that, but I only wanted you to keep that in mind and deal with it in the heads of argument, we will appreciate that.