Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1998-03-30

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I wouldn't say that.  Once again, I must say that interpretation is important.  Maybe I exceeded the limits of restraining a person, but that is a debateable point.  According to me, I might have exceeded my limit and then I did do something wrong.

GEORGE BIZOS: How many blows did you strike on Mr Biko?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Approximately three to five blows, not many.

GEORGE BIZOS: And we know that two of the blows landed on Mr Beneke, if he is to be believed?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Yes, or I think one blow.  I am not aware that two blows landed on Mr Beneke's body.

GEORGE BIZOS: One?  Yes.  Why three to five on Mr Biko?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: As I have already said, I did it because nobody was succeeding in restraining him, and that is why I grabbed the hose and hit him with it, and he immediately reacted to that.
	His attack was halted.  We thereby succeeded in grabbing hold of him.

GEORGE BIZOS: You see I am going to put to you that your version, and your colleagues' version of what happened there, is a fabrication which was first offered at the inquest and now amended because it was shown at the 1977 inquest that your version as then told, was false because it did not fit with the medical evidence.  Do you agree with that?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: No.

GEORGE BIZOS: Well, let's take it in two parts.  Do you agree that the evidence of the Doctors was that there must have been unconsciousness or very low level of consciousness and that your story as told to the inquest court, that Mr Biko struggled to the end and it took you some time after he knocked his head on the wall, for you to subdue him, that that evidence was shown to be false at the inquest on the evidence of Dr Procter, Dr Jonathan Gluckman and Professor Laubscher, that this blow was like a knockout blow by a heavy weight in the boxing ring, and that the person would have been out for at least ten minutes to half an hour.  Do you recall that evidence?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: And is that the reason why in making the new version for the purposes of this new application, the amendment to the version was made that he was confused and possibly unconscious and that he wasn't able to put up the continued struggle that you had spoken about previously.  Wasn't that the reason why it was amended?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: No.

GEORGE BIZOS: What was the reason because it was amended?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: The date is one point.  I am referring only to myself.  The date on which the incident was supposed to have occurred, that was an issue, it happened on the 6th.
	Secondly nowhere in my affidavit which was submitted to the inquest, did I refer to his injuries which was sustained after his contact with the wall.

ADV DE JAGER: That was not the question.  The question was why, not in which aspects, but why was there an amended evidence or amended story of how he came to these injuries?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: We just came to tell the actual truth now Mr Chairperson.

GEORGE BIZOS: You see,  people tell lies for a purpose, do you agree?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Yes.

GEORGE BIZOS: The fact that evidence was given by your colleagues that there was this struggle to contain him which took place over quite a long time, and no mention of unconsciousness,  why was that lie told?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: When was this, in the inquest or do you mean the amnesty hearing?

GEORGE BIZOS: In the inquest, why was this there this false version given that there was this struggle after the knock of the head on the wall, and that it took you a long time to subdue him, why was that lie told?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I don't know Mr Chairman.  I have already submitted my statement, I never gave evidence to that effect.
	What my colleagues and my Commanding Officer said during the death inquest, I do not know.

GEORGE BIZOS: But wasn't it discussed at the Saturday meeting where the perjury was planned that you were going to say that there was a struggle and he had gone bezerk and it took you quite some time to subdue him, and that you would keep out that there was any confusion or semi-consciousness or unconsciousness or low level of consciousness?
	Why was that fact left out at the Saturday morning meeting, how would that in any way have embarrassed the government?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: As I said previously, I don't know what Goosen's objective was.  It was discussed that the blow of his head was mentioned.   In later statements, if I can remember correctly, Lieutenant Wilken was the only one who saw the mark above his eyebrow, he was the only one.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Niewoudt, when you made this statement, you didn't know that you were not going to testify at the inquest?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were called to testify, is it wrong if I said that your version would have fitted with the other versions?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you not give Mr Bizos an answer to his question.  Why would this version by so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Because Mr Chairperson, it was to hide all of it, what happened there, not to put the government of the day in a bad light.  The date was changed, there was no mention ...

ADV DE JAGER: If he did not knock his head, what did he die of, why was he unconscious?  What would you have told at the inquest, how did it come about that this man was unconscious if nothing happened to him?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I don't know.  If I think about it now, I could probably give an explanation, but at that stage the statement was put that way.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Niewoudt, the question of my colleague is during the planning of this perjury, what did you plan, what would be said at the inquest about this unconscious man?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: It was about the injury to his head.  We had to hide that.

CHAIRPERSON: How would the injury be explained then according to your plans?
	You must remember you were a possible witness at the inquest, and you had to prepare during the planning what would be said about this injury.  How would we as policemen explain this.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That he was himself responsible for this injury.

GEORGE BIZOS: Let us turn to the question of the date?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to a new point Mr Bizos.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we take our half an hour's break now?

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: (still under oath)

GEORGE BIZOS: (continued)   On the morning of the 6th, did Mr Biko make any admissions of having committed any unlawful acts?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: No.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was he shown any documents or confronted with any documents?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Yes, he was.

GEORGE BIZOS: Which document was he confronted with?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: The pamphlet.

GEORGE BIZOS: Could you identify the pamphlet that he was shown or he was confronted with?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: It was the pamphlet that was confiscated.

GEORGE BIZOS: Yes, and he did he deny that he had anything to do with it?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: (Speaker's microphone is not on)

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: Annexure 7, it is so.

GEORGE BIZOS: Did he say that he had absolutely nothing to do with it?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: That is correct.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was he confronted with anything else?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I cannot remember, it is possible.

GEORGE BIZOS: Try and think.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I don't know if he was confronted with statements from other detainees.

GEORGE BIZOS: Was there any discussion at the Saturday morning meeting where the perjered version was discussed as to whether Mr Biko made any damaging admissions or not?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEWOUDT: I cannot remember that.

GEORGE BIZOS: Try and remember, it is rather important, was it or wasn't it?